Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2022

Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2022
June 13-17, 2022, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

GT2022-83219

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
MOORING SYSTEM DESIGN AND ANALYSIS FOR A FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND
TURBINE IN PANTELLERIA

Alberto Ghigo Francesco Niosi Bruno Paduano

Marine Offshore Renewable Marine Offshore Renewable Marine Offshore Renewable
Energy Lab (MOREnergy Lab) Energy Lab (MOREnergy Lab) Energy Lab (MOREnergy Lab)
Department of Mechanical and Department of Mechanical and Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering Aerospace Engineering Aerospace Engineering
Politecnico di Torino Politecnico di Torino Politecnico di Torino
Turin, Italy Turin, Italy Turin, Italy

Giovanni Bracco Giuliana Mattiazzo

Marine Offshore Renewable Energy Lab Marine Offshore Renewable Energy Lab
(MOREnergy Lab) (MOREnergy Lab)
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering Engineering
Politecnico di Torino Politecnico di Torino
Turin, Italy Turin, Italy

ABSTRACT
The mooring system plays a key role in a floating offshore NOMENCLATURE
wind turbine: it connects the floating structure to its anchor on
the seabed and it is designed to prevent the platform from drifting BEM Boundary Element Method
under the action of wind, waves and currents. The layout of the FOWT Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
mooring system is strictly connected to the installation site: in LCOE Levelized Cost Of Energy
the first place it depends on the bathymetry and the type of MBL Minimum Breaking Load
seabed which conditions the type of anchor that can be used; MSQS Multi-Segmented Quasi-Static
secondly by the wind and waves loads in extreme sea states. RAO Response Amplitude Operator
To properly design the mooring system, three different RON National Wave Network
configurations are proposed and discussed, respectively TLP Tension Leg Platform
adapting catenary, taut leg and semi-taut methodologies for a ULS Ultimate Limit State
floating offshore wind turbine located near the island of
Pantelleria, in Sicily. For each configuration, the Hexafloat 1. INTRODUCTION
foundation, developed by Saipem, is considered. Important In recent years, offshore wind has had a great development
design constraints such as how large the nominal sizes are, how in Europe: with an average growth rate of around 30% every
long the mooring lines are, how far the anchor points are year, in 2020 the total installed power has reached 25 GW [1].
located, are demonstrated in detail. The material used will Although almost all the wind farms are located in shallow
range from steel chains and wires to polyester ropes, to grant waters, not exceeding 60 m in depth, characterized by bottom-
economically viable solutions. fixed foundations, a large part of the European wind potential is
located in seas with depths greater than 50 m, such as along the
Keywords: Wind Energy, Floating Offshore Wind, coasts of the Atlantic Ocean or in the Mediterranean Sea, making
Moorings System Design, Techno-economic Analysis, the use of fixed structures economically unsustainable and the
Pantelleria Case Study. adoption of floating platforms indispensable.

V011T38A021-1 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

 A Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT) is a system of the structure and reduces fatigue loading while reducing
made of four main elements [2]: mooring lengths compared to a catenary system [3].
1. an offshore wind turbine;
2. a floating platform;
3. mooring lines;

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
4. anchors.

Furthermore, from a wind farm perspective, it is important to

consider an electrical grid that includes an electrical substation
and marine cables.
The mooring system represents one of the most urgent
bottlenecks in floating offshore wind diffusion, as they require
complex installation and involve high costs. The proposed
solutions derive from the Oil & Gas industry and require specific
adaptations for the different operating conditions of the floating
wind turbines.

2.1 Moorings and anchors classification

The state of the art classifies moorings based on:
• Mooring configuration (catenary, taut, semi-taut, single
point, spread)
• Anchor type
• Number of mooring lines
• Material (chain, wire, synthetic rope)
Figure 1 shows the most common moorings configurations.

