You are on page 1of 15

http://pia.sagepub.

com/
Energy Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
http://pia.sagepub.com/content/220/8/855
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1243/09576509JPE284
2006 220: 855 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy
M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen and H Polinder
Modelling and test results of the Archimedes wave swing

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers


be found at:
can Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy Additional services and information for

http://pia.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://pia.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://pia.sagepub.com/content/220/8/855.refs.html Citations:

by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from


Modelling and test results of the Archimedes
wave swing
M G de Sousa Prado
1
, F Gardner
1
, M Damen
1,2
, and H Polinder
3
1
Teamwork Technology, Zijdewind, The Netherlands
2
Rijswijk University of Professional Technical Education, Rijswijk, The Netherlands
3
Electrical Power Processing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
The manuscript was received on 7 February 2006 and was acepted after revision for publication on 17 August 2006.
DOI: 10.1243/09576509JPE284
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to describe the modelling and some of the offshore test
results of the full-scale model of Archimedes wave swing (AWS) at Portugal in 2004. The AWS is a
system that converts ocean wave energy into electric energy. A pilot plant of this system has
been built. The paper starts with the derivation of a model for the oater motion. Next, the
generator system is described and modelled. The generator system consists of a permanent-
magnet linear synchronous generator with a current source inverter. Subsequently, test results
are presented to validate the models for the oater motion and the generator. Finally, some
conclusions are drawn.
Keywords: ocean wave energy, modelling, permanent-magnet generator, linear generator,
Archimedes wave swing
1 INTRODUCTION
Important factors that have stimulated the use of
renewable energy are energy cost, energy indepen-
dence, and mainly environmental protection.
Therefore, great efforts are made in the elds of
wind energy, solar energy, hydro power, and so on.
Ocean wave energy is a renewable energy source
with a huge potential, but further from commercial
viability. Different wave energy conversion systems
have been proposed [113]. This paper is about a
system that converts ocean wave energy into electric
energy, namely the Archimedes wave swing (AWS).
The idea behind the system comes from Fred
Gardner and Hans van Breugel.
Figure 1 illustrates the principle of operation.
Basically, the AWS is a cylindrical air-lled chamber.
The waves move the lid of this chamber, called the
oater, in vertical direction with respect to the
bottom part, which is xed to the sea-bottom.
When a wave is above the AWS, the AWS volume is
reduced by the high water pressure. When a wave
trough is above the AWS, the volume increases
because of the air pressure inside the AWS. From
this linear motion, energy can be extracted and
converted into electrical energy. By tuning the
system frequency to the average wave frequency,
the stroke of the linear motion can be made larger
than the wave height.
The AWS is a unique wave energy conversion
system because it is completely submerged. This is
important, because this makes the system less
vulnerable in storms. Besides, it is not visible, so
that the public acceptance is not such a problem as
for, for example, wind farms.
To prove the principle of operation behind this
idea, a few small models have been developed
(scale 1:20 and 1:50 to the nal system) [14, 15].
These models showed that the system worked and
validated the models predicting the hydrodynamic
forces on and the hydrodynamic damping of the
oater.
As a next step, a pilot plant of the AWS was built at
the Portuguese coast in 2001. The main objective of
this pilot plant was to prove that the complete

Corresponding author: Electrical Engineering, Mathematics


and Computer Science, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg
4, Delft 2628 CD, The Netherlands. email: h.polinder@tudelft.nl
855
JPE284
#
IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
system works and can survive. Predictions of the
performance of the system, the annual energy yield,
and the design of the generator system have been
presented in references [16] to [20].
Figure 2 depicts a photograph of the pilot plant
before submersion. The centre part is the oater
with a diameter of 9.5 m. The rated stroke is 7 m and
the rated velocity is 2.2 m/s. The maximum peak
power is 2 MW. The power is delivered to the grid
through a current source inverter or dumped into a
resistor bank in case the inverter is not available. To
improve the power factor of the generator, a 1.2 mF
capacitor bank was used in parallel with the inverter
(or resistor). Although the linear generator is able to
brake with a 1 MN force, a braking system had to be
included in the device to damp the motion in case
of generators limitation for higher waves or failure.
This system consists of two cylinders sliding into
each other, forcing the water trapped inside to ow
through an orice. By changing the area of the orice,
the braking force can be adjusted to the desired level.
During the tests, the area of the orice was always
kept at the minimum (water brakes were closed)
and, therefore, the damping was quite high. The
moving part of the device has a mass of around
0.4 Mkg (fromwhich 0.04 Mkg is due to the translator
of the generator), and the total mass of the device,
including the pontoon, is 7 Mkg (from which
5 Mkg are just due tothe sandballast tanks). The over-
all dimensions of the device are 48 m 28 m 38 m
(L W H), where most of the volume is reservedfor
the ballasting tanks necessary for the submerge/
emerge operation. The air volume of the device at
midposition is 3000 m
3
and can be changed by
pumping in/out water. The total volume of water
that canbe pumpedis 1500 m
3
andpermits the con-
troller to tune the natural period of the device in the
range of 713 s.
The objective of this paper is to derive a model for
the oater motion and the generator system and to
validate this model by means of the rst offshore
test results of the full-scale pilot plant. This model
oater motion has not been published in so much
detail before. Also the model validation by mean of
offshore test results is an important contribution of
this paper. The generator was tested with the inverter
as a load and also with the resistor bank as a load. In
this paper, the test results presented are only for the
resistor load. In reference [21], test results are
presented where the inverter is the generator load.
This paper starts with the derivation of a model for
the motion for the oater of the pilot plant. Next, the
main design choices for the generator are discussed
and a model of the generator system is presented.
Subsequently, some measurement results from the
pilot plant are discussed to validate the models and
some conclusions are presented.
2 MECHANICAL MODEL OF AWS
This section starts with a rather complete equation
for the motion of the oater. Then, this equation is
simplied to an equation that is used in this paper.
2.1 Non-linear time domain model
The model of the unconstrained heave motion of the
oater can be described in time domain by the
second law of Newton
m
f
x F
RAD
.,,.
Damping and
Inertia Force
F
BEAR
F
DRAG
F
GEN
F
WB
.,,.
Damping Forces
F
AIR
F
NITRO
F
GRAV
F
HS
.,,.
Spring Forces
F
WAVE
.,,.
Exciting Force
(1)
Fig. 1 Sketch illustrating the principle of operation of
the AWS
Fig. 2 Photograph of the pilot plant before
submersion
856 M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen, and H Polinder
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE284
#
IMechE 2006
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
This equation contains the following quantities
and forces.
x is the vertical displacement of the generator and
m
f
the mass of the oater (including all moving parts
of the device).
F
RAD
is the radiation force due to the motion of the
oater inside water, responsible for generating the
radiated wave. This force includes inertia forces
responsible for the acceleration of the water and
damping forces due to the radiated energy. For
small motions, it can be approximated by
F
RAD
m
add1
x
_
t
0
R(t t) _ x(t)dt (2)
where m
add1
is the added mass at innite frequency
and R(t) the retardation function that expresses the
memory of the uid. The radiation force does not
depend only on the instantaneous acceleration and
velocity of the oater but on the history of the
motion of the oater.
The parameters m
add1
and R(t) can only be calcu-
lated analytically for very simple geometries. For a
generic body, numerical computation is required [22].
F
BEAR
is the force due to friction of the bearings.
This force can be described by
F
BEAR
m
BEAR
F
HOR
sign( _ x) (3)
where m
BEAR
is the bearing friction coefcient and
F
HOR
the horizontal force that the waves and current
apply to the oater. If the diameter of the device is
small when compared with the wavelength of the
incident waves, then the horizontal force may be cal-
culated from the Morisons equation combined with
strip theory [22].
F
DRAG
is the drag force applied by the water to the
oater and is given by
F
DRAG

1=2rS
f
_ xj _ xjC
DUP
, _ x 50
1=2rS
f
_ xj _ xjC
DDW
, _ x , 0
_
(4)
where S
F
is the surface area of the oater, and C
DUP
and C
DDW
are the drag coefcients when the oater
is moving upwards or downwards.
F
GEN
is the force applied by the generator. When
the generator is connected to the grid via a power
electronic converter (such as a voltage source inver-
ter), this converter determines the force applied by
the generator within the limitations of the generator
and the converter. Other forms of loading the genera-
tor, e.g. resistive loads, are also possible.
F
WB
is the damping force applied by the water
brakes. This force results from the pressure build
up inside the water brakes, due to the forced ow
of water through three orices (one of them
adjustable) and can be expressed by a quadratic
function of the velocity
F
WB
b
WB
_ xj _ xj; b
WB
rS
WB
S
WB
C
V
S
O
_ _
2
(5)
where b
WB
is the damping coefcient of the water
brakes that can be deduced from the hydraulic
head loss equation of the ow through an orice, r
the water mass density, S
WB
the cross area of the
water brakes at which the breaking pressure is
acting, C
V
the discharge coefcient of the orice,
and S
O
the orice area through which the water can
ow; by varying the area of the orice it is possible
to adjust the amount of damping.
F
AIR
is the force due to the air pressure inside AWS.
This force depends on the displacement of the oater
due to the compression and decompression of the air
and can be expressed by
F
AIR
(x) S
f
p
a
(x), p
a
(x) p
a

V
a
V
a
(x)
_ _g
p
a

V
a
V
a0
S
f
x V
W
_ _g
(6)
where S
f
is the oater area, p
a
the air pressure inside
AWS, g is a coefcient between 1 (isothermal beha-
viour) and 1.4 (adiabatic behaviour), V
a
(x) the air
volume inside AWS for a certain water volume, V
a0
the volume for the oater at midposition without
water inside AWS, V
W
the water volume inside the
AWS, and p
a
and

V
a
the equilibrium air pressure
and volume at the equilibrium position x.
F
NITRO
is the force due to the nitrogen cylinder.
This force depends on the displacement of the oater
due to the compression and decompression of the
nitrogen and can be expressed by
F
NITRO
(x) S
n
p
n
(x), p
n
(x) p
n

