Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore

Structures
Hans Cozijn and Jorrit-Jan Serraris
MARIN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

is that all relevant physics are automatically included. This

1 Introduction and Background 1 does not mean that the correct execution of model tests is
2 Model Test Objectives 1 an easy task. The models, instrumentation, environmental
3 Selection of Model Scale 2 conditions, test procedures, and data analysis all require
careful attention. This article aims at discussing these aspects
4 Models 3
and can thus be considered as an introduction for those new
5 Instrumentation 5 to hydrodynamic scale model testing (Figure 1).
6 Test Setup 7
7 Environmental Conditions 11
8 Test Scope 14 2 MODEL TEST OBJECTIVES
9 Data Analysis and Documentation 15
Abbreviations 16 Hydrodynamic scale model tests can be carried out for many
Glossary 16 different reasons. The main objectives of scale model tests
are as follows:
References 16
• Concept Feasibility. Observation of the overall behavior
of the design in environments of combined wind,
waves, and current. Identification of possible unexpected
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND phenomena. This is particularly relevant for completely
new designs.
Hydrodynamic scale model tests are an indispensible part of
• Collection of Design Data. Measurements are performed
the design of offshore structures, delivering information on
to document the system response (e.g., motion RAOs)
platform motions and accelerations, mooring loads, impact
and determine extreme loads that can be used as input
pressures, relative wave heights, and other design aspects.
for the system design. Previously, model test results were
The modeling capabilities of calculation tools have increased
used as the single source of design data. At present,
significantly in the past decades and their results are more
model tests are often combined with time-domain simu-
and more reliable. However, in many cases, model tests are
lations.
still the preferred approach, whether to confirm calculation
• Validation of Calculation Models. The measurement
results for proven concepts or to investigate the behavior of
results are used for comparison with results from
new floater types. The main advantage of scale model tests
(time-domain) simulation models. On the basis of this
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
comparison, the numerical models can be calibrated to
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. achieve higher accuracy. Tuning parameters typically
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition)
include roll damping coefficients, line force coefficients,
ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2 and thruster-interaction coefficients. It is recommended
2 Offshore
Figure 1. Example of scale model tests for a TLP platform in extreme wave conditions. (MARIN Offshore Basin.)
to include dedicated model verification tests in the scope
of work, addressing single model parameters, such as
static load tests, motion decay tests, and tests in wind
only, current only, and waves only.
Generally speaking, it is recommended to define clear
objectives for the model tests, prior to writing the speci-
fications and test program. After the objectives have been
determined, the test setup and instrumentation can be defined
accordingly. It is important to design the test setup such
that all relevant physical phenomena [e.g., vessel motions
in waves, relative motions, current loads, shipping of green
water, mooring line tensions, slamming, and vortex induced
motion (VIM)] are included in the model tests. Furthermore,
it is important to perform tests in all relevant environmental
conditions (e.g., operational conditions, survival conditions,
fatigue sea states, and offloading conditions). Finally, it is
strongly recommended to visit the basin and witness the
tests in person. This is an experience, resulting in a thor-
ough understanding of the hydrodynamics and challenges,
that cannot be replaced by a report, photographs, and video
recordings of the measurements.
3 SELECTION OF MODEL SCALE
The first step in a model testing project is the selection
of a suitable model scale. For offshore model tests, this
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
scale will typically be between 1 : 30 and 1 : 80. Larger
models (1 : 10–1 : 30) are often used in resistance and propul-
sion model tests for ships, while much smaller models
(1 : 100–1 : 250) are used in wind tunnel testing. Parameters
that may affect the selection of the model scale are as follows:
• Dimension of the model
• Weight of the model
• Specified wave conditions
• Specified wind and current velocities
• Thruster size
• Mechanical components (e.g., turret, yoke, or fender)
• What are the dominant physics?
Model testing at a large scale and model testing at a small
scale both have advantages and limitations. Large models
can be more accurate, but may be impractical to handle.
Small models can be useful to create a large test setup, but
may increase the risk of scale effects. The advantages and
limitations are summarized in the following table. A more
detailed description on the advantages and disadvantages of
small and large models is given in Moxnes and Larsen (1998)
and Buchner, Wichers, and de Wilde (2009).
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures 3

PRO (Advantages) CON (Disadvantages) Quantity Model Scale Full Scale Scaling Factor
Large model Accurate geometry Large size and weight Linear 1m 60 m 𝜆
More detailed Complex construction dimensions
modeling Areas 1 m2 3600 m2 𝜆2
Accurate weight Longer test duration Volumes 1 m3 216,000 m3 𝜆
√
3

√𝜆
calibration Time 1s 7.75 s
Large forces Basin limitations Velocities 1 m/s 7.75 m/s 𝜆
Small model Easy model Modeling inaccuracies 15.04 knots
handling Accelerations 1 m/s2 1 m/s2 1
Large area test setup Very small forces Angles 1∘ 1∘ 1√
No mooring Risk of scale effects
Angular 1 ∘ /s 0.1291∘ /s 1/ 𝜆
truncation
velocities
More severe Residual forces
Mass 1 kg 221.4 tonnes (𝜌𝜆3 )/1000
environments
Forces 1 kg 2182 kN (𝜌𝜆3 )/1000
Moments 1 kg m 130,316 kNm (𝜌𝜆4 )/1000
Figure 2 shows how the choice of model scale affects
the different sources of uncertainty in the model tests. A
small scaling factor (large models) results in small uncer-
Since model tests are usually carried out in test basins with
tainty in environmental loading, but larger uncertainty in
fresh water, the factor 𝜌 = 1.025 is included in the calculation
the measured mooring loads. A large scaling factor (small
of forces, moments, and mass to account for the density ratio
models) reduces the uncertainty caused using a truncated
of sea water and fresh water.
mooring system but increases the uncertainties in the model
and the environmental loads.
The final selection of the model scale is often a compromise
between different aspects. Keeping in mind the objectives of 4 MODELS
the model tests will help to decide which parameters are the
most important. Scale models can range from simple and basic models to
The physics of model tests in waves are governed by highly detailed and complex models. The level of detail
gravity and inertia forces, while viscous forces are much and complexity of the model depends the model test objec-
smaller. For this reason, Froude scaling is applied to translate tive. A simple and basic model can be adequate to answer
the results measured at model scale into values that are repre- one question, while a detailed model might be needed to
sentative of the full-scale conditions. The following table answer another question. The objective of this article is to
shows an example of the scaling factors for various quan- give insight in the relevant level of detail and modeling
tities. In this case, the various scaling factors are calculated approaches and techniques (Figure 3).
for a model scale of 1 : 60 or 𝜆 = 60.

