Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Assessment of wave energy resources in Hawaii

Justin E. Stopa a, Kwok Fai Cheung a, *, Yi-Leng Chen b
a
b

Department of Ocean and Resources Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
Department of Meteorology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 3 November 2009
Accepted 20 July 2010
Available online 24 August 2010

Hawaii is subject to direct approach of swells from distant storms as well as seas generated by trade winds
passing through the islands. The archipelago creates a localized weather system that modies the wave
energy resources from the far eld. We implement a nested computational grid along the major Hawaiian
Islands in the global WaveWatch3 (WW3) model and utilize the Weather Research and Forecast (WRF)
model to provide high-resolution mesoscale wind forcing over the Hawaii region. Two hindcast case
studies representative of the year-round conditions provide a quantitative assessment of the regional wind
and wave patterns as well as the wave energy resources along the Hawaiian Island chain. These events of
approximately two weeks each have a range of wind speeds, ground swells, and wind waves for validation
of the model system with satellite and buoy measurements. The results demonstrate the wave energy
potential in Hawaii waters. While the episodic swell events have enormous power reaching 60 kW/m, the
wind waves, augmented by the local weather, provide a consistent energy resource of 15e25 kW/m
throughout the year.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Mesoscale model
Spectral wave model
Waves in Hawaii
Wave energy
Wave power
Ocean observing system

1. Introduction
Hawaiis mid-Pacic location and year-round access to the ocean
make it a center for marine research and recreational activities.
Hidden in these activities are the wave energy resources that have
only recently attracted attention. Fig. 1 illustrates the wave climate
around the Hawaiian Islands. Extratropical storms near the Kuril
and Aleutian Islands generate northwest swells reaching 5 m
signicant wave height in Hawaii waters during the winter months
of NovembereMarch. The south facing shores experience more
gentle swell conditions associated with extratropical storms off
Antarctica during the summer months from May to October. In
addition, consistent trade winds generate wind waves from the
northeast to east throughout the year. Existing buoys operated by
the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) provide point measurements
of the wave conditions either off the Hawaiian Island chain or at
nearshore locations. A numerical modeling approach can augment
the available measurements to provide spatial distributions of the
ocean wave resources for assessment [1e3].
The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) operates WaveWatch3 (WW3) to provide 7.5 days of global wave forecasts

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: stopa@hawaii.edu (J.E. Stopa), cheung@hawaii.edu (K.F.
Cheung), yileng@hawaii.edu (Y.-L. Chen).
0960-1481/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.014

at 1.25
 1
resolution [4]. The model known as NWW3 is forced with

assimilated surface winds from the Global Forecast System (GFS) [5].
Because the grid does not resolve the Hawaiian Islands, NWW3
applies an obstruction coefcient [6] to reduce the wave energy
transmission through the island chain [7]. While the model provides
accurate description of large-scale wave patterns, it does not resolve
the wave conditions near the Hawaiian Islands, particularly in the
inter-island channels that are known to be treacherous by local
mariners. Furthermore, NWW3 does not account for island shadowing when one island blocks the swell from reaching another. This
may have profound effects along an archipelago as already shown by
Ponce de Leon and Guedes Soares [8] and Rusu et al. [9] through
nesting of a ner grid in spectral wave modeling.
The Hawaiian Islands also modify the trade-wind ow and create
localized weather patterns all year-round [10]. The diurnal thermal
forcing from the land surface drives the daytime sea breezes and
upslope ow as well as the nighttime land breezes and downslope
ow [11,12]. Accurate representations of terrain and thermal effects
from the land surface are required to simulate the island-induced
airow and weather over the Hawaiian Islands [13,14]. Skamarock
[15] describes the implementation and validation of the Weather
Research and Forecast (WRF) model with initial and boundary
conditions from NCEPs Final Analysis (FNL) data to provide highresolution weather description for Hawaii. The regional WRF model
captures ow deceleration on the windward side and signicant

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

555

Fig. 1. Wave climate and buoy resources around the Hawaiian Islands.

speed-up of the trade winds in the channels and prominent wakes

on the leeside of islands. These local modications of the trade winds
may have strong effects on the wave elds.
The capability to quantify the complex wave conditions is
essential to the planning, deployment, and operation of wave
energy devices in the Hawaii region. The latest version of NWW3
can include two-way nested grids to cover selected areas at higher
resolution and to ensure proper exchange of data with the global
model [16]. This study examines the implementation of a regional
nested grid in NWW3 with wind forcing from a Hawaii WRF model
to capture the propagation of swell and generation of local wind
waves across the Hawaiian Islands. An island-scale domain for
Oahu utilizing the Simulating WAves Nearshore (SWAN) model [6]
is nested into the Hawaii regional domain to describe the wave
conditions for comparison with nearshore buoy measurements.
Wind data derived from scatterometers aboard orbiting satellites
and wave data from satellite altimetry and buoys provide validation
of the model data. Two hindcast case studies consisting of
predominant north swell, south swell, and wind sea conditions
cover the typical wave climate to provide an assessment of the
wave energy resources along the Hawaiian Island chain.
2. Methodology
2.1. Model description
The present study utilizes a suite of proven atmospheric and
ocean wave models from the research and operations communities.
Fig. 2 provides a schematic of the model and data system to provide
high-delity wind and wave data along the Hawaiian Island chain.
The system is automated through a set of scripts, which link the
model components with databases and utility programs. A frontend preprocessor manages the data transfer and the computational
processes with standardized input and output les [17,18]. A series

of nested computational grids capture physical processes at global

and regional scales with appropriate temporal and spatial resolution. The same system is also in operation to provide 7.5-day highresolution forecasts of wind and wave conditions around the
Hawaiian Islands (http://oceanforecast.org/).
Accurate description of the wind eld is the key to the entire
modeling process. The FNL dataset is composed of 25 meteorological variables derived from the Global Forecast System (GFS),
which is a spectral model with 1
 1
resolution on the earth
surface and 64 layers extending to the top of the atmosphere. The
NCEP global data assimilation system (GDAS) implements QuikSCAT scatterometer winds at 10-m elevation into GFS on a real-time
basis [19,20]. The NCEP FNL data provides the initial and boundary
conditions to the Hawaii WRF, which in turn is coupled with the
Noah LSM (NCEP, Oregon State University, Air Force, and Hydrological Research Laboratory Land Surface Model) using vegetation
data and surface properties compiled by Zhang et al. [21]. WRF is
a next-generation mesoscale model based on the non-hydrostatic,
three-dimensional Euler equation with the sigma vertical coordinate [22]. The regional domain covers 194e210
E and 16e26
N to
model the upstream wind ow and the modied wind eld
downstream of the Hawaiian Islands. The 6 km grid spacing is
sufcient to resolve the physical processes important to local wind
wave generation and the data is output at the standard 10-m
elevation every hour.
WW3 is a third-generation spectral model for wind wave
development and propagation from deep to intermediate water [4].
The model solves the action balance equation for evolution of the
wave spectrum under wind forcing. Source terms account for
nonlinear effects such as windewave interactions, quadruplet
waveewave interactions, and dissipation through whitecapping and
bottom friction. We implement a global WW3 at 1.25
 1
resolution in hindcast mode and incorporate a nested Hawaii grid, which
covers a domain from 199 to 207
E and 17 to 24
N at 3-min

556

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

Fig. 2. Schematic of atmospheric and wave model system.

(w5.5 km) resolution. The model utilizes the ice concentration from
the FNL dataset and wind forcing from a combined FNL and Hawaii
WRF dataset. Tolman and Chalikov [23] concluded that the parameterization of the source term in WAM [24] underestimates the
transfer of energy from winds to waves for small fetches. The Hawaii
domain, which has intricate wind patterns caused by steep topographic gradient and narrow channels, would benet from the
source term of Tolman and Chalikov [23].
The Hawaii WW3 denes the boundary conditions for the Oahu
SWAN, which covers a domain of 201.65e202.40
E and
21.20
e21.75
N at 9-sec (approximately 280 m) resolution to
provide data at the nearshore wave buoys for model validation.
Wind forcing is not considered due to the small geographic size of
the computational domain. The SWAN model is similar to WW3 in
that it solves the action balance equation with parameterization of
nonlinear processes [6]. However, SWAN is better suited for
shallow water processes by including additional source terms for
triad waveewave interactions and depth-induced wave breaking as
well as the JONSWAP parameterization for dissipation due to
bottom friction [25]. In addition, SWAN accounts for some effects of
diffraction by including an additional term derived from the mildslope equation [26].
Both WW3 and SWAN provide directional wave spectra at the
grid points that can reveal multiple wave events occurring simultaneously. This is especially important for Hawaii as the ocean

always contains a mix of swell and wind wave events. Since wave
energy devices have narrow operating frequency ranges, it is
important to identify the energy levels of the wave components
separately. The latest release of WW3 (v3.14) implements the
Hanson and Phillips [27] algorithm to determine the wave
parameters for each spectral partition. The wave power per unit
crest length is

1
2
rgHrms
Cg
8

where r is the density of water, g is the acceleration due to gravity, Cg is

group velocity, Hrms is the root-mean square wave height of a spectral
partition. This algorithm is adequate in treating data produced by
wave models, but in some cases with double peak spectra, the Guedes
Soares [28] approach appears to be more accurate [29].
2.2. Satellite observations and post-processing
The hindcast regional wind and wave data needs validation with
measurements before its implementation in the resources assessment. Buoys provide direct and continuous measurements of the
wave conditions for comparison with the model output at discrete
locations. Spatial data available for model validation includes wind
measurements from QuikSCAT and altimetry wave measurements

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

557

Fig. 3. Comparison of wind elds from Hawaii WRF and QuikSCAT for Case Study 1.

from Jason-1 and Topex/Poseidon (T/P). We selected these platforms

because they are able to provide validated measurements across
a large spatial region under a wide range of atmospheric conditions.
QuikSCAT provides wind measurements over 90% of the Earths
ice-free ocean daily with errors less than 2 m/s in speed and 20
in
direction [30]. The polar orbiting satellite ies over Hawaii twice
daily in ascending and descending passes. The 1800-km swath has

a nominal spatial resolution of 25 km to capture mesoscale

winds. The scatterometer on QuikSCAT pulses cloud-penetrating microwaves in the Ku band towards the earth and
records the backscatter signal under all weather conditions.
The wind speed and direction at 10-m elevation can be estimated from empirical relationships known as the Geophysical
Model Function (GMF) without taking into account second-

558

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

Fig. 4. Comparison of wave elds from Hawaii WW3 and altimetry for Case Study 1.

order geophysical effects such as wave height and sea surface

temperature. A land mask of at least 25 km removes erroneous
values caused by coastal land mass and a multidimensional
rain-agging technique indicates the presence of rain, which
may alter the microwave pulse. The Direction Interval Retrieval
with Threshold Nudging (DIRTH) algorithm gives a unique
solution for the wind direction [31].

The Topex/Poseidon (T/P) and Jason-1 satellites are equipped

with a dual-frequency (C & Ku band) altimeter, which measures the
sea surface elevation. Other on board sensors correct for vapor
content in the atmosphere and the electron content in the ionosphere. Erroneous data near the coastlines due to contaminated
signals by the presence of land is removed. The signicant wave
height (Hs) is an intrinsic property of the sea surface measurement

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

559

estimated from the slope of the leading edge of the returned signal
[32]. Typical errors are within  0.5 m or 10% of Hs, whichever is
larger. Caires and Sterl [33] have shown that wave heights derived
from buoys and altimeters have comparable instrumental error
variances. The signicant wave height derived from the Ku band is
considered in this study because the C band is more susceptible to
contamination by water vapor in the atmosphere. Similar to
QuikSCAT, Jason-1 and T/P are polar orbiting satellites. However,
these satellites orbit much slower and y over the same ground
track every 10 days. Along-track, gridded Hs values with resolution
of approximately 2.5 min (5.8 km) provide comparison with results
from the Hawaii WW3.

3. Waves in Hawaii

Fig. 5. Scatter plot of computed signicant wave height for Case Study 1.

The wave climate in Hawaii can be categorized into north swell,

south swell, and northeast wind waves. The swell events always
contain a certain level of energy from the year-round northeast
trade winds resulting in a multimodal sea state. We select two
case studies of approximately two weeks long each that encompass a north and a south swell with a mix of developing and
persistent wind waves to illustrate the typical conditions in
Hawaii. The coupled wave model consisting of the global and

Fig. 6. Comparison of signicant wave height from Hawaii WW3 and buoys for Case Study 1.

560

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

Fig. 7. Wave power distributions for swell and wind waves in Case Study 1.

Hawaii WW3 is initialized 14 days prior to the period of interest in

each case study. Due to its small spatial coverage the Oahu SWAN
is initialized 4 days prior for each case. This assures full development of the sea state in the global, regional, and island scales for
a detailed assessment of the wave energy resources along the
Hawaiian Island chain.

