Experimental Modelling of a Floating Solar Power Plant Array under Wave Forcing

Abstract

Floating Photovoltaic (FPV) plants are already well developed, and deployed all over the world, on calm water inland lakes, or in sheltered locations. They are now progressing to be installed in nearshore sites, and in deep water seas. The company HelioRec, developing floating modules to form FPV arrays to be deployed in nearshore areas, was awarded free-of-charge testing of their system by the Marine Energy Alliance (MEA) European program. This paper describes the experimental testing of the 1:1 scale float system, composed of 16 floating modules supporting solar panels and three footpaths, carried out in Centrale Nantes’ ocean wave tank, allowing regular and irregular frontal and oblique wave conditions. Experimental results show that, even in the narrow wave spectrum experimentally achievable, a specific response from the array was revealed: the multibody articulated system exhibits a first-order pitch resonant mode when wavelengths are about twice the floater length. A shadowing effect, leading to smaller motions of rear floaters, is also observed, for small wavelengths only.

Full text

Citation: Delacroix, S.; Bourdier, S.;
Soulard, T.; Elzaabalawy, H.;
Vasilenko, P. Experimental Modelling
of a Floating Solar Power Plant Array
under Wave Forcing. Energies 2023,
16, 5198. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en16135198
Academic Editors: Wilfried van Sark
and Sara Mirbagheri Golroodbari
Received: 1 June 2023
Revised: 4 July 2023
Accepted: 4 July 2023
Published: 6 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
energies
Article
Experimental Modelling of a Floating Solar Power Plant Array
under Wave Forcing
Sylvain Delacroix 1, *, Sylvain Bourdier 1, Thomas Soulard 1, Hashim Elzaabalawy 2and Polina Vasilenko 2
1Centrale Nantes, LHEEA Laboratory, 44321 Nantes, France; sylvain.bourdier@ec-nantes.fr (S.B.)
2HelioRec, 1 Rue Mondesir, 44007 Nantes, France; pvasilenko@heliorec.com (P.V.)
*Correspondence: sylvain.delacroix@ec-nantes.fr
Abstract:
Floating Photovoltaic (FPV) plants are already well developed, and deployed all over
the world, on calm water inland lakes, or in sheltered locations. They are now progressing to be
installed in nearshore sites, and in deep water seas. The company HelioRec, developing floating
modules to form FPV arrays to be deployed in nearshore areas, was awarded free-of-charge testing
of their system by the Marine Energy Alliance (MEA) European program. This paper describes
the experimental testing of the 1:1 scale float system, composed of 16 floating modules supporting
solar panels and three footpaths, carried out in Centrale Nantes’ ocean wave tank, allowing regular
and irregular frontal and oblique wave conditions. Experimental results show that, even in the
narrow wave spectrum experimentally achievable, a specific response from the array was revealed:
the multibody articulated system exhibits a first-order pitch resonant mode when wavelengths are
about twice the floater length. A shadowing effect, leading to smaller motions of rear floaters, is also
observed, for small wavelengths only.
Keywords: floating PV system; model testing; wave-induced response
1. Introduction
In 2021, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted, assuming current
policy and technology trends to continue, a nearly 50% increase in energy demand in
2050 compared to 2020, primarily due to population and economic growth, particularly
in Asia [
1
]. Renewable energies are expected to be producing around 27% of worldwide
energy production in 2050, a 165% increase compared to 2020 levels.
Amongst renewable energies, solar energy captured by photovoltaic (PV) panels is now
recognised as one of the most reliable sources of energy. The sector’s worldwide installed
capacity grew from small-scale applications totalling 10.5 GW in 2008 to a mainstream
energy production sector in 2021 with 940 GW installed [
2
], as the module prices decreased
to 0.30 USD/Wp in 2018, a drop of nearly 99.6% since 1976 [
3
]. Yet, the sector’s expansion
is limited by its large requirement of land space, making it compete with traditional uses of
land, like agriculture.
In order to avoid this limitation, Floating Photovoltaic (FPV) plants have been devel-
oped in many parts of the world, primarily on relatively calm free-surface water areas
such as inland lakes and hydropower reservoirs. Their main advantages are an increased
power production due to lower panel temperature and an absence of need for land space.
This latter is one of the main reasons why Japan, which has extensive irrigation basins and
where land space is expensive, has been a pioneer country in this sector. The first research
prototype, a 20 kWp FPV system, was installed in 2007 in Aichi province, Japan. Since
then, many systems have been installed around the world, with increasing capacity. The
first megawatt-scale FPV system was installed in Saitama Prefecture, Japan, with 7.5 MWp
connected in October 2015. At the time of writing, the world’s largest FPV plant, with a
capacity of 150 MWp, was built in Anhui, China, in 2018. A South Korean 2.1 GW FPV
Energies 2023,16, 5198. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16135198 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023,16, 5198 2 of 21
project planned close to Saemangeum seawall, the world’s longest constructed dyke, will
be, at its term in 2025, 14 times larger, comprising around 5 million PV modules [4].
FPV has grown at a rate of 133% per year over the decade [
5
]. Its cumulative global
installed capacity reached a gigawatt in 2018, and 2.6 GW in 2020 [
6
]. These systems present
the advantages of being installed on underused space areas, decreasing the evaporation of
water, as well as increasing the energy production of the solar panels due to extra cooling
offered by the water, and larger wind exposure. They can also take advantage of the existing
power supply chain already in place at hydropower plants. A more exhaustive list of its
advantages and disadvantages is provided in [3].
The most important parts of FPV systems are the mooring system, separate float
structures, PV panels, electrical cables, connections used underwater, and power invert-
ers [
7
]. Recommended practice (DNVGL-RP-0584, published in March 2021) [
8
] provides
commonly recognised guidance based on a list of technical requirements for accelerating
safe, sustainable, and sound design, and developing operation and decommissioning of
floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) projects. It focuses on FPV systems located in sheltered,
inland water bodies, while still being applicable for nearshore locations, in reasonably
sheltered areas and with significant wave heights up to 2–3 m.
Few simulation software have been developed that are used and recognised to accu-
rately assess the energy yield and bankability of land-based PV systems, which can help
stakeholders in decision-making. Such simulation tools have been crucial in ensuring the
development of the industry. However, this software does not yet allow for the simula-
tion of FPV systems, and needs some modifications to even approach the energy yield of
FPV plants. Oliveira-Pinto and Jokkermans used the software PVsyst
®
[
1
], developed for
land-based PV systems energy yield assessment, and modified the albedo, the U-value
reflecting the heat loss factor between the solar module and its surroundings, and the
mismatch losses and soiling losses [
3
]. Kichou et al. developed a simulation tool based on
MATLAB for modelling PV outputs and rhino/grasshopper for the 3D modelling of the PV
geometries, detailed solar radiation, and shading analysis [
9
]. They used empirical models
for the array panel temperature depending on the ambient air temperature and on the
wind speed. The cooling of the panels due to water proximity and increased wind speed,
are, in fact, very dependent on the system design, and on the location of the considered
panel in the array, as shown by the field experiments that took place in Singapore’s Tengeh
Reservoir testbed [10].
As stated by Oliveira-Pinto and Lopez, due to the scarcity of possible inland lake
installations, there is now momentum in the sector to develop FPV systems to be deployed
in a marine environment with a natural transition to nearshore locations, and then more
exposed offshore environments [11].
The transition of FPVs to the offshore environment has begun, and many new designs
are under investigation to survive the harsh marine environment. Despite the numerous
various designs developed, a classification of FPV technologies based on their structural
arrangement was attempted in [12], and presented here in Figure 1.
FPV systems can be superficial, where the PV modules are directly installed over the
water surface. Superficial FPV systems can be rigid or flexible. The company, Oceans of
Energy, for example, develops an FPV system where groups of solar panels are mounted
onto flat rigid floating bodies, interconnected to produce an array. As the solar panels
are very close to the free surface, this system can be considered a rigid superficial FPV
system. The company installed the first modules of the world’s first offshore FPV farm in
the Dutch North Sea. The 500 KWp Oceans of Energy Offshore FPV Farm, now in operation
12 km offshore in high waves since 2020, is said to be developed and proven for offshore
high-wave application in salt water, to last 25 years with minimum and safe maintenance.
The modular system seems capable to withstand rough sea conditions with maximum
wave height up to 13 m [13].

Energies 2023,16, 5198 3 of 21
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21
The modular system seems capable to withstand rough sea conditions with maximum
wave height up to 13 m [13].
Figure 1. Classification of FPV systems, from [12].
The Norwegian company Sunlit Sea also tested a full-scale model of its superficial
rigid floating solar technology [14], made of fully functional solar panel floats, including
the proprietary built-in motion sensors, at Stadt Towing Tank hydrodynamic facility in
Norway. The model studied comprised solar panel floats linked together. It could only
have been tested in frontal wave conditions in this 185 m long and 8 m wide towing tank.
Flexible FPV systems can also use large thin floating flexible films to attach rigid PV
panels. This is, for example, the design adopted by the Ocean Sun company, which has
installed its circular flexible FPV system on calm waters, and now tests two of those systems
close to an offshore wind turbine, making it an hybrid wind–solar offshore system [15].