A catenary mooring system is a basic configuration that

consists of steel chains that hang freely between the floating
structure and anchor. The slack in the system allows for some
vertical and horizontal movement of the anchored structure [3].
While the upper section of the mooring line may consist of
chains and wires or synthetic ropes, the bottom section of the line
lies on the seabed, thus increasing its footprint. The system
usually provides long mooring lines, partly resting on the seabed,
and reduces loads on the anchors. Among the advantages of this
configuration, this system is relatively easy to install compared
to a taut-leg mooring system [4]. FIGURE 1: MOORING CLASSIFICATION.
Taut-leg mooring systems consist of mooring lines that are pre- Nowadays, different types of anchors are presented in the
tensioned until they are taut. The moorings tension participates offshore industry. Among the most common there are drag
to the floating platform stability, likes TLP floaters. The embedment anchors, anchor piles and gravity anchors [5]. Figure
advantage of taut mooring is that the system has a small footprint 2 shows the most common anchors types.
and is more stable than other configurations, but the installation
process is difficult and expensive crane vessels are required. A The drag-embedded anchor is the most common type of
taut-leg mooring system does not allow for any vertical anchoring system thanks to the scalability of size and weight.
movement of the anchored structure. Moreover, large loads This anchor is designed to penetrate the seabed, where the
placed on the anchors require anchors which can withstand large holding capacity is mainly generated by the resistance of the soil
vertical forces [3]. in front of the anchor. It is suited for resisting large horizontal
loads, but it does not perform for vertical loads. Consequently,
The semi-taut mooring system is a combination of the taut this anchor is well configured with a catenary mooring.
mooring system and catenary mooring system. They are made by
synthetic fibres or wires usually incorporated with a turret Anchor piles consist of cylindrical piles made of steel. They are
system, where a single point on the floater is connected to a turret used for taut mooring systems and TLP since they can hold
with several semi-taut mooring lines connecting to the seabed. omnidirectional loads. The installation costs are usually
This system allows for some vertical and horizontal movement expensive and can be used for a range of seabed. Depending on

V011T38A021-2 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

the design and embedment mode can be divided into driven and Hydrodynamic and aerodynamic drag forces, represented by the
suction piles. drag term in Morison's equation, are applied to the line. The
Driven piles are relatively long, slender and open-ended steel same drag formulation is used for hydrodynamic and
columns. These anchors are usually installed by impact aerodynamic drag forces.
hammering, vibrating or pushing into the seabed. Suction pile

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
anchors are caisson foundations. They penetrate the seabed to a Orcawave is the hydrodynamic package software developed by
target depth by pumping out the water, creating under-pressure Orcina Ltd. that solves the hydrodynamic problem. OrcaWave
inside the pile and forcing the anchor into the seabed. always solves the potential formulation, and can optionally solve
The deadweight or gravity anchor consists of a heavy object the source formulation as well. The potential formulation gives
placed on the seafloor to resist vertical and horizontal loads. The the most accurate values for the basic results that are computed
holding capacity comes mainly from the weight of the anchor directly from the values of the complex potential ϕ: added mass
and partially from the friction between the anchor and the soil. and damping, load RAOs and displacement RAOs. However,
The considerable dimensions require specialized vessels for the source formulation gives more accurate results for the fluid
installation. velocity, ∇ϕ. The user can select to solve the source formulation
if he wish to obtain results that depend on ∇ϕ, such as sea state
velocity RAOs or mean drift loads [9].
For the purpose of this study, the potential formulation was
adopted. In order to compute the hydrodynamic properties, the
mesh of the selected substructure was obtained by mean of
Salome-Meca [10].
Orcaflex always allows to remove irregular frequencies
FIGURE 2: ANCHORS CLASSIFICATION, ADAPTED associated to the mean wetted surfaces of the substructure. The
FROM [6]. hydrodynamic solution, computed by Orcawave, considers first
order linear effects and second order loads (mean drift and
2.1 Moorings modelling quadratic loads) [9].
As a matter of fact, for a correct sizing of the mooring lines, it is
necessary to use a suitable numerical model taking into account MAP++ is a multisegmented quasi-static (MSQS) mooring
not only the behavior of the moorings under waves, currents and model available in FAST v8.16 that was developed by Marco
wind loading but also the hydrodynamics of the substructure and Masciola with both the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
the loads exchanged with the wind turbine. Below are some of (NREL) and the American Bureau of Shipping. It is a relatively
the most used software for the design and verification of mooring simple model that allows for a robust, first-pass evaluation of a
lines for FOWT systems. mooring system by considering the average mooring line loads
and nonlinear geometric restoring for both catenary and taut
OrcaFlex is a marine dynamic software package developed by mooring systems [11].
Orcina Ltd. allowing full analysis in time and frequency domain Assuming a quasi-static approach, the motion of the system
[7]. OrcaFlex solves tensions, bending and torsion using a during a given time step is considered uniform and linear
discrete lumped mass approach [8]. The line is divided into a between two static positions; for every timestep, the loads on the
series of segments which are then modelled by straight massless systems are assumed constant [12]. This method ignores the
model segments with a node at each end. The model segments dynamic effects on the mooring, omitting the motion
only model the axial and torsional properties of the line. The dependency of mass, damping and fluid acceleration on the
other properties (mass, weight, buoyancy etc.) are all lumped to system [13]. This assumption is justified by the fact that the
the nodes. platform has limited movement. In fact, comparing the dynamic
Forces and moments are applied at the nodes, with the exception model with a quasi-static one, the movements of the structure are
that weight can be applied at an offset. Where a segment pierces replicated quite faithfully [11]. Moreover, MAP++ does not
the sea surface, all the fluid-related forces (e.g. buoyancy, added consider bending and torsional cable stiffness and the three-
mass, drag) are calculated allowing for the varying wetted length dimensional shape of lines, but it accounts for the seabed friction.
up to the instantaneous water surface level. A segment can be
thought of as being made up of two co-axial telescoping rods that MooDy differs from the other software by being an in-house
are connected by axial and torsional spring-dampers. code of Chalmers University and not being a complete software
The bending properties of the line are represented by rotational package. The code, compared to Map++, is merely a dynamic
spring-dampers at each end of the segment, between the segment cable solver and needs to be combined with other codes that can
and the node. The line does not need to have axial symmetry, solve the interaction between structure and cables [14]. A feature
since different bend stiffness values can be specified for two of MooDy is the use of the spectral/hp discontinuous Galerkin
orthogonal planes of bending [7]. method, i.e., an arbitrary order (set by user) finite element

