Floating Wind Turbines Ltd. 

Status: Final 

Version: 01 

Date: 12/04/2018 Infrastructure 

Access 

Rep

orts 

 

 

User Project DTI‐F Scaled model test 

 

Project Acronym DTI‐F 

 

Project Reference Number DTI‐F‐14122017 

 

Infrastructure Accessed UCC_MaREI_Ocean Emulator 

 

ABOUT MARINET 

The MaRINET2 project is the second iteration of the successful EU funded MaRINET Infrastructures Network, both of which are coordinated and managed by Irish research centre MaREI at the University College Cork and avail of the Lir National Ocean Test Facilities.

MaRINET2 is a €10.5 million project which includes 39 organisations representing some of the top offshore renewable energy testing facilities in Europe and globally. The project depends on strong international ties across Europe and draws on the expertise and participation of 13 countries. Over 80 experts from these distinguished centres across Europe will be descending on Dublin for the launch and kick-off meeting on the 2nd of February.

The original MaRINET project has been described as a “model of success that demonstrates what the EU can achieve in terms of collaboration and sharing knowledge transnationally”. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, November 2013

MARINET2 expands on the success of its predecessor with an even greater number and variety of testing facilities across offshore wind, wave, tidal current, electrical and environmental/cross-cutting sectors. The project not only aims to provide greater access to testing infrastructures across Europe, but also is driven to improve the quality of testing internationally through standardisation of testing and staff exchange programmes.

The MaRINET2 project will run in parallel to the MaREI, UCC coordinated EU marinerg-i project which aims to develop a business plan to put this international network of infrastructures on the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) roadmap.

The project will include at least 5 trans-national access calls where applicants can submit proposals for testing in the online portal. Details of and links to the call submission system are available on the project website www.marinet2.eu

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under

grant agreement number 731084.

Document Details

Grant Agreement Number 731084 Project Acronym MaRINET2 Title DTI-F Scaled model test Distribution Public Document Reference MARINET-TA1-DTI-F – DTI-F-14122017 User Group Leader, Lead Author

 

Jordi Serret Floating Wind Turbines Ltd – IDCORE (UoE) 4th Floor, Alrick Building Gate 4, Max Born Crescent The King’s Buildings - EH9 3BF J.Serret@ed.ac.uk +44 (0) 131 472 4822

User Group Members, Contributing Authors

Jordi Serret Floating Wind Turbines / IDCORE Rodger Taylor Floating Wind Turbines Mohammed Yousef Concrete Marine Solutions / IDCORE Donald Noble Institute of Energy Systems

Infrastructure Accessed UCC_MaREI_Ocean Emulator Infrastructure Manager or Main Contact

Mr Florent Thiebaut - Dr Matthew Shanley

Document Approval Record

Name Date Prepared by Jordi Serret 14/02/2018 Checked by Mohammed Yousef 20/02/2018 Checked by Tahsin Tezdogan 22/02/2018 Approved by Rodger Taylor 26/02/2018

Document Changes Record

Revision Number

Date Sections Changed Reason for Change

1 20/02/2018 Minor changes Spelling and grammar review 2 22/02/2018 Tables section 2 Data update 3 - - -

Disclaimer The content of this publication reflects the views of the Authors and not necessarily those of the European Union. No warranty of any kind is made in regard to this material. Acknowledgement The work described in this publication has received support from:

1. MaRINET2 - European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 731084

2. Floating Wind Turbines Limited 3. Energy Technologies Institute, Research Councils UK, Energy Programme for the

Industrial Doctorate Centre for Offshore Renewable Energy under grant number EP/J500847/1

Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. 4 

1  Introduction & Background ............................................................................................. 6 

1.1  Introduction ........................................................................................................... 6 

1.2  Development So Far................................................................................................ 6 

1.2.1  Stage Gate Progress ......................................................................................... 6 

1.2.2  Plan For This Access ........................................................................................ 7 

2  Outline of Work Carried Out ........................................................................................... 8 

2.1  Setup ..................................................................................................................... 8 

2.2  Tests ................................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.1  Test Plan ....................................................................................................... 13 

2.3  Results ................................................................................................................. 14 

2.4  Analysis & Conclusions .......................................................................................... 16 

3  Main Learning Outcomes .............................................................................................. 16 

3.1  Progress Made ...................................................................................................... 16 