4.1 Model design

Truncation and
numerical extrapolation
Uncertainty on results
Results
Physical modeling
and testing The realization of a model starts with the question which
aspects need to be represented based on the objective and

type of tests to be performed.

When it is clear which aspects need to be represented based
on the objective of the tests, the model design can start. On
Large models Small models the basis of the lines plan and general arrangements of the
real platform, the model geometry is designed in a CAD
program. From the numerical model design, the hydrody-
namic properties (displacement, KB, BMT , and BML ) can
Scale factor λ be obtained and serve as a first check in the model realiza-
tion. At this stage, the level of detail of mechanical compo-
Figure 2. Selection of model scale and uncertainty in test results. nents, such as rotational turrets, dynamic positioning (DP)

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
4 Offshore

Figure 3. Offshore structures and their model scale equivalents.

DP test model including propellers and topsides

Spar model for VIM tests

Spread mooring tests for a semi-submerisble: above water (left) and below (right)

Figure 4. Examples of models with different level of detail for different model test types.

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures 5

thrusters, rudders, and internal force measurement frames, is

also incorporated in the model design. The skill of the engi- Measured Signals Measurement Instrument
neering is to design an effective and cost efficient model: all
relevant details need to be represented, while making effi- Wave heights Resistance wires
ciently use of available materials and production techniques Platform motions Optical measurement system
(Figure 4). Accelerations Piezo-type accelerometers
Relative wave motions Resistance wires
Forces and moments Strain gauge force transducers
Six-component force frame
4.2 Model production Line tension Ring-shaped strain gauge
transducers
After the model design is completed, the model production Fluid velocities PIV system
can start. For ship-shaped models, wood is most often used, Resistance wires
while PVC is used for the realization of semis, tension leg Impact force Force panel
platforms (TLPs), and spars. The advantage of wood for Impact pressure Piezo-type pressure sensors
ship-shaped models is that it can well be handled in a (CNC)
milling machine to produce any arbitrary vessel shape. The The abovementioned measurement instruments are
disadvantage of wood for small displacement floaters is that described in more detail in the following sections.
it is relatively heavy and thick wanded, which limits the The measurement frequency has to be selected sufficiently
possibility to realize the weight distribution. Nowadays, PVC high to measure all wave frequent phenomena, including
handling techniques allow to weld PVC similar to steel in the peaks and troughs of local maxima and minima. A measure-
real vessel manufacturing process. ment frequency of 100 Hz on model scale is typically applied
Besides wood and PVC, other materials such as steel, to capture these effects, while measurement frequencies
aluminum, foam, carbon, and 3D printing can be used as of 1–5 kHz might be required to measure effects of high
well. In the selection of materials, the following have to be frequent impact.
taken into account:
5.1 Resistance wires
• Weight
• Processability The most common method to measure the water height at
a certain point is the use of a resistance wire. The wave
• Structural strength
probe consists of two electrical wires, mounted to a frame, as
• Stiffness
shown in Figure 5, or along the hull of a platform. A linear,
• Risk of leakage
precalibrated relation exists between the water level and the
electrical resistance.
Alternatives to measure the wave height are capacity-type
4.3 Weight distribution wires or acoustic devices.

Once the model has been manufactured and all equipment
and instrumentation, see Section 5, are installed, the weight
distribution is fitted to the model. The weight distribution is
defined by the mass, position of the center of gravity, and
inertia. Furthermore, the GM is an important parameter for
the stability of the platform.
5 INSTRUMENTATION
During model tests for offshore structures many quantities
are measured, including motions, accelerations, and forces.
Typical measurements are summarized in the following
table:
5.2 Optical motion measurements
Rigid body motions are measured using an optical system, so
that the platform motions can be measured without physical
contact. The system uses a set of three calibrated cameras,
placed in a single housing, recording the motions of infra-red
diodes placed on the model. The motion components (surge,
sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw) can be derived from the
positions of the individual LEDs.
5.3 Accelerometers
Accelerations can be measured with linear accelerometers.
When placed in a grid, the rotational accelerations as well as
the accelerations at any arbitrary position can be calculated.

