1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

1/13

Wave energy resource characterisation

of the Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site

B.G. Cahill , T. Lewis

Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Wave energy resourceTest sitesScalability

a b s t r a c t

The Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site (AMETS), a grid connected testarea for the deployment of full scale Wave Energy Converters(WECs), is being developed by the Sustainable Energy Authorityof Ireland near Belmullet in Co. Mayo, Ireland. In this paper mea-sured data provided by two wave buoys, positioned at a deepwaterlocation (100 m depth) and an offshore location (50 m depth), are

analysed in order to characterise the wave resource at the site. Inparticular, a distinction is made between which sea states occurwith the most regularity and which wave conditions are the mostsignificant for the capture of power. The spatial variation in theoccurrence of important summary statistics between the deepwa-ter and offshore sites is examined and the difference in incidentwave power calculated. Finally, this paper compares conditionsat the Belmullet site with those measured at the quarter scale testsite in Galway Bay. An assessment on the degree of scalabilitybetween resource parameters relevant to WEC power productionexperienced at the two locations, as recommended by develop-ment protocols, is made and methods for comparing benign and

exposed sites proposed. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

In theory, the energy that could be extracted from the oceans is well in excess of any current, orfuture, human requirements. While wave energy continues to lag behind conventional, carbon basedsources of power and other renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar, advances continue to

2214-1669/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2013.05.001

Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 214250013.

E-mail address:[email protected](B.G. Cahill).

International Journal of Marine Energy 1 (2013) 315

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Marine Energy

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j o m e
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2013.05.001mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2013.05.001http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22141669http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijomehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijomehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22141669http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2013.05.001mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2013.05.001http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://crossmark.dyndns.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijome.2013.05.001&domain=pdfhttp://-/?-

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

2/13

be made. Though the total amount of installed capacity is still insignificant, reported in [1] to be2 MW, the wave energy industry is beginning to approach the deployment of wave farms, arrays offull-scale Wave Energy Converters (WECs). Methods to compare and evaluate the energy resourceat different locations, and at different scales, are required in order to inform WEC project developersand allow them to select the most suitable sites to achieve optimal power capture and economic per-

formance from their installations.Many assessments of wave energy resource have previously been carried out at regional[2,3], na-

tional[4,5]and global scales[6]. The primary purpose of these studies is to give an indication of thepotential hydrodynamic power that is available at a location of interest, while the classification of sea-sonal and inter-annual trends in the availability of the resource and the identification of extremeevents which may impact on the operation and survival of WECs are also commonly presented. Thefocus of this paper is towards characterising the wave resource with reference to the potential poweravailable and the performance of typical devices, and also to allow for the comparison of potentialsites for the development of WEC projects. In particular, efforts are made to differentiate betweenwhich sea states are the most common at a location of interest and which sea states contribute mostto the incident wave energy and therefore to the power that can be expected to be produced by a WEC.

This analysis is carried out using measured wave data from buoys located at the Atlantic Marine En-ergy Test Site (AMETS) that is currently being developed close to the town of Belmullet in Co. Mayo, inorder to describe the conditions that can be expected at exposed sites off the west coast of Ireland. Thespatial variability at this site is also assessed by examining concurrent measurements taken at twolocations with depths of 50 and 100 m.

Finally, these techniques are applied so that a comparison can be made between the AMETS loca-tion and the quarter scale test site in Galway Bay in order to give an indication of how accurately suchtest sites simulate real sea conditions and allow the performance of full-scale WECs to be predictedfrom the testing of scaled models.

Wave data

Wave energy test sites

The analysis undertaken for this study relies on point measurements of wave conditions taken atIrelands two wave energy test sites, whose locations are shown in Fig. 1. Test sites such as theseare important resources for the technical progress of a WEC from an initial concept to the deploymentof commercial wave farms along a staged development programme, as outlined in [7].