Thin-film flexible FPVs have been specially developed for the offshore environment
[16] and are still in development, for example, in the Solar@Sea and Solar@Sea II projects
[17,18]. The Solar@Sea II project includes testing of two floats measuring 7 × 13 m topped
by 20 kWp of solar modules, with both the panels and floats made of a flexible material
developed by the European consortium. This project is now continued by Bluewater
Energy Services, which will build a flexible floating solar demonstration project in the
North Sea. The system uses flexible thin-film PV modules and flexible floaters that move
with the waves [19].
FPV systems can also be pontoon-type, where an intermediate floating platform holds
the rigid PV modules out-of-water. Pontoon-type FPV systems are divided in three classes.
Class 1 pontoon-type FPV systems consist of rafts built with buoyant trusses holding a
supporting structure for several PV panels. This is the first design used for the first
commercial FPV system, at 175 kWp, installed at the Far Niente vineyard in California [20].
In class 2 pontoon-type FPV systems, individual PV panels are held by a single float
with built-in rails, connected to each other through pins. This design was first developed by
the French company Ciel et Terre based in Sainghin-en-Mélantois, in 2011 with their
patented Hydrelio floating system [21].
Figure 1. Classification of FPV systems, from [12].
The Norwegian company Sunlit Sea also tested a full-scale model of its superficial
rigid floating solar technology [
14
], made of fully functional solar panel floats, including
the proprietary built-in motion sensors, at Stadt Towing Tank hydrodynamic facility in
Norway. The model studied comprised solar panel floats linked together. It could only
have been tested in frontal wave conditions in this 185 m long and 8 m wide towing tank.
Flexible FPV systems can also use large thin floating flexible films to attach rigid PV
panels. This is, for example, the design adopted by the Ocean Sun company, which has
installed its circular flexible FPV system on calm waters, and now tests two of those systems
close to an offshore wind turbine, making it an hybrid wind–solar offshore system [15].
Thin-film flexible FPVs have been specially developed for the offshore environ-
ment [
16
] and are still in development, for example, in the Solar@Sea and Solar@Sea II
projects [
17
,
18
]. The Solar@Sea II project includes testing of two floats measuring
7×13 m
topped by 20 kWp of solar modules, with both the panels and floats made of a flexible
material developed by the European consortium. This project is now continued by Bluewa-
ter Energy Services, which will build a flexible floating solar demonstration project in the
North Sea. The system uses flexible thin-film PV modules and flexible floaters that move
with the waves [19].
FPV systems can also be pontoon-type, where an intermediate floating platform holds
the rigid PV modules out-of-water. Pontoon-type FPV systems are divided in three classes.
Class 1 pontoon-type FPV systems consist of rafts built with buoyant trusses holding
a supporting structure for several PV panels. This is the first design used for the first
commercial FPV system, at 175 kWp, installed at the Far Niente vineyard in California [
20
].
In class 2 pontoon-type FPV systems, individual PV panels are held by a single float
with built-in rails, connected to each other through pins. This design was first developed
by the French company Ciel et Terre based in Sainghin-en-Mélantois, in 2011 with their
patented Hydrelio floating system [21].
In class 3 pontoon-type plants, floats are assembled to create a large floating platform
where the PV modules and electrical components are installed independently. These large

Energies 2023,16, 5198 4 of 21
platforms can then be assembled to create a large power production platform. It is, for
example, the design path chosen by SolarDuck company, which tested a scaled model of a
1 MW floating solar platform at the LIR facility in Cork [22]. The scaled model, consisting
of thirteen coupled platforms, underwent tests related to induced wave dynamics.
Moss Maritime–Equinor also developed a class 3 FPV plant, consisting of large plat-
forms supporting a large number of PV panels, linked together. They tested their concept
using a 1:13 scale model of a floating solar power facility, consisting of 64 floaters, all
coupled together [
23
]. They measured wave information and the movements of floats and
loads in the mooring and connection points. Moss Maritime used experimental data to
calibrate its numerical model, which will later be used to design and optimise the actual
installations for Equinor in a joint floating solar pilot planned for deployment off Frøya
in Norway.
Austria’s Swimsol company collaborated with Vienna University of Technology to
develop the world’s first offshore floating solar solution, a class 1 pontoon-type FPV system,
and they launched in 2014 the world’s first floating solar system, corrosion-proof, that can
survive waves of tropical shallow water lagoons, along with currents, tides, extreme UV,
and humidity [24]. They actually operate over 15 MWp around the Maldive Islands.
Research is therefore ongoing on this relatively new domain of offshore floating solar
farms. Numerical modelling of FPV farms subject to wave forcing have been carried out
using different numerical methods, depending on the nature of the system.
Sree et al. developed a numerical method based on finite elements for the design as-
sessment of the maximum stress/strain and displacement of massively connected modular
floating solar farms under wave action [
25
]. They carried out experimental validation of
the model using a 1:30 scale model of a global array with 18 walkway modules and 32 PV
modules made from flexible perforated sheets in a 0.3 m wide 2D wave flume.
Penpen and Wellen developed a model for large-scale FPVs to be used for flexible
FPVs, as developed by the Ocean Sun company, using the Euler–Bernoulli–von Kármán
beam model for the structure and nonlinear Stokes theory to model the fluid [
26
]. They
based their theoretical analysis on the problem of floating ice sheets or very large floating
structures. Their theoretical model is especially suitable for large membrane-type FPV
plants in all water depths.
Numerical simulation is much more difficult for pontoon-type FPV systems. Baruah
et al. carried out CFD simulations of a twin-cylinder platform, as used in class I pontoon-
type FPV, with the RANS model to take into account the viscous effects [
27
]. The validity of
the viscous model is evaluated for strong nonlinear incident waves through comparisons
with experimental data.
Jun-Lee et al. compared experimental and numerical simulations, carried out using
CFD model Star-CCM+ V15.06, of a class 1 pontoon-type FPV array composed of an
articulated four-unit block, each unit being made of nine square floating blocks supporting
a frame holding three rows of solar panels [
28
]. The mooring conditions simulated a
catenary mooring considered at a loosened state at low tide. Experimental tests were
carried out in a 3.5 m towing tank at Inha University, India, under frontal and 41
◦
angled
regular waves. Numerical results agreed well with experimental data, despite experimental
hinges not behaving as the uniaxial numerically simulated hinges.
Ikhennicheu et al. used a quasi-static method to determine environmental loads on a
class 2 pontoon-type FPV plant [
29
]. They considered drag-wind loads, variable depending
on the technology and wind direction, current loads, and wave loads with significant wave
height derived from the Donelan–Jonswap method. They concluded that the dominant
loads for the offshore FPV plant modelled are the wave loads, contrary to the two other FPV
plants placed on lakes where wind loads are dominant. They highlight the main challenges
in the mooring design for each case, the offshore case requiring the larger number of
mooring lines.
Ikhennicheu et al. modelled a 3
×
3 class 2 pontoon-type FPV using the industrial code
Orcaflex [
30
]. They compared different modelling methods, one using the hydrodynamic

Energies 2023,16, 5198 5 of 21
database (HBD) obtained for one floater for all floaters, i.e., without considering body
interactions, one model simulating the whole platform as rigid, and the last one considering
all floaters individually, accounting for the hydrodynamic interactions. This last one, being
more accurate, is seen as the best approach, and considered as the reference model in the
lack of available experimental data. The first modelling strategy gives results close to those
of the reference model and is about seven times faster. The model is not yet ready for
large-scale islands, and directions are discussed for modelling of large-scale FPV plants.
Accurate numerical modelling of such a class 2 pontoon-type FPV plant is not an
easy task. The aim of numerical modelling, in this area, would be to predict the motions,
loads, and PV panel production for an entire FPV plant comprising thousands of intercon-
nected modules, under wave, wind, and current loading. CFD models, as that used by
Jun-Lee et al. [28]
, are not yet able not take into account so many individual floaters. There
seems to be a lack in the industry for numerical modelling of large pontoon-type FPV plants.
A hybrid approach, associating experimental modelling of a subsystem and upscaling using
numerical simulations, seems to be the best available approach. Experimental testing is
therefore required to appreciate their behaviour under water wave loading, and to obtain
solid databases to be used to validate numerical models.
The present paper aims at presenting experimental results on the behaviour of a class
2 pontoon-type FPV array under wave loads. The system studied here is that developed
by the company Heliorec. HelioRec is a French company developing class 2 pontoon-type
FPV plants destined to be installed nearshore, and later offshore [
31
,
32
]. They obtained
the support of the four-year Marine Energy Alliance (MEA) European project, aimed at
helping marine energy technology companies in early stages of development (TRL 3-4) to
progress the technical and commercial maturity of their systems.
As no numerical model is yet able to predict the behaviour of a large array of class
2 pontoon-type FPV plants subjected to water waves, the support offered by MEA to
increase the TRL level of HelioRec’s concept included an experimental test campaign, to be
carried out in Centrale Nantes’ ocean engineering wave tank.
