# Response of Point-Absorbing Wave Energy Conversion System in 50-Years Return Period Extreme Focused Waves

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Extreme Wave Conditions

#### 2.1.1. Breaking Waves

#### 2.1.2. Slamming Loads

#### 2.2. NewWave Theory

#### 2.3. Uppsala University WEC

#### 2.4. Numerical Simulation

#### 2.4.1. Governing Equations

#### 2.4.2. Computational Domain

#### 2.4.3. Wave Generation

#### 2.4.4. Number of Wave Components

#### 2.4.5. Mesh Convergence Study

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Extreme Focused Waves Propagation

#### 3.2. Response of the Wave Energy Converter

#### 3.3. Slamming Loads in Extreme Wave Conditions

## 4. Discussion

- 1.
- The validation of the CFD model will continue through comparison with experimental tests in which extreme and breaking waves will be reproduced.
- 2.
- Lower-fidelity computational toolboxes play an important role in the design stage due to the reduced computational cost. Therefore, it is essential to verify the capabilities of these toolboxes to capture the critical phenomena enclosed to the nonlinear behavior of the wave–structure interaction, such as the breaking wave behaviour and the resulting slamming effects.
- 3.
- The variation in WEC design could also provide some interesting information about its response in extreme wave conditions. For example, how the buoy geometry contributes and how the generator’s parameters (such as the damping or the end-stop spring) could affect the response.

