Renewable Energy - Whittaker

THE LIMPET WAVE POWER PROJECT THE FIRST YEARS OF OPERATION

T.J.T Whittaker, W. Beattie, M. Folley, C. Boake, A. Wright, M. Osterried
Faculty of Engineering, Queen's University Belfast
T. Heath
Wavegen, Inverness
Abstract
Using a combination of European and private funding the wave power team at Queen's
University Belfast in partnership with Wavegen Ireland Ltd, Charles Brand Ltd, Kirk McClure
Morton and I.S.T. Portugal designed and constructed a 500kW shoreline wave power plant
known as LIMPET (Land Installed Marine Power Energy Transmitter). This was installed
between 1998 and 2000 on the Isle of Islay off the west coast of Scotland and was commissioned
in the spring 2001. The plant has been operating remotely since that time and is supplying energy
to the electrical grid in the United Kingdom.
The project has been very successful even though energy production is lower than originally
estimated. A considerable amount has been learned about matching the installed capacity to the
prevailing wave climate, construction techniques and operating procedures. The plant is a fully
functional grid connected generator starting and stopping automatically as the sea power varies.
A range of experiments have been conducted remotely with data transmitted to both Belfast and
Inverness via ISDN lines. Consequently the development team has the most extensive body of
data from a working wave power plant in the world.
The under performance of the plant is attributable to the over estimation of the wave power
which actually reaches the water columns. The resulting over capacity of the mechanical
electrical plant means that it operates under part load which significantly reduces the conversion
efficiency from pneumatic input to electrical output. Consequently it is concluded that it would
have been better to have rated the plant much closer to the average wave power and to have
maximised the conversion efficiency in the most commonly occurring relatively low energy seas.
Introduction
LIMPET is a 500kW shoreline oscillating
water column (OWC) wave power plant
located on the Isle of Islay as shown in
figure 1. It was built between 1998 and
2001 and commissioned during the spring of
2001 to replace a 75kW plant built in 1989
and located on an adjacent site Whittaker,
Beattie et al. (1997).

Figure 1: Site location

Renewable Energy - Whittaker

The project was jointly funded by the

European Union contract JOR-CT98-0312
and by an SME, Wavegen Ireland.
As shown schematically in figure 2, the
device comprises three water columns
contained within concrete tubes each
measuring internally 6m by 6m and inclined
at 400 to the horizontal giving a total water
surface area of 169m2. The upper parts of
the tubes are inter-connected and power
conversion is via a single turbine generator
unit located in the middle of the rear wall.
The water columns with an external width of
21m are located 17m inland from the natural
shoreline in a man-made recess with a water
depth of 6m at mean water level. The sides
of the recess are virtually parallel and
vertical. The water depth reduces to 5m
immediately to seaward of the gully.

Figure 2 Schematic of LIMPET

The power take off system comprises a
single 2.6m diameter counter-rotating Wells
turbine in which each plane of blades is
directly mounted on the shaft of a modified
wound rotor induction generator rated at
250kW. The output from the generators is
rectified and inverted prior to the grid
connection and this enables variable speed
operation with the range of 700 - 1500 r.p.m.
The operational characteristic of the plant is
software driven and can be altered. Noise

produced by the airflow past the turbine

rotors is attenuated in an acoustic chamber
prior to discharge to the atmosphere. The
turbine generator module also comprises a
butterfly valve and a vane valve located
between the rotors and the plenum chamber.
A description of the plant construction is
given by Heath Heath, Whittaker et al.
(2000).
The data acquisition system on LIMPET
monitors all the main operational parameters
throughout the power conversion process. In
addition the incident wave energy has been
monitored for a limited period using sea-bed
pressure transducers, the wave loads on the
front and back walls have been monitored
and the water column movements have been
measured using both pressure and ultra-sonic
transducers. The data acquisition system is
split between monitoring, for the purposes of
research, and information essential to the
control and operation of the plant. The
research system continuously polls at 5Hz
and automatically archives 15 minutes of
operational data every hour. This is in
addition to ad-hoc research trials performed
on the plant for which additional data sets
exist. Consequently, QUB and Wavegen
currently have the worlds largest database
of operational data of any full-scale wave
power device. An automated data
management tool was developed using a
software combination of LabView, Matlab
and Microsoft Access to seamlessly
acquire, analyse and archive the data. The
database is used as a high-level interrogation
and periodic reporting tool. Further details of
the monitoring system and data handling is
presented by Boake Boake, Folley et al.
(2003).
Since commissioning the LIMPET plant, it
has proven to be extremely robust and
continues to generate electricity for export to
the local grid. The plant has withstood a

