See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264244399

Hydrodynamic performance study of two side-by-side barges

Article  in  Ships and Offshore Structures · September 2014

DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2014.889368

CITATIONS READS

9 312

4 authors, including:

Xin Xu Xin Li
Cotec Offshore Engineering Solutions Shanghai Jiao Tong University
10 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   206 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Liangyu Xu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Field monitoring of offshore structures and operations View project

Twin-lift Decommissioning Operation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liangyu Xu on 15 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ships and Offshore Structures

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

Hydrodynamic performance study of two side-by-

side barges

Xin Xu, Jian-Min Yang, Xin Li & Liangyu Xu

To cite this article: Xin Xu, Jian-Min Yang, Xin Li & Liangyu Xu (2014) Hydrodynamic
performance study of two side-by-side barges, Ships and Offshore Structures, 9:5, 475-488,
DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2014.889368

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2014.889368

Published online: 12 Mar 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 194

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20

Download by: [xin xu] Date: 14 September 2015, At: 19:51

 Ships and Offshore Structures, 2014
Vol. 9, No. 5, 475–488, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2014.889368

Hydrodynamic performance study of two side-by-side barges

Xin Xu∗ , Jian-Min Yang, Xin Li and Liangyu Xu
School of Naval Architecture, Ocean, and Civil Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
(Received 17 August 2013; accepted 31 January 2014)

Recently, hydrodynamic interaction between two vessels in a side-by-side configuration has become a research focus. Because
of the interaction of multiple bodies, the fluid movement and responses of the vessels are complex. First, the hydrodynamic
performances of two identical barges in close proximity in a side-by-side configuration are numerically investigated with a
wave elevation in between the barges. Second, corresponding experiments are carried out to validate the numerical results,
and comparison of the experimental and calculation results shows that the numerical calculation accurately predicts the
resonance period despite a difference in the peak values. Both fixed barges and barges undergoing constrained motions are
also compared with free-floating barges to illustrate the influence of motion on the wave elevation and resonance phenomena.
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

Sensitivity analyses of the gap width, barge length, barge breadth, and draft are performed, revealing that the resonant
wavelength increases with increasing gap width or barge dimensions.
Keywords: side-by-side bodies; hydrodynamic performance; wave elevation; sensitivity analysis
CLC number: U661.32
Document code: A

1. Introduction peak values for the hydrodynamic results at certain reso-

As oil prices and demand for natural gas escalate, the rapid
increase in the extraction of ocean resources requires the
use of many facilities and operations that consist of multiple
floating bodies. Examples include floating liquefied natu-
ral gas (FLNG) offloading, spar platform topside float-over
(Tahar et al. 2006), and a multiple body mobile offshore
base (MOB) (Suzuki et al. 2007). Hydrodynamic interac-
tions between multiple bodies greatly affect the motion
responses and wave forces of the bodies, and understand-
ing them is particularly significant for safe operations in
practical engineering.
The hydrodynamic interaction between floating bodies
has been extensively studied, and three-dimensional linear
diffraction theory is widely used ( Van Oortmerssen 1979;
Løken 1981; Fang and Chen 2002) for the analysis of hydro-
dynamic interactions of two floating bodies. During the cal-
culations, strong hydrodynamic interactions between mul-
tiple bodies were observed and sharp peak values appeared
for the hydrodynamic parameter results. In addition, when
the bodies are in close proximity, extremely large wave el-
evations appear in the gap between the bodies, which have
a significant influence on the calculated hydrodynamic pa-
rameter peaks. However, these large wave elevations tend
to be overestimated owing to the numerical inaccuracies
of the constant panel method which produces unrealistic
nance periods. Therefore, research efforts on improving the
numerical methods have been made in order to accurately
predict the free surface elevation. Huijsmans et al. (2001)
incorporated a rigid lid on the free surface between two
vessels to suppress the unrealistic resonant wave oscilla-
tion. A suppression method based on the damping of gen-
eralised motion modes was presented by Newman (2003).
A first attempt in applying a new damping lid method on
multi-body hydrodynamics (Chen 2005) was presented by
Fournier et al. (2006), in which a damping lid was ap-
plied to the free surface between two bodies to reduce the
wave elevation and drift forces. Using Chen’s method, Pauw
et al. (2007) studied the hydrodynamic interaction between
two ships in a side-by-side configuration and compared
the computational results with the experimental results.
Bunnik et al. (2009) modified the original damping lid
method and also applied the damping to the free surface
inside the vessels, which improved the agreement between
results of the calculations and experiment.
Although the method of introducing a damping lid to the
conventional potential flow model provides more reason-
able wave elevations and other hydrodynamic parameters,
the focus of this study is not the calibration but the wave
fields between two bodies. Teigen and Niedzwecki (2006)
calculated the first- and second-order wave elevations

