IEM Integration Project

INTEGRATION PROJECT IEM
FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Ocean Grazer: An analytical approach to

design an umbilical cord & floater buoy
system
Author Supervisors
N. DANN RUIZ S3388751 Prof. dr. A. VAKIS

Ir. T. M. KOUSEMAKER
June 12, 2020

Abstract
The depletion of natural resources and unceasing pollution of the planet have led to an
urgent demand for alternative energy sources. The Ocean Grazer concept aims at con-
tributing in covering such a gap. It consists of a floating offshore platform, that combines
wave energy converters and wind turbines, and stores energy on-site. For operational pur-
poses, a floater-umbilical system is required for both the prototype and full-scale platforms.
Environmental loading from wind, waves, and currents, greatly determines the structural
integrity of such a system. This study aims to determine an optimal outer sheath umbilical
to withstand environmental loading, and design a floater buoy with the required buoyancy.
In this paper, an analytical approach is considered. Firstly, the static response of the
prototype umbilical subject to environmental loading is studied. Environmental forces
are obtained in a strictly analytical manner, and an optimisation problem is set up. It
is found that the Factor of Safety (FOS), surge displacement and cable pretension are di-
rectly correlated. The study concluded the advantages of PVC as an outer sheath material.
Secondly, the outer sheath armouring for the full-scale umbilical was designed. NEMOH,
in combination with Matlab, was implemented to obtain the wave excitation force. En-
vironmental loading was then modelled on Solidworks Simulation and Solidworks Flow
Simulation. The thickness of the armouring sheath was observed to be a key parameter
to stabilise the floater-umbilical system against environmental loading, and an optimal
thickness was presented.
N. Dann Ruiz
List of Abbreviations
BEM Boundary element method
DOF Degree of freedom
FOS Factor of safety
HDPE High-density polyethylene
ID Inner diameter
OD Outer diameter
PE Polyethylene
PUR Polyurethane
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
UTS Ultimate tensile strength
WEC Wave energy converter
i
Contents
Introduction 1
I Research & Design Plan 2
1 Background Knowledge 3
1.1 Umbilical Cord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Floater Buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Umbilical Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Equations of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Problem Analysis 7
2.1 Problem Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Stakeholder Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Research Goal 10
3.1 Goal Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Research Questions 10
5 Methodology 11
5.1 Matlab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2 NEMOH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3 Solidworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
II Prototype Umbilical 13
6 Umbilical Cord 14
6.1 Umbilical Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2 Outer Sheath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3 Cable Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
ii
7 Floater Buoy 16
7.1 Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2 Floater Buoy Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8 Analytical Static Analysis 18

8.1 Analytical Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1.1 Gravitational Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1.2 Buoyancy Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1.3 Drift Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1.4 Wind Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1.5 Current Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2 Surge Displacement Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2.1 Cable Pretension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
III Full-scale Umbilical 27
9 Umbilical Cord 28
9.1 Umbilical Cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.2 Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.3 Umbilical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10 Floater Buoy 29
11 Analytical Calculations 30
11.1 Buoyancy Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.2 Wind Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.3 Wave Excitation Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.4 Drag Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.5 Current Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12 Simulation 34
12.1 Umbilical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.2 Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.3 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.3.1 Ocean Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.3.2 Current Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.3.3 Wave Excitation and Wind Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
13 Results 38
13.1 Analytical Static Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.2 Simulation Static Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
14 Discussion 41
14.1 Results Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
14.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
iii
14.3 Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Conclusion 43
Bibliography 46
Appendices 47
A Material Properties 48
A.1 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.2 High-density Polyethylene (HDPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B Technical Drawings 51
C Optimisation 53
D Static Surge Displacement Analysis 55
E Static Analytical Calculations 56
F Wave Characteristics 58
G Solidworks Fixtures and Meshing 59
H Loads Applied in Solidworks 60
I Surge Displacement Results 61
J Wave Excitation Results 63
K Solidworks Simulation Results 66
iv
List of Figures
1 Ocean Grazer Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Cross-section of a high voltage power umbilical (sub, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Standard flexible umbilical configurations for floating offshore structures
(Thies et al., 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 WEC-Sim coordinate system (wec, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5 Stakeholder matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6 System description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7 Diagram of research tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8 Cross-section of prototype umbilical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9 Umbilical initial and equilibrium positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10 Designed buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11 Free body diagram of floater buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12 Exploded view of designed buoy and simplified assembly . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13 Drag coefficient for fixed circular cylinder and sphere for steady flow and
smooth roughness (Schlichting and Gersten, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14 Static floater-cable system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15 Static floater-cable system at initial position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16 Static floater-cable system at equilibrium position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17 Elongation and surge displacement at equilibrium position . . . . . . . . . . 24
18 Deflection of straight beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19 Variation of angular displacement and excitation force . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
20 Typical cross-sectional structure of subsea power umbilical cables . . . . . . 28
21 Preliminary umbilical cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
22 Discretisation and mesh of floater buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
23 Surge excitation force plot for armouring thickness of 3 cm . . . . . . . . . . 33
24 Amplified view of the umbilical open air hose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
25 Surface flow plot of current load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
26 Surface flow plot of current load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
27 Contour plot of current load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
28 Resultant excitation force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
29 Isometric view of loads and fixtures applied on the umbilical in Solidworks . 37
30 Factor of safety for varying surge displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
31 Surge displacement for Fpre = 10420.820N . Maximum displacement ∆x = 4m 39
32 Plot of FOS against required umbilical buoyancy (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
33 Tensile strength (MPa) against density (kg/m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
v
34 Tensile strength (MPa) against price (EUR/kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
35 Yield strength (elastic limit)(MPa) against density (kg/m3 ) . . . . . . . . . 50
36 Yield strength (elastic limit)(MPa) against price (EUR/kg) . . . . . . . . . 50
37 Technical drawing of floating buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
38 Exploded view and BOM of the assembly of the floater . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
39 Fixtures applied on the umbilical geometry in Solidworks . . . . . . . . . . . 59
40 Mesh control applied on the umbilical geometry in Solidworks . . . . . . . . 59
41 Loads applied on the umbilical geometry in Solidworks . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
42 Surge displacements for Fpre = 12505.816N (a) and Fpre = 11978.400N (b). 61
45 Surge displacements for Fpre = 9709.572N (a) and Fpre = 9419.266N (b). . 62
46 Surge displacement for Fpre = 9163.120N . Maximum displacment ∆x = 5. . 62
47 Surge excitation for t = 2.5cm (a) and t = 2.75cm (b). . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
48 Surge excitation for t = 3cm (a) and t = 3.25cm (b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
53 Von Mises stress for a 3cm armouring thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
54 FOS for a 3cm armouring thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
55 Surge displacement for a 3cm armouring thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
vi
List of Tables
1 Overview of ongoing studies in the field of subsea umbilicals . . . . . . . . . 8

2 Overview of deliverables, methods, and tools for each research question . . . 11
3 Description of prototype umbilical components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 Minimun bending radius of umbilical components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5 Mechanical and physical properties of typical buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6 Buoyancy for half-submerged and full-submerged scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 20
7 Types of buoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8 Inputs to axiMesh.m function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10 Results for varying armouring layer thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11 PVC (Semi-rigid, molding and extrusion) properties (Cambridge, 2014) . . . 48
vii
Listings
1 Inputs for mesh generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2 Inputs for mesh generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3 File of inputs and minimization options (main.m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4 Objective function (objective.m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5 Constraints function for the solver (nlcon.m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6 Static surge displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7 Buoy dimensions script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8 Wavenumber script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
9 Wave velocities script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
viii
Introduction
Greenhouse gasses released during the combustion of fossil fuels are accountable for 76%
of global greenhouse emissions (fos, 2016). Scarcity of natural resources, together with
the increasing temperature and pollution of the planet, have led to an urgent demand
for alternative energy sources. The renewable energy sector is undergoing growth and
development as a sustainable energy source to tackle these issues (Khan and Ulucak, 2020).
Over the years, the industry has undergone vast technological advances in the fields of solar,
wind and wave energy, making the technology mature and not as costly, therefore requiring
fewer government subsidies (gov, 2018). To be competitive in the sector, a feasible model
is required. Ocean Grazer is a Dutch company founded in 2014 with the objective of
generating renewable energy and supplying it on demand. It produces renewable offshore
energy by combining wave energy converters with wind turbines, and stores it on-site.
Ocean Grazer has developed the Ocean Battery, which is located on the ocean bed. The
design of an umbilical cord and floater buoy, that connect the Ocean Battery to the sea
surface, is required for operational purposes. The research presented here focuses on the
development of such a system, by analysing the existing scaled-down prototype and later
designing the full-scale system through analytical methods. In particular, the focus relies
on the design of the floater buoys for each system, and on the study of the outer sheath
of the umbilicals subjected to environmental loading. A floater for the existing prototype
umbilical will first be developed, and analytical calculations on environmental loading will
enable this paper to perform a surge displacement analysis. Afterwards, a second floater
buoy will be developed for the full-scale version, and a static analysis on the forces acting
on the cable will be executed. The outputs of this study will allow this paper to draw
conclusions on the optimal outer sheath armouring.
1
Part I
Research & Design Plan
2
N. Dann Ruiz
1 Background Knowledge
The Ocean Grazer is an offshore renewable energy harvesting concept, currently being
developed and researched by the University of Groningen. Ocean Grazer intends to use
the full potential of ocean energy by combining technologies into one hybrid device. Fig-
ure 1 gives an overview of the current floating platform concept. It combines wave energy
converter technology with on-site energy storage and wind turbines to generate and store
renewable energy offshore. Ocean Grazer will be launching a scaled-down prototype of the
platform in the summer of 2020. Further on, it aims to deploy a floating platform in the
ocean by 2022.
Floating platform
Floater buoy
Umbilical cord
Ocean Battery
- +
Figure 1: Ocean Grazer Concept
The umbilical cord and floater buoy are the focus of this project. This is a sub-sea system
of power lines, transmission cables and air hoses to transport electricity and operate the
Ocean Battery, with a floating connection point at the surface. The following sections give
an overview of these elements.
1.1 Umbilical Cord

A subsea umbilical consists of a combination of electrical cables, fiber-optic cables, steel
tubes, and thermoplastic hoses, to execute a specific function (Bai and Bai, 2012). Within
the offshore industry, these functions range from providing hydraulic pressure for activating
valves, to chemical or gas injection. Figure 2 depicts the typical cross-section of a high
power umbilical cable. Electricity transmission via subsea power cables is a well-established
technology that has been in use for more than a century (Worzyk, 2009).
3
N. Dann Ruiz
Outer Sheath
Inner Sheath
Electric Cable
(power/signal)
3 Phase HV Cables
Fiber-optic
Fibre OpticCable
Cable
25c r Super Duplex-

Hydraulic Control,
Injection of Service
Chemicals & Hydrate
Inhibitors
Dual layer armour package
Figure 2: Cross-section of a high voltage power umbilical (sub, 2019)
For Ocean Grazer, the purpose of the umbilical system differs between the scaled-down and
final energy plants. For the scaled-down prototype, the umbilical is designed for electricity
transmission, communication and pressure equalising purposes. The cable will allow the
Ocean Battery to charge and discharge when required, together with locking the supporting
reservoir of the battery to the ocean bed by equalising pressures through an air hose. In
the full-scale version, the umbilical will solely serve the purpose of pressure equalising.
1.2 Floater Buoy

Ocean Grazer intends to create an advanced buoy for its floating platform. This buoy
will be capable of determining whether to store electricity in the Ocean Battery, or to
supply it to the grid. This will create a smart grid, in which storage or sale of electricity is
determined in relation to the generated and demanded electricity. Within the floater buoy,
a device will be contained that acts as a control system. As this project is at an early
research stage, the floater buoy must first be developed. This research will focus merely on
the design of a floater buoy for the umbilical cable, and not taking into account its actual
role within the electricity grid.
1.3 Umbilical Configurations

The umbilical system can be designed into different ‘shapes’, or umbilical configurations.
The factors that determine an optimal umbilical configuration are primarily the depth of
operation and loading regimes (Clausen and D’Souza, 2001). Figure 3 depicts the three
standardised configurations for flexible umbilicals (Thies et al., 2012). To achieve different
umbilical configurations, underwater floaters are attached to the umbilical line. Typically,
lazy wave and free-hanging catenary configurations are employed for larger depths. Their
stability against environmental loading has been modelled by Thies et al. (2012) and Mar-
tinelli et al. (2010) at depths of 57 and 250 meters respectively. It was found that the lazy
wave reduces maximum tension forces, avoids compression, and has fewer fatigue cycles.
4
cent of failures were caused by incorrect installa-
tion/loadout, with electrical faults, incorrect opera-
tion, or design flaws being the next most common
faults. Other named causes were fatigue failures,
poor manufacturing, marine life, and accidents. N. Dann Ruiz
Steep wave Lazy wave Free Hanging Catenary
3.3 kV) subsea power Fig. flexible

Figure 3: Standard 2 Standard flexible
umbilical riser configurations
configurations for float-
for floating offshore structures (Thies
of JDR [8]) et al., 2012) ing offshore structures [9]
Proc. IMechE Vol. 226 Part O: J. Risk and Reliability

This thesis will focus on the study of a free-hanging catenary cable. On the one hand, the
Downloaded from pio.sagepub.com at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on June 17, 2015
prototype umbilical has been developed in a catenary configuration, due to its deployment
at the testing harbour. Under steady water conditions, reduction of environmental forces
is not required. On the other hand, the analytical methods utilised in this paper, which
will be further discussed in Section 5, will only deliver reliable results for a catenary config-
uration. Despite the aforementioned studies proving the lazy wave to be more favourable,
the catenary is still widely used in the offshore industry. Moreover, adopting a lazy wave
shape incurs an additional capital cost factor, due to its buoyancy elements and a longer
overall length (Rentschler et al., 2020).
1.4 Equations of Motion

It is imperative to describe the equations governing the motion of the object at study. In
this case, the system can be seen as a floating body moored to the sea bed. The coordinate
system used is depicted in Figure 4. The incident waves are considered to come in the x-
direction (surge) direction. In this study, the incident waves are taken to be regular. These
are defined as planar sinusoidal waves, where the incident wave is defined as:
H
η(x, y, t) : cos (wt − k (xcosθ + ysinθ) + φ) (1)
2
where H is the wave height, w is the wave frequency (w = 2π 2π
T ), k is the wavenumber ( λ ),
θ is the wave direction, and φ is the wave phase. The coordinate system presented is a
6 degree of freedom (DOF) system, depicted in Figure 4. In this system, the translatory
displacements (forces) in x-,y- and z- directions are defined as surge, sway and heave; and
angular displacement in the same order of axes (moments) are defined as roll, pitch and
yaw. However, due to the symmetry of the body shape and the mooring stiffness, the
degrees of freedom can be limited to the following three: Surge, heave and pitch. Due
to the limitations of the implementation of NEMOH, the calculations are required to be
represented in 6 DOFs.
5
N. Dann Ruiz
Heave Z
Sway
Yaw Y
Pitch
Incident wave
direction Surge
Roll
X
Figure 4: WEC-Sim coordinate system (wec, 2019)
Wave forcing components are typically modelled using linear coefficients obtained from
a frequency-domain potential flow Boundary Element Method (BEM). The equations of
motion will thus be formulated in the frequency domain. In accordance with Wei et al.
(2017), the equation of motion in one DOF for a floating buoy about its center of gravity
is given as:
mz̈ = Fex + Frad + Fhs (2)

where Fex is the vector of excitation forces and moments. Frad is the force and torque
vector resulting from wave radiation. It can be described through an added mass term and
a hydrodynamic damping term as follows:
Frad = −ma (w)z̈(w) − c(w)ż (3)

where ma (w) is the added mass coefficients matrix, and c(w) is the damping coefficients
matrix. Both of these hydrodynamic coefficient matrices are provided by NEMOH. Fur-
thermore, Fhs is the restoring force vector, which arises when the floater is perturbed away
from its equilibrium position. It can be described as (Wei et al., 2017):
Fhs = −khs z (4)

where khs corresponds to the hydrostatic stiffness matrix that specifies the variation of the
net weight and buoyancy load with respect to the changes in position from equilibrium
(Faltinsen, 1993). This matrix will also be retrieved from NEMOH. Combining Equation 3
and Equation 4 into Equation 2, and rearranging in terms of Fex yields:
(m + ma (w))z̈ + cż + khs z = Fex (5)

The vector for displacement, velocity and acceleration is defined as:
 
z
 
z = ż 

 (6)
z̈
6
N. Dann Ruiz
This vector can be expressed in either frequency or time domain. A frequency domain
representation will be utilised, as all the parameters are either constants or frequency
dependent. The vector is then defined as:
   
z(t) ẑ(w)eiwt
   
z= iwt 
ż(t) =  iwẑ(w)e (7)
 

z̈(t) 2
−w ẑ(w)e iwt
and
Fex (t) = F̂ex (w)eiwt (8)

Plugging in Equation 7 and Equation 8 into Equation 5 yields:
[−w2 (m + ma ) + iwc(w) + khs ]ẑ = F̂ex (w) (9)

This equation of motion needs to be solved for every DOF of the floater. For 6 DOFs
Equation 9 is described as follows:
[−w2 (M + Ma ) + iwX(w) + Khs ]Ẑ = F̂ex (w) (10)

where ẑ had been defined as the displacement in the z-direction of the body, and Ẑ is a 1x6
vector representing the displacement in surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw direction.
Furthermore, M and Ma ∈ R6x6 are the diagonal matrices for mass and the moments of
inertia of the buoy. Similarly, C ∈ R6x6 is the matrix of damping coefficients, and Khs
∈ R6x6 is the matrix of stiffness coefficients. Finally, F̂exc is the 1x6 vector of excitation
forces in 6 DOFs.
2 Problem Analysis
2.1 Problem Context
The rapid emergence of the floating offshore energy sector requires the development of new
technologies, such as the floating platform currently being developed by Ocean Grazer. The
problem owner, the Chief Technology Officer of Ocean Grazer (Subsection 2.2), requires
the design of an umbilical cord and floating buoy system. Many factors play a role in the
design of such a system, and numerous challenges need to be tackled to ensure a stable
system. Research and literature in the field point towards various relevant factors that
will affect the structural integrity and service lifetime. The existing body of knowledge is
summarised in Table 1.
Nr. Authors Factors Description

Motions of the Wave Energy
Research study
1 Environmental loads Converter (WEC), motion of the
by Yang et al. (2018a)
platform, wave loads, and currents.
Simulation studies Mechanical loading, fatigue,
2 by Chang and Chen (2019) Cable loading tension, torsion and compression
and Thies et al. (2012) loads acting of the floating cable
7
N. Dann Ruiz
Nr. Authors Factors Description

Research study Structure and armour Study of the optimal stiffness
3
by Keresten et al. (2019) of umbilical of the cable
Research study Optimal cross sectional design
4 Cable components
by Yang et al. (2018b) of its components
Failure by incorrect installation,
Research study
5 Cable installation electrical flaws, manufacturing
by Patel (2008)
and operational practices
Table 1: Overview of ongoing studies in the field of subsea umbilicals
When focusing on the outer sheath of the umbilical cable, its armouring is a vital element. Fac-
tors such as its mechanical strength, stiffness, and flexibility will determine the behaviour of the
floating cord, and thus its stability (Martinelli et al., 2010). The cable is continuously subjected to
bending and twisting forces, caused by the tidal current and floater behaviour, therefore making
it susceptible to mechanical failure. Indeed, the outer sheath material will determine mechanical
failure modes. These range from tensile failure, bending failure, excessive twisting, compression
and fatigue to abrasive friction on the seabed (Rentschler et al., 2020).
2.2 Stakeholder Analysis

A stakeholder analysis was performed as a tool to understand who the problem is relevant to, and
what their role and power over the research is. Three stakeholders were determined, and have been
placed in a Mendelow’s diagram, illustrated in Figure 5.
Subjects Key players
Marijn van Rooij

(Problem owner)
Interest
Crowd Context setters
Prof. Wout Prins
Prof. Antonis Vakis
Power
Figure 5: Stakeholder matrix
• Marijn van Rooij: Marijn is the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Ocean Grazer, and
is considered the problem owner. He has high interest and power in the project. As the
problem owner, it is his stake in the company to tackle this issue, and thus has high interest
8
N. Dann Ruiz
in the outcome of the research. Moreover, he has steering power, and can decide what is the
scope of the research.
• Professor Antonis Vakis: Professor Vakis represents the University of Groningen, and is the
supervisor of the project. Moreover, he serves as a scientific advisor for Ocean Grazer, and
has been described as a context setter. He is particularly concerned about the methodology
and validity of the findings of this research, but not as concerned about how they aligned
with the company objectives.
• Wout Prins: Mr Prins is the co-founder and a large shareholder of the Ocean Grazer Com-
pany. He is also considered a context setter, as his only concern is that the outcome is in
line with the company objectives.
In conclusion, close coordination with Marijn is required, to ensure an understanding of his needs,
and to make sure the deliverable meets his requirements. Moreover, there is no conflict between
stakeholders, and Antonis and Wout will serve as advisors.
2.3 System Description

The system will be delineated to consist of a floater buoy, moored to the Ocean Battery through the
umbilical line. The type of Ocean Battery connection will be neglected in this study, and assumed
to be a simple fixture of the cross-sectional surface of the umbilical to the sea bed. Figure 6 shows
the described system at study, with the aforementioned catenary configuration.
Sea level Floater

Buoy
Ocean B
Battery Sea bead
Seabed
Figure 6: System description
2.4 Scope
For the scheduled duration of this research, and in order to deliver detailed reliable results, the
scope of the project must be narrowed down. The scope will be delineated to the static study of the
influence of environmental loading from waves, wind, and currents on the system. Firstly, a floater
buoy will be designed for the existing prototype umbilical. An analytical static surge displacement
will then be performed to study the loading on the outer sheath material, and determine its validity.
Secondly, the full-scale umbilical will be designed, together with a floater buoy that withstands
the umbilical weight. A static analysis of environmental loading will again be performed, in order
to determine and optimal outer sheath umbilical design.
9
N. Dann Ruiz
2.5 Problem Statement

Based on the problem context and wishes of the problem owner, the following problem statement
can be derived.
“For Ocean Grazer to develop a floating energy platform by 2022, the design of an umbilical
cord and floater buoy is required. At an early research stage, Ocean Grazer requires the
development of a floater buoy for the launch of a scaled-down platform in the Summer
of 2020, and the preliminary design of a floater buoy and outer sheath material for the
umbilical for the launch of the full-scale platform in 2022. Numerous factors play a role in
the deployment of a stable and durable umbilical system. The environmental forces acting
on the system, and the material and structural properties of its elements are critical design
aspects, and need to be addressed. Hydrostatic loading on the floater buoy from waves,
wind, and currents will affect the behaviour of the buoy, and will, in turn, determine the
loading on the umbilical cord. Moreover, the large pressures at the ocean bed will challenge
the integrity of the umbilical. A static analysis on these forces is required, coupled with a
mathematical simulation method, to determine the loading on the system.”
3 Research Goal
3.1 Goal Statement
From the problem statement and the request from Ocean Grazer to create a prototype of a umbilical
and advanced buoy system, the following research goal can be derived.
“The goal of this research is to deliver Ocean Grazer with a design of the floater buoys
for both the full-scale and prototype floating platforms, and to determine an optimal outer
sheath armouring for the umbilical in the full-scale floating platform, by first determining
the external environmental forces acting on the floater buoy, and then studying the umbilical
response in terms of stress, to determine and optimal outer sheath layer. For the intended
duration of a Bachelor thesis project, the two deliverables: the floater for the scaled-down
model and the floater and outer sheath umbilical for the full-scale umbilical; will be developed
in a period of 12 weeks.”
4 Research Questions
1. CQ1: What is the static response of the prototype umbilical cord to hydrostatic loads in
terms of cable force and displacement?
I What is the desired buoy geometry?

II What is the environmental loading from waves and currents acting on the floater buoy?
III What is the allowable buoy displacement?
IV What is the effect of cable pretension on the allowable surge displacement?
2. CQ2: What is a feasible design for the outer sheath layer of the umbilical for operation in
all weather and ocean conditions?
I What is the relation between varying the thickness of the armouring layer of material
and the buoy geometry?
10
N. Dann Ruiz
II What is the effect of varying the thickness of the armouring layer of material in terms
of wind and current loading?
III What is the surge excitation force on the buoy from incident waves?
IV What is an accurate way of simulating the static loads on the umbilical?
5 Methodology
In order to answer the research questions, a compatible research strategy and a set of tools have
to be selected. Table 2 gives an overview of the deliverables, methods, and tools which will be
utilised to obtain answers to the research questions.
Question Deliverable Strategy Tool

1.1 Mathematical Desk research
model to Desk research
1.2 simulate static Mathematical Solidworks
response to experimentation Matlab
1.3 external ocean Desk research
forces Mathematical
1.4
experimentation
Mathematical
2.1 Optimal
experimentation NEMOH
thickness
Mathematical Solidworks
2.2 of umbilical
experimentation Matlab
armouring
2.3 Programming
layer
2.4 Programming
Table 2: Overview of deliverables, methods, and tools for each research question
A schematic overview of the tools that will be utilised throughout this project is depicted in
Figure 7. These tools will be further discussed.
NEMOH & Matlab Solidworks & Matlab
Wave Environmental Optimal

Analytical Buoy mesh
excitation loading on umbilical
buoy design generation
force umbilical armouring
Figure 7: Diagram of research tools
5.1 Matlab
Matlab is a numerical computing environment that enables solving engineering problems through
computational mathematics. Matlab will be the pillar of this thesis, as it will be used both as
a wrapper for the fluid-body simulation program NEMOH, and for writing scripts for analytical
calculations.
11
N. Dann Ruiz
5.2 NEMOH
NEMOH is an open source code used for the computation of first-order wave loads on offshore
structures. It is a boundary element method (BEM) model based on linear potential flow theory,
which solves the linear boundary value problems (BVPs). The main outputs are the hydrostatic
stiffness matrix, and the first order hydrodynamic coefficients for added mass, radiation damping
and excitation force. It will be utilised to mesh the floater buoy geometry, determine the wave
excitation force on the structure, and ultimately its stability.
5.3 Solidworks
Solidworks is a computer-aided design program that enables to run engineering simulations on solid
geometries and assemblies. The Solidworks Simulation add-in will enable to apply the environmen-
tal loads on the umbilical geometry, and obtain static results in terms of stress and displacement
of the structure. Furthermore, the Solidworks Flow Simulation add-in will be utilised to simulate
the effect of the ocean current on the umbilical geometry.
12
Part II
Prototype Umbilical
13
N. Dann Ruiz
6 Umbilical Cord
The prototype umbilical serves the purposes of electricity transmission, communication and pres-
sure equalising between the surface and Ocean Battery. This prototype will be operating at the
testing harbour. The operating depth of the umbilical is 3-5 meters, due to tidal variation.
6.1 Umbilical Components

The umbilical components, their specifications, and functions are described in Table 3. The cross-
sectional layout of the umbilical is depicted in Figure 8.
Component Specifications Function

PVC Dragflex
Outer sheath Ultraflex suction Protect umbilical components
hose
PVC Dragflex
Equalise pressure between the Ocean
Air-ventilation hose Ultraflex suction hose
Battery reservoir and ocean surface
35 x 25 mm
CAT5E, 6, 6a or 7, Shielded Information transmission between
Data cable 1
6.2 mm, 8 cores Ocean Battery and ocean surface
CAT5E, 6, 6a or 7, Shielded Back-up data cable in case of failure
Data cable 2
6.2 mm, 8 cores of Data cable 1
Nylon, max 8 bar Pump air to Ocean Battery to operate
Pneumatic air-hose 1
8 x 5.5 mm its valves
Pump air to Ocean Battery in case of
Nylon, max 8 bar emergency or need of repair.
Pneumatic air-hose 2
8 x 5.5 mm
The battery will float up to the surface.
230V, 16A Supply electricity from Ocean Battery
Powersupply cable
8.2, 3 x 1.5 mm^2 to the surface.
230V, 16A Transport generated electricity to the
Turbine power cable
8.2, 3 x 1.5 mm^2 Ocean Battery
Nylon, max 8 bar
Water hose To fill up Ocean Battery reservoir.
10, 3 x 7.5 mm
Table 3: Description of prototype umbilical components
14
Umbilical Cord Composition N. Dann Ruiz
Data Cable 2 (backup)

Outer Shellshell
Outer Data Cable 2 (backup)
Dragflex Ultraflex suctionhose CAT5E, 6, 6a or 7, Shielded
Dragflex UltraFlex suctionhose CAT5E, 6, 6a or 7, Shielded
Ø 61.4 Ø 6.2 mm, 8 cores
Ø 61.4 x 51xmm
51 mm Ø 6.2 mm, 8 cores
Air-Ventilation Hose Pneumatic Air-Hose 2 (backup)
Air-Ventilation Hose
Dragflex Ultraflex suctionhose
Pneumatic Air-Hose 2 (backup)
Nylon, max 8 bar
Dragflex UltraFlex
Ø 35 x 25 mm suctionhose ØNylon,
8 x 5.5max
mm 8 bar
Ø 35 x 25 mm Ø 8 x 5.5 mm
Data Cable 1 Turbine

DataCAT5E,
Cable 16, 6a or 7, Shielded Turbine Power Cable
Power Cable
230V, 16A
CAT5E, 6,mm,
6a or8 7, Shielded 230V, 16A
Ø 6.2 cores Ø 8.2 mm, 3x1.5mm^2
Ø 6.2 mm, 8 cores Ø 8.2 mm, 3x1.5mm2
Pneumatic Air-Hose 1 Water Hose (for filling the reservoir)

Pneumatic Air-Hose 1 Water Hose (for filling the reservoir)
Nylon, max 8 bar Nylon, max 8 bar
Nylon, max 8 bar Nylon, max 8 bar
Ø 8 x 5.5 mm Ø 10 x 7.5 mm
Ø 8 x 5.5 mm Ø 10 x 7.5 mm
Powersupply Cable
Powersupply Cable
230V, 16A
230V, 16A
Ø 8.2 mm, 3x1.5mm^2
Ø 8.2 mm, 3x1.5mm2
Figure 8: Cross-section of prototype umbilical
6.2 Outer Sheath

For this preliminary prototype umbilical, the PVC Dragflex UltraFlex suctionhose, manufactured
by PVC Voordeel, was deemed to meet the operational requirements by the CTO of Ocean Grazer.
The material and mechanical properties of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are gathered in Appendix
A.1. Overall, it is an advantageous material due to its mechanical strength and toughness, great
resistance to water, being light weight, durable, easy to install and cost-effective. To protect
the umbilical components, the outer sheath should be stiffer than the elements contained. The
flexibility of each component was found, and is gathered in Table 4 in terms of minimum bending
radius. Indeed, the PVC outer sheath is the stiffest component. The validity of flexible PVC as
an outer sheath material will be examined analytically in Section 8.
Component Specifications Min. bending radius Max. operating pressure Reference

CAT6A
Data cable 25 mm n.a cat (2019)
Hard nylon
OD 10 mm
Water hose 60 mm 24 bar wat (2019)
ID 7.5 mm
OD 8 mm
Air hose ID 5.5 mm 22 mm 19 bar wat (2019)
230V 16A
OD 8.2 mm
Power supply cable 58 mm n.a wat (2019)
3 × 1.5m2
OD 35 mm
Air pressuriser 280 mm n.a PIPA (2016)
ID 25 mm
OD 61.4 mm
Outer sheath 614 mm n.a PIPA (2016)
ID 51 mm
Table 4: Minimun bending radius of umbilical components
6.3 Cable Length

The various forces considered to be acting on the floater buoy, explained in Section 8, result in
a displacement of ∆x. These forces are assumed to act on the floater in the surge direction, in
accordance with Figure 9, and result in the movement of the floater to an equilibrium position.
15
N. Dann Ruiz
Initial Δx Equilibrium
position position
depth L
θ Heave
Surge
Figure 9: Umbilical initial and equilibrium positions
A large displacement will interfere with the operation of the platform, and is not desired. The
cable length L should thus be designed to minimise such a displacement. This can be achieved
by setting the cable length equal to the largest depth considered, that is, L = 5 meters. This will
result in a maximum displacement of:
p p
∆x = L2 − depth2 = 5m2 − 3m2 = 4m (11)
for the limiting case scenario of a depth of 3 meters.
7 Floater Buoy
To withstand the weight of the umbilical, an appropriate floater must be selected. This section
will discuss the optimal material and design for the floater buoy.
7.1 Material Selection

The desirable material characteristics when designing a floating structure or buoy are: nontoxic,
resistant to saltwater and alkalis acids, UV resistant, recyclable, and to be able to withstand
temperatures from −60°C to 80°C for an extended period of time underwater without retrograde
in its mechanical properties (Granqvist, 2003). The floater solutions for these conditions are plastic
and stainless-steel elements (Sahu et al., 2019). Since metals are very costly, and less resistive to
various chemicals present in water bodies, plastic floats become more favourable (Sahu et al., 2019).
Thermoplastics will thus be the focus of the material selection, due to their light weight and good
strength and resistive properties.
The use of polyolefins has increased significantly in recent decades, and are very attractive due
to their low cost, good mechanical properties, light weight, durability and versatility with respect
to other materials (Ammalaa et al., 2010). Most of the buoys commercially available have a
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) shell and a polyurethane (PUR) core, which is usually in the
form of foam (Beirão and Malça, 2014). Moreover, the use of standard polyethylene (PE) is
also customary in the industry. The relevant mechanical, physical general properties of these are
gathered in Table 5.
16
N. Dann Ruiz
Material HDPE PE PUR

Young’s
1.08 GPa 1.2 GPa 1.69 GPa
Modulus
Yield
28.6 MPa 19 MPa 46.9 MPa
Strength
Density 958.5 kg/m^3 1080 kg/m^3 1180 kg/m^3
Price 1.39EU R/kg 3.11 EUR/kg 4.61 EUR/kg
Durability
Excellent Acceptable Excellent
Water (salt)
Durability
Fair Fair Fair
UV radiation
Durability
Excellent Excellent Limited use
strong alkalis
Recyclability Yes Yes No
Table 5: Mechanical and physical properties of typical buoy
The density of the material is an imperative design factor, as it will determine the buoyancy of
the floater. The lower the density, the more buoyant the floater will be. It can be observed that
HDPE has the lowest density, making it more buoyant, with a lower density than ocean water,
which is defined to be 1027kg/m3 for the North Sea. Another imperative factor is the resistance to
environmental phenomena, such as visible light and ultra-violet (UV) radiation. It is known that
polymeric and other materials can lose mechanical properties from ageing environments (Platzer,
1986) (Feldman, 1984). For this reason, durability against UV light is defined to be ‘fair’.
HDPE has governed a dominating position because of the many excellent properties, cost and ease
of fabrication and modifications to enhance its mechanical properties (Sahu, 2017). Due to its
lower density than water, it has been widely used as a supporting platform for the arrangement
of solar panels over the surface of water bodies (Sahu et al., 2016). Furthermore, a lower Young’s
Modulus results in a more flexible material, which is optimal for a buoy. Moreover, an experi-
mental study by Ammalaa et al. (2010) on the weathering conditions of HDPE found that the
mechanical properties of HDPE after accelerated UV exposure were not much affected, and it is
safe to bear the load of solar panels and other accessories mounted on it. Additionally, PE and
HDPE are thermoplastic resins, making them recyclable, whereas PUR is a thermoset resin, mak-
ing it unsuitable for recycling (Brent, 2019). For these reasons, the material chosen is high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), as its properties will be advantageous in mooring applications. Refer to
Appendix A.2 for further plots of the yield and tensile strength against the price and density of
the material. These graphs are plotted for all polymers, and the position of HDPE is labelled. The
plots evidence the profitable properties of the material with respect to other polymers.
7.2 Floater Buoy Design

An optimal design, which is typically used for these applications, consists of two semicircular
‘shells’ that clamp around the upper-end of the umbilical. This particular design, is optimal for
distributing loading at the connection point with the umbilical. With a larger contact surface, axial
and torsional loads are better distributed. Furthermore, the chamfered edges reduce drag motion
caused by environmental forces. Figure 10 illustrates the designed buoy. The two HDPE ‘shells’
17
N. Dann Ruiz
are held together by means of two sets of nuts and bolts with washers in between. The detailed
technical drawings of the floater buoy, and the exploded assembly are depicted in Figure 37.
Figure 10: Designed buoy
8 Analytical Static Analysis

8.1 Analytical Calculations
In this section, the forces acting on the floater buoy will be calculated analytically. These forces
are depicted in the free body diagram in Figure 11. With regards to the submersion of the buoy,
an assumption will be performed: it is assumed that the buoy is half-submerged in the ocean. The
forces acting on the body will be further discussed in the following sections.
Fb
Fwin d
Fdrift
m Sea level
Fcu rren t
Fg
Figure 11: Free body diagram of floater buoy
Furthermore, for simplicity of calculation, the geometry of the floater will be assumed to be cylin-
drical, as shown in Figure 12(b). The simplification of the chamfered edges will influence the
results insignificantly.
18
N. Dann Ruiz
(a) Designed Buoy (b) Simplified Design
Figure 12: Exploded view of designed buoy and simplified assembly
8.1.1 Gravitational Force

The gravitational force created by a certain mass m can be computed as
Fg = mg (12)
Where g is the gravitational acceleration with a known value of 9.81m/s2 . Considering that the
average value of a buoy of these dimensions is 20kg (Telleborg, 2020), the respective gravitational
force is
Fg = 20kg × 9.81m/s2 = 196.2N (13)
8.1.2 Buoyancy Force

The buoyancy force is caused by the tendency of a fluid to occupy the space taken by the object
in the medium. By Archimedes’ principle, the buoyant force on an object is equal to the weight of
the fluid displaced by the object, given by:
Fb = ρw Vo g (14)
where ρw is the density of the liquid and V is the volume of the submerged object. The density
of seawater will be considered, and the value of 1027kg/m3 will be taken. The volume Vo , is the
volume of the buoy that is submerged, that is, half of the total volume of a cylinder Vo = 21 Vcylinder .
Moreover, it is imperative to validate the designed buoy, by calculating its maximum buoyancy.
Maximum buoyancy of the floater occurs when it is fully submerged, therefore having a volume of
Vmax = Vcylinder . The obtained buoyancy force values are gathered in Table 6.
19
N. Dann Ruiz
Half-submerged Full-submerged
Volume submerged
0.059 0.188
(m^3)
Buoyancy force
594.42 1188.83
(N)
Table 6: Buoyancy for half-submerged and full-submerged scenarios
The resulting force being exerted by the buoy, based on Figure 11, is the following summation in
the y-direction:
X
Fy = Fbmax − Fg = 1188.83N − 196.2N = 992.63N (15)
The maximum load that the floater can withstand is:
P
Fy
m= = 101.19kg (16)
g
Under the formulated set of assumptions, the buoy can withstand a load of 101.19 kilograms.
Furthermore, the umbilical has a buoyancy force of its own, greatly increased by the air-ventilation
hose. For this reason, and due to its low weight for its small length for L = 5 meters, the buoy can
be concluded to be sufficient.
8.1.3 Drift Force

In this analysis, it is assumed that the wave is completely absorbed by the buoy. As described by
Fonseca et al. (2008), the simplified formula for the wave drift force is:
1
Fd = ρw gH 2 (17)
4
where H is the wave amplitude in meters.
8.1.4 Wind Force

The mean wind force is calculated based by means of the drag force equation (A. Nesegard and
Bitner-Gregersen, 2010). The formula for mean wind force is:
1
Fw = ρa CAUw2 (18)
2
Where ρa is the density of air, C is the shape coefficient, A is the area exposed to wind and Uw
the mean wind velocity. For an average air temperature of the North Sea of 10.5◦ C (avg, 2012),
the air density ρa is 1.244kg/m3 (air, 2020). The average wind speed U for the North Sea coast is
taken as 7.8m/s (Coelingh et al., 1996). The shape coefficient, or drag coefficient C for a cylinder
is a factor of the Reynolds number Re , and the roughness of the cylindrical body (Rehm et al.,
2013). Their relation is depicted in Figure 13 below. The Reynolds number is calculated as:
DU
Re = (19)
va
where D is the diameter of the cylinder, for which the outer diameter of 0.565m is taken, and va
is the kinematic viscosity of air, for which a value of 1.45 × 10−5 m2 /s is taken. By plugging the
value obtained is Re = 3 × 105 . Considering the floater buoy to be a smooth surface, the value of
C = 0.7 is obtained.
20
N. Dann Ruiz
W. Gao et al.
2. Numerical approach
2.1. Numerical computatio
In roller bearings, a s
through the oil-air mixtu
surrounded by the inner a
around the roller, the pro
circular cylinders transfer
cage is ignored because i
their effect is of second or
different configurations a
finite length: 1) Configurat
Fig. 1.coefficient
Drag coefficient of ideal spherecylinder
and circular in an open space. Its cente
Figure 13: Drag for fixed circular andcylinder
sphere by forSchlichting
steady flow [5].and smooth
downstream of the inlet an
roughness (Schlichting and Gersten, 2000)
sides are 5D far from the
ignores the ring's curvatu
roller bearings is of finite-length with two free-side ends immersed into a wiched by two flat walls,
The area of the cylinder exposed to wind is the lateral surface above sea surface, calculated as
viscous fluid. The shear flow that separates from free ends may interact lindrical surface and the fl
A = 2πDh. Plugging the values into Equation 18:
violently with that from the cylindrical surface and results in a sandwiched circular cylind
three-dimensional
1 flow phenomenon [10], as shown in Fig. 2. Not only tion, instead of endless ci
Fw = × 1.244kg/m3 × 0.7 × 0.5325m2 × 7.82 m/s = 14.11N (20)
that, but the
2 cylinder is sandwiched by two rings with micron-size referred roller bearing spe
clearance so that the oil-air mixture could only bypass the free ends All three fluid domains
8.1.5 Currentrather Force
than the cylindrical surface. Moreover, with relative short gap with the commercial softw
Similarly to between
the meantwo windadjacent rollers,
force, the meanflow around
current forceseveral in-line cylinders
is calculated by meanscould of the dragquality,
force the radial cleara
equation: interact with each other, like that in ball bearings [11,12]. Consequently, assumed here two times bi
the drag coefficient for cylindrical1 elements in roller bearings has to be regions, there is a minimu
Fc = ρw CAUc2 (21)
investigated with a three-dimensional 2 model and should take the sur- levels of refinement. The a
In this case,rounding rings
the density of and rollersisinto
seawater account together
considered, (see Fig. with3). the mean current velocity in theUc ,range y þ < 5 on th
In this
taken to be 0.8m/s. article,ina the
Plugging CFDpreviously
model is computed
proposed valuesto studyintothe
theflow pattern
equation: bulent region in a transien
around a circular cylinder with two free ends without and with nearby calculation cases, much fi
1
walls asFcin=roller bearings in×order
× 1027kg/m 3
0.7 ×to0.5325m
clarify the
2
× effect
2
0.8 m/s of the geometry on
= 122.5N about(22)1.25 million cells in
2
the drag force acting on its surface. First one isolated circular cylinder in the configurations #2 and
8.2 SurgeanDisplacement
open space is simulated Analysis and compared with experimental data to
verify the model. After that, the model is employed to investigate one 2.2. Governing equations
A displacement analysis
isolated withand
cylinder respect
furtherto several
the environmental
in-line cylindersforcessandwiched
can be performed.
by two Figure 14
shows the analytical
flat walls. approach
Vortex from flow which
around thethe
system will be studied.
finite-length cylinderThe environmental forces
in different When the roller trans
are denoted configurations
as Fexc , for excitation forces, corresponding to the wind,
is revealed and a new relationship of drag coefficient current and wave forces.
bearing cavity, a shear str
Recall that these
varyingarewith
obtained as mean number
the Reynolds values, except
suitable forfor
thecylindrical
wave force,elements
which depends
in on the
the roller surface with no-s
incident wave height.
roller Note is
bearings that, as previously
obtained. Note that described,
the same a still water levelcould
methodology is considered
be at the
of the total drag force ex
testing harbour. For this reason, the wave force will only be
easily applied to more complex geometrical and kinematical configura- considered as a force in the surge
Besides, the pressure of the
direction, neglecting the heave displacement of the
tions such as high-speed gearboxes [14,15], for example.
∆z floater associated with this wave force. This
on the backside, which intr
can be seen as a theoretical assumption to study how the surge displacement varies with respect to
or form drag [17].
a varying excitation force, while neglecting the associated heave displacement ∆z. The following To catch detailed shea
assumptions are considered for the static approach: cylinder in high Reynolds
• The floater buoy is half-submerged at the initial position. (SAS) model is used, wi
method. The SST SAS mod
• The floater buoy geometry is approximated as depicted in Figure 12. the turbulence RANS mod
• The study is limited to 2 DOFs: surge and heave. in a URANS simulation, w
flow field. At the same tim
• The heave displacement ∆z is neglected, given the still water level at the testing harbour.
bilities in stable flow regio
The governing equatio
21
∂ρk
þ r⋅ðρUkÞ ¼ Pk % ρcμ k
∂t
N. Dann Ruiz
• The forces incide on the floater in surge direction.

• The floater buoy does not sink as a consequence of surge displacement. The buoyancy force,
therefore, remains constant.
• Tension forces are exerted on the outer sheath umbilical, thus neglecting the remaining
umbilical components.
• The maximum tension occurs at the limiting case of the largest wave height, neglecting
smaller wave sizes in between.
Δx
Equilibrium
position
Initial Fexc
position m
Δz
m
Sea level
Heave
L L + ΔL Surge
Fixed mooring Sea bed
Figure 14: Static floater-cable system
Firstly, the initial position is examined, as depicted in Figure 15. At this instance, the forces acting
on the cable are the net buoyancy force Fb,net and the cable tension, denoted as Fpre for cable
pretension. The net buoyancy can be computed as the buoyancy of the buoy minus its gravitational
force:
Fb,net = Fb − Fg = 594.42N − 196.2N = 398.22N (23)

Given equilibrium in the y-direction, the cable pretension Fpre is equal to the net buoyancy force,
as
P
Fy = 0.
22
N. Dann Ruiz
Fb,net
Fpre Heave
Surge
Fixed mooring
Figure 15: Static floater-cable system at initial position
When the force Fexc is applied on the buoy, the equilibrium position is reached. As depicted in
Figure 14, the cable stretches by a length ∆L, resulting in a surge displacement ∆x at an angle θ.
This elongation is dependent on the stiffness of the umbilical cable k. Figure 16 depicts the forces
acting at the equilibrium position. Notice that the net buoyancy force Fb,net is not depicted in the
free-body-diagram, as it is accounted for in the tension force T .
Fexc
m
Heave
θ
Surge
Fixed mooring
Figure 16: Static floater-cable system at equilibrium position
By examining the static equilibrium in the x-direction

P
Fx = 0:
T sinθ = Fexc (24)

where the tension force T is the addition of the initial cable pretension Fpre and the elastic force Fk
of the cable. Figure 17 represents the cable elongation and surge displacement at the equilibrium
position.
23
N. Dann Ruiz
Δx
L L + ΔL
θ Heave
Surge
Figure 17: Elongation and surge displacement at equilibrium position
Using the Pythagorean theorem:
∆x
sinθ = (25)
L + ∆L
Recall that the excitation force Fexc is the summation of the wave force and the mean wind and
drift forces:
Fexc = Fwind + Fcurrent + Fdrif t (26)

Equation 24 can now be rewritten as:
∆x
(Fpre + Fk ) = Fwind + Fcurrent + Fdrif t (27)
L + ∆L
The elastic force Fk , following Hooke’s Law, is equal to the stiffness of the pipe k multiplied by
the elongation of the pipe ∆L:
Fk = k∆L (28)
∆L is unknown, but is related trigonometrically to other variables, as can be deduced from Fig-
ure 17, yielding:
(29)
p
∆L = L2 + (∆X)2 − L
The spring constant k of the cable can be calculated theoretically. This is done by considering the
cable as a straight beam with a fixed support on one end, and a force acting on the opposite end,
as shown in Figure 18.
F
Neutral bending
M axis
v d
L0
Figure 18: Deflection of straight beam
The deflection d of the straight beam is calculated as (Hibbeler, 2017):
F L30
d= (30)
3EI
24
N. Dann Ruiz
where F corresponds to the force applied Fexc , L0 is the initial length of the umbilical, E is the
Young’s bending modulus with a value of 0.371GP a for PVC (Cambridge, 2014), and I is the
moment of inertia. The moment of inertia for a straight circular beam is calculated as:
π
Do4 − Di4 (31)

I=
64
where Do and Di are the dimensions of the outer and inner diameters respectively. Plugging them
into the equation, a moment of inertia of I = 5.849 × 10−6 m4 . The equations can be rearranged
in accordance with Hooke’s Law:
F = k∆L (32)
where ∆L is the deflection d of the beam. The elastic constant k can then be calculated by
rearranging Equation 30 in terms of F and plugging it into Equation 32:
F 1 3 × 0.371 × 109 P a × 5.849 × 10−6 m4

k= = L3 = = 52.079N/m (33)
d 0 53 m
3EI
By plugging in these expressions into Equation 27, and substituting the previously calculated values
for Fwind and Fcurrent , and Fdrif t by Equation 17, the following expression is obtained:
h i ∆x 1
(34)
p
Fpre + k( L2 + (∆X)2 − L) p = Fwind + Fcurrent + ρl gH 2
2
L + (∆X)2 4
This equation relates the wave height H and the surge displacement ∆x. In Section 13, the relation
between wave height and surge displacement will be presented.
8.2.1 Cable Pretension

The cable pretension is an important design parameter. On the one hand, the cable tension for the
maximum force for the largest wave height cannot exceed the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of
the material. On the other hand, the larger the initial pretension of the cable, the less displacement
of the buoy to the incident loads, and thus lower tension caused by the loads. It is then imperative
to an optimal relation between these two factors. The maximum allowable load or cable tension
can be derived from the UTS. The formula for stress is:
F
σ= (35)
A
where F is the tension acting perpendicular on the cable cross-section, and A the cross-sectional
area of the cable. Substituting by the UTS for PVC (shown in Table 11), and by the area of the
outer sheath of the material, the maximum allowable load can be computed:
1
Fmax = 27.8 × 106 P a × π 0.06142 − 0.0512 m2 = 25523.153N (36)

4
The perpendicular force component created by the excitation force Fexc must be calculated, and
will be denoted as F⊥ . This load will vary with respect to the angle of displacement θ, as illustrated
in Figure 19 below.
25
N. Dann Ruiz
F⊥
θ
Fexc
T
Heave
θ
Surge
Fixed mooring
Figure 19: Variation of angular displacement and excitation force
For any given angular displacement θ, the perpendicular force can be obtained as:
Fexc
F⊥ = (37)
cos(90 − θ)
where θ is derived from Equation 25 to be:
!
∆x
θ = arcsin p (38)
L2 + (∆x)2
In order to not exceed the maximum allowable force Fmax , the following condition must be met:
Fpre + Fb,net + F⊥ ≤ Fmax (39)

Matlab will be utilised as an optimisation problem solver. The following problem is set up:
Minimize obj. func. Fpre + Fb,net + F⊥

with respect to:
Constraint 1: c(1) = ∆x − disp;
Constraint 2: c(2) = Fpre + Fb,net + F⊥ − Fmax ;
In essence, the objective function is to be minimized subject to two constraints. In Matlab,

constraints are set as values that must be less or equal to zero, that is, c(1) ≤ 0 and c(2) ≤ 0. The
first constraint relates the surge displacement ∆x to a maximum allowed displacement disp, which
is an input variable. For the prototype umbilical, it is determined that the maximum displacement
for the floater is at maximum 5 meters (disp = 5). Indeed, as disp decreases, the lower the forces
acting on the cable. The local minimum will thus always be located at ∆x = disp. The second
constraint sets all of the tension forces of the cable to be lower than the maximum allowable force.
The optimization problem will be solved for the limiting condition, that is, for the maximum wave
height of h = 3 meters. A brute force method for varying surge displacements can be used to
solve the optimisation problem. In other words, the surge displacement will be decreased from
the maximum surge value (disp = 5) to the point at which it converges to an unfeasible solution.
The optimization scripts can be observed in Appendix C. These consist of three files: the main.m
file of inputs and minimization options, the objective.m file for the objective function, and the
nlcon.m function for non-linear constraints for the solver. To run the code, main.m is used as the
executable file. Furthermore, the code in Appendix D was written to run the static analysis. The
results will be presented in Section 13.
26
Part III
Full-scale Umbilical
27
N. Dann Ruiz
9 Umbilical Cord
The full-scale umbilical solely serves the purpose of air pressurising. In essence, the cable equalises
the pressures between the Ocean Battery reservoir and the sea surface. The operating depth ranges
from 57 to 60 meters, due to tidal variation. This is a novel type of umbilical, as umbilicals in
the renewable energy sector typically serve the purpose of electricity transmission or control and
injection. This signifies a great engineering challenge, as the air ventilation hose is vulnerable to
collapse under hydrostatic pressure. Existing literature and research on power umbilicals will be
adapted to this specific application.
9.1 Umbilical Cross-section

Typical cross-sections of subsea power umbilicals are depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 20. It can be
observed that the cable consists of an outer sheath material, followed by a layer of armouring, and
a layer of inner sheath. Within these protective layers, the umbilical components for each specific
application are contained. In this case, the inner part of the umbilical is a 54 cm ventilation hose,
that is, an empty circular chamber.
6 x 60mm2 3.3kV Power Cores:
Stranded CU conductor; EPDM
insulation
Polymeric External Polymeric Internal
Layer (HDPE) Layer (LDPE)
4 x Fibre Optic Cables in gel
filled stainless tube
Filler wires and CU shield

Copper Conductor
Extruder Elastomer
3mm Polyethylene inner sheath
Armouring, double layer

galvanised stell wire
Traction Armour
4mm Polyethylene outer sheath
(Galvanised Steel)
Optical Fibre Cable
(a) Example of HVAC (3.3 kV) subsea power (b) Example of subsea power umbilical (by
umbilical (courtesy of JDR (JDR, 2020)) Olivier et al. (2007))
Figure 20: Typical cross-sectional structure of subsea power umbilical cables
Manufacturers tailor the subsea cable to the application at hand, implying that there is no such
thing as a standardized cable. The subsea geometry of the cable will vary depending on the water
depth and loading regimes (Clausen and D’Souza, 2001). The design characteristics and properties
of the umbilical to consider are:
• The umbilical can withstand hydrostatic loading from underwater pressure.

• The umbilical can withstand forces from environmental loading from waves, wind and cur-
rent.
• The umbilical is as light as possible, to reduce manufacturing costs.
9.2 Material Selection

The materials used in subsea power umbilicals appear to be consistent throughout literature: an
outer sheath of either PE or HDPE, followed by an armouring layer of Galvanised Steel, and finally
an inner sheath of either PE or HDPE. In reassurance, companies in the sector were approached.
Fibron, a major designer, manufacturer and global provider of subsea cable and umbilical systems
(Fibron, 2020), proposed employing a fibre braid layer instead of galvanised steel armouring. Sec-
ondly, the sales manager of JDR cables, a world-class provider of high performance subsea and
28
N. Dann Ruiz
power cables (JDR, 2020), was contacted. Galvanised steel was recommended, and the above stan-
dard umbilical was provided (Figure 20(a)). Due to its properties and cost-effectiveness, galvanised
steel will be selected as the armouring material for the umbilical. For the outer and inner sheath,
HDPE will be again selected, for its beneficial properties in subsea applications.
9.3 Umbilical Design

The preliminary umbilical cross-section is depicted in Figure 21 below. In this project, the thickness
of the outer and inner HDPE sheaths will be set at values of 4 and 3 cm respectively. This is due
to the fact that their variation will not greatly affect the mechanical behaviour of the umbilical.
The outer sheath serves the purpose of abrasion and collision protection. The inner sheath is a
protective layer for the umbilical components contained in the umbilical. The thicknesses of these
layers were obtained by up-scaling JDR’s HVAC subsea power cable (Figure 20) to the required
umbilical dimensions. In the same manner, the thickness of the galvanised steel layer would be 30
mm. This thickness will be used throughout the following sections, and will be given the name of
‘reference thickness’.
Polymeric External Polymeric Internal

Layer (HDPE) Layer (HDPE)
40mm 30mm
Traction Armour Air ventilation hose

(Galvanised Steel) 540mm
Figure 21: Preliminary umbilical cross-section
It is imperative to determine an optimal armouring sheath thickness. The thickness directly influ-
ences two critical design parameters: how much hydrostatic pressure the umbilical can withstand,
and the overall weight of the umbilical and required buoyancy. At a density of 7850kg/m3 , in
comparison to HDPE’s density of 958.5kg/m3 , the amount of galvanised steel will directly impact
the weight of the umbilical. This armouring consists of layers of helical strips of galvanised steel,
and their cross-sectional design is critical. The number of layers must always be an even number,
in which each layer of wires is set up in a different direction. This is due to the fact that steel
strips are spiralled to form each wire, and will thus tend to create a torque in the helical direction
on the umbilical. By opposing the direction of the layers, this torque is balanced.
10 Floater Buoy
A floater buoy that withstands the weight of the umbilical is to be designed. A similar design as
the afore presented in Figure 10 will be adopted. In this case, the height will be set to 2 meters,
the inner diameter to the diameter of the umbilical cable, and the outer diameter to the required
buoyancy. The design directly depends on the thickness of the galvanised steel armouring layer.
29
N. Dann Ruiz
This will determine both the diameter and weight of the umbilical. Moreover, the buoy will be
designed with a buoyancy that enables it to be 25% out of the water (0.5 meters), to fulfil the
purpose of air ventilation of the air hose. The material selected will once again be HDPE.
11 Analytical Calculations
A combination of methods will be utilised with respect to the previous static study (Section 8). In
this case, the drift force from waves will be derived from the wave excitation forces obtained from
NEMOH for an input buoy geometry. Moreover, the current force will be studied using Solidworks,
and the wind force will still be calculated as a function of the exposed area of the buoy to wind.
Matlab will be utilised to relate the effect of different armouring layer thicknesses to the weight
of the umbilical, desired buoy dimensions, and exerted wind and current forces.
11.1 Buoyancy Force

As previously explained, the required buoyancy force is dependent on the thickness of the outer
sheath material. Appendix E shows the Matlab script utilised to calculate the umbilical weight,
and required buoy buoyancy, using the same procedure that was described in Section 8. The
inputs to the program are the thicknesses of each umbilical layer. When using the reference value
of 30 mm for the armouring layer, a buoyancy force of FB = 94468.452N is obtained, therefore
requiring a buoy with a buoyancy of 9.63 tonnes. Various suppliers of heavy-duty HDPE buoys
were analysed, and their buoys relevant for this application and with a buoyancy of 10 tonnes are
gathered in Table 7.
Buoyancy Weight in air

Product reference
(tonne) (tonne)
10 1.8 APB-10000 (Fendercare, 2020)

10 1.7 APBB-10000 (Fendercare, 2020)
10 1.95 APB 10 (Telleborg, 2020)
12 2.72 Telemark (Telleborg, 2020)
Table 7: Types of buoys
By linearly approximating that a 10 tonnes Telemark buoy weighs 2.26 kg, the average mass of a
10 tonnes buoy can be calculated to be 1.9275 tonnes. This mass will be rounded up to 2 tonnes
for ease in calculations. The equilibrium in the y-direction, for Fy = 0, will determine the limit
P
buoy volume to withstand the weight of the umbilical:
ρw Vmin g = Fb,required + Wbuoy (40)

where Fb,required is the calculated required buoyancy force to support the umbilical, and Wbuoy is
the weight of the buoy in Newton. Rearranging for the minimum volume required:
fb,required + Wbuoy
Vmin = (41)
ρw g
Moreover, the volume of the buoy that is submerged is computed as:
1 2 2
(42)

V = π Douter − Dumb h
4
30
N. Dann Ruiz
where Douter is the outer diameter of the buoy, Dumb is the diameter of the umbilical, and h is the
depth of submersion of the buoy. The objective is to design a buoy that is 25 % above sea level.
By setting the height of the buoy to 2 meters, and only varying the outer diameter of the buoy,
this occurs when the buoy is 1.5 meters submerged. If the buoyancy equilibrium for a submersion
of 1.5 meters is calculated, the optimal diameter of the buoy can be computed. That is, by setting
V = Vmin , h = 1.5, and solving for Douter :
s
Vmin + 41 π × 1.5Dumb
2
Dopt = 1 (43)
4π
Yielding an optimal buoy volume of:
1 2 2
(44)

Vopt = π Dopt − Dumb
2
11.2 Wind Force

The wind force will be calculated in accordance with Equation 18. Once again, the geometry of the
floater is cylindrical, and the shape factor C must be determined in accordance with Equation 19.
For the reference value of a thickness of the armouring layer of 30mm, the Reynolds number is:
Dopt U 6.1747m × 7.8m/s

Re = = = 3.32 × 106 (45)
va 1.45 × 10−5 m2 /s
which corresponds to a drag coefficient C=0.65 (Figure 13). As the buoy geometry will not vary
significantly for a different armouring thicknesses, a constant drag coefficient of C=0.65 will be
assumed for varying thicknesses of the umbilical. The area exposed is half the lateral surface area
above sea level:
1
Awind =πDopt h (46)
2
With every variable in Equation 18 known, the wind force can be computed. The Matlab code
in Appendix E allows to do so for a varying armouring layer thickness.
11.3 Wave Excitation Force

In this case, the BEM NEMOH will be used to calculate the wave excitation force, or drift force,
on the buoy. As the body is symmetric, the contour of the buoy can be described with respect
to an axis. This contour will be revolved around the axis by means of the axiMesh.m function in
NEMOH. This is done for the various armour thicknesses, and the excitation forces obtained are
gathered in Appendix J. The procedure will be demonstrated for the reference thickness (t = 3cm).
The input geometry to the meshing code is the following array of radial and vertical coordinates,
where the diameter of the buoy is computed through the Matlab script in Appendix E.
1 clear all
2
3 n=5; % Number of points for discretisation
4 r=[ 0 6.1282 6.1282 0 0]; % Array of radial coordinates
5 z=[ 0.5 0.5 −1.5 −1.5 0.5]; % Array of vertical coordinates
6 [Mass,Inertia,KH,XB,YB,ZB]=axiMesh(r,z,n)
7 save('hydrostat_para', 'Mass', 'Inertia', 'KH', 'XB', 'YB', 'ZB')
Listing 1: Inputs for mesh generation
31
N. Dann Ruiz
Input Value
Number of points for angular discretization 100

Vertical position of gravity center -0.5
Target for number of panels 1000
Table 8: Inputs to axiMesh.m function
Table 8 shows further inputs that are given to the axiMesh.m function. The center of gravity of
the floater is at its center due to its symmetrical nature, and is thus located at z = −0.5 meters
with respect to the water level. The output hydrostatic coefficients matrix is:
 
0 0 0 0 0 0
 
0 0 0 0 0 0
 
0 0 1186141 0 9.7656 × 10−4 0
Khs =  (47)
 

0 0 0 10660020 0 0
 
0 0 9.7656 × 10−4 0 10660020 0
 
0 0 0 0 0 0
Recall that the matrix specifies the variation of the net weight and buoyancy load with respect to
the changes in position from equilibrium. For a hydrostatically stable body, the diagonal entries
of the matrix must be positive. Indeed, this is the case for the designed floater, evidencing its
stability. The output buoy discretisation and generated mesh are depicted in Figure 22 below.
The axiMesh.m function creates a mesh considering the submerged surface of the buoy.
(a) Discretization of buoy (b) Generated mesh
Figure 22: Discretisation and mesh of floater buoy
These meshes are utilised to run the NEMOH code. The wave characteristics are defined as shown
in the code below. The frequency is defined to range from 0.1 to 20 rad/s, with a refinement of
0.1 rad/s. The wave direction is set to zero, which is NEMOH convention means that the waves
incide in surge direction. Finally, the depth is set to 60 meters.
32
N. Dann Ruiz
1 w= 0.1:0.1:20; % Wave frequency [rad/s]

2 dir = 0; % Wave direction
3 depth=60; % Water depth [m]
4 [A,B,Fe]=Nemoh(w, dir, depth)
5 save('hydrodyn_para', 'A', 'B', 'Fe')
Listing 2: Inputs for mesh generation

The excitation forces in 6 DOFs are obtained in the form of a matrix. These forces consist of real
and complex parts. By plotting the absolute value of the excitation force in the surge direction
against the wave frequency, the maximum force is calculated to be 273000N , at a frequency of 1.4
rad/s.
105
3
X 1.4
2.5
Y 273000
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 23: Surge excitation force plot for armouring thickness of 3 cm
11.4 Drag Force

The drag force opposes the excitation force from the incident wave. Recall from Equation 21 that it
is dependent on the velocity of the flow around an object. In this case, the buoy can be considered
to be stationary, with a wave inciding at a certain velocity, resulting in the excitation force. This
velocity, or phase velocity vp , is calculated as:
w
vp = (48)
k
where w is the wave frequency (rad/s), and k is the wavenumber (rad/m). The wave number is
calculated as:
2π
k= (49)
λ
where λ is the wavelength (m). The Matlab script shown in Appendix F computes both the wave
number and phase velocity for a given frequency and depth. Furthermore, the drag coefficient for
33
N. Dann Ruiz
this geometry must now be determined. The Reynold’s number, for the reference thickness of the
armouring layer of 30mm, is given by:
Dopt U 0.74m × 0.8m/s

Re = = = 4.529 × 106 (50)
vs 1.307 × 10−6 m2 /s
The drag coefficient is defined to be CD = 0.6, based on Figure 13. Once again, the drag coefficient
will be assumed to be constant for varying thicknesses. The area exposed to the excitation force
corresponds to the lateral surface of the cylinder submerged at a depth of L = 1.5 meters. This
yields a lateral surface area of:
1
AD = πDopt × 1.5 (51)
2
The terms will be plugged into the drag force equation for varying armouring thicknesses.
11.5 Current Force

The current force will be calculated in Solidworks Flow Simulation. As the umbilical is significantly
larger than the floater buoy, the current force on the floater will be neglected. In Solidworks, the
umbilical is subjected to a flow of water moving at the previously determined average velocity
of 0.8 m/s. The Flow Simulation results will be translated into free-surface stress, and will be
simulated alongside the other forces acting on the umbilical.
12 Simulation
In this section, the umbilical cord will be designed in Solidworks, and the forces and fixtures will
be applied on it.
12.1 Umbilical Design
Figure 24: Amplified view of the umbilical open air hose
The umbilical is designed to be a 61.5 meter cylinder, with three layers of the aforementioned
materials and a hollow 54 cm circular extrusion in its center. This is due to the fact that the
system will be studied at the point where it is experiencing the maximum excitation force in surge
direction. NEMOH generates a 1 meter amplitude wave, which generates the maximum excitation
34
N. Dann Ruiz
force. The umbilical will then be 1 meter above still water level. Moreover, the umbilical will
be inserted within the floater buoy, which will be designed to be 0.5 meters above sea level, for
operational purposes. The umbilical cross-section is depicted in Figure 24 above.
12.2 Fixtures
The umbilical is fixed at the bottom surface. A simple fixture is considered, and the surfaces of
the three layers are used as fixtures. Appendix G describes the fixtures and meshing applied in
Solidworks in further detail.
12.3 Loads
12.3.1 Ocean Pressure
The hydrostatic loading from the ocean pressure is applied on the submerged part of the umbil-
ical. The part of the umbilical that is within the buoy is not included, as the buoy itself will be
withstanding the pressure. The pressure is applied as a function of the depth below sea level. For
this purpose, a reference coordinate system is generated at the end of the umbilical. The following
pressure function is used:
P = ρw g(y − 2) (52)
where y is vertical displacement in meters with respect to the reference coordinate system. Note
that y − 2 is to solely consider the part of the umbilical that is not inside the buoy. This creates
a pressure gradient, with increasing pressure the lower beneath the sea surface. Figure 25 depicts
the resulting load.
Figure 25: Surface flow plot of current load
12.3.2 Current Force

The Solidworks Flow Simulation tool is utilised to study the drag force from the mean ocean
current. An external study is run, to study the fluid acting on the outside of the umbilical. Water
is selected as the desired fluid, and is set to be moving at the mean velocity value of 0.8 m/s in the
negative z-direction. The outcome in terms of pressure is depicted in Figure 26 and Figure 27, in
the form of surface and contour plots respectively. These results will be translated into free-surface
stress, and applied alongside the remaining loads in a simulation.
35
N. Dann Ruiz
Figure 26: Surface flow plot of current load
Figure 27: Contour plot of current load
12.3.3 Wave Excitation and Wind Force

The wave excitation force is applied on the top 2 meter part of the umbilical, where the buoy would
be inserted, in the negative z-direction. The wind force is also applied in the same direction and
surface. With the drag force acting against the wave excitation force in the positive z-direction,
the resultant force to be applied is:
Fresultant = Fexc + Fwind − FD (53)

The force is applied as depicted in Figure 28.
36
N. Dann Ruiz
Figure 28: Resultant excitation force
Figure 29 displays the umbilical with the fixtures and loads applied on it. Notice that the current
force is not considered as a load. Solidworks translates the Flow Simulation results into fluid shear
stress when importing the results into the simulation, but are not depicted as a force.
Figure 29: Isometric view of loads and fixtures applied on the umbilical in Solidworks
37
N. Dann Ruiz
13 Results
13.1 Analytical Static Analysis
The optimal umbilical pretension can be determined for a varying range of allowable displacement
disp. By a brute force method approach, the minimum allowable displacement was found to be at
∆x = 3.3125 meters. Table 9 below gathers the outputs of optimal pretension (Fpre ), constraint 1
(cq.1) and constraint 2 (cq.2) for a varying range of surge displacements. Moreover, the Factor of
Safety was calculated as follows
Fmax Fmax
F OS = = (54)
F Fmax − cq.2
As the second constraint, cq.2, is the additional force that must be added to reach the maximum
allowable force, F can be computed as Fmax − cq.2
∆x F_{pre} cq. 1 cq. 2 FOS
3.0625 12505.816 0 −68.460 1

3.25 11978.400 4.3472e-11 1118.091 1.046
3.5 11373.892 1.0028e-12 2319.846 1.1
3.75 10860.677 −4.4409e-16 338.657 1.15
4 10420.820 −4.4409e-16 −4210.418 1.198
4.25 10040.649 1.0355e-9 −4962.496 1.241
4.5 9709.572 5.5067e-14 −5616.100 1.282
4.75 9419.266 8.5555e-11 −6187.895 1.32
5 9163.120 6.8268e-19 −6691.44 21.355
Table 9: Results
Matlab approximates the outputs of cq.1 to zero, due to being infinitesimally small numbers, and
thus considering the solutions for Fpre to be feasible. A choice of Fpre must be made in accordance
to the desired surge displacement and related FOS. These are plotted in Figure 30 below.
38
N. Dann Ruiz
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Figure 30: Factor of safety for varying surge displacement
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure 31: Surge displacement for Fpre = 10420.820N . Maximum displacement ∆x = 4m
It can be observed that the surge displacement increases exponentially for the input wave height.
13.2 Simulation Static Analysis

The von Mises Stress, FOS and surge displacement was simulated for varying armouring thick-
nesses. The results are gathered in Table 10 below. These values were obtained by running
simulations on Soliworks. The wave excitation forces for each thickness can be observed in Ap-
pendix J. The Matlab script in Appendix E was further utilised to calculates the resultant force
to apply on Soliworks. Furthermore, Appendix K shows Solidworks FOS, surge displacement and
von Mises stress simulation results.
39
N. Dann Ruiz
Fexc Max Surge

Thickness Dopt w v FR Min
von Mises displacement
(cm) (m) (rad/s) (m/s) (N) FOS
(N) (Pa) (m)
2.5 5.7230 251900 1.4 7.5007 17837.345 2.219e + 8 0.899 3.250

2.75 5.9523 262700 1.4 7.5007 19258.391 1.725e + 8 1.121 3.003
3 6.1747 273000 1.4 7.5007 20459.613 1.543e + 8 1.133 2.879
3.25 6.3911 282600 1.4 7.5007 21211.751 1.598e + 8 1.188 2.75
3.5 6.6019 291700 1.4 7.5007 21690.138 1.541e + 8 1.270 2.753
3.75 6.8077 300400 1.4 7.5007 21973.754 1.165e + 8 1.674 2.135
4 7.0089 308600 1.4 7.5007 21944.523 1.165e + 8 1.674 2.135
4.25 7.2059 316500 1.4 7.5007 21786.767 1.058e + 8 1.812 1.997
4.5 7.3991 324000 1.4 7.5007 21386.787 9.339e + 7 2.028 1.657
4.75 7.5887 328500 1.4 7.5007 18132.535 7.791e + 7 2.283 1.376
5 7.7749 335300 1.4 7.5007 17313.350 7.001e + 7 2.697 1.205
5.25 7.9582 341900 1.4 7.5007 16419.747 6.277e + 7 2.917 1.077
Table 10: Results for varying armouring layer thickness
It can be observed that the FOS increases linearly with the thickness of the armouring layer.
Moreover, this determines the overall weight of the umbilical, and thus the buoyancy force required.
Figure 32 shows a plot of the FOS against the required buoy buoyancy. The results will be further
discussed in Section 14.
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
10 4
Figure 32: Plot of FOS against required umbilical buoyancy (kg)
40
N. Dann Ruiz
14 Discussion
In this section, the obtained results will be discussed, and a selection of a feasible FOS for each
analysis will be selected. Finally, the limitations of these studies will be discussed, together with
further research.
14.1 Results Discussion

There are two key considerations when selecting a feasible FOS: the associated costs, and the
structural failure of the system or structure. On the one hand, a larger FOS will result in either
operational costs, in terms of the allowable surge displacement of the prototype umbilical, or
associated costs, in terms of the amount of raw material that is required for both the umbilical
and floater buoy. On the other hand, a FOS of at least 1 is required for the umbilical to withstand
environmental loading. In the first study concerning the prototype umbilical, the system is to be
operating for a limited amount of time, thus neglecting the deterioration of the cord over time.
Moreover, it will operate at a testing harbour under steady water conditions. For this reason, any
FOS above 1 is considered optimal. For instance, a maximum surge displacement of 4 meters,
with an optimal cable pretension of Fpre = 10420.820N and FOS of 1.198, is deemed sufficient.
In essence, this study corroborates the structural advantages of PVC as an outer sheath material.
Despite the plain water surface at the testing harbour, the umbilical shows to withstand loading
from wave drift force from wave amplitudes of up to 3 meters.
For the full-scale umbilical, an armouring thickness of 3cm, for which a FOS of 1.133 ensured,
will be considered optimal. The simulations were run for the limiting case scenario, at which the
loads are applied in the same direction and the maximum wave excitation force is studied. Despite
considering average wind and current loads, their variation showed little effect on the structural
integrity of the system. Conversely, the wave excitation force greatly impacts the stability of the
system. This, together with assumptions such as the simple buoy geometry and Ocean Battery
connection, deem a FOS of 1.133 feasible, and will be further discussed in the following section.
14.2 Limitations
Significant assumptions have governed both studies, and will limit the usefulness of the results.
In the first study, the heave displacement, together with the sinking of the buoy when being
displaced and moored, were neglected. Realistically, wave excitation loading will be present in both
the heave and surge direction. Moreover, despite the outer sheath withstanding a displacement
of 4 meters with a FOS of 1.198, the umbilical components will likely fail under these conditions.
For operational purposes, it is unfeasible to be elongated to a surge displacement of 4 meters. In
essence, the study was a large approximation of environmental loading on the system.
On the contrary, the second static analysis was a closer representation of reality, while still consid-
ering notable assumptions. Namely, the mass of the buoy was approximated, the buoy geometry
was considered to be simple, the heave excitation force was not considered, and the Ocean Battery
connection was not studied. Firstly, the average value from buoys with a buoyancy of 10 tonnes
was taken, as it was initially determined to be the approximated weight by up-scaling the dimen-
sions of smaller subsea umbilicals. This assumption reflects the validity of the results obtained,
making armouring thicknesses with a required buoyancy close to 10 tonnes more accurate. Sec-
ondly, the buoy was considered to be a cylinder, in which the floater height was set at a constant
value, for the ease of running multiple simulations. For the same reason, the drag coefficient was
set to a constant value of CD = 0.6. Further consideration must be paid to the geometry of the
buoy, as it will greatly determine the associated wave excitation force. Thirdly, the study did not
consider excitation in the heave direction, making it strictly a surge displacement analysis, and
not studying the full range of motion of the system. Finally, the Ocean Battery connection was
41
N. Dann Ruiz
considered to simply be represented as a fixture of the cross-sectional surface of the umbilical. The
maximum stress was observed to occur at this location. Different connection points, such as a
flange connection, will decrease stress, as the same force will be distributed over a larger surface.
The selection of an armouring thickness of 3 centimetres, despite a seemingly low FOS (1.33), is
an estimate of the optimal umbilical thickness. On the one hand, detailed buoy design will de-
crease the wave excitation force on the umbilical. Furthermore, the design of an Ocean Battery
connection point will reduce stress concentration, thus increasing the FOS. On the other hand, a
buoyancy of 10.09 tonne is required for a thickness of 3 centimetres, making the result accurate in
terms of the assumption on the mass of the buoy.
14.3 Further Research

Initially, this project aimed to perform a dynamic study on the response of the floater-umbilical
system to environmental loading. The open-source code Wec-Sim was utilised, and run in Matlab
to simulate the floater buoy. Furthermore, a second open-source code, Moordyn, would implement
a lumped-mass approach to simulate the umbilical cable as a mooring line for the buoy. Short-
comings were found through this approach. The desired umbilical geometry was not able to be
designed, as the air ventilation hose and three outer sheath layers could not be extruded. Fur-
ther research from a dynamic approach is encouraged, likely utilising a different software. The
aforementioned assumptions would be accounted for, together with including the inertia of the
added mass and the viscosity of the surrounding fluid, which could not be included in this static
analysis. Furthermore, the floater geometry, and the effects of different shaped buoys, should be
accounted for in further research in the field. Moreover, research into the cross-sectional layout
of the umbilical is recommended. Instead of containing a large air-ventilation hose, the umbilical
could consist of various smaller hoses. A filler material would be included between the hoses, mak-
ing the umbilical less vulnerable to environmental loading. Finally, research on the Ocean Battery
connection is required.
42
Conclusion
Environmental loading from waves, wind, and currents has been identified as an undermining factor
of the structural integrity of offshore systems. An initial analytical attempt to model environmental
loading on a prototype floater-umbilical system was performed. An optimisation surge displacement
problem was set up, to model the static response of the prototype umbilical cord to hydrostatic
loading in terms of cable force and displacement. It was found that the cable pretension and surge
displacement were strictly related, together with the FOS of the system. A FOS of 1.198 was
obtained, for a cable pretension of 104030.820N and surge displacement of 4 meters. However,
it must be concluded that this study does not serve as an accurate surge displacement analysis,
due to the significant assumptions governing it. However, given the still water conditions at the
testing harbour, the study serves to portray the advantages of PVC as an outer sheath material,
as it showed to withstand loading from waves in up to 5 meter amplitude. It can be concluded
that PVC is a feasible material for the small-scale harbour test. Moreover, a floater buoy was
designed for such an application. With a dominating position in the industry due to its many
excellent properties, cost-effectiveness, and ease of fabrication, HDPE was selected as an optimal
floater buoy material. The floater buoy geometry was discussed, and a ‘two shell’ floater buoy was
designed for such an application.
Secondly, a feasible design for the outer sheath layers of the full-scale umbilical was determined.
The umbilical designed consists of a 4 centimetres outer sheath of HDPE, followed by a 3 centimetre
galvanised steel armouring layer, and by a 3 centimetre inner sheath layer of HDPE. Indeed, the
outer and inner sheath layers showed little effect in the mechanical behaviour of the cable under
hydrostatic loading. The outer sheath layer solely serves the purpose of abrasion and UV resistance,
while the inner layer serves the purpose of protection of the armouring layer from corrosion. The
umbilical design was validated analytically in Solidworks, and experimental validation is yet to
be performed. However, the dimensions of the umbilical are consistent with upscaling a subsea
power cable by JDR. This design ensures a FOS of 1.133, which was discussed to be sufficient
due to simplifications of the buoy geometry, and consideration of the limiting case scenario. The
excitation force in surge direction caused by waves of unity amplitude was calculated by means of
NEMOH. At the frequency for maximum excitation, the resulting surge displacement was 2.879
meters. The weight in air of the designed umbilical is 37034.737 kilograms, and will require a
buoyancy of 10 tonnes for operational purposes. Overall, the thickness of the armouring sheath
was observed to be a key parameter to stabilise the floater-umbilical system against environmental
loading.
In essence, this research took a first step towards designing the full-scale floater-umbilical system for
its deployment in open-sea. Significant assumptions governed this study, thus limiting the validity
of the outcome of this research, and requiring further research. In particular, it is imperative that
the system is studied from a dynamic approach, with further attention to the effects of varying
buoy geometry, the Ocean Battery connection point, and umbilical cross-sectional layout.
43
Bibliography
(2012). North sea climate. Climate Data. Available at https://en.climate-data.org/

north-america/united-states-of-america/new-york/north-sea-141630/.
(2016). Fossil fuels. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Available at https:
//www.eesi.org/topics/fossil-fuels/description#:~:text=According%20to%20the%
20U.S.%20Energy,changes%20in%20the%20Earth’s%20climate.
(2018). Do renewable energy technologies need government subsidies? The London School of
Economics and Political Science. Available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/
faqs/do-renewable-energy-technologies-need-government-subsidies/.
(2019). Cat 6a interactive reference guide. Leviton. Available at https://www.leviton.com/en/

docs/Leviton_Cat6AReferenceGuide.pdf.
(2019). Tubing & hose metric. Norgren. Available at http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/

20632.pdf.
(2019). Umbilicals. Subseapedia. Available at http://www.subseapedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Umbilicals.
(2019). Wec-sim theory. Github. Available at https://wec-sim.github.io/WEC-Sim/theory.

html#id4.
(2020). Air - density, specific weight and thermal expansion coefficient at varying temperature and
constant pressures. The Engineering Toolbox. Available at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.
com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html.
A. Nesegard, M. Ronaess, O. H. K. R. and Bitner-Gregersen, E. M. (2010). Dnv-rp-c205: Envi-

ronmental conditions and environmental loads. page 124.
Ammalaa, A., Batemana, S., Deana, K., Petinakis, E., Sangwan, P., Wonga, S., Yuana, Q., Yua, L.,
Patrickb, C., and Leongb, K. (2010). An overview of degradable and biodegradable polyolefins.
Progress in Polymer Science, 36:1015–1049.
Bai, Y. and Bai, Q. (2012). Subsea Engineering Handbook. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Beirão, P. and Malça, C. (2014). Design and analysis of buoy geometries for a wave energy
converter. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 5:1–11.
Brent, M. (2019). Differences between polyethylene and polyurethane. Sciencing. Available

at https://sciencing.com/differences-between-polyethylene-polyurethane-8514564.
html.
Cambridge (2014). Cambridge engineering selector granta (ces edupack material level 3).
44
Bibliography N. Dann Ruiz
Chang, H.-C. and Chen, B.-F. (2019). Mechanical behavior of submarine cable under coupled
tension, torsion and compressive loads. Ocean engineering, 189.
Clausen, T. and D’Souza, R. (2001). Dynamic risers key component for deepwater drilling, floating
production. Offshore, 61(5):89–92.
Coelingh, J., [van Wijk], A., and Holtslag, A. (1996). Analysis of wind speed observations over the
north sea. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 61(1):51 – 69.
Faltinsen, O. (1993). Sea loads on ships and offshore structures, volume 1. Cambridge university
press.
Feldman, D. (1984). Weathering of polymers, a. davis and d. sims, applied science publishers,
london, 1983, 294 pp. price: $64.75. Journal of Polymer Science: Polymer Letters Edition,
22(7):423–423.
Fendercare (2020). Fendercare: Flotation and buoyancy. Fendercare Marine. Available at https:
//www.fendercare.com/files/6314/8794/3718/Flotation_Buoyancy_LR.pdf.
Fibron (2020). Fibron: Renewable energy cables. Fibron. Available at https://fibron.com/

product/renewables-tidal-and-wind/.
Fonseca, N., Pascoal, R., Marinho, J., and Morais, T. (2008). Analysis of wave drift forces on a
floating wave energy converter. volume 6.
Granqvist, C. (2003). Solar energy materials. Advanced Materials, 15(21):1789–1803.
Hibbeler, R. (2017). Statics and mechanics of materials, 5th global ed.
JDR (2020). Jdr: Renewable energy. JDR. Available at https://www.jdrcables.com/

renewables/.
Keresten, I. A., Kornilova, E. V., and Michailov, A. A. (2019). Finite element definition of effective
stiffness coefficients for power submarine cable with heterogeneous structure. Marine Intellectual
Technologies, 3(3):208–215.
Khan, D. and Ulucak, R. (2020). How do environmental technologies affect green growth? evidence
from brics economies. Science of The Total Environment, page 136504.
Martinelli, L., Lamberti, A., Ruol, P., Ricci, P., Kirrane, P., Fenton, C., and Johanning, L. (2010).
Power umbilical for ocean renewable energy systems-feasibility and dynamic response analysis.
Olivier, N., Machado, I., and Goncalves, E. (2007). Cyclic loading and marine environment effects
on the properties of hdpe umbilical cables. Journal of Materials Science, 42:6935–6941.
Patel, H. (2008). Subsea umbilicals and power cables.steege lecture 44. STEEGE Lecture 44.
PIPA (2016). Industry guidelines pop202: Pvc, pp and pe pipe installation on curved alignments.
Plastics Industry Pipe Association of Australia Limited, 2(1).
Platzer, N. (1986). Encyclopedia of polymer science and engineering, h. f. mark, n. m. bikales, c.

g. overberger, and g. menges, wiley-interscience, new york, 1985, 720 pp. Journal of Polymer
Science Part C: Polymer Letters, 24(7):359–360.
Rehm, B., Haghshenas, A., Paknejad, A. S., Al-Yami, A., and Hughes, J. (2013). Underbalanced
drilling: limits and extremes. Elsevier.
45
Bibliography N. Dann Ruiz
Rentschler, M. U., Adam, F., Chainho, P., Krügel, K., and Vicente, P. C. (2020). Parametric
study of dynamic inter-array cable systems for floating offshore wind turbines. Marine Systems
& Ocean Technology, 15(1):16–25.
Sahu, A. (2017). Effect of uv exposure on bimodal hdpe floats for floating solar application. Journal
of Materials Research and Technology, 8.
Sahu, A., Sudhakar, K., and Sarviya, R. (2019). “influence of u.v light on the thermal properties
of hdpe/carbon black composites.”. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 15:100534.
Sahu, A., Yadav, N., and Sudhakar, K. (2016). Floating photovoltaic power plant: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 66:815 – 824.
Schlichting, H. and Gersten, K. (2000). Boundary-Layer Theory. Springer.
Telleborg (2020). Telleborg: Product brouchure. Trelleborg Marine and Infrastruc-

ture. Available at https://www.trelleborg.com/en/marine-and-infrastructure/
products--solutions--and--services/marine/surface--buoyancy/mooring--buoys/
mooring--buoy.
Thies, P. R., Johanning, L., and Smith, G. H. (2012). Assessing mechanical loading regimes and
fatigue life of marine power cables in marine energy applications. Proceedings of the institution
of mechanical engineers part o-journal of risk and reliability, 226(O1, SI):18–32.
Wei, Y., Yu, Z., Barradas Berglind, J., van Rooij, M., Prins, W., Jayawardhana, B., and Vakis, A.
(2017). A frequency-domain model for a novel wave energy converter. In European Wave and
Tidal Energy Conference Series (EWTEC).
Worzyk, T. (2009). Submarine power cables: design, installation, repair, environmental aspects.
Submarine power cables.
Yang, S.-H., Ringsberg, J. W., and Johnson, E. (2018a). Parametric study of the dynamic motions
and mechanical characteristics of power cables for wave energy converters. Journal of marine
science and technology, 23(1):10–29.
Yang, Z., Lu, Q., Yan, J., Chen, J., and Yue, Q. (2018b). Multidisciplinary Optimization Design for
the Section Layout of Umbilicals Based on Intelligent Algorithm. Journal of offshore mechanics
and arctic engineering-transactions of the ASME, 140(3).
46
Appendices
47
N. Dann Ruiz
A Material Properties
A.1 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Composition Overview Production Recyclability
Base Polymer CO2 primary production 58.3 MJ/kg

Polymer Class Thermoplastics: amorphous Water usage primary production 207.5 l/kg
Plymer type PVC CO2 polymer extrusion 0.452 kg/kg
Polyvinyl chloride,
Polymer full name CO2 polymer molding 1.265 kg/kg
rigid, unplasticised
Filler type Unfilled Processing Properties
Price 1.11 EUR/kg Polymer injection molding Acceptable

Density 1310 kg/m^3 Polymer extrusion Excellent
Material Properties Durability
Young’s Modulus 0.371 GPa Water (fresh) Excellent

Yield strength 30.6 MPa Water (salt) Excellent
Tensile strength 27.8 MPa Weak acids Excellent
Elongation 200 % strain Strong acids Acceptable
Elongation at yield 22.5 % strain Weak alkalis Excellent
Compressive modulus 0.371 GPa Strong alkalis Acceptable
Flexural modulus 0.55 GPa Organic solvents Unacceptable
Flexural strength 17.89 MPa Oils and fuels Limited use
Shear modulus 0.12 GPa Oxidation at 500C Unacceptable
Shear strength 22.5 MPa UV radiation Good
Poisson’s ratio 0.435 Flammability Slow-burning
Table 11: PVC (Semi-rigid, molding and extrusion) properties (Cambridge, 2014)
48
N. Dann Ruiz
A.2 High-density Polyethylene (HDPE)

Density (kg/m^3)
Tensile strength (MPa)
Figure 33: Tensile strength (MPa) against density (kg/m3

Price (EUR/kg)
Tensile strength (MPa)
Figure 34: Tensile strength (MPa) against price (EUR/kg)
49
N. Dann Ruiz
Density (kg/m^3)
Yield strength (elastic limit)(MPa)
Figure 35: Yield strength (elastic limit)(MPa) against density (kg/m3 )

Price (EUR/kg)
Yield strength (elastic limit)(MPa)
Figure 36: Yield strength (elastic limit)(MPa) against price (EUR/kg)
50
N. Dann Ruiz
B Technical Drawings
4 3 2 1
425
70
F F
585
E E
15
565 178
R132,5
D 0 D
,76
C 30 C
17,50
DETAIL A
SCALE 1 : 5
31,48
B B
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBURR AND
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:
DRAWN
CHK'D
APPV'D
A MFG A
MATERIAL: DWG NO.
Floating Buoy
Q.A
A4
WEIGHT: SCALE:1:10 SHEET 1 OF 1
4 3 2 1
Figure 37: Technical drawing of floating buoy
51
N. Dann Ruiz
Figure 38: Exploded view and BOM of the assembly of the floater
52
N. Dann Ruiz
C Optimisation
1 clear all
2
3 % Define upper and lower bound for fmincon.m
4 lb = 0;
5 ub = 100000;
6
7 % Define variables
8 h = 3; % Set wave height (h=3 limit for this study)
9 disp = 5; % Set maximum surge (min at 3.0625)
10 k = 51.939; % Umbilical stiffness
11 L = 5; % Cable length
12 Fbnet = 398.22; % Net buoyancy force
13 Fw = 14.11; % Mean wind force
14 Fc = 122.5; % Mean current force
15 Fd = (1/4)*1027*h^2; % Drift force w.r.t wave height
16 Fexc = Fw + Fc + Fd; % Excitation force
17 Fmax = 25523.153; % Maximum allowable force
18
19 constants = {Fexc, k, L, Fbnet, Fmax, disp}; % Store constants
20
21 % Call Functions
22 obj_fun = @(Fpre) objective(Fpre, constants);
23 nlcon_fun = @(Fpre) nlcon(Fpre, constants);
24
25 % Initial Guess
26 Fpre0 = 2e4;
27
28 % Solver options
29 options = optimoptions('fmincon');
30 options.Algorithm = 'sqp';
31
32 % Minimization for optimal Fpre
33 Fpre_opt = fmincon(obj_fun, Fpre0, [], [], [], [], lb, ub, ...
34 nlcon_fun, options);
35
36 % Check feasibility
37 [c, ceq] = nlcon(Fpre_opt, constants);
Listing 3: File of inputs and minimization options (main.m)
53
N. Dann Ruiz
1 function [f] = objective(Fpre, constants)

2
3 % Call constants
4 [Fexc, k, L, Fbnet, ~, ~] = constants{:};
5
6 syms x % Set x as a symbol to use in solver
7 s = solve(((Fpre+k*(sqrt(x^2+L^2)− L))*x)/(sqrt(x^2+L^2))==Fexc,x,...
8 'real',true);
9 Surge = real(double(s)); % Convert x from symbol to value
10 theta = asind(Surge/sqrt(L^2+(Surge)^2)); % Calculate angular displacement
11 Fcord = Fexc/cosd(90−theta); % Calculate Fexc perpendicular component
12
13
14 % Objective Function
15 f = Fpre + Fbnet + Fcord;
16
17 end
Listing 4: Objective function (objective.m)
1 function [c, ceq] = nlcon(Fpre, constants)