Renewable Energy - Whittaker

storm regarded as a 1 in 50 year return

event. The operational control of the plant
has developed from a simple fixed linear
torque-speed control to a more complex
algorithm, based on the incoming power
level. The operational experiences gained
with the plant as well as the development to
the control strategy is discussed by Ellen
Ellen, Boake et al. (2003).
Plant performance

90

Te7 Pi15
Te7 Pi40

80

Te10 Pi15
Te10 Pi40

70

Te10 Pi65
60

Te13 Pi40
Te13 Pi65

50
40
30
20
10

QUB_24.03.03_018

5-60

5-40

5-50

5-20

5-30

5-8

5-10

5-0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

15.5

17

16.5

18

0
19

It was originally envisaged that the water

columns would be constructed on the cliff
face and that a 1:25 sea bed slope extended
to the lip of the collector. In fact, the plant
was constructed 17m back from the cliff in a
parallel-sided recess. In addition, a post
construction bathymetric survey revealed
that the 1:25 seabed slope did not extent to
the cliff face but remained approximately
horizontal for the first 80m from the water
column lip before sloping down to the 30m
depth-contour
offshore.
This
has
significantly limited the maximum wave
energy reaching the plant and has reduced
the potential production to 45% of the
original expectations.

Further model studies showed that a

relatively small change in seabed profile
could have a profound influence on the
hydrodynamic performance of the water
columns.

Wave power [kW]

Conversion of wave energy to pneumatic

energy

Figure 3: Model Testing 1:40 Scale LIMPET

Model in the Queens wave tank

20

The power delivered to the grid by LIMPET

is lower than originally estimated. The three
main factors causing this are:
lower than expected wave excitation of
the water columns
performance of the counter rotating Wells
turbine lower than predicted from steady
state test data
poor part-load efficiency of the
mechanical electrical power train which
has excess capacity relative to the
pneumatic power delivered

Contour (Followed By Distance Along Plateau) [m]

Figure 4 Variation of Wave Power with

Depth 2D
Figure 4 shows the attenuation of available
wave power in kW/m at various depths and
locations on a horizontal plateau for a range
of energy periods and sea powers. The data
is grouped in three bands according to the
nominal incident sea power at the 20m
contour. The larger sea powers are the most
influenced by both water depth and plateau
length, as shown in the upper two lines. In
comparison to the current position of
LIMPET, placing the collector at the end of
the sea bed slope in 6m water depth doubles
the incident power from 25 to 50kW/m.
3

Renewable Energy - Whittaker

when a 75kW/m sea is present at the 20m

depth contour. The lower pair of lines shows
that the effect of depth and plateau length
has a much smaller effect on the lower sea
powers. Here the total reduction from the
20m contour to the landward end of the
plateau is about 30% compared to 66% in
the previous case.
The shallow water changes the fundamental
hydrodynamics of the waves so that the fluid
particle motion is predominantly horizontal.
As shown in figure 5, this produces a
substantial wave run-up on the front wall of
LIMPET, which is larger than in deeper
water, together with sloshing of the water
column Folley and Whittaker (2002).

rise. Later in the cycle the down rush of

water off the front wall slices into the water
in fro0nt of the device, causing a pressure
pulse around the column lip which forces
part of the water column back up inside the
chamber. This limits the displacement in the
downward part of the power stroke and
increases parasitic losses. Tests in deeper
water of 8 to 10m results in a much
smoother motion of the water column, larger
excursions of the water column and a higher
power output.
Conversion of pneumatic
mechanical energy

energy

to

The performance of the counter rotating

Wells turbine is lower than expected Folley,
Curran et al. (2002). Random oscillating
flow causes an earlier onset of stall in the
turbine than when the flow is steady and
unidirectional, reducing the cyclic turbine
efficiency. Such a dramatic difference
between the unidirectional and oscillating
flow performances of other Wells turbine
configurations had not been previously
observed.
The increased amount of turbine stall meant
that a more substantial silencer was required.
A noise attenuation chamber was retrofitted
onto the end of the turbine ducting and this
resulted in a mal-distribution of flow during
the intake stroke of the turbine. This causes
an early onset of stall at much lower values
of flow coefficient than was predicted in
uniformly distributed flow. This also reduces
the overall turbine performance. Figure 6
shows the counter rotating turbine efficiency
when the water column is rising (exhaust
through the turbine), when the water column
is falling (intake through the turbine) and
compares these values with those predicted
in the steady state testing Curran (1995).

Figure 5 Water Column Motion

The wave crest surges up the front wall and
at the same time the water column starts to

This illustrates that not only is the peak

turbine efficiency reduced by the earlier
4

Renewable Energy - Whittaker

Figure 6: Turbine Efficiency vs Flow

Coefficient
Conversion of mechanical
electrical production

energy

to

As this is primarily an R&D plant, it was

decided to install rectification and inversion
of the generator electrical output, which
allows operation at variable speed within the
range 700 to 1500 r.p.m. With the reduced
pneumatic power collection and the lower
than expected turbine performance, the
electrical system operates mostly at between
10 and 20% of its capacity for a significant
part of the year. This limits the conversion
efficiency to between 70 and 84%. Further
losses in the system, which must be supplied
by the turbine, include inverter losses and
windage/bearing losses in the mechanical
system.

Current and Potential Productivity

Figure 7 shows the power breakdown when
there is an average 150kW of pneumatic
power for the current plant and three
alternative scenarios. Bar A, is for the
current plant, where the turbine losses
account for 93kW, the total mechanical and
electrical losses account for 45kW, leaving
only 12kW to supply to the grid. Bar B
shows the effect of changing the generator
control algorithm and allowing the machine
to rotate faster thus reducing the amount of
time spent in stall. The production is
increased from 12 to 20kW. Bar C shows an
output of 33kW achieved by balancing the
turbine performance during the intake and
exhaust flows. This could be achieved by
installing guide vanes in the acoustic
chamber. Finally bar D shows the projected
performance if the counter rotating Wells
turbine had produced the theoretical
performance observed in unidirectional
steady state model tests. This shows an
electrical production of 58kW. It is
interesting to note that if the turbine was
reconfigured so that it became a biplane
machine the electrical production would be
close to that shown in bar D.
160

140

120

Pneumatic power (kW)

onset of stall, but more significantly, the

turbine bandwidth is reduced. The average
cyclic efficiency of the turbine depends on
the wave climate and data from the plant
currently indicates that the overall average
turbine efficiency calculated from the
operational data obtained to date is
approximately 34%. It is interesting to note
that the biplane turbine on the 75kW plant
returned an aerodynamic conversion
efficiency of around 50% when optimised
during the latter part of the test programme.

100

80

60

40

20
0

A - Current

B - Opt Speed

C - Balanced

D - Theoretical

Supplied power

12.53

20.34

33.51

58.85

Inverter losses

18.00

18.00

18.00

18.00

Generator losses

11.08

11.49

12.18

13.52

Windage losses

15.39

16.16

17.31

19.14

Turbine losses

93.00

84.00

69.00

40.50

Figure 7 Performance Optimisation of

LIMPET
A further consequence of the poor cyclic
turbine performance and the high power
overhead in the mechanical electrical system
5

Renewable Energy - Whittaker

is that it requires an average minimum

pneumatic power in excess of 80kW before
energy is supplied to the electrical grid. This
results in too high a threshold and means
that the plant does not operate for 50% of the
time. A smaller installed generating
capacity, with a single generator, the better
performance of the bi-plane turbine and
removal of the inverter system would
significantly reduce the threshold pneumatic
power for generation and consequently
increase the plant availability and average
electrical generation.
During the first two years of operation the
plant has generated up to 180kW of peak
electrical power delivered to the grid. During
generation the average pneumatic power has
been 130kW. It has been possible to
calculate what the pneumatic power was
during periods when the turbine was shut
down. From this data the annual average
pneumatic power has been calculated as
113kW.
Wavetank modelling
Though initial predictions of device
performance were inaccurate, further studies
have indicated that these inaccuracies were
due to the scenario modelled and not due to
anything fundamental to the wave tank
modelling. The original model trials of
LIMPET coupled with the revised model
trials covered a wide range of potential site
scenarios and it is encouraging that the
productivity figure of 57 kW relating to the
scenario deemed most representative of the
actual site, is within acceptable limits of the
projected power production with a biplane
turbine.
Discussion
The performance of the current LIMPET
plant could be improved by undertaking a
range of modifications,

flaring the gully in front of the collector

chambers

resizing

and changing the turbine

configuration
either changing the electrical control or
further optimization of the control
strategies
airflow control to both reduce stall and
improve the flow distribution around the
annulus of the rotor blades
However, research has shown that if the
current LIMPET plant was located in an
alternative North Atlantic site just 2m deeper
and with a sea bed slope extending directly
from the water columns seaward, the
projected average electrical production of
165kW could be achieved.
In

order to reduce costs novel

construction techniques will have to be
developed and demonstrated. In addition
the quantity of materials in the structure
will have to be significantly reduced.
Already alternative options to LIMPET
are being developed.

