57

Power Generation Using Mechanical

Wave Energy Converter
Srinivasan Chandrasekaran* and Harender
Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai-600036, India
*Associate Professor and corresponding Author: Email: drsekaran@iitm.ac.in;
Fax: + 91-44-22574802

Abstract
Ocean wave energy plays a significant role in meeting the growing demand of electric
power. Economic, environmental, and technical advantages of wave energy set it apart
from other renewable energy resources. Present study describes a newly proposed
Mechanical Wave Energy Converter (MEWC) that is employed to harness heave motion
of floating buoy to generate power. Focus is on the conceptual development of the
device, illustrating details of component level analysis. Employed methodology has
many advantages such as i) simple and easy fabrication; ii) easy to control the operations
during rough weather; and iii) low failure rate during normal sea conditions.
Experimental investigations carried out on the scaled model of MWEC show better
performance and its capability to generate power at higher efficiency in regular wave
fields. Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) shows rare failure rates for all
components except the floating buoy.

Keywords: wave energy; power take-off; renewable energy; Failure mode and effect
analysis

1. INTRODUCTION
Oil crisis in recent years forced people to explore alternate resources of renewable energy, raising the
interest in large-scale power generation from ocean waves. Power available from wave energy is
considerably high which is represented as higher potential energy in heave degree-of-freedom (John et
al. 1976). Wave energy show salient advantages namely: i) time required for research and development
is shortened by the proven re-engineering technologies of offshore oil and gas, wind power and
shipbuilding industries; ii) wave power is predictable and dependable with the ability to accurately
forecast the wave power spectrum, days in advance; iii) environmentally benign and non-polluting; and
iv) minimum visual impact (David and James 2009; Masuda 1972, 1978; Masuda et al. 1999, 2000).
Different technologies attempted in harnessing wave energy in the recent past did not succeed to
commercial models (Alain et al. 2002; Antonio 2010; Narayana 1976); however, amongst those
proposed, point absorbers are popular due to their reduce complexities as they are designed to utilize
heave motion of floating bodies for harnessing wave energy. Critical factors namely: i) reliability under
extreme sea states; ii) capability to connect in arrays; and iii) easy maintenance cost makes them a
viable concept (Michel 1982). Although wave surging gives maximum energy, complexities in wave
characteristics in actual sea state impose severe constraints to these devices under operation.
Alternatively other parallel technologies involving application of turbine requires uniform flow of high
pressure fluid to maintain the conversion at maximum efficiency. In addition, hydraulic and pneumatic
power takeoff systems require precision machining and high maintenance cost. Such devices shall also
suffer from variable tide and other wave conditions. Derived from the advantages of existing
technologies, present study proposes a new mechanical wave energy converter (MWEC) that employs
point absorber as wave energy capturing device (Srinivasan and Harinder 2010).

Volume 3 · Number 1 · 2012

58 Power Generation Using Mechanical Wave Energy Converter

2. MECHANICAL WAVE ENERGY CONVERTER

Fig. 1 shows the overall assembly of proposed Mechanical Wave Energy Converter. It consists of a
floating buoy with rack and pinion arrangement employed for converting reciprocating (vertical)
motion into oscillatory (rotary) motion. While the floating buoy is connected to gear rack through the
shaft, two vertical shafts are assembled with the gear rack and encircled by guide posts to protect the
floating buoy from encountered ocean waves. Driving sprockets mounted on these shafts are supported
by ball bearings; secured pinion gears are subsequently connected to free-wheel sprocket. Whole
assembly is transversely mounted on a shaft supported by ball bearings securing an rpm multiplier that
is connected to shaft of electric generator. Overall assembly of MWEC is fixed on a floating vessel or
a platform deck that is anchored to sea bed. As the approaching wave moves the floating buoy upwards,
toothed gear rack, attached to buoy rotates the pinion gear (5) clockwise while the other pinion gear (6)
rotates anti-clockwise. This is due to the free wheel sprocket that prevents interference with rotation of
pinion gear (5). On the other hand, for the waves moving floating buoy downwards, toothed gear rack
attached to buoy rotates the pinion gear (5) anti-clockwise while the pinion gear (6) rotates clockwise
due to free wheel sprocket (17). Power transmission is through pinion gear (5) in the upward motion
while it is through pinion gear (6) in the downward motion; to enhance the rpm of the output shaft, an
RPM multiplier is attached.

