# Modelling a Heaving Point-Absorber with a Closed-Loop Control System Using the DualSPHysics Code

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics

#### 2.1. Governing Equations

**r**is the position,

**v**is the velocity, p is the pressure, ρ is the density, m is the mass, c is the numerical speed of sound, and

**g**is the gravitational acceleration. The artificial viscosity (Π

_{ab}) proposed in [39] will be used and the density diffusion term proposed by [41] is applied in the present simulations using δ = 0.1.

**r**,

**v**, p and ρ. The system can be closed by solving a Poisson-like equation, where the fluid is considered fully incompressible (ISPH), or by adding an equation of state, where the fluid is treated as weakly compressible (WSPH). In the case of DualSPHysics, the fluid pressure at a certain particle is obtained as a function of its density, according to Tait’s equation of state:

_{0}= 1000 kg∙m

^{−3}the reference density of the fluid. The speed of sound, c, is artificially lowered to keep a reasonable time step value (calculated according to the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition) throughout the simulation, while also guaranteeing that density variations are lower than 1%.

#### 2.2. Boundary Conditions and Fluid-Driven Objects

**f**, of each floating particle q is computed as the summation of the contributions of all surrounding fluid particles b:

**V**the linear velocity, I the moment of inertia,

**Ω**the rotational velocity and

**R**the center of mass. By integrating Equations (6) and (7) in time, the values of

**V**and

**Ω**at the beginning of the next time step can be predicted. The velocity of each particle of the floating object is given by:

#### 2.3. Coupling with Project Chrono

#### 2.4. High-Performance Computing

## 3. Experimental Campaign

## 4. Radiation Test

_{i}, while the output obtained from the radiation test is the heaving velocity, v, which can be calculated as

#### 4.1. Monochromatic Force Signal

_{1}, is employed. According to [60], it can be defined in a general way as:

_{1}is bounded between zero and one, where one represents perfect agreement between the two signals.

_{1}confirm that results are highly accurate for the three values of dp and only a slight improvement is achieved when the two finest resolutions are used.

#### 4.2. Polychromatic Force Signal

_{i}(ω), can be modelled as:

_{f}, the radiation force is defined by the radiation damping, b

_{r}, and the added mass, m

_{a}, the hydrostatic force depends on the hydrostatic coefficient, k

_{hs}, and the inertia force simply depends on the mass of the device, M. It is important to note that Equations (11) and (12) allow attainment of the resonance frequency of the device, i.e., the frequency at which resonance is achieved. As stated in [62], resonance occurs when the heave velocity is in phase with the excitation force. Thus, the resonance frequency is the one that guarantees that Im(Z

_{i}) = 0 Ns/m (which directly implies ∠Z

_{i}= 0 rad).

_{i}), Figure 8 demonstrates a high level of agreement between the SPH, experimental and WAMIT results. The resonance frequency, obtained as the frequency at which the imaginary part (or, equivalently, the phase) of the intrinsic impedance crosses the x-axis, is around 0.65 Hz for all cases. Regarding the plot of the real part of Z

_{i}shown in Figure 8, the difference between the experimental and WAMIT curves is roughly constant with frequency, revealing an offset caused by the fact that WAMIT is neglecting the viscous effects, which have a significant impact on Re(Z

_{i}), as shown in Equation (12). This mismatch was investigated in depth in [61]. The real part of the intrinsic impedance obtained with SPH nicely matches the experimental data at high frequencies; however, when low frequencies are considered, Re(Z

_{i}) is highly underestimated. This means that when the frequency is high enough, the SPH simulation is able to reproduce the physics of the problem correctly, but when the frequency is low, there is a phenomenon, most likely related with viscosity, that is not being adequately captured.

## 5. Static and Dynamic Response Test

#### 5.1. Static Response Test

_{1}, defined in Equation (10) is used here as a quantitive measure of the total error in each case. Its values, shown in Table 3, certify the good matching observed in Figure 11, as well as the fact that the accuracy slightly improves when decreasing dp. Table 3 also includes the runtimes of the execution of 26 s of physical time using the same GPU card indicated before.

