See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228671649

The development of Oyster–A shallow water surging wave energy converter

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

83 2,124

6 authors, including:

Trevor Whittaker Matt Folley

Queen's University Belfast Queen's University Belfast
109 PUBLICATIONS   2,428 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   1,993 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alan Henry
Rockall Research Ltd
26 PUBLICATIONS   938 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Invest Northern Ireland Tidal Turbine Testing View project

Tandem Turbine Testing - Phase 3 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matt Folley on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The development of Oyster – A shallow water surging
wave energy converter
Trevor Whittaker1,2, David Collier2, Matt Folley1, Max Osterried1, Alan Henry1,
Michael Crowley2
1
Wave Energy Research Group, School of Planning Architecture and Civil Engineering,
Queen`s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5AG, UK
E-mail: t.whittaker@qub.ac.uk
2
Aquamarine Power Limited,
10 Saint Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2AF, UK
E-mail: dcollier@aquamarinepower.com

Abstract
In 2005 Aquamarine Power Ltd. was formed to
develop Oyster, a near shore flap which is hinge
connected to the sea bed. With a combination of
private equity and grant aid a 350kW Oyster module
has been designed and it is planned to install a
prototype module at the EMEC test site in Orkney
when the nearshore test berth is available. In this
version of Oyster high pressure sea water will be
pumped ashore to drive a Pelton wheel. Ultimately
it is envisaged that Oyster units will be arranged in
clusters feeding power to a power take off unit of
between 3.5 and 5 MW capacity. Arrays of clusters
will form power stations of 20 to 100 MW capacity.
An extensive research and development
programme has produced a very efficient structural
form, which gives Oyster one of the highest power
to weight ratios of all current technologies
combined with high capture factors in the most
commonly occurring seas. The sea bed foundations
and installation technique developed enables Oyster
to be easily removed and reinstalled for major
maintenance when required. This is a feature
normally associated with moored devices.
Although there are other bottom-hinged flap
devices, Oyster is different in several ways and
occupies a different part of the design space. For
example, unlike the other systems it completely
penetrates the water column from the water surface
to the sea bed. Although it might be considered that
such a system would be vulnerable in extreme seas,
extensive wave tank modelling has shown that the
flap intrinsically decouples from the wave as the
oscillation increases and that the wave loads
experienced are manageable in the three operational
modes; generating, undamped and parked on the sea
bed. However, model tests show that Oyster can
remain generating in all sea-states including
plunging breakers.
This paper charts the evolution of Oyster
presenting some of the research that has led to the
current design. An outline of the impending sea
trials of a prototype demonstration unit is given
along with the projected outcomes.
Keywords: Oyster, shallow water, flap, surging,
loads, performance
Introduction
The research group at Queen’s University Belfast
(QUB) has been actively involved in wave power
R&D since the mid 1970’s. Most importantly they
co-ordinated the design, construction and operation
of two full-scale prototype shoreline oscillating
water column (OWC) devices on the Isle of Islay.
The first of these was a 75kW machine completed in
1990 and operated for research purposes until 1999
when it was decommissioned. The second device,
LIMPET, [1], has a 500kW installed capacity and is
currently owned and operated by Wavegen. The
significance of the group’s work was recognised by
the award of The Royal Society ESSO Energy Prize
in 1994.
Experience gained from the Islay prototypes
indicated to the group that OWC’s are structurally
inefficient because of the need to enclose the
working surface (excluding cases where the
structural function can be shared e.g. breakwaters,
or can be formed cheaply e.g. by tunnelling in rock).
Consequently other solutions were sought that
substantially reduced the structural content of the
primary part of the converter. The most promising
solution considered resulted from the fact that in
water depths of around 10m the horizontal fluid
particle motion is amplified compared to that in
deeper water and that this could be exploited by
surging devices.
1. Background research
In 2002, with funding from the UK Engineering
and Physical Science Research Council, the team
began researching a group of devices which they
described as oscillating wave surge converters
(OWSC’s). The mechanically simplest form of this
family of devices is hinged flaps, with the hinge
either at the top or bottom. Initially only shoreline
configurations were considered and testing was
conducted in 2D in the 0.33m wide wave tank at
Queen’s. This led to the testing of nearshore
configurations and subsequently to 3D tests in a
4.5m wide wave tank. A 1:20 seabed slope similar
to that experienced off Islay was modelled at 1:40th
scale and a set of Bretschneider seas programmed
and weighted to be representative of the inshore
wave resource in the North Atlantic off the Western
Isles off Scotland. Top-hinged flaps located in a
recess with an inclined rear wall were initially tested
as they were considered the most logical evolution
from LIMPET, with the swinging flap and hydraulic
power take off replacing the OWC structure and air
turbine. The principal hydrodynamic shapes and the
models used are shown in figure 1.
Shoreline Nearshore
Figure 1 Configurations tested
Benchmarking experiments were performed, as
described by Folley et al [2], in which the OWSC
was compared to LIMPET, [3], and the Japanese
Pendulor device, [4]. These showed that the flap
devices were substantially better than the inclined
water column in the shorter period lower energy
seas while the reverse was true in the longer period
high energy seas. This demonstrated one of the most
desirable features of flap devices, their natural
tendency to increase capture efficiency in the
smaller, most commonly occurring, seas. Compared
to OWC’s with the opposite characteristic, this
enables the installation of a smaller capacity PTO
system on flaps which runs at a higher load factor
and this natural decoupling characteristic aids
survivability in the large high energy seas.
Although shoreline mounted top-hinged flaps are
a potentially viable system, it was decided to
concentrate on the nearshore configuration because
of its greater commercial potential. This
configuration evolved into a simple bottom-hinged
flap fastened to the seabed without any surrounding
structure and named OysterTM.
2. Description of OysterTM
In its present configuration OysterTM is
essentially a wave powered hydroelectric plant
located at a nominal water depth of 12m which in
many locations is relatively close to the shoreline.
The system comprises a buoyant flap, 18m wide and
10m high, hinged at its base to a sub-frame which is
pinned to the sea bed using tensioned anchors. The
surge component in the waves forces the flap to
oscillate which in turn compresses and extends two
hydraulic cylinders mounted between the flap and
the sub-frame which pumps water at high pressure
through a pipeline back to the beach On the shore is
a modified hydro-electric plant consisting of a
Pelton wheel turbine driving a variable speed
electrical generator coupled to a flywheel. Power
flow is regulated using a combination of hydraulic
accumulators, an adjustable spear valve, a flywheel
in the mechanical power train and rectification and
inversion of the electrical output. An outline
