th

Proceedings of the ASME 28 International Conference on Ocean, Offshore

and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2009
st
th
31 May 5 June, 2009, Honolulu, Hawaii

OMAE2009-79793
MEASUREMENT OF THE EFFECT OF POWER ABSORPTION IN THE LEE OF A
WAVE ENERGY CONVERTER
1

Ian G. C. Ashton
[email protected]

Lars Johanning
[email protected]
2

Brian Linfoot
[email protected]
1.

School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources,

University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus TR10 9EZ, UK

2.

School of the Built Environment, Sir William Arrol Bldg.,

Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK

ABSTRACT
Monitoring the effect of floating wave energy converter
(WEC) devices on the surrounding wave field will be an
important tool for monitoring impacts on the local wave climate
and coastlines. Measurement will be hampered by the natural
variability of ocean waves and the complex response of WEC
devices, causing temporal and spatial variability in the effects.
Measurements taken during wave tank tests at MARINTEK are
used to analyse the effectiveness of point wave measurements at
resolving the influence of an array of WEC on the local wave
conditions. The variability of waves is measured in front and in
the lee of a device, using spectral analysis to identify changes to
the incident wave field due to the operating WEC. The power
capture and radiation damping are analysed in order to predict
the measured changes. Differences in the wave field across the
device are clearly observable in the frequency domain.
However, they do not unanimously show a reduction in wave
energy in the lee of a device and are not well predicted by
measured power capture.
Keywords: wave energy, wave
measurements, wave tank testing

energy

impacts,

wave

1. INTRODUCTION
Experiences in the planning phase of the Wave Hub
development, Cornwall, UK, highlighted stakeholder concern

about the potential effects of wave energy developments

through changes in the wave climate at the coastline [1]. As
wave energy companies move towards commercial deployment,
many leading designs involve multiple devices deployed in
arrays, which have the potential to remove significant energy
from the wave climate on site.
The change in wave climate in the lee of a development
will depend on the response of devices to the incident wave
field. Modelling of downstream impacts has been attempted.
However, predicting the response of a WEC to the incident
waves commonly involves simplification of the physical
properties of the device and the incident wave field. Examples
include [2], who represented WECs as a bottom-mounted
structure with varying porosity levels. A similar approach using
partially transmitting barriers to represent wave farms was also
attempted in the literature [3, 4]. A more accurate representation
of operating devices must take into account the dependence of
their response on incident wave field properties, such as
frequency, amplitude, spectral shape and direction. However, as
an emerging technology, there is very little operational data
available to validate modelling and predictions for WECs in
real sea conditions, and none that concerns arrays.
Robust measurements of the change in wave energy as
waves pass through a wave farm would capture variability in the
effect, enable validation of array-scale hydrodynamic
modelling, and serve as inputs for predictive modelling of the

-1-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1a-c.

SCHEMATIC OF WEC DEVICE MODEL

effect on the wave climate at the coastline. Furthermore,

stakeholders have called for a program of monitoring of early
developments [5]. Measurement regimes are planned using
conventional wave measurement technology, such as
wavebuoys or ADCP's, which measure the wave conditions in
front, and in the lee of operating devices [6]. A number of
challenges that must be overcome in deriving robust
measurements of a wave farms impact using such methods have
been identified, such as:

High variability of the properties of the incident wave

field and associated variations in device response,
mean that a significant data set will be required in
order to relate measurements to wave conditions.

-2-

Random variations inherent in processing and

describing a random wave field will introduce
variability in measurements taken around a
development, and may mask the impact of WEC
devices.

The response of devices and complex interactions

within the array will mean that changes in the lee of the
devices are likely to exhibit spatial patterns that will
not be well resolved by point measurements.

