Dynamic Load Analysis of Tower Structure of Floating Wind Turbine Under Random Wind and Wave Excitation

Zhao, Shilun

doi:10.1115/1.0005160v

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the SWM, normally the Davenport model is The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1573-6105.htm adopted for the wind power spectrum. According to Lazanha (2003), the most used wind spectra for structural engineering are the Kaimal, von K arm an, Harris and Davenport spectra. Melbourne (1980) proposed a tall building model adopted to calibrate experimental techniques, denominated Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Council (CAARC).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of the dynamic response of a CAARC building by the synthetic wind method and comparison with different approaches

Mattias

Paramo

2022

MMMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper analyzes the effect that is generated in the dynamic response of a Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Council building for different types of power spectra. This article also compares synthetic wind method (SWM) results with wind tunnel tests and other numerical approaches.Design/methodology/approach One of the main methodologies developed in Brazil, the SWM, is employed to determine the dynamic wind loads. The Davenport, Lumley and Panowski, Harris, von Karman and Kaimal model are used in SWM to generate the resonant harmonics. Lateral pressures are calculated by the wind speed deflection profile for 30, 35, 40 and 45 m/s. The structure is processed in Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis with numerical analysis in FEM by the Hilber–Hughes–Taylor method. To corroborate the synthetic wind with experimental results, displacement curves are developed for wind tunnel experimental results, Davenport method, Eurocode and NBR 6123, together with the SWM.Findings Results show that for 30 m/s, the lowest convergence of the power spectra models was presented and that the greatest difference found was below 10%. In addition, it was shown that Eurocode 1-4 can lead to oversizing, while NBR 6123 can lead to undersizing, compared with the experimental results. Finally, results by the Davenport method, wind tunnel test and synthetic wind showed good accuracy.Originality/value By carrying out this comparative analysis, this work presents an important contribution in the field of calculating the dynamic response of tall buildings. Studies with these comparisons to corroborate the SWM had not yet been carried out.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%