# A Comparison of Numerical Approaches for the Design of Mooring Systems for Wave Energy Converters

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Numerical Models

#### 2.1. Quasistatic Mooring Frequency Domain

- $\left[M\right]$: Mass matrix of the floating structure
- $\left[A\left(\omega \right)\right]$: Added mass matrix
- $\left[B\left(\omega \right)\right]$: Radiation damping matrix
- $\left[{B}_{d}\right]$: Linearized drag force
- $\left[H\right]$: Hydrostatic matrix
- $\left[{K}_{m}\right]$: Linearized mooring stiffness

- ${S}_{\mathrm{SV}}\left(\mu \right)$: Slowly-varying wave drift force spectrum
- $T\left(\omega ,\omega \right)$: Drift force quadratic transfer function

#### 2.2. Quasistatic Mooring Time Domain

- ${T}_{\mu}$: Mean line tension
- ${T}_{\sigma}$: Standard deviation of line tension maxima of the set of simulations

#### 2.3. Dynamic Mooring Time Domain

#### 2.4. Reference Simulation Cases

#### 2.5. Environmental Conditions

#### 2.6. Mooring Properties

#### 2.7. Numerical Model of the Floating Wave Energy Converter

^{2}]. Its total mass is 2.434 × 10

^{6}[kg].

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Quasistatic Frequency Domain Model Results

#### 3.2. Performance Results of Non-Linear QSTD and DynTD Models

#### Floater Dynamics

## 4. Predicted Line Tensions

#### Performance and Cost Comparison Results of Numerical Models

^{2}] and the total mooring mass, computed with the maximum suspended length resulting with each approach and applied to all lines of the mooring system, and the cost has been provided in terms of the total equivalent required mass. The equivalent required mass is the summation of the mooring mass, assuming lines made up of a single chain type, and the equivalent mass of the footprint area given a cost ratio. Assuming a cost ratio of $\frac{\left[\frac{\u20ac}{\mathrm{kg}}\right]}{\left[\frac{\u20ac}{{\mathrm{m}}^{2}}\right]}=\frac{3}{1}$, total computed costs represented in Figure 18 with both models result in increasing costs with increasing pretensions independently of the linear mass, and higher optimum linear mass with decreasing pretensions. Figure 18 derives that the QSFD approach seems applicable for early stage optimizations with mid to low linear pretensions, i.e., <1.2. Obtained cost values differ by a 10% and it can acceptably be utilized only for preliminary designs optimizations, setting tendencies of offset, footprint, and total required mass, along with design line tensions, as long as corrections in Figure 17 are accounted for.

