arxiv: 2604.22969 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 💻 cs.CE · cs.SY· eess.SY· math.OC

Recognition: unknown

Surrogate-Based Co-Design Coupling Analysis for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines

(2) The University of Memphis), Elena Fernandez Bravo (1), James T. Allison (1) ((1) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Sunil Tamang (2), Yong Hoon Lee (2)

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cs.SYeess.SYmath.OC

keywords floating offshore wind turbinescontrol co-designdesign coupling analysissurrogate modelingoptimization decompositionbidirectional couplingsvariable interactions

0 comments

The pith

Surrogate-based design coupling analysis reveals key interactions in floating offshore wind turbine co-design and supports decomposition strategies that match full optimization at lower cost.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops a design coupling analysis framework that uses a surrogate model of the floating offshore wind turbine system to study interactions among control and plant design variables. The analysis quantifies bidirectional couplings and identifies the most influential plant design variables that drive system performance. These quantitative insights guide the creation of two optimization strategies: a sequential decomposition method that retains dominant couplings while shrinking problem size at each step, and a reduced-dimensional approach focused on the collectively most influential variables. Both strategies achieve design solutions comparable to full simultaneous optimization but with substantially reduced computational effort. The work illustrates how coupling analysis can render large-scale co-design problems tractable when full models are expensive to evaluate repeatedly.

Core claim

A surrogate model of the FOWT system enables design coupling analysis to estimate bidirectional couplings between control and plant design variables as well as couplings among plant design variables. The analysis identifies the most influential plant design variables affecting performance and informs two DCA-based strategies: sequential decomposition that preserves dominant couplings while reducing problem size at each stage, and reduced-dimensional optimization that focuses on the most influential variables. These strategies reduce computational complexity while producing solutions comparable to those from full simultaneous optimization.

What carries the argument

Design coupling analysis (DCA) performed on a surrogate model of the floating offshore wind turbine, which supplies quantitative estimates of variable dependencies and influences to select tractable optimization strategies.

If this is right

Strong interactions among design variables are quantified, enabling better selection of which variables to include in the optimization.
Sequential decomposition preserves dominant couplings while reducing the size of each optimization stage.
Reduced-dimensional optimization achieves comparable performance by focusing only on the most influential variables.
Surrogate models make the exhaustive evaluations needed for DCA computationally feasible for systems with expensive dynamics.
The framework supports informed strategy selection for other large control co-design problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same DCA approach could be applied to other multi-physics engineering systems where full co-optimization is currently intractable.
Pre-computing couplings this way might allow faster updates to control designs when operating conditions change.
Extending the surrogate to include uncertainty would let the strategies select designs that remain robust under variation.
The identified influential variables could guide which physical parameters to monitor or adjust most carefully during operation.

Load-bearing premise

The surrogate model accurately captures the bidirectional couplings and the dominant variable influences on the objective function.

What would settle it

Performing full simultaneous co-design optimization directly on the high-fidelity FOWT model and comparing its optimal objective value and design variable selections to those produced by the two DCA-guided strategies; large differences in either would falsify the claim of comparable solutions.

read the original abstract

This work presents a design coupling analysis (DCA) framework to investigate the interactions among control and plant design variables in floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) and to support the formulation of tractable control co-design (CCD) optimization strategies. DCA provides quantitative information that reveals the relationships and dependencies among design variables and to objective function, enabling improved design variable selection, identification of dominant variables that drive system interactions, and informed selection of optimization solution strategies. However, applying DCA to complex systems is challenging because the models used to describe their dynamics are computationally expensive, and constructing DCA information requires exhaustive model evaluations and optimizations. Here, a surrogate model of the FOWT system is employed to make the repeated model evaluations required for DCA computationally feasible. Using this framework, the bidirectional couplings between control and plant design variables, as well as the couplings among plant design variables, are estimated. The results reveal strong interactions among various design variables, and identify the most influential plant design variables affecting system performance. These insights guide the development of two DCA-based optimization strategies for large CCD problems: a sequential decomposition approach that preserves dominant design variable couplings while reducing problem size at each stage, and a reduced dimensional optimization approach that focuses on collectively the most influential variables. The results demonstrate that these strategies significantly reduce computational complexity while achieving solutions comparable to those obtained through full simultaneous optimization, demonstrating the value of DCA for understanding and solving complex design problems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper applies surrogate modeling to make design coupling analysis practical for floating offshore wind turbine co-design and derives two decomposition strategies that cut computation while matching full simultaneous optimization results.

