Proceedings of The Fifteenth (2005) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Seoul, Korea, June 19−24, 2005

Copyright © 2005 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1-880653-64-8 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Surge Motion of Mini TLP in Random Seas- Comparison between Experiment and Theory
Nungsoo Kim and Cheung Hun Kim
Department of Civil Engineering, Ocean Engineering Program, Texas A & M University College Station, TX, USA

ABSTRACT
The objective of the paper is an analysis of the model test data of a mini-TLP, which includes the quality and degree of non-Gaussianity of the measured data; comparison of Gaussian and Non-Gaussian method for the estimation of QTFs. The comparison between the two methods is made with respect to the energy density spectra, coherency function and the reconstructed response time series. A special consideration is given on the slow drift surge in regard to the mean surge value and surge natural period. It was found that the surge response is practically linear in contrast to the other conventional TLPs responses.

fact well known that the mean value in the quadratic response is the most important data for the design of offshore structures. However the mean varies in time. It is necessary to find the reasonably long sample length to reach the statistically stable condition. However, the sample was limited to 3 hours long.

MODEL TEST
Mini TLP concept was designed for deployment off the coast of West Africa with a relatively benign environment. This platform is referred to as a “Mini TLP” because its maximum dimension in the horizontal plane is less than the outside diameter of a vertical hull column of the Heidrun TLP. Model tests of the Mini TLP were conducted in the OTRC wave basin to qualify its wave loads, air-gaps, motion responses, and tensions in its tendons and risers. The experiments used a 1:40 scale model of the Mini-TLP. The experiments were divided into two parts: fixed model tests and compliant model tests. This analysis takes into account the surge motion and uses the compliant test data in random sea condition. In this compliant model test, the Mini TLP was treated in a conventional way, although the riser system was reduced to 4 risers instead of 12 in the original mini TLP design. A spring was inserted in each riser and tendon model to match the axial stiffness of the prototype risers and tendons. In the tests, both ends of the risers and tendons were hinged to the floor bottom or the TLP. The target wave spectrum was chosen to simulate a 100-year West Africa stormy sea. It is a JONSWAP type spectrum of a peakedness factor of 2.0, peak period of 16 seconds, and significant wave height of 3.9m. Note that the sea severity is very low and sample length is 3 hours. The principal particulars are listed in Table 1, in which we find the measured natural surge period, which will be compared with the result of analysis of the measured surge time history in the current work. Table 1. Principal particulars of the tested mini-TLP model in terms of prototype scale As-built Particulars Full scale value Water depth 673.61 m draft 28.51 m Column diameter 8.64 m

KEY WORDS: cross-bi-spectral estimates, linear transfer function
(LTF), quadratic transfer function (QTF), Volterra quadratic model, Gaussian and non-Gaussian method, mini TLP.

INDRODUCTION
The test data of the mini-TLP was reported by Niedzwecki et al. (2001). The non-Gaussian method for cross-bi-spectral analysis of the mini-TLP was given by Birkelund et al (2003) using non-Gaussian method. The foregoing cross-bi-spectral analysis was retreated by Kim (2004) using both Gaussian and non-Gaussian method, which is similar to the analysis of the surge exciting force on a barge fixed in the head random seas (Kim and Kim, (2004). In the present research we have found that the slow surge drift of such a small mini-TLP in the Gaussian low seas is largely different from the slow drift of conventional large TLP which is usually tested in high non-Gaussian seas. Thus, the test data has attracted our interest in the analysis of the slow drift surge. It is desirable to confirm the quality of the wave data to be acceptable for the analysis. We found that the wave was found to be nearly Gaussian. Similarly the surge response was nearly Gaussian. Since the mini-TLP is a compliant structure, the data has to produce the long surge period. But it was not easy to observe in the original data. Our next interest was to find the natural surge period, mean surge and peak surge amplitude. Birkelund, et al. (2003) conducted higher-order spectral analysis and identification of the mini-TLP system, employing the non-Gaussian method However; they did not consider the mean surge value and surge period. The major objective of this kind of experiment is supposed to be in finding the characteristics of the slow drift motion including the mean offset, natural surge period and distribution of the peak response. It is in

Paper No. 2005-EJP-01

Kim

244

1 /8

3 Distribution of crest height of waves (left) and surge motion (right) compared with Rayleigh distribution (solid line) 0. From the data we presume the surge motion may be in the same range of the error.4 0. The state of the sea utilized in the study belongs to the class of rough sea (Hs=2.5 ω (rad/s) 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 H (m) c 2 3 4 1 2 H (m ) c 3 4 Fig.51 m 6445 metric ton 10158 metric ton 3713 metric ton 0 0 29. γ=2.1184 The data in the table indicates that the wave is Gaussian while the response surge is slightly non-Gaussian Probability density distributions of the wave and surge The histograms are constructed and compared with the Gaussian distributions in Fig. skewness and kurtosis as listed in Table 2. 2005-EJP-01 245 Kim 2 /8 . 4 illustrates the Rayleigh distribution compared with the probability of exceedence of crest heights of waves and surge motion.2 0. of oscillations Mean(m) Skewness Wave 968 0.2 5 U(ω ) (m ⋅ s) 0.7 0. which is regarded as Gaussian and the 2nd-order nonlinearity is negligible (Kumar etal.9 m 17. 7 6 5 2 0 -4 -3 -2 1 0 -1 (x .2 m 139. Since the variances are different from each other within 11 % error. Thus.0195 0.22 m 28.5−4. it may be acceptable compared with (Kumar et al. 4 Rayleigh distribution compared with the probability of exceedence of positive peak of wave (left) and surge motion (right) Paper No. The surge motion energy density spectrum in Fig.2.1 U(ω ) (m *s) 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.97 sec Table 2 Statistics of waves and surge motion No.7 0.0522 Surge 689 0.8 0. The quality of the input wave may be tested by comparing the variance of the target and measured energy density spectra. target spectrum (dotted): JONSWAP.5 0 0 (a) (b) Fig..5 m 21.5 PRELIMIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF MEASUED DATA It is desirable to test the quality of the measured data before going to the cross-bi-spectral analysis. In addition to these. (b) measured surge motion The principal interest of our study is to investigate the data if they are linear or nonlinear.5 p( H ) 0. P ω (rad/s) 10 0 10 -1 10 -1 10 P -2 10 -2 10 -3 10 -3 10 -4 0 1 ξx / σ x 2 3 4 10 -4 0 1 ξy / σ y 2 3 4 Fig.0).3698 -0.1 0.1 has a peak in the low frequency region representing the 2nd-order low-frequency surge motion that is the result of the 2ndorder difference frequency interaction. The target and measured spectra are in good agreement according to the observation. 2002).6 0. Tp =16 seconds. It shows that the distributions of crest heights of waves and surge motion compare less well with the Rayleigh distributions.8 1 1. 1 (a) Measured wave spectrum (solid). 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.4 p((x .m)/ σ ) p((y .4 10 0 1 1.3 0. The surge motion energy density appears to be remarkably weak in the given time series. one may observe the probability of exceedence with the Rayleigh distribution. Fig. Energy density spectra of wave and surge 0. If these are very close to each other the wave and response data are apparently Gaussian.5 0.. The Gaussianity test may be carried out by comparing the histograms with the Gaussian probability density distribution and Rayleigh density of positive peaks.22 m 6.m)/ σ ) 0.2 1. we have evaluated the mean. From the figs.2 0. we may conclude that the wave and response are Gaussian.Pontoon height Pontoon width Column center-to-center Total weight of mini-TLP Vessel displacement Tendon & riser pretension Center of Gravity (X) Center of Gravity (Y) Center of Gravity (Z) Pitch radius of gyration Roll radius of gyration Yaw radius of gyration Surge natural period 6.m )/ σ x 2 3 4 0 -4 -3 -2 1 0 -1 (y .1405 3. We have plotted the histograms of the positive peaks as shown in Fig.6 0. 3.3 0.5 p( H ) c c 0. which might imply that the data are Gaussian but are not quite narrow band or it comes from some error due to the contamination of the waves in the low and high frequency region.3 0.1627 Kurtosis 3.3 x y 0.1 The energy density spectra of the wave and surge motion are shown in Fig.4 0.7 m 21.6 0.m )/ σ y 2 3 4 Fig.1 0 0 7 6 0. 2 Probability density of wave elevation (left) and surge motion (right) with Gaussian distribution (solid line) 0. Both crest heights of waves and surge motion appear to be slightly deviated from Gaussian waves and the wave and response are practically regarded Gaussian. Hs = 4m.4 0. 2002). 1.2 0.

