On the Extractable Power from a Tidal Channel

Patrick F. Cummins1

Abstract: The drive to develop marine renewable energy has made resource assessments a matter of pressing need and ongoing research. In
the case of tidal in-stream power generation, a central objective of such assessments is to estimate the maximum power that may be extracted
from tidal motions based on observable properties of the flow in the natural undisturbed state. To this end, analytical models have been
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

developed for simple geometries, such as a channel connecting the open ocean to an inner basin. A key assumption of these models is that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

the along-channel volume flux is nondivergent. This requires the channel length to be small in comparison to the tidal wavelength and also
that μ ≪ 1, where μ is the ratio of the surface area of the channel to that of the basin. A practical consequence of assuming nondivergent flow is
that the extractable power is then independent of position along the channel. In the present study, a linear one-dimensional model is developed
to study the power potential of a uniform tidal channel that is spanned by a turbine fence and that links a bay to the open ocean. The assumption
of nondivergent flow is relaxed, permitting an exploration of the sensitivity of the extractable power to nondimensional parameters measuring
the relative channel length and area. Depending on parameter values, the results show that assuming nondivergent flow may lead to an under-
estimation of the available power. For long waves, the maximum extractable power is shown to scale as ð1 þ μÞ, thus providing a simple
correction to account for the effects of finite channel area. It is shown that the power potential may vary appreciably with the position along the
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.

channel. However, for long waves the optimal location of the turbine fence is always at the mouth where the magnitude of the along-channel
flow is greatest. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000102. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Renewable energy; Tidal power; Resource management; Tidal currents.
Author keywords: Marine renewable energy; Tidal electric power generation; Resource assessment; Tidal currents.

Introduction A series of recent theoretical studies have considered the esti-

The ocean is receiving increasing attention as a potential source of
renewable energy. While this idea has long held appeal, the har-
nessing of ocean energy has been limited to date. In particular,
a small number of tidal barrages exist around the world, and these
have operated reliably for decades (Hammons 1993). However, as
barrages may have detrimental ecological impacts, recent efforts to
exploit the potential of the tides have tended to focus on the devel-
opment of in-stream energy-conversion devices that extract power
from tidal currents (e.g., Bedard et al. 2010). There have been trial
deployments of these submarine turbines at a number of coastal
locations. Such efforts may be expected to continue as tidal power
advances beyond its present precommercial stage of development.
The development of tidal in-stream technology has been accom-
panied by the appearance of a number of resource assessments that
attempt to place upper limits on the extractable power at different
sites over the coastal ocean (e.g., Cornett 2006; ABP Marine Envi-
ronmental Research Ltd. 2008). With few exceptions, these assess-
ments have been based on calculations of the time-averaged flux of
kinetic energy. It is now understood that this approach is generally
lacking theoretical support and may lead to anomalous results,
such as an extreme sensitivity of the extractable power to the
location where a turbine fence is placed along a channel of variable
cross-section.
1
Research Scientist, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Sidney, BC, Canada V8L 4B2. E-mail: Patrick.cummins@
dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 5, 2011; approved on
May 2, 2011; published online on May 5, 2011. Discussion period open
until June 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 1, January 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-950X/2012/1-63–71/$25.00.
mation of the extractable power as a problem in optimization. This
is based on recognition that the available power increases as tur-
bines are introduced, but that the addition of too many turbines will
tend to block the flow and lead to reduced power. Garrett and
Cummins (2004) examined the power potential of a uniform fric-
tionless channel connected to a small bay with the influence of the
turbines represented as a linear or quadratic drag on the tidal flow.
Garrett and Cummins (2005) considered the maximum extractable
power from a tidal channel of variable cross section that connects
two large basins. For quadratic drag, this is given by
PGC05 ¼ γρgaQmax ð1Þ
where ρ is the density of seawater, g is the acceleration due to grav-
ity, a is the amplitude of the tidally varying elevation difference
between the ends of the channel, and Qmax is the peak volume flux
in the undisturbed state. The dimensionless coefficient γ varies
within a small range, 0.20–0.24, depending on the extent to which
friction dominates the along-channel momentum balance in the
natural state. Power generation thus depends on the product of
the head across the channel, ρga, and the volume flux. An addi-
tional result of the analysis is that available power is independent
of the position of the turbine fence along a channel.
Blanchfield et al. (2008a) extended these results to the case of a
tidal channel connecting a bay to the ocean. In the case of quadratic
drag, they find an expression similar to Eq. (1) for the extractable
power, but with a now interpreted as the amplitude of the tidal
elevation just outside the channel, in the open ocean. This extended
model has been applied to estimate the maximum available power
from Masset Sound, British Columbia (Blanchfield et al. 2008b).
Karsten et al. (2008) applied a similar analytical model to estimate
the potential of Minas Passage, Nova Scotia, and obtained good

