# Numerical Investigation of the Scaling Effects for a Point Absorber

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### Wave Energy Converter

^{5}in order to neglect the viscous effects for all type of wave energy converters. Nevertheless, scale effects have been studied separately for different types of WECs with varying results. Schmitt and Elsaber [18] give a detailed discussion on the suitability of Froude scaling laws for a Oscillating Wave Surge Converter (OWSC) where they numerically test its behaviour by scaling the fluid viscosity. In this study they conclude that the differences in flow patterns for different scales can be explained by the changes in viscosity, nevertheless they state that some uncertainties remain related to the mesh influence. Palm et al. [19] analyse the nonlinear forces on a moored point absorber wave energy converter (PA-WEC) at prototype and model scale using CFD for two wave conditions, finding an amplitude response reduction between 1 and 4% due to viscous forces and between 18 and 19% due to induced drag, non-linear added mass, and radiation forces. This study was made for two regular 5th order waves in stationary state. Recently, Windt et al. [20,21] studied firstly the scale effect of a moored PA-WEC device exposed to focused waves, finding differences around 5% between different scales, and secondly they studied the hydrodynamic scaling effects for the wavestar WEC exposed to regular and irregular stationary waves, showing that significant scaling effects occur for the viscous component of the hydrodynamic loads on the WEC hull, stating that additional studies are required for extreme events, e.g., breaking waves. In the other hand, in order to simulate trains of regular waves, most authors recommend the selection of a wave theory based on dimensional parameters, where two of the most cited works are from Le Méhauté in 1976 and Hedges in 1995 [22,23]. Based on these recommendations, several authors propose numerical models using, from linear theory [24,25,26,27] to higher order wave theories [28,29], to simulate the wave behaviour. In some of these studies the goal was to numerically model scaled WEC devices where the same wave theory selection map from Le Méhauté was used without considering the influence of the scale effect on the correct selection of the wave theory [26,27]. Hence, the main goal of the presented work is to study the scale effect related to a one DOF point absorber subjected to three different waves and to study how the wave theory applied to these waves influences the predicted WEC behaviour by using different scales. Section 2 provides the theoretical background, which is used for the numerical model presented in Section 3. The gained results are discussed in Section 4 followed by the conclusions in Section 5.

## 2. Wave Theories

#### 2.1. Airy Wave Theory

#### 2.2. Stokes Wave Theories

#### Validity Regions

## 3. Numerical Model

#### 3.1. Numerical Wave Tank Characteristics

#### 3.2. Solver Settings

#### 3.3. Boundary Conditions

#### 3.4. Mesh

- Case A: Waves ${w}_{2}$, ${w}_{3}$, and ${w}_{4}$ without WEC, for the scale 1:1 and 1:50;
- Case B: Waves ${w}_{2}$, ${w}_{3}$, and ${w}_{4}$, including the WEC, for the scale 1:1 and 1:50.

