Journal of Coastal Research SI 75 892-896 Coconut Creek, Florida 2016

Hydrodynamic Regimes in Offshore Wind Farms

Clara Matutano†, Vicente Negro‡, José-Santos López-*XWLpUUH]’0Dolores Esteban+,

† ‡ ’+ Research Group on Marine, Coastal and Port

Environment and other Sensitive Areas
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, E28040, Madrid
www.cerf-jcr.org

ABSTRACT

Matutano, C.; Negro, V.; López-Gutiérrez, J.S., and Esteban, M.D., 2016. Hydrodynamic regimes in offshore wind
farms. In: Vila-Concejo, A.; Bruce, E.; Kennedy, D.M., and McCarroll, R.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th
International Coastal Symposium (Sydney, Australia). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue, No. 75, pp. 892-
896. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

www.JCRonline.org Offshore wind power has sharply increased its presence in the last few decades. This expansion has derived in much
bigger structures to be placed on the seabed; however, no revision about hydrodynamic regimes that should be taken
into account during the design of these facilities has been carried out. The equations developed by Morison et al. in
1950 to estimate the wave loads are commonly assumed as valid within professional and scientific activity, and no
revision of their investigation has been carried out since then. The formulation developed 65 years ago may not be
reliable enough to accurately predict the phenomena, since they were established for smaller bodies. This paper
analyses the available data from several European offshore wind farms in order to determine their hydrodynamic
domain and nature of forces that structures bear. The analysis has been performed with the aim of establishing the
relationship between inertia and drag forces acting on piles under wave loading conditions. Different criteria from
main standards within the sphere of maritime works have been followed for the analysis. Results clearly show how
inertia dominates in most cases and, consequently, the acceleration of fluid particle motion is a critical variable for
predicting coastal phenomena. In this sense, this research remarks the importance of that mathematical expressions
incorporate this fact, both for structural calculation and coastal process prediction and they should be reviewed in
future research studies.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Offshore wind farm, hydrodynamic regimes, Morison.

INTRODUCTION theories for calculating these issues have been developed

Offshore wind power is clearly increasing its presence within
the renewable energy field. The number of facilities planned and
constructed has increased sharply in the last few years (Esteban
et al., 2011). This development was first implemented in
Europe, mainly the UK, but this type of energy source is
spreading through other areas like Asia or the east coast of the
USA (Esteban et al., 2012).
This fact has promoted an increasing number of research
studies in this field. Previous studies have developed the
methodology for designing this kind of facility, with the aim of
setting out the main steps of each phase (Esteban et al., 2009;
Esteban et al., 2015). Additionally, further investigations have
been addressed with respect to the scour phenomenon that
jeopardizes the foundation elements of facilities and the whole
structure’s stability (Matutano et al., 2013; Matutano et al.,
2015).
The majority of offshore wind farms installed are located in
transitional waters, and their presence has a relevant influence
on the coastal processes due to the associated changes in the
hydrodynamic regime. In this sense, with the aim to better
understand the effect of waves over offshore structures, classical
____________________
DOI: 10.2112/SI75-179.1 received 15 October 2015; accepted in
revision 15 January 2016.
*Corresponding author: clara.mmolina@alumnos.upm.es
©
Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2016
decades ago (Morison et al., 1953). At that time, geometrical
characteristics of bodies that took place within experimental
analysis were considerably smaller, but the geometrical
evolutions of offshore structures that have reached large
dimensions have usually been linked to failures in the
components and/or systems (Negro et al., 2014). Hence it could
be possible that relevant deviations at the time of making
calculations were being disregarded, since forces could behave
differently.
Nowadays, the nature of the wave forces that compromise the
stability of offshore structures is a critical factor that determines
the most suitable wave theory to be followed when calculating
any parameter of the structure. The effect of waves that affects
offshore structures is usually predicted according to a wave
theory that is consequent with the force dominance at the
location. Consequently, in the case of taking a non-reliable
theory at any location, this may lead to errors in the following
calculation and derive into inaccurate results.
In order to determine the location of offshore wind farms, as
mentioned above, it is necessary to carry out an exhaustive study
of the dominance of drag or inertia force with the objective of
taking into account an adequate wave theory during de design
phase. In this sense, knowing the main marine climate variables
together with geometrical characteristics of offshore foundations
in a two-way relationship, it is possible to determine the
hydrodynamic domain and, therefore, the relation between
 Hydrodynamic Regimes in Offshore Wind Farms

