energies

Review
The Optimal Configuration of Wave Energy Conversions
Respective to the Nearshore Wave Energy Potential
Alireza Shadmani 1 , Mohammad Reza Nikoo 2, * , Riyadh I. Al-Raoush 3 , Nasrin Alamdari 4
and Amir H. Gandomi 5, *

1 Department of Maritime Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic),

Tehran P.O. Box 15875-4413, Iran
2 Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University,
Muscat 123, Oman
3 Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar
4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
5 Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney,
Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.R.N.); [email protected] (A.H.G.)

Abstract: Ocean energy is one potential renewable energy alternative to fossil fuels that has a more
significant power generation due to its better predictability and availability. In order to harness this
source, wave energy converters (WECs) have been devised and used over the past several years
to generate as much energy and power as is feasible. While it is possible to install these devices in
both nearshore and offshore areas, nearshore sites are more appropriate places since more severe
weather occurs offshore. Determining the optimal location might be challenging when dealing with
sites along the coast since they often have varying capacities for energy production. Constructing
wave farms requires determining the appropriate location for WECs, which may lead us to its correct
and optimum design. The WEC size, shape, and layout are factors that must be considered for
Citation: Shadmani, A.; Nikoo, M.R.; installing these devices. Therefore, this review aims to explain the methodologies, advancements,
Al-Raoush, R.I.; Alamdari, N.; and effective hydrodynamic parameters that may be used to discover the optimal configuration of
Gandomi, A.H. The Optimal WECs in nearshore locations using evolutionary algorithms (EAs).
Configuration of Wave Energy
Conversions Respective to the Keywords: wave energy; wave energy converters; optimal configuration; nearshore sites; evolutionary
Nearshore Wave Energy Potential. algorithms
Energies 2022, 15, 7734. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en15207734

Academic Editor: Valentina E. Balas

1. Introduction
Received: 29 September 2022
Accepted: 17 October 2022
The oil crisis of the 1970s sparked the current studies on wave energy harvesting,
Published: 19 October 2022
despite patents on this strategy from the late 18th century. The emphasis on producing
power from renewable sources is a significant field of study, especially with more attention
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
being paid to climate change and the increasing levels of CO2 . The total potential wave
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
power resource is estimated to be 2TW. According to the Renewable 2022 World Status
published maps and institutional affil-
Report [1], renewable energy sources account for 19.2% of the global energy consumption,
iations.
traditional biomass (8.9%), and solar and wind power (10.3%) following fossil fuel usage
(78.3%). The gap between the market for renewable energy and the consumption of fossil
fuels may soon be closed if we consider recent improvements in the renewable energy
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
sector. The global market for alternative energy sources increased from 85 GW in 2004 to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 560 GW in 2013 (excluding hydropower) [2–4]. With an increase from 48 to 318 GW, the
This article is an open access article wind industry took the lead in the sector. A number of variables, such as governmental
distributed under the terms and backing, financial incentives, and falling technological prices that made renewable energy
conditions of the Creative Commons affordable, contributed to the revolution in this renewable industry.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The capacity of the global ocean’s sources is immense, considering the wide range of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ available marine natural resources and massive sea surfaces. Waves, tidal and ocean cur-
4.0/). rents, ocean thermal energy, salinity gradients, marine biomass, and deep ocean geothermal

Energies 2022, 15, 7734. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207734 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 7734 2 of 29

energy are only a few potential energy sources in the ocean. Offshore wind is a practical
application of marine ecology. There are now 81 offshore wind farms in Europe with a
combined capacity of 12.6 GW, which are owned by 10 different European countries. In
2016, it was estimated that by 2020, the entire capacity would reach almost 24.6 GW [5–11].
The average sea depth for an offshore wind farm is 29 m (+12% from 2015), and the spacing
to the coast is 44 km. These current technology advancements are used to make this projec-
tion. Since 2000, the offshore wind energy industry has been steadily growing, resulting in
the construction of wind farms, turbines, and areas of coastline that are bigger and longer.
In 2015, investments in transmitting infrastructure and new wind farm projects amounted
to ~USD 18 billion [12].
With regard to maritime energy sources, wave power is still in its infancy. Specific
environmental conditions must be present for wave power to be produced. Total wave
energy is composed of potential energy, created as water is pushed up and down against
gravity, and kinetic energy, created when the water’s velocity changes. To utilize wave
energy, a structure must collect and harvest it effectively [13–15]. The structure must
also withstand the sea environment, especially during storms when the wave force rises
dramatically. A stationary generator with moving components (on the ocean floor or
coastline) transforms wave energy into mechanical energy [16]. In recent decades, floating
devices that can be used offshore have been introduced. The floating systems may be built
and aimed to benefit from both kinetic and potential energy, either alone or together.
There are two types of waves in the ocean, namely wind seas (locally produced waves)
and swells (waves generated by distant winds). Waves are produced by winds that can
travel long distances with a minimal loss; hence the wave energy industry might rival
offshore wind. Since swell waves often have a more constant energy density, they are
more significant to the wave energy converter (WEC) sector [17,18]. Only a tiny fraction of
the ocean’s wave power potential is properly collected at local “hotspots,” which refer to
the surrounding shores, islands, and semi-enclosed basins. Hotspots generally represent
the optimal trade-off between the wave energy potential and other factors, including
the distance from the shore, water depth, and initial investment expenses. The Pico
Island facility in Portugal and Islay plant in Scotland are only the two examples of recent
onshore and offshore developments. The Land Installed Marine Power Energy Transmitter
(LIMPET) plant was built and tested as part of the Islay project. This system, which
was installed in 2000 on an island off the west coast of Scotland, is made up of three
horizontally inclined concrete water columns. Two turbines in opposing wells, operating
at 700–1500 rpm, convert the vertical motion of the water into usable power [19–21]. The
Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) in Lisbon, oversaw the 400-kW Pico plant development
in the Azores between 1995 and 1998. However, several problems surfaced due to the
existing infrastructure and machinery. The project was revised in 2005, and by 2009, its
creators claimed it had run without interruption for 265 h. Most of these systems are still
in the prototype stage, and only a tiny fraction of generators has undergone extensive
testing in maritime environments. All aspects of the systems, including their ability to
generate electricity and adapt to unforeseen survival challenges, have been examined and
evaluated [12,22–24].
Given the current lack of significant wave farms, the industry’s outlook is growing as
new technologies become available. The European wave sector has the capacity to produce
188 GW by 2050, equivalent to 10% of the total European power demand. However, this
scenario is contingent on the introduction of a state-of-the-art wave generation system,
which is expected to occur between 2022 and 2040. The R&D of a current project has
sparked new ideas about how the price of wave technology might be lowered in the future.
Specifically, future wave technology developments may reduce the expenses of power take-
off (by 22%), installation (by 18%), operation and maintenance (by 17%), foundation and
mooring (by 6%), and grid connection (by 5%) [12,25,26]. Sharing infrastructure between
WECs and the preexisting offshore wind farms is an attractive possibility for cost savings.
In regions with a modest potential for wave energy, this might help speed up and expand
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 3 of 29

the wave industry. By the end of 2050, it is projected that 7% of the world’s electricity will
be produced by renewable energies, such as wave, wind, tidal, and solar power, to combat
the unsustainable use of fossil fuels and the environmental damage that results from their
excessive usage. Wave energy is a preferred alternative among these renewable energy
sources due to its high energy density and environmentally acceptable characteristics.

Related Works
The vast, mostly untapped renewable energy potential is the ocean waves, which
have received substantial attention in recent years. This type of energy can be harnessed
using wave energy converter (WEC) technology in both offshore and nearshore spots,
such as heaving buoys; however, the closer to the shore, the less energy is harnessed in
this type of technology. This type of device acts symmetrically along a particular axis
and brings forward the expectation of producing smaller energy, relying on the existence
of omnidirectional or total wave energy. In addition, the most exploitable wave energy
resource is created from the mean directionality resolved incident wave. Still, it is estimated
that the energy loss from offshore to nearshore sites is about 10–20%. However, these
nearshore positions reduced the installation and maintenance costs. [10,27].
The hypothetical capacity for wave energy was expected to hit 29.5 PWh/yr in 2010,
which is much greater than the total electric power use of the U.S. in 2008. Since this
significantly affects the growing ocean energy market industry, there is an immediate need
for a more effective design and management of ocean wave energy devices and farms in
light of the rising demand for renewable energy, expanding the capacity of the electricity
sector, and the immense potential of ocean waves. Due to the massive amount of the
grid-connected electricity output, WEC arrays, or farms will need to be built [28–30].
The climatic variables, such as the wave profile, wave orientation, sea states, global
layout, size, and shape of each device, significantly impact the array performance. The
optimal array layout has been extensively investigated since the early works of Budal
(1997) [31], Thomas and Evans (1981) [32], and Falnes (1980) [33], and is still an important
topic in array design. Both regular and irregular waves have undergone layout optimization
to determine the best arrangement for a given size array. Considering the complexity of the
hydrodynamic interaction [34], a global optimization approach is necessary to identify the
best configuration for generating a positive interaction. Child and Venugopal (2010) [35]
reformulated the layout optimization issue as a local optimization problem, similar to the
approach used by Fitzgerald and Thomas (2007) [36]. The Child’s parabolic intersection
approach is faster than the standard genetic algorithm (GA) but less precise. Instead of
employing precise hydrodynamics, Moarefdoost et al. (2017) [34] used Budal’s (1977) [31]
point absorber approximation to speed up the calculations.
Meanwhile, McGuinness and Thomas (2017) [37] optimized the arrangement while
considering the movement of the devices. Utilizing a modified evolutionary algorithm (EA),
Tay and Venugopal (2017) [38] determined the optimum distances between the oscillating
wave surge converter (OWSC) nodes. The optimal spacing was shown to be considerably
impacted by the scattering parameter. The best OWSC array design allowed the wave to
propagate across the array with little reflection. Bozzi et al. (2017) [39] simulated the WEC
arrays in the time domain, taking into account a variety of array configurations and wave
directions. The power take-off (PTO) force was determined using a three-phase electric
power model.
Most computing effort is typically invested towards modeling the correct hydrody-
namic interaction in array optimization problems. According to [40], the boundary element
method (BEM) is the most used numerical methodology for hydrodynamic modeling,
which allows the quantitative analysis of the motions of WECs of varying shapes and
sizes, while ultimately account for the wave interactions between entities. As shown by
Babarit’s research (2013) [41] on the park effect in WEC arrays, the BEM solvers provide
the most precise hydrodynamics at the cost of a little increase in calculation time. However,
the capacity to explore increasingly complicated configurations of arrays is constrained
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 4 of 29

by the analytical approximation, such as the point absorber approximation. So far, most
research on array layouts has been on the arrays of identical buoys, for which the analytical
approximation still provides a high degree of accuracy. Finding the best configuration for
a flap-type WEC array has also been performed using machine learning techniques, for
example, by Sarkar et al. (2016) [42].
It is essential to consider the size and shape of the WEC devices, in addition to the
spacing distances while planning the layout of the array. With arrays of two, three, and
four buoys and four different random arrangement geometries, Ringwood and Korde
(2016) [43] investigated the effect of the variable separation distance of each device. When
the proportion of control and separation was used, the q-factor increased by around 40%.
In a recent paper, Goteman (2017) [44] created an enlarged multiple scattering approach
that allows for varying device sizes while assuming a cylindrical device. Recently, in
2019, Esmaeilzadeh and Alam [45] performed the GA optimization of a single submerged
absorber plate, using the Fourier decomposition of plane geometry to parametrize the
contour of the planar.
Current research on WEC arrays solely addresses the array power development, which
is not conducive to real-life systems and prohibits their implementation by offshore energy
providers [34,46,47]. Furthermore, the costs associated with WEC arrays are not well known
at this early stage of development. Any WEC array optimization system must include
an updatable cost model that can be adjusted when new data becomes available and the
accuracy is improved.
Most studies on WEC array layouts include the impact of the individual devices on
their surroundings, a key takeaway from the wind energy sector. The WEC interactions
may boost an array’s energy production, which is in contrast to wind turbines, wherein the
surrounding devices can diminish the output power of the nearby turbines [48,49]. The
present array optimization effort is concentrated on increasing the interaction factor, q,
above 1 to show that the array’s power output is larger than the generated power of a similar
number of devices operating independently. Babarit [41,50,51] studied the interaction
between the single devices and arrays, discovering that although the beneficial interaction
factors are obtained in regular waves, this potential is constrained by the incorporation of
irregular waves. The capability for the destructive interaction between the components
in tight formations has also been investigated. According to Weller et al. (2010) [52],
the number of beneficial proximity-based interactions between devices decreases as the
significant wave height increases. As a consequence of the interaction between the devices,
the masking leads the triangular-shaped arrays to obtain a greater value of q, than the
squared-based forms, as stated by Borgarino et al. (2011) [51]. Goteman et al. (2015) [53]
considered that using an array with many devices is better than installing individual
devices. They found that arrays are essential for reducing the power output fluctuation
and that grouping the point absorber-type systems inside an array will help.
Wu et al. (2016) [54] enhanced their optimization of a submerged WEC with a three-
tether in array formation, using an EA and a covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary
algorithm (CMA-EA). The enhanced optimization for this device class and the operating
frequency was achieved via an interactive factor. Ruiz et al. (2017) [55] employed a CMA-
evolutionary strategy (ES) and a metamodel algorithm (MM) to evaluate the calculation
overhead and efficacy. Despite the MM’s fast convergence, it was determined to be inac-
curate. The MM could only be helpful as a first step before moving on to a more refined
approach. Optimizing a WEC array with varying device diameters and grid spacing was
also explored by Giassi et al. (2017) [56], who reported that modifying a device’s diameter
mainly impacts its cost, not its ability to generate electricity. However, the generated power
is quite sensitive to even small changes in mass.
As a further step toward optimizing energy production, a WEC’s layout should be
determined by the site where it will inevitably be installed. If you want a certain WEC
to function as efficiently as possible, you may tweak its design by changing its shape
or configuration. Therefore, the WECs should maximize their power output as much
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 5 of 29

as possible throughout the design process. Recently, structural optimization methods

have been used to improve ships’ seakeeping and reduce their dynamic reaction while at
rest. Numerous computational optimization approaches for designing offshore structure
hulls have been developed by Clauss (1996) [57] and Birk (2009) [58], who focused on
different types of structures, such as caisson and minimum-downtime semisubmersibles,
tension-leg platforms, and semisubmersibles supported by gravity bases. Elchahal et al.
(2007) [59] considered the structure’s density distribution when designing the optimal
interior geometry of the floating breakwaters and examined a case study of a breakwater
being built in a port located some distance from the water’s edge.
With the recent rise in the popularity of wave power, designers have sought to enhance
the efficiency of their constructions by refining parts or completely renovating the shapes of
their structures. For instance, Kramer and Frigaard [60] examined the direction and angle of
the wave reflectors on the wave dragon (WD) to enhance the absorbed wave energy. In order
to investigate the hydraulic modeling of a heaving WEC planned for the Belgian coast of the
North Sea, Vantorre et al. (2004) [61] analyzed several configurations. The buoy shape was
optimized by Alves et al. (2007) [62] for a WEC that operated largely in the heave motion,
using a submerged buoy and a surface-piercing buoy. The present research examines a
similar technique to the analysis, which sets a maximum stroke for the PTO mechanism to
preserve more power. The SEAREV WEC, a rotating point absorber, was designed using a
technique described by Ruellan et al. (2010) [63] in their article. The efficiency and power
production for several kinds of WECs were calculated by Babarit et al. (2012) [64], using
the scatter plot of data collected at various places. By optimizing the WEC design, McCabe
(2013) [65] employed a genetic algorithm to enhance the wave energy extraction of a WEC
that works in the surge motion. The program evaluates each shape in a wave climate for the
best design. Kurniawan and Maon (2012) [66,67] investigated the potential for optimizing
the geometric layout of both the submerged and the surface-penetrating wave absorbers
that oscillate around a single axis and have a very basic cross-section. Their study proposed
a multi-objective optimization approach to achieve the maximum power absorption.
This paper reviews past studies on optimizing the WEC systems, based on their
geometry, layout, PTO system, optimal location, and maximizing wave energy extraction.
Purposefully, the wave energy characteristics in nearshore spots and the WEC mechanism
are first surveyed in Section 2. The different wave energy conversions have been introduced
and demonstrated in recent studies, which were analyzed recently in various research
programs. The various PTO mechanisms of wave energy conversions are presented to
better understand the devices’ dynamics. Further, the hydrodynamic interaction between
the multiple devices is examined mathematically for the exact modeling of the layout
designs. Section 3 discusses the previously developed optimization algorithms developed,
as well as the advantage of some investigations. Section 4 summarizes the reviews, focusing
on the recent advancements in WEC design.

2. Wave Energy Resource and the WEC Mechanism

2.1. Wave Energy Characteristics
In recent years, renewable energy sources have been hailed for their potential to
lessen the environmental damage caused by the extraction of fossil fuels. In particular,
Glendenning (1977) [68] reported that wave energy is blossoming into a viable alternative
power source and should be taken into account, due to its greater energy density and
reliability than other sources. In order to make the most of this resource and to maximize
energy harvesting, it is important to thoroughly study the temporal and spatial wave
changes on the nearshore, as suggested by Neil and Hashemi (2013) [69]. Over the last
several years, many wave resource evaluations in various coastal regions across the globe
have been conducted using the established approaches, such as the numerical modeling of
the nearshore wave conditions [13,70–73].
WECs are designed to operate in certain wave climates, and the peculiarities of the
sea states also affect how much power they can produce [74,75]. Therefore, the differences
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 6 of 29

in the power range of WECs, based on the wave conditions should be evaluated along with
the available energy resource to select the best locations for a wave energy plant. However,
the majority of the analyses of wave energy resources are restricted to assessing the wave
energy resources in a specific coastal region and identifying the sites with the maximum
transformation [76,77]. In light of these considerations, the innovative approaches for the
wave energy evaluation must be created in order to pinpoint more precisely the locations
with the most significant potential for collecting wave energy.
The different hydrodynamic modeling methods, such as Delft3D-Wave [78], XBeach [79],
WaveWatch III [80], and the standalone Simulating WAve Nearshore (SWAN) [81–83], are
well-verified wind-wave models that may be used to analyze the wave energy resource
and identify the nearshore hotspots. The best locations for harvesting wave energy are
those where the wave energy is concentrated due to the combined effects of refraction and
shoaling. The model inputs include offshore wave characteristics collected at a wave buoy
and coastal bathymetry. The nearshore wave simulations using the SWAN model have
been performed for some time and are anticipated to improve further.
The Delft University of Technology developed the spectral model SWAN [83], based on
third-generation wind-wave modeling, which forecasts the wave characteristics in shallow
water. The wave action balancing equation is solved by SWAN using sources and sinks
as follows:
∂N ∂c g,x N ∂c g,y N ∂c N ∂cσ N Stot
+ + + θ + = (1)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂θ ∂σ σ
where N = N (σ, θ; x, y, t) denotes the action density; σ is the relative radian frequency; θ
is the wave direction; x and y are the space variables; t is the time; c g,x , c g,y , cθ and cσ are
the group velocities in the geographical space and in the spectral space (σ, θ ), respectively.
Stot = Stot (σ, θ; x, y, t) is the sum of the physical processes of the wave energy generation,
dissipation, and redistribution:

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW Stot = Sin + Snl3 + Snl4 + Sds,w + Sds,b + Sds, br 7 of 30 (2)

The parameters of Equation (2) are graphically illustrated in Figure 1.

Depth-
induced wave
breaking

Triad Quadruplet
wave-wave Wave-wave
interaction Interaction

Total wave
energy
source/sink

White
Wind
Capping

Bottom
friction

Figure
Figure 1. Source
1. Source terms
terms of wind-wave
of wind-wave models.
models.

2.2. Wave Energy Converter Types

The first WECs were installed in 1973 by Salter [84], who investigated the feasibility
of wave power.
The amount of literature in this area has grown exponentially since the turn of the
century. At present, there are at least six widely recognized categories of conversions, each
of which is based on a different combination of factors, including the installation site, the
PTO system type, the working regulations, whether the conversion is floating or sub-
 Energies 2022, 15, 7734 7 of 29

2.2. Wave Energy Converter Types

The first WECs were installed in 1973 by Salter [84], who investigated the feasibility of
wave power.
The amount of literature in this area has grown exponentially since the turn of the
century. At present, there are at least six widely recognized categories of conversions,
each of which is based on a different combination of factors, including the installation
site, the PTO system type, the working regulations, whether the conversion is floating or
submerged, and the number of degrees of freedom (DOFs) it possesses. These devices are
categorized into different types, such as floating, fully submerged, partly submerged, and
devices located on the sea floor. Six DOFs can be broken down into two sections. The first
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWcomponent includes the translational movement, such as heave, sway, and surge, while 8 of 30
the second part carries the rotational degrees, such as roll, pitch, and yaw DOFs. WECs
may be categorized based on the number of DOFs. The installation site for the conversions
is divided into three sections. First, the WECs erected near the coastline or linked to
The PAs
man-made with one-body
structures, interact with
such as breakwaters, the ocean
are referred to aswaves
onshoreusing a single
systems. Second,body
the that is
either floating
nearshore or submerged,
systems are positionedand500 the body’s
to 2000 motion
m from drives
the coast at aa depth
stationary PTO
of 10 to device to
25 m.
Around a the
generate quarter of wavelengths
energy. The body’s arenatural
presented in the nearshore
frequency areas. Eventually,
and response amplitudetheoperator
WEC technologies
(RAO), varypart
an essential fromof40the
to 100 m respective
dynamics, showsto the depth of the
a low-pass WEC installations,
behavior in the frequency
making adaptive conversions problematic due to the incoming waves [85]. The various
domain and significantly impacts the body’s geometrical structure. The two-body point
WEC type categories are briefly described below.
absorbers use two bodies’ relative motion and may operate offshore without requiring
mooring devices
2.2.1. Point since they do not need a fixed point of reference. The band-pass proper-
Absorbers
ties are
As aunique
kind of to thedevice,
WEC two-body PAs,absorbers
the point which allow
(PAs) the
haveband-pass
features andtoshapes
be tuned to specific
thinner
wave spectra [86]. The two-body PAs have more complicated geometric forms
than the incident wavelength. The point absorbers may function in heave, pitch, or multiple and need
more
DOFs,parameters to specify
can be installed their
onshore geometries
or offshore, thanact
and can the
asone-body PAs. Unlike
one- and two-bodies theon
based one-body
the number
PAs, which of bodies
work involved.filters,
as low-pass While the
the two-body
latter (two-body) are absolute
PAs function displacement
as band-pass filters, with
references
the about the
appropriate seabed or being
bandwidths offshore structures,
very sensitivethetomajority of the former
the geometric forms.(one-body)
are self-referenced. The standard shapes of one- and two-body PAs are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Common point absorbers.

Figure 2. Common point absorbers.

2.2.2. Oscillating Water Columns

An open structure with an open inlet is used in an oscillating water device to trap air
above the inner free surface and above the still water level. The trapped air is compressed
and released by the wave action in alternating cycles by opening a valve that directs the
airflow into a turbine connected to a power plant [87]. The oscillating wave columns
(OWCs) do not need an end-stop function since there is no oscillating linear motion pre-
sent in them. The two types of OWCs are floating and fixed, whereby the fixed OWCs are
connected to the breakwaters or the shore [88]. Figure 3 illustrates examples of these
 Energies 2022, 15, 7734 8 of 29

The PAs with one-body interact with the ocean waves using a single body that is either
floating or submerged, and the body’s motion drives a stationary PTO device to generate
the energy. The body’s natural frequency and response amplitude operator (RAO), an
essential part of the dynamics, shows a low-pass behavior in the frequency domain and
significantly impacts the body’s geometrical structure. The two-body point absorbers use
two bodies’ relative motion and may operate offshore without requiring mooring devices
since they do not need a fixed point of reference. The band-pass properties are unique to
the two-body PAs, which allow the band-pass to be tuned to specific wave spectra [86].
The two-body PAs have more complicated geometric forms and need more parameters to
specify their geometries than the one-body PAs. Unlike the one-body PAs, which work
as low-pass filters, the two-body PAs function as band-pass filters, with the appropriate
bandwidths being very sensitive to the geometric forms.

2.2.2. Oscillating Water Columns

An open structure with an open inlet is used in an oscillating water device to trap air
above the inner free surface and above the still water level. The trapped air is compressed
and released by the wave action in alternating cycles by opening a valve that directs the
airflow into a turbine connected to a power plant [87]. The oscillating wave columns
(OWCs) do not need an end-stop function since there is no oscillating linear motion present
in them. The two types of OWCs are floating and fixed, whereby the fixed OWCs are
connected to the breakwaters or the shore [88]. Figure 3 illustrates examples of these
OWCs. One significant benefit of fixed OWCs is that other functional needs, such as
EER REVIEW breakwaters [89], may split the costs for the infrastructure, resulting in a reduced levelized
9 of 30
cost of energy (LCoE). In addition, the testing conducted in open water on the permanently
installed OWCs proves their reliability and resilience in extreme weather and waves [24].

Figure 3. Fixed (left) and floating (right) OWC.

Figure 3. Fixed (left) and floating (right) OWC.
2.2.3. Attenuators
2.2.3. Attenuators Parallel to the direction of the waves, the attenuators are free-floating WEC devices
made up of a series of bodies linked by hinges, such that the motion of one body relative to
Parallel to the direction
another mayof theawaves,
power theinattenuators
PTO. As seen are free-floating
Figure 4, the Pelamis WEC
[90] is a prominent devices
example of
an attenuator-type WEC.
made up of a series of bodies linked by hinges, such that the motion of one body relative
to another may power a PTO. As seen in Figure 4, the Pelamis [90] is a prominent example
of an attenuator-type WEC.
 2.2.3. Attenuators
Parallel to the direction of the waves, the attenuators are free-floating WEC devices
made up of a series of bodies linked by hinges, such that the motion of one body relative
to2022,
Energies another
15, 7734may power a PTO. As seen in Figure 4, the Pelamis [90] is a prominent example
9 of 29

of an attenuator-type WEC.

Figure 4. Pelamis WEC.

Figure 4. Pelamis WEC.

