www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Renewable Power Generation
Received on 8th November 2011
Revised on 18th April 2013
Accepted on 4th June 2013
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214

ISSN 1752-1416

Power optimisation of a point absorber wave energy

converter by means of linear model predictive control
Markus Richter1, Mario E. Magaña2, Oliver Sawodny1, Ted K.A. Brekken2
1
Institute for System Dynamics, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart 70049 Germany
2
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
E-mail: magana@eecs.oregonstate.edu

Abstract: This study presents a model predictive control (MPC) scheme for a wave energy converter (WEC); in particular, for a
buoy-type point absorber. The WEC is a two-body system which is taut-moored to the sea floor with three cables. Much research
has been done recently to achieve optimal operation of WECs. The goal is to maximise the power conversion without violating
system limits. In practice, there are physical constraints on position, velocity and the power take-off (PTO) force. MPC is a
promising and beneficial approach to achieve this goal. It poses a control formulation including constraints in a natural way.
Furthermore, MPC can exploit predictions for the sea motion a standard MPC approach always needs a reference trajectory.
For one-body point absorber, an optimal velocity trajectory can be calculated. However, an optimal trajectory is not easily
available for the two-body case. The proposed formulation in the presented work does not require an optimal trajectory. For
this reason it is possible to apply this MPC scheme to a two-body model as well. This work demonstrates that the proposed
control algorithm optimises the power extraction without violating the system constraints. Finally, the performance of MPC is
compared to linear passive load control through simulation.

1 Introduction account. For these assumptions, it was already shown that

The ocean is a source of an enormous amount of energy.
According to [1], the ocean holds approximately 8000–80
000 TWh/year or 1–10 TW. Comparing this to the world’s
annual energy consumption of approximately 148 000 TWh
in 2008 [2] shows that wave energy could play an
important role in the world’s energy portfolio. Therefore
converting this energy into useful power has been a field of
interest for many years. Nevertheless, the commercialisation
and implementation of wave energy converter (WEC)
devices are in its early stages [3]. One reason for that is the
large variety of different technical approaches to capture
wave energy. For a comprehensive review of the current
state of wave energy technologies, the reader is referred to
the review by Falcão [4].
This paper focuses exclusively on point absorbers. A point
absorber is a device with small extension compared to the
incident wavelength. It captures energy from all directions
at one point by at least one floating body which is moved
by the waves. Usually the exploited motion is only the
heave direction. Even though only point absorbers are
considered in this work, the model predictive control
(MPC) scheme could be used for other classes of WECs as
well.
In the past, much work has been done on control
algorithms such as latching control for WECs and on
optimising the energy conversion [5–7]. Most of these
studies assume a semi-submerged single-body heaving
point absorber and often mooring forces are not taken into
the maximum power capture of a point absorber can be
calculated by means of impedance matching of the
linearised equivalent electrical circuit [7, 8]. This means
that the control law alters the resonant frequency of the
system to resonate with the dominant wave frequency. This
control is called reactive control or phase and amplitude
control [7]. Candido and Justino [9] presented a control law
based on the Pontryagin principle in order to control a
two-body device. In regular wave conditions, the generated
power increases significantly. However, the benefit for
irregular wave data is much smaller.
In practice, an appropriate control strategy has to respect
the physical limits of the device, such as motion amplitudes
and machinery forces. Reactive control and linear passive
load control, for instance, do not explicitly ensure that
constraints are satisfied. In order to guarantee the
maintenance of physical limits, these control methods
require specific modifications. In case the future wave
excitation force can be predicted, MPC is a promising
approach to optimise the absorbed power while respecting
system limits, since constraint handling is naturally included
in the MPC framework.
So far, most of the works on MPC in this field have been
focused on one-body models without considering mooring
forces. Since MPC yields good results in these cases
[10, 11], it can be expected that MPC is a useful approach
for the two-body case as well. However, the proposed MPC
approaches so far utilise the availability of an optimal
velocity trajectory which can be calculated for the one-body

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215 203
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
case using the results of the reactive control theory. An
optimal reference is not easily available for two-body
models, especially if mooring forces are present. Thus,
these model predictive controllers cannot deal with more
realistic two-body models of point absorbers in case a
reference trajectory cannot be determined.
This work presents a special formulation of the MPC
problem that allows the application of MPC without the
need for a reference trajectory. On this account, the
presented formulation is well justified for controlling a
two-body WEC. It can be shown that the proposed control
approach is able to generate much more power than passive
load control while satisfying the constraints.
Besides, a hydrodynamic model of a two-body point
absorber with mooring is derived in order to apply MPC. It
needs to be noted that the focus is on the novel MPC
approach and not on the modelling of the device. The
presented model predictive controller can be easily adjusted
and thus, applied to different linear two-body models of
point absorbers.
The paper is organised as follows: In Section 2, a
hydrodynamic two-body model of the point absorber in the
time domain, which emphasizes the mooring configuration
and the formulation as a discrete–time state-space model, is
presented. Section 3 deals with the MPC algorithm and
how to formulate this problem as a quadratic optimisation
problem. Furthermore, two different approaches to handle
possible infeasibility problems are shown before giving an
insight into the implementation of the model predictive
controller. In Section 4, simulation results of both
approaches with irregular wave data are compared.
Additionally, the influence of the horizon length and the
step time of the control algorithm is discussed by means of
simulation results. Furthermore, the proposed controller is
compared to a linear passive load controller. Section 5
presents the conclusions of the research work.
2 Point absorber model
As stated before, this paper deals with a two-body point
absorber also known as an oscillating body type WEC [1].
This WEC is able to capture energy from all directions at
one point in the ocean and is usually deployed on the open
sea at the ocean surface. The left side of Fig. 1 shows the
point absorber named L10, developed at the Oregon State
University. The L10 consists of two bodies, a buoy floating
Fig. 1 L10 WEC [12] (left) and schematic diagram (right)
204
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
on the surface of the ocean and a damping body, here a
combination of a spar and a ballast tank. In the following,
the combination of the spar and the ballast tank is simply
denoted by spar. The two bodies are connected through a
power take-off (PTO) system in order to convert the relative
motion into usable power. The L10 is an example of a
direct-drive WEC. In this case, the kinetic energy that
involves the relative motion of the two bodies is converted
directly into electrical energy by means of a linear
generator without converting energy into mechanical energy
as in hydraulic PTO systems. Furthermore, the spar is
moored to the sea floor in order to ensure station-keeping.
In general, a point absorber can move in 6° of freedom, but
only the heave motion is used to absorb energy in most
cases. Therefore, the proposed model is restricted to heave
motion (up and down) only.
Practical considerations of constructability and
hydrodynamic stability dominated the design process. The
wide saucer shape of the buoy results in a high hydrostatic
stiffness (i.e. buoyancy). This design is not intended to
resonate, but instead ensure the buoy vertical position
‘follows’ the water surface. This provides ample prime
mover force for the electrical generator. The generator is
designed electrically for approximately 10 kW of average
output power in a sufficiently energetic sea state.
2.1 Equations of motion (EOM)
Much work has already been done on modelling two-body
point absorbers. The herein presented modelling follows the
works of Eidsmoen [13] and Ruehl et al. [3]. In order to
derive the EOM for the two bodies in the time-domain,
some significant assumptions are made:
† The formulation is based on linear wave theory (LWT).
† Frequency-dependent parameters of the L10 are assumed
to be constant.
† The added masses denoted by A† are the body’s added
masses at infinite frequency A†(∞).
† Although a small section of the spar is outside the water,
the spar is assumed to be completely submerged during
operation. This assumption is made since the dynamic of
the spar is mostly dependent on the dynamic of the tank
which is completely submerged.
† The spar is taut-moored with three cables. The pretension
of the cables is induced by the buoyancy forces of the spar.
Therefore, the spar’s buoyancy force can be neglected.
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214
 www.ietdl.org
† Owing to the pretension in the cables, the cables are
considered to behave like springs.
† Cross-coupled radiation terms due to velocity-based
damping are neglected.