3.1.1  Progress Made: For This User-Group or Technology ......................................... 16 

3.1.2  Progress Made: For Marine Renewable Energy Industry .................................... 17 

3.2  Key Lessons Learned ............................................................................................ 17 

4  Further Information ..................................................................................................... 17 

4.1  Scientific Publications ............................................................................................ 17 

4.2  Website & Social Media ......................................................................................... 17 

5  References .................................................................................................................. 17 

6  Appendices ................................................................................................................. 18 

6.1  Stage Development Summary Table ....................................................................... 18 

6.2  Detailed test matrix .............................................................................................. 19 

1 Introduction & Background

1.1 Introduction Floating Wind Turbines Ltd is developing a new floating wind concept called Deep Turbine Installation-Flouting concept (DTI-F). DTI-F substructure has been calculated to hold the Levenmouth (Samsung S7.0-171) 7MW offshore wind turbine owned by Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult.

Floating wind turbines exhibit a complex response reflecting blade aeroelasticity, servo dynamics, tower elasticity, wave impact, current drag and moorings dynamics along with the dynamics of a floating body. The numerical models dealing with this level of complexity rely on the use of simplified concepts such as the added mass and the damping effects.

Once the relevant numerical models have been set up, a comprehensive scaled model testing must be performed to validate and optimise the coefficients used in the simulation.

The present testing is framed into an EngD project from the Industrial Doctoral Centre for Offshore Renewable Energy (IDCORE), a partnership of the Universities of Edinburgh, Strathclyde and Exeter, the Scottish Association for Marine Science and HR-Wallingford.

1.2 Development So Far The objective of FWT is to validate the DTI-F concept. The DTI-F is a hybrid spar buoy able to raise up and lower down the tower-nacelle set avoiding the use of heavy cranes.

Previous work packages dealt with the aeroelastic loads coming from the offshore wind turbine, the sizing of the structure and the development of a wide range of numerical simulation tools regarding the hydrodynamic behaviour of both platform and mooring lines.

The objective of the testing is to validate the numerical models. Furthermore, the test will allow for a better understanding of the structure behaviour as well as experience in model testing.

1.2.1 Stage Gate Progress The process planned is outlined in the stage gate table below.

Previously completed: Not completed:

Planned for this project: Future work: ᴥ

STAGE GATE CRITERIA Planned

Status

Stage 1 – Numerical modelling Aeroelastic model Diffraction model Mooring dynamics model Turbine and mooring dynamics model ᴥ

Stage 2 – Froude-scaled platform tests Model building (model able to accommodate 7MW and 10MW wind turbine Platform mass properties tuning for the Levenmouth wind turbine Free decay tests for the Levenmouth wind turbine Stiffness decay tests for the Levenmouth wind turbine Regular waves tests for the Levenmouth wind turbine

STAGE GATE CRITERIA Planned

Status

Irregular waves tests for the Levenmouth wind turbine White noise tests for the Levenmouth wind turbine Line loss tests for the Levenmouth wind turbine Numerical model validation ᴥ

Stage 3 – Froude-scaled platform and SIL rotor tests (Levenmouth offshore wind turbine)

Free decay with wind for the Levenmouth offshore wind turbine ᴥ Stiffness decay with wind for the Levenmouth offshore wind turbine ᴥ Regular waves with wind for the Levenmouth offshore wind turbine ᴥ Irregular waves with wind for the Levenmouth offshore wind turbine ᴥ White noise with wind for the Levenmouth offshore wind turbine ᴥ Line loss with wind for the Levenmouth offshore wind turbine ᴥ Numerical model validation ᴥ

Stage 4 – Froude-scaled platform and SIL rotor tests (DTU 10MW reference wind turbine)

Free decay with wind for the DTU wind reference turbine ᴥ Stiffness decay with wind for the DTU wind reference turbine ᴥ Regular waves with wind for the DTU wind reference turbine ᴥ Irregular waves with wind for the DTU wind reference turbine ᴥ White noise with wind for the DTU wind reference turbine ᴥ Line loss with wind for the DTU wind reference turbine ᴥ Numerical model validation ᴥ

Stage 5 – DTI-F concept validation Raising mechanism validation ᴥ To investigate physical properties not well scaled & validate performance figures ᴥ

Construction, service, maintenance and operational strategy ᴥ Levelized cost of energy analysis ᴥ Economic Feasibility/Profitability ᴥ

1.2.2 Plan For This Access

Stage 1: It comprises the setup of all numerical model to be validated during the subsequent testing stages. The aeroelastic model was built with NREL-FAST, ANSYS AQWA was the diffraction model, and OrcaFlex is going to deal with mooring dynamics. The coupling with wind will be tested with FASTLink which couples FAST with OrcaFlex and Flexcom. Stage 2: This part contains the Froude-scaled platform tests and the subsequent validation of the ANSYS AQWA diffraction model, and the mooring dynamics model (OrcaFlex). The goal for this set of tests is the determination of the RAOs and hydrodynamic coefficients of the DTI-F platform.

