The present invention relates to wave energy conversion and, in particular, to a wave energy converter buoy with variable geometry.
The future electric power grid will require new methods and tools to support and capitalize on high penetration of renewable energy sources (RES). There is a large untapped potential in ocean wave power which is estimated at 1-10 TW of future energy and power generation. See R. Boud, Status and Research and Development Priorities, Wave and Marine Accessed Energy, UK Dept. of Trade and Industry (DTI), DTI Report #FES-R-132, AEAT Report #AEAT/ENV/1054, United Kingdom (2003). Wave energy converters (WECs) are devices that extract energy from waves in a body of water such as the ocean. See J. Falnes, Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems, Cambridge: NY: Cambridge University Press (2002); and J. Hals et al., J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 133(3), 031101 (2011). Various types of WEC devices are being reviewed by industry to harvest the ocean energies. The latest WEC technologies are discussed by Ozkop and Altas for WEC types, generator types, implementation methods, validation approaches, and controller types. See E. Ozkop and I. H. Altas, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 67, 106 (2017).
The wave energy source is spatially, temporally, and energetically variable which translates to a predominant frequency of waves, wave heights, and widths of the wave frequency spectrum. Typically, when a wave impacts the WEC device at the resonance frequency, the device can absorb a significant amount of energy from the wave very efficiently. However, when the WEC is off resonance with the impacting waves the WEC operates much less efficiently. Many control methods have been studied and investigated on WEC systems. See E. Ozkop and I. H. Altas, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 67, 106 (2017). These control methods include; phase control, latching control, proportional plus integral (PI) control, optimal and predictive control. See R. G. Coe et al., Int. J. Mar. Energy 20, 45 (2017). Achieving increased power capture over a large range of sea states for stochastic wave profiles are some of the challenges needed to be addressed by current research. Many of the current control designs and modeling efforts are based on linear techniques. Recently, a nonlinear hydrostatic model has been developed by Wilson et al. See D. G. Wilson et al., J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8(2), 84 (2020); and U.S. application Ser. No. 16/792,749. By exploiting the nonlinear static coupling between an hourglass (HG) buoy geometry and the potentially wideband frequency spectrum of incoming waves, the buoy design can increase power/energy captured.
A wave energy converter of the present invention comprises a shaped buoy of variable geometry in a body of water having a wave motion, wherein the waves impacting the buoy exert an excitation force with a plurality of excitation frequencies on the buoy that causes a buoy motion in a heave direction relative to a reference and wherein the buoy has a geometry such that a water plane area of the buoy increases with distance away from the water line in the heave direction both above and below the water line, thereby producing reactive power from the wave motion; and a controller configured to vary the geometry of the buoy in response to the wave motion. For example, the shaped buoy can have an hourglass geometry, shapes that are mirrored about the water line, such as mirrored hemispheres, pyramids, ellipsoids, paraboloids, or hyperboloids, or shapes that are not mirrored about the water line.
As an example, a nonlinear control design technique capitalizes on a WEC HG with variable steepness angle. The unique interaction between the HG buoy and the wave creates a nonlinear cubic storage effect that produces actual energy storage or reactive power during operation. This design realizes a practical complex conjugate control (C3) strategy. A multi-frequency Bretschneider spectrum wave excitation input was considered for the HG design both with a constant and varying steepness angle profiles which demonstrated further increased power generation given the potential benefit of intermittent wave measurement previews. Numerical simulations were performed to demonstrate the increase in power and energy capture. The nonlinear geometric/wave interactions in the HG design resulted in implicitly including geometric energy storage/reactive power requirements with increased power generation.
The detailed description will refer to the following drawings, wherein like elements are referred to by like numbers.
In their simplest form, linear WEC point absorbers can be defined for a regular wave, where the excitation force has only one frequency, co, and it can be shown that the radiation term can be quantified using an added mass and a radiation damping term, each considered at a constant frequency only. See J. N. Newman, Marine Hydrodynamics, The MIT Press, USA (1977); and J. Falnes, Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems, Cambridge: NY: Cambridge University Press (2002). The equation-of-motion for this simple case is expressed as
m{umlaut over (z)}+c{umlaut over (z)}+kz=Fe+Fu (1)
where m and c are constant mass and damping terms for a given excitation frequency, and k is the linear stiffness term. Fe is the input excitation force and Fu is the control force. Further details for a heave motion linear WEC system can be found in Song et al. See J. Song et al., Ocean Eng. 27, 269 (2016).
The heave oscillations for a 1-DOF (degree-of-freedom) buoy relative to a reaction mass can be modeled simply with a power-take-off (PTO) system consisting of a linear actuator as part of the power conversion from mechanical to electrical power. The hourglass (HG) buoy nonlinear variable geometry is shown in
The corresponding range of parameters investigated herein is shown in Table I.
Table I. WEC Hourglass Variable Geometry Parameters.
At resonance, a WEC device operates at maximum energy absorption. See D. G. Wilson et al., J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8(2), 84 (2020); and U.S. application Ser. No. 16/792,749. In off-resonance the WEC absorbs less real power and will require reactive power to increase energy capture by enabling resonance. Practically, this can be achieved with model predictive control (MPC) or PDC3 (Proportional-Derivative C3). See J. Hals et al., J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 133(3), 031101 (2011); G. Li et al., Renew. Energy 48, 392 (2012); J. A. Cretel et al., Maximization of energy capture by a wave-energy point absorber using model predictive control, in 18th IFAC World Congress, Milano (Italy) Aug. 28-Sep. 2, 2011; J. Song et al., Ocean Eng. 27, 269 (2016); and D. G. Wilson et al., Order of Magnitude Power Increase from Multi-Resonance Wave Energy Converters, OCEANS' 17 MTS/IEEE, Anchorage, Ak., Sep. 20-22, 2017. Both techniques require energy storage and power electronic elements. MPC will also need additional wave prediction as a priori input. The present invention utilizes a nonlinear (NL) control design to realize a nonlinear buoy with variable geometry to produce the energy storage and reactive power through the nonlinear coupling between the buoy and wave interaction, thus eliminating the need for energy storage and power electronic elements. See R. D. Robinett III and D. G. Wilson, Nonlinear Power Flow Control Design: Utilizing Exergy, Entropy, Static and Dynamic Stability, and Lyapunov Analysis, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011; D. G. Wilson et al., J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8(2), 84 (2020); and U.S. application Ser. No. 16/792,749.
A cubic hardening spring can be created by defining the buoy shape as an HG geometry as shown in
SW=πr(z)2=π
The hydrostatic force is proportional to the submerged volume of the body. For very long waves, the wave profile can be considered as having the same value as the vertical coordinate across the cone. That is, z˜η where η is the wave elevation. Assuming the neutral buoyancy or water line (i.e., the equilibrium position) is located at the apex of the mirrored cones, the volume as a function of position of the center-of-volume is
The hydrostatic force for the buoy staying in the water is
A nonlinear WEC model for the HG can be developed from Falnes and Wilson, where the excitation force in heave is dominated by the hydrostatic force. See J. Falnes, Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, N Y, 2002; and D. Wilson et al., “10x Power Capture Increased from Multi-Frequency Nonlinear Dynamics,” Sandia National Laboratories, SAND2015-10446R (2015). The summarized equation-of-motion is
which contains the cubic spring term given by
The parameter KHG(α) is a function of the steepness angle α, buoy mass and geometric properties, as shown in Equation (4) for the case of the HG buoy.
Feedback Sensors include a PTO rate or velocity feedback sensor and a steepness angle feedback sensor.
Numerical simulations were performed for a Bretschneider spectrum for both a constant and variable steepness angle for the HG WEC design. In U.S. application Ser. No. 16/792,749, four varying Bretschneider Sea States (SS) were investigated with a constant steepness angle, α. Five minute Bretschneider profiles were generated from the MATLAB toolbox. See T. Perez and T. Fossen, Model. Identif. Control 30(1), 1 (2009). The steepness angle was increased in five degree increments until the HG buoy draft constraint was violated. The maximum safe angle was set to the previous value such that the HG buoy would not overtop or exit the water. The results are summarized in Table II for a fixed or constant steepness angle.
In Wilson et al., the steepness angle was relaxed for one of the larger waves in Sea State 4 and increased power and energy capture was observed. See D. G. Wilson et al., Nonlinear WEC Optimized Geometric Buoy Design for Efficient Reactive Power Requirements, OCEANS' 19 MTS/IEEE, Seattle, Wash., Oct. 27-31, 2019. For this study Sea State 4 was further reviewed and a new scenario was defined that investigates the benefit of utilizing wave estimations with a slower update on α . The following numerical simulation results were produced.
