10th International Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering
20-22 December, 2018, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Performance Analysis of Floating Buoy Point
Absorber and Oscillating Surge Wave Energy
Converters in Onshore and Offshore Locations
Lamiya Rahman,1 Jannatul Adan,1 Nahid-Al-Masood1,∗ and Shohana Rahman Deeba2
1
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
∗ nahid@eee.buet.ac.bd
Abstract—The aim of this paper is to explore the performance
of two well-known wave energy converters (WECs) namely
Floating Buoy Point Absorber (FBPA) and Oscillating Surge (OS)
in onshore and offshore locations. To achieve clean energy targets
by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, integration of renewable
energy resources is continuously increasing all around the world.
In addition to widespread renewable energy source such as wind
and solar photovoltaic (PV), wave energy extracted from ocean is
becoming more tangible day by day. In the literature, a number
of WEC devices are reported. However, further investigations are
still needed to better understand the behaviors of FBPA WEC
and OS WEC under irregular wave conditions in onshore and
offshore locations. Note that being surrounded by Bay of Bengal,
Bangladesh has huge scope of utilizing wave power. To this end,
FBPA WEC and OS WEC are simulated using the typical onshore
and offshore wave height and wave period of the coastal area of
Bangladesh. Afterwards, performances of the aforementioned two
WECs are compared by analyzing their power output.
Index Terms—Renewable energy, wave energy converter, on-
shore, offshore, variability
I. INTRODUCTION
Climate change, one of the most challenging issues for more
than a decade has led the world to focus more on renewable
sources to generate electricity.
Until now, solar photovoltaic and wind are the two pre-
dominating sources of renewable power generation around
the world. However, to meet the ever-increasing desire of
renewable energy, additional sources are being explored. To
this end, ocean wave energy can be a potential solution
due to its high energy density and widespread availability.
An investigation conducted in 2010 by American Society of
Mechanical Engineers reveals that wave energy can potentially
supply 3.7 TW of power, which is quite as double as the
current world electrical consumption [1].
Fig. 1. Distribution of energy generation from renewable sources in
Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, the total power generation capacity is about
18408 MW including off-gird renewable energy sources where
978-1-5386-7482-6/18/$31.00 2018 IEEE
2018
c IEEE
233
the energy extracted from renewable sources is approximately
520 MW [2]. Currently, the major renewable sources in
Bangladesh include solar, hydro, wind, biogas and biomass.
A distribution of these sources in terms of total renewable
generation capacity is shown in Fig. 1. Being surrounded by
Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh has significant potential to generate
electricity from wave energy. However, further investigations
are still required in this area.
Note that efficient power capture requires extensive study on
design of wave energy converters and their behaviors in differ-
ent wave conditions. Today, more than thousands of wave en-
ergy converter (WEC) designs have been prototyped. Among
them, Floating Point Absorber, Oyster, Pelamis, LIMPET [3]
have shown promising possibilities so far. The feasibility of
installing any WEC depends on how much power they can
deliver in a specific under that geographical conditions, and
what kind of configuration is optimal both economically and
from power generation aspect.
A lot of studies on devices have been reported in the
literature [4]. Many of them comprise elaborated description of
the design and geometrical structure of converters which could
result in efficient power capture from the incoming waves [5].
While some have focused on estimating variability in output
power, and control strategies to reduce it [6]. Also, some
papers have analyzed the cost and feasibility of installation
and maintenance of WECs [7].
Amongst various WECs, Floating Buoy Point Absorber and
Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converters are well-known
in industry and academia since these two technologies have
been practically implemented. Therefore, to better understand
their behaviors, this paper explores the performance of the
aforementioned two WECs under irregular wave conditions.
Also, their power outputs have been compared on the basis of
their onshore and offshore performance.
The onshore and offshore data implemented in the study are
collected from suitable geographical locations of Bangladesh.
The output of this research work will highlight the viability of
installing Floating Buoy Point Absorber and Oscillating Surge
WECs in different regions.
II. DEVICE DESCRIPTION
Statistical performances of two WECs namely Floating
Buoy Point Absorber and Oscillating Surge are investigated
in this paper. A brief description of the structure and working
 234

