4.7 Article

Hydrodynamic optimization of an axisymmetric floating oscillating water column for wave energy conversion

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 328-339

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.105

关键词

Wave energy; Hydrodynamic optimization using a boundary element method; Floating oscillating water column; Two-body heaving point absorber

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through LAETA
  2. MIT-Portugal [SFRH/BD/35295/2007]
  3. Ciencia 2007 initiative
  4. [PTDC/EME-MFE/111763/2009]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/EME-MFE/111763/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the geometry optimization of a floating oscillating water column (OWC). The device consists of a floater pierced by a small thickness tube open at the bottom to the sea water and at the top to the OWC chamber. The dimensions of the floater and tube are optimized in order to maximize the wave energy extraction under certain geometric constraints. The formulation considers linear water wave theory. A boundary element method code is used to calculate the hydrodynamic coefficients. The floater and the water column are assumed to oscillate only in heave. The top of the water column is modeled as a piston. The compressibility effect of the air inside the chamber is accounted for. A Wells turbine with a linear characteristic curve is considered as a power take-off system. The system is modeled in the frequency domain, assuming two degrees of freedom. The power extraction from real sea waves is simulated through a stochastic model, using an energy spectrum and the wave climate conditions off the western coast of Portugal. The dimensions of the floating OWC are optimized using two distinct optimization algorithms. Results have shown that the diameter of the floater, the submerged length and the air chamber height have a large impact on the annual average power extraction. (C) 2012 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