discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224188114
CITATIONS
READS
18
59
4 authors:
E. Tedeschi
Marta Molinas
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Matteo Carraro
P. Mattavelli
16 PUBLICATIONS 96 CITATIONS
University of Padova
SEE PROFILE
Matteo Carraro
Paolo Mattavelli
DTG
Center of Power Electronics Systems
University of Padova Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.
mttcarraro@gmail.com
mattavelli@ieee.org
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. Hydrodynamic model
The following analysis is focused on a spherical point
absorber in heave [8], i.e. a single degree of freedom device
as the one schematically depicted in fig. 1, which is directly
connected to the electric Power Take Off (PTO) without any
intermediate hydraulic or pneumatic stage.
Under the assumption of plane progressive waves
propagating in an infinite water depth and if small motion is
assumed, linear theory can be applied and the hydrodynamic
diffraction model can be used to represent the interaction
between the buoy and the waves [9].
2370
C
+
RL
ZL
uL
-
XL
Power
Take Off
( M + a ) x(t ) +
rad (t
) x (t )d + Kx (t ) = FE (t ) + FL (t )
(1.b)
2371
FL(t)
FE(t)
x(t ) 1
1
s
( M + a )
+
+
- -
x (t ) 1 x(t )
s
RADIATION FORCE
STATE SPACE
MODEL
K
Fig. 3. Time domain model of the Wave Energy Converter , used in
irregular waves analyses
TABLE I
DATA OF THE SELECTED SIMULATION TEST CASE
Quantity
Symbol
Unit of
measure
Value
A
T
[m]
[s]
0.5
6
Hs
[m]
1.41
Te
r
M
[s]
[m]
[Kg]
6
5
267040
[Kg]
156940
[N/m]
785890
[Kg/s]
91520
RL =
R 2 + ( L
)2
(2)
(3.a)
RL = R
(3.b)
[m] 0.5
0.15
0
0.1
-0.5
60
61
[kW] 40
62
63
64
65
(a)
0.05
66
Pavg=23.73 kW
20
0
60
[kN]
61
[kW]
62
63
64
65
(b)
[rad/s]
(a)
400
200
66
Pavg=56.22 kW
200
-200
0
-400
-200
60
61
62
63
[s]
64
65
(c)
66
10
20
30
40
50
[s]
60
70
80
90
100
(b)
2372
100
[%]
[pu]
Pavg=5%
0.8
90
0.6
80
0.4
70
0.2
60
0
60
61
62
50
[pu]
40
[s]
63
64
65
(b)
64
65
(c)
66
Pavg=12%
0.8
0.6
30
0.4
20
0.2
10
-0.2
-0.4
0
20
60
80
-0.6
60
100
61
62
[s]
63
66
[%]
Fig. 6. Efficiency of electric and electronic devices (a) and its effects on
power extraction with passive loading (b) and optimum control (c)
1200
180
[kW]
[kW]
Pavg=18.38 kW
160
Pavg=28.38 kW
1000
800
140
600
120
400
100
200
80
0
60
-200
40
-400
20
0
200
-600
300
400
500
600
700
[s]
800
900
1000
1100
-800
200
1200
300
400
500
600
700
[s]
800
900
1000
1100
1200
2373
OPTIMUM CONTROL
Sinusoidal waves
kirr
ksin
18,38
11,23
1,64
15,01
1,22
36,76
15,77
2,33
23,66
55,14
17,89
3,08
23,73
73,52
18,57
3,96
91,9
18,62
4,94
110,28
18,5
5,96
128,66
18,42
6,98
23,73
147,04
18,39
23,73
Irregular waves
Psat (kW)
kirr
ksin
73,52
5,43
13,5
10,26
7,17
1,55
147,04
10,62
13,85
20,84
7,06
(2)
255,2
18,19
14
56,22
4.54
23,73
(2)
367,6
22,84
16,09
56,22
(4.54)
23,73
(2)
551,4
26,59
20,74
56,22
(4.54)
23,73
(2)
735,2
27,83
26,42
56,22
(4.54)
(2)
919
28,32
32,45
56,22
(4.54)
(2)
1102,8
28,38
38,86
56,22
(4.54)
Sinusoidal waves
SIMULATION RESULTS
2374
22
[kW]
30
[kW]
21
passive
loading
25
20
20
19
15
18
10
17
optimum control
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
16
1000 1100
[kW]
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
XL [%]
0.7
0.8
0.9
2375
Fig. 11 Block diagram of the detailed system simulated model , including main control components
2376
Value
Unit of
measure
Description
Pn
Vn
Lm
Ls
Lr
Rs
Rr
p
Rl
Ll
Udc
Cdc
n
rw
Jm
110
400
10,4
10,6
10,6
21,6
12,3
2
28,0
900
800
3.3
40
0,1
2,3
[kW]
[V]
[mH]
[mH]
[mH]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[H]
[V]
[mF]
[m]
[kgm2]
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
VI.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
0
-0.5
Torque [Nm]
50
DC voltage [V]
60
65
70
75
time [s]
80
85
90
95
100
300
200
0
-200
50
55
ea
200
55
60
65
70
75
time [s]
80
85
90
95
iag
100
100
[V],[A]
Wave
amplitude [m]
[13]
0.5
810
800
-100
790
55
60
65
70
75
time [s]
80
85
90
95
100
-200
100
0
-300
-100
50
55
60
65
70
75
time [s]
80
85
90
95
70.605
100
70.61
70.615
70.62
70.625
70.63
70.635
70.64
[s ]
Fig. 12.Sea waves profile (a), generator torque (b), DC voltage reference
and DC actual voltage (c), current injected into the grid in phase a(d)
2377
Fig. 13. Detail of the voltage and current of phase a at the grid
section