As can be seen on the right side of Fig. 1, z1 denotes the

position of the buoy and z2 is the position of the spar.
Based on Newton’s law, the dynamic equations of the buoy
can be written as

FPTO + Fe1 − Fr1 − Fh1 − Fr12 = m1 z̈1 (1)

where z̈1 is the buoy acceleration, m1 is the mass of the buoy,

Fe1 is the excitation force induced by the incoming waves and
FPTO is the force produced by the PTO system. FPTO
represents the manipulable input to control the system and Fig. 2 Mooring configuration with three cables (left) and
Fe1 represents a non-manipulable system disturbance. schematic diagram for force derivation (right)
According to [7], the radiation force based on LWT can be
calculated by

Fr1 = A1 z̈1 + b1 ż1
where A1 is the buoy’s added mass at frequency infinity and
b1 is its radiation damping. The hydrostatic force is the
restoring force of the water and can be written as
(2) much smaller than the rope lengths. Furthermore, the force
Fc is applied at the extreme of segment L and not at the
extreme of segment L’. This simplification is valid since
g ≪ 1 is assumed. According to Hook’s law, the mooring
force Fc in the direction of the cable can be written as

Fh1 = g rprbuoy
2
z1 = k1 z1 (3) Fc = −K(L′ − L) (9)

where g is the acceleration of gravity, ρ is the density of where K is the cable stiffness. The vertical mooring force Fm
seawater, rbuoy is the radius of the buoy. The coefficient k1 for all three cables in total is then
is considered as the hydrostatic stiffness whose linearity
depends on the actual shape of the floater and on the Fm = 3Fc sin (a) (10)
magnitude of the motions. Furthermore, there is a coupled
radiation force resulting from the interaction of the two
bodies. Here, the coupling radiation force Fr12 is acting Using the cosine theorem yields
from the spar on the buoy and, after neglecting the
cross-coupling terms, can be written as Fm = −3K sin(a)































p   (11)
Fr12 = A12 z̈2 (4)
L2 + z22 − 2Lz2 cos + a − L
2
The same procedure can be applied to the second body. It
follows that However, this is a non-linear law for the mooring. It is
expected that linearisation around z2 = 0 yields good results,
−FPTO + Fe2 − Fr2 − Fr21 + Fm = m2 z̈2 (5) sincez2 ≪ L. The linearisation gives
Fr2 = A22 z̈2 + b2 ż2 (6)  dF 
Fm, lin = Fm z2 = 0 + m z2 = 0 z2
Fr21 = A21 z̈1 (7) dz2

z2 − L cos (p/2) + a
Fm = −3K(sin a)2 z2 = −Km z2 (8) = −3K sin (a)




































L2 + z22 − 2Lz2 cos (p/2) + a
There is no restoring or buoyancy force for the spar, since it is p 
assumed that this force causes the pretension in the mooring 
z2 = 0 z2 = 3K sin (a) cos + a z2
cables. It should be noted that according to hydrodynamic 2
principles, A12 = A21 holds. = −3K sin (a)2 z2 = −Km z2
The mooring force is dependent on the adopted
configuration. Typically, mooring cables only apply force in (12)
tension. However, there is a significant pretension in the
cables due to the buoyancy forces of the spar. Thus, a This holds for z2 > 0. The same result with the opposite
spring-like behaviour of the cable forces is assumed. In this sign follows for z2 < 0. Even for large displacements such
paper, a taut-moored buoy with three cables is considered as 0.5 m, the difference between the non-linear and the
as shown in Fig. 2. The three mooring cables are linear mooring force calculation is only 0.04% for a cable
configured like a tripod and there is an angle α with respect length of 170 m. Hence, the linear case is a very good
to the sea floor. α is assumed to be constant. The changes approximation and the mooring force can be written as
can be neglected since the displacements are generally in (8).

