CFD code comparison, verification and validation for decay tests of a FOWT semi-submersible floater
Abstract
With the advancement of high-performance computation capabilities in recent years, high-fidelity modelling tools such as computational fluid dynamics are becoming increasingly popular in the offshore renewable sector. To justify the credibility of the numerical simulations, thorough verification and validation is essential. In this work, preparatory heave decay tests for a freely floating single cylinder are modelled. Subsequently, the surge and sway decays of a linearly moored floating offshore wind turbine model of the OC4 (Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration Continuation) phase II semi-submersible platform are simulated. Two different viscous-flow CFD codes are used: OpenFOAM (open-source), and ReFRESCO (community-based open-usage). Their results are compared against each other and with water tank experiments.
For the single-cylinder decay simulations, it is found that the natural period is accurately modelled compared to the experimental results. Regarding the damping, both CFD codes are overly dissipative. Differences and their potential explanations become apparent in the analysis of the flow field data. Meanwhile, large numerical uncertainties especially in later oscillations make a distinct
conclusion difficult. For the OC4 semi-submersible decay simulations, a better agreement in damping can be achieved, however discrepancies in results are observed when restricting the degrees of freedom of the platform. Flow field data again reveals differences between the CFD codes. Meanwhile, through the effort to use similar numerical settings and quantify the numerical uncertainties of the CFD simulations, this work represents a stepping stone towards fairer and more accurate comparison between CFD and experimental results.
Link to PDF
Keywords
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) · Floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) · OC4 · Decay test · Verification
and validation
Authors
Manuel Rentschler1,2 · Pranav Chandramouli3,4 · Guilherme Vaz1,2,5 · Axelle Viré3 · Rodolfo T. Gonçalves6
Received: 22 May 2022 / Accepted: 13 August 2022
© The Author(s) 2022