Proceedings of the ASME 2011 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2011
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

OMAE2011-49

WAVE RUN-UP SIMULATIONS WITH A MOVING LARGE VOLUME SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE

PLATFORM

Rafael de Andrade Watai Fabio Tadao Matsumoto

Numerical Offshore Tank (TPN) Numerical Offshore Tank (TPN)
University of So Paulo University of So Paulo
So Paulo, SP, Brazil So Paulo, SP, Brazil
(Presently with Petrobras, Exploration &
Production)

Joo Vicente Sparano Alexandre Nicolaos Simos

Numerical Offshore Tank (TPN) Numerical Offshore Tank (TPN)
University of So Paulo University of So Paulo
So Paulo, SP, Brazil So Paulo, SP, Brazil

Marcos Donato A. S. Ferreira

Petrobras Research Center (CENPES)
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

ABSTRACT wave elevation results in fixed and moored model setup;

Since July 2008, the Numerical Offshore Tank (TPN) of
the University of So Paulo and Petrobras have been working
on a research project intended to improve knowledge and
modeling of advanced hydrodynamics topics, such as the wave
run-up phenomenon.
Among other activities, wave basin tests were performed
with small-scale model of a large volume semi-submersible
designed to operate in Campos Basin. These tests evidenced
significant run-up effects on its squared-section columns for the
steepest waves in several design conditions. In order to evaluate
the difficulties involved in modeling the wave run-up
phenomenon, simplified tests were also carried out with the
model fixed and moored in regular waves with varying
steepness.
Previous studies using a 2nd order BEM model and a VOF
CFD code to predict free-surface elevations below the deck
under regular waves were presented in Matsumoto et al. (2010).
The studies illustrated considerable differences between the
however, by that time, the analysis of the moored model by a
VOF CFD code was not yet complete.
This paper, therefore, presents wave run-up estimations
with a moving large volume semi-submersible platform
performed with the CFD code ComFLOW, which solves the
Navier-Stokes equations employing a local height function to
the free surface displacement.
The phenomenon is investigated by simulating the flow
around the semi-submersible model under the influence of high
steepness regular waves on a non-uniform grid. Platform
motions, derived from a first order BEM code, are imposed and
synchronized with the incoming wave. Aiming at avoiding
numerical wave reflections, a damping zone is also applied and
positioned downstream the platform model.
Predicted results are compared to experimental data,
measured by seven vertical wave probes located in different
positions below the model deck. Although considerably time-

