Accepted Manuscript

Mechanical Design and Simulation of an Onshore Four-Bar Wave Energy

Converter

Alberto Albert, Giovanni Berselli, Luca Bruzzone, Pietro Fanghella

PII: S0960-1481(17)30716-4

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.089

Reference: RENE 9064

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 20 May 2016

Revised Date: 14 July 2017

Accepted Date: 22 July 2017

Please cite this article as: Alberto Albert, Giovanni Berselli, Luca Bruzzone, Pietro Fanghella,
Mechanical Design and Simulation of an Onshore Four-Bar Wave Energy Converter, Renewable
Energy (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.089

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 Research paper

2 Mechanical Design and Simulation of an Onshore

3 Four-Bar Wave Energy Converter
4 Alberto Albert, Giovanni Berselli, Luca Bruzzone*, Pietro Fanghella
5 Department of Mechanical, Energy, Management and Transportation Engineering, University of Genoa
6 Via allOpera Pia 15/A - 16145 Genova, Italy;
7 alberto.albert@fastwebnet.it, luca.bruzzone@unige.it; giovanni.berselli@unige.it; pietro.fanghella@unige.it
8 * Correspondence: luca.bruzzone@unige.it; Tel.: +39-0103532967

9 Abstract The paper presents the design of an onshore Wave Energy Converter (WEC) named
10 ALETTONE (At Least Energy Thanks To Neptune), which is characterized by a low cost mechanical
11 architecture based on a four-bar linkage with mobility in a vertical plane. The lower link is a
12 floating rocker arm moved by the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces exerted by the sea water,
13 whereas the upper rocker arm is connected to a rotating electric generator via a transmission
14 composed of either a single or a pair of one-way clutches coupled to a speed multiplier gearbox.
15 Due to its simplicity, this WEC concept seems to be an interesting solution for energy generation
16 in isolated locations. After a description of the overall design, the dynamic model of the system is
17 presented, along with simulation results in case of monochromatic and panchromatic waves.

18 Keywords: wave energy converter; onshore generation; multibody simulation; four-bar

19 mechanism.
20

21 1. Introduction
22 Wave energy harvesting potentially represents an important source of renewable energy [1].
23 As solar energy is converted to wind energy, the power flow is spatially concentrated, and as wind
24 energy is converted to wave energy, a further spatial concentration takes place. The global power
25 potential represented by waves, considering also open ocean, has been estimated in the order of 1013
26 W, whereas the power that hits all coasts worldwide has been estimated to be in the order of 1012 W
27 [2]; this portion is evidently the most easy to be harvested. Examples of exploitation of wave energy
28 date back to the thirteenth century, when waves were used to move mills; the first patent was
29 obtained by Girard and son in France [3]; in 1910, Praceique-Bochaux developed a pneumatic-based
30 system capable of producing electricity from wave energy, similar to the Oscillating Water Column
31 principle further investigated by Masuda since 1940 [4]. In the second half of the twentieth century,
32 the research interest about Wave Energy Converters (WECs) and their financing had increasing and
33 decreasing phases, related to the history of oil price. Today, due to the energy crisis and
34 environmental awareness, WECs are unquestionably considered a fundamental research issue.
35 Over the decades a large variety of WECs has been designed and prototyped [5]; WECs can be
36 classified on the basis of their location [6] (onshore, nearshore, offshore), size and orientation with
37 respect to the incoming wave [7], working principle [8] (pressure differential WECs [9, 10], floating
38 WECs [11, 12], overtopping WECs [13], impact WECs [14]), power take-off system (air turbines [15, 16],
39 hydraulic systems [17], linear generators [18, 19]).
40 As regards the power take-off systems, it should be noted that by using direct-drive linear
41 generators the mechanical energy harvested by the WEC is directly transformed into electrical
42 energy, without the interposition of a fluid or a mechanical transmission. In this case, the
43 mechanical layout is rather simple, thus requiring few maintenance. The main drawback of these
44 high-power linear generators is their cost, related to the necessity of large and expensive permanent
45 magnets and to the necessary protection from contact with sea water. Also less expensive linear
46 electromechanical generators, composed of a rotary generator and a ball screw mechanism [20] can
47 perform the same kind of energy conversion, but with higher mechanical complexity and lower
48 reliability.
1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 In any case, by analysing the state-of-the-art WECs, it is possible to note that these technologies
2 are in their early stages when compared to other renewable energy sources; there are several large-
3 scale plant prototypes, but very few of them has reached a commercial technology readiness level.
4 In general, the tendency is to develop point-absorber WECs above all, for their lower complexity
5 and cost [5]. This is a clear indication that, due to the extremely hard and unpredictable operative
6 conditions related to the marine environment, reliability and easiness of installation/maintenance
7 are aspects of primary importance in WEC design [21].
8 For these reasons, some researchers have proposed recently WEC concepts based on floating
9 buoys which drive, in heave direction, oscillating arms hinged to shore. Examples of this approach
10 are the Sea Wave Power Generator by the Chinese Eze Energy [22], the WaveStar by the Danish
11 WaveStar Energy [23-25], the WECs developed by the Israeli Eco Wave Power [26], the power plant
12 realized at the port of Pecem by the COPPE Institute of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro [27].
13 Such heaving arm WECs exploit the alternate angular motion of a body connected to ground
14 by a revolute joint, similarly to flap-type WECs characterized by the surge motion of a rigid flap
15 hinged to the seabed. Examples of flap-type surging WECs are Oyster by Aquamarine Power, with
16 a rigid flap which crosses the water column from seabed to surface [28], and WaveRoller by AW
17 Energy, which harvests power only near the seabed [29]. On the other hand, the power take-off
18 systems of heaving arm WECs are placed onshore, with great benefits in terms of easiness of
19 installation and maintenance.
20 Given these premises, a floating structure, onshore WEC named ALETTONE (At Least Energy
21 Thanks To Neptune; alettone in Italian means flap) has been conceived, in the attempt to provide
22 a simple and easy-to-build alternative to state-of-the art devices. In particular, this paper reports the
23 WEC overall mechanical design, along with a set of dynamic simulations which are developed in
24 order to quantitatively assess the ALETTONE potentials in case of monochromatic (regular) waves
25 and panchromatic (irregular) waves.
26 The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the ALETTONE mechanical design and
27 compares it to similar WEC concepts; Section 3 describes the WEC dynamic model; Section 4
28 discusses the simulation results, which include an estimate of the energy and power production;
29 finally, Section 5 draws the concluding remarks and outlines future perspectives.

