OTC 18493 Extreme Wave Effects on Deepwater Floating Structures

Bas Buchner and Tim Bunnik (Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, MARIN)

Copyright 2007, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., April 30-May 3 2007. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

model, extreme wave crests can be observed. The measured wave had a Ac/Hs ratio of 1.59. As a pilot study into the understanding of the occurrence of this type of extreme waves, [6] describes the spatial development of this wave in the basin, see Figure 1.

Abstract Extreme waves can lead to damage to floating offshore structure as a result of airgap problems, greenwater on the deck or slamming to the hull. As the physics of these problems are different, there is no single way of identifying and characterizing extreme waves. As part of the investigations into the effect of extreme waves on deepwater floating structures, this paper focuses on the challenges of the numerical prediction of platform response due to extreme waves. This will be done by using an improved Volume Of Fluid (iVOF) method. Two case studies are presented, which both required specific extensions of the methodology. First green water simulations on a FPSO are discussed, requiring the coupling of a linear diffraction code to the iVOF method as part of a domain decomposition. Second the dynamic response of a TLP to an extreme wave is studied, requiring the integrated analysis of the wave loading and platform response. Introduction Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico showed the importance of extreme waves for all types of offshore structures [1-5]. Extreme waves can lead to damage to floating offshore structures as a result of airgap problems, greenwater on the deck or slamming to the hull. As the physics of these problems are different, there is no single way of identifying and characterizing extreme waves: For airgap problems, the crest ampltidue of the waves is the most important aspect. Therefore, it is important to know the ratio Ac/Hs between Crest Amplitude (Ac) and Significant wave height (Hs). In [6] the detailed analysis of an observed extreme wave in a model basin is described. It was shown that even in a wave with moderate steepness (Hs=11.9 m, Tp=15.3 s), generated with a random phase

Figure 1: Spatial development of a wave in a model basin (from [6])

It should be noted ofcourse that even for fixed platforms the crest amplitude is not the only factor, the structure itself can clearly enhance the local wave elevation [7]. For floating structures such as TLPs, Semis and Spars the wave loading and response is even more complex, as was shown in recent tests on the Snorre TLP [8]. The dynamic response of the platform to the wave impact can be the main factor in the survivability of the platform.

Figure 2: Airgap tests on the Snorre TLP (from [8])

In [8] the important observation was made that extreme wave and airgap problems belong to the group of (what was called) badly behaved problems. A badly behaved problem is a problem with a step or discontinuity in the response. For a fixed platform or TLP it can for instance occur that the deck is not hit in the 100 year wave as the maximum wave crest just passes below the deck. However,

OTC 18493-PP

with a marginally larger wave, for instance in the 1000 year wave, the deck can be hit and the response of the platform to the wave loading will change significantly. This should be taken into account in the analysis of the long term survivability of the platform [8]. Related to the airgap problem is the green water problem on ship-type offshore strucutres, such as FPSOs [9]. In the relative wave motion, which is the main input to the green water problem, the wave height is only one component. The motion response of the vessel, determined for instance mainly by the wave length and hull shape, is an important factor as well in the relative wave motions.

MWL 6m R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

Figure 4:

The wave front steepness is the main factor in the wave impact loading on the bow (from [10])

Figure 3: Green water loading on a FPSO (from [9])

Finally it was shown in [10] that for the direct wave loading on the hull of the structure (slamming) the extreme wave front steepness is the most important factor (and not the extreme wave crest amplitude). This explained the damage to the bow of the Schiehallion FPSO, of which a model test is shown in Figure 4.

These examples and the importance of the extreme wave problem for the survivability of offshore structures, brings the offshore industry to important questions such as: How do we identify and characterise extreme waves for different types of offshore structures and wave impact load mechanisms? How are these extreme waves generated (for instance in hurricane type conditions)? How do we carefully take into account the inherent randomness of extreme waves? What is the effect of short-crestedness? What are the loading levels and dynamic response of the platform? What are the available measures we can take in the design? How should we analyse them with full scale measurements, model tests and simulations?

