Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

BBDB wave energy conversion technology and perspective in China T

a,b,c,∗ a,b,c,d a,b,c,d a,b,c,d a,b,c
Bijun Wu , Meng Li , Rukang Wu , Tianxiang Chen , Yunqiu Zhang ,
Yin Yea,b,c
a
Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, CAS, Guangzhou, 510640, China
b
Key Laboratory of Renewable Energy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510640, China
c
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of New and Renewable Energy Research and Development, Guangzhou, 510640, China
d
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, the development of Backward Bent Duct Buoy (BBDB) wave energy conversion technology in China
Wave energy is summarized. Novel ideas, new testing data and the improved performance of the BBDB conversion technology
Backward bent duct buoy (BBDB) are presented. The latest large-scale model experimental results show that the peak wave-to-wire conversion
Capture width ratio (CWR) efficiency of a new BBDB device is 42.0% under regular waves and it is 27.1% under random waves with the load
Wave-to-wire conversion efficiency
of the battery. By comparison with the experimental and sea trial results of Japan's "Mighty Whale", the BBDB
prototypes based on the experimental results of the new BBDB model present many advantages. If equipped with
the latest air turbine, the conversion efficiency from pneumatic power to electric power of which is nearly 60%
in sea trial, the efficiency from wave to wire of the new BBDB converter has the potential to exceed 50% in real
sea waves, which is much higher than that of many other wave energy conversion technologies.

1. Introduction synchronous generators and power electronic converters et al.), or di-

The ocean has a rich reserve of wave energy, which is a widely
distributed, clean and inexhaustible resource (Ocean Energy, 2011).
Many wave energy converters (WECs) have been developed to harness
wave energy. Among various types of WECs, floating WECs have been
most widely investigated since they have the potential to be more
economically viable compared with those fixed to the seabed or the
coastline. The main power-take-off (PTO) mechanism that most floating
WECs are based on is to convert the mechanical energy of moving
components (air, sea water or buoys) excited by waves to electric en-
ergy. Some floating WECs, which have lower conversion efficiency,
normally less than 5%, due to low pressure head generated by waves
convert wave energy to electric energy by using deformation or pie-
zoelectric effects (McCormick, 1985). The energy conversion process of
floating WECs is illustrated in Fig. 1. For different energy conversion
system, the corresponding hardware costs and the manufacturing
complexity can vary significantly.
One typical widely investigated class of floating WECs is based on
oscillating buoy technique, which uses oscillating buoys to capture
wave energy. To convert the mechanical energy of the oscillating buoys
to electric energy, different PTO techniques can be adopted, such as
hydraulic power systems (including pumps, hydraulic motors,
rect generation systems (including direct generators and power elec-
tronic converters). Different types of oscillating buoy WECs have been
developed in the past few decades. A well-known device called
‘Nodding Duck’ or ‘Salter Duck’ was developed by Stephen Salter in
1974 (Salter., 1974). The specially designed buoy shape and me-
chanism can improve conversion efficiency up to more than 90% CWR
in 2D wave tank under regular waves. In 3D wave tank, when the de-
vice is attached to a slack mooring, the peak CWR is less than 40%,
however, the CWR is more than 160% when the device is rigidly an-
chored under regular waves (Carmichael, 1978). In the reference
(Shenget al., 2017), the Sharp Eagle wave energy converter, which is an
excellent WEC with a hydraulic type PTO had the highest efficiency of
37.7% in real sea tests. Normally, it is a challenge for oscillating buoy
devices to reduce the relative electricity generating costs because the
energy conversion mechanism based on relative motion between buoys
and fixed structures (for example anti-heave plates) can cause high cost
of materials, manufacture, deployment, mooring and maintenance.
Moreover, it is also challenging to guarantee their safe operations
during harsh sea conditions, since the mechanical constraints can be
violated to cause damages.
Another wave energy conversion principle adopted in floating WECs
is lifting the water level by waves to a reservoir above sea level and