principle of these WECs are presented below to set a back-
ground for further analysis.
A. Floating Bouy Point Absorber
A Floating Buoy Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter
(FBPA WEC) consists of a float and a reaction plate. It
includes a spar plate and surrounded by a buoy that follows the
wave height. Point absorber absorbs energy from a wave font,
and subsequently utilizes the potential energy of the wave to
generate mechanical output. Due to the oscillatory motion of
the wave, the float moves the plate up and down [8].
Practically, FBPA WEC has been deployed in coastal re-
gions in many places around the world, such an illustration is
shown in Fig. 2.
III. DEVICE MODELING AND SIMULATION
TECHNIQUES
In this paper, device modeling and numerical simulations are
conducted using two simulation packages-WEC-Sim [13] and
WaveDyn [14]. These tools are developed by Matlab Simulink
and DNV GL respectively especially for simulating dynamic
behavior of wave energy converters. In addition, hydrodynamic
parameters related to the device geometry are obtained from
WAMIT [15] computer program.
A brief description of device modeling and simulation
technique are presented as follows.
A. Device Modeling
(i) FBPA WEC: To model the device and view the operation
of a FBPA, a 3D model is created. Its interconnection between
the elements are specified as well. The typical values of the
body elements of a Floating Buoy Point Absorber [16] is
shown in Table I and the model used here is shown in Fig. 4.

TABLE I
T YPICAL PARAMETERS OF A FBPA WEC

Parameters Value
Mass of float 727.01 tonnes
Inertia of float 20,907,301 kgm2
Mass of plate 878.30 tonnes
Inertia of plate 94,419,615 kgm2

Fig. 2. An example of a Floating Bouy Point Absorber [9].

B. Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converter

The Oscillating surge Wave Energy Converter (OS WEC)
often known as ps-flap is usually kept fixed to the sea bed.
There is a hinge that connects the flap to a base which in turn
restricts the flap to pitch about the hinge. It harnesses energy
by oscillating inside a hollow chamber. Effectively, it deploys
the kinetic energy of wave to produce electricity. Unlike many
other deep-water devices that oscillate vertically, an OS WEC
usually oscillate horizontally during a surge [10].
An illustration of an OSWEC is given in Fig.3.
Fig. 4. Dimension of a Floating Bouy Point Absorber [16].
(ii) OS WEC: Modeling of a OS WEC requires a 3D model
and schematic of all the interconnecting elements. The typical
values of the body elements of a OS WEC [14] is shown in
Table II and the model structure is shown in Fig. 5.
TABLE II
T YPICAL PARAMETERS OF A OS WEC

Parameters Values
Mass 60,000 kg
Inertia 850,000 kgm2

Fig. 3. Oscillating surge column located at onshore regions [11].

It is worth mentioning that a Floating Buoy Point Absorber

can be placed at both onshore and offshore region, whereas an Fig. 5. Model of a OS WEC [16].
Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converter is usually placed at
onshore. Note that in onshore region, water depth is usually B. Simulation Technique
low- 10 to 20 m, while in offshore water depth is relatively MATLAB and WaveDyn are used to determine and observe
higher- 40 to 50 m [12]. the power outputs of the wave energy converters with respect
 235

to time. The simulation requires a certain wave nature and sim- FBPA WEC generate more power than that of an onshore re-
ulation time as input. The type of wave used here is irregular gion. In the offshore region, the wave height is approximately
based on Pierson Moskowitz spectrum. The PiersonMoskowitz double the onshore regions. As FBPA WEC use the heave
(PM) spectrum is an empirical relationship that defines the motion, they can extract more power in offshore areas.
distribution of energy with frequency within an ocean [17].
The steps of the simulations are briefly presented below.
Step-1: The first step of the simulation process is structural
design. To this end, the shape and physical properties of the
WEC device elements (often referred to as rigid body element)
are taken into account.
Step-2: In this step, hydrodynamic coefficient of the struc-
ture model designed in Step-1 is estimated by using Boundary
Element Method (BEM). This method utilizes the following
equation [18].
mẌ = Fexc (t) + Frad (t) + FP T O (t) + Fv (t) + Fme (t)+ Fig. 6. Power output of Floating Bouy Point Absorber in onshore regions