## 5. Discussion

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- OES. News. International LCOE for Ocean Energy Technology. Available online: https://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/news/international-lcoe-for-ocean-energy-technology/ (accessed on 16 March 2020).
- Offshore Standards. DNVGL-OS-E301: Position Mooring. Edition July 2018. Available online: http://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/dnvgl/os/2018-07/dnvgl-os-e301.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2020).
- NI 461 DTO R00 E—Quasi-Dynamic Analysis of Mooring Systems Using Ariane Software. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-0291-0_152 (accessed on 16 March 2020).
- Azcona, J.; Munduate, X.; González, L.; Nygaard, T.A. Experimental validation of a dynamic mooring lines code with tension and motion measurements of a submerged chain. Ocean Eng.
**2017**, 129, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hall, M.; Goupee, A. Validation of a lumped-mass mooring line model with DeepCwind semisubmersible model test data. Ocean Eng.
**2015**, 104, 590–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Touzon, I.; Nava, V.; Gao, Z.; Mendikoa, I.; Petuya, V. Small scale experimental validation of a numerical model of the HarshLab2.0 floating platform coupled with a non-linear lumped mass catenary mooring system. Ocean Eng.
**2020**, 200, 107036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vu, M.T.; Choi, H.-S.; Kang, J.; Ji, D.-H.; Jeong, S.-K. A study on hovering motion of the underwater vehicle with umbilical cable. Ocean Eng.
**2017**, 135, 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vu, M.T.; Van, M.; Bui, D.H.P.; Do, Q.T.; Huynh, T.T.; Lee, S.D.; Choi, H.S. Study on Dynamic Behavior of Unmanned Surface Vehicle-Linked Unmanned Underwater Vehicle System for Underwater Exploration. Sensors
**2020**, 20, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Strength of submarine hoses in Chinese-lantern configuration from hydrodynamic loads on CALM buoy. Ocean Eng.
**2019**, 171, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Antonio, F.d.O. Wave energy utilization: A review of the technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2010**, 14, 899–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gomes, R.P.F.; Henriques, J.C.C.; Gato, L.M.C.; Falcão, A.F.O. Hydrodynamic optimization of an axisymmetric floating oscillating water column for wave energy conversion. Renew. Energy
**2012**, 44, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Doyle, S.; Aggidis, G.A. Development of multi-oscillating water columns as wave energy converters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2019**, 107, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - da Fonseca, F.C.; Gomes, R.P.F.; Henriques, J.C.C.; Gato, L.M.C.; Falcão, A.F.O. Model testing of an oscillating water column spar-buoy wave energy converter isolated and in array: Motions and mooring forces. Energy
**2016**, 112, 1207–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Falcão, A.F.O.; Sarmento, A.J.; Gato, L.M.C.; Brito-Melo, A. The Pico OWC wave power plant: Its lifetime from conception to closure 1986–2018. Appl. Ocean Res.
**2020**, 98, 102104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Marine Energies—EVE. Available online: https://eve.eus/Actuaciones/Marina?lang=en-gb (accessed on 6 June 2020).
- MARMOK-A-5 Wave Energy Converter. Tethys. Available online: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/project-sites/marmok-5-wave-energy-converter (accessed on 6 April 2020).
- Nielsen, K.; Wendt, F.; Yu, Y.H.; Ruehl, K.; Touzon, I.; Nam, B.W.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, K.-H.; Crowley, S.; Sheng, W. OES Task 10 WEC heaving sphere performance modelling verification. Presented at the 3rd International Conference on Renewable Energies Offshore (RENEW 2018), Lisbon, Portugal, 8–10 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wendt, F.; Nielsen, K.; Yu, Y.H.; Bingham, H.; Eskilsson, C.; Kramer, M.; Babarit, A.; Bunnik, T.; Costello, R.; Crowley, S. Ocean Energy Systems Wave Energy Modelling Task: Modelling, Verification and Validation of Wave Energy Converters. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2019**, 7, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Penalba, M.; Mérigaud, A.; Gilloteaux, J.-C.; Ringwood, J.V. Influence of nonlinear Froude–Krylov forces on the performance of two wave energy points absorbers. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy
**2017**, 3, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pinkster, J.A. Mean and low frequency wave drifting forces on floating structures. Ocean Eng.
**1979**, 6, 593–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Touzon, I.; de Miguel, B.; Nava, V.; Petuya, V.; Mendikoa, I.; Boscolo, F. Mooring System Design Approach: A Case Study for MARMOK-A Floating OWC Wave Energy Converter. Presented at the ASME 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 17–22 June 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgerald, J.; Bergdahl, L. Including moorings in the assessment of a generic offshore wave energy converter: A frequency domain approach. Mar. Struct.
**2008**, 21, 23–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Larsen, K.; Sandvik, P.C. Efficient Methods for the Calculation of Dynamic Mooring Line Tension. Presented at the First ISOPE European Offshore Mechanics Symposium, Seoul, Korea, 24–28 June 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Low, Y.M.; Langley, R.S. Time and frequency domain coupled analysis of deepwater floating production systems. Appl. Ocean Res.
**2006**, 28, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cummins, W.E. The Impulse Response Function and Ship Motions. Presented at the Symposium of Ship Theory, Hamburg, Germany, 25–27 January 1962; Institut für Schiffbau der Universität Hamburg: Hamburg, Germany, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- van den Boom, H.J.J. Dynamic Behaviour of Mooring Lines. In Proceedings of the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, Delft, The Netherlands, 1–5 July 1985; Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- OrcaFlex. Dynamic Analysis Software for Offshore Marine Systems. Available online: https://www.orcina.com/orcaflex/ (accessed on 15 December 2019).
- Naess, A.; Moan, T. Stochastic Dynamics of Marine Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Metocean Analysis of BiMEP for Offshore Design TRLplus. IH-Cantabria, bimep, 2017. Available online: https://trlplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Metocean_Analysis_of_BiMEP_for_Offshore_Design_TRLplus_March_2017.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2020).
- MATLAB. El Lenguaje del Cálculo Técnico. MATLAB & Simulink. Available online: https://es.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html (accessed on 5 July 2020).
- DNV-RP-C205. Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads; Det Norske Veritas: Oslo, Norway, 2010. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 2.**Sensitivity analysis of the QSTD model to the iterative process of the catenary equations. Surge of the structure and the corresponding mooring horizontal force (

**a**) and relative errors of the standard deviation with different relative errors allowed in the catenary equations of both line tension and surge motion (