2.1. Equation of Motion of the Buoy

The floating buoy is restricted to heave motion. For the buoy position defined by a vertical coordinate
x (x = 0 in calm water), equation of motion (Johannes 2004) is given as:

M


x = Ff − Fpt (1)

Gear rack (3)

Driving sprocket (8)
Chain (10) Pinion gear (5)
Pinion gear (6)
Free wheel sprocket (16)
Chain (12)
Driving sprocket (7)

RPM multiplier (11)

Shaft guide (18)

Platform (14) Chain (9)
Free wheel
sprocket (17)
Rack supporting shaft (4)
Electric generator (13)
Top vent (19) Small shaft (2)

Floating buoy (1)

Platform support (15)

Figure 1. Mechanical wave energy converter

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Harender 59

where, Fpt is the force exerted by power take off mechanism; Ff is the force present in the incident wave
field; M is mass of the buoy and ẍ is heave acceleration. Force in the incident wave field comprises of
diffraction force exiting on the buoy (Fex), radiation potential force (Fr ) and hydrostatic restoring force
(Fs ) and are given by:

{
Fex = Re Xeiω t } (2)

Fr = − { A(ω )


x + B(ω ) x
} (3)

where, A (ω) is added mass coefficient; B (ω) is damping coefficient

Fs = Cx (4)
where, C (= ρgs) is hydrostatic coefficient and s is water plane area at the designed draft in still water.
After substitution, Eq. (1) becomes:

( M + A)


x = Fex − Bx
− Cx + Fpt (5)

Mean power absorbed per wave cycle Pm, is given by:

Pm = Ff (t ).x
(t ) (6)

Where, F f (t ) is the time average of the forces acting on the buoy and x
(t ) is the time average of
velocity of the buoy. Averaging shall produce non-zero contributions only from those force components
in phase with the velocity; added mass and hydrostatic force will not contribute. Mean hydrodynamic
power (Antonio 2010) generated by the buoy in heave mode is given by:

2
1 2 B 1  (7)
Pm = X − U − X
8B 2 2 B 

For a given incident wave field, diffraction exerting force (X) and the damping coefficient (B ) are
determined by analysis in WAMIT (Chang and Nicholas 1999). Oscillation amplitude of the buoy is
given by:
ξ = RAO × Am (8)

Where, RAO is the response amplitude operator and Am is the incident wave amplitude. Complex
velocity amplitude is given by:
U = ξ ×ω (9)

This is the case when the buoy is not connected to power take-off mechanism (PTO). Alternatively,
for the buoy connected to power take-off mechanism, its complex velocity amplitude decreases; this
decrease is assumed as percentage of the initial velocity amplitude (when the buoy is free from PTO).
For various reduction percentages in velocity amplitude, mean power absorbed is calculated. Table 1
shows the design parameters of the buoy and incident wave parameters used in the WAMIT analysis.
Complex velocity amplitude is computed as 0.5 m/s; this is about 71% of the velocity amplitude of the
buoy when it is free from power take-off mechanism. Net power absorbed by the buoy (Pm ) is
computed as 42 kW; diffraction exerting force (X ) and damping coefficient (B) are computed as
111.41 kN and 2038.27 Ns/m respectively (Chang and Nicholas 1999). Based on the analysis, it is seen
that the proposed device shall be operable for moderate sea state conditions (2.5m, 7.42s).

Volume 3 · Number 1 · 2012

60 Power Generation Using Mechanical Wave Energy Converter

Table 1. Design parameters of the buoy

Description Design parameters

Diameter of buoy 4.4 m
Height of buoy 4.4 m
Plate thickness 50 mm
Mass of buoy 23 ton
Additional mass due to rack 5 ton
Calculated draft 1.747 m
Density of material 7.86 t/m3
Sea state conditions 2.5 m, 7.41s

2.2. Efficiency of the Buoy

Efficiency of the buoy is estimated using WAMIT analysis. Wave power per meter of wave front in
deep water for regular waves is given by:

1 γ H 20
P= × × C0 × 9.81 (10)
2 8

where C0 is group celerity in deep water. For the incident regular waves considered in the study, power
(P ) is computed as 45.40 kW/m wave front for deep water and wave height and wave period as (2.5 m,
7.41s) respectively. For a circular buoy of 4.4 m diameter, total power available (Pt ) is 199.78 kW. Power
absorbed by the buoy (Pab ) is 42 kW, resulting in the efficiency (ηb ) of about 21%.

