CHAPTER 3

Wave energy converter

modelling, control, and
power take-off design

Leandro S.P. da Silva1, Boyin Ding1, Bingyong Guo2,

Nataliia Y. Sergiienko1
1 University of Adelaide, [Link]@[Link],
2 Northwestern Polytechnical University, [Link]@[Link]

3.1 MODELLING OF WAVE ENERGY CONVERTER DYNAMICS

Currently, several WECs exist with different absorption mechanisms and subsystems.
Hence, a general formulation to describe the dynamics of all possible devices is a non-
trivial task. This section provides practical, condensed information, and derivations
for the dynamics of oscillating bodies, as this category comprises most WECs, and
relevant literature is recommended for more technical information. The approaches
described here can be extended to the analysis of other WECs systems and examples
of these are given throughout the book.

3.1.1 Time domain

The dynamics of WECs are generally characterised by a set of nonlinear equations
from the hydrodynamic loads, mooring, structural behaviour, and PTO systems with
their respective control strategy. Nonlinearities are relevant in WEC dynamics be-
cause their natural frequency is usually set within the sea spectrum range, which
increases the energy transferred from waves to WECs, and leads to large displace-
ments. Based on that, the use of time-domain models is a common practice in the
wave energy field due to its capability to deal with nonlinearities. In such models, the
system dynamics are deterministically solved in time via numerical integration us-
ing a specific time series of wave elevation/forces. Strictly speaking, several of the

DOI: 10.1201/9781003198956-3 97
98 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

aforementioned methods can be classified as time-domain models, such as lin-

ear/nonlinear potential flow models and CFD models. Hereafter, this subsection will
focus mainly on time-domain models based on the Cummins equation [146], which
relies on existing experiences from the offshore and ship industry. This type of model
has been proved to be effective after extensive application to WECs. In addition,
the foundation of the Cummins equation can be related straightforwardly to the
frequency-domain model, presented in the following subsection, which is based on
linear wave potential theory.
Let us consider general WECs dynamics, such as that shown in Eq. (2.46), in
which the main sources of loads are:

Mẍ(t) = Fe + Fr + Fs + Fv + Fadd , (3.1)

where the first four right-hand terms refer to the loads caused by wave-structure
interactions: Fe , Fr , Fs , and Fv refer to the wave excitation, wave radiation, hydro-
static, and viscous drag forces and moment terms respectively; the last term, Fadd ,
denotes additional forces, such the ones from the power take-off, mooring system,
control strategy, and motion constraint forces.
For most WECs, the first-order wave excitations are sufficient to have reliable
estimations of the body displacements because the natural frequency for the power
absorption mode generally sits within the sea spectrum range. However, analysis using
higher-order excitations is usually required during further stages of development.
Assuming an irregular sea state, the wave excitation may be represented as a linear
superposition of N sinusoidal load components, as:
"N #
(−iωi t+βη,i )
X
Fe (t) = ℜ ηi (ωi )HFe,i (ωi )e , (3.2)
i=1

where the subscript i denotes the ith frequency component, η denotes the ampli-
tude of wave elevation, which can be obtained from the sea spectrum as ηi (ωi ) =
q
2Sη (ωi )∆ω, as shown in Eqs. (2.36) to (2.38); HFe,i (ωi ) denotes the transfer func-
tion that relates the wave excitation loads and the wave elevation at frequency ωi ;
βη,i is the wave surface phase angle, which is assumed to be uniformly distributed
within [0, 2π] radians. Note that for a regular sea state, the wave is composed of a
single frequency.
The wave radiation loads may be represented by Cummins equation [146]:
Z t
Fr (t) = −A∞ ẍ(t) − Krad (t − τ )ẋ(t)dτ, (3.3)
−∞

where A∞ = limω→ − ∞ Am (ω) is the added mass matrix at infinite frequency, and Krad
denotes the radiation impulse response function matrix, also known as the memory
function matrix. This term is related to the presence of the free surface, where the
body motion generates propagating waves. The radiation load effects depend on any
previous motion, which is shown in the integral limits. In practice, the contribution
of the convolution integral is negligible after a relatively short time (approximately
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 99

20–80 s for some devices). Hence, a common practice in offshore engineering is to com-
pute the convolution integral over a limited time when calculated by direct numerical
integration. Several approximations have been proposed to circumvent the require-
ment to compute the convolution integral in Eq. (3.3), such as system identification
based on frequency-domain, time-domain, and Prony’s method [667, 629, 214]. Chap-
ter 4 gives a more in-depth information regarding the radiation loads representation
in the time domain.
The hydrostatic forces (Fs ) are originated by the static-pressure (still water)
acting along the WEC’s wet surface, and their influence is important to the dynamics
and stability of the devices. As shown in Eq. (2.43), the hydrostatic force is expressed
as a function of the displacement; therefore, it is common to represent this load in
terms of hydrostatic stiffness and a constant force.
A common representation of the viscous drag loads can be formulated based on
Morison’s equation, which is characterised as a quadratic drag function. Initially,
Morison’s equation was applied to predict wave forces per unit of length, applied to
a vertical pile. Since its first derivation, several modifications have been applied to
the original formulation. In the wave energy field, the inclusion of viscous drag forces
usually considers the relative velocity between the structure and the wave (ẋrel,i =
ẋi −ui ) for translational modes of motion, and structure velocity for rotational modes.
For example, the viscous drag component for the translational modes can be expressed
as:
1
Fv,j (t) = − ρCD,j S⊥,j ẋrel,j (t)|ẋrel,j (t)|, for j = [1, 2, 3] (3.4)
2
where CD,j denotes the viscous drag coefficient in the j-th mode, and S⊥,j is the
cross-sectional area of the structure perpendicular to the j-th direction. An example
for the rotational modes can be seen in Eq. (5.15). The drag coefficient is usually
obtained via experimental results or CFD simulations; its magnitude is dependent on
the geometry, Reynolds number, roughness number, and Keulegan-Carpenter number
[309].
Additional forces act on the WEC dynamics, which are dependent on the char-
acteristics of the devices. For example, some WECs might be connected to moor-
ing systems composed of tethers connected to their PTO system, while others use
catenary lines to restrain their motion [160]. The PTO system can be composed of
hydraulic, pneumatic, mechanical, and electrical systems. Hence, different numerical
models can be employed to describe additional loads, based on the characteristics
of each device and assumptions. Although this topic is a broad field of knowledge,
some extra information regarding control and PTO systems is provided in Section
3.3 to cover the main aspects of the wave energy conversion, and some are presented
in subsequent chapters.
The main objective of a WEC and its PTO system is to extract power from ocean
waves. In this regard, the mean mechanical power absorbed from the PTO system
over a time T can be calculated as:
Z T
1
P pto = − Fpto (t)ẋ(t)dt, (3.5)
T 0
100 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

where Fpto is the PTO force, which was included as an additional force in Eq. (3.1).
Assuming a mechanical PTO system, composed of a linear damper, the mean power
absorbed is given by:
1 T
Z
P pto = Bpto ẋ2 dt, (3.6)
T 0
where Bpto is the magnitude of the linear damping coefficient from the PTO system.

3.1.2 Frequency domain

Time-domain simulations are computationally expensive when compared with calcu-
lations in the frequency domain. Hence, they are generally employed after extensive
investigations in the frequency domain, once the main features of the WEC have
been defined, in order to demonstrate the validity of the device and control strat-
egy. Therefore, the WEC dynamics during the operational regime and preliminary
analysis are conducted in the frequency domain. In this regard, the wave-structure
interaction is described based on the linear potential theory. Additional forces, such
as the ones from PTO, mooring systems, and control, are linearised around an oper-
ating point by means of Taylor series up to first-order terms. Once the dynamics are
described by a linear system, the principles of superposition and linear combination
can be applied to the analysis of the WECs.
Considering harmonic excitation loads, the vector of response has also an har-
monic motion that oscillates at same frequency and can be represented as:

x(t) = ℜ{X(ω)e−iωt }, (3.7)

where X is the vector of complex amplitude of the body displacement. Based on

Eq. (3.7), the velocity and acceleration can be obtained as:

ẋ(t) = ℜ{−iωX(ω)e−iωt }, (3.8)

ẍ(t) = ℜ{−ω 2 X(ω)e−iωt }. (3.9)

Based on the above, the WEC linear dynamics can be expressed in the frequency
domain as:
h i
−ω 2 (M + Am (ω)) − iω(B + Brad (ω)) + K X = Fe (ω), (3.10)

where M, B, and K are the matrices of inertia, damping and stiffness, respectively;
the hydrodynamic coefficients of added mass, Am (ω), radiation damping, Brad (ω),
and excitation force, Fe (ω), are usually obtained through BEM codes or analytically
as per Section 2.2.2. In this formulation, additional forces from the PTO, mooring
and control system are assumed to be functions of the displacements and velocities;
hence, are described as a combination of linear stiffness and dampers that compose
matrices B and K. Note that some PTO systems present relevant inertial effects,
e.g., translators, and flywheels [706], hence, inertia terms from the PTO appear in
matrix M. It is also important to highlight that some sources of nonlinearities vanish
during the linearisation, such as the viscous drag loads under zero current speed.
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 101

Based on Eq. (3.10), the transfer function of the linear system dynamics can be
established to relate the WEC response and excitation forces:
h i−1
Hx (ω) = −ω 2 (M + Am (ω)) − iω(B + Brad (ω)) + K . (3.11)

In the offshore engineering field, the response is also usually expressed based
on the response amplitude operator (RAO), which establishes a transfer function
between the body response amplitude and the wave amplitude. Once the transfer
function is derived, the dynamics can be obtained straightforwardly by solving the
system of algebraic linear equations. For irregular sea states, the stochastic response
can be expressed in terms of the power spectrum density (PSD) through the response
spectrum matrix as:
Sx (ω) = Hx Sf Hx T* , (3.12)
where T* denotes the transpose conjugate of the matrix, and Sf is the force spectrum
matrix given by:
Sf (ω) = HFe Sη HFe T* , (3.13)
where Sη denotes the wave spectrum.
In Eq.(3.10), the damping matrix (B) contains contributions from several sources
of loads that can exist in the WEC’s dynamics, such as those from the PTO system
(Bpto ). In this regard, the mean power absorbed by a linear PTO system in an
irregular sea state can be calculated in the frequency domain as:
Z
Ppto = Bpto ω 2 Sx dω. (3.14)

3.1.3 Statistical linearisation

Frequency-domain models have been used extensively for the initial stages of devel-
opment due to their low computational cost compared with time-domain simulations.
However, the application of such models is restricted to linear systems, which may
lead to unreliable predictions of the system dynamics and the mean power absorbed.
In this regard, and under certain assumptions, the linearisation in the frequency-
domain models can be performed statistically for a more realistic prediction of the
first-order motion of WECs, where the contribution of each source of nonlinearity
is considered over the operating region. In such an approach, the wave excitation is
described by a Gaussian distribution, as it is given by a linear transformation of the
sea elevation, which is assumed Gaussian. Since the dynamics are approximated to
a linear function, the WEC response is also assumed to be Gaussian. To date, the
contributions of several nonlinear loads have been estimated using statistical lineari-
sation for a variety of WECs [152, 247], such as oscillating wave surge converters
[250, 778, 153], point absorbers [251, 147, 738, 150], and oscillating water columns
[252, 737, 151].
Consider a general WEC described in the following form:

Mẍ + Bẋ + Kx + Θ(x, ẋ, ẍ) = Fe (t) + Fr , (3.15)

102 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

where Θ is a nonlinear vector, which is a function of the generalised coordinate

vector and its first and second time derivative. Here, Θ comprises all sources of
nonlinearities, such as those from viscous drag, PTO, and mooring systems. Based
on Eq. (3.15), an equivalent linear system can be determined as:

(M + Meq )ẍ + (B + Beq )ẋ + (K + Keq )x = Fe (t) + Fr , (3.16)

where the subscript eq denotes the equivalent linear terms, which are determined by
minimising the difference between the nonlinear and equivalent linear systems, Eqs.
(3.15) and (3.16) respectively, in a mean squared sense as:
D E
min εdif f T εdif f , (3.17)

where ⟨ ⟩ denotes the mathematical expectation and the difference εdif f is given by:

εdif f = Θ(x, ẋ, ẍ) − Meq ẍ − Beq ẋ − Keq x. (3.18)

Under the assumption of a Gaussian response, it can be demonstrated that the min-
imisation condition is obtained systematically by setting the equivalent linear matri-
ces as [674]: * +
∂Θi
Meqi,j = , (3.19)
∂ ẍj
* +
∂Θi
Beqi,j = , (3.20)
∂ ẋj
* +
∂Θi
Keqi,j = , (3.21)
∂xj
where the subscript i,j denotes the matrix index.
The equivalent random zero mean WEC steady-state response may be represented
mathematically as: Z ∞
x̃(t) = hx,eq (τ )f˜e (t − τ )dτ, (3.22)
−∞
where hx,eq is the equivalent linear impulse response function matrix for the body
response, and f˜e is a zero-mean, Gaussian, random excitation, which is given by the
linear impulse response function of the incident wave elevation. Based on the above,
an equivalent transfer function of the nonlinear system dynamics can be established
to relate the WEC response and excitation forces, thus:
h i−1
Hx,eq = −ω 2 (M + Am (ω) + Meq ) − iω(Brad (ω) + B + Beq ) + (K + Keq ) .
(3.23)
Like Eq. (3.12), the stochastic response can be expressed in terms of PSD through
the response spectrum matrix as:

Sx = Hx,eq Sf Hx,eq T* . (3.24)

 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 103

Based on Eq. (3.6), the mean power absorbed by a linear damper can be calculated
as: D E
P pto = Bpto ẋ2 = Bpto σẋ2 , (3.25)
which is equivalent to the expression given in Eq. (3.14). Note that some PTO systems
might be described by nonlinear forces as in Eq. (3.5). In this case, the power is given
as:
P pto = ⟨Fpto ẋ⟩ . (3.26)
For nonlinear PTO systems, the mean power absorbed can be estimated using the
equivalent linear terms as shown in [152]:
P pto = Beq,pto σẋ2 , (3.27)
where Beq,pto is the equivalent damping coefficient from the nonlinear PTO.

[Link] Asymmetric non-linearities and constant loads

Note that in the case of asymmetric non-linearities or/and systems under constant
loads, the response can be described in terms of mean values (µx ) and random zero
mean components (x̃). For such conditions, Eq. (3.15) can be rewritten as:
¨ + Bx̃˙ + K(µx + x̃) + Θ(µx + x̃, x̃,
Mx̃ ˙ x̃)
¨ = µFe + F̃e (t) + F̃r , (3.28)
where µF denotes the vector of mean forces and moments. The mean response can
be obtained taking the expectation of Eq. (3.28):
D E
µx = K−1 µFe − Θ(µx + x̃, x̃,
˙ x̃)
¨ . (3.29)
Subtracting Eq. (3.29) from Eq. (3.28), an equivalent form of Eq. (3.15) is obtained:
¨ + Bx̃˙ + Kx̃ + G(x̃, x̃,
Mx̃ ˙ x̃)
¨ = F̃e (t) + F̃r , (3.30)
D E
˙ x̃)
where G(x̃, x̃, ¨ = Θ(µx + x̃, x̃,
˙ x̃)
¨ − Θ(µx + x̃, x̃,
˙ x̃)
¨ .

[Link] Multivariate normal probability density function

The mathematical expectations used to compute Eqs. (3.19) to (3.21) can be a func-
tion of several variables and their time derivatives. In this regard, multivariate normal
probability density functions (MVNPDF) are required to estimate the equivalent lin-
ear terms. Considering the case of a nonlinearity function of the displacement, the
MVNPDF to calculate the equivalent stiffness terms would have the following form:
1 1
 
T −1
f(x) = exp − (x̃ − µx ) V (x̃ − µx ) , (3.31)
(2π)n/2 |V|1/2 2
where V denotes the covariance matrix of the coordinate x, and |V| denotes the
determinant. The symmetrical covariance matrix is given by:
σx21
 
σx1 x2 . . . σx1 xn

 σx22 . . . σx2 xn 

V= .. .. , (3.32)

 . . 
sym σx2n
104 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

where the diagonal terms of the covariance matrix are obtained based on the auto-
spectrum as: Z ∞
σx2k = Sxk xk (ω)dω, (3.33)
0
and the non-diagonal terms of the covariance matrix (j , k) are obtained based on
the cross-spectrum as: Z ∞
σxj xk = Sxj xk (ω)dω. (3.34)
0
Some sources of nonlinearities may be written as a function of the coordinate
x and their time derivatives. Considering the cases of nonlinearities with first time
derivatives, the following relationships can be used to compute the covariance matrix
and distributions: Z ∞
σẋ2k = ω 2 Sxk xk (ω)dω, (3.35)
0
Z ∞
σxj ẋk = i ωSxj xk (ω)dω, (3.36)
0
Z ∞
σxk ẋj = −i ωSxj xk (ω)dω, (3.37)
0
σxk ẋk = 0, (3.38)
Z ∞
σẋj ẋk = ω 2 Sxj xk (ω)dω. (3.39)
0
The same procedure can be extended for the nonlinearities functions of the coordi-
nate, and their first and second-time derivatives. For nonlinearities dependent on a
single variable, the Gaussian distribution can be used to calculate the mathematical
expectation. Depending on the source of the nonlinearity, analytical solutions are
available, as given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Analytical solutions for the statistical linearisation coefficients of common
nonlinearities for WECs.
D E
dΦ
Φ(x) dx ⟨Φ(x)⟩
 1
2
sgn(x) 2
π σx−1 0
 1
8 2
x|x| π σx 0
x3 3σx2 0

[Link] Iterative procedure

As observed in Eqs. (3.20) and (3.21), the mathematical expectations to calculate
the equivalent linear terms require prior knowledge of the response distribution. The
solution to this problem is usually not available analytically. Hence, the statistical
linearisation is performed using an iterative procedure, wherein traditional frequency-
domain models with Taylor linearisations are used as an initial guess. The iterative
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 105

procedure runs until the error between the previous and the new steps is within an
acceptable range.

3.1.4 Alternative numerical methods

Statistical linearisation provides reasonable estimates of the mean and mean-square
responses of WECs, which are restricted to first-order dynamics. In addition, the
equivalent linear solution leads to a Gaussian distribution, while the real response
might deviate to a non-Gaussian one. As a result, equivalent linear responses might
lose salient features of the actual nonlinear dynamics. It is well known that non-
linearities may lead to vibrations outside the excitation range frequency. Although
WECs have a dominant mode that extracts energy, which is usually set to operate
close to resonant conditions, higher-order responses can be relevant for other degrees
of freedom (DoFs) and the response may be given by a non-Gaussian distribution.
The limitations of the statistical linearisation method can be circumvented by
replacing nonlinear loads with an equivalent nonlinear one in a polynomial form,
known as the statistical nonlinearisation method [182, 736, 776, 777]. This approach
can be interpreted as an extension of statistical linearisation using high order Volterra
series to describe the response of nonlinear systems [182]. Generally, polynomials up
to the second or third-order are enough to describe nonlinear behaviour, known as
the statistical quadratisation [182] and statistical cubicisation methods, respectively
[776]. Like the SL (statistical linearization), the equivalent coefficients are obtained
by minimising the difference between the nonlinear and the equivalent polynomial
one in a mean square sense, while the probability density function is built using
Gram-Charlier expansions of the Gaussian distribution [182]. Currently, the statistical
nonlinearisation method has not been applied to WECs, however, additional examples
applied to offshore systems can be found in [148, 444, 645]. Other examples of spectral
methods can be applied to WECs; such as the harmonic balance method [540, 538,
735] and multiple timescale spectral analysis [171]. For a survey of the available
methods, the reader is also encouraged to read references [674, 730, 728, 729].

3.1.5 Case study

This subsection provides a practical example of different methodologies being ap-
plied to estimate the response and power absorbed by a WEC. In this regard, a
half-submerged spherical point absorber (PA) restrained to move only in the heave
direction is chosen as a case study. The additional forces acting on the PA are from the
mooring and PTO systems, which are represented by a linear stiffness and damper.

[Link] Time domain

As described in Eqs. (3.1) to (3.4), the governing equation of the PA heaving motion
at the equilibrium position can be represented as:
Z t
(m + A∞ )ẍ + Bpto ẋ + Kpto x = − krad (t − τ )ẋ(t)dτ + Fs + Fv + Fe (t), (3.40)
−∞
106 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

where Bpto and Kpto are the damping and stiffness coefficients of the PTO system,
which consists of a linear spring and a linear damper, and m is the mass of the point
absorber.
For the following example it is important to notice that two nonlinear sources
are included: viscous drag and nonlinear hydrostatic stiffness. The first nonlinearity
is expressed as in Eq. (3.4); however, a simplification using only the body velocity is
assumed here. Hence, the viscous drag is expressed as:
1
Fv = − ρCD πr2 ẋ|ẋ|, (3.41)
2
where r denotes the radius of the sphere.
The second nonlinearity occurs due to the variation of the waterplane area with
the depth, resulting in a nonlinear hydrostatic restoring force. For the spherical case,
the variations of the immersed fluid volume around the centre of the sphere can be
described as:  
dV = π r2 − x2 dx. (3.42)
Hence, the nonlinear hydrostatic restoring force can be expressed as:
!
x3
2 πρg 3
Fs = −πρg xr − = − πρgr2 x + x , with − r ≤ x ≤ r, (3.43)
3 | {z } 3
Ks

where Ks is the linear hydrostatic stiffness of the buoy.

[Link] Frequency domain

In the frequency-domain model, the dynamics are linearised around the mean posi-
tion. Hence, only the linear stiffness part is included and the viscous drag contribution
is neglected. Based on that, the following transfer function is given to relate the buoy
displacement and the wave excitation force:
h i−1
Hx (ω) = −ω 2 (m + Am (ω)) − iω(Bpto + Brad (ω)) + (Kpto + Ks ) , (3.44)

which is used to calculate the stochastic response, as shown in Eq. (3.12).

[Link] Statistical linearisation

Under the hypothesis of Gaussian excitations, statistical linearisation can be em-
ployed to estimate the contributions of nonlinear terms. In the following example,
the viscous drag and nonlinear hydrostatic stiffness are included using equivalent
linear terms, and the transfer function that relates the buoy displacement and wave
excitation force is given by:
h i−1
Hx,eq (ω) = −ω 2 (m + Am (ω)) − iω(Bpto + Brad (ω) + Beq ) + (Kpto + Ks + Keq ) .
(3.45)
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 107

If the PA oscillates within the range defined in Eq. (3.43), an analytical solution
for the hydrostatic stiffness can be used. As a result, the equivalent coefficients are
given by:
 1
1 8 2
Beq = ρCD πr2 σẋ , (3.46)
2 π
Keq = −πρgσx2 . (3.47)
In the present example, no equivalent linear inertia term occurs because the nonlin-
earities are not dependent on the acceleration. However, nonlinearities as a function
of the acceleration might be present in the numerical methods of other WEC mech-
anisms such as oscillating water columns, which are characterised by a variable mass
system. Note that the relative velocity can be included in statistical linearisation of
the viscous drag equation as shown in [149].

[Link] Results
The PA is subjected to a sea state described by the JONSWAP spectrum, with a
significant wave height equal to 3 m and a wave peak period of 7 s, and a water depth
is equal to 50 m. Table 3.2 presents the parameters used in this case study. Ten time-
domain simulations were performed during 1,000 s, each using different sets of phase
angles in the excitation force. The PA was set to operate under the maximum power
configuration, which was optimised using the frequency-domain model.

Table 3.2: PA parameters used in the case study.

Property Value Unit

r 5 [m]
m 2.68 × 105 [kg]
h i
kN
Kpto –450 m
h i
kN.s
Bpto 100 m

CD 1 [−]

To compare the accuracy between methods, Figure 3.1a shows the PSD of the
heave displacement using nonlinear time-domain simulations (TD), a statistical lin-
earisation model (SL), and a frequency-domain model (FD). The SL model was able
to estimate the effects of the nonlinearities accurately, which is captured using the
nonlinear TD model. Depending on the source of nonlinearity, shifts in the peak re-
sponse can be observed due to stiffness and inertial effects, while the magnitude is
also affected by nonlinear terms described as a function of the velocities. For the
following example, the main difference occurs due to the inclusion of viscous effects
in the SL and TD approaches.
108 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

(a) (b)

Figure 3.1: Comparison between the numerical methods: (a) PSD of the heave motion,
(b) Probability distribution function of the heave motion.

To verify the applicability of the SL technique, Figure 3.1b shows a comparison

of the probability distribution between the models. As mentioned previously, the SL
model is built under the assumption of a Gaussian distribution, which is a valid
approximation for the conditions investigated in this example. This led to the higher
accuracy in the results predicted by the SL model, comparable to nonlinear TD
simulations.
The mean power estimations using the different models and their associated sim-
ulation clock time are presented in Table 3.3. The power estimation using statistical
linearisation obtained good agreement with nonlinear time-domain simulations, while
the frequency-domain model was overestimated due to the viscous effects not being
included. In terms of computational cost, the statistical linearisation model is one
order of magnitude slower than the traditional frequency-domain model, and around
three orders faster than the time domain, if multiple simulations with different sets
of phase angles in the excitation force are considered.

Table 3.3: Power estimation and simulation wall-clock time comparison across models.

Model Power estimated(kW) Simulation wall-clock time(s)

Time domain 132 39.55 (each run)
Statistical linearisation 133 0.108
Frequency domain 255 0.005

3.2 PRINCIPLES AND BOUNDS OF WAVE POWER ABSORPTION

Understanding the principles and limits in WEC power absorption is crucial for
efficient PTO system design. To avoid losing generality, this section treats the
PTO system (a complex and multi-functional sub-system of WEC as detailed in
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 109

Section 3.3) as a generic feedback control system that generates a PTO control force
modifying the power absorption performance of the WEC system.

3.2.1 Impedance matching

In general, a force-to-velocity model of a WEC in a single DoF in the frequency
domain can be written as:
U (ω) 1
= , (3.48)
Fe (ω) Zi (ω) + Zpto (ω)

where U is the complex amplitude of the buoy velocity; Fe is the complex amplitude
of the excitation force; Zi (ω) is the frequency-dependent system intrinsic impedance
(associated with wave-structure interaction dynamics); and Zpto (ω) is the frequency-
dependent PTO load impedance (associated with PTO system dynamics) that is
introduced to modify the overall system behaviour via feedback control. For a half-
submerged heaving point absorber, as shown in Figure 3.2, following Eq. (3.11), these
two impedances are:
Ks
 
Zi (ω) = Brad (ω) − i ωm + ωAm (ω) − , (3.49)
ω

Kpto
 
Zpto (ω) = Bpto + i . (3.50)
ω

Pe

Pr

Pspring = 0 Ppto

Figure 3.2: Average power flow in and out of a spring-damper controlled heaving
point absorber wave energy converter under harmonic motion.

The following complex conjugate relationship between the system intrinsic

impedance and the PTO load impedance was derived for maximising the power
110 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

absorption of a WEC [227], often termed complex conjugate control or impedance

matching in the literature:

Zpto (ω) = Zi∗ (ω), (3.51)

where ( )∗ denotes the complex conjugate. Substituting Eqs. (3.49) and (3.50) into Eq.
(3.51), the optimal PTO parameters maximising power absorption can be obtained:

Kpto = ω 2 (m + Am (ω)) − Ks , (3.52)

and,

Bpto = Brad (ω). (3.53)

Rearranging Eq. (3.52) specifies the WEC resonance condition, or phase optimal-
ity condition:
s
Kpto + Ks
ωn = . (3.54)
m + Am (ωn )
When the natural frequency of the controlled WEC system (as adjusted by the PTO
spring) is equal to the incident wave frequency, the controlled WEC system operates
in resonance with the wave excitation. This results in a complete cancellation of
the reactive terms (or imaginary terms) in the FUe(ω)
(ω) relationship in Eq. (3.48), and
consequently forces the buoy velocity in phase with the excitation force. Since the
average power input for the WEC system arising from wave excitation, as shown in
Figure 3.2, is given by:
1 1
P e = Re{Fe U ∗ } = |Fe |.|U |cos(γ), (3.55)
2 2
zero phase difference between the buoy velocity and the excitation force (i.e. γ=0)
allows incident wave power to be input effectively into the WEC system. However,
due to the existence of the PTO spring (for the tuning of the natural frequency of
the WEC system), a bidirectional power flow occurs between the PTO spring and
the buoy, which averages to zero (i.e., P spring = 0) under harmonic wave excitation.
Therefore, the PTO control system including the function of the spring-like storage
is often called reactive control because of the required reactive power flow between
the PTO and the buoy.
Eq. (3.53) shows the optimal amplitude condition for the buoy velocity where the
PTO damping is equal to the radiation damping. This condition is set to compromise
the power outputs of the WEC system: the power returned back into the sea via
radiation damping dissipation as shown in Figure 3.2:
1
P r = Brad |U |2 , (3.56)
2
and the power absorbed by the PTO system via PTO damping dissipation, as shown
in Figure 3.2:
1
P pto = Bpto |U |2 . (3.57)
2
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 111

A PTO damper, as a simplified analogy to an electricity generator, only dissipates

power and thus any PTO control system modelled as a pure damper is often called a
passive control due to the passive loading associated with the damping mechanism.
Substituting Eqs. (3.49), (3.50), and (3.51) into Eq. (3.48), the optimal buoy
velocity (without considering the viscous drag) is obtained:

Fe (ω)
Uopt (ω) = . (3.58)
2Brad (ω)

Eq. (3.58) shows that the optimal buoy velocity is in phase with the excitation force
and the optimal impedance of the controlled system becomes double that of the ra-
diation damping, which indicates that half of the wave power input is radiated back
to the sea and the other half is absorbed by the PTO damper. To gain a quantita-
tive understanding on the power maximising theory under impedance matching, the
averaged input power and averaged output power of a half-submerged heaving point
absorber are plotted against the variations of the PTO spring and damper coefficients
respectively, as shown in Figure 3.3. It can be seen that PTO absorbed mean power is
given by the difference between the mean power input and the mean radiated power,
regardless of the variations in Kpto and Bpto . The PTO absorbed mean power reaches
a peak at the resonance condition by tuning Kpto in Figure 3.3a, while it reaches a
peak at the optimal amplitude condition by tuning Bpto in Figure 3.3b, i.e., at the
intersection between the P r curve and the P pto curve. It is also noticeable that with
the increase of Bpto , the mean radiated power becomes negligible compared with the
PTO absorbed mean power.

