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

net/publication/284551659

Coupled Analysis of a SPM Buoy-Feeder-Cage

System for Offshore Aquaculture

CONFERENCE PAPER · JUNE 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 7

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Cristian Cifuentes
Texas A&M University
9 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Cristian Cifuentes
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 23 March 2016
Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth (2014) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.org
Busan, Korea, June 15-20, 2014
Copyright © 2014 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1 880653 91-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Coupled Analysis of a SPM Buoy-Feeder-Cage System for Offshore Aquaculture

Cristian Cifuentes, M.H.Kim
Ocean Engineering Program, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas, USA

Neil Anthony Sims, Gavin Key

Kampachi Farms, LLC
Kailua-Kona Hawaii, USA

ABSTRACT and mooring system is crucial for the success of the operations.

The dynamic response of an offshore aquaculture system with mooring
lines, buoys, feeder vessel, and fish cage under waves and currents has
been investigated. The system has been modeled by using the fully
nonlinear finite-element software Orcaflex. To model the cage, a
combination of lines, 3 and 6 degree of freedom buoys are used. The
drag coefficient acting over the net is determined at each time step of
the simulation based on the relative normal velocity between the
element and the fluid flow. The system is kept in place by the use of a
Single Point Mooring (SPM) line attached to a surface buoy which is
connected to the vessel. The vessel is coupled to the cage by an
umbilical line that carries feeder hose, video camera cables, and other
connections. The numerical simulations showed that the proposed
system can be used in both operational and storm conditions.
KEY WORDS: Offshore aquaculture; Single Point Mooring; Feeder
vessel; Connecting lines, Operational/Survival environment; Drag
force; Net; Cage; Equivalent net modeling; Line tensions.
This work presents a coupled analysis of mooring, feeder vessel, and
cage. Results for a collinear combination of waves and currents are
presented under different environmental loads. Operational conditions
have been selected according to Norwegian standards for offshore
exposed areas. For the case of extreme events, environmental loads for
the 10 and 100 year storm conditions in the Gulf of Mexico have been
selected. Of particularly interest to this study is the effect of the cage on
the tension in the SPM mooring line; for this reason, we consider two
configurations of the system: the cage located both at the water surface
and submerged below the wave action zone. In the calculations, first-
and second-order wave effects over the vessel have been considered
using Newman’s approximation (e.g. Kang and Kim, 2012). The results
suggest that this type of system is a viable alternative for sustainable
offshore aquaculture applications, expanding the frontiers of fish
production.
NUMERICAL MODEL

INTRODUCTION Model components

During the last two decades, aquaculture has become an important
component of food production globally. Currently, the industry
accounts for nearly a fifty percent of the total tonnage of annual
seafood production, and in certain regions of China its production is
even greater than traditional fish capture (FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Department 2012). To date, most of the development of
the industry has occurred in coastal protected areas where currents and
waves do not greatly impair daily operations. However, coastal bays
present several problems for the growth and health of fish, for
competing ocean user-groups, and for scalability of the industry. In
order for the industry to expand and improve growing conditions for
the stock to grow, a natural path is to move the production centers to
exposed locations further offshore where there is more space for
expansion, fewer regulatory constraints and conflicts with other ocean
users. Furthermore, offshore currents maintain constant renewal of
water through the farm system. In such exposed areas, the need for an
accurate prediction of the dynamics of not only the cage, but the feeder
The system used in this study considers a SPM mooring line connected
to a feeder vessel and a cage. The cage is constructed of High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe frame and nylon netting. In order to
determine the dynamic response of the coupled system under irregular
waves and currents, the commercial software Orcaflex version 9.6 was
used. This software is a fully nonlinear finite element tool able to
handle complex load scenarios. This tool can perform coupled static
and dynamic analysis of offshore platforms, risers and mooring lines. In
time domain analysis, Orcaflex includes nonlinearities such as drag
forces on platform and mooring lines, large displacements and
deformations as well as friction and contact between elements (Orcina
Ltd. 2013).
The cage is composed of the upper and lower collars and the net. To
model the cage, a combination of lines, 3 and 6 degree of freedom
buoys, was utilized. It is important to clarify that the total projected
area and net buoyancy on the numerical model are the same as those in