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Clark, C.E.; DuPont, B. Reliability-based design optimization in offshore renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2018**, 97, 390–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Magagna, D.; Tzimas, E.; Hanmer, C.; Badcock-Broe, A.; MacGillivray, A.; Jeffrey, H.; Raventos, A. SI-ocean strategic technology agenda for the ocean energy sector: From development to market. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM14), Krakow, Poland, 28–30 May 2014; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Ransley, E.J. Survivability of Wave Energy Converter and Mooring Coupled System Using CFD. Ph.D. Thesis, Univeristy of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Y.H.; Van Rij, J.; Coe, R.; Lawson, M. Preliminary wave energy converters extreme load analysis. In Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, St. John’s NL, Canada, 31 May–3 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Göteman, M.; Engström, J.; Eriksson, M.; Hann, M.; Ransley, E.; Greaves, D.; Leijon, M. Wave loads on a point-absorbing wave energy device in extreme waves. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Kona, HI, USA, 21–26 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Katsidoniotaki, E.; Ransley, E.; Brown, S.; Palm, J.; Engström, J.; Göteman, M. Loads on a point-absorber wave energy converter in regular and focused extreme waves. In Proceedings of the ASME 2020 39th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 3–28 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Veritas, D.N. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205: Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads; Det Norske Veritas: Baerum, Norway, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- International Electrotechnical Commission. Marine Energy-Wave, Tidal and other Water Current Converters—Part 101: Wave Energy Resource Assessment and Characterization; International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- International Electrotechnical Commission. Marine Energy-Wave, Tidal and other Water Current Converters—Part 2: Design Requirements for Marine Energy Systems; International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hiles, C.E.; Robertson, B.; Buckham, B.J. Extreme wave statistical methods and implications for coastal analyses. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.
**2019**, 223, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Neary, V.S.; Ahn, S.; Seng, B.E.; Allahdadi, M.N.; Wang, T.; Yang, Z.; He, R. Characterization of Extreme Wave Conditions for Wave Energy Converter Design and Project Risk Assessment. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 8, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Winterstein, S.R.; Ude, T.C.; Cornell, C.A.; Bjerager, P.; Haver, S. Environmental parameters for extreme response: Inverse FORM with omission factors. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Innsbruck, Austria, 9–13 August 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Coe, R.G.; Yu, Y.H.; Van Rij, J. A survey of wec reliability, survival and design practices. Energies
**2018**, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Wrang, L.; Katsidoniotaki, E.; Nilsson, E.; Rutgersson, A.; Rydén, J.; Göteman, M. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Contour Approaches to Estimating Extreme Waves for Offshore Installations for the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 9, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, X.; Hu, C. Numerical and experimental study on a 2D floating body under extreme wave conditions. Appl. Ocean Res.
**2012**, 35, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hann, M.; Greaves, D.; Raby, A. Snatch loading of a single taut moored floating wave energy converter due to focussed wave groups. Ocean Eng.
**2015**, 96, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Stallard, T.; Weller, S.; Stansby, P. Limiting heave response of a wave energy device by draft adjustment with upper surface immersion. Appl. Ocean Res.
**2009**, 31, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xu, L.; Barltrop, N.; Okan, B. Bow impact loading on FPSOs 1—Experimental investigation. Ocean Eng.
**2008**, 35, 1148–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saincher, S.; Banerjee, J. Influence of wave breaking on the hydrodynamics of wave energy converters: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2016**, 58, 704–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Van Paepegem, W.; Blommaert, C.; De Baere, I.; Degrieck, J.; De Backer, G.; De Rouck, J.; Degroote, J.; Vierendeels, J.; Matthys, S.; Taerwe, L. Slamming wave impact of a composite buoy for wave energy applications: Design and large-scale testing. Polym. Compos.
**2011**, 32, 700–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - De Backer, G.; Vantorre, M.; Victor, S.; De Rouck, J.; Beels, C. Investigation of vertical slamming on point absorbers. In Proceedings of the ASME 2008 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Estoril, Portugal, 15–20 June 2008; Volume 48234, pp. 851–859. [Google Scholar]
- Rafiee, A.; Fiévez, J. Numerical prediction of extreme loads on the CETO wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France, 6–11 September 2015. number 09A1-2. [Google Scholar]
- Fylling, I.; Mo, K.; Merz, K.; Luxcey, N. Floating Wind Turbine-Response Analysis with Rigid-Body Model; European Offshore Wind: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hagerman, G.M. Oceanographic design criteria and site selection for ocean wave energy conversion. In Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave-Energy Utilization; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986; pp. 169–178. [Google Scholar]
- Neary, V.S.; Coe, R.G.; Cruz, J.; Haas, K.; Bacelli, G.; Debruyne, Y.; Ahn, S.; Nevarez, V. Classification systems for wave energy resources and WEC technologies. Int. Mar. Energy J.
**2018**, 1, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Rosenberg, B.J.; Mundon, T.R.; Coe, R.G.; Quon, E.W.; Chartrand, C.C.; Yu, Y.H.; van Rij, J.A. Development of WEC Design Loads: A Comparison of Numerical and Experimental Approaches; Technical report; National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 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] - Tromans, P.S.; Anaturk, A.R.; Hagemeijer, P. A new model for the kinematics of large ocean waves-application as a design wave. In Proceedings of the First, International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Edinburgh, UK, 11–16 August 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Cokelet, E. Breaking waves. Nature
**1977**, 267, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chakrabarti, S.K. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures; WIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Holthuijsen, L.H. Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Niu, X.; Yu, X. A new predictive formula for inception of regular wave breaking. Coast. Eng.
**2011**, 58, 877–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McCowan, J. On the Highest Wave of Permanent Type; Philosophical Magazine: Edinburgh, UK, 1894. [Google Scholar]
- Miche, M. Mouvements ondulatoires de la mer en profondeur constante ou décroissante. Ann. Ponts Chaussées