∗
Corresponding author. Email: kkstar@sjtu.edu.cn


C 2014 Taylor & Francis
 476 X. Xu et al.

around two identical barges in a side-by-side configura-

tion and concluded that wave amplification is sensitive to
the wave frequency and that a strong second-order wave
amplification appears at the trailing end of the barges. Sun
et al. (2010) investigated the wave elevations near two par-
allel rectangular boxes and determined that the locations of
the peaks are strongly dependent on whether one or both
boxes are fixed or freely floating. They used a simple theory
for an open-ended moon pool to predict the peak locations,
and a good agreement was achieved. Clauss et al. (2013)
investigated the wave field between two ships and calcu- Figure 1. Definition of coordinate systems.
lated the gap surface elevation in both the spatial and the
frequency domains using the damping lid method; corre- expressed as follows (Xu et al. 2012):
sponding model tests were carried out for the validation of
the method.
Some studies were conducted to investigate the wave el- (x, y, z, t)
⎧⎡ ⎤ ⎫
evation in the gap between two vessels, but the present state ⎨ 
6
 (1) (1) ⎬
= Re ⎣φ0 + φ7 − iω ξj φj + ξj φj ⎦ e−iωt
(2) (2)
of data from this research does not illustrate the under-
⎩ ⎭
lying principle of the interactions. Further investigations j =1
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

are required to clarify these interactions and validate the (1)

methodology. This paper presents three numerical models
of two identical barges in a side-by-side configuration with
where ξj is the response motion amplitude of the jth mode of
gaps of 3, 6, and 12 m that were developed, as well as the
barge 1 or barge 2 and φj is the radiation potential due to
corresponding experiments that were carried out for vali-
the corresponding unit amplitude motion. φ7 denotes the
dation. Both the motion responses and the wave elevations
diffraction potential, which describes the disturbance of the
in the gap are discussed in detail. Based on the above vali-
incident waves diffracted from the two non-moving bodies.
dation and discussion, further modelling and computation
The incident wave potential φ0 is expressed by the
were performed. A comparison between fixed barges and
following
barges with constrained motion is used to determine the
influence of motion on the wave elevation, and sensitivity
analyses of the primary factors are also carried out. All the igA cosh [ν(z + H )] iν(x cos β+y sin β)
φ0 = e (2)
calculations are restricted to the condition of head seas be- ω cosh νH
cause many resonant frequencies are similar for head and
beam seas (Sun et al. 2010). where ω is the wave frequency, A is the wave amplitude, H
is the water depth, β is an arbitrary heading angle (180◦ for
a head sea), and ν is the incident wave number. ν can be
2. Mathematical formulation obtained from the dispersion relation:
2.1. Coordinate systems
Two bodies which are located side-by-side in close prox- ω2
= ν tanh νH (3)
imity and oscillate sinusoidally with the waves are con- g
sidered. To describe the motion response of the two bod-
ies, three coordinate systems are established, as shown in (1)
For barge 1, φj satisfies the following governing equa-
Figure 1: a global coordinate system, O-XYZ, which is fixed tion and boundary conditions (WAMIT Version 6.4 2006):
in space and two local coordinate systems, O1 -X1 Y1 Z1 and
O2 -X2 Y2 Z2 , which are fixed with respect to the mean po-
sition of each body. The origin of each coordinate system (1) Laplace’s equation in the fluid domain:
is placed on a calm water surface and the Z-axis is positive
(1)
vertically upward direction. ∇ 2 φj = 0 (4)

(2) Linear free surface condition:

2.2. Governing equations and boundary
conditions
(1)
Based on the assumption of a potential flow, the total un- ∂φj (1)
− Kφj = 0, z = 0 (5)
steady potential for a sinusoidal wave excitation can be ∂z
 Ships and Offshore Structures 477