2.3. Gear Design for the Power Take-off Mechanism

The gear design (AGMA; Mott 2004) is carried out for a pitch line velocity and overload factor (Ko) of
0.5 m/s and 1.0 respectively. Design power is given by:

K o × P = 1 × 42 = 42 kW (11)

Diameter of the pinion and speed are given by:

D p = N p m = 20 × 10 = 200 mm
u × 60 0.5 × 60 (12)
np = = = 48 rpm
2π r 2π × 0.1

Where m is the module (taken as 10 mm); Np is the number of teeth in the input pinion gear (taken
as 20); u is the pitch line velocity and r is the radius of the pinion. Transmitted load is given by:

1000 × P 1000 × 42
Wt = = = 84000 N (13)
θt 0.5

Recommended face width, (F) is given by:

F = 12 × m = 120 mm (14)

Based on AGMA standards, for the considered parameters namely: i) size factor (ks ) as 1.20; ii) load
distribution factor (km ) as 1.26; iii) rim thickness factor (kb ) as unity; iv) dynamic factor for bending
strength (kv ) as 1; and v) geometric factor for pinion (Jp) as (0.33), tensile stress number (Stp ) is given by:

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Harender 61

Wt × K o × K s × K b × K m × K v
Stp = (15)
F × m × Jp

84000 × 1 × 1.2 × 1 × 1.26 × 1

Stp = = 481.09 MP
Pa (16)
120 × 10 × 0.33

Stress value computed from Eq. (15) is a reasonable stress level for Carburized steel whose
properties are namely: i) AISI Number 4320; ii) condition SOQT300; iii) Su = 1500 MPa; iv)
% elongation as 13; and v) hardness 429. Elastic coefficient (Cp ) and geometric factor (Jp ) are obtained
as 191 and 0.33 respectively (AGMA). Contact stress number (Scu ) is given by:

Wt × K o × K s × K m × K v
Scu = C p =1563.5 Mpa (17)
F × Dp × J p

This is a reasonable stress level for the selected material with Scu as 1896.12 MPa for Grade 3.
Design parameters for the adopted gear in the power take-off mechanism are summarized in Table 2.

2.4. Efficiency of Rack and Pinion Gear Drive

The efficiency (Earle Buckingham 1988) for gear power transmission is given by:

 1 
 1+ m  f ' 2 2
Efficiency = 1 −   (βa + βr ) (18)
β
 a + β r  2
 

Fig. 2 illustrates various terminologies used in the rack and pinion gear drive analysis.

O1P ha
sin α 0 = ⇒ PA =
PA sin α 0
PA ha
βa = =
rb1 rb1 sin α 0 (19)
DP
βr =
rb1
DP = T1 D − T1P
= ra1 sin α1 − rb1 sin α 01

Where, ha is addendum, rb1 is base circle radius, rp1 is pitch circle radius, ro1 is outside radius, m is
gear ratio/velocity ratio and f′ is coefficient of friction. Further,

rb1 cos α 0 = ra1 cos α 0 (20)

Volume 3 · Number 1 · 2012

62 Power Generation Using Mechanical Wave Energy Converter

Table 2. Designed gear parameters

Description Design parameters

Safe module 10 mm
No. of teeth in pinion gear 20
No. of teeth in rack 300
Thickness of rack 120 mm (= 12 × module)
Face width 120 mm
Material Case hardened carburized steel AISI 4320 with condition SOQT300- Grade 3

rp1
o
rb1

ra1 αo

α a1
βr
βa
αo T1
o1 A
ha

Figure 2. Rack and pinion gear analysis.

100 cos 20 0
cos α a1 = ⇒ α a1 = 31.32 0 (21)
110

Design parameters for the gear considered in the study are namely: i) ha = 10 mm; ii) rp1 = 87.5 mm;
iii) rb1 = 100 mm; and iv) ra1 = 110 mm. Other design parameters are derived as follows:

10
βa = = 0.33
87.5 sin 20 0
DP = 110 sin 31.32 0 − 100 sin 20 0 = 22.98 mm (22)
22.98
βr = = 0.26
87.5

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Harender 63

Considering coefficient of friction as 0.02 for pitch lien velocity of 0.5 m/s [14] and gear ratio of rack
and pinion as ∞, efficiency is given by:

 1  f′ 2 2
ηg = 1 −   2 (βa + βr ) (23)
β
 a + β r 

 1  0.02 
ηg = 1 −    0.332 + 0.26 2 
 0. 33 + 0. 26  2 (24)
ηg = 99%

2.5. Design of Chain Drive

Design of chain drive is based on the power output of the pinion gear. Design data for chain drive are
computed on the basis of the following namely (Design Data 1968): i) power transmitted, for design
purpose as 41.58 kW (= 42 × 0.99); ii) rpm of the driver sprocket (large), N1 as 48; iii) rpm of the driven
sprocket (small), N2 as 200; iv) transmission ratio as 4.16 (= N2/N1). For number of teeth on smaller
sprocket (Z1) be 17 and pitch of the chain be 38.1 mm, pitch line velocity (u) is given by:

38.1 × 17 × 200
u= = 2.16 m / s (25)
60

Number of teeth on the driver sprocket (Z2) is 71 (= 17 × 4.17). Design shall further be modified on
the basis of service factor that depends on various parameters namely: i) factor for variable load with
mild shock (k1 = 1.25); ii) factor for distance regulation with adjustable supports (k2 = 1); iii) factor for
centre distance of sprockets (k3 = 1); factor for position of sprockets with inclination up to 60° (k4 = 1);
v) lubrication factor for periodic maintenance (k5 = 1.5); vi) rating factor considered for single shift of
8 hrs (k6 = 1). Based on the above parameters, service factor and breaking load (Q) are given by:

K s = K1 K 2 K 3 K 4 K 5 K 6 = 1.88
102 × n × K s × P 102 × 7.8 × 1.88 × 41.58 (26)
Q= = = 28792.76 kgf
u 2.16

where, n is factor of safety. The selected chain ISO/DIN-24B-3TR3825 with pitch (P) 38.10 mm
satisfies the condition for safe power transmission and hence used in the present design. Minimum
centre distance is 1.3 a′ (for transmission ratio of 4.16), where a′ is given by:

da1 + da 2
a′ = (27)
2

where, da1 and da2 are tip diameter of small and large sprockets, respectively; they are given by:

P
da1 = + 0.6 P (28)
(tan 180 0 ) / 17

Volume 3 · Number 1 · 2012

64 Power Generation Using Mechanical Wave Energy Converter

38.10
da1 = + 0.6 × 38.10 = 226.68 mm (29)
(tan 180 0 ) / 17

38.10
da2 = + 0.6 × 38.10 = 883.35 mm (30)
(tan 180 0 ) / 71

226.68 + 883.35
a′ = = 555.01 (31)
2

Minimum centre distance is obtained as 721.52 mm. Optimum and maximum centre distances are
estimated as 40P and 80P, respectively. Final centre distance is given by:

e + e2 − 8 m
a= (32)
4

Z1 + Z 2
e = lp − = 124 − 44 = 80 mm (33)
2

2
 Z − Z2 
m= 1 = 73.86
 2π  (34)
( 2
a = 80 + 80 − 8 × 73.86
38.114
4 )
= 1487.97 mm

Chain length is given as 4724.4 mm (= 124 × 38.10). Chain length, in multiples of pitch is given by:

2
Z1 + Z 2 1  Z1 − Z 2 
lp = 2 × ap + +   (35)
2 a p  2π 

Geometric characteristics of the selected chain ISO/DIN-24B-3TR3825 are shown in Table 3. For the
ratio of (a0/p) as 40, corrected chain length is 124. Efficiency of chain drive is given by (Gustan 1978):

PR f d B i + 1
ηc = 1 − πµ (36)
UZ1 t i

Where, µ is coefficient of friction (= 0.15), U is peripheral force (in kgf), f is bearing area (mm2)
and PR is pressure in the chain (kgf/mm2). Efficiency of the chain drive is given by:

pR f 2Gv 2 2 × 20 × 2.16 × 2.16

= 1+ = 1+ = 1.99
U 9.81U 9.81 × 19.25 (37)
3.14 × 0.15 × 1.99 × 14.63 × 5.16
ηc = 1 − = 97.3%
17 × 38.10 × 4.16

