Proceedings of the ASME 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2008
June 15-20, 2008, Estoril, Portugal

OMAE2008-57881

Dynamic Simulation of Immersion of Tunnel Elements for Busan – Geoje Fixed Link
Project

Partha Chakrabarti, Zentech, Inc.,

Subrata K. Chakrabarti, Offshore Structures Analysis, Inc.,
Tommy Olsen, COWI A/S, Koo Im Sig, Daewoo, Kim Chang Whan, Daewoo, and Huh Jin Wook, Daewoo

ABSTRACT
Construction of an 8.2km motorway between Busan – Korea's southernmost, second largest city – and the island of Geoje,
called the Busan-Geoje Fixed Link Project, is currently underway. As part of this four-lane fixed link, there will be a
submerged tunnel section of 3.2km in length. COWI and Daewoo Engineering Co. have formed a joint venture (CDJV) to
carry out the design of the immersed tube tunnel (Busan-Geoje Fixed Link Immersed Tunnel). The Immersed Tunnel
consists of 18 Tunnel Elements and will be constructed from East to West. The immersed tunnel will become one of the
longest in the world to date, especially in an area of significant seismic activity.

Each of the 18 elements is identical, although they will be placed in water depths varying from 15m up to 50m subjected to
waves and current. The prefabricated tunnel section will be brought to the site in a submerged condition, where it will be
suspended from immersion rigs by four wire ropes. Each tunnel section will be lowered and connected to the previously
installed element. The immersion rig pontoons and the submerged tunnel element will be moored to stay in position using
as many as 14 wire ropes.

This paper describes the unique immersion concept specially developed for this project, the salient features of each phase of
analysis and the major conclusions. The findings in this study are expected to aid designers of similar immersion process
concepts to ensure safe installation.

INTRODUCTION
COWI and Daewoo Engineering Co. Joint Venture (CDJV) determined that there was a need for a numerical simulation of
the tunnel elements (26.5m wide x 180m long x 10m high, for a weight of 44,000 MT) during the immersion process in
order to validate their design. They requested Zentech, Inc. to perform this analysis and provide validation results.

The tunnel extends between Jungjuk Island to the west and Gaduk Island to the east. The Immersed Tunnel consists of 18
elements and will be constructed from East to West, Fig. 1. Each Tunnel Element (TE) is 180m long, which provides a total
length of the immersed tunnel of approximately 3.2 km. Every tunnel element, in turn, consists of 8 segments having a
length of 22.5m each.

For the purpose of the simulation, the prefabricated tunnel section will be brought to the site in a submerged condition,
where it will be suspended from two pontoons or Immersion Rigs (IR) of catamaran type (18m wide x 40.5m long x 6.5m
high) by four wire ropes. The tunnel section will be ballasted and lowered using wire ropes till it touches the guide system
and subsequently landed on a temporary support system.

1 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 Figure 1 Location of the Immersed Tunnel of the Busan-Geoje Fixed Link

Environment at Site
Each tunnel element is identical, although the water depth over the total tunnel length varies from 15m up to 50m. In
general, wave conditions at the site during immersion could reach up to a significant wave height of 1.2m with a 6 sec
period. The tunnel alignment is essentially perpendicular to the incoming seas. Maximum current velocity is approximately
0.8m/sec.

Basic Dimensions of Units

The dimensions and weight details of the units are shown in Table 1. The dry weight and the weight of the TE with ballast
for 1% overweight are shown. For other TE overweight analyses, these values used in the simulation are appropriately
different.

Table 1 Geometric Particulars of the Immersion Rigs and Tunnel Elements

Length Width Depth Draft Weight in Air KG
Unit
(m) (m) (m) (m) (kN) (m)
Immersion Rig 40.5 18.0 6.5 3.43(1) 5100 4.30
(2)
Tunnel Element 180.0 26.46 9.97 - 437900 4.87
(3)
477200 4.78
(1) Considering 1% overweight
(2) Without additional ballast for overweight
(3) With 1% additional ballast (overweight)

The plan and elevation views of the TE and IR and the basic mooring arrangements are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively.
The two IRs are identical and the setup shown in Fig. 3 applies to both IRs. Note that each IR is moored in place with four
wires connected directly to the ocean floor. On the other hand, the other mooring lines originate at IRs and connect through
the TE to the ocean floor. In addition, the TE is held by four suspension lines.