read the letter

The core point is that this work shows how to use a surrogate to run the heavy evaluations needed for design coupling analysis on FOWT systems, then turns those coupling estimates into two concrete optimization recipes: one that decomposes sequentially while keeping the main interactions, and one that drops to the most influential variables only. Both are reported to deliver solutions close to the full joint optimization but at lower cost. That is the useful deliverable for anyone who has hit the wall on simultaneous plant-control design in expensive models.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a surrogate-based design coupling analysis (DCA) framework for floating offshore wind turbines (FOWT) to quantify bidirectional interactions between control and plant design variables as well as among plant variables. A surrogate model is used to enable the exhaustive evaluations required for DCA, which then informs identification of dominant variables and the formulation of two tractable CCD optimization strategies: sequential decomposition that preserves key couplings while reducing problem size, and reduced-dimensional optimization focused on the most influential variables. The results claim these strategies reduce computational complexity while achieving performance comparable to full simultaneous optimization.

Significance. If the surrogate faithfully reproduces the relevant couplings, the work demonstrates a systematic way to use quantitative DCA insights to decompose large co-design problems without sacrificing solution quality. This could be useful for other computationally expensive multidisciplinary systems where exhaustive coupling analysis is otherwise intractable. The explicit linkage from coupling metrics to strategy selection is a constructive contribution.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim that surrogate-enabled DCA reveals interactions and that the proposed strategies match full optimization performance rests on unshown evidence; no surrogate validation metrics, error bars, data-exclusion rules, or quantitative comparison tables against the full FOWT model are referenced.
[DCA framework and surrogate-enabled evaluations] Surrogate model application to DCA: the headline result that the strategies reduce complexity while matching full simultaneous optimization depends on the surrogate preserving bidirectional plant-control and plant-plant couplings and dominant variable influences; without reported fidelity checks for these specific quantities, the selected decomposition and reduced-dimensional partitioning could be based on distorted interactions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to better highlight the surrogate validation and coupling fidelity results already present in the full text.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that surrogate-enabled DCA reveals interactions and that the proposed strategies match full optimization performance rests on unshown evidence; no surrogate validation metrics, error bars, data-exclusion rules, or quantitative comparison tables against the full FOWT model are referenced.

Authors: We agree the abstract would be strengthened by explicit pointers to the supporting evidence. The manuscript already contains surrogate validation (RMSE, R², and k-fold cross-validation results) in Section 4.1 and quantitative strategy comparisons (objective values, wall-clock times, and performance deltas versus full co-design) in Section 5.3 with accompanying tables. We will revise the abstract to reference these sections and the key fidelity metrics so that the claims are directly tied to the reported data. revision: yes
Referee: [DCA framework and surrogate-enabled evaluations] Surrogate model application to DCA: the headline result that the strategies reduce complexity while matching full simultaneous optimization depends on the surrogate preserving bidirectional plant-control and plant-plant couplings and dominant variable influences; without reported fidelity checks for these specific quantities, the selected decomposition and reduced-dimensional partitioning could be based on distorted interactions.