(a) (b)

Figure 3.3: Mean power input arising from wave excitation and mean power output:
radiated power and PTO absorbed power versus variations in (a) the PTO spring
stiffness coefficient while the optimal amplitude condition is always achieved, (b) the
PTO damping coefficient while phase optimality condition is always achieved. The
wave conditions are described by a regular wave with 1 m amplitude and a period of
7 s.
112 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

3.2.2 Phi-method
Complex conjugate control or impedance matching has become a classic theory for
the design of WEC PTO control systems, however, being a solution in the frequency
domain, only linear terms were included in its derivations. For example, the nonlin-
ear viscous drag loads were not included, and the control influence of its dynamics
is not straightforwardly understood in the frequency domain, even when statistical
linearisation is used, as it is estimated using iterative procedures. In these cases, con-
trol strategies were developed in the time domain for a better understanding of the
impact of nonlinear dynamics on PTO control. The following time-domain approach
is based on an algorithmic operator Phi-method [543] that determines the optimal
PTO control force to maximise wave power absorption.
The WEC dynamics can be written as the following general expression in the
time domain:
 
H t; x, ẋ, ẍ, . . . , x(n) = Fe (t) + Fpto (t), (3.59)

∂nx
where x(n) = n and n is the highest order of the time derivatives. H is a sufficiently
∂t
smooth function of time derivatives describing the WEC dynamics in response to the
excitation and PTO control forces, which are not necessarily linear.
The Phi-method derives the optimal control force as a function of the WEC time
response from the analytical WEC dynamics H using the following expression [543]:
Z t ∞ k−1 
∂ ∂ ∂
X  
Fpto (t) = −α + ẋ Hdτ − − ẋ (k) H , (3.60)
0 ∂x k=1
∂t ∂x

where α is a bias force equal to the mean wave force that prevents the WEC from
drifting. Table 3.4 shows some typical dynamics terms and their corresponding opti-
mal PTO control forces derived using Eq. (3.60).

Table 3.4: Typical dynamic terms and corresponding Phi-derived optimal control
forces.

Dynamic terms Analytical expression Phi-derived control

(H) force (Fpto )
Spring a0 x(t) a0 x(t)
Damper a1 ẋ(t) −a1 ẋ(t)
Inertia a2 ẍ(t) a2 ẍ(t)
Viscous drag a3 |ẋ(t)|ẋ(t) −2a3 |ẋ(t)|ẋ(t)
 Rt 
Depth inertia m(x)ẍ m(x)ẍ + ṁẋ − 0 ṁẍdt

Substituting the first four dynamic expressions in Table 3.4 and their correspond-
ing Phi-derived control force into Eq. (3.59) and combining/cancelling common terms,
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 113

the following observations can be made. The system intrinsic spring and inertia terms
are respectively cancelled by the corresponding Phi-derived feedback control force,
while the linear damper term is doubled by linear damper control. These follow
impedance matching theory for the maximum power absorption of a WEC, in which
the dynamics are assumed to be linear and under harmonic motion. On the other
hand, the viscous drag term (the quadratic damper term) is tripled by the quadratic
damper control according to the Phi-method, whose mathematical proof is shown in
[308]. Table 3.4 also shows the Phi-derived optimal control force for the depth de-
pendent inertia term, which readers can derive using the Phi-method as an exercise.
Note that if m becomes a constant, then the optimal control force reduces to mz̈;
identical to the solution for the standard inertia term.

3.2.3 Theoretical power limit

When the complex conjugate control in Eq. (3.51) is achieved by selecting a proper set
of PTO coefficients, the amplitude of the optimal buoy velocity in Eq. (3.58) could
be impractically large, especially when the wave period is relatively high and the
radiation damping approaches zero. The optimal power capture may be overestimated
and, hence, it is necessary to investigate the power limit with or without practical
constraints. According to Eq. (3.58), the maximum absorbed power in a single DoF
can be given as [227]
|Fe,j (ω)|2
Pmax,j (ω) = , (3.61)
8Brad,j (ω)
where j = 1, 2, 3, · · · 6 represent the surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw modes,
respectively.
As the optimal velocity in Eq. (3.58) is achieved by design or control, the maxi-
mum absorbed power only depends on the amplitude of the excitation force and the
radiation damping, as shown in Eq. (3.61). In this section, theoretical power absorp-
tion limits in two- and three-dimensional flows will be discussed, together with the
influence of motion constraints on maximum power absorption.

[Link] Power limits in two-dimensional flows

The two-dimensional flow in the X-Z plane is considered, and the fluid motion is the
same everywhere in the Y -direction. For WEC devices with a large dimension in the
Y -axis (viewed as infinite in the Y -axis), the wave-structure interaction problem can
be simplified as a two-dimensional flow problem. By assuming linear potential flow
theory and a symmetrical body about the Z-axis, the amplitudes of the excitation
forces in surge, heave or pitch modes in the two-dimensional flow, can be computed
according to their radiation damping coefficients [338, 570], given as
!1
2
ρg 2 D(kh)
|Fe,j (ω)| = A Brad,j , (3.62)
ω

where D(kh) is the depth function defined in Eq. (2.26); j = 1, 3, and 5, represent
the surge, heave, and pitch modes, respectively.
114 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

Substituting Eq. (3.62) into Eq. (3.61), the maximum power absorption can be
rewritten as
A2 ρg 2 D(kh) 1 ρg 2 D(kh) 2 J
Pmax,j (ω) = = A = , (3.63)
8ω 2 4ω 2
where J is defined in Eq. (2.25). This equation gives the theoretical wave-power ab-
sorption limit for symmetrical oscillating bodies in two-dimensional flow, first derived
by Evans in 1976 [208].
In two-dimensional flow, the theoretical limit of the hydrodynamic efficiency for a
transverse symmetry body in a single mode is 50%. For WECs operating in multiple
modes, the theoretical limit of the hydrodynamic efficiency can reach 100% [208].
Alternatively, an asymmetric body, e.g., Salter’s Duck [686], also has the possibility
of achieving a hydrodynamic efficiency of 100%, even though it only oscillates in one
mode.

[Link] Power limits in three-dimensional flows

In three-dimensional flows, the amplitudes of the excitation forces in surge or pitch
modes, j = 1, 5, can be written as [570]
!1
2
4ρg 2 D(kh)
|Fe,j (ω)| = A Brad,j . (3.64)
ωk

Substituting Eq. (3.64) into Eq. (3.61), the maximum power absorption can be rewrit-
ten as
ρg 2 D(kh)A2 J
Pmax,j (ω) = 2 =2 , (3.65)
4ωk k
λ
where k = 2π is the wave number. For a heaving axisymmetrical body, the amplitude
of the excitation force is written as
!1
2
2ρg 2 D(kh)
|Fe,3 (ω)| = A Brad,3 . (3.66)
ωk

Similarly, the maximum wave-power absorption is given as

ρg 2 D(kh)A2 J
Pmax,3 (ω) = = . (3.67)
4ωk k
To improve wave-power absorption, WECs can make further use of multiple
modes. For instance, the theoretical wave-power absorption limit can reach Pmax = 3 Jk
for an oscillating body operating in surge-heave or surge-heave-pitch modes [571].

[Link] Power absorption with motion constraint

In practical engineering applications, the body motion cannot be infinite, but is
constrained by the body dimension or PTO specifications. Here, the motion constraint
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 115

of an oscillating body in a single mode is represented by the displacement stroke,

defined as xj,s . One practical method to determine this displacement stroke is the
“maximum swept volume” method [99], which will be detailed in Section 5.2.2. In
addition, xj,s can also be determined by the PTO design. By assuming harmonic
wave and linear hydrodynamics, the velocity stroke can be expressed as vj,s = ωxj,s .
When motion constraint is considered, the optimal velocity in Eq. (3.58) can be
rewritten as
Fe,j (ω)
U (ω)opt,j,s = . (3.68)
Bpto,j,s (ω) + Brad,j (ω)

Substituting |U (ω)opt,j,s | = ωxj,s into Eq. (3.68), the PTO damping coefficient can
be determined as
|Fe,j (ω)|
Bpto,j,s (ω) = − Brad,j (ω). (3.69)
ωxj,s
Hence, the maximum power absorption with motion constraint is given as

Pmax,j,s (ω) = |Fe,j (ω)|ωxj,s − ω 2 x2j,s Brad,j (ω). (3.70)

One notable way to determine xj,s was developed by Budal in 1980 [99], the so-
called Budal’s upper bound in [228]. For a half-submerged heaving device, Budal’s
upper bound can be written as:
VH
PB,3 (ω) = c0 , (3.71)
T
where c0 = πρg/4; V , H and T represent the body volume, wave height, and period,
respectively. An extension of the Budal’s upper bound for multi-mode devices is
discussed in Chapter 5. Consider both the theoretical limit and Budal’s upper bound,
a good example is shown in Figure 3.4. On the left side (the high frequency region), the
power absorption is bounded by the theoretical limit represented by PA = c∞ H 2 T 3
with c∞ = (g/π)3 /128, which is equivalent to Eq. (3.67). In the low frequency region
(the right side), the power absorption is banded by Budal’s upper bound in Eq. (3.71).
The cross point of these two power bounds, (Tc,3 , Pc,3 ), is given as
!1/4
32π 4 V
Tc,3 (ω) = , (3.72)
Hg 2
!1/4
ρg 3/2 V 3H 5
Pc,3 (ω) = . (3.73)
8 2

In Figure 3.4, the power absorption by deploying passive control, reactive control,
and latching control is well bounded by the theoretical limit and Budal’s upper bound.
Such a graphic plot also provides a basic guideline for WEC design, e.g., determining
a proper PTO power rating or buoy volume. A good case study is given in Chapter 5,
discussing the power absorption limits of a submerged multi-mode PA devices with
or without displacement constraints.
116 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

Figure 3.4: Power absorbed by a spherical heaving buoy in regular waves using passive,
reactive and latching control strategies. This figure is adapted from [229]. The red and
black solid curves are the radiation limit and the volume stroke limit, respectively.
In this figure, the wave height is H = 2.26 m, and the radius of the sphere is r = 5 m.

3.3 CONTROL SYSTEM AND POWER TAKE-OFF DESIGN

The PTO system is the core of a WEC, and has multiple functions: 1) most obvi-
ously, it converts the mechanical power of the WEC mechanism into electricity; 2)
it enhances the hydrodynamic efficiency of the WEC and thus maximises its power
absorption in varying sea states; and 3) it ensures safe operation of the WEC in the
harsh sea environment.

3.3.1 Power take-off control strategy classification

In practical applications, the motion of the wave energy device should be controlled to
maximise the converted power subject to constraints imposed by the equipment and
machinery, such as the maximum amplitude, velocity, load force, etc. [672]. Control
is implemented by the PTO system, which exerts a load force on the oscillating
body thereby tuning its dynamic response. The development of control strategies for
the wave energy applications depends on parameters such as (i) the power take-off
capabilities, (ii) availability and complexity of the system model, (iii) availability of
information about any incident wave field, and (iv) number of controlled variables,
etc. Based on these characteristics, control algorithms can be grouped as shown in
Figure 3.5.

[Link] Power flow

The first classification relates to the ability of the PTO to provide either unidirectional
or bi-directional power flow, as briefly introduced in Section 3.2.1:
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 117

Control
strategies

Model Number
Power input Causality Linearity
availability of DoFs

Reactive Causal Linear SISO

Model-based

Passive Acausal Nonlinear MIMO

Model-free

Figure 3.5: Classification of wave energy control strategies.

• reactive control (Fpto (t) = Bpto ẋ(t) + Kpto x(t)) implies that the machinery not
only receives energy from the converter but also has to put some energy back
during a part of a sinusoidal cycle (working partly as a motor) [227]. It requires a
bi-directional power flow through the PTO and can be achieved by introducing
energy storage into the system, e.g., through a series of accumulators for a
hydraulic system or mechanical springs. Reactive control was first applied to the
Edinburgh Duck (also known as Salter’s Duck) [686], where the load force was
proportional to the duck’s velocity and position, imposing a complex-conjugate
control law;
• passive control (Fpto (t) = Bpto ẋ(t)) means that the machinery is only required
to extract power from the system, but not to return it [326], which is a rea-
sonable assumption for some types of machineries, e.g., an electrical generator.
Two variations of passive control exist: a phase control presented by latching
and declutching [44, 49], and a resistive control where only a load resistance,
e.g., a damper, is adjusted to the current sea state [186, 105].
In terms of the efficiency of these control strategies, it was demonstrated in [229]
that reactive loading outperforms other controllers, as shown in Figure 3.4, and uses
the full capacity of the oscillating body [229]. Both reactive and latching controls
satisfy the phase optimality condition, or what is often called the resonance condition,
while passive loading does not have this capability, which leads to a low efficiency
in WECs when this strategy is applied. For more details on latching control refer to
Section [Link].

[Link] Causality
It is relatively easy to set the optimal phase and amplitude of the WEC oscillations
when the incoming wave is sinusoidal with uniform frequency and height. However,
real sea states have a stochastic nature and, in order to maximise the absorbed power
by applying an optimal control force to the PTO, the wave excitation forces should
be known in advance [672]. Thus, the wave energy control problem resulting from
the optimality conditions is, in general, acausal (or non-causal) [225], relying on the
future values of the wave excitation force. This future information can be gained by
installing additional equipment and sensors at some distance from a converter in the
direction of an incoming wave [225, 756] and/or using wave prediction algorithms
118 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

(e.g., auto-regressive models [261, 263] or augmented Kalman filters [327]). As a

result, the performance of acausal controllers is heavily dependent on real-time wave
forecasting which deteriorates with any increase in the prediction horizon [264].
Other controllers that obviate uncertainties associated with wave predictions are
called causal. For example, the works in [428, 696] suggested to include the knowledge
about the spectrum of the operating sea state in the system model, forming a basis
of the linear-quadratic-Gaussian control problem. Another method to achieve the
causality of the system has been presented in [265], where a non-causal transfer
function between the optimal velocity and the excitation force is replaced by the
frequency-dependent coefficient of proportionality. Those controllers that tune their
parameters to the peak (or energy) frequency of an incident wave [440, 20] also belong
to the class of causal controllers. For example, the coefficients of the linear spring-
damper controller can be tuned to the peak (or energy) frequency of the incident
wave spectrum.
Comparing the performance of these two classes of controllers [326], the acausal
strategy represented by model-predictive control (MPC) often demonstrates the best
power generation efficiency, provided perfect wave force estimation is available. How-
ever, it comes at the cost of the power take-off complexity, which requires high peak-
to-average power ratios, large energy storage, and high control forces [835]. As a
result, similar to the techno-economic development of the wave energy devices, any
implementation of advanced control strategies to increase power production must be
subject to economic assessment, as discussed in Section 1.2.3.

[Link] Model availability

Low-cost models established based on linear potential theory, as discussed in earlier
sections, are often necessary for WEC control implementation [672]. Optimisation-
based control strategies such as MPC, dynamic programming (DP), and linear
quadratic control (LQ) aim to maximise the performance objective (e.g., energy),
subject to constraints, and their performances are heavily dependent on the fidelity
of the WEC model used as a part of the optimisation algorithm [835]. On the other
hand, whilst not directly applying the model in calculating the control force, the
complex conjugate control (or spring-damper control) and latching control rely on
the WEC model when determining the optimal control parameters. One category of
control strategy that does not rely on the WEC model at all for maximising power
absorption is termed a non-model based control. A typical example of this category
is maximum power point tracking control (MPPT), which is widely used in maximis-
ing the energy conversion efficiency of wind turbines. However, it has been proven
that MPPT does not work efficiently in a WEC system when compared with model-
based control strategies, mainly due to the highly stochastic nature of ocean waves
[117, 334].

[Link] Linearity
Most of the WEC control strategies are linear methods that are not capable of
handling nonlinear dynamics such as viscous drag or other higher order nonlinear
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 119

hydrodynamic effects. Therefore, these methods often require linearised models based
on linear potential theory, although WECs do not always operate in the linear wave
theory region as shown in Chapter 2. The Phi-method, as detailed in Section 3.2.2,
belongs to the category of nonlinear control that derives the nonlinear optimal control
force for the analytical nonlinear dynamics of the system. Thus, the control perfor-
mance strongly depends on the fidelity of the nonlinear models in their analytical
expressions. DP and shape-based (SB) control are also capable of handling nonlinear
dynamics, however, their computational requirements are high and thus may not be
suitable for real-time control implementation [835].

[Link] Multi-mode control

The vast majority of wave energy converters absorb power from only one hydrody-
namic mode (heave or surge), so the development of control systems has also focused
on those devices that operate at one degree of freedom, considering single-input-
single-output (SISO) plants. Moreover, when developing new control principles and
ideas, it is easier to work with systems that have relatively simple dynamics, where
no attention should be paid to the coupling between the state variables. As a result,
almost all effective controllers in the wave energy sector have been designed for single-
DoF heaving devices [326, 835]. However, the number of converters that absorb power
from several motion modes is increasing, leading to increased interest in developing
controllers for multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) WECs, as discussed in more
detail in Chapter 5.

3.3.2 Power take-off machinery

The objective of the PTO system machinery is to transform the mechanical power of
the WEC actuator to useful electricity. The dynamic behaviour of the PTO machin-
ery also dictates what control strategies can be applied to the WEC, which directly
governs the power absorption capability of the WEC. Furthermore, taking techno-
economic assessment into consideration, PTO machinery design is a very complex
task, which plays an important role in raising the technology readiness level (TRL)
and technological performance level of the WEC towards commercialisation. The
main types of PTO machinery are shown in Figure 3.6 and their percentage of utili-
sation and their efficiencies are shown in Figure 3.7 and Table 3.5 respectively.

Table 3.5: Indicative efficiency of different PTO systems [765]

PTO system Efficiency, %

Hydraulic 65
Pneumatic 55
. Hydro 85
Direct mechanical drive 90
Direct electrical drive 95
Advanced electric materials < 80
120 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

Figure 3.6: Power take-off principles utilised for the wave energy conversion, adapted
from [73, 765].

[Link] Hydraulic power take-off machinery

Hydraulic PTO machinery utilises the cyclic motion of the hydraulic cylinder, driven
by the buoy, to force pressurised fluid through a controlled manifold to the hydraulic
motor, which is connected to the rotary electric generator. As hydraulic circuits are
designed to operate with large forces at low speeds, they are well-suited for wave en-
ergy conversion purposes and make up the largest part of all PTO technologies [765],
as shown in Fig. 3.7. Whilst being the most applicable for absorbing wave energy,

Hydraulic

42%

30% 6%
Not specified
Direct-drive 11%
11% Pneumatic
Hydro

Figure 3.7: Breakdown of WECs depending on the utilised PTO principle [548].
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 121

hydraulic PTO machinery has relatively low power conversion efficiency (refer to Ta-
ble 3.5), mainly because reactive control cannot be achieved due to the large time
constant of the hydraulic PTO machinery dynamics. Figure 3.8 shows 3 CETO 5
WEC devices equipped with hydraulic PTOs, as developed by Carnegie Clean En-
ergy prior to its patented CETO 6 technology, currently under development. The
submerged buoys are moved by the ocean swell, driving pumps that pressurise sea-
water delivered ashore by a subsea pipeline. Once onshore, the high-pressure seawater
is used to drive hydro-electric turbines, generating electricity.

Figure 3.8: CETO 5 array supplying hydraulic power onshore, (image courtesy of
Carnegie Clean Energy)

[Link] Pneumatic power take-off machinery

Pneumatic PTO machinery refers to those air-turbines that are driven by oscillat-
ing air pressure and directly coupled to a generator. This technology is utilised in
OWCs and pressure differential devices, and has the advantage that no moving parts
are under the water. Figure 3.9 shows Wave Swell’s patented fixed-structure OWC
technology, equipped with a unidirectional air-turbine that is simple, robust, and ef-
ficient. Conversely, a more complex turbine with pitching blades can be applied to
absorb energy from bidirectional air flow, with the potential of achieving soft latching
control.

[Link] Direct-drive power take-off machinery

Direct-drive PTO machinery refers to PTO systems where mechanical power from the
buoy oscillations is directly transformed into electricity. While in a direct electrical
drive system, the buoy is directly coupled to the moving part of the linear generator,
which is demonstrated in Section 4.4.3. The direct mechanical drive is equipped
with an additional mechanism to couple the buoy’s motion to a rotary generator.
122 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

Figure 3.9: Oscillating Water Column applying pneumatic PTO machinery, (image
courtesy of Wave Swell Energy).

Whilst being the least mature technology among all the PTO types, direct-drive
PTO machinery is currently in the spot light of research and development, mainly
due to its ability to generate any desired PTO control force and thus enable the
potential to implement advanced power maximising control strategies such as MPC.
Figure 3.10 shows the CorPower PA WEC, highlighting its PTO system. A composite
buoy, interacting with wave motion, directly drives the generator via a mechanical
drive-train located inside the buoy.

3.3.3 Performance measures of power take-off machinery

The performance measures specified in Section [Link] are usually calculated using
values of the mechanical power absorbed/captured by the WEC. As the power take-
off machinery converts mechanical power to electrical power with associated losses,
there is a need to quantify the efficiency of the entire power conversion chain, or each
separate subsystem, including the power transmission (e.g., hydraulic, or mechani-
cal drivetrain), the generator (rotary or linear), and the power converters (refer to
Figure 3.6).

[Link] Power conversion efficiency (mechanical-to-electrical)

The power conversion efficiency (mechanical-to-electrical) quantifies how much of the
mechanical power input to the PTO machinery is converted to useful electrical power
output:

Electrical power output [W]

ηeff,M→E = . (3.74)
Mechanical power input [W]
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 123

Figure 3.10: Point absorber applying a direct mechanical drive PTO, (image courtesy
of CorPower Ocean.)

Since the power conversion efficiency depends on the PTO input parameters (e.g.,
force and velocity, torque and angular speed, pressure difference and flow rate), it is
usually represented as a matrix.
To assess the WEC’s performance as a whole, particularly how much of the avail-
able wave energy is absorbed by the WEC, transferred to the generator and converted
into electricity, the alternative power conversion efficiency (wave-to-electrical) coeffi-
cient can be used:

Electrical power output [W]

ηeff,H→E = , (3.75)
Available hydrodynamic power [W]
where the available hydrodynamic power is calculated as (for a regular wave, heaving
axisymmetric WEC) [228] as:

max |Fe (ω)|2

Available hydrodynamic power [W] = P mech = . (3.76)
8Brad (ω)

[Link] Maximum values, or peak values

Maximum, or peak values of power, force, speed, and displacement are quantities
that establish requirements for the PTO design (drivetrain, hydraulic circuit, electric
generator, etc.). As the identification of the peak loads highly depends on the length
of the numerical or physical experiments as well on the phasing of the incoming wave,
it is more practical to report the “statistical peak” value that refers to a particular
confidence level, 95%, 99%, or 99.9%, see Figure 3.11.
124 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

(a) (b)

Figure 3.11: Demonstration of a “statistical” peak power calculation from the power
time-series: (a) instantaneous power and (b) histogram.

[Link] Peak-to-average values

Peak-to-average values of power, control force, or speed are important parameters for
the electrical part of any WEC. In particular, all electric generators are characterised
by their nominal speed, torque, and current, where the generator operates at its
maximum efficiency. Also, such generators are capable of handling some overload for
a short period of time. Hence, the peak-to-average values guide whether the electrical
system should be designed according to the mean power production, or to the peak
power requirements. In addition, the peak-to-average values are highly dependent on
the hydrodynamic control strategy used as demonstrated in [134]. If the signal has a
zero mean, the peak-to-average value is calculated using its root-mean-square instead
of the average value.

Peak power [W] P peak

Peak-to-average power = = . (3.77)
Average absorbed power [W] P

Peak force [N] F peak

Peak-to-average force = = RMS . (3.78)
Force RMS [N] F

[Link] Slew rate

The slew rate of force (or speed) is defined as the rate of change of the signal per unit
time, and usually is expressed in units of [N/s] (or [m/s2 ] for speed). This parameter
defines how quickly the force should be changed by the mechanical or electrical part
of the PTO machinery:

dFpto (t)
Slew rate [N/s] = max . (3.79)
dt

[Link] Damage equivalent loading

Damage equivalent loading (DEL) is a metric widely used in offshore applications to
assess the capability of the structure to sustain the full spectrum of loads during its
life [259, 129]. Recently, the DEL has been used in the design optimisation of wave
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 125

energy converters [130, 272, 273], in particular assessing the DEL of PTO systems
with joints (i.e., welding). The calculation of this metric spans multiple stages [130]:

• generate the PTO force time-series;

• convert force into stress;
• count the number of stress cycles;
• determine the cycles to failure according to S-N curves for a selected material
and a joint type;
• estimate the accumulated damage.

[Link] Flicker severity

Once the wave energy converter is connected to the electricity grid, it can cause rapid
fluctuations in the grid voltage, called flickers [58]. Thus, flicker evaluation determines
the electricity quality in the power grid and is defined by the flicker severity measures.
Short-term flicker severity is a measure that quantifies the visual severity of flicker
over a 10 minute period, while long-term flicker severity is the cubic average of the
short-term flicker over 2 hours.

3.3.4 Challenges in power take-off design

Various PTO mechanisms are illustrated in Section 3.3.2. These PTO mechanisms
have been widely applied in industry, and are available on the market. It is commonly
assumed that existing PTO systems can be used directly for WECs. However, the
integration of existing commercial PTO systems to WECs is not that direct, mainly
due to the harsh and time-varying deployment environment of WECs. Compared with
conventional PTO systems, the design of WEC PTO systems is still challenging. The
following problems have not been fully solved: (i) how to convert a slow motion
of huge force or torque into electrical power? (ii) how to design a PTO mechanism
operating in a wide range of varying sea states? and (iii) how to include wave-structure
interaction (WSI) and control in the design and optimisation of PTO systems?
Ocean waves are typified as low frequency with huge hydrodynamic force or torque
acting on WEC devices [184]. As a consequence, the WEC float’s motion is slow, and
the coupling force between the WEC float and the PTO system is large. Such a
motion itself is naturally challenging for PTO design. Generally, PTO systems are
optimised to operate efficiently at a high unidirectional speed, and such a slow WEC
motion may result in a large physical dimension of the PTO generator. Hydraulic
PTO systems show great advantage in WEC applications, as they can handle slow
motion and large force simultaneously. However, their application in wave energy con-
version is still constrained by some drawbacks, e.g., a relatively low efficiency [349],
regular requirements for maintenance [64], and a high pollution risk [184]. Alterna-
tively, mechanical motion rectifiers, e.g., gearboxes, are generally used to amplify
the operating velocity for generators. The mechanical motion rectifiers increase the
system complexity, and may weaken the reliability of WEC systems, e.g., including
gearbox failure. To date, it is still challenging to design a PTO system to convert
wave power into electrical power in a simple, efficient, and reliable manner.
126 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

Another obvious property of an ocean wave is its significant spatio-temporal vari-

ation. Even if the installation site is chosen properly, the wave power will still show
high irregularity in wave frequency, amplitude and direction, and these changes across
seconds and decades. Given that the lifespan, or design life, for a WEC is generally up
to 20 years, the WEC may experience all kinds of sea states, from light to extreme.
In general, a PTO system can only operate efficiently under its rated conditions,
e.g., its rated speed, power, load, etc. Therefore, it is technically challenging to de-
fine the rated operation conditions for a PTO system. Even for an optimised PTO
unit, its efficiency decreases dramatically when the load diverges from its rated value
[217]. In addition, short-term variability induces a high peak-to-average power ratio,
which may lead to overrated conditions. Meanwhile, extreme waves may cause se-
vere damage to WEC devices, as PTO units are prone to being damaged in extreme
waves. Therefore, PTO systems are required to operate efficiently in a wide range of
sea states, to run shortly at an overrated power, and to survive reliably in extreme
waves.
For PTO operating efficiently in a wide range of sea stages, control can play an
important role to extend the WEC’s bandwidth. Properly designed power maximis-
ing control may cause more strict requirements for PTO design specifications, e.g.,
the maximum slew rate, force/torque, power, etc. On the other hand, control always
tends to exaggerate the WEC motion and the PTO motion as a consequence. Such
an exaggeration in WEC and PTO motion may induce rich and complex nonlinear
dynamics, including mechanical friction [443, 399], hysteresis effect [349], dead-zone,
end-stop saturation, load effect [217], and so forth. To considering both the wave-
structure and structure-PTO interactions, a high-fidelity, computationally efficient
wave-to-wire (W2W) modelling method is required [623], leading to a co-design con-
cept. However, such a model is of high system complexity, and it is challenging to
optimise the system holistically.
In summary, it is technically challenging to design an efficient, reliable and cost-
effective PTO system that can operate in a wide range of sea states, run at overrated
power levels, execute various control strategies, require limited maintenance and sur-
vive in extreme waves. Although some novel PTO technologies, e.g., the dielectric
elastomer generator [550] and the triboelectric-electromagnetic hybrid nanogenera-
tor [237], show some advantages in wave energy conversion, their TRLs are low and
more sea trials are required for validation and verification.

