See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338262625

Comparative Study of Effect of Wind and Wave Load on Floating PV:

Computational Simulation and Design Method

Article  in  Journal of the Korean Society of Manufacturing Process Engineers · November 2019

DOI: 10.14775/ksmpe.2019.18.11.009

CITATIONS READS

4 108

4 authors, including:

Gyu-Han Lee Seo Ji Hyun Seo

Kangwon National University GS E&C
5 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hojin Ha
Kangwon National University
79 PUBLICATIONS   931 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gyu-Han Lee on 04 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 한국기계가공학회지, 제18권, 제11호, pp.9～17(2019.11) ISSN 1598-6721(Print)
Journal of the Korean Society of Manufacturing Process Engineers, Vol. 18, No. 11, pp.9~17(2019.11) ISSN 2288-0771(Online)

https://doi.org/10.14775/ksmpe.2019.18.11.009

Comparative Study of Effect of Wind and Wave Load on

Floating PV: Computational Simulation and Design Method
Gyu-Han Lee*, Ji-Woong Choi*, Ji-Hyun Seo**, Hojin Ha*,＃
*
Department of Mechanical Convergence Engineering, Kangwon National University,
**
GS Engineering & Construction Corporation

수상 태양광 발전 부유체에 대한 풍하중과 파랑하중을 통한

전산 해석과 설계적 방법의 비교 연구
이규한*, 최지웅*, 서지현**, 하호진*,#
* **
강원대학교 기계융합공학과, GS 건설
(Received 8 October 2019; received in revised form 21 October 2019; accepted 31 October 2019)

ABSTRACT

Interest in renewable energy is rapidly growing around the world. One of the most popular renewable
energy sources is solar power, and photovoltaic (PV) systems are the most representative route for generating
solar energy. However, with the growing adoption of solar power systems, the demand for land on which to
install these systems has increased, which has caused environmental degradation. Recently, floating PV
systems have been designed to utilize idle water surface areas of dams, rivers, and oceans. Because floating
PV systems will be exposed to harsh environmental stresses, the safety of such systems should be secured
before installation. In this study, the structural robustness of a floating PV system was analyzed by
conducting numerical simulation to investigate whether the system can withstand harsh environmental stresses,
such as wind and wave loads. Additionally, conventional wind and wave load predictions based on the design
method and the simulation results were compared. The comparison revealed that the design method
overestimated wind and wave loads. The total drag of the PV system was significantly overestimated by the
conventional design criteria, which would increase the cost of the mooring system. The simulation offers
additional advantages in terms of identifying the robustness of the floating PV system because it considers
real-world environmental factors.

Keywords : Floating PV(수상 태양광 발전 부유체), Computational Analysis(전산 해석), Design Method(설계
적 방법), Wind Load(풍하중), Wave Load(파랑하중)

1. Introduction worldwide, solar energy has emerged as one of the

primary sources of renewable energy owing to its
As interest in renewable energy increases rapidly sustainability and ubiquity. Photovoltaic (PV) systems
are the most common means for collecting and using
# Corresponding Author : hojinha@kangwon.ac.kr
solar energy[1]. The global PV market has grown at
Tel: +82-33-250-6310, Fax: +82-33-259-5548
Copyright Ⓒ The Korean Society of Manufacturing Process Engineers. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License
(CC BY-NC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

-9-
 Gyu-Han Lee, Ji-Woong Choi, Ji-Hyun Seo, Hojin Ha : 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호

an annual rate of more than 50 percent over the past In this study, the structural robustness of a floating
decade, and this growth has mostly been driven by PV system is analyzed by conducting a numerical
government support for renewable energy[2]. simulation to investigate whether the floating PV
As solar power generation grows, the negative system can withstand harsh environmental stresses
environmental impacts of solar energy systems have from wind and wave loads. Additionally, wind and
come to the fore. Large solar power installations raise wave load predictions made using conventional design
concerns about land degradation, deforestation, and methods are compared with results of the simulation.
habitat loss. Although the total land area requirements
vary depending on the technology, a typical PV 2. Relevant Equations
system requires 3.5–10 acres of land to generate one
megawatt of power. The growth of solar power
2.1 Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
generation has paradoxically increased deforestation.
Moreover, unlike wind facilities, the land on which (RANS) equation
solar power systems are installed can rarely be used Flow velocity and pressure on the PV system are
for agricultural purposes at the same time. Therefore, simulated using the RANS equation. The RANS
new solar power generation systems that have the equation, represented by the continuity equation and
least impact on the environment are needed. momentum equation, is expressed as follows[6]:
Floating PV systems were introduced to utilize idle
water surface areas of dams, rivers, and oceans (Fig.  
      (1)
  