The benign, quarter scale, wave energy test site in Galway Bay on the west coast of Ireland providesa location for developers of floating WECs to deploy and monitor device prototypes in relatively shel-tered conditions, as suggested in Phase 3 of the development protocols. The site has an area of 37

Fig. 1. The Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site (AMETS) and Irelands wave energy test facilities (Image courtesy of SEAI).

4 B.G. Cahill, T. Lewis / International Journal of Marine Energy 1 (2013) 315

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

3/13

Hectares with water depth of between 21 and 24 m and a tidal range of 4 m and has previously beenused by Ocean Energy Ltd. and Wavebob Ltd. Galway Bay is semi-enclosed as a result of the shelterafforded by the Aran Islands but does experience swell waves from the West and South-West as wellas the local, fetch limited, wind seas. It will be shown a later section of this paper that these wind seasare a good representation at quarter scale in combinations of height and period for the Atlantic Ocean.

A grid-connected test site for the appraisal of full scale WECs is currently being developed by theSustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) off the West Coast, near Belmullet in Co. Mayo and willbe known as the Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site (AMETS). AMETS offers the opportunity for prototypeWECs to be exposed to the type of harsh, energy rich wave climate that can be expected off the westcoast of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is envisaged that this site will be used by developers forthe final stages of device testing prior to commercial deployment. Details on the development of thistest site can be found in[8].

Wave data measurement

A Datawell Directional Waverider, a spherical, surface-following measurement buoy, has beengathering data at the AMETS location since December 2009. This buoy is located at the 50 m depthcontour, designated as Berth B, and transmits a set of spectral and time series readings to shore every30 min.

In addition, from MayOctober of 2010 a Fugro Wavescan discus shaped buoy with a diameter ofapproximately 2.75 m, was positioned at the planned Deep Water Test Area, approximately 10 kmNorth-East of the Waverider buoy. The spectral wave measurements from this buoy have yet to beprocessed by the Marine Institute, the agency tasked with managing the data, therefore only basicsummary statistics have been available for the analysis outlined in this study.

Point measurements of wave conditions have been collected from Galway Bay using individual

Datawell Waverider buoys since 2006. A non-directional Waverider buoy was originally deployed atthe site until it was replaced in the summer of 2008 by a directional Waverider. This buoy is currentlypositioned at 5313.70 N, 916.130 W. The availability of measured data from Galway Bay (GB Wave-rider) for the year 2010, as well as from the AMETS Waverider (BM Waverider) and Wavescan (BMWavescan) buoys, is illustrated inFig. 2. It is notable that gaps in data exist for both of the Waveriderbuoys during the summer months due to scheduled maintenance and cleaning.

Fig. 2. Availability of measured wave data from Irelands wave energy test sites in 2010.

B.G. Cahill, T. Lewis / International Journal of Marine Energy 1 (2013) 315 5
http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

4/13

Resource characterisation of the Atlantic Marine Energy Test Centre

Summary statistics and wave power distribution

WEC developers will require a thorough knowledge of the conditions at a potential project location,or at a test site like AMETS, before they can commit to deploying their devices there. Bi-variate scatterplots of important summary statistics provide a useful method of ascertaining an overall understand-ing of the wave resource at an area of interest. InFig. 3the sea states experienced at AMETS in 2010are presented in terms of the significant wave height, Hm0 , and the energy period, TE.TEis defined asbeing equivalent to the period of monochromatic wave whose height is equal to Hm0 , and which hasthe same energy as the irregular sea state in question. Both these parameters are calculated from themoments of measured spectra. Hm0 is defined as:

Hm0 4 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffim0

p 1whileTEis given by

TEm1=m0 2where mn is the nth spectral moment. T02 is the primary wave period parameter provided by theWavescan buoy. It is equivalent to the average of the zero-crossing periods and is also denoted by Tz.

T02ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffim0=m2

p 3

Fig. 3 illustrates that although the majority of sea states at AMETS fall within the ranges1 m

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

5/13

ability of their devices during extreme events. However, it should be noted that several years worth ofdata will need to be collected before a more complete assessment of the wave climate at the site canbe made.

These plots are not without their limitations. In[9]it has been shown that a significant amount ofdeviation can exist in the spectral shapes of measurements that fall within the same scatter diagram

element, while[10]suggests that a much wider range of parameters are required to fully assess theresource with reference to the performance of wave energy devices. These plots also fail to fully de-scribe which sea states contribute most to the wave power experienced at a site. Wave power per unitcrest length, P (kW/m), is calculated from the measured spectra using the formula

P qg2

4pm1 4

with the assumption of deep water, where qis the density of sea water (1025 kg/m3) and g is accel-eration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2). Eq.(3) is more commonly written in terms ofHm0 and TE, giving

P

0:4H2m0TE

5

The AMETS scatter diagram is redrawn inFig. 4with percentage occurrence replaced by percentagecontribution to total annual incident wave energy. When this diagram is compared with Fig. 3it can beseen that the cells with the highest contribution are not necessarily those with the highest occurrence.There is an obvious upward shift in the positions of the most significant sea states. WEC developerscan take advantage of this by designing their devices to capture as much of the available power as pos-sible at the sea states that prove to be the most energetic (when considered over the course of a year)at a potential wave farm site, rather than targeting the conditions which occur most frequently.

It is also notable that a number of very rare sea states that are the product of extreme storm eventshave a disproportionate contribution to annual power. For example, the four sea states (0.03% of totaloccurrences) that were measured within the range 12.5 m < Hm0 < 13 m and 13s

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

6/13

to be responsible for nearly 2% of the total gross, power for the year. In reality the performance of aWEC would be reduced in these conditions due to losses in efficiency, or even reduced to zero asthe device enters survival mode. To account for this discrepancy the concept of maximum exploitablepower, Pexp, was introduced in[11]. Pexp is defined as being four times the average incident wavepower, written mathematically in Eq.(5) as

Pexp 4

XNi1

Pi

N 6

For highly energetic sea states any power above the Pexp is deemed to be superfluous and is dis-counted. While the value ofPexpgiven by Eq.(5)is somewhat arbitrary it nonetheless provides a usefultool for gaining a more accurate picture of what sea states should be deemed to be most important forthe capture of wave power by a WEC. In practice, the performances of various WEC types in extremeconditions will differ greatly, but real data from full scale testing will allow for more appropriatethresholds, tailored to individual device designs, to be determined.

Analysis was also carried out to investigate which sea states contribute most to the performance ofa typical WEC. The publically available power matrix[12], shown inFig. 5,for an early, 750 kW, ver-sion of the Pelamis device is combined with the measured values ofHm0 and TEfrom the AMETS Wave-rider buoy to replicate the power production of a wave energy device exposed to conditionsexperienced at the Belmullet site.

The difference that exists between the occurrence of a particular value ofHm0 and extent to whichsea states within this range contribute to wave energy is illustrated in Fig. 6. The bar plots indicate thecontribution that each individual Hm0 bin, with spacings of 0.5 m, makes to the total power from theyear in question. The three measures of wave power defined previously: gross, theoretical power fromEq.(4), exploitable power (Eq.(5)) and the output power from the Pelamis matrix are plotted. The so-lid orange line details the percentage occurrence ofHm0 for each of these bins. The apparent disconnectbetween wave height occurrence and contribution to annual power that was suggested previously byFig. 4is easily identified here, with the most significant inputs to power all occurring less often thanthe most commonly experienced value ofHm0 .

Similar results are observed inFig. 7where the occurrence of the average period, T02, with 1 s bins,is compared to the contribution the period bins make to wave power. Shorter period waves can beseen to contribute proportionally more to Pelamis power than they do to gross and exploitable powerwhile much of the power from longer period seas appears to be unexploitable.

Fig. 5. Power matrix for a 750 kW Pelamis device, from [12].