1 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 consuming, it will be shown that simulations present very good the moored model made with the CFD code was not performed
agreement with the experimental results. by that time.
This paper, therefore, presents wave run-up estimations
INTRODUCTION
with a moving large volume semi-submersible platform with
Air gap evaluation for floating marine systems, such as the CFD code ComFLOW, which is currently been developed
TLP and semi-submersible platforms, has a great impact on in the context of a Joint Industry Project and aims at dealing
their design. In both concepts, an inadequate assessment of this with wave-structure interaction problems.
issue may result in an unnecessary deck elevation with serious
ComFLOW was used for simulating the fluid flow around
consequences from an economic standpoint.
the semi-submersible hull under the action of regular waves on
Definition of air gap, though, is still a challenge for the a non-uniform grid. The platform motions, previously
designers, since there are no well-established procedures calculated by a first order BEM code, are prescribed along the
available and ready-to-use in the early stages of the design. The simulations and synchronized with the incoming wave. A
reasons for this are related to the inherent complexity damping zone is also applied and positioned downstream the
associated to the non-linear hydrodynamic effects, especially platform model to minimize the influence of wave reflections.
concerning the wave run-up on the hull structure, and to the The wave elevations relative to the hull were monitored by
fact that the problem requires characterization of the steepest seven vertical wave probes positioned in different points below
waves in several sea conditions. The effects of non-linear free the model deck.
surface elevation and diffraction of waves resulting from the
The results are compared to experimental data obtained in
fluid-structure interaction often play important role when
small-scale tests carried out in the IPT (State of So Paulo
predicting the air gap.
Research Institute) towing tank in 2005. The tests were
Model scale tests are commonly performed at the final performed with regular waves of different steepness.
stages of a design to check the seakeeping behavior of the
Description of the experimental setup is briefly presented
system. In these campaigns, air gap measurements in pre-
next, followed by a discussion on the numerical model.
selected locations are often performed. However the
experimental approach would not be practical at the early
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
stages of a new hull concept, and therefore, the use of
numerical methods that can deal with non-linear wave Moored tests were conducted at the IPT towing-tank,
amplification in the vicinity of the structure becomes attractive. which is 240 meters long, 6 meters wide and 5 meters deep. In
order to accommodate the submerged anchor points, a
Simos et al. (2006) presented wave run-up and air gap
supporting structure was built. This structure was designed for
estimations for a semi-submersible platform performing
minimum disturbance of the incoming wave field and this was
numerical simulations with a first order Boundary Elements
confirmed by a set of preliminary tests. Figure 1 presents a
Method (BEM) code. They compared normalized wave
schematic view of the setup.
amplitudes at several locations below the deck to the ones
recorded in model tests. Their main conclusions were that,
although the linear approach presented a relatively good
agreement for low wave-steepness, free surface elevation in the
stern column surroundings was seriously underestimated due to
the wave run-up when higher values of steepness were tested.
Aiming at improving the results, Matsumoto et al. (2010) used
a 2nd order method in the analysis and demonstrated that this
approach clearly provided better predictions and therefore
should not be neglected. The same conclusions were obtained
by the works presented by Stansberg et al. (2005) and
Danmeier et al. (2008).
Potential flow modeling of the problem, however, presents
some limitations, as it cannot deal with fully nonlinear effects,
such as wave splashes or wave breaking. In the work of
Matsumoto et al. (2010), simulations with a VOF code were
also used for a fixed semi-submersible unit and presented
results even more precise, if compared to 2nd order BEM
approach. Another observation made by the authors refers to
considerable differences between the wave elevation results in
fixed and moored configurations; nevertheless, the analysis of Figure 1 Schematic representation of the experimental setup
(dimensions in meters)

2 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Since the new semi-submersible platforms are supposed to Table 3 Natural periods and damping coefficients
be moored in taut-leg configuration using polyester ropes, the
Motion Tn (s) (Model scale) Tn (s) (Full Scale) (%)
restoring forces present a highly non-linear behavior as a
function of the platform horizontal excursions. Stiffness in Heave 2.29 22.90 6.00
pitch, roll and yaw may vary significantly with the platform Pitch 3.19 31.90 3.00
offset, as well as the surge-pitch and sway-roll coupling effects.
Such variations may have an important influence on the air gap
level and, for this reason, different experimental mooring Table 4 presents the wave parameters adopted in the tests
arrangements were tested. (full-scale). The tested wave periods comprehended a range
between 10 and 21.5 seconds. As shown in Table 4, the
Preliminary tests were conducted with a simplified
variation on the wave steepness is mainly due to the changes in
mooring arrangement provided by four linear springs, as
wave periods, although the wave heights also varied in the
illustrated in Figure 1. The stiffness of each spring and the tests.
angles at the fairlead point were defined in order to reproduce
characteristics values of surge and pitch stiffness of the full
scale unit. Previous tests conducted using horizontal mooring Table 4 Waves tested parameters (full scale)
lines and different directions indicated that the worst situations
in terms of air gap demand occurred for bow incidence waves. Wave
Wave Period Wave Amplitude
Model scale was 1:100. The model main particulars are Steepness
(s) (m)
presented in Table 1 and Table 2 presents the main parameters (H/)
of the mooring system. 9.99 4.29 5.51%
9.99 4.28 5.49%
12.00 5.75 5.11%
Table 1 Model main characteristics 12.40 5.92 4.93%
Characteristics Model Scale Real Scale Unit 13.84 5.93 3.96%
Length 0.850 85.00 m 15.21 6.94 3.84%
Beam 0.850 85.00 m 17.54 6.77 2.82%
Draught 0.275 27.50 m 19.64 6.25 2.07%
Displacement 77.910 7.79E+05 kg 21.50 5.60 1.55%
Column width 0.175 17.50 m
Column breadth 0.175 17.50 m
Pontoon height 0.120 12.00 m Motions in the six dof were monitored along the tests.
Pontoon breadth 1.750 175.00 m Surface elevation (relative to the hull) was measured by means
of seven wave-probes (WP) fixed on the model. WP locations
Longitudinal center of gravity 0.000 0.000 m
are depicted in Figure 2.
Vertical center of gravity 0.250 25.00 m
Metacentric height 0.050 5.00 m
Transverse radius of gyr. 0.352 35.20 m
Longitudinal radius of gyr. 0.370 37.00 m