Fb (t) + Fm (t) (1)

where, m is the mass matrix, Ẍ is the(translational and
rotational) acceleration vector of the device, Fexc (t) is the
wave excitation force vector, Frad (t) is the force vector
resulting from wave radiation, FP T O (t) is the PTO force
vector, Fv (t) damping force vector, Fb (t) is the net buoyancy
restoring force vector,Fme (t) is the Morison Element Force
vector, and finally Fme (t) is the force vector resulting from
the mooring connection. The force generated due to power
take-off method is power take off force FP T O (t) [18]. This Fig. 7. Power output of Floating Bouy Point Absorber in offshore regions
process is performed via a computer program called WAMIT.
To further compare the performance of FBPA WEC in
Step-3: This step is basically to draw and view the model in
onshore and offshore locations, statistical analyses are done.
the simulator. For this purpose, inter-body connections, various
To this end, standard deviation, average power output and
joints and power take off mechanism are considered.
maximum power output are calculated and then compared
Step-4: In this step, simulation process is executed.
Fig. 8. It can be seen that in offshore region, the FBPA
Step-5: Finally, various outputs such as heave, pitch, accel-
has 1.86 times higher average power and 1.43 times higher
eration, torque, power etc. are obtained.
maximum power than that of onshore region. In addition,
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS the standard deviation in offshore area is around 1.81 times
In this section, simulation results with relevant analyses are higher than that of onshore area. Therefore, regarding all three
presented for various operating scenarios. Note that as irregular statistical parameters, a FBPA WEC shows better performance
waves have been used during the simulation, the power outputs in offshore location.
have considerable variability.
It is to be reemphasized that the performance of the FBPA
and OS energy converts are investigated for onshore and
offshore locations. To this end, the wave height in the onshore
region is assumed to be around 2.5m and the wave period is
approximately 10s. In contrast, in the offshore regions, wave
height is presumed to be 4m on average and wave period
is approximately 10s . These typical values correspond to
onshore and offshore regions of Bangladesh [19].
A. Comparison between onshore and offshore performances Fig. 8. Statistical performance comparison between onshore and offshore
of FBPA WEC: locations for a FBPA WEC.

At first, a FBPA WEC model is simulated in the onshore Furthermore, to measure the
TABLE III
location for 400s. As seen from Fig. 6 the output considerable variability of output power, an P EAK TO AVERAGE RATIO IN
varies and has a maximum value of around 1,350 kW and an index called 0 peak to average ONSHORE REGIONS
0
approximate average power of 102 kW. ratio is assessed. Note that a
Region Values
Therefore, several hundreds of kWs can be extracted from low value of this index indicate Onshore 13.18
a single FBPA, which eventually indicates the considerable that the output power is less Offshore 10.36
potential of FBPA WEC for generating electricity. variable. It is worth highlight-
Next, a FBPA WEC is simulated in offshore region to ing that from power system point of view, low variability
determine its power output performance. As seen from Fig. 7, is always desirable to minimize the forecasting error of re-
the maximum output power is around 1,937 kW and average newable generation sources. As found from Table III, the
power of about 190 kW. Therefore, in offshore location a peak to average ratio for onshore and offshore regions are