**1944**, 26–78, 270–292, 369–406. [Google Scholar] - Goda, Y. Reanalysis of regular and random breaking wave statistics. Coast. Eng. J.
**2010**, 52, 71–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Munk, W.H. The solitary wave theory and its application to surf problems. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
**1949**, 51, 376–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ghadirian, A.; Bredmose, H.; Dixen, M. Breaking phase focused wave group loads on offshore wind turbine monopiles. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2016; Volume 753, p. 092004. [Google Scholar]
- Marino, E.; Borri, C.; Peil, U. A fully nonlinear wave model to account for breaking wave impact loads on offshore wind turbines. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**2011**, 99, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hallowell, S.; Myers, A.; Arwade, S. Variability of breaking wave characteristics and impact loads on offshore wind turbines supported by monopiles. Wind Energy
**2016**, 19, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wagner, H. Über stoß-und gleitvorgänge an der oberfläche von flüssigkeiten. ZAMM J. Appl. Math. Mech./Z. Angew. Math. Mech.
**1932**, 12, 193–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fabula, A.G. Ellipse-fitting approximation of two-dimensional, normal symmetric impact of rigid bodies on water. In Proceedings of the 5th Midwestern Conference on Fluid Mechanics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1–2 April 1957; pp. 299–315. [Google Scholar]
- Cointe, R.; Armand, J.L. Hydrodynamic impact analysis of a cylinder. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.
**1987**, 109, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wienke, J.; Oumeraci, H. Breaking wave impact force on a vertical and inclined slender pile—Theoretical and large-scale model investigations. Coast. Eng.
**2005**, 52, 435–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Goda, Y. A study on impulsive breaking wave force upon a vertical pile. Rept. Port Harb. Res. Inst.
**1966**, 5, 1–30. [Google Scholar] - Hasselmann, K.; Sell, W.; Ross, D.; Müller, P. A parametric wave prediction model. J. Phys. Oceanogr.
**1976**, 6, 200–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Hunt-Raby, A.C.; Borthwick, A.G.; Stansby, P.K.; Taylor, P.H. Experimental measurement of focused wave group and solitary wave overtopping. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2011**, 49, 450–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sjökvist, L.; Göteman, M. Peak forces on wave energy linear generators in tsunami and extreme waves. Energies
**2017**, 10, 1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Aris, R. Vectors, Tensors and the Basic Equations of Fluid Mechanics; Courier Corporation: North Chelmsford, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, O. On the dynamical theory of incompressible viscous fluids andthe determination of the criterion. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
**1894**, 56, 40–45. [Google Scholar] - Weller, H. Derivation, Modelling and Solution of the Conditionally Averaged Two-Phase Flow Equations; Technical Report TR/HGW; Nabla Ltd: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2002; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, P.; Liu, P.L.F. A numerical study of breaking waves in the surf zone. J. Fluid Mech.
**1998**, 359, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brown, S.; Greaves, D.; Magar, V.; Conley, D. Evaluation of turbulence closure models under spilling and plunging breakers in the surf zone. Coast. Eng.
**2016**, 114, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J.
**1994**, 32, 1598–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - overInterDyMFoam. 2017. Available online: https://www.openfoam.com/releases/openfoam-v1706/numerics.php (accessed on 21 March 2021).
- Davidson, L. An introduction to turbulence models. 2015. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.703.5520 (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Katsidoniotaki, E.; Göteman, M. Comparison of dynamic mesh methods in OpenFOAM for a WEC in extreme waves. In Developments in Renewable Energies Offshore: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Renewable Energies Offshore (RENEW 2020), Lisbon, Portugal, 12–15 October 2020; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; p. 214. [Google Scholar]
- Higuera, P.; Lara, J.L.; Losada, I.J. Realistic wave generation and active wave absorption for Navier–Stokes models: Application to OpenFOAM
^{®}. Coast. Eng.**2013**, 71, 102–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Windt, C.; Davidson, J.; Schmitt, P.; Ringwood, J.V. On the assessment of numerical wave makers in CFD simulations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2019**, 7, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Windt, C.; Davidson, J.; Chandar, D.D.; Faedo, N.; Ringwood, J.V. Evaluation of the overset grid method for control studies of wave energy converters in OpenFOAM numerical wave tanks. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy
**2020**, 6, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, H.; Qian, L.; Ma, Z.; Bai, W.; Li, Y.; Causon, D.; Mingham, C. Application of an overset mesh based numerical wave tank for modelling realistic free-surface hydrodynamic problems. Ocean Eng.
**2019**, 176, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, H.; Qian, L.; Ma, Z.; Bai, W.; Lin, Z. CCP-WSI blind test series 3: OpenFOAM simulation of focused wave interaction with a simplified wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 29th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 16–21 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Miquel, A.M.; Kamath, A.; Alagan Chella, M.; Archetti, R.; Bihs, H. Analysis of different methods for wave generation and absorption in a CFD-based numerical wave tank. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2018**, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ning, D.; Zang, J.; Liu, S.; Taylor, R.E.; Teng, B.; Taylor, P. Free-surface evolution and wave kinematics for nonlinear uni-directional focused wave groups. Ocean Eng.
**2009**, 36, 1226–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eça, L.; Hoekstra, M. A procedure for the estimation of the numerical uncertainty of CFD calculations based on grid refinement studies. J. Comput. Phys.
**2014**, 262, 104–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, S.; Ong, M.C.; Obhrai, C. Numerical Simulations of Breaking Waves and Steep Waves Past a Vertical Cylinder at Different Keulegan–Carpenter Numbers. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.
**2019**, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**The four selected sites examined in [14] are shown. For the present study, the Dowsing site is selected, located in the North Sea; 56 km from the west coast of the United Kingdom, with water depth 22 m.

**Figure 2.**The 50-year return period environmental contour for Dowsing site adapted from [14]. The environmental contour, as calculated from I-FORM Hybrid method (black line), is utilized here. The contour line is discretized in 10 sea states plus one sea state (5b) inside the contour. Sea state 5b is selected so as to make the comparison between sea states with the same peak period, ${T}_{p}$, (5a vs. 5b) and sea states with the same significant wave height, ${H}_{s}$, (5b vs. 9). In the present study, sea states 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are examined.

**Figure 3.**Sea state 6. The focused wave is propagating in a two-dimensional numerical wave tank without the presence of the WEC. The wave propagation is captured for several time instances: (

**a**) $t-{t}_{f}=-4$ s, (

**b**) $t-{t}_{f}=-2$ s, (

**c**) $t-{t}_{f}=0$ s (focal time), (

**d**) $t-{t}_{f}=2$ s. The focal position is indicated by the dashed black line in which the WEC will be placed (horizontal direction x = 0 m).

**Figure 4.**The range of breaking criterion is shown. The breaking behaviour of the examined sea states is identified.

**Figure 5.**Impact area on a slender cylinder due to slamming force, as adapted from [43] with permission from Elsevier Ltd, UK, 2005.

**Figure 6.**Uppsala University WEC; schematic view of the direct-driven linear generator adapted from [47] under the Creative Commons CC-BY license.

**Figure 7.**The forces acting on the buoy are the sum of the hydrodynamic, gravitational and generator (${F}_{line}$) forces adapted from [47] under the Creative Commons CC-BY license.

**Figure 8.**The study for the numerical wave components selection is shown. The maximum wave height, ${H}_{max}$, for sea state 5a using as a reference the maximum wave height obtained from the analytical solution, ${H}_{max,anal.}$, is provided as a function of the wave components, N.

**Figure 9.**Focused wave propagation at the focal point as given by the analytical solution and the numerical simulation. The analytical solution is based on NewWave theory, while CFD simulations calculate the wave propagation in a two-dimensional numerical wave tank.

**Figure 10.**Wave frequency spectra as obtained by Fourier transformation implemented in the time series shown in Figure 9. The CFD solution is compared with the analytical.

**Figure 11.**For all the examined sea states, the heave response time series during the wave–structure interaction is shown.

**Figure 12.**For all the examined sea states, the surge response time series during the wave–structure interaction is shown.

**Figure 13.**For all the examined sea states, the pitch response time series during the wave–structure interaction is shown.

**Figure 14.**Colormap visualization of the maximum heave response range (

**left**) and maximum surge response range (

**right**) along the environmental contour line.

**Figure 15.**For all the examined sea states, the heave and surge RAOs are shown as a function of the wave steepness.

**Figure 16.**For all the examined sea states, the time series of the connection line force during the wave–structure interaction is shown.

**Figure 17.**Time series of the translator’s motion during the wave–structure interaction, for all the examined sea states. The translator moves only vertically. The red dashed line indicates the upper and lower free stroke-length (1.2 m), the green line defines the maximum stroke-length (1.8 m). Once the translator exceeds the upper free-stroke length, the end-stop spring starts to compress. During the downward motion of the translator, once the lower free stroke-length of 1.2 m is exceeded, the translator stands on the bottom of the generator and the connection line with the buoy slacks. There is no lower end-stop spring in the present CFD restraint.

**Figure 18.**Colormap visualization of the maximum force in the connection line (

**left**) and the maximum force (

**right**) on the upper end-stop spring along the environmental contour line.

**Figure 19.**Pressure probes are mounted on the frontal and back part of the buoy. Probe 1 (frontal) and Probe 2 (rear) are located 0.24 m above SWL, whereas Probe 3 (frontal) and Probe 4 (rear) are located 0.97 m below the SWL. Time series of the pressure measured in each one probe is presented for sea states 5a (purple), 5b (orange), 7 (blue) and 9 (green). The black arrow indicates the slamming contribution.

**Figure 20.**Wave–structure interaction at sea state 5a (left column) and sea state 7 (right column) as colored by the dynamic pressure, $p\_rgh$. The pictures on the top show the time instant in which the slamming occurs; the slamming happens 1.5 s and 2 s prior to the theoretical focus time for sea states 5a and 7, respectively. The pictures in the middle row depict the wave–structure interaction at the theoretical focused time, and the bottom pictures the wave–structure interaction as captured 2 s after the theoretical focus time. Both waves are breaking. At sea state 5a, the breaking phenomenon initiates just after the focused wave interacts with the buoy, whereas, at sea state 7, the wave starts to break in the frontal head of the buoy.

