FROG AND PS FROG: A STUDY OF

TWO REACTIONLESS
OCEAN WAVE
ENERGY CONVERTERS
PhD Thesis
Robert H Bracewell
Lancaster University
30th September 1990
Supervisor: M J French
To Mum, Dad and Mel
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described up to the end of chapter 9 was supported by the UK Department
of Energy, via the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU). Special thanks to Michael
French, Jim Newton and latterly David Bradley, for much help along the way.
SUMMARY
The subject of this thesis is a theoretical investigation, supported by experiments and
computer simulations, of twoconcepts for small but highlyproductive off-shore waveenergy
converters (WECs), namely FROG and PS FROG. These were conceived with the aim of
reducingthehighstructural costs associatedwithpreviousproposals. PS FROGwas invented
in the course of this project, to circumvent engineering problems inherent in FROG. Whilst
at first sight the two devices appear very different, it is shown that their respective equations
of motion may be reduced to a similar form. Both devices float freely, lightly restrained by
compliant moorings andworkbymaintaininga vigorous, quasi-resonant oscillation, strongly
coupled with the wave-force, which is reacted against the inertia of an accelerating internal
mass.
FROG is a heaving, vertically axi-symmetric buoy of diameter 15 - 20m, thus it is an
omni-directional (source-like) point absorber. PS FROG is a pitching and surging vertical
flap, of roughly 20m width, aligned to face the incident waves. It is therefore, a directional
(dipole-like) point absorber, which gives it twice the ideal power capture width of FROG.
Hydrodynamic coefficients are obtained for both devices and their equations of motion
solved, so that estimates of mean annual power capture can be produced, for the standard
South Uist wave climate. In addition, experimental power generation tests on 1/60th scale
FROGmodels, are shown togive excellent agreement withtheoretical predictions. Problems
with the practical implementation of FROG are discussed and the resulting evolution of the
PS FROG concept described.
PS FROG is finally demonstrated to be clearly superior to FROG and its estimated
cost of electricity produced, of under 4p per unit (at 1988 prices, assuming a 5% discount
rate and 20 year life) appears highly competitive for an off-shore WEC.
1 INTRODUCTION
Most early designs for Wave Energy Converters (WECs) were conceived in the
aftermath of the 1973 world oil crisis. The resulting sudden surge in petrol prices demon-
strated that energy resources were not limitless and that the earth’s fossil fuels will soon
begin to run out. Spurred on by fears of an impending energy famine, pioneers in the UK
such as Salter, Cockerell and Russell began urgently to investigate ways of exploiting the
large wave energy resource incident on the country’s Atlantic coastline, which could neither
run out nor be held to ransom in a global dispute.
Thus, the overriding imperative at the time was to design huge schemes which could
supplyasignificant proportionof the country’s power requirements, extractingthe maximum
possible amount of the resource at their disposal. Supplying small communities, remote from
grid connection, for the lowest possible price was not part of the specification at all. It is
hardly surprising that the first generation of device concepts which emerged, such as the
RECTIFIER, the Oscillating Water Column (OWC) of which there were various designs,
the DUCK, the CLAM, the CYLINDER and the Lancaster Flexible Bag (LFB) were vast
structures, with high power ratings to extract as much energy as possible from the rough
seas of winter. Succinct descriptions and illustrations of the devices investigated in the UK
programme are given by Davies et al. (1985).
Whilst there is an immense variety of widely differing types of WECwhich have been
proposed, they all seem to have three things in common :-
• They need a working surface for the waves to act against. For example, it may be
the hull of the device, as in the DUCK, a flexible membrane, as in the CLAMand
LFB or a water/air interface as in the OWC.
1
• There must be something providing a stable frame of reference to react these wave
forces against.
• The working surface must be capable of being moved by the wave forces, with
respect to this frame of reference, against the resistance of some form of power
take-off mechanism.
For all the first generation devices listed above, the provision of the second of these
requirements - the frame of reference - was the largest single element in the final estimated
cost of power produced. For example in the case of the LFB, which was not untypical, French
(1985a) estimated that the device structure accounted for 63% of the total costs as far as the
turbine shaft. The problem was approached in one of three ways, all incurring the penalty
of considerable expense :-
• By making the device very massive, for example the NEL FLOATING TER-
MINATOR (OWC) and the HRS RECTIFIER.
• By fixing the device to the seabed, for example the NELBREAKWATER(OWC)
and the BRISTOL CYLINDER.
• By using a long, floating, wave-bridging spine. Due to the diversity of wave phase
along its length, the total resultant force on the spine is close to zero, hence its
amplitude of motion is small. This concept was used in the LFB, the DUCK and
the CLAM.
All of the above methods incur problems. Floating OWCs, where the reference frame
is provided by their huge passive inertia, have a very poor power/mass ratio - typically an
2
estimated 15W delivered to shore per tonne displacement
1
. Fixing them to the seabed gives
some improvement, reducing the required mass but unfortunately the incident wave power
also, because they must thenbe usedinshallowwater. This results inanestimated26W/tonne
for the NEL BREAKWATER. Tension leg mooring, as used in the BRISTOL CYLINDER,
is very costly as the anchors have to be able to withstand the worst storms without failure
and their installation is highly specialised local work, carried out in a frequently hostile
environment. Rigid spines, as used by the CLAM and the LFB, are expensive too, because
they have to be strong enough to cope with the extreme bending moments produced by the
designed-for "100 year return wave"
2
. The best solution of this type is probably the DUCK’s
articulated spine, as described by Salter (1979). This limits bending moments by allowing
the spine to yield at regularly spaced Hooke’s joints under the control of double-acting
hydraulic rams. As an added benefit, it also provides a useful additional mode of energy
capture.
By 1982, the economic and political climate in which WECs were being developed
had changed drastically from that in the mid to late 1970s. Oil prices had collapsed and
thoughts of energy crises faded into the backs of people’s minds. Cost estimates from all of
the devices were significantly greater than those for coal-fired or nuclear power stations,
these being the halcyon days before the accounts of the latter were objectively scrutinised.
The chances of a "2GW scheme" or even a single prototype being built were, in the UK at
least, nil. The one area where the British Department of Energy considered that wave power
might be competitive was for small-scale use
3
, supplying power to isolated communities
1 figures for the NEL device taken from Davies et al. (1985), section 5
2 estimated as 32m in height in water depths greater than 40m off South Uist - see Davies
et al. (1985), section 7.5
3 see Davies et al. (1985) section 14.17 - "Prospects for the Future"
3
otherwise forced to rely on expensive diesel or gas-turbine generators. Unfortunately, not
having been designed with this in mind, most of the devices in the UK programme were
singularly poorly suited to this requirement.
The two devices picked out by the Department of Energy as potentially the cheapest,
were the DUCK and the CLAM. Bellamy (1985) describes the testing in Loch Ness of a
shorter version of the CLAM, designed for the small-scale market. At full size this would
be 120m in length and rated at 1MW instead of the 290m length and 10MW rating of the
original. Its performance was rather disappointing, the annual mean efficiency of conversion
from wave to electric power falling from 30% for the 10MW device to 9% for the 1MW.
The reason is probably that shortening the spine had greatly reduced the diversity of wave
phase vital to its operation, meaning it was only capable of efficiently absorbing very short
waves. As for the DUCK, high development costs and uncertainty of eventual outcome were
officially cited
1
as reasons preventing its application.
Fromthe Lancaster perspective, what seemedtobe requiredwas anentirelynewdevice,
designed to generate relatively small amounts of power, probably in the range 0.5-1.5MW,
at the cheapest possible price. To have any chance of being proceeded with, this device
would need :-
• to be small
• to be independent
• to have low development costs
• to use well-proven technology
1 see Davies et al. (1985) sections 11.27 - 11.31 "The ‘Special Case’ of the DUCK"
4
• to have a high output power/mass ratio
• to have low structural costs
An obvious solution for all but the final criterion is a point absorber such as the latched,
heaving buoys of Budal and Falnes (1979). Apoint absorber, if its motionis strongly coupled
withthe wave force and it is capable of large motions without incurring undue viscous losses,
can have capture widths greater than its own diameter. For example Evans (1981) showed
that for a heaving half-immersed sphere, this is the case if, with the correct phase relationship
between them, the body/wave amplitude ratio is greater than about 2. The necessary large
amplitudes are maintained by using latching, an active phase control strategy, which keeps
the motion quasi-resonant even though the frequency may vary considerably fromone wave
to the next.
Another way of looking at this is to consider that to be an efficient wave absorber, a
device must also be a good wave-maker. The reason is that the incident waves must be
attenuated by interference with those created by the device’s own motion, in order for it to
extract power fromthem
1
. Due to a large amplitude of motion relative to its own dimensions
and a shallowdraught, the latched buoy is an excellent wave-maker. Based on figures quoted
by Budal &Falnes (1979) for estimated annual electricity production of a 6mdiameter buoy
located as part of an array at Halten (Norway) the resulting power/mass ratio is over
500W/tonne buoy displacement. This is far higher than any of the devices studied in the UK
programme, despite the lower mean incident power at the Halten site, of just 28kW/m as
opposed to the 48kW/m at South Uist. A major fault with many of the early wave power
"dinosaurs", such as the RECTIFIER and FLOATING OWC is that they are hydrody-
namically "lazy", being poor wave-makers and hence inefficient absorbers considering their
1 see, for example, Falnes & Budal (1978)
5
vast size. Thus for the FLOATING OWC, the mean landed power/mass ratio based on the
figures quoted by Davies et al. (1985) is just 15 W/tonne. That for CLAM is 38W/tonne and
even the two most obviously vigorous devices, CYLINDER and DUCK, only achieve 63
and 81 W/tonne respectively (the value for DUCK being based, for the sake of argument,
on an assumed 100% availability).
The major problem with the latched, heaving buoy is that of structural cost, because
to be able to react the wave force it must be tightly moored to the seabed with very little
compliance. Thus the anchor must be capable of withstanding extremely large storm forces.
Variations in seabed geology may seriously restrict the choice of suitable locations or at best
lead to much unwelcome site-specific work. The same problem holds for the more recently
proposed, tension-leg SOLO DUCK although Salter (1985) claimed that conventional
seabed anchors have considerable scope for improvement and presented an original concept
for such an anchor at the Euromechanics Colloquium 243 in Bristol, 1988. This involved a
deep, pre-stressed tension pile, grouted in its lower portion and used to keep a conical
load-bearing seabed insert under compression at all times. Such an innovation, were it to
prove cheap and reliable, might transform the economics of this type of device, but will
require considerable development funding to find out. Hopefully, in the next few years this
may prove forthcoming.
InDenmarkmeanwhile, a different approachis beingtakenbythenewlyformedDanish
Wave Power company, a consortium of contractors, consulting engineers, submersible
turbine and power cable manufacturers, sponsored by the Danish Department of Energy and
a utilitycompany. The imminent off-shore installation of a full scale test of the KNDEVICE,
rated at 45kW, has been reported by Nielsen (1989), the originator of the project. This has
similarities to an early design of Budal and Falnes (1975), in its use of a float on the water
surface connected by taut cable to a power take-off systemhoused in a dead-weight structure
6
on the sea-bed. The main difference is that in the KN, instead of winding the cable directly
around a flywheel/generator shaft, it is connected to a large piston which pumps sea-water
to drive a submerged turbo-generator. As yet they do not have any plans to use latching.
This solution is unlikely to be particularly cheap and may not be suitable for a larger device,
but at least if the dead-weight is shifted by extreme wave action, the result would probably
be not nearly as terminal as the failure of a seabed anchor.
A heaving point-absorber buoy with internal reaction, using a tuned reaction
mass/spring/damper system as proposed by Parks (1979), avoids the above difficulties, if
at the expense of incurring a few new ones! In a storm the power system can be shut down
and the mass locked to prevent damage. Moorings are only required to hold the device on
station against second order wave-drift forces and tidal currents, so they can afford to be
highly compliant. This reduces their loading in extreme displacements of the buoy and by
allowing it freedom to move with breaking waves, reduces impact forces on the device as
well. The hull is relatively lightly loaded, not penetrated by any moving parts and all elec-
tro-mechanical plant is protected safe and dry within it.
The embodiment of this idea is the FROG device. The structural requirement of a
tension mooring is replaced by the need to guide a mass of roughly 1000 tonnes through a
travel of several metres andtoprovide a variable stiffness springtomaintainquasi-resonance,
of sufficient thermodynamic reversibility to avoid excessive internal losses.
7
2 THE FROG DEVICE CONCEPT
2.1 Description of the Device
FROG consists of a floating, vertically axi-symmetric buoy, the hull of which can be
of a variety of different shapes, provided that the surface-piercing portion is cylindrical. This
ensures that the hydrostatic stiffness remains linear with respect to vertical displacement,
even at large amplitudes of motion. It contains what French (1985c) has described as "A
rather perversely designed vibration damper whose effect, unlike that of a real damper, is
not to minimise the vibration of the damped body but to maximise the amount of energy
which it draws from its environment". This can be idealised as a mass, suspended from a
spring, constrained so it may only move along the buoy’s axis and retarded by a linear
dashpot which represents the power take-off.
8
A vital feature of its operation is that the effective spring stiffness must be variable
wave by wave so that quasi-resonance can be maintained at all times. There are two main,
practicable ways of achieving this :-
(i) Latching, as used by Budal and Falnes.
(ii) Stiffness modulation (SM), invented by French (1985b) in the course of devel-
opment of this device.
2.2 Latching
This involves seizing the mass the instant it becomes stationary at each extreme of its
motion, holding it for an appropriate length of time, then releasing. Some work was done
onthis but it was soon abandoneddue tothe relative difficultyof its full-scale implementation
compared with SM, in addition to poor experimental results. These can be put down to two
reasons:-
• Some power appeared to be radiated in higher harmonics, due to the increasingly
non-sinusoidal motion of the mass as the latched time lengthens - the 3rd harmonic
reached up to about 20% of the fundamental in some cases.
• There is a fundamental difference between the latching of Budal and Falnes’ buoys,
which involves reducing a one degree of freedom system to zero and the latching of
the FROG reaction mass, which reduces a two degrees of freedom system to one. In
this first case, the buoy when latched is held stationary and waits for the wave to "catch
up", as desired. But with FROG, at the longer wave periods, the effect of the reaction
mass oscillation is to increase the natural heaving period of the buoy.While the mass
9
is latched it is unable to do this, so the effect, far fromholding the buoy until the wave
catches up, is to increase the frequency of its motion, so the wave is left even further
behind.
There is, however a situation in which some form of latching might be useful in
conjunction with SM - this is in "The Hole", as described in section 3.7.
2.3 Stiffness Modulation (SM)
This is an alternative method of phase control of oscillating systems, which relies on
dividing the spring into two parts, connected in series. Latching their junction with respect
to one of the bodies, effectively by-passes one spring and switches the overall stiffness from
10
low to high. In the graph of figure 2.2a this switching corresponds to point S, where the
curve changes from being part of a sinusoid of frequency to part of a different sinusoid
of the higher frequency withits meanpositiondisplacedfromzerointhepositivedirection.
There is no choice in the timing of the release point T, for to avoid energy losses due to
"ringing", it must occur when the forces in both springs are equal once again. Switch S may
be performed at any point on the outward travel of the mass, the exact timing of which
determines the effective natural frequency of the system for that particular half-cycle. It can
be anything between , if S is at the extreme displacement of the mass and if S is
performed the instant it passes through zero.
A potentially useful design feature is the fact that the T transition may be made to
happen automatically. For example, if gas springs are used, the twin butterfly and non-return
valve (NRV) arrangement shown in figure 2.2b will performthis function. In the figure, the
mass m is at point F on the graph, just beginning to move downwards and approaching the
automatic (hightolow) stiffness transitionT. The NRVAwill openimmediatelythe pressure
in the upper air chamber rises to equal that in the lower. The two air chambers remain in
communication until the next S transition is effected, by shifting the four-bar parallelogram
linkage to the left. This closes butterfly B and opens C, but NRV D is kept closed by the
pressure building above it. The next Ttransition is caused by NRVDopening, which occurs
when, with the mass travelling back upwards, the pressure above falls to equal that below.
Beside being easier to engineer than latching, as it does not involve direct physical
restraint of the huge moving mass, SM also has the advantage of introducing only a very
small harmonic content into the motion - typically less than 1% of the fundamental - which
means that the energy radiated back into the sea at higher frequencies is negligible. This is
because unlike latching, there are no discontinuities in the force on the mass, only in the rate
of change of force. Hence there are no discontinuities lower than the 3rd derivative with
ω
1
ω
2
ω
1
ω
2
11
respect to time of the displacement, as opposed to latching, where they appear in the 2nd.
Hence SM can be regarded as a near perfect, loss-free way of tuning the device to maintain
resonance over a finite but sufficient bandwidth.
12
3 MECHANICS OF FROG
3.1 FROG Notation
water density
angular frequency
the upwards wave force on the stationary buoy
the absolute upward displacement of the buoy
the absolute upward displacement of the reaction mass
ρ
ω
f
y
1
y
2
13
the relative upward displacement of the reaction mass with respect to the
buoy
the phasor of force
the phasor of water surface elevation at the axis of the buoy for the undis-
turbed incident wave
the phasor of
the phasor of
the phasor of
the mass of the buoy (excluding the moving mass)
the moving reaction mass
the heave radiation coefficient of the buoy at angular frequency
the heave added mass of the buoy at angular frequency
the hydrostatic heaving stiffness of the buoy
the spring stiffness
the damping coefficient of the "linear dashpot"
the earth’s gravitational constant
r
X f
A
Y
1
y
1
Y
2
y
2
R r
m
1
m
2
B(ω) ω
M
a
(ω) ω
K
h
(· waterplane area × ρg)
µ
λ
g
14
the square root of -1
the power capture
subscript after any variable signifies its value in the ideal, optimised power
condition
subscript after any variable signifies the maximumvalue allowed in practice
, the angle the sides of the optimised phasor triangle make with
the base
the practical limitation factor for
the practical limitation factor for
the dimensionless Keulegan-Carpenter number as defined by Standing
(1979)
3.2 Linearised Hydrodynamics in Monochromatic Waves
The following analysis, reduction and optimisation was first performed by French
(1984c). Taking the linearised model shown in figure 3.1, the equations of motion are :-
i
P

I

0
tan
−1
(U/V) β
η ¦ R¦
ν ¦ Y
1
¦
N
KC
(m
1
+ M
a
) ¨ y
1
+ m
2
¨ y
2
+ B ˙ y
1
+ K
h
y
1
· f 3.1
m
2
¨ y
2
+ λ( ˙ y
2
− ˙ y
1
) + µ(y
2
− y
1
) · 0 3.2
15
Introducingphasor notationfor regular, monochromatic incident waves of angular frequency
, these become :-
Both the above equations are displayed on the combined phasor diagram of figure 3.2 :-
These equations may be simplified by letting :-
and
ω
−ω
2
(m
1
+ M
a
)Y
1
− ω
2
m
2
Y
2
+ iωBY
1
+ K
h
Y
1
· X 3.3
−ω
2
m
2
Y
2
+ iωλ(Y
2
− Y
1
) + µ(Y
2
− Y
1
) · 0 3.4
R · Y
2
− Y
1
3.5
16
and introducing the following dimensionless parameters :-
Equations 3.3 and 3.4 then reduce to :-
3.12
3.13
Note also that the overall power capture can be obtained directly from the phasor
diagram as the mean rate of work done by the buoy on the moving mass. This is given by
half the angular frequency times the cross product of the buoy displacement and reaction
mass inertia force phasors as :-
Q ·
X
m
2
ω
2
3.6
U ·
K
h
− ω
2
(m
1
+ m
2
+ M
a
)
m
2
ω
2
3.7
V ·
B
m
2
ω
3.8
C · √ U
2
+ V
2
3.9
s ·
µ
m
2
ω
2
− 1 3.10
t ·
λ
m
2
ω
3.11
(U + iV)Y
1
− R · Q
(s + it)R · Y
1
17
3.14
3.3 Optimisation of Performance
The next step is to determine the optimum power capture and the values of the various
parameters required to achieve it. Combining equations 3.12 and 3.13 gives :-
Now, the average rate of power dissipation is one half the dot product of the damper force
andrelative velocityphasors. Since for a linear damper the force is simply λtimes the relative
velocity iωR, then the average power is given by :-
therefore
Substituting for R using equation 3.15 gives :-
so referring to equation 3.11
P ·
1
2
m
2
ω
3
¦ Y
1
Y
2
¦ ·
1
2
m
2
ω
3
¦ Y
1

R ·
Q
(U + iV) (s + it) − 1
3.15
P ·
1
2
(iλωR) (iωR)
P ·
1
2
λω
2
¦ R¦
2
3.16
P ·
1
2
λω
2
¦ Q¦
2
¦ (U + iV) (s + it) − 1¦
2
18
The aim is to maximise P with respect to the two control parameters, s and t. Start by
minimising the denominator with respect to s, by equating its partial derivative to zero. For
maximum power this gives :-
and simplifying,
So for optimum power capture, referring to equation 3.9 :-
3.18
Substituting equation 3.18 for s
I
in equation 3.17 gives, with a little simplification :-
Differentiating equation 3.19 with respect to t produces, for
maximum P :-
Simplifying we find, for optimum power capture :-
P ·
1
2
m
2
ω
3
t¦ Q¦
2
(Us − Vt − 1)
2
+ (Vs + Ut)
2
3.17
2U(Us − Vt − 1) + 2V(Vs + Ut) · 0
(U
2
+ V
2
)s · U
s
I
·
U
C
2
P ·
1
2
m
2
ω
3
t¦ Q¦
2
C
2
(V + C
2
t)
2
3.19
(V + C
2
t)
2
− 2C
2
t(V + C
2
t) · 0
19
3.20
Substituting equation 3.20 for t
I
in equation 3.19 gives the ideal power, P
I
:-
Hence referring to equations 3.6 and 3.8 :-
3.22
This is a well-known general result, derived by Evans (1979), for the optimumcapture
of any wave energy absorber, working in a single mode of motion. Furthermore he shows
that due to the relationship between X and B for a heaving, vertical body of revolution, the
ideal power can also be expressed as a capture width of , the total power incident on a
front of 1/2π times the wavelength.
3.4 Practical Implications of Optimisation
Substituting the optimised conditions from section 3.3 into equation 3.13 gives :-
Hence the optimised phasor diagram of figure 3.3, drawn up in the simplified form defined
by equations 3.12 and 3.13 always contains an isosceles triangle since :-
t
I
·
V
C
2
P
I
·
1
8
m
2
ω
3
¦ Q¦
2
V
3.21
P
I
·
¦ X¦
2
8B
λ/2π
R
I
· (U − iV)Y
1
3.23
20
It should also be noted that for optimal power capture, the buoy displacement lags the
wave force by 90˚, which would be expected as this brings the buoy velocity in phase with
the exciting force. Letting , where β is the angle that the sides of the triangle
make with the base, it can be seen by inspection that :-
3.25
3.26
¦ R
I
¦ · ¦ (U − iV)Y
1
¦ · ¦ (U + iV)Y
1
¦ · C¦ Y
1
¦ 3.24
tanβ · U/V
¦ Y
1
I
¦ ·
¦ Q¦
2V
·
¦ X¦
2ωB
·
1
ω√
2P
I
B
m
2
¦ R
I
¦ ·
1

2
¦ X¦ secβ ·
secβ
ω
2

2BP
I
21
Equation 3.26 shows that, to reduce the required mass x travel product it is desirable
to have as small an angle β as possible. This entails a small value for U and hence working
as near as possible to the natural heaving frequency of the buoy. What this means in physical
terms, is that the further from the buoy natural frequency you operate, the more internal
inertia force is required for tuning (acting as an extra spring term), so the less there is left
for damping (giving a reaction to the wave force) to extract power.
Looking purely at equation 3.26 it would also seem helpful to have a small wave
radiation coefficient, B. However, equation 3.25 shows that this implies large amplitudes of
y
1
whichwill cause lossesdue toviscous effects likevortex-shedding. Inpractice, the problem
is actually to increase B enough to avoid them - a re-expression of the old maxim that an
efficient wave absorber must also be a good wave maker.
3.5 Operation with Limited Travel of the Reaction Mass
In large waves, working away fromthe natural heaving frequency of the buoy, |R
I
| will
in practice exceed the maximum travel allowed for the mass. The optimisation with this
restriction is also due to French (1984b). Assume that the amplitude of the mass motion is
restricted to η times the ideal, where 0 < η < 1, that is :-
Maximising power as before with respect to s, but this time under the above constraint,
gives :-
as previously and
¦ R
0
¦ · η¦ R
I
¦ 3.27
s ·
U
C
2
3.28
22
Substituting these into equation 3.15 for R
0
gives, after a little reduction :-
This means that to optimise power with |R| limited to ηtimes its ideal value, the tuning
parameter s remains the same, the damping parameter t is multiplied by (2/η - 1) and the
phase relationship between the wave force X and R remains the same as in the ideal case.
The phasor diagram for this situation is shown in figure 3.4 :-
Substituting for t from equation 3.29 into equation 3.19 for power, P, gives :-
t ·
¸

¸
2
η
− 1
_

,
V
C
2
3.29
R
0
·
1
2
ηQ
¸

¸
−1 + i
U
V
_

,
· ηR
I
3.30
23
Hence referring to equation 3.21 :-
3.32
Equation 3.32 represents an important result, as it shows that the power falls off only
gradually at first for η decreasing belowunity: for example if η = 0.5, then the power output
is still three quarters of the ideal. In practice, energy losses in the reaction system are likely
to be roughly proportional to the total reactive energy and hence to η
2
, so in this case will
be reduced by a factor of four. In a real device therefore, power output will initially be
increased by restricting the travel of the mass below the ideal. As a significant proportion
of the total costs is likely to depend on the length of travel provided for, this is very welcome.
3.6 Operation with Limited Amplitude of Buoy Motion
At very large amplitudes of y
1
, vortices will begin to be shed from the sharper edges
of the buoy, the critical amplitude depending on how well rounded these edges are. As a
guide, it would be expected to begin when the local Keulegan-Carpenter number, ,
exceeds about 3
1
, where :-
P ·
1
8
m
2
ω
3
¦ Q¦
2
V
(2η − η
2
) 3.31
P · (2η − η
2
)P
I
N
KC
N
KC
·
πδ
a
3.33
1 see for example Standing (1979) section 2.1
24
(a is the edge radius, δ the relative displacement amplitude between the edge and a typical
water particle in its vicinity)
Beyondthe onset of vortex-shedding, viscous losses may increase sharply and severely
limit the possible power capture, so it is also necessary to study the case when |Y
1
| is limited.
This situation was first analysed by Evans (1981)
1
, who showed that if |Y
1
| is restricted to ν
times the ideal where 0 < ν < 1, that is :-
then
3.35
a similar expression to that for limited |R|.
For maximum power with |Y
1
| limited, the phase of Y
1
must still be kept at lagging
the wave-force X, so that force and velocity remain in phase. The resulting phasor diagram
is shown in figure 3.5.
¦ Y
1
¦
0
· ν¦ Y
1
¦
I
3.34
P · (2ν − ν
2
)P
I
90°
1 see Evans’ equation 11, where his δ is equivalent to our ν and his is equivalent to
our P
I
P
w
λ

