Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Downscaling wave energy converters for optimum performance in

low-energy seas
€ lbali a, b, Adem Akpınar a, *, Gregorio Iglesias c, d, Halid Jafali a
AjabGul Majidi a, Bilal Bingo
a
Bursa Uludag University, Civil Engineering Department, Bursa, Turkey
b
Bursa Uludag University, Inego€l Vocational School of Higher Education, Bursa, Turkey
c
School of Engineering, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
d
MaREI, Environmental Research Institute & School of Engineering, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As wave energy converters (WECs) are typically designed and optimized for ocean wave conditions, they
Received 26 October 2020 struggle to perform in low-energy seas or bays, where wave conditions are very different. This work
Received in revised form investigates the hypothesis that downscaled versions of WECs may well be more suited for such con-
1 December 2020
ditions. More specifically, fifteen downscaled WECs are considered for deployment in the Black Sea. The
Accepted 21 December 2020
Available online 24 December 2020
resizing (downscaling) of the WECs is based on Froude scaling law. Ten values are considered for the
scaling factor (lL ¼ 1.0, 0.9, 0.8 … 0.1), and the value that yields the highest capacity factor is selected for
downscaling the WEC. The downscaled WEC is then compared with the original (full-scale) WEC in terms
Keywords:
Wave energy converter
of performance (capacity factor, full-load hours, and rated capacity). This analysis is carried out for fifteen
Optimum scale WECs and 62 locations at different water depths (5, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m), distributed on 13 lines
Production performance perpendicular to the shoreline along the south-western coast of the Black Sea. The highest capacity factor
Black sea was obtained by Oyster, whereas the highest energy output was achieved by SSG and WaveDragon for
the locations with 4e16 m depths. For deeper waters (25, 50, 75, and 100 m), the highest capacity factor
was obtained by Oceantec. In terms of energy output, the best performers were WaveDragon (at 25 m
water depth) and Pontoon (at 50, 75, and 100 m water depths). The interest of this approach, however,
lies not only in that it enables a scaling factor to be determined for downscaling a WEC for a given site,
but also e and more generally e in that it proves the initial hypothesis that downscaled WECs may
provide a better alternative for low-energy seas than their full-scale counterparts.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction with different operating principles at five locations on the Euro-

As a result of the increase in energy demand and the growing
awareness of the repercussions of greenhouse gas emissions, the
need for expanding renewable energy production has become clear
in recent years. Renewable energy resources such as hydropower,
geothermal, solar, wind, and wave energy have become ever more
popular. The global wave energy resource is vast [1] and largely
untapped. Wave energy has the potential to contribute significantly
to the decarbonization of the energy mix. A number of studies
[2e13] investigated the amount of energy that can be produced
with existing WECs in regions of interest. For example, Babarit et al.
[4] conducted a study on the generation of energy by four WECs
pean coast. Although the WECs had different working principles,
the absorbed power values per unit of wet surface and power
pulling forces were found to be similar. At the same time, it was
determined that the absorbed power values per unit and mass were
different within the scope of the study. Another study [5] con-
ducted off the coast of Portugal assessed the energy output (E) of
five WEC technologies using 3-year simulation results from a wave
prediction model. In order to select the most suitable technology,
the power matrices of the systems and the characteristic matrices
of the wave climate were combined to determine the energy
output. It was found that the output of the WECs depends not only
on the average wave power but also on the distribution of the wave

