Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Hydrodynamic response of spar hulls with heave

damping plate using simplified approach

S. Nallayarasu & Kirti Bairathi

To cite this article: S. Nallayarasu & Kirti Bairathi (2014) Hydrodynamic response of spar hulls with
heave damping plate using simplified approach, Ships and Offshore Structures, 9:4, 418-432, DOI:
10.1080/17445302.2013.841331

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2013.841331

Published online: 29 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 336

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20
Ships and Offshore Structures, 2014
Vol. 9, No. 4, 418–432, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2013.841331

Hydrodynamic response of spar hulls with heave damping plate using simplified approach
S. Nallayarasu∗ and Kirti Bairathi
Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai, India
(Received 8 November 2012; accepted 2 September 2013)

The evaluation of hydrodynamic response for variety of hull configurations has to be obtained during initial design for
concept screening studies. A number of response evaluation techniques including finite element, boundary element and
panel methods have been in use for some time. These techniques may employ first- or second-order solutions but may take
considerable effort and time. The geometric parameters used in the industry for spar hulls indicate that the structures fall
within the Morison regime (D/L < 0.2, where D is the diameter of the spar and L is the wave length). A simplified solution
technique, which may offer quicker solution with certain approximations, may be acceptable during initial design process.
Such an approximate solution has been applied to other floating body problems in the past. Application of semi-empirical
methods such as Morison equation for slender structures has been very successful due to its simplicity and ease with which the
wave-induced loads are computed. A simplified solution process together with heave damping plate in the form circular disc
attached to the keel of the spar has been proposed in this study. The computation of added mass due to the presence of damping
plate has been carried out using simple geometric proposition and is verified by experimental studies. The computation of
response of rigid floating body can be obtained by the solution to the equation of motion involving six degrees of freedom.
The simplified solution uses the force calculated using Morison equation and damping, added mass coefficients obtained
from the experiments to calculate the linear responses. Experimental studies were conducted in a laboratory wave flume on
spar models to obtain the hydrodynamic damping, added mass and motion response characteristics. The computed responses
in terms of response amplitude operators have been compared with that obtained from WAMIT and experimental results.
Keywords: classic spar; RAO; simplified method; uncoupled motion response; heave plate

1. Introduction intervention activities, minimal offshore construction, and

Spar is a deep draft vertically floating cylinder anchored
to the seafloor with multiple mooring lines designed to
support drilling and production operations. The deep draft
of spars, approximately 100–200 m, reduces the motion
response to permit installation of rigid risers with dry well-
heads. However, considerable reduction in heave response
may be required for successful operation of drilling risers.
Hence the motion response optimisation is an important
issue which may require considerable effort in finalisation
of hull geometry as each and every geometry may need to
be evaluated. New concepts are always being evolved and
proposed which attempt to optimise the capabilities and
cost-effectiveness of the concept from experience obtained
with ‘classical’ designs.
The sea keeping and manoeuvring abilities are impor-
tant issues for floating platforms for efficient operation.
Specifically, the heave response of any deep water floating
platform is critical because a favourable heave motion al-
lows the use of a dry tree system. The use of a dry tree
system has some benefits and challenges too, e.g. benefits –
tree and well control at surface in close proximity of people,
drilling conducted from the facility resulting in to reduced
capital expenditure, direct vertical access to wells for future
enabling of future drilling and expansion; and challenges –
safety concern due to well access at surface, large vessel
payloads due to the need for supporting risers, require high
cost vessels such as spar and Tension Leg Platform due
to design sensitivity to vessel motions, complex riser de-
sign issues. To utilise the benefits of dry tree system, some
devices, such as heave plates, are installed on truss spars
to reduce the heave response. For the past few decades a
number of investigations have been carried out on various
response reduction techniques like addition of heave plates,
modification of hull shapes, etc.
Though spar hulls have low heave motion, near peak fre-
quency, the heave response could be higher. Hence, heave
response shall be reduced considerably, if the spar platform
are to be used for drilling operations. To provide flexi-
bility in drilling operations, heave compensating devises
are normally used in dry tree applications. In this case,
the reduction heave response will reduce the cost of heave
compensating devices which depends heavily on the height
of heave compensation. This type of heave plates are com-
monly used with the truss spar in which the heave plates
become the connecting part of the truss and automatically
provide the damping and added mass effect. Many truss

∗
Corresponding author. Email: nallay@iitm.ac.in


C 2013 Taylor & Francis
 Ships and Offshore Structures
spar uses this concept, the data are available only through
public domain to the authors.
Many researchers have presented methods for numer-
ical prediction of motion response of spar platforms. To
understand the past history of numerical schemes used
in the hydrodynamic evaluation, few relevant studies are
highlighted. Some of the studies used the first- and second-
order diffracted velocity potential, while others have used a
slender body approximation, i.e. the wave field is virtually
undisturbed by the structure. The combination of the
incoming wave potential and Morison equation (Morison
et al. 1950) can be used to calculate the wave loads on the
spar. Emmerhoff and Sclavounos (1992) presented first- and
second-order diffraction solution for vertical floating cylin-
ders. The diffraction problem was solved in the frequency
domain and the motion response of the platform was solved
in time domain. Johnson et al. (1995) presented a time
domain calculation method using Morison equation to es-
timate the loads on the spar. Ran et al. (1996) used a higher
order boundary element method to solve the second-order
diffraction problem. Different additional nonlinearities
were included and the results were compared experi-
mentally. Cao and Zhang (1996) used a Morison model
combined with a hybrid wave model considering second-
order wave kinematics. Chitrapu et al. (1998) have studied
motion response of a spar platform using a Morison model
and time domain calculations. Haslum (2000) presented
the simplified methods based on first- and second-order
potential theory for prediction of spar platform responses.
Rho and Choi (2002) carried out model tests with and with-
out damping plate, with and without strakes and with and
without moon pool and compared the experimental results
with numerical analysis. Mathieu instability which occurs
when the period of incident wave is equal to the heave
natural period, and half of the pitch natural period was also
examined.
Longbin and Shunqing (2004) presented the vortex
shedding flow of an oscillating vertical cylinder with a disc
attached to its keel. Finite difference method was employed
to solve the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations in the
primitive variables formulation. Based on the numerical
simulations, it showed that the geometry configurations of
the cylinder and disc had significant influence on the vortex
shedding modes and associated hydrodynamic properties.
Sudhakar and Nallayarasu (2011) conducted experimen-
tal and numerical investigation on the effectiveness of the
heave damping plate of various sizes and concluded that
30% reduction in heave response is achievable by means
of suitable arrangement of damping plate. Li et al. (2013)
investigated the effect of heave plates on deep draft multi-
spar platforms and concluded that the numerical simulation
predicted the added mass by 20% less than that obtained
from experiments.
The spar hulls used in the industry have typical diame-
ters ranging from 20 to 30 m and in some cases 40 m. The
wave periods that may be considered for the design of these
419
spar platforms may range from 4 to 16 seconds considering
the variation in various parts of the world excluding long
period swells in some specific locations. Based on the diam-
eter and wave lengths of these waves, the diameter to wave
length ratio (D/L) range from 0.1 to 0.2 and hence the use of
diffraction-based theory is not warranted for first-order re-
sponses. However, this is not true in the case of drift forces
and second-order responses. In any case, depending on the
necessity, such theory may be applied. In this regard, dur-
ing initial design of spar geometry, for concept selection,
the hydrodynamic response evaluation has to be carried out
for several configurations. Though finite element or panel
methods may offer accurate solutions, they require consid-
erable computational effort. Instead, for preliminary design,
though approximate but faster solution based on simplified
methods may be suitable.
The objective of the present study is to develop a simpli-
fied numerical scheme with acceptable assumptions for the
spar hull with heave plate. The scope of the investigation
for the study is listed below.
• Develop a numerical scheme for the hydrodynamic
response of spar with heave plate based on simplified
method.
• Conduct experimental studies on scale model of a
spar with heave damping plate and derive damping
and added mass characteristics.
• Develop a method to compute added mass coeffi-
cients for spar with the heave plate based on geometry
together with the experimental results.
• Parametric evaluation of hydrodynamic response of
spar hulls with heave damping plate with varying
diameter ratios.
2. Theoretical investigation
The solution to the six degrees of freedom floating struc-
ture exists for some time. The differing nature of solution
technique lies in the evaluation of external loads. One such
technique is used in this paper. The solution to the equa-
tion of motion of a rigid floating body can be obtained
once the external forces are known. These equations are
generally nonlinear because of the presence of nonlinear
damping, excitation force and nonlinear restoring force.
The general solution of these equations retaining all the
nonlinearities can only be obtained by numerical means,
e.g. a finite difference or a finite element scheme. However,
in the simplified approach these nonlinearities are linearised
and thus results may be obtained through a simplified solu-
tion. There are two basic approaches that are considered in
the floating structure dynamic response, i.e. solution based
on frequency domain or time domain. Frequency domain
analysis is preferred due to its simplicity compared to the
time domain approach.
The coordinate system (X , Y and Z) is assumed at mean
sea level and the response of the system is computed at
420 S. Nallayarasu and K. Bairathi

the centre of gravity (COG) of spar. The method uses the
Froude–Krylov force, the diffraction force on the structure
at its equilibrium position and the radiation force due to the
structure motion about its equilibrium position. The last
component provides the hydrodynamic coefficients of the
structure in its six degrees of motion in terms of the added
mass and damping coefficients. The method of simplified
solution to hydrodynamic problems is described in Faltinsen
(1990). The equation of motion of a floating body can be
written as
[M + A] {η̈} + [B] {η̇} + [C] {η} = F {t} , (1)
where M is the displaced mass matrix of the floating struc-
ture, A is added mass of the floating structure, B is the
damping force, C is the restoring force, F is the hydrody-
namic force, η̈ is the acceleration, η̇ is the velocity and η is
the displacement.
The equation of motion for surge, heave and pitch can be
solved in frequency domain assuming the damping effect is
linear. Due to symmetry, the waves can be assumed to prop-
agate along the positive x-axis and hence only pitch, heave
and surge terms need to be retained. The heave equation of
motion is uncoupled, while pitch and surge are coupled. For
a regular wave, the surface elevation (ζ ), velocity potential
(ϕ), vertical acceleration (az ) and horizontal acceleration
(ax ) can be written as
ζ = ζa sin(ωt − kx), (2)
ζa g cosh k(d + z)
ϕ= cos(ωt − kx), (3)
ω cosh kd
sinh k (d + z)
az = −ω2 ζa sin ωt, (4)
sinh kd
cosh k(d + z)
ax = ω2 ζa cos ωt, (5)
sinh kd
where ζ a is wave amplitude, ω is wave frequency, k is wave
number, g is acceleration due to gravity, d is water depth, t is
time and x and z are coordinates of point in consideration.
The equation of motion can be simplified and writ-
ten in each direction of motion. However, surge and pitch
surge and pitch accelerations, η̇1 and η̇5 are surge and pitch
velocity, η1 and η5 are surge and pitch displacements, F 1 (t)
and F 5 (t) are external force in surge and pitch directions,
respectively. The uncoupled heave equation of motion can
be written as
(M + A33 )η̈3 + B33 η̇3 + C33 η3 = F3 (t), (7)
where A33 , B33 , C 33 , η̈3 , η̇3 , η3 and F 3 are the added mass,
damping, restoring force coefficients, acceleration, velocity,
displacement of the body in heave direction and heave force,
respectively.
2.1. Hydrodynamic forces and added mass
2.1.1. Heave excitation force and added mass
The hydrodynamic force can be expressed as the summation
of Froude–Krylov forces (pressure forces and moments due
to undisturbed fluid flow) and the diffraction forces (pres-
sure forces occurring since the body changes the pressure
field by its presence in the water):
Fi = FFK + FDIF , i = 1, 3, 5 (8)
where F1 , F3 and F5 correspond to surge, heave and
pitch forces, respectively. The heave force on the spar in-
cludes the Froude–Krylov force and diffraction force. The
Froude–Krylov force can be obtained by integrating the
undisturbed fluid pressure from the incoming wave poten-
tial over the bottom of the spar including heave plate. The
diffraction term may be simplified since long wave approx-
imation (D/L < 0.2) is used and the integral over the wetted
surface can be replaced by the quantities at the centre of the
spar (x = 0). This means that the structure is assumed to
be transparent with respect to waves. Hence only the bot-
tom surface of the spar contributes to the heave force (see
Figure 1):

F3 ≈ − pFK n3 ds+A33 az = Aw p|z=−dd +A33 az |z=−dd ,
SB

have the inter dependency and cannot be separated due to (9)

off-diagonal terms (A15 , A51 , B15 , B51 , C 15 and C 51 ). This 
H cosh k(d − dd )
is called coupling between the surge/pitch motions. The F3 = Aw ρg
2 cosh kd
coupled surge/pitch equations of motion can be written in 
matrix form as H sinh k(d − dd )
      − ω2 A33 sin ωt, (10)
M + A11 A15 η̈1 B11 B15 η̇1 2 sinh kd
+
A51 A55 + I55 η̈5 B51 B55 η̇5
     where dd is the draft of the spar, Aw is the water plane
C11 C15 η1 F1 (t) area and H is the wave height. The first term is the
+ = , (6)
C51 C55 η5 F5 (t) Froude–Krylov force and the second term is an approxi-
mation for the diffraction force. It can be seen from Equa-
where A11 , A15 , A51 and A55 are added mass coefficients, tion (3) the heave excitation force reduces with increase in
B11 , B15 , B51 and B55 are damping coefficients, C 11 , C 15 , heave added mass. This effect was considered by Haslum
C 51 and C 55 are restoring force coefficients, η̈1 and η̈5 are (2000) as the heave cancellation effect. Hence, accurate
 Ships and Offshore Structures 421

Figure 2. Heave added mass of various shapes (Sarpkaya et al.

1981). (a) Cylindrical column. (b) Sphere. (c) Disc.

forces (surge force) can be estimated using strip theory,

 (2D) 
Figure 1. Spar geometry and coordinate system. (This figure is fstrip = A11 + dzπ r 2 a, (12)
available in colour online.)
(2D)
where A11 is added mass of section, r is radius of cylinder,
evaluation of the heave added mass is required for accurate dz is the height of the strip and a is undisturbed water
estimation of the heave excitation force. Such evaluation particle acceleration. The total surge force can be obtained
of added mass for classic spars, spar with circular heave by the substitution of acceleration from linear wave theory
plates, single and double heave plates has been investigated and integrating over the spar draft, the equation for the surge
by Philip et al. (2012). forces becomes
The heave added mass (A33 ) of a semi-infinite cylinder  
π 2 H 2 cosh k(d + z)
floating in water was reported as A33 = 2.064ρr3 (Newman fstrip = D ρCm ω cos ωt, (13)
1985), where r is the radius of cylinder. This is equal to 4 s 2 sinh kd
 o 
approximately the displaced mass of hemisphere. Similarly, π 2 H 1
the added mass of a disc is approximately equal to the mass F1 = fstrip dz = Ds ρCm ω2
−dd 4 2 sinh kd
of a sphere (Sarpkaya and Isaacson 1981) i.e. ma = 13 ρDd3  0 
as shown in Figure 2. Based on the geometric shape of
× cosh k(d + z)dz cos ωt, (14)
added mass as described above, added mass of a cylinder −dd
with a heave plate attached to its base can be written as
(Philip et al. 2012) where Cm is the inertia coefficient (1 + Ca ). Similar expres-
sion for the pitch moment can be written as
 
1 3 1
 2  2 
ma = A33 = ρDd − ρ Dd − Dd −Ds Dd −Ds ,
3 2 2 0
3 6 F5 = fstrip Zstrip dz, (15)
−dd
(11)

where Ds is the diameter of spar and Dd is the diameter of

heave plate. The above calculation is based on the geomet- Table 1. Added mass and natural period for heave obtained by
ric subtraction of volume of cylinder as shown in Figure 3. numerical simulation.
The heave added mass calculated for various spar/disc di-
Configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6
ameter ratio using the above approach is summarised in
Table 1. Diameter ratio 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.31 1.56 2.00
(Dd /Ds )
Added mass A33 4.19 4.47 4.71 7.57 14.7 35.22
(kg)
2.1.2. Surge and pitch excitation force and added mass Added mass 0.067 0.075 0.083 0.115 0.209 0.384
The spar can be considered as a slender body when D/L < coefficient Ca
0.2 (long wave approximation) and for smaller wave heights Calculated heave 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.27 2.4 2.72
natural period
(H/D < 0.16) the drag loads will not be significant and TN,3 (sec)
hence the same can be ignored. The horizontal excitation
422 S. Nallayarasu and K. Bairathi

Figure 3. Heave added mass. (a) Heave added mass of a bare cylinder. (b) Heave added mass of cylinder + disc configuration.


π 2 H 1 ignored. The damping coefficients for pitch and heave can
=− D ρCM ω2 be written as
4 2 sinh kd
 0  
× cosh k(d + z)(zVCG − z)dz cos ωt, (16) B55 = 2ξ5 (A55 + I55 )C55 , (19)
−dd 
B33 = 2ξ3 (A33 + M)C33 . (20)
where zVCG = z coordinate of COG as shown in Figure 1.
The added mass coefficients A11 , A15 , A51 and A55 are The values of ξ 5 , ξ 3 , A55 and A33 are obtained from free
determined by considering forced surge and pitch os- decay tests conducted on spar hulls with heave damping
cillation of the spar. Under combined surge/pitch oscil- plate.
lations, every strip along the hull has the acceleration
astrip = η̈1 + Zstrip η̈5 . Zstrip is the vertical distance from the
strip to the vertical COG (VCG). The surge and pitch force 2.3. Response amplitude operator
can be calculated using the following equation: The solution to the equation of motion using steady state
response (ηi = η̄i eiωt ) and substitution of coefficient will
 
(2D)
0
π D2 yield motion response. The linear response amplitude op-
F1,RAD = − A11 alocal dz = −η̈1 ρ dz erators (RAOs) can be defined as
−dd 4
 0
π D2 RAO1 (ω) = |η1 | /ζa [m/m], (21)
−η̈5 ρ [− (zVCG − z)]dz , (17)
−dd 4
 RAO3 (ω) = |η3 | /ζa [m/m], (22)
(2D)
F5,RAD = − A11 alocal Zstrip dz RAO5 (ω) = |η5 | /ζa [rad/m]. (23)
 0
π D2 Phase angles describing the phase shift between the wave
= −η̈1 ρ [− (zVCG − z)]dz
−dd 4 elevation, at x = 0, and the motion response are defined as

0
π D2
 
− η̈5 ρ (zVCG − z)2 dz . (18) −1 Re(ηic )
−dd 4 θi = tan . (24)
Im(ηic )

For heave motion, the excitation force and the response can
be written as
2.2. Restoring and damping forces
The restoring forces for the free floating spar with heave F3 (t) = F3o sin ωt, (25)
damping plate consist of only hydrostatic terms such as
C11 = 0, C33 = ρgAw and C55 = GM in which GM is η3 = η3o sin(ωt − θ3 ), (26)
the metacentric height and  is the displacement of the
spar. The hydrodynamic damping for the spar hulls will be where θ3 is the phase shift between wave elevation and mo-
dominated by viscous effects since radiation damping is tion response. The derivatives of the displacement can be
 Ships and Offshore Structures 423

written in complex form to obtain the velocity and acceler- terms,

ation in the heave direction,
C33 = ρgAw + kV , (40)
η3 (t) = η̄3 eiωt , (27)
where kV is the mooring line vertical stiffness. The coupling
η̇3 = iωη̄3 eiωt , (28) effect between pitch and surge is included as reaction forces
η̈3 = −ω2 η̄3 eiωt , (29) calculated as follows:

where η̄3 is complex amplitude of response in heave di- Fk = −Ckj ηj , (41)

rection. The transfer function H(ω) can be obtained by F1moor = −kH η1 − kH Zm η5 , (42)
the substitution of the above equation into the equation of    
C11moor C15moor
motion,
F5moor = −kH Zm η1 − kH Zm2
η5 , (43)
     
(M + A33 )η̈3 + B33 η̇3 + C33 η3 = F3 (t), (30) C51moor C55moor

2 
−ω (M + A33 ) + iωB33 + C33 η̄3 = F30 , (31) where kH is the horizontal mooring stiffness and Zm is the
η̄3 = H (ω)F3o , (32) distance between the COG and the mooring line connection
point with the spar. A FORTRAN code has been developed
1 to compute the hydrodynamic response of the spar hulls
H (ω) =
, (33)
−ω2 (M + A33 ) + iωB33 + C33 with heave damping plate. The added mass coefficients
have been programmed using the geometry of the spar and
Thus, heave plate. The programme will be able to compute RAO
for pitch, surge and heave for a given geometry of spar with
|η3 | = η3o = |H (ω)| F3o , (34) heave plate. The computed RAO is at the COG of the spar
and the same has been transformed to the deck level so that
θ3 = arg(H (ω)). (35) it can be compared with the experimental results.

Similarly, the coupled equation for pitch and surge can

be written as
[−ω2 (M + A11 ) + iωB11 + C11 ]η̄1 + [−ω2 A15
+ iωB15 + C15 ]η̄5 = F1o , (36)
[−ω A51 + iωB51 + C51 ]η̄1 + [−ω (I55 + A55 )
2 2
+ iωB55 + C55 ]η̄5 = F5o . (37)
The above linear simultaneous equations (36) and (37) can
be solved to obtain η̄1 and η̄5 . Heave and pitch natural period
can be calculated using the following relationship:
in the motion of the floating structure. Due to this motion,
M + A33
TN,3 = 2π , (38)
C33
putation of external force on the structure can be divided
I55 + A55
TN,5 = 2π . (39)
C55
Since the added mass and damping coefficients are ob-
tained from experiments, the computed natural periods only
depend on the mass and inertia of the system. The effect
of mooring lines stiffness shall be considered in the cal-
culation of hydrodynamic response of the systems. This
effect can be incorporated in the solution to the response by
adding linear mooring stiffness to the hydrostatic restoring
3. Numerical solution
The governing equation of motion of a floating body can
be described by the following equation in six degrees of
freedom,
[M + A] {η̈} + [B] {η̇} + [C] {η} = F (t) , (44)
where M is the mass of the floating structure, A is the added
mass of the floating structure, B is the damping force, C is
the restoring force, F is the hydrodynamic force, η̈ is the
acceleration, η̈ is the velocity and η is the displacement.
The external force F (t) due to incoming wave results
waves radiate from the structure boundary. These radiated
waves induce additional forces on the structure. Hence com-
into two parts. The first part of the solution is a linear diffrac-
tion problem governed by Laplace equation with boundary
conditions at seabed, body and radiation boundary condi-
tion. The second part of the solution is to solve for velocity
potential for the radiated waves generated by body motion
due to incident and diffracted waves. Hence the total poten-
tial can be

6
 T =  I + S + R , (45)
i=1
424 S. Nallayarasu and K. Bairathi

Figure 4. Schematic of spar model (scale 1:100). (This figure is available in colour online.)

where T = total velocity potential, I = incident wave
velocity potential, S = scattered wave velocity potential
and R = radiated velocity potential. Once the solution to
the velocity potential  is obtained, the pressure along the
body can be obtained using the linear form of Bernoulli’s
equation, the hydrodynamic pressure field due to wave mo-
tion is given by
∂ T
p = −ρ , (46)
∂t
where ρ is the density of water and total force can be
calculated using
 of spar as 25 m with a draft of 110 m at a water depth
F =− pnds, (47)
SB
where n is the unit normal vector and SB is the body sur-
face. The above numerical scheme has been implemented
in many commercial packages and in this investigation,
WAMIT software has been used. The computed response
using WAMIT does not account for the mooring line stiff-
ness, additional modelling and analysis is carried using
ORCAFLEX, a software to handle moored floating bodies.
The transformed responses are then used to compare with
that of the measured responses and responses computed
using simplified method.
4. Experimental investigations
4.1. Experimental set-up
To validate the numerical model and to obtain the damping
and added mass characteristics, experimental studies were
carried out in a laboratory wave basin for spar models with
and without heave damping plate. The prototype spar is
designed for a payload of 10,000 tonnes with the diameter
of 300 m. The experiments were conducted with a heave
damping plate with diameter ratio (Dd /Ds ) varying from
1.0 to 2.0 where Ds is the diameter of spar and Dd is the
diameter of the heave damping plate.
A 1:100 scale model is adopted for the experimental
investigation. Froude scaling law is used to obtain the ge-
ometry and hydrodynamic test parameters of scale model.
Four sets of taut mooring lines were provided as a means of
station keeping. The model geometry and its construction
details are shown in Figure 4 and the fabricated model is
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Figure 5. Scale model of the spar platform. (This figure is avail-
able in colour online.)
shown in Figure 5. The summary of prototype and scale
model parameters is given in Table 2.
The experimental studies were conducted in the deep
wave basin (30 m × 30 m × 3 m) at the Department of
Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
The wave basin has a 52 paddle multi-element wave maker
capable of generating regular waves with period 0.75–
3.25 seconds and wave height ranging from 5 to 30 cm. The
wave maker can generate random and directional waves.
Table 2. Prototype and model data (scale 1:100).
S. No. Description Prototype Scale model
425
In the present study, only unidirectional regular waves are
used with wave periods ranging from 0.75 to 3.25 seconds.
Four mooring lines are attached at the fairlead and each of
them has a base angle of 30◦ to the basin bed. The length
of each mooring line is 5 m. The transducers used for the
experimental investigations comprises four accelerometers
(AC1–AC4) and resistance–type wave probes. The model is
placed at 8.5 m from the wave maker as shown in Figure 6.
The acceleration from the accelerometer AC4 (vertical) is
used to measure the heave, and accelerometer AC3 (hori-
zontal) is used to measure the surge. Accelerometers AC1
and AC2 are used to measure the pitch. Signals from various
sensors were amplified using amplifier which is connected
to an analogue to digital converter with 12 bit resolution
having 16 channels. This in turn is connected to a personal
computer having wave synthesiser software.
4.2. Free decay tests
Free oscillation tests in heave and pitch of the freely float-
ing model (with and without heave plate for five plate sizes)
in calm water were carried out to obtain the natural peri-
ods of vibration and damping and added mass coefficient.
The free decay tests were carried out by imposing a static
displacement to the model and then releasing it suddenly.
From the response amplitude decay plot, the natural time
period and damping ratio were computed by using logarith-
mic decrement, δ, which is used to find the damping ratio
of an underdamped system in the time domain. The loga-
rithmic decrement and damping ratio can be found using
the following relationship, which is the natural log of the
amplitudes of any two peaks:

1 x0 1
δ= ln and ζ = , (48)
n xn  2π 2
1+ δ
where x0 is the greater of the two amplitudes and xn is the
amplitude of a peak n periods away. The damped natural fre-
quency ωd and undamped natural frequencies are obtained
as
2π ωd
1 Water depth (m) 300 3 ωd = and ωn =  . (49)
2 Material Steel Acrylic T 1 − ζ2
3 Unit weight (kg/m3) 7850 1200
4 Topside payload 10000 tonnes 10 kg
5 Diameter of spar 25 m 25 cm The heave added mass of the system A33 can be determined
6 Length of spar 125 m 125 cm from the heave natural period TN,3 as follows:
7 Draft 110 m 110 cm
8 Self weight of spar 8000 tonnes 8 kg 2
9 Weight due to ballasting 39000 tonnes 39 kg TN,3
A33 = × C33 − M, (50)
10 Vertical centre of gravity 48.37 m 48.37 cm 4π 2
11 Vertical centre of buoyancy 55 m 55 cm
12 Displacement 57000 tonnes 57 kg
13 Metacentric height (GM) 6.95 m 6.95 cm where M is the mass of the spar and C 33 is the restoring
stiffness for heave. The added mass coefficient Ca is then
426 S. Nallayarasu and K. Bairathi

Figure 6. Experimental set-up and instrumentation.

calculated as in the hydrodynamic response evaluation using numerical

methods.
A33
Ca = . (51)
M + A33
4.3. Measured response
The experiments were conducted for regular waves of wave
The natural periods in heave, the corresponding damping
height H = 8 cm, heading angle θ = 0◦ and time period
coefficients and heave added mass of the system is sum-
ranging from 0.75 to 3.25 seconds with a time interval of
marised in Table 3. Figure 7 shows a typical measured
time history of the heave response during a free decay test.
The computed natural period, added mass and damping co-
efficient is summarised in Table 3 for spar hull with six
different heave plate diameter ratio. These values are used

Table 3. Measured heave natural period, damping coefficient and

added mass.

Configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6

Diameter ratio 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.31 1.56 2.00

(Dd /Ds )
Measured heave 2.21 2.22 2.24 2.28 2.44 2.74
natural period
TN,3 (sec)
Heave damping 0.034 0.049 0.062 0.084 0.122 0.156
ratio (ξ 3 )
Added mass A33 4.06 4.62 5.73 7.99 17.44 36.87
(kg)
Added mass 0.067 0.075 0.091 0.123 0.234 0.393
coefficient Ca Figure 7. Free vibration record of the spar with heave plate
(Dd /Ds = 1.08).
 Ships and Offshore Structures 427

Figure 8. Time series of response without and with heave plate (Dd /Ds = 1.56). (a) A regular wave. (b) Surge response. (c) Heave
response. (d) Pitch response.

0.25 seconds. Care was taken to assure that the mooring
lines are slack so that the same will not provide restraint
against motion of the spar. The tests were conducted on
spar models with five different heave plate diameter ratio.
The measured response is in terms of acceleration at four
locations on the top. The measured accelerations are then
converted into corresponding surge, heave and pitch dis-
placements using double integration. To avoid error in dou-
ble integration, the accelerometers were used to measure
the known displacement during free decay tests and cali-
brated. These calibration tests were repeated for all wave
periods. Measured time history of the wave surface eleva-
tion is shown in Figure 8(a). The time history of measured
response in surge, heave and pitch is shown in Figure 8(b),
8(c) and 8(d), respectively. It can be observed that the pres-
ence of the heave plate has significantly reduced the heave
and pitch response but the effect on surge response is in-
significant.
Experiments were conducted on each model for each
set of wave height and period. The tests were repeated
for at least three times to check the repeatability of the
measurements. Using the three sets of the measurements,
statistical properties such as mean, standard deviation and
coefficient of variation has been obtained.
428 S. Nallayarasu and K. Bairathi
Figure 9. Comparison of surge force from simplified approach
and WAMIT. (This figure is available in colour online.)
5. Results and discussion
The motion response of the spar platforms with and with-
out heave plate has been obtained numerically using a sim-
plified approach and experimentally in a laboratory wave
flume. The experimental studies include free decay test to
obtain the damping and added mass characteristics and mo-
tion response measurement in regular waves. Simulation of
the motion response has also been carried out using WAMIT
and ORCAFLEX for comparison purpose.
5.1. Comparison of hydrodynamic forces
The hydrodynamic forces calculated using simplified
method in surge, heave and pitch directions compared to
that obtained from WAMIT is shown in Figure 9, 10 and
Figure 10. Comparison of heave force from simplified approach
and WAMIT. (This figure is available in colour online.)
Figure 11. Comparison of pitch moment from simplified ap-
proach and WAMIT. (This figure is available in colour online.)
11, respectively, for Dd /Ds = 1.0. Figure 9 shows the com-
parison of the surge force computed by simplified method
and WAMIT. It can be observed that the comparison is very
well matching throughout the wave period range with the
maximum difference less than 10% at the larger wave pe-
riod. The comparison of heave force is shown in Figure 10.
It can be observed that the heave forces calculated using
simplified method and WAMIT compares very well for the
whole range wave period. Similar comparison observed for
pitch force with a maximum difference between the cal-
culated values are less than 10% as shown in Figure 11.
This indicates that the proposed methodology to evaluate
the forces on the spar hull compares very well with that ob-
tained from the panel method used in the WAMIT program.
5.2. Comparison of RAOs
The hydrodynamic response of spar using the simplified
method and numerical method compared with that obtained
from the experiments for heave, surge and pitch is shown
in Figures 12, 13 and 14, respectively. The results shown in
Figures 12–14 correspond to heave, surge and pitch RAOs
for a spar without heave plate (Dd /Ds = 1.0).
The heave RAO computed by simplified method and nu-
merical method compares reasonably well throughout the
period range except for the period larger than 2.5 seconds.
The maximum difference at peak period is about 10%. The
difference between measured and computed heave RAO be-
yond 2.5 seconds is in the order of 25%. This could be due to
the use of constant damping throughout the range of wave
periods. Though not explicitly investigated in this study,
this difference in heave response could also be attributed to
Mathieu instability in the larger wave period range. How-
ever, the comparison between the numerical method and
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Figure 12. Heave RAO of spar without heave plate (Dd /Ds =
1.00).
the simplified analytical method seems to be very well as
the difference in results is very small.
Variation of surge RAO with wave period is shown
in Figure 13 for Dd /Ds = 1.0. The results obtained from
experiments and simplified method is compared to that ob-
tained from numerical simulation. The comparison shows
that the difference between the experiments and the sim-
plified method is less than 10% up to a wave period of
2.0 seconds and after which the difference is larger. This
behaviour is similar to the heave response and the reduced
response is attributed to the use of uniform damping values
in the overall period range in the simplified method. Also,
the difference in the response could be due to Mathieu insta-
bility in the long wave period range. Further, comparison of
pitch response for Dd /Ds = 1.0 is shown in Figure 14. It can
Figure 13. Surge RAO of spar without heave plate (Dd /Ds =
1.00).
429
Figure 14. Pitch RAO of spar without heave plate (Dd /Ds =
1.00).
be observed that the comparison up to a period of 2.0 is rea-
sonably good beyond which the simplified method differs
by 25%. The peak value of response predicted by simpli-
fied method differs considerably from that computed by
numerical method and experimental results beyond a wave
period of 2.0 seconds. This could be due to approximation
in simulation linearised of mooring line spring stiffness and
damping.
Similar results for heave, surge and pitch RAOs for
Dd /Ds = 1.56 is shown in Figures 15–17. The trend for the
RAOs is similar to that of Dd /Ds = 1.0. The heave RAO
compares very well up to the peak period of 2.0 seconds
after which the difference between the RAOs computed by
simplified method and the measured differs by 40%. At
larger wave periods, the measured response in heave may
have been contaminated by pitch and surge together with
Figure 15. Heave RAO of spar with heave plate (Dd /Ds = 1.56).
430 S. Nallayarasu and K. Bairathi
Figure 16. Surge RAO of spar with heave plate (Dd /Ds = 1.56).
the Mathieu instability. In fact the range of wave periods
expected in the prototype condition is between 4 and 16 sec-
onds which corresponds to a scale model period of 0.4 to
1.6 seconds. In this range, the results compare very well
for all the cases investigated in this paper. Similar observa-
tions can be made for surge and pitch responses as shown
in Figures 16 and 17, respectively.
5.3. Comparison of hydrodynamic characteristics
Calculated and measured hydrodynamic characteristics
such as added mass, heave natural period and damping coef-
ficients are summarised in Table 1 and 3, respectively. It can
be observed that the natural periods in heave obtained from
numerical simulation compares very well with that obtained
from free decay tests. This indicates that the simulation pa-
rameters are well represented. The added mass obtained by
Figure 17. Pitch RAO of spar with heave plate (Dd /Ds = 1.56).
Figure 18. Comparison of heave radiation damping obtained by
WAMIT. (This figure is available in colour online.)
geometric calculation compares reasonably well with that
obtained from free decay test. The heave damping obtained
from free decay tests vary from 3.4% for the spar to 15.6%
for spar with heave plate diameter ratio of 2.0.
Variation of heave, surge and pitch radiation damping
computed by numerical method is shown in Figures 18, 19
and 20, respectively. The radiation damping has been com-
puted for various Dd /Ds values from 1.0 to 2.0. It can be
observed that the heave and surge radiation damping is not
influenced by the presence of the damping plate. However,
the heave plate has influence on the heave radiation damp-
ing. Larger the heave plate, the heave damping increases
and the peak value increases by 100%.
Figure 19. Comparison of surge radiation damping obtained
WAMIT. (This figure is available in colour online.)
 Ships and Offshore Structures 431

Figure 20. Comparison of pitch radiation damping obtained by Figure 22. Comparison of surge RAO obtained by simplified
WAMIT. (This figure is available in colour online.) method (slack mooring). (This figure is available in colour online.)

5.4. Parametric evaluation 5.4.2. Surge response

5.4.1. Heave response The RAO for surge response for various Dd /Ds ratios rang-
ing from 1.00 to 2.00 obtained by simplified approach
The RAO for heave response obtained by simplified method
is shown in Figure 20.The addition of heave plates does
for various Dd /Ds ranging from 1.00 to 2.00 is shown in
not affect surge added mass or surge damping. The maxi-
Figure 21. The addition of heave plate to the keel of the
mum value of surge RAOs lies between 0.85 and 1 when
spar increases the heave added mass and increases the vis-
Dd /Ds varies from 1.00 to 2.00. The results obtained ex-
cous damping. The effect of plate size on the heave RAO
hibit reduction in surge RAO with increase in plate diam-
indicates that as the plate diameter increases, the RAOs de-
eter at higher wave period range as can be observed from
crease. It can be deduced that the heave plate has a direct
Figure 22. This is due to the surge and pitch coupling at
impact on the heave response as peak RAO reduces from
higher wave periods.
4.2 to 1.4 as Dd /Ds values increase from 1.00 to 2.00, re-
spectively. The decrease in peak heave RAO is more than
50% for increase of plate size by 100%. Hence it can be 5.4.3. Pitch response
concluded that the size of heave plate will have a major role The pitch RAOs for various Dd /Ds ranging from 1.00 to 2.00
in controlling the heave response of the spar structures. are shown in Figure 23. Pitch viscous damping increases

Figure 21. Comparison of heave RAO obtained from simplified Figure 23. Comparison of pitch RAO obtained by simplified
method (slack mooring). (This figure is available in colour online.) method (slack mooring). (This figure is available in colour online.)
432 S. Nallayarasu and K. Bairathi
with increase in plate diameter ratio, while pitch added
mass is unaffected. The peak values of pitch RAO obtained
from simplified approach reduce from 0.17 to 0.06 with
increase in Dd /Ds from 1.00 to 2.00. This can be attributed
to increase in pitch viscous damping.
6. Conclusions
Based on the study carried out using the numerical and
experimental studies, following conclusions can be arrived.
• The proposed simplified method for calculation of
motion response of spar platform predicts RAOs rea-
sonably well in surge heave and pitch mode in the
lower period range less than 2.0 seconds.
• The computed heave, surge and pitch forces by
simplified method and the panel method compares
very well with the maximum difference less than
10%.
• Within the range of experiments conducted, the heave
plate does not have influence on the surge response.
• Surge and pitch radiation damping is not influenced
by the presence of the heave plate.
• The added mass computed by geometric proposition
compares very well with that obtained from experi-
ments.
• The parametric evaluation of heave, surge and pitch
RAOs for varying diameter to heave plate ratio indi-
cates that the heave and pitch response are highly
influenced by the presence of the heave damping
plate.
References
Cao P, Zhang J. 1996. Slow motion response of compliant off-
shore structures. In: Chung JS, Das BM, Boesset J, editors.
Proceedings of the 6th International Offshore and Polar En-
gineering Conference; 1996 May 26–31; Los Angeles, CA.
Golden (CO): International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers. Vol. 1, pp. 296–303.
Chitrapu AS, Saha S, Salpekar VY. 1998. Time domain analy-
sis of spar platform response in random waves and currents.
Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 17th International Off-
shore and Arctic Engineering Conference. OMAE; Lisbon,
Portugal.
Emmerhoff OJ, Sclavounos PD. 1992. The slow drift mo-
tion of arrays of vertical cylinders. J Fluid Mech. 242:31–
50.
Faltinsen, OM. 1990. Sea loads on ships and offshore structures.
Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Haslum HA. 2000. Simplified methods applied to nonlinear mo-
tion of spar platforms [Ph.D Thesis]. [Trondhiem (Norway)]:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Johnson CP, Mekha BB, Roesset JM. 1995. High frequency effects
of the modification to Morison’s equation on the response of a
TLP. Paper presented at: 5th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference; The Hague, The Netherlands.
Li B, Zhenhua H, Ying ML, Jinping O. 2013. Experimental and
numerical study of the effects of heave plate on the motion of
a new deep draft multi-spar platform. J Marine Sci Technol.
18:229–246. doi: 10.1007/s00773-012-0203-0
Longbin T, Shunqing C. 2004. Heave motion suppression of a
spar with a heave plate. Ocean Eng. 31:669–692.
Morison JR, O’Brien M, Johnson JW, Schaaf SA. 1950. The
force exerted by surface waves on piles. Petroleum Trans.
189:149–157.
Newman JN. 1985. Marine hydrodynamics. 3rd ed. Cambridge
(MA): MIT Press.
Philip NT, Nallayarasu S, Bhattacharyya SK. 2012. Damping
characteristics of heave plates attached to spar hull. Paper
presented at: Proceedings of the 31st International Confer-
ence on Ocean Offshore and Artic Engineering (OMAE); Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil.
Ran Z, Kim MH, Niedzwecki JM, Johnson RP. 1996. Response
of a spar platform in random waves and currents. Proc Int J
Offshore Polar Eng. 6:1053–5381.
Rho Jun B, Choi Hang S. 2002. Heave and pitch motions of
a spar platform with damping. In: Chung JS, Sayed M,
Kashiwagi M, Setoguchi T, Hong SW, editors. Proceedings
of The 12th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference; 2002 May 26–31; Kitakyushu, Japan. Cupertino
(CA): International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
p. 198–201.
Sarpkaya T, Isaacson M. 1981. Mechanics of wave forces on
offshore structures. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.
Sudhakar S, Nallayarasu S. 2011. Influence of heave plate on hy-
drodynamic response of spar hull. Paper presented at: Pro-
ceedings of the 30th International Conference on Ocean
Offshore and Artic Engineering OMAE; Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.