(3) Sea bed (flat) condition: where P = (x, y, z) is the field point, Q = (ξ, η, ζ ) is the
source point on the body surface, and S1 and S2 denote
(1)
∂φj the wetted surfaces of two bodies in calm water. The Green
= 0, z = −H (6) function G(P ; Q) is the velocity potential at point P due
∂z
to a point source at point Q of strength −4π . According
(4) Body boundary condition: to Newman (1985), the Green function in finite water is
defined by
(1)
∂φj (1)
= nj on body 1 1 1 2K
∂n G(P ; Q) = + +
r r2 π
(1)
∂φj  ∞
= 0 on body 2 (7) (k + K) cosh(z + H ) cosh[k(ζ + H )] −kH
∂n × e J0 (kR)dk
0 k sinh kH − K cosh kH
(5) Radiation condition at infinity: (12)

 (1)  where J0 (x) is the zeroth-order Bessel func-

√ ∂φj
lim R −
(1)
iνφj = 0, tion,  r = (x − ξ )2 + (y − η)2 + (z − ζ )2 ,
R→∞ ∂R r2 =  (x − ξ ) + (y − η)2 + (z+2H + ζ )2 ,
2 and

R = x 2 + y 2 + z2 (8) R = (x − ξ )2 + (y − η)2 .
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

To solve the integral equations (10) and (11), the mean

where K = ω2 /g, (n1 , n2 , n3 ) = n, (n4 , n5 , n6 ) = body-wetted surface is discretised by a collection of quadri-
(x, y, z) × n, and n denotes the unit vector normal lateral elements, and the radiation and diffraction velocity
to the body boundary that is directed towards the potentials are considered constant across each element. In
body. this way, the continuous integral equations can be reduced
to a set of linear algebraic equations to easily obtain the
(2)
φj and φ7 satisfy the same governing equation and sim- values of the velocity potentials over all elements.
(1)
ilar boundary conditions as does φj . The only difference
is the body boundary condition; φ7 satisfies ∂φ
∂n
7
= − ∂φ
∂n
0
on 2.4. Motion and wave elevation equations
the surface of body 1 and body 2, while the body boundary The coupled motion equations of two bodies in the fre-
(2)
condition of φj is expressed by the following: quency domain are written in the following form (Kim
⎧ et al. 2003):
(2)
⎪
⎪ ∂φj
⎨ =0 on body 1
∂n 
12
(9) [−ω2 (Mij + Aij ) − iωBij + Cij ]ξj = Fi
⎪
⎪ ∂φ
(2)
⎩ j = n(2) on body 2 j =1
j
∂n
for i = 1, 2, . . . , 12 (13)

2.3. Integral equations where Mij is the generalised mass matrix for the two ships;
The above first-order boundary-value problems are solved Aij and Bij are the added mass and potential damping coef-
using the direct boundary element method of Green’s theo- ficients matrices, respectively, computed from the radiation
rem to derive integral equations for the velocity potentials potential; Fi is the wave excitation force on each body cal-
on the body surface. The radiation velocity potential φj culated from the diffraction potential; Cij is the restoring
and the diffraction potential φ7 on the wetted surface of two force matrix; and ξj is the amplitude of the response mo-
bodies, respectively, take the following forms: tion for each of the six degrees of freedom in each body.
The first-order wave elevation on the free surface is
  obtained from the following expression:
∂G(P ; Q)
2π φj (P ) + φj (Q) dS
∂nQ  
  S1+S2
1 ∂ P |z=0
ζ =− = (14)
= nj G(P ; Q)dS (10) g ∂t z=0 ρg
 
