Optimizing Wave Energy Converter Hull Shape and Modeling
1. 03 June 2016
Study for the Hull Shape of a
Wave Energy Converter-Point Absorber
Filippos Kalofotias
Design Optimization & Modeling Improvement
2. Contents
Background
Problem Definition
Research Objectives and Questions
Model Description
Design Optimization
Modeling Improvement
Model Validation
Conclusions & Recommendations
Questions?
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 2
3. Background
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 3
‘’Deciphering the title’’
Wave Energy = Energy transfer from wind waves
Converters = Devices transforming wave
energy to electrical
Point Absorber
5. Problem Definition
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 5
P. Wellens (2004) / S. Kao (2014)
Studied :
Maximization of power extraction under irregular
waves
Optimum Spring and Damper Configuration
During sea state (Wellens)
During smaller intervals of the sea state (Kao)
Did not study :
Optimum dimensions of the buoy for the
studied wave climate
Other shapes for the buoy than Cylinder
Viscous Effects
Wave force estimation with large motions
Control
Strategy
Design
Optimization
+
Physical
Modeling
6. Research Objectives & Questions
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 6
Research Objectives
Derive an efficient design for the
buoy (hull) of the Point Absorber
Shape
+
Dimensions
Improve physical modeling of
the Point Absorber’s response to
waves
Viscous
+
Wave Force
7. Research Objectives & Questions
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 7
Research Questions
What is the most efficient design?
Influence of shape to efficiency?
Influence of dimensions to efficiency?
Efficiency comparison of different designs?
How to improve Point Absorber’s modeling?
Viscous effects estimation?
Wave force including large buoy’s motion?
Influence of additions to the previous model?
8. Model Description
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 8
Linear Mass-Spring-Damper System
Newton’s 2nd Law
Force Analysis
Restricted to up and down motion
Equation
Solution?
Coefficients?
Excitation Force?
Nonlinear Viscous
Effects?
9. Model Description
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 9
Solution
Frequency Domain
Time Domain
Irregular waves – JONSWAP
Superposition of component
regular waves - RAO
Linearity is a must
Fast and valuable for statistics
Time step solution of buoy’s
position and velocity
Phase shifts needed
Instantaneous power and
average over time
Nonlinear effects such viscous
forces can be included
10. Model Description
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 10
Coefficients
3D – Diffraction Theory / NEMOH
Spring, ksp and damper, β
Radiation Damping, b(ω)
Added Mass, a(ω)
Predetermined and adjustable
Resonance at peak frequency
Optimum damper coefficient
Restoring, c
Determined by waterline area
Radius dependent
11. Model Description
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 11
Excitation Force
3D – Diffraction Theory / NEMOH
Force amplitude per frequency
Per meter wave amplitude
Doubling the wave amplitude
doubles the wave force
Equilibrium position estimation
Superposition principle
For time dependent, Fexc (t)
phase shift is needed
NEMOH neglects viscous effects
Nonlinear Viscous
Effects?
12. Model Description
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 12
Nonlinear Viscous Effects
Computational Fluid Dynamics / ComFLOW3
Fully viscous numerical solution of
Navier-Stokes equations
Numerical tank
Boundary conditions
Turbulence modeling
Grid size
Free surface
Computationally expensive
ComFLOW3 provides viscous
information for the Time Domain
model
13. Design Optimization
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 13
Wave Climate
Scatter Diagram
Evaluation Criterion
Hs ≤ 4.5m (95% of annual)
Hs > 4.5m non operational
Efficiency
Proportion of extracted power to
available
Available depends on radius
14. Design Optimization
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 14
Geometry
3 Shapes
Dimensions
Max R=10m
Max TD=15m
16. Design Optimization
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 16
Shape Evaluation
3 Final designs, Cyl8, Bul6, Con6
Similar efficiencies
Viscous assessment is needed
How do we include viscous effects in
the Time Domain model?
Drag Force (Morison type)
Oscillating body in calm water
Oscillating body in waves / stagnation pressure
How do we find Cd?
18. Design Optimization
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 18
Efficiency Comparison
Cylinder has the largest drag
coefficients
Bullet has smaller drag
coefficient for fast oscillations
than the Cone
Drag force becomes important
at high velocities
Drag coefficients vary according
to the flow conditions
So, not steady during simulation
Drag coefficients, Cd results
19. Design Optimization
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 19
Efficiency Comparison
Time Domain Results
with steady drag coefficients
Frequency Domain Results
no viscous forces
Spring coefficients per sea
state for Bullet and Cone
20. Design Optimization
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 20
Final Design Selection
Resonates further in the
scatter diagram
Highest efficiency at the
most energetic sea states
Less drag forces for fast
oscillations
PTO damper optimization
can increase efficiency
21. Modeling Improvement
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 21
Final Model 1
Parameterization of Cd
Detailed inclusion of viscous effects
Adjustment of Cd at every time step
Reynolds number
Keulegan-Carpenter number
Forced Oscillation Tests
22. Modeling Improvement
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 22
Final Model 1
Assumption : Re and KC refer to the maximum velocity
Vm. In Time Domain model the maximum velocity is not
known before hand. The actual is used.
Results
What about PTO damping
coefficient optimization?
PTO damping coefficient selective optimization
23. Modeling Improvement
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 23
Final Model 2
Inclusion of the buoy’s motion in
excitation force estimation
Calculation of Froude-Krylov force
at every time step
NEMOH runs at 11 different
positions for the Diffraction force
Estimation of Diffraction force at
every time step with interpolation
Results
Excitation force comparison
24. Model Validation
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 24
Frequency vs Time Domain
Δω = 0.01 rad/s Δω = 0.001 rad/s
25. Model Validation
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 25
Final Model 1 vs ComFLOW3
Forced Oscillation Test
Forced Oscillation Test
With waves
26. Conclusions & Recommendations
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 26
Conclusions
What is the most efficient design?
Within the 21 evaluated designs, Bul6 was qualified as the most efficient
No guarantee that Bul6 is the optimum design
Influence of shape and dimensions?
Coupled optimization problem
Different shape leads to different optimum dimensions
Resonance properties
Excitation force
Efficiency comparison of different designs?
Optimum dimensions per shape
Viscous effects assessment
Inclusion of viscous damping in PTO damper optimum configuration
27. Conclusions & Recommendations
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 27
Conclusions
How to improve Point Absorber’s modeling?
Final Model 1 increased the physical accuracy of the model.
Final Model 2 proved to be computationally expensive without adding
significant physical information to the model
Viscous effects estimation?
Stagnation pressure method for drag force
Forced Oscillation Tests
Drag coefficient parameterization
Time step adjustment
Wave force including large buoy’s motion?
It appear that for large buoys the assumption of estimating the excitation
force at equilibrium position is valid
Linear wave theory and linear diffraction theory cannot add anymore
physical accuracy in the model
28. Conclusions & Recommendations
03 June 2016Filippos Kalofotias 28
Conclusions
Influence of additions to the previous model?
More than 10% decrease in power extraction because of drag force
Optimum PTO damper configuration shift as a result of the extra
damping
Important for control strategies
Recommendations
Nonlinear excitation force assessment
Nonlinear restoring and radiation forces
PTO modeling
Point Absorber farms