Stage 3 & 4: This stage will be the focus of the next planned tests. It will cover Froude-scaled platform and SIL rotor tests for the Levenmouth and the DTU (reference) wind turbines. The overall objective is the system behaviour identification.

Stage 5: This stage will establish the feasibility of the raising mechanism, and the construction and O&M strategy allowing FWT to figure out the overall feasibility of the DTI-F concept.

2 Outline of Work Carried Out An overview of the 1:45 platform model, built at FloWave (University of Edinburgh) and the mooring configurations will be described below.

2.1 Setup A Froude scaled model of the DTI-F has to be built for the testing. All the dynamic properties (i.e. displacement, moment of inertia, GM, natural periods), must be adequately scaled using Froude’s law. The structural properties (i.e. stiffness, elasticity) are not necessary to scale. The scale factor (1:45) must allow the correct representation of the water depth.

Froude scaling, however, will underestimate the Reynolds number. Hence, further development will be necessary to achieve the correct rotor thrust. The scaling relationships [1] utilised to obtain the appropriate scale factors are shown in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2, where the length scale ratio λ is defined by

λ

Where ‘p’ and ‘m’ subscripts stand for prototype scale and model scale respectively, and L is a representative length.

Table 2.1 FWT scaling factors [1]. ρw denotes the water density. 

Property Scaling factor Length λ Area λ2 Volume λ3 Mass (ρwp/ρwm) λ3 Mass moment of inertia (J) (ρwp/ρwm) λ5 Area moment of inertia (I) λ4 Water velocity λ1/2 Air velocity λ1/2β-1 Acceleration 1 Time λ 1/2 Frequency λ-1/2 Angle 1 Force (ρwp/ρwm) λ3 Moment (ρwp/ρwm) λ4 Stiffness (E) (ρwp/ρwm) λ Stress (ρwp/ρwm) λ Power (ρwp/ρwm) λ7/2 Thrust coefficient (CT) (ρwp/ρwm) λ2 β2

Table 2.2 Wind and waves scaling factors [1]. 

Property Scaling factor Geometric height (z) λ

Wind speed (V) λ1/2β-1 Turbulent wind frequency (f) λ-1/2 Turbulence intensity 1 Wind profile power coefficient (α) 1 Water depth λ Velocity λ1/2 Significant wave height λ Peak period λ1/2 Wind-wave misalignment 1

The proposed scaling maintains the following dimensionless numbers:

Froude number, which is the ratio of water particle velocity to wave velocity. Keulegan-Carpenter number, which accounts for the relative excursion of a water particle

during a wave cycle, and The aerodynamic Lock number, which is the ratio of the aerodynamic forces and the

inertia forces.

The not conserved dimensionless numbers are:

The Reynolds number in the air and the water. The Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial forces and the viscous forces.

The Weber number, which measures the balance of surface tension to inertial loads. The Strouhal number in water and air, which describes the oscillatory behaviour of fluids. The Mach number, which is the ratio of the relative flow velocity to the sound velocity. The Tip Speed Ratio, which is the ratio between the tangential speed of the tip of a

blade and the actual speed of the wind.

The specifications for the scaled model are listed in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found..

Table 2.3 Specifications of the scaled model. H, W, L, Ø, and M stands for height, width, diameter and mass respectively 

Part H (mm) W (mm) L (mm) Ø (mm) M (kg) DTI-F 3650.55 - - - 185.91 Tip mass 200.00 177.78 555.56 - 6.05 Tower 1628.33 - - 155.56 3.09 Top cylinder 1555.56 - - 333.333 49.83 Frustum 111.11 - - - 15.89 Base cylinder 111.11 - - 666.67 44.95 Heave plate 44.44 - - 888.89 66.10

Two mooring sets will be tested, i.e. three and four mooring lines. The weight per unit length in water and the length of the mooring line are the most relevant parameters for the floating structure response. Regardless of how the physical lines are modelled, the precise tuning of these quantities for a given environment will provide the appropriate scale response. Table 2.4 shows the scaled mooring details. The mooring layout is shown in Figure 2.