inertia and drag forces and their dominance over offshore wind Where ‫ݑ‬௠௔௫ (m/s) is the maximum flow velocity, T (s) is the
farms (Puertos del Estado, 2012). wave period and D (m) is the diameter of the structure (the
With the aim to study the influence of the dominance of horizontal dimension normal to wave propagation).
inertia or drag forces in the design of these facilities, an analysis
of the wave forces applied on several offshore wind farms was
carried out. The study developed according to the guidelines
given by maritime works standards and previous studies, such as
the Spanish ROM (Puertos del Estado, 2012), DNV-OS-J101
(Det Norske Veritas, 2011) and the Sarpkaya (2001), and
Sarpkaya and Isaacson (1981) research and publications, took
into account different offshore wind farms installed in the Irish
Sea and the North Sea, all of them in transitional waters.
This analysis sets the foundations for revising the formulation
that is currently used, analysing the accuracy of the expressions
proposed and checking the calculations projected with the actual
measured effects of the scouring phenomena.
The research analyses the nature of the force from the point
of view of these structures having a small diameter if compared
with the wavelength at the location, so the action of diffraction
forces can be neglected. Hence, the traditional Morison theory
has been followed for calculating the values of each force
component, inertia and drag forces.

Background
The study began with the analysis of the validity of the
theories according to Le Méhauté criteria (Mehaute, 1976). In
1976, Le Méhauté presented an important figure that showed the
limits of validity of each wave theory. His criteria have also
been adopted to validate different theories using standards
within the maritime field, such as the ROM Standard (Puertos
del Estado, 2012) or the Coastal Engineering Manual (US Army
Corps Engineers, 2002). This figure was chosen as a reference
for establishing the theory that should be taken in each wind
farm.
In order to plot the offshore wind farms studied on Le
Méhauté figure, the calculation of monomials (H/gT2 and d/gT2)
was necessary. After calculations and plotting, as can be seen in
the Figure 1, all offshore wind farms were located in an area of
the figure where either Stokes theory (Stokes, 1851) or Cnoidal
theory (Korteweg et al., 1985) has to be followed.
It should be noted that selecting the theory that best fits each
particular case is always a difficult issue. Different theories gave
optimum results for different cases and there could be several
possibilities. Due to the characteristics of this research that
intends to establish a starting point for further investigations,
calculations made for velocity and acceleration were based on
the linear theory and assumed to be accurate enough.
Another calculations and assumptions about KC parameters
and inertia and drag coefficients were established. The Keulegan
and Carpenter number was one of the key ratios for establishing
force dominance (Keulegan and Carpenter, 1958). The KC
number is low for processes where the inertia force was the most
important one. For higher values of the KC number, the drag
force becomes more important and dominates the phenomena.
The expression is as follows:
‫ݑ‬௠௔௫ ή ܶ
‫ ܥܭ‬ൌ (1)
‫ܦ‬
Figure 1. Validity domains of different wave theories of European
offshore wind farms studied. Mehaute (1976).
The analysis of the wave force regimes was developed taking
into account the Sarpkaya and Isaacson (1981) dissertations
included in the book entitled Mechanics of wave forces on
offshore structures as the basis for checking whether nonlinear
effects have an important influence on each wind farm, and how
significant they are.
Among a wide range of concepts analysed, the authors
highlighted that the diameter- wavelength ratio (D/L) has to be
low enough to use the Morison equation. Otherwise, if
diffraction has a relevant effect on force calculations, it should
be taken into account for calculating the loads by the diffraction
theory, calculating the potential that solves the Laplace equation
‫׏‬ଶ ‫ ׎‬ൌ Ͳ
Calculation results under the Sarpkaya and Isaacson criteria
showed that nonlinear effects were significant in most of the
wind farms analysed. Only one, Egmond Aan Zee wind farm
was outside the range where it was recommended to consider
nonlinear effects.
Note that the wind farm N7 is out of the figure’s domain,
since its KC number is higher than 6 and, therefore, this
calculation does not apply.
These results support the first calculation, and confirm that
nonlinear effects would have to be considered and the higher
order Stokes Theory should be addressed.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016

