Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of computational methods for studying oscillating water columns

– the Navier-Stokes based equation approach
F. Opoku *, M.N. Uddin, M. Atkinson
Department of Mechanical Engineering, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, 27411, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This review evaluates the state-of-the-practice numerical tools used to predict the performance of Oscillating
Oscillating water column Water Column (OWC). The OWC is a widely studied Wave Energy Converter that provides a reliable form of
Wave energy converter renewable form of electricity that can potentially meet global energy needs. However, the fluid-flow phenomena
Marine renewable energy
affecting its hydrodynamic performance are not fully understood. While there has been the successful full-scale
Computational fluid dynamics
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes
deployment of OWCs, various computational methods are being explored to optimize this technology. Potential
Large-Eddy simulation flow theory is commonly used to evaluate the efficiency of OWCs; however, this assumption tends to over-predict
ANSYS Fluent the hydrodynamic performance. Recently, numerical studies using a diverse set of commercial, open-source, or
in-house Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) using Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) and Large-Eddy
Simulation codes show a better comparison to available experimental results but are computationally expensive.
ANSYS Fluent was found to be the most widely used CFD code applied to the study of the OWCs, with a high
degree of accuracy in terms of experimental validation of numerical results.

creating bi-direction airflow in and out of the chamber. The bi-

1. Introduction
Renewable energy can provide consistent eco-friendly electricity
that addresses climate change issues and helps preserve our planet [1].
Wave energy is a renewable and sustainable energy form that results
from the radiant energy from the sun. The earth’s surface is subjected to
varying energy intensities from the sun. That causes air to flow, which
forms winds that blow over the surface of the oceans to create waves.
The wind blows with sufficient consistency and force, ensuring contin­
uous wave motion. This wave energy has tremendous potential for en­
ergy generation. Ref. [2] cited 29,500 TWh/yr as the global total
theoretical potential for wave energy, and Ref. [3] stated that 10–20% of
this amount can be exploited for useful energy production. Wave energy
devices like the OWC extract energy from the surface motion of these
waves. The energy intensity of water waves is affected by the wave­
length, wave frequency, and amplitude; consequently, ocean waves with
a high wave height and period possess the highest energy flux [4]. The
energy flux of a traveling wave decreases as the waves move from the
deep sea to the shores due to the shoaling effect.
The OWC comprises a chamber that harnesses power from the
incoming ocean waves transferred to the trapped air. The oscillating
water waves cause the air column inside the chamber to act like a piston
directional airflow is commonly referred to as inhalation and exhala­
tion. Inhalation occurs when the oscillating air inside the OWC is less
than the pressure of the atmosphere, while exhalation occurs when it is
greater [5]. Pneumatic power is transferred to the air within the
chamber, which drives the PTO system (i.e., air turbine-generator). The
air turbine-generator then converts the pneumatic power into elec­
tricity. The OWC is likely the most studied WEC; however, it has not
reached technological maturity since its hydrodynamics are not well
understood [6]. The primary design challenge for an OWC is the
chamber and duct [7], as shown in Fig. 1, which shows efforts have been
made to maximize the pneumatic power from these devices [8]. Planes
1, 2, and 3 represent the inlet, midpoint, and exit sections where flow­
field parameters are measured in the air-duct. There have been studies
carried out to optimize the OWC Chamber [9–12] and the air-duct [13,
14] to increase the efficiency of energy conversion (i.e., kinetic energy to
pneumatic power). To maximize wave energy extraction, Ref. [15]
noted that the resonance frequency of the OWC device should be
approximately equal to that of the incident water wave. Furthermore,
the air turbine commonly used, the Wells turbine, is shown in Fig. 2(i),
which is self-rectifying [16] by rotating in an uni-directional manner
through a cyclical bi-directional airflow. Fig. 2 shows other form of air
turbines used in OWC systems. A Modified Dennis-Auld turbine was

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fopoku@aggies.ncat.edu (F. Opoku).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113124
Received 6 March 2022; Received in revised form 18 November 2022; Accepted 20 December 2022
Available online 30 December 2022
1364-0321/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

Abbreviations PCR Piecewise Constant Reconstruction

PLRC Piecewise Linear Reconstruction Calculation
BEM Boundary Element Method PTO Power Take-Off
BIEM Boundary Integral Equation Model RANS Reynold Averaged Navier Stokes
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics REWEC1 Resonant Wave Energy Converter
CICSAM Compressive Interface Capturing Scheme for Arbitrary RSM Reynold Stress Model
Meshes SAS Scale-Adaptive Simulation
CV Control Volume SDR Specific Dissipation Rate
CWR Capture Width Ratio SMMC Surface Marker and Micro Cell
DES Detached Eddy Simulation SOR Second-Order Reconstruction
DNS Direct Numerical Simulation SPH Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
DOF Degree of Freedom SSR Stair-Stepped Reconstruction
FDM Finite Difference Method STACS Switching Technique for Advection and Capturing of
FVM Finite Volume Method Surfaces
HRIC High-Resolution Interface Capturing SWENSE Spectral Wave Explicit Navier-Stokes Equations
LBM Lattice Boltzmann Method TDR Turbulent Dissipation Rate
LBE Lattice Boltzmann Equation TEV Turbulent Eddy Viscosity
LES Large-Eddy Simulation TKE Turbulent Kinetic Energy
MAC Marker-and-Cell TPN Turbulent Prandtl Number
MEL Mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian UDF User Defined Function
NCAT North Carolina A&T State University URANS Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
NSE Navier-Stokes Equations VOF Volume of Fluid
NWT Numerical Wave Tank WEC Wave Energy Converter
OpenFOAM Open-source Field Operation and Manipulation WENO Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory
OWC Oscillating Water Column

Fig. 1. Schematic of a Novel OWC and Air-duct showing Sectional Plane.

2
F. Opoku et al.
Fig. 2. Air Turbines used in OWCs Applications (i). Wells Turbine (ii). Dennis-Auld Turbine (iii). Modified Dennis-Auld Turbine and (iv). Impulse Turbine.
Fig. 3. Schematic of an OWC.
investigated by Ref. [17] and compared to the Wells turbine for per­
formance. OWCs are broadly classified into (i) Fixed Structure OWC and
(ii) Floating OWC. The floating structure OWC, as shown in Fig. 3 is
designed for offshore applications. That configuration has the disad­
vantage of having electrical equipment and cables exposed to corrosive
saltwater; installation and maintenance are complex [18]. On the other
hand, the fixed structure OWC is designed for onshore or near-shore
applications where electrical equipment does not encounter ocean
water but requires electrical lines to transport power to the grid.
WECs have been studied using CFD [19], non-linear potential flow
[20], or potential flow models such as (i). spectral-domain [21], (ii).
time-domain [22], or iii). frequency-domain [23]. CFD models, which
are the focus of this review paper, involve solving the Navier-Stokes or
Euler equations numerically. When applied to the study of the OWC
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124
system, CFD can have high computational costs but tend to be more
accurate than other simplified fluid models (e.g., potential flow) [6].
Most CFD studies of OWCs are carried out to perform parametric studies
to optimize the device [19]. Researchers have used experiments and CFD
to understand the flow topology and its interaction with OWC devices
[24,25] and wave tanks [26]. A schematic chart provided by Ref. [27]
compares the accuracy and computational cost for solving the NSE by
numerical methods. DNS solves the full NSE, but it is the most compu­
tationally expensive. In DNS, all scales and dynamics in the temporal
and spatial range are resolved. The other models on the chart are Linear
Cummins, efficient non-linear hydrodynamic, RANS, Hybrid RANS, and
LES, in increasing order of accuracy and computational requirements.
Ref. [27] noted that high computational costs restrain DNS from being
used to model the OWC system and other WEC devices. LES intends to
reduce the computational expense by modeling the smallest length
scales resolved using DNS. However, it remains too computationally
costly when used for parametric design studies of WECs. RANS modeling
of WECs has increased in popularity and has shown good comparison to
experimental data. The present paper discusses common CFD ap­
proaches, and methodologies used to investigate OWCs under different
flow conditions.
2. The fundamental equations
When the fluid is considered a continuum, the conservation laws (i.
e., Mass, Momentum, and Energy) are solved.
2.1. Conservation of mass
The principle of conservation of mass is a statement that expresses
the fact that mass is conserved in a non-nuclear continuum. The sum of
masses flowing in and out of the continuum for a unit time is typically
the same as the change in mass as a result of the change in density per
unit time [28]. The continuity equation for an unsteady fluid flow in
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

vector notation in the general form is given by: 3. Computational modeling

Dρ →
+ ρ div U = 0 (1)
Dt
→ [37], and fully non-linear potential flow [38] in the inviscid flow
where ρ, t, and U represent fluid density, flow time, and the velocity
field, respectively. For an incompressible fluid flow, the density is
assumed to be constant; therefore, the total derivative of mass is equal to
zero (i.e., Dρ/Dt = 0). Therefore, from equation (1), the equation of
continuity for an incompressible flow is expressed as [29]:
→
div U = 0 (2)
The continuity equation of the airflow inside the OWC can be
expressed in the general form as equation (1). In some analyses where
the airflow is assumed incompressible due to negligible density changes,
equation (2) can be applied. Also, since the flow in the OWC is biphasic,
equation (2) is applied to the water flow.
2.2. Conservation of momentum
The momentum equation is a statement of Newton’s Second Law that
expresses the force exerting on the fluid element to its rate of change of
momentum. Considering a general Newtonian viscous fluid, the con­
servation of momentum equation, which is the so-called NSE, is
expressed in vector notation as [30]:
[ ( ) →
→
→ ( →)T ( →) ]
ρ
DU
= ρ→
g − ∇p + ∇. μ ∇ U + ∇ U + λ ∇. U I (3)
Dt
where → g , ∇p, μ, I, and λ represent gravitational acceleration, pressure
gradient, viscosity coefficient, identity tensor, and the bulk viscosity
coefficient (λ = - 23 μ), respectively.
2.3. Conservation of energy
The conservation of energy relates the energy of the system as con­
stant. It states that the sum of the heat added and the work done on the
system results in a gain in total energy [30]. Mathematically, it is stated
as:
Dh Dp ( →)[ ( → ( →)T ) ( →) ]
ρ = + div(kc ∇T) + ∇ U μ ∇ U + ∇ U + λ ∇. U I
Dt Dt
(4)
where h, p, kc , ∇T represent the enthalpy, pressure, thermal conduc­
tivity, and temperature gradient, respectively.
In some analyses, the fluid flow in the OWC system is assumed to be
incompressible, meaning, ρ = constant. This assumption allows the NSE
to be solved numerically using a set of four dependent equations: the
momentum equation in the x, y, z spatial space, and the continuity
equation. The unknown parameters (i.e., p, u, v, w) can be computed
without including the energy equation. However, the incompressibility
assumption can lead to errors when applied to modeling the air dy­
namics in a full-scale OWC chamber. Therefore, air compressibility must
be considered to model the full-scale device accurately, leading to
thermodynamic consideration [27]. In considering air compressibility,
the NSE and continuity equation will yield five unknown parameters (i.
e., p, ρ, u, v, w); therefore, the conservation of energy introduces tem­
perature (T) as an unknown quantity leading to five equations with six
unknowns. The equation of state is introduced to provide six equations
with six unknowns for closure [27].
Numerical studies using Potential Flow models such as frequency-
domain analysis [4,31–34], time-domain [35,36], spectral-domain
regime for the full or part of the flow domain have been carried out.
Potential flow theory tends to over-predict the efficiency of the device
[39], which explains why researchers tend to use CFD and experiments
to evaluate the performance of OWCs accurately. The authors found
different methodologies to compute the flow field of an OWC. The
following sections will describe various numerical studies describing
CFD approaches.
3.1. Inviscid simulations
Inviscid flow refers to the flow of fluid where the influence of vis­
cosity is zero or very minimal. When the viscosity is neglected, the shear
stress tensor drops out of the momentum equation (3), leading to the
Euler equation shown in equation (5). The Euler equation and the Po­
tential Flow models assume that the flow is inviscid. While potential
flow assumes that the flow is irrotational and ideal, the Euler equation
does not assume that the flow is irrotational and, therefore, can support
vorticity [27]. A flow is said to be irrotational when the vorticity is zero.
Substituting μ = 0 in equation (3) yields the Euler equation in the vector
notation as in equation (5) below:
DU
ρ = ρ→
g − ∇p (5)
Dt
An NWT was used by Refs. [24,25] to study an offshore OWC using
an inviscid model (Euler Equation) in ANSYS Fluent with the VOF
method. Ref. [24] studied six different OWC configurations to examine
the flow topology. It concluded that the OWC configuration with a
waterside chamber angle, θ1 = 45o , shoreside chamber angle, θ2 = 90o ,
and immersion depth of d = 0.0 m resulted in the highest average power
and efficiency. The study further found that the static pressure inside the
duct was the primary parameter that contributed to higher pneumatic
power. Also, when added to the geometry, an immersion depth lowered
the total air pressure and velocity inside the duct. In Ref. [25], four cases
of the novel OWC device were investigated, and the optimal device was
attained. The resonant state of the device was found to occur when the
length of the chamber was half of the chamber water height. In another
study, CFD was applied to model a two-dimensional OWC using the
incompressible, unsteady Euler equations coupled to the VOF method
employing a dynamic mesh [40]. A piston-type wavemaker was applied
to generate the wave in the NWT using a UDF to prescribe the desired
wave amplitude and frequency. The study investigated the consequence
of changing wave height on the device’s efficiency. Varying the ampli­
tude from 0.002 m to 0.008 m in an accretion of 0.002 m showed that
the device’s efficiency increased steadily between 0.002 m and 0.006 m,
reaching a maximum of 67%. The efficiency decreased between 0.006 m
and 0.008 m, reaching a minimum of 50% at 0.008 m.
3.2. Viscous simulations
Viscous CFD simulations include the effects of viscosity. If the Co­
efficient of viscosity is assumed to be constant, equation (3) reduces to:
→
DU →
ρ = ρ→
g − ∇p + μ∇2 U (6)
Dt
These simulations can be laminar, turbulent, or hybrid. Most nu­
merical viscous simulations assume that the flow is fully turbulent;

4
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

however, in Ref. [41], an investigation was carried out to determine the derivation of the transport equation for k emanates from an exact
performance of an OWC chamber with and without a stepped bottom. equation representing physical considerations; on the other hand, the
Two NWTs were constructed, with NWT-1 assuming fully laminar flow transport equation for ε was arrived at through reasoning. This model
and NWT-2 assuming fully turbulent flow, to study flow topology using assumes the flow to be fully turbulent in most cases, and molecular
the k-ε turbulence model. The CFD results for both cases showed good viscosity is negligible [46]. The transport equation in vector notation for
agreement with linear theory for incident wave-free surface elevation k and ε are as follows:
for fully developed flow. However, there was disagreement on the free ( → ) [( ) ]
∂(ρk) μ
surface elevation found in the OWC device for the turbulent simulations + ∇. ρ U k = ∇. μ + t ∇k + Gk + Gb − ρε − YM + Sk (9)
∂t σk
when the flow has not attained a fully developed state. Additionally,
comparing the laminar results showed good agreement with a previous ( →) [( ) ]
∂(ρε) μt ε ε2
study using the BIEM and an analytical method. However, due to vis­ + ∇. ρ U ε = ∇. μ+ ∇ε + C1ε (Gk + C3ε Gb ) − C2ε ρ
∂t σε k k
cosity in the laminar and turbulent flow computations, the CFD results
showed a lower peak efficiency than the BIEM (i.e., potential flow the­ + Sε
ory) and the analytical work in Ref. [42]. (10)

3.2.1. Turbulent simulation where Gk , Gb , and YM represent the production of k due to mean velocity
There has not been a universally accepted definition of turbulent shear, the production of k due to buoyancy, and the fluctuating expan­
flow. The Reynolds number (Re) has been used to characterize flow sion in compressible turbulence compared to total TDR, respectively.
2
change from laminar to turbulent. If a flow is considered in the turbulent The TEV is modeled as μt = ρCμ kε , where Cμ is a constant value and C1ε ,
regime, it is expected to have a Re larger than the upper critical number C2ε , C3ε are constant terms known as the model coefficients. σε and σk
[29]. Also, turbulent flow is typically characterized by properties such as are TPNs for ε and k, respectively. The model coefficients terms and the
unsteadiness, three-dimensionality, high vorticity, rotational, irregular, TPN have default values of C1ε = 1.44, C2ε = 1.92, C3ε determines the
chaotic, increased diffusivity, large Re, dissipative, broad range of time degree to which the TDR (ε) is affected by buoyancy, Cμ = 0.09, σ ε = 1.3
scales, and length fluctuation. However, the flow is generally treated as and σk = 1.0 as stated in Ref. [46]. Sε and Sk are user-defined source
a continuum. terms for ε and k, respectively.
ANSYS Fluent simulations using the k-ε model has been successfully
3.2.1.1. Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes. The RANS equation is a time- used to model and analyze the OWC system. These studies were vali­
averaged equation used to model the turbulent motion of fluids. It is dated by experimental results, for example, Ref. [48] used ANSYS Fluent
applied by separating parameters into their time-average and fluctu­ to formulate an NWT to investigate the absorption characteristics for
ating components [43]. Since RANS models do not directly resolve both highly non-linear steep and linear waves of an OWC. The study’s main
the small and large turbulent structures, it reduces the computational objective was to investigate the air turbine for optimum pneumatic
requirements compared to LES; hence, larger time steps and mesh damping when non-linear waves were deployed. The results were vali­
spacing can be used [27]. RANS modeling is the most common method dated with analytical data for the pneumatic damping coefficients using
to resolve a turbulent flowfield [44]. The RANS model given in vector linear waves, and it was found that there was good agreement with the
notation is: CFD results. When considering non-linear waves, the results showed that
( →) the absorption efficiency of the device decreases as the wave height
[ ( )]
∂ ρU ( →→) → ( →)T 2 ( →) increases. Using linear wave theory showed that the maximum absorp­
+ ∇. ρ U U = − ∇p + ∇. μ ∇ U + ∇ U − ∇.U I tion efficiency of the wave energy for highly non-linear waves occurs
∂t 3
( →’ →’ ) when the pneumatic damping coefficient is higher than the CFD results.
− ∇. ρ U U + ρ→ g Ref. [49] used ANSYS Fluent to compare the numerical results to
(7) available analytical solutions for an OWC chamber. The numerical re­
sults compared favorably well with the analytical results after the initial
→′ →′ transient wave elevation had diminished, and there was a good agree­
where U and U represent the fluctuating and mean fluctuating velocity
ment when the wave profile at t = (23 × incident wave period) was
→′ →′
field. The term − ρ U U is referred to as the Reynolds stresses, which compared. In a different study in Ref. [50], ANSYS Fluent was used to
represent the shear stresses in the fluid layers accelerating and decel­ compare the experimental and numerical results of an integrated
erating due to the exchange of momentum [45]. The Reynolds stresses Caisson-breakwater OWC chamber. The incident wave period, still
terms must be computed to close the RANS equation. A popular method water depth, wave heights, and air duct diameters were observed to
for modeling the Reynolds stress is the Boussinesq hypothesis. It relates affect the relative height inside the integrated system. Ref. [51] used
it to the average velocity gradients as below [46]: ANSYS Fluent to construct a two-dimensional NWT to predict the device
( ) efficiency when subjected to linear and non-linear waves. The results
→’ →’ → ( →)T 2 2 ( →) showed a substantial increase in OWC hydrodynamic capture efficiency
− ρ U U = μt ∇ U + ∇ U − ρkI − ∇.U I (8)
3 3 with an increasing wave height of fully non-linear waves. Also, ANSYS
Fluent was used to investigate the power capture efficiency of a floating
where μt and k represent the eddy viscosity and TKE, respectively. These
heave-only OWC with an undamped mooring system. The results
additional terms introduced in the RANS equations give rise to the
showed that the power capture efficiency was affected by the incident
various turbulence models discussed in section 3.2.2.
wave, elasticity coefficient, pneumatic damping, wave frequency and
mooring of the turbine, and the mooring spring elasticity coefficient
3.2.2. The transport RANS equations
[52]. The effect of shape parameters and incident wave conditions on
OWC converting efficiency was investigated in Ref. [53]. This study
3.2.2.1. The k-ε turbulence model. The k-ε model developed in Ref. [47], concluded that the three-dimensional NWT is a better prediction tool for
introduced the transport equation for the TKE (k) and the TDR (ε). The analyzing the OWC air chamber than the two-dimensional flume.

