Infrastructure Access Report - MaRINET2€¦ · Infrastructure Access Report: PreConTurb Rev. 01,...

Infrastructure Access Report

Infrastructure: TECNALIA Electrical PTO Lab

User-Project: PreConTurb

Model Predictive Control of the OWC Spar-buoy Wave Energy Converter Equipped with the Biradial Turbine

IDMEC/IST and Kymaner

Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network

Status: Final Version: 01 Date: 01-Sep-2015

EC FP7 “Capacities” Specific Programme Research Infrastructure Action

Infrastructure Access Report: PreConTurb

Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

ABOUT MARINET MARINET (Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network for emerging Energy Technologies) is an EC-funded network of research centres and organisations that are working together to accelerate the development of marine renewable energy - wave, tidal & offshore-wind. The initiative is funded through the EC's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and runs for four years until 2015. The network of 29 partners with 42 specialist marine research facilities is spread across 11 EU countries and 1 International Cooperation Partner Country (Brazil). MARINET offers periods of free-of-charge access to test facilities at a range of world-class research centres. Companies and research groups can avail of this Transnational Access (TA) to test devices at any scale in areas such as wave energy, tidal energy, offshore-wind energy and environmental data or to conduct tests on cross-cutting areas such as power take-off systems, grid integration, materials or moorings. In total, over 700 weeks of access is available to an estimated 300 projects and 800 external users, with at least four calls for access applications over the 4-year initiative. MARINET partners are also working to implement common standards for testing in order to streamline the development process, conducting research to improve testing capabilities across the network, providing training at various facilities in the network in order to enhance personnel expertise and organising industry networking events in order to facilitate partnerships and knowledge exchange. The aim of the initiative is to streamline the capabilities of test infrastructures in order to enhance their impact and accelerate the commercialisation of marine renewable energy. See www.fp7-marinet.eu for more details.

Partners

Ireland University College Cork, HMRC (UCC_HMRC)

Coordinator

Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI_OEDU)

Denmark Aalborg Universitet (AAU)

Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (RISOE)

France Ecole Centrale de Nantes (ECN)

Institut Français de Recherche Pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER)

United Kingdom National Renewable Energy Centre Ltd. (NAREC)

The University of Exeter (UNEXE)

European Marine Energy Centre Ltd. (EMEC)

University of Strathclyde (UNI_STRATH)

The University of Edinburgh (UEDIN)

Queen’s University Belfast (QUB)

Plymouth University(PU)

Spain Ente Vasco de la Energía (EVE)

Tecnalia Research & Innovation Foundation (TECNALIA)

Belgium 1-Tech (1_TECH)

Netherlands Stichting Tidal Testing Centre (TTC)

Stichting Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECNeth)

Germany Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V (Fh_IWES)

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover (LUH)

Universitaet Stuttgart (USTUTT)

Portugal Wave Energy Centre – Centro de Energia das Ondas (WavEC)

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze (UNIFI-CRIACIV)

Università degli Studi di Firenze (UNIFI-PIN)

Università degli Studi della Tuscia (UNI_TUS)

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR-INSEAN)

Brazil Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas do Estado de São Paulo S.A. (IPT)

Norway Sintef Energi AS (SINTEF)

Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet (NTNU)

http://www.fp7-marinet.eu/


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

DOCUMENT INFORMATION Title Model Predictive Control of the OWC Spar-buoy Wave Energy Converter

Equipped with the Biradial Turbine

Distribution Public

Document Reference MARINET-TA1-PreConTurb

User-Group Leader, Lead Author

Luís Gato IDMEC/Instituto Superior Técnico Av. Rovisco Pais 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

User-Group Members, Contributing Authors

Antonio Falcão IDMEC/Instituto Superior Técnico João Henriques IDMEC/Instituto Superior Técnico Rui Gomes IDMEC/Instituto Superior Técnico José Varandas Kymaner

Infrastructure Accessed: TECNALIA Electrical PTO Lab

Infrastructure Manager (or Main Contact)

François-Xavier Faÿ

REVISION HISTORY Rev. Date Description Prepared by

(Name) Approved By Infrastructure

Manager

Status (Draft/Final)