## 4. Results and Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

CFD | Computational Fluid Dynamics |

DOF | Degree Of Freedom |

FSE | Free Surface Elevation |

LWT | Linear Wave Theory |

OWC | Oscillating Wave Surge Converter |

OCWBC | Open Channel Wave Boundary Condition |

PA-WEC | Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter |

RANS | Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes |

SPH | Smoothed-particle hydrodynamics |

TLR | Technology readiness level |

VOF | Volume of Fluid |

WEC | Wave Energy Converter |

## References

- Salter, S. Wave power. Nature
**1974**, 7720, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mørk, G.; Barstow, S.; Kabuth, A.; Pontes, M.T. Assessing the global wave energy potential. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering—OMAE, Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010; Volume 3, pp. 447–454. [Google Scholar]
- Noble, D.R.; O’Shea, M.; Judge, F.; Robles, E.; Martinez, R.; Khalid, F.; Thies, P.R.; Johanning, L.; Corlay, Y.; Gabl, R.; et al. Standardising Marine Renewable Energy Testing: Gap Analysis and Recommendations for Development of Standards. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 9, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ticona Rollano, F.; Tran, T.T.; Yu, Y.H.; García-Medina, G.; Yang, Z. Influence of Time and Frequency Domain Wave Forcing on the Power Estimation of a Wave Energy Converter Array. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 8, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Cabral, T.; Clemente, D.; Rosa-Santos, P.; Taveira-Pinto, F.; Morais, T.; Belga, F.; Cestaro, H. Performance Assessment of a Hybrid Wave Energy Converter Integrated into a Harbor Breakwater. Energies
**2020**, 13, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Musiedlak, P.H.; Ransley, E.J.; Hann, M.; Child, B.; Greaves, D.M. Time-Splitting Coupling of WaveDyn with OpenFOAM by Fidelity Limit Identified from a WEC in Extreme Waves. Energies
**2020**, 13, 3431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Quartier, N.; Ropero-Giralda, P.; Domínguez, J.M.; Stratigaki, V.; Troch, P. Influence of the Drag Force on the Average Absorbed Power of Heaving Wave Energy Converters Using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Water
**2021**, 13, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Verao Fernandez, G.; Stratigaki, V.; Quartier, N.; Troch, P. Influence of Power Take-Off Modelling on the Far-Field Effects of Wave Energy Converter Farms. Water
**2021**, 13, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Balitsky, P.; Quartier, N.; Stratigaki, V.; Verao Fernandez, G.; Vasarmidis, P.; Troch, P. Analysing the Near-Field Effects and the Power Production of Near-Shore WEC Array Using a New Wave-to-Wire Model. Water
**2019**, 11, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Šljivac, D.; Temiz, I.; Nakomčić-Smaragdakis, B.; Žnidarec, M. Integration of Wave Power Farms into Power Systems of the Adriatic Islands: Technical Possibilities and Cross-Cutting Aspects. Water
**2021**, 13, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sheng, W.; Alcorn, R.; Lewis, T. Physical modelling of wave energy converters. Ocean. Eng.
**2014**, 84, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - IEC TS 62600; Wave, Tidal and Other Water Current Converters—Part 103: Guidelines for the Early Stage Development of Wave Energy Converters—Best Practices and Recommended Procedures for the Testing of Pre-Prototype Devices. International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- Davey, T.; Sarmiento, J.; Ohana, J.; Thiebaut, F.; Haquin, S.; Weber, M.; Gueydon, S.; Judge, F.; Lyden, E.; O’Shea, M.; et al. Round Robin Testing: Exploring Experimental Uncertainties through a Multifacility Comparison of a Hinged Raft Wave Energy Converter. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 9, 946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Assessment of Experimental Uncertainty for a Floating Wind Semisubmersible Under Hydrodynamic Loading. Volume 10: Ocean Renewable Energy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 17–22 June 2018. [CrossRef]
- BMT Fluid Mechanics Ltd. Review of Model Testing Requirements for FPSO’s; BMT Fluid Mechanics Ltd.: Teddington, UK, 2001; pp. 1–80. [Google Scholar]
- Heller, V. Scale effects in physical hydraulic engineering models. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2011**, 49, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schmitt, P.; Elsäßer, B. The application of Froude scaling to model tests of Oscillating Wave Surge Converters. Ocean. Eng.
**2017**, 141, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Palm, J.; Eskilsson, C.; Bergdahl, L.; Bensow, R.E. Assessment of scale effects, viscous forces and induced drag on a point-absorbing wave energy converter by CFD simulations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2018**, 6, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Windt, C.; Ringwood, J.V.; Davidson, J.; Schmitt, P. Contribution to the ccp-wsi blind test series 3: Analysis of scaling effects of moored point-absorber wave energy converters in a cfd-based numerical wave tank. In Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 16–21 June 2019; Volume 3, pp. 3051–3058. [Google Scholar]
- Windt, C.; Davidson, J.; Ringwood, J.V. Numerical analysis of the hydrodynamic scaling effects for the Wavestar wave energy converter. J. Fluids Struct.
**2021**, 105, 103328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Le Méhauté, B. An Introduction to Hydrodynamics and Water Waves; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Hedges, T.; URSELL. Regions of validity of analytical wave theories. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Water Marit. Energy
**1995**, 112, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Finnegan, W.; Rosa-Santos, P.; Taveira-Pinto, F.; Goggins, J. Development of a numerical model of the CECO wave energy converter using computational fluid dynamics. Ocean. Eng.
**2021**, 219, 108416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schubert, B.W.; Robertson, W.S.; Cazzolato, B.S.; Ghayesh, M.H. Linear and nonlinear hydrodynamic models for dynamics of a submerged point absorber wave energy converter. Ocean. Eng.
**2020**, 197, 106828. [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] - Al Shami, E.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X. Non-linear dynamic simulations of two-body wave energy converters via identification of viscous drag coefficients of different shapes of the submerged body based on numerical wave tank CFD simulation. Renew. Energy
**2021**, 179, 983–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bharath, A.; Nader, J.R.; Penesis, I.; Macfarlane, G. Nonlinear hydrodynamic effects on a generic spherical wave energy converter. Renew. Energy
**2018**, 118, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Benites-Munoz, D.; Huang, L.; Anderlini, E.; Marín-Lopez, J.R.; Thomas, G. Hydrodynamic modelling of an oscillating wave surge converter including power take-off. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 8, 771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Airy, G. Tides and Waves. Encycl. Metrop.
**1845**, 5, 341–396. [Google Scholar] - Fluent, A. ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide 2019R3; ANSYS: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 561–734. [Google Scholar]
- Stokes, G. On the theory of oscillatory waves. Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc.
**1847**, 8, 441–455. [Google Scholar] - Fenton, J.D. Nonlinear wave theories. Sea
**1990**, 9, 3–25. [Google Scholar] - 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] - 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] - Martínez-Ferrer, P.J.; Qian, L.; Ma, Z.; Causon, D.M.; Mingham, C.G. Improved numerical wave generation for modelling ocean and coastal engineering problems. Ocean. Eng.
**2018**, 152, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Bharath, A.; Penesis, I.; Nader, J.r.; Macfarlane, G. Non-Linear CFD Modelling of a Submerged Sphere Wave Energy Converter. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Singapore, 24–28 October 2016; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Bouali, B.; Larbi, S. Contribution to the geometry optimization of an oscillating water column wave energy converter. Energy Procedia
**2013**, 36, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Martin, D.; Parker, R.G.; Tafti, D.K. Hydrodynamic Design Optimization and Wave Tank Testing of a Self-Reacting Two-Body Wave Energy Converter. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Khedkar, K.; Nangia, N.; Thirumalaisamy, R.; Bhalla, A.P.S. The inertial sea wave energy converter (ISWEC) technology: Device-physics, multiphase modeling and simulations. Ocean. Eng.
**2021**, 229, 108879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - 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] - Devolder, B.; Stratigaki, V.; Troch, P.; Rauwoens, P. CFD simulations of floating point absorber wave energy converter arrays subjected to regular waves. Energies
**2018**, 11, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Bhinder, M.A.; Babarit, A.; Gentaz, L.; Ferrant, P. Assessment of Viscous Damping via 3D-CFD Modelling of a Floating Wave Energy Device. In Proceedings of the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, EWTEC, Southampton, UK, 5–9 September 2011; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 4.**Mesh convergence analysis using free surface elevation at the middle of the width ${W}_{t}$ and at one wavelength from the inlet, for Case A.

**Figure 5.**Mesh convergence analysis using free surface elevation at the middle of the width ${W}_{t}$ and at one wavelength from the inlet, for Case B.

**Figure 7.**Free surface elevation at the middle of the width ${W}_{t}$ and at one wavelength from the inlet for cases ${w}_{2}$, ${w}_{3}$, and ${w}_{4}$, using recommended order wave theory, for scales 1:1 and upscaled 1:50, using the wave tank without WEC at the left hand side and with WEC at the right hand side.

**Figure 8.**Heave displacement for cases ${w}_{2}$, ${w}_{3}$, and ${w}_{4}$, using recommended order wave theory, for scales 1:1 and upscaled 1:50.

**Figure 9.**Normalised difference $\epsilon $ between heave displacement of the WEC. (

**a**) Normalised difference between the same order model of scale 1:50 and scale 1:1. (

**b**) Normalised difference between each model in scale 1:50 and recommended scale 1:1. (

**c**) Normalised difference between different order models for scale 1:1. (

**d**) Normalised difference between different order models for scale 1:50.

**Figure 10.**Heave displacement for cases ${w}_{2}$, ${w}_{3}$ and ${w}_{4}$ using 1st order, 2nd order, 3rd order and 4th order wave theories, for scales 1:1 and 1:50.

**Table 1.**Dimensions of the tank illustrated in Figure 1 in meters for the different scales.

Scale | h | ${\mathit{h}}_{\mathit{m}}$ | ${\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{t}}$ | L | ${\mathit{L}}_{\mathit{d}}$ | ${\mathit{L}}_{\mathit{b}}$ | ${\mathit{D}}_{\mathit{b}}$ | ${\mathit{f}}_{\mathit{b}}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1:1 | 15 | 29.58 | 24 | 82.0 | 44.5 | 3 | 3.9 | 1.1695 |

1:50 | 0.300 | 0.5916 | 0.48 | 1.64 | 0.89 | 0.06 | 0.078 | 0.02339 |

**Table 2.**Characteristics of the studied point absorber at laboratory scale shown in Figure 2.

Parameter | Value | Units |
---|---|---|

Total mass | 0.235 | Kg |

Construction method | 3D printed | - |

Material | Polylactic Acid (PLA) | - |

Surface treatment | Epoxy adhesive | - |

Support method | Axial bearings | - |

Parameter | Value | Units |
---|---|---|

Time step | adaptive | s |

Turbulence model | realisable $k-\u03f5$ | - |

WEC density | 574 | kg/m^{3} |

Water-Air surface tension | 0.074 | mN/m |

Scale | Height $\left(\mathit{H}\right)$ | Length ($\mathit{\lambda}$) | Period ($\mathit{\tau}$) | $\mathit{h}/\mathit{g}{\mathit{\tau}}^{2}$ | $\mathit{H}/\mathit{g}{\mathit{\tau}}^{2}$ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