25
If both |Y
1
|
I
> |Y
1
|
0
and |R|
I
> |R|
0
then the greatest power is captured when Y
1
and R
are both at their respective limits. In this case the three lengths, , and define
the phasor diagramtriangle, fromwhich the power capture may be calculated using equation
3.14.
3.7 "The Hole"
Given sufficiently large values of |Y
1
|
0
and the product m
2
|R|
0
, using SM between
suitable low and high rate springs, it is possible to capture the point-absorber ideal power,
P
I
, over the entire frequency bandwidth, except for a short range, just on the high side of
the buoy’s natural heaving frequency, which was christened "The Hole". This is demon-
strated in figure 3.6 which shows a graph of ideal spring stiffness against angular wave
frequency for our working Form 2 model, the experimental testing of which is described in
¦ Q¦ ¦ R¦
0
C¦ Y
1
¦
0
26
section 4.3.5. With a low stiffness spring rate of 28N/m and a high of 110N/m, the device
may be optimally tuned everywhere except in waves between 5.6rad/s and 6.1 rad/s - "The
Hole" - where the required stiffness falls below that of the lowspring. In this particular case
the optimal stiffness passes through zero and actually becomes negative, which occurs if
the local value of V is less than 0.5.
Also plotted in figure 3.6 is the fraction of the ideal capture obtainable using these two
spring rates and purely linear, viscous damping. In "The Hole", the stiffness is simply set
to the minimum value of 28N/m. It can be seen that at its worst point, the fall-off in power
is approximately 10%, which would be unfortunate if not disastrous. In reality however,
"The Hole" would be most unlikely to have any significant detrimental effect on the overall
productivity of the device. The physical meaning of the negative stiffness in "The Hole", is
that the acceleration of the reaction mass, in returning fromthe extremes of its motion, needs
retarding somewhat. Referring back to section 2.2, this could be achieved either by actual
latching, or better by simply advancing the timing of application of the maximum power
take-off force. This means that the maximum force would occur whilst the mass is accel-
erating rather than at its maximum velocity, as is the case with simple "linear dashpot"
damping. If, as envisaged, the power take-off was in the form of a variable displacement
hydraulic pump, this strategy would present no great practical difficulties. It is similar in
principle to the idea of "power take-off latching" suggested by Greenhow (1984a) for the
CLAM.
27
28
4 EXPERIMENTAL WORK ON FROG
A variety of experimental wave-tank tests was performed on models of the FROG
device, both functioning and non-functioning, of two different basic hull shapes. Our aim
was twofold :-
• To measure hydrodynamic coefficients of different physical shapes of buoy,
providing data with which power capture calculations could be performed. Using
a standard wave climate such as that prepared by Crabb (1984) for the 45m depth
site off South Uist, it was then possible to estimate their mean annual productivity,
allowing comparison both between different designs of FROG and with other
devices. This procedure is described in chapter 5, "Power Capture Calculations
for FROG".
• To perform power generation tests on working models, testing the accuracy of
the measured hydrodynamic coefficients and the validity of power capture
calculations derivedfromthem. Inparticular, they wouldshowwhether non-linear
effects become important at large buoy amplitudes and/or wave-heights and
whether vortex-shedding might seriously limit power production.
4.1 Description of the Wave-tank
All of the following experimental work was done in Lancaster University Engineering
Department’s own wave tank. This facility was 17.5m long, 5m wide, 1.2m deep and was
capable of generating long-crested, regular waves of periods between about 0.7s and 1.8s.
The longitudinal standing wave ratio was less than 4%
1
, that is the beach reflected less than
1 as most recently tested by Folley (1987)
29
3
0
0.16%of the incident power. However, for testing isolated point absorbers, the short period
limit was effectively about 1.0s because below this, it became very difficult to avoid the
multitude of transverse standing wave resonances. The tank’s main features were as
follows :-
• The waves were propagated by a rigid paddle, hinged along its base, which formed
the complete wall of one end of the tank. It was driven by a powerful 3-phase induction
motor via a continuously variable transmission to alter the frequency and a crank of
adjustable throw to vary the wave height. The hydrostatic force on the paddle was
supported by two strong but lowstiffness springs, connected one at each end and lying
along the tank side walls. In this way the drive had only to supply the dynamic forces
involved in wave-making.
• At the far end of the tank was a wave-absorbing beach consisting of 10 long, narrow
wire-mesh wedges, packed with wadding and pointing up the tank. Each was 2.5m
long, 0.5mwide at the base and extendedfromthe bottom, up throughthe water surface.
This created tapering channels between adjacent wedges, which worked in a slightly
similar way to the TAPCHAN WEC, gradually increasing the wave height and
absorbing them into the wadding.
• Five parallel 1.8m long, 25mm thick, full depth baffles of loose wadding enclosed by
wire mesh, were aligned longitudinally, equally spaced, just in front of the paddle to
attenuate the build-up of transverse standing waves.
• Water surface elevation was measured by an array of Churchill Controls’ twin-wire
electrical resistance wave gauges mounted on movable transverse beams resting on
the tank walls. Thus they could be placed wherever desired.
31
• The tank was spanned by a wooden walk-way for access and two steel I-beams which
provided a rigid mounting for experimental apparatus. These could be moved up or
down the tank as desired.
The range of frequencies available meant that the tank was effective at modelling South
Uist-like swells at linear scales of between about 1/100 and 1/60. Although it was originally
designed for testing the LFB, a long "attenuator" type device and despite problems with
transverse standing waves, it was adequate, if not ideal, for testing isolated point-absorbers.
4.2 Evaluation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients
Whilst it would have been entirely feasible to compute the hydrodynamic coefficients
of the axi-symmetric buoy forms being considered, using for example a source-distribution
technique similar to that used later for PS FROG, this was not felt to be useful at the time
due to the large programme, small budget and appreciable learning curve to be surmounted
before results could be obtained. Instead it was decided to rely solely on experimental small
scale model tests, but if any further research were to be done on this sort of device,
computation would be well worthwhile, both as a check on the experiments and to facilitate
the optimisation of the hull shape with respect to power capture and cost.
4.2.1 The Buoy Forms which were Tested
Tests were carried out on two different shapes of buoy. They are illustrated in figure
4.2 and consisted of :-
Form 1 A simple conical shape meant roughly to resemble the exponentially skirted
buoy analysed theoretically by Parks (1979).
32
Form 2 A more complex shape, consisting firstly of a wide, shallow, flat bottomed
cylinder, the lower rim rounded off to reduce the risk of vortex shedding. The
cylinder is connected by a rather narrower tube to a submerged sphere directly
below. The greater part of the vertical wave force is exerted on the base of the
cylinder and as wave pressure decays exponentially with increasing depth, the
closer this is to the surface the better the performance. The limitation here is
the need to allow a large amplitude without it leaving the water at the apex of
its motion. The sphere, by means of its own inertia and the added mass of the
water surrounding it, reduces the natural heaving frequency, bringing it closer
to the middle of the incident wave spectrum. This on the whole tends to reduce
33
sec β and hence increases the possible power capture given a limited product
of mass x travel (see equation 3.26). The same principle was usedby Ferdinande
and Vantorre (1985) in their "Bipartite Point Absorber" concept.
4.2.2 Forced Buoy Motion Tests
This was our first attempt to obtain the required single device, "infinite sea", deep
water, frequency domain hydrodynamic coefficients, , and . A Form 1
buoy of radius 0.125m, placed on the centre-line of the tank, was forced to undergo small
regular, sinusoidal heaving oscillations of variable amplitude and frequency. It was mounted
by a vertical rod to a parallel motion mechanism, driven by a large electric motor via a
continuously variable transmission and adjustable-throw crank. Vertical force and dis-
placement transducers fed an SE Digital Frequency Analyser, allowing the driving force
and heave amplitudes, plus the phase difference between them, to be measured. In theory,
the added mass could then be calculated from the in-phase component and the radiation
coefficient from the out of phase component of the driving force. The results obtained for
a heaving amplitude of 15mmare plotted in figure 4.3 but were inadequate for two reasons :-
• Even though the phase was determined to about this was still leading to errors of
around in the value of B, as the force was mostly just out of
phase with the buoy displacement, due to the small contribution of radiation effects to
the total force on the buoy.
• The effect of reflections fromthe side walls of the tank was much larger than expected,
resulting in large fluctuations, particularly in phase, about the expected results for an
"infinite sea".
M
a
(ω) B(ω) X/A(ω)
t1°
t10%− 50% 2° − 10°
34
35
What these tests did show up were the frequencies at which the tank would, for the
purpose of power tests on point absorbers, behave acceptably like the open sea and which
frequencies had to be avoided. These latter were principally where an even number of
half-wavelengths fitted exactly across the 5m width of the tank, producing standing waves
with vertical particle motion antinodes on the tank centre-line, which in turn were strongly
excited by a heaving object placed there. These critical frequencies, for 2,4,6,8 and 10
half-wavelengths across the tank respectively, were 0.559Hz, 0.790Hz, 0.968Hz, 1.118Hz
and 1.249Hz.
4.2.3 Decay Curve Tests
Steady-state tests having been frustrated by reflections off the side walls of the tank,
it was decided to obtain the required coefficients from the free motion, step response decay
36
curve of the buoy. In a calmtank it was released suddenly from an elevated position and the
subsequent motion plotted against time. By only using the portion of the curve before the
return of the first reflected wave, the effect of the walls was eliminated. The time taken for
it to return was simply the distance travelled (half the tank width times two = 5m) divided
by the wave group velocity at that frequency. This worked out at 18.4 wave periods at the
highest test frequency of 1.35Hz down to 3.3 wave periods at the lowest, 0.59Hz, which
was still plenty for our purposes.
The technique adopted was to use variable external springs and masses to tune the free
oscillations of the buoy as desired. By approximating the added mass and radiation as being
locally constant with respect to frequency, the system could then be modelled as a simple
2nd order system, shown schematically in figure 4.4. In small heaving oscillations, the
equation of motion is :-
In conventional fashion, this equation may be reduced to a standard form by letting :-
and
in which case it becomes :-
([m
1
+ m
2
] + M
a
+ M
ext
) ¨ y + B ˙ y + (K
h
+ K
ext
)y · 0 4.1
1
ω
n
2
·
([m
1
+ m
2
] + M
a
+ M
ext
)
(K
h
+ K
ext
)
4.2
2c
ω
n
·
B
(K
h
+ K
ext
)
4.3
37
It is a well-known data-book result
1
that the step response of any system modelled by
the above formula, provided it is sub-critically damped (c < 1), is an exponentially decaying
sine wave, of angular frequency ω
d
(see figure 4.5). Furthermore, the nth overshoot of the
steady-state position in either direction, A
n
is given by :-
where the meanings of ω
d
and ψ are illustrated by the right-angled triangle of figure 4.5.
1
ω
n
2
¨ y +
2c
ω
n
˙ y + y · 0 4.4
A
n
· A
0
e
−nπtanψ
4.5
1 see for example Parrish (1973)
38
So given an experimental decay curve, ω
d
and c must first be determined, from which
M
a
and B can be calculated using equations 4.2 and 4.3. The former is easily found by
measuring the period as shown in the diagram, but the damping factor c is a little trickier.
The values A
n
cannot be measured directly, as it is difficult to establish accurately the
equilibriumposition on the decay curve. An alternative approach is to work out the average
ratio between successive peak to peak displacements of the measured curve, as this does not
require knowledge of the zero position. This is a constant value for any particular curve,
derivable from equation 4.5 by a few lines of algebra, when :-
This is the technique which was adopted in practice, using equation 4.6 to find ψ and hence
the damping factor c, which is simply sin ψ.
The apparatus used is shown in figure 4.6 and the main points of its use are as follows :-
• Weights were added equally to each pan of the "weighing scales" in order to vary the
total inertia and hence the frequency at which the hydrodynamic coefficients were to
be found. In addition, an extra 0.5kg bias weight was placed on the far pan in order to
keep the submerged spring and connecting string taut at all times.
• The underwater spring was there to increase the effective hydrostatic stiffness to allow
tests higher as well as lower than the natural frequency for the free-floating buoy.
Several interchangeable springs of different stiffness were used, the less stiff ones for
lower frequencies, so that the number of weights required on the "weighing scales"
did not become excessive.
A
k
+ A
k + 1
A
k + 1
+ A
k + 2
· e
πtanψ
4.6
39
40
• The bottom end of the spring was attached to a polyester cord, which ran vertically
downwards, through the eye of a heavy weight on the floor of the tank, then back up
to a fixing point on the experiment platform. By carefully adjusting the length of the
cord, the equilibrium water level on the buoy was made the same as if it was floating
freely.
• Ashort length of cord with a loop at the end was connected to the far end of the balance
beam, so that hitching the loop around the head of a small nail driven into the edge of
the fixed base-board, caused the buoy to be held raised above its equilibrium position.
The sudden, smooth, repeatable release required to generate the step response curve
was simply effected by flicking the loop off with a fingernail.
• Heaving displacement of the buoy was measured by a Penny & Giles angular linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT) of t10˚ range, connected via a fine thread
and long, light counter-weighted balsa arm, to ensure linearity of the conversion to
rotarymotion. TheLVDToutput was displayedona Goulddigital storageoscilloscope,
with the facility to dump the trace to an x-y flat-bed pen plotter to provide a hard copy.
Calibration was facilitated by mounting the LVDTon a free-standing wooden bracket,
so that it could be easily raised a known distance by inserting a standard thickness
block beneath it. The resulting change in output was recorded on the plotter, giving
the required calibration factor.
• Once the LVDT output had been calibrated, the total static stiffness could be found
by adding a known weight to the left-hand pan and measuring the resulting absolute
displacement from the plotter trace.
• The moment of inertia of the balance beam about the pivot axis was determined by
weighing and measuring the individual members and calculating their radii of gyration
41
by assuming constant density of the wood in each. The total moment of inertia was
then converted to the equivalent extra mass concentrated at the same distance from
the pivot as the centre of each pan. This turned out to be 0.350kg.
4.2.4 Decay Curve Results
The collected results of the decay curve tests on buoy forms 1 and 2 are portrayed in
the graphs of figures 4.7 and 4.8 respectively. Each plotted point represents the mean value
obtained for several tests with the experimental conditions. The results are shown super-
imposed on the graph of theoretically calculated coefficients for a heaving half-immersed
sphere, given by Greenhow(1979)
1
. To facilitate direct comparison, the FROGcoefficients
are non-dimensionalised in exactly the same way, i.e. the added mass is divided by m
s
and
the radiation coefficient by ωm
s
where m
s
is the mass of water displaced by a half-immersed
sphere with the same radius at the water surface a as the FROG buoy. The frequencies are
also converted to conventional dimensionless form ka where the wavenumber k = ω
2
/g for
deep water. In addition to the experimental points, also drawn are estimations of the "best
smooth curves", the accuracy of which may be estimated by the degree of scatter: of the
order of t 2-3% for both added mass and radiation.
It canbeseenthat Form1has radiationcharacteristics quitesimilar tothe half-immersed
sphere, but a rather lower added mass. The result, for a device of realistic dimensions, is a
natural heave period a good deal lower than desirable - about 6.4s for a 15m diameter hull,
of 1500 tonnes displacement. This is at the high frequency end of the South Uist power
1 See page 323. The radiation coefficient was calculated using the asymptotic energy
radiation equation and the added mass from the radiation coefficient via the Kramers-
Kronig relations.
42
43
spectrum, whereas it should ideally be near the middle, as otherwise sec β becomes very
large indeed at the opposite end, severely limiting power capture in long waves because of
insufficient mass travel.
As mentioned in section 4.2.1, Form 2 was conceived with the idea of increasing the
added mass, in order to alleviate the above problem. It is clear from figure 4.8 that it is
successful in this respect, with typical added masses twice those of Form 1 for buoys of the
same diameter. This success however, is accompanied by a rough halving in radiation
coefficient, meaning that it is a worse wave-maker, needing larger amplitudes of motion to
propagate waves of the same size. As mentioned earlier, it is an old but thoroughly useful
chestnut of wave energy wisdom that, quoting Falnes (1978), "if an oscillating system is to
be a good wave-power converter it must be a good wave generator". Thus the reduction in
radiation coefficient in Form2 is unhelpful. The reason for this reduction is easier to explain
in terms of the wave exciting force, which will be dealt with in section 4.2.5, but suffice to
say here that the waves created by the lower sphere are 180˚ out of phase with and partially
destroy those generated by the upper cylinder. The only answer is to submerge the sphere
as deeply below the surface as possible, to lessen its wave-making effects, but there will be
practical limits - and increased costs - in so doing. This is, therefore, a typical engineering
trade-off; if the power in long waves is limited by the need of a large travel for the reaction
mass, then increasing the added mass will help, but doing soreduces the radiationcoefficient,
which increases the tendency to power being limited by a need for impossibly large heaving
amplitudes.
44
45
4.2.5 Wave Force Measurements
Having established the added mass and radiation characteristics, the final coefficient
remaining to be determined was X/A(ω), the vertical force experienced by the buoy when
held stationary in regular waves of angular frequency ω and unit amplitude. In the case of
Form 1 an attempt was made to measure this directly. The same apparatus was used as for
the unsuccessful forced buoy motion tests reported briefly in section 4.2.2, only the electric
motor was left switched off, so that the large (0.25m diameter) Form 1 buoy was simply
held stationary at its normal, free-floating level on the tank centre-line. For incident waves
of various frequencies and heights, the resulting heave force amplitude |X| was measured
using the strain-gauged load cell fixed at the top of the mounting rod. Its output was directed
as usual tothe storageoscilloscope and plotter, whichhadbeen calibratedbyplacingstandard
weights on the buoy’s deck to give a known vertical force and observing the resulting change
in reading.
The whole apparatus was then removed to be replaced by a single twin-wire electrical
resistance wave gauge, mounted on a rigid tubular alloy beam which spanned the width of
the tank. The gauge was carefully positioned to be coincident with the previous location of
the axis of the buoy. The resulting signal for water surface elevation was displayed on the
storage oscilloscope and calibrated, while the tank was calm, by raising the whole beamand
gauge on blocks of known thickness, observing the change in output. The previously-used
waveregimes were then preciselyrepeated, allowingthe measurement of |A|; the undisturbed
incident wave amplitude seen by the buoy in each case. This gave us values of |X/A|, over
a range of frequencies, but no information on the phase relationship between the water
surface elevation and the resulting force. However, this was considered to be unimportant,
bearing in mind the difficulty in accurately measuring the phase and the fact that it has no
effect on the system dynamics in regular waves.
46
47
Figure 4.9 shows the results obtained with a constant throw on the wave-maker crank
of 35mm, resulting in values for |A| varying between 11.3mm at the lowest frequency of
0.585Hz and 22.9mm at 1.185Hz, the highest. These results show fluctuations with respect
to frequency very similar to those found in the forced buoy motion tests and for exactly the
same reason - transverse standing wave resonances excited this time not by the wave radiated
but by that diffracted by the buoy. This is demonstrated by the large excursions near the
tankresonant frequencies listedinsection4.2.2, namely0.56Hz, 0.79Hz, 0.97Hz and1.12Hz.
However, a well-known result derived by Newman (1962) using the Haskind relations,
expresses |X/A| for a vertically axi-symmetric body as a function of the heave radiation
coefficient B at the same frequency :-
This means that having already found values for B over a wide frequency range from the
decay curve tests, |X/A| can be derived fromthem. The wave force calculated in this manner,
using points from the "best smooth curve" of the results for B from Form 1, is also plotted
on figure 4.9. It can be seen that there is a reasonable agreement between the calculated and
measured values, with the latter seeming to oscillate about the level of the former, due to
the finite width tank effects. It therefore seemed justifiable to use values for wave force
derived solely from the radiation coefficient for the purpose of drawing phasor diagrams
and calculating power captures for an isolated device in an infinite expanse of sea.
By way of a brief diversion, it is worth pointing out that equation 4.7, showing as it
does that at any given frequency, |X/A| is proportional to the square root of B, provides a
useful insight into the reason for the inferior wave-making performance, noted in section-
4.2.4, of Form 2 as compared with Form 1. Motora (1966) describes how the heaving force

X
A
1
1
1
·

2ρg
3
B
ω
3
4.7
48
due to waves acting on a floating body is composed of two distinct components, which act
directly in opposition to one another. The first is the Froude-Krylov buoyancy force, which
is due to the change in immersed volume when the body is held fixed, is proportional to the
surface-piercing area and is in phase with the surface elevation. The second is the diffraction
force due to the interaction of the body with the wave field and is in phase with the vertical
acceleration of the water particles. For Form 1 and the upper cylinder of Form 2, at all
relevant values of ka for a practical WEC, the Froude-Krylov term dominates, because of
their large surface-piercing areas. However, the inertia sphere of Form 2 - being fully
submerged - experiences only the diffraction force. At typical frequencies, this is insuffi-
ciently large to counteract completely the buoyancy force on the upper cylinder, but it still
takes a large chunk out of it. The result is that at all important frequencies, Form2 encounters
less wave force than Form 1, so from equation 4.7 it must also have a lower radiation
coefficient and hence a poorer wave-making ability.
4.3 Power Generation Tests
This section describes a selection of actual power generation tests performed in the
tank with a variety of different experimental configurations; using Buoy Forms 1 or 2;
Coulomb friction or an electrical power take-off; single stiffness resonant springs or SM;
power calculated by phasor diagram and/or work loop. The general set-up for all of these
tests is shown in plan view in figure 4.1 and in the perspective sketch of figure 4.10, which
portrays a resonant spring test with electrical power take-off. The buoy was tethered to the
sides of the tank by six taut, horizontal monofilament nylon lines, spaced in pairs one above
the other at 120˚ intervals as seen in plan view, so that it was constrained to move solely in
heave. The absolute motions of both buoy and reaction mass were measured, in just the same
way as in section 4.2.3, by two angular LVDTs each fitted with a light, counter-weighted
49
balsa arm and thread. The undisturbed incident wave amplitude seen by the buoy was
measured the same way as in section 4.2.5 (afterwards, with the same wave regime, the
device removed and a single wave gauge put in its place). The resulting signals for both
device and wave motion were calibrated as before, displayed on the double-beam digital
storage oscilloscope and hard copies produced by the plotter.
4.3.1 Resonant Tests on the Form 1 Buoy with Coulomb Damping
The first power tests were performed using the Form 1 buoy, of diameter 0.25m and
6.918kg total displacement, at the single resonant frequency given by a spring of stiffness
µ = 103.6N/m and a reaction mass m
2
= 3.234kg. As shown in figure 4.11, the mass was
guided by 3 grooved rollers each fitted with miniature ball-bearings, running along the edges
of two square-section vertical steel rails, symmetrically opposite each other, either side of
the buoy centre-line. The power take-off utilised a "bow drill" mechanism, which in figures
50
51
4.10 and 4.11 is shown driving a small electric DC servo motor - used as a simple dynamo
in later tests. At this time however, the damping was provided instead by the bidirectional
Prony brake shown in figure 4.12. The main features of this device were as follows :-
• The taut "bow string" took a single turn around the left-hand pulley, so driving the
shaft, which was mounted in precision journal bearings of as small a diameter as
possible - just 1mm - to minimise frictional losses.
• Coulomb-type damping was provided by slipping of the right-hand pulley with respect
to the cord brake loop, which was wrapped once around it.
• Each end of the brake loop was threaded through a hole in one of the "fingers" of the
"two finger plate", then knotted to anchor it.
• The "two finger plate" was freely pivoted on a single conical point at "P", but with a
slightly lower flat-topped stud on either side, so that its rotation was limited to just a
few degrees about an axis parallel to the shaft.
• Ascrewwith a knurled head was passed through holes in the opposite end of this plate,
a thin feeler-gauge leaf spring and a captive nut. Tightening this screw caused the nut
to bend the spring and - via the pivoted plate - increased the tension in both ends of
the brake loop.
• The torque required for slipping depended upon the tension in the ends of the loop and
hence upon the number of turns of the knurled screw. Due to the mirror symmetry of
the device it was the same for slipping in either direction of rotation.
52
5
3
54
In this particular case the fact that sec β = 7.4, which is on the large side, meant that
for all but very tiny waves, power was limited by insufficient mass travel. As argued in
section 3.5, in these situations it always pays to operate with the maximum travel allowed.
Hence a suitable procedure for optimising the capture was to over-damp the mass, carefully
tune the wave period to maximise |R|, then gradually reduce the damping until the mass was
on the verge of striking the end stops.
The tuned, resonant wave period was 1.233s and the test was repeated at three wave
amplitudes |A| rising to 14.9mm, at which |Y
1
| was 22.0mm, the highest it seemed prudent
to go for fear of the buoy sinking. The mean power capture, calculated fromthe cross product
of and using equation 3.14, was then 0.160W. Taking the test to be at a 1/60 scale, this
corresponds to a device of 15m diameter and 1500 tonnes displacement with a heave
amplitude of 1.3m and a reaction mass of 700 tonnes moving through a peak to peak travel
of 6m, capturing 270kW from a regular swell of period 9.6s and amplitude 0.9m.
The results are presented in the phasor diagrams of figure 4.13. The error in closure
is in each case within t10% of and the diagrams conform to the shape predicted in
section 3.5 for optimum capture given limited travel of mass m
2
.
4.3.2 "Tuned Buoy" Resonant Tests on Form 1 with Coulomb Damping
Havinginvestigatedthe case of largesec β, limited|R| andover-dampedpower take-off,
the next step was to test near the buoy’s natural period - that is β close to zero - to see whether
the ideal capture width of λ/2π, with corresponding "isosceles triangle" phasor diagram,
could be achieved in practice. However, for the 0.25m diameter Form 1 buoy, this period -
0.822s - is tricky from the point of view of tank resonances, so instead it was decided to
increaseit artificiallytoa moreagreeablevalue. This "tuning" was easilydonebyre-attaching
the "weighing scale" beam used in the decay curve tests, adding 0.5kg bias weights to both
Y
1
Y
2
¦ Q¦
55
the buoy and far pan to tension the connecting cord without altering the volume of water
displaced, then equal weights to both pans until the desired natural frequency was reached.
Otherwise the set-up was exactly the same as in section 4.3.1. This raised the effective total
mass to 13.168kg and the resonant heaving period to 1.108s. The experimental procedure
was to tune the wave period to maximise |R|, then increase the damping in steps of 5
screw-turns at a time, recording the steady state oscilloscope traces in each case. For the
case of wave amplitude 6.2mm, period 1.128s, figure 4.14 shows the phasor diagrams for
30 and 35 turns on the brake respectively, which gave the equal highest powers of 0.055W
each, corresponding to a capture width of 105% of the ideal. The extra 5% can be put down
to the small closing error, which is +4.4% of Q. It can be seen that there is reasonable
56
agreement between the ideal phasor diagram and the actual ones.
4.3.3 Resonant Tests on Form 2 with Instrumented Coulomb Damping
The previous test showed that the ideal power for a point absorber can be generated
in small waves, but in larger ones the lack of freeboard of the Form 1 model prevented this,
because of the resulting danger of it sinking at large amplitudes of motion. The 0.265m
diameter Form 2 model was designed with a much larger freeboard of 95mm to cure this
problem. It also had a higher natural heaving period of 1.130s as opposed to 0.822s for the
former, allowing tests at small values of angle β without the need of recourse to wangles
like using the "weighing scale" rig to get above the tank’s operating threshold of roughly a
1.0s wave period. The total displacement m
1
+ m
2
was 13.08kg and all tests described here
which used this model employed a reaction mass, m
2
of 1.844kg.
It seemed desirable to confirm the powers calculated from the phasor diagrams by a
direct measurement of the work done per cycle at the Prony brake itself. This required signals
firstly for the relative displacement of the mass with respect to the hull and secondly for the
brake force retarding this motion. Plotting one against the other using cartesian coordinates
gave, insteadystate conditions, a closedrepeatable looptraversedonce per cycle, the internal
area of which was equal to the work done per cycle at the brake. Dividing this by the period
of oscillation gave the average power captured, except for unavoidable losses in the carriage
rollers and brake shaft bearings.
The brake force signal was produced as follows. It can be seen in figure 4.12 that at
the root of each finger, the "two finger plate" was ground down to a thickness of just 0.5mm.
Hence the bending moments produced in the fingers by the small loads in the brake loop,
produced proportional elastic strains at the ground-down sections, large enough to be
measured by conventional electrical resistance strain gauges. Four such identical gauges,
57
all aligned longitudinally, glued one to each side of both fingers and wired up in a full bridge
circuit as shown in figure 4.15 produce an output voltage signal "V" proportional to the
difference in tension between one end of the brake loop and the other. Since the two pulleys
were of equal diameter the force resisting the motion of the drive cord was equal to the above
difference in tension and hence proportional to "V". Thus calibration of "V" using small
standard weights to provide known slipping forces gave the required brake force signal.
Losses in the shaft bearings were kept as small as possible due to their slender diameter,
precision machining and careful lubrication.
Therelative mass motionsignal couldhavebeenproducedbyelectronicallysubtracting
one absolute motion output from the other to give y
2
- y
1
, but this would have caused diffi-
culties in making sure the two gains were equal before subtracting. Instead, it was decided
to mount one of the angular LVDTs on the buoy to measure r directly. The chief problem
was how to accommodate the long balsa arm needed for a sufficiently linear conversion to
rotary shaft motion. The solution was to mount the LVDT to one side of the buoy with the
arm crossing the width of the deck to the other side. To its end was attached a light cord
which ran vertically upwards, took two 90˚ turns around light pulleys, then vertically
downwards to a hook on the mass carriage. Thus raising the mass caused an equal lowering
of the tip of the balsa arm and vice versa.
58
59
The work loops were drawn directly onto graph paper using the flat-bed plotter and
their areas calculated by counting squares to produce numerical values for the work done
per cycle, which were then divided by the wave period to give the mean output power.
Four typical results are shown in the phasor diagrams of figures 4.16 and 4.17 together
with the power capture P calculated from the phasor diagram, P
wl
from the work loop and
the ideal capture P
I
= |X|
2
/8B. There are several points here worth making :-
• The closure of all the diagrams is good, indeed in the first two cases, fortuitously
near perfect. It must be said that the second pair are rather nearer the average in this
respect.
• The powers calculated by work loop are, as may be expected, a little lower than
those from the phasor diagrams, the shortfall being ≈ 0.02-0.04W. This is in line
with the observed carriage friction, which was somewhat inconsistent and varied
depending on just how well it was running at the time of the test, but was observed
to be roughly ≈ 0.1 - 0.2 N.
• The first diagram of figure 4.16 is a very good example of FROG working in a
moderate swell, at just less than its natural heave period and almost perfectly opti-
mised, producing the ideal capture width of λ/2π.
• The second diagram of figure 4.16 is from a rather larger wave, which taking the
linear scale as 1/60 would represent a regular 9s period swell of amplitude 1.1m -
fairly typical for South Uist. Unfortunately, it could not quite be ideally optimised
as the brake was unable to supply sufficient force, |R| being too large even with the
maximumdamping available, nevertheless the capture was still 90%of P
I
and would
correspond to 725kW full scale. Of more importance is the fact the linearised
hydrodynamic theory is still holding good and there is no evidence of viscous losses
60
at a heaving amplitude of 62.3mm, equivalent to 3.74m at full scale - more than 3
times the amplitude of a typical South Uist wave. This is crucial to the practical
performance of this type of device and suggests that warnings by Evans (1981) that
in steeper waves, the body amplitude of a point absorber may have to be restricted
to as little as one half that of the wave, may be overly pessimistic. Nor was any sign
observed of the nonlinear "umschlag" effect warned of by Longuet-Higgins (1977)
for heaving axi-symmetric bodies. To quote, "when the amplitude exceeds a certain
threshold the system of annular waves diverging radially gives way to a different
system of standing waves whose crests are normal to the body, i.e. in a radial
direction. The frequency of the new system is half that of the heaving motion."
Happily, under nocircumstances was this effect ever produced, whichwhileit sounds
fascinating and visually most attractive would undoubtedly have a dire effect on the
power capture!
• The phasor diagrams of figure 4.17 both have the same periodof 1.280s, but different
wave amplitudes. The larger of the two would equate to a 10s wave of 1mamplitude
at full scale (taking the model as 1/60). Both are examples of power being limited
by insufficient travel of the reaction mass, due to the elongated shape of the optimal
phasor diagram. Neither is quite perfectly tuned given this restriction, as can be seen
by the fact that the -Rphasors do not lie on the ideal triangle, but the resulting power
loss is minor - 2.5% in the first case and 1.5% in the second.
61
62
4.3.4 Tests on Form 2 using SM
Our next task was to show that the adjustment of effective spring stiffness, necessary
in order to achieve optimal phase control of device motions over a range of frequencies,
could be achieved using SM - our chosen method. The technique shown in figure 2.2b,
involving air springs and non-return valves, would have been tricky to implement at the
scale of our model. However, the same effect can be produced using steel coil springs by
the apparatus shown in 4.18. The transition from low to high stiffness is caused by the
spring-dividing plate coming up against either of the movable end stops. The plate then
remains stationary until, with the motion of the mass reversed, the tensions in each portion
of the spring once again become equal, causing it to move back from the stop and so give
the required automatic, loss-free high to lowstiffness transition. The only practical problem
is that when the amplitude changes, the positions of the stops need to be varied in proportion,
63
in order to keep the phases of the transitions and hence the effective stiffness produced,
constant. This would have required motorisation and microprocessor control, which was
impractical at the time due to limitations of time and finance. However, it was found that
SM could still be demonstrated by carefully tuning the incident wave frequency with fixed
stop positions, provided the wave period was fairly close to the buoy’s natural heaving
period. At frequencies progressively further removed from this, the fixed stops made the
quasi-resonant condition less and less stable, so it became ever harder to get the oscillations
to build up to approach the optimum. Nevertheless, good enough results were obtained to
demonstrate the validity of the SM principle.
The results of two typical tests are shown in the phasor diagrams of figure 4.19. In
both cases the low stiffness, using the whole spring, was 28.4N/m and the high, using just
the lower portion, was 110.3N/m.
• In the first case, the end stops were positioned to allow just 10mm total free travel of
the spring-dividing plate, or 10.7% of the final peak to peak reaction mass travel.
WaveperiodT = 1.173s, soω = 5.36rad/s andfromthe graphof figure3.6, the optimal
stiffness would be 103N/m with a conventional spring. In other words, the period is
just a little longer than natural and SMis producing an effective stiffness a little lower
than the high extreme. As can be seen from the diagram the device is well optimised
and producing the ideal power.
• In the test represented by the second diagram, the spring-dividing plate was allowed
20mm total free travel between the stops, or 16% of the final peak to peak reaction
mass travel. It was somewhat further from the natural period than the first, T now
being 1.210s for which the optimal stiffness taken from figure 3.6 is 83N/m. Due to
the difficulties with fixed stop positions detailed above, the tuning is less than perfect,
but the performance is still quite good enough to demonstrate the SM principle.
64
65
Ahigh priority for any further work on this type of device would be to produce a model,
workinginbothregular andrandomwaves usinga microprocessor based, SMcontrol system.
4.3.5 Resonant Tests on Form 2 with Electrical Damping
All the power generation tests on the Form 2 buoy thus far described have been at
wave periods fairly close to the natural heaving period. The final experimental task which
was felt to be immediately necessary was to perform tests at periods significantly lower and
greater than this, to represent waves approaching the extremes of the bandwidth over which
the device is expected to work.
Up until now, no reference has been made to the fact that whilst the theory developed
in chapter 3 assumes a linear, viscous power take-off, in practice an adjustable friction brake
was used, providing Coulomb damping. The reason for this lack of comment, is that it
appeared to make very little difference, as may be judged by the level of agreement with the
linear theory. However, on attempting to perform tests some way from the natural period,
there arose considerable difficulty in optimising the capture, as the Coulomb damping
seemed to inhibit the build-up of large resonant oscillations. Hicks and Pleass (1985) report
similar effects with a Coulomb-damped, bottom-tethered heaving buoy.
Our answer was to replace the Prony Brake with a rather closer approximation to linear
damping, namely a small electric generator in the formof a Portescap DCServo Motor. This
is shown in figures 4.10 and 4.11. The taut drive cord was wrapped directly around the motor
shaft, which had a tiny brass washer glued to the end to prevent the cord riding off. As an
electrical load, a variable resistor was connected across the motor’s output terminals, pro-
viding a means of varying the output current and thus the degree of damping induced. A
further advantage was that by mounting the resistor "on-shore" and connecting it via a
66
low-resistance cable, it was at last possible to vary the power take-off whilst the device was
operating. Previously, this always had to be done with the buoy stationary, in order that the
knurled screw on the Prony brake could be adjusted by hand.
Significant frictional losses in the rotor bearings meant that the damping produced in
this fashion was somewhat less than fully linear, but crucially it was still small enough at
low speeds to allow resonance to build up from scratch and good power captures to be
obtained.
Once it had been decided that it would be impractical to implement fully controlled
SMgiven the time and budget available, an alternative method of altering the spring stiffness
was required. This had to allow the device to be tuned over the complete range from one
extreme of the bandwidth to the other. One option was to manufacture a number of different
springs and interchange them, but a simpler one was found which used the fixed-stop SM
apparatus shown in figure 4.18. The end-stops were moved together so as to grip the
spring-dividingplate firmly andthe stiffness variedby unclippingthe plate, then re-attaching
it higher up or lower down the spring. Finally, the height of the plate was adjusted by
extending or retracting the mounting rod, so as to keep the equilibrium position of the mass
constant. Thus the active spring length and hence the stiffness could be changed at will, to
any value above that of the complete spring, which was 28.4N/m.
The results are shown in the phasor diagrams of figures 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 for wave
periods of 0.970s, 1.075s, 1.290s, 1.400s and 1.512s, with wave amplitudes 19.4mm,
17.2mm, 19.2mm, 19.4mm and 21.4mm respectively. Several points are worth making
here :-
• Apart from the first diagram, which has a rather high closing error of 13% of |Q|,
the closing accuracy is good, with errors of 7%, 2%, 1.5% and 1.5% in the rest.
67
• Unfortunately, none are perfectly optimised, which is a reflection on the practical
difficulty of trying to maximise the power without having a convenient way of
calculating it at the time of the experiment. Hence it was partly guess-work as to
whether a given change in wave period or damping coefficient was beneficial or not.
Previously this had not been a problem because with the Prony brake fitted, it was
easy to plot work loops and see whether the enclosed area - and thus the power -
was getting larger or smaller.
• It can be seen from the graph of figure 3.6 that the second diagram, where T=1.075s
which corresponds to ω = 5.84 rad/s, is in the depths of "The Hole", the optimum
spring stiffness being 5.7 N/m whereas the minimum available with our apparatus
was 28.4N/m. The resulting theoretical dip in power capture, shown on the graph
as dropping 10% with respect to the ideal at this frequency, agrees well with the
experimental result which gave an 8% drop.
68
69
70
4.4 Conclusions of the Wave Tank Experiments
The conclusions reached as a result of the experimental work described in this chapter
may be briefly summed up as follows :-
• The frequencies best avoided due to problems with transverse standing waves when
testing isolated point-absorbers moored on the centre-line of the Lancaster Wave
Tank were identified.
71
• The frequency domain hydrodynamic coefficients of two different shapes of
axi-symmetric heaving buoy were determined over a frequency range, which when
scaled up to full size, is comparable to the major part of the incident wave power
spectrum at South Uist (assuming the model scale to be roughly 1/60).
• The hydrodynamic coefficients were shown to be effective in predicting power
captures and device motions for practical tests in regular waves using the theory
developed in chapter 3.
• No evidence was found of significant hydrodynamic non-linearities (such as
"umschlag") nor of viscous losses (such as vortex shedding) at equivalent wave
amplitudes of up to 1.3mand buoy heaving amplitudes up to 3.7mfull scale. Within
these limits the dynamics in regular waves were shown to be accurately predicted
by simple linearised theory over a bandwidth of at least 7.5s to 11.7s period at full
scale.
• SM was shown to work satisfactorily although the implementation was of necessity
rather crude and limited.
• Power captures calculated from the amplitudes and relative phases of motion of the
buoy and reaction mass were successfully equated with directly measured values of
the power dissipated in the Prony brake plus estimates of losses in the carriage wheel
bearings.
• The device performance using a power take-off with a Coulomb damping char-
acteristic (such as might be provided in practice by constant displacement hydraulic
pump) was shown to be indistinguishable fromthat using an idealised linear damper
at frequencies close to the natural frequency of the heaving buoy. At frequencies
further away fromthis, there is a tendency for Coulomb damping to inhibit the build
72
up of resonance. Hence if this sort of power take-off were used, its control system
would have to be intelligent enough to remove the damping and allowthe oscillation
to build up before trying to extract power from it.
73
5 POWER CAPTURE CALCULATIONS FOR FROG
In attempting to estimate the mean annual capture of one or more FROG devices
operating in a known wave climate, our most serious limitation was the inability of the wave
tank to generate stochastic waves. This ruled out the conventional approach advocated by
Mollison (1979), of testing models in Pierson-Moskowitz spectra of a range of T
e
and H
rms
values sufficient to cover the scatter diagram adequately. Neither could the technique of
plotting efficiency against period using a power-expanded time axis
1
be employed. This is
because efficiency is so strongly dependent on wave height, since most of the time the power
is limited, by either electrical rating, buoy or mass amplitude. An obvious alternative
approach would have been a time-domain computer simulation of operation in random
waves, employing realistic phase control strategies. A crude simulation of this type was
performed, in order to gain insight into the degree of difficulty of device control and to
estimate roughly, the performance in random waves relative to that in regular ones (see
section 5.5). However, any greater sophistication would have required knowledge of the
time-domain hydrodynamic coefficients of the buoy, namely the infinite frequency added
mass and the so-called "memory-effect function" employed by Count (1978). Unfortunately,
the evaluation of both of these requires knowledge of the radiation coefficient for all fre-
quencies between zero and infinity, not just the relatively narrow range of our experimental
tests.
1 This is described by Mollison (1979). The time axis is stretched in such a way that the
distance between any two values of period is made proportional to the annual mean inci-
dent power between them, so that the area beneath the efficiency curve is proportional to
the average power captured.
74
5.1 The MERMAID Methodology
Acknowledging these difficulties, it was decided to adopt a methodology similar to
that used by Rendel, Palmer & Tritton (RPT) (1983), the consultants to the UKDepartment
of Energy, in assessing the hypothetical MERMAID device. The MERMAID concept was
assembled like Frankenstein’s monster from the choicest parts, stripped out of any of the
devices investigated in the UK Programme, in an attempt to estimate a lower bound for the
cost of power from sea-waves. Thus it consisted of a latched OWC built into the CLAM
spine, feeding the DUCK power take-off and transmission systems, with an assumed
availability equal to that of the NEL BREAKWATER. Their technique in estimating the
average capture of such a "device" was as follows :-
• Their starting point was the set of 399 spectra from water of 45m depth off South
Uist, selected by the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences (IOS) as, quoting Crabb
(1984) "providing a summary of the characteristics of the long term average wave
climate of the site". In other words, each spectrum represents the wave climate to
be expected for 1/399th of the year, or roughly 22 hours. The data was presented in
the form of a scatter diagram showing total yearly hours of occurrence within cells
covering 0.5m intervals in significant wave height H
s
and 0.5s intervals in energy
period T
e
. The values of H
s
and T
e
taken as representative for each cell were of course
those at its mid-point. The H
s
values had also been corrected to give the "equivalent
deep water spectrum"
1
to compensate for the finite water depth at that site. This
ensured that for each sea-state, the mean incident power crossing a circle of unit
diameter was given by the formula for deep water :-
1 see Mollison (1979) page 137
75
The resulting yearly mean incident power from the whole scatter diagram was
47.7kW/m.
• Their fundamental data on the performance of the energy capture mechanism was
a graph plotted against period of the theoretical efficiency of a latched OWC in
monochromatic waves, as predicted by a computer simulation.
• They then tried to estimate the loss in efficiency in operating in a random sea of
energy period T
e
as opposed to a monochromatic sea of equal period T. This they
did by assuming firstly, that the spectra were of roughly Pierson-Moskowitz form
and secondly, that the principle of linear superposition
1
is valid in this particular
case. However, both of these assumptions must be open to question. Pierson and
Moskowitz (1964) proposed this spectral distribution as a model of fully developed
wind seas, whereas according to Hogben and Miller (1979) about two thirds of the
available power at this site is carried by swell. Perhaps more seriously, the super-
position principle pertains only to linear systems, but it is here being applied to an
actively controlled, two state device which is intrinsically non-linear. This latter
assumption is not explicitly acknowledged in the text. In the absence of any other
supporting evidence, their figures for the loss of efficiency in random seas should
perhaps be regarded as rough estimates.
• For each cell of the scatter diagram, they first calculated the mean incident power
using equation 5.1. This they multiplied by a directionality factor of 0.83 to give the
P ·
ρg
2
64π
H
s
2
T
e
5.1
1 in which the response to a non-sinusoidal input can be found by summing the individual
responses to each of its component frequencies
76
power available per metre of frontage to an ideally aligned array of terminators.
Multiplication by the estimated random wave efficiency for that value of T
e
then
gave the mean power output for that cell, which was compared with a nominal
maximum power rating of 50kW/m and reduced to this value if it was in excess.
Finally, the cell’s mean capture was multiplied by the number of hours it contained
to give its contribution to the annual energy total, which was then summed over
every cell and divided by the number of hours in a year to give the overall mean
capture.
5.2 The FROG Methodology
The biggest difference between the cases of MERMAIDand FROG, is that whilst with
MERMAID, it could at least be assumed that efficiency was independent of wave height,
with FROG it certainly could not. This had two main consequences :-
• In calculating the capture for each cell of the scatter diagram, a measure of per-
formance had to be used which took into account both period and wave height. The
obvious choice was the theoretical capture of FROG in a monochromatic wave of
period T equal to T
e
and with the same root mean square surface elevation H
rms
as
the selected wave record, giving equal incident powers per metre in each case. It is
well known that for a sine wave, H
rms
is related to amplitude A by ,
whereas according to Davies et al. (1985) H
rms
= H
s
/4 for an irregular wave, so the
required amplitude A is given by :-
H
rms
· A/

2
A ·
H
s

8
5.2
77
• The procedure used by RPT to estimate MERMAID’s loss of efficiency in random
as compared with monochromatic waves was probably worthwhile in their case,
evenif the questionable assumptions whichthis entails suggest that the results should
be regarded with caution. In the case of FROG however, since efficiency varies
strongly with both period and wave height, this approach would be both highly
complicated and so far abstracted from reality as to make the results meaningless.
Our only option then, given the time and financial resources available, was to calculate
the average yearly capture based on regular waves, acknowledging that some allowance
needs to be made for the likely shortfall due to the irregularity of real waves. This seems
reasonable, bearing in mind that two thirds of the available energy is carried by swell, of
which regular waves of slowly changing period and height are a fair approximation.
Nevertheless, the behaviour of the device in stochastic seas remains its area of greatest
uncertainty and would be the highest priority for further modelling, both in the wave-tank
and by computer.
Finally, it should be noted that in assessing the potential power capture of an isolated
FROG device, because of its axial symmetry all power is available to it no matter what its
angle of incidence, so no directionality factor needs to be applied.
5.3 The FROGPROG Program
A short computer program named "FROGPROG", a listing of which appears in
APPENDIX A, was written in the VAX FORTRAN language to calculate estimates of the
mean annual capture of a single, isolated FROG device, in the manner described in the
previous two sections. It was compiled and run on Lancaster University Engineering
Department’s DEC VAX 11/750 minicomputer under the VMS operating system. A brief
78
description of the workings of the program follows :-
• On running the program, the user first specifies fromthe keyboard whether the buoy
is to be of Form1 or Form2, its total displacement in tonnes, the quantity of moving
mass as a fraction of the total displacement, the maximum allowed hull amplitude
|Y
1
|
0
in metres, the full stroke working mass travel divided by the cube root of the
buoy displacement in m/tonne
1/3
and lastly the power take-off rating in kW.
• The hydrodynamic coefficients of both buoy forms are stored in disk files as suc-
cessive values taken fromthe "best smooth curves" of figures 4.7 and 4.8, at intervals
in ka of 0.05. The added mass and radiation coefficients appropriate to the selected
buoy form are read into two one-dimensional arrays, from which the values at any
intermediate frequency are simply found by linear interpolation between the known
values on either side.
• Next, the South Uist wave scatter diagram data taken from RPT (1983) is read in
from disk; 23 values of period T equal to the original T
e
into one array, 18 values of
amplitude A equal to the original into another and the total yearly hours of
occurrence for each cell into a 23 x 18 element, two-dimensional array.
• For all cells containing a non-zero number of hours, the power capture is calculated
using subroutine POWERSUB, the algorithm of which is illustrated by the flow
chart of Fig. 5.1. This power is multiplied by the number of hours in the cell to give
the total energy captured per year, which is added to the running total.
• When the above procedure has been completed for the entire scatter diagram, the
final total energy is divided by (365 x 24) hours to give the expected average annual
power capture in kW.
H
s
/

8
79
80
• The printed output of the program starts by listing the parameters of the device
assessed: the buoy form, diameter, displacement and the product of the reactionmass
times the total working travel between its end-stops.
• Next, 4 scatter diagrams are printed. The first consists of the original wave data,
with each cell containing the expected number of hours of occurrence per year. In
the second, each cell contains the mean power captured from it, in kW. In the third,
each cell contains the total energy extracted from it per annum, in MWhr. Finally
in the fourth, each cell contains a code indicating what limits the capture in that
particular sea state. The code is as follows :-
0 No incident energy
1 Ideal power capture attained
2 Y
1
limiting
3 R limiting
4 Both Y
1
and R limiting
5 Maximum power rating limiting
• Lastly, the overall total energy captured per annum in MWhr is printed out, along
with the mean annual power in kW.
5.4 FROGPROG Results
Table 5.1 displays the mean annual power captures calculated by FROGPROG, for
both Form1 and Form2 buoys in 4 different sizes of each, with displacements ranging from
1500 to 3000 tonnes. Their chosen parameters are as follows :-
81
• In all cases the moving mass consists of 60% of the total displacement, leaving the
remaining 40% for mechanical and electrical plant, structure and ballast.
• The full stroke working travel which can be accommodated is assumed to be pro-
portional to the cube root of the displacement, so it is equal for buoys of either form
of the same tonnage. It is assumed that 10m travel can be provided in the 3000 tonne
devices.
• Experimental tests showed no evidence of significant losses at equivalent full scale
heaving amplitudes of up to 3.7m, so it seems reasonable to specify the absolute
maximum allowed buoy motion amplitude as a little greater than this. Hence |Y
1
|
0
is
taken as 4.5m in every case.
• The maximum power ratings have been selected by increasing them from a low
level, 50kWat a time, until the resulting incremental growth in mean annual capture
is ≤ 5kW, that is ≤ 10% of the change in rating. This means that over a full year, the
power take-off should be used at full capacity for 10% of the time.
It can be seen that for the same displacement, product of reaction mass times travel
and percentage time of full power take-off utilisation, Form 2 gives a mean capture roughly
7% higher than that for Form 1. This is a worthwhile improvement, but not as good as that
hoped for when the Form 2 shape was originally conceived, due to the then unrecognised
trade-off between the needs for both a large added mass and a high radiation coefficient (see
section 4.2.4).
The last line of table 5.1, which represents a Form2 device of 3000 tonne displacement,
corresponds to the parameters of the practical design described in chapter 6. For this case
only, the four scatter diagrams printed out by FROGPROG are also shown, as tables 5.2 to
5.5.
82
Table 5.1 Power Capture Estimates for FROG
Buoy Buoy Buoy Reaction Mass Maximum Mean Annual
Form Diameter Displacement x Total Travel Power Power Capture
(m) (tonnes) (tonne m) (kW) (kW)
1 15.02 1500 7150 850 369
1 16.53 2000 10493 1100 451
1 17.81 2500 14129 1350 520
1 18.92 3000 18017 1650 586
2 12.87 1500 7150 900 395
2 14.17 2000 10493 1200 481
2 15.26 2500 14129 1550 558
2 16.22 3000 18017 1750 610
83
Table 5.2 Incident Hours per Annum
A(m)
3.094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0
2.033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 44 0 44 44 0 22 0 0 0 0 0
1.856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 22 22 22 66 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1.679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 22 22 66 44 22 44 22 0 0 0 0 0
1.503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 66 0 22 88 0 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0
1.326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 44 44 44 44 66 22 22 0 66 44 0 22 0 0 0
1.149 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 110 22 198 66 88 22 44 66 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0
0.972 0 0 0 0 22 131 329 175 198 264 88 88 66 0 22 22 22 22 22 0 22 0 0
0.795 0 0 0 0 88 66 198 153 220 220 153 66 88 44 110 22 0 22 22 0 0 0 0
0.619 0 0 0 22 131 131 220 131 153 88 66 131 88 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.442 22 22 66 44 153 88 220 198 110 66 88 44 22 22 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.265 0 22 22 22 22 66 66 131 66 88 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0
0.088 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75 10.25 10.75 11.25 11.75 12.25 12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25
T(s)
84
Table 5.3 Power Captured (kW)
A(m)
3.094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 1750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 1750 1750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 1750 1750 0 1378 0 0 0 0 0
2.033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1750 1750 1750 0 1750 1750 0 1263 0 0 0 0 0
1.856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1697 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 533
1.679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1745 1750 1750 1750 1750 1439 1198 1034 0 0 0 0 0
1.503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1209 1364 0 1597 1666 0 0 0 1064 921 0 0 0 0 0
1.326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 801 964 1114 1239 1341 1413 1463 1336 0 929 806 0 569 0 0 0
1.149 0 0 0 0 0 0 492 602 726 863 985 1085 1159 1213 1123 0 0 691 573 0 0 0 0
0.972 0 0 0 0 226 284 352 430 519 620 731 829 906 0 910 774 659 577 480 0 363 0 0
0.795 0 0 0 0 151 190 236 288 347 414 490 574 652 713 697 608 0 462 387 0 0 0 0
0.619 0 0 0 71 91 115 143 174 210 251 297 347 404 0 0 442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.442 0 0 0 36 46 58 72 89 107 128 151 177 206 237 0 0 256 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.265 0 0 0 13 16 21 26 32 38 46 54 0 74 0 0 0 0 119 0 0 0 0 0
0.088 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75 10.25 10.75 11.25 11.75 12.25 12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25
T(s)
85
Table 5.4 Total Energy Captured Per Annum (MWhr)
A(m)
3.094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 77 38 0 30 0 0 0 0 0
2.033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 77 0 77 77 0 27 0 0 0 0 0
1.856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 77 38 38 38 115 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
1.679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 38 38 115 77 31 52 22 0 0 0 0 0
1.503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 90 0 35 146 0 0 0 23 20 0 0 0 0 0
1.326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 42 49 54 59 93 32 29 0 61 35 0 12 0 0 0
1.149 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 66 15 170 65 95 25 53 74 0 0 15 12 0 0 0 0
0.972 0 0 0 0 4 37 116 75 102 163 64 73 59 0 20 17 14 12 10 0 7 0 0
0.795 0 0 0 0 13 12 46 44 76 91 74 37 57 31 76 13 0 10 8 0 0 0 0
0.619 0 0 0 1 12 15 31 22 32 22 19 45 35 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.442 0 0 0 1 7 5 16 17 11 8 13 7 4 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.265 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0.088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75 10.25 10.75 11.25 11.75 12.25 12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25
T(s)
86
Table 5.5 Limiting Factor: 1 = Ideal, 2 = Y
1
, 3 = R, 4 = Y
1
& R, 5 = P
0
A(m)
3.094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
2.033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
1.856 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
1.679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
1.503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
1.326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0
1.149 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
0.972 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0
0.795 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
0.619 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.442 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.265 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
0.088 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75 10.25 10.75 11.25 11.75 12.25 12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25
T(s)
87
5.5 Limitations of the FROGPROG Results
In considering the significance of the power figures quoted in the previous section it
is important to remember their limitations, which are listed below.
5.5.1 Power conversion losses
Firstly these are raw figures for mechanical energy captured by the device, not elec-
tricity delivered to shore. Hence no account is taken of losses in the reaction system, power
take-off, short term energy storage, electrical generation, rectifier, transmission cables or
inverter. In addition the availability, which depends on a combination of device reliability
and the maximum wave height in which it is possible to effect repairs, would also be less
than the assumed 100%, reducing the landed power further still.
5.5.2 Hydrodynamic non-linearities
No explicit allowance has been made for the possibility that hydrodynamic non-li-
nearities may begin to reduce the expected capture at wave amplitudes larger than the
maximum used in tests, equivalent to 1.3m full scale. However, this is unlikely to be make
a significant difference, because as shown in tables 5.3 and 5.5, at wave amplitudes greater
than roughly 1.6m, power is generally limited by the power take-off rating rather than the
linearised dynamics.
5.5.3 Localised energy concentrations
In a small wave energy scheme, deliberate siting of the devices at local hot-spots could
give very significant increases in the power available compared to that assumed in the
FROGPROGprogram. Hot-spots are places at which wave diffraction by favourable seabed
contours leads to a partial focussing of the incident waves. For example Salter (1985), in
88
discussing the advantages of a solo DUCK, suggests that the input energy to each device
may be doubled by these means, without any increase in extreme wave loading. In the case
of FROG, in which device amplitudes are for much of the time already at their limit, this
might be expected to increase power output by a factor of about - roughly a 40%
improvement.
5.5.4 Array effects
Conversely, a large scheme would consist of an array of hundreds of individual FROG
devices, moored at roughly 70m intervals in a line perpendicular to the predominant wave
direction. The difference between the hydrodynamic coefficients of an isolated buoy and a
typical member of such an array is reported by Ambli et al. (1977) to be as follows. The
effect on the wave force |X/A| is small provided the spacing between devices d is very much
larger than the buoy radius. However, the radiation coefficient B, compared to that of an
isolatedbuoy, is divided by an interaction factor q. For long-crested waves incident normally
to the line of devices and provided λ > d, q is given by :-
where k=2π/λ. Referring back to equation 3.22, this means that the ideal capture of a typical
device in the array is q times that of an isolated one, or in other words the ideal capture width
is equal to qλ/2π. Table 5.6 shows the variation of q with wave period for a 70m spacing d
between devices.

2
q ·
1
2
kd 5.3
89
Table 5.6 Interaction Factor against Period for 70m Spacing
T(s) 6.9 8.4 11.9 14.0
q 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.718
Thus for wave periods greater than 11.9s, FROGPROG slightly overestimates the
capture per device in this type of array. This is relatively unimportant because as table 5.4
shows, the contribution to the total annual capture from this region of the scatter diagram is
quite small. On the other hand, in the region between 6.9s and 8.4s, the ideal capture is
underestimated by FROGPROG by a factor of between 2 and 3. This could be highly
significant, since table 5.2 shows that there are many incident hours per year in this region
and the large block of "1"s in this area of table 5.5 shows that FROG should be capable of
capturing most of the extra power available. Thus the use of FROG in this sort of large array
could increase the capture per buoy at least as much as the 23% calculated by Budal and
Falnes (1979) for their 6m diameter absorber, compared with a single isolated device. This
of course assumes that these interactionfactors holdgoodfor anarrayof non-linear absorbers
in irregular, incoherent waves. To establish the truth or otherwise of this would require the
testing of such an array in a wide wave-tank.
5.5.5 Mechanical non-linearities
FROGPROG assumes a linear spring of continuously variable stiffness whereas the
practical realisation would be an air-spring using SM, both of which introduce some degree
of non-linearity into the dynamics, resulting in a probable small loss of efficiency.
90
5.5.6 Irregular waves
Finally, there will be the likely performance reduction referred to in section 5.2 due
to real sea-waves being irregular rather than monochromatic as assumed by FROGPROG.
In order to estimate the likely losses due to both this and the non-linearities mentioned in
section 5.5.5, French (1985c) performed a simple time-step computer simulation of the
device dynamics. This solved the differential equations numerically and thus worked with
irregular as well as regular waves. Air-spring non-linearities and SM were also included in
the model, with valve switching controlled by a practically feasible algorithm using just the
relative position and velocity of the moving mass. On the basis of comparing the simulation
results for regular and irregular waves, the power losses were estimated as up to 7% in total
compared to the FROGPROG results.
91
6 A PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR FROG
Of the necessarily limited amount of work carried out on the practical engineering of
FROG in the time available, the majority was done and reported by French (1985c). This
reference includes a discussion of the major design choices involved and the "plumping"
principle used to assemble a preliminary conceptual design from the many interlinked
options. However, this thesis would seem incomplete without any mention of the practical
realisation of the device, so this chapter comprises a brief description of the details of the
"plumped for" design.
The concept is illustrated by figure 6.1, which displays the following main features of
the design :-
• The hull shape is of Form2, total displacement 3000 tonnes and maximum diameter
16.2m. It is of conventional welded steel construction, with double 14mm thick
skins. The spherical portion is supported by six main structural frames, which using
the analogy of the globe, are aligned meridionallyat 60˚ intervals of longitude. These
are interspersed by 12 subsidiary frames and linked by hoop-like stringers along
lines of constant latitude. The six main frames are also attached on the inside to a
central steel tube, the lower part of which guides the moving mass while the upper
incorporates the smooth cylindrical bore required by the air-spring. The total mass
of steel in the hull structure was estimated as 213 tonnes.
• The enclosed volume for the air-spring is provided by the whole of the spherical
and tubular portions of the hull. A partition near the top of the sphere divides off a
smaller volume to give the high frequency regime necessary for SM. French (1984a)
92
93
has shown that even without any special measures to insulate it thermally, the air-
spring should be almost perfectly adiabatic. The maximum stress produced in the
hull structure due to the pressure of air contained within it has been estimated as
86 N/mm
2
.
• The moving mass is fabricated as an open steel framework, filled with scrap iron
and grouted with concrete. This is an inexpensive way of attaining a high density,
allowing the mass to be made smaller so that a longer length of travel can be
accommodated within the confines of the hull. Its position near the bottom of the
device keeps the overall centre of mass as low as possible, increasing stability in
pitch and roll. The mass is suspended by a rod from the piston and guided in its
motion by wheels running in vertical tracks.
• The SMvalves are situated in the air-spring partition and need a total area of opening
of roughly 2.4m
2
to give a comfortable 40m/s estimated maximum air velocity.
Provided they are designed to fail closed, splitting the required area between 3
parallel units allows continued operation with one out of action. They could either
be in the formof non-return valves with an additional mechanism to force themshut
when required, or positively operated butterfly valves with a feedback signal to the
controller indicating the pressure difference across the partition. Either optionallows
opening at precisely the crucial moment of zero pressure difference, so no work is
dissipated in unrestrained air expansion.
• Sliding seals are required around the rim of the piston and where the air-spring
partition is penetrated by the piston rod. To minimise the accuracy required of the
bore, it is proposed to employ slender, flexible piston rings pushed gently against
the cylinder wall by air pressure and soft springs. Use of a suitable polymer such as
Rulon should give a long life against wear given a reasonable surface finish for the
94
bore. This couldbe further prolongedif necessarybyusingpressurisedair lubrication
to remove all solid-to-solid contact, at the expense of an acceptably small increase
in leakage rate. It might also be desirable to have one or more reserve seals tucked
away in the piston, ready to be deployed automatically at the onset of failure of the
first. This could be achievedby injecting resin into an "inner tube" behind the reserve
seal, forcing it out into its operating position then hardening to hold it there.
• Acompressor is required both to charge the spring fromscratch and to make up lost
air escaping past the piston seals. Off-the-shelf models would be perfectly adequate,
one rated at 25kW charging the spring completely in less than 10 minutes, but it
would probably be worth dividing the task between two smaller ones, so that FROG
can remain in operation if one breaks down.
• The favoured power take-off option is a high torque variable displacement oil-hy-
draulic pump, driven by a toothed rack or roller chain from the drag link extending
vertically from the top of the piston. This allows the computer to vary the damping
continuously and rapidly, conferring great flexibility and scope for the sophisticated
control strategies which will be necessary to maximise capture in irregular waves.
The pump feeds high pressure oil to an accumulator, which is essential to prevent
the large short term power peaks experienced in real seas being too seriously trun-
cated by the electrical rating. This supplies a hydraulic motor driving a 1750kW
rated brushless alternator, at a speed of roughly 1000 rpm. The output is rectified
on-board, then carried to the sea-bed by a flexible electrical cable hanging down in
a catenary from the base of the buoy. Here, up to twenty or so devices may be
connected in series by sub-sea cable, increasing the DC voltage to some t 30kVfor
transmission to shore and subsequent inversion to synchronous AC for grid con-
nection. This is a fairly conventional system similar to that described by Davies et
95
al. (1985), chapter 8. It may also be necessary, at each junction of the sea-bed and
catenary cables, to make provision for the device to be automatically isolated and
by-passed if it suffers a breakdown, particularly of the flexible cable. In this way
the rest of the group will be able to continue in operation.
96
7 PROBLEMATICAL ASPECTS OF FROG
Although it does seem to show considerably more promise than many of the first
generation of proposed wave energy converters, FROG has a few disadvantageous aspects
as well, which might prove expensive to overcome.
7.1 The Need for High Reversibility
Firstly, there is the fact that the spring has to support the static weight of the reaction
mass. This means that the quantity of energy stored and converted in the course of operation
is far greater than that needed simply to impart the required acceleration to the mass. Taking
the device specified inthe previous chapter as an example, ina single full-stroke cycle 176MJ
of gravitational potential energy are first stored in the spring then returned. With a typical
period of 10s this is an average conversion rate of 35MW - 20 times the power take-off
rating! Thus only a spring of very close to 100% reversibility will avoid prohibitive losses.
Alarge gas-spring, as described in the previous section, seems the only serious option from
this point of view. However the provision of the seal and its mating surface, necessitating
the achievement of a good surface finish over a very large bore area, would undoubtedly
prove expensive.
7.2 Pitching
In all the experimental power generation tests, the device was tethered in such a way
as to prevent any pitching or rolling motion, in order to reduce the difficulty of obtaining
accurate measurements of heave. This tethering arrangement is described in section 4.3 and
shown in figure 4.10. When these tethers were removed however, the device under some
conditions was observed to build up a violent pitching oscillation during operation. This
97
9
8
could not have been the result of direct excitation by the incident waves, since the pitching
occurred at exactly one half of the wave frequency. The cause seems instead to be parametric
excitation by a combination of the Coriolis acceleration of the sliding mass as the buoy
pitches or rolls and hydrodynamic forces on the lower part of the hull as it heaves.
A likely mechanism is demonstrated in figure 7.1, where successive frames a to h
represent two complete heaving oscillations of the device. Wave displacements of the water
surface are not shown, in order to make the motion of the device itself clearer. It is operating
close to the natural heaving period, so the motion of the reaction mass is lagging that of the
hull by about 90˚ of phase (similar to the first phasor diagram of figure 4.16). Each frame
shows the approximate position of the overall centre of mass of the device and surrounding
added mass of water, the point about which it will tend topitch. The pitchingangular velocity
(not the frequency in this case) is represented by ω and the velocity of the reaction mass
with respect to the hull by v. Taking each frame in turn :-
a This shows the device at the lowest point in its heaving and also at the extreme of a
small rotation in pitch. The mass is moving downwards at its maximum velocity v,
but is experiencing no Coriolis acceleration because the angular velocity ω is
momentarily zero.
b The device has now reached its maximum upwards heaving velocity, the moving
mass is momentarily stationary at the bottom of its travel and ω is slowly increasing
under the hydrostatic righting moment, aided by hydrodynamic drag forces on the
sphere opposing its upwards motion, which have a small clockwise moment about
the overall centre of mass.
c Now at the highest point in its heaving motion, the device has also reached vertical
and its maximum pitching angular velocity ω. The moving mass has just reached its
2ω× v
99
largest upwards velocity so is experiencing a large Coriolis acceleration of , to
the right of the diagram. The force to provide this acceleration must come from the
hull, the reaction to which causes a powerful clockwise moment tending to increase
the pitching angular velocity.
d The moving mass is instantaneously stationary at the highest point in its travel so no
longer has any Coriolis acceleration, while ωis nowdiminishing due to the opposition
of the hydrostatic righting moment. However, ωis still receiving a positive stimulus,
this time from the clockwise moment due to hydrodynamic drag on the sphere as it
plunges downwards.
e The device is now back at its lowest point in heave, having completed a full heaving
and half a pitching cycle. In frames f, g and h it experiences anti-clockwise moments
exciting the return pitching motion by mechanisms which are exact mirror images of
those in b, c and d.
Thus in figure 7.1 the device is undergoing continuous excitation in pitch at half the
wave frequency and large pitching oscillations are likely to build up, especially if this
excitation is close to the natural frequency.
There is a definite need toexplore this problemfurther, toestablish the exact conditions
in which it is likely to occur, the relationship between the hull shape, natural period and its
susceptibility to pitching, the influence of the relative proportions of moving mass to static
ballast and so on. For example, some rough tests were done on a mock-up hull shape similar
to Form 2 but with the central tube extended further downwards and the sphere replaced by
a thick horizontal circular drag plate of similar diameter. This form could be made to pitch
2ω× v
100
and heave in the above manner even without the Coriolis effect of a moving internal mass,
probably due to the greater drag on the circular plate than the sphere, whereas Form2 would
only do this while the internal mass was oscillating.
It is likely that in a practical device, some direct provision would have to be made to
control pitching, otherwise large amounts of the captured energy might be uselessly radiated
back into the sea. Possible solutions include a tuned inertial damper working in a horizontal
plane, or actively controlled vanes near the bottom of hull, like the control surfaces of a
fly-by-wire aircraft, which use the heaving motion to provide suitable horizontal damping
forces. Unfortunately, these would add significantly to the total costs.
7.3 Danger of Ejection of the Moving Mass
Large pitching amplitudes would certainly hinder the efficient operation and control
of the device, but there is an important safety aspect to the problem as well. If it pitches
through a very large angle - approaching 90˚ - due to an uncontrolled build up of oscillation
or the impact of a huge wave, then the component of gravity acting along the buoy axis will
be removed and the now unopposed spring will attempt to eject the mass through the deck
like some monstrous air-gun. Conversely, a sudden catastrophic depressurisation of the
air-spring might drop the reaction mass clean through the bottom of the hull. To counter
both of these dangers, it seems that in addition to the hydraulic pump the extra expense of
a brake will be necessary, capable of providing a force comparable to the weight of the
moving mass. Importantly however, FROG should at least ride out storms well, due to its
compact structure, highly compliant moorings and the ability of the reaction system to be
put into "survival mode", with the air-spring depressurised and the mass resting at the bottom
of its travel with the brakes applied.
101
8 THE EVOLUTION OF PS FROG
Consideration of the problems outlined in the previous chapter led to the evolution of
PS FROG
1
, which appears to be a better device still. It avoids all these difficulties and
possesses twice the ideal capture width, albeit at the expense of the loss of FROG’s
omni-directionality. The evolution of this device concept is described below.
As it seemed so difficult to prevent FROG from pitching, an obvious question to ask
was "Why not make a device which works by pitching instead of heaving?". Referring back
to section 4.2.5, equation 4.7 derived originally by Newman (1962), expressed the rela-
tionship between wave-force and radiation coefficient for a heaving, vertically axi-sym-
metric body. The same reference gives a similar expression for such a body moving in pitch
or surge, which is identical to equation 4.7 except that the wave-force |X/A| is now greater
by a factor of , that is :-
In fact this expression is true for any shape of body provided its overall dimensions are
sufficiently small compared to the wavelength, that it may be regarded as a point absorber.
For example according to Scher (1985b), this expression holds true for thin vertical rec-
tangular flaps providing their width is less than roughly one third the wavelength. Now
Evans (1979) showedthat substitutingequation 8.1for |X| intoequation3.22andsimplifying,
gives the ideal power for a pitching or surging point-absorber as twice that of one working
in heave
2
, corresponding to a capture width of λ/π.

