Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Numerical study on the performance of a wave energy converter with

three hinged bodies
Hui-Feng Yu, Yong-Liang Zhang*, Si-Ming Zheng
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

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

Article history: In this paper, we propose a novel wave energy converter (hereinafter called Wave Loong®) consisting of
Received 6 February 2016 two rafts hinged at each raft end and one pendulum hung at the joint of the rafts. A mathematical model
Received in revised form based on the linear wave theory with the consideration of three bodies hinged together and various
5 August 2016
connection conditions between any two of the three bodies is presented to investigate the performance
Accepted 6 August 2016
of the converter. The effect of damping coefficient, raft length, pendulum length, pendulum radius of
gyration, pendulum mass and wavelength on capture width ratio is analysed, and the mechanisms
underlying wave energy capture are explored. The comparison of capture width ratios for the converter
Keywords:
Wave energy converter
with and without a pendulum is made to demonstrate that the performance of the Wave Loong® is much
Raft better than a conventional raft-type WEC in terms of capture width ratio and wavelength bandwidth. The
Pendulum comparison of capture width ratios for the WECs with various connection conditions between any two of
Capture width ratio a fore raft, aft raft and pendulum is also made to evaluate which kind of connection condition is superior.
Wavelength bandwidth © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction advantages of raft-type WECs and pendulum-type WECs, and

Over the past two decades an upsurge in the development of
wave energy conversion technology has been set off. So far there
have been numerous concepts for wave energy conversion and over
1000 wave energy conversion techniques have been patented [1].
Among all kinds of devices proposed, raft-type wave energy con-
verters (WECs) consisting of two or more floaters hinged at each
floater end have been proved to have the highest wave energy
conversion efficiency and good survivability for a given volume of
machine without having to rely on fixed frames of reference [2],
whereas pendulum-type WECs consisting of a pendulum or an
inverted pendulum hinged to a foundation, have been proven to
have the advantages of wide frequency response and high energy
conversion efficiency under normal sea conditions [3]. The former,
which uses wave curvatures as a source of reaction and power
absorption, is unable to capture wave kinetic energy sufficiently,
whereas the latter, which converts wave kinetic energy to useful
energy [4], is unable to capture wave potential energy sufficiently.
In view of their respective limitations, we combine the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yhf13@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (H.-F. Yu), yongliangzhang@
tsinghua.edu.cn (Y.-L. Zhang), zhengsm@tsinghua.edu.cn (S.-M. Zheng).
propose a novel WEC (hereinafter called Wave Loong®) which can
capture both wave kinetic energy and wave potential energy, as
shown in Fig. 1. However, it is obvious that there is no study on such
a kind of novel device consisting of two rafts hinged at each raft end
and one pendulum hung at the joint of the rafts. Similarly, while
there are some literature relevant to either raft-type WECs or
pendulum-type WECs [4e8], there appears to have been no ex-
amination of the influence of either hinged floaters or a hanging
pendulum on the performance of a device with hinged floaters and
hanging pendulums.
The study of raft-type WECs can be traced back to 1974 when
Cockerell designed a raft-type articulated barge system (called
Cockerell raft), which was equipped with a hydraulic pump at each
joint [9]. The relative pitching motion of different rafts activates the
pump and drives a hydraulic motor to generate electricity. Later in
1978, Haren [10] studied the wave energy absorption (WEA) of a
Hagen-Cockerell raft by using a two dimensional model. WEA ef-
ficiency of a floating body articulated with a vertical wall was
calculated and can reach 100% through optimizing articulated
damping coefficient and wavelength. The McCabe Wave Pump
(MWP) is another similar WEC device, consisting of three rectan-
gular steel floating pontoons hinged together, with the heaving
motion of the central pontoon damped by a submerged horizontal
plate [11]. Two sets of hydraulic rams and a hydraulic power take-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.08.023
0960-1481/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286 1277

Fig. 1. Wave Loong® wave energy converter.