3.3.5 Challenges in wave energy converter control

Over the past 20 years, WEC control has progressed significantly, with emerging
algorithms to tackle various technical challenges. However, it is still challenging to
develop a “perfect” control system considering PTO implementation, mainly because
of the time-varying sea states. To date, there still exist some challenges in WEC
control, including (i) non-causality in control, (ii) constraint handling, (iii) control
robustness, (iv) real-time implementation etc.
As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, WEC modelling and control problems are well
known as non-causal. Such a non-causality falls into two key parts, (i) modelling
 Wave energy converter modelling, control, and power take-off design ■ 127

non-causality in the physical process from the wave elevation to the wave excitation
force and (ii) control non-causality in generating velocity reference from the excita-
tion force [265]. Modelling the non-causality problem can be tackled by upstream
wave measurement or wave prediction [312, 3, 315, 619]. For non-causality in con-
trol, future knowledge of the excitation force is required [670]. In addition, MPC
naturally requires further prediction of wave excitation force [213], which asks for an
even longer prediction window and may increase the prediction error. Although the
non-causality in WEC modelling and control can be handled well either by excitation
force prediction [619] or causal control approaches [696], the system complexity may
increase dramatically.
Another challenge is to limit WEC motion by control according to varying sea
states and WEC physical constraints. As mentioned in Section [Link], motion con-
straints, i.e., displacement or/and velocity, can significantly influence WEC power
capture, both in regular and irregular waves. In addition, a practical PTO unit, work-
ing as an actuator for control implementation, has some physical constraints, e.g., the
maximum force/torque, maximum instantaneous power, and velocity/displacement
limit. Considering both constraints in WEC motion and PTO force, the existence of
an optimal control solution is not fully understood [57]. Given that sea states vary
all the time, from moderate to extreme conditions, a supervisory control, to switch
the WEC system between operational and survival modes according to sea sates, and
a fault tolerant control, to improve system reliability, are needed. However, these
problems are seldom investigated [319].
Since WEC hydrodynamics are governed by the Navier-Stokes equations, as dis-
cussed in Section [Link], WEC models to represent wave-structure interactions are
not straightforward for control design. Parametrised time-domain models, e.g., trans-
fer functions or state-space models, are preferred for control. Modelling error and
uncertainty, induced by parametrisation or system identification, are inevitable. In
addition, WEC hydrodynamic properties also drift over time, given that a life cy-
cle is generally up to 20 years. Thus, control strategies are required to be robust
and insensitive to modelling errors, sensor faults, external disturbances, and estima-
tion/prediction errors of the excitation force. Model sensitivities for various WEC con-
trol architectures have been investigated both analytically and numerically in [673],
aiming to address the robustness problem in WEC control. Alternatively, model-free
control can be useful in WEC control to make WEC performance more immune to
model uncertainty, external perturbation and unmodelled dynamics. However, some
model free control methods inherently contain a large number of optimisation or
training iterations [18, 17, 94, 19], resulting in a challenge in real-time online imple-
mentation.
A PTO unit has its own dynamics, but is generally simplified as an ideal mass-
spring-damper system for theoretical study. To model WEC dynamics and evaluate
their performance in a more realistic manner, non-linear wave-WEC interactions and
a non-ideal PTO model should be considered with control in loop, to derive a high-
fidelity wave-to-wire model. However, such a wave-to-wire model is systematically
complex, and complexity reduction is crucial for real-time control implementation
[624]. For real-time implementation, another aspect is to avoid (i) excitation force
128 ■ Modelling and Optimization of Wave Energy Converters

estimation (current value), (ii) excitation force prediction (future value), and (iii)
online optimisation [670].
In general, power maximising control always trends to exaggerate the WEC’s mo-
tion, and, hence, amplifies the nonlinearity in wave-WEC interactions. Such nonlinear
hydrodynamic-control interactions should be considered both in WEC modelling and
control [287]. Meanwhile, a practical PTO unit is non-ideal and has its own lim-
its. Therefore, a co-design framework is required for WEC modelling, performance
assessment, optimisation, control, and so forth [319, 706].
Bibliography

[1] J. Abanades, D. Greaves, and G. Iglesias. Coastal defence through wave farms.
Coastal Engineering, 91:299–307, 2014.

[2] J. Abanades, D. Greaves, and G. Iglesias. Wave farm impact on the beach
profile: A case study. Coastal Engineering, 86:36–44, 2014.

[3] O. Abdelkhalik, S. Zou, R. Robinett, G. Bacelli, and D. Wilson. Estimation

of excitation forces for wave energy converters control using pressure measure-
ments. International Journal of Control, 90(8):1793–1805, 2017.

[4] O. Abdelkhalik, S. Zou, R. D. Robinett, G. Bacelli, D. Wilson, R. G. Coe, and

U. A. Korde. Multiresonant feedback control of a three-degree-of-freedom wave
energy converter. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 8(4):1518–1527,
2017.

[5] O. Abdelkhalik, S. Zou, R. D. Robinett, and U. A. Korde. Time-varying linear

quadratic Gaussian optimal control for three-degree-of-freedom wave energy
converter. In Proceedings of the Twelfth European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference, pages 728-1–728-8. EWTEC, 2017.

[6] M. Abdelrahman, R. Patton, B. Guo, and J. Lan. Estimation of wave excitation

force for wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the Conference on Control
and Fault-Tolerant Systems, pages 654–659, Barcelona, Spain, 2016. IEEE.

[7] E. Abraham and E. C. Kerrigan. Optimal active control and optimisation

of a wave energy converter. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 4(2):
324–332, 2012.

[8] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. Handbook of mathematical functions with

formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, volume 55. US Government printing
office, 1964.

[9] G. Aggidis, A. Bradshaw, M. French, A. McCabe, J. Meadowcroft, and M. Wid-

den. PS frog MK5 WEC developments and design progress. In Proceedings of
the world renewable energy congress, 2005.

[10] R. Ahamed, K. McKee, and I. Howard. Advancements of wave energy con-

verters based on power take off (PTO) systems: A review. Ocean Engineering,
204:107248, 2020.

309
310 ■ Bibliography

[11] R. Alcorn and W. Beattie. Power quality assessment from the LIMPET wave-
power station. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference. OnePetro, 2001.

[12] A. Alexandre, T. Stallard, and P. Stansby. Transformation of wave spectra

across a line of wave devices. In Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and
Tidal Energy Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, volume 710, 2009.

[13] W. Allsop, T. Bruce, J. Alderson, V. Ferrante, V. Russo, D. Vicinanza, and

M. Kudella. Large scale tests on a generalised oscillating water column wave
energy converter. In Proceedings of the HYDRALAB IV Joint User Meeting,
Lisbon, 2014.

[14] E. Amini, D. Golbaz, F. Amini, M. Majidi Nezhad, M. Neshat, and D. Asti-

aso Garcia. A parametric study of wave energy converter layouts in real wave
models. Energies, 13(22):6095, 2020.

[15] E. Amini, S. T. O. Naeeni, and P. Ghaderi. Investigating wave energy potential

in southern coasts of the Caspian Sea and evaluating the application of Gray
Wolf Optimizer algorithm. Preprint arXiv:1912.13201, 2019.

[16] M. Ancellin and F. Dias. Capytaine: A Python-based linear potential flow

solver. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(36):1341, 2019.

[17] E. Anderlini, D. Forehand, E. Bannon, and M. Abusara. Reactive control of a

wave energy converter using artificial neural networks. International Journal
of Marine Energy, 19:207–220, 2017.

[18] E. Anderlini, D. I. Forehand, P. Stansell, Q. Xiao, and M. Abusara. Control of a

point absorber using reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
Energy, 7(4):1681–1690, 2016.

[19] E. Anderlini, S. Husain, G. G. Parker, M. Abusara, and G. Thomas. Towards

real-time reinforcement learning control of a wave energy converter. Journal of
Marine Science and Engineering, 8(11):845, 2020.

[20] D. M. Andrade, A. G. Santana, and A. d. l. V. Jaen. Frequency-matching

assessment under reactive control on wave energy converters. In Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Ocean Energy, pages 1–6, Dublin, Ireland,
2012.

[21] E. Angelelli, B. Zanuttigh, J. P. Kofoed, and K. Glejbøl. Experiments on the

WavePiston, wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 9th European Wave
and Tidal Conference, Southampton, UK, 5th-9th September 2011. University
of Southampton, 2011.

[22] C. ANSYS. Version 17.0, ansys cfx-solver theory guide. Canonsburg, PA: Ansys
Inc, 2016.
 Bibliography ■ 311

[23] ANSYS AQWA, Inc. Canonsburg. Version 15.0; ANSYS, 2013.

[24] F. d. O. Antonio. Wave energy utilization: A review of the technologies. Re-

newable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3):899–918, 2010.

[25] M. P. Antonishen. Harnessing Ocean Wave Energy: The Crest Wing Wave
Energy Converter, 2008.

[26] H. Apostoleris, A. Al Ghaferi, and M. Chiesa. What is going on with Middle

Eastern solar prices, and what does it mean for the rest of us? Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 29(6):638–648, 2021.

[27] D. Arbonès, B. Ding, N. Sergiienko, and M. Wagner. Fast and effective multi-
objective optimisation of submerged wave energy converters. In Proceedings of
the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XIV, pages 675–685. Springer
International Publishing, 2016.

[28] D. Arbonès, N. Sergiienko, B. Ding, O. Krause, C. Igel, and M. Wagner. Sparse

incomplete LU-decomposition for wave farm designs under realistic conditions.
In Proceedings of the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XV, pages
512–524. Springer International Publishing, 2018.

[29] F. Arena, V. Fiamma, V. Laface, G. Malara, A. Romolo, A. Viviano, G. San-

nino, and A. Carillo. Installing U-OWC devices along Italian coasts. In Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic En-
gineering, volume 55423, page V008T09A061. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2013.

[30] F. Arena, G. Malara, and A. Romolo. A U-OWC wave energy converter in

the Mediterranean Sea: Preliminary results on the monitoring system of the
first prototype. Renewable Energy Offshore; Guedes Soares, C., Ed.; Taylor &
Francis Group: London, UK, pages 417–421, 2015.

[31] F. Arena, A. Romolo, G. Malara, V. Fiamma, and V. Laface. The first full
operative U-OWC plants in the port of civitavecchia. In Proceedings of the In-
ternational Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume
57786, page V010T09A022. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.

[32] S. Armstrong, E. Cotilla-Sanchez, and T. Kovaltchouk. Assessing the impact

of the grid-connected Pacific marine energy center wave farm. IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, 3(4):1011–1020, 2015.

[33] B. Armstrong-Hélouvry, P. Dupont, and C. C. De Wit. A survey of models,

analysis tools and compensation methods for the control of machines with fric-
tion. Automatica, 30(7):1083–1138, 1994.

[34] J. Arnett, L. Schaffer, J. Rumberg, and R. Tolbert. Design, installation and

performance of the ARCO solar one-megawatt power plant. In Proceedings of
the 5th Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, pages 314–320, 1984.
312 ■ Bibliography

[35] I. G. Ashton, L. Johanning, and B. Linfoot. Measurement of the effect of

power absorption in the lee of a wave energy converter. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE), volume 43444, pages 1021–1030, 2009.
[36] S. Astariz and G. Iglesias. The economics of wave energy: A review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45:397–408, 2015.
[37] S. Astariz and G. Iglesias. Enhancing wave energy competitiveness through co-
located wind and wave energy farms. a review on the shadow effect. Energies,
8(7):7344–7366, 2015.
[38] J. Aubry, H. Ahmed, B. Multon, A. Babarit, and A. Clément. Marine Renew-
able Energy Handbook, chapter Wave energy converters. John Wiley & Sons,
2011.
[39] A. Azzellino, C. Lanfredi, L. Riefolo, V. De Santis, P. Contestabile, and D. Vic-
inanza. Combined exploitation of offshore wind and wave energy in the Italian
seas: a spatial planning approach. Frontiers in Energy Research, 7:42, 2019.
[40] A. Babarit. Impact of long separating distances on the energy production of two
interacting wave energy converters. Ocean Engineering, 37(8):718–729, 2010.
[41] A. Babarit. On the park effect in arrays of oscillating wave energy converters.
Renewable Energy, 58:68–78, 2013.
[42] A. Babarit. A database of capture width ratio of wave energy converters.
Renewable Energy, 80:610–628, 2015.
[43] A. Babarit, A. Clément, J. Ruer, and C. Tartivel. SEAREV: A fully integrated
wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the Offshore Wind and other Marine
Renewable Energies in Mediterranean and European Seas, pages 1–11, Rome,
Italy, 2006.
[44] A. Babarit and A. H. Clément. Optimal latching control of a wave energy
device in regular and irregular waves. Applied Ocean Research, 28(2):77–91,
2006.
[45] A. Babarit and A. H. Clement. Shape optimisation of the SEAREV wave
energy converter. In Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Conference,
pages 1–6, Florence, Italy, 2006.
[46] A. Babarit and G. Delhommeau. Theoretical and numerical aspects of the open
source BEM solver NEMOH. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and
Tidal Conference (EWTEC), Nantes, France, 2015.
[47] A. Babarit, G. Duclos, A. Clément, and J.-C. Gilloteaux. Latching control
of a power take off oscillator carried by a wave activated body. In Proceed-
ings of the 20th International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies
(IWWWFB), Longyearbyen, Norway, 2005.
 Bibliography ■ 313

[48] A. Babarit, B. Gendron, J. Singh, C. Mélis, and P. Jean. Hydro-elastic mod-

elling of an electro-active wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume
55430, page V009T12A033. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013.

[49] A. Babarit, M. Guglielmi, and A. H. Clément. Declutching control of a wave

energy converter. Ocean Engineering, 36(12-13):1015–1024, 2009.

[50] A. Babarit, J. Hals, M. Muliawan, A. Kurniawan, T. Moan, and J. Krokstad.

Numerical estimation of energy delivery from a selection of wave energy con-
verters – final report. Report, Ecole Centrale de Nantes & Norges Teknisk-
Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, 2011.

[51] A. Babarit, J. Hals, M. Muliawan, A. Kurniawan, T. Moan, and J. Krokstad.

Numerical benchmarking study of a selection of wave energy converters. Re-
newable Energy, 41:44–63, 2012.

[52] A. Babarit, J. Hals, M. Muliawan, A. Kurniawan, T. Moan, and J. Krokstad.

Numerical benchmarking study of a selection of wave energy converters. Re-
newable Energy, 41:44–63, 2012.

[53] A. Babarit, J. Singh, C. Mélis, A. Wattez, and P. Jean. A linear numerical

model for analysing the hydroelastic response of a flexible electroactive wave
energy converter. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 74:356–384, 2017.

[54] A. Babarit, J. Singh, C. Mélis, A. Wattez, and P. Jean. A linear numerical

model for analysing the hydroelastic response of a flexible electroactive wave
energy converter. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 74:356–384, 2017.

[55] G. Bacelli, P. Balitsky, and J. Ringwood. Coordinated control of arrays of

wave energy devices—benefits over independent control. IEEE Transactions
on Sustainable Energy, 4(4):1091–1099, 2013.

[56] G. Bacelli and J. Ringwood. Constrained control of arrays of wave energy

devices. International Journal of Marine Energy, 3:e53–e69, 2013.

[57] G. Bacelli and J. V. Ringwood. A geometric tool for the analysis of position
and force constraints in wave energy converters. Ocean Engineering, 65:10–18,
2013.

[58] A. Baggini. Handbook of power quality. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, U.S.
2008.

[59] H. Bailey, B. Robertson, J. Ortiz, and B. Buckham. Stochastic methods to pre-

dict WEC array power for grid integration. In Proceedings of the 11th European
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Nantes, France, 2015.

[60] P. Balitsky, G. Bacelli, and J. Ringwood. Control-influenced layout optimi-

sation of arrays of wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the ASME 33rd
314 ■ Bibliography

International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE),

San Fransisco, USA, 2014.
[61] P. Balitsky, N. Quartier, G. Verao Fernandez, V. Stratigaki, and P. Troch.
Analyzing the near-field effects and the power production of an array of heaving
cylindrical WECs and osWECs using a coupled hydrodynamic-PTO model.
Energies, 11(12):3489, 2018.
[62] P. Balitsky, G. Verao Fernandez, V. Stratigaki, and P. Troch. Assessment of the
power output of a two-array clustered WEC farm using a BEM solver coupling
and a wave-propagation model. Energies, 11(11):2907, 2018.
[63] M.-A. Bănică. Energy harvesting from renewable energy sources. In Proceedings
of the International Conference of Mechatronics and Cyber-Mixmechatronics,
pages 247–254. Springer, 2019.
[64] J. Bard and P. Kracht. Linear generator systems for wave energy converters.
Technical report, Fraunhofer IWES, 2013.
[65] R. Beharie and J. Side. Acoustic environmental monitoring:–Wello Penguin
cooling system noise study. a report commissioned by Aquatera Limited. Inter-
national Centre for Island Technology. Technical report, Wello Oy, 2012.
[66] S. Behrens, D. Griffin, J. Hayward, M. Hemer, C. Knight, S. McGarry,
P. Osman, and J. Wright. Ocean renewable energy: 2015-2050: An analysis
of ocean energy in Australia. Report, CSIRO, 2012.
[67] P. Beirao, M. Mendes, D. Valério, and J. S. da Costa. Control of the Archimedes
Wave Swing using neural networks. In Proceedings of the 7th European Wave
and Tidal Energy Conference, 2007.
[68] P. Beirdol, D. Valério, and J. da Costa. Linear model identification of the
Archimedes Wave Swing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Power Engineering, Energy and Electrical Drives, pages 660–665. IEEE, 2007.
[69] L. G. Bennetts and V. A. Squire. Wave scattering by multiple rows of circular
ice floes. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 639:213–238, 2009.
[70] M. Bhinder, M. Karimirad, S. Weller, Y. Debruyne, M. Guérinel, and W. Sheng.
Modelling mooring line non-linearities (material and geometric effects) for a
wave energy converter using AQWA, SIMA and Orcaflex. In Proceedings of the
11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Nantes, France,
2015.
[71] J. L. Black. Wave forces on vertical axisymmetric bodies. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 67(2):369–376, 1975.
[72] M. Blanco, P. Moreno-Torres, M. Lafoz, and D. Ramı́rez. Design parameters
analysis of point absorber WEC via an evolutionary-algorithm-based dimen-
sioning tool. Energies, 8(10):11203–11233, 2015.
 Bibliography ■ 315

[73] M. Blanco, J. Torres, M. Santos-Herrán, L. Garcı́a-Tabarés, G. Navarro,

J. Nájera, D. Ramı́rez, and M. Lafoz. Recent advances in direct-drive power
take-off (ddpto) systems for wave energy converters based on switched reluc-
tance machines (srm). Ocean Wave Energy Systems, pages 487–532, 2022.

[74] A. Blavette, D. O’Sullivan, R. Alcorn, M. Egan, and T. Lewis. Simplified

estimation of the flicker level induced by wave energy farms. IEEE Transactions
on Sustainable Energy, 7(3):1216–1223, 2016.

[75] C. B. Boake, T. J. Whittaker, M. Folley, and H. Ellen. Overview and initial

operational experience of the LIMPET wave energy plant. In Proceedings of the
Twelfth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro,
2002.

[76] P. Boccotti. Caisson breakwaters embodying an OWC with a small open-

ing—part i: Theory. Ocean Engineering, 34(5):806–819, 2007.

[77] P. Boccotti. Comparison between a u-owc and a conventional owc. Ocean

Engineering, 34(5-6):799–805, 2007.

[78] N. Booij, L. Holthuijsen, and R. Ris. The SWAN wave model for shallow water.
In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Coastal Engineering,
pages 668–676, 1997.

[79] B. Borgarino, A. Babarit, and P. Ferrant. Impact of wave interactions effects on

energy absorption in large arrays of wave energy converters. Ocean Engineering,
41:79–88, 2012.

[80] B. Bosma, T. Brekken, P. Lomonaco, B. DuPont, C. Sharp, and B. Batten.

Array modeling and testing of fixed OWC type wave energy converters. Inter-
national Marine Energy Journal, 3(3):137–143, 2020.

[81] C. Boström, E. Lejerskog, M. Stålberg, K. Thorburn, and M. Leijon. Ex-

perimental results of rectification and filtration from an offshore wave energy
system. Renewable Energy, 34(5):1381–1387, 2009.

[82] C. Boström, E. Lejerskog, S. Tyrberg, O. Svensson, R. Waters, A. Savin, B. Bol-

und, M. Eriksson, and M. Leijon. Experimental results from an offshore wave
energy converter. Journal of offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering, 132(4),
2010.

[83] S. Bozzi, M. Giassi, A. Miquel, A. Antonini, F. Bizzozero, G. Gruosso,

R. Archetti, and G. Passoni. Wave energy farm design in real wave climates:
the Italian offshore. Energy, 122:378–389, 2017.

[84] BP, London, UK. Statistical Review of World Energy, 69 edition, 2020.

[85] BP, London, UK. Statistical review of world energy, 70 edition, 2021.
316 ■ Bibliography

[86] T. Brekken, B. Batten, and E. Amon. From blue to green [ask the experts].
IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 31(5):18–24, 2011.

[87] J. Bretl, K. Parsa, K. Edwards, J. Montgomery, and M. Mekhiche. The deploy-

ment of the PB-3-50-A1 PowerBuoy: Power prediction and measurement com-
parison. In Proceedings of the Marine energy Technology Symposium METS,
Washington, D.C., USA, 2016.

[88] C. L. Bretschneider. Wave variability and wave spectra for wind-generated

gravity waves. Technical report, DTIC Document, 1959.

[89] A. Brito e Melo, H. Jeffry, and Y. De Roeck. Annual report–an overview of

ocean energy activities in 2020. Technical report, The Executive Committee of
Ocean Energy Systems, 2021.

[90] A. Brito-Melo, F. Neuman, and A. Sarmento. Full-scale data assessment in

OWC Pico plant. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering,
18(01), 2008.

[91] H. Brodersen, K. Nielsen, and J. P. Kofoed. Development of the Danish test site
DanWEC. In Proceedings of the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference.
Technical Committee of the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
2013.

[92] M. Brorsen and J. Larsen. Source generation of nonlinear gravity waves with
the boundary integral equation method. Coastal Engineering, 11(2):93–113,
1987.

[93] D. Bruschi, J. Fernandes, A. Falcão, and C. Bergmann. Analysis of the degra-

dation in the Wells turbine blades of the Pico oscillating-water-column wave
energy plant. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 115:109368, 2019.

[94] L. Bruzzone, P. Fanghella, and G. Berselli. Reinforcement learning control of an

onshore oscillating arm wave energy converter. Ocean Engineering, 206:107346,
2020.

[95] I. Bryden and B. Linfoot. Wave and current testing of an array of wave energy
converters. In Proceedings of the HYDRALAB III Joint User Meeting, 2010.

[96] K. Bubbar and B. Buckham. On establishing generalized analytical phase con-

trol conditions in two body self-reacting point absorber wave energy converters.
Ocean Engineering, 197:106879, 2020.

[97] K. Budal. Theory for absorption of wave power by a system of interacting

bodies. Journal of Ship Research, 21(04):248–254, 1977.

[98] K. Budal and J. Falnes. A resonant point absorber of ocean-wave power. Nature,
256(5517):478–479, 1975.
 Bibliography ■ 317

[99] K. Budal and J. Falnes. Interacting point absorbers with controlled motion.
In Power from Sea Waves, pages 381–99. Academic Press, Cambridge, U. S.
Press, 1980.

[100] K. Budar and J. Falnes. A resonant point absorber of ocean-wave power. Na-
ture, 256(5517):478–479, 1975.

[101] T. Cabral, D. Clemente, P. Rosa-Santos, F. Taveira-Pinto, T. Morais, F. Belga,

and H. Cestaro. Performance assessment of a hybrid wave energy converter
integrated into a harbor breakwater. Energies, 13(1):236, 2020.

[102] T. Calheiros-Cabral, D. Clemente, P. Rosa-Santos, F. Taveira-Pinto, V. Ramos,

T. Morais, and H. Cestaro. Evaluation of the annual electricity production of a
hybrid breakwater-integrated wave energy converter. Energy, 213:118845, 2020.

[103] L. Cameron, R. Doherty, A. Henry, K. Doherty, J. Van’t Hoff, D. Kaye, D. Nay-

lor, S. Bourdier, and T. Whittaker. Design of the next generation of the Oyster
wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Ocean Energy, volume 6, page 1e12. ICOE Bilbao, Spain, 2010.

[104] J. Candido, A. Sarmento, F. Gardner, L. Gato, M. Fontana, and K. Collins.

The WETFEET project-a disruptive approach to wave energy. In Proceedings
of the 13th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Napoli,
Italy, 2019.

[105] C. J. Cargo, A. R. Plummer, A. J. Hillis, and M. Schlotter. Determination of

optimal parameters for a hydraulic power take-off unit of a wave energy con-
verter in regular waves. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 226(1):98–111, 2012.

[106] E. Carpintero Moreno and P. Stansby. The 6-float wave energy converter M4:
Ocean basin tests giving capture width, response and energy yield for several
sites. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 104:307–318, 2019.

[107] A. Carrelhas, L. Gato, A. Falcão, and J. Henriques. Control law design for the
air-turbine-generator set of a fully submerged 1.5 MW mWave prototype. part
2: Experimental validation. Renewable Energy, 171:1002–1013, 2021.

[108] R. Cascajo, E. Garcı́a, E. Quiles, A. Correcher, and F. Morant. Integration

of marine wave energy converters into seaports: A case study in the port of
Valencia. Energies, 12(5):787, 2019.

[109] L. Castro-Santos, E. Martins, and C. G. Soares. Cost assessment methodol-

ogy for combined wind and wave floating offshore renewable energy systems.
Renewable Energy, 97:866–880, 2016.

[110] F. Cerveira, N. Fonseca, and R. Pascoal. Mooring system influence on the

efficiency of wave energy converters. International Journal of Marine Energy,
3:65–81, 2013.
318 ■ Bibliography

[111] S. K. Chakrabarti. Response due to moored multiple structure interaction.

Marine Structures, 14(1-2):231–258, 2001.

[112] J. Chaplin, V. Heller, F. Farley, G. Hearn, and R. Rainey. Laboratory testing

the Anaconda. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemati-
cal, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1959):403–424, 2012.

[113] J. Chapman, A. Brask, J.-B. LeDreff, G. Foster, and G. Stockman. Improving

energy capture by varying the geometry of a novel wave energy converter. In
A. Lewis, editor, Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Con-
ference, pages 813-1–813-8, University College Cork, Ireland, 2017. EWTEC.

[114] R. H. Charlier and J. R. Justus. Ocean energies: environmental, economic and

technological aspects of alternative power sources. Elsevier, 1993.

[115] M. A. Chatzigiannakou, I. Dolguntseva, and M. Leijon. Offshore deployments

of wave energy converters by Seabased Industry AB. Journal of Marine Science
and Engineering, 5(2):15, 2017.

[116] Checkmate. [Link]

languishing-by-wave-energy-scotland/Anaconda left languishing by Wave
Energy Scotland, 2020. Access date: April 20, 2022.

[117] W. Chehaze, D. Chamoun, C. Bou-Mosleh, and P. Rahme. Wave Roller device

for power generation. Procedia Engineering, 145:144–150, 2016.

[118] F. Chen, D. Duan, Q. Han, X. Yang, and F. Zhao. Study on force and wave
energy conversion efficiency of buoys in low wave energy density seas. Energy
Conversion and Management, 182:191–200, 2019.

[119] Q. Chen, J. Zang, J. Birchall, D. Ning, X. Zhao, and J. Gao. On the hydrody-
namic performance of a vertical pile-restrained wec-type floating breakwater.
Renewable Energy, 146:414–425, 2020.

[120] X. Chen. Evaluation de la fonction de Green du probleme de diffrac-

tion/radiation en profondeur d’eau finie-une nouvelle méthode rapide et précise.
Actes des 4e Journées de l’Hydrodynamique, Nantes (France), pages 371–84,
1993.

[121] B. Child. On the configuration of arrays of floating wave energy converters.

PhD thesis, The University of Edinburgh, 2011.

[122] B. Child, J. Cruz, and M. Livingstone. The development of a tool for optimising
of arrays of wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the 9th European Wave
and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Southampton, UK, 2011.

[123] B. Child and P. Laporte Weywada. Verification and validation of a wave farm
planning tool. In Proceedings of the 10th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference (EWTEC), Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.
 Bibliography ■ 319

[124] B. F. M. Child and V. Venugopal. Optimal configurations of wave energy device

arrays. Ocean Engineering, 37(16):1402–1417, 2010.

[125] Y.-C. Chow, Y.-C. Chang, D.-W. Chen, C.-C. Lin, and S.-Y. Tzang. Parametric
design methodology for maximizing energy capture of a bottom-hinged flap-
type WEC with medium wave resources. Renewable Energy, 126:605–616, 2018.

[126] S. D. Chowdhury, J.-R. Nader, A. Fleming, B. Winship, S. Illesinghe, A. Toffoli,

A. Babanin, I. Penesis, and R. Manasseh. A review of hydrodynamical interac-
tions into arrays of ocean wave energy converters. Preprint arXiv:1508.00866,
2015.

[127] J. F. Chozas, J. P. Kofoed, and H. C. Sørensen. Predictability and variability

of wave and wind: Wave and wind forecasting and diversified energy systems in
the Danish North Sea. Report 156, Aalborg University, Wave Energy Research
Group, 2016.

[128] J. Chunn. Ocean energy: The next wave. Ecogeneration, 95:34–38, 2016.

