THE APPLICATION OF 2-DIMENSIONAL NEARSHORE SPECTRAL

WAVES (2D-NSW) MODEL FOR WAVE PREDICTION ALONG

TERENGGANU COASTLINE

By:
NUR AMALINA BINTI ABDUL LATIFF

Supervisor:
DR FATIMAH NOOR BINTI HARUN
School of Informatics and Applied Mathematics,
University Malaysia Terengganu

Co-Supervisor:
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR MOHAMMAD FADHLI BIN AHMAD
School of Marine Engineering and Maritime Studies,
University Malaysia Terengganu
INTRODUCTION – Brief
 An investigation of the wave power resource on the Terengganu nearshore area.
 The MIKE-21 Neashore Spectral Wave (MIKE-21 NSW)-serving as a tool for
obtaining accurate estimates of wave field condition along the Terengganu nearshore
area.
 Input wave data from European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast‘s
(ECMWF) (70m water depth), as a boundary data.
 The accuracy of the modelled output was investigated by directly comparing it to
available Acoustic Wave and Current (AWAC) observation wave data (16m water
depth).
 Sensiitivity analysis which indicated that the model gives sufficiently accurate
estimates of wave height in nearshore area for selected wave conditions.
 However, the model does slightly overestimate wave period. The comparison showed
reasonable agreement in term of RMSE, 0.29 for the significant wave height and
RMSE, 2.06 for the mean wave period.
INTRODUCTION – Brief
 Spatial wave mapping can be assessed in term of significant wave height and wave
power.
 A bulk of energy is concentrated in 𝐻𝑠 =1-1.5m and 𝑇𝑚 =6-7s energy bins which the
largest contribution towards wave energy potential.
 Meanwhile, the most energetic wave (𝑇𝑚 =6-9s, 𝐻𝑠 =2-2.5m) occurred at AWAC
deployment point in January 2012 where power produced for each individual wave
event range from 28.98 kW/m to 33.12 kW/m.
 This scenario contributed to higher energy produced by January and December
compared to other months.
 INTRODUCTION – Statement of Problem
 Measured data : high load cost involved, give a limited measurement data, a rough
estimate of wave power condition (omni-directional) at specific location.
 There are still have no information regarding spatial map distribution in Malaysia which
then can identify which is the most potential part.
 Numerical modelling is therefore one of the most important tools for wave estimation,
not only for practical operation used but also for the conceptual and engineering studies.

INTRODUCTION – Significant of Study

 Study will create a wealth of new information on the spatial wave climate variability
along nearshore area of the Terengganu coast.
 This information is required by project developers and regulators involved in designing
and approving wave energy projects in the nearshore region.
 Next, it is expected that this study could contribute towards an improved understanding
of the nonlinear wave interaction in the particular area.
INTRODUCTION – Objective of study

 To compare simulation model result with measured wave data so that the
models result fit to observe data.

 To determine wave characteristics along nearshore area of Terengganu coast

 To analyse wave power potential resource in Terengganu so that it could be

initial study for wave energy exploration in Malaysia.
INTRODUCTION – Research framework
LITERATURE REVIEW - Brief
Generation mechanism Statistical theory Nonlinear theory Wave forecasting

<1940s Basic studies of waves Theory of random Nonlinear theory of Sverdup and Munk
noise regular waves

1950s New theory Wave spectrum, Nonlinear theory of

wave statistics random waves

1960s Extension turbulence Spectra form Nonlinear effect Numerical model

(1st generation)

1970s Directional spectra Computation Numerical model

dispersion relation (2nd generation)

1980s High frequency Computation wave Numerical model

wave spectrum breaking (3rd generation)

1990s Wave number- Wave breaking and Assimilation

frequency spectra energy dissipation
LITERATURE REVIEW – Generation
mechanism

Figure 2.1: Classification of waves according to wave period (Munk, 1951)

Figure 2.2: Simple wave (derived from (WMO, 1998))

LITERATURE REVIEW –Wave group, wave
statistical analysis, spectra analysis

Statistical
analysis

Wave
parameters
derived
Spectra analysis
( Fourier analysis)