5
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

Similarly, Ref. [54], reached the same general conclusion. However, are as follows:
Ref. [55] investigated the interaction of airflow and wave elevation in ( → ) [( ) ]
∂(ρk) μt
the column of the OWC. The k-ε turbulence model was used to study the + ∇. ρ U k = ∇. μ+ ∇k + Gk + Gb − ρε − YM + Sk (11)
∂t σk
interaction between an onshore OWC geometry with regular and
irregular waves [55]. The study revealed that random waves provided ( → ) [( ) ]
∂(ρε) μt ε2 ε
better device performance assessment than regular waves. + ∇. ρ U ε = ∇. μ+ ∇ε + ρC1 Sε − ρC2 √̅̅̅̅̅ − C1ε C3ε Gb
∂t σε k + νε k
Like ANSYS Fluent, ANSYS CFX is commonly used to determine the
effect of chamber size, front wall orientation, and immersion depth on + Sε
the efficiency of an OWC [9]. The orientation of the shoreside wall at (12)
180 was found to be the best configuration for unit efficiency, sup­
◦

porting the results of Ref. [7]. The latter study used ICEM-CFD and CFX
with a regular Stokes second-order wave generated in an NWT to study
PTO sizes, wave conditions, air column size, chamber upper, and front
wall shape. The results showed that the best orientation of the front wall
configuration is counter to the flow direction. Also, a conical-shaped
upper chamber of the OWC leads to better hydrodynamic efficiency,
and the number of PTOs does not affect device performance. In another
study, ANSYS CFX was used to determine the optimal operating point of
the OWC by the sequential optimization procedure [56]. The study
found that the OWC configuration, PTO damping, and wave conditions
affect device performance. The width of the OWC chamber and front
wall immersion height are also important parameters in OWC design
[9].
Ref. [57] used a temporal series to represent the piston-like motion of
the water in the OWC. It was noted that a new method that defines the
state-space system solving the Cummins equation provided good
agreement with the IH2VOF simulation for different regular and irreg­
ular wave trains and required less computational resources. Also, a
time-domain model was developed, and the results compared to the
IH2VOF RANS model in Ref. [58], which concluded that the simplified
time-domain model was accurate enough and can be used as a first step
in modeling a multi-chamber OWC.
The FLUINCO code is based on the RANS equations discretized by the
Taylor-Galerkin method, while the ANSYS Fluent code is based on the
FVM discretization formulation to solve the fundamental equations of
fluid flow. The FLUINCO and ANSYS Fluent codes were used to analyze
the regular waves for an onshore OWC in Ref. [18]. The paper aimed to
perform a numerical analysis of an onshore OWC subjected to regular
waves. The comparison of both codes showed similar results in flow
behavior, surface elevation, sloshing, and amplification factor, H/ Ho ,
where H is wave height in the chamber and Ho is the incident wave
height. Also, a comparison of ANSYS Fluent and FLUINCO was carried
out in Ref. [59]. The FLUINCO model was used to investigate the turbine
characteristics and an OWC geometry. The results obtained by both
codes were in remarkable agreement for the free surface elevation at
periods T = 8 and 10s inside the OWC chamber. It was concluded that
the Taylor-Galerkin method of FLUINCO is promising as a prediction
tool to determine the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic performance of
an OWC.
OpenFOAM code and the toolbox waves2Foam were used to validate
the RANS k-ε model for the OWC interaction problem [6]. The paper
concluded that the computed OpenFOAM RANS results accurately pre­
dicted the experimental results when the OWC was exposed to regular
and irregular waves. In a similar study, STAR-CCM+ was used to
generate an NWT to test varying OWC damping conditions under regular
and irregular waves [60]. It was determined that turbine damping af­
fects the capture factor. The wave conditions affect the damping coef­
ficient, which at the optimum value maximizes the capture factor. Also,
it was noted that the wave period affects the damping coefficient
substantially.
3.2.2.2. The realizable k-ε turbulence model. This model adopts a new
TEV expression that involves a variable Cμ and a new equation for ε;
however, the transport equation for the TKE takes the same form as the
standard k-ε model. The transport equation in vector notation for k and ε
where the model constants are C1 , C2 , C1ε , C3ε and Cμ , while σ ε = 1.2
2
and σk = 1.0. The TEV is modeled as μt = ρCμ kε but Cμ is not constant in
the realizable k-ε model. In modeling Cμ in the realizable k-ε model, it
can reclaim the conventional value of 0.09 when dealing with an inertial
subrange in a boundary layer that is in equilibrium [46]. Ref. [61]
applied the realizable k-ε model to the OWC. In this simulation, ANSYS
Fluent was used to evaluate the behavior of a spar buoy OWC; the
outcome showed good agreement with the experiment for chamber
pressure drop.
A blend of realizable k-ε and laminar CFD method with VOF method
to capture the interface between water and air, and the dynamic mesh
method using layering was used by Ref. [62] to study a heaving OWC.
The study applied the laminar and realizable k-ε model to separate zones
in the computational domain. Specifying the initial part of the flow
domain as laminar was to avoid wave attenuation before entry into the
OWC. The other part of the flow domain was modeled as a realizable k-ε
turbulent model to sufficiently capture the flow physics while ensuring
that the wave decays since the right pressure-outlet boundary was
modeled as an open channel. It was noticed that the pure k-ε model
underestimates the wave height compared to the hybrid method.
However, the water height, oscillatory motion of the device, and the
pressure difference of the offshore OWC agree very well with the
experiment. This methodology ensures that sufficient grid refinement is
placed in zones where the physics of the flow is essential to under­
standing the flow dynamics while making optimal use of the computa­
tional resources.
3.2.2.3. The k-ω turbulence model. Different versions of the k-ω model
have been developed and proposed to address the limiting features of the
k-ε model; however, the model proposed by Wilcox is noted as the
modern version [63]. The transport equation in vector notation for k and
ω is noted as follows:
( → ) [( ) ]
∂(ρk) μ
+ ∇. ρ U k = ∇. μ + t ∇k + Gk − Yk + Sk (13)
∂t σk
( → ) [( ) ]
∂(ρω) μt
+ ∇. ρ U ω = ∇. μ+ ∇ω + Gω − Yω + Sω (14)
∂t σω
where Gk and Gω represent the production of k and ω. Sk and Sω are user-
defined source terms for k and ω, respectively. Yk and Yω represent the
dissipation of k and ω. The various terms are given by Gk = − ρui uj ∂xji ;
′ ′ ∂u
Gω = α ωk Gk ; Yk = ρβ∗ f β∗ kω; Yω = ρβf β ω2 ; where α, β, β∗ , f β , f β∗ are pa­
rameters and coefficients that are specified [46].
REEF3D, an open-source CFD code, was used to investigate the hy­
drodynamics of an OWC using a two-dimensional NWT by solving the
incompressible k-ω RANS equations [64,65]. The parameters of the free
surface, that is, relative amplitude, pressure, and velocity inside the
OWC chamber, were studied for various wavelengths. The numerical
results of these parameters correlate well with the experiment [64].
The dependence of the device efficiency on incident wavelength was
investigated in Ref. [65]. It was shown that the PTO damping influences
the hydrodynamics and the chamber of the OWC at varying incident
wave conditions. The key finding is that the OWC’s hydrodynamic ef­
ficiency depends on the wave height, incident wavelength, and PTO
damping. In Ref. [66], a study of a two-dimensional single- and

6
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

dual-chamber OWC device was carried out using the standard k-ω Table 1
transport model. The results showed that the dual-chamber device ex­ Advantages and disadvantages of the different turbulent models.
hibits better hydrodynamic performance than the single-chamber OWC, Turbulent Models Advantages Disadvantages
especially at small wavelengths. In another study, an OWC-type device
1 k-ε This model has been The model is formulated
termed REWEC1, a submerged caisson, was studied to compare exper­ widely applied to assuming the flow has a
imental and numerical results for various values of air-pocket heights simulate the fluid flow of high Reynolds number.
formed in its U-tube [67]. The investigation found that the k-ω model OWC devices due to its This assumption means
compares well to experiments. accuracy for flows at the the model cannot
far wall regions [80]. accurately predict flow
Since most investigations conditions at the near-
3.2.2.4. The k-ω SST model. The transport equation for k and ω is in a of the OWC do not wall and the boundary
similar form to the standard k-ω model: consider the near-wall layer phenomenon in the
[( ) ] region to influence OWC OWC.
∂(ρk) ( → ) μ performance strongly, it
+ ∇. ρ U k = ∇. μ + t ∇k + Gk − Yk + Sk (15) explains the broad
∂t σk
application of this model
( → ) [( ) ] to the study of OWCs.
∂(ρω) μt
+ ∇. ρ U ω = ∇. μ+ ∇ω + Gω − Yω + Dω + Sω (16) 2 Realizable k-ε Realizable k-ε model was In application to the OWC
∂t σω proposed to address some system, this model will
deficiencies for the TDR result in non-physical and
where Dω represents the cross-diffusion parameter. The terms are given calculation, which tends inaccurate turbulent
to overpredict the viscosities around the
by Gk = − ρui uj ∂xji ; Gω = ναt Gk ; Yk = ρβ∗ kω; Yω = ρβω2 ; where α, β, β∗ are
′ ′ ∂u

turbulent viscosity and rotating air turbine and

parameters and coefficients that are determined in Ref. [46]. provides inaccurate the stationary fluid areas,
STAR-CCM+ k-ω SST RANS modeling was used to study an OWC length scales [44,81]. such as the boundary
The realizable model has layers of the rotating
[68–74]. In one study, 130 CFD simulations and 220 experiments
shown promising results devices.
explored the effect of mooring line pre-tension, regular and irregular for flows with complex
waves, and PTO damping on device performance for both secondary features and
floating-moored and fixed offshore OWCs [68]. The paper found no separated flows [46].
significant effect on the device efficiency due to mooring line 3 k-ω k-ω model was proposed The main weakness of
to model the near-wall this model is its inability
pre-tension for both devices. The advantages of floating versus fixed
phenomenon for wall- to accurately model the
devices under regular wave conditions were also observed for irregular bounded flows freestream region due to
waves. It was also noted that the PTO damping did not affect the effi­ effectively. It excels at solution sensitivity to
ciencies of either device. A similar study compared the survivability of predicting flow both the initial TKE and
separation due to an the specific TDR (ω) at
damaged and undamaged mooring systems for floating-moored OWCs
adverse pressure the far wall [80].
[69]. It was observed that the largest wave height does not cause the gradient.
greatest surge and mooring line tension for an irregular wave at a given 4 k-ω SST k-ω SST model combines This model usually
sea state. An experimental and numerical study of the wave load was the accuracy of the k-ω produces considerable
carried out on a model of an offshore stationary OWC [70]. The vertical model at the near wall for turbulence in flow
flows bounded by a wall domains with high
wave load acting on the device was consistently smaller than the hori­
and that of the k-ε models normal strain, e.g., areas
zontal wave load. Ref. [71] simulated a three-dimensional fixed offshore for flows at the far wall with high flow
OWC subjected to regular waves under varying periods and wave regions to model the acceleration and
heights but with constant PTO damping. The conclusion was that entire flow domain [82]. stagnation regions.
5 Reynold Stress Eddy-viscosity-based Since this model directly
modeling a floating OWC in a two-dimensional domain overestimates
Model models (e.g., k-ω and k-ε) resolves the individual
the hydrodynamic efficiency of the device when the wave frequency is cannot accurately model Reynold stresses, which
greater than the resonant frequency of the chamber; however, modeling complex turbulent flows are then used to
a three-dimensional domain was in good agreement with experimental like rotating flow formulate closure for the
results. In another numerical study, Ref. [72] explored the effect of passages, swirling flows RANS equation, the
in engine combustors, model expends more
scaling and compressibility of air on device performance. The paper
cyclone flows, and stress- computational resources
observed that air compressibility is essential when the OWC device induced flows in pipes. than the lower-order
operates at full-scale. When simulating a scale-model device, neglecting The RSM was proposed to models like the eddy-
compressibility can result in a 12% reduction in optimum efficiency address these viscosity ones.
shortcomings. It is
under regular waves, optimum PTO damping, and resonant frequency
required when the fluid
conditions. Similarly, a two-dimensional RANS computation was used to flow features result from
conduct an energy balance analysis of a floating offshore OWC [73]. anisotropy in the Reynold
Different parameters, such as PTO damping, incident wave frequency, Stresses. It is an elaborate
and wave height were tested. The results indicated a good agreement model that solves
Reynolds stresses as a
with experimental data. Also, a two-dimensional RANS-VOF technique
transport equation and
was used to investigate the effect of underwater rear and front lips on the calculates the dissipation
performance of fixed offshore OWC [74]. The overall hydrodynamic rate by avoiding the
efficiency was improved over the given frequency range by having eddy-viscosity
suitable values for the lip thickness and the submergence ratio of hypothesis. It accounts
for the outcome of
non-symmetric lips. complex fluid
Laboratory experiments were carried out to validate the results of the interactions, rotation,
IHFOAM solver [75]. The numerical model agreed with the experi­ streamlines curvature,
mental results for the air velocity and pressure, free surface elevation at whirl, and fast changes in
the rate of strain of the
the front, behind, and inside the chamber. Therefore, IHFOAM was
flow [46].
proven to be a suitable CFD tool for OWC analysis. Similarly, Open­
(continued on next page)
FOAM was used to assess the hydrodynamic behavior of an OWC device