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 63
 agreement with the results of simulations with a numerical tidal
model.
In each of these analytical models, a key assumption is made
that the volume flux along the channel is independent of position
and is a function only of time. Formally, this requires the channel
length to be small compared to the tidal wavelength and also that
the area of the channel be small compared to that of the basin.
While it may be expected that the long-wave approximation will
be well satisfied in most practical circumstances, there are likely
to be cases where one or both of the assumptions for flow
nondivergence are violated. For example, in the case of Masset
Sound (Blanchfield et al. 2008b) neither assumption holds particu-
larly well because the channel area is about 20% of the basin area
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

and the nondimensional wavelength parameter (defined below) is Fig. 1. Schematic of the model domain, which consists of a basin of
not small compared to unity ðk0 L ≈ 0:4Þ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

surface area, AB , connected to the ocean via a channel of length, L,

In the following, a simple linear model is constructed to exam- uniform width, W, and surface area, AC ¼ LW; at x ¼ xT , the channel
ine the extractable power in the case of a uniform channel that con- is spanned by a turbine fence that extends over small distance, Δx,
nects a bay to the open ocean. In contrast to previous analytical along the channel
studies, the assumption of nondivergent flow is not made. As a con-
sequence, nondimensional parameters measuring the channel area
and length appear explicitly as independent parameters. In addition,
r ¼ r C þ rT ðx; xT Þ
the extractable power may depend on the position of the turbine 8 9
fence along the channel. The sensitivity of the maximum extract- > 0;
L ≤ x ≤ xT
Δx=2 >
< =
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.

able power to the governing nondimensional parameters of this
problem is explored, and results are compared with existing theory.
Although the direct applicability of the model is limited because of
its idealized nature, the results nevertheless have practical implica-
tions with regard to the estimation of available power and the use of
existing analytical models.
Linear Model
A linear, one-dimensional model is considered for the domain illus-
trated in Fig. 1. This consists of a uniform rectangular channel of
length L that connects the open ocean to an inner basin of surface
area AB . The channel surface area is AC ¼ WL, while the cross-
sectional area is ACR ¼ WH with H and W the constant depth
and width, respectively. As depicted in Fig. 1, the channel is
spanned by a fence of turbines centered at x ¼ xT and extending
over a small interval Δx along the channel. The objective is to cal-
culate the maximum power that may be extracted from the tidal
motions by the turbine fence. It is recognized that in any practical
setting only a fraction of the energy dissipation in the fence will do
productive work to drive turbines. Inevitably, there will be losses
due to internal turbine inefficiencies and losses to wake mixing. For
maximum power extraction it is assumed that all of the flow is
through the fence; the efficiency of partial fences was considered
in Garrett and Cummins (2007).
Assuming small amplitude motions, the linearized continuity
equation for the channel is
∂ζ ∂u
¼
H ð2Þ
∂t ∂x
where ζ is the sea-level displacement and u is the along-channel
current. The linearized along-channel momentum equation is
∂u ∂ζ
¼
g
ru ð3Þ
∂t ∂x
The coefficient of the linear drag law in Eq. (3) is assumed to
consist of a uniform background value, r C , and a localized drag, r T ,
associated with the turbine fence. Accordingly, the drag coefficient
in Eq. (3) has the form of a boxcar function and is written as
¼ r C þ r 0T ; xT
Δx=2 < x < xT þ Δx=2 ð4Þ
>
: >
;
0 xT þ Δx=2 ≤ x ≤ 0
where r0T is the magnitude of the turbine drag coefficient. The
neglect of momentum advection in Eq. (3) eliminates exit separa-
tion effects which may balance the head in short channels [Garrett
and Cummins (2005)]. While quadratic drag would be more real-
istic, use is made of a linear drag law in Eq. (3) to allow a simple
analytical approach to the problem.
Following Blanchfield et al. (2008a), a periodic tidal forcing,
ζ ¼ a cos ωt, is imposed at the open boundary at x ¼ 0. Here, as
in previous studies, it is assumed for simplicity that there is no back
effect so that the amplitude of the tidal forcing is unaffected by the
introduction of turbines in the channel. As mentioned in Garrett and
Cummins (2005), this effect is likely to be small if the exterior re-
gion is large and deep. In other circumstances, the back effect may
be substantial and lead to an increase in the available power
(e.g., Garrett and Greenberg 1977). At the basin/channel junction,
a linearized relation is written for conservation of volume for the
basin
dζ B
AB ¼
ACR u at x ¼
L ð5Þ
dt
where ζ B ðtÞ is the area-averaged sea-level displacement of
the basin.
Nondimensional variables are denoted by primes and defined
as follows: t ¼ ω
1 t0 , x ¼ Lx0 , ðζ; ζ B Þ ¼ aðζ 0 ; ζ 0B Þ, and u ¼
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a g=H ðk 0 LÞ
1 u0 , with k0 L ¼ ωL= gH the nondimensional
wave-number parameter. This leads to a nondimensionalization
of the system that is consistent with Garrett and Cummins
(2005) and Blanchfield et al. (2008a). Assuming harmonic time
dependence for the sea-level displacement and along-channel cur-
0
rent, ðζ 0B ; ζ 0 ; u0 Þ ¼ ℜf½~ζ B ; ~ζðx0 Þ; ~uðx0 Þeit g, the continuity Eq. (2)
becomes
1 d u~
i ~ζ ¼
ð6Þ
k20 L2 dx0

64 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012
 The momentum Eq. (3) reduces to chosen to match the sea-level amplitude ratio, maxðζ B Þ=a, and
the phase lag of the basin relative to the channel mouth in the un-
d ~ζ disturbed state. The analytical solution given in the appendix can be
i ~u ¼

δ~u ð7Þ
dx0 used for this purpose. The dependence of the extractable power on
the parameters of Eq. (13) is examined below.
where δ ¼ ðr=ωÞ ¼ δ C þ δ T ðx0 ; x0T Þ is the nondimensional friction
and x0T ¼ xT =L the nondimensional position of the turbine fence. Long-Wave Theory
Eqs. (6) and (7) may be combined to form a second-order
boundary-value problem for the complex sea-level displacement A simple closed-form expression for the extractable power can be
 obtained under the assumption that the volume flux is independent
~
d
1 d ζ of position along the channel and a function only of time. This is
ð1
iδÞ þ ðk0 LÞ2 ~ζ ¼ 0 ð8Þ
dx0 dx0 referred to in the following as long-wave theory. However, the
assumption of flow nondivergence requires not only that k 0 L ≪ 1
but also that the relative channel area be small, μ ≪ 1. These con-
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

The imposed tidal forcing at the channel mouth leads to the

boundary condition ditions, which were noted in passing by Blanchfield et al. (2008a),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

are explicated in the appendix.

~ζ ¼ 1 at x0 ¼ 0 ð9Þ
To obtain a boundary condition at the basin/channel junction, it
is assumed that the basin responds as a uniform reservoir so that
area-averaged surface displacement in the basin can be taken as the
elevation at the junction with the channel, ~ζ B ¼ ~ζðx0 ¼
1Þ. This
requires the tidal wavelength in the basin to be much greater than
the scale of the basin. Combining the nondimensional version of
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.
Assuming nondivergent flow, Eq. (7) may be integrated from
x0 ¼
1 to x0 ¼ 0 to yield
½i þ ðΔx0 δ0T þ δ C Þ~u ¼
ð1
~ζ B Þ ð14Þ
Here ~ζ B ¼ ~ζðx0 ¼
1Þ, and use has been made of Eq. (9). From
Eq. (5), we have ~ζ B ¼ iβ~u with β ¼ μ=ðk 0 LÞ2 . Substituting and
solving for ~u gives

Eqs. (5) with Eq. (7) and making use of the volumetric relation,

ðλ þ δ C Þ
iðβ
1Þ
ACR ¼ HAC =L, yields the condition ~u ¼ ð15Þ
ðβ
1Þ2 þ ðλ þ δC Þ2
d ~ζ ðk 0 LÞ2
þ ð1
iδ C Þ~ζ ¼ 0 at x0 ¼
1 ð10Þ The average nondimensional power dissipation is
dx0 μ ð1=2Þðλ þ δ C Þj~uj2 , of which a fraction, λ=ðλ þ δ C Þ, is expended
with μ ¼ AC =AB . in the turbine fence. The average dissipation in the fence is then
The average rate
R of energy dissipation in the turbine fence is 1 λ
given by Pavg ¼ uFdx, where F ¼ ρACR r T u is the drag force P0LW ¼ ð16Þ
2 ðβ
1Þ þ ðλ þ δ C Þ2
2
per unit length exerted by the flow on the fence and the overbar
denotes the time average over a tidal cycle. Substituting Eq. (4) The peak power occurs for λ ¼ λP, where
and integrating yields
λP ¼ ½ðβ
1Þ2 þ δ 2C 1=2 ð17Þ
Pavg ¼ ρACR Δxr 0T u
2T ð11Þ
and is given by
where uT ¼ uðxT ; tÞ and it has been assumed that the interval Δx is maxðP0LW Þ ¼ 0:25ðλP þ δC Þ
1 ð18Þ
R x þΔx=2
sufficiently small ðΔx=L ≪ 1Þ that xTT
Δx=2 u2 dx ≈ Δxu2T . The
If channel friction is unimportant ðδ C =jβ
1j ≪ 1Þ, then
channel cross section has been taken as constant in Eq. (11), con-
maxðP0LW Þ ¼ 0:25jβ
1j
1 . On the other hand, if channel friction
sistent with the assumption of small amplitude motions, a=H ≪ 1,
is dominant (δ C =jβ
1j ≫ 1) as in, for example, the case of
required for linearization of the continuity Eq. (2). In nondimen-
Helmholtz resonance (β ¼ 1), then λP ¼ δC and maxðP0LW Þ ¼
sional form, the power dissipation is
0:125δ
1
C .
 
Lω 1 Eq. (16) is a generalization of previous results with linear tur-
P0avg ¼ Pavg ¼ λj~uT j2 ð12Þ bine drag. In particular, for negligible channel friction ðδ C ¼ 0Þ,
ρACR a2 g2 2
Eq. (16) reduces to the solution given by Eq. (34) of Blanchfield
where λ ¼ Δx0 δ 0T is the turbine drag parameter with δ 0T ¼ r 0T =ω and et al. (2008a). Garrett and Cummins (2005) considered a large
Δx0 ¼ Δx=L. Use has been made in Eq. (12) of the identity, u
02 basin for which β ¼ 0; setting β ¼ δC ¼ 0 in Eq. (16) results in
T ¼
the nondimensional version of their Eq. (2.5). The linear results
uðx0T Þ.
ð1=2Þj~uT j2 with ~uT ¼ ~
of Garrett and Cummins (2004), given in their Eqs. (14) and (16),
The power that is extracted by the turbine fence from the tidal
are recovered by setting δ C ¼ 0 and assuming β ≫ 1 so that
motions depends on parameters associated with the drag of the
ðβ
1Þ ≈ β in Eqs. (16) and (17). This approximation amounts
fence, λ, and its position, x0T , along the channel. In addition, the
to neglecting the acceleration term in Eq. (3).
extracted power depends on the following three environmental
It is evident that the assumption of nondivergent flow leads to
parameters
important simplifications of the system. In particular, the extract-
AC ωL rC able power given by Eq. (16) is independent of the position of the
μ¼ ; k0 L ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; and δC ¼ ð13Þ
AB gH ω turbine fence along the channel. In addition, the number of non-
dimensional parameters is reduced from the three given in
that measure the relative surface area and length of the channel and Eq. (13) to two parameters, δC and β, with the latter a composite
the strength of background frictional damping. In practical situa- parameter formed from μ and k0 L. Fig. 2 presents the maximum
tions, values for these parameters may be estimated from tidal extractable power with weak and strong channel friction as a func-
sea-level data following the approach of Blanchfield et al. (2008a). tion of μ and k 0 L. The plotted range of these parameters in Fig. 2
The channel and basin areas determine μ, while k 0 L and δC are extends beyond the formal range of validity of long-wave theory.

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 65
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Nondimensional average extractable power based on long-wave theory, maxðP0LW Þ, for (a) weak ðδC ¼ 0:1Þ; (b) strong ðδ C ¼ 2Þ background
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

pffiffiffi
channel friction; the dashed curves are the loci of the Helmholtz resonance condition, k0 L ¼ μ
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.

Fig. 3. (a) Variation of the nondimensional average extractable power with the turbine drag parameter in the case of a turbine fence located next to the
basin ðx0T ¼
0:99Þ or at the mouth of the channel ðx0T ¼
0:01Þ; environmental parameters are set to ðμ; k0 L; δ C Þ ¼ ð0:4; 0:05; 0:1Þ; (b) variation of
the maximum extractable power with position of the turbine fence along the channel; (c) along-channel variation in the magnitude of the current,
j~uðx0 Þj, in the undisturbed state; the dotted horizontal line represents the current magnitude in long-wave theory

The contours in this figure correspond to curves of constant β. For a similar factor, the ratio may be evaluated from Eq. (15) and is given
given value of μ, the power increases with the wave number, reach- by
ing a maximum at Helmholtz resonance, and then decreasing at
larger wave numbers. j~ζ B jλ¼λP
R¼ ¼ ½2ð1 þ δ C =λP Þ
1=2 ð19Þ
A measure of the environmental disturbance produced by the j~ζ B jλ¼0
introduction of the turbines is the ratio of the elevation amplitude
in the basin at maximum power extraction to that in the undisturbed In the limit that channel friction is unimportant (δ C =j
state. Since the amplitude of the channel current is reduced by a β
1j ≪ 1), R ¼ 2
1=2 , and the tidal range inside the basin is

66 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

reduced to 71% of its original amplitude, independent of the value
of β (cf. Garrett and Cummins 2004). Conversely, for a tidal chan-
nel controlled by friction ðλP ≈ δ C Þ, the elevation in the basin is
reduced to half of its natural range. By comparison, Garrett and
Cummins (2005) found that the transport in a frictionally controlled
channel with quadratic drag was reduced by a similar fraction
(R ¼ 3
1=2 ≈ 0:58) at maximum power.
Method of Solution and Results
The extractable power with a finite nondimensional wave number
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
and channel area is now considered, and results are compared with
long-wave theory. This requires the solution of Eq. (8), a variable-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.
coefficient ordinary-differential equation. However, with the boxcar
distribution Eq. (4) for the frictional drag, the coefficient in Eq. (8)
is piecewise constant, and the solution may be written in the form
2 3
sin kL þ ðkL=μÞ cos kL cos kL
ðkL=μÞ sin kL 0 0
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.
6 cos kLx 0
sin kLx 0