3 0. which contradicts the conventional TLP. 0. 1942) to estimate the QTFs for the 2nd-order surge motion. 1 (b). It is expected that the QTFs for the mean have been affected by the sample length. The band covers the peak energy density spectrum as shown in Fig. and forces which cannot give enough effect to produce 2nd-order surge. We have filtered the low frequency response between the range of 0. 5 shows that the mean surge motion has not reached a steady value in 3-hours. Kim and Kim (2003. t2 ) = 1 iω t + iω t G2 (ω1 . 5 Cumulative mean of surge motion The low frequency surge motion and natural surge period from experimental data We are apt to think the slow drift (2nd-order) motion of any compliant TLP has to be large compared to the linear response However we have found that the linear motion is dominant and 2nd-order motion is negligibly small for the mini-TLP.038 rad/s). where the integral limits of ± ∞ are omitted. Besides the former approach employs the Blackman-Tukey method for the spectral estimates. The peak amplitude of the surge is 0.2 0. y(t) is a general output to the 2nd -order (e. Kim and Powers (1987) gave a theory with non-Gaussian input assumption.t2) are the linear and quadratic impulse response functions respectively.1 0 0 1 Time (hour) 2 3 Fig.4 6500 7000 Time(s) 7500 8000 Fig. Kim and Boo (1990) and Kim and Kee (1992) simulated the slow drift force following Dalzell (1976). to the Dalzell (1976).-ω )U xx (ω )dω 0 ∞ 1.4 which assumes infinitely long data.g.2 0. The small surge slow drift motion implies that the wave forces are not only small but also the size of the structure is much smaller than other conventional compliant TLPs. whereas the latter the ensemble average method (Bendat.8 Surge(m) (1) 0. It requires more time to arrive at the unchanging mean value. Thus. while the latter assumes the input is non-Gaussian. the Gaussian and non-Gaussian method. Application of the model was given by Dalzell (1976) with Gaussian input assumption. which amounts to 165. Bendat (1990) gives a general theory. ω2 )e( 1 1 2 2 ) dω1dω2 (2π ) 2 ∫∫ Paper No. 2004) have recently employed the Gaussian and non-Gaussian method.97 sec as listed in Table 3. 1991). it is worth to see the effect of sample length. though the wave data are limited to 3 hours. g1(t) and g2(t1. This is due to the Gaussian wave input that gives negligibly small 2nd-order waves. which is unusually small.90 Fig. which is longer than the measured data 139. Mini TLP 0. This result could be obtained by taking a close look at the slow drift motion. Stansberg (1997) similarly treated.9 sec (0. Fourier transform of these gives G1 and G2 making Fourier transform pairs: g1 (t ) = 1 G 1 (ω )e + iωt dω 2π ∫ (4) (5) (6) G1 (ω ) = ∫ g1 (t )e − iωt dt g 2 (t1 . The given data length for this experiment is much shorter than the data length proposed by Kim and Boo (1990).Convergence of mean surge motion The mean of the surge in the random sea is given by E [surge(t ) ] = ∫ G2 (ω .5 It is concluded that the 2nd-order slow drift is unusually small compared to the conventional TLPs. The period of the largest surge amplitude has to be the surge natural period.05 rad/s. The amplitude frequency spectrum over the band has been brought to the time series as shown in Fig. The former assumes the input is Gaussian.03 and 0. 6 Low pass filtered surge motion Table. motion). t2 ) x(t − t1 ) x (t − t2 )dt1dt2 (3) 0. 2005-EJP-01 246 Kim 3 /8 . force. There are two methods for the estimation. the x(t) is a general input. .6. ycum (t N ) = 1 N ∑ y (t i ) N i =1 (2) 0 -0.4 Mean surge (m) ESTIMATION OF LTFs AND QTFs We will employ the Volterra quadratic system model (Volterra.97 Present analysis of measured data 165. The Volterra quadratic model is originally a time domain model: y ( t ) = ∫ g1 ( t1 ) x ( t − t1 ) dt1 + ∫∫ g 2 ( t1 .5 m. Volterra quadratic model The Volterra model was proposed by Hasselmann (1966) to be used for the analysis of the nonlinear ship motion in the seas.3 Surge natural frequency Measured data Surge natural period(sec) 139. In the time domain the mean surge motion is examined by the mean cumulative average defined as. though slightly different.