The experiments described here are destined to give insight into the behaviour of a
4×4 class
2 pontoon-type FPV array under wave loads. The experimental results presented
here can be used, and are being used, to calibrate and validate numerical models of this
class 2 pontoon-type FPV array, notably those developed by HelioRec.
The main contribution of this paper consists in providing a detailed description of the
response from the array under wave loads. Particular attention is given to the system’s first
resonant mode appearing when the wavelength is twice a floater’s length, which could be
an important design case as it implies large loads at the floater connections. Experimental
results also show a shadowing effect, implying smaller motions of the back floaters as some
wave energy is extracted by the first floaters to see the waves. An important observation is
that this shadowing effect seems to occur only for short waves.
This paper first presents the experimental model and experimental setup used in
this work, the test conditions, and the experimental procedure. Results on the structure’s
behaviour under wave loading are given for the cases of frontal regular waves, frontal
irregular waves, oblique regular waves, and oblique irregular waves. Particular attention
is given to a specific response from the system observed during the experimental tests.
2. Experimental Modelling
HelioRec’s design belongs to class 2 pontoon-type FPV as it uses individual floaters
made of recycled plastic, which reduces both the cost of the system and its carbon footprint,
supporting each solar panel. Their array design includes footpath modules, also made of
recycled plastic, in order to create catwalks to give human access to individual panels for
maintenance. Junctions of the different modules are made using pivot connectors.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 6 of 21
2.1. Model Tested
For the experimental tests, part of an array, including 16 solar panel floaters and
12 footpath modules, was designed and built, as shown Figure 2.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21
recycled plastic, in order to create catwalks to give human access to individual panels for
maintenance. Junctions of the different modules are made using pivot connectors.
2.1. Model Tested
For the experimental tests, part of an array, including 16 solar panel floaters and 12
footpath modules, was designed and built, as shown Figure 2.
Figure 2. CAD view of the FPV array tested, with its 16 floaters holding solar panels, and 12 footpath
modules forming three catwalks. On the figure, a solar panel has been rendered transparent in order
to show the geometry of the floaters.
The aim of the experimental campaign was to gain some valuable experimental data
of this system’s response under wave loads to validate numerical modelling of the system,
and then later apply this model to achieve accurate simulation of a larger array and finally
of an entire FPV plant. Experimental data of interest were the whole system’s response
under wave loads, the mooring loads, and loading at the connections in between floaters
for design purposes.
For this test campaign, HelioRec wanted to test two different designs of the floats
supporting the solar panels. In the first configuration tested, the solar panel floats were
empty and open at their bottom. This design would have allowed for stackability of the
floats during installation of a large array. In the second design tested, the solar panel floats
were closed at 100 mm from the bottom with polystyrene foam.
The target density of the recycled plastic used by the company is low, around 925
kg/m3. The weight of an assembly floater and solar panel was to be 37.35 kg at scale 1, and
the weight of the footpath modules 19.4 kg.
With the weight of a module varying with ξ3, ξ being the length scale factor, it was very
difficult to technically design a model, rigid enough, with a scale factor larger than 1. This
scale was then chosen in order to best approach the main mechanical properties of each
module, particularly their mass, the position of their centres of gravity and inertia matrices,
and the positions of their connections, and therefore to model at best the whole behaviour
of the array. Centrale Nantes’ ocean engineering wave tank, being 30 m wide and 50 m long,
could accommodate such a full-scale model of a 4 × 4 solar panel floater array, including its
footpaths. The total model was about 8.2 m in width and 7.3 m in length.
All the external faces of the components in the model (footpath and solar panel floats)
were made using 3 mm thick aluminium. The footpath modules were waterproof. The
panels representing the solar panels were made from plywood, and present on the model
in the tests in order to approach at best the target inertia of the assembly floater + panel,
and to account for air damping effects of the solar panels on the dynamics of their floats,
even if no wind forcing was applied on the structure.
The detailed scheme of the tested array, presented here in Figure 3, best shows the
positions of the different pivot connections, around the x-axis between footpath modules,
and around the y-axis between footpath modules and the floaters holding solar panels
Figure 2.
CAD view of the FPV array tested, with its 16 floaters holding solar panels, and 12 footpath
modules forming three catwalks. On the figure, a solar panel has been rendered transparent in order
to show the geometry of the floaters.
The aim of the experimental campaign was to gain some valuable experimental data
of this system’s response under wave loads to validate numerical modelling of the system,
and then later apply this model to achieve accurate simulation of a larger array and finally
of an entire FPV plant. Experimental data of interest were the whole system’s response
under wave loads, the mooring loads, and loading at the connections in between floaters
for design purposes.
For this test campaign, HelioRec wanted to test two different designs of the floats
supporting the solar panels. In the first configuration tested, the solar panel floats were
empty and open at their bottom. This design would have allowed for stackability of the
floats during installation of a large array. In the second design tested, the solar panel floats
were closed at 100 mm from the bottom with polystyrene foam.
The target density of the recycled plastic used by the company is low, around
925 kg/m3
.
The weight of an assembly floater and solar panel was to be 37.35 kg at scale 1, and the
weight of the footpath modules 19.4 kg.
With the weight of a module varying with
ξ3
,
ξ
being the length scale factor, it was
very difficult to technically design a model, rigid enough, with a scale factor larger than
1. This scale was then chosen in order to best approach the main mechanical properties
of each module, particularly their mass, the position of their centres of gravity and inertia
matrices, and the positions of their connections, and therefore to model at best the whole
behaviour of the array. Centrale Nantes’ ocean engineering wave tank, being 30 m wide
and 50 m long, could accommodate such a full-scale model of a 4
×
4 solar panel floater
array, including its footpaths. The total model was about 8.2 m in width and 7.3 m in length.
All the external faces of the components in the model (footpath and solar panel floats)
were made using 3 mm thick aluminium. The footpath modules were waterproof. The
panels representing the solar panels were made from plywood, and present on the model
in the tests in order to approach at best the target inertia of the assembly floater + panel,
and to account for air damping effects of the solar panels on the dynamics of their floats,
even if no wind forcing was applied on the structure.
The detailed scheme of the tested array, presented here in Figure 3, best shows the
positions of the different pivot connections, around the x-axis between footpath modules,
and around the y-axis between footpath modules and the floaters holding solar panels and
between the floaters themselves. Figure 3also presents the numbering of the floaters that is
used throughout this paper.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 7 of 21
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
and between the floaters themselves. Figure 3 also presents the numbering of the floaters
that is used throughout this paper.
Figure 3. Top-view scheme of the 4 × 4 solar-panel floating array including the footpath modules
represented here in light grey. All connectors, between footpath modules and between floats, were
pivot connectors. Frontal incident wave direction is the x-direction.
To obtain information on the loads at the junctions in the array, two six degree-of-
freedom (dof) load cells K-MCS10-005 (BG1) from HBM, with measurement ranges for
forces Fx and Fy of 1 kN and Fz of 5 kN and for moments Mx, My, and Mz of 50 N.m,
were placed on two of the front and back connections of floater number 10, in the centre
of the array, as this is where larger loads were predicted by preliminary numerical
simulations. These preliminary simulations made by partners of HelioRec were made
with a similar array, but with slightly different dimensions as that studied experimentally.
The model has not been adapted for the dimensions of the tested array, and no
comparisons were made.
The load cells were used principally due to their small size, allowing respecting the
geometrical arrangement of the connections between the floaters. These load cells did
record loads during the first campaign with the first floaters design, but underwent water
damage before the second test campaign with the second floaters design.
The main characteristics of the experimental model investigated here are
summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the experimental system under study.
Property Value Unit
PV
floate
Width 1.21 m
Length 1.27 m
Figure 3.
Top-view scheme of the 4
×
4 solar-panel floating array including the footpath modules
represented here in light grey. All connectors, between footpath modules and between floats, were
pivot connectors. Frontal incident wave direction is the x-direction.
To obtain information on the loads at the junctions in the array, two six degree-of-
freedom (dof) load cells K-MCS10-005 (BG1) from HBM, with measurement ranges for
forces Fx and Fy of 1 kN and Fz of 5 kN and for moments Mx, My, and Mz of 50 N.m, were
placed on two of the front and back connections of floater number 10, in the centre of the
array, as this is where larger loads were predicted by preliminary numerical simulations.
These preliminary simulations made by partners of HelioRec were made with a similar
array, but with slightly different dimensions as that studied experimentally. The model has
not been adapted for the dimensions of the tested array, and no comparisons were made.
The load cells were used principally due to their small size, allowing respecting the
geometrical arrangement of the connections between the floaters. These load cells did
record loads during the first campaign with the first floaters design, but underwent water
damage before the second test campaign with the second floaters design.
The main characteristics of the experimental model investigated here are summarised
in Table 1.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 8 of 21
Table 1. Main characteristics of the experimental system under study.