Table 2 Mooring system main parameters (model scale)

Waves
Characteristics Value Unit
Fairlead positions (X,Y,Z) (0.341; 0.445;-0.060) m
Anchor positions (X,Y,Z) (2.875; 1.646;-3.413) m
Line stiffness 25.09 N/m

Analysis of decay tests provided the following mean values of

natural periods and linearized damping coefficients for the
heave and pitch motions, presented in Table 3.
Figure 2 Location of the wave-probes (values in mm)

3 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 COMFLOW NUMERICAL MODEL Away from the platform hull, the computational grid has
been covered by cells of non-uniform size, while in the semi-
submersible surroundings a uniform grid of ,   0.8,
The CFD simulations herein presented were performed
  0.6 meter was imposed. Figure 3 to Figure 5 illustrates an
with the software ComFLOW, which is based on the non-linear
Navier-Stokes equations for an incompressible and viscous
example of the computational domain employed for one of the
fluid. The software has been developed by the University of
regular waves simulated. The number of cells in the
Groningen, The Netherlands, initially to study the sloshing of
computational domain was around 3-5 million cells, leading to
liquid fuel in satellites that in a micro-gravity environment
a relatively large consume of time, as the algorithm does not yet
requires a very accurate and robust improvement in the
allow parallel processing. Simulations were done in a computer
description of the free surface. In order to avoid jetsam and
equipped with a 2 QuadCore Intel Xeon X5365 @ 3.00GHz.
flotsam, this code combines a local height function with the
The longest case required around 25 days of processing time.
original VOF method, presented by Hirt and Nichols (1981),
rendering free surface displacement calculations with improved
accuracy.
ComFLOW has been already used for several applications
within maritime research areas, such as green water (see
Kleefsman et al. (2005)), sloshing (see Bunnik and Veldman
(2010)) and wave run-up. Focusing in the latter, a vast number
of works investigating the phenomenon in different platform
units have been presented; see for instance Buchner et al.
(2001), Loots and Buchner (2004), Wellens et al. (2007) and
Iwanowski et al. (2009).
In this paper, ComFLOW is used for the evaluation of
wave run-up in seven different locations below the deck of a
moving semi-submersible platform. Figure 3 Semi-submersible modeled in ComFLOW: perspective
The simulations were carried out using regular waves with view
three different lengths to represent the incoming wave steepness
described in Table 5. It should be noticed, that some of the
waves analyzed in the experimental tests were neglected
because their characteristics were such that for a CFD analysis
a large computational effort would be necessary to predict the
results. Moreover, Matsumoto et al. (2010) have shown that for
wave steepness lower than 4%, the 2nd order results obtained by
WAMIT (Wave Analysis MIT) were accurate enough to
capture the wave elevation trends. Figure 4 - Semi-submersible modeled in ComFLOW: side view

Table 5 ComFLOW waves simulated and total number of cells

(full scale)

Comflow
Total
Length (m) Height (m) Period (s) Steepness
Number of
Cells
155.79 8.58 9.99 5.50% 2921535
224.48 11.5 11.99 5.10% 4557105 Figure 5 - Semi-submersible modeled in ComFLOW: top view
239.79 11.84 12.39 4.90% 4874580
Instead of starting the fluid from the rest, the initial
condition was set to a completely developed velocity field with
The dimensions of the fluid domain were chosen in order
the crest located at the center of the semi-submersible model, as
to keep the number of cells within reasonable figures. The total
length was defined to be   1.5, where  is the incoming
illustrated in Figure 6. This approach saves a considerable
regular wave length. The domain width was set to   160
amount of computational time, since it avoids the need for
waiting two or more wave periods to gradually build up the
meters and the water depth was set to half of the wave length,
simulation to a desired steady state. At the inlet boundary,
to avoid shallow water effects.

4 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 linear wave inflow conditions were imposed and in the lateral
walls (y direction) a no-slip condition has been used.
Figure 6 Initial condition for simulations: side view
The compromise between a large numerical wave tank
domain and computer capacity was a challenge, due to
reflections from boundaries. Aiming to minimize the influence
of the reflected waves in the measurement locations, a damping
zone of the half wave length was applied and positioned
downstream the platform model. This length is considered to be
very small and an amount of reflection of 10% is expected for a
perfect regular wave, as illustrated in Figure 7. Nevertheless,
decreasing this number to 1-5% would double or triple this
length zone and consequently the number of cells would
drastically increase.
Figure 7 Combination of required length and slope of the
dissipation zone for a certain amount of reflection (extracted from
Kleefsman (2005)). Red rectangle represents the simulated waves
range
A fully-coupled algorithm that solves the hydrodynamic
and the dynamic problem at the same time is still a challenge.
In the present situation, for example, the code would need to
calculate the fluid pressure, platform motions and tensions on
the mooring lines for each time step. Currently, ComFLOW
does not yet allow a dynamic simulation with the motions being
calculated from the hydrodynamic pressure on the hull surface.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Therefore the unique option available to conduct the
simulations was the use of prescribed motions.
Platform motions were imposed and synchronized with the
incoming regular wave. The motions time traces could be
obtained by the experimental tests or predicted and adjusted by
a BEM code. In this paper, the latter option was used and the
procedure adopted for this is described next.
Motion Time Traces
The simulations performed considered only bow incidence
waves and therefore, sway, roll and yaw motions were
neglected.
First order platform motions were derived from the
WAMIT code. The WAMIT model was built using a 1356
panels mesh in accordance with the low order solver
requirements. Although the platform has a slightly
asymmetrical component (see Figure 8), in the WAMIT
numerical model double symmetry was used in order to reduce
processing effort. Figure 8 and Figure 9 presents the full and
symmetrical meshes used to perform the computations,
respectively.
Figure 8 Wamit full model mesh (Low order)
Figure 9 Wamit symmetrical model mesh (Low order)
For an adequate representation of the motions, it is
essential to obtain a good evaluation of the first order motions
transfer functions. The experimental values of the RAOs for
bow incidence, previously obtained through regular wave tests,
were used for calibrations purpose. Figure 10 to Figure 12
respectively present the comparison between the experimental
and numerical values of surge, heave and pitch RAOs
(converted to full-scale).
5 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 [10]. Matsumoto, F.T.; Watai, R.A.; Simos, A.N.;
Ferreira, M.D.A.S., Wave Run-up and Air Gap Prediction for a
Large-Volume Semi-Submersible Platform Proceedings of the
29th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, OMAE2010, Shanghai, China, June 6-11, 2010.
[11]. Simos, A.N.; Fujarra, A.L.C.; Sparano, J.V.;
Umeda, C.H., Experimental Evaluation of the Dynamic Air
Gap of a Large-Volume Semi-Submersible, Proceedings of the
25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, OMAE2006, Hamburg, Germany, June 4-9, 2006.
[12]. Stansberg, C.T.; Baarholm, R.; Kristiansen,
T.; Hansen, E.W.M.; Rortveit, G., Extreme Wave
Amplification and Impact Loads on Offshore Structures,
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC2005, Houston, USA,
May 2-5, 2005.
[13]. WAMIT, WAMIT User Manual 6.2, 6.2PC,
6.2S, 6.2S-PC, WAMIT Inc., MA, USA, 2004.
[14]. Wellens, P.R.; Pinkster, J.A.; Veldman,
A.E.P.; Huijsmans, R.H.M., Numerical Wave Run Up
Calculation on GBS Columns, Proceedings of the Seventeenth
(2007) International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, ISOPE2007, Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-6, 2007.