cos k
6 1
2 1
2
A¼6
6 0 0 0
cos k 2 Lx2
3
4
K sin kLx01
2 K cos kLx01
2 K 2 sin k2 Lx01
2
0 0 K 2 sin k2 Lx02
3
with K ¼ kL=ð1
iδ C Þ and K 2 ¼ k 2 L=½1
iðδ C þ δ 0T Þ. A numeri-
cal routine based on Gaussian elimination is used to solve Eq. (21)
to obtain the complex amplitude coefficients of Eq. (20).
Given values for the parameters in Eq. (13) and a position x0T for
the turbine fence, δ 0T is varied and the nondimensional average
power dissipation in the turbine fence, P0avg , is evaluated from
Eq. (12) with ~uT ¼ iK 2 ðB2 cos k 2 Lx0T
A2 sin k 2 Lx0T Þ. P0avg de-
pends on the turbine drag parameter, λ ¼ Δx0 δ 0T , but is independent
of the choice of Δx0 . The results presented below are with
Δx0 ¼ 0:02, which satisfies the condition Δx0 ≪ 1 for the approxi-
mation Eq. (12) to be valid. In test cases, it was found that virtually
identical results are obtained with Δx0 ¼ 0:01 and Δx0 ¼ 0:05. The
response is considered over a fairly wide parameter range ð0 <
k 0 L ≤ 2; 0 < μ ≤ 1Þ for cases with weak ðδ C ¼ 0:1Þ and strong
ðδ C ¼ 2Þ channel friction. By varying the turbine drag and the
fence position,
0:99 ≤ x0T ≤
0:01, the maximum extractable
power, along with the optimal value of x0T , can be determined
for a given set of environmental parameters.
Maximum Extractable Power
Examples of the variation in the extracted power, P0avg , with λ are
presented in Fig. 3(a) with the parameters in Eq. (13) assigned the
values ðμ; k0 L; δ C Þ ¼ ð0:4; 0:05; 0:1Þ. This choice is outside the
range of validity of long-wave theory because the relative channel
area is not small compared to unity. Consequently, the extractable
power depends on the position of the turbine fence as demonstrated
in Fig. 3(a), which shows the response with the fence placed next
to the basin ðx0T ¼
0:99Þ and at the mouth of the channel
ðx0T ¼
0:01Þ. As is generally the case, power dissipation in the
turbine fence increases with increasing turbine drag, reaches a
maximum at some point, and then declines as larger drag chokes
the flow. Fig. 3(b) demonstrates that the maximum extractable
power increases linearly with x0T from the junction with the basin
JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 67
8 9
> A cos kLx0 þ B1 sin kLx0 ;
1 ≤ x0 ≤ x01
2 >
< 1 =
~ζðx0 Þ ¼ A2 cos k2 Lx0 þ B2 sin k 2 Lx0 ; x01
2 < x0 < x02
3 ð20Þ
>
: >
;
A3 cos kLx0 þ B3 sin kLx0 ; 0 0
x2
3 ≤ x ≤ 0
where kL ¼ k0 Lð1
iδ C Þ1=2 , k 2 L ¼ k0 L½1
iðδC þ δ 0T Þ1=2 ,
x1
2 ¼ xT
Δx =2, and x2
3 ¼ xT þ Δx0 =2. The boundary condi-
0 0 0 0 0
tion Eq. (9) gives A3 ¼ 1. The five other coefficients in Eq. (20) are
obtained from the condition Eq. (10), and by requiring that ~ζðx0 Þ
and ~uðx0 Þ ¼ ið1
iδÞ
1 ðd~ζ=dx0 Þ be continuous at x01
2 and at
x02
3 . These conditions can be expressed in matrix form as
AC ¼ D ð21Þ
where C ¼ ½ A1 B1 A2 B2 B3 T , D ¼ ½ 0 0 cos kLx02
3
0 K sin kLx02
3 T , and
0
0
2 Lx1
2
sin k2 Lx01
2 0 7
7
sin k2 Lx02
3
sin kLx02
3 7
7

K 2 cos k 2 Lx01
2 0 5

K 2 cos k 2 Lx02
3 0
K cos kLx2
3
to the mouth of the channel. Nearly 40% greater power is available
for a turbine fence situated at the open boundary. In contrast, the
dependence of the power with λ in long-wave theory Eq. (16) is
indistinguishable from the curve given in Fig. 3(a) for the fence
located next to the basin.
The 40% linear increase in available power approaching the
mouth is associated with a similar linear variation in the magnitude
of the channel current in the undisturbed state [Fig. 3(c)]. As shown
in the appendix, the elevation amplitude is uniform along the chan-
nel for long waves, while the magnitude of the flow increases by a
factor ð1 þ μÞ between the ends of the channel. This increase is
required to accommodate the tidal variation in the volume of the
channel. As indicated by Eq. (1), the extractable power in long-
wave theory is proportional to the volume flux in the undisturbed
state. It is understandable then that the available power should in-
crease as the flow rate increases approaching the channel mouth.
The amplitude of the current in long-wave theory, obtained from
Eq. (14), is consistent with the result from the model at x0 ¼
0:99
in Fig. 3(c). Accordingly, long-wave theory predicts the power
available for a turbine fence at this location. However, the magni-
tude of the flow at the basin is smaller than that at the mouth by a
factor of ð1 þ μÞ, and the maximum available power is underesti-
mated in long-wave theory by a similar factor.
The maximum average extractable power, Pmax ðμ; k0 L; δ C Þ, was
determined by evaluating Eq. (12) with varying turbine drag param-
eter, λ, and fence location, x0T . Results are presented in Figs. 4(a)
and 4(b) as contour plots in ðμ; k0 LÞ space for cases with weak and
strong channel friction, respectively. For small to moderate wave
numbers ðk 0 L ≤ 0:4Þ, the pattern of the contours in these plots
is qualitatively consistent with long-wave theory [Figs. 2(a) and
2(b)]. Figs. 4(c) and 4(d) present the ratio of the maximum extract-
able power to that given by long-wave theory, Eq. (18), for these
two cases. As expected, the ratio is close to unity for small μ and
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.
Fig. 4. Maximum average extractable power, Pmax ðμ; k0 L; δ C Þ, in the case of (a) weak ðδ C ¼ 0:1Þ; (b) strong ðδC ¼ 2Þ background channel friction;
(c) and (d) give the ratio of the power in (a) and (b) to that given by long-wave theory, maxðP0LW Þ, for weak and strong friction as presented in
Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), respectively
k 0 L. In particular, for the case considered in Garrett and Cummins
(2005) of a channel connecting two large basins ðμ → 0Þ, long-
wave theory is accurate to within 10% for k0 L as large as 0.38
(0.45) with weak (strong) channel friction. On the other hand,
long-wave theory may underestimate the extractable power by a
significant factor for larger values of μ and k 0 L.
Of particular interest is the behavior for relatively long waves
(k0 L ≤ 0:1). As anticipated from the discussion of Fig. 3, it is evi-
dent from Figs. 4(c) and 4(d) that the maximum extractable power
exceeds the predictions of long-wave theory by a factor ð1 þ μÞ,
with very little dependence on the level of background channel
friction. This suggests a simple correction to Eq. (18) to account
for finite channel area such that
1þμ
maxðP0LW Þ ¼ ð22Þ
4ðλP þ δC Þ
with λP given by Eq. (17). This correction is equivalent to a redefi-
nition of the basin area to include the area of the channel. Compar-
ing with model solutions, Eq. (22) is found to be accurate to within
2% for k 0 L ≤ 0:1 and 0 ≤ μ ≤ 1. Thus, one of the main limitations
of long-wave theory is easily removed by this correction.
The response for larger values of the nondimensional wave
number is presented in Fig. 5, which gives the maximum
extractable power as a function of k 0 L for selected values of relative
channel area, μ, with weak and strong damping. As seen above, a
pronounced local peak associated Helmholtz resonance is evident
in the case of weak channel friction [Fig. 5(a)]. However, at larger
values of k0 L all of the plotted curves for both weak and strong
friction show a linear increase in the extractable power and tend
68 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012
converge so that the power becomes effectively independent of
the relative channel area.
Optimal Fence Location
In long-wave theory the maximum extractable power is indepen-
dent of the position of the turbine fence along the channel. Con-
versely, for shorter waves or finite channel area, the available power
depends on x0T . The case illustrated in Fig. 3(b), for example, had a
linear variation in the available power with position along the chan-
nel; maximum power extraction required that the fence be placed
near the mouth, where the flow rate also is maximal. With weak
channel friction, the available power varies nearly linearly along
the channel for k 0 L ≤ 1:5, and the optimal position of the turbine
fence is found at one of the ends of the channel. Fig. 6(a) gives the
ratio of the power potential between the ends of the channel as a
function of μ for several values of k 0 L with weak channel friction
ðδ C ¼ 0:1Þ. Consistent with long-wave theory, the ratio is close to
unity for small values of k 0 L and μ. Away from these limits, the
ratio scales linearly with μ and can deviate significantly from unity
such that the fence position has an important influence on the avail-
able power.
In the long-wave limit, the optimal position of the fence is al-
ways at the mouth where, as noted above, the magnitude of the
current is also largest. For shorter waves, the optimal position of
the turbine fence may lie elsewhere along the channel. Fig. 6(b)
gives the optimal position of the turbine fence in ðμ; k0 LÞ space
with weak channel friction. This shows that there is a transition,
as k0 L increases, such that the optimal position of the fence
switches to the opposite end of the channel and lies adjacent to
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

Fig. 5. Maximum average extractable power, Pmax ðμ; k0 L; δ C Þ, for selected values of the channel area parameter, μ, with (a) weak ðδC ¼ 0:1Þ;
(b) strong ðδC ¼ 2Þ channel friction
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.

Fig. 6. (a) Ratio of the extractable power for a turbine fence located next to the channel mouth ðx0T ¼
0:01Þ to that for a fence adjacent to the basin
ðx0T ¼
0:99Þ as a function of relative channel area for several values of the wave number parameter; the channel friction parameter is δ C ¼ 0:1;
(b) optimal position of the turbine fence along the channel as a function of the wave number parameter and relative channel area, with δ C ¼ 0:1;
(c) position of the undisturbed peak current amplitude, x0 , such that j~uðx0 Þj ¼ maxðj~ujÞ, with δ C ¼ 0:1; (d) as in (b), but with δC ¼ 2

the basin. For larger values (1:6 < k 0 L < 2), Fig. 6(b) indicates that
the optimal fence position lies within the interior of the channel.
For comparison, Fig. 6(c) shows the location along the channel
where the current magnitude, j~uj, is maximum in the undisturbed
state. It is evident that no general correspondence exists between
the optimal location of the turbine fence and the peak tidal current.
The optimal turbine position with strong channel friction
ðδ C ¼ 2Þ is shown in Fig. 6(d). Over most of the plotted parameter
range, the optimal turbine position is at the mouth. However, for
small values of relative channel area and moderate values of
k0 L, the optimal position shifts to locations near the junction with
the basin. These shifts again bear no relation to the peak current
magnitude in the undisturbed state, which is located at the mouth
over the entire parameter range plotted in Fig. 6(d).
Disturbance of the Tide
Placement of a turbine farm in a tidal channel may lead to wide
range of impacts to the natural environment affecting, for example,

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 69
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.
Fig. 7. Contours of R, the ratio of the elevation amplitude in the basin at maximum power to that in the undisturbed state, for (a) weak ðδ C ¼ 0:1Þ;
(b) strong ðδC ¼ 2Þ background channel friction; the dashed-line contours are based on Eq. (19), the ratio in long-wave theory
sediment transport and the benthic ecology. A review of such
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.
potential impacts is provided by Boehlert and Gill (2010). Tidal
motions will also be affected, both immediately within the channel
and basin and possibly in the far field as well (e.g., Polagye et al.
2009). For the configuration of Fig. 1, power extraction must lead
to a reduction of the volume transport in the channel, which will
affect the tidal range in the basin.
As mentioned previously, a simple measure of the disturbance to
the physical environment is the ratio, R, of the tidal range in the
basin at peak extraction to the tidal range in the undisturbed natural
state. This ratio is presented in Fig. 7 for cases with weak and
strong channel friction and compared with Eq. (19). In accordance
with theory, the basin tidal range is reduced for long waves by a
factor of approximately 2
1=2, independent of the relative channel
area. Also consistent with long-wave theory, the perturbation to the
basin tide at maximum power remains bound such that 0:5 ≤ R ≤
2
1=2 over the parameter range shown in Fig. 7. In fact, this bound
on the disturbance of the basin tide is also found to hold for 1 ≤
k 0 L ≤ 2 (not shown). Overall, the results of Fig. 7 demonstrate that
long-wave theory provides a remarkably good description of the
disturbance to the tidal range of the basin and the flow in the chan-
nel over a wide parameter range, particularly for strong background
friction.
Summary and Conclusions
The prospect of turbine farms deployed in the ocean has led to the
preparation of resource assessments that attempt to place upper lim-
its on the available power. As the methodology associated with
such assessments has been fraught with uncertainty, recent studies
have sought to establish a theoretical foundation for estimating the
maximum extractable power. A central result from such studies is
Eq. (1), which provides an estimate of the power that is available
from tidal motions in a channel linking the ocean to a bay or linking
two large basins. This result is quite general and allows for variable
channel cross-sectional and quadratic drag. However, a key
assumption is made that the flow in the channel is nondivergent.
This places limits on the dimensions of the channel, which is re-
quired to be relatively short and of small area. An immediate con-
sequence of assuming nondivergent flow is that the extractable
power becomes entirely independent of the location of turbine
fences along the channel.
70 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012
In the present study, the problem of a tidal channel linking the
ocean to a bay is reconsidered in a linear one-dimensional model
that allows for divergence of the flow. For the problem to remain
analytically tractable, the channel is assumed to be of constant
width and depth. As in previous analytical studies, the back effect
of power extraction on the tidal amplitude at the channel mouth is
neglected. The analysis shows that additional nondimensional
parameters arise as flow divergence is admitted. In particular,
the extractable power now depends on the relative position of a
turbine fence in the channel. In addition, parameters measuring
the relative channel area, μ, and length, k 0 L, appear independently
rather than through a composite parameter.
The results show that the extractable power is in excellent agree-
ment with long-wave theory, provided that ðμ; k0 LÞ ≪ 1. For larger
values of these parameters, the available power may vary from the
predictions of long-wave theory by an appreciable factor. The case
of long waves ðk 0 L ≤ 0:1Þ is of particular practical interest. In this
limit, the results show that maximum power extraction requires that
the turbine fence be placed at the channel mouth. The power in the
long-wave limit is found to scale with channel area as ð1 þ μÞ. This
provides a simple correction that removes one of the constraints
imposed by long-wave theory. Since this correction is just a means
of accounting for tidal variation of the channel volume, it does not
depend on the level of frictional damping in the channel. Moreover,
although this scaling is based on results with linear channel friction,
it may be expected also to hold for a quadratic drag law. Accord-
ingly, the results indicate that application of Eq. (1) to estimate the
extractable power should be made on the basis of the volume flux at
the channel mouth. If it is more practical to estimate the volume
flux into the basin, for example, by using tide gauge data from in-
side the basin, then Eq. (1) should be scaled by ð1 þ μÞ. This leaves
Eq. (1) unchanged for the case considered in Garrett and Cummins
(2005) of two large basins connected by a relatively short channel.
For larger values of the wave number parameter, long-wave
theory and Eq. (1) are inapplicable. The utility of the present model
is also limited; due to its idealized nature it cannot be applied
directly to provide an accurate estimate of the available power
in realistic settings. Nevertheless, the results indicate that the dis-
turbance to the tide at maximum power is reasonably predicted by
long-wave theory, well beyond its formal range of validity. In ad-
dition, away from the long-wave limit, the present results demon-
strate that no simple relation exists between the optimal location for
 a turbine fence and the channel currents in the undisturbed state
[e.g., Fig. 6]. Thus, unless the waves are long, it may be difficult
to determine from an inspection of the natural tidal flow where
along a channel the greatest power may be obtained. In such sit-
uations, experimentation with a detailed hydrodynamic model
(e.g., Sutherland et al. 2007; Karsten et al. 2008; Walkington
and Burrows 2009) may be the most effective means of establishing
the optimal location of a turbine fence and estimating the extract-
able power.
Appendix. Limits for Nondivergent Flow
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
neglects tidal modulation of the channel volume and accounts only
for variation of the basin volume. This is valid, provided that the
channel area is small compared to that of the basin.
References
ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. (2008). “Atlas of UK marine
renewable energy resources: Technical report.” Rep. No. R.1432,
Southhampton, UK.
Bedard, R., Jacobson, P. T., Previsic, M., Musial, W., and Varley, R. (2010).
“An overview of ocean renewable energy technologies.” Oceanography,
23(2), 22–31.

The conditions that must be satisfied for the flow to be nondiver- Blanchfield, J., Garrett, C., Wild, P., and Rowe, A. (2008a). “The extract-
gent in a tidal channel connecting two large basins were discussed able power from a channel linking a bay to the open ocean.” Proc. Inst.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

by Vennell (1998). Here, a uniform channel connecting a basin of
finite size to the open ocean is considered, omitting the effects of
advection and rotation that were included in Vennell (1998). In the
undisturbed state with no turbine drag, Eq. (8) may be solved sub-
ject to Eqs. (9) and (10). This yields the following expressions for
the elevation amplitude and channel current (Cummins et al. 2010):

1
~ζðx0 Þ ¼ cos kLx0
sin kL þ μ kL cos kL sin kLx0 ð23a Þ
cos kL
μ
1 kL sin kL
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:63-71.
Mech. Eng., Part A, 222(3), 289–297.
Blanchfield, J., Garrett, C., Rowe, A., and Wild, P. (2008b). “Tidal stream
power resource assessment for Masset Sound, Haida Gwaii.” Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng., Part A, 222(5), 485–492.
Boehlert, G. W., and Gill, A. B. (2010). “Environmental and ecological
effects of ocean renewable energy development: A current synthesis.”
Oceanography, 23(2), 68–81.
Cornett, A. (2006). “Inventory of Canada’s marine renewable energy
resources.” Technical Rep. CHC-TR-041, Canadian Hydraulics Centre,

National Research Council, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

  Cummins, P. F., Karsten, R. H., and Arbic, B. K. (2010). “The semi-diurnal
kL sin kL þ μ
1 kL cos kL tide in Hudson Strait as a resonant channel oscillation.” Atmos.-Ocean,
~uðx0 Þ ¼
i sin kLx0 þ cos kLx 0
ð1
iδ C Þ cos kL
μ
1 kL sin kL 48(3), 163–176.
Garrett, C., and Cummins, P. (2004). “Generating power from tidal
ð23b Þ
currents.” J. Waterw. Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 130(3), 114–118.
with kL ¼ k0 Lð1
iδ C Þ1=2 . Assuming finite μ, as k0 L → 0 these Garrett, C., and Cummins, P. (2005). “The power potential of tidal currents
in channels.” Proc. R. Soc. A, 461(2060), 2563–2572.
expressions may be approximated as
Garrett, C., and Cummins, P. (2007). “The efficiency of a turbine in a tidal

1 0 channel.” J. Fluid Mech., 588, 243–251.
~ζðx0 Þ ≈ 1
ðkLÞ2 ð1 þ μ Þx ≈ 1 ð24a Þ Garrett, C., and Greenberg, D. (1977). “Predicting changes in tidal regime:

1
1
μ ðkLÞ2 The open boundary problem.” J. Phys. Oceanogr., 7(2), 171–181.
  Hammons, T. J. (1993). “Tidal power.” Proc. IEEE, 81(3), 419–433.
kL kLð1 þ μ
1 Þ
~uðx0 Þ ≈
i kLx0 þ Karsten, R. H., McMillan, J. M., Lickley, M. J., and Haynes, R. D. (2008).
ð1
iδ C Þ 1
μ
1 ðkLÞ2 “Assessment of tidal current energy in the Minas Passage, Bay of
ðkLÞ2 Fundy.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 222(5), 493–507.
≈
i ½x0 þ ð1 þ μ
1 Þ ð24b Þ Polagye, B., Kawase, M., and Malte, P. (2009). “In-stream tidal energy
ð1
iδ C Þ potential of Puget Sound, Washington.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A,
223(5), 571–587.
Thus, in the long-wave limit, the elevation amplitude tends to
Sutherland, G., Foreman, M., and Garrett, C. (2007). “Tidal current energy
become uniform while the current magnitude varies linearly be- assessment for Johnstone Strait, Vancouver Island.” Proc. Inst. Mech.
tween the basin and the mouth. The ratio of the current (and hence Eng., Part A, 221(2), 147–157.
the ratio of the volume flux) at x0 ¼ 0 to that at x0 ¼
1 is Vennell, R. (1998). “Oscillating barotropic currents along short channels.”
~uð0Þ=~uð
1Þ ¼ 1 þ μ. Thus, for the volume flux to be approxi- J. Phys. Oceanogr., 28(8), 1561–1569.
mately constant along the channel, it is necessary that μ ≪ 1. Walkington, I., and Burrows, R. (2009). “Modelling tidal stream power
By assuming that the transport is nondivergent, long-wave theory potential.” Appl. Ocean Res., 31(4), 239–245.

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 71