It will be clear that these questions cannot be answered in a single paper. In [6] a study on the spatial propagation of an extreme wave in a model basin is presented, whereas in [5] the full scale wave measurements and platform response of the Marco Polo TLP in Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita are studied. In the present paper the focus will be on the challenges of the numerical prediction of the platform response in extreme waves. This will be done by using an improved Volume Of Fluid (iVOF) method as it is presently under development [11,12]. First the general method will be described. Then two case studies will be presented, which both required specific extensions of the methodology: Green water simulation on a FPSO, requiring the coupling of a linear diffraction code to the iVOF method as part of a domain decomposition. Dynamic response of a TLP to an extreme wave, requiring the integrated analysis of the wave loading and platform response.

Description of the iVOF method General The iVOF method is based on the Navier-Stokes equations for an incompressible, viscous fluid. The equations are discretised using the finite volume method. The displacement of the free surface is done using the Volume of Fluid method first introduced by Hirt and Nichols [13]. To avoid small droplets disconnecting from the free surface, the iVOF-method is combined with a local height function.

OTC OTC-17853-PP

The iVOF method has already been used for a number of applications, like sloshing on board tumbling spacecraft, and blood flow through arteries. Maritime applications are sloshing in anti-roll tanks, simulation of dambreak flows as a model for green water flow on the deck, and falling objects in calm water [12]. Boundary conditions At solid walls and at objects in the flow, a no-slip boundary condition is used. At the boundaries of the computational domain, a number of boundary conditions can be applied. Some of the domain boundaries may let fluid flow in or out of the domain. In case of simulations including waves an inflow boundary is used where the incoming wave orbital velocities are prescribed and at the opposite boundary an outflow condition is used. When using the domain decomposition technique, the velocities at the domain boundaries are prescribed using the wave kinematics calculated by the far field solver (linear diffraction) At the interface between water an air, a free surface condition is apllied imposing continuity of normal and tangential stresses and atmospheric pressure. Discretisation To solve the Navier-Stokes equations numerically, the computational domain is covered with a fixed Cartesian grid. The variables are staggered, which means that the velocities are defined at cell faces, whereas the pressure is defined in cell centers. The body geometry is piecewise linear and cuts through the fixed rectangular grid. Volume apertures and edge apertures are used to indicate for each cell which part of the cell and cell face respectively is open for fluid and which part is blocked by solid geometry. To track the free surface, the volume-of-fluid function Fs is used, which is 0 if no fluid is present in the cell, 1 if the cell is completely filled with fluid and between 0 and 1 if the cell is partly filled with fluid. The Navier-Stokes equations are solved in every cell containing fluid.

During the simulation, these finite elements are displaced according to their prescribed motion. Green water simulation with domain decomposition There is a need for calculation methods for local flow phenomena of wave impact loading and loading from green water on the deck of offshore floaters. (Non-linear) methods to predict the wave field around the vessel and the vessel motions exist, but when waves are getting steep and are overturning or flowing over the structure, other methods should be used to calculate the flow and resulting loads. Green water loading is a highly complex and nonlinear process. In [9] it was shown that numerical prediction methods for the prediction of green water loading need to take into account the following phases in this process, see Figure 6: A. B. C. Nonlinear swell-up around the bow. 'Dam breaking'-type flow onto the deck. 'Hydraulic jump'-type shallow water flow on the moving deck, focussing into a high velocity water 'jet' when the water fronts from the sides meet. Water impact and water run-up in front of the structure, eventually turning over.

D.

Figure 6:

The main phases of the green water problem schematically in side view (left) and top view (right): from the non-linear relative wave motions in front of the bow, via the complex flow onto and on the deck to the impact on deck structures.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5

h=0.3 h=0.9

h=1.5

In [11] the results were shown of the simulation with iVOF of the flow of green water over the deck of an FPSO and the resulting impact on deck structures. However, the computational domain was limited to the area on the deck. The (measured) freeboard exceedance around the deck was used as boundary condition and the deck was not moving in this approach.

0.3 0.8 1.0

Figure 5: Example of wave propagating through the iVOF domain. Real wave (left), representation by volume fractions (middle) and reconstruction in the iVOF method (right).

