You are on page 1of 12

OTC 6314

The Concepts of Added Mass and Inertia Forces and Their Use
in Structural Dynamics
v. Jacobsen and E.A. Hansen, Danish Hydraulic Inst.
Copyright 1990, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 22nd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 7-10, 1990.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessaril.y reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.
ABSTRACT
A discussion on the concepts of added mass
and inertia forces is provided combined with
illustrative examples. The paper relates to
submerged circular cylinders - single or in
groups - only, and from an assessment of meas-
ured forces and analytical developments it is
advocated that the added mass values determined
from potential flow theory are adequate also
for real flows. A procedure for determining the
added mass coefficients for single cylinders
and groups of cylinders has been developed, and
results are given for 4 different configura-
tions.
INTRODUCTION
Researchers and engineers specializing in
hydrodynamics may be exposed to extensive
treatments of the subjects on added mass and
inertia forces, and they have the opportunity
of familiarizing themselves with the underlying
physics. This detailed insight and comprehen-
sion is not easily transferred to the majority
of application oriented engineers, and one is
often from basic courses left with the impres-
sion that the added mass and inertia forces are
phenomena that basically are related to two
coefficients that are interrelated by the
simple expression C = C +' 1, and that the
only problem is to ~ s t a b f i s h a set of appli-
cable values for one of these coefficients,
e.g. from laboratory experiments.
This paper attempts to bridge part of the
gap between the two groups of professionals by
addressing briefly the fundamentals on this
References and illustrations at end of paper.
419
subject and by reviewing well known experimen-
tal results from a perspective with emphasis on
general physics. Results of recent analytical/
numerical developments are also presented and
it is shown that the above simple relation does
in fact not apply universally, as it is influ-
enced by the geometric boundary conditions. It
is argued that the experimentally derived C
M
-values presented in the literature do not pro-
vide the basis for an accurate assessment of
the added mass applied in determining natural
frequencies for the onset of structural vibra-
tions.
SOME FUNDAMENTALS OF ADDED MASS AND
INERTIA FORCES
By using the integrated load concept and
the added mass or inertia coefficients the ac-
tual physics can be easily overlooked: In rea-
lity the added mass term reflects the inte-
grated effect of the hydrodynamic pressures
which are exerted on a body accelerating in a
fluid, whereas the inertia force is the inte-
grated pressures acting on a body exposed to an
accelerating fluid. And these two forces are
not identical. In fact the latter force is two
times larger than the former for the free cyl-
inder case.
This difference in forces is due to the
pressure gradient which is applied to accel-
erate the fluid. The presence of this pressure
gradient means that even a body of water accel-
erating with the fluid is exposed to a force,
namely the pressure field integrated over the
"surface" of this body. As the equation of mo-
tion reads:
p a z -ap/ax ........................ (1)
ADDED MASS AND INERTIA FORCES
C
M
'" 1 + C
a
(7)
OTC 6314
A similar increase in CM-values has been
found for riser bundles, see e. g Sarpkaya,
Multipipe Riser
Free Cylinder
INERTIA COEFFICIENTS FROM EXPERIMENTS
The extensive and well documented experi-
ments by Sarpkaya, Refs. /1/ and /2/ are the
best known for cylinders exposed to oscillatory
flow. The resulting variation of the inertia
coefficients as function of KC-number (Ref.
/2/) are reproduced in Fig. 1. The decrease in
inertia coefficient with increasing KC-number
is evident, with a pronounced local minimum for
KC-numbers close to 10. For typical design wave
conditions and for tubulars of jacket type
structures KC-values in the range from 30 and
upwards are likely and C
M
-values close to 1.4
are found to apply. Hereby an apparent added
mass coefficient of 0.4 appears, i.e. a reduc-
tion of 60 per cent compared to the theoretical
value of 1. It should be noted that it is not
unusual to see these lower values of C and C
being used within the offshore induJ'b.y
load and response analyses.
superimposed on the wave flow. It is then evi-
dent that the direct use of the relation in Eq.
(7) will lead to different values of the added
mass for different flow conditions, when the
experimentally determined cM-values are intro-
duced. For the free cylinder the dynamic mass
will then be smaller for large KC-numbers lead-
ing to apparently higher natural frequencies.
A critical review of some of the experimen-
tally derived values is given next, including a
discussion of typical time traces of hydrodyna-
mic loads for three cases.
On-bottom Pipeline
Tests and results are discussed for a free
cylinder, a pipeline, and a group of risers.
In general, the focus has been on the de-
rived values of the inertia coefficient and its
variation with certain parameters, e.g. Keu-
legan-Carpenter number, wave to current ratio,
pipe roughness, etc., and less interest has
been devoted to the reasons for these varia-
tions, and to the question when to apply these
values.
For pipelines on the seabed Sarpkaya and
Rajabi, Ref. /3/, Verley et al., Ref. /4/ and
Bryndum et al., Ref. /5/ have presented data
from different test programmes. The agreement
between the resulting force coefficients is
good, cf. Ref. /5/. Fig. 2 shows the results
from Ref. /5/. Here the C -value for large KC
-numbers is close to or exceeding 5, thus
indicating a C -value of 4 or even higher, i.e.
an increase 100 per cent compared to
the theoretical value of 2.29 (C
M
- 3.29).
420
11 2
Ca'4PD a . (3)
11 2 11 2
'4PD a + C
a
4PD (a - x) (5)
'r
F
a
For convenience Eq. (5) is quite often re-
written as:
F
T
C
M
- C
a
it (6)
and the second term is treated like a physical
mass being added to the structural mass in dy-
namic analyses.
A major concern arises here, because exten-
sive and well documented experiments and field
tests have resulted in inertia coefficients
that vary with the flow conditions, e.g. with
the Keulegan-Carpenter number. For single cyl-
inders the C -values are found to decrease from
the value when the Keulegan-Carpenter num-
ber increases and also when a steady current is
since the Froude-Krylov term is unchanged and
the added mass force depends on the relative
acceleration.
From Eq. (4) the following relation ap-
pears:
11 2
4PD a . (2)
Due to its simplicity this relation is well
known and often applied within the engineering
community. Also for the assessment of the natu-
ral frequencies of dynamic susceptible cylin-
drical structures. The added mass can for cer-
tain structures constitute a significant part
of the total mass, and accurate assessment of
this part then becomes important.
When the virtual water body is replaced by
a rigid walled cylinder in the accelerating
water an additional force is created due to the
local influence of the cylinder on the flow:
this is the so-called added mass term, which is
also created by a cylinder accelerating in a
still fluid. This force is expressed as:
The inertia load on a fixed cylinder is
thus made up of two contributions, one from the
overall pressure variation in the fluid, the
Froude-Krylov term, and one arising from the
local effects the cylinder (rigid body) imposes
on the accelerating fluid:
F
T
+ C
a
C
M
. (4)
If the cylinder is itself moving (acceler-
ating) in the accelerating water, the total
force becomes:
This force is often referred to as the
Froude-Krylov force.
this force the mass of the water body
times the acceleration, a, for a constant
gradient. For a circular cylindrical body we
thus have:
2
arc 6314 V. JACOBSEN, E.A. HANSEN 3
Ref. /6/, and Ottesen Hansen et al., Ref. /7/.
For a configuration of pipes as shown in Fig. 3
the inertia coefficient attains values between
4 and 6 for KC-numbers exceeding 50. As these
values are based on the volume displaced by the
pipes, a substantial increase in the added mass
is implied, an increase that will be associated
with a significant decrease in the natural fre-
quencies, thus making the riser bundle more
vulnerable to dynamic excitation.
Discussion of cM-values from
Why do these variations in the values of
the inertia coefficients appear? Why are they
not a complete and true reflection of the ac-
celeration dependent inertia force, and why
should they not be used in connection with Eq.
(7) to provide estimates of the added mass for
dynamic calculations? These questions will be
addressed next.
From an extensive joint industry project,
Ref. /8/ , the recorded force on a mul tipipe
riser having a geometry similar to the one of
Fig. 3, is reproduced in Fig. 4. Also the force
calculated based on the C and C -values de-
rived from the traditionaf analysrs is shown.
It is evident that the calculated force exceeds
the measured one when the acceleration is close
to its maximum. The use of a C -value of 3.5,
as found from the analysis, not give an
accurate estimate of the recorded load in the
inertia dominated part of the force trace,
where a cM-value close to 2 would give a better
fit.
The data reduction analysis used for the
riser bundle is identical to the analysis most
commonly applied for cylinders: achievement of
the best overall fit of the Morison force ex-
pression to the measured force trace by adjust-
ment of the two force coefficients, C and C
This approach is based on
stream kinematics. The attempt of correlating
these to the forces created by the highly com-
plex local flow field at the l3-pipe riser
leads to the rather inappropriate C -values.
Inappropriate in the sense that neither
provide adequate estimates of the inertia force
nor of the added mass coefficients when found
from Eq. (7).
The extensive research into pipeline stabi-
lity carried out in the eighties demonstrated
that the traditional Morison based force calcu-
lation methods were inadequate in providing
accurate predictions of the temporal force
variations. Descriptions of the pipeline-water
interaction are provided by Jacobsen et al.,
Ref. /9/, Verley et al., Ref. /4/, and Lambra-
kos et al., Ref. /10/. For details the reader
421
is referred to these papers, only a brief sum-
mary will be given here for illustrat:i;'I7.e pur-
poses.
In one half wave period the flow aro
1
'nd the
pipeline creates a wake. Due to the .',c.verse
pressure gradient in the fluid this wake is
being swept over the pipe prior to reversal of
the free stream flow field in the subsequent
half wave. The wake reversal is associated with
large velocities in the vicinity of the pipe-
line, and these large velocities lead to large
pressures, which integrate into large forces.
This wake reversal effect has been most evi-
dently observed in the lift force variation:
Large peak forces appearing ahead of the maxi-
mum free stream velocity; but it also affects
the horizontal or in-line force: A local peak
appears in the recorded force time series, cf.
Fig. Sa. This increase in hydrodynamic force is
thus related to a near pipe velocity, and it
should consequently be treated like a drag
term. Traditional analyses cannot do this, as
it is based on the Morison formula using the
undisturbed free stream kinematics: At the
time of wake reversal and associated load
peaks, the free stream velocity is very small,
whereas the acceleration is close to its maxi-
mum. A true drag force contribution is there-
fore through the analysis procedure being re-
lated to the acceleration, and as a result of
this it appears as an increased inertia coef-
ficient. In reality there is nothing in the
physics that dictates a change in the inertia
coefficient from the theoretical value. From
the force time series in Fig. Sa it is in fact
seen that the large value of C
M
(4.3) overesti-
mates the measured force right at the maximum
acceleration.
An alternative analysis of the recorded
forces has been made using the velocity re-
corded just above the pipeline instead of the
free stream velocity, cf. Ref. /9/. The velo-
city at the top of the pipe gives a reasonable
reflection of the near pipe velocity field in-
cluding the wake reversal, as demonstrated by
the detailed velocity measurements reported in
Ref. /4/. The result of the alternative analy-
sis was a significantly increased accuracy in
force prediction, see Fig. 5b. The force co-
efficients also changed in values with inertia
coefficients being less than 3.29 in contrast
to the results of the traditional analysis. It
is noteworthy that the use of cM-values smaller
than 3.29 yields calculated forces that are
smaller than those recorded at maximum accel-
eration. In combination with the opposite find-
ing from using large cM-values it would indi-
cate that the theoretical value of 3.29 would
be the better choice, and this has in fact pro-
vided very good estimates of the recorded force
traces.
Free Cylinder
For the free cylinder case, the flow field
near the cylinder is more complex due to the
interaction of the shear layers and vortices
4 ADDED MASS AND INERTIA FORCES OTC 6314 -. .
generated from the two opposite sides. The vor- As proposed by Lundgren et al. it will be
kites may be fully or partly shed during one
half wave period and reversed during the next.
more feasible and correct to analyse hydrodyna-
For relatively low KC-numbers very strong vor-
mic forces based on a theoretical value of the
inertia (added mass) coefficient, and then fo-
tices are generated and only partly shed. At
the phase angles with zero free stream velo-
cus on an improved description of the flow in
proximity of the cylindrical structures. Lam-
cities and maximum accelerations these strong
brakes et al., Ref. /12/, very recently advo-
attached vortices will affect the local press-
cated for the improved near field flow approach
ure field due to their large (rotational) velo-
cities. These effects are integrated into the
with specific reference to shielding/bLockage
effects in large conductor arrays.
total load and related to the acceleration,
hence they appear as inertia coefficient values
different from the theoretical one of 2. The
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS
extremely small C -values reported in the lit-
% erature is associa ed with a complicated trans-
Theexamples discussed in the previous sec-
verse vortex street and thus reflect the re-
tion all pointed towards the general use of
suits of a highly complicated velocity field at
theoretically determined values of CM and Ca.
the cylinder rather than actual changes in in-
ertia/added mass force. The dramatic drop in For more than a century, analytical means
C -values disappears if the transverse vortex
v
for obtaining the added mass for an accelerat-
s reet is not formed.
ing cylinder have been available: Extensive
treatments of the problem and its solution can
Generation of vortices, formation of wakes be found in numerous textbooks on hydrodyna-
and their reversal, and the inability of stand-
mics, e.g. Lamb, Ref. /13/. Efficient numerical
ard procedures to properly account the associ- methods have also been presented, e.g. by von
ated local flow field lead to small inertia Miiller,Ref. /14/ and Asp Hansenr Ref. /15/.
coefficients at larger KC-numbers.
The traditional numerical methods are based
Fig. 6 shows the measured and calculated on the inviscid flow theory, i.e. separation
force on a free cylinder (based on Ref. /1/).
does not occur. By combining the flow field
It is seen that the low value of 1.3 for CM
equations for a vorticity flow (Navier-Stokes)
actually leads to a significant underprediction and for the flow associated with an impulsively
of the measured force at the phase angles close acceleration of a cylinder, Asp Hansen, Ref.
to maximum acceleration. Using a CM-value of /15/, very recently showed that the added mass
2.0 would give a better and quite accurate es- of a cylinder accelerating under separated flow
timate of the recorded force here. Of course
conditions is also determined by the potential
the fit to the measured force would then be
flow theory. This finding supports the conclu-
less accurate at later phase angles, but this
sion arrived at above based on experiments,
change would hardly be noticeable, and the max-
and, more importantly, this finding provides
imum force would only be insignificantly af-
fected.
the basis for obtaining accurate estimates of
the added mass for any cylinder configuration
for use in the assessment of natural frequen-
From the three examples it would thus ap-
cies.
pear that the variations in inertia coeffici-
ents as reported in the literature are in rea-
In Ref. /15/ Asp Hansen also presented a
lity reflections of the inability of state-of
numerical method for calculating the added mass
-practice engineering methods (i.e. the Morison
and inertia force coefficients for cylinders:
equation and undisturbed free stream kinema-
single - near a seabed -
tics) in describing accurately and correctly
or in bundleslarrays.
In this model the Laplace equation is solved
the hydrodynamic forces arising as a conse-
based on the summation of a uniform flow field,
quence of the extremely complex pressures in- dipoles and pairs of dipoles. These key ele-
duced by the combination of global and local
ments are introduced because: 1) The flow
flow fields as affected by vortices and wakes.
around an accelerating cylinder can be de-
The resulting values of CM (and CD) may well be
scribed by placing a dipole in the centre of
used to obtain reasonable estimates of hydrody-
the cylinder, 2) The accelerating water flow
namic loads but they do not have any merits
around a fixed cylinder can be described by
with respect to estimating added mass and asso- superimposing the dipole and uniform flow
ciated dynamics. For such purposes the theore-
field, and 3) Corrections due to disturbances
tical values of Ca should be applied.
of dipoles placed outside a cylinder can be
counteracted by placing a dipole inside the
To substantiate this conclusion reference
cylinder, thus iteratively fulfilling the
is given to Lundgren et al., Ref. /11/, who
stream line requirement on the cylinder sur-
reported the results of the following tests
face.
with a circular cylinder: constant, unidirec-
tional acceleration, small amplitude oscilla-
T.he analytical/numerical developments have
tions, and small amplitude oscillations super-
been used to determine added mass coefficients
imposed on a large scale sinusoidal motion. In
for a number of configurations.
the latter case the small amplitude oscilla-
tions were imposed at various phase angles of
Four illustrative examples are discussed in
the main sinusoidal flow. All of these experi-
the following:
ment.sresulted in identical values of the added
mass coefficient, i.e. Ca = 1.
.
a pi pel i ne near a seabed (CM # 1 + Ca!) induced on cylinder No. 2. Note that this force
is in the opposite direction of the force on
added mass of two independent, closely cylinder No. 1 (hence the negative value in the
spaced cylinders matrix) .
added mass and natural frequencies of cyl- When both cylinders are accelerated syn-
inders in a 3 by 3 array chronously in the x-direction the total force
on each corresponds to an added mass coeffi-
added mass for a riser bundle with 12 pe- cient of 1.03 + 0.23 = 1.26. And for motion in
ripheral pipes the y-direction the value becomes 1.03 - 0.23 =
0.8.
Example 1 - Pipeline at a Seabed
--------------------------------
The natural frequencies for synchronous
Fig. 7 shows the pipeline and the asymme- vibrations in the two directions are thus quite
tric seabed (e.g. caused by scouring process). different because the added mass values are
The potential flow theory model yields the fol- different, the value in the x-direction being
lowing results: more than 50 per cent larger than the value in
the y-direction.