1). When a solar system is installed on water, it
       
reduces the amount of sunlight that passes                (2)
       
underwater, thus preventing the growth of green algae
and reducing the evaporation of water. Floating PV
where  denotes the density of fluid,  the flow
systems are installed on idle water surfaces, which
velocity,  the pressure,  the kinematic viscosity,
means they do not take up agricultural or forest land,
and  the external force.
thus helping prevent land degradation or
deforestation[3-5]. However, the structural robustness of
floating PV systems under harsh environmental 2.2 Potential theory of hydrodynamic
stresses has not been widely investigated, and there diffraction
are no comprehensive guidelines to guarantee the The behavior and pressure of an object are
structural safety of floating PV systems. calculated using the potential theory. The governing
Laplace equation for the potential function can be
written as follows[6]:

      
∇      (3)
  

   

 
 (4)

where  is potential function,  the radiation

Fig. 1 Conceptual diagram of floating PV potential composed of 6 components corresponding to

- 10 -
 Comparative Study of Effect of Wind and Wave Load on Floating PV: Computational Simulation and Design Method :
: 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호

due to motions in the six directions,  the incident   cos   (8)
potential, and  the diffraction potential generated 
    cos   m ax (9)

by incident waves.
     (10)
    (11)
2.3 Drag and lift coefficients
 
The drag coefficient is defined as follows:         (12)
 sinh
 
           (13)
 cosh 
   (5)
 
  

where  denotes angular velocity as ,   the
density of water,  the gravitational acceleration, 
The lift coefficient is defined as follows:
the draft,  the water depth, m ax the maximum
wave height,  the wavelength, and  the angle of

   (6) incidence. In this study, we set  as 3.22 s,   as
 
 

 1030 kg/m3,  as 9.81 m/s2,  as 0.085 m, m ax as
0.1 m and 0.65 m,  as 16.2 m,  as -15 degrees
where  is the mass density of fluid, u the fluid are used. The resultant  was 1003.18 Pa and
velocity, and  and  the drag and lift forces, 6520.70 Pa,  was 859 Pa,  was 997.17 Pa and
respectively. AP and AS are the frontal projection area 6481.58 Pa,  was 1.01, and  was 0.99.
and surface area, respectively.
3. Numerical Simulation
2.4 Design method for wind load analysis
The wind pressure load is conventionally calculated 3.1 Design of floating PV
according using harbor and fishery design criteria as
A floating PV system is composed of panels,
follows[7]: floaters, joints, and brackets among other components,
as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The angle between the

      (7) panels and the ground is 6°, and the entire system

used in this study is in the form of a 4 × 4 array.
In addition, the shape of the floating PV is simplified
where  denotes density of air,  the drag
in the analysis process to facilitate convergence and
coefficient of the floating PV,  the wind velocity,
increase efficiency.
and  the pressure that, by definition, acts on the
floating PV system because of wind. In this study,
3.2 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
we set  as 1.23 kg/m2,  as 1.5 and  as 45
m/s in the test, and the resulting  was 1870 Pa. setup and conditions
To analyze wind load, we used ANSYS Fluent
(ANSYS, Inc., PA, USA). We used the   shear
2.5 Design method for wave load analysis
stress transport (SST) model is used as a turbulence
The wave pressure is calculated according to the
model. The incompressible RANS equations were
supplement of the harbor and fishery design criteria
solved using the SIMPLE algorithm. The convective
as follows[7].