off (PTO) system convert the relative pitching motions of the barges
into useful energy. The damping plate can enhance relative pitching
motions and improve WEA by optimizing the barge length to be
compatible with wavelength for the maximum pitching excitation
in regular waves [5]. Compared with MWP, the Pelamis is a more
cost-effective raft-type WEC composed of four or five cylindrical
Fig. 2. Floating pendulum WEC [21].
sections linked by hinged joints [2]. As there are two degrees of
freedom at each joint, the sections can not only pitch but also yaw
relative to each other, then the relative rotational motions pump oil
into high pressure storage accumulators and drive generators to connection conditions between any two of a fore raft, aft raft and
produce electricity [12]. A study of the Pelamis showed the pendulum, and used to investigate the performance of this novel
maximum wave energy capture width can reach 150% of its WEC. Our attention is limited to a WEC in which all hydraulic rams
displacement width (viz. the cube root of displaced volume) [6]. installed are the same, characterized by identical damping co-
The DEXA is a more recent raft-type WEC consisted of two rigid efficients. The effect of damping coefficient, raft length, pendulum
floating bodies with a hinge in between, which allows each floating length, pendulum radius of gyration, pendulum mass on wave
body to pivot in relation to the other [13]. Each floating body is energy capture width ratio is analysed and the mechanisms un-
composed of two rigidly connected cylindrical pontoons with a derlying wave energy conversion are explored. The effect of
length larger than the diameter. Preliminary tests showed that connection conditions between any two of the fore raft, aft raft and
when the ratio of device length to wavelength is close to 1.0 the pendulum is also investigated. The comparison of capture width
device is very effective [14]. Aim of all these studies is mainly to ratios for the converter with and without a pendulum is made.
improve the efficiency of capturing wave potential energy in
addition to enhancing survivability.
2. Formulation of the problem
Regarding a pendulum-type WEC, which mainly captures wave
kinetic energy, it can be classified into two categories: bottom-
Consider a WEC consisting of two hinged rafts, a hanging
hinged pendulum WEC and pendulum WEC. The former has been
pendulum and a PTO system, as shown in Fig. 3. The two cuboid
extensively studied and its representative devices include EB Frond,
rafts are connected by a hinged joint and a hydraulic ram (1st ram)
WaveRoller, Oyster, BioWave, and Langlee [4,15], whereas the latter
is installed at the upper of the joint between the two rafts. The
has been less investigated [16]. Although the maximum theoretical
pendulum is hung at the same joint, and two hydraulic rams, which
and experimental energy extraction efficiencies of bottom-hinged
corresponds to 2nd and 3rd one, are installed at the right and left
pendulum WECs can reach 70.52% [17] and 55.5% [18], respec-
lowers of the joint between the aft raft and the pendulum as well as
tively, such WECs deployed nearshore are easily influenced by tidal
between the fore raft and the pendulum, respectively. These three
fluctuation, resulting in unstable efficiency [19]. A pendulum WEC
hydraulic rams are the key parts of the PTO system to achieve wave
with a rotary vane pump used to convert rotational torque to oil
energy conversion. Each raft with length L, width W and height H
pressure was investigated and its overall efficiency was reported to
has uniform mass distribution, thus its mass centre coincides well
be 40e60% [20]. Recently, a floating pendulum WEC (see Fig. 2)
with its geometry centre. The density of each raft is rr and the draft
consisting of floater, pendulum and damping plate was investigated
is d. The mass of each raft and the rotary inertia about the mass
[7,21], where the damping plate, which is a thin plate located
centre are m and I, respectively. The spacing between the two rafts
behind the floater, is used to reduce the floater motion by intro-
in still water is ls. The pendulum is rectangular with length Lp,
ducing additional fluid forces. The numerical results of Nam et al.
width Wp and thickness Dp. The density of the pendulum is rp. The
[22] showed that the efficiency of the floating pendulum WEC is
mass of the pendulum and the rotary inertia about the mass centre
less than that of the pendulum WEC whereas the experimental
are mp and Ip, respectively.
flume results of Murakami et al. [23] showed that the maximum
The hydrodynamic problem of the converter can be formulated
primary conversion efficiency and the maximum generating effi-
in a Cartesian coordinate (x,y,z) system with origin O coincident
ciency at the optimal load are 98% and about 23%, respectively. The
with the centre of the joint, where the x- and y-axes are taken along
development of a new WEC to capture both kinetic energy and
the length and the width of the rafts in still water, respectively,
potential energy by utilizing the advantages of raft-type and
while the z-axis is in the vertical direction. The mass centre co-
pendulum-type WECs is therefore timely and relevant in the
ordinates of the fore raft, the aft raft and the pendulum are
context of other recent works.
ðxim ; yim ; zim Þ (i ¼ 1,2,3), respectively. The water depth of the sea
In this paper, a mathematical model for the novel WEC con-
where the converter locates is h. Incident wave with amplitude A
sisting of two rafts hinged at each raft end and one pendulum hung
and period T passes along the x-axis driving the two rafts and the
at the joint of the rafts based on the linear wave theory is presented
pendulum to rotate around the y-axis of the joint. As for the dis-
by considering three bodies hinged together and various
placements of the other directions, they are continuous at the joint.
1278 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286

Fig. 3. Schematic of the WEC with three hydraulic rams.

The wave-induced relative rotations are resisted by the hydraulic 8

rams to achieve WEA. It is assumed that the two rafts and the >
> v4D u2
>
>  4D ¼ 0 ðz ¼ 0Þ
pendulum are considered as rigid bodies. The fluid is incompress- >
> vz g
>
>
ible and inviscid; the flow is irrotational. >
>
>
> v4
> D¼0
< ðz ¼ hÞ
vn
  ; (5)
>
> v4D  v4I 
>
>  ¼  
>
> vn Si vn Si
>
>
2.1. Hydrodynamic equations >
>  
>
> pffiffiffi
>
: lim R v4D  ik4D ¼ 0
Under the assumptions made above, the total velocity potential R/∞ vR
F of the flow satisfies the Laplace equation
where Si is the wetted surface of the i-th structure; n is the unit
outward scalar normal to the fluid-structure
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi interface (pointing to
V F ¼ 0:
2
(1)
the fluid); R is defined as R ¼ x2 þ y2 .
The total velocity potential F of the flow can proceed time-space As for the spatial radiation potential, the boundary conditions at
separation by applying separation of variables the free surface, seabed and wetted surfaces and the radiation
condition at infinite distance should also be satisfied
h i
Fðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ Re 4ðx; y; zÞeiut ; (2) 8 i
> j  u 4i ¼ 0 ðz ¼ 0Þ
>
> v4 2
>
>
>
> v z g j
where t is the time; 4(x,y,z) is the total spatial velocity potential at >
>
>
>
the point (x,y,z). >
> v4j
i
>
> ¼0 ðz ¼ hÞ
The total spatial velocity potential f can be linearly superposed >
>
<vn
by spatial velocity potentials of incident wave, diffracted wave and  ( ; (6)
radiation wave [24] >
> v4ij  nj ; i0 ¼ i
>
>  ¼
>
> vn 
>
> 0; i0 si
>
>
Si0
X
N X
6 >
> !
4ðx; y; zÞ ¼ 4I þ 4D þ 4ij xij ; (3) >
> pffiffiffi v4ij
>
>
i¼1 j¼1
> lim R
: R/∞
i
 ik4j ¼ 0
vR

where 4I is the spatial velocity potential of incident wave; 4D is the

where Si0 is the wetted surface of the i'-th structure;
spatial diffraction potential induced by the incident wave encoun-
(n1,n2,n3)¼(nx,ny,nz)¼n; (n4,n5,n6)¼sn; n is the unit outward
tering the structures in their fixed equilibrium positions; the
vector normal of the fluid-structure interface; s is the position
subscript i denotes the i-th structure; the subscript j denotes the j-
vector of a point of wetted surface relative to a chosen reference
th mode (j ¼ 1, …,6 represent the six degrees of freedom, corre-
point (e.g. the mass centre).
sponding to surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw, respectively); N
Once all the spatial velocity potentials are worked out, the
is the number of structures; 4ij is the spatial radiation potential due
complex amplitude of the exciting force acting on the i-th structure
to the oscillation of the i-th structure at the j-th mode with unit
at the j-th mode, caused by the incident wave and diffracted wave,
motion amplitude; xij is the complex motion amplitude of the i-th
can be calculated as [26]
structure at the j-th mode.
Based on the linear wave theory, the spatial velocity potential of
Fji ¼ iur∬ Si ð4I þ 4D Þnj dS; (7)
an incident wave can be written as

where r is the density of seawater.

