Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

High-damping, high-Reynolds VIV tests for energy harnessing using the

VIVACE converter
J.H. Lee 1, M.M. Bernitsas 2,n
Department of NA&ME, University of Michigan, 2600 Draper Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2145, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 17 February 2010
Accepted 26 June 2011
Available online 9 September 2011

The VIVACE converter enhances VIV to harness horizontal hydrokinetic energy of water ows. HighReynolds and high-damping are required to operate VIVACE in ocean/river currents. Scarce VIV data
exist in that parametric subspace. Tests are performed for Reynolds number 40,000 oRe o 120,000 and
damping 0 o z o0.16 in the Low Turbulence Free Surface Water Channel of the Marine Renewable
Energy Laboratory at the University of Michigan. Extensive testing was made possible by building a
virtual damper-spring apparatus, which has been system identied and veried with real damperspring tests. Thus, damping and stiffness are adjusted by software rather than hardware. From the VIV
tests, the optimal damping for energy harnessing was found for velocity 0.40 m/so Uo 1.10 m/s using
spring stiffness 400 N/m o ko 1800 N/m. Thus, the VIVACE converter power envelope is developed. The
following experimental observations are made: (1) In the high-lift TrSL3 and TrBL0 ow regimes, highamplitude, high-damping VIV is maintained. (2) VIV strongly depends on Reynolds. (3) The amplitude
ratio (A/D) increases with Reynolds number within the upper branch of the VIV synchronization range.
(4) In TrSL3/TrBL0, A/D of 1.78 was achieved for a smooth cylinder routinely in low damping. (5) Power
density of 98.2 W/m3 at 1.03 m/s (2 knots) is achieved including space between cylinders.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Hydrokinetic energy harnessing
VIVACE converter
Power envelope
Vortex induced vibrations
VIV
High-Reynolds numbers
High-damping VIV
Power density

1. Hydrokinetic energy conversion

In the past ve years, the focus of research of the Marine
Renewable Energy Laboratory (MRELab) at the University of Michigan
has been the basic hydrodynamics of enhancing uid induced motion
(FIM) in the form of vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) or galloping in
order to convert horizontal hydrokinetic energy into mechanical and
subsequently electrical energy. This experimental research supports
the development of the VIVACE (VIV for Aquatic Clean Energy)
Converter invented in 2005 (Bernitsas et al., 2008a, 2009) and
patented in 2009 (Bernitsas and Raghavan, 2007, 2009). The objective
of this paper is to generate the power envelope of the VIVACE
Converter as a function of uid velocity for smooth cylinders, that
is, without passive turbulence control (PTC) (Bernitsas and Raghavan
2007, 2008; Bernitsas et al., 2008b; Raghavan and Bernitsas, 2008). In
the parametric space of VIV for energy harnessing, dened by high
damping and high Reynolds numbers, there is no relevant data in the
literature. Accordingly, all tests are conducted at MRELab either in the
Low Turbulence Free Surface Water (LTFSW) Channel or the towing
tank of the University of Michigan. To conduct the required extensive
hydrodynamic testing at high damping and high Reynolds numbers

Corresponding author. Tel.: 734 764 9317; fax: 734 936 8820.
E-mail address: michaelb@umich.edu (M.M. Bernitsas).
1
Presently with Marine Research Institute, Samsung Heavy Industries.
2
Also at Dept. of Mechanical Engineering and CTO Vortex Hydro Energy USA.

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.06.007

of a single cylinder in VIV, a virtual damper-spring (VCK) system has

been built, system identied, and veried with real spring-dampers
(Lee et al., 2011). VCK makes it possible to change damping and spring
constant by software rather than hardware accurately, thus, enabling
quick and extensive data collection presented in this paper. Brief
introduction to the relevant literature follows.

1.1. Hydrokinetic energy and converters

Hydrokinetic energy is available in vertical and horizontal
components due to waves and currents, respectively. Another
way of classifying hydrokinetic energy converters is by the nature
of the utilized space. Hydrokinetic energy converters include:
(a) point absorbers, such as surface buoys (Ocean Power Technology,
2010, 2001). (b) Line absorbers, such as the Pelamis attenuator
(Pelamis Wave Power, 2010). (c) Horizontal surface patch absorbers,
such as oscillating water columns (Oceanlinx, 2010). (d) Vertical
surface absorbers, such as turbines and open propellers (Marine
Turbines, 2010). (e) Three dimensional space absorbers; such as the
VIVACE Converter (Vortex Hydro Energy, 2011).
The amount of hydrokinetic energy available in the marine
environment oceans, rivers, lakes is substantial as estimated
by Bedard et al. (2005), Hall et al. (2006), Savitt Schwartz (2005),
World Energy Council (2001), and Pontes and Falcao (2001).
Typically, estimates are based on available technology implying that
technological advancements can expand our ability to harness even

1698

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

more marine renewable energy. The VIVACE Converter makes it

possible to harness horizontal hydrokinetic energy of currents even
as slow as 0.514 m/s (1 knot) because it is scalable, recongurable,
and has high energy density; thus, compensating for the low energy
density of slow currents. VIVACE has no upper limit in ow velocity
because PTC (passive turbulence control) has successfully maintained Flow Induced Motion (FIM) in the ow transition region and
beyond (Bernitsas and Raghavan 2007, 2008; Bernitsas et al., 2008b;
Raghavan and Bernitsas, 2008). To put this into perspective, EPRI
(Bedard et al., 2005) reported that turbines are nancially viable in
average ow velocities of 2.53.6 m/s (57 knots) or higher, while
the vast majority of currents around the world are slower than
3 knots and typically rivers are slower than 1.03 m/s (2 knots).

are presented for velocity 0.40 m/soU o1.10 m/s using spring
stiffness 400 N/moko1800 N/m. Tests are performed for Reynolds number 40,000 oReo120,000 and damping 0 o z o0.16. In
Section 4, the optimal energy harnessing is calculated and
compared to dissipated energy as well as Betzs limit (Cueva
and Sanz-Andres, 2005). Results show an increase in energy
density of the VIVACE Converter by a factor of 5 compared to
previously reported data (Bernitsas et al., 2009), which was
performed three years ago using sparse data due to the lack of a
VCK system. Spacing between cylinders of 8 diameters downstream and 2.5 diameters transversely in staggered conguration
is included in the denominator of the power density calculation.