[129] C. E. Clark and B. DuPont. Reliability-based design optimisation in offshore

renewable energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 97:390–
400, 2018.

[130] C. E. Clark, A. Garcia-Teruel, B. DuPont, and D. Forehand. Towards

reliability-based geometry optimisation of a point-absorber with PTO reliability
objectives. In Proceedings of the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
Naples, Italy, pages 1–6, 2019.

[131] E. Clark. [Link]

-wave-power/9578/ Anaconda aims for affordable wave power, 2008.

[132] A. Clément, P. McCullen, A. Falcão, A. Fiorentino, F. Gardner, K. Hammar-

lund, G. Lemonis, T. Lewis, K. Nielsen, S. Petroncini, et al. Wave energy in
Europe: current status and perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 6(5):405–431, 2002.

[133] D. Clemente, P. Rosa-Santos, and F. Taveira-Pinto. On the potential synergies

and applications of wave energy converters: A review. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews, 135:110162, 2021.

[134] R. G. Coe, G. Bacelli, D. G. Wilson, O. Abdelkhalik, U. A. Korde, and R. D.

Robinett III. A comparison of control strategies for wave energy converters.
International Journal of Marine Energy, 20:45–63, 2017.

[135] V. D. Colli, P. Cancelliere, F. Marignetti, R. D. Stefano, and M. Scarano. A

tubular-generator drive for wave energy conversion. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 53(4):1152–1159, 2006.
320 ■ Bibliography

[136] I. Collins, M. Hossain, and I. Masters. A review of flexible membrane structures

for wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the 13th European Wave Tidal
and Energy Conference, Naples, Italy, 2019.

[137] P. Contestabile, G. Crispino, E. Di Lauro, V. Ferrante, C. Gisonni, and D. Vic-

inanza. Overtopping breakwater for wave energy conversion: Review of state of
art, recent advancements and what lies ahead. Renewable Energy, 147:705–718,
2020.

[138] P. Contestabile, E. Di Lauro, M. Buccino, and D. Vicinanza. Economic assess-

ment of overtopping breakwater for energy conversion (OBREC): a case study
in western australia. Sustainability, 9(1):51, 2017.

[139] J. Cordonnier, F. Gorintin, A. De Cagny, A. H. Clément, and A. Babarit.

SEAREV: Case study of the development of a wave energy converter. Renewable
Energy, 80:40–52, 2015.

[140] A. Cornett. A global wave energy resource assessment. In Proceedings of

the 18th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Vancouver,
Canada, 2008. OnePetro.

[141] CorpowerOcean. [Link] Corpower Ocean, 08

2021. (Accessed on 08/08/2021).

[142] F. Correia da Fonseca, R. Gomes, J. Henriques, L. Gato, and A. Falcão. Model

testing of an oscillating water column spar-buoy wave energy converter isolated
and in array: Motions and mooring forces. Energy, 112:1207–1218, 2016.

[143] R. Cossu, C. Heatherington, I. Penesis, R. Beecroft, and S. Hunter. Seafloor site

characterization for a remote island OWC device near King Island, Tasmania,
Australia. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(3):194, 2020.

[144] R. Costello and A. Pecher. Economics of WECs. In A. Pecher and J. P. Kofoed,

editors, Handbook of Ocean Wave Energy, pages 101–137. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 2017.

[145] S. H. Crowley, R. Porter, and D. V. Evans. A submerged cylinder wave energy

converter with internal sloshing power take off. European Journal of Mechanics
- B/Fluids, 47:108–123, 2014.

[146] W. Cummins. The impulse response function and ship motions. Technical
report, David Taylor Model Basin Washington DC, 1962.

[147] L. S. P. da Silva. Nonlinear stochastic analysis of wave energy converters via

statistical linearization. Master’s thesis, University of São Paulo, Brazil, 2019.

[148] L. S. P. da Silva, B. Cazzolato, N. Sergiienko, and B. Ding. Nonlinear dynamics

of a floating offshore wind turbine platform via statistical quadratization -
mooring, wave and current interaction. Ocean Engineering, 236:109471, 2021.
 Bibliography ■ 321

[149] L. S. P. da Silva, B. S. Cazzolato, N. Y. Sergiienko, B. Ding, H. M. Morishita,

and C. P. Pesce. Statistical linearization of the Morison’s equation applied to
wave energy converters. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy,
pages 1–13, 2020b.

[150] L. S. P. da Silva, H. M. Morishita, C. P. Pesce, and R. T. Gonçalves. Non-

linear analysis of a heaving point absorber in frequency domain via statistical
linearization. In Proceedings of the ASME 38th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society of Mechanical En-
gineers, 2019.

[151] L. S. P. da Silva, C. P. Pesce, H. M. Morishita, and R. T. Gonçalves. Nonlinear

analysis of an oscillating water column wave energy device in frequency domain
via statistical linearization. In Proceedings of the ASME 38th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2019.

[152] L. S. P. da Silva, C. Sergiienko, NY nd Pesce, B. Ding, B. Cazzolato, and

H. Morishita. Stochastic analysis of nonlinear wave energy converters via sta-
tistical linearization. Applied Ocean Research, 95, 2020.

[153] L. S. P. da Silva, N. Y. Sergiienko, B. S. Cazzolato, B. Ding, C. P. Pesce, and

H. M. Morishita. Nonlinear analysis of an oscillating wave surge converter in fre-
quency domain via statistical linearization. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 84416, page
V009T09A019. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2020.

[154] Y. S. Dai and W. Y. Duan. Potential flow theory of ship motions in waves.
National Defense Industry Publication, 2008.

[155] G. Dalton, R. Alcorn, and T. Lewis. Case study feasibility analysis of the
Pelamis wave energy convertor in Ireland, Portugal and North America. Re-
newable Energy, 35(2):443–455, 2010.

[156] G. J. Dalton, R. Alcorn, and T. Lewis. Case study feasibility analysis of the
Pelamis wave energy convertor in Ireland, Portugal and North America. Re-
newable Energy, 35(2):443–455, 2010.

[157] M. DAndrea, M. G. Gonzalez, and R. McKenna. Synergies in offshore energy:

a roadmap for the danish sector. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.13581, 2021.

[158] J. Davidson, S. Giorgi, and J. V. Ringwood. Linear parametric hydrodynamic

models for ocean wave energy converters identified from numerical wave tank
experiments. Ocean Engineering, 103:31–39, 2015.

[159] J. Davidson, S. Giorgi, and J. V. Ringwood. Identification of wave energy

device models from numerical wave tank data–Part 1: Numerical wave tank
identification tests. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 7(3):1012–1019,
2016.
322 ■ Bibliography

[160] J. Davidson and J. Ringwood. Mathematical modelling of mooring systems for

wave energy converters—a review. Energies, 10(5):666, 2017.

[161] A. Day, A. Babarit, A. Fontaine, Y.-P. He, M. Kraskowski, M. Murai, I. Penesis,

F. Salvatore, and H.-K. Shin. Hydrodynamic modelling of marine renewable
energy devices: A state of the art review. Ocean Engineering, 108:46–69, 2015.

[162] A. De Andrés, R. Guanche, L. Meneses, C. Vidal, and I. Losada. Factors that

influence array layout on wave energy farms. Ocean Engineering, 82:32–41,
2014.

[163] A. De Andres, J. Maillet, J. Hals Todalshaug, P. Möller, D. Bould, and H. Jef-

frey. Techno-economic related metrics for a wave energy converters feasibility
assessment. Sustainability, 8(11):1109, 2016.

[164] S. De Chowdhury and R. Manasseh. Behaviour of eigenmodes of an array of

oscillating water column devices. Wave Motion, 74:56–72, 2017.

[165] A. de O Falcão. Wave energy utilization: A review of the technologies. Renew-

able and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3):899–918, 2010.

[166] A. de O. Falcão. Wave-power absorption by a periodic linear array of oscillating

water columns. Ocean Engineering, 29(10):1163–1186, 2002.

[167] M. de Sousa Prado, F. Gardner, M. Damen, and H. Polinder. Modelling and

test results of the Archimedes Wave Swing. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 220(8):855–868,
2006.

[168] Y. Delauré and A. Lewis. 3D hydrodynamic modelling of fixed oscillating water

column wave power plant by a boundary element methods. Ocean Engineering,
30(3):309–330, 2003.

[169] V. DelliColli, P. Cancelliere, F. Marignetti, R. DiStefano, and M. Scarano. A

tubular-generator drive for wave energy conversion. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 53(4):1152–1159, 2006.

[170] N. Delmonte, D. Barater, F. Giuliani, P. Cova, and G. Buticchi. Oscillating

water column power conversion: A technology review. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), pages 1852–1859.
IEEE, 2014.

[171] V. Denoël. Multiple timescale spectral analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Me-

chanics, 39:69–86, 2015.

[172] S. S. Deshpande, L. Anumolu, and M. F. Trujillo. Evaluating the performance

of the two-phase flow solver interfoam. Computational Science & Discovery,
5(1):014016, 2012.
 Bibliography ■ 323

[173] B. Devolder, P. Rauwoens, and P. Troch. Towards the numerical simulation of

5 floating point absorber wave energy converters installed in a line array using
OpenFOAM. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference (EWTEC), Cork, Ireland, 2017.
[174] B. Devolder, V. Stratigaki, P. Troch, and P. Rauwoens. CFD simulations of
floating point absorber wave energy converter arrays subjected to regular waves.
Energies, 11(3):641, 2018.
[175] E. Dialyna and T. Tsoutsos. Wave energy in the mediterranean sea: Resource
assessment, deployed WECs and prospects. Energies, 14(16):4764, 2021.
[176] M. Dianat, M. Skarysz, and A. Garmory. A coupled level set and volume of fluid
method for automotive exterior water management applications. International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, 91:19–38, 2017.
[177] B. Ding, B. Cazzolato, M. Arjomandi, P. Hardy, and B. Mills. Sea-state based
maximum power point tracking damping control of a fully submerged oscillating
buoy. Ocean Engineering, 126:229–312, 2016.
[178] B. Ding, P.-Y. Wuillaume, F. Meng, A. Babarit, B. Schubert, N. Sergiienko,
and B. Cazzolato. Comparison of wave-body interaction modelling methods
for the study of reactively controlled point absorber wave energy converter.
In Proceedings of 32th International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating
Bodies, Newcastle, Australia, 2019.
[179] N. Dizadji and S. E. Sajadian. Modeling and optimisation of the chamber of
OWC system. Energy, 36(5):2360–2366, 2011.
[180] G. DNV. Sesam user Manual-Wadam. DNV GL Software, 2017.
[181] J. Dong, J. Gao, L. Tao, and P. Zheng. Research status of wave energy
conversion (WEC) device of raft structure. AIP Conference Proceedings,
1890(1):030005, 2017.
[182] M. G. Donley and P. Spanos. Dynamic analysis of non-linear structures by the
method of statistical quadratization, volume 57. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.
[183] S. Doyle and G. Aggidis. Advancement of oscillating water column wave energy
technologies through integrated applications and alternative systems. Interna-
tional Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, 14(12):401–412, 2020.
[184] B. Drew, A. Plummer, and M. Sahinkaya. A review of wave energy converter
technology. Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A-
Journal of Power and Energy, 223(8):887–902, 2009.
[185] B. Drew, A. R. Plummer, and M. N. Sahinkaya. A review of wave energy
converter technology. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 223(8):887–902, 2009.
324 ■ Bibliography

[186] G. Duclos, A. Babarit, and A. H. Clement. Optimizing the power take off of
a wave energy converter with regard to the wave climate. Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 128(1):56–64, 2005.

[187] M. Durand, A. Babarit, B. Pettinotti, O. Quillard, J. Toularastel, and

A. Clément. Experimental validation of the performances of the SEAREV
wave energy converter with real time latching control. In Proceedings of the
7th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Porto, Portugal,
volume 1113, 2007.

[188] R. Eatock Taylor and F. Chau. Wave diffraction theory—some developments

in linear and nonlinear theory. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic En-
gineering, 114(3):185–194, 1992.

[189] O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, S. Kadner,

T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, et al.
Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

[190] K. Edwards and M. Mekhiche. Ocean testing of a wave-capturing PowerBuoy.

In Proceedings of the Marine Energy Technology Symposium (METS), Wash-
ington, DC, 2013.

[191] K. Edwards, M. Mekhiche, et al. Ocean power technologies Powerbuoy: system-

level design, development and validation methodology. In Proceedings of the
2nd Marine Energy Technology Symposium (METS), Seattle, WA, USA, 2014.

[192] H. Eidsmoen. Simulation of a slack-moored heaving-buoy wave-energy con-

verter with phase control. Technical report, Division of Physics, NTNU, Trond-
heim, Norway, 1996.

[193] R. Ekström, B. Ekergård, and M. Leijon. Electrical damping of linear genera-

tors for wave energy converters—a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 42:116–128, 2015.

[194] R. Ekström and M. Leijon. Grid connection of wave power farm using an N-
level cascaded H-bridge multilevel inverter. Journal of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, 2013:1–9, 2013.

[195] C. Elefant. Overview of global regulatory processes for permits, consents and
authorization of marine renewables. Global Status and Critical Developments
in Ocean Energy, page 70, 2009.

[196] A. Elhanafi, G. Macfarlane, A. Fleming, and Z. Leong. Experimental and

numerical investigations on the intact and damage survivability of a floating–
moored oscillating water column device. Applied Ocean Research, 68:276–292,
2017.
 Bibliography ■ 325

[197] A. Elhanafi, G. Macfarlane, and D. Ning. Hydrodynamic performance of single–

chamber and dual–chamber offshore–stationary oscillating water column de-
vices using CFD. Applied Energy, 228:82–96, 2018.
[198] D. Elwood. Evaluation of the performance of a taut-moored dual-body direct-
drive wave energy converter through numerical modeling and physical testing.
Master’s thesis, Oregon State University, 2008.
[199] D. Elwood, S. Yim, E. Amon, A. von Jouanne, and T. Brekken. Experimen-
tal force characterization and numerical modeling of a taut-moored dual-body
wave energy conversion system. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic En-
gineering, 132(1), 2010.
[200] H. Endo. Shallow-water effect on the motions of three-dimensional bodies in
waves. Journal of Ship Research, 31(01):34–40, 1987.
[201] Energy Technologies Institute. Wave Energy – Insights from the Energy Tech-
nologies Institute, 2015.
[202] J. Engström, M. Eriksson, M. Göteman, J. Isberg, and M. Leijon. Performance
of large arrays of point absorbing direct-driven wave energy converters. Journal
of Applied Physics, 114(20):204502, 2013.
[203] J. Engström, M. Göteman, M. Eriksson, M. Bergkvist, E. Nilsson, A. Rutgers-
son, and E. Strömstedt. Energy absorption from parks of point-absorbing wave
energy converters in the Swedish exclusive economic zone. Energy Science &
Engineering, 2019.
[204] M. Eriksson. Modelling and experimental verification of direct drive wave energy
conversion: Buoy-generator dynamics. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Sweden,
2007.
[205] M. Eriksson, R. Waters, O. Svensson, J. Isberg, and M. Leijon. Wave power ab-
sorption: Experiments in open sea and simulation. Journal of Applied Physics,
102(8):084910, 2007.
[206] European Commission and ECORYS and Fraunhofer. Study on Lessons for
Ocean Energy Development, 2017.
[207] European Union: European Commission. Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council on Progress of Clean Energy Competitive-
ness, October 2020. [Link] legal-content/EN/TXT/?
uri=CELEX:52020DC0953, Accessed: 2021-08-12.
[208] D. Evans. A theory for wave-power absorption by oscillating bodies. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics, 77(1):1–25, 1976.
[209] D. Evans. Some theoretical aspects of three-dimensional wave-energy absorbers.
In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium Wave Energy Utilization, pages 78–112,
1979.
326 ■ Bibliography

[210] D. Evans. Some analytic results for two- and three-dimensional wave energy
absorbers, page 213. Power from Sea Waves. Academic Press, 1980.

[211] D. Evans. Maximum wave-power absorption under motion constraints. Applied

Ocean Research, 3(4):200–203, 1981.

[212] D. V. Evans, D. C. Jeffrey, S. H. Salter, and J. R. M. Taylor. Submerged

cylinder wave energy device: theory and experiment. Applied Ocean Research,
1(1):3–12, 1979.

[213] N. Faedo, S. Olaya, and J. Ringwood. Optimal control, MPC and MPC-like
algorithms for wave energy systems: An overview. IFAC Journal of Systems
and Control, 1:37–56, 2017.

[214] N. Faedo, Y. Peña-Sanchez, and J. V. Ringwood. Finite-order hydrodynamic

model determination for wave energy applications using moment-matching.
Ocean Engineering, 163:251–263, 2018.

[215] A. d. O. Falcão. First-generation wave power plants: current status and R&D
requirements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Me-
chanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 36835, pages 723–731, 2003.

[216] A. Falcão. Developments in oscillating water column wave energy convert-

ers and air turbines. Renewable Energies Offshore. London: Taylor & Francis
Group, pages 3–11, 2015.

[217] A. Falcão and J. Henriques. Effect of non-ideal power take-off efficiency on per-
formance of single-and two-body reactively controlled wave energy converters.
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy, 1(3):273–286, 2015.

[218] A. d. O. Falcão. The shoreline OWC wave power plant at the azores. In
Proceedings of 4th European Wave Energy Conference, pages 42–47, 2000.

[219] A. F. Falcão and J. C. Henriques. Oscillating-water-column wave energy con-

verters and air turbines: A review. Renewable Energy, 85:1391–1424, 2016.

[220] A. F. Falcão and J. C. Henriques. The spring-like air compressibility effect in

oscillating-water-column wave energy converters: Review and analyses. Renew-
able and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112:483–498, 2019.

[221] A. F. Falcão, J. C. Henriques, and J. J. Cândido. Dynamics and optimisation

of the OWC spar buoy wave energy converter. Renewable Energy, 48:369–381,
2012.

[222] A. F. Falcão, A. J. Sarmento, L. M. Gato, and A. Brito-Melo. The Pico OWC

wave power plant: Its lifetime from conception to closure 1986–2018. Applied
Ocean Research, 98:102104, 2020.

[223] A. F. Falcão and J. C. Henriques. Oscillating-water-column wave energy con-

verters and air turbines: A review. Renewable Energy, 85:1391–1424, 2016.
 Bibliography ■ 327

[224] J. Falnes. Radiation impedance matrix and optimum power absorption for
interacting oscillators in surface waves. Applied Ocean Research, 2(2):75–80,
1980.

[225] J. Falnes. On non-causal impulse response functions related to propagating

water waves. Applied Ocean Research, 17(6):379–389, 1995.

[226] J. Falnes. Ocean waves and oscillating systems. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 2002.

[227] J. Falnes. Ocean waves and oscillating systems: linear interactions including
wave-energy extraction. Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2002.

[228] J. Falnes. A review of wave-energy extraction. Marine Structures, 20(4):185–

201, 2007.

[229] J. Falnes and J. Hals. Heaving buoys, point absorbers and arrays. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, 370(1959):246–277, 2012.

[230] J. Falnes and J. Løvseth. Ocean wave energy. Energy Policy, 19(8):768–775,
1991.

[231] H.-W. Fang, Y.-Z. Feng, and G.-P. Li. Optimisation of wave energy converter
arrays by an improved differential evolution algorithm. Energies, 11(12):3522,
2018.

[232] E. Faraggiana, I. Masters, and J. Chapman. Design of an optimisation scheme

for the WaveSub array. In G. Soares, editor, Advances in Renewable Ener-
gies Offshore: In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Renewable
Energies Offshore (RENEW). Taylor & Francis Group, 2019.

[233] F. J. M. Farley and R. C. T. Rainey. Anaconda: The bulge wave sea energy
converter. Report, Maritime Energy Development Ltd., 2006.

[234] N. Farrell, C. O’Donoghue, and K. Morrissey. Quantifying the uncertainty of

wave energy conversion device cost for policy appraisal: An Irish case study.
Energy Policy, 78:62–77, 2015.

[235] F.-X. Faÿ, J. Kelly, J. Henriques, A. Pujana, M. Abusara, M. Mueller, I. Touzon,

and P. Ruiz-Minguela. Numerical simulation of control strategies at Mutriku
wave power plant. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 51319, page V010T09A029. Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018.

[236] F.-X. Faÿ, E. Robles, M. Marcos, E. Aldaiturriaga, and E. F. Camacho. Sea

trial results of a predictive algorithm at the Mutriku wave power plant and
controllers assessment based on a detailed plant model. Renewable Energy,
146:1725–1745, 2020.
328 ■ Bibliography

[237] Y. Feng, X. Liang, J. An, T. Jiang, and Z. L. Wang. Soft-contact cylindrical

triboelectric-electromagnetic hybrid nanogenerator based on swing structure
for ultra-low frequency water wave energy harvesting. Nano Energy, 81:105625,
2021.

[238] Y. Feng, G. Zhang, Y. Shen, Y. You, and J. Sun. Design of Duck wave power
generation device based on wave energy. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, number 1 in 696, page 012039. IOP
Publishing, 2021.

[239] J. Fenton. Wave forces on vertical bodies of revolution. Journal of Fluid

Mechanics, 85(2):241–255, 1978.

[240] F. Ferri. Computationally efficient optimisation algorithms for WECs ar-

rays. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference
(EWTEC), Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[241] F. Ferri, S. Ambühl, B. Fischer, and J. P. Kofoed. Balancing power output

and structural fatigue of wave energy converters by means of control strategies.
Energies, 7(4):2246–2273, 2014.

[242] R. A. Fine and F. J. Millero. Compressibility of water as a function of tem-

perature and pressure. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 59(10):5529–5536,
1973.

[243] C. Fitzgerald and G. Thomas. A preliminary study on the optimal formation

of an array of wave power devices. In Proceedings of the 7th European Wave
and Tidal Energy Conference, Porto, Portugal, pages 11–14, 2007.

[244] F. Flavià and A. Clément. Extension of Haskind’s relations to cylindrical wave

fields in the context of an interaction theory. Applied Ocean Research, 66:1–12,
2017.

[245] F. F. Flavià, C. McNatt, F. Rongère, A. Babarit, and A. H. Clément. A nu-

merical tool for the frequency domain simulation of large arrays of identical
floating bodies in waves. Ocean Engineering, 148:299–311, 2018.

[246] F. F. Flavià and M. H. Meylan. An extension of general identities for 3D water-

wave diffraction with application to the diffraction transfer matrix. Applied
Ocean Research, 84:279–290, 2019.

[247] M. Folley. Spectral-domain models. In M. Folley, editor, Numerical modelling

of wave energy converters: state-of-the-art techniques for single devices and
arrays, pages 67–80. Academic Press, 2016.

[248] M. Folley. The wave energy resource. In A. Pecher and J. P. Kofoed, editors,
Handbook of ocean wave energy, pages 43–79. Springer International Publishing,
Cham, 2017.
 Bibliography ■ 329

[249] M. Folley, A. Babarit, B. Child, D. Forehand, L. O’Boyle, K. Silverthorne,

J. Spinneken, V. Stratigaki, and P. Troch. A review of numerical modelling of
wave energy converter arrays. In Proceedings of the ASME 31st International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, 2013.
[250] M. Folley and T. Whittaker. Spectral modelling of wave energy converters.
Coastal Engineering, 57(10):892–897, 2010.
[251] M. Folley and T. Whittaker. Preliminary cross-validation of wave energy
converter array interactions. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Con-
ference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, pages V008T09A055–
V008T09A055. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013.
[252] M. Folley and T. Whittaker. Validating a spectral-domain model of an OWC
using physical model data. International Journal of Marine Energy, 2:1–11,
2013.
[253] M. Folley, T. Whittaker, and J. Van’t Hoff. The design of small seabed-mounted
bottom-hinged wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the 7th European
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), volume 455, page 312. Citeseer,
2007.
[254] M. Folley and T. J. Whittaker. Identification of non-linear flow characteristics
of the LIMPET shoreline OWC. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, 2002.
[255] D. Forehand, A. Kiprakis, A. Nambiar, and A. Wallace. A fully coupled wave-
to-wire model of an array of wave energy converters. IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, 7(1):118–128, 2015.
[256] Foynes Engineering LTD. [Link]
our_project/sea-power-wave-energy-converter/ Sea Power wave energy
converter. 2015.
[257] V. Franzitta, A. Colucci, D. Curto, V. Di Dio, and M. Trapanese. A linear
generator for a WaveRoller power device. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2017-
Aberdeen, pages 1–5. IEEE, 2017.
[258] A. Fredriksen. Tapered channel wave power plants. In Energy for Rural and
Island Communities, pages 179–182. Elsevier, 1986.
[259] G. Freebury and W. Musial. Determining equivalent damage loading for full-
scale wind turbine blade fatigue tests. In Proceedings of the ASME Wind Energy
Symposium, page 50, 2000.
[260] Z.-F. Fu and J. He. Modal analysis. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.
[261] F. Fusco and J. V. Ringwood. Short-term wave forecasting for real-time control
of wave energy converters. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 1(2):99–
106, 2010.
330 ■ Bibliography

[262] F. Fusco and J. V. Ringwood. Short-term wave forecasting for real-time control
of wave energy converters. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 1(2):99–
106, 2010.

[263] F. Fusco and J. V. Ringwood. Short-term wave forecasting with AR models

in real-time optimal control of wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the
IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), pages 2475–
2480. IEEE, 2010.

[264] F. Fusco and J. V. Ringwood. A study of the prediction requirements in real-

time control of wave energy converters. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
Energy, 3(1):176–184, 2012.

[265] F. Fusco and J. V. Ringwood. A simple and effective real-time controller for
wave energy converters. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 4(1):21–30,
2013.

[266] D. Galván-Pozos and F. Ocampo-Torres. Dynamic analysis of a six-degree of

freedom wave energy converter based on the concept of the Stewart-Gough
platform. Renewable Energy, 146:1051–1061, 2020.

[267] D. E. Galvan-Pozos and F. J. Ocampo-Torres. Kinematic and dynamic analysis

of the motion of a wave energy converter with more than one degree of free-
dom. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference
(EWTEC), pages 636-1–636-10, Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[268] H. Gao and Y. Yu. The dynamics and power absorption of cone-cylinder wave
energy converters with three degree of freedom in irregular waves. Energy,
143:833–845, 2018.

[269] Z. Gao and T. Moan. Mooring system analysis of multiple wave energy convert-
ers in a farm configuration. In Proceedings the 8th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference (EWTEC), Uppsala, Sweden, 2009.

[270] P. Garcia-Rosa, G. Bacelli, and J. Ringwood. Control-informed optimal array

layout for wave farms. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 6(2):575–582,
2015.

[271] P. B. Garcia-Rosa, G. Kulia, J. V. Ringwood, and M. Molinas. Real-time

passive control of wave energy converters using the Hilbert-Huang transform.
IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1):14705–14710, 2017.

[272] A. Garcia-Teruel, B. DuPont, and D. I. Forehand. Hull geometry optimisation

of wave energy converters: On the choice of the objective functions and the
optimisation formulation. Applied Energy, 298:117153, 2021.

[273] A. Garcia-Teruel and D. Forehand. A review of geometry optimisation of wave

energy converters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 139:110593,
2021.
 Bibliography ■ 331

[274] D. Garcı́a-Violini, Y. Peña-Sanchez, N. Faedo, and J. V. Ringwood. An energy-

maximising linear time invariant controller (LiTe-Con) for wave energy devices.
IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 11(4):2713–2721, 2020.

[275] C. Garrett. Wave forces on a circular dock. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,

46(01):129–139, 1971.

[276] T. Garrison. Oceanography: An invitation to marine science. Thomson

Brooks/Cole, Belmont, USA, 7th edition, 2010.

[277] L. Gato and A. d. O. Falcão. On the theory of the Wells turbine. Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 106(3):628–633, 1984.

[278] R. Genest and J. V. Ringwood. A critical comparison of model-predictive and

pseudospectral control for wave energy devices. Journal of Ocean Engineering
and Marine Energy, pages 1–15, 2016.

[279] M. Giassi, V. Castellucci, J. Engström, and M. Göteman. An economical cost

function for the optimisation of wave energy converter arrays. In Proceedings
of the 29th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE),
Honolulu, USA, 2019.

[280] M. Giassi, V. Castellucci, and M. Göteman. Economical layout optimisation of

wave energy parks clustered in electrical subsystems. Applied Ocean Research,
101:102274, 2020.

[281] M. Giassi, J. Engström, J. Isberg, and M. Göteman. Comparison of wave

energy park layouts by experimental and numerical methods. Journal of Marine
Science and Engineering, 8(10):750, 2020.

[282] M. Giassi and M. Göteman. Parameter optimisation in wave energy design by

a genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of 32nd International Workshop on Water
Waves and Floating Bodies (IWWWFB), Dalian, China, 2017.

[283] M. Giassi and M. Göteman. Layout design of wave energy parks by a genetic
algorithm. Ocean Engineering, 154:252–261, 2018.

[284] M. Giassi, M. Göteman, S. Thomas, J. Engström, M. Eriksson, and J. Isberg.

Multi-parameter optimisation of hybrid arrays of point absorber wave energy
converters. In Proceedings of 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference
(EWTEC), Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[285] M. Giassi, S. Thomas, Z. Shahroozi, J. Engström, J. Isberg, T. Tosdevin,

M. Hann, and M. Göteman. Preliminary results from a scaled test of arrays of
point-absorbers with 6 DOF. In Proceedings of the 13th European Wave and
Tidal Conference (EWTEC), Naples, Italy, 2019.

