Abstract
Floating structures with motion characteristic dependent on viscous- and higher order effects are often not well represented by numerical models based on potential flow
codes alone. State of the art potential flow codes, as WAMIT [1], only uses first order hydrodynamic quantities for estimation of mean wave drift force coefficients, and
viscous effects are not accounted for. Second order potential flow codes, as WAMIT second order [2] allows for computation of numerical QTFs.
Differences between empirical wave drift coefficients and coefficients obtained by potential theory codes are well known and documented. Heave plates are commonly
used in the oil- and gas industry, and more recently for substructures for floating wind turbines (FWT), to increase the heave added mass and heave natural period.
Additionally, dependent on sea state and type of structure, heave plates increase both viscous damping and wave excitation. This work presents comparison of empirical
and numerical hydrodynamic response for a novelty substructure for FWTs. The comparison documents the importance of including viscous effects, quadratic transfer
functions and wave-current interaction to fully capture the hydrodynamic response.
codes alone. State of the art potential flow codes, as WAMIT [1], only uses first order hydrodynamic quantities for estimation of mean wave drift force coefficients, and
viscous effects are not accounted for. Second order potential flow codes, as WAMIT second order [2] allows for computation of numerical QTFs.
Differences between empirical wave drift coefficients and coefficients obtained by potential theory codes are well known and documented. Heave plates are commonly
used in the oil- and gas industry, and more recently for substructures for floating wind turbines (FWT), to increase the heave added mass and heave natural period.
Additionally, dependent on sea state and type of structure, heave plates increase both viscous damping and wave excitation. This work presents comparison of empirical
and numerical hydrodynamic response for a novelty substructure for FWTs. The comparison documents the importance of including viscous effects, quadratic transfer
functions and wave-current interaction to fully capture the hydrodynamic response.