2 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 Current and wave
propagation direction

Y Y

X X
TE (FLOAT 1)

IR-1 (FLOAT2) IR-2 (FLOAT3)

Figure 2 Plan showing the Three Floating Bodies and Coordinate System

0.78m Y

4.78m

Figure 3 Elevation showing the Three Floating Bodies and Coordinate System

DESCRIPTION OF THE IMMERSION PROCESS

The unique immersion process for the TE element is outlined in the following steps. The described process is slightly
different than the actual construction method chosen for the project. The ends of the tunnel elements are temporarily sealed
to provide buoyancy during the installation process. Before the TE is placed on the bottom, Fig. 4, it is ensured to be level.
When the tunnel element arrives at the installation position, the element is suspended from the immersion rigs using four
suspension wires. The water content in the outer ballast tanks is adjusted so that the submerged tunnel element has an
overweight of not less than 1% of the total displacement. The tunnel section is ballasted and lowered till the male part of
the guide system touches the fork guide at the previously installed element, Fig. 5. The tunnel element is lowered till the
nose construction rests firmly on the kin construction. Once the tunnel element rests firmly on the kin construction, the
tunnel element is moved forward to close the Gina joint. The secondary end may need to be adjusted horizontally or
vertically to close the gap between the two elements (i.e., between the Gina gasket and the steel end frame). After checking
the Gina gasket and the matching of the two tunnel elements by divers, the immersion chamber can be emptied. The tunnel
element is then moved about 10 to 15 cm forward by compressing the Gina gasket.

3 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 Figure 4 Immersion of TE into trench

Figure 5 Plan showing TE being installed next to the previously installed one

The suspension lines, mooring and contraction wires are isometrically shown in Fig. 6. Each immersion rig is moored to the
seabed by four mooring wires. As shown, there are three contraction wires that interconnect each IR to the TE.

Figure 6 3-D View of Model showing Line Nos.

4 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

The hydrodynamic models for the tunnel element and the immersion rigs require the added mass parameters and excitation
loads. Since the two immersion rigs are identical, it suffices to make one model for the rig. The draft of the rigs is expected
to remain essentially constant for a given overweight of TE. Therefore, only one draft is considered. The tunnel element
undergoes a change in its submergence depth starting with its keel at an elevation of El. (-)10.5m when the immersion
process begins to a final keel depth of El. (-)46m into the trench, for a seabed depth of 35m, when it is about to mate with
the adjacent tunnel element already laid.

During the process of installation the bodies are likely to be subjected to environmental conditions including current and
waves as described earlier. The purpose of the simulations is to provide better definition of the behavior of the system
under this environment, so that appropriate measures can be taken during the installation process. For the touch-down
analysis, in particular, the magnitude of the impact forces and the dynamic behavior of the floating bodies are studied to
gain insight in preparation for the actual mating operations.

Model Tests
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) had performed limited physical model tests of the tunnel and rig system in their wave
basin. The model scale was 1:65. The tests covered the TE condition at mooring, towing, immersion and final position. As
a part of this activity, certain tests were done to provide motions of the TE and the IRs and the mooring forces during the
process of immersion of the TE. Results of the tests for selected cases are compared with the analytical simulations.

NUMERICAL SIMULATION

During the design, it was decided that a numerical study of the tunnel elements should be carried out to simulate the
immersion process. The objective of the installation analysis was to determine:

♦ Motion response of the tunnel element and immersion rigs,

♦ Load in all wires,
♦ The permissible weather window for which the immersion operations may be carried out safely,
♦ The magnitude of overweight (or, negative buoyancy) of the tunnel elements for safe operations considering the
TE motions, and
♦ The tunnel behavior at different water depths including the point of touch-down on the seabed.

Similar numerical simulation was applied previously for Tacoma Narrows Caisson immersion which involved vortex
induced oscillatory forces due to strong current (ref. 4, 5). However, that project involved only a single floating body unlike
multiple bodies described here.

The system consisted of three bodies -- two floating Immersion Rigs and the submerged Tunnel Element with their mutual
interaction through the connecting mooring and suspension wires. The loads on the four wire suspenders, the mooring wires
and the contraction lines are the items of interest in each phase of the study. The behavior of the system is determined using
three interactive software packages.

The wave excitation forces on each floating or submerged body as well as their hydrodynamic characteristics such as added
mass and damping are obtained using a 3-D radiation/diffraction analysis program, NEPTUNE (ref. 1). Multiple body
diffraction effects could be important when three bodies are in close proximity, which happens especially at shallow depth.
When the tunnel element is close to the trench, the effect of the non-flat bottom boundary also could be important which is
possible to be simulated using multi-body analysis, where the bottom surface is represented as a fixed second body. Due to
engineering reasons it was decided to study the latter first, because the motions and loads at the point of touch-down were
considered more important. Since this analysis showed limited multi-body effect, as will be discussed later, the multi-body
effect for the first case when the tunnel is near the water surface was not considered. This was particularly so, because the
close proximity to the water surface could not be analyzed due to other program difficulties The effect of the trenched
bottom is studied using another hydrodynamic analysis program, NBODY (ref. 2) that considers multi-body interaction
with waves. The motion simulations in random waves and current are performed using a nonlinear time-domain dynamic
analysis program, MOTSIM (ref. 3). In these analyses the basic assumption is that the bodies are structurally rigid and their
motions are described by 6 DOF – namely, surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw of each floating body.

In the time-domain simulation the loads are initially applied gradually to minimize transient effect. The simulation is run
for duration long enough to let the transients disappear and the duration, after the steady state is reached, is used as
representative of the true steady state response for the statistical analysis.