7
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

Table 1 (continued )
Turbulent Models Advantages Disadvantages

6 Large Eddy LES resolves the flow However, finer mesh

Simulation field by modeling small sizes are necessary for
eddies at the sub-grid LES computations than
scale while large eddy’s RANS simulations [46],
turbulent structure is especially for flows
directly resolved [27], bounded by a wall in the
allowing for larger mesh moderate to high
spacing and time steps Reynolds number.
compared to DNS.
7 Scale-Adaptive SAS model was proposed When the SAS model
Simulation by Ref. [83] as a method results in a steady
used to simulate flows solution, it has a
with strong unsteadiness limitation where
and instabilities. It unsteadiness cannot be
displays LES imposed on the flow.
characteristics in Also, it does not ensure
unsteady regions and enough damping for the
RANS behavior in steady tiniest scales at the
regions. It is also discretization limit.
considered an alternative
method for hybrid
RANS-LES models. Fig. 4. Percentage distribution of RANS model applied to the study of OWC.
8 Detached Eddy These hybrid models can The main weakness of the
Simulation couple Spalart-Allmaras, DES is its inability to
Realizable k-ε, and k-ω respond well to ( ) ( )
SST, among others. The ambiguous discretization ∂ ρu′i u′j ∂ ρuk u′i u′j ∂ [ ′ ′ ′ ( )]
DES model gives better where the parallel grid + =− ρui uj uk + p′ δkj u′i + δik u′j
∂t ∂xk ∂xk
accuracy than the spacing of the wall is [ ] ( )
standard RANS and proportional to the order ∂ ∂ ( ′ ′) ′ ′ ∂uj ′ ′ ∂ui
+ μ ui uj − ρ ui uk + uj uk
URANS models. of the boundary layer ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
thickness. ( ) ( ′ ′)

9 Direct Numerical Ref. [84] stated that the The computational ′ ′ ∂ui ∂uj
− ρβ gi uj θ + gj ui θ + p′ +
Simulations DNS is the simplest expense needed for a DNS ∂xj ∂xi
method but unrivaled in simulation increases ′ ′
( )
terms of its temporal and rapidly with the Reynolds ∂ui ∂uj ′ ′
− 2μ − 2ρΩk uj u′m εikm + ui u′m εjkm + Suser
spatial resolution. number, so the method is ∂xk ∂xk
limited to fluid flow of (17)
low to moderate
Reynolds numbers [84].
where ui , uj , uk , ui , uj , and uk represent the fluctuating and mean fluc­
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
Since most practical
applications involve tuating velocities in their respective spatial coordinates, and Suser is the
turbulent flows, the
user-defined source term. Furthermore, θ, β, p , and Ωk are the temper­
′

computational resources
needed are beyond the ature gradient, coefficient of thermal expansion, fluctuating pressure,
most powerful computer and rotation vector, respectively. Moreover, εikm = 1, 0, or − 1 if the
currently in existence. indices are different and in cyclic order; any two of the indices are the
Also, the minuscule time same; or the indices are not in cyclic order, respectively.
steps used in the
simulation of WECs, like
Ref. [78] used STAR-CCM+ for a two-dimensional RANS CFD model
OWCs, prohibit the DNS to investigate the energy balance analysis of a fixed onshore OWC. The
approach from being k-ω SST model agreed reasonably well with the RSM, while the k-ε
applied [27]. model could not capture the flow physics even with a highly refined
10 Smooth Particle SPH is ideal for modeling There is difficulty in
mesh. That shows that the k-ω SST can better predict the flowfield of
Hydrodynamics problems with large selecting the appropriate
deformations and Kernel function due to OWC systems than other traditional RANS models while being compu­
complex boundary the complex nature of the tationally cheaper. The hydrodynamic wave forces exerting on a
conditions, such as in the boundary conditions in fixed-floating offshore OWC were investigated in Ref. [79] by a two and
OWC. OWC problems. three-dimensional CFD model based on the RANS-VOF technique. The
vertical wave force was found to be smaller than the horizontal force.
with a stepped sea bottom [76]. The wave period and height influenced Choosing which turbulent model to apply in a particular OWC
the device’s performance in regular waves. Also, to determine the TKE, investigation is a complex decision that will depend on a thorough
k, and the SDR, ω, of a dual-chamber OWC, Ref. [77] used the k-ω SST literature search and preliminary test to demonstrate how numerical
model. The interaction between regular waves and the OWC device was results compare with the experiment. Table 1 reviews the advantages
studied. The impact of the CWR of the front chamber was observed to and disadvantages of using the different turbulent models in investi­
have a more considerable influence on device efficiency than that of the gating the OWC.
rear chamber. The distribution of the RANS model applied to the study of the OWC
system reviewed in this paper presented in Fig. 4 shows that the k-ε
model is the widely used model.
3.2.2.5. The Reynold stress model. In the RSM, the individual Reynolds
stresses, ρui uj , must be computed by differential transport equations.
′ ′

3.2.3. Large eddy simulation

These Reynold stresses are applied to get closure of the RANS equation. The early studies using LES were carried out mostly in the atmo­
The exact transport equation is as follows: spheric disciplines [85–87]. This model is now being applied to flows
with complex geometries in engineering applications [84].

8
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

Fig. 5. Wave flume at the NCAT fluid laboratory.

Decomposing the velocity and pressure filters into their resolvable scale the experiment.
and subgrid-scale part ui = ui + ui and p = p + p , respectively. Where ui ,
′ ′

p represents the resolvable scale parts and ui , p represents the sub-grid 3.3. Other high-resolution models
′ ′

part. The filtered equations developed from the incompressible

Navier-Stokes equation is as follows: 3.3.1. Scale-adaptive simulation
( ) The transport equations for k and ω for the SST-SAS model is
∂ui ∂ui uj 1 ∂p ∂ ∂ui ∂ui established on Rotta’s method to the k-ω SST model, which is as follows:
+ =− +ν + (18)
∂t ∂xj ρ ∂xI ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj [( ) ]
∂(ρk) ( → ) μ
Substituting the velocity and pressure filters decomposition into + ∇. ρ U k = ∇. μ + t ∇k + Gk − ρcμ kω (20)
∂t σk
equation (18) and filtering the resulting equations leads to equation (19)
as the resolved field: ∂(ρω) ( → ) [( )
μt
]
ω
( ) + ∇. ρ U ω = ∇. μ+ ∇ω + α Gk − ρβω2 + QSAS + (1
∂ui ∂ui uj 1 ∂p ∂ ∂ui ∂uj ∂τij ∂t σω k
+ =− +ν + − (19) 2ρ 1
∂t ∂xj ρ ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj − F1 ) ∇k∇ω
σω,2 ω
where the filtered advection term τij = ui uj − ui uj . The equation (19) can (21)
be derived for the residual field, i.e., the subgrid-scale field.
In Ref. [88], the sea wall type OWC device of low reflection was where QSAS and F1 represents an additional source term and blending
investigated for optimal shape using a new CFD solver known as 2PM3D function, respectively. The model constants are α, β, σω,2 . Applying this
using LES. The reflection coefficients result from this new solver were model to the study of the OWC system will benefit from a lower
validated with the experimental result and were quite promising. It was computational cost than the LES.
further found that three-dimensional modeling is the most appropriate
model to study the optimal shape of the air duct. Ref. [89] used an LBM 3.3.2. Detached eddy simulation
solver to compare the results of a two-dimensional wave flume and a DES was initially developed by Ref. [95] as a hybrid approach
three-dimensional LBM-LES numerical wave flume. The paper combining the capabilities of the LES and the Spalart-Allmaras model. In
concluded that the LBM-LES model could not accurately model the this model, the unsteady RANS methods are applied to the near-wall
dissipation of waves. region, and on the other hand, the LES is applied to a flow field’s
Several studies using OpenFOAM with the LES turbulence model far-wall (freestream) region where large turbulence scales dominate.
were carried out [90–94]: Ref. [90] studied the error induced due to The DES model was designed to address wall-bounded flows with a high
neglecting the air compressibility effect in modeling the OWC device. It Re since the LES model’s computational expense to resolve the near-wall
was found that the consequence of air compressibility was reduced for a problems can be very high. The DES method has been expanded where it
1:5 scale model or larger when modeling an OWC. When at a scale of can be applied to solve a problem with different RANS models
1:50, compressibility affects the results. A CFD investigation of the depending on the flow field [63].
combined effect of turbine damping, fixed OWC geometry, and wave
conditions was carried out by Ref. [91]. The observation was that there 3.3.3. Direct numerical simulations
was a coupled interaction between all the parameters considered in the The DNS approach is a CFD method that solves the NSE numerically
study. Also, the study noted that the optimization of the device could by resolving all scales of motion and applying the initial and boundary
only be achieved by considering all the design parameters involved with conditions to the flow under consideration. The number of operations
the OWC. Optimization of an OWC device was carried out by Ref. [92] needed to complete a DNS simulation is directly proportional to the
for a site-specific area in the Mediterranean by device testing and CFD number of time-steps and mesh points and grows as Re3 .
simulations. The paper indicated that the length of the back wall of the
OWC device equal to approximately one-third of the wavelength is 3.4. Smooth particle hydrodynamics
needed to give a maximum wave reflection at the front of the OWC,
resulting in more significant wave oscillation thus higher performance. SPH is a Lagrangian method initially developed as a probabilistic
In Ref. [93], the results for the LES and k-ω SST models were compared meshless particle-tracking approach to solving astrophysical problems
for the water surface oscillations, air chamber pressure, and vertical air [96,97]. However, it has been modified as a deterministic mesh-less
velocity. The LES model was in very good agreement with experimental particle-tracking method [98,99] with increasing application to fluid
results but at a higher computational expense. Also, a multi-phase LES dynamics problems [100–104] that have complex boundary conditions
modeling of the OWC was carried out in Ref. [94]. It was determined and free surface flows [105], like the flow topology of the OWC. When
that the numerical results for surface elevation and chamber pressure applied to the OWC, the individual fluid particles are tracked, and the
using a monochromatic wave were in relatively good agreement with flowfield is formulated using the SPH methodology. This method is