**b**).

**Figure 4.**Mesh representation of the boundary element method (BEM) model for the FWEC spar platform submerged part (

**a**) and its main dimensions [m] with the reference at its CoG (

**b**). Reproduced from [11] (Renewable Energy 44 (2012) 328–339), corresponding to model ‘K’.

**Figure 5.**Baseline results of the QSFD model. Performance indicators of line design tension and design offset (

**a**) and cost indicators of mooring total mass and anchor radius (

**b**).

**Figure 6.**Surge factors with respect to QSFD model of the QSTD (

**a**) and DynTD (

**b**) approaches. Accumulated bars with the weights of the mean and dynamic offsets.

**Figure 7.**Heaving (

**a**) and pitching (

**b**) std factors of the DynTD models with respect to the QSFD model.

**Figure 8.**Power spectral densities in surge (WF magnified 20 times) (

**a**), heave and pitch motions (WF reduced by a factor of 2) (

**b**) and (

**c**) comparing models’ performance with the largest and lowest non-dimensional pretension.

**Figure 9.**Normalized PDFs with the three models in surge (

**a**), heave (

**b**), pitch (

**c**), and the most loaded line tension (

**d**).

**Figure 10.**Kurtosis and skewness of surge motion (

**a**,

**b**), heave motion (

**c**,

**d**) and most loaded line tension (

**e**,

**f**) obtained with the DynTD approach.

**Figure 13.**Normalized PDFs of the most loaded line with the three approaches. High pretension (

**a**) and low pretension (

**b**).

**Figure 14.**Time series extract of buoy heaving and the corresponding tension of the most loaded line.

**Figure 15.**Line tension with large pretension (

**a**) and with low pretension (

**b**) for three models. Green: QSFD, Blue: QSTD and Orange: DynTD.

**Figure 16.**Design (

**a**) and cost (

**b**) spaces for the FWEC structure with the QSFD (red squares), QSTD (green triangles), and DynTD (blue circles) models.

**Figure 17.**Correction factors between the DynTd and the QSFD models for five linear mass values (65, 85, 105, 125, and 145) and a linear fitting of the mean values for Anchor Radius (

**a**), Suspended length (

**b**) and Design Tension (

**c**).

**Figure 18.**Cost optimization of the mooring system. Total equivalent mass is the sum of 1/3 the lease area and the total mooring mass, assuming a cost ratio of 3 [€/kg]/[€/m

^{2}].

Parameter | Return Period | Value |
---|---|---|

Significant Wave Height | 100 yrs | 10 m |

Peak Period (Tp) | 18 s | |

Current Velocity (Vc) | 50 yrs | 1.3 m/s |

**Table 2.**Mooring properties selected to be combined for simulation cases, resulting in 25 cases arisen from combining each linear mass with each non-dimensional pretension.

Mooring Linear Mass [kg/m] | Non-Dimensional Pretension [-] | Length/Mass Number |
---|---|---|

65 | 1.43 | 1 |

85 | 1.26 | 2 |

105 | 1.16 | 3 |

125 | 1.10 | 4 |

145 | 1.06 | 5 |

Degree of Freedom | Viscous Force Factor |
---|---|

Surge [N·s/m] | 1.188 × 10^{5} |

Sway [N·s/m] | 1.188 × 10^{5} |

Heave [N·s/m] | 4.469 × 10^{4} |

Roll [N·m·s] | 3.532 × 10^{9} |

Pitch [N·m·s] | 3.532 × 10^{9} |

Yaw [N·m·s] | 0 |

**Table 4.**Mean obtained kurtosis and skewness of the FWEC motions and tension of the most loaded line, obtained with the QSTD approach.

FWEC | Surge | Heave | Pitch | Mll Tension |
---|---|---|---|---|

Kurtosis (QSTD) | 2.924 | 2.671 | 2.241 | 3.700 |

Skewness (QSTD) | −0.188 | −0.039 | −0.050 | 0.665 |

© 2020 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**

Touzon, I.; Nava, V.; de Miguel, B.; Petuya, V.
A Comparison of Numerical Approaches for the Design of Mooring Systems for Wave Energy Converters. *J. Mar. Sci. Eng.* **2020**, *8*, 523.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8070523

**AMA Style**

Touzon I, Nava V, de Miguel B, Petuya V.
A Comparison of Numerical Approaches for the Design of Mooring Systems for Wave Energy Converters. *Journal of Marine Science and Engineering*. 2020; 8(7):523.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8070523

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Touzon, Imanol, Vincenzo Nava, Borja de Miguel, and Victor Petuya.
2020. "A Comparison of Numerical Approaches for the Design of Mooring Systems for Wave Energy Converters" *Journal of Marine Science and Engineering* 8, no. 7: 523.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8070523