2.2.4. Terminators
2.2.4. Terminators The overtopping technologies, the oscillating wave surge converters (OWSCs), and
The overtopping thetechnologies,
“duck-like” systemsthe are
oscillating
all examples wave surge converters
of terminators (OWSCs),
that are positioned and
perpendicular
to the wave direction. Flaps, flaps with vanes, cylinder
the “duck-like” systems are all examples of terminators that are positioned perpendicular C-cell shapes, and flaps with
arbitrary designs are all used in OWSCs to facilitate the interaction between the wave
to the wave direction. andFlaps, flaps with
the structure. The vanes, cylinder
most important C-cell
factors shapes,while
to consider and designing
flaps with arbi-
these forms
trary designs are all usedare thein OWSCs
flap size andto facilitate
depth to which the interaction
they are submerged.between
There isthe wave
some andbetween
overlap the
the categories
structure. The most important of the PA
factors to and OWSC.while
consider However, in this context,
designing thesethe cylindrical
forms are thedevices
flapare
considered OWSCs since their working principle and optimization strategy are similar to
size and depth to which they are submerged. There is some overlap between the catego-
those of other OWSCs. The overtopping devices, such as the WD and the sea slot-cone
ries2022,
Energies of 15,
thex FOR
PAPEER
andREVIEW
OWSC. However,
generator in this in
(SSG), as depicted context,
Figure 5,the
relycylindrical
on the angle, devices
freeboardareand considered
10 of 30
draught, and the
OWSCs since their working ramp shapeprinciple
to function and optimization
at their best [91–93]. strategy are similar to those of
other OWSCs. The overtopping devices, such as the WD and the sea slot-cone generator
(SSG), as depicted in Figure 5, rely on the angle, freeboard and draught, and the ramp
shape to function at their best [91–93].

Figure5.
Figure 5. Terminator
Terminator types
types of
of WECs.
WECs.

2.3.
2.3. Power
Power Take-Off
Take-Off Mechanism
Mechanism
The
The mechanism that transforms
mechanism transforms thethe electrical
electricalenergy
energygenerated
generatedby bythe
theprimary
primarycon- con-
version is known
version is known as the PTO. The direct conversion may be seen in a PA buoy or a
direct conversion may be seen in a PA buoy or a water water
column
column resonator
resonator chamber. The efficiency
efficiency with
withwhich
whichthe
theabsorbed
absorbedwave
wavepower
powerisistrans-
trans-
formed
formedinto
into electricity
electricity is directly related to
to the
thePTO
PTOsystem’s
system’sinfluence
influenceon
onthe
thewave
waveenergy
energy
converter’s
converter’s mass, dimensions, and structural
structural dynamics.
dynamics.
The PTO system has a direct effect on the LCoE [94] since it affects the efficiency with
which the wave energy is converted. The PTO system directly influences the effectiveness
of the power conversion and, hence, the annual energy generation. The capital cost of a
device is directly affected by the PTO system, which accounts for around 20%–30% of the
total cost [95]. How well the PTO system functions determines on how much it costs to
run and maintain, as well as how much energy it produces. Figure 6 displays a schematic
of the PTO’s impact on the LCoE [96]. The PTO variables were studied by the Danish
formed into electricity is directly related to the PTO system’s influence on the wave energy
converter’s mass, dimensions, and structural dynamics.
The PTO system has a direct effect on the LCoE [94] since it affects the efficiency with
which the15,wave
Energies 2022, 7734 energy is converted. The PTO system directly influences the effectiveness 10 of 29

of the power conversion and, hence, the annual energy generation. The capital cost of a
device is directly affected by the PTO system, which accounts for around 20%–30% of the
The PTO system has a direct effect on the LCoE [94] since it affects the efficiency with
total cost [95]. How well thethePTO
which wavesystem functions
energy is converted. Thedetermines on how
PTO system directly much
influences theit costs to
effectiveness
run and maintain, as well of the
aspower
howconversion
much energyand, hence, the annual energy
it produces. Figure generation.
6 displays The capital cost of a
a schematic
device is directly affected by the PTO system, which accounts for around 20–30% of the
of the PTO’s impact ontotal thecostLCoE [96].
[95]. How The
well PTOsystem
the PTO variables were
functions studied
determines by much
on how the Danish
it costs to
organization Partnership runfor
and Wave
maintain,Energy
as well asto determine
how much energy the impactsFigure
it produces. of improvements
6 displays a schematic in
the PTO efficiency and of thethePTO
PTO’sframework
impact on the cost
LCoEreduction
[96]. The PTOonvariables were studied by the Danish
the LCoE.
organization Partnership for Wave Energy to determine the impacts of improvements in
the PTO efficiency and the PTO framework cost reduction on the LCoE.

• Operation Cost
• Insurance
• Maintenance
• Annual Energy
Wave Energy Production
Levelized Cost of • Wave-to-Wire Efficiency
• Availability
Energy (LCoE) • Capital Cost
• Device Cost
• Production
• Intallation

Figure 6. Parameters defining the LCoE for the WECs.

Figure 6. Parameters defining the LCoE for the WECs.
A decrease in the LCoE is associated with both an efficiency improvement and the PTO
cost reduction. Although a boost in the PTO performance has a more noticeable impact on
A decrease in the the
LCoELCoE, isboth
associated with both
variables significantly an efficiency
impact improvement
the LCoE, indicating andofthe
the importance the
PTO system in a wave energy conversion.
PTO cost reduction. Although a boost in the PTO performance has a more noticeable im-
However, creating a cost-effective PTO framework is not a simple undertaking. The
pact on the LCoE, both energy
variables significantly
resource’s impact the
inherent characteristics LCoE,
provide indicating
the most significant the importance
obstacle, specifically
of the PTO system in a wave energy conversion.
referring to the high variability observed in ocean energy. The surface elevation of the
waves fluctuates erratically over time and may quickly cause a body to experience large
amplitude displacements, accelerations, and forces. Other times, waves exhibit small-
amplitude forces, accelerations, and displacements. Different dynamic load patterns may
be seen in these two extreme regimes, large and small-amplitudes, and the PTO system
should operate as effectively as feasible. Because of their location and/or unfavorable
weather conditions, the WECs are put in a highly hostile environment with a high wear
rate. The PTO system should be as durable, dependable, and low maintenance as the rest of
the equipment. Figure 7. depicts different ways of producing electricity from ocean waves.
 terns may be seen in these two extreme regimes, large and small-amplitudes, and th
system should operate as effectively as feasible. Because of their location and/or un
able weather conditions, the WECs are put in a highly hostile environment with
wear rate. The PTO system should be as durable, dependable, and low maintena
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 the rest of the equipment. Figure 7. depicts different ways of producing electricit
11 of 29

ocean waves.

Figure 7. Transforming wave energy into electrical power by different means, reprinted from Pecher
Figure 7. Transforming wave energy into electrical power by different means, reprinted from
and Kofoed [97].
and Kofoed [97].
A variety of PTO setups have been proposed in other studies, highlighting their
diversity. Many different
A variety of PTOtypes of wave
setups haveenergy
beenconversion
proposeduse indifferent PTOs. Since
other studies, there
highlighting th
is a lack of data and only two kinds of systems may be tied to one specific device, it is
versity. Many different types of wave energy conversion use different PTOs. Sinc
challenging to systematically compare the many PTO types. The five primary subcategories
isofaPTOlack of data
systems andaironly
include twohydraulic
turbines, kinds of systemshydro
converters, mayturbines,
be tieddirect
to one specific devi
mechanical
challenging
drive systems,to and systematically
direct electrical compare the many PTO types. The five primary sub
drive systems.
The WEC lacks an industrial standard
ries of PTO systems include air turbines, hydraulic device, unlike theconverters,
wind energyhydro
industry, and
turbines, dir
this variation is carried to the PTO system. Numerous
chanical drive systems, and direct electrical drive systems. PTO system types have been studied,
including vigorously the kind of WEC. An air turbine is used in the oscillating water
The WEC lacks an industrial standard device, unlike the wind energy indust
column device, which is connected to an electrical generator. In contrast, the PA form
this variation
of conversion may is carried to the conversion
need cascaded PTO system. Numerous
mechanisms PTOutilize
and may system types
various PTO have bee
ied, including
systems depending vigorously the kind ofDue
on their arrangement. WEC. Anvariation,
to this air turbine
PTOissystems
used inarethe
stilloscillating
in
column device, which is connected to an electrical generator. In contrast, itthe PA f
the research phase and have minimal practical experience with large-scale devices. Since
is challenging to evaluate PTO systems at a small scale because of friction, it is possible to
conversion may need cascaded conversion mechanisms and may utilize various PT
try them out at a grander scale with higher expenses.
tems depending on their arrangement. Due to this variation, PTO systems are stil
2.4. Hydrodynamic
research phase and Interaction
have Definition
minimal practical experience with large-scale devices. Sin
Choosingtoa technique
challenging evaluate for assessing
PTO systemsa WEC
at a and resolving
small the hydrodynamic
scale because inter-
of friction, it is pos
actions is difficult when surveying wave energy
try them out at a grander scale with higher expenses.conversion projects. Additionally, it is
helpful to comprehend the acting interactions and the applied forces. The most current
research on numerical approaches to model a WEC is covered in this section, followed by
2.4. Hydrodynamic
the difficulties Interaction
with the interactionDefinition
and its parameter.
Most wave energy
Choosing conversion
a technique forarray projectsa need
assessing WECtheand simulation of anthe
resolving isolated WEC.
hydrodynamic i
The WEC may be simulated using various methods, each with a unique simulation duration
tions is difficult when surveying wave energy conversion projects. Additionally, it
and quality. Some modeling methodologies, based on the potential flow (PF) are presented
ful to comprehend
in order of a decreasingthe actingduration,
simulation interactions
which and
can bethe applied
divided forces.
into four The
distinct most curr
types:
search on numerical
frequency-domain approaches
linearized to model
PF, time-domain a WEC
linearized PF,issemi-analytical
covered in this section, follow
approaches,
and nonlinear PF.
the difficulties with the interaction and its parameter.
Most
Mostresearch uses the first
wave energy method, the
conversion frequency-domain
array projects need linearized PF, with WAMIT,
the simulation of an isolated
NEMOH, and ANSYS AQWA as the most often used solvers. Researchers continue to utilize
The WEC may be simulated using various methods, each with a unique sim
the linearized approach primarily for the relatively small arrays, despite its shortcomings
since it quickly produces valuable findings. Several studies utilized the semi-analytical
method. The direct matrix technique [98], the multiple body radiation and diffraction [99],
multiple scattering (either iterative or non-iterative) [100], and the WEC-MS [101] are
some of the most often used solvers in modern programs. The PF is linearized in both the
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 12 of 29

frequency and time domains; although the latter may include transient effects and nonlinear
external influences, the former cannot contain the transient impact. All nonlinear forces,
such as the viscous drag, the flow separation, and the vortex shedding, are accounted for
in this model through a nonlinear potential flow.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), a subfield of fluid dynamics that deals with the
numerical study of fluid flows, is capable of addressing the formidable challenges. The
direct numerical simulation (DNS), the large eddy simulation (LES), Reynolds average
Navier–Stokes (RANS), and the hybrid RANS/LES are the most accurate techniques for
solving the Navier–Stokes equations (NSEs).
Several aspects must be considered to determine the best approach reported in the
literature. First, the flow must be classified as turbulent or laminar. Second, a flow might
be regarded as incompressible, irrotational, or inviscid to simplify the process of solving
equations. For instance, linearized a PF considers all three types.
In terms of BEM solvers, WAMIT is one of the several programs available for under-
standing how offshore structures and waves interact. One benefit of this program is using
the high-order boundary element method (HOBEM) to accelerate computing [38]. The
NEMOH solver package, on the basis of the BEM, has merit for the diffraction issue since
the package is simple to use and can readily handle a user-defined distribution of normal
velocities at the center of each mesh panel. ANSYS AQWA applies the three dimensions
radiation/diffraction theory to simulate the global loading and motion. The PF-based mod-
els have been widely used in offshore investigations, and these techniques may provide
unrealistic simulations in the event of wave resonance because they neglect the viscosity
effects. Additionally, the viscous and turbulent effects can only be considered using the
CFD-based approaches, which also suffer from high costs for the sector.
Calculating the applied forces on each WEC is the consequence of selecting a method
to simulate and solve the hydrodynamic coefficients. All forces operating on a WEC device
may be computed, for example, when the hydrodynamic coefficients, such as the additional
mass and the damping coefficients are solved in the PF solvers. Per Newton’s second law,
several forces are involved in resolving the equation of motion, which states that a body’s
mass times its rate of acceleration, equals the active forces [102].
The interaction between the buoys must be taken into account when placing more
than one in the chosen marine area. In certain circumstances, the decrease or increase in
the total of each individual conversion power relative to the array power may be directly
attributed to the interaction between devices. Budal [31] initially used the “hydrodynamic
interaction” term in 1976 to describe the ratio of the total power production by the WEC
array and a single WEC.
Pa
q= (3)
N ∗ Pi
where N represents the number of conversions; Pi is the single WEC power; and Pa is the
power of the WEC array.
Numerous studies on relative equations and interaction optimization have been con-
ducted recently. Not all articles discussing the estimate of interaction applied a conventional
equation, such as Borgarino [51], who used the qmod , which excludes the physical size and
shape notions as follows:
P (ω ) − Po (ω )
qmod (ω ) = i (4)
maxω ( Pi (ω ))
where Po and Pi are the power produced by the individual WEC and the i-th WEC in the
array, respectively.
Other studies then attempted to propose a novel method or analytical strategy to
assess the efficacy of interactions. For instance, an extracted connection, based on the
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 13 of 29

previous q-factor is provided by Sun [103]. To study the possible interaction effects, the
researchers took into account various distances and wave periods, as follows:

Pc,array − Narray Pc,isolated

q= +1 (5)
Narray max[ Pc,isolated ]

where the maximum of Pc,isolated is the highest absorbed power by an individual WEC. The
exact definition of the q-factor, as in Equation (5), applies here; if q is greater than 1, then
the constructive interaction occurs. Using this approach, the layout’s efficiency may be
calculated by looking at the hydrodynamic properties.
Researchers also examined the optimum configuration for increasing the q-factor
in order to take advantage of the positive interaction and its relative advantages. The
array will operate more effectively and absorb more energy by interacting positively.
Consequently, several investigators aimed to obtain the greatest q-factor while discussing
the WEC findings in an array.