S1+S2
∂G(P ; Q)
2π φ7 (P ) + φ7 (Q) dS
S1+S2 ∂nQ 3. Numerical simulation
 
∂φ0 (Q) Barges BH222 and BH223, developed by the China Off-
=− G(P ; Q)dS (11)
S1+S2 ∂n shore Oil Engineering Corporation (COOEC), are arranged
 478
Table 1. Main parameters of barges BH222 and BH223.
Designation
Length over all, LOA (m)
Breadth, B (m)
Depth, D (m)
Draft, T (m)
Displacement,
(t) 9583.24
Centre of gravity from AP, LCG (m)
Centre of gravity above base, KG (m)
Radius of roll gyration, Rxx (m)
Radius of pitch gyration, Ryy (m)
Radius of yaw gyration, Rzz (m)
Note: t = tons; AP = aft perpendicular; LCG = longitudinal centre of
gravity.
side-by-side and are selected as a reference. They are de-
signed to be used in a float-over installation of a jacket
platform in China’s Bohai Sea at a water depth of 42 m.
The two barges are identical, with the same weight and di-
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015
mensions. The main parameters of the two barges are listed
in Table 1.
To obtain the motion responses of the two barges and
the wave elevations, numerical simulations in the frequency
domain were performed using the commercial code HY-
DROD, which is developed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV).
The two-barge model with a gap distance of 3 m was es-
tablished with 1598 elements for each barge, as shown in
Figure 2. Two-barge model with gap distance of 3 m. (This figure is available in colour online.)
X. Xu et al.
Figure 2. In order to investigate the influence of the gap
size, three different distances (3, 6, and 12 m) between the
Value
two barges were considered. In the numerical simulations,
90 the wave heading was restricted to the condition of head
27 seas for comparison with the model tests. For the free sur-
9 face around the barges, a mesh with approximately 1740
4
elements was utilised; the panel arrangement is presented
44.37 in Figure 3.
7.63
7.2
27.24
27.7 4. Experimental study
To verify the hydrodynamic models of the two paral-
lel barges, corresponding model tests were carried out in
the State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering (SKLOE)
basin at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. The model
scale was 1:60. The dimensions of the basin are 50 m ×
30 m × 6 m, and the water depth was set to 0.7 m, which
corresponds to the real water depth of 42 m.
The weight, centre of gravity, and radius of gyration of
the two wooden barge models were adjusted by setting mul-
tiple iron weights at different places in the models, as shown
in Figure 4. During the model tests, the two barge models
were moored in side-by-side configuration by four spring
wires on each barge, and the angles between the spring lines
and the X-axis were adjusted to 45◦ (Figure 5). The prop-
erties of each mooring line in both full and model scales
 Ships and Offshore Structures 479
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

Figure 3. Mesh model of free surface around barges.

are summarised in Table 2. The stiffness of the mooring
lines was chosen small enough so that the sway and surge
natural periods of each barge were above 50 s and that
the first-order motion responses of the barges were little
affected.
The roll and pitch decay tests for each barge model
were performed to validate the centre of gravity and radius
of gyration. White noise wave tests and regular wave tests
were carried out for the single barge and two parallel barges
with distances of 3, 6, and 12 m in the head sea condition.

Figure 4. The adjustment of pitch gyration radius. (This figure is available in colour online.)
 480 X. Xu et al.

Table 2. Properties of the mooring lines. Table 3. Locations of the wave probes in the longitudinal
direction.
Designation Full scale Model scale
Designation Location (from AP) (m)
Length (m) 255 4.5
Axial stiffness (kN/m) 60331.5 16.35 Point A 15
Pre-tension force (kN) 1058.4 4.9 Point B 30
Point C 45
Point D 60
Point E 75

of the measured data were converted to the full scale. A

camera sensor was used to observe the water movement in
the gap between the two barges.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Motion responses
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

Figure 5. Mooring configuration of two side-by-side barges.
In the white noise wave tests, the periods covered a large
interval of 5–20 s with a wave height of 3 m, and the
response amplitude operator (RAO) was obtained through
spectral analysis.
Wave elevations in the gap were measured using re-
sistance probes at five locations (Table 3, points A–E in
Figure 5). The motion responses of the two barges with
six degrees of freedom were recorded by non-contact laser
position finders. The test set-up is shown in Figure 6. All
The calculated and experimental heave, pitch and yaw
RAOs for a single barge and two parallel barges with 3,
6, and 12 m gaps are presented in Figures 7–9. Under the
head sea condition, the two barges are symmetrical relative
to the incident wave, so the motion responses are the same
for both barges. Compared with the single barge results,
resonant peaks appear at some wave periods for the two-
barge cases. The resonance period is about 4.8 s for the 3 m
gap, 5.4 s for the 6 m gap, and 5.9 s for the 12 m gap. There-
fore, conclusion can be deduced that the resonance period
is influenced by the gap width; as the gap width increases,
the resonance period increases.