[286] M. Giassi, S. Thomas, T. Tosdevin, J. Engström, M. Hann, J. Isberg, and

M. Göteman. Capturing the experimental behaviour of a point-absorber WEC
332 ■ Bibliography

by simplified numerical models. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 99:103143,

2020.
[287] G. Giorgi and J. V. Ringwood. Nonlinear Froude-Krylov and viscous drag rep-
resentations for wave energy converters in the computation/fidelity continuum.
Ocean Engineering, 141:164–175, 2017.
[288] G. Giorgi and J. V. Ringwood. Analytical representation of nonlinear Froude-
Krylov forces for 3-DoF point absorbing wave energy devices. Ocean Engineer-
ing, 164:749–759, 2018.
[289] G. Giorgi and J. V. Ringwood. Articulating parametric resonance for an OWC
spar buoy in regular and irregular waves. Journal of Ocean Engineering and
Marine Energy, 4(4):311–322, 2018.
[290] S. Giorgi, J. Davidson, and J. Ringwood. Identification of nonlinear excitation
force kernels using numerical wave tank experiments. In Proceedings of the
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, pages 1–10, Nantes, France, 2015.
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference 2015.
[291] S. Giorgi, J. Davidson, and J. V. Ringwood. Identification of wave energy
device models from numerical wave tank data—Part 2: Data-based model de-
termination. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 7(3):1020–1027, 2016.
[292] B. Godderidge. A phenomenological rapid sloshing model for use as an oper-
ator guidance system on liquid natural gas carriers. PhD thesis, University of
Southampton, 2009.
[293] D. Golbaz, R. Asadi, E. Amini, H. Mehdipour, M. Nasiri, M. M. Nezhad,
S. T. O. Naeeni, and M. Neshat. Ocean wave energy converters optimisation: A
comprehensive review on research directions. Preprint arXiv:2105.07180, 2021.
[294] R. Gonzalez-Santamaria, Q.-P. Zou, and S. Pan. Impacts of a wave farm on
waves, currents and coastal morphology in South West England. Estuaries and
Coasts, 38(1):159–172, 2015.
[295] J.-S. Goo and K. Yoshida. A numerical method for huge semisubmersible
responses in waves. Transactions-Society of Naval Architects and Marine En-
gineers, 98:365–387, 1990.
[296] M. Góralczyk. Life-cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector. Applied
Energy, 75(3-4):205–211, 2003.
[297] E. Gorr-Pozzi, H. Garcı́a-Nava, M. Jaramillo-Torres, M. Larrañaga-Fu, and
F. Ocampo-Torres. Evaluation of wave energy converter arrays within a shel-
tered bay. In Proceedings of the 13th European Wave and Tidal Conference
(EWTEC), Naples, Italy, 2019.
[298] M. Göteman. Wave energy parks with point-absorbers of different dimensions.
Journal of Fluids and Structures, 74:142–157, 2017.
 Bibliography ■ 333

[299] M. Göteman. Iterative multiple cluster scattering. In Proceedings of 36th Inter-

national Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies (IWWWFB), Seoul,
Korea, 2021.

[300] M. Göteman, J. Engström, M. Eriksson, and J. Isberg. Fast modeling of large

wave energy farms using interaction distance cut-off. Energies, 8(12):13741–
13757, 2015.

[301] M. Göteman, J. Engström, M. Eriksson, and J. Isberg. Optimizing wave en-

ergy parks with over 1000 interacting point-absorbers using an approximate
analytical method. International Journal of Marine Energy, 10:113–126, 2015.

[302] M. Göteman, J. Engström, M. Eriksson, J. Isberg, and M. Leijon. Methods of

reducing power fluctuations in wave energy parks. Journal of Renewable and
Sustainable Energy, 6(4):043103, 2014.

[303] M. Göteman, M. Giassi, J. Engström, and J. Isberg. Advances and challenges

in wave energy park optimisation–a review. Frontiers in Energy Research, 8:26,
2020.

[304] M. Göteman, C. McNatt, M. Giassi, J. Engström, and J. Isberg. Arrays of point-

absorbing wave energy converters in short-crested irregular waves. Energies,
11(4):964, 2018.

[305] A. Gray, D. Findlay, and L. Johanning. Operations and maintenance planning

for community-scale, off-grid wave energy devices. In Advances in Renewable
Energies Offshore: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Renew-
able Energies Offshore (RENEW). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.

[306] D. Greaves and G. Iglesias. Wave and tidal energy. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.

[307] M. Greenhow, T. Vinje, P. Brevig, and J. Taylor. A theoretical and experimen-

tal study of the capsize of Salter’s Duck in extreme waves. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 118:221–239, 1982.

[308] Y. Gu, B. Ding, N. Y. Sergiienko, and B. S. Cazzolato. Power maximising

control of a heaving point absorber wave energy converter. IET Renewable
Power Generation, 2021.

[309] O. T. Gudmestad and G. Moe. Hydrodynamic coefficients for calculation of

hydrodynamic loads on offshore truss structures. Marine Structures, 9(8):745–
758, 1996.

[310] B. Guo. Study of scale modelling, verification and control of a heaving point
absorber wave energy converter. PhD thesis, University of Hull, 2017.

[311] B. Guo, R. Patton, M. Abdelrahman, and J. Lan. A continuous control ap-

proach to point absorber wave energy conversion. In Proceedings of the UKACC
11th International Conference on Control (CONTROL), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2016.
334 ■ Bibliography

[312] B. Guo, R. Patton, and S. Jin. Identification and validation of excitation force
for a heaving point absorber wave energy convertor. In Proceedings of the
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, pages 1–9, Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[313] B. Guo, R. Patton, S. Jin, J. Gilbert, and D. Parsons. Nonlinear modeling

and verification of a heaving point absorber for wave energy conversion. IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 9(1):453–461, 2018.

[314] B. Guo and R. J. Patton. Non-linear viscous and friction effects on a

heaving point absorber dynamics and latching control performance. IFAC-
PapersOnLine, 50(1):15657–15662, 2017.

[315] B. Guo, R. J. Patton, S. Jin, and J. Lan. Numerical and experimental studies of
excitation force approximation for wave energy conversion. Renewable Energy,
125:877–889, 2018.

[316] B. Guo and J. V. Ringwood. Modelling of a vibro-impact power take-off mech-

anism for wave energy conversion. In Proceedings of the European Control
Conference (ECC), pages 1348–1353. IEEE, 2020.

[317] B. Guo and J. V. Ringwood. Non-linear modeling of a vibro-impact wave energy

converter. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 12(1):492–500, 2020.

[318] B. Guo and J. V. Ringwood. Parametric study of a vibro-impact wave energy

converter. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53(2):12283–12288, 2020.

[319] B. Guo and J. V. Ringwood. Geometric optimisation of wave energy conversion

devices: A survey. Applied Energy, 297:117100, 2021.

[320] B. Guo, R. Wang, D. Ning, L. Chen, and W. Sulisz. Hydrodynamic performance

of a novel WEC-breakwater integrated system consisting of triple dual-freedom
pontoons. Energy, 209:118463, 2020.

[321] Y. Guo, Y.-H. Yu, J. A. van Rij, and N. M. Tom. Inclusion of structural
flexibility in design load analysis for wave energy converters. Technical report,
National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 2017.

[322] K. T. Gürsel, D. Ünsalan, G. NEŞER, M. Taner, E. Altunsaray, and M. Önal.

a technological assessment of the wave energy converter. Scientific Bulletin of
Naval Academy, 19(1):408–417, 2016.

[323] G. Hagerman. Wave energy resource and economic assessment for the state of
hawaii. Technical report, SEASUN Power Systems, 1992.

[324] G. M. Hagerman and T. Heller. Wave energy: a survey of twelve near-term

technologies. In Proceedings of the International Renewable Energy Conference,
pages 98–110, Honolulu, Hawaii, September 1988.
 Bibliography ■ 335

[325] M. C. Haller, A. Porter, P. Lenee-Bluhm, K. Rhinefrank, E. Hammagren,

H. Özkan-Haller, and D. Newborn. Laboratory observation of waves in the
vicinity of WEC-arrays. In Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference (EWTEC), Southampton, UK, 2011.

[326] J. Hals, J. Falnes, and T. Moan. A comparison of selected strategies for adaptive
control of wave energy converters. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, 133(3):031101, 2011.

[327] J. Hals, J. Falnes, and T. Moan. Constrained optimal control of a heaving buoy
wave-energy converter. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
133(1):011401, 2011.

[328] J. Hals Todalshaug. Practical limits to the power that can be captured from
ocean waves by oscillating bodies. International Journal of Marine Energy,
3:e70–e81, 2013.

[329] J. Hals Todalshaug. Hydrodynamics of WECs. In A. Pecher and J. P. Kofoed,

editors, Handbook of ocean wave energy, pages 139–158. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 2017.

[330] J. Hals Todalshaug, G. S. Ásgeirsson, E. Hjálmarsson, J. Maillet, P. Möller,

P. Pires, M. Guérinel, and M. Lopes. Tank testing of an inherently phase-
controlled wave energy converter. International Journal of Marine Energy,
15:68–84, 2016.

[331] M. Hann. A numerical and experimental study of a multi-cell fabric distensible

wave energy converter. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 2013.

[332] M. Hann, J. Chaplin, and F. Farley. Assessment of a multi-cell fabric structure

as an attenuating wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the World Renewable
Energy Congress-Sweden, 057, pages 2143–2150, Linköping; Sweden, May 2011.

[333] J. E. Hanssen, L. Margheritini, K. O’Sullivan, P. Mayorga, I. Martinez, A. Ar-

riaga, I. Agos, J. Steynor, D. Ingram, R. Hezari, and J. H. Todalshaug. Design
and performance validation of a hybrid offshore renewable energy platform. In
10th International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies
(EVER), pages 1–8, 2015.

[334] P. Hardy, B. Cazzolato, B. Ding, and Z. Prime. A maximum capture width

tracking controller for ocean wave energy converters in irregular waves. Ocean
Engineering, 121:516–529, 2016.

[335] P. Haren and C. C. Mei. Wave power extraction by a train of rafts: hydro-
dynamic theory and optimum design. Applied Ocean Research, 1(3):147–157,
1979.

[336] R. E. Harris, L. Johanning, and J. Wolfram. Mooring systems for

wave energy converters: A review of design issues and choices. https://
336 ■ Bibliography

[Link]/paper/Mooring-systems-for-wave-energy-
converters%3A-A-of-Harris-Johanning/0fcddf19543ff03e757e8241a07
febf75a29e43c Marec 2004, 2004.
[337] J. Harrison. Floating offshore wind: Installation, operation & maintenance
challenges. Technical Report BF008-001-RE, Blackfish Engineering Design and
Product Development, 2020.
[338] M. Haskind. The exciting forces and wetting of ships in waves, Izvestia
Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie Tekhnicheskikh Nauk, 7, 65-79. David Taylor
Model Basin Translation, 307, 1962.
[339] K. Hasselmann, T. Barnett, E. Bouws, H. Carlson, D. Cartwright, K. Enke,
J. Ewing, H. Gienapp, D. Hasselmann, P. Kruseman, et al. Measurements of
wind-wave growth and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project
(JONSWAP). Technical report, Deutches Hydrographisches Institut, 1973.
[340] K. Hatalis and S. Kishore. On enabling autonomous operation and control of
ocean wave energy farms. In Proceedings of the 3rd Marine Energy Technology
Symposium (METS), 2015.
[341] F. He, Z. Huang, and A. W.-K. Law. Hydrodynamic performance of a rectangu-
lar floating breakwater with and without pneumatic chambers: An experimental
study. Ocean Engineering, 51:16–27, 2012.
[342] F. He, Z. Huang, and A. W.-K. Law. An experimental study of a floating
breakwater with asymmetric pneumatic chambers for wave energy extraction.
Applied Energy, 106:222–231, 2013.
[343] F. He, J. Leng, and X. Zhao. An experimental investigation into the wave power
extraction of a floating box-type breakwater with dual pneumatic chambers.
Applied Ocean Research, 67:21–30, 2017.
[344] T. Heath. A review of oscillating water columns. Philosophical Transac-
tions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
370(1959):235–245, 2012.
[345] V. Heller. Technology readiness level approach for the development of WECs,
2012. Presentation presented at the 4th CoastLab Teaching School, Wave and
Tidal Energy, Porto.
[346] V. Heller, J. Chaplin, F. Farley, M. Hann, G. Hearn, et al. Physical model
tests of the Anaconda wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 1st IAHR
European Congress, 2000.
[347] M. Hemer and D. Griffin. The wave energy resource along Australia‘s southern
margin. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2(4):043108, 2010.
[348] M. Hemer, T. Pitman, K. McInnes, and U. Rosebrock. The Australian wave
energy Atlas project overview and final report. Report, CSIRO, 2018.
 Bibliography ■ 337

[349] R. Henderson. Design, simulation, and testing of a novel hydraulic power take-
off system for the Pelamis wave energy converter. Renewable Energy, 31(2):271–
283, 2006.

[350] U. Henfridsson, V. Neimane, K. Strand, R. Kapper, H. Bernhoff, O. Danielsson,

M. Leijon, J. Sundberg, K. Thorburn, E. Ericsson, and K. Bergman. Wave
energy potential in the Baltic Sea and the Danish part of the North Sea, with
reflections on the Skagerrak. Renewable Energy, 32(12):2069–2084, 2007.

[351] J. L. Hess and A. O. Smith. Calculation of potential flow about arbitrary

bodies. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 8:1–138, 1967.

[352] A. Hillis, A. Brask, and C. Whitlam. Real-time wave excitation force estimation
for an experimental multi-DOF WEC. Ocean Engineering, 213:107788, 2020.

[353] A. Hillis, C. Whitlam, A. Brask, J. Chapman, and A. Plummer. Active control

for multi-degree-of-freedom wave energy converters with load limiting. Renew-
able Energy, 159:1177–1187, 2020.

[354] A. Hillis, C. Whitlam, A. Brask, J. Chapman, and A. R. Plummer. Power

capture gains for the WaveSub submerged WEC using active control. In Pro-
ceedings of the Thirteenth European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, 2019.

[355] A. Hillis, J. Yardley, A. Plummer, and A. Brask. Model predictive control

of a multi-degree-of-freedom wave energy converter with model mismatch and
prediction errors. Ocean Engineering, 212:107724, 2020.

[356] C. Hirt and B. Nichols. Volume of fluid (vof) method for the dynamics of free
boundaries. Journal of Computational Physics, 39(1):201–225, 1981.

[357] J. Hodges, J. Henderson, L. Ruedy, M. Soede, J. Weber, P. Ruiz-Minguela,

H. Jeffrey, E. Bannon, M. Holland, R. Maciver, D. Hume, J. Villate, and
T. Ramsey. An international evaluation and guidance framework for ocean
energy technology. Technical report, International Energy Agency (IEA) and
Ocean Energy Systems (OES) and Wave Energy Scotland, 2021.

[358] Y. Hong, V. Castellucci, M. Eriksson, C. Boström, and R. Waters. Linear

generator-based wave energy converter model with experimental verification
and three loading strategies. IET Renewable Power Generation, 10(3):349–
359, 2016.

[359] H. Hotta, Y. Washio, H. Yokozawa, and T. Miyazaki. R&d on wave power

device “Mighty Whale”. Renewable Energy, 9(1-4):1223–1226, 1996.

[360] D. Howe, J.-R. Nader, and G. Macfarlane. Performance analysis of a float-

ing breakwater integrated with multiple oscillating water column wave energy
converters in regular and irregular seas. Applied Ocean Research, 99:102147,
2020.
338 ■ Bibliography

[361] J. Hu, B. Zhou, C. Vogel, P. Liu, R. Willden, K. Sun, J. Zang, J. Geng, P. Jin,
L. Cui, et al. Optimal design and performance analysis of a hybrid system
combing a floating wind platform and wave energy converters. Applied Energy,
269:114998, 2020.

[362] A. Hulme. A ring-source/integral-equation method for the calculation of hy-

drodynamic forces exerted on floating bodies of revolution. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 128:387–412, 1983.

[363] G. Ibarra-Berastegi, J. Sáenz, A. Ulazia, P. Serras, G. Esnaola, and C. Garcia-

Soto. Electricity production, capacity factor, and plant efficiency index at the
Mutriku wave farm (2014–2016). Ocean Engineering, 147:20–29, 2018.

[364] International Energy Agency (IEA). Deploying renewables - Best and future
police practice, 2011.

[365] International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. Ocean Energy Systems:
International levelised cost of energy for ocean energy technologies, 2015.

[366] International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. Electricity Information:

Overview, 2020.

[367] International Energy Agency (IEA). Global Energy Review 2019, 2020.

[368] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi. Innovation

outlook: Ocean energy technologies, 2020.

[369] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable Power Genera-

tion Costs in 2020, 2021.

[370] I. R. E. A. (IRENA). Ocean power: Technologies, patents, deployment status

and outlook, 2014.

[371] A. Iturrioz, R. Guanche, J. Armesto, M. Alves, C. Vidal, and I. Losada. Time-

domain modeling of a fixed detached oscillating water column towards a floating
multi-chamber device. Ocean Engineering, 76:65–74, 2014.

[372] C. Iuppa, L. Cavallaro, R. E. Musumeci, D. Vicinanza, and E. Foti. Empirical

overtopping volume statistics at an obrec. Coastal Engineering, 152:103524,
2019.

[373] J. Izquierdo-Pérez, B. M. Brentan, J. Izquierdo, N.-E. Clausen, A. Pegalajar-

Jurado, and N. Ebsen. Layout optimisation process to minimize the cost of
energy of an offshore floating hybrid wind–wave farm. Processes, 8(2):139,
2020.

[374] J.-L. Jacob. Financing renewable energy innovations in Europe: Investment

criteria of early stage investors and guidelines for the business plan development
in the context of wave energy conversion. Master’s thesis, Beuth University of
Applied Sciences Berlin and MBA Renewables, 2016.
 Bibliography ■ 339

[375] P. Jean, A. Wattez, G. Ardoise, C. Melis, R. Van Kessel, A. Fourmon, E. Barra-

bino, J. Heemskerk, and J. Queau. Standing wave tube electro active polymer
wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the Electroactive Polymer Actuators
and Devices (EAPAD) 2012, volume 8340, page 83400C. International Society
for Optics and Photonics, 2012.
[376] X. Ji, S. Liu, H. Bingham, and J. Li. Multi-directional random wave interaction
with an array of cylinders. Ocean Engineering, 110:62–77, 2015.
[377] S. Jin and D. Greaves. Wave energy in the UK: Status review and future
perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143:110932, 2021.
[378] S. Jin, R. J. Patton, and B. Guo. Viscosity effect on a point absorber wave
energy converter hydrodynamics validated by simulation and experiment. Re-
newable Energy, 129:500–512, 2018.
[379] S. Jin, R. J. Patton, and B. Guo. Enhancement of wave energy absorption
efficiency via geometry and power take-off damping tuning. Energy, 169:819–
832, 2019.
[380] L. Johanning and G. Smith. Improved measurement technologies for floating
wave energy converter (WEC) mooring arrangements. Underwater Technology,
27(4):175–184, 2008.
[381] L. Johanning, G. H. Smith, and J. Wolfram. Measurements of static and dy-
namic mooring line damping and their importance for floating WEC devices.
Ocean Engineering, 34(14-15):1918–1934, 2007.
[382] S. John Ashlin, S. Sannasiraj, and V. Sundar. Hydrodynamic performance
of an array of oscillating water column device exposed to oblique waves. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Hydrodynamics (ICHD),
Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands, 2016.
[383] J. Joslin, E. Cotter, P. Murphy, P. Gibbs, R. Cavagnaro, C. Crisp, A. R. Stew-
art, B. Polagye, P. S. Cross, E. Hjetland, et al. The wave-powered adaptable
monitoring package: hardware design, installation, and deployment. In Pro-
ceedings of the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, pages 1–6, 2019.
[384] C. Josset, A. Babarit, and A. Clément. A wave-to-wire model of the SEAREV
wave energy converter. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers,
Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 221(2):81–93,
2007.
[385] J. Joubert and J. Van Niekerk. Recent developments in wave energy along
the coast of Southern Africa. In Proceedings of the 8th European Wave Tidal
Energy Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009.
[386] J. Joubert and J. L. Van Niekerk. Designing the ShoreSWEC as a breakwa-
ter and wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the CRSES Annual Student
Symposium, 2011.
340 ■ Bibliography

[387] M. Jusoh, M. Ibrahim, M. Daud, A. Albani, and Z. Mohd Yusop. Hydraulic

power take-off concepts for wave energy conversion system: a review. Energies,
12(23):4510, 2019.

[388] H. Kagemoto, M. Murai, M. Saito, B. Molin, and S. Malenica. Experimental and

theoretical analysis of the wave decay along a long array of vertical cylinders.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 456:113, 2002.

[389] H. Kagemoto and D. Yue. Interactions among multiple three-dimensional bod-

ies in water waves: an exact algebraic method. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
166:189–209, 1986.

[390] S. Kalogirou. Chapter 1 - introduction. In S. A, editor, Solar Energy Engi-

neering (Second Edition), pages 1–49. Academic Press, Boston, second edition
edition, 2014.

[391] M. Kamarlouei, J. Gaspar, M. Calvário, T. Hallak, M. J. Mendes, F. Thiebaut,

and C. G. Soares. Experimental analysis of wave energy converters concentri-
cally attached on a floating offshore platform. Renewable Energy, 152:1171–
1185, 2020.

[392] F. Kara. Time domain prediction of power absorption from ocean waves with
wave energy converter arrays. Renewable Energy, 92:30–46, 2016.

[393] M. Kashiwagi. Hydrodynamic interactions among a great number of columns

supporting a very large flexible structure. Journal of Fluids and Structures,
14(7):1013–1034, 2000.

[394] M. Kashiwagi. Wave-induced local steady forces on a column-supported very

large floating structure. In Proceeding of the 11th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway. International Society of Off-
shore and Polar Engineers, 2001.

[395] M. Kashiwagi and T. Kohjo. A calculation method for hydrodynamic interac-

tions of multiple bodies supporting a huge floating body. In Proceeding of the
13th Symposium of Ocean Engineering, Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
pages 247–254, 1995. (in Japanese).

[396] G. M. Katsaounis, S. Polyzos, and S. A. Mavrakos. An experimental study

of the hydrodynamic behavior of a TLP platform for a 5MW wind turbine
with OWC devices. In MARINE VII: Proceedings of the VII International
Conference on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering, pages 722–731.
CIMNE, 2017.

[397] T. Kelly, J. Campbell, T. Dooley, and J. Ringwood. Modelling and results for
an array of 32 oscillating water columns. In Proceedings of the 10th European
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.
 Bibliography ■ 341

[398] C. Khairallah, E. Eid, P. Rahme, and C. B. Mosleh. Analysis of a Wave Roller

energy-harvesting device. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
on Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering Applications (ACTEA),
pages 32–36. IEEE, 2016.
[399] D. Kim, S. Poguluri, H. Ko, H. Lee, and Y. Bae. Numerical and experimental
study on linear behavior of Salter’s Duck wave energy converter. Journal of
Ocean Engineering and Technology, 33(2):116–122, 2019.
[400] J. Kim, H.-M. Kweon, W.-M. Jeong, I.-H. Cho, and H.-Y. Cho. Design of
the dual-buoy wave energy converter based on actual wave data of East Sea.
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 7(4):739–
749, 2015.
[401] J.-S. Kim, B. W. Nam, K.-H. Kim, S. Park, S. H. Shin, and K. Hong. A nu-
merical study on hydrodynamic performance of an inclined OWC wave energy
converter with nonlinear turbine–chamber interaction based on 3D potential
flow. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(3):176, 2020.
[402] K.-H. Kim, B. Nam, S. Park, J.-S. Kim, G. Kim, C.-H. Lim, and K. Hong.
Initial design of OWC WEC applicable to breakwater in remote island. In
Proceedings of the 4th Asian Wave Tidal Energy Conference, Taipei, Taiwan,
pages 9–13, 2018.
[403] D. Kisacik, V. Stratigaki, M. Wu, L. Cappietti, I. Simonetti, P. Troch, A. Cre-
spo, C. Altomare, J. Domı́nguez, M. Hall, et al. Efficiency and survivability of a
floating oscillating water column wave energy converter moored to the seabed:
An overview of the EsflOWC MaRINET2 database. Water, 12(4):992, 2020.
[404] J. P. Kofoed. Wave Overtopping of Marine Structures: utilization of wave en-
ergy. PhD thesis, Aalborg University, Denmark, 2002.
[405] J. P. Kofoed. Model testing of the wave energy converter Seawave Slot-Cone
Generator. Technical report, Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg Uni-
versity, 2005.
[406] J. P. Kofoed. The wave energy sector. In Handbook of Ocean Wave Energy,
pages 17–42. Springer, Cham, 2017.
[407] J. P. Kofoed and M. P. Antonishen. Hydraulic evaluation of the Crest Wing
wave energy converter. Technical Report 42, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aalborg University, 2008.
[408] J. P. Kofoed and M. P. Antonishen. The Crest Wing wave energy device: 2nd
phase testing. Technical Report 59, Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg
University, 2009.
[409] J. P. Kofoed, P. Frigaard, E. Friis-Madsen, and H. C. Sørensen. Prototype test-
ing of the wave energy converter Wave Dragon. Renewable Energy, 31(2):181–
189, 2006.
342 ■ Bibliography

[410] J. P. Kofoed, D. Vicinanza, and E. Osaland. Estimation of design wave loads on

the SSG WEC pilot plant based on 3-D model tests. In Proceedings of the 16th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, 2006.

[411] J. Kolbusz, D. Harrowfield, M. Cocho, and D. W. Velasco. Integration of wave

measurement device into a wave energy array. In Proceedings of the Asian Wave
and Tidal Energy Conference (AWTEC), Singapore, 2016.

[412] S. Koley and K. Trivedi. Mathematical modeling of Oyster wave energy con-
verter device. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 2277,
page 130014. AIP Publishing LLC, 2020.

[413] D. Konispoliatis and S. Mavrakos. Hydrodynamics and power absorption char-

acteristics of free floating and moored arrays of OWC’s devices. In Proceedings
of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arc-
tic Engineering, San Francisco, USA, 2014.

[414] D. Konispoliatis and S. Mavrakos. Hydrodynamic analysis of an array of in-

teracting free-floating oscillating water column (OWC’s) devices. Ocean Engi-
neering, 111:179–197, 2016.

[415] W. Koo and M.-H. Kim. Nonlinear time-domain simulation of a land-based

oscillating water column. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean En-
gineering, 136(5):276–285, 2010.

[416] U. A. Korde, J. Lyu, R. D. Robinett III, D. G. Wilson, G. Bacelli, and O. O.

Abdelkhalik. Constrained near-optimal control of a wave energy converter in
three oscillation modes. Applied Ocean Research, 69:126–137, 2017.

[417] T. Kovaltchouk, S. Armstrong, A. Blavette, H. Ahmed, and B. Multon. Wave

farm flicker severity: Comparative analysis and solutions. Renewable Energy,
91:32–39, 2016.

[418] D. R. B. Kraemer. The motions of hinged-barge systems in regular seas. PhD

thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, 2001.

[419] M. Kramer, J. Andersen, S. Thomas, F. B. Bendixen, and et al. Highly accurate

experimental heave decay tests with a floating sphere: a public benchmark
dataset for model validation of fluid-structure interaction. Energies, 14:269,
2021.

[420] M. Kramer, L. Marquis, P. Frigaard, Performance evaluation of the WaveStar

prototype. In Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Confer-
ence (EWTEC), pages 5–9, 2011.

[421] K. Krishnanand and D. Ghose. Glowworm swarm optimisation for simultaneous

capture of multiple local optima of multimodal functions. Swarm Intelligence,
3(2):87–124, 2009.
 Bibliography ■ 343

[422] E. Kristiansen, Å. Hjulstad, and O. Egeland. State-space representation of

radiation forces in time-domain vessel models. Ocean Engineering, 32(17):2195–
2216, 2005.

[423] V. Krivtsov and B. Linfoot. Basin testing of wave energy converters in trond-
heim: investigation of mooring loads and implications for wider research. Jour-
nal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2(2):326–335, 2014.

[424] S. Krüner and C. Hackl. Experimental identification of the optimal current vec-
tors for a permanent-magnet synchronous machine in wave energy converters.
Energies, 12(5):862, 2019.

[425] K. Kudo. Optimal design of Kaimei-type wave power absorber. Journal of the
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1984(156):245–254, 1984.

[426] S.-Y. Kung. A new identification and model reduction algorithm via singular
value decomposition. In Proceedings of the 12th Asilomar conference on circuits,
systems and computers, Pacific Grove, pages 705–714, 1978.

[427] A. Kurniawan, M. Grassow, and F. Ferri. Numerical modelling and wave tank
testing of a self-reacting two-body wave energy device. Ships and Offshore
Structures, pages 1–13, 2019.

[428] S. Lattanzio and J. Scruggs. Maximum power generation of a wave energy

converter in a stochastic environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE international
conference on control applications (CCA), pages 1125–1130, Denver, CO, 2011.
IEEE.

[429] S. M. Lau and G. E. Hearn. Suppression of irregular frequency effects in fluid–

structure interaction problems using a combined boundary integral equation
method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 9(7):763–782,
1989.

[430] G. Lavidas and H. Polinder. Wave energy in the Netherlands: Past, present
and future perspectives. In Proceedings of the 13th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference, page 1226. EWTEC, 2019.

[431] C.-H. Lee. WAMIT theory manual. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Department of Ocean Engineering, 1995.

[432] C.-H. Lee, J. N. Newman, and X. Zhu. An extended boundary integral equation
method for the removal of irregular frequency effects. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Fluids, 23(7):637–660, 1996.

[433] J. Lee and F. Zhao. GWEC global wind report 2019. Technical report, Wind
Global Energy Council, 2020.
344 ■ Bibliography

[434] M. J. Legaz, D. Coronil, P. Mayorga, and J. Fernández. Study of a hybrid re-

newable energy platform: W2Power. In Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 51326, page
V11AT12A040. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018.