3. Recent Advances in Optimizing the WEC Configuration

This section summarizes the optimization strategies by examining the evolution of the
WECs’ array arrangement, structural shape and size, and the PTO systems.
To find the best multiple optimal solutions from all possible solutions, the meta-
heuristic optimization techniques are often used to tackle multi-objective optimization
issues. These strategies evaluate the potential options, go through a series of steps to
generate several offspring, and then attempt to converge on the most promising answers.
Many practical engineering optimization problems have been solved by different meta-
heuristic methods developed during the last few decades [104]. Based on earlier studies, we
have categorized the meta-heuristics into three groups: genetic algorithms, multi-objective
algorithms, and many-objective algorithms. Many algorithms incorporate principles from
multiple classes, which are termed hybrid techniques [104]. In addition, one study per-
formed comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy of the optimization techniques, which
may be useful in pointing the end-users toward an optimization strategy most suited to
their specific circumstances [105].
Several optimization strategies have been suggested to enhance the WECs’ energy
extraction potential, as shown by the abundance of the optimization techniques and their
implementations in the linked studies. The optimal optimization strategies depend heavily
on the nature of the issue, the relative importance of the primary decision criteria, and
the objective function design. In addition, we will cover the arrangement of the array, the
structural shape and size, and the PTO systems optimization in each classification.

3.1. Optimization Approaches

Converging to the best solution directly in most actual engineering issues is difficult.
Yet, putting up a loss function that gauge’s the solution quality and decreases its parameters
to discover the best possible solution is not easy. Some of the research initiatives explore
numerical approaches. This section thoroughly discusses several optimization methods
applied in the WEC systematic design.
Noad and Porter [106] used a multi-dimensional numerical optimization to assess
the solution method’s correctness and to determine the appropriate device settings for
the array optimization. The design of the WEC arrays was described by Ruiz et al. [55],
using four parameters, as well as looking at the GA, the glowworm swarm optimization
(GSO), and the CMA-ES. In contrast to the GA and GSO, the CMA requires less processing
power, as found by the researchers. Raju [107] employed the Nelder–Mead (NM) search
method to determine the best PTO parameters for each WEC and the derivative-free
continuous optimization, the CMA-ES, to enhance the conversion location by minimizing
the negative interactions.
Thomas et al. [108] presented a shallow artificial neural network (ANN) to find the
ideal latching times in irregular wave situations. According to the results, for particular
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 14 of 29

sea conditions, the learnable WEC absorbs twice as much power as the WEC without
latching and 30% more power when compared to the test wave’s best consistent latching
time. Complex PTO control methods, such as the latching-declutching optimization,
aim to improve the overall system performance. Due to the discontinuous nature of
the loss function in this optimization issue, Feng and Kerrigan [109] opted to adopt a
novel derivative-free coordinate-search approach, developing a formulation based on
historical wave data and forecasting future wave behavior. To demonstrate the algorithm’s
effectiveness, it was compared to the simulated annealing (SA) algorithm, a global meta-
heuristic technique without derivatives.
The bio-inspired algorithms use simple, naturally derived techniques to address
complicated issues. Since many biological processes may be considered a local optimization,
these techniques imitate nature. They fall under the scope of randomized algorithms and
extensively use arbitrary choices. This method has gained much popularity because it can
be used to tackle complicated issues in all major branches of computer science and offers
solutions to a wide variety of issues. Bio-inspired algorithms have been divided into many
categories, including ecology-based, multi-objective, many-objective, and EAs. Here, we
discuss three types: genetic, multi-objective, and many-objective algorithms.

3.1.1. Genetic Algorithm

In the search space, the genetic algorithms look for appropriate solutions. These
algorithms typically follow three steps. First, they perform some preliminary work on the
samples. Once they have transformed the original samples into new ones, the goal function
is established by selecting the old and new ones, and the computation is terminated, based
on the termination criteria. The preliminary concepts of optimization are presented to
provide an overview of employing EAs in a WEC [35], which these notions discover the best
array configurations using the parabolic intersection (PI) and GA approaches. The PI was
found to be substantially more computationally effective even though the GA performed
better in terms of performance. Moarefdoost et al. [34] conducted similar research and
suggested a heuristic optimization approach to locate a layout with the highest possible
q-factor. This algorithm outperformed the modified GA in terms of performance—the
argumentative articles on the GA below present the related research endeavors.
The individual WEC dimensions and the array configuration of the cylindrical buoys
in the WECs were optimized using the GA by Lyu et al. [110]. Abdelkhalik and Darani [111]
proposed a hidden genes GA (HGGA) for the nonlinear management of the WECs and
to maximize the system non-linearities brought about by the shape, significant buoy
movements, and the PTO. The results show that the shaped-based technique employed in
this research may encompass all of the wave data for the process optimization and has a
satisfactory convergence rate. Goteman et al. [44] presented a tool for optimizing the key
parameters using the GA, including the draft value and radius of a single point-absorbing
WEC. This technique improved the arrays of 4 to 14 comparable point-absorber WECs.
Giassi et al. [112] developed and implemented a methodology for the non-homogeneous
arrays of WECs, in which the interaction factor was an extra objective function that Sharp
and DuPont [113] offered in their GA technique. Their study focused on the impacts of
spacing while reducing the harmful interactions to increase power.
Liu et al. [114] used nine random design parameters as the starting point for their
OWSC investigation, and DualSPHysics to simulate them. Following the training of a
radial basis function neural network (RBFNN), the capture factors were acquired, and these
parameters were then adjusted using the GA. Even if there is a lot of interest in using the
GA, many researchers have been studying and applying various optimization techniques
over the last ten years. For instance, Wu et al. [54] reported optimizing a three-tether
submerged buoy array by combining two EAs, including (1+1)-EA and CMA-ES, which
proved successful. A solution was converged using (1+1)-EA and then fine-tuned using the
CMA-ES. In spite of employing a wave model, it was neither realistic nor very advanced.
In one of the earliest studies, Powell [115] developed a constrained optimization technique
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 15 of 29

using the linear approximation (COBYLA) as a numerical optimization method for the
constrained problems where the derivative of the objective function is unknown.

3.1.2. Evolutionary Multi-and Many-Objective Algorithms

As a general rule, when there are more than two objectives at play, there is not just one
best solution but rather a collection of them (often referred to as Pareto-optimal solutions).
One of these Pareto-optimal solutions cannot be chosen over the other without further data;
therefore, finding as many Pareto-optimal solutions as possible is necessary. The traditional
optimization techniques (such as the multi-criterion decision-making techniques) advocate
focusing on a single Pareto-optimal solution inside a multi-objective optimization problem.
To obtain a variety of answers, this technique must be carried out repeatedly, with the
expectation that each simulation run would provide an exceptional result.
There have been several proposals for many-objective optimization algorithms
(MOEAs) [116–119] throughout the last decade to facilitate the optimization of multiple ob-
jectives simultaneously. This is driven by the motivation to uncover several Pareto-optimal
solutions in a single simulation run as a capability of these methods. Since EAs operate
on a population of solutions, a basic EA may be modified to preserve a wide variety of
options. An EA may uncover numerous Pareto-optimal solutions in a single simulation run,
focusing on progressing toward the genuine Pareto-optimal area. One of the first examples
of such EAs is the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) described in [117].
The adaptability and robust global searchability of the swarm intelligence (SI) al-
gorithms make them a powerful tool in many contexts. Specifically, the particle swarm
optimization (PSO) is one of these well-known methods, which uses a particle’s motion
in a population to obtain the best local and global solutions. A prior study optimized the
key WEC parameters using a GA, PSO, and hybrid GA/PSO (HGA-PSO) technique [120].
Faraggiana et al. [121] contrasted the capabilities of the GA and PSO in their study on
the minimal LCoE development of WaveSub WECs. Both algorithms performed almost
identically, as seen by the results.
The particle swarm optimization (PSO) and other bio-inspired optimization methods
have been used in a remarkable number of real-world applications that have been docu-
mented in the literature. In order to generate a wide variety of WEC designs and account
for other elements that might affect costs, Garcia-Teruel et al. (2020) [122] studied the hull
geometry optimization of WECs, based on flexible geometry specifications, such as basic
shapes or B-spline surfaces. Using the PSO and GA, they looked for effective optimization
strategies for the WEC geometry design.
A novel method for incorporating wave energy into the grid via an effective control
system for maximum power was presented by Talaat et al. (2021) [123]. The whale
optimization algorithm (WOA), the artificial immune system (AIS), the bat algorithm (BA),
and the PSO were the four meta-heuristic optimization approaches used in this study. These
techniques are implemented so that the best possible parameter design may be obtained
depending on the electrical power of the wave’s output. To investigate the true generating
potential of this WEC system, Mahdy et al. (2022) [124] developed a nonlinear model of a
grid-connected Archimedes wave swing (AWS). Six proportional-integral (PI) controllers
maximize the wave energy harvesting, minimize the power losses in the generator, and
preserve the grid and the DC connection voltages steady at the setpoints. In addition to
using the PSO and COOT as references for comparison, they use a hybrid augmented grey
wolf optimizer and cuckoo search (AGWO-CS) method to choose the PI controller.
Moreover, Neshat et al. (2021) [125] optimized a multi-mode WEC design using an
enhanced moth flame optimization (MFO) technique. They examined and evaluated the
efficacy of the bio-inspired swarm-evolutionary optimization methods for adjusting the
WEC’s shape, tether angles, and PTO settings. Compared to other algorithms, such as
the PSO, GWO, WOA, and CMA-ES, they determined that the enhanced MFO algorithms
performed the best. Neshat et al. (2022) [126] conducted an additional study on the WEC
layout optimization using a unique multi-swarm cooperative method with a backtracking
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 16 of 29

technique. The suggested method by these researchers is oriented toward resolving the
challenges associated with optimizing the placement of WECs in a wave farm. This
new method uses a trio of meta-heuristics algorithms: the multiverse optimizer (MVO)
methodology, the equilibrium optimization (EO) method, and the MFO approach with a
backtracking strategy.
On top of that, Huang et al. (2021) [127] looked at the PA-type WEC to see if they
could obtain the most power out of it. In order to identify the optimal values for the wave
characteristics and the WEC system-related parameters RPTO and XPTO, a novel global
power point tracking (MPPT) control technique, built on the PSO algorithms is used. They
also compared their findings using the flower pollination algorithm (FPA).

3.2. Layout-PTO-Geometry Optimization

Numerous studies investigated the prospect of enhancing the array’s capacity to
absorb energy by considering various designs. Such arrangements may result in a 30% re-
duction in the array or even a growth of around 5%. Over the last decade, many researchers
have examined the uncomplicated regular, and unpredictable patterns and found that the
optimized patterns may be a solid option to impact extracting power positively.
A number of variables influence the placement of buoys in an array, which could be
beneficial or destructive depending on the project’s ultimate objective. In particular, the
closer WECs are to one another, the greater the adverse effects when less expensive cabling
is used. The six most important elements in designing an array are discussed as follows.
First, the number of WECs profoundly affects the overall design, whereby more than four
transformations are needed for the polygonal and circular designs. Second, the array’s
behavior may shift if each conversion is handled separately. Therefore, the power absorbed
by an array would be the same as the power of the isolated powers, and the interaction
effects of the array may even be negligible. Third, the power absorption characteristic is
very sensitive to sea conditions. As a result, the wave interaction effects are applicable, and
a lot of energy is consumed when the natural period of the system is similar to the wave
period. In the case of regular waves, the wave’s direction and frequency also directly affect
the excitation force. The interaction factor is susceptible to the strength of the excitation
force used on the device. Fourth, the direction of the waves may have a significant role in
determining the design. This may be tested in two ways: theoretically by rotating the array
pattern or experimentally by employing different definitions at different points in the study.
Despite the fact that most publications solely take into account unidirectional waves, the
correlation of multidirectional waves also needs consideration. Fifth, the amount of energy
harvested from each WEC is affected by its individual size. Finally, it is essential to consider
how waves interact with the buoys when placing them to minimize the detrimental effects.
Table 1 presents the examples of the most recent literature that meet the requirements
for selecting the optimal design of a WEC array, as part of their configurations, numbers of
WECs, and types of conversion.

Table 1. Summary of the recent publications on the WEC array optimization.

WEC Type
Author(s)–Year WEC No. Objective Algorithm Ref.
PA OWC Attenuator Terminator Function

Deandres (2014) X 2, 3, 4 q-factor GA + Parabolic [128]

Intersection
Baltisky (2014) X 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Mean AEP Global Control [129]

Noad et al. (2015) X 3, 5 Absorbed power Multi-Dimensional [106]

Optimization
Blanco et al. (2015) X 2 Maximize power EA [130]
Sharp & DuPont (2016) X 5 Power and cost GA [131]
 Table 1 presents the examples of the most recent literature that meet the requirements
for selecting the optimal design of a WEC array, as part of their configurations, numbers
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 of WECs, and types of conversion. 17 of 29

Table 1. Summary of the recent publications on the WEC array optimization.