Property Value Unit
PV floaters
Width 1.21 m
Length 1.27 m
Height 0.495 m
Mass 37.35 kg
z-position of CoG (from the bottom of the floaters) 0.293 m
Panel tilt 12 degrees
y-spacing between floater connectors 0.68 m
x-spacing between floaters 0.132 m
x-spacing between floater and footpath modules 0.12 m
Footpath modules
Width 1.972 m
Length 0.563 m
Height 0.14 m
Mass 19.4 kg
y-spacing between modules connectors 0.68 m
x-spacing between modules connectors 0.431 m
y-spacing between modules 0.108 m
2.2. Test Setup
The tests were carried out in Centrale Nantes’ ocean engineering wave tank, filled with
clear water, at about 12
◦
C during the entire test campaign. As shown in Figure 4, the model
front face was placed 13 m away from the wave maker via four horizontal mooring lines,
numbered L1 and L2 for the front mooring lines and L3 and L4 for the back mooring lines.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
Height 0.495 m
Mass 37.35 kg
z-position of CoG (from the bottom of the floaters) 0.293 m
Panel tilt 12 degrees
y-spacing between floater connectors 0.68 m
x-spacing between floaters 0.132 m
x-spacing between floater and footpath modules 0.12 m
Footpath modules
Width 1.972 m
Length 0.563 m
Height 0.14 m
Mass 19.4 kg
y-spacing between modules connectors 0.68 m
x-spacing between modules connectors 0.431 m
y-spacing between modules 0.108 m
2.2. Test Setup
The tests were carried out in Centrale Nantes’ ocean engineering wave tank, filled
with clear water, at about 12 °C during the entire test campaign. As shown in Figure 4, the
model front face was placed 13 m away from the wave maker via four horizontal mooring
lines, numbered L1 and L2 for the front mooring lines and L3 and L4 for the back mooring
lines.
Figure 4. Top view visualisation of the experimental setup in the wave tank.
Four resistive wave gauges were placed in the tank, WG1 in front of the model, WG2
aligned with WG1 in the y-direction, WG3 on the side of the model, and WG4 behind the
model during model testing.
Figure 4. Top view visualisation of the experimental setup in the wave tank.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 9 of 21
Four resistive wave gauges were placed in the tank, WG1 in front of the model, WG2
aligned with WG1 in the y-direction, WG3 on the side of the model, and WG4 behind the
model during model testing.
As can be seen on the picture of the array model in still water, presented here in
Figure 5, each of the sixteen solar panel modules was equipped with four lightweight
markers in order to record their motions using four Qualisys Oqus 7+ aerial motion capture
cameras placed on a high footbridge to obtain a large measurement volume.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
As can be seen on the picture of the array model in still water, presented here in Figure
5, each of the sixteen solar panel modules was equipped with four lightweight markers in
order to record their motions using four Qualisys Oqus 7+ aerial motion capture cameras
placed on a high footbridge to obtain a large measurement volume.
Figure 5. Side view of the model in water.
The volume area for motion measurement was calibrated according to the Qualysis
calibrating procedure, using a fixed L-shaped frame and a wand to be displaced in the
large measurement volume. Once calibrated, the system recorded the motion data from
the sixteen floaters in MATLAB files (.mat) where the positions of the solar panel floater
number i, with i ranging from 1 to 16, were measured and exported as Bodyi_X, Bodyi_Y,
and Bodyi_Z in millimetres and its rotations as Bodyi_Roll, Bodyi_Pitch, and Bodyi_Yaw
in degrees.
An inertial measurement unit (IMU) Ellipse-E from SBG was fixed on panel number
10, returning its roll, pitch, angular velocities, and accelerations, to confirm video
measurements and provide more accurate velocity and acceleration measurements.
All tests were visually recorded using a surveillance camera IP PTZ 360° POE IR 150 M
4 MP Auto-Tracking.
The detailed scheme of the mooring system, presented in Figure 6, shows that the
horizontal front mooring lines were at a 44 degree angle from the main model (and basin)
direction, and its horizontal rear mooring lines were at a 31 degrees angle. Each line was
fixed on a side wall of the tank through a stainless steel spring of stiffness k = 53 (±1) N/m.
The length at rest of the springs was 2 m, and pre-tension of about 100 N (±5%) was
applied.
The asymmetric arrangement of the mooring lines meant that, at static equilibrium:
𝐹
cos 𝛼=𝐹
cos 𝛼, (1)
with 𝛼= 44° and 𝛼= 31° . The front mooring forces 𝐹
 were then larger at
equilibrium than the rear mooring forces 𝐹
. Four one dof load cells U9C 500 N from
HBM placed at each mooring connection to the footpaths allowed for recording the
mooring loads. The mooring forces at static equilibrium were recorded at the start of every
test. In most cases 𝐹
= 115 ± 2 N and 𝐹
=96±2 N, which correspond to the mooring
configuration at equilibrium.
Figure 5. Side view of the model in water.
The volume area for motion measurement was calibrated according to the Qualysis
calibrating procedure, using a fixed L-shaped frame and a wand to be displaced in the
large measurement volume. Once calibrated, the system recorded the motion data from
the sixteen floaters in MATLAB files (.mat) where the positions of the solar panel floater
number i, with i ranging from 1 to 16, were measured and exported as Bodyi_X, Bodyi_Y,
and Bodyi_Z in millimetres and its rotations as Bodyi_Roll, Bodyi_Pitch, and Bodyi_Yaw
in degrees.
An inertial measurement unit (IMU) Ellipse-E from SBG was fixed on panel num-
ber 10, returning its roll, pitch, angular velocities, and accelerations, to confirm video
measurements and provide more accurate velocity and acceleration measurements.
All tests were visually recorded using a surveillance camera IP PTZ 360
◦
POE IR 150 M
4 MP Auto-Tracking.
The detailed scheme of the mooring system, presented in Figure 6, shows that the
horizontal front mooring lines were at a 44 degree angle from the main model (and basin)
direction, and its horizontal rear mooring lines were at a 31 degrees angle. Each line was
fixed on a side wall of the tank through a stainless steel spring of stiffness
k=53(±1) N/m
.
The length at rest of the springs was 2 m, and pre-tension of about 100 N (
±
5%) was applied.
The asymmetric arrangement of the mooring lines meant that, at static equilibrium:
FFcos αF=FRcos αR, (1)
with
αF=
44
◦
and
αR=
31
◦
. The front mooring forces
FF
were then larger at equilibrium
than the rear mooring forces
FR
. Four one dof load cells U9C 500 N from HBM placed
at each mooring connection to the footpaths allowed for recording the mooring loads.
The mooring forces at static equilibrium were recorded at the start of every test. In most
cases
FF=
115
±
2
N
and
FR=
96
±
2
N
, which correspond to the mooring configuration
at equilibrium.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 10 of 21
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
Figure 6. Detailed arrangement of the mooring setup. All lengths here are given in mm.
2.3. Test Matrix
The model was tested under regular and irregular wave conditions, with frontal and
oblique waves. Table 2 presents the frontal regular waves chosen for the tests, showing
their wave height 𝐻, their period T, and their corresponding wavelength (λ).
Table 2. Matrix of regular wave conditions used during the tests. Cells in black correspond to non-
feasible wave conditions, due to their too large steepness.
H (m)
T (s) 0.1 1.12 1.27 1.38 1.69 2.04 2.15 2.33 2.53 3.15
λ (m) 2 2.54 3 4.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15
T (s) 0.2 1.27 1.38 1.69 2.04 2.15 2.33 2.53 3.15
λ (m) 2.54 3 4.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15
T (s) 0.3 1.69 2.04 2.15 2.33 2.53 3.15
λ (m) 4.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15
T (s) 2.02 2.14 2.3 2.5 3.13
λ (m) 0.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15
Some of these waves were carefully chosen: the 1.27 s waves correspond to a
wavelength of 2.45 m, equal to twice a floater’s length, and the 2.15 s waves correspond to a
wavelength of 7.26 m, being the total length of the array tested.
The tests with wave parameters highlighted in light grey in Table 2, as that
highlighted in dark grey, were also carried out with oblique waves at 15, 30, and 45
Figure 6. Detailed arrangement of the mooring setup. All lengths here are given in mm.
2.3. Test Matrix
The model was tested under regular and irregular wave conditions, with frontal and
oblique waves. Table 2presents the frontal regular waves chosen for the tests, showing
their wave height H, their period T, and their corresponding wavelength (λ).
Table 2.
Matrix of regular wave conditions used during the tests. Cells in black correspond to
non-feasible wave conditions, due to their too large steepness.
H (m)
T (s) 0.1 1.12 1.27 1.38 1.69 2.04 2.15 2.33 2.53 3.15
λ(m) 2 2.54 3 4.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15
T (s) 0.2 1.27 1.38 1.69 2.04 2.15 2.33 2.53 3.15
λ(m) 2.54 3 4.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15
T (s) 0.3 1.69 2.04 2.15 2.33 2.53 3.15
λ(m) 4.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15
T (s) 2.02 2.14 2.3 2.5 3.13
λ(m) 0.5 6.5 7.26 8.5 10 15

Energies 2023,16, 5198 11 of 21
Some of these waves were carefully chosen: the 1.27 s waves correspond to a wave-
length of 2.45 m, equal to twice a floater’s length, and the 2.15 s waves correspond to a
wavelength of 7.26 m, being the total length of the array tested.