3.1. Winter season

Hawaii is exposed to north swells in the winter season, when
the subtropical high pressure weakens and variable wind patterns
develop. The rst case study from March 18 to April 2, 2005 occurs
towards the end of the winter season when the dominant direction

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

561

Fig. 8. Comparison of wind elds from Hawaii WRF and QuikSCAT for Case Study 2.

of the swell ranges from the northwest to north. The swell in the
rst three days is the largest and two weaker swells occur during
the remainder of the case study. The winds are relatively calm in
the beginning and transition to moderate northeast trade conditions that generate waves within the Hawaii domain. This case
study allows testing of the numerical models and examination of
the wave conditions for a number of different episodes: weak

winds coupled with a swell from the North Pacic, moderate winds
coupled with a smaller swell, and locally generated wind waves
with a background swell.
The wind event can be broken into two distinct episodes with
three representative patterns as shown in Fig. 3. The data is plotted
in the original resolution along with every other QuikSCAT wind
vector and every sixth WRF wind vector. The QuikSCAT data is re-

562

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

Fig. 9. Comparison of wave elds from WW3 Hawaii and altimetry for Case Study 2.

gridded to t on an evenly spaced grid of 0.25
 0.25
with the

white areas representing rain ags and land masks. The top panels
are representative of the rst half of the case study with calm winds
of 2e6 m/s from variable directions. A high-pressure system
centered on Oahu results in the anti-cyclonic wind pattern in the
middle panels. There are subtle differences between the WRF and
QuikSCAT data, but the overall ow matches every well. In the

second half of the case study, moderate northeast trade winds of

10e15 m/s prevail. The Hawaiian Islands cause deceleration of the
trade wind ow on the windward shores and acceleration downstream of the ocean channels, especially in the Alenuihaha Channel
between Maui and Hawaii Island, driven by channel-parallel pressure gradients [13]. WRF depicts wake circulations extending
downstream of Hawaii Island and Maui with a well-dened

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

Fig. 10. Scatter plot of computed signicant wave height for Case Study 2.

westerly return ow off the leeward coasts. Because of the emission

contamination from the land surface and the relatively coarse
resolution, QuikSCAT does not fully capture the detailed islandinduced airow over coastal waters and the wake circulations
leeward of major islands [34,35].
Fig. 4 displays the wave patterns from the Hawaii WW3 on the
same days of the wind snapshots and at the nearest time steps
when altimetry data is available. The arrows represent the peak
wave directions every 7th grid point. The data on March 20 shows
the strong northwest swell with Hs up to 3.5 m under calm wind
conditions. The northwest shores of Kauai and Oahu are exposed to
the maximum swell energy, while the Hawaii Island is in the
shadow of the northern islands receiving only a fraction of the wave
energy. The altimetry data provides good coverage of the wave
conditions behind Niihau and Kauai to validate the island shadow
phenomenon. The swell decreases to about 2.5 m on March 25
around the transition period of the winds. Local seas generated by
the anti-cyclonic winds from the east cover the shadow south of
Hawaii Island and increase the wave height to the north corroborating the altimetry data. The wave eld on April 1 shows a mix of
the northwest swell and the waves associated with the moderate
trade winds. The wind waves are coming from the east with typical
wave heights of 2.5 m. There is signicant strengthening of the local
wind speeds due to the large topographic gradient. The strengthened winds to the south of Hawaii Island and along the channels
increase the wave heights to the south and southwest of the island
chain. The altimetry data provides transects of wave conditions
across the island chain to validate the Hawaii WW3 results. The
WW3 data is interpolated in time and space to match the altimetry
passes for the comparison in Fig. 5. There are no instances of the
Hawaii WW3 over predicting Hs values larger than 1 m. The model
underestimates the wave height by more than 2 m in only a few
instances. Since the altimetry data is a snapshot of the wave
conditions, these outliers may represent rogue waves, which the
phase-average wave model cannot resolve.
Signicant wave heights recorded by the NDBC deepwater
buoys as well as the Mokapu and Waimea nearshore buoys at
100 m and 200 m water depth are compared with the model data in
Fig. 6. The largest northwest swell occurs in the beginning of the