9
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

Fig. 6. Wave generation in the wave flume.

commonly implemented in the Navier-stokes-based equations using the

Lagrange framework, and the boundary condition is specified to solve
OWC problems. The SPH depends on the Kernel function as they are
closely related to its computational accuracy and stability. Therefore,
researchers have consistently been trying to improve the accuracy of the
Kernel [105]. For example, in Ref. [106] the hydrodynamics of an OWC
device without a PTO, where the effect of air motion inside the OWC,
when ignored, was studied using an improved kernel in an SPH turbu­
lent model (SPHysics). The results of the free surface elevation, wave
force, and torque of the improved SPH model were validated with Fig. 7. The volume of fluid method.
analytical solutions of the second-order stokes wave equation, and it was
found that the improved SPH agrees very well with the analytical results 4.1. Wave generation and absorption
compared to the original SPH model. The complex nature of the solid
boundary conditions when modeling the OWC using SPH is due to the There are several wavemakers, but the commonly used ones are
difficulty in selecting the appropriate Kernel truncation, Ref. [107] used classified into (i) paddles [110] and (ii) plungers [111]. Examples of the
the regional ghost particle method to model the thin front wall using a paddle-type are the piston- and flap-type wavemakers. Wave absorption
two-dimensional NWT instead of the multi-node fixed ghost method, is necessary to prevent the disturbance of incoming waves, which in­
thereby providing a more efficient option and saving computational terferes with the flowfield. Sloped bottom and materials that absorb
resources. In other studies, the SPH method was applied in the study of wave energy, like wire mesh or gravel, are often positioned at the end of
the OWC, Ref. [108] investigated the onshore OWC in terms of its hy­ the wave tank [112]. Various numerical methods are used to generate
drodynamics conditions, the amplification factor, and the forces exerted waves in an NWT investigating WEC devices. These methods are cate­
on the vertical wall of the OWC in a rough sea state under sophisticated gorized as the relaxation method, mass source function, impulse source,
wave breaking, overtopping wave conditions, and impact load using the static, and dynamic boundary method. On the other hand, numerical
SPHyCE, which is a code based on SPH. The phase lag and amplification wave absorption methods are categorized as relaxation, numerical
factor results compared very well with the standard k-ε turbulence beach, sloped beach, passive absorption, sloped bathymetry, mesh
model. Also, the SPHyCE model that was applied accurately predicted stretching, static and dynamic boundary methods. These methods are
the resonance condition in the OWC device. Ref [109] applied another described in detail in Refs. [44,80,112].
SPH-based code (DualSPHysics) to investigate sea wave interaction and
the effect of mooring devices on an offshore OWC. The model replicated
4.2. Numerical wave tank
the water surface accurately in the OWC when the air pressure was
ignored. The authors project the SPH approach to increase in popularity
In the design of marine structures, wave loads are important forces
in modeling the OWC mainly due to its suitability in simulating complex
that must be considered; however, carrying out site tests at sea can be
boundary dynamics as opposed to the Eulerian approach, which uses a
risky, expensive, and sometimes impossible to perform. That led to the
grid-based methodology with difficulties in solving problems with large
development of experimental wave tanks and flumes to generate waves;
deformations. That makes the meshless SPH approach accurate for
however, wave generation in the laboratories is still relatively expen­
highly nonlinear flows, such as flows in the OWC with complex
sive, leading to the development of NWTs in recent years [113]. An NWT
boundary conditions [106].
is a computational tool that simulates the conditions of a wave tank
using CFD codes. They can model motions of floating bodies, calculate
4. Numerical wave generation
hydrodynamic forces, and account for non-linear free surface conditions
[44].
In the laboratory, a wave tank or flume shown in Fig. 5 is used for
Ref. [114] used two numerical codes, Flow-3D and Fluent, to create
wave generation (shown in Fig. 6) to test and investigate wave energy
regular waves in an NWT. The results of the two numerical codes were
devices and other marine structures such as the OWC. Numerical codes
similar, but there was a slight phase difference when comparing the
to generate a numerical wave tank can be formulated to describe this
Fluent results with the theoretical results. Moreover, Ref. [113] used a
laboratory testing.
two-dimensional numerical wave flume to investigate the damping and
generation of waves by the BEM proposed by Ref. [115]. The boundary

10
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

condition of the NWT was fully non-linear at the free surface, with the
other appropriate boundary conditions specified to describe the inlet,
wall, and artificial damping zone. The MEL proposed by Ref. [116],
based on the potential flow theory, was used to develop the NWT. It was
found that the NWT, a BEM solver, was in good agreement with theo­
retical results. Ref. [117] developed a three-dimensional multidirec­
tional non-linear NWT based on the NSE using the FVM. That was
achieved using the flow solver naoe-FOAM-SJTU, based on OpenFOAM.
The solver was shown to be capable of generating different unidirec­
tional and multidirectional non-linear waves accurately, can solve
wave-structure interaction problems, and is used to design offshore
structures. In Ref. [118], a three-dimensional NWT REEF3D was
developed to estimate wave propagation and hydrodynamics by
numerically solving the NSE. The free surface was captured using the
level-set method with high-order discretization in time and space to
prevent the unphysical damping of the water waves generated. The
fifth-order WENO scheme was applied for convection discretization due
to employing a Cartesian grid which provided stable and accurate re­
sults. There was a good correlation with the experimental wave force
data, velocity, and free surface. It also accurately predicted wave Fig. 8. Percentage distribution of CFD codes applied to study the OWC.
shoaling and the accompanying wave transformation, such as wave
breaking. In Ref. [119], the CFD code – Fluent was used to model a
The volume fraction, q, is specified in equation (23). V1 is the volume
three-dimensional NWT with a piston-type wavemaker. The RANS-VOF
of liquid in a cell, and Vcell is the volume of the cell.
method was applied, and the model was validated against theoretical
results. Also, a numerical wave-structure interaction with a vertical V1
q= (23)
cylinder was studied for different wave periods and heights and then Vcell
verified with experimental results. The NWT was capable of modeling
The advection of volume fraction, q for the b-th fluid in a system of, n
actual ocean wave conditions and accurately predicting wave trans­
number of fluids is shown in equation (24):
formation and load.
∂qb →
+ v .∇qb = 0 (24)
5. Volume of fluid model ∂t
In each numerical cell of the interface of the flow domain, the vol­
The VOF method shown in Fig. 7 and proposed by Ref. [120], models ume fraction must sum up to 1 [122].
the interface between immiscible fluids. The interface is treated as
discontinuous in the flow field [121]. The techniques used to track, ∑
n
qs = 1 (25)
capture, and locate fluid interfaces are classified into interface tracking s=1
and interface capturing methods [122]. The interface tracking methods
include Height Functions, Line Segments, and Marker Particles [120]. An artificial compression term is included in equation (24) to reduce
While, the interface capturing methods are: the CICSAM Scheme the smearing of the air-water interface due to numerical diffusion. It also
[123–125], the HRIC Scheme [123,125], the Level-set Method [122], ensures the conservation of q and the boundedness of equation (24).
the MAC scheme, the STACS scheme [123], the SMMC method [126], Ref. [120] noted that the amount of q moving from a donor to an
and the VOF [120,122,127,128]. acceptor cell in a time step, δt is δq × r, and r = u δt, where r is the total
The VOF method is not considered to be computationally flux of fluid volume moving through the cells and u is the cell-face
demanding. That is one reason for its wide implementation [129,130]. normal velocity. The δq is given by Ref. [120]:
The VOF is a simplified Eulerian multi-phase modeling approach used to δq = min[qAD |r| + CF, qD δxD ] (26)
model continuous-continuous phase interactions of distinct interface
and non-miscible fluids. The mesh consists of moving and fixed mesh where,
parts; the moving mesh traces the curvature of the interface, then it is
CF = max [(1.0 − qAD )|r| − (1.0 − qD )δxD , 0.0 ] (27)
applied to the VOF computation, where the equation of continuity,
momentum, and energy are solved as in a single-phase flow. However, The subscripts A and D refer to the acceptor, and donor, respectively.
the properties of the various phases are different. These properties are Moreover, AD represent either A or D. Also, CF and δx represent the
calculated using a volume fraction equation. The VOF model provides an additional fluid flux and width of cells, respectively. Equations (26) and
economical and straightforward way to track free boundaries in two- or (27) refer to the artificial compression terms needed to contain nu­
three-dimensional meshes [120]. merical diffusion. Ref. [120] provides detailed information on the vol­
ume being advected due to the flux of the donor and acceptor cell.
5.1. Volume fraction equation

A single set of turbulent transport equations are used to compute the 5.2. Material properties
entire flowfield [122] for both phases [131], and the volume fraction is
traced for the individual fluid throughout the flowfield [121]. A volume The viscosity and density stated as a function of q are averaged as
fraction, q, is instituted to differentiate the various fluids, which is follows [133–135]:
defined as [26,132]:
μ(q) = qμliq + (1 − q)μair (28)
⎧
⎨ 0 air
q = 0 < q < 1 liquid − air interface (22) ρ(q) = qρliq + (1 − q)ρair (29)
⎩
1 liquid
The viscosity and density in the fundamental equations are average

11
F. Opoku et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Main advantages and disadvantages of the different CFD Solvers. CFD Solvers Advantages Disadvantages
CFD Solvers Advantages Disadvantages
The LBM solver enables The solver is not popular
1 ANSYS Fluent This solver uses the cell- It has a considerable complex fluid physics by in marine
centered FVM to number of DOF for every indirectly solving the hydrodynamic studies,
calculate fluxes in non- flowfield parameter NSE from discrete LBE and there is a lack of a
conforming cell resulting in high to resolve complicated consistent scheme that
interfaces, making it computational demand OWC geometrical addresses thermo-
more flexible in grid and memory usage for problems with the air hydrodynamics
motion, adaption, and application in three- turbine modeled as a problems in OWC.
generation. dimensional OWC porous media.
simulation. 9 In-house In-house codes allow the In-house codes typically
2. ANSYS CFX This solver uses the For the FVM used for flexibility of designing take much time to go
vertex-centered FVM, discretization, the dual- one to solve a particular through the verification
allowing it to combine meridian mesh used in problem specific to and validation process
smaller sub-CV around this solver can produce a OWC. to ensure that the
the vertex. Also, it CV of bad quality. And, research communities
requires less number of it takes a longer time for widely accept the results
iterations to attain each iteration to be of the code.
solution convergence. completed when using 10 SPH Based Codes Introducing solid The accuracy of the SPH
this solver. (In-house, geometries inside code depends highly on
3 IH2VOF Specifically, it is It is limited to solving SPHysics, moving fluid is easy due the Kernel function.
designed to solve wave two-dimensional DualSPHysics and to induced forces
problems for hybrid problems and the RANS SPHyCE) because of waves [109].
domains in a coupled k-ε turbulence model.
system of NSE, making it
one of the most quantities. Therefore, equations (28) and (29) are solved for their
advanced solvers for respective average values input into the fundamental equations. When
hydrodynamics and
the bulk of the fluid is water, q = 1, equations (28) and (29) will yield μliq
coastal structures
problems. It provides and ρliq respectively, and when a significant portion of the fluid is air, q
realistic and active wave = 0; equations (28) and (29) produce μair and ρair . At the interface, when
generation and the q value is intermediate, the density and viscosity will be a function of
absorption.
q.
4 OpenFOAM It has a toolbox named OpenFOAM has a steep
IHFOAM, specially learning curve and is not
designed to solve three- user-friendly. 5.3. Interface reconstruction
dimensional bi-phasic
flow problems in
Advection of material distribution in a multi-phase flow leads to non-
offshore, coastal, and
hydraulic engineering.
sharp interfaces because of the repeated interpolation over time from
IHFOAM has an the numerical diffusion of the material properties [136]. In modeling the
extensive collection of OWC using an NWT, the location of the interface between the air and
boundary conditions for water is of interest. Several techniques have been proposed for interface
three-dimensional wave
reconstruction, including PLRC, PCR, SOR, and SSR [137]. However, the
generation and active
absorption in NWT for widely applied techniques are PLRC and PCR. Refs. [130,137] devel­
OWC problems. oped the PLRC technique, an approach commonly used to keep the
5 Star-CCMþ Star-CCM+ has a It has not been widely interface sharp in a multi-phase flow. In that approach, the averaged
varying range of models used as ANSYS Fluent in values of conserved quantities are interpolated to the faces of the
to simulate the OWC. investigating the OWC.
Also, it produces far Fig. 8 shows that 19% of
computational cell from the cell center. Also, the PCR method has been
higher meshing quality the studies considered in widely referenced in the work of Refs. [120,138]. Ref. [139] noted that
compared to other CFD this review article [140]’s piecewise linear technique is the most accurate choice [141],
codes. applied Star-CCM+ but it is perceived to be difficult and computationally expensive, leading
compared to 37% for
many researchers and authors to prefer the less accurate PCR
ANSYS Fluent.
6 REEF3D REEF3D is an open- The turbulent models approximation.
source code with four are limited to a few
models designed RANS models (i.e., k-ε 6. CFD solvers
explicitly for wave and and k-ω), URANS
hydrodynamic (coupled with k-ε and k-
problems. That makes ω), and LES.
Commercial software that computes the flowfield of WECs includes
its application to but is not restricted to ANSYS™ Fluent, CFX, Star-CD/CCM+, and
studying OWC problems FLOW-3D [19]. In-house and open-source software such as OpenFoam,
for different wave Code-Saturne, AMAZON, and ComFLOW have also been used [19].
theories easier
Other codes like IH2VOF, REEF3D, 2PM3D have been used to investi­
compared to other CFD
models. gate OWCs. In this paper, the percentage distribution of the reviewed
7 2PM3D It can enable wave- 2PM3D uses the FDM for papers that have applied the various CFD codes to study OWC systems
breaking studies in OWC its spatial discretization are indicated in Fig. 8. ANSYS Fluent, Star-CCM+, and OpenFOAM are
and accounts for the leading to structured the most used codes that have been applied to the study of the OWC.
nonlinearities due to the meshing making its
wave-breaking application to
Table 2 list the important advantages and disadvantages of the various
phenomenon. complicated OWC solvers.
geometry challenging.
8 LBM Solvers