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ademakpinar@uludag.edu.tr, ademakpinar@hotmail.com (A. Akpınar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.092
0960-1481/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo
resource across wave periods. Therefore, the compatibility between
the probable sea states in the area of interest and the power matrix
of the WECs is an important issue in choosing the most suitable
technology. Diaconu and Rusu [6] carried out a study on the per-
formance of different WEC technologies for deployment off the
northwest coast of the Black Sea. The distribution of the sea states
defined by the Hs and wave energy period (Te or Tm-10) or peak
period (Tp) was determined and compared. The electrical energy
which can be produced based on the power matrices of ten
different WECs was estimated and compared. Although the
WaveDragon WECs could generate more energy for the targeted
location, the Oceantec WEC was found to be the most efficient and
suitable device for the specific area. Alamian et al. [7] aimed to
evaluate the performance of WEC technologies for use in the Cas-
pian Sea. The most suitable device considering the conditions of the
Caspian Sea, including the bathymetry, the amplitude, length, and
frequency of the waves along with the coastal conditions, was
chosen. In addition, the performance and maintenance costs of the
devices were taken into account in the final decision. As a result,
point absorber WECs were found to be best suited for the Caspian
Sea. Rusu [3] evaluated the efficiency of WECs in the nearshore
region of Western Iberian. The wave data were obtained from the
numerical wave model estimations, and the wave power conver-
sion efficiency was evaluated by the load factor and capture width
(hold width). Iuppa et al. [8] evaluated the performance of several
WECs that are likely to be installed at three stations on the west
coast of Sicily. In the original configurations of all of these WECs, a
low capacity factor was obtained due to the fact that they are
optimized for high-energy wave conditions. Carballo et al. [2]
presented an analysis of the inter-annual power performance of
different WECs at two locations in northwest Spain. The monthly
performances of the WECs were evaluated in terms of efficiency
using the power matrices of the WECs considered and the wave
climate matrices for the locations. Rusu and Onea [9,10] demon-
strated the effectiveness of ten different WECs along Europe and
the world coasts. The estimated electrical energy, capacity factor,
normalized dimensionless wave power, and capture width values
of these WECs were calculated and compared. According to Rusu
and Onea [9], the WaveDragon, which is the largest of the WECs in
terms of installed capacity and size, performed best. The Oceantec
WECs in the Mediterranean Sea and the WaveBob in Scandinavia,
the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Spain, and Portugal were
found to provide higher values in terms of estimated electrical
power. Rusu and Onea [10] found that the WaveDragon is suitable
for large-scale power plants, but for rated power of less than
1000 kW WaveBob, Pelamis and Oceantec offer a similar output.
Another study carried out by Veigas et al. [14] investigates the
optimal location for SSG WECs in the coastal area of Galicia NW
Spain. The study suggests three areas which are encouraging for a
pilot wave power plant.
In western Brittany, one of the most energetic regions on the
French coasts, the effect of temporal variability on the electricity
production of Pelamis, AquaBuoy, and WaveDragon was investi-
gated by Guillou and Chapalain [11]. The effects were particularly
evident for Pelamis, which showed a periodic reduction in energy
production between winter and summer. The main contribution to
the power output of the devices is provided by sea states with
energy periods between 10.5 and 12.5 s and wave heights between
2.75 and 4.25 m. In winter, the WECs performances exhibited high
variability, with monthly values of the capacity factor of up to 65%
706
Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722
for WaveDragon. Bozzi et al. [12] explored the Mediterranean Sea
potential for offshore wave electricity generation. To this end, the
performance of several offshore WECs was evaluated based on a 37-
year hindcast wave data and WECs performance data across the
Mediterranean coastline. Since the analyzed technologies are
designed for more energetic wave climates, it was considered that
smaller devices, downscaled by the Froude similarity criterion,
would match better the Mediterranean wave climate. At each
location, the best device size was determined by simulating
differently scaled versions of the WECs and then selecting the scale
factor (lL) that maximizes the average annual capacity factor. The
results show that most of the Mediterranean coastline can be
successfully exploited with appropriately reduced versions of WEC
technologies. More specifically, six of the WECs studied can reach a
capacity factor greater than 0.2 along 40% of the shoreline, and
three WECs (AquaBuoy, Pelamis, and WaveBob) can work with a
capacity factor exceeding 0.3 in 8% of the study area. Morim et al.
[13] stated the importance of intra- and inter-annual variability in
potential production performance at the central shelf in New South
Wales, Australia, using the power conversion matrices of ten
different commercial WECs and a 31-year wave hindcast dataset. It
was found that the variability in potential production performance
is comparable monthly and annually.
No study has been conducted so far on the performance of
downscaled WECs in a moderate-energy, low-energy sea. In this
context, the objective of the present work is to investigate whether
downscaled WECs may constitute a useful means of exploiting
wave energy in such conditions, using the Black Sea as an example.
The rationale for this approach is that full-scale WECs are designed
for ocean wave conditions and, therefore, not optimized for the
wave conditions prevailing in a moderate-energy sea. The WECs are
downscaled according to the sea states, and their outputs are
compared, considering the different scales and different technol-
ogies in typical areas. Fifteen WEC technologies are examined at
five different water depths and 62 locations, distributed along 13
lines perpendicular to the coastline of the south-western Black Sea.
For each device, ten values of the scale factor are compared, and the
results are analyzed in terms of mean annual energy output, ca-
pacity factor (Cf), operating hours (Oh), and rated capacity factor
(Rf).
2. Materials and methods
The production performance of WECs at a specific location is
based on the wave climate data, bathymetry, and the working
principle of the particular WECs. HeavBuoy, Oyster2, Oyster, SSG,
Seabased AB, WaveDragon, WaveStar, Langlee, Oceantec, Pelamis,
WaveBob, AWS, OEBuoy, AquaBuoy, and Pontoon technologies are
considered in the present study. The details are presented in sub-
sections 2.1 and 2.2. The scaling procedure of the WECs and the
key parameters for presenting the performance of the full- and
down-scaled devices are provided in sub-section 2.3.
2.1. Study area and dataset
The study area in the present study is the high-potential area of
the south-western Black Sea (Fig. 1). In total, 62 sites were selected,
distributed on 13 perpendicular lines along a 700 km long coastline
(Table 1). Five sites are chosen on each line, with water depths of
approximately 100, 75, 50, 25, and 5 m.
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo
Fig. 1. Study area with the bathymetry and positions of the 62 sites distributed on 13 perpendicular lines to the coastline, from KA to SD (each line encompasses sites at water
depths of 5, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m).
The point data (Hs, Te, Tp, and Tm02) for the present study were
extracted from a three-step nested grid e a coarse grid covering the
entire Black Sea, a fine grid covering the south-western Black Sea,
and three high-resolution sub-domains. The 31-year long-term
spatial hindcast dataset from 1979 to 2009, which was produced
707
Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722
for previous wave energy assessment studies [15,16], was a cali-
brated and validated dataset. The dataset was obtained with SWAN
version 41.01AB, forced with Climate Forecast System Reanalysis
(CFSR) winds, and implemented with a spatial resolution of 0.005
and a time step of 2 h. Detailed information on the validation and
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Table 1 connected to the sea; the fall and rise of the water column inside
Coordinates, depths, and distances of the considered locations from the coastline. the chamber caused by waves alternately compresses and de-
Line Location Xp ( ) Yp ( ) Distance from Coastline (km) Depth (m) pressurizes the air in the chamber; an air turbine and a generator
KA KA1 28.063 41.891 0.7 4
convert the bi-directional airflow to electrical power. (2) Over-
KA2 28.094 41.891 3.3 25 topping Devices, which lead the waves to overtop a sloped surface
KA3 28.125 41.891 5.9 54 to a reservoir placed above the mean sea level and, via low head
KA4 28.244 41.891 15.7 75 turbines, convert the potential energy of the stored water into
KA5 28.569 41.891 42.8 99
electricity. (3) Wave Activated Bodies, in which waves cause the
KB KB1 28.194 41.570 0.7 7
KB2 28.213 41.570 2.3 26 body parts to oscillate relative to each other, or the whole body
KB3 28.231 41.574 3.9 49 against a fixed reference. Generally, hydraulic systems are
KB4 28.513 41.696 31.0 75 employed to compress oil, air, or water to drive an electricity
KB5 28.650 41.761 44.4 99
generator [18].
KC KC1 28.781 41.317 0.5 13
KC2 28.788 41.322 1.1 22
The 15 WECs considered in the present study, which can operate
KC3 28.800 41.339 3.3 51 in various water depths, are described briefly as follows: AquaBuoy
KC4 28.831 41.370 7.6 75 is a point absorber consisting of a floating buoy mounted on a
KC5 29.000 41.552 32.2 100 piston, which is opened at both ends and placed in a tube with a
KD KD2 29.500 41.209 2.7 26
hose pump attached to both ends. While the buoy is swinging, hose
KD3 29.500 41.257 8.1 51
KD4 29.500 41.300 13.2 75 pumps produce a pressurized stream of water that drives a Pelton
KD5 29.500 41.365 20.3 106 turbine connected to a generator. Its rated power is 250 kW, and the
KE KE1 30.319 41.204 1.0 7 power matrix has a wide power band at nominal capacity. About
KE2 30.319 41.217 2.6 26 15% of the operational range indicates a power output higher than
KE3 30.319 41.235 4.3 51
KE4 30.319 41.300 11.6 76
0.8 of the maximum power. Archimedes Wave Swing (AWS) is an
KE5 30.319 41.335 15.5 99 exit point absorber. It consists of a space filled with air, which is
