1

Assignment

On

Galway Bay eThe 1/4 scale wave energy test site?

A detailed waveenergy resource
assessment and investigation of scaling factors

Submitted By
Concerned Teacher / Supervisor

Institution / Organization / Faculty

Date:
 2

Course instructions
 No need to include introduction, briefly talk through the Materials and method (section
2), and Test sites (section 3)
 Focus on Scaling analysis (section 4). Emphasize on the scaling effect, and how the effect
can render the results from physical modeling inaccurate.
Solutions
 Section 2 and 3 (Modeling system)
 Wave resource assessment
Three wave models were built using SWAN with a layering technique implementation for the
aim of a comprehensive wave resource evaluation in.
1. A coarse model
A coarse model, covers (Atan, Goggins & Nash, 2018) a vast portion of the northeast Atlantic
Ocean, ranging from 20 degrees west to 20 degrees east. The AMETS and GBTS sites are
covered by three high-resolution models with 0.0027 resolution (about 300 m) and three low-
resolution models with 0.05 resolutions (roughly 5.5 km). For the period of 2008, the coarse
model was verified against measured data at offshore wave stations across Ireland, as well as two
additional locations in Scotland seas (West) Hebrides (WH) and Black Stone (BS).
2. Model AMETS
At BA (2012e2013) and BB (2013e2014), the high resolution AMETS model was verified
against measured data (2010e2013)
3. Model GBTS
The high-resolution GBTS model has also been verified against GBTS measured data from 2011
to 2013. With R2 14 0.9 and bias 0.2 m, the GBTS model obtained excellent accuracy for HS at
GBTS and Westwave. Westwave's zero up-crossing wave period (TZ) has an excellent
correlation of R2 14 0.8 with a bias of 0.6s, but TZ at GBTS has a weaker correlation of R2 14
0.4. This is owing to a mix of modest water depths, complicated bathymetry characteristics, and
the bay's confined structure, as well as transitory local breezes. Similar findings were observed
for semi-enclosed areas (Wang, et al., 2018).
 TEST SITES:
HS, TE, and P were used to characterize the wave resource at both GBTS and West-wave, since
all of these characteristics are critical for WEC design, survivability, and energy extraction. HS,
 3

TE, MWD, and wavelength (lw) values were directly generated from the model in 30 minute
intervals from 2004 to 2015. The assessment follows a process similar to that given in Ref. [4],
which is discussed again here. Each wave parameter was evaluated separately in three stages:
1. Determining the means and maxima of each wave parameter;
2. Determining the threshold values that identify operational, high, and extreme occurrences;
3. Joint occurrence analyses: in the cases of HS and TE, with MWD, and in the case of P,
with HS and TE.
Annual and seasonal analyses are included in the first and second stages, with annual and
seasonal periods defined as:
 Annual: Jane Dec of the year of interest
 Winter: Dec of the previous year to Feb of year of interest
 Spring: Mare May of the year of interest
 Summer: Junee Aug of the year of interest
 Autumn: Septe Nov of the year of interest
There is a minor but significant difference between the yearly assessment period and the winter
assessment period. The winter period covers December of the previous year as well as January
and February of the current year, whereas the annual evaluation period runs from JaneDec of the
year of interest. As a result, there may be some slight differences between the yearly and
seasonal evaluation results. Furthermore, because boundary conditions for December 2003 were
not accessible (FNMOC data were not available), the winter 2004 only encompassed January and
February 2004.
When it comes to evaluating wave force, both GBTS and West wave are considered deep water.
Deep water may be defined by d/lw > 12 (d 14 water depth, lw 14 wave length)
2) Based on a linear theory assumption. The wave power per unit width of wave crest (kW/m) in
a normal sea condition may be estimated using deep water wave theory P 14 0:49H2. The
approach used by the authors to characterize the available wave resource at a place is depicted
visually.
The characterization of a certain wave parameter, g, is accomplished by displaying the
normalized wave parameter data and employing the event definitions listed below: that there is
significant change in HS periodically, notably during the winter and summer months, owing to
 4

refraction by the Aran Islands. MWD, on the other hand, showed virtually little seasonal
fluctuation (Bento, et al., 2015).

Section 4
 Scaling analysis:
A scaling analysis is a linear transformation that enlarges or decreases the size of things. Scale
invariance refers to the property of things or rules that does not change when length, energy, or
other variables are multiplied by a common factor (Bartelt, et al., 1992).

Importance: Scale is essential because the enormity of the challenges encountered in areas such
as poverty reduction, the environment, gender issues, and healthcare necessitate large-scale
solutions. They are frequently cross-border in character and are not limited to a single region.

Approaches to scaling: For the HS and TE involved, three scaling techniques were examined
yearly over a 12-year period:
(1) Mean ratio-based Froude scaling.
(2) Analyses of distribution fit.
(3) Froude scaling based on the assumption of a 1/4-scale test location.
(1) Froude scaling based on mean ratios.

