Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 1135–1152 | Cite as

A numerical study on the dynamic response of a floating spar platform in extreme waves

  • Carlo RuzzoEmail author
  • Felice Arena
Original article
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

The investigation of the interaction of floating structures with very high waves, also known as freak or rogue waves, is of crucial importance for the analysis of their ultimate design conditions. The representation of such waves is usually achieved through computationally intensive numerical simulations. In this paper, a deterministic approach is proposed, to represent extreme wave groups in the space–time domain. The free surface profile for a Gaussian sea is obtained by means of the Quasi-Determinism theory, and the corresponding dynamic response of a spar-type support for floating offshore wind turbines in parked rotor conditions is analyzed. The Quasi-Determinism theory and the nonlinear equation of motion of the structure are coupled through an in-house time-domain numerical code. Wave forces and structure motions in surge, heave and pitch are obtained. A parametric analysis is carried out to investigate the effects of the criteria used for the definition of the extreme wave, its position of occurrence and the initial conditions in terms of body motions. The results obtained give a clear insight into the physics of the wave–structure interaction phenomenon for extremely high waves in Gaussian seas and allow to identify a few load combinations, corresponding to the severest wave conditions for the floating structure.

Keywords

Extreme waves in Gaussian seas Quasi-determinism theory Floating offshore wind turbines Spar 

References

  1. 1.
    Westphalen L, Greaves DM, Williams CJK, Hunt-Raby AC, Zang J (2012) Focused waves and wave-structure interaction in a numerical wave tank. Ocean Eng 45:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Failla G, Arena F (2015) New perspectives in offshore wind energy. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 373:2035.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robertson A, Jonkman J, Musial W, Vorphal F, Popko W, Qvist J, Froyd L, Chen X, Azcona J, Uzunoglu E, Guedes Soares C, Luan C, Yutong H, Pengcheng F, Yde A, Larsen T, Nichols J, Buils R, Lei L, Nygaard TA, Manolas D, Heege A, Vatne SR, Ormberg H, Duarte T, Godreau C, Hansen HF, Nielsen AQ, Riber H, Le Cunff C, Beyer F, Yamaguchi A, Jung KJ, Shin H, Shi W, Park H, Alves M, Guérinel M (2014) Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continuation within IEA Wind Task 30: Phase II Results regarding a Floating Semisubmersible Wind System. In: Proc. of the 33rd Int. Conf. on Offshore Mech. and Arctic Eng. (OMAE 2014), ASME, June 8–13, San Francisco, California, USA, paper OMAE2014-24040Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boccotti P (2014) Wave mechanics and wave loads on marine structures. Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemenn, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Draper L (1965) Freak ocean waves. Marine Obs 35:193–195Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dysthe K, Krogstad HE, Muller P (2008) Oceanic rogue waves. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 40:287–310MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kharif C, Pelinovsky E, Slunyaev A (2009) Rogue waves in the ocean. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haver S (2004) A possible freak wave event measured at the Draupner jacket January 1 1995. In: Proceedings of Rogue Waves 2004, Brest, FranceGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Magnusson AK, Donelan MA (2013) The andrea wave—characteristics of a measured north sea Rogue wave. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 135(3):1–10Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tamura H, Waseda T, Miyazawa Y (2009) Freakish sea state and swell-windsea coupling: numerical study of the Suwa-Maru incident. Geophys Res Lett 36:L01607.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cavaleri L, Bertotti L, Torrisi L, Bitner-Gregersen E, Serio M, Onorato M (2012) Rogue waves in crossing seas: the Louis Majesty accident. J Geophys Res 117:C00J10.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC007923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belenky V, Weems KM, Bassler CC, Dipper MJ, Campbell BL, Spyrou KJ (2012) Approaches to rare events in stochastic dynamics of ships. Probab Eng Mech 28:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aggarwal N, Manikandan R, Saha N (2015) Predicting short term extreme response of spar offshore floating wind turbine. Procedia Eng 116:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Somayajula A, Falzarano J (2015) Large-amplitude time-domain simulation tool for marine and offshore motion prediction. Mar Syst Ocean Technol 10(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zeinoddini M, Matin Nikoo H, Estekanchi H (2012) Endurance wave analysis (EWA) and its application for assessment of offshore structures under extreme waves. Appl Ocean Res 37:98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malara G, Spanos PD, Arena F (2014) Maximum roll angle estimation of a ship in confused sea waves via a quasi-deterministic approach. Probab Eng Mech 35(2014):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dastan Diznab MA, Mohajernassab S, Seif MS, Tabeshpour MR, Mehdigholi H (2014) Assessment of offshore structures under extreme wave conditions by Modified endurance wave analysis. Mar Struct 39:50–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mirzadeh J, Kimiaei M, Cassidy MJ (2016) Effects of irregular nonlinear ocean waves on the dynamic performance of an example jack-up structure during an extreme event. Mar Struct 49:148–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boccotti P (1981) On the highest waves in a stationary Gaussian process. Atti Accad Ligure Sci Lett 38:271–302MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tromans PS, Anatürk AR, Hagameijer P (1991) A new model for kinematics of large ocean waves—application as a design wave. In: Proc. 1st Int. Offshore and Polar Engng. (ISOPE) Conf, vol 3, pp 64–71Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boccotti P (1997) A general theory of three-dimensional wave groups. Part I: the formal derivation. Ocean Eng 24:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arena F (2005) On non-linear very large sea wave groups. Ocean Eng 32:1311–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fedele F, Arena F (2005) Weakly nonlinear statistics of high random waves. Phys Fluids 17(2):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Romolo A, Arena F, Laface V (2014) A generalized approach for nonlinear wave groups with high waves. Probab Eng Mech 35:96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boccotti P (2011) Field verification of quasi-determinism theory for wind waves in the space-time domain. Ocean Eng 38:1503–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boccotti P, Arena F, Fiamma V, Barbaro G (2012) Field experiment on random wave forces acting on vertical cylinders. Probab Eng Mech 28:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker DAG, Taylor PH, Taylor RE (2004) The shape large surface waves on the open sea and the Draupner New Year wave. Appl Ocean Res 26:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petrova PG, Arena F, Guedes Soares C (2011) Space-time evolution of random wave groups with high waves based on the quasi-determinism theory. Ocean Eng 38(14–15):1640–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boccotti P (2011) Field verification of quasi-determinism theory for wind waves interacting with vertical breakwater. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 38:1503–1507Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Malara G, Arena F, Spanos PD (2011) Dynamics and hydrodynamics of a moored floating rectangular structure under the action of random sea waves. In: Proc. of the 30th Int. Conf. on Ocean Offshore Arctic Eng. (OMAE2011), ASME, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, paper OMAE2011-49486Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nava V, Bagbanci H, Guedes Soares C, Arena F (2013) On the response of a spar floating wind turbine under the occurrence of extreme events. In: Proc. of the 32nd Int. Conf. on Ocean Offshore Arctic Eng. (OMAE2013), ASME, Nantes, France, paper OMAE2013-11140Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ruzzo C, Triglia D, Arena F (2018) Non-linear time-domain analysis of a spar floating supports for offshore wind turbines under the action of extreme waves. In: Guedes Soares C, Teixeira AP (eds) Maritime transportation and harvesting of sea resources. Taylor & Francis Group, London (ISBN: 978-0-8153-7993-5)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taylor PH, Jonathan P, Harland LA (1997) Time domain simulation of jack-up dynamics witli the extremes of a Gaussian process. J Vib Acoust 119(4):624–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Henderson A, Collu M, Masciola M (2016) Overview of floating offshore wind technologies. In: Cruz J, Atcheson M (eds) Floating offshore wind energy. The next generation of wind energy. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jonkman J (2010) Definition of the floating system for phase IV of OC3. In: Technical Report NREL/TP-500-47535, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jonkman J, Butterfield S, Musial W, Scott G (2009) Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development. In: Technical Report NREL/TP-500-38060, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Duan F, Hu Z, Niedzwecki JM (2016) Model test investigation of a spar floating wind turbine. Mar Struct 49:76–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ruzzo C, Fiamma V, Collu M, Failla G, Nava V, Arena F (2018) On intermediate-scale open-sea experiments on floating offshore structures: feasibility and application on a spar support for offshore wind turbines. Mar Struct 61:220–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robertson E, Jonkman J (2011) Loads analysis of several offshore floating wind turbine concepts. In: Proc. Of the 21st Int. Offshore Polar Eng. Conf. (ISOPE2011), Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) (2013) Guide for building and classing floating offshore wind turbine installations (updated 2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu X, Srinil N (2015) Dynamic response analysis of spar-type floating wind turbines and mooring lines with uncoupled vs coupled models. In: Proc. of the 34th Int. Conf. on Ocean Offshore Arctic Eng. (OMAE2015), ASME, St. John’s, Newfoundland, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li Y, Liu L, Zhu Q, Guo Y, Hu Z, Tang Y (2018) Influence of vortex-induced loads on the motion of SPAR-type wind turbine: a coupled aero-hydro-vortex-mooring investigation. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 140(5):051903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    ANSYS® AQWA v. 16.1, help system, theory manual, ANSYS, IncGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arena F, Nava V (2008) On the linearization of Morison force given by high three-dimensional sea wave groups. Probab Eng Mech 23:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rodriguez CA, Neves M (2012) Investigation on parametrically excited motions of spar platforms in waves. In: Proc. Of the 11th Int. Conf. on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Ocean Engineering LaboratoryDICEAM, Mediterranea University of Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations