Ocean Energy Systems Wave Energy Modelling Task: Modelling, Verification and Validation of Wave Energy Converters: Modelling, verification and validation ofwave energy converters

Fabian Wendt, Kim Nielsen, Yi-Hsiang Yu, Harry Bingham, Claes Eskilsson, Morten Kramer, Aurelien Babarit, Tim Bunnik, Ronan Costello, Sarah Crowley, Bengamin Gendron, Giuseppe Giorgi, Samuel Girardin, Devorah Greaves, Pilar Heras, Johan Hoffman, Hafizul Islam, Ken-Robert Jakobsen, Carl-Erik Janson, Johan JanssonHyun Yul Kim, Adi Kurniawan, Massimiliano Leoni, Thomas Mathai, Bo-Woo Nam, Sewan Park, Krishnakumar Rajagopalan, Edward Ransley, Robert Read, John V. Ringwood, Jose Miguel Rodrigues, Benjamin Rosenthal, Andre Roy, Kelley Ruehl, Paul Schofield, Wanan Sheng, Abolfazl Shiri, Sarah Thomas, Imanol Touzon, Imai Yasutaka, Simone Giorgi, Jeong-Seok Kim, Kyong-Hwan Kim, Benjamin Gendron, Deborah Greaves, Paul Schofield

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The International Energy Agency Technology Collaboration Programme for Ocean Energy Systems (OES) initiated the OES Wave Energy Conversion Modelling Task, which focused on the verification and validation of numerical models for simulating wave energy converters (WECs). The long-term goal is to assess the accuracy of and establish confidence in the use of numerical models used in design as well as power performance assessment of WECs. To establish this confidence, the authors used different existing computational modelling tools to simulate given tasks to identify uncertainties related to simulation methodologies: (i) linear potential flow methods; (ii) weakly nonlinear Froude–Krylov methods; and (iii) fully nonlinear methods (fully nonlinear potential flow and Navier–Stokes models). This article summarizes the code-to-code task and code-to-experiment task that have been performed so far in this project, with a focus on investigating the impact of different levels of nonlinearities in the numerical models. Two different WECs were studied and simulated. The first was a heaving semi-submerged sphere, where free-decay tests and both regular and irregular wave cases were investigated in a code-to-code comparison. The second case was a heaving float corresponding to a physical model tested in a wave tank. We considered radiation, diffraction, and regular wave cases and compared quantities, such as the WEC motion, power output and hydrodynamic loading.
Original languageEnglish
Article number379
Pages (from-to)379
Number of pages1
JournalJournal of Marine Science and Engineering
Volume7
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • Wave energy
  • Numerical modelling
  • Simulation
  • Boundary element method
  • Computational fluid dynamics

Project and Funding Information

  • Funding Info
  • The Danish partners acknowledge the support from the Danish Energy Agency through project 374 64017-05197. The Swedish partners were supported by the Swedish Energy Agency under Grants P44423-1 and 375 P44432-1. J.V.R. and G.G. acknowledge the support by Science Foundation Ireland under Grant 13/IA/1886. This research was made possible by support from U.S. the Department of Energy’s EERE Water Power Technologies Office. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-mission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. This work was authored (in part) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Offi

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ocean Energy Systems Wave Energy Modelling Task: Modelling, Verification and Validation of Wave Energy Converters: Modelling, verification and validation ofwave energy converters'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this