Dynamics of Cage Floating

K. Murali
Asst. Professor
Dept. of Ocean Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai-600036, India
Phone: 0091-44-225784816
Fax: 0091-44-22574801
e-mail: murali@iitm.ac.in
S. S. Amer
Graduate Student
Dept. of Ocean Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai-600036, India
Phone: 0091-44-2574816
Fax: 0091-44-22574801
e-mail: syedគshafiuddin@yahoo.com
J. S. Mani
Professor
Dept. of Ocean Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai-600036, India
Phone: 0091-44-22574806
Fax: 0091-44-22574801
e-mail: manijs@hotmail.com
Breakwater
Floating breakwaters have potential applications in protecting minor ports and harbors
such as fisheries and recreational harbors, where-in stringent tranquillity requirements
are not warranted. In field applications of the existing floating breakwaters, limitations
are imposed due to their large relative width (ratio between breakwater width and wave
length) requirements to achieve desirable tranquillity level. This relative width require-
ment is greater than 0.3 for the existing floating breakwaters. To overcome the above
drawback associated with the existing system a new configuration for a floating break-
water is derived, which could yield the desired performance with minimum relative width
requirement. The floating breakwater comprises of two pontoons rigidly connected to-
gether and each of the pontoons having a row of cylinders attached beneath, for im-
proved performance characteristics. The laboratory tests were conducted in both regular
and random wave flumes to study the dynamic behavior of the breakwater. Transmission
and reflection coefficients, water surface elevations and velocities inside the cage like
area provided in between the pontoons, rigid body motions floating breakwater and
mooring forces were studied under regular and random waves and under the regular
waves followed by a uniform current. The results proved the suitability of the floating
breakwater to the field conditions even for large wave periods. In addition the variations
in water particle kinematics, rigid body motion and mooring forces show nominal mag-
nitudes when compared to the existing systems indicating the rigidness of the
breakwater. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2073347兴
Keywords: floating breakwater, transmission coefficients, mooring forces, floating body
dynamics

1 Introduction
Economic development along the coastal belt created an ever
growing demand for effective utilization of coastal resources. Ex-
ploration and exploitation of coastal resources could be effectively
achieved through shore based facilities like major and minor har-
bors, protected jetties, etc. Almost all shore based facilities need
protection from coastal wave environment and it is customary to
adopt either rubble mound or vertical wall or composite breakwa-
ter. In case of minor harbors such as fisheries and recreational
massive protective structures are not required as these facilities
can function even under moderate wave conditions with permis-
sible transmission coefficients 共Kt兲 as high as 0.5. 共Kt is the trans-
mission coefficient and defined as the ratio of the transmitted
wave height, Ht, on the lee side of the structure to the incident
wave height, Hi.兲 Also use of conventional breakwaters are not
encouraged due to economical, operational, and ecological con-
siderations. It has been a challenge to design cost effective alter-
native breakwater systems, possessing adequate degree of wave
attenuating capabilities 共Kt 艋 0.5兲. Quite often, floating breakwa-
ters happen to be such systems. Several types of floating break-
waters were developed in the past. A review of the literature re-
veals that 关1–5兴 most of the existing floating breakwaters require a
larger relative width 共W / L; ratio between structure width in the
direction of wave propagation, W, and the wave length, L兲 to
achieve the desirable Kt. As the cost of the breakwater is directly
proportional to its width, it has been essential to continue the
study of different concepts to minimize the W / L parameter. Mu-
rali and Mani 关6兴 developed a new type of floating breakwater
based on the Y-frame design 关5兴, viz., Cage Floating Breakwater
Contributed by the Ocean Offshore and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manu-
script received July 19, 2004; final manuscript received May 27, 2005. Assoc. Editor:
Krish Thiagarajan.
共CFB兲. Figure 1 shows the details of the CFB configuration. Per-
formance characteristics of the CFB proved the effectiveness of
the system for nearshore applications 关6–9兴. Initially, the suitabil-
ity of the CFB concept for practical applications 关6兴 has been
studied and the performance characteristics based on regular wave
tests and effects of following current on the performance charac-
teristics were reported. This paper presents a detailed investigation
on the hydrodynamics of the cage floating breakwater with objec-
tive of study of detailed dynamic characteristics under regular
waves. Breakwater motions and mooring forces are reported in
addition to attenuation characteristics for completeness. In addi-
tion the influence of following current on the dynamic character-
istic of the CFB was investigated.
2 Experimental Investigations
Experimental studies were carried out to study the dynamic
motion characteristics of Cage Floating Breakwater in the flume
facilities at the Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras, India. Certain preliminary tests were con-
ducted in the regular wave-current flume to assess the effective-
ness of the floating breakwater in wave attenuation 关6兴. Followed
by that, detailed tests were conducted to investigate the dynamic
characteristics of the CFB. The detailed investigations carried out
are reported herein. The flume is of 30 m long and 2.0 m wide,
with a maximum achievable water depth of 1.0 m. In this flume, it
is possible to generate regular waves of period ranging from
0.8 to 2.0 s and wave heights up to 0.24 m. A return flow cham-
ber below the flume-floor enables re-circulation of water and gen-
eration of currents following the waves.
Major features of the floating breakwater, as shown in Fig. 1
are:
• Two pontoons of width “B,” separated by a clear gap “b”
and top width “W”共=2B + b兲.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 2005, Vol. 127 / 331
Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 Details of cage floating breakwater geometry

• A row of cylinders of diameter “D” attached to keel of pon-
toons, spaced at “G.”
• The pontoons have draft “d1” and cylinders have length “l,”
i.e., total draft d = d1 + l.
• The system is held in position by taut mooring lines 关5兴.
The above assembly is rigidly connected with appropriate fasten-
ing. Table 1 summarizes the rigid body properties of the model
system also indicating appropriate notations. The CFB is naturally
stiff against motions as the metacenter is well above the center of
gravity. In addition, the taut mooring configuration is also ex-
pected to effectively control the motions, thereby reducing the
radiating waves from the structure, which could create distur-
bances on the sea-side as well as the lee-side.
2.1 Model Parameters. A conventional dimensional analysis
has been carried-out to arrive at relevant characteristic numbers
for the CFB model. The experimental ranges considered for the
nondimensional parameters for the present studies are summa-
rized in Table 2. These ranges were selected so as to enclose the
field conditions.

Table 1 Statical properties of the model floating breakwater „d / h = 0.46…

Model property Value Model property Value

Length 共Lm兲 1.960 m Mass center 共xo , yo兲 共0 , −0.157兲 m

width 共W兲 0.600 m Buoyancy center 共xb , yb兲 共0 , −0.071兲 m
Pontoon draft 共dl兲 0.160 m Roll Metacenter 共GMT兲 0.435 m
Length of cylinders 共l兲 0.300 m Roll Moment of inertia 共Izz兲 5.415 kg-m2
Total draft 共d兲 0.460 m Heavea natural frequency 共fn2兲 1.657 hz
Mass 共M兲 70.760 kg Rollb natural frequency 共fn6兲 0.992 hz
a
Heave—vertical motion of the breakwater.
b
Roll—rotational motion about the longitudinal axis of the body.

Table 2 Nondimensional parameters and their ranges

Model parameter Range

Wave steepness parameter共Hi/gT2兲 0.0014–0.016

Relative Width 共W / L兲 0.120–0.600
Relatives draft 共d / h兲 0.360, 0.460, and 0.560
Relative spacing of the pontoons 共b / B兲 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
Relative spacing between the pipes 共G / D兲 0.110, 0.220, and 0.330
Initial tension in the mooring times 共T⬘o = To / 共⌬tg兲兲 0.225, 0.12, and 0.016
Mooring line stiffness 共Km⬘ = Km / 共⌬tg / h兲兲 6.689, 33.444, and 66.888
Uniform current 共U / c兲 0.058–0.120