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215 205
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Many assumptions are made in order to derive this model.   
z̈2 m2 + A2 − A21 A12 / m1 + A1
On this account, the time-domain model is not very accurate if  
applied to irregular waves. Hydrodynamic coefficients like me2
added mass and radiation damping are changing with
frequency. Thus, the assumption of constant values for = −FPTO + Fe2 − b2 ż2
these coefficients is actually only valid for monochromatic (16)
A21 A21 A b
waves and for linear systems. Furthermore, the simplified − F − F + 21 1 ż
m1 + A1 PTO m1 + A1 e1 m1 + A1 1
formulation of the radiation forces as well is only correct
when fully linear systems are considered. Certainly, the A21 Km
+ z − K m z2
actual WEC is non-linear and a wave is not monochromatic. m1 + A1 1
Therefore, the dynamic of the presented model can
significantly differ if radiation forces are considered to be Now, it is possible to find a state-space formulation with the
non-linear and frequency-dependent. Nevertheless, the  T
important dynamic behaviour of the WEC is mapped by state vector x = z1 ż1 z2 ż2 and the initial conditions
 T
the presented model. Furthermore, it has to be noted that x0 = 0 0 0 0 . Moreover, it is assumed that the entire
the presented control approach is applicable to very state is measurable. The system in state-space form can be
different kinds of linear point absorber models. A more written as
precise model, for example, could include convolution
integrals accounting for the radiation effects of the x = Ax + BFPTO + B1 Fe1 + B2 Fe2
body’s motion. If convolution terms are considered, they (17)
could be approximated by a linear state-space model by y=x
methods described in [14, 15]. The resulting expanded
linear model could be easily integrated into the framework
where (see (18)) ⎡ ⎤
presented here. 0
⎢ 1 + A
 12 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ me1 me1 m2 + A2 ⎥
⎢
B=⎢ ⎥ (19)
2.2 State-space form and discretisation 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 A21 ⎦
In order to control the WEC via MPC, a discrete state-space − − 
formulation is necessary. Equations (1)–(8) can be m e2 m e2 m 1 + A 1
reformulated as ⎡ ⎤
0
⎢ 1 ⎥
FPTO + Fe1 − b1 ż1 − k1 z1 − A12 z̈2 ⎢ ⎥
= z̈1 ⎢ m e1 ⎥
m1 + A1
(13) B1 = ⎢
⎢
⎥,
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ A21 ⎦
− 
m e2 m 1 + A 1
−FPTO + Fe2 − b2 ż2 − Km z2 − A21 z̈1
= z̈2 (14) ⎡ ⎤ (20)
m2 + A2 0
⎢ A
 12 ⎥
⎢− ⎥
⎢ m e1 m 2 + A 2 ⎥
Transforming these equations in state-space form requires B2 = ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
substituting (13) into (14) and vice versa to get rid of the ⎣ 1 ⎦
coupling terms A21 z̈1 and A12 z̈2 . The equations can be
restated as m e2

   In what follows, the inputs FPTO , Fe1 and Fe2 are denoted by
z̈1 m1 + A1 − A12 A21 / m2 + A2 u, v and w, respectively. The MPC needs a discrete–time
 
me1 system representation whose sampling time h has to be the
same as the step time Δt for the MPC optimisation. Let
= FPTO + Fe1 − b1 ż1 − k1 z1 xk = x(kh). Assuming a zero-order hold for all inputs, the
(15) following discrete system can be obtained [16]
A12 A12 A b
+ F − F + 12 2 ż
m2 + A2 PTO m2 + A2 e2 m2 + A2 2
xk+1 = Ad xk + Bd uk + Bd 1 vk + Bd 2 wk , x 0 [ R4
A12 Km (21)
+ z yk = xk
m2 + A2 2

⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 0
⎢ − 1
k
− 1
b A K
 12 m  12 2 ⎥
A b
⎢ ⎥
⎢ m m me1 m2 + A2 me1 m2 + A2 ⎥
⎢
A=⎢
e1 e1
⎥ (18)
0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ A21 k1 A21 b1 Km b2 ⎦
  − −
me2 m1 + A1 me2 m1 + A1 m e2 m e2

206 IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214
 www.ietdl.org
3 Model predictive control relative position cp, velocity cv and input cu constraint. N
denotes the length of the time horizon as the number of steps.
Generally, the dominant objective for controlling WECs is to In order to decrease the computational effort, the problem
maximise the absorption capabilities during operation. For the will be formulated only in terms of the input variables,
point absorber L10, control is even more important since the similar to the work in [17]. A closed-form expression for all
design of the L10 is not intended to resonate with the waves. states xk that only depends on uk and x0 can be formulated
Thereby, the force produced by the generator is the control by solving the system and substituting in the system (24)
signal which needs to be adjusted. Additionally, operating
the L10 safely implies respecting some physical constraints.
The first thing to consider is that the generator cannot apply x1 = Ad x0 + Bd u0 + Bd 1 v0 + Bd 2 w0
arbitrary forces. Besides, the available stroke length for the
buoy is limited. Therefore a suitable control algorithm x2 = Ad x1 + Bd u1 + Bd 1 v1 + Bd 2 w1
needs to consider and respect constraints.
= A2d x0 + Ad Bd u0 + Bd u1 + Ad Bd 1 v0 + Bd 1 v1 (28)
Applying a MPC algorithm to the WEC, it is possible to
maximise the power extraction while satisfying the physical + Ad Bd 2 w0 + Bd 2 w1
limits of the WEC. Basically, the MPC tries to solve an
optimisation problem at every time step regarding certain ..
constraints and future predictions in order to calculate the .
input signal u. Therefore, it needs an explicit model to
predict the output over a horizon Thor and in this case Continuing this procedure and using the augmented vectors
predictions of the excitation forces. Moreover, the key idea defined by
is to recalculate the solution at every time step with updated
data and applying only the first input signal to the process.
A high degree of freedom exists in how to formulate the  T
X = xT1 , xT2 , . . . , xTN
objective function. In general, the objective function
 T
includes a reference term which the system output has to U = u0 , u1 , . . . , uN −1
follow and a term that describes energy use. As stated  T (29)
earlier, there exists an optimal trajectory for the one-body V = v0 , v1 , . . . , vN −1
model to follow. For instance, this is used as reference in  T
the work of Brekken [10]. The problem here is that this W = w0 , w1 , . . . , wN −1
strategy cannot be used for the two-body case. Therefore, in
this paper, a direct power optimisation formulation without
a reference is used. This formulation results in a convex with dim (X ) = 4N and dim (U, V, W) = N yields
cost function (see Appendix 1). Convexity is an important
characteristic for optimisation problems. Usually, convex
X = J x x0 + J u U + J v V + J w W (30)
problems are much easier to solve numerically.

