Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Numerical Modelling and Dynamic Response
Analysis of Curved Floating Bridges with a Small
Rise-Span Ratio
Ling Wan 1,2,3 , Dongqi Jiang 4, * and Jian Dai 5
1 The State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, School of Civil Engineering,
Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
2 Faculty of Science Agriculture and Engineering, Newcastle University, Singapore 599493, Singapore;
ling.wan@ncl.ac.uk
3 Newcastle Research & Innovation Institute Pte Ltd. (NewRIIS), Singapore 609607, Singapore
4 Department of Civil Engineering, School of Science, Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing 210094, China
5 Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim,
Norway; jian.dai@ntnu.no
* Correspondence: jiangdongqi@njust.edu.cn




Received: 9 May 2020; Accepted: 17 June 2020; Published: 24 June 2020


Abstract: As a potential option for transportation applications in coastal areas, curved floating
bridges with a same small specified rise to span ratio of 0.134, supported by multiple pontoons, are
investigated in this paper. Two conceptual curved bridges are proposed following a circular arc
shape with different span lengths (500 and 1000 m). Both bridges are end-connected to the shoreline
without any underwater mooring system, while the end-connections can be either all six degrees of
freedom (D.O.F) fixed or two rotational D.O.F released. Eigen value analysis is carried out to identify
the modal parameters of the floating bridge system. Static and dynamic analysis under extreme
environmental conditions are performed to study the pontoon motions as well as structural responses
of the bridge deck. Deflections and internal forces (axial forces, shear forces, and bending moment)
are thoroughly studied with the variation of the span length and end support conditions in terms
of the same specified small rise-span ratio. The ratio of axial force to horizontal bending moment
are presented. From the study, it is found that the current parameters for the bridge are relatively
reasonable regarding responses. However, the small rise-span does not provide enough arch effects.
A higher rise-span ratio or stiffer bridge cross-sectional property is preferred, especially for the long
bridge. In addition, the flexible end connections are preferred considering the structural responses at
the end regions.

Keywords: floating bridge; integrated hydro-structural analysis; dynamic response; curved bridge;
bridge structural design

1. Introduction
Due to the large density of the population in coastal cities, sustaining and developing coastal
regions is getting preferable to exploit more space in offshore areas. To accommodate the expanding
industrial needs and transportation facilities, research has been carried out for coastal areas [1–6].
Bridges on rivers and offshore areas are important infrastructures for transportation connections.
However, when water is getting deep and/or seabed condition is extremely soft, conventional supporting
piers of bridges become too expensive or even unaffordable. On this occasion, a floating bridge is a
more economical and attractive alternative, as the self-weight of bridge and vehicle loads are supported

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467; doi:10.3390/jmse8060467 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 2 of 19

by the buoyancy forces from pontoons or floaters. In addition, a floating bridge allows easy removal
by tugboats when relocation is needed.
There has been a long history of application of floating bridges. The first floating bridge can be
dated back to about 480 BC, when two rows of floating bridges were constructed, with each consisting
of about 300 boats laid side by side, for military crossing. In recent years, there has been many modern
floating bridges built, including Lacey V. Murrow Bridge (2020 m, 1940, USA), Evergreen Point Bridge
(2350 m, 1963, USA), Homer Hadley Bridge (1772 m, 1989, USA) built on Lake Washington, and Hood
Canal Bridge (2398 m, 1961, USA) also in the Seattle area, USA., Bergsøysund Bridge (931 m, 1992,
Norway), Nordhordland Bridge (1614 m, 1994, Norway) built in Norway on the fjords. Yumemai
Bridge (876 m, 2000, Japan) built in Japan, etc. [7,8]. In general, floating bridges are more suitable to be
deployed under the following conditions: Long span and deep-water conditions, such as Norwegian
Fjords, and very soft seabed conditions, and conditions where the seabed marine environment needs
to be protected.
There are mainly two types of pontoon-supported floating bridges: The continuous pontoon
type and discrete pontoon type. Various analysis methods have been developed for the analysis of
continuous and discrete pontoon type floating bridges. The modal expansion method and direct
calculation method [9,10] are two frequency domain analysis methods for continuous pontoon type
floating bridges, while the time domain method can also be used. Hydroelasticity should also be
considered [11,12] for bridges in a large scale and especially for cases when the eigen frequency of
the continuous pontoon is located in the environmental excitation frequency regions. For the discrete
type, single pontoon hydrodynamic properties should be considered, together with the finite element
method (FEM) applied for the bridge deck and other structural components. Hydrodynamic interaction
among the pontoons and shore should be taken into consideration [13] if the pontoons are close to each
other or close to the shore. A time domain method to simulate the dynamic behavior of a three-span
suspension bridge with two floating pylons was developed in [14]. A sensitivity-based FEM updating
method was proposed and applied in the analysis of Bergsøysund bridge in [15]. A model test on
Bergsøysund bridge was carried out in the ocean basin at MARINTEK (Now Sintef Ocean) in 1989 and
the results were compared with the numerical model, and it was shown that the calculation results
based on potential flow theory can have good agreements [16] with the model test.
Generally, floating bridges are supported vertically by pontoons. In addition, there are also a
variety of mooring systems designed to retain pontoon motions of the floating bridges, e.g., anchor
chain, marine dolphin, and abutment, located beneath each pontoon and/or at the ends, depending on
the sit conditions and design requirements. There are also curved bridge designs with no mooring
system, which can reduce the cost. This kind of design makes use of the horizontal stiffness provided
by the curvature shape and the end connections, replacing the restoring forces by traditional mooring.
The Bergsøysund bridge [17] and Nord-Hordland bridge are of this kind and no mooring system
underwater is applied. The Bergsøysund Bridge, built in Norway in 1990s, is the first free floating
pontoon bridge with a cost-effective horizontally arch curved design. It is well known that an arch
is a much stronger member than a straight beam when subjected to in-plane loadings as it transfers
the loadings to axial rather than to bending as in the case of a straight beam. However, a drawback
of using a laterally curved configuration is the increased reaction at the supports. In Bergsøysund
Bridge, the transmission of internal forces was managed by the utilization of a flexible steel rod from
the bridge structure to the bridge abutment.
Many aspects need to be considered in the design of floating bridges. The structural eigen
properties of floating bridges are affected by several parameters, including the bridge’s cross-section
properties, end connections, pontoon types and number of pontoons, and the curvature of the curved
bridges, etc. The dynamic responses of the bridge are excited by the environmental loads, including the
wind, wave, current, and tidal forces, and various floating bridge eigen modes may be excited under the
different types of loads. An important issue is the inhomogeneous environmental conditions [18–20],
especially for floating bridges in Fjord of Norway, and the inhomogeneity induces different dynamic
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 3 of 19

response properties compared with homogeneous conditions. In the case of a tsunami or extreme wave
impact loads from the environment, fluid–structure interaction is especially critical, and springing or
ringing effects may occur due to higher-order wave loads and large eigen frequencies of the bridge
structure. Tsunami loads on a bridge and the connections were found to be significantly affected by
structural flexibility [21]. A hybrid test was carried out regarding the tsunami loads on a prestressed
girder bridge and the connections, and damage was found in the specimen, indicating the importance
of the design and investigation of the bridge’s structural capability [22]. Ship collision is also one
important issue of consideration of the design. Ship collision on the pontoon wall and bridge deck
girder have been investigated [23,24]. Various limit states, i.e., the fatigue limit state (FLS), ultimate
limit state (ULS), serviceability limit state (SLS), and accidental limit state (ALS), should be investigated
for the floating bridge design. These limit states define various design criteria to ensure proper service
states under operational conditions and survivability under extreme or accidental conditions [25,26].

2. Research Significance
The development of curved floating bridges refers to traditional onshore arch bridges that are
defined as a vertically curved and axially compressed structural system. As a curved structure, the rise
is a critical parameter that is as important as the span length. Moreover, the rise-to-span ratio is a key
indicator of the structural properties of a curved bridge. A perfect arch structure theoretically induces
only compressive forces along the centroid line. Although it is practically impossible due to complex
load combinations, it is viable to explore a preferable rise-to-span ratio to achieve a desirable internal
force distribution. As for floating bridges, the rise-to-span ratio cannot be designed too large due to
site constraints. However, a shallow arch is considered to cause significant horizontal movement of
the abutments and has the disadvantages of large deformation and low rigidity. It remains unknown
whether such disadvantages also exist for horizontally curved floating bridges when subjected to wave
actions. In this paper, a relatively small rise-to-span ratio is selected for the curved floating bridge, and
the response and internal forces are investigated by varying the boundary conditions (B.Cs) and the
span length.
The deployment of the floating bridge is assumed to be in the coastal waters of Singapore. The
water depth is quite shallow; consequently, the wave force properties are also different with deep
water floating bridges. In addition, the bridge deck cross-section is developed to take high traffic
flow requirements (three lanes in each way), and the bridge span is relatively short. Under such
circumstances, the bridge’s horizontal rigidities are expected to be large. Therefore, a small rise-span
ratio is studied in the initial stage to investigate whether the arch effect can be achieved. These new
features of the floating bridges are relatively new compared with previous research and thus worthy
of investigation.