893
 Hydrodynamic Regimes in Offshore Wind Farms

Finally, a discussion about the influence of flow velocity and and other points on the west coast of the United Kingdom. The
acceleration in Morison equation was carried out, obtaining the location of each wind farm is shown in Figure 2. Different
inertia-drag force ratio. locations were taken with the aim of having a heterogeneous
From Airy wave theory (Airy, 1841), particle velocity (‫ݑ‬ sample.
(m/s)) and acceleration (ܽ (m/s2)) associated to the linear theory The main characteristics of facilities and wave climate
are given by the following expressions: variables about offshore wind farms used for the analysis were
the foundation type, the monopile diameter, the water depth at
ʹߨሺ‫ ݖ‬൅ ݀ሻ location, and the significant wave height and the peak wave
‫Š•‘… ܶ݃ ܪ‬൬ ‫ܮ‬
൰
period.
‫ ݑ‬ൌ   ή   ή  ή …‘•ߠ
ʹ ‫ܮ‬ ʹߨ݀ (2) Related to foundation types, most structures addressed in this
…‘•Šቀ ቁ
‫ܮ‬ research have a monopile foundation, although one of them
belongs to the gravity based foundation group (Thornton Bank
ʹߨሺ‫ ݖ‬൅ ݀ሻ
‫Š•‘… ݃ߨʹ ܪ‬൬ ൰ in Belgium). Diameters of foundations considered in the analysis
‫ܮ‬ range from a minimum 2.2 metres wide in Scarweather Sands
ܽ ൌ   ή  ή ή  •‹ߠ (3)
ʹ ‫ܮ‬ ʹߨ݀ (UK), to the GBS foundation of Belgium, where a foundation
…‘•Šቀ ቁ
‫ܮ‬ with 17 meters of diameter can be found.
Where,
All wind farms that form the database of the research are
݀ = water depth (m)
located in transitional waters; hence, the following expressions
‫ = ܪ‬wave height (m)
DUHIXOILOOHGK/DQGʌNKʌ&RQVHTXHQWO\
ܶ = wave period (s)
the formulation used in the following chapters is the most
‫ = ݖ‬particle depth (m) suitable for this water domain.
ߠ = wave phase (rad)
݃ = gravity acceleration (m/s2)
௚் మ ଶగௗ
‫ܮ‬ൌ ή –ƒŠሺ ሻ = wave length (m)
ଶగ ௅

Following the Morison Equation (Morison et al. 1953) the

maximum value of inertia and drag forces, according to its
theory, are the following:

ߨ‫ܦ‬ଶ ʹ‫ ߨܪ‬ଶ ͳ
ȁ‫ܨ‬௜௠௔௫ ȁ ൌ ή  ‫ܥ‬ெ ή  ଶ ή  
Ͷ ܶ ʹߨ݀ (4)
•‹Š ቀ ቁ
‫ܮ‬

‫ܦ‬ ‫ߨܪ‬ ͳ ‫ߨܪ‬

ȁ‫ܨ‬ௗ௠௔௫ ȁ ൌ ߩ ή ή  ‫ܥ‬ௗ ή  ή  ή
ʹ ܶ •‹Š ቀ ʹߨ݀ ܶ
ቁ
‫ܮ‬ (5)
ͳ
ή
ʹߨ݀
•‹Šቀ ቁ
‫ܮ‬
In order to find the force that dominates the wave forces, the Figure 2. Location of European offshore wind farms studied.
ratio between the maximum inertia and drag forces is calculated
as: Firstly, the validity of the theories for each location according
to Le Méhauté criteria (Le Mehaute, 1976) was checked. After
ȁ‫ܨ‬௜௠௔௫ ȁ ‫ܥ‬ெ ‫ ߨܦ‬ଶ ͳ ‫ܥ‬ெ ߨ ଶ this pre calculation, and making assumptions that will be
ൌ ή ή ൌ  ή
ȁ‫ܨ‬ௗ௠௔௫ ȁ ‫ܥ‬ௗ ܶ ‫ݑ‬௠௔௫ ‫ܥ‬ௗ ‫ܥܭ‬ (6) described later, the values required for the classification were
calculated, at the bottom level, as is the aim of the paper.
By introducing the most common values of inertia and drag Secondly, monomials required for each standard were also
coefficients, ‫ܥ‬ெ = 2 and ‫ܥ‬ௗ = 1, the expression can be
 
calculated, plotted on the graphics and analysed for conclusions.
approximated to And finally, an analysis of maximum velocity and acceleration
of fluid particles was done, and their influence in the calculation
of drag and inertia forces was proposed through the inertia-drag
ȁ‫ܨ‬௜ ȁ ʹͲ force ratio.
ൌ (7)
ȁ‫ܨ‬ௗ ȁ ‫ܥܭ‬ With the objective of checking how inertia and drag forces
affect the wind farms analysed, Spanish ROM (Puertos del
METHODS Estado, 2012), DNV-OS-J101 (Det Norske Veritas, 2011) and
Through the available data of European offshore wind market, the Sarpkaya (2001), and Sarpkaya and Isaacson (1981) research
seven wind farms were selected for the study, the majority of and publications were taken as the chosen criteria to be followed
them located in the North Sea, but some installed in the Irish Sea in the study. These three standards present different methods for

