To Magdalena
Front cover: The buoy of the wave energy converter L3. In the background, Klammerskär and the observation tower. June 2009. Back cover: The rubber dinghy Bullen,
which has made many trips to and from Klammerskär, with and without the author. In
the background, the southern marker buoy for the Lysekil research site can be seen.
July 2011.
List of Papers
This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text
by their Roman numerals.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Leijon, M., Boström, C., Danielsson, O., Gustafsson, S., Haikonen, K.,
Langhamer, O., Strömstedt, E., Stålberg, M., Sundberg, J., Svensson,
O., Tyrberg, S., and Waters, R. “Wave Energy from the North Sea:
Experiences from the Lysekil Research Site”. Surveys in Geophysics,
Vol. 29, Issue 3, pp. 221–240, May 2008.
Tyrberg, S., Stålberg, M., Boström, C., Waters, R., Svensson, O.,
Strömstedt, E., Savin, A., Engström, J., Langhamer, O., Gravråkmo,
H., Haikonen, K., Tedelid, J., Sundberg, J., and Leijon, M. “The
Lysekil Wave Power Project: Status Update”. Proceedings of the
10th World Renewable Energy Congress, WREC, Glasgow, UK,
pp. 1061–1066, July 2008.
Leijon, M., Waters, R., Stålberg, M., Svensson, O., Boström, C., Strömstedt, E., Engström, J., Tyrberg, S., Savin, A., Gravråkmo, H., Bernhoff, H., Sundberg, J., Isberg, J., Ågren, O., Danielsson, O., Eriksson,
M., Lejerskog, E., Bolund, B., Gustafsson, S., and Thorburn, K. “Catch
the Wave to Electricity: The Conversion of Wave Motions to Electricity Using a Grid-Oriented Approach”. IEEE Power & Energy Magazine
Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 50–54, January/February 2009.
Tyrberg, S., Gravråkmo, H., Leijon, M. “Tracking a Wave Power Buoy
Using a Network Camera — System Analysis and First Results”. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering (peer-reviewed), OMAE, Honolulu, USA, June
2009.
Tyrberg, S., Waters, R., and Leijon, M. “Wave Power Absorption as a
Function of Water Level and Wave Height: Theory and Experiment”.
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. 35, Issue 3, pp. 558–564,
July 2010.
Boström, C., Lejerskog, E., Tyrberg, S., Svensson, O., Waters, R.,
Savin, A., Bolund, B., Eriksson, M., and Leijon, M. “Experimental
Results From an Offshore Wave Energy Converter”. Journal of
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 132, Issue 4,
pp. 041103-1–041103-5, November 2010.
VII Tyrberg, S., Svensson, O., Kurupath, V., Engström, J., Strömstedt, E.,
and Leijon, M. “Wave Buoy and Translator Motions — On-site Measurements and Simulations”. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering,
Vol. 36, Issue 3, pp. 377–385, July 2011.
VIII Lejerskog, E., Gravråkmo, A., Savin, A., Strömstedt, E., Tyrberg, S.,
Haikonen, K., Krishna, R., Boström, C., Rahm, M., Ekström, R., Svensson, O., Engström, J., Ekergård, B., Baudoin, A., Kurupath, V., Hai,
L., Li, W., Sundberg, J., Waters, R., and Leijon, M. “Lysekil Research
Site, Sweden: A Status Update”. Proceedings of the 9th European Wave
and Tidal Energy Conference (peer-reviewed), EWTEC11, Southampton, UK, September 2011.
IX Lindroth, S. and Leijon, M., “Offshore Wave Power Measurements - a
Review”, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, in press, available
online, DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.123, September 2011.
X Lindroth, S. and Leijon, M., “Spectral Parameters and Wave Energy
Converter Performance”, Manuscript, October 2011.
Reprints were made with permission from the publishers. The author has also
contributed to the following papers, not included in the thesis. Paper A is a
conference version of Paper VI. For Paper B the contribution of the author
was minor, and the scope differs somewhat from the rest of the papers.
Boström, C., Lejerskog, E., Tyrberg, S., Svensson, O., Waters, R.,
Savin, A., Bolund, B., Eriksson, M., and Leijon, M. “Experimental
results from an offshore wave energy converter”. Proceedings of the
27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering (peer-reviewed), OMAE, Estoril, Portugal, June 2008.
B Gravråkmo, H., Leijon, M., Strömstedt, E., Engström, J., Tyrberg, S.,
Savin, A., Svensson, O., Waters, R., “Description of a Torus Shaped
Buoy for Wave Energy Point Absorber”. Proceedings of Renewable
Energy 2010, Yokohama, Japan, June/July 2010. Received Best Paper
Award.
A
Contents
1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Wave energy and ways to capture it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Working in engineering science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Aims of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 The Lysekil Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 Describing waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Linear generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Ocean Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 History and development of wave power measurements . . . . . .
3.2 The fundamental difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 The work at Klammerskär . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Successes and failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Interpreting measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 Comparing measurements with incoming waves . . . . . . . .
4 WEC Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Defining performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Controlling the variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 AC/DC load and sea state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Water level and wave height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3 Spectral shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Summary of Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 Measurements and buoy/generator motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 WEC Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 Svensk sammanfattning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
11
12
13
15
15
15
18
18
21
23
23
24
25
26
27
29
31
31
32
33
34
34
37
43
43
44
45
47
49
Abbreviations and nomenclature
Abbreviation
Meaning
AC
DC
GPS
L1–9
LRS
WEC
Alternating Current
Direct Current
Global Positioning System
Wave energy converter 1–9
The Lysekil Research Site
Wave Energy Converter
Symbol
Unit
Entity
Φ
ρ
E
H
Hm0
J
N
S( f )
T
T−10
Tp
f
f0
f−10
fp
g
mk
t
w
Wb
kg/m3
V
m
m
W/m
m2 /Hz
s
s
s
Hz
Hz
Hz
Hz
m/s2
m2 Hzk
s
m
Magnetic flux
Density
Electromotive force
Wave height
Significant wave height
Energy transport
Number of coil turns
Variance spectral density
Period
Energy period
Peak period
Frequency
Fundamental frequency
Energy frequency
Peak frequency
Gravitational constant
Spectral moment number k
Time
Water level
9
1. Introduction
1.1
Wave energy and ways to capture it
The ever increasing need for energy in the world and the dangers of further
use of fossil fuels have put a focus on renewable energy technologies. That
there is a vast amount of energy in ocean waves has been known for a long
time (see e.g. [1,2]), and this also becomes very evident to anyone who spends
time out at sea. The exact amount of power available from waves is impossible
to determine, since it depends on the performance of the technology chosen,
but an estimation that about 1 TW continuously descends on the coastlines of
the world was made in [3]. Regardless of the precision in that statement, it is
clear that our oceans carry enough energy for wave power to be interesting to
study further.
Numerous projects have tried to harvest the energy in waves. There are
quite a few projects still active around the world, the most famous of which
is possibly the Pelamis [4, 5]. Some other concepts that are, or have been,
active in recent years are the Wave Dragon [6], the Archimedes Wave Swing
[7], Oceanlinx [8], the Ocean Energy Buoy [9], the Oregon State University
project [10] and the Backward Bent Duct Buoy [11]. Further projects, past
and present, can be found in a recent review by Falcão [12]. Historically, most
attempts have failed in creating a technology that can survive the harsh ocean
wave climates, or in designing a technology that is economically viable.
There are some considerable advantages in using wave energy in comparison to other intermittent energy sources, such as wind and solar energy. But
there are also some fundamental difficulties. On the positive side, wave energy is a concentrated form of energy, since waves absorb the energy from
winds blowing over large areas. This also means that waves, in comparison
with winds, are more predictable and more evenly distributed in time. Even if
the wind abates, waves will keep rolling in for some time.
The major difficulty of tapping into the huge energy resource of ocean
waves is the large variations of the powers and forces involved. For a system to be sustainable, it needs to produce electricity at average wave climates,
but still survive harsh weathers and storms. There is therefore a risk of ending
up with systems that are either too bulky to be economically viable, or conversely, too fragile to survive in the long run. The Lysekil project, run by the
Division of Electricity at Uppsala University, is an attempt to design a wave
energy system which is sturdy enough, without becoming too expensive.
11
(b)
(a)
(c)f
Figure 1.1: A classification of wave energy devices. (a) Wave activated bodies,
(b) Overtopping devices, (c) Oscillating water columns [13].