FA FA1 31.003 41.086 1.6 14 fixed to the seafloor and can move vertically relative to the base-
FA2 31.004 41.098 3.0 25 ment, completely immersed in water. As a wave passes over the
FA3 31.004 41.123 5.7 53
device, changes in water pressure trigger the movement of the
FA4 31.004 41.147 8.4 76
FA5 31.003 41.189 13.2 99 valve, which is connected to a linear generator that converts motion
FB FB1 31.373 41.191 1.0 13 into electrical energy. The maximum power is 2470 kW. However,
FB2 31.350 41.205 3.4 24 unlike other devices, this WECs has no effective rated power level,
FB3 31.281 41.243 10.0 49 but the power output continues to rise both during the wave height
FB4 31.231 41.267 14.5 74
FB5 31.206 41.278 16.0 103
and the wave period. OEBuoy is a floating oscillating water column
FC FC2 31.842 41.506 1.0 27 device. It has a semi-submerged open chamber below the sea
FC3 31.824 41.515 2.8 50 surface and keeping an air pocket that is stuck above a water col-
FC4 31.814 41.522 3.9 75 umn. In order to convert the airflow into electrical energy, the
FC5 31.812 41.527 4.5 98
column is forced to oscillate by incoming waves that force air
FD FD1 32.527 41.812 0.7 16
FD2 32.519 41.815 1.2 31 through a two-way turbine. Its rated power is 2880 kW. The power
FD3 32.509 41.822 2.3 52 output increases continuously until the maximum Hs of 7 m.
FD4 32.492 41.831 3.5 68 Regarding the wave period, power generation peaks at Tp of 11 s
FD5 32.484 41.834 4.0 99 then falls back from the peak, dropping steeper for a lower velocity
SA SA1 33.044 41.935 0.4 12
SA2 33.031 41.944 1.8 24
than the higher wave periods. Only 3% of the operational range
SA3 33.038 41.957 2.9 52 indicates an energy production of more than 0.8 of the maximum
SA4 33.031 41.965 4.0 70 power [12].
SA5 33.025 41.978 5.5 105 Pelamis is a slimming device consisting of a series of semi-
SB SB2 33.938 41.987 1.5 27
submerged cylindrical sections connected by hinged joints. It is
SB3 33.938 42.000 2.9 51
SB4 33.938 42.026 5.8 75 resistant to the wave-induced motion of the joints by hydraulic
SB5 33.938 42.122 16.7 100 rams, which pump high-pressure oil from engines that run elec-
SC SC1 34.913 42.035 0.3 14 trical generators. Pelamis has a rated power of 750 kW. Compared
SC2 34.906 42.048 1.5 26 to other devices, Pelamis has the highest power band at 16% rated
SC3 34.894 42.061 3.2 51
SC4 34.875 42.078 5.7 77
power, and about 30% of the operational range indicates an energy
SC5 34.831 42.126 12.0 99 production of more than 0.8 of the rated power. WaveBob is an
SD SD1 35.169 41.852 2.0 13 axisymmetric self-reactive spot absorber consisting of a muscle or
SD2 35.198 41.861 4.6 26 bulge that slides along a vertical buoy attached to an underwater
SD3 35.219 41.865 4.4 51
tank that acts as a high inertia body. Power is generated by a hy-
SD4 35.269 41.883 11.0 76
SD5 35.381 41.930 22.0 100 draulic PTO (Power Take Off) system by relative movements be-
tween the two bodies, and its nominal value is 1000 kW. Power
generation depends on both wave period and height, but it is not
monotonic compared to the period. The power output peaks at the
calibration of the dataset is available in our previous work [17].
mid-range of the period and drops at lower and higher values. Its
power matrix has a wide powerband at nominal capacity, with
2.2. Wave energy converter systems (WECs) around 13% of the operational range that can produce more than
80% of the rated power. The Pontoon WECs is a multiple point
The WECs are devices that transform the potential and kinetic absorber consisting of many heaving buoys connected to a shared
energy of ocean waves into electricity. According to the working submerged structure with the aid of a hydraulic PTO system. The
principle, they are divided into the following three main categories: Pontoon power matrix used in this analysis [19] considers ten
(1) Oscillating Water Columns, which comprise a chamber heaving buoys with a rated power of 3619 kW. The device can not
708
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo
present a good performance at both short and long waves, so the
power matrix has only 12% of the bins with a normalized power
output of higher than 0.4 [12]. The WaveDragon is a floating, loosely
moored WECs. In the present work, the full-scale rated power is
7000 kW. The WaveDragon is a water tapping terminator that al-
lows ocean waves to overtop a ramp and elevate the water mass to a
reservoir above the sea level. The head of the water released from
the reservoir to multiple turbines generates electricity. It has two
wave reflecting wings that concentrate the water mass from the
incoming waves [20]. The WaveStar is an oscillating body that, by
the rise and fall of floats with the up and down motions of ocean
waves, draw electric energy. The moving floats are connected to a
platform that is supported with legs to the sea bed. The motions are
transferred via hydraulics and converted to the rotational motion of
an electric generator. The rated power of the considered WaveStar
in the present study is 2709 kW [21]. The Oceantec is an attenuator
point absorber, and it is based on the principle of the oscillating
water column WECs with a 500 kW rated power [22]. The Langlee
(1665 kW rated power) WECs is an offshore oscillating wave surge
converter which extracts the available kinetic energy in the orbital
motions of the water particles via a number of hinged flaps set just
under the water surface. The device has a pair of moving flaps
placed symmetrically opposite each other and supported with a
moored floating reference frame [23]. The Seabased AB is a small
size WECs with a 15 kW rated power, which absorbs energy from
waves in a simple mechanical way. The buoys on the surface of the
water are linked with a linear generator that is fixed to the seafloor.
The movements of the buoys by the up and downs of the waves
produce electrical power [24]. The SSG (Seawave Slot-cone
Generator) is an overtopping device having a number of reser-
voirs located on each other, which store the incoming wave’s water
as potential energy. The collected water in the reservoirs is directed
through a multi-staged turbine and produce electric energy. The
multiple reservoirs improve overall energy production efficiency.
The rated power of SSG in the present study is 20000 kW [18].
The Oyster is a bottom-fixed oscillating flap device that the
hinged buoyant flap moves back and forth with the motion of the
waves, and the two hydraulic pistons pump the high pressured
water into an onshore hydro-electric station, which drives an
electric production generator [25]. The rated power of the device in
the present study is 291 kW Oyster2 (BO-OF) is a bottom-fixed
oscillating flap device composed of pitching flaps oscillating
around a fixed-axis moored to the seabed. The WECs utilizes a
pump fixed at a rotating shaft that forces pressurized hydraulic oil
or water to an onshore station. On the shoreline, the hydraulic
power is transformed into electric energy [26]. The maximum po-
wer is 3332 kW. The bottom-fixed heave-buoy array (HeaveBuoy)
WEC is consists of 60 hemispherical oats distributed along the two
sides of three frames of a fixed bridge structure. The oats are con-
nected regularly to an arm mounted on the supporting frames by a
hinge joint. The hydraulic power take-off transforms the rotational
kinetic energy to electrical power. The rated power of this device is
2192 kW [26].
2.3. Scaling of the WECs
WECs are designed mostly for regions with high wave energy
potential, as can be seen from the power matrices. In the context of
this study, the wave conditions of the region of interest (the south-
western coast of the Black Sea) can be considered of middle rather
than high intensity. Therefore, the installation of existing WECs in
709
Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722
this region, which are optimized for certain ranges of wave heights
and periods, may not be able to extract the desired amount of wave
energy. This may mean that only a portion of the potential of the
existing WECs can be used. The increase in the capacity factor of a
WEC can be obtained by decreasing the size of the device as a
function of the amount of wave energy present at the selected lo-
cations. In this case, Bozzi et al. [27] recommend the evaluation of
reduced size devices. For this purpose, the WECs and their power
matrices are scaled by applying the Froude similarity criterion,
assuming that gravitational and inertial forces are the most
important parameters in wave energy. The Froude scaling law im-
plies that length and time are scaled by Ref. [8]:
LWEC ¼ lL LWEC,d (1)
T WEC ¼ l0.5
L T WEC,d (2)
where lL is the scale factor, and LWEC,d, and TWEC,d are the reduced
length and time, respectively. According to these equations, the
scaled power matrix can be estimated as follows:
PWEC ¼ l3.5
L PWEC,d (3)
The resizing will only be applied to devices that can be installed
in deep water. This scaling is not applicable for devices to be
deployed in water depths below 5 m depth (surf zone) due to the
additional forces that are likely to occur because of wave breaking
[8]. In this work, each WEC is scaled with ten values of the scale
factor: lL ¼ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 … 1.0.
The expected annual energy output (E) for each of the WECs at
each location is calculated according to Eq. (4) [13]:
X
nT X
nH
E¼ rij  Pij (4)
i¼1 i¼1
in which rij shows the characteristics of the sea state
andPij represents the electric power efficiency for the same cell in
the power matrix of the WECs.
For the evaluation of each WEC and scale, three different in-
dicators are considered: the capacity factor (Cf) in Eq. (5), the
operating hours (Oh) per year (the hours in which the WECs output
is higher than zero), and the rated capacity factor (Rf) in Eq. (6) [28]:
PE
Cf ¼  100 ½% (5)
Pn
i
Rf ¼  100 ½% (6)
n
where PE indicates the mean power output of the device per year, Pn
is the rated power of the device, i represents the hours in which the
device operates at over 90% of its rated power, and n is the total
hours of the year. The annual energy production of WECs is usually
evaluated by multiplying each cell of the power matrix by the
relative value of the location sea state characteristic matrix.
3. Results and discussion
It is not possible within the scope of a research article to present
the changes in the mean annual expected wave energy (based on a
31-year long-term wave model hindcast between 1979 and 2009)
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. 2. Mean expected annual energy output (E, MWh, dashed lines, right y-axis) and capacity factor (Cf, %, continuous lines, left y-axis) of 15 different WECs versus the scaling factor
lL () for KA1-KA4 locations.

