Tim Verbrugghe

Mr. Tim Verbrugghe

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

10Years (2017-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2018 in Coastal Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TVTim Verbrugghe
Tim Verbrugghe
JDJose Domínguez
Jose Domínguez
Alejandro J. C. CrespoAlejandro J. C. Crespo
Alejandro J. C. Crespo
Corrado AltomareCorrado Altomare
Corrado Altomare
VSVicky Stratigaki
Vicky Stratigaki
AKAndreas Kortenhaus
Andreas Kortenhaus

1 July 2019 in Computer Physics Communications
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TVTim Verbrugghe
Tim Verbrugghe
JDJose Domínguez
Jose Domínguez
Corrado AltomareCorrado Altomare
Corrado Altomare
Angelantonio TafuniAngelantonio Tafuni
Angelantonio Tafuni
Renato VacondioRenato Vacondio
Renato Vacondio
AKAndreas Kortenhaus
Andreas Kortenhaus

21 February 2019 in Energies
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TVTim Verbrugghe
Tim Verbrugghe
VSVasiliki Stratigaki
Vasiliki Stratigaki
Corrado AltomareCorrado Altomare
Corrado Altomare
JDJose Domínguez
Jose Domínguez
Peter TrochPeter Troch
Peter Troch
AKAndreas Kortenhaus
Andreas Kortenhaus
A two-way coupling between the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) solver DualSPHysics and the Fully Nonlinear Potential Flow solver OceanWave3D is presented. At the coupling interfaces within the SPH numerical domain, an open boundary formulation is applied. An inlet and outlet zone are filled with buffer particles. At the inlet, horizontal orbital velocities and surface elevations calculated using OceanWave3D are imposed on the buffer particles. At the outlet, horizontal orbital velocities are imposed, but the surface elevation is extrapolated from the fluid domain. Velocity corrections are applied to avoid unwanted reflections in the SPH fluid domain. The SPH surface elevation is coupled back to OceanWave3D, where the originally calculated free surface is overwritten. The coupling methodology is validated using a 2D test case of a floating box. Additionally, a 3D proof of concept is shown where overtopping waves are acting on a heaving cylinder. The two-way coupled model (exchange of information in two directions between the coupled models) has proven to be capable of simulating wave propagation and wave–structure interaction problems with an acceptable accuracy with error values remaining below the smoothing length h S P H .

15 May 2019 in Energies
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MWMinghao Wu
Minghao Wu
VSVasiliki Stratigaki
Vasiliki Stratigaki
Peter TrochPeter Troch
Peter Troch
Corrado AltomareCorrado Altomare
Corrado Altomare
TVTim Verbrugghe
Tim Verbrugghe
Moncho Gómez-GesteiraMoncho Gómez-Gesteira
Moncho Gómez-Gesteira
This paper describes experimental research on a floating moored Oscillating Water Column (OWC)-type Wave-Energy Converter (WEC) carried out in the wave flume of the Coastal Engineering Research Group of Ghent University. This research has been introduced to cover the existing data scarcity and knowledge gaps regarding response of moored floating OWC WECs. The obtained data will be available in the future for the validation of nonlinear numerical models. The experiment focuses on the assessment of the nonlinear motion and mooring-line response of a 1:25 floating moored OWC WEC model to regular waves. The OWC WEC model motion has 6 degrees of freedom and is limited by a symmetrical 4-point mooring system. The model is composed of a chamber with an orifice on top of it to simulate the power-take-off (PTO) system and the associated damping of the motion of the OWC WEC model. In the first place, the motion response in waves of the moored floating OWC WEC model is investigated and the water surface elevation in the OWC WEC chamber is measured. Secondly, two different mooring-line materials (iron chains and nylon ropes) are tested and the corresponding OWC WEC model motions and mooring-line tensions are measured. The performance of these two materials is similar in small-amplitude waves but different in large wave-amplitude conditions. Thirdly, the influence of different PTO conditions is investigated by varying the diameter of the top orifice of the OWC WEC model. The results show that the PTO damping does not affect the OWC WEC motion but has an impact on the water surface elevation inside the OWC chamber. In addition, an unbalanced mooring configuration is discussed. Finally, the obtained data for a moored cubic model in waves are presented, which is a benchmarking case for future validation purposes.

25 October 2017 in Energies
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TVTim Verbrugghe
Tim Verbrugghe
VSVasiliki Stratigaki
Vasiliki Stratigaki
Peter TrochPeter Troch
Peter Troch
RRRaphael Rabussier
Raphael Rabussier
AKAndreas Kortenhaus
Andreas Kortenhaus
Wave Energy Converters (WECs) need to be deployed in large numbers in an array layout in order to have a significant power production. Each WEC has an impact on the incoming wave field, by diffracting, reflecting and radiating waves. Simulating the wave transformations within and around a WEC array is complex; it is difficult, or in some cases impossible, to simulate both these near-field and far-field wake effects using a single numerical model, in a time- and cost-efficient way in terms of computational time and effort. Within this research, a generic coupling methodology is developed to model both near-field and far-field wake effects caused by floating (e.g., WECs, platforms) or fixed offshore structures. The methodology is based on the coupling of a wave-structure interaction solver (Nemoh) and a wave propagation model. In this paper, this methodology is applied to two wave propagation models (OceanWave3D and MILDwave), which are compared to each other in a wide spectrum of tests. Additionally, the Nemoh-OceanWave3D model is validated by comparing it to experimental wave basin data. The methodology proves to be a reliable instrument to model wake effects of WEC arrays; results demonstrate a high degree of agreement between the numerical simulations with relative errors lower than 5 % and to a lesser extent for the experimental data, where errors range from 4 % to 17 % .