The development of Oyster A shallow water surging wave energy converter

Trevor Whittaker1,2, David Collier2, Matt Folley1, Max Osterried1, Alan Henry1, Michael Crowley2
1

Wave Energy Research Group, School of Planning Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen`s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5AG, UK E-mail: t.whittaker@qub.ac.uk
2 Aquamarine Power Limited, 10 Saint Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2AF, UK E-mail: dcollier@aquamarinepower.com

Abstract
In 2005 Aquamarine Power Ltd. was formed to develop Oyster, a near shore flap which is hinge connected to the sea bed. With a combination of private equity and grant aid a 350kW Oyster module has been designed and it is planned to install a prototype module at the EMEC test site in Orkney when the nearshore test berth is available. In this version of Oyster high pressure sea water will be pumped ashore to drive a Pelton wheel. Ultimately it is envisaged that Oyster units will be arranged in clusters feeding power to a power take off unit of between 3.5 and 5 MW capacity. Arrays of clusters will form power stations of 20 to 100 MW capacity. An extensive research and development programme has produced a very efficient structural form, which gives Oyster one of the highest power to weight ratios of all current technologies combined with high capture factors in the most commonly occurring seas. The sea bed foundations and installation technique developed enables Oyster to be easily removed and reinstalled for major maintenance when required. This is a feature normally associated with moored devices. Although there are other bottom-hinged flap devices, Oyster is different in several ways and occupies a different part of the design space. For example, unlike the other systems it completely penetrates the water column from the water surface to the sea bed. Although it might be considered that such a system would be vulnerable in extreme seas, extensive wave tank modelling has shown that the flap intrinsically decouples from the wave as the oscillation increases and that the wave loads experienced are manageable in the three operational modes; generating, undamped and parked on the sea bed. However, model tests show that Oyster can remain generating in all sea-states including plunging breakers. This paper charts the evolution of Oyster presenting some of the research that has led to the current design. An outline of the impending sea trials of a prototype demonstration unit is given along with the projected outcomes. Keywords: Oyster, shallow water, flap, surging, loads, performance

Introduction
The research group at Queens University Belfast (QUB) has been actively involved in wave power R&D since the mid 1970s. Most importantly they co-ordinated the design, construction and operation of two full-scale prototype shoreline oscillating water column (OWC) devices on the Isle of Islay. The first of these was a 75kW machine completed in 1990 and operated for research purposes until 1999 when it was decommissioned. The second device, LIMPET, [1], has a 500kW installed capacity and is currently owned and operated by Wavegen. The significance of the groups work was recognised by the award of The Royal Society ESSO Energy Prize in 1994. Experience gained from the Islay prototypes indicated to the group that OWCs are structurally inefficient because of the need to enclose the working surface (excluding cases where the structural function can be shared e.g. breakwaters, or can be formed cheaply e.g. by tunnelling in rock). Consequently other solutions were sought that substantially reduced the structural content of the primary part of the converter. The most promising solution considered resulted from the fact that in water depths of around 10m the horizontal fluid particle motion is amplified compared to that in deeper water and that this could be exploited by surging devices.

1. Background research
In 2002, with funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council, the team began researching a group of devices which they described as oscillating wave surge converters (OWSCs). The mechanically simplest form of this family of devices is hinged flaps, with the hinge either at the top or bottom. Initially only shoreline configurations were considered and testing was conducted in 2D in the 0.33m wide wave tank at Queens. This led to the testing of nearshore configurations and subsequently to 3D tests in a 4.5m wide wave tank. A 1:20 seabed slope similar to that experienced off Islay was modelled at 1:40th scale and a set of Bretschneider seas programmed and weighted to be representative of the inshore wave resource in the North Atlantic off the Western

Isles off Scotland. Top-hinged flaps located in a recess with an inclined rear wall were initially tested as they were considered the most logical evolution from LIMPET, with the swinging flap and hydraulic power take off replacing the OWC structure and air turbine. The principal hydrodynamic shapes and the models used are shown in figure 1.

flow is regulated using a combination of hydraulic accumulators, an adjustable spear valve, a flywheel in the mechanical power train and rectification and inversion of the electrical output. An outline schematic of the 350kW unit to be installed at the EMEC test site off Orkney is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2 General arrangement of OysterTM

