Experimental and Numerical Methods For The Prediction of Wave Loads in Extreme Sea Conditions

D.
I.
V.
Dipartimento di Ingegneria NAVale Academic Year 2010/2011
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions.
Supervisor Prof. Ing. Stefano Brizzolara Co-supervisors Prof. Ing. Claire De Marco - University of Malta Prof. Ing. Tonio Sant - University of Malta
Candidate: Umberto Ghisaura
Ad Angelina, Giancarlo, Stefano e Riccardo
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES I III
ABSTRACT 1 Experimental and Numerical Analysis of the Wave Loads on a Floating Wind Turbine Platform in Extreme Sea Conditions 1 INTRODUCTION Survey of word offshore wind energy plants Main features of the current offshore plants DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM Typology of the structure Geometry of the platform Environmental conditions MODEL CONSTRUCTION Selection of Scale Construction and junction materials Machine working and assembly WAVE TANK Wave Period Wave Height Regularity and Turbulence of the waves Standing wave WAVE SAMPLING Generating Waves Experimental Wave Profile Control LOAD CELLS AND DATA ACQUISITION Load Cells Calibration On-Site Data Acquisition System System of axis Geometry of the External Structure CONSERVATION LAWS OF FLUID FLOW Governing equations of fluid flow Mass conservation in three dimensions Rates of change following a fluid particle and for a fluid element Momentum equation in three dimensions Navier-Stokes equations for a Newtonian fluid I Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova 2 2 2 4 8 8 9 11 11 13 13 14 14 15 17 19 21 21 32 38 38 39 41 42 42 43 43 44 46 47 50
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions Conservative form of the governing equations of fluid flow Differential and integral forms of the general transport equations THE FINITE VOLUME METHOD Step 1: Grid generation Step 2: Discretization Step 3: Solution of equations MAIN FEATURES OF THE MESH Physic models Control Volume and Mesh refinement WAVES REPRESENTATION Free Surface Definition and VoF Theory Progressive Waves COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Comparison between simulations and tank tests Spline Interpolation of the height. Analysis of experimental non dimensionalized data. Vertical Force Horizontal Force Pitch Moment CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS LEGEND REFERENCES 52 52 55 56 56 58 59 59 60 62 62 63 65 65 75 77 77 81 87 91 93 94
II Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Wave Theories Graph Figure 2: Generated Wave Order Figure 3: Wave Sampling - Wave Length vs. Period Figure 4: Wave Sampling - Wave Height vs. Period Figure 5: Wave Sampling - H/L vs. Period Figure 6: Wave Sampling - Wave Height vs. Crank Length Figure 10: KLC1 Calibration Figure 11: KLC2 Calibration Figure 12: KLC3 Calibration Figure 13: Sawtooth test 25 26 27 28 29 30 39 40 40 41
III Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
ABSTRACT
Experimental and Numerical Analysis of the Wave Loads on a Floating Wind Turbine Platform in Extreme Sea Conditions
The aim of the research was to characterise the hydrodynamic surge, heave and pitch forces of a floating wind turbine semi-submerged tension leg platform. A series of experimental measurements on a 1/100th scaled model were undertaken and the results were compared with those obtained from a numerical RANSE model. Relevance and innovation consisted in using a model strictly close to reality during experimental tests, and in using non-linear waves both in the wave tank and with the state-of-the-art RANSE solver. The geometry of the structure consisted of four cylindrical bodies joined to a central large cylinder (5 meters diameter, 20 meters length) which supported the wind turbine tower by means of eight tubular connections (3.3 meters diameter, 12.3 meters length). Each body was composed of one cylinder (7.8 meters diameter, 20 meters length) with a further larger cylindrical body (9 meters diameter, 7.8 height) to increase the stability. The study concentrated on the prediction of non-linear hydrodynamic forces acting on the complex structure. The scaled model was tested in a water wave maker in a fixed condition. Three separate load cells were used to measure the forces and moment components. A preliminary study was dedicated to the verification of the second and third order Stokes waves obtained with the wave maker by a sampling of the waves measured in the tank for each of the reported test condition. The period of the water waves ranged between 6 seconds and 1.15 seconds, while wave height varied between 3.37 to 10.7 meters. The numerical RANSE model was based on a special non-structured (trimmed type) mesh grid with anisotropic refinement in the three cardinal directions to ensure a good convergence property with a limited expense in terms of total number of cells, while representing the various geometrical details of the structure (such as the connections and the cylinders). Experimental results were compared in a scientific and non-dimensionalized graphic form with RANSE values versus the wave slope (k*H) and the Keulegan-Carpenter number (Kc). Finally, a common engineering law for predicting these forces was identified.
1 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
INTRODUCTION
Survey of word offshore wind energy plants
Europe is the world leader in offshore wind power, with the first offshore wind farm being installed in Denmark in 1991. In 2008, offshore wind power contributed 0.8 GW of the total 28 GW of wind power capacity constructed that year. By October 2009, 26 offshore wind farms had been constructed in Europe with an average rated capacity of 76 MW, and as of 2010 the United Kingdom has by far the largest capacity of offshore wind farms with 1.3 GW, more than the rest of the world combined at 1.1 GW. The UK is followed by Denmark (854 MW), The Netherlands (249 MW), Belgium (195 MW), Sweden (164 MW), Germany (92 MW), Ireland (25 MW), Finland (26 MW) and Norway with 2.3 MW. Based on current orders, BTM, an independent consultancy company specializing in services pertaining to renewable energy, expects 15 GW more between 2010 and 2014.
Main features of the current offshore plants

Current offshore installations are made by high-power units, which allow to exploit better the best offer from the offshore wind resource. The location at sea has the advantage of better wind resources and therefore an higher production of energy. Furthermore it yields less turbulences into the wind and consequently a better durability of mechanical parts. It is not to overlook the higher availability of sites, since the on-shore ones are subjected to saturation, even for the difficult acceptance by the involved people in the installation areas. On the other hand, there is a complex set of static and dynamic forces on the structure and on the
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions turbine which increase the difficulty of the challenge. Sea corrosion, higher wind resources, ice on northern seas, far distances from the ashore which means using relevant electrical equipment are the difficulties you find at the planning stage. During the installation on site, there are procedures of transport, assembly and ready for use settings much more difficult and different than onshore ones; thus times, expenses and dimensions are in a different scale.
Studying floating structures, for the exploitation of wind energy, rise from the will of reducing the environmental impact with the seabed and the needing to move the platform in different places. The structure is done by two essential components: the floating platform with its anchoring system and the wind turbine rigidly bound to the structure. Many kinds of structures have been studied: -Semisub Dutch tri-floater -Barge -Spar-buoy with 2 tiers of guy-wire -3-arm mono-hull -Concrete TLP with gravity anchor -Deep water spart Recently a concept wind farm made by a unique huge floating structure which brings multiple wind turbines has been developed; this would improve the stability of the whole system and easier accessibility for the installation and the maintenance.
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

The idea which gives rise to the joint work of the two Universities is to evaluate the wave loads of an offshore platform in extreme non-linear conditions. In this project the University of Malta offered the wave tank and its competence in the construction of models, while the Universita` degli Studi di Genova shared its proficiency in solving such kind of hydrodynamic problems both in an experimental and numerical way. The wave tank is made up of glass and its dimensions are L1* W1* H1=8m*0.75m*1m. The height of the water level from the seabed in calm water condition is D1=783 mm
Picture 1: Wave tank
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions The wave tank consists of the following components: -one wave generator made by a swinging panel hinged on the bottom of the tank as shown in Picture 2: Swinging Panel
Picture 2: Swinging Panel
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions -one frequency controlled electric motor which moves the panel by a crankshaft as shown in Picture 3: Electric Motor
Picture 3: Electric Motor
-two passive waves absorbers made of rolled up plastic nettings as shown in Picture 4 : Wave Absorber
Picture 4 : Wave Absorber
The equipment for the measurement of the forces is: -3 load cells as shown in Picture 5: Load Cell Setup -2 data acquisition cards in order to change the analogue value into digital -1 analogue signal generator in order to maintain a constant t during the recording of the signal -1 computer for data recording
Picture 5: Load Cell Setup
Picture 6 : Data Acquisition Equipment
The definition of the problem starts choosing: -the typology of the structure -the geometry of the platform -the environmental conditions
Typology of the structure

In order to exploit the traits of the wave tank and the equipment at disposal we decided to carry out fixed body tests on a Semisubmerged Quad-floater. The model must be fixed to the tank by an external structure expressly built. This kind of floating system is anchored to the seabed in reality with four tension legs which must remain in tension also when the platform is in wave trough, and preserve the same distance as the Picture 7: Geometry of the Platform floating structure from the bottom of the sea. Upper connections are semi-submerged in order to enhance the stability with a larger inertia moment. Thus movements of heave, roll and pitch are blocked while surge, sway and yaw are still present. The affinity between the degrees of freedom allowed from the anchoring system and the nature of the measuring system permits us to assimilate one to the other by approximation. Tests will hive us only the wave load data, comprehensive of effects due to reflection on the walls of the tank and the refraction on the body. They are the first step for a possible future development as unfixed model tests.
Geometry of the platform