12
F. Opoku et al.
7. Conclusions
This review investigates the numerical modeling of OWCs. The aim is
to provide insight into the accuracy of CFD using NWTs for different flow
regimes. Based on the discussions in this review, we draw the following
conclusions:
• Most investigations of the OWC in the inviscid flow regime have been
conducted using the potential flow model, which tends to over­
estimate the efficiency of these devices.
• The RANS transport models that have been used to model the OWC
system include the k-ε, realizable k-ε, k-ω, k-ω SST, and the Reynolds
Stress Model. These models have demonstrated that they can
adequately reproduce experimental results with an acceptable level
of accuracy. Also, the standard k-ε model was established to be the
most widely used among the research articles that were reviewed.
• No research articles investigating the OWC that were reviewed used
the following turbulence models: Spalart-Allmaras, RNG k-ε, SAS,
DES, and DNS. However, there is no indication in the literature to
suggest that these models cannot be applied.
• While DNS is too computationally expensive to model a full-scale
OWC, other high-fidelity models such as LES capture detailed flow
phenomena and show very good agreement with experimental
results.
• The NWT has been demonstrated to be an effective numerical tool to
investigate the OWC and other WECs, therefore helping to supple­
ment and guide expensive and risky experimental and site tests.
• The VOF method is the most popular method for capturing the free
surface in the study of the OWC since it is less computationally
demanding than other multi-phase simulations.
• The study of the OWC has used a variety of different CFD codes with
varying levels of numerical fidelity. This review found that the
ANSYS Fluent using RANS modeling is the most used code with
diverse usage by researchers to study OWC systems.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
We have shared data as a supplementary material.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the North Carolina Renewable
Ocean Energy Program (NCROEP) and the United States Department of
Energy (DOE) for the partial support that helped conduct this review
exercise.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113124.
References
[1] Opoku F. Feasibility study of solar thermal electric-power generation in northern
Ghana. Master thesis. Kumasi, Ghana: Dept. of Mech. Eng., K.N.U.S.T.; 2010.
[2] Aderinto T, Li H. Ocean Wave energy converters: status and challenges. Energies
2018;11:1–26.
[3] Cruz J. Ocean Wave Energy: Current Status and Future Perspective 2008:93–132.
[4] Morris-Thomas MT, Irvin RJ, Thiagarajan KP. An investigation into the
hydrodynamic efficiency of an oscillating water column. J Offshore Mech Arctic
Eng 2007;129:273–8.
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124
[5] Sheng W, Alcorn R, Lewis A. On thermodynamics in the primary power
conversion of oscillating water column wave energy converters. J Renew Sustain
Energy 2013;5.
[6] Vyzikas T, Deshoulières S, Giroux O, Barton M, Greaves D. Numerical study of
fixed Oscillating Water Column with RANS-type two-phase CFD model. Renew
Energy 2017;102:294–305.
[7] Zaoui L, Bouali B, Larbi S, Benchattp A. Performance analysis of a 3D
axisymmetric oscillating water column. Energy Proc 2014;50:246–54.
[8] Opoku F. Numerical investigation of a novel oscillating water column. Doctoral
Dissertation, Dept. of Mech. Eng., North Carolina Agricultural and Technical
State University. ProQuest Diss. Publ; 2021.
[9] Bouali B, Larbi S. Contribution to the geometry optimization of an oscillating
water column wave energy converter. Energy Proc 2013;36:565–73.
[10] Gomes MN, Nascimento CD, Bonafini BL, Santos ED, Isoldi LA, Rocha LAO. Two-
dimensional geometric optimization of an oscillating water column converter in
laboratory scale. Rev Eng Térmica 2012;11:30–6.
[11] Lopez I, Iglesias G, Lopez M, Castro F, Rodriguez MA. Turbine-chamber coupling
in an OWC wave energy converter. In: Proceedings of the 33rd conference on
coastal engineering; 2012.
[12] Zhang Y, Zou Q, Greaves D. Air-water two-phase flow modelling of hydrodynamic
performance of an oscillating water column device. Renew Energy 2012;41:
159–70.
[13] Halder P, Rhee SH, Samad A. Numerical optimization of wells turbine for wave
energy extraction. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 2017;9:11–24.
[14] Halder P, Kumar PM. Coupled CAD-CFD automated optimization for leading and
trailing edge of an axial impulse turbine blade. Ocean Eng 2020;213:1–15.
[15] Morrison IG, Greated CA. Oscillating water column modelling. Proceedings of the
23rd Int. Conf. Coast. Eng. 1992;502–11.
[16] Chenari B, Saadatian SS, Ferreira A. Wave energy systems: an overview of
different wave energy converters and recommendation for future improvements.
In: Proceedings of the 8th international technology. Education and Development
Conference; 2014.
[17] Uddin MN, Atkinson M, Opoku F. Numerical investigation of a modified denniss-
auld turbine. In: Proceedings of AIAA aviation forum; 2022.
[18] Davyt D, Teixeira PRF, Ramalhais R, Didier E. Numerical analysis of regular
waves over an onshore oscillating water column. In: Proceedings of the 13th
Brazilian congress of thermal sciences and engineering; 2010.
[19] Mingham C, Qian L, Causon D. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. In:
Folley M, editor. Numerical modelling of wave energy converters: state-of-the-art
techniques for single devices arrays. London: Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 105–22.
[20] Fitzgerald CJ. Nonlinear potential flow models. In: Folley M, editor. Numerical
modelling of wave energy converters: state-of-the-art techniques for single
devices arrays. London: Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 83–104.
[21] Folley M. Spectral-domain models. In: Folley M, editor. Numerical modelling of
wave energy converters: state-of-the-art techniques for single devices arrays.
London: Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 67–80.
[22] Ricci P. Time-domain models. In: Folley M, editor. Numerical modelling of wave
energy converters: state-of-the-art techniques for single devices arrays. London:
Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 31–66.
[23] Alves M. Frequency-domain models. In: Folley M, editor. Numerical modelling of
wave energy converters: state-of-the-art techniques for single devices arrays.
London: Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 11–30.
[24] Opoku F, Atkinson M, Uddin MN. Numerical investigation of an offshore
oscillating water column. Am J Mech Eng 2020;8:88–105.
[25] Opoku F, Atkinson M, Uddin MN. In: Computational fluid dynamics investigation
of a novel oscillating water column. Proceedings of AIAA SciTech Forum; 2022.
[26] Uddin MN, Atkinson M, Opoku F. A computational fluid dynamics investigation
of a numerically simulated wave tank. Am J Mech Eng 2020;8:40–9.
[27] Davidson J, Costello R. Efficient nonlinear hydrodynamic models for wave energy
converter design-A scoping study. J Mar Sci Eng 2020;8:1–65.
[28] Schlichting H, Gersten K. Boundary-layer theory. ninth ed. Berlin, Germany:
Spinger-Verlag; 2017.
[29] Sheng W, Alcorn R, Lewis T. Physical modelling of wave energy converters.
Ocean Eng 2014;84:29–36.
[30] White FM. Viscous fluid flow. third ed. Chennai, India: McGraw Hill Education
(India) Private Limited; 2006. p. 59–73.
[31] Koirala P, Nagata S, Imai Y, Murakami T, Setoguchi T. A numerical study on
multi-chamber oscillating water columns. J JSCE 2015;3:93–104.
[32] Bull D. An improved understanding of the natural resonances of moonpools
contained within floating rigid-bodies: theory and application to oscillating water
column devices. Ocean Eng 2015;108:799–812.
[33] Chang C, Chou FN-F, Chen Y, Hsieh Y. Analytical and experimental investigation
of hydrodynamic performance and chamber optimization of oscillating water
column system. Energy 2016;113:597–614.
[34] Rezanejad K, Bhattacharjee J, Guedes Soares C. Analytical and numerical study of
dual-chamber oscillating water columns on stepped bottom. Renew Energy 2015;
75:272–82.
[35] Josset C, Clément AH. A time-domain numerical simulator for oscillating water
column wave power plants. Renew Energy 2007;32:1379–402.
[36] Chowdhury SD, Manasseh R. Behaviour of eigenmodes of an array of oscillating
water column devices. Wave Motion 2017;74:56–72.
[37] Folley M, Whittaker T. Validating a spectral-domain model of an OWC using
physical model data. Int J Mar Energy 2013;2:1–11.
[38] Clément AH. Dynamic nonlinear response of OWC wave energy devices. Int J
Offshore Polar Eng 1997;7:154–9.
F. Opoku et al.
[39] Singh U, Abdussamie N, Hore J. Hydrodynamic performance of a floating offshore
OWC wave energy converter: an experimental study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2020:117.
[40] Ozdamar G, Pekbey Y, Ozdamar A. A numerical study of the effect of wave
amplitude on the efficiency of a wave power system. In: Proceedings of the 7th
international advances in applied physics and materials science; 2018. p. 153–5.
[41] Mohapatra P, Sahoo T. Hydrodynamic performance analysis of a shore fixed
oscillating water column wave energy converter in the presence of bottom
variations. In: Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers. Part M:
Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment; 2019. p. 1–11.
[42] Rezanejad K, Bhattacharjee J, Guedes Soares C. Stepped sea bottom effects on the
efficiency of nearshore oscillating water column device. Ocean Eng 2013;70:
25–38.
[43] Alfonsi G. Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for turbulence modeling.
Appl Mech Rev 2009;62:1–20.
[44] Windt C, Davidson J, Ringwood JV. High-fidelity numerical modelling of ocean
wave energy systems: a review of computational fluid dynamics-based numerical
wave tanks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;93:610–30.
[45] Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W. An introduction to computational fluid mechanics -
the Finite Volume Method. second ed. Essex, England: Pearson Prentice Hall;
2007.
[46] ANSYS Inc. ANSYS fluent theory guide. WY, USA: SAS IP, Inc.; 2013.
[47] Launder BE, Spalding DB. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 1974;3:269–89.
[48] Anbarsooz M, Faramarzi A, Ghasemi A. A numerical study on the performance of
fixed oscillating water column wave energy converter at steep waves. In:
Proceedings of the ASME 2016 conference collocated with the ASME 2016 10th
international conference on energy sustainability and the ASME 2016 14th
international conference on fuel cell science. Engineering and Technology; 2016.
[49] Liu Z, Hyun B, Jin J. Numerical analysis of wave field in OWC chamber using VOF
model. J Ocean Eng Technol 2008;22:1–6.
[50] Liu Z, Shi H, Hyun B. Practical design and investigation of the breakwater OWC
facility in China. Energy Convers 2009;304–8.
[51] Luo Y, Nader J-R, Cooper P, Zhu S-P. Nonlinear 2D analysis of the efficiency of
fixed Oscillating Water Column wave energy converters. Renew Energy 2014;64:
255–65.
[52] Luo Y, Wang Z, Peng G, Xiao Y, Zhai L, Liu X, et al. Numerical simulation of a
heave-only floating OWC (oscillating water column) device. Energy 2014;76:
799–806.
[53] Liu Z, Hyun B-S, Hong K. Numerical study of air chamber for oscillating water
column wave energy convertor. China Ocean Eng 2011;25:169–78.
[54] Liu Z, Jin J, Hyun B, Hong K. Review of application of VOF-based NWT on
integrated OWC system. J Korean Soc Mar Environ Eng 2012;15:111–7.
[55] Teixeira PRF, Didier E. Numerical analysis of the response of an onshore
oscillating water column wave energy converter to random waves. Energy 2021;
220:1–12.
[56] Bouali B, Larbi S. Sequential optimization and performance prediction of an
oscillating water column wave energy converter. Ocean Eng 2017;131:162–73.
[57] Armesto JA, Guanche R, Iturrioz A, Vidal C, Losada IJ. Identification of state-
space coefficients for oscillating water columns using temporal series. Ocean Eng
2014;79:43–9.
[58] Iturrioz A, Guanche R, Armesto JA, Alves MA, Vidal C, Losada IJ. Time-domain
modeling of a fixed detached oscillating water column towards a floating multi-
chamber device. Ocean Eng 2014;76:65–74.
[59] Teixeira PRF, Davyt DP, Didier E, Ramalhais R. Numerical simulation of an
oscillating water column device using a code based on Navier-Stokes equations.
Energy 2013;61:513–30.
[60] López I, Pereiras B, Castro F, Iglesias G. Optimisation of turbine-induced damping
for an OWC wave energy converter using a RANS-VOF numerical model. Appl
Energy 2014;127:105–14.
[61] Connell KO, Thiebaut F, Kelly G, Cashman A. Development of a free heaving OWC
model with non-linear PTO interaction. Renew Energy 2018;117:108–15.
[62] Zhan J-M, Fan Q, Hu W-Q, Gong Y-J. Hybrid realizable k− ε/laminar method in
the application of 3D heaving OWCs. Renew Energy 2020;155:691–702.
[63] Wilcox DC. Turbulence modeling for CFD. third ed. La Canada, California: DCW
Industries, Inc.; 2006.
[64] Kamath A, Bihs H, Arntsen ØA. Numerical investigations of the hydrodynamics of
an oscillating water column device. Ocean Eng 2015;102:40–50.
[65] Kamath A, Bihs H, Arntsen ØA. Numerical modeling of power take-off damping in
an oscillating water column device. Int J Mar Energy 2015;10:1–16.