The tests with wave parameters highlighted in light grey in Table 2, as that highlighted
in dark grey, were also carried out with oblique waves at 15, 30, and 45 degrees. The test
highlighted in dark grey was carried out four times during the test campaign to assess the
repeatability of the tests.
Tests were also carried out with frontal irregular waves, characterised by Jonswap
wave spectra with gamma equal to 3.3. Significant wave heights Hs and peak periods Tp
of the wave climates tested are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Wave parameters of the irregular wave climates used during the tests.
Hs (m) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Tp (s) 1.5 2 2.5 3 1.5 2 2.5 3
The wave climates shown in light grey in Table 3were also carried out in oblique
conditions, with incidence angles of 15, 30, 45, and 60 degrees. All waves in oblique
conditions were generated by the wave maker using the Dalrymple method.
Obviously, at scale 1, the tank could not produce 9 or 13 s waves as encountered in
the ocean, even at nearshore sites. The wave climates tested, particularly their periods,
are more specific to the wave climate in a large inland lake than to an offshore test site.
The results from the present tests, having for their main purpose to assess the system’s
behaviour under wave forcing, can still be used to validate a numerical model of the system
by performing model-of-the-model comparisons. As will be seen, over the narrow window
of periods tested, a specific wavelength is highlighted where the system’s response is
more intense.
The wave climates to be used during testing were all calibrated prior to the tests, with
the wave tank empty, equipped with seven calibrated resistive wave probes, including one
at 20 m from the wave maker, in the centre of the wave tank, where the model was to be
placed. Regular and irregular sea states were run and adjusted until the measured wave
height (H or Hs) matched the target, within a 5% error margin.
2.4. Experimental Procedure
One typical experimental test starts with the model at equilibrium in calm water. The
acquisition of all sensors is then started, in order to measure calm water loads, and the
initial positions of the different floaters. The wave maker is started 45 s later to produce
the desired sea state, sending a trigger to the different acquisition systems: one uses
catman system acquisition for all sensors, working with frequency modulation signals,
much less sensitive to the different magnetic fields generated by the various motors in the
laboratory (those of the wave maker, for example), and one used to measure the floaters’
instantaneous positions using the Qualysis video acquisition system. The trigger is later
used in post-processing to produce one synchronised single data file. At the end of the test,
the wave maker stops and the system slowly returns to its original position in still water.
The acquisition systems are then stopped simultaneously.
In order to ensure the quality of the recorded data, a preliminary post-processing of
the data is then carried out using MATLAB-based software developed by the laboratory,
which displays the acquired signals for visual inspection, allows for choosing the time
window to be analysed, and carries out basic wave climate analysis, returning, for example,
T or Tp and H or Hs measured by the different wave probes at their specific positions.
3. Experimental Results
The first design of the floaters was tested first, but proved to be very unstable, as some
of the entrapped air in the floats escaped from the bottom of the floats, especially when

Energies 2023,16, 5198 12 of 21
experiencing large pitch motions. Results from this first test campaign are not presented
in this paper. The second design of the floaters tested seemed to have better seakeeping,
and experimental modelling of this design did provide some valuable information on
the system’s behaviour under waves loads. Only results from the test campaign with the
second floater design are presented thereafter.
3.1. Pitch Response in Frontal Waves
In this configuration with frontal incident waves, the motions and RAOs of the front,
middle, or back lines of floaters (respectively, floaters 1 to 4, or 5 to 8, or 9 to 12, or 13 to 16)
are similar.
This is illustrated in Figure 7for the first line of floaters, i.e., floaters 1, 2, 3, and 4,
where the pitch responses from these floaters are very similar, with the same shapes and
amplitudes. RAOs are plotted against
λ
/L,
λ
being the wavelength and L being the length
of a floater between its front and back articulations (L = 1.27 m).
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
3.1. Pitch Response in Frontal Waves
In this configuration with frontal incident waves, the motions and RAOs of the front,
middle, or back lines of floaters (respectively, floaters 1 to 4, or 5 to 8, or 9 to 12, or 13 to 16)
are similar.
This is illustrated in Figure 7 for the first line of floaters, i.e., floaters 1, 2, 3, and 4,
where the pitch responses from these floaters are very similar, with the same shapes and
amplitudes. RAOs are plotted against λ/L, λ being the wavelength and L being the length
of a floater between its front and back articulations (L = 1.27 m).
Figure 7. RAOs of the pitch responses from the front line of floaters (floaters 1 to 4) obtained for frontal
regular wave tests.
All front floaters present a peak in their pitch response around λ/L = 2, the peak rising
to about 150 degrees/m, i.e., about 2.6 rad/m. In the same way, their pitch responses decrease
for larger wavelengths. To illustrate how the rest of the array behaves, we present in Figure
8 the RAOs obtained for floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14, each being representative of the line of
floaters they belong to.
Figure 8. RAOs of the pitch of floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14 obtained from all regular wave tests.
Figure 7.
RAOs of the pitch responses from the front line of floaters (floaters 1 to 4) obtained for
frontal regular wave tests.
All front floaters present a peak in their pitch response around
λ
/L = 2, the peak rising
to about 150 degrees/m, i.e., about 2.6 rad/m. In the same way, their pitch responses
decrease for larger wavelengths. To illustrate how the rest of the array behaves, we present
in Figure 8the RAOs obtained for floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14, each being representative of the
line of floaters they belong to.
Figure 8illustrates that the RAOs of the pitch motions of the floaters do all exhibit a
peak when the wavelength is about twice a floater’s length. This peak corresponds to a
resonance mechanism due to a natural frequency in the pitch of the assembled system being
excited around that wavelength. The RAOs do not change much with the wave amplitude
increasing, i.e., with the wave nonlinearity varying. This seems to be a first-order response
from the system around this specific wave frequency.
At
λ
/L = 2, with frontal incoming waves, one row of floaters can be on the ascending
part of the wave while the following row is in the descending part of the wave. As can be
seen in the plot of the pitch of floaters 1 and 5, presented in Figure 9, the pitch motions of
two successive rows are very close to a 180-degree phase shift, for λ/L = 2.
The phase shifts between the pitch motions of all successive floaters (between floaters
1 and 5, 2 and 6, 9 and 13, etc.) are presented in Figure 10. This plot clearly shows nearly
180-degree shifts in the pitch of successive rows of floaters at
λ
/L = 2, while the phase shifts
are much lower for other wavelengths.
Such a pitch response was noted by Jun-Hee at al. [
28
] for a class 1 pontoon-type FPV
articulated system, with pitch RAOs for their articulated floating system showing a large
pitch response at wavelengths around twice their body length. Similar pitch response is
also observed in the numerical simulations obtained for the class 2 pontoon-type FPD array
studied in [30].
This is a response that is very specific to the articulated nature of the system, and the
geometrical arrangement of the connections between its bodies. This is a global reaction of
the model at this wavelength, highlighted here over this rather narrow wave frequency
spectrum experimentally achievable.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 13 of 21
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
3.1. Pitch Response in Frontal Waves
In this configuration with frontal incident waves, the motions and RAOs of the front,
middle, or back lines of floaters (respectively, floaters 1 to 4, or 5 to 8, or 9 to 12, or 13 to 16)
are similar.
This is illustrated in Figure 7 for the first line of floaters, i.e., floaters 1, 2, 3, and 4,
where the pitch responses from these floaters are very similar, with the same shapes and
amplitudes. RAOs are plotted against λ/L, λ being the wavelength and L being the length
of a floater between its front and back articulations (L = 1.27 m).
Figure 7. RAOs of the pitch responses from the front line of floaters (floaters 1 to 4) obtained for frontal
regular wave tests.
All front floaters present a peak in their pitch response around λ/L = 2, the peak rising
to about 150 degrees/m, i.e., about 2.6 rad/m. In the same way, their pitch responses decrease
for larger wavelengths. To illustrate how the rest of the array behaves, we present in Figure
8 the RAOs obtained for floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14, each being representative of the line of
floaters they belong to.
Figure 8. RAOs of the pitch of floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14 obtained from all regular wave tests.
Figure 8. RAOs of the pitch of floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14 obtained from all regular wave tests.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
Figure 8 illustrates that the RAOs of the pitch motions of the floaters do all exhibit a
peak when the wavelength is about twice a floater’s length. This peak corresponds to a
resonance mechanism due to a natural frequency in the pitch of the assembled system being
excited around that wavelength. The RAOs do not change much with the wave amplitude
increasing, i.e., with the wave nonlinearity varying. This seems to be a first-order response
from the system around this specific wave frequency.
At λ/L = 2, with frontal incoming waves, one row of floaters can be on the ascending
part of the wave while the following row is in the descending part of the wave. As can be
seen in the plot of the pitch of floaters 1 and 5, presented in Figure 9, the pitch motions of
two successive rows are very close to a 180-degree phase shift, for λ/L = 2.
Figure 9. Pitch time series for floaters 1 and 5 at λ/L = 2, showing out–of–phase pitch motions of the
two consecutive rows of floaters, recorded during test 151 with T = 1.27 s and H = 0.2 m.
