Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Review

A review of advances in modeling hydrodynamics and hydroelasticity for

very large floating structures
Changqing Jiang a , Peng Xu b,c ,ω, Xinglan Bai b,c , Zhichao Zhao b , Ould el Moctar a ,
Guiyong Zhang d
a
Institute of Ship Technology, Ocean Engineering and Transport Systems, University of Duisburg–Essen, Duisburg 47057, Germany
b School of Naval Architecture and Maritime, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316022, China
c Key Laboratory of Offshore Marine Engineering Technology of Zhejiang Province, Zhoushan 316022, China
d School of Naval Architecture, State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Since the introduction of the concept of very large floating structure (VLFS), research in this area has become
Very large floating structure increasingly intensive. VLFSs have the potential to serve various functions such as maritime airports, logistic
Hydrodynamics hubs, and even floating cities, thereby enhancing ocean utilization and management. This paper aims at
Hydroelasticity
providing a state-of-the-art review of the recent advancements and developments in the key technologies
Numerical methods
required for VLFSs, including a clear classification of their shapes, applications, connection systems, and
Wave–structure interactions
Multibody interactions
mooring systems. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive review of the recent advance in modeling theories
Mooring dynamics and methods for coupled hydrodynamic and hydroelastic analyses of VLFSs.
Mechanical joints

1. Introduction to the 19th century with French novelist Jules Verne’s proposal of
floating islands after the Industrial Revolution (Verne, 1986). Unlike
Coastal areas have always been in high demand for space, as the conventional floating bodies, VLFSs possess unique characteristics, with
majority of the world’s population resides in these regions where land the most notable being their size, which can be tens of times larger
availability is limited. Unfortunately, global sea levels are rising due than conventional floating bodies (Suzuki et al., 2007, 2017). Due
to global warming, which is causing the waterfront to change, and the
to their size, VLFSs are typically placed in deeper waters or above
utilization of large parts of existing land spaces are being reevaluated.
the seabed (Watanabe et al., 2004). The advantages of VLFS include
On the other hand, with the global increase in population, exploitation
low construction costs, freedom of site selection, high wave resistance,
of resources, and other challenges, the ocean’s importance, which cov-
ers 71% of the earth’s surface area, is becoming more apparent. People fast construction, easier installation, easy expansion, and low environ-
are recognizing that the utilization of marine resources is essential to mental impact (Wang et al., 2015; Xia et al., 2016). VLFSs can be
addressing these problems. The ocean holds abundant space and energy utilized in various fields, including commercial navigation, fisheries
resources that can alleviate the existing issues (Lamas-Pardo et al., and aquaculture, offshore marine energy utilization, meteorological
2015). To address the increasing demand for affordable deck space monitoring, and environmental protection. For example, VLFSs can
at sea, various man-made island concepts have been proposed (Kondo be used to construct ports, oil fields, fishing grounds, offshore wind
and Vadus, 1991). However, land reclamation technology for creating power plants, and more, with their flexibility, convenience, and en-
or extending sandy islands is limited to shallow waters, and its en- vironmental protection making them a promising option for future
vironmental impact is increasingly severe. Floating concepts, on the offshore construction. In addition to the above functions, VLFSs can be
other hand, are more suitable for deeper waters and can be relocated used for facilities with complicated engineering ethics, such as power
if necessary. As a viable alternative (Watanabe et al., 2004), very large
stations, unique facilities, and sewage treatment plants (Kashiwagi,
floating structures (VLFSs) were proposed (Suzuki et al., 2006).
2000a). Currently, the development of VLFS has a bright future, but to
VLFS is relatively new type of offshore structure that has undergone
maximize their potential, research and practical applications of related
rapid development in recent years. The concept of VLFS dates back

ω Corresponding author at: School of Naval Architecture and Maritime, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316022, China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115319
Received 20 May 2023; Received in revised form 20 June 2023; Accepted 2 July 2023
Available online 10 July 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 1. Examples of VLFSs: (a) a pontoon-type (adapt from the Space@Sea project), and (b) a semi-submersible type (adapt from the Mobile Offshore Base).

theories, technologies, and security issues must be strengthened to To improve the performance of floating bodies, researchers have
enable their widespread use in the future. proposed semi-submersible VLFSs, which generally exhibit better hy-
Based on our literature review, it is evident that there have been drodynamic performance than pontoon-type structures, especially in
extensive discussions and research on the concepts and deployment of harsh sea conditions. The semi-submersible platform consists of four
VLFSs for both coastal and offshore areas (Lamas-Pardo et al., 2015). main parts: the main body, lower floating body, columns, and truss
Furthermore, recent research has focused on the connector systems of support. The main body serves as the foundation for the superstructure,
VLFSs (Jiang et al., 2021c), as well as the applicability of hydroelastic which includes various equipment, living quarters, and operational
theory for newly envisaged flexible floating structures (Zhang and areas. The lower floating body provides buoyancy and regulates the
Schreier, 2022). Nevertheless, a systematic review on the hydrodynam- center of gravity to maintain a constant buoyancy, increasing the
ics for VLFS, especially for coupled hydrodynamic and hydroelastic bending stiffness of the structure and improving its hydrodynamic
analyses, along with its mooring and connection systems is still missing performance. The internal compartments are designed to store fuel,
in the literature. Therefore, this paper aims to provide a state-of- freshwater or ballast water tanks, and propulsion devices. The columns
the-art review of the recent advancements and developments in the and truss supports connect the main body of the platform with the
key technologies required for VLFSs, including a clear classification of lower floating body, ensuring the platform’s strength, stiffness, and
their shapes, applications, connection systems, and mooring systems. integrity. The semi-submersible VLFS is more commonly used in off-
Specifically, this paper focuses on the current theories and methods shore and sea areas due to its robust design and superior hydrodynamic
related to coupled hydrodynamic and hydroelastic analyses of VLFSs. performance. Each module generally has a length ranging from 200
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a clas- to 500 m, accompanied by a width of 120 to 170 m. Typically, a
sification of VLFSs, followed by a review of their connection systems in modular floating base can be constructed by combining three to five
Section 3 and their mooring systems in Section 4. Section 5 reviews the modules, resulting in a total length of up to two kilometers. Neverthe-
hydrodynamics of VLFSs, and Section 6 discusses the hydroelasticity of less, their structure is more complex, resulting in increased construction
VLFSs. It concludes with a summary of the findings and potential future cost and time. Additionally, they are typically not equipped with any
research directions in Section 8. wave-absorbing facilities.
With the advancement of VLFS research, new shapes have been
2. Classification designed, such as a ring-shaped artificial harbor composed of eight
curved floating modules proposed by China National Offshore Oil
VLFSs have become increasingly diverse, making it challenging to Corporation and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which is particularly
classify them based on a single aspect. While previous studies such suitable for ultra-deepwater (Song, 2012). The platform provides a safe
as Lamas-Pardo et al. (2015) have classified VLFSs by their location haven for working vessels to berth and shelter from the wind during
(coastal and offshore), this paper proposes a classification based on rough sea conditions. Another innovative shape is the delta-type VLFS
both shape and functionality. proposed by Drimer for open-sea situations, which includes a protected
basin that offers accessibility in most weather scenarios (Drimer and
2.1. Shape Gafter, 2018). The delta-VLFS has potential applications in recreational
purposes, transportation hubs, and industrial platforms.
According to previous studies (Andrianov, 2005; Gao et al., 2011),
VLFS can be classified into two types based on their geometry: pontoon- 2.2. Functionality
type and semi-submersible-type, as shown in Fig. 1. The pontoon-type
VLFS is shaped like an extremely thin plate that floats on the surface Over the years, VLFS has evolved and gained more functionalities.
of the water, with the bottom surface of the plate at the static water Based on functional classification, it can be roughly categorized into
level (SWL). The horizontal dimension of the floating structure is four types: transportation platform, energy platform, living platform,
much larger than the wavelength of the incident wave. Typically, a and others. Several examples of VLFSs for various applications are
pontoon-type VLFS may have a length dimension exceeding 60 m. shown in Fig. 2.
These horizontally large floating structures can range from 500 to The transport platform provides a transit supply and rest platform
5000 m in length and 100 to 1000 m in width, while maintaining a for various types of carriers. The Mega-float offshore airport, a Japanese
typical thickness of 2 to 10 m. Due to its simple structure, low cost, pontoon-type multi-module VLFS, is the most well-known example. The
short construction time, and easy maintenance, pontoon-type VLFS has project was led by Japan’s Giant Buoy Technology Research Associ-
been widely studied and applied for a long time, especially in still ation, and two experiments were conducted to prove the superiority
water. However, it has disadvantages such as small bending stiffness of the mega-float (Fujikubo and Suzuki, 2015; Suzuki et al., 2017).
and poor hydrodynamic performance. Therefore, pontoon-type VLFS Another carrier platform is the Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) program,
are mostly used in offshore and sea areas with good sea conditions and which is a multi-functional platform that can be placed in a designated
are equipped with breakwaters, gill cells, and wave dissipation facilities sea floating base. It consists of several semi-submersible modules con-
such as porous plates. nected through a connector that provides runways for aircraft takeoff

2
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 2. Examples of VLFSs for various applications: (a) logistics, (b) energy, (c) living, (d) others designed for specific tasks (the first three figures are from the Space@Sea project,
and the fourth is adapted from the Mega-float).

and landing (Girard et al., 2002). Multi-modular VLFS enables modu- these. Floating nuclear power plants are equipped with small nuclear
lar management, and different modules can carry different functions. reactors and power generation systems on floating platforms in the
Suzuki summarized the milestones in the development of Mega-float ocean, which can provide flexible energy supply to different sea ar-
and MOB (Suzuki et al., 2007). eas (Zou et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2015). Sea launch platforms offer
Resource platforms serve to collect or store energy, including solar, a launch mode that reduces construction costs by 40% compared
wind, wave energy, and other energy sources, as well as storing chem- to land launch platforms and increases the flexibility of launching
ical energy. For instance, with the development of ocean wave energy satellites. The spacecraft can also use the additional speed caused by
technology, many concepts of VLFS integrating wave energy converters the earth’s rotation on the equator, which saves fuel and increases
(WECs) have emerged (Ikoma et al., 2015; Crema, 2018; Zhang et al., the carrying capacity of the carrier rocket (Duffy, 2004). Scientific
2019b; Tay, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019; Nguyen and Wang, 2020; Cheng research platforms accelerate research on large floating bodies, marine
et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022b; Liu et al., 2022b). Generally, WECs can culture, and other projects, and carry out actual sea conditions exper-
be used as damping devices for improving the performance of VLFS. iments and exploration. China Marine Research Center has designed
Similarly, numerous researchers have also conducted studies on inte- a scientific experiment platform composed of two semi-submersible
grating offshore wind turbines with VLFS (Muhamed Basheer Naseema modules, mainly used for scientific experiments of multi-module float-
and Saha, 2017; Zhang et al., 2021; Li, 2022). The interactions between ing structures, including complex geographical environment, module
these energy devices and VLFS, as well as their structural reliability connectors, mooring systems, and corrosion protection (Xie et al.,
and energy production rates, are critical issues. In the realm of energy 2020).
storage, floating facilities have proved to be effective solutions for
3. Connection system
storing hydrocarbons off the coast of Singapore (Dai et al., 2019), as
well as crude oil in Japan (Ueda, 2015) and Congo (Collet et al., 2014).
VLFSs are typically large and complex structures, they are often
These floating storage facilities offer not only efficient storage solutions
built modularly, which requires connectors to join adjacent modules.
but also flexibility in their offshore location and ease of transportation.
The connectors serve two purposes: connecting adjacent modules and
The development of floating living platforms, which provide essen-
restricting their relative motions, which can have up to six degrees of
tial living conditions and facilities, is an important practical application
freedom (DOFs). Based on the number of DOFs they restrict, connec-
of VLFS. The concept of floating towns has been proposed by the
tors can be divided into two categories: rigid connectors and flexible
Netherlands, which includes greenhouses, commercial centers, and resi- connectors (Yu et al., 2003). Rigid connectors typically restrict all
dential areas (Wang and Tay, 2011). South Korea has also designed and six DOFs, while flexible connectors release an appropriate number of
built three floating islands, such as the Sevit Island in the Han River, DOFs, allowing for relative motion between two modules. Depending
which serves as recreation and conference centers (Yun, 2019). The on the number of restricted DOFs, flexible connectors can range from
China Shipbuilding Science Research Center has proposed a conceptual relatively rigid to fully flexible. Generally, the more DOFs a connector
design for the Ocean Heart tourism platform (Xie et al., 2020). Offshore restricts, the more the relative motion between two adjacent blocks can
farms have also been established in salmon-producing countries to be suppressed, but at the expense of increased load on the connector.
ensure a steady supply of fresh fish (Per Heggelund, 1989). Moreover, Conversely, the fewer DOFs a connector restricts, the less load the
Architect Vicente Callebaut Belgica has further developed the concept connector takes. However, unrestricted relative motion between two
of floating cities with his proposed Lilypad floating ecological metropo- adjacent modules can be detrimental to their functionalities (Jiang
lis that houses the urban population on an island in the shape of a water et al., 2021c).
lily (Wang and Tay, 2011). With these technologies, it is possible for
humans to live and thrive on the surface of the ocean. 3.1. Rigid connector
However, there are also other types of floating platforms that are
designed for specific tasks. Floating nuclear power plants, sea rocket VLFSs are large-scale structures, which limit the effectiveness of
launch platforms and scientific research platforms are examples of rigid connectors. In rough sea conditions, the connector must carry

3
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 3. Examples of four typical rigid connectors, adapted from: (a) Gardner’s design (Gardner, 1965), (b) Bargeco’s design (Bargeco, 1985), (c) Song’s design (Song, 2012), (d)
the Singapore Marine Bay floating stage (Wang, 2015).