V011T38A021-3 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

method. The code uses explicit time-stepping, including the impact on the seabed and to reduce the maritime area occupied
third-order Runge–Kutta scheme and a second-order leap-frog by the system, that for a floating wind turbine can reach different
scheme. Km2.
Subsequently, based on the installation site and the
3.1 Methods meteorological characteristics, the design is carried out

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
To properly design the mooring system, three different according to the 50 years extreme wave, as provided by the
configurations are proposed and discussed, respectively adapting Standards.
catenary, taut leg and semi-taut methodologies for a floating
offshore wind turbine system located near the island of
Pantelleria, in Sicily. For each configuration, the Hexafloat
substructure, developed by Saipem, supporting a 5 MW wind
turbine is considered.
Each type of mooring is analyzed and discussed through the
Orcaflex software in combination with a cost function of the
whole floating wind system to evaluate the LCOE. A comparison
with the different solutions is carried out in terms of stability
requirements, costs and installation complexity. Finally, the most
convenient mooring configuration is chosen according to the
requirements cited above.

The paper is structured as follows: in section 2 a preliminary

design methodology for moorings lines of floating offshore wind
systems is presented and discussed; then 3 different mooring
layouts are introduced in section 3 for a FOWT, made of
Hexafloat foundation and NREL 5 MW wind; in section 4 the
Pantelleria case study is presented, as well as the results from
Orcaflex simulations for each configuration; conclusions and
future works are drawn and discussed in section 5.

2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF MOORING LINES

There are several constraints to consider in a preliminary
design of a mooring system. Among the most relevant are FIGURE 3: DESIGN METHODOLOGY.
mentioned:
• environmental conditions (waves, wind and currents) Mooring constraints have a significant influence on the response
• seabed depth of the entire FOWT system to the action of waves and wind.
• type of seabed, for example, if rocky, sandy, muddy, Consequently, limits are imposed on the displacement of the
etc. as the consistency influences the type of anchor that floating platform, the inclination of the turbine along with the
can be installed pitch direction and the acceleration at the nacelle. Furthermore,
The methodology used to predesign the mooring the mooring design must respect the mechanical resistance of the
configurations is shown in Figure 3. mooring material: the maximum tension of the line must not
As a first step, it is necessary to define the configuration of exceed the minimum breaking load (MBL) of the component and
the mooring line, whether taut, semi-taut or catenary and the it is necessary to consider a specific safety factor.
material of the line, chain or synthetic fibres. The preliminary In Table 1 are reported the design constraints considered, that
design variables considered in this study are the line diameter, have been adapted from Deliverable D1.3 [18] and from
line length and anchor radius. Deliverable D2.1 [19]from the Corewind Project.
There are different relationships for a catenary layout
between the length of the line S and the sea depth d of the TABLE 1: Design constraints considered, from [18] and [19].
installation site: Design constraints Expression
Tension 𝑇𝑑
• S/d > 3 in accordance with [15] <1
• S/d = 4 ÷ 6 in accordance with [16] 0.95 𝑆𝑚𝑏𝑠
• S/d = 4 ÷ 8 in accordance with [17] X offset |𝑋𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 | < 60 m
Y offset |𝑌𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 | < 60 m
In this paper we have decided to consider for catenary Acceleration (accx, accy, accz) < 2.94 m/s2
layouts a ratio S/d inferior to 3 for several reasons: first at all to Pitch max 15°
reduce the moorings cost; secondly, to reduce the environmental

