## 5 Hydraulic and Energetic Behavior
Some criteria were followed for the numerical model: (1) the number of weather states must be limited to cover the wave energy contribution diagram as best as possible. Combinations of Hs-Tp and Hs-direction that together exceed the 80% occurrence were chosen; (2) the contribution of wave energy from each state of the sea must be between 5 and 25% of the total, while it must have a probability of occurrence of at least the 0.5% of the time; (3) for the estimation of the annual energy production, there is no need to include extremely small waves, even if they occur with frequency, or extremely large wave conditions. The latter generally rarely occur, as they will not contribute significantly to the annual energy production; this is due to its low contribution to the energy of low waves (characterized by a low probability of occurrence or low wave power level) and a marine energy converter has a performance reduction in wave undulating conditions predominant, since its size and performance are normally not optimized for them. In order to create the numerical model, it is necessary to choose a series of propagation meshes in each breakwater case, covering all the way of the wave from deep waters to the objective points. The orientation of those meshes should concur with the main direction of the waves, being able to propagate in each mesh in other directions that are not positioned at an angle of more than 45\({}^{\circ}\) from the main direction in order to obtain reliable data in the propagation. For the study, only those directions of the waves that together represent a percentage of the time greater than 90% of the maritime climate in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Objective Point** & **X (UTM Coordinates)** & **Y (UTM Coordinates)** & **Z (Depth, m)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Langosteira} & P1 & 537,700 & 4,799,490 & 31.20 \\  & P2 & 538,100 & 4,799,790 & 30.00 \\  & P3 & 538,514 & 4,800,133 & 38.60 \\  & P4 & 538,944 & 4,800,388 & 33.04 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Gijón} & P1 & 282,104 & 4,828,612 & 16.90 \\  & P2 & 282,112 & 4,828,880 & 20.00 \\  & P3 & 283,104 & 4,829,312 & 21.90 \\  & P4 & 283,704 & 4,829,512 & 28.90 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Bilbao} & P1 & 491,526 & 4,801,720 & 30.50 \\  & P2 & 492,212 & 4,802,157 & 29.65 \\ \cline{1-1}  & P3 & 492,522 & 4,802,516 & 31.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & P4 & 493,026 & 4,802,820 & 28.80 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Geographical coordinates in WGS84 of the objective points in the breakwaters. average regime were selected [24; 25]. In Figures 10-12, different graphic results of the characterization of the maritime climate in the three study points are shown. In addition, other variables must be taken into account in numerical wave propagation, as they are influential on the accuracy of the model. The bathymetric information, or the position of the point where wave data were gathered with respect to the position of the structure, needs to be designed [26]. Figure 10: Cont. After propagation with the CMS Wave software, the maritime climate is obtained in all the proposed target points for each breakwater. Combining the available potential energy matrices (Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum) together with the characterization of the maritime climate at target points (frequency in hours of the different combinations of the Hs-Tp waves), the wave energy available at these points are obtained. In Punta Langosteira: 287,504 MWh/year in P1; 291,328 MWh/year in P2; 291,316 MWh/year in P3; 287,024 MWh/year in P4. In the Gijon port: 153,061 MWh/year in P1; 145,994 MWh/year in P2; 145,250 MWh/year in P3; 160,028 MWh/year in P4. In Punta Lucero: 230,382 MWh/year in P1; 249,758 MWh/year in P2; 260,334 MWh/year in P3; 277,243 MWh/year in P4. The more energy efficient ones were chosen, where constructive aspects avoiding heads and changes of direction of the breakwaters were also considered; thus, the selected points were: P2 in Punta Langosteira, P1 in Torres, P3 in Norte and P5 in Punta Lucero.