3. Floating Bridge Description

The deployment location of the floating bridge in this study is the coastal waters of Singapore,
which are characterized as relatively shallow water with a water depth of 20 m and mild environmental
conditions. Extreme sea conditions with a 100-year return period is taken as Hs = 2 m, Tp = 5.8 s. Long
crested waves are studied. The water depth is 30 m. Since the focus is to find out different structural
configuration effects and response properties. Other environmental load effects are not considered in
this study.
Single curved bridges with two bridge total spans of 500 and 1000 m are the focus, with the same
curve radius of 1000 m. The two bridges have the same rise-to-span ratio of 0.134. Discrete pontoons
are used to support the bridge, with each pontoon supporting approximately 100 m of the bridge deck.
The short bridge (500 m) includes four pontoons, while the long bridge (1000 m) has nine pontoons
in total. The bridge deck is designed to have two ways, with three lanes in each way. The bridge
cross-section is designed to be a truss configuration. The steel truss work forms the key structural
component of the bridge. Figure 1 shows the two bridge configurations. The global coordinate system,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 4 of 19

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

J.local
Mar. coordinate
Sci. Eng. 2020,system, positions are also shown. The local Y axis represents the 44weak
and pontoon
8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of 19
of 19
axis of the bridge, while the local Z axis is the strong bridge axis. The two ends of the bridge are
of the bridge are connected to the shore. Two types of end connections are investigated, i.e., rigid BC
of the bridge
connected to are
the connected
shore. Twototypes
the shore.
of endTwo types of end
connections are connections
investigated,are investigated,
i.e., i.e.,all
rigid BC with rigid
the BC
six
with all the six D.O.F fixed and flexible BC with rotational D.O.F regarding local Y and local Z free.
with
D.O.Fallfixed
the six
andD.O.F fixed
flexible BCand
withflexible BC with
rotational D.O.Frotational
regardingD.O.F
local regarding
Y and locallocal Y and local Z free.
Z free.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Floating
Floating bridge
bridge configurations.
configurations.
Figure 1. Floating bridge configurations.

The pontoonsupporting
The pontoon supporting the bridges
hashas an elliptic cylinder
shapeshape
and 6 and 6 D.O.F rigid body
The pontoon supportingthe thebridges
bridges an elliptic
has cylinder
an elliptic cylinder shape D.O.F
and 6 rigid
D.O.F body motions
rigid body
motions as shown in Figure 2. The pontoons have uniform dimensions with the major axis length of
motions as shown in Figure 2. The pontoons have uniform dimensions with the major axis length m,
as shown in Figure 2. The pontoons have uniform dimensions with the major axis length of 60 of
60 m, minor
minor axis length
axis length of 22 m,of 22 m, and height
of 9 m.of 9 m.elliptic
The elliptic
shape shape is expected to reduce theforces
drag
60 m, minor axis length of and
22 m,height
and height ofThe
9 m. The elliptic is expected
shape to reduce
is expected the drag
to reduce the drag
forces
applied applied
on theon the pontoon.
pontoon. TheseThese pontoons
pontoons are evenly
are evenly distributed
distributed along along the bridge
the bridge length,
length, andandthe
forces applied on the pontoon. These pontoons are evenly distributed along the bridge length, and
the pontoon
pontoon major major
axis isaxis is
pointingpointing to
to theto the
global global x
x direction.direction. The
The center center of gravity (C.O.G) of the
the pontoon major axis is pointing the global x direction. The of gravity
center of (C.O.G) of the pontoon
gravity (C.O.G) of the
pontoon
−2 is −2the
m from the still water lineand
(SWL), and the C.O.G of the bridge deck is the
5 m from The the
pontoon is −2 m from the still water line (SWL), and the C.O.G of the bridge deck is 5 mSWL.
is m from still water line (SWL), the C.O.G of the bridge deck is 5 m from from the
SWL.
bridge The
deckbridge
weight deck weight distribution
distribution is estimated istoestimated
be 3.99 to be 3.99
Mkg/100 m. Mkg/100
The m. of
stability The
the stability
pontoons of was
the
SWL. The bridge deck weight distribution is estimated to be 3.99 Mkg/100 m. The stability of the
pontoons was studied
studied previously [27].previously
The dimensions[27]. The
anddimensions and weight
weight parameters parameters
of the pontoonsof thebridge
and pontoons deckand
are
pontoons was studied previously [27]. The dimensions and weight parameters of the pontoons and
bridge
listed deck
in are1.listed in Table 1.
Table
bridge deck are listed in Table 1.

Figure 2.
Figure Ellipticcylinder
2. Elliptic cylinder pontoon
pontoon supporting
supporting the
the bridge,
bridge, and
and the
the modes
modes of
of the
the rigid
rigid body
body motion.
motion.
Figure 2. Elliptic cylinder pontoon supporting the bridge, and the modes of the rigid body motion.
Table 1. Pontoon and bridge deck parameters.
Table 1. Pontoon and bridge deck parameters.
Table 1. Pontoon and bridge deck parameters.
Bridge Total Span L 500/1000 (m)
Bridge Total Span L 500/1000 (m)
Bridge Total
Pontoon Number Span L 500/1000
4/9 (m)
Pontoon Number 4/9
Pontoon Overall Pontoon
DimensionNumber
(Elliptic Cylinder) 60 × 22 × 4/99 (m)
Pontoon Overall Dimension
Pontoon Draft (Elliptic Cylinder) 60 ×6 22 × 9 (m)
Pontoon Overall Dimension (Elliptic Cylinder) 60 × (m)
22 × 9 (m)
Pontoon
Pontoon Draft
C.O.G 6
(0, 0, −2)(m)(m)
Pontoon Draft 6 (m)
GM (Horizontal and Longitudinal)
Pontoon C.O.G 3 and
(0, 0,35.5
−2)(m)
(m)
Pontoon
Pontoon massC.O.G (0, 0,(Mkg)
2.319 −2) (m)
GM rotational
Pontoon
(Horizontal andI Longitudinal)
Inertia , Iyy and Izz
3 and
145.39, 660.29
35.5
and 35.5
721.03
(m)
(Mkg m2 )
GM (Horizontal and xx
Longitudinal) 3 and (m)
Pontoon
Bridge Deck mass
C.O.G 2.319
(0, (Mkg)
0, 5) (Mkg)
(m)
Pontoon mass 2.319
PontoonBridge
rotational Inertia Ixx, Iyy and Izz
Deck Weight 145.39, 660.29 and 721.03
3.990 (Mkg/100 m) (Mkg m2)
Pontoon rotational Inertia Ixx, Iyy and Izz 145.39, 660.29 and 721.03 (Mkg m2)
Bridge Deck C.O.G (0, 0, 5) (m)
Bridge Deck C.O.G (0, 0, 5) (m)
BridgeisDeck
A truss configuration used Weight 3.990 (Mkg/100
in the bridge cross-section, resembling m)
the Bergsøysund Bridge in
Bridge Deck Weight 3.990 (Mkg/100 m)
Norway [28] but with different dimensions and bridge curvatures. To evaluate the bridge deck flexural
A truss configuration is used in the bridge cross-section, resembling the Bergsøysund Bridge in
A truss configuration is used in the bridge cross-section, resembling the Bergsøysund Bridge in
Norway [28] but with different dimensions and bridge curvatures. To evaluate the bridge deck
Norway [28] but with different dimensions and bridge curvatures. To evaluate the bridge deck
flexural rigidity EIy and EIz, and torsional rigidity GJ, which is about the local y, z and x axis,
flexural rigidity EIy and EIz, and torsional rigidity GJ, which is about the local y, z and x axis,
respectively, finite element models of truss work segments with various configurations and structural
respectively, finite element models of truss work segments with various configurations and structural
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 5 of 19