30 2. The proposed four-bar Wave Energy Converter

31 ALETTONE is based on the following mechanical scheme: a four-bar linkage with mobility in a
32 vertical plane and horizontal revolute joint axes (Fig. 1a). The lower link is a floating rocker arm c
33 connected to a vertical-wall breakwater by a revolute joint located at the mean sea level (point O).
34 Another shorter rocker arm a is placed on the top of the supporting structure. Due to the wave
35 motion, the rocker arm c oscillates and actuates the upper rocker arm a through the rod b. The
36 overall 3D embodiment design of the first ALETTONE configuration is shown in Fig. 1b.

(a) Four-bar linkage schematic. (b) ALETTONE 3D model.

Figure 1. Mechanical scheme of the wave power station (a); ALETTONE 3D embodiment design (b).

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(a) 1-OC arrangement. (b) 2-OC arrangement.

Figure 2. Alternative schemes of the transmission between upper rocker arm and generator, comprising a
single one-way clutch (a) or a couple of one-way clutches (b).
1
2 The motion of the rocker arm a is alternate and low-speed; in order to obtain a high-speed
3 unidirectional rotation, more suitable for electric generation, two alternative layouts of the
4 mechanical transmission between link a and the generator G are considered. The first layout,
5 hereafter referred to as 1-OC (Fig. 2a), is composed of the following elements, starting from link a: a
6 single one-way clutch (OC), a speed multiplier gearbox (MG), and a fly-wheel (FW). Since the OC
7 leverages the rotation in one single direction (i.e. the positive rotation of the generator input shaft),
8 power is transmitted to the electrical generator only during the ascending motion of the floating
9 rocker arm. The second layout, hereafter referred to as 2-OC (Fig. 2b), is more complex: it is based
10 on a fully rectifying mechanism (hereafter simply referred to as rectifier), with two one-way
11 clutches OC+ and OC, respectively located inside the gear wheels r+, and r, which transfer the
12 torque from link a to the generator in both directions. More specifically, OC connects link a to the
13 gear wheel r, which actuates the MG input by coupling with the gear wheel o; OC+ connects link a
14 to the gear wheel r+, which actuates the gear wheel o+ and consequently MG through the
15 interposition of the idle wheel id. By means of this arrangement, while the floating rocker arm a
16 oscillates in both directions, the two one-way clutches rectify the alternate input torque into a
17 continuous driving torque applied as input to the multiplier gearbox MG. The 2-OC arrangement
18 allows to transmit input torque to MG with frequency twice as much the case of the 1-OC
19 arrangement, generating power during both ascending and descending motions of the rocker arm
20 [30]. Note that, the idle wheel id is required for velocity sign inversion in the negative branch of the
21 rectifier (namely, when the floating body is descending) and that, in order to obtain the same
22 transmission ratio in both directions, the following relationship between the gear diameters must
23 hold:
Do Do
(1)
Dr Dr
24 where Do , Do , Dr and Dr are, respectively the diameters of gears o+, o, r+ and r. In both
25 layouts, the flywheel FW is introduced in order to regularize the generator speed by storing kinetic
26 energy and it is placed on the fast output shaft of the multiplier gearbox in order to have a smaller
27 inertia. For what concerns the first ALETTONE embodiment design, Table 1 collects the main
28 geometrical, functional and inertial features.
29

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 1. ALETTONE design configuration.

