J. Marine Sci. Appl.
(2015) 14: 183-188
DOI: 10.1007/s11804-015-1307-9
Time Domain Calculation of Connector Loads of a Very Large
Floating Structure
Jiayang Gu1*, Jie Wu1, Enrong Qi2, Yifeng Guan1 and Yubo Yuan1
1. School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, Zhenjiang 212003, China
2. China Ship Scientific Research Center, Wuxi 214082, China
Abstract: Loads generated after an air crash, ship collision, and
other accidents may destroy very large floating structures (VLFSs)
and create additional connector loads. In this study, the combined
effects of ship collision and wave loads are considered to establish
motion differential equations for a multi-body VLFS. A time
domain calculation method is proposed to calculate the connector
load of the VLFS in waves. The Longuet–Higgins model is
employed to simulate the stochastic wave load. Fluid force and
hydrodynamic coefficient are obtained with DNV Sesam software.
The motion differential equation is calculated by applying the time
domain method when the frequency domain hydrodynamic
coefficient is converted into the memory function of the motion
differential equation of the time domain. As a result of the
combined action of wave and impact loads, high-frequency
oscillation is observed in the time history curve of the connector
load. At wave directions of 0° and 75°, the regularities of the time
history curves of the connector loads in different directions are
similar and the connector loads of C1 and C2 in the X direction are
the largest. The oscillation load is observed in the connector in the
Y direction at a wave direction of 75° and not at 0°. This paper
presents a time domain calculation method of connector load to
provide a certain reference function for the future development of
Chinese VLFS
Keywords: very large floating structures (VLFSs); time domain
motion differential equation; collision; connector; impact load;
hydrodynamic coefficient; oscillation load; impact load
Article ID: 1671-9433(2015)02-0183-06
1 Introduction1
Very large floating structures (VLFSs) are floating marine
structures measured in kilometers. VLFSs differ from current
ship and marine engineering structures that are hundreds of
meters long. The current types of VLFS are mainly box and
semi-submersible structures. VLFSs generally use a flexible
connector that allows the relative motion of modules. Hence,
the calculation of connector loads is the key issue that must be
Received date: 2014-02-12.
Accepted date: 2014-12-26.
Foundation item: Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (51309123), National Key Basic Research and Development Plan
(973 Plan，2013CB036104), Jiangsu Province Natural Science Research
Projects in Colleges and Universities (13KJB570002), Open Foundation of
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering (1407), “Qing Lan Project” of
Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province, Academic Program
Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).
*Corresponding author Email: gujiayang@126.com
© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir
addressed in the conceptual design of a multi-module VLFS.
Several studies on VLFS connectors have been conducted
in recent years. Connector models generally use the following
four forms: rigid module flexible connector (RMFC), flexible
module rigid connector (FMRC), flexible module flexible
connector, and rigid module rigid connector (RMRC).
The RMFC model assumes that the connector is more
flexible than a mobile offshore base (MOB). Each module is
considered a rigid body with six degrees of freedom and
deformation occurs in the connector. The hydrodynamic
interactions between each module are ignored and
three-dimensional linear potential flow theory is applied to
calculate the hydrodynamic loads in this model.
Wang et al. (1991) considered three-dimensional hydroelastic
theory to calculate the hydrodynamic coefficients and wave
loads of a multi-module MOB. The study found that unlike that
of other monomer and connector modules, the motion response
of each MOB module is not greatly affected by hydrodynamics.
However, the motions of MOB modules and connector loads
are affected by connector stiffness. Du and Ertekin (1991)
considered the interaction between modules and used the
dual-symmetry composite singularity distribution method to
calculate module hydrodynamics.
Wu and Mills (1996) performed a comparative study of
rigid splice and elastic connectors. The relative linear
displacements between adjacent MOB modules of the rigid
splice connector are limited, whereas the relative angular
displacements are allowed. Longitudinal motion is allowed
when the MOB uses an elastic connector. In the study, the
RMFC model was employed to solve the six degrees of
freedom motion equation. The hydrodynamic coefficients of
each module without speed were subsequently obtained.