V011T38A021-4 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

As for the excursion range in surge and sway, we have decided Anchors
to consider 60 m according to [19]. As for the anchors, different kinds have been considered to
If the constraints are respected by the proposed configuration, it satisfy different layouts and seabed substrates. As for screw
is possible to proceed with the techno-economic evaluation of anchors [23]:
the mooring line, possibly trying to optimize it. If, on the other 0.18
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 = (𝑀𝐵𝐿 𝑥 9.81 𝑥 𝑁𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟 ) (5)

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
hand, the constraints are not respected, it will be necessary to
modify the starting variables, increasing the diameter of the
mooring or changing the material. Where MBL is the minimum breaking load and Nanchor is the
number of anchors per mooring line.
2.1 Cost analysis As for drag anchors [23]:
0.052
A complete and comprehensive review of main costs of 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = (𝑀𝐵𝐿 𝑥 𝑥 𝑁𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟 ) (6)
FOWT systems is given in [20]. For mooring lines, the price per 9.81
meter depends on the minimum breaking load and the materials
Where MBL is the minimum breaking load and N anchor is the
that compose them [21]. Typically, chains represent a large cost
number of anchors per mooring line
factor when a mooring line is designed. Synthetic ropes have a
As for accessories, like crickets and plates, the cost is estimated
lower cost per length than steel chains or wires, but a
to be equal to the 17% of the total cost of the mooring line [22].
significantly lower weight per unit of length. However, lighter
components require less specialized and less costly vessels for
installation. 3. FOWT SYSTEM
The cost functions used to estimate the mooring system are This section describes the FOWT system considered, showed in
shown below. Figure 4, which parts it consists of and the assumptions made.
Chain
Cost estimation depends on the steel grade that can be found
for the mooring chain and the diameter. 3.1 Platform
The cost of a mooring line consisting of catenary Costchain in Hexafloat substructure, developed by Saipem SA. is a
k€ is [22]: pendulum floater connected to a counterweight with six tendons.
The floater is a hexagonal steel structure, with a central column
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 𝐿𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑥 𝑊𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑥 1.5 (1) that supports the wind turbine. The counterweight is made of
steel and is shaped like a cylinder to accommodate the ballast
Where Lline is the line length and Wline is the weight of the line
inert material: in this work, the ballast material considered is an
per meter [kg/m].
iron powder with a density of 5200 kg/m 3.
Wire
Regarding wire rope, the cost function is given as a function of
the diameter [21]:
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑤𝑖𝑟𝑒 = 0.03415 𝑥 𝑑 2 𝑥 𝐿𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (2)
Where d is the wire diameter and Lsection is the line length in
metres.

Synthetic ropes
The cost function for polyester and nylon are provided from
Deliverable 4.6 of DTOcean+ [17], depending on the minimum
breaking load for different synthetic ropes.
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 = (0.0138𝑥𝑀𝐵𝐿 + 11.281)𝑥 𝐿𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (3)

Where MBL is the minimum breaking load of polyester in kN

and Lsection is the line length in metres.
A similar function is available for synthetic fibres made of nylon FIGURE 4: FOWT SYSTEM CONSIDERED.
[21]:
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑛 = (0.0122𝑥𝑀𝐵𝐿 + 12.116)𝑥 𝐿𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (4) The structure needs from three to six mooring lines,
typically composed of chain or taut-leg moorings and a drag
anchor for each line [2].
Where MBL is the minimum breaking load of nylon in kN and The main advantage is the floater adaptability: the diameter
Lsection is the line length in metres. of the tubular structure could be slightly adapted and the ballast
depth could be adjusted to suit different turbine sizes, from 2

V011T38A021-5 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

MW up to 15 MW. Otherwise, the overall dimensions of the according to the north-west direction during most of the year.
structure are reported in Table 2. Consequently, the layout is made of two upwind mooring lines
and one downwind: this configuration is also present in other
TABLE 2: Hexafloat specifications for a 5 MW wind turbine. previous studies, such as in [22]–[25].
Item Value The proposed solutions are configured for a sea depth of 200 m.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
Central column diameter 8.38 m The 0 degree direction of the wave is along the x axis of the
Central column height 35.25 m turbine and all the other directions are relative to it, as shown in
Hexagon radius 26.20 m Figure 5.
Ballast distance above sea level 127.1 m
Steel mass 1414.4 ton
Magnetite ballast mass 2548.8 ton

During the simulation phase on Orcaflex, the Hexafloat

mesh was simplified: in particular, the diagonal arms were not
considered to improve the speed of execution of the simulations.
These are parts that are important from a structural point of view
but which have no relevance in hydrodynamic analysis.