332 / Vol. 127, NOVEMBER 2005 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 2 Comparison of the CFB’s performance with existing floating breakwater
2.2 Model Instrumentation. Linear capacitance type wave
gauges of high sensitivity were used to measure the water surface
elevations in the wave flumes. Ultrasonic 3 component velocity
meters were used to measure dynamic water particle velocities.
Ring type load cells, with strain gauges in full Wheatstone bridge
were fabricated to measure in-line mooring tensions. The load cell
was designed for a maximum capacity of 1000 N with a sensitiv-
ity of 0.15 N, respectively. These were connected to the mooring
lines with shackle and hinge arrangements to facilitate transfer of
only in-line tensions to the load cells.
To measure the rigid body motions of the floating breakwater,
multiturn potentiometers were used. The multiturn potentiometer
enabled the measurement of very small rotations, combined with
sensitive instrumentation. A frictionless pulley, of 30 mm diam-
eter, was connected to the shaft of each of the potentiometers.
With this pulley assembly the potentiometers were calibrated. A
least possible measurement 共of 0.012 deg兲 with this potentiometer
pulley arrangement resulted in reading variations of linear mo-
tions as low as 0.18 mm.
3 Model Setup
The experimental setup for the model dynamics testing is
shown in Fig. 3. The figure shows the CFB model moored to
anchor frames at pre-determined locations. Locations and arrange-
ment of the wave probes, and their instrumentation scheme were
also schematized in the Fig. 2. As the mooring lines were always
connected through load cells, initial tensions in the mooring lines
were adjusted to achieve a predetermined pontoon draft at static
equilibrium. Wave probes 共H1-H3兲 were deployed to measure the
wave elevations on the wave maker side, wave absorber side and
in the cage, respectively. To de-couple the incident and reflected
wave heights on the wave maker side, the wave probe mounted on
to a trolley was towed against the incident wave direction; at a
constant speed in the range of 15– 30 cm/ s; for a distance of
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
about 8 m from a position 5 m away from the model. The trans-
mitted waves were measured at a distance 5 m away from the
model on the absorber side. As, the wave absorber has higher
efficiency in absorbing the incident wave energy, 共up to 95% of
energy兲 it was assumed that there were negligible reflections from
the beach.
Water particle velocities inside the cage were measured at a
location 0.25 m below the free surface. Because of two-
dimensional flow field, the velocities in the direction of wave
propagation and in the vertical direction alone were recorded 共it
has always been observed that the velocities in the normal direc-
tion of the flume walls were negligible from all the velocity
meters’ online display兲. Two velocity probes were used 关共u1 , w1兲
and 共u2 , w2兲兴, one behind a cylinder and the other behind the gap
between the cylinders. The average between them were taken to
be that of cage. This was to average out any wake effects behind
the cylinders. The first probe 共u1 , w1兲 has been moved to the wave
maker side for calibration purposes in between the tests.
Dynamic tensions were measured in six mooring lines 共M 1-
M 6兲, four on the wave maker side and two on the absorber side.
Wave maker side mooring forces were given importance as these
were expected to be larger than the absorber side forces and are
critical for design purpose. At the beginning of each and every test
run, the load cells were checked and corrected for equal initial
tensions, if needed.
The potentiometer arrangement 共P1, P2, and P3兲 shown in the
above figure measured coupled away, heave, and roll motions. An
in-extensible thread, having good surface frictional resistance and
higher stiffness against axial tension, has been used to transmit
motions of the CFB to the potentiometers. One end of the thread
was connected to the body and the other end was hung down by
means of a counter weight, after once winding along the pulley
groove.
This experimental setup was maintained throughout the tests.
All the transducers were calibrated frequently and checked for
NOVEMBER 2005, Vol. 127 / 333

Fig. 3 Variation of transmission, reflection, and energy loss
coefficient for different value of stiffness of the mooring line.
Test conditions are G / D = 0.22, d / h = 0.46, b / B = 1.0, pretension
= 22.5%.
linearity. Initial readings of all the transducers were balanced and
recorded before the start of each and every test run. These average
initial conditions were subtracted from the recorded quantities to
get absolute dynamic quantities. Data from all the transducers
were collected and stored into a PC through an amplifier and a
filter, except for the potentiometer data which required no inter-
mediate conditioning of data.
4 Analysis of Data and Presentation of Results
Data collected, with a sampling frequency of 20 Hz, were pro-
cessed to get relevant physical quantities. The procedures for
analysis of the analog raw data are discussed in this section.
Customized FORTRAN codes were developed to convert the ana-
log data into physical data, using the calibration factors of each
transducers. Data from wave probes, velocity meters, and load
cells were directly converted using the factors to get the ampli-
tudes of incident, reflected, and transmitted waves; velocity in the
horizontal and vertical directions; mooring forces in generator and
absorber side mooring lines. The data from potentiometers needed
intermediate processing to obtain the time series of motions from
that of potentiometer voltages. Once the time series of all the
334 / Vol. 127, NOVEMBER 2005
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
motions were obtained, the amplitudes were derived from the re-
spective plots. To ensure sufficient accuracy and precision, each
test run was conducted thrice and average of the three observa-
tions was taken for all the instruments. “F ” test of significance
关10兴 was carried out to estimate the confidence in the values of the
experimentally obtained parameters and it was found that the
transmission, water particle kinematics, response amplitude mo-
tions and mooring force are 99%, 97.5%, 95%, and 95% confi-
dence, respectively.
For presentation of the results, the wave amplitudes on the lee
side, generator side, and at the model were normalized with the
incident wave amplitude 共Hi / 2兲, to yield the transmission 共Kt兲 and
reflection 共Kr兲 coefficients and relative water surface elevations
共Hc / Hi兲 inside the cage, respectively. Another parameter which is
useful, when combined with the reflection and transmission coef-
ficients, in studying the breakwater’s functional mechanism is the
energy loss coefficient defined as
K f = 冑1 − Kt2 − Kr2 . 共1兲
The energy loss coefficient is useful in characterizing the mecha-
nism of wave attenuation of the breakwater. The velocities inside
the cage were normalized with the undisturbed water particle ve-
locities at the sea-side of the breakwater, based on the linear wave
theory. The sway and heave motion amplitudes 共⫻1 and ⫻2兲 were
divided with amplitudes of incident wave and roll motion ampli-
tudes 共⫻6兲 with the wave number times the incident wave ampli-
tudes, to get the respective Response Amplitude Operators 共RAO兲.
To normalize the amplitude of dynamic mooring forces, the total
pressure force exerted by a progressive wave on a vertical wall of
unit width, given by 关Hi␳g tanh共kh兲 / 共2k兲兴, is used and the above
results presented against two parameters viz Hi / gT2 and W / L. The
Hi / gT2 is a relevant parameter to represent the wave reflection
and transmission coefficients 关11兴. The W / L value, known as
“relative width,” is an important parameter in studying the perfor-
mance of any floating body and its dynamic behavior, because, the
W / L is purely frequency dependent.
5 Results and Discussions
The experiments were conducted with regular waves and waves
in the presence of currents and the results obtained are herein
discussed.
5.1 Regular Wave Results.
5.1.1 Determination of Optimal Values of G / D, d / h, and b / B.
The basic performance characteristics of the CFB have been re-
ported in detail earlier 关6兴. For typical ranges of d / h and Hi / gT2
关6兴, the test results were analyzed as a function of Kt against G / D.
Traditionally W / L has been the parameter of concern to study
floating breakwaters’ behavior. Mani 共1991兲 showed that Hi / gT2
could be another important parameter. Scientifically, it makes
sense as this is another way of representing wave steepness. The
results suggested an optimal value of G / D = 0.22, b / B = 1.0, and
d / h = 0.46 for this floating breakwater design. The observations
holds for the range of Hi / gT2 共0.0014–0.016兲. The variation of Kt
with different mooring line pretensions over the range of Hi / gT2,
for the above G / D and d / h ratios, showed that the new design
could function efficiently even with lower pretensions. This is
made possible because of the row of cylinders which does not
contribute significantly to the buoyancy but act as an effective
wave reflecting or dissipating barrier. However, further tests were
conducted for the pretension corresponding to 22.5% of ⌬t as it
yielded better performance. The pretension ratio of 22.5% is
closer to the initial tension in the tethers of a mini Tension Leg
Platform 共as in some cases兲 but when the absolute value 共in tons兲
of the pretension in the mooring line is considered, it was found to
be sufficient for the use of mooring chain or rope without much
increase in cost.
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 4 Variation of sway, heave, and roll RAO for different val-
ues of stiffness of the mooring lines. Test conditions: G / D
= 0.22. b / B = 1.0, pretension= 22.5%.
5.1.2 Variation of Transmission Coefficients. The present sec-
tion is a review of the previous report by 关6兴. To study the various
mechanisms involved in performance characteristics of the
present system, the transmission, reflection, and energy loss coef-
ficients were jointly investigated. Figure 3 suggests the following.
• The trend curves of the experimental results indicate the
system’s effectiveness in wave attenuation. The transmission
coefficient has a maximum value of about 0.55 at the rela-
tive width 共W / L兲 of 0.12, and decreases with increase in
W / L, which may be due to vigorous water surface oscilla-
tions inside the cage. For the upper limit of experimental
W / L, the waves are predominantly attenuated through
reflection 共Fig. 3兲.
5.1.3 Motion Characteristics of the CFB. Figure 4 shows re-
sponse amplitude operators 共RAO兲 for sway, heave, and roll mo-
tions of the body and effect of mooring stiffness on the RAOs for
the stiffness range of K1 to K3. A general observation indicates the
increase in the amplitude of motion with an increase in the steep-
ness of the wave. In the present study the wave steepness
共Hi / gT2兲 is varied from 0.0014 to 0.016. For this variation the
motion is increased 共at an average兲 by 53%. A detailed observa-
tion implies:
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 5 Effect of stiffness of the mooring lines on forces in the
mooring line
• The sway RAOs show an increasing trend up to a relative
width of 0.17 and decreases with further increase in W / L.
The average peak values as depicted are 0.23, 0.1, and 0.05
for K1, K2, and K3, respectively.
• The heave RAOs indicate a trend which keep reducing as
the relative width increases. As the natural frequency of
heave motion of the body is not within the experimental
range, no distinct peak is noted. It is also evident from the
figure that, at the lowest W / L the peak RAOs observed are
about 0.22, 0.11, and 0.075, respectively, for the correspond-
ing normalized mooring stiffness of K1, K2, and K3.
• The roll RAOs show a similar behavior as that of heave and
the maximum response of 0.20, 0.120, and 0.06 are recorded
for the normalized mooring stiffness K1, K2, and K3, respec-
tively. Even as the roll natural period is covered in the tests,
it is not reflected in the figure because of the mooring lines’
effect.
• The experimental points of the sway and roll show a com-
mon feature viz., a slight dip near W / L of 0.14. This is
believed to be due to a strong coupling between the sway
and roll motions.
• It has been noted that the motions are almost symmetric for
K1 and K2. But for K3 they are not that symmetric. However,
the mooring lines with the normalized stiffness of K3 con-
trols all the three motions very effectively.
NOVEMBER 2005, Vol. 127 / 335
 Fig. 6 Effect of waves and currents on Kt
5.1.4 Mooring Forces. The peaks mooring force amplitudes
measured in the laboratory and normalized with that of a vertical
wall are presented in Fig. 5. The figure suggests the following.
• The figure shows envelopes of the experimental points. The
distinct trend could be recorded except for the peaks in the
mid range of relative width. As recorded, when the break-
water is moored with lines of stiffness K3, the peak normal-
ized forces are 0.12, 0.08, 0.05, and 0.03 for the generator
side 共top and bottom兲 and absorber side 共top and bottom兲
mooring lines, respectively.
• The results indicate that the maximum force occurs on the
top mooring line on the generator side, which is incidentally
connected to a point close to the mass center of the body, in
the vertical.
• The mooring lines with high stiffness experience a drastic
increase in the force by about 50%–70% when compared to
K1 and K2 for generator side mooring lines. This could not
be true for the absorber side mooring lines as most of the
forces were taken by the generator side mooring lines.
5.2 Wave-Current Results.
5.2.1 Influence of Following Current on Wave Parameters.
Currents of significant magnitude are common in the near shore
regions, and hence encountering frequency is to be considered
rather than the frequency of the wave. Studies were conducted
with currents following the waves to study the effect of former on
the breakwater performance 共Fig. 6兲. Studies were conducted with
a uniform current of 0.15 m / s, generated in the direction of wave
propagation. An attempt has been made to predict the same using
the theoretical nomograms of Li and Herbich 关12兴. The nomo-
grams were reproduced in Murali and Mani 关6兴. The incident
wave parameters 共Hi and L兲 measured in the laboratory were com-
pared with the predictions using the nomograms, and it has been
observed that:
• There is a significant decrease in the wave heights and in-
crease in the wave lengths with currents following the
waves. This change in wave parameters reduces with the
increase in wave period.
• The theory 关12兴 overestimates the observed wave heights by
about 25%–30% and under estimates the observed wave
lengths by 20%–30%.
5.2.2 Influence of Following Currents on Kt. The changes in
the transmission coefficient were experimentally determined and
336 / Vol. 127, NOVEMBER 2005
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
theoretically estimated 关12兴. It is inferred that
• when the waves are followed by a uniform current, the
transmission coefficient increases by 24%–37% in the entire
range W / L. This significant increase in the transmission co-
efficient is not surprising for the reasons given below.
Following current increases the wave length and decreases
the wave height, thereby reducing the wave steepness. As
flat waves 共waves of lower steepness兲 pass with relatively
ease through the system, an increase in wave transmission is
obvious.
Further, the discrepancies observed in estimation of wave
parameters are reflected in transmission coefficient through
overestimations of the same when using the nomograms.
5.2.3 Motion Response Characteristics. The characteristics
are as followed:
• When the breakwater is moored with low stiffness lines 共K1兲
the sway RAO shows an increase of the order of 15%–25%
from the values with wave alone 共Fig. 7兲.
• This increase is of the order of 5%, when the breakwater is
moored with moorings of higher stiffness.
• The heave response operators show an increase in the values
compared to those with waves alone. The increase in the
magnitude is about 15% with moorings of stiffness K1 and
about 10% with mooring stiffness K3.
• For the roll response a reverse trend is observed where-in
the roll RAOs show a decrease 共by about 20%–30%兲, when
subjected to wave and current, due to increased wavelength
of the wave in the presence of currents. This result is valid
for the system with less stiffer mooring lines. However, for
a mooring line with higher stiffness no appreciable change
is noticed.
5.2.4 Forces in Mooring Lines. The peak mooring forces mea-
sured during the wave-current experiments are presented in Fig. 8.
The observations from the figure are following:
• In case of less stiffer mooring lines, an increase in the force
共of the order 50%–60%兲 is observed for the generator side
top mooring lines. This increase is of the order of 70%–80%
for the generator side bottom moorings.
• For the stiff mooring lines, this increase is of the order of
20% only for both the generator side top and bottom moor-
ing lines.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Influence of following currents on sway, heave, and roll RAO of cage
floating breakwater

• No appreciable change in the absorber side mooring forces
are observed with wave and current.
5.3 Practical Considerations. Apart from discussion on the
dynamics of CFB the practical aspects of its construction and
installation have been considered to ascertain the practical appli-
cability of CFB.
As stated at the beginning of the paper that this type of structure
is suitable for small marinas and fishing harbors where tranquillity
requirements are moderate. McCartney 关13兴 stated some of the
key factors governing the selection and installation of floating
structures. Incorporating those factors CFB answers majority of
the requirements especially cost effectiveness. The installation
procedure as discussed below can be followed:
The 10 m long breakwater units can be fabricated on land, as
the pipe assembly would be around 3 m and pontoon height can
be 2 m. After their construction, the breakwater assembly is
floated and ballasted with water to get the required d / L ratio tow-
ing the units to the site ready with the preparatory works, such as
installation of the marker piles and mooring piles/anchor blocks.
The towed units are placed between the marker piles and inter-

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 2005, Vol. 127 / 337

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


共ii兲 Motion response characteristics
共iii兲
Fig. 8 Effect of following currents on forces in the mooring
line
connected with specified gap to length ratio. The units are further
connected to the mooring piles of the anchor blocks.
6 Concluding Summary
共i兲 Transmission, reflection, and energy loss coefficients
共iv兲 Influence of following currents on the performance char-
• The cage floating breakwater is capable of attenuating
incident waves to moderate levels 共Kt ⬍ 0.5兲 for a wide
range of W / L 共W / L 艌 0.14兲. From a cost point of view a
minimum W / L ratio of 0.14 would suffice for the CFB to
achieve tranquillity levels associated with minor com-
mercial and recreational facilities.
• The system is capable of reflecting the waves effectively
for a wide range of W / L and performs as a dissipative
system for a narrow range of “W / L” wherein the energy
loss is caused due to turbulence, friction and flow rever-
sals across the cage.
• A general observation indicates that when the cage float-
ing breakwater is taut moored with an initial tension cor-
responding to 22.5% of the displacement of the body, the
variation in the mooring stiffness between K1 and K3
does not alter the transmission characteristics. A too stiff
mooring tends to induce jerky motions while a too flex-
338 / Vol. 127, NOVEMBER 2005
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
ible mooring leads to large motions. Hence, a good com-
promise is needed to achieve successful combinations of
mooring stiffness and motion levels.
The sway, heave, and roll motions predicted from the
studies reveal encouraging patterns. The motions re-
sponses are well controlled there by enabling the breakwa-
ter to effectively reflect and dissipate incident wave
energy.
• The peak magnitude of heave RAO are of the order of
0.23, 0.17, and 0.07 for mooring stiffness of K1, K2, and
K3, respectively. It should be noted that, the Heave natu-
ral frequency has been kept away from the experimental
range. In addition, the low response levels are a reflec-
tion of the mooring lines’ effectiveness.
• The peak roll amplitudes measured are less than 3 deg.
In the range of W / L between 0.1 and 0.15 a drastic fall
in the roll RAO, from about 0.3–0.2 is observed as a
result of coupling effects between the motions. This phe-
nomena should be carefully investigated further to obtain
resulting motions of the system as a result of coupled
oscillations, especially those of which are in phase. With
high stiffness mooring lines the roll motions are effec-
tively controlled for the entire range of W / L.
• The critical sway RAOs are effectively controlled by the
existence of mooring lines. For K1, K2, and K3, the peak
values for sway RAO are of the order of 0.23, 0.09, and
0.04.
• The results emphasize that by adopting a stiffer mooring
line the motion responses can be arrested effectively.
However, due to operational considerations and mooring
force limits, the appropriate stiffness could be chosen.
The studies only reveal that, the mooring configurations
effectively control all the motions for a wide stiffness
range.
Mooring forces
• In order to obtain better tranquillity levels, a static initial
tension in mooring lines corresponding to 22.5% of the
displacement of the body is found to be effective in this
research work. This effectively controlled the motions of
the body and the dynamic tensions recorded were low.
• It is evident from the results that the mooring lines with
stiffness K3 would experience 50%–70% higher forces
than the mooring lines with stiffness K1. The results also
suggest that the peak forces are about 1.5 times the av-
erage values.
• The experimental results on peak mooring forces re-
corded under regular waves, indicate that the peak occurs
at W / L ⬇ 0.3 for generator side top moorings.
acteristics
• The following current trend to increase the transmission
coefficient by 24%–37% when compared to Kt with
waves.
• The major contribution from the following current is in
terms of increasing the sway response of the floating
breakwater 共the magnitude of increase 15%–25%兲.
• The following current increases the mooring forces by
about 40% when compared to the values with wave
alone. The maximum nondimensional mooring force ex-
perience by the mooring lines under the influences of the
current is of the order of 0.17 as against 0.125 recorded
under the width waves.
• The mooring stiffness appears to have no influence on
the mooring force when the breakwater is subjected to
wave and current interactions.
Transactions of the ASME
 Acknowledgment U ⫽ current velocity in the direction of wave
propagation
The authors acknowledge the authorities of Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras, India, for providing necessary facilities for W ⫽ total width of the breakwater
the study. ␳ ⫽ mass density of fluid
␻ ⫽ wave angular frequency: 2␲ / T
f ⫽ linear wave frequency
Nomenclature
b ⫽ clear gap between pontoons References
B ⫽ pontoon width 关1兴 Bishop, C. T., 1982, “Floating Tire Breakwater Design Comparison,” J. Wa-
C ⫽ wave celerity in the absence of currents terw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 108共3兲, pp. 421–426.
D ⫽ diameter of cylinders 关2兴 Brebner, A., and Ofuya, A. O., 1968, “Floating Breakwaters,” Proc. of the 11th
d1 ⫽ draft of pontoons Conf. on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, 2, pp. 1055–1094.
关3兴 Carver, R. D., and Davidson, D. D., 1983, “Sloping Float Breakwater Model
d ⫽ total draft of the breakwater Study,” Coastal Structures, 83, pp. 417–432.
G ⫽ clear gap between the cylinders 关4兴 Kato, J., Hagino, S., and Uekita, Y., 1966, “Damping Effect of Floating Break-
g ⫽ acceleration due to gravity water to which Anti-Rolling System is Applied,” Coastal Eng., 63, pp. 1068–
1078.
h ⫽ water depth 关5兴 Mani, J. S., 1991, “Design of Y-Frame Floating Breakwater,” J. Waterw., Port,
H ⫽ wave height Coastal, Ocean Eng., 117共2兲, pp. 105–119.
Hi ⫽ incident wave height 关6兴 Murali, K., and Mani, J. S., 1997, “Performance of a Cage Floating Breakwa-
k ⫽ wave number 共2␲ / L兲 ter,” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 123共4兲, pp. 172–179.
关7兴 Murali, K., 1996, “Performance Analysis of a Cage Floating Breakwater
Km⬘ ⫽ nondimensional mooring stiffness 共CFB兲,” PhD Dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Sep. 1996.
K1, K2, and 关8兴 Murali, K., and Mani, J. S., 1996a, “Response of a Cage Floating Breakwater
to Regular and Irregular Waves,” 10th congress of the APD-IAHR, Malaysia.
K3 ⫽ mooring stiffness-absolute value 关9兴 Murali, K., and Mani, J. S., 1996b, “Floating Breakwater Response to Regular
Kt ⫽ transmission coefficient Waves,” Conference in Ocean Engineering’96, Ocean Engineering Center, IIT,
Kr ⫽ reflection coefficient Madras, India.
Kf ⫽ energy loss coefficient 关10兴 Lipson, C., and Sheth, N. J., 1973, Statistical design and analysis of engineer-
ing experiments, McGraw-Hill, New York.
l ⫽ length of cylinder 关11兴 Mani, J. S., and Jayakumar, S., 1995, “Wave Transmission by Suspended Type
Lm ⫽ length of the model Breakwater,” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 121共6兲, pp. 335–338.
M ⫽ mass of the breakwater 关12兴 Li, Y. C., and Herbich, J. B., 1981, “A Nomogram for the Determination of
RAO ⫽ Response Amplitude Operator Wave Length and Wave Celerity During the Interaction of Waves and Cur-
rent,” TR COE-256, Ocean Engg. programme, Texas A & M Univ.
T ⫽ wave period 关13兴 McCartney, B. L., 1985, “Floating Breakwater Design,” J. Waterw., Port,
T0 ⫽ initial tension in mooring lines Coastal, Ocean Eng., 111共2兲, pp. 304–318.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 2005, Vol. 127 / 339

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/17/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use