13.18 and 10.36 respectively. Therefore, the output power of
a FBPA WEC has relatively lower variability when it operates
in offshore location.
B. Comparing onshore data of Point Absorber and OSWEC:
As mentioned earlier, an OS WEC can be installed only in
onshore locations. Hence, in this sub-section, at first the output
power of an OS WEC will be determined for onshore areas.
Then, statistical performance of OS WEC will be compared
to that of FBPA WEC to get further insights on these two
technologies.
Using the same wave height and period as before (i.e. 2.5m
and 10s respectively), the output power of an OS WEC is
simulated for 400s time length. As seen from Fig. 9, the
maximum output power is around 3,000 kW and the average
power output is 199.5 kW. Thus, the power generation capacity
of an OS WEC is much higher than FBPA technology. This
is due to the fact that an OS WEC deploys kinetic energy of
wave to generate power (unlike FBPA technology that uses
potential energy of wave).
Fig. 9. Power output of a OS WEC in onshore region.
Next, statistical analyses are done to compare the perfor-
mance between OS WEC and FBPA WEC. As depicted in
Fig. 10, compared to FBPA, average power of OS WEC is 1.95
times higher and the maximum power is 2.24 times higher. In
addition, the standard deviation of power output of OS is 1.58
times more than that of FBPA technology.
Fig. 10. Comparison of FBPA WEC and OS WEC in onshore
Furthermore, to compare the
TABLE IV
variability, 0 peak to average P EAK TO AVERAGE RATIO IN
ratio0 is calculated for both ONSHORE REGIONS
WECs. As illustrated in Table
Technology Values
IV, the peak to average ra- FBPA WEC 13.18
tio of OS WEC is 1.14 times OS WEC 15.11
higher than that of FBPA WEC.
Therefore, it is evident that an OS WEC demonstrates more
variability in its power generation profile. From the above
analyses it can be revealed that both FBPA WEC and OS WEC
have good potential for being deployed to generate electricity,
especially in coastal regions. Also, prudent installation of these
236
devices in onshore and offshore locations would help to in-
crease the renewable power generation capacity of Bangladesh.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive investigations are carried out in this paper
to evaluate the performances of Floating Buoy Point Absorber
(FBPA) and Oscillating Surge (OS) Wave Energy Converters
(WECs) in onshore and offshore locations of coastal area.
It is found that a FBPA WEC generates more power in
offshore location than onshore. Also, statistical indices such
as standard deviation, average power, maximum power and
peak to average ratio indicate that a FBPA WEC shows better
performance when it is installed in offshore region. However,
construction and design of a FBPA might be more challenging
in offshore.
Furthermore, it is observed that in onshore location, an
OS WEC offers better performance than a FBPA WEC.
Nevertheless, OS WEC has more variability than FBPA WEC
in onshore region. In the future work, detailed studies will be
executed to reduce variability of power generation from these
two wave energy converters.
R EFERENCES
[1] “The potential of wave energy,” Jun 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://atmocean.com/the-potential-of-wave-energy/
[2] “Sustainable and renewable energy development authority,”
http://www.sreda.gov.bd/, (Accessed on 07/23/2018).
[3] A. Babarit, J. Hals, M. Muliawan, A. Kurniawan, T. Moan, and
J. Krokstad, “Numerical benchmarking study of a selection of wave
energy converters,” Renewable Energy, vol. 41, pp. 44–63, 2012.
[4] A. Clément, P. McCullen, A. Falcão, A. Fiorentino, F. Gardner, K. Ham-
marlund, G. Lemonis, T. Lewis, K. Nielsen, S. Petroncini et al., “Wave
energy in europe: current status and perspectives,” Renewable and
sustainable energy reviews, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 405–431, 2002.
[5] R. Sabzehgar and M. Moallem, “A review of ocean wave energy
conversion systems,” in Electrical Power & Energy Conference (EPEC),
2009 IEEE. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[6] H. Bailey, B. Robertson, and B. Buckham, “Variability and stochastic
simulation of power from wave energy converter arrays,” Renewable
Energy, vol. 115, pp. 721–733, 2018.
[7] C. Beels, “Optimization of the lay-out of a farm of wave energy
converters in the north sea: analysis of wave power resources, wake
effects, production and cost,” Ph.D. dissertation, Ghent University, 2009.
[8] “Powerbuoy,” Jul 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBuoy
[9] S. Zou, O. Abdelkhalik, R. Robinett, G. Bacelli, and D. Wilson,
“Optimal control of wave energy converters,” Renewable energy, vol.
103, pp. 217–225, 2017.
[10] “Wave power,” Jul 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave power
[11] [Online]. Available: http://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/ocean-
energy-generating-technologies/wave-energy/surge-converters-
2/devices/device-profiles-2/device-profiles/
[12] T. Whittaker and M. Folley, “Nearshore oscillating wave surge converters
and the development of oyster,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 370, no.
1959, pp. 345–364, 2012.
[13] “Getting started.” [Online]. Available: https://wec-sim.github.io/WEC-
Sim/getting started.html
[14] “Wavedyn.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.dnvgl.com/services/wavedyn-3800
[15] “Wamit, inc. - the state of the art in wave interaction analysis.”
[Online]. Available: http://www.wamit.com/
[16] “Tutorials — WEC-Sim documentation,” Mar 2018, [Online; accessed
25. Jul. 2018]. [Online]. Available: https://wec-sim.github.io/WEC-
Sim/tutorials.html
[17] “Piersonmoskowitz spectrum,” Jul 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PiersonMoskowitz spectrum
[18] “Theory — WEC-Sim documentation,” Mar 2018, [Online; accessed
26. Jul. 2018]. [Online]. Available: https://wec-sim.github.io/WEC-
Sim/theory.html
[19] “Capt. martin daly.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.buoyweather.com/map/bay-of-bengal