2 % Function for solving constraints
3
4 % Call constants
5 [Fexc, k, L, Fbnet, Fmax, disp] = constants{:};
6
7 % Define non equality constraint
8 ceq = 0;
9
10 % Inequality constraint calculations
12 s = solve(((Fpre+k*(sqrt(x^2+L^2)− L))*x)/(sqrt(x^2+L^2))==Fexc,x,...
13 'real',true);
14 Surge = real(double(s)); % Convert x from symbol to value
15 theta = asind(Surge/sqrt(L^2+(Surge)^2));% Calculate angular displacement
16 Fcord = Fexc/cosd(90−theta); % Calculate Fexc perpendicular component
17
18 % Constraint 1
19 c(1) = Surge − disp;
20
21 % Constraint 2
22 c(2) = Fpre + Fbnet + Fcord − Fmax;
23
24 end
Listing 5: Constraints function for the solver (nlcon.m)
54
N. Dann Ruiz
D Static Surge Displacement Analysis
1 clear all
2 format long
3
4 % Input
5 Fpre = 10420.820; % Cable pretension (Fpre=12505.816 limit value)
6
7 % Variables
8 L = 5; % Length of umbilical
9 k = 51.939; % Umbilical stiffness
10 Fw = 14.11; % Wind force
11 Fc = 122.5; % Current force
12 Fmax = 25523.153; % Maximum allowable force
13 Fbnet = 398.22; % Net buoyancy force
14 Surge=zeros(1,25); % Array to store surge displacement values
15 h=zeros(1,25); % Array to store wave height values
16 theta=zeros(1,25); % Array to store angular displacement values
17 Fcord=zeros(1,25); % Array to store perpendicular force values
18
19 for m=1:25
20
21 h(m)=0.2+0.2*(m−1); % Wave height
22 Fd(m) = (1/4)*1027*(h(m))^2; % Drift force for varying wave height
23 Fexc = Fw + Fc + Fd(m); % Excitation force
25 x = solve(((Fpre+k*(sqrt(x^2+L^2)− L))*x)/(sqrt(x^2+L^2))==Fexc,x,...
26 'real',true);
27 Surge(m) = real(double(x)); % Convert x from symbol to value
28 theta(m) = asind(Surge(m)/sqrt(L^2+(Surge(m))^2));% Calculate angular displacement
29
30 Fcord(m) = Fexc/(cosd(90−theta(m)));% Calculate Fexc perpendicular component
31 clear x
32 fprintf('Surge displacement for wave height of %0.1fm & pretension of %0.8eN is %0.4f m\
n',h(m),Fpre,Surge(m))
33 fprintf('\n')
34 end
35
36 if Fpre+Fbnet+Fcord(end) >=Fmax
37 fprintf('Exceeds ultimate tensile strength')
38
39 else
40 figure
41 plot(h,Surge) % Plot wave height against surge displacement
42 title(sprintf('Surge displacement of pretension %0.8eN',Fpre),...
43 'Interpreter','latex' )
44 fprintf('\n')
45 xlabel('Wave height (m)','Interpreter','latex')
46 ylabel('Surge displacement (m)','Interpreter','latex')
47 legend('Surge displacement','Location','northwest','Interpreter','latex')
48
49 end
Listing 6: Static surge displacement
55
N. Dann Ruiz
E Static Analytical Calculations
1 clear all
2 format long
3
4 % Inputs
5 t_od = 0.04; % Thickness outer layer [m]
6 t_ar = 0.03; % Thickness armouring [m]
7 t_id = 0.03; % Thickness inner layer [m]
8 H = 61; % Umbilical length underwater [m]
9 h = 0.5; % Umbilical length above sea surface [m]
10 F_exc = 273000; % Excitation force [m/s] (NEMOH output, varies with buoy geometry)
11 v_exc = 7.5077; % Excitation velocity [m/s] (varies with buoy geometry)
12
13 % Variables
14 rho_HDPE = 958.5; % Density of HDPE [kg/m^3]
15 rho_GS = 7.85E3; % Density of Galvanised Steel [kg/m^3]
16 rho_air = 1.244; % Density of air [kg/m^3]
17 rho_sea = 1027; % Density sea water [kg/m^3]
18 g = 9.81; % Gravitational acceleration [m/s^2]
19 M_buoy = 2E4; % Mass of buoy [kg]
20 C_buoy_sea = 0.6; % Drag coefficient buoy underwater[−]
21 C_buoy_air = 0.65; % Drag coefficient buoy above sea level[−]
22 C_umb = 18; % Drag coefficient umbilical [−]
23 U_w = 7.8; % Average wind velocity [m/s]
24 U_c = 0.8; % Average ocean current velocity [m/s]
25
26 % Calculate diameters
27 hose = 0.54; % Air hose [m]
28 is = hose+2*t_id; % Inner sheath [m]
29 ar = is+2*t_ar; % Armouring [m]
30 os = ar+2*t_od; % Outer sheath [m]
31 D_umb = os;
32
33 % Calculate total volumes
34 V_PEodtot = (1/4)*pi*(os^2−ar^2)*(H+h); % Outer sheath [m^3]
35 V_PEidtot = (1/4)*pi*(is^2−hose^2)*(H+h); % Inner sheath [m^3]
36 V_ARtot =(1/4)*pi*(ar^2−is^2)*(H+h); % Armouring [m^3]
37 V_air = (1/4)*pi*hose^2*H; % Hose [m^3]
38
39 % Calculate submerged volumes
40 V_PEodsub = (1/4)*pi*(os^2−ar^2)*H; % Outer sheath [m^3]
41 V_PEidsub = (1/4)*pi*(is^2−hose^2)*H; % Inner sheath [m^3]
42 V_ARsub =(1/4)*pi*(ar^2−is^2)*H; % Armouring [m^3]
43
44 % Calculate total mass of components
45 M_PEtot = rho_HDPE*(V_PEodtot+V_PEidtot); % Mass PE [kg]
46 M_ARtot = rho_GS*V_ARtot; % Mass armouring [kg]
47
48 % Calculate submerged mass of components
49 M_PEsub = rho_HDPE*(V_PEodsub+V_PEidsub); % Mass PE [kg]
50 M_ARsub = rho_GS*V_ARsub; % Mass armouring [kg]
51 M_air = rho_air*V_air; % Mass air [kg]
52
56
N. Dann Ruiz
53 % Calculate total weight of components

54 W_PEtot = M_PEtot*g; % Weight PE [N]
55 W_ARtot = M_ARtot*g; % Weight armouring [N]
56 W_air = M_air*g; % Weight air [N]
57 W_buoy = M_buoy*g; % Weight of buoy [N]
58
59 % Calculate subermed weight of components
60 W_PEsub = M_PEsub*g; % Weight PE [N]
61 W_ARsub = M_ARsub*g; % Weight armouring [N]
62
63 % Buoyancy of components
64 FB_PE = rho_sea*g*(V_PEodsub+V_PEidsub); % Buoyancy PE [N]
65 FB_AR = rho_sea*g*(V_ARsub); % Buoyancy armouring [N]
66 FB_air = rho_sea*g*V_air; % Buoyancy air [N]
67
68 % Outputs
69 M_umbilical = M_PEtot+M_ARtot+M_air % Umbilical mass [kg]
70 W_umbilical = W_PEtot+W_ARtot+W_air % Umbilical weight [N]
71 FB_required = W_umbilical−(FB_PE+FB_AR+FB_air) % Required buoyancy force [N]
72 MB_required = FB_required/g % Buoy buoyancy load [kg]
73
74 % Calculate required umbilical dimensions
75 V_limit=(FB_required+W_buoy)/(9.81*rho_sea); % Limiting volume for equilibrium [m^3]
76 D_outer = sqrt((V_limit+(1/2)*pi*D_umb^2)/((1)/(2)*pi));% Limiting outer diameter buoy [m]
77 D_opt = sqrt((V_limit+(1)/(4)*pi*1.5*D_umb^2)/((1)/(4)*pi));% Optimal outer diameter buoy[m]
78 V_opt = (1)/(2)*pi*(D_opt^2−D_umb^2); % Optimal volume bouy [m]
79
80 % Wind force
81 A_wind = (1/2)*pi*(D_opt)*0.5; % Area of buoy exposed to wind [m^2]
82 F_wind = (1)/(2)*rho_air*C_buoy_air*A_wind*U_w^2;% Average wind force [N]
83
84 % Submerged surfaces
85 A_umb_underwater = (1/2)*pi*D_umb*(H−1.5); % Area of umbilical exposed to current [m^2]
86 A_buoy_underwater = (1/2)*pi*D_opt*(1.5); % Area of buoy exposed to current [m^2]
87
88 % Resultant surge force
89 F_D = (1/2)*C_buoy_sea*rho_sea*v_exc^2*A_buoy_underwater; % Drag force [N]
90 F_resultant = F_exc+F_wind−F_D % Resultant surge force [N]
Listing 7: Buoy dimensions script
57
N. Dann Ruiz
F Wave Characteristics
1 function k = WaveNumbers(w,depth)
2 g = 9.81;
3 k0=w/sqrt(g*depth);
4 option=optimset('display','off');
5 k=fsolve(@(k) WaveNumFunc(k,w,depth),k0,option);
6 end
7
8 function F=WaveNumFunc(k,w,depth)
9 g=9.81;
10 F=w^2−g*k*tanh(k*depth);
11 end
Listing 8: Wavenumber script
1 function c=WaveVelocity(w,k,h)
2 c(2,:) = w./k; % Phase velocity [m/s]
3 c(1,:) = 0.5.*c(2,:).*(1.0+2.*k*h./sinh(2.0.*k*h)); % Group velocity [m/s]
4 c(3,:) = sqrt(9.81*h); % Shallow water wave phase velocity [m/s]
5 end
Listing 9: Wave velocities script
58
N. Dann Ruiz
G Solidworks Fixtures and Meshing

The following fixtures were set up in Solidworks:
Figure 39: Fixtures applied on the umbilical geometry in Solidworks
Meshing a geometry of these dimensions was found to be a great complication in Solidworks. The
most refined mesh possible results in meshing errors, and thus applying mesh control was essential.
Figure 40 shows the mesh control applied.
Figure 40: Mesh control applied on the umbilical geometry in Solidworks
59
N. Dann Ruiz
H Loads Applied in Solidworks

Figure 41 shows the loads applied to the geometry in Solidworks. Recall that the current force is
extracted from Solidworks Flow Simulation, and thus Solidworks Simulation does not show it as
an input load on the geometry.
Figure 41: Loads applied on the umbilical geometry in Solidworks
60
N. Dann Ruiz
I Surge Displacement Results
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
(a) Maximum displacement ∆x = 3.0625m. (b) Maximum displacement ∆x = 3.25m.
Figure 42: Surge displacements for Fpre = 12505.816N (a) and Fpre = 11978.400N (b).
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
61
N. Dann Ruiz
4 4.5
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
(a) Maximum displacement ∆x = 4m. (b) Maximum displacement ∆x = 4.25m.
5 5
4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure 46: Surge displacement for Fpre = 9163.120N . Maximum displacment ∆x = 5.
62
N. Dann Ruiz
J Wave Excitation Results
105 105
3 3
2.5 2.5 X 1.4

X 1.4 Y 262700
Y 251900
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(a) Maximum excitation Fexc = 251900N at w = (b) Maximum excitation Fexc = 262700N at w =
1.4 rad/s. 1.4 rad/s.
Figure 47: Surge excitation for t = 2.5cm (a) and t = 2.75cm (b).
105 105
3 3
X 1.4
X 1.4 Y 282600
2.5 2.5
Y 273000
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1.4 rad/s. 1.4 rad/s.
Figure 48: Surge excitation for t = 3cm (a) and t = 3.25cm (b).
63
N. Dann Ruiz
105
3.5
105
3 X 1.4
Y 300400
X 1.4 3
Y 291700
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1.4 rad/s. 1.4 rad/s.
105 105
3.5 3.5
3 3 X 1.4
X 1.4
Y 308600 Y 316500
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1.4 rad/s. 1.4 rad/s.
64
N. Dann Ruiz
105 105
3.5 3.5
X 1.4 X 1.4
3 3 Y 328500
Y 324000
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1.4 rad/s. 1.4 rad/s.
105 105
3.5 3.5
X 1.4 X 1.4
3 3 Y 328500
Y 324000
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1.4 rad/s. 1.4 rad/s.
65
N. Dann Ruiz
K Solidworks Simulation Results
Figure 53: Von Mises stress for a 3cm armouring thickness
Figure 54: FOS for a 3cm armouring thickness
66
N. Dann Ruiz
Figure 55: Surge displacement for a 3cm armouring thickness
67

IEM Integration Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEM Integration Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEM Integration Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTEGRATION PROJECT IEM

FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Ocean Grazer: An analytical approach to

N. DANN RUIZ S3388751 Prof. dr. A. VAKIS

June 12, 2020

I Research & Design Plan 2

8 Analytical Static Analysis 18

III Full-scale Umbilical 27

D Static Surge Displacement Analysis 55

E Static Analytical Calculations 56

G Solidworks Fixtures and Meshing 59

H Loads Applied in Solidworks 60

I Surge Displacement Results 61

J Wave Excitation Results 63

K Solidworks Simulation Results 66

1 Ocean Grazer Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1 Overview of ongoing studies in the field of subsea umbilicals . . . . . . . . . 8

1 Inputs for mesh generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Research & Design Plan

Figure 1: Ocean Grazer Concept

1.1 Umbilical Cord

25c r Super Duplex-

Figure 2: Cross-section of a high voltage power umbilical (sub, 2019)

1.2 Floater Buoy

1.3 Umbilical Configurations

Steep wave Lazy wave Free Hanging Catenary

3.3 kV) subsea power Fig. flexible

Proc. IMechE Vol. 226 Part O: J. Risk and Reliability

1.4 Equations of Motion

Figure 4: WEC-Sim coordinate system (wec, 2019)

mz̈ = Fex + Frad + Fhs (2)

Frad = −ma (w)z̈(w) − c(w)ż (3)

Fhs = −khs z (4)

(m + ma (w))z̈ + cż + khs z = Fex (5)

Fex (t) = F̂ex (w)eiwt (8)

[−w2 (m + ma ) + iwc(w) + khs ]ẑ = F̂ex (w) (9)

[−w2 (M + Ma ) + iwX(w) + Khs ]Ẑ = F̂ex (w) (10)

Nr. Authors Factors Description

Nr. Authors Factors Description

Table 1: Overview of ongoing studies in the field of subsea umbilicals

2.2 Stakeholder Analysis

Subjects Key players

Marijn van Rooij

Prof. Wout Prins

Prof. Antonis Vakis

Figure 5: Stakeholder matrix

2.3 System Description

Sea level Floater

Figure 6: System description

2.5 Problem Statement

I What is the desired buoy geometry?

Question Deliverable Strategy Tool

NEMOH & Matlab Solidworks & Matlab

Wave Environmental Optimal

Figure 7: Diagram of research tools

6.1 Umbilical Components

Component Specifications Function

Table 3: Description of prototype umbilical components

Data Cable 2 (backup)

Data Cable 1 Turbine