Accelerating water (x-direction):
c = 2.56 C
Mx My
= - 0. 03 Finally, it is noted that the inertia force
coefficient for fluid acceleration in the x-di-
Accelerating cylinder (x-direction): rection equals 2.26 and in the y-direction 1.8
c = 1.06 C = 0.001 for each cylinder.
ax
ay
Accelerating cylinder (y-direction): Fig. 8 shows relative force magnitudes for
c = 0.52 C = 1. 05
ax
various combinations of cylinder accelerations.
ay
The directions of accelerations and associ-
ated forces are shown in Fig. 7.
Example 3 -A3by3Arra~
This thus illustrates that the relation
---- --------------------
c
JI
=C + 1 is not generally correct since
= ~.06 # C - 1 = 1.56. It also illus-
As demonstrated by Example No. 2 the vibra-
9
tion of one cylinder creates a pressure field
t%tes that acce eration in one direction may that induces forces on neighboring cylinders.
produce a force perpendicular to this direc- In order to determine the individual added mass
tion: The inertia or added mass coefficient is coefficients and natural frequencies of a sys-
a vector (or matrix) rather than a scalar, and tern consisting of several cylinders, like the
it is influenced by geometric boundary condi- array shown in Figs. 9 and 10, the eigenvalues
tions. of a matrix system need to be determined. For
the present system the theory described in Ref.
Exam~le 2 - Two Closely Spaced Cylinders
/15/ has been used to determine the added mass
---- ----------------- --.--- --------
coefficients for movements restricted to the
For the configuration shown in Fig. 8 with x-direction. The result is given in the 9 by 9
two cylinders having a gap of half a diameter, matrix in Table 1.
the added mass coefficient is a 4 by 4 matrix
with the following values: As for the dual cylinder case the values in
this matrix indicate the following: C . . is
1.03 0.23 0. 00 0. 00 the equivalent added mass coefficient (~o%~ in
0.23 1.03 0. 00 0. 00 x-direction) for cylinder j when cylinder i
0.00 0.00 1. 03 - 0. 23 accelerates in the x-direction. C is thus
0.00 0.00 -0.23 1.03 the added mass coefficient for cyl%&;r 1 when
it accelerates alone (= 1.08) and Cal is the
This is to be interpreted as follows: If f force equivalent for cylinder 4 when C$ lnder 1
cylinder 1 accelerates in the x-direction the accelerates (= 0.024). As can be seen the ef-
added mass coefficient for cylinder 1 is C feet decreases for the cylinders further away
= 1.03 and the pressure field set up in atfiz
from the one being accelerated.
fluid exerts a force on cylinder No. 2, corre-
sponding to a C -value of 0.23, =i.e. * magni-
Assuming identical structural stiffnesses
tude of this porce is 0.23 q ~pD q al .
for the nine cylinders and assuming that their
This force acts in the same direction as f~e structural mass is zero, the relative natural
force on cylinder No. 1, i.e. in the opposite
frequencies for the nine eigenmodes have been
direction of the acceleration of cylinder No.
determined from the equation of motion to be:
1. In other words, an acceleration of cylinder
1 in the positive x-direction creates a total
(0.74, 0.79, 0.86, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99, 1.12,
for~e on the dual pipe system equal to 1.26 q ~
1.22, 1.33)
PD q a in the negative x-direction.
as compared to the value of 1 for a single free
When cylinder 1 is accelerated in the y-di-
cylinder. The natural frequencies thus vary
rection a force corresponding to a C -value of
with i30 per cent around the single cylinder
1.03 is exerted on this cyl i nder, awhereas a
force corresponding to a Ca-value of 0.23 is
---
6 ADDED MASS ANO INERTIA FORCES oTC 6314
value depending on the eigenmode being excited. example of a single cylinder: if the hydrody-
(For realistic values of the Sf21VXlXW?tl mass, namic load from water inside the cylinder is
the range of natural frequencies decreases to included, the same result is obtained here.
typically * 10 per cent around the value for
the single cylinder, a variation that may still Note, however, that the concept of added
be significant for dynamic response evalua- mass may be misleading if it is considered a
tions). physical mass of water instead of the inte-
Figs. 9 and 10 show the eigenmodes corre-
gratea effect of a pressure field set up by the
accelerating bodly: If a cylinder, say of dia-
sponclingto the lowest and highest natural fre- meter 0.5 D is placed in the centre of the
quency, respectively. The vectors indicate the ring formeapby the 12 outer cylinders, the
direction anclrelative motion amplitude of each force on these remains equal to 2.45 12 pAa
cylinder. The lowest eigenmode has the central when the system is accelerated, although the
row moving in opposite direction of the upper volume of entrapped water has been reduced from
and lower rows. For the highest eigenmode the 0.67 A to 0.42 A . The force on the outer ring
central. vertical row of cylinders moves away of 12 cylinders ~s caused by the pressures in
from the front row and against the rear row. the water inside [and outside) the ring antiis
If all 9 cylinders are bound to vibrate syn- not related to a physical water mass.
chronously the adcledmass coefficient is found
from the numerical calculations to equal 1.008,
or for all practical purposes 1. IWACT ON NATURAL FREQUENCIES OF OFFSHORE
STRUCTURES
Example 4 - l.lultipi~eRiser Bundle
------------------- --------------
Certain structural elements like risers and
This example is included to illustrate the conductors and also some deepwater platforms
effect of increasing the closeness of several are prone to respond dynamically to time vary-
cylinders on the total added mass force. The ing loads, e.g. from waves and vortex shedding.
12-pipe configuration shown in Fig. 11 is con- When interference effects are small or negli-
sidered for different diameters of the cyl- gible, i.e. when spacings between cylinders are
inders. large, the added mass coefficient value should
be taken equal to 1 for all cylinders. Design
For small values of the cylinder, diameter
D,
procedures using CM-values of the order of 1.4
compared to the pitch diameter, D , the to procluceC -values of 0.4 will lead to esti-
added mass is 1.0 for all peripheral pi~es, as mated highe~ natural frequencies, with in-
they act as individual cylinders. Nhen increas- creases in the order of 5-10 per cent depending
ing D the interference effect increases and on how large a fraction the addecimass is of
different C -values appear for the cylintiers the total dynamic mass. For structures where
(only 3 dif~exent values for symmetry reasons). buoyancy tanks form a substantial part of the
This is shown in Fig. 12, where also the value structure, this difference in frequency esti.-
for the total bundle is given. The C -value for mates may increase significantly because the
cylinder No. 2 is equal to the Ca-va~ue for the aclcledmass is large compared to the structural
total bundle. mass for such elements. The dynamic mass of a
neutrally buoyant tank will be 40 per cent
As D/D approaches 0.26, where contact be- larger when C = 1 is usea insteaclof C = 0.4.
tween all fwelve cylinders is established, the For closely aspaced structural eleme%s the
total C -value approaches 2.45, corresponding added mass (and thereby the natural frequen-
to a fo$ce of 2.45 - 12 q pAa or 1.97 PA a,
Y
ties) depends on the actual geometry and on the
where A is the cross-sectional area of one c 1- vibration moties,e.g. whether elements act in-
inder, anc7A is the cross-sectional area for a dividually or in unison. The numerical model,
cylinder wit% diameter D . Ref. /15/, can for these cases be applied to
P
obtain the values of the Ca-matrix.
The entrapped mass of water is 0.67 PA . Of
the added mass force 0.67 PA a can be sa~d to
be used to accelerate the entrapped water, SUNNARY AND CONCLUSION
leaving 1.3 PA a. Based on the total cross-sec-
tional area (~1.47 A ) the added mass coeffi- Data for a variety of structures have been
cient then equals 0.8Lf,i.e. close to 1. reviewed. Supported by basic hydrodynamic con-
sitierations ancl the results of analytical/nu-
For a similar case with a large number of merical developments it has been concluded that
very small diameter cylinders forming a closed acldedmass coefficients can be accurately ae-
circle, the aaded mass coefficient basea on the termined basea on potential flow theory. C
pitch diameter becomes equal to 2. Of this -values so determined are generally applicabl$
value half is due to the pressure outside the also in separated flows. For single cylinders
large cylinder (the sane as for a single cyl- C thus equals 1 (C
inder with diameter D ). The second half is due aaflat seabed Ca= P.;92;c;:3Y9):ipe1 ines n
to the pressure in de water entrappea inside
the ring formed by the small cylinders. Note For multipipe configurations calculation
that for this system the inertia coefficient examples have been given based on a numerical
also equals 2. model of general valitiity for 2-dimensional
flows.
This apparently surprising result that C =
CM, i s not in contradiction with the classigal
.
.- .J. .-X
V. iJ.+iLUDD13N , b .A. HANW3!X
7
For offshore structure elements where prox-
/3/ Sarpkaya, T. and Rajabi, F.: Hydrody-
imity effects are negligible for added mass
namic Drag on Bottom-Mounted Smooth and
considerations, natural frequencies are most
Rough Cylinders in Periodic Flow. Pro-
adequately assessed when using a C -value of 1.