2

X
A
1
1
1
·

4ρg
3
B
ω
3
8.1
1 where PS stands for pitching and surging
2 due to the extra factor of in equation 8.1, squared

2
102
103
So with twice the theoretical power capture of FROG, a pitching device sounds
desirable, but what physical formshould it take? An early idea, shown in plan and elevation
in figure 8.1a, was to use an elongated ship-like construction, its major axis perpendicular
to the wave crests, with an "axe-head" shape to allow larger pitching amplitudes. Both the
required reaction torque and the power take-off could be provided by a pair of precessing
gyros as used in the DUCK and described by Salter (1978). This scheme could almost
certainly be made to work, but the hull would need to be rather long, increasing the structural
costs in a most unwelcome manner. The reason is that to gain a large pitch-exciting moment,
the vertical wave-forces on opposite ends of the device must be approaching 180˚ out of
phase. Hence the length needs to be about λ/2 for a typical wave, say 60-80m. The device
is in effect two heaving buoys, half a wavelength apart, joined together by a beam. This
combines the opposing wave-forces to form a couple, which can then be reacted against a
rotational rather than a translational inertia system.
In attempting to reduce the size of the device, an alternative was considered, which
uses the force due to the horizontal component of the orbital wave particle motion instead
of the vertical. Shown in plan and section in figure 8.1b, it consists of a thin rectangular
floating vertical flap, of depth and width roughly 25-30m, its major axis parallel to the wave
crests. Due tothe exponential decayof wavepressurewithdepth, the total resultant horizontal
wave-force will act through a point just above half the total depth. It will be shown in chapter
11 that the centre of the added mass of surrounding water is slightly lower than this (the
exact distance depending on frequency). The overall centre of mass will be lower still,
provided the flap’s centre of mass is made as close to the bottom as possible. This creates
a pitch-exciting moment equal to the horizontal wave-force times the difference in depth
betweenthe overall force and mass centres. The pitching motionwhichresults can be resisted
by a pair of precessing gyros housed within the flap, thereby extracting power.
104
In order to gain some insight into the feasibility of this idea, an extremely crude model
was made, consisting of a rectangular, expanded polystyrene slab ballasted at its bottom
with lead. When placed in the wave-tank in waves at its resonant frequency, it pitched with
great vigour andperhaps more surprisingly, showeda strongtendency toalignitself naturally
with the wave crests. Depending on the chosen mooring arrangements, this is potentially a
most useful phenomenon in a device which is directional in nature.
The biggest problem with this device concept is the fact that the point of action of the
wave-force and the overall centre of mass of the system, short distances above and below
the centre of the flap respectively, are too close together. This means that the pitch-exciting
moment is so small, that in all but tiny waves it would have to pitch through impossibly
large amplitudes to capture anything like the ideal power. One answer is to increase greatly
the width and depth of the flap, but this would be a retrograde step in terms of cost. Alter-
natively, if the base of the flap could be hinged to a fixed abutment, like the devices
investigated by Scher (1985a), then the exciting moment-arm would be increased by the
distance between the overall centre of mass and the hinge. In practice this would multiply
the moment by a factor of at least three or four, reducing the necessary pitching amplitude
for the same capture, in proportion. Thus the power level at which the output is limited by
excessive pitching would be greatly increased.
Of course the last suggestion is totally impractical for a deep water device, but what
could be done is to install a horizontally acting internal mass/spring system at the base of
the flap, providing an inertial reaction force in place of the abutment thrust at a fixed hinge.
The biggest bonus of all however, is the fact that the laterally shifting weight of the moving
mass produces an oscillating moment to resist the pitching motion as well, allowing the
gyros to be dispensed with. Instead, just like FROG, power may be taken off by damping
the motion of the internal mass. Unlike FROG however, the static weight of the reaction
105
mass is not carried by the spring. The amounts of energy stored in the spring and converted
every cycle are therefore greatly reduced, removing the need for exceptionally high
reversibility and opening up the possibility of using hydraulics, if so desired, for the spring
as well as the power take-off. Alternatively, a gravity spring could be used, such as a curved
track or pendulum. Stability and safety are also no longer a problem; the device is designed
to pitch as its principle of operation and heaving can be avoided by careful choice of sur-
face-piercing area to keep the natural frequency beyond the limits of the wave spectrum.
This device concept has been named PS FROG.
It should be mentioned that the operating principle of PS FROG bears a passing
resemblance to the "Internal resonant system suggested by A. Tondl" briefly reported by
Parks (1979). This is a small floating device of rectangular plan and quite shallow draught,
workingin pitch, which contains inside it a moving mass of water. Inresponse to the pitching
motion, the water sloshes back and forth through a gap beneath a central partition, pumping
the air above it to and fro through turbines. This does not seem very practical however, as
the hull shape shown would be mainly excited in heave rather than pitch and the water-based
reaction system would probably experience large turbulent losses, as well as being difficult
to phase control effectively.
106
9 THE PS FROG DEVICE CONCEPT
9.1 Description of the Device
PS FROG consists of a floating vertical flap, designed to operate with its major axis
parallel to the crests of the incident waves, extracting power by its resulting motion in a
combination of pitch and surge. It is thickened at its base to make room for an internal
moving mass, which is constrained to oscillate in a direction normal to the plane of the flap
and it should have edges of large radius to discourage vortex-shedding. At resonance there
is generally a strong tendency for it to broach to
1
if the moorings allow it, but some form of
additional yaw control may be required.
1 that is, to align itself with the wave crests
107
At the simplest level, it can be seen that as waves push against the flap causing it to
pitch, the mass will slide back and forth due to gravity and this motion, if resisted, can be
used to extract power. Phase control can be by means of latching, or by applying an effective
variable rate spring force to the mass. Either or both of these techniques can be accomplished
by high pressure oil or water hydraulics, which also serve admirably for the power take-off.
The losses resulting from their use are now perfectly acceptable, because the amount of
energy stored in the spring is much lower than for FROG, due to the weight of the reaction
mass being carried by its supports rather than by the spring.
9.2 The Function of the Moving Mass
A most elegant and efficient aspect of this device is the way that the simple sliding
motion of the mass performs simultaneously three distinct functions, each essential to the
operation of the device. To see this, first consider a quasi-resonant point-absorber working
inpuresurge, for exampleLancaster’s earlier FLOUNDERdevice
1
. As there is nohydrostatic
stiffness in surge, a frame of reference and some form of energy storage must be provided
to allow resonance to occur. In FLOUNDER’s case this is relatively inexpensive, using the
toggle action of heavy weights slung on cables between each lenticel and adjacent nodes of
the cable net, as shown in figure 9.2. But in an independent, reactionless surging device, all
the stored energy would have to be contained in the relative motion of the internal reaction
mass, which is very costly. The effect is the same as if FROGwere operated with the natural
heaving frequency set at zero instead of near the middle of the wave spectrum; referring
back to equation 3.26, sec β would be enormous and the practical power captures corre-
spondingly paltry.
1 see French and Hurdle (1982). This concept consisted of an array of lenticular shaped,
water filled inflatables, moving in surge with respect to a frame of reference provided by
a crisscross grid of taut cables covering the water surface, as shown in figure 9.2
108
Apitchingdevicehas nosuchproblems. There are norestrictions preventingthe natural
frequency being set to its optimum value, because there is great freedom in the choice of
pitching stiffness, depending as it does on the distance between the centres of mass and
flotation. However, to excite a pitching motion, you need a reaction to the horizontal wave
force, acting at a different depth, in order to create a couple. As suggested in the previous
chapter, the passive inertia of the device, if its centre of mass is kept as lowas possible, will
to some extent fulfil this need. On the other hand, if an internal mass is made to oscillate
horizontally, 180˚ out of phase with the wave force, along a line either much higher or much
lower than the resultant wave force, a very powerful couple is exerted on the flap, strongly
exciting pitching. Thus the first task fulfilled by the PS FROGmoving mass is for the inertia
force of its oscillation to react against the wave force on the flap, creating a couple. This
109
couple will then excite a resonant pitching motion, for which a cheap hydrostatic spring
effect can be used, insteadof resonant surging, for which an expensive artificial spring needs
to be provided.
The second requirement for quasi-resonant power absorption is a way of varying the
effective pitching stiffness for the purpose of tuning. This is the second task of the moving
mass, which is fulfilled in the following way. The laterally shifting line of action of the
gravity force acting on the mass, due to the component of its motion in phase with the pitch
angle, providesaneffectiveadditional pitchingstiffness. Themagnitude of thisextra stiffness
and thus the natural frequency, may be varied by simply altering the relative amplitudes of
the pitch angle and the mass motion, so that as with FROG, resonance may be maintained
over a wide bandwidth.
The third task fulfilled by the moving mass is to provide a damping moment to resist
these pitching oscillations and so extract power from them. This comes from the laterally
shifting gravity force due to the component of its motion 90˚ out of phase with the pitch
angle and thus in phase with the pitching angular velocity.
110
10 MECHANICS OF PS FROG
10.1 PS FROG Notation
water density
angular frequency
the absolute horizontal displacement of the centre of wave pressure (+ve in
the direction of wave propagation)
the angle of pitch with respect to vertical (+ve when the top of the flap is
inclined in the direction of wave propagation)
the absolute horizontal displacement of the point where the overall centre
of mass of the systemis located, when r is equal to zero (+ve in the direction
of wave propagation)
the relative horizontal displacement of the reaction mass with respect to the
flap (+ve in the direction of wave propagation)
the horizontal wave diffraction force on the stationary flap (+ve in the
direction of wave propagation)
the phasor of
the phasor of
the phasor of
ρ
ω
y
θ
z
r
f
Y y
Θ θ
Z z
111
the phasor of
the phasor of
the phasor of the water surface elevation at the centre-line of the flap, for
the undisturbed incident wave
the mass of the flap (excluding the reaction mass)
the moving reaction mass
the radiation coefficient due to surging of the centre of wave pressure, at
angular frequency
the added mass of the flap in surging at angular frequency
the added moment of inertia of the flap in pitching about the centre of added
mass, at angular frequency
the hydrostatic pitching stiffness of the flap with the reaction mass held fixed
at r = 0
the overall total mass of the oscillating system
the overall total moment of inertia of the system about the overall centre of
mass, with the reaction mass held fixed at r = 0
R r
X f
A
m
1
m
2
B(ω)
ω
M
a
(ω) ω
I
a
(ω)
ω
K
p
M(ω) (· m
1
+ m
2
+ M
a
)
I(ω)
112
the height of the centre of wave pressure above the overall centre of mass
of the system
the depth of the centre of the reaction mass belowthe overall centre of mass
of the system
the effective horizontal force, applied at the overall centre of mass, due to
the reaction mass operating, rather than being held fixed at r = 0 (+ve in the
direction of wave propagation)
the effective torque applied to the flap, due to the reaction mass operating,
rather than being held fixed at r = 0 (+ve in the direction of increasing )
the stiffness of the horizontal spring restraining the reaction mass
the damping coefficient of the "linear dashpot" power take-off
the Earth’s gravitational constant
the square root of -1
the power capture
subscript after any variable signifies its value in the ideal, optimised power
condition
subscript after any variable signifies the maximumvalue allowed in practice
h
f
(ω)
d
m
(ω)
F
T
θ
µ
λ
g
i
P

I

0
113
, the angle the sides of the optimised phasor triangle make with
the base
the practical limitation factor for |R|
the practical limitation factor for |Y|
the natural pitching frequency of the flap with the reaction mass held fixed
at r = 0
the frequency at which oscillation of the reaction mass exerts no pitching
moment on the flap
the dimensionless Keulegan-Carpenter number as defined by Standing
(1979)
10.2 Linearised Hydrodynamics in Monochromatic Waves
At first sight, the two degrees of freedom of PS FROG’s wave absorbing surface,
compared with the single degree of freedom of that of FROG, would seem to make the
analysis of its operation far more complicated. Indeed, with our first attempt, described in
French & Bracewell (1985c), this most certainly was the case. Whilst that analysis did give
the correct answers, it provided virtually no insight whatsoever into the fundamental
operating principles of the device. This was rectified by the dawning realisation, later
confirmed by the discovery of relevant papers by Newman (1975) and Meir (1978), that the
radiation coefficient in pitching about a horizontal axis through the centre of wave pressure,
is zero. The reasoning behind this is as follows. At all points in the far-field, the waves
tan
−1
(U/V) β
η
ν
ω
N
ω
S
N
KC
114
radiated by the parts of the flap above and below the pitching axis are always 180˚ out of
phase. When the axis is at this precise depth, they are also exactly the same in magnitude
and hence interfere to their mutual destruction. As no net energy is being radiated, the
radiation coefficient must therefore be zero. This implies that the power capture can be
defined solely in terms of the amplitudes of and phase difference between, the wave force
f and the horizontal motion of the centre of wave pressure y. The angle of pitch does not
come into the expression and hence the device, fromthe point of viewof its interaction with
the waves, may effectively be thought of as single degree of freedom.
Let us assume that any heaving motion is negligible, which may be ensured by having
a small water-plane area, so that the natural heaving frequency is beyond the low end of the
incident power spectrum. In this case the linearised hydrodynamics may be visualised as
depicted in figure 10.1. The flap is shown attached at the centre of wave pressure, by a
115
frictionless pivot, to a sliding push-rod, one end of which is joined to earth via a linear
damper, which represents the radiation coefficient B. The horizontal wave force f is shown
applied to the other end of this rod. K
p
, the hydrostatic pitching stiffness experienced by the
flapwiththe reactionmass heldfixedwithinit, isrepresentedbythe"clock-spring" connected
between the flap and push-rod. The centre of mass marked in the figure is that of the entire
system - the flap m
1
, the reaction mass m
2
held fixed at r = 0 and the surge added mass M
a
.
All three are at present moving together as one body of total mass M. The moment of inertia
of this combined body about its centre of mass is I.
Assume that the angle of pitch θ is small, so that the usual linearising approximations
can be made of sin θ ≈ θ and cos θ ≈ 1. If the reaction mass is held fixed at r = 0, then the
equations of motion of the flap in pitch and surge are as follows :-
If the reaction mass is now released and forced to undergo a certain relative motion,
the resulting effect on the motion of the flap may be represented by an additional force F
and torque T, applied at the overall centre of mass, which are given by :-
and the new equations of motion of the flap are :-
I
¨
θ + K
p
θ + Bh
f
˙ y · fh
f
10.1
M¨ z + B ˙ y · f 10.2
F · −m
2
¨ r + m
2
˙
θ
2
r 10.3
T · m
2
gr + m
2
¨ rd
m
− 2m
2
˙
θ˙ rr − m
2
r
2
¨
θ 10.4
I
¨
θ + K
p
θ + Bh
f
˙ y · fh
f
+ T 10.5
116
If, as assumed above, θ is small, then the final term of equation 10.3 representing the
centripetal acceleration and the last two terms of equation 10.4 representing the Coriolis and
moment of angular accelerations respectively, will be insignificant. Ignoringthesenon-linear
terms, introducingphasor notation for harmonic excitationat angular frequencyωand noting
that , substituting into equations 10.5 and 10.6 gives :-
Eliminating Θ between equations 10.7 and 10.8 and gathering together terms in X, Y and R
gives :-
Now, in the same way as the FROG analysis, letting :-
and introducing the following dimensionless parameters :-
M¨ z + B ˙ y · f + F 10.6
Z · Y − h
f
Θ
(K
p
− ω
2
I)Θ + iωBh
f
Y · Xh
f
+ m
2
(g − ω
2
d
m
)R 10.7
(−ω
2
M + iωB)Y + ω
2
Mh
f
Θ · X+ ω
2
m
2
R 10.8
X
¹
'
¹
1
ω
2
Mh
f

h
f
(K
p
− ω
2
I)
¹
)
¹
·
¹
'
¹

1
h
f
+ i

¸
B
ωMh
f

ωBh
f
(K
p
− ω
2
I)
1
1
]
¹
)
¹
Y

¹
'
¹
m
2
Mh
f

(g − ω
2
d
m
)m
2
(K
p
− ω
2
I)
¹
)
¹
R 10.9
Q ·
X
m
2
ω
2
10.10
U ·
M(ω
2
I − K
p
)
m
2
(K
p
− ω
2
I − ω
2
Mh
f
2
)
10.11
117
gives, after a little reduction :-
10.14
Interestingly, equation 10.14 is virtually identical in form to equation 3.12, the basic
equation of motion for the FROG buoy. The only differences are the greater complexity of
equation 10.11 defining the dimensionless tuning parameter U compared to equation 3.7
and the additional dimensionless multiplier p applied to the relative displacement phasor of
V ·
B
m
2
ω
10.12
p ·
K
p
− ω
2
I − (g − ω
2
d
m
)Mh
f
K
p
− ω
2
I − ω
2
Mh
f
2
10.13
(U + iV)Y − pR · Q
118
the reaction mass R. Thus PS FROG also possesses the characteristic isosceles triangle
phasor diagram for optimal performance, the sole difference being that the -R
I
phasor in
figure 3.3 for FROG is replaced by -pR
I
for PS FROG, as shown in figure 10.2.
Therefore it may be seen by inspection, by the same reasoning as for FROG, that the
maximum power capture P
I
is given by :-
when Y, the phasor of the horizontal displacement of the centre of wave pressure is equal
to Y
I
, given by :-
which requires R equal to R
I
, given by :-
The amplitude and phase of the motion which must be imposed on the reaction mass,
in order to obtain the ideal power capture, has now been found. How to control the mass to
produce this motion has not. To find out, it is necessary to look at the dynamics from the
point of view of the reaction mass rather than the flap. The model to be used is shown in
figure 10.3; the mass m
2
slides on a flat, frictionless surface restrained by a spring of stiffness
µ and a linear dashpot of damping coefficient λ. Neglecting the small non-linear terms as
before, the equation of motion of the mass is given by :-
P
I
·
¦ X¦
2
8B
10.15
Y
I
·
Q
2iV
10.16
R
I
·
(U − iV)Y
I
p
10.17
119
Next, define the dimensionless parameters s and t, as :-
which are identical to equations 3.10 and 3.11 respectively. Introducing phasor notation and
collecting terms in R, Y and Θ gives :-
µr + λ˙ r + m
2
(¨ r + ¨ y) − m
2
(h
f
+ d
m
)
¨
θ · m
2
gθ 10.18
s ·
µ
m
2
ω
2
− 1 10.19
t ·
λ
m
2
ω
10.20
(s + it)R · Y −
¸

¸
h
f
+ d
m

g
ω
2
_

,
Θ 10.21
120
It seems surprising at first, that in a device which works by pitching, the angle of pitch
does not come into the optimised power conditions of equations 10.16 and 10.17 at all.
However, comparing equation 10.21 with equation 3.13, its direct equivalent in the FROG
analysis, displays the first major difference between the dynamics of the two devices, which
is caused by the pitching of PS FROG. The extra term in Θ of equation 10.21, shows the
strong influence of the pitch angle on the dynamics of the reaction mass and hence on the
values of µ and λ required for optimisation. It also prevents neat, concise expressions being
written down for the optimised values s
I
and t
I
, as was possible for FROG in the form of
equations 3.18 and 3.20. Instead, a different approach has to be taken to finding them.
Given Q, Y
I
can be found using equation 10.16, from which equation 10.17 gives R
I
.
Now, an expression can be found for Θ by rearranging equation 10.7 :-
The values of s and t can be found by substituting for Θ, Y and Rinto equation 10.21, thus :-
Therefore s
I
and t
I
, the values required for ideal capture, may easily be found by substituting
Y
I
and R
I
into equations 10.22, 10.23 and 10.24.
Due to the similarity between the optimised phasor diagrams for the two devices, PS
FROG shows exactly the same parabolic decline in power capture as FROG, when either
Θ ·
Xh
f
− iωBh
f
Y + m
2
(g − ω
2
d
m
)R
K
p
− ω
2
I
10.22
s · ℜ
¸

¸
Y − (h
f
+ d
m
− g/ω
2

R
_

,
10.23
t · ℑ
¸

¸
Y − (h
f
+ d
m
− g/ω
2

R
_

,
10.24
121
|Y| or |R| is limited to some fraction of its ideal value. That is, by comparison with equation
3.32, if the amplitude of the mass motion is restricted to η times the ideal, where 0 < η < 1,
then the optimum power is given by :-
10.25
when the phase of Rwith respect to Qis the same as that in the ideal case, as shown in figure
3.4.
Similarly, by comparison with equation 3.35, if |Y| is restricted to ν times the ideal,
where 0 < ν < 1, then the optimum power is given by :-
10.26
when the phase of Y with respect to Qis the same as that in the ideal case, as shown in figure
3.5. Unlike Y
1
with FROG, Y is only indirectly limited, through a large amplitude of Y
requiring an excessive pitching angle Θ. Thus in the PSPROG programdescribed in chapter
12, when |Θ| exceeds the maximumvalue allowed, then Yis iterativelyreduced inmagnitude,
keeping its phase the same, until |Θ| is reduced back to its assumed limit. This is shown in
the flow chart of figure 12.2.
10.3 The Effect of Resonant Mode Shape
Referring back to the model of figure 10.1, it can be seen that the wave diffraction
force f and radiation force are the only external forces which are able to do work on the
system. Because they both act at a single point; the centre of wave pressure, they can be
combined into one phasor, let us say X
tot
, representing the total resultant external force. Now
P · (2η − η
2
)P
I
P · (2ν − ν
2
)P
I
B ˙ y
122
byNewton’s ThirdLaw, nomatter what the internal behaviour of the system, the acceleration
of its overall centre of mass must always be in phase with X
tot
. Thus the velocity of the
overall centre of mass must always be 90˚ out of phase with X
tot
. This implies that power
can only be captured by motion of the centre of wave pressure relative to the overall
centre of mass of the system. The importance of this point cannot be emphasised too highly.
It means that for PS FROG to be an efficient wave absorber, two main conditions must be
fulfilled :-
• Resonance, or in irregular waves quasi-resonance, must be attainable throughout the
important bandwidth of the incident wave climate.
• The resonant mode shapes covering this frequency range must be such, that for a
given angle of pitch, the amplitude of motion of the centre of wave pressure relative
to the overall centre of mass, is as large as possible.
123
Figure 10.4 shows the two basic types of resonant mode shape possible for PS FROG;
type a, where at the extremes of pitch the reaction mass is displaced towards the top of the
resulting slope and type b, where it is displaced towards the bottom. In both cases, the
horizontal motion of the centre of wave pressure relative to the overall centre of mass is the
sum of two terms :-
• That due to the pitching of the flap, equal to h
f
θ.
• That due to the horizontal motion of the flap centre-line away fromthe overall centre
of mass, caused by the displacement of the moving mass from its central position
and equal to -m
2
r/M.
In type a modes, θ and r are opposite in sign, so the above terms add, resulting in a
large amplitude of motion of the centre of wave pressure. Thus type a modes are strongly
coupled with the wave force and are able to capture appreciable amounts of power. For type
b modes however, θ and r have the same sign, so the terms above subtract and the amplitude
of the wave pressure centre is correspondingly small. Type b modes are therefore weakly
coupled with the wave force and give poor power captures, as the angle of pitch quickly
becomes excessive even at low power levels. These effects are clearly displayed in figure
10.4, where for the same angle of pitch and horizontal displacement of the reaction mass,
the centre of wave pressure has moved about 5 times the distance in diagram a than in
diagram b.
It is evident that to maximise PS FROG power production, a fundamental design
imperative is that it should operate in type a resonant modes over as large a proportion of
the incident wave spectrum as possible. To see how this can be achieved, it is necessary to
124
examine the free motion dynamics of the device, without any wave forces or damping. In
this case, referring back to equation 10.7, X and B are zero, so the equation of motion
becomes :-
Let the natural pitching frequency of the flap with the mass fixed at r = 0 be ω
N
, given by :-
and let the frequency at which the torque T
1
is zero be ω
S
where :-
Inother words ω
S
is the frequencyat whichthe oscillation of the reactionmass has no pitching
effect on the flap whatsoever. This is because the moments about the overall centre of mass,
exerted by the inertia and gravity forces of the moving mass, are equal and opposite so that
they cancel each other out. Now, by substituting ω
N
and ω
S
into equation 10.27 and rear-
ranging, gives :-
Equation 10.30 relates the mode shape, expressed as the ratio r/θ, to its corresponding
resonant frequency ω. Referring to figure 10.4, the "right" mode - type a - is one for which
r/θ < 0 and the "wrong" mode - type b - has r/θ > 0. Thus it can be seen fromequation 10.30
(K
p
− ω
2
I)Θ · m
2
(g − ω
2
d
m
)R 10.27
ω
N
2
·
K
p
I
10.28
ω
S
2
·
g
d
m
10.29
R
Θ
·
r
θ
·
I(ω
N
2
− ω
2
)
m
2
d
m

