Extreme Environmental Parameters for Wave Energy Converters and Moorings at bimep

Olivier Duperray#1, Pierpaolo Ricci#2, Yago Torre-Enciso+3, Luis Ferrer*4, Jose Luis Villate#5
TECNALIA-Energía Energy Parque Tecnológico Bizkaia, Ed. 700. E, 48160 Derio - SPAIN


olivier.duperray@tecnalia.com pierpaolo.ricci@tecnalia.com 5 joseluis.villate@tecnalia.com

Ente Vasco de la Energía Alameda de Urquijo, 36-1º, Ed. Plaza Bizkaia, 48011 Bilbao - SPAIN



*AZTI-Tecnalia Herrera Kaia, Portualdea z/g, 20110 Pasaia - SPAIN


Abstract— The creation of the bimep (BIscay Marine Energy Platform) demonstration infrastructure for Wave Energy Converters (WECs) responds to the need for developers to test their systems in real conditions. In particular, this study assesses the extreme metocean conditions susceptible to be encountered at bimep, located off the coast of the Basque Country (Spain). The definition of parameters describing these conditions should drive the design process for mooring system and WEC survivability, and assist the pre-deployment analysis needed for certification and permitting. This paper firstly compares the available information that supports the study: data provided by a Wavescan buoy installed at bimep since early 2009, 3-year hindcast data obtained with the WAM wave model, and the nearby long-term measurements of the Bilbao offshore buoy providing 20-year data. From the available information, longterm extreme sea conditions expected at bimep are described in terms of waves, winds and currents. A set of combinations of environmental loadings for preliminary design is presented and tested through a hydrodynamic model to assess the adequacy of environmental parameters to represent the measured conditions. Keywords— Wave Energy Converters (WECs) – moorings – extreme metocean conditions – bimep – fitted wave spectrum

I. INTRODUCTION Although no commercial wave energy farm has been deployed to date, it is widely acknowledged that there is an opportunity for wave energy to play a significant role as a source of renewable energy. Indeed the vast majority of oceans are the place of permanent wave action, with some locations blessed with a high and consistent source of power. Currently, the wave energy sector has not reached yet a stage of technological convergence on devices, and the various concepts still have to be tested and certified for longterm power production and survivability. This paper focuses on this later aspect, as the tremendous forces induced by the extreme oceanic conditions pose some serious challenges for the design of wave energy converters (WECs).

Some of these issues have already been solved by other industries also operating in the marine environment, such as the offshore oil & gas industry or the naval industry. Consequently, the wave energy sector can find in this experience a whole set of background information, standards and specifications to provide references for design and implementations, while keeping in mind the distinct purpose of WECs. There is now a need for developers to validate their systems, or parts of them, in real conditions. The BIscay Marine Energy Platform (bimep), located off the coast of the Basque Country, was created in order to provide a demonstration infrastructure for WECs. This test site relies on a consistent wave energy resource and is particularly suited to offshore floating converters with relatively deep conditions of 50 m to 90 m. This study follows the monitoring program undertaken by AZTI-Tecnalia on behalf of Ente Vasco de la Energía (EVE), the developer of bimep. The aim is to assess the extreme conditions at bimep, regarding the station keeping of WECs, through the use of the information obtained by the bimep Wavescan buoy (2-year directional data), the Bilbao offshore buoy (20-year directional data), and the WAM wave model (3-year directional data). II. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY A. WECs and moorings There are currently a multitude of concepts of Wave Energy Converters. Most of them share some common characteristics, and these can be classified by the following principles of extraction: Oscillating Water Columns, Overtopping Devices, and Wave Activated Bodies (waves activate the oscillatory motion of one or several movable pieces of the system). The study focuses on the latter category, and more specifically on the ‘Point Absorbers’ type (generally