Systems for wave energy conversion can be classified in many different
ways. In Fig. 1.1, wave energy devices have been categorized based on their
working principle. These are wave activated bodies, overtopping devices, and
oscillating water columns. The first of these describes systems where the motion of the waves is directly transferred to the Wave Energy Converter (WEC).
Examples of this technology include the Pelamis mentioned above. Overtopping devices let water run up a slope into a reservoir, from where the potential
energy is converted using a low-head turbine. The Wave Dragon is an example
of such a technology. Oscillating water columns use a fluctuating air pressure
above the ocean surface to drive a turbine. One way to achieve such a varying
air pressure is to partially submerge a pipe into the water. The Backward Bent
Duct Buoy is an example of a technology using an oscillating water column.
The technology used in the Lysekil project can be classified as a wave activated body. It is also a point absorber, meaning that the width of the WEC is
small in comparison to the wave length.
1.2
Working in engineering science
Engineering science differs from natural science in some senses. Whereas natural science is mainly concerned with understanding and explaining natural
phenomena, engineering science also strives to create new systems, new objects, or new solutions, based on knowledge gained in natural science. Thus,
engineering science is an iterative process of gathering knowledge, making
design choices, constructing solutions, and then again gathering knowledge
about how the constructed system works in the surrounding environment. This
knowledge may be used to draw conclusions that can be transferred to other
scientific disciplines, but it may also form the base for new designs, new ideas
and new solutions.
12
The work with the wave energy system at the Division of Electricity is an
example of the engineering process described above. Theories of wave dynamics, electromagnetism and mechanics have been used together with existing solutions within power electronics and mechanical engineering to develop a system that has then been deployed in the ocean. The workings of this
human-made system, and its interaction with the sea, have then been the focus
of our studies. As we have learned more and more, we have been able to take
steps towards more efficient wave energy converters, and we have also been
able to draw several conclusions on the workings of our system in relation to
different natural and engineering parameters. The extent to which these conclusions can be applied to general cases may vary, but regardless of this, the
work gives us the foundation needed to take further steps, and to find the next
questions to ask.
1.3
Aims of the thesis
Describing work within engineering science, this thesis does not follow one
single straight line, as such a line does not exist, now or in the future. Rather,
it is composed of a number of papers describing work within the same general area, but with slightly different focuses. The general aim of the papers is
to increase the understanding of wave–buoy–generator interaction in a wave
power plant, so that the performance can be increased. This broad aim can be
translated to a number of more specific questions to be answered:
•
•
•
•
How can we measure buoy and generator motion?
How does the buoy behave in the waves?
How do the motions of the waves, the buoy and the generator relate?
What electrical and oceanic parameters impact the performance of a wave
energy converter? How can this impact be described?
• To what extent can we simulate and predict the performance of a wave
energy converter?
Due to the nature of engineering science, the answers to the questions above
may give very different results. Some answers will stimulate new theories,
others will be used to confirm simulations, and others still could provide input
for mechanical solutions. Certain answers, finally, will not lead anywhere.
However, it is in the process of working with the questions that we find a
good path, and it is often afterwards that the big picture can be distinguished,
rather than before.
13
2. Background
2.1
The Lysekil Project
The Lysekil wave energy project was initiated with simplicity as a guiding
principle, since the harsh conditions at sea mean that complex systems have a
high risk of failure, and are associated with high maintenance costs. The idea
of simplicity meant that direct drive (i.e. without gearboxes or energy storage) was favoured, and led to the wave energy converter concept illustrated in
Fig. 2.1. The buoy follows the motion of the waves and the line transmits this
motion to the translator in the linear generator, where electricity is produced.
The chosen system means that the most complex part (the generator) is placed
on the seabed, away from the extreme forces of the waves. The direct drive
means that the system becomes more robust, but also that it is impossible to
transmit the converted electricity directly to the grid, since voltages will vary
both in amplitude and frequency. There is a need for an intermediate step,
where the voltages from several WECs are rectified, added together and then
inverted again to the grid frequency.
The experimental work within the project has taken place both at the
Ångström Laboratory in Uppsala and out at sea near Lysekil on the West
Coast, at the Lysekil Research Site (LRS). A sea chart of the area, from
Paper IV, can be found in Fig. 2.2. The site is also described in more
detail in Paper I and II. Eight licentiate theses [14–21] and seven doctoral
theses [13, 22–27] have been published regarding the Lysekil project.
The research covers many different topics, such as power electronics,
generator technology, hydrodynamics, wave resource descriptions, structural
mechanics, measurement systems and environmental impact.
2.2
Timeline
Paper II and VIII give an overview of the Lysekil project history, on several
different areas. In addition to this, Paper I and III describe the main ideas
behind the project, and go into some more detail. For a better understanding
of the timing of different steps, a brief time line is also presented here:
2002–2004
• The project is started during the spring of 2002.
15
Buoy
Line
Sealing
9m
End stop spring
Stator
Translator
Retracting
springs
End stop spring
Foundation
Figure 2.1: The wave energy converter L3 (left), and a schematic description of the
concept (right). Adapted from Paper VII.
• Investigations are made of the bottom conditions at LRS during the summer
of 2003.
• A laboratory version of the linear generator is finished in December 2003.
• A wave measuring buoy is deployed at LRS in April 2004.
• The National Maritime Administration deploys buoys to mark LRS to the
public in October 2004.
2005
• An experimental setup to measure forces on a cylindrical buoy is deployed
at LRS in March.
• The four first “biology buoys” are deployed at LRS during the fall. The
purpose of these is to study the environmental impact of installing buoys
and foundations in an otherwise empty ocean area.
• The construction of the first wave energy converter, L1, is started.
2006
• A measurement station is built on Härmanö, close to LRS, during the first
months of the year.
16
Figure 2.2: The Lysekil Research Site and its surroundings. The dash-dotted line represents the power cable from the wave park to shore. The dots surrounded by the
dashed line represent wave energy converters and biology buoys. From Paper IV.
• L1 is deployed at LRS on the 13th of March, and the first set of experimental
data from the generator is gathered.
2007
• Additional biology buoys are deployed.
• In July, a tower is erected on the islet of Klammerskär, near the research
site, to form the base for a future observation system. A picture of the
research site, taken from the tower, can be seen in Fig. 2.3.
Figure 2.3: The Lysekil research site, as seen from the observation tower. From Paper VI.
17
2008
• A toroidal buoy is attached to L1 in May, to investigate if the design can
help decrease the peak forces on the generator.
• In July, a network camera is installed in the tower on Klammerskär, enabling real time observation of the park from Uppsala.
• During the fall and winter, WECs number two and three (L2 and L3) are
finished and transported to Lysekil.
2009
•
•
•
•
L2 and L3 are deployed at LRS in February.
In March, the substation is deployed at LRS.
In October, WEC number four (L9)1 is deployed.
In connection to the deployment of L9, L2 and L3 are also taken out of the
water for maintenance.
2010–2011
• During the summer of 2010, additional biology buoys are deployed. Many
of the buoys from the first round have come loose in harsh winter storms.
• In November 2010, WECs number five through eight (named L4, L5, L7
and L8) are deployed, but without buoys.
• In April of 2011, buoys are attached to L7 and L8.
2.3
Theory
The theoretical background for this work comes from several different
branches. Some of the main concepts will be outlined here, but for a thorough
understanding the reader is advised to existing literature within each field.
References are given at the end of the sections.
2.3.1
Describing waves
The most detailed way to describe waves is through a time series of the ocean
surface displacement, see Fig. 2.4(a). However, for long time periods it is
more convenient to present waves using summary statistics. Using Fourier
analysis, it is possible to decompose the time series of surface elevation into
its frequency components and to calculate the so-called variance spectral density function S( f ) (sometimes simply called the wave spectrum). The discrete
1 The
enumeration of the WECs may seem strange, but is a result from them being numbered in
the design phase, rather than in the construction phase.
18
wave spectrum is defined as
S(n f0 ) ≡
2|zn |2
,
f0
(2.1)
where zn are the complex Fourier coefficients corresponding to the surface displacement time series, and f0 is a fundamental frequency, determined by the
measurement frequency and the length of the measurement. The wave spectrum corresponding to the time series in Fig. 2.4(a) can be seen in Fig. 2.4(b).