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
6 Offshore

Water level

Immersion depth h

Figure 5. Resistance wire wave probes.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Z-type (a) and ring-shaped (b) force transducers

5.4 Strain-gauge transducers
To measure loads, strain-gauge force transducers are
commonly used. Strain gauges are mounted on a metal
element and allow to measure loads through a Wheatstone
bridge. Some examples are shown in Figure 6.
5.5 Fluid velocities
The following purposes and types of fluid velocity measure-
ment can be distinguished:
• Effect of waves along the hull or green water on deck.
This type of fluid velocity measurement is performed
to determine impact loads on structures from the fluid
velocity. The fluid velocity can be derived from relative
wave measurements as described earlier.
• Velocity and direction of the flow inside a volume of
water. For academic purposes, such as the validation of
CFD code, the flow field around a body can be visualized
by particle image velocimetry (PIV). For PIV, seeding is
applied to the flow, the seeding is registered by lasers
and cameras, and the flow pattern is reconstructed by
computer analysis. More information on PIV measure-
ments can be found in Cozijn and Hallmann (2014).
5.6 Impact force
Impact forces on an area or section are measured by an
element mounted to a Z-type transducer. The element can be

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures
either a limited area or a complete structure such as a TLP
deck. The natural periods of the element suspended to the
force transducer should be sufficient high to avoid excitation
by wave loads and allow measurement of (high frequent)
impact forces.
5.7 Impact pressure
Impact pressures can be measured by piezo-type pres-
sure sensors. On the basis of the compression of the
piezo-element, these sensors deliver an output voltage.
6 TEST SETUP
Under the influence of environmental conditions, such as
current, waves and wind, a ship or floating offshore platform
will drift away. To keep the platform at a desired location the
platform needs a position keeping system. In model test the
position keeping system can either be a representation of
the real position keeping system, such as a mooring or DP
system, or an schematic position keeping system, such as a
horizontal mooring or captive setup.
This article describes the most common test setups applied
in offshore model testing. Both schematic and representative
test setups are described.
6.1 Representative test setups
In offshore engineering, the following types of positioning
systems are applied:
• Jackets and compliant towers
• Yoke systems for FPSOs in shallow water
• Mooring systems
– Spread mooring for FPSOs, semisubmersibles, and
spars
– Turret mooring for FPSOs
• Tendons for TLPs
• Dynamic positioning for drilling rigs, accommodation
vessels, and so on.
• Side-by-side mooring and tandem configurations for
offloading.
To assess the overall behavior of the platform and the
station keeping accuracy, these positioning systems are
represented as accurate as possible in the model tests. In
the following sections, typical aspects about the following
setups are described: mooring, tendons, DP, and side-by-side.
Bottom-founded structures, which can be represented and
tested on model scale as well, are not described in this article.
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
7
6.2 Test setup for mooring tests
Two types of mooring systems can be distinguished:
• Spread mooring
• Turret mooring
The spread mooring system keeps the offshore platform
in position in three DOF: surge, sway, and yaw. The turret
mooring system allows the platform to weathervane and
provides positioning keeping in surge and sway direction.
Advantage of the turret mooring system is that the platform
naturally orients its bow into the mean environmental condi-
tion resulting in the lowest loads on the mooring system
and in bow on wave conditions, which is favorable to
prevent the platform against green water. More information
on the occurrence of green water for FPSOs can be found
in Buchner (1999b), Buchner and Voogt (2000), Buchner
(2002), and Buchner and Garcia (2003). Disadvantage of the
turret mooring system is that it requires a complex and expen-
sive bearing construction around which the platform is able
to swivel. Early turret systems were limited in the amount of
risers they could accommodate, while present turret systems
can have diameters up to 40 m and accommodate up to 50
risers.
Both systems can be represented on model scale. For turret
systems, an almost frictionless swivel is used, often in combi-
nation with triaxial (FX, FY, and FZ) force measurement on
the chain table. For spread mooring systems, the mooring
lines, including force transducers in every mooring line, are
connected to the hull at the fairleads. The modeling approach
of the mooring systems and mooring lines of both mooring
configurations is similar and described in the remaining of
this section.
For different types of floaters, the following restoring force
characteristics are of importance.
• Large waterline floaters (FPSOs):
– Surge and sway restoring force characteristics (FX
and FY) as function of horizontal offset (X and Y)
– Yaw restoring force characteristics (MZ) for spread
moored platforms
• Small waterline floaters (Semis):
– Surge, sway, and yaw restoring force characteristics
(FX, FY, and MZ) as function of horizontal offset and
rotation (X, Y, Yaw)
– Overturning moment (MX and MY) as function of
horizontal offsets (X and Y)
– Vertical pretension (FZ) as function of horizontal
offsets (X and Y).
8 Offshore

By representing the full-scale water depth, geometry of ΔX

the mooring system, elasticity, and submerged weight of the Δ Z = setdown
mooring lines and the pretension in the mooring lines on
model scale the same restoring force characteristics on model
scale as on full scale are obtained. However, present field
developments range up to 2500 m water depth, while most
offshore basins have water depths up to 10 m on model scale,
representing about 500 m water depth on full scale at scale
1–50. In the cases where the water depth (or anchor radius)
cannot be represented on model scale, a so-called trunca-
tion approach is applied. In the truncation approach, the
abovementioned restoring force characteristics are matched
as good as possible in the limited water depth available
in the offshore basin by modification of the geometry of
the mooring system, the mooring lines properties, and the
pretension. Some examples and guidelines for the trun-
cated mooring system approach are given in Waals and van
Dijk (2004). Often, the truncated mooring system approach
requires ingenuity of the engineering and compromises to
some of the restoring force characteristics.