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Harender 65

Table 3. Geometric characteristics of the chain drive

Description Geometric parameters

Pitch 38.10 mm
Roller diameter 25.40 mm
Width between inner plates 25.50 mm
Pin body diameter 14.63 mm
Bearing area 1664 mm2
Weight of chain 20 kgf/m
Diameter of small sprocket 226.68 mm
Diameter of larger sprocket 883.35 mm
No. of teeth on smaller and larger sprockets (17, 71)

Power available at the driving sprocket of the unidirectional chain assembly is 41.58 kW (= 42 ×
0.99). Power available at the driving sprocket of rpm multiplier is 40.46 kW (= 41.58 × 0.973). Using
the above chain drive as rpm multiplier, available rpm at the generator shaft is estimated as 843 rpm.
Power available at the input of generator shaft is 39.36 kW (= 40.46 × 0.973). For an efficiency of 95%,
output power of the generator is 37.39 kW.

2.6. Overall Efficiency of MWEC

The overall efficiency of the proposed wave energy converter is given by:

ηo = ηbηgηcηr ηgen = 0.21 × 0.99 × 0.973 × 0.973 × 0.95 = 18.7% (38)

This shall also be verified from the following relationship as:

Power output from generator 37.39

ηo = = = 18.7% (39)
Wave Power input to buoy 199.78

Hence Overall efficiency of the proposed MEWC is 18.7%.

3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Prototype details of the proposed MWEC are scaled down to 1:8.8 and experimental investigations are
carried out on the scaled model to estimate its efficiency. Fig. 3 shows the scaled model used in the present
study. Floating buoy with 500 mm diameter and height of 500 mm is employed; wave flume used for the
study is equipped with a piston type wave maker that is capable of generating regular waves of wave height
(5–30 cm) with wave period of (1–3 s). The obtained results are tabulated for different wave height and
wave periods. Table 4 shows the power calculated for the encountered waves while variations of power
absorbed by floating buoy with respect to wave periods are plotted in Fig. 4; power is measured after a leap
period of 5 s to avoid any transient orders. It is seen from the figure that power absorbed by floating buoy
is maximum at 2.5 s wave period for a 30 cm wave height. This corresponds to 2.64 m wave height and
7.42 s for the proto type of the device for the chosen scale. For example, mechanical power estimated at
the shaft of the proto type for (30 cm, 3 s) sea state is 54.46 kW (= 28.92 × 8.87/2 × 0.99 × 0.972); this is
arrived by employing appropriate scale factor and accounting for respective losses. Power available at the
shaft of the device, estimated on the basis of similar method varies from 54.46 kW to 203 kW. Influence
of wave height on power absorbed by the float is shown in Fig. 5. It is seen from the figure that maximum
power is absorbed by the float for a wave height of 30 cm and 2.5 s wave period; this corresponds to
2.64 m and 7.42 s to the prototype respectively; power absorbed by the float increases nonlinearly with
increase in wave height. However, behavior of the proposed wave energy converter shall be also
verified through sea trials to confirm the range of wave period and wave height of safe operation.

Volume 3 · Number 1 · 2012

66 Power Generation Using Mechanical Wave Energy Converter

Gear rack
RPM multiplier

Output shaft

Platform
Unidirectional
chain assembly

Floating buoy

Figure 3. Model of Mechanical Wave Energy Converter

Table 4. Maximum power absorbed by float (in Watts)

Wave Height Wave period Wave period Wave period Wave period
(cm) (1.5 s) (2 s) (2.5 s) (3 s)
10 2.12 6.5 6.42 2.32
15 14.13 12.18 12.62 5.04
20 25.44 22.8 28.36 8.68
25 31.75 43.03 51.15 16.12
30 57.06 62.23 100.22 28.92

120
Wave height (10 cm)
100 Wave height (15 cm)
Wave height (20 cm)
80 Wave height (25 cm)
Power (w)

Wave height (30 cm)

60

40

20

0
1.5 2 2.5 3
Wave period (s)

Figure 4. Influence of wave period on power absorbed by float

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Harender 67

120
Wave period (3 s)
100 Wave period (2.5 s)
Wave period (2 s)
80 Wave period (1.5 s)
Power (w)
60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40
Wave height (cm)