Copyright 2009 by ASME

During the tests a total of six wave probes were situated

around the array, measuring water surface elevation. As a result
of time restraints, for the preliminary analysis presented here
wave data from probes 1 and 3, situated in front and in the lee
of device A (Fig. 3), are used. These two probes offer direct
measurement of the change in wave conditions as the waves
propagate through the device. This is also compared to data
from probe 5. The measurement package installed on the
devices included a motion tracking system, providing motion in
6 degrees of freedom as well as in-line load cells and inclination
instrumentation at the fairlead. Data were sampled at 80Hz
which relates to a scaled rate of 17.89Hz

8
Devices
5

Distance (m)

4
4

Wave probes

2
B

-2
1

Wave Direction

-4
-6
-8

-6

-4

-2

0
2
Distance (m)

Figure 2. WAVE TANK SET-UP. BOXES SHOW THE DEVICES USED

IN EACH TEST.

In this paper, scale wave tank tests are used in a

preliminary analysis into the effectiveness of point
measurements at resolving the influence of WECs on the
propagating wave field. Wave measurements are compared to
the magnitude of power absorbed and the radiated waves, in
order to qualify observed changes to the wave field.
Understanding the influence of devices on the surrounding
wave field will be key to developing effective monitoring
regimes and interpreting results from wave measurement
devices around a wave energy development.
2. EXPERIMENT DESIGN
The tests were conducted at 1:20 scale in the MARINTEK
wave tank, Trondheim. The wave tank is 2.8m deep, 80 metres
wide and 50 metres long with a beach on two sides and wave
makers on the opposite sides. Tests were performed in a range
of regular (monochromatic) and irregular sea-states, generated
from a Bretschneider spectrum. Initial calibration was
performed without devices and subsequently the tests were
repeated for 1 device (A), and arrays of 3 (A,B &C) and 5
devices. The model devices represent a generic oscillating water
column (OWC) type device. They were designed as cylindrical
bodies (Fig. 1a) and moored using a three leg mooring
arrangement (Fig. 1b). The configuration of a mooring leg
consisted of a fibre rope from the anchor to a surface buoy
which was linked via a second rope to fairlead at the WEC (Fig.
1c). The power take off system (PTO) was represented by a
small orifice in the top of the buoy, whose size was calibrated to
offer the maximum absorption of incident power. All figures
used in the following will refer to the full-scale and therefore
have been accordingly scaled from the raw data.

3. WAVE CALIBRATION
Calibration tests were performed without any WECs
installed to identify variability and repeatability of the wave
conditions. This was required in order to quantify the variability
associated with the physical properties of the tank to inform
estimations of the influence of the devices.
Table 1. MEASURED VALUES FOR THE RMS DERIVED WAVE
AMPLITUDE FOR MONOCHROMATIC WAVES.

Input wave
height (m)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.5
2
2.5
3

RMS wave heights at probe:

(m)
1
3
5
1.17
1.36
1.16
1.03
1.20
1.09
0.89
0.95
1.24
1.19
1.35
1.07
0.89
1.19
1.31
1.45
0.91
0.96
1.31
1.50
1.83
1.95
1.77
2.25
2.47
2.02
2.91
2.90
2.51
3.54

6
1.16
1.11
0.96
1.42
1.09
0.91
1.72
2.12
2.55
3.09

Analysis of the monochromatic test data showed that there

is significant variability in the wave conditions at different
positions around the tank, possibly caused by wave reflection.
This contributed to high variation in the root mean square
(RMS) wave amplitudes (Tab. 1). Therefore, the variation in the
wave conditions due to the presence of the WECs cannot be
accurately measured because wave tank variations themselves
dominate observed conditions. In this analysis, no suitable
method could be identified to eliminate the tank effect and
hence monochromatic waves were not further investigated.
Calibration tests conducted for irregular wave states
generated to a Bretschneider spectrum, showed less variability
and matched the input wave conditions more closely. Repetition
of calibration tests found the wave spectra to be closely
matched for repeat tests (Fig. 3a) and significant wave height
and total power to vary by less than 1% (Tab. 2). Examination
of the time series for repeated tests using irregular waves show
that the exact form of the waves generated is also closely

-3-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

12
Calibration (Hs = 3.5m)
Repetition

Table 2. SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHTS MEASURED DURING

CALIBRATION TESTS FOR IRREGULAR WAVES.