**Figure 21.**Wave–structure interaction at the sea states 5b (left column) and 9 (right column) as colored by the dynamic pressure, $p\_rgh$. The pictures show the motion a few seconds before the focusing time ($t-{t}_{f}=-2$ s, on the top) and at the focusing time ($t-{t}_{f}=0$ s, at the bottom).

**Figure 22.**Inline (excitation) force acting on the buoy during sea states 5a (purple), 5b (orange), 7 (blue) and 9 (green) according to CFD solution. The force is calculated by the integration of the normal pressure on the buoy surface. The black arrow indicates the contribution of the slamming force.

**Table 1.**Characteristics of the sea states 5 to 9, along the Dowsing environmental contour. ${H}_{s}$ and ${T}_{p}$ are the significant wave height and peak period, respectively. The maximum theoretical crest amplitude of the focused wave, ${A}_{th}$, is calculated following the New Wave theory. The wave height of the focus wave, H, is defined as the height between the maximum wave crest and the minimum wave trough. ${L}_{p}$ is the peak wave length, the parameter ${k}_{p}{A}_{th}$ measures the steepness of the waves, where ${k}_{p}$ corresponds to the peak frequency, and $KC$ is the Keulegan–Carpenter number.

$\mathit{Sea}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathit{State}$ | ${\mathit{H}}_{\mathit{s}}\left[\mathit{m}\right]$ | ${\mathit{T}}_{\mathit{p}}\left[\mathit{s}\right]$ | ${\mathit{A}}_{\mathit{th}}\left[\mathit{m}\right]$ | $\mathit{H}\left[\mathit{m}\right]$ | ${\mathit{L}}_{\mathit{p}}\left[\mathit{m}\right]$ | ${\mathit{k}}_{\mathit{p}}{\mathit{A}}_{\mathit{th}}$ | $\mathit{KC}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

5a | 5.5 | 9.0 | 5.1 | 9.0 | 108 | 0.29 | 10.2 |

5b | 3.7 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 6.0 | 108 | 0.20 | 6.9 |

6 | 6.5 | 11.5 | 6.0 | 10.4 | 150 | 0.25 | 12.0 |

7 | 7.1 | 13.0 | 6.6 | 11.5 | 174 | 0.24 | 13.2 |

8 | 5.4 | 14.0 | 5.0 | 8.7 | 190 | 0.17 | 10.0 |

9 | 3.7 | 17.5 | 3.4 | 6.0 | 244 | 0.09 | 6.9 |

**Table 2.**Evaluation of NWT’s length downstream the body and NWT’s width. In terms of the length, four lengths have been considered: $1\lambda $, $2\lambda $, $3\lambda $, $4\lambda $. For the width, three cases have been considered: 50 m, 100 m, 170 m. The RMSE value for the surface elevation at the buoy’s position is calculated, having as reference the case for $4\lambda $ and 170 m for the evaluation of the length and width, respectively.

$\mathit{Width}\left[\mathit{m}\right]$ | ${\mathit{RMSE}}_{5\mathit{a},\mathit{w}}[\%]$ | $\mathit{Downstream}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathit{Length}$ | ${\mathit{RMSE}}_{5\mathit{a},\mathit{L}}[\%]$ | ${\mathit{RMSE}}_{9,\mathit{L}}[\%]$ |
---|---|---|---|---|

50 | 0.7 | $1\lambda $ | 2.25 | 0.25 |

100 | 0.5 | $2\lambda $ | 0.41 | 0.019 |

- | - | $3\lambda $ | 0.046 | 0.0003 |

Variables | Inlet/Outlet | Seabed | Atmosphere | SideWalls |
---|---|---|---|---|

alpha.water | waveAlpha */zeroGradient | zeroGradient | inletOutlet | zeroGradient |

Velocity | waveVelocity * | slip | pressureInletOutletVelocity | slip |

Pressure | fixedFluxPressure | zeroGradient | totalPressure | fixedFluxPressure |

k | zeroGradient | kqRWallFunction | inletOutlet | slip |

$\omega $ | zeroGradient | omegaWallfunction | inletOutlet | slip |

**Table 4.**Spatial convergence study for the steepest wave (sea state 5a). The spatial discretizetion is evaluated through the numerical uncertainty U$[\%]$, for the maximum wave crest ${U}_{MaxCrest}$ and the deepest wave trough, ${U}_{MaxTrough}$.

$\mathit{Discretization}$ $\mathit{Level}$ | $\Delta \mathit{z}$$\left[\mathit{m}\right]$ | ${\mathit{A}}_{\mathbf{th}}/\Delta \mathit{z}$ | ${\mathit{U}}_{\mathit{MaxCrest}}$$[\%]$ | ${\mathit{U}}_{\mathit{MaxTrough}}$$[\%]$ |
---|---|---|---|---|

Coarse | 0.425 | 12 | 2.25 | 0.82 |

Medium | 0.30 | 17 | 0.41 | 0.73 |

Fine | 0.213 | 24 | 0.046 | 0.61 |

Finest | 0.15 | 34 | 0.046 | 0.56 |

**Table 5.**Steepness (${k}_{p}A$) and maximum wave height (${H}_{max}$) for the focused wave group as calculated by the NewWave theory and the numerical solution (CFD).

$\mathit{Sea}$ $\mathit{State}$ | ${\mathit{k}}_{\mathit{p}}{\mathit{A}}_{\mathit{real}}$ | ${\mathit{k}}_{\mathit{p}}{\mathit{A}}_{\mathit{th}}$ | ${\mathit{H}}_{\mathit{max},\mathit{real}}$ | ${\mathit{H}}_{\mathit{max},\mathit{th}}$ | ${\mathit{KC}}_{\mathit{real}}$ | ${\mathit{KC}}_{\mathit{th}}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

5a | 0.36 | 0.29 | 9.4 | 9.0 | 12.4 | 10.2 |

5b | 0.22 | 0.20 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 7.6 | 6.9 |

6 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 9.0 | 10.4 | 12.8 | 12.0 |

7 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 10.3 | 11.5 | 14.5 | 13.2 |

8 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 7.2 | 8.7 | 10.4 | 10.0 |

9 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 7.2 | 6.9 |

**Table 6.**Induced-pressure on the buoy due to the short impact of the wave–structure interaction as it is given from CFD simulations, $\Delta {p}_{CFD}$, and, as calculated from the Equation (25), ${p}_{induced}$. The relative velocity, v, as calculated from the CFD simulations, is also given. The deviation between the theoretical and the numerical pressure is provided.

Sea State | $\Delta {\mathit{p}}_{\mathit{CFD}}$ [kPa] | v [m/s] | ${\mathit{p}}_{\mathit{induced}}$ [kPa] | $\mathit{Deviation}$ [%] |
---|---|---|---|---|

5a | 80 | 6.2 | 99 | 23.7 |

5b | 20 | 2.9 | 26.4 | 32 |

7 | 95 | 6.6 | 112 | 18 |

9 | 28 | 3.5 | 38.5 | 37.4 |

**Table 7.**The slamming force (${F}_{I,CFD}$) as calculated from the CFD simulations, the percentage contribution of slamming force ($AdditionalLoad$) in the total inline force, and the factor $\lambda $ identifying the impact area on the buoy.

Sea State | ${\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{I},\mathit{CFD}}$ [kN] | $\mathit{Additional}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathit{Load}$$[\%]$ | $\mathit{\lambda}$$[-]$ |
---|---|---|---|

5a | 264 | 139 | 0.08 |

5b | 90 | 47 | 0.11 |

7 | 235 | 124 | 0.06 |

9 | 115 | 60.5 | 0.10 |

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**

Katsidoniotaki, E.; Nilsson, E.; Rutgersson, A.; Engström, J.; Göteman, M. Response of Point-Absorbing Wave Energy Conversion System in 50-Years Return Period Extreme Focused Waves. *J. Mar. Sci. Eng.* **2021**, *9*, 345.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9030345

**AMA Style**

Katsidoniotaki E, Nilsson E, Rutgersson A, Engström J, Göteman M. Response of Point-Absorbing Wave Energy Conversion System in 50-Years Return Period Extreme Focused Waves. *Journal of Marine Science and Engineering*. 2021; 9(3):345.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9030345

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Katsidoniotaki, Eirini, Erik Nilsson, Anna Rutgersson, Jens Engström, and Malin Göteman. 2021. "Response of Point-Absorbing Wave Energy Conversion System in 50-Years Return Period Extreme Focused Waves" *Journal of Marine Science and Engineering* 9, no. 3: 345.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9030345