Statistical
distribution
 LITERATURE REVIEW – Nonlinear of wave
spectra
 Nature is fundamentally nonlinear. Thus, research toward this phenomenon gives a
significantly advance to spectral model.
 The imbalance of wave form, nonlinear interaction among spectral components gives the
wave in instability and lastly it will break (Phillips, (1960); Hasselmann, (1960, 1962,
1963)).
 Wave energy dissipation occurs mainly due to three processes; whitecapping, wave-
bottom interaction and surf breaking. As waves grow, the steepness increases until it
reaches a critical point, where the waves break. Whitecapping is highly non-linear and it
limits the wave growth.
 ‘Shoaling’ is the effect of sea bottom when waves propagate into shallow water without
changing direction. Generally, this enhances wave height and is best demonstrated when
wave crests are parallel to depth contours.
 LITERATURE REVIEW – Nonlinear of wave
spectra
 When wave enter into transitional depths, if they were not travelling
perpendicular to the depth contours, the part of the wave in deeper water
moves faster than the part in shallower water, causing the crest to turn parallel
to the bottom contours. This phenomenon is called ‘refraction’. Refraction
causes reduction in wave energy, which depends on the depth contours and
bottom characteristics.
 Obstruction, such as breakwaters, causes the energy to be transformed along a
wave crest at the lee of the obstruction. This is called ‘diffraction’ and it causes
much reduction in the wave height. Surf breaking occurs at extremely shallow
waters, where depth and wave height are of the same order of magnitude
(Battjes and Janssen, 1978).
 Based on these studies, they clarify that the nonlinear energy transfer plays an
important role in the evolution of the wave spectrum.
 LITERATURE REVIEW –Wave Forecasting
 First generation model did not take into account the effect of nonlinear
interactions. (Do not have an explicit energy transfer due to non-linear
interactions (Snl) term. Non-linear energy transfers are implicitly expressed
through the energy input from wind (Sin) and energy loss due to dissipation
(Sds))
 Second generation used the simplified parameterization of the nonlinear
interactions (handle the Snl term by parametric methods)
 Third generation model which are formulated based on two-dimensional wave
spectra used explicitly computation to compute the nonlinear wave-wave
interaction (representing the state of the art knowledge of the physics of the
wave evolution).
 LITERATURE REVIEW –Wave power
calculation
 For a sinusoidal wave height, the average energy stored on a horizontal square meter of the water surface is:

1
𝐸= 𝜌𝑔𝐻𝑠2 2.11
16
Where: 𝜌 = fluid density (~1,028 kg/𝑚3 )
g = Gravity
H = Significant wave height

 The rate at which wave energy propagates is directly dependent on the group velocity of the wave. In deep water,
the group velocity is given by:
𝐶𝑔 =
𝐿
0.5 2.12
𝑇𝑚
2
𝑔𝑇𝑚
in which: L = wavelength 𝐿=
2𝜋
T = wave period

 Therefore wave power (wave energy flux) is transmitted in the direction of wave propagation across a vertical
plane perpendicular to the wave direction and extending down the entire depth is given by:

1
𝑃0 = 𝜌𝑔2 𝐻𝑠2 𝑇𝑚 2.13
64𝜋
 METHODOLOGY
Study Area Bathymetry
To model wave in nearshore specification

Boundary
Conceptual condition
Model Model input
Surface
elevation
Wave field Mathematical
observation data Modelling
Bottom
Computer dissipation
MIKE-21 NSW
Model
Wave breaking
Simulation
Outcomes Model
parameters Wind
generation
Calibration
Model
Comparison Wave-current
interaction

Acceptable
Yes No
agreement
Model Output
Reality world – Calculate wave
power
METHODOLOGY - Numerical Model MIKE-
21 NSW
 Parameterization - The zero-th and the first moment of the action spectrum in the
frequency domain as the quantities appear in the parameterized balance equations.
 The basic waves parameters which are the directional action density 𝐴0 (𝜃) and the mean
frequency per direction 𝜔0(𝜃) defines as:
𝐴0 𝜃 = 𝑚0 𝜃 3.8

𝑚1 𝜃
𝜔0 𝜃 = 3.9
𝑚0 𝜃

The moment 𝑚𝑛 :
∞

𝑚𝑛 𝜃 = න 𝜔𝑛 𝐴 𝜔, 𝜃 𝑑𝜔 (3.10)
0

 The conservation equations for the zero-th and the first moment are:
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕
𝑐𝑔𝑥 𝑚0 + 𝑐𝑔𝑦 𝑚0 + 𝑐𝜃 𝑚0 = 𝑇0 (3.11)
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝜃
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕
𝑐𝑔𝑥 𝑚1 + 𝑐𝑔𝑦 𝑚1 + 𝑐𝜃 𝑚1 = 𝑇1 (3.12)
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝜃
 METHODOLOGY – Numerical Method