8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

7/13

Spatial variability

The spatial variability in the wave energy resource at AMETS is investigated through the compar-ison of measurements collected by the Wavescan buoy positioned at a depth of 100 m and the Wave-rider deployed at 50 m depth. Only datasets that were measured concurrently at the two buoys wereselected for analysis to remove the bias that seasonality and individual storm event may have on theresults.

Occurrence and exceedance of the summary statistics Hm0 andT02 are compared inFig. 8for con-current measurements taken at the 100 and 50 m depths. Both of these figures indicate that in generalthe Wavescan buoy experiences waves of slightly greater height and of longer periods. This may be inpart due to the shelter from waves approaching from the South that the 50 m location receives from

the nearby Inishglora and Inishkea islands but further directional analysis will be required once thesupplementary data from the Wavescan buoy becomes available before this conclusion can be accu-rately made. It is also evident that the distributions ofHm0 andT02 occurrence and exceedance at thetwo locations follow very similar trends.

The variability of incident wave power at the AMETS location is observed inFig. 9through compar-ison of the measured data from the 100 and 50 m depths. As spectral information was unavailablefrom the Wavescan buoy located at the 100 m depth it was not possible to derive the energy periodTEand calculate the power per metre crest using Eq.(4). Instead, it was necessary to calculate the inci-dent wave power using the average period T02 following the approach described in the Appendix atthe end of this paper. It was also not possible to account for the influence of finite water depth onthe resulting power so the deep water assumption was followed. To ensure homogeneity the same ap-

proach was followed for the 50 m site, even though values of TEcould be derived from the data pro-vided by the Waverider buoy.

It has already been shown that in general the 100 m site experiences waves that are both slightlyhigher and longer than those at the 50 m location, therefore it is unsurprising that the average power

Fig. 6. Contribution to total annual power compared to occurrence for 0.5 m bins ofHm0 .

http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

8/13

Fig. 7. Contribution to total annual power compared to occurrence for 1.0 s bins ofT02.

Fig. 8. Occurrence (bars, left hand axis) and exceedance (solid lines, right hand axis) ofHm0 (top) andT02 (bottom) for 100 and50 m depths at AMETS.


8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

9/13

experienced at the 100 m depth is greater than that at the 50 m location. The slope of the trend lineindicates that the power at the 50 m location is less than 80% of what can be expected at the 100 mpoint. Introducing the concept of Exploitable Power was found to have little effect on the spatial dis-tribution of power. This is possibly due to the limited range of concurrent measurements which weremostly confined to summer months. Were data available from winter months which experiencedstorm conditions it is likely that there would be greater variation between gross and exploitablepower, particularly at the Wavescan location.

Fig. 9. Concurrent values of Wave Power at AMETS.

Fig. 10. Bi-variate scatter plot for Galway Bay converted to full-scale, showing the percentage occurrence ofHm0 TEfor 2010.

http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

10/13

Fig. 11. Occurrence and exceedance ofHm0 (top) and TE(bottom) for AMETS and Galway Bay measurements at full-scale.

Fig. 12. Individual, averaged and theoretical spectra within the range 0.625 m < Hm0 < 0.75 m and 3.0 s < T02< 3.5 s for theGalway Bay test site.


8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

11/13

Resource scalability

It is likely that device developers who will deploy WECs at AMETS will have previously tested ear-lier versions of their devices at the Galway Bay quarter scale test site, or at other similarly benign loca-tions. In this section analysis of measured data is used to compare the wave conditions experienced atthe test sites in order to assess whether they are sufficiently well matched to allow accurate compar-isons to be made between performance results derived at the various scales.