3.1 Problem formulation where

The goal for the formulation of the objective function is to ⎡ ⎤

have a term that contains the generated power and one that Ad
evaluates the energy use of the input signal. The first term ⎢ A2d ⎥
⎢ 3⎥
⎢ ⎥
needs to be maximised, whereas the second term needs to J x = ⎢ Ad ⎥ (31)
be minimised. So, the following optimisation problem can ⎢ . ⎥
⎣ .. ⎦
be defined
 And
min J xk , uk (22)
xk , u k
⎡ ⎤
where Bd 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Ad Bd Bd 0 0 ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
 N
⎢  2 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
J xk , uk = − ⎣−q ż1, k − ż2, k uk−1 −ruk−1 ⎦ (23) Ju = ⎢ A B
⎢ d d
Ad Bd Bd 0 ⎥
⎥ (32)
k=1
  ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
−Pgen ⎢ . . . ⎥
⎣ ⎦
subject to ANd −1 Bd ANd −2 Bd Bd
xk+1 = Ad xk + Bd uk + Bd 1 vk + Bd 2 wk (24)
⎡ ⎤
Bd 1 0 0 0
|z1, k − z2, k | ≤ cp , ∀k = 1, . . . , N (25) ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Ad Bd 1 Bd 1 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
|ż1, k − ż2, k | ≤ cv , ∀k = 1, . . . , N ⎢ A2 B 0 ⎥
(26) Jv = ⎢
⎢ d d1
Ad Bd 1 Bd 1 ⎥
⎥ (33)
⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
|uk | ≤ cu , ∀k = 0, . . . , N − 1 (27) ⎢ . . . ⎥
⎣ ⎦
N −1
with the weighting factors q > 0, r ≥ 0 and the symmetric Ad Bd 1 ANd −2 Bd 1 Bd 1

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215 207
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
⎡ ⎤ where
Bd 2 0 0 0

⎢ ⎥ DD = diag D0 , . . . , DN −1
⎢ Ad Bd 2 Bd 2 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥  T (43)
⎢ A2 B 0 ⎥ d = d T0 , . . . , d TN −1
Jw = ⎢
⎢ d d2
Ad Bd 2 Bd 2 ⎥
⎥ (34)
⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
⎢ . . . ⎥
⎣ ⎦ The state constraints contain the state xk . To get rid of it, xk is
N −1 replaced by (30). With the definitions
Ad Bd 2 ANd −2 Bd 2 Bd 2

ED = diag E1 , . . . , EN
and  T (44)
 e = eT1 , . . . , eTN
dim J u , J v , J w = (4N × N )
 (35) the constraints can be rewritten as
dim J x = (4N × 4)
ED J u U ≤ e − ED J x x0 − ED J v V − ED J w W (45)
Now, the objective function (23) can be reformulated in Now, the MPC problem can be restated as
vector form as
min J (U) (46)
 T U
J (X , U) = q X (2) − X (4) U + U T RU
 T where
= q S 1 X − S 2 X U + U T RU (36) 
 J (U) = U T qJ Tu S + R U
= qX T S T1 − S T2 U + U T RU  (47)
  + q xT0 J Tx + V T J Tv + W T J Tw SU
S

with the matrix R = diag(r) with dim(R) = (N × N) and the subject to

matrices S1, S2 with dim(S1, S2) = (N × 4N ). S1 and S2 extract    
DD d
the second state (buoy velocity), respectively, fourth state U≤ (48)
(spar velocity) from the augmented state vector X . ED J u e − ED J x x0 − ED J v V − ED J w W

⎡ ⎤ Problems in this form are usually called linear quadratic

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
⎢0 0 problems (LQPs), because the objective function is
⎢ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0⎥ ⎥
S1 = ⎢ . .. .. ⎥ (37) quadratic and all constraints are linear. Furthermore, it can
⎣ .. . .⎦ also be shown that this formulation yields a convex
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 problem (see Appendix 1). There exist many appropriate
methods to solve problems of this class. The readers are
⎡ ⎤ referred to [18, 19].
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ 3.2 Infeasibility handling
S 2 = ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ (38)
⎣. . .⎦
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Constrained optimisation problems make searching for the
optimal solution a more difficult task. Furthermore, a
serious problem can arise, namely, the optimisation problem
is infeasible. That means there exists no solution within the
Using (30), the objective function can be formulated as a boundaries. If this situation occurs, the optimisation stops
quadratic function that depends on U, namely without a solution and the control loop is open. This
 breakdown of the control can cause serious damage to the
J (U) = U T qJ Tu S + R U device and should be avoided. There are different
 (39) possibilities to handle infeasibility problems. Most
+ q xT0 J Tx + V T J Tv + W T J Tw SU approaches try to deal with the infeasibility problem after it
has occurred. A simple method consists of setting the
The constraints need to be reformulated as well. The control signal equal to a constant value. Also, another type
constraints from (26) and (27) can be also written as of control law, for example a P, PI or PID controller can be
used in the event that the MPC does not find a solution.
Dk uk ≤ d k , for k = 0, . . . , N − 1 (40) However, both implementations cannot guarantee stability
of the system within the constraints, since the system was
Ek xk ≤ ek , for k = 1, . . . , N (41) already in a critical state when the breakdown occurred.
Another method prioritises constraints and does not
consider the least important ones while solving the problem
The input constraints are already only dependent on U. They again. However, it cannot be assured how much the
can be written in matrix form as constraints get violated.
This paper introduces two approaches regarding hard and
DD U ≤ d (42) soft constraints. The first approach tries to find a feasible

208 IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214

solution by relaxing some constraints after an infeasibility
condition occurs, and resolves the optimisation problem for
the expanded range. Here, the generation force limit cu and
the velocity constraint cv can be relaxed, since overspeed
and over-rated generator conditions can be tolerated for the
short term [10]. The constraints for the new optimisation
can be defined by
|z1, k − z2, k | ≤ cp , ∀k = 1, . . . , N
|ż1, k − ż2, k | ≤ rv cv , ∀k = 1, . . . , Nr
|ż1, k − ż2, k | ≤ cv , ∀k = Nr + 1, . . . , N
|uk | ≤ ru cu , ∀k = 0, . . . , Nr − 1
|uk | ≤ cu , ∀k = Nr , . . . , N − 1
where rv and ru are the relaxation factors for velocity and
generation force, respectively, and Nr denotes the number of
time steps into the future until the non-relaxed constraints
are valid again. This helps improve the stability attributes of
the MPC, since it allows to violate the limits only at the
beginning of the horizon.
The second approach tries to prevent the occurrence of
infeasibility problems from the start. The original hard
constraints are replaced by soft constraints through the
introduction of positive slack variables ep and ev . For more
detailed information about including soft constraints, the
readers are referred to the works in [19, 20]. In order to
penalise violations of constraints, quadratic terms including
the slack variables are inserted into the objective function
that yields the new optimisation problem
 
min Jnew U, ep , ev
U, ep , ev
where
 
Jnew U, ep , ev = J (U) + wp e2p + wv e2v
Fig. 3 SIMULINK simulation model for WEC control with MPC
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214
www.ietdl.org
subject to
|z1, k − z2, k | − ep ≤ cp , ∀k = 1, . . . , N (57)
|ż1, k − ż2, k | − ev ≤ cv , ∀k = 1, . . . , N (58)
|uk | ≤ cu , ∀k = 0, . . . , N − 1 (59)
(49) 0 ≤ ep ≤ cep , 0 ≤ ev ≤ cev (60)
(50) The constraints cep and cev are hard upper bounds for the
slack variables which are necessary, in particular, for the
(51) position. The weighting factors wp and wv can be arbitrarily
chosen and weigh the penalty for violating the position and
(52) the velocity constraints, respectively.
(53)
3.3 Implementation
The simulation is implemented using MATLAB/SIMULINK.
A diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 3. It mainly consists
of four different blocks. A prediction for the incoming wave
elevation is calculated in the prediction calculation block,
where it is assumed that the prediction is perfect. Here,
different types of irregular wave data obtained from [21]
can be loaded. In the next block, the excitation forces for
both bodies are calculated by means of causal and
non-causal impulse response functions from [21] as well.
The actual MPC is implemented as a Level-2 MATLAB
S-function and obtains the future prediction for the
excitation forces and the current state of the device as
inputs. The actual optimisation problem is solved by means
of the MATLAB QP-solver ‘quadprog’. The first calculated
input signal forms the first output of this block. In order to
check the status of the optimisation, several other outputs
(55) are given to find, for instance, the points where the
infeasibility catching is active. The real plant block contains
the simulation model. Moreover, it is assumed that all states
are measurable.
For the system parameters of the L10, the results in [21]
(56) obtained by ANSYS AQWA [22] analysis are used. An
overview is shown in Table 1, where the mooring constant
209
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Table 1 System parameter of the L10 WEC Table 3 MPC parameter values for the formulation with
relaxed constraints (Case 1)
Variable Value
Variable Explanation Value
m1 2625.3 kg
m2 2650.4 kg Δt sample time for optimisation 0.1 s
A11 8866.7 kg Thor optimisation horizon 3s
A22 361.99 kg N number of values 30
A12 361.99 kg T simulation time 100 s
A21 361.99 kg q power weighting factor 1
b1 5000 N/(m/s) r input weighting factor 0
b2 50 000 N/(m/s) cp relative position constraint 1m
k1 96 743 N/m cv relative velocity constraint 1 m/s
Km 300 000 N/m cu generator force constraint 80 000 N
Nr relaxation number 10
rv relaxation factor velocity 2
ru relaxation factor generation force 1.5
Table 2 Dimensions of the L10 WEC
Buoy Spar

diameter, m 3.5 1.1 Table 4 MPC parameter values for the formulation with soft
height, m 0.76 7.03 constraints (Case 2)

Variable Explanation Value

is based on an angle α = 60° and a cable stiffness K = 133 333 cp relative position constraint 0.9 m
cep slack variable position constraint 0.1 m
(N/m) which is within the common range for the stiffness of cev slack variable velocity constraint 1 m/s
mooring cables, according to [23]. For the AQWA analysis, wp weighting factor position slack 108
the dimensions according Table 2 were used. wv weighting factor velocity slack 106

4 Results
In the following, several cases are compared. First, the
Computer simulations are used to validate the MPC algorithm formulation with relaxed constraints is compared to the
and its performance regarding the generated power. Since the soft constraints formulation. The performance is also
model and the control law are available in discrete form, the evaluated when the parameters Δt and Thor are varied. In
discrete fixed-step solver of MATLAB/Simulink is used with the end, the results with the model predictive controller
a sample time of 0.005 s. The duration of each simulation is are compared to simulations with passive load control. In
100 s. In the following, two different wave data sets are all simulations, besides the comparison of MPC and
used. The first one is a wave data sample collected by the passive load control, the time series from the NDBC
NDBC Offshore buoy 46 050 in January 2009 [24], which Offshore buoy 46 050 is used as the input signal to
is deployed off the coast of Oregon west of Newport. It is calculate the excitation forces.
used to generate a time series for the wave elevation. The First, the controller behaviour of ‘Case 1’ and ‘Case 2’ are
wave data have a significant height of 3.81 m, an energy compared. The parameters for ‘Case 1’ are listed in Table 3.
period of 9.33 s, a peak period of 10.4 s and a power of The generator properties are adapted from Prudell et al. [26]
66.3 kW per metre crest length. This data set is chosen for with some slight modifications for ease of simulation and
several reasons. First, it is recorded with a buoy off the
coast of Newport which is a possible deployment site for
testing the L10. Additionally, it is supposed to present the
performance of the MPC under extreme conditions when
reaching physical limits for position, velocity and generator
force. Thereby, the focus is on the maintenance of the
constraints. Thus, this fairly rough wave data set is used. It
is still well within expected Oregon winter operating
conditions, as shown in [25]. The application of LWT to
this case might affect the accuracy of the model. For this
reason, a second wave data set is used later on to compare
the performance of MPC and passive load control regarding
generated power. The second wave data set represents a
more frequently occurring sea state for the Oregon coast.
The comparison of the power generated by the two control
methods is more interesting in this sea state, since it is
representative of a normal operating condition. Specifically,
the second wave data sample was collected by the NDBC
Umpqua buoy 46 229 which is deployed off the coast of
Oregon north of Reedsport [24]. The wave state for this
location is characterised by a significant height of 1.97 m, Fig. 4 Wave elevation, buoy position and spar position for the
an energy period of 6.39 s, a peak period of 6.13 s and a relaxed constraints formulation (Case 1)
power of 12.1 kW per metre crest length. The wave data is from the NDBC offshore buoy 46 050