A Bretschneider spectrum with Tp=11 seconds and Hs=6.9 meters was employed with the corresponding wave input shown in
The example described above assumed a mirrored right circular cone HG buoy with variable cone or steepness angle. However, other shapes and variations thereof can provide a cubic hardening spring equivalent. Indeed, whenever the buoy has a geometry such that a water plane area increases with distance away from the water line in the heave direction, then the hydrostatic force will be nonlinear. Typically, the buoy shape can be axisymmetric about the buoy axis but is not required to be so. Typically, the buoy can comprise opposing shapes that are mirrored about the water line. For example, the buoy shape can comprise a polynomial spline expansion of the form, z=a+bx+cx2+dx3+ex4+ . . . where a, b, c, d, and e are arbitrary coefficients, rotated about the vertical axis. For example, the shaped buoy can comprise a hyperboloid of revolution about the buoy axis. For example, the shaped buoy can comprise opposing hemispheres, pyramids, ellipsoids, or paraboloids. However, the opposing surfaces need not be mirrored geometries, symmetric about the water line, or of the same shape. In such cases, the shape of the buoy—i.e., the water plane area as a function of distance away from the water line —can be varied in time in response to the wave motion.
The present invention has been described as a wave energy converter buoy with variable geometry. It will be understood that the above description is merely illustrative of the applications of the principles of the present invention, the scope of which is to be determined by the claims viewed in light of the specification. Other variants and modifications of the invention will be apparent to those of skill in the art.
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/792,749, filed Feb. 17, 2020, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/927,318, filed Oct. 29, 2019, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/927,590, filed Oct. 29, 2019, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. U.S. application Ser. No. 16/792,749 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/534,746, filed Aug. 7, 2019 and now abandoned, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/730,891, filed Sep. 13, 2018, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.
This invention was made with Government support under Contract No. DE-NA0003525 awarded by the United States Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration. The Government has certain rights in the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4447740 | Heck | May 1984 | A |
5136173 | Rynne | Aug 1992 | A |
8464527 | Gerger et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8713928 | Gregory | May 2014 | B2 |
8925313 | Moffat | Jan 2015 | B2 |
9657710 | Gregory | May 2017 | B2 |
9951747 | Prins | Apr 2018 | B2 |
10190568 | Gregory | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10385820 | Moffat et al. | Aug 2019 | B2 |
20100171312 | Burns | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110089689 | Gregory | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20150145250 | Frtunik | May 2015 | A1 |
20180202415 | Moffat | Jul 2018 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Wolgamont, H.A. and Fitizgerald, C.J., “Nonlinear Hydrodynamic and Real Fluid Effects on Wave Energy Converters”, Proc. Inst. Mech Eng. A: J. Power Eng. (2015), pp. 772-794, vol. 229. |
Giorgi, G. et al.,“ Nonlinear Hydrodynamic Models for Heaving Buoy Wave Energy Converters”, Asian Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (AWTEC 2016), Marina Bay Sands, Signapore (2016), 10 pages. |
Retes, M. et al., “A Review of Non-Linear Approaches for Wave Energy Converter Modelling,” Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France (2015), 10 pages. |
Abdelkhalik, O. and Darani, S. “Optimization of Nonlinear Wave Energy Converters”, Ocean Engineering, 2018, pp. 187-195, vol. 162. |
Darani, S. et al., “A Hamiltonian Surface-Shaping Approach for Control System Analysis and the Design of Nonlinear Wave Energy Converters”, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (2019), vol. 7, 48, 17 pages. |
Hals, J. et al., “A Comparison of Selected Strategies for Adaptive Control of Wave Energy Converters”, J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. (2011), vol. 133, pp. 031101-1-031101-12. |
Song, J. et al., “Multi-Resonant Feedback Control of Heave Wave Energy Converters”, Ocean Engineering (2016), pp. 269-278, vol. 127. |
Abdelkhalik, O. et al., “Multiresonant Feedback Control of a Three-Degree-of-Freedom Wave Energy Converter”, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy (2017), pp. 1518-1527, vol. 8. |
Robinett, R. D. and Wilson, D. G., “What Is a Limit Cycle?, International Journal of Control” (2008), pp. 1886-1900, vol. 81. |
Wilson, D. G. et al., “Order of Magnitude Power Increase from Multi-Resonance Wave Energy Converters, Order of Magnitude Power Increase from Multi-Resonance Wave Energy Converters,” Oceans' 17 MTS/IEEE, Sep. 2017, Anchorage, AK, 7 pages. |
Ozkop, E. and Altas, I. H., Control, Power and Electrical Components in Wave Energy Conversion Systems: A Review of the Technologies; Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017), pp. 106-115. |
Wilson, D. G. et al., “Extending Complex Conjugate Control to Nonlinear Wave Energy Converters,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2020, vol. 8, 84, 21 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220252039 A1 | Aug 2022 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62927590 | Oct 2019 | US | |
62927318 | Oct 2019 | US | |
62730891 | Sep 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16792749 | Feb 2020 | US |
Child | 17723690 | US | |
Parent | 16534746 | Aug 2019 | US |
Child | 16792749 | US |