Table 2
Rated power (Pn), mean annual capacity factor (Cf), expected power (P), expected energy (E), rated capacity (Rf), and operating hours (Oh) of full and optimum scales for seven
devices at location KA1 (4 m depth).

KA1 HeaveBuoy Oyster2 Oyster SSG Seabased AB WaveDragon WaveStar

Scale (lL) 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.3
Pn (kW) 2192.0 7.8 3332.0 1.1 290.0 1.0 20000.0 71.6 15.0 0.2 7000.0 2.2 2709.0 40.1
Cf (%) 3.5 20.6 2.5 20.9 12.5 44.1 2.9 14.9 6.6 17.9 4.6 35.3 2.9 5.7
P (kW) 76.4 1.6 83.0 0.2 36.4 0.5 582.9 10.7 1.0 0.0 320.9 0.8 79.7 2.3
E (MWh) 669.4 14.2 727.5 1.9 318.7 4.0 5106.6 93.5 8.6 0.3 2811.5 6.8 698.2 19.8
Rf (%) 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.33 0.00 17.17 0.00 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.71 0.00 0.09
Oh (hour) 4214.9 6877.2 4579.8 5058 4238.6 6260.8 4126.6 5555.5 4584.4 7504.4 5122.5 5360.6 4579.8 5695.8