V
n
V
n
(x)
_ _g
p
n

V
n
V
n0
S
n
x
_ _g
(7)
where S
n
is the surface area of the nitrogen cylinder, p
n
the nitrogen pressure inside the nitrogen cylinder, g
coefcient between 1 (isothermal behaviour) and 1.4
(adiabatic behaviour), V
n
(x) the nitrogen volume
inside the cylinder for a certain position of the oater
x, V
n0
the nitrogen volume for the oater in the mid-
position, and p
n
and

V
n
the equilibrium nitrogen
pressure and volume at the equilibrium position x.
F
GRAV
is the gravity force applied to the oater,
given by
F
GRAV
m
f
g (8)
where g is the gravity acceleration.
Modelling and test results of the AWS 857
JPE284
#
IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
F
HS
is the force due to the hydrostatic pressure
acting outside AWS. This force depends on the dis-
placement of the oater and can be expressed by
F
HS
(x) S
f
brg(d
f
h
T
x) p
amb
c (9)
where d
f
is midposition oaters depth relative to
the Hydrographic zero, h
T
the tide level relative to
the Hydrographic zero, and p
amb
the ambient
pressure.
F
WAVE
is the force due to the total dynamic
pressure eld acting on the oater resulting from
the incoming wave and the diffracted wave from the
device. This is the force responsible for exciting the
AWS dynamics. Considering linear wave theory and
innitesimal motions of the device, the wave force
can be calculated by
F
WAVE
(v) H(v)A(v) (10)
where H(v) is the transfer function that relates the
wave force with its amplitude A. Owing to the com-
plexity of the diffraction phenomena, the transfer
function H(v) has to be generally computed numeri-
cally [22] and may be only calculated analytically for
very simple geometries. For devices much smaller
than the wavelength of the exciting wave, the dif-
fracted wave may be neglected, and the wave force
is mainly due to the pressure eld of the incident
wave, which permits us to write the wave force in
the form
F
WAVE
(v) rgS
f
K
P
(v,d
ZH
h
T
,d
f
h
T
x)
.,,.
H(v)
A(v)
(11)
where d
ZH
is the water depth with respect to the
hydrographic zero level. K
p
represents the pressure
depth factor at depth d from the surface, for a total
water depth of h and wave number k(v) [22] and is
given by
K
P
(v, h, d)
cosh[k(v)(h d)]
cosh[k(v)h]
(12)
2.2 Equilibrium condition, stability, and
resonance
In a static situation, with no wave force exciting the
device, there is one equilibrium position x where all
the spring forces cancel each other, and may be
given by the following implicit relation
p
a
( x)
m
f
g
S
f
rg(d
f
h
T
x) p
amb

S
n
S
f
p
n
( x) (13)
Depending on the parameters of equation (13) (air
pressure, nitrogen pressure, mass of the oater, tide,
etc.), the authors may have a solution for the equili-
brium position within or outside the stroke. In the
later case, the real equilibrium position will be
located at the limit of the stroke became of the end
stops.
One important issue is the stability of the
dynamics at the equilibrium point. The local stability
at the equilibrium point can be determined from the
sign of total spring coefcient k, given by
k
d(F
AIR
F
NITRO
F
GEN
F
HS
)
dx

x x
k
a
k
n
k
h
(14)
where k
a
, k
n
, and k
h
are the air, nitrogen, and hydro-
static spring coefcients in the equilibrium position
k
a

dF
AIR
dx

x x
gS
2
f
p
a

V
a
(15)
k
n

dF
NITRO
dx

x x
gS
2
n
p
n

V
n
(16)
k
h

dF
HS
dx

x x
rgS
f
(17)
If k is positive then the equilibrium point is stable
and if k is negative the equilibrium point will be
unstable. From this expression, it can be seen that
the gas spring coefcients (air and nitrogen) are
always positive and therefore contribute to stabilize
the dynamics. In contrast the hydrostatic spring is
always negative, having a destabilizing effect on the
dynamics. The stability occurs whenever the gas
springs are stiffer than the hydrostatic spring.
An important aspect of the gas springs is the
dependence of their stiffness with frequency, which
is taken into account by the factor g. For high
frequency (fast motions), g should be close to 1.4
(adiabatic behaviour) and therefore a stiffer spring
is expected. For low frequency (slow motions), g
should be close to 1 (isothermal behaviour) and
therefore a softer spring is expected. The classi-
cation of slow/fast motion depends on whether the
period of the motion is much higher/smaller than
the thermal constant of AWS, which is 0.5 h. For
the range of wave periods from 5 to 15 s, where
most of the wave energy is expected to be present,
858 M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen, and H Polinder
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE284
#
IMechE 2006
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
the air and nitrogen spring behaviour can be
considered as adiabatic (g 1:4), which means that
the motion will be fast enough to prevent heat
exchange between the gas and the exterior during
each wave cycle.
Owing to the existence of a spring, the device will
have a natural period given by
T
n
2p