563

case study peaking on March 19e20. The model data matches the
average measurements very well, but does not capture the uctuations. As the winds in the Hawaii region are relatively calm, the
discrepancy is probably due to the low-resolution FNL wind forcing.
The computed swell from March 23 to 25 is consistently larger than
the buoy measurements most likely due to the generation source
term in WW3. The computed swell arrives slightly before the
record at buoy 51001 on March 23. The wave model predicts the
swell to have a longer wave period, which equates to a more
energetic sea state and faster propagation speed. This error propagates through Hawaii WW3 resulting in over-prediction of Hs at
51002, 51003, and Waimea. The Mokapu buoy, which is in the
shadow of Oahus northeast headland, does not register this swell.
The winds transition from calm to moderate and local waves begin
to develop on March 26. A common feature at buoys 51002, 51003,
Mokapu, and Waimea is the slight under-prediction of wave
heights during March 27e29. A possible explanation lies in the
ability of wind wave models to account for the abrupt change in
wind speed. The match is much better towards the end of the
period when the wind waves gradually develop. The high-resolution Hawaii WRF forcing in the Hawaii WW3 reproduces the small
uctuations at buoys 51002, 51003, Mokapu, and Waimea at the
end of the episode. The computed wave height at buoy 51001,
which is located outside the Hawaii WW3, is smooth throughout
this last episode due to the low-resolution FNL forcing.
With the model validated, we quantify the wave power around
the Hawaiian Islands and plot the results in Fig. 7 at the same time
steps as those in Fig. 3. The left column of panels represents the
primary swell and the right column represents the wind waves
determined from the algorithm of Hanson and Phillips [27]. The left
panel on March 20 corresponds to the peak of the northwest swell.
The wave power, which reaches 60 kW/m on the north facing shores
of the Hawaiian Islands, is on the same order of magnitude as
average conditions found in northwest Spain [1]. There are minimal
wind wave activities consistent with the weak local wind conditions
in the beginning of the case study. On March 25, the smaller
northwest swell has wave power in the range of 25e35 kW/m, and
local waves begin to develop with the trade winds from the east. The
northwest swell reduces to an estimated wave power of 15 kW/m or
less on April 1. The wind waves, on the other hand, become dominant and have 15e35 kW/m of wave power available. Because of the
return ow and low wind speed, the algorithm of Hanson and
Phillips [27] classies the wind waves in the wake of the trade winds
behind Hawaii Island as swell. Other than that the estimated power
is relatively large when compared to windewave regimes around
the world. Since the northeast and east trade winds are common
throughout the year, their speed up on the south side of Hawaii
Island provides a reliable resource for wave energy development.
3.2. Summer season
Hawaii experiences gentler south swells in the summer, when
the subtropical high-pressure generates persistent trade winds
from the east and northeast. In South Pacics winter, storms in the
roaring 40s generate most of the swells toward the Americas.
Hawaii receives swells from these sources through directional
spreading of the waves. The second case study from September 4 to
18, 2005 occurs in end of the summer season, when the systems
form closer to Australia and aim more wave energy toward Hawaii.
There are multiple swells throughout the case with the largest
around September 16e17 with signicant wave heights over 2 m
and peak periods over 18 s. Typical summer winds with speeds in
the 10e15 m/s range from the east persist throughout the entire
case study. Fig. 8 shows three representative patterns of the trade
wind ow across the Hawaiian Island chain. Alternating speed-up

564

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

Fig. 11. Comparison of signicant wave heights from Hawaii WW3 and buoys for Case Study 2.

and wake formations are evident leeward of the island chain. The
Hawaii WRF wind elds match the QuikSCAT mean ow very well
especially over the open ocean and in the exit region of the Alenuihaha Channel. QuikSCAT does not capture the island-induced
airow in coastal waters and the wake circulations off the leeward
coasts due to its spatial resolution. The rather constant trade winds
give rise to predominant wind waves throughout the period. This
case study allows testing of the numerical models and assessment
of the wave pattern in a typical summer event with moderate wind
waves and a range of south swell conditions.
Fig. 9 displays the representative wave patterns around the time
of the wind data snapshots for direct comparison. The rst and
second rows show the wind waves from the east and the last row
shows the south swell coupled with the wind waves. On September
6, the trade winds generate signicant wave heights of up to 3.5 m
in the exit region of Alenuihaha Channel. The Hawaii WW3
reproduces the shadow west of Hawaii Island, but slightly underestimates the wind waves to the south. On September 11, the wind
wave pattern continues. The computed wind waves compare well

with the altimetry data, with errors less than 0.5 m. On September
16, the wave eld displays the peak of the south swell coupled with
the moderate wind waves from the east. The energy from the south
swell lls the shadows of the wind waves on the leeward side of the
islands and vice versa. This results in a discontinuous pattern of the
peak wave direction in the domain. The regional model is able to
reproduce the wave heights relatively well in comparison to the
altimetry data. There are discrepancies in the southern part of the
domain where the wind waves and south swell combine to give
larger wave heights than the altimetry data. There were 10 satellite
passes from both the T/P and Jason-1 platforms during the entire
case study. Fig. 10 shows the overall comparison utilizing all the
altimetry data. The over prediction to the south of Hawaii Island is
shown as the group of points in the top of the plot. The overall
prediction is good with an error of typically within  0.5 m.
Fig. 11 shows the time series comparison of the computed and
measured signicant wave heights at the buoys. The overall agreement is reasonably good. There are instances of underestimation of
the wind wave heights at buoys 51002, 51003, and Mokapu due to

