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

net/publication/275634795

ESTIMATION OF ROLL DAMPING FOR TRANSPORTATION BARGES

Conference Paper · May 2009

CITATIONS READS
0 1,154

2 authors:

Amresh Negi Sharad S. Dhavalikar

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Indian Register of Shipping
12 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

"DEVELOPMENT OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL IN MATLAB FOR BOTTOM IMPACT, BOWFLARE SLAMMING AND GREEN WATER PRESSURE COMPUTATIONS" View project

ISSC-ITTC progress reports View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amresh Negi on 29 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
May 31 - June 5, 2009, Honolulu, Hawaii
DRAFT
ESTIMATION OF ROLL DAMPING FOR TRANSPORTATION BARGES
Sharad S. Dhavalikar
Surveyor, Indian Register of Shipping,
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
ABSTRACT
For ships, barges and similar long offshore structures roll
natural period generally falls within the frequency range of a
typical wave energy spectrum experienced by them. This
causes dynamic amplification of rolling motion. For these
structures the roll damping is highly nonlinear. Therefore it is
of utmost importance that good estimation of roll damping is
made for such structures. Linear radiation diffraction theory can
not predict damping for roll motion as good as for other
degrees of freedom. For ships and barges radiation damping (in
case of roll) is generally quite small compared to the total
damping in the system. Hence, additional damping needs to be
provided for solving roll motion equation.
Key Words:
Roll damping, RAO, damping factor, critical damping
1. INTRODUCTION
Prediction of roll motion is the most difficult among all degrees
of freedom. The damping forces acting on a ship during rolling
motion can be due to any combination of [1]
- waves
- water friction on ship surface
- various appendages like bilge keels, etc
- aerodynamic resistance
- heat generation during rolling – energy loss
- surface tension
Out of above mentioned six causes first three are more
significant in case of rolling. In case of heave, pitch, sway and
yaw the principal source of damping is creation of waves. But
in case of rolling the damping arising from the creation of the
waves is vanishingly small. Damping arising because of the
other sources is also small. Thus the total roll damping
coefficient is relatively small.
The present study is an effort towards establishment of a
methodology to estimate the roll damping for the seakeeping
analysis of the transportation barges. The dumb barge carrying
the cargo (typically the offshore structure like jacket, topsides,
-1-
OMAE2009
OMAE2009−79024
Amresh Negi
Asst Surveyor, Indian Register of Shipping,
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
etc) is towed by a specified tug. The extreme motions (roll and
pitch) and the extreme combined accelerations (roll - heave and
pitch - heave) are of interest for sea-fastening design. The
extreme motions will be because of the severe weather
conditions (very large wave heights). In such a situation the
barge practically cannot be towed. The towing arrangement
may be disconnected for some duration in such weather
conditions. This means the barge has zero forward speed. The
analyses are also to be done for zero speeded barges.
A Number of different transportation barges varying in
principal particulars were analyzed for developing the
methodology outlined in this paper. Initially roll Response
Amplitude Operator (RAO) is computed using radiation
diffraction solver (zero forward speed), which includes only the
potential damping in the equations of motions. The frictional
damping is found out empirically. Based on the ratio of the
frictional damping and critical damping, a methodology is
developed for finding the exact amount of roll damping to be
used (additionally) in radiation diffraction solver. The roll
RAOs are recomputed using the estimated roll damping.
Finally, the extreme motions and the accelerations (which are
of major concern) at the critical locations on the barge are
found out at the system centre of gravity (COG) and the cargo
COG. These accelerations are compared with the motion
criteria of Marine Warranty Surveyors’ (MWS) general
guidelines for marine transportation.
2. MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Equation of motion for roll
In a simplified approach the coupling between roll and sway,
and roll and yaw can be neglected. The roll equation of motion
can then be written as [2]
( −ω ( I
2
e 44 + A44 ) + iωe B44 + C44 )η4 = F4 (1)
Where,
I44 = Moment of inertia for roll
A44 = Added inertia for roll
B44 = Damping coefficient for roll
C44 = Hydrostatic restoring coefficient for roll
Copyright © 2009 by ASME
F4 = Roll exciting moment at encountering frequency ωe
η4 = Instantaneous roll displacement
Irregular seaway consists of waves of wide range of periods.
Modal (natural) period for rolling of barges and ships generally
lies within this range. Thus the irregular seaway can give rise to
the roll resonance. And in case of towage of the barge or any
other seagoing vessel, roll motion in the neighborhood of
modal period is predominant.
To examine the roll motion near resonance Eq (1) can be
rewritten in the non-dimensional form by dividing by
C44 = g ∆GM t as
2..2 Roll damping by Radiation − Diffraction method
Radiation diffraction method gives the damping coefficient as
[3]
∫
B = − ρω Im ψ k nds = − ρω b (3)
S0
where ψ k is the velocity potential for kth mode of motion, S0 is
the wetted surface area, n = (r × n) for rolling, ω is the wave
frequency. The roll motion predicted using the damping
coefficient as given by Eq (3) is on the higher side compared to
the measurements [4]. It is because the viscous effects are

( −ω + 2iω β ( η ) + γ ( η ))η = f
2
e e 4 4 4 4 (2)
neglected. To account for this, additional damping of about 5
times of potential roll damping can be included in the radiation
Where diffraction method [4]. This additional damping has to be
provided to solve roll motion equation using radiation
ω e = ωe / ωη = non-dimensional encounter frequency
4 diffraction method.
B ω
( )
β η4 = 44 η = non-dimensional damping ratio
4

2 g ∆GM t
2.3 Empirical calculation of roll damping

The total damping coefficient is divided into five different

( )
γ η4 =
C44
g ∆GM t
= non-dimensional roll restoring term components as hull skin friction damping, hull eddy shedding
damping, free surface wave damping, lift force damping and
F4 bilge keel damping [5]. Out of all these components only the
f4 = = non-dimensional roll moment amplitude
g ∆GM t first two are relevant for the present study. The free surface
wave damping is already included in the radiation diffraction
g ∆GM t solver. Formulation of the skin friction and eddy making
ωη = = roll resonance frequency damping coefficients (for zero forward speed) are given for the
4
I 44 + A44 ready reference.

ωη is the reference frequency used for non-dimensionalization.

4
- Frictional Damping
ωη 4
is a function of encounter frequency as added mass Bf 0 = 34π ρSre3 R0ωCf (4)
moment of inertia (A44 ) is also. For typical ship forms A44 is
much smaller than I44. By analytical and experimental Friction Coefficient Cf is given by
investigations it has been found that added mass moment of
inertia for rolling is about 20% of the mass moment of inertia 1/ 2
of actual ship [1]. ⎡ 2πν ⎤
C f = 1.328 ⎢ ⎥
( ) ⎣ 3.22re R0 ω ⎦
2 2
The quantity β η4 is the ratio of the equivalent linear roll
damping to the critical damping and it is dependent on the roll Effective Bilge radius re given by
amplitude η 4 . Three quantities: 4 ( )
ωη , β η4 and 1⎡ S
re = ⎢ (0.887 + 0.145CB ) − 2OG ⎥
⎤
π⎣
( ) ⎦
L
γ η 4 characterize the roll response and determination of
these three quantities is normally the focus of an analysis for Wetted surface Area S is given by
( )
rolling. Out of these three quantities β η4 is the most crucial
S = L(1.7 D + CB B )
for the ship response.
Equation (1) can be solved for η 4 / f 4 , the roll Response Where
ρ = Water Density (= 1025 kg/m3)
Amplitude Operator, where f4 is the effective wave slope. For υ = Kinematic viscosity of water
ships with small roll damping in beam seas the peak of RAO is ω = Wave frequency (radian/s)
equal to (1/ 2 β ) and this occurs near the resonant B = Beam (m)
frequency ωe ≡ 1 . For typical ship without roll suppression D = Draft (m)
L = Length of ship (m)
devices such as bilge keels or the like will have a value of β CB = Block coefficient
less than 5%. This means that at roll resonance ship will roll at R0 = Amplitude of roll motion (radians)
more than 10 times the effective wave slope (RAO > 10). OG = D – KG