schematic of the 350kW unit to be installed at the
EMEC test site off Orkney is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2 General arrangement of OysterTM
3. Hydrodynamic performance
The hydrodynamic performance of Oyster has
been assessed and enhanced using a combination of
analytical, numerical and experimental modelling.
This has formed an integral part of the design loop
as results from model tests have been used to
develop the analytical theory of how Oyster works,
which in turn has been used to identify the
appropriate model testing to be performed. Wave-
tank modelling of Oyster was initially performed
using a 1/40th scale model, whilst the most recent
testing has been done at 1/20th scale. All testing has
been carried out in the wave-tank at Queen's
University Belfast, which has 6 sector-carrier wave
makers capable of generating complex and realistic
sea-states. Although some monochromatic testing
has been undertaken, the majority of the testing has
used sea-states with a Bretschneider spectrum.
A time-domain numerical model of the Oyster
hydrodynamics and PTO system has been developed
using a second-order differential equation of the
hydrodynamics and calibrated using results from the
wave-tank model. Even though for computation
speed and model simplicity the numerical model
lacks the convolution integral or additional modes
typically seen in a hydrodynamic model, it has
typically predicted the average power capture of
Oyster to within 10% of that obtained with the
wave-tank experimentation. This is related to the
relatively small magnitude of the wave radiation
forces.
The modelling undertaken indicates that Oyster
operates by coupling strongly with the incident
waves, without being highly tuned; that is, there is a
large wave torque and the natural pitching
frequency is not close to the predominant incident
wave frequencies. It is shown elsewhere, Folley et
al. [5], that the coincidence of natural tuning and
maximised wave torque are largely mutually
exclusive for this type of wave energy converter.
However, in shallow water the benefits of tuning are
limited due to motion constraints and viscous losses
at large amplitudes of motion, though it is still
beneficial to maximise the flap pitch stiffness with
excess buoyancy to keep the natural pitch frequency
as close as economically possible to the most
common incident wave frequencies.
 The wave force experienced by Oyster is related
to the change in horizontal acceleration of the water
particle motions and thus tends to increase in
shallow water due to shoaling. For a 10 second
wave in a water depth of 12 metres, this is
equivalent to an increase of 50% in the wave force
experienced relative to the force experienced in
deep water Folley et al. [6]. Maximum interaction
with the horizontal acceleration of the water
particles and hence wave force occurs when the flap
and substructure penetrates the full depth from sea
bed to surface. For such a flap that is only a fraction
of a wavelength wide the wave force increases
approximately as the square of the flap width
resulting in a relatively wide flap. However,
maximum width is limited by the reduction in
performance due to wave force phase incoherence
across the flap, together with structural and
installation considerations. Figure 3 shows the
capture factor, defined as the percentage of the flap
width from which 100% of the incident energy is
extracted, in a variety of sea states.
0.8
Capture factor
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Figure 3 Capture factor vs sea state & flap
width
These results show that the capture factor is
largest with the smallest sea-states, short energy
periods and small significant wave heights, which
help to even out the power capture. Indeed results
from the numerical simulation indicate that the
power capture is almost independent of wave energy
period and depends primarily on significant wave
height, though it is currently unclear if this is due to
an underlying characteristic, or whether it is a mere
coincidence.
The average power capture of the device
deployed adjacent to a typical North Atlantic coast
was calculated by taking the performance in each
sea multiplied by an occurrence weighting factor.
This was determined by weighting each sea to give
an annual average exploitable incident wave energy
of 19 kW/m. This produces an average power output
at the hydraulic cylinders of around 200kW. A
much more extensive analysis based on 26,500 seas
calculated from 19 years of hindcast wave data at
the EMEC test site produced a similar performance
figure.
As with any other wave power device, reducing
losses such as vortex shedding losses around the
edges increases the power output of Oyster. This
can be achieved by either thickening the flap as a
whole or just the edges. Though an increase in
power capture was found in both the numerical and
wave-tank models, the increase was relatively
modest and could not be justified for a prototype; it
is possible that future production models will have a
more complex, optimised, shape.
The Oyster wave energy converter is directly
connected to the seabed in a water depth of
approximately 12 metres so that tidal level would be
expected to have an effect on the hydrodynamics
and power capture. At high tide the Oyster flap will
be more submerged and the waves overtop the flap
more easily reducing the wave force and therefore
the power capture. At low tide the maximum
amplitude of motion of the centre of wave pressure
is effectively reduced because it is closer to the
flap’s axis of rotation, which reduces the power
capture in the more energetic sea-states. That power
capture typically reduces at both high and low tide
is expected since the freeboard and design of the
flap has been optimised for the mean water level
(MWL); however, the reduction in power capture at
different tide levels is of importance.
Taking the tidal variation for the EMEC wave
energy test site as an example, although the stated
tidal range is approximately 3.0 metres, for 90% of
the time the water level is less than 1.0 metres from
the mean. The effect of water depth has been
investigated using the wave-tank model and figure 4
shows the average power capture for the six
standard sea-states at 1.0m above MWL, MWL and
1.0m below MWL obtained from these tests. The
reduction in power capture at high and low tide is
typically less than 12%. Thus, whilst there is a small
reduction in power capture with tidal variation, the
Oyster wave energy converter is relatively
unaffected by typical variations in tidal level.
0.8 +1.0 m MWL
0.7 MWL
Capture factor
0.6 -1.0 m MWL
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Figure 4 Power capture variation vs tide
The directional variation and spread of the
incident waves will also influence the power capture
of Oyster because it couples with the surge
component of the waves, which have an azimuthal
orientation and the wave force reduces when the
wave’s crest is not parallel to the flap’s face. For a
small body it would be expected that the wave force
will reduce in proportion to the cosine of the angle
between the direction of wave propagation and the
orientation of Oyster’s flap, which would typically
result in a reduction in power capture proportional
to the cosine squared. As the Oyster flap gets wider
the reduction in wave force will be greater due to
incoherence of the wave acting on the flap. WAMIT
has been used to investigate the reduction in wave
force, which shows that for the 18 metre wide in both the extreme and the most frequently
Oyster the reduction in wave force is only slightly occurring seas. This data provided the input to both
greater than for a small body as shown in figure 5 the foundation design and the fatigue analysis of the
structure. The tests were conducted in the 4.5m wide
1
7
wave tank at Queen’s university using a purpose
0.9
built load table on which a 40th scale model of
Normalised wave torque

9
0.8
11 OysterTM was mounted.
0.7 13
0.6
Two distinct sets of experiments were conducted
Cos
0.5 to meet different objectives. In the first set the
0.4 envelope of the maximum loads was measured in a
0.3 range of seas up to the most extreme seas which
0.2 exist at a water depth of up to 12.4m. In the second
0.1 set the most commonly occurring seas were used in
0 order to provide data for the fatigue analysis of the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 structure.
Oscillator angle (degrees)
In OysterTM the torque transmitted from the flap
to the foundations is limited by the torque applied
Figure 5 Wave force WAMIT, vs
by the PTO system and there are three operational
orientation modes to consider; the flap parked on the sea bed,
free undamped oscillation and generating. As
This reduction in wave force and power capture
expected the highest vertical loads were experienced
with angle of incidence has been verified using the
with the flap parked on the sea bed due to the
wave-tank model, and figure 6 shows that the
pressure produced by the plunging breakers on the
reduction in power capture is approximately
surface above. As these are acting downwards they
proportional to the Cos of the angle of incidence to
are easy to accommodate. Undamped oscillation
the power 2.1.
18m Flap n=2.1
resulted in the lowest surge loads. However,
350 although the surge loads are 50% higher in the
300
Te = 7 s, Pi = 10 kW/m generating mode, the foundations are designed to
Te = 9 s, Pi = 20 kW/m
Te = 11 s, Pi = 20 kW/m withstand these to allow generation during extreme
250 Te = 13 s, Pi = 40 kW/m
seas. The coincidence of heave and surge loads
Power captured (kW)

200 whilst generating in an extreme sea is given in

150
figure 7.
100

50

0 20 40 60 80
Flap angle (degrees)

Figure 6 Power reduction with orientation

To estimate the effect that the directional spread

of the incident waves will have on power capture a
non-linear wave propagation model is used to Figure 7 Coincidence of heave and surge
transform the waves from offshore to the proposed loads
location of the Oyster prototype to be deployed at
the EMEC wave energy test site on the 10 metre One of the perceived problems with bottom
depth contour, (relative to chart datum). Applying hinged flaps is the possibility of them hitting the sea
the reduction in power capture derived from the bed when undamped. This was tested by focussing
wave-tank model testing to the EMEC data indicates the seas on the model to produce an extreme
that with the optimal orientation of the flap the plunging breaker. After repeated tests with different
power capture is reduced by about 3% due to the sea-states the maximum oscillation observed was
directional variation of the incident waves. This less than 800 from the vertical. Excess buoyancy in
relatively small reduction in power capture due to the flap, decoupling from the wave as the oscillation
directionality is due to the inherent tendency for the angle increases and a squeeze film effect between
most energetic waves to come from a relatively the flap and the sea bed limits the angular excursion.
narrow sector orientated in a westerly direction and Figure 8 shows the model about to be hit by a
because as the water depth decreases the wave plunging breaker and figure 9 the effect on rotation.
fronts refract to become more parallel to the depth
contours.

4. Wave loading and survivability

Survivability is the first and most important
achievement of any wave power system and
consequently a substantial part of the test
programme has been wave load testing. The
objective was to ascertain the envelope of heave,
surge and torque loads on the foundations of Oyster

Figure 8 Wave loading – extreme seas
Figure 9 Flap rotation after impact
5. Installation and recovery
A major cost in marine renewables which is often
underestimated is installation and long term
maintenance. A perceived advantage of moored
devices is that they can be readily disconnected and
towed to port for major maintenance. This is more
difficult with devices attached to the sea bed. A key
development with Oyster has been the design of a
system which enables self installation and removal
with the aid of small service vessels. As the flap and
the sub-frame is an integral unit the flap provides
the buoyancy to control the lowering of the sub-
frame onto the sea bed foundation pads. Once the
sub frame is locked into the clamping mechanisms
the chambers in the flap are flooded sinking it onto
the sea bed thus enabling divers to make the final
connections next to a static object. When the
installation is complete the flap is de-ballasted and
the unit commences generation. The procedure is
reversed for removal in the event of the requirement
for major maintenance.
6. Future prospects
The ultimate objective is to build wave power
stations of 20 to 100MW. Oyster is a modular
system with the individual flaps arranged in clusters
feeding power to a single PTO system of between 3
and 5MW capacity. Research is underway to
determine the hydrodynamic performance of
clusters of flaps in different geometric patterns. In
addition during the next 12 months work will be
ongoing modelling the PTO system with multiple
hydraulic inputs to a single Pelton wheel and
generator. With device clusters it is expected that
phase variation between the units will result in a
smoother power output as well as economies on
foundations due to phase cancellation of loads.
The first Oyster demonstrator will provide
essential information on cost and performance
which will enable the development of a techno-
economic model to assist the design process in
future. This will permit the detailed engineering
design to evolve based on ‘real sea’ experience and
the ‘real cost’ of components. During the first 12
months of the sea trials five stages of achievement
have been identified;
Installation and survival
Conversion of sea power to a hydraulic output
Raw electrical power output
System control to improve power quality
Detailed design of a cluster
A further aspect of the future development
programme will be wave powered desalination by
feeding the high pressure water directly to reverse
osmosis tubes.
7. Concluding remarks
The Oyster wave power system is about to be
demonstrated after an extensive research and
development programme during the last six years. It
is a wave powered hydroelectric plant in which a
nearshore bottom hinged flap pumps water ashore to
drive a Pelton wheel coupled to a generator. The
most significant aspects are;
Exploitation of the amplified surge component in
shallow to intermediate depth water
Highest capture efficiency in most commonly
occurring seas with a full depth flap from sea bed to
surface.
Continued generation in extreme seas without
excessive PTO capacity due to the flap’s natural
characteristic of decoupling as the angle of rotation
increases.
One of the highest power to structural weight
ratios relative to other systems under development.
The development of an installation and removal
system which can be undertaken in short weather
windows without specialist vessels.
A modular system in which individual flaps can
be arranged in clusters pumping water to a single
PTO system of up to 5MW capacity. The clusters
can be combined in 100MW arrays.
Acknowledgements
The work described has been funded by
Aquamarine Power Ltd, The Department of Trade
and Industry in the UK, The Scottish Executive and
The Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council.
References
[1] T. Heath, T.J.T. Whittaker, and C.B.
Boake. The Design, Construction and
Operation of the LIMPET Wave Energy
Converter (Islay, Scotland). in 4th European
Wave Energy Conference. Aalborg, Denmark,
2000
 [2] M. Folley, T. Whittaker, and M. Osterried.
The Oscillating Wave Surge Converter. in
Fourteenth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference. Toulon, France, 2004
[3] T. Whittaker, W.C. Beattie, M. Folley, C.
Boake, M. Wright, and M. Osterried.
Performance of the LIMPET wave power plant
- prediction, measurement and potential. in 5th
European Wave Energy Conference. Cork,
Ireland, 2003
[4] T. Watabe, H. Yokouchi, S. Gunawardane,
B. Obeyesekera, and U. Dissanayake.
Preliminary study of wave energy utilisation in
Sri Lanka. in ISOPE. Stavanger, Norway, 2001
View publication stats
[5] M. Folley, T. Whittaker, and J. van't Hoff.
The design of small seabed-mounted bottom-
hinged wave energy converters. in 5th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference.
Porto, Portugal, 2007
[6] M. Folley, T.J.T. Whittaker, and A. Henry,
The effect of water depth on the performance
of a small surging wave energy converter.
Ocean Engineering, 34(8-9): p. 1265-1275,
2007