The unit on the y-axis (m2 /Hz) may seem somewhat odd but can be understood as a measure of the energy content for each frequency. Thus, the spectrum shows us what frequencies carry the most energy. It also says something
about the total energy for the sea state, as this is related to the area under the
graph.
In the case of ocean waves, the energy content is usually described as power
per meter wave front, or energy transport J. In other words, J is a measure of
how much energy on average passes below one meter of ocean surface, parallel to the wave crest, per second. For a sinusoidal wave, this can be described
with the relation
ρg2
J=
T H 2,
(2.2)
32π
where ρ is the density of the water, g is the gravitational constant, T is the
period of the wave and H is the wave height (the vertical distance from wave
trough to wave peak).
For a more complex wave, such as the one in Fig. 2.4(a), the concepts of period and wave height are not as clear since the amplitude and the frequency of
the wave vary. To find meaningful definitions, the wave spectrum is therefore
used. However, it is first necessary to introduce the spectral moments. These
moments mk are defined as
mk ≡
Z ∞
f k S( f )d f .
(2.3)
0
The zeroth moment m0 is the easiest one to grasp conceptually, since it is
equal to the area under the graph in Fig. 2.4(b). Using the zeroth and negative
first moments, the energy period T−10 and the significant wave height Hm0 are
defined as
√
m−1
, Hm0 ≡ 4 m0 .
(2.4)
T−10 ≡
m0
These definitions may seem somewhat strange, but they lead to a fairly
straightforward expression for the energy transport for waves such as the one
in Fig. 2.4(a):
ρg2
2
J=
T−10 Hm0
.
(2.5)
64π
19
Surface elevation (m)
0.1
0.05
0
−0.05
−0.1
0
20
40
60
Time (s)
80
100
120
Spectral density (m2/Hz)
(a) Time series representation.
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Frequency (Hz)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
(b) Spectral density representation, S( f ).
Frequency (Hz)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
20
40
60
Time (s)
80
100
120
(c) Wavelet scalogram representation.
Figure 2.4: Different ways to present wave data. Adapted from Paper X.
This equation assumes that the deep water approximation is valid, which usually means that the water depth must be larger than half the wavelength of the
waves.
Fig. 2.4(c) shows a wavelet scalogram. This is an alternative way to represent waves and gives information both on the frequency content and the
time distribution of the energy. The colour in the scalogram corresponds to
energy, and the x-axis and y-axis display time and frequency respectively. The
scalogram is produced using dilations and translations of a so-called mother
wavelet on the original signal. The mother wavelet is a fast decaying wave
form whose shape can be varied depending on the application. In the case of
ocean engineering the Morlet wavelet is often used [28], see Fig. 2.5.
20
1
0.5
0
−0.5
−1
−4
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
4
Figure 2.5: The Morlet wavelet, at arbitrary scale.
A more thorough introduction to wave theory and spectra can be found in
[29] and [30]. Several papers have also been published on the use of wavelets
in ocean engineering; see for example [31–34].
2.3.2
Linear generators
The purpose of a generator is to convert mechanical energy into electric energy. Most conventional generators are of the rotating kind, but the system
studied in this thesis uses a linear generator. However, the principles of electric energy conversion do not differ, and a linear generator consists of the same
key components as its rotating sibling. Fig. 2.6 shows a schematic illustration
of a rotating and a linear generator. Both generators have a moving part (the
rotor/translator) and a static part (the stator). Magnets with alternating magnetic direction are mounted on the moving part. All generators are based on
Faraday’s law, which states that a changing magnetic field in a coil will induce
an electromotive force E in that coil:
dΦ
E = −N
.
(2.6)
dt
N is the number of coil turns and Φ is the magnetic flux. The changing magnetic field can come from a motion of the coil, a motion of the magnet or a
change of magnetic flux density. In Fig. 2.6 the magnets are of the permanent
kind, but electromagnets can also be used, which allows for control of the
magnetic field.
In a rotating generator, N in Eq. 2.6 remains constant. In a linear generator
however, there is a possibility for the translator to move out of the stator,
resulting in a decrease of the active area, i.e. the area where the stator and
the translator overlap, see Fig. 2.6. This means that the voltage will drop, and
that the dynamics of the generator will change. The impact will among other
things depend on the stator and translator lengths, the stroke length of the
translator, the equilibrium position of the translator, and the load connected to
the generator. Paper V is an investigation of this effect.
21
Stator
Permanent magnet
Rotor
Conductor
Air gap
Translator
Stator
Figure 2.6: A rotating and a linear generator [13].
For a more thorough description of generators and electromagnetic theory,
see e.g. [35–37]. Linear generators have been investigated thoroughly by e.g.
[22].
22
3. Ocean Measurements
Papers IV, VII and IX all have perspectives on ocean measurements. Paper
IV describes the setup of a visual observation system, Paper VII presents its
outcome and compares it to that of a fundamentally different system, and Paper IX gives a broad background on other measurements that have been made
in the wave power society.
3.1 History and development of wave power
measurements
The earliest article reviewed in Paper IX is from the mid seventies, although
wave power research is much older (the first patent was filed in 1799 [38]). It
is possible to see some developments in equipment and technology from the
seventies until today, but many basic methods and sensors also remain. The
greatest change is probably the speed with which information can be transferred and stored, along with some fundamentally new measurement technologies, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS).
Although the number of projects on wave power over the years is large
(probably in the order of hundreds), only a few were found to have published
measurements on offshore tests. Among measurements commonly made are:
wave height (measured in nearly all projects), electric output, air pressure,
mooring forces and device motion. Accelerometers, pressure sensors, and
strain gauges were popular sensors in the seventies, and remain so today.
To give a rough idea of the progress of wave energy sea trials, Fig. 3.1
and 3.2 have been compiled, based on the material reviewed in Paper IX.
Fig. 3.1 shows the number of papers with descriptions of ocean measurements
published per year. This is an indication of the academic activity related to sea
trials. It can be seen that the rate of publications is fairly even until about
2005, when there is a clear increase. This could be seen as a trend that follows
the current focus on renewable energy. However, a large part of this increase
can be attributed to a few academically very active groups (e.g. the Wave
Dragon and the Lysekil project), so caution must be exercised when making
predictions for the future.
Fig. 3.2 is also based on the material from Paper IX. Here, the year of the
first publication from each project is plotted, which means that the number of
publications from each project is not reflected. Projects that have mentioned
23
15
10
5
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure 3.1: Number of yearly publications that are describing ocean measurements,
and are referenced in Paper IX.
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure 3.2: Number of first publications per year from all projects referenced in Paper IX.
sea trials but not described any measurements are also included. The figure
gives an indication to the progress of sea trials in general, regardless of academic priorities. In is interesting to note that the increase at year 2005 that
was seen in Fig. 3.1 can be seen here too.
The most recent European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, which is
the major conference within wave energy, took place in the early fall of 2011.
This was too late for the publications from the conference to be included
in Paper IX. A few papers presented details on measurements from offshore
ocean tests however and could be mentioned here: [39] regarding the BOLT
point absorber, [40] regarding the CETO unit, [41] regarding a version of the
Ocean Energy Buoy, [42] regarding the Oyster, and [43] regarding the Lysekil
project.
3.2
The fundamental difficulties
In order to understand why relatively few projects have presented measurements on ocean trials, it might be valuable to reflect on the difficulties in
making offshore measurements. As the aim of any wave energy project is
24
to capture incoming energy, the sites are almost always energetic and at times
impossible to access. This means that (i) the window of opportunity for installation and maintenance is short, (ii) the conditions in which the measurement
system is to operate are harsh, (iii) nearby stationary points are rare, (iv) the
chances of regularly checking if the system works are small, (v) the possibility
of using wired communications with the device is low, and (vi) the opportunity
of long-time controlled testing on site is virtually non-existent. Finally there
is a need for the system to be self-sufficient on energy if regular exchanges of
batteries are to be avoided.
Keeping the above difficulties in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that the
number of reported offshore wave power measurements remains fairly low.
Most projects have run across unexpected difficulties, such as malfunctioning sensors, mooring failures, biofouling, leakages, destroyed equipment, and
even theft of sensors (see for example [44]).
It must also be remembered that not all projects have an interest in presenting their results. Much research is performed within companies, which limits
the need or drive for publishing results. Other projects may have performed
measurements that are in principle open, but lack funding or sufficient results
for publishing.