the wave load because rigid connectors completely fix two adjacent to the rubber cones to improve impact resistance (Yu et al., 2003). To
modules. As a result, this creates a large bending moment at the further enhance the performance of hinged connectors, Zhu (2015) pro-
connector, which can significantly reduce the service life of the VLFS. posed the flexible base hinged connector (FBHC) with rubber pads at
Consequently, rigid connectors have been gradually abandoned in sub- the base of the articulating head to distribute connection loads evenly
sequent studies (Yu et al., 2003). However, in calm waters, the rigid through rubber deformation. Another design by Shi et al. (2018a)
connector can still be advantageous in achieving the desired effect. features a hinge joint and four full elliptical leaf springs arranged
Rigid connectors are typically designed to be occlusal and reinforced with rollers to reduce friction and provide stiffness in its longitudinal
with locking pins and other reinforcing devices. direction. Additionally, Shi et al. (2018b) proposed an idealized model
Fig. 3 demonstrates several typical rigid connector designs, and of the FBHC consisting of eight elastic components and a spherical
they are described below. As seen, Gardner (1965) designed a pontoon hinge in the middle to optimize its performance.
connector with a male and female coupling member on one side of the There have been many new designs for articulated connectors, as
pontoon to align two pontoons. The connector also includes an elon- demonstrated in Fig. 5. For instance, Liu (2014) designed a ball joint
gated connecting member that fits into a recess on the adjacent pontoon connector divided into two parts: positive and negative. The positive
and locks the pontoons in place. The connector from Bargeco (1985) mid-shaft includes a ball head and a mid-shaft rod, and the positive
requires two male and female coupling elements connected by a wedge- carrier includes a hydraulic device and an indentation with sensors.
shaped fixing element. Its coupling members can engage with a wedge, The negative part includes a hydraulic device and a spring device with
with one or both couplings equipped with locks. Song (2012) designed a sensor. Zhao et al. (2018) proposed a new flexible connector with
a fixed connection device consisting of three parts: a sleeve, a spindle a hinged connection system located on the left and right sides of the
clamp, and a spindle. The first step is to loosen the sleeve’s hydraulic- floating body. The hinged head slides forward and backward along a
driven spindle clamp. Then, the spindle is aligned with the sleeve and slide track inside the floating body, and a rubber sandwich is arranged
inserted, the clamps are tightened to the spindle, and cement paste is between the slide track and the floating body structure. The end of the
injected between the sleeve and the spindle for reinforcement. In the hinged head is bolted to a support equipped with a spring steel plate.
Singapore Marina Bay floating stage, a rigid connector made of high- This system achieves a small longitudinal stiffness with the help of the
strength steel was used, surrounded by recessed wedge-shaped grooves spring steel plate, while the rubber sandwich provides a large trans-
for connecting floating blocks with wedge-shaped teeth that correspond verse and vertical stiffness with flexibility. Lu et al. (2021) designed a
to the wedge-shaped grooves and are fixed with steel pins (Wang, hinged flexible connector with a hollow circular variable-cross-section
2015). For some other rigid connectors used for floating platforms, one pin shaft that can adjust the stiffness of the whole structure and reduce
may see the comprehensive reviews (Han, 2007; Boldbaatar and Yoon, shocks and abrasion by filling it with flexible materials. Additionally,
2013). They also proposed a new hybrid hinged connector for VLFS in which
the semi-submersible blocks are connected to the upper deck through
3.2. Flexible connector flexible pads (Lu et al., 2022). The adjacent decks are connected by
rigid hinges, and flexible links connect the adjacent floating modules.
Research has gradually shifted towards developing and designing
flexible connection systems due to the limited application scenarios, 3.2.2. Cable connector
precise tolerance control requirements, and installation difficulties of Cable connector systems are commonly used to achieve a cer-
rigid connectors. Some of the standard flexible connection systems in- tain level of stiffness by passing a cable through an internal pipe
clude articulated connection systems, spring connection systems, cable and tensioning it. In general, cable connectors are advantageous in
connection systems, and vertical-free connection systems. that they produce well-distributed connection forces, they may have
weaker shear resistance to vertical swing motion than hinged con-
3.2.1. Articulated connector nection systems. Additionally, they provide less restraining effect on
Articulated connector systems use single or multiple hinges to con- relative motion between structures. Despite this, cable connectors are
nect floating modules. Peg hinges, ball hinges, and pin hinges are easy to remove, replace, and repair. Fig. 6 sketches several typical cable
common tools for this type of connection system, as shown in Fig. 4. connectors.
The earliest articulated connectors used simple horizontal peg hinges Derstine and Brown (2000) designed a connector with six DOFs
and docking probes to allow only relative pitch motion between adja- of motion, using flexible parts such as steel cables in its structure
cent floating modules (Haney, 1999). Later, rubber cones were added to achieve a compliant and flexible connector. Nagai et al. (2006)
to resist tension and pressure and reduce longitudinal impact during constructed a multipurpose Hexa-FloatTM made of concrete with a
connection. The central docking probe was also replaced by a spherical hexagonal surface shape and six floats interconnected with ropes and
hinged head to increase the relative roll motion of the VLFS, resulting rubber. Xu et al. (2014) proposed a conceptual design of a flexible
in the rubber cone articulated flexible connector (McAllister, 1997). An connector with trapezoidal rubber and cable. Halim Saleh (2010) de-
enhanced hinged connector was then developed, adding a sliding sleeve veloped a cable compliance technology that combines adjacent floating

4
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 4. Typical articulated connectors, adapted from: (a) simple hinged (Haney, 1999); (b) rubber cone connector (McAllister, 1997); (c) flexible based hinged connector (Zhu,
2015); (d) hinged rollers (Shi et al., 2018a), respectively.

Fig. 5. Two typical new articulated concepts, adapted from: (a) Liu’s design (Liu, 2014), (b) Zhao’s design (Zhao et al., 2018), (c) and Lu’s design (Lu et al., 2021), respectively.

Fig. 6. Typical examples of cable connectors, adapted from: (a) the design of Derstine and Brown (2000) (reproduced with permission from Elsevier), (b) Saleh’s design (Halim Saleh,
2010), (c) Xu’s design (Xu et al., 2014), (d) and Shi’s design (Shi et al., 2022), respectively.

modules with different pre-stressed cable configurations. When the as they would be with the rigid choice. Therefore, selecting this option
pre-stressed steel cables are arranged at the upper and lower deck would not be logical (Koekoek, 2010).
levels, they provide some bending resistance and eliminate the bottom
opening. However, such a flexible connector system can only provide 3.2.4. Spring connector
minimal resistance to bending and shear moments (Jiang et al., 2018). Flexible connectors often use springs, in addition to hinges and
The proposed face-contact connector by Shi et al. (2022) is a novel cables, as shown in Fig. 8. For example, Xia et al. (2016) proposed
design that utilizes a cable and a flexible pad made of polymer material. a floating body system that utilizes an air-spring device as a flexible
This connector is capable of withstanding tensile, pressure, and shear component to adjust the stiffness of the air springs, ensuring safety
loads under small deformation conditions. The cable is designed to and stability in changing sea conditions. They also designed a VLFS
experience axial tension only, which allows it to share the tensile
connector with adjustable stiffness, which includes a joint consisting of
load of the flexible pad. The cable connector system has already been
a ring spring and a hydraulic actuator (Xia et al., 2022). The spring,
applied to the Incheon floating pier, and its performance has been
considered a passive element, is a hollow cylindrical structure made
promising so far (Jung et al., 2020).
of steel plates and a polymer material sandwich that provides stiffness
in the axial and radial directions. The stiffness of the spring can be
3.2.3. Vertical-free connector
adjusted by changing the number of steel plates, the geometry of the
Vertical-free connectors are utilized to limit the relative sway and
sandwich, and the type of polymer material. The hydraulic actuator,
surge motion between floats while allowing heave motion between
considered an active element, is mounted in the spring’s internal cavity
them (Koekoek, 2010). They can be classified into two types: rotation-
and assembled with two caps by two ball hinges. Furthermore, Wu et al.
free connectors and rotation-resistant connectors (Jiang et al., 2021c),
(2016) studied an ideal connector model that utilizes several orthogo-
as sketched in Fig. 7. The rotation-free connector involves only one
nal ball hinge springs. These springs can limit the linear displacement
set of rods and fixing holes in the horizontal plane to limit sway and
of the module while allowing angular displacement to a certain extent.
surge motion, without restricting heave or pitch motion. In contrast,
the rotation-resistant vertical free system uses diagonal connecting
elements in horizontal and vertical planes. The ends of these two 4. Mooring system
sets of rods can slide in the vertical slots, effectively limiting relative
rotation between modules. However, connectors that allow rotation are To restrict the movement of an VLFS, a mooring system must be
not commonly used. The only advantage of choosing this option over implemented. There are generally two types of VLFS mooring systems:
the rotation-free alternative is its greater stability. But compared to single and hybrid. The choice of mooring method is generally based on
the rotation-allowing option and the fully rigid option, this approach factors such as the size of the mooring force, water depth, length of
has a significant drawback: the connectors will experience substantial the mooring line, intermediate floating body or caisson configuration,
torsion forces. The longitudinal and vertical forces and moments in the topography, and seabed conditions. The following section provides an
connections and beams will also be nearly as large with this solution overview of the standard mooring methods used for VLFS.

5
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 7. Examples of vertical-free connectors, adapted from: (a) the rotation-free connector (Koekoek, 2010), (b) the rotation-free designed within Space@Sea project (Breuls et al.,
2019), (c) and the rotation-resistant connector (Koekoek, 2010).

Fig. 8. Examples of spring connectors, adapted from: (a) Xia’s design (Xia et al., 2016), (b) Xia’s design (Xiang et al., 2022), (c) Wu’s design (Wu et al., 2016), respectively.

Fig. 9. Examples of single mooring concepts for: (a) the catenary, (b) the taut, (c) the tension-leg, (d) and the pile-fender, respectively.

Fig. 10. Typical catenary mooring systems: (a) conventional catenary, (b) catenary with floater, (c) shared catenary with faloter, (d) catenary with floater and weight.
Source: Adapted from Jiang et al. (2021b).

4.1. Single mooring mooring cables are always under tension, and the contact angle be-
tween the cables and the seabed is typically between 30⋛ and 45⋛ (Ma
The single mooring system includes the catenary, the taut, the et al., 2019). The axial stiffness of the cable provides the restoring force,
tension-leg, and the pile-fender, as exhibited in Fig. 9. eliminating the need for a long steel chain. As the cables are nearly
straight in the water, without lying section in the seabed (Sankalp
and De Leeneer, 2020). The taut mooring system usually employs
4.1.1. Catenary
a three-stage connection of steel chain, polyester cable, and again
The catenary mooring system has been widely used for a long time. steel chain. The middle section of the mooring cable typically uses a
The system uses a dangling steel chain and anchor to generate the lightweight and high-strength nylon rope, though polyester or other
return force to position the VLFS by combining geometric action and synthetic materials can also be used. For the study of taut mooring
gravity. Typically, the catenary system is applied in water depths of systems, see Al-Solihat and Nahon (2016), Davies et al. (2002), Huang
up to 1000 m, and it usually adopts a three-stage structure (Xie et al., et al. (2011), Xiang et al. (2022) and Xiong et al. (2016) for details.
2020). A steel chain with low mass and low strength is used in the
middle section, while a steel chain with high wear resistance, low 4.1.3. Tension-leg
elongation, high strength, and high mass is used at both ends of the The tension-leg mooring system utilizes a vertical tension mooring
mooring chain to avoid excessive tension at chain guide holes and method, where the mooring cable extends vertically downward from
severe wear of the seabed section. An underwater two-point catenary the platform to the seabed. The mooring cable is made of polyester
mooring system has also been designed based on the traditional cate- fiber material, similar to the mooring cable of the tension mooring
nary mooring system. By placing a heavy block or buoy in the middle of system (Ma et al., 2019). The principle of tension leg mooring is that
the axial tension of the tension leg will produce a horizontal component
the catenary, the motion of the mooring vessel can be further slowed,
when the structure deviates from its original position, providing a
and the tension of the mooring line can be reduced. Fig. 10 sketches
horizontal restoring force for the structure. This method is suitable for
the typical catenary mooring systems.
deep-sea arrangement due to its ability to reduce the vertical swing
motion of the platform. However, the high vertical tension of the
4.1.2. Taut tension leg can sacrifice some of the load capacity. For studies of the
The taut mooring system directly secures the platform to the seabed tension-leg mooring systems for VLFS, see Melis et al. (2016), Wang
using taut mooring cables. Unlike the catenary mooring system, the et al. (2017) and Sadeghi and Tozan (2018) for instance.

6
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 11. Examples of new concept single mooring systems, adapted from: (a) the SALM mooring concept (Thomsen et al., 2016), (b) the telescopic pile concept (Ji et al., 2018),
(c) and the simple spring-dashpot concept (Karperaki et al., 2016).

4.1.4. Pile-fender These systems can store the swaying energy of the float and release
The pile-fender mooring system for VLFS is typically composed it periodically by the up and down motions of the inter-sinker and
of piles and rubber fenders. The piles can be upright, inclined, or inter-buoy.
catenary types, and are responsible for resisting external loads. On
the other hand, the rubber fenders can undergo large deformation 5. Hydrodynamics
to provide enough mooring capacity to prevent horizontal movement
of the VLFS, while allowing for its free vertical displacement. The Designing an VLFS involves predicting its hydrodynamics, which
pile-fender mooring system is a good tidal adaptive mooring type for is usually done using numerical methods that have been validated by
shallow water zones, and its performance for VLFS has been extensively model experiments. Accurately predicting the hydrodynamics of an
studied (Kim et al., 2004; Cho, 2006; Nguyen et al., 2018; Mohapatra VLFS is critical, and this requires a precise understanding of water flow.
and Soares, 2022; Ren et al., 2022). There are two main approaches to determine the water flow: potential-
flow theory and solving the Navier–Stokes equations for incompressible
4.1.5. Special concept flow. Within each approach, there are many variations in terms of dis-
There have been several new single mooring systems developed in cretization, simplifying assumptions, and implementation. This section
addition to the classical mooring systems discussed earlier, as depicted provides an overview of various numerical methods used for predicting
in Fig. 11. One such system is the single anchor leg mooring (SALM) the hydrodynamics of VLFS, ranging from simple to complex.
system, which connects a floating body to a subsea mooring base. It The state-of-the-art numerical tools for the hydrodynamics of VLFS
comprises five main components: sink block device, chains, mooring can be divided into two categories: frequency-domain methods and
device, floating device, and chain support device at the center of time-domain methods. a frequency-domain method provides dimen-
the floating device. The anchor leg can be a catenary, pre-tensioned, sionless results of the response of the structure and can forecast the
or a hinged steel column or truss, and it is fixed to the seabed by hydrodynamic characteristics of the floating structure under specific
gravity or piling. While the SALM system was primarily designed for sea conditions (van Oortmerssen, 1979; Løken, 1981; Kodan, 1984).
WECs, Thomsen et al. (2016) has demonstrated its potential for use However, this method is limited to linear theory and cannot account
with a VLFS. Ji et al. (2018) proposed a concept of a novel telescopic for nonlinear characteristics of waves and structures, transient re-
pile positioning facility with individual modular piles for VLFS serving sponse of the system, nor strong nonlinearities in the coupling of
in shallow water. In this system, telescopic piles deployed in the VLFS the mooring system and floating structures (Newman, 1994; Lee and
are inserted into the seabed to resist lateral and vertical hydrodynamic Newman, 2000; Taghipour and Moan, 2008). Although higher order
loads. Karperaki et al. (2016) used simple spring-dashpot systems to frequency-domain approaches are exist, for instance, the simplified
connect the VLFS to the seabed, which reduces the displacement of the bilinear and trilinear frequency response functions based on Volterra
VLFS in wave conditions. To compare and contrast the various mooring functional representations (Ballman, 1998). They can be cumbersome
systems for VLFS, for instance, see Sankalp and De Leeneer (2020) and to implement and computationally inefficient, and limited to steady-
Feng et al. (2022). state processes (Taghipour et al., 2008). On the other hand, a time-
domain analysis can address these issues and has been adapted to both
4.2. Hybrid mooring linear and nonlinear theories. There has been a significant increase
in time-domain analyses of ships and offshore structures, replacing
The hybrid mooring system is a combination of single mooring frequency-domain analyses to some extent. This is driven by the strong
systems and has been gaining attention due to its ability to adapt to demand for building very large ships and offshore structures, whose
the complex subsea geomorphology and marine environment. Several nonlinear motions and structural loads need to be solved in the time
examples of hybrid mooring systems are illustrated in Fig. 12. Wang domain (ITTC, 2008). Table 1, based on ITTC (2017), categorizes
et al. (2019) developed a catenary-taut-tendon hybrid mooring system numerical methods in hydrodynamics for VLFS. Their applications and
to constrain the motion of the VLFS single module. The catenary limitations are discussed according to the level of linearization in the
mooring lines were deployed on the deep water side of a single floating subsequent sections. Fig. 13 gives examples of solution grids in these
module with considerable anchor radius, while the taut mooring lines methods.
were on the other side. The tendon system was also used to meet
the strict heave motion requirement of the floating runway. Another 5.1. Linear
proposed system is the combined mooring system by Yuan et al. (2016).
The system includes two tensioned mooring cables almost forming two A linear model is based on the assumptions of an inviscid fluid
straight lines from the guide hole position to the connecting floating and incompressible incident flow, where the flow is irrotational and
block and from the block to the subsea suction anchor. The connecting justifies the use of a potential theory. In such a model, the velocity
floating blocks are also subject to the action of the tension tendon, potential is assumed to have several independent components, in-
which can offset part of the vertical force of the cable. Nguyen et al. cluding the incident wave, diffraction, and radiation potentials. The
(2018) proposed the mooring dolphin-rubber fender system with verti- free-surface and body boundary conditions, as well as the pressure
cal elastic mooring lines connected at the fore and aft edges of VLFS and force expressions, are all linearized. The equations of motion are
to the seabed. Nagai et al. (2006) proposed new systems which are also linearized with the assumption of small body motion amplitudes,
combinations of an inter-sinker, an inter-buoy, and an anchor-sinker. where harmonic motions and loads are considered. As shown in Fig. 13,

7
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 12. Examples of hybrid mooring system, adapted from: (a) Wang’s design (Wang et al., 2019), (b) Yuan’s design (Yuan et al., 2016), (c) and Nguyen’s design (Nguyen et al.,
2018).

Fig. 13. Examples of solution grids for: (a) linear & weakly nonlinear methods (panels only for the submerged bodies), (b) weak-scatterer methods (panels for the submerged
bodies and the free surface), and (c) fully nonlinear methods (panels for the whole structure and the free surface in panel methods, and grids for the whole domain for field
methods).

Table 1
Categorization of numerical methods in hydrodynamics for VLFS.
Nonlinearity Incident wave Disturbance Froude–Krylov & Numerical methods
hydrodynamics Restoring forces
1 Linear Linear Linear Linear Strip, Green Function, Rankine
Panel
2 Weakly Linear or nonlinear Linear Nonlinear Strip, Impulse-Response Function,
nonlinear Green Function, Rankine Panel
3 Weak Linear or nonlinear Linear w.r.t. Nonlinear Rankine Panel
scatterer incident wave
4 Fully Nonlinear Nonlinear Nonlinear Laplace & Bernoulli Eqs., Euler
nonlinear Eqs., Navier–Stokes Eqs.

panels are generated only for the submerged parts of a floating body, linear models are suitable for uniform cross-sections (Penalba Retes
indicating that a constant wetted surface is used for a linear hydro- et al., 2015b). When analyzing large motions, the mean wetted surface
dynamic model. Hydrodynamic studies on VLFSs using linear models loses accuracy, and precise estimation of the instantaneous wetted sur-
can be found in Wang et al. (1991), Riggs and Ertekin (1993), Seif and face requires fine meshes (Babarit et al., 2009; Bull and Jacob, 2012) or
Inoue (1998), Wu et al. (2003), Ren et al. (2019) and Huang et al. a remeshing routine to modify panels partly submerged and partly out
(2021). Several well-known hydrodynamic codes based on potential- of the water at each time step (Gilloteaux et al., 2008; Merigaud et al.,
flow theory include AQUAPLUS (Delhommeau, 1993), WAMIT (Lee, 2012). Hydrodynamic analyses of VLFSs using weakly nonlinear models
1995), AQWA (Ansys, 2013), and NEMOH (Babarit and Delhommeau, have been carried out in numerous studies, for instance see Jiang et al.
2015) in the frequency domain, and ACHIL3D (Babarit, 2010) in the (2021a, 2022a), Chen et al. (2022b) and Jiang et al. (2023).
time domain.
5.3. Weak scatterer
5.2. Weakly nonlinear
The demand of nonlinear hydrodynamic analysis is rapidly increas-
As shown in Table 1, weakly nonlinear models are an extension of ing for more accurate prediction of motion responses in large amplitude
linear models, in which only nonlinear Froude–Krylov (FK) forces are waves. In the viewpoint of nonlinearity, hydrodynamic models are
considered. The FK force is the load generated by the unsteady pressure generally dependent on the considering two nonlinear sources: body-
field of the undisturbed waves. It consists of static and dynamic parts, geometry nonlinearity and free-surface nonlinearity. Specifically, the
with the static part representing the restoring force and the dynamic body-geometry nonlinearity includes the influences of hull form and
part representing the force of the incident wave. In contrast to linear the instantaneous wetted-surface profiles, which are considered within
models, which calculate FK forces over the mean wetted surface of the the weakly nonlinear models. The free-surface nonlinearity consists of
body, weakly nonlinear models integrate pressure over the instanta- the influences of incident waves and disturbed waves. The nonlinear
neous wetted surface to consider nonlinear FK forces. The static and incident waves can be considered using, for example, higher-order
dynamic FK forces are summed into the instantaneous FK force, while Stokes’s water waves (Toland, 1996) or Rienecker–Fenton’s theory (Rie-
other forces such as radiation or diffraction remain linear and are calcu- necker and Fenton, 1981). The weak-scatterer models are designed
lated separately. Linear FK force computation can be accurate for small to deal with the disturbed waves, in which the free-surface bound-
body motions or even large waves when only neglecting nonlinear dy- ary conditions are linearized not on the mean water level but on
namic FK forces (Zurkinden et al., 2014). While the nonlinear dynamics the instantaneous incident wave surface (Kim and Sclavounos, 2000).
FK forces become important when the relative motion between the Furthermore the body boundary condition is imposed on the exactly
floater and the free-surface is large enough, leading to overestimation wetted body surface. The address of disturbed waves generally requires
of the floater’s motion in linear models (Penalba Retes et al., 2015a). a meshing of free-surface, as demonstrated in Fig. 13. A weak-scatterer
Nonlinear FK effects are even significant for small and flat waves when model assumes the weak disturbance by a body. That is, the scattered
a geometric factor is considered for non-uniform cross-sections, while wave components are much smaller than the incident wave, and the

8
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

dominant component in total flow is the incoming flow. Within this 5.4.3. Fully nonlinear potential flow method
hypothesis, the body motion is not necessary to be small and only It is worth noting that the Navier–Stokes equations can be sim-
the disturbance by the body is assumed weak (Pawlowski, 1994). plified into the Euler equations, which exclude flow viscosity, or the
Weak-scatterer models have been widely applied for the prediction of Laplace and Bernoulli equations, which exclude flow viscosity and
resistance on ships (Kim and Kim, 2007; Söding et al., 2014) It must vorticity (el Moctar et al., 2021). When viscous flow effects, breaking
be noted that a weak-scatterer model takes much more computational waves, or other violent flow phenomena are not critical, fully non-
time than a weakly nonlinear approach, because computational grids linear potential flow (FNPF) methods based on Laplace and Bernoulli
and the boundary value problem should be newly set up on the exact equations may have similar capabilities in capturing the physics in-
body surface and incident wave surface at every time-step (Kim et al., volved as Navier–Stokes solvers while potentially being more accurate
2011). Hydrodynamic studies for wave–structure interactions using in handling wave propagation mechanisms and more computationally
such methods can be found in Shivaji Ganesan and Sen (2015), Feng efficient (Hanssen et al., 2023). Hydrodynamic analyses based on FNPF
et al. (2016) and Watai et al. (2016). methods can be found in Trulsen and Teigen (2002), Bai and Taylor
(2009), Dombre et al. (2015) and Bruinsma (2016). Although potential
5.4. Fully nonlinear theory preserves energy, it cannot account for viscous effects. Navier–
Stokes equations consider the complete physics but are computationally
expensive and numerically dissipative over the long term. Hence, it
Fully nonlinear models are capable of considering all effects of the
is beneficial to hybridize both models such that Navier–Stokes is ap-
wave and wave–structure interaction, including viscous-flow effects.
plied in the vicinity of the structure, with the far-field handled using
These models solve the Navier–Stokes equations to determine fluid
potential theory. For more information on using hybrid methods in
flow, which are commonly known as computational fluid dynamics
hydrodynamic-related problems, see Janssen et al. (2010), Mehmood
(CFD) methods. CFD methods can be classified as either Eulerian or La-
et al. (2015) and Saincher and Sriram (2022).
grangian methods (Ferziger et al., 2002). The main difference between
the two formulations is the way the time derivative is described. The
6. Hydroelasticity
Lagrangian frame uses the total or material time derivative, whereas
the Eulerian formulation requires the spatial or partial derivative.
Conventionally, the designs of offshore structure are based on a
rigid quasi-static analysis, meaning that the hydrodynamic loads are
5.4.1. Lagrangian method
estimated under rigid assumption and then applied to the elastic struc-
In a Lagrangian method, particles are used to discretize the fluid
ture regardless of structural inertia. Since the dimensions of an VLFS
domain, and they can move around freely in space. Therefore, these
are much larger than its thickness in terms of length and width, its
methods are also called particle-based methods, and they can be bending stiffness is relatively small. Its hydroelasticity, comprising the
roughly classified into two types: probabilistic models and deterministic rigid body motions and deformations of the floating body in response
models (Oñate and Owen, 2011). The probabilistic models include to environmental excitations, must be considered. The hydroelastic
molecular dynamics, direct simulation Monte Carlo, and lattice gas analysis is of significant importance, as it plays a vital role in ensuring
automata procedures, among others. The deterministic models con- the structural integrity, performance optimization, dynamic response
sist of the particle-and-force method, smoothed particle hydrodynam- analysis, risk assessment, and environmental sustainability of VLFSs.
ics (SPH), particle-in-cell method (PIC), moving-particle semi-implicit The hydroelastic analysis of an VLFS involves two major components:
method (MPS), material point method (MPM), particle finite element fluid dynamics and structural dynamics. As a result, a hydroelastic anal-
method (PFEM), and discrete element method (DEM), among oth- ysis requires the development of coupled models that account for both
ers (Idelsohn et al., 2018). Particle methods have several attractive the fluid and structure behavior. In the preceding section, we covered
features, including the ability to treat pure advection exactly, They the fluid dynamics involved in solving VLFS hydrodynamics, which will
are especially well suited to deal with flows that are influenced by only be briefly mentioned here. This section will instead concentrate on
heavy deformations, like a breaking wave at the beach. They can also summarizing the numerical methods for solving structural dynamics.
easily treat multiphase flows, as the moving interface between different The study of hydroelasticity for VLFS involves solving two types
phases is tracked inherently (Liu et al., 2013). However, they are of structural problems: global deformation and local deformation. The
typically less efficient than comparable mesh-based approaches. Several former addresses the deformation problem of VLFS at large scales,
reviews on the application of particle methods in hydrodynamics- and to simplify the calculation, the VLFS is often modeled as a two-
related problems are available in the literature (Monaghan, 1985, 1992; dimensional (2D) beam or a three-dimensional (3D) thin plate. Com-
Gotoh and Khayyer, 2018; Luo et al., 2021). mon 2D beam theories include the Euler beam theory (Newman, 2005)
and the Timoshenko beam theory (Papathanasiou and Belibassakis,
5.4.2. Eulerian method 2014), while the most common 3D plate theories are the Mindlin plate
Most Eulerian methods, on the other hand, utilize a mesh to de- theory (Watanabe et al., 2006) and the Kirchhoff plate theory (Ky-
scribe the fluid domain, and they also called mesh-based methods. Sev- oung et al., 2005b). On the other hand, local deformation involves
eral discretization approaches have been used in hydrodynamic anal- nonlinear geometric factors, such as the geometric surface nonlinearity
ysis for offshore structures: for instance, the finite difference method of the structure and material nonlinearity, which may lead to plastic
(FDM) (Miyata, 1986; Bingham and Zhang, 2007), the finite volume deformation beyond the elastic limit. As such, simplified structural
method (FVM) (Benitz et al., 2015; Ransley et al., 2017), the finite model theories may not suffice, and complex structures are often solved
element method (FEM) (Lee and Leonard, 1988; Kagemoto and Yue, using the FEM. The FEM provides more accurate calculations of stresses
1993), and the Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) (Guo and Shu, 2013; and deformations (Watanabe et al., 1998). The applications of these
Mohd et al., 2015). These methods have been shown to be effective approaches to solving the structural dynamics of VLFS are discussed in
in addressing the hydrodynamics of single offshore structures. For detail below.
the hydrodynamic analysis of multibody systems, mesh-based methods
have also been applied, as demonstrated in Seithe and el Moctar (2019), 6.1. Beam theory
Jiang (2021), Jiang and el Moctar (2022), Jiang et al. (2022c) and Jiang
et al. (2022d), where wave-induced motions and loads on articulated Beams are structural elements designed to withstand transverse
multibody offshore platforms were numerically analyzed. loads by developing bending stresses. Several important theories have

9
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

been proposed by researchers for the study of beams, including the el- 7. Fluid–structure coupling approach
ementary Euler–Bernoulli beam theory (Ghugal and Shimpi, 2001), the
first-order Timoshenko beam theory (Timoshenko, 1921), and higher-
A wide range of numerical methods have been developed to solve
order shear deformation beam theories, such as Levinson beam the-
fluid–structure interaction (FSI) problems, which involves various cou-
ory (Levinson, 1981) and Reddy beam theory (Heyliger and Reddy,
pling approaches between the solutions of fluid dynamics and struc-
1988). Euler–Bernoulli beam theory has been widely used in the anal-
ysis of hydroelastic problems, including VLFS, as it is an elemen- tural dynamics. Currently, there are two standard computational meth-
tary theory (Datta et al., 2009; Faria and Inman, 2014). However, ods used to solve the hydroelastic response of floating bodies: the
the first-order (Timoshenko) and higher-order (Levinson and Reddy) frequency-domain methods and the time-domain methods.
shear deformation beam theories have been developed to overcome
the limitations of the elementary theory. A considerable amount of
7.1. Frequency-domain approach
research has been conducted on hydroelastic analysis of VLFS using
these beam theories. They have been coupled with linear (Riggs and
Ertekin, 1993; Wang et al., 2001; Amouzadrad et al., 2023), weakly In the frequency-domain methods, structural solvers are generally
nonlinear (Wei et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022a), weak- coupled solved with linear hydrodynamic models, which includes the
scatterer (Ding et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2019; Leroy et al., 2021), and modal-analysis method and the direct-calculation method.
fully nonlinear (el Moctar et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2022; Söding, 2023)
hydrodynamic models.
7.1.1. Modal-superposition method
6.2. Plate theory The modal-superposition method involves dividing the problem into
different modes of diffraction and radiation by transferring the problem
Plates, like beams, are structural elements designed to withstand into the modal domain, including three steps: determining the vibration
transverse loads by developing bending stresses. Plates can be consid- mode of the structure, calculating its hydrodynamic force under each
ered as two-dimensional (2D) elements, as their in-plane dimensions mode, and jointly solving the equations of motion of the structure
are much larger than their thickness. The elementary theory for plate
to obtain the nodal displacement by modal superposition. To use the
analysis is the Kirchhoff–Love theory, also known as classical plate
modal-superposition method, the structure’s vibration mode needs to
theory (Ghugal and Shimpi, 2002). Refined plate theories that consider
be determined first. Two commonly used methods for this are the
shear deformations include the first-order shear deformation Mindlin
plate theory (Mindlin, 1951) and new first-order shear deformation dry-mode method and the wet-mode method. The former is the free
theory (Shimpi et al., 2007), as well as higher-order shear deformation vibration mode of the structure in vacuo, i.e., in the absence of any
theories such as Levinson plate theory (Levinson, 1980), Reddy plate damping effects, for mass and inertia properties corresponding to a
theory (Reddy, 1984), and Refined plate theory (Shimpi, 2002). A large typical load case. It is widely used due to its matrix orthogonality
number of research articles on hydroelastic analysis of VLFS have been and high computational efficiency (Senjanovi! et al., 2008; Ding et al.,
published based on classical and refined plate theories (Yan et al., 2003; 2019a). In contrast, the latter is able to consider the influence of the
Lee and Choi, 2003; Qiu and Liu, 2005; Kyoung et al., 2005a; Kim surrounding fluid on the vibration shape and frequency of the structure,
et al., 2005; Gao et al., 2011, 2013; Karperaki and Belibassakis, 2021). which more closely approximates the actual vibration frequency of the
These plate theories have been coupled with linear (Zheng et al., 2020a; structure. Notably, the wet-modal method requires the calculation of
Michele et al., 2023), weakly nonlinear (He and Kashiwagi, 2012; additional mass and damping matrices of the fluid, leading to increased
Kara and Vassalos, 2007), weak-scatterer (Kim et al., 2013a; Chen computational cost (Ding et al., 2020). One limitation of using the
et al., 2019), and fully nonlinear (Hartmann et al., 2022) hydrodynamic
modal-superposition method is the absence of established guidelines for
models.
truncating the infinite series of free oscillation modes. Some of the high-
6.3. Finite element method frequency modes may be required to accurately capture local stress
concentrations (Cheung et al., 1998).
To consider the nonlinear effects related to geometric factors, such
as complex geometry shapes and local deformations, 3D finite-element
7.1.2. Direct-coupling method
(FE) models are preferred over simplified beam and plate theories. Due
Although the modal-analysis method has traditionally been the
to the ability to consider the structural dynamics of arbitrary-shaped
platforms, 3D FE models are coupled to various hydrodynamic models primary approach for hydroelastic analysis of marine vessels and struc-
for analyzing irregularly shaped VLFSs. In terms of coupled analysis tures, the direct-coupling approach in the frequency domain is also
with linear hydrodynamic models, continuum mechanics-based FEM commonly used in the hydroelastic response analysis of VLFSs. This
has been employed by Kim et al. (2013b) to model floating structures is particularly useful when the structure does not have a definitive
with arbitrary geometries, accounting for the geometric nonlinearities shape or free vibration modes in vacuo (Das and Cheung, 2012).
and initial stress effects that result from hydrostatic analysis, while The direct-coupling method involves decomposing the hydrodynamic
BEM was used for the fluid via total potential formulation. Similar force into excitation force, radiation force, and hydrostatic recovery
works related to the hydroelasticity of VLFS that coupled 3D FE models force. It then finds the relationship matrix between nodal displacement
with linear hydrodynamic models can also be found in Hamamoto and the three kinds of loads, substitutes it into the linear equation
et al. (1996) and Chen et al. (2023). Regarding the coupling between system of discrete nodal displacement, and finally obtains the nodal
structural 3D FE models with weakly nonlinear hydrodynamic models,
displacement of the elastic structure. Numerous studies have used the
examples can be found in Malenica (2003) and Tuitman and Malenica
direct-coupling approach for hydroelastic analysis, including Kim et al.
(2009). For the coupling of structural FE models with weak-scatterer
(2013b), Senjanovi! et al. (2014a,b) and Ding et al. (2019b). Overall,
hydrodynamics models, demonstrations can be found in Kim and Kim
(2017) and Chen et al. (2019). To consider the hydroelastic effects both the modal-superposition and the direct-coupling methods are used
of VLFS subjected to extremely large steep waves or other strong to study the hydroelastic response of VLFSs by obtaining the wave
nonlinearities, fully nonlinear hydrodynamic models must be adopted. loads. In the former, the critical point is the selection of the modal
Several examples using coupled 3D FE models with fully nonlinear hy- order and the vibration function, whereas in the latter, further analysis
drodynamic models can be found in Lakshmynarayanana et al. (2015a), is needed to deal with pressure distribution, water wave diffraction,
Jiang et al. (2022b) and Gu et al. (2023). and other factors.

10
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Fig. 14. Classification of the fluid–structure interaction methods in the time domain: (a) monolithic coupling, (b) implicit coupling, and (c) explicit coupling.

7.2. Time-domain approach 7.2.2. Partitioned approach

The partitioned approach treats the fluid and structure as two
The frequency-domain hydroelastic calculations are limited to an- computational fields that can be solved separately using their respective
alyzing only the steady-state process, thus time-domain calculation mesh discretization and numerical algorithm. This approach takes ad-
methods are necessary to study transient phenomena and nonlinear ef- vantage of validated and legacy codes for solving complicated fluid or
fects. In general, the time-domain hydroelastic analysis can be divided structural problems, reducing code development time. However, coor-
into the Fourier-transform method and the direct-time-integration dinating the disciplinary algorithms to achieve an accurate and efficient
method. The Fourier-transform method combines the Cummins for- fluid–structure interaction solution can be challenging, especially when
mula (Cummins, 1962) with the modal-superposition method. It begins the interface location dividing the fluid and the structure domains
by obtaining the frequency-domain solution of the fluid, which is then changes with time. This approach requires tracking the new interface
Fourier transformed and substituted into the differential equations of location and related quantities, which can be cumbersome and error-
motion of the elastic structure. Finally, appropriate methods are used prone. Comparison studies between the monolithic and partitioned
to solve the equations directly in the time domain (Ohmatsu, 1998; approaches have been conducted to evaluate their performance and
Kashiwagi, 2000b). Several time-domain hydroelastic analyses of VLFSs applicability to different FSI problems (Michler et al., 2003; Degroote
have been carried out using this approach, based on weakly-nonlinear et al., 2009).
and weak-scatterer hydrodynamic models (Wei et al., 2018; Zhang The partitioned approach can be defined as either implicit or ex-
et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2022a). plicit, depending on the scheme construction. In implicit coupling, the
In terms of the direct-time-integration method, the structural solvers solver performs many iterations until the solution for a time step has
are mostly coupled solved with nonlinear hydrodynamic models, and converged or another termination criteria has been reached. This allows
they can be broadly classified into two approaches based on numerical strongly coupled problems to be simulated over long periods. While
procedures: the monolithic approach and the partitioned approach. implicit partitioned methods have advantages such as error control,
inherent coupling mechanism and robustness, these iterations may
Fig. 14 gives a classification of the fluid–structure interaction methods
converge slowly or diverge if the interaction between the fluid and
in the time domain.
the structure is strong due to a high fluid–structure density ratio or an
incompressible fluid (Causin et al., 2005; Degroote et al., 2008). These
7.2.1. Monolithic approach
methods are often complex and computationally expensive due to the
The monolithic approach is a method that solves the fluid and
required subiterations, although some acceleration schemes can be used
structure dynamics in the same mathematical framework, forming a to speed up their convergence (Küttler and Wall, 2008). Applications
single system equation for the entire problem that is solved simulta- of implicit coupling approaches for hydroelastic analysis can be found
neously by a unified algorithm (Hübner et al., 2004; Michler et al., in Paik et al. (2009), Seng (2012), Ley and el Moctar (2014), Lakshmy-
2004; Ryzhakov et al., 2010). The advantage of this approach is that narayanana et al. (2015b), Dhavalikar et al. (2015), Sun et al. (2021)
it treats the fluid–structure interaction problem as a single contin- and Liu et al. (2022a).
uum with the coupling automatically taken care of as an internal The explicit coupling method, on the other hand, performs only a
interface, avoiding the instability issues within partitioned methods. single iteration per time step, where the fluid solution is computed
However, the difficulty with this method is the conceptual under- using the structural displacement of the previous time step, and the
standing of using a single set of equations to describe both fluid and resulting fluid solution determines the loading on the structure for
solid and the choice of appropriate boundary conditions, especially the current time step. However, this method does not enforce equi-
when dealing with mixed-dimensional problems that present additional librium conditions on the fluid–structure interface within each time
challenges (Daversin-Catty et al., 2021). Detailed information on the step, making it only suitable for weak FSI problems such as aeroelastic
discretization and solution procedures for the monolithic approach simulations (Farhat et al., 2006; Van Zuijlen et al., 2007). Although
can be found in Hron and Turek (2006) and Razzaq et al. (2010). it usually requires less computation time, strongly coupled problems
Applications of monolithic approaches to general FSI problems can be are often not solved with sufficient accuracy, and very small time steps
found in Giannopapa (2006) and Giannopapa and Papadakis (2008), have to be chosen. It is important to note that, the stable behavior of
while studies using monolithic approaches for hydroelastic analysis of an explicit method is somethings not guaranteed due to an added-mass
VLFSs can be found in Servan-Camas et al. (2021) and Colomes et al. effect (Causin et al., 2005). Additionally, selecting a smaller time step
(2023). does not resolve this problem in the case of incompressible fluids (van
Formulating a fully coupled set of governing equations through Brummelen, 2009). Applications of the explicit coupling method for
variable elimination within a monolithic approach is a challenging task. hydroelastic analysis can be found in Farhat et al. (2006), De Rosis
This may not always be possible due to the complexity involved in the et al. (2014), Zhang et al. (2019a), Zheng et al. (2020b) and Ren et al.
governing equations of both fluid and structural domains (Hou et al., (2023).
2012). The fully coupled system involves field variables from very
different domains, which can result in a numerically ill-conditioned sys- 8. Concluding remarks
tem of equations (Collette and Sielski, 2017). Even if such a formulation
is possible, creating a new suite of computer programs from scratch can This paper presents a comprehensive review of the latest advance-
be time-consuming. ments and developments in the key technologies required for VFLSs.