The phase shifts between the pitch motions of all successive floaters (between floaters
1 and 5, 2 and 6, 9 and 13, etc.) are presented in Figure 10. This plot clearly shows nearly
180-degree shifts in the pitch of successive rows of floaters at λ/L = 2, while the phase shifts
are much lower for other wavelengths.
Such a pitch response was noted by Jun-Hee at al. [28] for a class 1 pontoon-type FPV
articulated system, with pitch RAOs for their articulated floating system showing a large
pitch response at wavelengths around twice their body length. Similar pitch response is also
observed in the numerical simulations obtained for the class 2 pontoon-type FPD array
studied in [30].
Figure 10. Pitch phase shifts between the different floaters in each row, obtained from regular wave
tests with H = 0.1 m.
Figure 9.
Pitch time series for floaters 1 and 5 at
λ
/L = 2, showing out–of–phase pitch motions of the
two consecutive rows of floaters, recorded during test 151 with T = 1.27 s and H = 0.2 m.
This is an important design condition, as loads at the junctions between modules
become larger at this frequency. This was observed during testing of the first design of the
floaters, which also exhibited an amplified pitch response at
λ
/L = 2, as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 8also shows an interesting phenomenon. For small values of
λ
/L, up to about
λ
/L = 5, the amplitudes of the pitch motions of the floaters in-line with wave direction
decrease in the array. Front floaters exhibit larger pitch motions than the floaters behind
them, and so on. There seems to be a shadowing effect. The first floaters would appear to
extract some energy from the incoming waves, leading to smaller motions of the downward
floaters. This would seem to support the hypothesis stated in the conclusions of [
30
], in
which they expect a large array to present negligible motions of the floaters in the centre of

Energies 2023,16, 5198 14 of 21
the array due to wave energy absorption by side modules. However, this shadowing effect
seems to be effective only for small wavelengths, and floaters in the centre of a large array
could still be exhibiting long period motions.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
Figure 8 illustrates that the RAOs of the pitch motions of the floaters do all exhibit a
peak when the wavelength is about twice a floater’s length. This peak corresponds to a
resonance mechanism due to a natural frequency in the pitch of the assembled system being
excited around that wavelength. The RAOs do not change much with the wave amplitude
increasing, i.e., with the wave nonlinearity varying. This seems to be a first-order response
from the system around this specific wave frequency.
At λ/L = 2, with frontal incoming waves, one row of floaters can be on the ascending
part of the wave while the following row is in the descending part of the wave. As can be
seen in the plot of the pitch of floaters 1 and 5, presented in Figure 9, the pitch motions of
two successive rows are very close to a 180-degree phase shift, for λ/L = 2.
Figure 9. Pitch time series for floaters 1 and 5 at λ/L = 2, showing out–of–phase pitch motions of the
two consecutive rows of floaters, recorded during test 151 with T = 1.27 s and H = 0.2 m.
The phase shifts between the pitch motions of all successive floaters (between floaters
1 and 5, 2 and 6, 9 and 13, etc.) are presented in Figure 10. This plot clearly shows nearly
180-degree shifts in the pitch of successive rows of floaters at λ/L = 2, while the phase shifts
are much lower for other wavelengths.
Such a pitch response was noted by Jun-Hee at al. [28] for a class 1 pontoon-type FPV
articulated system, with pitch RAOs for their articulated floating system showing a large
pitch response at wavelengths around twice their body length. Similar pitch response is also
observed in the numerical simulations obtained for the class 2 pontoon-type FPD array
studied in [30].
Figure 10. Pitch phase shifts between the different floaters in each row, obtained from regular wave
tests with H = 0.1 m.
Figure 10. Pitch phase shifts between the different floaters in each row, obtained from regular wave
tests with H = 0.1 m.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
This is a response that is very specific to the articulated nature of the system, and the
geometrical arrangement of the connections between its bodies. This is a global reaction of
the model at this wavelength, highlighted here over this rather narrow wave frequency
spectrum experimentally achievable.
This is an important design condition, as loads at the junctions between modules
become larger at this frequency. This was observed during testing of the first design of the
floaters, which also exhibited an amplified pitch response at λ/L = 2, as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. RAOs of loads measured by load cell number 2, located between floater 10 and floater 14,
measured during regular wave tests, with H = 0.1 m, during the first test session with the first
floaters design.
Figure 8 also shows an interesting phenomenon. For small values of λ/L, up to about
λ/L = 5, the amplitudes of the pitch motions of the floaters in-line with wave direction
decrease in the array. Front floaters exhibit larger pitch motions than the floaters behind
them, and so on. There seems to be a shadowing effect. The first floaters would appear to
extract some energy from the incoming waves, leading to smaller motions of the
downward floaters. This would seem to support the hypothesis stated in the conclusions
of [30], in which they expect a large array to present negligible motions of the floaters in
the centre of the array due to wave energy absorption by side modules. However, this
shadowing effect seems to be effective only for small wavelengths, and floaters in the
centre of a large array could still be exhibiting long period motions.
Irregular sea states do contain energy over a range of wavelengths, at different
amplitudes. Tests carried out in irregular sea states can therefore be analysed to obtain
results about the system’s behaviour over the ranges of wavelengths where energy was
sent during those tests.
Transfer function estimates are obtained by dividing the spectral density estimates
of the considered motion by that of the incoming waves. Transfer function estimates are
kept if the coherence between the wave and motion signals is larger than a coherence
threshold, usually taken at around 0.9. However, with such a large coherence threshold,
the peak response in pitch of the system at λ/L = 2 does not appear in the derived RAOs.
This is because little wave energy has been sent at this frequency during the irregular
wave tests used, as shown by the Power Spectral Densities (PSD) of the frontal irregular
wave climates used, as presented in Figure 12.
Figure 11.
RAOs of loads measured by load cell number 2, located between floater 10 and floater
14, measured during regular wave tests, with H = 0.1 m, during the first test session with the first
floaters design.
Irregular sea states do contain energy over a range of wavelengths, at different ampli-
tudes. Tests carried out in irregular sea states can therefore be analysed to obtain results
about the system’s behaviour over the ranges of wavelengths where energy was sent during
those tests.
Transfer function estimates are obtained by dividing the spectral density estimates of
the considered motion by that of the incoming waves. Transfer function estimates are kept
if the coherence between the wave and motion signals is larger than a coherence threshold,
usually taken at around 0.9. However, with such a large coherence threshold, the peak
response in pitch of the system at
λ
/L = 2 does not appear in the derived RAOs. This is
because little wave energy has been sent at this frequency during the irregular wave tests

Energies 2023,16, 5198 15 of 21
used, as shown by the Power Spectral Densities (PSD) of the frontal irregular wave climates
used, as presented in Figure 12.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
Figure 12. PSD of the frontal irregular wave climates used during the tests, for cases with Hs = 0.3
m. The different colours will be used to later present results for those conditions.
By lowering the coherence threshold to 0.5, the derived RAOs, shown as plain lines
in Figure 13 for floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14 with results from regular sea states already
presented in Figure 8, do exhibit values for small wavelengths, showing a peak in the pitch
response for the front row of floaters at λ/L = 2.
Figure 13. Pitch RAOs of floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14. Individual markers from experimental data from
regular wave tests, and derived RAOs from irregular wave tests in continuous lines, obtained with
Figure 12.
PSD of the frontal irregular wave climates used during the tests, for cases with Hs = 0.3 m.
The different colours will be used to later present results for those conditions.
By lowering the coherence threshold to 0.5, the derived RAOs, shown as plain lines in
Figure 13 for floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14 with results from regular sea states already presented
in Figure 8, do exhibit values for small wavelengths, showing a peak in the pitch response
for the front row of floaters at λ/L = 2.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
Figure 12. PSD of the frontal irregular wave climates used during the tests, for cases with Hs = 0.3
m. The different colours will be used to later present results for those conditions.
By lowering the coherence threshold to 0.5, the derived RAOs, shown as plain lines
in Figure 13 for floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14 with results from regular sea states already
presented in Figure 8, do exhibit values for small wavelengths, showing a peak in the pitch
response for the front row of floaters at λ/L = 2.
Figure 13. Pitch RAOs of floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14. Individual markers from experimental data from
regular wave tests, and derived RAOs from irregular wave tests in continuous lines, obtained with
Figure 13.
Pitch RAOs of floaters 2, 6, 10, and 14. Individual markers from experimental data from
regular wave tests, and derived RAOs from irregular wave tests in continuous lines, obtained with a

Energies 2023,16, 5198 16 of 21
coherence threshold of 0.5. The colours used for the derived RAOs correspond to those obtained for
wave conditions corresponding to the wave spectra presented in Figure 12.
The spectral analysis carried out shows well the peak in pitch response on floater 2
(it is the same for floaters 1, 3, and 4), facing directly the incoming waves. For the other
floaters, the coherence of the wave and motion signals is too low to obtain RAO values for
small wavelengths from the frontal irregular wave test runs.