∗
Corresponding author. Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, CAS, Guangzhou, 510640, China.
E-mail address: wubj@ms.giec.ac.cn (B. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.09.037
Received 7 May 2018; Received in revised form 13 August 2018; Accepted 16 September 2018
Available online 25 September 2018
0029-8018/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Wu et al.
Fig. 1. Energy conversion process of floating WECs.
then converting the water potential energy into electric energy through
the water turbine. A representative device is Wave Dragon, which has a
single floating platform as the reservoir to store sea water by over-
topping. This platform and the mooring lines need to be robustly de-
signed to withstand the forces from sea water weight, wind, wave and
sea current under extreme sea conditions. The erosion of water turbines
and the influence of ocean creatures on the platform also increase the
cost of this device (The Wave Dragon Technology).
Different from the above two floating WEC techniques, Oscillating
Water Column (OWC) technique uses the oscillating water column to
generate air pressure in a floating chamber, and air flow drives an air
turbine coupled to an electric generator to generate electricity. Since
the only moving solid component for energy absorption is the rotor of a
turbine (coupled to a generator) installed above sea water, the hard-
ware cost is relatively inexpensive, and OWC devices are robust to the
harsh sea conditions and easy to maintain. In recent years, fixed OWC
techniques and floating OWC were researched. Yongyao Luo (Luoet al.,
2014a) analyzed the efficiency of fixed OWC WECs with linear power
take off systems and the performance of a heave-only floating OWC
(Luoet al., 2014b). Helen Bailey built a time domain numerical simu-
lation for a floating OWC WEC to provide accurate predictions of WEC
power production (Baileyet al., 2016). Mitsumasa Iino studied how
inclination-induced changes in motion affect the oscillation character-
istics of an OWC (Iinoet al., 2016). De-Zhi Ning (Ninget al., 2016a;
Ninget al., 2016b) presented a numerical and experimental investiga-
tion of wave dynamics on a land-fixed OWC device.
Four types of floating OWC WECs have been developed, i.e. Forward
Bent Ducted Buoy (FBDB), Backward Bent Ducted Buoy (BBDB), Center
Pipe Buoy and Sloped Buoy (DTI, 2005). The floating WEC “Mighty
Whale” with the FBDB technique can achieve a peak CWR of 34% in a
regular wave tank experiment (Washio et al., 2001). In 2012, Alan
Fleming outlined the energy transfer processes occurring in a forward-
facing bent-duct oscillating water column (OWC) (Fleminget al., 2012).
The BBDB technique can achieve a peak CWR of 172.8% under regular
waves and 52% under random waves in 3D wave tank (Pathaket al,
1999). The center pipe buoy technique can achieve a peak CWR of 50%
under regular waves in 2D wave tank (Whittaker et al., 1984). In 2012,
António F.O. Falcão studied the geometry optimization of a center pipe
buoy (F Gomeset al., 2012) and analyzed its hydrodynamics
(Falcaoet al., 2012). Experimental results of sloped buoy technique
have rarely been reported so far. Since the BBDB device normally has a
282
Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291
shallow draught, it can be easily transported by river and it can reduce
the deployment complexities without adjustment of the floating status
at sites. The sloped buoy or center pipe buoy has a deep draught so as to
require extra special tools to transport. The adjustment is also compli-
cated and more time will be spent at sites. Considering the prominent
benefits of the BBDB technique, this paper mainly presents an overview
of this technique and also an outline of its future development in China
in the remaining of this paper.
Compared with other WECs, BBDB has a simple single floating
structure, low cost and high conversion efficiency. In recent years, the
authors have found that BBDB can also be regarded as a floating os-
cillating buoy. In order to further improve the conversion efficiency, the
cross-section area of the backward bent duct is increased, the large
opening on the tail of the BBDB will not make waves, and the shape of
the buoyancy module is changed to reduce the radiated wave energy
loss, so as to improve the capture energy. A large number of experi-
ments were carried out in the wave flume and wave basin to study the
CWR of the small-scale models and a large scale BBDB device was
fabricated to study the generating performance. The test results are
satisfactory.
2. Significant development of the BBDB technology in the world
The concept of BBDB technology was first proposed by Masuda in
1986, as shown in Fig. 2 (Masuda, 1986). The device consists of an L-
shaped duct, a buoyancy module, an air chamber, an air turbine and a
generator. The L-shaped duct makes its opening facing in the direction
of the wave propagation. The oscillating water in the duct creates an air
flow in the air chamber, which drives the air turbine coupled to the
generator to generate electricity. Thus the energy conversion of this
device is composed of two stages: at the primary conversion stage, wave
energy is converted to pneumatic energy, and at the secondary con-
version stage, the pneumatic energy is converted to electric energy.
In 1999, Pathak et al. collaborated with Masuda to conduct tank
experiments on four models (a basic model with cuboid front and cy-
lindrical behind buoyancy module and the other three models with
three different additional ducts) (Pathaket al, 1999). The results show
that a pneumatic power of 155 W and the peak CWR of 172.8% can be
obtained in a regular wave tank testing with wave height 0.25 m and
wave period 1.65 s. When the wave is constructed using JONSWAP
spectrum, the model with a backward extension of 0.47 m can reach a
B. Wu et al. Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291

Fig. 2. Schematic of BBDB converter.

Fig. 3. OE Buoy in the sea trial (2006).

Table 1 achieve 108% in 3D wave tank. Regular wave test results show that the
Development of experimental studies on the peak conversion efficiency of the model with duct extension has a lower CWR than that of the basic BBDB
BBDB in China. model in 2D wave tank. The 3D wave basin tests under regular waves
Year Peak CWR Peak efficiency on the basic BBDB model enlarged 3 times with length 2.55 m, width
from wave to wire 2.34 m, height 1.8 m, draught 1.05 m，and with an impulse turbine
with guide vanes, shows that the peak CWR of 78% and the peak wave-
Regular waves Regular waves Regular waves in to-wire conversion efficiency 49% can be achieved (Yasutaka et al.,
in 2D tank in 3D tank 3D tank
2010).
1992–1993 (Liang 40.5% In December 2006, the OE Buoy based on the BBDB technology was
et al., 1995) deployed (see Fig. 3). The device 28 t in weight, operated over 3 years
1995 (Xian-guanget al., 73.3% and even survived in several storms (http://oceanenergy.ie/ Oc). In
1997)
2015, Sung-Jae Kim (Kimet al., 2015) developed a fully nonlinear time-
1996 (Liang et al., 204.5% 37%
1998) domain NWT-simulation tool to evaluate the performance of fixed/
1996 (Liang et al., 79.1% floating sharp-corner and round-corner BBDB WECs.
2000)
1999 (Liang et al., 150.7%
2001)
3. Significant development of the BBDB technology in China

Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion (GIEC), Chinese

peak CWR of 52%. In 2011, Imai et al. conducted experiments on three
Academy of Science (CAS), has taken up researches on BBDB tech-
models (a basic model with cuboid buoyancy module and two models
nology application in navigation lights since 1989. From 1992 to 1993,
with two different additional ducts) in 2D and 3D tanks (Yasutaka et al.,
Liang et al. conducted 2D wave tank tests on 4 types of BBDB models
2010). Regular wave test results show that the basic BBDB model can
including the single-hull model, the twin-hull model, the model with
achieve a peak CWR of 70% in 2D wave tank, while its CWR can
cylindrical buoyancy module and the model with cuboid front and