11
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

It starts by providing a classification of VLFSs based on their shape • Due to the large dimensions of a VLFS, its hydroelasticity, com-
and functionality. The connection systems, which comprise rigid and prising the rigid body motions and deformations of the structure
flexible connectors, are then defined. It then discusses mooring systems, in response to environmental excitations, must be considered.
including the single mooring and hybrid mooring concepts. The focus Structural dynamics involve two significant components: global
of the study then shifts to the numerical methods used for hydro- deformation and local deformation. The global deformation can
dynamic analysis, with various hydrodynamic models with different be modeled using beam or plate theories, typically coupled with
levels of linearization being addressed. The subsequent section con- linear or weakly nonlinear hydrodynamic models. Most hydrody-
centrates on the mathematical models used for hydroelastic analysis, namic analyses fall under this category. For irregular shapes and
which include simplified beam theories, plate theories, as well as local deformation, which involve nonlinear geometric and some-
nonlinear 3D FE models. It ends with a comprehensive review of fluid– times material factors, 3D FE models are required. Hydroelastic
structure coupling approaches. This study highlights the following key analyses using the coupled CFD-FEM approach have been gaining
takeaways: increasing interest, but they are still in the development phase.
• Fluid–structure coupling can occur in either the frequency or time
• Pontoon-type VLFS has a simple structure, low cost, short con- domains. Modal-superposition methods coupled with potential-
struction time, and easy maintenance but has disadvantages such flow models are predominantly used in the frequency domain
as small bending stiffness and poor hydrodynamic performance. for linear problems. However, for strong nonlinear FSI problems,
Semi-submersible VLFS generally exhibits better hydrodynamic the direct-time-integration method is required, which includes the
performance than pontoon-type structures, especially in harsh monolithic approach and the partitioned approach. Partitioned
sea conditions, but is more complex, resulting in increased con- coupling methods are mainly used in hydroelastic analysis due to
struction cost and time. New shapes have been designed, such the availability of validated and legacy codes for solving complex
as ring-shaped and delta-type artificial harbors. In terms of their fluid and structural problems. However, these approaches are
functionalities, although VLFSs have been used for various pur- generally less robust than baseline fluid and structural modeling
poses, the future trend is towards hybrid use of VLFSs for multiple techniques. They involve complicated mathematical models and
functions. techniques that are challenging for practicing engineers, which
• Connectors serve two purposes: connecting adjacent modules and need to be further developed and simplified.
restricting their relative motion. Rigid connectors and flexible
connectors are two categories of connectors based on the num- 9. Special topics
ber of degrees of freedom they restrict. Rigid connectors have
been gradually abandoned in subsequent studies due to their Apart from the topics explicitly covered above, there are addi-
inefficiency in rough sea conditions, while flexible connectors tional topics related to the development of VLFS that need to be
have been designed to address the limitations of rigid connectors. explored. Firstly, the establishment of appropriate regulatory frame-
Articulated connectors, spring connectors, cable connectors, and works, guidelines, and design standards is essential to ensure the safe
vertical-free connectors are some of the standard flexible con- and sustainable deployment of VLFS. This includes considering factors
nection systems. Linear hydrodynamic models are currently the such as safety, environmental impact, and social acceptance (Flikkema
dominant method for modeling connection systems, with connect- et al., 2021; Tamis et al., 2021; Drummen and Olbert, 2021). Further-
ing joints typically treated as independent six degrees-of-freedom more, investigating the structural integrity and safety of VLFS is crucial.
linear springs or as a discretized stiffness matrix. However, further This involves studying the effects of extreme weather conditions, wave
research is needed to develop coupled numerical methods for loads, fatigue, and long-term structural performance (May et al., 2008;
nonlinear connection systems and hydrodynamic models, as well Low, 2016; Moan, 2018; Wang et al., 2018).
as to better understand the fatigue behavior of connector systems. To enhance the design of VLFS, it is important to explore advanced
• The choice of mooring method depends on various factors such as optimization techniques and algorithms that consider factors like struc-
water depth, length of the mooring line, and seabed conditions. tural performance, hydrodynamic efficiency, energy efficiency, and
Hybrid moorings are generally preferred over a single mooring cost-effectiveness (Murai et al., 2006; Pham and Wang, 2010; Levi
concept due to weight considerations, while piles may be ad- et al., 2019). The development of new materials and construction
vantageous in very shallow water depths. Mooring systems pose techniques that enhance the strength, durability, and cost-effectiveness
significant challenges in deep waters, making them a bottleneck of VLFS is also worth studying. Factors such as corrosion resistance
for ocean space utilization and resource exploitation. Future re- and maintenance requirements should be considered (Klinge, 2009;
search should focus on coupled analysis of mooring dynamics Momber, 2011; Singh, 2014). Comprehensive case studies and field
with nonlinear hydrodynamic models, with a particular emphasis measurements on existing VLFS projects are necessary to validate nu-
on mooring-induced damping and low-frequency motions. New merical models, verify design assumptions, and improve our under-
mooring systems for VLFSs should be developed, with physical standing of their behavior in real-world conditions (Tateyama, 1999;
parameters tailored to the specific characteristics of each floating Michailides et al., 2013; Tseranidis et al., 2016; Panapakidis et al.,
concept. 2017).
• Accurately predicting hydrodynamics is crucial when designing a Last but not least, further advancements in modeling techniques
VLFS, which requires a precise understanding of various hydro- are needed to accurately predict the hydrodynamic behavior and hy-
dynamic models. There are two primary approaches: potential- droelastic responses of VLFSs under various environmental conditions.
flow theory, which solves the Laplace equation, and viscous-flow While VLFSs have been extensively studied for flat bottoms, it is
theory, which solves the Navier–Stokes equations. To achieve crucial to consider the sea-bottom topographical effect when VLFSs
this, state-of-the-art numerical tools in hydrodynamics are clas- are constructed near the shore (Shiraishi et al., 2003; Kyoung et al.,
sified into frequency-domain methods and time-domain methods. 2005b; Wei et al., 2018). In addition, most hydrodynamics studies
While frequency-domain methods provide dimensionless results primarily focus on wave-induced motions and loads on VLFSs under
of the structure’s response, they cannot account for nonlinear surface waves. However, there is a need for exploration regarding the
wave and structure characteristics, transient response of the sys- interaction of VLFSs with internal waves, particularly large internal
tem, or other strong nonlinearities. Time-domain analysis can solitary waves (Kakinuma, 2001, 2003; Kakinuma et al., 2012; Kak-
address these issues, and there has been a significant increase inuma and Ochi, 2020; Mohapatra et al., 2022). Understanding the
in time-domain analyses, which have replaced frequency-domain effects and dynamics of VLFSs in the presence of such internal waves
analyses to some extent. is an important research area that requires further investigation.

12
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Declaration of competing interest Chen, Z., Yu, C., Dong, P., 2019. Rankine source method analysis for nonlinear
hydroelastic responses of a container ship in regular oblique waves. Ocean Eng.
187, 106168.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- Chen, Y., Zhang, X., Liu, L., Tian, X., Li, X., Cheng, Z., 2023. A discrete-module-finite-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to element hydroelasticity method in analyzing dynamic response of floating flexible
influence the work reported in this paper. structures. J. Fluids Struct. 117, 103825.
Cheng, Y., Xi, C., Dai, S., Ji, C., Collu, M., Li, M., Yuan, Z., Incecik, A., 2022.
Wave energy extraction and hydroelastic response reduction of modular floating
Data availability breakwaters as array wave energy converters integrated into a very large floating
structure. Appl. Energy 306, 117953.
No data was used for the research described in the article. Cheung, K.F., Seidl, L.H., Wang, S., 1998. Analysis of SWATH ship structures. Mar.
Technol. SNAME News 35 (02), 85–97.
Cho, K.-N., 2006. A study on the design of dolphin system for VLFS. J. Comput. Struct.
Acknowledgments Eng. Inst. Korea 19 (1), 105–111.
Collet, P., Vaucquelin, N., Bury, A., 2014. Floating concrete barge assessment and in-
The authors also acknowledge the German Research Foundation spection plan: N’KOSSA case study, a large pre-stressed concrete floating production
unit in operation in Congo. In: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
(DFG: 448471847) and the National Natural Science Foundation of and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 45431. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
China (NSFC: 52061135107). V04BT02A017.
Collette, M., Sielski, R., 2017. Fluid Structure Interaction: A Community View. Technical
Funding Report, University of Michigan.
Colomes, O., Verdugo, F., Akkerman, I., 2023. A monolithic finite element formulation
for the hydroelastic analysis of very large floating structures. Internat. J. Numer.
This work is also supported by the Fundamental Research Funds Methods Engrg. 124 (3), 714–751.
for Zhejiang Provincial Universities and Research Institutes (Grant No. Crema, I., 2018. Oscillating Water Column Wave Energy Converters Integrated in Very
Large Floating Structures (Ph.D. thesis). Technische Universität Braunschweig.
2021JZ009), State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering (Shanghai Jiao
Cummins, W., 1962. The Impulse Response Function and Ship Motions. Technical
Tong University) (Grant No. GKZD010081), and the National Nature Report, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington DC.
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52171279). Dai, J., Ang, K.K., Jin, J., Wang, C.M., Hellan, Ø., Watn, A., 2019. Large floating
structure with free-floating, self-stabilizing tanks for hydrocarbon storage. Energies
12 (18), 3487.
References
Das, S., Cheung, K.F., 2012. Hydroelasticity of marine vessels advancing in a seaway.
J. Fluids Struct. 34, 271–290.
Al-Solihat, M.K., Nahon, M., 2016. Stiffness of slack and taut moorings. Ships Offshore Datta, N., Kim, D.-H., Troesch, A.W., 2009. Hydrodynamic impact-induced vibration
Struct. 11 (8), 890–904. characteristics of a uniform Euler-Bernoulli beam. In: Vibro-Impact Dynamics of
Amouzadrad, P., Mohapatra, S., Soares, C.G., 2023. Hydroelastic response of a moored Ocean Systems and Related Problems. Springer, pp. 53–66.
floating flexible offshore structure based on Timoshenko-Mindlin-Beam theory. In: Daversin-Catty, C., Richardson, C.N., Ellingsrud, A.J., Rognes, M.E., 2021. Abstractions
Trends in Renewable Energies Offshore. CRC Press, pp. 879–887. and automated algorithms for mixed domain finite element methods. ACM Trans.
Andrianov, A., 2005. Hydroelastic Analysis of Very Large Floating Structures (Doctorale Math. Softw. 47 (4), 1–36.
thesis). Delft University of Technology. Davies, P., François, M., Grosjean, F., Baron, P., Salomon, K., Trassoudaine, D.,
Ansys, A., 2013. AQWA Theory Manual. AQWA, Canonsburg, PA, USA. 2002. Synthetic mooring lines for depths to 3000 meters. In: Offshore Technology
Babarit, A., 2010. Achil3D v2. 011 User Mnual. Laboratoire de Mécanique Des Fluides Conference. OnePetro, pp. OTC–14246–MS.
CNRS, Ecole Central de Nantes. De Rosis, A., Falcucci, G., Porfiri, M., Ubertini, F., Ubertini, S., 2014. Hydroelastic
Babarit, A., Delhommeau, G., 2015. Theoretical and numerical aspects of the open analysis of hull slamming coupling lattice Boltzmann and finite element methods.
source BEM solver NEMOH. In: 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference Comput. Struct. 138, 24–35.
(EWTEC2015). pp. 0–14. Degroote, J., Bathe, K.-J., Vierendeels, J., 2009. Performance of a new partitioned
Babarit, A., Mouslim, H., Cle´ment, A., Laporte-Weywada, P., 2009. On the numerical procedure versus a monolithic procedure in fluid–structure interaction. Comput.
modelling of the non linear behaviour of a wave energy converter. In: Interna- Struct. 87 (11–12), 793–801.
tional Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 43444. pp. Degroote, J., Bruggeman, P., Haelterman, R., Vierendeels, J., 2008. Stability of a
1045–1053. coupling technique for partitioned solvers in FSI applications. Comput. Struct. 86
Bai, W., Taylor, R.E., 2009. Fully nonlinear simulation of wave interaction with fixed (23–24), 2224–2234.
and floating flared structures. Ocean Eng. 36 (3–4), 223–236. Delhommeau, G., 1993. Seakeeping codes aquadyn and aquaplus. In: 19th WEGMENT
Ballman, K., 1998. Nonlinear system techniques and applications. Amer. Math. Monthly School, Numerical Simulation of Hydrodynamics: Ship and Offshore Structures.
105 (7), 692. Derstine, M.S., Brown, R.T., 2000. A compliant connector concept for the mobile
Bargeco, A., 1985. Securing of marine platforms in rough sea. Recent Pat. Eng. 104. offshore base. Mar. Struct. 13 (4–5), 399–419.
Dhavalikar, S., Awasare, S., Joga, R., Kar, A., 2015. Whipping response analysis by one
Benitz, M.A., Lackner, M., Schmidt, D., 2015. Hydrodynamics of offshore structures
way fluid structure interaction—A case study. Ocean Eng. 103, 10–20.
with specific focus on wind energy applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44,
Ding, J., Tian, C., Wu, Y.-s., Li, Z.-w., Ling, H.-j., Ma, X.-z., 2017. Hydroelastic analysis
692–716.
and model tests of a single module VLFS deployed near islands and reefs. Ocean
Bingham, H.B., Zhang, H., 2007. On the accuracy of finite-difference solutions for
Eng. 144, 224–234.
nonlinear water waves. J. Eng. Math. 58 (1), 211–228.
Ding, J., Tian, C., Wu, Y.-s., Wang, X.-f., Liu, X.-l., Zhang, K., 2019a. A simplified
Boldbaatar, T., Yoon, D.-G., 2013. A study on the connector of floating platform based
method to estimate the hydroelastic responses of VLFS in the inhomogeneous
on concrete structures. J. Korean Soc. Mar. Environ. Saf. 19 (1), 37–44.
waves. Ocean Eng. 172, 434–445.
Breuls, M., Blumer, S., Iacob, N., Blümel, B., 2019. Detailed Design - Deliverable 4.4.
Ding, J., Wu, Y.-s., Zhou, Y., Li, Z.-w., Tian, C., Wang, X.-f., Zhang, Z.-w., Liu, X.-l.,
Technical Report, Mocean Offshore.
2019b. A direct coupling analysis method of hydroelastic responses of VLFS in
Bruinsma, N., 2016. Validation and Application of a Fully Nonlinear Numerical Wave complicated ocean geographical environment. J. Hydrodyn. 31 (3), 582–593.
Tank (Master’s thesis). TU Delft. Ding, J., Xie, Z., Wu, Y., Xu, S., Qiu, G., Wang, Y., Wang, Q., 2020. Numerical and
van Brummelen, E.H., 2009. Added mass effects of compressible and incompressible experimental investigation on hydroelastic responses of an 8-module VLFS near a
flows in fluid-structure interaction. J. Appl. Mech.. typical island. Ocean Eng. 214, 107841.
Bull, D., Jacob, P., 2012. Methodology for creating nonaxisymmetric WECs to screen Dombre, E., Benoit, M., Violeau, D., Peyrard, C., Grilli, S., 2015. Simulation of floating
mooring designs using a Morison Equation approach. In: 2012 Oceans. IEEE, pp. structure dynamics in waves by implicit coupling of a fully non-linear potential flow
1–9. model and a rigid body motion approach. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy 1, 55–76.
Causin, P., Gerbeau, J.-F., Nobile, F., 2005. Added-mass effect in the design of Drimer, N., Gafter, R., 2018. Delta-type VLFS–hydrodynamic aspects. Ships Offshore
partitioned algorithms for fluid–structure problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Struct. 13 (4), 352–365.
Engrg. 194 (42–44), 4506–4527. Drummen, I., Olbert, G., 2021. Conceptual design of a modular floating multi-purpose
Chen, Z., Cong, P., Gui, H., 2022b. A simplified method for nonlinear hydroelastic island. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 615222.
responses of a truss-type VLFS in oblique seas based on orthotropic plate model. Duffy, T., 2004. MDA lays out plans for tests from new sea-based launch platform.
Ships Offshore Struct. 17 (4), 757–771. Inside Missile Def. 10 (10), 1–6.
Chen, D., Feng, X., Hou, C., Chen, J.-F., 2022a. A coupled frequency and time domain Farhat, C., Van der Zee, K.G., Geuzaine, P., 2006. Provably second-order time-
approach for hydroelastic analysis of very large floating structures under focused accurate loosely-coupled solution algorithms for transient nonlinear computational
wave groups. Ocean Eng. 255, 111393. aeroelasticity. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (17–18), 1973–2001.

