648

2012,24(5):648-657
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(11)60288-6

HYDRODYNAMIC INTERACTION BETWEEN FLNG VESSEL AND LNG

CARRIER IN SIDE BY SIDE CONFIGURATION*

ZHAO Wen-hua, YANG Jian-min, HU Zhi-qiang

State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China,
E-mail: zwzldh@163.com

(Received March 14, 2012, Revised April 23, 2012)

Abstract: The Floating Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) is a new type of floating platform for the exploitation of stranded offshore
oil/gas fields. The side by side configuration for the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier arranged in parallel is one of the possible
choices for the LNG offloading. During the offloading operations, the multiple floating bodies would have very complex responses
due to their hydrodynamic interactions. In this study, numerical simulations of multiple floating bodies in close proximity in the side
by side offloading configuration are carried out with the time domain coupled analysis code SIMO. Hydrodynamic interactions
between the floating bodies and the mechanical coupling effects between the floating bodies and their connection systems are
included in the coupled analysis model. To clarify the hydrodynamic effects of the two vessels, numerical simulations under the same
environmental condition are also conducted without considering the hydrodynamic interactions, for comparison. It is shown that the
hydrodynamic interactions play an important role in the low frequency motion responses of the two vessels, but have little effect on
the wave frequency motion responses. In addition, the comparison results also show that the hydrodynamic interactions can affect the
loads on the connection systems.

Key words: Floating Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG), hydrodynamic interactions, side by side operation, relative motions

Introduction close proximity. Therefore, the hydrodynamic intera-

Due to the high oil prices and the steep increase
in the natural gas demand triggered by Japanese
nuclear disaster, the stranded offshore gas fields,
which were considered not quite favorable projects in
the past, are becoming more and more attractive. To
exploit those offshore gas fields effectively and eco-
nomically, the Floating Liquefied Natural Gas
(FLNG), as a new concept of offshore unit, was pro-
posed recently. The configurations of an FLNG vessel
and an LNG carrier in side by side or tandem arrange-
ments are two possible ways of the LNG offloading
operation. In the case of the side by side configuration,
the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier are moored in
* Project supported by the China National Scientific and
Technology Major Project (Grant No. 2011ZX05026-006-05),
the Science Foundation of Science and Technology Commi-
ssion of Shanghai Municipality (Grant No. 11ZR1417800).
Biography: ZHAO Wen-hua (1986-), Male, Ph. D. Candidate
Corresponding author: YANG Jian-min,
E-mail: jmyang@sjtu.edu.cn
ctions between the two vessels can not be ignored.
The hydrodynamic interactions might significantly
affect the motion responses of the vessels and make
the relative motions of the multiple bodies very com-
plex. Furthermore, the investigation of the hydrodyna-
mic interactions also helps in the prediction of the
collision events between the two vessels.
The hydrodynamic interactions of multiple floa-
ting vessels in the parallel configuration were much
studied. In the early studies of multiple bodies, the
dynamic cross-coupling among the motions of the
bodies and the hydrodynamic interactions between the
multiple bodies were not considered. Later, a theory
on the hydrodynamic interactions of parallel floating
bodies based on a two-dimensional diffraction theory,
was proposed. However, an unphysical phenomenon
exists in the numerical simulations based on the pote-
ntial theory due to the fluid resonant response in the
gap of the multiple bodies. Buchner et al.[1] introduced
a rigid lid on the free surface within the multi-body
diffraction analysis to suppress the unrealistic reso-
nant wave oscillations, which is an improvement over

