Pictures of the OWC technologies discussed in this section are

Pictures of the OWC technologies discussed in this section are shown in Fig. 4.•Ref. [14] reports experimental performance results for the NEL-OWC, which is a floating terminator device composed of several OWC modules mounted on a spine. The device was tested at large scale in the Solent with three, five and eight modules, each module having width of 1.5 m. Figure 11 of the paper presents CWR measured during the sea trials as a function of the energy period. The large spread of the sea trial results can be attributed to the varying properties of the waves. The eight module configuration gave best performance so was selected by us for estimation of the mean annual CWR. Assuming that the scale of the model was 1/20, we estimated mean annual CWR to be respectively 22, 27, 29, 23% for sites with wave resource 16, 23, 27, 37 kW/m.•Ref. [15] deals with the design and construction of the Mutriku wave power plant, which is a combination of a breakwater with OWCs. The width of each OWC chamber is 6 m. Power performance was assessed through experiments on a 1/40 scale model of the plant, from which annual average pneumatic power capture was estimated to be 175 kW for the whole plant. The offshore wave resource being 26 kW/m, the mean annual CWR is 7%.•Ref. [16] deals with performance optimization of a floating OWC using numerical modelling. Three configurations were investigated: (A) 8 m diameter and 24 m draft, (B) 8 m diameter and 36 m draft, (C) 12 m diameter and 24 m draft. Other dimensions and PTO characteristics were numerically optimized to maximize power Tasquinimod for a site offshore Portugal. The wave resource is 31 kW/m. Mean CWR is respectively 17%, 23% and 21% for configurations A,B and C (see Table 3 of the paper). As seen in Fig. 4, this device differs from the archetypal OWC in Fig. 3. Thus, it was included in the database as an OWC variant.•Ref. [17] presents power performance results for the OWC pilot plant installed in Pico island in the Azores. Data had been collected from 2005 to 2010, during which period the plant had been running for approximately 1700 h in total. As reported in the source, the mean electrical power was measured to be 28 kW for an offshore wave resource of 38 kW/m. The efficiency of the Wells turbine was estimated to be 31%. The width of the plant is 12 m, thus the mean annual CWR is 20%.•Ref. [18] presents results of experiments conducted in Cork (Ireland) for the KNSWING WEC. This device is an attenuator equipped with forty OWC chambers (twenty on the port side and twenty on starboard). The model scale is 1/50, with a length of 3 m. It was tested both in regular and irregular waves. Using this data and the scatter diagram provided in the report, we calculated the mean annual CWR to be 18% for a 7.5 m wide OWC and a 14 kW/m wave resource. The device was classified as variant of OWC because the OWC chambers are not facing the incident waves, see Fig. 4.•Ref. [19] presents power performance results for a large V-shaped floating WEC developed in Ireland. Each arm of the V hosts sixteen OWC chambers. Power absorbed in each OWC chamber is manifolded and drives one single air turbine. The length of each arm is 250 m at full scale. A 1/50 scale model was tested in Cork, in Ireland. Figure 24 of the paper shows the performance of the technology in regular waves. Using this data, we estimated the mean annual CWR to be respectively 12, 14, 15, 12% for sites with wave resource 15, 23, 27, 36 kW/m. The device was classified as variant of OWC because the OWC chambers are not facing the incident waves, see Fig. 4.