and Cf against the scaling ratio (lL) of 15 WECs for the total 62 lo-
cations. Therefore, the first four locations of the most energetic line
KA in the south-western Black Sea are presented in Fig. 2. The rated
power (Pn), capacity factor (Cf), expected power (P), expected
annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating
hours per year (Oh) of full- and optimum-scales for 15 devices at
five different depths along line KA are then compared in
Tables 2e6, respectively.
The downscaling of the devices increases the Cf considerably,
from 2 to 8 times the value of the original full-scale device. It is
noteworthy that some of the 15 WECs tested in this study are not
suitable to operate at water depths within the surf zone because of
wave breaking. In Fig. 2 at site KA1 (4 m depth), Oyster presents the
highest Cf for all scaling stages, with a peak value of 44.1% for a scale
factor lL ¼ 0.2. The value decreases as the scale factor increases, up
to a minimum Cf of 12.5% for the full-scale device. Oyster can
operate on average 6260.8 h/year at its optimum scale, while it can
operate 4238.6 h/year at full-scale. The rated capacity (Rf) of the
full-scale is zero, while the Rf is 17.17% for the optimum scale
(Table 2). However, from the perspective of the annual energy
output (E), SSG presents the highest production for all scales in
comparison to the other devices operating at this location: E ¼
5106.6 MWh, with a Cf of 2.9% at full-scale, while its maximum Cf is
at a scale factor of 0.2 with E ¼ 93.5 MWh. The SSG operates
4126.6 h/year in full-scale, while its full load hours (Oh) is 5555.5 h/
year in its optimum-scale condition. The full-scale SSG cannot work
with higher output than 90% of its rated power in this location
during the whole year, but the reduced version can operate 1.87% of
the year with greater power than 90% of its rated power.
From the nine WEC technologies tested at location KA2 in Fig. 2,
at 25 m water depth WaveDragon is the highest energy producer at
all scales; at its optimum scale (lL ¼ 0.2) WaveDragon presents the
highest Cf value (38.7%) and yields E ¼ 84.8 MWh. At the same time,
the full-scale power production amount is 3951.3 MWh, with 6.4%
capacity usage. 0.58% of the total time, it can produce more power
than 90% of its rated power and can operate 4717.5 h/year averagely
in its full-scale. However, after downscaling, the optimum-scaled
WaveDragon can work 7010.8 h/year and operate 18.92% of the
total time with higher power output than the 90% of its rated power
in this location. According to the Cf, Oceantec presents a higher
capacity amount than WaveDragon at KA2 for the lL higher than
0.3, but it cannot present more energy than WaveDragon. With the

710
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

full-scale Oceantec with 500 kW rated power, the values obtained

6119.2
are: Cf ¼ 17.7%, E ¼ 775.8 MWh, 3495.4 h/year of operation, and

109.7

63.6
3.68
0.4

6.6
7.3
2.77% of the total time it yields over 90% of its rated power. The

Rated power (Pn), mean annual capacity factor (Cf), expected power (P), expected energy (E), rated capacity (Rf), and operating hours (Oh) of full and optimum scales for seven devices at location KA2 (25 m depth).
optimum-scale parameter is 0.4 with a 20.2 kW rated power,

WaveStar

2709.0

5266.9
resulting in 6646.8 h/year of operation. Oceantec can operate with

102.0
893.1
2.01
more power than 90% of its rated power for 4.01% of the time of the

1.0

3.8
year. The Cf of this device increases to 33.4% by its optimum-scale
with an annual average of 59.2 MWh E.

7010.8
18.92
At site KA3 (54 m depth), Oceantec shows the highest Cf (34.4%)
25.0
38.7

84.8
0.2

9.7
WaveDragon

compared to other devices, specifically at its 40% dimensions. The

full-scale Oceantec with 500 kW rated power can operate at a ca-
7000.0

3951.3

4717.5
pacity factor of 19% and produce 832.3 MWh of energy in an
451.1

0.58
1.0

6.4

average year. The full-scale Oceantec can operate 4.59% of the total
time producing more than 90% of its nominal rated power and
operate 3516.8 h/year. By downscaling, it is possible to increase the
6813.7
23.2

0.00

Cf of Oceantec to 34.4% with a 60.9 MWh/year energy yield and

0.2
0.1

0.0
0.1
Seabased AB

increase the load hours to 6578.2 h/year. The optimum-scaled de-

vice can produce more than 90% of its rated power (20.2 kW) during
5674.4

5.22% of the total time at this location. From the perspective of E,

15.0
10.0

13.2
0.00
1.0

1.5

Pontoon gets the first position at this location. The full-scale

Pontoon with a 3619 kW rated power can produce 1590.3 MWh/
6813.7

year using 5% of its capacity and operate 5784.3 h/year. Neverthe-

24.5

1.11
0.2
3.6

0.9
7.7

less, the optimum-scaled (0.4) Pontoon can use 9.9% of its capacity,
producing only 126.9 MWh/year and operate 7741.7 h/year. The
WaveBob

rated capacity of Pontoon is zero at all scale stages at this location

1000.0

5674.4
464.0
53.0

0.31

(Please, refer to Fig. 2 site KA3 and Table 4).

1.0

5.3

The next location, KA4 (75 m depth) on the perpendicular line

KA in Fig. 2 subplot KA4, presents the production performance of
6726.9

six WECs ten times scaled. At this depth again, the highest Cf (20.1%)
32.7

3.16
0.2
2.7

0.9
7.7

is reported for Oceantec at all scale stages. It can convert

878.2 MWh/year with its 500 kW rated power and operate
Pelamis

2917.9

3503.4 h/year, averagely. The Rf of the full-scale Oceantec at this

750.0

443.5
50.6

0.31
1.0

6.8

location is 6.19%, while the optimum-scale Rf is 8.02%. The optimum

scale for this device is 0.4, which increases the Cf to 37.3%, the Oh to
6587 h/year with 66 MWh/year at this site. Pontoon presents the
6646.8
20.2
33.4

59.2
4.01

highest energy production at site KA4 as in site KA3 as well. The

0.4

6.8

full-scale Pontoon is operating 6024.6 h/year with 1720.9 MWh/

Oceantec

year energy yield using only 5.4% of its total capacity. The optimum
3495.4
500.0

775.8

size of this machine at this location produces 136.4 MWh/year with

17.7
88.6

2.77
1.0

a capacity factor of 10.6%. The optimum-scaled Pontoon operates

7786.8 h/year with its 146.5 kW installed power, and the rated
7795.7

capacity (Rf) for this device is zero in all scaled stages. The same
67.4

43.6
0.00

devices considered at 75 m depths (KA4) are analyzed at 100 m

0.4

7.4
5.0

depths (KA5) as well. Because of the higher wave power density,

they perform better. The rest of the 12 perpendicular lines are also
Langlee

1665.0

5674.4
543.1

analyzed. Then the optimum scale of all the devices at all locations
62.0

0.00
1.0

3.7

is determined. After that, the optimum and full-scale devices are

compared spatially in the next section in detail.
7042.3

In order to have a clear idea about the performance of the full-

1.52
11.9
26.3

27.5
0.2

3.1

and optimum-scaled devices in different areas, the analysis is done

for 13 perpendicular lines to the coastline along 700 km coastline of
Oyster2

the south-western Black Sea. Finally, the scaling factor (lL), capacity
3332.0

1213.1

5577.1
138.5

0.14

factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), nominal capacity

1.0

4.2

factor (Rf), and loading hours (Oh) of all the 15 WECs considered in
the study were compared spatially for both full and optimum
5706.1

scales. These spatial distributions for Oyster, Oceantec, and Wave-

26.0

2.07
0.2
0.9

0.2
2.0

Bob devices are given in Figs. 3e5.