Table 1.
WECCont.type
Author(s)–Year WEC No. Objective Function Algorithm Ref.
PA OWC Attenuator Terminator
WEC Type
Deandres (2014)
Author(s)–Year  2,
WEC3, 4No. q-factor
Objective GA + Parabolic
AlgorithmIntersectionRef.[128]
PA OWC Attenuator Terminator Function
Baltisky (2014)  2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Mean AEP Global Control [129]
Wu et al. (2016) X 25, 50, 100 Computational cost Multi-Dimensional
EA and CMA-ESOptimiza- [54]
Noad et al. (2015)  3, 5 Absorbed power [106]
Sarkar et al. (2016) X 40 Maximize power tionCarlo
GA and Monte [42]
Blanco et al. (2015)
Ruiz et al. (2017)
 X
2>10 Maximize power
Maximize power
EA
CMA-ES, GA, GSO
[130]
[55]
Sharp & DuPont (2016)  5 Power and cost GA [131]
Ferri (2017) X >50 Computational cost CMA-ES + MM [132]
Wu et al. (2016)  25, 50, 100 Computational cost EA and CMA-ES [54]
Giassi et al. (2017)
Sarkar et al. (2016) X  9, 12
40 Maximize power
Maximize power GA and Monte Carlo [112][42]
GA
Blanco
Ruiz etet al.
al. (2018)
(2017)  X >102 Maximize
Maximize power
power CMA-ES,EA GA, GSO [119][55]
Ferri
Sharp and (2017)(2018)
DuPont  X >505 Computational cost
Power and cost CMA-ES
GA + MM [132]
[113]
Giassi et al. (2017)  9, 12 Maximize power GA
GA + Multiple [112]
Giassi et al. (2018) X 4–14 Maximize power [56]
Blanco et al. (2018)  2 Maximize power Scattering
EA [119]
Sharp andetDuPont
Fang al. (2018)(2018) X  3,5 5, 8 Power and cost
Maximize power EAGA [113]
[133]
Giassi et al. (2018)  4–14 Maximize power GA Meta-Heuristic
+ Multiple Scattering [56]
Neshat et al. (2018) X 4 Maximize power [134]
Fang et al. (2018)  3, 5, 8 Maximize power Algorithm
EA [133]
Neshat
Lyu et et
al. al. (2018)
(2019) 
X 3,4 5, 7 Maximize
Optimalpower
control Meta-Heuristic
GA Algorithm [110]
[134]
Lyu et al. (2019)
Vatchavayi (2019) 
X 3, 5,4–97 Optimal control
Maximize power GA
CMA-ES [110]
[107]
Vatchavayi (2019)  4–9 Maximize power CMA-ES [107]
Neural Optimization +
Neshat et al. (2019) X 16 Maximize power Neural Optimization + Analyti- [135]
Analytical
Neshat et al. (2019)  16 Maximize power [135]
Faraggiana et al. (2019) X 1–3 Minimize LCoE PSO and cal
GA [121]
Faraggiana et al. (2019)  1–3 Minimize LCoE PSO and GA [121]
Neshat et al. (2020) X 49, 100 Maximize power Multi-Strategy EAs [136]
Neshat et al. (2020)  49, 100 Maximize power Multi-Strategy EAs [136]
Neshat et al. (2020) X 4, 16 Maximize power Cooperative EAs [137]
Neshat et al. (2020)  4, 16 Maximize power Cooperative EAs [137]
Bosma et
Bosma etal.
al.(2020)
(2020) X 55 Average
Average power
power - - [138]
[138]

In order
In order to
to avoid
avoid the
the shadowing
shadowing andand masking
masking effects,
effects, the
the WEC
WEC does
does not
not have
have to
to be
be
arranged parallel to the wave direction. Two of these configurations are perpendicular
arranged parallel to the wave direction. Two of these configurations are perpendicular to to
the wave’s
the wave’s movement,
movement,namely
namelythe
thelinear
linearand
andarrow
arrowpatterns.
patterns.Figure
Figure 8 illustrates
8 illustrates thethe lay-
layout
out of the array configuration for the different WEC types and the device numbers,
of the array configuration for the different WEC types and the device numbers, based on based
on recent
recent studies.
studies.

Figure 8. Cont.
 Energies2022,
Energies 15,x7734
2022,15, FOR PEER REVIEW 1818ofof30
29

(a)

(b) (c)
Figure
Figure8.8. Different
Differentoptimized
optimizedlayouts
layoutswith
withvarious
variousnumbers
numbersof ofWECs
WECsreprinted
reprintedwith
with permission
permission
from (a) Giassi et al. [56], (b) Sarkar et al. [42], and (c) Lyu et al. [110].
from (a) Giassi et al. [56], (b) Sarkar et al. [42], and (c) Lyu et al. [110].

InInsummary, increasingthe
summary, increasing thenumber
numberofofWECs
WECs and
and thethe interval
interval between
between thethe conver-
conversions
sions enhance the absorbed power. However, eventually, the average
enhance the absorbed power. However, eventually, the average amount of harnessed amount of har-
nessed energy decreases. Furthermore, greater power is produced with
energy decreases. Furthermore, greater power is produced with a shorter wave period. a shorter waveA
period. A WEC’s dimensions must also catch more energy while using less.
WEC’s dimensions must also catch more energy while using less. We also found that every We also found
that everyused
research research used amain
a distinct distinct main
setup. setup.
Even Even Goteman’s
though though Goteman’s review[40]
review study study [40]
implies
implies thatpatterns
that layout layout patterns are inclined
are inclined to be precisely
to be precisely perpendicular
perpendicular toof
to the path thethepath of the
prevailing
prevailing
wave, it iswave, it is still important
still important to take
to take note note
of the of theand
arrow arrow and staggered
staggered layouts layouts in the
in the regular
patterns that do not employ optimization techniques to yield valuable outputs [40].
, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 30

regular patterns that do not employ optimization techniques to yield valuable outputs
Energies 2022,[40].
15, 7734 19 of 29

The LCoE for the WECs may be reduced by using various design and control ap-
proaches, which would result in a lower capital cost of energy. When planning a WEC’s
optimal PTO system,The LCoE
there arefortwothesignificant
WECs may challenges
be reduced by to using
surmount.various Thedesign
firstand issue control
is ap-
proaches, which would result in a lower capital cost of energy. When planning a WEC’s
that the irregular wave changes introduce more uncertainty into the subsequent deter-
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER optimal
REVIEW PTO system, there are two significant challenges to surmount. The 19 offirst
30 issue is
ministic analysis.that Second, the converter
the irregular mayintroduce
wave changes experience moreunexpected
uncertainty into forces that increase
the subsequent determin-
or decrease its displacement, velocity,
istic analysis. Second, theor acceleration,
converter due to the
may experience unforeseen
unexpected forceschanges in or
that increase
the WEC’s position aquaculture.
regular
decrease itspatterns Research
that do not
displacement, on optimizing
employ
velocity, optimization
or the PTOdue settings
techniques
acceleration, totothe
yield or control
valuable
unforeseen strat- in the
outputs
changes
WEC’s[40].position aquaculture. Research on optimizing the PTO settings or control strategy
egy coefficients has recently been conducted [139]. In Figure 9, a hydraulic PTO (HPTO)
The LCoE for the WECs may be reduced by using various design and control ap-
coefficients
of a two-body point proaches, absorber has isrecently been conducted
illustrated, which [139]. In Figure the9,main
a hydraulic
focus PTO (HPTO) of a
which would result in a lowerrecently
capital costwas
of energy. When planning of several
a WEC’s
two-body point
optimal PTO
absorber is illustrated,
system, therehave
are two
which
significant
recently
challenges
was the main focus of several types
types of research. Different
of research.
algorithms
Different algorithms
been
have
presented
been presented
tototooptimize
surmount. The
optimize
the
the
first
HPTO
HPTO issue isset- some
settings,
that the irregular wave changes introduce more uncertainty into the subsequent deter-
tings, some of which are are
of which demonstrated
ministic demonstrated
analysis.
ininFigure
Second, the Figure 10.
10.
converter may experience unexpected forces that increase
or decrease its displacement, velocity, or acceleration, due to the unforeseen changes in
the WEC’s position aquaculture. Research on optimizing the PTO settings or control strat-
egy coefficients has recently been conducted [139]. In Figure 9, a hydraulic PTO (HPTO)
of a two-body point absorber is illustrated, which recently was the main focus of several
types of research. Different algorithms have been presented to optimize the HPTO set-
tings, some of which are demonstrated in Figure 10.

Figure 9. Hydraulic
Figure PTO
9. Hydraulic PTOofofaatwo-body point
two-body point absorber.
absorber.
Figure 9. Hydraulic PTO of a two-body point absorber.

(a)

Figure 10. Cont.

(a)
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 20 of 29
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 30

(b)
Figure 10. Optimization procedure of the PTO settings in recent studies, adapted from (a) Delmonte
Figure 10. Optimization procedure of the PTO settings in recent studies, adapted from (a) Delmonte et al.
et al. (2020) [140] and (b) Jusoh et al. (2021) [141].
(2020) [140] and (b) Jusoh et al. (2021) [141].
Currently, there are 21, 13, 13, and 11 active firms for the hydro-turbine, hydraulic
Currently,
systems, there are
air turbines, and21,direct
13, 13, and 11
electrical activerespectively,
systems, firms for theand hydro-turbine,
31 other companies hydraulic
systems, airdeveloping
actively turbines, direct
and direct electrical
mechanical systems,
techniques. About respectively, and 31 are
nine more companies other companies
work-
actively ing on different PTO
developing systems
direct that are not
mechanical included inAbout
techniques. this research. The PTO
nine more systems inare work-
companies
ing on thedifferent
wave energy PTO setups are often
systems thatbuilt-in
are not linear spring-damper
included systems, with
in this research. ThethePTO power
systems in
output proportional to the Coulomb damping [54], and are independent of the deployed
the wave energy setups are often built-in linear spring-damper systems, with the power
mechanical equipment. Additionally, the linear generators may easily increase the sim-
output proportional to the Coulomb damping [54], and are independent of the deployed
plicity of the direct drive PTO systems. For example, the flux-switching permanent mag-
mechanicalnet linearequipment. Additionally,
generators (FSPMLGs) [142]the
may linear generators
be used to directlymay easilythe
transform increase
waves’ the
os- simplic-
ity ofcillatory
the direct
motiondrive
intoPTO systems.
a generator’s For example,
constant rotation inthe
one flux-switching
direction. permanent magnet
linear generators
We examined(FSPMLGs) [142]onmay
several works be used
the point to directly
absorber geometrytransform the waves’
optimization. For exam-oscillatory
motion ple,into
the floating single-body
a generator’s point absorber,
constant rotationSEAREV, underwent a multi-objective geom-
in one direction.
etry
We optimization
examined severalby Babarit et al. [143].
works on the According to the results,
point absorber the biggest
geometry draught de- For ex-
optimization.
signs produced the most ideal performances. The results of the reviewed works on tuning
ample, the floating single-body point absorber, SEAREV, underwent a multi-objective
the PTO parameters using different algorithms are depicted in Figure 11.
geometryAdditionally,
optimization all by Babarit
of the aboveetresearchers
al. [143]. According to the
discovered that results,
altering the the biggest
float’s mass draught
designs
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR produced
hadPEER
no REVIEW
appreciabletheimpact
moston ideal performances.
the power output of theThe WEC. results
Table 2of the reviewed
summarizes 21 ofworks
several 30 on
tuning theinvestigations
recent PTO parameters on theusing different
optimization algorithms
of the are depicted in Figure 11.
WEC hull design.

Figure 11. Recent investigations on adjusting the PTO settings impacts on the WEC power produc-
Figure 11. Recent investigations
tion and capture width onreprinted
adjusting with the PTO settings
permission impacts
from (a) Cargo et al. on the[144],
(2011) WEC power
(b) Yu et al. produc-
tion and capture(2018)
width[145], and (c) Josuh
reprinted et al. (2021)
with [141].
permission from (a) Cargo et al. (2011) [144], (b) Yu et al.
(2018) [145], andTable
(c) Josuh et al.optimization
2. Geometry (2021) [141]. of the different WECs.
WEC type
Author(s)–Year Parameters Objective Function Algorithm Ref.
PA OWC Attenuator Terminator
Babarit (2006)  Length, Beam, Draught Absorbed power, Cost GA [143]
Radius, Height,
Gomes et al. (2010)  Optimal design values DE, GA [146]
Draught, Submergence
Design of Ballast Cham-
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 21 of 29

Additionally, all of the above researchers discovered that altering the float’s mass had
no appreciable impact on the power output of the WEC. Table 2 summarizes several recent
investigations on the optimization of the WEC hull design.

Table 2. Geometry optimization of the different WECs.

WEC Type
Author(s)–Year Parameters Objective Algorithm Ref.
PA OWC Attenuator Terminator Function

Absorbed power,
Babarit (2006) X Length, Beam, Draught Cost GA [143]

Radius, Height, Draught, Optimal design

Gomes et al. (2010) X DE, GA [146]
Submergence values
Design of Ballast
Colby et al. (2011) X Chamber Cuts, Weight Annual power EAs [147]
output
Distribution
Ramp Angle, Freeboard, Optimal design
Victor et al. (2011) X Multi-Scatter [148]
Submergence values
Length and Diameters of
Gomes (2012) X the Small and Large Energy absorption COBYLA, DE [149]
Thickness Tubes
Maximizing power,
Maximizing
Geometric Shape and Significant velocity
Goggins et al. (2014) X - [150]
Radii
(double amplitude
motion)
Margherittini et al. Crest Level, Ramp Maximizing
X - [151]
(2012) Angle, Ramp Draught hydraulic efficiency
Length, Flap Width,
Noad (2015) X Capture factor - [106]
Hinge Depth
Radii, Height, Draught, Annual averaged
Silva et al. (2016) X power output
COBYLA + GA [152]
Submergence
Flap Size, Vane Size,
Nonlinear
Tom et al. (2016) X Vane Number, Power absorption optimization [153]
submergence

Li et al. (2016) X Length, Draught, Power absorption Two-step [154]

Distance optimization
Chamber Size, Orifice Nash-Sutcliffe
Mahnamfar et al. X Size, Submergence, Maximum power Coefficient of [155]
(2017) Efficiency
Front Wall

Radius, Heights, Cone, Performance-

Sergiienko et al. (2017) X optimal - [156]
Angle, Draught control
Length, Width, Height,
Renzi et al. (2017) X Capture factor GA [157]
Submergence
Immersion Depth, OWC Hydrodynamic Sequential
Bouali (2017) X [158]
Width efficiency procedure
Esmaeilzadeh et al. Elongation Coefficients
(2019) X Power output GA [45]
of the WEC Base Shape
Length of the Fore and Exhaustive
Wang et al. (2019) X Extracted energy search method [159]
Aft Barges

Ulazia et al. (2020) X Chamber Size, Orifice Capture width Two-value [160]
Size, Submergence optimization

4. Future Research Direction

In this article, we take an in-depth look at the latest research on the optimization
algorithms and their usage in the context of WECs. The advancement of WECs is proving
to be challenging at all times. Finding ideal setups for these devices offers a wealth of
opportunities for exploration, extension, and the smoothing of information due to the
high uncertainty associated with the variables linked to wave energy at temporal and
geographical scales. Because of this, the typical optimization algorithms’ limitations impose
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 22 of 29

a ceiling on the degree of uncertainty associated with finding optimum designs. There is a
plethora of optimization methods available for addressing the processing mode.
Conversely, several studies have used the GA as their principal strategy alongside
local and global search algorithms, owing to its superior performance in finding optimum
solutions. Therefore, increasing these algorithms’ efficiency is another difficulty. Due
to the lack of inquiry, it is necessary to include many objectives to gain a more realistic
optimum configuration, which calls for further research. While more than three or five
objectives may be included in a single optimization method, there is a lack of definitive
research on designing multi-objective and many-objective optimization algorithms. The
WEC size and shape, hotspot and array design, PTO configuration, and reducing costs by
optimizing the LCoE are all examples of objectives that might be pursued. According to
the analyzed literature, the precision and calculation time are influenced by the quality
of the objectives. The model’s efficiency is bolstered by the depth and consistency of its
objectives and algorithms. When trying to optimize the structure of the WEC or investigate
the nonlinear correlations, the importance of the variable correlations cannot be overstated.
A solution to the uncertainty about future research directions and methods lies in the
investigation, refinement, and expansion of the multi- and many-objective optimization
algorithms. Future studies should focus on more viable methods for the aforementioned
problems in its use and the development of more practical structures. In order to examine
the uncertainty and volatility adequately, it may be necessary to develop novel evolutionary
algorithms or combine current approaches. Additionally, the GA has been the dominant
technique in most applications, but it is insufficient for achieving the best design of WECs
to their full extent. Due to the intricacy of wave energy research, determining the optimal
design for each purpose should be prioritized.

5. Conclusions
Researchers are quickly working on developing technologies to harness the energy of
ocean waves, due to their enormous potential as a renewable energy source. Compared
to other renewable resources, the WEC technologies need further improvement before
being commercialized. The layout and PTO optimization are key factors in generating the
most power possible using WECs. However, their optimization is difficult because of the
intricate hydrodynamic interaction across the conversions.
In this paper, we first discussed the various categorizations of conversions. While
there are additional aspects to consider, we found that the categorization based on the
operating principles, in combination with the hydro-mechanical conversion technology
is more comprehensive. The unraveling of the hydrodynamic interactions is explained
in detail using numerical techniques and solvers. Then, we described the most current
studies that used at least one of the mentioned approaches. To begin the investigation, it
was essential to appropriately estimate what causes the interaction between WECs and the
applied forces for the chosen conversion type. Depending on the size of the project and the
level of precision needed, a low-fidelity or high-fidelity method should be chosen.
Due to the growing number of algorithms and the objective functions being investi-
gated in this area, a study of the optimization issues was then conducted. The conclusion
is that most research has focused on employing the GAs with a single objective function,
while studies on the multi- and many-object optimization of the WEC layout, geometry,
and PTO settings are lacking. Numerous studies on the GA, EA, and differential equation
(DE) methods, combined with adaptive neuro-surrogate optimization (ANSO), hybrid
coordination channel access (HCCA), and generic local search techniques improved the
accuracy and the different parameter tuning of these methods. To this end, the follow-
ing is a summary of the results of the PTO system, geometry optimization, and layout
optimization:
- Numerous relevant elements are used in the layout optimization studies to find the
best solutions. In order to identify the most consistent, repeatable findings throughout
the examined research, two patterns, namely the linear and the arrowhead patterns,
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 23 of 29

are depicted in this study. The performance of the arrangement is directly affected by
variables, such as the distance and wave direction. Therefore, we agree on a general
statement of how increasing or decreasing these factors affects the arrangement of
the array.
- Recently, it has been established as a reasonable standpoint to use the optimization
techniques to increase the control methods and enhance the PTO coefficients. The
modern meta-heuristic algorithms have also optimized these coefficients. Recent
research shows that the maximum power output at lower frequencies increases with
the increasing damping coefficient. Experimental evidence is presented to support this
notion. A complete cost-benefit analysis is required for each of the many PTO systems
that are categorized in this paper, even if the PTO system setup will enhance the LCoE.
Further study on the active control methods for the PTO system of the conversions
is needed.
- According to studies, the WECs’ shape optimization may significantly boost perfor-
mance. Geometry optimization combined with the PTO control approach may lead to
better outcomes. While increasing the WECs’ geometry will boost their profitability,
performance should be adjusted in light of the rising prices.
In conclusion, we argue that future research focusing on multi- and many-objective
studies, with an emphasis on cost and maximum absorbed energy, is more likely to provide
valuable discoveries and information. Furthermore, it is clear from the publications that
very few studies use the CFD instead of BEM as the numerical technique. Given the GA’s
popularity, we advocate employing other trustworthy meta-heuristic algorithms that can
provide superior results in a shorter amount of time.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The study did not report any data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
WEC Wave energy converter
EA Evolutionary algorithm
GA Genetic algorithm
OWSC Oscillating wave surge converter
BEM Boundary element method
CMA-EA Covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary algorithm
CMA-ES Covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary strategy
MM Metamodel algorithm
PTO Power take-off
SWAN Simulating WAve Nearshore
DOF Degrees of freedom
PA Point absorber
RAO Response amplitude response
OWC Oscillating water column
LCoE Levelized cost of energy
WD Wave dragon
SSG Sea slot-cone generator
PF Potential flow
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
DNS Direct numerical simulation
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 24 of 29

LES Large eddy simulation

RANS Reynolds average Navier–Stokes
NSE Navier–Stokes equation
GSO Glowworm swarm optimization
NM Nelder–Mead
ANN Artificial neural network
SA Simulating annealing
PI Parabolic intersection
HGGA Hidden genes genetic algorithm
RBFNN Radial basis function neural network
COBYLA Constrained optimization technique by linear approximation
MOEA Many-objective evolutionary algorithm
NSGA Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm
HGA-PSO Hybrid genetic algorithm-particle swarm optimization
HPTO Hydraulic power take-off
FSPMLG Flux-switching permanent magnet linear generator
DE Differential equation
ANSO Adaptive neuro-surrogate model
HCCA Hybrid coordination channel access

References
1. Winter, N. Renewables 2022 Global Status Report United States of America Factsheet; Coherent Digital, LLC: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2022.
2. Thorpe, T.W. A Brief Review of Wave Energy; Researchgate: Berlin, Germany, 1999.
3. Callaghan, J.; Boud, R. Future Marine Energy. Results of the Marine Energy Challenge: Cost Competitiveness and Growth of Wave and
Tidal Stream Energy; Carbon Trust: London, UK, 2006; Volume 40.
4. Cornett, A.M. A global wave energy resource assessment. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Sapporo, Japan, 6 July 2008.
5. Barstow, S.; Mørk, G.; Mollison, D.; Cruz, J. The wave energy resource. In Ocean Wave Energy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2008; pp. 93–132.
6. Mork, G.; Barstow, S.; Kabuth, A.; Pontes, M.T. Assessing the global wave energy potential. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Waginengin, The Netherlands, 16–17 February 2010; Volume 49118,
pp. 447–454.
7. Barstow, S.; Mørk, G.; Lønseth, L.; Mathisen, J.P. WorldWaves wave energy resource assessments from the deep ocean to the coast.
J. Energy Power Eng. 2011, 5, 730–742.
8. Dashwood, J. 4. The outlook for energy: A view to 2040. In Australia’s Energy Options: Renewables and Efficiency; CEDA: Melbourne,
Australia, 2012; p. 45.
9. Arinaga, R.A.; Cheung, K.F. Atlas of global wave energy from 10 years of reanalysis and hindcast data. Renew. Energy 2012, 39,
49–64. [CrossRef]
10. Falnes, J.; Kurniawan, A. Fundamental formulae for wave-energy conversion. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2015, 2, 140305. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
11. Pérez-Collazo, C.; Greaves, D.; Iglesias, G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 42, 141–153. [CrossRef]
12. Clément, A.; McCullen, P.; Falcão, A.; Fiorentino, A.; Gardner, F.; Hammarlund, K.; Lemonis, G.; Lewis, T.; Nielsen, K.; Petroncini,
S.; et al. Wave energy in Europe: Current status and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2002, 6, 405–431. [CrossRef]
13. Folley, M.; Whittaker, T.J.T. Analysis of the nearshore wave energy resource. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 1709–1715. [CrossRef]
14. Alonso, R.; Solari, S.; Teixeira, L. Wave energy resource assessment in Uruguay. Energy 2015, 93, 683–696. [CrossRef]
15. Besio, G.; Mentaschi, L.; Mazzino, A. Wave energy resource assessment in the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of a 35-year
hindcast. Energy 2016, 94, 50–63. [CrossRef]
16. Previsic, M. Offshore Wave Energy Conversion Devices; Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report; Palo Alto: Santa Clara, CA,
USA, 2004; pp. 26–130.
17. Aderinto, T.; Li, H. Ocean wave energy converters: Status and challenges. Energies 2018, 11, 1250. [CrossRef]
18. Iuppa, C.; Cavallaro, L.; Foti, E.; Vicinanza, D. Potential wave energy production by different wave energy converters around
Sicily. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 61701. [CrossRef]
19. Drew, B.; Plummer, A.R.; Sahinkaya, M.N. A Review of Wave Energy Converter Technology; Sage Publications Sage UK: London,
UK, 2009.
20. Polinder, H.; Scuotto, M. Wave energy converters and their impact on power systems. In Proceedings of the 2005 International
Conference on Future Power Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 16–18 November 2005.
21. Czech, B.; Bauer, P. Wave energy converter concepts: Design challenges and classification. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2012, 6, 4–16.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 25 of 29

22. The Queen’s University of Belfast. Islay Limpet Wave Power Plant Report; Report No. JOR3-CT98-0312; Report for European
Commission; Queens University: Kingston, ON, Canada, 2002.
23. Zanopol, A.T.; Onea, F.; Rusu, E. Studies concerning the influence of the wave farms on the nearshore processes. Int. J. Geosci.
2014, 2014, 47121. [CrossRef]
24. Boake, C.B.; Whittaker, T.J.T.; Folley, M.; Ellen, H. Overview and initial operational experience of the LIMPET wave energy plant.
In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Kitakyushu, Japan, 26–31 May 2002.
25. Rusu, E.; Onea, F. Estimation of the wave energy conversion efficiency in the Atlantic Ocean close to the European islands. Renew.
Energy 2016, 85, 687–703. [CrossRef]
26. Cockerill, T.T.; Kühn, M.; van Bussel, G.J.W.; Bierbooms, W.; Harrison, R. Combined technical and economic evaluation of the
Northern European offshore wind resource. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2001, 89, 689–711. [CrossRef]
27. Leijon, M.; Danielsson, O.; Eriksson, M.; Thorburn, K.; Bernhoff, H.; Isberg, J.; Sundberg, J.; Ivanova, I.; Sjöstedt, E.; Ågren,
O.J.R.E.; et al. An electrical approach to wave energy conversion. Renew. Energy 2006, 31, 1309–1319. [CrossRef]
28. Jolly, C. The Ocean Economy in 2030. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Maritime Cluster and Global Challenges 50th
Anniversary of the WP6, Paris, France, 1 December 2016; Volume 1.
29. Pelc, R.; Fujita, R.M. Renewable energy from the ocean. Mar. Policy 2002, 26, 471–479. [CrossRef]
30. Bedard, R.; Jacobson, P.T.; Previsic, M.; Musial, W.; Varley, R. An overview of ocean renewable energy technologies. Oceanography
2010, 23, 22–31. [CrossRef]
31. Budal, K. Theory for absorption of wave power by a system of interacting bodies. J. Ship Res. 1977, 21, 248–254. [CrossRef]
32. Thomas, G.P.; Evans, D.V. Arrays of three-dimensional wave-energy absorbers. J. Fluid Mech. 1981, 108, 67–88. [CrossRef]
33. Falnes, J. Radiation impedance matrix and optimum power absorption for interacting oscillators in surface waves. Appl. Ocean
Res. 1980, 2, 75–80. [CrossRef]
34. Moarefdoost, M.M.; Snyder, L.V.; Alnajjab, B. Layouts for ocean wave energy farms: Models, properties, and optimization. Omega
2017, 66, 185–194. [CrossRef]
35. Child, B.F.M.; Venugopal, V. Optimal configurations of wave energy device arrays. Ocean Eng. 2010, 37, 1402–1417. [CrossRef]
36. Fitzgerald, C.; Thomas, G. A preliminary study on the optimal formation of an array of wave power devices. In Proceedings of
the 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Porto, Portugal, 11–13 September 2007; pp. 11–14.
37. McGuinness, J.P.L.; Thomas, G. The constrained optimisation of small linear arrays of heaving point absorbers. Part I: The
influence of spacing. Int. J. Mar. Energy 2017, 20, 33–44. [CrossRef]
38. Tay, Z.Y.; Venugopal, V. Hydrodynamic interactions of oscillating wave surge converters in an array under random sea state.
Ocean Eng. 2017, 145, 382–394. [CrossRef]
39. Bozzi, S.; Giassi, M.; Miquel, A.M.; Antonini, A.; Bizzozero, F.; Gruosso, G.; Archetti, R.; Passoni, G. Wave energy farm design in
real wave climates: The Italian offshore. Energy 2017, 122, 378–389. [CrossRef]
40. Göteman, M.; Giassi, M.; Engström, J.; Isberg, J. Advances and Challenges in Wave Energy Park Optimization—A Review. Front.
Energy Res. 2020, 8, 26. [CrossRef]
41. Babarit, A. On the park effect in arrays of oscillating wave energy converters. Renew. Energy 2013, 58, 68–78. [CrossRef]
42. Sarkar, D.; Contal, E.; Vayatis, N.; Dias, F. Prediction and optimization of wave energy converter arrays using a machine learning
approach. Renew. Energy 2016, 97, 504–517. [CrossRef]
43. Korde, U.A.; Ringwood, J. Hydrodynamic Control of Wave Energy Devices; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016.
[CrossRef]
44. Göteman, M. Wave energy parks with point-absorbers of different dimensions. J. Fluids Struct. 2017, 74, 142–157. [CrossRef]
45. Esmaeilzadeh, S.; Alam, M.R. Shape optimization of wave energy converters for broadband directional incident waves. Ocean
Eng. 2019, 174, 186–200. [CrossRef]
46. Bellew, S.; Stallard, T.; Stansby, P. Optimisation of a Heterogenous Array of Heaving Floats. In Proceedings of the 8th European
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Uppsala, Sweden, 7–11 September 2009.
47. Saulnier, J.; Ricci, P.; Pontes, M.; Falcao, A.d.O. Spectral Bandwidth and WEC Performance Assessment. In Proceedings of the 7th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC 2007), Porto, Portugal, 11–13 September 2007.
48. McNatt, J.C.; Özkan-Haller, H.T.; Morrow, M.; Delos-Reyes, M. Preliminary modeling and analysis of a horizontal pressure
differential wave energy converter. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2014, 136, 011901. [CrossRef]
49. Wolgamot, H.A.; Taylor, P.H.; Taylor, R.E. The interaction factor and directionality in wave energy arrays. Ocean Eng. 2012, 47,
65–73. [CrossRef]
50. Babarit, A. Impact of long separating distances on the energy production of two interacting wave energy converters. Ocean Eng.
2010, 37, 718–729. [CrossRef]
51. Borgarino, B.; Babarit, A.; Ferrant, P. Impact of wave interactions effects on energy absorption in large arrays of wave energy
converters. Ocean Eng. 2012, 41, 79–88. [CrossRef]
52. Weller, S.D.; Stallard, T.J.; Stansby, P.K. Experimental measurements of irregular wave interaction factors in closely spaced arrays.
IET Renew. Power Gener. 2010, 4, 628–637. [CrossRef]
53. Göteman, M.; Engström, J.; Eriksson, M.; Isberg, J. Optimizing wave energy parks with over 1000 interacting point-absorbers
using an approximate analytical method. Int. J. Mar. Energy 2015, 10, 113–126. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 26 of 29

54. Wu, J.; Shekh, S.; Sergiienko, N.Y.; Cazzolato, B.S.; Ding, B.; Neumann, F.; Wagner, M. Fast and effective optimisation of arrays of
submerged wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2016, Denver, CO,
USA, 20–24 July 2016; pp. 1045–1052. [CrossRef]
55. Ruiz, P.M.; Nava, V.; Topper, M.B.R.; Minguela, P.R.; Ferri, F.; Kofoed, J.P. Layout Optimisation of Wave Energy Converter Arrays.
Energies 2017, 10, 1262. [CrossRef]
56. Giassi, M.; Göteman, M. Layout design of wave energy parks by a genetic algorithm. Ocean Eng. 2018, 154, 252–261. [CrossRef]
57. Clauss, G.F.; Birk, L. Hydrodynamic shape optimization of large offshore structures. Appl. Ocean Res. 1996, 18, 157–171. [CrossRef]
58. Birk, L. Application of constrained multi-objective optimization to the design of offshore structure hulls. J. Offshore Mech. Arct.
Eng. 2009, 131, 011301. [CrossRef]
59. ElChahal, G.; Lafon, P.; Younes, R. Modelling And Optimizing Floating Breakwaters Using Density Distribution. In Proceedings
of the Seventeenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–6 July 2007.
60. Kramer, M.V.; Frigaard, P. Efficient Wave Energy Amplification With Wave Reflectors. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Kitakyushu, Japan, 26–31 May 2002.
61. Vantorre, M.; Banasiak, R.; Verhoeven, R. Modelling of hydraulic performance and wave energy extraction by a point absorber in
heave. Appl. Ocean Res. 2004, 26, 61–72. [CrossRef]
62. Alves, M.; Traylor, H.; Sarmento, A. Hydrodynamic Optimization of a Wave Energy Converter Using a Heave Motion Buoy. In
Proceedings of the 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC 2007), Porto, Portugal, 11–13 September 2007.
63. Ruellan, M.; BenAhmed, H.; Multon, B.; Josset, C.; Babarit, A.; Clement, A. Design Methodology for a SEAREV Wave Energy
Converter. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2010, 25, 760–767. [CrossRef]
64. Babarit, A.; Hals, J.; Muliawan, M.J.; Kurniawan, A.; Moan, T.; Krokstad, J. Numerical benchmarking study of a selection of wave
energy converters. Renew. Energy 2012, 41, 44–63. [CrossRef]
65. McCabe, A.P. Constrained optimization of the shape of a wave energy collector by genetic algorithm. Renew. Energy 2013, 51,
274–284. [CrossRef]
66. Kurniawan, A.; Moan, T. Multi-objective optimization of wave energy absorber geometry. In Modelling and Geometry Optimisation
of Wave Energy Converters; Academia.edu: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013.
67. Kurniawan, A.; Moan, T. Optimal Geometries for Wave Absorbers Oscillating About a Fixed Axis. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2013, 38,
117–130. [CrossRef]
68. Glendenning, I. Ocean wave power. Appl. Energy 1977, 3, 197–222. [CrossRef]
69. Neill, S.P.; Hashemi, M.R. Wave power variability over the northwest European shelf seas. Appl. Energy 2013, 106, 31–46.
[CrossRef]
70. Rusu, E.; Soares, C.G. Wave energy pattern around the Madeira Islands. Energy 2012, 45, 771–785. [CrossRef]
71. Rusu, L.; Soares, C.G. Wave energy assessments in the Azores islands. Renew. Energy 2012, 45, 183–196. [CrossRef]
72. Beyene, A.; Wilson, J.H. Digital mapping of California wave energy resource. Int. J. Energy Res. 2007, 31, 1156–1168. [CrossRef]
73. Henfridsson, U.; Neimane, V.; Strand, K.; Kapper, R.; Bernhoff, H.; Danielsson, O.; Leijon, M.; Sundberg, J.; Thorburn, K.; Ericsson,
E.; et al. Wave energy potential in the Baltic Sea and the Danish part of the North Sea, with reflections on the Skagerrak. Renew.
Energy 2007, 32, 2069–2084. [CrossRef]
74. López, I.; Iglesias, G. Efficiency of OWC wave energy converters: A virtual laboratory. Appl. Ocean Res. 2014, 44, 63–70. [CrossRef]
75. Vicinanza, D.; Contestabile, P.; Ferrante, V. Wave energy potential in the north-west of Sardinia (Italy). Renew. Energy 2013, 50,
506–521. [CrossRef]
76. Pinson, P.; Reikard, G.; Bidlot, J.R. Probabilistic forecasting of the wave energy flux. Appl. Energy 2012, 93, 364–370. [CrossRef]
77. Li, Y.; Willman, L. Feasibility analysis of offshore renewables penetrating local energy systems in remote oceanic areas—A case
study of emissions from an electricity system with tidal power in Southern Alaska. Appl. Energy 2014, 117, 42–53. [CrossRef]
78. Delft3D-Wave User Manual; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2005.
79. Roelvink, D.; Reniers, A.J.H.M.; Van Dongeren, A.; Van Thiel de Vries, J.; Lescinski, J.; McCall, R. XBeach Model Description and
Manual; Unesco-IHE Institute for Water Education, Deltares and Delft University of Tecnhology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2010.
80. User Manual and System Documentation of WAVEWATCH III TM, Version 3.14. 2000. Available online: https://polar.ncep.noaa.
gov/ (accessed on 13 December 2018).
81. Booij, N.; Ris, R.C.; Holthuijsen, L.H. A third-generation wave model for coastal regions: 1. Model description and validation. J.
Geophys. Res. Ocean. 1999, 104, 7649–7666.
82. Ris, R.C.; Holthuijsen, L.H.; Booij, N. A third-generation wave model for coastal regions: 2. Verification. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean.
1999, 104, 7667–7681. [CrossRef]
83. Team, S. SWAN, Scientific and Technical Documentation, SWAN Cycle III Version 40.72 ABC; Delft University of Technology: Delft,
The Netherlands, 2009. Available online: http//www.swan.tudelft.nl (accessed on 1 March 2009).
84. Salter, S.H. Wave power. Nature 1974, 249, 720–724. [CrossRef]
85. López, I.; Andreu, J.; Ceballos, S.; de Alegría, I.M.; Kortabarria, I. Review of wave energy technologies and the necessary
power-equipment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 413–434. [CrossRef]
86. Guo, B.; Ringwood, J.V. Geometric optimisation of wave energy conversion devices: A survey. Appl. Energy 2021, 297, 117100.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 27 of 29

87. Falcão, A.F.O.; Henriques, J.C.C. Oscillating-water-column wave energy converters and air turbines: A review. Renew. Energy
2016, 85, 1391–1424. [CrossRef]
88. He, F.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zheng, S.; Iglesias, G. Hydrodynamic performance of a pile-supported OWC breakwater: An analytical
study. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 88, 326–340. [CrossRef]
89. Zheng, S.; Zhang, Y.; Iglesias, G. Coast/breakwater-integrated OWC: A theoretical model. Mar. Struct. 2019, 66, 121–135.
[CrossRef]
90. Yemm, R.; Pizer, D.; Retzler, C.; Henderson, R. Pelamis: Experience from concept to connection. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci. 2012, 370, 365–380. [CrossRef]
91. Allen, J.; Sampanis, K.; Wan, J.; Greaves, D.; Miles, J.; Iglesias, G. Laboratory Tests in the Development of WaveCat. Sustainability
2016, 8, 1339. [CrossRef]
92. Oliveira, P.; Taveira-Pinto, F.; Morais, T.; Rosa-Santos, P. Experimental evaluation of the effect of wave focusing walls on the
performance of the Sea-wave Slot-cone Generator. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 110, 165–175. [CrossRef]
93. Vicinanza, D.; Margheritini, L.; Kofoed, J.P.; Buccino, M. The SSG Wave Energy Converter: Performance, Status and Recent
Developments. Energies 2012, 5, 193–226. [CrossRef]
94. Ricci, P.; Alves, M.; Falcao, A.; Sarmento, A. Optimisation of the geometry of wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the OTTI
International Conference on Ocean Energy, Bremerhaven, Germany, 23–24 October 2006.
95. Perugini, D. Numerical Models. In Advances in Volcanology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 41–57. [CrossRef]
96. Arzel, T.; Bjarte-Larsson, T.; Falnes, J. Hydrodynamic Parameters for a Floating WEC Force-Reacting against a Submerged Body [Wave
Energy Converter]; OSTI.GOV: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2001.
97. Pecher, A.; Kofoed, J.P. (Eds.) Handbook of Ocean Wave Energy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 7. [CrossRef]
98. Kagemoto, H.; Yue, D.K.P. Interactions among Multiple Three-Dimensional Bodies in Water Waves: An Exact Algebraic Method.
J. Fluid Mech. 1986, 166, 189–209. [CrossRef]
99. Mavrakos, S.A.; Koumoutsakos, P. Hydrodynamic interaction among vertical axisymmetric bodies restrained in waves. Appl.
Ocean Res. 1987, 9, 128–140. [CrossRef]
100. McNatt, J.C.; Venugopal, V.; Forehand, D. A novel method for deriving the diffraction transfer matrix and its application to
multi-body interactions in water waves. Ocean Eng. 2015, 94, 173–185. [CrossRef]
101. Nataliia Sergiienko. Wave Energy Converter (WEC) Array Simulator, MATLAB Central File Exchange. Available online:
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/71840-wave-energy-converter-wec-array-simulator (accessed on
11 October 2022).
102. Penalba, M.; Ringwood, J.V. Systematic complexity reduction of wave-to-wire models for wave energy system design. Ocean Eng.
2020, 217, 107651. [CrossRef]
103. Sun, L.; Stansby, P.; Zang, J.; Moreno, E.C.; Taylor, P.H. Linear diffraction analysis for optimisation of the three-float multi-mode
wave energy converter M4 in regular waves including small arrays. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 2016, 2, 429–438. [CrossRef]
104. Sörensen, K. Metaheuristics—The metaphor exposed. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2013, 22, 3–18. [CrossRef]
105. Beiranvand, V.; Hare, W.; Lucet, Y. Best practices for comparing optimization algorithms. Optim. Eng. 2017, 18, 815–848.
[CrossRef]
106. Noad, I.F.; Porter, R. Optimisation of arrays of flap-type oscillating wave surge converters. Appl. Ocean Res. 2015, 50, 237–253.
[CrossRef]
107. Vatchavayi, S.R. Heuristic Optimization of Wave Energy Converter Arrays. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital
Conservancy. 2019. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11299/206185 (accessed on 15 June 2019).
108. Thomas, S.; Eriksson, M.; Göteman, M.; Hann, M.; Isberg, J.; Engström, J. Experimental and Numerical Collaborative Latching
Control of Wave Energy Converter Arrays. Energies 2018, 11, 3036. [CrossRef]
109. Feng, Z.; Kerrigan, E.C. LatchingDeclutching Control of Wave Energy Converters Using Derivative-Free Optimization. IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 773–780. [CrossRef]
110. Lyu, J.; Abdelkhalik, O.; Gauchia, L. Optimization of dimensions and layout of an array of wave energy converters. Ocean Eng.
2019, 192, 106543.
111. Abdelkhalik, O.; Darani, S. Optimization of nonlinear wave energy converters. Ocean Eng. 2018, 162, 187–195.
112. Giassi, M.; Göteman, M.; Thomas, S.; Engström, J.; Eriksson, M.; Isberg, J. Multi-parameter optimization of hybrid arrays of point
absorber wave energy converters. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Cork,
Ireland, 27–31 August 2017.
113. Sharp, C.; DuPont, B. Wave energy converter array optimization: A genetic algorithm approach and minimum separation distance
study. Ocean Eng. 2018, 163, 148–156. [CrossRef]
114. Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Hua, X. Prediction and optimization of oscillating wave surge converter using machine learning techniques.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 210, 112677. [CrossRef]
115. Powell, M.J.D. A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation. In
Advances in Optimization and Numerical Analysis; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 51–67.
116. Abbass, H.A.; Sarker, R.; Newton, C. PDE: A Pareto-frontier differential evolution approach for multi-objective optimization
problems. In Proceedings of the 2001 congress on evolutionary computation (IEEE Cat. No. 01TH8546), Seoul, Korea, 27–30 May
2001; Volume 2, pp. 971–978.
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 28 of 29

117. Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [CrossRef]
118. Srinivas, N.; Deb, K. Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol. Comput. 1994, 2,
221–248. [CrossRef]
119. Deb, K.; Jain, H. An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting
approach, part I: Solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2013, 18, 577–601. [CrossRef]
120. Capillo, A.; Luzi, M.; Pasc, M.; Rizzi, A.; Mascioli, F.M.F. Energy transduction optimization of a wave energy converter by
evolutionary algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 8–13 July 2018; pp. 1–8.
121. Faraggiana, E.; Masters, I.; Chapman, J. Design of an optimization scheme for the WaveSub array. In Advances in Renewable
Energies Offshore, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Renewable Energies Offshore (RENEW), Lisbon, Portugal, 8–10
October 2018; Researchgate: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 8–10.
122. Garcia-Teruel, A.; DuPont, B.; Forehand, D.I.M. Hull geometry optimisation of wave energy converters: On the choice of the
optimisation algorithm and the geometry definition. Appl. Energy 2020, 280, 115952. [CrossRef]
123. Talaat, M.; Sedhom, B.E.; Hatata, A.Y. A new approach for integrating wave energy to the grid by an efficient control system for
maximum power based on different optimization techniques. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 128, 106800. [CrossRef]
124. Mahdy, A.; Hasanien, H.M.; Hameed, W.H.A.; Turky, R.A.; Aleem, S.H.E.A.; Ebrahim, E.A. Nonlinear Modeling and Real-Time
Simulation of a Grid-Connected AWS Wave Energy Conversion System. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2022, 13, 1744–1755.
[CrossRef]
125. Neshat, M.; Sergiienko, N.Y.; Mirjalili, S.; Nezhad, M.M.; Piras, G.; Garcia, D.A. Multi-mode wave energy converter design
optimisation using an improved moth flame optimisation algorithm. Energies 2021, 14, 3737. [CrossRef]
126. Neshat, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Sergiienko, N.Y.; Esmaeilzadeh, S.; Amini, E.; Heydari, A.; Garcia, D.A. Layout optimisation of offshore
wave energy converters using a novel multi-swarm cooperative algorithm with backtracking strategy: A case study from coasts
of Australia. Energy 2022, 239, 122463. [CrossRef]
127. Huang, X.; Zhu, L.; Wu, W.; Lu, K.; Wang, K.; Koh, C.S. A Global Maximum Power Point Tracking Control Strategy Based on
Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Point-Absorber-Type Wave Energy Converters. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 12th
Energy Conversion Congress & Exposition-Asia (ECCE-Asia), Singapore, 24 May 2021; pp. 2089–2094. [CrossRef]
128. de Andrés, A.D.; Guanche, R.; Meneses, L.; Vidal, C.; Losada, I.J. Factors that influence array layout on wave energy farms. Ocean
Eng. 2014, 82, 32–41. [CrossRef]
129. Balitsky, P.; Bacelli, G.; Ringwood, J.V. Control-influenced layout optimization of arrays of wave energy converters. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; Volume
45547, p. V09BT09A022.
130. Blanco, M.; Moreno-Torres, P.; Lafoz, M.; Ramírez, D. Design parameter analysis of point absorber WEC via an evolutionary-
algorithm-based dimensioning tool. Energies 2015, 8, 11203–11233. [CrossRef]
131. Sharp, C.; DuPont, B. A multi-objective real-coded genetic algorithm method for wave energy converter array optimization.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Busan, Korea, 19–24 June 2016;
Volume 49972, p. V006T09A027.
132. Ferri, F. Computationally efficient optimisation algorithms for WECs arrays. In Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland, 27 August–1 September 2017; p. 798.
133. Fang, H.-W.; Feng, Y.-Z.; Li, G.-P. Optimization of wave energy converter arrays by an improved differential evolution algorithm.
Energies 2018, 11, 3522. [CrossRef]
134. Neshat, M.; Alexander, B.; Wagner, M.; Xia, Y. A detailed comparison of meta-heuristic methods for optimising wave energy
converter placements. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 15–19 July 2018;
pp. 1318–1325.
135. Neshat, M.; Abbasnejad, E.; Shi, Q.; Alexander, B.; Wagner, M. Adaptive neuro-surrogate-based optimisation method for wave
energy converters placement optimisation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 8–14 December 2019; pp. 353–366.
136. Neshat, M.; Sergiienko, N.Y.; Amini, E.; Majidi Nezhad, M.; Astiaso Garcia, D.; Alexander, B.; Wagner, M. A New Bi-Level
Optimisation Framework for Optimising a Multi-Mode Wave Energy Converter Design: A Case Study for the Marettimo Island,
Mediterranean Sea. Energies 2020, 13, 5498. [CrossRef]
137. Neshat, M.; Alexander, B.; Wagner, M. A hybrid cooperative co-evolution algorithm framework for optimising power take off
and placements of wave energy converters. Inf. Sci. 2020, 534, 218–244. [CrossRef]
138. Bosma, B.; Brekken, T.; Lomonaco, P.; DuPont, B.; Sharp, C.; Batten, B. Array modeling and testing of fixed OWC type Wave
Energy Converters. Int. Mar. Energy J. 2020, 3, 137–143. [CrossRef]
139. Amini, E.; Mehdipour, S.; Faraggiana, E.; Golbaz, D.; Mozaffari, S.; Bracco, G.; Neshat, M. Optimization of hydraulic power
take-off system settings for point absorber wave energy converter. Renew. Energy 2022, 194, 938–954. [CrossRef]
140. Delmonte, N.; Robles, E.; Cova, P.; Giuliani, F.; Faÿ, F.X.; Lopez, J.; Ruol, P.; Martinelli, L. An Iterative Refining Approach to Design
the Control of Wave Energy Converters with Numerical Modeling and Scaled HIL Testing. Energies 2020, 13, 2508. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7734 29 of 29

141. Jusoh, M.A.; Ibrahim, M.Z.; Daud, M.Z.; Yusop, Z.M.; Albani, A. An Estimation of Hydraulic Power Take-off Unit Parameters
for Wave Energy Converter Device Using Non-Evolutionary NLPQL and Evolutionary GA Approaches. Energies 2021, 14, 79.
[CrossRef]
142. Huang, L.; Yu, H.; Hu, M.; Zhao, J.; Cheng, Z. A novel flux-switching permanent-magnet linear generator for wave energy
extraction application. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2011, 47, 1034–1037. [CrossRef]
143. Babarit, A.; Clement, A.H. Shape Optimisation of the SEAREV Wave Energy Converter. In Proceedings of the World Renewable
Energy Conference, Florence, Italy, 19–25 August 2006.
144. Cargo, C.J.; Plummer, A.R.; Hillis, A.J.; Schlotter, M. Determination of optimal parameters for a hydraulic power take-off unit of a
wave energy converter in regular waves. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A 2012, 226, 98–111. [CrossRef]
145. Yu, Y.-H.; Tom, N.; Jenne, D. Numerical analysis on hydraulic power take-off for wave energy converter and power smoothing
methods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 17–22
June 2018; Volume 51319, p. V010T09A043.
146. Gomes, R.P.F.; Henriques, J.C.C.; Gato, L.M.C.; Falcão, A.F.d. IPS two-body wave energy converter: Acceleration tube optimization.
In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Beijing, China, 20–25 June 2010.
147. Colby, M.K.; Nasroullahi, E.M.; Tumer, K. Optimizing ballast design of wave energy converters using evolutionary algorithms.
In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Dublin, Ireland, 12–16 July 2011;
pp. 1739–1746.
148. Victor, L.; Troch, P.; Kofoed, J.P. On the Effects of Geometry Control on the Performance of Overtopping Wave Energy Converters.
Energies 2011, 4, 1574–1600. [CrossRef]
149. Gomes, R.P.F.; Henriques, J.C.C.; Gato, L.M.C.; Falcão, A.F.d. Hydrodynamic optimization of an axisymmetric floating oscillating
water column for wave energy conversion. Renew. Energy 2012, 44, 328–339. [CrossRef]
150. Goggins, J.; Finnegan, W. Shape optimisation of floating wave energy converters for a specified wave energy spectrum. Renew.
Energy 2014, 71, 208–220. [CrossRef]
151. Margheritini, L.; Stratigaki, V.; Troch, P. Geometry optimization of an overtopping wave energy device implemented into the new
breakwater of the Hanstholm port expansion. In Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Rhodes, Greece, 17–22 June 2012.
152. Silva, S.R.e.; Gomes, R.P.F.; Falcao, A.F.O. Hydrodynamic optimization of the UGEN: Wave energy converter with U-shaped
interior oscillating water column. Int. J. Mar. Energy 2016, 15, 112–126. [CrossRef]
153. Tom, N.M.; Lawson, M.J.; Yu, Y.-H.; Wright, A.D. Development of a nearshore oscillating surge wave energy converter with
variable geometry. Renew. Energy 2016, 96, 410–424. [CrossRef]
154. Li, Y.; Peng, H.; Qiu, W.; Lundrigan, B.; Gardiner, T. Hydrodynamic analysis and optimization of a hinged type wave energy
converter. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Busan, Korea, 19–24
June 2016; Volume 49972, p. V006T09A024.
155. Mahnamfar, F.; Altunkaynak, A. Comparison of numerical and experimental analyses for optimizing the geometry of OWC
systems. Ocean Eng. 2017, 130, 10–24. [CrossRef]
156. Sergiienko, N.Y.; Cazzolato, B.S.; Ding, B.; Hardy, P.; Arjomandi, M. Performance comparison of the floating and fully submerged
quasi-point absorber wave energy converters. Renew. Energy 2017, 108, 425–437. [CrossRef]
157. Renzi, E.; Leech, J.; Phillips, I. WEC-GA optimisation tool for an oscillating wave surge converter. In Proceedings of the European
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland, 27 August–1 September 2017.
158. Bouali, B.; Larbi, S. Sequential optimization and performance prediction of an oscillating water column wave energy converter.
Ocean Eng. 2017, 131, 162–173. [CrossRef]
159. Wang, L.; Ringwood, J. Geometric optimization of a hinge-barge wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the European Tidal
and Wave Energy Conference Proceedings, Napoli, Italy, 1–6 September 2019.
160. Ulazia, A.; Esnaola, G.; Serras, P.; Penalba, M. On the impact of long-term wave trends on the geometry optimisation of oscillating
water column wave energy converters. Energy 2020, 206, 118146. [CrossRef]