Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Numerical procedures for dynamic response and reaction force analysis of a

heaving-point absorber wave energy converter
Sanghwan Heo, Weoncheol Koo *
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this study is to present numerical procedures for hydrodynamic analysis of a heaving-buoy-type WEC
Wave energy converter connected to a fixed jacket structure that is currently being actively studied. In order to accurately assess the
Point absorber effect of the float on the fixed structure, the augmented formulation procedure used in multibody dynamics was
Augmented formulation
used to calculate the reaction force due to the float motion acting on the hinge point of the structure. The hy­
Dynamic response
Reaction force
drodynamic coefficients and wave excitation forces acting on the floats were calculated using the three-
dimensional frequency domain solver WAMIT. The wave radiation forces produced by the movement of floats
were calculated using the Cummins’ equation in the time domain. Compared to the classical method of formula-
derivation technique, the augmented formulation, which is an automated formulation process, has an advantage
that it can be easily calculated even if the degree of freedom is increased. Thus, it can be easily extended to
analyze hydrodynamic performance of various multibody ocean structures. To conduct the time integration, the
implicit Runge-Kutta 4th-order method was applied to the classical method. A two-loop numerical integration
with the Newmark-beta explicit method was used in the augmented formulation method. The responses of the
float and reaction force acting on the hinge point were evaluated using the two numerical procedures. Finally,
the calculation results of two floats for a multi-buoy HPA WEC platform were analyzed to emphasize the
importance of reaction force analysis.