3. Hydrodynamic performance
Shoreline Nearshore The hydrodynamic performance of Oyster has been assessed and enhanced using a combination of analytical, numerical and experimental modelling. This has formed an integral part of the design loop as results from model tests have been used to develop the analytical theory of how Oyster works, which in turn has been used to identify the appropriate model testing to be performed. Wavetank modelling of Oyster was initially performed using a 1/40th scale model, whilst the most recent testing has been done at 1/20th scale. All testing has been carried out in the wave-tank at Queen's University Belfast, which has 6 sector-carrier wave makers capable of generating complex and realistic sea-states. Although some monochromatic testing has been undertaken, the majority of the testing has used sea-states with a Bretschneider spectrum. A time-domain numerical model of the Oyster hydrodynamics and PTO system has been developed using a second-order differential equation of the hydrodynamics and calibrated using results from the wave-tank model. Even though for computation speed and model simplicity the numerical model lacks the convolution integral or additional modes typically seen in a hydrodynamic model, it has typically predicted the average power capture of Oyster to within 10% of that obtained with the wave-tank experimentation. This is related to the relatively small magnitude of the wave radiation forces. The modelling undertaken indicates that Oyster operates by coupling strongly with the incident waves, without being highly tuned; that is, there is a large wave torque and the natural pitching frequency is not close to the predominant incident wave frequencies. It is shown elsewhere, Folley et al. [5], that the coincidence of natural tuning and maximised wave torque are largely mutually exclusive for this type of wave energy converter. However, in shallow water the benefits of tuning are limited due to motion constraints and viscous losses at large amplitudes of motion, though it is still beneficial to maximise the flap pitch stiffness with excess buoyancy to keep the natural pitch frequency as close as economically possible to the most common incident wave frequencies.

Figure 1 Configurations tested

Benchmarking experiments were performed, as described by Folley et al [2], in which the OWSC was compared to LIMPET, [3], and the Japanese Pendulor device, [4]. These showed that the flap devices were substantially better than the inclined water column in the shorter period lower energy seas while the reverse was true in the longer period high energy seas. This demonstrated one of the most desirable features of flap devices, their natural tendency to increase capture efficiency in the smaller, most commonly occurring, seas. Compared to OWCs with the opposite characteristic, this enables the installation of a smaller capacity PTO system on flaps which runs at a higher load factor and this natural decoupling characteristic aids survivability in the large high energy seas. Although shoreline mounted top-hinged flaps are a potentially viable system, it was decided to concentrate on the nearshore configuration because of its greater commercial potential. This configuration evolved into a simple bottom-hinged flap fastened to the seabed without any surrounding structure and named OysterTM.

2. Description of OysterTM
In its present configuration OysterTM is essentially a wave powered hydroelectric plant located at a nominal water depth of 12m which in many locations is relatively close to the shoreline. The system comprises a buoyant flap, 18m wide and 10m high, hinged at its base to a sub-frame which is pinned to the sea bed using tensioned anchors. The surge component in the waves forces the flap to oscillate which in turn compresses and extends two hydraulic cylinders mounted between the flap and the sub-frame which pumps water at high pressure through a pipeline back to the beach On the shore is a modified hydro-electric plant consisting of a Pelton wheel turbine driving a variable speed electrical generator coupled to a flywheel. Power

The wave force experienced by Oyster is related to the change in horizontal acceleration of the water particle motions and thus tends to increase in shallow water due to shoaling. For a 10 second wave in a water depth of 12 metres, this is equivalent to an increase of 50% in the wave force experienced relative to the force experienced in deep water Folley et al. [6]. Maximum interaction with the horizontal acceleration of the water particles and hence wave force occurs when the flap and substructure penetrates the full depth from sea bed to surface. For such a flap that is only a fraction of a wavelength wide the wave force increases approximately as the square of the flap width resulting in a relatively wide flap. However, maximum width is limited by the reduction in performance due to wave force phase incoherence across the flap, together with structural and installation considerations. Figure 3 shows the capture factor, defined as the percentage of the flap width from which 100% of the incident energy is extracted, in a variety of sea states.
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Capture factor

Figure 3 Capture factor vs sea state & flap width

These results show that the capture factor is largest with the smallest sea-states, short energy periods and small significant wave heights, which help to even out the power capture. Indeed results from the numerical simulation indicate that the power capture is almost independent of wave energy period and depends primarily on significant wave height, though it is currently unclear if this is due to an underlying characteristic, or whether it is a mere coincidence. The average power capture of the device deployed adjacent to a typical North Atlantic coast was calculated by taking the performance in each sea multiplied by an occurrence weighting factor. This was determined by weighting each sea to give an annual average exploitable incident wave energy of 19 kW/m. This produces an average power output at the hydraulic cylinders of around 200kW. A much more extensive analysis based on 26,500 seas calculated from 19 years of hindcast wave data at the EMEC test site produced a similar performance figure. As with any other wave power device, reducing losses such as vortex shedding losses around the edges increases the power output of Oyster. This can be achieved by either thickening the flap as a whole or just the edges. Though an increase in