−ω k ) 1 G2 (ω j . in the lower octant ± respectively. ω1 + ω2 ) . which is similar to the Blackman-Tukey method for estimation of energy density spectrum. ω2 ) = ∫∫ g 2 (t1 . ω2) and G2(ω1.where the G1(ω) is LTF which is a function of wave frequency ω. ± G1 j and G2 jk represent the complex linear and quadratic transfer function LTFs and QTFs.7. sum frequency and difference frequency terms. Special care is necessary in the above extraction procedure to avoid the divergence due to the negligibly small amount of the wave energy density distributed in the very low and high frequency regions as discussed in Kim and Kim (2002) Given the input and output time series one obtains QTFs according to Eq (10). ω k ) ω1 G1 (ω j ) G2 (ω j . respectively. The LTF is distributed along the ω1 – axis. Because the kernel g2 (t1. Eq.with E[ X *Y (m)] = yx ⎡ ⎣ S2 [⋅ ⋅ S3yx [⋅ ⋅ S ⎡⋅ ⎢⋅ ⎢ ⎢⋅ ⎢ ⎢⋅ ⎢ ⎣⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅] ⎤ ⎦ (12) xx 3 ω1 = −ω 2 Fig. and Uxx is onesided wave energy density spectrum. 1/ 2 ⋅ G2 jk (j≠k) are the sum and difference frequency terms distributed in the upper and lower octants.| ω2 | ≤ +∞ π 2 U xx (ω1 )U xx (ω2 ) (10) . double frequency. The QTFs consist of the mean. ω2 ) = C * (ω1 − ω2 . However the latter is modified by Dalzell by employing a different convention of Fourier transform. + 1/ 2 ⋅ G2 jk (j=k) represents the double frequency along the diagonal axis ω1 = ω2 in the upper octant and 1/ 2 ⋅ G2−jk (j=k) represents mean term distributed along the diagonal axis ω1 = −ω2.7 Sum and difference frequency QTFs in the upper and lower octants − ω2 E[ X * X t ] = Gaussian method Tick (1963) gave formula of cross-bi-spectral estimates assuming the Gaussian input. excluding the diagonal axes. t2 )e( − iω1t1 − iω2 t2 ) dt1dt2 (7) formula for the estimate of the cross-bi-spectra or QTFs are given in the form G2 (ω1 . It is briefly formulated as ˆ H = G 2 (ω j . t2 ) = g 2 (t2 . where Ω1 & Ω 2 are the difference and sum frequency) ω2 ω1 = ω 2 Non-Gaussian method 1 G2 (ω j . (10) is presented schematically in Fig. 8 Schematic diagram for extracting G2 from CBS and energy spectra ( Ω1 = ω1 − ω2 . It should be noted that the algorithm to compute the cross-bi-spectrum was due to Dalzell (1974).8. ω j ) 2 Kim and Powers (1988) proposed the non-Gaussian method.where a j and ak are the wave amplitudes contained in the random sea. while G2 (ω1. The modified ⎡ xx ⎢ S2 ⎢ ⎢⎡ ⋅ ⎤ ⎢⎢ ⎥ ⎢⎢ ⋅ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ˆ xx ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ S3 ⎥ ⎢⎢ ⋅ ⎥ ⎢⎢ ⎥ ⎢⎣ ⋅ ⎦ ⎣ ⋅ S4xx ⋅ ⋅]⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⋅ ⋅⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⋅ ⋅⎥ ⎥⎥ ⎥ ⋅ ⋅⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⋅ ⋅⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥⎥ ⋅ ⋅⎦ ⎦ Paper No.G2 (ω1 .−ω2) are uniquely defined in the bi-frequency domain of two octants ω1>0 and ω1≥|ω2| . (3) is transformed by Dalzell (1976) in the form: y (t ) = y1 (t ) + y2 (t ) = Re ∑ a jG1 exp(−iω j t ) j =1 n (9) . 2005-EJP-01 247 Kim 4 /8 .−ω j ) 2 { E[ X * t X ] } −1 E[ X *Y (m)] (11) . 0 ≤ ω1 .where C* is complex conjugate of cross-bi-spectrum. t1 ) (8) G2(ω1. The Volterra model Eq. Ω 2 = ω1 + ω2 . Fig.respectively in Fig. ω2) is a quadratic transfer function QTF of the bifrequencies ω1 and ω2. t2) is assumed to be symmetrical: g 2 (t1 . + 1 Re 2 ⎧G2+jk exp ⎡ −i (ω j + ωk )t ⎤ ⎫ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ a j ak ⎨ ⎬ ∑∑ − ⎤ j =1 k =1 +G exp ⎡ ⎪ ⎣ −i (ω j − ωk )t ⎦ ⎪ ⎩ 2 jk ⎭ n n .