949
the real system. The projected area depends on the solidity ratio of each
particular net selection. Solidity ratio (Sn) is defined as the ratio
between the projected areas of the net panel divided by the total area
covered by that panel.
For the case of the net itself, its modeling is done by using a series of
lines connected by 3 degree of freedom buoys. It is certainly impossible
to model every single thread of the net; therefore, an equivalent net is
created by using a finite number of lines whose diameter and length
represent the total projected area of the prototype net. Lines are the
elements that represent the threads of the net; more specifically, they
represent the projected area as well as the mass of the material used. In
addition, in order to calculate the deformation of the net, lines also
include the effect of axial stiffness dominated by Young’s modulus of
the net material. Lines are represented by massless sections connected
to nodes. Mass and buoyancy are translated to the nodes leaving just
axial and torsional properties in the segments (Orcina Ltd. 2013). The
calculated hydrodynamics and inertial forces from the segments are
then applied to the nodes to solve the whole system. To complete the
modeling of the net, we need to connect every line element to each
other. In this case, since the net bending stiffness is negligible, the use
of 3 degree of freedom buoys is appropriate. The 3 degree of freedom
buoys act as connection only and do not add either mass or drag to the
system. It is a simple neutrally buoyant element with no rotational
motions. The simple formulations allow us to describe the complex
dynamics of the net of the real system in short simulation times with
reasonable accuracy.
In order to model the upper and lower collars, line elements are used to
represent the HDPE pipes used as buoyancy elements in the real
system. In this case, the lines have exactly the same geometry, mass,
and mechanical properties of the prototype. For this particular element,
bending moment is important and must be well represented in the
numerical model. Instead of using 3 degree of freedom buoys, in this
case, we use 6 degree of freedom buoys rigidly attached to the lines
representing the pipes. In this manner, the bending moments are
transmitted into adjacent line elements giving an accurate
representation of the deformations and forces withstood by the collars.
In addition, distributed weight is applied to the bottom collar of the
cage in order to maintain maximum volume when exposed to currents.
In order to capture this effect, the density of the pipe was modified for
those line elements to match the total mass. Thus, the weight of the
HDPE pipe plus the steel cables inside were included in the numerical
model. The complete cage model is presented in Fig. 1.
5m
Fig. 1 Numerical model of cage
The next vital component of this system is the feeder vessel. In this
case the vessel is modeled by the use of its displacement and load
950
RAOs, as well as its QTF (quadratic transfer function), stiffness, added
mass and damping matrices. All the informations can be imported into
Orcaflex. They can be calculated from a diffraction/radiation solver
such as WAMIT. By using this data, the response of the vessel can be
calculated under several wave and current scenarios. More direct
simulations including the vessels and lines can alternatively be used
(e.g. Kang and Kim, 2012; Yang and Kim, 2011). For this particular
study, first- and second-order wave loads have been included; in
addition, added mass, damping, and current load are used. In order to
include second-order wave-drift load, Newman’s approximation has
been used.
The final components of the system are a set of buoys and the SPM
mooring line that keeps the system in place. For the buoys, because
they are used just as a buoyancy element and their displacements and
loads are not significant for this study, simple 3 degree of freedom
buoys are used with negligible drag areas and mass; however, the