[435] M. Leijon, C. Boström, O. Danielsson, S. Gustafsson, K. Haikonen, O. Lang-

hamer, E. Strömstedt, M. Stålberg, J. Sundberg, O. Svensson, S. Tyrberg, and
R. Waters. Wave energy from the north sea: Experiences from the Lysekil
research site. Surveys in Geophysics, 29(3):221–240, 2008.

[436] M. Leijon, O. Danielsson, M. Eriksson, K. Thorburn, H. Bernhoff, J. Isberg,

J. Sundberg, I. Ivanova, E. Sjöstedt, O. Ågren, et al. An electrical approach to
wave energy conversion. Renewable Energy, 31(9):1309–1319, 2006.

[437] E. Lejerskog, C. Boström, L. Hai, R. Waters, and M. Leijon. Experimental

results on power absorption from a wave energy converter at the Lysekil wave
energy research site. Renewable Energy, 77:9–14, 2015.

[438] E. Lemos, N. Haraczy, and A. Shah. Estimating the generating efficiency of the
AquaBuOY 2.0. Mathematical Methods in Engineering Penn State Harrisburg,
Middletown, PA, 17057, 2018.

[439] A. R. Lesemann and E. J. Hammagren. Searay autonomous offshore power

system AOPS: Results of sea trials and payload support demonstration. In
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. OnePetro, 2021.

[440] B. Li, D. E. Macpherson, and J. K. H. Shek. Direct drive wave energy converter
control in irregular waves. In Proceedings on the IET Conference on Renewable
Power Generation (RPG 2011), pages 1–6, Edinburgh, UK, 2011.

[441] G. Li and M. Belmont. Model predictive control of sea wave energy converters–
Part II: The case of an array of devices. Renewable Energy, 68:540–549, 2014.

[442] L. Li, Y. Gao, D. Ning, and Z. Yuan. Development of a constraint non-causal

wave energy control algorithm based on artificial intelligence. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, page 110519, 2020.

[443] X. Li, C. Chen, Q. Li, L. Xu, C. Liang, K. Ngo, R. G. Parker, and L. Zuo. A
compact mechanical power take-off for wave energy converters: Design, analysis,
and test verification. Applied Energy, 278:115459, 2020.

[444] X.-M. Li, S.-T. Quek, and C.-G. Koh. Stochastic response of offshore platforms
by statistical cubicization. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 121(10):1056–
1068, 1995.

[445] Y. Li and C. Mei. Bragg scattering by a line array of small cylinders in a

waveguide. Part 1. Linear aspects. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 583:161–187,
2007.
 Bibliography ■ 345

[446] H. Liang, C. Ouled Housseine, X. B. Chen, and Y. Shao. Efficient methods

free of irregular frequencies in wave and solid/porous structure interactions.
Journal of Fluids and Structures, 98:103130, 2020.
[447] H. Liang, H. Wu, and F. Noblesse. Validation of a global approximation for
wave diffraction-radiation in deep water. Applied Ocean Research, 74:80–86,
2018.
[448] C. Linton. Rapidly convergent representations for Green functions for Laplace
equation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 455(1985):1767–1797, 1999.
[449] C. Linton and D. Evans. The interaction of waves with a row of circular cylin-
ders. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 251:687–708, 1993.
[450] C. M. Linton and P. McIver. Handbook of mathematical techniques for
wave/structure interactions. CRC Press, 2001.
[451] C. Liu. Current research status and challenge for direct-drive wave energy
conversions. IETE Journal of Research, pages 1–13, 2021.
[452] C. Liu, M. Hu, Z. Zhao, Y. Zeng, W. Gao, J. Chen, H. Yan, J. Zhang, Q. Yang,
G. Bao, S. Chen, D. Wei, and S. Min. Latching control of a raft-type wave
energy converter with a hydraulic power take-off system. Ocean Engineering,
236:109512, 2021.
[453] J. Liu, A. Guo, Q. Fang, H. Li, H. Hu, and P. Liu. Wave action by arrays of ver-
tical cylinders with arbitrary smooth cross-section. Journal of Hydrodynamics,
pages 1–11, 2019.
[454] Y. Liu. HAMS: a frequency-domain preprocessor for wave-structure interac-
tions—theory, development, and application. Journal of Marine Science and
Engineering, 7(3):81, 2019.
[455] Y. Liu, P. Cong, Y. Gou, S. Yoshida, and M. Kashiwagi. Enhanced Endo’s
approach for evaluating free-surface Green’s function with application to wave-
structure interactions. Ocean Engineering, 207:107377, 2020.
[456] Y. Liu, H. Iwashita, and C. Hu. A calculation method for finite depth free-
surface Green function. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering, 7(2):375–389, 2015.
[457] Y. Liu, H. Liang, M. Kashiwagi, and P. Cong. Alternative approaches of evalu-
ating diffraction transfer matrix and radiation characteristics using the hybrid
source-dipole formulation. Applied Ocean Research, 114:102769, 2021.
[458] Y. Liu, S. Yoshida, C. Hu, M. Sueyoshi, L. Sun, J. Gao, P. Cong, and G. He.
A reliable open-source package for performance evaluation of floating renew-
able energy systems in coastal and offshore regions. Energy Conversion and
Management, 174:516–536, 2018.
346 ■ Bibliography

[459] Z. Liu, B.-S. Hyun, J. Jin, and K. Hong. Practical evaluation method on the
performance of pilot OWC system in Korea. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, 2011.
[460] Z. Liu, Y. Wang, and X. Hua. Proposal of a novel analytical wake model
and array optimisation of oscillating wave surge converter using differential
evolution algorithm. Ocean Engineering, 219:108380, 2021.
[461] Z. Liu, R. Zhang, H. Xiao, and X. Wang. Survey of the mechanisms of power
take-off (PTO) devices of wave energy converters. Acta Mechanica Sinica,
36:644–658, 2020.
[462] T. T. Loh, D. Greaves, T. Maeki, M. Vuorinen, D. Simmonds, and A. Kyte. Nu-
merical modelling of the WaveRoller device using OpenFOAM. In Proceedings
of the 3rd Asian Wave & Tidal Energy Conference, 2016.
[463] I. López, J. Andreu, S. Ceballos, I. M. de Alegrı́a, and I. Kortabarria. Review
of wave energy technologies and the necessary power-equipment. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27:413–434, 2013.
[464] I. López, R. Carballo, D. M. Fouz, and G. Iglesias. Design selection and ge-
ometry in OWC wave energy converters for performance. Energies, 14(6):1707,
2021.
[465] I. López, R. Carballo, and G. Iglesias. Site-specific wave energy conversion
performance of an oscillating water column device. Energy Conversion and
Management, 195:457–465, 2019.
[466] A. López-Ruiz, R. Bergillos, J. Raffo-Caballero, and M. Ortega-Sánchez. To-
wards an optimum design of wave energy converter arrays through an integrated
approach of life cycle performance and operational capacity. Applied Energy,
209:20–32, 2018.
[467] B. Lotfi and L. Huang. A novel wave energy converter using the Stewart plat-
form. Journal of Green Engineering, 4(1):33–48, 2013.
[468] J. Lucas, M. Livingstone, M. Vuorinen, and J. Cruz. Development of a wave en-
ergy converter (WEC) design tool–application to the WaveRoller WEC includ-
ing validation of numerical estimates. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Ocean Energy, volume 17, 2012.
[469] T. Lykke Andersen, M. Kramer, and P. Frigaard. AquaBuOY. model tests at
Aalborg University. Technical report, Aalborg Univiversity, Denmark, 2003.
[470] J. Lyu, O. Abdelkhalik, and L. Gauchia. Optimisation of dimensions and layout
of an array of wave energy converters. Ocean Engineering, 192:106543, 2019.
[471] I. López, J. Andreu, S. Ceballos, I. Martı́nez de Alegrı́a, and I. Kortabarria.
Review of wave energy technologies and the necessary power-equipment. Re-
newable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27:413–434, 2013.
 Bibliography ■ 347

[472] L.-M. Macadré, F. McAuliffe, O. Keysan, M. Donovan, S. Armstrong, J. Mur-

phy, and K. Lynch. Optimal power aggregation methods for marine renewable
energy converters; a combined economic and reliability approach. In Proceedings
of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Nantes,
France, 2015.

[473] E. Mackay. Consistent expressions for the free-surface Green function in finite
water depth. Applied Ocean Research, 93:101965, 2019.

[474] E. Mackay, J. Cruz, M. Livingstone, and P. Arnold. Validation of a time-domain

modelling tool for wave energy converter arrays. Proceedings of the European
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), 2013.

[475] E. Mackay, J. Cruz, C. Retzler, P. Arnold, E. Bannon, and R. Pascal. Validation

of a new wave energy converter design tool with large scale single machine
experiments. In Proceedings of the 1st Asian wave and tidal conference series,
2012.

[476] A. Madrigal. Powering the dream: The history and promise of green technology.
Da Capo Press, 2011.

[477] D. Magagna. Ocean energy technology development report 2018, EUR 29907,
EN. Technical report, Technical report Publications Office of the European
Union, 2019.

[478] D. Magagna. Ocean energy - technology development report 2020 - JRC123159.

Technical report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
2020. EUR 30509 EN.

[479] D. Magagna, D. Carr, D. Stagonas, A. Mcnabola, L. Gill, and G. Muller. Ex-

perimental evaluation of the performances of an array of multiple oscillating
water columns. In Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference (EWTEC), Southampton, UK, 2011.

[480] D. Magagna, L. Margheritini, A. Alessi, E. Bannon, E. Boelman, D. Bould,

V. Coy, E. De Marchi, P. Frigaard, C. Soares, et al. Workshop on identification
of future emerging technologies in the ocean energy sector: JRC conference
and workshop reports. In Proceedings of the JRC Conference and Workshop:
Workshop on identification of future emerging technologies in the ocean energy
sector. European Commission* Office for Official Publications of the European
Union, 2018.

[481] D. Magagna, L. Margheritini, A. Moro, and P. Schild. Considerations on future

emerging technologies in the ocean energy sector. In Advances in Renewable En-
ergies Offshore: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Renewable
Energies Offshore (RENEW), page 3, Lisbon, Portugal, October 2018. CRC
Press.
348 ■ Bibliography

[482] D. Magagna, R. Monfardini, and A. Uihlein. JRC ocean energy status report
2016 edition. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016.

[483] D. Magagna, D. Stagonas, and G. Muller. Physical investigation into an array

of onshore OWCPs designed for water delivery. In Proceedings of the World
Renewable Energy Congress-Sweden; 8-13 May; 2011; Linköping; Sweden, 057,
pages 2206–2213. Linköping University Electronic Press, 2011.

[484] D. Magagna and A. Uihlein. Ocean energy development in Europe: Current

status and future perspectives. International Journal of Marine Energy, 11:84–
104, 2015.

[485] F. Mahnamfar and A. Altunkaynak. Comparison of numerical and experimental

analyses for optimizing the geometry of OWC systems. Ocean Engineering,
130:10–24, 2017.

[486] C. Maisondieu. WEC survivability threshold and extractable wave power. In

Proceedings of the 11th European Wave Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC),
Nantes, France, 2015.

[487] K. Mala, J. Jayaraj, J. Ninoy, V. Jayashankar, Techno-commercial study of twin

unidirectional turbine based wave energy plants. In Proceedings of the Eighth
ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium. International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers, 2009.

[488] P. Malali and K. Marchand. Assessment of currently available ocean wave en-
ergy conversion systems using technology readiness levels. International Journal
of Renewable Energy Technology, 11(2):126–146, 2020.

[489] O. Malmo and A. Reitan. Development of the Kvaerner multiresonant OWC.

In Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave-Energy Utilization, pages 57–67. Springer,
1986.

[490] R. Manasseh, S. Sannasiraj, K. McInnes, V. Sundar, and P. Jalihal. Integration

of wave energy and other marine renewable energy sources with the needs of
coastal societies. The International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems,
8(1):19–36, 2017.

[491] H. Mankle, Y. Yu, and B. DuPont. WEC-Sim array simulation development

and experimental comparison study. In Proceedings of the 13th European Wave
and Tidal Conference (EWTEC), Naples, Italy, 2019.

[492] H. Mankle, Y.-H. Yu, and B. DuPont. WEC-Sim array development and ex-
perimental comparison study. Technical report, National Renewable Energy
Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 2019.

[493] L. D. Mann. Application of ocean observations & analysis: The CETO wave
energy project. In Operational Oceanography in the 21st Century, pages 721–
729. Springer, 2011.
 Bibliography ■ 349

[494] P. Maragos, J. F. Kaiser, and T. F. Quatieri. Energy separation in signal

modulations with application to speech analysis. IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, 41(10):3024–3051, 1993.

[495] L. Margheritini, P. Frigaard, and G. Iglesias. Technological and commercial

comparison of OWC and SSG wave energy converters built into breakwaters.
In Developments in Renewable Energies Offshore, pages 167–178. CRC Press,
2020.

[496] A. Maria-Arenas, A. J. Garrido, E. Rusu, and I. Garrido. Control strategies

applied to wave energy converters: state of the art. Energies, 12(16):3115, 2019.

[497] Marine Power Systems. WaveSub: Class leading performance, 2021. Accessed
on June 2021.

[498] Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network. REWEC3-Electrical PTO system

Optimisation, 2014.

[499] L. Marquis, M. Kramer, and P. Frigaard. First power production figures from
the Wave Star Roshage wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 3rd Inter-
national Conference on Ocean Energy (ICOE-2010), Bilbao, Spain, volume 68,
2010.

[500] G. Marsh. Unbridled power. Renewable Energy Focus, 15(1):32–35, 2014.

[501] L. Martinelli, P. Ruol, E. Fassina, F. Giuliani, and N. Delmonte. A wave-2-wire

experimental investigation of the new” Seabreath wave energy converter: The
hydraulic response. Coastal Engineering Proceedings, 34:29–29, 2014.

[502] L. Martinelli and B. Zanuttigh. Effects of mooring compliancy on the moor-

ing forces, power production, and dynamics of a floating wave activated body
energy converter. Energies, 11(12), 2018.

[503] Y. Masuda. An experience of wave power generator through tests and im-
provement. In Hydrodynamics of ocean wave-energy utilization, pages 445–452.
Springer, 1986.

[504] Y. Masuda and T. Miyazaki. Wave power electric generation study in Japan.
In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wave and Tidal Energy,
volume 1, pages B6 85–B6 92, 1978.

[505] Y. Masuda and T. Miyazaki. The sea trial of the wave power generator’Kaimei’.
Energy Developments in Japan, 3:165–179, 1980.

[506] Y. Masuda, T. Yamazaki, Y. Outa, and M. McCormick. Study of Backward

Bent Duct Buoy. In Proceedings of the OCEANS’87, pages 384–389. IEEE,
1987.

[507] S. Mavrakos. Hydrodynamic coefficients for groups of interacting vertical ax-

isymmetric bodies. Ocean Engineering, 18(5):485–515, 1991.
350 ■ Bibliography

[508] S. Mavrakos and A. Kalofonos. Power absorption by arrays of interacting

vertical axisymmetric wave-energy devices. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, 119(4):244–251, 1997.

[509] S. Mavrakos and P. Koumoutsakos. Hydrodynamic interaction among vertical

axisymmetric bodies restrained in waves. Applied Ocean Research, 9(3):128–
140, 1987.

[510] S. Mavrakos and P. McIver. Comparison of methods for computing hydrody-

namic characteristics of arrays of wave power devices. Applied Ocean Research,
19(5-6):283–291, 1997.

[511] R. Mayon. Investigation of wave impacts on porous structures for coastal de-
fences. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 2017.

[512] R. Mayon, D. Ning, C. Zhang, L. Chen, and R. Wang. Wave energy capture by
an omnidirectional point sink oscillating water column system. Applied Energy,
304:117795, 2021.

[513] R. Mayon and D.-Z. Ning. A nonlinear dual phase numerical model to investi-
gate the efficiency response of varied OWC chamber geometries. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
volume 84416, page V009T09A017. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2020.

[514] P. Mayorga, J. E. Hanssen, R. Hezari, T. Davey, J. Steynor, and D. Ingram.

Experimental validation of the w2power hybrid floating platform. In 13th Deep
Sea Offshore Wind R&D Conference, Trondheim, Norway, January 2016.

[515] T. Mazarakos, D. Konispoliatis, G. Katsaounis, S. Polyzos, D. Manolas,

S. Voutsinas, T. Soukissian, and S. A. Mavrakos. Numerical and experimental
studies of a multi-purpose floating TLP structure for combined wind and wave
energy exploitation. Mediterranean Marine Science, 20(4):745–763, 2019.

[516] F. D. McAuliffe and G. Dalton. Report of existing installation, operations,

maintenance and logistics model available best suited for wave and tidal appli-
cations. Technical Report 8.3, MaREI, University College Cork, 2020.

[517] M. McCormick. Ocean Wave Energy Conversion. Dover Civil and Mechanical
Engineering Series. Dover Publications, 2007.

[518] M. McCormick, J. Murthagh, and P. McCab. Large-scale experimental study

of a hinged-barge wave energy conversion system. In Proceedings of the 3rd
European Wave Energy Conference Patras, pages 215–222, Greece, 1998.

[519] J. McGuinness and G. Thomas. Optimal arrangements of elementary arrays

of wave-power devices. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference (EWTEC), Nantes, France, 2015.
 Bibliography ■ 351

[520] J. McGuinness and G. Thomas. Hydrodynamic optimisation of small arrays

of heaving point absorbers. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy,
2(4):439–457, 2016.

[521] J. McGuinness and G. Thomas. The constrained optimisation of small linear

arrays of heaving point absorbers. part i: The influence of spacing. International
Journal of Marine Energy, 20:33–44, 2017.

[522] J. McGuinness and G. Thomas. Optimisation of wave-power arrays without

prescribed geometry over incident wave angle. International Marine Energy
Journal, 4(1):1–10, 2021.

[523] P. McIver. Wave forces on arrays of floating bodies. Journal of Engineering

Mathematics, 18(4):273–285, 1984.

[524] P. McIver. Some hydrodynamic aspects of arrays of wave-energy devices. Ap-

plied Ocean Research, 16(2):61–69, 1994.

[525] P. McIver and D. Evans. Approximation of wave forces on cylinder arrays.

Applied Ocean Research, 6(2):101–107, 1984.

[526] P. McIver and D. Evans. An approximate theory for the performance of a num-
ber of wave-energy devices set into a reflecting wall. Applied Ocean Research,
10:58, 1988.

[527] P. McIver and D. V. Evans. The occurrence of negative added mass in free-
surface problems involving submerged oscillating bodies. Journal of Engineer-
ing Mathematics, 18(1):7–22, 1984.

[528] J. C. McNatt, A. Porter, and K. Ruehl. Comparison of numerical methods for

modeling the wave field effects generated by individual wave energy converters
and multiple converter wave farms. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,
8(3):168, 2020.

[529] J. C. McNatt, V. Venugopal, and D. Forehand. The cylindrical wave field of

wave energy converters. International Journal of Marine Energy, 3:e26–e39,
2013.

[530] J. C. McNatt, V. Venugopal, and D. Forehand. A novel method for deriving

the diffraction transfer matrix and its application to multi-body interactions in
water waves. Ocean Engineering, 94:173–185, 2015.

[531] E. Medina-Lopez, W. Allsop, A. Dimakopoulos, and T. Bruce. Conjectures

on the failure of the OWC breakwater at Mutriku. In Coastal structures and
solutions to coastal disasters 2015: Resilient coastal communities, pages 592–
603. American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA, 2017.

[532] E. Medina-Lopez, W. Allsop, A. Dimakopoulos, and T. Bruce. Damage to

the Mutriku OWC breakwater–some lessons from further analysis. In Coasts,
352 ■ Bibliography

Marine Structures and Breakwaters 2017: Realising the Potential, pages 957–
967. ICE Publishing, 2018.

[533] E. Mehlum. Tapchan. In Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave-Energy Utilization,

pages 51–55. Springer, 1986.

[534] J. A. Melby and W. Appleton. Evaluation of wave transmission character-

istics of OSPREY wave power plant for Noyo Bay, California. Technical re-
port, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg MS Coastal
Hydraulics Lab, 1997.

[535] A. B. Melo, E. Sweeney, and J. L. Villate. Global review of recent ocean energy
activities. Marine Technology Society Journal, 47(5):97–103, 2013.

[536] E. Mendoza, R. Silva, B. Zanuttigh, E. Angelelli, T. L. Andersen, L. Martinelli,

J. Q. H. Nørgaard, and P. Ruol. Beach response to wave energy converter farms
acting as coastal defence. Coastal Engineering, 87:97–111, 2014.

[537] P. Mercadé Ruiz, F. Ferri, and J. Kofoed. Experimental validation of a wave

energy converter array hydrodynamics tool. Sustainability, 9(1):115, 2017.

[538] A. Mérigaud. A harmonic balance framework for the numerical simulation of

non-linear wave energy converter models in random seas. PhD thesis, National
University of Ireland Maynooth, 2018.

[539] A. Merigaud, J.-C. Gilloteaux, and J. V. Ringwood. A nonlinear extension

for linear boundary element methods in wave energy device modelling. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arc-
tic Engineering, pages 1–7, Rio de janeiro, Brazil, 2012. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.

[540] A. Mérigaud and J. V. Ringwood. A nonlinear frequency-domain approach

for numerical simulation of wave energy converters. IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, 9(1):86–94, 2017.

[541] P.-E. Meunier, A. Clément, J.-C. Gilloteaux, and K. Sofien. Development of

a methodology for collaborative control within a WEC array. International
Marine Energy Journal, 1(1):51–59, 2018.

[542] C. Michailides, Z. Gao, and T. Moan. Experimental and numerical study of the
response of the offshore combined wind/wave energy concept SFC in extreme
environmental conditions. Marine Structures, 50:35–54, 2016.

[543] B. Mills and B. Ding. Improving wave-absorber power. In Proceedings of the

12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Cork, Ireland,
2017.

[544] S. K. Mishra, D. K. Mohanta, B. Appasani, and E. Kabalci. OWC-Based Ocean

Wave Energy Plants. Springer, 2021.
 Bibliography ■ 353

[545] T. Miyazaki and Y. Masuda. Tests on the wave power generator ”Kaimei”. In
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1980.

[546] M. Moarefdoost, L. Snyder, and B. Alnajjab. Layouts for ocean wave energy
farms: Models, properties, and optimisation. Omega, 66:185–194, 2017.

[547] Mocean Energy. [Link] Green energy

out of the blue. 2019.

[548] L. Mofor, J. Goldsmith, and F. Jones. Ocean energy: Technology readiness,

patents, deployment status and outlook. Technical report, International Re-
newable Energy Agency (IRENA) Report, Paris, 2014.

[549] K. Monk. Forecasting for control and environmental impacts of wave energy
converters. PhD thesis, Plymouth University, 2016.

[550] G. Moretti, M. S. Herran, D. Forehand, M. Alves, H. Jeffrey, R. Vertechy,

and M. Fontana. Advances in the development of dielectric elastomer genera-
tors for wave energy conversion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
117:109430, 2020.

[551] J. Morison, J. Johnson, and S. Schaaf. The force exerted by surface waves on
piles. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2(05):149–154, 1950.

[552] M. T. Morris-Thomas, R. J. Irvin, and K. P. Thiagarajan. An Investigation

Into the Hydrodynamic Efficiency of an Oscillating Water Column. Journal of
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 129(4):273–278, 07 2006.

[553] F. Mouwen. Presentation on Wavebob to engineers Ireland. December, 9th,

2008.

[554] G. Muller. The Californian wave power craze of the late 19th and early 20th
century. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Confer-
ence (EWTEC), Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[555] T. Mundon, B. Nair, and J. Vining. Wave energy converter, 2017. Oscilla
Power, Inc., US 20170009732 A1, 12 January.

[556] P.-H. Musiedlak, E. J. Ransley, D. Greaves, M. Hann, G. Iglesias, and B. Child.

Investigation of model validity for numerical survivability testing of WECs.
In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference
(EWTEC), Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[557] M. A. Mustapa, O. Yaakob, Y. M. Ahmed, C.-K. Rheem, K. Koh, and F. A.

Adnan. Wave energy device and breakwater integration: A review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77:43–58, 2017.

[558] J.-R. Nader, A. Fleming, G. Macfarlane, I. Penesis, and R. Manasseh. Novel

experimental modelling of the hydrodynamic interactions of arrays of wave
energy converters. International Journal of marine energy, 20:109–124, 2017.
354 ■ Bibliography

[559] J.-R. Nader, S.-P. Zhu, P. Cooper, and B. Stappenbelt. A finite-element study
of the efficiency of arrays of oscillating water column wave energy converters.
Ocean Engineering, 43:72–81, 2012.

[560] S. Nagata, K. Toyota, Y. Yasutaka, T. Setoguchi, Y. Kyozuka, and Y. Masuda.

Experimental research on primary conversion of a floating OWC “Backward
Bent Duct Buoy”. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, 2007.

[561] A. J. Nambiar, D. I. Forehand, M. M. Kramer, R. H. Hansen, and D. M. Ingram.

Effects of hydrodynamic interactions and control within a point absorber array
on electrical output. International Journal of Marine Energy, 9:20–40, 2015.

[562] NEMOS GmbH. The NEMOS wave energy converter, 2017. Accessed 31 Oc-
tober 2017.

[563] M. Neshat, E. Abbasnejad, Q. Shi, B. Alexander, and M. Wagner. Adaptive

neuro-surrogate-based optimisation method for wave energy converters place-
ment optimisation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural
Information Processing, pages 353–366. Springer, 2019.

[564] M. Neshat, B. Alexander, N. Sergiienko, and M. Wagner. A hybrid evolu-

tionary algorithm framework for optimising power take off and placements of
wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Com-
putation Conference (GECCO’19), Prague, Czech Republic, 2019. Preprint
arXiv:1904.07043.

[565] M. Neshat, B. Alexander, N. Y. Sergiienko, and M. Wagner. New insights

into position optimisation of wave energy converters using hybrid local search.
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 59:100744, 2020.

[566] M. Neshat, B. Alexander, and M. Wagner. A hybrid cooperative co-evolution

algorithm framework for optimising power take off and placements of wave
energy converters. Information Sciences, 534:218–244, 2020.

[567] M. Neshat, B. Alexander, M. Wagner, and Y. Xia. A detailed compari-

son of meta-heuristic methods for optimising wave energy converter place-
ments. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
(GECCO’18), Kyoto, Japan, 2018.

[568] M. Neshat, N. Y. Sergiienko, E. Amini, M. Majidi Nezhad, D. Astiaso Garcia,

B. Alexander, and M. Wagner. A new bi-level optimisation framework for
optimising a multi-mode wave energy converter design: A case study for the
Marettimo Island, Mediterranean Sea. Energies, 13(20):5498, 2020.

[569] M. Neshat, N. Y. Sergiienko, S. Mirjalili, M. Majidi Nezhad, G. Piras, and

D. Astiaso Garcia. Multi-mode wave energy converter design optimisation using
an improved moth flame optimisation algorithm. Energies, 14(13):3737, 2021.
 Bibliography ■ 355

[570] J. N. Newman. The exciting forces on fixed bodies in waves. Journal of Ship
Research, 6(4):10–17, 1962.

[571] J. N. Newman. The interaction of stationary vessels with regular waves. In

Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, London, 1976.

[572] J. N. Newman. Algorithms for the free-surface Green function. Journal of

Engineering Mathematics, 19(1):57–67, 1985.

[573] J. N. Newman. Wave effects on deformable bodies. Applied Ocean Research,

16(1):47–59, 1994.

[574] H. Nguyen, C. Wang, Z. Tay, and V. Luong. Wave energy converter and large
floating platform integration: A review. Ocean Engineering, 213:107768, 2020.

[575] H. N. Nguyen and P. Tona. Wave excitation force estimation for wave energy
converters of the point-absorber type. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, 26(6):2173–2181, 2017.

[576] H. P. Nguyen and B. Eng. Extracting wave energy while reducing hydroelastic
response of very large floating structures. PhD presentation, The University of
Queensland, Australia, 2020.

[577] S. R. Nielsen, Q. Zhou, B. Basu, M. T. Sichani, and M. M. Kramer. Optimal

control of an array of non-linear wave energy point converters. Ocean Engi-
neering, 88:242–254, 2014.

[578] D. Ning, R. Wang, and C. Zhang. Numerical simulation of a dual-chamber

oscillating water column wave energy converter. Sustainability, 9(9):1599, 2017.

[579] D. Ning, Y. Zhou, and C. Zhang. Hydrodynamic modeling of a novel dual-

chamber OWC wave energy converter. Applied Ocean Research, 78:180–191,
2018.

[580] D.-Z. Ning, S. Ke, R. Mayon, and C. Zhang. Numerical investigation on hydro-
dynamic performance of an OWC wave energy device in the stepped bottom.
Frontiers in Energy Research, 7:152, 2019.

[581] D.-Z. Ning, J. Shi, Q.-P. Zou, and B. Teng. Investigation of hydrodynamic
performance of an OWC (oscillating water column) wave energy device using
a fully nonlinear HOBEM (higher-order boundary element method). Energy,
83:177–188, 2015.

[582] D.-z. Ning, R.-q. Wang, L.-f. Chen, and K. Sun. Experimental investigation
of a land-based dual-chamber OWC wave energy converter. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 105:48–60, 2019.