3.3
The work at Klammerskär
The observation station on Klammerskär is an example of an offshore/nearshore measurement station. The setup of the station is thoroughly described in
Paper IV. Some additional comments will be given here, to complete the picture. As was stated above, most often a wave energy developer will not have
the possibility to perform measurements on her/his device from a stationary
point, as most tests are made offshore. In the case of the Lysekil project, however, there were two small islets south of the research site; Western and Eastern Klammerskär, on which an observation tower could be placed. The purpose of such a tower was primarily to enable observation of the site in harsh
weathers. There was also a secondary objective: to see if the motion of the
buoy could be tracked optically during operation. Thus, planning for a tower
began in 2006. Several permits were needed: the consent of the land owner,
a building permit, an exception from the coastal protection rule, and a permit
for camera surveillance. By the summer of 2007, all permits had been granted,
and the tower was erected on Western Klammerskär in July 2007. During the
fall and coming spring, the tower was equipped with an energy system, a 3G
modem for communication, and finally the camera. Some images from the
installation of the tower can be seen in Fig. 3.3.
In the rightmost image, the camera can be seen at the top of the tower. In
the middle of the tower, there are four solar cell panels installed. The control
25
Figure 3.3: Setup of the observation system. Left: casting the foundation. Middle: the
empty tower. Right: equipment installed.
equipment, the batteries, and the communication system are also installed in
the middle of the tower.
3.3.1
Successes and failures
Klammerskär is little more than some rocks sticking out of the water, and at
high waves the site is very hostile. Two images taken by the camera pointing
straight down can be seen if Fig. 3.4. The first one is taken on a calm day, and
the second one on a day when moderate waves are coming in. On such a day
it is impossible to access the tower.
As the conditions on Klammerskär are harsh, the strain on the tower and the
equipment has been heavy. Twice, installed wind turbines have been wrecked
and had to be dismounted. The first time it was due to the waves destroying
the dump load, leading to the turbine spinning out of control. The second time
Figure 3.4: Two images taken by the camera at Klammerskär, on a calm day and on a
day with moderate waves.
26
Northern marker buoy
L9
Biology buoys
Southern marker buoy
Figure 3.5: The Lysekil research site, iced in. February 11th , 2010.
it was possibly a lightning strike that destroyed the turbine, or the control
equipment that kept it from spinning too fast. At that time, melted pieces of
metal could be found inside the turbine housing after taking it apart. Other
things that have broken are: the ladder in the tower, the first electric cabinet,
the heavy duty metal bars that held the cabinet, and the grounding cable.
Naturally, the strain on the installed WECs has been equally heavy. Fig. 3.5
shows a panoramic picture of LRS on February 11th 2010, where almost the
entire site was frozen in.
In spite of the weather challenges L9 survived the winter of 2010. Moreover, the camera, as well as the communication equipment and the rest of the
electric system, has worked since installation in 2008, virtually without any
maintenance. Managing to make something not break may seem like a petty
success, but in this business it is far from a small step.
3.4
Interpreting measurements
Paper VII compares measurements of buoy motion from the observation tower
with measurements made inside the buoy, for the wave energy converter L3.
Having independent measurements of the same thing is a luxury for anyone
working in an uncontrolled environment. Even so, interpreting the measurements can be very difficult. There is no “ground truth”, against which data can
be compared. Instead, it is necessary to try to use sound judgement, and to
27
1.5
Surface elevation
Cumulative mean
Position (m)
1
0.5
0
−0.5
−1
−1.5
0
10
20
Time (s)
30
40
50
Figure 3.6: Sample wave and its cumulative mean.
be observant of what assumptions are the most critical for the results. As an
example, in the case of Paper VII, the filtering of the accelerometer signals is
of great importance, as is the assumption that the buoy is primarily moving
perpendicular to the line of sight of the camera.
The accelerometer signals have to be integrated to obtain position. This integration introduces a drifting error, which needs to be removed. In Paper VII
this was done using a sliding mean filter and then subtracting the calculated
mean from the signal. The width of the sliding mean window was set to 21 s.
Essentially, this means that any oscillation with a period longer than 21 s is
removed. Choosing a narrower window would have meant filtering away more
of the motion, and conversely; choosing a wider window would have filtered
away less. The choice of the size of the window is not obvious, and different
values give different ranges of resulting buoy motion. Fig. 3.6 gives an illustration to the motive for choosing a value of 21 s. The red graph shows the
surface elevation for 50 s of the measurement period. The blue dashed graph
shows the cumulative mean of the surface elevation, which tends to zero as
the window for the mean increases. This figure is just an example, but is fairly
typical for the sea state at the time. When the window reaches approximately
20 s, the main oscillations of the mean have died out, and only small variations remain. The energy period at the time was approximately 7 s, and a value
roughly corresponding to three periods, or 21 s, was decided upon.
The assumption that the buoy is primarily moving perpendicular to the line
of sight of the camera is clearly a simplification of the reality. However, it
is reasonable that the motion to/from the camera is small. This is due to the
camera being roughly south of the buoy, with waves coming in mainly from
the west. It is also reasonable to assume that the motion to/from the camera is
of fairly small importance for the resulting calculated vertical motion of the
buoy. This is due to the fact that the camera is only 14 m above the ocean
surface, while being approximately 250 meters away from the buoy. This is
a challenge when it comes to getting good photos of the buoy in high waves.
But at the same time, it is a strength when estimating vertical motion, since
this motion is almost perpendicular to the line of sight for the camera.
28
3.4.1
Comparing measurements with incoming waves
There is another difficulty when it comes to interpreting data obtained from
ocean trials, which comes into play when motion data is compared to the incoming waves: it is in principle impossible to measure the wave that actually
reaches the WEC, for two reasons. First, it is impossible to measure the waves
at exactly the same location as the WEC. However small the distance between
measurement unit and the WEC is, the waves measured may differ somewhat
from the waves reaching the WEC. Therefore, it is necessary to make an estimation of whether it is reasonable that the waves within a given area are
relatively stationary in space. At the Lysekil research site, the bottom is fairly
flat, and the distances between the wave measurement buoy and the WECs are
relatively small in comparison to the size of the site. Furthermore, the main
part of the waves are coming from one direction (west). Therefore, the conditions for stationarity were deemed to be fulfilled.
The second reason that it is impossible to measure the wave that actually
reaches the WEC is that the WEC is absorbing energy and radiates waves.
Thus, what is measured is essentially the incoming wave plus the wave generated by the WEC. In a laboratory environment, it would be possible to measure
the (stationary) wave before inserting the WEC, and then measure the motion
of the WEC separately. This cannot be done in an ocean environment. However, since the power absorbed by the WEC is very small in relation to the
power passing within a few buoy lengths, this effect was deemed negligible.
29
4. WEC Performance
For a developer of a wave energy device, deployment of the first unit in the
ocean is a clear and major milestone. Such a deployment gives invaluable
experiences of the practicalities and challenges associated with working at
sea. It also gives the developer a chance to evaluate how the device works in
real waves, rather than in a controlled laboratory environment. The aim of the
evaluation will be to answer questions on how the performance of the device
varies with certain parameters. Papers V, VI, and X all include investigations
on how the WECs at LRS perform depending on electrical and oceanic parameters. Before going into the results of these papers, however, it is important to
clarify what is meant by performance when it comes to wave energy.
4.1
Defining performance
Describing the performance of a WEC is far from trivial. This is partly due to
an immaturity of the subject, where different developers have chosen different ways of describing their devices, but also due to the complexity of ocean
waves. For assessments with the purpose of comparing different projects, protocols have been suggested [45, 46], and may be accepted by the wave energy
community in the future. These protocols aim at giving proper estimates of
the produced electricity over a year, based on a specific site, and on (scaled)
measurements for different combinations of wave parameters.
If the aim is to describe how the performance of a single device changes
with one or several parameters, it may be more straightforward to present
figures on (i) absorbed power, (ii) the ratio of absorbed power to incoming
power, or (iii) capture width. However, all of these descriptions have their
limitations and caution must be exercised when using them.
Absorbed power is perhaps the easiest parameter to understand. However,
it is important to specify where in the energy conversion chain this power
is located. A hydrodynamic absorption of e.g. 10 kW is very different from
having 10 kW in a hydraulic system, or in an electric load. In this thesis,
absorbed power refers to power dissipated in the windings of the generator,
in the sea cable, and in the load onshore. It is therefore somewhat less than
what is removed from the waves, since mechanical losses and iron losses in
the generator are not accounted for.