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016

894
 Hydrodynamic Regimes in Offshore Wind Farms

establishing the inertia and drag dominance within structures phenomena. Hence, diffraction forces can be considered as
located in marine environments. insignificant and all calculations will be made under the Morison
In this sense, three analyses were performed following each equation approximation. It is important to notice that maximum
standard, and their results were compared and discussed for values for inertia and drag forces are 90 degrees out of phase.
obtaining conclusions based on different criteria.
The available data of offshore wind farms presented values as
a range. This was an added difficulty since the precise data for 20
H/D
each pile is unknown. Due to this lack of precision, results
presented were calculated as the average of the combination of
Drag Forces
these ranges.
Wave
Breaking
RESULTS Limit
10
As mentioned above, ROM and DNV standards were
followed in order to classify the drag-inertia force ratios. Inertia Forces
Furthermore, Sarpkaya and Isaacson (1981) gave some
guidelines for knowing whether the diffraction and flow
Wave L/D
separation are important to the phenomenon. Diffraction
0
The Spanish Recommendation for Maritime Constructions 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(Puertos del Estado, 2012) follows the criteria established by N7
NORTH HOYLE
SCARWEATHER SANDS
EGMOND AAN ZEE
Chakrabarti (1987). The analysis made according to this LYNN AND INNER DOWSING PRINCESS AMALIA (Q7)
THORNTON BANK
technical Standard can provide further information about the
Figure 3. DNV classification of drag and inertia forces of European
characteristics of the phenomena since it shows six regions with
offshore wind farms analysed.
different levels of force dominance.
Region III and low-side V of ROM figure (Puertos del
As mentioned before, in this section, the relation between
Estado, 2012) were the zones where most of the wind farms are
force types is showed to analyse how much more significant
located, thus the inertia force is expected to dominate their
inertial forces are compared with drag forces. Table 1
hydrodynamic regimes. Only two wind farms (Scarweather
summarizes the results from calculations, taking into account the
Sands and Princess Amalia) are outside of Region III, but their
coefficients C M and C D described above and a seawater density
positions are fairly close to the border, so drag force is likely to
of 1024 Kg/m3.
appear with a higher influence but still subordinated to inertia
force effects. Table 1. Inertia-drag force ratio.
Bodies located in Region III are stressed by forces where the ୊౟ౣ౗౮
dominating component is inertia and, hence, the acceleration of Name ୢ୫ୟ୶ ୧୫ୟ୶
୊ౚౣ౗౮
particles is critical at the time of calculating any other issues. N7 28.81 83.05 2.88
On the other side, the article 405 of the DNV standard (Det
SCARWEATHER
Norske Veritas, 2011) gives guidance for establishing the SANDS
4.58 19.73 4.31
importance of drag, inertia and diffraction forces that stress the
NORTH HOYLE 10.42 64.37 6.18
structure. It should be notice that no statistical description is
recommended, so maximum wave height is assumed. No EGMOND AAN
3.08 36.67 11.92
ZEE
statistical information is given for the wave period either, so
LYNN AND
medium wave period was taken, as was done before. 7.01 65.88 9.4
INNER DOWSING
Two parameters were required in the study of the influence of PRINCESS
inertia and drag forces according to the DNV (2011) (Figure 3). 16.08 56.05 3.49
AMALIA (Q7)
The wave height-diameter ratio and the wave length-diameter THORTON BANK 66.44 503.11 7.57
ratio were needed.
The analysis carried out according to the DNV standard DISCUSSION
clearly showed that inertia forces totally dominate the nature of Throughout this research, different analyses were carried out
the hydrodynamic regimes. All wind farms are plotted in a zone in order to find out how forces disturb piles and how they are
where the inertia force is expected to be predominant. Moreover, dealt with in different technical standards. All calculations made
the separation line between drag and inertia dominance seems to have yielded results in the same direction although they present
be far from the wind farms position in the figure. some minor differences between them.
As mentioned before, inertia and drag forces are going to The first evidence was the absence of a consistent analysis for
reach very different values depending on the geometry and the the validity of the Morison equation (Morison et al., 1953) in all
maritime environment where the body is located. All structures standards analysed, not only offshore wind industry standards,
referred in this research have a diameter (considered as the such as DNV (2011), Germanischer (2005) or International
horizontal dimension normal to wave propagation) much smaller Electrotechnical Commission (2005, 2009), but also other
than the wavelength and then bodies act as if they were standards like American Petroleum Institute (2000) within the
transparent to wave actions deriving from propagation Oil and Gas field, not include a validation theory check.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016