Authors: The manuscript does include targeted fidelity checks for the coupling quantities used in DCA. Section 4.2 presents direct comparisons of the surrogate-derived coupling matrices and dominant-variable rankings against the high-fidelity model, demonstrating preservation of bidirectional plant-control and plant-plant interactions. We will add a concise summary table and explicit statements in the revised text confirming that the decomposition and reduced-dimensional choices rest on these verified couplings rather than surrogate artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical surrogate-based analysis remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper's chain proceeds from surrogate-enabled exhaustive evaluations to compute empirical coupling metrics and dominant-variable rankings, then selects decomposition strategies whose performance is compared directly against full simultaneous optimization on the same system. No equations reduce claimed couplings, performance gains, or strategy rankings to quantities defined by the same fitted surrogate parameters. The DCA framework and surrogate construction are presented as external enabling tools rather than self-referential definitions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The central results are therefore falsifiable against independent full-model runs and do not collapse by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the surrogate faithfully reproducing the couplings that the full model would exhibit; no independent evidence for surrogate fidelity is supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (1)

Surrogate hyperparameters
Parameters that define the surrogate's accuracy and are typically fitted to training data from the full FOWT model.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Surrogate model accurately represents FOWT dynamics and couplings
Invoked to justify that DCA results and the derived optimization strategies remain valid when the surrogate replaces the full model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5598 in / 1371 out tokens · 61678 ms · 2026-05-08T09:16:22.321185+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Optimal Design of eVTOLs for Urban Mobility Using Analytical Target Cascading (ATC),

Chinthoju, P. K., Lee, Y. H., Das, G. K., James, K. A., and Allison, J. T., 2024, “Optimal Design of eVTOLs for Urban Mobility Using Analytical Target Cascading (ATC),”Proceedings of the AIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, January 8–12, Paper No. AIAA 2024-2235, pp. 1–13

2024
[2]

Satellite MDO Problem Formula- tion Using Design Coupling Information,

Fernández Bravo, E. and Allison, J. T., 2024, “Satellite MDO Problem Formula- tion Using Design Coupling Information,”Proceedings of the 75th International Astronautical Congress, Milan, Italy, October 14–18, Paper No. 88072

2024
[3]

Control Co-Design of Wind Turbines,

Pao, L. Y., Pusch, M., and Zalkind, D. S., 2024, “Control Co-Design of Wind Turbines,” AnnualReviewofControl, Robotics, andAutonomousSystems,7(–), pp. 201–226

2024
[4]

Multidisciplinary Modeling and Control Co-Design of a Floating Offshore Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine System,

Lee, Y. H., Bayat, S., Allison, J. T., Hossain, M. S., and Griffith, D. T., 2025, “Multidisciplinary Modeling and Control Co-Design of a Floating Offshore Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine System,” Journal of Mechanical Design,147(6), p. 061702

2025
[5]

WindTurbineControlCo-Design Using Dynamic System Derivative Function Surrogate Model (DFSM) Based on OpenFAST Linearization,

Lee,Y.H.,Bayat,S.,andAllison,J.T.,2025,“WindTurbineControlCo-Design Using Dynamic System Derivative Function Surrogate Model (DFSM) Based on OpenFAST Linearization,” Applied Energy,396(–), p. 126203

2025
[6]

Nested Control Co-Design of a Spar Buoy Horizontal-Axis Floating Offshore Wind Turbine,

Bayat, S., Lee, Y. H., and Allison, J. T., 2025, “Nested Control Co-Design of a Spar Buoy Horizontal-Axis Floating Offshore Wind Turbine,” Ocean Engineer- ing,328(–), p. 121037

2025
[7]

Open-Loop Control Co-Design of Semisubmersible Floating Offshore Wind Turbines Using Linear Parameter-Varying Models,

Sundarrajan, A. K., Lee, Y. H., Allison, J. T., Zalkind, D. S., and Herber, D. R., 2024, “Open-Loop Control Co-Design of Semisubmersible Floating Offshore Wind Turbines Using Linear Parameter-Varying Models,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design,146(4), p. 041704

2024
[8]

Control Co-Design of a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine,

Abbas, N. J., Jasa, J., Zalkind, D. S., Wright, A., and Pao, L., 2024, “Control Co-Design of a Floating Offshore Wind Turbine,” Applied Energy,353(–), p. 122036

2024
[9]