3.2 Wind turbine

NREL 5 MW is an offshore wind turbine designed with a
power rating of 5 MW, developed by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) [23]. FIGURE 5: MOORING LINES LAYOUT.
It is an academic turbine, not an industrial one, defined from
a purely theoretical point of view and not yet built. It is has been Layout 1 – Catenary
considered for two main reasons: in the case of commercialized The first configuration, reported in Figure 6, involves the
turbines, such information is not freely available as it is subjected use of 3 catenary lines, arranged at the vertices of the hexagonal
to industrial secrecy, while for these all the data of interest are platform and connected with 3 drag-embedded anchors. All the
available, with a high degree of detail; secondly, since they have specifications are reported in Table 4.
been used in numerous studies and papers, their use has allowed
deeper analyzes and comparisons with other publications.
The main data are reported in Table 3.

TABLE 3: NREL offshore 5 MW baseline wind turbine

specifications.
Item Properties
Turbine rating 5 MW
Rotor diameter 126 m
Hub height 90 m
Rated wind speed 11.4 m/s
Cut-in wind speed 3 m/s
Cut-out wind speed 25 m/s
Nacelle mass 240 ton
Tower mass 250 ton FIGURE 6: LAYOUT 1 CONFIGURATION.
Overall mass 600 ton
TABLE 4: Catenary layout specifications.
The hydrodynamic forces acting on the rotor when this is in Item Properties
parked condition are calculated according Morison’s equation, Chain type R3
considering its drag coefficient and its shape. Chain nominal diameter 135 mm
Chain outer diameter 238 mm
Unit weight 347.7 kg/m
3.3 Moorings layouts
For each type of mooring configuration, a layout consisting of 3 Axial stiffness (EA) 1.60 E06 kN
mooring lines is proposed, as shown in Figure 5. The proposed MBL 10.55 E03 kN
configuration is closely linked to the Pantelleria installation site, Lines length 569 m
as there is a strong unidirectionality of the wind and waves

V011T38A021-6 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

Layout 2 – Taut-leg mooring
The second configuration, reported in Figure 7, involves the TABLE 6: Semi-taut layout specifications.
use of 3 lines of taut-leg cables, made of polyester and fixed to Item Properties
the backdrop using suction anchors. To avoid the contact Chain
between the polyester and the seabed, which could quickly wear Chain type R3

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
the cable, an initial part of the overhead line of 50 m length has
Chain nominal diameter 135 mm
been added. All the specifications are reported in Table 5.
Chain outer diameter 238 mm
Unit weight 347.7 kg/m
Axial stiffness (EA) 1.60 E06 kN
MBL 10.55 E03 kN
Fibre ropes
Polyester
Material
(8-strand Multiplait)
Diameter 116.96 mm
Unit weight 13.3 kg/m
MBL 3152 kN
569 m
Lines length (245 m catenary, 273 m
polyester, 51 m catenary)

4. PANTELLERIA CASE STUDY

FIGURE 7: LAYOUT 2 CONFIGURATION. Pantelleria, which location is shown in Figure 9, is a small
Italian island located in the Sicily Channel, 110 km southwest
TABLE 5: Taut-leg layout specifications. from Sicily and 65 km northeast of Tunisia, in one of the
Item Properties windiest areas of Italy.
Material Polyester
(8-strand Multiplait)
Diameter 117 mm
Axial stiffness (EA) 20.16 E03 kN
Unit weight 13.3 kg/m
MBL 3420 kN
200 m
Lines length (50 m catenary, 132 m
polyester, 18 m catenary)

Layout 3 – Semi-taut mooring

The last configuration, reported in Figure 8, involves the use
of a section of catenary, placed between the drag anchor and the
intermediate clump weight and a final part made of chains. All
the specifications are reported in Table 6.
FIGURE 9: ANNUAL WIND ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY IN
ITALY, ADAPTED FROM ATLANTE EOLICO RSE [28].