S
2
− ω
2
)
10.30
1 as defined in equation 10.4
125
that in waves of angular frequency ω, resonance of the necessary type a mode requires either
that ω
S
> ω > ω
N
or that ω
N
> ω > ω
S
. In other words ω
S
should be set at one end of the
important frequency range and ω
N
at the other. Assuming that the desired working range is
between, say, 6s and 12s wave period, this means that ω
S
must be either > 1 or < 0.5. In this
case equation 10.29 implies that d
m
must be either < 10m, which is reasonable, or > 40m
which is totally impractical. Thus ω
S
must be set at the high frequency end of the required
bandwidth and ω
N
at the low end.
The variation of resonant mode shape with frequency is shown qualitatively in the
pictorial "graph" of figure 10.5. Note how at ω
N
the motion of the device is pure pitch about
the overall centre of mass, whereas at ω
S
the motion is pure surge. Between these two
frequencies the pitch and surge components mutually reinforce, resulting in the largest
motion of the centre of wave pressure and the best performance. Outside of this region, pitch
and surge combine destructively, greatly reducing the amplitude of the wave pressure centre
to the detriment of the power capture.
The above behaviour is very different to that of FROG, where the performance peak
is coincident with the natural heaving frequency of the buoy, which should ideally be set in
the middle of the incident power spectrum, whereas with PS FROG the natural pitching
frequency has to be set at the low frequency end.
126
1
2
7
11 HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF PS FROG
In order to predict the theoretical performance of PS FROGusing the theory developed
in the previous chapter, it was first necessary to obtain figures for the hydrodynamic
coefficients of typical shapes of flap. Avery small number of experimental decay curve tests
had been done
1
but these were performed at a time when the device was still very poorly
understood. Hence in retrospect the techniques used are felt to have been fundamentally
misconceived and the results obtained quite inadequate. This is because decay curves were
only performed in pitching about a range of axes close to the middle of the flap, leading to
very small amplitudes of the centre of wave pressure, whereas they should have been per-
formed in pure surging as well. However, by the time that this was realised, funding of the
project had diminished from minuscule to nonexistent, which ruled out the possibility of
any further wave-tank testing.
It was therefore decided to make a virtue out of a necessity and numerically compute
the desired coefficients instead, which bestowed the added advantage of allowing results to
be easily obtained for a range of different flap shapes. An algorithm described by Scher
(1985a) for 1 or 2 thin flaps, hinged about fixed horizontal axes in shallow water, appeared
tobe adaptable for our purpose. This is a variationon the traditional boundaryintegral/source
distribution method (see, for example Yeung (1985)), which instead of using a distribution
of sources over the wetted surfaces of the device, models the flap as a single planar sheet of
normal dipoles. A computer program named "COEFFS" was thus written in VAX FOR-
TRANtoperformthe requiredcalculations, runningonthe DECVAX11/750minicomputer.
This chapter describes the principle, workings and results of the program, a listing of which
appears in APPENDIX B.
1 briefly reported in French and Bracewell (1986)
128
11.1 Notation for PS FROG Hydrodynamics
coordinates of a typical field point in the water surrounding the flap
coordinates of a typical point in the distribution of singularities (sources or
dipoles)
phasor of dipole strength per unit area of dipole sheet, at point
total velocity potential at field point and time
phasor of velocity potential at field point
square root of -1
angular frequency of device motion or wave excitation
Green’s function for unit strength harmonic source in deep water beneath a
free surface
Green’s function for unit strength harmonic dipole in deep water beneath a
free surface
number of columns of equal-sized rectangular panels into which the flap is
divided
number of rows of equal-sized rectangular panels into which the flap is
divided
(x, y, z)
(ξ, η, ζ)
γ(ξ, η, ζ) (ξ, η, ζ)
Φ(x, y, z, t) (x, y, z) t
φ(x, y, z) (x, y, z)
i
ω
G
S
G
D
M
N
129
area of a single panel
wavenumber, defined by for deep water
the earth’s gravitational constant
square matrix of Green’s functions terms, of order M times N
typical element of matrix
vector of phasor terms representing particle velocities at panel centroids,
resolved normally to the plane of the flap
typical element of vector , the normal particle velocity phasor at the cen-
troid of panel number
vector of dipole strength/panel area phasors
typical element of , phasor of the dipole strength/area over panel number
water density
pressure jump across panel number
Bessel functions of the 1st kind
1
Bessel functions of the 2nd kind
1
A
p
k · ω
2
/g k
g
G
g
I, J
G
V
v
CI
V
I
Γ
γ
I
Γ I
ρ
∆p
I
I
J
0
, J
1
Y
0
, Y
1
1 as defined by Luke (1975)
130
modified Bessel functions of the 2nd kind
1
distance between a typical field point and a typical singularity at
distance between a typical field point and the mirror image in the water
surface of a typical singularity
horizontal component of the distance between a typical field point and a
typical singularity
that part of the dipole Green’s function representing the local flow due to
the dipole and its free surface image
that part of the dipole Green’s function representing the free surface wave
propagated by the harmonically pulsating dipole
total depth of the flap
total width of the flap
unit vector in x-direction
phasor of total resultant horizontal force
phasor of total resultant moment about the y-axis
depth below the water surface of the centroid of panel number I
K
0
, K
1
R (x, y, z)
(ξ, η, ζ)
R′
r
G
DS
G
DW
d
w
i
F
x
M
y
d
CI
131
depth below the water surface of the centre of added mass
depth below the water surface of the line of action of the resultant wave
radiation force
depth below the water surface of the line of action of the resultant wave
diffraction force
hydrodynamic added mass
hydrodynamic added moment of inertia about the centre of added mass
radiation coefficient
phasor of water surface elevation at the centre-line of the flap for the
undisturbed incident wave
phasor of the horizontal force on the stationary flap due to an incident wave
of surface elevation
depth below the water surface of an arbitrary horizontal pitching axis
phasor of total resultant moment about an arbitrary pitch axis at a depth
below the water surface
d
A
d
B
d
X
M
A
I
A
B
A
X
A
d
p
M
p
d
p
132
11.2 Principle of the COEFFS Program
It will be assumed that the PS FROG device is a thin (with respect to wavelength),
rectangular, rigidflap, of widthwandwetteddepthd, floatingverticallyinaninfiniteexpanse
of deep water, its major axis parallel to the long crests of regular incident waves. The usual
assumptions of linearised hydrodynamics and potential flow, as examined by Standing
(1979), will also be made. The flap is modelled as a stationary rectangular sheet of normally
aligned, harmonically pulsating dipoles, placed at the mean position of its pitching and
surging motion, with the fixed cartesian coordinate system shown in figure 11.1.
Let the coordinates of a typical point in the dipole distribution be given by (ξ,η,ζ) and
those of a typical field point be (x,y,z). Given that the phasor of dipole strength per unit area
at a typical point in the distribution is γ(ξ,η,ζ) and the resulting total velocity potential (in
the absence of incident waves) can be expressed as :-
133
then according to Scher (1985a) it may be shown that v, the phasor representing the
x-component of the water particle velocity at (x,y,z), is given by :-
where S is the entire area of the sheet and G
D
is the unit strength dipole Green’s function for
deep water beneath a free surface.
Nowif the sheet is divided into a grid of Mcolumns and Nrows of identical rectangular
panels, to give a total of M times N individual elements with approximately constant dipole
strength per unit area γ
I
over each, then the integral equation 11.2 becomes a finite
summation :-
The individual panel dimensions are chosen to be sufficiently small that, except in the
near vicinity of the dipole itself, the gradient of is nearly constant over each. If this
is the case, then the approximation can be made that :-
where are the coordinates of the centroid of panel I and A
p
is its area.
Φ(x, y, z, t) · ℜ(φ(x, y, z)e
i ωt
) 11.1
v · −
∂φ
∂x
(x, y, z) · −
1



S
γ(ξ, η, ζ)
∂G
D
∂x
(x, y, z, ξ, η, ζ)dS 11.2
v · −
∂φ
∂x
(x, y, z) · −
1


I · 1
MN
γ
I


S
I
∂G
D
∂x
(x, y, z, ξ, η, ζ)dS 11.3
∂G
D
/∂x


S
I
∂G
D
∂x
(x, y, z, ξ, η, ζ) ≈ A
p
∂G
D
∂x
(x, y, z, ξ
CI
, η
CI
, ζ
CI
) 11.4

CI
, η
CI
, ζ
CI
)
134
The repeated use of equation 11.3 simultaneouslytoevaluate - the x-component
of the particle velocity - at the centroids of each of the M times N panels, may be expressed
as a single matrix equation :-
where V is a vector containing the x-component of the water velocity at each panel centroid
v
CI
, Γ is a vector containing the unknown dipole strengths per unit area γ
I
and G is a matrix
of Green’s function terms such that:-
i.e. g
I,J
is -4πtimes the normal particle velocity producedat the centroid of panel I by constant
unit dipole strength per unit area over panel J.
Now V may be calculated, in both the wave radiation and diffraction cases, from the
body-boundary condition of zero relative normal velocity at the surface of the flap. Hence
pre-multiplying equation 11.5 by the inverse of G produces the corresponding vector of
dipole strengths per unit area, Γ.
By ascribing a small finite thickness to the dipole sheet then considering the mass and
acceleration of the liquid contained, it may easily be shown by Newton’s 3rd Law that the
pressure jump ∆p
I
across panel I is given by :-
The total force on the flap F
x
is found by multiplying the pressure jump across each
panel by its area and summing for all M times N panels :-
−∂φ/∂x

1

GΓ · V 11.5
g
I, J
·


S
J
∂G
D
∂x
(x
CI
, y
CI
, z
CI
, ξ, η, ζ)dS 11.6
∆p
I
· iωργ
I
11.7
135
Similarly, the total moment about the y-axis M
y
, is given by :-
Finally, the required added mass, radiation and wave diffraction force coefficients can
be obtained by relating F
x
and M
y
to the flap or incident wave motions which produced them,
as described below in subsections 11.2.1 to 11.2.3.
11.2.1 Diffraction Coefficients
Consider a monochromatic, unidirectional wave propagating in a -ve direction along
the x-axis, with surface particle velocity of unit amplitude. Taking the surface elevation at
x=0 as a phase reference, then the velocity at and normal to the plane x=0 at a depth -z below
the water surface is -e
kz
+ 0i. Satisfaction of the body-boundary condition requires that the
normal velocity induced by the singularity distribution at each and every panel centroid be
equal and opposite to this. Therefore each element of V is given by :-
11.10
Knowing V, by following the procedure detailed in section 11.2, F
x
and M
y
can now
be found in this situation. What are required however, are the wave diffraction force
coefficients X/A and d
X
. In this case :-
and
F
x
· − ∑
I · 1
MN
iωργ
I
A
p
11.8
M
y
· − ∑
I · 1
MN
iωργ
I
A
p
d
CI
11.9
v
CI
· e
−kd
CI
X · −F
x
11.11
136
therefore :-
and
11.2.2 Surge Radiation Coefficients
In order to obtain the required coefficients for radiation in surge; M
A
, B, d
A
and d
B
,
harmonic surging motion of the flap must be considered, of unit velocity amplitude, parallel
to the x-axis. Taking the displacement of the flap as the phase reference, the boundary
conditions require that the normal particle velocities at all centroids be given by :-
Having found F
x
and M
y
in this case, then :-
A ·
1
ω
+ 0i 11.12
X
A
· −ωF
x
11.13
d
X
·
M
y
F
x
11.14
v
CI
· i 11.15
M
A
·
ℜ(F
x
)
ω
11.16
B · ℑ(F
x
) 11.17
d
A
·
ℜ(M
y
)
ℜ(F
x
)
11.18
137
Now, as argued in section 10.2, the wave diffraction and radiation forces should
theoretically act through the same point; the centre of wave pressure. Hence d
B
, calculated
from equation 11.19 should be equal to d
X
from equation 11.14 of the previous subsection.
This indeed turned out in practice to be invariably the case, which is reassuring and forms
a useful check on the validity of the computation.
11.2.3 Pitch Radiation Coefficients
All that now remains is to calculate the added moment of inertia about the centre of
added mass I
A
and the radiation coefficient in pitching about the centre of wave pressure,
B
p
say, just to check whether it does come out to be zero as it should. The first step is to find
the vector V for pitching about each of these axes. For simple harmonic pitching of unit
angular velocity amplitude, taking angular displacement from the vertical as the phase
reference, v
CI
will be given by :-
where d
p
= d
A
or d
B
respectively.
Having solved equation 11.5 to find Γ for both cases, the total moments about the
respective pitch axes can be obtained as follows :-
where once again, the depth of the pitch axis, d
p
= d
A
or d
B
as appropriate.
d
B
·
ℑ(M
y
)
ℑ(F
x
)
11.19
v
CI
· i(d
p
− d
CI
) 11.20
M
p
· − ∑
I · 1
MN
iωργ
I
A
p
(d
p
− d
CI
) 11.21
138
Finally, for the first case, letting d
p
= d
A
gives the added moment of inertia :-
and for the second, letting d
p
= d
B
gives :-
Happily, on all occasions B
p
did indeed turn out to be zero, to a high degree of accuracy.
11.3 Green’s Functions
It still remains to derive a formula for ∂G
D
/∂x, the partial derivative with respect to x
of the unit dipole Green’s function, as used in equation 11.6. The Green’s function formulae
used by Scher (1985a) are intended for shallow water and would be computationally most
inefficient for deep sea calculations. However, two alternative formulae for the case of a
unit strength source in deep water are derived by Hogben and Standing (1974) :-
or
where PV signifies "the Cauchy Principal Value of",
I
A
·
ℜ(M
p
)
ω
11.22
B
p
· ℑ(M
p
) 11.23
G
S
·
1
R
+ PV


0

µ + k
µ − k
e
µ(z + ζ)
J
0
(µr)dµ + 2πike
k(z + ζ)
J
0
(kr) 11.24
G
S
·
1
R
+
2
π


0

K
0
(τr)

2
+ k
2
)
[2kτsinτ(z + ζ) + (τ
2
− k
2
) cos τ(z + ζ)]dτ
+ 2πke
k(z + ζ)
[iJ
0
(kr) − Y
0
(kr)] 11.25
139
and
Both formulae consist of the sum of the simple term 1/R representing the field due to
a unit strength source in an unbounded fluid and a complex term representing the wave
effects due to the presence of the free surface. Equation 11.24 is computationally the most
efficient when |z + ζ| » r and conversely, equation 11.25 is better for |z + ζ| « r.
According to Scher (1985a), the dipole Green’s function G
D
which we require, may
be derived from that of a source G
S
by partial differentiation with respect to the singularity
co-ordinate of the axis with which the dipole is aligned. In this particular case, this is the
x-component ξ. Once G
D
has been found in this manner, partial differentiation with respect
to x gives ∂G
D
/∂x, which is what is required to solve equation 11.2 for γ. It represents -4π
times the x-component of the fluid velocity, induced by unit area of dipole sheet, of unit
dipole strength per unit area.
Treating equation 11.24 in this way, partial differentiation with respect to ξ gives :-
since J
0
′(u) = -J
1
(u). In this case all singularity and field points reside on the plane x = 0,
hence for all points of interest x = 0, ξ = 0 and r = |y - η|. Partial differentiation of equation
11.28 with respect to x, followed by the above substitutions, gives the required formula :-
r · √ (x − ξ)
2
+ (y − η)
2
11.26
R · √ (x − ξ)
2
+ (y − η)
2
+ (z − ζ)
2
11.27
G
D
·
(x − ξ)
R
3
+ PV


0

µ + k
µ − k
e
µ(z + ζ)
J
1
(µr)µ
(x − ξ)
r

+2πik
2
e
k(z + ζ)
J
1
(kr)
(x − ξ)
r
11.28
140
Equation 11.29 may be split into two parts - ∂G
DS
/∂x the "singularity part" representing
the direct flow from the dipole and its free-surface image; ∂G
DW
/∂x the "wave part" repre-
senting the flow due to the propagated free-surface waves. That is :-
where
and
R is the distance between the field point and the dipole, R′ the distance between the field
point and the image of the dipole in the water surface. Subtracting the singularity terms from
equation 11.29 and non-dimensionalising with respect to k
3
gives, for the wave part of the
field :-
∂G
D
∂x
·
1
R
3
+ PV


0

µ + k
µ − k
e
−µ¦ z + ζ¦
µ
J
1
(µ¦ y − η¦ )
¦ y − η¦

+2πik
2
e
−k¦ z + ζ¦
J
1
(k¦ y − η¦ )
¦ y − η¦
11.29
∂G
D
∂x
·
∂G
DS
∂x
+
∂G
DW
∂x
11.30
∂G
DS
∂x
·
1
R
3
+
1
R′
3
11.31
R′ · √ (y − η)
2
+ (z + ζ)
2
11.32
∂G
DW
∂x
/k
3
· PV


0

µ + 1
µ − 1
e
−µk¦ z + ζ¦
µ
J
1
(µk¦ y − η¦ )
k¦ y − η¦

+2πie
−k¦ z + ζ¦
J
1
(k¦ y − η¦ )
k¦ y − η¦

1
(kR′)
3
11.33
141
If equation 11.25 is treated in exactly the same manner as equation 11.24, the resulting
alternative expression to equation 11.33 is :-
11.4 The COEFFS Program
Alisting of this program appears in APPENDIXB and its structure is displayed in the
data flow diagram of figure 11.2. Extensive use was made of numerical subroutines from
the NAG Fortran Library.
11.4.1 Important Variables of COEFFS
REAL DY k|y - η
CI
|, the dimensionless horizontal distance between the currently con-
sidered field point and the centroid of panel I
REAL DZ k|z - ζ
CI
|, the dimensionless vertical distance between the currently con-
sidered field point and the centroid of panel I
REAL DZS k|z + ζ
CI
|, the dimensionless vertical distance between the current field point
and the centroid of the image of panel I reflected in the water surface
REAL WP kw/M, the dimensionless width of a single panel of the dipole distribution
REAL DP kd/N, the dimensionless height of a single panel of the dipole distribution
REAL DOW d/w, the depth to width aspect ratio of the flap
∂G
DW
∂x
/k
3
·
2
π


0

[2τsin−τk¦ z +ζ¦ + (τ
2
− 1) cos −τk¦ z + ζ¦ ]

2
+ 1)k¦ y − η¦
τK
1
(τk¦ y − η¦ )dτ
+
2πe
−k¦ z + ζ¦
k¦ y − η¦
{iJ
1
(k¦ y − η¦ ) − Y
1
(k¦ y − η¦ )} −
1
(kR′)
3
11.34
142
1
4
3
REAL AKW kw, the dimensionless flap width
INTEGER M M, the number of columns of identical rectangular panels
INTEGER N N, the number of rows of identical rectangular panels
11.4.2 REAL FUNCTION DGDX1(DY,DZS)
Valid Ranges of Arguments :-
DY ≥ 0, DZS > 0
Calculates :-
DGDX1(DY,DZS) = , using equation 11.33
NAG numerical subroutines used :-
S17AFE to calculate Bessel function J
1
D01AQE to calculate a Cauchy Principal Value integral
D01AME to calculate an integral over a semi-infinite interval
11.4.3 REAL FUNCTION DGDX2(DY,DZS)
Valid Ranges of Arguments :-
DY > 0, DZS > 0
Calculates :-
DGDX2(DY,DZS) = , using equation 11.34

¸
¸
∂G
DW
∂x
/k
3
_
,

¸
¸
∂G
DW
∂x
/k
3
_
,
144
NAG numerical subroutines used :-
S17ADE to calculate Bessel function Y
1
S18ADE to calculate modified Bessel function K
1
D01AME to calculate an integral over a semi-infinite interval
11.4.4 REAL FUNCTION DGDXR(DY,DZS)
Valid Ranges of Arguments :-
DY ≥ 0, DZS > 0
Calculates :-
DGDX(DY,DZS) = , by calling either DGDX1 or DGDX2 depending on
which will be more efficient;
if DZS ≥ DY then it calls DGDX1 otherwise it calls DGDX2.
In cases where DZS ≈ DY, DGDX1 and DGDX2 are of similar computational effi-
ciency. Their results tally to a high degree of accuracy over a broad range of both arguments.
11.4.5 REAL FUNCTION DGDXI(DY,DZS)
Valid Ranges of Arguments :-
DY ≥ 0, DZS > 0
Calculates :-
DGDXI(DY,DZS) = , from both equations 11.33 and 11.34
NAG numerical subroutines used :-
S17AFE to calculate Bessel function J
1

¸
¸
∂G
DW
∂x
/k
3
_
,

¸
¸
∂G
DW
∂x
/k
3
_
,
145
11.4.6 COMPLEX FUNCTION DVX(DY,DZS,WP,DP)
Valid Ranges of Arguments :-
DY ≥ 0, DZS > 0, WP > 0, 0.4 ≥ DP ≥ 0
Calculates :-
If, for a particular field point, the derivatives of with respect to η and ζ are
nearly constant over panel I, then this integral may be accurately approximated as the value
of the integrand at the panel centroid times the area :-
DVX=CMPLX(DGDXR(DY,DZS),DGDXI(DY,DZS))*WP*DP 11.35
The η derivative is sufficiently constant provided WP ≤ 0.2, except for the case when
DY = 0, where as suggested by Scher (1985a), a good approximation is given by :-
DVX=CMPLX(DGDXR(WP/4,DZS),DGDXI(WP/4,DZS))*WP*DP 11.36
The ζ derivative is likewise taken to be sufficiently constant provided either
DY ≥ 4*DP or DZS ≥ 8*DP. If neither of these conditions is satisfied, then the integration
is performed numerically down a vertical line passing through the centroid :-
The NAG Gaussian quadrature routine D01BDE is used with a requested accuracy of t1%.
DVX(DY,DZS,WP,DP) ·
1
k


S
I
∂G
DW
∂x
(0, y, z, 0, η, ζ)dηdζ
∂G
DW
/∂x
DVX ·



DP
2
+
DP
2
CMPLX(DGDXR(DY,DZS+u),DGDXI(DY,DZS+u))*WPdu 11.37
146
As originally written, DVX was only accurate for values of WP ≤ 0.2. However, in
order to demonstrate the concurrence with theoretical 2-dimensional results at higher fre-
quencies, it was later amended to accommodate larger values of WP. The price was some
increase in computational load at these values, which correspond to dimensionless
frequencies kw > 4.0 with M = 20. Thus in all cases when WP > 0.2, DVX performs a
numerical integration with respect to both η and ζ over the complete surface of the panel,
using NAG routines D01BAE and D01BDE.
11.4.7 REAL FUNCTION SCALC(DZ,DY,WP,DP)
Valid Ranges of Arguments :-
DY ≥ 0, DZ ≥ 0, WP > 0, DP > 0
Calculates :-
As previously in FUNCTION DVX, if for a particular field point the derivatives of
1/R
3
with respect to η and ζ are near enough constant over panel I, then the integral may be
satisfactorily approximated as the value at the centroid times the area. This is taken to be
SCALC(DZ,DY,WP,DP) ·
1
k


S
I
1
R
3
dS
147
the case, provided the field point is further than 5 panel diagonals from the centroid. If it is
less than this, a more accurate method is required. Scher (1985a) pointed out that this surface
integral may be evaluated exactly by applying the Biot-Savart law to turn it into a contour
integral around the perimeter of the panel. That is :-
where, as shown in figure 11.3, S
I
is the area and C
I
the perimeter of panel I, kdC is a typical
dimensionless vector differential element around the perimeter, kR is the dimensionless
position vector of the field point P with respect to dC and i is the unit vector in the +ve
x-direction.
By evaluating the integral of equation 11.38 separately for each of the 4 sides of the
rectangle, then summing the results to give the integral around the whole perimeter, it may
be shown that :-
This result always holds even when the field point lies on the dipole panel itself.
1
k


S
I
1
R
3
dS · i


C
I
kR kdC
¦ kR¦
3
11.38
SCALC(DZ,DY,WP,DP) ·

¸
C+ DY
¸
¸
DZ −
DP
2
_
, √
(C+ DY)
2
+
¸
¸
DZ −
DP
2
_
,
2
+
−C+ DY
¸
¸
DZ +
DP
2
_
, √
(−C+ DY)
2
+
¸
¸
DZ +
DP
2
_
,
2
1
1
1
]

WP
2
WP
2

¸
C+ DZ
¸
¸
DY+
WP
2
_
, √
(C+ DZ)
2
+
¸
¸
DY+
WP
2
_
,
2
+
−C+ DZ
¸
¸
DY−
WP
2
_
, √
(C+ DZ)
2
+
¸
¸
DY−
WP
2
_
,
2
1
1
1
]

DP
2
DP
2
11.39
148
11.4.8 Terminal Input
Each time the program is run, the first step is to specify the required values for the flap
aspect ratio DOW, the dimensionless flap width AKW, the number of columns M and rows
N of computational panels to use. In order that DP remains within the limits imposed by
FUNCTION DVX, the following condition is imposed :-
0.4*N ≥ DOW*AKW
11.4.9 Assembling Matrix G
The first taskfor the programis to assemble GMATRIX, the matrixof Green’s function
terms G from equation 11.5, which has dimensions (M*N,M*N). The panels are numbered
going down the columns, moving from left to right as shown in figure 11.4. The largest
value of M*N used in practice was 680, in which case GMATRIX consisted of a huge 462
400 single precision complex floating point elements. Luckily, as Scher (1985a) points out,
there is no need to calculate individually all 462 400 elements, as most are repeated many
times due to the effects of various symmetries. All that is necessary is to calculate every
distinct element then insert them repeatedly in the right places.
149
Initially, consider only the contributions due to the effects of wave propagation.
FUNCTION DVX calculates these solely in terms of DY, the horizontal distance between
the centroids of a given pair of panels and DZS, the sumof their depths belowthe undisturbed
free surface. Hence DY can take values 0, WP, 2*WP, .... (M-1)*WP and DZS can be DP,
2*DP, 3*DP, .... (2*N - 1)*DP. FUNCTION DVX is evaluated for all the resulting
combinations of DY and DZS, the results inserted into the complex array
WTERMS(M,2*N - 1), where the typical element is :-
WTERMS(I,J)=DVX(WP*(I-1),DP*J,WP,DP)
Turning to the contributions of the local singularity flow due to each dipole panel,
these can be split into two parts as shown in equation 11.31. The first is that from the dipole
panel itself, given by SCALC(DZ,DY,WP,DP) where DY can take values 0, WP, 2*WP,
.... (M-1)*WP and DZ can take values 0, DP, 2*DP, .... (N-1)*DP. The second - from the
image of the panel in the undisturbed free surface - is given by SCALC(DZS,DY,WP,DP)
where DY can again take values 0, WP, 2*WP, .... (M-1)*WP and DZS can take values DP,
2*DP, 3*DP, .... (2*N - 1)*DP. Hence if an array STERMS(M,2*N) is assembled such that
its typical element is :-
STERMS(I,J)=SCALC((J-1)*DP,(I-1)*WP,WP,DP)
then rows 1 to Ncontain all distinct values of the first part defined above and rows 2 to 2*N
contain all the distinct values of the second.
The next step is to evaluate all the distinct elements of GMATRIX. This requires
summing the appropriate wave term with both singularity terms for the cases of all M*N
panel centroids as field points, with each of the "flap edge" panels 1 to Nin turn as the dipole
150
panel. The results are placed in the complex three-dimensional array SUMS(N,M,N), the
typical element of which, SUMS(L,I,J) applies to element (I-1)*N + J as field point, with
dipoles covering panel number L. It is given by :-
SUMS(L,I,J)=WTERMS(I,J+L-1)+STERMS(I,|J-L|+1)+STERMS(I,J+L)
GMATRIX itself can now be filled with the appropriate elements from SUMS. This
relies on two facts, both pointed out by Scher (1985a) :-
• The normal velocity dipole Green’s function is symmetric, that is :-
which means that :-
in other words GMATRIX is symmetric about its leading diagonal.
• As the panels are arranged in a series of identical columns, each N panels tall, there
is a recurrence relation between the elements of the matrix such that :-
As shown in figure 11.5, GMATRIX is filled, one column and its symmetrically
identical row at a time, starting at the top left hand corner and finishing with the single
element at the bottom right. This is done in two distinct stages :-
• First, the whole contents of SUMS(N,M,N) are inserted into the first N rows and
columns of GMATRIX, according to the formula :-
∂G
D
∂x
(x, y, z, ξ, η, ζ) ·
∂G
D
∂x
(ξ, η, ζ, x, y, z) 11.40
g
I, J
· g
J, I
11.41
g
I, J
· g
(I − N), (J − N)
11.42
151
GMATRIX(L,(I-1)*N+J)=GMATRIX((I-1)*N+J,L)=SUMS(L,I,J)
• Thentheremainder of GMATRIXisfilledinusingtherecurrencerelationof equation
11.42, with elements already inserted. That is :-
GMATRIX(I,J)=GMATRIX(J,I)=GMATRIX(I-N,J-N)
GMATRIX now contains G/k - the dimensionless form of matrix G from equation 11.5.
11.4.10 LU-Decomposition of Matrix G
The aim of the program is to solve matrix equation 11.5 to find the unknown vector
of dipole densities Γfromwhichthe hydrodynamic coefficients can be calculated. This could
152
be done by evaluating the inverse G
-1
and pre-multiplying, but it is computationally more
efficient to use the technique of LU-decomposition and back-substitution. The procedure
used is :-
• Call NAG Library subroutine F03AHE, which uses Crout factorisation with partial
pivoting to evaluate the lower triangular matrix L, which with unit upper triangular
matrix U, gives :-
P being a permutation matrix.
• Call NAG subroutine FO4AKE, which uses forward and backward substitution in
LV′ = PV and UΓ = V′ to determine Γ.
The first step need only be performed a single time, for once L and U are determined,
the dipole strength vector Γ may be found for any incident wave field or device motion, by
substituting the appropriate body boundary condition vector V into the second step.
11.4.11 Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Surge Radiation and Diffrac-
tion
The vector V is first evaluated for the following two cases and the results inserted into
the complex array SOLN(M*N,2) :-
• Pure harmonic surge motion of the flap, as described in subsection 11.2.2. Using
equation 11.15 and taking the factor of -4π from equation 11.5 into the vector, fill
from I=1 to M*N :-
SOLN(I,1)=CMPLX(0.0,-4*PI)
LU · PG 11.43
153
• Diffraction of normally incident waves, as described in subsection 11.2.1. Using
equation 11.10 and again taking in the -4π factor, fill from I=1 to N :-
SOLN(I,2)=CMPLX(-4*PI,0.0)*EXP(DP/2-DP*I)
and from I=N+1 to M*N :-
SOLN(I,2)=CMPLX(I-N,2)
As described in 11.4.10, a single call to NAG subroutine F04AKE gives k times the
dipolestrengthvector kΓfor eachcase, nowstoredinSOLN(I,1) andSOLN(I,2) respectively.
Applying equations 11.8 and 11.9 to each gives the total horizontal forces and moments
about the y-axis :-
and
The dimensionless hydrodynamic coefficients (X/A)k
3
/ρω
2
, kd
X
, M
A
k
3
/ρ, Bk
3
/ρω, kd
A
and kd
B
are then found from these using equations 11.13, 11.14 and 11.16 to 11.19
respectively.
F
x
×
k
3
ρω
· − ∑
I · 1
MN
CMPLX(0,1)*SOLN(I,1or2)*DP*WP
M
y
×
k
4
ρω
· − ∑
I · 1
MN
CMPLX(0,1)*SOLN(I,1or2)*DP*WP
*(DP/2-DP*(JMOD(I-1,N)+1))
154
11.4.12 Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Pitching
Firstly, vector V must again be evaluated, this time for the conditions described in
subsection 11.2.3, of pure pitching about the centres of added mass and wave pressure. These
are again inserted into SOLN(I,1) and SOLN(I,2) respectively. Using equation 11.20 and
including the -4π factor as before, fill, for I=1 to N :-
SOLN(I,1)=CMPLX(0.0,-4*PI*(A2-I*DP+DP/2))
SOLN(I,2)=CMPLX(0.0,-4*PI*(B2-I*DP+DP/2))
where A2 = kd
A
and B2 = kd
B
respectively. Then from I=N+1 to M*N :-
SOLN(I,1)=SOLN(I-N,1)
SOLN(I,2)=SOLN(I-N,2)
Since SOLN now contains -4πkV for the two pitching cases, a further call to NAG
subroutine F04AKE this time replaces the contents with k
2
times the dipole strength vector
k
2
Γ. Application of equation 11.21 to each then gives the total resultant moment about either
pitching axis :-
Finally, the non-dimensional added moment of inertia I
A
k
5
/ρis obtained using equation
11.22 and the pitching radiation coefficient B
p
k
5
/ρω using equation 11.23.
M
p
×
k
5
ρω
· − ∑
I · 1
MN
CMPLX(0,1)*SOLN(I,1or2)*DP*WP
*(A2orB2+DP/2-DP*(JMOD(I-1,N)+1))
155
11.5 Results of the COEFFS Program
Because of the countless opportunities for error in writing this sort of program, the
results are quite meaningless without some form of validation. However, experimental
testing - the most convincing means of doing this - was ruled out due to lack of funding.
The only real alternative was to show that the numerical calculations coincide with certain
published analytical results towards the extremes of low and/or high frequency. For
example :-
• For surging at the zero frequency limit, the water surface elevation must also be
zero. Therefore the resulting flow field must be identical to one of the two sym-
metrical halves of that produced if the flap is extended above the water level in the
shape of its free surface image, then the whole thing submerged and given the same
motion in an unbounded
1
expanse of fluid. Thus the zero frequency added mass M
a
in the former case must equal half the added mass in the latter.
• At the other end of the frequency scale, as dimensionless flap width kw tends to
infinity, then the proportionate influence of edge effects on the wave radiation and
diffraction coefficients tends to zero. Hence at high frequencies d
B
, d
X
, B/w and
(X/A)/w should coincide with the published 2-dimensional values calculated by
Kotik (1963) for radiation and Evans (1970) for diffraction by a thin vertical sur-
face-piercing flap.
Accordingly, for a flap of aspect ratio 1 (square) which is probably close to that which
a practical device would use, the COEFFS program was run a great many times to map out
1 in other words, without a free surface
156
the hydrodynamic coefficients in some detail. Every attempt was made to push the program
to its limits of accuracy at high and low frequency, to facilitate comparison with the results
suggested above.
Averylarge bonus withthis approach tovalidation, is that byshowing that the radiation
coefficients coincide with Kotik’s published values at frequencies above a certain threshold,
therangeof theprogramis effectivelyextendedover the completefrequencydomainbetween
zero and infinity. This provides all the necessary information to calculate the memory effect
function by means of a cosine transform (Jefferys (1984)) and the infinite frequency added
mass via the Kramers-Kronig relations (Greenhow (1984b)). These are needed to perform
atime-domainsimulationof the deviceusingthe methoddescribedbyCount (1978), allowing
irregular waves and realistic, non-linear power take-off and control strategies tobe modelled.
11.5.1 Dimensionless Parameters used to Display the Results
In order to allow easy comparison with the published results of Kotik and Evans, the
results from COEFFS for a square flap will be plotted in the form of the dimensionless
parameters used by these authors. The relevant parameters are defined as follows :-
Kotik’s p
D
S
·
2B
ωρπwd
2
11.44
Kotik’s b
*
/a ·
d
B
d
11.45
Evans’ ¦ X
(1)
(t)¦ /2ρga
0
b ·