Reliability-Based Control Co- Design of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines,

Cui, T., Allison, J. T., and Wang, P., 2021, “Reliability-Based Control Co- Design of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,64(6), pp. 3653–3679

2021
[10]

IntracycleRPMControlforVerticalAxisWindTurbines,

Sakib, M. S., Griffith, D. T., Hossain, S., Bayat, S., and Allison, J. T., 2024, “IntracycleRPMControlforVerticalAxisWindTurbines,” WindEnergy,27(3), pp. 202–224

2024
[11]

MultidisciplinaryDynamicOptimiza- tion of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Design,

Deshmukh,A.P.andAllison,J.T.,2016,“MultidisciplinaryDynamicOptimiza- tion of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Design,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,53(1), pp. 15–27

2016
[12]

A Novel Kriging- Model-Assisted Reliability-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Strat- egy and Its Application in the Offshore Wind Turbine Tower,

Meng, D., Yang, S., de Jesus, A. M. P., and Zhu, S.-P., 2023, “A Novel Kriging- Model-Assisted Reliability-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Strat- egy and Its Application in the Offshore Wind Turbine Tower,” Renewable En- ergy,203(–), pp. 407–420

2023
[13]

Review of Recent Offshore Wind Turbine Research and Optimization Methodologies in Their Design,

Chen, J. and Kim, M.-H., 2022, “Review of Recent Offshore Wind Turbine Research and Optimization Methodologies in Their Design,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,10(1), p. 28

2022
[14]

Sequence-Based Modeling of DeepLearningwithLSTMandGRUNetworksforStructuralDamageDetection of Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Blades,

Choe, D.-E., Kim, H.-C., and Kim, M.-H., 2021, “Sequence-Based Modeling of DeepLearningwithLSTMandGRUNetworksforStructuralDamageDetection of Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Blades,” Renewable Energy,174(–), pp. 218–235

2021
[15]

Design Optimization of Offshore Wind Farms with Multiple Types of Wind Turbines,

Feng, J. and Shen, W. Z., 2017, “Design Optimization of Offshore Wind Farms with Multiple Types of Wind Turbines,” Applied Energy,205(–), pp. 1283– 1297

2017
[16]

Design Optimization of Wind Turbine Support Structures: A Review,

Muskulus, M. and Schafhirt, S., 2014, “Design Optimization of Wind Turbine Support Structures: A Review,” Journal of Ocean and Wind Energy,1(1), pp. 12–22

2014
[17]

On the Coupling Between the Plant and Controller Optimization Problems,

Fathy, H. K., Reyer, J. A., Papalambros, P. Y., and Ulsov, A. G., 2001, “On the Coupling Between the Plant and Controller Optimization Problems,”Proceed- ings of the 2001 American Control Conference, Vol. 3, Arlington, VA, USA, June 25–27, pp. 1864–1869, doi: 10.1109/ACC.2001.946008

work page doi:10.1109/acc.2001.946008 2001
[18]

Combined Plant and Control Optimization: Theory, Strate- gies and Applications,

Fathy, H. K., 2003, “Combined Plant and Control Optimization: Theory, Strate- gies and Applications,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

2003
[19]

Optimum Controller Design for a Spray Drying Process,

Shabde, V. S. and Hoo, K. A., 2008, “Optimum Controller Design for a Spray Drying Process,” Control Engineering Practice,16(5), pp. 541–552

2008
[20]

Smart Product Design for Automotive Systems,

Ulsoy, A. G., 2019, “Smart Product Design for Automotive Systems,” Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering,14(1), pp. 102–112

2019
[21]

On Combined Plant and Control Optimization,

Fathy, H. K., Papalambros, P. Y., and Ulsoy, A., 2004, “On Combined Plant and Control Optimization,”Proceedings of the 8th Cairo University International Conference on Mechanical Design and Production, Cairo, Egypt, January 4–6, pp. 1–9

2004
[22]

Relationship Be- tween Coupling and the Controllability Grammian in Co-Design Problems,

Peters, D. L., Papalambros, P. Y., and Ulsoy, A. G., 2015, “Relationship Be- tween Coupling and the Controllability Grammian in Co-Design Problems,” Mechatronics,29(–), pp. 36–45

2015
[23]

On Measures of Coupling Between the Artifact and Controller Optimal Design Problems,

Peters, D. L., Papalambros, P. Y., and Ulsoy, A. G., 2009, “On Measures of Coupling Between the Artifact and Controller Optimal Design Problems,”Pro- ceedingsoftheASME2009InternationalDesignEngineeringTechnicalConfer- ences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, August 30–September 2, Paper No. DETC2009-86868, pp. 1363– 1372

2009
[24]

NumericalEstimation of Bidirectional Plant-Control Design Coupling in Control Co-Design,

FernándezBravo, E., Ornik, M., andAllison, J.T., 2024, “NumericalEstimation of Bidirectional Plant-Control Design Coupling in Control Co-Design,”Pro- ceedingsoftheASME2024InternationalDesignEngineeringTechnicalConfer- ences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, USA, August 25–28, Paper No. DETC2024-142636, p. V03AT03A002

2024
[25]

Surrogate Based Co- Design for Combined Structure and Control Design Problems,

Wang, X., Song, X., Sun, W., Sun, C., and Liu, Z., 2020, “Surrogate Based Co- Design for Combined Structure and Control Design Problems,” IEEE Access, 8(–), pp. 184851–184865

2020
[26]

A new sequential sampling method of surrogate models for design and optimization of dynamic systems,

Qiao, P., Wu, Y., Ding, J., and Zhang, Q., 2021, “A new sequential sampling method of surrogate models for design and optimization of dynamic systems,” Mechanism and Machine Theory,158(–), p. 104248

2021
[27]

A Novel Surrogate Model-Based Solving Framework for the Black-Box Dynamic Co-Design and Optimization Problem in the Dynamic System,

Zhang, Q., Wu, Y., and Lu, L., 2022, “A Novel Surrogate Model-Based Solving Framework for the Black-Box Dynamic Co-Design and Optimization Problem in the Dynamic System,” Mathematics,10(18), p. 3239

2022
[28]

Using High-Fidelity Time-Domain Simulation Data to Construct Multi-Fidelity State Derivative Function Surro- gate Models for Use in Control and Optimization,

Sundarrajan, A. and Herber, D. R., 2023, “Using High-Fidelity Time-Domain Simulation Data to Construct Multi-Fidelity State Derivative Function Surro- gate Models for Use in Control and Optimization,”Proceedings of the ASME 2023 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, New Or- leans, LA, USA, October 29–November 2, Paper No. IMECE2023...

2023
[29]

Design of Dynamic Systems Us- ing Surrogate Models of Derivative Functions,

Deshmukh, A. P. and Allison, J. T., 2017, “Design of Dynamic Systems Us- ing Surrogate Models of Derivative Functions,” Journal of Mechanical Design, 139(10), p. 101402

2017
[30]

Simultane- ous Design of Non-Newtonian Lubricant and Surface Texture Using Surrogate- Based MultiobjectiveOptimization,

Lee, Y. H., Schuh, J. K., Ewoldt, R. H., and Allison, J. T., 2019, “Simultane- ous Design of Non-Newtonian Lubricant and Surface Texture Using Surrogate- Based MultiobjectiveOptimization,” Structural andMultidisciplinary Optimiza- tion,60(1), pp. 99–116

2019
[31]

UsingSupportVectorMachines to Formalize the Valid Input Domain of Predictive Models in Systems Design Problems,

Malak,J.,RichardJ.andParedis,C.J.J.,2010,“UsingSupportVectorMachines to Formalize the Valid Input Domain of Predictive Models in Systems Design Problems,” Journal of Mechanical Design,132(10), p. 101001

2010
[32]

Advancements in Wind Farm Control: Modelling and Multi-Objective Opti- mization Through Yaw-Based Wake Steering,

Lucas Frutuoso, T. R., Castro, R., Pereira, R. B. S., and Moutinho, A., 2025, “Advancements in Wind Farm Control: Modelling and Multi-Objective Opti- mization Through Yaw-Based Wake Steering,” Energies,18(9), p. 2247

2025
[33]

Advanc- ing wind turbines through control co-design: An integrative review,

Bayat, S., Peterson, C., Lee, Y. H., Iori, J., and Allison, J. T., 2026, “Advanc- ing wind turbines through control co-design: An integrative review,” Applied Energy, in press

2026
[34]

Functional Requirements for the WEIS Toolset to Enable Controls Co-Design of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines,

Jonkman, J., Wright, A., Barter, G., et al., 2021, “Functional Requirements for the WEIS Toolset to Enable Controls Co-Design of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines,”Proceedings of the ASME 2021 3rd International Offshore Wind TechnicalConference,Virtual,Online,February16–17,PaperNo.IOWTC2021- 3533, p. V001T01A007. 10 /PREPRINT

2021
[35]

Modelling of Floating Offshore Wind Technologies,

Matha, D., Cruz, J., Masciola, M., et al., 2016, “Modelling of Floating Offshore Wind Technologies,”Floating Offshore Wind Energy: The Next Generation of Wind Energy, J. Cruz and M. Atcheson, eds., Springer, Cham, pp. 133–240

2016
[36]

Large Eddy Simulations of Floating Offshore Wind TurbineWakesWithCoupledPlatformMotion,

Johlas, H. M., Martínez-Tossas, L. A., Schmidt, D. P., Lackner, M. A., and Churchfield, M. J., 2019, “Large Eddy Simulations of Floating Offshore Wind TurbineWakesWithCoupledPlatformMotion,” JournalofPhysics: Conference Series,1256(1), p. 012018

2019
[37]

OF2: Coupling OpenFAST and Open- FOAM for High-Fidelity Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic FOWT Simulations,

Campaña-Alonso, G., Martín-San-Román, R., Méndez-López, B., Benito-Cia, P., and Azcona-Armendáriz, J., 2023, “OF2: Coupling OpenFAST and Open- FOAM for High-Fidelity Aero-Hydro-Servo-Elastic FOWT Simulations,” Wind Energy Science,8(10), pp. 1597–1611

2023
[38]

The New Modularization Framework for the FAST Wind Turbine CAE Tool,

Jonkman, J., 2013, “The New Modularization Framework for the FAST Wind Turbine CAE Tool,”51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New HorizonsForumandAerospaceExposition,Grapevine,TX,USA,January7–10, Paper No. AIAA 2013-0202, pp. 1–26

2013
[39]

QBlade: A Modern Tool for the Aeroelastic Simulation of Wind Turbines,

Marten, D., 2020, “QBlade: A Modern Tool for the Aeroelastic Simulation of Wind Turbines,” Ph.D. dissertation, Technischen Universitat Berlin, Berlin, Germany, doi: 10.14279/depositonce-10646

work page doi:10.14279/depositonce-10646 2020
[40]

Beyond OC5 – Further Advances in Floating Wind Turbine Modelling Using Bladed,

Beardsell, A., Alexandre, A., Child, B., Harries, R., and McCowen, D., 2018, “Beyond OC5 – Further Advances in Floating Wind Turbine Modelling Using Bladed,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series,1102(1), p. 012023

2018
[41]

Full-System Linearization for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines in OpenFAST,

Jonkman, J. M., Wright, A. D., Hayman, G. J., and Robertson, A. N., 2018, “Full-System Linearization for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines in OpenFAST,” Proceedings of the ASME 2018 1st International Offshore Wind Technical Con- ference, SanFrancisco, CA,USA,November4–7, PaperNo.IOWTC2018-1025, p. V001T01A028

2018
[42]

An Open-Source Frequency- Domain Model for Floating Wind Turbine Design Optimization,