Description Value and

unit
Length AB 1.29 m
Length BC 6.60 m
Length OC 1.83 m
Vertical distance between A and O 6.40 m
Horizontal distance between A and O 1.15 m
Distance between O and body c c.o.m. 3.80 m
Mass of the rocker arm a 135 Kg
Mass of the rod b 277 Kg
Mass of the floating rocker arm c 2173 Kg
Afra: floating rocker arm bottom surface 11.2 m2
Vfra: floating rocker arm volume 3.33 m3
MG : speed multiplier gearbox ratio 226.3
Meg: nominal torque of the generator 100 Nm
Overall inertia of generator rotor, flywheel, speed multiplier gearbox (referred
101 Kgm2
to the rotor shaft) and mechanical transmission (1-OC and 2-OC version)
2
3 As compared to state-of-the-art similar devices, the interesting features that characterize this
4 WEC are the following:
5 the construction of the four-bar linkage is simple, without particular precision
6 requirements, and the remaining components (one-way clutch, speed multiplier gearbox,
7 electrical generator) are off-the-shelf; therefore the mechanics is relatively low-cost and
8 relatively maintenance-free; as compared to linear generators, ALETTONE comprises a
9 higher number of components, but the total cost is lower;
10 all the kinematic joints are revolute pairs, which are preferable over prismatic joints in
11 terms of mechanical efficiency and overall durability (in particular, for what concerns the
12 moving parts in contact with the salty water);
13 the installation on the vertical-wall breakwater is relatively simple: it is necessary to
14 realize only the mechanical connections to the supporting structure and the electrical
15 connection to the landside, without air or water pipes.
16 For all of these reasons, this WEC concept constitutes an interesting low-cost solution for
17 electrical energy generation in isolated locations, particularly in third-world countries.
18 WECs proposed in [22-27] are characterized by a similar architecture, based on floating bodies
19 which move oscillating arms fixed to shore, but also by more complex and expensive power take-
20 off systems based on sliding pistons and air turbines, whereas the ALETTONE working principle
21 avoids the transformation to an intermediate stage of pneumatic or hydraulic power. The WEC
22 proposed in [20] comprises a floating rocker arm and an electromechanical generator similarly to
23 ALETTONE, although the power take-off system is a based on a ball-screw system, so that the
24 generator shaft executes an oscillatory motion; on the contrary, with ALETTONE the generator
25 motion is unidirectional and therefore can attain relatively constant rotational speed, with
26 consequent potential improvement of the generator cost and efficiency.
27

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 3. Multibody modelling of the dynamic behaviour of the wave power station

2 Although the ALETTONE topology is straightforward, the WEC dynamic behaviour is quite
3 complex, since it depends on the interaction of different non-linear subsystems: the four-bar
4 mechanism, the combined effects of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces acting on the floating
5 rocker arm, the power transmission. Moreover, it is necessary to evaluate the behaviour of the WEC
6 for different wave heights in both steady-state and transient conditions: as a matter of fact, even if
7 there are dominant values of the wave period, the system must be fast to quickly respond to
8 random changes in the wave motion.
9 In order to analyse the system behaviour and its potential performance, two multibody models
10 of the wave generator (hereafter referred to as 1-OC model and 2-OC model) have been developed
11 in SimMechanics environment [31]. These models have been used to compare the performance of the
12 transmissions comprising either one or two one-way clutches (1-OC and 2-OC arrangements, Fig.
13 2);
14 In SimMechanics, rigid bodies and joints are represented by physical blocks and the
15 relationships among these entities are explicitly defined by connection lines; unlike other Simulink
16 blocks, the connection line between two physical blocks is not directional. This modelling technique
17 allows to easily integrate the multibody model with other blocks defining
18 hydrostatic/hydrodynamic forces and the behaviour of the electric generator.

19 3.1. Single OC Multibody model

20 The 1-OC model is composed of five moving rigid bodies:
21 the lower floating rocker arm (Fig. 1a, body c);
22 the rod (Fig. 1a, body b);
23 the upper rocker arm (Fig. 1a, body a) rigidly connected to the input part of the one-way
24 clutch OC;
25 the output part of the one-way clutch OC, rigidly connected to the input shaft of the
26 multiplier gearbox MG (body a, with rotation axis in A, parallel to the one of body a);
27 the output shaft of the multiplier gearbox MG, rigidly connected to the flywheel FW and
28 to the generator G (body g, with rotation axis in A).
29 These bodies are connected by:
30 three revolute joints in A connecting all coaxial bodies of the output line;
31 the revolute joint in B between body a and body b;
32 the revolute joint in C between body b and body c;
33 the revolute joint in O between body c and frame;
34 a kinematic relationship between the angular speed of bodies a and g, representing the
35 speed multiplier gearbox ratio.
36 Moreover, in order to model the one-way clutch between a and a, the torque transmission is
37 simulated through a unidirectional viscous friction active between the two bodies of clutch
38 coupling, very high in one relative rotation direction and null in the other. The viscous coefficient is
39 chosen in order to have less than 1% slip at the nominal torque.

40
41 Figure 3. Overall block scheme of ALETTONE model.
42
43 The overall modelling scheme of ALETTONE is provided in Fig. 3, in which each block
44 exchanges mechanical power signals with others. Starting from the "sea" block, generating the sea
45 level time history, the external moment Mc caused by the interaction between the floating rocker
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 and the sea is obtained by summing the moments of the hydrostatic (buoyancy) force Fhs and of the
2 hydrodynamic force Fhd.
3 The hydrostatic force Fhs is expressed by the following expression:
Fhs Vd h w g (2)
4 where w is the water density and Vd is the volume of the fluid displaced by the floating rocker arm,
5 which is a function of the difference h between the sea level (hsea) and the height (hfra) of the
6 floating rocker arm centre of pressure:
h hsea h fra (3)
7 The hydrodynamic force Fhd is computed according to the linear wave theory (LWT) as the sum
8 of two terms, Fext and Frad [32, 33]:
9 Fext is the force exerted on the floating rocker arm by the incoming wave, including diffracted
10 wave effects; this non-causal force can be found by the convolution:

Fext IRFext t hsea d (4)

11 where IRFext(t) is the impulse response function of the floating rocker arm in the vertical direction;
12 Frad is the force exerted on the floating rocker arm by the radiated wave:
t
Frad madd , hfra IRFrad t h fra d (5)
0

13 where madd, is the added mass in at infinite frequency and IRFrad(t) is the radiation-force impulse
14 response function of the floating rocker arm in the vertical direction.
15 The two impulse response functions IRFext(t) and IRFrad(t) (Fig. 4) and the added mass
16 (madd, = 8122 kg) of the floating rocker arm have been computed by means of the Boundary Element
17 Method (BEM) software ANSYS/AQWA in combination with the BEMIO module of the wave
18 energy converter simulation tool WEC-Sim [34]. The use of BEM (implemented by various software
19 codes, e.g., WAMIT, ANSYS/AQWA) is widely accepted especially in the early design and
20 modelling phases of WECs due to its satisfactory accuracy and relatively low computation effort
21 [35]. Higher order or experimental approaches are to be used in more advanced validation phases
22 before actual system deployment.
23 The boundary element model comprised both the floating rocker arm and the dock wall, in
24 order to evaluate the wave reflection effects. Then, for dynamic simulations within
25 Matlab/SimMechanics, the two convolution integrals of Eqs. 4 and 5 have been approximated by
26 numerical FIR filters with time window length sufficient to capture the decays of both impulse
27 responses (Fig. 4) [32].

28 Figure 4. Impulse response functions IRFext(t) (left) and IRFrad(t) (right) of the floating rocker arm, evaluated by
29 ANSYS/AQWA in combination with WEC-Sim/BEMIO
30

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Then the "four-bar" block, with its closed-loop connection of the links a, b, c through revolute
2 joints, transmits power from "sea" to "rectifier". Dynamic equations of the four bar can be
3 formulated in the classical form adopted for 1-d.o.f. mechanisms [36, p. 113]:
1 dJ a a 2 d
*

J a* a a a M a M c c a (6)
2 da da

in which J a a is the position-dependent inertia of the system reduced to the free coordinate a ,
*
4
dc
5 M a is the torque exchanged with the rectifier block and M c is the torque from the sea block,
da
6 reduced to the free coordinate.
7 The output torque of the rectifier MMG is input to the MG + flywheel + electric generator subsystem,
8 whose equation is again that of a 1-d.o.f. mechanical system: contrary to the four-bar, in this case
9 velocity ratios are constant and so the dynamic equation has the following simpler form:

J eg* eg MG M MG MG M eg eg (7)
*
10 in which: J eg is the constant system inertia, comprising flywheel, reduced to the system free
11 coordinate ( eg angular velocity of the electric generator); MG and MG are the speed ratio and the
12 efficiency of the multiplier gearbox; and M eg eg is the torque of the electric generator.
13 The generator is controlled in order to apply a resistant torque Meg proportional and opposite
14 to the generator speed, up to a saturation level set to Mnom (generator nominal torque) [37]:
eg
M eg min croteg , M nom (8)
eg

15 In order to clarify how the system model has been implemented in Simulink, a more detailed block
16 scheme is provided in Fig. 5, in which the internal components of macro-blocks of Fig. 3 are shown.

17 3.2. Double OC Multibody model

18 The 2-OC model is composed of eight moving rigid bodies. The four-bar linkage is equal to the 1-
19 OC scheme, whereas the upper rocker arm a is rigidly connected to the input parts of the one-way
20 clutches OC+ and OC; moreover, the remaining bodies are:
21 the output part of the one-way clutch OC, rigidly connected to the gear r (body r);
22 the output part of the one-way clutch OC+, rigidly connected to the gear r+ (body r+);
23 the idler gear (body id);
24 the input shaft of the multiplier gearbox MG, rigidly connected to the gears o and o+
25 (body is);
26 the output shaft of the multiplier gearbox MG, rigidly connected to the flywheel FW and
27 to the rotor of the generator G (body g).

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5. Overall block scheme of the SimMechanics 1-OC multibody model.

Figure 6. Overall block scheme of the SimMechanics 2-OC multibody model

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 All the revolute joints are parallel, and there are three additional kinematic relationships (between
2 the couples r and is, r+ and id, id and is), besides the one representing the multiplier gearbox
3 (between is and g). As in the 1-OC model, the two one-way clutches are modelled by means of
4 viscous friction with null coefficient in one relative rotation direction and very high in the other.
5 The external forces acting on the system (gravitational, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic, generator
6 torque) are the same as the ones included in the 1-OC model. The overall block scheme of the 2-OC
7 model is shown in Fig. 6.

8 3.3. Sea state model

9 The Sea block, common to the 1-OC and 2-OC models, generates the time history of the sea level
10 and determine forces acting on floating rocker body. In the analysis of the ALETTONE concept,
11 either monochromatic (regular) waves or polychromatic (irregular) waves are taken into account. In
12 the first case, met-ocean data providing the historical time series of mean wave period, T1, and
13 significant wave height, H1/3 (i.e. the mean wave height of the one third highest waves) for a sample
14 onshore location are employed. In particular, the island of Pico, Azores (located at Lon = 28.500W,
15 Lat = 35.625N) has been considered as a reference scenario, due to the availability of a reliable set
16 of long-term historical data, previously employed in the literature for the performance assessment
17 of different onshore WEC concepts (see e.g. [38, 39]). The sea-state scatter diagram, expressed in
18 number of occurrences (hours per year) observed during this particular time series dataset, is given
19 in Fig. 7.

