See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275098790

Experimental and numerical study of the wave response of a flexible barge

Conference Paper · September 2006

CITATIONS READS

46 257

3 authors:

Fabien REMY Bernard Molin

Ecole Centrale Marseille - IRPHE Institut de Recherche sur les Phénomènes Hors Equilibre
46 PUBLICATIONS   342 CITATIONS    116 PUBLICATIONS   1,262 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alain Ledoux
TOTAL
14 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gallopan View project

Flow induced vibration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bernard Molin on 30 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Experimental and numerical study of
the wave response of a flexible barge

F. Remy1, B. Molin1 & A. Ledoux2

1
Ecole généraliste d'ingénieurs de Marseille, 13451 Marseille cedex 20, France
2
Principia RD, 215 Voie Ariane, Zac Athelia I, 13705 La Ciotat, France

ABSTRACT

The work presented here is a follow-up of a paper given at the previous conference (Malenica
et al., 2003). A second series of experiments is described, conducted with a model consisting
of twelve rigid units connected, at deck level, by a steel rod. Whereas, in the previous
experiments, only vertical bending was allowed, in this new set of experiments, horizontal
bending and torsion are permitted as well. Tests are conducted in regular and irregular waves
of varying headings. Following the theoretical work presented in Ledoux et al. (2004a), new
developments have been made, in the Diodore software of Principia, to include horizontal
bending and torsional modes. Good agreement is obtained between numerical and
experimental RAOs of the bending and torsional modes.

1. INTRODUCTION

For relatively long and slender floating bodies moored in waves, natural modes of
deformation, such as vertical bending or torsion, can have their natural frequencies getting
close to the wave frequencies. In such case, the elastic body deformations can become
appreciable, comparable with the rigid body motions, and they must be accounted for in the
design. Many hydrodynamic softwares are nowadays being extended to tackle the case of
deformable bodies. However there are relatively few available experimental data that can be
used for validation.

At the previous Hydroelasticity Conference (Malenica et al., 2003), some experiments were
described where the model consisted of twelve rectangular caissons, separated by narrow
gaps, and connected at deck level by two steel plates. Tests were performed in head waves
only, regular and irregular, without forward speed. The motion of every other caisson was
measured with an optical tracking system and this permitted to reconstruct the entire
deformation of the model. Good agreement was reported with calculations performed with the
software Hydrostar of Bureau Veritas.
In this paper we report a subsequent experimental campaign, with the same model, but with
the two steel plates replaced by a single steel rod in the center plane of the arrangement. This
means that horizontal bending and torsion become permitted as well as vertical bending. Tests
are performed in the same facility, in regular and irregular waves of different headings.

In the first part of this paper we describe the experiments. Then we briefly report on
extensions made in the sea-keeping software Diodore of Principia to tackle the case of
deformable bodies. Details can be obtained in previous publications. Finally we compare
experimental and numerical RAOs (Response Amplitude Operators), as derived from the tests
in irregular waves and from Diodore.

2. THE EXPERIMENTS

The experiments were performed at the BGO-First basin, located in la Seyne-sur-mer, near
Toulon. This tank is 16 m wide with a total length, from the wave-maker to the beach, over 30
m. The waterdepth during the tests was set to 1 m.

2.1 The model

The model consisted in 12 connected caissons. Except for the bow one, all caissons are
rectangular and identical, with the following characteristics:
- length: 190 mm
- width: 600 mm
- depth: 250 mm
- draft: 120 mm
- mass: 13.7 kg
- KG: 163 mm (center of gravity above keel)
- Rx: 225 mm (radius of gyration in roll)

The bow caisson has a bevel shape as shown in figure 1 below.(see also photo 3)

60cm
19cm

5cm
10cm 5cm
5cm

Figure 1: bow caisson geometry

Its weight is 10 kg, with the center of gravity 87 mm above keel line and a radius of inertia of
213mm.
The caissons are separated by gaps of 15 mm, meaning a total length of the model of about
2.445 m. They are connected, at deck level, by a steel rod clamped on the successive caissons
(see photos1 and 2). The rod has a square cross section with a side of 1 cm. This means that
the horizontal and vertical bending stiffnesses E I are equal to 175 Nm² (they were checked
through static tests) and that the torsional stiffness is 135 Nm². The rod axis is located at 307
mm above keel line.

Motion gauges Steel rod

KRYPTON
Steel rod

Photo 1 Photo 2

The model was moored by aerial steel cables and springs, yielding natural periods of the surge
and sway motion around 10 s, well above the wave periods.