AquaBuoy

In Fig. 3 Oyster was operated only at 4e16 m depths. Because of

2911.7

the sudden change of the sea bathymetry, KD, FC, and SB lines in the
250.0

136.4
15.6

0.78
1.0

6.2

study area do not have depth in this depth range. The Cf, expected
energy, nominal capacity, and working hours of this machine
Oh (hour)
Scale (lL)

E (MWh)
Pn (kW)

P (kW)

Rf (%)
Cf (%)
Table 3

KA2

711
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Table 4
Rated power (Pn), mean annual capacity factor (Cf), expected power (P), expected energy (E), rated capacity (Rf), and operating hours (Oh) of full and optimum scales for seven
devices at location KA3 (54 m depth).

KA3 AquaBuoy Langlee Oceantec AWS Pelamis OEBuoy WaveBob Pontoon

Scale (lL) 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4
Pn (kW) 250.0 0.9 1665.0 67.4 500.0 20.2 2470.0 8.8 750.0 2.7 2880.0 10.3 1000.0 3.6 3619.0 146.5
Cf (%) 6.8 26.2 4.0 7.6 19.0 34.3 2.1 21.3 7.5 33.7 3.4 15.4 5.8 24.9 5.0 9.9
P (kW) 17.0 0.2 67.2 5.2 95.0 6.9 52.2 1.9 56.1 0.9 98.2 1.6 58.1 0.9 181.5 14.5
E (MWh) 148.5 2.1 588.9 45.1 832.3 60.9 457.3 16.5 491.7 7.9 860.3 13.9 509.2 7.8 1590.3 126.9
Rf (%) 1.18 2.53 0.00 0.00 4.59 5.22 0.00 2.24 0.66 3.92 0.00 0.00 0.43 1.48 0.00 0.00
Oh (hour) 2987.1 5627.3 5788.5 7809.3 3516.8 6578.2 3563.8 6519.1 2968.6 6705.8 6722.8 6722.8 5788.5 6722.8 5784.3 7741.7

Table 5
Rated power (Pn), mean annual capacity factor (Cf), expected power (P), expected energy (E), rated capacity (Rf), and operating hours (Oh) of full and optimum scales for seven
devices at location KA4 (75 m depth).

KA4 AWS Langlee Oceantec OEBuoy Pontoon WaveBob

Scale (lL) 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.2
Pn (kW) 2470.0 8.8 1665.0 67.4 500.0 20.2 2880.0 10.3 3619.0 146.5 1000.0 3.6
Cf (%) 2.2 21.4 4.3 8.3 20.1 37.3 3.7 16.3 5.4 10.6 6.3 26.3
P (kW) 55.2 1.9 72.4 5.6 100.3 7.5 106.9 1.7 196.4 15.6 62.6 0.9
E (MWh) 483.5 16.6 633.8 48.9 878.2 66.0 936.7 14.7 1720.9 136.4 548.2 8.3
Rf (%) 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 6.19 8.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 2.36
Oh (hour) 3523.9 6455.9 6044.8 7876 3503.4 6587 6044.8 6648.4 6024.6 7786.8 6044.8 6648.4

Table 6
Rated power (Pn), mean annual capacity factor (Cf), expected power (P), expected energy (E), rated capacity (Rf), and operating hours (Oh) of full and optimum scales for seven
devices at location KA5 (100 m depth).

KA5 AWS Langlee Oceantec OEBuoy Pontoon WaveBob

Scale (lL) 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.2
Pn (kW) 2470.0 8.8 1665.0 67.4 500.0 20.2 2880.0 10.3 3619.0 146.5 1000.0 3.6
Cf (%) 2.4 21.4 4.9 9.4 21.9 41.8 4.1 17.5 6.0 12.1 6.8 28.3
P (kW) 59.1 1.9 80.8 6.3 109.4 8.5 118.6 1.8 217.1 17.7 68.3 1.0
E (MWh) 517.9 16.6 707.6 55.4 958.3 74.2 1038.6 15.8 1901.9 154.7 598.4 8.9
Rf (%) 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.00 8.36 12.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 3.60
Oh (hour) 3565.6 6252.1 6446.4 7929.5 3523.8 6651.7 6446.4 6460.8 6389.2 7839.2 6446.4 6460.8

Fig. 3. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the Oyster.

712
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. 4. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the Oceantec.

Fig. 5. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the WaveBob.

decreases from KA to SD in the full-scale case. This technology
follows the same path in terms of Cf and nominal Cf at optimum
scale, but in terms of expected energy amount and Oh, SA, and FD
lines, which are defined as moderate lines in the study, are more
suitable than other lines. This may be due to the fact that these
points have less variability in waves compared to the most dynamic
region in the study.
Oceantec is the most efficient device in the area. The original
Oceantec in Fig. 4 performs best at KA5 according to all parameters
except Oh, which has the highest value in FD5. After the devices are
downscaled to their optimum dimensions, locations on lines SA and
SB identified more favorable for energy extraction. In the optimum