Figure 3.3: Model computational grid (DHI, 2007) Figure 3.4:Marching procedure

 The basic partial differential equations are solved using the Eulerian finite difference method for
discretization.
 The zeroth and first moment of the action spectrum (𝑚0(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝜃) and 𝑚1(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝜃)) are calculated on a
rectangular grid for a number of discrete directions, 𝜃 .
 The procedure used for the predominant direction of wave propagation is called a once-through
marching procedure.
 The x-axis of the grid is aligned with the dominant direction of wave propagation in the model area.
 Restriction at which the angle between the x-axis and the direction of wave propagation should be less
than 60.
 METHODOLOGY – Model Setup Bathymetry
 Rules to setup bathymetry: (The orientation of the bathymetry is important so that
the complete directional sector of energy to enter the computational area)

 The predominant of waves which is directed towards the coast and the grid
resolution in the direction of wave propagation (the x-direction) must be 3-
4 finer than along y axis.
 Model domain should not only cover the area of interest, but their
extension must also ensure that the offshore boundary wave point should
be included in the offshore boundary.
 The chosen of boundary according to the direction of wave need to be
considered first-direction of wave propagation at the offshore boundary of
the model that must be comprised within a sector of 30measured from
the model’s x-axis.
METHODOLOGY – Model Setup Bathymetry

37.5

67.5
x
142.5

15

x 15

Figure3.8: Bathymetry (Bathy_3) for waves

Figure 3.5: Extension of bathymetries positions approaching from the direction 37.5-67.5

Table 3.3: Characteristics of bathymetric set-up for study area of interest for the whole wave direction (337.5-127.5).
Coordinates of origin Extension (m)
Orientation
Model bathymetry y-
Long Lat () x-direction
direction
Bathy_1 102.79 5.66 82.5 3900 1100
Bathy_2 102.94 6.05 112.5 3900 900
Bathy_3 103.15 6.37 142.5 3900 1100
Bathy_4 103.59 5.96 172.5 3900 1100
Bathy_5 103.64 5.85 202.5 3900 1100
METHODOLOGY – Model Setup Offshore Boundary

 ECMWF
 70 km from the nearest shoreline area .
 5.77 N and 103.61 E
 6-hour interval period per day.
 A total of 7308 records (1st Jan, 2008-
31st December 2012
METHODOLOGY – Model Setup Offshore Boundary
Table 3.4: Details wave data at offshore boundary for the whole years
Years 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total %
Days 366 365 365 365 366
337.5-7.5 10 17 31 5 14 77 1.05
7.5-37.5 26 41 29 15 20 131 1.79

37.5-67.5 707 680 696 774 717 3574 48.92

(Dominant direction)
67.5-97.5 82 78 191 23 59 433 5.93
97.5-127.5 62 20 32 12 3 129 1.77
Other directions 577 624 479 631 652 2963 40.54
Total maximum records 1464 1460 1460 1460 1464 7308 100

Table 3.7: Frequency of occurrence of concurrence values of 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) and 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) for direction 37.5-67.5
𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠)
2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 Total
0-0.3 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20%
0.3-0.6 0.06% 10.96% 3.02% 0.03% 0.00% 14.07%
0.6-0.9 0.06% 13.45% 10.40% 0.22% 0.00% 24.13%
0.9-1.2 0.00% 9.98% 8.92% 0.76% 0.00% 19.66%
1.2-1.5 0.00% 4.45% 11.10% 0.67% 0.00% 16.22%
1.5-1.8 0.00% 0.50% 9.98% 0.56% 0.00% 11.05%
1.8-2.1 0.00% 0.03% 6.54% 0.48% 0.00% 7.05%
2.1-2.4 0.00% 0.00% 3.94% 0.56% 0.00% 4.50%
2.4-2.7 0.00% 0.00% 1.57% 0.62% 0.03% 2.21%
2.7-3 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 0.36% 0.00% 0.76%
3-3.3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.14%
3.3-3.6 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
Total 0.11% 39.57% 55.90% 4.39% 0.03% 100.00%
METHODOLOGY – Wind data

 ERA-interim model (ECMWF) and the same

point as the wave data.