Figure 7. Scatter diagram representation of the number of occurrences per sea-state observed from
35 years of historical time series at Lon = 28.500W, Lat = 35.625N (hours/year).
20
21 For what concerns panchromatic waves, they can be described as the linear composition of a
22 spectrum of monochromatic waves. Following the approach previously proposed in [23, 32], the
23 pseudo-random time-history of the sea-level is hereafter generated starting from the JONSWAP
24 spectrum [40], which qualitatively describes an irregular wave through a frequency representation
25 and is defined by the following equation:
2 944
4 4
H1/3
S 155 3.3Y e T1 (9)
T1
4 5

26 where:
2
0.191T1 1
(10)
Y e 21/2

27 and
0.07 if 5.24 / T1
(11)
0.09 if 5.24 / T1

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Then, time simulations in different sea state conditions are performed by realizing irregular waves
2 complying to the spectrum. For instance, a common method is to generate a wave by converting the
3 spectrum into a finite number of regular wave components, subsequently added after the
4 imposition of a random phase for each component. Hence, the amplitudes, hw,i, of the individual
5 regular wave components are computed via the following formulation:

hw,i t 1 S (i ) sin(i t ) (12)

6 where is the step between two consecutive angular frequency values. Consequently, an irregular
7 wave time series can be simply generated as:
n
hw t 1 S (i ) sin(i t rand ,i ) (13)
i 1

8 where rand,i are random numbers between 0 and 2. The instantaneous wave amplitude hw is then
9 fed into Eq. (3), in order to compute the difference h between sea level and rocker arm centre of
10 pressure. Once the sea-state model is combined to either the 1-OC or the 2-OC model, as
11 respectively depicted in Figs. 5 and 6, the overall SimMechanics model allows to numerically
12 simulate positions, velocities and accelerations of each rigid body, along with the loads acting on
13 the system. In particular, the model allows to easily evaluate the torque acting on the generator
14 input shaft and its speed, and, consequently, the generated power.

15 4. Simulation results
16 In the following, simulation results are discussed with reference to either monochromatic or
17 panchromatic waves, considering a generator with nominal torque Mnom =100 Nm with the
18 proportional coefficient crot = 3 Nms/rad (Eq. 8) determined according to the selected electrical
19 generator characteristics and typical working conditions.
20 The first set of results is related to monochromatic waves with height H and period T equal to
21 the values of H1/3 and T1 reported in the scatter diagram of Fig. 7 (although limiting WEC operation
22 to wave heights up to 4.25 m, which correspond to a floating rocker arm rotation of 30).
23 For these ranges, Figs. 8 and 9, respectively related to either the 1-OC or the 2-OC model,
24 report the scatter matrices of the generated power, PWEC, as a function of the sea-state. Similarly,
25 Figs. 10 and 11 respectively show the 1-OC and the 2-OC scatter matrices of the energy per year,
26 EWEC, which correspond to annual productions of energy of 4.44104 kWh (1-OC layout) and 4.99104
27 kWh (2-OC layout). These numerical results highlight a moderate advantage of the 2-OC
28 arrangement in terms of power generation capabilities (12,4% increase in energy per year for the
29 considered location). At last, for what concerns the 2-OC layout, Fig. 12 reports the mean generator
30 speed in steady-state conditions in all the considered sea states, showing speed values that may
31 increase up to about 2730 rpm.

32
Figure 8. Generated power matrix [kW] as a function of sea-state (monochromatic wave, 1-OC).

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 9. Generated power matrix [kW] as a function of sea-state (monochromatic wave, 2-OC).

Figure 10. Generated energy [kWh/year] as a function of sea-state (monochromatic wave, 1-OC).

Figure 11. Generated energy [kWh/year] as a function of sea-state (monochromatic wave, 2-OC).

Figure 12. Generator speed [rpm] as a function of sea-state (monochromatic wave, 2-OC).

1 Note that the scatter diagrams of Figs. 10 and 11 highlight that the most interesting range of
2 operative conditions in terms of power generation capabilities is characterized by a wave height
3 between 1.25m and 2.25m, with period between 6.5s and 11.5s. In the following the comparison
4 between the 1-OC land 2-OC layouts is performed considering a sea state characterized by T1 = 9.5s
5 and H1/3 = 1.75m.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 For this sea state, Figure 13 shows the time histories of sea level and of h in the 2-OC case
2 (continuous line) and in the 1-OC case (dashed line), in steady-state (monochromatic wave) for the
3 sea state characterized by the maximum generated energy. Recalling that the value h provides the
4 difference between the sea level and the rocker arm centre of pressure (Eq. 3), a negative h value
5 means that the centre of pressure is out of the water.
6 Figures 14, 15 and 16 show respectively: the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces and their sum
7 acting on the floating rocker arm c; the vertical speed of the floating rocker arm centre of pressure,
8 h fra ; the generator speed and power. The data of both the 2-OC arrangement (continuous lines) and
9 of the 1-OC arrangement (dashed lines) are represented. These graphs allows to draw a series of
10 remarks, namely:
11 the hydrostatic force has lower maximum magnitude than the hydrodynamic force, but its
12 action is more extended along the cycle for both schemes;
13 considering the 1-OC arrangement, the force positive peaks are generally higher as
14 compared to the 2-OC design;
15 the 2-OC layout allows to maintain an higher generator speed and, consequently, higher
16 torque and higher harvested power (for example, with this monochromatic sea-state the
17 generator works constantly at its nominal torque);
18 the high frequency oscillations shown in Figures 13, 14 and 15 are due to the model of the
19 hydrodynamic forces in combination with the specific inertial features of the mechanism;
20 the level of correspondence between hydrodynamic model and real system will probably
21 need further refinements, in order to assess the entity of the impulsive loads acting on the
22 transmission chain.