excess of buoyancy was modeled according to the case to be discussed.
For the SPM line, the lines connecting the vessel to the SPM line, and
the umbilical line connecting the vessel to the cage, line elements
considering the corresponding characteristics of each segment were
modeled. A complete view of the elements of the system is presented in
Fig. 2 for both operational and storm conditions.
Once the numerical model was created, the load over the elements was
calculated by using the modified version of Morison equation. In their
work, Morison, et al. (1950) used a fixed vertical cylinder to estimate
the wave load. In this case, since line and buoy elements move due to
the presence of current and waves, the relative acceleration and velocity
between element and fluid speed is used to calculate inertia and drag
loads respectively. The modified formula is presented in Eq. (1)
Fw   aw  Ca ar   1  Cd AVr Vr
(1)
2
In Eq. (1), Fw is the fluid force, ∆ is the mass of fluid displaced by the
element, aw is the fluid acceleration relative to earth, Ca is the added
mass coefficient for the element, ar is the fluid acceleration relative to
the element, ρ is the density of water, V is the fluid velocity relative to
the element, Cd is the drag coefficient for the element and A is the
frontal drag area.
In order to calculate the global response of the system, the local
equation of motion for each element must be solved first. The form of
this equation of motion is given in Eq. (2). In this case, an implicit
integration scheme has been selected, using a constant time step and the
generalized α integration scheme. Therefore an iterative solution at the
end of each time step is reached. This method allows stable simulations
for longer time steps (Orcina Ltd. 2013).
M  p  a  F  p, v, t   C  p, v   K  p  (2)
For Eq. (2), M(p) is the local inertia load, F(p,v,t) is the external load
over the element, C(p,v) is the element damping load and K(p) is the
element stiffness load. p,v,a and t are the position, velocity,
acceleration, and simulation time step respectively. The global equation
of motion of the system has the same form as the local one except that
it uses global loads and vectors.
In order to suppress the transient response in the dynamic simulation, a
ramping function has been used. This function allows a progressive
built up of waves and current from zero up to their expected values.
Details about this ramping function can be found at Orcina Ltd. (2013).
 10 m
Drag coefficient formulation b) Surface
X
Surface
buoy buoy
The determination of the drag coefficient acting on the cage
components is a crucial point for accurate assessment of the acting drag
forces and dynamic response of the system. Following the work by
Tsukrov et al. (2003), the net is described by a series of cylinders which
generate an equivalent drag force as in the real system. These cylinders Connection line
possess the same projected area as the actual net. In the calculations, we
also need the correct drag coefficient to be inputted into the Morrison
equation (Morison, et al.1950) to accurately capture the load over the Cage
system. In our numerical model, we have used the formulation SPM line
presented by DeCew, et al. (2010) which is an expansion of the work
by Choo and Casarella (1971) considering towed cables up to a Fig. 2 Components of the system under (a) Operational condition. (b)
Reynolds number of 105. In the model by DeCew, et al. (2010), the Storm condition
formulation has been expanded up to 107 to capture the drop in the
value for drag coefficient at high Reynolds numbers due to the PROTOTYPE
turbulent nature of the flow. The formulation is as follows.
Description
 8
 Re s 1  0.87 s  ,
2
0  Re  1
 The prototype used in the present calculations is primarily based on a
0.9
 1.45  8.55 Re , 1  Re  30 novel system presented by Kampachi Farms. This system is installed in
 1.1  4 Re 0.5 , 30  Re  2.33 x105 1828 meters water depth offshore Kailua-Kona Hawaii. The selection