X
A
1
1
2ρgwd
11.46
Evans’ c
p
(1)
·
d
X
d
11.47
157
11.5.2 Radiation Coefficients
The calculated surge radiation coefficient B for a square flap - non-dimensionalised
to give Kotik’s parameter p
D
S
as defined by equation 11.44 - is plotted against dimensionless
frequency kw in the graphs of figures 11.6 to 11.8.
Figure 11.6 shows the behaviour of p
D
S
as calculated by COEFFS at frequencies close
to zero. It appears reasonable to extrapolate the curve from the last calculated point at
kw = 0.075, back to the origin, as hydrodynamic theory dictates. All of the points are
calculated with M = 20 columns and N = 34 rows of computational panels, which is easily
sufficient to give results which are independent of M and N at these frequencies.
Figure 11.7 shows the behaviour of p
D
S
over a broad range of kw using a logarithmic
horizontal axis. The solid line interpolates the individual points, calculated at sufficiently
regular intervals to define the curve accurately. All are calculated with values of M = 20 and
N = 34, up to a maximumkw = 7.0. The dotted line represents the theoretical 2-dimensional
results of Kotik (1963), with which our 3-dimensional results should coincide at high fre-
quencies. Indeed, the two curves do appear to merge as predicted, but to be certain, it is
worth taking a closer look at their junction.
Kotik’s p
M
S
·
2M
A
ρπwd
2
11.48
Kotik’s p
M
R
·
4
ρπwd
4
(I
A
+ M
A
d
A
2
) 11.49
Kotik’s Ka · Evans’ Kb · kd 11.50
158
Figure 11.8 shows a close-up of the area between values of kw = 3.5 to 7.0. The solid
lines again interpolate calculated points, which all used M = 20 as before, but this time
separate lines link points using N = 34, 29, 24, 19 and 14 respectively. Kotik’s results are
again represented by the dotted line. All the points were calculated with M = 20, because in
all cases this was amply sufficient for the result to be independent of M. This is because
along any horizontal line across the flap, the radiation pressure varies in a simple curve of
slowly changing gradient, rising from zero at one edge to a maximum in the middle, then
falling symmetrically to zero at the other edge. Twenty horizontal elements is easily enough
to describe this behaviour.
On the other hand, N - the number of rows of panels used - starts to become significant
inthis region of the graph. When kwis less thanabout 4.0, the five solid lines almost perfectly
coincide, showing that it makes very little difference whether the calculation is performed
with N = 14 or 34 rows. For kw > 4.0 however, the five lines start to diverge, showing that
the upper frequency limit for accuracy of the program is being approached. This is because
as k increases, the exponential decay of wave pressure with depth becomes ever steeper and
the change of pressure gradient across individual panels close to the surface starts to become
significant. Hence the approximation that the radiation pressure is constant over each panel,
its value equal to that at the centroid, loses its validity.
Due to limitations of allocated virtual memory and CPU time on the computer, N = 34
was the practical limit to the number of rows of panels which could be used. However,
looking at the trend in the lines of N = 14, 19, 24, 29, 34, they appear to be converging to
somewhere very close to Kotik’s 2-dimensional values, when kw is larger than about 6.5.
This is strongevidence that the values calculated byCOEFFSare indeed correct and it allows
ustoinfer that for kwfrom, say7.0toinfinityKotik’s values canbeusedfor our 3-dimensional
flap. According to Kotik (1963) as kd tends to infinity, p
D
S
is simply given by :-
159
The depth of the centre of radiation pressure d
B
- non-dimensionalised to give Kotik’s
parameter b
*
/a as defined by equation 11.45 - is plotted against dimensionless frequency kw
infigure 11.9. As in figure 11.8 separate solid lines interpolate points calculatedwith N = 14,
19, 24, 29 and 34 respectively, whilst Kotik’s 2-dimensional results are shown by the dotted
line. Unlike p
D
S
, the calculated values never quite settle onto Kotik’s results. Neither do the
lines for N = 14 to 34 ever quite coincide even at very lowfrequencies. The reason for these
small errors is inherent in the method used by program. If pressure declines with depth at a
constant gradient over a typical panel - a trapezoidal distribution in other words - then the
resultant force is calculated correctly by multiplying the pressure at the centroid by the area.
However, taking the line of action of this force as being through the centroid - as COEFFS
does - will always over-estimate its depth and the larger the vertical dimension of the panel,
the greater this over-estimation will be. Thus the calculated values of b
*
/a are all slightly on
the high side, although the error is generally less than 1% of the total depth of the flap. The
dashed line in figure 11.9 is an estimate of the true values of b
*
/a, which are used in section
11.5.4 to calculate p
M
R
using the Kramers-Kronig relations. As kd tends to infinity, according
to Kotik b
*
/a is given by :-
p
D
S
·
8
π(kd)
2
11.51
b
*
/a ·
1
kd
11.52
160
161
162
163
164
11.5.3 Diffraction Coefficients
The calculated normal wave diffraction force (X/A) for a square flap - non-dimen-
sionalised to give Evans’ expression |X
(1)
(t)|/2ρga
0
b as defined by equation 11.46 - is plotted
against dimensionless frequency kw in the graphs of figures 11.10 to 11.12. The treatment
of |X
(1)
(t)|/2ρga
0
b in these three graphs is exactly the same as that of p
D
S
in figures 11.6 to
11.8, with which these should be compared. In figure 11.10 the curve tends to the origin
almost linearly as opposed to figure 11.6 where it does so almost parabolically. This is to
be expectedas (X/A) shouldtheoretically be proportional tothe squareroot of B(see equation
8.1). Figures 11.11 and 11.12 show that just like p
D
S
, the wave force settles down accurately
onto the theoretical 2-dimensional values when kw is greater than about 6.5. No graph is
plotted for the diffraction force depth d
X
, non-dimensionalised as Evans’ c
p
(1)
, because it
would be identical to figure 11.9. This is because Evans’ c
p
(1)
is the same as Kotik’s b
*
/a and
the value calculated by COEFFS for d
X
was invariably identical to that calculated for d
B
.
165
166
167
168
11.5.4 Added Mass Coefficients
The added mass and moment of inertia coefficients, calculated for a square flap,
non-dimensionalised to give Kotik’s p
M
S
and p
M
R
parameters as defined by equations 11.48
and 11.49 respectively, are plotted against dimensionless frequency kw in the graphs of
figures 11.13 and 11.14. The hexagonal point markers represent individual results from the
COEFFS program. Note that here, valid results are obtainable at much higher values of kw
than for the radiation or diffraction coefficients - the highest kw now being 99.0 as opposed
to 7.0 previously. This is because whilst the program miscalculates the wave pressure at
these high frequencies, it decays so steeply with depth that the miscalculation has little effect
on the overall added mass. The program is however spectacularly inefficient in this region;
for example the single point at kw = 99 required roughly 50 hours of VAX CPU time to
calculate!
Fortunately, there is a better way of extending the range of the added mass results,
using the Kramers-Kronig relations. These were derived in the context of surface gravity
waves by Kotik and Mangulis (1962). Theyallowthe added mass for a given mode of motion
to be extrapolated from the value at any single frequency, to cover the entire frequency
domain from zero to infinity, provided the corresponding radiation coefficient is already
knownover this complete range. As showninsubsection 11.5.2, inthis case it is. The relevant
equations, taken from Kotik (1963) are as follows :-
and
p
M
S
(kd) − p
M
S
(∞) ·
1
π
PV


0

p
D
S
(z)
z − kd
dz 11.53
p
M
R
(kd) − p
M
R
(∞) ·
1
π
PV


0

p
D
R
(z)
z − kd
dz 11.54
169
where
The solid lines in figures 11.13 and 11.14 represent the values obtained using equations
11.53 and 11.54 respectively, extrapolating in each case to zero and infinite frequency from
a single mid-range result of COEFFS. It can be seen that there is a pleasingly high level of
agreement between the COEFFS program and Kramers-Kronig results. The infinite fre-
quency values produced in this way, which would be necessary for a time domain computer
simulation of PS FROG, are p
M
S
= 0.2784 and p
M
R
= 0.1754.
p
D
R
· 2(b
*
/a)
2
p
D
S
11.55
170
171
172
The added mass results cannot be validated in the same way as the radiation and dif-
fractioncoefficients, because unlike themthey do not tend to 2-dimensional values at infinite
frequency. However, as argued in section 11.5, at zero frequency the added mass M
a
should
equal one half that of the flap and its free surface image, moving together in a direction
normal to their surface, when submerged in unbounded fluid. At first sight this doesn’t look
very helpful, as to my knowledge no published theoretical results exist for this situation
either. On the other hand, results do exist for all shapes of submerged ellipsoid (Kochin et
al. (1964)). Figure 11.15 shows a thinsquare flapof unit length sides anda thinsemi-ellipsoid
possessing equal areas and equal depths of their centres of area. Because both present similar
cross-sections in surging motion, it is to be expected that their added masses should be about
173
the same too. Hence the zero frequency added mass of the square flap should be roughly
equal to one half that of a thin ellipsoid of these dimensions submerged in unbounded fluid.
According to Kochin et al. (1964) page 403, the added mass λ
33
of a thin ellipsoid of major
and minor semi-axes a and b respectively is given by :-
11.56
This rather daunting equation is easily evaluated numerically, with the result for the
thin ellipsoid shown in figure 11.15 that λ
33
= 1.2148ρ. Hence for the unit square flap, the
zero frequency added mass M
A
should roughly equal 1.2148ρ/2 = 0.6074ρ. Substituting this
into equation 11.48 gives the result that p
M
S
(0) should roughly equal 0.387, which is indeed
within 2.5% of 0.3968 - the value shown in figure 11.13 - calculated from the COEFFS
results using the Kramers-Kronig relations. This is strong evidence that the added mass
results are correct as well.
λ
33
· lim
c → 0
4
3
πρabc
2b
2
ac


0

1
¸

¸
c
2
b
2
+ t
_

,√
¸

¸
a
2
b
2
+ t
_

,
¸

¸
c
2
b
2
+ t
_

,
(1 + t)
dt
− 1
174
12 POWER CAPTURE CALCULATIONS FOR PS FROG
Having produced an analysis of the dynamics of PS FROG and evaluated the
hydrodynamic coefficients of suitable shapes of floating flap, the next task was to combine
the two in the form of a computer program to estimate the potential mean annual power
production. By employing the same methodology and South Uist wave climate as that used
in the FROGPROG program and described in detail in chapter 5, a direct comparison could
be made between the two devices. The resulting program, named PSPROG was written in
VAX FORTRAN and run on the VAX 11/750 minicomputer. The source code is listed in
APPENDIX C. The PSPROG program consists of two main parts :-
• Firstly, the user supplies a number of parameters defining the size and shape of the
external hull, from which the parameters used in the linearised equations of motion
- such as stiffness and moments of inertia - are calculated.
• Secondly, the mean capture is calculated for each cell of the wave climate scatter
diagram, weighted according to the number of hours of occurrence and summed to
give the mean annual capture.
This approach allows a rough preliminary optimisation of size and shape to be per-
formed, as well as producing productivity estimates to help judge its potential as compared
with competing device concepts.
12.1 Calculation of Device Parameters
For this purpose the device is modelled in the highly simplified manner shownin figure
12.1. This form fulfils the three most basic requirements of the hull :-
175
176
• It must provide a vertical surface for the waves to act against. This is supplied by
the double skinned web of thickness TT.
• It must be thickened at its base to accommodate and allowfor motion of the moving
mass. This is modelled as a rectangular box of width WW, height BB and thickness
AA.
• The flap must have large radius edges to discourage vortex shedding. This is
modelled by the two vertical cylinders of radius RR, one attached to each edge of
the web. In practice, the sharp edges of the rectangular box would also need to be
rounded off, but this requirement is neglected here for simplicity.
The hull itself, comprising the three elements listed above, it treated as a thin shell
with no internal structure, of constant surface density SRHO expressed in kg/m
2
. The total
depth of the hull below the water surface is DD and the freeboard height above the water is
FF. The weight of the hull shell constitutes the structural mass m
1
, which is subtracted from
the total displacement to give the moving mass m
2
. There is no passive ballast.
The movingmass is visualised as a rectangular block of constant relative density RDM,
which is a perfect sliding fit inside its containing box. In reality of course, the mass would
have spaces within and around it to accommodate hull structure, guides and power take-off
mechanisms. To compensate for this, RDM is deliberately chosen to be rather lower than
that which could be achieved in practice. In normal operation, a small safety margin would
have to be reserved at each extreme of the travel to guard against the mass being thrown
violently into its end-stops by a sudden large wave. This is represented by the distance
SAFMAR.
The mass of internal plant such as hydraulic jacks, valves, motors and generators is
neglected as being insignificant to the overall dynamics.
177
The sub-sea volume, surface area of hull, depths of the mass and volume centres and
the pitching moment of inertia are firstly calculated for each of :-
• the rectangular box
• the cylinders and web
• the top deck
These are then combined to give the relevant values for the whole device. The following
subsections list the lines of FORTRAN code which perform these calculations.
12.1.1 The rectangular box
Submerged volume :- VB = AA*BB*WW
Hull surface area :- AB = 2*(AA*BB + AA*WW + BB*WW)
Depth of centre of submerged volume :- DCB = DD - BB/2
Depth of centre of mass :- DGB = DD - BB/2
Pitching moment of inertia :-
IB = SRHO*(AA*BB*(AA**2+BB**2)/6 + BB*WW*AA**2/2
+ AA*WW*BB**2/2 + WW*(AA**3+BB**3)/6)
12.1.2 The cylinders and web
Submerged volume :- VCW = (2*PI*RR**2 + (WW-4*RR)*TT)*(DD - BB)
Hull surface area :- ACW = (4*PI*RR + 2*(WW-4*RR))*(DD + FF - BB)
Depth of centre of submerged volume :- DCCW = (DD - BB)/2
178
Depth of centre of mass :- DGCW = (DD - FF - BB)/2
Pitching moment of inertia :-
ICW = SRHO*(ACW*(DD+FF-BB)**2/12 + 4*PI*(DD+FF-BB)*RR**3/2
+ (WW-4*RR)*(DD+FF-BB)*TT**2/2)
where PI = π
12.1.3 The top deck
Hull surface area :- AD = 2*PI*RR**2 + TT*(WW - 4*RR)
Depth of centre of mass :- DGD = -FF
Pitching moment of inertia :- ID = SRHO*(PI*RR**4/2 + (WW-4*RR)*TT**3/12)
12.1.4 The whole device
Total displacement m
1
+ m
2
:- DISPL = (VB+VCW)*RHOW
Structural mass m
1
:- STRUCMA = SRHO*(AB + ACW + AD)
Depth of centre of structural mass :-
DGSTRUC = SRHO*(AB*DGB + ACW*DGCW + AD*DGD)/STRUCMA
Moving mass m
2
:- MOVMA = DISPL - STRUCMA
Depth of centre of moving mass :- DGMOV = DD - BB/2
Thickness of moving mass :- TMOV = MOVMA/(1000*RDM*BB*WW)
Maximum working amplitude of moving mass :- R0 = (AA - TMOV)/2 - SAFMAR
179
Pitching moment of inertia of moving mass :-
IMOV = MOVMA*(TMOV**2 + BB**2)/12
Depth of centre of mass of the whole device :-
DG = (DGSTRUC*STRUCMA + DGMOV*MOVMA)/DISPL
Depth of centre of submerged volume of the whole device :-
DC = (VB*DCB + VCW*DCCW)/(VB + VCW)
Pitching moment of inertia of the whole device :-
IDEV = IB + ICW + ID + IMOV + MOVMA*(DG-DGMOV)**2
+SRHO*(AB*(DG-DGB)**2 + ACW*(DG-DGCW)**2 + AD*(DG-DGD)**2)
Pitching stiffness K
p
:- KP = (DG - DC)*DISPL*G
where G = g, since in this case, unlike a ship, the surface-piercing area is small and
has a negligible effect on the stiffness in pitching. Hence the pitching stiffness simply
equals the weight times the distance between the centres of mass and volume.
Heaving stiffness :- HSTIFF = AD*RHOW*G
12.1.5 Natural period in pitch
It was shown in section 10.3 that for a good capture over a range of frequencies, the
natural pitching period of the device should be set at the long period end of the required
bandwidth. In attempting to optimise the dimensions of the device, it is therefore most
important to know the natural pitching period of the current form being tried. It cannot be
found directly, since it is a function of added mass and added moment of inertia, which are
themselves functions of period, so an iterative approach is required. A first guess of 10s is
made and the added mass M
A
, the depth of its centre d
A
and the added moment of inertia I
A
180
calculated at this period by the method described in section 12.2. These three quantities are
stored in MA(1), DA(1) and IA(1) respectively. The depth of the centre of mass of the whole
system is then given by :-
DTOT = (DISPL*DG + MA(1)*DA(1))/(DISPL + MA(1))
and the overall total moment of inertia by :-
I = IDEV + IA(1) + DISPL*(DG-DTOT)**2
+ MA(1)*(DA(1) - DTOT)**2
A first estimate of the natural pitching period can then be found as :-
PNAT = 2*PI/SQRT(KP/I)
Next, M
A
, d
A
and I
A
are recalculated at this period, allowing a better estimate of the natural
period to be produced and so on, the iteration quickly converging to the accurate value
required.
12.1.6 Natural period in heave
Heaving oscillations are highly undesirable, so to avoid these it is necessary to keep
the natural heaving period well beyond the limits of the incident wave spectrum. Calculation
of this period requires the heaving added mass which unfortunately is unknown. However,
since the heaving added mass will be dominated by that of the deeply submerged box part
of the hull, it can be estimated as being roughly equal to that of a portion of a long cylinder
181
of length WW and diameter AA in transverse motion through unbounded fluid. It is well
known
1
that the added mass of such a cylinder is equal to the mass of water it displaces.
Hence the heaving added mass may be roughly estimated as :-
HADDMA = PI*RHOW*AA**2*WW/4
The approximate natural heaving period is then simply given by :-
HNAT = 2*PI/SQRT(HSTIFF/(DISPL + HADDMA))
12.2 Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients
The basic assumption here is that the pitch/surge hydrodynamic coefficients of the
device as portrayed in figure 12.1, are similar to those of a thin flap of width WW and depth
DD, as calculated by the COEFFS program. This seems reasonable provided that the
dimensionAAis verymuchless thanthe wavelength, althoughconfirmationbyexperimental
testing would be highly desirable.
In the search for the optimal device dimensions, it would be hopelessly inefficient to
evaluate the coefficients fromscratch for each newformtried. Instead, they were calculated
beforehand for all combinations of kw equal to 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.6, 0.75, 0.9, 1.1,
1.4, 1.9, 2.5, 3.2 and aspect ratio d/w equal to 0.5, 0.6, 0.75, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0. In all these
calculations M = 15 columns and N = 15 rows of panels were used in the COEFFS program,
which is amply sufficient to give accurate results over this range of frequencies. The results
are inserted into a series of 2-dimensional REAL arrays as follows :-
1 see for example Milne-Thomson (1968), page 246
182
M
A
k
3
/ρ ADDMA(13,7)
I
A
k
5
/ρ ADDMOI(13,7)
kd
A
DEPMA(13,7)
Bk
3
/ρω RADCO(13,7)
|X/A|k
3
/ρω
2
WAVFO(13,7)
kd
B
DEPFOR(13,7)
Using the NAG library 2-dimensional surface interpolation routine E01ACE, any of
the above coefficients may then be efficiently and accurately calculated for any flap aspect
ratio between 0.5 and 2.0 and dimensionless width between 0.3 and 3.2. Once evaluated
they are stored in the following REAL variables :-
M
A
MA
I
A
IA
d
A
DA
B B
|X/A| XOA
d
B
DB
12.3 Power Calculations
Exactly the same methodology was used for these calculations as that described in
sections 5.1 and 5.2. The one major difference as compared with FROG is that because PS
FROG is a directional absorber, it is appropriate in this case to scale the incident power by
the directionality factor of 0.83 used for MERMAID. This is accomplished by simply
multiplying the equivalent wave amplitudes A in the scatter diagram of table 5.2 by a factor
of . The workings of the remainder of the program are as follows :-