m
k
_
(18)
where m represents the total inertia of the device. By
adjusting the stiffness of the spring, it is possible to
tune the natural period of the device and make it res-
onate with the incoming waves. At resonance, the
power absorbed by the device from the waves will
be maximized. This is the basic principle of AWS
and it is the same principle behind the tuning of a
receiver to a desired radio station, where a capacitor
is adjusted in order to match the natural period of the
receiver with the base frequency of the radio station.
It should be noted that the adjustment of the air
spring is a slow process since it is done by pumping
water in/out of the device. Therefore, the tuning of
the natural period by air spring adjustment cannot
be made on a wave by wave basis, but only for the
average wave period of the sea spectrum that
changes slowly with time.
For low frequency motions, the gas springs are
softer and may be not stiff enough to compensate
the destabilizing hydrostatic spring, resulting in a
negative k. Therefore, the average motion of the
device may be unstable and drift away from the
equilibrium position. To compensate this instability,
control of the position will be needed in order to keep
the average position around the desired equilibrium
position.
2.3 Simplied model for tests evaluation
To make a rst evaluation of the measured data, a
simplied model of the heave dynamics of the oater
was considered. The main simplifying assumptions
made are as follows.
1. The drag and bearing dampings are neglected
since generator and water brakes were the main
sources of damping. This is mainly because the
resistor load of the generator was quite low
during the test and the water brakes were always
on.
2. The spring forces are linearized around the equili-
brium position.
3. The radiation force is reduced only to the inertia
force due to the added mass at innity frequency
(the radiation damping and the dependence of
added mass with frequency is neglected).
The resulting simplied model can be expressed in
the form
(m
f
m
add1
) x b
GEN
_ x b
WB
_ xj _ xj kx
F
WAVE
(19)
where m
f
is 0.4 Mkg. This value resulted from
adding up all the weights of the separate parts that
make up the moving part of AWS (including the
translator of the generator). These weights were
measured separately during the construction of
AWS. m
add1
is 0.2 Mkg. This value was computed
from linear hydrodynamic software AQUADYN [14].
b
GEN
, is given by equation (35), see section 3.4 for
details. b
WB
, is calculated from equation (5), using
the geometric dimensions of the water brakes
and standard hydraulic discharge coefcient, result-
ing in 1:42 10
6
Ns
2
=m
2
. k is calculated from
equations (14), (15), (16), and (17), using the geo-
metric dimensions of the oater and the nitrogen
cylinder and the measured average gas pressures
(air and nitrogen).
Since there were no direct measurements of
the wave force or of the amplitude of the incident
waves on top of the device, the wave force had to
be estimated from a water pressure measurement
p
W
made above the outer structure of the device.
The wave force was obtained by simply scaling
the measured pressure variation taking into account
the pressure depth factor of the pressure sensor and
the equilibrium position of the device, at the
observed average wave frequency, according to
F
W
S
f
(p
W
p
W
)
K
P
(v
AV
, d
ZH
h
T
, d
f
h
T
x)
K
P
(v
AV
, d
ZH
h
T
, d
P
h
T
)
(20)
where K
p
represents the pressure depth factor
introduced in equation (12), d
p
the depth of the
pressure sensor relative to the hydrographic zero,
and v
AV
the average frequency of the incoming
waves.
3 GENERATOR SYSTEM
This section describes the generator system. It starts
with a discussion of a number of design consider-
ations. Then a generator model will be derived. Sub-
sequently, the parameters of the model are derived
from the design. The last part of this section gives a
specic model for the generator with the load used
in the experiments.
Modelling and test results of the AWS 859
JPE284
#
IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
3.1 Design considerations
The main requirements for the generator system of
the pilot plant of the AWS are the following:
(a) maximum stroke: 7 m;
(b) maximum speed: 2.2 m/s;
(c) maximum force: 1 MN;
(d) robust;
(e) maintenance as low as possible;
(f) efcient;
(g) cheap.
During the design process, the following choices
were made in order to meet the requirements as
good as possible [19].
1. Probably, a generator system consisting of a
gearbox that converts the linear oater motion
into rotating motion and a standard rotating
generator would be a cheap and rather efcient
solution. However, it appears to be extremely
difcult to build a robust, maintenance-free
gear. Therefore, a linear generator is used, as
also proposed in references [9] to [13].
2. It is nearly impossible and extremely expensive
to make the generator large enough to take all
possible forces generated by waves. Therefore,
the AWS also has water dampers that can make
very high forces. This implies that the generator
can be designed as a compromise between
energy yield and cost.
3. The linear generator that converts the mechan-
ical energy into electrical energy is a perma-
nent-magnet (PM) generator because it has a
rather high force density, and it has a relatively
high efciency at low speeds when compared
with other machine types [19]. That the ef-
ciency is relatively high appears from the fact
that the annual dissipation in the PM generator
with stator iron is the lowest from the ve
machine types compared in reference [19].
4. The magnets are on the translator that moves up
and down, so that there is no electrical contact
between the moving part (the translator) and
the stator, which is important because such an
electrical contact suffers from wear.
5. The generator is at. Maybe, round generator
constructions t better in the construction of
the AWS. However, for a single generator for a
pilot plant, it was much cheaper to remain
close to existing production technology and
build a at generator.
6. The number of slots per pole per phase is
1. Increasing this number would lead to large
pole pitches, resulting in thicker yokes and a
higher risk of demagnetization. Decreasing the
number of slots per pole per phase (using
fractional pitch windings) would lead to
additional eddy-current losses due to additional
space harmonics.
7. The magnets are skewed to reduce cogging.
8. The translator with the magnets is only a few
metres longer than the stator in order to reduce
cost. This means that in the central position,
the magnets of the translator are completely
overlapping the stator so that maximum forces
can be made, but in the extreme positions, the
magnets only partly overlap the stator.
9. To balance the attractive forces between stator
and translator, the generator is double sided, as
depicted in Fig. 3. The attractive force density is
200 kN/m
2
.
10. For cooling the stator of the generator, a water
cooling system was implemented.
11. The power electronic converter for the grid
connection is placed on shore so that possible
problems with the power electronics and the
control could easily be solved. A 6 km long
cable connects the generator terminals to the
converter on shore.
12. A current source inverter on the shore is used for
the utility grid connection. A voltage source
inverter would have advantages of better control
characteristics, better power factor, better
generator efciency, and higher forces (and
energy yield) [18]. However, it appeared to be
easier and cheaper to make a current source
inverter available.
Fig. 3 Section of the four pole pitches of the linear PM
generator. The middle part is the stator with
stator iron and coils in the stator slots in
between. The left and right parts are the
translators with the magnets with arrows
indicating the magnetization direction
860 M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen, and H Polinder
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE284
#
IMechE 2006
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
13. Coatings are used to protect the generator
against the aggressive environment.
Figure 3 depicts a cross-section of the generator.
When the translator with the magnets moves up
and down, voltages are induced in the coils in the
stator slots. In reference [20], a more detailed
description of the generator topology may be
found. Figure 4 depicts a photograph of a part of
the stator.
3.2 Generator modelling
The general form of a voltage equation of a wire is
given by Faradays law
u Ri
dl
dt
(21)
where u is the voltage between the terminals, R the
resistance of the wire, i the current through the
wire, and l is the ux linkage of the wire.
Within the generator, there are four sources that
contribute to the ux linkage, namely the PMs
and the three stator currents. If it is assumed that
(a) the system is linear (saturation is negligible);
(b) the mutual inductances between the different
phases are equal because of symmetry; (c) the sum
of the three stator currents is zero; and (d) the pos-
ition of the translator is chosen zero when the ux
linkage of phase a is zero, then the ux linkage of
stator phase a can be written as
l
a
Li
a
Mi
b
Mi
c
l
pma
L
s
i
a


