Performance of Two Types of Mooring Systems in the Heave Motion of a Two-body Floating Wave Energy Converter

Abstract

This work investigated the influence of two types of mooring systems on the hydrodynamic performance of a two-body floating wave energy converter (WEC). It also investigated the effects of the physical parameters of the mooring system on the amount of extractable power from incident waves in the frequency domain. The modeled converter comprised a floating body (a buoy), a submerged body with two mooring systems, and a coupling system for two bodies. The coupling system was a simplified power take-off system that was modeled by a linear spring-damper model. The tension leg mooring system could drastically affect the heave motion of the submerged body of the model and increase relative displacement between the two bodies. The effects of the stiffness parameter of the mooring system on power absorption exceeded those of the pretension tendon force.

Keywords

Two-body WEC / Three-point mooring / Wave energy / Tension-leg mooring system / Mooring parameters

References

[1] Amiri A, Panahi R, Radfar S. Parametric study of two-body floating-point wave absorber. J Mar Sci Appl, 2016, 15(1): 41-49

[2] Beatty SJ, Hall M, Buckham BJ, 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

[3] Chen Y, Zhang D. Response-based analysis for tension leg platform. J Mar Sci Appl, 2017, 16(1): 87-92

[4] Faiz J, Ebrahimi-Salari M. Comparison of the performance of two direct wave energy conversion systems: Archimedes wave swing and power buoy. J Mar Sci Appl, 2011, 10(4): 419-428

[5] Falnes J, Perlin M. Ocean waves and oscillating systems: linear interactions including wave-energy extraction. Appl Mech Rev, 2003, 56: B3

[6] Guedes Soares C, Bhattacharjee J, Karmakar D (2014) Overview and prospects for development of wave and offshore wind energy. Brodogradnja 65(2):87–109. https://hrcak.srce.hr/123506. Accessed 10 Dec 2018

[7] Korde UA. Systems of reactively loaded coupled oscillating bodies in wave energy conversion. Appl Ocean Res, 2003, 25(2): 79-91

[8] Kvittem MI, Bachynski EE, Moan T. Effects of hydrodynamic modelling in fully coupled simulations of a semi-submersible wind turbine. Energy Procedia, 2012, 24: 351-362

[9] Liang C, Zuo L. On the dynamics and design of a two-body wave energy converter. Renew Energy, 2017, 101: 265-274

[10] Lopez-Pavon C, Souto-Iglesias A. Hydrodynamic coefficients and pressure loads on heave plates for semi-submersible floating offshore wind turbines: a comparative analysis using large scale models. Renew Energy, 2015, 81: 864-881

[11] Muliawan MJ, Gao Z, Moan T, Babarit A (2013) Analysis of a two-body floating wave energy converter with particular focus on the effects of power take-off and mooring systems on energy capture. J Offshore Mech Arct 135(3):031902. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023796

[12] Sinha A, Karmakar D, Soares CG. Performance of optimally tuned arrays of heaving point absorbers. Renew Energy, 2016, 92: 517-531

[13] Vicente PC, Falcão AF, Justino PA. Nonlinear dynamics of a tightly moored point-absorber wave energy converter. Ocean Eng, 2013, 59: 20-36

[14] Wu B, Wang X, Diao X, Peng W, Zhang Y. Response and conversion efficiency of two degrees of freedom wave energy device. Ocean Eng, 2014, 76: 10-20

[15] Yu Y, Yi 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

[16] Zhao J, Zhang L, Wu H. Motion performance and mooring system of a floating offshore wind turbine. J Mar Sci Appl, 2012, 11(3): 328-334