Values for the summary statistics Hm0 and TEwere calculated from the available measurementsfrom the Datawell Waverider buoy located in Galway Bay. Froude scaling was then applied to convertthe scatter diagram from Galway Bay for 2010 to full-scale (Fig. 10). Visual comparison withFig. 3indicates that while the percentage occurrence of individual sea states may vary between the twosites, the overall range of conditions that occur at AMETS is fully replicated, at approximately quarterscale, in Galway Bay. This distinct correlation ensures that WECs deployed at the test site will encoun-ter a sufficiently large spread of wave conditions, and consequently gather ample amounts of opera-tional data, to allow for accurate predictions of device performance at full scale to be established.There is a strong similarity in the occurrences of extreme conditions measured at the test sites, par-

ticularly in terms of sea state slopes which follow the constant 1/13 line. This association will providedevelopers who deploy in Galway Bay during winter months with the opportunity to prove the sur-vivability of their devices in scaled conditions equivalent to the storms experienced at exposed loca-tions off the west coast of Ireland.

It is notable, however, that the Galway Bay scatter diagram displays a greater contribution fromlong period sea states with a relatively low significant wave height. These sea states do not haveany equivalent in the AMETS figure. The influence of these swell dominated sea states can be seenin the plots of occurrence and cumulative exceedance for Hm0 and TEdisplayed inFig. 11. While thescaled values ofHm0 from Galway Bay are generally well matched with those from AMETS, they exhibita much greater occurrence of sea states with Hm0 < 1 m. Agreement is worse for theTEvalues, as had

Fig. 13. Individual, averaged and theoretical spectra within the range 2.5 m

8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

12/13

been suggested byFig. 12. Results gained from testing during these long period sea states TE> 13 sat full scale would provide little relevant knowledge about the performance of a WEC concept inrealistic, full scale, conditions. Device developers should be careful to ensure that these sea statesare excluded from performance analysis, though in general their impact can be considered negligible,however, as they generally occur when wave energy is low and below the operating threshold of de-

vices; for example, during the CORES deployment in 2011 the OWC turbine did not generate poweruntilHm0 exceeded 0.8 m[13].

The presence of these swell waves can also be detected in the analysis of spectral shapes. InFig. 12the measured spectra that fall within the range 0.625 m < Hm0 < 0.75 m and 3.0 s < T02< 3.5 s are plot-ted together, along with the average of the spectral ordinates and the classical Bretschneider spectrumfor similar summary statistics. Two distinct components are noticeable; the long period swell identi-fied above along with a wind sea component centred on a frequency of 0.3 Hz which is appropriate fora one quarter scale seaway. Spectra measured by the AMETS Waverider which fall within the equiv-alent full scale range (2.5 m < Hm0 < 3.0 m and 6 s < T02< 7 s) are plotted in Fig. 13and are found toconform relatively well with what would be expected from an open water site, as evidenced by thesimilarity of the average spectral shape to the Bretschneider spectrum. It is evident that the long per-

iod components that appear so distinctly inFig. 12are not as influential here and that it is likely thatsea and swell components from benign sites need to be isolated and dealt with separately in any anal-ysis prior to conversion to full scale.

Conclusions

This paper has demonstrated that the most prevalent wave conditions experienced at an exposedocean location on the west coast of Ireland are not the most energy rich when observed over thecourse of a year, both with respect to the theoretical, incident wave energy and in terms of energy cap-ture from an actual device. While the lack of an archive of measured data spanning a number of yearsmakes a comprehensive assessment of the wave climate at the AMETS location difficult, these results

have obvious implications for the design of WECs and highlight the range of sea states that they willneed to be tuned to in order to extract the maximum amount of energy from a particular site.

Individual values of incident wave power were found to vary significantly (20%) between the 100and 50 m depths at AMETS. However it was also shown that the distributions of occurrences ofHm0andT02appear to follow similar patterns at both points, indicating that a considerable level of homo-geneity exists in the wave conditions at the site. Future analysis of spectral and directional data fromthe Wavescan buoy will allow for a clearer understanding of the spatial variability at the site.

This work has also highlighted the level of scalability that exists between the wave climates atAMETS and the quarter scale test site in Galway Bay. It was shown that in general there is excellentagreement between the sites and that any particular sea state experienced at AMETS is replicatedat scale in Galway Bay. As a result developers who conduct a sufficiently long period of testing at

the quarter scale site should gather the necessary performance data to progress to the final stagesof testing. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the presence of long period swell forms sea statesand spectra that are not suitable for following the same scaling procedures and that care should betaken when interpreting WEC performance data collected during these conditions.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Marine Institute and the Sustainable Energy Authorityof Ireland for providing the data used in this study. This research is funded by the Irish Research Coun-cil for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET) under the EMBARK Initiative.

Appendix A. Calculation of Power fromH

m0 andT

02

For a generalised PiersonMoskowitz Spectrum for fully developed sea-states, also known as theBretschneider Spectrum, let the relationship between the energy period, TE, and the average zero-crossing period, T02, be given by


8/11/2019 1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2

13/13

TE aT02 7where ais a constant.

Rewriting Eq.(6) in terms of spectral moments gives

m1

m0 affiffiffiffiffiffiffim0m2

r 8From[14]the spectral moment mncan be given the general form

mn 14AB

n4 1u 1 n

4

h i 9

allowing Eq.(7) to be rewritten as

0:2266 AB54

A4B

affiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

A4B

0:443 AffiffiB

p

vuut 10

This simplifies to givea

= 1.206, allowing Eq.(4) to be written in terms of T02, givingP 0:59H2m0T02 11

In reality there will be some divergence from the Bretschneider spectral shape, and this will be re-flected in the value ofa. Further studies of the measured data[15]have shown that a wave period ra-tio of approximately 1.35 is more appropriate for the AMETS location.

References

[1] Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems (OES-IA), Annual Report 2010, 2010.[2] P. Lenee-Bluhm, R. Paasch, H.T. zkan-Haller, Characterizing the wave energy resource of the US Pacific Northwest,

Renewable Energy 36 (8) (2011) 21062119.

[3] G. Iglesias et al, Wave energy potential in Galicia (NW Spain), Renewable Energy 34 (11) (2009) 23232333 .[4] M.G. Hughes, A.D. Heap, National-scale wave energy resource assessment for Australia, Renewable Energy 35 (8) (2010)17831791.

[5] ESBI, Accessible Wave Energy Resource Atlas: ESBI Report 4D404A-R2 for Marine Institute (MI) and Sustainable EnergyIreland (SEI), 2005.

[6] G. Mrk et al., Assessing the global wave energy potential, in: 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore Mechanicsand Artic Engineering, Shanghai, China, 2010.

[7] Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre, Ocean Energy Development and Evaluation Protocol, 2003.[8] J. Ascoop, M. Frielding, The development of a Wave Energy Test Site in Belmullet (Ireland): experience to date, in: 3rd

International Conference on Ocean Energy, Bilbao, Spain, 2010.[9] S. Barrett et al., Spatial & spectral variation of seaways, in: Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy

Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009.[10] J.-B. Saulnier et al, Wave groupiness and spectral bandwidth as relevant parameters for the performance assessment of

wave energy converters, Ocean Engineering 38 (1) (2011) 130147.[11] M. Folley, T.J.T. Whittaker, Analysis of the nearshore wave energy resource, Renewable Energy 34 (7) (2009) 17091715 .

[12] Pelamis Wave Power Ltd., www.pelamiswave.com.[13] F. Thiebaut, et al., Testing of a floating OWC device with movable guide vane impulse turbine power take-off, in: 9th

European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Southampton, United Kingdom, 2011.[14] M.J. Tucker, E.G. Pitt, Waves in ocean engineering, in: R. Bhattacharyya, M.E. McCormick (Eds.), Elsevier Ocean Engineering

Book Series, vol. 5, Elsevier, 2001.[15] B.G. Cahill, Characteristics of the Wave Energy Resource at the Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site. PhD Thesis, University

College Cork, 2013.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0025http://www.pelamiswave.com/http://www.pelamiswave.com/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0030http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.pelamiswave.com/http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0025http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0020http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-1669(13)00002-7/h0005http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

Documents

1-s2.0-S2214166913000027-main_2