5 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Simulation Phases
The simulations are carried out in four phases:

1) Phase I: Numerical Model Validation – to validate the numerical model against results from a physical small-
scale model test,
2) Phase II: Study for Overweight of Tunnel Element -- the physical model tests indicated that an overweight of
1% could be insufficient to provide tension in the suspension wires at all times, which necessitated the
establishment of overweight for the expected weather window,
3) Phase III: Immersion Simulation -- when the tunnel element is close to the bottom of the trench and just
before joining the previous tunnel element, the mooring wires must remain tight in order to minimize the sway
movements, and
4) Phase IV: Touch-down Analysis Simulation – to evaluate the impact loads between the guide system, on the
“kin and nose construction” - the vertical and horizontal (friction) load, and loads on the temporary pads at the
secondary end close to the hydraulic jacks.

In this paper, the analysis for Phase II carried out for a seabed depth of 35m and tunnel element bottom (TEB) at -13m is
reported. For Phase III, the seabed depth is 20m with the TE in the trench and TEB at -31m. For Phase IV, the position of
the TE is the same as in Phase III.

Hydrodynamics by Panel Models

In order to obtain the hydrodynamic characteristics and wave excitation forces on the floating bodies, the 3-D panels are
created. It is to be noted that the panel model need only to extend up to the still water surface for bodies piercing the water
surface. The hydrodynamic model for the Immersion Rig and the Tunnel Element is shown in Fig. 7. Although quarter-
symmetry is used in the program, full models are shown. The hydrodynamic parameters of the TE are expected to change
with the depth of immersion. Therefore, these are evaluated at the required depths.

Immersion Rig Tunnel Element

Figure 7 NEPTUNE Model

Excitation Forces
The excitation forces for sway and heave direction were obtained from the linear diffraction/radiation theory by NEPTUNE
with the wave direction at 270 degrees to the IR. Mean (steady) drift forces for the Immersion Rigs for an irregular wave
spectrum are evaluated using the drift coefficients and summing the effect of each wave component of the wave spectrum
using an integral expression. Slow drift excitation force amplitudes for the Immersion Rigs at difference frequencies of an
irregular wave are evaluated using the drift coefficients and the wave spectrum based on Newman’s approximation.

Damping
The selected damping parameters are shown in Table 2. These values are derived from the radiation theory supplemented
by the model test data.

6 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 Table 2 Damping Ratios
DOF % Damping Ratio
Surge 5.0
Sway 5.0
Heave 15.0
Roll 5.0
Pitch 5.0
Yaw 5.0

Current Forces
The model test provided only limited information of the steady current force on the TE when it is near the bottom. It did not
provide any information for the forces on the IR. The current forces in sway on IR and TE were estimated analytically from
the standard drag force formula using a drag coefficient for both as 1.0. When the TE is at a higher elevation above the
seabed, full current velocity is used to evaluate the current force on the TE. When the TE is located just above the trench
bottom, the current flow will suffer from a reduction in the velocity above the trench. The in-place force test shows that a
reduction in the flow velocity to 60% of the maximum value is conservative, but reasonable. This reduced value is used for
the case of tunnel bottom near the trench bottom for the current here. The water density used is 1026 kg/m3 for the
calculations. Based on the above assumptions, the computed current forces are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Current Forces on IR, and TE

No. Length Draft Area KG Moment arm Force Roll Moment
unit m m m2 m m N N-m
Immersion rig 2 18 3.43 123.5 0.78 -2.495 40541 -101150
Tunnel Element
1 180 10 1800.0 4.77 0.23 212751 48933
(near trench bottom)

Spring Properties
The spring properties (AE/L) for the suspension lines, mooring and contraction lines are shown in Table 4 for line lengths
for TE @ -46m. Note that the spring characteristics of the lines are linear. However, the lines are allowed to go slack, if the
pretension is not high enough, which makes the restoring force in the lines bilinear. Depending on the pretension, this
inflexion point in the line stiffness experiences changes. It has an effect on the responses of the immersion rigs and tunnel
element. These are used for the input of strain tables (strain vs. force) for the simulations with adjustments for the line
length for a different water depth and level of the TE.

Table 4 Line Stiffness

Line Description Spring Stiffness Length, m Length, m
kN/m Phase I Phase III & IV
Mooring Lines 1,000 76.58 103.48
Contraction Lines 500 98.58 154.61/110.87*
Suspension Lines 44,000 36.57 23.69
* For Lines 5-8 and 9-10

Mooring Line Modeling

The suspension lines, contraction lines and mooring lines are shown in Fig. 6, where the numbering system of lines adopted
is shown. Note that the line numbering system is the same for Phase II and Phase III simulation models. MOTSIM refers
these lines by sequential line numbers starting with the suspension lines for IR-1 and IR-2 followed by the contraction and
mooring lines respectively.

1. Contraction lines are modeled in three segments: (1) vertical segment from IR to TE, (2) horizontal segment
running on top of TE, (3) segment from shackle near the edge of TE to the seabed anchor. The tension for all the

7 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 three segments are assumed to be the same at a given time step, as the segments are considered parts of a
continuous line.