31
The ratio of captured power to incoming power is sometimes referred to
as absorption, or relative absorption. It may be given without a unit, or in
per cent. It is important to stress that relative absorption is not the same as
efficiency, since efficiency relates to losses. The energy in a wave which is not
absorbed by a WEC is not lost, as it can be absorbed at another point. This
is different from e.g. resistive losses in a generator, which cannot be utilized.
It is also worth pointing out that the width of the WEC defines the amount of
incoming power. Changes in WEC width will therefore also result in changes
in relative absorption, unless the absorbed power changes in the same way.
Capture width is defined as the absorbed power by the device, divided by the
incoming power per meter wave front. This measure is given in meters and has
been recommended by some as it provides a robust and normalized measure
of WEC performance [45], if combined with information on WEC size. In
comparison with the relative absorption, it is less likely that the capture width
will be confused with efficiency, since the unit is not per cent. The downside
is that it is slightly less straightforward.
All of the parameters above can be suitable when describing how the performance of a WEC changes with a certain variable. However, it is important
to keep in mind that neither of the parameters say anything about how “good
or bad” the WEC is in absolute terms, unless they are combined with knowledge of WEC size, need for maintenance, rated power, generator efficiency,
ability to handle overloads, etc.
4.2
Controlling the variables
Testing at sea has its advantages and its disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is that the incoming waves cannot be controlled. In a wave tank it is possible to subject your model WEC to specific combinations of significant wave
height and energy period, as well as sea states with defined spectral shapes.
In the ocean you have to wait and see what Mother Nature serves you. However, if sufficiently long series of measurements can be acquired, the natural
variations in sea state will give a relatively complete set of conditions.
Much unlike the sea state, the electric setup is something that can be controlled completely. Varying the electric parameters essentially means varying
the damping of the device, i.e. how the generator will resist the motion of the
buoy. In this thesis, the variations of electrical parameters are limited to using
different loads, and switching between AC and DC systems for longer periods. In principle, however, it is possible to make electrical changes on time
scales in the millisecond region.
There are many other parameters that have also been varied in the Lysekil project, but that are not covered in this thesis. For instance, cylindrical, toroidal and discus shaped buoys have been tested. Different types of DC
32
9.2 Ω
9.2 Ω trend line
13.8 Ω
13.8 Ω trend line
27.5 Ω
27.5 Ω trend line
20
15
10
5
0
Absorbed power (kW)
Relative absorption (%)
25
9.2 Ω
9.2 Ω trend line
13.8 Ω
13.8 Ω trend line
27.5 Ω
27.5 Ω trend line
4
3
2
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
1
2
Significant wave height (m)
(a)
0.5
1.5
2.5
1
2
Significant wave height (m)
(b)
Figure 4.1: Absorption as a function of significant wave height, for a DC system.
Adapted from Paper VI.
setups have been tried, and finally there are significant differences in the generator design of the later WECs, as compared to L1–L3.
4.2.1
AC/DC load and sea state
The first results from L1 were presented in 2007 [47]. During the first set of
measurements the generator was directly connected to a resistive load. The
results showed that the absorbed power increased in more energetic sea states,
as expected. They also indicated that there should exist an optimal electric
load, regardless of sea state (i.e. combination of significant wave height and
energy period). The value of this load was found to lie between 2.2 Ω and
10 Ω.
Paper VI builds upon the results from [47], as it investigates the variations
in performance for L1 for a DC-connected load. Connecting the load after
rectification means that no current will flow through the load until the voltage
of the generator reaches the DC level of the system. This in turn means that the
system will not be continuously damped, as was the case above. The damping
will be approximately zero until the translator has reached sufficient speed.
This is a substantially more complex situation, and the results from Paper VI
are not quite as clear as those from [47]. Fig. 4.1, from Paper VI, shows the
relative and absolute absorption as a function of wave height for three different
loads.
The trend lines in Fig. 4.1 (a) indicate that the relative absorption peaks for
slightly different wave heights for each load. Fig. 4.1 (b) shows that the load
with the highest absorbed power is not the same for all wave heights. The data
points are quite scattered however, and there is a lack of data for high wave
heights for the 13.8 Ω load, so there is a high level of uncertainty. Further
investigations were made by the primary author of Paper VI, and can be found
in [48].
33
f
(a)
(b)
(c)f
Figure 4.2: Different translator-stator geometries. (a) Long translator, (b) Long stator,
(c) Geometry of L1.
4.2.2
Water level and wave height
One of the design choices for the generator is the length of the translator relative to the stator. This choice is a balance between performance and economy.
In the extreme case, a very long translator (longer than any incoming wave
height) would mean that the active length (the length for which translator and
stator overlap) would never decrease, see Fig. 4.2, case (a). However, this
would make for a very large and not very economical generator since the magnets are an expensive component. Making the stator very long instead (case
(b)) would also result in a constant active area, but at the prize of a higher
cost, as well as increased impedance in the stator windings. In L1, a middle
way was chosen, and the respective lengths of stator and translator were set to
1.26 m and 1.87 m. This has been illustrated in case (c) in Fig. 4.2.
For a set generator geometry, whether or not the translator will move out of
the stator is dependent on the magnitude of the oscillating motion, but also on
the equilibrium position of the translator inside the stator. These two entities
are dependent on the incoming wave height and the water level. In an attempt to quantify the impact a theoretical expression was derived in Paper V,
and was compared to experimental data. Fig. 4.3 from said paper shows the
results. The relative absorption has been plotted as a function of significant
wave height Hm0 and still water level w. The theoretically expected performance is plotted as a surface. It was found that the theoretic values follow the
experimental data qualitatively in the Hm0 -direction, but that the correlation in
the w-direction is less clear.
4.2.3
Spectral shape
Typically, WEC performance is presented in scatter diagrams for combinations of T−10 and Hm0 . However, when studying data from L1 for sea states
where T−10 and Hm0 were kept roughly constant, large variations in perfor34
Relative absorption
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.8 -0.4
0
0.4
Still water level w (m)
0.8
0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5
0
Significant wave height Hm0 (m)
Figure 4.3: Absorption as function of significant wave height and still water level.
Adapted from Paper V.
mance were found. Such variations have been suggested to be caused by variations in spectral width [49]. Therefore in Paper X a number of parameters
describing spectral width were tested against the performance data to investigate any correlations. The two best indicators were found to be κ and ε1 ,
defined as
Z
√
1 ∞
i2π f m0 /m2
,
κ=
S(
f
)e
d
f
(4.1)
m0 0
ε1 =
r
m1 m−1
− 1.
m20
(4.2)
Variations of these parameters accounted for roughly 40% of the variations in
WEC performance for a load of 4.9 Ω, using a linear fit.
Another parameter that relates to the shape of the spectrum, and that could
be used to explain the performance variations for constant T−10 and Hm0 , is
the peak period Tp . The peak period corresponds to the peak frequency f p , i.e.
the frequency for which S( f ) has its maximum. If this period differs substantially from the energy period (Fig. 4.4), it is an indication that the spectrum
might be double peaked or skewed. This could mean that a large portion of the
available energy in the waves is carried by frequencies that are not captured
by the WEC. Fig. 4.5 from Paper X shows a scatter diagram of performance
and energy period for 42 measurements on L1 where the energy period was
between 3.5 s and 4.0 s. It can be seen that the six lowest absorption values
have a peak period which is greater than 6.0 s or lower than 3.5 s. It therefore
35
Spectral density (m2/Hz)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Frequency (Hz)
1
1.2
1.4
Figure 4.4: A double peaked spectrum, where T−10 = 3.99 s (corresponding to f−10 =
0.25 Hz) and Tp = 6.10 s (corresponding to f p = 0.16 Hz).
Absorption (%)
25
20
15
10
5
0
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Peak period (s)
5.5
6
6.5
7
Figure 4.5: Scatter diagram of absorption and peak period Tp . Adapted from Paper X.
seems as if the poorest performances in the data set can be explained using
Tp . However, there is still quite some variation in the remaining values, and
there are also data points with high absorption for which Tp is close to, or even
below, 3.5 s.
36
5. Summary of Papers
This thesis is based on ten papers, presented in their full length at the end. A
short summary is given here.
