OTC3840

A
SEAKEEPI
NG MODELTESTSOF
A PLATFORMJACKETTOW

by R.K. Kinra; Shell Oil Co.

@Copyright 1980 Offshore‘technologyConference

This paper was presentedat the 12th Annual OTC In Houston,Tex., t.ky 5.8,1930. The matedal lx subject to correction by the author. Permlsslonto COPYIs restricted to an abstraot of not more than 3cmwords.

ABSTRACT 1) The barge-jacket system must be stable

enough to prevent capsizing.
This paper describes the results of seakeeping
model tests of an offshore platform jacket tow. The 2) The structural strength of the jacket,
3000-ton jacket was fabricated in Labuan, Malaysia and barge and seafastening must be adequate
towed on a launch barge across the Pacific to its final to withstand the forces resulting from
destination, offshore California. The model tests motions of the barge-jacket system under
include: design conditions.

1) Stability tests in regular and random Increasing attention is being focused by platform
beam seas, and designers on seakeeping analysis1~2 because long
ocean tows are becoming more frequent.
2) Motion tests in regular and random beam
and head seas. Two different barges were considered for the eight
thousand mile jacket tow. The overall dimensions of
Two different launch barges were modeled, and one the two barges are as follows:
of the barge-jacket combinations was tested with and
without bilge keels on the barge. The motion test Small Barge Large Barge.
results indicate significant reductions in roll motions
with bilge keels. In contrast, the stability tests Length 332 ‘ 380 ‘
indicate only marginal improvement with bilge keels. Width 90 ‘ 100’
Depth 20 ‘ 25 ‘
In order to correlate with theoretical results,
which do not include the effect of jacket leg submer- In addition, the small barge was tested with and with-
gence during motions, tests were conducted with and out bilge keels. The measured quantities included roll
without jacket leg submergence. Submergence of the and pitch angles and vertical accelerations at the
jacket legs results in significantly greater capsizing barge corners. The roll and pitch angular accelera-
wave heights, indicating that deck cargo can favorably tions and heave accelerations were deduced from the
influence stability. The motion tests, however, indi- vertical accelerations.
cate that motions in low to moderate seas are not sig-
nificantly affected by jacket leg submergence. A commonly used intact stability criterion relates
the required stability to a wind developed overturning
The model test results are compared with analyti- moment. This criterion requires that the ratio of the
cal results obtained using a computer program based on area under the righting moment curve to the area under
strip theory. The comparisons indicate that there is the wind moment curve for a 100-knot wind be at least
reasonable correlation in irregular seas. In regular 1.40. These areas are computed up to the second inter-
seas, the results for pitch motions compare more favor- cept of the two curves, or to the down flooding point,
ably than those for roll motions. whichever occurs first. For the small barge, this
stability ratio was found to be 1.36, without consider-
INTRODUCTION ing the effect of the buoyancy of the jacket legs upon
submergence. Considering the effect of the jacket
The seaworthiness and seakeeping characteristics legs, the stability ratio increased to 1.51. The
of platform jackets subject to long ocean tows need to stability ratio for the large barge was found to be
be investigated for two reasons: 2.98.

