Air Gap Prediction for Floating Bodies Using a 3D Numerical Wave Tank Approach

Abstract

Computations for air gap response of a semisubmersible platform based on a 3D numerical wave tank approach are presented. The developed method is in time domain and can consider nonlinearities associated with incident wave and hydrostatic forces exactly in determining the body response, but the interaction hydrodynamics of radiation and diffraction are based on simplified linearization assumptions. The incident wave can be defined by any suitable wave theory and here defined by a fully nonlinear numerical wave model. After verifying the present computations results in its degenerated linearized version against the usual linear 3D Green function–based frequency-domain results for air gap predictions, systematic comparative studies are undertaken between linear and the approximate nonlinear solutions. It is found that nonlinear computations can yield considerably conservative predictions as compared to fully linear calculations, amounting to a difference of up to 30%–40% in the minimum air gap in steep ambient incident waves at high and moderate frequencies.

Keywords

3D numerical wave tank / Air gap responses / Time-domain approach / Numerical wave / F–K nonlinear

References

[1] Chen X, Wu B (2014) Air gap calculation and the effect of wave diffraction and higher order waves. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Hydrodynamics (ICHD-2014), Singapore

[2] Dong Z, Zhan J. Numerical modelling of wave evolution and run-up in shallow water. J Hydrodyn, 2009, 21(6): 731-738

[3] Ganesan TS, Sen D. Time-domain simulation of large-amplitude wave–structure interactions by a 3D numerical tank approach. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy, 2015, 1: 299-324

[4] Ganesan T Shivaji, Sen Debabrata. Direct time domain analysis of floating structures with linear and nonlinear mooring stiffness in a 3D numerical wave tank. Applied Ocean Research, 2015, 51: 153-170

[5] Iwanowski B, Lefranc M, Wemmenhove R (2009) CFD simulation of wave run-up on a semi-submersible and comparison with experiment. In ASME Proceedings of OMAE-2009, pp 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2009-79052

[6] Jørgen K, Oosterlaak V, Kvillum T (2014) Non-linear air gap analyses of a semi-submersible compared with linear analyses and model tests. In ASME proceedings of OMAE-2014. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2014-24044

[7] Kazemi S, Incecik A (2005) Numerical prediction of air-gap response of floating offshore structures using direct boundary element method. In ASME proceedings of OMAE-2005. Halkidiki, Greece, Paper no-OMAE2005–67399. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2005-67399

[8] Kim MW, Koo W, Hong SY. Numerical analysis of various artificial damping schemes in a three-dimensional numerical wave tank. Ocean Eng, 2014, 75: 165-173

[9] Kurniawan A, Huang Z, Jing L, Liu C, Wang X, Hao Z, Tan SK, Edwin N (2009) A numerical analysis of the response and air gap demand for semi-submersibles. ASME Proceedings of OMAE-2009. Honolulu, Hawaii,USA. Paper no.-OMAE2009–79163. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2009-79163

[10] Manuel L, Winterstein SR (2000) Reliability based predictions of a design air gap for floating offshore structures. In Proceedings 8th ASCE Conf. on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability

[11] Manuel L, Sweetman B, Winterstein SR. Analytical predictions of the air gap response of floating structures. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng, 2001, 123: 112-117

[12] Matsumto FT, Watai RA, Simos AN (2010) Wave run-up and air gap prediction for a large volume semisubmersible platform. In ASME proceedings of OMAE-2010. Shanghai, China. Paper no-OMAE2010–20165. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007380

[13] Naess A, Gaidai O (2011) Extreme value statistics of non-Gaussian random wave fields and the air gap problem for offshore platforms. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011Leuven, Belgium, 4–6 July 2011. ISBN 978–90–760-1931-4

[14] Nielsen FG. Comparative study on air gap under floating platforms and run-up along platform columns. Mar Struct, 2003, 16(2): 97-134

[15] Pinkster JA (1980) Low frequency Second order wave exciting forces on floating structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology

[16] Rienecker MM, Fenton JD. A Fourier approximation method for steady water waves. J Fluid Mech, 1981, 104: 119-137

[17] Shan Tie-bing, Yang Jian-min, Li Xin, Xiao Long-fei. Experimental Investigation on Wave Run-up Characteristics Along Columns and Air Gap Response of Semi-Submersible Platform. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2011, 23(5): 625-636

[18] Simos AN, Sparano JV, Aranha JAP, Matos VLF (2008) 2nd order hydrodynamic effects on resonant heave, pitch and roll motions of a large-volume semisubmersible platform. In ASME proceedings of OMAE-2008. Estoril, Portugal, Paper no-OMAE2008–57430. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2008-57430

[19] Sweetman B. Practical air gap prediction of offshore structures. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng, 2004, 126: 147-155

[20] Sweetman B, Winterstein SR. Non-Gaussian air gap response models for floating structures. J Eng Mech, 2003, 129(3): 302-309

[21] Sweetman B, Winterstein SR, Meling TS, Birknes J (2001) Air gap prediction: use of second-order diffraction and multicolumn models. In Proceedings of ISOPE 2001-IL-13, ISOPE-2001, available from http://www.rms-group.org

[22] Sweetman B, Winterstein SR, Cornell CA. Air gap analysis of floating structures: first-and second-order transfer functions from system identification. Appl Ocean Res, 2002, 24(2): 107-118

[23] Winterstein SR, Sweetman B. Air gap response of floating structures: statistical predictions vs observed behavior. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng, 2001, 123: 118-123

[24] Yan F, Yang H, Shen P, Zhang D, Sun L (2014) A probability distribution of air-gap and wave run-up by model tests of a horizontal moored semi-submersible platform. ASME Proceedings of OMAE-2014. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2014-23021