Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Modeling of cable-moored floating breakwaters connected with hinges

Ioanna Diamantoulaki , Demos C. Angelides
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

article

info

Article history:
Received 29 June 2010
Received in revised form
30 November 2010
Accepted 30 January 2011
Available online 1 March 2011
Keywords:
Cable-moored floating breakwaters
Hinge joints
Generalized modes
Cable tensions
Effectiveness
Response
Fluidstructure interaction

abstract
In the present paper, the overall performance of a cable-moored array of floating breakwaters connected
by hinges is investigated under the action of monochromatic linear waves in the frequency domain. The
performance is defined here as: (i) demonstration of acceptable levels of both response of the array
and its effectiveness and (ii) non-failure of the mooring lines. The numerical analysis of the array is
based on a 3D hydrodynamic formulation of the floating body coupled with the static and dynamic
analyses of the mooring lines. The motions of the array of floating breakwaters associated with the hinge
vertical translations are considered in the hydrodynamic analysis with the implementation of appropriate
generalized modes. The stiffness and damping coefficients caused by the mooring lines in both rigid and
generalized degrees of freedom are derived here in the general form. A rigorous parametric study is carried
out in order to investigate the effect of different configurations (number of hinge joints and number of
mooring lines) on the performance of the cable-moored array of floating breakwaters. Moreover, the
performance of the various configurations of cable-moored floating breakwaters connected by hinges
examined is compared with the performance of a single cable-moored floating breakwater with no hinges.
It is found that the number of hinge joints and mooring lines have a direct effect on the performance of
the cable-moored array of floating breakwaters.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The traditional type of breakwater is the bottom-founded structure. The construction of this type of breakwater is not always
economical, especially for deep water depths; furthermore, breakwaters of this type are potentially associated with environmental
problems, such as intense shore erosion, water quality problems
and aesthetic considerations. The aforementioned disadvantages
motivated the search for an alternative type of breakwater, namely
the floating ones. The application of such kind of structures is
continuously increasing, because of the fast and inexpensive construction as well as the possibility of mobility and reallocation. The
floating breakwaters are usually pile-restrained or cable-moored.
Reviews of the general design of floating breakwaters are presented in [14]; furthermore, Isaacson [4] provides an overview of
wave effects on floating breakwaters. As far as the hydrodynamic
analysis of the floating body is concerned, 2D models have been
developed that describe the complete linear hydrodynamic problem of the wavestructure interaction [414]. These 2D models
use four methods: (i) finite element method, (ii) boundary integral
method, (iii) finite differences using Boussinesq type equations,
(iv) volume of fluid and (v) particle methods. Analytical solutions of
the hydrodynamic problem are available for simple geometries and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 995702; fax: +30 2310 995740.
E-mail address: idiamant@civil.auth.gr (I. Diamantoulaki).

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.024

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

regular waves [15]. Loukogeorgaki and Angelides [16] and Diamantoulaki et al. [17] used a 3D hydrodynamic model to investigate the
performance of floating breakwaters. A 3D analysis for a V-shaped
floating breakwater was used by Briggs et al. [18], including hydroelasticity.
The phenomenon of hydroelasticity has also been investigated
in various studies using (i) 2D linear theories [1922], (ii) 2D
non-linear theories [23,24], (iii) 3D linear theories [2528] and
(iv) 3D non-linear theories [29,30]. Bishop and Price [31] used free
undamped wet bending modes, while Gran [32] used orthogonal
modes of a uniform beam to express the vertical translations of
a slender ship. Newman [33] extended the linearized frequency
domain analysis of wave diffraction and radiation for a 3D body
in a fixed mean position to a variety of deformable body motions
using an expansion in arbitrary modal shape functions. Jensen
and Pedersen [23] developed a non-linear quadratic strip theory
formulated in the frequency domain for predicting wave loads and
ship responses in moderate seas. Du [34] presented a complete
frequency domain analysis for linear 3D hydroelastic responses
of floating structures moving in a seaway and Fu et al. [35]
used 3D linear hydroelasticity theory to predict the response
of flexible interconnected structures. Finally, Wu et al. [29]
used a 3D non-linear hydroelasticity theory for both frequency
and time domain analyses. Many researchers have dealt with
the application of hydroelasticity theories in the analysis of
VLFS [3640], since hydroelasticity is very important for this kind
of structures. A comprehensive review of hydroelasticity theories

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

is presented in [41], and in each of the aforementioned studies

regarding hydroelasticity the floating body is assumed to be freefloating (unrestrained). The effect of hydroelasticity on flexible
floating breakwaters has been studied by Williams et al. [10] for
one compliant beam-like breakwater (idealized as 1D beam of
uniform flexural rigidity) using an appropriate Green function,
and by Abul-Azm [42] using an eigenfunction approach; both
of the researches use 2D hydrodynamic analysis. Diamantoulaki
et al. [43] and Manolis et al. [44] have also investigated the
effect of hydroelasticity on flexible floating breakwaters using 3D
hydrodynamic analysis. Furthermore, the effect of hydroelasticity
phenomena on floating breakwaters connected by hinge joints
has been investigated numerically by Newman [33], Lee and
Newman [45] and Diamantoulaki and Angelides [46,47]. In each of
these hydroelastic studies the floating body is assumed to be either
free [33,45,47] or pile-restrained [46].
Besides free and pile-restrained floating bodies, cable-moored
ones have also been investigated by several researchers, assuming
rigid body conditions as mentioned in [48]. Chakrabarti and Cotter [49] proposed a time domain analysis, assuming rigid body motion, and generated the solution by a forward integration scheme
so as the non-linear effects due to the mooring lines are taken into
consideration. The performance of cable-moored floating breakwaters was investigated experimentally by Martinelli et al. [50]
and Johanning and Smith [51], theoretically and experimentally by
Bhat [52], Bhat and Isaacson [8], and theoretically by Williams et al.
[9,53]. Bhat [52] as well as Bhat and Isaacson [8] took into account
the non-linear behavior of the mooring lines through an iterative
coupling procedure between the 2D hydrodynamic analysis of the
floating body and the analysis of the mooring lines in terms of convergence of the steady drift forces. Williams et al. [9,53] modeled
the effect of mooring lines using appropriate modification of the
hydrodynamic equations that refer to the 2D motion of a floating
body.
In this paper, the performance of a cable-moored array of
floating breakwaters connected with hinge joints under the action
of linear monochromatic waves is investigated numerically in
the frequency domain. The performance is defined here as:
(i) demonstration of acceptable levels of both response of the array
and its effectiveness (in terms of the reduction of transmitted
energy behind it) and (ii) non-failure of the mooring lines. It should
be mentioned that the objective of the present paper, comprises
two facets. Firstly, the formulation in three dimensions of a cablemoored array of floating breakwaters connected with hinges is
presented. The array of floating breakwaters experiences motions
along its length and is interacting with the wave field. The total
number of degrees of freedom needed to describe the array of
floating breakwaters are the six conventional rigid body modes
(surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, yaw), plus the extra generalized
modes, equal to the number of the hinge joints. The generalized
hinge modes are introduced to facilitate the effect of the vertical
translations of the hinges. All the hinges permit each module
to pitch, while affecting the response of the rest. The numerical
analysis of the array is based on a 3D hydrodynamic formulation
of the floating body coupled with the static and dynamic analysis
of mooring lines. The stiffness and damping coefficients caused by
the mooring lines are derived here in a general form for all degrees
of freedom, including the generalized ones. Secondly, a rigorous
parametric study is carried out in order to investigate the effect
of different configurations in terms of number of hinge joints and
mooring lines on the performance of the cable-moored array of
floating breakwaters. The performance of the various examined
configurations of cable-moored floating breakwaters connected
with hinges is also compared with the corresponding one of a
single cable-moored breakwater with no hinges.

1537

Fig. 1. Description of geometry and definition of basic quantities.

