# Parametric Analysis of Control Techniques for 15 MW Semi-Submersible Floating Wind Turbine
## 4 Controller Evaluation
### DLC Simulation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Performance [\%]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**DLC 1.2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**DLC 1.6**} \\ \cline{3-10} \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Proposed Control – ROSCO)/ROSCO * 100**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**No. 1**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**No. 2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**No. 3**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**No. 4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**No. 5**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**No. 6**} \\ \hline Power & Mean & Gen. Power & \(-1.38\) & \(-4.40\) & \(-2.69\) & \(-4.95\) & \(-4.06\) & \(0.17\) \\ \cline{2-10} Production & Std.Dev. & Rot. Speed & \(-9.93\) & \(-23.64\) & \(-9.97\) & \(-11.32\) & \(-24.68\) & \(-49.37\) \\ \hline RNA Acc. & Max. & X-Direction & \(4.41\) & \(-17.15\) & \(-22.10\) & \(-4.14\) & \(-15.87\) & \(-8.15\) \\ \hline Platform & Std.Dev. & Pitch & \(-12.94\) & \(-19.76\) & \(-9.69\) & \(-9.31\) & \(-20.28\) & \(-8.23\) \\ \cline{2-10} Motion & Std.Dev. & Yaw & \(-4.56\) & \(-5.95\) & \(-10.18\) & \(-10.83\) & \(-9.10\) & \(-13.50\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Mooring \\ Tension \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{Std.Dev.} & Chain 3 & \(0.27\) & \(-3.45\) & \(-1.28\) & \(-1.29\) & \(-1.22\) & \(0.47\) \\ \cline{2-10} Mooring & Std.Dev. & Wire 4 & \(-12.35\) & \(-29.25\) & \(-36.34\) & \(-11.18\) & \(-28.82\) & \(-2.73\) \\ \cline{2-10}  & & Wire 5 & \(-7.21\) & \(-27.34\) & \(-38.75\) & \(-8.63\) & \(-27.80\) & \(1.73\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Fatigue \\ Load \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{DEL} & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Blade My \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(-12.34\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(-17.61\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(-17.48\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(-17.73\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} \(-23.38\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} \(-14.43\) \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-10}  & & Tower My & \(-2.45\) & \(-15.7\) & \(-8.61\) & \(-0.25\) & \(-6.30\) & \(-2.47\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Quantitative comparison of the DLC simulation results for the whole control algorithm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**DLC**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Wind**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Wave**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Current**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **[m/s]** & **Hs [m]** & **Tp [s]** & **Duration [min]** & **Gamma [-]** & **[m/s]** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1.2} & 1 & 9.0 & 1.50 & 8.00 & 60.0 & 1.00 & 0.00 \\  & 2 & 11.0 & 1.75 & 8.25 & 60.0 & 1.00 & 0.00 \\  & 3 & 13.0 & 2.00 & 8.25 & 60.0 & 1.00 & 0.00 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1.6} & 4 & 11.0 & 10.72 & 14.08 & 180.0 & 2.50 & 0.00 \\  & 5 & 11.0 & 4.50 & 9.00 & 180.0 & 2.50 & 0.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6 & 25.0 & 10.72 & 14.08 & 180.0 & 2.50 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Design load cases for the dynamic simulation of the target FOWT. shaving. However, due to the combined load and motion reduction effects, it is found that the RNA acceleration and mooring line tensions were also mitigated by up to 22% and 38%, respectively.