iAg cosh½kðz þ hÞ  ikðxcosqþysinqþaÞ i;i0
4I ¼ e ; (4) The complex amplitude of the radiation force Fj;j 0 acting on the i-
u coshðkhÞ th structure at the j-th mode due to the oscillation of the i'-th
structure at the j'-th mode can be written as
where k is the wave number; u is the circular frequency of incident
wave; q is the angle between the incident wave direction and the x- 0 0 0 0 0
0 ¼ mj;j0 xj0  cj;j0 xj0 ;
i;i i;i i i;i i
Fj;j € _ (8)
axis; a is the initial phase angle; g is the acceleration of gravity.
In order to work out the spatial diffraction potential, the 0

boundary conditions at the free surface, seabed and fluid-structure where mi;i
j;j0
is the added mass coefficient, defined
i;i0 0 0

interface [25] and the radiation condition at infinite distance bymj; j0 ¼ r∬ Si Reð4ij0 Þnj dS; ci;i
j;j 0 is the damping coefficient, defined
0 0
should be satisfied by ci;i
j;j0
¼ ru∬ Si Imð4ij0 Þnj dS; the dot represents the derivative with
 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286 1279

respect to time. 2 3
P11 P12
6 1 1 0 7
6 7
2.2. WEC motion equations D¼6
6 Pl1 Pl2 7;
7 (14)
4 0 1 1 5
Once upon obtaining the above-mentioned hydrodynamic pa- PN1
1 PN1
2
rameters, the motion of the converter composed of N structures can
be calculated. First of all, considering the motion of the converter, 2 3
1 0 0 0 zlc  zlm ylm  ylc
excited by regular waves of frequency u, without any rigid con- 60
6 1 0 zlm  zlc 0 xlc  xlm 7
7
straints between any two of the structures, we can express the 6 7
where Pl1 ¼ 6 0 0 1 ylc  ylm xlm  xlc 0 7;
motion equations of the converter in the matrix form 6 7
60 0 0 1 0 0 7
n o 4 5
0 0 0 0 1 0
 u2 ½M þ Ma ðuÞ  iu½C þ Cd ðuÞ þ ½K þ Ks  X ¼ F; (9) 0 0 0 0 0 1

where M is the structure mass matrix of WEC; Ma and Cd are the 2 3

1 0 0 0 zlþ1
m  zc
lþ1
ylþ1
c  ylþ1
m
hydrodynamic added mass and hydrodynamic damping matrices, 6 0 1 0 zlþ1 zlþ1 0 lþ1 lþ1 7
xm  xc 7
6 c m
respectively; Ks is the hydrostatic restoring matrix; C and K are the 6 7
Pl2 ¼ 6 0 0 1 ylþ1
m  ylþ1
c xlþ1
c  xlþ1
m 0 7.
matrices of the PTO damping and stiffness at the connections 6 7
6 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
4 5
through hydraulic rams, respectively; F is the frequency-dependent 0 0 0 0 1 0
complex amplitude of exciting force vector; X is the complex 0 0 0 0 0 1
amplitude of displacement vector, viz.
N ; xN ; xN ; xN ; xN ÞT , where the super- It should be pointed out that once relieving the rigid constraint
X ¼ ðx11 ; x12 ; x13 ; x14 ; x15 ; x16 ; :::; xN
1 ; x2 3 4 5 6 condition of the j-th mode at the l-th joint, we need to remove the j-
script T denotes the transpose.
th row of Pl1 and Pl2 .
Once upon setting
According to the Hamilton Theory [28], we construct the
A ¼ f  u2 ½M þ Ma ðuÞ  iu½C þ Cd ðuÞ þ ½K þ Ks g, Equation (9)
following functional which represents the potential energy minus
can be rewritten into the following simple form
work by non-conservative force
AX ¼ F: (10)
1
This matrix equation is solved subject to rigid constraint con-
P ¼ XT AX  XT F: (15)
2
ditions at the joints. Provided that the structures are linked by rigid
Upon applying the method of Lagrange multipliers [29] to
connection, these rigid constraint conditions are the continuity of
Equations (15) and (13), we introduce the Lagrange multiplier l and
displacement at the joints in 6 modes, and can be expressed as [27]
extend the functional P to a modified one
xlc;j ¼ xlþ1
c;j
ðl ¼ 1; 2; :::; N  1Þ: (11) 1
P ¼ XT AX  XT F þ lT DX: (16)
Upon expressing displacements at the joints by using their 2
corresponding structure displacements at their structure mass Taking the variations with respect to X on both sides and letting
centres, respectively, Equation (11) can be expressed as dP ¼ 0 lead to

       
xl1 þ zlc  zlm xl5  ylc  ylm xl6 ¼ xlþ1 l lþ1
1 þ zc  zm xlþ1 l
5  yc  ym
lþ1
xlþ1
        6
xl2  zlc  zlm xl4 þ xlc  xlm xl6 ¼ xlþ1 l lþ1
2  zc  zm xlþ1 þ xlc  xlþ1
m xlþ1
     4  6
xl3 þ ylc  ylm xl4  xlc  xlm xl5 ¼ xlþ1 l
3 þ yc  ym
lþ1
xlþ1 l
4  xc  xm
lþ1
xlþ1
5 ; (12)
xl4 ¼ xlþ1
4
xl5 ¼ xlþ1
5
xl6 ¼ xlþ1
6

where ðxlc ; ylc ; zlc Þ is the coordinates of the centre of the l-th joint
AX  F þ DT l ¼ 0: (17)
(l ¼ 1,2,3, …,N-1); the left terms of Equation (12) represent dis-
placements at the joints of the l-th structure. Then the constraint Then Equations (17) and (13) can be merged into the following
conditions can be written into a matrix form motion equations of WEC
    
A DT X
¼
F
; (18)
D 0 l 0

where l is a Lagrange multiplier, corresponding to the generalized

DX ¼ 0; (13) force vector of constraints.
In this work, the influence of stiffness is not considered, there-
where D is the constraint matrix, defined by fore, K is zero matrix. And most of the elements of the damping
1280 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286

matrix C is zero, the nonzero elements of C which correspond to the

relative pitching motions are as follows: C[5,5] ¼ cd,1þcd,3, C
[11,11] ¼ cd,1þcd,2, C[17,17] ¼ cd,2þcd,3, C[5,11] ¼ C[11,5] ¼ cd,1, C
[11,17] ¼ C[17,11] ¼ cd,2, and C[5,17] ¼ C[17,5] ¼ cd,3 in which C[i,
j] denotes the element at the i-th row and the j-th column of the
damping matrix C; cd,1, cd,2 and cd,3 are the damping coefficients of
the 1st, 2nd and 3rd hydraulic rams, respectively.
In addition, the three structures are hung at the same joint
Fig. 4. Sketch of two cuboid barges connected by a hinge (unit: m).
whose centre coordinates are (x0,y0,z0) and their constraint matrix
is

2 1 0 0 0 0 3
6 0 1 0 0 0 7
6 0 0 1 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 z1m  z0 y0  y1m 1 0 0 7
6 7
6 7
6 z0  z1m 0 x1m  x0 0 0 7
6 7
6 y1m  y0 x0  x1m 0 0 1 7
6 7
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
T 6
D ¼6 7: (19)
0 z0  z2m y2m  y0 1 0 0 z2m  z0 y0  y2m 1 0 7
6 2 7
6 z  z0 0 x0  x2m 0 0 z0  z2m 0 x2m  x0 0 0 7
6 m 7
6 y  y 2 x2  x 0 0 1 y2m  y0 x0  x2m 0 0 1 7
6 0 m m 0 7
6 1 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 1 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 1 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 z0  z3m y3m  y0 1 0 7
6 7
4 5
z3m  z0 0 x0  x3m 0 0
3 3
y 0  y m xm  x0 0 0 1

1   2  2  2 
     
Pd ¼ u2 cd;1 x15  x25  þ cd;2 x25  x35  þ cd;3 x15  x35  :
2
(21)
2.3. Capture width ratio
Then the capture width ratio can be defined as

The incoming wave power per unit width of the wave front, Pi Pd
can be expressed as [30] h¼ : (22)
Pi W

rgA2 u 2kh
Pi ¼ ½1 þ : (20)
4k sinhð2khÞ
The average power to be captured can be calculated by 3. Results and discussion

In this section, we present results from the numerical solution of

Table 1 the coupling matrix equation governing the motion of fluid and
Physical and geometric parameters used. structures Equation (18). We start from validating our model by
Parameter Symbol Value comparison of our results with the published data in Section 3.1.
Wave period (s) T 5
The mechanisms underlying wave energy capture are explored in
Wave amplitude (m) A 1 Section 3.2. Comparison of six different schemes is conducted in
Water depth (m) h 1000 Section 3.3. The effect of damping coefficient, raft length, pendulum
Density of seawater (kg/m3) r 1025 length, pendulum radius of gyration and pendulum mass are given
Acceleration of gravity (m/s2) g 9.81
in Sections 3.4e3.8, respectively.
Raft width (m) W 4
Raft height (m) H 2 In order to make the results more general, the following
Raft draft (m) d 1 dimensionless physical quantities are defined and used in Sections
Density of raft (kg/m3) rr 512.5 3.2e3.8 except in model validation section.
Spacing between rafts (m) ls 2
Pendulum width (m) Wp 4 pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Dp
cd;igh L Lp rp mp
Pendulum thickness (m) 0.4 cd;i ¼ ; L ¼ ; Lp ¼ ; r p ¼ ; mp ¼ ; (23)
Density of pendulum (kg/m3) rp 1025 rgW l4 l l l rW l2
Raft length (m) L 5e30
Pendulum length (m) Lp 0e40
where cd;i ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ is the dimensionless damping coefficient of
 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286
Fig. 5. Variation of motions and force with period T: (a) dimensionless vertical displacement at the hinge Dz ; (b) dimensionless relative rotation of the barges qy ; (c) dimensionless
vertical force at the hinge F z .
Fig. 6. Sketch of a bottom-hinged pendulum WEC.
the i-th hydraulic ram; L is the dimensionless raft length; Lp is the
dimensionless pendulum length; rp is the pendulum radius of gy-
ration about the y-axis of the joint; r p is the dimensionless
pendulum radius of gyration; mp is the dimensionless pendulum
mass.
Physical and geometric parameters used in Sections 3.2e3.8 are
given in Table 1, unless otherwise specified.
3.1. Model validation
Calculations have been carried out to test the present model on
two separate cases: raft-type device and pendulum-type device.
The aim is to validate the model by comparison with published
results, and then apply it to WECs consisting of two rafts and a
pendulum hinged together in waves which have not previously
1281
Fig. 7. Variation of pendulum rotation angle q with period T for different damping
coefficients cp.
been investigated.
In the first calculation, the two hinged cuboid barges are
examined that have been previously investigated by Newman [31]
and Sun et al. [27] using the mode expansion technique and the
Lagrange multiplier technique, respectively, as shown in Fig. 4. The
length L, width W, height H and draft d of each barge are 40 m, 10 m,
10 m and 5 m, respectively. The spacing between the two barges ls is
10 m and there is a hinge between them which allows rotation
around the y-axis. Waves with period T ranging from 5 to 12s
propagate in the x-direction. The water depth h is assumed to be
infinite.
In order to compare our results with the published data [27,31],
1282 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286
Fig. 8. Variation of q1, q2 and q3 with time for L ¼ 0:51, Lp ¼ 0:26 and r p ¼ 0:13.
Fig. 9. Variation of q1q2, q2q3 and q1q3 with time for L ¼ 0:51, Lp ¼ 0:26 and
r p ¼ 0:13.
the following dimensionless physical quantities are introduced just
for comparison
Dz qy Fz
Dz ¼ ; qy ¼ ; Fz ¼ ; (24)
A 2kA rgALW
where Dz is the vertical displacement at the hinge; qy is the relative
rotation of the barges; Fz is the vertical force at the hinge; Dz , qy and
F z are the dimensionless physical quantities of Dz, qy and Fz,
respectively.
Fig. 5 shows the comparison of the present results of Dz , qy and
F z with the corresponding ones digitized from the published data of
Newman [31] and Sun et al. [27], where all the results are plotted
against wave period T. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the maximum
relative differences in Dz , qy and F z between the present result and
any result of Newman [31] and Sun et al. [27] are all less than 2%
except in Dz and qy between the present result and the result of
Newman [31] for wave period T ¼ 5.3e5.6s. Thus, in general, there
is a good agreement between the present results and the published
ones of Newman [31] and Sun et al. [27] for a raft-type device.
The second calculation is carried out for a bottom-hinged
pendulum WEC with a PTO system installed at the hinge. This
WEC in waves propagating in the x-direction and its pendulum
rotating around the y-axis was studied by Zhao et al. [32], as shown
in Fig. 6, and its physical and geometric parameters are: Wp ¼ 5 m,
Dp ¼ 1 m, rp ¼ 300 kg/m3, A ¼ 0.1 m, T ¼ 1e25s, h ¼ 5 m and
cp ¼ 0e7.5  105 N$m$s/rad. The part of the pendulum which is
above the still water level is light material and the mass can be
ignored.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the present rotation angles q
with ones digitized from the published data of Zhao et al. [32],
where all the results are plotted against wave period T. It also can be
seen that the maximum relative difference in rotation angle be-
tween them is within 2%. Hence, there is a good agreement be-
tween the present results and the published ones [32] for a
pendulum-type device.
3.2. Energy conversion mechanisms
Upon validating the model, we utilize it to explore the
movement law of fore and aft rafts and a pendulum to under-
stand the mechanisms underlying the wave energy capture. So-
lution of Equation (18) for the WEC without any hydraulic ram
between any two of the three bodies (viz. fore raft, aft raft and
pendulum) at its joint yields q1, q2 and q3, which denote the
pitching motions of the fore raft, aft raft and pendulum, respec-
tively. Fig. 8 shows the variation of q1, q2 and q3 with time,
respectively, for dimensionless raft length L ¼ 0:51, dimensionless
pendulum length Lp ¼ 0:26 and dimensionless pendulum radius
of gyration r p ¼ 0:13. It can be seen that the amplitudes of
pitching motions of the fore and aft rafts, q1 and q2, are about two
times larger than that of the pendulum, q3, for the examined case.
The rotational angles q1 and q2, which mainly depend on wave
curvatures, are nearly out of phase, which corresponds to a 159
phase shift in the WEC. q3 depends on fluid particle velocity and
direction, which are affected by the motion of the two rafts to
some extent. The pitch motion of the fore and aft rafts as well as
the swing motion of the pendulum interact with each other
through the fluid. The phase shifts between q2 and q3 and be-
tween q1 and q3 are 177 and 24 , respectively, which reflect how
much energy exists between the aft raft and the pendulum and
between the fore raft and the pendulum, respectively. These
phase shifts indicate that to install a hydraulic ram between the
rear raft and the pendulum can convert wave energy into more
useful energy than to install a hydraulic ram between the fore raft
and the pendulum.
From the absolute motions of two rafts and a pendulum, the
relative rotational angles between the fore raft and the aft raft,
between the aft raft and the pendulum, and between the fore raft
and the pendulum can be obtained, the square values of which are
proportional to the average power to be captured (see Equation
(21)), respectively. Therefore, each relative rotational angle repre-
sents a contribution to the overall wave energy conversion from a
different mechanism.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of q1q2, q2q3 and q1q3 with time,
respectively, for L ¼ 0:51, Lp ¼ 0:26 and r p ¼ 0:13. It can be seen
that the amplitude of relative rotational angle between the fore raft
and the aft raft is the largest among the amplitudes of three relative
rotational angles, about four times larger than that between the
fore raft and the pendulum, while the amplitude of relative rota-
tional angle between the aft raft and the pendulum is the second
largest, about three times larger than that between the fore raft and
the pendulum. As mentioned before that q1 and q2 mainly depend
on wave curvatures and q3 depends on fluid particle velocity and
direction, wave potential energy can be captured from the relative
rotation between the fore raft and the aft raft, q1-q2, whereas wave
potential energy and kinetic energy can be captured from the
relative rotation between either the fore raft and the pendulum,
q1q3, or the fore raft and the pendulum, q2q3. According to
Equation (21), the relative rotational angles between the fore raft
and the aft raft, the aft raft and the pendulum, and the fore raft and
 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286 1283

Fig. 10. Schematics of six schemes.

3.3. Comparison of different schemes

As discussed in the previous section, the relative rotational an-

Fig. 11. Capture width ratios h for different schemes at cd;1 ¼ cd;2 ¼ cd;3 ¼ 0:005,
L ¼ 0:51, Lp ¼ 0:26 and r p ¼ 0:13.
gles between any two of three bodies hinged together have po-
tential contribution to the overall wave energy conversion. Upon
installing hydraulic rams between any two of three bodies hinged
together, there will be complex interaction among three bodies and
their surrounding fluids, which may in turn influence the relative
rotation of rafts and pendulum, and thus affect their respective
contributions in the overall energy conversion. It is noted that there
are six main combinations of connection condition (viz. condition
of connection by hydraulic rams) between any two of the fore raft,
the aft raft and the pendulum. In order to maximize the wave en-
ergy capture width ratio of the WEC, we have to evaluate which
kind of the combination of connection conditions between any two
of the fore raft, the aft raft and the pendulum is superior. In this
section we examine the performance of the WEC with different
combinations of connection condition as well as in the absence of
pendulum, also called the WEC with different schemes. The sche-

Fig. 12. Schematic of the wave Loong® WEC.

the pendulum, which can be converted into useful energies, can matics of six schemes are shown in Fig. 10.
potentially contribute 59.30%, 35.76% and 4.94% to the overall wave Fig. 11 shows the capture width ratios h of the WEC for various
energy conversion, respectively. The above analysis further schemes at dimensionless damping coefficient
demonstrate that for the examined case to install a hydraulic ram cd;1 ¼ cd;2 ¼ cd;3 ¼ 0:005, dimensionless raft length L ¼ 0:51,
between the fore raft and the pendulum plays a less role in the dimensionless pendulum length Lp ¼ 0:26, dimensionless
overall wave energy conversion. pendulum radius of gyration r p ¼ 0:13. It can be seen that the
capture width ratios h of the WEC with a pendulum for different
1284 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286
Fig. 13. Variations of capture width ratios h of the converter with and without a
pendulum for cd for L ¼ 0:51, Lp ¼ 0:51 and r p ¼ 0:26.
Fig. 14. Variations of capture width ratios h of the converter with and without a
pendulum with dimensionless raft length L for cd ¼ 0:005, Lp ¼ 0:10 and r p ¼ 0:051.
connection conditions are all larger than that of the WEC without a
pendulum, therefore the pendulum plays a positive role in
whichever scheme with a pendulum. The optimal combination of
connection conditions, under which the wave energy capture width
ratio of the WEC can be maximized, in the six schemes examined is
the combination of two hydraulic rams installed at the joint be-
tween the fore raft and the aft raft, and between the aft raft and the
pendulum, respectively (viz. Scheme (a)). The difference exists in
the performance of the WEC with and without a hanging
pendulum, which are the Wave Loong® WEC and conventional raft-
type WEC, respectively. It can be seen that the capture width ratio
for the Wave Loong® WEC is larger than that for a conventional raft-
type WEC by 66.3% when L ¼ 0:51.
3.4. Effect of damping coefficient
As demonstrated in the previous section, the performance is of a
WEC consisting of two rafts, a pendulum and two hydraulic rams
installed between the two rafts and between the aft raft and the
pendulum (see Fig. 12), respectively, are the best one among the six
Fig. 15. Variations of capture width ratio h with dimensionless pendulum length Lp for
Schemes (a) and (e) at cd ¼ 0:005 and L ¼ 0:51.
Fig. 16. Variations of capture width ratios h of Schemes (a) and (e) with the dimen-
sionless pendulum radius of gyration r p for cd ¼ 0:005, L ¼ 0:51 and Lp ¼ 0:10.
schemes. Hence, a parametric study on the performance of this
WEC is conducted and analysed in this and subsequent sections.
It is well known that damping coefficient plays a significant role
in a conventional raft-type WEC (without a pendulum), does it play
a similar role in our novel WEC with a hanging pendulum? A wide
range of dimensionless damping coefficient, cd ¼ cd;1 ¼ cd;2 , are
examined. Meanwhile the difference in the performance of the
WEC with and without a hanging pendulum for different damping
coefficient is illustrated.
Fig. 13 shows the variations of capture width ratios h of the
converter with and without a pendulum with dimensionless
damping coefficient cd for dimensionless raft length L ¼ 0:51,
dimensionless pendulum length Lp ¼ 0:51, dimensionless
pendulum radius of gyration r p ¼ 0:26. It can be seen that the
capture width ratios h for the WEC with and without a pendulum
both increase rapidly with the increase of the dimensionless
damping coefficient cd , and then decrease relatively slowly after
 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286
Fig. 17. Variation of capture width ratio h with the dimensionless pendulum mass mp
for cd ¼ 0:005, L ¼ 0:51 and Lp ¼ 0:10.
reaching a maximum value. The maximum capture width ratio for
the WEC with a pendulum is 240.2%, which occurs at cd ¼ 0:002
whereas the maximum capture width ratio for the WEC without a
pendulum is 131.6%. which occurs at cd ¼ 0:005. The former is
108.6% larger than the latter. Thus, difference in the influence of
damping coefficient on capture width ratio for WECs with and
without a pendulum lies in the maximum capture width ratio and
the optimal damping coefficient corresponding the maximum ratio.
3.5. Effect of L
How dimensionless raft length (L) influences the performance of
the converter with and without a hanging pendulum in terms of
capture width ratio is also of concern. Fig. 14 shows the variations of
capture width ratios h of the converter with and without a
pendulum with dimensionless raft length L for dimensionless
damping coefficient cd ¼ 0:005, dimensionless pendulum length
Lp ¼ 0:10, dimensionless pendulum radius of gyration r p ¼ 0:051.
It can be seen that the capture width ratios h of both increase with
the dimensionless raft length L, and then decrease after reaching a
maximum value. Therefore, there is an optimal dimensionless raft