1 14-Sep-2015 João Henriques Final


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

ABOUT THIS REPORT One of the requirements of the EC in enabling a user group to benefit from free-of-charge access to an infrastructure is that the user group must be entitled to disseminate the foreground (information and results) that they have generated under the project in order to progress the state-of-the-art of the sector. Notwithstanding this, the EC also state that dissemination activities shall be compatible with the protection of intellectual property rights, confidentiality obligations and the legitimate interests of the owner(s) of the foreground. The aim of this report is therefore to meet the first requirement of publicly disseminating the knowledge generated through this MARINET infrastructure access project in an accessible format in order to:

progress the state-of-the-art

publicise resulting progress made for the technology/industry

provide evidence of progress made along the Structured Development Plan

provide due diligence material for potential future investment and financing

share lessons learned

avoid potential future replication by others

provide opportunities for future collaboration

etc. In some cases, the user group may wish to protect some of this information which they deem commercially sensitive, and so may choose to present results in a normalised (non-dimensional) format or withhold certain design data – this is acceptable and allowed for in the second requirement outlined above.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work described in this publication has received support from MARINET, a European Community - Research Infrastructure Action under the FP7 “Capacities” Specific Programme.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER The views expressed, and responsibility for the content of this publication, lie solely with the authors. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. This work may rely on data from sources external to the MARINET project Consortium. Members of the Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data. The information in this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and neither the European Commission nor any member of the MARINET Consortium is liable for any use that may be made of the information.


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The OWC spar-buoy is an axisymmetric floating version of an oscillating-water-column (OWC) based device whose power take-off (PTO) system is an air turbine/generator set. Latching in conjunction with optimal control has been regarded as one of the most promising techniques to improve the efficiency of wave energy converters. In the case of the OWC spar-buoy, latching control is performed by opening/closing a high-speed stop valve (HSSV) installed in series with the turbine. Additionally, the HSSV can be used to control or dissipate any excess of energy available to the power take-off (PTO) system that may occur in medium to high energy sea states. The present work has four main objectives:

assess the performance improvements that can be achieved with a latching control strategy within a receding horizon framework.

establish the practical requirements of this type of control by evaluating the sensitivity of the turbine power output to several receding horizon time intervals.

to control the pneumatic power available to the turbine through the HSSV to allow the power plant to operate in high energy sea states.

test and validate experimentally the proposed algorithms in the Tecnalia test rig.

All the experimental tests were performed considering irregular wave conditions. The results show that the proposed control algorithm greatly improves the extracted mean power and limits the peak-to-average power ratio.


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 7

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 DEVELOPMENT SO FAR ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.1 Stage Gate Progress ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.2 Plan For This Access ..................................................................................................................... 10

2 OUTLINE OF WORK CARRIED OUT ................................................................................................. 10

2.1 SETUP ................................................................................................................................................ 10 2.2 TESTS ................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Test Plan....................................................................................................................................... 11

2.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 12 2.4 ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 13

3 MAIN LEARNING OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................... 14

3.1 PROGRESS MADE ................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Progress Made: For This User-Group or Technology ................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Progress Made: For Marine Renewable Energy Industry ............................................................ 14

3.2 KEY LESSONS LEARNED .......................................................................................................................... 14

4 FURTHER INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 15

4.1 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.2 WEBSITE & SOCIAL MEDIA .................................................................................................................... 15

5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 15

6 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 15

6.1 STAGE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY TABLE .................................................................................................. 15 6.2 SUMMARY TABLE OF THE PERFORMED TESTS ............................................................................................ 17


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION The OWC spar-buoy wave energy converter consists of a submerged vertical tube rigidly connected to a floater whose upper part forms an air chamber, see Fig. 1 a). The incident waves excite the floater resulting in a relative motion between the device and the free surface of the water column inside the tube. This relative motion produces a low speed reciprocating air-flow that drives a self-rectifying air turbine mounted on the top of the buoy, see Fig. 1 b). Besides its inherent simplicity, probably the greatest advantage of OWC based WECs is the ability to control or dissipate any excess of energy available to the power take-off (PTO) system that may occur in medium to high energy sea states. This can be performed by controlling a relief valve or a high-speed stop valve. The IDMEC/IST wave energy group have already performed a series of tests within the FP7-MARINET Programme, see [1,2]. The objectives of those tests were the control of the pneumatic power available to the turbine through the use of a relief valve using a closed loop-control, see Fig. 1. The present tests are about real-time optimal control of a high-speed stop valve (HSSV) installed in series with the turbine. The proposed control algorithm greatly improves the extracted mean power and limits the peak-to-average power ratio.

Figure 1 – a) The IDMEC/IST OWC spar buoy geometry (not to scale). The device is equipped with a biradial turbine, a latching valve in series with the turbine and a relief valve in parallel with the turbine. The latching valve is shown in the closed position. b) The

biradial turbine rotor and stator. c) Schematic representation of biradial turbine: cross section showing the axially sliding cylindrical latching valve.


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

1.2 DEVELOPMENT SO FAR

The IDMEC/IST OWC spar buoy wave energy converter concept has already completed several important development stages, namely:

• A numerical hydrodynamic optimization model based on linear potential theory has been developed to obtain the buoy geometry.

• Tests at a 1/120 scale were carried out at IST small wave flume, allowing a preliminary validation of the concept.

• Tests at a 1/35 scale have been carried out at the University of Porto wave tank.

• A 1/16 scale model of the buoy was built and tested at NAREC’s large scale wave flume within the framework of the FP7-MARINET programme

• The novel biradial self-rectifying air turbine has been designed, patented and experimentally tested at a 1/4 scale at the IST turbomachinery test rig.

• Closed-loop control of the turbine/generator set under highly energetic sea-state conditions through the use of a relief valve. The control was implemented and validated experimentally in the Tecnalia Electrical PTO Lab. test rig within the framework of the FP7-MARINET programme.

• A 1/32 scale model of an array of three buoys was built and tested at the wave tank of the COAST Lab. – University of Plymouth - within the framework of the FP7-MARINET programme. It was also investigated the behaviour of the array and a single buoy in extreme wave conditions.

1.2.1 Stage Gate Progress Previously completed: Planned for this project:

STAGE GATE CRITERIA Status

Stage 1 – Concept Validation

Linear monochromatic waves to validate or calibrate numerical models of the system (25 – 100 waves)

Finite monochromatic waves to include higher order effects (25 –100 waves)

Hull(s) sea worthiness in real seas (scaled duration at 3 hours)

Restricted degrees of freedom (DoF) if required by the early mathematical models

Provide the empirical hydrodynamic co-efficient associated with the device (for mathematical modelling tuning)

Investigate physical process governing device response. May not be well defined theoretically or numerically solvable

Real seaway productivity (scaled duration at 20-30 minutes)

Initially 2-D (flume) test programme

Short crested seas need only be run at this early stage if the devices anticipated performance would be significantly affected by them

Evidence of the device seaworthiness

Initial indication of the full system load regimes


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

STAGE GATE CRITERIA Status Stage 2 – Design Validation

Accurately simulated PTO characteristics

Performance in real seaways (long and short crested)

Survival loading and extreme motion behaviour.

Active damping control (may be deferred to Stage 3)

Device design changes and modifications

Mooring arrangements and effects on motion

Data for proposed PTO design and bench testing (Stage 3)

Engineering Design (Prototype), feasibility and costing

Site Review for Stage 3 and Stage 4 deployments

Over topping rates

Stage 3 – Sub-Systems Validation

To investigate physical properties not well scaled & validate performance figures

To employ a realistic/actual PTO and generating system & develop control strategies

To qualify environmental factors (i.e. the device on the environment and vice versa) e.g. marine growth, corrosion, windage and current drag

To validate electrical supply quality and power electronic requirements.

To quantify survival conditions, mooring behaviour and hull seaworthiness

Manufacturing, deployment, recovery and O&M (component reliability)

Project planning and management, including licensing, certification, insurance etc.

Stage 4 – Solo Device Validation

Hull seaworthiness and survival strategies

Mooring and cable connection issues, including failure modes

PTO performance and reliability

Component and assembly longevity

Electricity supply quality (absorbed/pneumatic power-converted/electrical power)

Application in local wave climate conditions

Project management, manufacturing, deployment, recovery, etc

Service, maintenance and operational experience [O&M]

Accepted EIA

Stage 5 – Multi-Device Demonstration

Economic Feasibility/Profitability

Multiple units performance

Device array interactions

Power supply interaction & quality

Environmental impact issues

Full technical and economic due diligence

Compliance of all operations with existing legal requirements


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

1.2.2 Plan For This Access The present work has four main objectives:

assess the performance improvements that can be achieved with a latching control strategy within a receding horizon framework.

establish the practical requirements of this type of control by evaluating the sensitivity of the turbine power output to several receding horizon time intervals.

to control the pneumatic power available to the turbine through the HSSV to allow the power plant to operate in high energy sea states.

test and validate experimentally the proposed algorithms in the Tecnalia test rig. The work was divided in three tasks:

1. Implementation and validation of the optimal control of the HSSV within a receding horizon framework. The numerical model includes the buoy hydrodynamics, the turbine aerodynamics, the air chamber compressibility and the turbine/generator set dynamics.

2. The real-time implementation of the numerical model to the used in the test rig. This was the most demanding task due to the computational requirements to be meet for real-time computing.

3. Tests at the Tecnalia Electrical PTO Lab test rig with the hardware-in-the-loop configuration.

2 OUTLINE OF WORK CARRIED OUT

2.1 SETUP The Tecnalia test rig is represented schematically in Fig. 2. The idea behind the tests is to simulate the turbine via a motor where the supplied torque is computed in real-time as function of the instantaneous sea state conditions. The motor and the generator are coupled through a shaft where a flywheel was mounted to increase inertia. The motor is controlled by a frequency converter. The generator is connected to an isolated grid with 400 V through a back-to-back power converter. The power converter controls the generator electromagnetic torque using an analogue signal supplied by the computer where the simulations run. A PLC controls the system start-up and shut-down and monitors any failure. The test rig losses are nearly constant and equal to 3.08 Nm. A constant compensation torque is added to the motor to cancel the losses. The rotational speed is measured directly in the computer using the signal of the encoder attached to the motor shaft.

Figure 2 – Overview of the configuration used by the IDMEC/IST group at the Electrical PTO Lab test rig. Team


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

The setup used in the present tests only differ from the previous tests in the control of the generator, see [1,2]. In the previous tests, the generator control law was programmed in the PLC. In the present tests, the generator control law was implemented in the computer that simulates the system dynamics. This allows a better synchronization of the overall system. The implemented generator control law is of the type

𝑃gen = 𝑎Ω𝑏 ,

where Ω is the rotational speed of the turbine/generator set. Further details about the setup can be found in [1,2]. To implement optimal control in a real-time hardware-in-the-loop configuration to be tested at a PTO test rig we need a fast algorithm. Optimal control for WECs requires the knowledge for diffraction force for the considered time interval. A wave prediction of several minutes is not possible to achieve with the current forecasting models. A realisable control algorithm can only be implemented considering a short-term prediction horizon for the diffraction force. In the present implementation, a receding horizon framework was adopted for the optimal control problem based on the Pontriagyn Maximum Principle (PMP) [3]. Let us define the receding horizon time interval as 𝑇𝑅𝐻 = 𝑚 Δ𝑡 where 𝑚 is a positive integer. In each time step, 𝑡𝑛, we apply the PMP to compute the HSSV state within the receding horizon, [𝑡𝑛 , 𝑡𝑛 + 𝑇RH]. Instead of performing several iterations to achieve the optimal solution, we use the solution obtained in the previous time step as the initial condition of the present computations, see arrows in Fig. 3. At the end of each time step 𝑡𝑛, point 𝑛 has performed 𝑚 iterations and point 𝑛 + 𝑚 has only performed one iteration.

/

Figure 3 – Receding horizon control.

2.2 TESTS

2.2.1 Test Plan The test plan comprised two parts. The first part concerned the optimal latching control in low to medium energy sea states. The second part aimed to control the power plant under high energy sea states. The simple control of the available power to the PTO system is a unique and important feature of this type of WECs. For this purpose, constraints to the maximum values of the following states were imposed in the control algorithm: turbine power, generator power, generator torque and rotational speed. This allowed the operation of the PTO system within the safety limits. Probably this was the most important result obtained during the project. This control can also applied for reducing the generator rated power and thus increasing the generator load and the wave-to-wire efficiency.


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

Only irregular sea states were considered in the presented tests. The sea states were described by a Pierson-Moskowitz energy density distribution [4]. The duration of each test and time step at prototype scale was 2400 s and 0.1 s, respectively. The tables presented in section 6.2 summarize all the tests performed in the two parts.

2.3 RESULTS For first part, a set of two significant wave heights, 𝐻𝑠 = 2 m and 4 m, and four energy periods, 𝑇𝑒 =

8, 10, 12 and 16 s, were tested. The adopted OWC spar-buoy diameter was 𝐷 = 12 m. The installed inertia of the motor/generator and flywheel in the test rig was 1.2 kg m2 and the value considered for the prototype scale was 200 kg m2. Figure 4 plots the results for the dimensionless capture

𝐿𝑐∗ =

𝑃turb

𝑃wave D,

and the relative dimensionless capture width

𝜀𝑐∗ =

𝐿c∗ − 𝐿c

∗ |NL

𝐿c∗ |NL

,

as function of the energy period, 𝑇𝑒, and for the two considered significant wave heights. NL denotes the case without latching. Here, 𝑃wave = 490.261 𝐻𝑠

2 𝑇𝑒 is the wave power flux per unit of wave-crest length of a Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum. Results plotted in Fig. 4 clearly show that a large performance improvement can be achieved with latching control even with a receding horizon as small as 𝑇RH = 10 s, in comparison with the no latching, NL. Comparing the presented cases, the 𝐿𝑐

∗ curve for 𝑇RH = 10 s is roughly in the middle of the plotted curves corresponding to cases 𝑇RH = 24 s and NL. The same behaviour was found for the case with 𝑇RH = 16 s in relation to cases 𝑇RH = 24 s and 𝑇RH = 10 s. Although the relative capture width 𝜀𝑐

∗ is larger for spectra with higher energy periods, the absolute power for later cases is relatively small. For a significant wave

height 𝐻𝑠 = 2 m, the 10 s receding horizon achieves a 50% increase of the relative capture width. In the

same conditions, only 30% efficiency gains are obtained for 𝐻𝑠 = 4 m. This should be associated with the compressibility effects in the air chamber and the efficiency curve of the turbine.

Figure 4 – Dimensionless capture width and relative dimensionless capture width, as function of the spectra energy period, for

several receding horizon intervals. a) Spectra with 𝐻𝑠 = 2 m and b) Spectra with 𝐻𝑠 = 4 m.Team


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

Two typical sets of exceedance curves of the generator power under high energy sea states are plotted in Fig. 5:

Set A – tests 83 to 86;

Set B – tests 79 to 82. The turbine maximum allowed power is the same for sets. The two sets differ only by the generator rated power. Ratio between the rated powers is

(𝑃genrated)

𝐴

(𝑃genrated)

𝐵

= 0.5 .

In both sets, decreasing the receding horizon time interval decreases the averaged generator power. Comparing both sets, it is clearly seen that the generator load is higher for the second set (larger area bellow each curves).

Figure 5 – Exceedance curves for the generator power. a) Test cases 83 to 86 and b) test cases 79 to 82. The results were obtained for a sea state with 𝐻𝑠 = 6 m and 𝑇𝑒 = 8 s. The generator power ratio between all cases is half of the rated power used without

constraints.

2.4 ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS An optimal latching control strategy of the OWC spar-buoy was implemented and tested experimentally using a hardware-in-the-loop configuration. As expected, it was found that latching based on a receding horizon control greatly increases the turbine power output. The main drawback of the optimal control is the wave prediction requirement within the prescribed receding horizon. From the presented results, we can establish the receding horizon time requirements. To achieve a capture width increase of at least 50%, for sea states with a significant wave height of 2 m, a receding horizon of about 10 s should be used. Larger receding horizon time intervals increase further the capture width. However, receding horizons larger than 16 s are probably very difficult to be implemented in a real application. Latching increases both the mean and the variance of the turbine power output. As a result, this strategy requires a larger electrical generator that will work more time under partial load thus decreasing its average efficiency and mean output power. To overcome this issue, it was also implement an optimal control strategy that limits the maximum values of turbine power, generator power, generator torque and generator rotational speed without decreasing significantly the extracted mean power. As a result, the proposed algorithm can operate the power plant with a lower generator rated power by increasing the generator mean load.


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

3 MAIN LEARNING OUTCOMES

3.1 PROGRESS MADE

3.1.1 Progress Made: For This User-Group or Technology The most important results for the group was the validation of an optimal control strategy with constraints applied to the operation of the turbine and generator. The proposed control algorithm greatly improves the extracted mean power and limits the peak-to-average power ratio. This results brings a new possibility to reduce the PTO costs and increase the overall system efficiency.

3.1.1.1 Next Steps for Research or Staged Development Plan – Exit/Change & Retest/Proceed?

The next step of the research is to build a biradial turbine with a HSSV installed to test the proposed algorithms in a fixed OWC power plant. The prediction of the diffraction force could be perform by installing a pressure sensor upwave of the OWC entrance.

3.1.2 Progress Made: For Marine Renewable Energy Industry

3.2 KEY LESSONS LEARNED

The receding horizon optimal latching algorithm was implemented using the Pontriagyn Maximum Principle (PMP). The direct computation of the optimal solution without using the PMP was computationally too expensive to be implemented in real-time.

As expected, significant efficiency improvement can be achieved by using optimal latching control in an OWC spar-buoy.

For latching control, the receding horizon time interval should be between 10 to 24 s. The power gains obtained with a smaller time interval does not justify the increased complexity. A greater time interval should be very difficult to meet in practice due to prediction of the diffraction force.

The results demonstrated that the HSSV can be used for latching and for controlling the available power to the turbine and generator.

It was possible to greatly decrease the generator rated power when using the optimal control algorithm that limits turbine power, generator power, generator torque and generator rotational speed without decreasing significantly the extracted mean power. As a result, the proposed algorithm was able to increase the generator mean load.

Presented results show that in some events the algorithm opens and closes the HSSV intermittently during short periods (less than 1 second). This behaviour must be addressed in the future.

The simple control of the available power to the PTO system is probably one of the greatest advantages of the OWC technology.


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

4 FURTHER INFORMATION

4.1 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS J.C.C. Henriques, L.M.C. Gato, A.F.O. Falcão, E. Robles, F.-X. Faÿ, 2015, Optimal latching control for

an OWC spar-buoy wave energy converter. Submitted for publication.

J.C.C. Henriques, L.M.C. Gato, A.F.O. Falcão, J.M. Lemos, R.P.F. Gomes, 2015, Optimal latching and peak-power control toward grid integration of a floating OWC wave energy converter. In preparation.

4.2 WEBSITE & SOCIAL MEDIA Official facebook page of the IDMEC/IST wave energy group: https://www.facebook.com/IST.waves

5 REFERENCES [1] J.C.C. Henriques, R.P.F. Gomes, 2014, SPOWCON Infrastructure Access Report. Available at:

http://www.fp7-marinet.eu/public/docs/SPOWCON_Tecnalia_Infrastructure_Access_Report.pdf [2] J.C.C. Henriques, R.P.F. Gomes, L.M.C. Gato, A.F.O. Falcão, E. Robles, S. Ceballos, 2016, Testing and

control of a power take-off system for an oscillating-water-column wave energy converter, Renewable Energy, Volume 85, pp. 714-724, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.015.

[3] D. G. Luenberger, Introduction to dynamic systems : theory, models, and applications, J. Wiley & Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, 1979.

[4] L. H. Holthuijsen, Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

6 APPENDICES

6.1 STAGE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY TABLE The table following offers an overview of the test programmes recommended by IEA-OES for each Technology Readiness Level. This is only offered as a guide and is in no way extensive of the full test programme that should be committed to at each TRL.

https://www.facebook.com/IST.waves

http://www.fp7-marinet.eu/public/docs/SPOWCON_Tecnalia_Infrastructure_Access_Report.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.015


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

6.2 SUMMARY TABLE OF THE PERFORMED TESTS

Test Inertia

Number Te Hs I_p GAIN RH NA NI

1 12 4 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 10/3/15

2 12 4 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 10/3/15

3 12 4 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 1 1 11/3/15

4 12 4 200 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 11/3/15

5 12 2 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 11/3/15

6 12 2 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 11/3/15

7 12 2 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 2 1 11/3/15

8 12 2 200 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 11/3/15

9 10 4 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 11/3/15

10 10 4 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 11/3/15

11 10 4 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 2 1 11/3/15

12 10 4 200 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 11/3/15

13 10 2 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 11/3/15

14 10 2 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 11/3/15

15 10 2 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 2 1 11/3/15

16 10 2 200 4.7 0.5 0 2 2 1 11/3/15

17 8 4 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 11/3/15

18 8 4 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 12/3/15

19 8 4 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 2 1 12/3/15

20 8 4 200 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 12/3/15

21 8 2 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 12/3/15

22 8 2 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 12/3/15

23 8 2 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 2 1 12/3/15

24 8 2 200 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 12/3/15

25 16 4 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 12/3/15

26 16 4 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 12/3/15

27 16 4 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 2 1 12/3/15

28 16 4 200 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 12/3/15

29 16 2 200 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 12/3/15

30 16 2 200 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 12/3/15

31 16 2 200 4.7 0.5 24 2 2 1 12/3/15

32 16 2 200 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 12/3/15

33 8 4 600 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 12/3/15

34 8 4 600 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 12/3/15

35 8 4 600 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 12/3/15

36 10 4 600 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 12/3/15

37 10 4 600 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 12/3/15

38 10 4 600 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 13/3/15

39 12 4 600 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 13/3/15

40 12 4 600 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 13/3/15

41 12 4 600 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 13/3/15

42 16 4 600 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 13/3/15

43 16 4 600 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 13/3/15

44 16 4 600 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 13/3/15

45 8 4 1000 4.7 0.5 10 2 2 1 13/3/15

46 8 4 1000 4.7 0.5 16 2 2 1 13/3/15

47 8 4 1000 4.7 0.5 0 - - 1 13/3/15

48 8 4 200 3.1348 0.5 10 2 2 1 13/3/15

49 8 4 600 3.1348 0.5 10 2 2 1 13/3/15

Test set 1 - Normal Operation

Power/Rated

Power

Wave spectrumScale

Control parametersDate


Rev. 01, 01-Sep-2015 of 18

Test Inertia

Number Te Hs I_p GAIN RH NA NI

50 8 4 600 3.1348 10 2 2 1.00 18/5/15

51 8 4 200 3.1348 10 2 2 1.00 18/5/15

52 8 4 200 3.1348 10 2 2 1.00 20/5/15

53 8 6 200 3.1348 10 2 2 1.00 20/5/15

54 10 6 200 3.1348 10 2 2 1.00 20/5/15

55 12 6 200 3.1348 10 2 2 1.00 20/5/15

56 16 6 200 3.1348 10 2 2 1.00 20/5/15

57 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 20/5/15

58 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

59 10 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

60 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

61 12 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

62 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

63 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

64 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

65 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

66 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 21/5/15

67 8 6 200 2.5716 16 2 2 0.50 21/5/15

68 8 6 200 2.5716 16 2 2 0.50 21/5/15

69 8 6 200 2.4411 16 2 2 0.42 22/5/15

70 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.50 22/5/15

71 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.50 22/5/15

72 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.67 22/5/15

73 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.83 22/5/15

74 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.50 22/5/15

75 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.67 22/5/15

76 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.83 22/5/15

77 8 6 600 3.1348 16 2 2 0.50 22/5/15

78 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 0.50 22/5/15

79 8 6 200 2.5716 16 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

80 8 6 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

81 8 6 200 2.5716 4 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

82 8 6 200 2.5716 2 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

83 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

84 8 6 200 3.1348 8 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

85 8 6 200 3.1348 4 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

86 8 6 200 3.1348 2 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

87 8 6 200 3.1348 16 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

88 8 6 200 3.1348 8 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

89 8 6 600 2.5716 16 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

90 8 6 600 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

91 9.84 4.75 600 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

92 9.84 4.75 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

93 9.84 4.75 600 3.1348 8 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

94 9.84 4.75 200 3.1348 8 2 2 1.00 25/5/15

95 11.8 3.29 600 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

96 11.8 3.29 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

97 10 6 600 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

98 10 6 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

99 12 6 600 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

100 12 6 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 25/5/15

101 16 6 600 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 27/5/15

102 16 6 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 27/5/15

103 8 6 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 27/5/15

104 8 6 600 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 27/5/15

105 8 4 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 28/5/15

106 10 4 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 29/5/15

107 8 4 200 2.1096 8 2 2 0.25 30/5/15

105B 8 4 200 2.1096 8 2 2 0.25 30/5/15

105C 8 6 200 2.5716 8 2 2 0.50 27/5/15

105D 8 6 200 2.1096 8 2 2 0.25 30/5/15

105D 8 6 200 2.1096 8 2 2 0.25 30/5/15

Test set 2 - Extreme Conditions

Wave spectrumScale

Control parametersDate

Power/Rated

Power

Infrastructure Access Report - MaRINET2€¦ · Infrastructure Access Report: PreConTurb Rev. 01,...

Documents

Transcript of Infrastructure Access Report - MaRINET2€¦ · Infrastructure Access Report: PreConTurb Rev. 01,...