- 11 -
 Gyu-Han Lee, Ji-Woong Choi, Ji-Hyun Seo, Hojin Ha : 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호

(a) Single unit

Fig. 4 Boundary condition of fluid domain

(b) Assembly (4×4)

Fig. 2 3D modeling of floating PV
Fig. 5 Mesh of fluid domain

Table 1 Structural properties for each members

Main
block + Road Road Road
Solar block 1 block 2 block 3
module
Mass [kg] 38.54 13.63 8.32 5.14
Ixx [kg-m2] 131.79 5.99 0.32 0.22
Ixy [kg-m2] 18.07 0 0 0
Fig. 3 Field installation of floating PV Ixz [kg-m2] -3.62 0 0 0
Iyy [kg-m2] 17.85 0.52 1.22 0.22
terms were discretized with a second-order accurate Iyz [kg-m2] -24.83 0 0 0
Izz [kg-m2] 139.47 6.36 1.46 0.39
upwind scheme. The flow field was divided into four
cases in which the wind direction was considered as
0° and 45° from the front and the back. As shown per case were used in the CFD simulations (Fig. 5).
in Fig. 4, the inlet condition was applied with a
uniform flow velocity of 45 m/s, and the outlet 3.3 AQWA set up and conditions
condition was set to atmospheric pressure. No-slip ANSYS AQWA (ANSYS, Inc., PA, USA) is used
conditions were applied to the bottom floor and the for wave analysis. As shown in Figure 6, the wave
floating PV surfaces, and slip wall conditions were pressure analysis was performed using hydrodynamic
applied to the rest of the walls. The fluid domain diffraction for all periods, wave heights, and
was discretized with a growth rate of 20%, local size wavelengths. The period was 3.22 s, and the
of 50 mm on the floating PV size, and global size corresponding wavelength was 16.2 m. The wave
of 100 mm. A total of 18 million tetrahedral cells height was 0.2 m and 1.3 m, and the structural

- 12 -
 Comparative Study of Effect of Wind and Wave Load on Floating PV: Computational Simulation and Design Method
: 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호

(a) Pressure contour of top panel

Fig. 6 Extracting process of surface pressure by the
wave load

(b) Pressure contour of bottom panel

Fig. 7 Mesh of floating PV for AQWA

properties of each member, as summarized in Table

1, were applied. Hydrodynamic diffraction can only
be used to calculate the force acting on the surface,
and the internal members must be removed. Because
the number of meshes was limited to a maximum of
40,000, the surface mesh used in the simulation
conducted using AQWA was simplified as shown in
Figure 7.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Frontward wind at 0°
Frontward wind generates a significantly larger lift
force than drag force on the panels (Fig. 8). A
pressure of up to 1 Pa, and a minimum pressure of
–922 Pa, is generated by 0° frontward wind. Among
the top panels, the maximum negative pressure acts
on the panels in the front row, while smaller negative
(c) velocity contour
Fig. 8 Result of frontward wind at 0 degree
pressures act on the panels behind them. The bottom
panels exhibit relatively uniform pressure distribution
with a pressure of approximately –300 Pa. The wind
velocity at the top of the first row is up to 56 m/s.
A local low-velocity region due to recirculation flow
can be observed around the edge of the first row of
floating PV panels. The flow velocity decreases and
stabilizes behind the second row.
4.2 Frontward wind at 45°
Maximum and minimum pressures of 230 Pa and
–1237 Pa, respectively, are generated by 45°
frontward wind (Fig. 9). In case of the top panels,
the side and front edges of the PV assembly that
directly encounter wind are acted upon by a large

- 13 -
 Gyu-Han Lee, Ji-Woong Choi, Ji-Hyun Seo, Hojin Ha : 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호
(a) Pressure contour of top panel
(b) Pressure contour of bottom panel
(c) velocity contour
Fig. 9 Result of frontward wind at 45 degree
negative pressure. The magnitude of the negative
pressure distribution acting on the bottom panels is
approximately –300 Pa, which is similar to that in
case of 0° frontward wind.
The wind velocity reaches up to 55 m/s at the top
of the first row of panels in the array, and the
velocity distribution fluctuates and stabilizes owing to
the effect of the angle.
4.3 Backward wind at 0°
Backward wind generates a significantly larger lift
force than does frontward wind (Fig. 10). Maximum
and minimum pressures of 1102 Pa and –1527 Pa,
respectively, are generated by 0° backward wind. In
the top panel, the pressure is the highest in the
- 14 -
(a) Pressure contour of top panel
(b) Pressure contour of bottom panel
(c) velocity contour
Fig. 10 Result of backward wind at 0 degree
rearmost row of ow panels. A positive pressure of up
to 1102 Pa acts on the bottom panels, which tends to
lift the panels. The wind velocity at the top of the
first row is up to 59 m/s. A larger low-velocity
region due to the recirculation flow is formed around
the top panel in the rearmost row of the floating PV
system. This low-velocity recirculation flow is main
reason for low pressure on the top panel. Moreover,
only the panels in the first row that encounter the
backward wind are strongly affected, while the other
panels are relatively weakly affected.
4.4 Backward wind at 45°
A pressure value of up to 1249 Pa and a minimum
pressure of –2515 Pa are generated by 45° backward
 Comparative Study of Effect of Wind and Wave Load on Floating PV: Computational Simulation and Design Method
: 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호