 The records - 6-hourly wind speed and

direction (5-years’ data)

 Applying the statistical correlation test on to

the pairs of wave height and wind speed
indicates that the wave data used at the site Std. Error
are locally generated by the wind. Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
.833a .694 .694 .31197
 So, we can consider that the average of wind Figure 3.12: Correlation between wave height and wind speed
data reanalysis obtained from ERA-Interim
reanalysis can be use and suitable to be
included in the model for wave simulation.
METHODOLOGY – Model Output
 The basic results from numerical model MIKE-21 NSW consists the following integral wave parameters include
significant wave height (𝐻𝑚0 ), the mean wave period (𝑇𝑚 ), the mean wave direction (𝜃𝑚 ).
𝐻𝑚0 = 4 𝐸1 (3.13)
Where the total wave energy 𝐸1 is:
2𝜋

𝐸1 = න 𝐸 𝜃 . 𝑑𝜃
0

 The mean wave period 𝑇𝑚 defined by:

2𝜋
𝑇𝑚 = (3.14)
𝜔1
Where,
2𝜋 ∞
‫׬‬0 ‫׬‬0 𝜔𝐸 𝜔, 𝜃 . 𝑑𝜔𝑑𝜃
𝜔1 = 2𝜋 ∞
‫׬‬0 ‫׬‬0 𝐸 𝜔, 𝜃 𝑑𝜔𝑑𝜃

 The mean wave direction 𝜃𝑚 and the directional standard deviation 𝜎 are defined by:
𝑏
𝜃𝑚 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐 tan (3.15)
𝑎
Where,
2𝜋
1
𝑎= ∙ න cos 𝜃 ∙ 𝐸 𝜃 𝑑𝜃
𝐸1
0
2𝜋
1
𝑏= ∙ න sin 𝜃 ∙ 𝐸 𝜃 𝑑𝜃
𝐸1
0
METHODOLOGY - Wave Measurement
Table 3.1: Information of wave data recorded at AWAC measurement station.

Distance Water
Description of Recording Wave
Measurement stations Lat/Long from shore depth
data period recorder
(Km) (m)

526.57’N
1 Hourly 𝐻𝑠 19/5/2011 –
Kuala Terengganu and 8 -17 AWAC
and 𝑇𝑚 25/4/2012
10309.63’E

Table 3.2: Coverage of Kuala Terengganu wave measurement data

Season NE Monsoon Inter SW Monsoon Inter

No
Month Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Total
v
28 365
Day 30 31 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31
29 366

Maximum
672 8760
possible 720 744 744 744 720 744 720 744 744 720 744
696 8784
records

2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 720 744 744 720 575 3804

2012 720 744 744 671 744 581 0 0 0 0 0 0 4204 Figure 3.2: Location of measurement station
RESULT – Model Comparison
N

Step to select wave events:

 May 2011-April 2012
Significant wave

 The offshore boundary dataset is

height
Above 2.5
2- 2.5
Calm 1.5 - 2
1- 1.5
4.94 %

separated into their respective

0.5 - 1
10 % Below 0.5

directions. Figure 4.1: Offshore boundary condition during

November 2011-March 2012
 Sea was denominated by waves coming
from 22.5-82.5 direction. Event Date Time

 Table 4.1 shows the selected event used 1 10/11/2011 1800

2 11/11/2011 0000
during comparison and calibration
3 10/2/2012 1800
process. These events are chosen in 4 11/2/2012 0000
randomly during the AWAC 5 11/2/2012 0600
measurement period to represent the 6 11/2/2012 1200
most frequent wave event in AWAC 7 11/2/2012 1800
measurement point. 8 12/2/2012 0000
9 12/2/2012 0600
10 17/10/2011 0600
Table 4.1: Selected events used for
calibration purpose
RESULT – Model comparison (First Estimate)
Table 4.2: Model setup for first estimate simulation (Johnson, 1998)
Parameters Description
Model parameters
Model Nikuradse roughness, KN
Bottom Nikuradse roughness
Constant: 0.002mm
dissipation data
Current friction 0
Surface elevation Constant: 0
Model Wave breaking
Wave Type of Gamma Constant: 1
breaking Gamma data Constant:0.8
Alpha Constant: 1
Wave current interaction No current effect
Wind forcing SPM 84