Table 2.4 Scaled mooring details 

Mooring set up Length (m) Weight/length (kg/m) 3 chains 5 0.075-0.300 4 chains 5.3 0.075-0.080 3 chains with delta connection 5 0.075-0.300

Figure 4 Specifications of the scaled model 

Figure 2 Moorings layout 

To obtain the system mass properties, a design model, e.g. CAD must be drawn. The CAD model will provide volumes, moments of inertia, products of inertia, radii of gyration and principal moments. Once the CAD model is created, a post-design tool, i.e. Inventor or SolidWorks must be used to obtain the correct mass distribution. This will allow us to obtain an estimation of the centre of gravity, the centre of buoyancy and the metacentre height for both, the real structure and the scaled model. Table 2.5 shows these results.

Table 2.5 Mass properties scaling details 

Property Full Scale Scaled@45 Scaled Model Difference % Difference Mass (kg) 1.70E+07 1.86E+02 1.86E+02 3.55E-02 0 CoG Z (mm) 2.01E+04 4.47E+02 4.47E+02 -3.26E-01 0 Ixx (kg m2) 2.14E+10 1.16E+02 1.26E+02 1.01E+01 8 Iyy (kg m2) 2.14E+10 1.16E+02 1.26E+02 9.87E+00 8 Izz (kg m2) 1.89E+09 1.03E+01 9.76E+00 -5.03E-01 -5

To measure the tank wave heights, and the loads and motions of the floating wind turbine, the following instrumentation will be used:

Six resistance wave probes will measure the generated wave heights. The Qualisys optical tracking system to measure the six DOF motions of the floating wind turbine Four force transducers to measure the mooring tension at the fairlead

No underwater optical tracking system and accelerometers was available in the Facility.

2.2 Tests A comprehensive test programme has been prepared to validate the existing numerical models. It will cover (Table 2.6) free decay, stiffness decay, regular and irregular waves and special tests, i.e. white noise, line loss, and extreme waves.

Table 2.6 Test programme 

Test type Number of tests Comments Free decay test 9 With and without mooring lines Stiffness decay test 36 Displacement and the line tensions Regular wave test 88 With 3 & 4 mooring lines Irregular wave test 12 With 3 & 4 mooring lines White noise test 8 With 3 & 4 mooring lines Line loss test 4 Accidental Limit State

2.2.1 Test Plan The detailed tentative test matrix can be found in Appendix 6.2. All the magnitudes defining the test cases in this document are presented in 1:45 scale.

It was not possible to perform the free decay tests due to the lack of footbridge in the facility.

To demonstrate the repeatability of the experiments, the test plan considers three repetitions of the decay tests, i.e. free decay and stiffness decay; and two repetitions of the rest of the testing conditions. The selected frequencies should be repeated non-sequentially and add extra time between tests to ensure a steady state system in the tank. Unfortunately, due to problems with the optical tracking system calibration and the floor lifting mechanism of the facility, only some of the repetition could be performed.

2.3 Results Only a sample of the preliminary results is shown in this document due to time constraints. The results of a regular set of tests, i.e. RAOs; and an irregular wave test are shown below.

Figure 3 Calculated RAOs in Sway, Heave, and Surge 

Figure 4 Calculated RAOs in Pitch, Roll, and Yaw 

Next figures show the system behaviour, i.e. surge, sway, heave, pitch, roll, and yaw; in sea conditions defined as a JONSWAP spectrum with Hs=150mm, Tz=1.41s, ϒ=2.45, and α=0.083.

Figure 5 Irregular test results 

The figures below show the natural frequency of oscillation of the platform in Roll and the power spectral density (PSD) of the sea reproduced in the tank. The natural frequency of oscillation of the platform in Roll is a critical parameter to improve the overall behaviour of the system, and the PSD of the wave probe time series validate the quality of the wave since a frequency of 0.71Hz matches with Tz=1.41s.

Figure 6 Roll filtered signal and power spectral density  

Figure 7 Wave probe 1 filtered signal and power spectral density 

2.4 Analysis & Conclusions Analysis of the results has not yet been completed by the time of writing this report, but the preliminary check shows quality enough of the acquired data to successfully perform the required analysis.

The testing results are going to validate the scaled model itself, i.e. mass properties; the calculated hydrodynamic characteristics of the model, i.e. RAOs, drag and added mass coefficients, and the assumed behaviour in irregular seas.

Moreover, the results are going to provide the marine industry with valuable information regarding the behaviour of a floating substructure with different mooring configurations, and under accidental load cases.

3 Main Learning Outcomes

3.1 Progress Made FWTs performed all the testing planned except the free decay tests.

3.1.1 Progress Made: For This User-Group or Technology From the testing performed, FWT will validate numerical models in charge of calculating the RAOs and hydrodynamic/mechanic coefficients of the DTI-F platform.

3.1.1.1 Next Steps for Research or Staged Development Plan – Exit/Change & Retest/Proceed? From the data obtained, it is expected to achieve some optimisation of the design. After that, further testing including wind effects is planned.

3.1.2 Progress Made: For Marine Renewable Energy Industry The industry has a new floating concept reaching TRL 3-4 (See Appendix 6.1).

3.2 Key Lessons Learned Calibration time, e.g. motion capture system; took longer than expected due to limitation of the camera

used (field of view and distance to model). Unexpected problems always arise when the time is tight (validating Murphy's Law). FWT had problems

with the movable pool floor. It is recommended not to assume the presence of any structure or piece of equipment in the facility. It

is remarkable that the free decay tests were not performed due to the lack of a footbridge nor crane with complete access to the tank, i.e. the crane reaches only the border of the tank, not the centre. Therefore, it is important checking the testing facility equipment and capabilities prior to perform any testing. It is highly recommended to visit the testing facility before the testing.

White noise time series must be delivered to the facility in advance.

4 Further Information

4.1 Scientific Publications List of scientific publications planned as a result of this work:

Serret, J., Tezdogan, T., Stratford, T., Thies, P. Tank testing results of a 1:45th scale model of the DTI-F concept. CORE 2018.

Serret, J., Tezdogan, T., Stratford, T., Thies, P. Hydrodynamic response of the DTI-F concept: Numerical modelling validation. ISOPE 2019.

Serret, J., Tezdogan, T., Stratford, T., Thies, P. Dynamic behaviour of the DTI-F concept with three different mooring configurations. TBC.

4.2 Website & Social Media Website: http://www.fwtltd.co.uk/

LinkedIn/Twitter/Facebook Links: https://www.linkedin.com/company/floating-wind-turbines-ltd/

5 References [1] INNWIND.EU (2017). D4.22: Methods for performing scale-tests for method and model validation of floating wind turbines.

6 Appendices

6.1 Stage Development Summary Table The table following offers an overview of the test programmes recommended by IEA-OES for each Technology Readiness Level. This is only offered as a guide and is in no way extensive of the full test programme that should be committed to at each TRL.

NASA Technology Readiness Levels1

1 https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/txt_accordion1.html

NASA TRL Definition Hardware Description Software Description Exit Criteria TRL Definition Hardware Description Software Description Exit Criteria 1 Basic principles

observed and reported.

Scientific knowledge generated underpinning hardware technology concepts/applications.

Scientific knowledge generated underpinning basic properties of software architecture and mathematical formulation.

Peer reviewed publication of research underlying the proposed concept/application.

2 Technology concept and/or application formulated.

Invention begins, practical application is identified but is speculative, no experimental proof or detailed analysis is available to support the conjecture.

Practical application is identified but is speculative, no experimental proof or detailed analysis is available to support the conjecture. Basic properties of algorithms, representations and concepts defined. Basic principles coded. Experiments performed with synthetic data.

Documented description of the application/concept that addresses feasibility and benefit.

3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept.

Analytical studies place the technology in an appropriate context and laboratory demonstrations, modelling and simulation validate analytical prediction.

Development of limited functionality to validate critical properties and predictions using non-integrated software components.

Documented analytical/experimental results validating predictions of key parameters.

4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment.

A low fidelity system/component breadboard is built and operated to demonstrate basic functionality and critical test environments, and associated performance predictions are defined relative to the final operating environment.

Key, functionally critical, software components are integrated, and functionally validated, to establish interoperability and begin architecture development. Relevant Environments defined and performance in this environment predicted.

Documented test Performance demonstrating agreement with analytical predictions. Documented definition of relevant environment.

5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment.

A medium fidelity system/component brassboard is built and operated to demonstrate overall performance in a simulated operational environment with realistic support elements that demonstrates overall performance in critical areas. Performance predictions are made for subsequent development phases.