Input wave
height (m)
2.5
3.5
3.5 repeat

Spectral energy density (m2/Hz)

10

6
2.86
3.81
3.83

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Freq (Hz)

0.4

0.5

0.6

(a)
Calibration (Hs = 2.5M)
Repetition

Water surface displacement (m)

1
2.84
3.81
3.79

Hm0 (m) at probe:

3
5
2.90
2.90
3.87
3.90
3.86
3.86

-1

-2

370

380

390

400
Time (s)

410

420

motion can be matched to the far field radiated waves. During

these tests, wave probes measured the time-series of the
radiated wave field around the devices (Fig. 4b). Analysis of all
three modes identified that in all cases the dominant frequency
of the radiated waves matched that of the heave motion. The
likely cause of this is that inadvertent vertical pressure was
applied during the manual displacement of the device during
pitch and surge tests. As a consequence, heave motions were
dominant and the radiated waves measured during the other
decay tests were not analysed further.
The average period of the waves measured during the
heave decay test was eight seconds, which closely matches the
natural heave frequency of the device and mooring system (Tab.
3). The wave amplitude was analysed and related to the
transient heave motion of the device. From this, the ratio of
wave amplitude to device motion was calculated as aw/ = 0.22.
Using this ratio, the amplitude of the expected radiated waves
during the tests can be estimated. Furthermore, an estimation of
the wave radiation and damping can be made using theoretical
methods, where the damping has a contribution to the power
capture and motion response.
Table 3. NATURAL PERIOD, LOGARITHMIC DECREMENT, , AND
TOTAL DAMPING, tot, CALCULATED DURING STILL WATER
TESTS.

Pitch
Heave
Surge

(b)
Figure 3. (a) WAVE SPECTRA AND (b) TIME SERIES FOR
REPETITION TEST DURING CALIBRATION

matched between repeats (Fig. 3b). Therefore, changes

observed during irregular wave tests can be attributed to the
presence of the devices.
4. WAVE RADIATION EFFECTS
Oscillating structures radiate waves to the surrounding
fluid, which must be considered when analysing the wave field
around operating devices. Decay tests in still water were
conducted for heave, pitch and surge motions with the moorings
attached. During the tests the device was displaced, before the
restraint was removed allowing a free transient motion. The
resultant time history for the heave motion test is shown in Fig.
4a. The motion characteristics were analysed in terms of
amplitude, period and damping characteristics (Tab. 3). This

Natural Period
19.4
7.8
283.9

0.48
0.36
0.76

tot
0.025
0.045
0.003

4.1 Theoretical Estimations Of Radiation Damping

Forces acting on a floating body can be considered as a
combination of external forces and added mass, damping and
restoring forces. In order to calculate the latter group a forced
oscillation of the body in still water is considered. Waves will
be created by the motion and will propagate away from the
device. The oscillatory motion will cause pressure variations
across the body. Integrating over the whole surface gives the
resultant forces on the body. Defining these forces in x,y,z
directions gives [7]

-4-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

(1)

2
Where A represents added mass with the acceleration d and
dt 2
B represents the total damping with the velocity d . The
dt
subscription k relates to the six directions of forcing, while j
relates to the body response in all modes of motion for a
floating body.
A floating oscillating body can be considered as a classic
spring-mass-damping system. Total damping is the sum of
structural and hydrodynamic damping. Hydrodynamic damping
comprises both viscous and wave radiation damping, whilst
structural damping will include the power capture. As a body
oscillates freely in the absence of forcing, the total damping can
be identified by the transient peak displacement over N cycles

x(t )

/ N ,
0 + w + v = ln
x(t + TN )
where

is the structural damping,

damping and

(2)

is the radiation

is the viscous damping.