Table 2 Drag and lift force and coefficient of

panels
F0 F45 B0 B45
Dragmax [N] 26.68 42.38 352.52 146.85
Dragmin [N] -31.76 10.19 -20.96 12.06
Liftmax [N] 311.64 -51.46 3366.84 1901.16
Liftmin [N] -233.34 -504.79 -204.90 94.57
CD_max 0.10 0.16 1.30 0.54
(a) Pressure contour of top panel CD_min -0.12 0.04 -0.08 0.04
CL_max 0.12 -0.02 1.30 0.73
CL_min -0.09 -0.20 -0.08 0.04

Table 3 Drag and lift coefficient of total system

F0 F45 B0 B45
CD_total 0.17 0.18 0.30 0.24
CL_total 0.78 0.63 1.35 0.96

(b) Pressure contour of bottom panel stabilize the velocity distribution with the effect of
angles later.

4.5 Total drag and lift

(c) velocity contour
Fig. 11 Result of backward wind at 45 degree
wind (Fig. 11). The lateral and longitudinal
arrangement of the first panel shows the greatest
negative pressure, and the distribution of negative
pressure appears as a whole, and the back
arrangement shows features that stabilize as the
pressure becomes smaller and less. In case of the
panel below, the greatest pressure is produced in the
vertical arrangement of the first panel by wind
direction, excluding the horizontal and vertical
arrangement of the first panel, and showing features
that stabilize as the pressure becomes smaller and less
pressure is distributed in most cases. Velocity is
shown to occur up to 61 m/s at the top of the first
array of wind direction and to produce currents
locally at the top of the panel and to fluctuate and
Table 2 summarizes the drag and lift forces, drag
coefficients, and lift coefficients at the top and
bottom of each panel according to wind direction,
and the highest drag coefficient of 1.296 is caused by
the 0° backward wind. The maximum values of drag
coefficients due to wind along other directions are
relatively small overall.
Table 3 summarizes the drag and lift coefficients
of the entire floating PV system according to wind
direction. CD_total were 0.17, 0.18, 0.30, 0.24 and
CL_total were 0.78, 0.63, 1.35, 0.96 at forward winds
of 0 and 45 degrees, backward winds of 0 and 45
degrees, respectively. The results indicate that the
entire system has smaller drag and lift coefficients
than those predicted using the conventional design
method.
4.6 AQWA
Figure 12 shows the wave pressure distribution due
to 0.2 m and 1.3 m waves incident on the floating