Table 4.3: Result of first estimation

Model output
Model input (Offshore) Measured (nearshore)
Event

(nearshore)
Hs Tm Direction Hs Tm Direction Hs Tm Direction
322.5- 1 0.51 5.53 337.75 0.33 5.52 345.15 0.47 3.08 350.46
22.5 2 0.48 5.29 348.40 0.39 5.29 352.34 0.41 3.10 7.15
3 1.34 6.17 53.05 1.25 6.15 53.54 1.04 4.38 66.23
4 1.38 6.24 54.46 1.28 6.22 54.89 1.18 4.35 72.99
5 1.43 6.30 53.81 1.32 6.30 54.33 1.17 4.65 69.52
22.5-
6 1.56 6.14 50.60 1.46 6.12 51.24 1.15 4.80 70.64
82.5
7 1.57 6.42 51.76 1.45 6.39 52.49 1.38 4.92 70.05
8 1.71 6.25 53.85 1.59 6.23 54.33 1.27 4.42 71.60
9 1.67 6.53 53.58 1.54 6.49 54.23 1.46 4.76 68.40
82.5-
10 0.34 4.35 110.91 0.37 4.35 107.05 0.27 2.85 104.29
142.5
RESULT – Model Comparison (First Estimate)
1.50

Model Wave Height (m)

1.25

1.00 R Sq Linear = 0.947

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

Measured Wave Height (m)

(a)

6.50

6.00
Model Wave Period (s)

R Sq Linear = 0.828
5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00

2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Measured Wave Period (s)

(b)
Figure 4.6: First model comparison- (a) Wave Height and (b) Wave Period (for offshore waves from 337-110 degrees)
RESULT – Model Calibration
(a) Influence of wind-wave growth formula used in the source function
Type of test RMSE (Hm0) RMSE (Tm)
Default value, SPM 84 0.27 1.79
SPM73/HBH 0.22 1.75
Kahma&Calkoen 0.26 2.45
SPM 73 0.22 1.75
JONSWAP 0.25 2.45

(b) Influence of bottom friction

Type of test RMSE (Hm0) RMSE (Tm)
KN=0.002 0.27 1.79
KN=0.01 0.28 2.40
KN=0.05 0.25 2.18
KN=0.10 0.23 2.02

(c) Model of bottom friction to the wave breaking

KN=0.01 [m] Bathymetry [m]
KN=0.05 [m]
KN=0.10 [m]
10
1.4

1.2 5

1.0
0

0.8
-5
0.6

0.4 -10

0.2
-15
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
03/01/12 00:00:00:000
RESULT – Model Validation
Table 4.8: Key model settings applied in calibration and production in NSW model.
Parameters Description
Model parameters
Model Nikuradse roughness, KN
Bottom dissipation Nikuradse roughness data Constant: 0.002mm
Current friction 0
Surface elevation Constant: 0
Model Wave breaking
Type of Gamma Constant: 1
Wave breaking
Gamma data Constant:0.8
Alpha Constant: 1
Wave current interaction No current effect
Wind wave growth formula SPM73/HBH
AWAC [m]
MODEL [m]

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

AWAC November
[sec] December January February March
2011
MODEL [sec] 2011 2012 2012 2012

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

November December January February March

2011 2011 2012 2012 2012

Figure 4.10: Comparison between measured and modeled wave parameters at AWAC
measurement point: (a) Significant wave height and (b) Mean wave period
RESULT – Spatial Distribution (Annually)
2008
1100
2009
1100
1000
1000
900
900
800
800

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
2010
1100 2011
1100
1000
1000
900
900
800
800
Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200 2012
200 1100
100
100 1000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
900 3000 3500
2012 (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

1100 800
700
1000
600
900
500
800
400
(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700
300
600
200
500
100
400
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
300
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
200

100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) Figure 4.11: Mean annually spatial significant wave height
(m) for each year (2008-2012)
RESULT – Spatial Distribution (Annually)
2008 2009
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)

2010 2011
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400 2012

300 300
1100
1000
200 200
900
100 100

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

800
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 500 1000 1500 2000
700 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
2012 600
1100
500
1000
400
900
300
800
200
(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700
100
600

