Wave Loads on structures

 Computation of the water wave forces on a offshore

structure
 primary tasks!
 most difficult! – complexity of the interaction b/t waves &
structures
 inadequacy of wave theories to describe random ocean waves
 Reasonable prediction of wave loads on a variety of offshore
structures based on the theories available coupled with our
understanding of the interaction phenomenon through:
 analytical studies,
studies
 laboratory experiments and
 at-sea measurements
 Based on the type and size of the members in a offshore
structure, different formulations for wave forces are
applicable. (depending on the flow regime in the vicinity of
th structure)
the t t )
1
 Wave force formulation
• Morison Equation
– Small structures
– Empirical method

• Wave diffraction theory

– Large structures
– Potential theory

2
 Morison Equation

• Due to regular wave

• Inline force

• Hydrodynamic coefficients

• Appropriate design values of coefficients

3
 Flow Parameters

• Keulegan-Carpenter (KC) number

2A UT
KC  
D D
• Frequency parameter (β) Re    KC
D2 f


• Reynolds number (Re)

4
 Inline force
• Combining the effects of
water particle velocity and
acceleration on the
structure

D 2 1
f  C M u  C D u u
4 2
Inertia force drag
g force

Morison force on a vertical pile

5
 Morison Equation: discussion
• R
Reall ocean environment
i t off random
d waves – Morison
M i E
Eq.
approximation!

• No theoretical basis

• Only for small structures (relative to wave length)

• Only give inline force, not transverse force

• Works well!

6
Hydrodynamic coefficients: CM, CD
• determined experimentally by scaled
g
model testing
– Held the structure model in waves
– Run tests: measuring H,H H/d (wave slope) and
water particle velocity (u, v) for each constant
f , and cal.
cal acceleration from velocity
• Compute CM, CD using Morison Eq.
• Establish relationship: CM, CD ~ KC, Re

7
Example: inline and transverse force

Small
-Small
-multiple frequencies

-Inertia dominant
-Same frequency
as wave

M
Measured
d iinline
li and
d ttransverse fforce titime hi
history
t on a vertical
ti l cylinder
li d

8
 Forces on Oscillating Structures
• modified form of the Morison equation to
describe the force experienced by the structure in
motion
D2 1
f  mx  CA x  CD x x
4 2
Inertia force drag force

– the values of the coefficients CA and CD are determined

experimentally The coefficient values are assumed
experimentally.
invariant over a cycle for a given frequency of
oscillation.

9
 Example: CA and CD values
• Two methods:
– Structure oscillating
g
in calm water
Inertia coefficients for an oscillating vertical cylinder
– Structure fixed in
oscillatory fluid

Drag coefficients for an oscillating vertical cylinder

10
 Sarpkaya: U
U-tube
tube experiments (1976)
• The results clearly
show the dependence
of these coefficients on
the quantities KC and ,
or equivalently,
q y, KC and
Re.

Fig. (a) Inertia and (b) drag coefficients

from a fluid oscillation test [Sarpkaya
(1976)]

11
Lift force coefficient
• Transverse force on the
cylinder due to asymmetric Lift force frequency
shedding of vortices as a function of KC
• The forces were irregular,
irregular and Re [Sarpkaya,
[Sarpkaya
having multiple frequencies 1976]
• Unlike the drag and inertia
coefficients,, a lift coefficient
over one cycle may NOT be
determined
• generally,
g y, CL ppresented as
an rms or a maximum value.

Lift coefficients from an oscillation test [Sarpkaya (1976)]

12
 Wave Plus Current Loads
• modified
difi d M
Morison
i equation:
ti
D 2 1
f  CM u  CDS u  U u  U 
4 2
• recommended method [API-RP2A (2000) ]
– The API procedure for computing wave
wave-current
current
loading is based on the “design” approach in which
a single wave height and period are selected to
represent the extreme wave expected in a random
sea. Wave kinematics are computed by the wave
theory based on wave height, apparent wave period
andd water
t depth.
d th CCurrentt ddoes nott enter
t into
i t this
thi
calculation except for the altered wave period.

13
 Recommended method [API]
• Current velocity strength r  U
u0  U
• In the presence of a current
current, the KC value
is based on the maximum velocity
including the current. In order to
compensate for the current in the CD value
chosen the KC value is modified by the
chosen,
following correction factor:


C r  1  r  2 *  where  *  ATAN 2  r , 1  r 2  
• When r > 0.4, current is strong, so that the
drag coefficient for all practical purposes is
CD off the
th steady-current
t d t value.
l Th
There iis no
need to compute KC and hence the
correction factor, Cr in these cases.

14
 Design values for Ca and CD
1. Field tests

15
 Design values for Ca and CD
2. Guidelines of certifying agencies

16
 Example design procedures from API
(2000)
• Compute
C t effective
ff ti member
b diameter:
di t D = D +2K;
2K

• Calculate the steady

steady-flow
flow CDS (fig.
(fig 44.13);
13);

• Calculate KC;

• Calculate CD for nearly vertical members

• Calculate CM ((fig.
g 4.15b for KC <12;; fig.
g 4.15a for KC >12);
);

• For non-circular members, CDS independent of roughness

17
Design procedures from API (2000)

CDDS

Steady drag coefficient vs. surface roughness [API, 2000)

18
Design procedures from API (2000)

(KC>12) (KC<12)
CD/CDS CD/CDS

Drag coefficient vs. KC [API, 2000)

19