13
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Faria, C.T., Inman, D.J., 2014. Modeling energy transport in a cantilevered Euler– Ikoma, T., Masuda, K., Watanabe, Y., Eto, H., Rheem, C.-k., Kinoshita, T., 2015. Power
Bernoulli beam actively vibrating in Newtonian fluid. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. generation potential of a VLFS equipped with OWC type WECs and damper effects
45 (2), 317–329. on elastic motion. In: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Feng, A., Bai, W., You, Y., Chen, Z.-M., Price, W., 2016. A Rankine source method Engineering, Vol. 56543. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V006T05A018.
solution of a finite depth, wave–body interaction problem. J. Fluids Struct. 62, ITTC, S., 2008. Final report and recommendation to the 25th ITTC. In: Proceedings of
14–32. the 25th ITTC. The Seakeeping Committee.
Feng, M.-w., Sun, Z.-c., Liang, S.-x., Li, Z., Lv, X., Jia, S.-l., Hu, X.-y., 2022. Experimental ITTC, 2017. Recommended procedures and guidelines. Verification and validation of
study of mooring type effect on the hydrodynamic characteristics of VLFS. China linear and weakly nonlinear seakeeping computer codes. In: International Towing
Ocean Eng. 36 (1), 155–166. Tank Conference. Lyngby, Denmark.
Ferziger, J.H., Peri!, M., Street, R.L., 2002. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Janssen, C.F., Krafczyk, M., Grilli, S., et al., 2010. Modeling of wave breaking
Vol. 3. Springer. andwave-structure interactions by coupling of fully nonlinear potential flow and
Flikkema, M.M., Lin, F.-Y., Van der Plank, P.P., Koning, J., Waals, O., 2021. Legal lattice-Boltzmann models. In: The Twentieth International Offshore and Polar
issues for artificial floating islands. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 619462. Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–10–160.
Fujikubo, M., Suzuki, H., 2015. Mega-float. In: Large Floating Structures: Technological Ji, C., Wang, X., Xu, S., Liu, X., Ding, A., 2018. A primary concept design of a novel po-
Advances. Springer, pp. 197–219. sitioning facility for the VLFS deployed in shallow water. In: The 28th International
Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–18–081.
Gao, R., Tay, Z., Wang, C., Koh, C., 2011. Hydroelastic response of very large floating
Jiang, C., 2021. Mathematical Modelling of Wave-Induced Motions and Loads on
structure with a flexible line connection. Ocean Eng. 38 (17–18), 1957–1966.
Moored Offshore Structures (Ph.D. thesis). University of Duisburg-Essen, http:
Gao, R., Wang, C., Koh, C., 2013. Reducing hydroelastic response of pontoon-type very
//dx.doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/75232.
large floating structures using flexible connector and gill cells. Eng. Struct. 52,
Jiang, C., El Moctar, O., Schellin, T.E., 2021a. Hydrodynamic sensitivity of moored and
372–383.
articulated multibody offshore structures in waves. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9 (9), 1028.
Gardner, E.C., 1965. Mechanical couplings for multi-section floatable assembly. US
Jiang, C., el Moctar, O., 2022. Extension of a coupled mooring–viscous flow solver
Patent 3, 221, 696.
to account for mooring–joint–multibody interaction in waves. J. Ocean Eng. Mar.
Ghugal, Y., Shimpi, R., 2001. A review of refined shear deformation theories for
Energy 1–19.
isotropic and anisotropic laminated beams. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 20 (3),
Jiang, C., el Moctar, O., Schellin, T.E., 2021b. Mooring-configurations induced decay
255–272.
motions of a buoy. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9 (3), 350.
Ghugal, Y., Shimpi, R., 2002. A review of refined shear deformation theories of isotropic Jiang, C., el Moctar, O., Schellin, T.E., 2022a. Capability of a potential-flow solver to
and anisotropic laminated plates. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 21 (9), 775–813. analyze articulated multibody offshore modules. Ocean Eng. 266, 112754.
Giannopapa, C.-G., 2006. Fluid Structure Interaction in Flexible Vessels (Ph.D. thesis). Jiang, C., el Moctar, O., Schellin, T.E., Qi, Y., 2022b. Numerical investigation of
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. hydroelastic effects on floating structures. In: WCFS2020: Proceedings of the Second
Giannopapa, C., Papadakis, G., 2008. Linear stability analysis and application of World Conference on Floating Solutions, Rotterdam. Springer, pp. 309–330.
a new solution method of the elastodynamic equations suitable for a unified Jiang, C., el Moctar, O., Zhang, G., 2023. Seakeeping criteria of a moored and
fluid-structure-interaction approach. J. Press. Vessel Technol. 130 (3). articulated multibody floating platform in head seas. Front. Mar. Sci..
Gilloteaux, J.-C., Bacelli, G., Ringwood, J., 2008. A non-linear potential model to predict Jiang, C., el Moctar, O., Zhang, G., Schellin, T.E., 2022c. Simulation of a moored multi-
large-amplitudes-motions: application to a multi-body wave energy converter. In: body offshore structure articulated by different joints in waves. In: International
Proceedings of the 10th World Renewable Energy Congress - WREC X. WREC, pp. Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 85901. American
934–939. Society of Mechanical Engineers, V05BT12A003.
Girard, A.R., Empey, D.M., Spry, S.C., Hedrick, K.J., 2002. Lessons learned from the Jiang, D., Tan, K.H., Wang, C.M., Dai, J., 2021c. Research and development in
mobile offshore base project. IFAC Proc. Vol. 35 (2), 581–586. connector systems for very large floating structures. Ocean Eng. 232, 109150.
Gotoh, H., Khayyer, A., 2018. On the state-of-the-art of particle methods for coastal Jiang, D., Tan, K.H., Wang, C.M., Ong, K.C.G., Bra, H., Jin, J., Kim, M.O., 2018. Analysis
and ocean engineering. Coast. Eng. J. 60 (1), 79–103. and design of floating prestressed concrete structures in shallow waters. Mar. Struct.
Gu, N., Liang, D., Zhou, X., Ren, H., 2023. A CFD-FEA method for hydroelastic analysis 59, 301–320.
of floating structures. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 11 (4), 737. Jiang, C., Xu, P., el Moctar, O., Zhang, G., 2022d. Analysis of a moored and articulated
Guo, Z., Shu, C., 2013. Lattice Boltzmann Method and Its Application in Engineering, multibody offshore system in steep waves. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 1–22.
Vol. 3. World Scientific. Jung, K., Lee, S., Kim, H., Choi, Y., Kang, S., 2020. Design and construction of the
Halim Saleh, A., 2010. Mega Floating Concrete Bridges (Master’s thesis). TU Delft. floating concrete pier in golden harbor, Incheon. In: WCFS2019: Proceedings of
Hamamoto, T., Hayashi, T., Fujita, K.-i., 1996. 3D BEM-FEM coupled hydroelastic the World Conference on Floating Solutions. Springer, pp. 283–297.
analysis of irregular shaped, module linked large floating structures. In: The Kagemoto, H., Yue, D.K., 1993. Hydrodynamic interaction analyses of very large
Sixth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. floating structures. Mar. Struct. 6 (2–3), 295–322.
ISOPE–I–96–052. Kakinuma, T., 2001. A nonlinear numerical model for the interaction of surface and
Han, H.L., 2007. A novel 6DOF rigid connector for large floating platforms. In: internal waves with very large floating or submerged flexible platforms. WIT Trans.
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. Built Environ. 56.
42711. pp. 17–26. Kakinuma, T., 2003. Nonlinear interaction of surface and internal waves with very
Haney, J., 1999. Mob connector development. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International large floating or submerged structures. In: Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the
Workshop on Very Large Floating Structures. pp. P1999–5–2. Ocean, Vol. 19. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 583–588.
Kakinuma, T., Ochi, N., 2020. Tsunami-height reduction using a very large floating
Hanssen, F.-C.W., Helmers, J.B., Greco, M., Shao, Y., 2023. A 3D fully-nonlinear
structure. In: Mathematical Analysis of Continuum Mechanics and Industrial Ap-
potential-flow solver for efficient simulations of large-scale free-surface waves.
plications III: Proceedings of the International Conference CoMFoS18 18. Springer,
Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 124 (1), 119–158.
pp. 193–202.
Hartmann, M.C., Onorato, M., De Vita, F., Clauss, G., Ehlers, S., und Polach, F.v.B.,
Kakinuma, T., Yamashita, K., Nakayama, K., 2012. Surface and internal waves due to
Schmitz, L., Hoffmann, N., Klein, M., 2022. Hydroelastic potential flow solver suited
a moving load on a very large floating structure. J. Appl. Math. 2012.
for nonlinear wave dynamics in ice-covered waters. Ocean Eng. 259, 111756.
Kara, F., Vassalos, D., 2007. Hydroelastic analysis of cantilever plate in time domain.
He, G., Kashiwagi, M., 2012. Numerical analysis of the hydroelastic behavior of a
Ocean Eng. 34 (1), 122–132.
vertical plate due to solitary waves. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 17, 154–167.
Karperaki, A.E., Belibassakis, K.A., 2021. Hydroelastic analysis of Very Large Floating
Heyliger, P., Reddy, J., 1988. A higher order beam finite element for bending and
Structures in variable bathymetry regions by multi-modal expansions and FEM. J.
vibration problems. J. Sound Vib. 126 (2), 309–326.
Fluids Struct. 102, 103236.
Hou, G., Wang, J., Layton, A., 2012. Numerical methods for fluid-structure Karperaki, A., Belibassakis, K., Papathanasiou, T., 2016. Time-domain, shallow-water
interaction—a review. Commun. Comput. Phys. 12 (2), 337–377. hydroelastic analysis of VLFS elastically connected to the seabed. Mar. Struct. 48,
Hron, J., Turek, S., 2006. A Monolithic FEM/Multigrid Solver for an ALE Formulation 33–51.
of Fluid-Structure Interaction with Applications in Biomechanics. Springer. Kashiwagi, M., 2000a. Research on hydroelastic responses of VLFS: recent progress and
Huang, H., Chen, X.-j., Liu, J.-y., Miao, Y.-j., Ji, S., 2021. A method to estimate future work. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 10 (02).
dynamic responses of VLFS based on multi-floating-module model connected by Kashiwagi, M., 2000b. A time-domain mode-expansion method for calculating transient
elastic hinges. China Ocean Eng. 35 (5), 687–699. elastic responses of a pontoon-type VLFS. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 5, 89–100.
Huang, W., Liu, H.-x., Shan, G.-m., Hu, C., 2011. Fatigue analysis of the taut-wire Kim, K.-H., Bang, J.-S., Kim, J.-H., Kim, Y., Kim, S.-J., Kim, Y., 2013a. Fully coupled
mooring system applied for deep waters. China Ocean Eng. 25 (3), 413. BEM-FEM analysis for ship hydroelasticity in waves. Mar. Struct. 33, 71–99.
Hübner, B., Walhorn, E., Dinkler, D., 2004. A monolithic approach to fluid–structure Kim, J.-H., Hong, S.-Y., Cho, S.-k., Park, S.-H., 2004. Experimental study on a dolphin-
interaction using space–time finite elements. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. fender moored pontoon-type structure. In: The Fourteenth International Offshore
193 (23–26), 2087–2104. and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–04–135.
Idelsohn, S.R., Oñate, E., Becker, P., 2018. Particle methods in computational fluid Kim, Y., Kim, K.-H., 2007. Numerical stability of Rankine panel method for steady ship
dynamics. In: Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, Vol. 3. waves. Ships Offshore Struct. 2 (4), 299–306.

14
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Kim, J.-H., Kim, Y., 2017. Numerical computation of motions and structural loads for Liu, X., Xu, H., Shao, S., Lin, P., 2013. An improved incompressible SPH model for
large containership using 3D Rankine panel method. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 16, 417–426. simulation of wave–structure interaction. Comput. & Fluids 71, 113–123.
Kim, Y., Kim, K.-H., Kim, J.-H., Kim, T., Seo, M.-G., Kim, Y., 2011. Time-domain Løken, A., 1981. Hydrodynamic interaction between several floating bodies of arbi-
analysis of nonlinear motion responses and structural loads on ships and offshore tray form in waves. In: International Symposium on Hydrodynamics in Ocean
structures: development of WISH programs. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 3 (1), Engineering, Vol. 2. The Norwegian Institute of Technology, pp. 745–779.
37–52. Low, Y.M., 2016. A variance reduction technique for long-term fatigue analysis of
Kim, B.W., Kyoung, J.H., Hong, S.Y., Cho, S.K., 2005. Investigation of the effect of offshore structures using Monte Carlo simulation. Eng. Struct. 128, 283–295.
stiffness distribution and structure shape on hydroelastic responses of very large Lu, Y., Teng, B., Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., Cheng, X., Qi, E., 2021. Structural design of
floating structures. In: The Fifteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering hinge connector for very large floating structures. In: Practical Design of Ships
Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–05–031. and Other Floating Structures: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium,
Kim, K.-T., Lee, P.-S., Park, K., 2013b. A direct coupling method for 3D hydroelastic PRADS 2019, September 22-26, 2019, Yokohama, Japan-Volume II 14. Springer,
analysis of floating structures. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 96 (13), pp. 197–208.
842–866. Lu, Y., Zhang, H., Chen, Y., Shi, Q., Zhou, Y., 2022. A new type connection with
Kim, Y.-h., Sclavounos, P.-D., 2000. Application of the weak-scatterer hypothesis to the optimum stiffness configuration for very large floating platforms. Proc. Inst. Mech.
wave-body interaction problems. J. Ship Ocean Technol. 4 (2), 1–12. Eng. M 236 (3), 764–778.
Klinge, R., 2009. Altered specifications for the protection of Norwegian steel bridges Luo, M., Khayyer, A., Lin, P., 2021. Particle methods in ocean and coastal engineering.
and offshore structures against corrosion. Steel Constr.: Des. Res. 2 (2), 109–118. Appl. Ocean Res. 114, 102734.
Ma, K.-T., Luo, Y., Kwan, C.-T.T., Wu, Y., 2019. Mooring System Engineering for
Kodan, N., 1984. The motions of adjacent floating structures in oblique waves. J. Energy
Offshore Structures. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Resour. Technol. 106 (2), 199–205.
Malenica, S., 2003. Hydroelastic response of a barge to impulsive and non-impulsive
Koekoek, M., 2010. Connecting Modular Floating Structures: A General Survey and
wave loads. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Hydroelasticity
Structural Design of a Modular Floating Pavilion (Master’s thesis). TU Delft.
in Marine Technology. pp. P2003–3.
Kondo, T., Vadus, J., 1991. Ocean space utilization: trends and needs. In: OCEANS
May, P., Sanderson, D., Sharp, J., Stacey, A., 2008. Structural integrity monitoring:
91: Ocean Technologies and Opportunities in the Pacific for the 90’s, October 1-3,
Review and appraisal of current technologies for offshore applications. In: Interna-
1991, Honolulu HI. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.1991.627999.
tional Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 48227. pp.
Küttler, U., Wall, W.A., 2008. Fixed-point fluid–structure interaction solvers with
247–263.
dynamic relaxation. Comput. Mech. 43 (1), 61–72.
McAllister, K.R., 1997. Mobile offshore bases—an overview of recent research. J. Mar.
Kyoung, J.H., Hong, S.Y., Kim, B.W., Cho, S.K., 2005b. Hydroelastic response of a very Sci. Technol. 2, 173–181.
large floating structure over a variable bottom topography. Ocean Eng. 32 (17–18), Mehmood, A., Graham, D.I., Langfeld, K., Greaves, D.M., 2015. OpenFOAM finite
2040–2052. volume method implementation of a fully nonlinear potential flow model for
Kyoung, J., Hong, S., Kim, B., Cho, S., Bai, K., 2005a. Finite-element Method for the simulating wave-structure interactions. In: The Twenty-Fifth International Ocean
hydroelastic response of very large floating structure in water of variable depth. and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–15–047.
In: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. Melis, C., Caille, F., Perdrizet, T., Poirette, Y., Bozonnet, P., 2016. A novel tension-
41960. pp. 357–364. leg application for floating offshore wind: Targeting lower nacelle motions. In:
Lakshmynarayanana, P., Temarel, P., Chen, Z., 2015a. Coupled fluid structure inter- International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol.
action to model three-dimensional dynamic behaviour of ship in waves. In: 7th 49972. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V006T09A056.
International Conference on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology. VIDICI doo, Merigaud, A., Gilloteaux, J.-C., Ringwood, J.V., 2012. A nonlinear extension for linear
Velika Rakovica, Samobor, Croatia, pp. 623–636. boundary element methods in wave energy device modelling. In: International
Lakshmynarayanana, P., Temarel, P., Chen, Z., 2015b. Hydroelastic analysis of a flexible Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 44915. American
barge in regular waves using coupled CFD-FEM modelling. Mar. Struct. 95. Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 615–621.
Lamas-Pardo, M., Iglesias, G., Carral, L., 2015. A review of very large floating structures Michailides, C., Loukogeorgaki, E., Angelides, D.C., 2013. Monitoring the response of
(VLFS) for coastal and offshore uses. Ocean Eng. 109, 677–690. connected moored floating modules. In: The Twenty-Third International Offshore
Lee, C.-H., 1995. WAMIT Theory Manual. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–13–148.
Department of Ocean Engineering. Michele, S., Zheng, S., Buriani, F., Borthwick, A.G., Greaves, D.M., 2023. Floating
Lee, D.H., Choi, H.S., 2003. Transient hydroelastic response of very large floating hydroelastic circular plate in regular and irregular waves. Eur. J. Mech. B Fluids
structures by FE-BE hybrid method. In: The Thirteenth International Offshore and 99, 148–162.
Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–03–016. Michler, C., Hulshoff, S., Van Brummelen, E., De Borst, R., 2004. A monolithic approach
Lee, K.-H., Kim, M.-G., Lee, J.I., Lee, P.-S., 2015. Recent advances in ocean nuclear to fluid–structure interaction. Comput. & Fluids 33 (5–6), 839–848.
power plants. Energies 8 (10), 11470–11492. Michler, C., Van Brummelen, E., Hulshoff, S., De Borst, R., 2003. The relevance of
Lee, J., Leonard, J., 1988. A finite element model of wave-structure interactions in the conservation for stability and accuracy of numerical methods for fluid–structure
time domain. Eng. Struct. 10 (4), 229–238. interaction. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 192 (37–38), 4195–4215.
Lee, C.-H., Newman, J., 2000. An assessment of hydroelasticity for very large hinged Mindlin, R., 1951. Influence of rotatory inertia and shear on flexural motions of
vessels. J. Fluids Struct. 14 (7), 957–970. isotropic, elastic plates. J. Appl. Mech..
Leroy, V., Bachynski-Poli!, E., Babarit, A., Ferrant, P., Gilloteaux, J.-C., 2021. A weak- Miyata, H., 1986. Finite-difference simulation of breaking waves. J. Comput. Phys. 65
scatterer potential flow theory-based model for the hydroelastic analysis of offshore (1), 179–214.
wind turbine substructures. Ocean Eng. 238, 109702. Moan, T., 2018. Life cycle structural integrity management of offshore structures. Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (7), 911–927.
Levi, Y., Bekhor, S., Rosenfeld, Y., 2019. A multi-objective optimization model for urban
el Moctar, O., Ley, J., Oberhagemann, J., Schellin, T., 2017. Nonlinear computational
planning: The case of a very large floating structure. Transp. Res. C 98, 85–100.
methods for hydroelastic effects of ships in extreme seas. Ocean Eng. 130, 659–673.
Levinson, M., 1980. An accurate, simple theory of the statics and dynamics of elastic
el Moctar, B.O., Schellin, T.E., Söding, H., 2021. Numerical Methods for Seakeeping
plates. Mech. Res. Commun. 7 (6), 343–350.
Problems. Springer.
Levinson, M., 1981. A new rectangular beam theory. J. Sound Vib. 74 (1), 81–87.
Mohapatra, S.C., Islam, H., Hallak, T.S., Soares, C.G., 2022. Solitary wave interaction
Ley, J., el Moctar, O., 2014. An enhanced 1-way coupling method to predict elastic
with a floating pontoon based on Boussinesq model and CFD-based simulations. J.
global hull girder loads. In: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
Mar. Sci. Eng. 10 (9), 1251.
and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 45431. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Mohapatra, S.C., Soares, C.G., 2022. Hydroelastic response to oblique wave incidence
V04BT02A023.
on a floating plate with a submerged perforated base. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10 (9),
Li, L., 2022. Full-coupled analysis of offshore floating wind turbine supported by very 1205.
large floating structure with consideration of hydroelasticity. Renew. Energy 189, Mohd, N., Hu, C., Li, X., 2015. Wave-structure interaction using free surface Lattice
790–799. Boltzman method (FSLBM). In: Proceedings of International Exchange and Inno-
Li, S., Fu, S., Zhang, S., Moan, T., 2022a. Second-order hydroelastic analysis of a flexible vation Conference on Engineering & Sciences, Vol. 1. IEICES, Interdisciplinary
floating structure under spatially inhomogeneous waves. Mar. Struct. 86, 103306. Graduate School of Engineering Sciences, Kyushu University, p. 1.
Li, Y., Ren, N., Li, X., Ou, J., 2022b. Hydrodynamic Analysis of a novel modular floating Momber, A., 2011. Corrosion and corrosion protection of support structures for offshore
structure system integrated with floating artificial reefs and wave energy converters. wind energy devices (OWEA). Mater. Corros. 62 (5), 391–404.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10 (8), 1091. Monaghan, J., 1985. Particle methods for hydrodynamics. Comput. Phys. Rep. 3 (2),
Liu, C., 2014. Research on Structural Response of Multi-Module Flexible Connectors for 71–124.
Very Large Floating Structures. China Ship Research Institute, Beijing. Monaghan, J.J., 1992. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.
Liu, W., Luo, W., Yang, M., Xia, T., Huang, Y., Wang, S., Leng, J., Li, Y., 2022a. 30 (1), 543–574.
Development of a fully coupled numerical hydroelasto-plastic approach for offshore Muhamed Basheer Naseema, S., Saha, N., 2017. Hydroelastic response of very large
structure. Ocean Eng. 258, 111713. floating structures (VLFS) connected with wind turbines. In: International Confer-
Liu, Y., Ren, N., Ou, J., 2022b. Hydrodynamic analysis of a hybrid modular floating ence on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 57724. American Society
structure system under different wave directions. Appl. Ocean Res. 126, 103264. of Mechanical Engineers, V006T05A020.

15
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Murai, M., Inoue, Y., Mori, K., 2006. A study on an optimal arrangement of upper Seif, M.S., Inoue, Y., 1998. Dynamic analysis of floating bridges. Mar. Struct. 11 (1–2),
facilities on a very large floating structure considering with the hydroelastic 29–46.
response in waves. In: The Sixteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Seithe, G., el Moctar, O., 2019. Wave-induced motions of moored and coupled multi-
Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–06–120. body offshore structures. In: 11th International Workshop on Ship and Marine
Nagai, B.M., Ameku, K., Nagai, Y., Izumikawa, T., 2006. Mooring method of very large Hydrodynamic, 22-25, Hamburg, Germany. pp. 85–97.
floating structure. In: The Sixteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Seng, S., 2012. Slamming and Whipping Analysis of Ships. DTU Mechanical
Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–06–156. Engineering.
Newman, J.N., 1994. Wave effects on deformable bodies. Appl. Ocean Res. 16 (1), Senjanovi!, I., Malenica, "., Tomas, S., et al., 2008. Investigation of ship hydroelasticity.
47–59. Ocean Eng. 35 (5–6), 523–535.
Newman, J., 2005. Efficient hydrodynamic analysis of very large floating structures. Senjanovi!, I., Vladimir, N., Tomi!, M., Had#i!, N., Malenica, "., 2014a. Global
Mar. Struct. 18 (2), 169–180. hydroelastic analysis of ultra large container ships by improved beam structural
Nguyen, H., Dai, J., Wang, C., Ang, K., Luong, V., 2018. Reducing hydroelastic model. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 6 (4), 1041–1063.
responses of pontoon-type VLFS using vertical elastic mooring lines. Mar. Struct. Senjanovi!, I., Vladimir, N., Tomi!, M., Had#i!, N., Malenica, "., 2014b. Some aspects
59, 251–270. of structural modelling and restoring stiffness in hydroelastic analysis of large
Nguyen, H., Wang, C., 2020. Heaving wave energy converter-type attachments to a container ships. Ships Offshore Struct. 9 (2), 199–217.
pontoon-type very large floating structure. Eng. Struct. 219, 110964. Servan-Camas, B., Di-Capua, D.D., Garcia-Espinosa, J., Sa-Lopez, D., 2021. Fully 3D ship
Nguyen, H., Wang, C., Flocard, F., Pedroso, D., 2019. Extracting energy while reducing hydroelasticity: Monolithic versus partitioned strategies for tight coupling. Mar.
hydroelastic responses of VLFS using a modular raft wec-type attachment. Appl. Struct. 80, 103098.
Ocean Res. 84, 302–316. Shi, Q., Xu, D., Zhang, H., 2018a. Design of a flexible-base hinged connector for
Ohmatsu, S., 1998. Time domain analysis of hydroelastic behavior of VLFS. J. Soc. very large floating structures. In: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
Nav. Archit. Jpn. 1998 (184), 223–230. and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 51203. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Oñate, E., Owen, R., 2011. Particle-Based Methods: Fundamentals and Applications, V001T01A015.
Vol. 25. Springer Science & Business Media. Shi, Q., Xu, D., Zhang, H., Zhao, H., Ding, J., Wu, Y., 2022. A face-contact connector
van Oortmerssen, G., 1979. Hydrodynamic interaction between two structures floating for modularized floating structures. Mar. Struct. 82, 103149.
in waves. In: Proc. BOSS’79. pp. 339–356. Shi, Q., Xu, D., Zhang, H., Zhao, H., Wu, Y., 2018b. Optimized stiffness combination
Paik, K.-J., Carrica, P.M., Lee, D., Maki, K., 2009. Strongly coupled fluid–structure of a flexible-base hinged connector for very large floating structures. Mar. Struct.
interaction method for structural loads on surface ships. Ocean Eng. 36 (17–18), 60, 151–164.
1346–1357. Shimpi, R.P., 2002. Refined plate theory and its variants. AIAA J. 40 (1), 137–146.
Panapakidis, I.P., Michailides, C., Angelides, D.C., 2017. Clustering techniques for data Shimpi, R., Patel, H., Arya, H., 2007. New first-order shear deformation plate theories.
analysis and data completion of monitored structural responses of an offshore float- J. Appl. Mech..
ing structure. In: The 27th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference.
Shiraishi, S., Iijima, K., Harasaki, K., 2003. Elastic response characteristics of a very
OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–17–266.
large floating structure in waves moored inside a reef. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 8,
Papathanasiou, T.K., Belibassakis, K.A., 2014. Hydroelastic analysis of very large
1–10.
floating structures based on modal expansions and FEM. Recent Adv. Mech. Eng.
Shivaji Ganesan, T., Sen, D., 2015. Time-domain simulation of large-amplitude wave–
Mech. 17.
structure interactions by a 3D numerical tank approach. J. Ocean Eng. Mar. Energy
Pawlowski, J., 1994. A nonlinear theory of ship motion in waves. In: Proc. 19 th
1, 299–324.
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. p. 33.
Singh, R., 2014. Corrosion Control for Offshore Structures: Cathodic Protection and
Penalba Retes, M., Giorgi, G., Ringwood, J., 2015a. A review of non-linear approaches
High-Efficiency Coating. Gulf Professional Publishing.
for wave energy converter modelling. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Wave
Söding, H., 2023. Nonlinear seakeeping and hydroelasticity of ships using potential
and Tidal Energy Conference. European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference 2015,
flow simulations. Ship Technol. Res. 1–16.
pp. 08C1–3.
Söding, H., Shigunov, V., Schellin, T.E., Moctar, O.e., 2014. A Rankine panel method
Penalba Retes, M., Mérigaud, A., Gilloteaux, J.-C., Ringwood, J., 2015b. Nonlinear
for added resistance of ships in waves. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 136 (3).
Froude-Krylov force modelling for two heaving wave energy point absorbers. In:
Song, B., 2012. Research on the connector of very large floating offshore base. J. Ship
Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference. European
Mech. 7, 829–837.
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference 2015, pp. 08C1–4.
Sun, Z., Liu, G.-J., Zou, L., Zheng, H., Djidjeli, K., 2021. Investigation of non-linear
Per Heggelund, O., 1989. Salmon farming in Washington: the issues and the potential.
ship hydroelasticity by CFD-FEM coupling method. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9 (5), 511.
Pac. Northwest Exec..
Suzuki, H., Bhattacharya, B., Fujikubo, M., Hudson, D., Riggs, H., Seto, H., Shin, H.,
Pham, D., Wang, C., 2010. Optimal layout of gill cells for very large floating structures.
Shugar, T., Yasuzawa, Y., Zong, Z., 2006. ISSC committee VI. 2: Very large floating
J. Struct. Eng. 136 (7), 907–916.
structures. In: 16th ISSC. pp. 394–442.
Qiu, L., Liu, Y., 2005. Time domain simulation of transient responses of very large
Suzuki, H., Harada, H., Natsume, T., Maeda, K., Iijima, K., Hayashi, T., 2017. Technical
floating structures under unsteady external loads. China Ocean Eng. 19 (3),
challenge on VLFS in Japan after mega-float project. In: International Conference
365–374.
Ransley, E., Greaves, D., Raby, A., Simmonds, D., Hann, M., 2017. Survivability of on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 57779. American Society of
wave energy converters using CFD. Renew. Energy 109, 235–247. Mechanical Engineers, V009T12A013.
Razzaq, M., Hron, J., Turek, S., 2010. Numerical Simulation of Laminar Incompressible Suzuki, H., Riggs, H., Fujikubo, M., Shugar, T., Seto, H., Yasuzawa, Y., Bhattacharya, B.,
Fluid-Structure Interaction for Elastic Material with Point Constraints. Springer. Hudson, D., Shin, H., 2007. Very large floating structures. In: International
Reddy, J.N., 1984. A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite plates. J. Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 42681. pp.
Appl. Mech.. 597–608.
Ren, Z., Javaherian, M.J., Gilbert, C.M., 2023. A verification and validation study on Taghipour, R., Moan, T., 2008. Efficient frequency-domain analysis of dynamic response
a loosely two-way coupled hydroelastic model of wedge water entry. J. Ship Res. for the multi-body wave energy converter in multi-directional wave. In: The
1–16. Eighteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp.
Ren, N., Yu, Y., Li, X., Ou, J., 2022. Hydrodynamic analysis of a modular integrated ISOPE–I–08–269.
floating structure system based on dolphin-fender mooring. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10 Taghipour, R., Perez, T., Moan, T., 2008. Hybrid frequency–time domain models for
(10), 1470. dynamic response analysis of marine structures. Ocean Eng. 35 (7), 685–705.
Ren, N., Zhang, C., Magee, A.R., Hellan, Ø., Dai, J., Ang, K.K., 2019. Hydrodynamic Tamis, J.E., Jongbloed, R.H., Piet, G.J., Jak, R.G., 2021. Developing an environmental
analysis of a modular multi-purpose floating structure system with different impact assessment for floating island applications. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 664055.
outermost connector types. Ocean Eng. 176, 158–168. Tateyama, T., 1999. Demonstrative experiments on airport functions in mega-float
Rienecker, M.M., Fenton, J.D., 1981. A Fourier approximation method for steady water research phase 2. In: VLFS’99.
waves. J. Fluid Mech. 104, 119–137. Tay, Z.Y., 2019. Energy extraction from an articulated plate anti-motion device of a
Riggs, H., Ertekin, R., 1993. Approximate methods for dynamic response of very large floating structure under irregular waves. Renew. Energy 130, 206–222.
multi-module floating structures. Mar. Struct. 6 (2–3), 117–141. Thomsen, J.B., Kofoed, J.P., Delaney, M., Banfield, S., 2016. Initial assessment of
Ryzhakov, P., Rossi, R., Idelsohn, S., Onate, E., 2010. A monolithic Lagrangian approach mooring solutions for floating wave energy converters. In: The 26th International
for fluid–structure interaction problems. Comput. Mech. 46, 883–899. Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–16–287.
Sadeghi, K., Tozan, H., 2018. Tension leg platforms: An overview of planning, design, Timoshenko, S.P., 1921. LXVI. On the correction for shear of the differential equation
construction and installation. Acad. Res. Int. 9 (2), 55–65. for transverse vibrations of prismatic bars. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci.
Saincher, S., Sriram, V., 2022. A three dimensional hybrid fully nonlinear potential 41 (245), 744–746.
flow and Navier Stokes model for wave structure interactions. Ocean Eng. 266, Toland, J.F., 1996. Stokes waves. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal..
112770. Trulsen, K., Teigen, P., 2002. Wave scattering around a vertical cylinder: fully nonlinear
Sankalp, A., De Leeneer, Y., 2020. Mooring systems for very large floating structures. In: potential flow calculations compared with low order perturbation results and
WCFS2019: Proceedings of the World Conference on Floating Solutions. Springer, experiment. In: Proc. of 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
pp. 253–273. Artic Engineering. pp. OMAE02/OFT–28173.

16
C. Jiang et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115319

Tseranidis, S., Theodoridis, L., Loukogeorgaki, E., Angelides, D., 2016. Investigation Xiang, G., Xiang, X., Yu, X., 2022. Dynamic response of a SPAR-type floating wind
of the condition and the behavior of a modular floating structure by harnessing turbine foundation with taut mooring system. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10 (12), 1907.
monitoring data. Mar. Struct. 50, 224–242. Xie, Z., Gu, X., Ding, J., Zhao, N., Cen, H., 2020. Review on conceptual designs and
Tuitman, J., Malenica, "., 2009. Fully coupled seakeeping, slamming, and whipping key technologies of very large floating structures. J. Ship Mech. 24, 826–838.
calculations. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. M 223 (3), 439–456. Xiong, L., Yang, J., Zhao, W., 2016. Dynamics of a taut mooring line accounting for
Ueda, S., 2015. Floating oil storage base. In: Large Floating Structures: Technological the embedded anchor chains. Ocean Eng. 121, 403–413.
Advances. Springer, pp. 91–105. Xu, D., Zhang, H., Qi, E., Hu, J., Wu, Y., 2014. On study of nonlinear network
Van Zuijlen, A., de Boer, A., Bijl, H., 2007. Higher-order time integration through
dynamics of flexibly connected multi-module very large floating structures. In:
smooth mesh deformation for 3D fluid–structure interaction simulations. J. Comput.
Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk: Quantification, Mitigation, and Management.
Phys. 224 (1), 414–430.
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1805–1814.
Verne, J., 1986. The Floating Island (The Pearl of the Pacific). Sampson Low, Marston
Yan, H., Cui, W., Liu, Y., 2003. Hydroelastic analysis of very large floating structures
& Company, London.
Wang, C., 2015. Large floating structures. Ocean Eng. Oceanogr. 3. using plate Green functions. China Ocean Eng. 17 (2), 151–162.
Wang, D., Ertekin, R.C., Riggs, H.R., 1991. Three-dimensional hydroelastic response of Yang, P., Li, Z., Wu, Y., Wen, W., Ding, J., Zhang, Z., 2019. Boussinesq-Hydroelasticity
a very large floating structure. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 1 (04). coupled model to investigate hydroelastic responses and connector loads of an
Wang, Z., Li, R., Shu, Z., 2001. A study on hydroelastic response of box-type very large eight-module VLFS near islands in time domain. Ocean Eng. 190, 106418.
floating structures. China Ocean Eng. (3), 345–354. Yu, L., Li, R., Shu, Z., 2003. Recent research and development of the connector design
Wang, D., Shi, C., Wu, Z., Xiao, J., Huang, Z., Fang, Z., 2015. A review on ultra high for mobile offshore bases. Ocean Eng. 21 (1), 60–66.
performance concrete: Part II. Hydration, microstructure and properties. Constr. Yuan, P., Zhao, Y., Guo, J., Lei, L., 2016. The design method of a new type of multi-
Build. Mater. 96, 368–377. body mooring system and the analysis of its hydrodynamic performance. Ship Sci.
Wang, C., Tay, Z., 2011. Very large floating structures: applications, research and Technol. 38, 80–84.
development. Procedia Eng. 14, 62–72. Yun, J., 2019. A copy is (not a simple) copy: Role of urban landmarks in branding
Wang, P., Tian, X., Peng, T., Luo, Y., 2018. A review of the state-of-the-art developments Seoul as a global city. Front. Archit. Res. 8 (1), 44–54.
in the field monitoring of offshore structures. Ocean Eng. 147, 148–164. Zhang, G., Chen, X., Wan, D., 2019a. MPS-FEM coupled method for study of
Wang, Y., Wang, X., Xu, S., Ding, A., Li, J., 2017. Motion response of a tension- wave-structure interaction. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 18, 387–399.
leg-moored VLFS in shallow water. In: The 27th International Ocean and Polar
Zhang, X., Lu, D., Gao, Y., Chen, L., 2018. A time domain discrete-module-beam-
Engineering Conference. OnePetro, pp. ISOPE–I–17–209.
bending-based hydroelasticity method for the transient response of very large
Wang, Y., Xu, S., Wang, L., Wang, X., 2019. Motion responses of a catenary–taut–tendon
floating structures under unsteady external loads. Ocean Eng. 164, 332–349.
hybrid moored single module of a semisubmersible-type VLFS over uneven seabed.
Zhang, X., Lu, D., Liang, Y., Brennan, F., 2021. Feasibility of very large floating
J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 24, 780–798.
structure as offshore wind foundation: effects of hinge numbers on wave loads
Watai, R.d.A., Ruggeri, F., Simos, A.N., 2016. A new time domain Rankine panel
method for simulations involving multiple bodies with large relative displacements. and induced responses. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 147 (3), 04021002.
Appl. Ocean Res. 59, 93–114. Zhang, M., Schreier, S., 2022. Review of wave interaction with continuous flexible
Watanabe, E., Utsunomiya, T., Tanigaki, S., 1998. A transient response analysis of a floating structures. Ocean Eng. 264, 112404.
very large floating structure by finite element method. Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu Zhang, X., Zheng, S., Lu, D., Tian, X., 2019b. Numerical investigation of the dynamic
1998 (598), 1–9. response and power capture performance of a VLFS with a wave energy conversion
Watanabe, E., Utsunomiya, T., Wang, C., 2004. Hydroelastic analysis of pontoon-type unit. Eng. Struct. 195, 62–83.
VLFS: a literature survey. Eng. Struct. 26 (2), 245–256. Zhao, H., Xu, D., Zhang, H., Shi, Q., 2018. A flexible connector design for multi-modular
Watanabe, E., Utsunomiya, T., Wang, C., et al., 2006. Benchmark hydroelastic responses floating structures. In: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
of a circular VLFS under wave action. Eng. Struct. 28 (3), 423–430. Engineering, Vol. 51203. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V001T01A018.
Wei, W., Fu, S., Moan, T., Song, C., Ren, T., 2018. A time-domain method for Zheng, Z., Duan, G., Mitsume, N., Chen, S., Yoshimura, S., 2020b. An explicit MPS/FEM
hydroelasticity of very large floating structures in inhomogeneous sea conditions. coupling algorithm for three-dimensional fluid-structure interaction analysis. Eng.
Mar. Struct. 57, 180–192. Anal. Bound. Elem. 121, 192–206.
Wei, Y., Incecik, A., Tezdogan, T., 2022. A fully coupled CFD-DMB approach on the
Zheng, S., Meylan, M.H., Zhu, G., Greaves, D., Iglesias, G., 2020a. Hydroelastic
ship hydroelasticity of a containership in extreme wave conditions. J. Mar. Sci.
interaction between water waves and an array of circular floating porous elastic
Eng. 10 (11), 1778.
plates. J. Fluid Mech. 900, A20.
Wu, G., Shen, Q., Chen, X., Wu, P., 2003. Influence of the distance between floating
Zhu, X., 2015. Design and Finite Element Analysis for Very Large Floating Structure
bodies on hydrodynamic coefficients of floating multi-body system. Ocean Eng. 21
Flexible Connector (Master’s thesis). Shanghai Jiaotong University.
(4), 29–34.
Wu, L., Wang, Y., Xiao, Z., Li, Y., 2016. Hydrodynamic response for flexible connectors Zou, S., Ge, X., Huang, Y., 2019. Research on development status and policy standards
of mobile offshore base at rough sea states. Pet. Explor. Dev. 43 (6), 1089–1096. of floating nuclear power plants at home and abroad. Ship Sci. Technol. 41 (10),
Xia, S., Xu, D., Zhang, H., Qi, E., Hu, J., Wu, Y., 2016. On retaining a multi-module 81–83.
floating structure in an amplitude death state. Ocean Eng. 121, 134–142. Zurkinden, A.S., Ferri, F., Beatty, S., Kofoed, J.P., Kramer, M., 2014. Non-linear
Xia, S., Yu, W., Xu, D., Zhang, H., 2022. Vibration control of multi-modular VLFS in numerical modeling and experimental testing of a point absorber wave energy
random sea based on stiffness-adjustable connectors. Appl. Sci. 12 (3), 1117. converter. Ocean Eng. 78, 11–21.

17