Total damping in pitch, heave and surge motions were

found during decay tests and are given in Tab. 3.
For a body oscillating in still water, energy dissipated due
to the radiation damping is equivalent to the energy in the
radiated waves. Therefore, the energy contained in one cycle of
the generated wave gives the damping factor due to wave
radiation. It follows that conventional estimations of radiation
damping can be applied here to estimate the magnitude of the
radiated wave. Treating the device as a surface piercing floating
cylinder, methods have been developed and implemented in
order to solve analytically for the radiated waves from the body
for different motions. An equation for the radiation damping
force per unit velocity and length in heave motion was derived
in the form [7]

a
B33 = w
3
where

Vertical device position (m)

d 2
d
+ B kj
2
dt
dt

Water surface eleveation (m)

Fk = Akj

1
0
-1
-2
-3

0.04

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

320

330

340

350
360
Time(s)

370

380

390

0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04

Figure 4. HEAVE MOTION DURING DECAY TEST FOR (a)

DEVICE AND (b) RADIATED WAVES

direct comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, the calculated

damping from (3) results in a value of tot = 0.052s-1 , which is
close to the measured value (Tab. 3).
In order to predict the wave radiation damping in pitch and
surge, theoretical methods can be applied. Radiation damping
for pitch and surge modes was estimated using a frequency
domain solution described in [8]. Here an approach is applied
based on wave maker theory [9], described in [10] for sway
and in [11] for pitch motion.
In planar motion, the energy input from a cylinder becomes

E=

A0

(sinh( kh) + 2kh)

2k

(4)

Where h is the water depth. For a sway (or equivalently surge)

motion, the co-efficient |A0| becomes

A0

2 x11 sinh( k0 h)e iv

1
sinh(2k0 h) + 2k0 h (ak0 )[ H 1(1) (k0 a )]'

(5)

g2
3,

(3)

a w is the amplitude of the radiated wave and 3 is the

amplitude of the heave motion. Substituting the measured ratio,

aw/ = 0.22, into this equation allows estimation of the radiation
damping force per unit velocity and length, associated with the
heave motions of the device. Incorporating the mass of the
device into equation (3), critical damping associated with wave
radiation can be calculated. However, the critical damping, as
shown in Tab. 3., represents the total damping and hence a

where a is the radius of the cylinder, v = tan 1 (Y1 (k 0 a)' / J 1 (k 0 a)' )

is the phase angle and H 1(1) (k 0 a) is the Hankel function of the
first kind where Y1 (k 0 a ) and J 1 (k 0 a) are Bessel functions.
Equating the energy required to generate waves to the
dissipated energy over one cycle, gives

w =

4 a 3 (sinh(k0 h)) 2
(e iv ) 2 ( H (k0 a )) 2
M (sinh(2k0 h) + 2k0 h)
k0 a

(6)

where

-5-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

(1)

H (k0 a) = {(k0 a)[ H1 (k0 a)]}1

(7)

0.03

0.025

D 2 a

1
wr
M d ka(kh) 2

Radiation damping

A similar formulation applied to pitch mode gives

w =

Pitch test
Pitch
Surge
Surge test

(8)

where d is the draught, D is diameter and M the mass of the

cylinder, and

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

(kh sinh( kh) cosh(kh) + 1) 2

wr =
( H (ka)) 2 e 2iv (9)
sinh( 2kh) + 2kh

0
0

10

ka

Figure 5 shows the theoretically predicted radiation damping

for both pitch and surge modes, where ka is the wave number of
the radiated waves multiplied by the radius of the cylinder. Also
marked are the values for total damping as calculated from the
transient pitch and surge motion tests (Tab. 3). In both cases,
the theoretical predictions of radiation damping are less than the
measured values for total damping, as expected.
From the above estimations of radiation damping, it can be
predicted that the surge wave radiation will have a minimum
effect in comparison to pitch and heave. However, the
theoretical radiation curve predicts that oscillations at the
natural frequency in pitch will be in the higher range for
radiation damping. Therefore, the resultant radiated waves may
have an influence on the wave field analysis.