6.3 Test setup for tension leg platforms

A TLP is pulled down by tendons limiting the vertical

motions of the platform in such a way that dry tree risers
can be used. The tendons run down from the platform to
the seabed and deliver a significant downward pulling force,
which together with the mass equals the displacement of the
floater.
An effect of the tendon system is the so-called setdown
related to the horizontal offset of the platform. When the
platform horizontally moves away from its design position,
the limited length and high axial stiffness of the tendons
result in negative heave, or setdown, of the platform. This is
sketched schematically in Figure 7. Since this is a geometric
relation, the tendon system of a TLP needs to be repre-
sented over the full water depth and cannot be truncated like
mooring systems. To accommodate TLP tests, most offshore
basins are equipped with a local deep water tip, as shown in
Figures 7 and 8.
6.4 Test setup for DP tests
To test the DP station keeping accuracy of a DP vessel
on model scale, the whole DP system is represented on
model scale, including the vessel itself, all actuators, and a
software DP control system. For the software control system,
either a representative system including a Kalman filter,
PID-controller, and allocation algorithm can be used or the
model test setup can be connected to the actual controller of
the DP system manufacturer. This approach is described in
Voogt and Hallmann (2015).
Figure 7. Horizontal offset—setdown coupling for TLPs.
For a correct representation of the DP station keeping
performance on model scale, all hydrodynamic and mechan-
ical properties of the actuators are properly scaled. The
following properties of azimuthing thrusters are represented
on model scale (Figures 9 and 10):
• Maximum allowable thrust;
• Thruster diameter;
• Nozzle and propeller shaft angle;
• Azimuth rate of turn;
• Time to speed up from 0 to maximum RPM.
Detailed background information on physical effects of
thrusters, DP control theory and other DP related aspects
can be found in Nienhuis (1992), Cozijn, Buchner, and van
Dijk (1999), Radboud, van Dijk, and Aalbers (2001), Serraris
(2009), de Wilde et al. (2010), and Cozijn and Hallmann
(2014).

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures
Figure 8. Big foot TLP model tests.
Figure 9. DP test model including propellers and topsides.
6.5 Test setup for side-by-side mooring
For side-by-side configurations, the relative motions between
the two vessels are the limiting factor. Due to the complex
nonlinear hydrodynamics in the narrow gap between the two
vessels, the relative motions are difficult to calculate and do
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
9
Figure 10. Model scale azimuthing thruster.
require validation by model tests. To represent the relative
motions correctly, the mechanical coupling between the two
vessels, consisting of mooring lines and fenders, needs to be
modeled correctly to ensure representation of the stiffness
characteristics and all natural periods of the system.
The following aspects require attention in the preparations
and performance of side-by-side mooring tests:
• Stiffness characteristics of the mooring lines
• Compression characteristics of the fenders
• Initial pretension in the mooring lines and fenders
• Equilibrium position
• Natural periods
For detailed information on the complex hydrodynamic in
the gap between side-by-side moored vessels, see Buchner,
de Wilde, and van Dijk (2001b), Buchner, de Wilde, and de
Boer (2004), Pauw, Huijsmans, and Voogt (2007), Bunnik,
Pauw, Voogt (2009), and Newby and Pauw (2010).
6.6 Schematic test setups
6.6.1 Soft-mooring test setup
First-order wave motions and mean wave drift loads can
effectively be measured by a so-called soft-mooring system
consisting of linear horizontal springs. The objective of the
soft-mooring system is to provide horizontal stiffness while
having a limited influence on the vertical hydrostatic spring
stiffness of the floating platform. The horizontal stiffness of
the soft-mooring system in three DOFs (Cx, Cy, and C𝜓) can
be calculated based on the geometry of the spring system, the
10 Offshore

Figure 11. Horizontal mooring setups for wave load and motion assessment.

linear spring stiffness, and the pretension in the horizontal

mooring lines. The soft-mooring system should be designed
such that the horizontal natural periods are far beyond the
wave frequent regime and away from the vertical natural
periods of the platform to avoid resonance (Figure 11).

6.7 Captive test setup for current load

measurements

Current loads on offshore platforms can be measured by

model tests in the following ways:

• Wind tunnel measurements on the underwater part of the

vessel.
• Drag load tests in a towing basin with forward speed.
• By generation of current in an offshore basin. Figure 12. Current load measurement on an LNG carrier.

The first and second method are the most accurate to
obtain the most realistic set of current coefficients for the
design and numerical analysis of the platform (Figure 12).
The third method will provide the actual current loads
applied in the basin for representation in a numerical model
(model-the-model).
6.8 Test setup for VIM tests
VIMs of an offshore platform result in fatigue loads on the
mooring and riser system. Due to the importance of this
behavior and the present lack of adequate numerical models
to assess the complex hydrodynamics of vortex shedding
behind the columns and the associated motion response of
the platform, VIM model tests are performed for most small
water line production units (semisubmersibles, spars, and
TLPs).
Background information on VIM phenomena and how to
assess these can be found in van Essen et al. (2013), van Dijk
et al. (2003b, c), and Finnigan, Irani, and van Dijk (2005).
VIM can be assessed by model tests in the following ways:
• By generation of real current in an offshore basin;
• By towing the platform through a towing basin with a
speed representing the current velocity.
Due to the unpredictability of VIM behavior, a wide range
of current directions and current velocities have to be tested
to define the VIM behavior. Most offshore basins allow
to generate current only in one direction and do require
rotation of the setup to represent various current directions.
Performing VIM tests in an offshore basin does result in a
very extensive (and expensive) model test scope. Therefore,
the method of testing in a towing basin is applied for most
VIM model tests. However, towing basins are long and

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures 11

combined current, swell, wind seas, and wind can be created

at model scale. The model basin is of a limited size and
can therefore only represent a small part of the full scale
Pretension situation that is modeled. At the boundaries of the basin
wind, waves and current are created and absorbed by wave
flaps, current pumps, beaches, and wind fans.
Aspects of offshore basins are discussed in Buchner,
Air bearings
Wichers, and de Wilde (1999) and Buchner et al. (2001a)
(Figure 14).

Two direction 7.1 Current

Semi-submersible In the model basin, current is generated by means of current

Figure 13. Schematic overview of VIM setup.
narrow and the whole setup needs to be towed through
the basin, which does not allow to represent the complete
mooring system. Instead of representing the complete
mooring system, the mooring system stiffness in surge,
sway, and yaw is represented by a system of linear springs.
By orienting these springs vertically, the setup can easily be
rotated, resulting in an efficient test approach (Figure 13).
7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The model basin is equipped with wind, wave, and current
generation systems, so that offshore environments of
pumps. Through these pumps, the water flows into the basin
at one side and flows out of the basin at the other side. The
current speed can be controlled by varying the current pump
RPMs. Besides the current loads on floaters and mooring
lines, the presence of current also affects the waves and there-
fore the floater wave frequency and low frequency motions.
This effect is not included if the current force is represented
by a pulling force applied to the model through a wire.
Figure 15 shows a top view of MARIN’s Offshore Basin,
which opened in the year 2000. The top view shows the
wind, wave, and current directions that can be modeled in
the basin. The current direction is fixed (at 180∘ ), since the
current flow channels are part of the basin structure. The top
view of the basin clearly shows the current inflow (left) and
current outflow (right). At the bottom, the current pumps can
be seen, which are placed in the current flow channels that
recirculate the current flow outside the basin.

Windfans
Wave absorbing
beaches Wind
Waves

Wave
generators

Current
re-circulation
system
Current

Figure 14. Wind, waves, and current in the Ocean and the Model Basin.

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
12 Offshore

Wave absorbing beaches

44.35 m

Current (180°)

35.6 m

Waves
(180–270°)

Wind
(170–280°)

Wave generators Six current pumps and recirculation ducts

Figure 15. Wind, wave, and current generation in MARIN’s Offshore Basin (top view).

0 10 20

Figure 16. Cross section of the current generation system in MARIN’s Offshore Basin.

A cross section of MARIN’s Offshore Basin is shown in
Figure 16. The basin has a deep pit for testing of TLPs
and a moveable floor to adjust the water depth at any
value between 0 and 10.2 m. The figure shows the current
inflow (left) and outflow (right) in the basin side walls. The
current system consists of six layers, each equipped with its
own pump. In this manner, vertical current profiles can be
adjusted, similar to current velocity profiles that are found
at sea.
A detailed description of the current generation system in
MARIN’s Offshore Basin can be found in Buchner and de
Wilde (2008).

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures 13

Newby and Pauw (2010), Buchner (2006), Waals (2009), and

Flap paddle
with motion Weiler et al. (2009). The flap-type wave generator is a plate
matching that is hinged at the bottom (Figure 17).
deep water MARIN’s Offshore Basin is equipped with approximately
waves
200 wave flaps, along two sides of the basin. The wave flaps
are visible in the photograph shown in Figure 18. Each of
the 200 flaps is controlled individually, making it possible
Piston paddle
to generate regular and irregular waves from any direction
matches between 180∘ and 270∘ . Both long-crested (unidirectional)
shallow water and short-crested (directional spreading) waves can be gener-
motion
ated. Furthermore, it is possible to generate combined wind
sea and swell, each with their own direction of propagation.

Figure 17. Piston- and flap-type wave generators. (Edinburgh
Designs Limited.)
7.2 Waves
Regular and irregular waves are generated by wave flaps
along the edge of the basin. Usually, a wave absorbing beach
will be placed on the opposite side to prevent waves from
traveling back into the basin. There are two main types
of wave generators: piston and flap. The piston-type wave
generator is a vertical plate that makes an oscillating motion.
It is most suitable for shallow water waves. Descriptions
of hydrodynamic effects on shallow water can be found in
7.3 Wind
Wind can be generated using a set of wind fans at some
distance from the models. The set of wind fans needs to
be of sufficient width and height to create a uniform wind
field across the test setup. The wind fan RPMs need to be
set such that the correct wind force is experienced by the
model. It should be noted that generating the wind at the
(Froude) scaled wind velocity will not automatically result
in the correct wind forces. Typically, the wind velocity in
the basin may have to be 10–20% higher than the nominal
wind velocity in order to obtain the correct wind forces. The
background of this is the wind field which is created locally
in the basin, using a finite set of wind fans.

Figure 18. Overview from the side of MARIN’s Offshore Basin.

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
14 Offshore
Figure 19. Overview of the wind bed in MARIN’s Offshore Basin.
Besides a constant wind velocity, it is also possible to
generate gusting wind, or other time-varying winds such
as squall events. The influence of wind spectra on the
low frequent motion response is described in Feikema and
Wichers (1991). In such cases, the wind fan RPMs will
vary in time (Figure 19). This can be done according to a
prescribed time record (wind squall event) or based on a wind
velocity spectrum (gusting wind).
As an alternative, the wind force can be applied to the
floating model through a thin wire, with a calibrated weight,
or connected to a winch. This may be a useful approach if the
basin is not equipped with wind fans. However, this approach
has some limitations. First of all, the wind load and point of
application need to be calculated beforehand. Second, this
method does not account for changes in wind force due to a
change in model heading. And third, wind shielding effects
between models in close proximity (e.g., an FPSO and an
offloading tanker) are not included.
8 TEST SCOPE
As for the model design and test setup, each model test
objective results in a specific model test series. Often, a
model test program will consist of several series of tests, each
with their own objectives. In the following sections, a number
of typical types of tests are described.
8.1 Verification tests
Each test campaign will start with a number of verification
tests. The objective of these tests is to determine a number of
basic properties of the models and check if the values corre-
spond with the specifications or with calculated (theoretical)
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
values. Examples of verification tests are heeling tests (to
determine the floater GM values), motion decay tests (to
determine natural periods and damping values), and static
load–displacement tests (to determine the mooring stiffness
characteristics).
8.2 Calibration cases
Second, most test campaigns will include a number
of schematical test conditions, such as wind-only or
current-only cases. The objective of these measurements
is to check the applied wind and current conditions and to
calibrate numerical models of the modeled system.
8.3 Current load tests
Current drag load tests are performed to derive static current
coefficients. These tests are typically performed by towing
the model through a towing basin, while measuring the
towing forces. A typical test scope consists of the following
variations:
• Current direction
• Current velocity
• Vessel draft
8.4 VIM tests
VIM tests are performed to assess the dynamic behavior
of a platform in a uniform flow. These tests are typically
performed by towing the model through a towing basin, see
Section 6. A typical test scope consists of the following
variations:
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures 15