Moving objects The iVOF method offers the possibility to have 1 object with a prescribed motion in the flow. At the start of a simulation, the geometry is built from an arbitrary finite element description.

Figure 7: The approach where water impact and water run-up are also taken into account [11].

OTC 18493-PP

The present paper makes one step further in this development. The computational domain of the iVOF method is extended to the area outside the bow (see Figure 8), so nonlinear waves and wave run up can be taken into account in the numerical simulation. As boundary conditions (waves and resulting ship motions), the input of linear diffraction analysis is used. This domain decomposition allows detailed flow simulations in areas with complex nonlinear flows and still limits the computation times. The linear diffraction analysis also provides improved boundary conditions, inflow as well as outflow, for the computational domain.

Figure 9: A diffraction code calculates the vessel motions and wave kinematics at a grid of points; these are used to give the initial configuration in the smaller iVOF domain and the inflow and outflow velocities at the domain boundaries.

An interface has been created, for coupling of the inner iVOF to the outer linear diffraction domain. Output from the interface is the kinematics of the wave field and the ship motion. The interface program takes the following steps: 1. Read the output of the diffraction analysis program. The diffraction program has been run for a specified geometry at a range of wave frequencies and directions and has produced Response Amplitude Operators for the vessel motions, water pressures and water velocities in a grid surrounding the vessel. Specify wave conditions (regular or spectrum). Generate time series of vessel motions, water velocities and pressures using the RAO's of the diffraction analysis.

Figure 8: The far field wave kinematics and vessel motions are calculated using a diffraction code and used to initialise the iVOF method for the close surroundings of the vessel's bow.

2. 3.

Domain decomposition In order to initialise simulations of wave loading on floating or fixed structures, the iVOF method has been coupled to a linear diffraction code. The linear diffraction code is able to calculate the linearised wave kinematics and vessel motions, but cannot calculate the non-linear local flow phenomena close to the vessel. These are subsequently calculated by the iVOF method. However, the use of the iVOF method is limited to the close surroundings of the vessel because of the required computational effort. So, as sketched in Figure 9, first the linear diffraction code is used to calculate the far wave field and the vessel motions and then the iVOF method calculates the local non-linear wave dynamics. This is a one-way coupling, so the diffraction results are not influenced by the iVOF results. The RAO's calculated by the diffraction code are used to give the initial flow in the complete iVOF domain and to prescribe velocities, pressure and water height at the boundaries of the iVOF domain during the time domain simulation.

Results The domain decomposition technique has been applied to a green water experiment [9]. In this experiment a free floating FPSO has been placed in regular waves with a 12.9 s period, a 13.52 m wave height in water with a depth of 150 m. The wave in front of the FPSO, and several relative wave heights, water heights and pressures at the deck of the FPSO were measured (see Figure 14). Furthermore, the forces on and the pressure at several locations on a box-like deck structure were measured. The FPSO has a total length of 260 m and is 47 m wide. The draft is 16.5 m, the total height of the deck at the fore side of the FPSO is 25.6 m. There is a bulwark extension of 1.4 m. The bow has a full elliptical shape without flare. First, a diffraction analysis has been carried out to determine the vessel motion RAO's and the kinematics at a grid of points around the vessel. Figure 10 shows a comparison between the predicted and measured heave and pitch motion of the vessel (heave motion at the center of gravity). The heave and pitch motion are the most important motions for the prediction of green water on the deck in head seas. As can be seen from the figure, the motions are predicted reasonably well by the linear diffraction theory. Only a slight shift in the predicted heave

OTC OTC-17853-PP

motion is observed and a small reduction of the amplitude. This is proably an effect of the green water on the vessel motions [9], which is not taken into account.

In Figure 13 a snapshot of the simulation at time 7.5 s is shown, where the high velocity jet is very well visible.

Figure 10: Ship motion predicted by linear diffraction theory and measured during the experiment: heave (left) and pitch (right).