Parameter Dimension Froude scale ratio

Geometric similarity
Length L Λ
Area L2 λ2
Volume L3 λ3
Rotation – 1
Kinematic similarity
Time T λ1/2
Velocity LT−1 λ1/2
Acceleration LT−2 1
Discharge L3T−1 λ5/2
Dynamic similarity
Mass M λ3
Force MLT−2 λ3
Pressure and stress ML−1T−2 Λ
Young’s modulus ML−1T−2 Λ
Energy and work ML2L−2 λ4
Power ML2T−3 λ7/2
 5

Froud scaling Conversion Factor

 Analyses of distribution fit

The wave parameters at GBTS, BA, and BB are first graphed to the nor-malised wave parameter
data in the second technique of employing distribution fittings analyses, as per the methodology.
The next stage is to find the best match between GBTS and lL2 143.4 and lL2 143.1, which were
used to upscale HS at GBTS to BA and BB, respectively.
 Froude scaling based on the assumption of a 1/4-scale test location
The third method was to explore the validity and feasibility of this assumption by utilizing
Froude scaling of l144 based on a 14-scale test site assumption to upscale GBTS to both berths at
AMETS. It should also be observed that the upscaled wave parameters at both berths are similar
since this scaling technique study only employed lL3 44 for HS and lP30.5 1440.5 for TE.
Scaling effect in physical modeling
Scaling effect is the adjustment that must be applied to measurements taken on a model in a wind
tunnel in order to get results for the full-sized item.
Though the phenomena of scaling's influence on the qualities and characteristics of things and
systems has been known for a long time, the emergence of "scaling laws" as a significant field of
scientific research is relatively new. This is largely owing to modern technology's greater
 6

reliance on miniaturization. Simultaneously, utilizing scaling effects to anticipate the behavior

and characteristics of a big system by testing on a small-scale model is an extremely valuable
technique. The underlying principles underpinning “scaling laws” have also been employed by
physicists under the moniker “dimensional analysis.” Many times, the features or qualities of a
system may be represented by combining multiple factors in such a way that each group is
dimensionless. As a result, any change in size, i.e., scale, has no effect on the magnitudes of
these quantities, and the performance of a system can be anticipated based on the performance of
a similar system of a different size. In recent years, the trend of downsizing in technology has
pushed “scaling laws” back to the forefront of associated design and manufacturing activities.
How the effect can render the results from physical modeling inaccurate?
Physical modeling inaccuracies include those caused by ambiguity in the design of mathematical
models and purposeful model simplifications. The notion of uncertainty is reinforced here,
because the Navier–Stokes equations can be regarded accurate and solving them is difficult for
most flows of technical relevance due to a lack of adequate knowledge to model them. Physical
models' sources of uncertainty are as follows (Sutton, et, al., 2015):
1. The phenomena are not fully comprehended.
2. The model's parameters are known to have some degree of ambiguity.
3. Appropriate models are simplified, introducing uncertainty.
4. Experimental confirmation of the models is either impossible or insufficient.
Turbulence frequently necessitates modeling, which poses enormous demands on computer
resources if directly simulated. Other phenomena, such as combustion, multi-phase flow,
chemical reactions, and so on, are difficult to represent precisely and must necessarily rely on
approximate models. Even Newton's and Fourier's laws are models, despite the fact that they are
firmly founded on experimental data for many fluids. Furthermore, while the underlying
mathematical model is essentially perfect, some fluid characteristics may not be precisely
understood. They are significantly affected by temperature, species concentration, and
potentially pressure; this dependency is neglected, resulting in modeling mistakes (for example,
the use of Boussinesq approximation for natural convection). Even when a physical process is
understood to a high level of precision, a simplified model may be used within the CFD code for
the convenience of a more efficient computation. Physical modeling mistakes are investigated by
conducting validation experiments on specific models.
 7

References
1. Atan, R., Goggins, J., & Nash, S. (2018). Galway Bay–The 1/4 scale wave energy test
site? A detailed wave energy resource assessment and investigation of scaling
factors. Renewable energy, 119, 217-234.

2. Bartelt, M. C., & Evans, J. W. (1992). Scaling analysis of diffusion-mediated island

growth in surface adsorption processes. Physical Review B, 46(19), 12675.

3. Bento, A. R., Martinho, P., & Soares, C. G. (2015). Numerical modelling of the wave
energy in Galway Bay. Renewable energy, 78, 457-466.

4. Sutton, J. E., Guo, W., Katsoulakis, M. A., & Vlachos, D. G. (2016). Effects of correlated
parameters and uncertainty in electronic-structure-based chemical kinetic
modelling. Nature chemistry, 8(4), 331.

5. Wang, W., Zhang, S., Su, Y., & Deng, X. (2018). Key factors to green building
technologies adoption in developing countries: The perspective of Chinese
Designers. Sustainability, 10(11), 4135.
8
9