2 0. a QTF would increase in volume. xx S3 ˆ conjugate of bispectrum. Thus. All estimated LTFs appear to be in the same trend. the time step becomes 0. ) when H2 is computed. each 1-hour data was computed. the large diverging magnitude of QTF occurs in some parts of H2 plane due to the large numerator compared to the small denominator (tails of input energy spectra) in the division process.632 seconds. 11 shows QTFs estimated by two methods. there is a single distinctive bump along Ω1-axis. S 2 frequency range and the experimental LTFs are bigger in the high frequency region. Given a long enough data. S 4 yx trispectrum. which is attributed to the test data. The inversion of input spectral momenet matrix.8 1 1.4 0. 2005-EJP-01 248 Kim 5 /8 . As it may be noticed. xx bispectrum. and an ensemble average was made over 3 hours of data to obtain the LTF and QTF.11 Estimated QTFs Paper No. 2003).2 1. Theoretically estimated LTF by WAMIT code appears to be smooth over entire frequency range. ωmax = 9. and there is no bump along Ω2 -axis in bi-frequency plan. the unrealistic QTF should be accurately eliminated as done in the Gaussian method.5 1 Ω1(rad/s) Estimated LTFs by both methods and potential theory are compared in Fig.6 Fig. Consequently.5 0 0 0. irrespective of the two methods. In the foregoing computation. S xx 3 yx cross-spectrum.5 1 Ω1(rad/s) Mini TLP (Non-Gaussian) G2(Ω1.Ω2) (m/m2) 1. 9 HQ in bi-frequency domain It should be noted that this method dose not include frequencies along fi= −fj in difference interaction region (Fig.5 1 1. respectively. This non-Gaussian method is modified with Principal Component Analysis (PCA) algorithm.4 In this study for the Gaussian method. A smoother LTF curve would be obtained with much longer data. After the down sampling.9 rad/s. S 3 cross-bispectrum. both input and output data were decimated by a factor R = 4. Ensemble average over data segment provides reasonable inversion results for {E[ X * X t ]} with numerical stability. but the theoretical LTF is bigger in the low Fig. is large enough to cover the 2nd-order frequency range associated with input frequency components. while experimentally estimated LTFs by the Gaussian and non-Gaussian method give less smooth curves. H1 corresponds to G1 and H2 to G2 of Gaussian input method. In the non-Gaussian method. Thus in our analysis we have approximated the mean value by taking the QTFs close to the terms along the diagonal axis.ˆ is the estimated solution of the general Volterra model in . S 2 . 1.5 1 1. H frequency domain.. 10 Estimated LTFs ω (rad/s) 0. In this method. which yields considerably lower variance in the estimation of Volterra model (Birkelund et al. And the small variance of trispectrum gives better and stable solution.Ω2) (m/m2) 1.5 0 0 0.5 Gaussian Non-Gaussian Theory xx variance than the power spectrum. The segment length was chosen to be 256 and the number of segments was 66. Another disadvantage in the use of non-Gaussian method is that the algorithm cannot determine the mean QTFs.5 Ω2(rad/s) 0 0.where. The non-Gaussian method was modified with the principal component analysis (PCA) algorithm The QTF by the non-Gaussian method is smaller in volume than by the Gaussian method.5 1. This is aligned with the fact that the 2nd-order components of a compliant Mini TLP in a surge motion are mainly created by the low frequency 2nd -order motion.5 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0. we need to invert this matrix with small variance to compute a better solution. This process could lose some true QTF. This implies the estimated solution of the Vollterra model has close realtionhsip with the variance of input spectral moments. 10. S 4 xx S2 spectrum. E[ X * X t ] and E[ X *Y (m)] like the Gaussian method. The maximum frequency. Fig. Mini TLP (Gaussian) fN: Nyquist frequency Fig.5 1 0. The non-Gaussian method necessarily involves division in the multiplication of the inverse input spectral momenet matrix. the maximum lag 70 is used. Estimation of LTFs and QTFs from experimental data G2(Ω1.5 Ω2(rad/s) 0 0. LTF (m/m) 1 0. E[ X * X t ] and the multiplication with E[ X *Y (m)] is significantly complicated and affected by the number of ensemble average over the data segment used xx estimate has higher because the variance of the trispectrum.