2. Definition of generalized hinge modes

A longitudinal array of floating breakwaters is considered to
be interacting with the wave field. The floating breakwaters
(modules) are connected with each other by transverse hinge joints
permitting each module to pitch, while affecting the response of
the rest. The array, as a whole, could undergo small oscillations
in the six degrees of freedom j (j = 1, . . . , 6), corresponding
to surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw as defined in Fig. 1.
The vertical displacements of the array due to hinge vertical
translations lead to non-trivial hydroelastic effects that need to
be considered in the hydrodynamic analysis by implementing
appropriate generalized hinge modes [37].
The generalized hinge modes fj (q) are expressed here according
to the definition included in [46,47] using appropriate sets of the
tent functions fj (q) given by the equation:
fj (q) = f (q qh ) = 1 |q qh |,

h = 1, . . . , H

(1)

where q is the non-dimensional coordinate q = x HL+1 , x is the

f

longitudinal coordinate of the array (Fig. 1), Lf is the total length of

the array of floating breakwaters (Fig. 1) and qh is the q coordinate
corresponding to the h = j 6 hinge joint. The origin x = 0 or
q = 0 is at the midpoint of the array. In this case, fj (q) is either
symmetric or antisymmetric function about q = 0 and is described
by Eq. (2a)(2b) and Eqs. (3a)(3c) for even and odd total number
of hinge joints respectively:
f7 (q) = f7 (q) + f8 (q)

(2a)

fj (q) = fj+p(j1)1 (q) f6+p(j1) (q),

j = 8, 10, . . . , 2

6+H

]
(2b)

fj (q) = fj+p(j) (q) + f6+p(j) (q),

j = 9, 11, . . . , 2

6+H

(2c)

f7 (q) = f13+H (q)

(3a)

fj (q) = fj+p(j) (q) f6+p(j) (q),

j = 8, 10, . . . , 2

7+H

(3b)

fj (q) = fj+p(j1)1 (q) + f6+p(j1) (q),

j = 9, 11, . . . , 2

7+H
2

(3c)

1538

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Fig. 2. Generalized hinge modes fj (q) (j = 7, . . . , 10) for total number of hinge joints H = 1, . . . , 4 located on the plane z = 0 and parallel to the y-axis [47].

where p(j) is given by:

p(j) =

|7 + H j|
2

(4)

The generalized hinge modes (Eqs. (2a)(2c), and (3a)(3c)) for an

array of up to five floating breakwaters, are depicted in Fig. 2.
3. Formulation of mooring lines stiffness coefficients
3.1. Definition of basic quantities
The moored array of floating breakwaters connected with
hinges is subjected to static movements relatively to its initial
equilibrium position, due to second order steady drift forces.
Consequently, the mooring lines experience changes relatively to
their initial configuration and their initial level of static tensions as
well. It should be mentioned that the aforesaid changes determine
the stiffness of the mooring lines and thus, the final equilibrium
position of the moored array. In the present study, the stiffness
matrix due to the presence of the mooring lines is derived for
an array of hinged floating breakwaters in three dimensions,
considering that the stiffness coefficients are strongly affected by
the static equilibrium position of the array; namely the stiffness
coefficients are affected by the differential changes of both static
tension and static angle at the fairlead of each mooring line, Tst
and .
More explicitly, the coordinate systems introduced for the
present analysis are: (i) the coordinate system of the moored array
of hinged floating breakwaters at the initial equilibrium position
assuming zero level of any external static loads, OXYZ , where the
center of gravity of the floating array is located at the origin O
(Figs. 1 and 3), (ii) the coordinate system of the moored array of
hinged floating breakwaters at the final equilibrium position, after
experiencing static movements, O X Y Z , and finally (iii) the local
coordinate system corresponding to each mooring line, oxy (Fig. 3).
The quantities related to the geometry of each mooring line are also
depicted in Fig. 4.
The displacement vector X of the floating array, assuming to be
rigid, is given by:
XT = [Xo

Yo

Zo

Z1

Z2

...

ZH ]

(5)

where Xo , Yo , Zo and X , Y , Z correspond to the translations

of the center of gravity of the floating array across the axes
X , Y , Z and the rotations of the floating body around the aforesaid
axes respectively. As far as the terms Zh (h = 1, 2, . . . , H) are
concerned, they denote the vertical translations of the array
described by the fj (q) (j = 6 + h) hinge mode (Fig. 2).

Fig. 3. Description of coordinate systems OXYZ , O X Y Z and oxz and relevant

quantities.

The linear transformation described by Eq. (6) [48]:

Uf = TUf + X

(6)

relates the position vectors of the fairlead of each mooring line in

OXYZ and O X Y Z coordinates systems, Uf and Uf respectively.
More specifically, Uf and Uf , are given by:
UTf = [XP
Uf T = [XPO

YP

ZP ]

YPO

ZPO ].

(7)
(8)

T is the rotational-transformation matrix described in Box I:

X denotes the translational displacement vector of the fairlead
of each of the M total mooring lines restraining the hinged array,

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

cos Y cos Z
T = cos Y sin Z
sin Z

sin X sin Y cos Z cos X sin Z

sin X sin Y sin Z cos X cos Z
sin X cos Y

cos X sin Y cos Z sin X sin Z

cos X sin Y sin Z sin X cos Z
cos X cos Y

1539

(9)

Box I.

From Fig. 3 it follows:

lX
lY
lZ

lX cos
= lX sin
=
lZ

l cos cos
= l cos sin
l sin
XA XP
YA YP
ZA ZP

(17)

where XA , YA and ZA are the constant coordinates of the anchor of

each mooring line with respect to OXYZ coordinate system.
3.2. Derivation of the stiffness matrix of the mooring lines
Fig. 4. Description of geometry of a mooring line and relevant quantities.

with regard to the coordinate system OXYZ , and is defined by:

X =

Xo

Zo +

Yo

Zhm

(10)

h=1

where the term

denotes the translational displacement of the
fairlead of mooring line m due to vertical translations of the hinged
array caused by the contribution of the hinge joint h. The term Zhm
is defined here as:
for m = 1, 2, . . . , M and h = 1, 2, . . . , H

(11)

where cm
h is the coefficient that corresponds to each combination of
mooring line, m, and hinge mode, fj (q), and relates the maximum
(unit) vertical displacement at the position of hinge joints with the
vertical displacement at the initial position of the fairlead of the m
mooring line with respect to OXYZ coordinate system.
Considering Eqs. (7), (8), Box I, Eqs. (10) and (11) it holds:

XP
YP
ZP

XPO

= T YPO +

ZPO

Xo
Yo

Zo +

.
m

(12)

Zh

h=1

Since the various displacements of the hinged array due to static

loads result to modification of the initial configuration and level
of static loads, with the assumption that all mooring lines are
not only of identical geometry and material characteristics but
also experience equal pretension level, it follows that the static
quantities Tst and st can be expressed as function of their total
length, l:
Tst = Tst (l)

(13)

st = st (l)

(14)

where l can be expressed as function of the projection of the length

l of the mooring line in the OXYZ coordinate system, lX , lY , and lZ :
l = l(lX , lY , lZ ).

(15)

The quantities lX , lY , and lZ depend on the displacement vector of

the center of gravity of the array of hinged breakwaters, X (Eq. (5)),
which includes the vertical displacements due to motion of hinge
joints:
lX = lX (X),

lY = lY (X),

K=

Km =

m=1

Zhm

Zhm = cm
h Zh

The definition of the stiffness matrix Kij for a system of M

mooring lines is given by:

lZ = lZ (X).

(16)

m=1

Fm
X

(18)

where K m denotes the stiffness matrix of m mooring line (m =

1, 2, . . . , M ), Fm is the vector of the reaction loads that the m
mooring line exercises on the total floating array without hinges.
Particularly, Fm is given by:

(Fm )T = [(fX )m (fY )m (fZ )m (MX )m (MY )m (MZ )m

(fZ )m (fZ )m . . . (fZ )m ]

(19a)

where

(fX )m = T cos cos

(fY )m = T cos sin
(fZ )m = T sin
(MX )m = (YP Yo )m (V )m (ZP Zo )m (H sin )m

(19b)
(19c)
(19d)
(19e)

(MY )m = a{(ZP Zo )m (H cos )m

[(XP Xo) XVR ]m (V )m }

(19f)

(MZ )m = (XP Xo )m (H sin )m

(YP Yo )m (H cos )m

(19g)

with a = 0 when there is a hinge joint located in the middle of the

floating array, while otherwise a = 1. XVR is given by:
XVR = XP Xho

(20)

where XP is the initial X coordinate of fairlead of a mooring line

with respect to OXYZ , Xho is the x coordinate of the hinge joint
located at the same module as the fairlead of the m mooring line
and also is closer to the middle of the moored array with respect
to OXYZ .
Similarly to the matrix X , Fm also consists of 6 + H terms,
equal to the total degrees of freedom describing the motions of the
floating array.
Comparing the reaction forces and moments calculated for
an array of floating breakwaters connected with hinges derived
here with the respective ones calculated for a single rigid floating
breakwater [48], it can be seen that for the reaction loads (fX )m ,
(fY )m , (fZ )m , (MX )m and (MZ )m no differences of definitions are
observed. Therefore, the stiffness coefficients of the hinged array,
(Kijm )H , for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and j = 1, 2, . . . , 6 are equal to the

1540

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

respective coefficients calculated for a single floating breakwater,

Kijm , namely:

(Kijm )H = Kijm for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and j = 1, 2, . . . , 6.

(21a)

Extended definitions of the stiffness coefficients for the case of a

rigid floating breakwater, Kijm are included in [48].
On the contrary, according to evaluations of the present
investigation, the equation giving the moment (MY )m in the case
of an array of hinged floating breakwaters appears modified with
regard to the respective one for a single floating breakwater
presented in [48]. Therefore, the stiffness coefficients of the array
of hinged floating breakwaters due to (MY )m , (K5jm )H , (j = 1, . . . , 6)
differ from the respective ones for a single floating breakwater, Kijm
(see also Appendix, Eqs. (A.1.1)(A.1.6)).

(K5jm )H = a (K5jm + XVR K3jm ) for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6.

(21b)

The stiffness coefficients related to the hinge modes are derived

in the present study as follows (see also Appendix, Eqs. (A.2.1)
(A.2.6), (A.3.1)(A.3.7)):

The longitudinal vertical translations of the array of floating

breakwaters are considered in the hydrodynamic analysis by
implementing appropriate generalized hinge modes [37]. The
hinge modes implemented are equal to the number of hinge joints.
The vertical translations of the hinged floating structure,
expressed as the complex amplitude tot (q), is equal to the sum
of an appropriate set of modes including the contribution of heave
(j = 3), pitch (j = 5) and each of the H total generalized hinge
modes introduced, fj (q) (j = 7, . . . , H + 6):

tot (q) =

for h = 1, 2, . . . , H

(
(

) =

K6m,6+h H
K6m+h,j H

chm

m
K63

(21d)

(21e)
for h = 1, 2, . . . , H

(21f)

K3jm
chm

6+H

[2 (Mij + Aij ) + i(Bij + BEij ) + (cij + KijH )]j = Xi ,

j =1

j = 1, 2, . . . , 6 and h = 1, 2, . . . , H
j = 7, . . . , 6 + h and h = 1, 2, . . . , H .

(21g)

4. Description of the numerical model

The numerical analysis of the response of the moored array
of floating breakwaters connected with hinges includes two
components: (a) the 3D hydrodynamic analysis of the aforesaid
array and (b) the static and dynamic analysis of the mooring
lines. A brief description of these two components is given in the
next two subsections. It should be emphasized that components
are coupled together through the application of an appropriate
iterative procedure in terms of the steady drift forces and the
response of the floating body, as described in [48].
4.1. Hydrodynamic analysis of the array of floating array connected
with hinges
The numerical investigation of the performance of the array
of floating breakwaters connected by hinges includes a 3D
hydrodynamic analysis of the array. The 3D hydrodynamic analysis
is carried out in the frequency domain under the action of
monochromatic waves and is based on a linear wave diffraction
theory.
A velocity potential , satisfying the Laplace equation, since
the fluid is considered inviscid and incompressible and the flow
irrotational, describes the fluid motion. This velocity potential is
defined by the relationship:

= D + r = (o + 7 ) + r

(22)

where the terms D r , o , 7 correspond to the diffraction,

radiation, incident and scattered potentials respectively, and are
defined in [54,55].

(24)

where Mij is the mass matrix; Aij is the added mass matrix; Bij is
the radiation damping matrix, BEij , is the damping matrix due to
external causes, cij the stiffness matrix caused by buoyancy and
gravity forces, KijH is the stiffness matrix due to the mooring lines
and. Xi represents the exciting forces and moments corresponding
to the i degree of freedom. Specifically, BEij is given by the following
equation:
E (D)

m
K33

(23)

where j is the unknown complex amplitude of each mode.

The response of the floating breakwater, considering H hinge
modes, is calculated by solving the following (6 + H ) (6 + H )
system of equations [33,47]:

BEij = Bij

j = 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, . . . , 6 + H

i = 1, 2, . . . , H + 6
(21c)

m
(K4m,6+h )H = chm (K43
Tst cos sin )

for h = 1, 2, . . . , H
m
m
(K5m,6+h )H = a chm (K53
+ XVR K13
+ Tst cos sin )

j fj (q),

(Kim,6+h )H = chm Ki3m

for i = 1, 2 and 3 and h = 1, 2, . . . , H

+ BEij(V )

E (D)

where Bij

(25)

is the damping matrix due to the drag damping of

E (V )

is the viscous damping matrix. The

the mooring lines and Bij
latter matrix is calculated according to the empirical relationship
described in [52], after its appropriate modification according to
Diamantoulaki et al. [17] in order to accommodate the occurrence
of negative added mass:
E (V )

Bij

= 2 |(Mij + Aij )| Cij

(26)

where is the damping ratio.

Calculation of the response constitutes a boundary value
problem. The solution of this problem is based on the 3D
panel method, where Greens theorem is applied, considering
appropriate boundary conditions [55,54].
The response of the floating body is described by the Response
Amplitude Operator (RAOj ), which is given by the following
equation:
RAOj =

|j |
A

j = 1, . . . , 6 + H

(27)

where A is the incident wave amplitude.

Similarly, the total vertical displacement across the length of
the floating array is defined as follows:

|tot (q) |
A

H +1
2

H +1
2

(28)

The effectiveness of the floating breakwater is expressed by the

ratio of the wave elevation behind the breakwater (shadow zone)
to the incident wave amplitude:
Kb (x, y) =

(x, y)
A

(y > 0)

where (x, y) represents the wave elevation at (x, y).

(29)

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Another expression of the effectiveness behind the floating

breakwater is introduced in this study:
Kbav =

Kb (x, y)

ZC = ZCR + ZCI i
= 3 cos(a3 ) 5 XP cos(a5 ) + 4 YP cos(a4 )

(30)

s
where s is the number of the field points in the rectangular area
behind the floating breakwater (Lf /2 x Lf /2) and B/2
y Lf , for Lf and B denoting the total length and width of the
floating array within which the term Kb (x, y) is computed.
Both the expressions of effectiveness given by Eqs. (29) and (30)
are used here.
4.2. Static and dynamic analyses of mooring lines
Mooring lines are used for anchoring the floating breakwater
against the action of waves, currents and wind. A static and a
dynamic analysis is necessary to be carried out in order to calculate
the total loads exercised on the mooring lines, as well as the
stiffness and drag damping coefficients imposed on the floating
body by the mooring lines.
4.2.1. Static analysis of mooring lines
The static analysis aims at the calculation of: (a) the initial
static configuration and the static tensions Tst of the mooring lines,
(b) the new equilibrium position of the floating array-mooring
lines system due to the action of the steady drift forces and the
corresponding Tst of the mooring lines and (c) the stiffness matrix
KijH that is applied on the breakwater by the mooring lines at the
new equilibrium position. The calculations of (a) and (b) items
mentioned above are based on the equations that are reported
in [56,57].

E (D)

all the non-diagonal terms are assumed zero (Bij

= 0 for i = j).
At first, the complex horizontal and vertical motion amplitudes,
xd and zd , respectively, are calculated at the fairlead of each
mooring line. The amplitudes xd and zd , are in the x and z
direction respectively of the oxz local coordinate system (Figs. 3
and 4). Furthermore, the amplitudes xd and zd are attributed to the
sinusoidal motions of the floating array (RAOj = 1, 2, . . . , 6 + H )
including the vertical displacements due to the hinge joints that
need to be considered in the dynamic analysis of the mooring lines
as well.
The complex motions XC , YC and ZC observed at the fairlead
of each mooring line in the X , Y and Z directions of the global
coordinate system OXYZ (Fig. 3) respectively are given by:
XC = XCR + XCI i
= 1 cos(a1 ) 6 YP cos(a6 ) + 5 ZP cos(a5 )
+ [1 sin(a1 ) 6 YP sin(a6 ) + 5 ZP sin(a5 )]i

(31a)

YC = YCR + YCI i
= 2 cos(a2 ) + 6 XP cos(a6 ) 4 ZP cos(a4 )
+ [2 sin(a2 ) + 6 XP sin(a6 )
4 ZP sin(a4 )] i

(31b)

[chm 6+h cos(a6+h )]

h=1

3 sin(a3 ) 5 XP sin(a5 ) + 4 YP sin(a4 )

+
ch 6+h sin(a6+h )
i
(31c)

h=1

where aj is the phase of the amplitudes j (Fig. 1).

Obviously, the contribution of the hinge motions is considered
only in the calculation of the vertical motion ZC .
It should be noticed that Eqs. (31a)(31c) reduce to the
corresponding ones for rigid floating body presented in [48] when
the effect of the hinges is eliminated.
If the motion amplitudes XC , YC and ZC are analyzed in the oxz
plane (Fig. 3), it holds:
QX = QXR + i QXI = [XCR cos(f ) + YCR sin(f )]
+ [XCI cos(f ) + YCI sin(f )] i

(32a)

QZ = ZCR + ZCI i

(32b)

where f represents the angle of each mooring line on X Y at the

new static equilibrium position. From Eqs. (32a) and (32b), it is
derived that the motions of the fairlead of each mooring line, xd
and zd , are equal to:
xd =
zd =

4.2.2. Dynamic analysis of mooring lines

The dynamic analysis of the mooring lines includes the
calculation of: (a) the dynamic tensions of them Tdyn at the fairlead
at the new equilibrium position and (b) the drag damping matrix
E (D)
Bij .
Extended description of the calculation of the dynamic tensions
E (D)
are included in [56,57]. As far as the damping coefficient, Bij , is
concerned, its calculation is based on linearizing the hydrodynamic
drag force using an equivalent linearization technique [57,48]. This
technique is extended here so as the vertical displacements, due to
the hinge joints, be considered.
E (D)
The diagonal coefficients Bij (i = j) are considered here since

1541

2
QXR
+ QXI2

(33a)

2
QZR
+ QZI2 .

(33b)

The terminal impedances Sxx , Sxz , Szx and Szz are considered as
functions of the static and dynamic tension and angle at the fairlead
of each mooring line and are given by [57]:

Sxx
Szx

Sxz
Szz

]
=

[ ] [ ]
xd
F
x
zd

Fz

(34)

where Fx and Fz denote the excitation forces in x and z directions

of the oxz coordinate system respectively.
Next, the complex reaction forces and moments are derived
after analyzing the terminal impedances of Eq. (35) in Box II in
the OXYZ system (Fig. 3), in a similar manner as Loukogeorgaki
and Angelides [48] with proper modifications to include the effect
of the hinges, and are given in Box II: Apparently, according to
Eq. (35) the reaction force corresponding to the vertical displacements due to hinge motions is equal to the reaction force in the vertical direction of the Z axis of the OXYZ coordinate system (Fig. 3).
R
R
I
Szdi can also been given by Eq. (35) after substituting Sxx
, Szx
, Sxx
and
I
R
R
I
I
Szx with Sxz , Szz , Sxz and Szz respectively.
Then, the amplitudes of the reaction loads, Si , and the
corresponding phases, i , can be easily computed according to:

[(Sxd(i) )R + (Szd(i) )R ]2 + [(Sxd(i) )I + (Szd(i) )I ]2

[
]
(Sxd(i) )I + (Szd(i) )I
i = tan1
(Sxd(i) )R + (Szd(i) )R
Si =

(36)
(37)

where in both Eqs. (36) and (37) the index i varies from 1 to 6 + H.
Finally, after the reaction loads that are in phase with the
velocity, i (with i = 1, 2, . . . , 6 + H), have been computed, the
drag damping coefficients for the m mooring line can be given by:

(BEij(D) )m =

|(Si )m cos((i )m aj /2)|

.
j

(38)

1542

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

(Sxx )R cos(f ) + (Sxx )I cos(f ) i

(Sxx )R sin(f ) + (Sxx )I sin(f ) i

(Szx )R + (Szx )I i

R
R
I
I

[(Sxx ) sin(f ) ZP (Szx ) YP ] + [(Sxx ) sin(f ) ZP (Szx ) YP ] i

R
R
I
I
a [(Szx ) sin(f ) (XP XVR ) (Sxx ) cos(f )ZP ] + a [(Szx ) sin(f ) (XP XVR ) (Sxx ) cos(f )ZP ]i
Sxd =

R
R
I
I

[(Sxx ) sin(f ) XP (Sxx ) cos(f ) YP ] + [(Sxx ) sin(f ) XP (Sxx ) cos(f ) YP ] i

R
I

(Szx ) + (Szx ) i

R
I

(Szx ) + (Szx ) i

...
R
I
(Szx ) + (Szx ) i

(35)

Box II.

Considering Eq. (38), the drag damping coefficients for the system
consisting of all mooring lines is:
E (D)

Bij

(BEij(D) )m ,

i = j = 1, 2, . . . , H + 6.

(39)

m=1

Table 1
Characteristics of mooring lines.
Diameter
Total initial length
Submerged weight
(Elasticity modulus) (Area)
Breaking tension T break

33 (mm)
30 (m)
191.25 (N/m)
342,119,440 (N)
400,000 (N)

5. Results and discussion

The effect of different configurations (in terms of number
of hinge joints and mooring lines) of an array of cable-moored
floating breakwaters on its performance is studied through
a rigorous parametric study. The hydrodynamic analysis is
performed using the 3D radiation/diffraction code WAMIT [54].
A cable-moored array of floating breakwaters (Fig. 1) with dimensions (Lf = 20.00 m, B = 4.00 m, Hf = 2.00 m, dr = 0.77 m)
is placed in water depth Dw = 10 m and is freely interacting with
the wave field. Various configurations of arrays that consist of multiple floating breakwaters connected by hinges are examined by
setting the total number of hinge joints H equal to 0, 1, 2 and 3. Each
value of the parameter H correspond to a different configuration of
arrays Ck, where k = 0, . . . , 3. It is obvious that C 0 is equivalent
to a single floating breakwater with no hinges. Moreover, two different configurations of mooring systems, A and B, are considered.
All the mooring lines of these two mooring systems are located at
water depth equal to 10 m and are identical (Table 1). Configuration A is symmetric and consists of four identical mooring lines,
where each one forms an angle of 45 with respect to the x axis on
the xy plane. As far as configuration B, it is also symmetric and
consists of six mooring lines; where four of them form an angle of
45 with respect to the x axis on the xy plane and the rest of them
are perpendicular to the x axis on the xy plane. Five cases, C 0A,
C 1A, C 2A, C 3A and C 2B corresponding to Fig. 5(a)(e) respectively
(Table 2), are examined here in order to investigate the effect of
the number of: (a) hinge joints and (b) mooring lines on the performance of cable-moored floating arrays of breakwaters connected
with hinges. Twenty-one (21) or more wave frequencies are examined, where the non-dimensional wave length ratio B/L varies from
0.1 to 1.5, for each case examined assuming normal incident wave
conditions.
5.1. Response
The variation of (Eq. (28)) versus x, across the length of the
array of floating breakwaters, is plotted in Fig. 6(a)(c) for three
representative wave frequencies B/L = 0.3, 0.6 and 1.1 respectively; where L is the corresponding wave length. According to this
figure, a drastic reduction is observed for the values of when
B/L = 0.6 (Fig. 6(b)) and B/L = 1.1 (Fig. 6(c)) in comparison
to the respective values of when B/L = 0.3 (Fig. 6(a)). This is
attributed to the significantly lower amplitude levels of the exciting loads, X3 and/or X7 , observed for all configurations for B/L =
0.6 and 1.1 (variation of the exciting loads is representatively

Table 2
Characteristics of the configurations CkA or CkB (k = 0, . . . , 3).
Configuration

Number of
hinge joints H

Number of
floating
modules FB
(FB = H + 1)

Length of floating
module
Ls (Ls = Lf /FB m)

C 0A
C 1A
C 2A or C 2B
C 3A

0
1
2
3

1
2
3
4

20.00
10.00
6.67
5.00

shown here for configuration C 1A in Fig. 7) compared to the

respective ones computed for B/L = 0.3.
Moreover, Fig. 6(a)(c) depicts the visible effect of the
total number of hinge joints, H, introduced upon the vertical
translations of the array. In more detail, increase of H leads to
either increase or reduction of depending on the value of x for all
configurations CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3). The variation of across the
length of the array can be: (a) significant for B/L = 0.3 (Fig. 6(a)
and (b)) mediocre for B/L = 0.6 (Fig. 6(b)) and (c) minimal for
B/L = 1.1.
Fig. 8(a) and (b) presents the effect of the variation of hinge
joints upon the vertical translations of the CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3)
arrays as a function of the parameter B/L, at the bow, x = Lf /2,
(Fig. 8(a)) and in the middle, x = 0 m, (Fig. 8(b)) of the various
arrays. Similarly to Fig. 6(a)(c), Fig. 8(a) and (b) demonstrates the
significant effect of the total number of the hinge joints on the
response of the array for B/L 0.9. Moreover, considering Fig. 8(a)
and (b) it is obvious that the increase of the total number of hinge
joints can result to increase or decrease of values depending on
both the combination of: (i) the B/L, and (ii) the position along the
longitudinal axis of the array. This fact is attributed to variation of:
(i) phase difference of modes contributing to vertical motions for
different B/L values (relevant results are representatively shown
for configuration C 2A in Fig. 10) and (ii) generalized hinge modes
fj (q) for j 7 along the length of the floating array (Fig. 2).
Furthermore, significant decrease of is observed for B/L 0.9,
attributed to the drastic decrease of exciting loads contributing to
vertical translations, X3 and/or X7 (X2 and X4 do not contribute to
vertical translations), for B/L 0.9 (Fig. 7).
Fig. 9(a) and (b) demonstrates the variation of versus B/L at the
bow and in the middle of C 2A and C 2B, which are different only
in terms of the number of restraining mooring lines. Obviously,
an increasing number of restraining mooring lines hardly has a

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

1543

Fig. 5. Description of the configurations (a) C 0A, (b) C 1A, (c) C 2A, (d) C 2B and (e) C 3A (_ _ _ denotes the position of hinge joints and . . . . . . denotes position of mooring lines).

Fig. 6. versus x corresponding to (a) B/L = 0.3, (b) B/L = 0.6 and (c) B/L = 1.1.

1544

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Fig. 7. Xj (j = 2, 3, 4 and 7) versus B/L corresponding to C 1A.

minimal effect on which is observed mainly for 0.3 B/L

0.45. This is attributed to the combined effect of: (i) different values
of phase difference of 3 and 7 modes calculated when 0.3
B/L 0.45 (Fig. 10) and (ii) significant values of amplitudes of
3 and 7 modes (which contribute to vertical motions) for 0.3
B/L 0.45 (Fig. 12(b) and (d)).
Fig. 11(a)(d) shows the variation of sway (RAO2 ), heave
(RAO3 ), roll (RAO4 ) for CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3) versus B/L and
generalized hinge modes (RAOj for j 7, 9) for CkA (with k
values indicated in Fig. 11(d)); while Fig. 12(a)(d) shows the

variation of RAO2 , RAO3 , RAO4 and RAO7 versus B/L for C 2A and
C 2B configurations. It is observed that all configurations exhibit
a peak value of RAO4 when B/L = 0.34 (Figs. 11(c) and 12(c)).
Besides, the intense decrease of RAO2 for B/L = 0.34 (Figs. 11(a)
and 12(a)) is associated with the intense increase of RAO4 values
(Figs. 11(c) and 12(c)). This behavior is attributed to the strong
coupling between sway and roll modes due to presence of mooring
lines. In more detail, the aforesaid coupling leads to an increased
effect of sway behavior on roll behavior and vice versa at the wave
frequencies that peak values are exhibited. C 2A demonstrates
significantly higher RAO3 for B/L 0.3 compared to the rest
configurations plotted in Fig. 11(b). It can be also been shown that
increase of hinge modes leads to increase or decrease of all modal
amplitudes depicted depending on the B/L value (Fig. 11(a)(d)).
It should also be mentioned that RAO3 and RAO9 of C 3A exhibit
similar patterns of variation. This happens because for C 3A, X9 = 0
(Fig. 13), and thus, motion of 9 mode occurs due to radiation
effect activated by motion of 3 mode. Moreover, considering
Fig. 12 (a)(c), it can be shown that the introduction of two
supplementary mooring lines in the middle of the array consisting
of three floating breakwaters mainly affects RAO2 , RAO4 and RAO7 .
In particular, increase of mooring lines leads to decrease of RAO2
and RAO7 , especially for B/L 0.35, whereas it causes increase
of RAO4 . Finally, all modal responses exhibit noticeable decrease
for B/L 0.9 (Figs. 11(a)(d) and 12(a)(d)), which is in complete
accordance with the decrease of exciting loads computed for this
frequency range (Fig. 7).

Fig. 8. versus B/L for CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3) configurations (a) at the bow and (b) in the middle of the array.

Fig. 9. versus B/L for C 2A and C 2B configurations (a) at the bow and (b) in the middle of the array.

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Fig. 10. Phase difference of 3 and 7 versus B/L for C 2A and C 2B configurations.

1545

joints is associated with snapping phenomena (Tst < Tdyn ) which

are observed for 0.3 B/L 0.4; namely the region of high RAO4
values (Figs. 11(c) and 12(c)). The peak RAO4 values observed for
the aforesaid B/L values (Fig. 11(c)) lead to peak values of Tdyn and
consequently to peak values Ttot . Moreover, it can be seen that the
higher the RAO4 peak value is, the higher is the Tdyn or Ttot level
for bow or stern mooring lines (this statement is not valid for the
mooring lines located in the middle of C2B since pitch motion has
no effect in the middle of the array). Besides, there is no chance for
the total tensions to exceed breaking tension, since the maximum
ratio of the breaking tension to the total tension observed is equal
to 0.089 (Ttot /Tbreak = 0.089). The lower Ttot levels are exhibited
by C 0A configuration; thus it can be claimed that hinge joints lead
to increase of Ttot (Fig. 14(c)). Besides, increase of the number of
mooring line leads to higher Ttot levels. As regards C2B, the most
heavily loaded mooring lines are the ones located in the middle
of the array (Fig. 15(a)) since they correspond to larger area of
effect.

5.2. Static and dynamic tensions of mooring lines

5.3. Effectiveness

Fig. 14 shows the variation of the static (Tst ), the dynamic (Tdyn )
and total tensions (Ttot = Tst + Tdyn ) tensions versus B/L at the top
(fairlead) of the mooring lines. These forces are exercised either on
the front mooring lines (y = 2 m, Fig. 1) or back mooring lines
(y = 2 m, Fig. 1). Obviously, the front mooring lines are the most
heavily loaded compared to the back mooring lines (Fig. 14(a) and
(b)), due to the action of incident waves in the normal direction.
According to Figs. 14(a), (b) and 15(a), (b) the presence of hinge

The effectiveness of the floating array discussed in this

subsection is expressed in terms of Kb (Eq. (29)) and Kbav (Eq. (30)).
The wave elevation, in all cases, is calculated at the field points
with coordinates ranging within x = Lf /2, . . . , Lf /2 m and y =
B/2, . . . , Lf m in the rear of the floating array according to the
definition of the body coordinate system depicted in Fig. 1. For each
configuration CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3), C 2A and C 2B examined,
the effectiveness is calculated considering the complete problem

Fig. 11. Modal responses RAOj (j = 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9) versus B/L corresponding to CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3) configurations.

1546

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Fig. 12. Modal responses RAOj (j = 2, 3, 4 and 7) versus B/L corresponding to C 2A and C 2B configurations.

Fig. 13. Exciting loads Xj (j = 2, 3, 4 and 7) versus B/L corresponding to C 2A and

C 2B configurations.

(i.e. considering both diffraction and radiation). The effect of

diffracted waves on the effectiveness is also discussed separately.
Fig. 16 depicts the variation of the non-dimensional efficiency
parameter Kb with y (x = 0 m) for three representative wave frequencies of the low (0.1 B/L 0.4), middle (0.4 < B/L < 0.9)
and high (0.9 B/L 1.5) wave frequency ranges corresponding to B/L values equal to 0.3, 0.6 and 1.1. Obviously, the efficiency
parameter Kb corresponding to the diffracted waves, namely Kbd , is
the same for all configurations examined (Figs. 16 and 17) due to
the identical geometry of all configurations examined. Thus, any

differences observed among Kb patterns are exclusively attributed

to the effect of radiation waves caused by the motion of the floating
breakwaters.
Regarding B/L = 0.3 (low wave frequency range), it is shown
that the variation of all Kb patterns is quite different from the
variation of the pattern corresponding to Kbd (Figs. 16(a) and
17(a)). This statement proves the intense effect of radiation
waves on the effectiveness for all configurations examined in the
aforementioned figures (Figs. 6, 11 and 12). The configurations
performing the highest effectiveness among all CkA (k = 0, 1, 2
and 3) configurations, are C 0A and C 3A; the former configuration
for 2.5 m y 7.5 m and the latter 7.5 m y 20 m. On the
contrary, the effectiveness performed by C 1A is inadequate, since
for y 8 m it holds Kb 1.0 as shown in Fig. 16(a). The reason that
C 1A exhibits inadequate effectiveness is attributed to the fact that
C 1A exhibits the highest (Fig. 6(a)), RAO3 (Fig. 11(b)) and RAO4
(Fig. 11(c)) values.
As far as for B/L = 0.6 (middle wave frequency range), all CkA
(k = 0, 1, 2 and 3) configurations exhibit acceptable levels of performance. In more detail, C 3A appears to be the most effective configuration for 2.5 m y 4.5 m and 7.0 m y 20.0 m whereas
C 0A or C 1A are the most effective configurations for 4.5 m y
7.0 m. A clear resemblance among Kb patterns of C 0A and C 1A is
observed, since low and very similar levels of response have been
calculated for B/L = 0.6 (Fig. 6(b)).
Finally, for B/L = 1.1 (high wave frequency range), the
variation of Kb is of similar trends with the variation of Kbd
(Fig. 16(c)), given the reduced contribution of radiation effect on
the effectiveness due to extremely low response levels (Figs. 6(c)
and 11). The Kb patterns of all CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3) are almost

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

1547

Fig. 14. Variation of: (a) Tst and Tdyn for front lines, (b) Tst and Tdyn for back lines and (c) Ttot as function of B/L at the top of the front mooring lines corresponding to CkA
(k = 0, 1, 2 and 3) configurations.

Fig. 15. Variation of: (a) Tst and Tdyn for front mooring lines and (b) maximum Ttot as function of B/L at the top of the front mooring lines corresponding to C 2A and C 2B
configurations.

1548

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Fig. 16. Kb and Kbd versus y (x = 0 m) for (a) B/L = 0.3, (b) B/L = 0.6 and (c) B/L = 1.1 corresponding to CkA (k = 0, 1, 2 and 3) configurations.

Fig. 17. Kb and Kbd versus y (x = 0 m) for (a) B/L = 0.3, (b) B/L = 0.6 and (c) B/L = 1.1 corresponding to C 2A and C 2B configurations.

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

Fig. 18. Variation of Kb in the rear of the array of floating breakwaters for (a) C 2A
and (b) C 2B considering B/L = 0.3.

identical as are also the low response levels. All configurations of

Fig. 16(c) exhibit adequate effectiveness irrespective of the hinge
joints introduced.
According to Fig. 17(a)(c), an increasing number of mooring
lines has a direct effect on the effectiveness only for B/L = 0.3 (low
wave frequency range, Figs. 17(a), 18 and 19), where the effect of
radiation caused by heave motion is significant (Figs. 9(a), (b) and
12(b)) as opposed to B/L = 0.6 (middle wave frequency range,
Fig. 17(b)) or B/L = 1.1 (high wave frequency range, Fig. 17(c)).
In Fig. 20(a) the variation of Kb,av versus B/L is plotted
for CkA (k = 0, 1, 2, 3) configurations. Regarding the low wave
frequency range, C 1A configuration demonstrates unacceptable
effectiveness, since for 0.1 B/L 0.3Kb 1.
The rest of CkA configurations, namely C 0A, C 2A and C 3A
perform acceptable level of effectiveness (Kb < 1.0) and each of
them can be the most effective configuration depending on the
B/L value (i.e. C 3A and C 2A appear to be the most effective
configurations for 0.1 B/L 0.17 and 0.17 B/L 0.32
respectively). As far as the middle and high wave frequency
ranges are concerned, all CkA configurations exhibit significant
improvement of the effectiveness. In more detail, C 0A and C 3A
are the most effective configurations for 0.4 B/L 0.5 and
0.5 B/L 0.9 respectively, whereas for 0.9 B/L 1.5 all
configurations exhibit almost identical level of effectiveness due
to reduced response levels (Figs. 6(c), 8(a), (b) and 11(a)(d)). The
effect of the number of hinge joints is apparent only in the low
and middle wave frequency ranges due to either high or mediocre
response levels (Figs. 6(a), (b), 8(a), (b) and 11(a)(d)). Finally,
Fig. 20(b) depicts the variation of K,b,av versus B/L for C 2A and

Fig. 19. Kb contours for (a) C 2A and (b) C 2B considering B/L = 0.3 (the dotted lines indicate the mooring lines).

1549

Fig. 20. Kb,av versus B/L corresponding to configurations (a) CKA for k = 0, 1, 2, 3 and (b) C 2A and C 2B.

1550

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

C 2B configurations. According to this figure, it can be seen that

the effect of the number of mooring lines on the effectiveness is
noticeable only in the low wave frequency range, where increasing
the number of mooring lines can have a positive or negative
influence on the effectiveness, depending on the B/L value. The
aforesaid statement is also apparent considering Figs. 18 and 19.
6. Conclusions
In the present investigation, the overall performance of a cablemoored array of floating breakwaters connected by hinges is
investigated under the action of monochromatic linear waves in
the frequency domain. The numerical analysis of the array is based
on a 3D hydrodynamic formulation of the floating body coupled
with the static and dynamic analysis of the mooring lines.
The motions of the array of floating breakwaters due to the
hinge vertical translations are considered in the hydrodynamic
analysis with the implementation of appropriate generalized
modes. The stiffness and damping coefficients caused by the
mooring lines in both rigid and generalized degrees of freedom are
derived here in general form. A rigorous parametric study is carried
out in order to investigate the effect of different configurations,
namely number of hinge joints and number of mooring lines, on the
performance of the cable-moored array of floating breakwaters.
The main conclusions generated by this research are:
1. A strong dependence of the arrays response on the number
of hinge joints is exhibited, mainly in the case of low and
middle wave frequency ranges. Increasing the number of hinge
joints can either increase or decrease response level depending
on the combination of both the wave frequency parameter
B/L and the position along the longitudinal axis of the array.
Vertical translations exhibit high variation in the low wave
frequency range, and this variation becomes smoother for an
increasing wave frequency. All modes exhibit a drastic decrease
of response in the high wave frequency range.
2. An increasing number of restraining mooring lines has a small
effect on the vertical translations and the modal responses
confined in the low wave frequency range.
3. The presence of hinge joints is associated with snapping
phenomena and higher level of dynamic and, consequently,
total tensions in the mooring lines. These phenomena are
confined around some B/L values in the low wave frequency
range. Proper choice of dimension B can overcome this problem.
4. Variations of the effectiveness among all configurations examined are attributed to the radiation effect, since the diffracted
waves are not affected by neither the number of hinge joints nor
the number of mooring lines. Radiation effect is more intense
in the low and middle wave frequency range, where higher response levels have been computed.
5. The number of hinge joints strongly affects the array effectiveness in both the low and middle wave frequency ranges. The
number of mooring lines affects the array effectiveness in the
low wave frequency range. Moreover, an increasing number of
hinge joints or mooring lines can have a positive or negative influence on the effectiveness, depending on the wave frequency
ratio B/L.
6. Based on all the above, for a given range of dominant wave
frequencies the proper combination of dimension B, number of
hinge joints and number of mooring lines has to be determined.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable
comments and suggestions.

Appendix. Definitions of mooring lines stiffness coefficients

for an array of floating breakwaters connected with hinges
A.1. Stiffness coefficients (K5jm )H for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6

MY

=
{a [(ZP Zo ) fX
Xo
Xo
([XP Xo X
VR ) fZ ]}

fX
a (ZP Zo )
Xo
]
fZ
(XP Xo XVR )
Xo
m
m
a [(ZP Zo ) K11
(XP Xo XVR ) K31
]
m
m
m
a [(ZP Zo ) K11 (XP Xo ) K31 + XVR K31
]
m
m
a (K51
+ XVR K31
)
(A.1.1)

m
(K51
)H =

=
=
=

MY
=
{a [(ZP Zo ) fX
Yo
Yo
([XP Xo X
VR ) fZ ]}

fX
a (ZP Zo )
Yo
]
fZ
(XP Xo XVR )
Yo
m
m
a [(ZP Zo ) K12
(XP Xo XVR ) K32
]
m
m
m
a [(ZP Zo ) K12 (XP Xo ) K32 + XVR K32
]
m
m
a (K52
+ XVR K32
)
(A.1.2)

m
(K52
)H =

=
=
=

MY
=
{a [(ZP Zo ) fX
Zo
Zo
([XP Xo X
VR ) fZ ]}

fX
a (ZP Zo )
ZO
]
fZ
(XP Xo XVR )
ZO
m
m
(XP Xo XVR ) K33
]
a [(ZP Zo ) K13
m
m
m
a [(ZP Zo ) K13
(XP Xo ) K33
+ XVR K33
]
m
m
a (K53 + XVR K33 )
(A.1.3)

m
(K53
)H =

=
=
=

MY
=
{a [(ZP Zo ) fX
X
X
([XP Xo XVR ) fZ ]}

fX
a f X
(ZP Zo ) (ZP Zo )
X
X
]

fZ
+ fZ
(XP Xo XVR ) + (XP Xo XVR )
X
[ X

ZP
m
a f X
0 (ZP Zo ) K14
X

]
XP
m
+ fZ
0 0 + (XP Xo XVR ) K34
X
[

lZ
m
a f X
(ZP Zo ) K14

]
lX
m
+ fZ
+ (XP Xo XVR ) K34
X
m
m
a (K54
+ XVR K34
)
(A.1.4)
MY

=
{a [(ZP Zo ) fX
Y
Y
([XP Xo XVR ) fZ ]}

fX
a f X
(ZP Zo ) (ZP Zo )
Y
X

+ fZ
(XP Xo XVR )
Y

m
(K54
)H =

=
m
(K55
)H =

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

]
fZ
+ (XP Xo XVR )
[

Y
ZP
m
= a f X
0 (ZP Zo ) K15
Y

]
XP
m
+ fZ
0 0 + (XP Xo XVR ) K35
[ Y

lZ
m
= a fX
(ZP Zo ) K15

Y
]

lX
m
+ (XP Xo XVR ) K35
+ fZ
Y
m
m
= a (K55 + XVR K35
)
(A.1.5)

MY
=
{a [(ZP Zo ) fX
Z
Z
([XP Xo XVR ) fZ ]}

fX
a fX
(ZP Zo ) (ZP Zo )
Z
Z
]

fZ
+ fZ
(XP Xo XVR ) + (XP Xo XVR )
Y
[ Z

ZP
m
a f X
0 (ZP Zo ) K16

Z
]
XP
m
0 0 + (XP Xo XVR ) K36
+ fZ

[
Z
lZ
m
(ZP Zo ) K16
a fX

]
lX
m
+ (XP Xo XVR ) K36
+ fZ
Z
m
m
a (K56
+ XVR K36
).
(A.1.6)

m
(K56
)H =

A.2. Stiffness coefficients (Kim

,6+h )H for i = 1, 2, . . . , 6

fX
=
(Tst cos cos )
Zh
Zh
m
m
= ch K13

(A.2.1)

fY
=
(Tst cos sin )
Zh
Zh
m
m
= ch K23

(A.2.2)

fZ

=
(Tst sin )
Zh
Zh
m
m
= ch K33

(A.2.3)

(K1m,6+h )H =

(K2m,6+h )H =

(K3m,6+h )H =

MX

[(YP Yo ) fZ (ZP Zo ) fY ]
=
Zh
Zh
m
m
= (YP Yo ) K37 (ZP Zo ) K27
Tst cos sin chm
m
= chm (K43
Tst cos sin )
(A.2.4)

(K4m,6+h )H =

MY
Zh

=
[a (ZP Zo ) fX a(XP Xo XVR ) fZ ]
Zh
m
= a Tst cos cos chm + a (ZP Zo ) (K17
)H
m
a (XP Xo XVR ) (K37 )H
m
m
= a chm (K53
+ XVR K13
+ Tst cos cos )
(A.2.5)

(K5m,6+h )H =

MZ

=
[(XP Xo ) fY (YP Yo ) fX ]
Zh
Zh
m
m
= (XP Xo ) (K27 )H (YP Yo ) (K17
)H
m
= chm K63
.
(A.2.6)

(K6m,6+h )H =

1551

A.3. Stiffness coefficients (K6m+h,j )H for j = 1, 2, . . . , 6 + H

fZ
m
m
= (K31
)H = K31
Xo
fZ
m
m
(K6m+h,2 )H =
= (K32
)H = K32
Yo
fZ
m
m
= (K33
)H = K33
(K6m+h,3 )H =
Zo
fZ
m
m
= (K34
)H = K34
(K6m+h,4 )H =
X
fZ
m
m
(K6m+h,5 )H =
= (K35
)H = K35
Y
fZ
m
m
= (K36
)H = K36
(K6m+h,6 )H =
Z
fZ
m
= (K3m,6+h )H = chm K33
.
(K6m+h,6+h )H =
Zh
(K6m+h,1 )H =

(A.3.1)
(A.3.2)
(A.3.3)
(A.3.4)
(A.3.5)
(A.3.6)
(A.3.7)

References
[1] McCartney M, Bruce L. Floating breakwater design. J Waterway Port Coastal
Ocean Eng 1985;111(2):30417.
[2] Werner G. Experiences with floating breakwaters, a literature review. Bull
Permanent Int Assoc Navigation Cong 1988;2330. No 63.
[3] Cammaert AB, Morey B, Lesley L, Warren T. The development of a design
manual for floating breakwaters in the Atlantic environment. Ocean Eng Res
Centre 1994, Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland, St. Johns, Newfoundland.
Rept. No. TR-FIS-94002.
[4] Isaacson M. Hydrodynamic coefficients of floating breakwaters. In: 11th
Canadian hydrotechnical conference, vol. 1. 1993. p. 48594.
[5] Isaacson M, Nwogu O. Wave loads and motions of long structures in directional
seas. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng ASME 1987;109(2):12632.
[6] Isaacson M, Bhat S. Analysis of moored floating breakwaters. In: Annual
conference of the Canadian society for civil engineering, vol. 1. 1996.
p. 61019.
[7] Bhat S. Performance of twin-pontoon floating breakwaters. Ph.D. thesis.
Vancouver (Canada): Department of civil engineering, University of British
Columbia; 1998.
[8] Bhat S, Isaacson M. Performance of twin-pontoon floating breakwater. In:
ISOPE 1998, eighth international conference of offshore and polar engineering.
vol. 3, 1998. p. 58490.
[9] Williams AN, Abul-Azm AG. Dual pontoon floating breakwater. Ocean Eng
1997;24(8):46578.
[10] Williams AN, Geiger PT, McDougal WG. Flexible floating breakwater.
J Waterway Port, Coastal Ocean Eng 1991;17(8):42950.
[11] Fugazza M, Natale L. Energy losses and floating breakwater response. J Waterw
1988;114(2):191205. Port, Coastal Ocean Div, Am Soc Civ Eng.
[12] Garrison CG. Interaction of oblique waves with an infinite cylinder. Appl Ocean
Res 1984;6:415.
[13] Sannasiraj SA, Sundar V, Sundaravadivelu R. Mooring forces and motion
responses of pontoon-type floating breakwaters. Ocean Eng 1998;25(1):
2748.
[14] Lee J, Cho W. Hydrodynamic analysis of wave interactions with a moored
floating breakwater using the element-free Galerkin method. Can J Civ Eng
2003;30(7):72033.
[15] Drimer N, Agnon Y, Stiassnie M. A simplified analytical model for a floating
breakwater in water of finite depth. Appl Ocean Res 1992;14:3341.
[16] Loukogeorgaki E, Angelides DC. Stiffness of mooring lines and performance
of floating breakwaters in three dimensions. Appl Ocean Res 2005;27(45):
187208.
[17] Diamantoulaki I, Loukogeorgaki E, Angelides DC. 3D analysis of free and
moored twin-pontoon floating breakwaters. In: 17th international offshore
(ocean) and polar engineering conference 2007. p. 251522.
[18] Briggs M, Ye W, Demirbilek Z, Zhang J. Comparison of hydrodynamic
parameters for a floating breakwater. In: First international symposium on
monitoring of breakwaters, ASCE. 1999. p. 3751.
[19] Betts CV, Bishop RED, Price WG. The symmetric generalised fluid forces applied
to a ship in a seaway. Trans R Inst Nav Archit 1977;199:26578.
[20] Bishop RED, Price WG. The generalised antisymmetric fluid forces applied to a
ship in a seaway. Internat Shipbuild Progress 1977;24:314.
[21] Faltinsen OM, Zhao R. Numerical predictions of ship motions at high forward
speed. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, Ser A 1991;334:24152.
[22] Jensen JJ, Mansour AE. Estimation of the long-term wave-induced bending
moment in ships using closed-form expressions. Trans R Inst Naval Archit
2002;144:415.

1552

I. Diamantoulaki, D.C. Angelides / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15361552

[23] Jensen, Pedersen. Wave-induced bending moments in ships a quadratic

theory. Trans R Inst Naval Archit 1979;121:15165.
[24] Song JZ, Ren HL, Dai YS. Hydroelastic analysis of non-linear wave-induced
loads of ship hull. Shipbuilding of China; 1994.
[25] Price WG, Wu YS. Structural responses of a SWATH of multi-hulled vessel
traveling in waves international conference on SWATH ships and advanced
multi-hulled vessels. London: Royal Institution of Naval Architects; 1985.
[26] Bishop RED, Price WG, Wu Y. A general linear hydroelasticity theory of floating
structures moving in a seaway. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, A 1986;316.
[27] Fu YN, Price WG, Temarel P. The dry and wet towage of a jack-up in regular
and irregular waves. Trans R Inst Naval Archit 1987;129:14959.
[28] Liu XD, Sakai S. Nonlinear analysis on the interaction of waves and flexible
floating structure. In: 10th international offshore and polar engineering
conference. 2000. p. 1018.
[29] Wu YS, Maeda H, Kinoshita T. The second order hydrodynamic actions on
flexible body. J Inst Ind Sci 1997;49(7):819. University of Tokyo.
[30] Chen XJ, Wu YS, Cui WC, Shen Q. Second order nonlinear hydroelastic analyses
of floating bodiestheory. J Ship Mech 2002;6(7):3344.
[31] Bishop RED, Price WG. Hydroelasticity of ships. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1979.
[32] Gran SA. Course in ocean engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992.
[33] Newman JN. Wave effects on deformable bodies. Appl Ocean Res 1994;16:
4759.
[34] Du SX. A complete frequency domain analysis method of linear threedimensional hydroelastic responses of floating structures travelling in waves.
Ph.D. thesis. Wuxi (China): China Ship Scientific Research Center; 1996.
[35] Fu S, Moan T, Chen X, Cui W. Hydroelastic analysis of flexible floating
interconnected structures. Ocean Eng 2007;34:151631.
[36] Riggs HR, Ertekin RC. Approximate methods for dynamic response of multimodule floating structures. Marine Struct 1993;6(23):11741.
[37] Newman JN, Maniar HD, Lee CH. Analysis of wave effects for very large floating
structures VLFS96. Hayama (Japan); 1996. p. 13542.
[38] Price WG, Salas-Inzunza M, Temarel P. Behavior of large type structures in
waves VLFS96. Hayama (Japan); p. 17382.
[39] Kashiwagi M. A hierarchical interaction theory for wave forces on a large
number of elementary bodies of a semi-sub type VLFS. In: Proceedings of 14th
ocean engineering symposium 1998. p. 42531.
[40] Yan HM, Cui WC, Liu YZ. Hydroelastic analysis of very large floating structures
using plate Green functions. China Ocean Eng 2003;17(2):15162.

[41] Chen XJ, Wu YS, Cui WC, Jensen JJ. Review of hydroelasticity theories for global
response. Ocean Eng 2006;33:43957.
[42] Abul-Azm AG. Wave diffraction by double, flexible breakwaters. Appl Ocean
Res 1994;16:8799.
[43] Diamantoulaki I, Angelides DC, Manolis GD. Performance of pile-restrained
flexible floating breakwaters. Appl Ocean Res 2008;30:24355.
[44] Manolis GD, Diamantoulaki I, Angelides DC. Final fluidsoilstructureinteraction: rigid and flexible, pile-supported platforms subjected to tsunami
waves. In: 2nd south-east european conference on computational mechanics.
2009.
[45] Lee CH, Newman JN. An assessment of hydroelasticity for very large hinged
vessels. J Fluids Struct 2000;14:95770.
[46] Diamantoulaki I, Angelides DC. Three-dimensional formulation of pilerestrained floating breakwaters connected by hinges. In: 19th international
offshore (ocean) and polar engineering conference 2009.
[47] Diamantoulaki I, Angelides DC. Analysis of performance of hinged floating
breakwaters. Eng Struct 2010;32(11):240723.
[48] Loukogeorgaki E, Angelides DC. Stiffness of mooring lines and performance
of floating breakwaters in three dimensions. Appl Ocean Res 2006;27(45):
187208.
[49] Chakrabarti SK, Cotter DC. Motions of articulated towers and moored floating
structures. In: 7th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic
engineering 1988.
[50] Martinelli L, Ruol P, Zanuttigh B. Wave basin experiments on floating
breakwaters with different layouts. Appl Ocean Res 2008;30:199207.
[51] Johanning L, Smith GH. Improved measurement technologies for floating wave
energy converter (WEC) mooring arrangements. Underwater Technol 2008;
27(7):17584.
[52] Bhat S. Performance of twin-pontoon floating breakwaters. Ph.D. thesis.
Vancouver (Canada): Department of civil engineering, University of British
Columbia; 1998.
[53] Williams AN, Lee HS, Huang Z. Floating pontoon breakwaters. Ocean Eng 2000;
27(3):22140.
[54] Lee CH. WAMIT theory manual. MIT report 95-2. Dept of ocean eng, MIT; 1995.
[55] Newman JN. Marine hydrodynamics. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1977.
[56] Triantafyllou MS. Preliminary design of mooring systems. J Ship Res 1982;
26(1):2535.
[57] Triantafyllou MS, Bliek A, Shin H. Static and fatigue analysis of multi-leg
mooring systems. Technical report. MIT Press; 1986.