海浪盆地尺度浮动可再生能源平台响应幅值算子曲线生成方法比较

Deirdre O’Donnell, Jimmy Murphy, V. Pakrashi
{"title":"海浪盆地尺度浮动可再生能源平台响应幅值算子曲线生成方法比较","authors":"Deirdre O’Donnell, Jimmy Murphy, V. Pakrashi","doi":"10.1115/1.4049169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Response amplitude operator (RAO) curves are commonly employed to assess the dynamic behavior of floating offshore structures in the frequency domain. There are multiple methods used to obtain RAOs for numerical models, scaled physical models, and full-scale tests. While for numerical modeling many studies detail the precise methods used, the literature around experimental RAO curves often do not detail them or leave methodological information incomplete. There exists inadequate experimental evidence in assessing the differences in results obtained by following different RAO generation methods from scaled physical testing. This paper addresses this gap by comparing two most popular RAO generation methods: the energy spectra (ES) and the cross spectral auto spectra (CSAS) method. These are experimentally compared on scaled semisubmersible and spar-buoy platforms in an ocean wave basin. Differences of heave and pitch RAOs generated by different methods are investigated. A method for reasonably collating multiple tests to create a representative RAO is also presented. RAO amplitudes vary significantly and how they decay off beyond certain frequencies is dependent on the method adopted to create them. This variation can be a source of significant uncertainty for floating structures for further analysis, design, control, or repair. Some RAOs (e.g., pitch) are sensitive to scaling and should be considered when converting scaled tests to full-scale equivalent. Detailing methods of RAO generation and comparing approaches of developing them can be important for crucial decisions from scaled physical testing of floating structures at design/development stages.","PeriodicalId":327130,"journal":{"name":"ASME Letters in Dynamic Systems and Control","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Response Amplitude Operator Curve Generation Methods for Scaled Floating Renewable Energy Platforms in Ocean Wave Basin\",\"authors\":\"Deirdre O’Donnell, Jimmy Murphy, V. Pakrashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4049169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Response amplitude operator (RAO) curves are commonly employed to assess the dynamic behavior of floating offshore structures in the frequency domain. There are multiple methods used to obtain RAOs for numerical models, scaled physical models, and full-scale tests. While for numerical modeling many studies detail the precise methods used, the literature around experimental RAO curves often do not detail them or leave methodological information incomplete. There exists inadequate experimental evidence in assessing the differences in results obtained by following different RAO generation methods from scaled physical testing. This paper addresses this gap by comparing two most popular RAO generation methods: the energy spectra (ES) and the cross spectral auto spectra (CSAS) method. These are experimentally compared on scaled semisubmersible and spar-buoy platforms in an ocean wave basin. Differences of heave and pitch RAOs generated by different methods are investigated. A method for reasonably collating multiple tests to create a representative RAO is also presented. RAO amplitudes vary significantly and how they decay off beyond certain frequencies is dependent on the method adopted to create them. This variation can be a source of significant uncertainty for floating structures for further analysis, design, control, or repair. Some RAOs (e.g., pitch) are sensitive to scaling and should be considered when converting scaled tests to full-scale equivalent. Detailing methods of RAO generation and comparing approaches of developing them can be important for crucial decisions from scaled physical testing of floating structures at design/development stages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":327130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ASME Letters in Dynamic Systems and Control\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ASME Letters in Dynamic Systems and Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049169\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASME Letters in Dynamic Systems and Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

响应幅值算子(RAO)曲线通常用于评估海上浮式结构的频域动力特性。有多种方法用于获得数值模型、比例物理模型和全尺寸测试的RAOs。虽然对于数值模拟,许多研究详细说明了所使用的精确方法,但围绕实验RAO曲线的文献往往没有详细说明它们或留下不完整的方法信息。目前还没有足够的实验证据来评估不同的RAO生成方法在尺度物理测试中所获得的结果的差异。本文通过比较两种最流行的RAO生成方法:能量谱法(ES)和交叉谱自谱法(CSAS)来弥补这一缺陷。在海浪盆地的半潜式平台和桅杆浮标平台上进行了实验比较。研究了不同方法产生的垂向和俯仰RAOs的差异。提出了一种合理整理多个测试以创建具有代表性的RAO的方法。RAO振幅变化很大,超过一定频率后它们如何衰减取决于所采用的产生它们的方法。这种变化可能是浮式结构进一步分析、设计、控制或维修的重大不确定性的来源。一些rao(例如,螺距)对缩放很敏感,在将缩放测试转换为等效的全尺寸测试时应予以考虑。RAO生成的详细方法和开发方法的比较对于在设计/开发阶段对浮动结构进行规模物理测试的关键决策非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Response Amplitude Operator Curve Generation Methods for Scaled Floating Renewable Energy Platforms in Ocean Wave Basin
Response amplitude operator (RAO) curves are commonly employed to assess the dynamic behavior of floating offshore structures in the frequency domain. There are multiple methods used to obtain RAOs for numerical models, scaled physical models, and full-scale tests. While for numerical modeling many studies detail the precise methods used, the literature around experimental RAO curves often do not detail them or leave methodological information incomplete. There exists inadequate experimental evidence in assessing the differences in results obtained by following different RAO generation methods from scaled physical testing. This paper addresses this gap by comparing two most popular RAO generation methods: the energy spectra (ES) and the cross spectral auto spectra (CSAS) method. These are experimentally compared on scaled semisubmersible and spar-buoy platforms in an ocean wave basin. Differences of heave and pitch RAOs generated by different methods are investigated. A method for reasonably collating multiple tests to create a representative RAO is also presented. RAO amplitudes vary significantly and how they decay off beyond certain frequencies is dependent on the method adopted to create them. This variation can be a source of significant uncertainty for floating structures for further analysis, design, control, or repair. Some RAOs (e.g., pitch) are sensitive to scaling and should be considered when converting scaled tests to full-scale equivalent. Detailing methods of RAO generation and comparing approaches of developing them can be important for crucial decisions from scaled physical testing of floating structures at design/development stages.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Some Results on the Properties of Discrete-Time LTI State-Space Systems Using Constrained Convex Optimization in Parameter Estimation of Process Dynamics with Dead Time Utilisation of Manipulator Redundancy for Torque Reduction During Force Interaction Adaptive Tracking Control of Robotic Manipulator Subjected to Actuator Saturation and Partial Loss of Effectiveness Utilisation of Manipulator Redundancy for Torque Reduction During Force Interaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1