Wave Energy Converter Survivability and Lessons from Offshore Wind: A Critical Review
Clicks: 8
ID: 322710
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
2.1
/100
8 views
7 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 4 articles by views in Oxford Open Energy
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Ocean wave energy remains pre-commercial after four decades, with under 3 MW deployed against some 80 GW of offshore wind. Cost and efficiency explanations are incomplete: structural and station-keeping failure recur in documented WEC terminations. This review examines WEC structural integrity over 2016–2026 and asks what the sector can learn from offshore wind. The methodology is two-part. Part A is a PRISMA 2020 systematic review of the WEC literature (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore) plus grey literature; Part B is a purposive review of five pre-defined offshore wind practice areas. Together these draw on 150 references (117 in-window 2016–2026; 33 foundational). Addressing RQ1, WEC failures parallel early offshore wind in three respects: subsystem failure dominates primary-structure failure; the gap between codified and observed design loads persists; and condition monitoring is now the operational response to residual risk. They diverge in two critical ways: offshore wind can feather its rotor into a low-load survival state, whereas WECs must use active, high-energy survival configurations with their own failure modes; and offshore wind has the fleet scale that underpins reliability benchmarking. Addressing RQ2, transferability against four criteria (physical analogy, data availability, regulatory maturity, economic feasibility) shows that reliability benchmarking, standards content, and SCADA-based monitoring transfer only partially, while vibration monitoring and coupled analysis transfer fully. Digital-twin methodology transfers asymmetrically: physics-based models suit single-prototype validation, whereas data-driven monitoring is constrained by the absence of a WEC fleet. We argue for a compressed rather than replicated trajectory and identify four priority research directions.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7171501886
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Kornpaphop Ruttanawijit, Yodchai Tiaple |
| Journal | Oxford Open Energy |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/ooenergy/oiag011
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.