Figure 6. Test scene for side-by-side barges. (This figure is available in colour online.)
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Figure 7. Heave RAOs for two parallel barges with different
gaps. (This figure is available in colour online.)
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015
Corresponding experimental results from the white
noise wave tests are also presented in Figures 7–9. Compar-
ison between the numerical and experimental results shows
that at most of the wave periods, the calculated motion re-
sponses are in good agreement with the model test results.
However, in the vicinity of the resonance period, there are
obvious discrepancies; the numerical values are much larger
than the experimental ones. These discrepancies may be
attributed to the neglect of fluid viscosity and energy dissi-
pation in the potential theory. The overestimated numerical
values can be reduced effectively by applying a damping
lid to the free surface between the two barges using the
damping lid method by Chen (2005) and an appropriate
damping parameter can be obtained through comparison
with the experimental results. However, the focus of this
study is not the calibration. Despite the difference in peak
values, the resonance period can be accurately predicted via
computation.
Figure 8. Pitch RAOs for two parallel barges with different gaps.
(This figure is available in colour online.)
481
Figure 9. Yaw RAOs for two parallel barges with different gaps.
(This figure is available in colour online.)
5.2. Wave elevations
The resonance of the motion responses may be attributable
to the fluid resonance in the gap between the barges. Ob-
vious water movement was observed in the gap during
the regular wave tests near the resonance wave period,
and the wave elevations at five locations in the gap were
measured. The calculated and experimental wave elevation
RAOs at the five locations for the 3 m gap are presented in
Figure 10. It can be seen that the calculated RAOs are much
larger than the experimental results around the resonance
period, but fairly good agreements are obtained for other
periods. Figure 11 shows the comparison among the experi-
mental results at different locations. The resonance periods
are all about 4.9 s. The resonant wave elevation is the largest
at the midship (point C), while at points A and E, the res-
onant wave elevations are relatively small. Figures 12 and
13 show wave elevation RAOs at the middle location (point
C) for the 6 and 12 m gaps. The resonance periods are 5.4
and 5.9 s, respectively, which is consistent with the motion
response results.
Figure 14 summarises the resonant peak values of the
wave elevation RAOs at the five locations as obtained from
the white noise wave tests for different gap cases; the reso-
nance periods are different for these cases. All the maxima
appear at the midship (point C) and the largest maximum is
over 4, which means that the wave elevation reaches up to
more than four times the incident wave amplitude. Further-
more, when the gap width decreases, the peak value tends
to increase, which matches our intuitive expectation that
the influence of multiple bodies is more crucial when the
distance between the bodies is small.
To further investigate the resonance phenomenon, the
wave elevations around the two barges at the resonance
periods for the different gaps are calculated, as shown in
Figure 15. A large peak region in the middle of the gap is
observed, which may be explained by the standing wave in
the gap due to the superposition of the incident wave and the
 482 X. Xu et al.
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

Figure 10. Wave elevations in 3 m gap: (a) point A, (b) point B, (c) point C, (d) point D, and (e) point E.

diffracted wave. The wave elevations at other wave periods

are also calculated for comparison, and more peak regions
are observed in the gap when the wave period is smaller, as
shown in Figure 16. These multiple peak regions may ac-
count for the numerical oscillation at the small wave periods
shown in Figures 10c, 12, and 13; that is, the number of peak
regions increases when the wave period (or wavelength) de-
creases, which leads to more resonant peaks. However, the
peak values are smaller with multiple peak regions than

Figure 12. Wave elevation at point C in 6 m gap.

with only one peak region; the maximum wave elevation

RAO is 3.8 for the cases of multiple peak regions and 11 for
the case of one peak region for the numerical computation
of the 3 m gap. This is explained by the fact that the energy
is more concentrated with less peak regions.

5.3. Influence of body motion on wave elevation

In order to further investigate the cause of resonance, similar
calculations were performed with the two barges in a fixed
Figure 11. Wave elevations at different locations. (This figure is configuration. For the case of fixed barges with a 6 m gap,
available in colour online.) the resonance period significantly changes from the original
 Ships and Offshore Structures 483

Figure 13. Wave elevation at point C in 12 m gap.

5.4 to 6.3 s. For the 3 and 12 m gaps, the trend is the same;
the resonance periods of the wave elevation RAOs vary
obviously when the barges with six degrees of freedom
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

are fixed, as shown in Figure 17. This trend shows that

resonance is the combined result of both the barge motion
and the fluid movement and that not only the gap between
the barges but also the barge motion affects the resonance
period.
Based on the above study, the resonance period, when
the barge motion is constrained in different directions, is
further analysed. In order to illustrate the influence of mo-
tion for each degree of freedom, the two barges were set
to be immovable for one degree of freedom and movable
for the other five degrees of freedom. The wave elevation
RAOs for the 3, 6, and 12 m gap cases with barges under this
constrained motion were calculated, and the corresponding
resonance periods were obtained. The results are presented
in Table 4, and the results for the free-floating barges and
the fixed barges are also listed for comparison. Under the
head sea condition, the resonance period is mainly influ-
enced by the sway and the heave of the barges, and motions
in the other degrees of freedom affect the resonance period
less.

Figure 15. Wave elevations at resonance periods for different

gap cases: (a) T = 4.9 s, 3 m gap, (b) T = 5.4 s, 6 m gap, and (c)
T = 5.9 s, 12 m gap. (These figures are available in colour online.)

5.4. Sensitivity analyses

From the above comparison of the calculated and experi-
mental results, it could be concluded that the numerical sim-
ulation accurately predicts the resonance period and that the
resonance periods of the motion response and wave eleva-
tion results are in good agreement. To reveal the underlying
Figure 14. Wave elevation peak RAOs for different gap cases. origin of the resonance, sensitivity analyses of the primary
 484 X. Xu et al.

Figure 17. Comparison of resonance periods of floating and

fixed barges.

motion response were found to increase with growing gap

width. In order to investigate this increasing trend in detail,
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

multiple numerical models with different gap widths were

developed and the corresponding calculations were per-
formed. The resonance periods of the different gap cases
with only one peak region in the gap were collected and are
presented in Figure 18; the results for the fixed barge con-
dition are also shown. In this figure, the abscissa represents
the dimensionless gap width (the gap width b was non-
dimensionalised using the barge breadth B). The ordinate

Table 4. Resonance periods for barges under constrained

motions.

Gap width 3 m 6 m 12 m

Resonance period for fixed barges (s) 5.5 6.3 7.2

Resonance period for free-floating barges (s) 4.9 5.4 5.9
Resonance period for barges without surge (s) 4.9 5.4 5.9
Resonance period for barges without sway (s) 5.1 5.5 6
Resonance period for barges without heave (s) 5 5.6 6.4
Resonance period for barges without roll (s) 4.9 5.4 5.9
Resonance period for barges without pitch (s) 4.9 5.4 5.9
Resonance period for barges without yaw (s) 5 5.4 5.9

Figure 16. Wave elevations at other wave periods for 3 m gap:

(a) T = 3.7 s, (b) T = 4.2 s, and (c) T = 4.7 s. (These figures are
available in colour online.)

factors, such as the gap width, barge length, barge breadth,

and draft, were carried out by considering many numerical
models and conditions.

5.4.1. Influence of gap width

Through a comparison of the results of the 3, 6, and 12 m
gaps, the resonance period of the wave elevation and the Figure 18. Influence of gap width on resonant wavelength.
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Figure 19. Influence of barge length on resonant wavelength.
represents the dimensionless resonant wavelength, which is
obtained by first converting the resonance period into the
resonant wavelength λ using the dispersion relation and then
dividing λ by the barge length L. As the distance between
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015
the two barges increases, the resonant wavelength also in-
creases accordingly. In addition, the increase in the resonant
wavelength slows as the gap increases, and therefore, the
exponential functions of the fitting curves are also provided
in Figure 18. Comparing the free-floating and fixed barge
Figure 20. Wave elevations for 90 m barge length: (a) T = 4.9 s, (b) T = 5.3 s, (c) T = 5.8 s, and (d) T = 6.3 s. (These figures are
available in colour online.)
485
cases shows that the general trend for both cases is the same;
although the resonant wavelengths are different at the same
gap widths, there is no dependence on the gap size. In ad-
dition, the largest wave elevation RAO is less than 2 when
the gap is large, which indicates that the influence of the
resonance is not significant in this condition.
5.4.2. Influence of barge length
To investigate the influence of the barge length on the res-
onance period, fixed barges are considered to eliminate the
inconsistencies (for example, a change in the barge weight
or draft) caused by the changing length. Twelve two-barge
models in rectangular shape with barge lengths ranging
from 40 to 200 m were adopted for simplification. All have
the same parameters: barge breadth of 27 m, barge draft of
4 m, and gap width of 6 m.
Figure 19 shows the influence of the barge length on
the resonant wavelength, where the resonant wavelength is
non-dimensionalised by the original barge length L0 (90 m)
and the barge length is non-dimensionalised by the barge
breadth. Because of the existence of multiple peak regions
in the gap (as shown in Figure 20), the resonant situations
were considered comprehensively for which there are one to
 486 X. Xu et al.

Figure 21. Wave elevations for barge length of 200 m and wave
period of 6.6 s. (These figures are available in colour online.)
Figure 22. Influence of barge breadth on resonant wavelength.
four peak regions in the gap. Figure 19 demonstrates that the
resonant wavelength increases with the increase in the barge
length, but the rate of increase decreases gradually when
the barge is relatively long. This relationship is exponential,
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015

similar to the gap width results, and the fitting curves are
presented. The results for the cases with different numbers
of peak regions appear similar, except that the resonant
wavelength is longer and the dependence is less obvious
with a lower number of peak regions in the gap. Moreover,
based on the calculated wave elevations around the barges,
no stable one peak region exists in the middle of the gap
when the barge length is large, as shown in Figure 21. This
phenomenon may exist because the diffracted wave is not
able to reach the end of the gap when the barges are too
long. Figure 23. Influence of barge draft on resonant wavelength.

5.4.3. Influence of barge breadth
The influence of the barge breadth on the resonance is ex-
amined using similar approaches. Twenty-one fixed barge
models with different breadths ranging from 6- to 84 m are
designed, and all the barges have a rectangular shape with
a length of 90 m, draft of 4 m, and gap width of 6 m. The
influence of the breadth on resonant wavelengths for differ-
ent numbers of peak regions is presented in Figure 22, and
all the results are given in dimensionless form. The barge
breadth has a relatively small impact on the resonant wave-
length, especially for the cases with two to four peak regions
in which the resonant wavelength remains fairly static as
the barge breadth changes. However, for the case with only
one peak region, the resonant wavelength increases as barge
breadth increases when B/L is less than 5.3.
5.4.4. Influence of barge draft
Fourteen fixed two-barge models with drafts ranging from
0.5 to 27 m were used to investigate the influence of the
barge draft on the resonance. The barges are all rectangular
with a length of 90 m and breadth of 27 m, and the distances
between the barges are set at 6 m. The calculated results are
shown in Figure 23 and the draft is non-dimensionalised by
the barge breadth. The figure demonstrates that when the
draft increases, the resonant wavelength increases. Similar
to the trend in the study of the barge length, the rate of
increase slows as the draft increases and this can also be fit
with an exponential curve. Regarding the number of peak
regions, there is approximately no dependence of the results
on the barge draft for all cases. For a lower number of peak
regions in the gap, the resonant wavelength is larger and the
dependence is slightly more obvious.
6. Conclusions
Numerical models of two identical barges in a side-by-
side configuration with different gaps were established to
investigate the nature of hydrodynamic interactions, and
corresponding model tests were performed to validate the
models. The motion responses of the barges and the wave
elevations in the gap were discussed in detail. Fixed barges
and barges with constrained motions were also considered
to investigate the influence of body motion on the wave
elevation. Finally, sensitivity analyses of the primary fac-
tors were carried out by considering a variety of numerical
 Ships and Offshore Structures
models and conditions. From the above studies, the follow-
ing conclusions were obtained.
(1) A strong hydrodynamic interaction occurs because
of the gap influence and resonant peaks are ob-
served in the motion response and wave elevation
results, whose resonance periods are in good agree-
ment.
(2) Although the conventional potential theory is found
to over-predict the actual motion response and wave
elevation, the numerical simulation accurately pre-
dicts the resonance period.
(3) For the wave elevation results, a single peak re-
gion in the middle of the gap is observed at the
resonance period, whereas there are multiple peak
regions along the gap at some shorter periods with
smaller wave elevation values.
(4) There is a significant discrepancy in the resonance
period of the free-floating barge and fixed barge,
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015
which shows that the resonance is a combined result
of both the barge motion and the fluid movement in
the gap. Under head sea conditions, the resonance
period is mainly influenced by the sway and the
heave of the barges.
(5) With an increase in the barge dimensions or the
gap width, the resonant wavelength increases. The
rate of increase decreases gradually with increas-
ing parameter, which can be fit by an exponen-
tial function. Compared to other factors, the barge
breadth has a relatively insignificant effect on the
resonance. There is no significant dependence of
the wavelength on the parameters regardless of the
number of peak regions, and the resonant wave-
length is larger with for a lower number of peak
regions in the gap.
The hydrodynamic interaction of multiple bodies is a
complex problem, and the mechanism of the interaction is
difficult to elucidate. The wave field in the gap was studied
in detail in this work, which progresses the understanding
of the mechanism of multi-body interactions. In practical
applications, the potential theory method is proven to be ef-
fective for predicting the resonant condition, and therefore,
designers can safely use this method to avoid the reso-
nance of multiple bodies in a general ocean environment.
However, the peak value difference between the calcula-
tion and experiment is still a problem and the results from
potential theory method need improving. In the developed
damping lid method, corresponding experiments should be
performed to obtain an appropriate damping value. How-
ever, because they are costly and time consuming, other
methods for obtaining the damping value are in great need.
For further studies, viscous fluid models can be developed
to simulate the fluid flow around multiple bodies to ex-
amine the excitation due to the resonance. Currently, only
487
two-dimensional numerical models have been established
by Lu et al. (2011), and therefore, a numerical study in three
dimensions should be undertaken.
Funding
This work was supported by the Youth Innovation Fund of
the State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering [grant number
GKZD010059-21].
References
Bunnik T, Pauw WH, Voogt A. 2009. Hydrodynamic analysis for
side-by-side offloading. Proceedings of the 19th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; 2009 Jun 21–26;
Osaka, Japan.
Chen XB. 2005. Hydrodynamic analysis for offshore LNG termi-
nals. Proceedings of the 2nd Offshore Hydrodynamics Sym-
posium; 2005 Apr 14–15; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Clauss GF, Dudek M, Testa D. 2013. Gap effects at side-by-side
LNG-transfer operations. Proceedings of the 32nd Interna-
tional Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineer-
ing; 2013 Jun 9–14; Nantes, France.
Fang MC, Chen GR. 2002. On three-dimensional solutions of drift
forces and moments between two ships in waves. J Ship Res.
46(4):280–288.
Fournier JB, Naciri M, Chen XB. 2006. Hydrodynamics of two
side-by-side vessels, experiments and numerical simulations.
Proceedings of the 16th International Offshore and Polar En-
gineering Conference; 2006 May 28–Jun 2; San Francisco,
CA.
Huijsmans RHM, Pinkster JA, de Wilde JJ. 2001. Diffraction
and radiation of waves around side-by-side moored vessels.
Proceedings of the 11th International Offshore and Polar En-
gineering Conference; 2001 Jun 22–27; Stavanger, Norway.
Kim MS, Ha MK, Kim BW. 2003. Relative motions between
LNG-FPSO and side-by-side positioned LNG carrier in
waves. Proceedings of the 13th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference; 2003 May 25–30; Honolulu,
HI.
Løken AE. 1981. Hydrodynamic interaction between several float-
ing bodies of arbitrary form in waves. J Hydrodynamics Ocean
Eng. 198: 745–759.
Lu L, Teng B, Sun L, Chen B. 2011. Modelling of multi-bodies in
close proximity under water waves – Fluid forces on floating
bodies. Ocean Eng. 38(13):1403–1416.
Newman JN. 1985. Algorithms for the free-surface green function.
J Eng Math. 19:57–67.
Newman JN. 2003. Application of generalized modes for the simu-
lation of free surface patches in multiple body hydrodynamics.
Proceedings of the 4th Annual WAMIT Consortium Report;
2003 Oct 8–9; Woods Hole, MA.
Pauw WH, Huijsmans RHM, Voogt A. 2007. Advances in the
hydrodynamics of side-by-side moored vessels. Proceedings
of the ASME 2007 26th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic En-
gineering Conference; 2007 Jun 10–15; San Diego, CA.
Sun L, Eatock Taylor R, Taylor PH. 2010. First- and second-order
analysis of resonant waves between adjacent barges. J Fluids
Struct. 26:954–978.
Suzuki H, Riggs HR, Fujikubo M, Shugar TA, Seto H, Bhat-
tacharya B, Hudson DA, Shin H. 2007. Very large float-
ing structures. Volume 2: structures, safety and reliabil-
ity; petroleum technology symposium. Proceedings of the
ASME 2007 26th International Conference on Offshore
 488 X. Xu et al.
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; 2007 Jun 10–15; San
Diego, CA.
Tahar A, Halkyard J, Steen A, Finn L. 2006. Float over installa-
tion methods – comprehensive comparison between numerical
and model test results. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng. 128:256–
262.
Teigen P, Niedzwecki JM. 2006. A computational study
of wave effects related to side-by-side LNG offloading.
Proceedings of the 16th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference; 2006 May 28–Jun 2; San Francisco,
CA.
Downloaded by [], [xin xu] at 19:51 14 September 2015
View publication stats
Van Oortmerssen G. 1979. Hydrodynamic interaction between
two structures floating in waves. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Struc-
tures; 1979 Aug 28–31; Imperial College, London, England.
WAMIT User Manual (Version 6.4) 2006. WAMIT, Inc, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Xu X, Li X, Lu H-N, Xiao L-F, Yang J-M. 2012. An experimental
and numerical study on motions of three adjacent barges in
floatover installation. Proceedings of the 22nd International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; 2012 Jun 17–22;
Rhodes, Greece.