210 IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214

Fig. 5 Frequency of the infeasibility problem for Case 1
1 means original problem is feasible
–2 means original problem is infeasible
analysis. Thus, the generator force is assumed to be a bit
greater in order to show the MPC performance under more
difficult conditions near the constraints. Nevertheless, a
force of 80 000 N is well within the ability of linear
generators for point absorbers [27]. For ‘Case 1’, the MPC
is implemented with the relaxed constraint formulation.
This means, for example, that the generator force constraint
of 80 000 N can be violated in case an infeasibility
condition occurs up to a value of 120 000 N and the
Fig. 6 Comparison between relaxed (Case 1) and soft (Case 2) formulation of the MPC
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214
www.ietdl.org
velocity constraint up to 2 m/s. This is allowed since
short-term overspeed conditions can be tolerated, and the
generator thermal capabilities allow for brief over-rated
operation [10]. r and q can be chosen arbitrarily, only the
proportion is important for the cost function. If the input is
weighted, the trajectories are a bit smoother due to the fact
that the MPC tries to reduce the actuation effort. Since the
actuation effort is proportional to the generated power, r is
chosen to zero in order to allow the best power consumption.
In ‘Case 2’, the MPC is implemented by means of soft
constraints. This formulation has no parameter values for
Nr, rv and ru. The changed and the new parameters are
shown in Table 4. To obtain comparable parameters, the
hard constraint for the position is also set to 1 m consisting
of 0.9 m soft constraint and the slack variable constraint of
0.1 m, and the same holds for the velocity constraint.
Furthermore, the weighting factor for the position slack is
much greater than for the velocity in order to penalise
violations of the position constraint harder than violations
of the velocity constraint. To obtain a first insight into the
motion of the incoming waves and of the device, Fig. 4
shows wave, buoy and spar position for ‘Case 1’. It can be
seen that the buoy position slightly lags the wave elevation
and cannot achieve the same amplitude as the wave
elevation due to the constraints and the induced generator
force. In general, the spar position is between ±0.3 m.
Furthermore, Fig. 4 shows that the buoy is practically
exiting the water several times during simulation. Therefore,
it has to be noted that the actual hypothesis of a linear
hydrostatic force is not appropriate and the accuracy of the
model is restricted in these situations. Although the results
211
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
might not be physically realistic, the main features of the
WEC dynamic model are correctly modelled and the MPC
performance can be analysed.
More interesting is how often an infeasibility problem
occurs. Fig. 5 shows that the optimisation problem is
infeasible at several points. Around time step, t = 48 s, for
instance, the optimisation problem is not feasible. This is an
interesting point to look at in the next figure as well. Fig. 6
shows the comparison between ‘Case 1’ and ‘Case 2’. On
the top left, it can be seen that the hard position constraint
is never violated in either formulation. The trajectory in
‘Case 2’ tries to stay within the soft constraint, since the
penalty for violations is strong. The opposite can be seen
for the relative velocity on the bottom left. Since the
penalty for violations is less, ‘Case 2’ tends to violate this
soft constraint more often. The generator force constraint in
‘Case 2’ is never violated which is the purpose of the
formulation. In the relaxed formulation it is allowed to relax
this constraint and it can be seen that this relaxation is used
at several instants of time, in particular around t = 48 s. At
that time, the generator force almost reaches its hard limit.
On the bottom right, the power generation is shown, and
there is no noticeable difference between both lines in the
figure. However, the average power of ‘Case 1’ is 26.13
kW and is only 24.62 kW for ‘Case 2’. A reason for this is,
for example, the possibility of having a greater generation
force in ‘Case 1’. Moreover, in ‘Case 2’ the MPC tries to
respect the soft constraint of 0.9 m and thus limits the
usable stroke displacements which leads to less power
extraction. That can be reduced by lowering the weighting
factor for the position slack.
Fig. 7 Comparison between the soft constraints formulation with
the changed parameter Thor = 6 s (Case 3) and the same
formulation with changed parameter Δt = 0.2 s (Case 4)
212
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
It should also be noted that the optimisation problem in
‘Case 2’ is always feasible, which is a big advantage in
regards to the computational effort of MPC. Indeed, the soft
constraint formulation contains two more optimisation
variables (ep , ev ), which slightly increases the average
computation time, but in many cases it is possible to
operate the MPC without infeasibility problems. Since the
MPC is supposed to run in real time, a recalculation of the
optimisation problem as in ‘Case 1’ is not always possible.
So, it is advantageous to have a formulation, which in
general is able to calculate the solution without
recalculating as in the soft constraint formulations.
However, it has to be said that even the soft constraint
formulations can yield infeasibility problems (though
rarely), since the slack variables are also subject to
constraints. So, for the worst-case scenario, it makes sense
to combine both formulations so that it is possible to relax
the generation force constraint, even in ‘Case 2’ if an
infeasibility problem occurs.
Next, two cases are compared in terms of the number of
optimisation variables. In both cases the soft constraint
formulation of ‘Case 2’ is used. In ‘Case 3’ the horizon
time is set to 6 s from 3 s and in ‘Case 4’ the step time is
doubled to 0.2 s. Therefore, the weighting factors for the
slack variables are set to half of the original value in ‘Case
3’ and are doubled in ‘Case 4’, in order to obtain
comparable conditions. It is remarkable that the results of
Fig. 8 Wave elevation η of the Umpqua buoy 46 229
Fig. 9 Average generated power dependent on the passive load
Kload
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214

Fig. 10 Comparison between passive load control with Kload = 57 000 kg/s and MPC for the Umpqua buoy 46 229 wave data
‘Case 3’ are almost the same as in ‘Case 2’. Likewise, the
average generated power of 24.44 kW is similar as well.
Therefore, the results of both cases are compared directly
without comparison with ‘Case 2’ which can be seen in
Fig. 7. Here as well, no noticeable difference can be seen
and the average power in ‘Case 4’ is 24.34 kW. The
advantage of the larger time step is that the number of
optimisation variables decreases. ‘Case 2’ contains 32,
‘Case 3’ 62 and ‘Case 4’ only 17 optimisation variables.
This makes a huge difference regarding the computation
time, since the computational effort increases with more
optimisation variables. ‘Case 4’ yields almost the same
results, even though the sample time is doubled. But one
important difference can be seen in Fig. 7, especially in the
relative velocity plot. The trajectory calculated with the
larger time step tends to oscillate much more near the
zero-crossing which can cause problems particularly in case
of large inaccuracies between model and the actual device.
This behaviour is due to the longer constant actuation
interval of Δt = 0.2 s. Nevertheless, it can be stated that a
horizon of Thor = 3 s is sufficient for this type of wave data.
Finally, the performance of the MPC is compared to
passive load control. The control input FPTO is simply
determined by
 from 0 to 500 000 kg/s at intervals of 1000 kg/s. The result
FPTO = −Kload ż1 − ż2 (61)
Therefore, the feedback is simply proportional to the relative
velocity of buoy and spar. The unity of the passive load
control gain Kload is [kg/s]. As can be seen in Fig. 3, it can
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214
www.ietdl.org
be switched between MPC and passive load control within
the Simulink model. For the following simulations, a
different wave data is used in order to demonstrate the
performance of MPC under different conditions as well. In
the following, the second time-series from the NDBC
Umpqua buoy 46 229 is used. A plot of the wave elevation
η is shown in Fig. 8. Passive load control cannot handle
constraints actively. Thus, the control gain Kload needs to be
chosen very conservative in practice in order to reduce the
risk of violating physical constraints. The passive load can
be interpreted as damping of the relative motion between
the buoy and the spar. A large passive load leads to smaller
relative positions within the common workspace. A smaller
passive load in turn increases the relative motion. Since, the
generator force is dependent on the passive load the
generated power is dependent on the relative velocity and
the passive load constant. As a result, it is very difficult to
choose Kload effectively to avoid violating constraints and to
obtain a high power generation. Hence, the performance of
passive load control is strongly dependent on the choice of
Kload. Owing to this fact, a simulation with different values
of Kload is conducted, where the average generated power is
recorded. The simulation parameters are the same as in the
previous simulations. But now, the wave data of the
Umpqua buoy 46 229 is used. The values of Kload vary
is shown in Fig. 9. The maximal average generated power
with passive load control is 8.80 kW. The optimal passive
load can be determined as Kload = 57 000 kg/s. It can be
noted that the results with Kload between 25 000 and 120
000 kg/s are all above an average generated power of 7 kW.
213
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Therefore, it can be stated that passive load control for this
wave data is not very sensitive near the optimum.
To obtain a good comparison between passive load control
and MPC, the maximal values of position, velocity and
generator force which occur during the best case simulation
for passive load control are chosen as constraints for MPC.
Thus, the relative position with MPC is limited to 1.25 m
including 0.1 m for the slack variable. The relative velocity
is limited to 1.15 m/s and the PTO-force to 66 000 N. The
results can be seen in Fig. 10. First of all, it can be stated
that also for this wave data, MPC is able to control the
WEC model without violating the constraints. Moreover,
the average generated power with MPC is 18.06 kW which
is more than double the power with passive load control.
MPC tries to increase the relative motion in certain
situations in order to convert more energy in the time after.
Owing to this fact, there are time intervals where energy is
fed into the generator which can be seen on the right
bottom plot of Fig. 10. When the generated power is
negative, the generator acts as an electric motor. MPC can
determine the cases where feeding energy into the generator
is useful because of the inclusion of prediction data.
Optimal control according to [7] for one-body point
absorber also feeds energy back into the linear generator in
certain situations to increase the generated power. The same
principle exploits MPC by including predictions and
solving a constrained optimisation problem. However, it
needs to be stated that such control laws need an energy
storage or an intelligent interconnection of several WECs.
5 Conclusion
This paper presented a two-body point absorber model
including mooring. The EOM were derived assuming linear
hydrodynamics and a discrete state-space formulation was
introduced. Moreover, a novel MPC formulation was
presented that does not require any optimal reference
trajectories. On this account, the proposed MPC is well
suited for controlling two-body point absorber, where other
MPC approaches are not applicable if an optimal reference
trajectory cannot be determined. Also, the proposed control
algorithm was able to respect physical limits on position,
velocity and generator force, which exist in practice. The
simulation results showed that this control method is able to
generate power without violating the constraints for typical
irregular wave data. Furthermore, two different approaches
to handle infeasibility problems were implemented and
compared by means of computer simulation. It was
successfully demonstrated that introducing slack variables
helps to avoid infeasibilities without significantly reducing
the generated power. It was also shown that the MPC is
able to operate with the larger step time Δt = 0.2 s as well.
Besides, the control scheme was compared to a passive load
control. The effectiveness of MPC could be demonstrated
whose average generated power was twice as much as the
power generated by passive load control. Overall, it can be
stated that the presented MPC is a very promising and
adequate approach to control ocean WECs in general,
especially the point absorber type WEC.
Much research still remains to be done in the future to bring
ocean wave energy applications to commercialisation and
expanded implementation. This work suggests several areas
for future research. Here, a perfect prediction of the
incoming wave elevation is assumed and hence a perfect
prediction of the excitation forces. Implementation of
214
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
prediction algorithms can enhance this work and can
identify the influence of prediction errors. Additionally, this
will impact optimal energy capture performance.
Furthermore, it was assumed that the entire state of the
device, that is, the position and velocity of the buoy and the
spar, can be measured. However, an absolute position
measurement is not always possible. Nevertheless, the
relative position between the spar and the buoy can be
easily obtained by making use of standard measuring
equipment. Taking these measurements, an observer can be
used to identify all states which are needed by the MPC.
Furthermore, the proposed model is still not validated