500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

(Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
400

300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
200

100 Figure 4.12: Mean annually spatial wave power (kW/m)

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 for each year (2008-2012)
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
RESULT – Spatial Distribution (Monthly)
January February
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)

March April
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800 800
(Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)

October November
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800
1100
800
(Grid spacing 50 meter)
(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700
700 1000
600
600 900
500
500
400 800
400

300
300 700
200
200 600
100
100
500
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) 400
December
1100
300
1000
200
900

800 100
(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700

600 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

500

400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
300

Figure 4.13: Mean monthly spatial significant wave

200

100

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

(Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
3000 3500 height (m) for each year (2008-2012)
RESULT – Spatial Distribution (Monthly)
January February
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
March April
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800 800
(Grid spacing 50 meter)

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter) (Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
October November
1100 1100
December
1000 1000
1100
900 900

800 800 1000

(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700 700
900
(Grid spacing 50)

600 600

500 500
800
400 400 700
300 300
600
200 200

100 100 500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(Grid spacing 12.5)
3000 3500 500 1000 1500 400 2000 2500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
3000 3500

December
1100 300
1000

900
200
800
100
(Grid spacing 50 meter)

700

600
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
500

400

300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
200

100 Figure 4.14: Mean monthly spatial wave power (kW/m) for
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(Grid spacing 12.5 meter)
3000 3500 each year (2008-2012)
RESULT – Temporal Variation

Figure 4.15: Bathymetry and the selected points use

RESULT – Temporal Variation (Annually)

Table 4.10: Mean annually wave climate characteristics at 4 selected points during 5-years

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

𝑃 𝑃 𝑃
𝑃 𝑃
𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊
(𝑘𝑊/𝑚) (𝑘𝑊/𝑚)
/𝑚) /𝑚) /𝑚)

𝑥 1.03 6.22 1.06 6.23 0.85 5.83 1.10 6.50 0.93 6.05
P1 6.46 6.85 4.12 7.70 5.12
𝑠2 0.25 0.88 0.30 0.72 0.24 1.34 0.20 0.39 0.18 0.84

𝑥 1.03 6.21 1.06 6.23 0.87 5.93 1.08 6.51 1.10 6.05
P2 6.45 6.85 4.40 7.44 5.12
𝑠2 0.26 0.88 0.31 0.72 0.23 1.36 0.20 0.39 0.19 0.84

𝑥 1.04 6.26 1.04 6.21 0.87 5.85 1.06 6.45 0.88 6.02
P3 6.63 6.58 4.34 7.10 4.56
𝑠2 0.25 0.88 0.28 0.73 0.21 1.28 0.19 0.39 0.19 0.84

𝑥 0.70 6.00 0.71 6.03 0.61 5.68 0.65 6.20 0.64 5.87
P4 2.88 2.98 2.07 2.57 2.35
𝑠2 0.11 0.74 0.13 0.59 0.09 1.12 0.09 0.30 0.10 0.71
RESULT –Temporal Variation (Annually)
Table 4.11: Mean monthly wave climate characteristics for 5 years at P2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Statistic
𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃
Months al 𝑃
𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊
test (𝑘𝑊/𝑚)
/𝑚) /𝑚) /𝑚) /𝑚)
𝑥 1.51 6.79 1.56 6.89 1.25 6.87 1.60 7.19 1.27 6.43
January 15.16 16.42 10.51 18.02 10.15
𝑠2 0.14 0.48 0.24 0.76 0.25 0.51 0.20 0.39 0.25 0.53
Februar 𝑥 1.24 6.50 0.81 5.81 0.91 5.26 1.10 6.11 0.96 6.22
9.79 3.73 4.27 7.24 5.61
y 𝑠2 0.25 0.73 0.06 0.40 0.10 0.50 0.13 0.64 0.11 1.58
𝑥 1.00 5.72 0.71 5.75 1.00 5.54 1.22 6.70 0.87 6.10
March 5.60 2.84 5.42 9.76 4.52
𝑠2 0.18 0.54 0.09 0.48 0.29 1.21 0.13 0.68 0.13 1.15
𝑥 0.63 5.48 0.85 6.17 0.66 5.08 0.76 5.64 0.58 5.98
April 2.13 4.37 2.17 3.19 1.97
𝑠2 0.03 0.60 0.04 0.35 0.03 0.48 0.07 1.02 0.02 0.72
𝑥 0.57 5.97 0.55 6.01 0.50 4.95 0.33 4.81 - -
May 1.90 1.78 1.21 0.51 -
𝑠2 0.04 0.76 0.01 0.67 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.61 - -
𝑥 - - - - 0.38 5.30 - - - -
June - - 0.75 - -
𝑠2 - - - - 0.01 0.73 - - - -
𝑥 - - - - - - - - - -
July - - - - -
𝑠2 - - - - - - - - - -
𝑥 - - - - - - - - - -
August - - - - -
𝑠2 - - - - - - - -
Septem 𝑥 - - - - 0.32 5.11 - - - -
- - 0.51 - -
ber 𝑠2 - - - - 0.00 0.38 - - - -
Octobe 𝑥 0.55 5.99 0.66 6.26 0.71 6.40 0.89 5.72 0.77 6.08
1.77 2.67 3.16 4.44 3.53
r 𝑠2 0.01 0.70 0.06 0.59 0.17 1.11 0.11 0.54 0.05 0.48
Novem 𝑥 1.06 6.47 1.30 6.48 0.87 7.08 1.26 6.45 0.74 5.84
7.12 10.72 5.25 10.03 3.13
ber 𝑠2 0.24 0.89 0.38 0.74 0.08 0.50 0.19 0.53 0.03 0.46
Decem 1.44 6.90 1.39 6.14 1.29 6.94 1.64 7.23 1.26 6.20
𝑥
14.01 11.62 11.31 19.04 9.64
ber 0.27 0.38
𝑠2 0.14 0.27 0.18 0.36 0.29 0.87 0.18 0.39
RESULT – Temporal Variation (Annually)
Table 4.12: Mean monthly wave climate characteristics for 5 years at P4
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Statisti
Month 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃
cal 𝑃
s 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊 𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 𝑇𝑚 (𝑠) (𝑘𝑊
test (𝑘𝑊/𝑚)
/𝑚) /𝑚) /𝑚) /𝑚)
Januar 𝑥 1.00 6.51 1.03 6.60 0.88 6.16 1.06 6.87 0.83 6.22
2 6.37 6.86 4.67 7.56 4.20
y 𝑠 0.06 0.36 0.10 0.53 0.07 0.53 0.09 0.30 0.05 1.27
Februa 𝑥 0.82 6.27 0.54 5.69 0.65 5.25 0.73 5.94 0.64 6.03
2 4.13 1.62 2.17 3.10 2.42
ry 𝑠 0.11 0.55 0.03 0.34 0.04 0.36 0.06 0.52 0.05 1.27
𝑥 0.68 5.64 0.50 5.72 0.82 5.81 0.81 6.48 0.58 5.95
March 2 2.55 1.40 3.83 4.16 1.96
𝑠 0.08 0.40 0.04 0.39 0.11 0.75 0.06 0.51 0.06 0.97
𝑥 0.46 5.65 0.60 6.14 0.46 5.17 0.52 5.64 0.41 5.84
April 2 1.17 2.16 1.07 1.49 0.96
𝑠 0.01 0.58 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.39 0.03 0.74 0.01 0.65
𝑥 0.41 6.10 0.38 5.37 0.32 5.03 0.24 5.13 - -
May 1.00 0.76 0.50 0.29 -
𝑠2 0.02 1.03 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.21 - -
𝑥 - - - - 0.25 5.33 - - - -
June 2
- - 0.33 - -
𝑠 - - - - 0.00 0.28 - - - -
𝑥 - - - - - - - -
July 2
- - - - -
𝑠 - - - - - - - -
𝑥 - - - - - - - - - -
August 2
- - - - -
𝑠 - - - - - - - - - -
Septe 𝑥 - - - - 0.30 5.32 - - - -
- - 0.47 - -
mber 𝑠 2 - - - - 0.00 0.03 - - - -
Octob 𝑥 0.39 6.13 0.60 5.94 0.59 6.42 0.63 5.68 0.53 5.90
0.91 2.09 2.19 2.21 1.62
er 𝑠 2 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.50 0.10 1.15 0.04 0.39 0.02 0.47
Novem 𝑥 0.75 6.35 0.85 6.21 0.59 6.84 0.90 6.25 0.51 5.67
2 3.50 4.39 2.33 4.96 1.44
ber 𝑠 0.09 0.67 0.15 0.56 0.04 0.47 0.08 0.40 0.01 0.45
Decem 𝑥 0.95 6.63 0.93 5.94 0.85 6.68 1.09 6.92 0.88 5.96
2 5.86 5.03 2.73 8.05 4.52
ber 𝑠 0.06 0.20 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.27 0.12 0.65 0.08 0.32
RESULT – Different Sea States Corresponding to the Total Wave Power