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

565

Fig. 12. Wave power distributions for swell and wind waves in Case Study 2.

the weaker modeled winds. The Hawaii WRF does not fully account
for all of the trade wind processes because the subtropical highpressure system is located outside the regional domain. These
errors, however, are less than 0.5 m in signicant wave height. The
largest discrepancies occur at buoys 51002 and 51003 at the peak of
the south swell during September 15e17. The wave model is predicting larger wave heights to the south of the Hawaiian Island chain

as already shown in Fig. 9. Given the locations of the buoys at the

Hawaii WW3 boundary, the error most likely arises from the
prediction of the swell in the global WW3, but is less than 1 m
typically. The Waimea buoy, which is sheltered from the south swell
and to a certain extent the wind waves, gives excellent agreement of
the background wave conditions. The time series comparison
reveals the Hawaii WRF is able to account for the mesoscale wind

566

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

eld that produces perturbation in the Hawaii WW3 results as

shown at buoys 51002, 51003, Mokapu, and Waimea. The computed
time series at buoy 51001 is much smoother because this location is
in the global domain forced with synoptic winds from FNL. Contrary
to the rst case study, the entire two-week period consists of similar
environmental conditions with moderate and gradual changes in
wind speed and direction. This provides a more favorable condition
for modeling of wind wave generation that is reected in the
comparison.
This case study allows examination of the potential of the south
swell and trade wind waves as a marine energy resource during the
summer months. Fig. 12 provides estimates of the available wave
power of the two components across the Hawaiian Islands. The
stronger trade winds in this case study result in more signicant
deceleration windward of Maui and Hawaii Island and more
extensive wakes leeward of the islands. The algorithm of Hanson and
Phillips [27] classies the wind waves in those areas as swell because
of the weak and variable local winds. On September 6, a weak south
swell with estimated wave power of less than 10 KW/m covers the
entire domain. The wind waves dominate with much higher power
of 15e25 KW/m. The generation of local wind waves is evident
downwind of the Alenuihaha Channel and south of Hawaii Island.
Albeit the misclassied swell in the wake of the trade winds, the
results on September 11 shows superposition of a west swell on the
developing south swell, which is only discernable on the east side of
Hawaii Island. The west swell was created approximately 6e8 days
earlier from Super Typhoon Nabi in the Western Pacic. The wind
waves are similar to those on September 6 with available power in
the range of 15e25 kW/m. September 16 represents the peak of the
south swell with 15 kW/m of wave power on all south facing shores.
The west swell has turned from the northwest as the remnants of
Nabi reorganized into an extratropical low pressure system, and is
discernable in the sheltered ocean north of Maui and Hawaii Island.
The wind waves peak simultaneously with the south swell and have
wave power reaching 40 kW/m in the channels and southwest of the
Hawaiian Islands.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
Two case studies representative of typical winter and summer
wave conditions have illustrated the effectiveness of the nested
wind and wave model system in describing the wave climate in
Hawaii. Comparison of the Hawaii WRF and QuikSCAT wind elds
show good agreement on the key processes around the islands. The
high-resolution Hawaii WRF describes the decelerating winds on
the windward side, wake circulations off the leeside coasts, and the
accelerating airow in the channels and around the islands. The
implementation of the WRF winds into the nested wave model is
necessary to capture the wave heights leeward of Maui and Hawaii
Island. Comparison of the computed signicant wave heights with
data from Jason-1 and T/P as well as deepwater and nearshore
buoys shows good agreement, with a negligible bias and an RMSE
on the order of 0.5 m.
This study also quanties the ocean wave resources in the three
main climate patterns typical to Hawaii. Through the two case
studies, the available wave power is estimated for the north and
south swells as well as wind waves across the Hawaiian Island
chain. Northwest swells have enormous wave power reaching
60 kW/m. These events, however, do not occur throughout the year
and are most prevalent in the winter months. South swells are
more consistent in the summer months, but have a lower level of
wave power than their northwest counterparts. The large south
swell examined in this study only has 15 kW/m at its peak. The
wind waves in the Hawaii region are the most consistent and
reliable energy resource throughout the year. The topography of the

