Uncertainty in the Physical Testing of Floating Wind Energy Platforms’ Accuracy versus Precision

Desmond, Cian; Hinrichs, Jan-Christoph; Murphy, Jerry D.

doi:10.3390/en12030435

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Desmond et al 133 tested a 1/36 scale model of the SCDnezzy 2 (Figure 9), a semisubmersible FOWT design with two rotors and a single point mooring system, at Lir National Ocean Test Facility (NOTF), Ireland. Two ducted propellers were used to emulate steady wind loads and two stepper motors driving Froude scaled weights were used to emulate gyroscopic loads.…”

Section: Physical Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SCDnezzy 2 model in the basin at Lir NOTF 133 F I G U R E 1 0 Multipropeller actuator, the arrows indicate the thrust direction of the propellers 137 Recently, researchers from CENER have developed a multipropeller actuator with four propellers for multi-DOF emulation with SIL, 140 which was used on a 1/50 scale model of the DeepCwind semisubmersible FOWT for the Marine Renewable Infrastructure Network for Enhancing Technologies 2 (MaRINET2) project at MARIN. 102 The focus of their studies was on the testing of control strategies with the improved SIL for the NREL 5-MW turbine.…”

Section: Hybrid Testing With Propeller Actuatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of modelling techniques for floating offshore wind turbines

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modelling floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs) is challenging due to the strong coupling between the aerodynamics of the turbine and the hydrodynamics of the floating platform. Physical testing at scale is faced with the additional challenge of the scaling mismatch between Froude number and Reynolds number due to working in the two fluid domains, air and water. In the drive for cost-reduction of floating wind energy, designers may be seeking to move towards high-fidelity numerical modelling as a substitute for physical testing. However, the numerical engineering tools typically used for FOWT modelling are considered as mid-fidelity to low-fidelity tools, and currently lack the level of accuracy required to do so. Furthermore, there is a lack of operational FOWT data available for further development and validation.High-fidelity tools, such as CFD, have greater accuracy but are cumbersome tools and still require validation. Physical scale model testing therefore continues to play an essential role in the development of FOWTs both as a source of validation data for numerical models and as an important development step along the path to commercialization of all platform concepts. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of both numerical modelling and physical FOWT scale model testing approaches and to provide guidance on the selection of the most appropriate approach (or combination of approaches). The current state-of-the-art will be discussed along with current research trends and areas for further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Physical Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hybrid Testing With Propeller Actuatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of modelling techniques for floating offshore wind turbines

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During testing, the profiles were fixed on the holding frame (presented in the following section) so that the center of the profile was 530 mm below the water surface. These profiles were examined as a fundamental research exercise in support of the development of the floating wind energy platform discussed in [1].…”

Section: Experimental Design Materials and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drag force as a function of cross section and angle of attack. A hydraulic laboratory dataset for numerical validation

Desmond¹,

Thiebaut²,

Murphy³

2019

Data in Brief

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This data relates to a set of hydraulic laboratory experiments in which the flow around four cross-sections was investigated. Each cross section was examined at four angles of attack (0, 5, 10, 90°), seven velocities (0–0.7 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps) and two flow directions. The data is primarily from an array of load cell which monitored the loading on the cross-sections during testing in six degrees of freedom during testing. Video and photographs are also included.

show abstract

“…The other two metrics used in the paper were the values of the RAOs at six discrete frequency points and the ten highest response maxima for surge, heave, pitch, and mooring tension. In [13], a similar metric was developed for the calculation of uncertainty in irregular waves. In [13], the metric was developed; this is the error range which is exceeded 5% of the time for concurrent time series with five repetitions.…”

Section: Metrics For Uncertainty Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [13], a similar metric was developed for the calculation of uncertainty in irregular waves. In [13], the metric was developed; this is the error range which is exceeded 5% of the time for concurrent time series with five repetitions.…”

Section: Metrics For Uncertainty Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

An experimental investigation into the most prominent sources of uncertainty in wave tank testing of floating offshore wind turbines

Lyden

Judge²,

Gueydon³

et al. 2022

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an urgent need to replace carbon-based energy sources with renewable energy sources, and floating offshore wind is seen as a critical component in the drive towards energy diversification. Floating offshore wind facilitates accessing a far vaster wind resource that exists in deeper waters, further offshore. Floating offshore wind platforms must undergo wave tank testing in the early stages of development to assess model responses to different wave and wind conditions. Wave tank testing, while highly beneficial, is liable to have errors arising throughout the testing campaign. Errors can arise during wave tank setup, testing, and analysis of results. One such error is the error in the inertia and centre of gravity (CoG) of the platform. In this research, testing was completed using two very different floating offshore wind concepts. A sensitivity analysis was completed by varying the model inertia and centre of gravity. It was found that the effects of each variation were magnified at resonance, and the magnitude of platform response was affected to a greater extent than the period of resonance response. Of all the variations to the model properties conducted, the inertia about the y-axis and location of the centre of gravity along the x-axis affected pitch response to the greatest extent.

show abstract

Uncertainty in the Physical Testing of Floating Wind Energy Platforms’ Accuracy versus Precision

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

A review of modelling techniques for floating offshore wind turbines

A review of modelling techniques for floating offshore wind turbines

Drag force as a function of cross section and angle of attack. A hydraulic laboratory dataset for numerical validation

An experimental investigation into the most prominent sources of uncertainty in wave tank testing of floating offshore wind turbines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About