Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

The influence of a circular moonpool on towing resistance of a

conical platform
Yihua Liu , Hongxia Li *, Jingjie Chen , Zhiyuan Li , Xiaoyu Zhou , Yi Huang
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik The towing resistance of naval constructions and fuel consumption would increase due to a complicated
mechanism known as water motion in a moonpool during transit. To investigate the effects of a circular
Keywords: moonpool on the towing resistance of a conical platform and the characteristics of the flow in the moonpool
Towing resistance during the towing operation, both the model test and the numerical simulation approaches were used. Both
Conical platform
experimental results and numerical simulations agree well on the total towing resistance. The two’s differences
Circular moonpool
are within 10% of one another in terms of absolute value, which shows that the two approaches had good
Model test
agreement and consistency. The results demonstrate that two vortices have developed in the moonpool. The
formation and dissipation of vortices, as well as the resulting change of the water’s surface, will result in the loss
of energy, increasing the platform’s towing resistance. Due to the moonpool, the flow field changes around the
platform and raises the differential pressure resistance. In the end, the moonpool will cause a 7%–10% increase
in overall towing resistance. The majority of the resistance on the two platforms comes from differential pressure,
with frictional resistance making up a very small portion of the total resistance.

1. Introduction accurately forecast the steady-state piston-mode amplitude and natural

Certain ships and offshore buildings have vertical apertures from
deck to keel called "moonpools" (Molin et al., 2018). In some cases,
"moonpools" can protect objects from environmental load (Ravin­
thrakumar et al., 2020). However, when the water in the moonpool is
agitated by the structure motions or incident waves, the water in the
moonpool may exhibit considerable resonant motions (piston mode and
sloshing mode), which will impact the resistance, stability, and sea­
keeping performance of the naval structures (Liu et al., 2022a, 2022b;
Zhang et al., 2021). Therefore, when analyzing the towing resistance of
marine structures, the effect of the moonpool on towing resistance
cannot be disregarded.
The resonance frequency and amplitude of the water motions in a
moonpool have been the subject of several prior studies. Molin (2001)
developed theoretical methods to predict the natural frequencies of the
piston and sloshing modes of the moonpool in two and three dimensions
using the linearized potential flow theory. In a moonpool surrounded by
two rectangular hulls, Faltinsen et al. (2007) looked at the fluid’s
piston-like steady-state motions in two dimensions. Also, they developed
a linear potential flow method that is analytically oriented and can
frequency. In his study, Molin et al. (2018) looked at the moonpools with
one or two recesses and provided a straightforward formula to build on
his earlier work (Molin, 2001). Molin et al. (2018) once again extended
the study of Molin (2001) by deriving formulas capable of calculating
the natural frequency of water motion in a moonpool in finite water
depth. To calculate the natural frequencies and modal shapes of
two-dimensional asymmetric and symmetric moonpools in the finite
water depth, Zhang et al. (2019) suggested a new model. Additionally,
they offered straightforward formulas that can be used to rapidly
determine the natural frequencies for symmetric moonpools in the pis­
ton and sloshing modes. For two-dimensional moonpools with one or
two recesses in finite water depth, Chu Bei and Zhang et al. (2021)
extended the theoretical model set forth by Zhang et al. (2019) to
compute the natural frequencies and modal shapes. Zhang Xinshu and Li
Zhanghanyi (2022) learned the resonances of the water in the moon­
pool. The theoretical frameworks they suggested improved conceptual
frameworks created by Molin et al. (2018) and Molin (2018) by
providing a solution to the resonance issue with circular and rectangular
moonpools with recesses. Simplified models for the estimation of the
first sloshing-mode frequencies were also suggested, along with a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: li_hx@dlut.edu.cn (H. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115897
Received 23 April 2023; Received in revised form 23 June 2023; Accepted 19 September 2023
Available online 26 September 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

frozen-mode approximation (FMA) for quick estimation of the piston range of the beam sea. In addition to the usual primary resonant zone, a
mode resonance frequency in finite water depth. novel secondary resonant region was found in the low frequency range
In recent years a large and growing body of literature has investi­ of the incident waves. The proposed secondary resonance zone offers a
gated the characteristics of the resonant water and the influence of the novel approach to mitigate the detrimental impacts of the gap resonance
moonpool on towing resistance in calm water. Van’t Veer and Tholen in the lower frequency beam sea.
(2008) provided an additional resistance prediction model, based on a Many new types of marine structures have emerged in recent years to
set of experimental data, to forecast the added resistance of the meet the demands of marine engineering, including the sandglass-type
piston-type moonpool, and they advised that the non-dimensional FDPSO, which can overcome the hydrodynamic performance limita­
oscillation amplitudes were a function of the inversed Strouhal num­ tions of conventional ship-type and cylindrical FDPSO (Wang et al.,
ber. Using both numerical and experimental techniques, Arnt G. Fre­ 2015a, 2016a, 2016b), the cylindrical offshore floating nuclear platform
driksen et al. (2014) looked into how a low current/low forward velocity OFNP-300 and OFNP-1100, which has an unprecedented level of safety
affects the resonant piston-mode motion of a moonpool inside a 2D ship (Buongiorno et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018), and the conical offshore
segment. They suggested that the piston-mode behavior of the moonpool floating nuclear platform SPNP and IPNP, which can be used in areas
was marginally lessened by the low current/low forward velocity. Jiang with deep waters or icy regions (Liu et al., 2022a). The fact that each of
Shengchao et al. (2018) explored how the piston-modal resonant wave these structures has a revolving body structure in common makes them
in the moonpool generated by two identical rectangular hulls was all similar. The earlier experiments and research on towing resistance
affected by the amplitude of the heave motion and the edge configura­ and moonpools are based on the drilling ships. Little research has been
tion of the moonpool entrance. In the context of their research, they done on these constructions’ towing resistance. Additionally, it is un­
hypothesized that a bigger opening size of the moonpool would result in clear how a circular moonpool may affect a conical structure’s resistance
a higher resonant frequency and a greater resonant wave amplitude in performance. The influence of a circular moonpool on the towing
the moonpool and that the piston-mode resonant frequency would be resistance of a conical platform was investigated in this research using
largely unaffected by the heaving amplitude. The piston and first three-dimensional model tests and CFD numerical simulation tech­
sloshing modes of moonpools with recess in a two dimension setting niques, replicating the flow state inside the circular moonpool. Ac­
were studied by Senthuran Ravinthrakumar et al. (2019). They discov­ cording to the research, the front and back of the circular moonpool
ered a significant change in the shape of the piston mode along the contain two vortices that periodically exchange energy, increasing the
moonpool, supporting theories put out by Molin et al. (2018) and platform’s towing resistance.
Newman (2018). They proposed that the presence of the piston mode
was primarily affected by viscous effects caused by flow separation at 2. The case-study models
the moonpool inlets and recess corners. They also suggested a theoret­
ical approach to figure out the natural frequencies and the associated As indicated in Fig. 1, two models were employed in this study: the
mode shapes for moonpools with recess. Xiuyuan Zhang et al. (2021) did integrated polar ocean nuclear platform (IPNP) and the environmental
a series of numerical simulations with a focus on the effects of the flow load bearing platform (ELBP). Two floating models of the ELBP and the
pattern of the flow field on the resistance of a ship with a moonpool and IPNP are selected for model tests and numerical simulation calculations
the features of the flow in the moonpool during smooth water naviga­ in 1/80 scale in order to more effectively discuss the resistance perfor­
tion. They emphasized that the flow pattern of the flow field exhibits a mance of the two platforms. Tables 1 and 2 contain a list of the two
significant influence on the ship’s resistance, the constant shedding of platforms’ primary characteristics. The presence of the ELBP’s central
the vortex street at the front of the moonpool serving as the primary circular moonpool will have an impact on the platform’s resistance
driver of both resistance and flow field variability. Liu Yihua et al. performance.
(2022a) developed two polar ocean nuclear platform designs and
V∞
examined the impact of the annular moonpool on the towing resistance Fr = √̅̅̅̅ (1)
gl
of the two platforms. They discovered that the annular moonpool has a
negative impact on the platform’s towing resistance and that, unlike where V∞ is the incoming flow velocity, g is the gravitational acceler­
regular ships, the conical platform’s differential pressure resistance ation, and l is the characteristic length.
makes up the majority of its resistance.
The influence of wave load on the moonpool cannot be overlooked 3. Experimental campaign
since the surrounding environment has the potential to cause the water
in the moonpool to resonate. Similar to the above, numerous scholars 3.1. Experimental setup
have looked into the characteristics of the water in a moonpool when
wave loads are present. The behavior and properties of the resonant In order to validate the outcomes of the numerical simulation,
water motions in a sizable rectangular moonpool in the regular wave several experiments were conducted in the towing pool of the Dalian
were investigated by Xiaoxian Guo et al. (2017). At the moonpool, they University of Technology. Fig. 2 depicts the towing test’s schematic
noticed intricate water motions. Due to the nonlinearity caused by the diagram. The platform and a force transducer with a 5 kg range were
wave run-up along the walls, it was discovered that the water elevations
at the forward and aft ends of the moonpool had substantially bigger
amplitudes than those in the center. Moreover, it has been discovered Table 1
that many water movements can coexist even though there is only one The characteristics of the ELBP.
excitation source outside of the moonpool. Senthuran Ravinthrakumar Item Unit Value
et al. (2020) used experimental and numerical methods to study the
Full scale Model scale
hydrodynamic interaction between a moonpool and a vessel response in
regular and irregular waves for a realistic freely floating Waterplane radius m 54.76 0.685
three-dimensional vessel. They noted that the volume of the moonpool Upper deck radius m 57.00 0.713
Bottom surface radius m 64.00 0.800
in relation to the volume of the submerged ship has a significant impact Draft m 16.00 0.200
on the coupling between the ship and the moonpool. A CIP(constrained Freeboard m 40.00 0.500
interpolation profile)-based viscous nonlinear numerical wave tank was Depth m 56.00 0.700
created by Jing et al. (2022), focuses on the issue of a two-dimensional Inner circle radius m 27.00 0.338
Molded volume of displacement m3 149907.71 0.293
rectangular moonpool with a narrow gap freely heaving under a broad

2
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

Table 2 measuring accuracy of 0.3% F.S., meaning that the largest possible
The characteristics of the IPNP. measurement error is 0.15 N. Although the systematic error in the
Item Unit Value experimental measurement data is present, it is negligible and may be
disregarded.
Full scale Model scale

Waterplane radius m 54.76 0.685 3.3. Uncertainty analysis of experiments

Upper deck radius m 57.00 0.713
Bottom surface radius m 64.00 0.800
Draft m 16.00 0.200 The uncertainty of an experiment UE includes the precision limit PE
Freeboard m 40.00 0.500 and the deviation limit BE , which can be expressed as follows:
Depth m 56.00 0.700
Molded volume of displacement m3 189491.20 0.370 UE2 = P2E + B2E (2)
The Froude number used in this study, which is defined as follows, is the The formula for calculating the precision limit is as follows:
identical Froude number used in the actual platform towing scenario. /√̅̅̅̅̅
PE = K × SDev M (3)
connected during the experiment using a thin steel wire. The conductor
connection between the force transducer and the computer allows for a Where, K represents the coefficient of range, with K = 2 being selected;
real-time display of the towing resistance. Additionally, three cameras SDev is the standard deviation of the results of M samples.
that can capture the experimentation were mounted on the trailer at the √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ M
same time. √∑ /
Fig. 3 displays images of the ELBP model and the IPNP model. Before SDev = √ (xi − x)2 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅M− 1 (4)
i=1
towing, the models were modified to ensure that they have the required
mass, center of gravity, and moment of inertia. And the drafts of the two
Where, xi is the result of the i-th sample, and x is the average value.
platforms remain constant. Table 3 displays the specific working con­
The deviation limit can be obtained by the following formula:
ditions. The first three operating conditions were completed experi­
mentally, while the remaining conditions were supplemented with ∑
J
B2E = θ2i B2i (5)
numerical simulations.
i=1
Once everything is ready, the test can begin. The computer starts
collecting data when the platform’s towing speed reaches a stable state Where, Bi is the deviation limit of the measured physical quantity Xi .; the
during the test and continues to do so for 200 s. After each test, the sensitivity coefficient, θi , of the measured physical quantity Xi can be
platform is towed back to its starting place, where it waits for the free calculated according to the following formula:
surface to calm before beginning the next test. It should be noted that the
force transducer must be zeroed before each test in order to ensure the ∂f
θi = (6)
accuracy of the measurement findings. Take the average of the stable ∂Xi
section of each experiment as the experimental result.
Where f is the functional relationship between the measured and the
measured component.
3.2. Experiment error sources When Fr = 0.079, the resistance experimental data obtained by five
consecutive samplings is shown in the Table 4.
The model tests were painstakingly carried out to minimize mea­ According to the above formula, the following results can be ob­
surement mistakes and inaccuracies. However, there will inevitably be
tained: RT = 8.90N, SDev = 0.058N and PE = 0.052N.
some little mistakes. Potential bias and random errors are mentioned to
The deviation limit in this experiment is mainly generated by the
talk about the findings of the experiments.
measurement accuracy of the force sensor. The experiment’s force
The platform’s center of gravity is not exactly aligned with the
transducer has a range of 5 kg and a measuring accuracy of 0.3% F.S.,
towing point, which causes a tiny angle between the thin steel wire and
meaning that the largest possible measurement error is 0.15 N. Then the
the water’s surface. This aspect should be noted as a possible source of
uncertainty of this experiment can be calculated, UE = 0.16N.
error.
Several attachments have been installed around the platform to
4. Numerical methodology
facilitate future mooring tests. However, it should be noted that these
attachments may cause a slight increase in the towing resistance of the
4.1. Governing equations
platform.
The experiment’s force transducer has a range of 5 kg and a
The fluid is treated as an unsteady, three-dimensional, turbulent, and
incompressible flow during navigation (Martins and Avila, 2019). The
Table 3 governing equations are the unsteady three-dimensional incompressible
Working conditions. RANS equations. The RANS equations include the equations for the
Working 1 2 3 4 5 6 conservation of mass and momentum:
condition
number ∂ρ
+ ∇ ⋅ (ρ→
u )=0 (7)
Speed in full 3.0 4.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 ∂t
scale(kn)
Speed in model 0.173 0.230 0.288 0.460 0.575 0.690
scale(m/s)
Froude number 0.047 0.063 0.079 0.126 0.157 0.188
Reynolds 1.95 × 2.60 × 3.25 × 5.20 × 6.50 × 7.80 ×
number in full 108 108 108 108 108 108 Table 4
scale Resistance test data when Fr = 0.079.
Reynolds 2.73 × 3.63 × 4.55 × 7.27 × 9.08 × 1.09 ×
Order of experiments 1 2 3 4 5
number in 105 105 105 105 105 106
model scale Total resistance/N 9.06 9.10 8.83 8.67 8.82

3
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

∂→u → → 1 → According to the description given above, when 0 < F < 1, it means
+ u ⋅ ∇ u = − [∇P + ∇ ⋅ [τ]] + G (8) that there may be a free surface in the cell or a void or bubble that is
∂t ρ
smaller than the volume of the cell. The free liquid level is calculated if
where t represents the time, ρ represents the density of the fluid, → u at least one of the surrounding cells contains an empty element with F =
represents the velocity of the fluid, [τ] represents the total stress tensor, 0. The governing differential equation of F is defined as:
→
and G represents the volume force of unit mass, which is typically the ∂F →
acceleration of gravity g. When modelling the features of turbulent flow + ( u ⋅ ∇)F = 0 (20)
∂t
conditions, equations (2) and (3) are frequently utilized in conjunction
The gradient of F can be used to establish the free surface’s normal
with the k − ε turbulence model. The turbulent kinetic energy k and its
direction, which allows for the subsequent determination of the free
dissipation rate ε are transported by the following equations:
surface’s position and shape.
[( ) ]
∂ ∂ ∂ μ ∂k
(ρk) + (ρkui ) = μ+ t + Gk − ρε (9)
∂t ∂xi ∂xj σ k ∂xj 4.2. Numerical setup and boundary conditions
[( ) ] 2
∂ ∂ ∂ μt ∂ε ε
(ρε) + (ρεui ) = μ+ + ρC 1 E ε − ρC 2 √̅̅̅̅̅ (10) In this study, the segregated flow solver STAR-CCM+ was used to
∂t ∂xi ∂xj σ ε ∂xj k + νε
simulate the towing resistance of the two platforms. Fig. 4 displays the
digital towing tank that the software generated. The origin of the co­
where Gk is the mean velocity shear-induced turbulent kinetic energy.
ordinate system lies at the center of the moonpool and at the surface of
The Prandtl numbers in the transport equations are σ k and σ ε . The
the still water. The orientation of the coordinate axes is shown in the
following formulae can be used to compute the pertinent parameters:
figure. In order to be consistent with the towing tank used in the
σ k = 1.0 (11) experiment, the dimensions of the virtual towing tank are as follows. In
the longitudinal direction, the towing tank has a range of −
σ ε = 1.2 (12) 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 5.0DW , where DW is the diameter of the platform at the water
plane. While the range in the spanwise direction is − 4.8m ≤ y ≤ 2.2m.
σ 2 = 1.9 (13) And the water depth of the virtual towing tank is 3.6m. Therefore, the
minimum distance between the starboard of the platform and the right
k2 side of the towing tank is 1.4 m, and the minimum distance between the
μt = ρ C μ (14)
ε port of the platform and the left side of the towing tank is 4.0 m. As
shown in Fig. 4, the fluid domain’s front and back surfaces are desig­
Cμ = 0.09 (15)
nated as the no-slip wall, while the inlet, top, and bottom are designated
( η ) as the velocity inlet, and the outlet is designated as a pressure outlet.
C1 = max 0.43, (16)
5+η
4.3. The partition of volume grid
( )1/2 k
η = 2Eij ⋅Eij (17)
ε In this study, the mesh topology and refinement region of both the
(
1 ∂ui ∂uj
) ELBP and the IPNP are the same. The pre-processor of the CFD model
Eij = + (18) used the automatic meshing operation and the trimmed cell meshes for
2 ∂xj ∂xi
grid generation. The areas where the flow field changes drastically
Using the volume of fluid method (VOF) (Hirt and Nichols, 1981), require more grids so the variably shaped volumetric control areas were
the free surface is captured. The fluid volume function F, or the volume used when dividing the volume grid. In this study, the surface of the
fraction that the fluid in the cell occupies, is defined via the VOF platform, the water surface, the moonpool, and the traveling wave areas
method. The value of F is as follows: are all refined. In order to accurately capture the free surface, 20–30 grid
⎧ points were used in the vertical direction where the free surface is ex­
⎨ 0 There is no fluid in the cell
F = 0 < F < 1 There is fluid in the cell, but the grid isn′t filled (19) pected as shown in Fig. 5. Prism layer cells employed close to the walls
⎩
1 The cell is filled with fluid capture the thin boundary layers, and their thickness close to the wall
boundaries is calculated using the wall y+ equations:

Fig. 1. The Schematic diagrams of ELBP and IPNP.

4
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the towing test.

Fig. 3. The models of ELBP and IPNP.

y y+
= √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (21)
L Re C /2
f

where y is the thickness of the grid’s first layer, L is the characteristic

length and it refers to the diameter of the platform at the water surface in
this article, and Cf is the frictional resistance coefficient. The thickness
of the first prismatic layer may be determined using the y+ value, and
the thickness of the prismatic layer can then be determined. By moni­
toring the y+ and adjusting thickness of the boundary layer e, the y+
value was eventually kept between 30 and 100.To guarantee a smooth
mesh size transition in the simulation, make sure the mesh size of the
outermost prismatic layer is 1/4 to 1/2 the size of the mesh next to it.

4.4. Numerical verifications and validations

Fig. 4. Schematic of the virtual towing tank.
Uncertainty analysis of the solution and the computing grid are
required in the numerical simulation of the viscous flow field. The un­
certainty analysis of numerical simulation includes two parts, namely
verification and validation. The definition of verification is the process
of calculating the numerical uncertainty USN in numerical simulations.
There are three main sources of uncertainty in CFD simulations: itera­
tion uncertainty UI , grid uncertainty UG , and time step uncertainty UT ,
that is（Wang, 2020）

USN 2 = UG 2 + UI 2 + UT 2 (22)
The grid uncertainty is one order of magnitude greater than the
iteration uncertainty and time step uncertainty among these three cat­
egories of uncertainties. Therefore, the primary source of numerical
uncertainty is the grid uncertainty. The calculation of grid uncertainty is
the primary subject of this article.
Fig. 5. Mesh distribution in central longitudinal section. Three meshes were chosen for mesh-independent verification and
the refinement ratio, rG , is 1.25 in each direction of the coordinate. In
order to demonstrate the process of numerical uncertainty, this article

5
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

uses the Froude number of 0.079 and a time step of 0.02s as an example.
Details of the mesh generations, the mesh size by the wall, and the total
resistance of the ELBP model for each grid scheme are listed in Table 5.
The numerical calculation result of total resistance is represented as "
TR". It should be noted that the total resistance is obtained by taking the
time-averaged value of the stable section during the simulation process.
If not otherwise specified, the resistance values written in this article are
obtained using this method.
The difference in total resistance between two adjacent sets of grids
can be denoted as " ε".Based on the above definition, we can obtain the
following.
εG21 = R2 − R1
εG32 = R3 − R2
So the grid converge ratio RG can be calculated by:
εG21
RG =
εG32
According to the regulations, the result diverges when R > 1, oscil­
lates and converges when R < 0, and monotonically converges when
0 < R < 1. The grid converge ratio RG between 0 and 1, which suggests
that these three sets of grid monotonically converges. Since RG = 0.84 in
the calculation above, the grid chosen for this article displays monotonic
convergence.
Based on the above calculation results, the estimated accuracy can be
obtained as follows:
ln(‖εG32 ‖2 /‖εG21 ‖2 )
PG =
ln(rG )
The error estimation can be calculated according to the following
formula:
δ∗REG =
εG21
rG p G − 1
UV2 = UE2 + USN
2
(30)
According to the above equation, UV = 0.32N.The aforementioned
findings suggest that all D and S error combinations are smaller than UV ,
proving that UV has been validated.
Grid 2 can generate convergent solutions when accuracy and cost of
the computation results are taken into account. The Grid 2 will therefore
be chosen as the best grid layout. Using this grid, the remaining com­
putations will be made.
When Fr = 0.079, Grid 2 is utilized to confirm the independence of
the time step. When the time step is 0.01s, 0.02s, and 0.03s, PT is esti­
(23) mated to be 0.58 using a method identical to the one described above. It
can be observed from the computation results that the results exhibit
(24) monotonic convergence. Due to the small difference in resistance be­
tween time steps of 0.01s and 0.02s, we ultimately settle on a time step
of 0.02s after weighing the computational expense against the accuracy
of the results.
(25) The Grid 2 is utilized to complete the inner iteration independence
verification when Fr = 0.079 and the time step is 0.02s. PII is calculated
to be 0.62 using the same technique as above for the inner iterations of 3,
5, and 10. The computing results show that the outcomes exhibit
monotonic convergence. We ultimately decide on an inner iteration of 5
after evaluating the computational cost against the accuracy of the re­
sults due to the slight variation in resistance between inner iteration of 5
and 10.
4.5. Comparisons between the CFD and EFD results on the model scale
(26)
Table 6 illustrates the comparison of the experimental and numerical
simulation results for the ELBP and IPNP models at a drift of 20.0 cm.
The relative error is defined as:
R − RT
(27) δ= × 100% (31)
RT

The correction factor can be calculated according to the following
formula:
r G PG − 1
CG =
rG 2 − 1
As CG is much greater than 1, the following formula can be used to solve
for UG :
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ experimentally (Table 7).
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
UG = ⃒CG δ∗REG ⃒ + ⃒(1 − CG )δ∗REG ⃒ (29)
Finally, the value of UG can be calculated as 0.28 N. According to the
above analysis, the uncertainty of numerical simulation USN is equal to
0.28 N.
Validation refers to the process of using benchmark test data to
evaluate the modeling uncertainty (USM ) in numerical simulations
(Zhang et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2015b). The comparison error E, often
known as E = D − S, is the difference between the experimental data D
and the outcome of the numerical simulation S. Consider the results of
the calculation for the medium grid, which is Grid 2. S = 8.60N, D =
8.90N, and E = 0.30N can be derived from this equation.
The uncertainty of the validation can be expressed by the following
equation:
where R is the total resistance of the models as determined by numerical
calculation and RT is the total resistance obtained by the experiment.
The results show that there are between − 0.4% and − 9% relative errors
(28) between experimental and numerical results, and that these mistakes get
smaller as towing speed increases. As a result, the accuracy of the nu­
merical computation results can be assumed. Numerical simulations will
be used to complete several towing speeds that have not been tested
5. Results and discussion
5.1. The resistance of the platforms
The paper’s subsequent sections will discuss the outcomes of the
numerical simulation. Fig. 6 illustrates the total resistance of the ELBP
and IPNP models as well as the percentages of the moonpool resistance
and the resistance increment. The term "percentage of the moonpool
resistance" alludes to the resistance produced by the moonpool itself as a
proportion of total resistance, which is described as
Rm
× 100% (32)
RE

Table 6
Table 5 The results of the experimental and numerical calculation for the ELBP model.
The results of the mesh resolution test for the ELBP model. Froude number Total resistance/N Relative error

Grid scheme Number of grids Mesh size by the walls/cm Total resistance/N EFD CFD

Grid 1 10.31 M 1.00 8.64 0.047 3.20 2.93 − 8.44%

Grid 2 6.00 M 1.25 8.59 0.063 5.56 5.18 − 6.83%
Grid 3 4.52 M 1.50 8.53 0.079 8.90 8.59 − 3.48%

6
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

Table 7 with the increase of the Froude number in a quadratic function. This
The results of the experimental and numerical calculation for the IPNP model. means that the total resistance is proportional to the quadratic of the
Froude number Total resistance/N Relative error velocity. And the total resistance increases by 7%–10% after the setting
of the moonpool. It can also be found that the resistance generated by
EFD CFD
the moonpool itself can reach 6%–8% of the total resistance of the ELBP
0.047 2.93 2.72 − 7.12% model. The value added to the total resistance is more than the resis­
0.063 5.11 4.70 − 8.02%
0.079 7.99 7.96 − 0.38%
tance produced by the moonpool itself.
The numerical simulations allow isolating the resistance from each
surface of the models, which helps us to better examine how the
where the Rm represents the resistance generated by the moonpool, RE moonpool affects the towing resistance of the platforms. Fig. 7 depicts
represents the total resistance of the ELBP model. The “percentage of the the frictional resistance and the differential pressure resistance of the
increment” corresponds to the percentage increase in total resistance IPNP model and the naked hull (all surfaces other than the ELBP’s
after the moonpool is increased, which is defined as moonpool surface). The frictional resistance increases as the platform’s
wetted surface does. Compared with the IPNP model, the positioning of
RE − RI
× 100% (33) the moonpool reduces the bottom of the hull’s wetted surface, which
RI lowers the frictional resistance of the hull. And this agrees with the
outcomes depicted in Fig. 7. The overall resistance of the hull will be
where RI represents the total resistance of the IPNP model. In Fig. 6, the
slightly smaller than that of the IPNP model if the moonpool resistance
red curve represents the total resistance of the ELBP model, the blue
and the hull resistance are not reliant on one another, i.e., the moonpool
curve represents the total resistance of the IPNP model, the green curve
has no impact on the hull The differential pressure resistance and the
represents the difference between the total resistance of the ELBP model
total resistance of the hull, on the other hand, are always greater than
and the IPNP model; the corresponding ordinate is represented on the
these of the IPNP model during the towing process, as can be seen from
left. The grey curve represents the moonpool resistance as a percentage
the graph. This is because the presence of the moonpool affects the flow
of the total ELBP model resistance, the yellow curve represents the
field around the platform. The hull resistance and the moonpool resis­
percentage increase in total resistance after increasing the moonpool,
tance are interconnected, as shown by the aforementioned findings. This
and their corresponding ordinate is represented on the right. The Froude
is in line with what other researchers have discovered (Liu et al., 2022a;
number is represented by the abscissa. It can be found from the figure
Sun et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2021).
that the total resistance of the ELBP model and the IPNP model increases

Fig. 6. Total resistance Comparison of the ELBP and IPNP models.

Fig. 7. Resistance comparison of the Hull and the IPNP model.

7
Y. Liu et al.
5.2. The relative pressure of the platforms
Investigating the cause of the rise in towing resistance of the platform
involves analyzing the relative pressure of the platform. The following
definition of relative pressure applies to the platform:
Pd = Pt − P0 (34)
where Pt is the actual pressure on the platform, P0 is the hydrostatic
pressure.
Fig. 8 shows the relative pressure clouds of ELBP and IPNP at a
certain moment when Fr = 0.157. The figure shows that the two plat­
forms have maximum relative pressures in front and minimum relative
pressures on both sides. The maximum relative pressure of the ELBP
model and the IPNP model are 171.30 Pa and 170.66 Pa, and the min­
imum relative pressure of the two platforms are − 246.25 Pa and
− 235.49 Pa.
Monitoring points are placed at 10◦ intervals to track the circum­
ferential relative pressure at various sections of the platforms, allowing
for a clearer comparison of the relative pressures of the two platforms.
The monitoring data for Fr = 0.157 were time-averaged and plotted as
shown in Fig. 9. The platform’s leading edge is adjusted to 180◦ . The
figure shows that the relative pressure distribution for the two platforms
is essentially the same: the maximum relative pressure for the two
platforms appears in front of the two platforms, or at a position of 180◦ .
Following this, the relative pressure rapidly decreases and reaches the
minimum value on both sides of the platforms. When comparing the
relative pressure in the forward pressure zone and the backward pres­
sure zone, we discover that the forward pressure zone has changed
dramatically while the backward pressure zone has only slightly altered.
The relative pressure in the forward pressure zone is likewise discovered
to be much higher than the relative pressure in the backward pressure
zone. And the relative pressure in the forward pressure zone of the SPNP
model is slightly larger than that of the IPNP model, while the relative
pressure in the backward pressure zone is smaller by comparing the
relative pressure curves of the two platforms. The forward pressure
zone’s maximum relative pressures for the ELBP and IPNP models are
171.30 Pa and 170.66 Pa, respectively, with a 0.64 Pa difference be­
tween them. And the highest relative pressures for the ELBP and IPNP
models in the backward pressure zone are − 20.77 Pa and − 6.84 Pa,
respectively, with a 13.93 Pa difference between them. These are the
reasons why the differential pressure resistance between the two plat­
forms differs.
Additionally, we can see that the relative pressure is not symmetri­
cally distributed between the starboards and ports of the two platforms.
The relative pressure on the starboards of the two platforms is greater
than that on the ports i.e. the relative pressure on the side closer to the
wall is larger than the other one. This is caused by the influence of the
wall on the flow field.
Fig. 8. Relative pressure could diagrams of the two platforms–Fr = 0.157.
8
Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897
Fig. 10 shows the relative pressure cloud diagrams of the moonpool’s
surface. The water flowing into the moonpool and hitting the wall
during the ELBP’s towing operation is what causes the pressure on the
wall at the rear surface of the moonpool to be greater than that of the
front surface of the moonpool. Relative pressure steadily drops from the
rear to the front, resulting in a pressure difference that causes resistance
and keeps the platform from moving forward.
Fig. 11 depicts the ELBP and IPNP relative pressure clouds when Fr =
0.063. When Fr = 0.063, as opposed to when Fr = 0.157, the platform’s
maximum relative pressure rises noticeably while the minimum relative
pressure largely remains unchanged. The ELBP model and the IPNP
model have minimum relative pressures of − 48.046 Pa and − 48.615 Pa,
respectively, and maximum relative pressures of 32.892 Pa and 27.085
Pa, respectively. The highest pressure values in the back pressure zone
were also counted. The highest relative pressure values for the two
platforms in the back pressure zone are 7.05 Pa and 5.56 Pa, with a
difference of 1.49 Pa between them. The increase in maximum relative
pressure will lead to an increase in differential pressure resistance of the
platform.
5.3. The properties of the flow field
Analysis of the flow field can better reveal the reasons for the in­
crease in the towing resistance of the platform. In Fig. 12, where the red
line denotes the waterline, the velocity vectors at the middle longitu­
dinal sections of the ELBP model and the IPNP model for Fr = 0.157 are
displayed. The flow fields around the two platforms are basically the
same. A vortex is generated at the base of both platforms, as shown in
the rectangular box in the figure. Due to the downwash effect, vortices
were similarly created behind the two platforms, as shown in the oval
box in the figure. It can be seen from the velocity vector diagram of the
ELBP that as water flows beneath the moonpool, it forces the water
within the moonpool to move backwards together, lowering the pressure
beneath the moonpool and forcing the water above the moonpool to
flow below to refill. Due to the wall’s obstacle in the ELBP model, the
water flowing backwards now goes upward. Hence, the moonpool ex­
periences the formation of vortices. The creation and destruction of
vortices will result in energy loss. This is one of the key causes of the rise
in the platform’s towing resistance.
Fig. 13 shows the velocity vectors at the ELBP and IPNP’s middle
longitudinal sections for Fr = 0.063. The graphic shows that the vortices
created at the bases of the two platforms, at their backs, and in the
moonpool are still extant. The IPNP model’s front only differs in that two
little vortices are present close to the free surface, as shown in the cir­
cular box in the figure. After the moonpool was created, however, the
two vortices disappeared. The difference in maximum pressure between
the two platforms is due to this.
The velocity in the X-directional at various water depths in the flow
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

Fig. 9. The circumferential distribution of the relative pressure of the two platforms–Fr = 0.157.

Fig. 10. Relative pressure could diagrams of the surface of the moonpool.

Fig. 11. Relative pressure cloud diagrams of the two platforms–Fr = 0.063.

9
Y. Liu et al.
Fig. 12. The velocity vector field around the platform–Fr = 0.157.
Fig. 13. The velocity vector field around the platform–Fr = 0.063.
field behind the two platforms was observed in order to further compare
the differences in the flow fields of the two platforms. Fig. 14 displays
the monitoring point’s top view within the flow field and the vortex
distribution at the free surface, where the platform and the vortex
specified by the Q criterion are represented by the colors grey and blue,
respectively. And Q can be defined as follows:
1( )
Q= ‖Ω‖2 − ‖S‖2
2
where Ω represents the rotation rate or vortex tensor, and S represents
the strain rate tensor. The coordinate origin is situated on the hydro­
static surface, the Z-axis is perpendicular to the hydrostatic surface, and
the positive direction is upward. It can be seen from the figure that the
distribution of vortices close to the wall of the towing tank is to be
extremely dense and chaotic, indicating that the wall has a significant
impact on the vortex distribution around the platform and may thus
Fig. 14. Vortex distribution on the water free-surface.
Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897
affect the towing resistance of the platform. This is primarily due to the
wall’s ability to reflect waves created by the towing process, which
causes more vortices to form on the side closer to the wall. The
discrepancy in relative pressure distribution on the platform surface is
caused by the asymmetrical vortices distribution on both sides of the
platform. This is consistent with the results obtained in section 5.2. The
distribution of the velocity in the X direction at various water depths in
(35) the flow field is obtained by averaging the observed velocities after the
flow field has stabilized when Fr = 0.157, as illustrated in Fig. 15. The
monitoring point’s distance from the platform’s trailing edge is shown
by the abscissa "Distance". Both the subscript "E" and the subscript "I"
refer to the ELBP and IPNP models, respectively. As observed in the
image, the length of the reflux zone behind the two platforms gradually
gets shorter as the water depth rises, and it vanishes when it reaches the
platform’s bottom. The length of the reflux zone of ELBP is shorter than
that of IPNP by comparing the lengths of the two platforms’ reflux zones.
At the same time, it can be observed that the velocities in the X direction
behind the two platforms have essentially stabilized at a certain distance
from the edges of the two platforms, and the velocities in the X direction
of the flow field behind the IPNP model in the stable section are higher
than those of the ELBP model. The aforementioned two arguments
demonstrate how the circular moonpool’s construction modifies the
flow field behind the platform. The ELBP platform experiences a lower
minimum relative pressure as a result than the IPNP platform. This is in
line with the earlier findings.
The variation of the vortex specified by the Q criterion in the
moonpool within a period is exhibited in Fig. 16. The water flows from
left to right. The graphic shows that the moonpool contains two primary
vortices that are situated at its front and back, as well as a few smaller
vortices that are dispersed close to the moonpool’s free surface. The
vortex at the back of the moonpool gradually shrinks while the vortex in
front of the moonpool gradually grows larger during the process from t
= 0T (Fig. 16-a) to t = 1/6T (Fig. 16-b), meaning that the energy of the
vortex in the front of the moonpool is replenished while the vortex at the
back of the moonpool gradually dissipates with the water. The front and
10
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

Fig. 15. Curves of velocity in the X-direction at different water depths.

Fig. 16. Variation of the vortex in the moonpool within a period.

11
Y. Liu et al.
back vortices of the moonpool are connected as the vortex in the front of
the moonpool gradually grows larger (Fig. 16-c). The energy of the
vortex at the back of the moonpool is restored and gradually grows
larger, while the energy of the vortex in the front of the moonpool
progressively drops, and the vortex there starts to get smaller until the
two vortices are separated, (Fig. 16-d, Fig. 16-e, and Fig. 16-f). The flow
field returns to t = 0T at t = 5/6t (Fig. 16-f), completing the cycle of
change. The main cause of the platform’s increased towing resistance
will be the development and dissipation of vortices in the moonpool, as
well as those oscillations in the water surface that they cause.
5.4. Analysis of the emerging wave of the flow field in the moonpool
The motions of the water at the moonpool’s free surface were
observed by seven virtual probes. Fig. 17 depicts the probes’ dispersion.
The center of the circle of the moonpool and the surface of the still water
are where the coordinate system’s origin is located. The virtual probes
were evenly spaced throughout the middle longitudinal section of the
ELBP, with 0.1 m between each pair. P1 and P7 were placed 0.0375 m
from the wall of the moonpool. The platform is pulled in the opposite
direction of the X-axis, from positive to negative.
The change curves of the water motions in the moonpool with time
when the Froude number is equal to 0.157 as observed by several virtual
probes are shown in Fig. 18. As seen in the figure, the position of the
wave surface being monitored by the virtual probes is lower than the
static water surface, i.e., the moonpool has a certain shielding effect.
Throughout the towing process, we can observe that the moonpool’s
water surface progressively rises from the front to the back of the
moonpool. Due to the nonlinearity brought on by the wave run-up along
the walls, the amplitudes of the water elevations at the front and back
ends of the moonpool are both comparatively larger than the amplitude
in the center of the moonpool, and the movements are more disordered
(Guo et al., 2017). Fig. 19 illustrated the spectrum analysis curve of the
free surface motions inside the moonpool monitored by the remaining 5
virtual probes except for P1 and P7 when Fr = 0.157. According to the
above results, the natural frequency of water movement at the moni­
toring point in the moonpool is about 4.27 rad/s. In his paper (Molin
et al., 2018), Molin gave the following equation for calculating the
natural frequency of the circular moonpool piston mode motion at an
Fig. 17. Monitoring point location distribution.
12
Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897
infinite water depth
g
ω2 ≃ (36)
d + 8a/(3π)
where g is the gravity acceleration, d is the draft of the moonpool, a is the
radius of the moonpool. The natural frequency calculated from this
formula is 4.49 rad/s. The outcomes of the numerical simulation closely
resemble results determined by empirical equations. That is, at this
speed, piston action dominates the movement of the water in the
moonpool. However, there are still some differences between them. The
empirical equation is derived from potential flow theory and does not
take into account the effect of viscosity, whereas in CFD calculations, the
influence of viscosity reduces the frequency of water free-surface mo­
tions and increases the period. The conflict between them can result
from this.
6. Conclusions
In this work, the influence of the circular moonpool on the towing
resistance of the conical platform during smooth water navigation and
the features of the flow field in the moonpool were examined using
computational fluid dynamics and physical experimental methods. The
study’s results can be summed up as follows:
(1) Numerical simulation techniques can be used to correctly
compute the towing resistance of the platform and to accurately
capture the characteristics of the flow field. The towing resistance
obtained from the numerical simulation agrees with the model
test. The natural frequency of the water inside the moonpool
obtained from the numerical simulation coincides with the result
of the empirical equation.
(2) The formation and shedding of the vortex within the moonpool,
as well as the fluctuation of the water’s surface brought on by the
vortex, makes the energy dissipation. The flow field surrounding
the platform and its relative pressure change simultaneously
because of the moonpool’s presence, enhancing the platform’s
differential pressure resistance. These ultimately result in a 7%–
10% increase in the towing resistance of the platform.
(3) Contrary to traditional streamlined ships, the conical platform’s
towing resistance is mostly caused by differential pressure resis­
tance, with frictional resistance accounting for less than 5% of the
total resistance.
This article is a study focused on the conical structure, which is
applicable for analysing the towing characteristics in towing conditions
of this type of structure and internal flow features in the moonpool. Ship-
like structures and their moonpools are not covered by the article’s
conclusions. The flow patterns of the fluid inside the moonpool will
differ due to the variations in draft, which will also have a distinct
impact on how the moonpool affects the towing resistance of the plat­
form. This article only focuses on one particular draft for relevant
research, and in the following, we will investigate the effects of a cir­
cular moonpool on a platform’s towing resistance under various drafts.
And the influence of the scale effect is not currently considered and
will gradually be addressed in subsequent research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yihua Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, prepa­
ration, Visualization. Hongxia Li: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisi­
tion. Jingjie Chen: Investigation, Editing. Zhiyuan Li: Writing – review
& editing. Xiaoyu Zhou: Writing – review & editing. Yi Huang: Re­
sources, Supervision.
Y. Liu et al. Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897

Fig. 18. The water free-surface motions inside the moonpool –Fr = 0.157.

Fig. 19. Frequency domain of the water free-surface motions in the moonpool–Fr = 0.157.

Declaration of competing interest National Natural Science Foundation of China (51779042), the Funda­
mental Research Funds for the Central Universities (DUT2019TD35).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence References
the work reported in this paper.
Buongiorno, J., Jurewicz, J., Golay, M., Todreas, N., 2017. The offshore floating nuclear
plant concept. Nucl. Technol. 194 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.13182/NT15-49.
Data availability Chu, B., Zhang, X., 2021. On the natural frequencies and modal shapes in two-
dimensional moonpools with recesses in finite water depth. Appl. Ocean Res. 115,
Data will be made available on request. 102787 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102787.
Fredriksen, A.G., Kristiansen, T., Faltinsen, O.M., 2014. Experimental and numerical
investigation of wave resonance in moonpools at low forward speed. Appl. Ocean
Acknowledgements Res. 47, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2014.03.005.
Guo, X., Lu, H., Yang, J., Peng, T., 2017. Resonant water motions within a recessing type
moonpool in a drilling vessel. Ocean Eng. 129, 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
This work was supported financially by the Foundation project of oceaneng.2016.11.030.
China Key Laboratory of Hydrodynamics (JCKY2022201CA0202), the

13
Y. Liu et al.
Hirt, C.W., Nichols, B.D., 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free
boundary. J. Comput. Phys. 39 (1), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991
(81)90145-5.
Jiang, S., Cong, P., Sun, L., Liu, C., 2018. Numerical investigation of edge configurations
on piston-modal resonance in a moonpool induced by heaving excitations.
J. Hydrodyn. 31 (4), 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42241-018-0123-5.
Jing, P., He, G., Luan, Z., Liu, C., Yang, H., 2022. Numerical study of fluid resonance of a
two-dimensional heaving-free moonpool in a wide range of incident waves.
J. Hydrodyn. 34 (4), 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42241-022-0054-z.
Liu, Y., Li, H., Zhou, X., Chen, J., Wang, W., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., 2022a. The influence of
an annular moonpool on towing resistance of a separated polar ocean nuclear energy
platform. Ocean Eng. 266, 112913 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2022.112913.
Liu, Z., He, J., Meng, Y., Zhang, H., Zhou, Y., Tao, L., 2022b. Numerical and experimental
study on the influence of a moonpool on motion performance and stability of a
drillship. Ocean Eng. 262, 112241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2022.112241.
Martins, F.A.C., Avila, J.P.J., 2019. Three-dimensional CFD analysis of damping effects
on vortex-induced vibrations of 2DOF elastically-mounted circular cylinders. Mar.
Struct. 65, 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2019.01.005.
Molin, B., 2001. On the piston and sloshing modes in moonpools. J. Fluid Mech. 430,
27–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022112000002871.
Molin, B., Zhang, X., Huang, H., Remy, F., 2018. On natural modes in moonpools and
gaps in finite depth. J. Fluid Mech. 840, 530–554. https://doi.org/10.1017/
jfm.2018.69.
Newman, J.N., 2018. Resonant response of a moonpool with a recess. Appl. Ocean Res.
76, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.04.016.
Ravinthrakumar, S., Kristiansen, T., Molin, B., Ommani, B., 2019. A two-dimensional
numerical and experimental study of piston and sloshing resonance in moonpools
with recess. J. Fluid Mech. 877, 142–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2019.561.
Ravinthrakumar, S., Kristiansen, T., Molin, B., Ommani, B., 2020. Coupled vessel and
moonpool responses in regular and irregular waves. Appl. Ocean Res. 96, 102010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.102010.
Sun, J., Sun, S., Sun, S., Ren, H., 2023. The impact of piston and sloshing motions on
added resistance from moonpool configurations. Ocean Eng. 267, 102010, 10.1016/
j.apor.2019.102010.
14
Ocean Engineering 287 (2023) 115897
van’t Veer, R., Tholen, H.J., 2008. Added resistance of moonpools in calm water. C.
Estoril, Portugal. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2008-57246,
2008.
Wang, L., Wang, W., Du, Y., Gao, H., Huang, Y., 2016a. Pitch motion problem induced by
dynamic positioning system for new sandglass-type floating body. J. Mar. Sci.
Technol. 22 (1), 162–175, 1007/s00773-016-0403-0.
Wang, W., Du, Y., Wang, L., Yao, Y., Gao, H., Huang, Y., 2016b. Experimental analysis on
behaviour in waves for sandglass-type floating body. Ships Offshore Struct. 12 (3),
433–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2016.1173808.
Wang, W., Yao, Y., Ye, M., Wang, L., Huang, Y., 2015a. Research on design scheme and
hydrodynamic performance of floating body based on sandglass-type FDPSO. Ships
Offshore Struct. 11 (5), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17445302.2015.1031587.
Wang, Z., Xiong, Y., Wang, R., Shen, X., Zhong, C., 2015b. Numerical study on scale
effect of nominal wake of single screw ship. Ocean Eng. 104, 437–451. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.05.029.
Wang, L., 2020. Study on the Characteristics of Vortex Flows of Propeller Wake. Harbin
Engineering University, Harbin.
Zhang, N., Shen, H., Yao, H., 2008. Uncertainty analysis in CFD for resistance and flow
field. J. Ship Mech. 12 (2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-
7294.2008.02.007.
Zhang, X., Huang, H., Song, X., 2019. On natural frequencies and modal shapes in two-
dimensional asymmetric and symmetric moonpools in finite water depth. Appl.
Ocean Res. 82, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.08.014.
Zhang, X., Li, Z., 2022. Natural frequencies and modal shapes of three-dimensional
moonpool with recess in infinite-depth and finite-depth waters. Appl. Ocean Res.
118, 102921 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102921.
Zhang, X., Sun, L., Sun, C., Wang, C., Chen, C., 2021. Study on the influence of the
moonpool on the smooth water resistance performance of the ship. Ocean Eng. 237,
109590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109590.
Zhang, Y., Jacopo, B., Michael, G., Neil, T., 2018. Safety analysis of a 300-MW(electric)
offshore floating nuclear power plant in marine environment. Nucl. Technol. 203
(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2018.1433935.