against experimental data and all parameters arise from
AQWA analysis. Thereby, many simplifications and
assumptions, for example, the simplified treatment of the
radiation forces, were made to derive the model. Therefore, it
can be expected that some effects are not represented by the
model. As a consequence, future research efforts will aim at
quantifying control performance with respect to plant model
inaccuracies due to linearisation. If the model structure is not
appropriate to describe the point absorber well enough, more
precise hydrodynamics including frequency dependence or
even non-linearities have to be introduced. Also, the mooring
force might be non-linear. Hence, the presented MPC needs
to be tested against these model changes and non-linearities
regarding robustness and performance. If the MPC is not
capable of dealing with this, a new area of research is
possible, namely, non-linear MPC.
Within this research, many different measured and
simulated kinds of wave data were used to analyse the
performance of the control algorithm. The results show that
the MPC can deal with various sea states and is stable even
for very long simulation times (several hours). Even though
MPC is working robust and stable for relatively long wave
time horizons, the proposed MPC needs to be applied to a
real WEC in order to check, if the proposed MPC is a
viable control algorithm for practical implementation.
6 References
1 Muetze, A., Vining, J.: ‘Ocean wave energy conversion – a survey’.
Industry Applications Conference, 2006. 41st IAS Annual Meeting.
Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE, October 2006, vol. 3,
pp. 1410–1417
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration: ‘International Energy Outlook
2011’, http://www.eia.gov/, September 2011
3 Ruehl, K., Brekken, T., Bosma, B., Paasch, R.: ‘Large-scale ocean wave
energy plant modeling’. 2010 IEEE Conf. Innovative Technologies for
an Efficient and Reliable Electricity Supply (CITRES), September
2010, pp. 379–386
4 Falcão, A.: ‘Wave energy utilization: a review of the technologies’,
Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev., 2010, 14, (3), pp. 899–918
5 Babarit, A., Clément, A.: ‘Optimal latching control of a wave energy
device in regular and irregular waves’, Appl. Ocean Res., 2006, 28,
(2), pp. 77–91
6 Hals, J., Bjarte-Larsson, T., Falnes, J.: ‘Optimum reactive control and
control by latching of a wave-absorbing semisubmerged heaving
sphere’. ASME Conf. Proc., 2002, vol. 2002, no. 36142, pp. 415–423
7 Falnes, J.: ‘Ocean waves and oscillating systems, linear interaction
including wave-energy extraction’ (Cambridge University Press, 2002)
8 Brekken, T., von Jouanne, A., Han, H.Y.: ‘Ocean wave energy overview
and research at Oregon State University’. IEEE Power Electronics and
Machines in Wind Applications, 2009. PEMWA 2009, June 2009,
pp. 1–7
9 Cândido, J.J., Justino, P.A.: ‘Modelling, control and pontryagin
maximum principle for a two-body wave energy device’, Renew.
Energy, 2011, 36, (5), pp. 1545–1557
10 Brekken, T.: ‘On model predictive control for a point absorber wave
energy converter’. IEEE PowerTech Conf., Trondheim, Norway, 2011,
pp. 1–8
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214
 www.ietdl.org
11 Hals, J., Falnes, J., Moan, T.: ‘Constrained optimal control of a heaving if Q is a positive-definite matrix, then the optimisation
buoy wave-energy converter’, J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng., 2011, 133, problem is convex. Moreover, if all eigenvalues of Q are
pp. 011401
12 Rusch, E.: ‘Catching a wave, powering an electrical grid?’. Smithsonian positive, then Q is positive definite. For problem (47), (48)
Magazine, 2009 holds Q = qJ Tu S + R. Since q > 0 and R is a diagonal
13 Eidsmoen, H.: ‘Simulation of a slack-moored heaving-buoy matrix with elements r ≥ 0, it is sufficient to consider only
wave-energy converter with phase control’. PhD dissertation,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, J Tu S. This matrix is an upper triangular matrix and
Norway, 1996 therefore, it is positive definite if all values on the diagonal
14 Taghipour, R., Perez, T., Moan, T.: ‘Hybrid frequency–time domain are positive.
models for dynamic response analysis of marine structures’, Ocean
Eng., 2008, 35, (7), pp. 685–705
15 Jefferys, E.: ‘Simulation of wave power devices’, Appl. Ocean Res., ⎡ ⎤
1984, 6, (1), pp. 31–39 B(2) (4)
d − Bd w w
16 Chen, C.: ‘Linear system theorie and design’ (Oxford University Press, ⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ ⎥
1999) ⎢ B(2) (4)
d − Bd . w ⎥
17 Wills, A., Heath, W.: ‘EE03016 – interior-point methods for linear J Tu S =⎢ ⎥ (63)
⎢ .. .. ⎥
model predictive control’, Technical Report, University of Newcastle, ⎣ . . ⎦
Australia, 2003
18 Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: ‘Numerical optimization’ (Springer, 2006) Ø B(2)
d − B (4)
d
19 Rao, C.V., Wright, S.J., Rawlings, J.B.: ‘Application of interior-point
methods to model predictive control’, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 1998,
99, pp. 723–757 Since the optimisation problem is convex if B(2) (4)
20 Scokaert, P.O.M., Rawlings, J.B.: ‘Feasibility issues in linear model d − Bd . 0,
predictive control’, AIChE J., 1999, 45, (8), pp. 1649–1659 where (2) and (4) denote the second and fourth component
21 Ruehl, K.: ‘Time-domain modeling of heaving point absorber wave of the vector Bd, respectively. The continuous state-space
energy converters, including power take-off and mooring’. Master’s vector B has always the form
thesis, Oregon State University, Mechanical Engineering, 2011
22 ANSYS Inc. ANSYS AQWA 13.0. 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg,
PA ⎡⎤
23 Chakrabarti, S.K.: ‘Handbook of offshore engineering’ (Elsevier, 2005) 0
⎢+⎥
B=⎢ ⎥
24 National Data Buoy Center: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
25 Lenee-Bluhm, P., Paasch, R., Özkan-Haller, H.T.: ‘Characterizing the ⎣0⎦ (64)
wave energy resource of the US Pacific Northwest’, Renew. Energy,
2011, 36, (8), pp. 2106–2119 −
26 Prudell, J., Stoddard, M., Amon, E., Brekken, T., von Jouanne, A.: ‘A
permanent-magnet tubular linear generator for ocean wave energy
conversion’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2010, 46, (6), pp. 2392–2400 After discretisation
27 Polinder, H., Mecrow, B., Jack, A., Dickinson, P., Mueller, M.:
‘Conventional and TFPM linear generators for direct-drive wave
energy conversion’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2005, 20, (2),
pp. 260–267 
1
hi
Bd = Ai−1 B (65)
i=1
i!

7 Appendix: Explanation: convex problem

Therefore, Bd has at least the form
Optimisation problems can have many different structures.
The problem described by (46)–(48), which needs to be ⎡ ⎤
solved in this MPC algorithm, is a LQP. For this class of w
optimisation problems, there exist well known and suitable ⎢+⎥
methods to solve it [18], like the interior-point or active-set Bd ⎢
⎣w⎦
⎥ (66)
method. However, finding the global optimum requires −
convex problems. Thus, the local optimum is the global
optimum. The usual tracking formulation of MPC is
inherently convex. In the following, it is explained why the even if the discretisation is not exact, since the first
power formulation as well yields a convex problem. component Bh of the sum is the largest factor. It follows
For a general LQP with objective function that B(2)
d − Bd
(4)
is always positive and hence the
optimisation problem is convex and can be solved, for
1 example, using MATLAB’s quadprog solver which deals
J = xT Qx + f T x (62)
2 with convex quadratic problems.

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 203–215 215
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2012.0214 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014