10 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 indicates that the capacitive wave probes were saturated in -2 12
cm. Experiment
10
ComFLOW

Relative Wave Elevation (cm)

2.5
Experiment 8
st
Wamit 1 order 6
2
Wamit(1st +2nd) order
4
(m/m)

ComFLOW
1.5 2
wave

0
/A

1 -2
probe
A

-4
0.5
-6
-8
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
time (s)
Wave Steepness
Figure 16 Relative Wave Elevation at WP3 (H/ = 4.93%)
Figure 13 Non-dimensional wave elevation at WP2
12
2.5
Experiment 10 Experiment
Relative Wave Elevation (cm)

Wamit 1st order ComFLOW

2 8
Wamit (1st+2nd) order
(m/m)

ComFLOW 6
1.5 4
wave

2
/A

1
probe

0
A

-2
0.5
-4

0 -6
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Wave Steepness -8
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 14 Non-dimensional wave elevation at WP3 time (s)
Figure 17 Relative Wave Elevation at WP3 (H/ = 5.51%)
2.5
Experiment
One should be noticed that the highest relative wave
Wamit 1st order
2 st nd
elevation did not occur when the steepest wave was simulated.
Wamit (1 +2 ) order This is well represented by the drop in amplitude observed for
(m/m)

ComFLOW
the steepest wave in either, numerical or experimental results.
1.5 The drop is related to phase shifts between waves and motions.
wave

Figure 18 and Figure 19 present two snapshots, obtained

/A

1 with the ComFLOW post-processor, illustrating the moment of

probe

maximum wave elevation at the stern column.

A

0.5

0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Wave Steepness

Figure 15 Non-dimensional wave elevation at WP4

7 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 presented in Figure 22 and Figure 23, respectively. Moreover,
Figure 24 shows the relative wave elevation time traces at point
WP7 for the highest wave steepness simulated. Once again, an
overall good agreement is observed.
2.5
Experiment
Wamit 1st order
2
Wamit (1st+2nd) order

(m/m)
ComFLOW
1.5

wave
Figure 18 - Maximum wave elevation detected on the stern
columns (wave steepness 0.051): zoom in side view

/A
1

probe
A
0.5

0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Wave Steepness

Figure 21 Non-dimensional wave elevation at WP6

2.5
Experiment
Wamit 1st order
2
Wamit(1st +2nd) order
(m/m)

ComFLOW
1.5
Figure 19 Maximum wave elevation detected on the stern
wave

columns (wave steepness 0.051): zoom in perspective view

/A

1
probe

Figure 20 and Figure 21 present the results of the wave

probes WP5 and WP6, respectively. Although, in some cases
A

the code slightly over predicted the measurements at the 0.5

columns corner, the solutions obtained by the full non-linear
CFD code captured very well the trends observed in the
experimental results. 0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
2.5 Wave Steepness
Experiment
Figure 22 Non-dimensional wave elevation at WP1
Wamit 1st order
2
Wamit(1st+2nd) order 2.5
Experiment
(m/m)

ComFLOW
Wamit 1st order
1.5 2
Wamit (1st+2nd) order
wave

(m/m)

ComFLOW
/A

1
probe

1.5
wave
A

/A

0.5 1
probe
A

0 0.5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Wave Steepness
0
Figure 20 Non-dimensional wave elevation at WP5 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Wave Steepness
The results for the wave probes located at the mid-points
between forward columns (WP1) and after columns (WP7) are Figure 23 Non-dimensional wave elevation at WP7

8 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Experiment
Relative Wave Elevation (cm)
6 ComFLOW
4
2 acknowledge FAPESP for their scholarships (Proc. N
0
-2
-4
0 1 2 3
time (s)
Figure 24 Relative Wave Elevation at WP7 (H/ = 5.51%)
CONCLUSIONS
As part of an ongoing research project, small-scale tests
were carried out aiming at clarifying several difficulties
involved in the prediction of wave run-up effects in a large
semi-submersible platform. Wave elevation in different location
below the deck was measured and compared to predictions
obtained by two different numerical tools: the well known
WAMIT and the improved Volume of Fluid code ComFLOW.
The results obtained via WAMIT were firstly presented in the
work of Matsumoto et al. (2010) and were now complemented
with the inclusion of CFD simulations performed with the
moving unit.
A simple procedure to simulate the interaction effects
between the platform hull and the regular waves was described.
The motions of the platform model were previously derived by
a first order BEM code and then prescribed along the
simulations. Synchronization between body and incoming
regular waves was necessary for an adequate reproduction of
the model tests.
Wave run-up effects in front of the squared columns of the
semi-submersible unit were precisely estimated by the CFD
simulations. Results have shown that ComFLOW was able to
predict the relative wave elevations very well at different
positions below the deck and for incoming waves of varying
steepness. It may, therefore, be considered a suitable numerical
tool for defining the design value of air gap for large offshore
systems. Nevertheless, one should be aware that refined
computational meshes are required for reaching a desirable
level of accuracy, rendering the simulations extremely time
consuming. New advances of the code, especially regarding the
possibility of parallel processing, will certainly contribute to
make the numerical approach more practical for different stages
of the design.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Authors gratefully acknowledge Petrobras for sponsoring
this Research Project and also providing the experimental
results. We also thank Dr. Bas Buchner of the MARIN for
making ComFLOW code available to this study and Dr. Roel
Luppes of the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, for
the technical support. Finally, first and second authors
2010/08778-2 and Proc. N 2007/05858-2, respectively).
REFERENCES
[1]. Buchner, B.; Bunnik, T.H.J.; Fekken, G.;
Veldman, A.E.P., A Numerical Study on Wave Run Up on an
FPSO Bow, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference
on Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering, OMAE2001,
4 5
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 3-8, 2001.
[2]. Bunnik, T.; Veldman, A., Modelling the
Effect of Sloshing on Ship Motions, Proceedings of the 29th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, OMAE2010, Shanghai, China, June 6-11, 2010.
[3]. Comflow V2.3, Manual Comflow V2.3,
(2008).
[4]. Danmeier, D.G.; Seah, R.K.M.; Finnigan, T.;
Roddier, D.; Aubault, A.; Vache, M.; Imamura, J.T., Validation
of Wave Run-Up Calculation Methods for a Gravity Based
Structure, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering, OMAE2008,
Estoril, Portugal, June 15-20, 2008.
[5]. Hirt, C.W.; Nichols, B.D., Volume of Fluid
(VOF) Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundaries, Journal
of Computational Physics, volume 39, pp 201-255, 1981.
[6]. Iwanowski B.; Lefranc, M.; Wemmenhove,
R., CFD Simulation of Wave Run-Up on a Semi-Submersible
and Comparison with Experiment, Proceedings of the 28th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, OMAE2009, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 31 -
June 5, 2009.
[7]. Kleefsman, K.M.T., Water Impact Loading
on Offshore Structures: A Numerical Study, PhD Thesis,
University of Groningen, The Netherlands, 2005.
[8]. Kleefsman, K.M.T.; Loots, G.E.; Veldman,
A.E.P.; Buchner, B.; Bunnik, T.; Falkenberg, E., The
Numerical Simulation of Green Water Loading Including
Motions and the Incoming Wave Field, Proceedings of the 24th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, OMAE2005, Halkidiki, Greece, June 12-17, 2005.
[9]. Loots, E.; Buchner, B., Wave Run Up as
Important Hydrodynamic Issue for Gravity Based Structures,
Proceedings of the 23th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Artic Engineering, OMAE2004, Vancouver,
Canada, June 20-25, 2004.
9 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 [10]. Matsumoto, F.T.; Watai, R.A.; Simos, A.N.;
Ferreira, M.D.A.S., Wave Run-up and Air Gap Prediction for a
Large-Volume Semi-Submersible Platform Proceedings of the
29th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, OMAE2010, Shanghai, China, June 6-11, 2010.
[11]. Simos, A.N.; Fujarra, A.L.C.; Sparano, J.V.;
Umeda, C.H., Experimental Evaluation of the Dynamic Air
Gap of a Large-Volume Semi-Submersible, Proceedings of the
25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, OMAE2006, Hamburg, Germany, June 4-9, 2006.
[12]. Stansberg, C.T.; Baarholm, R.; Kristiansen,
T.; Hansen, E.W.M.; Rortveit, G., Extreme Wave
Amplification and Impact Loads on Offshore Structures,
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC2005, Houston, USA,
May 2-5, 2005.
[13]. WAMIT, WAMIT User Manual 6.2, 6.2PC,
6.2S, 6.2S-PC, WAMIT Inc., MA, USA, 2004.
[14]. Wellens, P.R.; Pinkster, J.A.; Veldman,
A.E.P.; Huijsmans, R.H.M., Numerical Wave Run Up
Calculation on GBS Columns, Proceedings of the Seventeenth
(2007) International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, ISOPE2007, Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-6, 2007.

10 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms