Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
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
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
1537
h = 1, . . . , H
(1)
(2a)
j = 8, 10, . . . , 2
6+H
]
(2b)
j = 9, 11, . . . , 2
6+H
(2c)
(3a)
j = 8, 10, . . . , 2
7+H
(3b)
j = 9, 11, . . . , 2
7+H
2
(3c)
1538
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].
|7 + H j|
2
(4)
Yo
Zo
Z1
Z2
...
ZH ]
(5)
(6)
YP
ZP ]
YPO
ZPO ].
(7)
(8)
cos Y cos Z
T = cos Y sin Z
sin Z
1539
(9)
Box I.
lX cos
= lX sin
=
lZ
l cos cos
= l cos sin
l sin
XA XP
YA YP
ZA ZP
(17)
X =
Xo
Zo +
Yo
Zhm
(10)
h=1
(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
(13)
st = st (l)
(14)
(15)
lY = lY (X),
K=
Km =
m=1
Zhm
Zhm = cm
h Zh
lZ = lZ (X).
(16)
m=1
Fm
X
(18)
(19a)
where
(19b)
(19c)
(19d)
(19e)
(19f)
(19g)
(20)
1540
(21a)
(21b)
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
j =1
j = 1, 2, . . . , 6 and h = 1, 2, . . . , H
j = 7, . . . , 6 + h and h = 1, 2, . . . , H .
(21g)
= D + r = (o + 7 ) + r
(22)
(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)
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),
+ BEij(V )
E (D)
where Bij
(25)
Bij
(26)
|j |
A
j = 1, . . . , 6 + H
(27)
|tot (q) |
A
H +1
2
H +1
2
(28)
(x, y)
A
(y > 0)
(29)
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)
(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)
+
ch 6+h sin(a6+h )
i
(31c)
h=1
(32a)
QZ = ZCR + ZCI i
(32b)
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)
(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 =
(38)
1542
(Szx )R + (Szx )I i
R
R
I
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
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)
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
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
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.
Fig. 10. Phase difference of 3 and 7 versus B/L for C 2A and C 2B configurations.
1545
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
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
Fig. 12. Modal responses RAOj (j = 2, 3, 4 and 7) versus B/L corresponding to C 2A and C 2B configurations.
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
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.
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.
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
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 =
]
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 =
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
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
[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.