283
B. Wu et al.
Fig. 4. 5 kW BBDB converter and tests in the open sea in China (1996).
Fig. 5. New concept on the classification of the BBDB technology.
cylindrical behind buoyancy module. The experimental results show
that the model with cuboid front and cylindrical behind buoyancy
module can achieve a peak CWR of 40.5% with wave height of 0.1 m
and period 1.25 s under regular waves (Liang et al., 1995; Xian-
guanget al., 1997). To improve the energy conversion performance of
the BBDB device, Liang et al. conducted experiments on six models in
1995, including the model with the cuboid front and cylindrical behind
buoyancy module, the model with the horizontal-lengthways axis
semicircle buoyancy module, the model with the widening horizontal-
lengthways axis semicircle buoyancy module, the model with the 90°
backward bent buoyancy module, the model with cuboid front and
cylindrical behind buoyancy module and short duct extension and the
model with cuboid front and cylindrical behind buoyancy module and
long duct extension. Based on the data collected from 2D tank tests, the
relationship between the average pneumatic power versus wave period
was plotted, which was used to determine the optimal shape of the
model with cuboid front and cylindrical behind buoyancy module and
long duct extension, which can achieve a peak CWR of 73.3% with
broadened frequency range for high CWR when the total mass of model
is 24 kg and the wave is 0.1 m in height and 1.25 s in period (Xian-
guanget al., 1997). In July 1996, Liang et al. conducted 3D wave tank
tests on a BBDB prototype 2 t in weight with a shrinking extension, and
the experimental results show that the peak wave-to-wire energy con-
version efficiency can reach 37% (Liang et al., 1998). To further im-
prove the energy conversion efficiency of the BBDB devices, Liang et al.
284
Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291
also conducted 2D wave tank experiments for four BBDB models with
cuboid front and cylindrical behind buoyancy module and with three
different backward extensions in 1996, and the test results show that an
appropriate extension of the backward pipe helps improve the energy
conversion efficiency with a peak CWR of 79.1% and broadened wave
frequency range (Liang et al., 2000). Extensive experiments under
various conditions were also conducted to investigate the dynamics of
the BBDB floating hull (with an extension and a shape of square head
and round end) attached to mooring lines so that the optimal floating
hull and the corresponding optimal mooring line connection points are
derived. The testing results show that mooring lines have a significant
influence on the energy conversion efficiency of the BBDB model. When
the model is subject to a regular wave with a wave height of 0.1 m and a
period of 1.271 s, the mooring lines with slack connection at three
points can achieve the peak CWR of 150.7% (seeing Table 1 for details).
In April 1990, GIEC developed the first twin-hull BBDB navigation
light buoy. 2D wave tank tests show that the CWR of this device is twice
as much as that of the navigation light buoy based on the conventional
center pipe buoy. In 1993, GIEC developed the new generation of the
navigation buoy based on the new design of the buoy with cuboid front
and cylindrical behind buoyancy module, whose performance was
significantly improved over the twin-hull BBDB navigation light buoy
and it is more suitable for mild waves. 3 prototypes were manufactured
and tested respectively off the shore of Zhanjiang and the northern
shore of Lingdingyang, the Pearl River Estuary. In 1994, GIEC exported
B. Wu et al.
Fig. 6. Dimensions of three models (left) and corresponding photos (right).
the BBDB navigation buoy (WBF2.86 × 2.2A) to Japan Machinery
Planetary Corporation, and in April 1995, GIEC further developed the
BD4501 device, which was tested by Masuda in September 1995 at
Mikawa Bay, southeast of Nagoya, Japan. The testing results show that
under the same location, the similar sea conditions and device dimen-
sion, the energy output of this device is 10 times of that of the device
based on the twin-hull BBDB model developed by Japan, and this
performance was highly commended by Masuda. GIEC also developed
light boat based on the BBDB technique, and 3 light boats have been in
operation with two at northern water channel and central water
channel of Qiongzhou Channel respectively and one at Pearl River
Estuary. In 1995, GIEC developed the BBDB device 19 t in weight and a
power output of 5 kW, which is the largest power output at that time,
see Fig. 4. In January 1996, a 5 kW device was successfully deployed at
the Pearl River Estuary, with the maximum recorded power output
5.7 kW (Liang et al., 1998). The technical details of this prototype on
the sea trial are shown in Table 2. Moreover, sea trials have also been
conducted for 8 small prototypes to collect more data.
4. New understanding of the BBDB technology
The BBDB technology using air as a working medium to convert
285
Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291
wave energy can be classified into OWC technology, but the energy
conversion process of it can also be understood as follows: wave energy
is converted into mechanical energy of the buoy first, then the me-
chanical energy by subsequent conversion system (may called the
pneumatic PTO): the pipelines, the water columns, the air chambers,
the air turbines and the generators is converted to electrical energy.
This process is quite similar to that of a floating oscillating buoy con-
verter. The pipelines and the water columns act like the hydraulic cy-
linders of the hydraulic PTO, the air chambers act like the storage
system of the hydraulic PTO and the air turbines act like the hydraulic
motors of the hydraulic PTO, as shown in Fig. 5. The hydraulic PTO is
used in double-buoy or multi-buoy wave energy conversion technology.
Obviously, the cost of the pneumatic PTO of the BBDB technology is
much lower than that of the hydraulic PTO. In addition, there are many
advantages of the BBDB technology compared with other floating os-
cillating buoy technology: only one simple structure, relatively small
size, the lower cost of materials, construction, transportation, deploy-
ment, maintenance et al.
Since water is less viscous, its viscous energy consumption can be
ignored. During the primary conversion of a floating WEC, energy is
conserved as the following:
E wave = E1 + E2 + E3 (1)
B. Wu et al. Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291

Fig. 7. CWR of three models.

Table 2
Development of prototypes for sea trials in China.
Year Features

1990–1993 (Liang et al., 1995)
1994 (Xian-guanget al., 1997; Liang et al.,
1998)
1995 (Xian-guanget al., 1999)
1996 (Liang et al., 1998)
The twin-hull BBDB wave power generation navigation buoy 1.76 t in weight was constructed for sea trial over 1 year and
generated power 2.5 W at 0.15 m wave height and 2.52 s wave period in 3D tank in China (Three built in all).
The WBF2.86 × 2.2A BBDB generation navigation buoy with cuboid front and cylindrical behind buoyancy chamber and weight
of 2.5 t generated power 26 W at 0.15 m wave height and 2.75 s wave period in the 3D tank and has been exported to Japan.
The 5 kW BBDB wave-activated generation device 19 t in weight was on sea trials in China and its instantaneous power recorded
was up to 5.7 kW.
The SWBF2.86 × 2.2 BBDB generation navigation buoy 2 t in weight generated power 40 W at 0.15 m wave height and 2.41 s
wave period in the 3D tank (Three built in all).

Table 3 of movement the BBDB.

Performance of Model C at optimal response point. Based on new concepts, the authors have modified the BBDB model
Mass (kg) Wave Period (s) Incident wave Pneumatic CWR (%) and experimentally studied the characteristics of the energy conversion.
height (m) power (W) power (W) The pressure difference ΔPi between the air chamber and atmosphere is
measured by a pressure gauge and the water level fluctuation L in the
30 0.1013 1.205 6.484 7.868 121.34
air chamber was measured by the analog wave height meter. These
signals were collected and processed through a capture card via syn-
chronous sampling. The sampling frequency was set as 32 Hz. The
Where E wave is the total energy of incident waves in a wave flume, E1 is
pneumatic power Pair can be calculated as the following (Wuet al.,
the energy captured by the BBDB, E2 is the radiated wave energy caused
2017):
by the movement of the converter and E3 is the diffracted wave energy
through the converter. Obviously, if E2 and E3 decrease, E1 will in- n
1
crease. The shape of the converter has a great effect on E2 . On the tail of Pair =
n
∑ (Li +1 − Li) × ΔPi × S /Δt
i=1 (2)
the BBDB converter, there is a large opening. This opening will make
little waves when the single buoy is pitching and surging, which ob- In the linear wave theory, the mean power of regular waves is ex-
jectively lead E2 to decrease. Obviously, the shape of the BBDB con- pressed as follows (Wuet al., 2017):
verter is superior to that of other floating oscillating buoy converter in
absorbing wave energy. 1 λ 2kh ⎤
Preg = ρgH 2 ⎡1 + B
In addition, considering the BBDB technology is to rely on oscil- 16 T⎢⎣ sinh(2kh) ⎥
⎦ (3)
lating body motion to convert wave energy and increasing the buoy
mechanical energy may improve the conversion efficiency, the authors Pair
CWR = × 100%
modified the shape of the BBDB model from a flat bottom to a triangle Preg (4)
bottom and from a semi-cylindrical tail to a triangle prismatic tail in
order to reduce the resistance of motion and to improve the amplitude To evaluate the primary energy conversion efficiency, the Capture
Width Ratio (CWR) is defined as the ratio of the pneumatic power to the

286
B. Wu et al. Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291

Fig. 8. CWR of Model C in 3D wave basin tests.

Table 4 years yield almost the same results, which confirm the reliability of the
Performance of random waves and mean CWR of Model C. results. Then the authors come up with a pentagonal BBDB, which
No. HS (m) TS (s) TZ (s) TP (s) Pirr (w) Pair (w) CWR (%)
presents a good performance in the literature (Wuet al., 2017). A flume
experiment study was also carried out on the CWR of a new BBDB with
1 0.1009 1.124 1.014 1.174 2.964 2.641 89.1 a pentagonal buoyancy cabin in the literature (Chenet al., 2017). A
2 0.1012 1.108 1.016 1.205 2.987 2.600 87.1 wave power boat based on the BBDB principle was presented and its
3 0.1019 1.148 1.040 1.174 3.100 2.599 83.9
electricity cost was estimated compared with the “Mighty Whale” in the
4 0.1056 1.155 1.030 1.196 3.298 2.544 77.2
5 0.1031 1.157 1.032 1.196 3.149 2.514 79.8 literature (Wuet al., 2018).
6 0.0720 1.150 1.028 1.170 1.530 1.205 78.7 In 2015, the authors developed a new BBDB model B as shown in
7 0.0616 1.310 1.196 1.170 1.303 0.999 76.7 Fig. 6. This model has a buoyancy module with the cuboid front and
8 0.1105 1.485 1.273 1.632 4.463 2.800 62.8
triangle behind. Wave flume tests with the same testing conditions on
9 0.1089 1.469 1.230 1.625 4.188 2.804 66.9
model A show that the peak CWR can achieve 82.5% as shown in Fig. 7,
which is not a significant improvement over model A. In 2016, the
incident wave power in the width of wave crest through the converter BBDB was further developed and model C was obtained as shown in
(B in Eq. (3)). On account of the antenna effect, the CWR must be Fig. 6. 2D wave tank tests were conducted under similar testing con-
possible to exceed 1. ditions on model C. The test results are shown in Fig. 7. The wave
height, period, pneumatic power, incident wave power and the corre-
sponding CWR values are shown in Table 3. The maximum CWR of
5. Recent experimental results of the new BBDB models
model C can reach 121.34%, which significantly outperforms that of
model A and model B. Moreover, when the wave period is ranging from
In recent years, Liu Zhen et al. from Ocean University of China has
1.1 s to 1.4 s, the CWR is more than 60%. Therefore, it is more probable
studied on the chamber structure of a cuboid-shaped BBDB (Liu, 2014).
to achieve a higher energy conversion under random waves.
Yin Ze-gao et al. also from Ocean University of China conducted a 3-D
The primary conversion efficiency of the model C was measured in a
mathematical model to investigate the hydraulic performance of the
3D wave basin. The experiments were conducted at School of Civil
cuboid-shaped BBDB (Ze-gaoet al., 2016). In December 2014, the au-
Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology
thors from GIEC conducted 2D wave flume tests on the extended duct
(SCUT). The basin is 40 m long, 30 m wide and 0.75 m in water depth.
BBDB model with the cuboid front and cylindrical behind buoyancy
Both regular waves and random waves are used for tests. In tests, the
module, which was reported to achieve the best performance in 2000
model was placed at the center of the wave basin. Three-point mooring
(Liang et al., 2000), seeing model A in Fig. 6. The 2D wave tank is 56 m
system was adopted with one mooring line connected to the front and
long, 1.2 m wide, 1.2 m deep and the water depth is 0.925 m. The
the other two mooring lines connected to the rear. These mooring lines
length of a mooring line is 2.22 m and the draught is 0.24 m. The total
have the same length and the total mass of the model is 30 kg. 36
mass is 12.129 + 25 = 37.129 (kg). Regular waves with wave height
groups of test data were collected when the wave height of the regular
around 0.1 m are used in tests. The test results are shown in Fig. 7,
waves was about 0.1 m. The same data processing methods with those
which shows that the highest CWR of model A is 80.8% which is very
used in the literature (Xian-guanget al., 1997) were adopted. The
close to the highest CWR of 79.1% reported in (Liang et al., 2000). This
maximum CWR is 154.7% as shown in Fig. 8. When the wave period
shows that with different measurement sensors (e.g. wave magnitude
ranges from 1.1 s to 1.4 s, the CWR is more than 80%. This feature
sensor and pressure sensor) the two experiments conducted between 15

287
B. Wu et al. Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291

Fig. 9. Experimental arrangement.

Fig. 10. Impulse turbine with a generator.

Table 5 Fig. 8 shows that when the spectrum peak period TP is close to the
Test results of the model under regular waves. optimal response period, the CWR in random wave tests can be rela-
T (s) H (mm) PW (W) Pair (W) CWR (%) Pe (W) ηae (%) ηwe (%)
tively higher, approximately 80%; CWR can be decreased when TP is
away from the optimal period, while it is still above 60%.
2.405 140.4 89.0 108.1 121.5 25.0 23.1 28.1
2.400 138.5 86.5 96.9 112.0 30.4 31.4 35.1
2.410 133.0 80.1 99.5 124.2 32.6 32.8 40.7 6. Large-scale BBDB model tests in 2D wave tank
2.4450 139.2 89.7 104.6 116.6 32.0 30.6 35.7
2.455 124.4 72.0 93.9 130.4 29.2 31.0 40.5 According to the experimental results of the model C and the si-
2.460 141.3 93.1 103.9 111.6 34.3 33.0 36.8
milarity principles, a large-scale BBDB model, which is about 3.345
2.455 138.4 89.1 112.5 126.3 37.4 33.2 42.0
times the size of the model C, was made. The model is composed of
frames and outer shells made of steel. It is 4.0 m long, 1.79 m wide,
makes it possible to improve the CWR when subject to random waves. 2.0 m height with about 1.3 t weight. A set of impulse turbine and
Furthermore, the P-M spectrum was used to reproduce random waves generator was mounted in the model. The experiments are conducted in
to investigate the energy conversion efficiency of this model. For the wave tank (200 m long, 6 m wide, the former 100 m is the deep
random waves, the CWR is calculated by Eq. (5) below: water area, the water depth is 2.81 m, the latter 100m is the shallow
water area and the water depth is 0.8 m) at Sun Yat-sen University from
CWR = Pair / Pirr × 100% (5) August to October 2017. The pneumatic power was measured by the
YWH201-AXX analog water level gauge and the PY301 air pressure
Where the random wave power can be estimated by Pirr = 0.55HS2 TZ B , differential gauge. The generation power of the device was measured by
HS is the significant wave height in meter, TZ is the wave average period a multichannel power analyzer made by Ainuo Instrument Co., Ltd. The
in second, B is the model's width (B = 0.522 ) in meter, Pair is the consumption load of the generator is a 12 V battery with 8 A h capacity.
pneumatic power. Table 4 shows that when subject to random waves, Fig. 9 shows the experimental arrangement. Fig. 10 shows the impulse
the maximum CWR is 89.1%, and the minimum CWR is 62.8%. TP is turbine with a generator and the shape of the rotor and guide blade is
spectrum peak period and TS is the significant wave period in Table 4. also shown.

