High fidelity CFD models comparison to potential flow method in the simulation of full scale floating platform under free decay tests
The use of simulation models based on potential flow is widespread in the wind industry for the simulation of floating wind turbines. However, these analytical models have shortcomings in correctly representing the behavior of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (FOWTs) under extreme wind and wave condi...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Pública de Navarra |
| Repositorio: | Academica-e. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Pública de Navarra |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:academica-e.unavarra.es:2454/54076 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2454/54076 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | CFD FOWT Lattice Boltzmann OpenFOAM XFlow HydroDyn |
| Sumario: | The use of simulation models based on potential flow is widespread in the wind industry for the simulation of floating wind turbines. However, these analytical models have shortcomings in correctly representing the behavior of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (FOWTs) under extreme wind and wave conditions. High fidelity Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations aim to develop models where the fluid-structure interaction is more accurately modeled, allowing to correctly predict the behavior of wind turbines and thus to redesign structural components and save costs. In this paper, two different CFD simulation models are developed and compared, including different turbulence models (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES)), numerical methodologies (Navier-Stokes and Lattice-Boltzmann method) and mooring models (Quasi-Static and Dynamic). Different free decay Load Cases (LC) are performed in XFlow and OpenFOAM, and the damping ratio and natural period of the system are analyzed with different mooring arrangements (Multi-Point Mooring (MPM) and Single-Point Mooring (SPM)), comparing all results with respect to a potential flow model (HydroDyn). A maximum error of 3.3 % in natural period and 1.6 % error in damping factor is obtained, small enough to validate the results of CFD models. Vorticity is also analyzed to understand the differences between both CFD models. Finally, the stress of the mooring lines is computed, which allows validating the mooring system model implemented in XFlow by means of external functions. |
|---|