length Lopt that makes the capture width ratio h achieve maximum
value. It is indicated from Fig. 14 that, for a specified WEC, wave-
length bandwidth for the WEC with a pendulum is larger than that
for the WEC without a pendulum. At Lp ¼ 0:10 at capture width
ratio of 100%, the wavelength bandwidth of the Wave Loong®
converter (viz a WEC with a pendulum) is 34.4% larger than that of
a conventional raft-type WEC (viz. a WEC without a pendulum).
3.6. Effect of Lp
As demonstrated before that a pendulum hung at the joint of
two-rafts WEC plays a significant role in wave energy conversion, it
is necessary to investigate how pendulum length influences wave
energy capture width ratio. Fig. 15 shows the variations of capture
width ratio h with dimensionless pendulum length Lp for Schemes
(a) and (e) (see Fig. 10) at dimensionless damping coefficient
cd ¼ 0:005, dimensionless raft length L ¼ 0:51. It can be seen that
the capture width ratios h of both increase with the dimensionless
pendulum length Lp , and then decrease after reaching a maximum
1285
value. The maximum capture width ratio for Scheme (e) is 18.8%
larger than that for Scheme (a) and the optimal pendulum length
Lp,opt, which corresponds to the maximum capture width ratio, for
Scheme (e) is 6.7% larger than that for Scheme (a). It seems that
Scheme (e) is better than Scheme (a) in terms of capture width
ratio. As the cost and reliability of the WEC are directly related to
pendulum length, we have to point out that the cost, reliability and
capture width ratio need to be comprehensively weighed to
determine the global optimal pendulum length of the WEC. If the
global optimal dimensionless pendulum length Lp <0.35 the cap-
ture width ratio for Scheme (e) is smaller than that for Scheme (a).
For this case, the Scheme (a) is better than Scheme (e) when
L ¼ 0:51.
3.7. Effect of r p
It is not hard to image that the mass distribution of the
pendulum will influence the performance of the converter, thus the
influence of pendulum radius of gyration on wave energy capture
width ratio is also examined. Fig. 16 shows the variations of capture
width ratios h of Schemes (a) and (e) with the dimensionless
pendulum radius of gyration r p for dimensionless damping coef-
ficientcd ¼ 0:005, dimensionless raft length L ¼ 0:51, dimension-
less pendulum length Lp ¼ 0:10. For Scheme (a), as the capture
width ratio h increases monotonically with the dimensionless
pendulum radius of gyration r p , we should make the pendulum
radius of gyration rp as large as possible. Therefore, the best practice
is to put balance weight at the bottom of the pendulum, making the
pendulum radius of gyration as close to the pendulum length as we
can. For Scheme (e), the capture width ratio h slightly increases
with the dimensionless pendulum radius of gyration r p , and then
decreases after reaching a maximum value. When r p increase from
0.0 to 0.1, h increases by 35.2% for Scheme (a) but decreases by 15%
for Scheme (e) when L ¼ 0:51.
3.8. Effect of mp
How pendulum mass influences the performance of the con-
verter in terms of capture width ratio is also of interest. Fig. 17
shows the variation of capture width ratio h with the dimension-
less pendulum mass mp for dimensionless damping coefficient
cd ¼ 0:005, dimensionless raft length L ¼ 0:51, dimensionless
pendulum length Lp ¼ 0:10. It can be seen that the capture width
ratio h increases with the dimensionless pendulum mass mp , and
then decreases after reaching a maximum value. However, the
variation of capture width ratio h with the dimensionless
pendulum mass mp is very small.
4. Conclusions
A novel WEC consisting of two rafts hinged at each raft end and
one pendulum hung at the joint of the rafts is proposed, and a
mathematical model based on the linear wave theory with the
consideration of three bodies hinged together is presented to
investigate the performance of the WEC. The effect of damping
coefficient, raft length, pendulum length, pendulum radius of gy-
ration, pendulum mass on capture width ratio is analysed and the
mechanisms underlying the effect are explored. The effect of
different connection conditions between any two of the fore raft,
the aft raft and the pendulum is also investigated. The comparison
of capture width ratios for the converter with and without a
pendulum is made. From the investigation above, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1286 H.-F. Yu et al. / Renewable Energy 99 (2016) 1276e1286
1) The capture width ratios h of the converter increase with
increasing the dimensionless damping coefficient cd , the
dimensionless raft length L, the dimensionless pendulum length
Lp and the dimensionless pendulum mass mp , and then decrease
after reaching a maximum value, respectively.
2) The capture width ratio h of the converter increases mono-
tonically with increasing the dimensionless pendulum radius of
gyration r p ; we should make the pendulum radius of gyration rp
as large as possible, but it can not be larger than the pendulum
length Lp generally.
3) Each relative rotational angle between the fore raft and the aft
raft, the aft raft and the pendulum, and the fore raft and the
pendulum represents a potential contribution to the overall
wave energy conversion from a different mechanism. The
pendulum which is connected to the aft raft by using a hydraulic
ram enhances the relative pitching motion between the fore and
aft rafts.
4) The optimal combination of connection conditions in the six
schemes examined is the combination of two hydraulic rams
installed at the joint between the fore raft and aft raft, and be-
tween the aft raft and the pendulum, respectively (viz. Scheme
(a)), just as the Wave Loong® does.
5) The maximum capture width ratio of the Wave Loong® WEC for
Lp ¼ 0:51 is 240.2%, and 108.6% larger than that of a conven-
tional raft-type WEC. For WECs with and without a pendulum
for Lp ¼ 0:10 at capture width ratio of 100%, the wavelength
bandwidth of the Wave Loong® converter (viz a WEC with a
pendulum) is 34.4% larger than that of a conventional raft-type
WEC (viz. a WEC without a pendulum).
A comparison among experimental results and numerical ones
obtained, respectively, by using a viscous flow model and an
inviscid flow model illustrated that the nonlinear viscous damping
plays an important role in the dynamic response of WEC especially
in the vicinity of the natural period [18]. Hence, it is inferred that
the capture width ratio of the Wave Loong® WEC may be over-
estimated by using the inviscid flow theory. Future work will focus
on the further validation of the model via physical experiments and
investigating the effect of viscosity, nonlinearity and unequal
damping coefficient on the performance of the Wave Loong® WEC.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51479092, 51279088), the National High
Technology Research and Development Program (2012AA052602)
and the State Key Laboratory of Hydro-Science and Engineering
under Grant No.2013-KY-3.
References
[1] B. Drew, A.R. Plummer, M.N. Sahinkaya, A review of wave energy converter
technology, Proc. Institution Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy 223 (8) (2009)
887e902.
[2] R. Yemm, D. Pizer, C. Retzler, R. Henderson, Pelamis: experience from concept
to connection, Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. A 370 (1959) (2012) 365e380.
[3] F. Flocard, T.D. Finnigan, Laboratory experiments on the power capture of
pitching vertical cylinders in waves, Ocean. Eng. 37 (11e12) (2010) 989e997.
[4] M. Folley, T. Whittaker, J. Van, T. Hoff, The design of small seabed-mounted
bottom-hinged wave energy converters. 7th European Wave and Tidal En-
ergy Conference, Porto, Portugal, 2007.
[5] D.R.B. Kraemer, The Motions of Hinged-barge Systems in Regular Seas, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2001.
[6] C. Retzler, D. Pizer, R. Henderson, J. Ahlqvist, F. Cowieson, M. Shaw, Pelamis:
advances in the numerical and experimental modelling programme, in: 5th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, University College Cork, Ireland,
2003, pp. 59e66.
[7] B.W. Nam, S.Y. Hong, S.H. Shin, S.W. Hong, K.B. Kim, Prediction of the hy-
drodynamic performance of the floating pendulum wave energy converter in
regular and irregular waves, in: The Twenty-second (2012) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, International Society of Offshore
and Polar Engineers, Rhodes, Greece, 2012.
[8] S.M. Zheng, Y.H. Zhang, Y.L. Zhang, W.A. Sheng, Numerical study on the dy-
namics of a two-raft wave energy conversion device, J. Fluids Struct. 58 (2015)
271e290.
[9] M. Wooley, J. Platts, Energy on the crest of a wave, New Sci. 65 (1975)
241e243.
[10] P. Haren, Optimal Design of Hagen-cockerell Raft, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1978.
[11] W.B. Wan Nik, O.O. Sulaiman, R. Rosliza, Y. Prawoto, A.M. Muzathik, Wave
energy resource assessment and review of the technologies, Int. J. Energy
Environ. 2 (6) (2011) 1101e1112.
[12] R. Henderson, Design, simulation, and testing of a novel hydraulic power take-
off system for the Pelamis wave energy converter, Renew. Energy 31 (2)
(2006) 271e283.
[13] E. Angelelli, B. Zanuttigh, J.P. Kofoed, Others, numerical modelling of the hy-
drodynamics around the farm of wave activated bodies (WAB), in: 4th In-
ternational Conference on Ocean Energy, Dubin, Ireland, 2012.
[14] J.P. Kofoed, Hydraulic Evaluation of the DEXA Wave Energy Converter,
Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, 2009.
[15] A. Babarit, J. Hals, M.J. Muliawan, A. Kurniawan, T. Moan, J. Krokstad, Nu-
merical benchmarking study of a selection of wave energy converters, Renew.
energy 41 (2012) 44e63.
[16] I. Straume, Straumekraft AS: durable and profitable wave power, in: 3rd In-
ternational Conference on Ocean Energy, Bilbao, Spain, 2010.
[17] S. Qiu, J. Ye, D. Wang, F. Liang, Capture Width Study on a Pendulum Wave
Energy Converter, the 2011 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Con-
ference, IEEE, Wuhan, China, 2011, pp. 1e4.
[18] D.J. Wang, S.Q. Qiu, J.W. Ye, An experimental study on a trapezoidal pendulum
wave energy converter in regular waves, China Ocean. Eng. 29 (2015)
623e632.
[19] Y.G. Lin, J.W. Bao, H.W. Liu, W. Li, L. Tu, D.H. Zhang, Review of hydraulic
transmission technologies for wave power generation, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 50 (2015) 194e203.
[20] T. Watabe, Utilization of the Ocean Wave Energy, FUJI Print Press, Muroran,
2005.
[21] J.M. Sohn, H.J. Cheon, S.H. Shin, K. Hong, Preliminary study on global spectral
analysis of floating pendulum wave energy converter, in: The Twenty-fifth
(2015) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Kona, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 2015.
[22] B.W. Nam, S.Y. Hong, K.B. Kim, J.Y. Park, S.H. Shin, Numerical analysis of wave-
induced motion of floating pendulor wave energy converter, J. Ocean Eng.
Technol. 25 (4) (2011) 28e35.
[23] T. Murakami, Y. Imai, S. Nagata, Experimental study on load characteristics in
a floating type pendulum wave energy converter, J. Therm. Sci. 23 (5) (2014)
465e471.
[24] Q. Shen, X.J. Chen, Z.B. Jiang, The Fluid-structure Interaction Dynamic Analysis
of Floating Body and Floating Multibody System, 1 ed., Science Press, Beijing,
2011.
[25] Y.L. Zhang, Fluid-Structure Dynamic Interaction, 1 ed., Academy Press, Beijing,
2010.
[26] J. Falnes, Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems: Linear Interactions Including
Wave-energy Extraction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
[27] L. Sun, R.E. Taylor, Y.S. Choo, Responses of interconnected floating bodies, IES
J. Part A Civ. Struct. Eng. 4 (3) (2011) 143e156.
[28] J.B. Liu, X.L. Du, T Dynamics of Structures, 1 ed., Mechanical Industry Press,
Beijing, 2005.
[29] E. Zeidler, Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications: III: Variational
Methods and Optimization, Springer Science & Business Media, New York,
2013.
[30] M.E. McCormick, Ocean Engineering Mechanics: with Applications, Cam-
bridge University Press, New York, 2009.
[31] J.N. Newman, Wave effects on deformable bodies, Appl. Ocean Res. 16 (1)
(1994) 47e59.
[32] H.T. Zhao, Z.L. Sun, C.L. Hao, J.F. Shen, Numerical modeling on hydrodynamic
performance of a bottom-hinged flap wave energy converter, China Ocean.
Eng. 27 (2013) 73e86.