[583] D.-Z. Ning, R.-Q. Wang, Y. Gou, M. Zhao, and B. Teng. Numerical and exper-
imental investigation of wave dynamics on a land-fixed OWC device. Energy,
115:326–337, 2016.
356 ■ Bibliography

[584] D.-Z. Ning, R.-Q. Wang, Q.-P. Zou, and B. Teng. An experimental investigation
of hydrodynamics of a fixed OWC wave energy converter. Applied Energy,
168:636–648, 2016.
[585] D.-z. Ning, Y. Zhou, R. Mayon, and L. Johanning. Experimental investigation
on the hydrodynamic performance of a cylindrical dual-chamber oscillating
water column device. Applied Energy, 260:114252, 2020.
[586] I. Noad and R. Porter. Optimisation of arrays of flap-type oscillating wave
surge converters. Applied Ocean Research, 50:237–253, 2015.
[587] M. K. Ochi. Ocean waves: the stochastic approach. 6. Cambridge University
Press, 2005.
[588] A. O’Dea, M. C. Haller, and H. T. Özkan-Haller. The impact of wave energy
converter arrays on wave-induced forcing in the surf zone. Ocean Engineering,
161:322–336, 2018.
[589] T. F. Ogilvie. First-and second-order forces on a cylinder submerged under a
free surface. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 16(3):451–472, 1963.
[590] T. F. Ogilvie. Recent progress toward the understanding and prediction of
ship motions. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
volume 1, pages 2–5. Bergen, Norway, 1964.
[591] M. Ohkusu. Hydrodynamic forces on multiple cylinders in waves. In Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on the Dynamics of Marine Vehicles and
Structures in Waves. Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 1974.
[592] S. Ohmatsu. A new simple method to eliminate the irregular frequencies in
the theory water wave radiation problems. Technical Report 70, Papers of Ship
Research Institute, 1983.
[593] H. Ohneda, S. Igarashi, O. Shinbo, S. Sekihara, K. Suzuki, H. Kubota, H. Ogino,
and H. Morita. Construction procedure of a wave power extracting caisson
breakwater. In Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Ocean Energy Utilization,
pages 171–179, 1991.
[594] M. Ohno. Interim report on the second stage of field experiments on a wave
power extracting caisson in Sakata Port. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Ocean Energy Development, pages 173–182, 1993.
[595] S. Oliveira-Pinto, P. Rosa-Santos, and F. Taveira-Pinto. Electricity supply to
offshore oil and gas platforms from renewable ocean wave energy: Overview and
case study analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 186:556–569, 2019.
[596] S. Oliveira-Pinto, P. Rosa-Santos, and F. Taveira-Pinto. Assessment of the
potential of combining wave and solar energy resources to power supply world-
wide offshore oil and gas platforms. Energy Conversion and Management,
223:113299, 2020.
 Bibliography ■ 357

[597] OPT. Ocean power technologies, 08 2021. (Accessed on 08/08/2021).

[598] S. Ornes. Turning water into watts. Physics World, 33(3):31, 2020.

[599] J. Orszaghova, H. Wolgamot, S. Draper, R. Eatock Taylor, P. Taylor, and

A. Rafiee. Transverse motion instability of a submerged moored buoy. Proceed-
ings of the Royal Society A, 475(2221):20180459, 2019.

[600] J. Orszaghova, H. Wolgamot, S. Draper, P. H. Taylor, and A. Rafiee. Onset

and limiting amplitude of yaw instability of a submerged three-tethered buoy.
Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2235):20190762, 2020.

[601] H. Osawa, Y. Washio, T. Ogata, Y. Tsuritani, and Y. Nagata. The offshore

floating type wave power device” Mighty Whale” open sea tests performance of
the prototype–. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference. OnePetro, 2002.

[602] H. T. Özkan-Haller, M. C. Haller, J. C. McNatt, A. Porter, and P. Lenee-

Bluhm. Analyses of wave scattering and absorption produced by WEC arrays:
physical/numerical experiments and model assessment. In Marine Renewable
Energy, pages 71–97. Springer, 2017.

[603] L. O’Boyle, K. Doherty, J. van’t Hoff, and J. Skelton. The value of full scale
prototype data-testing Oyster 800 at EMEC, Orkney. In Proceedings of the
11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Nantes, France,
pages 6–11, 2015.

[604] L. O’Boyle, B. Elsäßer, and T. Whittaker. Experimental measurement of wave

field variations around wave energy converter arrays. Sustainability, 9(1):70,
2017.

[605] A. Palha, L. Mendes, C. J. Fortes, A. Brito-Melo, and A. Sarmento. The impact

of wave energy farms in the shoreline wave climate: Portuguese pilot zone case
study using Pelamis energy wave devices. Renewable Energy, 35(1):62–77, 2010.

[606] J. Palm, C. Eskilsson, G. Paredes, and L. Bergdahl. Coupled mooring analysis

for floating wave energy converters using CFD: Formulation and validation.
International Journal of Marine Energy, 16:83–99, 2016.

[607] G. Palma, P. Contestabile, B. Zanuttigh, S. M. Formentin, and D. Vici-

nanza. Integrated assessment of the hydraulic and structural performance
of the OBREC device in the Gulf of Naples, Italy. Applied Ocean Research,
101:102217, 2020.

[608] S. Park, K.-H. Kim, B.-W. Nam, J.-S. Kim, and K. Hong. Experimental
and numerical analysis of performance of oscillating water column wave en-
ergy converter applicable to breakwaters. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 58899, page
V010T09A044. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019.
358 ■ Bibliography

[609] K. Parsa, M. Mekhiche, J. Sarokhan, and D. Stewart. Performance of OPT’s

commercial PB3 PowerBuoy during 2016 ocean deployment and comparison
to projected model results. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 57786, page V010T09A021.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.

[610] A. Parwal, M. Fregelius, I. Temiz, M. Göteman, J. de Oliveira, C. Boström, and

M. Leijon. Energy management for a grid-connected wave energy park through
a hybrid energy storage system. Applied Energy, 231:399–411, 2018.

[611] B. Pattanaik, Y. N. Rao, D. Leo, and P. Jalihal. Experimental studies on

development of power take off system for wave powered navigational buoy.
In Proceedings of the IEEE 13th International Conference on Industrial and
Information Systems (ICIIS), pages 367–370. IEEE, 2018.

[612] B. Pattanaik, Y. N. Rao, P. K. Murthy, A. Viswanath, and P. Jalihal. Wave

powered navigational buoy electrical power assessment during open sea trial.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Power Electronics & IoT
Applications in Renewable Energy and its Control (PARC), pages 428–431.
IEEE, 2020.

[613] J. S. Pawlowski and D. W. Bass. A theoretical and numerical model of ship

motions in heavy seas. SNAME Transactions, 99:319, 1991.

[614] A. Pecher, J. P. Kofoed, and E. Angelelli. Experimental study on the WavePis-

ton wave energy converter. Technical Report 73, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, Aalborg University, 2010.

[615] J. Peckolt, T. Runkel, S. Baumann, J. Putz, N. Schneider, J. Wegner, J. A.

Lucas, and B. Friedhoff. Infrastructure Access Report: 1:5 scale tests of the
NEMOS wave energy converter in natural waves at Nissum Bredning Test Site.
Report, Marine Renewable Infrastructure Network, 2015.

[616] R. Pelc and R. M. Fujita. Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy,
26(6):471–479, 2002.

[617] R. Pena, J. Clare, and G. Asher. Doubly fed induction generator using back-to-
back PWM converters and its application to variable-speed wind-energy gen-
eration. IEE Proceedings-Electric Power Applications, 143(3):231–241, 1996.

[618] Y. Pena-Sanchez, M. Garcia-Abril, F. Paparella, and J. V. Ringwood. Estima-

tion and forecasting of excitation force for arrays of wave energy devices. IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 9(4):1672–1680, 2018.

[619] Y. Peña-Sanchez, C. Windt, J. Davidson, and J. V. Ringwood. A critical com-

parison of excitation force estimators for wave-energy devices. IEEE Transac-
tions on Control Systems Technology, 28(6):2263–2275, 2019.
 Bibliography ■ 359

[620] M. Penalba, G. Giorgi, and J. V. Ringwood. Mathematical modelling of wave

energy converters: a review of nonlinear approaches. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 78:1188–1207, 2017.
[621] M. Penalba, T. Kelly, and J. Ringwood. Using NEMOH for modelling wave
energy converters: A comparative study with WAMIT. In Proceedings of the
12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Cork, Ireland,
2017.
[622] M. Penalba and J. Ringwood. A review of wave-to-wire models for wave energy
converters. Energies, 9(7):506, 2016.
[623] M. Penalba and J. V. Ringwood. A high-fidelity wave-to-wire model for wave
energy converters. Renewable Energy, 134:367–378, 2019.
[624] M. Penalba and J. V. Ringwood. Systematic complexity reduction of wave-to-
wire models for wave energy system design. Ocean Engineering, 217:107651,
2020.
[625] M. Penalba, I. Touzón, J. Lopez-Mendia, and V. Nava. A numerical study on
the hydrodynamic impact of device slenderness and array size in wave energy
farms in realistic wave climates. Ocean Engineering, 142:224–232, 2017.
[626] W. Peng, Y. Zhang, Q. Zou, X. Yang, Y. Liu, and J. Zhang. Experimental
investigation of a triple pontoon wave energy converter and breakwater hybrid
system. IET Renewable Power Generation, 2021.
[627] N. Pereira, D. de Oliveira Valério, and P. Beirão. ISWEC devices on a wave
farm handled by a multi-agent system. Applied Ocean Research, 111:102659,
2021.
[628] T. Pérez and T. I. Fossen. Time-vs. frequency-domain identification of para-
metric radiation force models for marine structures at zero speed. Modeling,
Identification and Control, 29(1):1–19, 2008.
[629] T. Perez and T. I. Fossen. A Matlab toolbox for parametric identification of
radiation-force models of ships and offshore structures. Modeling, Identification
and Control, 30(1):1, 2009.
[630] T. Perez and T. I. Fossen. Practical aspects of frequency-domain identifica-
tion of dynamic models of marine structures from hydrodynamic data. Ocean
Engineering, 38(2):426–435, 2011.
[631] C. Pérez-Collazo, D. Greaves, and G. Iglesias. A review of combined wave and
offshore wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42:141–153,
2015.
[632] M. A. Peter and M. H. Meylan. Infinite-depth interaction theory for arbitrary
floating bodies applied to wave forcing of ice floes. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
500:145–167, 2004.
360 ■ Bibliography

[633] A. Pichard, C. Wale, and A. Rafiee. Techno-economical tools for WEC scale
optimisation. In Proceedings of the 13th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference (EWTEC), pages 1729–1–1729–8, 2019.
[634] M. Pidcock. The calculation of Green’s functions in three dimensional hydro-
dynamic gravity wave problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Fluids, 5(10):891–909, 1985.
[635] W. J. Pierson and L. Moskowitz. A proposed spectral form for fully developed
wind seas based on the similarity theory of SA Kitaigorodskii. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 69(24):5181–5190, 1964.
[636] V. Piscopo, G. Benassai, R. Della Morte, and A. Scamardella. Cost-based design
and selection of point absorber devices for the Mediterranean Sea. Energies,
11(4):946, 2018.
[637] D. Pizer. Maximum wave-power absorption of point absorbers under motion
constraints. Applied Ocean Research, 15(4):227–234, 1993.
[638] B. Poppelaars. Mooring and installation of wave energy converter Wavebob.
Master’s thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 2009.
[639] G. Poteras, G. Deak, A.-G. Baraitaru, M. V. Olteanu, D. S. C. Halin, et al. Bio-
engineering technologies used for the development and equipment of complex
installations to obtain energy from three renewable sources. complex installa-
tions for coastal areas. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, volume 1 of 616, page 012028. IOP Publishing, 2020.
[640] M. Prado and H. Polinder. 9 - case study of the Archimedes Wave Swing
(AWS) direct drive wave energy pilot plant. In M. Mueller and H. Polinder, ed-
itors, Electrical Drives for Direct Drive Renewable Energy Systems, Woodhead
Publishing Series in Energy, pages 195–218. Woodhead Publishing, 2013.
[641] M. Previsic. Cost breakdown structure for WEC. Technical report, Sandia
National Laboratory, 2012. [online:] [Link]
23667/.
[642] T. Price. James Blyth—Britain’s first modern wind power pioneer. Wind
Engineering, 29(3):191–200, 2005.
[643] C. Pérez-Collazo, D. Greaves, and G. Iglesias. A review of combined wave and
offshore wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42:141–153,
2015.
[644] D. Qiao, R. Haider, J. Yan, D. Ning, and B. Li. Review of wave energy converter
and design of mooring system. Sustainability, 12(19):8251, 2020.
[645] S. Quek, X. Li, and C. Koh. Stochastic response of jack-up platform by the
method of statistical quadratization. Applied Ocean Research, 16(2):113–122,
1994.
 Bibliography ■ 361

[646] A. Rafiee and J. Fiévez. Numerical prediction of extreme loads on the CETO
wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference, Nantes, France, 2015.

[647] A. Rafiee, H. Wolgamot, S. Draper, J. Orszaghova, J. Fiévez, and T. Sawyer.

Identifying the design wave group for the extreme response of a point absorber
wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the Asian Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference (AWTEC), Singapore, volume 2428, 2016.

[648] S. Raghunathan, C. Tan, and N. Wells. Theory and performance of a Wells

turbine. Journal of Energy, 6(2):157–160, 1982.

[649] M. Rahm. Ocean wave energy: underwater substation system for wave energy
converters. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Sweden, 2010.

[650] M. Rahm, O. Svensson, C. Boström, R. Waters, and M. Leijon. Experimental

results from the operation of aggregated wave energy converters. IET Renewable
Power Generation, 6(3):149–160, 2012.

[651] E. Ransley, D. Greaves, A. Raby, D. Simmonds, and M. Hann. Survivability of

wave energy converters using CFD. Renewable Energy, 109:235–247, 2017.

[652] E. J. Ransley. Survivability of wave energy converter and mooring coupled

system using CFD. PhD thesis, Plymouth University, 2015.

[653] E. J. Ransley and et al. Focused wave interactions with floating structures:
a blind comparative study. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Engineering and Computational Mechanics, 174(1):46–61, 2021.

[654] R. Read and H. Bingham. Time-and frequency-domain comparisons of the

Wavepiston wave energy converter. In Proceedings of 33rd International Work-
shop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies (IWWWFB), Guidel-Plages, France,
2018.

[655] B. G. Reguero, I. J. Losada, and F. J. Méndez. A global wave power re-

source and its seasonal, interannual and long-term variability. Applied Energy,
148:366–380, 2015.

[656] G. Reikard, B. Robertson, and J.-R. Bidlot. Combining wave energy with wind
and solar: Short-term forecasting. Renewable Energy, 81:442–456, 2015.

[657] J. Ren, P. Jin, Y. Liu, and J. Zang. Wave attenuation and focusing by a
parabolic arc pontoon breakwater. Energy, 217:119405, 2021.

[658] Rendel Palmer & Tritton and Kennedy & Donkin. United Kingdom wave energy
program - consultant’s 1981 assessment. Report, UK: Department of Energy,
1982.

[659] E. Renzi and F. Dias. Resonant behaviour of an oscillating wave energy con-
verter in a channel. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 701:482–510, 2012.
362 ■ Bibliography

[660] E. Renzi and F. Dias. Relations for a periodic array of flap-type wave energy
converters. Applied Ocean Research, 39:31–39, 2013.

[661] E. Renzi, K. Doherty, A. Henry, and F. Dias. How does Oyster work? the
simple interpretation of Oyster mathematics. European Journal of Mechanics-
B/Fluids, 47:124–131, 2014.

[662] K. Rezanejad, J. Bhattacharjee, and C. Guedes Soares. Analytical and nu-

merical study of dual-chamber oscillating water columns on stepped bottom.
Renewable Energy, 75:272–282, 2015.

[663] K. Rezanejad, J. Bhattacharjee, and C. G. Soares. Analytical and numerical

study of dual-chamber oscillating water columns on stepped bottom. Renewable
Energy, 75:272–282, 2015.

[664] K. Rezanejad, J. Gadelho, and C. G. Soares. Hydrodynamic analysis of an

oscillating water column wave energy converter in the stepped bottom condition
using CFD. Renewable Energy, 135:1241–1259, 2019.

[665] K. Rezanejad, J. F. Gadelho, I. López, R. Carballo, and C. Guedes Soares.

Improving the hydrodynamic performance of OWC wave energy converter by
attaching a step. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 58899, page V010T09A043. Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019.

[666] K. Rezanejad, A. Souto-Iglesias, and C. Guedes Soares. Experimental investi-

gation on the hydrodynamic performance of an L-shaped duct oscillating water
column wave energy converter. Ocean Engineering, 173:388–398, 2019.

[667] P. Ricci. Time-domain models. In Numerical Modelling of Wave Energy Con-

verters, pages 31–66. Elsevier, 2016.

[668] D. P. Rijnsdorp, J. E. Hansen, and R. J. Lowe. Understanding coastal im-

pacts by nearshore wave farms using a phase-resolving wave model. Renewable
Energy, 150:637–648, 2020.

[669] G. Rinaldi, P. Thies, R. Walker, and L. Johanning. On the analysis of a wave

energy farm with focus on maintenance operations. Journal of Marine Science
and Engineering, 4(3):51, 2016.

[670] J. V. Ringwood. Wave energy control: status and perspectives 2020. IFAC-
PapersOnLine, 53(2):12271–12282, 2020.

[671] J. V. Ringwood. Wave energy control: Status and perspectives 2020. In Pro-
ceedings of the IFAC World Congress, pages 1–12, Berlin, Germany, 2020.

[672] J. V. Ringwood, G. Bacelli, and F. Fusco. Energy-maximizing control of wave-

energy converters: the development of control system technology to optimize
their operation. IEEE Control Systems, 34(5):30–55, 2014.
 Bibliography ■ 363

[673] J. V. Ringwood, A. Mérigaud, N. Faedo, and F. Fusco. An analytical and

numerical sensitivity and robustness analysis of wave energy control systems.
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 28(4):1337–1348, 2019.

[674] J. Roberts and P. Spanos. Random vibration and statistical linearization.

Courier Corporation, 2003.

[675] A. Roessling and J. Ringwood. Finite order approximations to radiation forces

for wave energy applications. Renewable Energies Offshore, page 359, 2015.

[676] A. Roessling and J. V. Ringwood. Finite order approximations to radiation

forces for wave energy applications. In Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Renewable Energies Offshore, pages 359–366, Lison, Portugal, 2014.

[677] P. Ropero-Giralda, A. J. Crespo, B. Tagliafierro, C. Altomare, J. M.

Domı́nguez, M. Gómez-Gesteira, and G. Viccione. Efficiency and survivabil-
ity analysis of a point-absorber wave energy converter using DualSPHysics.
Renewable Energy, 162:1763–1776, 2020.

[678] B. J. Rosenberg and T. Mundon. Numerical and physical modeling of a flexibly-

connected two-body wave energy converter. Report, Oscilla Power, 2016.

[679] K. M. Ruehl, J. D. Roberts, A. Porter, G. Chang, C. C. Chartrand, and

H. Smtih. Development verification and application of the SNL-SWAN open
source wave farm code. Technical report, Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Al-
buquerque, NM (United States), 2015.

[680] P. Ruiz, V. Nava, M. Topper, P. Minguela, F. Ferri, and J. Kofoed. Layout

optimisation of wave energy converter arrays. Energies, 10(9):1262, 2017.

[681] P. Ruol, L. Martinelli, and P. Pezzutto. Multi-chamber OWC devices to reduce

and convert wave energy in harbour entrance and inner channels. In Proceedings
of the Twenty-first International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
OnePetro, 2011.

[682] E. Rusu. Evaluation of the wave energy conversion efficiency in various coastal
environments. Energies, 7(6):4002–4018, 2014.

[683] E. Rusu and C. G. Soares. Coastal impact induced by a Pelamis wave farm
operating in the Portuguese nearshore. Renewable Energy, 58:34–49, 2013.

[684] Z. Sabeur, W. Roberts, and A. Cooper. Development and use of an advanced

numerical model using the volume of fluid method for the design of coastal
structures. Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 5:565–573, 1995.

[685] M. Safonov and R. Chiang. A Schur method for balanced model reduction.
In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pages 1036–1040. IEEE,
1988.

[686] S. H. Salter. Wave power. Nature, 249(5459):720–724, 1974.

364 ■ Bibliography

[687] S. H. Salter. Progress on Edinburgh Ducks. In Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave-

Energy Utilization, pages 35–50. Springer, 1986.
[688] Y. Sang, H. B. Karayaka, Y. Yan, J. Z. Zhang, D. Bogucki, and Y.-H. Yu. A
rule-based phase control methodology for a slider-crank wave energy converter
power take-off system. International Journal of Marine Energy, 19:124–144,
2017.
[689] D. Sarkar, E. Contal, N. Vayatis, and F. Dias. Prediction and optimisation of
wave energy converter arrays using a machine learning approach. Renewable
Energy, 97:504–517, 2016.
[690] D. Sarkar, E. Renzi, and F. Dias. Wave power extraction by an oscillating
wave surge converter in random seas. In Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 55423, page
V008T09A008. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013.
[691] A. Sarmento. Model-test optimisation of an OWC wave power plant. Interna-
tional Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 3(01), 1993.
[692] T. Sarpkaya. Force on a circular cylinder in viscous oscillatory flow at low
keulegan—carpenter numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 165:61–71, 1986.
[693] SBM Offshore. [Link]
sea-trial-principality-monaco-announced-sbm-offshores-innovative
-s3r-wave Sea trial in the Principality of Monaco announced for SBM
Offshore’s innovative S3 Wave Energy Converter. 2019.
[694] C. Schauder and H. Mehta. Vector analysis and control of advanced static var
compensators. In Proceedings of the IEE C (Generation, Transmission and
Distribution), number 4 in 140, pages 299–306. IET, 1993.
[695] S. Schlömer, T. Bruckner, L. Fulton, E. Hertwich, A. McKinnon, D. Perczyk,
J. Roy, R. Schaeffer, R. Sims, P. Smith, and R. Wiser. Annex III: Technology-
specific cost and performance parameters. Report, 2014.
[696] J. Scruggs, S. Lattanzio, A. Taflanidis, and I. Cassidy. Optimal causal control
of a wave energy converter in a random sea. Applied Ocean Research, 42:1–15,
2013.
[697] [Link]. [Link] Technol-
ogy. Accessed 20 April 2022.
[698] N. Sergiienko. Three-tether wave energy converter: hydrodynamic modelling,
performance assessment and control. Doctoral thesis, University of Adelaide,
Australia, 2018.
[699] N. Sergiienko, B. Cazzolato, M. Arjomandi, B. Ding, and L. S. P. da Silva.
Considerations on the control design for a three-tether wave energy converter.
Ocean Engineering, 183:469–477, 2019.
 Bibliography ■ 365

[700] N. Sergiienko, B. Cazzolato, B. Ding, P. Hardy, and M. Arjomandi. Perfor-

mance comparison of the floating and fully submerged quasi-point absorber
wave energy converters. Renewable Energy, 108:425–437, 2017.

[701] N. Sergiienko, A. Rafiee, B. Cazzolato, B. Ding, and M. Arjomandi. Feasi-

bility study of the three-tether axisymmetric wave energy converter. Ocean
Engineering, 150:221–233, 2018.

[702] N. Y. Sergiienko, B. S. Cazzolato, B. Ding, and M. Arjomandi. An optimal

arrangement of mooring lines for the three-tether submerged point-absorbing
wave energy converter. Renewable Energy, 93:27–37, 2016.

[703] N. Y. Sergiienko, B. S. Cazzolato, B. Ding, and M. Arjomandi. Three-tether

axisymmetric wave energy converter: Estimation of energy delivery. In Pro-
ceedings of the 3rd Asian Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, volume 1, pages
163–171, Singapore, 2016.

[704] N. Y. Sergiienko, B. S. Cazzolato, P. Hardy, M. Arjomandi, and B. Ding.

Internal-model-based velocity tracking control of a submerged three-tether wave
energy converter. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference, pages 1126-1–1126-8, Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[705] N. Y. Sergiienko, M. Cocho, B. S. Cazzolato, and A. Pichard. Effect of a model

predictive control on the design of a power take-off system for wave energy
converters. Applied Ocean Research, 115:102836, 2021.

[706] N. Y. Sergiienko, L. S. P. da Silva, B. Ding, and B. S. Cazzolato. Importance

of drivetrain optimisation to maximise electrical power from wave energy con-
verters. IET Renewable Power Generation, 2021.

[707] N. Y. Sergiienko, M. Neshat, L. S. P. da Silva, B. Alexander, and M. Wagner.

Design optimisation of a multi-mode wave energy converter. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
volume 84416, page V009T09A039. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2020.

[708] F. Sharkey, E. Bannon, M. Conlon, and K. Gaughan. Dynamic electrical ratings

and the economics of capacity factor for wave energy converter arrays. In
Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC),
Southampton, UK, 2011.

[709] F. Sharkey, M. Conlon, and K. Gaughan. Impacts on the electrical system eco-
nomics from critical design factors of wave energy converters and arrays. In Pro-
ceedings of the 10th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC),
Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.

[710] C. Sharp. Wave Energy Converter Array Optimisation: Algorithm Develop-

ment and Investigation of Layout Design Influences. PhD thesis, Oregon State
University, 2018.
366 ■ Bibliography

[711] C. Sharp and B. DuPont. Wave energy converter array optimisation: A genetic
algorithm approach and minimum separation distance study. Ocean Engineer-
ing, 163:148–156, 2018.

[712] C. Sharp, B. DuPont, B. Bosma, P. Lomonaco, and B. Batten. Array optimisa-

tion of fixed oscillating water columns for active device control. In Proceedings
of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Cork,
Ireland, 2017.

[713] S. Sheng, K. Wang, H. Lin, Y. Zhang, Y. You, Z. Wang, A. Chen, J. Jiang,

W. Wang, and Y. Ye. Model research and open sea tests of 100 kW wave energy
converter Sharp Eagle Wanshan. Renewable Energy, 113:587–595, 2017.

[714] W. Sheng, B. Flannery, A. Lewis, and R. Alcorn. Experimental studies of a

floating cylindrical OWC WEC. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 44946, pages 169–178.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012.

[715] H. Shi, S. Huang, and F. Cao. Hydrodynamic performance and power absorp-
tion of a multi-freedom buoy wave energy device. Ocean Engineering, 172:541–
549, 2019.

[716] E. H. Shoeib, E. Hamin Infield, and H. Renski. Measuring the impacts of wind
energy projects on US rural counties’ community services and cost of living.
Energy Policy, 153:112279, 2021.

[717] P. Siddorn and R. Eatock Taylor. Diffraction and independent radiation by an

array of floating cylinders. Ocean Engineering, 35(13):1289–1303, 2008.

[718] M. J. Simon. Multiple scattering in arrays of axisymmetric wave-energy devices.

Part 1. A matrix method using a plane-wave approximation. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 120:1–25, 1982.

[719] A. Sinha, D. Karmakar, and C. Soares. Performance of optimally tuned arrays

of heaving point absorbers. Renewable Energy, 92:517–531, 2016.

[720] S. A. Sirigu, L. Foglietta, G. Giorgi, M. Bonfanti, G. Cervelli, G. Bracco, and

G. Mattiazzo. Techno-economic optimisation for a wave energy converter via
genetic algorithm. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(7):482, 2020.

[721] L. Sjökvist and M. Göteman. Peak forces on a point absorbing wave energy
converter impacted by tsunami waves. Renewable Energy, 133:1024–1033, 2019.

[722] J. Sjolte, C. M. Sandvik, E. Tedeschi, and M. Molinas. Exploring the potential

for increased production from the wave energy converterLifesaver by reactive
control. Energies, 6(8):3706–3733, 2013.

[723] J. Sjolte, G. Tjensvoll, and M. Molinas. Power collection from wave energy
farms. Applied Sciences, 3(2):420–436, 2013.
 Bibliography ■ 367

[724] J. Sjolte, G. Tjensvoll, and M. Molinas. Self-sustained all-electric wave energy

converter system. COMPEL: The International Journal for Computation and
Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 2014.
[725] S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite. Multivariable feedback control: Analysis and
design, volume 2. Wiley New York, 2007.
[726] Z. Smith and K. Taylor. Renewable and alternative energy resources: a reference
handbook. ABC-CLIO, 2008.
[727] L. Snyder and M. Moarefdoost. Optimizing wave farm layouts under un-
certainty. In Proceedings of the 3rd Marine Energy Technology Symposium
(METS), Washington DC, USA, 2015.
[728] L. Socha. Linearization in analysis of nonlinear stochastic systems: recent re-
sults—part I: theory. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 58(3):178–205, 2005.
[729] L. Socha. Linearization in analysis of nonlinear stochastic systems, recent re-
sults—part II: applications. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 58(5):303–315, 2005.
[730] L. Socha. Linearization methods for stochastic dynamic systems. Springer,
Berlin, 2008.
[731] H. Soerensen, E. Friis-Madsen, W. Panhauser, D. Dunce, J. Nedkvintne, P. B.
Frigaard, J. P. Kofoed, W. Knapp, S. Riemann, E. Holmén, et al. Development
of Wave Dragon from scale 1: 50 to prototype. In Proceedings from the Fifth
European Wave Energy Conference: Cork, Ireland, 2003, 2003.
[732] E. Solomin, E. Sirotkin, E. Cuce, S. P. Selvanathan, and S. Kumarasamy. Hy-
brid floating solar plant designs: A review. Energies, 14(10), 2021.
[733] D. Son and R. W. Yeung. Optimizing ocean-wave energy extraction of a dual
coaxial-cylinder WEC using nonlinear model predictive control. Applied Energy,
187:746–757, 2017.
[734] H. Sorensen, E. Friis-Madsen, L. Christensen, J. P. Kofoed, P. B. Frigaard, and
W. Knapp. The results of two years testing in real sea of Wave Dragon. In Pro-
ceedings of 6th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference: EWTEC 2005:
6th Reflectors to Focus Wave Energy, pages 481–487. Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Strathclyde, 2005.
[735] P. Spanos, M. Di Paola, and G. Failla. A galerkin approach for power spectrum
determination of nonlinear oscillators. Meccanica, 37(1):51–65, 2002.
[736] P. Spanos and M. Donley. Equivalent statistical quadratization for nonlinear
systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 117(6):1289–1310, 1991.
[737] P. Spanos, F. Strati, G. Malara, and F. Arena. Stochastic dynamic analysis
of U-OWC wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the 36th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, pages 1–8. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.
368 ■ Bibliography

[738] P. D. Spanos, F. Arena, A. Richichi, and G. Malara. Efficient dynamic analysis

of a nonlinear wave energy harvester model. Journal of Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, 138(4):041901, 2016.