713
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo
scale condition, the Rf value is still the highest at KA5, but it is only
for 12% of the time in a total year, and it is not enough in the entire
year for continuous output. It is worth to mention that this device
can operate almost the entire year in the west of the Sinop sub-
domain with an average of 120 MWh E at SA5.
The WaveBob is installed at 25, 50, 75, and 100 m depths in
Fig. 5. This device performs geographically almost the same as the
Oceantec in Fig. 4, but all the parameters at all locations are not as
higher as the Oceantec and Oyster. The original WaveBob annual
average E is about 600 MWh with 7% capacity usage and can
operate 6500 h/year at KA5. The maximum E of WaveBob is
70 MWh with 19% capacity usage at SA5 in its optimum scale
condition, while lL is equal to 0.4. The similar figures for Heav-
eBuoy, Oyster2, SSG, Seabased AB, WaveDragon, WaveStar, Langlee,
Pelamis, AWS, OEBuoy, AquaBuoy, and Pontoon WECs are pre-
sented in Appendix A.
In short, geographically, the performance of full and
optimum-scale WECs varies as follows: As expected, as all the
devices were moved offshore from the shoreline, a positive
change in power generation and capacity utilization was
observed. Line KA is the most dynamic, and all the full-scale
devices offer the best performance at the locations of this line.
However, since line SA has high potential and also has low
variability, the optimum scale sizes of the machines are more
extensive compared to line KA. This increases the E, and the line
SA can be considered as a suitable region, especially for down-
scaled WECs. The FA line is the weakest line compared to similar
depth locations on other vertical lines. However, it is worth to be
stated that no single device exists that performs better than
others along the whole study area. More generally, it can be
noticed that the production performance ranking of the WECs
varies depending on the conditions of the installation site, as
already remarked in previous studies [29e31].
4. Summary and conclusions
In this paper, in order to ensure that the existing WECs are
appropriate for the selected region, the power matrices of 15 WEC
systems that can be installed at 62 stations, and the significant
wave height and wave period matrices representing the wave cli-
mates in the selected locations have been downscaled. The elec-
trical power output and capacity factors that can be obtained in 10
different scale factor cases were calculated, and the energy avail-
ability, Cf, Rf, Oh, and the lL are discussed in the case of each device
having the maximum Cf (optimum scale). The adaptability of WEC
systems to the typical wave conditions is evaluated by downsizing
the devices using the Froude scaling criterion. Downsizing has been
applied to devices of different depths from offshore to shoreline for
all the 15 considered technologies. The optimal lL (maximizes the
Cf) ranged from 0.1 to 0.5. All resized devices offered a lower E than
full-scale (original) devices, but the Cf is increased by downscaling,
i. e., the Cf of Oyster at KC1 (14 m depth) increased from 13.9 to
45.7% with lL ¼ 0.2 (annual mean E decreased from 354.1 to
4.2 MWh), and the Cf of Oceantec increased from 20.1 to 37.3% with
lL ¼ 0.4 (annual mean E decreased from 878.2 to 66.0 MWh) at KA4
(75 m depth).
The optimal Cf for all devices roughly decreases from the line KA
to the line SD (parallel to the shoreline), except FA, which presents
the lowest Cf. As the wave energy source increases while moving
from the coast offshore, if the device is constant, the Cf and E of all
devices also increase. However, the highest energy output in the
study area is obtained by SSG (mean annual 7.4 GWh at KB1), which
has been operated only on the nearest locations to the coastline.
All the analyses performed show that the lowest capacity factor
(Cf) and the highest energy output (E) correspond to full-scale
714
Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722
version technologies when lL is 1.0. Oyster has the highest Cf,
while SSG and WaveDragon present the highest E for points with
4e16 m depths. While Oceantec presents the highest Cf at 25, 50,
75, and 100 m depths, the highest expected energy amount was
obtained by WaveDragon at 25 m and Pontoon at 50, 75, and 100 m
depths. The optimum scale of Oceantec (highest Cf) is lL ¼ 0.4 for
the locations of lines KA e KC and lL ¼ 0.5 for the locations of lines
FA - SD. Unlike the other machines, Oceantec reported a second
peak value lower than the peak in the Cf at lL ¼ 0.8 as well.
This study should be considered as a preliminary analysis of the
feasibility of wave energy farms. For the determination of the
suitable areas for the installation of WECs, the economic, social, and
political aspects such as the convenience of the WECs, survival,
installation, maintenance, mooring, environmental conflicts, grid
connection points, shipping traffic, permit requirements using
geographic information systems is also recommended to be stud-
ied. Within the scope of this study, considering all parameters used
in the study for the WECs installation, the most suitable locations
are the locations of lines KA (more suitable for full-scale devices)
and SA (more suitable for down-scaled devices). As the most op-
timum energy generating system is 0.3 scale of the Oyster system at
4e16 m depth, 0.4 scale of Oceantec system at 25 m depth, 0.5 scale
of Oceantec technology at 50 and 75 m depth, and finally 0.6 scale
of Oceantec technology at 100 m depth. So, it is recommended to
install the optimum scaled technologies determined within the
scope of this pre-application study in the relevant coastal areas.
Research into combinations of WECs and offshore wind energy
converters (hybrid systems) [32] is also recommended in seas with
moderate wave conditions such as the Black Sea.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
AjabGul Majidi: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Visualization, Writing -
original draft. Bilal Bingo€ lbali: Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Resources, Data curation. Adem Akpınar: Conceptualiza-
tion, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Gregorio Iglesias: Writing - review & editing,
Supervision. Halid Jafali: Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing.
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.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for its support to our pre-
vious project with grant number 214M436, as the wave data used in
the present study was produced within that project. This research
was also funded by (TUBITAK), in the scope of project number
118R024.
Appendix A. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected
annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and
operating hours per year (Oh) of the WECs
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. A1. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the AquaBuoy.

715
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. A2. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the AWS.

Fig. A3. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the HeaveBuoy.

716
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. A4. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the Langlee.

Fig. A5. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the OEBuoy.

717
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. A6. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the Oyster2.

Fig. A7. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the Pelamis.

718
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. A8. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the Pontoon.

Fig. A9. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the Seabased AB.

719
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. A10. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the SSG.

Fig. A11. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the WaveDragon.

720
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

Fig. A12. Scaling factor (lL), capacity factor (Cf), expected annual energy output (E), rated capacity factor (Rf), and operating hours per year (Oh) of the WaveStar.