the previous methods. Using the same measure to deal
with the resonant wave oscillations, Naciri[2] carried
out extensive time domain analyses of the side-by-side
moored vessels and verified the simulation results
through model tests. Pauw et al.[3] considered two
ships in a side by side arrangement and replaced the
rigid lid with a numerical damping lid. They sugge-
sted that the damping parameter should be adjusted in
such a way that the drift forces rather than the linear
quantities are optimal with respect to the model tests.
In order to avoid the restriction that each interacting
body must be far enough apart from the other bodies,
Kashiwagi and Shi[4] solved the integral equation of
the diffraction potential by the Higher-Oder Boundary
Element Method (HOBEM). They found that the sma-
ller the separation distance between bodies, the larger
deviation of the pressure distribution obtained based
on the wave interaction theory will be, as compared
with the correct results. Lu et al.[5] investigated the
dependence of the wave forces of multiple bodies in
close proximity on the incident wave frequency, the
gap width, the body draft, the body breadth and the
body number, based on both the viscous fluid and the
potential flow models. Their numerical models were
validated by the available experimental data of the
fluid oscillation in narrow gaps. Inoue and
Kamruzzaman[6] calculated the hydrodynamic radia-
tion and the diffraction forces using a three-dimen-
sional sink-source technique. In their study, the non-
linear connecting and mooring forces were included.
Chitrapu et al.[7] evaluated the sea keeping and maneu-
vering performances of proximate vessels that are
advancing forward using an efficient time domain
method. In their study, the non-linear effects of moo-
ring lines and fenders and the effects of viscous roll
damping were included. Lee et al.[8] calculated the
motions of two floating bodies in shallow water. They
suggested that the shallow water effects be included in
the analysis of floaters in shallow water. Kristiansen
and Faltinsen[9] studied the coupled resonant response
of a ship and a fixed terminal. One of their conclu-
sions is that the linear theory over-predicts the piston-
mode amplitude near the resonance, point about three
times as compared with the measured value. A compa-
rison of the hydrodynamic interactions between single
and multi-body responses was made by Yu et al.[10].
They observed significant differences between the res-
ponses in single and multi-body cases.
Although the multi-body system was much stu-
died, data accumulated are still far from enough for
safe offloading operations in the side by side configu-
ration in real sea states. In this study, a coupled ana-
lysis model of the multi-body problem is built, taking
into account the hydrodynamic interactions between
the two vessels and the mechanical couplings between
vessels, mooring systems, hawsers and fenders.
Numerical simulations of the multi-body system under
649
a given sea state are carried out with the help of the
state-of-the-art code SIMO, the reliability of which
was validated by Chen et al.[11]. To clarify the effects
of the hydrodynamic interactions, numerical simula-
tions are conducted ignoring the hydrodynamic intera-
ctions, for comparison. The comparison results show
that the hydrodynamic interactions play an important
role in the low frequency motion responses, but have
little effect on the wave frequency motion responses.
The hydrodynamic interactions also have a certain
effect on the loads acting on the hawsers and fenders.
1. Numerical modeling
The numerical simulation is carried out with the
help of the state-of-the-art time domain coupled code
SIMO. Based on the potential theory, the hydrodyna-
mic coefficients of the vessels in the side by side con-
figuration, such as those of the added mass, the pote-
ntial damping, the first-order and second-order wave
drift forces, are calculated in the frequency domain. In
the multi-body modeling, the hydrodynamic intera-
ctions of the two floating bodies are also taken into
consideration, in the form of coupled added masses
and coupled retardation functions.
1.1 Potential flow
The potential flows can be described by the
Laplace equation in terms of the velocity potential
w 2) ( x, y, z , t ) w 2) ( x, y, z, t ) w 2) ( x, y, z , t )
+ + =0
w x2 wy2 w z2
(1)
where ) ( x, y , z , t ) is the velocity potential function
of the coordinates x , y and z , and the time t .
The velocity potential can be expressed as ) ( x, y ,
z, t ) = Re[I ( x, y, z ) e iZt ] , in which the real part
I ( x, y, z ) can further be divided into the incident
and scattering parts
I ( x , y , z ) = I I ( x , y , z ) + IS ( x , y , z ) (2)
The scattering parts IS ( x, y , z ) can further be
divided into the diffraction part ID ( x , y , z ) due to the
existence of the floating body, and the radiation part
IR ( x, y , z ) due to the oscillation of the floating body.
And thus, Eq.(2) can be expressed as
I ( x, y , z ) = I I ( x, y , z ) + I D ( x, y , z ) + I R ( x , y , z ) (3)
Each part of the potential in Eq.(3) can be solved
under their corresponding boundary conditions[12].
The incident and diffraction potentials would be used
650

to calculate the wave forces acting on the floating
bodies. And the radiation potential IR ( x, y, z ) would
be used to calculate hydrodynamic coefficients such
as those of the added masses and the damping forces
induced by the oscillation of the floating bodies,
ncy domain analysis, respectively, and Z is the fre-
quency. It should be noted that the damping on the
vessel from the viscous skin drag and the wave drift
t
damping should also be included in the term ³ [h (t 
0

W )]^[` dW in the form of critical damping, because

§ wI · these variants are related to the motion velocity of the
amn (Z ) = Re ¨ U ³³ Im n d s ¸ (m, n = 1, 2,  , 6) (4)
¨ S wn ¸¹ vessel. The two parts in Eq.(7) must be opposite in
© 0
sign for W  0 and identical for W ! 0 , namely
§ wI · 2 f
S ³0
cmn (Z ) = Im ¨ UZ ³³ Im n d s ¸ (m, n = 1, 2,  , 6) (5) h (W ) = c (Z ) cos (ZW ) dZ =
¨ wn ¸¹
© S0

where Im represents the induced velocity potential 2 f

S ³0
 Z a (Z )sin (ZW ) dZ (8)
when the floating body is oscillating in direction m
with a unit speed. amn (Z ) and cmn (Z ) means the It should be noted that the hydrodynamic intera-
added mass and the potential damping in direction m ction effects on the frequency dependent added mass
induced by the body oscillation in direction n . Z is and the damping forces are included in the coupled
the oscillation frequency, U is the density of the added mass and the coupled retardation functions at
fluid, and S0 is the wet surface of the floating body. the infinite frequency. In such a case, the 6×6 matrix
[ M + a (f)] in Eq.(6) should be written as a 12×12
1.2 Rigid body motion matrix
The computed frequency-domain hydrodynamic
coefficients are used in the time-domain equation ª( M + a (f))i , i (a (f))i , j º
« (a (f)) ( M + a (f)) j , j »¼
(9)
expressed by a two-term Volterra series expression via ¬ j,i
a Kramers-Kronig relation[13]. The motion equa-
tions[14,15] in the time-domain coupled analysis for the where the indices i and j refer to the FLNG vessel
FLNG vessel or the LNG carrier are formulated as and the LNG carrier, respectively. It should be noted
follows that the term with the same subscript such as i, i or

^` ^`
[ M + a (f)] [ + D1 [ + D2 f ^[` + K ^[ ` + j , j is equal to the term in the single body case, and
the term with the different subscripts such as i, j
and j , i represents the effects from the other body.
³ [h (t  W )]^[` = F
t
wave
+ F current + F wind + F ext (6) The 6×6 impulse response function matrix [h (t  W )]
0

in Eq.(6) should be written as a 12×12 matrix

where M is the generalized mass matrix for the ship
hull, a(f) is the added mass matrix at the infinite ª h (t  W )i , i h (t  W )i , j º
frequency, K is the hydrostatic restoring stiffness « h (t  W ) h (t  W ) j , j »¼
(10)
¬ j,i
matrix, D1 and D2 are the linear and quadratic
damping matrices, respectively. F wave , F wind and Due to the symmetric properties, we can obtain
F current denote the wave drag force, the wind drag the following equations
force and the current drag force, respectively. The last
[a (f)]i , j = [a (f)] j , i , h (t  W )i , j = h (t  W ) j , i
item F ext represents any other forces (the specified
forces and the forces from station-keeping and cou-
Thus, the coupled motion equation of the two
pling elements, etc.). h (W ) refers to the retardation vessels can be expressed as a set of 12 coupled equa-
function matrix, which is related with the influence of tions[13,16]
the memory effect in the free-surface and can be
obtained by the following equation ª( M  a (f))i , i (a (f))i , j º ­°[i ½°
« (a (f)) ® ¾
¬ ( M  a (f)) j , j »¼ °[j °
1 f j,i
¯ ¿
h (W ) =
2S ³f
[c (f) + iZ a (f)]eiZt dZ (7)
ª ( D1 )i , i ( D1 )i , j º ­°[i ½° ª ( D2 )i , i ( D2 )i , j º
«( D ) ® ¾
( D1 ) j , j »¼ °[j ° «¬( D2 ) j , i ( D2 ) j , j »¼
where c and a are the radiation damping matrix
and the added mass matrix obtained from the freque- ¬ 1 j,i ¯ ¿
 651

