Design optimisation of a multi-mode wave energy converter
Published in Volume 9: Ocean Renewable Energy A wave energy converter (WEC) similar to the CETO system developed by Carnegie Clean Energy is considered for design optimisation. This WEC is able to absorb power from heave, surge and pitch motion modes, making the optimisation problem nontrivial. The...
| Published in: | Volume 9: Ocean Renewable Energy |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Conference Object |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/2440/138056 https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2020-19266 |
| Summary: | Published in Volume 9: Ocean Renewable Energy A wave energy converter (WEC) similar to the CETO system developed by Carnegie Clean Energy is considered for design optimisation. This WEC is able to absorb power from heave, surge and pitch motion modes, making the optimisation problem nontrivial. The WEC dynamics is simulated using the spectral-domain model taking into account hydrodynamic forces, viscous drag, and power take-off forces. The design parameters for optimisation include the buoy radius, buoy height, tether inclination angles, and control variables (damping and stiffness). The WEC design is optimised for the wave climate at Albany test site in Western Australia considering unidirectional irregular waves. Two objective functions are considered: (i) maximisation of the annual average power output, and (ii) minimisation of the levelised cost of energy (LCoE) for a given sea site. The LCoE calculation is approximated as a ratio of the produced energy to the significant mass of the system that includes the mass of the buoy and anchor system. Six different heuristic optimisation methods are applied in order to evaluate and compare the performance of the best known evolutionary algorithms, a swarm intelligence technique and a numerical optimisation approach. The results demonstrate that if we are interested in maximising energy production without taking into account the cost of manufacturing such a system, the buoy should be built as large as possible (20 m radius and 30 m height). However, if we want the system that produces cheap energy, then the radius of the buoy should be approximately 11–14 m while the height should be as low as possible. These results coincide with the overall design that Carnegie Clean Energy has selected for its CETO 6 multi-moored unit. However, it should be noted that this study is not informed by them, so this can be seen as an independent validation of the design choices. Nataliia Y. Sergiienko, Mehdi Neshat, Leandro S. P. da Silva, Brad Alexander, Markus Wagner |
|---|