2. The anchor points of the contraction lines (lines 5 to 8) and mooring lines (lines 11 to 18) are assumed to have
the same Y-coordinates as shown in the plan view.

3. The contraction lines (lines 9 & 10) are both assumed anchored to the seabed. The anchor points are assumed at a
distance of 200m from the origin of the tunnel. Connections to the previously installed tunnel element were not
modeled.

NUMERICAL SIMULATION FOR AN EXAMPLE CASE

The JONSWAP spectrum is represented by 20 periods for excitation force evaluation. The results are presented here for
Case PI-1, where the water depth is 35m, the tunnel element is one meter above the bottom of the trench, the wave
(Hs=0.51m, Tp=4.5sec) is considered without current. The purpose of presenting these results is to show the comparison and
validation of the numerical simulation with the model tests. The water surface elevation for the random wave is shown in
Fig. 8. The heave of the TE and the IRs show some small oscillations about the mean positions of the respective floats as
shown in Fig. 9. The heave for IR-1 and IR-2 coincide. The sway motions for TE and IR are shown in Figs. 10 and 11
respectively. The roll responses are shown in Fig. 12. The line tension for one suspension line is shown in Fig. 13.

0.3
0.2
Wave, m

0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 8 Wave Surface Elevation – Case PI-1

-1.06 HEAVE1
HEAVE2
-1.08 HEAVE3
Heave, m

-1.10

-1.12

-1.14
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 9 Heave of TE and IR-1 – Case PI-1

0.06
SWAY1
0.04
Sway, m

0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 10 Sway of TE– Case PI-1

8 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 0.4

Sway, m 0.2

0.0
SWAY2
-0.2
SWAY3
-0.4
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 11 Sway of IR-1 and IR-2 – Case PI-1

0.10 ROLL1
ROLL2
0.05
Roll, deg

ROLL3
0.00

-0.05

-0.10
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 12 Roll of TE and IR– Case PI-1

1.3E+06
LINE 1
Line Force, N

1.2E+06

1.1E+06
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 13 Tension for Suspension LINE1– Case PI-1

PHASE I: NUMERICAL MODEL VALIDATION

Extensive comparison of the numerical results with the corresponding model tests are carried out. Since the model tests
were performed earlier, the discrepancies found between the experimental and numerical results could not be explained
satisfactorily in some cases. For example, the simulation shows slowly varying oscillations that are not of the same
magnitude as seen in the model test. Spurious oscillations in the basin during the model tests could not be ruled out,
however, for this discrepancy. The three motions of the TE and the IRs, in general, show good correlation considering that
the pretensions of the mooring lines were not properly reported in the model test. For the no current case, the comparison of
numerical results with physical model test results is reasonably good, albeit with assumed adjusted pretension.

Sample Comparison of Results

A sample correlation is shown here. The water surface elevation based on JONSWAP wave spectrum for the random wave
is shown in Fig. 14. The immersion rig experienced higher sway and roll motions compared to the tunnel element. The
comparison of the IR for this wave is shown in Fig. 15. Note that the phasing between the two time histories cannot be
matched due to the randomness of the wave components in the random wave. With this limitation in mind, the comparison
is considered satisfactory.

9 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 0.2

Wave, m 0.0

-0.2

-0.4
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 14 Computed Wave

0.4 Experimental results

Numerical results
IR Sway, m

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4
1,150 1,160 1,170 1,180 1,190 1,200
Time, s
Figure 15 Comparison of IR sway

PHASE II: OVERWEIGHT OF TUNNEL ELEMENT

The physical model tests indicated that 1% overweight of the TE may not be sufficient to maintain tensions in all the
suspension wires at all weather conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the overweight that will cover the
expected weather window. The aim of the Phase II studies is to determine this minimum overweight of the TE necessary to
avoid the suspension lines from becoming slack. The cases representative of the weather window are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Environmental Condition for Phase II Simulation

seabed, h(m)

wave height,

Peak period,
Level of TE

Significant

velocity,
Level of

TEB(m)
bottom,

Current
Hs(m)

(m/s)
Tp(s)
Case

1 -35.0 -13.0 0.8 4.5 0.8

2 -35.0 -13.0 0.4 6.0 0.8

3 -35.0 -13.0 0.8 6.0 0.8

4 -35.0 -13.0 0.4 8.0 0.8

Two critical cases are selected for the increased overweight: 1) the case that has shown slackness in the previous analysis,
2) the next most severe case that has shown the maximum dynamic amplification for the line tensions. The range or the
difference between the maximum and the minimum tension of a suspension line is a good measure of the dynamic effect.

The simulation started with the TE at 1% overweight. Whenever any of the suspension lines show a tendency to become
slack (tension going to zero), the overweight is increased in increments of 0.5%. The overweight is not exceeded beyond
the limit set at 6%.

10 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Theoretically, as the overweight increases the draft will increase and the hydrodynamic analysis should be performed again.
However, in this design cycle it is believed that this incremental change may affect the results only slightly, but not change
the conclusions. Therefore, the hydrodynamic properties of the IR are kept constant for all the analysis for this phase.

During the immersion process the TE would go from a position close to the water surface all the way down to the bottom of
the trench. During the entire process the suspension lines must be taut so that the system does not become unstable.
However, since it would be a lengthy process to check at every depth of the TE, whether the condition of tautness of the
lines is satisfied or not, it was decided to run only the cases when the excitation forces on the TE are likely to be large and
also when the flexibility of the suspension lines to adjust to the excitation would be the least.

This obviously happens at the topmost position of the TE when its keel is at -10.5m. However, in this position the top of the
TE is very close (-0.53m) to the water surface and diffraction analysis could numerically break down because of boundary
effects. NEPTUNE analysis has shown signs of the irregular effect in the excitation loads and added mass calculations from
this boundary condition. Therefore, it was decided to run the cases with the TE bottom at -13.0m elevation where the effect
of the boundary would be reduced, while the excitation forces would be large enough to be representative of the critical
condition.

Results of Analysis with Various Overweight

The results for suspension line forces of the initial analysis with overweight of 1% for the four cases are shown in Table 6.
This shows that Case 3 which has a higher wave height than the other cases had caused more severe motions making the
suspension lines slack (line force reaching zero). The next most severe case was determined as Case 4, which showed all
the suspension lines to be taut for the entire duration, but experienced the largest variations of the tension.

Therefore, the analyses for Case PII-3 and 4 are repeated with higher overweight till the lines become taut during the entire
duration of the simulation. The overweight at which this happens is 2.5%. The statistics of tension of the critical suspension
line are shown in Table 6. For the overweight of 2.5% the tensions in all lines become positive and the tension range
reduces.

Table 6 Tension Statistics of Suspension Lines for Various Overweight – Phase II

Case Overweight
No. 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
1 332.5
Min.
2 393.2
Tension,
kN 3 0 0 0 160.5
4 324.0 959.3 2,230.0
1 2,005.0
Max.
2 1,767.0
Tension,
kN 3 15,750.0 15,470.0 16,670.0 5,540.0
4 2,062.0 2,650.0 3,814.0
1 1,672.5
Range of
2 1,373.8
Tension,
kN 3 15,750.0 15,470.0 16,670.0 5,379.5
4 1,738.0 1,690.7 1,584.0

The suspension line force time histories for a limited duration for Case PII-3, and overweights 1% and 2.5%, are shown in
Figs. 16 and 17 respectively. For 1.0% overweight the lines momentarily become slack and, then, pick up very high
dynamic loads. For 2.5% overweight all line tensions are positive and the tension range diminishes, indicating that the lines
are taut.

11 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 1.6E+07
LINE 1 LINE 2
Line Force, N 1.2E+07
LINE 3 LINE 4

8.0E+06

4.0E+06
0.0E+00
1,050 1,060 1,070 1,080 1,090 1,100 1,110 1,120 1,130 1,140 1,150
Time, s

Figure 16 Suspension Line Tension – Case PII-3, Overweight 1.0%

6.0E+06
Line Force, N

4.0E+06

2.0E+06
LINE 1 LINE 2
LINE 3 LINE 4
0.0E+00
1,050 1,060 1,070 1,080 1,090 1,100 1,110 1,120 1,130 1,140 1,150
Time, s

Figure 17 Suspension Line Tension – Case PII-3, Overweight 2.5%

The Phase II simulation study concludes that the allowable weather window for Phase II assuming 1% overweight of TE is
as given below:

Hs, m Tp, sec

0.80 4.5
0.42 6.0
0.40 8.0

In order to increase the weather window (e.g., Hs=0.8m, Tp=6 sec), it would require even higher overweight of the TE.

PHASE III: MOVEMENTS DURING IMMERSION

In Phase III, immersion simulations are carried out with the TE close to the bottom of the trench and just before joining the
neighboring in-place TE, when the mooring wires are tight in order to minimize the sway movements. The objective is to
determine the maximum motions of the TE, when it is close to the existing installed TE in the trench. The desired
maximum horizontal dynamic motion of the corner points of the TE is set as 200mm in order to enable connection to the
adjacent TE. This operation uses a guide beam, which will be slid into a corresponding guide frame on the adjacent TE.

The case of the TE keel in the trench at -31m (Phase IIIb) at a water depth of 20m is selected for simulation (Table 7). It
was expected that this case will result in more wave excitation loads and, consequently, more dynamic motions as
compared to the case of the TE keel at -48m in a water depth of 35m.

12 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 Table 7 Environmental Condition for Phase III Simulation

Current velocity,
Significant wave
bottom, TEB(m)
Level of seabed,

height, Hs(m)

Peak period,
Level of TE
Phase

(m/s)
Tp(s)
h(m)
Case
1 -20.0 -31.0 0.8 4.5 0.8

P-III-b 2 -20.0 -31.0 0.8 6.0 0.8

3 -20.0 -31.0 0.4 8.0 0.8

Effect of Trench
In order to examine the effect of the trench, the TE and the trench are modeled simultaneously as two 3-D bodies. The
adjacent installed TE, being outside the plan dimensions of the TE being lowered, will at best affect the flow pattern at this
end, but is unlikely to affect the flow over the remaining length of the TE being lowered. Therefore, in the numerical model
the inclusion of the neighboring TE is not considered important.