5. POWER CAPTURE
For a WEC, power take off systems will remove energy
from the propagating waves and cause a reduction in wave
power in its lee. In order to identify whether a measured
reduction in wave power can be attributed to power absorbed by
the device, it is necessary to establish robust estimates of the
power capture. For an OWC, incident waves will cause varying
water surface height within the device. The resultant pressure
fluctuations in the trapped air column force air through a
turbine. Power capture is therefore dependant on the internal
pressure and the volume flux. For these tests, the turbine is
simulated by a controlled orifice at the top of the device (Fig.
1a).
The instrumentation included wave probes measuring the
internal water level within the devices and pressure gauge near
the orifice. Assuming that the water retains a planar surface and
that the surface angle, relative to the walls is always close to
90, this allows estimation of the change in volume of the air
column within the device, V . The measured pressure, p, in
the internal air chamber was then used to calculate the power
capture in the form

Figure 5. THEORETICAL ESTIMATED RADIATION DAMPING

FOR DEVICES UNDER A RANGE OF WAVENUMBERS, (d =
0.147h, AND a/h = 0.107)

Pave =

1 i=n
p(ti )V (ti ) ,
nt i =1

(10)

where n is the number of data points in the record and t is the

time step. The power capture by device A during tests with 1, 3
and 5 installed devices is shown in Tab. 4. The power calculated
here represents the average power absorbed by the device, Pave,
which measures 16m in diameter. For further comparison, the
power absorbed per metre, P, was also calculated and is also
shown in Tab. 4.
The calculated power capture shows that the device, A is
absorbing power from the propagating wave field in all tests
Small variations between the tests with 1,3 and 5 devices
installed can be observed. However, at this stage no conclusion
can be made as to their cause.
Table 4. THE AVERAGE POWER CAPTURE, CALCULATED
USING (10)

No of WECs installed
during test
1
3
5

Pave
(kW)
96.47
95.73
101.5

P
(kW/m)
6.03
5.98
6.34

6. WAVE MEASUREMENTS
During the tests, the wave field was measured at wave
probes situated before and after device A (Fig. 2). The situation
of these wave probes allows measurements of the difference in
the wave power before and in the lee, for the single installation
of device A. The arrangement of 3 and 5 WEC array
installations also shows the influence of surrounding devices on
this difference. The difference in measured wave power is

-6-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

14

16
Wave probe 1
Wave probe 3
Wave probe 5

10
8
6
4

12
10

2
0
0

Wave probe 1
Wave probe 3
Wave probe 5

14

Spectral density (m2/Hz)

Spectral density (m2/Hz)

12

8
6
4
2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0
0

0.6

Freq (Hz)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Freq (Hz)

(a)

(b)
16
Wave probe 1
Wave probe 3
Wave probe 5

Spectral density (m2/Hz)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Freq (Hz)

(c)

Figure 6. WAVE SPECTRA FOR UPSTREAM WAVE PROBE 1, DOWNSTREAM WAVE PROBE 3 AND WAVE PROBE 5. FIGURE (a)
PRESENTS WEC A INSTALLED, (b) WEC A-C INSTALLED, (c) WEC A-E INSTALLED.

calculated and compared to the power capture by device A

during all three tests.
The measured wave field at each wave probe was spectrally
analysed to give a one-dimensional wave spectrum. From this,
the wave energy was calculated using

E = g (m0 ) ,
where m0

(11)

= S ( f )df and S ( f ) represents the estimated

wave spectrum. The power can be calculated according to the

group speed of the waves

P = gm0 c g ,
where in finite water depth, cg can be calculated as

(12)

cg =

1
2kh gT
1+
tanh( kh) .