Hawaiian Islands further augments the wave energy by local

acceleration of the wind ows. These events typically have available wave power in the range of 15e25 kW/m, which is rather high
for wind waves in comparison to other parts of the world.
The consistency of the wave events and the proximity to shore
play an important role in the selection of optimal locations for
deployment of wave energy devices. While the north and south
facing shores would respectively capture the energy from the north
and south swells, the most favorable sites for the wind waves are in
the Alenuihaha Channel and southwest of Hawaii Island. Both
locations have steady supply of wave energy during most of the
year and are close to shore and the existing power grid for distribution. The refraction-diffraction models of Chandrasekera and
Cheung [36,37] can describe transformation of the wind waves over
the steep volcanic island slope to 50 m water depth, where wave
energy devices are typically deployed. This study has laid the
groundwork for a long-term wave climate study to provide data for
planning and operation of wave energy devices in Hawaii. An effort
to provide 10 years of high-resolution hindcast wind and wave
conditions in the Hawaii region is currently underway.
Acknowledgements
The Ofce of Naval Research funded the development of the wave
modeling package through Grant No. N00014-02-1-0903 and the
NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System Program is supporting its
operation through a cooperative agreement NA07NOS4730207 with
the University of Hawaii. The Department of Energy provided additional support for the wave climate study through Grant No. DEFG36-08GO18180 via the National Marine Renewable Energy Center.
SOEST Contribution Number 7928.
References
[1] Iglesias G, Lopez M, Carballo R, Fraguela JA, Frigaard P. Wave energy potential
in Galicia (NW Spain). Renewable Energy 2009;31(2):2323e33.
[2] Rusu E, Guedes Soares C. Numerical modeling to estimate the spatial distribution of the wave energy in the Portuguese nearshore. Renewable Energy
2009;34(6):1501e16.
[3] Waters R, Engstrom J, Isberg J, Leijon M. Wave climate off Swedish west coast.
Renewable Energy 2009;34(6):1600e6.
[4] Tolman HL, Balasubramaniyan B, Burroughs LD, Chalikov DV, Chao YY,
Chen HS, Gerald VM. Development and implementation of wind generated
ocean surface wave models at NCEP. Weather and Forecasting 2002;17
(2):311e33.
[5] Yang F, Pan HL, Krueger SK, Moorthi S, Lord SJ. Evaluation of the NCEP global
forecast system at the ARM SGP Site. Monthly Weather Review 2006;134
(12):3668e90.
[6] Booij N, Ris RC, Holthuijsen LH. A third-generation wave model for coastal
regions, Part I, model description and validation. Journal of Geophysical
Research e Oceans 1999;104(C4):7649e66.
[7] Tolman HL. Treatment of unresolved islands and ice in wind wave models.
Ocean Modelling 2003;5(1):219e31.
[8] Ponce de Leon S, Guedes Soares C. On the sheltering effect of islands in ocean
wave models. Journal of Geophysical Research e Oceans 2005;104
(C09020):1e17.
[9] Rusu E, Pilar P, Guedes Soares C. Evaluation of wave conditions in Madeira
Archipelago with spectral models. Ocean Engineering 2008;35(13):1357e71.
[10] Smolarkiewicz PK, Rasmussen RM, Clark TL. On the dynamics of Hawaiian
cloud bands: island forcing. Journal of Atmospheric Science 1988;45
(5):1872e905.
[11] Chen YL, Nash AJ. Diurnal variation of surface airow and rainfall frequencies
on the island of Hawaii. Monthly Weather Review 1994;122(1):34e56.
[12] Li J, Chen YL. A case study of nocturnal rainshowers over the windward
coastal region of the island of Hawaii. Monthly Weather Review 1999;127
(11):2674e92.
[13] Zhang Y, Chen YL, Kodama K. Validation of the coupled NCEP mesoscale
spectral model and an advanced land surface model over the Hawaiian
islands. Part II: A high wind event. Weather Forecasting 2005;20(6):873e95.
[14] Yang Y, Chen YL, Fujioka FM. Numerical simulations of the island-induced
circulations over the island of Hawaii during HaRP. Monthly Weather Review
2005;133(12):3693e713.
[15] Skamarock WC. Evaluating mesoscale NWP models using kinetic energy
spectra. Monthly Weather Review 2004;132(12):3019e32.