1.2. High damping VIV and the VIVACE converter

2. Experimental setup and VCK system

The VIVACE Converter is scalable from compact devices generating a few watts to underwater farms generating hundreds of
MW. The requirements for high performance in the marine
environment include: (i) operating in the high-lift regimes TrSL3
and TrBL0 ( 20,000oReo300,000) (Zdravkovich, 1990) where
VIV response is maximum, (ii) maintaining high VIV response at
high damping needed for energy harnessing. Under each of these
requirements separately, there is very little data available in the
open literature as shown in the reviews by Bearman (1984, 2009),
Sarpkaya (2004), and Williamson and Govardhan (2004). Under
the combined requirements of high damping and high Reynolds
numbers, the only available data have been generated in MRELab
(Bernitsas et al., 2009; Raghavan and Bernitsas, 2008; Raghavan
et al., 2007). In this paper, extensive testing is reported in the
TrSL3 regime for high damping. The objective is to vary spring
stiffness and damping in order to nd high damping, high
amplitude VIV response and generate a power envelope for the
optimal energy that can be harnessed using the VIVACE Converter. Results are presented in Sections 3 and 4.

In this section, the experimental facility, the virtual VIVACE

apparatus, and the mathematical model are presented.

1.3. Virtual damper-spring system

In the MRELab, a virtual damper-spring (VCK) system has been
built in order to replace the physical dampers and springs, which are
components of the VIVACE Converter by a motor and controller
providing a feedback signal simulating damper and spring forces (Lee
et al., 2011). After extensive system identication and verication
using real dampers and springs, a reliable system has been built,
which makes it possible to dene accurately the damper and spring
constant using software rather than changing hardware. The VCK at
MRELab, built into the LTFSW Channel, is based on displacement and
velocity feedback, thus, introducing no articial lag between hydrodynamic force and displacement. Thus, the phase lag between
hydrodynamic force and displacement, which is very important for
calculation of harnessed energy is not biased by introduction of the
VCK apparatus into the experimental setup. The effort to build, system
identify, and calibrate VCK took about a year but paid off in accuracy
and consistency of the data presented in Sections 3 and 4. A virtual
system based on force-feedback control with on-line numerical
simulation of a modeled structure (Hover et al., 1997, 1998) would
not work with a virtual VIVACE apparatus as it introduces an articial
additional phase lag of 121 (Hover et al., 1997) and 51 (Hover et al.,
1998). This phase lag is due to ltering of noisy measured uid force
signal, which is fundamentally inevitable for the cylinder position
control in the nonyielding water environment. The induced articial
phase lag would bias energy conversion (Bernitsas et al., 2008a).
Accuracy in that phase lag is most important in calculating the energy
harnessed by the VIVACE Converter (Lee et al., 2011).
In Section 2, the experimental setup, mathematical modeling,
and VCK are described. In Section 3, the high damping VIV results

2.1. Experimental facility

Experiments on VIV and harnessing energy using the VCK VIVACE
model are conducted in the LTFSW Channel at the Marine Hydrodynamics Lab of the MRELab. The LTFSW Channel is two-story high
and recirculates approximately 30,283 l (8000 gallons) of water
with maximum velocity of 2 m/s. It has a main test section of 2.44 m
in length, 1 m in width and 0.8 m in depth. During the experiments,
water depth is maintained at 0.71 m. The measured background
turbulence level is less than 0.1% of the free surface velocity, which
is acceptable for the experiments (Walker et al. 1996).
2.2. Description of the VCK VIVACE apparatus
A single circular cylinder is mounted horizontally and perpendicularly to the ow direction sliding on vertical shafts using linear
bearings. Thus, it is undergoing one-degree-of-freedom motion. Fig. 1
shows a SolidWorks drawing of the lab scale model of the VCK VIVACE
Converter as well as a picture of VCK mounted on the LTFSW Channel.
The VCK VIVACE model consists of the components listed in
Table 1. The motor generates virtual spring and damping torque
using the angle and angular velocity measurements while the
vortex shedding force is exerted on the cylinder. The rotational
motion of the motor is converted to a linear motion by the timingbelt, which encircles the two pulleys. The moving part, consisting of
the cylinder, two supporting struts (one at each cylinder end), and
two linear bearings attached to the struts, is connected to the
timing-belt and oscillates driven by the motor and sliding along two
shafts. An idler is used to reduce excessive vibration of the timingbelt by providing force in the longitudinal direction of the timingbelt. Also, a coupling is used between the upper pulley and motor
shaft. When excessive torque is applied, it slips to protect the motor.
The embedded encoder inside the motor is a quadrature type
optical encoder. It provides angle and angular velocity of the
motor, which are used for feedback control. In this application,
one revolution of the motor corresponds to 2000 encoder counts.
Details regarding the motor-controller system are provided in Lee
et al. (2011).
2.3. Mathematical modeling
A detailed derivation of the VCK mathematical model is presented in Lee et al. (2011). The basic model equations are
provided below. The relevant symbols are dened in Table 2.
A SolidWorks drawing for the physical modeling of the VCK
VIVACE apparatus showing the transmitted forces and degrees of
freedom of rotating parts are shown in Fig. 1(b).

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

Since the electrical dynamics of the motor is much faster than

its mechanical dynamics, the former is neglected. Also, the
gravitational force is ignored assuming the cylinder will be
oscillating around the equilibrium position after the virtual spring
and damper have been implemented. Further, assuming that the
timing-belt is inelastic, basing on the coordinate system shown in
Fig. 1(b) the equations of motion of VCK VIVACE in the air can be

1699

written as
Jmotor Jpulley y 1 Tmotor tmotor rpulley F4 F1

Jpulley y 2 tpulley1 rpulley F2 F3

Jpulley y 3 tpulley2 rpulley F3 F4

mosc y fbearing F1 F4

Kinematic relationships among y1, y2, y3 and y are

y1 y2 y3 y

y rpulley y

Thus, Eqs. (1)(4) can be simplied by utilizing Eqs. (5) and (6) as
2
mosc y
Jmotor 3Jpulley rpulley

Tmotor tmotor tpulley1 tpulley2 rpulley fbearing

The linear motion version of Eq. (7) is
!
Jpulley
Jmotor
y

m
osc
2
2
rpulley
rpulley


tmotor tpulley1 tpulley2
Fmotor 

fbearing
rpulley
rpulley
rpulley

Eq. (8) can be simplied for convenience in designing the

controller as
my Fmotor f

where
m meff mosc

Fig. 1. (a) VCK mounted on the LTFSW Channel. (b) Coordinate system of VCK
VIVACE.

Jmotor 3Jmotor
2
mosc
2
rpulley
rpulley

10

tmotor tpulley1 tpulley2

fbearing
rpulley
rpulley
rpulley

11

mosc is dened in Table 1, rpulley is an effective radius to convert

moment of inertia to oscillating mass called meff. This includes all
rotating parts such as pulleys, the part of the transmission belt in

Table 1
Components of the VCK VIVACE model.
D cylinder diameter (in, cm)
L cylinder length (in, cm)
mosc mass of the oscillating components: cylinder, struts, bearings, straight part of transmission belt (kg)
Pulley radius (cm)

3.5/8.89
36/91.44
8.88
4.9

Table 2
Description of components of the VCK VIVACE model.

yi, i 1, 2, 3

y
mosc (kg)
meff (kg)
kvirtual (N/m)
Charn (Ns/m)
Cbearing (Ns/m)
Jmotor (kg m2)
tmotor (N)
Tmotor (N)
Jpulley (kg m2)
tpulley1 (N)
tpulley2 (N)
rpulley (m) f (N)
fbearing (N)
Fi, i 1, 2, 3, 4 (N)

i 1:angle of the rotor

i 2:angle of the lower pulley
i 3:angle of the idler
Displacement of the oscillating part
Mass of linearly oscillating components
Moment of inertia of rotating mass divided by corresponding effective radius
Spring constant simulated by the VCK device
Linear viscous damping coefcient added for energy harnessing
Linear viscous damping coefcient for frictional losses
Mass moment of inertia of the rotor
Nonlinear damping torque of the motor with memory
Torque generated by the motor
Mass moment of inertia of the pulley
Nonlinear damping torque of the lower pulley
Nonlinear damping torque of the upper pulley
Effective radius of the pulley
Linear viscous damping force of all bearings
ith tension in the timing-belt

1700

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

contact with the pulley, rotating parts inside the motor and the
motor shaft.
The damping force f is modeled with Linear AutoRegression
combined with Nonlinear Static (LARNOS) model proposed and
identied by Lee et al. (2011)
fn

N
X
aK fNK ,

9y_ 9 o uthres

fn cy_ N ,

_ outhres ,
9y9

12

where the indices n and k indicate time and delay respectively

and cy_ N is the nonlinear static damping model. The controller
for the VCK VIVACE model is designed as shown in Eq. (13):
_ virtual y
_ virtual y f cbearing charn yk
Fmotor f cvirtual yk

13

The damping force f of the system is compensated. Programmable spring and damping forces are produced by the motor, so,
that the resulting equation of motion is expressed as a linear
mass/spring/damper system. Since the damping force from the
bearings exists even in the physical VIVACE models and prototypes with real springs and dampers, the damping force from
bearings cbearing y_ is included when designing the controller.
Finally, the equation of motion of the VCK VIVACE model undergoing VIV in the water is given as
my cbearing charn y_ kvirtual y ffluid t

14

where m10.94 kg, includes the linearly oscillating mass (mosc) of

8.88 kg dened in Table 1, plus the moment of inertia of all rotating
components divided by the square of the corresponding effective
radius yielding and equivalent mass hereafter called meff ( 2.06 kg).
Further cbering 4.4 Ns/m, and ffluid t is the hydrodynamic force on
the body exerted by the uid. It should be noted that the VCK system
has been built in such a way that fuid is not inside the closed control
loop. Thus, the measured force is not biased. For further details on the
system identication and calibration of the VCK, see Lee et al. (2011).

3. Experimental results for high-damping VIV

Extensive experiments with a D8.89 cm (3.5 in.) smooth
cylinder were performed varying kvirtual and cvirtual using the VCK
VIVACE model in the LTFSW Channel. The ow velocity was varied
from 0.4 to 1.4 m/s. Values of the kvirtual used in the experiments
were 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600 and 1800 N/m. For
each kvirtual, ve virtual zharn values were used dened as
c

harn
zharn p

m ma kvirtual

The effects of damping on those are presented in the following

three subsections.
3.1.1. Range of synchronization
Amplitude ratios (A/D) versus current velocity (u), reduced
velocity U n U=fn,water D, and Reynolds number (Re) for different
values of zharn for each kvirtual are compiled in Figs. 211. The
following observations can be made:
(a) For all kvirtual cases, synchronization starts with a jump in A/D
when zharn is 0. In this case, total system damping only
_
consists of damping from bearings, cbearing y.
(b) As zharn increases, the onset of synchronization becomes more
gradual.
(c) With smaller values of zharn, the upper end of synchronization
shifts to higher Un.
(d) Similarly to the onset of synchronization, synchronization
ends with a jump in A/D when zharn is small. As zharn increases
A/D curve decreases gradually. As a result, for each kvirtual case,
the case that zharn 0 has the broadest range of synchronization and it becomes narrower as zharn increases.
(e) The end of synchronization occurs around Un 910. At that
point, VIV becomes intermittent but remains persistent until
Un 1015 depending on kvirtual and zharn.
3.1.2. Amplitude of oscillation
Based on the same amplitude ratio A/D, and graphs in Figs. 211,
the following observations can be made:
(f) For all cases, it is obvious that the upper branch is not followed
by a lower branch; it is followed by desynchronization.
(g) The upper branch amplitude is not constant. On the contrary,
A/D increases with Reynolds number showing a strong
dependence of VIV on Reynolds.
(h) For all values of kvirtual, the amplitude of oscillation, A/D, is
reduced with increasing zharn. This is expected as the mechanical
energy in the VIVACE Converter, which was converted from the

15

The zharn values tested were 0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, and 0.16. Total
damping ztotal of the system is given as
c

harn

ztotal pbearing

m ma kvirtual

16

Amplitude ratios (A/D) for each combination of kvirtual and zharn

were found by averaging the highest 10 peak amplitudes. The
frequency of oscillation is calculated by an FFT of the entire signal
even in the desynchronization range where VIV becomes
intermittent.
3.1. Effect of damping on VIV
The most signicant characteristics of VIV response are the
range of synchronization, the amplitude of oscillation A/D, and the
frequency of oscillation ratio
s
!
1
kvirtual
p
fosc =fn,water ; fn,water
; Ca 1, md rw D2 L
2p m Ca md
4

Fig. 2. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 400 N/m and various values of
zharn.

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

Fig. 3. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 600 N/m and various values of
zharn.

Fig. 4. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 800 N/m and various values of
zharn.

hydrokinetic energy of the uid ow, is dissipated more with

higher zharn. As zharn increases by 0.04, A/D reduces by about
0.1 in the middle of the synchronization range, which occurs
around Un of 78.
(i) The maximum values of A/D for each combination of kvirtual
and zharn are summarized in Table 3.
(j) The maximum A/D value of 1.78 is achieved at U 1.15 m/s for
kvirtual 1200 N/m and zharn 0.
(k) The velocity where maximum A/D is achieved decreases with
increasing zharn for each kvirtual. Exception to this rule is

1701

Fig. 5. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1000 N/m and various values
of zharn.

Fig. 6. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1200 N/m and various values
of zharn.

observed for kvirtual 400 N/m where the velocity is about

constant due to high values of damping zharn.

3.1.3. Frequency of oscillation

The frequency ratio (fosc/fn,water) versus current velocity (U),
reduced velocity (Un), and Reynolds number (Re) for different zharn
values for each kvirtual are shown in Figs. 1017. On the same
gures, the Strouhal frequency is shown for comparison

1702

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

Fig. 7. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1400 N/m and various values
of zharn.

Fig. 8. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1600 N/m and various values
of zharn.

calculated from the relation 0:2 fs D=U. The following observations can be made:
(l) At the onset of synchronization for all values of kvirtual and
zharn, the frequency of oscillation deviates from the Strouhal
frequency due to lock-in and collapses around 1 since
mn 1.88 (Williamson and Govardhan, 2004).

Fig. 9. Amplitude ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1800 N/m and various values
of zharn.

Fig. 10. Frequency ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 400 N/m and various values
of zharn.

(m) At the end of synchronization, around Un 910, frequency

ratio lines cross over at about fosc/fn,water 1.1.
(n) During desynchronization where Un 1015 depending on
kvirtual and zharn, the intermittent VIV frequency increases
until the end of the desynchronizaiton range where the
forcing frequency returns to the Strouhal frequency.
(o) For low kvirtual values, all frequency lines nearly collapse.
With increasing kvirtual, the spread between the frequency

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

lines becomes signicant. Lines still cross at around Un 9,

fosc/fn,water 1.1.
3.2. Effect of stiffness K on VIV
The data presented in Figs. 29, are plotted in Figs. 1822 for a
given zharn and kvirtual as parameter. The independent variable is U
and/or Re; Un has been removed as an independent variable to
prevent collapsing of several gures into one. The following
observations can be made:
(p) As kvirtual increases the range of synchronization moves to
higher velocity as expected. Specically, fn,water increases
proportional to the square root of kvirtual while the synchronization range remains about constant with 45oUn o910.
This is important for energy harnessing. Figs. 1822 show the

Fig. 11. Frequency ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 600 N/m and various values
of zharn.

1703

relation between ow velocity and appropriate kvirtual. Thus,

with a simple change of kvirtual, VIVACE can achieve optimal
energy harnessing without any mass adjustment or ballasting.
(q) High values of ztotal result in more gradual onset of synchronization and more gradual desynchronization. This observation has an impact on the power envelope generated for the
VIVACE Converter in Section 5.3.
(r) The high lift regime TrSL3 comes to an end around Re105 as
shown in Fig. 23. It is followed by TrBL0, which has lower but
still high lift. Finally, TrBL1 has very low lift resulting in low
amplitude VIV followed by full suppression of VIV in the
transition from laminar to turbulent ow. Accordingly, as
ow velocity increases and kvirtual is increased to move the
synchronization range to higher velocity desynchronization
becomes sharper. The challenge of VIV suppression in the
ow transition region is overcome using passive turbulence

Fig. 12. Frequency ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 800 N/m and various values
of zharn.

Table 3
Maximum amplitude ratio for each combination of kvirtual and zharn.
kvirtual 400 N/m fn,water 0.78 Hz

kvirtual 600 N/m fn,water 0.96 Hz

kvirtual 800 N/m fn,water 1.1 Hz

kvirtual 1000 N/m fn,water 1.23 Hz

zharn

ztotal

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

ztotala

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

ztotal

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

ztotal

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16

0.033
0.073
0.113
0.153
0.193

0.59
0.63
0.59
0.63
0.59

1.37
1.24
1.09
0.93
0.78

0.027
0.067
0.107
0.147
0.187

0.81
0.78
0.74
0.74
0.7

1.47
1.32
1.19
1.03
0.87

0.024
0.064
0.104
0.144
0.184

1.00
0.92
0.89
0.81
0.81

1.53
1.37
1.22
1.09
0.95

0.021
0.061
0.101
0.141
0.181

1.10
1.07
1.04
0.92
0.89

1.73
1.54
1.34
1.16
0.99

kvirtual 1200 N/m fn,water 1.35 Hz

kvirtual 1400 N/m fn,water 1.46 Hz

kvirtual 1600 N/m fn,water 1.56 Hz

kvirtual 1800 N/m fn,water 1.66 Hz

zharn

ztotal

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

ztotal

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

ztotal

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

ztotal

U (m/s)

Max. A/D

0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16

0.019
0.059
0.099
0.139
0.179

1.15
1.11
1.07
1.00
0.96

1.78
1.59
1.42
1.23
1.07

0.018
0.058
0.098
0.138
0.178

1.15
1.15
1.11
1.04
1.00

1.76
1.6
1.42
1.26
1.10

0.017
0.057
0.097
0.137
0.177

1.15
1.18
1.11
1.07
1.03

1.7
1.6
1.43
1.25
1.09

0.016
0.056
0.096
0.136
0.176

1.84
1.15
1.11
1.11
1.07

1.71
1.52
1.35
1.21
1.03

1704

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

Fig. 13. Frequency ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1000 N/m and various values
of zharn.

Fig. 14. Frequency ratio vs. Un,U, and Re for kvirtual 1200 N/m and various values
of zharn.

control (Bernitsas and Raghavan 2007, 2008; Bernitsas et al.,

2008b; Raghavan and Bernitsas, 2008).
(s) As shown in Figs. 1822 and Table 4, maximum A/D for each
graph increases with kvirtual up to1200 N/m. It slightly
decreases for higher speeds and kvirtual. This is consistent with
the magnitude of lift as we move from the TrSL3 to TrBL0 ow
regime.

Fig. 15. Frequency ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1400 N/m and various values
of zharn.

Fig. 16. Frequency ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1600 N/m and various values
of zharn.

4. Power harnessing
From the results presented in Section 3, the power harnessed
by the VIVACE Converter is calculated in this section. The
mathematical model of harnessed and dissipated power is summarized in Section 4.1.

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

1705

Fig. 19. Amplitude ratios for zharn 0.04 for various values of kvirtual.

Fig. 17. Frequency ratio vs. Un, U, and Re for kvirtual 1800 N/m and various values
of zharn.

Fig. 20. Amplitude ratios for zharn 0.08 for various values of kvirtual.

Fig. 18. Amplitude ratios for zharn 0 for various values of kvirtual.

4.1. Mathematical model of harnessed and dissipated power

To obtain harnessed and dissipated power with the virtual VCK
VIVACE Converter, the left hand side of Eq. (14) is integrated after
multiplying it by the instantaneous velocity y and averaged over
the cycle period Tcyl. This yields:
Z Tcyl
1
my cbearing charn y_ kvirtual yy_ dt:
17
PVIVACE
Tcyl 0
If we assume that the VIV response is approximately sinusoidal the only nonzero term in Eq. (17) on the left hand side will be

the damping term. This results in the power of the VCK VIVACE
Converter
Z Tcyl
1
cbearing charn y_ 2 dt
18
PVIVACE
Tcyl 0
From Eq. (18), we obtain the harnessed and the dissipated power
components of the VCK VIVACE Converter in Eqs. (19) and (20),
respectively.
Z Tcyl
1
charn y_ 2 dt
19
Pharn
Tcyl 0
Pdissip

1
Tcyl

Z
0

Tcyl

cbearing y_ 2 dt

20

The harnessed power in Eq. (19) is either dissipated at a heat

bank (resistor box) or made available as electrical power. The
power in Eq. (20) is dissipated in the form of heat through friction

1706

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

between bearings and shafts. Even if the VIV motion is not

sinusoidal Eqs. (19) and (20) are still valid. In that case, the y
and y terms in Eq. (17) would dissipate additional energy that has
been converted from hydrokinetic to mechanical.
4.2. Harnessed power calculation using experimental results
For each combination of kvirtual and zharn, Pharn in Eq. (19) is
calculated using a trapezoidal integration scheme with 0.01 s
time step. 30 cycles of time history of Pharn are used to obtain
averaged Pharn. It should be emphasized that all data points are
used to average the harnessed power not just the top 10 peaks as
in plotting A/D in Figs. 411.
The calculated harnessed power, Pharn, is presented for each
value of kvirtual in Figs. 2430. The following observations can be
made:

Fig. 21. Amplitude ratios for zharn 0.12 for various values of kvirtual.

(t) For zharn 0, no energy can be harnessed. For high values of

zharn, the VIV amplitude is reduced resulting in less hydrokinetic energy converted to mechanical energy. As expected,
an optimal value of zharn exists, which allows maximum
energy harnessing while maintaining VIV under high damping. This is observed for all values of kvirtual in Figs. 2430.
(u) In spite of the high number of tests performed, the resolution
in zharn is less than desired resulting in an optimum
zharn 0.12 for all kvirtual values tested. Nevertheless, the
power envelope generated in Section 5.3 and shown in
Fig. 33 is sufciently smooth and has satisfactory resolution.
5. Power density assessment
Based on the results in Section 4, the power envelope of the
VIVACE Converter is generated. Results are compared to the
theoretical upper limit. Energy density is also calculated for
benchmarking of renewable energy devices.
5.1. Theoretical power limit of VCK VIVACE model
The theoretical upper limit of the power that can be harnessed
from a steady uniform ow has been calculated by Betz
Lanchester (Cueva and Sanz-Andres, 2005). Accordingly, this limit
can be calculated for the ow in the LTFSW Channel as follows.
Let U and U0 be the ow velocity upstream and downstream of
the VCK VIVACE apparatus, respectively. Then, the mean ow
velocity through the VCK VIVACE model is

Fig. 22. Amplitude ratios for zharn 0.16 for various values of kvirtual.

U U 0
U~
2

Fig. 23. Drag and lift coefcients for a stationary circular cylinder (Zdravkovich, 1997).

21

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

1707

Table 4
Power generated by the VIVACE Converter.
Current
velocity
(m/s)

Current
velocity
(knots)

Fluid channel
power (W) Eq.
(19)

Betzs limit Fluid power

in DL (W) Eq.
(W) Eq.
(20)
(17)

Pharn by
VIVACE
(W) Eq. (21)

Pdissip by
VIVACE
(W) Eq. (22)

VIVACE power
Power Captured
by VIVACE (W) Eq. density (W/m3)
(11)
Eq. (23)

Pharn/
Pmax  100
(%)

Pharn/
Puid(DL)  100
(%)

0.41
0.44
0.48
0.52
0.55
0.59
0.63
0.67
0.70
0.74
0.78
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.92
0.96
1.00
1.04
1.07
1.11

0.797
0.855
0.933
1.011
1.069
1.147
1.225
1.302
1.361
1.438
1.516
1.575
1.652
1.730
1.788
1.866
1.944
2.022
2.080
2.158

19.16
24.87
31.62
39.49
48.57
58.95
70.71
83.94
98.72
115.14
133.29
153.25
175.11
198.96
224.88
252.96
283.29
315.94
351.02
388.59

11.36
14.74
18.74
23.4
28.78
34.93
41.9
49.74
58.5
68.23
78.99
90.82
103.77
117.9
133.26
149.9
167.87
187.22
208.01
230.28

0.08
0.24
0.47
0.94
0.94
1.49
1.85
2.45
3.07
4.00
4.81
5.65
7.03
8.13
10.37
12.01
13.43
14.19
15.11
15.85

0.02
0.06
0.13
0.26
0.26
0.34
0.42
0.48
0.6
0.64
0.77
0.91
1.12
1.13
1.44
1.66
1.86
1.97
2.09
2.07

0.1
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.83
2.27
2.93
3.67
4.64
5.58
6.56
8.15
9.26
11.81
13.67
15.29
16.16
17.2
17.92

0.68
1.57
2.53
4.02
3.27
4.28
4.41
4.93
5.25
5.86
6.09
6.22
6.77
6.90
7.79
8.01
8.00
7.58
7.26
6.88

2.84
6.51
10.48
16.68
13.56
17.73
18.29
20.45
21.76
24.30
25.26
25.82
28.09
28.61
32.29
33.23
33.18
31.44
30.12
28.54

2.74
3.55
4.52
5.64
6.94
8.42
10.1
11.99
14.1
16.45
19.04
21.9
25.02
28.43
32.13
36.14
40.47
45.14
50.15
55.52

Fig. 24. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 400 N/m.

Fig. 25. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 600 N/m.

Utilizing Eq. (21), the mass ow rate through the cross section
area of the channel is calculated as
_ flow rWchannel Dwater U~ rWchannel Dwater U U 0 =2
m

0.54
1.6
3.27
6.51
6.51
10.33
12.79
16.97
21.23
27.65
33.29
39.11
48.62
56.27
71.78
83.08
92.93
98.19
104.52
109.65

22

where Wchannel and Dwater are the width of the channel and the
water depth, respectively. The width of the ow, being equal to
that of the channel, Wchannel, does not change. The depth of the
water Dwater; however, is observed to be higher immediately
upstream of the cylinder and lower immediately downstream of
the cylinder. Away from the cylinder the water depth is restored
as the channel impeller replenishes the extracted energy. Thus,

the water depth considered in Eq. (22) is the water depth at the
location of the cylinder.
The converted power from the ow to the converter is the
difference between the hydrokinetic energies upstream and downstream of VCK VIVACE Converter. Thus, we have
P


"  0 2 #
_ flow 2
m
r
U0
U
U U 02 Wchannel Dchannel U 3 1
1
2
2
U
U

23

For xed ow velocity U, the maximum power is harnessed

when U0 /U1/3. Thus, the theoretical power limit of Pharn is
Pmax

16 r
r
W
D
U 3  0:59 Wchannel Dchannel U 3
27 2 channel channel
2

24

1708

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

Fig. 26. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 800 N/m.

Fig. 27. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 1000 N/m.

Fig. 28. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 1200 N/m.

Fig. 29. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 1400 N/m.

5.2. VIVACE power density

As a result, 2 cylinders are included in a volume of 40D2  L.

Thus, the formula for calculating power density is

Power density is an important metric in comparing power

devices and particularly renewable energy technologies. For the
VIVACE Converter, calculations are based on the conguration
shown in Fig. 32. Specically, to minimize cylinder interference
based on model tests in the MRELab, a staggered conguration
with 8 diameters center-to-center spacing in the direction of the
ow and 5 diameters transversely is selected.


 2Pharn
Power Density W=m3
40D2 L
As a result, 2 cylinders are included in a volume of 40D2L. Thus,
the formula for calculating power density is:

 2Pharn
Power Density W=m3
40D2 L

25

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

1709

Fig. 31. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 1800 N/m.

Fig. 30. 30 cycle-averaged Pharn for kvirtual 1600 N/m.

Based on Eq. (25) and the power envelope generated in Section

5.3, the power density for the VIVACE Converter is shown in
Table 4. These results are assessed in Section 5 where power
densities of some conventional and renewable sources of energy
are compared.

We can see from Table 4, that Pharn increases faster than U3 up

to about U1 m/s. The maximum Pharn/Puid(DL) 33.23% was
achieved at 0.96 m/s of ow velocity with a corresponding Pharn/
Pmax 8.01%.
5.4. Benchmarking

5.3. Optimal power envelope of the VCK VIVACE model

As explained in Section 4.2, the maximum harnessed power
was achieved for zharn 0.12. In Fig. 33, the maximum power lines
from Figs. 2431 are superposed. The optimal harnessable power
envelope is shown in Fig. 33 along with the unrecoverable
dissipated power curve. In practice, given the envelope in
Fig. 33 and a ow velocimeter, a slow time-scale controller will
adjust the spring stiffness kvirtual and zharn to match the envelope
point based on the ow speed.
Fig. 34 shows the various components of power at U1.04 m/s,
which is approximately 2 knots. The latter is typical velocity of a
river and consequently an important number in assessing availability of power in low-head, low-speed hydrokinetic energy
resources.
The maximum Pharn achieved in this set of experiments is
15.85 W at ow speed of 1.11 m/s as shown in Table 4. Entries in
Table 4 are calculated using the following equations:
Eq. (26) for the power in the LTFSW Channel
Fluid Channel Power

1
rWchannel Dchannel U 3
2

26

Eq. (27) for the power through the cylinder projected area (DL) in
the direction of the ow
PfluidDL

1
rDLU 3
2

27

Eq. (24) for the Betz limit, Eq. (18) for the power captured by
VIVACE, Eq. (19) for the power harnessed by VIVACE, Eq. (20) for
the power dissipated by bearings, and Eq. (25) for the power
density.

Comparison between energy sources is not readily possible as

there are differences in availability, cost, geography, technology,
efciency, signal conditioning, storage, transportation, infrastructure, quality of energy source, renewability, politics, environmental impact, long-term sustainability, and other factors. Two facts
are certain: First, that the energy challenge tops all relevant lists
that have been published and it is likely to remain at the top in
the foreseeable future. Second, that all nancially competitive
sources of energy have to be used until a long-term sustainable
energy world-wide system is achieved in no more than
4050 years.
In the short term of no more than 20 years, power density has
emerged as a universal factor in comparing energy sources. It
relates to cost, maintenance, space utilization, environmental
impact, etc. The numerator is the amount of power that a
combination of source-technology can deliver and the denominator is the entire volume that cannot be used simultaneously in
any other way due to the presence of the power device. Power
density is an important metric in benchmarking and comparing
energy sourcesconventional or alternative, depletable or
renewable.
Of course, fossil fuels/technology and particularly Diesel
engines deliver the highest ratio at about 25,000 Watts/m3. The
denominator in this metric should not be confused with the
combustion volume typically used in car engine power density
ratings. Renewable energy sources have the lowest power
density.
While it is relatively straight-forward to measure the output
power averaged over a period of time to account for availability
due to intermittent supply as in wind, wave, solar energies what

1710

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

Fig. 32. Conguration of cylinder deployment of the VIVACE Converter.

That would make the denominator too big and the footprint
volume should be used instead.
(v) Water turbines have the same used and footprint volume and
the denominator should include all volume downstream of
turbines that is required before another turbine is installed
downstream in a farm. Footprint volume includes space from
sea-surface to sea-bed since there is plenty of horizontal
hydrokinetic energy that can be harnessed in that space.
(vi) In calculating the energy density of the VIVACE converter, the
footprint volume was used as well. VIVACE is designed as a
three dimensional device that can harness energy from the
complete volume it occupies. The obvious challenge of wake
turbulence and its effect on downstream cylinders has been
very well addressed based on passive turbulence control
(Bernitsas and Raghavan 2007, 2008; Bernitsas et al.,
2008b; Raghavan and Bernitsas, 2008).

Fig. 33. Optimal power envelope and corresponding dissipated power.

is included in the denominator requires further discussion. Here

are some examples:
(i) Volume for diesel engines includes all space occupied by the
engine, fuel lines, support, vibration absorbers, etc. where no
other equipment can be placed. The value of 25,000 Watts/m3
mentioned for Diesel engines includes only the space occupied
by the engine itself.
(ii) Wind turbines occupy land space and have considerable
height about 100 m where other wind turbines cannot
be used. That three-dimensional space is denitely valuable
and should be included in the denominator. The space above
that, even though cannot be used by other windmills, is of no
obvious value and should not be included.
(iii) Marine power converters vary widely. Wave buoys are surface point absorbers and typically are moored. They harness
vertical hydrokinetic energy. In the denominator, the footprint volume is probably reasonable to use dened as the
surface area occupied times the water depth.
(iv) Wave attenuators, such as Pelamis, have a spread mooring
system that precludes use of underwater ocean space far
larger than the footprint volume of such a surface device.

In the power density benchmarking performed among marine

energy converters in Bernitsas et al. (2008a, 2009) the footprint
volume has been used for all devices. Next we examine the power
density of wind turbines as they are a well-established industry
with clear market, production, cost, and environmental impact;
and the power density of VIVACE based on data generated in
Table 4.
Wind Power Density: Of the worlds two largest wind farms,
both located in Texas, the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, has
higher power density. It generates 735.5 MW with 291 GE energy
1.5 MW wind turbines and 130 S 2.3 MW wind turbines spread
over an area of 190 km2. The rated wind speed for the wind
turbines is 12 m/s. For a wind availability of 30%, the actual wind
power output is 735.5 MW  0.30 220.65 MW. For a total height
of the wind turbine of 115 m, the occupied volume is
190 km2  0.115 km21.85 km3. Therefore the power density of
the wind turbine is:
3

Power Density wind turbine, @ 12 m=s 220:65 MW=21:85 km

3

10:1 MW=km

28

VIVACE Power Density: To compare the power density of the

wind turbine with that of the VIVACE Converter, we need to nd
the water ow speed corresponding to the rated wind speed of
12 m/s. As the water to air density ratio is 830, the corresponding
ow velocity U is
s
3
3 12m=s
1:3 m=s
29
830

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

1711

Fig. 34. Power chart for U 1.04 m/s. (a) Total hydrokinetic power in channel at U 1.04 m/s. (b) Components of the hydrokinetic power through the DL cross-section at
U 1.04 m/s.

The maximum ow velocity achieved in the LTFSW Channel

experiments was 1.11 m/s as shown in Table 4. Since power is
proportional to velocity cube, the power density envelope of the
VIVACE Converter is curve-tted by 84.13 U3. Accordingly, the
power density of the VIVACE Converter at the corresponding ow
speed of 1.3 m/s is 184.8 W/m3 184,800 MW/km3. Assuming an
availability of water ow (including maintenance down-time) of
80% the power density of the VIVACE Converter is:
3

Power Density VIVACE, @1:3 m=s 184,800 MW=km  0:8

3

147,840MW=km

30

resulting in a ratio of
3

Power Density VIVACE, at 1:3 m=s

147,840 MW=km
14,600

3
Power Density wind turbine, at 12 m=s
10:1 MW=km

spacing mimicking proximity of sh in schools has enhanced

dramatically the amplitudes of clusters of up to four cylinders in
FIM (Kim et al. 2011).

Acknowledgements
The following support is gratefully acknowledged: (1) ONR
grant N00014-08-1-0601 to the University of Michigan, Program
Manager Kelly Copper. (2) NSF-SBIR grant to Vortex Hydro Energy
and the University of Michigan award # IIP-0810426, Program
Manager William Haynes. (3) Dr. Che Chan Chang Post-Doc
Researcher in the Marine Renewable Energy Laboratory at the
University of Michigan helped extensively in revising this paper.

31
It is worth extrapolating the VIVACE Converter power density
for two more speeds, 1.54 m/s (3 knots) which is typical ocean
current speed, and 6 knots where turbines are designed even
though there are only seven sites of such water ow speed in the
USA (Bedard et al., 2005).
For 1.54 m/s (3 knots),
3

Power Density VIVACE, @ 1:54 m=s 309,000 MW=km  0:8

3

247,000 MW=km
247 W=m

32

For 3.08 m/s (6 knots),

3

Power density VIVACE, @3:08 m=s 2,475,000 MW=km  0:8

3

1,980,000 MW=km
1980W=m

33

Eq. (26) yields a value, which is only about one order of

magnitude less than the power density of Diesel engines. Even
though achieving such power density for VIVACE is still 510
years in the future, it provides an achievable target for future
development. Research in PTC (passive turbulence control) and
sh kinematics is required to achieve that target. PTC has been
studied extensively in the Marine Renewable Energy Laboratory
at the University of Michigan with very powerful results in
dening the FIM the cylinder undergoes (Chang et al. 2011,
Chang and Bernitsas 2011, Park et al. 2011). Further, cylindr

References
Bearman, P.W., 1984. Vortex shedding from oscillating bluff bodies. Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics 16, 195222.
Bearman, P.W., 2009. Understanding and predicting vortex-induced vibrations.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 634, 14.
Bedard, R., Previsic, M., Siddiqui, O., Hagerman, G., Robinson, M., 2005. Tidal in
Steam Energy Conversion (TISEC) Devices. EPRI-TP-004NA.
Bernitsas, M.M., Ben-Simon, Y., Raghavan, K., Garcia, E.M.H., 2009. The VIVACE
converter: model tests at Reynolds numbers around 105. Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME Transactions 131 (1), 113.
Bernitsas, M.M., Raghavan, K., 2009. Converter of Current, Tide, or Wave Energy.
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce Patent# 7,493,759 B2 issued on
February 24.
Bernitsas, M.M., Raghavan, K., 2007. Enhancement of vortex induced forces &
motion through surface roughness control. United States Patent and Trademark Ofce Serial No. 12/277,321, November 25, 2008.
Bernitsas, M.M., Raghavan, K., 2008. Reduction/suppression of VIV of Circular
Cylinders through Roughness distribution at 8  103 o Reo 1.5  105. In:
Proceedings of the 27th International OMAE08 Conference, Paper #58024,
Estoril, Portugal, June 1520.
Bernitsas, M.M., Raghavan, K., Ben-Simon, Y., Garcia, E.M.H., 2008a. VIVACE (vortex
induced vibration aquatic clean energy): a new concept in generation of clean
and renewable energy from uid ow. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, ASME Transactions 130 (4), 041101041115.
Bernitsas, M.M., Raghavan, K., Duchene, G., 2008b. Induced separation and
vorticity using roughness in VIV of circular cylinders at 8  103 oRe o1.5 
105. Proceedings of the 27th International OMAE08 Conference, Paper
#58023, Estoril, Portugal, June 1520, 2008.
Chang, C.C., Kumar, R.A., Bernitsas, M.M., 2011. VIV and galloping of single circular
cylinder with surface roughness at 3.0  104 rRe r 1.2  105 OE-D-1000121Ocean Engineering OE-D-10-00121.
Chang, C.C., Bernitsas, M.M., 2011. Hydrokinetic energy harnessing using the
VIVACE converter with passive turbulence control. In: Proceedings of the

1712

J.H. Lee, M.M. Bernitsas / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 16971712

30th OMAE 2011 Conference, Paper #50290, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,

June 1924.
Cueva, A., Sanz-Andres, A., 2005. The extended BetzLanchester limit. Journal of
Renewable Energy 30 (5), 783794.
Hall, D.G., Reeves, K.S., Brizzee, J., Lee, R.D., Carroll, G.R., Sommers, G.L., 2006.
Feasibility assessment of the water energy resources of the United States for
new low power and small hydro classes of hydroelectric plants. Idaho National
Lab DOE-ID-11263.
Hover, F.S., Miller, S.N., Triantafyllou, M.S., 1997. Vortex-induced vibration of
marine cables: experiments using force feedback. Journal of Fluids and
Structures. 11 (3), 307326.
Hover, F.S., Techet, A.H., Triantafyllou, M.S., 1998. Forces on oscillating uniform
and tapered cylinders in crossow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 363, 97114.
Kim E.S., Bernitsas M.M., Kumar, A.R., 2011. Multi-cylinder ow induced motions:
enhancement by passive turbulence control at 28,000o Re o120,000. In:
Proceedings of the 30th OMAE 2011 Conference, Paper #49405, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, June 1924.
Lee, J.H., Xiros, N., Bernitsas, M.M., 2011. Virtual damper-spring system for VIV
experiments and hydrokenitic energy conversion. Ocean Engineering.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.12.014.
Marine Turbines, January 2010. /http://www.marineturbines.comS.
Oceanlinx, January 2010. /http://www.oceanlinx.comS.
Ocean Power Technology, January 2010. /http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.
comS.
Ocean Power Technology, Testimony to the US Congress. May 2001, /http://epw.
senate.gov/107th/tay_0530.htmS.
Park H.R., Bernitsas M.M., Kumar, R.A., 2011. Using the map of passive turbulence
control to ow induced motions to suppress circular cylinder motion at
31,000o Reo 120,000. In: Proceedings of the 30th OMAE 2011 Conference,
Paper #50302, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 1924.

Pontes, M.T., and Falca~ o, A., 2001. Ocean energies: resources and utilization. In:
Proceedings of 18th WEC Congress, Buenos Aires, October.
Pelamis Wave Power, January 2010. /http://www.pelamiswave.comS.
Raghavan, K., Bernitsas, M.M., 2008. Enhancement of high damping VIV through
roughness distribution for energy harnessing at 8  103 o Reo 1.5  105. In:
Proceedings of the 27th International OMAE08 Conference. Paper #58006,
Estoril, Portugal, June 1520.
Raghavan, K., Bernitsas, M.M., Maroulis, D., 2007. Effect of bottom boundary on
VIV for energy harnessing at 8  103 o Reo 1.5  105. Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME Transactions 131 (3), 031102.
Sarpkaya, T., 2004. A critical review of the intrinsic nature of vortex induced
vibrations. Journal of Fluids and Structures 19 (4), 389447.
Savitt Schwartz, S., 2005. In: Proceedings of the Hydrokinetic and Wave Energy
Technologies Technical and Environmental Issues Workshop, Washington D.C.
October 2628.
Vortex Hydro Energy, January 2011. /http:/www.vortexhydroenergy.comS.
Williamson, C.H.K., Govardhan, R., 2004. Vortex induced vibrations. Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics 36, 413455.
Walker, D.T., Lyzenga, D.R., Ericson, E.A., Lund, D.E., 1996. Radar backscatter and
surface roughness measurements for stationary breaking waves. Proceedings
of the Royal SocietyMathematical, Physical, Engineering Sciences (Series A)
452 (1952), 19531984.
WEC, 2001. Survey of Energy Resources, 19th Ed. Would Energy Council, London, UK.
Zdravkovich, M.M., 1990. Conceptual overview of laminar and turbulent ows past
smooth and rough circular-cylinders. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics 33 (12), 5362.
Zdravkovich, M.M., 1997. Flow Around Circular Cylinders. Volume 1: Fundamentals. Oxford Science Publications.