895
 Hydrodynamic Regimes in Offshore Wind Farms

Secondly, the nature of wave forces was analysed, and the Korteweg, D.J. and De Vries, G., 1985. On the change of form
results clearly showed the dominance of inertia forces over drag of long waves advancing in a rectangular canal, and on a new
forces for this kind of pile-shaped support structures. The type of long stationary waves. The London, Edinburgh, and
dominance of inertia reached different values depending on the Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science,
particular conditions of each facility, such as geometrical 39(240), 422-443.
properties and wave climate variables. The inertia force Le Mehaute, B., 1976. An introduction to hydrodynamics and
calculated exceeded the drag force from 2.88 to 12 times. water waves. New York: Springer-Verlag .
Matutano, C.; Negro, V.; López-Gutiérrez, J.S., and Esteban,
CONCLUSIONS M.D., 2013. Scour prediction and scour protections in
With these results, the authors consider that it is important to offshore wind farms. Renewable Energy, 57, 358-356.
be especially careful when it comes to predicting situations Matutano, C.; Negro, V.; López-Gutiérrez, J.S., and Esteban,
where inertia is the dominant force but is not properly included M.D., 2015. Design of Scour Protection Systems in Offshore
in the formulation taken for calculations. It should be noted that Wind Farms. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 137.
one of the most important variables that determines the inertia Morison, J.; Johnson, J.; O'Brien, M., and Schaff, S., 1953.
force is the fluid particle acceleration, so in one way or another, Experimental Studies on Wave Forces on Piles. Proc. 1st
acceleration must be included in formulations related to the Conference Coastal Engineering.
phenomena. Negro, V.; López-Gutiérrez, J.S.; Esteban, M.D., and Matutano,
Hence, current formulations taken into account during the C., 2014. Uncertainties in the design of support structures and
design phase of offshore wind farms need to be checked to foundations for offshore wind turbines. Renewable Energy,
predict the influence of inertia and drag component of wave 63, 125-132.
force, and if not, it would be necessary to develop a new Puertos del Estado, 2012. ROM 2.0-11 (Recomendaciones para
formulation for integrating the wave loading that affects el proyecto y ejecución en Obras de Atraque yAmarre).
offshore structures. Sarpkaya, T., 2001. On the force decompositions of Lighthill
and Morison. Journal of Fluids and Structures. 227-233.
LITERATURE CITED Sarpkaya, T. and Isaacson, M., 1981. Mechanics of Wave Forces
Airy, G.B., 1841. Tides and waves. Encyclopaedia on Offshore Structures.
Metropolitana, London, 241-396. Stokes, G.G., 1851. In On the effect of the internal friction of
American Petroleum Institute, 2000. Recommended practice for fluids on the motion of pendulums, vol. 9, Pitt Press, 1851,
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore pp. 8-106.
platforms–Working stress design. US Army Corps Of Engineers, 2002. Coastal engineering
Chakrabarti, S., 1987. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures. manual.
Springer Verlag.
Det Norske Veritas, 2011. DNV OS J101-Design of offshore
wind turbine structures.
Esteban, M. D., Negro, V., and López-Gutiérrez, J.S., 2009.
Integral Management Applied to Offshore Wind Farms.
Journal of Coastal Research.
Esteban, M. D.; Negro, V., and López-Gutiérrez, J.S., 2011.
Why offshore wind energy? Renewable Energy, vol. 36, 444–
450.
Esteban, M. D.; López-Gutiérrez, J.S.; Negro, V.; Matutano, C.;
Garcí-Flores, F.M., and Millán, M.A., 2015. Offshore Wind
Foundation Design: Some Key Issues. Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, vol. 137.
Esteban, M. and Leary, D., 2012. Current developments and
future prospects of offshore wind and ocean energy, Applied
Energy, no. 90, 128-136.
Germanischer Lloyd, 2005. Guideline for the Certification of
Offshore Wind Turbines.
International Electrotechnical Commission, 2005. IEC 61400 -
1. Wind Turbines - Part 1: design requirements, Technical
Standard.
International Electrotechnical Commission, 2009. IEC 61400 -
3. Wind turbines - part 3: Design requirements for offshore
wind turbines, Technical Standard.
Keulegan, G.H. and Carpenter, L.H., 1958. Forces on Cylinders
and Plates in a Oscillating Fluid. Journal Research of the
National Bureau of Standards, 60(5), 423-440.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016

896
Copyright of Journal of Coastal Research is the property of Allen Press Publishing Services
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.