23
24 Figure 13. Monochromatic wave (H = 1.75 m, T = 9.5 s): sea level (blue) and h (red) [m] vs. time [s];
25 continuous line: 2-OC, dashed line: 1-OC.

26
27 Figure 14. Monochromatic wave (H = 1.75 m, T = 9.5 s): hydrostatic (red), hydrodynamic (green) and total
28 (blue) hydraulic forces acting on the floating rocker arm [N]; continuous line: 2-OC, dashed line: 1-OC.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1
2 Figure 15. Monochromatic wave (H = 1.75 m, T = 9.5 s): vertical speed [m/s] of the floating rocker arm centre
3 of pressure, h fra ; continuous line: 2-OC, dashed line: 1-OC.

4
5 Figure 16. Monochromatic wave (H = 1.75 m, T = 9.5 s): generator speed (red, [rpm]) and power (green, [W])
6 vs time [s]; continuous line: 2-OC, dashed line: 1-OC.

7 These results are confirmed by the simulations performed with panchromatic waves. Figure 17
8 shows a panchromatic sea-state time history of 200 s (blue graph), obtained by Eq. 13 with T1 = 9.5 s
9 and H1/3 = 1,75 m. The same figure reports the corresponding time-history of h concerning both the
10 2-OC the 1-OC models. Correspondingly, Figure 18 shows the hydrostatic, hydrodynamic and total
11 hydraulic forces, whereas Figure 19 shows a detail of these forces for the first 40 seconds; Figure 20
12 reports generator torque, speed and power. These simulation results with panchromatic wave
13 confirm the benefits of the 2-OC arrangement already discussed for the monochromatic wave:
14 higher generator speed and power, slightly lower hydraulic forces acting on the floating rocker
15 arm.

Figure 17. JONSWAP polychromatic wave (H1/3 =1.75 m, T1= 9.5 s): sea level (blue) and h (red) [m] vs.
time [s]; continuous line: 2-OC, dashed line: 1-OC.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 18. JONSWAP polychromatic wave (H1/3 =1.75 m, T1= 9.5 s): hydrostatic (red), hydrodynamic
(green) and total (blue) hydraulic forces acting on the floating arm [N]; continuous line: 2-OC, dashed line:
1-OC.

Figure 19. Detail of Fig. 17 for a 40 s time window.

Figure 20. JONSWAP polychromatic wave (H1/3 =1.75 m, T1= 9.5 s): generator speed (red, [rpm]) and
power (green, [W]) vs time [s]; continuous line: 2-OC, dashed line: 1-OC

1 A rough estimation of the ALETTONE efficiency is given by the capture factor WEC [41], which
2 is the ratio between the generated power, PWEC, and the product between P0 (kW/m) and the width
3 of the WEC prototype, lWEC = 2.8 m, that is:
PWEC
WEC (14)
P0 lWEC

4 the term P0 being the so-called incoming wave power, or power per unit width of wave crest,
5 expressed by the following equation [42]:

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

w g 2
P0 TH 2 (15)
64
1 The capture factor can be estimated for a specific sea-state by using Eqs. (14) and (15) and the
2 values of PWEC reported in Figs. 8 and 9; for the considered sea state (H = 1.75 m, T = 9.5 s), WEC =
3 11.8% with the 1-OC layout and 12.7% with the 2-OC layout, confirming the moderate benefits of
4 the second solution.