2.2 Measurements
The barge motion was measured with the optical system RODYM DMM 6D (KRYPTON),
consisting into three camcorders tracking six groups of three infrared LEDs attached to the
caissons labelled C1, C3, C5, C7, C9 and C12 (see photo 1). This system gives the 6 degrees
of freedom with an excellent accuracy (better than 0.3 mm). The translational motion was
given at the fore end of the caissons, at the deck level, as shown in figure 2, below, which also
shows the corresponding nodes of the beam model.

Reference
positions

C12 C9 C7 C5 C1

node4 node1 node25 node34 node42 node52

7

Computational
nodes
Figure 2. Reference points for measurements.

2.3 Decay tests

 Decay tests were performed for different degrees of freedom, including horizontal and vertical
bendings, and torsion. The following figures show, on the left-hand sides, time traces of the
resulting motion, expressed each time as the angular motion of the bow caisson (C1) minus
the angular motion of the aft caisson (C12). Thus “torsion” is the difference in roll angle,
“vertical bending” the difference in pitch and “horizontal bending” the difference in yaw. In
these tests initial “vertical bending” was achieved by pulling up the bow caisson, “horizontal
bending” by pulling aside the bow caisson, and “torsion” by twisting the bow and aft caissons
oppositely. On the right-hand sides Power Spectral Densities of the time series are shown,
giving 0.94 s as the natural period of the first vertical bending mode, 1.33 s for the first
horizontal bending mode and 0.84 s for the first torsion mode. Decay tests in “roll” were also
performed, yielding a natural period of 1.42 s.
Figure 6 shows initial deformations applied for the three decay tests
Decay Test - Vertical bending (Pitch C1-C12)

4 0

3
(a) 10

(b)
eg²/Hz
1 -2
10
g
e

Dd
0
D

PS
-1
-4
-2 10

-3

-4
-6
-5 10
70 80 90 100 110 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time(s) Period (s)

Figure 3. Decay test in vertical bending - (a) Time record (b) PSD
Decay Test - Horizontal bending (Yaw C1-C12)

0
4 10

2 -1
10
eg²/Hz
g
e

0 -2
D

Dd

10
S

(a)
P

-2 -3
10

-4 -4
10
(b)
-6
20 30 40 50 60 70
0.5 1 1.5 2
Time(s)
Period (s)

Figure 4. Decay test in horizontal bending - (a) Time record (b) PSD
Decay Test - Torsion (Roll C1-C12)

6
0
4 10
(a)
z

2
eg²/H

0
eg

Dd
D

-2
S

-2 10
P

-4
(b)
-6
-4
-8 10

-10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Period (s)
Time(s)

Figure 5. Decay test in torsion - (a) Time record (b) PSD.

 Initial deformation for vertical bending decay test Initial deformation for horizontal bending decay test Initial deformation for torsion decay test
60 60 2
C12
C1
50 40 0

40 20 -2 C12

Roll angle (deg)

30 0

Y (mm)
Z (mm)

-4

20 -20 -6

10 -40 C1 -8
C12

0 -60 -10 C1

-10 -80 -12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
XBarge (mm) XBarge (mm) XBarge (mm)

Figure 6 Initial deformations for decay tests

2.4 Tests in waves

They were carried out in regular and irregular waves. Only the irregular wave tests will be
described here. JONSWAP type spectra were specified. Table 1 below shows the
characteristics of the obtained wave spectra after calibrations.

Irregular waves – JONSWAP spectra

Name Hs (mm) Tp (s) γ
IRR1 28 1,21 2
IRR2 43 1,21 2
IRR3 54 1,58 2
IRR4 78 1,58 2
IRR5 80 2,00 2
IRR6 120 2.00 2
Table 1

The model was oriented at five different headings: 0° (head waves), 30°, 60°, 75° and 90°.
Photo 3 below gives a view of the model at a 30° heading.

Photo 3. Sea-keeping tests in 30° heading waves.

3. THE NUMERICAL MODEL

Structural Mass Geometry

definition distribution mesh

Dry modes
Hydrostatics

Hydrodynamics

Wet modes
For qualitative analysis

RAO’s in the frequency domain

(dry mode basis)

Figure 7. Hydro-elastic methodology

The numerical model, based on the software Diodore of Principia, has already been described
in Ledoux et al. (2004a). Hence here we only give a general summary. The reader should
refer to Ledoux et al. (2004a) for details.
Figure 7 illustrates the general methodology: the body is described both from a structural and
from a hydrodynamic point of view. On the structural side, a mass distribution is specified,
together with stiffness characteristics. The deformation is based on a 3D linear beam model
coping with large nodes displacements. The structural analysis yields the dry modes which,
together with the 6 rigid body motions, provide a basis to decompose the dynamic response in
waves.
The sea-keeping analysis is performed in the frequency domain, within the frame of linearized
potential flow theory. The number of degrees of freedom is 6 for the rigid body motion plus
some number N of elastic dry modes. This results in (6+N) x (6+N) matrices for hydrostatic
stiffnesses, added masses and radiation dampings. The hydrostatic stiffness matrix is
expressed following the method proposed by Newman (1994). It has been checked formally
that it agrees with the method used by Malenica et al. (2003) (Molin, 2003).
A first result provided by the hydrodynamic analysis is the wet modes, some of which are
being shown below. It can be seen that “roll” is far from being identical to the roll motion of a
rigid barge and that it exhibits strong coupling with horizontal bending.
 Figure 8. Wet modes in “roll” (upper left), horizontal bending (upper right),
vertical bending (lower left) and torsion (lower right).

4. COMPARISONS BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS

In the following figures we present comparisons between experimental and numerical

Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs). The experimental values are derived from the tests in
irregular waves, through spectral analysis. They are averaged values over the 6 irregular sea-
states.
In the calculations, supplementary dampings were added to account both for structural and
viscous damping, depending on the considered mode. For example, 5% of critical damping
was added in roll. Better results would likely have been obtained by modeling it by a
quadratic damping linearised stochastically over the sea-state (Ledoux et al., 2004b). This is
postponed to a later stage of development.

First we give results for “heave”, “roll” and “pitch” motions (see figures 9, 10 and 11),
defined as values averaged over the 6 measurement points, on caissons 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12, or
at nodes 52, 42, 34, 25, 17 and 4 in the calculations (see figure 2).

Secondly we consider bending and torsion (see figures 12, 13 and 14), defined in the same
way as in the analysis of the decay tests: vertical bending is the pitch motion of caisson 1
(node 52) minus the pitch motion of caisson 12 (node 4), horizontal bending is the difference
in yaw and torsion is the difference in roll. It can be observed that the agreement between
both sets of values is rather good.
 Averaged Heave RAO - 0° Averaged Heave RAO - 30°
2 2
Diodore
1.5 Exp Data 1.5

RAO
1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Period (s)
Averaged Heave RAO - 60° Averaged Heave RAO - 75°
2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Averaged Heave RAO - 90°

2

1.5

0.5

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure 9 Averaged Heave RAO

Averaged roll RAO - 0° Averaged roll RAO - 30°

0.8 0.8
Diodore
Exp Data
RAO Deg/mm

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Period (s)
Averaged roll RAO - 60° Averaged roll RAO - 75°
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Averaged roll RAO - 90°

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure 10 Averaged Roll RAO

Averaged pitch RAO - 0° Averaged pitch RAO - 30°
0.2 0.2
Diodore
Exp Data
RAO Deg/mm

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Period (s)
Averaged pitch RAO - 60° Averaged pitch RAO - 75°
0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Averaged pitch RAO - 90°

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure 11 Averaged Pitch RAO

 Vertical bending 0° Vertical bending 30°
0.4 0.4
Exp Data
Diodore

RAO Deg/mm
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Period(s)
Vertical bending 60° Vertical bending 75°
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Vertical bending 90°

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure 12 Vertical Bending RAO

Horizontal bending 0° Horizontal bending 30°

Exp Data
Diodore
RAO Deg/mm

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Period(s)
Horizontal bending 60° Horizontal bending 75°
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Horizontal bending 90°

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure13 Horizontal Bending RAO

torsion 0° torsion 30°
0.4 0.4
Exp Data
Diodore
RAO Deg/mm

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Period(s)
torsion 60° torsion 75°
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

torsion 90°
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure 14 Torsion RAO

 5. CONCLUSION

We presented here a relatively complete set of experimental results allowing the validation of
numerical models analyzing the global hydroelastic behavior of long and slender floating
bodies. Good agreements between experiments and Diodore simulations validate
improvements made in Diodore in order to take into account horizontal bending and torsion.
Further work is ongoing on the validation of time domain modules, including whipping loads.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The model tests were performed within the GIS-HYDRO organization with financial support
from Conseil Général du Var.

REFERENCES
Ledoux A., Mary C. & Couty N. 2004a Modelling of springing and whipping of FPSO’s in a
time domain sea-keeping tool, Proc. 14th ISOPE Conf., Toulon, Vol. I, 666-671.
Ledoux A., Molin B., de Jouette C. & Coudray T. 2004b FPSO roll damping prediction from
CFD and 2D and 3D model tests investigations, Proc. 14th ISOPE Conf., Toulon, Vol. I, 687-
695.
Malenica S., Molin B., Remy F. & Senjanovic I. 2003 Hydroelastic response of a barge to
impulsive and nonimpulsive wave loads, Proc. 3rd Conf. Hydroelasticity, Oxford.
Molin B. 2003 Hydrostatique d’un corps deformable, Technical note.
Newman J.N. 1994 Wave effects on deformable bodies, Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 16,
47-59.

View publication stats