288
B. Wu et al. Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291

Table 6 Table 8
Test results of the model under random waves. Characteristic comparison of the “Mighty Whale” and the new BBDB prototype
under the same wave power density and approximate rated power.
NO. HS (cm) TZ (s) Pirr (W) Pair (W) Pe (W) CWR (%) ηae (%) ηwe (%)
Parameter Mighty Whale New BBDB Prototype
1 22.18 1.823 88.3 76.3 18.7 86.4 24.5 21.2
2 22.15 1.722 83.2 80.0 22.6 96.2 28.2 27.1 Width (m) 30 13
3 17.25 1.737 50.9 44.3 11.8 87.0 26.6 23.1 Length (m) 50 29.6
4 17.07 1.656 47.5 44.7 11.7 94.1 26.2 24.7 Draft (m) 8 8.7
5 20.69 1.690 71.2 60.5 17.9 85.0 29.6 25.1 Weight (t) 1290 469
6 20.87 1.736 74.4 66.2 18.6 88.9 28.2 25.1 Max CWR under regular waves 53% 154.7%
7 21.27 1.858 82.8 65.6 18.9 79.3 28.7 22.8 Max CWR under random waves 33% 89.1%
8 17.41 1.821 54.4 43.5 10.8 79.9 24.8 19.8 Significant wave height (m) 2.12 2.52
9 20.94 1.826 78.9 64.4 18.3 81.7 28.4 23.2 Significant period (s) 6.8 5.62
10 20.95 1.893 81.8 64.0 18.0 78.2 28.1 22.0 Wave power density (kW/m) 17.7 17.7
11 16.77 1.659 45.9 33.5 8.2 73.0 24.5 17.9 Input wave power (kW) 531.0 230.1
12 17.09 1.617 46.5 35.1 8.3 75.4 23.8 17.9 Pneumatic energy (kW) 175.23 205.0
13 16.44 1.628 43.3 34.0 7.5 78.5 21.9 17.2 Mean generated output (kW) 56.29 65.8
14 16.58 1.6895 45.7 34.7 7.2 75.8 20.7 15.7
15 19.70 1.711 65.4 52.5 13.3 80.3 25.3 20.3 Annotation: The conversion efficiency from pneumatic power to electric power
16 20.97 1.671 72.4 57.1 14.6 78.9 25.5 20.1 is calculated by 32.1%.
17 15.80 1.663 40.9 36.2 8.5 88.6 23.5 20.9
18 19.77 1.701 65.5 50.9 14.3 77.7 28.2 21.9
19 20.81 1.762 75.1 56.6 15.4 75.3 27.2 20.5 maximum is 27.1%.
20 16.34 1.6168 42.5 36.8 9.8 86.6 26.6 23.1
21 16.94 1.740 49.2 38.7 10.0 78.6 25.8 20.3 7. Prototypes and performance analysis
22 19.28 1.717 62.8 58.8 16.1 93.7 27.3 25.6
23 20.20 1.699 68.2 58.2 15.7 85.4 27.0 23.0
24 15.38 1.747 40.6 30.4 6.1 74.7 20.1 15.0 According to the experimental results of the models and the prin-
25 17.91 1.748 55.2 45.6 11.3 82.5 24.7 20.4 ciple of similitude, a series of prototypes were designed as summarized
26 17.27 1.804 53.0 44.3 11.3 83.5 25.6 21.4 in Table 7. Based on the results shown in Table 4 with the maximum
27 20.13 1.704 68.0 51.1 13.2 75.2 25.9 19.5 CWR of 89.1% in random waves, the pneumatic power can reach
28 20.85 1.656 70.9 55.8 14.9 78.7 26.7 21.0
8.3 kW if the prototype is ten times the size of model C 30 t in weight,
incident waves have a significant wave height of 1.0 m, the average
A large number of experiments were conducted under a variety of period of 3.207 s, wave power density of 1.8 kW/m; if the energy
working conditions. When the wave period is about 2.45 s, the model conversion efficiency from pneumatic power to electric power is as-
presents a good conversion efficiency from wave to wire. Some mea- sumed as 50% (e.g. the reported conversion efficiency reaches 60%
sured results are shown in Table 5. T is the incident wave period, H is based on sea trial data (Heath, 2012)), the electric power of the pro-
the incident wave height, PW is the incident wave power, Pair is the totype is approximately 4.15 kW (close to the 5 kW). If the model is
pneumatic power, Pe is the electricity power generated by the generator, enlarged by 20 times with a mass of 240 t, the significant wave height of
ηae is the efficiency from pneumatic power to electric power, ηwe is the incident waves is 2.0 m with the average period of 4.535 s, wave power
efficiency from wave power to electric power. Table 5 shows that the density of 10 kW/m, the prototype can capture a pneumatic power of
maximum CWR is 130.4% and the minimum is 110.6%. It also shows approximately 94.5 kW; similarly, by assuming the energy conversion
that the efficiency from pneumatic power to electric power can reach efficiency from air flow energy to electricity is 50%, then the average
33.2% and the efficiency from wave to wire is up to 42.0%. electric power of the prototype is approximately 47.3 kW (close to the
The performance of the device under random wave conditions is 50 kW). If the model is enlarged by 30 times with a mass of 810 t, the
important for the prototype design. In tests, random waves were gen- significant wave height of incident waves is 3.0 m with the average
erated using a JONSWAP spectrum. The results of the tests are shown in period of 5.554 s, the wave power density of 28 kW/m, the prototype
Table 6. It shows that, under random waves, the CWR of the model is can capture the pneumatic power of approximately 390 kW; similarly,
about 80%, and the maximum is 96.2%, which is almost the same as the by assuming the energy conversion efficiency from pneumatic power to
CWR in Fig. 8. Table 6 shows that the efficiency from pneumatic power electricity is 50%, then the average electric power of the prototype is
to electric power is about 25%, and the highest is 28.7%. Table 6 also approximately 195 kW (close to the 200 kW). For the majority of off-
shows that the efficiency from wave to wire is about 22%, and the shore around the globe, the incident waves have an average power
density of 20–50 kW/m, while China has a lower average power density

Table 7
Features of the new BBDB converter.
Parameter Model C 0.5 kW Prototype (5:1) 5 kW Prototype (10:1) 50 kW Prototype (20:1) 100 kW Prototype (25:1) 200 kW Prototype (30:1)