These vessel motions are used to prescribe the motion in the iVOF simulation. Furthermore, the initial velocity field and wave height are prescribed using the diffraction results. The iVOF domain encloses the bow of the ship and about half a wavelength up front. At the boundaries of the domain the three velocity components and the water height are prescribed using the results of the diffraction code. A grid of 112x80x76 grid points is used in the iVOF simulation with stretching towards the bow of the ship. The simulation length is 15 seconds. To investigate the behaviour of the wave close to the bow, relative wave probes have been positioned at 30 and 5 m in front of the bow. In Figure 11, the relative wave height calculated by the iVOF method is compared with the experiment. The agreement between measurement and calculation is reasonable.

Figure 12: Contours of the water front propagating over the deck of the FPSO, model test every 0.31 s (left) and iVOF every 0.30 s (right).

Figure 13: Snapshot of a simulation with green water on the bow of the FPSO. Figure 11: Relative wave height 30 m (left) and 5 m (right) in front of the bow of the FPSO.

Figure 12 shows contours describing the propagation of the water front on the deck of the FPSO. Ref [9] describes the water flow on the deck in the following words: First, the horizontal velocity of the water front on the deck is almost zero. Then, the water front starts to translate onto the deck with a similar velocity from all sides, perpendicular to the local deck contour. Finally, the water contours from the front and sides meet at the centerline of the ship and result in a high velocity 'jet', which flows with a high velocity aft along the middle of the deck. These stages can be recognised in the contour plots in Figure 12. In the experiment, the time interval between two contours is 0.31 s, and in the simulation the difference is 0.30 s. The agreement between the propagation of the water front in experiment and simulation is rather good. The water jet is formed a bit earlier in the simulation than in the experiment.

To make a further comparison of the behaviour of the water on the deck with the experiment, the measurements of the water probes at the deck and the pressure panels at the deck have been used. Figure 14 shows the measurement positions of the water probes and pressure panels at the deck of the FPSO: at four positions the water height is measured, with a mutual distance of 10 m; the distance between the pressure panels (positioned in between the water height probes) is also 10 m, with P1 positioned 7 m left of H1. Height probe H4 is positioned just in front of the deck structure.

OTC 18493-PP

Figure 14:

Positions of measured pressure and water height at the deck of the FPSO. Figure 17: Pressure at the center line of the deck structure, 2.4 m above the deck.

In Figure 15 the water height at the deck at positions H1 and H3 is shown. The moment the water reaches the water probes is very well predicted by the iVOF method. The amount of water on the deck is larger than in the experiment. Close to the deck edge (at H1) the water height is 2 m higher than measured in the experiment and further on the deck at H3, it is still 1.5 m too high. The second hump in the left of Figure 15 is predicted by the iVOF method at the same moment as in the experiment. This hump is present due to the water returning from the deck structure. In Figure 16, the pressure at the deck at positions P1 and P3 is shown. The same conclusion can be drawn from this plot as from the plotted water heights: the amount of water on the deck is too large, but further aft on the deck the agreement becomes better. In both pictures of Figure 16 an oscillating behaviour of the pressure can be observed. Every oscillation represents a switch of the monitoring point fixed at a moving structure to another cell. The pressure value changes when such a switch of cell happens, because the pressure is positioned in the cell center.

At the deck structure also pressure panels are positioned to measure the wave impact. The lowest panel is positioned 2.4 m above the deck level. The time trace of the load on that panel is shown in Figure 17, which shows a reasonable agreement between simulation and experiment. The peak of first impact is higher in the simulation, but afterwards, the decay of pressure is predicted fine. Dynamic response of a TLP to an extreme wave In the green water problem, the motion response of the FPSO could be calculated separately from the iVOF simulation. However, for a TLP the wave impact is resulting in a dynamic response of the TLP at its (short) natural period, so that the loading and response cannot be uncoupled. To simulate the dynamic behaviour of the TLP after it is hit by an extreme wave, the iVOF method was therefore extended by solving the equation of motion of the TLP, subject to arbitrary forces. Methodology The iVOF method is now able to compute the motions of offshore structures as a result of the non-linear wave loads computed by the iVOF method. At present, it is not possible to do long simulations of irregular waves due to the large computational times. The simulations have therefore been carried out in regular waves in order to investigate at least qualitatively the effect of wave impact with the topside. In order to show the principle of the badly behaved load mechanism, simulations were carried out with 2 different wave heights: Wave height of 29.7 m, wave period 13.0 s Wave height of 36.4 m, wave period 13.0 s

Figure 15: Water height at the deck close to the bow H1 (left) and closer to the deck structure H3 (right).

Figure 16:

Pressure at the deck close to the bow P1 (left) and close to the deck structure P3 (right).

The tethers have been modelled as mass-less stiff axial springs, 1 at each corner of the TLP. This assumption is made because the tether mass is small compared to the TLP mass.

OTC OTC-17853-PP

The modelled geometry of the TLP is shown in Figure 18. The cell size near the TLP is 2x2x2 m:

In the simulations, a symmetry condition was used and the computation thus included only half the domain indicated. A total of 718,160 grid cells were used in the simulations. Results A total of almost 3 wave periods was simulated (36 s). The computational time on a modern PC was about 1 week. Prior to the 3D simulation, a 2D simulation without the TLP was carried out to check the quality of the computed undisturbed wave (similar to what is done in the model basin). The wave elevation at the centre of the TLP (H=29.7 m top, H=36.4 m bottom) is shown in Figure 20. The non-linearity in the waves (steep crest, flattened through) can clearly be observed.
25 20 15 wave elevation [m] 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 10 20 30 time [s] 40 50

25

Figure 18: TLP model

20

The simulations are initiated with the water at rest. The first wave period is used to start-up the wave orbital velocities at the inflow boundary upstream of the TLP. Stokes 5th order wave theory is used. At the downstream side of the TLP the domain is extended for about 1500 m to avoid wave reflections from that direction to occur within the simulated period, using so-called stretched cells which exponentially expand in size in downstream direction. A 3D view of the domain is shown in Figure 19.

15 wave elevation [m] 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 10 20 30 time [s] 40 50

Figure 20: Incident regular (non-linear) waves

The following signals are output from the simulation: TLP motions in 6 deg of freedom Tether forces Hydrodynamic forces on the TLP

Several snapshots from the simulations from T=25 s through T=31 s (smallest wave height is shown on the left and the highest wave height on the right) are shown in Figure 21 for the smallest wave of 29.7 m and in Figure 22 for the largest wave of 36.4m:

Figure 19: Double computational domain

OTC 18493-PP

Figure 21:

Snapshots during iVOF Simulation (smallest wave of 29.7 m)

Figure 22: Snapshots during iVOF Simulation (largest wave of 36.4 m)

OTC OTC-17853-PP

surge motion TLP [m]

It can be seen that in the case of the lowest wave, the wave crest just misses the deck. The higher wave however causes significant vertical deck impacts. This is illustrated in Figure 23 where the following signals are shown: 14 top tension forward tether [kN] 12

15 H=29.7 m H=36.4 m 10

The top tension in the forward tethers The top tension in the aft tethers
x 10
4

-5 0

10

20 time [s]

30

0.1 heave motion TLP [m] 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 H=29.7 m H=36.4 m

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 x 10
4

-0.5 0

10

H=29.7 m H=36.4 m
0.3

20 time [s]

30

10

pitch TLP [deg]

20 time [s]

30

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1

H=29.7 m H=36.4 m

14 12 top tension aft tether [kN] 10

H=29.7 m H=36.4 m

10

20 time [s]

30

8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 time [s] 30

Figure 24: TLP motion timeseries

These show that: 1. 2. Due to the mean wave drift force, the TLP is pushed backwards also causing a mean, non-zero setdown. Heave and pitch motions are small and follow the tether tension behaviour with the typical combined wave-frequency and resonant TLP response.

Figure 23: Tether tension timeseries

The tether loads clearly show the familiar, combined resonant and wave frequency response. The high-frequency, resonant variations in the tether loads are significantly larger in case of the highest wave. Furthermore, the maximum tether load is highest on the forward tether, but the aft tether becomes slack after the wave crest has passed the aft columns (T=30 s). This clearly shows the badly behaved load mechanism: A wave just missing the deck induces relatively moderate dynamic tether forces whereas a slightly higher wave that hits the deck can cause slack tethers and subsequent serious damage to the platform. Traditional methods (linear or second order diffraction theory) are not capable of predicting such effects. Finally, the surge, heave and pitch motion of the TLP are shown in Figure 24.

Due to the fact that the TLP has not reached its mean, wave drift force induced surge offset (and setdown) yet, it is most likely that subsequent wave crests lead to higher tether loads due to a further reduced airgap. However, this appears to be an effect which is particular for regular waves since extreme waves in nature will occur as single events which are very larger than waves in the vicinity. Conclusions Based on the results presented in this paper it can be concluded that: Extreme waves can lead to damage to floating offshore structure as a result of airgap problems, greenwater on the deck or slamming to the hull. As the physics of these problems are different, there is no single way of identifying and characterizing extreme waves The coupling of linear diffraction theory to the improved Volume Of Fluid (iVOF) method as part of a domain decomposition is an important step in the effective prediction of the green water problem. It limits the calculation time and still keeps the detailed analysis of the green water problem in the most important area. The

10

OTC 18493-PP

comparison between the measurements and simulations is good. The coupling of the iVOF method to a time domain simulation of the TLP response allows the simulation of dynamic response of a TLP to a wave that hits the deck. This make the analysis of the dynamic tether loads in this type of complex situations. To use this methodology for the analysis of TLP designs, it is however needed to investigate longer time series or deterministic wave groups.

5.

6.

7.

Acknowledgement Theresa Helmholt from RuG is acknowledged for carrying out the green water simulations. Thomas B. Johannessen (AkerKvaerner) and Sverre Haver (Statoil) are thanked for their interesting discussion of the TLP simulations. References 1. Cox, A.T., Cardone, V.J., Counillon, V. and Szabo, D., Hindcast study of wind, waves and current in Northern Gulf of Mexico in Hurricane Ivan (2004), OTC 17736, 2005. 2. Perego, R.N., Beynet, P.A., Chappel, J.F.,Garrett, D.L., Gordon, R.B., The Marlin TLP: Measured and predicted response during Hurricane Ivan OTC 17335, 2005. 3. Cooper, C., Stear, J., Heideman, J., Santala, M., Forristall, G.Z., Driver, D. and Fourchy, P., Implications of Hurricane Ivan on Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Metocean Design Criteria, OTC 17740, 2005. 4. Forristall, George Z., Maximum Wave Heights Over an Area and the Air Gap Problem, OMAE200692022, June 4-9, 2006, Hamburg, Germany.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Van Dijk, R.R.T and Van den Boom, H.J., Full Scale Monitoring Marco Polo Tension Leg Platform, OMAE2007-29635, San Diego, June 2007. Buchner, B., Van Dijk, R.R.T and Voogt, A.J. The Spatial Analysis of an Extreme Wave in a Model Basin, OMAE2007-29409, OMAE, San Diego, June 2007. Buchner, B., Loots, E., Forristall, G.Z. and van Iperen, E., Hydrodynamic Aspects of Gravity Based Structures in Shallow Water, OTC 2003. Johannessen, T.B., Haver, S., Bunnik, T.H.J and Buchner, B.: Extreme Wave Effects on Deep Water TLPs Lessons Learned from the Snorre A Model Tests, DOT Conference, Houston, 2006. Buchner, B.:Green water on ship-type offshore structures, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2002. Voogt, A.J. and B.Buchner, 2004, Wave Impacts Excitation On Ship-Type Offshore Structures In Steep Fronted Waves, Proceedings of the OMAE Speciality Symposium on FPSO Integrity, Houston, 2004 Fekken,G., Veldman, A.E.P. and Buchner, B.: Simulation of green-water loading using the NavierStokes equations, Proceedings 7th Intern. Conf. on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Nantes, 1999. Kleefsman, K.M.T. and Veldman, A.E.P.: An improved {V}olume of {F}luid i{VOF} method for wave impact type problems, Proceedings of OMAEFPSO 2004. Hirt, C.R. and Nichols, B.D.: Volume of fluid ({V}{O}{F}) method for the dynamics of free boundaries, J. Comput. Phys., 1981. Generation and Analysis of Harsh Wave Environments, Janou Hennig, PhD thesis TU Berlin, 2005.