2 sinh(2kh) 2

(13)

Thus, from the spectral analysis of the wave field, the incident
wave power can be calculated for each wave probe.
Wave spectra from wave probes 1, 3 and 5 are plotted for
all tests (Fig. 6a-c). The difference between the plots on each
graph indicates the difference in power in front and from two
locations in the lee of the devices. As such, these graphs show
the frequencies at which the devices affect the wave field.
In Fig 6a., only device A is in place. Here, a reduction in
wave power can be seen at wave probe 3, directly in the lee of
device A. This is manifest as a decrease in spectral density
across the majority of the active spectrum, with the exception of
the lowest frequencies. Measurements from the same positions

-7-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

12

6.1 Quantifying the power capture from device A,

using wave measurements from probes 1 and 3
From the wave spectrum, the difference in measured wave
power can be quantified using (12). The incident wave power
calculated for tests with 1, 3 and 5 installed devices is shown in
Tab. 5. From these values, the proportional difference in power,
Pw between probe 1, P1, in front of the devices, and probe 3,
P3, in the lee can be calculated (Tab. 5). A positive difference
means that incident power was reduced in the lee of the device.
These differences, shown in Tab. 5, can be compared to the
power capture, P, shown in Tab. 4. Figure 7 plots the calculated
difference in power from the power capture and the wave probe
measurements, for tests with 1, 3 and 5 devices installed.
Table 5. THE INCIDENT WAVE POWER MEASURED AT WAVE
PROBES 1 AND 3

No of WECs
installed
during
test
1
3
5

P1
Wave 1
(kW/m)
55
57.7
60.58

P3 Wave
3
(kW/m)
45.92
51.81
67.44

Pw
(kW/m)
9.08
5.89
-6.86

Both for the test with a single device, and that with three
devices installed, the measurements in the lee of device A
identify a reduction in wave power (Fig. 7). For a single device,
the wave probes identify a reduction in wave power of
9.08kW/m, although power capture was calculated as
6.03kW/m. Therefore a greater reduction in wave power was
measured in the lee than power absorbed by the WEC. For three
installed devices, power difference and captured power matches
closely (Pw = 5.89kW/m, P = 5.98kW/m). When all 5 devices
are installed, the power capture does not vary considerably from
the other tests, (P = 6.34kW/m). However, an increase in the
measured wave power in the lee of the device can be seen as a
negative value for Pw = -6.86kW/m.
A WEC designed as a floating body will not only absorb
waves, it will also interact with the incident waves and influence

Power capture
Measured wave power difference

10
8
6

Difference in power (kW/m)

but with three devices in place show that at the peak

frequencies, the power reduction observed at wave 3 is less
(Fig. 6b). Through comparing Fig 6a and 6b, it can be observed
that the wave spectrum both at probe 3 and at probe 1 increase
with two more devices installed. For tests when 5 devices are
installed, increases in the wave spectra at probe 1 and 3 are
again observed. The increase is largest at wave probe 3,
principally at frequencies between 0.12 and 0.19Hz (Fig 6c).
This leads to wave probe 3 exhibiting the larger spectrum,
indicating an increase in wave power in the lee of the device A
when all 5 devices are installed. With 3 and 5 devices installed,
wave probe 5 is directly in the lee of device C, and the
measured wave field is notably reduced. This device does not
exhibit an increased wave spectrum with more devices installed.