Fig.2 1 0. This is due to the loss of QTFs in the process of cross-bi-spectral estimates. Fig. It is uneasy to distinguish the results from each other.(9) and (11) to reconstruct the nonlinear surge. 13 illustrates a comparison between the measured and reconstructed response time series by the two methods. 15 Comparisons of time series of quadratic component Fig. Mini TLP (Gaussian) 7 6 5 U(ω ) (m ⋅ s) 0.11. It is important to observe the behavior of the response due to the two different methods in the time domain.4 0. In Fig. 15 we see that the 2nd-order surge motion by the Gaussian method is larger than the non-Gaussian method.4 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 100 200 300 Time(s) 400 500 600 Surge(m) 0. 12 Schematic diagram of Volterra quadratic model with measured input and reconstructed output. It was found that the periods from the reconstructed data are larger than the measured periods as shown in Table 4.03rad/s<ω < 0.6 0.2 0.8 1 Fig. Gaussian Fig. Fig. at the first step we estimate LTFs and QTFs. using estimated LTF and QTF 5 4 3 2 Surge(m) Q 0. The difference of both methods is not clearly seen in the time series. The reconstructed data are used to produce the surge energy density spectra as shown in Fig.6 ω (rad/s) 0.16 Reconstructed low frequency surge motion due to Gaussian and non-Gaussian method Table. 6. The reconstruction procedure is explained referring to Fig.9 Measured value (Liagre 2000) 140.4 Reconstructed low frequency surge motion (0. so that one may compare the reconstructed with the original measured data. (9).8 1 2 4 3 2 1 0 0 0. 16 shows the reconstructed low-frequency surge motion as it was shown in Fig.2 0.14 Spectrum of surge motion: measured (solid).4 0.05rad/s) Methods Average of surge period (s) Gaussian method 162.8 Experimet Non-Gaussian Gaussian Surge(m) 0. The comparison of the reconstructed with the original measured response will provide valuable information that is not be available in the frequency domain.1 6500 7000 Time(s) 7500 8000 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 Mini TLP (Non-Gaussian) 7 6 5 U(ω ) (m ⋅ s) 2 0. 14.3 Present analysis of measured data 165.8 Surge (m) Non-Gaussian Gaussian 0.2 0 5000 5100 5200 t (s) 5300 5400 5500 The reconstructed data may provide a way for comparison of the two methods.3 0. reconstructed data (dotted) Paper No. 2005-EJP-01 249 Kim 6 /8 . This is attributed to the fact that the distribution of QTFs by Gaussian method is larger than the nonGaussian method as shown in Fig.ANALYSIS OF RECONSTRUCTED DATA One may reconstruct the output using the formula Eq. at second step multiply these with the amplitude spectrum of the measured nonlinear random wave according to Eqs.6 ω (rad/s) 0.4 Fig. in the time domain.13 The reconstructed time series compared with the original test data.4 0. Reconstruction of response data 1.2 6500 7000 Time(s) Non-Gaussian 7500 8000 0.8 Non-Gaussian method 163. 12.6 0. Zero-upcrossing analysis was applied to the 2nd-order low-frequency surge motion to compare each low-frequency surge period between the reconstructed time series.0 The natural periods estimated from the reconstructions are less than the data directly determined from the measured data.

one is to utilize the raw data and low pass filtering of the response and the other is to conduct the cross-spectral estimates and reconstruction of the surge response. A goodness-of-fit measure for the validity of the quadratic nonlinear model can be defined by seeing how close is the sum of these linear and quadratic coherence function to unity (Bendat. 1990). The linear coherency is close to 1 over wide frequency region. The suffixes y1 and y2 stand for the reconstructed linear and quadratic forces. We have used Gaussian and nonGaussian method for the estimation of QTF. 18 (a) Conventional TLP surge motion Fig.2 in the non-Gaussian method.2 1.8 0.9 rad/s for all methods.4 Comparison of cohebrcy fucntions Fig. the quadratic coherency is about 0.4 for the Gaussian method. 17 Coherency of reconstructed surge motion Comparison of surge drift of conventional TLP and mini-TLP 1 0. U indicates one-sided energy density spectra.2 for the non-Gaussian method.2 NMSE = ∑{[ x N t =1 rec (t ) − xrec (t )] − [ xexp (t ) − xexp (t )]} 2 1 N ∑[ x t =1 N (12) 0 0 0. N is the number of data. The NMSE dose not include mean of surge. 0. .6 ω (rad/sec) 1.4 exp (t ) − xexp (t )] 2 1 0.6 0. 0. while the non-Gaussian method is much higher than the Gaussian method beyond 1 rad/s. 17. The results are shown in Fig. 0.2 1 0.6 0.where γ 2 and q2 represent the linear and quadratic coherence functions respectively.2 0 0 Linear Quadratic Total Table 5 Normalized mean square error Gaussian 0. From the filtered 2nd-order surge responses we have found the mean surge (offset) and natural slow drift surge period. xrec(t) reconstructed time series and xexp(t) experimental time series. The reconstructed data and measured data are used for the coherency test. and y denotes the measured force.4 Mini TLP (Non-Gaussian) 1. 18 (b) Mimi TLP surge motion CONCLUDING REMARKS We have conducted the analysis of slow 2nd-order surge of a mini-TLP in two ways. The above comparison may used for visualization of the coherency test (Fig.8 0. The linear and quadratic coherency function (Eqs. 18b). respectively.4 0.8 0. which may be regarded as noise.Mini TLP (Gaussian) Normalized mean square error 1. 2005-EJP-01 250 Kim 7 /8 . The surge drift of the conventional TLPs is dominated by the 2nd-order response compared to the small linear surge overridden on the 2nd-order drift. It is to be noted that the coherency at zero frequency is unit for the Gaussian method whilst 0. where.43 Mini TLP Non-Gaussian 0. The mini TLP is dominated by the linear surge with negligibly small 2nd-order drift. The linear and quadratic coherence functions are: 2 (ω ) = γ xy 1 Uy U yy (ω ) Uy y 2 2 y (ω ) 1 1 (13) (14) 2 q xy (ω ) = 2 (ω ) U yy (ω ) We compare the characteristic behaviors of surge drifts of the conventional TLPs (Fig 18a) and that of the mini-TLP (Fig.16). Overall the two methods give almost the same result.2∼0.2 1 Linear Quadratic Total To compare the reconstructed and measured time series quantitatively. It appears that non-Gaussian method is better than Gaussian method.6 ω (rad/sec) 1. which means that the linear surge motion is dominant and the quadratic surge motion is negligibly small in this region.8 0.2 1. the normalized mean square error (NMSE) was computed.4 0.2 0.4 The reconstructed data is used for the coherency test.37 3 hours Coherency . The period is longer than the measured data.2 0. (13) and (14)) were calculated. The experimental data was filtered by eliminating the frequency components higher than 4 rad/s. It was found that Paper No. The sum of these coherence functions must lie in between 0 and 1. 1 N Coherency 0. The NMSE are compared in Table 5. Fig.

"The Estimation of the Transfer Functions of Quadratic Systems." in: Boashash. CT (1992) "On the Estimation of Extreme Mooring Line Forces. Powers. No. Vol III. and Powers. "Nonlinear System Analysis and Identification from Random Data. pp 1-9. PF. Kim. pp 188-195. Kitakyshu. The authors are thankful to Professor Powers and Dr. Dalzell. AM.. pp 78-84. Stavanger. 1. Stavanger. May." Proc 13th Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf. John Niedzwecki and Pierre Liagre for their assistance in providing the data. No 4. March 1976. "On Non-Linear ship Motions in Irregular Waves. Birkelund for their precious comments on the work. EJ (1995). "Non Gaussian Effect of Input and Output on Cross-Bi-Spectral Estimates. Stansberg. pp 291300. CH. whereas the 2ndorder surge is dominant compared to the linear surge for the conventional TLPs. Vol III. I-A. JF (1974). 1959. Norway. pp 413-420. and Signal Processing. Hawaii. Vol III. pp 213-239. CT (2001). ACKNOWLEGEMENTS The authors are grateful for access of the test data from the Offshore Technology Research Center (OTRC). EJ (2003). Dalzell. and J. Honolulu. USA. New York. REFERENCES Bendat." Proc 11th Int\Offshore and Polar Eng Conf. Dalzell. and Powers. "Cross-Bispectral Analysis: Application to Ship Resistance in Waves. Vol 3. Roesset JM. “Extraction of the Second-Order Nonlinear Response from Model Test Data in Random Seas and Comparison of the Gaussian and non-Gaussian Models”.the input and output were practically linear and thus." John Wiley & Son. Vol III. CH and Boo. Norway. Vol 18. pp 169-177. London. Toulon." Proc 2nd Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf. "An Analysis of Quadratic Frequency Response for Added Resistance. ISOPE. Canada. JM." J of Ship Research. JF (1972). KI. SB and Powers. ISOPE." Dover Publications Inc. JF (1976). JF and Kim. CH (2004). Vol IV. Kim. San Francisco. Vol 10. "The Effect of Sea Severity on the CrossBi-Spectral Estimate of Quadratic Response Function for Surge Exciting Forces. CH (2003). Birkelund." Int J of Offshore and Polar Engineering. The behavior of the 2nd-order surge of the mini-TLP is totally different from the conventional TLPs. Kim. the system is also linear.Y. Stansberg. LJ (1961). A. The linear surge was dominant compared to the 2nd-order surge for the mini-TLP. Norway. CH and Kee ST (1992). CH (2002). EJ (1988). Stavanger. "A Digital Method of Modeling Quadratically Nonlinear Systems with a General Random Input. Kim. Vol III. New York. CH.” IEEE Trans Acoustics. pp 1758-1769. "Theory of Functionals and of Integral and IntegroDifferential Equations. pp 631-633. Kumar. NS and Kim. (1966). "Data Interpretation and System Identification in Hydrodynamic Model Testing. JS (1990). "Application of the Functional Polynomial Model to the Ship Added Resistance Problem. N. Assuming that the system is quadratically nonlinear and analyzing the system. (1979). Kim. pp 64-68." Proc 13th Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf. Seoul. New York. NS (2004). Hasselmann. Stevens Institute of Technology. SY (1990) "Statistical analysis of slow drift forces in random seas. and Zoubir.The authors also would like to thank Drs. " J Ship Res. Volterra. 1st Pacific /Asia Offshore Mechanics Symposium. Kim. pp 62-72. Dalzell. Calgary. pp 413-420. Dissertation. Speech. " An Experimental Research Study of a Mini-TLP. "The Effect of Sea Severity on the CrossBi-Spectral Estimate of Quadratic Response Function for Surge Exciting Forces. Hoboken. ISOPE. Vol 23. pp 243-248. B. EJ. pp 496-503. "Higher-Order Spectral Estimators and Nonlinear System Identification. "Cross-Bi-Spectral Estimation of Nonlinear Force on Fixed Structure in Nonlinear Waves. eds. NS and Kim. pp 563-567." Proc the OMAE 1992 Conf. Tick. "Limitation of the 2nd-order Theories for Laboratory High Sea Waves and Forces on Structures. No 23. France. ISOPE. Higher-Order Statistical Signal Processing." Technometrics. "Estimation of Volterra Kernels via higher-order statistical signal processing. “J Ship Res. NJ. Kim. we found the system is practically linear. K." Proc 12th Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf. ISOPE. Wiley. and Kim MH (2001).” 11th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Niedzwecki. Vol 12. Kim. "SIT-DL-72-1606. Paper No. Vol III. 2005-EJP-01 251 Kim 8 /8 . NS and Kim." Proc 11th Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf. ISOPE." Proc 11th Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf. Texas A&M University. pp 198 -208. NY. Y. Kim. Liagre. V (1943). "Application of Cross-Bi-Spectral Analysis to Ship Resistance in Waves. No 1. Korea. Zou (2002)." Proc. ISOPE. Vol 36. The present quadratic system analysis has been used as a useful method in identifying that the system is practically linear. Japan. No 4.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.