Tidal current energy potential assessment

in the Avilés Port using a three-

dimensional CFD method

Rodolfo Espina-Valdés, Eduardo Álvarez

Álvarez, Julio García-Maribona, Antonio
José Gutiérrez Trashorras & Juan
M. González-Caballín
Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy
Focusing on Technology Research,
Innovation, Demonstration, Insights
and Policy Issues for Sustainable
Technologies

ISSN 1618-954X
Volume 21
Number 6

Clean Techn Environ Policy (2019)

21:1367-1380
DOI 10.1007/s10098-019-01711-2

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer
Nature. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy (2019) 21:1367–1380
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01711-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Tidal current energy potential assessment in the Avilés Port using

a three‑dimensional CFD method
Rodolfo Espina‑Valdés1 · Eduardo Álvarez Álvarez1 · Julio García‑Maribona2 · Antonio José Gutiérrez Trashorras1 ·
Juan M. González‑Caballín1

Received: 3 November 2018 / Accepted: 27 May 2019 / Published online: 31 May 2019
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Tidal energy is considered as an energy resource of maximum interest in both technical and research fields due to its largely
unexploited energy potential. The use of hydrokinetic microturbines is now an attractive option with reduced environmen-
tal impact. The first step to evaluate the feasibility of a hydrokinetic microturbines installation is to perform a study of the
velocity field characteristics and therefore the energy potential available. Up to now, different numerical models, of one, two
and three spatial dimensions have been applied to evaluate the tidal potential in large areas. Due to the high computational
resources needed, they include simplifications, like avoiding a precise study of the velocity in the vertical dimension, result-
ing in incomplete estimations of the available kinetic energy. To complete these estimations, the research presented sets out
a methodology to evaluate the current effects, velocity profiles and the energy potential derived from tide movements in an
estuary or port by solving the full Navier–Stokes equations. It also considers the water–air interface in the numerical scheme.
The methodology is based, firstly, on the definition of a three-dimensional geometrical model of the geographical area of
study, and then, the complete model is meshed with finite volumes, where the full three-dimensional Unsteady Navier–Stokes
equations are solved. The methodology was applied and validated with a three-dimensional water–air numerical model of
the port of Avilés (Spain). In conclusion, water surface elevations, averaged speed cycles, velocity profiles as a function of
depth and tidal power and energy data have been obtained without the usual simplifications, which will mean an evaluation
more accurate when assessing the implementation of a power generation system.
Graphic abstract

Keywords Tidal energy · Computational fluid dynamics · Three-dimensional model · Averaged velocity · High resolution

* Eduardo Álvarez Álvarez

edualvarez@uniovi.es
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
1368
Introduction
Tidal energy is the result of the movement of ocean water
volumes caused by the influence of the moon and sun
lesser extent. It includes the potential energy derived by
height changes in sea level, harnessed in tidal barrages,
and the kinetic energy present in tidal currents, harnessed
using tidal current devices (Bhuyan 2008). The worldwide
theoretical tidal energy has been estimated at around 7800
TWh/year (Huckerby et al. 2012). Regardless of it being
a constant and largely foreseeable energy resource (Saad
and Taleb 2018), the challenge to improve its large-scale
feasibility remains. Considerable investment, ever increas-
ing maintenance and operation costs together with a poten-
tially significant impact on the environment are all to be
considered to meet such a challenge. Nevertheless, and in
spite of such obstacles, it is currently attracting both inter-
est and investment (Rourke et al. 2010).
To date, tidal energy utilizations are mainly based on
tidal barrages which harness the potential energy of tides.
Although this technology can be considered mature, said
facilities have significant repercussions on the environ-
ment (Hooper and Austen 2013) and their feasibility is
restricted to few locations (Executive Committee of Ocean
Energy Systems 2015).
During the last decade, new lines of research have been
focused into the design of tidal current energy devices
called hydrokinetic turbines, known as tidal current tech-
nology (Heesterman 2017), which are based on wind tur-
bine designs (Vanzwieten et al. 2015). The first technical
solution proposed was the design of high-power turbines
(> 500 kW) to be located in offshore areas to minimize
any possible environmental ramifications (Glaser 2007).
Different companies interested in the design of tidal high-
power turbines have proposed different prototypes (Ver-
dant Power 2006). Considerable outlays in addition to sub-
stantial operation and maintenance costs have undeniably
limited their further development.
Even during last years, different specialized centres
offer infrastructures to perform specialized prototype tests
like the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC, UK),
the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Cen-
tre (NNMREC, USA), Fundy Ocean Research Centre for
Energy (FORCE, Canada). But the reality is that only a
few installations are connected to the grid, for example the
plant of the SeaGen company in Strangford Lough (UK)
with two 600-KW tidal turbines that was commissioned
in July 2008 (Devine-Wright 2011).
Recent projects have attempted to come up with a
new approach based on low-power hydrokinetic tur-
bines or hydrokinetic microturbines (Vennell et al. 2015)
arranged in arrays (called tidal turbine arrays). Examples
13
R. Espina‑Valdés et al.
of pre-commercial developments are the Maine project
in the Bay of Fundy (Canada) and the RITE project in
New York (Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC),
Verdant Power 2012). These prototypes are suitable for
nearshore locations where high kinetic energy can be har-
nessed (due to the influence of tides) to provide energy to
local demands, reducing the effects on the environment
(Alvarez et al. 2013), as well as the investment and func-
tioning costs required.
These projects have embraced research into both the
development of numerical models with specific software
tools (or codes) to perform estimations of the energy
potential of tidal currents as well as microturbine designs.
These studies are still under development, but its impor-
tance is very relevant since, as clearly indicated by Lewis
et al. (2015), having a precise estimation of the tidal energy
potential and also optimized microturbine designs (Culley
et al. 2016) are key factors in guaranteeing feasibility of a
tidal array.
Up to now, different numerical models (regarding the
equations solved and the code used) have been used to
study the hydrodynamic of tidal flows over extensive areas:
one-dimensional (1D), two-dimensional (2D) and three-
dimensional (3D). These models must consider different
numerical difficulties including complex geometries, large-
size domains and the determination of the free surface which
represents a mobile boundary condition. Therefore, the mod-
els must assume certain simplifications in order to obtain
a compromise between accuracy and computational costs.
There are two main simplifications that have become the
standard approach: using low resolution meshes and evad-
ing a precise study of the velocity in the depth dimension. In
some cases, it has resulted in inaccurate estimations of the
available kinetic energy (Evans et al. 2015).
1D and 2D hydrodynamic models are based on solv-
ing a depth-averaged form of the differential Shallow
Water Equations so-called Saint–Venant equations. These
equations are obtained from the continuity equation and
momentum Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)
equations, integrating them over the water depth. They
also assume incompressible flow, hydrostatic pressure
distribution and do not take into account the effect of the
vertical length scale, as it is much smaller than the hori-
zontal. That allows to obtain the horizontal depth-averaged
velocities and the free surface height, in large domains
with affordable computational costs. 1D models are the
most simplified option, suitable when the tidal currents
have a predominant direction. The information needed
to elaborate the geometrical model is reduced (transver-
sal sections separated a certain distance), and the results
can be obtained in very little time. Examples of recent
studies of tidal currents using 1D hydrodynamic mod-
els have been performed in the East river in Manhattan
 Author's personal copy
Tidal current energy potential assessment in the Avilés Port using a three-dimensional CFD…
(New York, USA) (Spurlock et al. 2008) and in the Nalón
river (Alvarez et al. 2016) both using HEC-RAS (1D)
free code. In contrast, 2D models are suitable in cases
of abrupt variations in the geometry (narrowings, curves,
etc.) where the currents are highly bidimensional. How-
ever, these models have higher computational costs and
they require more accurate information to elaborate the
geometrical models. Examples of recent studies of tidal
currents using 2D hydrodinamic models have been per-
formed in the tidal strait of Pentland Firth (Scotland, UK)
(Martin-Short et al. 2015; Adcock et al. 2013), around the
Irish coast (O’Rourke et al. 2010) and at the ría of Avilés
(Spain) (Avilés Port Authority 2004) using in the three
cases Mike 21(2D) commercial code (DHI 2016); and in
Pentland Firth (Pérez-Ortiz et al. 2013), Skarpsundet tidal
channel (Norway) (Lalander et al. 2013) and Portland Bill
(Dorset, UK) (Blunden and Bahaj 2006) using Telemac
(2D) free code.
Regarding 3D models, the hydrodynamic of tidal flows
is studied solving the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS) equations with hydrostatic simplifications that can
lead to the imprecise calculation of velocities and water
depths, mainly in scenarios highly three-dimensional flows
scenarios. There are different published hydrodynamic
studies using these models: the Irish Sea and North West
European shelf seas were studied by using Regional Ocean
Modelling System (ROMS) (Lewis et al. 2015; Neill et al.
2015) free code; the Bay of Algeciras (Spain) (Sammartino
et al. 2014) using the free code Massachusetts Institute of
Technology general circulation model (MITgcm); or the
Strait of Malacca (Sumatra) (Sakmani et al. 2013) and the
Pearl River estuary (China) (Chau and Jiang 2001) using the
free code Princeton Ocean Model (POM).
In general, the model complexity increases (1D, 2D or
3D) with the site complexity and accuracy of the solu-
tions needed, but up to now with important simplifications
(Legrand et al. 2009). These simplifications have drawbacks
and, in some cases, do not provide good results (section
variations, vertical speeds, depth). Therefore, it is of maxi-
mum interest the use of other models that include a study
of the flow in the vertical dimension. A first approach has
been presented by the authors of this research in González-
Caballín et al. (2016), proposing a 2D longitudinal model
(including depth and length) to study the hydrodynamics
of the port of Avilés. This investigation proposes the use of
tridimensional biphasic air–water models (3D) that solve
full Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes with Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods (Timilsina et al. 2018). That
makes it possible to achieve more complete descriptions of
the water velocity field (tidal currents) and water surface
location, therefore reducing uncertainly in the evaluations
of the hydrokinetic power and energy that can be obtained
by using microturbines at different sites and depths.
1369
Three‑dimensional model of the Avilés Port
The port of Avilés, a channel of 5000/160/10 m of length/
width (average)/depth (nearly constant), lies at the centre
of the northern coast of Spain (Fig. 1). Its location makes
it a geographically ideal hub for international trade, mainly
with the American continent and Northern Europe. For its
favourable location, the port provides a key outlet for the city
of Avilés and indeed for the whole Principality of Asturias.
This site has been chosen due to the availability of experi-
mental data that can validate this research and its proximity
to consumption points in the city of Avilés that makes it
attractive for integration into smart city grids.
Geometric model
The geometric model used has been obtained by using
geographical information from Opensource Geographic
Information Systems. The bathymetry definition has been
obtained from the navigational chart “n° 4052 (INT 1854):
Ria de Avilés” of the “Instituto Hidrográfico de la Marina
Española”. The navigational chart has a scale 1:7500 and
is included in the International navigational charts of the
Atlantic Ocean, Spanish North Coast, edited by the “Instituto
Hidrográfico de la Marina Española” in December 2005. For
evaluation of the water velocity field and sea levels, the zone
between the port mouth and elbow of the port was divided in
cross sections to the flow direction, at a constant distance of
50 m (Fig. 2). The sections were identified using the distance
to the port mouth which corresponds to x = 0.
The geometric model is designed to reproduce the bipha-
sic scheme of water and air. The bed of the port is horizontal,
and the height is 16.2 m. It is the sufficient height for taking
into account the evolution of the mentioned biphasic scheme.
Contour irregularities that do not have any important reper-
cussion in the results and which imply a high increase in
Fig. 1  Avilés Port location
13
 Author's personal copy
1370 R. Espina‑Valdés et al.

the calculation times have been removed (Fig. 3). The final
geometry includes two volumes that initially represent the
air and water initial conditions, allowing enough air space
for the tide rise. For reproducing the sea tides, a user-defined
function based on the equivalent water pressure level vari-
ations is applied at the port mouth in a rectangle (in blue),
defined as a water pressure inlet (Fig. 3). This rectangular
zone is a simplified representation of a large open sea zone
that has been modelled, so that the water inlet does not affect
the velocity field at the river mouth.
The model’s upper part is open allowing air to flow in and
out. The figure also includes the location of the points (­ P1,
­P2, ­P3; at x = 100, x = 1500, x = 3000) where the maximum
depth-averaged velocity values have been measured by the
Avilés Port (Avilés Port Authority 2004). Those values have
been used for the numerical model validation.

Numerical model

The numerical model is based on discretizing the geometry

in different finite volumes (or cells) where the Unsteady
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) flow equations
are solved with specific boundary conditions. In this case,
the equations are solved using the commercial CFD ANSYS
FLUENT V13.0 computer code.

Mesh
Fig. 2  Avilés Port (including cross sections)
The geometric model was meshed using a structured mesh
in the simple geometry areas and a non-structured mesh in
the more complex geometric ones. That solution allows a
compromise between calculation time and accuracy of the
results. The structured mesh is composed of regular quadran-
gular prisms of 10 m of side and 1 m of height and regular
triangular prisms of 10 m of side and 1 m of height (Fig. 4).
The total size of the grid is of 321,648 cells, with vari-
ations smaller than 0.7% of the averaged velocity val-
ues in the validation points when a greater number of
cells are used (Fig. 5). A quality analysis of the mesh
yielded very satisfactory results. The magnitude of the
equisize skew was 0.1 for 92% of the mesh cells. This
parameter quantifies the skewness of the cells formed.
Values near 0 indicate more regular cells, which have
a higher probability of obtaining satisfactory results.
Figure 6 show the quality result (using equisize skew
factor) of a mesh fragment. To ensure convergence,
it has been controlled how much the residuals had
decreased during the calculations as an additional
measure of convergence. In that way, ANSYS FLU-
ENT allows to normalize the residuals by dividing
Fig. 3  Geometric model contour and location of velocity measure- them by the maximum residual value after the itera-
ment points tions that are considered necessary. In relation to the

13
 Author's personal copy
Tidal current energy potential assessment in the Avilés Port using a three-dimensional CFD… 1371

Fig. 4  Mesh detail

0.230 stability of the model, the convergence is defined with

velocity aer 4,500 s in secon x=100 m a value of 1­ 0−5 and for each time step. Those values
0.210 are reached after less than 150 iterations. According
to the limits of convergence, the maximum oscilla-
0.190
tion of the speed with respect to the stability of the
0.170 solution are below the maximum value fixed by the
Cells number (x106) convergence criterion.
0.150
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Volume of fluid model
Fig. 5  Mesh analysis The volume of fluid (VOF) model has been selected to study
the dynamic of the biphasic (water–air) flow regime as it
is the most appropriate for free surface flows (Chen et al.
2002). The model is designed to study the evolution of the
interface between for two (or more) unmixable fluids (Hirt
and Nichols 1981). For this purpose, it uses an approach
based on calculating the volume fraction ratio of each phase
in every cell of a fixed mesh (Eulerian technique), since the
volume of a phase cannot be occupied by the other.
Properties (density, viscosity, etc.) in each cell are vol-
ume-averaged values of the phases, calculated using the
volume fraction ratio. Both phases have been considered
incompressible.
For describing each phase unsteady movement and its
free surface, the model solves for every cell of the entire
domain the following governing equations:
Volume fraction equations,
( )
𝜕 𝛼air
(1)
( )
+ ∇ ⋅ 𝛼air ⋅ v̄ = 0
Fig. 6  Equisize skew of a mesh fragment 𝜕t

13
 Author's personal copy
1372
𝛼water + 𝛼air = 1 (2)
Navier–Stokes momentum equation,
𝜕 v̄
𝜌⋅ + 𝜌 ⋅ ∇ ⋅ (̄v ⋅ v̄ ) = −∇p + 𝜌 ⋅ ḡ + 𝜇 ⋅ ∇2 v̄ + F̄ (3)
𝜕t
where 𝛼water , 𝛼air are the volume fractions of water and air,
respectively, v̄ is the velocity shared by the phases, 𝜌 is the
volume fraction-averaged density, p is the pressure, ḡ is
the gravitational acceleration and F̄ is a volume force to
introduce the effect of the surface tension and wall adhe-
sion. In this case, the latter effects are negligible. Equa-
tions 1 through 3 contrast with the simplified ones of the
2D and 3D existing models (mainly simplifying the vertical
momentum equation). In those cases, the water depth is cal-
culated as a variable with only the momentum and continu-
ity equations of the water flow. This methodology resolves
the full Navier–Stokes equations for obtaining an accurate
description of the velocity field and uses a biphasic scheme
(air–water) for obtaining a detailed location of the water
surface. As a result, a more complex but precise model is
obtained.
Boundary conditions
Two boundary conditions were used in the model to repro-
duce the effects of the tides in the flow: a pressure of
101,325 Pa (normal atmospheric pressure) in the air outlet;
and a function that simulates variations in the water level
due to the tides influence, in the water inlet. The last one
was applied by a function defined by the user (user-defined
function or UDF). The UDF input parameters are mean sea
level, the amplitude of tides and tidal period (44,700 s for
semidiurnal tides). This function also considers the density
of sea water (1025 kg/m3) and the gravity (9.8 m/s2).
The other boundary conditions imposed were a uniform
velocity distribution at the inlet and a constant static pres-
sure at the outlet. Second-order discretizations were used
to convert time-dependent and convection terms to discrete
values. The pressure–velocity coupling was established by
means of the PISO algorithm. Turbulence was simulated by
means of the standard k-omega-SST model together with
standard wall functions to calculate boundary layer variables
(the y+ value is less than 70 on the bottom surface and 250
on the side of the estuary).
Solution parameters
The constant values of water and air densities and viscosities
used in the simulations are shown in Table 1.
The implicit method (iterative) was used for the tempo-
ral discretization of the flow governing equations in order to
improve stability with respect to the step size. Time derivatives
13
R. Espina‑Valdés et al.
Table 1  Density and dynamic viscosity values of water and air
Density (kg/m3) Dynamic viscosity (kg/m s)
Air 1.225 1.789 × 10−5
Water 1.025 1.003 × 10−3 (Chen et al. 1973)
in Eq. (1) were discretized using a first-order scheme while
a second-order scheme was used in those of Eq. (3). For the
spatial discretization, the second-order upwind methodology
was used with the pressure staggering option scheme for the
pressure, as they make it possible to obtain a better accuracy
with swirling flows (Andersson et al. 2011). For both phases
(water and air), the turbulence was simulated by means of a
k-epsilon Re-Normalisation Group (RNG) model with stand-
ard wall function. This turbulence model has a good degree of
accuracy for recirculating and swirling flows. The algorithm
Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Operators (PISO) was used
to resolve the flow governing equations. This method has been
especially designed to obtain high efficiencies (stable results
with reduced computational resources) in calculations of
unsteady flows (Shamloo and Pirzadeh 2008; Ketabdari et al.
2008).
During resolution, volume fractions are updated on each
time step in the different computational cells. With this
information, the interface position is reconstructed using
planar surfaces (piecewise linear scheme). It assumes that
the interface between two phases has a linear slope within
the cell (Hyman 1984) which has been probed to better cap-
ture the surface interface than other reconstruction schemes
(Fig. 7). For each time step, the convergence criteria was to
obtain normalized residuals smaller than ­10−5.
Simulation methodology
The numerical model was tested during a spring tide and
neap tide cycles with values of sea level and amplitude of
tides (to adjust in the UDF of level boundary condition) sup-
plied by Avilés Port Authority (Table 2).
The maximum depth-averaged velocities of the points
used in the model validation P ­ 1, ­P2 and P
­ 3 (Fig. 3) are 0.25,
0.12 and 0.10 m/s, respectively (Avilés Port Authority
2004). To obtain those values, a direct reading current metre
(Space Technology Systems, model DNC-3) has been used.
During the 44,700 s of each simulation cycle, a time step of
5 s was used with satisfactory convergence results.
Results and discussion
The tests were performed in a computer with a i-7 processor
and 8 cores which were selected to work in parallel. Each
complete test lasted 14 days.
 Author's personal copy
Tidal current energy potential assessment in the Avilés Port using a three-dimensional CFD… 1373

Fig. 7  Interface position

Table 2  Avilés Port tidal data

Mean sea level (m) Amplitude
of tides (m)

Spring tide 12.250 3.94

Neap Tide 12.195 1.27

Maximum velocities and sea level: model validation

Maximum velocity values were obtained during the spring

tide test. Figures 8 and 9 show contours and vectors of maxi-
mum values of velocity in the free surface obtained during
flood and ebb tides of the spring tide test. In both cases,
the higher values of the free surface velocities are about
0.35‒0.40 m/s and appear between the mouth of the port and
the middle of the port’s elbow. Consequently, the velocity
magnitude decreases with the distance from the middle of
the elbow down to 0.00 m/s at the end of the port.
During flood tide, it is noticeable that the pier location
inside of the channel elbow causes the flow to separate
from the inner side being displaced to the elbow exterior
side. Therefore, higher velocities appear in this zone. This
effect is maintained from the entrance of the elbow (section
Fig. 8  Maximum free surface velocity contours at flood tide (spring
x = 880 m) up to its middle, decreasing velocity values with tide test)
the distance to the channel mouth. As a consequence, dis-
placement swirls appear in the pier.
Similar effects (flow separation and swirls) appear during Authority. That validates the numerical model developed
ebb tide. However, in this case, the flow is separated towards in this research.
the exterior side of the channel and the higher velocities are The results present a high concordance with MIKE 21
mainly concentrated in this zone. As in the case of flood tide, code (DHI 2016) in study of the Avilés Port Authority, to
the effect is also maintained in the same area (from the mid- be a comparison between 2D and 3D model. The differ-
dle of the elbow to section x = 880 m) decreasing velocities ences that can be found are because the simulations with
values with the distance to the channel mouth. MIKE21 models were carried out before the last dredging
Taking into account these findings, it is clear that the of the estuary, while the CFD simulations were performed
hydrokinetic energy is mainly concentrated in the area from with the most current sections. The straight section at the
the channel mouth up to the elbow. In the elbow, the energy mouth was narrower than it is now, causing a slight increase
is concentrated in the outer side with lower velocity val- in speed in that area.
ues in the inner side and the pier. In the reference points A substantial difference between 3D and 2D is the flow
­P1, ­P2 and ­P3, the maximum depth-averaged velocity values behaviour in the curve. In Figs. 10 and 11, it can be seen
obtained were 0.29, 0.16 and 0.05, respectively (spring tide), that in the widening at the beginning of the curve near the
similar to those measured in the study of the Avilés Port mouth of the estuary, MIKE21 model predicts a dispersion

13
 Author's personal copy
1374 R. Espina‑Valdés et al.

occur in the corners are being collected when the flow in the
channel re-enters after the broadening zone. Therefore, more
accurate information is obtained with the proposed model
that is necessary for a possible microturbine installation.
In relation to water levels, in the different sections, the
water surface levels obtained in the tests show an evolution
that correspond to the variable pressure applied in the inlet
of the model. For example, in Fig. 12 the variation in the
water surface at section x = 100 m is shown.

Velocity cycles

Fig. 9  Maximum free surface velocity contours at ebb tide (spring
tide test)
of the flow, while in the CFD model, Figs. 8 and 9, the cur-
rent lines follow a more logical trajectory according to the
inertia of the flow. There is no widening of the flow, but it
is seen how the flow tends to deviate towards the outside
area of the curve. In the 3D model, the flow separations that
For the different cells and each time step, the results of the
water velocity were obtained during spring and neap tests.
For example, Fig. 13 shows the absolute value of the mean
water velocity at the section x = 50 m, with the sea water
surface boundary condition. The period of the velocity
cycle corresponds to approximately a semidiurnal varia-
tion (44,700 s). In Fig. 13, the effect of the flood and ebb
tides can be seen, as well as their acceleration and decel-
eration phases. The absolute value of the velocity has been
selected (without considering the flow direction) because the
investigation is focused in studying the hydrokinetic power
and energy, which are proportional to the cube of absolute
velocity.
The water impacts at the end of the port (wall condition
in the model) provoke effects of signal noise and dispropor-
tionateness between positive and negative velocity cycles.
Figure 14 shows the evolution of average velocities obtained
with the section distance from the mouth in the spring test.
Section 880 corresponds to the beginning of the elbow from

Fig. 10  Maximum free surface

velocity contours at flood tide
using MIKE 21 (spring tide test)
(Avilés Port Authority 2004)

13
 Author's personal copy
Tidal current energy potential assessment in the Avilés Port using a three-dimensional CFD… 1375

Fig. 11  Maximum free surface

velocity contours at ebb tide
using MIKE 21 (spring tide test)
(Avilés Port Authority 2004)

Fig. 12  Evolution of sea level during flood tide (x = 100 m) (spring tide test)

the mouth. In the neap test, velocities are quite similar in the
different sections (see Fig. 15).

Velocity profiles

The velocity profiles for each mesh element were obtained

Fig. 13  Averaged water velocity at section x = 50 m versus sea level
boundary condition (spring tide test)
using the defined model. Figure 16 shows the velocity profile
at section x = 100 m during flood tide sequence of the spring
tide test: acceleration phase (4500–9900 s) and deceleration
phase (9900–15,300 s). Figure 17 shows the velocity profile
at section x = 100 m during ebb tide sequence of the spring
tide test: acceleration phase (28,800–35,100 s) and decel-
eration phase (35,100–39,600 s). In both cases, the velocity
profiles show a non-uniform velocity distribution depending
on the depth, and the existence of higher velocities in the

13
 Author's personal copy
1376 R. Espina‑Valdés et al.

acceleration phase (4500–9900 s) and deceleration phase

(9900–15,300 s). Figure 19 shows the velocity profile at sec-
tion x = 880 m during ebb tide sequence of the spring tide
test: acceleration phase (28,800–35,100 s) and deceleration
phase (35,100–39,600 s). As in the other cases indicated,
the velocity profiles are non-uniform and a rotation of the
profiles is detected during ebb tide because of the flow sepa-
ration in the elbow.

Tidal current power and energy

The obtainable tidal current per 1 m2 of cross section is

Fig. 14  Evolution of mean water velocity at different sections (spring
tide test)
calculated using Eq. (4) for a section i:
1
( )
Pi (t) = ⋅ 𝜌 ⋅ v3i (t) (4)
2
where Pi (t) , vi (t) and 𝜌 are the tidal current power, mean
velocity and the seawater density, respectively.
The maximum values of the tidal current power per cross
section were noticed from sections x = 100 m to x = 880 m,
where maximum velocities were detected, decreasing as the
distance to the port mouth increases. Figure 20 shows the
values at different sections obtained in the spring tide test.
For each test (spring and neap), the kinetic energy of the
tidal current is calculated by integrating the results of instan-
taneous power. The energy of a year is then calculated with
the Eqs. (5) and (6):
EYEAR = EAV_cycle ⋅ 705 (5)

Fig. 15  Evolution of mean water velocity at different sections (neap
tide test)
exterior side during ebb tide because of the flow separation
in the elbow.
Figure 18 shows the velocity profile at section x = 880 m
during a flood tide sequence of the spring tide test:
ESPRING_cycle + ENEAP_cycle
EAV_cycle = (6)
2
where EYEAR is the tidal current energy per year and EAV_cycle
is the mean energy value per cycle (44,700 s). In these equa-
tions, it is assumed that in a semidiurnal tide, the spring and
neap periods are alternative each 7 days (approximately) and
there are 705 (365·24·60/44,700) cycles in a year.
In Fig. 21, the results of annual tidal energy in different
cross sections of the model are shown. At the mouth of the

Fig. 16  Flood tide velocity profiles sequence at section x = 100 (spring tide test)

13
 Author's personal copy
Tidal current energy potential assessment in the Avilés Port using a three-dimensional CFD… 1377

Fig. 17  Ebb tide velocity profiles sequence at section x = 100 (spring tide test)

Fig. 18  Flood tide velocity profiles sequence at section x = 880 (spring tide test)

Fig. 19  Ebb tide velocity profiles sequence at section x = 880 (spring tide test)

port, a maximum value of 28 kWh/m2 is obtained with an hydrokinetic turbine (Chen et al. 2015). The power that can be
exponential diminution up to the distance of 300 m from the obtained with those devices is calculated using expression (7),
port mouth. It is followed by a smooth diminution of energy
1
( )
from 300 to 880 m of distance. P(t) = ⋅ Cp ⋅ 𝜌 ⋅ A ⋅ v3 (t) (7)
The three-dimensional model allows also to obtain the 2
power (at different times) and annual energy density maps where P(t) is hydraulic power; Cp is the power coefficient
at diverse depths, corresponding to the use of a certain tidal (variable depending on the turbine type); 𝜌 is the seawater

13
 Author's personal copy
1378
Fig. 20  Tidal current power at different sections (spring tide test)
Fig. 21  Tidal current energy at different sections
density; A is the swept area of the turbine rotor, in this case
1 m2; and v(t) is the flow velocity.
The energy (per m­ 2) is calculated using expression (5) and
the methodology used in the cross-sectional case.
As an example, the case of using Gorlov microturbines
(Cp = 0.35) (Gorban’ et al. 2001) has been calculated. The tidal
annual energy map at free surface level is shown in Fig. 22,
while Fig. 23 shows the energy map at 2 m over the riverbed
(Z = 2). They represent the annual energy that can be obtained
situating microturbines floating at water surface (Fig. 20) or
submerged, anchored to the bottom, with rotors located at 2 m
from the riverbed (Fig. 23). In this case, the first option leads
to better energy results.
13
R. Espina‑Valdés et al.
Fig. 22  Tidal current energy obtained with turbines (Cp = 0.35) at
water surface
Conclusions
In this research, a methodology based on the resolution of
the full Navier–Stokes equations using CFD techniques in
a 3D biphasic (air‒water) model is presented in order to
reduce uncertainly in the description of the water veloc-
ity field and the kinetic energy potential derived from
tide movements. The biphasic model is based on the VOF
scheme taking into account water depth effects as they are
necessary to select placements for future tidal array micro-
turbine installations.
The methodology was applied to the port of Avilés. The
mesh of the model was made using quadrangular and trian-
gular prims finite volumes, where Unsteady Navier‒Stokes
(URANS) and the continuity equations were solved. A user-
defined function is used to take into account the semidiurnal
tides evolution. With the selection of adequate parameters,
simulations were carried out and the model further bolstered
with real data. A variety of results were obtained includ-
ing those affecting water surface elevations, mean velocity
cycles, velocity versus depth profiles, potential power and
energy that can be obtained by using a microturbine design.
The zone from the port mouth to the middle of port elbow
has been distinguished as the zone of maximum velocities
where the maximum energy value is obtained at the mouth
 Author's personal copy
Tidal current energy potential assessment in the Avilés Port using a three-dimensional CFD…
Fig. 23  Tidal current energy obtained with turbines (Cp = 0.35) at
Z=2 m
of the port decreases strongly as the distance from the mouth
increases.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the
support and interest of the Avilés Port Authority in the presented
investigation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declared no potential conflicts of inter-
est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Adcock T, Draper S, Houlsby GT et al (2013) The available power from
tidal stream turbines in the Pentland Firth. Proc R Soc A Math
Phys Eng Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2013.0072
Alvarez EA, Manso AN, Gutierrez-Trashorras AJ et al (2013) Obtain-
ing renewable energy from tidal currents in the Aviles port: new
services for citizens. 2013 International conference on new con-
cepts in smart cities: fostering public and private alliances (Smart-
MILE). IEEE, Gijón, pp 1–9
Alvarez EA, Rico-Secades M, Suárez DF et al (2016) Obtaining energy
from tidal microturbines: a practical example in the Nalón River.
Appl Energy 183:100–112. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​
rgy.2016.08.173
1379
Andersson B, Andersson R, Hakansson L et al (2011) Computa-
tional fluid dynamics for engineers. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Avilés Port Authority (2004) Proyecto de gestión ambiental de los
materiales de dragado del Puerto de Avilés. Avilés
Bhuyan GS (2008) Harnessing the power of the Oceans. Int Energy
Agency OPEN Energy Technol Bull 1–6
Blunden LS, Bahaj AS (2006) Initial evaluation of tidal stream
energy resources at Portland Bill, UK. Renew Energy 31:121–
132. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2005.08.016
Chau KWHKPU, Jiang YWHKPU (2001) 3D numerical model
for Pearl River estuary. J Hydraul Eng 127:72–82. https​://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:1(72)
Chen SF, Chan RC, Read SM, Bromley LA (1973) Viscosity of sea
water solutions. Desalination 13:37–51. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
S0011​-9164(00)80090​-9
Chen Q, Dai G, Liu H (2002) Volume of fluid model for tur-
bulence numerical simulation of stepped spillway over-
flow. J Hydraul Eng 128:683–688. https​: //doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)128:7(683)
Chen Y, Lin B, Lin J, Wang S (2015) Effects of stream turbine array
configuration on tidal current energy extraction near an island.
Comput Geosci 77:20–28. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo​
.2015.01.008
Culley DM, Funke SW, Kramer SC, Piggott MD (2016) Integration
of cost modelling within the micro-siting design optimisation
of tidal turbine arrays. Renew Energy 85:215–227. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2015.06.013
Devine-Wright P (2011) Place attachment and public acceptance of
renewable energy: a tidal energy case study. J Environ Psychol
31:336–343. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp​.2011.07.001
DHI (2016) MIKE 21 flow model user manual 120
Evans P, Mason-Jones A, Wilson C et al (2015) Constraints on
extractable power from energetic tidal straits. Renew Energy
81:707–722. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2015.03.085
Executive Committee of Ocean Energy Systems (2015) Annual
report ocean energy systems 2015. Lisbon
Glaser JA (2007) Future of energy. Wind Energy. https​: //doi.
org/10.1007/s1009​8-007-0107-6
González-Caballín JMJM, Álvarez E, Guttiérrez-Trashorras AJAJ
et al (2016) Tidal current energy potential assessment by a two
dimensional computational fluid dynamics model: the case of
Avilés Port (Spain). Energy Convers Manag 119:239–245. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2016.04.060
Gorban’ AN, Gorlov AM, Silantyev VM (2001) Limits of the turbine
efficiency for free fluid flow. J Energy Resour Technol 123:311.
https​://doi.org/10.1115/1.14141​37
Heesterman A (2017) The pace and practicality of decarboniza-
tion. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:295–310. https​: //doi.
org/10.1007/s1009​8-016-1277-x
Hirt C, Nichols B (1981) Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the
dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys 39:201–225. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145​-5
Hooper T, Austen M (2013) Tidal barrages in the UK: ecological and
social impacts, potential mitigation, and tools to support barrage
planning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 23:289–298. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.001
Huckerby J, Jeffrey H, Sedgwick J, Jay B, Finlay L (2012) An inter-
national vision for Ocean energy- version II. Ocean Energy Syst
Implement Agreem 20
Hyman JM (1984) Numeriacal methods for tracking interfaces James
M. Hyman. Interface 12:396–407
Ketabdari MJ, Nobari MRH, Moradi Larmaei M (2008) Simula-
tion of waves group propagation and breaking in coastal zone
using a Navier–Stokes solver with an improved VOF free
13
 Author's personal copy
1380
surface treatment. Appl Ocean Res 30:130–143. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.apor.2008.08.005
Lalander E, Thomassen P, Leijon M (2013) Evaluation of a model for
predicting the tidal velocity in fjord entrances. Energies 6:2031–
2051. https​://doi.org/10.3390/en604​2031
Lewis M, Neill SPP, Robins PEE, Hashemi MRR (2015) Resource
assessment for future generations of tidal-stream energy arrays.
Energy 83:403–415. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.energy​ .2015.02.038
Martin-Short R, Hill J, Kramer SC et al (2015) Tidal resource extrac-
tion in the Pentland Firth, UK: potential impacts on flow regime
and sediment transport in the Inner Sound of Stroma. Renew
Energy. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2014.11.079
Neill SP, Hashemi MR, Lewis MJ (2015) Tidal energy leasing and tidal
phasing. Renew Energy 85:580–587. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renen​e.2015.07.016 in press
O’Rourke F, Boyle F, Reynolds A (2010) Tidal current energy resource
assessment in Ireland: current status and future update. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 14:3206–3212. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2010.07.039
Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC), Verdant Power I (2012)
Marine and hydrokinetic technology background and perspective
for New York State. Final Report, New York
Pérez-Ortiz A, Pescatore J, Bryden I (2013) A systematic approach to
undertake tidal energy resource assessment with TELEMAC-2D.
In: 10th European wave and tidal energy conference, p 9
Rourke FO, Boyle F, Reynolds A (2010) Tidal energy update 2009.
Appl Energy 87:398–409. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​
rgy.2009.08.014
Saad W, Taleb A (2018) The causal relationship between renew-
able energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from
Europe. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20:127–136. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1009​8-017-1463-5
Sakmani AS, Lam W-HH, Hashim R, Chong H-YY (2013) Site selec-
tion for tidal turbine installation in the Strait of Malacca. Renew
Affiliations
Rodolfo Espina‑Valdés1 · Eduardo Álvarez Álvarez1 · Julio García‑Maribona2 · Antonio José Gutiérrez Trashorras1 ·
Juan M. González‑Caballín1
1
Department of Energy, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
2
Hydraulic Institute, University of Cantabria, Santander,
Spain
13
R. Espina‑Valdés et al.
Sustain Energy Rev 21:590–602. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.12.050
Sammartino S, García Lafuente J, Sánchez Garrido JC et al (2014) A
numerical model analysis of the tidal flows in the Bay of Alge-
ciras, Strait of Gibraltar. Cont Shelf Res 72:34–46. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.11.002
Shamloo H, Pirzadeh B (2008) Numerical investigation of velocity
field in dividing open-channel flow. In: 3rd IASME/WSEAS inter-
national conference on WATER resources hydraulic hydrology
(WHH’08), pp 27–31
Spurlock DS, Cox WE, Gutierrez M (2008) Modeling flows for assess-
ing tidal energy generation potential. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Timilsina AB, Mulligan S, Bajracharya TR (2018) Water vortex hydro-
power technology: a state-of-the-art review of developmental
trends. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20:1737–1760. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1009​8-018-1589-0
Vanzwieten J, Mcanally W, Asce F et al (2015) In-stream hydrokinetic
power: review and appraisal. J Energy Eng 141:1–16. https​://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.00001​97
Legrand C, Black and Veatch, EMEC (2009) Assessment of tidal
energy resource
Vennell R, Funke SW, Draper S et al (2015) Designing large arrays of
tidal turbines: a synthesis and review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
41:454–472. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.022
Verdant Power C (2006) Technology evaluation of existing and emerg-
ing technologies. Production 3502:1–48
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.