Cdn   3.41x106  Re  5.78 x105  , 2.33 x105  Re  4.92 x105 (3) of the site corresponds to the characteristics used in a previous study by
 Sims and Key (2011) where a pen was deployed in the ocean and
  
0.401 1  e  Re / 5.99 x105 , 4.92 x105  Re  107 attached to a freely drifting vessel. The results of that study show a
 great improvement in growth, feed conversion, and mortality rate in the
s  0.077215655  ln(8 / Re)
 cultivated fish. Therefore, the same environmental conditions are to be
 modeled to compare those results against a stationary system.

This formulation is implemented into Orcaflex. At each time step, the The main component of the system, the offshore cage, is based on a
normal relative velocity over the elements is calculated considering the widely used model. It is a typical circular cage in which buoyancy
effect of waves, current and speed of the line element. Using this comes from a pair of HDPE pipes at the top, while another weighted
velocity, Re is determined and then Cdn is computed to determine the pipe at the bottom of the cage is used to maintain cage volume under
load over the element. For the inertia coefficient, a value of 2 was used current loads. The particulars of this cage are presented in Table 1. The
based on the work by Lader et al. (2007) second component on the cage is the netting. In this case, a nylon net
was used. This net is suitable for offshore applications due to its low
The procedure described was first validated against the study conducted weight and high strength. Characteristics of the net are presented in
by Lader and Enerhaug (2005). In their experimental study, a single net Table 2.
is exposed to a constant current profile. Variations in current speed and
bottom weight generated a complete set of results providing drag forces Table 1. Principal particulars of prototype cage
and deformations of the net under the different conditions tested. Those
experimental results were used as a benchmark for our study. Previous Parameter Magnitude
to the calculations presented in this document, a numerical model using
the same net and load conditions as in Lader and Enerhaug (2005) was Cage model PolarCirkel 315
calculated. The results obtained showed good agreement with the Material HDPE
experiments performed, particularly in cases of small net deformations,
which is the case for the cage presented in this study. Material density (te/m3) 0.958
Floating pipe diameter (m) 0.315
10 m
Y X
Standard circumference (m) 94
a) Feeder
Surface Standard diameter (m) 30
buoy
Center distance between floating pipes (m) 0.66
Thickness of floating pipes (m) 0.0178
Bottom ring diameter (m) 0.2
Cage Draft (m) 10
Connection line Umbilical
Attachment point

SPM line

951
Table 2 Principal particulars of nylon net buoy at the top of the cage has a 1.5 m3 net buoyancy.

Parameter Magnitude Environmental conditions

Solidity 0.1873
Three main load scenarios were examined. The first one is the
Twine diameter (m) 0.0018 operational condition of the system considering the feeder vessel, cage,
Shape Square and mooring. This is intended to represent the daily loads over the
system. A second scenario considers a storm event. The 10 year storm
Density (te/m3) 1.1 condition in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) has been selected. In this case,
the simulation does not include the vessel, on the presumption that it
Another key component in the system is the feeder vessel. In this case could be removed before storm approaches. The cage is located
the vessel is a ship platform. The characteristics of this ship have been underwater and attached to the SPM line. The third scenario is an
derived from a 103 meter tanker. In our case, a 25 meter length vessel extreme event i.e. 100-year storm in GOM. This case uses a similar
has been used. A Froude scale approach has been used in order to configuration as in the 10 year storm condition. Both storm events use a
match the desire displacement for the vessel. This length gives a combination of collinear irregular waves and current profile varying
displacement which allows enough food for the fish for a week. The with depth.
scale dimensions of the vessel are presented in Table 3.
Operational conditions
Table 3 Feeder vessel characteristics
Considering the site of operation as an exposed location, the criteria
Parameter Magnitude presented in Standard Norway (2009) were utilized. In this case, the
combination of waves and steady currents is as follows: Significant
Length between perpendiculars (m) 25 wave height Hs =3 m., peak period Tp =9 s. and 1 m/s constant current.
Breadth (m) 3.87 A Jonswap spectrum is used to represent the sea state.
Draught (m) 1.61 Storm condition
Transverse GM (m) 0.44
Given the lifespan of an offshore cage, this is a benchmark calculation
Longitudinal GM (m) 27.67
for the determination of the dynamic response of the system. The
Center of gravity¹ (m) (0.61,0,-0.47) conditions used are the ones presented by API (2007). The sea state
Moment of inertia (te*m2) (209.67,4.93E3, 4.93E3) was represented by a Jonswap spectrum with Hs =10 m. and Tp =13 s.
The current profile is collinear to the waves and its input description is
Block coefficient 0.804 detailed in Table 5.
Displacement (te) 125.83
Table 5 Current profile for storm condition
¹ Respect to amidships and sea surface
Current speed
Another part of the arrangement to be described is the mooring system Water depth (m)
(m/s)
in conjunction with the connection lines between surface buoy and
vessel, and the umbilical line between vessel and cage. The prediction 0 – 34.7 1.65
of the tension in these lines is the main objective of this study. For the 34.7 – 69.3 1.24
SPM line, considering the water depth selected for this study, a
combination of chain and nylon rope has been utilized. For the rest of 69.3 – 1828.8 0.0
the connection between vessel, cage, and surface buoy, nylon rope was
selected. The properties of both materials are presented in Table 4. The Extreme condition
chain section is a 2” stud link and the nylon section is 1 ½” 8 strand
multiplait. For a survival case, a 100 year storm condition in the GOM has been
selected. The wave characteristics are represented by a Jonswap
Table 4 Material properties for mooring and connecting elements. spectrum with Hs =15.8 m. and Tp =15.4 s. The current profile is
collinear to the waves and its input description is detailed in Table 6.
Material Dry mass (kg/m) Minimum breaking load
Table 6 Current profile for extreme condition
(kN)
Chain 55 1370 Current speed
Water depth (m)
Nylon rope 3.87 223 (m/s)
0 – 50.3 2.4
The last components to be described are the buoys used in this study. In 50.3 – 100.7 1.8
the case presented in Fig. 2 (a), the cage is positioned at the sea surface;
however a second case of study, Fig. 2 (b), considers the cage at an 100.7 – 1828.8 0.0
underwater position in order to minimize wave loading. Therefore a
total of two buoys are used; one at the sea surface holding the weight of
the SPM line, and a second buoy located over the cage to compensate
for the extra mass needed in the bottom collar to submerge it. The main
buoy connected at the SPM line has a 2 m3 net buoyancy while the

952
NUMERICAL RESULTS
4000 4000
For all the numerical results presented, the SPM line is composed of a
219 meter chain segment at the seabed followed by a 3428 m. nylon 3500 3500
section and a 10 m. chain segment at the top connected to the main
3000 3000
surface buoy. For the operational cases, the connection between the
surface buoy and vessel and the umbilical connecting the feeder and the

Feeder surge (m)

2500 2500
cage are consider to be a 60 m. nylon segments. The simulations for
cage only conditions were extended up to 4 hr. while the coupled 2000 2000

simulations with feeder were studied up to 3 hours. 1500 1500

Operational conditions 1000 1000

500 Underwater cage 500

During the normal operation in exposed areas, an offshore cage is to Surface cage
withstand sea environments most of the time. In this particular case, it 0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
is interesting to analyze the responses of the cage and vessel under Time(s)
typical irregular waves and current load. Two cases are analyzed in
order to compare the effect of the cage over the motion of the vessel Fig. 5 Comparison of vessel surge for surface and underwater cage
and the tension in the SPM line. The first case considers the cage condition.
underwater and the load is primarily dominated by the drag from
current.
3 3
The second case considers the cage at the sea surface including wave
drift and wave-current interaction. The latter modifies the relative 2 2
normal velocity and therefore Cd. Results are presented in Figs. 3~7
1 1

Feeder heave (m)

160 160

140 140 0 0

120 120
Tension on SPM line (kN)

-1 -1
100 100

-2 -2
80 80
Underwater cage
Surface cage
60 60 -3 -3
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
40 40 Time(s)

20 20
Underwater cage Fig. 6 Comparison of vessel heave for surface and underwater cage
Surface cage
0 0 condition.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time(s)
15 15
Fig. 3 Comparison of tension in SPM line for surface and underwater
cage condition. 10 10

5 5
Feeder pitch (deg)

160 160

140 140 0 0
Tension in Umbilical line (kN)

120 120
-5 -5
100 100

-10 -10
80 80
Underwater cage
Surface cage
60 60 -15 -15
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
40 40 Time(s)

20 20
Underwater cage Fig. 7 Comparison of vessel pitch for surface and underwater cage
Surface cage
0 0 condition.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time(s)

Fig. 4 Comparison of tension in umbilical line for surface and

underwater cage condition.

953
As can be observed from the results, when the cage is located at the
water surface the wave drift increases the surge. Therefore, the tension
in the SPM line is higher than that of the submerged cage. However, in
both cases, the maximum load on the mooring lines is under the MBL
(minimum breaking load), meaning the system withstands the load
condition. In terms of the influence over the vessel, the only significant
difference can be seen in the surge of the platform. For pitch and heave,
the influence of the position of the cage does not alter the response of
the platform. The dynamic tension on the umbilical line is greater than
that of SPM line since it is directly connected to the feeder vessel.
cycle in the vertical motion of the cage, we can observe that the cage
does not go into the region of highest current speed i.e. the highest
point is up to 36-meter water depth which is exactly the boundary
between the surface and underwater current speed. This explains the
circular behavior after the first cycle. Further into the simulation, the
cage goes into a steady cycle again dominated by the drag force and the
tension in the SPM line. This can be seen from the correlation between
the peaks in tension and the peaks in surge displacement of the cage.
The tension and surge are in phase while tension and heave show a shift
in phase.

Storm condition Extreme condition

As mentioned before, in storm conditions, only the cage is attached to As in the previous case, the dynamic behavior of the cage underwater
the SPM line, since it is intended that the vessel leaves the site to a has been calculated under an extreme event modeled by the use of a
protected area. In this case, the attachment point is located at the 100-year storm in the GOM. The results presented in Figs. 10~11 show
connection between the chain and nylon line below the sea surface. The a similar response behavior as in the storm condition with the expected
results for the tension in the SPM line and surge/heave of the increase of the load magnitude due mainly to the higher velocities in
underwater cage show a cyclic behavior with long period due to the the water column.
combination of drag and buoyancy forces. As can be seen in Figs. 8~9,
the amplitude of the first cycle in the cage motion is exaggerated due to
120 3000
the initial position of the cage. At the initial stage of the simulation the
cage is located 10 meters underwater inside the strongest current;
100 2500
however, after the second cycle, the system gradually reaches steady
state. Since the mooring of the whole system is very slack, the

Tension in SPM line (kN)

corresponding natural period is very large, as shown in the figures. 80 2000

Cage surge (m)

60 1500
70 2000

40 1000
60

1500
Tension in SPM line (kN)

50 20 500
Cage surge
Cage surge (m)

Tension in SPM line

40
0 0
1000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
30 Time(s)

20 Fig. 10 Comparison of tension in SPM line and cage surge under

500
extreme condition
10
Cage surge
Tension in SPM line
0 0 120 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Time(s)
100 -50

Fig. 8 Comparison of tension in SPM line and cage surge under storm
Tension in SPM line (kN)

80 -100
condition.

Cage heave (m)

70 0 60 -150

60 -20
40 -200
Tension in SPM line (kN)

50 -40
20 -250
Cage heave (m)

40 -60 Cage heave

Tension in SPM line
0 -300
30 -80 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Time(s)
20 -100
Fig. 11 Comparison of tension in SPM line and cage heave under
10
Cage heave
-120 extreme condition
Tension in SPM line
0 -140
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
In this case, the cage, at the initial stage of the simulation, generates the
Time(s) highest tension which is close to 105 kN. This load is still under the
Fig. 9 Comparison of tension in SPM line and cage heave under storm minimum breaking load of any segment of the SPM line. Therefore, the
condition system can survive under this condition.
An interesting phenomenon can be seen from the results. After the first