-2-
Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 respectively. It depends on the wave frequency. For the present
- Eddy making damping study the encounter frequency and the wave frequency are same
For rectangular cross section of the barge and the sharp corners since zero forward speed is considered. The damping because
present at the base following formula is suggested [5], of the waves is already taken care by the radiation diffraction
2 solver. Initially the equation of roll motion is solved with the
Be 0 = ρ LD 4 ( H 02 + 1 − OG / D) ⎡⎣ H 02 + (1 − OG / D) 2 ⎤⎦ R0ω (5) damping as given by Eq(3). Then the damping ratio as given by
π
Eq (6) is calculated for various frequencies. The factor
B
H0 = β ' = 1/ 2 β is calculated and is compared with the roll RAO
2D
amplitude in deg (R0’). The difference between these two is
3. METHODOLOGY found out. Let this difference be denoted as ‘∆’. The actual
damping lies where ∆ is changing the sign. Reasonably good
estimation of damping is found out by plotting ∆ (y-axis)
Compute Roll RAO using Radiation
versus the damping ratio β (x-axis). As a first approximation
Diffraction solver
straight line fitting for this plot is adopted. The x-intercept of
the straight line gives the required damping ratio β ( η4 ) to be
used for radiation diffraction solver. Figure 1 shows the flow
Compute damping ratio β ( η4 ) chart describing the methodology for estimating damping ratio.
using Equation (6)
4 ROLL DAMPING CALCULATION OF BARGE −
CASE STUDY

Compute β ' = 1/ 2β n for 4.1 Stability analysis

various frequencies
ωn , n = 1, 2,... Table 1 enlists the main particulars of the barge. The schematic
of the cargo on the barge (stowage plan) is shown in Fig. 2.
Initially the stability analysis of the barge was done to
formulate the loading case. Trim and draft were maintained as
Difference (∆) = (β’- Roll RAO amplitude in deg (R0’)) per the MWS guidelines. For this particular analysis Noble
for various frequencies ωn , n = 1, 2,... Denton (UK) guidelines for marine transportation were
followed. The trim was maintained at 0.938 m (positive by
stern). Draft amidships was 2.629 m.

Find Table 1 Barge and cargo data

β i for Differencei > 0 at ωi
Length of the barge (m) 91.44
β i +1 for Differencei +1 < 0 at ωi +1
Breadth of the barge (m) 27.432
Depth of the barge (m) 5.5
Lightship weight of the barge (tones) 1304.2
Straight line fitting for Weight of the cargo on the barge (tones) 1550
β i ,i +1 (x-axis) Vs Differencei ,i +1 (y-axis)

x- intercept of the Straight line is the

required damping ratio β ( η4 )

Figure 1 Methodology for roll damping estimation

The non-dimensional damping ratio given by Eq (2) can be Figure 2 Schematic of the barge along with the cargo
simplified as

( )
*
B44
β η4 = (6) Table 2 Coordinates of the locations required for extreme
( )
2 g ∆GM t * ( I 44 + A44 ) motion analysis
*
B X (from aft) Y (from CL) Z (from bottom)
= 44

Critical damping P1 22.22 -2.963 17.641

*
B44 in the above equation is computed as the sum of skin P2 44.476 0 6.805
friction and eddy making damping given by Eq (4) and (5)
-3-
Copyright © 2009 by ASME
P1 is the centre of gravity of the cargo on the barge and P2 is
the centre of gravity of the whole system (barge along with the
cargo). P2 is obtained from the stability analysis. Right handed
coordinate system was used to define these locations. Table 2
gives the coordinates of those locations.
4.2. Motion analysis
Initially the barge was modeled using the graphical software
IDEAS. Since barge is symmetric about the centerline, only
one side (starboard) was modeled. Trim and draft obtained
from the stability analysis was incorporated in the model.
Meshing was done for wetted surface of the barge. A total of
500 numbers of elements (half model) were generated. The
rendered view of the barge model is shown in Fig. 3. The facet
range of 3L ≤ λ ≤ ( L / 5 ) where L is the barge length. The roll
radius of gyration (kxx) was taken to be 0.35B [6] where B is the
breadth of the barge. The plot of roll RAO is shown in Fig. 5.
The roll natural frequency was found out to be 0.967 rad/s.
Table 3 – 4 shows the steps for calculating the damping ratio β.
The damping factors at which the differences (∆ = β’- R0’) are
changing the sign are plotted and are shown in Fig. 6. Straight
line fitting (with only two points) gives the equation of line
(shown in Fig. 6) as
Y = -0.9942X + 9.4303 (7)
The x-intercept is at 9.48 which is nothing but the estimated
damping ratio.
1.500

Diff betn the factor (1/2 β) and the roll RAO.

model of the barge (meshed up to the waterline) is shown in
Fig. 4. 1.000

0.500

0.000
7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000
-0.500

-1.000
y = -0.9942x + 9.4303
-1.500

-2.000
%β
Figure 3. Rendered barge model (full depth)
Figure 6. Step2: Plot of difference between roll RAO and
the factor 1/2β versus the damping ratio

With this additional damping (9.48%) roll RAO was

recomputed using SOFORCE (Fig. 7). The factor β’ was then
equal to 5.27 percent. This was compared with the roll RAO at
its natural frequency. From Fig. 7 it is observed that the roll
RAO amplitude has come down from 0.288 rad/m (16.5 deg/m)
Figure 4. Barge facet model (T = 2.629m)
to 0.106 rad/m (6.07 deg/m) with β = 9.48%.

Figure 7. Step3: Roll RAO ( β = 9.48%) using SOFORCE

Figure 5. Step1: Computation of roll RAO using SOFORCE

Indian Register of Shipping’ in-house software SOFORCE Thus the absolute difference between the factor β’ and roll
based on radiation diffraction (Greens’ function) method was RAO (R0’) is only 0.8 as against 15.1 at roll natural frequency
(Table 4).
used for RAO computation. Wavelengths (λ) were taken in the

-4-
Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 Table 3 Critical and empirical damping few more frequencies (for computing roll RAO) near the
natural frequency will improve the final result.
Wave Roll Empirical
Crit
Frequency RAO damping 4.3 Extreme Motion analysis
damp
(rad/sec) (rad) (Eq 4 & 5)
ω R0 Bcr B Once the RAO computation was done the spectral analysis was
0.449 0.0212 2.40E+06 2.78E+04 performed in order to get the extreme motion and acceleration
0.483 0.0248 2.41E+06 3.49E+04 response (in 3 hr duration) at critical locations on/of the barge.
0.524 0.0294 2.41E+06 4.49E+04 JONSWAP sea spectrum (γ = 3.3) was used for the analysis.
The mathematical details of the spectral analysis can be found
0.571 0.0356 2.42E+06 5.91E+04
in [1, 7]. For the present case the combined accelerations
0.628 0.0444 2.41E+06 8.09E+04 (surge, sway and heave) were found out at the centre of gravity
0.698 0.0580 2.39E+06 1.17E+05 of the whole system (P2), i.e. barge with the cargo, and the
0.739 0.0684 2.37E+06 1.46E+05 centre of gravity of the cargo (P1) (Fig. 1). These values were
0.785 0.0836 2.35E+06 1.90E+05 compared with the NDC motion/acceleration criteria. Table 6 –
0.838 0.1091 2.33E+06 2.65E+05 8 shows this comparison.
0.898 0.1613 2.31E+06 4.19E+05 NDC calculations are based on the following data [8]
0.931 0.2128 2.30E+06 5.73E+05 Full Cycle Period (T) : 10 sec
0.967 0.2884 2.29E+06 8.07E+05 Single Amplitude : Roll (θ) = 200
Pitch (φ) = 12.50
1.013 0.2836 2.28E+06 8.31E+05
Heave acceleration : 0.2 g
1.047 0.2024 2.27E+06 6.13E+05
1.142 0.0857 2.25E+06 2.84E+05 According to ND guidelines phasing shall be assumed to
1.257 0.0420 2.24E+06 1.53E+05 combine the most severe combinations of
1.571 0.0096 2.24E+06 4.39E+04 • Roll (R) ± Heave (H)
1.795 0.0036 2.25E+06 1.92E+04 • Pitch (P) ± Heave (H)
Following sea state data (Table 5) was used to generate the sea
Table 4 Steps involved in finding the damping ratio spectrum. Peak periods were generated according to the
relation 13H sig < Tp < 30 H sig . Additional period equal to
Wave Roll %Damp
Factor Difference the roll natural period (6.5 sec) was also considered.
Frequency RAO Ratio
1/(2*β) (1/(2*β) - R0’)
(rad/sec) (deg) = B/Bcr
Table 5 Sea state data
ω R 0’ β β’ ∆
0.449 1.216 1.158 43.176 41.960 Sig. wave height Peak period
0.483 1.422 1.451 34.463 33.041 Hsig (m) Tp (sec)
0.524 1.687 1.862 26.858 25.171 2.7 5.93
0.571 2.042 2.448 20.423 18.381 2.7 6.5
0.628 2.544 3.357 14.893 12.349 2.7 7.46
0.698 3.323 4.908 10.187 6.864 2.7 9
0.739 3.918 6.172 8.101 4.183
0.785 4.792 8.080 6.188 1.396 Table 6 Combined Surge acceleration (m/s2)
0.838 6.251 11.340 4.409 -1.842
Max out Motion
0.898 9.242 18.147 2.755 -6.487
H+P -H+P -H-P H-P of 4 cases analysis
0.931 12.193 24.922 2.006 -10.186 of NDC result
0.967 16.524 35.225 1.419 -15.105 P1 1.717 0.868 -1.71 -0.86 1.717 0.367
1.013 16.249 36.522 1.369 -14.880 P2 0.784 -0.06 -0.78 0.066 0.784 0.473
1.047 11.597 27.062 1.848 -9.749
1.142 4.911 12.592 3.971 -0.940
1.257 2.406 6.829 7.322 4.916 Table 7 Combined Sway Acceleration (m/s2)
1.571 0.548 1.959 25.518 24.970
1.795 0.206 0.852 58.718 58.511 Max out Motion
R+H -R+H -R-H R-H of 4 cases analysis
This indicates the estimated damping ratio was reasonably of NDC result
P1 2.739 -1.39 -2.73 1.396 2.739 2.601
accurate. As far as possible the difference ‘∆’ should be close
P2 1.245 0.097 -1.24 -0.09 1.245 1.017
to zero. To achieve this higher order curve can be fitted, instead
of straight line (Eq 7), using the differences at various
frequencies (Table 4) up to roll natural frequency. Also adding

-5-
Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 Table 8 Combined Vertical Acceleration (m/s2) Table 11 Difference between the factor β’ and roll RAO
for various barges
Max out of Motion
H+P -H+P -H-P H-P 8 cases of analysis Factor Final RAO(deg) Difference
Barge name
NDC result β’ R0’ ∆
P1 0.043 -3.88 -0.04 3.881 Barge1 5.263 6.073 -0.810
P2 1.960 -1.96 -1.96 1.964 Barge2 6.284 9.408 -3.124
P1 3.881 2.219 Barge3 5.035 5.730 -0.694
P2 1.964 Barge4 4.554 4.631 -0.077
R+H -R+H -R-H R-H 1.753
Barge5 5.663 6.612 -0.949
P1 1.554 2.370 -1.55 -2.37
P2 1.962 1.962 -1.96 -1.96 It is observed from Table 11 that for all barges except for
Barge-2, the ‘difference’ computed were close to zero. This
From above tables it is clear that the accelerations found out indicated the estimated damping ratio for roll is reasonably
using seakeeping analysis were less compared to ND motion / correct.
acceleration criteria. From Fig. 8 it is observed that the roll RAO of Barge-2 is
flattish (at resonance) compared with the other barges. Hence,
5. GENERALIZATION OF THE PROPOSED METHOD roll RAO was recomputed taking into account more number of
frequencies near natural period as well as near the sign change
Various barges with the different shapes and sizes were in the ‘difference’. Also higher order curve fitting as suggested
analyzed for roll damping estimation. Table 9 shows the barge in section 4.2 above was tried. This led to insignificant change
details. The major steps followed (as per section 3 above) are in the final estimated damping ratio (7.957 to 7.91) giving the
presented. insignificant but positive change (moved towards zero) in the
‘difference’ (3.124 to 3.0). Also it was observed that the natural
Roll RAO computation using SOFORCE - frequency for rolling is slightly away from 1 for this barge.
This is the main cause of wide difference between β’ and the
0.5
Barge1 roll RAO.
0.45 Barge2
The extreme motion analysis for those barges were
Roll RAO for beam sea (radians)

Barge3
0.4
Barge4
also done (the results are not presented in this paper). For a
0.35
Barge5 given sea state data the accelerations at the critical locations of
0.3
the barge were found to be satisfactory when compared with
0.25
MWS motion criteria.
0.2

0.15
6. CONCLUSIONS
0.1

0.05 A methodology is suggested for roll damping estimation of

0 barges with zero forward speed. The estimated damping ratio is
0.400 0.800 1.200 1.600 2.000 2.400
Frequency (rad/sec)
found out to be quite accurate. Presented method works well for
Figure 8 Roll RAO for different barges a barge having roll natural frequency (ωr) close to unity. For
more accuracy the roll RAO computation with more number of
The damping ratio was found out for all the barges. Table 10 frequencies, typically near the natural frequency, is suggested
gives the estimated damping ratios along with the roll natural for the barges with ωr close to unity. For barges having ωr away
frequency and the roll RAO amplitude at natural frequency for from unity the suggested methodology gives only the rough
various barges. estimation of roll damping. ωr depends on the roll radius
Barge1 is same as the one detailed in section 4. With the gyration (kxx) which was assumed to be 0.35B for this study.
additional damping (%β) as given in Table 10, the roll RAO Thus more accurate estimation (or approximation) of kxx is
was recomputed and ∆ was found out. The same is given in the required.
Table 11.
Table 10 Damping ratio for various barges
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
% Damping
Roll natural Initial
Sr. Barge Ratio The authors would like to thank Mr. Rishi Doshi of IRS’
frequency RAO
No name (estimated) Research & Rule Development department for his valuable co-
(rad/sec) (deg)
β operations in the Stability analysis part.
1 Barge1 9.48 0.967 16.5
2 Barge2 7.957 1.257 20.9
3 Barge3 9.93 0.898 25.1
4 Barge4 10.98 0.898 16.2
5 Barge5 8.83 0.967 21.5

-6-
Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 Table 9 Generalization of the methodology ˘ Various barges for roll damping estimation

Sr. No. Profile view Facet Model

1.

Main Particulars L = 91.440 m.

(BARGE-1) B = 27.432 m.
D = 5.5 m.
T = 2.629 m.
2.

Main Particulars L = 63.900 m

(BARGE-2) B = 18.288 m
D = 3.63 m
T = 1.777 m

3.

Main Particulars L = 100.584 m.

(BARGE-3) B = 30.48 m.
D = 6.1 m.
T = 3.017 m.

4.

Main Particulars L = 100.584 m.

(BARGE-4) B = 33.528 m.
D = 6.096 m
T = 3.050 m
5.

Main Particulars L = 100.584 m.

(BARGE-5) B = 27.432 m.
D = 6.1 m.
T = 3.042 m.

-7-
Copyright © 2009 by ASME
7. REFERENCES 5. Chakrabarti S. K., 2001, “Technical note - Empirical
calculation of roll damping for ships and barges”,
1. Bhattacharya R., (1978), “Dynamics of Marine Ocean Engineering, 28, pp 915 – 932
vehicles”, A Wiley Interscience Publication 6. Indian Register of Shipping, Jul 2008, Rules and
2. Beck R. F., Cummins W. E., Dalzell J. F., Webster W. regulations for the construction and classification of
C., 1989, “Principles of Naval Architecture”, Vol. III steel ships Part 3 – General Hull Requirements
Motions in waves and controllability, 7. Chakrabarti S. K., 1987, “Hydrodynamics of Offshore
3. Dhavalikar S. S., Singh S. P., Sen D., Dec 2006, structures”, Computational Mechanics Publications,
“Theory manual of SOFORCE – 3D linear and second Southampton, Bostan
order radiation – diffraction solution”, Indian Register 8. Noble Denton International Ltd, 2005, General
of Shipping Doc No – IRS/R&C/HYDRO/RAD- guidelines for Marine Transportations –
DIFF/TH-MAN 0030/NDI/Rev2
4. Pinkster J. A., Oct 1980, “Low frequency second order
wave exciting forces on floating structures”, PhD
Thesis

-8-
Copyright © 2009 by ASME

View publication stats