Infrastructure Access Report - MaRINET2€¦ · Infrastructure Access Report Infrastructure: ... (i.e. the device on the environment and vice versa) ... (absorbed/pneumatic power-converted/electrical

Infrastructure Access Report

Infrastructure: CNR-INSEAN Wave Tank

User-Project: VIHYDRO

VIOLENT SLAMMING IMPULSIVE HYDRODYNAMIC LOADING ON JACKET FOUNDATIONS OF OFFSHORE

WIND TURBINES (Stage 1)

National Technical University of Athens - NTUA

Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network

Status: Final Version: 01 Date: 29-Mar-2015

EC FP7 “Capacities” Specific Programme Research Infrastructure Action

Infrastructure Access Report: VIHYDRO

Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 2 of 19

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, 29-Mar-2015 Page 3 of 19

DOCUMENT INFORMATION Title VIOLENT SLAMMING IMPULSIVE HYDRODYNAMIC LOADING ON JACKET FOUNDATIONS

OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES (Stage 1)

Distribution Public

Document Reference MARINET-TA1-VIHYDRO

User-Group Leader, Lead Author

Ioannis K. Chatjigeorgiou National Technical University of Athens 9 Heroon Polytechniou Ave, 15773 Zografos Campus, Athens, Greece, Tel. +30 210 772 1105, email: [email protected]

User-Group Members, Contributing Authors

Alexander Korobkin University of East Anglia Bernard Molin Ecole Centrale Marseille Eva Loukogeorgaki Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Infrastructure Accessed: CNR-INSEAN Wave Tank

Infrastructure Manager (or Main Contact)

Dr. Francesco Salvatore

REVISION HISTORY Rev. Date Description Prepared by

(Name) Approved By Infrastructure

Manager

Status (Draft/Final)

01 29/3/15 Final I C F S Final

mailto:[email protected]


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 4 of 19

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, 29-Mar-2015 Page 5 of 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the VIHYDRO project was to take measurements for the hydrodynamic loading exerted on a jacket structure properly scaled to represent (in full scale) the foundation of an offshore wind turbine. The full scale structure was assumed to be installed in water depth ranging between 50-60m whilst the height of the jacket structure (in full scale) was set to 90m. The (steel) model was constructed based on the scaling factor that is explicitly determined by the depth of CNR-INSEAN Wave Tank (3.5m) The jacket was designed and constructed as triangular which is considered to be more efficient from the economically point of view. The main purpose was to have the structure experiencing the action of violent slamming loading. As the controlled generation of breaking waves (in which we would be able to predefine the profile at the time of impact and to know explicitly the impact velocity) is almost impossible, it was decided to have the jacket platform subjected to focusing waves. In addition, several cases of regular waves were tested exhausting the basin’s capabilities that reach 40cm wave height. For the focusing waves in particular, several wave packages were defined and simulated numerically before being imported in the wave maker software. The spectrum that was assumed for the generation of the focusing waves was a special case of the JONSWAP spectrum, known as the Ricker Spectrum. The focusing distance was around 100m. The measurements taken during the campaign will be used to test numerical methods that exceed the usual practice of the Morison’s formula, e.g. assuming the structure as permeable having large open area coefficients.

The model of the jacket foundation An artistic view of the model


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 6 of 19

CONTENTS

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

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

2 OUTLINE OF WORK CARRIED OUT .................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 SETUP ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 TESTS ................................................................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 2.2.1 Test Plan ........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3 MAIN LEARNING OUTCOMES ...................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 PROGRESS MADE .............................................................................................................................................. 18 3.1.1 Progress Made: For This User-Group or Technology ................................................................................. 18 3.1.2 Progress Made: For Marine Renewable Energy Industry .......................................................................... 18

3.2 KEY LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................................................................................... 18

4 FURTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 WEBSITE & SOCIAL MEDIA .................................................................................................................................. 18

5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

6 APPENDICES ............................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

6.1 STAGE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY TABLE .................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 6.2 ANY OTHER APPENDICES ....................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 7 of 19

1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION Sample text…

1.2 DEVELOPMENT SO FAR

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 (DofF) 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

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


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 8 of 19

STAGE GATE CRITERIA Status

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

1.2.2 Plan For This Access The main objectives of the project is to calculate the loading on jacket-type structures subjected to violent impulsive hydrodynamic loading. The majority of the numerical tests that have been identified concern focusing waves with two target heights, those of 30cm and 40cm. In addition several regular wave tests have been planned, all included in the basin’s envelope. The focusing wave tests are repeatable meaning that several tests cases were re-run. Impulsive hydrodynamic loading is a severe condition (arises mainly due to breaking or steep waves) when the structure is subjected during a very small time interval to violent slamming. In the present campaign the breaking waves were simulated by focusing waves. The measurements will be used to validate advanced theoretical models for predicting the associated hydrodynamic loading


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 9 of 19

2 OUTLINE OF WORK CARRIED OUT

2.1 SETUP

2.1.1 The model The model was constructed by assembling (welding) tubular members (see photo in the executive summary). The model has a triangular shape with five pairs of cross tubes on each side. The scaling factor is not explicitly fixed as the specific structure (in full scale) can be installed in various water depths. A rational scaling factor can be assumed to 1/18. Each side of the equilateral triangle at the bottom part of the model is 1.75m which implies that in full scale the structure would occupy 430m2 on the bottom. The diameter of the vertical tubes (the skeleton elements) are 21cm and the diameter of the connecting cross tubes are around 12cm. The model was installed vertically to the dynamometer of the carriage and hanged in this position.

At each trial three measurements for the impact force were taken (apart from the measurements on the wave elevation): in the bow, in the middle and the stern. The model was oriented towards the wave maker as shown the figure above. The orientation of the model ensured the worst case of loading.

2.1.2 Test cases The trials concerned regular and focusing waves. The regular waves are identified by the wave amplitude and the wave frequency (given in the sequel by the wave steepness kA). The focusing waves are identified by the wave amplitude (which for the case of the spectrum can be regarded as the significant height) and the peak period. The spectrum employed for the focusing waves was that of Ricker. In the following we provide separately the test matrices for the regular and the focusing waves.


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 10 of 19

Test no Fr (Hz) A (cm) kA

RW1 0.3 12.5 0.05

RW2 0.35 15 0.07

RW3 0.4 12.5 0.08

RW4 0.4 15 0.10

RW5 0.4 17.5 0.11

RW6 0.4 20 0.13

RW7 0.45 17.5 0.14

RW8 0.45 20 0.16

RW9 0.5 12.5 0.13

RW10 0.5 15 0.15

RW11 0.5 17.5 0.18

RW12 0.5 20 0.20

RW13 0.55 17.5 0.21

RW14 0.55 20 0.24

RW15 0.6 12.5 0.18

RW16 0.6 15 0.22

RW17 0.6 20 0.29

RW18 0.65 15 0.25

RW19 0.65 17.5 0.30

RW20 0.7 12.5 0.25

Table 2.1 Test matrix for the regular waves (the test no code is different that the coding provided by the facility)

Test no Fr (Hz) A (cm) Peak Period (s)

WP1 0.35 30 0.5985

WP2 0.35 30 0.5985

WP3 0.35 30 0.5985

WP4 0.35 30 0.5985

WP5 0.35 30 0.5985

WP6 0.35 30 0.5985

WP7 0.35 30 0.5985

WP8 0.35 40 0.5985

WP9 0.35 40 0.5985

WP10 0.35 40 0.5985

WP11 0.35 40 0.5985

WP12 0.35 40 0.5985

WP13 0.35 40 0.5985

WP14 0.35 40 0.5985

WP15 0.4 30 0.4485

WP16 0.4 30 0.4485

WP17 0.4 40 0.4485

WP18 0.4 40 0.4485

WP19 0.45 30 0.4485

WP20 0.45 30 0.4485

WP21 0.45 30 0.4485

WP22 0.45 30 0.4485


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 11 of 19

WP23 0.45 30 0.4485

WP24 0.45 30 0.4485

WP25 0.45 30 0.4485

WP26 0.45 40 0.4485

WP27 0.45 40 0.4485

WP28 0.45 40 0.4485

WP29 0.45 40 0.4485

WP30 0.45 40 0.4485

WP31 0.45 40 0.4485

WP32 0.45 40 0.4485

WP33 0.5 30 0.2285

WP34 0.5 30 0.2285

WP35 0.5 40 0.2285

WP36 0.5 40 0.2285

WP37 0.55 30 0.2285

WP38 0.55 30 0.2285

WP39 0.55 40 0.2285

WP40 0.55 40 0.2285

WP41 0.6 30 0.2285

WP42 0.6 30 0.2285

WP43 0.6 40 0.2285

WP44 0.6 40 0.2285

Table 2.2 Test matrix for the wave packets (the test no code is different that the coding provided by the facility)


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 12 of 19

2.2 RESULTS In the following we provide drawing of the time histories for selected cases of the wave packages. The figures include the signals of force and the signals of the wave elevation as given by the two probes. The cases considered are listed in Table 2.3 in which the Wave Packet No corresponds to the code number of the basin. Table 2.3 also provides the characteristics of the spectrum to produce the focusing wave. The details of each case provided are given in the captions of the figures. It is noted that the regular wave cases are under processing. The measurements will be subjected to exhaustive processing to yield reliable conclusions.

Table 2.3 Focusing wave tests (the wave packet no corresponds to the coding provided by the facility)

Figure 1: Time variation of Fx and η for wave case F1

Wave Case NoWave Packet No

(data numbering)Atarget (m) Fr (Hz)

F1 30 0.35

F2 28 0.4

F3 29 0.45

F4 25 0.5

F5 26 0.55

F6 27 0.6

F7 36 0.35

F8 34 0.4

F9 35 0.45

F10 31 0.5

F11 32 0.55

F12 33 0.6

0.3

0.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 13 of 19




0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 14 of 19




0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 15 of 19




0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 16 of 19



Figure 13: Variation of Fx amplitude (Fx

max –Fxmin) as a function of Fr

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (s)

F x (KN)

-

(m)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

time (s)

F x (KN)

- (m

)

F

x

probe1

probe2

0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Fr (Hz)

Fxam

p (

kN

)

A

target=0.3m

Atarget

=0.4m


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 17 of 19

Figure 14: Variation of Fx

max and Fxmin as a function of Fr

Figure 15: Fx

amp and corresponding duration for all examined focusing wave cases

0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Fr (Hz)

Fxm

ax a

nd F

xmin

(K

N)

Fxmax A

target=0.3m

Fxmax A

target=0.4m

Fxmin A

target=0.3m

Fxmin A

target=0.4m

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F120

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Case No

Fxam

p (

kN

) -

Dura

tion (

s)

F

xamp

Duration


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 18 of 19

3 MAIN LEARNING OUTCOMES

3.1 PROGRESS MADE This is one important step towards the investigation of the reliable performance of jacket foundations for offshore wind turbines. These types of supports are expected to dominate in mid-deep waters where the wind potential is higher. Important issues that require addressing are related with more complicated structures, e.g. more elastic tubes at the area of impact above the free surface. Another concept that also need to be investigated is the behaviour of the soil when the structure is subjected to violent slamming or heavy hydrodynamic loading.

3.1.1 Progress Made: For This User-Group or Technology This user group has now available experimental measurements for further elaboration and post-processing. The user group has now the ability to validate its theoretical and numerical models. The experiments and the detailed analysis of the videos taken will allow better understanding of the phenomenon of slamming in truss-type structures. It is noted that the implementation of such type of experiments and in particular in such large scaling is not feasible in Greece.

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

It is the intention of the group to continue the tests. To this end a new project was submitted to Marinet requesting funding. In this project it is proposed to use elastic supports to simulate the behaviour of the soil and to estimate the motions of the structure when subjected to hydrodynamic loading (breaking/steep/regular waves).

3.1.2 Progress Made: For Marine Renewable Energy Industry The structure constructed in the content of this campaign resembles the usual type of jacket foundations for offshore wind turbines. The dimensions used are the typical dimensions for this type of structures. Some novelty was the fact that the model is triangular contrary to the majority of the jacket foundations which are square. Less steel means more economy and since it was observed (at least visually) that the motions of the structure subjected to wave of >7m (in full scale) are insignificant it can be deduced that triangular foundations are very promising.

3.2 KEY LESSONS LEARNED The first conclusion that could be drawn, even in this preliminary stage of the analysis of the results is that the loading exerted on the structure cab be tolerated by it. No significant motions were observed although the orientation of the jacket ensured the worst loading condition. The focusing waves were selected as an alternative to breaking waves. In real conditions, these structures are expected to be subjected to breaking waves with high impact velocity. One could say that focusing waves is a “light” replacement of the real breaking waves. Nevertheless, the generation of breaking waves with controlled characteristics, shape at the time of impact, velocity and in addition estimation of the pressure developed in the cavity is an important issue.

4 FURTHER INFORMATION

4.1 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS The intention of the group is to publish the results of the experimental campaign as soon as possible. The first publication shall include only the experimental results. Other conference and journal publications will follow showing comparisons with numerical models.

4.2 WEBSITE & SOCIAL MEDIA Website:


Rev. 01, 29-Mar-2015 Page 19 of 19

YouTube Link(s): LinkedIn/Twitter/Facebook Links: Online Photographs Link:

Documents

Infrastructure Access Report - MaRINET2€¦ · Infrastructure Access Report Infrastructure: ... (i.e. the device on the environment and vice versa) ... (absorbed/pneumatic power-converted/electrical