0.83
183
• For each distinct value of equivalent period T from the scatter diagram, the six
hydrodynamic coefficients are first evaluated in the manner described in section
12.2.
• The following parameters used in the equations of motion derived in chapter 10, can
then be found for each value of T :-
Overall total mass M :- M = DISPL + MA
Depth of centre of overall mass :- DTOT = (DISPL*DG + MA*DA)/M
Overall total moment of inertia I :-
I = IDEV + IA + DISPL*(DTOT-DG)**2 + MA*(DTOT-DA)**2
Height of centre of wave pressure above overall centre of mass, h
f
:-
HF = DTOT - DB
Depth of centre of the moving mass below overall centre of mass, d
m
:-
DM = DGMOV - DTOT
• The dimensionless parameters U, V and p are then found for each value of T, using
equations 10.11, 10.12 and 10.13 respectively.
• The power capture is then calculated for each cell of the scatter diagram containing
a non-zero number of hours of incidence, using the algorithm depicted in the flow
chart of figure 12.2. In exactly the same way as with FROGPROG, this is then
multiplied by the appropriate number of hours, the result summed over all cells, then
the total divided by the number of hours in a year to give the mean annual power.
184
185
• The output of the program starts by printing the device displacement, the depth of
its centre of mass, the moving mass, the structural mass, the pitching stiffness, the
natural pitching period, the estimated natural heaving period and the maximum
allowed working amplitude of the moving mass.
• Next, like FROGPROG, 4 scatter diagrams are printed out containing in turn, the
annual total number of hours of occurrence, the mean power captured, the absorbed
energy per annum and the limiting factor codes. The codes used in the last of these
are slightly different to those for FROGPROG and are as follows :-
0 No incident energy
1 Ideal power capture attained
2 R limiting
3 limiting
4 Maximum power rating limiting
• Finally the total captured energy per annum, the mean annual power and the power
take-off rating are printed out.
12.4 PSPROG Results
In using this program, no attempt has been made to minimise an explicit cost function.
Instead a heuristic search was made to find a hull formwhich both gives a large mean capture
in relation to the total displacement and m
2
R
0
product and also "looks right". At this early
stage there are so many unknowns that it doesn’t seem worthwhile to try to be any more
sophisticated than this. With 7 degrees of freedom in the hull size/shape parameters, their
Θ
186
interactions and effects on the mean capture are much too complicated to be worth trying
to record. Instead, this section contains only the results for what was judged to be the "best"
form discovered.
Like the FROGPROG results listed in table 5.1, the maximum rating of the power
take-off system P
0
is set to the value which on average will be used at full capacity for 10%
of the year.
The linearised theory developed in chapter 10 applies only to small angles of pitch.
At verylarge pitchingangles (approaching90˚) the captured power must fall off considerably
compared to that predicted by the linear theory, but the behaviour at intermediate angles can
only be accurately found by experimental testing. Hence the absolute limit on pitching angle
used by the programwas chosen rather arbitrarily to be 45˚, until evidence can be found that
it should be either higher or lower.
The following are the results printed out by the program for the chosen hull form. This
has the cylinder radius RR equal to half the web thickness TT, so that the cylinders merge
into the web forming a simple slab of thickness 3m, with fully rounded side edges. The
scatter diagram of incident hours of occurrence is not shown as it is identical to table 5.2
except for the scaled down values of A compensating for PS FROG’s directionality, which
are in any case shown in the other diagrams.
187
AA = 11.5m, BB = 6.0m, WW = 20.0m, DD = 19.5m, FF = 2.0m, RR = 1.5m, TT = 3.0m
Water density = 1030.0kg/m3
Relative density of moving mass = 3.0
Surface density of hull = 250.0kg/m2
Safety margin at each end of stroke = 0.7m
Maximum pitching angle = 45.0degrees
Percentage of time with power at its rated value = 10.0%
Initial rated power = 1500kw
Displacement of device = 2202.0tonnes
Structural mass = 405.1tonnes
Moving mass = 1796.9tonnes
Depth of centre of gravity of device = 15.5m
Pitching stiffness of device = 53.0MNm/rad
Natural heaving period of device = 17.4s (approx)
Natural pitching period of device = 12.5s
Maximum amplitude of motion of mass = 2.55m
Total Energy Per Annum = 5658MWhr
Mean Annual Power = 645kW
Power Take-Off Rating = 1400kW
188
Table 12.1 Power Captured (kW)
A(m)
2.818 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.657 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1400 1287 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1400 1189 0 741 0 0 0 0 0
1.852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1400 1400 0 1348 1146 0 716 0 0 0 0 0
1.691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360
1.530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1400 1400 1323 1103 940 761 652 0 0 0 0 0
1.369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1400 0 1400 1375 0 0 0 708 582 0 0 0 0 0
1.208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1138 1239 1336 1400 1400 1195 1025 859 0 609 535 0 402 0 0 0
1.047 0 0 0 0 0 0 819 923 1018 1108 1214 1204 1016 876 773 0 0 467 402 0 0 0 0
0.886 0 0 0 0 397 499 608 708 797 879 972 977 837 0 645 529 463 408 339 0 268 0 0
0.725 0 0 0 0 266 334 408 493 577 651 730 750 685 579 517 448 0 333 290 0 0 0 0
0.564 0 0 0 129 161 202 247 298 358 423 488 524 497 0 0 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.403 46 46 52 66 82 103 126 152 183 216 255 297 306 283 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.242 0 16 18 23 29 37 45 54 66 78 92 0 124 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
0.081 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75 10.25 10.75 11.25 11.75 12.25 12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25
T(s)
189
Table 12.2 Total Energy Captured Per Annum (MWhr)
A(m)
2.818 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.657 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 30 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 61 26 0 16 0 0 0 0 0
1.852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 61 0 59 50 0 15 0 0 0 0 0
1.691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 61 30 30 30 92 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
1.530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 30 30 87 48 20 33 14 0 0 0 0 0
1.369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 92 0 30 121 0 0 0 15 12 0 0 0 0 0
1.208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 54 58 61 61 78 22 18 0 40 23 0 8 0 0 0
1.047 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 101 22 219 80 105 22 38 51 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 0
0.886 0 0 0 0 8 65 200 123 157 232 85 86 55 0 14 11 10 8 7 0 5 0 0
0.725 0 0 0 0 23 22 80 75 127 143 111 49 60 25 56 9 0 7 6 0 0 0 0
0.564 0 0 0 2 21 26 54 39 54 37 32 68 43 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.403 1 1 3 2 12 9 27 30 20 14 22 13 6 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.242 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 4 6 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0.081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75 10.25 10.75 11.25 11.75 12.25 12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25
T(s)
190
Table 12.3 Limiting Factor: 1 = Ideal, 2 = R, 3 = Theta, 4 = P
0
A(m)
2.818 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.657 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
1.852 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
1.691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
1.530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
1.369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
1.208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0
1.047 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
0.886 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0
0.725 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
0.564 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.403 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.242 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
0.081 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75 10.25 10.75 11.25 11.75 12.25 12.75 13.25 13.75 14.25 14.75 15.25
T(s)
191
Another issue which can only be resolved by experimental testing is the effect of
possible vortex shedding at the edges of the flap. The empirical results of Keulegan and
Carpenter (1958) - for elongated cylinders and plates in oscillating flow- are relevant in this
respect. From these it seems likely that no vortices will be shed provided the greatest surge
amplitude of the flap (which is generally at the water surface) is less than the local edge
radius, which means that the value of N
KC
is less than 3 (see equation 3.33). At amplitudes
somewhat greater than this a small vortex may be formed every half cycle at both vertical
edges. However, these vortices should not be shed but instead will remain close to the device
and be swallowed up the following half-cycle, by the opposing ones formed when the flap
velocity reverses. Since no vorticity is being propagated into the sea, the only power losses
are viscous ones in maintaining these local vortices, so it is not clear whether or not they
constitute a serious problem.
To demonstrate that it is possible to increase the vertical edge radius if necessary and
still get similar results, below is listed the PSPROG output for a hull form identical to that
above except that the cylinder radius RR has been increased from1.5mto 2.5m and the web
thickness TTreduced from3mto 1.5m. This should greatly reduce the likelihood of vortices
being formed, at the expense of a slightly more complicated hull shape. The scatter diagrams
are not shown because they are almost identical to tables 12.1 to 12.3.
192
AA = 11.5m, BB = 6.0m, WW = 20.0m, DD = 19.5m, FF = 2.0m, RR = 2.5m, TT = 1.5m
Water density = 1030.0kg/m3
Relative density of moving mass = 3.0
Surface density of hull = 250.0kg/m2
Safety margin at each end of stroke = 0.7m
Maximum pitching angle = 45.0degrees
Percentage of time with power at its rated value = 10.0%
Initial rated power = 1500kw
Displacement of device = 2176.0tonnes
Structural mass = 422.3tonnes
Moving mass = 1753.7tonnes
Depth of centre of gravity of device = 15.4m
Pitching stiffness of device = 48.7MNm/rad
Natural heaving period of device = 17.6s (approx)
Natural pitching period of device = 12.9s
Maximum amplitude of motion of mass = 2.61m
Total Energy Per Annum = 5643MWhr
Mean Annual Power = 644kW
Power Take-Off Rating = 1400kW
It should finally be noted that the results from the PSPROG program suffer exactly
the same limitations as those from FROGPROG, which are listed in section 5.5.
193
13 OTHER RELATED RESEARCH
During the period that FROG and PS FROGwere being developed at Lancaster, there
were one or two interesting developments elsewhere, embodying broadly similar principles.
These are the use of relatively small, independent, rigid floating devices, which possess one
or more strongly excited resonant modes of motion and some formof moving reaction mass
to allow power to be extracted.
The 1MW CLAM device mentioned in chapter 1 was superseded by the CIRCULAR
CLAM, which according to Bellamy (1985) gave a remarkable factor of 3 improvement in
productivity, for the same structural mass. This device consists of a 60m diameter floating
steel torus with12low-stiffness membrane air-bags spacedaroundits perimeter, eachdriving
an individual Wells turbine. The estimated ratioof mean landed electrical power to structural
mass is an impressive 0.95kW/tonne (Peatfield et al. (1987)) based on 1/15th scale model
tests on Loch Ness.
An interesting aspect to this device, is the fact that the 60m diameter torus has two
rigid-body resonant modes of motion, both strongly coupled with the wave force at their
respective resonant frequencies and both suitably damped by the operation of the air-bags
to extract power from them. They are shown in the graphs of Lockett et al. (1989), figures
6 and 8. Lockett’s figure 6 shows the surge amplitude of the torus plotted against period in
monochromatic waves, which with the air-bags shut off shows an appreciable resonance
peakat a 6s period. This is due tothe water within the ring sloshingback and forth, effectively
forming a horizontally acting internal reaction mass/spring system. With the air-bags
operating the resonance peak remains, but its height is much reduced, showing that power
is being extracted from the resonant motion. The wavelength at 6s period is 56m,
approximately equal to the torus diameter. This means that the horizontal wave-forces at
194
the front and back extremes of the torus are in phase, so the resonant surging motion must
be strongly excited. Similarly, Lockett’s figure 8 shows the pitching amplitude plotted
against period, with a resonance peak around 8s, which is also heavily damped when the
bags are in operation. The length of 8s period waves is 100m so the torus diameter is a little
more than half a wavelength and it will experience strong pitching excitation in the same
manner as the "axe-head" device shown in figure 8.1a. What proportion of the total captured
power comes fromdamping these resonant modes is not clear, but Lockett’s figure 9 plotting
theoretical capture efficiency against period, shows a clear peak around 6 - 8s. This makes
an interesting contrast with the straight CLAM, where any motion of the spine was highly
undesirable. Perhaps CIRCULARCLAM and PS FROGhave more in common than at first
sight seems to be the case.
Another promising device to have emerged in recent years, showing parallels with
PS FROG, is the Backward Bent Duct Buoy (BBDB) reported by Masuda et al. (1988). This
consists of a small, floating J-tube OWC with the horizontal part of the J extended and
pointing backwards, away from the incident waves. The novelty of the BBDBis that unlike
other floating OWCs, in which any motion of the hull produces losses, this device is itself
intended to be excited by the waves, in a combination of pitch and surge. The water in the
J-tube acts as a reaction mass and by pumping air through a turbine, provides the power
take-off, as in a conventional OWC. The use of sea-water reaction mass has obvious
attractions in potentially lower costs compared with a solid internal one, although it may
incur higher losses and be more difficult to phase control.
195
14 CONCLUSIONS
Table 14.1 shows a direct comparison between the FROGPROGresults of section 5.4,
for the chosen Form 2 FROG and the PSPROG results of section 12.4, for the selected
PS FROG form. The superiority of PS FROG is clear, producing a little more power from
a device of smaller displacement, at a rather better load factor and most important of all,
with only half the required product of moving mass times travel. In addition it avoids all the
serious problems associated with FROG which are described in chapter 7.
Table 14.1 Mean Annual Power Capture for FROG and PS FROG
FROG PS FROG
Total Displacement 3 000 2 202
(tonnes)
Product of Moving Mass 18 017 9 164
x Total Travel (tonne m)
Power Take-Off Rating
Fully Used for 10% of 1 750 1 400
the Year (kW)
Mean Annual Power 610 645
Captured (kW)
Asix month paper study on the practical realisation of the device, completed the initial
research programme on PS FROG. The aim of this study, which was funded by the UK
Department of Energy via the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU), was to assess the
engineering difficulties involved and produce a costed preliminary embodiment design.
196
However the author, who was by this time in a state of penury, had already received the
offer of a job with considerably better prospects. Happily, this coincided with the arrival at
Lancaster of MatthewFolley, who was able to do the work instead. The contract commenced
on 1st November 1987 and the results were reported by French and Folley (1988).
The device form "plumped for" in this study had a width of 20m, draught 19.5m and
total displacement of 2318tonne. It used a conventional double-skin welded steel hull, the
structural mass of which was estimated as 407tonne. The 1376tonne reaction mass was
allowed a total travel of 5m, supported by large diameter non-circular rollers, which by
forcing it to move in a curved path, produced a suitable gravity spring effect. Power take-off
andcontrol of the mass was byhigh pressure oil-hydraulic cylinders. The mean annual power
capture in the standard South Uist wave climate was estimated as 647kW, giving an average
514kW of electricity per device delivered to shore. This would amount to a substantial
1.26kW/tonne average landed power per unit of structural mass (as opposed to ballast). The
estimatedcost of electricityproducedwas 3.51p/kWhat 1988prices, assuminga 5%discount
rate and a 20 year life. At the time of writing (September 1990), the results of this study are
being reassessed as part of the Department of Energy’s 1989-91 Wave Energy Review.
Whilst it is fair to say that PS FROG seems the most promising of the devices studied
at Lancaster so far and appears at least competitive with any proposed elsewhere, we are far
fromconvinced that it represents the last word on the subject. It has three main disagreeable
features :-
• The large draught of the hull requires either that the interior be slightly pressurised,
or that relatively large amounts of structure are employed, simply to withstand the
large hydrostatic forces near the base of the flap.
197
• As shown in figure 10.5, at high frequencies it works almost entirely in surge, which
as argued in section 9.2 is inefficient because the entire spring effect required for
resonance has to be produced internally by the reaction mass.
• On the other hand at low frequencies, close to the natural pitching period, it works
almost entirely in pitch, about an axis uncomfortably close to the centre of the flap.
This means that much of the wave-making effort of the upper part of the flap is
wasted in cancelling out opposing waves generated by the lower part.
Thus at Lancaster University, the search for an even better device is still continuing, with
insight improved by an understanding of the FROG devices but with the same guiding
principles as before.
198
15 REFERENCES
Ambli, N. et al. (1977); "Wave Power Conversion by a Rowof Optimally Operated Buoys",
Proc. 10th World Energy Conf. Istanbul, Turkey, 19th September 1977.
Bellamy, N. W. (1985); "The Circular Sea Clam Wave Energy Converter", Proc. IUTAM
Int. Symp. on Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave Energy Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal, 8th July
1985.
Budal, K. and Falnes, J. (1975); "Power Generation from Ocean Waves Using a Resonant
Oscillating System", Marine Science Communications vol. 1 parts 3 and 4, pp. 269-88.
Budal, K. and Falnes, J. (1979); "Interacting Point Absorbers With Controlled Motion",
Proc. Conf. on Power from Sea Waves, Edinburgh, UK, 26th June 1979. ("Power from Sea
Waves" edited by B. M. Count, Academic Press, 1980)
Count, B. M. (1978); "The Theoretical Analysis of Wave Power Devices with Non-Linear
Mechanical Conditioning", CEGB Report No. R/M/N/0008.
Crabb, J. A. (1984); "Assessment of Wave Power Available at Key UK Sites", IOS Report
No. 186.
Davies, P. G. et al. (1985); "Wave Energy - The Department of Energy’s R. and D. Pro-
gramme 1974-1983", ETSU R26, HMSO, ISBN 0-7058-1270-7.
Evans, D. V. (1970); "Diffraction of water waves by a submerged vertical plate", J. Fluid
Mech. vol. 40 part 3 pp. 433-51.
199
Evans, D. V. (1979); "Some Analytical Results for 2 and 3-D Wave Energy Absorbers",
Proc. Conf. on Power from Sea Waves, Edinburgh, UK, 26th June 1979. ("Power from Sea
Waves" edited by B. M. Count, Academic Press, 1980)
Evans, D. V. (1981); "MaximumWave Power Absorption Under Motion Constraints", Appl.
Ocean Res. vol. 3 no. 4 pp. 200-3.
Falnes, J. and Budal, K. (1978); "Wave Power Conversion by Point-Absorbers", Norwegian
Maritime Research vol. 6 no. 4 pp. 2-11.
Ferdinande, V. and Vantorre, M. (1985); "The Concept of a Bipartite Point Absorber", Proc.
IUTAMInt. Symp. on Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave Energy Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal,
8th July 1985.
Folley, M. S. (1987); "Investigation into tank characteristics ", internal note, Lancaster
University Engineering Dept. 8th Oct. 1987.
French, M. J. and Hurdle, D. P. (1982); "Research on wave-energy conversion using small
bodies moving in surge ("Flounder")", Final report to SERC under grant no. GR/B 29962,
10th Nov. 1982.
French, M. J. (1984a); "A Note on the Degree of Adiabaticness of Air Compression and
Expansion in Wave Power Devices", internal note, Lancaster University Engineering Dept.
21st Oct. 1984.
French, M. J. (1984b); "Effects of limited travel and losses", internal note, Lancaster Uni-
versity Engineering Dept. 3rd April 1984.
French, M. J. (1984c); "The mechanics of FROG", internal note TN35, Lancaster University
Engineering Dept.
200
French, M. J. and Bracewell, R. H. (1985a); "The reduction of structural costs in obtaining
energy from sea waves", Proc. 4th Int. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Eng. Symp. ASME,
1985.
French, M. J. and Bracewell, R. H. (1985b); "Heaving point absorbers reacting against an
internal mass", Proc. IUTAM Int. Symp. on Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave Energy
Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal, 8th July 1985.
French, M. J. and Bracewell, R. H. (1985c); "A Design Study with Experimental Support
on a Reactionless Wave Energy Converter Buoy (FROG)", Final Report to ETSU on Dept.
of Energy contract E/5A/CON/1672/931, 30th April 1985.
French, M. J. and Bracewell, R. H. (1986); "A Design Study with Experimental Support on
a Reactionless Wave Energy Converter Buoy (FROG)", Final Report to ETSUon extension
to Dept. of Energy contract E/5A/CON/1672/931, 31st January 1986.
French, M. J. and Folley, M. S. (1988); "Design Study of the Engineering of a Reactionless
Wave Energy Converter Buoy Working in Pitch and Surge (PS FROG)", Final Report to
ETSU on Dept. of Energy contract E/5A/CON/1681/1852, 30th April 1988.
Greenhow, M. J. L. (1979); "The Hydrodynamic Interactions of Spherical Wave Power
Devices in Surface Waves", Proc. Conf. on Power from Sea Waves, Edinburgh, UK, 26th
June 1979. ("Power from Sea Waves" edited by B. M. Count, Academic Press, 1980)
Greenhow, M. J. L. (1984a); "Control Strategies for the CLAMWave Energy Device", Appl.
Ocean Res. vol. 6 no. 4 pp. 197-206.
Greenhow, M. J. L. (1984b); "A Note on the High Frequency Limits of a Floating Body",
J. Ship Res. vol. 28 no. 4 pp. 226-8, December 1984.
201
Hicks, D. C. and Pleass, C. M. (1985); "Physical and Mathematical Modelling of a Point
Absorber Wave Energy Conversion System with Non-Linear Damping", Proc. IUTAM Int.
Symp. on Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave Energy Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal, 8th July
1985.
Hogben, N. and Standing, R. G. (1974); "Wave Loads on Large Bodies", Proc. Int. Symp.
on Dynamics of Marine Vehicles and Structures in Waves, I.Mech.E. pp. 258-77.
Hogben, N. and Miller, B. L. P. (1979); "Synthesis of Wave Climate - An Alternative
Approach", Proc. Conf. on Power fromSea Waves, Edinburgh, UK, 26th June 1979. ("Power
from Sea Waves" edited by B. M. Count, Academic Press, 1980)
Jefferys, E. R. (1984); "Simulation of Wave Power Devices", Appl. Ocean Res. vol. 6, no.
1, pp. 31-9.
Keulegan, G. H. and Carpenter, L. H. (1958); "Forces on Cylinders and Plates in an
Oscillating Fluid", J. Res. Nat. Bureau of Standards vol. 60 no. 5 paper 2857 pp. 423-40,
May 1958.
Kochin, N. E. et al. (1964); "Theoretical Hydrodynamics", Interscience, New York, 1964.
Kotik, J. and Mangulis, V. (1962); "On the Kramers-Kronig relations for Ship Motions",
Int. Ship. Prog. vol. 9 no. 97.
Kotik, J. (1963); "Damping and Inertia coefficients for a Rolling or Swaying Vertical Strip",
J. Ship Res. pp. 19-23, Oct. 1963.
Lockett, F. P. et al. (1989); "The CLAM Wave Energy Device: Component Development
& Hydrodynamic Modelling", Proc. UK-ISES Conf. C-57 "Wave Energy Devices", Cov-
entry, UK, 30th November 1989, pp. 42-51.
202
Longuet-Higgins, M. S. (1977); "Point Absorbers", Wave Energy Steering Committee -
Memorandum to TAG 1, April 1977.
Luke, Y. L. (1975); "Mathematical Functions and Their Approximations", Academic Press
Inc. 1975.
Masuda, Y. et al. (1988); "Sea Test Results of the Backward Bent Duct Buoy and its
Applications for Various Uses", Extended Abstracts - Euromechanics Colloquium 243
"Energy from Ocean Waves", Bristol, UK, 26th September 1988.
Meir, R. (1978); "The Development of the Oscillating Water Column", Proc. Wave Energy
Conf. Heathrow Hotel, London, UK, 22nd Nov. 1978, pp. 35-44.
Milne-Thomson, L. M. (1968); "Theoretical Hydrodynamics", Macmillan, London, UK.
Mollison, D. (1979); "The Prediction of Device Performance", Proc. Conf. on Power from
Sea Waves, Edinburgh, UK, 26th June 1979. ("Power from Sea Waves" edited by B. M.
Count, Academic Press, 1980)
Motora, S. and Koyama, T. (1966); "Wave Excitationless Ship Forms", Proc. 6th Symp. on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington DC, USA, pp. 383-404.
Newman, J. N. (1962); "The Exciting Forces on Fixed Bodies in Waves", J. Ship Res. pp.
10-17, Dec. 1962.
Newman, J. N. (1975); "Interaction of waves with two-dimensional obstacles: a relation
between the radiation and scattering problems", J. Fluid Mech. vol. 71 part 2 pp. 273-82.
Nielsen, K. (1989); "The Danish Wave Power Project: Planning a Full Scale Wave Power
Conversion Test 1988-9", Proc. Int. Conf. on Ocean Energy Recovery, Hawaii, 1989.
203
Parks, P. C. (1979); "Wedges, Plates and Waves - Some Simple Mathematical Models of
Wave Power Machines", Proc. Conf. on Power fromSea Waves, Edinburgh, UK, 26th June
1979. ("Power from Sea Waves" edited by B. M. Count, Academic Press, 1980)
Parrish, A. (ed.) (1973); "Mechanical Engineer’s Reference Book", Butterworths, London,
UK.
Peatfield A. M. et al. (1987); "Wave Energy: ABritish Way Forward with the Circular SEA
CLAM", Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Energy Options - The Role of Alternatives in the World
Energy Scene, University of Reading, UK, 7th April 1987, pp. 194-7.
Pierson, W. J. and Moskowitz, L. (1964); "A Proposed Spectral Form for Fully Developed
Wind Seas based on the Similarity Theory of S A Kitaigorodskii", J. Geophys. Res. vol. 69,
pp. 5181-90, 1964.
Rendel, Palmer and Tritton(1983); "Vol 1 Summaryand General Information", Consultants’
1983 report to Wave Energy Steering Committee, June 1983.
Salter, S. H. (1978); "The development of the DUCK Concept", Proc. Wave Energy Conf.
Heathrow Hotel, London, UK, 22nd Nov. 1978, pp. 17-28.
Salter, S. H. (1979); "Recent Progress on DUCKS", Proc. First Symp. on Wave Energy
Utilisation, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 36-76, 30th October 1979.
Salter, S. H. (1985); "Progress on Edinburgh DUCKS", Proc. IUTAM Int. Symp. on
Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave Energy Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal, 8th July 1985.
Scher, R. M. (1985a); "Astudy of flap-type wave absorbing devices", PhdThesis, University
of Michigan, USA.
204
Scher, R. M. (1985b); "Progress on Flap-Type Wave Absorbing Devices", Proc. IUTAM
Int. Symp. on Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave Energy Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal, 8th July
1985.
Standing, R. G. (1979); "Use of Potential Flow Theory in Evaluating Wave Forces on
Offshore Structures", Proc. Conf. on Power from Sea Waves, Edinburgh, UK, 26th June
1979. ("Power from Sea Waves" edited by B. M. Count, Academic Press, 1980)
Yeung, R. W. (1985); "A Comparative Evaluation of Numerical Methods in Free-Surface
Hydrodynamics", Proc. IUTAM Int. Symp. on Hydrodynamics of Ocean Wave Energy
Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal, 8th July 1985.
205
APPENDIX A Listing of the FROGPROG Program
C FROGPROG.FOR calculates mean annual power capture for heaving frog
C buoy of given parameters.
DIMENSION IHOURS(23,18),AWAVE(18),TE(23),DATK(20),DATB(20)
+ ,IPOW(23,18),IANNEN(23,18),LIM(23,18)
COMMON A,X,D,DRM,DYM,DATK,DATB,P0,TRAVMA
C INPUT SCALE PARAMETERS (REAL)
WRITE (6,101)
101 FORMAT(’ Please Enter Buoy Form (1or2), Displacement (tonnes)’
+ //’ Moving Mass Fraction, Max Y1 (m), Max r coeff (m/tonne^1/3)’
+ //’ Rated Power (kW)’)
READ(5,*) IFORM,DISPL,FRACMM,YMAX,RCOEFF,P0
IF(IFORM.EQ.1) THEN
D=3542.0
ELSE
D=5623.0
END IF
A=(1000*DISPL/D)**(0.33333333)
X=1/FRACMM
DYM=YMAX/A
DRM=(RCOEFF*DISPL**(0.33333333))/A
C INPUT BUOY DATA (REAL)
IF(IFORM.EQ.1) THEN
READ(18,*)(DATK(I),I=1,20)
READ(19,*)(DATB(I),I=1,20)
ELSE
READ(20,*)(DATK(I),I=1,20)
READ(21,*)(DATB(I),I=1,20)
END IF
C INPUT WAVE DATA - AWAVE AND TE REAL,IHOURS INT
READ(23,*)(TE(I),I=1,23)
READ(24,*)(AWAVE(I),I=1,18)
206
DO 13 J=1,18
READ(25,*)(IHOURS(I,J),I=1,23)
13 CONTINUE
C CALCULATE POW,ANNEN,TOTAL ENERGY AND MEAN ANNUAL POWER
TOTE=0
DO 10 J=1,23
DO 11 I=1,18
IF(IHOURS(J,I).EQ.0) GO TO 12
CALL POWERSUB(AWAVE(I),TE(J),POW,LIM(J,I))
ANNEN=(POW*IHOURS(J,I))/1000
TOTE=TOTE+ANNEN
IPOW(J,I)=POW
IANNEN(J,I)=ANNEN
GO TO 11
12 IPOW(J,I)=0
IANNEN(J,I)=0
11 CONTINUE
10 CONTINUE
PMEAN=TOTE/8.76
C OUTPUT PARAMETERS
DIAM=2*A
M2RMAX=DISPL*FRACMM*DRM*A
IDISPL=DISPL
WRITE(6,113) IFORM,DIAM,IDISPL,2*M2RMAX
113 FORMAT(’ Buoy is of Form’,I2,’, diameter ’,F5.2,’ m’
+ //’ Total Displacement is’,I5,’ tonnes’
+ //’ Moving mass x maximum full stroke travel =’,I6,’tonne m’)
C OUTPUT IHOURS
WRITE(6,105)
105 FORMAT(//23X,’Incident Hours Per Annum’//’ A(m)’)
DO 29 J=1,18
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(IHOURS(I,J),I=1,23)
107 FORMAT(F6.3,I4,22I5)
207
29 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,109)
C OUTPUT IPOW
WRITE(6,106)
106 FORMAT(//23X,’Power Captured (kW)’//’ A(m)’)
DO 30 J=1,18
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(IPOW(I,J),I=1,23)
30 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
108 FORMAT(5X,23F5.2)
WRITE(6,109)
109 FORMAT(40X,’Te(s)’)
C OUTPUT ANNEN
WRITE(6,110)
110 FORMAT(//23X,’Total Energy Captured Per Annum (MWhr)’//’ A(m)’)
DO 31 J=1,18
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(IANNEN(I,J),I=1,23)
31 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,109)
C OUTPUT LIM
WRITE(6,115)
115 FORMAT(//23X,’Limiting Factor: 1=Ideal,2=Y1,3=R,4=Y1&R,5=Pmax’
+ //’ A(m)’)
DO 32 J=1,18
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(LIM(I,J),I=1,23)
32 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,109)
C OUTPUT TOTAL ENERGY AND MEAN ANNUAL POWER
ITOTE=TOTE
IPMEAN=PMEAN
WRITE(6,111) ITOTE
111 FORMAT(//20X,’Overall total energy captured per annum =’,I6
208
+ ,’ MWhr’)
WRITE(6,112) IPMEAN
112 FORMAT(//20X,’Mean annual power capture =’,I6,’ kW’)
STOP
END
SUBROUTINE POWERSUB(H,TSUB,P,L)
DIMENSION DATK(20),DATB(20)
COMMON A,X,D,DRM,DYM,DATK,DATB,P0,TRAVMA
C CALCULATE K,KA,PID
WK=4.025/(TSUB**2)
AK=A*WK
IF(AK.LT.1.0) GO TO 4
P=0
GO TO 3
4 PID=(3944*(H**2)*TSUB)/WK
C CALCULATE U,V,C,SECB,RM,YM
CALL INTER(DATK,AK,DK)
U=(DK-1)*X
CALL INTER(DATB,AK,DB)
V=DB*X
C=SQRT((U**2)+(V**2))
SECB=C/V
RM=DRM*A
YM=DYM*A
C CALCULATE B,M2,Q,IDEAL Y1,IDEAL R
B=(3.132*DB*D*(AK**3))/(WK**2.5)
TRAVMA=((A**3)*D)/X
Q=(H/TRAVMA)*SQRT(657.7*(B/(WK**3.5)))
YI=H*SQRT(486199/(B*((9.81*WK)**2.5)))
RI=(SECB*SQRT(2*B*PID))/(TRAVMA*WK*9.81)
IF((RM/RI).GT.(YM/YI)) GO TO 5
IF((RM/RI).GE.1.0) GO TO 6
IF((C*YM).GE.SQRT((Q*Q)+(RM*RM)-(2*Q*RM/SECB)))GO TO 7
GO TO 8
5 IF((YM/YI).GE.1.0) GO TO 6
209
IF(RM.GE.SQRT((Q*Q)+((C*YM)**2)-(2*Q*C*YM/SECB))) GO TO 9
8 COSTHETA=((RM*RM)+((C*YM)**2)-(Q*Q))/(2*RM*C*YM)
IF((COSTHETA+(V/C)).GT.0.0) GO TO 10
COSTHETA=-1.0/SECB
10 L=4
P=0.5*TRAVMA*((9.81*WK)**1.5)*YM*RM*SIN(ACOS(COSTHETA)
+ -ASIN(V/C))/1000
GO TO 2
6 L=1
P=PID/1000
GO TO 2
7 L=3
P=PID*((2*RM/RI)-((RM/RI)**2))/1000
GO TO 2
9 L=2
P=PID*((2*YM/YI)-((YM/YI)**2))/1000
C TEST FOR P0
2 IF(P.LE.P0) GO TO 3
L=5
P=P0
3 CONTINUE
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE INTER(DATA,X,Y)
DIMENSION DATA(2)
U=20*X
I=U
J=I+1
Y=DATA(I)+(U-I)*(DATA(J)-DATA(I))
RETURN
END
210
APPENDIX B Listing of the COEFFS Program
C COEFFS.FOR calculates hydrodynamic coefficients of rectangular flap
C for given number of horizontal and vertical elements, m and n.
C Functions for num. int. routines in DGDX1
FUNCTION G(X)
COMMON DY,DZS
IFAIL=0
