On mooring line tension and fatigue prediction for offshore vertical axis wind turbines: a comparison of lumped-mass and quasi-static approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite several potential advantages, relatively few studies and design support tools have been developed for floating vertical axis wind turbines. Due to the substantial aerodynamics differences, the analyses of vertical axis wind turbine on floating structures cannot be easily extended from what have been already done for horizontal axis wind turbines. Therefore, the main aim of the present work is to compare the dynamic response of the floating offshore wind turbine system adopting two different mooring dynamics approaches. Two versions of the in-house aero-hydro-mooring coupled model of dynamics for floating vertical axis wind turbine (FloVAWT) have been used, employing a mooring quasi-static model, which solves the equations using an energetic approach, and a modified version of floating vertical axis wind turbine, which instead couples with the lumped mass mooring line model MoorDyn. The results, in terms of mooring line tension, fatigue and response in frequency have been obtained and analysed, based on a 5 MW Darrieus type rotor supported by the OC4-DeepCwind semisubmersible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".