However, improving the stability of the system by

~sing a bigger barge is not always desirable. The use
preferences and illustrations at end of papa-. ]f a bigger barge leads to a stiffer barge-jacket
system with a lower natural period. This generally
leads to higher response amplitudes and greater
inertia forces on the jacket structure.
The model tests and analytical computations des-
cribed below were conducted to assist in the final
selection of the transport barge. The model tests were
conducted at Offshore Technology Corporation, Escondido.
Various options were investigated in detai13 and the
model test results were com ared with computer predic-
tions based on strip theory8 . The strip theory analy-
ses were performed using a six degree of freedom ship
motion program, MARVAN, developed by Nachlinger5.
MARVAN is a modified version of the NSRDC ship motion
and sea-load computer program, HANSEL6. The program
operates in the frequency domain and, with the excep-
tion of viscous roll-damping, assumes that the problem
is mathematically linear. Thus, the program first cal-
culates the response operators, amplitude and phase, of
the vessel motions in regular seas. These response
operators are then combined with theoretical sea spec-
tra to evaluate vessel motion statistics in irregular
seas. The non-linearity of roll motions due to viscous
damping is implicitly considered by specifying wave
steepness.
STABILITY TESTS
Stability tests were carried out using models of
the two barges under consideration. Models of the
barges and the jacket were built to a 1/48 scale. Only
those parts of the jacket subject to submergence during
tow motions were modeled accurately for displacements.
The rest of the jacket model consisted of a frame to
hang weights on, as shown in Fig. 1. The mass proper-
ties of the barge-jacket combinations, given in Table
1, were modeled as precisely as possible.
Stability Tests on Small Barge
Three variations of the barge-jacket system
subjected to stability tests. These included:
1) Barge without bilge keels, wet jacket model,
2) Barge with bilge keels, wet jacket model, and
3) Barge without bilge keels, dry jacket model.
The same jacket model and barge-jacket mass prop-
erties were used for all three simulations. In the
“wet jacket” simulation, the jacket was placed in its
normal position on the barge launch skids, so that the
jacket members were subject to submergence during tow
notions. In the “dry jacket” simulation, the jacket
was artificially raised ten inches (40 ft. full scale)
above the barge deck by means of plywood spacers, as
shown in Fig. 2, so that the jacket members remained
dry during stable jacket motions. Weights were also
shifted, as required, to maintain the same barge-jacket
nass properties as the wet jacket. The objectives of
testing the dry jacket model were twofold:
1) To quantify the effect of submergence of
jacket members on motions and stability.
2) To correlate with analytical predictions
not including the jacket submergence effect.
The bilge keels on the small barge extend six
Feet from the lower corners of the barge hull at an
mgle of 35,degrees from horizontal. The presence of
]ilge keels increases the natural period of the barge-
jacket system due to a substantial increase in the
virtual added mass. The increased natural period
generally results in improved motion response charac-
teristics.
Capsizing tests were carried out in regular and
random beam seas for all three barge-jacket combina-
tions described above. The tests were conducted simu-
lating the computed static heel due to a 100-knot wind
(7.2 degrees) by shifting sufficient weight from ~~~
windward side of the barge to the leeward side.
period range covered was 8 to 16 sec. This encompasses
the natural periods of the barge-jacket combinations
with and without bilge keels:
Tn = 13.4 sec. without bilge keels
Tn = 14.7 sec. with bilge keels.
Stability in regular seas - The results of the
regular sea tests for all three barge-jacket combina-
tions are shown in Fig. 3. The test data points are
shown, and lower bound curves are plotted through the
data. The lowest capsizing wave heights for the three
barge-jacket combinations are found to be:
Min. Capsizing Corresponding
Barge-Jacket Regular Wave Wave Period,
Combination Height, Ft. Sec.
Wet jacket with
bilge keels 42.5 9.0
Wet jacket without
bilge keels 40.0 9.0
Dry jacket without
bilge keels 29.0 10.0
The results lead to the following conclusions:
1) The lowest capsizing wave heights occur in
the 9-10 sec. period range, rather than at
or near the natural period.
were
2) The presence of bilge keels results in a
small increase in minimum capsizing wave
height.
3) The dry jacket capsizes at a significantly
lower wave height than the wet jacket over
the entire period range considered.
Stability in random seas - The results of the ran-
dom sea tests are shown in Fig. 4. Random seas were
simulated using Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectra. A
total of 18 tests were performed, with mean wave per-
iods varying from 8.2 sec. to 13.3 sec. The recorded
wave data indicate that the maximum wave heights gener-
ated in the model basin varied considerably from the
expected value of 1.89 Hs in a random sea of spectral
width 0.6. In some cases, the maximum value was found
to be as low as 1.5 Hs. In order to simulate the
expected value of 1.89 Hs, an equivalent capsizing
significant wave height was defined for each test as
follows:
‘max
Equivalent Hs =~
These equivalent Hs values are plotted in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 shows that the minimum equivalent H for
capsizing is 35.5 ft. at a mean wave period of ? 1.8
sec. At the low end of the period range, Tm < 10 sec.,
waves of sufficient height to cause capsizing could
not be generated.
398
f
On the basis of the test results, theminimumsig-
nificant wave height for capsizing of the small barge
without bilae keels is estimated to be 32.0 ft. in a
100-knot wi~d. This includes a reduction of 10 percent
from the “actual” minimum of 35.5 ft., to account for
the fact that it is difficult to match the real random
sea in a model basin test of finite duration. A reduc-
tion greater than 10 percent would be excessively con-
servative, since the beneficial effect of wave spread-
ing has not been considered.
Analysis of available wind data indicates that the
maximum wind speed expected along the tow route is of
the order of 40-50 knots. A wind speed of 50 knots
causes a static heel of 1.8 degrees, as opposed to 7.2
degrees for a 100-knot wind. This results in a sub-
stantial increase in capsizing wave height. A quanti-
tative estimate can be made on the basis of a few cap-
sizing tests performed with no static heel. On the
basis of these tests, it is estimated that the minimum
capsizing wave heights in a 50-knot wind are as follows:
For regular waves, H = 50 ft. (vs. 40 ft.
in a 100-knot wind)
For random waves, Hs = 40 ft. (vs. 32 ft.
in a 100-knot wind)
Stability Tests on Large Barge
The stability tests on th~ large barge were car-
ried out with the jacket placed in its normal position
on the barge launch skids (wet jacket simulation). A
static heel of four degrees, equivalent to a 100-knot
wind, was achieved by shifting weights from the wind-
ward side of the barge to the leeward side.
Fig. 5 shows the results of the stability tests in
regular beam waves. The lowest wave height at which
capsizing occurred is 67 ft. at the natural period of
the barge-jacket combination, Tn = 11.5 sec. At T = 11
sec., the capsizing wave height is greater than 73 ft.
At lower wave periods, 9 and 10 sec., waves high enough
for capsizing could not be generated.
The results of limited random sea tests are shown
in Fig. 4. Capsizing was only achieved once in a ran-
dom sea of 56 ft. equivalent significant wave height
and 10.5 sec. mean wave period.
The results of both the regular sea and random sea
tests confirm that the large barge is relatively much
more stable than the small barge.
MOTION TESTS
Additional tests were conducted to evaltiatebarge-
jacket motions in moderate seas. The objective of
these tests was to obtain data for correlation with
analytical results predicted using program MARVAN.
The motion tests were performed with no initial static
heel due to wind, since a comparison between motions
with and without initial static heel indicated very
little difference in low to moderate seas.
The instrumentation on each barge consisted of a
gyro to measure roll and pitch angles, and four verti-
cal linear accelerometers placed at the corners of the
barge. The wave heights were measured using a capaci-
tance-type wave probe placed in the model ba$in. The
data measured by the accelerometers were processed to
derive roll and pitch angular accelerations and heave
accelerations. The roll and pitch angular motions
measured by the gyros are discussed below.
L
< 1
.
1o11 Motions in Beam Seas
Motion tests were conducted in regular seas and
selected random seas. In regular seas, motions were
recorded at wave periods ranging from 8 to 16 sec.,
including tests at the natural period. At most periods,
Naves at two different steepness values (z=l/30 and
1/20 or 1/10) were run.
Fig. 6 shows the model test results for roll
motions in regular beam waves for all three barge-
jacket combinations using the small barge. Upper
bound curves enveloping the test data for each model
are plotted. The results lead to the following obser-
vations:
1) Comparing the motions of the wet jacket
model, with and without bilge keels, shows
that with bilge keels there is substantial
reduction (30 to 40%) in roll motions for
wave periods between 10 sec. and 13.4 sec.
(= Tn without bilge keels). Between 13.4
sec. and 16 sec., the difference gradually
disappears. The trend of the data indicates
that the difference would also narrow rapidly
for wave periods under 10 sec.
2) Comparing the roll motions of the wet and
dry jackets without bilge keels gave unex-
pected results. The motions of the wet jacket
are greater than those of the dry jacket in
the period range 9-16 sec. The greatest dif-
ference (-20%) occurs at the natural period,
Tn = 13.4 sec.
3) Lower steepness waves generally result in
higher response amplitude operators compared
to waves of higher steepness. Theoretical
results exhibit the same trend.
Fig. 7 compares the roll motions recorded in the
model tests for both barges (without bilge keels) with
the corresponding roll motions predicted by program
MARVAN in regular beam waves. Appropriate adjustments
have been made to match the wave steepnesses achieved
in the model tests. The results show that MARVAN sig-
nificantly overpredicts the roll response at and above
the natural period, and underpredicts the response at
)eriods lower than the natural period. This is true
for both barges.
Fig. 7 shows that the roll response of the large
>arge is substantially greater than that of the small
>arge in regular beam seas with wave periods between 8
~nd 13 sec. The differences are not nearly as drama-
tic in the irregular seas considered (Table 2). For
rm = 10 sec., the significant roll amplitude of the
large barge is 24% greater. For higher mean wave
periods, the difference narrows rapidly. At lower
~eriods, the difference is expected to magnify.
Table 2 shows a comparison of the roll response
of both barges without bilge keels with results from
%!RVAN in random beam seas. Apparently due to compen-
sating errors above and below the natural period, the
final results compare rather well. The maximum differ-
ence is approximately 20%. The relatively close compa-
rison is fortuitous considering the large differences
between computer and model test results in regular seas
Table 3 compares the roll response of the small
barge, with and without bilge keels, in random beam
seas. The results show that for the three Pierson-
iloskowitzwave spectra considered, the roll response is
O to 50% less with bilge keels than without. This is
onsistent with the regular sea results.
The differences between predicted roll motions and
odel test results are attributable to inaccuracies in
oth. The non-linearity of roll motions is a major
ource of inaccuracy in analyticalresults,whereas
naccuracies in the model test results are chiefly due
o the inability to correctly model viscous roll-damp-
ng in model tests based on Froude modeling laws.
itch Motions in Head Seas
Pitch motions were recorded in regular head seas
‘ithwave periods varying between 8 and 16 sec., and in
wo random head seas (Tm = 10.0 and 11.8 sec.).
Fig. ,8 shows the model test results and results
redicted using MARVAN for pitch angular motions in
egular seas for the small barge (with and without
ilge keels) and the large barge. The results suggest
he following conclusions:
1) The pitch motions of the small barge with
bilge keels are approximately 20 to 30%
greater than without bilge keels over the
entire period range considered.
2) The pitch motions of both barges without
bilge keels are fairly close over the entire
period range.
3) The model test and computer analysis results
predicted by MARVAN compare fairly well.
Table 4 compares the random sea model test results
rith results using MARVAN for both barges without bilge
eels. The comparison is quite favorable with the
[aximum difference being 22%.
UMMARY OF MODEL TEST RESULTS
The results of the model tests conducted to inves-
igate the seaworthiness of the jacket tow are summa-
rized below.
tability Tests on Small Barge
) In regular seas, the minimum wave height for capsiz-
ng in a 100-knot wind is 40 ft. at a period of 9 sec.
!) In random seas, the minimum significant wave height
“or capsizing in a 100-knot wind is estimated to be 32
‘t.
1) In a 50-knot wind, the minimum regular and irregular
:apsizing wave height is estimated to be 8 to 10 ft.
Iigher than in a 100-knot wind.
) The presence of bilge keels results in a nominal
N2 ft.) increase in capsizing wave height.
i) The righting moment provided by submergence of the
‘acket legs and braces results in a significant
ncrease in capsizing wave height.
;tability Tests on Large Barge
The large barge is relatively much more stable
han the small barge. The regular and irregular cap-
izing wave heights are about 20 ft. higher than those
or the small barge.
.4
fin
*UU
Motions
The motion tests lead to the following observa-
tions:
1) Roll motions in beam seas are significantly higher
for the large barge. This results in higher accelera-
tions and forces in the jacket and tiedown members.
2) The use of bilge keels on the small barge substan-
tially curtails roll motions in beam seas.
3) Waves of lower steepness result in higher roll res-
ponse amplitude operators than waves of higher steep-
ness.
SELECTION OF TOW BARGE
Wave statistics generated from a data base consis-
ting of seven years of hindcast data covering the tow
route provided the probability of wave exceedance curve
shown in Fig. 9, for a tow between December and March.
During other calendar months, the wave conditions are
generally less severe. The weather data from which the
wave statistics were generated contain no wind speeds
greater than 50 knots. Wind speeds greater than 50
knots are expected to occur only during severe typhoons
and the tow route was selected to minimize such expo-
sure. Also, there is virtually no typhoon activity
during the winter months when the jacket tow was sche-
duled to occur.
Fig. 9 indicates that the tow had a probability of
approximately one percent of encountering a sea state
with a significant wave height of 32 ft. or more. The
probabilityof encounteringa sea state greater than40
ft. was approximately 0.02 percent. The model tests
indicated that the minimum significant wave height for
capsizing the small barge in beam seas was 32 ft. in a
100-knot wind and 40 ft. in a 50-knot wind. Since the
maximum expected wind speed was less than 50 knots and,
in addition, the occurrence of perfectly beam seas is
extremely unlikely, it was concluded that the risk of
capsizing the small barge was acceptably low.
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Based on the oceanographic data, the design sea
state for analyzing the structural integrity of the
barge-jacket system under tow was chosen to be Hs = 32
ft. , Tm = 11.2 sec. (one percent probability of exceed-
ance level). Based on the model test results and com-
putations using MARVAN, the design parameters given
below were obtained for the small barge with bilge
keels. Combined roll plus heave and pitch plus heave
cases were considered.
Roll plus Heave:
Max. dynamic roll amplitude = 15.0 deg.
Transverse acceleration at jacket e.g. = 0.23 g
Heave acceleration = 0.30 g
Pitch plus Heave:
Max. dynamic pitch amplitude = 11.0 deg.
Transverse acceleration at jacket e.g. = 0.15 g
Heave acceleration = 0.16 g
CONCLUSIONS
The seaworthiness and seakeeping characteristics
of a platform jacket tow were investigated using exten-
sive model tests and computer analyses based on strip
.heory. The results indicate that there is reasonable
correlation between model test results and motions pre-
licted in irregular seas by strip theory.
Two launch barges were considered for the tow.
‘he smaller barge was selected based on the model test
.esults and an oceanographic weather study of the tow
.oute.
NOMENCLATURE
g = acceleration due to gravity, ft./sec.2
H = regular wave height, ft.
;ollirm
,, and L. K. Brasted of Shell Oil Co. for valuable]
contributions to the success of the project.
references
1. Jack, R. L., Noble-Smith, D. R. and Huntington, J .:
“Risk Reduction in Towing Offshore Structures,”
Journal of Petroleum Technology (January 1980)
21-26.
7
-. Sekita, K., Sawada, Y. and Kimura, T.: “Model Tests
on the Transportation of a Large Offshore Structure
by Launching Barge,” Offshore Technology Conference
Proceedings, OTC 3517 (1979) 1375-1384.

Hmax = maximum wave height, ft. 3. Seifert, B. and Arain, R.: “Model Studies of the
Shell Elly and Ellen Platforms,” Offshore Technolo-
Hs = significant wave height, ft. gy Corporation, Report No. OTC-79-14 (August 1979).

T = regular wave period, sec.
Tm = mean zero-crossing wave period, sec.
Tn = natural period of barge-jacket system, sec.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to thank the staff of Offshore
technology Corporation for diligent execution of the
nodel tests, R. R. Nachlinger of Ultramarine, Inc. for
]erforming the MARVAN computer analyses, and B. G.
4. Salvesen, N., Tuck, E. O. and Faltinsen, O.:
“Ship Motions and Sea Loads,” Presented at the
Annual Meeting of The Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers (1970) 250-279.
5. Nachlinger, R. R.: “A Report on the Tows of the
Ellen and Elly Jackets,” Ultramarine, Inc. (June
1979).
6. Salvesen, N., et al: “Manual, NSRDC Ship-Motion
and Sea-Load Computer Program,” NSRDC Report 3376
(1971).

TABLE 1

BARGE-JACKET MASS PROPERTIES

Jacket on Jacket on
Small Barge* Large Barge*

Jacket weight, kips 6,496 6,496

Total displacement, kips 19,324 30,834

Vertical center of gravity

above keel, ft. 37.06 30.41

Longitudinal center of gravity

aft of midship, ft. 4.37 2.45

Mean draft, ft. 11.02 14.01

Trim (stern down), ft. 0.66 0.78

Pitch radius of gyration, ft. 97.43 109.86

Roll radius of gyration, ft. 66.00 59*31

Wind heeling moment for 100-knot

wind, ft. kips 79,935 83,472

*Top of jacket placed 6 ft. forward of stern end of tilt beams.

 TABLE 2

ROLL MOTIONS IN RANDOM BEAM SEAS

Significant Roll Amplitude, Degrees

Mean Wave Sig. Wave
Period, Sec. Height, H<, Ft. Mode_llVAN Mod~a~~~~ar~RVAN

10.0 15.2 8.49 7.42 10.56 8.38

11.8 24.0 ;;.:: 12.26 11.53 11.57
13.3 28.2 . 12.71 12.73 12.69

*Obtained 12.03 degrees with dry jacket for Hs = 24.33 feet.

TABLE 3

SMALL BARGE WITH AND WITHOUT BILGE KEELS

ROLL MOTIONS IN RANDOM BEAM SEAS

T’* Without Bilge Keels With Bilge Keels

Spectrum sec. Hq, ft. = % Hq, ft. 0, deg. *

PM 10.0 15.20 8.49 .559 15.98 3.39 .219

PM 11.8 24.01 11.24 .475 26.01 6.99 .269

PM 13.3 28.22 12.45 .441 34.48 9.43 .273

J 16.7 22.98 6.66 .290

J 16.7 35.16 9.26 .263

PM = Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum

J = Jonswap wave spectrum

T* = Mean wave period (Phi spectrum)

T* = Period of maximum wave energy (Jonswap sPectrum)

8 = Significant roll amplitude, degrees

TABLE 4

PITCH MOTIONS IN RANDOM HEAD SEAS

Significant Roll Amplitude, Degrees

Mean Wave Sig. Wave Small Barge
Period, Sec. Height, H<, Ft. Model Test MARVAN Mode=RVAN

10.0 18.01 3.46 3.57 3.22 3.08

11.8 24.89 3.64* 4.45 3.55 3.97

*Obtained 4.97 degrees with bilge keels for Hs = 26.13 ft.

 —-.—— ------- --

FIGURE 1 - VIEW OF BARGE-JACKET MODEL DURING TEST

FIGURE 2 - VIEW SHOWING PLYWOOD SPACERS USED TO SIMULATE DRY JACKET

 WAVE PERIOO, SEC.
17.95 15.71 13.96 12.57 11.42 10.47 9.67 8.98 8.38 7.85

I I I I
.s
WET JACKET tJJTll
M
81L(E KEELS (Tn =14.7 SEC.)

OD A Capsizing wave height for mdel.

\ , Model did not capsize at slightly
lower wave height.
WET JACKET-
$8$ ~io~did not capsize at this wave
Therefore,actual capsizing
wave h;ight is larger.
T

\
\
\

ORY JACKET
❑
W/O BILGE KEELS E
(Tn= 13.4 SEC.)

\ ❑
K

5 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 (

WAVE FREQUENCY,RAOIAllS/SEC.
FIGURE 3 - STABILITYTESTSON SMALL 8ARGE IN REGULAR BEAM WAVES

IJ Large barge (Tn ‘11.5 sec.)

o Small barge (Tm = 13.4 sec.)
O ❑ Capsizingwave’’height for nmdel.
Model did not capsize at slightly
lower wave height.
~ 6 Model did not capsize at this wave
height. Therefore,actual capsizing
wave height is larger.

60

‘-7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

}iEANWAVE PERIOO, SEC.

FIGURE 4- STA81LITYTESTSON BOTH BARGES IfiRANOOM 8EAM SEAS

 WAVE PERIOD, SEC.

15.71 13.96 12.57 11.42 10 8

90
LsE!!!i
Capsizing wave height for
/b
O model: Model did not capsize
t at sllghtly lower wave height
80
& :~:~:j;;j::i~:~;~r;:i::’

is larger.
2
70
0

60

1111 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

WAVE FREQUENCY, RAO./SEC.

0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75

FIGURE 5 - STABILITY TESTSON LARGE BARGE IPi REGULAR 8EAM WAVES

WAVE PERIOO, SEC.

‘.95 15.71 ‘13.96 12.57 11.42 10.47 9.67

, , 8.98 8.38 7.8!
, I , 1 I

pET JACKET

❑-> /
14/0BILGE KEELS
1.
/’ ‘\(Tn=’3”4sec”)
/ 0,

/;
‘\\

/ ‘4b~:\#~~:?
/

0
>o_o - \\A
o
o u
., A

, I , , t t
.
.25 .4 ..45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80
UAVE FREQUENCY, RAO./SEC.

FIGURE 6 - ROLL MOTIONS OF SMALL BARGE IN REGULAR BEAM WAVES

 WAVE PERIOO,SEC.

15.71 13.96 12.57 11.42 10.47 9.67 8.98 8.38 7.85

.95
I 4 1 I , i !

LARGE BARGE Model test results

z
Predicted results

I I , , I I

,35 .4 .45 .50 ,55 ,60 .65 .70 .75 .80

WAVE FREQUENCY,RAD./SEC.
FIGURE 7 - COMPARISONOF t400ELTEST AND PREOICTEOROLL f4)TIONSIN REGULAR BEAM WAVES

WAVE PERIOO, SEC.

)5 15.71 13.96 12.57 11.42 10.47 9.67 8.98 8.38 7.85

, ,

e
........ Model test results
= = Predictedresults
0.6 —

0.5

SMALL BARGE
W/O BILGE KEELS
;~::$
0.4

..- ...
‘.A .0
# ~.-
....
0.3 0....-.
\
LARGE BARGE
\
A
0.2

0.1 I , , I I 1 !
.35 .4 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80

WAVE FREQUENCY,RAO./SEC.

FIGURE 8- COMPARISONOF MOOEL TEST AND PREOICTEOPITCH MOTIONS IN REGULAR HEAD SEAS
 .

1 - S(h)

S(h)

S(h) = Probability that significant wave height is less than HS (cumulative)

1- S(h) = Probability that significant wave height is greater thaq Hs (cumulative)
FIGURE 9 - RESULTS OF OCEANOGRAPHIC STUDY FOR TOW BETWEEN DECEMBER AND MARCH