power capture was found in both the numerical and wave-tank models, the increase was relatively modest and could not be justified for a prototype; it is possible that future production models will have a more complex, optimised, shape. The Oyster wave energy converter is directly connected to the seabed in a water depth of approximately 12 metres so that tidal level would be expected to have an effect on the hydrodynamics and power capture. At high tide the Oyster flap will be more submerged and the waves overtop the flap more easily reducing the wave force and therefore the power capture. At low tide the maximum amplitude of motion of the centre of wave pressure is effectively reduced because it is closer to the flaps axis of rotation, which reduces the power capture in the more energetic sea-states. That power capture typically reduces at both high and low tide is expected since the freeboard and design of the flap has been optimised for the mean water level (MWL); however, the reduction in power capture at different tide levels is of importance. Taking the tidal variation for the EMEC wave energy test site as an example, although the stated tidal range is approximately 3.0 metres, for 90% of the time the water level is less than 1.0 metres from the mean. The effect of water depth has been investigated using the wave-tank model and figure 4 shows the average power capture for the six standard sea-states at 1.0m above MWL, MWL and 1.0m below MWL obtained from these tests. The reduction in power capture at high and low tide is typically less than 12%. Thus, whilst there is a small reduction in power capture with tidal variation, the Oyster wave energy converter is relatively unaffected by typical variations in tidal level.
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
+1.0 m MWL MWL -1.0 m MWL

The directional variation and spread of the incident waves will also influence the power capture of Oyster because it couples with the surge component of the waves, which have an azimuthal orientation and the wave force reduces when the waves crest is not parallel to the flaps face. For a small body it would be expected that the wave force will reduce in proportion to the cosine of the angle between the direction of wave propagation and the orientation of Oysters flap, which would typically result in a reduction in power capture proportional to the cosine squared. As the Oyster flap gets wider the reduction in wave force will be greater due to incoherence of the wave acting on the flap. WAMIT has been used to investigate the reduction in wave

Capture factor

Figure 4 Power capture variation vs tide

force, which shows that for the 18 metre wide Oyster the reduction in wave force is only slightly greater than for a small body as shown in figure 5
1 Normalised wave torque 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

7 9 11 13 Cos

Oscillator angle (degrees)

Figure 5 Wave force WAMIT, vs orientation

This reduction in wave force and power capture with angle of incidence has been verified using the wave-tank model, and figure 6 shows that the reduction in power capture is approximately proportional to the Cos of the angle of incidence to the power 2.1.
18m Flap 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 20 Te = 7 s, Pi = 10 kW/m Te = 9 s, Pi = 20 kW/m Te = 11 s, Pi = 20 kW/m Te = 13 s, Pi = 40 kW/m n=2.1

Power captured (kW)

in both the extreme and the most frequently occurring seas. This data provided the input to both the foundation design and the fatigue analysis of the structure. The tests were conducted in the 4.5m wide wave tank at Queens university using a purpose built load table on which a 40th scale model of OysterTM was mounted. Two distinct sets of experiments were conducted to meet different objectives. In the first set the envelope of the maximum loads was measured in a range of seas up to the most extreme seas which exist at a water depth of up to 12.4m. In the second set the most commonly occurring seas were used in order to provide data for the fatigue analysis of the structure. In OysterTM the torque transmitted from the flap to the foundations is limited by the torque applied by the PTO system and there are three operational modes to consider; the flap parked on the sea bed, free undamped oscillation and generating. As expected the highest vertical loads were experienced with the flap parked on the sea bed due to the pressure produced by the plunging breakers on the surface above. As these are acting downwards they are easy to accommodate. Undamped oscillation resulted in the lowest surge loads. However, although the surge loads are 50% higher in the generating mode, the foundations are designed to withstand these to allow generation during extreme seas. The coincidence of heave and surge loads whilst generating in an extreme sea is given in figure 7.

Flap angle (degrees)

40

60

80

Figure 6 Power reduction with orientation

To estimate the effect that the directional spread of the incident waves will have on power capture a non-linear wave propagation model is used to transform the waves from offshore to the proposed location of the Oyster prototype to be deployed at the EMEC wave energy test site on the 10 metre depth contour, (relative to chart datum). Applying the reduction in power capture derived from the wave-tank model testing to the EMEC data indicates that with the optimal orientation of the flap the power capture is reduced by about 3% due to the directional variation of the incident waves. This relatively small reduction in power capture due to directionality is due to the inherent tendency for the most energetic waves to come from a relatively narrow sector orientated in a westerly direction and because as the water depth decreases the wave fronts refract to become more parallel to the depth contours.

Figure 7 Coincidence of heave and surge loads

One of the perceived problems with bottom hinged flaps is the possibility of them hitting the sea bed when undamped. This was tested by focussing the seas on the model to produce an extreme plunging breaker. After repeated tests with different sea-states the maximum oscillation observed was less than 800 from the vertical. Excess buoyancy in the flap, decoupling from the wave as the oscillation angle increases and a squeeze film effect between the flap and the sea bed limits the angular excursion. Figure 8 shows the model about to be hit by a plunging breaker and figure 9 the effect on rotation.

4. Wave loading and survivability

Survivability is the first and most important achievement of any wave power system and consequently a substantial part of the test programme has been wave load testing. The objective was to ascertain the envelope of heave, surge and torque loads on the foundations of Oyster

Figure 8 Wave loading extreme seas

The first Oyster demonstrator will provide essential information on cost and performance which will enable the development of a technoeconomic model to assist the design process in future. This will permit the detailed engineering design to evolve based on real sea experience and the real cost of components. During the first 12 months of the sea trials five stages of achievement have been identified; Installation and survival Conversion of sea power to a hydraulic output Raw electrical power output System control to improve power quality Detailed design of a cluster A further aspect of the future development programme will be wave powered desalination by feeding the high pressure water directly to reverse osmosis tubes.

7. Concluding remarks
The Oyster wave power system is about to be demonstrated after an extensive research and development programme during the last six years. It is a wave powered hydroelectric plant in which a nearshore bottom hinged flap pumps water ashore to drive a Pelton wheel coupled to a generator. The most significant aspects are; Exploitation of the amplified surge component in shallow to intermediate depth water Highest capture efficiency in most commonly occurring seas with a full depth flap from sea bed to surface. Continued generation in extreme seas without excessive PTO capacity due to the flaps natural characteristic of decoupling as the angle of rotation increases. One of the highest power to structural weight ratios relative to other systems under development. The development of an installation and removal system which can be undertaken in short weather windows without specialist vessels. A modular system in which individual flaps can be arranged in clusters pumping water to a single PTO system of up to 5MW capacity. The clusters can be combined in 100MW arrays.

Figure 9 Flap rotation after impact

5. Installation and recovery

A major cost in marine renewables which is often underestimated is installation and long term maintenance. A perceived advantage of moored devices is that they can be readily disconnected and towed to port for major maintenance. This is more difficult with devices attached to the sea bed. A key development with Oyster has been the design of a system which enables self installation and removal with the aid of small service vessels. As the flap and the sub-frame is an integral unit the flap provides the buoyancy to control the lowering of the subframe onto the sea bed foundation pads. Once the sub frame is locked into the clamping mechanisms the chambers in the flap are flooded sinking it onto the sea bed thus enabling divers to make the final connections next to a static object. When the installation is complete the flap is de-ballasted and the unit commences generation. The procedure is reversed for removal in the event of the requirement for major maintenance.

Acknowledgements
The work described has been funded by Aquamarine Power Ltd, The Department of Trade and Industry in the UK, The Scottish Executive and The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council.

6. Future prospects
The ultimate objective is to build wave power stations of 20 to 100MW. Oyster is a modular system with the individual flaps arranged in clusters feeding power to a single PTO system of between 3 and 5MW capacity. Research is underway to determine the hydrodynamic performance of clusters of flaps in different geometric patterns. In addition during the next 12 months work will be ongoing modelling the PTO system with multiple hydraulic inputs to a single Pelton wheel and generator. With device clusters it is expected that phase variation between the units will result in a smoother power output as well as economies on foundations due to phase cancellation of loads.

References
[1] T. Heath, T.J.T. Whittaker, and C.B. Boake. The Design, Construction and Operation of the LIMPET Wave Energy Converter (Islay, Scotland). in 4th European Wave Energy Conference. Aalborg, Denmark, 2000

[2] M. Folley, T. Whittaker, and M. Osterried. The Oscillating Wave Surge Converter. in Fourteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Toulon, France, 2004 [3] T. Whittaker, W.C. Beattie, M. Folley, C. Boake, M. Wright, and M. Osterried. Performance of the LIMPET wave power plant - prediction, measurement and potential. in 5th European Wave Energy Conference. Cork, Ireland, 2003 [4] T. Watabe, H. Yokouchi, S. Gunawardane, B. Obeyesekera, and U. Dissanayake. Preliminary study of wave energy utilisation in Sri Lanka. in ISOPE. Stavanger, Norway, 2001

[5] M. Folley, T. Whittaker, and J. van't Hoff. The design of small seabed-mounted bottomhinged wave energy converters. in 5th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference. Porto, Portugal, 2007 [6] M. Folley, T.J.T. Whittaker, and A. Henry, The effect of water depth on the performance of a small surging wave energy converter. Ocean Engineering, 34(8-9): p. 1265-1275, 2007