[739] D. V. Spitzley and G. A. Keoleian. Life cycle environmental and economic as-
sessment of willow biomass electricity: A comparision with other renewable and
non-renewable sources. Report, University of Michigan, Centre for Sustainable
Systems, 2005.

[740] B. H. Spring and P. L. Monkmeyer. Interaction of plane waves with verti-

cal cylinders. In Proceeding of the 14th International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, pages 1828–1847, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1974.

[741] M. A. Srokosz. The submerged sphere as an absorber of wave power. Journal

of Fluid Mechanics, 95(4):717–741, 1979.

[742] P. Stansby and E. Carpintero Moreno. Study of snap loads for idealized mooring
configurations with a buoy, inextensible and elastic cable combinations for the
multi-float M4 wave energy converter. Water, 12(10), 2020.

[743] P. Stansby, E. Carpintero Moreno, and T. Stallard. Capture width of the

three-float multi-mode multi-resonance broadband wave energy line absorber
M4 from laboratory studies with irregular waves of different spectral shape and
directional spread. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy, 1:287–
298, 2015.

[744] P. Stansby, E. Carpintero Moreno, and T. Stallard. Large capacity multi-float

configurations for the wave energy converter M4 using a time-domain linear
diffraction model. Applied Ocean Research, 68:53–64, 2017.

[745] P. Stansby, E. Carpintero Moreno, T. Stallard, and A. Maggi. Three-float

broad-band resonant line absorber with surge for wave energy conversion. Re-
newable Energy, 78:132–140, 2015.

[746] C. Stokes and D. C. Conley. Modelling offshore wave farms for coastal pro-
cess impact assessment: Waves, beach morphology, and water users. Energies,
11(10):2517, 2018.

[747] V. Stratigaki and L. Mouffe. Ocean energy in belgium-2019. Technical report,

Ocean Energy Systems (OES), 2019.

[748] V. Stratigaki, P. Troch, T. Stallard, D. Forehand, J. Kofoed, M. Folley,

M. Benoit, A. Babarit, and J. Kirkegaard. Wave basin experiments with large
wave energy converter arrays to study interactions between the converters and
effects on other users in the sea and the coastal area. Energies, 7(2):701–734,
2014.

[749] J. Straub. In search of technology readiness level (TRL) 10. Aerospace Science
and Technology, 46:312–320, 2015.
 Bibliography ■ 369

[750] L. Sun, R. E. Taylor, and Y. S. Choo. Responses of interconnected floating

bodies. The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering, 4(3):143–156,
2011.

[751] M. Suzuki, C. Arakawa, and S. Takahashi. Performance of wave power gener-

ating system installed in breakwater at Sakata port in Japan. In Proceedings
of the Fourteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
OnePetro, 2004.

[752] R. Taghipour, T. Perez, and T. Moan. Hybrid frequency–time domain mod-

els for dynamic response analysis of marine structures. Ocean Engineering,
35(7):685–705, 2008.

[753] K. Tarrant and C. Meskell. Investigation on parametrically excited motions of

point absorbers in regular waves. Ocean Engineering, 111:67–81, 2016.

[754] K. R. Tarrant. Numerical modelling of parametric resonance of a heaving point

absorber wave energy converter. PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin, 2015.

[755] Z. Tay and V. Venugopal. Hydrodynamic interactions of oscillating wave surge

converters in an array under random sea state. Ocean Engineering, 145:382–
394, 2017.

[756] J. Tedd and P. Frigaard. Short term wave forecasting, using digital filters,
for improved control of wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the 17th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal,
2007. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.

[757] J. Tedd and J. P. Kofoed. Measurements of overtopping flow time series on the
Wave Dragon, wave energy converter. Renewable Energy, 34(3):711–717, 2009.

[758] E. Tedeschi and M. Santos-Mugica. Modeling and control of a wave energy

farm including energy storage for power quality enhancement: the bimep case
study. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 29(3):1489–1497, 2013.

[759] B. Teillant, R. Costello, J. Weber, and J. Ringwood. Productivity and economic

assessment of wave energy projects through operational simulations. Renewable
Energy, 48:220–230, 2012.

[760] P. R. Teixeira, D. P. Davyt, E. Didier, and R. Ramalhais. Numerical simulation

of an oscillating water column device using a code based on Navier–Stokes
equations. Energy, 61:513–530, 2013.

[761] J. Telste and F. Noblesse. Numerical evaluation of the Green function of water-
wave radiation and diffraction. Journal of Ship Research, 30(02):69–84, 1986.

[762] I. Temiz, J. Leijon, B. Ekergård, and C. Boström. Economic aspects of latching

control for a wave energy converter with a direct drive linear generator power
take-off. Renewable Energy, 128:57–67, 2018.
370 ■ Bibliography

[763] B. Teng and R. E. Taylor. New higher-order boundary element methods for
wave diffraction/radiation. Applied Ocean Research, 17(2):71–77, 1995.
[764] Tethys. Wello Penguin at [Link]
wello-penguin-emec EMEC, 08 2021 (Accessed on 08/08/2021).
[765] A. Tetu. Power take-off systems for wecs. In A. Pecher and J. P. Kofoed,
editors, Handbook of ocean wave energy, pages 203–220. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 2017.
[766] A. Têtu, F. Ferri, M. B. Kramer, and J. Hals Todalshaug. Physical and math-
ematical modeling of a wave energy converter equipped with a negative spring
mechanism for phase control. Energies, 11(9):2362, 2018.
[767] A. Tetu, J. P. Kofoed, F. Schlütter, and P. Hammer. Forecast model for current,
wave and wind climate at the Danish test site for wave energy, DanWEC. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Time Series and Forecasting,
pages 1328–1339. Godle Impresiones Digitales SL, 2018.
[768] The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. Energy
in China’s New Era, December 2020.
[769] P. R. Thies, L. Johanning, and T. Gordelier. Component reliability testing for
wave energy converters: Rationale and implementation. In Proceedings of the
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Aalborg, Denmark,
2013.
[770] S. Thomas, M. Eriksson, M. Göteman, M. Hann, J. Isberg, and J. Engström.
Experimental and numerical collaborative latching control of wave energy con-
verter arrays. Energies, 11(11):3036, 2018.
[771] S. Thomas, M. Giassi, M. Eriksson, M. Göteman, J. Isberg, E. Ransley,
M. Hann, and J. Engström. A model free control based on machine learning
for energy converters in an array. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 2(4):36,
2018.
[772] S. Thomas, S. Weller, and T. Stallard. Float response within an array: Nu-
merical and experimental comparison. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Ocean Energy (ICOE), volume 1517, Brest, France, 2008.
[773] T. Thorpe. An overview of wave energy technologies: status, performance and
costs. In Wave Power: Moving Towards Commercial Viability. Wiley, 1999.
[774] T. W. Thorpe. A brief review of wave energy. Technical Report ETSU-R120,
The UK Department of Trade and Industry, 1999.
[775] J. Tissandier, A. Babarit, A. Clément, et al. Study of the smoothing effect on
the power production in an array of SEAREV wave energy converters. In Pro-
ceedings of the 18th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
2008.
 Bibliography ■ 371

[776] M. A. Tognarelli, J. Zhao, and A. Kareem. Equivalent statistical cubiciza-

tion for system and forcing nonlinearities. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
123(8):890–893, 1997.
[777] M. A. Tognarelli, J. Zhao, K. Rao, and A. Kareem. Equivalent statistical
quadratization and cubicization for nonlinear systems. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 123(5):512–523, 1997.
[778] N. Tom, M. Lawson, Y. Yu, and A. Wright. Spectral modeling of an oscillating
surge wave energy converter with control surfaces. Applied Ocean Research,
56:143–156, 2016.
[779] Y. Torre-Enciso, I. Ortubia, L. L. De Aguileta, and J. Marqués. Mutriku wave
power plant: from the thinking out to the reality. In Proceedings of the 8th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), volume 710, pages
319–329, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009.
[780] K. Toyota, S. Nagata, Y. Imai, and T. Setoguchi. Effects of hull shape on
primary conversion characteristics of a floating OWC” Backward Bent Duct
Buoy”. Journal of Fluid Science and Technology, 3(3):458–465, 2008.
[781] N. Tran, N. Sergiienko, B. Cazzolato, B. Ding, M. Ghayesh, and M. Arjomandi.
The impact of pitch-surge coupling on the performance of a submerged cylin-
drical wave energy converter. Applied Ocean Research, 104:102377, 2020.
[782] N. Tran, N. Y. Sergiienko, B. S. Cazzolato, M. H. Ghayesh, and M. Arjomandi.
The effect of nonlinear pitch-surge coupling on the performance of multi-dof
submerged wecs. In Proceedings of the 30th International Ocean and Polar
Engineering Conference. OnePetro, 2020.
[783] P. Troch, V. Stratigaki, T. Stallard, D. Forehand, M. Folley, J. Kofoed,
M. Benoit, A. Babarit, D. Sánchez, L. Bosscher, et al. Physical modelling
of an array of 25 heaving wave energy converters to quantify variation of re-
sponse and wave conditions. In Proceedings of the 10th European Wave and
Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.
[784] A. Tustin. The effects of backlash and of speed-dependent friction on the sta-
bility of closed-cycle control systems. Journal of the Institution of the Electrical
Engineers-Part IIA: Automatic Regulators and Servo Mechanisms, 94(1):143–
151, 1947.
[785] J. Twidell and T. Weir. Renewable energy resources. Routledge, 2015.
[786] A. Ulazia, M. Penalba, A. Rabanal, G. Ibarra-Berastegi, J. Ringwood, and
J. Sáenz. Historical evolution of the wave resource and energy production off
the chilean coast over the 20th century. Energies, 11(9):2289, 2018.
[787] L. Ulvgård, L. Sjökvist, M. Göteman, and M. Leijon. Line force and damping
at full and partial stator overlap in a linear generator for wave power. Journal
of Marine Science and Engineering, 4(4):81, 2016.
372 ■ Bibliography

[788] University of Southampton, Energy & Climate Change. 20 April 2022. https:
//[Link]/anaconda-wave-energy-converter-concept/
Anaconda Wave Energy Converter Concept.

[789] F. Ursell. Surface waves on deep water in the presence of a submerged circular
cylinder. I. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society,
volume 46, pages 141–152. Cambridge University Press, 1950.

[790] US Department of Energy. Wave Energy Prize Rules (5.26.15 R1), 2016.

[791] US Department of Energy. Wave Energy Prize - 1/20th Testing - Oscilla Power,
2017.

[792] D. Valério, P. Beirão, and J. da Costa. Optimisation of wave energy extraction

with the Archimedes Wave Swing. Ocean Engineering, 34(17-18):2330–2344,
2007.

[793] D. Valério, M. J. Mendes, P. Beirão, and J. S. da Costa. Identification and

control of the AWS using neural network models. Applied Ocean Research,
30(3):178–188, 2008.

[794] D. Valério, M. D. Ortigueira, and J. S. da Costa. Identifying a transfer function

from a frequency response. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics,
3(2):021207, 2008.

[795] M. van Grieken and B. Dower. Chapter 23 - wind turbines and landscape. In
T. Letcher, editor, Wind Energy Engineering, pages 493–515. Academic Press,
2017.

[796] R. van ‘t Veer and H. J. Tholen. Added resistance of moonpools in calm water.
In Nick Newman Symposium on Marine Hydrodynamics; Yoshida and Maeda
Special Symposium on Ocean Space Utilization; Special Symposium on Offshore
Renewable Energy, volume 6 of Proceedings of the International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, pages 153–162, 06 2008.

[797] S. Venafra, M. Morelli, and A. Masini. Satellite remote sensing applied to

off-shore wind energy. Proceedings of the EARSeL eProceedings, 13(1):1, 2014.

[798] G. Verao Fernández, P. Balitsky, V. Stratigaki, and P. Troch. Coupling method-

ology for studying the far field effects of wave energy converter arrays over a
varying bathymetry. Energies, 11(11):2899, 2018.

[799] G. Verao Fernández, V. Stratigaki, and P. Troch. Irregular wave validation of

a coupling methodology for numerical modelling of near and far field effects of
wave energy converter arrays. Energies, 12(3):538, 2019.

[800] T. Verbrugghe, V. Stratigaki, P. Troch, R. Rabussier, and A. Kortenhaus. A

comparison study of a generic coupling methodology for modeling wake effects
of wave energy converter arrays. Energies, 10(11):1697, 2017.
 Bibliography ■ 373

[801] M. G. Verduzco-Zapata and F. J. Ocampo Torres. Study of a 6 DOF wave

energy converter interacting with regular waves using 3D CFD. In Proceedings
of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France, 2015.

[802] M. Vicente, M. Alves, and A. Sarmento. Layout optimisation of wave energy

point absorbers arrays. In Proceedings of the 10th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference (EWTEC), Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.

[803] P. Vicente, A. de O Falcão, L. Gato, and P. Justino. Dynamics of arrays of

floating point-absorber wave energy converters with inter-body and bottom
slack-mooring connections. Applied Ocean Research, 31(4):267–281, 2009.

[804] P. Vicente, A. de O Falcão, and P. Justino. A time domain analysis of arrays of

floating point-absorber wave energy converters including the effect of nonlinear
mooring forces. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Ocean
Energy (ICOE), Bilbao, Spain, 2010.

[805] D. Vicinanza, L. Margheritini, P. Contestabile, J. P. Kofoed, and P. Frigaard.

Seawave Slot-cone Generator: an innovative caisson breakwaters for energy pro-
duction. In Coastal Engineering 2008: (In 5 Volumes), pages 3694–3705. World
Scientific, 2009.

[806] D. Vicinanza, J. H. Nørgaard, P. Contestabile, and T. L. Andersen. Wave

loadings acting on overtopping breakwater for energy conversion. Journal of
Coastal Research, 65(10065):1669–1674, 2013.

[807] A. Viviano, R. E. Musumeci, D. Vicinanza, and E. Foti. Pressures induced by

regular waves on a large scale OWC. Coastal Engineering, 152:103528, 2019.

[808] A. Wacher and K. Nielsen. Mathematical and numerical modeling of the

AquaBuOY wave energy converter. Mathematics-in-Industry Case Studies
Journal., 2:16–33, 2010.

[809] W. Wan Nik, O. Sulaiman, R. Rosliza, Y. Prawoto, and A. Muzathik. Wave en-
ergy resource assessment and review of the technologies. International Journal
of Energy & Environment, 2(6):1101–1112, 2011.

[810] C. Wang and B. T. Wang. Floating solutions for challenges facing humanity. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
and Architecture ICSCEA 2019, pages 3–29. Springer, 2020.

[811] J. Wang, S. Yang, C. Jiang, Q. Yan, and P. Lund. A novel 2-stage dish concen-
trator with improved optical performance for concentrating solar power plants.
Renewable Energy, 108:92–97, 2017.

[812] L. Wang, J. Engström, M. Leijon, and J. Isberg. Coordinated control of wave

energy converters subject to motion constraints. Energies, 9(6):475, 2016.
374 ■ Bibliography

[813] L. Wang, J. Engström, M. Leijon, and J. Isberg. Performance of arrays of

direct-driven wave energy converters under optimal power take-off damping.
AIP Advances, 6(8):085313, 2016.
[814] L. Wang and J. Isberg. Nonlinear passive control of a wave energy converter
subject to constraints in irregular waves. Energies, 8(7):6528–6542, 2015.
[815] L. Wang, J. Isberg, and E. Tedeschi. Review of control strategies for wave energy
conversion systems and their validation: the wave-to-wire approach. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81:366–379, 2018.
[816] L. Wang and J. V. Ringwood. Control-informed ballast and geometric opti-
misation of a three-body hinge-barge wave energy converter using two-layer
optimisation. Renewable Energy, 171:1159–1170, 2021.
[817] R. Wang, D. Ning, and Q. Zou. Wave loads on a land-based dual-chamber
oscillating water column wave energy device. Coastal Engineering, 160:103744,
2020.
[818] Y. Washio, H. Osawa, Y. Nagata, F. Fujii, H. Furuyama, and T. Fujita. The
offshore floating type wave power device Mighty Whale: open sea tests. In Pro-
ceedings of the Tenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
OnePetro, 2000.
[819] R. Waters, M. Stålberg, O. Danielsson, O. Svensson, S. Gustafsson, E. Strömst-
edt, M. Eriksson, J. Sundberg, and M. Leijon. Experimental results from sea
trials of an offshore wave energy system. Applied Physics Letters, 90(3):034105,
2007.
[820] G. N. Watson. A treatise on the theory of Bessel functions. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1995.
[821] V. H. Wavegen. Siadar wave energy project Siadar scoping report, 2012.
[822] Wavestar. Wavestar, 08 2021. [Link] (Accessed on
08/08/2021).
[823] J. Weber. Representation of non-linear aero-thermodynamic effects during
small scale physical modelling of OWC WECs. In Proceedings of the 7th Euro-
pean Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Porto, Portugal, 2007.
[824] J. Weber, R. Costello, F. Mouwen, J. Ringwood, and G. Thomas. Techno-
economic WEC system optimisation - Methodology applied to Wavebob system
definition. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy,
pages 1–5, Bilbao, Spain, 2010.
[825] J. Weber, F. Mouwen, A. Parish, and D. Robertson. Wavebob—research &
development network and tools in the context of systems engineering. In Pro-
ceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC),
pages 416–420, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009.
 Bibliography ■ 375

[826] J. V. Wehausen. Causality and the radiation condition. Journal of Engineering

Mathematics, 26(1):153–158, 1992.

[827] A. Weinstein, G. Fredrikson, M. Parks, and K. Nielsen. AquaBuOY-the offshore

wave energy converter numerical modeling and optimisation. In Proceedings
of the Oceans’ 04 MTS/IEEE Techno-Ocean’04 (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37600),
volume 4, pages 1854–1859. IEEE, 2004.

[828] S. Weller, T. Stallard, and P. Stansby. Interaction factors for a rectangular

array of heaving floats in irregular waves. IET Renewable Power Generation,
4(6):628–637, 2010.

[829] Wello. The future of wave energy, 08 2021. [Link]

text=Wello’s%20Penguin%20Wave%20Energy%20converter,the%20middle%
20of%20the%20ocean. (Accessed on 08/08/2021).

[830] F. Wendt, Y.-H. Yu, K. Nielsen, K. Ruehl, et al. International energy agency
ocean energy sytems task 10 wave energy converter modeling verification and
validation. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Con-
ference, Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[831] J. Westphalen, D. Greaves, C. Williams, P. Taylor, D. Causon, C. Mingham,

Z. Hu, P. Stansby, B. Rogers, and P. Omidvar. Extreme wave loading on offshore
wave energy devices using CFD: a hierarchical team approach. In Proceedings
of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, pages 500–508, 2009.

[832] M. Wexler. A sociological framing of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syn-

drome. International Review of Modern Sociology, pages 91–110, 1996.

[833] C. Whitlam, J. Chapman, A. J. Hillis, J. Roesner, G. Foster, G. Stockman,

D. Greaves, and H. Martyn. Validation of variable depth operation of a novel
wave energy convertor using scale model testing. In Proceedings of the 12th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), pages 838-1–838-6,
Cork, Ireland, 2017.

[834] T. Whittaker. Performance of the limpet wave power plant-prediction, measure-

ment & potential. In Proceedings of the 5th European Wave Power Conference,
2003.

[835] D. Wilson, G. Bacelli, R. G. Coe, D. L. Bull, O. Abdelkhalik, U. A. Korde, and

R. D. Robinett III. A comparison of WEC control strategies. Technical Report
SAND2016-4293, Sandia National Laboratories, 2016.

[836] M. Witt, E. Sheehan, S. Bearhop, A. Broderick, D. Conley, S. Cotterell,

E. Crow, W. Grecian, C. Halsband, and D. Hodgson. Assessing wave energy
effects on biodiversity: the Wave Hub experience. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A, 370(1959):502–529, 2012.
376 ■ Bibliography

[837] H. Wolgamot, M. Meylan, and C. Reid. Multiply heaving bodies in the time-
domain: Symmetry and complex resonances. Journal of Fluids and Structures,
69:232–251, 2017.

[838] H. Wolgamot, P. Taylor, R. Eatock Taylor, T. Van Den Bremer, A. Raby, and
C. Whittaker. Experimental observation of a near-motion-trapped mode: free
motion in heave with negligible radiation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 786,
2016.

[839] H. Wolgamot, P. Taylor, and R. E. Taylor. The interaction factor and direc-
tionality in wave energy arrays. Ocean Engineering, 47:65–73, 2012.

[840] M. Wolley and J. Platts. Energy on the crest of a wave. New Scientist, pages
241 – 243, 1975.

[841] B. Wu, M. Li, R. Wu, T. Chen, Y. Zhang, and Y. Ye. BBDB wave energy
conversion technology and perspective in China. Ocean Engineering, 169:281–
291, 2018.

[842] B. Wu, M. Li, R. Wu, Y. Zhang, and W. Peng. Experimental study on primary
efficiency of a new pentagonal backward bent duct buoy and assessment of
prototypes. Renewable Energy, 113:774–783, 2017.

[843] H. Wu, C. Zhang, Y. Zhu, W. Li, D. Wan, and F. Noblesse. A global approxi-
mation to the Green function for diffraction radiation of water waves. European
Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids, 65:54–64, 2017.

[844] J. Wu, S. Shekh, N. Sergiienko, B. Cazzolato, B. Ding, F. Neumann, and

M. Wagner. Fast and effective optimisation of arrays of submerged wave en-
ergy converters. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
Conference (GECCO’16), Denver, USA, 2016.

[845] J. Wu, Y. Yao, L. Zhou, N. Chen, H. Yu, W. Li, and M. Göteman. Performance
analysis of solo Duck wave energy converter arrays under motion constraints.
Energy, 139:155–169, 2017.

[846] J. Wu, Y. Yao, L. Zhou, N. Chen, H. Yu, W. Li, and M. Göteman. Performance
analysis of solo Duck wave energy converter arrays under motion constraints.
Energy, 139:155–169, 2017.

[847] J. Wu, Y. Yao, L. Zhou, and M. Göteman. Real-time latching control strategies
for the solo Duck wave energy converter in irregular waves. Applied Energy,
222:717–728, 2018.

[848] S. Xu, S. Wang, and C. G. Soares. Review of mooring design for floating wave
energy converters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 111:595–621,
2019.
 Bibliography ■ 377

[849] J. Yang, D.-h. Zhang, Y. Chen, H. Liang, M. Tan, W. Li, and X.-d. Ma. Design,
optimisation and numerical modelling of a novel floating pendulum wave energy
converter with tide adaptation. China Ocean Engineering, 31(5):578–588, 2017.
[850] S.-H. Yang, J. Ringberg, and E. Johnson. Analysis of interaction effects between
WECs in four types of wave farms. In G. Soares, editor, Advances in Renew-
able Energies Offshore: In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Renewable Energies Offshore (RENEW). Taylor & Francis Group, 2019.
[851] S.-H. Yang, J. W. Ringsberg, and E. Johnson. Wave energy converters in array
configurations—influence of interaction effects on the power performance and
fatigue of mooring lines. Ocean Engineering, 211:107294, 2020.
[852] Y. Ye, K. Wang, Y. You, and S. Sheng. Research of power take-off system for
“Sharp Eagle II” wave energy converter. China Ocean Engineering, 33(5):618–
627, 2019.
[853] R. Yemm, D. Pizer, C. Retzler, and R. Henderson. Pelamis: experience from
concept to connection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Math-
ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1959):365–380, 2012.
[854] O. Yılmaz and A. Incecik. Analytical solutions of the diffraction problem of a
group of truncated vertical cylinders. Ocean Engineering, 25:6 (SCI), 1998.
[855] Y. You, S. Sheng, B. Wu, and Y. He. Wave energy technology in China. Philo-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and En-
gineering Sciences, 370(1959):472–480, 2012.
[856] Y. Yu and S. Liu. Random wave and it applications to engineering (4th Edition)
(in Chinese). Dalian University of Technology Press, 2011.
[857] Y.-H. Yu and Y. Li. Reynolds-averaged navier–stokes simulation of the heave
performance of a two-body floating-point absorber wave energy system. Com-
puters & Fluids, 73:104–114, 2013.
[858] Z. Yu and J. Falnes. State-space modelling of a vertical cylinder in heave.
Applied Ocean Research, 17(5):265–275, 1995.
[859] D. K. Yue, H. S. Chen, and C. C. Mei. A hybrid element method for diffrac-
tion of water waves by three-dimensional bodies. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 12(2):245–266, 1978.
[860] B. Zanuttigh and E. Angelelli. Experimental investigation of floating wave
energy converters for coastal protection purpose. Coastal Engineering, 80:148–
159, 2013.
[861] B. Zanuttigh, E. Angelelli, A. Kortenhaus, K. Koca, Y. Krontira, and
P. Koundouri. A methodology for multi-criteria design of multi-use offshore
platforms for marine renewable energy harvesting. Renewable Energy, 85:1271–
1289, 2016.
378 ■ Bibliography

[862] B. Zanuttigh, L. Martinelli, M. Castagnetti, P. Ruol, J. P. Kofoed, and

P. Frigaard. Integration of wave energy converters into coastal protection
schemes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy,
2010.

[863] C. Zhang and D. Ning. Hydrodynamic study of a novel breakwater with

parabolic openings for wave energy harvest. Ocean Engineering, 182:540–551,
2019.

[864] D. Zhang, W. Li, and Y. Lin. Wave energy in china: Current status and per-
spectives. Renewable Energy, 34(10):2089–2092, 2009.

[865] H. Zhang and G. Aggidis. Nature rules hidden in the biomimetic wave energy
converters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 97:28–37, 2018.

[866] Y. Zhang, S. Sheng, Y. You, Z. Huang, and W. Wang. Study of hydrody-

namic characteristics of a Sharp Eagle wave energy converter. China Ocean
Engineering, 31(3):364–369, 2017.

[867] X. Zhao, D. Ning, Q. Zou, D. Qiao, and S. Cai. Hybrid floating breakwater-
WEC system: A review. Ocean Engineering, 186:106126, 2019.

[868] X. Zhao, R. Xue, J. Geng, and M. Göteman. Analytical investigation on the hy-
drodynamic performance of a multi-pontoon breakwater-WEC system. Ocean
Engineering, 220:108394, 2021.

[869] X. Zhao, L. Zhang, M. Li, and L. Johanning. Experimental investigation on the

hydrodynamic performance of a multi-chamber OWC-breakwater. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150:111512, 2021.

[870] S. Zheng. Study on Hydrodynamic Characteristics of the Raft-type Wave-

Powered Desalination Device, pages 1–183. Springer Singapore, Singapore,
2018.

[871] S. Zheng, A. Antonini, Y. Zhang, D. Greaves, J. Miles, and G. Iglesias. Wave

power extraction from multiple oscillating water columns along a straight coast.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 878:445–480, 2019.

[872] S. Zheng and Y. Zhang. Analysis for wave power capture capacity of two
interconnected floats in regular waves. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 75:158–
173, 2017.

[873] S. Zheng, Y. Zhang, and G. Iglesias. Wave-structure interaction in hybrid wave

farms. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 83:386–412, 2018.

[874] S. Zheng, Y. Zhang, and W. Sheng. Maximum wave energy conversion

by two interconnected floaters. Journal of Energy Resources Technology,
138(3):032004, 2016.
 Bibliography ■ 379

[875] S. Zheng, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and W. Sheng. Numerical study on the dynamics
of a two-raft wave energy conversion device. Journal of Fluids and Structures,
58:271–290, 2015.

[876] Q. Zhong and R. Yeung. Model-predictive control strategy for an array of

wave-energy converters. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 18(1):26–
37, 2019.

[877] Q. Zhong and R. W. Yeung. Wave-body interactions among energy absorbers

in a wave farm. Applied Energy, 233:1051–1064, 2019.

[878] Y. Zhou, D. Ning, W. Shi, L. Johanning, and D. Liang. Hydrodynamic inves-

tigation on an OWC wave energy converter integrated into an offshore wind
turbine monopile. Coastal Engineering, 162:103731, 2020.

[879] Y. Zhou, C. Zhang, and D. Ning. Hydrodynamic investigation of a concentric

cylindrical OWC wave energy converter. Energies, 11(4):985, 2018.

[880] H. Zhu. A Seabased wave energy device: An experimental investigation. PhD

thesis, The University of Waikato, New Zealand, 2020.

[881] X. Zhu. Irregular frequency removal from the boundary integral equation for the
wave-body problem. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994.

[882] S. Zou and O. Abdelkhalik. On the control of three-degree-of-freedom wave

energy converters. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on En-
ergy Sustainability, pages V001T07A001–V001T07A001. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2017.

[883] S. Zou, O. Abdelkhalik, R. Robinett, U. Korde, G. Bacelli, D. Wilson, and

R. Coe. Model predictive control of parametric excited pitch-surge modes in
wave energy converters. International Journal of Marine Energy, 19:32–46,
2017.