Figure 5. Influence of wave height on power absorbed by float

4. FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS (FMEA) OF PROPOSED MWEC

The proposed device is also examined for prospective failure in operation using design FMEA studies.
Failure mode and effect analysis is a systematic tool for identifying the effects (or) consequences of a
potential failure (or) the product (Bob Skelton 1997). It suggests methods to eliminate or reduce risk
(or) chance of occurrence of failure. Design FMEA is most effective when applied before design of the
product is released rather than after the fact (AIAG 1995); focus is on failure prevention and not
detection. This procedure examines the functions of different components, sub-system and identifies
issues related to incorrect material choice, in-appropriate specifications etc. FMEA work sheet helps to
critically characterise the components that are at the experimental stage. Table 5 shows the scale for
different parameters of FMEA those are considered in the present study. Following parameters are rated
on a 10 point scale namely: i) severity that is considered as the rating of effect of potential failure mode;
ii) occurrence corresponds to the rate at which a first level cause and its resultant failure mode shall
occur over the design life of the system; and iii) detection that is indication of control measures that are
employed to detect the failure mode. Risk priority number (RPN) identifies the critical areas of concern
and is estimated as a product of severity, occurrence and detection. There are no absolute values for
what is a high RPN; rather FMEA is often viewed on relative scale (highest RPN is addressed first).
Detailed failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) carried out on the proposed mechanical wave energy

Table 5. Parameters considered in Failure Mode Effect Analysis

Description Scale Details

1 No effect on output
Severity 5 Moderate effect
8 Severe effect
10 Hazardous effect
1 Failure unlikely
Occurrence 5 Occasional failure
8 High frequency of failure likely
10 Failure certain
1 Will detect failure
Detection 5 Might detect failure
10 Almost certain not to detect failure

Volume 3 · Number 1 · 2012

 68

Table 6. Detailed Failure Mode and Effect Analysis of proposed MWEC (Design FMEA)

Part or process name : Mechanical Wave Energy Converter Supplies and plants affected: Experimental stage
Design responsibility: XXX company Model date: MM/DD/YYYY
Other areas involved: Power generation from ocean wave energy Engineering change level: Not applicable
Component Function or Failure Mode Effects Sev (S) Occ (O) Cause of failure Controls Dt (SxO) RPN Recommended
Process Potential reasons Occ Action
Buoy Gives Does not Power at 4 4 Faulty design 3 Check Buoy 7 16 112 Rigorous testing
displacement give desired low voltage/ /or less design & in lab as well as
in heave displacement no power wave energy wave energy in wave basin
motion & force generated at all properly required
Pinion Convert Broken teeth No power 5 3 Manufacturing 3 Check design 6 15 90 Rigorous testing
Gears linear motion generated faults or not as well as in lab
to rotary messed properly messing with
motion with rack rack
Anti- Help in Damaged Efficiency 3 5 Manufacturing 3 Check design 5 15 75 Rigorous testing
Friction running ball gets faults properly in lab
Bearings MWEC reduced
smoothly
Sprockets Transfer Damaged Efficiency 4 3 Poor material 3 Check quality 6 12 72 Select material
power teeth reduced selection of material acc to power to
by 50% properly be transmitted
Chains Power Broken Efficiency 2 2 Manufacturing 2 Apply 5 4 20 Check up
transmission link reduced faults or lubrication lubrication
from opinion by 50% lubrication properly pump
to generator not proper
shaft
Free wheel Transfer Broken Efficiency 3 2 Manufacturing 2 Check design 6 6 36 Proper
sprocket power link reduced faults properly inspection
by 50% required
Electrical Power Faulty Less power 2 2 Manufacturing 2 Check 6 4 24 Proper
Generator generation wiring or no power faults wirings inspection
generated properly required
Sev: Severity; Occ: Occurrence; Dt: Detection; RPN: Risk Priority Number (severity × occurrence × detection)

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems

Power Generation Using Mechanical Wave Energy Converter
Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Harender 69

converter is seen in the Table 6. Failure analysis indicates the advantageous features of the proposed
converter. The conducted analysis shows floating buoy as the most vulnerable part with risk priority
number (RPN) of 112 while all other parts of mechanisms have low having lower RPN. Recommended
actions mostly focus on the rigorous testing of the device due to the primary fact that the product is still
in the development stage.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Recent research activities on development of wave energy converters focus on the use of hydraulic and
pneumatic devices as power takeoff mechanisms; they are expensive and require precision machining
as well. Present study describes feasible design of an alternate wave energy converter along with the
detailed design of its mechanical components. Proposed MWEC is simple and easy to fabricate and
maintain. For harnessing wave energy, linear heave oscillation of the buoy is converted into rotary
motion through the design. Free wheel sprockets are used to rotate the generator shaft unidirectional in
this mechanism which shall be seen as unique feature. Experimental investigations carried out on the
scaled model of the device show the following observations namely: i) power absorbed by the floating
buoy increases with the increase in wave height; ii) maximum power absorption is for 2.5 s wave period
for all considered wave heights. Failure analysis conducted on the device illustrates low failure rate.
Except for the floating buoy whose risk priority number is high, all components of the MWEC have
lower RPN values indicating rare failure rates. Mechanical parameters influencing the failure of such
devices due to corrosion shall be overcome by housing the device inside a protective cover.
The proposed device that is analytically examined and experimentally investigated is new concept
in the domain of research in wave energy converters. Although power available at the shaft of the
prototype device is only marginal compared to the demand expected, output can be improved by
appropriately modifying the mechanical system (for example, series of floats can be housed). The study
describes the analysis methodology of the proposed MWEC; experimental studies are also carried out
to verify the functionality of the proposed device. The presented study shall be helpful to motivate
futuristic research in development of similar devices.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors sincerely acknowledge the support extended by Prof. Muthuveerappan G. and Prof.
Gopinath K, Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT Madras during the design and development
of the MWEC.

7. REFERENCES
AGMA, Gear Design data Handbook, American Gear Manufacturers Association.
AIAG. Potential failure mode and effect analysis reference manual, Automotive Industry Action Group
1995.
Alain Cle′ment, Pat McCullen, Antonio Falcao. “Wave energy in Europe: Current status and
Perspectives”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2002; 6: 405–431.
Antonio F. de O. Falcao. A wave energy utilization: Review of technologies. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy reviews 2010; 14(3): 899–918.
Bob Skelton, Process safety analysis- an introduction, Institution of Chemical Engineers, U.K 1997.
Earle Buckingham. Analytical mechanics of gears, Dover Publications, New York 1988.
Chang-Ho Lee and J. Nicholas Newman, WAMIT User Manual, Versions 6.4, WAMIT Inc. and
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 1999.
David Dunnett, James S. Wallace. Electricity generation from wave power Canada. Renewable Energy
2009; 34: 179–195.
Gustan Niemann. Machine elements: Design and calculation in mechanical engineering, Springer,
New York 1978: ISBN 3-540-03378-5.
John D. Isaacs, David Castel and Gerald L. Wick. Utilization of the energy in ocean waves, Ocean
Engineering 1976; 3: 175–187.

Volume 3 · Number 1 · 2012

70 Power Generation Using Mechanical Wave Energy Converter

Johannes Falnes. Ocean waves and oscillating systems: Linear interactions including wave-energy
extraction, Cambridge University Press, NY 2004: ISBN 0-511-03093-2.
Masuda Y. Study of wave activated generator and future view as an island power source. In:
Proceedings of 2nd International Ocean Development Conference Preprints,1972; 2.
Masuda Y. Experimental full scale result of wave power machine KAIMEI in 1978, In: Proceedings of
First Symposium on Wave Energy Utilization, Gothenburg, Sweden. 1978.
Masuda Y and Kuboki T, Ravindrum M, Pathak AG, Jayashankar V, Liang X. Development of a
Backward Bent Duct Buoy (BBDB), In: Proceedings of 9th ISOPE, Brest, France, 1999.
Masuda Y, Kuboki T, Xianguang L and Peiya S. Development of a terminator type BBDB. In:
Proceedings of 3rd EWEC, Patras, Greece, 2000.
Michel E. Mccormick. An experimental study of wave power conversion by a Heaving, vertical,
circular cylinder in restricted waters. Applied Ocean Research 1982; 4:107–112.
Mott, Robert L. Machine elements in mechanical design, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey 2004:
ISBN 0-13-061885-3.
Narayana N. Panicker. Power resource estimate of ocean surface waves. Ocean Engineering 1976; 3:
429–439.
PSG College of Technology. Design Data Hand Book, Kalaikathir Achagham, India 1968.
Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Harender. Proposed mechanism of mechanical wave energy Converter.
Ship and Offshore, 2010: 4: 101.

International Journal of Ocean and Climate Systems