• Current direction • Mooring line or tendon failure (static of dynamic)

• Current velocity (Ur) • Thruster failure conditions
• Vessel draft • DP blackout condition
• Dynamic varying conditions such as sudden wind squall
8.5 Thruster interaction tests events

The following types of thruster interaction tests can be

performed:
9 DATA ANALYSIS AND
• Forbidden zone tests to select the forbidden zones DOCUMENTATION
• Single thruster–hull interaction tests
• Overall thruster–hull interaction tests During model tests for offshore structures, many quantities
• Thruster–current tests are measured, including motions, accelerations, and forces,
see Section 5 for a description of measured quantities and
8.6 Motion response tests measurement devices. In addition, additional signals can be
derived from the measured signals. During postprocessing,
Tests in waves only are performed to validate the QTFs and all measured and derived signals are analyzed and presented
RAOs calculated by diffraction theory and to determine the in a user friendly format. This section describes the most
seakeeping response in irregular seas. Often, these tests are common postprocessing methods.
performed with the floater moored in a soft-mooring system. Some typical analysis and documentation methods and the
Motion response tests can also be carried out for a floater with signals these methods are typically applied to are summa-
its actual (spread) mooring system. In this case, any effects rized in the following table:
of the mooring system on the wave frequency motions can
be investigated. See Section 6 for a description of these test
Data Presentation Contents
setups. The following types or wave-only tests are generally
performed: Filtering All signals
Plotted time traces All signals, filtered and/or
• Regular wave tests to derive QTFs and RAOs. unfiltered
• White noise tests to derive RAOs over a broad range of Statistical analysis
frequencies. Motion response (RAOs) Motions, relative motions,
• Irregular wave tests to determine the motion response in signals with a linear
realistic seastates. response
Extreme value analysis
8.7 Tests in wind, waves, and current (Rayleigh plots)
Extreme value analysis Mooring line tensions
The most complete representation of the offshore environ- (Weibull plots)
mental conditions is modeled in tests in combined current, Histograms Green water loads, slamming
wind sea, swell, and wind. The modeled conditions can pressures
represent anything from extreme or survival conditions, Positioning accuracy Horizontal motions
to operational conditions, offloading conditions, or fatigue Photographs Models during construction
conditions. Often, the sensitivity of the results to variations in CAD drawings Models, basin test setup
wave conditions is investigated, by variations of wave period Video recordings All model tests in waves
and wave height. Data visualization Horizontal motions, relative
Depending of the floater, these tests will be performed for (animations) motions
the vessel kept at position by its mooring system, DP system,
or tendons.
Besides the most common analysis and presentation
8.8 Special conditions methods listed in the table above, there is a wide variety
of additional analysis methods and techniques focusing on
Model tests are an ideal way to monitor the vessel response specific aspects or relations between signals.
in off-design conditions. Examples of off-design conditions The abovelisted data analysis methods are described in
are as follows: more detail in the following sections.