The main dimensions are determined by designing the semi-submerged platform which fits the 3.6 MW wind turbine designed by General Electric and used for offshore plants. From simple calculations about the GMT and the other Hydrodynamics requirements of the platform, the following dimensions were decided taking into consideration the structural requirements: Overall length=L =36.25m Overall width=W=36.25m Main Cylinder Diameter = 7.5m Main Cylinder Height= 20m Stability Cylinder Diameter=9.0m Stability Cylinder Height=7.6m Connection Arm Diameter=3.4m Connection Arm Length=12.9m =1150 t 8 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions V=1122 m3 ZB=10.6 m ZG=34.55 m x=1.34 m Aw=380 m2 Iy=47046 m4 RT=41.1 m GMt=15.81 m
Environmental conditions
According with the need to design a structure which sustain bad weather and rough seas, we decided to consult a document of the BMT Argoss - Wave Climate in order to decide the main features of the waves approaching the structure. Table 1:Stochastic Mediterranean Sea Wave Data refers to the distribution of significant wave heights versus mean periods, measured with SAR technique in which the direction of propagation is not measured. It is interesting to note that the highest height values (Hs= 5.2 m --- 8 m) are related with the highest values of the mean period (P=8 s --- 11s).
lower upper 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8 total 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage of occurrence of wave height (m) in rows versus mean wave period (s) in columns 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.008 0.871 1.547 0.338 0.06 0.006 0 0 0 1.599 4.414 2.214 0.314 0.055 0 0 0.002 2.17 4.968 3.664 0.942 0.082 0.021 0 0.002 1.793 5.708 4.051 1.365 0.141 0.017 0.002 0 0.541 5.649 4.111 1.58 0.187 0.008 0 0 0.023 4.178 3.902 1.608 0.227 0.004 0 0 0 2.537 3.424 1.481 0.282 0.021 0 0 0 1.15 3.676 1.414 0.371 0.021 0 0 0 0.291 3.403 1.42 0.398 0.015 0 0 0 0.023 2.526 1.466 0.392 0.03 0.002 0 0 0 1.559 1.747 0.36 0.053 0 0 0 0 0.699 1.987 0.377 0.072 0.004 0 0 0 0.2 1.612 0.402 0.074 0.004 0 0 0 0.051 1.252 0.4 0.076 0.004 0 0 0 0.004 0.836 0.506 0.08 0.011 0 0 0 0.002 0.51 0.533 0.076 0.021 0 0 0 0 0.232 0.52 0.072 0.011 0 0 0 0 0.072 0.48 0.099 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.402 0.118 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.008 0.324 0.112 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0.168 0.141 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0.118 0.166 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.12 0.015 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.124 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.108 0.019 0 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.027 0.017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.046 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.008 0.015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.011 6.996 30.466 33.823 19.922 6.788 1.742 0.244 Copyright ARGOSS, October 2010 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.004 0 0 0 0.002 0.002 0 0.008 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.9
lower 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8
total 2.829 8.596 11.849 13.079 12.076 9.942 7.745 6.632 5.528 4.439 3.719 3.139 2.292 1.784 1.437 1.142 0.836 0.66 0.544 0.451 0.31 0.291 0.175 0.147 0.131 0.048 0.059 0.027 0.023 0.023 0.013 0.013 0.008 0.01 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.002 0 100
Table 1:Stochastic Mediterranean Sea Wave Data
The wave length, according with the linear wave theory, for deep water condition is strictly related with the wave period by the dispersion relation: gT 2 = 2 So the range of wave lengths will be:
T1 = 8 1 =
9.81 * (T1 ) 2 = 100 m 2 9.81 * (T2 ) 2 = 188m 2
T2 = 11 2 =
Summarizing we will take cue from this data as to generate our waves both in the tank and in the simulation software
5.2 m < H S < 8m 8s < T < 11s 100m < W < 188m
MODEL CONSTRUCTION
Selection of Scale
From the main dimensions obtained and described in the previous chapter we need to define a scale to represent the project we did with a model which has to fit into the wave tank. On one hand we prefer to avoid by choosing a too big scale: it would mean small forces and an accurate measurement would be very difficult; furthermore the representation of the physical phenomena due to the fluid flow could be different from the reality. On the other hand choosing a too small scale would invalidate our tests because of the small space around the model, which would produce a great reflection phenomena of the waves on the tank walls. Thus, according to the previous statements and considering the convenience of dealing with an easy scale, we decide that the length scale will be:
LM 1 = LR 100
Given the nature of the problem and the slow velocity of the water particles also when they are on the wave crest, gravitational effects prevail over viscous ones. This predominance is relevant enough for our model to be represented with the similitude of Froude and viscous forces will be omitted. According to the Similitude of Froude and considering the length scale stated we can write:
FrR =
UR g * LR
UM g * LM
= FrM
where U is the velocity and a L a characteristic length of the Model/Real object
UM = UR
LM * g LR * g
LM = LR
UM =
LM L ;U R = R TM TR
UM L * TR T = M =* R = U R TM * L R TM TM = TR
1 10
= =
where is the time scale
Finally we can determine the force scale trough equalising the Newton numbers of the platform and of the model:
Nw M =
FM F = 4 R 2 = Nw R 2 LM * TM L R * TR
4 4 2
1 FM LM * TM = = 4 * 2 = 4 * ( 2 ) 2 4 2 FR L R * TR
FM = 3 FR
The wave field will also be influenced by the same scale , thus we will consider this aspect at the time of generating waves. Given the length scale, we can easily obtain the model dimensions: L =36.25cm W=36.25cm Main Cylinder Diameter = 7.6cm Main Cylinder Height= 20cm Stability Cylinder Diameter=9.0cm Stability Cylinder Height=7.8cm Connection Arm Diameter=3.4cm Connection Arm Length=12.9cm V=1122 cm3 12 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions ZB=10.6 cm Aw=380 m2 Iy=47046 m4 RT=41.1 m
Construction and junction materials

The material of construction are pipes of polypropylene (PP), easy to find in different diameters and with good mechanical properties for machining. Its only problem is its smooth surface, and because of this the PP has to be glued with a special bonder such as the "LOCTITE 430 Super Bonder Instant Adhesive". It is a single component, general industrial grade, cyanoacrylate adhesive with a low viscosity.
Machine working and assembly

Accurate workings can be done only by accurate machines and good technicians; in fact both affect the precision of the work and represent the upper limit of the accuracy we can obtain. The laboratory of the University of Malta is equipped with high precision machines, as lathes, vertical drills and numerical control machine (NCM), but also with welding equipment and all the necessary tools for working. The design of the model and all the other components for the measurement of the forces has been discussed with the trained and experienced workers of the University as to match our design with the needs of that working procedure. Furthermore each machining had to be presented on its own drawing, approved by the supervisor Eng. John Borg. During the machining we found some difficulties with the PP. In fact the machines are made to work with iron, steel and metal in general, so we had to reduce the velocity of machining to decrease the heat due to friction and avoid melting the PP. The assembly was initially made only with the bonder "LOCTITE 430 Super Bonder Instant Adhesive" and using a sort of potting, a structure that was keeping the components blocked and aligned on the right position. Then after a failed hardness test performed by the Prof. Eng. Tonio Sant we decided to improve the model with few layers of fibreglass. Construction tables and drawings are into the drawing appendix.
WAVE TANK
The first time we worked on the wave tank we focused on the features of the waves we were able to generate and on their quality. As the tank was built for a different kind of experiments, many problems has to be solved.
Wave Period
The swinging panel which generates the waves is moved by an electric motor equipped with an inverter that allows us to modulate the frequency, and consequently also the round per minute of the shaft and the period of the waves. The frequency, before our modification, was adjustable from 0 to a maximum of 50 Hz, that corresponds to a wave period of 0.6 seconds. Working on the setup menu of the inverter, shown in Picture 8: Electric Inverter for the Regulation of the Wave Period, we allowed the frequency of the motor to reach a maximum value of 60 Hz which corresponds to a wave period of 0.5 s. Even if the motor was not designed to exceed the maximum of 50 Hz, we could do it because of the small energy required; in fact to a small period corresponds a small wave and small load energy and heat for the motor. Furthermore we checked that the amperage did not exceed the level recommended by the producing company.
Picture 8: Electric Inverter for the Regulation of the Wave Period
Wave Height
According to the linear wave theory1, the flux of energy transmitted by a cylindrical wave through a plan is
E 1 = ga 2 t 2 k
2kd 2 1 + cos (kx t ) sinh( 2kd )
It is interesting to remember that the time derivate of the energy is the Power. If we want to find out the transmitted energy in one period we have to integrate the flux of energy in the time T at the point x=0:
ET =
T
E 1 2kd 1 2kd 2 2 2 = ga 2 1 + cos ( kx t )dt = 2 ga c 1 + sinh( 2kd ) cos (t )dt = t T 2 k sinh( 2kd ) T
1 2kd 1 2kd 2 ga 2 c 1 + * T = 4 ga 1 + sinh( 2kd ) 4 sinh( 2kd )
1 2kd ga 2 1 + 4 sinh( 2kd ) The mean energy transmitted during a period T, which represent a power, is:
ET =
E=
ET 1 2kd 1 2kd 2 = ga 2 1 + = ga c 1 + T 4T sinh(2kd ) 4 sinh(2kd )
Furthermore the dispersion equation says
2 = gk * tgh(kd ) = gk * tgh(kd )
thus the velocity c = where is the amplitude of the linear wave 2 = is the frequency T T is the wave period 2 k= is the wave number a
gk * tgh(kd ) = k
g * tgh(kd ) k
Fenton, J.D. (1985). "A Fifth -order Stokes Theory for Steady Waves". J. Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Eng., Vol.111.
is wave length is depth of the bottom
In deep water d
tgh(kd ) 1 and 1 + kd 2 sinh(kd )
Thus we can rewrite both equations
2 = gk = g
g = k
=g
g *T 2 2
c=
*g 2
E=
1 ga 2 c 2
The dispersion equation shows that the wave length is proportional to the square of the period and the velocity is proportional to the square root of the wave length. This yields that, in the linear wave theory in deep water condition, if we increase the mean transmitted energy, keeping constant the rpm of the motor and consequently the wave period, only the amplitude of the waves will increase. In our case, increasing the power at constant rpm means extending the arm of the crankshaft and generate different higher waves. Thus it will be useful to deal with an adjustable crank.
The preliminary test we did during the first attempt to the wave tank showed problems about the oversized height of the waves. This because of the excessive length of the crank and its scarse adjustability, in fact there were only 3 possible regulation at 12, 24 and 36 centimetres of length.
Picture 9: Initial Crank
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions Thus we decided to improve the wave generator with a new adjustable rounded shaped crank designed and built by us in the University of Malta. Now the generator has 12 regulations of the length of the crank at 2, 2.5, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 centimetres. The accuracy of the distance of the holes, which fits in the connection rod, from the rotation shaft is guaranteed by the numerical control machine.
Picture 10: New Circular Adjustable Crank
Construction drawings are attached to the thesis book.
Regularity and Turbulence of the waves

Since we are going to measure the wave characteristics and the acting forces on the model we need to generate the more regular and cylindrical waves than we can. Considering the wave height, if the wave was not cylindrical for its whole width, when we measured the height on the tank wall we would find a different value from the one in the middle of the tank which runs over the model. Furthermore it would generate a transversal oscillatory movement and some second order effects that we cannot estimate.
Picture 11: Initial Swinging Panel Setup
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions The swinging panel was fixed in the wave tank by an external support with two coplanar upright. The presence of these two elements on the sides of the panel created two vortices each half period which was transported with the flow through the whole tank. The presence of this secondary flow self-generated by the swinging panel would make us miscalculate the forces, as we cannot estimate the turbulence and its effects on the floating structure. In order to avoid this effect we decided to change the geometry of the support structure of the panel moving backward the two uprights and extending the swinging panel close to the tank walls. The wave generator is still fixed to the tank through two horizontal rods placed between the new uprights and the base of the swinging panel.
Picture 12: New Swinging Panel Setup
Picture 13: Initial Waves with Turbolences
Picture 14: Example of Final Wave Generated
Standing wave
One of the undesired disturbances of wave tanks which is most common and difficult to avoid is wave reflection from the tank end. It occurs when this generated wave on one side of the tank is reflected on the opposite side and comes back. This undesired effect comes out by the superposition of the reflected wave over the generated wave : y1 = y0 sin( kx + t ) y2 = y0 sin( kx t ) y = y1 + y2 = y0 sin(kx + t ) + y0 sin( kx t ) y = 2 y0 cos(t ) sin( kx) This formula describes a wave that oscillates in time, but has a spatial dependence that is stationary: sin(kx). At locations x = 0, /2, , 3/2, ... called the nodes the amplitude is always zero, whereas at locations x = /4, 3/4, 5/4, ... called the antinodes, the amplitude is maximum. The distance between two conjugative nodes or anti-nodes is /2. Open sea and ocean waves are generally represented with Stokes waves of order from 1 to 4, so they are progressive, not stationary. It means that water particles change position at each period T and the spatial dependence is not stationary. To avoid the reflection on the opposite side of the tank, a wave absorber is commonly set up. It is possible to achieve good results with one passive wave absorber whose length is the same length as the waves. The wave absorber on the opposite side of the wave generator was built by cylinders made of rolled-up plastic nettings. The waves flow through cylinders moving in the direction 19 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions perpendicular to the cylinder axis and the height goes on reducing both before and after the reflection on the wall. The damping coefficient is related with the rate between the diameter of the mesh of the netting and wave height; thus the smaller the wave height the thicker the mesh has to be. To maintain this rate constant we have to reduce the diameter of the cylinder and to thicken the netting as the waves flow through the absorber. Even though the tank was equipped with a passive wave absorber some standing waves were still present. The difference between the wave length which the absorber was designed for and the length of the waves we decided to generate caused these disturbances. To avoid this disturbances we implemented the absorber with 45 cylinders of a thicker mesh inserting them into the sparse mesh cylinders.
Picture 15: Final Wave Absorber
Picture 16: Initial Wave Absorber
WAVE SAMPLING
Generating Waves
First of all we need to prearrange all the equipment to measure, generate and video record the waves. The frequency of the inverter is related with the frequency of the swinging panel so we need a table in order to adjust the wave frequency working on the inverter.
50 Inverter frequency Wave 0.6 frequency
46 0.65
43 0.7
40 0.76
38 0.8
35.5 0.86
33.5 0.9
30 1
27.5 1.1
26.5 1.15
In order to measure the wave height and wave length we positioned on the side of the tank a vertical rudder and a horizontal graduated stripe of paper adhesive tape, both of them oriented with a plumb line. Thus, according to the range of periods and heights given by the previous table, we started to generates waves. We will follow the same procedure for each one of the generated waves: we set a length on the crank and a period on the inverter when the water in the tank is calm. Each condition was recorded with a camera both the measuring objects, and then we switched on the generator. The realized videos are essential in order to measure the height of crest and trough and the length using a slow motion media player. Unfortunately a wave probe was not available, so the wave measurements of the wave characteristic was made visually during the test and on videos a posteriori.
Picture 17: Sampling Waves
These surveys allowed us to produce a complete sampling of the wave tank using the circular crank we built at different settings. Our purpose is to generate non-linear waves, such as 2nd and 3rd order Stokes waves, to represent extreme sea conditions. This is the reason why we will leave aside waves above 3 centimetres and with a small slope.
Period [s] 1.15 Motor Freq 26.5 Hz Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] /H 2 2.5 3.2 4 5 6 7 8 81.60 73.70 7.90 77.65 77.60 205.00 25.95 9 h/g*T^2
5.7E-02
Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] 2 2.5 3.2 4 80.20 76.50 5 81.00 76.00 6 81.45 75.60 7 82.25 75.05 8 82.90 74.30 9
Period [s] 1.1 Motor Freq 27.5 Hz H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] /H h/g*T^2
3.70 5.00 5.85 7.20 8.60
78.35 78.50 78.53 78.65 78.60
78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25
188.00 189.00 190.00 190.00 191.00
50.81 37.80 32.48 26.39 22.21
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 6.3E-02
Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] 2 2.5 3.2 4 80.95 75.90 5 81.80 75.30 6 82.45 75.05 7 83.10 74.40 8 83.60 73.90 9 Period [s] 1 Motor Freq H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] 30 Hz /H h/g*T^2
5.05 6.50 7.40 8.60 9.70
78.43 78.55 78.75 78.75 78.75
78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25
157.00 160.00 162.00 164.00 165.00
31.09 24.62 21.89 19.07 17.01
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 7.5E-02
Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] 2 2.5 3.2 4 81.05 75.45 5 81.85 75.10 6 82.75 74.80 7 83.30 74.50 8 84.50 74.40 9
Period [s] 0.9 Motor Freq 33.5 Hz H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] /H h/g*T^2
5.60 6.75 7.95 8.80 10.10
78.25 78.48 78.78 78.90 79.45
78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25
130.00 132.00 134.00 135.00 137.00
23.21 19.56 16.86 15.34 13.56
0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 9.4E-02
Period [s] 0.86 Motor Freq 35.5 Hz Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] /H h/g*T^2 2 2.5 3.2 79.65 75.90 3.75 77.78 77.60 113.00 30.13 0.10 4 5 6 7 8 84.70 74.00 10.70 79.35 78.25 125.00 11.68 1.0E-01 9 Period [s] 0.8 Motor Freq H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] 3.37 4.35 6.00 7.40 8.60 9.50 77.69 77.78 78.50 78.90 78.60 79.05 77.60 77.60 78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25 98.00 99.00 100.00 102.00 105.00 106.00 38 Hz /H 29.08 22.76 16.67 13.78 12.21 11.16
Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] 2 2.5 79.37 76.00 3.2 79.95 75.60 4 81.50 75.50 5 82.60 75.20 6 82.90 74.30 7 83.80 74.30 8 9
h/g*T^2 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] 2 2.5 79.50 76.00 3.2 80.20 75.40 4 5 83.00 75.15 6 83.35 74.45 7 8 9
Period [s] 0.76 Motor Freq H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] 3.50 4.80 7.85 8.90 77.75 77.80 79.08 78.90 77.60 77.60 78.25 78.25 88.00 90.00 94.00 97.00
40 Hz /H 25.14 18.75 11.97 10.90
h/g*T^2 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] 2 2.5 79.60 75.95 3.2 80.30 75.40 4 81.65 75.20 5 6 7 8 9
Period [s] 0.7 Motor Freq H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] 3.65 4.90 6.45 77.69 77.85 78.43 77.60 77.60 78.25 76.00 79.00 82.00
43 Hz /H 20.82 16.12 12.71
h/g*T^2 0.16 0.16 0.16
Period [s] 0.65 Motor Freq 46.3 Hz Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] /H h/g*T^2 2 2.5 79.65 75.85 3.80 77.75 77.60 68.00 17.89 0.18 3.2 80.80 75.50 5.30 78.15 77.60 70.00 13.21 0.18 4 5 6 7 8 9 Period [s] 0.6 Motor Freq Crank amplitude [cm] Crest Height [cm] Trough Height [cm] H [cm] Mean Height [cm] Calm Water [cm] [cm] 2 2.5 79.80 75.70 4.10 77.75 77.60 60.00 3.2 4 5 6 7 8 9 50 Hz /H 14.63
h/g*T^2 0.21
The surveys were carried out at least twice in order to avoid mistakes due to stochastic effects. From these values we can obtain features such as the mean height and the values h H and that are essential to identify the effective order of the waves as it will be 2 gT gT 2 shown later. Furthermore we added some further graphs to better understand how waves parameters change with the wave period and to have a useful table for future experiments.
Figure 1: Wave Theories Graph
Figure 2: Generated Wave Order
1.3 1.1 1.2
Wave Length
Period (s)
0.9
0.8
0.6
80.00
60.00
240.00
220.00
200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
Figure 3: Wave Sampling - Wave Length vs. Period
100.00
40.00
0.5
2.5 cm
3.2 cm
4 cm
0.7
5 cm
6 cm
7 cm
8 cm
L=g* T^2/ 6.28
L (cm )
1.2 1 1.1
0.9
Wave Height
Period (s) 0.8 0.7 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 12.00 10.00
Figure 4: Wave Sampling - Wave Height vs. Period
0.00
0.5
0.6
2.5 cm
3.2 cm
4 cm
5 cm
6 cm
7 cm
8 cm
H (c m )
1.2 1.1
0.9
Period (s) 0.8 0.7 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00
H/L
Figure 5: Wave Sampling - H/L vs. Period
0.00
0.5
0.6
2.5 cm
3.2 cm
4 cm
5 cm
6 cm
7 cm
8 cm
H /L
Crank (cm) 5 4 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00
Figure 6: Wave Sampling - Wave Height vs. Crank Length
Figure 1: Wave Theories Gh summarizes linear and non-linear wave theories dividing the area of the chart in different zones through some lines defined by equations. The independent 30 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
2.00
0.65
0.7
0.76
0.8
0.9
1.1
W a v e h e ig h t (c m )
h , which relates the depth h with the period T, is relevant to identify if the gT 2 H , which relates the seabed influences the wave shape, while the dependent variable gT 2 wave height H with the period P, is related to the shape and to the slope of the wave.
variable
Figure 2: Generated Wave Order shows that our waves are both of the second and third order of Stokes and that points for small periods are in the initial "transitional water" zone. This is a marginal problem, because height and length are only slightly affected by the deepness by a mean 1.5%. Anyway, we decide to do experimental tests for most of the points even though they are in the transitional water area, while for the numerical testing we will take only those points marked with a circle. Figure 3: Wave Sampling - Wave Length vs. Period verifies the good quality of the generated g *T 2 waves comparing them with the dispersion relation = . We can ascertain that the 2 obtained wave length is coherent with theoretical values except for small a reasonable gap due to measuring errors. Figure 4: Wave Sampling - Wave Height vs. Period shows the little decreasing slope of the value of the height at the change of the period, using the crank length as parameter. Figure 5: Wave Sampling - H/L vs. Period is meant to be as advice while generating waves. It is important to monitor the slope in order to avoid the breaking waves and evaluate how much more we can decrease the period while generating at constant crank length. Figure 6: Wave Sampling - Wave Height vs. Crank Length confirms the theory we discussed in the previous paragraph about the Wave Height. At equal period, there is an almost proportional relation between the two variables. Reading the exact wave order and the seabed deepness on the graph we can decide which waves to use for experimental test and which for numerical ones.
Period Crank 2.5 cm 3.2 cm 4.0 cm 5.0 cm 6.0 cm 7.0 cm 8.0 cm 0.6 s exper ------------0.65 s not tested exper ----------0.7 s exper not tested exper --------0.76 s not tested exper --exper exper ----0.8 s exper and num exper and num exper and num exper and num exper and num exper and num --0.86 s --exper --------exper 0.9 s ----exper and num exper and num exper and num 1.0 s ----exper exper exper 1.1 s ----exper exper exper exper exper 1.15 s ------------exper
exper and num exper and num exper and num exper
Experimental Wave Profile Control

This verification wants to carry out a deeper analysis comparing the generated wave profile with the theoretical profile developed by Fenton2. From one frame of the video for the measurement of the wave length we digitize the wave profile referring some points to a couple of axis. For theoretical profiles, we reproduce the same wave with linear, second order third order and fifth order Stokes waves, using the deepness, the wave height and the wave length data already sampled .
Picture 18: Period 0.9 s Crank 4 cm Wave Profile Control Digitization - Second Order Stokes Wave
Fenton, J.D. (1990) "Non linear Waves Theories". The Sea,Vol.9, Wiley & Son Inc., New York. 32 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Picture 19: Period 1.0 s Crank 5 cm Wave Profile Control Digitization - Second Order Stokes Wave
Picture 20: Period 1.0 Crank 7 cm Wave Profile Control Digitaztion - Third Order Stokes Wave
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions The theoretical model developed by Fenton3 for the second order waves uses the formula below to define the profile :
= a * f b1 * cos + k * a 2 * f b 2 * cos(2 )
where f b1 =1 fb 2 = cosh(k * h) * (2 + cosh(2k * h)) 4 * sinh 3 (k * h)
Fenton4 developed also a model for the third order Stokes waves:
= a * f b1 * cos + k * a 2 * f b 2 * cos(2 ) + k 2 * a 3 * f b3 * cos(3 )

where f b1 and f b 2 are those parameter explained above fb3 =
(24 * cosh 6 (k * h) + 3) 64 * sinh 6 (k * h)
For the fifth order wave, we decided to use the Skjelbreia-Hendrickson5 model.
1 5 * i cos(i ) k i =1
1* = k * a * 2 = (k * a) 2 * B22 + (k * a) 4 * B24 * 3 = (k * a) 3 * B33 + (k * a) 5 * B35

3
- 4 Fenton, J.D. (1990) "Non linear Waves Theories". The Sea,Vol.9, Wiley & Son Inc., New York. Scarsi, G. (1998). "Onde di gravita` regolari". Collana di Idraulica, Marina Edizioni Litograph, Genova.
Skjelbreia, L. and Hendrickson, J.A. (1960). "Fifth order Gravity Wave Theory". Proc. 7th ICCE, Vol.1.
Scarsi, G. (1998). "Onde di gravita` regolari". Collana di Idraulica, Marina Edizioni Litograph, Genova.
* 4 = (k * a ) 4 * B44 * 5 = (k * a) 5 * B55
S=sinh(k*h) C=cosh(k*h) B 22 = C(2 * C 2 + 1) 4 * S3 C(272 * C8 504 * C 6 - 192 * C 4 + 322 * C 2 + 21) 384 * S9
B 24 =
3 * (8 * C 6 + 1) B33 = 64 * S6
B35 =
(88128 * C14 - 208224 * C12 + 70848 * C 10 + 54000 * C 8 21816 * C 6 + 6264 * C 4 54 * C 2 - 81) 12288 * S12 (6 * C 2 1) C * (768 * C10 - 448 * C 8 48 * C 6 + 48 * C 4 + 106 * C 2 - 21) 384 * S9 (6 * C 2 1)
B 44 =
(192000 * C16 - 262720 * C14 + 83680 * C12 ) B35 = 12288 * S10 (6 * C 2 1) * (8 * C 4 11* C 2 + 3) + (20160 * C 10 7280 * C 8 + 7160 * C 6 1800 * C 4 1050 * C 2 + 225) 12288 * S10 (6 * C 2 1) * (8 * C 4 11* C 2 + 3)
Figure 7: Period 0.9 s Crank 4 cm Wave Profile Comparison
Figure 8: Period 1.0 s Crank 5 cm Wave Profile Comparison
Figure 9: Period 0.9 Crank 7 cm Wave Profile Comparison
We choose these three waves in order to do three controls of the profile, referring to the H Figure 1: Wave Theories Graph, in points with a value of largely different. g *T 2 Except for few points, we can appreciate the good quality of the generated waves comparing them to relative theoretical profile: the real crest is 1.16% lower than the wave amplitude compared to the theoretical whereas the trough is coincident. Other minimal gaps are on the body of the waves. Even though our tank waves are only of second and third order we decided to add to the graph the first and the fifth order profile to better evidence the order of magnitude of an approximation we are doing. The RANSE solver we will use for the numerical simulations can reproduce only linear and fifth order waves, so we have to choose one of these to approximate our tank waves. The comparisons show the great difference between linear and tank profile, and the close resemblance between the fifth and the other non-linear waves.
LOAD CELLS AND DATA ACQUISITION

Load Cells
Each load cell we used, manufactured by the Laboratory of the University of Malta, is made of a circular steel ring with two screws placed on the external side, diametrically opposed to each other. The measurement is done by four strain gauges linked with a full bridge connection and glued with a special bonder to the ring. The strain gauge is just a resistor which modifies its resistivity coefficient with its deformation. The full bridge connection plans to put the four sensors on the diameter perpendicular to the direction of strain, two on each side, one internal and one external and doing the mean of the values surveyed. Placing the gauges in this way may help us to obtain better data because of the mean error effect. So, the load applied to the ring deforms the shape and consequently also the strain gauges which register the phenomena and send the analogical data to the acquisition system. Notice that the load cells are sensible to every kind of strains they are subjected to, so it is Picture 22: Load cells setup important to build an external structure with appropriate constrains in order to make them work only in the axial direction. Load cells must be calibrated imposing a known load and noting down the value of the voltage, then you can draw the calibration equation and evaluate the dispersion of the points from the line. Furthermore, it is compulsory that the deformation remains into the elastic range in order to maintain the most obtainable linear relation between the strain and voltage during the calibration. Picture 21: Strain gauge
Picture 23: Full Bridge
Calibration On-Site
The sensitivity of the load cells does not allow us to do the calibration and then mount the equipment on the model, as there would be pre-load effects and the slope could change. The best way to avoid data mistakes is doing our calibration on-site: we mount all the equipments and then we start taking measurements. Furthermore, it is compulsory to do a calibration each day we obtain the data and wait some time when we turn on the pc in order to warm up the electric circuit: electric devices are sensitive to temperature and they do different measurement of the same load if they are not working Picture 24: Calibration On-Site in isothermal condition, reached only after some half hours later than when they are just turned on. The calibration consists in drawing a graphic by points, where the independent variable is the weight we impose and dependent variable is the voltage we read on the calibration software. Then we find the trend line that relates the points and we check that points are on a straight line by calculating the dispersion R. So, entering the equation of the calibration for each load cell, when we will take the measurement we will read the force expressed in kilograms.
KLC1
-0.003
-0.0035
y = 0.0011x - 0.0055 2 R = 0.9994
Voltage [V]
-0.004
-0.0045
-0.005
-0.0055
-0.006 -0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Weight [Kg]
KLC1 Calibration Linear (KLC1 Calibration)
Figure 10: KLC1 Calibration
KLC2
0.017 0.0165 0.016
y = 0.0012x + 0.014 R =1
2
Voltage [V]
0.0155 0.015 0.0145 0.014
0.0135 -0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
Weight [Kg]
KLC3
-0.014
-0.015
y = 0.0017x - 0.0194
Voltage [V]
-0.016
R = 0.9997
-0.017
-0.018
-0.019
-0.02 -0.500000
0.000000
0.500000
1.000000
1.500000
2.000000
2.500000
3.000000
Weight [Kg]
Data Acquisition System

The first electronic device where the signal of the strain gauges arrives is the data acquisition card. Each card can process 2 signals with an amplifier and an ADC (Analog to Digital Converter). The first one amplifies in order to avoid the noise due to the electric net of the lab (such as neon lights in the room and the standard noise transmitted by other electrical). The second one discretizes the signal at a constant time step, usually referring to the clock rate of the pc. As we are dealing with waves with a minimum period of 0.6 seconds (1.67 Hz) and we need to work with a minimum step of 10 points per half-period, our time step will be t = min period = 0.6/20=0.03 second (33.3 Hz) min numberofpo int s
So we rounded down to t =0.025 seconds (40 Hz). After few test we realized that the time step we were dealing with was too small for the pc clock, the t is inconstant, so we had to enhance the current setup. The solution we found was to add an analog signal generator which sends the input for the discretization in place of the pc. Since the device can generate digital signals with different shapes till a maximum frequency of 1000 Hz we verified the precision of the 40 Hz signal with "sawtooth test". This test consists in emitting a sawtooth shaped signal with a frequency higher than the 40 Hz we need, such as 50 Hz like as we did. Then a plot of the points recorded with the data acquisition system is prepared and the right position of the points and the shape of the sawtooth is checked. The points must lay on the straight lines as the Figure 13: Sawtooth test shows an exemple of this comparison.
Sawtooth
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Volts [V] 0 30 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 Time [s]
Sawtooth
30.2
30.4
30.6
30.8
31
31.2
31.4
31.6
31.8
32
Figure 13: Sawtooth test
After the ADC the digital signal is recorded with the software LabVIEW in a text file.
System of axis
The system of axis which Forces will refer to is the one on the centre of buoyancy, where the x-axis is opposite to the wave advancing direction, the z-axis is parallel to the direction of the force of gravity with the negative side facing the seabed, and y-axis is perpendicular to the previous two axis.
Geometry of the External Structure

The external structure is meant to rigidly sustain the model while satisfying the cinematic conditions of blocked mode tests. As we decided to deal with symmetric body test problem and carrying out this test for the first time we decided to evaluate only the forces on the x-z plan: the force on the direction of the Surge, FX, the force on the direction of the Heave, FZ, and the moment on the direction of the Pitch, FY. Error! Reference source not found. shows how we decided to arrange the layout of the load cells in order to measurement the Forces. A hollowed aluminium rod is stacked inside the central cylinder and transfers the forces to the three load cells. In order to measure only the normal force we decided to use simply supported restraint. The load cell on the top of the model has its axis parallel to the vertical axis and from now on it will be called KLC3. KLC3 measures only the vertical force and we need to change only the sign because of the axis orientation: Fz=-KLC3*g The two load cells on the upper left side have the axis parallel with the X-axis and from now on they will be called KLC2 (the upper) and KLC1 (the lower). The horizontal force and the moment are strictly related with these two load cells by these relations: Fx=(KLC2+KLC1)*g My=(KLC1*Z1+KLC2*Z2)*g where Z1 and Z2 are the distance of KLC1 and KLC2 from the centre of buoyancy.
CONSERVATION LAWS OF FLUID FLOW

Governing equations of fluid flow
The governing equations of fluid flow represent two mathematical statements of the conservation laws of physics. The mass of a fluid is conserved. The rate of change of momentum equals the sum of the forces on a fluid particle (Newton's second law). The fluid will be regarded as a continuum. For the analysis of fluid flows at macroscopic length scales (say 1 m and larger) the molecular structure of matter and molecular motions may be ignored. We describe the behavior of the fluid in terms of macroscopic properties, such as velocity, pressure, density and temperature, and their space and time derivatives. These may be thought of as averages over suitably large numbers of molecules. A fluid particle or point in a fluid is then the smallest possible element of fluid whose macroscopic properties are not influenced by individual molecules. We consider such a small element of fluid with sides x, y and z.
The six faces are labeled N, S, E, W, T, B which stands for North, South, East, West, Top and Bottom. The positive directions along the co-ordinate axes are also given. The centre of the element is located at position (x,y,z). A systematic account of changes in the mass, momentum and energy of the fluid element due to fluid flow across its boundaries and, where appropriate, due to the action of sources inside the element, leads to the fluid flow equations. All fluid properties are functions of space and time so we would strictly need to write p(x,y,z,t), p(x,y,z,t), T(x,y,z,t) and u(x,y,z,t) for the density, pressure, temperature and the velocity vector respectively. To avoid unduly cumbersome notation we will not explicitly state the dependence on space co-ordinates and time. For instance, the density at the centre (x,y,z) of a fluid element at time t is denoted by and the x-derivative of, say, pressure p at (x,y,z) and time t by p/x. This practice will also be followed for all other fluid properties.
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions The element under consideration is so small that fluid properties at the faces can be expressed accurately enough by means of the first two terms of a Taylor series expansion. So, for example, the pressure at the E and W faces, which are both at a distance of 1/2x from the element centre, can be expressed as
Mass conservation in three dimensions

The first step in the derivation of the mass conservation equation is to write down a mass balance for the fluid element. The rate of increase of mass in the fluid element is
Next we need to account for the mass flow rate across a face of the element which is given by the product of density, area and the velocity component normal to the face. From the figure beyond it can be seen that the net rate of flow of mass into the element across its boundaries is given by
Flows which are directed into the element produce an increase of mass in the element and get a positive sign and those flows that are leaving the element are given a negative sign.
The rate of increase of mass inside the element is now equated to the net rate of flow of mass into the element across its faces. All terms of the resulting mass balance are arranged on the left hand side of the equals sign and the expression is divided by the element volume xyz.
This yields
or in more compact vector notation
For an incompressible fluid (i.e. a liquid) the density is constant and equation becomes
Rates of change following a fluid particle and for a fluid element

The momentum and energy conservation laws make statements regarding the changes of properties of a fluid particle. Each property of such a particle is a function of the position (x,y,z) of the particle and time t. Let the value of a property per unit mass be denoted by . The total or substantive derivative of with respect to time following a fluid particle, written as D/Dt, is
A fluid particle follows the flow, so x/t = u, dy/dt = v and dz/dt = w. Hence the substantive derivative of is given by
D/Dt defines the rate of change of property per unit mass. As in the case of the mass conservation equation we are interested in developing equations for rates of change per unit volume. The rate of change of property per unit volume for a fluid particle is given by the product of D/Dt and density , hence
The mass conservation equation contains the mass per unit volume (i.e. the density ) as the conserved quantity. The sum of the rate of change of density and the convective term in the mass conservation equation (2.4) for a fluid element is
The generalization of these terms for an arbitrary conserved property is
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions Formula (2.9) expresses the rate of change of per unit volume plus the net flow of out of the fluid element per unit volume. It is now re-written to illustrate its relationship with the substantive derivative of :
The term [/t + div(u)] is equal to zero by virtue of mass conservation (2.4). In words, relationship (2.10) states
To construct the three components of the momentum equation and the energy equation the relevant entries for and their rates of change per unit volume as defined in (2.8) and (2.10) are given below:
Momentum equation in three dimensions

Newton's second law states that the rate of change of momentum of a fluid particle equals the sum of the forces on the particle. The rates of increase of x-, y- and z- momentum per unit volume of a fluid particle are given by
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions We distinguish two types of forces on fluid particles: surface forces -pressure forces -viscous forces body forces -gravity force -centrifugal force -Coriolis force -electromagnetic force
It is common practice to highlight the contributions due to the surface forces as separate terms in the momentum equation and to include the effects of body forces as source terms. The state of stress of a fluid element is defined in terms of the pressure and the nine viscous stress components. The pressure, a normal stress, is denoted by p. Viscous stresses are denoted by . The usual suffix notation ij , is applied to indicate the direction of the viscous stresses. The suffices i and j in ij indicate that the stress component acts in the j-direction on a surface normal to the i-direction.
First we consider the x-components of the forces due to pressure p and stress components xx, yx and zx shown in the figure above. The magnitude of a force resulting from a surface stress is the product of stress and area. Forces aligned with the direction of a co-ordinate axis get a positive sign and those in the opposite direction a negative sign. The net force in the xdirection is the sum of the force components acting in that direction on the fluid element.
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions On the pair of faces (E, W) we have
The net force in the x-direction on the pair of faces (N,S) is
Finally the net force in the x-direction on faces T and B is given by
The total force per unit volume on the fluid due to these surface stresses is equal to the sum of the above terms divided by the volume xyz:
Without considering the body forces in further detail their overall effect can be included by denning a source Smx of x-momentum per unit volume per unit time. The x-component of the momentum equation is found by setting the rate of change of xmomentum of the fluid particle equal to the total force in the x-direction on the element due to
surface stresses plus the rate of increase of x-momentum due to sources: It is not too difficult to verify that the y-component of the momentum equation is given by
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions and the z-component of the momentum equation by
The effects of surface stresses are accounted for explicitly; the source terms SMX, SMy and SMZ in (2.14a-c) include contributions due to body forces only. For example, the body force due to gravity would be modeled by SMX = 0, S\fy = 0 and Smz = -pg-.
Navier-Stokes equations for a Newtonian fluid

The governing equations contain as further unknowns the viscous stress components ij. The most useful forms of the conservation equations for fluid flows are obtained by introducing a suitable model for the viscous stresses ij. In many fluid flows the viscous stresses can be expressed as functions of the local deformation rate (or strain rate). In three-dimensional flows the local rate of deformation is composed of the linear deformation rate and the volumetric deformation rate. The rate of linear deformation of a fluid element has nine components in three dimensions, six of which are independent in isotropic fluids (Schlichting, 1979). They are denoted by the symbol ey. The suffix system is identical to that for stress components (see section 2.4). There are three linear elongating deformation components:
There are also six shearing linear deformation components:
The volumetric deformation is given by
In a Newtonian fluid the viscous stresses are proportional to the rates of deformation. The three-dimensional form of Newton's law of viscosity for compressible flows involves two constants of proportionality: the (first) dynamic viscosity, , to relate stresses to linear deformations, and the second viscosity, , to relate stresses to the volumetric deformation. The nine viscous stress components, of which six are independent, are 50 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Not much is known about the second viscosity , because its effect is small in practice. For gases a good working approximation can be obtained by taking the value =-2/3 (Schlichting, 1979). Liquids are incompressible so the mass conservation equation is div u = 0 and the viscous stresses are just twice the local rate of linear deformation times the dynamic viscosity. Substitution of the above shear stresses (2.31) into (2.14a-c) yields the so-called NavierStokes equations:
Often it is useful to re-arrange the viscous stress terms as follows:
The viscous stresses in the y- and z-component equations can be re-cast in a similar manner. We clearly intend to simplify the momentum equations by 'hiding' the two smaller contributions to the viscous stress terms in the momentum source. Denning a new source by 51 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
the Navier-Stokes equations can be written in the most useful form for the development of the finite volume method:
Conservative form of the governing equations of fluid flow

To summarize the findings thus far we quote in the table beyond the conservative or divergence form of the system of equations which governs the time-dependent threedimensional fluid flow
Differential and integral forms of the general transport equations

It is clear from the previous table that there are significant commonalities between the various equations. If we introduce a general variable the conservative form of all fluid flow equations, including equations for scalar quantities such as temperature and pollutant concentration etc., can usefully be written in the following form
In words
This equation is the so-called differential general transport equation for property . It clearly highlights the various transport processes: the rate of change term and the convective term on the left hand side and the diffusive term (T =diffusion coefficient) and the source term respectively on the right hand side. In order to bring out the common features we have, of course, had to hide the terms that are not shared between the equations in the source terms. Note that equations can be made to work for the internal energy equation by changing i into T by means of an equation of state. Furthermore this equation is used as the starting point for computational procedures in the finite volume method. By setting equal to 1, u, v, w and i (or T or h0) and selecting appropriate values for the diffusion coefficient and source terms we obtain special forms of the summarizing table for each of the five partial differential equations for mass, momentum and energy conservation. The key step of the finite volume method is the integration of the differential general transport equation over a three-dimensional control volume CV yielding:
The volume integrals in the second term on the left hand side, the convective term, and in the first term on the right hand side, the diffusive term, are re-written as integrals over the entire bounding surface of the control volume by using Gauss' divergence theorem. For a vector a this theorem states
Applying Gauss' divergence theorem, the integral equation can be written as follows:
A diffusive flux is positive in the direction of a negative gradient of the fluid property , i.e. along direction -grad . For instance, heat is conducted in the direction of negative temperature gradients. Thus, the product n (- grad ) is the component of diffusion flux along the outward normal vector, and so out of the fluid element. Similarly, the product n ( grad ), which is also equal to (-n (- grad ), can be interpreted as a positive diffusion flux in the direction of the inward normal vector -n, i.e. into the fluid element. The first term on the right hand side , the diffusive term, is thus associated with a flux into the element and represents the net rate of increase of fluid property of the fluid element due to diffusion. The final term on the right hand side of this equation gives the rate of increase of property as a result of sources inside the fluid element. In words, this relationship for the fluid in the control volume can be expressed as follows:
THE FINITE VOLUME METHOD

Now we develop the numerical method based on this integration, the finite volume (or control volume) method, by considering the simplest transport process of all: pure diffusion in the steady state. The governing equation of steady diffusion can easily be derived from the general transport equation for property by deleting the transient and convective terms. This gives
The control volume integration, which forms the key step of the finite volume method that distinguishes it from all other CFD techniques, yields the following form:
By working with the one-dimensional steady state diffusion equation the approximation techniques that are needed to obtain the so-called discretized equations are introduced. Consider the steady state diffusion of a property in a one-dimensional domain defined in the figure beyond. The process is governed by
where T is the diffusion coefficient and S is the source term. Boundary values of at points A and B are prescribed. An example of this type of process, one-dimensional heat conduction in a rod, is studied in detail in this section:
Step 1: Grid generation

The first step in the finite volume method is to divide the domain into discrete control volumes. Let us place a number of nodal points in the space between A and B. The boundaries (or faces) of control volumes are positioned mid-way between adjacent nodes. Thus each node is surrounded by a control volume or cell. It is common practice to set up control volumes near the edge of the domain in such a way that the physical boundaries coincide with the control volume boundaries. At this point it is appropriate to establish a system of notation that can be used in future developments. The usual convention of CFD methods is shown in the figure above. A general nodal point is identified by P and its neighbors in a one-dimensional geometry, the nodes to the west and east, are identified by W and E respectively. The west side face of the control volume is referred to by 'w' and the east side control volume face by V. The distances between the nodes W and P, and between nodes P and E, are identified by xWP and xPE respectively. Similarly the distances between face w and point P and between P and face e are denoted by xwP and xPe respectively. Furthermore the figure above shows that the control volume width is x = xpe.
Step 2: Discretization
The key step of the finite volume method is the integration of the governing equation (or equations) over a control volume to yield a discretized equation at its nodal point P. For the control volume defined above this gives
Here A is the cross-sectional area of the control volume face, V is the volume and is the average value of source S over the control volume. It is a very attractive feature of the finite volume method that the discretized equation has a clear physical interpretation. This equation states that the diffusive flux of leaving the east face minus the diffusive flux of entering the west face is equal to the generation of , i.e. it constitutes a balance equation for over the control volume. In order to derive useful forms of the discretized equations, the interface diffusion coefficient and the gradient d/dx at east ('e') and west ('w') are required. Following well-established 56 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions practice, the values of the property and the diffusion coefficient are defined and evaluated at nodal points. To calculate gradients (and hence fluxes) at the control volume faces an approximate distribution of properties between nodal points is used. Linear approximations seem to be the obvious and simplest way of calculating interface values and the gradients. This practice is called central differencing. In a uniform grid linearly interpolated values for e and w are given by
And the diffusive flux terms are evaluated as
In practical situations, as illustrated later, the source term S may be a function of the dependent variable. In such cases the finite volume method approximates the source term by means of a linear form:
Substituting the evaluating diffusive flux terms equations and the source term into the starting equation gives
This can be re-arranged as
Identifying the coefficients of W and E in the equation above as aw and aE, and the coefficient of P as ap, the above equation can be written as
where The values of Su and Sp can be obtained from the source model: V = Su + Sp P. Equations represent the discretized form of the starting equation. This type of discretized equation is central to all further developments.
Step 3: Solution of equations

Discretized equations of the coefficient form equation must be set up at each of the nodal points in order to solve a problem. For control volumes that are adjacent to the domain boundaries the general discretized equation is modified to incorporate boundary conditions. The resulting system of linear algebraic equations is then solved to obtain the distribution of the property at nodal points. Any suitable matrix solution technique may be enlisted for this task. For two phases flows the technique used is the fluid mixture. As it will be better detailed in the next paragraph the free surface is tracked by an auxiliary scalar: the volume fraction of water (VoF) in each cell. The scalar is solved in the whole domain according a transport equation. The density and viscosity in each mixed fluid cell (0<VoF<1) is obtained by a weight average of the two fluids properties, taking as weight the relative fraction of fluid present in the cell, i.e.
mix = air (1 VoF ) + waterVoF

Vmix = Vair (1 VoF ) + VwaterVoF
MAIN FEATURES OF THE MESH

Physic models
A good representation of a phenomena is given by a careful choice of the physics models which join together to capture the main features of the flow. As we are going to analyze the problem of a wave approaching to an offshore structure the models that we choose for sure are: - Three dimensional - Multiphase mixture -Eulerian Multiphase -Gravity -Implicit Unsteady Furthermore, we introduce also: -Laminar model: As we are going to represent the flow around the model inside the tank the Reynolds number is not enough to create a turbulent layer. -VoF model: There are many ways to define the free surface, this is one and it will be explained in the next chapter. -6 Degree of Freedom Motion: The model is recognised as a body. We impose the fixed cinematic condition through the 6-DoF Motion model, which allow us also to measure the pressure on its surface and calculate the hydrodynamic forces.
Control Volume and Mesh refinement

The control volume of the flow is defined by the faces of a parallelepiped and the model. Exploiting the symmetry of the model we can simulate only half of the control volume and then, during the Force Analysis Phase, we will double the measured forces. The external dimensions of the parallelepiped are: Length: L1=4000 mm Width: W1=370 mm Height H1=950 mm Water Level: D1=783 mm from the seabed The length we choose is to allow the solver to recreate the disturbances before and after the model. The maximum wave length 1 and the model dimension L are the parameters we have to compare with to decide the length of the control volume L1.
L1
= 0 .5
L = 0 .1 L1
The width is half of the tank width for the symmetry properties, while the height and the water level height are the same of the tank. The dimension of the model are those already established in the chapter "Geometry of the platform": L =36.25cm W=36.25cm Main Cylinder Diameter = 7.6cm Main Cylinder Height= 20cm Stability Cylinder Diameter=9.0cm Stability Cylinder Height=7.8cm Connection Arm Diameter=3.4cm Connection Arm Length=12.9cm The unstructured mesh model we choose is the trimmer one. As we need a refinement in the zone where the free surface is going to be we added three volume shape refinement. The base size of the mesh is equal to diameter of the connection pipes (32 mm), then we chose different percentage of the base size to define the dimension of the mesh. The cubes which make up the main volume have a maximum of 80% of the base size. We can identify a zone where the free surface will move carrying out two section perpendicular to the z-axis (7 centimetres below and 7 centimetres over the axis origin) ; there are two identical volume shape refinement on the inlet and outlet sides of this zone and one in the middle. The external ones are made up by a more anisotropic refined mesh to represent the profile motion:
-X-size is the 25% of the base size -Y-size is the 50% of the base size -Z-size is the 25% of the base size 60 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
The volume shape in the middle is anisotropic as well and more refined to catch the phenomena of refraction next to the model: -X-size is the 25% of the base size -Y-size is the 25% of the base size -Z-size is the 12.5% of the base size
Summarizing, such a high refinement achieves in order to: - leave to the solver enough space to recreate the disturbances due to the body on the waves (tank length) -recreate the tank height and the deep water condition (tank height) -define the free surface (external volume shape refinement) -catch the refraction phenomena (middle volume shape refinement)
WAVES REPRESENTATION
Free Surface Definition and VoF Theory
Dealing with a two phases problem and approaching waves to a semi-floating structure, is essential to describe the free surface definition model used by the software. The free surface obeys to and is defined by the cinematic and the dynamic conditions. Cinematic condition: Free surface is an impermeable division between the two phases, so it does not allow to any particle to go through it and denies any flow of fluid. Thus it means that the component of the velocity normal to the free surface of the particles on the two faces is equal.
Dynamic condition: The free surface is in a dynamic equilibrium, thus the components of the summation of the forces normal to the free surface have the same magnitude and direction but opposite sense. Tangential forces are identical.
Often the dynamic condition is replaced by the simpler equation
Using the simplified version is not so trivial, because the position and the shape of the surface is unknown a priori, so it is necessary to use one of those condition to identify the position in an iterative way, and the other to implement it. There two kind of methods to identify the position of the free surface: Interface-tracking methods. A grid of points defines in a clean way the surface of separation between the two fluids and each point has to be followed at each time t. The new position will be found in an iterative way. 62 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Interface-capturing methods. Cells filled by both fluids identify the free surface. This information is known or introducing no-mass particles near the initial separation surface, or adding a new function to each cell which says the volume fraction of one fluid inside that cell.
The Volume of Fluid (VoF), the interface-capturing method we use, fits good with problems of breaking surface so suits our approaching waves. The VoF method consider both fluids inside the cell with the same velocity and pressure, as they was a unique fluid and this is what it actually does. This is possible through the new scalar function VoF which assesses the volume fraction, of water in our case, and calculating the new density value as a mean of the density of water and air weighted on this new index.
VoF is a scalar function thus it is subjected to the general transport equation for the measurement in each cell during the time:
and it is narrowed by
Thus, even if the separation is a sort of mix between the two phases, we can identify the free surface relating those cells with VoF=0.5 and the cinematic and dynamic condition are implicitly satisfied. Decided to use the VoF definition of the free surface, we need to represent the waves generated in the wave tank.
Progressive Waves
The RANSE solver we have use for the numerical simulations can reproduce only linear and fifth order waves, so we have to choose one of these to approximate our tank waves. The comparisons in the chapter "Experimental Wave Profile Control" show the great difference between linear and tank profile, and the close resemblance between the fifth and the other non-linear waves. This is the reason why we decided to use fifth order Stokes waves.
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions Generating a wave into the solver means, during the initialization process, to represent the free surface defined by the Skjelbreia-Hendrickson (the model we already used for the experimental profile check) using the VoF theory. Then, during the same phase, the solver attributes in each cell the pressure and the velocity, easily derivable from the theory of the potential flow field of the given wave. When the solver runs the flow into the cells is moved by the velocity and the pressure into the cells close to the inlet and the outlet. In fact only these cells have an imposed velocity and pressure field over the simulation time.
In order to check the good quality of the simulated waves we decided to carry out a profile control of the wave height without the structure model. The test has been done with a wave of 7.95 cm high and 0.9 second of period. Despite the high number of cell (2,200,000) and the three volume shape refinements the result is a value 16% lower than the expected one. This self-evident facts must be considered for the validation of numerical/experimental forces.
COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Comparison between simulations and tank tests
The data we obtained from the RANSE simulations and those collected through the tank tests with a wave generator cannot be compared unless they are processed in an appropriate way. The signal of the experimental tests is indicative of the forces measured by the three probes and not explicitly of the forces we are interested in. Moreover, although the calibrations onsite may have been accurate, a small amount of preload, which can be eliminated in the data processing, is present in all three probes. The procedure to be carried out to deduce the signals regarding each force can be easily understood by referring to the geometry of the support structure built to support and block the model. The force in the direction of the heave should be cleared only of the preload, while the force in the direction of the surge comes as the sum of the two signals of the horizontal probes and therefore must be set with zeropreload. As far as the moment around the transversal axis is concerned, i.e. in the direction of pitching, it is necessary to calculate the moment taking into account as the point of force application the centre of the hull. Fx=(KLC2+KLC1)*g My=(KLC1*Z1+KLC2*Z2)*g The RANSE signal simulator needs also to be redesigned: due to the symmetry of the system, the model we represented only refers to half of the structure, therefore it is necessary to double the value of each signal obtained. In addition, the model is set with the centre of force application at the point of origin of the axes; as a consequence, there is a translation of the axes on the centre of the hull, which provides a contribution of transport to the original moment.
Fx = 2 * Fx
M y = ( M y + Fx * Z b ) * 2
The comparison of the data has been carried out both qualitatively, comparing the shape of the signal, and quantitatively relating the value of the height of the signal in the two surveys. The qualitative analysis is done observing the period, the inclination and regularity of the signal. For what concerns the oscillation period of the signals, the values are found to be correct and coinciding with the set one. This was almost taken for granted for the experimental part as in the experimental case the period of the wave generator is adjusted manually until the desired period is obtained. The maximum slope of the signal is closely related to height and therefore the causes of the diversity between the two signals will be the same. Therefore, this will be dealt with later in the quantitative analysis. A further topic of discussion is the presence of double peaks and other irregularities in the experimental signal, but not in the simulations. This may be ascribed to the mesh of 65 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions numerical calculation which fails to fully recreate the phenomena of interaction between waves and cylinders and therefore some non-linear effects present in the experimental are missing. At the local level, moreover, we note that the high rate of the refinement of the mesh and of the integration time step, sometimes releases high-frequency oscillations which, however, we tried not to delete to avoid introducing a further element of uncertainty. It is also noted that this high frequency noise is affected by the period, as it is present at T = 0.8 s and T = 1.0 s but not at T = 0.9 s. Both these distortions can result in a significant discrepancy in the regularity of the signal, while maintaining the same trend.
Crank 7 cm Period 0.8 s 15
10
Force [N] / Moment [N*m]
0 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
-5
-10
-15 Time [s] Horizontal Experimental Horizontal Numerical Vertical Experimental Vertical Numerical Moment Experimental Moment Numerical
Crank 6 cm Period 0.8 s
4 -2
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
-7
4 -2
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
-7
Crank 4 cm Period 0.8 s 10 8 6 4 Force [N] / Moment [N*m] 2 0 4 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 Time [s] Horizontal Experimental Horizontal Numerical Vertical Experimental Vertical Numerical Moment Experimental Moment Numerical 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
Crank 3.2 cm Period 0.8 s 8
4 Force [N] / Moment [N*m]
0 4 -2 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
-4
-6
Crank 2.5 cm Period 0.8 s 8
0 4 -2 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
-4
-6
-8 Time [s] Horizontal Experimental Horiz Numerical Vertical Experimental Vertical Numerical Moment Experimental Moment Numerical
12
2 4 -3 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
-8
-13
10
0 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
-5
-10
10
0 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
-5
-10
4 -2
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
-7
Crank 4 cm Period 0.9 s 10 8 6 4 Force [N] / Moment [N*m] 2 0 4 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 Time [s] Horizontal Experimental Horizontal Numerical Vertical Experimental Vertical Numerical Moment Experimental Moment Numerical 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
10
0 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
-5
-10
Quantitative analysis consists of taking a mean of absolute maximum and minimum values in the last five oscillations, when the phenomenon is already operational, and obtains the average value of the signal height both for the experimental tests and the numerical ones. The cause to which we can impute the values of the simulations which are on average lower than the experimental ones can be seen in the verification of the profile of the wave. The wave generated inside the mesh calculation was found to have a height of less than about 16% of the value set at the preparation phase inside the software.
The error between the two signals is
E=
Experimental Numerical Experimental
2.5 cm
3.2 cm
4 cm
5 cm
6 cm
7 cm
8 cm
Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm] Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm] Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm] Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm] Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm] Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm] Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm]
0.8 s 35.59992 34.11339 39.58579 18.71256 29.29718 33.23711 26.58689 12.24042 14.83362 19.97555 12.58283 4.548083 9.847913 3.897883 -5.34217 -9.52974 6.222602 -3.3555
0.9 s
1s
17.84265 18.51582 25.87306 11.42536 22.25141 19.04462 14.70675 23.88501 22.45173 13.90477 16.00729 31.85908 8.441984 28.15104 5.96213 10.73727 36.20519 31.15402
Vert [N] Horiz [N] Moment [Nm]
Mean Error 15.48477 19.9594 18.01196
0.8 s Experimental
0.9 s Experimental
0.8 s Numerical
0.9 s Numerical
9.00 8.00 7.00

Heave Force
6.00
5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Wave Height
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.8 s Experimental
0.9 s Experimental
0.8 s Numerical
0.9 s Numerical
37.00 32.00 27.00

Surge Force
22.00 17.00 12.00 7.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

Wave Height
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.8 s Experimentalr
0.9 s Experimental
0.8 s Numerical
0.9 s Numerical
5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50

Pitch Moment
3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Wave Height
8.00
10.00
12.00
Spline Interpolation of the height.
Given the nature of the tests, an interpolation of the data will be necessary to give the right weight to the wave height. In fact, both the sampling and the tests were carried out by varying the period and the length of the cam generator, the size of which has little physical relevance. The height at this moment, instead, behaves as a dependent variable: the value of the tests at standard heights for each period is not known whereas the specific value for each point on the graph (period-cam) is known. The fact that the wave height is function both of the cam and of the period means that the period during the height non dimensionalization of the forces is not a variable that can be assigned directly as a parameter. To overcome this, for each wave, we relate the values of the iso-period signal readings by placing a spline function as the x-axis height of wave, and then through this defined function we can trace the readings for the fixed heights.
Vert 4.1
1.32 5.30 3.12 3.65 1.36 4.80 4.01 3.37 0.99 1.64 4.26 3.75 5.86 5.60 5.24 6.38 6.38 6.50 6.90 5.00 7.98 16.25 5.00 10.49 6.50 19.72 5.05 6.55 3.70 7.23 7.97 1.27 3.70 3.70 12.89 1.89 5.05 5.05 13.44 16.49 1.99 2.69 2.84 6.50 2.33 5.00 1.55 5.60 5.60 6.75 6.75 6.75 14.52 2.11 7.95 6.05 7.10 7.40 7.60 5.85 8.83 7.95 17.09 22.45 7.40 19.10 5.85 13.22 7.95 2.58 3.33 7.40 2.72 5.85 1.92 8.80 7.45 8.60 8.61 7.20 9.31 8.80 26.79 8.60 22.11 7.20 16.51 8.80 3.75 3.75 13.09 1.96 5.73 20.58 2.79 4.07 5.55 13.80 15.73 1.99 2.33 5.18 5.75 21.62 22.49 4.35 4.35 4.35 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.40 7.40 7.40 8.60 8.60 13.08 2.01 4.98 21.88 3.12 5.32 26.90 3.79 8.60 3.21 3.05 9.50 5.77 9.50 27.36 9.50 3.70 10.7 4.80 4.80 7.85 7.85 7.85 8.90 8.90 8.90 3.65 14.10 2.02 6.45 6.45 6.45 8.52 1.39 5.30 5.30
2.5 Horiz 4.1 Mom 4.1 Vert Mom Vert Mom Vert Mom Vert Mom Vert Mom Vert
3.2 Horiz
4 Horiz
5 Horiz
6 Horiz 7 Horiz
8 Horiz
Mom
0.6
2.75
7.94
0.65
3.65
3.65
0.7
2.41
9.04
0.76
3.37
3.37
0.8
2.86 4.44
7.02 10.66
10.7
10.7 6.696146 33.47318 4.640965 10.1 10.1 10.1 7.014169 19.96999 2.970747 3.81 7.857892 31.30346 4.315063 8.60 9.7 9.7 9.7 3.23 9.585004 26.41917 3.709325 7.20 8.6 2.39 10.31879 7.9 8.6 8.6 19.2769 2.805237 7.9 7.9 10.98006 24.94602 3.591837
0.86
0.9
1.1
1.15
Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper Altezza Sim Sper
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions Periods 0.7 2.564131 9.669544 1.446221 3.007667 11.47645 1.681776 3.451202 13.28335 1.917331
Heights 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10
0.76
4.073504 13.41254 2.053086 4.392969 15.82286 2.349127 4.712201 18.81952 2.728212 5.031154 22.51769 3.206651
0.8 4.227427 12.31812 1.853935 4.713951 14.0516 2.105627 5.549188 15.72876 2.333097 5.728647 19.3501 2.672939 5.738971 21.42099 2.891612 5.756796 24.26186 3.285732
0.86 5.891707 15.20482 2.203039 6.011773 17.93144 2.566909 6.131838 20.65806 2.930778 6.251904 23.38468 3.294648 6.371969 26.11131 3.658518 6.492035 28.83793 4.022387 6.6121 31.56455 4.386257
0.9
6.310673 17.69458 2.706397 6.494909 20.22445 2.914351 7.124093 22.6569 3.35466 7.519166 27.67797 3.902142 7.831757 31.04397 4.284995
6.691693 14.93843 2.156361 7.261827 17.85468 2.542903 8.101193 20.57725 2.976167 8.958417 23.50018 3.401192
1.1 7.348549 8.390299 1.307304 7.982893 10.48945 1.552332 8.91964 13.65023 1.977344 9.230938 16.0751 2.321311 9.82211 18.15174 2.630843
Analysis of experimental non dimensionalized data.
Vertical Force
The non dimensionalization of the forces in the direction of the heave is

Z= Fz * g * Aw * H
with Aw =area of the floating figure =density H=height of the wave The term in the denominator is equal to the weight of the volume of the water given by the product of the area of the floating figure by the wave height. 77 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions The variable that is used as a parameter derives from the non dimensionalization of the period:
T *V L with T=wave period V=wave speed L= side of the square where you can enter the plant platform
It is easily seen that is simply the Keulegan-Carpenter number:

KC = = T *V L
This number is obtained by a ratio of inertial and convective terms inside the Navier-Stokes equations: (u )u u V t T
KC = V2 L
(convective acceleration)
(local acceleration)
V 2 T T *V * = L V L
We can finally say that r K C represents the relative importance of the resistance forces compared to inertia forces for an object immersed in a fluid with periodic oscillatory motion. Re processing K C we obtain:
KC = KC = T *V T = * = L L T L
L with =wave length
The independent variable k * H is the slope of the wave. The non dimensional analysis in "Figure 14: Non-dimensionalized Heave Force" shows a non-linear force against the slope of the wave which can be rounded up with a power function from the equation y = 0.093x 0.858 and a Root Squared Value R = 0,978. The trend line of the performance for low k * H which tends to 1, is justified by referring to a quasistatic evolution of a wave which with a very low slope causes the extension of the vertical force to the displacement obtained with crest height. On the contrary, for high k * H the slope 78 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova
Experimental and Numerical Methods for the Evaluation of Wave Loads on Offshore Platforms in Extreme Sea Conditions is such that the immersed volume cannot be other than a fraction of the displacement calculated on the crest of the wave. The disposition of the volumes at the extremities to increase the stability means that Z reaches very low values. T *V The number of Keulegan-Carpenter ( K C = ,non dimensionalization period) here shown L as / L , is almost irrelevant if not for the fact that the series position themselves in different areas with respect to the x-axis. Finally, the dispersion of points around the trend line can be seen as the effect of nonlinearity of the model (the presence of the horizontal connections between the cylinders and the tower, the difference in diameter between the main cylinders and those for stability). If we consider only one series ( =5.17for example) the value is constant, therefore moving L onto the x-axis k * H these will be representative only of wave height. The difference in values of height means that different elements with the passage of the wave are discovered, which causes a change in the immersed volumes in a non-linear way and it seems to justify the deviations from the trend line.
0.6
0.5
Non-Dimensionalized Heave Force Height
k*H
/L=2.47 /L=2.73 /L=3.16 /L=3.46
-0.858
y = 0.093x
R = 0.978
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Figure 14: Non-dimensionalized Heave Force
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
/L=4.27
/L=5.17
0.4
General
Power (General)
Z=Fz/(*g*A w *H ) .
Horizontal Force
Assuming that the pressure forces are predominant, the force is analyzed as: F = P* A P=pressure A= meeting area of the model on the wave perpendicular to the x-axis The pressure is proportional to:
P V = T with
2
2 g *k g = 2 = 2 = k k k
2
k=wave number=
2 T
=wave frequency=
The area instead is identified in: A = (2 * D + d ) *H with D= diameter of the principal cylinders d=diameter of the central tower Therefore, the non dimensionalization of forces in the direction of the surplus is given by: Fx X= * g * (2 * D + d) * H/k The independent variable chosen is K C = , previously discussed. L As a parameter instead, we will use the non dimensionalization of the wave height defined as:
H L Looking at the chart in "Figure 15: Non-dimensionalized Surge Force: Convective Zone" the graph can easily be divided into two parts where the discriminant is K C = K C crit=3. In the first area, given the high value of the Keulegan-Carpenter number, the convective phenomena are certainly predominant and the phenomenon tends to follow the trend line y = 8,671 * x-1.945 with a Root-Squared Value of R = 0.99. We observed how much the tests with H / T parameter tend to mass around a single point , on increasing K C . In fact high periods correspond to high wave lengths and high velocities: this means that the structure tends to behave like an object invested by a constant flow. Analyzing the videos concerning this condition in "Picture 25: Convective Condition Wave" we can see that when the front cylinders are on the crest, the back ones have already passed the trough and are invested by a flow with the same direction of the first cylinder.
H/L=0.109 H/L=0.137 H/L=0.164 H/L=0.192 H/L=0.219 H/L=0.247 H/L=0.274 Power (General) 4 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 4.5 0.2 1.5
Figure 15: Non-dimensionalized Surge Force: Convective Zone
General
-1.945
Non-Dimensionalized Surge Force Height: Convective zone
y = 8.6715x
R = 0.9905
5.5
2.5
/L
3.5
X = (F x / * g * (2 * D + d )* H /k ) .
Picture 25: Convective Condition Wave
On the contrary, in the second area the inertial phenomena are greater than the convective ones and the non dimensionalization performance suffers. With regards to this area, the qualitative performance of the iso-height forces is different and the signals are dispersed, but in an orderly way. Therefore, we use other non dimensionalized formula more suitable for this area: X=(Fx/*g*(2*D+d)*H^2) and the independent variable is k*H. Looking at "Figure 16: Non-dimensionalized Surge Force: Inertial Zone" we observe that for values of Kc close to or greater than 3 the curves tend to follow the trend line with equation y=0.6511x-1.3013 e R=0.9709. Analyzing the frame video concerning to this condition shown in "Picture 26: Inertial Condition Wave" we observe that, when the front cylinders are on the crest the back ones are still in the trough and with opposite velocities. This entails that the model feels the variation of speed in the wave period and leads to the upper hand over the inertial terms related to the local acceleration.
Power (General) /L=2.13 /L=2.51 /L=2.78 /L=3.21 /L=3.51 /L=4.34 /L=5.25 General
y = 0.6511x-1.3013 R2 = 0.9709
Non-Dimensionalized Surge Force Height: Inertial Zone
0.4 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.5
0.5 0.5 2 1 0 0.1 0.2 k*H 0.3
Figure 16: Non-dimensionalized Surge Force: Inertial Zone
X = F x / ( * g * (2 * D + d )* H ^ 2 ) .
0.6
Picture 26: Inertial Condition Wave
Pitch Moment
The moment of a rotating body is given by: M y = I yy * with I yy =moment of second order with respect to the mass of the object
=angular acceleration
If you want to report I yy to the floating figure we can rewrite it as : I yy = I y * H * with I y =moment of inertia of the floating figure compared to y-axis The angular acceleration can be seen as the change in velocity inside a period divided by the characteristic length of the body, therefore: V = = 2 T *L T *L From the dispersion relation: 4 2 1 g *k gk = 2 = 2 2 = T T 4 2 g *k * g = = 2 4 * L 2 * L Finally, the non dimensionalization of the moment is rewritten as My Y= is the dependent variable. ( * g * I y * H/(L * 2 ))
The independent variable is K C =
, previously discussed. L As a parameter, instead, the non dimensionalization of the wave height is used as:
H L
"Figure 17: Non-dimensional Pitch Moment: Convective Zone" " shows that the pitching moment derives from the product of the two components of the horizontal force for its arm and consequently a similar pattern is expected. This is what happens and its analysis on varying KC is the same with the exception of the equation of the trend line. If K C <3 the equation of the trend line is y=0.653*x-0.873 and the Root Squared Value is R=0.922.
In the zone influenced by inertial forces, K C >3, we use the new non-dimensionalized Moment Y=My/(*g*Iy*H^2//(L*2)) and the independent variable k*H. We can observe in "Figure 18: Non-dimensional Pitch Moment: Inertial Zone" that the pitch moment, even though the trend is similar to that one of the horizontal forces in the same zone, curves are not clearly following the trend line and the dispersion of the points is higher. Thus we obtain the formula: y=0.549x-1.3965 R=0.8512.
H/L=0.109 H/L=0.137 H/L=0.164 H/L=0.192 H/L=0.219 H/L=0.247 H/L=0.274 Power (General) 4 0.25 0.15 0.05 0.3 0.2 0.1 4.5 5 R = 0.922
2
General
Non-Dimensionalized Pitch Moment Height: Convective Zone
y = 0.653x
-0.873
5.5
Figure 17: Non-dimensional Pitch Moment: Convective Zone
1.5
2.5
/L
3.5
Y = M y /( * g * Iy * H /(L * 2 )) .
Power (General) 0.4 0.5 0.6
/L=2.13
/L=2.51
/L=2.78
/L=3.21
/L=3.51
/L=4.34
/L=5.25
Non-Dimensionalized Pitch Moment: Inertial Zone
y = 0.0549x -1.3965 R2 = 0.8512
General
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.15
0.05
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Figure 18: Non-dimensional Pitch Moment: Inertial Zone
0 Y = M y /(*g*Iy *H ^2/ /(L*2 )) .
0.1
0.2
k*H
0.3
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Given the kind of problem we face (sea conditions, typology of platform, kind of test) we decided the forces that we would analyze (Surge Force, Heave Force, Pitch Moment) and we designed the structure referring to the stability necessary requirements. Therefore, through a well equipped laboratory and our drawings we constructed the model, the support structure for the measurement of the signals and we set up the tank in order to start with the tests. This means we modified the geometry of the of the wave generator, we improved the crank regulation and thickened the wave absorber mesh. We did a sampling of the waves for a range of periods and wave heights clearly greater then the one decided at first time, we checked the their profile through the Fenton and Skjelbreia,-Hendrickson models and finally we decided which ones we would use for testing. Afterwards we set up the strain gauges load cells and the electronic equipment for the measurement of the signals that we processed to obtain the decided forces. The numerical validation was done by recreating the wave tank, doing test for 12 different conditions and approximating the 2nd and 3rd order Stokes waves with 5th ones. The RANSE solver used the VoF technique for the definition of the free surface and the 6 DoF motion for the calculation of the pressure over the surface of the model. The non structured mesh had 3 volume shape refinement to catch the refraction phenomena and represent better the free surface. The comparison of the simulated wave height with the parameters set into the solver showed that values are 16% lower. This analysis can give one possible reason for the mismatch found in quantitative comparison. In fact the error mean value of the amplitude of the signals in the numerical simulations was lower than the by 15,48% for the Heave Force, 19.96% for the Surge Force 18.01% for the Pitch Moment. The qualitative analysis was very congruent for the period of the signals but had some discrepancies on the regularity of the signals, especially for T=0.8. The non-dimensionalized analysis of experimental data showed for the Heave Force the Fz which depends from the slope k*H following the relation variable Z = * g * Aw * H y = 0.093x 0.858 . For what concerns the Heave Force ed the Pitch Moment there are two different trends: in the first one convective terms are dominant, when KC>3, and in the second one inertial terms are dominant, when KC<3.
Surge Force Pitch Moment
non-dimens X=(Fx/*g*(2*D+d)*H/k)
Kc>3 indep variable Kc
y = 8,671 * x-1.945 y=0.653*x-0.873
relation
X=Fx/(*g*(2*D+d)*H^2)
Kc
Surge Force Pitch Moment
non-dimens Y=My/(*g*Iy*H/(L*2))
Kc<3 indep variable k*H
y=0.6511x-1.3013 y=0.549x-1.3965
relation
Y=My/(*g*Iy*H^2//(L*2))
k*H
We can see 3 future developments: -evaluate the force in the direction of the Sway -evaluate the force in the Heave direction through 4 different load cells, each one of them placed in tension leg under one of the - enhace tests with a moving model and measuring the force through a accelerometer.
LEGEND
L= side of the square where you can enter the plant platform W= side of the square where you can enter the plant platform =displacement V=volume x=correction for free water bodies ZB=vertical coordinate of the centre of buoyancy ZG= vertical coordinate of the centre of gravity Aw=floating figure area I y =moment of inertia of the floating figure compared to y-axis RT=transversal metacentric radius GMt=metacentric height g=gravity acceleration H=wave height a=amplitude of the linear wave T=wave period =wave length 2 = =frequency T 2 =wave number k=
c=wave speed d=depth of the bottom E E = T =mean energy transmitted during a period T T =angular acceleration I yy =moment of second order with respect to the mass of the object L1=wave tank length W1=wave tank width H1=wave tank height D1= height of the water level from the seabed in calm water condition Fz=Vertical Force=Heave Force Fx =Horizontal Force=Surge Force My=Pitch moment X= non-dimensionalized surge force Z= non-dimensionalized vertical force Y= non-dimensionalized pitch moment K c =Keulegan-Carpenter number
REFERENCES
Fenton, J.D. (1985). "A Fifth -order Stokes Theory for Steady Waves". J. Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Eng., Vol.111. Fenton, J.D. (1990) "Non linear Waves Theories". The Sea,Vol.9, Wiley & Son Inc., New York. Scarsi, G. (1998). "Onde di gravita` regolari". Collana di Idraulica Marina, Edizioni Litograph, Genova. Skjelbreia, L. and Hendrickson, J.A. (1960). "Fifth order Gravity Wave Theory". Proc. 7th ICCE, Vol.1. Versteeg, H.K. and Malalasekera, W. (1995). "An introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamic". Longman Scientific & Technical.

Experimental and Numerical Methods For The Prediction of Wave Loads in Extreme Sea Conditions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental and Numerical Methods For The Prediction of Wave Loads in Extreme Sea Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D.

Dipartimento di Ingegneria NAVale Academic Year 2010/2011

Candidate: Umberto Ghisaura

Ad Angelina, Giancarlo, Stefano e Riccardo

II Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

III Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

1 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Main features of the current offshore plants

2 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

3 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

Picture 1: Wave tank

4 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Picture 2: Swinging Panel

5 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Picture 3: Electric Motor

Picture 4 : Wave Absorber

6 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Picture 5: Load Cell Setup

Picture 6 : Data Acquisition Equipment

7 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Typology of the structure

Geometry of the platform

Table 1:Stochastic Mediterranean Sea Wave Data

9 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

9.81 * (T1 ) 2 = 100 m 2 9.81 * (T2 ) 2 = 188m 2

10 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

where U is the velocity and a L a characteristic length of the Model/Real object

11 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

where is the time scale

Construction and junction materials

Machine working and assembly

13 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Picture 8: Electric Inverter for the Regulation of the Wave Period

14 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

2kd 2 1 + cos (kx t ) sinh( 2kd )

1 2kd 1 2kd 2 ga 2 c 1 + * T = 4 ga 1 + sinh( 2kd ) 4 sinh( 2kd )

ET 1 2kd 1 2kd 2 = ga 2 1 + = ga c 1 + T 4T sinh(2kd ) 4 sinh(2kd )

Furthermore the dispersion equation says

is wave length is depth of the bottom

Thus we can rewrite both equations

16 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Construction drawings are attached to the thesis book.

Regularity and Turbulence of the waves

Picture 11: Initial Swinging Panel Setup

17 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Picture 13: Initial Waves with Turbolences

18 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Picture 14: Example of Final Wave Generated

Picture 15: Final Wave Absorber

Picture 16: Initial Wave Absorber

20 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

50 Inverter frequency Wave 0.6 frequency

21 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

Picture 17: Sampling Waves

3.70 5.00 5.85 7.20 8.60

78.35 78.50 78.53 78.65 78.60

78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25 78.25

188.00 189.00 190.00 190.00 191.00

50.81 37.80 32.48 26.39 22.21

0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 6.3E-02

22 Umberto Ghisaura - Universita degli Studi di Genova

5.05 6.50 7.40 8.60 9.70

S=sinh(kh) C=cosh(kh) B 22 = C(2 * C 2 + 1) 4 * S3 C(272 * C8 504 * C 6 - 192 * C 4 + 322 * C 2 + 21) 384 * S9