Concluding remarks
The LIMPET project has and continues to
make a considerable contribution to the
development of wave power technology.
Achievements

the team has designed built and is

continuing to operate a grid connected

wave power plant,
there is over two years of data collection,
which is probably the largest data base
from any wave power plant in the world,
the development has resulted in a greatly
improved understanding of
o sizing and rating plant for the
prevailing wave climate
o marine construction
o plant operation

Renewable Energy - Whittaker

o marine engineering design throughout

the power train
o electrical grid integration
an important stepping stone for future
developments.
Main recommendations
do not over rate the mechanical electrical

plant relative to the mean wave resource,

maximise the efficiency of the plant close
to the mean generation level as part load
efficiency can be low due to mechanical
and electrical overheads,
provide alternative means of coping with
very large pneumatic powers in the
collector which do not occur very often
and do not justify the capital expenditure
on the necessary M&E plant to convert,
i.e improve the load factor,
it is desirable to bench test the complete
power conversion train from air power to
electrical output in random cyclic flow,
other variants of the Wells turbine such
as biplane, monoplane with guide vanes
and variable pitch are better than the
counter rotating machine on the grounds
of performance and cost.

Principal conclusion
The most important conclusion is that it is
essential to distinguish between the available
wave resource and the technically
exploitable wave resource, which can be
converted economically and rate the
mechanical electrical plant accordingly. This
will result in a plant rating which is much
closer to the mean power production and not
the extremes. It is also essential to maximise
conversion efficiency close to the mean
wave resource as this will increase the day to
day electrical production.
References

Boake C., Folley M., Thompson A.,

Whittaker T. & Ellen H. (2003).
Instrumentation and Data Management of
the LIMPET OWC Wave Power Plant.
5th European Wave Energy Conference,
Cork, Ireland
Curran R. (1995). Utilisation of the Wells
Turbine for Wave Energy Conversion,
PhD, Department of Aeronautical
Engineering, Queens University Belfast:
170.
Ellen H., Boake C. & Whittaker T. (2003).
Operational Experience with the LIMPET
Full-Scale, Grid Connected, Shoreline
OWC Device. 5th European Wave
Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland
Folley M., Curran R., Boake C. & Whittaker
T.
J.
T.
(2002).
Performance
investigations of the LIMPET CounterRotating Wells Turbine. 2nd Marine
Renewable
Energy
Conference,
Newcastle
Folley M. & Whittaker T. J. T. (2002).
Identification
of
non-linear
flow
characteristics of the LIMPET shoreline
OWC. 12th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Kyushu,
Japan
Heath T., Whittaker T. J. T. & Boake C.
(2000). The Design, construction and
Operation of the LIMPET Wave Energy
converter (Islay, Scotland). 4th Wave
Power Conference, Denmark
Whittaker T. J. T., Beattie W. C.,
Raghunathan S., Thompson A., Stewart
T. & Curran R. (1997). "The Islay wave
power
project:
an
engineering
perspective." Proc Instn Civ Engrs Wat.,
Marit & Energy 124: 189- 201.
Boake, C., M. Folley, et al. (2003).
Instrumentation and Data Management
of the LIMPET OWC Wave Power
Plant. 5th European Wave Energy
Conference, Cork, Ireland.
Curran, R. (1995). Utilisation of the Wells
Turbine for Wave Energy Conversion.

Renewable Energy - Whittaker

Department of Aeronautical
Engineering, Queens University Belfast:
170.
Ellen, H., C. Boake, et al. (2003). Operational
Experience with the LIMPET FullScale, Grid Connected, Shoreline OWC
Device. 5th European Wave Energy
Conference, Cork, Ireland.
Folley, M., R. Curran, et al. (2002). Performance
investigations of the LIMPET CounterRotating Wells Turbine. 2nd Marine
Renewable Energy Conference,
Newcastle.
Folley, M. and T. J. T. Whittaker (2002).
Identification of non-linear flow
characteristics of the LIMPET shoreline
OWC. 12th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Kyushu,
Japan.
Heath, T., T. J. T. Whittaker, et al. (2000). The
Design, construction and Operation of
the LIMPET Wave Energy converter
(Islay, Scotland). 4th Wave Power
Conference, Denmark.
Whittaker, T. J. T., W. C. Beattie, et al. (1997).
"The Islay wave power project: an
engineering perspective." Proc Instn Civ
Engrs Wat., Marit & Energy 124: 189201.