The heave response from the system is presented in Figure 14, again for floaters 2, 6,
10, and 14, as they are the same for other floaters of their corresponding lines for these cases
with frontal incoming waves.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
a coherence threshold of 0.5. The colours used for the derived RAOs correspond to those obtained
for wave conditions corresponding to the wave spectra presented in Figure 12.
The spectral analysis carried out shows well the peak in pitch response on floater 2
(it is the same for floaters 1, 3, and 4), facing directly the incoming waves. For the other
floaters, the coherence of the wave and motion signals is too low to obtain RAO values for
small wavelengths from the frontal irregular wave test runs.
The heave response from the system is presented in Figure 14, again for floaters 2, 6,
10, and 14, as they are the same for other floaters of their corresponding lines for these cases
with frontal incoming waves.
Figure 14 shows the system exhibiting heave RAOs at around 1 m/m for the front row
floaters at λ/L = 2, showing that the front row of floaters rides the waves. The heave response
from the next rows of floaters decreases at this frequency. The whole system’s amplified
pitch motion at this frequency seems to limit the heave motion of the rear floaters.
Figure 14. Heave RAOs of the different floaters, plotted with individual markers for frontal regular
wave tests, and in plain lines for the derived RAOs from frontal irregular wave tests. The colours
used for the derived RAOs correspond to those obtained for wave conditions corresponding to the
wave spectra presented in Figure 12.
The heave RAOs of the front rows of floaters peak around λ/L = 2.36, at about 1.2,
and then decrease to tend towards 1 with the wavelength increasing. Similar heave RAOs
are presented in [30].
The system exhibits small surge displacements for small wavelengths, as shown by
the surge RAOs of the different floaters, as presented in Figure 15. It shows a small peak
Figure 14.
Heave RAOs of the different floaters, plotted with individual markers for frontal regular
wave tests, and in plain lines for the derived RAOs from frontal irregular wave tests. The colours
used for the derived RAOs correspond to those obtained for wave conditions corresponding to the
wave spectra presented in Figure 12.
Figure 14 shows the system exhibiting heave RAOs at around 1 m/m for the front
row floaters at
λ
/L = 2, showing that the front row of floaters rides the waves. The heave
response from the next rows of floaters decreases at this frequency. The whole system’s
amplified pitch motion at this frequency seems to limit the heave motion of the rear floaters.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 17 of 21
The heave RAOs of the front rows of floaters peak around
λ
/L = 2.36, at about 1.2,
and then decrease to tend towards 1 with the wavelength increasing. Similar heave RAOs
are presented in [30].
The system exhibits small surge displacements for small wavelengths, as shown by
the surge RAOs of the different floaters, as presented in Figure 15. It shows a small peak
response at
λ
/L = 2.36, but from
λ
/L > 3, the surge of the system increases with the
wavelength. Since the floaters are all linked together, the surge motion (and RAOs) of each
floater in frontal waves is very similar.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21
response at λ/L = 2.36, but from λ/L > 3, the surge of the system increases with the
wavelength. Since the floaters are all linked together, the surge motion (and RAOs) of each
floater in frontal waves is very similar.
Figure 15. Surge RAOs of the different floaters, plotted with individual markers for frontal regular
wave tests, and in plain line for the derived RAOs from frontal irregular wave tests. The colours
used for the derived RAOs correspond to those obtained for wave conditions corresponding to the
wave spectra presented in Figure 12.
3.2. Repeatability of Tests
As mentioned in Section 2.2, the test with frontal regular waves characterised by T =
1.69 s and H = 0.2 m was carried out four times during the test campaign to assess the
repeatability of the tests.
Root-Mean Squared (RMS) values of the pitch and heave responses from all floaters
are presented in Figure 16, divided by their values for test number 149.
Figure 15.
Surge RAOs of the different floaters, plotted with individual markers for frontal regular
wave tests, and in plain line for the derived RAOs from frontal irregular wave tests. The colours used
for the derived RAOs correspond to those obtained for wave conditions corresponding to the wave
spectra presented in Figure 12.
3.2. Repeatability of Tests
As mentioned in Section 2.2, the test with frontal regular waves characterised by
T = 1.69 s
and H = 0.2 m was carried out four times during the test campaign to assess the
repeatability of the tests.
Root-Mean Squared (RMS) values of the pitch and heave responses from all floaters
are presented in Figure 16, divided by their values for test number 149.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 18 of 21
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
Figure 16. Differences in RMS values of the pitch and heave responses from all floaters compared to
their response in test number 149.
It can be seen that the RMS values of the pitch and heave responses from nearly all
floaters stay within 90% and 110% of the value measured in test number 149. The
repeatability of the tests is then asserted to give results within a 10% error margin. This
relatively large error margin can be explained by the complex nature of the articulated
system studied, which renders it quite sensitive to initial conditions. Test number 194,
where the largest discrepancies were measured, was also run after a test with frontal
irregular wave conditions. The time for the wave tank to come back to calm water
conditions after such a test was certainly long, and test number 194 was certainly started
in the tank still containing some water motion. Discrepancies are noted in the system,
which is sensitive to initial conditions,.
3.3. Effect of Wave Incidence Direction
Some tests were run with the wave incident direction at 15, 30, and 45 degrees. RAOs
obtained from tests run with oblique regular waves, presented in Figure 17 for the second
line of floaters (floaters 5 to 9), show that, for long wavelengths, the roll and yaw motions
were becoming more excited with increasing wave direction.
Figure 17. RAOs in roll, pitch, and yaw of the second line of solar panels (floaters 5 to 8) in frontal
(□) and oblique regular waves (● for 15° angled waves, + for 30°, ☆ for 45°), with H = 0.1 m.
Figure 16.
Differences in RMS values of the pitch and heave responses from all floaters compared to
their response in test number 149.
It can be seen that the RMS values of the pitch and heave responses from nearly
all floaters stay within 90% and 110% of the value measured in test number 149. The
repeatability of the tests is then asserted to give results within a 10% error margin. This
relatively large error margin can be explained by the complex nature of the articulated
system studied, which renders it quite sensitive to initial conditions. Test number 194, where
the largest discrepancies were measured, was also run after a test with frontal irregular
wave conditions. The time for the wave tank to come back to calm water conditions after
such a test was certainly long, and test number 194 was certainly started in the tank still
containing some water motion. Discrepancies are noted in the system, which is sensitive to
initial conditions.
3.3. Effect of Wave Incidence Direction
Some tests were run with the wave incident direction at 15, 30, and 45 degrees. RAOs
obtained from tests run with oblique regular waves, presented in Figure 17 for the second
line of floaters (floaters 5 to 9), show that, for long wavelengths, the roll and yaw motions
were becoming more excited with increasing wave direction.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
Figure 16. Differences in RMS values of the pitch and heave responses from all floaters compared to
their response in test number 149.
It can be seen that the RMS values of the pitch and heave responses from nearly all
floaters stay within 90% and 110% of the value measured in test number 149. The
repeatability of the tests is then asserted to give results within a 10% error margin. This
relatively large error margin can be explained by the complex nature of the articulated
system studied, which renders it quite sensitive to initial conditions. Test number 194,
where the largest discrepancies were measured, was also run after a test with frontal
irregular wave conditions. The time for the wave tank to come back to calm water
conditions after such a test was certainly long, and test number 194 was certainly started
in the tank still containing some water motion. Discrepancies are noted in the system,
which is sensitive to initial conditions,.
3.3. Effect of Wave Incidence Direction
Some tests were run with the wave incident direction at 15, 30, and 45 degrees. RAOs
obtained from tests run with oblique regular waves, presented in Figure 17 for the second
line of floaters (floaters 5 to 9), show that, for long wavelengths, the roll and yaw motions
were becoming more excited with increasing wave direction.
Figure 17. RAOs in roll, pitch, and yaw of the second line of solar panels (floaters 5 to 8) in frontal
(□) and oblique regular waves (● for 15° angled waves, + for 30°, ☆ for 45°), with H = 0.1 m.
Figure 17.
RAOs in roll, pitch, and yaw of the second line of solar panels (floaters 5 to 8) in frontal
() and oblique regular waves (•for 15◦angled waves, + for 30◦,Ifor 45◦), with H = 0.1 m.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 19 of 21
The pitch motion was observed to decrease slightly compared to the case with frontal
waves. It can also be observed that the roll and yaw motions are lower for angled waves
for body number 8 than for the other bodies. The incident angled waves coming from the
other side of the model (here on the side of floater number 5), this floater on the other side
of the model seems somewhat protected by the shadowing effect of the other floaters.
4. Conclusions
Scale 1 model testing of a 4
×
4 array of floating solar panels was carried out in
Centrale Nantes’ ocean wave engineering tank. The model tested was a 1:1 scale of a system
of 4
×
4 floaters holding solar panels, with three rows of floating footpaths designed for
maintenance. The total model, encompassing 16 solar panel modules and 12 footpaths, was
about 8.2 m in width and 7.3 m in length. The rigidity of the model was a key design factor,
as its connections on the flat faces of different parts were to be rigid. Rigid model design of
the floaters and footpaths with very low density was achieved using 3 mm thick aluminium
rigid plates and lightweight foam. This allowed for the introduction of two load cells
onto one of the model’s modules, which returned interesting results in an initial campaign.