l
pm
sin
p
t
p
x
_ _
(22)
where L is the self inductance of a phase, M the
mutual inductance between two stator phases, L
s
the synchronous inductance of a phase if the other
phases are also conducting (L
s
L M), l
pm
is the
ux linkage due to the PMs, and t
p
is the pole pitch.
If this is substituted in the voltage equation and the
same is done for the other phases, the result is
u
a
R
s
i
a
L
s
di
a
dt

^
l
pm
p
t
p
dx
dt
sin
p
t
p
x
_ _
R
s
i
a
L
s
di
a
dt
^ e
p
sin
p
t
p
x
_ _
u
b
R
s
i
b
L
s
di
b
dt

^
l
pm
p
t
p
dx
dt
sin
p
t
p
x
2
3
p
_ _
R
s
i
b
L
s
di
b
dt
^ e
p
sin
p
t
p
x
2
3
p
_ _
u
c
R
s
i
c
L
s
di
c
dt

^
l
pm
p
t
p
dx
dt
sin
p
t
p
x
4
3
p
_ _
R
s
i
c
L
s
di
c
dt
^ e
p
sin
p
t
p
x
4
3
p
_ _
(23)
3.3 Parameter determination from the design
The parameters used in these equations are now cal-
culated from the design of the machine, as described
more extensively in reference [20]. The following
assumptions are used in the calculations.
1. Space harmonics of the magnetic ux density
distribution in the air gap are negligible, only the
fundamental is considered.
2. The magnetic ux density crosses the air-gap
perpendicularly.
3. The magnetic permeability of iron is assumed to
be innite.
The amplitude of the no-load voltage induced by
the magnets can be calculated as [20]
^ e
p

^
l
pm
p
t
p
dx
dt
2N
s
k
w
l
s
^
B
g
dx
dt
(24)
where N
s
is the number of turns of the phase wind-
ing, k
w
the winding factor, l
s
the stack length of the
machine perpendicular to the plane of the drawing,
and
^
B
g
the amplitude of the fundamental space har-
monic of the magnetic ux density in the air gap due
to the magnets.
The amplitude of the fundamental space harmonic
of the magnetic ux density in the air gap due to the
magnets can be calculated as [20]
^
B
g

l
m
m
rm
g
eff
B
rm
4
p
sin
pb
p
2t
p
_ _
(25)
where l
m
is the magnet length in the direction of the Fig. 4 Photograph of a stator part in the AWS
Modelling and test results of the AWS 861
JPE284
#
IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
magnetization, m
rm
the relative recoil permeability of
the magnets, B
rm
the remanent ux density of the
magnets, b
p
the width of the magnet, and g
eff
the
effective air gap.
The effective air gap of the machine is calculated as
g
eff
k
C
g
1
g
1
g
l
m
m
rm
k
C

t
s
t
s
g
1
g
g
4
p
b
s
2g
1
arctan
b
s
2g
1
_ _
log

1
b
s
2g
1
_ _
2
_ _
_
_
_
(26)
where k
C
is the Carter factor [20, 23], g the mechan-
ical air gap, t
s
the slot pitch, and b
s
the slot opening
width.
The main part of the synchronous inductance can
be calculated as
L
sm

