Quantitative metrics for evaluation of wave fields in basins

Collins, Keri; Stripling, Stuart; Simmonds, David; Greaves, Deborah

doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.09.010

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cross waves had already been observed in the basin as reported in Ref. [52]. They occurred when the basin width is a multiple of half wavelength, namely for frequencies 0.38, 0.44, 0.63 and 0.97 Hz [52].…”

Section: Capture Width Ratiomentioning

confidence: 57%

“…[52]. They occurred when the basin width is a multiple of half wavelength, namely for frequencies 0.38, 0.44, 0.63 and 0.97 Hz [52]. Cross waves of frequency 0.63 Hz were visible in the basin free surface for several minutes after the wavemaker shutdown.…”

Section: Capture Width Ratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cross waves of frequency 0.63 Hz were visible in the basin free surface for several minutes after the wavemaker shutdown. Cross waves were also found to occur in irregular waves, but it is difficult to predict their effects on the converter performance [52]. The limited width of the wave tanks makes the occurrence of cross waves difficult to avoid.…”

Section: Capture Width Ratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wave energy converter physical model design and testing: The case of floating oscillating-water-columns

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quest for exploiting the ocean resources and understanding its behaviour has been a challenge with increasing needs for innovation and technology. Model testing is an essential step in offshore renewable energy technology development. It involves challenges that require experience and guidance. Costly mistakes might arise with the subsequent waste of time and resources. This paper presents the model design and testing processes as part of wave energy projects and the results of experimental testing of two types of oscillating-water-column (OWC) wave energy converters (WEC). The model design aims at the creation of a reduced-scale model to simulate the physical phenomena found in full-scale devices. It is a process that requires several skills and an adequate compromise among all variables. This design involves several approaches as different physical phenomena do not follow the same similarity conditions, requiring adjustments in scale, materials, and other relevant properties. Besides, the model testing process comprises the necessary planning and actions to execute the tests and post-processing of data. This process is addressed here through model design and testing of two WECs: the coaxial-duct and the sparbuoy OWCs. The configurations have been designed and studied for large-scale energy production and small-scale power in oceanographic applications. Although the devices are both OWCs, the designs exhibit significant differences. The development process of the models and results are presented for the two OWC devices. Freedecay tests, hydrodynamic performance and mooring tension results are presented and discussed. These may serve as guidelines and numerical modelling validation.

show abstract

Section: Capture Width Ratiomentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Capture Width Ratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Capture Width Ratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wave energy converter physical model design and testing: The case of floating oscillating-water-columns

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the choice between basing the input on incident or total spectra can be device-specific and depend on the directional sensitivity of the WEC (e.g., point absorber vs. attenuator). Accounting for the behaviour of hotspots and reflections is also complicated by the fact that that metrics characterising a sea or facility are not routinely supplied (although such measures are available, e.g., [15]). The reflection coefficient (ratio of reflected to incident wave height) is often provided, but this is a frequency-dependent parameter.…”

Section: Influence Of Experimental Setup and Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Round Robin Testing: Exploring Experimental Uncertainties through a Multifacility Comparison of a Hinged Raft Wave Energy Converter

Davey

Sarmiento

Ohana

et al. 2021

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU H2020 MaRINET2 project has a goal to improve the quality, robustness and accuracy of physical modelling and associated testing practices for the offshore renewable energy sector. To support this aim, a round robin scale physical modelling test programme was conducted to deploy a common wave energy converter at four wave basins operated by MaRINET2 partners. Test campaigns were conducted at each facility to a common specification and test matrix, providing the unique opportunity for intercomparison between facilities and working practices. A nonproprietary hinged raft, with a nominal scale of 1:25, was tested under a set of 12 irregular sea states. This allowed for an assessment of power output, hinge angles, mooring loads, and six-degree-of-freedom motions. The key outcome to be concluded from the results is that the facilities performed consistently, with the majority of variation linked to differences in sea state calibration. A variation of 5–10 % in mean power was typical and was consistent with the variability observed in the measured significant wave heights. The tank depth (which varied from 2–5 m) showed remarkably little influence on the results, although it is noted that these tests used an aerial mooring system with the geometry unaffected by the tank depth. Similar good agreement was seen in the heave, surge, pitch and hinge angle responses. In order to maintain and improve the consistency across laboratories, we make recommendations on characterising and calibrating the tank environment and stress the importance of the device–facility physical interface (the aerial mooring in this case).

show abstract

“…Unwanted 'basin effects' can significantly affect the generated waves, as appreciated by e.g., [8,18,19]. Their significance depends on specific test conditions such as the water depth, wave period or steepness, model scale and the properties of the basin.…”

Section: Aspects Of Basin Wave Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking Experimental and Numerical Wave Modelling

Essen

Scharnke

Bunnik

et al. 2020

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental or numerical analysis of the response of ships and other floating structures starts with correct environmental modelling. The capabilities of numerical tools are rapidly expanding, but presently the evaluation of extreme events in waves (such as slamming, green water, air-gap exceedance) still requires a combination of experiments and different levels of numerical tools. The present paper describes recent efforts within the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) to improve experimental and numerical wave modelling and especially their combination. The ultimate objective is to be able to reproduce any wave condition from a basin or from sea in numerical tools and vice versa, including a sound treatment of basin effects, numerical effects and statistical variability. The aspects that are of importance in both types of wave modelling are first introduced, after which a number of examples of recent projects is discussed. It can be concluded that important steps were made towards linking experimental and numerical wave modelling, but there are some challenges common to all wave reproductions. Some future planned studies focussing on how to deal with them are discussed as well.

show abstract

Quantitative metrics for evaluation of wave fields in basins

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Wave energy converter physical model design and testing: The case of floating oscillating-water-columns

Wave energy converter physical model design and testing: The case of floating oscillating-water-columns

Round Robin Testing: Exploring Experimental Uncertainties through a Multifacility Comparison of a Hinged Raft Wave Energy Converter

Linking Experimental and Numerical Wave Modelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About