Misleading results are obtaineda if inertia
ceedings of the Eleventh Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
force coefficients from traditional analysis of
OTC 3761, pp. 219-226, May 1980.
experiments are used in association with the
common relation C = 1 + Ca to provide C esti-
M a
/4/ Verley, R.L.P, Lambrakos, K.F. and Reed,
mates. K. : Prediction of Hydrodynamic Forces
When proximity effects are important, i.e.
on Seabed Pipelines. Proceedings of 19th
Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
spacings between cylinders become comparable to
Houston, Paper OTC 5503, Houston, May
their diameters, a numerical model can effi-
1987.
ciently determine the added mass coefficient
matrix.
/5/ Bryndum, M.B., Jacobsen, V. and Tsahalis,
D.T. :
ftHydrodynaic Forces on Pipelines:
Finally, a word of caution should be raised
Model Tests. Seventh Offshore Mechanics
against the concept of the added mass force
and Arctic Engineering Conference, Hou-
being interpreted as a real physical mass. This
ston, Feb. 1988.
approach may serve to illustrate the hydrodyna-
mic loads induced on an accelerating body, but
/6/ Sarpkaya, 1.: Wave Loading in the Drag/
if the physics are overlooked, i.e. that the
Inertia Regime with Particular Reference
added mass force is the load resulting from the
to Groups of Cylinders in Mechanics of
integrated effect of the pressure field set up
wave-induced forces on cylinders, T.L.
in the fluid, quite erroneous results can be
obtained, as illustrated by the multipipe
Shaw (Ed.) Pitman, 1979.
riser.
/7/ Hansen, N.-E., Jacobsen, V., and Lund-
grent H.: Hydrodynamic Forces on Compo-
site Risers and Individual Cylinders.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Paper OTC 3541, pp. 1607-1621, Houston,
May 1979.
The authors wish to thank Danish Hydraulic
Institute (DHI) for permission to publish the
/8/ Danish Hydraulic Institute:
paper.
Extended
The views presented are those of the
Production Riser Model Tests. Joint In-
authors and do not necessarily comply with
dustry Project, Report, 1980.
DHIs.
/9/ Jacobsen, V., 13ryndum,M.B. and Fredstie,
J.: Determination of Flow Kinematics
NOTATION
Close to Marine Pipelines and their Use
in Stability Calculations. Proceedings
A : Cross-sectional area of cylinder
a: acceleration
of the 16th Annual Offshore Technology
c:
Conference, Houston, Paper OTC 4833, Hou-
added mass coefficient
Ca : drag force coefficient
ston, May 1984.
CD ;
~M
inertia coefficient
/10/ bmbrakos, K.F., Chao, J.C., Beckman, H.
: diameter
and Brannon, H.R. x
*,W&e Model of Hydro-
D : pitch diameter
@ : Froude-Krylov force
dynanic Forces on Pipelines. OCean En-
~k :
gineering, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 1~7-136,
added mass force
1987.
F; : total force
P
: pressure
/11/ Lundgren, H., Sand, S.E., Brink-Kjax, O.,
P
: density of water
and Jacobsen, V.: Improved Physical
U* :
non-dimensional eigenfrequency
Basis of Wave Forces. Proc. Spec. Conf.
Civ. Engrg. in the Oceans IV, ASCE, Vol.
1, pp. 1-16, San Francisco, 1979.
REFERENCES
/12/ Lambrakos, K.F., Steele, K.M., and Finn,
/1/ Sarpkaya, T.: In-line and Transverse
L.D.: Wake and Shielding Effects on
Forces on Smooth and Sand Roughened Cir-
Hydrodynamic Loading. Proc. EsP Forum
cular Cylinders in Oscillatory Plow at
Workshop on Wave Kinematics and Loading,
High Reynolds Numbers. Technical Report
No.
Paris, October 1989.
NPS-69SL76062 , Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA, June 1976.
/13/ Lamb, H.: Hydrodynamics. Dover publi-
/2/ Sarpkaya, T.:
cations, New York.
Oscillating Flow About
Smooth and Rough Cylinders. Proc. Sixth
/14/ Miiller, W. von: Systeme von Doppel
Int. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic En-
gineering S~posium, Vol. II, Houston,
-quellen in der ebenen Str6mung. Zeit-
February 1987.
schrift f. angw. Math und Mech., 9, Heft
3, 1929.
---
---- ---- -.. . ..-...43 . -.
/ 15/ Hansen, E.A. : Added Mass and Inertia Shaped Seabed. Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. on
Coefficients of Gzoups of Cylinders And Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineer-
of a Cylinder Placed Near an Arbitrarily ing, Houston, February 1990.
Table 1 Added Mass Coefficient Matrix for 3 by 3 Cyl-
inder Array. Movements in x-Direction.
1.08 -0.22 -0.05 0.24 -0.04 -0.04 0.07 0.01 -0.01
-0.22 1.11 -0.22 -0.04 0.24 -0.04 0.01 0.05 0.01
-0.05 -0.22 1.08 -0.04 -0.04 0.24 -0.01 0.01 0.07
0.24 -0.04 -0.04 1.11 -0.23 -0.07 0.24 -0.04 -0.04
-0.04 0.24 -0.04 -0.23 1.15 -0.23 -0.04 0.24 -0.04
-0.04 -0.04 0.24 -0.07 -0.23 1.11 -0.04 -0.04 0.24
0.07 0.01 -0.01 0.24 -0.04 -0.04 1.08 -0.22 -0.05
0.01 0.05 0.01 -0.04 0.24 -0.04 -0.22 1.11 -0.22
-0.01 0.01 0.07 -0.04 -0.04 0.24 -0.05 -0.22 1.08
2.s
2.4
c m
2.2
2.9
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.s
K
.4
, , , t , i
vfnm- 04 m r matim a CJ mluma
. . . N Zwnlnr.
?ig. 1 Inertia Coefficients, Free Cylinder, Ref. /2/
t
1
1
I
i
1
f
1
1
1
I
1
1 [
1
1
7 CM o-
0 0
6
0
0
0
0
5
~o
0
4
L
0
. :d80
2
1
KC
0
t 1 ! 1 t [ I 1 ! [ I I 1 I 1 I
0 20 Lo 60 ao mo 120 If$o 160
Fig. 2 Tnerti,aCoefficients, Pipeline, Ref. /3/
---
4iiti
6. 0
5. 0
4. 0
3. 0
2. 0
1. 5
1. 0
0. 9
0. 8
I I I I i
&*L;.$::;*>GX
+
CM
*.A
A.- h
\
O,)OC . 0.3256
q=
CD
.%*A
Cx
woc 4.3950
q.$.
.DP 0.0740
.9A 12 ,1,, tub,,
q
*e
u;
A Re/ Kc=1250 ~ - - - - w
q
q Re/ KC= 700
\
>0
~, 2 ,V,ly
P
k+
7
A @A b q
A.A*+ q
Ae4 WA
#cD ,,,,,,,4
.*LL*
* ~ qA9 M+ K
! I I c
10 15 20 30 40 50 70 90 100 150 200
Pig. 3 Inertia Coef?icientsr Riser Bundle, XeC. ,/6/
F
IN-LINE
F
M EAS
F
- CALC
0
0
00
Fig. 4 Force Traces for Riser Bundle, KC ~ 20
(Based on Pitch Diameter)r Ref. /8/
427
.
IN-LINE
F
MEAS
--
F
CALC
0
/
4
.
\
aMAX \
\
-.
u
* +
.,::.:.::.::,:!,:.,.. , , _a
=
IN-LINE FMW=
-- %ALC
(
/
7 .
aMAX
L
&:,, ,,, ,,, ,,,,. ,;,:.:,, ,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,
b
N-1-l NE
FM-
/
/1
x
.--
c~ 2s)
v
o
Fig. 5 Force Traces for Pipeline, KC W 40, Ref. /9/. a) Tradj.tiqml Fig. 6 Force Traces for Free Cylinder, KC % 20,
Analysis, b) Analysis Based on Near Pipe Velocity Ref. /1/
Z-nA
F. ~pD2(2,56, -0,03)a
7MJ. 7 Added Mass and InertLa Forces, Near Bed Pipeline
cxE!-
D12
CMi)o-
1111
D12 D12
Fig. 9 9-Cylinder Array, Motims in x-direction, Lowest
Eigenfrequency u = 0.74
Fig. 8 Added Mass Forces, Dual Cylinder
(
.
E)
1
0
71
p
81
0
3

012
0

CV2
0

19
D/2 Df2
Fig. 10 9-Cylinder Array, Hotmns in x-direction, Highest
Eigenfrequency U = 1.33
429
I I
I I 1
2
I
Fx /-$p Da
I
I
I
~lj
AA
/1
12. f +5
D19C 1 T
I
,,, L,
1 II
[
Fig. 11 Muitipipe Riser Configuration
---H
01
I I 1 I I I
J
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Fig. 12 Added Mass Coefficient as Function
of DID
P
430
D/Dp