6m
0
l
s
t
p
(k
w
N
s
)
2
pg
eff
p
2
(27)
where p is the number of pole pairs.
Slot, air-gap, and end-winding leakage induc-
tances are calculated as in reference [23].
The stator phase resistance is calculated from the
dimensions of the machine, the number of turns in
a slot, and the cross-section of a slot
R
s
r
Cu
l
Cus
A
Cus
(28)
where
l
Cus
2N
s
(l
s
2t
p
) (29)
A
Cus

pk
sfil
bh
s
N
s
(30)
k
sl
is the slot ll factor, b
s
the slot width, and h
s
is the
slot height.
3.4 Generator with resistive load
In the tests presented in this paper, the generator is
connected to a load consisting of a parallel con-
nection of a resistor and a capacitor, as depicted in
Fig. 5.
An useful approximation of the force made by the
generator can be calculated in the following way.
The following assumptions are used:
(a) the changes in speed are so slow that the electri-
cal quantities (currents, voltages, and powers)
can be calculated for steady state;
(b) iron losses are negligible.
In steady state, the stator current phasor can be
calculated as
I
s

E
p
Z
;
Z R
s
jvL
s
R
c
jvL
c

R
l
1 jvR
l
C
l
(31)
where v is the electrical angular frequency, given by
v p
_ x
t
p
(32)
R
c
is the cable resistance, L
c
the cable inductance, R
l
the load resistance, and C
l
the capacitor connected in
parallel to the load resistance.
The values of the parameters R
s
, L
s
, R
c
, L
c
, R
l
, and C
l
and the measurement/calculation methodology
used to obtain them are described in reference [20].
From this, the force made by the generator can be
calculated as
F
g

P
g
_ x

3E
p
I

s
_ x
(33)
where I

s
is the complex conjugate of I
s
.
Figure 6 depicts the resulting calculated force as a
function of the velocity.
If the speed is not too high, the generator force is
almost linear with speed and can be approximated
by
F
GEN
b
GEN
_ x (34)
where b
GEN
is the mechanical damping due to the
Fig. 5 Equivalent circuit of the generator, the cable,
and the load
862 M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen, and H Polinder
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE284
#
IMechE 2006
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
generator given by
b
GEN
(R
AC
)
@F
GEN
( _ x, x, R
AC
)
@_ x

_ xx0

1:83 10
6
(Nsm
1
V)
R
l
R
c
R
s
(35)
4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
The results presented are measurements performed
on the 2nd of October of 2004, from 15:57:30 until
16:00:00 (2.5 min). At that time, the following
conditions were observed
1. Sea
(a) signicant height of the waves H
s
2:4 m;
(b) average wave period T
AV
11:5 s;
(c) tide level h
T
2:55 m.
2. AWS
(a) water volume inside AWS V
W
1180 m
3
;
(b) average air pressure inside AWS
p
a
32.35 mwc;
(c) water brakes on, the damping of the water
brakes is given by b
WB
1:42 10
6
Ns
2
=m
2
3. Landstation
(a) electrical load: resistor R
l
6V
4.2 Currents, voltages, and position
Figure 7 depicts the measured current waveforms
through the load resistance during one wave
period.
The total generator current is the sum of the load
current and the current through the load capacitors,
and can be calculated as
i
s
i
R
l
R
l
C
l
di
R
l
dt
(36)
Substituting this in equation (23) gives the no-load
voltages. The products of the no-load voltages and
the generator currents give the generator input
power. Figure 8 depicts both the power dissipated
in the load resistors and the input power of the
generator.
From the no-load voltages calculated from the
measurements, the relative position can also be
calculated, because these voltages are functions of
the position [24]. Figure 9 depicts the position
signal that has been derived in this way.
The speed is obtained by time differentiating the
position signal. The generator force may then be
obtained from the generator power by dividing it by
the speed. Figure 10 depicts the generated power
and generator force as a function of the speed. Com-
paring with Fig. 6, it appears that the damping of the
generator determined from the measurements is
larger than the theoretical damping calculated from
Fig. 6 Force of the generator with resistive load as a
function of the velocity for load resistances of
1, 3, 6, and 15 V
Fig. 7 Measured current waveforms through the load resistance during one wave period
Modelling and test results of the AWS 863
JPE284
#
IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
equation (33). This is probably caused by the fact
that the generator temperature is lower than what
it was designed for. A lower temperature leads to a
higher remanent ux density of the magnets, and
therefore to a higher voltage induced by the PMs.
From the correlation between the measurement
and the calculation, it can be concluded that the
generator model is acceptable.
4.3 Equation of motion
According to the equilibrium condition (13) and
taking into account the measured tide level and aver-
age air pressure, the equilibrium position of the
device should be x 0:7 m.
When the water volume inside AWS, the average
position and average air pressure are taken into
Fig. 8 Power dissipated in the load resistance (solid line) and power delivered by the generator
during one wave period (dashed line)
Fig. 9 Position determined from the no-load voltage
Fig. 10 Generator power and generator force as a function of generator speed
864 M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen, and H Polinder
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE284
#
IMechE 2006
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
account, the air and nitrogen spring coefcients can
be calculated using equations (15) and (16) as k
a

1:16 10
6
N/m and k
n
9 10
4
N/m.
Adding the gas springs coefcients to the hydro-
static spring coefcient k
h
7 10
5
N/m, results
in a total positive spring coefcient k 5:5
10
5
N/m and a natural period T
n
6:6 s.
Using equation (35), the damping coefcient of the
generator is calculated as b
GEN
275 kNs/m. Compar-
ing the generator damping with the water brake damp-
ing coefcient (5), it can be seen that for velocities
approximately higher than 0:18 m/s, the braking force
of the water brakes is higher than that of the generator.
Figure 11 depicts the following three
measurements.
1. The water pressure on top of the structure of AWS.
This pressure signal gives information about the
exciting wave force that drives the oater. When
the pressure signal increases the wave force acting
on the device should also increase and vice-versa.
2. The air pressure inside AWS. This pressure signal
gives information about the motion of the device
due to the compression and decompression of
the air. When the pressure reaches a maximum,
the position reaches a minimum and vice-versa.
3. The electrical current at resistor bank at the land-
station is related to the speed of the device. When
the current is high the speed is high and vice-
versa.
Just from visual inspection of the measurements
some conclusions can already be drawn.
1. The peaks of the air pressure are slightly delayed
in relation to the water pressure peaks. This
means that the extreme position of the device is
always delayed relative to the extreme values of
the exciting force. This phase shift (,908) results
from the mass spring behaviour of the device. If
the system would be in resonance with the
waves the phase shift would be 908. In this case,
Fig. 11 Measurements of water pressure, air pressure, and resistor currents
Modelling and test results of the AWS 865
JPE284
#
IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
the natural period of the mass spring system
(6.6 s) is lower than the average period of the
waves (11.5 s) and therefore the spring forces
dominate over the inertia forces, which results in
a phase shift below 908.
2. When the air pressure time derivative is high, the
electrical current is also high. This results directly
from the fact that the air pressure time derivative
is directly related to the speed of the device.
A more precise analysis can be made in order to
check the consistency and correlation between the
measured signals. One way of achieving this is by cal-
culating from each measured signal independently
Fig. 12 Absolute value of the velocity as a function of time derived from different measured
signals
866 M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen, and H Polinder
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE284
#
IMechE 2006
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
one common signal, like the velocity of the device for
instance.
The relation between the velocity of the device and
the water pressure signal is given by the dynamic
mass-spring model. By solving the differential
equation (19) excited by the water pressure signal,
the velocity signal may be recovered. The resulting
signal will however depend also on the initial con-
ditions used for the position and velocity. Since the
effect of initial conditions on the signal will decay
rapidly with time (after a few wave cycles its negli-
gible already), the initial conditions are assumed to
be zero.
The relation between the velocity of the device and
the air pressure signal is simpler and results from the
static air spring curve of the device. The air pressure
is related to the position of the device by
p
a