However, this energy potential has not yet been exploited,

as there are not both onshore and offshore wind farms on the
island. In fact, the electricity requirement, quantified as about
37.6 GWh per year, is completely provided by a thermoelectric
power station (Smede) and some small photovoltaic parks [29].
Consequently, as the island is not connected to the national
electricity grid and electricity must be produced on-site, the cost
of electricity is higher than in the rest of Italy.
This study aims to design and test different mooring layouts
of a floating offshore wind turbine, able to completely satisfy the
island’s electricity needs.
FIGURE 8: LAYOUT 3 CONFIGURATION.

V011T38A021-7 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

4.1 Site identified which guarantees excellent performance in terms of electricity
The site identified for the installation of the FOWT system is production [31]. Regarding the wave energy potential, in Figure
located at a sea depth of 200 m, approximately 32 km from the 11 it is reported Pantelleria scatter, with the energy production
coast of Pantelleria (37° 06' 11" N, 11° 48' 14" E), as visible in in function of wave energy height and wave period.
Figure 10. Among the criteria considered for the identification The simulations are made in extreme waves considering 4 main

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
of an optimal site, there is the wind resource availability, the directions: at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° measured in front of the
bathymetry, the remoteness from sea routes and the distance floating platform, as reported in Table 7.
from fishing activities.

FIGURE 12: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTOUR.

In Figure 12 it is represented the directional environmental

contour generated from Pantelleria scatter according to [33]. The
environmental contour is created using a two-parameters Nataf
FIGURE 10: THE SITE FOR FOWT IN PANTELLERIA, distribution considering 50 years RON data and the wind
ADAPTED FROM EMODNET BATHYMETRY [30]. decoupled from Hs and Tp. According to DNV [34], the wind
speed considered is the maximum registered in Pantelleria and it
4.2 Meteomarine analysis is 26.5 m/s.

The island's climate is characterized by dry temperate with TABLE 7: Waves summary.
strong winds that come mainly from NW and S-SE. Therefore, Wave Direction Hs Te 𝛾
the orientation of the floating platform will take place with the [m] [s]
bow in the SW - NE direction, orthogonal to the prevailing wind 1 0° 6.64 10.17 3.3
direction to maximize the efficiency of the wind turbine. 2 30 6.46 10.06 3.3
3 60 5.27 9.23 3.3
4 90 4.33 8.53 3.3

4.3 Simulation results

All the results obtained from the Orcaflex simulation are fitted
in an “extreme value distribution” and the 90th percentile is
considered as the reference value. The simulation setup is
realized according to DNV [34]. The simulations length is equal
to 3 hours storm and each simulation is repeated 10 times
randomly varying the seed number.
The parameters to be considered are tension at each fairlead line,
forces at the anchors (total and vertical), surge and sway, pitch
and nacelle acceleration (x, y and z component).
The Orcaflex simulations are done considering the rotor parked
FIGURE 11: PANTELLERIA WAVE SCATTER. and blades feathered.
All the maximum values for each simulation (4 waves for 10
The Global Wind Atlas estimates an average annual wind speed realizations/seeds) have been placed in the app data fitter of
measured at a height of 100 m to be approximately 7.9 m/s, MATLAB and according to DNV suggestion, they have fitted

V011T38A021-8 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

using a generalized extreme value distribution. Each 90th
percentile of each distribution (one distribution for each
controlled parameter) is the design parameter [27].
In Figures 13 and 14 are reported two examples of extreme value
distribution relative to fairlead loads and nacelle acceleration for

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
layout 1, the catenary mooring.

FIGURE 15: FLOATING PLATFORM DISPLACEMENTS AND

ROTATIONS FOR THE 3 LAYOUTS.

FIGURE 13: PROBABILITY DENSITY OF LINE 2 FAIRLEAD

LOAD.

FIGURE 16: NACELLE ACCELERATIONS FOR THE 3

LAYOUTS.

FIGURE 14: PROBABILITY DENSITY OF NACELLE

ACCELERATION ALONG Z-DIRECTION.