${w}_{4}$ | 1:1 | 4.200 m | 30 m | 4.394 s | 0.0793 | 0.0222 |

1:50 | 0.084 m | 0.6 m | 0.621 s | 0.0793 | 0.0222 | |

${w}_{3}$ | 1:1 | 2.400 m | 30 m | 4.394 s | 0.0793 | 0.0127 |

1:50 | 0.048 m | 0.6 m | 0.621 s | 0.0793 | 0.0127 | |

${w}_{2}$ | 1:1 | 1.000 m | 30 m | 4.394 s | 0.0793 | 0.0053 |

1:50 | 0.020 m | 0.6 m | 0.621 s | 0.0793 | 0.0053 |

Zone | Boundary Condition |
---|---|

Top | Pressure Outlet |

Inlet | Velocity Inlet and OCWBC |

Outlet | Pressure Outlet and OCWBC |

Walls and buoy | No-slip Wall |

**Table 6.**The mesh element number divided by the wavelength ($\lambda $) case A and B and the two scales, in total zone, refined zone 1 for the case A, and refined zone 1 + refined zone 2 for case B.

N° Ele/$\mathit{\lambda}$ | Scale | Mesh 1 | Mesh 2 | Mesh 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Total | Zone 1 | Total | Zone 1 | Total | Zone 1 | ||

Case A | 1:1 | 9758 | 3955 | 13,292 | 5707 | 3736 | 23,575 |

1:50 | 350,334 | 142,026 | 664,648 | 285,439 | 2,007,075 | 1,270,300 | |

Total | Zone 1 + 2 | Total | Zone 1 + 2 | Total | Zone 1 + 2 | ||

Case B | 1:1 | 14,265 | 10,613 | 17,001 | 14,445 | 34,560 | 27,661 |

1:50 | 715,819 | 532,584 | 1,284,762 | 1,025,800 | 1,434,264 | 1,148,041 |

Scale | Wave | Mesh 1/Mesh 2 | Mesh 2/Mesh 3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|

Case A | 1:1 | ${w}_{2}$ | 0.470% | 0.079% |

${w}_{3}$ | 0.036% | 0.109% | ||

${w}_{4}$ | 0.107% | 1.152% | ||

1:50 | ${w}_{2}$ | 0.016% | 0.202% | |

${w}_{3}$ | 0.014% | 0.021% | ||

${w}_{4}$ | 1.041% | 0.434% | ||

Case B | 1:1 | ${w}_{2}$ | 0.035% | 0.452% |

${w}_{3}$ | 0.213% | 0.085% | ||

${w}_{4}$ | 0.292% | 0.021% | ||

1:50 | ${w}_{2}$ | 2.073% | 0.322% | |

${w}_{3}$ | 0.234% | 0.846% | ||

${w}_{4}$ | 0.875% | 0.034% | ||

Heave | 1:1 | ${w}_{2}$ | 0.012% | 1.931% |

${w}_{3}$ | 0.134% | 0.705% | ||

${w}_{4}$ | 0.383% | 0.473% | ||

1:50 | ${w}_{2}$ | 2.076% | 0.854% | |

${w}_{3}$ | 0.348% | 0.034% | ||

${w}_{4}$ | 0.871% | 0.084% |

Parameter | Froude Scaling Ratio |
---|---|

Length | $\Lambda $ |

Time | ${\Lambda}^{1/2}$ |

Mass | ${\Lambda}^{3}$ |

Power | ${\Lambda}^{7/2}$ |

**Table 9.**Normalised difference $\epsilon $ between scales, for the three cases analysed using the recommended wave theory.

${\mathit{w}}_{2}$ | ${\mathit{w}}_{3}$ | ${\mathit{w}}_{4}$ | |
---|---|---|---|

Case A FSE | 1.09% | 0.58% | 3.05% |

Case B FSE | 6.46% | 3.00% | 0.59% |

Case B Heave | 38.0% | 30.0% | 56.0% |

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

© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Pierart, F.G.; Fernandez, J.; Olivos, J.; Gabl, R.; Davey, T.
Numerical Investigation of the Scaling Effects for a Point Absorber. *Water* **2022**, *14*, 2156.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142156

**AMA Style**

Pierart FG, Fernandez J, Olivos J, Gabl R, Davey T.
Numerical Investigation of the Scaling Effects for a Point Absorber. *Water*. 2022; 14(14):2156.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142156

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Pierart, Fabián G., Joaquín Fernandez, Juan Olivos, Roman Gabl, and Thomas Davey.
2022. "Numerical Investigation of the Scaling Effects for a Point Absorber" *Water* 14, no. 14: 2156.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142156