k
a
S
f
x
Therefore, the velocity can be calculated as
_ x
S
f
k
a
_ p
a
As explained in section 4.2, also a position signal
can be obtained from the measured currents and vol-
tages. The time derivative of this position signal also
gives a speed signal.
Figure 12 presents the absolute value of the vel-
ocity signals calculated independently from each of
the three measured signals.
From the gure, it can be seen that the signals
match quite well, specially the ones calculated from
the electrical current and the air pressure. The
main reason for this is the simplicity of the corre-
sponding models used for the velocity estimation.
The mass-spring model is however more complex,
especially the wave force estimation from the water
pressure signal. It is a non-linear function of the pos-
ition of the generator and dependent on the fre-
quency of the waves. Nevertheless even with the
simple model (see section 2.3), where most of these
non-linearities and higher order dynamics were neg-
lected, the estimated velocity still follows the other
estimated velocities signals quite well.
From these results, it can be concluded that the
derived equation for the motion of the oater is
valid. Without proper estimates of the wave forces,
the spring constants, the masses, and the damping,
there would be much larger differences between
the different velocity signals.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a model for the motion of the oater of
the AWS has been derived. From the measurement
results, it can be concluded that a 2nd order model
ts reasonably well to the measured data, which
permit to conclude about the simplicity of the main
structure of the device dynamics. A higher order
non-linear model is however needed to achieve a
better t. Also, a generator model has been derived.
From the measurements, it can also be concluded
that this model is valid.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project has been supported by a Marie
Curie Early Stage Research Training Fellowship
of the European Communitys Sixth Framework
Programme under contract number MRTN-CT-
2004-505166.
REFERENCES
1 Salter, S. H. Wave power. Nature, 1974, 249, 720724.
2 Clement, A., McCullen, P., Falcao, A., Fiorentino, A.,
Gardner, F., Hammarlund, K., Lemonis, G., Lewis,
T., Nielsen, K., Petroncini, S., Pontes, M.-T., Schild,
P., Sjostrom, B.-O., Srrensen, H.C., and Thorpe, T.
Wave energy in Europe: current status and perspec-
tives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2002, 6, 405431.
3 Thorpe, T. W. The wave energy programme in the UK
and the European wave energy network. In Proceedings
of Fourth Wave Energy Conference, Aalborg, 2000,
pp. 1927.
4 Thorpe, T. W. A brief review of wave energy. ETSU
report, R-120, DTI publication, 1999.
5 Narayanan, S. S. Y., Murthy, B. K., and Rao, G. S.
Dynamic analysis of a grid-connected induction
generator driven by a wave-energy turbine through
hunting networks. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 1999,
14, 115121.
6 Folley, M., Curran, R., Boake, C., and Whittacker, T.
Performance investigations of the LIMPET counter-
rotating Wells turbine. In Proceedings of Marine
Renewable Energy Conference, Newcastle, September
2002.
7 Pizer, D. J., Retzler, C. H., and Yemm, R. W. The OPD
Pelamis: experimental and numerical results from
the hydrodynamic work program. In Proceedings of
Fourth European Wave Energy Conference, Aalborg,
December 2000, pp. 227233.
8 Meyer, N. I. and Nielsen, K. The Danish wave energy
programme second year status. In Proceedings of
Fourth Wave Energy Conference, Aalborg, 2000,
pp. 1018.
9 Mueller, M. A. Electrical generators for direct drive
wave energy converters. IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Dis-
trib., 2002, 149, 446456.
Modelling and test results of the AWS 867
JPE284
#
IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from
10 Mueller, M. A., Baker, N. J., and Spooner, E. Electrical
aspects of direct drive wave energy converters.
In Proceedings of Fourth European Wave
Energy Conference, Aalborg, December 2000, pp.
235242.
11 Mueller, M. A. and Baker, N. J. Direct drive electrical
power take-off for offshore marine energy converters.
Proc. IMechE, Part A: J. Power and Energy, 2005, 219,
223234.
12 Leijon, M., Bernhoff, H., Agren, O., Isberg, J.,
Sundberg, J., Berg, M., Karlsson, K. E., and
Wolfbrandt, A. Multiphysics simulation of wave
energy to electric energy conversion by permament
magnet linear generator. IEEE Trans. Energy convers.,
2005, 20, 219224.
13 Thorburn, K., Bernhoff, H., and Leijon, M. Wave
energy transmission system concepts for linear gen-
erator arrays. Ocean Eng., 2004, 31, 13391349.
14 Sarmento, A. J. N. A., Lu s, A. M., and Lopes, D. B. S.
Frequency-domain analysis of the AWS device. Euro-
pean Wave Energy Conference, Patras, 1998.
15 Rademakers, L. W. M. M., Van Schie, R. G., Schuitema,
R., Vriesema, B., and Gardner, F. Physical model test-
ing for characterising the AWS. European Wave Energy
Conference, Patras, 1998, pp. 192199.
16 Polinder, H., Gardner, F., and Vriesema, B. Linear PM
generator for wave energy conversion in the AWS.
In Proceedings of Eighth International Conference on
Electrical machines, Helsinki, August 2000, vol. 1,
pp. 309313.
17 Polinder, H., Damen, M. E. C., and Gardner, F.
Modelling and test results of the AWS linear PM
generator system. In Proceedings of International
Conference on Electric machines, Bruges, August
2002, paper 357.
18 Polinder, H., Damen, M. E. C., and Gardner, F. Linear
PM generator system for wave energy conversion in the
AWS. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2004, 19, 583589.
19 Polinder, H., Mecrow, B. C., Jack, A. G., Dickinson, P.,
and Mueller, M. A. Linear generators for direct drive
wave energy conversion. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
2005, 20, 260267.
20 Polinder, H., Damen, M. E. C., and Gardner, F. Design,
modelling and test results of the AWS PM linear
generator. Eur. Trans. Electr. Power, 2005, 15, 245256.
21 de Sousa Prado, M. G., Neumann, F., Damen, M. E. C.,
and Gardner, F. AWS results of pilot plant testing 2004.
In Proceedings of Sixth European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference, Glasgow, 29 August2 September
2005, pp. 401407.
22 Faltinsen, O. M. Sea loads on ships and offshore struc-
tures, 1990 (Cambridge University Press).
23 Richter, R. Elektrische maschinen, erster band, 3rd
edition, 1967 (Birkhauser, Basel).
24 Polinder, H., Damen, M. E. C., Gardner, F., and
de Sousa Prado, M. G. Archimedes wave swing
linear permanent magnet generator system perform-
ance. In Proceedings of Sixth European Wave and
Tidal Energy Conference, Glasgow, 29 August
2 September 2005, pp. 383388.
868 M G de Sousa Prado, F Gardner, M Damen, and H Polinder
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part A: J. Power and Energy JPE284
#
IMechE 2006
by guest on June 13, 2011 pia.sagepub.com Downloaded from