#### 5.2. Dynamic Response Test

_{a}. This actuator force may be either predefined externally (open-loop system) or defined during the test by means of the feedback provided by the PTO (closed-loop system). Both possibilities, depicted in Figure 12 via block diagrams, are considered in this section based on Case149 of the MASK3 experimental campaign [57]. During the experiment, the actuator force applied to the WEC is the reaction of the PTO force, i.e., F

_{a}= − F

_{PTO}; F

_{PTO}being modelled as a proportional–integral (PI) controller that depends on the device’s heave position, z, and velocity, v [63]:

_{PTO}and b

_{PTO}are, respectively, the stiffness and damping coefficient of the PTO system or, equivalently, the integral and proportional gains of the PI controller.

_{PTO}= 3527 N/m and b

_{PTO}= −1754 Ns/m. The wave conditions remain constant throughout the entire experiment: regular waves of height H = 0.11 m and period T = 1.58 s, which qualifies as a deep-water wave with a wavelength of L = 3.90 m. Figure 13 shows that, as expected, the frequency of the actuator force is coincident with the wave frequency and that, after the transient observed during the first period, its amplitude is approximately constant around 160 N. This initial transient is avoided in the simulations by considering the time series from t = 273 s.

#### 5.2.1. Open-Loop System

_{a}can be effectively used instead. Three different phases are simulated simply by delaying the time at which the external actuator force is applied in each simulation (cases A, B and C). The actuator force and heave position time series for the three numerical cases are shown, along with the experimental ones, in Figure 14. Regarding the numerical results, the actuator force signal is shifting in phase while the heave position is not, causing a phase difference between them of about π rad in case A, 3π/4 rad in case B, and π/2 rad in case C. The experimental phase between F

_{a}and z, observed in the bottom plot of Figure 14, is very similar to the one obtained with case C, i.e., approximately π/2 rad.

_{a}and z approaches the experimental one (Figure 14), so do the amplitudes of the heave position and velocity. However, the phase difference is not known before running the simulation, thus it becomes a trial-and-error process. This approach, besides being inefficient, is also unrealistic because the actuator force is very rarely given by a predefined signal, but rather by its PTO force.

#### 5.2.2. Closed-Loop System

_{PTO}and b

_{PTO}, as described in Equation (13). Project Chrono allows numerical implementation of this feedback loop simply by setting k

_{PTO}= 3527 N/m and b

_{PTO}= −1754 Ns/m. Therefore, thanks to the coupling of DualSPHysics with Project Chrono it is possible to simulate the dynamic response test with its corresponding closed-loop system using the numerical tank defined in Figure 9 and the wave conditions previously described (H = 0.11 m and T = 1.58 s).

_{a}and z now matches the experimental one. This is automatically accomplished because the actuator force is being calculated at each time step as a function of the instantaneous heave position and velocity, instead of being pre-imposed externally.

_{1}= 0.92 is obtained for both z and v when using a closed-loop system, which is significantly higher than the one obtained with the most accurate case when using an open-loop system (d

_{1}= 0.74). By comparing results in Figure 17 with the ones in Figure 15, it can be also seen that the amplitude overestimation obtained now with a closed-loop system is lower than in any of the three cases with an open-loop system. Note as well that the amplitude of the heave movement is of approximately 0.02 m, which is the value of the dp used, meaning that small motions can be correctly simulated even with relatively coarse resolutions. Therefore, this numerical simulation satisfactorily reproduces the response of the WEC equipped with a proportional–integral controller.

## 6. Conclusions

_{i}at low frequencies, that is significantly underestimated. On the other hand, WAMIT also provides good results except for Re(Z