Riggs et al. (1998a) assumed that the RMFC model is used
in the MOB to simplify connectors to a linear spring and
studied the influence of connector stiffness on the response of
a five-module MOB. Riggs et al. (1998b) analyzed the motion
responses and force among a single module, a five-module
disconnected MOB, a five-module MOB with rigid
connection, and a five-module MOB with flexible connection.
Riggs et al. (1999), Riggs and Ertekin (1999) analyzed the
influence of two different connections and connector damping
on MOB motion and explained why different connection
schemes have different effects on MOB response. Riggs and
Ertekin (1993) used two-dimensional and three-dimensional
184 Jiayang Gu, et al. Time Domain Calculation of Connector Loads of a Very Large Floating Structure
hydroelasticity methods to predict the responses of a
5-module and 16-module VLFS to regular waves. Kim et al.
(1999) compared the motion and connector force of a flexible
MOB under eight classes of sea conditions with that of the
RMRC and RMFC, respectively. The following conclusions
were drawn. The force on the connector of the FMRC model
is strongest, followed by that of the RMFC model. The
minimum force is observed in the RMRC model connector.
The force on the FMRC model connector is twice that on the
RMRC model connector. The motion results of the three
models have small differences, but the motion results of the
RMFC and FMRC models are similar. However, the motion
results of the RMFC model are slightly larger.
Several scholars have also proposed the use of the
boundary element–finite element method (Hamamoto et al.
1996; Hamamoto and Fujita, 1995) in studying MOB motion
response and connector loads. Riggs et al. (2000) compared
the MOB responses of the shell finite element and RMFC
models. The RMFC model can effectively predict MOB
response when the natural frequency and modal of the two
models are the same. The results are in good agreement.
Edwards and David (1999) attempted to use linear frequency
domain hydrodynamic analysis and nonlinear time domain
structural analysis to calculate MOB connector loads. The
connector load of a nonlinear connector is smaller than that of
a linear connector.
Yu et al. (2003, 2004), Shu et al. (2002) and Ding et al.
(2005) conducted a numerical simulation and an experimental
study on MOB connector loads and dynamic response and
obtained meaningful results. The connector stiffness
significantly affected its load, wave headings affected the
force between modules, the maximum amplitude of connector
longitudinal load was greater than the lateral and vertical
loads, and the longitudinal load of the connector reached the
maximum at the 75° wave direction.
Watanabe and Utsunomiya (1996) used the finite element
program and the time domain method to obtain the elastic
response of a circular VLFS under impact force. Watanabe et
al. (1998) used the time domain method to study the
responses of VLFSs on landing planes. Endo (2000) analyzed
the transient response of VLFSs under dynamic loading
caused by plane takeoff and landing.
Kashiwagi (2000) studied the calculation method for the
elastic response of VLFSs under external force. The study
employed the Galerkin method to obtain the amplification
factor of the modal function of the linear system
synchronization differential equation and discussed the
accuracy problems posed by the infinite frequency memory
function and added mass. Kashiwagi and Higashimachi (2003)
calculated the elastic transient deformation of a pontoon-type
VLFS during plane takeoff and landing by using the
time-domain modal analysis method, which considers the
hydrodynamic memory effect problems and the accuracy of
hydrodynamic coefficients. Fujikubo (2005) studied VLFSs
under unexpected loads to compare the damages under
different crash situations.
In the present study, the RMFC model is employed to
calculate the time history curves of VLFS connector loads
under impact loading. Only the results under wave loads are
compared with those under the combined action of wave and
impact loads. A time domain calculation method for solving
VLFS connector loads is proposed.