rigidity
J.J.Mar. EIy
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng. and
Eng. EIz,
2020,
2020, 8,8,xand
xFOR
FOR torsional
PEERREVIEW
PEER rigidity GJ, which is about the local y, z and x axis, respectively, finite
REVIEW 55of of1919
element models of truss work segments with various configurations and structural member sizes were
member sizes
member
developed sizes were
usingwere developed
developed
commercial using
using
software commercial
commercial
SAP2000 [29], as software
software
shown SAP2000 SAP2000
in Figure 3. [29],
[29],Among as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 3.3.
these parameters,
Among
EAmong these parameters,
these parameters,
is the Young’s modulus, EAisistheE is the Young’s
theYoung’s modulus,
bridge’smodulus,
cross-sectional A is
A is the the
area, bridge’s
bridge’s cross-sectional
I is thecross-sectional
moment of inertia area,
area, IofIisisthethe
the
momentof
moment
cross-sectional ofinertia
inertia
area,of of the
G the
is cross-sectional
cross-sectional
the shear modulus, area,
area, andGGJisisisthe
the shear
theshear
torsional modulus,
modulus,constant and
and ofJJthe
isisthe
the torsionalconstant
torsional
cross-section. constant
Shear
of the cross-section. Shear modulus and Young’s modulus
modulus and Young’s modulus have the relationship of G = E/2/(1 + ν), with Poisson ratio ν =+0.3.
of the cross-section. Shear modulus and Young’s modulus have
have the
the relationship
relationship of
of G
G == E/2/(1
E/2/(1 +ν), ν),
with
Gwith Poisson
= 76.92
PoissonGPa,ratioratio
E = 200 ν = 0.3.
ν = 0.3.
GPa.GInG = 76.92
= 76.92
the end, GPa,
GPa,steel E = 200
E =circular
200 GPa.GPa. In the end,
In thesections
hollow end, steelsteel
with circular
circular
a diameter hollow
hollow sections
sections
of 1200 mmwith with
for
a a diameter
diameter of
of 1200
1200 mm
mm for
for the
the main
main chord
chord members
members and
and
the main chord members and 800 mm for diagonal members are considered in this study, with EIy, EIz, 800
800 mm
mm for
for diagonal
diagonal members
members are
are
considered
considered
and GJ values in this
inofthis study,
1.0study, 7
× 10 MNm with 2
with EIy,EIy, EIz,
, 2.0EIz,
× 10andand
7 MNm GJ 2values
GJ values
, and 1.0 of 1.0
of 1.0
× 10× 10×7 107
MNm
7 MNm
MNm 2 22, 2.0 × 1077 MNm22, and 1.0 ×
/rad,, 2.0 × 10 MNmEA
respectively. , and 1.0 ×
is taken
10
as 10177MNm
×MNm
106 MN. /rad,
22/rad, respectively.
respectively.
Structural EAisisis
EA
damping taken
taken
also asas11××10
considered 1066MN.MN. Structural
andStructural
is calculated damping
damping
by Rayleigh isisalso
alsodamping
considered
considered with and
and theisis
calculated by Rayleigh damping with the mass and stiffness
mass and stiffness proportional coefficients, then the damping ratio is calculated as ξ = 0.5(µ/ω + λ ω).
calculated by Rayleigh damping with the mass and stiffness proportional
proportional coefficients,
coefficients, then
then the
the
damping
damping
With ratio is calculated
ratio is calculated
the variation as ξ = 0.5(μ/ω
as ξ = 0.5(μ/ω
of the coefficients +
µ and λ+ from λ ω).
λ ω). 0.01 With
Withtothe the variation
0.1,variation
the damping of the
of theratio coefficients
coefficients
is plotted μ
μ inand
and λ from
λ from
Figure 4.
0.01
It0.01 to 0.1,
to
is seen 0.1, the
that the damping
the dampingratio ratiovaries
ratio isis plotted
plotted in Figure
in
significantly. Figure 4.4. ItIt isison
Focusing seen
seen that the
that
the critical the wavedamping
damping
periods, ratio
ratio varies
varies
which is
significantly.
significantly.
around sFocusing
2 s–10 Focusing
(0.628–3.14 onthe
on thecritical
critical
rad/s) wave
wave
in this study, periods,
periods, whichisisaround
which
the parameters around
µ = 0.02 22s–10
s–10λss(0.628–3.14
and =(0.628–3.14
0.02 induce rad/s)
rad/s) inthis
in
damping this
study, the
study,generally
ratios parameters
the parametersbelow 3% μ = 0.02
μ =based and
0.02 and
on the λ = 0.02
λ =estimation.induce
0.02 induceThis damping
damping
may be ratios
ratios generally
generally
regarded below 3% based
below 3% based
as a reasonable on
on the
assumption the
estimation.that
estimation.
considering Thisother
This maybe
may beregarded
regarded
viscous effects, asafor
as areasonable
reasonable assumption
example,assumption
from the wind considering
considering
and current, thatare
that other
other viscous
notviscous
considered effects,
effects, in
for example,
fornumerical
the example, from from
model. the wind and current, are not considered
the wind and current, are not considered in the numerical model. in the numerical model.

Figure3.3.3.Numerical
Figure
Figure Numericalmodel
Numerical modelof
model ofvarious
of variousbridge
various bridgegirder
bridge girdercross-sections.
girder cross-sections.
cross-sections.

Figure4.4.4.Rayleigh
Figure
Figure Rayleighdamping
Rayleigh dampingratios
damping ratiosfor
ratios forvarious
for variousangular
various angularfrequencies
angular frequenciesunder
frequencies underdifferent
under differentmass
different massproportional
mass proportional
proportional
coefficients
coefficients μμ and
and stiffness
stiffness proportional
proportional coefficients
coefficients
coefficients µ and stiffness proportional coefficients λ. λ.
λ.

4.4.4.Numerical
NumericalModel
Numerical Model
Model
Numerical
Numericalmodelling
Numerical modellingof
modelling ofthe
of thefloating
the floatingbridge
floating bridgeinvolves
bridge involvesboth
involves bothhydrodynamic
both hydrodynamicand
hydrodynamic andstructural
and structuraldynamic
structural dynamic
dynamic
models, and
models,and
models, these
andthese two
thesetwo models
twomodels
modelsareare coupled
arecoupled
coupledinin one
inone integrated
oneintegrated model.
integratedmodel. Hydrodynamic
model.Hydrodynamic properties
propertiesof
Hydrodynamicproperties ofthe
of the
the
pontoons
pontoonsas
pontoons as well
aswell as
wellas the
asthestructural
thestructural properties
structuralproperties
propertiesofof the
ofthe bridge
thebridge deck
bridgedeck and
deckand the
andthe end
theend connections
endconnections are
connectionsare taken
aretaken
taken
into
intoconsideration.
into consideration.Considering
consideration. Consideringnonlinear
Considering nonlinearfeatures,
nonlinear features,such
features, suchas
such asviscous
as viscouseffects
viscous effectsand
effects andstructural
and structuralgeometrical
structural geometrical
geometrical
nonlinearity, time
nonlinearity,time
nonlinearity, domain
timedomain analysis
domainanalysis is needed.
analysisisisneeded.
needed.
Frequencydomain
Frequency domainhydrodynamic
hydrodynamicproperties
propertiesare
arecalculated
calculatedusing
usingthetheboundary
boundaryelement
elementmethod
method
[30] based
[30] based on
on potential
potential flow
flow theory,
theory, followed
followed by
by the
the transferring
transferring of
of these
these properties
properties into
into the
the time
time
domain.This
domain. Thismethod
methodisiscalled
calledthe
thehybrid
hybridtime
timeand
andfrequency
frequencydomain
domainmethod
method[31,32],
[31,32],and
andisiswidely
widely
used in
used in different
different offshore
offshore application
application studies
studies [4,33–40].
[4,33–40]. InIn the
the case
case of
of strongly
strongly nonlinear
nonlinear
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 6 of 19

Frequency domain hydrodynamic properties are calculated using the boundary element
method [30] based on potential flow theory, followed by the transferring of these properties into the time
domain. This method is called the hybrid time and frequency domain method [31,32], and is widely
used in different offshore application studies [4,33–40]. In the case of strongly nonlinear hydrodynamic
phenomenon, such as the slamming or green water problem [41], the linear hydrodynamic model is not
suitable anymore. However, in this study, the linear hydrodynamic model is good enough, since there
.
is no water entry and exit phenomena of the pontoons expected to occur. In the time domain, if rPT , rPT ,
..
and rPT are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration vectors of a pontoon, then the hydrodynamic
forces applied on the pontoon can be expressed as:
Z t
.. . . .  . 
Fhyd = Fext (t) − A(∞)rPT (t) − B(∞)rPT (t) − k(t − τ)rPT (τ)dτ − CrPT (t)rPT (t) − KrPT (t) (1)
0