Table 4.13: The frequencies occurrence of wave characteristics and total wave resource for offshore boundary input data in 2012.

𝑇𝑚 (𝑠)
𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 Total
TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO
0-0.5 27.56 28 12.82 9 2.46 2 1.75 1 44.58 40
0.5-1 130.28 57 522.92 179 350.92 101 96.38 29 39.68 7 1140.18 373
1-1.5 15.61 3 427.35 55 1160.24 114 151.32 12 87.17 8 105.87 6 1947.55 198
1.5-2 28.30 2 886.34 51 463.80 22 20.26 1 21.24 1 1419.94 77
2-2.5 158.12 5 723.80 20 41.43 1 923.34 26
2.5-3 153.93 3 153.93 3
Total 145.89 60 1006.12 264 2568.44 280 1591.68 88 190.30 18 127.10 7 5629.53 717

Table 4.14: The frequencies occurrence of wave characteristics and total wave resource at P2 point in 2012.
𝑇𝑚 (𝑠)
𝐻𝑠 (𝑚) 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 Total
TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO TP FO
0-0.5 33.38 34 24.73 18 9.02 6 1.44 1 68.57 59
0.5-1 119.11 52 525.23 179 350.15 103 84.53 24 17.50 4 1096.53 362
1-1.5 24.93 5 390.42 52 1253.39 127 219.30 17 80.17 8 104.56 7 2072.76 216
1.5-2 13.56 1 782.74 43 461.01 21 1257.31 65
2-2.5 28.98 1 365.39 10 33.12 1 427.48 12
2.5-3 156.59 3 156.59 3
Total 144.04 57 962.59 266 2439.98 292 1295.84 81 132.23 14 104.56 7 5079.25 717
 RESULT – Different Sea States Corresponding to the Total Wave Power

12000 3500

10000 3000
9651.65
Wave power (kW/m)

8000 2500
7871.84
6829.63
6263.78 2000
6000
5079.25
1500
4000 4088.31
3365.07
2894.19 2721.83 2466.88 1000 2008
2000
P1 2009
P2 500 2010
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 P3 2011
0
Year P4 2012
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 4.18: Total annual wave power for each point during 5-years Figure 4.19: Total monthly wave power for each point during 5-years
CONCLUSION
 The model does slightly overestimate wave period. The comparison showed
reasonable agreement in term of RMSE, 0.29 for the significant wave height and
RMSE, 2.06 for the mean wave period.

 A bulk of energy is concentrated in 𝐻𝑠 =1-1.5m and 𝑇𝑚 =6-7s energy bins which the
largest contribution correspond to less powerful sea states. Meanwhile, the most
energetic wave (𝑇𝑚 =6-9s, 𝐻𝑠 =2-2.5m) occurred at AWAC deployment point in
January 2012 where power produced for each individual wave event range from
28.98 kW/m to 33.12 kW/m. This scenario contributed to higher energy produced
by January and December compared to other months.

 The results of this investigation can be used for the identification of areas with high
wave power concentration for the location of WEC units. Hence this numerical
approach gives an easily understood way to enable single value of the wave resource
to be defined with respect to the directionality sensitivities of WEC to capture wave
power.
RECOMMENDATION
 High-resolution bathymetry – Data used at the specific area
 Investigation in shoreline area – Bathymetry of different sea bed slope- effect the
refraction in shoreline area.
 Include the effects of tidal level variability and current effect on wave propagation.
 The assessments of the wave resource carried out so far has the lowest average wave
power exposure compared to the European country.
 It still can be considered in exploitation since the wave power capture is vary depend
on particular devices.
 WEC units must be designed to generate power optimally during exposure to such
low power levels.
 In short, some modification on wave power device can be made.
THANK YOU