0
Review Articles

Literature Review of Methods for Mitigating Hydroelastic Response of VLFS Under Wave Action

[+] Author and Article Information
C. M. Wang

Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge 119260, Singapore

Z. Y. Tay1

Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge 119260, Singaporecvetzy@nus.edu.sg

K. Takagi

Department of Ocean Technology, Policy, and Environment, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba 277-8563, Japan

T. Utsunomiya

Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 615-8540, Japan

1

Corresponding author.

Appl. Mech. Rev 63(3), 030802 (Jul 02, 2010) (18 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001690 History: Received January 21, 2010; Revised April 23, 2010; Published July 02, 2010; Online July 02, 2010

Presented herein is a literature review on the design and performance of antimotion structures/devices such as breakwaters, submerged plates, oscillating water column breakwaters, air-cushion, auxiliary attachments, and mechanical joints for mitigating the hydroelastic response of very large floating structures (VLFS) under wave action. Shapes of VLFS that could minimize the hydrodynamic response of the structure are also discussed. The analytical, numerical, and experimental methods used in studying the effect of these antimotion structures/devices toward reducing the hydroelastic responses of VLFS are also reviewed.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Mega-Float at Tokyo Bay, Japan (7)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Application of VLFS as floating oil storage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Application of VLFS as (a) floating bridge and as (b) proposed floating wind farm in Japan (Picture courtesy of National Maritime Research Institute)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Application of VLFS as floating human habitation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison on hydroelastic responses of VLFS with and without bottom-founded breakwater under wave angle: (a) θ=0, (b) θ=π/4, and (c) θ=π/2; water depth H=20 m and wavelength λ/L=0.125

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Hydroelastic response of Mega-Float with and without bottom-founded breakwater

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Floating breakwater at Holy Loch, Scotland (photo courtesy of Intermarine Ltd. Source: http://www.gssplant.co.uk/download/breakwater.jpg)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Schematic diagram of (a) double-box breakwater (21) and (b) board-net breakwater (22)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Hydroelastic responses of floating fuel storage modules under head sea condition with and without floating breakwater: water depth H=0.3 m and wavelength λ/L=0.4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Wave elevation surrounding floating fuel storage facility with and without floating breakwater under different wavelengths λ/L. Dimensions of floating module is 2.44×1.0×0.2 m3, width of floating breakwater is 0.05 m, head sea, water depth H=0.3 m

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

(a) Submerged vertical plate antimotion device (26) and (b) submerged horizontal plate antimotion devices (27-28)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Mechanism of wave energy dissipation by submerged horizontal plate (53)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

(a) Box-shape antimotion device. Effect of box-shape antimotion device toward reduction in (b) deflection, (c) shearing, and (d) bending moment. Head sea. Wave period T=6 s. Water depth H=20 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Submerged inclined plate antimotion device

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Effect of different antimotion devices toward (a) maximum hydroelastic response at fore-end of VLFS and (b) maximum steady drift forces at fore-end of VLFS. Dimensions of VLFS is 200×100×3 m3 and water depth H=20 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Mechanism of breakwater with built-in OWC chamber (photo courtesy of Voith Siemens Hydro. Source: http://www.powermag.com)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison on hydroelastic responses of VLFS with and without (a) RTOWC-1 breakwater and (b) RTOWC-2 breakwater

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison on hydroelastic responses of VLFS with and without OWC breakwater under wave period: (a) T=13 s and (b) T=20 s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Maximum deflection at fore-end of VLFS with and without (a) OWCBW1, (b) OWCBW2, and (c) OWCBW3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Hydroelastic response of VLFS with and without OWC antimotion device with (a) a=1.5 m, (b) a=3.75 m, and (c) a=6 m. λ/L=0.2. Linear damping coefficient γ=100.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Hydroelastic response with and without three-continuous OWC antimotion device under wave angle (a) θ=0, (b) θ=π/6, (c) θ=2π/3, and (d) θ=π/2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Side elevation of air-cushion supported VLFS proposed by (a) Pinkster (47), (b) Pinkster and Meevers Scholte (49), (c) Van Kessel (52), and (d) Ikoma (53-54)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Hydroelastic response of air-cushion supported VLFS under wavelength (a) L/λ=4.45, (b) L/λ=6.67, (c) L/λ=7.91, and (d) L/λ=9.0. Head sea.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

(a) VLFS with floating breakwater and OWC antimotion device and (b) subplate VLFS

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Hydroelastic response of VLFS with hinged-connected articulated plate of different stiffnesses and shapes under (a) λ/L=0.1 and (b) λ/L=0.2. Water depth H=30 m. Head sea.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Normalized maximum deflection along the length of the floating beam system with various rotational stiffness under (a) α=0.15 and β=−0.23 and (b) α=0.20 and β=−0.21. Structural length L=300 m. Water depth H=20 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Hydroelastic response of the floating beam with optimum locations xc and optimum rotational stiffnesses ξi for (a) n=3, (b) n=5, (c) n=7, and (d) n=9. λ/L=0.20. Structural length L=300 m. Water depth H=20 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

VLFS with (a) longitudinal moonpools, (b) transverse moonpools, and (c) different stiffnesses (I=second moment of inertia)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In