The excitation forces in sway, heave and roll due to the presence of the trench are found to be practically the same within a
small difference. Similarly, the roll added mass is unaffected by the presence of the trench. The sway added mass is found
to be consistently higher by a factor of about 1.10 (10% increase) when the trench is present, while the change in the heave
added mass is only an increase of 2%. These factors are included in the analysis in Phase III.

Results of Simulation using Initial Pretension

Pretensions of the lines are initially assumed to be the same as in Phase II, meaning the mooring line pretension of 1MN
and the contraction line pretension of 0.1MN. The ‘effective pretension’ of mooring lines after application of gravity loads
is about 0.7MN.

The results for the suspension line forces are shown in Table 8. It is observed that Cases 1 and 3 result in suspension lines
that remain taut for the entire simulation, but for Case 2 they become slack. This is consistent with the findings in Phase II,
where for the case with Hs=0.8m, Tp=6 sec, the suspension lines become slack for an overweight of 1%. If the overweight is
increased to 2.5%, the lines are taut.

Table 8 Suspension Line Forces from Phase III Study – Initial Pretension
Case No. Hs, Tp LINE 1 LINE 2 LINE 3 LINE 4
Min. 1 0.8m, 4.5s 798.4 220.3 795.8 218.1
Tension, 2 0.8m, 6.0s 0 0 0 0
kN 3 0.4m, 8.0s 831.8 492.4 829.5 491.2
Max. 1 0.8m, 4.5s 1,162.0 1,719.0 1,159.0 1,717.0
Tension, 2 0.8m, 6.0s 7,362.0 6,112.0 6,412.0 7,060.0
kN 3 0.4m, 8.0s 1,109.0 1,475.0 1,105.0 1,472.0

Results of Simulation using Higher Pretension

In order to find a solution without increasing the overweight of the TE, the pretension of the mooring lines are increased in
steps. The final step, when the lines become taut, is for the mooring line (ML) pretension of 4MN. The contraction line
pretension is assumed zero. The ‘effective pretension’ after application of gravity loads is about 3.5MN.

The pretension required for Case 2 is considered too high for the anchors by CDJV. Hence, the allowable wave height for
Case 2 is reduced below that used in the initial study, without increasing the pretension of the mooring lines.

13 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Results of Simulation with Reduced Wave Height
For Case 2, the wave height of the sea state is reduced, until the results show that the suspension lines are all taut. The
allowable wave height is worked out as Hs=0.45m. For uniformity with Phase II, the results for Hs=0.4m is included as the
final case (Table 9).

Table 9 Suspension Line Forces from Phase III Study – Initial Pretension, Reduced Sea State
Case No. Hs, Tp LINE 1 LINE 2 LINE 3 LINE 4
Min. 1 0.8m, 4.5s 798.4 220.3 795.8 218.1
Tension, 2a 0.4m, 6.0s 569.0 346.8 566.7 345.8
kN 3 0.4m, 8.0s 831.8 492.4 829.5 491.2
Max. 1 0.8m, 4.5s 1,162.0 1,719.0 1,159.0 1,717.0
Tension, 2a 0.4m, 6.0s 1,394.0 1,656.0 1,392.0 1,653.0
kN 3 0.4m, 8.0s 1,109.0 1,475.0 1,105.0 1,472.0

The following conclusions are made for the Phase III study:

• The trench has marginal effect on the hydrodynamics of the TE.

• The displacements at the corner points of the TE show that the dynamic horizontal motions are within the limits of
200mm for all the sea states considered.
• The allowable weather window assuming a 1% overweight of TE and TE keel at -31m in a water depth of 20m is
given below:

Hs, m Tp, sec

0.80 4.5
0.40 6.0
0.40 8.0

• In order to increase the weather window (e.g., Hs=0.8m, Tp=6 sec) it would require at least 4MN pretension
(3.5MN effective) of the mooring lines to maintain tension on the suspension lines, which is considered too high
for the anchors.

PHASE IV: TOUCH-DOWN ANALYSIS

In Phase IV, the touch-down analysis is carried out with the TE is close to the bottom of the trench and joining the
previously installed TE. The objective is to determine the maximum impact forces on the guides, corbels and temporary
pads, when the TE mates with the existing installed TE in the trench.

In Phase III, which represented the condition of the suspended TE just before touch-down at a seabed depth of 20m with
TEB at El. (-) 31.0m just above the bottom of the trench, the allowable weather window was determined. Three sea states
defined the allowable weather window. The velocity responses at the corners of the TE had shown very similar results for
all three cases, Case 2 showing a slightly higher value. Therefore, simulations are carried out for Phase IV touch-down
condition using the environmental conditions same as Case 2 of Phase III (Hs=0.4m, Tp=6sec, Vc=0.8 m/s). It is believed
that this case is representative of all the above sea states.

