2021
DOI: 10.3390/jmse9030345
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Response of Point-Absorbing Wave Energy Conversion System in 50-Years Return Period Extreme Focused Waves

Abstract: This work evaluates the survivability of a point-absorbing wave energy converter at sea states along and inside the 50-year environmental contour for a selected-site in North Sea, by utilizing CFD simulations. Focused wave groups based on NewWave theory are used to model the extreme waves. The numerical breaking waves have been previously predicted by the analytical breaking criterion, showing that the latter provides an accurate estimate for the breaking state. The forces on key components of the device and t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, simply using phase-alignment to obtain the largest possible wave peak from a given spectra will not necessarily lead to the largest response. This is consistent with previous research into constrained SDWs for alternative applications and devices (Taylor et al, 1997;Hann et al, 2018), but NW remains a popular approach for assessing survivability of floating ORE devices (Ransley et al, 2017;Katsidoniotaki et al, 2021). If NW produces unreliable results (i.e., not extreme events), however, then alternative methods should be developed and used as standard practice.…”
Section: Hinge-anglesupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Therefore, simply using phase-alignment to obtain the largest possible wave peak from a given spectra will not necessarily lead to the largest response. This is consistent with previous research into constrained SDWs for alternative applications and devices (Taylor et al, 1997;Hann et al, 2018), but NW remains a popular approach for assessing survivability of floating ORE devices (Ransley et al, 2017;Katsidoniotaki et al, 2021). If NW produces unreliable results (i.e., not extreme events), however, then alternative methods should be developed and used as standard practice.…”
Section: Hinge-anglesupporting
confidence: 85%
“…In OpenFOAM simulations, to produce the target irregular wave episode (e.g., analytical) at a specific location in the numerical wave tank (e.g., where the monopile foundation will be placed), we follow a wave calibration procedure 67 . Figure 4 shows the schematic depiction of the wave calibration, which is similar to the one presented in Windt et al 68 and previously has been applied by previous studies 69,70 …”
Section: High‐fidelity Cfd Modelingmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…67 Figure 4 shows the schematic depiction of the wave calibration, which is similar to the one presented in Windt et al 68 and previously has been applied by previous studies. 69,70 The target wave episode and the numerical wave obtained from the last iteration are compared through their density wave spectrum. Figure 5 compares four representative wave episodes.…”
Section: Numerical Wave Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dimensions of the numerical wave tank are 3λ × 100 m × 2d m (L × W × H); the length parametric changes with the wave length, λ, and the height is a function of water depth, d. To avoid the wave reflections, the wave tank's length downstream of the buoy and the width are determined based on the sensitivity study presented by the authors [27]. The buoy is placed 1λ from the inlet boundary, providing enough space for the wave to propagate.…”
Section: Cfd Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The higher resolution region close to the water surface extended 2H below and above the water level, is used to properly capture the wave propagation, avoiding the excessive damping. The spatial discretization is equal to 17 CPH (cells per wave height) following the mesh convergence study presented in [27], preserving the spatial discretization error <0.6%. In the area close and around the buoy, the mesh is even more refined so that the hydrodynamic forces and the turbulence phenomena are well-captured.…”
Section: Cfd Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%