Accepted Manuscript

A geometrical optimization method applied to a heaving point absorber wave

energy converter

Milad Shadman, Segen F. Estefen, Claudio A. Rodriguez, Izabel Nogueira

PII: S0960-1481(17)30813-3

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.055

Reference: RENE 9153

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 04 May 2016

Revised Date: 25 July 2017

Accepted Date: 21 August 2017

Please cite this article as: Milad Shadman, Segen F. Estefen, Claudio A. Rodriguez, Izabel
Nogueira, A geometrical optimization method applied to a heaving point absorber wave energy
converter, Renewable Energy (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.055

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 A geometrical optimization method applied to a heaving

2 point absorber wave energy converter
3
4 Milad Shadman, *Segen F. Estefen, Claudio A. Rodriguez, Izabel Nogueira
5
6 Ocean Engineering Department, COPPE – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
7 Address: Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, COPPE - Ocean Engineering Department
8 P.O. Box 68508 – CEP 21945-970 - Rio de Janeiro, RJ - Brazil
9
10 *Corresponding author: segen@lts.coppe.ufrj.br
11
12
13

14 ABSTRACT

15 A methodology for the geometrical optimization of wave energy converters (WEC) based on statistical
16 analysis methods and the hydrodynamics of the system in the frequency domain is presented. The optimization
17 process has been applied to a one-body point absorber for a nearshore region of the Rio de Janeiro coast. The
18 sea characteristics have been described using a five-year wave hindcast and are based on a third generation
19 wind wave model WAVEWATCH III. The optimization procedure is performed based on the resultant wave
20 spectrum and joint probability distribution. The aim is to determine the WEC that absorbs the maximum
21 energy into the largest range of frequencies with the closest possible natural period to the predominant wave
22 periods of the sea site. The optimized geometry of the WEC is determined by running a few simulations in the
23 frequency domain and using the design of experiment (DOE) method. The software ANSYS-AQWA is used
24 for the hydrodynamic diffraction analysis, and the DOE method is applied through the Minitab software to
25 determine the optimized geometry. The two primary advantages of the proposed optimization method are the
26 reduced computational time and the possibility of performing parametric analyses for the WEC geometry.

27

28
29 Keywords: geometry optimization, wave energy converter, statistical analyses, point absorber, DOE method

30 1. INTRODUCTION

31 Wave energy conversion technology is in the pre-commercial stage. The cost of a wave energy converter
32 (WEC) increases with its size. Therefore, the geometry optimization of the system has a significant role in the
33 design process to have an economically feasible system. So far, one of the most promising WEC concepts
34 under technical and economic evaluation is the point absorber (PA). It consists of a floater body, which has
35 small dimensions relative to the incident wavelength and, a support system, which could be mooring cables
36 connected to the seabed or bottom-mounted structures. A heaving PA is a wave energy device in which the
37 heave motion due to the wave-body interaction is absorbed to produce power. The system that receives the

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 mechanical power resulting from heave motion and delivers electricity, for instance, is called power take-off
2 (PTO). Some examples of the PA WEC can be found in [1–4]. Geometry optimization techniques applied on
3 marine structures have been used for seakeeping of ships and minimizing the dynamic response of moored
4 vessels [5–8]. The objective of the geometry optimization of the offshore platforms, floating breakwaters etc.
5 is to minimize the motion of the structure to improve the seakeeping ability. In contrast, in the case of point
6 absorbers, the geometry of WEC must be optimized to make the system oscillates in the range of sea
7 predominant wave frequencies allowing maximum possible motion amplitudes to produce more power. Until
8 now, different works have been presented for geometry optimization of a PA. Vantorre et al. [9] presented an
9 optimization study of a point absorber with controllable inertia through linear frequency domain analyses and
10 experimental tests for the Belgian coastal area of the North Sea. The geometry of the heaving buoy, PTO
11 damping and supplementary inertia are considered as variable parameters to maximize the power absorption.
12 Sjokvist et al. [10] and Goggins and Finnegan [11] applied a frequency domain approach to optimize a heaving
13 point absorber, with a pure damper as PTO system, for the Lysekil test site in Sweden and Atlantic marine
14 energy test site (AMETS) respectively. The objective of the optimization was to determine the buoy
15 dimensions that maximize its heaving velocity for that sea state and a certain PTO damping. To attain this,
16 several runs with different diameters and drafts were performed for different PTO damping values. Several
17 studies have also investigated the geometrical optimization process for other WEC concepts. For instance,
18 Kramer and Frigaard [12] used the boundary element method to optimize wave reflectors by exploring their
19 orientation and angle to increase the wave energy absorption for the wave energy converter Wave Dragon.
20 Genetic algorithms have been used by Babarit and Clement [13] and McCabe [14] to the shape optimization
21 of the SEAREV device, which is based on a pendulum that is placed in a closed buoy actuated by the swell
22 through excitation forces [15], and a surging wave energy collector, respectively. The SEAREV optimization
23 process goals were to maximize the absorbed power and minimize the costs. The objective of the shape
24 optimization of the surging wave energy collector was to maximize the mean power, the ratio of the mean
25 power to the characteristic length of the device shape, and the ratio of the mean power to the displaced volume
26 of the collector. Kurniawan and Moan [16] used a multi-objective optimization algorithm to determine the
27 optimal geometry of a wave absorber oscillating about a fixed submerged horizontal axis. They used two
28 objective functions to be minimized, which were the ratios of the submerged surface to the maximum absorbed
29 power and the maximum reaction force to the maximum absorbed power. Recently, Mahnamfar and
30 Altunkaynak [17] and Son et al. [18] deployed experimental tests beside the numerical analyses for the shape
31 optimization of a oscillating water column and a specific PA WEC respectively.
32 This paper presents a geometry optimization methodology, as a preliminary approach, applied on a simple
33 one-body point absorber, considering the nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil as the sea site. The WEC
34 consists of a floating cylinder, which reacts against the seabed with an ideal pure damper as the PTO system

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 (PTO stiffness is zero). The optimization process has been developed through linear hydrodynamic frequency
2 domain analyses and the design of experiments (DOE) approach. Minitab [19] is used to apply the DOE and
3 perform statistical analysis of the optimization process. The frequency domain analysis of the system
4 hydrodynamics is performed using ANSYS-AQWA [20]. The diameter and draft of the floating cylinder
5 (buoy) are considered as the geometrical parameters to be optimized. The objective of the optimization process
6 is to determine the buoy that absorbs the maximum wave energy over the largest range of frequencies for the
7 site’s predominant waves. The presented methodology can be applied to geometrical optimization of different
8 types of wave energy converters.
9

10 2. METHODOLOGY APPROACH

11 The methodology to be used aims at obtaining a set of geometrical parameters (factors) to optimize the point
12 absorber in relation to the following three primary requirements (responses):
13 - Buoy heave natural frequency, which should be within the prevailing sea wave frequencies;
14 - Resonance bandwidth, which is defined as the frequency interval where the buoy maximum mechanical
15 power exceeds half of the maximum value; and
16 - Maximum mechanical power.
17 A simple wave energy converter is used as the WEC system for the optimization study. The wave energy
18 converter is a generic point absorber of a cylinder (buoy) with a diameter D and a draft L, as illustrated in
19 Figure 1. The point absorber is a single body device with reference to the seabed.
20
21
22 Figure 1 - Generic point absorber with a PTO system in reference to the seabed
23
24
25 The analyses are carefully defined to consider the requirement that the WEC device has to absorb the
26 maximum energy in the largest range of wave frequencies. Figure 2 illustrates the optimization process. As
27 indicated, the first step in the optimization process is to provide information regarding the sea characteristics
28 of the site where the WEC will be installed, e.g., significant wave height, mean period and water depth (or
29 bathymetry, for shallow water cases). The second step (immature determination) is the definition of the upper
30 and lower bounds for the buoy diameter and draft. Within these bounds, a set of geometrical parameters are
31 obtained for the buoy. The third step is to compute the primary WEC requirements, what we call “responses”
32 in this study, (heave natural frequency, resonance bandwidth and maximum mechanical power) in the
33 frequency domain and apply the DOE method. In the next step (mature determination), the results of the
34 previous steps are analyzed, and the optimized buoy geometries are selected based on the statistical analyses

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 results, which will be explained in the results and discussion section. In contrast to the methodologies that
2 have been presented so far, due to the application of the DOE method as a statistical analysis, a few runs (13
3 runs) must be performed to optimize the responses. It should be noted that for the optimization with more than
4 two geometrical parameters, the number of required runs could be slightly increased. Furthermore, the
5 graphical results of the statistical analyses such as contour and surface plots offer a broad view of the
6 optimization problem domain that give us the ability of discussing and comparing the effect of all the possible
7 sets of geometrical parameters on the responses.
8
9
10 Figure 2 - Geometry optimization process of the WEC
11
12

13 3. SEA CHARACTERISTICS

14 The information on the wave climate is obtained by either in situ measurements or numerical modeling. Third
15 generation spectral wave models have emerged as a reliable tool for forecasting and hindcasting ocean
16 conditions. The use of these models in hindcast mode allows for an assessment of the global wave climate
17 [21] and the energy resources [22–24].
18 The wave power assessment along the Brazilian coast has been discussed in several studies [25,26]. To
19 describe the nearshore wave climate on the Rio de Janeiro coast, a wave hindcast for five years was developed
20 with the third generation wind wave model WAVEWATCH III (WW3) version 3.14 [27] using the NCEP’s
21 Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) wind database [28]. The CFSR covers the period from 1979 to
22 2010 and has considerably higher temporal and spatial resolutions than other reanalysis. The advantages of
23 this latest reanalysis can be given as follows: (1) land–atmosphere–ocean coupling during the generation of
24 the 6-h guess field, (2) interactive sea ice model and (3) assimilation of satellite radiances for the entire period.
25 In this report, to perform the wave climate hindcast, the last five years (2006 – 2010) of the CFSR were
26 selected. The WW3 wave model was run for 4 different grids. Grid details can be found in Table 1. The
27 bathymetric data used in this study was obtained from the ETOPO1 database of the National Oceanic and
28 Atmospheric Administration / National Geophysical Data Centre (NOAA/NGDC). The spectral space was
29 resolved in 24 directions (15° angular bandwidth) and 25 logarithmically spaced frequencies between 0.042
30 Hz (23.8 s) and 0.5 Hz (2 s).
31

32

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 1 – Computational grids used in the simulations: Δx,y is the grid spacing; Nx and Ny are the number of points in x and y,
2 respectively; Latin and Lonin are the initial latitude and longitude, respectively, and Latfi and Lonfi are the final latitude and
3 longitude, respectively.

6 The wave model configuration was validated against data obtained from meteo-oceanographic buoys of
7 Brazil´s PNBOIA (National Buoys Program). The nearest PNBOIA buoy to the Rio de Janeiro coast is the
8 Santos buoy, which is located at 25°17'0.02"S and 44°56'0.02"W and approximately 200 meters deep. Data
9 from this buoy has been recorded since 2011; however, the period for which there are continuous
10 measurements without gaps was between 2013 and 2014.
11 The Santos wave data recorded from 2013/05 to 2014/01 was applied to validate the model wave grids. A
12 qualitative view of the validation results in terms of the significant wave height (𝐻𝑠), peak period (𝑇𝑝), and
13 peak direction (𝐷𝑝) is illustrated in Figure 3. The comparison between the model simulations and the Santos
14 buoy data shows a good agreement. Despite an underestimation of the extreme 𝐻𝑠 values, results from the
15 WW3 are relatively close to the observed peak values. Furthermore, the WW3 was capable of modeling
16 rapidly changing sea conditions, and it achieved accurate timing of the observed peak storm waves.
17 To quantify the accuracy of the model, standard error metrics of Bias (Bias), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE),
18 Scatter Index (SI) and Pearson´s correlation coefficient (𝑟) are used. If 𝑥𝑖 represents the measured values, 𝑦𝑖
19 represents the simulated values and n is the number of observations, the statistical expressions can be defined
20 as follows:

∑𝑛 (𝑥𝑖 ‒ 𝑦𝑖)
𝑖=1
21 𝐵𝑖𝑎𝑠 = 𝑛 (1)

∑𝑛 (𝑥𝑖 ‒ 𝑦𝑖)2
22 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 𝑖=1
(2)
𝑛

𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸
23 𝑆𝐼 = 𝑦 (3)

∑𝑛 (𝑥𝑖 ‒ 𝑥)(𝑦 ‒ 𝑦)
𝑖=1
24 𝑟= (4)
∑𝑛 (𝑥𝑖 ‒ 𝑥)2∑𝑛𝑖= 1(𝑦𝑖 ‒ 𝑦)2
𝑖=1

25

26 where the overbar in 𝑥 and 𝑦 denotes the average values. The Bias is used to indicate the quantity of deviation
27 in the model results. By taking the average of the bias over the entire period, the underestimation (negative
28 value) or overestimation (positive value) of the model can be identified. The RMSE, which is a positive value,
29 demonstrates the accuracy and magnitude of the error in the model results. The SI, which is dimensionless,
30 denotes the error percentage. The correlation is a measure of the strength and direction of a linear relationship

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 between the measured and modeled values. A correlation of +1 indicates a perfect one-to-one linear
2 relationship whereas -1 indicates a negative relationship.

5 Figure 3 - Comparison between the time series of the significant wave height Hs, peak period Tp, and peak direction Dp. The red
6 line indicates the WW3 model results whereas the blue line indicates the Santos buoy data.

9 The values of these statistical parameters are listed in Table 2. For the Santos buoy, the results for 𝐻𝑠 are
10 considerably better than for all of the other considered parameters. The correlation coefficient was 0.91 for
11 𝐻𝑠, 0.75 for 𝑇𝑝 and 0.75 for 𝐷𝑝. The BIAS, RMSE and SI values are small in both parameters, thus
12 demonstrating that the wave model fits well with the observations [21,29,30]. Therefore, this calibrated model
13 configuration forced with the CFSR winds was used to perform a five-year wave hindcast between 2006 and
14 2010 of the nearshore wave climate in Rio de Janeiro.
15

16

17 Table 2 - Bias, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Scatter Index (SI) and Pearson Correlation’s Coefficient (r) for the correlations
18 between the wave parameters of the buoy and the WW3

19

20

21 The wave statistics on the Rio de Janeiro coast are presented in terms of their joint probability distribution
22 (JPD) in Figure 4, which indicates the probability of both a significant wave height and a wave peak period
23 occurring for a given location. There is a dominance of peak periods between 7 - 9 seconds for an 𝐻𝑠 between
24 0.5 and 1 meter with occurrence of 17.3%. Furthermore, the majority of waves have a height of less than 2
25 meters, and only 2.2% of the waves are more than 3 meters in height. The predominant waves have frequencies
26 between 7 and 13 seconds with an occurrence of 86%. The average significant height was 𝐻𝑠 = 1.33 𝑚, and
27 the wave peak period was 𝑇𝑝 = 9.7 𝑠.
28

29
30 Figure 4 - Joint Probability Distribution (%) for the nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro
31
32

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 The average wave energy spectrum based on the wave hindcast is illustrated in Figure 5. The primary spectral
2 characteristic determined from the average spectrum is the presence of large amounts of energy at a frequency
3 between 0.14 and 0.076 𝐻𝑧 (7.14 and 13.16 s). The peak of this average spectrum was 0.0908 𝐻𝑧 (11 s).
4

6 Figure 5 – Average spectral density (m²/Hz) based on the hindcast from 2006 to 2010 for the nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro
7
8
9 The total stored energy, E, in a wave per unit area of sea surface in terms of the significant wave height (𝐻𝑠)
10 can be computed directly from the hindcast data as follows [31]:
11
𝜌𝑔𝐻𝑠2
12 𝐸= 16 (5)
13
14 where  is the density of the fluid; and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The wave power level, P, per width
15 unit in a wave in terms of the significant wave height (𝐻𝑠) and the energy period (𝑇𝑒) can be given as follows:
16
𝜌𝑔2𝐻𝑠2𝑇𝑒
17 𝑃= 64𝜋 (6)
18
19 The measured sea states are often specified in terms of the significant wave height 𝐻𝑠 and either the peak
20 period 𝑇𝑝 or the mean period 𝑇𝑧. The energy period 𝑇𝑒 is rarely specified and must be estimated from other
21 variables. When the peak period 𝑇𝑝 is known, one potential approach can be assumed as follows:
22
23 𝑇𝑒 = 𝛼𝑇𝑝 (7)
24
25 where the coefficient 𝛼 depends on the frequency spectrum model, which was assumed to be equal to 1 [32].
26 Equation (6) is a deep water approximation and has been used in this study to describe the wave power for the
27 nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro. By considering an average significant height, 𝐻𝑠 = 1.33 𝑚, and a wave
28 energy period, 𝑇𝑒 = 𝑇𝑝 = 9.7 𝒔, for the sea site and applying equation (6), the resultant wave power level
29 per unit width is approximately 8.5 kW/m.
30 Figure 6 illustrates a combined scatter and energy diagram to visualize the composition of the wave energy
31 resource in terms of wave heights and periods. The numerical values represent the probability of occurrence
32 of a combination of significant wave heights and peak period in percentage. The peak period and significant
33 wave height are divided into intervals of 2 s and 0.5 m, respectively. Color scale represents annual wave power
34 level (in 𝑀𝑊ℎ/𝑚 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟). As it shown, the most energetic waves have significant wave heights between 1.5 m

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 and 2.0 m with peak periods between 9 s and 11 s, which represents only 7.1% of the total number of waves
2 per year.
3
4
5 Figure 6 –Combined scatter and energy diagram: the colors denote the annual wave power level (MWh/m year), and the numbers
6 indicate the probability occurrence per year (%) in terms of significant wave height and peak period.
7
8

9 4. HYDRODYNAMICS OF THE SYSTEM

10 4.1 Equations of Motion

11 In the preliminary hydrodynamic modeling of the WECs, it is typically assumed that the hydrodynamic forces
12 of the floating body in waves are those obtained from the linear diffraction theory, i.e., viscous effects are
13 neglected and only potential forces are considered. Thus, the response of a single floating body in a wave is
14 generally described using a mass-spring system. By assuming a linear system with 6 degrees of freedom, the
15 equations of motion for this analysis can be represented as follows:
16
6
17  (M
j 1
kj  Akj ) 
x j  Bkj x j  Ckj x j  Fk k=1, 2…6 (8)

18
19 where 𝑘 and 𝑗 are the subscripts for denoting the hydrodynamic properties in the k-mode as a result of motion
20 in the 𝑗-mode; 𝑀𝑘𝑗 is the mass of the structure;𝐴𝑘𝑗, 𝐵𝑘𝑗 and 𝐶𝑘𝑗 are the added mass matrix, damping matrix
21 and hydrostatic restoring matrix, respectively; and 𝐹𝑘 represents the other external forces in the 𝑘𝑡ℎ mode. A
22 detailed discussion on the linear diffraction theory can be found in [33]. Because the primary mechanism for
23 the energy extraction of the proposed point absorber is the heave motion, at this preliminary stage, only the
24 heave motion of the floater will be considered. Thus, the motion equation can be given as follows:
25
26
27 (𝑀 + 𝐴33)𝑥3 + 𝐵33𝑥3 + 𝐶33𝑥3 = F3(t) (9)

28 where 𝑀 is the mass of the system; 𝐴33, 𝐵33 and 𝐶33 are the added mass matrix, damping matrix and
29 hydrostatic matrix, respectively, in the heave direction; and F3 is the external force on the body in the heave
30 direction. It should be noted that the external forces may include, in addition to the wave excitation forces and
31 mooring, other forces, such as mechanical forces (e.g., power take-off forces).
32

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 4.2 Power Take-Off (PTO)

2 A PTO system should be integrated in the WEC modeling to calculate the wave energy conversion. A PTO
3 applies a force on the system in the opposite direction of the displacement to absorb its kinetic energy and
4 produces electricity or other desired form of energy. Therefore, in the case of heaving point absorber, the
5 absence of PTO system results in a larger heave amplitude, specifically in the resonance range. Although it is
6 not completely realistic, a simple pure damper model is used here to represent the power take-off mechanism.
7 The stiffness and control forces may be included in later stages. The damping of the PTO system is assumed
8 to be frequency independent. The PTO force that is applied on the buoy in the heave direction can be expressed
9 as follows:
10
11 𝐹𝑃𝑇𝑂 = 𝐷𝑃𝑇𝑂𝑥3 (10)
12
13 where 𝐷𝑃𝑇𝑂 is the PTO damping coefficient. After applying the PTO force, the equation of motion for the
14 system can be given as follows:
15
16 (𝑀 + 𝐴33)𝑥3 + 𝐵33𝑥3 + 𝐶33𝑥3 = F3(t) + 𝐹𝑃𝑇𝑂 (11)

17

18 According to Falnes [31], a maximum amount of energy can be captured if the power take-off mechanical
19 damping is equal to the radiation damping of the point absorber. Under these assumptions, the PTO damping
20 will be equal to that of the point absorber at resonance. Falnes and Lillebekken [2] provided an expression for
21 the absorbed mean power (Ppto ) of a heaving wave energy converter under harmonic motion as follows:
22
1
23 Ppto = 2𝐷𝑃𝑇𝑂ω2|X3|2 (12)
24
25 where 𝜔 is the wave frequency; and 𝑋3 is the amplitude of the buoy heave motion.
26

27 5. Immature determination

28 As mentioned in previous sections, the optimization of the buoy starts by an immature determination, which
29 includes the definition of the upper and lower bounds for its diameter and draft, D and L, respectively. These
30 bounds should satisfy two design premises. The first one is associated with the maximum amount of power
31 that the buoy can absorb from incident waves, and the second one is related to the maximum buoy response
32 in heaving due to the incident waves. Evidently, both premises are related to the waves’ characteristics,
33 specifically the range of predominant wave periods at the WEC’s installation site.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2 5.1 Diameter range (D)

3 The first premise requires that the maximum possible energy available from the incident wave is absorbed by
4 the buoy. The maximum energy that may be absorbed by a heaving axisymmetric body equals the wave energy
5 transported by the incident wave front of width equal to the wavelength divided by 2𝜋 [31]. The maximum
6 “capture width” or “absorption width”, 𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥, can be defined as follows [31]:
7
8 𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜆 2𝜋 (13)
9
10 Then, the maximum wave power, 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 , absorbed by a heaving axisymmetric body can be given as follows:
11
12 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐽𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 (14)
13
14 where 𝐽 is the energy flux per unit wave crest width. For linear deep water waves, we can obtain
15
16 𝜆 = 𝑔𝑇2 2𝜋 (15)

17 𝐽 = 𝜌𝑔2𝑇𝐻2 32𝜋 (16)

18
19 Where 𝝆 is the water density, 𝑻 and 𝑯 are the period and height of the wave. If the capture width is divided
20 by the device’s width (e.g., the buoy diameter, 𝑫), we can obtain the non-dimensional or relative capture
21 width, 𝑪𝒘𝒓, which, for successful devices, should satisfy (recommended by Twidell and Weir ) [34] the
22 expression as follows:
23
𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥
24 𝐶𝑤𝑟 = 𝐷 ≥3 (17)
25
26 Based on Eqs. (13), (15) and (17) and knowing that the predominant wave periods for the nearshore region of
27 Rio de Janeiro are between 7 s and 13 s, the upper bound of 𝐷 can be established for both limits: for the 7 s
28 wave, 𝐷  4 𝑚, and for the 13 s wave, 𝐷  14 𝑚. Additionally, there is a practical rule for a point absorber
29 used as a WEC that recommends that the point absorber diameter should preferably be in the range of 5% to
30 10% of the prevailing wavelength [2]. For the nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro, the prevailing wavelength
31 corresponds to the wave peak period (𝑇𝑝 = 9.7 𝑠); thus, the recommended range for the buoy diameter,
32 according to Falnes’ recommendation [2], would be 7  𝐷  14 𝑚. The upper value is in good agreement with
33 the one obtained from the wave capture width consideration for the 13 s wave. However, there is a
34 disagreement between the lower bound of the Falnes recommendation and the bound given by the capture

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 width for the 7 s wave. Although the capture width suggests buoy diameters smaller than 4 m, the practical
2 rule recommends buoy diameters exceeding 7 m. For the optimization process, it is desirable to cover a wider
3 range of buoy diameters; hence, the bounds for 𝐷 will be taken as 4 < 𝐷 < 14 𝑚.
4

5 5.2 Draft range (L)

6 Once the lower and upper bounds of 𝐷 are defined, the draft of the buoy may be determined. Now, the second
7 design premise for the buoy will be used, i.e., the range of heave natural periods of the buoys should match
8 the range of predominant wave periods of the WEC installation site. Assuming a one degree-of-freedom free-
1
9 floating body, the buoy heave natural frequency 𝜔𝑛3 can be given as follows:
10
𝜌𝑔𝐴𝑤𝑝
1
11 𝜔𝑛3 = 1
𝑀33 1
+ 𝐴33
(18)

12

1
13 where 𝐴𝑤𝑝 is the buoy water plane area, which is a function of the buoy diameter (𝐷); 𝑀33 is the mass of the
1
14 buoy based on the submersed volume (i.e., 𝐷 and 𝐿); and 𝐴33 is the added mass coefficient, which can be
15 calculated at this preliminary stage as follows [35]:
16
1
17 𝐴33 = 0.167D3 (19)
18
19 To trigger the buoy resonance motions, Eq. (18) should be set equal to the incident wave frequency. For the
20 sea site’s prevailing wave periods (7 to 13 s) and the range of buoy diameters obtained in Section 5.1 (4 to 14
21 m), a set of values for the buoy draft (𝐿) that cause the buoy to resonate within a range of prevailing waves
22 was determined, as indicated in Table 3.
23

24
25 Table 3 - Resonant buoys
26
27
28 Within each table cell, the value of the draft is listed for several buoy diameters that satisfy the maximum
29 capture width condition for a given wave period to make the buoy resonate during heaving. The cell colors
30 are used to identify the magnitude of 𝐿 (green for smaller values and red for the larger ones) so that the
31 corresponding upper and lower bounds for 𝐿 can be easily established as; 3 < 𝐿 < 42 𝑚. Nevertheless,
32 because this range is excessively wide, a few additional considerations should be noted to narrow the limits
33 for 𝐿.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Based on the typical linear responses of a mass-spring-damper system under harmonic external excitation, a
2 few preliminary conclusions may be stated regarding the responses in waves for a point absorber. In the
3 resonance region, the body responses are dominated by damping, and the responses can achieve relatively
4 large amplitudes when the damping is small. In the low-frequency region (frequencies lower than the
5 resonance frequency), the body responses are dominated by restoring. At very low frequencies, the wavelength
6 is large when compared to the horizontal length (diameter) of the buoy, and it will “follow” the waves, upwards
7 and downwards. In the high frequency region (frequencies larger than the resonance frequency), the buoy
8 responses are dominated by mass, which indicates that the waves “lose” their influence on the behavior of the
9 buoy; there are several wave crests and troughs within the horizontal length (diameter) of the buoy [36]. From
10 the above statement, it can be concluded that to harness the wave energy for a wider range of wave periods, it
11 is desirable to design a buoy whose natural period is tuned with the lowest prevailing wave period (or perhaps,
12 less) so that it works in the resonance region for the shorter wave lengths (lower wave periods) and “follows”
13 the waves for the longer waves (higher wave periods). Thus, the region where the waves “lose” their influence
14 is minimized. In conclusion, to guarantee a wider operational wave scenario for the WEC, shorter natural
15 periods should be selected. For example, from Table 3, we can select heaving natural periods between 5 and
16 7 𝑠 such that the limits for 𝐿 can be updated to 3 < 𝐿 < 12 𝑚. Table 4 summarizes the upper and lower
17 bounds for 𝐷 and 𝐿, as determined from the previous sections.
18

19

20 Table 4 – Upper and lower bounds for the buoy’s geometrical parameters

21

22 6. Design of Experiments methodology

23 The design of experiments (DOE) is a formal structured technique for studying any situation that involves a
24 response that varies as a function of one or more independent variables. The DOE is specifically designed to
25 address complex problems where more than one variable may affect a response and two or more variables
26 may interact with each other. It can be used wherever experimental data are collected and analyzed. Its use is
27 expected in all branches of scientific research but is becoming even more widespread in engineering,
28 manufacturing, biology, medicine, economics, sociology, psychology, etc. The DOE can provide answers to
29 specific questions on the behavior of a system using an optimum number of experimental observations.
30 Because the designed experiments are structured to answer specific questions with statistical rigor,
31 experiments with too few observations will not deliver the desired confidence in the results, and experiments

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 with too many observations will waste resources. This method provides the answers that we seek with a
2 minimum expenditure of time and resources.
3 In the current study, we have defined thus far a range of primary dimensions for our WEC: 4 < 𝐷 < 14 𝑚
4 and 3 < 𝐿 < 12 𝑚, i.e., an infinite number of solutions is possible. Our task is to determine the optimal
5 solution without having to perform a large number of simulations. In fact, by applying the DOE method, we
6 will be able to study the performance of hundreds of buoys in the mentioned range using just a few runs (13
7 buoys), as indicated in Table 5.
8 Processes have inputs that determine how a system operates as well as outputs that are produced by the
9 process. The purpose of an experiment (or “run” in this study) is to determine how the inputs affect the outputs.
10 Experiments may be performed to document the behavior of the inputs and the corresponding outputs for
11 scientific purposes, but the goal of engineering experimentation is to learn how to control the process inputs
12 to produce the desired outputs. The process inputs are called variables, factors, or predictors whereas the
13 process outputs are called responses. The primary advantages of using the DOE can be stated as follows:
14

15 - Screening the factors to determine which are important for explaining the process variation (this is
16 more applicable when the number of factors is more than 3)
17 - Understanding how factors interact and drive the process
18 - Finding the factor settings that produce optimal process performance
19 - Decreasing the number of experiments or runs and time-saving
20
21 There can be several experiments designed for a specified number of design variables; however, the extreme
22 designs that encompass all of the others are called screening experiments and response surface experiments.
23 Screening experiments are used when the study of a large number of design variables is used to determine the
24 most important variables rather than the interactions between pairs of variables. The response surface
25 experiments generally involve two to five quantitative variables, which are capable of providing the primary
26 effects of the variables, factor interactions and terms to measure the curvature induced in the response by each
27 design variable [37]. Hence, the response surface method (RSM) is applied to use the sequence of designed
28 experiments to obtain an optimal response or combination of responses.
29 In this optimization study, the combination of the geometrical parameters (factors) of the buoy is sought to
30 satisfy the desired resonance bandwidth, natural frequency and maximum power of the WEC (responses). By
31 considering a certain natural frequency as the goal, the response variable is defined to provide a heaving point
32 absorber, which absorbs the maximum energy within the broadest range of frequencies. Then, the response
33 variable used in this study can be given as follows:
34

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 = 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ ∗ 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟

2
3 where the resonance bandwidth is defined as the frequency interval where the maximum mechanical power
4 exceeds half of the maximum value.
5
6 Table 5 – Designed experiments
7
8

9 7. Results and discussion; mature determination

10 Thus far, the range of factors was determined based on the sea site characteristics and the principle
11 conditions applied using the DOE method. In this step, the statistical analysis results are discussed,
12 and the final buoys are determined based on the resultant contour and surface plots. The hydrodynamic
13 analyses (experiments) are performed in the frequency domain using ANSYS/AQWA. Figure 7
14 illustrates a typical geometrical model and its discretization as required by ANSYS/AQWA. An
15 additional mechanical damping in the heave direction, has been considered to simulate the pure PTO
16 system (the stiffness of PTO was assumed to be zero). The PTO damping is considered to be equal to
17 the hydrodynamic damping of each buoy at its resonant frequency to maximize the energy absorption
18 at that frequency [31].
19

20
21 Figure 7 - 3D meshed geometry of a buoy
22
23

24
25 7.1 Diameter and draft interactions
26 After analyzing the designed experiments in Minitab, the results are illustrated by the contour plots in
27 Figure 8.

28

29
30 Figure 8 - Contour plot of the geometrical parameters (draft and diameter) in meter and the maximum power (MP) in kW,
31 resonance bandwidth (RB) and natural period (NP) in second.
32
33
34 The contour plots give us the ability of screening the interactions of the geometrical parameters (factors) and
35 their effects on the resonance bandwidth (RB), maximum power (MP) and natural period (NP) as the

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 responses. In Figure 8, the horizontal and vertical axes represent the diameter (𝐷) and draft (𝐿) in the
2 predefined ranges that have been determined in the immature determination step. The colored solid and dotted
3 lines show the responses. The green, red and blue represent the resonance bandwidth, maximum power and
4 natural period. A maximum and a minimum value of 1.4 s and 0.2 s are respectively considered for the
5 resonance bandwidth based on the frequency domain analyses and DOE results. It means that, the buoys which
6 are located on the solid red line (𝑅𝐵 = 0.2 𝑠) have the lowest resonance bandwidth comparing to the others
7 implying that its performance capability is good close to the natural period but poor elsewhere. Moving away
8 from this zone toward the maximum resonance bandwidth line (𝑅𝐵 = 1.4 𝑠 , dotted red line), the buoys with
9 the capability of absorbing wider range of wave periods are achievable. The white area shows the buoys (𝐷,
10 𝐿) bounded values, which are in the ranges of 5 to 8 seconds and 100 to 570 kW for the natural period and the
11 maximum power respectively. For instance, the buoy with the diameter of 13 m and draft of 11 m is located
12 in the white area and has a natural period close to 8 seconds with a maximum power of approximately 570
13 kW at its resonance period. By observing the contour plot, it can be inferred that the maximum resonance
14 bandwidth and the maximum power do not occur at the same region. Figure 8 illustrates that the larger
15 diameters with relatively small drafts (𝐿 < 6 𝑚) provide a good resonance bandwidth while the maximum
16 energy absorption is achievable in the same diameter range with larger drafts (𝐿 > 10 𝑚). However, it should
17 be kept in mind that the maximum power in the present methodology is the energy absorption at the buoy
18 natural period. On the other hand, the results show that the highest possible natural period provided by a buoy
19 in the geometrical parameter range is 8 s. It implies that a very large buoy, outside the specified range of
20 diameters and drafts, is required to satisfy the resonant condition for the sea site energetic waves, which are
21 between 9 and 11 s (Figure 6). This is a challenge for the local seas with predominant wave periods beyond 6
22 or 7 s. Figure 9 shows some frequency domain analyses for different buoys selected from Figure 8, to provide
23 a better understanding of the interaction of the geometrical parameters and their effects on the responses. For
24 this reason, an arbitrarily selected buoy of diameter 11 m and draft 5 m is considered. To observe the effect
25 of both diameter and draft, the simulations are performed for the buoys with a constant diameter and varying
26 drafts and vice-versa. A constant PTO damping is applied to maximize the energy absorption. The vertical
27 and horizontal axes represent the maximum mechanical power and wave periods, respectively. Figure 9-a
28 illustrates the effect of changing diameters for a constant draft. As can be seen, larger diameter improves the
29 buoy performance by increasing the maximum power, natural period and resonance bandwidth. This is based
30 on theoretical analyses for an unconstrained system. In practice, there are some limitations regarding the cost,
31 PTO forces, mooring etc. that restrict the buoy diameter increase. Furthermore, increasing the diameter results
32 in better absorption in low-frequency region (periods higher than the natural period) while letting the
33 absorption in high-frequency region unchanged. It may be a desirable effect for the sea regions that are

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 dominated by large wave periods. Figure 9-b shows the influence of the draft in the performance of the buoy.
2 Increasing the draft leads to a higher maximum power and natural period but a lower resonance bandwidth.
3 As seen, as the buoy draft increases the power curve narrowed leading to a short resonance bandwidth. It
4 means that the buoys with larger drafts provide high natural periods and absorb a significant amount of energy
5 in its resonant condition. Quantitatively, the effect of the draft is more significant than that of diameter. For
6 instance, the maximum power increase of 13% is reached for a diameter increase of 2 meters (considering
7 buoy (7, 5) and buoy (9, 5) in Figure 9-a), while this value is about 20% for the same increment in draft
8 (considering buoy (11, 7) and buoy (11, 9) in Figure 9-b). Therefore, it should be noted that modifying the
9 draft values can significantly influence the point absorber performance. The contour plots enable us to
10 understand the problem better and identify the limits by providing a broad view of its domain.
11

12
13 Figure 9 – a) different diameters with a fixed draft; and b) different drafts with a fixed diameter
14
15

16 7.2 Optimum diameter and draft

17 Surface plots can also illustrate the interaction of geometrical parameters to analyze the statistical results.
18 Figure 10 shows the surface plot of the maximum mechanical power and resonance bandwidth versus buoy
19 diameter and draft. As seen, the buoy with the maximum mechanical power, buoy (14, 12), has a relatively
20 low resonance bandwidth whereas the buoy with the maximum resonance bandwidth, buoy (14, 3), has a low
21 mechanical power. Based on the resonance bandwidth surface plot, Figure 10-a, the buoys with a resonance
22 bandwidth lower than half of the maximum value (maximum resonance bandwidth equal to 2 s) are discarded.
23 Then, the modified geometrical parameter range is achieved, 8 < 𝐷 < 14 𝑚 and 3 < 𝐿 < 6 𝑚.
24
25
26 Figure 10 – Surface plot of the; a) the resonance bandwidth (s), and b) the maximum mechanical power (kW) vs. buoy diameter
27 and draft
28
29
30 The optimized buoy in this range is determined using the Minitab response optimizer [19]. This feature helps
31 identify the combination of geometrical parameters that jointly optimize the resonance bandwidth and
32 maximum power. The joint optimization must satisfy the requirements for all the responses in the set, which
33 here is the maximization of the combination of the resonance bandwidth and maximum power. This is
34 measured by the composite desirability. The composite desirability assesses how well a combination of input
35 variables (𝐷 and 𝐿) satisfies the targets defined for the responses. In this study, the objective is to obtain a

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 system that works as close as possible to the prevailing wave periods while absorbing the maximum possible
2 energy in a relatively wide range of the sea dominant waves. By considering the modified range of the factors
3 resulted from Figure 10, buoy (14, 6) has the largest values of diameter and draft, providing the highest natural
4 period (6 𝑠). This resonance period is selected as a target for the response optimization process. The maximum
5 mechanical power and resonance bandwidth are set to satisfy the maximum values. Eventually, the response
6 optimizer numerically determines the buoy that satisfies the optimization requirements. Under these
7 conditions, 13.5 𝑚 diameter and 5 𝑚 draft are determined for the optimized buoy. As indicated in Figure 11,
8 to verify the numerical optimization result, a set of runs with buoys in the range of 8 < 𝐷 < 14 𝑚 and 3 < 𝐿
9 < 6 𝑚 are performed in AQWA/ANSYS, and the results are compared to those from the optimization results.
10
11
12 Figure 11 – Normalized mechanical power vs period for; a) different diameters with the same draft; and b) Different drafts with
13 the same diameter
14
15
16 Figure 11 illustrates the captured mechanical power for the buoy over the range of period between 4 and 15 𝑠.
17 The vertical axis represents the normalized mechanical power. The power values are divided by 𝑃𝑐, which is
18 the maximum mechanical power of buoy (13.5, 5) and buoy (13.5, 6) in figures 9-a and b, respectively. It can
19 be seen that, as expected, decreasing the diameter in figure 9-a results in a decrease in the maximum
20 mechanical power, resonance bandwidth and resonance period, which implies that a diameter of 13.5 m is the
21 best selection in the range. This result is in accordance with the result of the numerical optimization. In Figure
22 9-b, buoy (13.5, 5) is compared with other buoys with different drafts in the range of 3 to 6 𝑚. The results are
23 the same as those discussed in Figures 8 to 10. Increasing the draft leads to a buoy with a higher maximum
24 mechanical power, narrower resonance bandwidth and a higher resonance period. Conversely, decreasing the
25 draft results in a lower maximum mechanical power, wider resonance bandwidth and lower resonance period.
26 However, an important issue that must be considered during the optimization of the buoy dimensions is the
27 performance of the buoy over the range of prevailing wave periods at the sea site. As indicated in figure 11-b
28 and considering buoy (13.5, 3), it can be seen that although this buoy has the lowest maximum mechanical
29 power and resonance period, it captures more power over the sea site prevailing wave periods (between 7 and
30 13 𝑠) when compared to the dimensions of other buoys. In figure 11-b, the differences between the captured
31 power graphs in the range of predominant wave periods are not significant; however, selecting a buoy with a
32 smaller draft results in a few benefits, such as lower cost and lower system loads due to a lighter weight
33 system, which consequently results in increasing the efficiency of the system. Thus, a buoy with a diameter

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 of 13.5 𝑚 and a draft of 3 𝑚 is selected as the optimized buoy for the mentioned nearshore sea site of Rio de
2 Janeiro.
3 It can be seen that for sea regions, such as the nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro, with a predominant wave
4 period greater than 7 𝑠, the challenge is to have a passive point absorber with a resonance bandwidth tuned to
5 the prevailing wave range. In our study, the one-body point absorber that can meet this requirement is a large
6 buoy close to the geometrical parameters boundaries. Practically, this type of system results in several
7 challenges related to the cost, slamming, water depth consideration, proper PTO system, etc. By applying
8 control methods, a smaller system that works by tuning to the prevailing wave range may be achievable.

9 8. Conclusion

10 A methodology for the geometric optimization of WECs based on a series of frequency domain analyses and
11 a statistical analysis method known as Design of Experiments (DOE) was presented. The optimization process
12 is applied to the preliminary design of a one-body point absorber with an axisymmetric floating cylinder for
13 the nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro. An ideal pure damper is considered as power take-off (PTO) system,
14 and the energy absorption is calculated for different wave frequencies. First, the local sea characteristics has
15 been described through a five-year wave hindcast (2006-2010) based on a third generation wind wave model
16 WAVEWATCH III. The results indicated a predominant wave period range between 7 and 13 𝑠 with an
17 energy period Te = 9.7 s , as well as an average significant height of Hs = 1.33 m. Based on these results, the
18 calculated wave power level per width unit is approximately 8.5 𝑘𝑊/𝑚. Then, the optimization procedure is
19 applied in two principle steps, immature and mature determination. The lower and upper bounds of the
20 geometrical parameters are determined in the first step based on the practical recommendations regarding the
21 ratio of the point absorber diameter to the predominant wavelength and the non-dimensional capture width.
22 In the second step, after considering a set of frequency domain analyses and the design of experiments method,
23 the WEC’s geometrical parameters (diameter and draft) are determined to achieve a system that absorbs the
24 maximum energy over a wide range of wave periods. In other words, a set of geometrical parameters (factors)
25 are determined to maximize the response that is a combination of the maximum absorbed power and the
26 resonance bandwidth of the buoy.
27 The results include the contour and surface plots of the factors interactions. The effects of the different sets of
28 diameter and draft on the maximum mechanical power, resonance bandwidth and natural period of the buoy
29 were determined. The lower and upper bounds of the geometrical parameters are further modified based on
30 the resonance bandwidth requirement. Considering the modified domain of the diameter and draft, the
31 maximum buoy natural period is T = 6 s, which corresponds to the buoy with a diameter 14 𝑚 and draft 6 𝑚.
32 Consequently, this period is considered as a satisfactory target natural period for the optimization process. The

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 response optimizer, which is a feature of Minitab, is used to numerically determine the best set of geometrical
2 parameters that jointly maximize the maximum power and resonance bandwidth. The numerical results of the
3 response optimizer are then verified by a series of frequency domain analyses and, eventually, the buoy with
4 diameter 𝐷 = 13.5 𝑚 and draft 𝐿 = 3 𝑚 is selected as the optimized buoy for the design sea site. It can be seen
5 that none of the buoys inside the defined upper and lower bounds can provide a natural period and resonance
6 bandwidth tuned to the sea site predominant wave range. This has been observed as the primary challenge for
7 the nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro that have prevailing wave periods beyond 7 𝑠.
8 Applying DOE method as a statistical analysis combined with the frequency domain hydrodynamic analysis
9 provide a wide picture of the optimization problem domain, and the possibility of observing the effects of
10 different variables on the optimization process objective. Furthermore, a considerable amount of CPU time is
11 saved by performing only a few runs for the optimization process. Time domain simulations are recommended
12 in more advanced phases of the design to confirm the selected parameters for the proposed WEC. The
13 proposed methodology can be applied to other types of wave converters with different geometrical properties.

14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

15 The authors acknowledge CAPES, Ministry of Education / Brazil, for the D.Sc. Scholarship to the first author,
16 and CNPq, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation / Brazil, for supporting research activities of the
17 second author. Special thanks to FURNAS through ANEEL (Brazilian Electrical Energy Agency) P&D
18 Program for the financial support of the research in progress at Subsea Technology Laboratory (COPPE) on
19 wave energy.

20 REFERENCES

21 [1] Garcia-Rosa PB, Cunha JPVS, Lizarralde F, Estefen SF, Machado IR, Watanabe EH. Wave-to-Wire Model
22 and Energy Storage Analysis of an Ocean Wave Energy Hyperbaric Converter. IEEE J Ocean Eng
23 2013;39:386–97. doi:10.1109/JOE.2013.2260916.
24 [2] Falnes J, Lillebekken PM. Budal’s latching-controlled-buoy type wave-power plant. Proc. Fifth Eur. Wave
25 Energy Conf., 2003, p. 233–44.
26 [3] Waters R, Stålberg M, Danielsson O, Svensson O, Gustafsson S, Strömstedt E, et al. Experimental results from
27 sea trials of an offshore wave energy system. Appl Phys Lett 2007;90. doi:10.1063/1.2432168.
28 [4] OPT powerbuoy available from: http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/ n.d.
29 [5] Clauss GF, Birk L. Hydrodynamic shape optimization of large offshore structures. Appl Ocean Res
30 1996;18:157–71. doi:10.1016/S0141-1187(96)00028-4.
31 [6] Brik L, Clauss G. Automated Hull optimisation of offshore structures based on rational sea keeping criteria.
32 Elev. Int. offshore polar Eng. Conf. Stavanger, Norw., 2001.
33 [7] Brik L, Clauss G. Parametric hull design and automated optimization of offshore structures. Tenth Congr. Int.
34 Marit. Assoc. Mediterr. (IMAM 2002), n.d.
35 [8] Brik L. Application of constrained multi-objective optimization to the design of offshore structure hulls. J
36 Offshore Mech Arct Eng 2009;131:11301. doi:10.1115/1.2957919.
37 [9] Vantorre M, Banasiak R, Verhoeven R. Modelling of hydraulic performance and wave energy extraction by a
38 point absorber in heave. Appl Ocean Res 2004;26:61–72. doi:10.1016/j.apor.2004.08.002.
39 [10] Sjökvist L, Krishna R, Rahm M, Castellucci V, Hagnestål A, Leijon M. On the Optimization of Point Absorber

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Buoys. J Mar Sci Eng 2014;2:477–92. doi:10.3390/jmse2020477.

2 [11] Goggins J, Finnegan W. Shape optimisation of floating wave energy converters for a specified wave energy
3 spectrum. Renew Energy 2014;71:208–20. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.022.
4 [12] Kramer MM, Frigaard PB. Efficient wave energy amplification with wave reflectors. Proc. Twelfth Int.
5 Offshore Polar Eng. Conf. Kitakyushu, Japan, 2002.
6 [13] Babarit A, Clément AH. Shape optimisation of the SEAREV wave energy converter. 9th World Renew Energy
7 Congr 2006.
8 [14] McCabe AP. Constrained optimization of the shape of a wave energy collector by genetic algorithm. Renew
9 Energy 2013;51:274–84. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.09.054.
10 [15] Ruellan M, Ben Ahmed H, Multon B, Josset C, Babarit A, Clément AH. Design Methodology for a SEAREV
11 Wave Energy Converter. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2010;25:760–7. doi:10.1109/TEC.2010.2046808.
12 [16] Kurniawan A, Moan T. Optimal geometries for wave absorbers oscillating about a fixed axis. IEEE J Ocean
13 Eng 2013;38:117–30. doi:10.1109/JOE.2012.2208666.
14 [17] Mahnamfar F, Altunkaynak A. Comparison of numerical and experimental analyses for optimizing the
15 geometry of OWC systems. Ocean Eng 2017;130:10–24. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.11.054.
16 [18] Son D, Belissen V, Yeung RW. Performance validation and optimization of a dual coaxial-cylinder ocean-
17 wave energy extractor. Renew Energy 2016;92:192–201. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.032.
18 [19] http://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/17/(last access on 09/02/2017) n.d.
19 [20] http://148.204.81.206/Ansys/150/Aqwa%20Users%20Manual.pdf (last access on 09/02/2017) n.d.
20 [21] Chawla A, Spindler DM, Tolman HL. Validation of a thirty year wave hindcast using the Climate Forecast
21 System Reanalysis winds. Ocean Model 2013;70:189–206. doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.07.005.
22 [22] Waters R, Engström J, Isberg J, Leijon M. Wave climate off the Swedish west coast. Renew Energy
23 2009;34:1600–6. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.11.016.
24 [23] Ching-Piao T, Ching-Her H, Chien H, Hao-Yuan C. Study on the wave climate variation to the renewable
25 wave energy assessment. Renew Energy 2012;38:50–61. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.041.
26 [24] Hiles CE. On the use of computational models for wave climate assessment in support of the wave energy
27 industry (Master thesis). Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, 2010.
28 [25] Beserra ER, Mendes ALT, Estefen SF, Parente CE. Wave climate analysis for a wave energy conversion
29 application in Brazil. ASME 2007 26th Int. Conf. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 2007, p. 897–902.
30 doi:10.1115/OMAE2007-29597.
31 [26] Contestabile P, Ferrante V, Vicinanza D. Wave energy resource along the coast of Santa Catarina (Brazil).
32 Energies 2015;8:14219–43. doi:10.3390/en81212423.
33 [27] Tolman HL. User manual and system documentation of WAVEWATCH-IIITM version 3.14. Tech Note 2009.
34 doi:10.3390/ijerph2006030011.
35 [28] Saha S, Moorthi S, Pan HL, Wu X, Wang J, Nadiga S, et al. The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis.
36 Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2010;91:1015–57. doi:10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1.
37 [29] Alves JHGM, Ribeiro EO, Grossmann Matheson GS, Moreira Lima JA, Parente Ribeiro CE. Wave climate
38 hindcast for Brazilian south-southeast between 1997 and 2005. Rev Bras Geofis 2009;27:427–45.
39 doi:10.1590/S0102-261X2009000300010.
40 [30] Rusu L, Pilar P, Guedes Soares C. Hindcast of the wave conditions along the west Iberian coast. Coast Eng
41 2008;55:906–19. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2008.02.029.
42 [31] Falnes J. Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems: Linear interactions including wave-energy extraction. Appl
43 Mech Rev 2003;56:B3. doi:10.1115/1.1523355.
44 [32] Hagerman G. Southern England wave energy resource potential. Proc. Build. Energy 2001 ,Boston,
45 Massachusetts, New Engl. Sustain. Energy Assoc., 2001.
46 [33] Newman JN. Marine Hydrodynamic. Cambridge, Mass : MIT press; 1977.
47 [34] Twidell J, Weir T. Renewable energy resources. Third edit. 2015.
48 [35] Hooft JP. Oscillatory wave forces on small bodies. Int. Shipbuild. Prog., IOS Press; 1970, p. 127–35.
49 [36] Journée JMJ, Massie W. W. Offshore hydromechanics 2001:570. doi:10.1016/S0013-4686(01)00879-9.
50 [37] Paul G. Mathews. Design of Experiments with MINITAB. Am. Stat., vol. 60, 2006, p. 205–205.
51 doi:10.1198/tas.2006.s46.
52

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

buoy
WL
L

𝐾𝑃𝑇𝑂 𝐷𝑃𝑇𝑂
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Sea site
characteristics
Mature determination

Determination of Applying three

the range of the principle Results analysis
factors (D, L) conditions

Immature determination
Optimized buoy Response
optimizer
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights

 A methodology, based on the combination of the frequency domain and statistical

analyses, for geometrical optimization of wave energy converters has been
developed
 The objective of the optimization process is to determine the optimum dimensions
of a heaving point absorber that absorbs the maximum energy into the largest
range of frequencies with the closest possible natural period to the predominant
wave periods of the sea site
 The methodolgy provides a wide view of the optimization problem and enables
us to observe the effects of different variables on the optimization process
objective
 A considerable amount of CPU time is saved by performing only a few runs for
the optimization process
 The optimization process is applied to a one-body heaving point absorber for the
nearshore region of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Domain Δx,y Nx Ny Latin Lonin Latfi Lonfi

Grid 1
1° 86 81 -80° -80° 0° 5°
Grid 2
15' 181 121 -55° -65° -15° -20°
Grid 3
5 km 97 73 -27 -47 -21 -39

Grid 4 2 km 120 70 -24 -43.9 -22.6 -41.5

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Buoy Wave Parameters BIAS RMSE SI r

Hm0 (m) -0.03 0.33 0.15 0.91

Tp (s) 0.32 1.7 0.17 0.75

Santos

Dp (°) -18 39 0.23 0.75

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lmax Period Diameter,

λ (m) 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
(m) (s) D (m)
6.2 39.0 5.0 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.4
8.9 56.2 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.1
12.2 76.5 7.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.1 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.9 11.1 11.3
15.9 99.9 8.0 12.9 13.1 13.4 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15.0
Draft, L
20.1 126.5 9.0 17.2 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.0 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.9 19.1 19.3
(m)
24.8 156.1 10.0 21.9 22.1 22.3 22.5 22.7 22.9 23.1 23.4 23.6 23.8 24.0
30.1 188.9 11.0 27.1 27.3 27.5 27.7 27.9 28.2 28.4 28.6 28.8 29.0 29.0
35.8 224.8 12.0 32.8 33.0 33.2 33.4 33.7 33.9 34.1 34.3 34.5 34.7 35.0
42.0 263.9 13.0 39.0 39.2 39.4 39.7 39.9 40.1 40.3 40.5 40.7 40.9 41.0
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lower bound Upper bound

D (m) 4 14

L (m) 3 12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Factors Responses

D (m) L (m) Max mechanical power (kW) Resonance bandwidth (s) Natural period (s)

1 5.46 10.68 323.80 0.23 7.08

2 14 7.5 293.73 1 6.87

3 9 7.5 233.58 0.56 6.30

4 4 7.5 143.38 0.2 5.97

5 9 7.5 233.58 0.56 6.30

6 12.53 4.32 166.63 1.49 5.54

7 5.46 4.32 107.87 0.41 4.84

8 9 7.5 233.58 0.56 6.30

9 9 12 577.91 0.4 7.80

10 9 7.5 233.58 0.56 6.30

11 9 7.5 233.58 0.56 6.30

12 12.53 10.68 437.93 0.69 7.54

13 9 3 99.11 1.3 4.74