4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10

3
Number of WEC

Figure 7. THE POWER CAPTURE CALCULATED FOR DEVICE A,

AND THE DIFFERENCE IN MEASURED WAVE POWER
BETWEEN PROBE 1 AND 3, AND BETWEEEN 1 AND 5

the surrounding wave field, due to radiation, reflection and

diffraction. In the case of this device model, wave absorption is
expected to represent the strongest influence on the downstream
wave conditions. However it can be seen in Fig 7. that the
difference in wave power measured between the probes 1 and 3
does not follow the magnitude of power absorbed by device A.
Inspection of the estimated wave spectra at these probes shows
that incident wave power measured increases as the number of
WEC installed during the test increases (Fig. 6).
Calibration tests, with no devices installed found a
difference in incident wave power measured at these wave
probes to be less than 1kW/m between repetitions (Fig. 3a).
However, when 5 devices are installed, probe 1 shows an
increase in incident wave power of 4.5kW/m from the
calibration test. This increase is manifest across most of the
active frequencies, with the exception of the low frequencies
(Fig. 8a).
In the case of wave probe 3 (Fig. 8b), in the lee of device
A, a reduction in power of 11.4kW/m from the calibration
spectrum is seen for the test with one installed WEC. However,
subsequent to this reduction, an increase in the spectral energy
occurs for tests where more devices are installed. The wave
power incident on wave probe 3 during the test with three
installed WECs is 5.49kW/m and for five WECs installed is
10.1kW/m, larger than during the calibration tests.
On-board measurements show that power is being absorbed
by device A, however the measurements from wave probes 1
and 3 show a clear effect of the devices to increase the wave
fields at these locations. It is assumed that radiation, and to a
lesser extent diffraction by the devices are responsible for the
greater observed increase at probe 3. Its situation within the
array means that it is subject to a complex combined
contribution from all devices, which may focus the wave field at
this point. In order to quantify the power difference due to
device A from wave probes 1 and 3, a full hydrodynamic study
of all devices would be required, which is beyond the scope of

-8-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

16

this paper. However, the measurements taken during the tests

will allow further study in order to examine the interactions
within the array and the resultant wave field.
Spectral density (m2/Hz)

12

WEC
WEC
WEC
WEC

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Freq (Hz)

0.4

0.5

0.6

(a)
Wave 3 all tests
16

0
1
3
5

14

WEC
WEC
WEC
WEC

Spectral density (m2/Hz)

12

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Freq (Hz)

(b)
16
0 WEC
1 WEC
3 WEC
5 WEC

14
12
Spectral density (m2/Hz)

7. CONCLUSIONS
This study represents a preliminary analysis into the
variability of wave fields surrounding arrays of devices. Its aim
was to analyse how well point wave measurements resolve the
downstream impact of an operating WEC on the propagating
wave climate. In this initial study, measurements of power
capture and theoretical predictions of wave radiation damping
have been made in order to analyse the influence of a device on
the surrounding wave field. For heave, surge and pitch motions,
the radiated waves were estimated using theoretical
formulations for radiation damping. These showed that for this
system, radiated waves would be principally due to heave and
pitch motions and these could be significant in the surrounding
wave field. Power capture was calculated using on-board
measurements of volume flux and internal air pressure.
Tests were run for the device alone and as part of an array
of 3 and 5 WEC. Measurements taken in front of, and in the lee
of a single device were analysed in order to identify if a
reduction in propagating wave power due to the power capture
can be measured. When compared to calculations of power
capture, these measurements identify an unexpected increase in
the measured wave power when multiple devices are installed,
which is largest at probe 3 with 5 devices installed. Wave
spectra from an additional probe behind the array were also
estimated. These show a reduction in spectral energy when
devices are installed, and do not reflect the increase seen at
probe 3. In total, six probes were deployed during the tests. All
the deployed probes, situated around the array (Fig. 2), will be
used in further research into the spatial distribution and
propagation of the measured effects.
The measured increase in wave power at wave probe 3
indicates that hydrodynamic effects dominate the power capture
in the measured near-field wave states. This was supported
through the increase in spectral density with the number of
installed devices measured at probe 1 (Fig. 8a). It is therefore
not possible to quantify the influence of device A on the
propagating wave field by deriving the difference between
measurements at probes 1 and 3. Further research is required,
including a full hydrodynamic analysis of the body, in order to
understand the contribution of complex interactions within the
array. This has not been possible within the time constraints on
this preliminary analysis and will be subject to continuing work.
At this stage, no clear information can be given whether
this form of point wave measurement is suitable to quantify the
impact of WEC on the propagating wave field. However, spatial
variability around this array has been seen to be significant.
These results demonstrate the influence of the placement of
point wave sensors on the wave field measured, which must be
considered when analysing wave measurements for impact
studies. In order to provide a more detailed picture of the wave
field, further measurement points are required. Subsequently it

0
1
3
5

14

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Freq (Hz)

0.4

0.5

0.6

(c)
Figure 8. WAVE SPECTRA FOR EACH TEST AT (a) WAVE 1,
INFRONT OF THE DEVICES, (b) WAVE 3, BEHIND DEVICE
A, AND (c) WAVE 5, BEHIND DEVICE C

-9-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

will be important to predict ahead the power capture in

conjunction with the hydrodynamic effects, in order to place the
wave measurement probes and analyse their output.
The application of wave measurements to practical
applications will also require an understanding of how
differences measured in the waves on site propagate into the far
field, where waves would not be dominated by the local
variations due to diffraction and re-radiation. The degree to
which one can obtain far-field measurements in a tank is limited
by physical constraints, which raises the question of what will
constitute the far field and whether this can be obtained at
reasonable scale within a tank.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the Engineering
and Physical Science Research Council for its support through
the SUPERGEN marine energy research consortium. They also
acknowledge the support of the South West Regional
Development Agency for its support through the PRIMaRE
institution. The work described in this publication was
supported by the European Community's Sixth Framework
Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated
Infrastructure Initiative HYDRALAB III, Contract no. 022441
(RII3). The leading author would like to thank his PhD
supervisor, Prof. George Smith, for his support.
REFERENCES
[1] Halcrow, 2006. Wave hub non-technical summary.
Accessed on-line, June. URL www.wavehub.co.uk.
[2] Venugopal, V., and Smith, G., 2007. Wave climate
investigation for an array of wave power devices. In
Proceedings of the 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference, Porto, Portugal.

[3] Smith, H. C. M., l Millar, D., and Reeve, D. E., 2007.

Generalisation of wave farm impact assessment on inshore
wave climate. In Proceedings of the 7th European Wave
and Tidal Energy Conference, Porto, Portugal, CSM.
[4] Le Crom, I., Brito-Melo, A., and Sarmento, A., 2008.
Maritime Portuguese pilot zone: analysis of the impact on
surfing conditions. In Proceedings of the 2nd
international conference on ocean energy, Brest, France.
[5] Black, K., 2007. Review of wave hub technical studies:
Impacts on nearshore surfing beaches. Review, ASR Ltd,
Marine Consulting and Research, 7 Wainui Rd, Raglan,
NZ.
[6] Smith, G, H., Ashton, I, G, C., and Evans, M, J., Spatial
variation of wave parameters at site specific scale. In
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on ocean
energy, Brest, France.
[7] Faltinsen, O., 1990. Sea loads on ships and offshore
structures. Cambridge University Press.
[8] Yeung, R, W., 1981. Added mass and damping of a
vertical cylinder in finite-depth waters. Applied Ocean
Research 3, July, pp. 119-133.
[9] Dean, R., and Dalrymple, R., 1984. Water wave
mechanics for engineers and scientists. Prentice Hall.
[10] Johanning, L., Bearman, P. W., and Graham, J. M. R.,
2001. Hydrodynamic damping of a large scale surface
piercing circular cylinder in planar oscillatory motion.
Journal of fluids and structures, 15, pp. 891908.
[11] Johanning, L., 2008. Dynamic response characteristics of
a floating wind turbine tower at low response frequency
No. OMAE2009-79768. Under review for the 28th Int.
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering , Honolulu, Hawaii.

- 10 -

Copyright 2009 by ASME