- 15 -
 Gyu-Han Lee, Ji-Woong Choi, Ji-Hyun Seo, Hojin Ha : 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호
(a) 0.2 m
(b) 1.3 m
Fig. 12 Result of pressure at 0.2 m and 1.3 m
PV system at an angle of 0° and frequency of 0.32
Hz. In case of the 0.2 m waves, the maximum
pressure value of 1567.74 Pa is generated at the
center of the front and rear parts of the floating PV
system, and the minimum pressure value of –964.33
Pa is generated in the corner. In case of the 1.3 m
waves, maximum and minimum pressures of 5475.11
Pa and –6268.14 Pa are generated in the positions
similar to those in case of the 0.2 m waves.
However, in case of the 0.2 m waves, negative
pressure is generated only at the end corners, but in
case of the 1.3 m waves, negative pressure is
generated on both sides of the floating PV system.
4.7 Comparison of simulation and design
method
The drag coefficient considered in the design
method is 1.5, which is close to the value obtained
with the 0° backward wind. The results obtained
- 16 -
Table 4 Comparison between AQWA and design
method at wave height 0.2 m and 1.3 m
0.2 m 1.3 m
Max [Pa] Min [Pa] Max [Pa] Min [Pa]
AQWA 1567.74 -964.33 5475.11 -6268.14
Design 1856.17 -997.17 7340.58 -5622.58
method
using the design method are different from those
obtained in the CFD simulation are because the
design method considered only the top of the
frontward 0° panel whereas the CFD simulation
considered both the top and bottom of the panel. In
addition, the wind pressure calculated using the
design method described in section 2.4 is 1870 Pa,
and the maximum size of each wind direction is
compared, except for that in case of the backward 0°
wind. These differences are also thought to occur
because only the top of the panel is considered, and
the arrangement is not considered.
Table 4 compares the maximum and minimum
pressure values obtained using AQWA with those
obtained using the design method in cases of the 0.2
m and 1.3 m waves. In case of the 0.2 m wave, the
maximum and minimum pressure values obtained
using the design method are larger and smaller than
those obtained using AQWA, respectively. In case of
the 1.3 m wave, both the maximum and minimum
pressure values obtained using the design method are
greater than those obtained using AQWA. These
differences are thought to arise from the fact that the
design method does not consider the shape of the
structure and the point at which the waves touch the
floating PV system.
5. Conclusion
In this study, the structural robustness of a
floating PV system was analyzed by conducting a
numerical simulation and by using the conventional
 Comparative Study of Effect of Wind and Wave Load on Floating PV: Computational Simulation and Design Method
: 한국기계가공학회지 제18권, 제11호
design method. The following conclusions were
drawn:
1. Wind direction was found to affect only the front
array of panels encountering the flow. Backward
wind resulted in higher pressure, drag, and lift
than did forward wind.
2. A comparison of the total drag estimated using
the conventional design method and the
simulation revealed that the design method (CD =
1.5) significantly overestimated the wind load
acting on the floating PV system. Overestimation
of the total drag would unnecessarily increase the
cost of the mooring system.
3. In terms of wave load, the discrepancy between
the design method and the numerical simulations
was less than 20%. The maximum wave load
occurred at the front and rear of the floating PV
system, and the minimum wave load at the
corners.
4. Although the conventional design method is
simple and useful, the CFD simulation offers
additional advantages in terms of identifying the
robustness of the floating PV system because it
considers real-world environmental factors, such
as panel arrangement, wind direction, and shape
of structure.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Ministry of Trade,
industry and Energy (MOTIE) and Korean Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP;
2017-104-089)
References
1. Arun Kumar, V., Rashmitha, M., Naresh, B.,
Bangararaju, J., Rajagopal, V., "Performance
Analysis of Different Photovoltaic Technologies,"
- 17 -
View publication stats
2013 International Conference on Advanced
Electronic system, pp. 301-303, 2013.
2. Gan, P. Y., Li, Z. D., "Quantitative Study on
Long Term Global Solar Photovoltaic Market,"
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol.
46, pp. 88-99, 2015.
3. Schwingshackl, C., Petitta, M., Wagner, J.E.,
Belluardo, G., Moser, D., Castelli, M., Zebisch,
M., Tetzlaff, A., "Wind Effect on PV Module
Temperature: Analysis of Different Techniques for
an Accurate Estimation," Energy Procedia, Vol.
40, pp. 77-86, 2013.
4. Choi, Y. K., Lee, N. H., Kim, K. J., "Empirical
Research on the Efficiency of Floating PV
Systems Compared with Overland PV Systems,"
International Journal of Advanced Science and
Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 284-289, 2013.
5. Hwang, S. H., Lee, D. Y., Kwon, O. G., Lee, J.
H., "The Electrical Characteristics of The
Modules According to The Environment of The
Floating Photovoltaic System," Journal of the
Korean Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Material Engineers, Vol. 31, pp. 283-289, 2018.
6. ANSYS, ANSYS Help, ANSYS Inc., 2019.
7. Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,
Supplement of Harbor and Fishery Design
Criteria, Ministry of Maritime Affairs and
Fisheries, 2014.