End-to-end software elements implemented and interfaced with existing systems/simulations conforming to target environment. End-to-end software system, tested in relevant environment, meeting predicted performance. Operational environment performance predicted. Prototype implementations developed.

Documented test performance demonstrating agreement with analytical predictions. Documented definition of scaling requirements.

6 System/sub-system model or prototype demonstration in an operational environment.

A high fidelity system/component prototype that adequately addresses all critical scaling issues is built and operated in a relevant environment to demonstrate operations under critical environmental conditions.

Prototype implementations of the software demonstrated on full-scale realistic problems. Partially integrate with existing hardware/software systems. Limited documentation available. Engineering feasibility fully demonstrated.

Documented test performance demonstrating agreement with analytical predictions.

7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.

A high fidelity engineering unit that adequately addresses all critical scaling issues is built and operated in a relevant environment to demonstrate performance in the actual operational environment and platform (ground, airborne, or space).

Prototype software exists having all key functionality available for demonstration and test. Well integrated with operational hardware/software systems demonstrating operational feasibility. Most software bugs removed. Limited documentation available.

Documented test Performance demonstrating agreement with analytical predictions.

8 Actual system completed and "flight qualified" through test and demonstration.

The final product in its final configuration is successfully demonstrated through test and analysis for its intended operational environment and platform (ground, airborne, or space).

All software has been thoroughly debugged and fully integrated with all operational hardware and software systems. All user documentation, training documentation, and maintenance documentation completed. All functionality successfully demonstrated in simulated operational scenarios. Verification and Validation (V&V) completed.

Documented test performance verifying analytical predictions.

9 Actual system flight proven through successful mission operations.

The final product is successfully operated in an actual mission.

All software has been thoroughly debugged and fully integrated with all operational hardware/software systems. All documentation has been completed. Sustaining software engineering support is in place. System has been successfully operated in the operational environment.

Documented mission operational results

Rue d’Arlon 63-65 | 1040 Brussels |Tel. +32 (0)2 400 1040 | E. info@tpocean.eu | www.ETIPOcean.eu

6.2 Detailed test matrix

Test condition Mooring setup

Initial displacement (mm/˚)

Wave height (mm)

Period (s)

Duration (s)

001 Free Decay - Heave Unmoored 110 - - 150 002 Free Decay - Heave Unmoored 110 - - 150 003 Free Decay - Heave Unmoored 110 - - 150 004 Free Decay - Roll Unmoored 5 - - 150 005 Free Decay - Roll Unmoored 5 - - 150 006 Free Decay - Roll Unmoored 5 - - 150 007 Free Decay - Pitch Unmoored 5 - - 150 008 Free Decay - Pitch Unmoored 5 - - 150 009 Free Decay - Pitch Unmoored 5 - - 150 010 Stiffness Decay - Surge 3 lines 110 - - 150 011 Stiffness Decay - Surge 3 lines 110 - - 150 012 Stiffness Decay - Surge 3 lines 110 - - 150 013 Stiffness Decay - Sway 3 lines 110 - - 150 014 Stiffness Decay - Sway 3 lines 110 - - 150 015 Stiffness Decay - Sway 3 lines 110 - - 150 016 Stiffness Decay - Yaw 3 lines 5 - - 150 017 Stiffness Decay - Yaw 3 lines 5 - - 150 018 Stiffness Decay - Yaw 3 lines 5 - - 150 019 Stiffness Decay - Heave 3 lines 110 - - 150 020 Stiffness Decay - Heave 3 lines 110 - - 150 021 Stiffness Decay - Heave 3 lines 110 - - 150 022 Stiffness Decay - Pitch 3 lines 5 - - 150 023 Stiffness Decay - Pitch 3 lines 5 - - 150 024 Stiffness Decay - Pitch 3 lines 5 - - 150 025 Stiffness Decay - Roll 3 lines 5 - - 150 026 Stiffness Decay - Roll 3 lines 5 - - 150 027 Stiffness Decay - Roll 3 lines 5 - - 150 028 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 0.70 40 029 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 2.20 48 030 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 0.85 55 031 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 2.05 115 032 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.00 63 033 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.90 108 034 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.15 70 035 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.75 100 036 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.30 78 037 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.60 93 038 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.45 85 039 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 0.84 47 040 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 2.24 117 041 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 0.98 54