where on the right hand side of the equation, the first term is the excitation force including
Froude–Kryloff force due to the wave pressure distribution and diffraction force of the pontoon;
the second to the fourth terms are forces due to radiation, in which the third term is the force due to the
wave memory effect (retardation function force); the fifth term is due to the wave viscous effect, which
is not considered in potential flow theory but is supposed to be considered in the time domain model;
and the last term is the restoring force due to the pontoons’ vertical positions. More explanation is
provided in the following.
The finite element method is used for the structural modelling of the bridge deck. The global
dynamic equilibrium of the structural finite element formulation in time domain is expressed as [42]:
.. . .
RI (r, r, t) + RD (r, r, t) + RS (r, t) = RE (r, r, t), (2)
. ..
where r, r, and r are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration vectors for all the nodes in the
..
FEM model; RI (r, r, t) is the inertia force vector of the nodes. It includes the bridge structural mass
and pontoon mass. In addition, the added mass of the pontoons at infinite frequency as shown in
..
Equation (1) can be considered. Therefore, the pontoon inertia term is expressed as (M + A(∞))rPT (t),
where M is the pontoon structural mass matrix; A(∞) is the added mass matrix at infinite frequency;
..
and rPT (t) is the pontoon acceleration, which is also the acceleration of the node, through which bridge
element and pontoons are connected. The pontoon inertia forces are added in the inertia terms of the
connecting node.
RS (r, t) is the stiffness force vector, including the structural internal stiffness of the bridge deck.
In addition, the hydrostatic stiffness forces of the pontoons, like the inertia terms, are added to the
stiffness terms of the connecting node. The hydrostatic stiffness of the pontoon is expressed as KrPT (t),
where K is the hydrostatic stiffness matrix, and rPT (t) is the pontoon displacement, which is also the
displacement of the connecting node. The end connections of the bridge are also specified in the
stiffness force vector.
.
RD (r, r, t) is the damping force vector, including the structural internal damping and infinite
. .
frequency wave radiation damping of the pontoons B(∞)rPT (t); and rPT (t) is the velocity of the
pontoon, which also represents the velocity of the connecting node. It is noted that for floating
structures with zero forward speed, B(∞) = 0.
.
RE (r, r, t) is the external force vector. This term also includes forces that are not specified in the
previous terms. In this study, those forces include the wave excitation forces, quadratic viscous forces,
current forces, tidal variation-induced forces, and retardation forces. All these external applied forces
. .
are exerted on the pontoons. Note that the quadratic viscous forces are expressed as CrPT (t)rPT (t),

where C is the quadratic viscous damping coefficient matrix, in which the coefficients are set to 0.9 for
surge and sway D.O.Fs of the pontoons, and 1.2 for the heave D.O.F [43]. The retardation force, as
Rt .
shown in Equation (1), is expressed by the convolution integral 0 k(t − τ)rPT (τ)dτ, where k(τ) is the
retardation function matrix, and is expressed as:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 7 of 19

Z ∞ Z ∞
2 2
k (t) = [B(ω) − B(∞)] cos(ωt)dω = −ω[A(ω) − A(∞)] sin(ωt)dω, (3)
π 0 π 0
which tends to vanish with time.
In this study, the JONSWAP spectrum is used to describe the irregular wave condition or sea state.
The JONSWAP spectrum is expressed as:

αg2 5 ωp 1 ω
(  4 "  2 #)
S(ω) = exp − + ln γ exp − 2 −1 , (4)
ω5 4 ω 2σ ω

where g = 9.81 ms−2 ; ωp is the peak frequency of the sea state; γ and σ are the spectral shape parameters,
in which γ = 3.3 is used and σ = 0.07 when ω ≤ ωp , σ = 0.09 when ω > ωp ; and α is determined
from the following equation:
!2
Hs
α = 5.06 (1 − 0.287 ln γ), (5)
Tp
where Hs is the significant wave height, and Tp is the spectral peak period. Once the sea state is
determined, the JONSWAP spectrum can be used to generate the wave force spectrum from the
wave force response amplitude operator; then, wave force time series are generated based on the
superposition principle.
Several cases are specified and used in this investigation. The simulation cases are summarized in
Table 2, where RS (Rigid B.Cs with Short bridge) and FS (Flexible B.Cs with Short bridge) represent the
short 500-m bridge with rigid and flexible end connections, respectively, and RL (Rigid B.Cs with Long
bridge) and FL (Flexible B.Cs with Long bridge) represent the 1000-m-long bridge. Rigid connection
is fully rigid on the end connection, which represents the strong connections in the real structures.
Flexible connection means the rotation D.O.F along the y and z directions (Ry and Rz) in the local
coordinate system are set free.

Table 2. Cases for the bridge deck’s cross-sectional rigidity and boundary conditions.

Total EIy EIzv EA GJ

Cases Span (× 106 (× 106 (× 106 (× 106 Boundary Conditions (B.Cs)
(m) MNm2 ) MNm2 ) MN) MNm2 /rad)
RS 500 10 20 1 10
Fixed at 6 D.O.Fs
RL 1000 10 20 1 10
FS 500 10 20 1 10 Fixed at Translational D.O.F
Free at Ry and Rz, fixed at Rx
FL 1000 10 20 1 10

The time domain calculation is carried out in SIMO-RIFLEX code, which was developed by Sintef
Ocean (previously MARINTEK). SIMO [44] is a code to simulate marine operations involving various
bodies in the time domain. RIFLEX [42] is a code for analysis of slender marine structures. It is a
nonlinear time domain program with a finite element formulation that can handle large displacement
and rotations.
The frequency domain hydrodynamic properties are calculated for the pontoon through the penal
method in WADAM [45], generating the hydrodynamic excitation forces and added mass, potential
damping, etc. Then, these data are transferred to the time domain through SIMO. The bridge deck
girders are modelled in RIFLEX using beam elements. The pontoons are connected to the FEM
model in RIFLEX through the connecting nodes [42]. Then, the wave loads are transferred to the
FEM model. The FEM calculation is carried out in RIFLEX in the time domain, providing pontoon
motion parameters, then these parameters are transferred to SIMO to update the wave loads applied
on pontoons. Therefore, the model is the coupled hydro-structural dynamic model, in which the
pontoon motion and bridge deck responses are calculated and updated at each time step. However, the
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

pontoons. Therefore, the model is the coupled hydro-structural dynamic model, in which the
pontoon motion and bridge deck responses are calculated and updated at each time step. However,
J. Mar.
theSci. Eng. 2020,are
pontoons 8, 467
assumed to be rigid, and no hydroelasticity on the pontoons is considered, which 8 of 19
means the hydrodynamic properties in the frequency domain are kept linear and unchanged in the
coupled model. The calculation time step of 0.1 s is applied, and the Newmark method is used for
pontoons are assumed to be rigid, and no hydroelasticity on the pontoons is considered, which means
numerical integration to solve the differential equation. Under irregular wave conditions, a time
the length
hydrodynamic
of 4000 s properties in the
of calculation frequency domain
is performed, and 3600are
s (1kept linear
h) of and unchanged
steady-state in results
simulation the coupled
are
model. The calculation
used for the analysis. time step of 0.1 s is applied, and the Newmark method is used for numerical
integration to solve the differential equation. Under irregular wave conditions, a time length of 4000 s
of calculation
5. Numerical is performed,
Results and 3600 s (1 h) of steady-state simulation results are used for the analysis.

5. Numerical Results
5.1. Static Responses
Figures
5.1. Static 5 and 6 present the static structural responses of the curved floating bridges with
Responses
different B.Cs and span lengths. As for the vertical bending moment (Figure 5a), negative moment
Figures
values were5 and 6 present
observed the ends
at both staticfor
structural responses
bridges with of the curved
rigid supports, floating
and the bridges
magnitude is with
muchdifferent
larger
B.Cs and span lengths. As for the vertical bending moment (Figure 5a), negative
than that of the positive moment at the mid-span. Compared to the short-span bridge cases, moment values were
the long-
observed at both bridges
span floating ends forown
bridges with rigid
the same supports,moments
end negative and the magnitude
but smaller ispositive
much larger
momentsthaninthat
theof
the middle,
positivewhich
moment are at the mid-span.
beneficial Compared
for future structuraltodesigns.
the short-span
In termsbridge cases, the bending
of the horizontal long-span floating
moment
bridges own
(Figure the
5b), itssame end negative
magnitude is much moments
smaller thanbutthat
smaller
of thepositive momentsand
vertical moment, in the
the middle,
long-span which
bridge are
beneficial
generallyfor took
future structural
less momentdesigns.
than theInshort-span
terms of the horizontal
bridge. Axial bending moment
forces (Figure 6a)(Figure
show 5b),
someits
differences
magnitude for thesmaller
is much four cases.
thanThethatreasons are due to
of the vertical different
moment, B.Cs
and theand the uneven
long-span loadgenerally
bridge distributiontook
along the bridge length (differences between the bridge deck weight distribution
less moment than the short-span bridge. Axial forces (Figure 6a) show some differences for the four and pontoon
buoyancy
cases. force distribution).
The reasons The torsional
are due to different B.Cs andmoment valuesload
the uneven are larger for bridge
distribution alongcases
the with flexible
bridge length
ends (Figure
(differences 6b). the bridge deck weight distribution and pontoon buoyancy force distribution).
between
The torsional moment values are larger for bridge cases with flexible ends (Figure 6b).

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 5. Static
5. Static vertical
vertical (a)(a)and
andhorizontal
horizontal(b)
(b)bending
bending moment
moment under
under the
the bridge’s
bridge’sself-weight
self-weightfor
for
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
different
different cases.
cases.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6. Static
6. Static axial
axial force
force (a) and
(a) and torsional
torsional moment
moment (b) under
(b) under the bridge’s
the bridge’s self-weight
self-weight for different
for different cases.
cases.

5.2. Eigen Value Analysis

Eigen value analysis was carried out to identify the eigen properties of the bridge with different
B.Cs and total lengths. It is noted that only the added mass at infinite frequency (constant value)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 9 of 19

5.2. Eigen Value Analysis

Eigen value analysis was carried out to identify the eigen properties of the bridge with different
B.Cs and total lengths. It is noted that only the added mass at infinite frequency (constant value) rather
than its variation with frequency was considered. This may have introduced limited uncertainties. The
uncertainties due to this simplification were addressed as follows: For the 4600-m-long floating bridge
with discrete pontoons [38], the largest error with and without considering the frequency-dependent
added mass is 10% for the first eigen period of around 57 s, while for the subsequent eigen period, the
error varies from around 0.1% to 7%. In this study, the largest first eigen period is around 10s (shown
later), which means the bridge is much stiffer than the 4600-m bridge. In this case, the mass effect on
the eigen period is significantly less, indicating the uncertainties due to neglecting the added mass
variation with frequency are quite limited.
The first 15 eigen periods are listed in Table 3. It is obvious that the largest eigen period corresponds
to the softest bridge configuration, which is case FL. The value for the first eigen mode is 9.63 s for case
FL, followed by 7.77 s for case RL, 7.36 s for case FS, and 6.03 s for case RS. The following eigen modes
generally have the same trends. This trend shows that the softness of the bridge is most significantly
influenced by the length for these two bridges. The data also show that for the long bridge, the eigen
values decrease much slower than that for the short bridge, which means more eigen modes will be
excited for the long bridge under the same excitation spectrum. It is noted that the Rayleigh damping is
used in this study, so the damping ratios vary with the eigen periods. Considering that the first several
eigen modes contribute significantly to the dynamic responses, damping ratios based on the first five
eigen periods were calculated to be in the range of 2.2%–4.3%, with mass and stiffness proportional
coefficients of 0.02, which is in a reasonable range. This damping level will not affect the dynamic
responses significantly, which indicate negligible uncertainties due to damping coefficients.

Table 3. The first 15 eigen periods (unit: s) for the floating bridge under different B.Cs and total lengths.

Length Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RL 7.77 6.84 6.13 5.18 4.28 3.67 2.82 2.63 2.61 1.96 1.90 1.54 1.44 1.28 1.27
1000(m)
FL 9.63 7.92 7.44 6.05 4.75 4.37 3.25 3.09 2.63 2.39 2.24 1.71 1.53 1.44 1.36
RS 6.03 3.10 1.82 1.74 1.55 1.42 1.22 0.79 0.78 0.57 0.54 0.48 0.40 0.31 0.31
500 (m)
FS 7.46 4.38 2.42 2.25 1.85 1.42 1.36 1.05 0.78 0.62 0.57 0.49 0.44 0.38 0.35

J. Mar.The
Sci. first five8,eigen
Eng. 2020, x FORmode shapes are plotted in Figures 7 and 8. The first mode shapes are
PEER REVIEW 10 like
of 19
simply supported and fixed beams, and except for case FL, the first mode shape is in the horizontal
The dynamic
plane (X-Y plane).responses willmode
The other be the superposition
shapes of that
are also like the first dominant
of simple mode
beams, shapes with
as expected. different
The dynamic
weightingwill
responses factors.
be the superposition of the first dominant mode shapes with different weighting factors.

Figure 7. First five eigen mode shapes for the floating bridge for RS (a) and FS (b) cases. (RS: Rigid
Figure 7. First five eigen mode shapes for the floating bridge for RS (a) and FS (b) cases. (RS: Rigid
B.Cs with Short Bridge; FS: Flexible B.Cs with Short bridge.).
B.Cs with Short Bridge; FS: Flexible B.Cs with Short bridge.).
 Figure
J. Mar. Sci. Eng.7. First8,five
2020, 467 eigen mode shapes for the floating bridge for RS (a) and FS (b) cases. (RS: Rigid 10 of 19
B.Cs with Short Bridge; FS: Flexible B.Cs with Short bridge.).

Figure 8. First five eigen mode shapes for the floating bridge for RL (a) and FL (b) cases. (RL: Rigid
Figure
B.Cs with8. Long
First five eigenFL:
Bridge; mode shapesB.Cs
Flexible for the floating
with Long bridge for RL (a) and FL (b) cases. (RL: Rigid
bridge.).
B.Cs with Long Bridge; FL: Flexible B.Cs with Long bridge.).
5.3. Irregular Wave Analysis
5.3. Irregular Wave Analysis
Bridge responses under irregular wave actions can to some extent reflect the real performance. In
Bridge responses under irregular wave actions can to some extent reflect the real performance.
this study, the current and wind effects were considered marginally important, so were not included.
In this study, the current and wind effects were considered marginally important, so were not
Homogeneous wave conditions were assumed, which means the irregular wave forces applied on all
included. Homogeneous wave conditions were assumed, which means the irregular wave forces
theapplied
pontoons are the same.
on all the pontoons are the same.
The
The 100-year return
100-year periodstorm
return period stormwithwithHsHs = 2m
= 2m andand
Tp =Tp5.8=s 5.8
wassused
was in used
the in the irregular
irregular wave wave
analysis.
analysis.There
Therewas was no repetitionofofthe
no repetition the simulation,
simulation, as only
as only one seed
one seed number
number wasand
was used, used,
theand
wavethe wave
waswascoming
comingin inone
one direction
direction as asshown
showninin Figure
Figure 2. irregular
2. By By irregular
wavewave analysis,
analysis, the pontoon
the pontoon motion, motion,
bridge
bridge deckstructural
deck structuralresponse
response distribution
distributionalong alongthe bridge
the length,
bridge andand
length, response properties
response couldcould be
properties
be investigated. The results show the real performance of the bridge under extreme
investigated. The results show the real performance of the bridge under extreme conditions. Based on conditions. Based
1-honof1-h of steady-state
steady-state simulation,
simulation, thethe statisticalvalues
statistical values and
and spectral
spectralresults are
results presented.
are presented.
Pontoon motions and accelerations directly affect the driving comfort and serviceability of the
Pontoon motions and accelerations directly affect the driving comfort and serviceability of the
floating bridges. Under operational conditions, the wave-induced deflection should not exceed ±0.3
floating bridges. Under operational conditions, the wave-induced deflection should not exceed ±0.3 m
m in both the surge and heave, and ±0.5 degree in pitch, while the acceleration induced by the wave
in should
both the surge and heave, and ±0.5 degree in pitch, while the acceleration induced by the wave
not exceed ±0.5 m/s2, ±0.5 m/s2, and ±0.05 rad/s2 (±2.87 degree/s2) in the surge, heave, and pitch,
should not exceed ±0.5 m/s 2 , ±0.5 m/s2 , and ±0.05 rad/s2 (±2.87 degree/s2 ) in the surge, heave, and
respectively [25]. Under survival conditions, the structural responses should not exceed the capacity
pitch,
of therespectively
structure. [25]. Under survival conditions, the structural responses should not exceed the
capacity Theofpontoon
the structure.
motion Maximum (MAX) and Standard Deviation (STD) values along the bridge
length are shown
The pontoon motionin FigureMaximum
9 and Figure 10. Theand
(MAX) pontoon acceleration
Standard MAX(STD)
Deviation valuesvalues
along the bridge
along the bridge
are shown in Figure 11. The spectral results of the surge, heave, and pitch motions
length are shown in Figures 9 and 10. The pontoon acceleration MAX values along the bridge are of pontoon number
shown in Figure 11. The spectral results of the surge, heave, and pitch motions of pontoon number
4 (PT4) for the long bridge and pontoon number 2 (PT2) for the short bridge (both located at 0.4 L
position) are shown in Figure 12.
From Figures 9 and 10, both surge and pitch responses for cases FL and RL are significantly
larger than that for cases FS and RS. It is noted that the maximum values are also affected by the static
deflection under bridge deck weight, so STD values can more properly reflect the dynamic effects. It
can also be observed that for the RL case, the surge motion is significantly reduced compared with
the FL case, while for the FS and RS cases, the surge STDs are similar, which means the BC strongly
affects the surge motions for the 1000-m bridge. The reason could be due to the modes that are excited,
because the fifth eigen mode of FL is 4.75 s (1.32 rad/s), which is close to the excitation periods and is in
the X-Y plane, while eigen periods of 1.82 s (3.47 rad/s, RS) and 2.42 s (2.60 rad/s, FS) correspond to the
horizontal eigen modes of the short bridges far away from excitation. This can also be observed in the
surge spectra in Figure 12.
The heave motion responses are similar for the four simulation cases. By looking at the eigen
periods, they all have vertical modes (global Y-Z plane) located in the wave region, which is also
reflected in Figure 12. For the pitch motion, the effects from BC are not so significant for long bridges
but are important for short bridges, inducing a larger pitch for FS. There are also significant influences
from the bridge length to pitch motion. From the pitch spectra, it is seen that several eigen modes are
involved, especially the modes close to 0.9 rad/s. The acceleration plots in Figure 11 also show similar
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

4 (PT4) for the long bridge and pontoon number 2 (PT2) for the short bridge (both located at 0.4 L
position) are shown in Figure 12.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 11 of 19

4 (PT4) for the long bridge and pontoon number 2 (PT2) for the short bridge (both located at 0.4 L
position) arewith
trends shown in10,
Figure Figure 12.acceleration MAX values reflect the driving comfort. Even under the
and the
extreme sea state, the acceleration MAX values mostly do not exceed the guideline values.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 9. Pontoon surge (a), heave (b), and pitch (c) motion maximum values’ distribution along the
bridge length.

(c)
Figure
Figure 9. Pontoon
9. Pontoon surge
surge (a),(a), heave(b),
heave (b), and
and pitch
pitch(c)
(c)motion
motionmaximum values’
maximum distribution
values’ along the
distribution along the
bridge length.
bridge length.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c)
10.Pontoon
Figure 10.
Figure Pontoonsurge (a),(a),
surge heave (b),(b),
heave andand
pitchpitch
(c) motion standard
(c) motion deviation
standard (STD) distribution
deviation (STD) distribution
along the bridge length.
along the bridge length.

(c)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 12 of 19
12 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c)
Figure 11. Pontoon surge (a), heave (b), and pitch (c) acceleration maximum values’ distribution along
Figure
Figure
the bridge 11.
11. Pontoon surge
Pontoon
length. surge(a),
(a),heave
heave(b), and
(b), pitch
and (c) acceleration
pitch maximum
(c) acceleration values’values’
maximum distribution along
distribution along
the bridge length.
the bridge length.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c)
Figure
Figure Spectralresponse
12.12.Spectral response of
of the
the surge
surge(a),
(a),heave
heave(b),(b),
andand
pitch (c) motions
pitch as well
(c) motions asaswell
the as
wave
the wave
spectrum
Figure 12. for different
Spectral
spectrum for different cases.cases.
response of the surge (a), heave (b), and pitch (c) motions as well as the wave
spectrum for different cases.
From Figure 9 and Figure 10, both surge and pitch responses for cases FL and RL are significantly
larger From Figure
than that for 9cases
and FS
Figure
and 10,
RS.both surge and
It is noted that pitch responsesvalues
the maximum for cases
areFL and
also RL areby
affected significantly
the static
larger than that for cases FS and RS. It is noted that the maximum values are also affected
deflection under bridge deck weight, so STD values can more properly reflect the dynamic effects. by the static
It
can also be observed that for the RL case, the surge motion is significantly reduced compared withIt
deflection under bridge deck weight, so STD values can more properly reflect the dynamic effects.
 Figures 13–15 show the STD, MAX, and Minimum(MIN) values of the internal forces along the
bridge length, including the axial force, vertical bending moment, and horizontal bending moment.
Compared with the static results, the axial forces under wave actions are significantly larger. While
being similar to the static results, the negative vertical bending moments under wave
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467
actions occur
13 of 19
at ends of RL and RS, and the magnitudes of the negative moments are larger than the positive
moment valuesFigures in the mid-span location, which should be handled with caution in the structural
13–15 show the STD, MAX, and Minimum(MIN) values of the internal forces along the
design. In bridge
addition, length, a including
shorter the span
axiallength (RS and
force, vertical FS)moment,
bending usually andresults
horizontal in bending
relatively
moment. larger positive
vertical moments
Compared (middle
with the of Figure
static results,14
theand
axialmiddle of Figure
forces under 15), are
wave actions and rigid-end
significantly connections
larger. While (RL and
being similar to the static results, the negative vertical bending moments under wave actions occur at
RS) also introduce large end values. On the contrary, much more significant horizontal bending
ends of RL and RS, and the magnitudes of the negative moments are larger than the positive moment
moment values
values are obtained
in the mid-span for long-span
location, bridges
which should (FL and
be handled withRL) as compared
caution to short
in the structural design.spans
In (right of
Figure 14 and righta shorter
addition, of Figure 15), in
span length (RSterms
and FS)of STD,results
usually MAX, and MIN.
in relatively This
larger indicates
positive that the arch effect
vertical moments
(middle
(external loads of Figureto
transfer 14the
and middle of Figure
axial force 15), and
rather rigid-end
than bendingconnections
moment) (RL andis RS)
notalsoso introduce
obvious, especially
large end values. On the contrary, much more significant horizontal bending moment values are
for the longobtained
bridge. In further structural design and optimization, it is suggested to increase the rise-
for long-span bridges (FL and RL) as compared to short spans (right of Figure 14 and right of
span ratio or increase
Figure the horizontal
15), in terms of STD, MAX,stiffness
and MIN. of long-span
This bridge
indicates that the archcases
effect while
(externalthe
loadsvertical
transferstiffness can
be slightly to the axial force rather than bending moment) is not so obvious, especially for the long bridge. In
reduced.
further structural design and optimization, it is suggested to increase the rise-span ratio or increase the
horizontal stiffness of long-span bridge cases while the vertical stiffness can be slightly reduced.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Axial Axial
force force
(a), (a), vertical
vertical moment(b),
moment (b), and
and horizontal
horizontalmoment (c) Standard
moment Deviation (STD)
(c) Standard Deviation (STD)
distribution along the bridge length.
distribution along the bridge length.
 J. Mar.
J. Mar. Sci.Sci.
Eng.Eng. 2020,8,8,x467
2020, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19 14 of 19

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 14. Axial force (a), vertical moment (b), and horizontal moment (c) maximum values’
distribution along the bridge length.

(c)
14. Axial
Figure14.
Figure Axialforce (a), vertical
force momentmoment
(a), vertical (b), and horizontal
(b), andmoment (c) maximum
horizontal momentvalues’
(c) distribution
maximum values’
along the bridge length.
distribution along the bridge length.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c)
15. Axial
Figure 15.
Figure Axialforce (a), vertical
force momentmoment
(a), vertical (b) and horizontal
(b) andmoment (c) minimum
horizontal values
moment (c)distribution
minimum values
along bridge length.
distribution along bridge length.

(c)
Figure 15. Axial force (a), vertical moment (b) and horizontal moment (c) minimum values
distribution along bridge length.
 0.2the
of L, etc.)
bridgeforwas
curved bridges
analyzed duewith different
to the span lengths
symmetrical and B.Cs.
properties. It is noted
Different trends that
of only the half-length
the axial force (N)-
horizontal bending moment (Mz) couple effects were observed at different sections of theforce
of the bridge was analyzed due to the symmetrical properties. Different trends of the axial (N)-
bridges
horizontal bending moment (M z) couple effects were observed at different sections of the bridges
with the varying span length and B.Cs. For instance, the distribution of the N-Mz points of the FL
with the
bridge varying
changes fromspan length andline
a horizontal B.Cs. to For instance,
inclined linesthe distribution
as the distance of fromthethe
N-M endz points of the FL
support to the
bridge
section changes
increases from
(left a
of horizontal
Figure 16 line
and to
left inclined
of Figure lines
17), as the
while distance
an opposite from the
trend end
is supportfor
observed to the
the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 15 of 19
section
RL bridgeincreases
(right of(left Figureof Figure
16 and16right and of leftFigure
of Figure
17). 17), while an opposite trend is observed for the
RL bridge (right of Figure 16 and
The N-Mz coupling trends indicate the arch right of Figure 17). effect in the horizontal curved bridge when
The
subjected N-M
Figuresto16wave z coupling
and 17 present
loads. trends
It the indicate
correlation
is observed the arch
between
that the ratio effect
the axial inforce
of the the horizontal
and
maximum horizontal curved
bending bendingbridge
moment towhen
moments the
subjected to
(represented
maximum bywave
axial the 1-h
force loads.
time It isfor
series
is larger observed
ofthe longthat
various thethan
positions
bridge ratio
alongtheofthethe maximum
bridge
short length,
bridge, bending L,moment
e.g., 0.1 the
indicating 0.2 to for
L, etc.)
arch effect the
is
maximum
curved axial
bridges with
less significant force
for the is
differentlarger for the
span lengths
long bridge long
compared bridge
and with than
B.Cs.the the
It isshort short
notedone. bridge,
thatThe
only indicating
the half-length
maximum the arch bridgeis
effect
of themoment
horizontal
wasless significant
analyzed
changes for the
due to locations
at different long bridge
the symmetrical
while thecompared
properties. with
maximumDifferentthe short
axial force one.
trends The
almost maximum
of remains
the axialconstant.horizontal moment
force (N)-horizontal
Although N-
Mz points scatter in zdifferent quadrants, fairly clear boundaries are seen in Figure 16 andAlthough
changes
bending at
momentdifferent
(M )locations
couple while
effects the
were maximum
observed ataxial force
different almost
sections remains
of the constant.
bridges with the 17 N-
varying
Figure as
M
span z points
length
left and scatter
and
right in
vertical different
B.Cs. For lines, quadrants,
instance,
and thethe fairly
distribution
critical clear
N-Mz point boundaries
of the can N-M are seen
points of
be zutilized in
forthe Figure 16
FL bridge
further and
section Figure
changes
designs. 17 as
from
a left and right
horizontal vertical
line lines, lines
to inclined and the critical
as the N-Mzfrom
distance pointthe canend be utilized
supportfor to further section
the section designs.
increases (left
of Figure 16 and left of Figure 17), while an opposite trend is observed for the RL bridge (right of
Figure 16 and right of Figure 17).

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Correlation between the axial force and horizontal bending moment for the long-span
Figure
curved 16.Correlation
Figure16.
bridge cases FLbetween
Correlation between
(a) the
and RLthe axial
axial
(b), force
forceand horizontal
andby
represented horizontalbending
seriesmoment
bending
the 1-h time moment for
of various the
thelong-span
forpositions
long-span
along
curved
curved
the bridge
bridge
bridge cases
length FLFL
cases (a)(a)
and
(half-length RL
and
due (b),
RL represented
to(b), by the
represented
symmetry). 1-h 1-h
by the timetime
series of various
series positions
of various alongalong
positions the
bridge length
the bridge (half-length
length due to
(half-length symmetry).
due to symmetry).

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 17. Correlation
Figure17. Correlation between
between the theaxial
axialforce
forceand
andhorizontal
horizontalbending
bendingmoment
momentfor forthe
theshort-span
short-span
Figurebridge
curved
curved 17. Correlation
bridge cases
casesFS between
FS(a)
(a)and RSthe
andRS (b),axial
(b), force and
represented
represented byhorizontal
by the
the1-h
1-htimebending
time seriesofmoment
series variousfor
ofvarious the along
points
points short-span
alongthe
the
curved
bridge bridge
length cases FS
(half-length (a)
dueand
to RS (b),
symmetry).
bridge length (half-length due to symmetry). represented by the 1-h time series of various points along the
bridge length (half-length due to symmetry).
The N-Mz coupling trends indicate the arch effect in the horizontal curved bridge when subjected
to wave loads. It is observed that the ratio of the maximum bending moment to the maximum axial
force is larger for the long bridge than the short bridge, indicating the arch effect is less significant for
the long bridge compared with the short one. The maximum horizontal moment changes at different
locations while the maximum axial force almost remains constant. Although N-Mz points scatter in
different quadrants, fairly clear boundaries are seen in Figures 16 and 17 as left and right vertical lines,
and the critical N-Mz point can be utilized for further section designs.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

The spectral results

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. for the axial force, and horizontal and vertical bending moments
2020, 8, 467 16 of 19 at the
bridge deck position of 0.4 L are shown in Figure 18. The axial forces and horizontal bending
moments for the short bridge
The spectral arethemuch
results for smaller
axial force, than theand
and horizontal long bridge,
vertical which
bending is confirmed
moments at the bridge in Figures
13–15, anddeckdifferences
position ofbetween FL and
0.4 L are shown RL are18.mainly
in Figure due
The axial to various
forces eigenbending
and horizontal modes.moments
It is alsoforseen that
the short
most response peaksbridgearearelocated
much smaller
at thethan
wavethe region,
long bridge,
whichwhich
is is
dueconfirmed
to the in Figures
first 13–15,
several and periods
eigen
differences between FL and RL are mainly due to various eigen modes. It is also seen that most
that are close to the spectral period.
response peaks are located at the wave region, which is due to the first several eigen periods that are
close to the spectral period.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 18.Figure
Spectral response
18. Spectral of theofaxial
response force
the axial (a),
force (a),and
and vertical (b)
vertical (b) and
and horizontal
horizontal bending
bending momentmoment
(c) (c)
at the 0.4 L position, as well as the wave spectrum for
at the 0.4 L position, as well as the wave spectrum for different cases.different cases.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

6. Conclusions and Discussion
This paper investigated curved floating bridges with a same small rise-span ratio. Different bridge
This lengths
paper ofinvestigated
500 and 1000 mcurved
were studied. Varied
floating B.Cs were
bridges alsoainvestigated.
with same small Static, eigen value,
rise-span andDifferent
ratio.
dynamic analysis were carried out for the four different cases. Pontoon motions and structural reaction
bridge lengths of 500 and 1000 m were studied. Varied B.Cs were also investigated. Static, eigen value,
forces and moments were presented and analyzed. The motion responses indicated the satisfaction of
and dynamic analysis were
the survivability carried
criteria for the out forconfiguration
bridge the four different
under thecases. Pontoon
operational motions
and extreme seaand structural
states.
reaction forces and moments
In this study, weresea
only the extreme presented and analyzed.
state was studied to focus onThe motion response
the structural responses indicated the
properties
under different bridge configurations. The structural reaction results showed
satisfaction of the survivability criteria for the bridge configuration under the operational that although the same and
rise-span ratio was applied, bridges with different lengths have various response properties, and the
extreme sea states. In this study, only the extreme sea state was studied to focus on the structural
short bridge provides a prominent arch effect compared to the long bridge. In addition, the response
response properties
properties under
provide different
insights bridge
into further configurations.
structural design. BasedTheonstructural reaction
the investigation, results showed
the following
that although the same
conclusions can be rise-span
drawn. ratio was applied, bridges with different lengths have various
response properties, and analysis
Eigen value the shortconsiders
bridge provides
the infinitea frequency
prominentadded arch mass
effect rather
compared
than tothethe long
bridge. Infrequency-dependent
addition, the response addedproperties
mass, whichprovide
involves insights
uncertainties,
intobut these uncertainties
further are quiteBased on
structural design.
limited. The eigen periods showed that the softest bridge configuration is FL, followed by RL, FS, and
the investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn.
Eigen value analysis considers the infinite frequency added mass rather than the frequency-
dependent added mass, which involves uncertainties, but these uncertainties are quite limited. The
eigen periods showed that the softest bridge configuration is FL, followed by RL, FS, and RS. The
eigen values were varied from 0.3 s to around 10 s. For the long bridge, eigen values decreased much
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 17 of 19

RS. The eigen values were varied from 0.3 s to around 10 s. For the long bridge, eigen values decreased
much slower than that for the short bridge, which means more eigen modes will be excited for the long
bridge under the same excitation spectrum. Negative end moments were induced for the RL and RS
bridge cases in static conditions, and the negative vertical moment value was much larger than the
horizontal one. When compared to short-span bridge cases (FS and RS), a smaller positive moment
was observed in the middle span of FL and RL, which is beneficial for structural design.
Irregular wave analysis was performed under the extreme sea state. The pontoon motions showed
that BC strongly affected the surge motions for the 1000-m bridge, because it varied the eigen periods,
i.e., the resonant region; another reason may be due to the relatively flexible properties of the long
bridge, which highlights the importance of the BC. The heave motion responses were similar for
the four simulation cases and frequencies were in the wave region. For pitch motions, there were
significant influences from the bridge length. The acceleration MAX values mostly did not exceed the
guideline values of the operational condition even under the extreme sea state, which indicates that
the motion of the bridges under wave action is acceptable.
From the structural responses, it can be concluded that flexible end connections are better,
considering the vertical and horizontal end bending moment. Short bridges are better in terms of the
axial forces and horizontal bending moment, while long bridges have relatively lower vertical bending
moments. In further structural design and optimization, it is suggested to increase the horizontal
stiffness of long-span bridge cases while the vertical stiffness can be slightly reduced.
The bending effect was apparently observed in the current research study on the shallow curved
floating bridge with a small rise-to-span ratio (0.134). It is not a preferable force state for an arch bridge
geometry, where the axial compression effect is still prominent. However, the short bridge showed
a greater arch effect than the long bridge. Therefore, larger rise-to-span ratios are to be considered
in a companion paper to explore the optimal rise-to-span ratios for curved floating bridges and the
coupling N-M effect will be further studied.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.W., D.J. and J.D.; Methodology, L.W., D.J. and J.D.; Software, L.W.;
Validation, L.W., D.J. and J.D.; Formal analysis, L.W., D.J.; Investigation, L.W., D.J.; Resources, L.W., D.J. and J.D.;
Data curation, L.W., D.J. and J.D.; Writing—original draft preparation, L.W., D.J.; Writing—review and editing,
L.W., D.J. and J.D.; Visualization, L.W.; Supervision, L.W., D.J. and J.D.; Project administration, L.W. and D.J.;
Funding acquisition, L.W., D.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript
Funding: This research was funded by Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, grant No. BK20180487;
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), grant No.51808292; Research funds from Newcastle
University through Newcastle Research & Innovation Institute Pte Ltd. (NewRIIS), Singapore; And research funds
from State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Grant number:
HESS-1709. The aforementioned funds are gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Jiang, D.; Tan, K.; Ong, K.; Heng, S.; Dai, J.; Lim, B.; Ang, K. Behavior of prestressed concrete self-stabilizing
floating fuel storage tanks. In Proceedings of the 4th Congrès International de Géotechnique–Ouvrages–
Structures, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietman, 26–27 October 2017; pp. 1097–1106.
2. Jiang, D.; Tan, K.H.; Dai, J.; Ong, K.C.G.; Heng, S. Structural performance evaluation of innovative prestressed
concrete floating fuel storage tanks. Struct. Concr. 2019, 20, 15–31. [CrossRef]
3. Jiang, D.; Tan, K.H.; Wang, C.M.; Ong, K.C.G.; Bra, H.; Jin, J.; Kim, M.O. Analysis and design of floating
prestressed concrete structures in shallow waters. Mar. Struct. 2018, 59, 301–320. [CrossRef]
4. Wan, L.; Han, M.; Jin, J.; Zhang, C.; Magee, A.R.; Hellan, Ø.; Wang, C.M. Global dynamic response analysis
of oil storage tank in finite water depth: Focusing on fender mooring system parameter design. Ocean Eng.
2018, 148, 247–262. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, C.; Wan, L.; Magee, A.R.; Han, M.; Jin, J.; Ang, K.K.; Hellan, Ø. Experimental and numerical study on
the hydrodynamic loads on a single floating hydrocarbon storage tank and its dynamic responses. Ocean
Eng. 2019, 183, 437–452. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 18 of 19

6. Dai, J.; Ang, K.K.; Jin, J.; Wang, C.M.; Hellan, Ø.; Watn, A. Large floating structure with free-floating,
self-stabilizing tanks for hydrocarbon storage. Energies 2019, 12, 3487. [CrossRef]
7. Watanabe, E.; Wang, C.; Utsunomiya, T.; Moan, T. Very large floating structures: Applications, analysis and
design. Core Rep. 2004, 2, 104–109.
8. Watanabe, E.; Utsunomiya, T. Analysis and design of floating bridges. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2003, 5,
127–144. [CrossRef]
9. Kashiwagi, M. Research on Hydroelastic Responses of VLFS: Recent Progress and Future Work. In
Proceedings of the Ninth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Brest, France, 30 May–4
June 1999.
10. Watanabe, E.; Utsunomiya, T.; Wang, C. Hydroelastic analysis of pontoon-type VLFS: A literature survey.
Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 245–256. [CrossRef]
11. Fu, S.; Cui, W.-C.; Chen, X.; Wang, C. Hydroelastic analysis of a nonlinearly connected floating bridge
subjected to moving loads. Mar. Struct. 2005, 18, 85–107.
12. Watanabe, E.; Utsunomiya, T.; Wang, C.M.; Xiang, Y. Hydroelastic Analysis of Pontoon-type Circular VLFS.
In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI,
USA, 25–30 May 2003.
13. Seif, M.S.; Inoue, Y. Dynamic analysis of floating bridges. Mar. Struct. 1998, 11, 29–46. [CrossRef]
14. Xu, Y.; Øiseth, O.; Moan, T. Time Domain Modelling of Frequency Dependent Wind and Wave Forces on a
Three-span Suspension Bridge with two Floating Pylons Using State Space Models. In Proceedings of the
ASME 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30
June 2017.
15. Petersen, Ø.W.; Øiseth, O. Sensitivity-based finite element model updating of a pontoon bridge. Eng. Struct.
2017, 150, 573–584. [CrossRef]
16. Løken, A.; Oftedal, R.; Aarsnes, J. Aspects of Hydrodynamic Loading and Responses in Design of Floating
Bridges. In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Strait Crossings, Trondheim, Norway, 10 June 1990;
pp. 10–13.
17. Solland, G.; Haugland, S.; Gustavsen, J.H. The Bergsøysund Floating Bridge, Norway. Struct. Eng. Int. 1993,
3, 142–144. [CrossRef]
18. Cheng, Z.; Svangstu, E.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Field measurements of inhomogeneous wave conditions in
Bjørnafjorden. J. Waterw. PortCoast. Ocean Eng. 2018, 145, 05018008. [CrossRef]
19. Cheng, Z.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Wave load effect analysis of a floating bridge in a fjord considering inhomogeneous
wave conditions. Eng. Struct. 2018, 163, 197–214. [CrossRef]
20. Dai, J.; Leira, B.J.; Moan, T.; Kvittem, M.I. Inhomogeneous wave load effects on a long, straight and
side-anchored floating pontoon bridge. Mar. Struct. 2020, 72, 102763. [CrossRef]
21. Istrati, D.; Buckle, I.G. Effect of Fluid-structure Interaction on Connection Forces in Bridges Due to Tsunami
Loads. In Proceedings of the 30th US-Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop, Washington, DC, USA, 21–23
October 2014.
22. Higgins, C.; Lehrman, J.; Bradner, C.; Schumacher, T.; Cox, D. Hybrid Testing of a Prestressed Girder Bridge
to Resist Wave Forces. In Proceedings of the 29th US-Japan bridge engineering workshop, Tsukuba, Japan,
11–13 November 2013.
23. Sha, Y.; Amdahl, J. Numerical investigations of a prestressed pontoon wall subjected to ship collision loads.
Ocean Eng. 2019, 172, 234–244. [CrossRef]
24. Sha, Y.; Amdahl, J.; Dørum, C. Local and Global Responses of a Floating Bridge Under Ship–Girder Collisions.
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2019, 141, 031601. [CrossRef]
25. Lwin, M. Floating bridges. Bridge Eng. Handb. 2000, 22, 1–23.
26. The ISSC Committee VI.2. Very Large Floating Structures. In Proceedings of the 16th International Ship and
Offshore Structures Congress, Southampton, UK, 20–25 August 2006.
27. Wan, L.; Magee, A.R.; Hellan, Ø.; Arnstein, W.; Ang, K.K.; Wang, C.M. Initial Design of a Double Curved
Floating Bridge and Global Hydrodynamic Responses under Environmental Conditions. In Proceedings of
the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2017-61802,
Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017.
28. Kvåle, K.A.; Sigbjörnsson, R.; Øiseth, O. Modelling the stochastic dynamic behaviour of a pontoon bridge: A
case study. Comput. Struct. 2016, 165, 123–135. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 467 19 of 19

29. Computers & Structures, Inc. CSI Analysis Reference Manual, rev. 15. Berkeley, CA, USA, July 2016;
Available online: https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/doc/CSI+Analysis+Reference+Manual (accessed on 10
May 2019).
30. Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993;
Volume 1.
31. Naess, A.; Moan, T. Stochastic Dynamics of Marine Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2013.
32. Cummins, W. The impulse response function and ship motions. Schiffstechnik 1962, 47, 101–109.
33. Wan, L.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T.; Lugni, C. Experimental and numerical comparisons of hydrodynamic responses
for a combined wind and wave energy converter concept under operational conditions. Renew. Energy 2016,
93, 87–100. [CrossRef]
34. Wan, L.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Experimental and numerical study of hydrodynamic responses of a combined
wind and wave energy converter concept in survival modes. Coast. Eng. 2015, 104, 151–169. [CrossRef]
35. Karimirad, M.; Moan, T. A simplified method for coupled analysis of floating offshore wind turbines. Mar.
Struct. 2012, 27, 45–63. [CrossRef]
36. Gao, Z.; Moan, T.; Wan, L.; Michailides, C. Comparative numerical and experimental study of two combined
wind and wave energy concepts. J. Ocean Eng. Sci. 2016, 1, 36–51. [CrossRef]
37. Michailides, C.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Experimental and numerical study of the response of the offshore combined
wind/wave energy concept SFC in extreme environmental conditions. Mar. Struct. 2016, 50, 35–54. [CrossRef]
38. Cheng, Z.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Hydrodynamic load modeling and analysis of a floating bridge in homogeneous
wave conditions. Mar. Struct. 2018, 59, 122–141. [CrossRef]
39. Wu, M.; Moan, T. Linear and nonlinear hydroelastic analysis of high-speed vessels. J. Ship Res. 1996, 40,
149–163.
40. Kashiwagi, M. Transient responses of a VLFS during landing and take-off of an airplane. J. Mar. Sci. Technol.
2004, 9, 14–23. [CrossRef]
41. Wan, L.; Greco, M.; Lugni, C.; Gao, Z.; Moan, T. A combined wind and wave energy-converter concept in
survivalmode: Numerical and experimental study in regular waves with afocus on water entry and exit.
Appl. Ocean Res. 2017, 63, 200–216. [CrossRef]
42. Marintek. Riflex Theory Manual v4.0 Rev3. 2013. Available online: https://www.manualslib.com/products/
Lexicon-Lx-Rev-3-2622504.html (accessed on 10 May 2019).
43. DNV. Recommended Practice Dnv-rp-c205, Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads. 2010.
Available online: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/dnv/codes/docs/2010-10/rp-c205.pdf (accessed on
10 May 2019).
44. Marintek. SIMO—Theory Manual Version 3.6, Rev: 2. 2009. Available online: https://projects.dnvgl.com/
sesam/status/Simo/SIMO-release-notes_4.16.0.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2019).
45. DNV. Wave Analysis by Diffraction and Morison Theory (WADAM), Sesam User Manual. V8.3. 2011.
Available online: https://home.hvl.no/ansatte/tct/FTP/V2020%20Hydrodynamikk/Sesam/SESAM%20UM%
20Brukermanualer/Wadam_UM.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2019).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).