WECs require a mooring system to maintain the allocated position. This infrastructure will also provide an associated research centre for scientific support. Under extreme conditions.7 km away from the coast (see Fig. Numerical meteorological models of various scales (meso-scale and micro-scale) can be used to provide additional wind information. While submitted to the action of waves. and numerical data provided by wave propagation models. etc. Characteristics of bimep and the local environment Bimep is a demonstration infrastructure developed for the easy installation. Longer and shorter return periods are also considered for specific applications. 1) Waves The wave climate at the testing site is related directly to its geographical position within the Bay of Biscay. [5]. these are dependent of the local marine conditions (typical and extreme conditions). divided into four test berths with power connection units to link with the onshore substation.. In the case of bimep. B. etc. such as storms or high cross seas. while they are submitted to cyclic loadings during normal operation leading to fatigue stresses. and this could justify a significantly lower design life. 1) Design life For mature sectors such as the oil & gas and naval industries. 1 bimep layout and bathymetry A description of local environmental conditions relevant to bimep is available in “Oceanography and marine environment of the Basque Country” [7]. the structure response characteristics and the design life chosen for the system. as wind measured at oceano-meteorological buoys (typically at 3 m height above sea level) is greatly influenced by the sea roughness from waves. as this is currently the case for wind turbines. satellite. In the case of wave energy applications. [6]). the moorings will often have to react the very high instantaneous environmental forces applied on the device. 1). Generally. so that the recommendations have to be revised for our specific conditions. such as the DNV OSE301 “Position Mooring” [1].) vary greatly from the traditional fields represented by these standards. API RP 2SK “Design and analysis of station keeping systems for floating structures” [2] or the “Metocean design and operating considerations” – International Standard ISO 19901-1 [3].2 km2. The total area is 5.buoys and axi-symmetric systems). the typical design life of structures is of the order of 25-30 years for offshore platforms. Regarding wave energy converters. Often the current information is scarce as less instrumental equipment has been deployed historically. Information about currents can be obtained by monitoring campaigns (for example with ADCP equipments) or hydrodynamic modelling of tidal and wind-induced currents. However. this study considered a return period of 50 years for WECs prototypes. Design of offshore structures When assessing extreme environmental loadings for design of offshore structures. unmanned structures. testing and operation of offshore WECs. Design Load Cases) to consider in the design process. etc. being exposed to large fetches originating from the northern Atlantic (see site . we could expect recommended design life to be of the order of 20-25 years. say 6 months to 2 years. Offshore wind measurements are very rare and often of limited reliability. This comes from the shorter design life of these prototypes and the lower risk level that would be expected from WECs compared to oil & gas structures (WECs are unmanned. The main characteristics of the site is a total installer power of 20 MW. the demonstration purpose of bimep induces that WECs would be installed for short period. some aspects (such as a targeted high energy environment. lower risk of pollution. These references assist in defining the loading combinations (i. up to 50 years for oil tankers.e. Another local source of reference is the maritime works recommendations from the Spanish Ports Authority ‘Puertos del Estado’. radar systems. 3) Environmental loadings Wave information is typically provided through a combination of monitoring data obtained from oceanographic buoys (scalar or directional). operation at or close to the frequency of resonance of the structure. C. The main metocean parameters for the area are described below. being one of the designs more adopted by developers. In this case.). 2) Return period The reference return period (RP) followed by naval/offshore industries is usually 100 years. Fig. which provide extreme environmental loadings along the Spanish coastline (refer to [4]. there are various international and national standards usually referred to. creating a case for Basque Country expertise in wave energy. with the closest point 1. the current design values are derived from the experience of metocean experts with knowledge of the area.

43. TLP moorings). 2 Basque coast and oceano-meteorological buoy locations During summer. although winds are weaker and characterised by a higher variability. on March 2009. Fig. explains (to a large extent) the general drift of the surface water masses. 3) Currents Data obtained from deployed oceano-meteorological buoys together with hydrographic measurements undertaken in the Bay of Biscay. except for very specific application (i. While winds blow mainly from the southwest (in autumn and winter) and northwest in association with strong storm system reaching the Bay of Biscay. currents are directed towards the west-southwest along the Basque coast. implemented for the study area by AZTI-Tecnalia with a 1. and can be associated with calm local wind conditions as well as strong and relatively persistent winds from different directions. WAM is a third-generation wave model [8]. the breeze regime and winds from the northeast dominate on the coast. For this period. B. • In autumn and winter. This seems to be appropriate for the structures to be installed at bimep. III. while it changes the direction towards the northwest during spring. 2) Wave model data The bimep buoy was installed to provide real-time wave information as well as an extensive dataset of high quality wave measurements to validate the WAM model (WAve prediction Model). The summer situation is similar to that of spring. 2). • Bilbao offshore buoy (Puertos del Estado) This directional buoy was deployed as part of the EMOD measuring campaign in 600 m depth. The datasets used in this study cover the period 03/2009 to 12/2009 and 02/2010 to 11/2010. The influence of both tidal level and storm surges decrease with increasing depths and has been discarded in this study. Hence. 4) Water levels Water level variations typically refer to tidal level variations and storm surges induced by the passage of a lowpressure system over the study area (due to the combined effect of wind shear-stress trapping water against the coast and a barometric depression that also raises the water level). During summer. currents flow on average towards the east due to the east-west orientation of the coastline. show that the surface currents are weak. deployed by AZTITecnalia at bimep (2. 2). Extreme conditions at bimep and historical events As explained previously.e. together with the seasonal distribution of the dominant winds. the intensity of the North Atlantic low pressures is decreased under the influence of the Azores highpressure system. These swell waves occur mostly in autumn/winter/spring. the model was developed as an operational tool which provides forecast information of up to 96 hours. when large swells originate from the northern Atlantic. Sources of metocean data 1) Oceano-meteorological buoys Datasets of two oceano-meteorological buoys are investigated in this study (see locations in Fig.46ºN) in approximately 80 m depth.43. the general drift direction of the currents is more indeterminate due to a higher variability of winds. offshore the Port of Bilbao (3.885ºW . . Nearshore. These buoys are the following: • bimep buoy (EVE) This is a Wavescan directional buoy. The following situations are regularly encountered: • Around winter months. combination of a large NW swell with SW winds (sometimes strong S winds in autumn) and wind-induced currents. DESCRIPTION OF EXTREME SEA CONDITIONS AT THE BIMEP SITE A. As well as providing hourly hindcast directional data since January 2007. 2) Winds The winds blow mainly from the southwest in autumn and winter. The buoy has been measuring since 1990. generating wind waves and sometimes swell conditions.global position in Fig.052ºW . the most extreme conditions are encountered from September to April. waves induced by the lowpressure systems frequently located off the coast of Ireland and Iceland form the main part of the wave energy observed at bimep. combinations of a large NW swell accompanied by strong NW winds from the same meteorological system and wind-induced currents. The orientation of the coastline (east-west along the Spanish coast and north-south along the French coast). The model was calibrated and validated against the bimep buoy and other regional buoy data [9]. reaching the site from the fourth quadrant (270º to 360º). a more important driver for local currents is the stress applied on the sea surface by the wind.6 km resolution. with north-easterly winds. During spring. with a marked clockwise movement in the deep basin [7]. A typical autumn situation associates these NW swells with strong southerly winds. These swells sometimes come with strong persistent winds from various possible directions.64ºN).

7 11. C. • In summer. The largest event is known as ‘Klaus’.8 15.91 m. peak period Tp and mean wave direction θm) are used here to assess the environmental conditions. a windstorm • bimep buoy and bimep WAM model (9 months which landed over the French/Spanish coasts in January 2009. Slightly higher waves could be expected at the Bilbao buoy A comparison of the WAM model results and buoy data is analysed in more detail in [9]. located 24 km NW of bimep.92. First. peak buoy and the bimep WAM model.2 9. Fig. giving the following results 2 period.8 16. In the absence of long-term recordings.3 10 9.7 Tp (s) 13.3 11 12. 1) Waves Typical wave parameters (significant wave height Hs. combinations of a NW swell with NE/NW winds and wind-induced currents.max=10. From the 20 maximum events. This shows that information relying only on 2 years is likely • Bilbao buoy and bimep buoy (12869 hours for 9 to overestimate the general trend in the metocean conditions at months 2009 / 9 months 2010): r2=0. mean wind speed and direction) for the coefficient of determination r : • Bilbao buoy and bimep WAM model (23725 hours for the highest events monitored by the Bilbao offshore buoy.4 W θ* (°) 275 298 286 285 293 262 320 Fig.5 14. 3 shows a sample Hs time series from the three sources of data for 2009. 3 Hs time series for 2009 obtained from Bilbao offshore and bimep buoys. Hs (m) 24/01/2009 10/12/2007 11/03/2008 07/03/2007 20/11/1996 12/02/2007 01/11/2003 28/12/1999 09/11/2010 08/11/2009 13.8 9. 4 shows the scatter plot for Hs between the Bilbao buoy measurements and the WAM model results at the bimep location. The following maximum events taken from the three datasets (representing different storm events) give an indication of the wave extreme conditions over the study area: • Bilbao buoy: Hs. bimep.1 16. and the WAM model at bimep location * Wind buoy data is indicative only. Thus. The two buoys being exposed to the same fetches. for 2007-2008-2009): r2=0. • bimep buoy: Hs. They are extracted from the sources presented below. . it is expected that the long-term recordings of the Bilbao offshore buoy offer information relevant to bimep. smaller wave climate with more variable winds. Fig. and 20 years of directional wave measurements from the Bilbao offshore buoy.70 m. • bimep WAM model: Hs.e.3 θm (°) 291 311 303 291 295 278 285 308 310 Wsp* (m/s) 11.6 13. When comparing significant sea states relevant to both datasets (defined as Hs>3 m).max=8. The dataset for bimep buoy is relatively short and consequently there are lacks of significant events. Bilbao offshore buoy) and apply probabilistic distributions to extrapolate the loadings magnitudes to the level required by the return period of interest.77). it appears that significant wave heights are generally higher for the Bilbao offshore buoy (of the order of 15%).5 12. Metocean parameters The design for survivability of structures in the marine environment requires the characterisation of rare extreme loadings from waves. and the corresponding linear regression. it is chosen to undertake an extreme value analysis on the long-term time series for the Bilbao offshore buoy and later transpose the conclusion to bimep location with a comparison with the WAM model information.6 17. From the bimep and Bilbao buoy datasets.1 14.5 15. mean wave direction.3 14. there is a need to expand the available data to nearby relevant available sources of information (i. a correlation analysis on Hs was undertaken to assess the similarity between the Bilbao offshore data. 2009): r2= 0.due to higher depths and more exposition to W swell as being further out north from the coast.6 11. Wind velocities are expected to be significantly underestimated. although lower (r2=0. as this is the case for the bimep datasets. winds and currents.max=13.81 m. 11 occurred from 2007 to 2010.7 15. we still observe a positive correlation. Significant wave height Hs The available information for Hs consists of almost 2 years of directional wave buoy data and 3 years of hindcast model data for bimep.4 14. TABLE I HISTORICAL EXTREME EVENTS RECORDED BY THE BILBAO OFFSHORE BUOY (PUERTOS DEL ESTADO) • In spring. the bimep Table I shows the parameters (significant wave height.8 9.4 15.6 11.

5 Scatter plot and linear regression for Tp. Eastward currents are the ones mostly observed at bimep and are associated with the strongest current measurements. and was explained by the simultaneous occurrence of swells and wind seas. we can also remark the different frequency ranges used by the buoys for recording. Thus. 4 Scatter plot and linear regression for Hs>3 m. The measurements confirmed the low velocities of currents. For the 3-year dataset compared. Mean wave direction θm The conclusions for correlation of mean wave directions are very similar to those for Tp [9]. that leads to jumps in the calculation of the peak periods which are not captured at the same time by the buoy and the model. although the temporal evolution is well represented. r2 was found to be 0. 5) over 2009-2010. Furthermore. the highest values recorded were of about 1.1 m/s. Fig. An analysis of the ADCP current measurements. the Bilbao long-term measurements will be used as a reference. Fig. 6 shows the strong directionality for waves observed at the Bilbao offshore buoy. Again. as it is expected that wave mean directions are very similar at both locations. where the bathymetry is too deep to significantly affect the direction of wave propagation. This lower correlation was also observed when comparing the bimep WAM model and the bimep buoy measurements [9]. it is expected that peak periods at Bilbao offshore buoy and bimep location are very similar due to the exposition to the same wave systems (Tp is much less affected by the coastal bathymetry than Hs). During the measurement campaign. Generally. between the Bilbao buoy measurements and the WAM model results at the bimep location Peak period Tp It is anticipated that the peak period Tp would be the most relevant period parameter for extreme loadings. 6 Annual Hs distribution for data obtained by the Bilbao offshore buoy for the period between 1994 and 2001 (Puertos del Estado) Fig. the long-term dataset for Tp at Bilbao offshore buoy is applied for the case of the bimep location. with comparison to nearby available information. with mean values of the order of 15-20 cm/s. flowing towards the east.However. so it seems more relevant to base decisions on this parameter.5. between the Bilbao buoy measurements and the bimep buoy 2) Currents An ADCP was installed under the bimep buoy to monitor currents in the 80 m of water column at the buoy mooring (speeds and directions of currents in bins of 2 m under the buoy). the maximum currents encountered for the first point of measurement (at 11 m depth) was 1. When comparing Tp for the Bilbao buoy and the bimep buoy (cf. In Fig. A 50-year return period . typically datasets of environmental parameters include Tp. the correlation for Tp has been investigated between the Bilbao offshore buoy and the bimep WAM model for 2007-2008-2009. r2=0. as this is the one associated to the high energy wave trains impacting the structure. The definition of these parameters from directional wave spectra depends on the appreciation of combined swells and wind seas.55. Fig. Similarly.1 m/s. It was found that at the bimep site the mean and extreme currents could be simplified by a linear profile from bottom (50% of maximum current) to sub-surface (100% of maximum current). was performed by AZTI-Tecnalia to assess normal and extreme currents that occurred during the deployment of the ADCP (2009-2010). Fig. the peak periods estimated by the bimep model exceed those measured by the Bilbao offshore buoy.56 for Tp.

‘Peak Over Threshold’).37 m and Hs. with the same extremes. a threshold of Hs=3 m was selected to follow the recommendations of Puertos del Estado for the Bilbao offshore buoy. In the following. they originate from distinct meteorological systems) and each event must exceed a threshold to be selected. as these two parameters are closely related. Tp) is usually performed. as both locations are subject to the same meteorological systems. a Peak Over Threshold (POT) analysis is performed over the significant wave heights of the Bilbao offshore buoy to define extreme values of Hs with associated return periods (see [10] and [11]). to fit Generalized Extreme Value probabilistic distributions to regular interval maximum (i. For the peak period. an incoming direction of WNW was considered for extreme waves. Here. and the storm maxima method (i. Design combinations To analyse the response of the system under extreme conditions. the values of interest for Tp are the minimum and maximum values of Tp measured by the Bilbao offshore buoy for this Hs. 8 Hs . 7 Sample of selected independent extreme events for late 2009.225=12. we observe an incoming direction of 300° (+/-15°). For the wave direction. 7 shows a sample of selected events for late 2009 at the Bilbao buoy. Tp has been chosen assuming that.4 m/s is considered here. taking into account the wind-induced currents caused by a 50-year wind (current velocity is obtained directly from the wind speed at 10 m height.57 m.50=11. it would be problematic to transfer results from the Bilbao buoy to the bimep location as we have seen that the information is often biased by the occurrence of concurrent sea states. 3. all extreme events recorded occurred from the same directions. we find Hs for common return periods as detailed in Table II. very close to the results shown on the graph by the blue line. it was decided to refer to the long-term recommendations developed by Puertos del Estado [6]. as explained before. the Response-Based Analysis. knowing Hs. Both bimep and Bilbao offshore buoy measurements (at 3 m height) are unreliable and can not be used to derive extreme wind values. In Table II. Here. Here. two approaches are possible. These recommendations refer to a Hs. the wind data of reference for this study was based on the WRF model developed by MeteoGalicia and used as regional meteorological forcing for the WAM model [9]. and requires structural loads information. It is interesting to note on the graph the significant increase in extreme wave heights if the statistical distribution considers the period 2005-2011. The mean peak periods were assumed to follow the relation Tp=8. Long-term distribution of significant wave heights There are two main methodologies to derive extreme values of a random variable: the block maxima method. using a typical factor of 4%). The POT approach enables the analyst to extract a number of events from the time series which are sufficiently separated in time to be considered as independent storm maxima (here 2 significant wave events must be separated by 25 hours to be considered as independent. D. i. The present recommendations from Puertos del Estado only consider the period 1990-2005. 3) Winds In the absence of an offshore meteorological mast in the area. annual or monthly maximum).Generalized Pareto Distribution at the Bilbao offshore buoy Using the transposition to bimep as highlighted in Fig. Fig. when significant storms occurred. E.02*Hs0. Fig.eastern current of 1.e.e. However.27 derived by Puertos del Estado from the observations at the Bilbao offshore buoy between 1990 and 2005. the analysis of the joint probability of occurrence of (Hs.e. at the Bilbao offshore buoy . We assume that peak periods occurring at bimep and Bilbao offshore buoys are similar. Hence. induces the statistical analysis of the structure response. The first method. Hence. the preferred approach starts with the Fig. When analysing the 30 main events recorded by the Bilbao offshore buoy. the general design wind speeds and directions at 10 m height are presented. Table II presents the metocean parameters for return periods of interest. A Generalized Pareto Distribution was applied to the selected storm maxima and the result is presented in Fig. which suits better our case as it bases the distribution on more information (a block maxima method is well suited for datasets of a few decades). 8 (red curve).

79 WNW 11 15 23 50 10. (°) Currents Current speed (m/s) Current dir.02 WNW 12 16 24 Environmental loading – Wind ISSC EMEC Constant values of maximum sustained wind speeds • A 100. (°.4 NE 4 a. Case 3 represents the case with A case with SSW winds was not considered here.5 23 5 27.3 WNW NE (SSW) 30. eastward currents induced by wind. the design combinations represent mainly scenarios when almost collinear waves and wind occur from the WNW-NW sector with different return periods. For the waves.b. Thus.4 E W - When studying the datasets of the Bilbao offshore buoy (20 years) and the bimep WAM model (3 years). considering the case of offshore structures (generally 25-30 year design life and 100-year return period of reference). Furthermore. being from the same meteorological system.c 50 10. TABLE II UNIVARIATE EXTREME PARAMETERS FOR RETURN PERIODS OF INTEREST strong wind from the NE occurring simultaneously with a WNW significant swell. a set of combinations for all these metocean parameters has to be selected to assess mooring system options.c 2 7. TABLE III STANDARDS AND REFERENCES FOR SURVIVABILITY Environmental loading . In rare occasions. Basically. wind and current parameters are well bounded and show small variability (few typical wind directions during winter conditions. TABLE IV DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS Case Waves RP (year) Hs (m) Dir.9 WNW 2 a. The occurrence of NE winds can represent challenging conditions by generating crossed seas with a NE fetch to bimep of about 250km. mean and max) presented.4 WNW NE (SSW) - 1.02 WNW 12 16 24 10 29.2 WNW 11 15 22 20 9. we have seen that all the significant events occurred from the NW quadrant. corresponding to the longest fetch.Waves If wave is assumed to be the main load.c refer to the three Tp (min. wave return period should be taken as the general return period considered Environmental loading . creating conditions of crossed seas due to the wind sea generated from the NE fetch (following Hasselmann formulation for limited fetch).68 WNW 10 14 21 2 25. it appears that for the vast majority of extreme events winds come from the fourth quadrant similarly to waves. from) Tp min (s) Tp mean (s) Tp max (s) Cross wind sea Winds RP (year) Wind1hr speed at 10 m height (m/s) Wind dir. from) 1a. the historical events recorded at the Bilbao buoy show a high correlation for all these events in terms of waves and wind directions. (°.5 22 10 9.25 E W 1. as the wind loading would be similar whereas there is not enough fetch to generate significant local seas either significant wind drag current.5 22 √ 50 32. Table IV shows the selected loading combinations for this study to be assessed in the mooring analysis.3 E W 1.b.).5 23 100 11.c 5 8. the storm was accompanied with strong NE winds and seldom if ever with strong SW winds.Tp) along 100-yr contour 27. the following Table III shows the recommendations for design combinations from various standards.9 WNW . wave periods have been derived taking into consideration the long-term record of the Bilbao offshore buoy and the recommendations from Puertos del Estado for the area [5]. In Table IV.c 100 11. etc. the Load Cases defined as a. Case 4 represents a typical storm that would possibly occur at bimep for a 2-year return period.3 WNW 3 a. As a reference.b. 10 and 1-yr wind • Consideration for wind spectrum for wind gust Design combinations API RP2 DNV OS-301 100-yr wave & associated winds and currents • 100-yr wind / wave & 10-yr current • Sets of (Hs.2 E W 1. (°) 5 8. Finally. (°) Tp min (s) Tp mean (s) Tp max (s) Winds Wind1hr speed at 10 m height (m/s) Wind dir.51 WNW 12 15.definition of Design Load Combinations according to the desired probability level (50-year RP in our case).51 WNW 12 15.b.57 WNW 11 14.Currents DNV OS-301 • 10-yr surface current • Linear profile for deep water and logarithmic for shallow water RP (year) Waves Hs (m) Dir.9 WNW NE (SSW) 29.7 WNW NE (SSW) 32.b. The previous discussion highlighted that for extreme conditions.57 WNW 11 14.

3. [14]). A pretension of 50 kN was considered (catenary equation).07 ⎪ ⎩0. Modelling of environmental conditions A whole set of combinations as described previously must be applied to the system to assess mooring lines tensions. Other spectra of interests would be the Torsethaugen and OchiHubble spectra for combining sea states of various origins or the TMA spectrum (a JONSWAP spectrum modified for shallow water). being the wave parameter the main driver for the design of WECs and moorings. From the literature.Currents RP (year) Current speed (m/s) Current dir. a detailed design inducing structural and fatigue analysis would require an in-depth analysis of all potential conditions to be considered in accordance with the system behaviour.1 E IV. The simplified mooring system (Fig. Here. moorings footprint. WEC excursion. The lines consist of steel studless chains with a weight in water of 28 kg/m and a minimum breaking load of 1280 kN. System configuration A sensitivity analysis has been performed using the dynamic analysis software Orcaflex [12] to assess the response of the mooring system during a specific storm event. A fitting between JONSWAP frequency spectrum and the bimep WAM frequency spectrum was performed by adjusting the γ ‘peak-enhancement’ parameter through minimisation of the Root Mean Square Error. both the JONSWAP and Bretschneider (Pierson-Moskowitz modified for 2 parameters) spectra are considered as these have been widely used and investigated before for similar locations (see for example [13].23 + 0.5-2]. where wave growth under a steady offshore wind is limited by distance to shore.2 W 2 1. MOORINGS ANALYSIS A. an idealized equilibrium state reached when duration and fetch are unlimited (then JONSWAP spectrum simplifies to the Bretschneider formulation).25 E 50 1. [14]).9 + γ ) (2) and τ =⎨ ⎧ ⎪0. The JONSWAP spectrum used in this study is defined as below (see [15]): H SJ ( f ) = α e T f where α= 2 m0 4 5 p − 5 4 4T p f 4 γ ⎛ − (T p f −1) 2 exp ⎜ ⎜ 2τ 2 ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (1) 0. the values obtained for the most severe storms presented in Table I for 2007-2008-2009 give a γ in the range [1. As general wave parameters are defined in the design load combinations. At bimep. a value of γ=1 indicates a fully developed sea. The WEC model consists of a cylindrical buoy of 10 m diameter and 10 m draft located in 80 m depth. some specific attention was paid on the wave spectrum. it appears that a central value of γ~2 is commonly used for offshore applications and severe storms in the North Atlantic (see [13].0624 −1 0.0336γ − 0. 10 γ parameter from fitted extreme spectra (Hs>5 m) . The mean value of the parameter γ during the JONSWAP experiment in the North Sea in relatively deep water was 3.185(1. 9) consists of 4 catenary lines linking the WEC fairlead to a drag embedded anchor (horizontal holding capacity only). The wave energy would be absorbed through the heave motion of the WEC. taking advantage of a resonance period in heave close to 8 s. i. A very simple configuration was chosen in order to focus on the definition of environmental parameters rather than the system efficiency.2 E 10 1. Fig. (°.09 if f < f p if f ≥ f p (3) Fig. While the combinations from Table IV would be sufficient for concept design. the description of the random characteristic of waves is made through the frequency spectrum and directional wave spectrum. A higher value of γ indicates a wave spectra growing in fetch-limited conditions. 10 shows the fitted γ for the extreme sea states above Hs=5 m for the aforementioned years. 9 Mooring system configuration B. bimep location. Fig. towards) 5 1. At the The parameter γ is the ‘peakedness factor’.e. etc. Generally.

Innovation.3 Bretschneider γ =1 Line tension (kN) Mean Max. it can be suggested to use a JONSWAP model with a fitted γ coefficient (the closest results in mean line tensions to test case) or a Bretschneider spectrum. a JONSWAP spectrum for WNW swell with γ=1. Similarly. say γ=5. the directional fitting to the most extreme storms gives consistent values of approximately s = 20.A fitting was also undertaken on the spreading exponent s of the directional wave spectrum. it was possible to derive extreme significant wave height values at the bimep and build a set of long-term environmental parameters for a design purpose. A Bretschneider spectrum might also be used as the fitting results indicate almost completely developed sea states. Finally. The results presented here show a reasonably good adequacy with those from the modelled data. no general conclusion can be made for the area as this would require the analysis of a wide variety of storm events. to investigate bimodal severe sea states with crossed seas. Det Norske Veritas. October 2004 Fig. this study assessed the effects of the selection of wave spectrum as an environmental loading through a hydrodynamic software. Based on this extended time series. . The case of the highest storm encountered (‘Klaus’. C. A combination of environmental loadings is then built for a preliminary design. REFERENCES [1] “Position Mooring”. Firstly. An oceano-meteorological buoy and a hindcast wave model are available for the bimep location with 18 months and 3 years of data. Typical results for mooring line tensions and WEC excursion are presented to compare the use of various frequency spectra against the frequency spectrum given by the wave model for bimep. Simulation results The model input considers constant currents with a linear profile from sub-surface to bottom. The results of simulation using various theoretical spectra (varying the peakedness parameter) are compared to the 1D frequency spectrum simulated by the WAM model during this event. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to acknowledge support from AZTI-Tecnalia for providing data of the bimep Wavescan buoy and WAM wave model.81 m) is presented here in Table V for one hour simulation. 11 2s exponent from fitted extreme spectra (Hs>5 m) The values obtained for the parameters γ and s are consistent over the whole extreme events for 2007-2008-2009 and advocate for the use of JONSWAP spectrum at the bimep location for typical extreme conditions (NW swells) with a spreading exponent s=20. 24/01/2009. 200 +9% +24% +10% 1977 +32% +34% +6% 238 +21% +42% +18% Excursion (m) x range y range 30 +43% -14% +25% 49 +40% +11% +23% ⎧ π ⎞ 2s ⎛ 1 ⎪C ( s ) cos ⎜ (θ − θ )⎟ for θ − θ < D(θ ) = ⎨ 2 ⎝2 ⎠ ⎪0 otherwise ⎩ (4) Typical values for s are between 6 and 15 for wind seas and between 15 and 75 for swells.dv. V. OS-E301. respectively. while a longer dataset of 20 years is available from the Bilbao offshore buoy. St. However. Commerce and Tourism of the Basque Government (ETORTEK Program). This study has been undertaken with financial support from the Department of Industry. Some preliminary results show that a JONSWAP spectrum with γ in [1. an analysis is made of the available data for the study area. and constant hourly winds (no specification for wind spectrum and wind gust were made as wind loadings would be significantly lower than wave loadings). A fitting is processed to obtain the JONSWAP γ-parameter as well as the 2s parameter for directional spreading of the wave spectrum.48 JONSWAP γ =3.5-2] and a spreading exponent of 2s = 40 seem appropriate to represent the most common extreme conditions at bimep. as well as MeteoGalicia and NOAA/NCEP for the wind and wave inputs to the WAM model. CONCLUSIONS This study analyses the extreme metocean conditions to be considered for the design of WECs in survivability mode and their mooring system.5-2 could be used associated with a JONSWAP spectrum from the NE with higher peakenhancement for a developing sea. with Hs=10. which is unfortunately out of scope of the present study. spectrum JONSWAP fitted to event γ = 1. the authors would like to thank Puertos del Estado for providing the Bilbao offshore buoy data. From these results. Finally. In our case. following the cosine directional spreading function: TABLE V MOORING RESULTS FOR THE ‘KLAUS’ STORM (24/01/2009) Spectrum WAM freq.

ROM 0. Ewing. “Development of a new metocean design basis for the NW shelf of Europe”. 1775-1810. 2000. Handbook of offshore engineering. Ferrer. Reistad. Deliverable D2. M. Bolaños.D. J. Dyer. Chakrabarti. Hasselmann. 15 . Advances Series on Ocean Engineering. Hernández. L. Puertos del Estado A. González-Marco. 3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy. Fontán. 1998 [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] L.K. J. 2004. L. G. 2010 “Extremes and Long Term Extrapolation”. Oceanography and marine environment of the Basque Country. October 2005 “Specific requirements for offshore structures . 2005.A. Banco de datos oceanográficos. in Proc. C. M. P. Texas. Y.M. R. Random seas and design of maritime structures.M.a third generation ocean wave prediction model”. Liria. J.ROM 0. Bowers. Puertos del Estado “Recomendaciones de Obras Marítimas (ROM) – Viento” . Guillaume. Houston. I. 303-317. P. 18. 18. C. Puertos del Estado “Recomendaciones de Obras Marítimas (ROM) – Oleaje” . A. Komen. Equimar. pp. Collins.Part 1: Metocean design and operating considerations” . K. A. Elsevier Ocean Engineering Series. Zambresky. Bauer. Grant.E.A. Recommended Practice 2SK. 1995 S.391.com/ C. Bilbao. Hasselmann.International Standard ISO 19901-1 “Extremos Máximos de oleaje. González. Mader. Janssen. Greenwood. Leggett. Morton. V. in Offshore Technology Conference. R.C. “Reliability of coupled meteorological and wave models to estimate wave energy resource in the Bay of Biscay”. P. “Extreme value analysis in a multivariate offshore environment”. Balseiro. Borja.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] “Design and analysis of station keeping Systems for floating structures”. Vol.495. Applied Ocean Research. J. “The WAM Model .6 I. Elsevier Oceanography Series. Journal of Physical Oceanography. 70 The WAMDI Group: S. American Petroleum Institute.A. Boya de Bilbao-Vizcaya”. 1996 http://www. Cardone. Goda. D.orcina. Vol. pp. E. M. Lionello. Bertotti.