Marinet2 – DTI-F Scaled model test

042 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 2.10 110 043 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.12 61 044 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.96 103 045 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.26 68 046 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.82 96 047 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.40 75 048 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.68 89 049 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.54 82 050 Irregular wave 3 lines - 40 0.89 600 051 Irregular wave 3 lines - 160 1.41 600 052 Irregular wave 3 lines - 101 1.27 600 053 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 0.70 40 054 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 2.20 48 055 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 0.85 55 056 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 2.05 115 057 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.00 63 058 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.90 108 059 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.15 70 060 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.75 100 061 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.30 78 062 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.60 93 063 Regular wave 3 lines - 44 1.45 85 064 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 0.84 47 065 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 2.24 117 066 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 0.98 54 067 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 2.10 110 068 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.12 61 069 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.96 103 070 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.26 68 071 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.82 96 072 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.40 75 073 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.68 89 074 Regular wave 3 lines - 110 1.54 82 075 Irregular wave 3 lines - 40 0.89 600 076 Irregular wave 3 lines - 160 1.41 600 077 Irregular wave 3 lines - 101 1.27 600 078 Line loss 3→2 lines - 101 1.27 300 079 White noise 3 lines - 44 - 600 080 White noise 3 lines - 88 - 600 081 White noise 3 lines - 110 - 600 082 White noise 3 lines - 144 - 600 083 Line loss 3→2 lines - 101 1.27 300 084 Stiffness Decay -Surge 4 lines 110 - - 150 085 Stiffness Decay -Surge 4 lines 110 - - 150 086 Stiffness Decay - Surge 4 lines 110 - - 150 087 Stiffness Decay - Sway 4 lines 110 - - 150 088 Stiffness Decay - Sway 4 lines 110 - - 150 089 Stiffness Decay - Sway 4 lines 110 - - 150 090 Stiffness Decay - Yaw 4 lines 5 - - 150

Marinet2 – DTI-F Scaled model test

091 Stiffness Decay - Yaw 4 lines 5 - - 150 092 Stiffness Decay - Yaw 4 lines 5 - - 150 093 Stiffness Decay - Heave 4 lines 110 - - 150 094 Stiffness Decay - Heave 4 lines 5 - - 150 095 Stiffness Decay - Heave 4 lines 110 - - 150 096 Stiffness Decay - Pitch 4 lines 5 - - 150 097 Stiffness Decay - Pitch 4 lines 5 - - 150 098 Stiffness Decay - Pitch 4 lines 5 - - 150 099 Stiffness Decay - Roll 4 lines 5 - - 150 100 Stiffness Decay - Roll 4 lines 5 - - 150 101 Stiffness Decay - Roll 4 lines 5 - - 150 102 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 0.70 40 103 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 2.20 48 104 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 0.85 55 105 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 2.05 115 106 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.00 63 107 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.90 108 108 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.15 70 109 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.75 100 110 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.30 78 111 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.60 93 112 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.45 85 113 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 0.84 47 114 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 2.24 117 115 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 0.98 54 116 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 2.10 110 117 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.12 61 118 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.96 103 119 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.26 68 120 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.82 96 121 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.40 75 122 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.68 89 123 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.54 82 124 Irregular wave 4 lines - 40 0.89 600 125 Irregular wave 4 lines - 160 1.41 600 126 Irregular wave 4 lines - 101 1.27 600 127 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 0.70 40 128 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 2.20 48 129 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 0.85 55 130 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 2.05 115 131 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.00 63 132 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.90 108 133 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.15 70 134 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.75 100 135 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.30 78 136 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.60 93 137 Regular wave 4 lines - 44 1.45 85 138 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 0.84 47 139 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 2.24 117

Marinet2 – DTI-F Scaled model test

140 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 0.98 54 141 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 2.10 110 142 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.12 61 143 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.96 103 144 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.26 68 145 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.82 96 146 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.40 75 147 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.68 89 148 Regular wave 4 lines - 110 1.54 82 149 Irregular wave 4 lines - 40 0.89 600 150 Irregular wave 4 lines - 160 1.41 600 151 Irregular wave 4 lines - 101 1.27 600 152 White noise 3 lines - 44 - 600 153 White noise 3 lines - 88 - 600 154 White noise 3 lines - 110 - 600 155 White noise 3 lines - 144 - 600 156 Line loss 4→3 lines - 101 1.27 300 157 Line loss 3→2 lines - 101 1.27 300