_{i}), which is underestimated at all frequencies. This offset, which is roughly constant with frequency, is due to the fact that the potential-flow solver neglects viscosity. Thus, the most efficient way to numerically obtain the radiation model is to use WAMIT (or another potential-flow solver) but adding a correction that takes into account the viscous effects. The proven ability of the SPH method to reproduce the viscous effects at high frequencies allows for an estimation of the viscous correction needed for the potential-flow solver. Therefore, a fast and reliable procedure for system identification can be set up by combining the results obtained with a CFD simulation and a potential solver.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Drew, B.; Plummer, A.; Sahinkaya, M. A Review of Wave Energy Converter Technology. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J. Power Energy
**2009**, 223, 887–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Babarit, A.; Hals, J.; Muliawan, M.J.; Kurniawan, A.; Moan, T.; Krokstad, J. Numerical Benchmarking Study of a Selection of Wave Energy Converters. Renew. Energy
**2012**, 41, 44–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Magagna, D.; Monfardini, R.; Uihlein, A. JRC Ocean Energy Status Report 2016 Edition; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hals, J.; Falnes, J.; Moan, T. A Comparison of Selected Strategies for Adaptive Control of Wave Energy Converters. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.
**2011**, 133, 031101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Coe, R.G.; Bacelli, G.; Wilson, D.G.; Abdelkhalik, O.; Korde, U.A.; Robinett III, R.D. A Comparison of Control Strategies for Wave Energy Converters. Int. J. Mar. Energy
**2017**, 20, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bosma, B.; Lewis, T.; Brekken, T.; von Jouanne, A. Wave Tank Testing and Model Validation of an Autonomous Wave Energy Converter. Energies
**2015**, 8, 8857–8872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kracht, P.; Perez-Becker, S.; Richard, J.-B.; Fischer, B. Performance Improvement of a Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter by Application of an Observer-Based Control: Results from Wave Tank Testing. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.
**2015**, 51, 3426–3434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Todalshaug, J.H.; Ásgeirsson, G.S.; Hjálmarsson, E.; Maillet, J.; Möller, P.; Pires, P.; Guérinel, M.; Lopes, M. Tank Testing of an Inherently Phase-Controlled Wave Energy Converter. Int. J. Mar. Energy
**2016**, 15, 68–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Martin, D.; Li, X.; Chen, C.-A.; Thiagarajan, K.; Ngo, K.; Parker, R.; Zuo, L. Numerical Analysis and Wave Tank Validation on the Optimal Design of a Two-Body Wave Energy Converter. Renew. Energy
**2020**, 145, 632–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Folley, M.; Babarit, A.; Child, B.; Forehand, D.; O’Boyle, L.; Silverthorne, K.; Spinneken, J.; Stratigaki, V.; Troch, P. A Review of Numerical Modelling of Wave Energy Converter Arrays. In Volume 7: Ocean Space Utilization; Ocean Renewable Energy; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012; pp. 535–545. [Google Scholar]
- Penalba, M.; Ringwood, J. A Review of Wave-to-Wire Models for Wave Energy Converters. Energies
**2016**, 9, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Penalba, M.; Giorgi, G.; Ringwood, J.V. Mathematical Modelling of Wave Energy Converters: A Review of Nonlinear Approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2017**, 78, 1188–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Zabala, I.; Henriques, J.C.C.; Blanco, J.M.; Gomez, A.; Gato, L.M.C.; Bidaguren, I.; Falcão, A.F.O.; Amezaga, A.; Gomes, R.P.F. Wave-Induced Real-Fluid Effects in Marine Energy Converters: Review and Application to OWC Devices. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2019**, 111, 535–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Davidson, J.; Costello, R. Efficient Nonlinear Hydrodynamic Models for Wave Energy Converter Design—A Scoping Study. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 8, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Li, Y.; Yu, Y.-H. A Synthesis of Numerical Methods for Modeling Wave Energy Converter-Point Absorbers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2012**, 16, 4352–4364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Beatty, S.J.; Hall, M.; Buckham, B.J.; Wild, P.; Bocking, B. Experimental and Numerical Comparisons of Self-Reacting Point Absorber Wave Energy Converters in Regular Waves. Ocean Eng.
**2015**, 104, 370–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - de Andrés, A.D.; Guanche, R.; Armesto, J.A.; del Jesus, F.; Vidal, C.; Losada, I.J. Time Domain Model for a Two-Body Heave Converter: Model and Applications. Ocean Eng.
**2013**, 72, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rahmati, M.T.; Aggidis, G.A. Numerical and Experimental Analysis of the Power Output of a Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter in Irregular Waves. Ocean Eng.
**2016**, 111, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Cummins, W.E. The Impulse Response Function and Ship Motions; David Taylor Model Basin Reports; University of Hamburg, Department of the Navy, Hydromechanics Laboratories: Hamburg, Germany, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, C.H. WAMIT Theory Manual; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean Engineering: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Babarit, A.; Delhommeau, G. Theoretical and Numerical Aspects of the Open Source BEM Solver NEMOH. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France, 1 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Y.-H.; Li, Y. Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Simulation of the Heave Performance of a Two-Body Floating-Point Absorber Wave Energy System. Comput. Fluids
**2013**, 73, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sjökvist, L.; Wu, J.; Ransley, E.; Engström, J.; Eriksson, M.; Göteman, M. Numerical Models for the Motion and Forces of Point-Absorbing Wave Energy Converters in Extreme Waves. Ocean Eng.
**2017**, 145, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Jin, S.; Patton, R.J.; Guo, B. Viscosity Effect on a Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter Hydrodynamics Validated by Simulation and Experiment. Renew. Energy
**2018**, 129, 500–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reabroy, R.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, L.; Zang, J.; Yuan, Z.; Liu, M.; Sun, K.; Tiaple, Y. Hydrodynamic Response and Power Efficiency Analysis of Heaving Wave Energy Converter Integrated with Breakwater. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2019**, 195, 1174–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Coe, R.G.; Rosenberg, B.J.; Quon, E.W.; Chartrand, C.C.; Yu, Y.-H.; van Rij, J.; Mundon, T.R. CFD Design-Load Analysis of a Two-Body Wave Energy Converter. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy
**2019**, 5, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gomez-Gesteira, M.; Rogers, B.D.; Dalrymple, R.A.; Crespo, A.J.C. State-of-the-Art of Classical SPH for Free-Surface Flows. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2010**, 48, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gotoh, H.; Khayyer, A. On the State-of-the-Art of Particle Methods for Coastal and Ocean Engineering. Coast. Eng. J.
**2018**, 60, 79–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rafiee, A.; Elsaesser, B.; Dias, F. Numerical Simulation of Wave Interaction with an Oscillating Wave Surge Converter. In Volume 5: Ocean Engineering; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Nantes, France, 2013; p. V005T06A013. [Google Scholar]
- Edge, B.L.; Gamiel, K.; Dalrymple, R.A.; Hérault, A.; Bilotta, G. Application of Gpusph to Design of Wave Energy. In Proceedings of the 9th SPHERIC International Workshop, Paris, France, 2–5 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Westphalen, J.; Greaves, D.M.; Raby, A.; Hu, Z.Z.; Causon, D.M.; Mingham, C.G.; Omidvar, P.; Stansby, P.K.; Rogers, B.D. Investigation of Wave-Structure Interaction Using State of the Art CFD Techniques. Open J. Fluid Dyn.
**2014**, 04, 18–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Omidvar, P.; Stansby, P.K.; Rogers, B.D. SPH for 3D Floating Bodies Using Variable Mass Particle Distribution: SPH FOR 3D FLOATING BODIES USING VARIABLE MASS PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
**2013**, 72, 427–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yeylaghi, S.; Moa, B.; Beatty, S.; Buckham, B.; Oshkai, P.; Crawford, C. SPH Modeling of Hydrodynamic Loads on a Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter Hull. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France, 1 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Crespo, A.J.C.; Domínguez, J.M.; Rogers, B.D.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Longshaw, S.; Canelas, R.; Vacondio, R.; Barreiro, A.; García-Feal, O. DualSPHysics: Open-Source Parallel CFD Solver Based on Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH). Comput. Phys. Commun.
**2015**, 187, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tasora, A.; Serban, R.; Mazhar, H.; Pazouki, A.; Melanz, D.; Fleischmann, J.; Taylor, M.; Sugiyama, H.; Negrut, D. Chrono: An Open Source Multi-Physics Dynamics Engine. In High Performance Computing in Science and Engineering; Kozubek, T., Blaheta, R., Šístek, J., Rozložník, M., Čermák, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 9611, pp. 19–49. [Google Scholar]
- Crespo, A.J.C.; Hall, M.; Domínguez, J.M.; Altomare, C.; Wu, M.; Verbrugghe, T.; Stratigaki, V.; Troch, P.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. Floating Moored Oscillating Water Column With Meshless SPH Method. In Volume 11B: Honoring Symposium for Professor Carlos Guedes Soares on Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Madrid, Spain, 2018; p. V11BT12A053. [Google Scholar]
- Brito, M.; Canelas, R.B.; García-Feal, O.; Domínguez, J.M.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Ferreira, R.M.L.; Neves, M.G.; Teixeira, L. A Numerical Tool for Modelling Oscillating Wave Surge Converter with Nonlinear Mechanical Constraints. Renew. Energy
**2020**, 146, 2024–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ropero-Giralda, P.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Tagliafierro, B.; Altomare, C.; Domínguez, J.M.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Viccione, G. Efficiency and Survivability Analysis of a Point-Absorber Wave Energy Converter Using DualSPHysics. Renew. Energy
**2020**, 162, 1763–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Monaghan, J.J. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.
**1992**, 30, 543–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wendland, H. Piecewise Polynomial, Positive Definite and Compactly Supported Radial Functions of Minimal Degree. Adv. Comput. Math.
**1995**, 4, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fourtakas, G.; Domínguez, J.M.; Vacondio, R.; Rogers, B.D. Local Uniform Stencil (LUST) boundary condition for arbitrary 3-D boundaries in parallel smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) models. Computers & Fluids
**2019**, 190, 346–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ma, Q. Advances in Numerical Simulation of Nonlinear Water Waves. World Sci.
**2010**, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vacondio, R.; Altomare, C.; De Leffe, M.; Hu, X.; Le Touzé, D.; Lind, S.; Marongiu, J.-C.; Marrone, S.; Rogers, B.D.; Souto-Iglesias, A. Grand Challenges for Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Numerical Schemes. Comput. Part. Mech.
**2020**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crespo, A.J.C.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Dalrymple, R.A. Boundary Conditions Generated by Dynamic Particles in SPH Methods. Comput. Mater. Contin.
**2007**, 5, 173–184. [Google Scholar] - Altomare, C.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Rogers, B.D.; Dominguez, J.M.; Gironella, X.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. Numerical Modelling of Armour Block Sea Breakwater with Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Comput. Struct.
**2014**, 130, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, F.; Crespo, A.; Altomare, C.; Domínguez, J.; Marzeddu, A.; Shang, S.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. DualSPHysics: A Numerical Tool to Simulate Real Breakwaters. J. Hydrodyn.
**2018**, 30, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - English, A.; Domínguez, J.M.; Vacondio, R.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Stansby, P.K.; Lind, S.T.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. Correction for Dynamic Boundary Conditions. In Proceedings of the 14th International SPHERIC Workshop, Exeter, UK, 25–27 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, M.B.; Liu, G.R. Restoring Particle Consistency in Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Appl. Numer. Math.
**2006**, 56, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Monaghan, J.J.; Kos, A.; Issa, N. Fluid Motion Generated by Impact. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng.
**2003**, 129, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Domínguez, J.M.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Hall, M.; Altomare, C.; Wu, M.; Stratigaki, V.; Troch, P.; Cappietti, L.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. SPH Simulation of Floating Structures with Moorings. Coast. Eng.
**2019**, 153, 103560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Canelas, R.B.; Brito, M.; Feal, O.G.; Domínguez, J.M.; Crespo, A.J.C. Extending DualSPHysics with a Differential Variational Inequality: Modeling Fluid-Mechanism Interaction. Appl. Ocean Res.
**2018**, 76, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Domínguez, J.M.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Marongiu, J.C. Neighbour Lists in Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
**2011**, 67, 2026–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crespo, A.C.; Dominguez, J.M.; Barreiro, A.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Rogers, B.D. GPUs, a New Tool of Acceleration in CFD: Efficiency and Reliability on Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Methods. PLoS ONE
**2011**, 6, e20685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Domínguez, J.M.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. Optimization Strategies for CPU and GPU Implementations of a Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Method. Comput. Phys. Commun.
**2013**, 184, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Coe, R.G.; Bacelli, G.; Wilson, D.G.; Patterson, D.C. Advanced WEC Dynamics & Controls FY16 Testing Report; SAND2016-10094; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2016; p. 1330189. [Google Scholar]
- Coe, R.G.; Bacelli, G.; Spencer, S.J.; Cho, H. Initial Results from Wave Tank Test of Closed-Loop WEC Control; SAND--2018-12858; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2018; p. 1531328. [Google Scholar]
- Coe, R.; Bacelli, G.; Spencer, S.; Forbush, D.; Dullea, K. MASK3 for Advanced WEC Dynamics and Controls 2019; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez-Gesteira, M.; Rogers, B.D.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Dalrymple, R.A.; Narayanaswamy, M.; Dominguez, J.M. SPHysics—Development of a Free-Surface Fluid Solver—Part 1: Theory and Formulations. Comput. Geosci.
**2012**, 48, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Altomare, C.; Domínguez, J.M.; Crespo, A.J.C.; González-Cao, J.; Suzuki, T.; Gómez-Gesteira, M.; Troch, P. Long-Crested Wave Generation and Absorption for SPH-Based DualSPHysics Model. Coast. Eng.
**2017**, 127, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Willmott, C.J.; Ackleson, S.G.; Davis, R.E.; Feddema, J.J.; Klink, K.M.; Legates, D.R.; O’Donnell, J.; Rowe, C.M. Statistics for the Evaluation and Comparison of Models. J. Geophys. Res.
**1985**, 90, 8995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Bacelli, G.; Coe, R.; Patterson, D.; Wilson, D. System Identification of a Heaving Point Absorber: Design of Experiment and Device Modeling. Energies
**2017**, 10, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Falnes, J. Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems: Linear Interactions Including Wave-Energy Extraction, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; ISBN 978-0-521-78211-1. [Google Scholar]
- Bacelli, G.; Coe, R.G. Comments on Control of Wave Energy Converters. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
**2021**, 29, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 5.**Numerical and experimental time series of the heave position (

**a**) and velocity (

**b**) for three values of dp.

**Figure 8.**Intrinsic impedance calculated from the physical tests, using WAMIT and using DualSPHysics.

**Figure 12.**Block diagrams for the dynamic response of the WEC with an open-loop system (

**a**) and a closed-loop system (

**b**).

**Figure 14.**Numerical and experimental time series of the actuator force (left axis) and heave position (right axis) for three different phases (π, 3π/4, and π/2 rad) with an open-loop system.

**Figure 15.**Numerical and experimental time series of the heave position (

**a**) and velocity (

**b**) for different phases with an open-loop system.

**Figure 16.**Numerical and experimental time series of the actuator force (left axis) and heave position (right axis) with a closed-loop system.

**Figure 17.**Numerical and experimental time series of the heave position (

**a**) and velocity (

**b**) with a closed-loop system.

Parameter | Symbol (Unit) | Value |
---|---|---|

Rigid-body mass (float and slider) | M (kg) | 858 |

Displaced volume | V (m^{3}) | 0.858 |

Float radius | R (m) | 0.88 |

Float draft | D (m) | 0.53 |

**Table 2.**Number of particles, number of total time steps, runtime and index of agreement for three values of dp.

dp (cm) | Particles | Time Steps | Runtime (h) | d_{1} | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

z | v | ||||

1.5 | 24.1 × 10^{6} | 3.4 × 10^{5} | 132.6 | 0.97 | 0.96 |

2.0 | 10.3 × 10^{6} | 2.6 × 10^{5} | 53.6 | 0.97 | 0.96 |

3.0 | 3.1 × 10^{6} | 1.7 × 10^{5} | 10.6 | 0.96 | 0.96 |

**Table 3.**Number of particles, number of total time steps, runtime and index of agreement for three values of dp.

dp (cm) | Particles | Time Steps | Runtime (h) | d_{1} |
---|---|---|---|---|

1.5 | 28.1 × 10^{6} | 3.7 × 10^{5} | 157.8 | 0.90 |

2.0 | 12.1 × 10^{6} | 2.8 × 10^{5} | 63.5 | 0.89 |

3.0 | 3.7 × 10^{6} | 1.9 × 10^{5} | 10.4 | 0.89 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Ropero-Giralda, P.; Crespo, A.J.C.; Coe, R.G.; Tagliafierro, B.; Domínguez, J.M.; Bacelli, G.; Gómez-Gesteira, M. Modelling a Heaving Point-Absorber with a Closed-Loop Control System Using the DualSPHysics Code. *Energies* **2021**, *14*, 760.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030760

**AMA Style**

Ropero-Giralda P, Crespo AJC, Coe RG, Tagliafierro B, Domínguez JM, Bacelli G, Gómez-Gesteira M. Modelling a Heaving Point-Absorber with a Closed-Loop Control System Using the DualSPHysics Code. *Energies*. 2021; 14(3):760.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030760

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Ropero-Giralda, Pablo, Alejandro J. C. Crespo, Ryan G. Coe, Bonaventura Tagliafierro, José M. Domínguez, Giorgio Bacelli, and Moncho Gómez-Gesteira. 2021. "Modelling a Heaving Point-Absorber with a Closed-Loop Control System Using the DualSPHysics Code" *Energies* 14, no. 3: 760.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14030760