References j.energy.2018.12.080.
[14] M. Veigas, M. Lo  pez, G. Iglesias, Assessing the optimal location for a shoreline
wave energy converter, Appl. Energy 132 (2014) 404e411, https://doi.org/
[1] A. Martinez, G. Iglesias, Wave exploitability index and wave resource classi-
10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.067.
fication, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 134 (2020) 110393, https://doi.org/
[15] A. Akpınar, B. Bingo €lbali, G.Ph Van Vledder, Wind and wave characteristics in
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110393.
the Black Sea based on the SWAN wave model forced with the CFSR winds,
[2] R. Carballo, M. S anchez, V. Ramos, J.A. Fraguela, G. Iglesias, The intra-annual
Ocean Eng. 126 (2016) 276e298, https://doi.org/10.1016/
variability in the performance of wave energy converters: a comparative
j.oceaneng.2016.09.026.
study in N Galicia (Spain), Energy 82 (2015) 138e146, https://doi.org/ _ Içe
_ Geçmiş Karelaj Sis-
[16] B. Bingo€ lbali, Karadeniz’in Güney Batı Kıyıları Için Iç
10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.020. _
temli Dalga Tahmin Modelinin Geliştirilmesi Ve Dalga Iklim Analizi, Bursa
[3] E. Rusu, Evaluation of the wave energy conversion efficiency in various coastal
Uludag University, 2018. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?
environments, Energies 7 (2014) 4002e4018, https://doi.org/10.3390/
key¼fS4sqEZr79C_
en7064002.
n60Rk6MjFXiuRd6GgkuYjivCoaS7NAc4mZrISh4jLhUzygPTuBXV.
[4] A. Babarit, J. Hals, A. Kurniawan, T. Moan, J. Krokstad, Power absorption
[17] A. Akpınar, B. Bingo €lbali, G.Ph Van Vledder, Wind and wave characteristics in
measures and comparisons of selected wave energy converters, in: Ocean
the Black Sea based on the SWAN wave model forced with the CFSR winds,
Space Util. Ocean Renew. Energy vol. 5, ASMEDC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
Ocean Eng. 126 (2016) 276e298, https://doi.org/10.1016/
2011, pp. 437e446, https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2011-49360.
j.oceaneng.2016.09.026.
[5] D. Silva, E. Rusu, C. Soares, Evaluation of various technologies for wave energy
[18] D. Vicinanza, L. Margheritini, J.P. Kofoed, M. Buccino, The SSG wave energy
conversion in the Portuguese nearshore, Energies 6 (2013) 1344e1364,
converter: performance, status and recent developments, Energies 5 (2012)
https://doi.org/10.3390/en6031344.
193e226, https://doi.org/10.3390/en5020193.
[6] S. Diaconu, E. Rusu, Evaluation of various WEC devices in the Romanian near
[19] A. Babarit, J. Hals, M.J. Muliawan, A. Kurniawan, T. Moan, J. Krokstad, Nu-
shore, in: WSEAS International Conference on Energy and Environment
merical benchmarking study of a selection of wave energy converters, Renew.
Technologies and Equipment (EEETE’13), Brasov, Romania, 2013, pp. 92e102.
Energy 41 (2012) 44e63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.10.002.
[7] R. Alamian, R. Shafaghat, S.J. Miri, N. Yazdanshenas, M. Shakeri, Evaluation of
[20] http://www.wavedragon.co.uk/technology-2/, 2020. (Accessed 13 May 2020).
technologies for harvesting wave energy in Caspian Sea, Renew. Sustain. En-
http://www.wavedragon.co.uk/technology-2/.
ergy Rev. 32 (2014) 468e476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.036.
[21] http://wavestarenergy.com/concept, 2020. (Accessed 13 May 2020). http://
[8] C. Iuppa, L. Cavallaro, E. Foti, D. Vicinanza, Potential wave energy production
wavestarenergy.com/concept.
by different wave energy converters around Sicily, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 7
[22] http://www.oceantecenergy.com/, 2020. (Accessed 13 May 2020). http://
(2015), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4936397, 061701.
www.oceantecenergy.com/.
[9] L. Rusu, F. Onea, Assessment of the performances of various wave energy
[23] A. Pecher, J.P. Kofoed, J. Espedal, S. Hagberg, Results of an experimental study
converters along the European continental coasts, Energy 82 (2015) 889e904,
of the langlee wave energy converter, in: The Twentieth International
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.099.
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 2010.
[10] L. Rusu, F. Onea, The performance of some state-of-the-art wave energy
[24] Seabased AB. https://www.seabased.com/the-technology, 2020. (Accessed 13
converters in locations with the worldwide highest wave power, Renew.
May 2020). https://www.seabased.com/the-technology.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 75 (2017) 1348e1362, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[25] L. Cameron, R. Doherty, A. Henry, K. Doherty, S. Bourdier, T. Whittaker, Design
j.rser.2016.11.123.
of the next generation of the oyster wave energy converter, in: 3rd Interna-
[11] N. Guillou, G. Chapalain, Annual and seasonal variabilities in the performances
tional Conference on Ocean Energy vol. 6, 2010, p. 1e12.
of wave energy converters, Energy 165 (2018) 812e823, https://doi.org/
[26] G. Reikard, B. Robertson, B. Buckham, J.-R. Bidlot, C. Hiles, Simulating and
10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.001.
forecasting ocean wave energy in western Canada, Ocean Eng. 103 (2015)
[12] S. Bozzi, G. Besio, G. Passoni, Wave power technologies for the Mediterranean
223e236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.04.081.
offshore: scaling and performance analysis, Coast. Eng. 136 (2018) 130e146,
[27] S. Bozzi, R. Archetti, G. Passoni, Wave electricity production in Italian offshore:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2018.03.001.
a preliminary investigation, Renew. Energy 62 (2014) 407e416, https://
[13] J. Morim, N. Cartwright, M. Hemer, A. Etemad-Shahidi, D. Strauss, Inter- and
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.07.030.
intra-annual variability of potential power production from wave energy
[28] M. Majidi Nezhad, D. Groppi, F. Rosa, G. Piras, F. Cumo, D.A. Garcia, Nearshore
converters, Energy 169 (2019) 1224e1241, https://doi.org/10.1016/
wave energy converters comparison and Mediterranean small island grid

721
 €lbali, A. Akpınar et al.
A. Majidi, B. Bingo Renewable Energy 168 (2021) 705e722

integration, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 30 (2018) 68e76, https://doi.org/ j.renene.2008.04.034.

10.1016/j.seta.2018.08.009. [31] E. Rusu, C. Guedes Soares, Wave energy pattern around the Madeira Islands,
[29] R. Carballo, M. S
anchez, V. Ramos, A. Castro, A tool for combined WEC-site Energy 45 (2012) 771e785, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.013.
selection throughout a coastal region: rias Baixas, NW Spain, Appl. Energy [32] J. Hu, B. Zhou, C. Vogel, P. Liu, R. Willden, K. Sun, J. Zang, J. Geng, P. Jin, L. Cui,
135 (2014) 11e19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.068. B. Jiang, M. Collu, Optimal design and performance analysis of a hybrid system
[30] D. Dunnett, J.S. Wallace, Electricity generation from wave power in Canada, combing a floating wind platform and wave energy converters, Appl. Energy
Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 179e195, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 269 (2020) 114998, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114998.

722