Length (m) 1.183 5.915 11.830 23.660 29.575 35.490

Width (m) 0.522 2.610 5.220 10.440 13.050 15.660
Draft (m) 0.35 1.750 3.500 7.000 8.750 10.500
Weight (t) 0.030 3.750 30.0 240.0 468.75 810.0
HS (m) 0.1009 0.505 1.009 2.018 2.523 3.027
TS (s) 1.124 2.513 3.713 5.027 5.620 6.156
TZ (s) 1.014 2.267 3.207 4.535 5.070 5.554
TP (s) 1.174 2.625 3.713 5.250 5.870 6.430
Wave power density (W/m) 5.576 317.4 1795.5 10156.8 17743.2 27989.0
Input wave power (W) 2.964 828.4 9372.5 106037.3 231549.3 438306.5
Pneumatic energy (W) 2.641 738.1 8351.1 94481.9 206316.4 390542.3
Estimated electricity/year (MWh) 36 438 876 1752

Annotation: The conversion efficiency from pneumatic power to electric power is calculated by 50%, and the current maximum conversion efficiency is almost 60%
(Wuet al., 2017).

289
B. Wu et al.
around 2–7 kW/m (Yan et al., 2010). Thus the 5 kW and 50 kW pro-
totypes are suitable for China and the 200 kW prototype is more sui-
table for the countries which have a greater wave power density.
The “Mighty Whale” developed by Japan has a mass of 1290 t, a
width of 30 m facing incident waves, length of 50 m, draught of 8 m,
with Wells turbine. After 2 years of sea trials, it can achieve an average
power output of 6.36 kW and the total annual energy output of
83.65 MWh under the sea condition with an average wave power
density of 4 kW/m. The results show that this device can only achieve a
low energy conversion efficiency of 5.3% from wave energy to electric
energy (Washio et al., 2001). Obviously, if the impulse turbine, the
efficiency of which is two times than that of Wells turbine is adopted
(Takao and Setoguchi, 2012), and the average incident wave power is
4.425 × 4 kW/m = 17.7 kW/m, the “Mighty Whale” can achieve an
average electric power output of 2 × 4.425 × 6.36 kW = 56.29 kW,
and an annual energy output of 493.1 MWh. Wave tank tests show that
the “Mighty Whale” model has a CWR of 53% when subject to regular
waves, and the maximum average CWR is 33% when subject to random
waves of significant wave period 6.8 s. If the incident waves have an
energy density of 17.7 kW/m and the incident wave power is 531 kW,
the estimated pneumatic power of the “Mighty Whale” is
531 kW × 33% = 175.23 kW. The energy conversion efficiency from
pneumatic energy to electric energy of the impulse turbine is estimated
to be 56.29 kW/175.23 kW = 32.1%. The 100 kW prototype designed
based on the model C and the principle of similitude has a mass of 469 t,
13 m wide, 29.5 m long, 8.7 m draft. If the power density of the incident
waves is 17.7 kW/m, the pneumatic power is 205 kW; if the energy
conversion efficiency from pneumatic energy to electric energy is as-
sumed as 32.1%, the average electric power is 65.8 kW, and the annual
energy output can reach 576.4 MWh. The comparison of these results is
shown in Table 8. Obviously, although the energy output is increased
by 16.9% ((65.8–56.29)/56.29*100%), the new BBDB prototype has
only about one third of the mass of the “Mighty Whale”, so that the cost
for materials and construction is much less than that of the “Mighty
Whale”. The costs related to the deployment, transportation, mooring
systems, and recycling can also be significantly reduced. The novel
BBDB prototype presents much higher CWR and much little cost than
that of the “Mighty Whale”. Thus the new BBDB prototype is much
more economical.
Obviously, the efficiency from wave to wire of the new BBDB con-
verter has the potential to exceed 50% (96.2 % × 60 % = 57.72%),
which is much higher than that of many other wave energy conversion
technologies, if it equipped with the advanced and efficient air turbine
generator, the conversion efficiency of which is nearly 60% (Heath,
2012) from pneumatic power to electric power in sea trial.
8. Conclusion
(1) The floating OWC wave energy converter based on the BBDB
technique only consists of one simple shell structure. The costs of
materials, manufacture, transportation, deployment, mooring et al.
are drastically reduced. Since there is no physical limitation to
prevent collision between solid parts, it is reliable and can survive
under the harsh sea conditions. The air turbine and generator can
be installed above sea water. Therefore, it is easy to maintain and
the attachment of sea creatures onto the device can be avoided.
(2) The mean CWR of the new BBDB model developed by GIEC can be
up to 121.34% under regular waves in 2D wave tank tests and
89.1% under random waves in 3D wave tank tests according to the
recent experimental study. These values of the CWR are much more
than 79.1% and 52% under almost same conditions mentioned by
previous literature.
(3) The latest large-scale BBDB model test results show that the peak
wave-to-wire conversion efficiency of a new BBDB device is 42.0%
under regular waves and it is 27.1% under random waves with the
load of the battery.
290
Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291
(4) According to the design results of many prototypes, the BBDB based
on OWC device has prominent advantages in terms of energy con-
version efficiency, costs of manufacture, deployment and main-
tenance. The energy conversion efficiency from wave to wire has
the potential to exceed 50%.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No: 51579231), Foundation of Marine Fishery Science and
Technology Research and Development Project of Guangdong Province
(No: A201701B08).
References
Bailey, H., et al., 2016. Wave-to-wire simulation of a floating oscillating water column
wave energy converter. Ocean Eng. 125, 248–260.
Carmichael, A.D., 1978. An Experimental Study and Engineering Evaluation of the Salter
Cam Wave Energy Converter. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Mass Report No. MITSG 72-22, December 1978.
Chen, T., et al., 2017. Flume experiment study on capture width ratio of a new backward
bent duct buoy with a pentagon buoyancy cabin. Ocean Eng. 141, 12–17.
DTI, 2005. Near Shore Floating Oscillating Water Column: Prototype Development and
ESSvaluation. Rep URN 05/581. Available online at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/
file17347.pdf.3.
F Gomes, R.P., et al., 2012. Hydrodynamic optimization of an axisymmetric floating os-
cillating water column for wave energy conversion. Renew. Energy 44, 328–339.
Falcao, A.F.O., et al., 2012. Dynamics and optimization of the OWC spar buoy wave
energy converter. Renew. Energy 48, 369–381.
Fleming, A., et al., 2012. Energy balance analysis for an oscillating water column wave
energy converter. Ocean Eng. 54, 26–33.
Heath, T.H., 2012. A review of oscillating water columns. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 370,
235–245.
http://oceanenergy.ie/ OceanEnergy A world of power.
Iino, M., et al., 2016. Effect of inclination on oscillation characteristics of an oscillating
water column wave energy converter. Ocean Eng.. 116, 226–235.
Kim, S.-J., et al., 2015. Nonlinear time-domain NWT simulations for two types of a
backward bent duct buoy (BBDB) compared with 2D wave-tank experiments. Ocean
Eng. 108, 584–593.
Liang, Xianguang, et al., 1995. An experimental research on performance of the 5 kW
BBDB model. J. N. Energy 17 (6), 5–10 (in Chinese).
Liang, Xianguang, et al., 1998. Performance test on the SWBF2.86×2.2 BBDB wave
power navigation buoy. J. N. Energy 20 (9), 4–10 (in Chinese).
Liang, Xianguang, et al., 2000. The experiment study of BBDB generating body model. J.
N. Energy 22 (2), 10–18 (in Chinese).
Liang, Xianguang, et al., 2001. Experimental study of BBDB model with multi-points
mooring. Ocean Eng. 19 (1), 70–78 (in Chinese).
Liu, Z., 2014. Study on the chamber structure of backward bend duct buoy wave energy
converter. J. Period. Ocean Univ. China 44, 106–111.
Luo, Y., et al., 2014a. Nonlinear 2D analysis of the efficiency of fixed Oscillating Water
Column wave energy converters. Renew. Energy. 64, 255–265.
Luo, Y., et al., 2014b. Numerical simulation of a heave-only floating OWC (oscillating
water column) device. Energy 76, 799–806.
Masuda, Y., 1986. Experiences in pneumatic wave energy conversion in Japan. In:
Proceeding of ASCE Specialty Conference on Utilization of Ocean Waves-wave Energy
Conversion, pp. 1–33 1986.
McCormick, M.E., 1985. Ocean Wave Energy Conversion. Dover Publications, INC,
Mineola, New York.
Ning, D.-Z., et al., 2016a. Numerical and experimental investigation of wave dynamics on
a land-fixed OWC device. Energy 115, 326–337.
Ning, D.-Z., et al., 2016b. An experimental investigation of hydrodynamics of a fixed
OWC Wave Energy Converter. Appl. Energy 168, 636–648.
Ocean Energy, 2011. Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation. SRREN.
Pathak, A.G., et al., 1999. Performance studies on a scaled model of Backward Bent
Ducted Buoy (BBDB) type wave energy converter in regular and random waves.
Proceedings ISOPE 139–141 1999.
Salter, S., 1974. Wave power. Nature. 249, 720–724.
Sheng, S., et al., 2017. Model research and open sea tests of 100 kW wave energy con-
vertor Sharp Eagle Wanshan. Renew. Energy 113, 587–595.
Takao, Manabu, Setoguchi, Toshiaki, 2012. Air turbines for wave energy conversion. Int.
J. Rotating Mach. 2012, 1–10 Article ID 717398.
http://www.wavedragon.net/ The Wave Dragon Technology.
Washio, Y., et al., 2001. The open sea tests of the offshore floating type wave power
device “Mighty Whale”—characteristics of wave energy absorption and power gen-
eration. Proceedings of Oceans 2001 MTS/IEEE — an Ocean Odyssey, vol. 1. pp.
579–585.
Whittaker, T.J., et al., 1984. Wells turbines for navigation buoys. In: Twidell, J., Riddoch,
F., Grainger, B. (Eds.), Energy for Rural and Island Communities. Pergamon, pp.
289–297 1984.
Wu, B.-j., et al., 2017. Experimental study on primary efficiency of a new pentagonal
B. Wu et al.
backward bent duct buoy and assessment of prototypes. Renew. Energy 113,
774–783.
Wu, B., et al., 2018. Economic assessment of wave power boat based on the performance
of “Mighty Whale” and BBDB. J. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 81,
946–953.
Xian-guang, Liang, et al., 1997. Experimental research on performance of BBDB wave-
activated generation device model. J. The Ocean Engineering 15 (3), 77–86 (in
Chinese).
Xian-guang, Liang, et al., 1999. Research on the 5 kW BBDB wave-Activated generation
291
Ocean Engineering 169 (2018) 281–291
device. J. The Ocean Engineering 17 (4), 55–63 (in Chinese).
Yan, Luguang, et al., 2010. China electrical engineering canon. Renewable Energy Power
Generation Projects, vol. 7. China Electric Power Press, Beijing, pp. 493–577 (in
Chinese).
Yasutaka, I.M.A.I., et al., 2010. Duct extension effect on the primary conversion of a wave
energy converter "backward bent duct buoy. J. Otec. 15, 33–36. http://www.ioes.
saga-u.ac.jp/archive/15-6.pdf.
Ze-gao, Y., et al., 2016. Numerical investigation on hydraulic performance of backward
bend duct buoy. J. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41, 15829–15833.