J.E. Stopa et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 554e567

[16] Tolman HL. A mosaic approach to winds wave modeling. Ocean Modelling
2008;25(1):35e47.
[17] Cheung KF, Tang L, Donnelly JP, Ecileppi E, Liu K-B, Mao XZ, Houston SH, Murnane RJ.
Numerical modeling and eld evidence of coastal overwash in southern New
England from Hurricane Bob and implications in paleotempestology. Journal of
Geophysical Research 2007;112(3):F03024. doi:10.1029/2006JF000612.
[18] Cheung KF, Phadke AC, Wei Y, Rojas R, Douyere YJ-M, Martino CD,
Houston SH, Liu PL-F, Lynett PJ, Dodd N, Liao S, Nakazaki E. Modeling of
storm-induced coastal ooding for emergency management. Ocean Engineering 2003;30(11):1353e86.
[19] Chelton DB, Freilich MH. Scatterometer-based assessment of 10-m wind
analyses from the operational ECMWF and NCEP numerical weather prediction models. Monthly Weather Review 2005;133(2):409e29.
[20] Leslie LM, Buckley BW. Comments on Scatterometer-based assessment of 10m wind analyses from the operational ECMWF and NCEP numerical weather
prediction models. Monthly Weather Review 2006;134(2):737e42.
[21] Zhang Y, Chen YL, Hong SY, Juang MH, Kodama K. Validation of the coupled
NCEP mesoscale spectral model and an advanced land surface model over the
Hawaiian islands. Part I: summer trade wind conditions and a heavy rainfall
event. Weather Forecasting 2005;20(6):847e72.
[22] Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Wang W, Powers JG. A
Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 2. National Center for
Atmospheric Research, 2005. Technical Notes 468STR, 88 p.
[23] Tolman HL, Chalikov D. Source terms in a third-generation wind-wave model.
Journal of Physical Oceanography 1996;26(11):2497e518.
[24] WAMDI group. The WAM model e a third generation ocean wave prediction
model. Journal of Physical Oceanography 1988;18(12):1775e810.
[25] Hasselmann K, Barnett TP, Bouws E, Carlson H, Cartwright DE, Enke K,
Ewing JA, Gienapp H, Hasselmann DE, Kruseman P, Meerburg A, Mueller P,
Olbers DJ, Richter K, Sell W, Walden H. Measurements of wind-wave growth
and swell decay during the Joint north sea wave Project (JONSWAP). Deutsche
Hydrographische Zeitscheift 1973;A8(12):95.

567

[26] Holthuijsen LH, Herman A, Booij N. Phase-coupled refraction-diffraction for

spectral wave models. Coastal Engineering 2003;49(4):291e305.
[27] Hanson JL, Phillips OM. Automated analysis of ocean surface directional
wave spectra. Journal of Atmospheric Oceanic Technology 2001;18(2):
177e293.
[28] Guedes Soares C. Representation of double-peaked sea wave spectra. Ocean
Engineering 1984;11(2):185e207.
[29] Ewans KC, Bitner-Gregersen EM, Guedes Soares C. Estimation of wind-sea and
swell components in a bimodal sea state. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering 2006;128(4):265e70.
[30] Jpl. QuikSCAT science data product users manual. Jet Propulsion Laboratory;
2000. Publication D-18053: 84 p.
[31] Ebuchi N, Graber NC, Caruso MJ. Evaluation of wind vectors observed by
QuikSCAT/Seawinds using ocean buoy data. Journal of Atmospheric Oceanic
Technology 2002;19(12):2049e62.
[32] Fedor LS, Godbey TW, Gower JF, Guptill R, Hayne GS, Rufenach CL,
Walsh EJ. Satellite altimeter measurements of sea state e an algorithm
comparison. Journal of Geophysical Research e Solid Earth 1979;84(B8):
3991e4001.
[33] Caires S, Sterl A. Validation of ocean wind and wave data using triple
collection. Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans 2003;108(C3):
3098e114.
[34] Smith RB, Grubisi
c V. Aerial observation of Hawaiis wake. Journal of Atmospheric Science 1993;50(11):3728e50.
[35] Yang Y, Chen YL. Circulations and rainfall on the leeside of the island of Hawaii
during HaRP. Monthly Weather Review 2003;131(10):2525e42.
[36] Chandrasekera CN, Cheung KF. Extended linear refraction-diffraction model.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 1997;123
(5):280e6.
[37] Chandrasekera CN, Cheung KF. Linear refraction-diffraction model for steep
bathymetry. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering
2001;127(3):161e70.