Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/22698
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChatzimarkou, Eirinaios-
dc.contributor.authorMichailides, Constantine-
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-15T05:51:39Z-
dc.date.available2021-06-15T05:51:39Z-
dc.date.issued2021-04-01-
dc.identifier.citationWater, 2021, vol. 13, no. 7, articl. no. 924en_US
dc.identifier.issn20734441-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/22698-
dc.description.abstractIn the present paper, a comparative study of different cylindrical and conical substructures was performed under breaking wave loading with the open-source Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) package OpenFoam capable of the development of a numerical wave tank (NWT) with the use of Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations, the k-ω Shear Stress Transport (k-ω SST) turbulence model, and the volume of fluid (VOF) method. The validity of the NWT was verified with relevant experimental data. Then, through the application of the present numerical model, the distributions of dynamic pressure and velocity in the x-direction around the circumference of different cylindrical and conical substructures were examined. The results showed that the velocity and dynamic pressure distribution did not change significantly with the increase in the substructure’s diameter near the wave breaking height, although the incident wave conditions were similar. Another important aspect of the study was whether the hydrodynamic loading or the dynamic pressure distribution of a conical substructure would improve or deteriorate under the influence of breaking wave loading compared to a cylindrical one. It was concluded that the primary wave load in a conical substructure increased by 62.57% compared to the numerical results of a cylindrical substructure. In addition, the secondary load’s magnitude in the conical substructure was 3.39 times higher and the primary-to-secondary load ratio was double compared to a cylindrical substructure. These findings demonstrate that the conical substructure’s performance will deteriorate under breaking wave loading compared to a cylindrical one, and it is not recommended to use this type of substructure.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofWateren_US
dc.rights© by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attributionen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectBreaking wavesen_US
dc.subjectk-ω SST turbulence modelen_US
dc.subjectOffshore wind turbine substructuresen_US
dc.titleA Comparative Study of Breaking Wave Loads on Cylindrical and Conical Substructuresen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.subject.categoryCivil Engineeringen_US
dc.journalsOpen Accessen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.subject.fieldEngineering and Technologyen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/w13070924en_US
dc.relation.issue7en_US
dc.relation.volume13en_US
cut.common.academicyear2020-2021en_US
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.journal.journalissn2073-4441-
crisitem.journal.publisherMDPI-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Civil Engineering and Geomatics-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Engineering and Technology-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-2016-9079-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Engineering and Technology-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
water-13-00924-v2.pdfFulltext11.51 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
checked on Nov 9, 2023

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

2
Last Week
0
Last month
0
checked on Oct 29, 2023

Page view(s)

267
Last Week
1
Last month
7
checked on May 9, 2024

Download(s)

174
checked on May 9, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons