A comparison study of a generic coupling methodology for modeling wake effects of Wave Energy Converter arrays
Verbrugghe, T.; Stratigaki, V.; Troch, P.; Rabussier, R.; Kortenhaus, A. (2017). A comparison study of a generic coupling methodology for modeling wake effects of Wave Energy Converter arrays. Energies (Basel) 10(11): 1697. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10111697 In: Energies (Basel). Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI): Basel. ISSN 1996-1073; e-ISSN 1996-1073, more |   |
| Keyword | | | Author keywords | numerical modeling; coupling; wave energy; wave propagation;wave-structure interaction; wave basin experiments; WECwakes project |
| Authors | | Top | | - Rabussier, R.
- Kortenhaus, A., more
| |
| Abstract | Wave Energy Converters (WECs) need to be deployed in large numbers in an array layout in order to have a significant power production. Each WEC has an impact on the incoming wave field, by diffracting, reflecting and radiating waves. Simulating the wave transformations within and around a WEC array is complex; it is difficult, or in some cases impossible, to simulate both these near-field and far-field wake effects using a single numerical model, in a time-and cost-efficient way in terms of computational time and effort. Within this research, a generic coupling methodology is developed to model both near-field and far-field wake effects caused by floating (e.g., WECs, platforms) or fixed offshore structures. The methodology is based on the coupling of a wave-structure interaction solver (Nemoh) and a wave propagation model. In this paper, this methodology is applied to two wave propagation models (OceanWave3D and MILDwave), which are compared to each other in a wide spectrum of tests. Additionally, the Nemoh-OceanWave3D model is validated by comparing it to experimental wave basin data. The methodology proves to be a reliable instrument to model wake effects of WEC arrays; results demonstrate a high degree of agreement between the numerical simulations with relative errors lower than 5% and to a lesser extent for the experimental data, where errors range from 4% to 17%. |
|