IF(DY.EQ.0.0) GO TO 1
G=(X+1)*EXP(-X*DZS)*X*S17AFE(X*DY,IFAIL)/DY
RETURN
1 G=(X+1)*EXP(-X*DZS)*X**2/2
RETURN
END
FUNCTION F(X)
COMMON DY,DZS
IFAIL=0
IF(DY.EQ.0.0) GO TO 1
F=((X+1)/(X-1))*EXP(-X*DZS)*X*S17AFE(X*DY,IFAIL)/DY
RETURN
1 F=((X+1)/(X-1))*EXP(-X*DZS)*X**2/2
RETURN
END
C DGDX1 calculates real wave part of Green’s function for small r
FUNCTION DGDX1(DY,DZS)
EXTERNAL G,F
COMMON DYA,DZSA
DIMENSION W(2000),IW(252)
REAL I1,I2
DYA=DY
DZSA=DZS
IFAIL=1
CALL D01AQE(G,0.0,2.,1.,0.0,.01,I1,ABSERR1,W,2000,IW,252,IFAIL)
IF(IFAIL.EQ.0) GO TO 4
WRITE(6,*) DY,DZS,ABSERR1/I1,IFAIL
211
4 IFAIL=1
CALL D01AME(F,2.,1,0.0,0.01,I2,ABSERR2,W,2000,IW,252,IFAIL)
IF(IFAIL.EQ.0) GO TO 5
WRITE(6,*) DY,DZS,ABSERR2/I2,IFAIL
5 IFAIL=0
DGDX1=I1+I2-(DY**2+DZS**2)**(-1.5)
RETURN
END
C Function for num. int. routine in DGDX2
FUNCTION H(X)
COMMON DY,DZS
IFAIL=0
H=(2/3.141593)*(2*X*SIN(-X*DZS)+(X**2-1)*COS(-X*DZS))
+ *X*S18ADE(X*DY,IFAIL)/(DY*(X**2+1))
RETURN
END
C DGDX2 calculates real wave part of Green’s function for large r
FUNCTION DGDX2(DY,DZS)
EXTERNAL H
COMMON DYA,DZSA
DIMENSION W(2000),IW(252)
REAL I
DYA=DY
DZSA=DZS
IFAIL=1
CALL D01AME(H,0.0,1,0.0,0.01,I,ABSERR,W,2000,IW,252,IFAIL)
IF(IFAIL.EQ.0) GO TO 2
WRITE(6,*) DY,DZS,ABSERR/I,IFAIL
IFAIL=0
2 DGDX2=(2*EXP(-DZS)/DY)*3.141593*(-S17ADE(DY,IFAIL))
+ +I-(DY**2+DZS**2)**(-1.5)
RETURN
END
C DGDXR chooses which of DGDX1,DGDX2, to call
212
FUNCTION DGDXR(DY,DZS)
EXTERNAL DGDX1,DGDX2
IF(DZS.LT.DY) GO TO 1
DGDXR=DGDX1(DY,DZS)
RETURN
1 DGDXR=DGDX2(DY,DZS)
RETURN
END
C DGDXI calculates imaginary wave part of Green’s function
FUNCTION DGDXI(DY,DZS)
IF(DY.EQ.0.0) GO TO 2
IFAIL=0
DGDXI=(2*EXP(-DZS)/DY)*3.141593*S17AFE(DY,IFAIL)
GO TO 3
2 DGDXI=EXP(-DZS)*3.141593
3 RETURN
END
C Functions for num. int. routine in DVX
FUNCTION FUNDR(X)
EXTERNAL DGDXR
COMMON/BLK9/DZS
FUNDR=DGDXR(ABS(X),DZS)
RETURN
END
FUNCTION FUNDI(X)
EXTERNAL DGDXI
COMMON/BLK9/DZS
FUNDI=DGDXI(ABS(X),DZS)
RETURN
END
FUNCTION FUNR(X)
EXTERNAL DGDXR,D01BAZ,FUNDR
COMMON/BLK1/ DY,WP
COMMON/BLK9/ XA
XA=X
213
IF(WP.GT..2) GO TO 2
FUNR=DGDXR(DY,X)*WP
GO TO 1
2 IFAIL=0
FUNR=D01BAE(D01BAZ,DY-WP/2,DY+WP/2,10,FUNDR,IFAIL)
1 RETURN
END
FUNCTION FUNI(X)
EXTERNAL DGDXI,D01BAZ,FUNDI
COMMON/BLK1/ DY,WP
COMMON/BLK9/ XA
XA=X
IF(WP.GT..2) GO TO 2
FUNI=DGDXI(DY,X)*WP
GO TO 1
2 IFAIL=0
FUNI=D01BAE(D01BAZ,DY-WP/2,DY+WP/2,10,FUNDI,IFAIL)
1 RETURN
END
C DVX calculates integral of wave part of WTERMS func. over
C rectangle WP,DP by midpoint rule or num. int. if necessary
COMPLEX FUNCTION DVX(DY,DZS,WP,DP)
EXTERNAL DGDXR,DGDXI,D01BAZ,FUNR,FUNI
COMMON/BLK1/ DYA,WPA
IFAIL=0
WPA=WP
DYA=DY
IF(WP.GT..2) GO TO 1
IF(DY.GT.0.0) GO TO 3
DY=WP/4
3 DYA=DY
IF(DY.GE.4*DP) GO TO 4
IF(DZS/DP.LT.8.0) GO TO 1
4 DVX=CMPLX(DGDXR(DY,DZS),DGDXI(DY,DZS))*WP*DP
GO TO 2
214
1 CALL D01BDE(FUNR,DZS-DP/2,DZS+DP/2,.0,.01,DVXR,ABSERR)
CALL D01BDE(FUNI,DZS-DP/2,DZS+DP/2,.0,.01,DVXI,ABSERR)
DVX=CMPLX(DVXR,DVXI)
2 RETURN
END
C SCALC calculates integral of sing. part of WTERMS function over
C rectangle WP,DP by midpoint rule or exact Biot-Savart int. if nec.
FUNCTION SCALC(DZ,DY,WP,DP)
X(A1,A2,A3,A4)=(A1+A2)/((A3+A4)*SQRT((A1+A2)**2+(A3+A4)**2))
DIST=SQRT(DY**2+DZ**2)
IF(DIST.LT.5*SQRT(WP**2+DP**2)) GO TO 1
SCALC=WP*DP/DIST**3
GO TO 2
1 T1=X(DP/2,DZ,DY,WP/2)-X(-DP/2,DZ,DY,WP/2)
T2=X(-DP/2,DZ,DY,-WP/2)-X(DP/2,DZ,DY,-WP/2)
T3=X(-WP/2,DY,DZ,-DP/2)-X(WP/2,DY,DZ,-DP/2)
T4=X(WP/2,DY,DZ,DP/2)-X(-WP/2,DY,DZ,DP/2)
SCALC=-1*(T1+T2+T3+T4)
2 RETURN
END
C Main hyd. coeffs program for PS.FROG
COMPLEX SUMS,WTERMS,DVX,GMATRIX,SOLN,F1,F2
DIMENSION SUMS(34,34,34),WTERMS(34,67),STERMS(34,68)
+ ,GMATRIX(680,680),RINT(680),SOLN(680,2)
1 WRITE(6,200)
200 FORMAT(’ Please enter flap aspect ratio (depth/width)
+, dimenionless flap width (kw),’/’ number of elements horizontally
+, M (<35) and vertically, N (<35).(M*N<681).’)
READ(5,*) DOW,AKW,M,N
CALL SUB(DOW,AKW,M,N,SUMS,WTERMS,STERMS,
+ GMATRIX,RINT,SOLN)
GO TO 1
END
215
SUBROUTINE SUB(DOW,AKW,M,N,SUMS,WTERMS,STERMS,
+ GMATRIX,RINT,SOLN)
COMPLEX SUMS,WTERMS,DVX,GMATRIX,SOLN,F1,F2
DIMENSION SUMS(N,M,N),WTERMS(M,2*N-1),STERMS(M,2*N)
+ ,GMATRIX(M*N,M*N),RINT(M*N),SOLN(M*N,2)
EXTERNAL SCALC,DVX
WP=AKW/M
DP=DOW*AKW/N
C Calculate distinct wave part terms => WTERMS(m,2n-1)
DO 2 J=1,2*N-1
DO 1 I=1,M
WTERMS(I,J)=DVX(WP*(I-1),DP*J,WP,DP)
1 CONTINUE
2 CONTINUE
C Calculate distinct sing. part terms => Sterms(m,2n)
DO 3 J=1,2*N
DO 4 I=1,M
STERMS(I,J)=SCALC((J-1)*DP,(I-1)*WP,WP,DP)
4 CONTINUE
3 CONTINUE
C Calculate all distinct complete terms => Sums(n,m,n)
DO 7 L=1,N
DO 5 J=1,N
DO 6 I=1,M
SUMS(L,I,J)=WTERMS(I,J+L-1)+STERMS(I,JIABS(J-L)+1)+STERMS(I,J+L)
6 CONTINUE
5 CONTINUE
7 CONTINUE
C Fill GMATRIX(mn,mn) from Sums(n,m,n)
DO 8 L=1,N
DO 9 I=1,M
DO 10 J=1,N
IF((I-1)*N+J.LT.L) GO TO 10
GMATRIX(L,(I-1)*N+J)=SUMS(L,I,J)
GMATRIX((I-1)*N+J,L)=GMATRIX(L,(I-1)*N+J)
216
10 CONTINUE
9 CONTINUE
8 CONTINUE
DO 11 I=N+1,M*N
DO 12 J=I,M*N
GMATRIX(I,J)=GMATRIX(I-N,J-N)
GMATRIX(J,I)=GMATRIX(I,J)
12 CONTINUE
11 CONTINUE
C Execute LU-decomposition of GMATRIX
IFAIL=0
CALL F03AHE(M*N,GMATRIX,M*N,DETR,DETI,ID,RINT,IFAIL)
C Fill vectors with body-boundary conditions for radiation (surge)
C and diffraction
DO 13 J=1,N
SOLN(J,1)=CMPLX(.0,4*3.141592654)
SOLN(J,2)=CMPLX(4*3.141592654,.0)*EXP(DP/2-J*DP)
13 CONTINUE
DO 14 I=N+1,M*N
SOLN(I,1)=SOLN(I-N,1)
SOLN(I,2)=SOLN(I-N,2)
14 CONTINUE
C Call back-substitution routine => vectors of dipole densities
CALL F04AKE(M*N,2,GMATRIX,M*N,RINT,SOLN,M*N)
C Sum up forces and moments about surface for all elements
A1=0.0
A2=0.0
B1=0.0
B2=0.0
F1=0.0
F2=0.0
A3=0.0
B3=0.0
DO 15 J=1,N
DO 16 I=1,M
217
A1=A1-AIMAG(SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,1))*WP*DP
A2=A2-AIMAG(SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,1))*WP*DP*(-DP/2+J*DP)
B1=B1+REAL(SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,1))*WP*DP
B2=B2+REAL(SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,1))*WP*DP*(-DP/2+J*DP)
F1=F1-SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,2)*WP*DP*CMPLX(.0,1.)
F2=F2-SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,2)*WP*DP*(-DP/2+J*DP)*CMPLX(.0,1.)
16 CONTINUE
15 CONTINUE
A2=A2/A1
B2=B2/B1
F2=F2/F1
C Fill SOLN(1and2) with b.b.c.’s for pitching about M and F centres
DO 17 J=1,N
SOLN(J,1)=CMPLX(.0,4*3.141592654*(A2-J*DP+DP/2))
SOLN(J,2)=CMPLX(.0,4*3.141592654*(B2-J*DP+DP/2))
17 CONTINUE
DO 18 I=N+1,M*N
SOLN(I,1)=SOLN(I-N,1)
SOLN(I,2)=SOLN(I-N,2)
18 CONTINUE
C Call back-substitution routine => vectors of dipole densities
CALL F04AKE(M*N,2,GMATRIX,M*N,RINT,SOLN,M*N)
C Calculate added inertia and pitching rad. coeff
DO 19 J=1,N
DO 20 I=1,M
A3=A3-AIMAG(SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,1))*WP*DP*(A2+DP/2-J*DP)
B3=B3+REAL(SOLN(J+(I-1)*N,2))*WP*DP*(B2+DP/2-J*DP)
20 CONTINUE
19 CONTINUE
WRITE(4,600) DOW,AKW,M,N
600 FORMAT(/56X,’********************’//’ Depth/width=’,F4.2,
+ ’ Dimensionless width, kw=’,F6.3,’ M=’,I2,’ N=’,I2)
WRITE(4,601) A1,A3,A2/(DOW*AKW),B1,CABS(F1),ATAND(AIMAG(F1)/
+ REAL(F1))+180,B2/(DOW*AKW)
601 FORMAT(/’ (Added mass)*k**3/rho =’,E12.5,
218
+ ’, (Added moment of inertia)*k**5/rho =’,E12.5,’ centred at ’
+ ,F6.4,’ of depth of flap.’//
+ ’ (Surge rad. coeff.)*k**3/(rho*omega) =’,E12.5,
+ ’, (Wave-force)*k**3/(rho*omega**2) =’,E12.5,’ phase angle =’,
+ F7.3,’ deg.’/’ acting at ’,F6.4,’ of depth of flap.’)
WRITE(6,602)
602 FORMAT(’ Please enter actual width of flap (m)’)
READ(5,*) W
IF(W.EQ.0) GO TO 1000
RHO=1000.
OM=SQRT(9.81*AKW/W)
T=2*3.1415926/OM
ROKQ=RHO/(AKW/W)**3
WRITE(4,603) W,W*DOW,T,RHO,A1*ROKQ,A3*ROKQ/(AKW/W)**2,
+ A2*W/AKW,B1*ROKQ*OM,CABS(F1)*ROKQ*OM**2,B2*W/AKW
603 FORMAT(/’ Device width =’,F6.3,’m , depth =’,F6.3,
+ ’m , Wave period =’,F6.3,’s ,Water density =’,F6.1,’kg/m3’//
+ ’ Added mass =’,E12.5,’kg , Added moment of inertia =’,E12.5,
+ ’kgm2 , centred at depth of’,E11.4,’m.’//
+ ’ Surge radiation coefficient =’,E12.5,’Ns/m , Wave-force =’,
+ E12.5,’N/m , acting at depth of’,E11.4,’m.’)
1000 RETURN
END
219
APPENDIX C Listing of the PSPROG Program
C PSPROG.FOR - main design program for PS FROG
REAL MOVMA,MA,IA,IDEV,I,KP,IB,ICW,ID,IMOV
DIMENSION X(13),Y(7),ADDMA(13,7),
+ ADDMOI(13,7),RADCO(13,7),WAVFO(13,7),
+ DEPMA(13,7),DEPFOR(13,7),XX(13),WORK(13),AM(13),D(13)
+ ,IHOURS(23,18),AWAVE(18),TE(23),IPOW(23,18),IANNEN(23,18)
+ ,LIM(23,18),P(18),L(18),IDUM(18),MA(23),IA(23),DA(23),B(23),
+ XOA(23),DB(23)
COMMON DISPL,MOVMA,DG,DGMOV,IDEV,KP,R0,THET0,P0,PI,G
C Input interpolation matrices for hydrodynamic coefficients.
DATA X/.3,.35,.4,.45,.5,.6,.75,.9,1.1,1.4,1.9,2.5,3.2/
DATA Y/.5,.6,.75,1.,1.2,1.5,2.0/
DO 1 J=1,7
READ(10,*)(ADDMA(I,J),I=1,13)
READ(11,*)(ADDMOI(I,J),I=1,13)
READ(12,*)(RADCO(I,J),I=1,13)
READ(13,*)(WAVFO(I,J),I=1,13)
READ(14,*)(DEPMA(I,J),I=1,13)
READ(15,*)(DEPFOR(I,J),I=1,13)
1 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,100)
100 FORMAT(’ Please enter device dimensions in metres:’/
+ ’ AA,BB,WW,DD,FF,RR and TT’)
READ(5,*) AA,BB,WW,DD,FF,RR,TT
WRITE(4,170) AA,BB,WW,DD,FF,RR,TT
WRITE(6,170) AA,BB,WW,DD,FF,RR,TT
170 FORMAT(’ AA =’,F5.1,’m, BB =’,F5.1,’m, WW =’,F5.1,
+ ’m, DD =’,F5.1,’m, FF =’,F5.1,’m, RR =’,F5.1,’m, TT =’,F5.1,’m’)
DOW=DD/WW
C Fix water density, moving mass relative density, surface density of
C hull, safety margin at ends of mass motion, max. pitching angle
C proportion of time for which power take-off is at rated value and
C "first try" rated power.
220
READ(22,*) RHOW,RDM,SRHO,SAFMAR,THET0,FULLTIME,IP0,PI,G
WRITE(4,99) RHOW,RDM,SRHO,SAFMAR,THET0,100*FULLTIME,
+ IP0
WRITE(6,99) RHOW,RDM,SRHO,SAFMAR,THET0,100*FULLTIME,
+ IP0
THET0=THET0*PI/180
99 FORMAT(/’ Water density =’,F6.1,’kg/m3’/
+ ’ Relative density of moving mass =’,F4.1/
+ ’ Surface density of hull =’,F6.1,’kg/m2’/
+ ’ Safety margin at each end of stroke =’,F4.1,’m’/
+ ’ Maximum pitching angle =’,F5.1,’degrees’/
+ ’ Percentage of time with power at its rated value =’,F5.1,’%’/
+ ’ Initial rated power =’,I5,’kw’)
C box
VB=AA*BB*WW
AB=2*(AA*BB+AA*WW+BB*WW)
DCB=DD-BB/2
DGB=DD-BB/2
IB=SRHO*(AA*BB*(AA**2+BB**2)/6+BB*WW*AA**2/2+
+ AA*WW*BB**2/2+WW*(AA**3+BB**3)/6)
C chimneys+web
VCW=(2*PI*RR**2+(WW-4*RR)*TT)*(DD-BB)
ACW=(4*PI*RR+2*(WW-4*RR))*(DD+FF-BB)
DCCW=(DD-BB)/2
DGCW=(DD-FF-BB)/2
ICW=SRHO*(ACW*(DD+FF-BB)**2/12+4*PI*(DD+FF-BB)*RR**3/2
+ +(WW-4*RR)*(DD+FF-BB)*TT**2/2)
C deck
AD=2*PI*RR**2+TT*(WW-4*RR)
DGD=-FF
ID=SRHO*(PI*RR**4/2+(WW-4*RR)*TT**3/12)
C buoy displacement
DISPL=(VB+VCW)*RHOW
C structural mass
STRUCMA=SRHO*(AB+ACW+AD)
221
C depth of C.G. of structural mass
DGSTRUC=SRHO*(AB*DGB+ACW*DGCW+AD*DGD)/STRUCMA
C moving mass
MOVMA=DISPL-STRUCMA
DGMOV=DD-BB/2
TMOV=MOVMA/(1000*RDM*BB*WW)
IMOV=MOVMA*(TMOV**2+BB**2)/12
C depth of C.G. of whole device
DG=(DGSTRUC*STRUCMA+DGMOV*MOVMA)/DISPL
C depth of centroid of whole device
DC=(VB*DCB+VCW*DCCW)/(VB+VCW)
C pitching M. of I. of whole device
IDEV=IB+ICW+ID+IMOV+SRHO*(AB*(DG-DGB)**2+
+ ACW*(DG-DGCW)**2+AD*(DG-DGD)**2)+MOVMA*(DG-DGMOV)**2
C pitching stiffness
KP=(DG-DC)*DISPL*G
C heaving stiffness
HSTIFF=AD*RHOW*G
C estimate of heaving added mass
HADDMA=PI*RHOW*AA**2*WW/4
C estimate of natural heaving period
HNAT=2*PI/SQRT(HSTIFF/(DISPL+HADDMA))
C natural pitching period
PNAT=10.
2 AKW=WW*(2*PI/PNAT)**2/G
ROKQ=RHOW/(AKW/WW)**3
IFAIL=0
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,ADDMA,AM1,AM2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,ADDMOI,AI1,AI2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,DEPMA,DM1,DM2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
MA(1)=AM1*ROKQ
IA(1)=AI1*ROKQ/(AKW/WW)**2
222
DA(1)=DM1*DD
DTOT=(DISPL*DG+MA(1)*DA(1))/(DISPL+MA(1))
I=IDEV+IA(1)+DISPL*(DG-DTOT)**2+MA(1)*(DA(1)-DTOT)**2
IF(ABS(PNAT-2*PI/SQRT(KP/I)).LT..01) GO TO 3
PNAT=2*PI/SQRT(KP/I)
GO TO 2
3 PNAT=2*PI/SQRT(KP/I)
C maximum |r|
R0=(AA-TMOV)/2-SAFMAR
WRITE(4,101) DISPL/1000,STRUCMA/1000,MOVMA/1000,DG,KP/1.0E6
+ ,HNAT,PNAT,R0
WRITE(6,101) DISPL/1000,STRUCMA/1000,MOVMA/1000,DG,KP/1.0E6
+ ,HNAT,PNAT,R0
101 FORMAT(//’ Displacement of device =’,F7.1,’tonnes’/
+ ’ Structural mass =’,F6.1,’tonnes’/
+ ’ Moving mass =’,F7.1,’tonnes’/
+ ’ Depth of centre of mass of device =’,F5.1,’m’/
+ ’ Pitching stiffness of device =’,F6.1,’MNm/rad’/
+ ’ Natural heaving period of device =’,F5.1,’s (approx)’/
+ ’ Natural pitching period of device =’,F5.1,’s’/
+ ’ Maximum amplitude of motion of mass =’,F5.2,’m’)
C Input wave data -AWAVE and TE real,IHOURS int
READ(23,*)(TE(I),I=1,23)
READ(32,*)(AWAVE(I),I=1,18)
DO 4 J=1,18
READ(25,105)(IHOURS(I,J),I=1,23)
105 FORMAT(23I4)
4 CONTINUE
C Calculate hydrodynamic coefficients for each value of Te
DO 11 J=1,23
AKW=WW*(2*PI/TE(J))**2/G
IF(AKW.GT.3.2) THEN
AKW=3.2
ENDIF
ROKQ=RHOW/(AKW/WW)**3
223
OM=(G*AKW/WW)**0.5
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,ADDMA,AM1,AM2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,ADDMOI,AI1,AI2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,DEPMA,DM1,DM2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,RADCO,RC1,RC2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,WAVFO,WF1,WF2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
CALL E01ACE(AKW,DOW,X,Y,DEPFOR,DF1,DF2,IFAIL
+ ,XX,WORK,AM,D,13,7,13)
MA(J)=AM1*ROKQ
IA(J)=AI1*ROKQ/(AKW/WW)**2
DA(J)=DM1*DD
B(J)=RC1*ROKQ*OM
XOA(J)=WF1*ROKQ*OM**2
DB(J)=DF1*DD
11 CONTINUE
C Calculate pow,annen,total energy and mean annual power.
P0=IP0
PMEAN=0.0
GO TO 13
14 P0=P0-50.
13 TOTE=0
DO 6 J=1,23
DO 5 I=1,18
5 IDUM(I)=IHOURS(J,I)
CALL POWERSUB(TE(J),IDUM,P,L,AWAVE,MA(J)
+ ,IA(J),DA(J),B(J),XOA(J),DB(J))
DO 7 I=1,18
IPOW(J,I)=P(I)
LIM(J,I)=L(I)
ANNEN=P(I)*IHOURS(J,I)/1000
224
IANNEN(J,I)=ANNEN
TOTE=TOTE+ANNEN
7 CONTINUE
6 CONTINUE
IF(PMEAN-TOTE/8.76.GE.FULLTIME*50.) GO TO 15
PMEAN=TOTE/8.76
GO TO 14
15 PMEAN=TOTE/8.76
C Output IHOURS
WRITE(4,104)
WRITE(6,104)
104 FORMAT(//23X,’Incident Hours Per Annum’//’ A(m)’)
DO 29 J=1,18
WRITE(4,107) AWAVE(J),(IHOURS(I,J),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(IHOURS(I,J),I=1,23)
107 FORMAT(F6.3,I4,22I5)
29 CONTINUE
WRITE(4,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(4,109)
WRITE(6,109)
C Output POW
WRITE(4,106)
WRITE(6,106)
106 FORMAT(//20X,’Power Captured (kW)’//’ A(m)’)
DO 8 J=1,18
WRITE(4,107) AWAVE(J),(IPOW(I,J),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(IPOW(I,J),I=1,23)
8 CONTINUE
WRITE(4,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
108 FORMAT(5X,23F5.2)
WRITE(4,109)
WRITE(6,109)
109 FORMAT(40X,’Te(s)’)
225
C Output ANNEN
WRITE(4,110)
WRITE(6,110)
110 FORMAT(//20X,’Total Energy Captured Per Annum (MWhr)’//’ A(m)’)
DO 9 J=1,18
WRITE(4,107) AWAVE(J),(IANNEN(I,J),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(IANNEN(I,J),I=1,23)
9 CONTINUE
WRITE(4,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(4,109)
WRITE(6,109)
C Output LIM
WRITE(4,115)
WRITE(6,115)
115 FORMAT(//20X,’ Limiting Factor: 1=Ideal, 2=R, 3=Theta, 4=P0’
+ //’ A(m)’)
DO 10 J=1,18
WRITE(4,107) AWAVE(J),(LIM(I,J),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,107) AWAVE(J),(LIM(I,J),I=1,23)
10 CONTINUE
WRITE(4,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(6,108)(TE(I),I=1,23)
WRITE(4,109)
WRITE(6,109)
C Output total energy and mean annual power
ITOTE=TOTE
IPMEAN=PMEAN
IP0=P0
WRITE(4,111) ITOTE
WRITE(6,111) ITOTE
111 FORMAT(/’ Total Energy Per Annum =’,I5,’MWhr’)
WRITE(4,112) IPMEAN,IP0
WRITE(6,112) IPMEAN,IP0
112 FORMAT(//’ Mean Annual Power =’,I4,’kW’//
226
+ ’ Power Take-Off Rating =’,I5,’kW’)
STOP
END
SUBROUTINE POWERSUB(TE,IDUM,POW,LIM,A,MA,IA,DA,B,XOA,DB)
REAL MA,IA,DISPL,MOVMA,IDEV,KP,M,I
COMPLEX Q,R,Y,THETA,SAT,FNTH,FNSA
DIMENSION POW(18),LIM(18),IDUM(18),A(18)
COMMON DISPL,MOVMA,DG,DGMOV,IDEV,KP,R0,THET0,P0,PI,G
FNTH(Y,R)=(Q*MOVMA*OM**2*HF-Y*CMPLX( 0.,(OM*HF*B))
+ -MOVMA*R*(OM**2*DM-G))/(KP-I*OM**2)
FNSA(Y,R,THETA)=(Y-(HF+DM-G/OM**2)*THETA)/R
OM=2*PI/TE
M=DISPL+MA
DTOT=(DISPL*DG+MA*DA)/M
I=IDEV+IA+DISPL*(DTOT-DG)**2+MA*(DTOT-DA)**2
HF=DTOT-DB
DM=DGMOV-DTOT
U=(M/MOVMA)*(KP-I*OM**2)/(M*(OM*HF)**2-KP+I*OM**2)
V=B/(OM*MOVMA)
P=(KP-I*OM**2+M*HF*(OM**2*DM-G))/(KP-I*OM**2-M*(OM*HF)**2)
DO 10 J=1,18
POW(J)=0.
LIM(J)=0
IF(IDUM(J).EQ.0) GO TO 10
LIM(J)=1
X=XOA*A(J)
Q=CMPLX(0.,(X/(MOVMA*OM**2)))
Y=Q/(V*CMPLX(0.,2.))
R=(CMPLX(U,V)*Y-Q)/P
IF(CABS(R).LE.R0) GO TO 11
LIM(J)=2
R=R0*R/CABS(R)
Y=(Q+P*R)/CMPLX(U,V)
11 CONTINUE
THETA=FNTH(Y,R)
227
IF(CABS(THETA).LT.THET0) GO TO 12
LIM(J)=3
14 Y=Y*0.95
R=(CMPLX(U,V)*Y-Q)/P
THETA=FNTH(Y,R)
IF(CABS(Y).LT.0.001) THEN
LIM(J)=9
GO TO 15
ENDIF
IF(CABS(THETA).LT.THET0) GO TO 15
GO TO 14
15 IF(CABS(R).LT.R0) GO TO 12
WRITE(6,*) ’HELP !’
STOP
12 CONTINUE
SAT=FNSA(Y,R,THETA)
LAMDA=MOVMA*OM*AIMAG(SAT)
POW(J)=0.5*LAMDA*(OM*CABS(R))**2/1000
9 IF(POW(J).LT.P0) GO TO 10
LIM(J)=4
POW(J)=P0
10 CONTINUE
RETURN
END
228
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
2 THE FROG DEVICE CONCEPT ....................................................................... 8
2.1 Description of the Device ............................................................................ 8
2.2 Latching ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Stiffness Modulation (SM) .......................................................................... 10
3 MECHANICS OF FROG .................................................................................... 13
3.1 FROG Notation ........................................................................................... 13
3.2 Linearised Hydrodynamics in Monochromatic Waves ............................... 15
3.3 Optimisation of Performance ...................................................................... 18
3.4 Practical Implications of Optimisation ........................................................ 20
3.5 Operation with Limited Travel of the Reaction Mass ................................. 22
3.6 Operation with Limited Amplitude of Buoy Motion .................................. 24
3.7 "The Hole" ................................................................................................... 26
4 EXPERIMENTAL WORK ON FROG ............................................................... 29
4.1 Description of the Wave-tank ...................................................................... 29
4.2 Evaluation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients .................................................. 32
4.2.1 The Buoy Forms which were Tested .................................................. 32
4.2.2 Forced Buoy Motion Tests .................................................................. 34
4.2.3 Decay Curve Tests .............................................................................. 36
4.2.4 Decay Curve Results ........................................................................... 42
4.2.5 Wave Force Measurements ................................................................. 46
4.3 Power Generation Tests .............................................................................. 49
4.3.1 Resonant Tests on the Form 1 Buoy with Coulomb Damping ........... 50
4.3.2 "Tuned Buoy" Resonant Tests on Form 1 with Coulomb Damping ... 55
4.3.3 Resonant Tests on Form 2 with Instrumented Coulomb Damping ..... 57
4.3.4 Tests on Form 2 using SM .................................................................. 63
4.3.5 Resonant Tests on Form 2 with Electrical Damping .......................... 66
4.4 Conclusions of the Wave Tank Experiments .............................................. 71
5 POWER CAPTURE CALCULATIONS FOR FROG ........................................ 74
5.1 The MERMAID Methodology .................................................................... 75
5.2 The FROG Methodology ............................................................................. 77
5.3 The FROGPROG Program .......................................................................... 78
5.4 FROGPROG Results ................................................................................... 81
5.5 Limitations of the FROGPROG Results ..................................................... 88
5.5.1 Power conversion losses ..................................................................... 88
5.5.2 Hydrodynamic non-linearities ............................................................. 88
5.5.3 Localised energy concentrations ......................................................... 88
5.5.4 Array effects ........................................................................................ 89
5.5.5 Mechanical non-linearities .................................................................. 90
5.5.6 Irregular waves .................................................................................... 91
6 A PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR FROG ............................... 92
7 PROBLEMATICAL ASPECTS OF FROG ........................................................ 97
7.1 The Need for High Reversibility ................................................................. 97
7.2 Pitching ........................................................................................................ 97
7.3 Danger of Ejection of the Moving Mass ..................................................... 101
i
8 THE EVOLUTION OF PS FROG ...................................................................... 102
9 THE PS FROG DEVICE CONCEPT .................................................................. 107
9.1 Description of the Device ........................................................................... 107
9.2 The Function of the Moving Mass ............................................................. 108
10 MECHANICS OF PS FROG ............................................................................. 111
10.1 PS FROG Notation .................................................................................... 111
10.2 Linearised Hydrodynamics in Monochromatic Waves ............................. 114
10.3 The Effect of Resonant Mode Shape ......................................................... 122
11 HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS OF PS FROG ...................................... 128
11.1 Notation for PS FROG Hydrodynamics .................................................... 129
11.2 Principle of the COEFFS Program ............................................................ 133
11.2.1 Diffraction Coefficients .................................................................... 136
11.2.2 Surge Radiation Coefficients ............................................................ 137
11.2.3 Pitch Radiation Coefficients ............................................................. 138
11.3 Green’s Functions ...................................................................................... 139
11.4 The COEFFS Program .............................................................................. 142
11.4.1 Important Variables of COEFFS ....................................................... 142
11.4.2 REAL FUNCTION DGDX1(DY,DZS) ........................................... 144
11.4.3 REAL FUNCTION DGDX2(DY,DZS) ........................................... 144
11.4.4 REAL FUNCTION DGDXR(DY,DZS) ........................................... 145
11.4.5 REAL FUNCTION DGDXI(DY,DZS) ............................................ 145
11.4.6 COMPLEX FUNCTION DVX(DY,DZS,WP,DP) ........................... 146
11.4.7 REAL FUNCTION SCALC(DZ,DY,WP,DP) ................................. 147
11.4.8 Terminal Input ................................................................................... 149
11.4.9 Assembling Matrix G ........................................................................ 149
11.4.10 LU-Decomposition of Matrix G ..................................................... 152
11.4.11 Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Surge Radiation
and Diffraction ............................................................................................. 153
11.4.12 Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Pitching ................ 155
11.5 Results of the COEFFS Program ............................................................... 156
11.5.1 Dimensionless Parameters used to Display the Results .................... 157
11.5.2 Radiation Coefficients ....................................................................... 158
11.5.3 Diffraction Coefficients .................................................................... 165
11.5.4 Added Mass Coefficients .................................................................. 169
12 POWER CAPTURE CALCULATIONS FOR PS FROG ................................. 175
12.1 Calculation of Device Parameters ............................................................. 175
12.1.1 The rectangular box .......................................................................... 178
12.1.2 The cylinders and web ...................................................................... 178
12.1.3 The top deck ...................................................................................... 179
12.1.4 The whole device .............................................................................. 179
12.1.5 Natural period in pitch ...................................................................... 180
12.1.6 Natural period in heave ..................................................................... 181
12.2 Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients ............................................... 182
12.3 Power Calculations .................................................................................... 183
12.4 PSPROG Results ....................................................................................... 186
13 OTHER RELATED RESEARCH ..................................................................... 194
14 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 196
ii
15 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 199
APPENDIX A Listing of the FROGPROG Program ............................................. 206
APPENDIX B Listing of the COEFFS Program .................................................... 211
APPENDIX C Listing of the PSPROG Program .................................................... 220
iii
Table of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Frog Device Concept ............................................................................... 8
Fig. 2.2 Stiffness Modulation ............................................................................... 10
Fig. 3.1 Linearised FROG Model ......................................................................... 13
Fig. 3.2 Combined Phasor Diagram of Forces ...................................................... 16
Fig. 3.3 Optimised Phasor Diagram for FROG .................................................... 21
Fig. 3.4 Optimised Diagram for limited Mass Travel ........................................... 23
Fig. 3.5 Optimised Diagram for limited Buoy Amplitude .................................... 26
Fig. 3.6 Graph of "The Hole" for the Working Form 2 Model ............................. 28
Fig. 4.1 Plan View of Wave Tank during FROG Power Test .............................. 30
Fig. 4.2 Buoy Forms 1 and 2 ................................................................................ 33
Fig. 4.3 Forced Motion Test on Form 1 Buoy ...................................................... 35
Fig. 4.4 Decay Curve Test Dynamics ................................................................... 36
Fig. 4.5 Decay Curve ............................................................................................ 38
Fig. 4.6 Decay Curve Test Apparatus ................................................................... 40
Fig. 4.7 Graph of Measured Coefficients for Form 1 ........................................... 43
Fig. 4.8 Graph of Measured Coefficients for Form 2 ........................................... 45
Fig. 4.9 Graph of Wave Force on Form 1 ............................................................. 47
Fig. 4.10 Set-Up for Power Generation Tests ........................................................ 50
Fig. 4.11 Carriage, Power Take-Off & Variable Rate Spring ............................... 51
Fig. 4.12 Bi-directional Prony Brake ..................................................................... 53
Fig. 4.13 Form 1 Phasor Diags. - Resonant, Coulomb Damping .......................... 54
Fig. 4.14 Form 1 Phasor Diagrams with "tuned buoy" .......................................... 56
Fig. 4.15 Strain Gauge Bridge for Prony Brake .................................................... 58
Fig. 4.16 Form 2 Phasor Diags. - Resonant, Coulomb Damping .......................... 59
Fig. 4.17 Form 2 Phasor Diags. - Resonant, Coulomb Damping .......................... 62
Fig. 4.18 Stiffness Modulation Apparatus ............................................................. 63
Fig. 4.19 Form 2 Phasor Diags. using Stiffness Modulation ................................. 65
Fig. 4.20 Form 2 Phasor Diagrams with Electrical Damping ................................ 69
Fig. 4.21 Form 2 Phasor Diagrams with Electrical Damping ................................ 70
Fig. 4.22 Form 2 Phasor Diagrams with Electrical Damping ................................ 71
Fig. 5.1 Flow Chart for FROGPROG Subroutine POWERSUB .......................... 80
Fig. 6.1 Conceptual Design for FROG ................................................................. 93
Fig. 7.1 The FROG Pitching Problem .................................................................. 98
Fig. 8.1 Two Possible Reactionless WECs Working in Pitch .............................. 103
Fig. 9.1 PS FROG Device Concept ...................................................................... 107
Fig 9.2 The FLOUNDER Concept ....................................................................... 109
Fig. 10.1 Linearised PS FROG Dynamics ............................................................. 115
Fig. 10.2 Optimised Phasor Diagram for PS FROG .............................................. 118
Fig. 10.3 Dynamics of the Internal Mass ............................................................... 120
Fig. 10.4 Right and Wrong Resonant Modes for PS FROG .................................. 123
Fig. 10.5 Variation of Mode Shape with Resonant Frequency .............................. 127
Fig. 11.1 Coordinate System for COEFFS Program ............................................ 133
Fig. 11.2 Data Flow Diagram for COEFFS Program ............................................ 143
Fig. 11.3 Biot-Savart Integration for SCALC ........................................................ 147
Fig. 11.4 Element Numbering ................................................................................ 149
Fig. 11.5 Order of Filling Matrix G ....................................................................... 152
Fig. 11.6 Graph of Radiation Coefficient against Frequency ................................ 161
Fig. 11.7 Graph of Radiation Coefficient against Frequency ................................ 162
Fig. 11.8 Graph of Radiation Coefficient against Frequency ................................ 163
Fig. 11.9 Graph of Radiation Force Depth against Frequency .............................. 164
Fig. 11.10 Graph of Wave-Force against Frequency .............................................. 166
iv
Fig. 11.11 Graph of Wave-Force against Frequency .............................................. 167
Fig. 11.12 Graph of Wave-Force against Frequency .............................................. 168
Fig. 11.13 Graph of Surge Added Mass against Frequency ................................... 171
Fig. 11.14 Graph of Pitch Added Inertia against Frequency .................................. 172
Fig. 11.15 Thin Semi-Ellipsoid for Zero Frequency Added Mass ......................... 173
Fig. 12.1 Simplified Device Model for PS FROG ................................................. 176
Fig. 12.2 Flow Chart for PSPROG Subroutine POWERSUB ............................... 185
v
Table of Tables
Table 5.1 Power Capture Estimates for FROG ..................................................... 83
Table 5.2 Scatter Diagram of Incident Hours at South Uist ................................. 84
Table 5.3 Power Captured for 3000 tonne Form 2 Buoy ...................................... 85
Table 5.4 Annual Energy Capture for 3000 tonne Form 2 Buoy ......................... 86
Table 5.5 Limiting Factors for the 3000 tonne Form 2 Buoy ............................... 87
Table 5.6 Interaction Factor against Period - 70m Spacing .................................. 90
Table 12.1 Power Captured for Chosen PS FROG Form ...................................... 189
Table 12.2 Annual Energy Capture for Chosen PS FROG Form .......................... 190
Table 12.3 Limiting Factors for Chosen PS FROG Form ..................................... 191
Table 14.1 Mean Annual Power Capture for FROG and PS FROG ..................... 196
vi

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful