4.7 Article

Hydrodynamic coefficients and pressure loads on heave plates for semi-submersible floating offshore wind turbines: A comparative analysis using large scale models

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 864-881

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2015.04.003

关键词

Heave plates; Floating offshore wind turbine; FOWT; Hydrodynamic damping; Added mass; WADAM

资金

  1. CDTI (center for development the development of industrial technology) through CENIT Program (AZIMUT) [CEN-20101009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrodynamic forces on heave plates for a semi-submersible floating offshore wind turbine are discussed herein. A model of one of the platform columns has been built. This allows for the fitting of either a plain solid plate or the real heave plate prototype design. The latter is equipped with a vertical flap at its edge. The influence of the flap on the hydrodynamic coefficients is investigated through a results comparison with the plain solid one. The model plate diameter is 1 m, thus becoming, to the authors' knowledge, the largest for which results have been published. Results from experiments, in which added mass and damping coefficients have been measured, are presented. This experimental campaign also comprised the direct measurement of dynamic pressures on both heave plates, a fundamental magnitude for the structural design, which, until now, had not been experimentally explored for this type of system. For comparative reasons, numerical simulations were also conducted following common industry standards, both with a wide-spread frequency domain panel method (WADAM) and a RANS CFD commercial code (ANSYS CFX). Finally, results are compared with literature and consistent non-dimensionalizations are sought, with the aim of making these results useful for preliminary design purposes. The authors believe this research could benefit the offshore wind industry by improving the hydrodynamic design of the concept. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据