2 Mathematical theory
The dynamic responses of objects under impact load can
be analyzed by time domain methods. The various types of
coefficients of time domain equations are obtained from the
frequency domain equation. However, time domain analysis
methods, especially for the calculation of memory function,
are time consuming. Time domain and frequency domain
differential equations are found to be similar. Time domain
differential equations can be obtained through frequency
domain differential equations by Fourier transform. The
added mass of time domain differential equations is
equivalent to the infinite frequency-added mass of the
frequency domain. The memory function can be obtained by
the convolution of the damping coefficients of each
frequency in the frequency domain.
The Longuet-Higgins model is used to simulate random
wave loads, which can be seen as a superposition of regular
waves with different frequencies. The frequency can be
selected by applying the Monte Carlo method and the phase
angle can be randomly selected.
2.1 Time domain motion equations of floating body in
waves
The time domain equations of the motion of a floating
body in waves are as follows:
t
x   h (t   )x ( )d  Kx  I (t )  F (t )
( m   ( ))  (1)
0
where m is the structural mass,  () is the infinite
frequency-added mass, h(t   ) is the memory function, K
is the stiffness matrix, including the fluid restoring force and
structural stiffness matrix T (t ) is the impact load acting on
the floating body, and F (t ) denotes the wave loads acting on
the floating body. The relevant parameters can be found in
the work of Guan et al. (2011).
To solve this equation, the infinite frequency-added mass
and impulse function should be determined first.
2 
h ( )    ( )cos  d (2)
π 0
As added mass begins to converge with the increase in
frequency, the infinite frequency-added mass in h( ) can
be replaced by a relatively high frequency-added mass to
meet the accuracy requirements. Impulse function h( )
can be obtained by the convolution of the damping
coefficient, which is shown in formula (2).
2.2 Discrete random waves
The Longuet-Higgins model is used to simulate irregular
wave loads. The model assumes that the sea comprises finite
Journal of Marine Science and Application (2015) 14: 183-188
regular waves at a random phase. These waves are limited to
a Gaussian random distribution, whereas the irregular waves
are described by the wave spectrum. The Jonswap spectrum
is employed in this study.
The synthesized wave surface is expressed as
k
 (t )  lim  Aj  cos( K j x  2πf j t   j )
K 
j 1
where Aj  2 S ( f j ) f j is the wave height of the jth wave,
f j is the jth frequency,  j is the phase angle of the jth
wave, S ( f j ) is the spectral density function, and K j is
the wave number of the jth wave. Each of the frequencies
f1 , f 2 , f3 ,..., f k is uncorrelated.
3 Numerical calculation model and working
conditions
3.1 VLFS models
This study analyzes a VLFS that is assembled by five
identical modules from end to end. Each module consists of
an upper body, two parallel lower bodies, and eight columns
(four columns on each side). Adjacent modules are connected
by two connectors located in the upper deck of the module
and symmetrical to the center buttock. In Fig. 1, the modules
and connectors are labeled as M1–M5 and C1–C8,
respectively. The dimensions of a single VLFS module
(Hamamoto et al., 1996) are provided. The upper body length
is 300 m, the width is 125 m, the height is 17.5 m, the column
height is 27.5 m, the diameter is 25 m, the column transverse
spacing is 90 m, and the vertical spacing is 67.5 m. The lower
body length is 275 m, the width is 34.5 m, the height is 12.5
m; the center of gravity away from the baseline height is
30.99 m, the design draft is 28.95 m, the design displacement
is 2.975×108 kg, and the radius of gyration along the X, Y and
Z directions are 50.41 m, 80.49 m, and 90.67 m, respectively
(Fig. 2).
Fig. 1 VLFS top view
Fig. 2 Cross-sectional view of VLFS
185
3.2 Calculation of ship collision load
Two methods are used to calculate collision loads: the use
of an empirical formula and a numerical simulation through
commercial software. The empirical formula of collision
forces includes Worthing formula, US highway bridge
design specifications, US highway bridges ship collision
(3) guide specifications, AASHTO, Norway bridge load
specifications, the Norway Public Roads Administration
norms, Nordic Public Roads Administration specifications,
and the modified Worthing formula. The calculation of ship
collision loads shown in Table 1 is different because of these
different formulas, specifications, and numerical simulations.
The conservative maximum value is selected to calculate the
equation.
The conditions set in this study are as follows: a bulk
carrier rate of 4 m/s and a displacement of 50000 t (DWT =
35000 t) runs into a column of the VLFS. The impact load,
which is the force acting on the VLFS column, is constant at
100 MN, and the duration of the impact load is 3 s (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Definition of impact load
Table 1 Rules and formulas for collision load
Results of
Formula or specification collision
load/MN
Worthing formula 82±41
Highway bridge design specifications 90
AASHTO 92
Norway bridge load specifications 84
Norway public roads administration norms 114
Nordic public roads administration specifications 94
Modified Worthing formula 104
4 Calculation results and analysis
Sea state is calculated as follows: characteristic wave
height is Hs=8.8 m and the peak period is Tp=14.2 s. In
simulating sea conditions the Jonswap spectrum is used to
simulate the sea state spectrum. The low limit frequency is
fmin=0.1 rad/s, the upper limit frequency is fmax=5.0 rad/s
and the frequency in this range is divided into 50 equal
portions to simulate random waves. The connector is
equivalent to springs in three directions. The stiffness values
in three directions are Kx=1×108 N/m, Ky=1×1012 N/m and
Kz=1×1012 N/m. The collision positions are presented in
Fig.4. The wave angles are 0° and 75°. The time domain
186 Jiayang Gu, et al. Time Domain Calculation of Connector Loads of a Very Large Floating Structure

numerical solution method is employed to simulate the

connector loads of the VLFS under collision load in 100s
waves. Initial displacement, velocity and acceleration are all
set to zero. To simulate sea conditions steadily the VLFS
under the first 50s of wave action and subjected to an impact
load for 3s with a size of 1×108 N is considered.
Figs. 5–10 show the loads of the connectors C1 and C2
along the X, Y and Z directions at a wave angle of 0°. Figs.
11 and 16 are the load time curves of connectors C1 and C2 Fig. 8 Connector C2 load in X direction
(wave direction angle of 0°)
along the X, Y and Z directions at a wave angle of 75°.

Fig. 4 Collision load position Fig. 9 Connector C2 load in Y direction

(wave direction angle of 0°)

Fig. 5 Connector C1 load in X direction

(wave direction angle of 0°) Fig. 10 Connector C2 load in Z direction
(wave direction angle of 0°)
ᔀ

Fig. 6 Connector C1 load in Y direction

(wave direction angle of 0°) Fig. 11 Connector C1 load in X direction
(wave direction angle of 75°)

Fig. 7 Connector C1 load in Z direction

(wave direction angle of 0°) Fig. 12 Connector C1 load in Y direction
(wave direction angle of 75°)
Journal of Marine Science and Application (2015) 14: 183-188
Fig. 13 Connector C1 load in Z direction
(wave direction angle of 75°)
Fig. 14 Connector C2 load in X direction
(wave direction angle of 75°)
Fig. 15 Connector C2 load in Y direction
(wave direction angle of 75°)
Fig. 16 Connector C2 load in Z direction
(wave direction angle of 75°)
Only the connector loads of the VLFS under wave loads
are compared with those under the combined action of wave
and impact loads. Impact load has a significant influence on
connector loads. In this work, the connector load increases
because of the effects of impact load from 50 s to 100 s.
When the connectors at different wave direction angles
are the same, the stiffness of the connector in the Y and Z
directions is greater than that in the X direction. This
condition causes the change rule of load to be different in
the X, Y and Z directions. Similar to connector C1 at 0° and
75° wave headings, the loads along the X direction are
60×106 N as shown in Figs. 5 and 11. Figs. 6 and 12 show
that the load increases to 10×106 N. Figs. 7 and 13 show
that in the Z direction between the amplitude of X and Y the
load increases to 20×106 N.
187
1) Connector load in Y direction. Under 0° wave heading
and under wave loads only, the connector load in the Y
direction is zero. From 50 s to 53 s, a rectangular impulse
response of the connector load is observed. Due to the
impact loads the impulse width is also 3 s. After 3 s, a
high-frequency continuous oscillation of load is observed in
the Y direction. The maximum load of connector C1 in the Y
direction is approximately 10×106 N (Fig. 6).
2) Connector load in Z direction. A rectangular impulse
response of the connector load in the Z direction is observed
between 50s and 53s. High-frequency oscillations along the
Z direction are observed in the connector under the
combined action of wave and impact loads because of the
high stiffness and natural vibration frequencies in the Z
direction. The equilibrium position of the high-frequency
oscillations under the combined action of wave and impact
loads is the same as that of the connector load under wave
load only (Figs. 7, 10, 13, and 16).
3) Comparison of connectors C1 and C2. The maximum
load of connectors C1 and C2 are almost the same in the X
direction. In the Y and Z directions, the impulse of connector
C1 load is more noticeable than that of C2. After collision,
the two connector loads are shaken violently at similar
oscillation amplitudes. The change laws of the connector
loads under wave headings of 0° and 75° are the same, but
are greater than that under the wave heading of 75°.
Under the different wave headings of 0° and 75°, the
connector loads in the Y direction are different. When the
angle of the wave is 0°, the connector load in the Y direction
is caused by impact loads only (Fig. 6). The connector load
in the Y direction is caused by both impact load and wave
force at a wave heading of 75° (Fig. 12).
5 Conclusions
The time domain method is used to solve the connector
load response of a VLFS under impact loads. The connector
loads of the VLFS under wave loads only and under the
combined action of wave, and impact loads are calculated
and the effects of impact load on the connector load are
obtained. The results under wave loads only are compared
with those under the combined action of wave and impact
loads. Under impact loads, the high-frequency oscillation
occurs in connectors C1 and C2. The load curve of the
connectors gradually becomes smaller at a certain time
frame after the impact load is finished. Under different wave
headings, the maximum value of the connector loads of C1
and C2 is in the X direction, followed by those in the Z and
Y directions. However, the time history curves of the
connector loads in the X, Y and Z directions are similar. The
loads of connectors C1 and C2 under a wave heading of 75°
are greater than those under a wave heading of 0°. The
connector loads of C1 and C2 in the Y direction are zero
under a wave heading of 0°, but the connector load emerges
in the Y direction under a wave heading of 75°.
The time domain calculation method of connector load in
188 Jiayang Gu, et al. Time Domain Calculation of Connector Loads of a Very Large Floating Structure
this paper offers a certain reference value for the future
research and manufacture of Chinese VLFS.
References
Ding W, Yu L, Li RP, Yao MW (2005). Experimental research on
dynamic responses of mobile offshore base connector. The
Ocean Engineering, 23 (2), 11-15. (in Chinese)
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9865.2005.02.002
Du S, Ertekin RC (1991). Dynamic response analysis of a flexibly
joined-multi-module very large floating structure. Proceedings
of Oceans '91, IEEE, Honolulu, USA, 1286-1293.
Edwards MJ, David R (1999). Non-linear time-domain response of
connected mobile offshore base unit using linear frequency
domain hydrodynamic forces. Proceedings of the Third
International Workshop on Very Large Floating Structure.
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 155-161.
Endo H (2000). The behavior of a VLFS and an airplane during
takeoff/landing run in wave condition. Marine Structures,
13(4-5), 477-491.
DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8339(00)00020-4
Fujikubo M (2005). Structural analysis for the design of VLFS.
Marine Structures, 18(2), 201-226.
DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2005.07.005
Guan YF, Yuan YB, Gu JY (2011). Influence of ship collision on
connector loads of MOB. Shipbuilding of China, 52(4),
177-185. (in Chinese)
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-4882.2011.04.020
Hamamoto T, Fujita K (1995). Three-dimensional BEM-FEM
coupled dynamic analysis of module-linked large floating
structures. Proc 5th Int Offshore Polar Eng Conf, Hague,
Netherlands, 3, 392.
Hamamoto T, Hayashi T, Fujita K (1996). 3D BEM-FEM coupled
hydroelastic analysis of irregular shaped module-linked large
floating structures. Proc 6th Int Offshore Polar Eng, Conf, Los
Angeles, USA, 1, 362-369.
Kashiwagi M (2000). A time-domain mode-expansion method for
calculating transient elastic responses of a pontoon-type VLFS.
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 5(2), 89-100.
DOI: 10.1007/PL00010631
Kashiwagi M, Higashimachi N (2003). Numerical simulations of
transient responses of VLFS during landing and take-off of an
airplane. Proc Int Symp Ocean Space Utilisation Technol,
National Maritime Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan, 83-91.
Kim D, Chen L, Blaszkowshi Z, Ray J (1999). Linear frequency
domain hydroelastic analysis for McDermon’s mobile offshore
base using WAMIT. Proceedings of the Third International
Workshop on Very Large Floating Structure. Honoluu, Hawaii,
USA, 105-133.
Riggs HR, Ertekin RC, Mills TRJ (1998a). Impact of connector
stiffness on the response of a multi-module mobile offshore
base. Proceeding the International Offshore and Polar
Engineer Conference, Montréal, Canada, 1, ISOPE, 200-207.
Riggs HR, Ertekin RC, Mills TRJ (1998b). Wave-induced response
of a 5-module mobile offshore base. 17th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
Lisbon , Portugal, OMAE98-4440.
Riggs HR, Ertekin RC, Mills TRJ (1999). Characteristics of the
wave response of mobile offshore bases. Proceeding 18th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Saint John’s, Canada, 1-9.
Riggs HR, Ertekin RC (1999). Response characteristics of serially
connected semisubmersibles. Journal of Ship Research, 43(4),
229-240.
Riggs HR, Ertekin RC (1993). Approximate methods for dynamic
response of multi-module floating structures. Marine Structures,
6(2-3), 117-141.
DOI: 10.1016/0951-8339(93)90016-V
Riggs HR, Ertekin RC, Mills TRJ (2000). A comparative study of
RMFC and FEA models for the wave-induced response of a
MOB. Marine Structures, 13(4-5), 217-232.
DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8339(00)00029-0
Shu Z, Li RP, Wang ZJ (2002). A study on the motion of very large
floating structure in waves. China Offshore Platform, 17(3), 1-5.
(in Chinese)
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4500.2002.03.001
Wang DY, Riggs HR, Eriekin RC (1991). Three-dimensional
hydroelastic response of a very large floating structure.
Offshore and Polar Engrg., 1(4), 307-316.
Watanabe E, Utsunomiya T (1996). Transient response analysis of
a VLFS at airplane landing. Proc IntWorkshopon Very Large
Floating Structures, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 243-7.
Watanabe E, Utsunomiya T, Tanigaki S (1998). A transient
response analysis of a very large floating structure by finite
element method. Structural Engrg/Earthquake Engrg, JSCE,
15(2), 155-163.
Wu CF, Mills TRJ (1996). Wave induced connector loads and
connector design for the mobile offshore base. Proceeding of
the Second International Workshop on Very Large Floating
Structure, Hayama, Japan, 387-392.
Yu L, Ding W, Li RP (2004). Effect of the multiple modules
interaction on MOB connector loads. The Ocean Engineering,
22(1), 25-31. (in Chinese)
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9865.2004.01.004
Yu L, Li RP, Shu Z (2003). Dynamic characteristics of mobile
offshore base connectors. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, 37(8), 1159-1163. (in Chinese)
DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1006-2467.2003.08.005