PAPER I
Wave Energy from the North Sea: Experiences from the Lysekil
Research Site
A very thorough description of the first years of the Lysekil project can be
found in this paper, both on the technology used and the process of installing
the first WEC. The paper covers all parts of the project: from a brief introduction of wave energy projects around the world to describing the properties
of LRS and the results on wave characteristics, electrical systems, absorption
and environmental impact.
The author coordinated the texts from the other authors, and contributed
with the description of the observation tower, as well as the actual installation
of the tower.
This paper is published in Surveys in Geophysics Vol. 29, Issue 3, May
2008.
PAPER II
The Lysekil Wave Power Project: Status Update
This paper presents a more brief, but slightly more updated, description of the
status of the Lysekil project as it was in 2008, as compared to Paper I. A lot
of the material in this paper is covered in Paper I as well, but the focus here
is more on the work performed by the author, i.e. the effect of varying water
levels and the installation of the observation system.
The author performed most of the writing of this paper, based on the information provided by the people who had carried out the experiments within
each field. The work of installing the observation tower mentioned in section
4.6 was also carried out by the author.
37
This conference paper is published in the Proceedings of the 10th World Renewable Energy Conference and was orally presented by the author in Glasgow, UK, in July 2008.
PAPER III
Catch the Wave to Electricity: The Conversion of Wave Motions
to Electricity Using a Grid-Oriented Approach
In this paper, the main ideas behind the Lysekil project are introduced, together with a short summary of the process of carrying out the project. Compared to Paper I and II, the focus here is on what philosophies led to the chosen
system, rather than detailed descriptions of the technology.
The author contributed to a major revision of this paper and took part in the
submission process.
This paper is published in IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, Vol. 7, Issue 1,
January/February 2009.
PAPER IV
Tracking a Wave Power Buoy Using a Network Camera - System
Analysis and First Results
In the summer of 2008, a camera system was installed at Klammerskär, south
of LRS. In this paper, the work with this system is described, and an analysis
is made of the first series of pictures from the camera. The wave power buoy
has been photographed during operation, and using image analysis on these
pictures, buoy motions have been extracted. The values (±0.5 m maximum
vertical motion) correspond fairly well to what would be expected based on
the sea state during the image sequence (Hm0 = 0.82 m). The strengths and
weaknesses of the system are analyzed in the paper, concluding that some
work remains on quantifying the accuracy and synchronizing the images to
the measurements of voltages in the linear generator. In general the system
has worked well.
The author performed most of the work in this paper.
This conference paper is published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the
28th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
and was orally presented by the author in Honolulu, USA, in June 2009.
38
PAPER V
Wave Power Absorption as a Function of Water Level and Wave
Height: Theory and Experiment
Since the translator will move partly out of the stator at high amplitudes of
motion, resulting in a decreased active area, it is reasonable to assume that the
WEC performance is dependent on the equilibrium position of the translator
as well as stroke magnitude. The former is affected by the water level at the
site, and the latter is affected by the size of the incoming waves.
In this article, a theoretical model was presented to describe the performance of the wave energy converter L1 as a function of significant wave height
and water level. The model was matched against experimental data from LRS.
Experimental and theoretical values exhibit similar characteristics, especially
with changing significant wave heights. It is therefore likely that the declining
values of relative absorption at high significant wave heights are due to the
decrease of the active area. For changing water levels, it is more difficult to
draw any conclusions.
The author performed most of the work in this paper.
This paper is published in IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. 35,
Issue 3, July 2010.
PAPER VI
Experimental Results From an Offshore Wave Energy Converter
This paper describes an experiment with rectification of the voltage of the
wave energy converter L1 at LRS. Absorbed power and relative absorption
as a function of wave height and electric DC load was plotted. The relative
absorption was found to have peaks at different wave heights for different
loads. This indicates that there is not a single optimal load for all significant
wave heights.
The author contributed with section 2, as well as Fig. 3b and 3d, and helped
out in the review of the paper.
This paper is published in Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 132, Issue 4, November 2010.
PAPER VII
Wave Buoy and Translator Motions — On-Site Measurements and
Simulations
In the process of improving the concept in the Lysekil project, it is important
to be able to quantify and predict several different entities in the wave energy
39
converters. This paper has an engineering focus, and is aimed at comparing
different ways of measuring buoy motion, as well as relating these measurements to simulations made in Simulink. Buoy motion was measured using a
land based optical system, and a buoy based accelerometer system. The measurements were found to correlate well in the vertical direction. However, in
the horizontal direction the difference was substantial. The main reason for
this was that the buoy rotation about its axis of symmetry was not measured.
In a first comparison, the simulations and the measurements showed good
agreement.
The author organized the work in this paper, wrote most of the text, and
produced all figures except for Fig. 11. The author also performed the measurements of buoy motion through optical measurements, and the subsequent
analysis.
This paper is published in IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. 36,
Issue 3, July 2011.
PAPER VIII
Lysekil Research Site, Sweden, A Status Update
This paper presents an up-to-date description of the Lysekil project. Together
with Paper II, it gives a brief overview of the project from start to present.
The author made a minor contribution to the writing of the paper.
This conference paper is published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the
9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference and was presented by Erik
Lejerskog in Southampton, UK, in September 2011.
PAPER IX
Offshore Wave Power Measurements - a Review
In the process of developing a wave power concept, it is important to learn
from previous successes and failures, not least when moving into the ocean
for testing. In this paper, a thorough review of measurements made in offshore wave power trials has been made. The purpose of the review is to find
out what has commonly been measured, and how these entities have been measured. Such information can help present and future wave energy projects in
their design of measurement systems, and could also be used when preparing
protocols and standards for testing.
Twenty projects were reviewed, where the earliest one took place in the
1970s. Wave height was an almost universal measurement among the projects,
although the technologies used differed somewhat. Other common measurements included voltages, device motion and mooring forces. It is clear that it is
40
far from trivial to measure any entity at sea, and many of the projects reported
on sensor failures and other unforeseen events.
The author performed most of the work in this paper.
This paper is in press for publication in Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Reviews and is available online. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.123.
PAPER X
Spectral Parameters and Wave Energy Converter Performance
Studying performance data from L1 it can be seen that for measurements with
similar summary statistics T−10 and Hm0 there are values for relative absorption that vary from 5% to 25%. It therefore seems probable that the properties
of the sea state that are not captured using T−10 and Hm0 have an effect on how
a WEC performs. It has been proposed in the literature that the width of the
wave spectrum is one such property. In this paper, six parameters that describe
spectral width have been tested against performance data to look for correlations. In addition to this, the performance data was tested against peak period
and standard deviation of peak frequency, as found through wavelet analysis.
It was found that out of the parameters tested, κ and ε1 displayed the
strongest correlation. Even this correlation was not very strong however, and
did only exhibit an r2 -value of 0.39 in a linear fit for L1 connected to a 4.9 Ω
load. It was also found that the lowest absorption values were connected to
the lowest and highest Tp -values.
The author performed most of the work in this paper, which is an unsubmitted manuscript.
41
6. Conclusions
The main conclusions in this thesis can be divided into two broad categories:
conclusions regarding measurements and buoy/generator motion, and conclusions regarding WEC performance.
6.1
Measurements and buoy/generator motion
• Although many ocean experiments have been made within the field of wave
power, published descriptions of measurements are fairly rare. However, an
increase can be seen in recent years.
• Almost everyone who has published descriptions of ocean measurements
have also reported on problems encountered in the marine environment.
• Wave height, electric power and air pressure are the most common measurements in sea trials of wave energy devices. Pressure transducers are the
most common specific sensors.
• The buoy motion of L3 is not symmetrical, due to the constraint of the buoy
being attached to the generator. The observed motion is skewed, whereas a
free motion would be expected to be circular or elliptical.
• The installed camera system on Klammerskär works for motion measurement, even though the conditions are far from ideal in terms of distances
camera–buoy, tough weather, and wave sheltering.
• The gathered accelerometer data for buoy motion matches the image data
from the camera, but the results are dependent on proper filtering.
• Buoy rotation about the vertical axis cannot be neglected in accelerometer
measurements.
• Horizontal motion of the buoy does not contribute in any significant way
to the motion of the translator.
• Dual measurements of buoy motions are recommended if possible. Optical measurements make the interpretation of results easier, although the
present system needed a lot of manual work. This has been remedied by
adding markers to later versions of the buoy.
• In a first evaluation, the simulations of buoy and translator motion match
the measured results.
• The range of motion in the translator is slightly less than for the buoy. This
is expected, since the translator is bound by its end stops.
43
6.2
WEC Performance
• The theoretical model for the expected performance variation with the variation of water levels and wave height seems to qualitatively predict the decline of performance for increasing wave heights. Variations in water level
were not captured as clearly by the model.
• Out of the ten parameters related to spectral width or shape studied in Paper X, κ and ε1 were found to be the best indicators for performance variation for set values of significant wave height and energy period. However,
they only explained about 40% of the variations for performance of L1
connected to a 4.9 Ω load, which indicates that there may be other factors
affecting performance as well.
• The lowest performance values in the studied set were connected to the
highest and the lowest values of the peak period.
44
7. Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank my supervisor Mats Leijon for letting me be a part
of this project. It has been stimulating, challenging, varying and fun all the
way, and I am impressed by your belief in us PhD students. Looking back at
all the things I have gotten the chance to do in this job, it seems almost unreal.
Thank you to my assistant supervisor Jan Isberg for always being around and
giving answers regarding theoretical issues. To all of our financiers: thank you
for your support – it gives us a chance to pursue this research. Thank you also
to Uppsala University for financing my PhD studies.
To all the great people in the Wave Group: thanks for all the fun times in
Uppsala, Lysekil, and at conferences around the world. It has been a privilege
to work with you all, and I wish you the greatest of luck in the future.
To my room mates, past and present: Olle Svensson, Remya Krishna, Magnus Rahm and Rafael Waters, thank you for talks, laughs, scientific exchange,
and general support. Olle, thank you for your help in everything concerning
measurement technology and electronics - including, but not limited to, the
workings of guitar pickups and microphones. Remya, thank you for giving me
insight into the details of Indian weddings and cooking. Magnus and Rafael,
thank you for good food and good wine, for all the great non-work times, for
guiding me into the Division, and for the great little band Electric Acoustics.
Rafael, thank you also for all the other music we have shared, and for many
hours of conversation on the way to or from Lysekil.
Jörgen Nilsson, thank you for the help with making Klammerskär a working
measuring station. Without your practical talents it would never have become
operational, and without your swimming capabilities we would still have been
stuck on that rock. Thank you also to Jens Engström, Kalle Haikonen, Fredrik
Bülow, Jenny Tedelid, Nils Englund and Erik Back who on different occasions
have help me out on Klammerskär.
Mårten Grabbe, Staffan Lundin, Cecilia Boström, Magnus Rahm, Johan
Bladh, Olle Svensson, Katarina Yuen, Rafael Waters, Jens Engström and Johan Lundin, thank you for proofreading my thesis and the last paper. I appreciate very much your feedback. Thanks are also given to the people who
contributed in my beer-for-errors program, among which Marcus Berg and
Anders Goude are the most notorious. Staffan Lundin, thank you for being a
living LATEX dictionary, to whom no coding problem is too small to investigate.
Katarina Yuen, thank you for great talks, and for helping me to take some steps
45
in figuring out just what engineering science is about. Johan Bladh, thank you
for good lunch times and for sharing my bike interest.
Thank you Gunnel Ivarsson, Thomas Götschl, Ingrid Ringård, Christina
Wolf, Elin Tögenmark and Maria Nordengren for all the support in administrative issues. Without you I would have been lost on numerous occasions.
Ulf Ring, thanks for the invaluable help with construction issues, and the noninvaluable help with coming up with bad jokes. Thank you Tommy Carlsson,
at Klubban in Fiskebäckskil, for practical help in the field.
To all the fantastic people at the Division of Electricity: thank you for great
discussions on scientific and worldly issues, laughs, lunch talks, fika, Friday
beer, Basic Cooking, Blodomloppet, Raid Uppsala, Christmas parties, ski trips
to Orsa, and the numerous events with the Division choir. Thanks to you all,
coming to work has been something to look forward to every single day.
To my family: thank you for all the support and love. Finally, to my fabulous
wife Magdalena: thank you for being there and letting me be there with you.
Thank you for your patience, your wisdom, and your great sense of humor.
You make my days and my future bright.
46
8. Svensk sammanfattning
Bakgrunden till den här avhandlingen är arbetet med Lysekilsprojektet, vilket
drivits vid avdelningen för elektricitetslära sedan 2002. Inom projektet har
ett antal vågkraftverk installerats i havet sydväst om Lysekil. Principen för
vågkraftverken är att en boj vid ytan rör sig med vågorna, och förmedlar
rörelsen till en bottenplacerad linjärgenerator via en lina. Den genererade
spänningen från flera sådana vågkraftverk likriktas, sammanläggs i ett ställverk på botten, växelriktas igen och transformeras innan den förs iland via en
sjökabel.
Installationen av det första vågkraftverket, som döpts till L1, följde på ett
stort teoretiskt och experimentellt arbete där systemet simulerats, försöksplatsen undersökts och en försöksuppställning installerats för att mäta krafter på
bojen. Sedan installationen genomförts har L1 och senare vågkraftverk varit
i bruk i sammanlagt över två år. En mängd vetenskapliga undersökningar har
genomförts i olika delar av projektet, och har resulterat i ett stort antal publicerade artiklar.
En företeelse som varit viktig att förstå har varit hur vågkraftverken
presterar i olika vågklimat, och för olika elektriska parametrar. I den här
avhandlingen har L1:s prestanda undersökts för varierande våghöjder och
vattenstånd, samt för varierande vågspektra, det vill säga vågklimat med
olika sammansättning av periodiska vågor. Avhandlingen innehåller också
resultat över hur prestandan varierar med olika elektriska laster i ett likriktat
system. Att ändra den elektriska lasten innebär att generatorns benägenhet att
bromsa in bojens rörelse förändras.
Det visar sig att den absorberade effekten i relation till den inkommande effekten minskar för ökande våghöjder. Detta är i överensstämmelse med teorin,
eftersom stora rörelser hos bojen ger stora utslag i generatorn, vilket i sin tur
innebär att generatorns aktiva area minskar tillfälligt. Skiftande vattennivåer,
och därmed skiftande jämviktslägen i generatorn, förutspåddes ha samma effekt, men en sådan variation var svårare att se i praktiken.
Man kan se att prestandan för L1 (mätt över en halvtimme) varierar kraftigt,
även för vågklimat med samma statistiska parametrar (våghöjd och period).
Därför undersöktes kopplingen mellan prestanda och ett antal parametrar som
beskriver spektral bredd, det vill säga i vilken utsträckning energin i vågorna
är utspridd på olika frekvenser. Viss koppling hittades, men även de parametrar som var starkast kopplade till prestandan förklarade bara ungefär 40 % av
variationen. Kopplingen mellan topperioden, motsvarande den frekvens som
47
bär mest av energin i vågklimatet, och prestandan undersöktes också. Resultatet var att för tillfällen då topperioden (som beror på var vågspektrumets
maxvärde uppträder) avvek från energiperioden (som påverkas av vågspektrumets form) var också prestandan lägre.
För ett likriktat system verkar det som att generatorns optimala dämpning
varierar med våghöjden. Dock saknades mätpunkter för vissa laster i höga
vågor, varför det är svårt att dra några definitiva slutsatser.
Som bakgrund till resultaten ovan beskriver avhandlingen mätningar av bojrörelser till havs för olika mätsystem, och ger en historik över havsbaserade
vågkraftsmätningar i andra projekt. Datainsamling till havs är svår att genomföra, vilket också visat sig genom att tämligen få projekt genom åren valt
att, eller kunnat, redovisa mätningar. Inom Lysekilprojektet har bojens rörelse
mätts med två olika system: ett landbaserat optiskt system och ett accelerometersystem i bojen. Resultaten från systemen överensstämmer i huvudsak,
och deras styrkor och svagheter kompletterar varandra. Generatorns rörelse
mättes också under samma tidsperiod, och fanns vara något mindre än bojens
rörelse. Detta är ett förväntat resultat, eftersom generatorns rörelse är begränsad av ändstopp i övre och nedre läget. Slutligen jämfördes bojens och generatorns rörelser med simuleringar. Vid en första utvärdering visade sig dessa
ge tillfredsställande resultat.
48
References
[1] S. H. Salter, “Wave power,” Nature, vol. 249, pp. 720–724, 1974.
[2] D. Mollison, O. P. Buneman, and S. H. Salter, “Wave power availability in the
NE atlantic,” Nature, vol. 263, pp. 223–226, 1976.
[3] J. Falnes and J. Løvseth, “Ocean wave energy,” Energy Policy, October 1991.
[4] C. Retzler, “Measurements of the slow drift dynamics of a model Pelamis wave
energy converter,” Renewable Energy, vol. 31, pp. 257–269, 2006.
[5] R. Henderson, “Design, simulation, and testing of a novel hydraulic power takeoff system for the Pelamis wave energy converter,” Renewable Energy, vol. 31,
pp. 271–283, 2006.
[6] J. Tedd and J. Kofoed, “Measurements of overtopping flow time series on the
Wave Dragon, wave energy converter,” Renewable Energy, vol. 34, pp. 711–
717, 2009.
[7] M. Prado, F. Neumann, M. Damen, and F. Gardner, “AWS results of pilot plant
testing 2004,” in Proceedings of the 6th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, EWTEC05, Glasgow, UK, pp. 401–407, 2005.
[8] R. Alcorn, S. Hunter, C. Signorelli, R. Obeyesekera, T. Finnigan, and T. Denniss,
“Results of the Testing of the Energetech Wave Energy Plant at Port Kembla on
October 26, 2005,” tech. rep., Energetech Australia Pty Limited, 2005.
[9] D. O’Sullivan, J. Griffiths, M. G. Egan, and A. W. Lewis, “Development of
an electrical power take off system for a sea-test scaled offshore wave energy
device,” Renewable Energy, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1236–1244, 2011.
[10] D. Elwood, A. Schacher, K. Rhinefrank, J. Prudell, S. Yim, E. Amon,
T. Brekken, and A. von Jouanne, “Numerical modeling and ocean testing of
a direct-drive wave energy device utilizing a permanent magnet linear generator for power take-off,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference
on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE 2009, Honolulu, USA,
pp. 817–824, 2009.
[11] K. Toyota, S. Nagata, Y. Imai, and T. Setoguchi, “Research for evaluating performance of OWC-type Wave Energy Converter “Backward Bent Duct Buoy”,” in
Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, EWTEC09,
Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 901–913, 2009.
49
[12] A. F. de O. Falcão, “Wave energy utilization: A review of the technologies,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 899 – 918, 2010.
[13] R. Waters, Energy from Ocean Waves. Full Scale Experimental Verification of a
Wave Energy Converter. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity,
2008.
[14] I. Ivanova, Simulation of Linear Permanent Magnet Octagonal Generator for
Sea Wave Energy Conversion. Licentiate thesis, Uppsala University, Division of
Electricity, 2004.
[15] M. Eriksson, Electromechanical Dynamics of a Direct Drive Wave Energy Converter. Licentiate thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2004.
[16] K. Thorburn, Modelling new generators for wave energy conversion and hydropower upgrading. Licentiate thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2004.
[17] C. Boström, Electrical System of a Wave Power Plant. Licentiate thesis, Uppsala
University, Division of Electricity, 2008.
[18] J. Engström, Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Energy Conversion from Ocean
Waves to Electricity. Licentiate thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2009.
[19] S. Tyrberg, Studying Buoy Motion for Wave Power. Licentiate thesis, Uppsala
University, Division of Electricity, 2009.
[20] H. Gravråkmo, Buoy for linear wave energy converter. Licentiate thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2011.
[21] R. Krishna, Multilevel Inverter for Wave Power Conversion. Licentiate thesis,
Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2011.
[22] O. Danielsson, Wave Energy Conversion, Linear Synchronous Permanent Magnet Generator. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2006.
[23] K. Thorburn, Electric Energy Conversion Systems: Wave Energy and Hydropower. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2006.
[24] M. Eriksson, Modelling and Experimental Verification of Direct Drive Wave
Energy Conversion. Buoy-Generator Dynamics. PhD thesis, Uppsala University,
Division of Electricity, 2007.
[25] O. Langhamer, Wave energy conversion and the marine environment: Colonization patterns and habitat dynamics. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Division of
Electricity, 2009.
[26] M. Rahm, Ocean Wave Energy: Underwater Substation System for Wave Energy
Converters. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Division of Electricity, 2010.
50
[27] C. Boström, Electrical systems for wave energy conversion. PhD thesis, Uppsala
University, Division of Electricity, 2011.
[28] G. Nolan, J. V. Ringwood, and B. Holmes, “Short term variability off the west
coast of Ireland,” in Proceedings of the 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference, EWTEC07, Porto, Portugal, 2007.
[29] J. Falnes, Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems. Cambridge University Press,
2002.
[30] L. H. Holthuijsen, Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters. Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
[31] P. C. Liu, “Is the wind wave frequency spectrum outdated,” Ocean Engineering,
vol. 27, pp. 577–588, 2000.
[32] S. R. Massel, “Wavelet analysis for processing of ocean surface wave records,”
Ocean Engineering, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 957–987, 2001.
[33] M. C. Huang, “Wave parameters and functions in wavelet analysis,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 111 – 125, 2004.
[34] M. Elsayed, “An overview of wavelet analysis and its application to ocean wind
waves,” Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 535–540, 2010.
[35] I. Boldea, Synchronous Generators. Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
[36] R. K. Wangsness, Electromagnetic Fields. New York City, New York, USA:
John Wiley & sons, 2 ed., 1986.
[37] K. E. Hallenius, Elektriska maskiner (Electrical Machines). Liber Läromedel,
1980.
[38] D. Ross, Power from the waves. Oxford University Press, 1995.
[39] I. K. Bjerke, J. Sjolte, E. Hjetland, and G. Tjensvoll, “Experiences from field
testing with the BOLT wave energy converter,” in Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, EWTEC11, Southampton, UK, 2011.
[40] R. Caljouw, D. Harrowfield, L. Mann, and J. Fievez, “Testing and model evaluation of a scale CETO unit,” in Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference, EWTEC11, Southampton, UK, 2011.
[41] F. Thiebaut, D. O’Sullivan, P. Kracht, S. Ceballos, J. López, C. Boake, J. Bard,
N. Brinquete, J. Varandas, L. M. C. Gato, R. Alcorn, and A. W. Lewis, “Testing
of a floating OWC device with movable guide vane impulse turbine power takeoff,” in Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
EWTEC11, Southampton, UK, 2011.
[42] J. Skelton, G. Bryans, and K. Doherty, “The learning and development process
of the Oyster wave energy converter,” in Proceedings of the 9th European Wave
and Tidal Energy Conference, EWTEC11, Southampton, UK, 2011.
51
[43] O. Svensson, E. Strömstedt, A. Savin, and M. Leijon, “Sensors and measurements inside the second and third wave energy converter at the Lysekil research
site,” in Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
EWTEC11, Southampton, UK, 2011.
[44] Y. Masuda, T. Kuboki, and X. Liang, “Wave power use for island power supply by a Backward Bent Duct Buoy,” in Proceedings of the Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, vol. 1, pp. 527–536, 1997.
[45] E. D. Tietje, III, M. Folley, S. Beatty, M. Raftery, and P. Ricci, “Standardized
performance assessment of wave energy converters,” in Proceedings of the 9th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, EWTEC11, Southampton, UK,
2011.
[46] C. Johnstone, T. McCombes, A. S. Bahaj, L. Myers, B. Holmes, J. P. Kofoed,
and C. Bittencourt, “Equimar: Development of best practices for the engineering
performance appraisal of wave and tidal energy convertors,” in Proceedings of
the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, EWTEC11, Southampton,
UK, 2011.
[47] R. Waters, M. Stålberg, O. Danielsson, O. Svensson, S. Gustafsson, E. Strömstedt, M. Eriksson, J. Sundberg, and M. Leijon, “Experimental results from sea
trials of an offshore wave energy system,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 90,
p. 034105 (3 pages), 2007.
[48] C. Boström, R. Waters, E. Lejerskog, O. Svensson, M. Stålberg, E. Strömstedt,
and M. Leijon, “Study of a wave energy converter connected to a nonlinear
load,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 123–127, 2009.
[49] J.-B. Saulnier, A. Clément, A. F. D. O. Falcão, T. Pontes, M. Prevosto, and
P. Ricci, “Wave groupiness and spectral bandwidth as relevant parameters for
the performance assessment of wave energy converters,” Ocean Engineering,
vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 130–147, 2011.
52