Sadly, the loads cells were damaged by water during the tests and load measurements are
missing for the last part of the test campaign, including the testing of model design number
two, whose results are presented in this paper.
Tests were carried out with regular and irregular frontal and oblique incoming waves.
At that scale, the tank could produce waves from 1 up to 3.5 s, which is more represen-
tative of a large inland lake wave climate than real offshore sea conditions.
Nevertheless, the tests allowed for isolating one particular phenomenon, a first-order
pitch resonant mode excitation of the multibody articulated system, when wavelengths are
about twice the floater’s length. This could be an important point for design as loads at the
floater connections are larger at that frequency.
Further work needs to be carried out now to assess the system’s behaviour in a
nearshore or offshore site. A suitable numerical model is necessary to perform a model-
of-the-model and adjust the numerical model. This one could later be used for simulating
the array behaviour under a wider wave spectrum, with characteristic wave periods of a
nearshore site, and would be aimed at simulating the response from a large array.
For the moment, CFD and SPH modelling of the tests presented here is being attempted
by HelioRec. CFD or SPH simulations of such an array with 28 interconnected floating
bodies under wave loads will require a very long time. A suitable numerical method
for modelling a large array of class 2 pontoon-type FPV plants comprising thousands of
modules seems to be lacking for safe development of the industry.
Author Contributions:
Design, coordination, and supervision of experimental tests, and post-
processing: S.D. Post-processing and writing—original draft preparation: S.B. Project administration,
test campaign specification, and funding acquisition: T.S. Reviewing and editing: H.E. Test campaign
requirements and scale model funding: P.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Marine Energy Alliance European program. The Marine
Energy Alliance (MEA) is a 4-year transnational European Territorial Cooperation project running
from May 2018 to May 2022. MEA received ERDF support totalling EUR 3.6 million through the
INTERREG North West Europe program.
Data Availability Statement: The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality reasons.
Acknowledgments:
Centrale Nantes acknowledges the provision of test data from HelioRec for analysis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Energies 2023,16, 5198 20 of 21
References
1.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/ieo/tables_side_xls.php (accessed on 14 November 2022).
2.
SolarPower Europe. Global Market Outlook for Solar Power 2022–2026. 2022. Available online: https://www.solarpowereurope.
org/insights/market-outlooks/global-market-outlook-for-solar-power-2022 (accessed on 9 December 2022).
3.
Oliveira-Pinbto, S.; Stokkermans, J. Assessment of the potential of different floating solar technologies—Overview and analysis
of different case studies. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020,211, 112747. [CrossRef]
4.
Bellini, E. South Korean Government Announces 2.1 GW Floating PV Project. 19 July 2019. Available online: https://www.pv-
magazine.com/2019/07/19/south-korean-government-announces-2-1-gw-floating-pv-project/ (accessed on 21 November 2022).
5.
Rosa-Clot, M.; Tina, G. Current status of FPV and trends. In Floating PV Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020;
pp. 9–18.
6.
Solar Edition. Cumulative FPV Capacity Scales up to 2 Times in Less than Two Years. 30 October 2020. Available online:
https://solaredition.com/cumulative-fpv-capacity-scales-up-to-2-times-in-less-than-two-years/ (accessed on 6 March 2023).
7.
Hasnain, Y.E.; Khokhar, M.Q.; Zahid, M.A.; Kim, J.; Kim, Y.; Cho, E.; Cho, Y.H.; Yi, J. A Review on Floating Photovoltaic
Technology (FPVT). Curr. Photovolt. Res. 2020,8, 67–78.
8.
DNV. DNV-RP-0584: Design, Development and Operation of Floating Solar Photovoltaic Systems. 2021. Available online:
https://www.dnv.com/energy/standards-guidelines/dnv-rp-0584-design-development-and-operation-of-floating-solar-
photovoltaic-systems.html (accessed on 7 December 2022).
9. Kichou, S.; Skandalos, N.; Wolf, P. Floating photovoltaics performance simulation approach. Heliyon 2022,8, e11896. [CrossRef]
10.
Liu, H.; Krishna, V.; Leung, J.L.; Reindl, T.; Zhao, L. Field experience and performance analysis of floating PV technologies in the
tropics. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2018,26, 957–967. [CrossRef]
11.
Oliveira-Pinto, S.; Stokkermans, J. Marine floating solar plants: An overview of potential, challenges and feasibility. Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng.—Marit. Eng. 2020,173, 120–135. [CrossRef]
12.
Claus, R.; López, M. Key issues in the design of floating photovoltaic structures for the marine environment. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2022,164, 112502. [CrossRef]
13. Oceans of Energy. Available online: https://oceansofenergy.blue/technology/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
14. Sun, O. Haiyang (Offshore). Available online: https://oceansun.no/project/haiyang-offshore/ (accessed on 30 January 2023).
15.
Trapani, K.; Millar, D.L. The thin film flexible floating PV (T3F-PV) array: The concept and development of the prototype. Renew.
Energy 2014,71, 43–50. [CrossRef]
16.
Solliance Solar@Sea Starts Testing Floating Solar System. Available online: https://www.solliance.eu/2018/solaratsea-starts-
testing-floating-solar-system/ (accessed on 5 December 2022).
17.
Scully, J. Researchers Trial Thin-Film Floating Solar System for Offshore Applications. 29 November 2021. Available online:
https://www.pv- tech.org/researchers-trial-thin- film-floating- solar-system-for-offshore-applications/ (accessed on 6 December
2022).
18.
Santos, B. Dutch Developer Secures Funds for Flexible Floating Solar Pilot in North Sea. 2 December 2022. Available online: https:
//www.pv- magazine.com/2022/12/02/dutch-developer-secures-funds-for-flexible-floating-solar-pilot-in-north- sea/ (accessed
on 12 December 2022).
19. Sujay, S.P.; Wagh, M.; Shinde, N. A review on floating solar photovoltaic power plants. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017,8, 789–794.
20.
Ciel et Terre Hydrelio
®
: The Patented Floating PV System. Available online: https://beta.ciel-et-terre.net/hydrelio-technology/
our-hydrelio-solutions/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).
21.
Garanovic, A. SolarDuck’s Offshore Floating Solar Array Aces LiR NOTF Tests. August 2022. Available online: https://www.
offshore-energy.biz/solarducks-offshore-floating-solar-array-aces-lir-notf-tests/ (accessed on 15 December 2022).
22.
Garanovic, A. Sintef Ocean on Point for Moss Maritime-Equinor Floating Solar Model Trials. 5 May 2021. Available online:
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/sintef-ocean-on-point-for-moss-maritime-equinor-floating-solar-model/ (accessed on 15
December 2022).
23. Swiwsol. Available online: https://swimsol.com/#lagoon (accessed on 15 November 2022).
24.
Garanovic, A. Sunlit Sea Starts Floating Solar Wave Tank Trials. 23 March 2022. Available online: https://www.offshore-energy.
biz/sunlit-sea-starts-floating-solar-wave-tank-trials/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
25.
Sree, D.K.; Law, A.W.-K.; Pang, D.S.C.; Tan, S.T.; Wang, C.L.; Kew, J.H.; Seow, W.K.; Lim, V.H. Fluid-structural analysis of modular
floating solar farms under wave motion. Sol. Energy 2022,233, 161–181. [CrossRef]
26.
Pengpeng, X.; Wellens, P.R. Fully nonlinear hydroelastic modeling and analytic solution of large-scale floating photovoltaics in
waves. J. Fluids Struct. 2022,109, 103446.
27.
Baruah, G.; Karimirad, M.; Abbasnia, A.; MacKinnon, P.; Sarmah, N.; Moghtadaei, A. Numerical Simulation of Nonlinear Wave
Interaction with Floating Solar Platforms with Double Tubular Floaters Using Viscous Flow Model. In Proceedings of the 41st
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 5–10 June 2022.
28.
Jun-Hee, L.; Kwang-Jun, P.; Soon-Hyun, L.; Hwangbo, J.; Tae-Hyu, H. Experimental and Numerical Study on the Characteristics
of Motion and Load for a Floating Solar Power Farm under Regular Waves. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022,10, 565. [CrossRef]
29.
Ikhennicheu, M.; Dangale, B.; Pascal, R.; Arramounet, V.; Trebaol, Q.; Gorintin, F. Analytical method for loads determination on
floating solar farms in three typical environments. Sol. Energy 2021,219, 34–41. [CrossRef]

Energies 2023,16, 5198 21 of 21
30.
Ikhennicheu, M.; Blanc, A.; Danglade, B.; Gilloteaux, J.-C. OrcaFlex Modelling of a Multi-Body Floating Solar Island Subjected to
Waves. Energies 2022,15, 9260. [CrossRef]
31.
Centrale Nantes. Available online: https://lheea.ec-nantes.fr/test-facilities/ocean-tanks/hydrodynamic-and-ocean-engineering-
tank (accessed on 3 October 2022).
32. Heliorec. Available online: https://www.heliorec.com/tech (accessed on 3 October 2022).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.