1. Introduction structure is supported by bottom-fixed steel piles or lifted by jack-up

Recently, research on the development of renewable energy is being
carried out actively all over the world. Among the renewable energy
sources, ocean wave energy is characterized by the highest energy
density and little energy loss (Cl�ement et al., 2002; Drew et al., 2009). In
addition, its amount of power generation is increasing gradually
(EU-OEA, 2010). Therefore, wave power could be considered a prom­
ising marine renewable energy resource.
The Wave Energy Converter (WEC) transforms the ocean waves to
electricity. Many different concepts for WECs have been proposed and
several reviews are available (Cl�ement et al., 2002; Drew et al., 2009;
Falca~o, 2010; Babarit et al., 2012). According to the working principle,
WEC technologies can be classified into three types: oscillating water
column, oscillating body system, and overtopping converter (Falc~ ao,
2010). Wavestar is one of the oscillating multi-body Heaving
Point-Absorber (HPA) system type WECs (Kramer et al., 2011). This type
of system is composed of multiple floats connected to the main structure
by structural arms and hinges (Babarit et al., 2012). Moreover, the main
legs. Fig. 1 presents the Wavestar prototype installed at Roshage pier
near Hanstholm at the western coast of Denmark (Kramer et al., 2011).
The figure shows the Wavestar in normal operation mode. In this case,
each float moves up and down according to the external forces, and
produces electricity by the hydraulic Power Take-Off (PTO) system
connected to the float. For a multi-buoy system, the hydrodynamic in­
teractions among the floats as well as between a float and the platform
should be considered if the excitation loads acting on each structure
affect the other structures (Karimirad, 2014). In this case, the structural
safety of the structural arms and bottom-fixed piles must be satisfied.
In the case of a hinged-body WEC system, the movement of each float
is constrained by the structural arm, and it performs rotational motion.
Several studies have reported the rotational motion of a float in the time
domain. Zurkinden et al. (2014) carried out both an experimental study
and numerical analysis for a single float Wavestar WEC. They showed
that the linear assumptions about external moments can well implement
physical model. Kim et al. (2016) investigated the hydrodynamic re­
sponses and power takeoff of a hemispherical float WEC. Wang et al.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sanghwan.heo@gmail.com (S. Heo), nwavetank@gmail.com, wckoo@inha.ac.kr (W. Koo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107070
Received 18 August 2019; Received in revised form 10 December 2019; Accepted 2 February 2020
Available online 21 February 2020
0029-8018/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Heo and W. Koo
Fig. 1. Wavestar Hanstholm prototype: normal operation mode (Kramer
et al., 2011).
(2018) developed a point-absorber WEC using a flexible multibody dy­
namics model. They analyzed the arm’s stress distribution and floater
arm tip displacement and velocity. Kim et al. (2019) conducted an
experimental study for the motion characteristics of a floating WEC.
They studied the effects of the connection methods and locations on the
structure’s motion. In this rotational motion, meanwhile, the tension in
the arm acts on the float as a constraint force and affects the center of
rotation (hinge point of platform). The studies mentioned above do not
consider the constraint forces and their effects. These forces act as
additional external forces on the platform and will affect the responses
of the platform. In order to evaluate the stability of the platform, it is
essential to determine the constraint forces. The aim of this study is to
present numerical procedures for hydrodynamic analysis of a
heaving-buoy-type WEC connected to a fixed jacket structure that is
currently being actively studied. The first is the classical method using
Newton’s second law, and the other is the augmented formulation,
which is one of the multibody dynamics’ formulation. In order to
accurately assess the effect of the float on the fixed structure, the
augmented formulation procedure was used to calculate the reaction
force due to the float motion acting on the hinge point of the structure.
This attempt is a new procedure that is rarely found in existing papers to
the best of the authors’ knowledge. Compared to the classical method of
formula-derivation technique, the augmented formulation, which is an
automated formulation process, has an advantage that it can be easily
calculated even if the degree of freedom is increased. Thus, it can be
easily extended to analyze hydrodynamic performance of various mul­
tibody ocean structures.
Each numerical model for a float was modeled as a hemispherical
shape and connected to the hinge point by a massless rigid arm. The
frequency-dependent hydrodynamic characteristics and wave excitation
forces acting on the floats were calculated using the three-dimensional
frequency domain boundary element method (BEM)-based solver,
WAMIT (Lee, 1995). The movement of floats was described using
Cummins’ equation in the time domain (Cummins, 1962; Ogilvie, 1964).
The equation of motion of the float was solved using both the classical
method and augmented formulation. The implicit Runge-Kutta 4th-or­
der method and two-loop numerical integration procedures with the
Newmark-beta explicit method were applied to produce the time series
of responses of the floats for each method (Newmark, 1959; Shabana
and Hussein, 2009; Zhang and Zhang, 2016). The responses of the float
2
Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070
and reaction force acting on the hinge point were evaluated using the
two numerical procedures.
Finally, the calculation results of two floats for multi-buoy HPA type
WEC platform were analyzed to emphasize the importance of reaction
force analysis.
2. Mathematical formulation
2.1. External forces acting on the floats
When external forces act on an object connected to a hinged arm, the
movement of the object is constrained by the arm. At this time, the
constraint force acts on the object in the direction of the rotation center
so that the object follows a curved path. In other words, the object
performs rotational motion about the hinge point. The force acting in a
direction parallel to the center of rotation does not affect the rotation of
the object. This force, however, acts as an additional moment to the
hinge point and does not occur when the angle of the force is perpen­
dicular to the axis of rotation. In addition, the constraint force also acts
on the hinge point. Therefore, the reaction force acting on the hinge
point due to the constraint force should be considered to ensure the
stability of the structure.
Fig. 2 presents a float connected to a hinge point by an arm in a two
and three-dimensional coordinate system. In the figure, θ is the angle
between the arm and horizontal line, l is the length of the arm. rx
ð¼ l cos θÞ and rz ð¼ l sin θÞ denote the horizontal and vertical distance
between the hinge point and the float, respectively. The shape of the
float is a hemisphere. The hinge point can only rotate on one axis, and
the rotation on the other axis is constrained. To simplify the problem, it
was assumed that the arm is rigid and massless. In addition, it was
assumed that the displacement of the hinge point is much smaller than
the motion of the float. In this case, the motion of the float can be
expressed as a simple pendulum motion.
The external forces acting on the float are decomposed into hori­
zontal and vertical components. In this study, linear external forces were
used in the numerical analysis. Especially, the magnitude of nonlinear
viscous drag force is about 5% of the magnitude of wave excitation force
(Zurkinden et al., 2014). Thus, the viscous drag force was not considered
in this study. The external forces can be written as follows:
�X ) � �
Fx FFK;x þ FDiff ;x þ FRad;x þ FPTO;x
fQg ¼ X ¼
FFK;z þ FDiff ;z þ FRad;z þ FPTO;z þ FWeight þ FBuoyant
Fz
(1)
where fQg is the external force vector acting on the float and FFK is the
undisturbed incident wave force (Froude-Krylov force). FDiff and FRad are
the forces due to diffracted and radiated waves, respectively. FPTO is the
damping force caused by the PTO system. FWeight and FBuoyant are the self-
weight and buoyant force of the float, respectively.
When designing a HPA-type WEC, the nonlinear Froude-Krylov force
should be considered (Penalba et al., 2017). This force can be obtained
by integrating the hydrodynamic pressure on a float. On the other hand,
this process is very difficult because it requires consideration of the
instantaneous float position and submerged part every time-step. In this
study, for simplicity, the linear first-order Froude-Krylov and diffraction
forces were applied to the floats (Eqs. (2) and (3)). The
frequency-dependent Froude-Krylov and diffraction forces as well as the
added mass and damping coefficients were evaluated using a hydrody­
namic solver WAMIT (Lee, 1995).
ρw gH
FFK;k ¼ ⋅jFFK ψ FK;k
WAMIT jk ⋅cosð ωtÞ (2)
2
ρw gH �� � �
FDiff ;k ¼ ⋅ FDiff �
WAMIT k ⋅cos ψ Diff ;k ωt (3)
2
where ρw is the density of sea water and H is the wave height. jFFK WAMIT j
S. Heo and W. Koo Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070

Fig. 2. Descriptions of a float connected to a hinge point by an arm. Left: in 2D. Right: in 3D coordinate system.

� �
and �FDiff WAMIT � are the magnitude of the Froude-Krylov and diffraction
forces calculated using WAMIT, respectively. ψ FK and ψ Diff are the phase
angles of the Froude-Krylov and diffraction forces, respectively. These
phase angles vary depending on the float location. ω denotes the inci­
dent wave frequency. Subscript k denotes the direction of the variables.
The float moves both horizontally and vertically because the move­
ment of the float is constrained by the arm. Therefore, the wave radia­
tion forces generated by motion in two directions should be considered.
The wave radiation force can be expressed using the Cummins’ equation
and the force consists of the acceleration proportional term and the
velocity proportional term. The latter term can be expressed as a
convolution integral using the retardation function (impulse response
function or memory function) and the velocity of a float (Cummins,
1962; Ogilvie, 1964). The wave radiation forces in the k direction can be
expressed as
Z t
FRad;k ¼ ma∞ ;kk ⋅u€k Kkk ðτÞ⋅u_k ðt τÞdτ (4)
0
where m is the mass of the float. Vs is submerged volume of the float in
still water. Aw is the water plane area of the float. uz ðtÞ is the vertical
displacement of the float from the water surface.
2.2. Equation of motion for the floats
In this study, two numerical procedures were presented to solve the
motion of the float and calculate the reaction force acting on the hinge
point. The first method is a classical method using Newton’s second law
for motion. This method derives the equation of motion considering the
forces acting on the structure. Chao et al. (2018) obtained the equation
of motion for a two-body articulated wave energy device with a complex
geometric shape using Newton’s second law. In this procedure, how­
ever, additional equations using dynamic equilibrium are required to
determine the constraint force. This method has the disadvantage that it
is very difficult to derive an equation if the structure is slightly more
complicated. The second method is to use an augmented formulation.
This method is difficult to build on the initial process, but it is possible to

where ma∞ ;kk is the added mass with infinite frequency. uk is the automate the analysis process. Also, this method can evaluate both the
displacement of the float and Kkk ðtÞ is the retardation function, which motion of the float and constraint force, simultaneously. To do this, it
can be written as requires relatively more computer memory and calculation time than
Z the classical method. However, increasing the number of floats is not a
Kkk ðtÞ ¼
2 ∞
Bkk ðωÞ⋅cosðωtÞdω (5) probelm because the absolute amount of computer memory required is
π 0 small. If only calculation time is considered, the classical method is a bit
more advantageous. However, as mentioned earlier, considering the
where Bkk ðωÞ is the radiation damping coefficient calculated by WAMIT. entire analysis process, the classical method is very inefficient because
Three methods can be used to compute the convolution integral in new equations must be derived in each case. Therefore, the augmented
Cummins’ equation: Direct integration, State space method, and Prony formulation method has the advantage of greatly reducing the prepa­
method (Armesto et al., 2015). In this study, the direct integration ration time for analysis. The results calculated by both procedures were
method was applied. showed and verified with the reference in chapter 3. These procedures
The PTO system is connected to the WEC to extract the wave energy. should give almost the same results because both processes are
Among the many types of PTO damping forces, a linear PTO damping
moment, as shown in Eq. (6), was applied to the external moment in this
Table 1
study. The horizontal and vertical PTO damping forces can be calculated
Typical characteristics of the two methods.
easily using the trigonometric function.
Classical method Augmented formulation
MPTO ¼ BPTO ⋅θ_ (6) Type of equation of Differential equation Differential-Algebraic
motion equation
where BPTO is the damping coefficient of the PTO system. Derivation of equation Hard (Depending on the Easy (Automatically
The self-weight of the float can be considered as a constant external of motion structure, new equations calculated)
force. In still water, the buoyancy also acts as a constant external force should be derived)
Determination of Hard (Requires additional Easy (Automatically
on the submerged volume. On the other hand, the buoyancy changes constraint forces equations) calculated)
with time if there is a wave. In this study, a linear buoyant force was Process automation Hard (The equations Easy
applied to the floats. This means that the submerged volume changes depend on the structure)
linearly depending on the submerged shape of the float. The draft of the Second time derivative Unnecessary Necessary
of constraint
floats was satisfied by ballasting water. This means that the self-weight
equations
and buoyant force in still water cancel each other out. When a float is in Computer memory Small Relatively large
a sea water, the self-weight and linear buoyant force can be expressed as required
Applicability Low High (Required modules
FWeight þ FBuoyant ¼ mg þ ρw gðVs Aw uz ðtÞÞ ¼ ρw gAw uz ðtÞ (7) can be added to the
process)

3
S. Heo and W. Koo Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070

interpreting the same physical phenomena. Table 1 lists the typical
characteristics of the two methods. The detailed procedures for calcu­
lating the response and reaction force using two methods are described
in the following sections.
2.2.1. Classical method
According to Newton’s second law for rotation, the sum of the mo­
ments acting on the hinge point is equal to the moment of inertia of the
float multiplied by the angular acceleration.
X component is the centripetal force that makes a body follow a curved
I€
θ¼ M y ¼ MFK þ MDiff þ MRad þ MPTO þ MWeight þ MBuoyant (8)
where I is the moment of inertia of the float. M y is the moment acting
on the float in the inverse y-axis. The inverse y-axis direction means the
same axis with the axis of rotation, as shown in Fig. 2. Several studies
have calculated the moments for the center of rotation directly and
substituted into Eq. (8) (Zurkinden et al., 2014; Flavia� et al., 2017). The
translational forces were used to calculate the moments as the following
equation:
calculated using dynamic equilibrium. The arm was assumed to be a
massless rigid arm, and the problem can be considered to be a simple
pendulum problem. Fig. 3 presents the dynamic equilibrium of a simple
pendulum problem. In Fig. 3, an object is connected to the hinge point
with a massless rigid arm and rotates about the hinge point. The applied
forces acting on the system (left side of Fig. 3) and the inertia forces
(right side of Fig. 3) should be equal. The inertia forces can be divided
into two components depending on the direction of body rotation:
normal and tangential components. In particular, the normal directional
path. These forces can be calculated using the angular velocity and ac­
celeration as follows:
(12)
2
Fn ¼ mlθ_
Ft ¼ ml€
θ (13)
For the applied forces, the notation Q in Fig. 3 represents the external
forces acting on the float, as shown in Eq. (1). The notation R in Fig. 3
denotes the tension in the arm, and it can be decomposed into horizontal

� ! ! ! ��
� i k j �
�
X ! ! � � ! ! � X X � !
I €θ ¼ M y ¼ ð!
r � Q Þ⋅ð j Þ ¼ � rx rz 0 �⋅ð j Þ ¼ ð j Þ⋅ rx ⋅ Fz rz ⋅ Fx ⋅ð j Þ
�X
� P � (9)
Fx Fz 0 �
� X X �
¼ rx ⋅ Fz r z ⋅ Fx

and vertical forces, Rx and Rz , respectively. These forces are from the
hinge point acting on the arm. According to Newton’s third law, the
The relationship between the rotation angle and the translational forces acting on the hinge point by the arm are equal in magnitude and
displacement of the float can be derived as the following equations: opposite to the direction of the tension in the arm. In summary, the
reaction forces acting on the hinge point can be obtained as follows:
ux ¼ l cos θ þ xH uz ¼ l sin θ þ zH
_
u_x ¼ lθsin θ _
u_z ¼ lθcos θ (10) FH;x ¼
2
Rx ¼ Qx þ ml θ_ cos θ þ €
θsin θ
�
(14)
2 2
u€x ¼ lθ_ cos θ l€θsin θ u€z ¼ lθ_ sin θ þ l€
θcos θ
�
(15)
2
where ðxH ; zH Þ denote the location of the hinge point. The equation of FH;z ¼ Rz ¼ Qz þ ml θ_ sin θ €
θcos θ
motion of the float can be obtained by substituting Eqs. (2)–(6) and (10) The rotation angle and angular velocity can be combined into a state
into Eq. (9) and rearranging both sides: vector to obtain the numerical solution as follows:
� � �
Iþma∞ ;zz ⋅r2x þma∞ ;xx ⋅r2z ⋅€ _
θþðBPTO ⋅θÞþf ρw gAw ⋅ðrz þzH Þ⋅rx g θðtÞ
�Z t Z t � f ðtÞ ¼ _ (16)
θðtÞ
þl⋅ Kzz ðτÞ⋅cosðθðt τÞÞ⋅θðt _ τÞdτ⋅rx _
Kxx ðτÞ⋅sinðθðt τÞÞ⋅θðt τÞdτ⋅rz
�
0
� �� �
0
� 2 The first time derivative of the above equation is a state-space
¼ rx ⋅ FFK;z þFDiff ;z rz ⋅ FFK;x þFDiff ;x þ rx ⋅rz ⋅ðma;zz ma;xx Þ ⋅θ_ equation of the system. Using this equation, the second-order differen­
(11) tial equation can be replaced by the first-order differential equation. In
this study, Runge-Kutta 4th-order method was applied for numerical
The motion of the float is constrained by the arm with a hinge joint.
time integration of this equation. The state-space equation can be
The external forces acting on the float are transmitted to the hinge point
expressed using the following equation:
through the arm, and the forces due to the movement of the float also act
� � � �
on the hinge point. The constraint force acting on the float can be _
θðtÞ _
θðtÞ
f_ðtÞ ¼ € ¼ � _ 2 _
��
θðtÞ BðtÞ þ DðtÞ⋅fθðtÞg EðtÞ BPTO ⋅θðtÞ GðtÞ JðtÞ
(17)

where
� �
Hinge Hinge BðtÞ ¼ rx ⋅ FFK;z þ FDiff ;z rz ⋅ FFK;x þ FDiff ;x

positive
direction
= positive
direction
DðtÞ ¼ rx ⋅rz ⋅ðma;zz
�Z t
ma;xx Þ

EðtÞ ¼ l⋅ _
Kzz ðτÞ ⋅ cosðθðt τÞÞ⋅θðt τÞdτ ⋅ rx
0
Z t �
_
Kxx ðτÞ ⋅ sinðθðt τÞÞ⋅θðt τÞdτ ⋅ rz
Fig. 3. Dynamic equilibrium of a simple pendulum problem (R:force at the 0
hinge point acting on the arm, Q: external forces acting on the float).

4
S. Heo and W. Koo Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070

GðtÞ ¼ ρw gAw ⋅ðrz þ zH Þ⋅rx
JðtÞ ¼ I þ ma∞ ;zz ⋅r2x þ ma∞ ;xx ⋅r2z
The classical method, as explained so far, has the drawback that the
translational motion should be converted to rotational motion in order
to calculate the rotation angle of the float. In addition, the dynamic
equilibrium of the system should be considered to calculate the reaction
forces acting on the hinge point. In the case of a complex system, the
equation of motion would be much more difficult to describe.
2.2.2. Augmented formulation
As mentioned in the previous section, it is difficult to calculate the
constraint forces directly when applying Newton’s second law. The
augmented formulation, which is one of a multibody dynamics’
formulation, can be used to overcome this problem. Using the
augmented formulation, the rotational motion of the float and the re­
action forces acting on the hinge point can be calculated at the same
time. The constrained system is described using the following differen­
tial and algebraic equations:
T
ug þ ½Cu � fλg ¼ fQg
½M�f€
Cð!
u ; tÞ ¼ 0
the two-loop procedure is the iterative process of the explicit or implicit
integration schemes, and the inner loop is the Newton-Raphson iterative
method for solving Eq. (19). In this study, the Newmark-beta explicit
method was employed for the outer loop of the two-loop procedure.
In planar motion, an unconstrained object has three degrees of
freedom (two translational motions and a single rotational motion). In
the case of the hinge joint, two translational motions are constrained by
one arm. Therefore, the object has one degree of freedom, which is the
rotational motion (θ) about the rotation axis. In other words, the motion
of the float can be described using only the angle of rotation, and the
translational displacements (xf ; zf ) are dependent on this angle. In this
case, the rotation angle can be defined as an independent coordinate
(!u i ), and the translational displacements can be defined as dependent
coordinates (! u d ). The conditions for the hinge joint are that the point
where the two objects are connected remains constant throughout the
entire motion. Fig. 4 presents two bodies, the fixed wall and a float with
an arm, which are connected by a hinge joint. The constraint equation
for the hinge joint can be expressed as follows:
Cð!
u ; tÞ ¼ !
r Of !
r OH !
r Hf ¼ 0 (23)
(18) where !r ij denotes the position vector from point i to point j. The point O
is the origin of the system coordinate and can be set to ð0; 0Þ for
(19)
simplicity. The r vectors can be expressed as follows:

where ½M� is the mass matrix of the float, Cð! u ; tÞ is the constraint !
r OH ¼ ðxH ; zH Þ (24)
equations of the system at the displacement level, ½Cu � is the partial �
differential matrix of constraint equations, fλg is the Lagrange multiplier !
r Of ¼ xf ; zf (25)
vector. The first and second derivatives of Eq. (19) define the constraint � �
equations at the velocity and acceleration levels as follows: !
r Hf ¼ ½A� rf (26)
Cu u_ ¼ Ct (20)
where ½A� is the transformation matrix from the arm-float coordinate
system to the global coordinate system. The vector frf g is the position
Cu u€ ¼ Qc ¼ ððCu uÞ
_ u u_ þ 2Cut u_ þ Ctt Þ (21)
vector of the float in arm-float coordinate system as follows:
where Ct is the partial derivative of the constraint equation with respect �
cos θ sin θ
�
to the time, Qc is the vector related to the second time derivative of the ½A� ¼ (27)
sin θ cos θ
constraint equation. Eqs. (18) and (21) can be combined to form the
following augmented formulation (Shabana, 2013): � �
rf ¼ ½ l 0 �T (28)
� �� � � �
½M� ½Cu �T fug
€ fQg Substituting Eqs. (24)–(28) into Eq. (23), the constraint equations
¼ (22)
½Cu � 0 fλg fQc g can be expressed as
The above equations can be solved numerically to obtain the accel­ �
xf xH l cos θ
�
erations and Lagrange multipliers vectors. In the numerical process, the Cð!u ; tÞ ¼ ¼0 (29)
zf zH l sin θ
solutions of Eq. (22) should always be satisfied with Eqs. (19) and (20).
Satisfying Eqs. (19), (20) and (22) means that the response vectors of the The constraint Jacobian matrix can be expressed as
float satisfy the constraint equations of the system at the displacement, � �
1 0 l sin θ
velocity and acceleration levels. To solve these equations in the time Cu ðtÞ ¼ (30)
0 1 l cos θ
domain, two-loop numerical integration procedures were proposed
(Shabana and Hussein, 2009; Zhang and Zhang, 2016). The outer loop of The constraint forces acting on the float can be calculated by
multiplying Eq. (30) by the Lagrange multiplier vector. The constraint
forces acting on the hinge point can be obtained by changing the point of
Hinge action from the float to the hinge point. The translational constraint
z point xH , z H forces are the same, but the moment should be changed according to the
following equation:
� !�T �T
fFH g ¼ ½Cu �T fλg 0 0 ! r Hf � Q (31)
x
Augmented formulation, as explained thus far, has the disadvantage
rOH rHf that a second derivative with respect to the time of the constraint
equation is required. On the other hand, this method has the advantages
that it is easy to program, and the constraint forces are calculated
automatically at every time step.
xO , zO rOf xf , zf
O
Fig. 4. Description of the hinge joint in planar motion.

5
S. Heo and W. Koo Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070

0.3

0.25

0.2

RAO [rad/m]
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Wave frequency [rad/s]

Fig. 8. Comparison of pitch RAOs of the float.

using the Cummins’ equation. The damping coefficient of the PTO sys­
tem (BPTO ) of 3.52 � 106 N⋅m⋅s was applied for analysis.
Fig. 5. Hemispherical float constrained to a hinge point (Flavi�
a et al., 2017).
Fig. 6 shows the time history of the rotation angle of the float ac­
cording to the calculation method. For the simulation, a wave height of
-0.6 2 m and wave frequency of 1.0 rad/s were applied. The ramp function
was applied for the first 30 s to prevent sudden changes. Regardless of
the calculation method, the rotation angle was similar over the entire
-0.7 time range. This means that the angular velocity and angular accelera­
tion of the float are the same in both methods, and the reaction forces
acting on the hinge point will also be the same. Fig. 7 shows the time
-0.8
history of the horizontal and vertical reaction forces acting on the hinge
point. As expected, the results were similar in both calculation methods.
-0.9 To verify the validity of both methods, the Response Amplitude
Operator (RAO) for the rotational motion of the float were compared
with the reference (Flavi�a et al., 2017). Fig. 8 compares the pitch RAO of
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 the float. The maximum error between the calculation results and the
Time [sec] reference was approximately 3% over the entire frequency range. The
trend and magnitude of the pitch RAO agreed well with the reference
Fig. 6. Time history of the rotation angle of the float (H ¼ 2 m, ω ¼ values. Therefore, the validity of the calculation methods used in this
1:0 rad=s).
study was verified.
In addition to the above results, Fig. 9 compares the spectrum of the
3. Numerical results and discussion horizontal and vertical reaction force magnitudes between the calcula­
tion methods. The peak frequency of the reaction force spectra was the
3.1. Validation of calculation methods same with the peak frequency of the pitch RAO. This means that the
reaction force acting on the hinge point increased with increasing
Prior to the validation, the results of two procedures were compared rotational motion of the float.
to check whether they provided the same results. Fig. 5 presents a In Figs. 8 and 9, the results of both methods were similar over the
hemispherical float constrained to a hinge point in the two-dimensional given frequency range. This means that both procedures well analyzed
coordinate system (Flavia � et al., 2017). The float could only rotate about the responses of the float and its effects. In terms of set up efficiency for
the axis of rotation (inverse y-axis, as shown in Fig. 2). The diameter of numerical analysis, the classical method is very inefficient because it
the float was 6 m, and the water depth was 20 m. The direction of the requires the formula-derivation process every time the analysis target
incident wave was the x-axis. The hydrodynamic coefficients and wave changes. Therefore, building the numerical process using the augmented
exciting forces acting on the float were calculated using WAMIT in the formulation is more efficient in terms of efficiency and applicability.
frequency domain. The time domain motions of the float were described

Fig. 7. Time history of the reaction forces at the hinge point (H ¼ 2 m, ω ¼ 1:0 rad=s).

6
S. Heo and W. Koo Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070

105 105
3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2

Force [N]

Force [N]
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Wave frequency [rad/s] Wave frequency [rad/s]

Fig. 9. Comparison of the spectrum of the reaction force magnitude between calculation methods (H ¼ 2 m).

dimensional conditions. Floats 1 and 2 were constrained to hinge

Fig. 10. Description of a multi-buoy HPA type WEC with two hemispherical
floats constrained to hinge points.
3.2. Dynamic results of multi-buoy WEC
The reaction forces acting on the hinge points are influenced not only
by the environmental conditions, but also by the arrangement of the
floats. This is because the motion of the floats varies according to both
the interaction between the floats and the direction of the action of the
forces acting on the floats. In this section, the calculation results of two
floats for a multi-buoy HPA type WEC platform were analyzed to
emphasize the importance of reaction force analysis. Fig. 10 describes a
WEC with two hemispherical floats. The two legs of the WEC were
assumed to be slender elements and to be fixed. Thus, the influence of
the legs did not significantly affect the calculation results. The direction
of the incident wave was applied only to the x-axis for analysis in two-
point 1 at an obtuse angle and hinge point 2 at an acute angle to the
horizontal axis, respectively. The floats had the same structural prop­
erties, but the locations and directions of the external forces were
different. This caused the magnitude and phase differences of the hori­
zontal and vertical external forces between the floats. The diameter of
each float of 6 m and the water depth of 20 m were applied. The di­
rection of the incident wave was the x-axis. The damping coefficient of
the PTO system (BPTO ) of 3.52 � 106 N⋅m⋅s was applied for analysis. In
the previous section, the results were similar regardless of the calcula­
tion method. Therefore, in this section, the motion of the float and the
reaction force acting on the hinge point were calculated simultaneously
using the augmented formulation.
Fig. 11 compares the pitch RAOs between floats 1 and 2. Two floats
have different peak frequencies. The peak frequency of float 2 was
approximately 1.14 rad/s, and the response difference to float 1 at this
frequency was approximately 25.1%. The tendency of the pitch RAO of
float 2 was slightly different from the results of the single float case due
to the interaction between float 1 and 2. The magnitude of the pitch RAO
of float 2 was greater than that on float 1 at frequencies higher than the
peak frequency of float 1. This means that, when the WEC is in opera­
tion, a larger wave power can be obtained when the angle between the
arm and wave propagating direction is an acute angle.
On the other hand, the rotational motion of each float can be
calculated using Eq. (8). Because the structural properties of floats 1 and
2 were identical, the only value that affects the motion was the moment
acting on the center of rotation. Fig. 12 presents the inverse y-axis
moment acting on each hinge point for one wave period. In this figure,
the results when a wave frequency of 1.14 rad/s were shown to analyze

0.3

0.25

0.2
RAO [rad/m]

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Wave frequency [rad/s]
Fig. 11. Comparison of the pitch RAOs between floats 1 and 2.

7
S. Heo and W. Koo Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070

106
6

-2

-4

-6
110 110.5 111 111.5 112 112.5 113 113.5 114 114.5 115 115.5
Time [sec]
Fig. 12. Inverse y-axis moment acting on hinge points 1 and 2 (H ¼ 2 m, ω ¼ 1:14 rad=s).

0.3 0.5

0.2
0.25
0.1

0 0

-0.1
-0.25
-0.2

-0.3 -0.5
110 111 112 113 114 115 110 111 112 113 114 115
Time [sec] Time [sec]

Fig. 13. Angular displacement and acceleration of the floats (H ¼ 2 m, ω ¼ 1:14 rad=s).

105 105

4 4

3 3
Force [N]

Force [N]

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Wave frequency [rad/s] Wave frequency [rad/s]

Fig. 14. Comparison of the spectrum of reaction force magnitude between hinge points 1 and 2 (H ¼ 2 m).

the responses when the pitch RAO of float 2 was the largest. The mo­
ments were slightly nonlinear during a period, and the magnitude of the
range of moment at hinge point 2 was 15.2% greater than that of hinge
point 1. Because the angular acceleration of the float is directly pro­
portional to the moment, as shown in Eq. (8), it can be predicted that the
angular accelerations will have the same tendency as the moments.
Fig. 13 presents the rotation angle and angular acceleration of the
floats during a single wave period. The angular acceleration showed
slight nonlinearity similar to the tendency of the moment, as expected.
In addition, the magnitude of the range of angular acceleration at hinge
point 2 was 15.5% greater than that of hinge point 1, which is similar to
the ratio of the moment. The magnitude ratios of the moment and the
angular acceleration were different from the ratio of the pitch RAO of
the float. This is because the angular acceleration has a little nonline­
arity, and the result of the time integration also has some nonlinearity.
Fig. 14 compares the spectrum of horizontal and vertical reaction
force magnitudes between hinge points 1 and 2. In contrast to the trend
of pitch RAO, the reaction forces acting on hinge point 1 were much
greater than those acting on hinge point 2. This means that although the
movement of the float is relatively small, the force acting on the hinge
point can be large. In addition, the magnitudes of the vertical reaction
force were greater than the horizontal reaction force in both floats. This
is because the linear buoyancy was included in the vertical external
force. These horizontal and vertical reaction forces should be considered

8
S. Heo and W. Koo
as external forces acting on the hinge point when analyzing the behavior
of the WEC platform.
The above results showed that even if the structural properties of the
floats were the same, the responses can be affected not only by the di­
rection of forces, but also their arrangements. Especially, the tendency
and magnitude of the reaction forces acting on the hinge points would
not be easily predictable without performing the reaction force analysis.
In other words, both the motion of the float and the reaction force acting
on the hinge point must be evaluated to satisfy the structural stability of
the HPA-type WEC platform.
4. Conclusions
This paper presented two numerical procedures to evaluate both the
dynamic responses of the float and the reaction forces acting on the
hinge point for HPA-type WEC platform. One is the classical method
using Newton’s second law for rotation, and the other is the augmented
formulation, which is one of multibody dynamics formulation. The
characteristics of the two procedures were explained in detail. Two
procedures give almost the same results because both methods deal with
the same physical phenomena. An important part of the proposed pro­
cedures is the calculation of the reaction forces acting on the hinge
points of the WEC platform. From this perspective, the calculation
process was explained and the results were compared.
In the case of the HPA-type WEC platform, multiple floats were
connected to the main structure by structural arms and hinges. Each
numerical model for a float was modeled as a hemispherical shape and
connected to the hinge point by a massless rigid arm. The frequency-
dependent hydrodynamic characteristics and wave excitation forces
acting on the floats were calculated using the three-dimensional fre­
quency domain BEM solver. The movement of floats was described using
Cummins’ equation in the time domain.
The validity of the calculation methods was verified by comparing
the pitch RAO of a single float with the reference paper. The calculation
results using both methods agreed very well with each other over the
given range of frequency. This means that both procedures well
analyzed the responses of the float and its effects. However, in terms of
efficiency of numerical analysis preparation stage, the classical method
is very inefficient because it requires much more complicated process
according to the model of the platform changes. Therefore, building the
numerical process using the augmented formulation is more efficient in
terms of efficiency and applicability. In the case of the two floats, the
results of each float were different due to the direction of force and the
position of the floats. Especially, the tendency and magnitude of the
reaction forces would not be easily predictable without conducting the
reaction force analysis. This means that it is essential to confirm the
effects of float motion on the main structure when performing stability
analysis of the HPA-type WEC platform. These effects can be considered
when applying the methods presented in this study. In the future, the
structural analysis of the HPA-type WEC platform will be carried out
considering the various environmental conditions (such as oblique
waves) and the flexible arm which is composed by beam elements.
Author contribution section
Mr. Heo and Prof. Koo developed the numerical procedures and
carried out all numerical calculations and wrote the manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the
Ocean Engineering 200 (2020) 107070
publication of this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant
References
Armesto, J.A., Guanche, R., Del Jesus, F., Iturrioz, A., Losada, I.J., 2015. Comparative
analysis of the methods to compute the radiation term in Cummins’ equation.
J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 1 (4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40722-015-
0027-1.
Babarit, A., Hals, J., Muliawan, M., Kurniawan, A., Moan, T., Krokstad, J., 2012.
Numerical benchmarking study of a selection of wave energy converters. Renew.
Energy 41, 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.10.002.
Chao, Z., Yage, Y., Aiju, C., 2018. Hydrodynamics research of a two-body articulated
wave energy device. Ocean Eng. 148, 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2017.11.029.
Cl�ement, A., McCullen, P., Falc~ ao, A., Fiorentino, A., Gardner, F., Hammarlund, K.,
Lemonis, G., Lewis, T., Nielsen, K., Petroncini, S., Pontes, M.T., Schild, P.,
Sj€
ostr€om, B., Sørensen, H.C., Thorpe, T., 2002. Wave energy in europe: current status
and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 6 (5), 405–431. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1364-0321(02)00009-6.
Cummins, W.E., 1962. The impulse response function and ship motions. In:
Hydromechanics Laboratory Research and Development Report of Department of the
Navy David Taylor Model Basin, vol. 9, pp. 101–109.
Drew, B., Plummer, A.R., Sahinkaya, M.N., 2009. A review of wave energy converter
technology. Proc. IME J. Power Energy 223 (8), 887–902. https://doi.org/10.1243/
09576509JPE782.
European Ocean Energy Association, 2010. Oceans of Energy - European Ocean Energy
Roadmap 2010-2050. EU-OEA, Brussels, Belgium.
Falc~
ao, A., 2010. Wave energy utilization: a review of the technologies. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 14 (3), 899–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.003.
Flavi�a, F.F., Babarit, A., Cl�
ement, A.H., 2017. On the numerical modeling and
optimization of a bottom-referenced heave-buoy array of wave energy converters.
Int. J. Mar. Energy 19, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2017.05.004.
Karimirad, M., 2014. Offshore Energy Structures: for Wind Power, Wave Energy and
Hybrid Marine Platforms. Springer.
Kim, S.J., Koo, W., Min, E.H., Jang, H., Youn, D., Lee, B., 2016. Experimental study on
hydrodynamic performance and wave power takeoff for heaving wave energy
converter. J. Ocean Eng. Technol. 30 (5), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.5574/
KSOE.2016.30.5.361.
Kim, S.S., Lee, J.C., Kang, D., Lee, S.S., 2019. Motion characteristics of a floating wave
energy converter with wave activating body type. Int. J. Naval Arch. Ocean Eng. 11
(1), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2018.04.005.
Kramer, M., Marquis, L., Frigaard, P., 2011. Performance evaluation of the wavestar
prototype. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference
(Southampton, UK).
Lee, C.H., 1995. WAMIT Theory Manual. Report No. 95-2. Department of Ocean
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Newmark, N.M., 1959. A method of computation for structural dynamics. J. Eng. Mech.
Div. 85 (3), 67–94.
Ogilvie, T., 1964. Recent progress towards the understanding and prediction of ship
motions. In: Fifth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, vol. 1, pp. 2–5.
Penalba, M., Giorgi, G., Ringwood, J.V., 2017. Mathematical modelling of wave energy
converters: a review of nonlinear approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78,
1188–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.137.
Shabana, A.A., Hussein, B.A., 2009. A two-loop sparse matrix numerical integration
procedure for the solution of differential/algebraic equations: application to
multibody systems. J. Sound Vib. 327 (3–5), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsv.2009.06.020.
Shabana, A.A., 2013. Dynamics of Multibody Systems, fourth ed. Cambridge university
press.
Wang, L., Kolios, A., Cui, L., Sheng, Q., 2018. Flexible multibody dynamics modelling of
point-absorber wave energy converters. Renew. Energy 127, 790–801. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.029.
Zhang, L., Zhang, D., 2016. A two-loop procedure based on implicit Runge–Kutta method
for index-3 dae of constrained dynamic problems. Nonlinear Dynam. 85 (1),
263–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-016-2682-8.
Zurkinden, A.S., Ferri, F., Beatty, S., Kofoed, J.P., Kramer, M., 2014. Non-linear
numerical modeling and experimental testing of a point absorber wave energy
converter. Ocean Eng. 78, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.12.009.