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
16 Offshore
• Bandpass filtering narrows the range of frequency
contributions to selected limits. This analysis method is
performed to split up and isolate loading and response
in different frequency bandwidths in order to gain good
insight in the loading and response mechanisms. Typical
filtering regions are low frequent, wave frequent, and
high frequent.
• Plotted Time Traces. To study the typical behavior in time
of different selected signals, time traces are plotted.
• Statistical Analysis. From the measured signals statistical
quantities, such as mean, standard deviation, maximum
and minimum, can be determined.
• Spectral Density Functions. Time trace signals are
converted to spectral density functions by Fourier
transformation to obtain insight in the contributions of
the various frequency components.
• Motion Response (RAOs). The response of the vessel to
a unit wave height is described by the RAO. The RAO
can be obtained from the spectral density functions of
the wave and any signal.
• Impact Load Plotted Time Traces + Histograms (Green
Water and Slamming). Maximum values can be isolated
and presented in histograms to present the probably of
occurrence during a single measurement.
• Extreme Value Analysis (Rayleigh, Weibull, MPM). The
values “A MAX. +” and “A MAX. −” presented in
the tables with statistical output represent the measured
maximum and minimum values as observed during a
single test. For design purposes, however, the so-called
most probable maximum (MPM) value is often applied.
This is a statistically more reliable maximum.
• Photographs, Video. Still photographs and video record-
ings are made during the tests to get a good overall
understanding of the behavior of the platform. Further-
more, video recordings are useful in combination with
the abovementioned analyzed data for a detailed under-
standing of physical effects.
ABBREVIATIONS
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
CNC Computer numerical control
FPSO Floating production, storage and offloading
unit
GM Metacentric height
LED Light-emitting diode
QTF Quadratic transfer function
RAO Response amplitude operator
RPM Rounds per minute
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
GLOSSARY
Data acquisition Collection of measurement signals.
Data analysis Handling of measured signals.
Instrumentation Measurement equipment.
Measurements Action of measuring quantities.
Model scale Geometric seize reduction factor.
Model test Laboratory in which the scale model test
facilities is performed.
Model test setup Circumstances at which the scale model
tests are performed.
Scale model Assessment of prototype on model scale.
testing
REFERENCES
Model Scale and Truncation
Buchner, B. (1999a) Model Test Challenges for Deep Water Floaters.
Floating Production Systems (FPS) Conference, London.
Buchner, B., Heerink, R., de Wilde, J., Witz, J., and La Cour Hjel-
holt K. (2009) Evaluating the Loading and Structural Response
of an Offshore Platform Using Integrated Large and Small Scale
Testing Combined With Diffraction and Finite Element Analysis
and Offshore Measurements. OTC2009-19978, Offshore Tech-
nology Conference (OTC), Houston.
Moxnes, S. and Larsen, K. (1998) Ultra Small Scale Model Testing of
a FPSO Ship. OMAE-1998-381, OMAE Conference, Lisbon.
Waals, O.J. and van Dijk, R.R.T. (2004) Truncation Methods for Deep
Water Mooring Systems for a Catenary Moored FPSO and a Semi
Taut Moored Semi Submersible. Deep Offshore Technology (DOT)
Conference, New Orleans.
Combined Model Tests, Simulations, Full Scale
Measurements, and Training
Cozijn, H. and Heo, J.W. (2009) Analysis of the Tunnel Immersion for
the Busan-Geoje Fixed Link Project through Scale Model Tests and
Computer Simulations. OMAE2009-79385 OMAE Conference,
Honolulu.
Cozijn, J.L., van der Wal, R.J., and Dunlop, C. (2008) Model Testing
and Complex Numerical Simulations for Offshore Installation.
2008-ISOPE-PT-02, ISOPE Conference, Vancouver.
Journé, J.M.J. and Massie, W.W. (2001) Offshore Hydrodynamics, 1st
edn, Delft University of Technology. http://www.shipmotions.nl/
DUT/LectureNotes/OffshoreHydromechanics.pdf.
Luo, Y., Baudic, S., Poranski, P., Wichers, J.E.W., Stansberg, C.T.,
and Ormberg, H. (2004) Deepstar Study on Predicting FPSO
Responses—Model Tests vs. Numerical Analysis. OTC-16585,
Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston.
van Dijk, R.T., Quintou-Ramus, V., and Le-Marechal, G. (2003a) Roll
Motions of Ultradeep Water FPSOs, Based on a Comparison of
Calculations, Model Tests and Full-Scale Measurements on the
Girassol FPSO. Deep Offshore Technology (DOT) Conference,
Marseille.
 Hydrodynamic Scale Model Tests for Offshore Structures 17
Current, Wind, and Waves
Buchner, B. and de Wilde, J.J. (2008) Current Modeling Experience
in an Offshore Basin. OMAE2008-57597, OMAE Conference,
Estoril.
Buchner, B., Wichers, J.E.W., and de Wilde, J.J. (1999) Features of
the State-of-the-Art Deepwater Offshore Basin. OTC1999-10481,
Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston.
Buchner, B., Cozijn, J.L., van Dijk, R.R.T., and Wichers, J.E.W.
(2001a) Important Environmental Modelling Aspects for Ultra
Deep Water Model Tests. Deep Offshore Technology (DOT)
Conference, Rio de Janeiro.
de Ridder, E.-J., Otto, W., Zondervan, G.-J., Huijs, F., and Vaz, G.
(2014) Development of a Scaled-Down Floating Wind Turbine for
Offshore Basin Testing. OMAE2014-23441, OMAE Conference,
San Francisco.
Feikema, G.J. and Wichers, J.E.W. (1991) The Effect of Wind
Spectra on the Low-Frequency Motions of a Moored Tanker in
Survival Condition. OTC1991-6605, Offshore Technology Confer-
ence (OTC), Houston.
Vessel Motions and Mooring Loads
Buchner, B. (1998) Model Test Techniques for Deep Water Moor-
ings. Moorings & Anchors for Deep and Ultra Deep Water Fields
Conference, Aberdeen.
Cozijn, J.L. and Bunnik, T.H.J. (2004) Coupled Mooring Analysis for
a Deep Water CALM Buoy. OMAE2004-51370, OMAE Confer-
ence, Vancouver.
Pinkster, J.A. (1980) Low frequency second order wave exciting
forces on floating structures. PhD-thesis, Delft University of Tech-
nology.
Voogt, A. and Soles, J. (2007) Stability of Deepwater Drilling Semi
Submersibles. Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other
Floating Structures (PRADS), Houston.
Voogt, A.J., Soles, J.J., van Dijk, R.R.T. (2002) Mean and Low
Frequency Roll for Semi-submersibles in Waves. ISOPE Confer-
ence, Kitakyushu.
Wichers, J.E.W. (1988) A simulation model for a single point moored
tanker. PhD-thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Wichers, J.E.W. (1996) State-of-the-Art Computation Tools for
Design of FPSO Systems. Floating Production Systems (FPS)
Conference, London.
Wichers, J.E.W. (2013) Guide to Single Point Moorings, WMooring.
http://www.wmooring.com/files/Guide_to_Single_Point_
Moorings.pdf.
Green Water and Wave Impact Loading
Buchner, B. (1999b) Green Water from the Side of a Weathervaning
FPSO. OMAE99-OFT-4022, OMAE Conference, St. John’s.
Buchner, B. (2002) Green Water on Ship-Type Offshore Structures.
PhD-thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Buchner, B. and Bunnik, T. (2007) Extreme Wave Effects on Deep-
water Floating Structures. OTC2007-18493, Offshore Technology
Conference (OTC).
Buchner, B. and Garcia, J.L.-C. (2003) Design Aspects of Green
Water Loading on FPSOs. OMAE Conference, Cancun.
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
Buchner, B. and Voogt, A. (2000) The Effect of Bow Flare Angle on
FPSO Green Water Loading. OMAE2000-4092, OMAE Confer-
ence, New Orleans.
Buchner, B. and Voogt, A. (2009) Wave Slamming on External Turrets
of FPSOs. OMAE2009-79581, OMAE Conference, Honolulu.
Johannessen, T.B., Haver, S., Bunnik, T. and Buchner, B. (2006)
Extreme Wave Effects on Deep Water TLPs—Lessons Learned from
the Snorre A Model Tests. DOT Conference, Houston.
Scharnke, J., Vestbøstad, T., de Wilde, J., and Haver, S. (2014)
Wave-in-Deck Impact Load Measurements on a Fixed Platform
Deck. OMAE2014-23180, OMAE Conference, San Francisco.
Voogt, A. and Buchner, B. (2004) Prediction of Wave Impact
Loads on Ship-type Offshore Structures in Steep Fronted Waves.
2004-ISOPE-JSC-343, ISOPE Conference, Toulon.
Dynamic Positioning (DP)
Cozijn, H. and Hallmann, R. (2014) PIV Measurements in
Thruster-Interaction Research, MTS DP Conference, Houston.
Cozijn, J.L., Buchner, B., and van Dijk, R.R.T. (1999) Hydrodynamic
Research Topics for DP Semi Submersibles. OTC1999-10955,
Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston.
de Wilde, J., Serraris, J.-J., de Ridder, E.-J., Bécel, M.-L.,
and Fournier, J.-R. (2010) Model Test Investigation of LNG
Tandem Offloading with Dynamic Positioned Shuttle Tankers.
OMAE2010-20684, OMAE Conference, Shanghai.
Nienhuis, U. (1992) Analysis of thruster effectivity for dynamic posi-
tioning and low speed manoeuvring. PhD-thesis, Delft University
of Technology.
Radboud R., van Dijk, T. and Aalbers, A.B. (2001) ’What Happens
in Water’ The use of Hydrodynamics to Improve DP. MTS DP
Conference, Houston.
Serraris, J.-J. (2009) Time Domain Analysis for DP Simulations.
OMAE2009-79587, OMAE Conference, Honolulu, June 2009.
Voogt, A. and Hallmann, R. (2015) Integrating Onboard DP Systems
into Model Test Facilities and Offshore Bridge Simulators. OTC
Conference.
Side-By-Side and Tandem Offloading
Buchner, B., de Wilde, J.J., and van Dijk, A. (2001b) Numerical
Multiple-Body Simulations of Side-by-Side Mooring to an FPSO.
ISOPE Conference, Stavanger.
Buchner, B., de Wilde, J.J., and de Boer, G. (2004) The Interaction
Effects of Mooring in close Proximity of Other Structures. ISOPE
Conference, Toulon.
Bunnik, T.H.J., Pauw, W., and Voogt, A.J. (2009) Hydrodynamic
Analysis for Side-by-Side Offloading. ISOPE Conference, Osaka.
Newby, M.A. and Pauw, W.H. (2010) Safe Transfer of Liquefied Gas
in the Offshore Environment. OTC2010-20447, Offshore Tech-
nology Conference (OTC), Houston, TX.
Pauw, W.H., Huijsmans, R.H., and Voogt, A. (2007) Advances
in the Hydrodynamics of Side-by-Side Moored Vessels.
OMAE2007-29374, OMAE Conference, San Diego.
Shallow Water Effects
Buchner, B. (2006) The Motions of a Ship on a Sloped Seabed.
OMAE2006-92321, OMAE Conference, Hamburg.
18 Offshore

van Essen, S., van der Hout, A., Huijsmans, R., and Waals, O. (2013)
Evaluation of Directional Analysis Methods for Low-Frequency
Waves to Predict LNG-C Motion Response in Nearshore Areas.
OMAE2013-10235, OMAE Conference, Nantes.
Waals, O. (2009) On the Application of Advanced Wave Anal-
ysis in Shallow Water Model Testing (Wave Splitting).
OMAE2009-79413, OMAE Conference, Honolulu.
Weiler, O., Cozijn, H., Wijdeven, B., Le-Guennec, S., and Fontaliran,
F. (2009) Motions and Mooring Loads of an LNG-Carrier Moored
at a Jetty in a Complex Bathymetry. OMAE2009-79420, OMAE
Conference, Honolulu.
van Dijk, R.R.T., Voogt, A.J., Fourchy, P., and Mirza, S. (2003b) The
Effect of Mooring System and Sheared Currents on Vortex Induced
Motions of Truss Spars. OMAE2003-37151, OMAE Conference,
Cancun.
van Dijk, R., Magee, A., Gebara, J., and Perryman, S. (2003c)
Model Test Experience on Vortex Induced Vibrations of Truss
Spars. OTC2003-15242, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC),
Houston.
Waals, O.J., Phadke, A.C., and Bultema, S. (2007) Flow Induced
Motions of Multi Column Floaters. OMAE2007-29539, OMAE
Conference, San Diego.

Vortex Induced Motions (VIM)

Finnigan, T., Irani, M., and van Dijk, R. (2005) Truss Spar in Waves
and Currents. OMAE2005-67054, OMAE Conference, Halkidiki.

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe329
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2