Two general configurations of the location of the corbels are considered with different stiffness and TE overweight
resulting in a total of six cases as follows:
A) Corbels on the inner wall at mid depth of the TE:
a. Very Large Elastomeric Bearing - Corbel K=500x103 kN/m, Pad K=340x103 N/m, Guide K=60x103
kN/m, μ=0.2). All ‘fenders’ considered.
b. Large Elastomeric Bearing - Corbel K=250x103 kN/m, Pad K=340x103 kN/m, Guide K=60x103
kN/m, μ=0.2). All ‘fenders’ considered.
c. Reduced Corbel Stiffness - Corbel K=150x103 kN/m. Only vertical ‘fender’ at corbels considered.
i. Overweight 1%
ii. Overweight 2%

14 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 B) Corbels on the outer wall, at the top of the TE:
a. Reduced Corbel Stiffness - Corbel K=150x103 kN/m. Only vertical ‘fender’ at corbels considered.
i. Overweight 1%
ii. Overweight 2%

Simulation of Contacting Elements

The impact forces generated between two contacting bodies are compressive in nature. This is represented in MOTSIM by
a ‘FENDER’. The modeling of the fender in MOTSIM is based on several assumptions. The TE is assumed infinitely rigid
at the location of the fender attachment compared to the fender itself, so that all deflections occur in the fender. When the
TE touches the fender, it causes forces in two directions, depending on the stiffness of the fender. One acts normal to its
orientation and the other at right angle to it. The first one is called the normal force, and the second component is the
tangential force. The normal force comes directly from the fender stiffness. The tangential force depends on the friction
coefficient. The fender force-deformation characteristics are specified in a compression-force table. While the fender is
generally assumed to remain in contact with the fender, an initial ‘gap’ in the fender may be prescribed in the compression-
force table, in which the compression is given as the initial gap, while the fender force is set as 0.

The orientation of the fender can be either horizontal or vertical. For a vertical orientation, the forces only act in the vertical
direction and the fender angle is not important. In this case, a vertical location of the TE, where the fender may be in
contact, is specified in the TE coordinate. During the TE motion the vertical displacement of the TE is computed at each
time step and added to the input vertical coordinate to determine the amount of compression. If a gap exists between this
point and the fender point, then the force is zero. When they touch, a force generates based on the compression value from
the compression-force table. For the horizontal orientation the fender can have different angles. Since the horizontal fender
is fixed, it can only have one normal direction, which is determined by the fender angle. The fender is oriented with respect
to the X-axis. Thus, a zero degree fender angle will produce the normal load in the head sea direction only and the
tangential force in the beam direction. The contact points and the fender angle are held fixed for the fender and do not
change with time. The fender can be activated at a specific time during the simulation process, called the ‘start time’, but
will continue to act until the end of the simulation.

MOTSIM can only monitor the contacts at the specified points, where a fender is modeled. There may be other points when
the TE may make contact which remains unknown in this simulation. MOTSIM cannot simulate the prescribed steady
lowering velocity, as it involves continually changing the length of suspension lines at the rate of the lowering velocity.
Considering that the velocity of lowering is very slow, the simulation still provides a valid modeling of the touch-down.
However, the results must be interpreted having this limitation in mind.

The corbels are initially located at the inner walls of the TE near its centerline. For subsequent analyses, these locations are
changed at the outer walls. The originally assumed and subsequently reduced stiffness of the fenders are given in Table 10.

Table 10 Assumed Fender Stiffness (Original/Reduced)

Stiffness
Fenders Remarks
kN/m
Foundation Pad 340x103 Cement Deep Mixing (CDM) Foundation
500x103 Large elastomeric bearing
Corbel 250x10 3
Very large elastomeric bearing
3
150x10 Reduced stiffness
Guide 60x10 3
Guide beam HE800B

The main objective of the simulation is to capture the maximum impact force. The vertical impact force depends on the
vertical velocity of the moving the ‘fender’ point, its vertical coordinate, and the fixed fender point elevation (VLOC). The
random nature of the wave forces and the consequent motions suggest that the peaks and troughs of the motions of the
tunnel element do not occur with the same regularity or amplitude. Therefore, the impact force depends on the timing of the
first contact. The same is true for the horizontal fenders. This moment of fender activation can be controlled by the ‘start
time’ in MOTSIM. In order to obtain a reliable statistical distribution of the impact forces, including the maxima, several
simulations are carried out by varying the start time. The candidate start times are selected judiciously by examinimg the
time history of motion of the respective point, when there is no fender activated and noting its troughs when the impact is
likely to occur. Then, in a subsequent analysis, the fender is activated just before this moment of time.

15 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Sample Results of Touch-down Simulation
The horizontal (Y-force) impact loads for the fork type guides at the primary end are shown in Fig. 18. The vertical forces
at the corbel pads when they are located on the inner walls are shown in Fig. 19.