954
Once the cage reaches steady state, we can observe that it stays at the
lower limit of the current profile for its maximum vertical position. The
maximum variation from that point is up to 140 meters depth which
gives us a 50-meter pressure differential over the cage for an oscillation
period of almost 2000 seconds. The phase of the horizontal
displacement of the cage and the effective tension in the mooring line is
the same, while for the vertical movement, the phase is shifted as in the
case of 10-year storm. It is interesting to consider the pattern of the
movement since the cage goes itself into a more-protected (smaller-
current and less wave) area with lower loads due to the freedom given
by the SPM system. These results have been presented in a similar
manner by DeCew, et al. (2010), but in that case, the cage only reaches
a steady horizontal position due to the constant current profile used in
the study. In that study, the main parameter concerning the depth of
equilibrium was given by the solidity ratio of the net. This is consistent
with our findings in this study and renders the use of a SPM system a
viable alternative to a self-submerged cage.
The comparison of both storm events shows a significant conclusion.
Even considering the higher waves and currents in the case of a 100-
year storm, the ability of the system by self-submergence keeps the
tension of the mooring line at a similar level in both scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS
The dynamic-response simulation of a coupled mooring/vessel/cage
system has been performed in time domain. Three conditions were
analyzed; an operational scenario, a 10-yr storm event, and an extreme
survival event considering a 100-year storm.
From the results of the operational conditions, it can be concluded that
the effect of the location of the cage does not significantly influence the
response of the system. In the submerged and surface states, the tension
in all the components of the mooring system is below the MBL
(minimum breaking load). The main difference comes from the larger
surge due to the wave-drift effect over the cage when placed at the
water surface. This increment explains the higher tension in the SPM
line under this scenario.
For the case of storm and extreme events, the behavior of the cage is
particularly interesting since it follows a cyclic movement with long
period. The cage goes in and out of the highest current-speed zone due
to the combination of drag, tension, and buoyancy forces. The SPM
system allows the cage to freely locate at its dynamic equilibrium,
while keeping the tension under the minimum breaking load for any
segment on the SPM line. The most interesting conclusion comes from
the fact that for both storm and extreme conditions, the tension in the
SPM line is similar, mainly due to the fact that the current load over the
cage is similar by the differences in submergence depth. For the storm
case, the maximum current speed at which the cage is exposed is 1.24
m/s, while for the case of an extreme event it is 1.8 m/s.
Finally, this study shows the feasibility of the use of the proposed SPM
system for offshore aquaculture. The tensions and displacements of the
cage and feeder vessel show that the system can operate under extreme
955
conditions. Further work is to include more validation of the numerical
results by the use of onsite measurements, as well as the
implementation of shielding effect in the net in order to increase the
accuracy of the results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Kampachi Farms LLC for their support
to complete this work and for all the technical information provided to
include in the numerical model. The research is also financially
supported by NSF-SBIR program.
REFERENCES
API. 2007. "API 2INT - MET." Interim Guidance on Hurricane
Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. API, May.
Choo, Young-Il, and Mario J. Casarella. 1971. "Hydrodynamic
resistance of towed cables." Journal of Hydronautics 126-131.
DeCew, J., I. Tsukrov, A. Risso, M.R. Swift, and B Celikkol. 2010.
"Modeling of dynamic behavior of a single-point moored
submersible fish cage under currents." Aquacultural Engineering
38-45.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2012. The State of World
Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Accessed December 2012.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e00.htm.
Kang, H.Y., and M.H. Kim. 2012. "Hydrodynamic interactions and
coupled dynamics between a container ship and multiple mobile
harbors." Ocean Systems Engineering 2 (3): 217-228.
Lader, Pal, and Birger Enerhaug. 2005. "Experimental Investigation of
Forces and Geometry of a Net Cage in Uniform Flow." IEEE
Journal of Oceanic Engineering.
Lader, Pal, Atle Jensen, Johan Kristian Sveen, Arne Fredheim, Birger
Enerhaug, and Dave Fredriksson. 2007. "Experimental investigation
of wave forces on net structures." Applied Ocean Research 112-
127.
Morison, J.R., J.W. Johnson, M.P. O’Brien, and S.A. Schaaf. 1950.
"The forces exerted by surface waves on piles." Journal of
Petroleum Technology 149-154.
Orcina Ltd. 2013. Orcaflex Manual Version 9.7a. Ulverston: Orcina.
Sims, Neil Anthony, and Gavin Key. 2011. "Fish Without Footprints."
OCEANS 2011. Waikoloa, HI. 1-6.
Standard Norway. 2009. "NS 915:2009." Marine fish farms -
Requirements for site survey, risk analyses, design, dimensioning,
production, installation and operation. Standard Online AS.
Tsukrov, Igor, Oleg Eroshkin, David Fredriksson, M. Robinson Swift,,
and Barbaros Celikkol. 2003. "Finite element modeling of net
panels using a consistent net element." Ocean Engineering 251-
270.
Yang, Chan K., and M.H. Kim. 2011. "The structural safety assessment
of a tie-down system on a tension leg platform during hurricane
events." Ocean Systems Engineering 1 (4): 263-283.