5 5. Conclusions and future developments

6 In this paper, a novel WEC concept has been presented. The device comprises a four-bar
7 linkage mechanism and a transmission system composed of either one or two one wheel clutches
8 connected to a standard generator. In addition, a set of simulation results, based on a multibody
9 dynamic model of the system, have been provided in order to assess the amount of harvestable
10 power and to provide useful indications about the WEC dynamic behaviour. According to the
11 simulation results, the arrangement comprising two OCs realizing a fully rectifying mechanism
12 obtains higher harvested power than the solution with a single OC (+12,4% in terms of generated
13 energy per year); however, since the difference is moderate, the two possible transmission layouts
14 should be carefully compared in terms benefit-cost ratio and reliability.
15 As compared to state-of-the-art design solutions, the main benefits of the proposed WEC are:
16 mechanical simplicity, with no use of prismatic pairs and hydraulic/pneumatic
17 cylinders;
18 absence of power take-off systems comprising fluid-based transmission and machines;
19 easiness of the installation;
20 absence of electrical components working underwater and offshore;
21 limited length of electrical connection to the power grid
22 unidirectional torque applied to a continuously rotating electrical machine
23 On the other hand, the onshore installation brings some drawbacks:
24 poorer wave quality with respect to offshore locations;
25 influence of tidal excursion, due to the variation in the capability of transmitting forces
26 of the four-bar linkage with the change of the mean angular position of the floating
27 rocker arm; if needed, the geometry of the four-bar can be tailored to comply with a
28 certain amount of tidal excursion;
29 in case of storm, necessity of vertically lifting the floating rocker arm in order to avoid
30 structural damages; such safety procedure may be obtained by disengaging one of the
31 revolute joints within the four-bar linkage; moreover, a proper overload protection
32 (torque limiter) can be introduced to preserve the mechanical transmission form
33 anomalous solicitations.
34 differently from the 2-OC arrangement, the 1-OC design solution does not allow the
35 control of the floating arm motion in both directions, as, with such simpler coupling, it
36 is only possible to push it against the water. With this layout, it is not possible to lift
37 the floating rocker arm without the use of an auxiliary device.
38 In conclusion, ALETTONE represents an interesting concept for low-cost energy generation in
39 isolated areas. The next step of the research is the construction of a first prototype, which is planned
40 for installation in the coastal area of Genoa (Italy); the experimental campaign will validate the
41 potentiality and the eventual practical technological problems of the system.
42 In parallel, an interesting development of the research is the introduction of a more complex
43 mechanical transmission between upper rocker arm and generator, capable of reducing the
44 discontinuity between active and passive phase, making more constant the energy generation. This
45 objective can be achieved actuating the input shaft of the multiplier gearbox not simply by means of
46 an OC system, but by means of a CVT or IVT mechanism (Continuously Variable Transmission or
47 Infinite Variable Transmission, [43]). This kind of mechanism, if properly tuned, can store part of

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 the energy generated in the active phase in form of kinetic or potential energy, and give it back in
2 the passive phase, thus regularizing the power generation.

3 References
4 [1] A. Uihlein, D. Magagna, Wave and tidal current energy A review of the current state of research beyond
5 technology, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 10701081, 2016.
6 [2] J. Falnes, A review of wave-energy extraction, Marine Structures, 20, 185201, 2007.
7 [3] A. Clement, P. McCullen, A. Falcao, A. Fiorentino, F. Gardner, K. Hammarlund et al., Wave energy in
8 Europe: current status and perspectives, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 6, 405431, 2002.
9 [4] Falcao A., Wave energy utilization: a review of the technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
10 14, 899918, 2010.
11 [5] I. Lpez, J. Andreu, S. Ceballos, I. Martnez de Alegra, I. Kortabarria, Review of wave energy technologies
12 and the necessary power-equipment, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, 413434, 2013.
13 [6] M. Folley, T.J.T. Whittaker, Analysis of the nearshore wave energy resource, Renewable Energy, 34, 1709
14 15, 2009.
15 [7] B. Drew, A. Plummer, M. Sahinkaya, A review of wave energy converter technology, Proceedings of the
16 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 223, 887902, 2009.
17 [8] M. Lagoun, A. Benalia, M. Benbouzid, Ocean wave converters: state of the art and current status,
18 International energy conference and exhibition (EnergyCon), 63641, 2010.
19 [9] H. Polinder, M. Damen, F. Gardner, Design, modelling and test results of the AWS PM linear generator,
20 European Transactions on Electrical Power, 15, 24556, 2005.
21 [10] Queen's University of Belfast, Islay LIMPET wave power plant, Technical Report, The Queen's
22 University of Belfast; 2002.
23 [11] R. Dettmer, Push and pull, Engineering and technology magazine (E&T), 3, 2629, 2008.
24 [12] J. Chozas, M. Kramer, H. Soerensen, J. Kofoed. Combined production of a full-scale wave converter and a
25 full-scale wind turbine a real case study, International conference on ocean energy (ICOE), 2012.
26 [13] J. P. Kofoed, P. Frigaard, E. Friis-Madsen, H.C. Sorensen, Prototype testing of the wave energy converter
27 Wave Dragon, Renewable Energy, 31 (2), 1819, 2006.
28 [14] B. Doherty, Lessons learned from ocean energy capture and conversion, The Engineers Journal, 19th June
29 www.engineersjournal.ie/lessons-learned-from-ocean-energy-capture-and-conversion/, 2014.
30 [15] L. M. C. Gato and F. Falcao, On the theory of the Wells turbine, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
31 and Power, 106(3), 628633, 1984.
32 [16] A. Brito-Melo, L. M. C. Gato, and A. Sarmento, Analysis of Wells turbine design parameters by numerical
33 simulation of the OWC performance, Ocean Engineering, 29(12), 14631477, 2002.
34 [17] R. Henderson, Design, simulation, and testing of a novel hydraulic power takeoff system for the Pelamis
35 wave energy converter Renewable Energy, 31(2), pp. 271283, 2006.
36 [18] H. Polinder, B. C. Mecrow, A. G. Jack, P. Dickinson, and M. A. Mueller, Linear generators for direct-drive
37 wave energy conversion, Proc. Electric Machines and Drives Conference, 2, pp. 798804, 2003.
38 [19] H. Polinder, M. E. C. Damen, and F. Gardner, Linear PM generator system for wave energy conversion in
39 the AWS, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 19(3), pp. 583589, 2004.
40 [20] D. P. Coiro, G. Troise, G. Calise , N. Bizzarrini, Wave energy conversion through a point pivoted
41 absorber: Numerical and experimental tests on a scaled model, Renewable Energy, 87, 317-25, 2016.
42 [21] P.R. Thies, J. Flinn, and G. H. Smith, Is it a showstopper? Reliability assessment and criticality analysis
43 for wave energy converters, Proc. 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conf. (EW TEC 09), pp. 2130, 2009.
44 [22] http://www.eze-energy.com/
45 [23] http://wavestarenergy.com/
46 [24] P. B. Frigaard, T. L. Andersen, J. P. Kofoed, M.M. Kramer, S. Ambhl, Wavestar Energy Production
47 Outlook, Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, DCE Technical Reports, No. 201, 2016.
48 [25] L. Marquis , M.M. Kramer, J. Kringelum, J.F. Chozas, N.E. Helstrup, Introduction of Wavestar Wave
49 Energy Converters at the Danish offshore wind power plant Horns Rev 2, Proc. 4th International Conference on
50 Ocean Energy (ICOE 2012), 2012.
51 [26] http://www.ecowavepower.com/
52 [27] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXtI62ikW8E
53 [28] L. Cameron, R. Doherty, A. Henry, K. Doherty, J. Van t Hoff, D. Kaye, D. Naylor, S. Bourdier, T.
54 Whittaker, Design of the Next Generation of the Oyster Wave Energy Converter, Proc. 3rd International
55 Conference on Ocean Energy (ICOE 2010), 2010.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 [29] http://www.aw-energy.com/
2 [30] F.J. Morales and F.G. Benitez, Basic conceptual design for rectifiers of inertial transmissions, SAE
3 Technical Paper, 01-1737, 2014.
4 [31] K. Russel, Q. Shen, R.S. Sodhi, Kinematics and dynamics of mechanical systems: Implementation in
5 MATLAB and SimMechanics, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.
6 [32] R.H. Hansen, Design and Control of the PowerTake-Off System for a Wave Energy Converter with
7 Multiple Absorbers, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, 2013.
8 [33] R.H. Hansen, M.M. Kramer, E. Vidal, Discrete displacement hydraulic power take-off system for the
9 Wavestar Wave Energy Converter, Energies, 6, pp. 4001-4044, 2013.
10 [34] https://wec-sim.github.io/WEC-Sim/features.html [Accessed: 20-Jun-2017]
11 [35] M. Folley, Numerical modelling of Wave Energy Converters, Elsevier, 2016.
12 [36] H. Dresig and F. Holzweiig, Dynamics of Machinery, Theory and Applications. New York, NY, USA:
13 Springer, 2010.
14 [37] K.S. Lok, T.J. Stallard, P.K. Stansby, N. Jenkins, Optimisation of a clutch-rectified power take off system
15 for a heaving wave energy device in irregular waves with experimental comparison", International Journal of
16 Marine Energy, 8, pp. 1-16, 2014.
17 [38] B. Teillant, M. Vicente, G.P. Rosati Papini, G. Moretti, R. Vertechy, M. Fontana, K. Monk, M. Alves,
18 Techno-economic comparison between air turbines and dielectric elastomer generator sas power take off for
19 oscillating water column wave energy converters, 11th European Wave & Tidal Energy Conference, 2015.
20 [39] WavEC Offshore Renewables, Pico plant OWC, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.pico-owc.net/
21 [40] J.H. Nath and F.L. Ramsey, Probability distributions of breaking wave heights emphasizing the
22 utilization of the JONSWAP spectrum, Journal of Physical Oceanography, 6, pp. 316-323, 1976.
23 [41] G. Moretti, M. Fontana, R. Vertechy, Model-based design and optimization of a dielectric elastomer
24 power take-off for oscillating wave surge energy converters, Meccanica, 50(1), pp. 2797-2813, 2015.
25 [42] B. Cahill, T. Lewis, Wave period ratios and the calculation of wave power, Proc. of the 2nd Marine Energy
26 Technology Symposium METS2014, April 15-18, Seattle, WA, 2014.
27 [43] G. Berselli, Modeling and simulation of an inertia-type infinitely variable transmission, Journal of
28 Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 132 (3), pp. 0345041-0345045, 2010.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mechanical Design and Simulation of an Onshore

Four-Bar Wave Energy Converter
Alberto Albert, Giovanni Berselli*, Luca Bruzzone*, Pietro Fanghella*

*Department of Mechanical Engineering, Energy, Management and Transportation, University of Genoa

Via allOpera Pia 15/A - 16145 Genova, Italy;
alberto.albert@fastwebnet.it; luca.bruzzone@unige.it; giovanni.berselli@unige.it; pietro.fanghella@unige.it

HIGHLIGHTS

Novel onshore WEC with low cost, purely mechanical transmission based
on a four-bar linkage and one way clutches

Continuously rotating electric generator, with low angular speed

fluctuations

System performance comparison in case of mechanical transmission with

either one or two one-way clutches

Performance evaluation by BEM/Multibody simulation in case of

monochromatic and panchromatic waves