1.0E+07 FNDY 5
5.0E+06 FNDY 6
Force, N

0.0E+00

-5.0E+06

-1.0E+07
790 795 800 805 810 815 820 825 830
Time, s

Figure 18 Horizontal Guide Forces at Corbels – K=500x106 N/m

5.0E+06 FNDZ 1
4.0E+06 FNDZ 2
FNDZ 3
Force, N

3.0E+06 FNDZ 4
2.0E+06
1.0E+06
0.0E+00
790 795 800 805 810 815 820 825 830
Time, s

Figure 19 Vertical Impact Forces at Corbels and Pads – K=500x106 N/m

Summary of Results for Phase IV

Table 11 summarizes the results from the Phase IV simulation.

Table 11 Summary of Results for Touch-down Analysis

Case Vertical First Maximum Vertical
Corbel Stiffness
No. Case Description Overweight Impact Force Impact Force
kN/m
MN MN
1 Corbel at Inner Wall 500x103 1% 3.74 7.77
3
2 Corbel at Inner Wall 250x10 1% 2.46 4.16
3
3 Corbel at Inner Wall 150x10 1% 1.84 2.16
3
4 Corbel at Inner Wall 150x10 2% 1.75 2.21
3
5 Corbel at Outer Wall 150x10 1% 3.86 3.89
6 Corbel at Outer Wall 150x103 2% 3.19 4.70

The following are the main recommendations made from the observations during the Phase IV study:

• The maximum vertical downward velocity at the point of contact for the original corbel location at inner walls is
about 20 mm/sec, whereas for the revised locations of the corbels on the top at the outer walls, the velocity is 55
mm/sec.
• The duration of the contact is from 1.0 to 1.5 sec, for corbels on the inner walls and on the top of outer walls,
respectively. To avoid multiple impacts, the transfer of the weight of the tunnel at the primary end on the corbels
must take place within this short period, after the TE makes the first contact and before it lifts off again.

16 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 • The load transfer from the IR to the corbel would cause the IR to immediately heave up and will tend to tighten up
the suspension lines at the primary end. In order to transfer the full load to the corbel, the suspension lines must
pay out this differential length fast enough to avoid multiple impacts,.
• The lowering speed should be slow as compared to the maximum vertical velocty considered in the touch-down
simulations in order to avoid large impact load, even if this means multiple impacts.

CONCLUSIONS
The paper gave an overview of a unique immersion system adopted to install tunnel elements of the Busan-Geoje Fixed
Link Immersed Tunnel Project using two floating immersion rigs on the floor of the waterway. It presented a numerical
simulation of the process of immersion of tunnel elements. The sea conditions at the site impose waves on the broadside of
the tunnel element. The hydrodynamic analyses have been performed using 3-D diffraction-radiation software for large
bodies. Certain aspects of the hydrodynamics, such as the effect of the trench at the bottom, have been investigated by
another hydrodynamics software package that can handle multi-body problems. The effects of the trench for the cases
considered have been found to be marginal. The nonlinear time domain simulations for the motions of the multiple bodies
and the corresponding line loads in irregular waves have been performed. The cases analyzed cover different depths of the
tunnel element, as it is being lowered, ending in the touch-down analysis when it lands on the specially prepared landing
pads adjacent to the previously installed tunnel element.

The analyses and their results are reported in four phases and cover the major conclusions reached for the purpose of
design. The simulations prescribed appropriate changes in the planned immersion process and allowed selection of weather
windows that can be safely used for the immersion of the tunnel elements. The construction work is progressing and the
immersion of the tunnel elements is planned, further optimized, and analyzed based on the results of the simulations. It is
believed that the general immersion techniques and procedures discussed here will be useful for similar future projects.

Because of the several phases of the immersion technique covered in the paper, some details of individual phases are
omitted due to size limitation. A more detailed technical analysis on focused areas of the project will be published in a
future paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is based on a project undertaken by Zentech, Inc. on behalf of their client COWI-DEC JV, Denmark / Korea.
Authors thank COWI-DEC JV and Zentech, Inc. for their permission to present this paper.

REFERENCES
1. NEPTUNE - User’s Manual, Computer Software for Floating Structures, Version 4.3, 2003, Zentech, Inc.
2. NBODY – Computer Software for diffraction Analysis of Multiple Floating Bodies, OSA, Inc. website.
3. MOTSIM - User’s Manual, Time-domain Motion Simulation due to Wave, Wind, and Current on Multiple
Floating Structures with Nonlinear Constraints, April, 2004, OSA, Inc. website.
4. Sri Krishna, M., Chakrabarti, P., et al. “Overview of Tacoma Narrows Bridge Floating Caisson Design”,
Proceedings of 23rd International Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, ASME, OMAE2004-
51230, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
5. Chakrabarti, P., Chakrabarti, S.K., et al, “Design, Analysis and Verification of Caisson Mooring System”,
Proceedings of 23rd International Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, ASME, OMAE2004-
51234, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.

17 Copyright © 2008 by ASME