[66] Haghighi AT, Nikseresht AH, Hayati M. Numerical analysis of hydrodynamic
performance of a dual-chamber Oscillating Water Column. Energy 2021;221:1–9.
[67] Scarpetta F, Torresi M, Camporeale SM, Filianoti PF. CFD simulation of the
unsteady flow in an Oscillating Water Column: comparison between numerical
and experimental results for a small scale experimental device. In: Proceedings of
the 12th European wave and tidal energy conference; 2017.
[68] Elhanafi A, Macfarlane G, Fleming A, Leong Z. Experimental and numerical
investigations on the hydrodynamic performance of a floating–moored oscillating
water column wave energy converter. Appl Energy 2017;205:369–90.
[69] Elhanafi A, Macfarlane G, Fleming A, Leong Z. Experimental and numerical
investigations on the intact and damage survivability of a floating–moored
oscillating water column device. Appl Ocean Res 2017;68:276–92.
[70] Elhanafi A, Macfarlane G, Fleming A, Leong Z. Experimental and numerical
measurements of wave forces on a 3D offshore stationary OWC wave energy
converter. Ocean Eng 2017;144:98–117.
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124
[71] Elhanafi A, Macfarlane G, Fleming A, Leong Z. Investigations on 3D effects and
correlation between wave height and lip submergence of an offshore stationary
OWC wave energy converter. Appl Ocean Res 2017;64:203–16.
[72] Elhanafi A, Macfarlane G, Fleming A, Leong Z. Scaling and air compressibility
effects on a three-dimensional offshore stationary OWC wave energy converter.
Appl Energy 2016;189:1–20.
[73] Elhanafi A, Fleming A, Macfarlane G, Leong Z. Numerical hydrodynamic analysis
of an offshore stationary–floating oscillating water column–wave energy
converter using CFD. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 2016;9:77–99.
[74] Elhanafi A, Fleming A, Macfarlane G, Leong Z. Underwater geometrical impact on
the hydrodynamic performance of an offshore oscillating water column–wave
energy converter. Renew Energy 2017;105:209–31.
[75] Iturrioz A, Guanche R, Lara JL, Vidal C, Losada IJ. Validation of OpenFOAM® for
oscillating water column three-dimensional modeling. Ocean Eng 2015;107:
222–36.
[76] Rezanejad K, Gadelho JFM, Guedes Soares C. Hydrodynamic analysis of an
oscillating water column wave energy converter in the stepped bottom condition
using CFD. Renew Energy 2019;135:1241–59.
[77] Wang C, Zhang Y. Numerical investigation on the wave power extraction for a 3D
dual-chamber oscillating water column system composed of two closely
connected circular. Appl Energy 2021;295:1–19.
[78] Elhanafi A, Fleming A, Macfarlane G, Leong Z. Numerical energy balance analysis
for an onshore oscillating water column–wave energy converter. Energy 2016;
116:539–57.
[79] Elhanafi A. Prediction of regular wave loads on a fixed offshore oscillating water
column - wave energy converter using CFD. J Ocean Eng Sc 2016;1:268–83.
[80] Windt C, Davidson J, Schmitt P, Ringwood JV. On the assessment of numerical
wave makers in CFD simulations. J Mar Sci Eng 2019;7:1–36.
[81] Shih T-H, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Yang Z, Zhu J. A new k-ε eddy viscosity model for
high Reynolds number turbulent flows, vol. 24. Elsevier Sci Ltd; 1995. p. 227–38.
[82] Menter FR. Zonal two equation k-ω turbulence models for aerodynamic flows. In:
Proceedings of the 23rd fluid dynamics conference; 1992.
[83] Menter F, Egorov Y. The scale-adaptive simulation method for unsteady turbulent
flow predictions. Part 1: theory and Model Description. J Flow Turbul Combust
2010;85:113–38.
[84] Pope SB. Turbulent flows. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press;
2000.
[85] Smagorinsky J. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations.
Mon Weather Rev 1963;91:99–164.
[86] Lilly DK. The representation of small-scale turbulence in numerical simulation
experiments. In: Goldstine HH, editor. Proceedings of IBM scientific computing
symposium on environmental sciences; 1967.
[87] Deardoff JW. Three-dimensional numerical study of the height and mean
structure of a heated planetary boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 1974:
81–106.
[88] Shin S, Lee K-H, Kim D-S, Kim K-H, Hong K. A study on the optimal shape of wave
energy conversion system using an oscillating water column. J Coast Res 2013;65:
1663–8.
[89] Thorimbert Y, Latt J, Cappietti L, Chopard B. Virtual wave flume and Oscillating
Water Column modeled by lattice Boltzmann method and comparison with
experimental data. Int J Mar Energy 2016;14:41–51.
[90] Simonetti I, Cappietti L, Elsafti H, Oumeraci H. Evaluation of air compressibility
effects on the performance of fixed OWC wave energy converters using CFD
modelling. Renew Energy 2018;119:741–53.
[91] Simonetti I, Cappietti L, Elsafti H, Oumeraci H. Optimization of the geometry and
the turbine induced damping for fixed detached and asymmetric OWC devices: a
numerical study. Energy 2017;139:1197–209.
[92] Simonetti I, Crema I, Cappietti L, El Safti H, Oumeraci H. Site-specific
optimization of an OWC wave energy converter in a Mediterranean area. In:
Progress in renewable energies offshore - guedes soares. Proceedings of the 2nd
international conference on renewable energies offshore (RENEW2016); 2016.
[93] Simonetti I, Cappietti L, Safti HE, Manfrida G, Matthies H, Oumeraci H. The use of
OpenFOAM as a virtual laboratory to simulate oscillating water column wave
energy converters. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on
computational methods in marine engineering; 2015.
[94] Simonetti I, Cappietti L, Safti HE, Oumeraci H. 3D numerical modelling of
oscillating water column wave energy conversion devices: current knowledge and
OpenFOAM® implementation. In: Progress in renewable energies offshore -
guedes soares. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on renewable
energies offshore (RENEW2014); 2014.
[95] Spalart PR, Jou WH, Strelets MK, Allmaras SR. Comments on the feasibility of LES
for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. In: Advances in DNS/LES,
proceedings of the 1st AFOSR international conference on DNS/LES; 1997.
[96] Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and
application to non-spherical stars. Mon Not Astron Soc 1977;181:375–89.
[97] Lucy LB. A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. Astron J
1977;82:1013–24.
[98] Monaghan JJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annu Rev Astron Astrophys
1992;30:543–74.
[99] Monaghan JJ. Simulating free surface flows with SPH. J Comput Phys 1994;110:
399–406.
[100] Dalrymple RA, Rogers BD. Numerical modeling of water waves with the SPH
method. Coast Eng 2006;53:141–7.
[101] Gomez-Gesteira M, Dalrymple RA. Using a three-dimensional smoothed particle
hydrodynamics method for wave impact on a tall structure. J Waterw Port, Coast
Ocean Eng 2004;130:63–9.
F. Opoku et al.
[102] Shao S, Lo EYM. Incompressible SPH method for simulating Newtonian and non-
Newtonian flows with a free surface. Adv Water Resour 2003;26:787–800.
[103] Shi H, Yu X, Dalrymple RA. Development of a two-phase SPH model for sediment
laden flows. Comput Phys Commun 2017;221:259–72.
[104] Wen H, Ren B, Dong P, Wang Y. A SPH numerical wave basin for modeling wave-
structure interactions. Appl Ocean Res 2016;59:366–77.
[105] Yang XF, Peng SL, Liu MB. A new kernel function for SPH with applications to free
surface flows. Appl Math Model 2014;38:3822–33.
[106] Wen H, Ren B, Yu X. An improved SPH model for turbulent hydrodynamics of a
2D oscillating water chamber. Ocean Eng 2018;150:152–66.
[107] Zhu G, Graham D, Zheng S, Hughes J, Greaves D. Hydrodynamics of onshore
oscillating water column devices: a numerical study using smoothed particle
hydrodynamics. Ocean Eng 2020;218:1–14.
[108] Didier E, Neves DRCB, Teixeira PRF, Días J, Neves MG. Smoothed particle
hydrodynamics numerical model for modeling an oscillating water chamber.
Ocean Eng 2016;123:397–410.
[109] Crespo AJC, Altomare C, Dominquez JM, Gonzalez-Cao J, Gomez-Gesteira M.
Towards simulating floating offshore oscillating water column converters with
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Coast Eng 2017;126:11–26.
[110] Sepri M. Application of wave generator theory to the development of a Wave
Energy Converter. Melbourne, Florida, USA, September: Master of Science,
Florida Institute of Technology; 2008.
[111] Wang S. Plunger-type wavemakers: theory and experiment. J Hydraul Res 1974;
12:357–88.
[112] Schmitt P, Elsaesser B. In: A review of wave makers for 3D numerical simulations.
Proceedings of the VI International Conference on Computational Methods in
Marine Engineering; 2015. MARINE 2015.
[113] Aliabadi FH, Ghadimi P, Djeddi SR, Dashtimanesh A. 2-D numerical wave tank by
boundary element method using different numerical techniques. Global J Math
Anal 2013;1:11–21.
[114] Kh MZK, Mazaheri S, Mazyak AR. Wave generation in a numerical wave tank. Int
J Coast Offshore Eng 2017;5:33–43.
[115] Grilli ST, Skourup J, Svendsen IA. An efficient boundary element method for
nonlinear water waves. Eng Anal Bound Elem 1989;6:97–107.
[116] Longuet-Higgins MS, Cokelet ED. The deformation of steep surface waves on
water - I. A numerical method of computation. In: Proceedings of the royal society
A,. Math. Phys. Sci.; 1976.
[117] Cao H-J, Wan D-C. Development of multidirectional nonlinear numerical wave
tank by naoe-FOAM-SJTU solver. Int J Ocean Syst Eng 2014;4:49–56.
[118] Bihs H, Kamath A, Chella MA, Aggarwal A, Arntsen ØA. A new level set numerical
wave tank with improved density interpolation for complex wave hydrodynamics.
Comput Fluids 2016;140:191–208.
[119] Tian X, Wang Q, Liu G, Deng W, Gao Z. Numerical and experimental studies on a
three-dimensional numerical wave tank. IEEE Access 2018;6:6585–93.
[120] Hirt CW, Nichols BD. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free
boundaries. J Comput Phys 1981;39:201–25.
[121] François M. A study of the volume of fluid method for moving boundary
problems. Master of science. Daytona Beach: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University; 1998.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174 (2023) 113124
[122] Rhee SH, Makarov BP, Krishinan H, Ivanov V. Assessment of the volume of fluid
method for free-surface wave flow. J Mar Sci Technol 2005;10:173–80.
[123] Darwish M, Moukalled F. Convective schemes for capturing interfaces of free-
surface flows on unstructured grids. Numer Heat Tran, Part B; Fund, An Intern J
of Comp Method 2007;49:19–42.
[124] Ubbink O, Issa RI. A method for capturing sharp fluid interfaces on arbitrary
meshes. J Comput Phys 1999;153:26–50.
[125] Waclawczyk T, Koronowicz T. Comparison of CICSAM and HRIC high-resolution
schemes for interface capturing. J Theor Appl Mech 2008;46:325–45.
[126] Chen S, Johnson DB, Raad PE, Fadda D. The surface marker and micro cell
method. Int J Numer Methods Fluid 1997;25:749–78.
[127] Scardovelli R, Zaleski S. Direct numerical simulation of free-surface and
interfacial flow. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1999;31:567–603.
[128] Weymouth GD, Yue DK-P. Conservative Volume-of-Fluid method for free-surface
simulations on cartesian grids. J Comput Phys 2009;229:2853–65.
[129] Gueyffier D, Li J, Nadim A, Scardovelli R, Zaleski S. Volume-of-Fluid interface
tracking with smoothed surface stress methods for three-dimensional flows.
J Comput Phys 1999;152:423–56.
[130] Youngs DL. Time-dependent multi-material flow with large fluid distortion.
Numer Methods Fluid Dyn 1982:273–85.
[131] Beygi NS, Hakimzadeh H, Chenaglou MR. Simulation of free surface flows using
volume of fluid method and genetic algorithm. J Hydroinf 2014;16:1110–24.
[132] Kleefsman KMT, Fekken G, Veldman AEP, Iwanowski B, Buchner B. A Volume-of-
Fluid based simulation method for wave impact problems. J Comput Phys 2005;
206:363–93.
[133] Chen J, Wen H, Wang Y, Wang G. A correlation study of optimal chamber width
with the relative front wall draught of onshore OWC device. Energy 2021;225:2.
[134] Wang C, Zhang Y. Hydrodynamic performance of an offshore Oscillating Water
Column device mounted over an immersed horizontal plate: a numerical study.
Energy 2021;222:1–15.
[135] Huang Z, Huang S. Two-phase flow simulations of fixed 3D oscillating water
columns using OpenFOAM: a comparison of two methods for modeling quadratic
power takeoff. Ocean Eng 2021;232:3.
[136] Karch GK, Sadlo F, Meister C, Rauschenberger P, Eisenschmidt K, Weigand B,
Ertl T. In: Visualization of piecewise linear interface calculation. Proceedings in
IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium; 2013.
[137] Youngs DL. An interface tracking method for a 3D Eulerian Hydrodynamics code.
AWRE; 1984. p. 3–20. Technical Report 44/92/35.
[138] Noh WF, Woodward P. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on
numerical methods in fluid dynamics. Simple line interface calculation; 1976.
[139] Kothe DB, Rider WJ. Comments on modeling interfacial flows with Volume-of-
Fluid methods. CiteSeerX 1995:3–10.
[140] DeBar RB. Fundamentals of the KRAKEN code [Eulerian hydrodynamics code for
compressible nonviscous flow of several fluids in two-dimensional (axially
symmetric) region], United States 1974.
[141] Pilliod JE, Puckett EG. Second-order accurate volume-of-fluid algorithms for
tracking material interfaces. J Comput Phys 2004;199:465–502.