Predicting coastal impacts by wave farms: A comparison of wave-averaged and wave-resolving models

David, Daniel Raj; Rijnsdorp, Dirk P.; Hansen, Jeff E.; Lowe, Ryan J.; Buckley, Mark

doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.11.048

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Husain and Parker [72] found that the performance in energy extraction increased by 28% when including the hydrodynamic terms. David et al [73] compared wave-averaged and wave-resolving modeling approaches considering different wave farm geometries to predict the coastal impact and reported that "coupling the wave-averaged model to a flow model resulted in more realistic downstream predictions. "…”

Section: Array Geometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in wave energy conversion systems: From wave theory to devices and control strategies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Array Geometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in wave energy conversion systems: From wave theory to devices and control strategies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As with prior works, the transmission coefficients are inaccurate when the size of the device, location of the specific devices and power losses due to viscous drag are omitted. In prior studies, assumptions of idealized transmission and reflection coefficients over a large area do not consider the altered WEC performance for different wave conditions; thus, the results ignore changes in power production for different significant wave heights and energy periods, which are notably important [32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Luczko et al [29] improved the fidelity of the transmission coefficient calculation in SNL-SWAN to include viscous drag and found that the accuracy of the transmission coefficient was improved by 2%. David et al [32] showed that when the model accounts for more of the relevant physics of the wave-body interactions, the model predictions are more realistic downstream, showing that increased fidelity can develop more accurate predictions of wave-body interactions. Typically, once an SNL-SWAN solution has been generated, it is imported into XBeach to observe the effect the wave variation will have on sediment transport [26,37].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coupled Wave Energy Converter and Nearshore Wave Propagation Models for Coastal Impact Assessments

Flanagan

Wengrove

Robertson

2022

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Future nearshore wave energy converter (WEC) arrays will influence coastal wave and sediment dynamics, yet there are limited numerical methodologies to quantify their possible impacts. A novel coupled WEC-Wave numerical method was developed to quantify these possible influences on the nearshore coastal wave climate. The power performance of an Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converter (OSWEC) array was simulated to quantify the wave energy dissipation due to the array. The OSWEC’s effect on the local wave climate was quantified by a novel coupling of two numerical models, WEC–Sim and XBeach. WEC–Sim characterizes the power extraction and wave energy transmission across the OSWEC, while XBeach captures the change in wave dynamics due to the WEC and propagates the waves to shore. This novel methodology provides the ability to directly quantify the impact of the effect of a WEC array on the local wave climate. Three case studies were analyzed to quantify the impact of a single WEC on breaking conditions and to quantify the impact of number of WECs and the array spacing on the local nearshore wave climate. Results indicate that when the WEC is placed 1100 m offshore, one WEC will cause a 1% reduction in wave height at the break point (Hsbp). As the WEC is placed further offshore, the change in Hsbp will become even smaller. Although the change in wave height from one WEC is small, WEC arrays magnify the cross–shore extent, area of influence and the magnitude of influence based on the spacing and number of WECs. For arrays with 10 or 15 WECs, the cross–shore extent was on average 200–300 m longer when the WECs were placed one to two WEC widths apart, compared with being spaced three or four widths apart. When the spacing was one WEC width apart (18 m), there was a 30% greater spatial impact on the nearshore region than arrays spaced three or four widths apart. The trend for the average transmission coefficient is within 5% for a 5, 10 or 15 WEC array, with a cumulative average of 78% transmission across all conditions.

show abstract

A Computational Platform to Assess the Coastal Impact of the Marine Energy Farms

Rusu,

Onea

2024

Advances in Clean Energy Systems and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting coastal impacts by wave farms: A comparison of wave-averaged and wave-resolving models

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

Recent advances in wave energy conversion systems: From wave theory to devices and control strategies

Recent advances in wave energy conversion systems: From wave theory to devices and control strategies

Coupled Wave Energy Converter and Nearshore Wave Propagation Models for Coastal Impact Assessments

A Computational Platform to Assess the Coastal Impact of the Marine Energy Farms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About