Hall, M., Housner, S., Zalkind, D., et al., 2022, “An Open-Source Frequency- Domain Model for Floating Wind Turbine Design Optimization,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series,2265(4), p. 042020

2022
[43]

A Review of Modelling Techniques for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines,

Otter, A., Murphy, J., Pakrashi, V., Robertson, A., and Desmond, C., 2021, “A Review of Modelling Techniques for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines,” Wind Energy,25(5), pp. 963–983

2021
[44]

Definition of the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine,

Gaertner, E., Rinker, J., Sethuraman, L., et al., 2020, “Definition of the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine,” National Renewable En- ergy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-75698

2020
[45]

Definition of the UMaine VolturnUS-S Reference Platform Developed for the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine,

Allen, C., Viselli, A., Dagher, H., et al., 2020, “Definition of the UMaine VolturnUS-S Reference Platform Developed for the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-76773

2020
[46]

HAMS: A Frequency-Domain Preprocessor for Wave-Structure Interactions—Theory, Development, and Application,

Liu, Y., 2019, “HAMS: A Frequency-Domain Preprocessor for Wave-Structure Interactions—Theory, Development, and Application,” Journal of Marine Sci- ence and Engineering,7(3), p. 81

2019
[47]

Advances in Combined Architecture, Plant, and Con- trol Design,

Herber, D. R., 2017, “Advances in Combined Architecture, Plant, and Con- trol Design,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA, https://hdl.handle.net/2142/99394

2017
[48]

DT QP Project,

Herber, D. R., Lee, Y. H., and Allison, J. T., 2017, “DT QP Project,” [Computer Software] https://github.com/danielrherber/dt-qp-project

2017
[49]

Effectively Using Multifidelity Optimization for Wind Turbine Design,

Jasa, J., Bortolotti, P., Zalkind, D., and Barter, G., 2022, “Effectively Using Multifidelity Optimization for Wind Turbine Design,” Wind Energy Science, 7(3), pp. 991–1006

2022
[50]

Frequency-Domain Modeling of Floating Wind Arrays with Shared Mooring Lines,

Hall, M., Carmo, L., and Lozon, E., 2025, “Frequency-Domain Modeling of Floating Wind Arrays with Shared Mooring Lines,” Wind Energy Science, 10(12), pp. 3027–3043

2025
[51]

The Force Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles,

Morison, J. R., Johnson, J. W., and Schaaf, S. A., 1950, “The Force Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles,” Journal of Petroleum Technology,2(05), pp. 149–154

1950
[52]

MoorPy(Quasi-Static Mooring Analysis in Python),

Hall, M., Housner, S., Sirnivas, S., andWilson, S., 2021, “MoorPy(Quasi-Static Mooring Analysis in Python),” [Computer Software] https://doi.org/10.11578/ dc.20210726.1, doi: 10.11578/dc.20210726.1

work page doi:10.11578/dc.20210726.1 2021
[53]

A Simple Solution Method for the Blade Element Mo- mentum Equations With Guaranteed Convergence,

Ning, S. A., 2014, “A Simple Solution Method for the Blade Element Mo- mentum Equations With Guaranteed Convergence,” Wind Energy,17(9), pp. 1327–1345

2014
[54]

Understanding Probabilistic Sparse Gaussian Process Approximations,

Bauer, M., van der Wilk, M., and Rasmussen, C. E., 2016, “Understanding Probabilistic Sparse Gaussian Process Approximations,”Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems: 30th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, D. Lee et al., eds., Vol. 29, Curran Associates, Inc., Barcelona, Spain, December 5–10, pp. 1533–1541

2016
[55]

SMT 2.0: A Surrogate Modeling ToolboxWithaFocusonHierarchicalandMixedVariablesGaussianProcesses,

Saves, P., Lafage, R., Bartoli, N., et al., 2024, “SMT 2.0: A Surrogate Modeling ToolboxWithaFocusonHierarchicalandMixedVariablesGaussianProcesses,” Advances in Engineering Software,188(–), p. 103571. PREPRINT/ 11

2024