To understand the main differences among the 3 mooring

layouts, the 90th percentile of motions, nacelle accelerations and
lines loads are reported in the bar plots shown respectively in
Figures 15, 16 and 17.
Particularly, in Figure 15 the degree of freedoms of pitch, roll,
sway and surge are monitored since the pitch angle and
translations are design parameters. FIGURE 17: FAIRLEADS LOADS, VERTICAL AND TOTAL
The same considerations can be done in Figure 16 for the nacelle ANCHOR LOADS FOR THE 3 LAYOUTS.
accelerations.
In Figure 17, instead, are shown the fairlead loads, which should 4.4 Techno-economic evaluation
be inferior to the MBL of the lines material, and the vertical and
total anchor load, in order to understand which anchor should be Based on the cost functions previously introduced, each
used for each mooring layout. For the taut leg configuration, due configuration was evaluated from an economic point of view,
to high vertical loads drag anchor are not suitable and screw or considering the cost of the moorings, anchors and the costs of the
suction anchors should be used. Only line 1 and 3 have been accessory parts. In the following Figures 18, 19 and 20 the main
reported, since line 2 is specular to line 1. costs are reported: in particular the lines costs, the anchors costs
and accessories costs.

V011T38A021-9 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

 Finally, the semi-taut layout represents an acceptable
compromise in terms of economic investment and design
constraints acceptability. However, this solution should be still
improved and refined to achieve the desired design parameters
at a minimum cost.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
This paper aims to introduce and describe a methodology for
choosing the most convenient mooring layout that satisfies
design parameters. The results are strongly influenced by initial
parameters, such as the anchor radius, lines stiffness, mass and
diameters. A challenge of this methodology is to identify a
FIGURE 18: COST EVALUATION – LAYOUT N.1 mooring layout that with a minimum investment guarantees the
survivability of the FOWT in extreme events.
Some improvements that can be brought to the presented
methodology concern the environmental contour definition,
considering a 3 parameters distribution to account for the jointed
wind - wave height - wave periods probability. Moreover, an
additional analysis will be added to the one proposed in this
paper since it only consider ULS design. The operative
condition, in which the rotor thrust is maximum should be
analyzed in order to understand the worst situation, characterized
by the highest loads or accelerations. Furthermore, the cost
function could be implemented considering the specifics for
mooring installation in the chosen site.
FIGURE 19: COST EVALUATION – LAYOUT N.2
REFERENCES

[1] Komusanac I., Brindley G., and Fraile D., “Wind energy
in Europe in 2019,” 2020.
[2] A. Ghigo, L. Cottura, R. Caradonna, G. Bracco, and G.
Mattiazzo, “Platform optimization and cost analysis in a
floating offshore wind farm,” Journal of Marine Science
and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 11, 2020, doi:
10.3390/jmse8110835.
[3] J. McMorran, “Mooring and Anchoring Research Report
Mooring and Anchoring Literature Review and
FIGURE 20: COST EVALUATION – LAYOUT N.3 Consultation Scottish Enterprise Assignment Number:
L400395-S00.” [Online]. Available:
5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS www.xodusgroup.com
Among the three layouts considered in the analysis, only the [4] R. James and M. C. Ros, “Floating Offshore Wind:
catenary configuration respects the limits suggested in Market and Technology Review Important notice and
literature, in particular in [18] and [19]. It is important to disclaimer.”
underline that these limits are not imposed by Standards but they [5] D. Toledo Monfort, “Design optimization of the mooring
are suggested as reference values to keep limited maintenance system for a floating offshore wind turbine foundation,”
costs and high safety features. Even if the catenary configuration 2017.
satisfies all the constraints, its cost is higher than the other two [6] R. James and M. C. Ros, “Floating Offshore Wind:
configurations, respectively about the triple of layout n.2 and the Market and Technology Review Important notice and
double of layout n.3. disclaimer.”
On the other hand, taut leg mooring layout guarantees a lower [7] Orcina, “OrcaFlex Help.”
mooring cost as well as lower tensions, but nacelle accelerations https://www.orcina.com/webhelp/OrcaFlex/
are unacceptable. Moreover, special effort should be given to the [8] L. Sethuraman and V. Venugopal, “Hydrodynamic
pitch motions that occur for this case as well as the screw anchor response of a stepped-spar floating wind turbine:
installation. More than half of the lines loads are represented by Numerical modelling and tank testing,” Renewable
its vertical component. Screw anchors present difficulties of Energy, vol. 52, pp. 160–174, 2013, doi:
installation according to the seabed characteristics thus the cost 10.1016/j.renene.2012.09.063.
function can strongly vary.

V011T38A021-10 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

[9] Orcina, “Orcaflex.” Available online: Semi-Submersible Floating Offshore Wind Turbine,”
https://www.orcina.com/orcaflex/ (accessed on 8 2019.
September 2021). [24] J. Jonkman, S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott,
[10] J. Delmas and A. Assire, “Salome-Meca : une plate- “Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for
forme au service de la simulation mécanique.” [Online]. Offshore System Development,” 2009. [Online].

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT2022/86137/V011T38A021/6937401/v011t38a021-gt2022-83219.pdf by Huazhong Univ of Sci & Tech user on 11 June 2024
Available: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01413149 Available: http://www.osti.gov/bridge
[11] F. F. Wendt, M. T. Andersen, A. N. Robertson, and J. M. [25] J. Azcona and F. Vittori, “Mooring System Design for
Jonkman, “Verification and validation of the new the 10MW Triple Spar Floating Wind Turbine at a 180 m
dynamic mooring modules available in FAST v8,” Nrel, Sea Depth Location,” in Journal of Physics: Conference
vol. 2016-Janua, no. August, pp. 352–363, 2016. Series, Oct. 2019, vol. 1356, no. 1. doi: 10.1088/1742-
[12] A. W. Vickers, “Improve the Understanding of 6596/1356/1/012003.
Uncertainties in Numerical Analysis of Moored Floating [26] F. Duan, Z. Hu, and J. Wang, “Model tests of a spar-type
Wave Energy Converters,” Univrsity of exeter, 2013. floating wind turbine under wind/wave loads,” in
[13] L. Johanning, G. H. Smith, and J. Wolfram, “Towards Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore
design standards for WEC moorings,” 2005. Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE, 2015, vol.
[14] J. Palm, S. Energy, and C. Eskilsson, “MOODY USER 9. doi: 10.1115/OMAE2015-41391.
MANUAL version 1.0.0,” no. May, 2018. [27] H. Kim, J. Choung, and G. Y. Jeon, “Design of mooring
[15] A. Campanile, V. Piscopo, and A. Scamardella, lines of floating offshore wind turbine in Jeju offshore
“Mooring design and selection for floating offshore area,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on
wind turbines on intermediate and deep water depths,” Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE,
Ocean Engineering, vol. 148, pp. 349–360, Jan. 2018, 2014, vol. 9A. doi: 10.1115/OMAE2014-23772.
doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.11.043. [28] Z. Liu, Y. Tu, W. Wang, and G. Qian, “Numerical
[16] DNV GL, “Offshore Standard - Position mooring analysis of a catenary mooring system attached by clump
(DNVGL-OS-E301), Edition July 2017,” no. July, 2017. masses for improving the wave-resistance ability of a
[17] K.-T. Ma, Y. Luo, T. Kwan, and Y. Wu, “Mooring for spar buoy-type floating offshore wind turbine,” Applied
floating wind turbines,” in Mooring System Engineering Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 9, no. 6, 2019, doi:
for Offshore Structures, Elsevier, 2019, pp. 299–315. 10.3390/app9061075.
doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-818551-3.00015-6. [29] “Atlante Eolico RSE.” https://atlanteeolico.rse-web.it/
[18] “corewind Design Basis 2 Document information (accessed Nov. 19, 2021).
Deliverable number D1.2 Deliverable name Design [30] “Agenda per la Transizione Energetica Isola di
Basis Reviewed by UL INT GMBH INNOSEA,” 2019. Pantelleria.”
[19] “Corewind Review of the state of the art of mooring and [31] “EMODnet Bathimetry.” https://portal.emodnet-
anchoring designs 2.” bathymetry.eu/ (accessed Nov. 21, 2021).
[20] A. Myhr, C. Bjerkseter, A. Ågotnes, and T. A. Nygaard, [32] “Global Wind Atlas 3.0.” https://globalwindatlas.info
“Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind (accessed Nov. 20, 2021).
turbines in a lifecycle perspective,” Renewable Energy, [33] V. Valamanesh, A. T. Myers, and S. R. Arwade,
vol. 66, pp. 714–728, 2014, doi: “Multivariate analysis of extreme metocean conditions
10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.017. for offshore wind turbines,” Structural Safety, vol. 55,
[21] DTOcean+, “Framework for the prediction of the pp. 60–69, Jul. 2015, doi:
reliability, economic and environmental criteria and 10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.03.002.
assessment methodologies for Moorings and [34] “OFFSHORE STANDARDS Position mooring,” 2018.
Foundations.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dnvgl.com,
[22] A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables and
Stochastic Processes. 1991.
[23] G. Ma, L. Zhong, Q.-W. Ma, Y.-W. Zhu, and Hong-Wei
Wang., “ Dynamic Analysis of Mooring Break for a

V011T38A021-11 Copyright © 2022 by ASME