§ °­[i °½ · ª ( K )i , i ( K )i , j º °­[i °½
f ¨ ® ¾¸  « ® ¾ Table 1 Principal Scantlings of the reference FLNG vessel
¨  ¸ (K ) j,i ( K ) j , j ¼» ¯°[ j ¿°
© °¯[ j °¿ ¹ ¬
and the LNG carrier
Designation FLNG LNG carrier

tª h(t  W )i , i h(t  W )i , j º ­°[i ½° ­° Fi ½° Length over all, Loa (m) 392.00 289.00
³0 «¬ h(t  W ) j , i ® ¾ dW
h(t  W ) j , j »¼ °[j °
® ¾
°¯ Fj °¿
(11)
Length between
¯ ¿ 356.00 278.00
perpendiculars, L pp (m)

where Fi means the forces acting on the FLNG Breadth, B (m) 69.00 43.20
vessel, which is equal to the right hand side of Eq.(6), Depth, D (m) 35.70 26.30
while Fj means the forces on the LNG carrier. In the
Draft, T (m) 13.85 10.05
numerical simulation, the integrations of the motion
equations are carried out by using a 3rd-order Runge- Displacement, ' (t) 320 804 95 951
Kutta method. Centre of gravity above
base, KG (m) 20.553 14.49
1.3 Connection system
Centre of gravity from
The two vessels are connected through 8 hawsers AP, LCG (m)
171.020 142.04
and 4 fenders. The hawsers are modeled as linear
springs according to Radius of roll
25.35 14.04
gyration, K xx (m)
T Radius of pitch
'l = (12) 91.36 85.13
k gyration, K yy (m)

Radius of yaw
where 'l is the elongation, k is the effective axial 93.40 86.00
gyration, K zz (m)
stiffness, and T is the hawser tension.
The fender is defined as a contact element, which Table 2 Configuration of the mooring lines in prototype
is attached to the FLNG vessel. And the fender plane
Designation Chain Polyester Chain
is on the LNG carrier. The fender plane is defined by
a point and a normal vector. The fenders are modeled Length (m) 100 4 000 2 000
in the same way as the hawsers, but with a lateral sti-
Diameter (m) 0.127 0.233 0.127
ffness.
weigh in air (kg/m) 322.93 33.8 322.93
Submerged
2. Description of the side by side configuration weight (kg/m) 280.95 7.9 280.95
The conceptual FLNG system developed by
Axial stiffness
China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) (kN/m) 1 214 733 479 000 1 214 733
and Marine Design and Research Institute of China is
selected as a reference. The LNG carrier has a dis- Minimum
breaking load (kN) 14 971 15 696 14 971
placement weight of 1.6×105 t in the full loaded con-
dition. The main parameters of the two vessels are
listed in Table 1. The FLNG system is designed to be
located in South China Sea at water depth of 1 500 m
and moored by 12 mooring lines attached to an exte-
rnal turret. The details of the mooring system are illu-
strated in Table 2. The FLNG vessel and the LNG
carrier are connected by 8 hawsers and 4 fenders. The
axial stiffness of each hawser is set to be 83.57 kN/m,
and with a Safe Working Load (SWL) of 796.95 kN
(55% of Minimum Breaking Load (MBL) of
1 449 kN). The force-elongation relationship of each
fender is nonlinear. The side by side configuration of
the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier is illustrated in
Fig.1. The distance between the two vessels is set to
be 4 m, which is equal to the length of the fenders. Fig.1 The side by side arrangement (not in a correct scale)
652

Fig.2 Comparison of the time series of the low frequency motions of the two vessels with and without considering their
hydrodynamic interactions

Table 3 Summary of motion statistics of the side-by-side moored FLNG vessel and LNG carrier
FLNG LNG carrier
Designation
Max. Min. Mean Std. Max. Min. Mean Std.
With interaction 0.040 –6.190 –2.85 1.04 1.540 –8.690 –3.77 2.41
Surge
Without interaction –0.180 –6.620 –2.85 0.90 1.790 –8.920 –4.02 2.45
With interaction 10.20 –11.08 –1.23 6.45 14.22 –10.65 0.06 6.67
Sway
Without interaction 10.08 –11.71 –1.53 6.54 13.91 –11.15 –0.09 6.70
With interaction 3.640 –3.050 0.46 1.95 4.500 –3.110 0.67 2.09
Yaw
Without interaction 3.670 –2.940 0.54 2.00 4.720 –2.980 0.88 2.26

During the numerical simulation, a parallel sea
environment including wave, wind and current app-
roaches the multi-body system with the heading of
180o. The random wave component is described by a
three-parameter Jonswap spectrum with a significant
wave height of 2.5 m, a spectrum peak of 10 s and a
peak enhancement factor of 3. A steady flow of wind
is assumed and the mean hourly wind speed at the re-
ference height of 10 m is 13 m/s. The current velocity
near the free surface is 0.81 m/s.
3. Results and discussions
Numerical simulations of the side by side moored
FLNG vessel and LNG carrier are carried out with and
without considering the hydrodynamic interactions
between the two floating vessels. Through the compa-
rison of the numerical results, the effects of the hydro-
 653

dynamic interactions of multiple bodies are revealed. response of the LNG carrier is much larger than that
of the FLNG vessel, while the sway and yaw motions
3.1 Influence on motion responses see little difference. An interesting phenomenon as
The hydrodynamic interactions of the multiple can be seen from Table 3 is that the statistics of the
bodies have different effects in different motion low frequency motions of each floating vessel keep
modes. The 6 degree-of-freedom motions can be cla- almost the same in the two simulation cases. This
ssified into the following two types: the low frequency means that the hydrodynamic interactions have little
motions such as surge, sway and yaw, and the wave effects on the statistics of the motions responses.
frequency motions such as heave, roll and pitch. However, it can also be seen from Fig.2 that the
3.1.1 Low frequency motions hydrodynamic interactions change the phase of the
Figure 2 shows the time series of the low freque- low frequency motion responses. The hydrodynamic
ncy motions for the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier interactions have the most significant effects on the
in the two cases. As there are few wave frequency sway motion responses of the two floating vessels.
components in the low frequency motions, the time This phenomenon is consistent with the observations
series and the statistics of the motion responses, in- by Buncher et al.[1]. It should be noted that the change
stead of the spectrum analysis results, are shown in of the response phase would induce a change of the
this section. relative motion responses. The time series of the rela-
tive low frequency motions with and without conside-
ring the interactions are shown in Fig.3 for compari-
son.
Table 4 Summary of relative motion statistics of the side-
by-side moored FLNG vessel and LNG carrier
Designation Max. Min. Mean Std.
With
3.51 –4.62 –0.92 2.15
Relative interaction
surge Without
3.34 –5.12 –1.18 2.27
interaction
With
6.09 –0.66 1.29 1.01
Relative interaction
sway Without
6.05 –0.64 1.44 1.08
interaction
With
2.56 –2.28 0.20 0.83
Relative interaction
yaw Without
2.31 –2.33 0.34 0.95
interaction

As shown in Fig.3 (where r1 , r2 and r3 indi-

Fig.3 Comparison of the time series of the relative low fre-
quency motions of the two vessels with and without con-
sidering their hydrodynamic interactions
As can be seen in Fig.2 (where the surge (d1 ) ,
sway (d3 ) and yaw (d5 ) motions are for FLNG
vessel, and the surge (d 2 ) , sway (d 4 ) and yaw
(d6 ) motions are for LNG carrier), the surge motion
cate the relative surge, sway and yaw motions) and
Table 4, the hydrodynamic interactions have a signifi-
cant effect on the phase of the relative motion respo-
nses, but little effect on the statistics of the relative
motion responses. It should be noted that the relative
motions are the differences between the motion respo-
nses of the LNG carrier and those of the FLNG vessel.
And thus, the negative values of the relative sway mo-
tions mean that the two vessels move towards each
other, and correspondingly, the positive values indi-
cate that the two vessels move away from each other.
As there are 4 identical fenders with the length of 4 m
between the two vessels to prevent collisions, the ne-
gative values of the relative sway motions do not ne-
cessarily mean collisions of the two vessels. In fact,
when the relative distance between the two vessels is
smaller than the fender length, the value of the relative
654

sway motion would become negative. 3.1.2 Wave frequency motions

As the heave, roll and pitch motions contain rich
wave frequency components, the spectrum analysis is
carried out for these motions. As a good measure of
the response energy, the zero-order moments of the
wave frequency motions are calculated as the integra-
ted area under the spectral density curve.

Fig.4 Comparison of the power spectrum of the motion respo-

nses with and without considering the hydrodynamic in-
teractions

Fig.6 Spectra of the tensions acting on the typical hawsers

Figure 4 shows the power spectrum of the wave

frequency motion responses of the two vessels with
and without considering their hydrodynamic intera-
ctions, where S1 and S2 indicate the power spe-
ctrum of heave motions for FLNG vessel and LNG
Fig.5 Zero-order moments of the wave frequency motions
carrier. S3 and S4 indicate the power spectrum of
 655

Table 5 The zero-order moments and the peak values of the spectra for the typical hawsers
Zero-order moments(kN2) Peak values(kN2s/rad)
Serial numbers
With Without % With Without %
Hawser #1 909.6 714.0 27.4 123.7 58.2 112.7
Hawser #4 2 077.0 1 487.0 39.7 246.8 121.9 102.5
Hawser #5 1 871.0 1 804.0 3.7 229.7 169.9 35.2
Hawser #8 1 559.0 1 133.0 37.6 245.8 121.3 102.6

pitch motions for FLNG vessel and LNG carrier. It hawsers have a close relation with their locations.
should be noted that the roll motion responses of the As can be seen from Fig.6, the hydrodynamic in-
FLNG vessel are so small that no valuable parameters teractions have a significant effect on the responses of
can be found. And thus, the power spectrums of the the hawser forces. Although little effect can be found
roll motion responses are not shown in Fig.4. To on the spectrum peak frequencies, the peak values of
clarify the effects of the hydrodynamic interactions on the spectra increase sharply when the hydrodynamic
the response energy of the wave frequency motions, interactions are included in the simulations (See Table
the zero-order moments of the heave and pitch mo- 5). To further show the effects of the hydrodynamic
tions are plotted in Fig.5, where p indicates the interactions, the zero-order moments, as a good mea-
zero-order moment. A comparison of the results with sure of the response energy of the hawser forces, are
and without the interactions shows that the hydro- compared (See Table 5). It is shown that the hydro-
dynamic interactions indeed have effects on the wave dynamic interactions between the multiple bodies
frequency motions under the given sea state, but not would largely increase the response energy of the
so significantly as those on the low fre- quency mo- forces acting on the connection hawsers. As shown in
tions. Table 5, the response energy of the forces increases by
27.4% for hawser #1, 39.7% for hawser #4, 3.7% for
3.2 Influence on connection system hawser #5, and 37.6% for hawser #8.
In addition to the motion responses of the two
vessels, the hydrodynamic interactions can also affect
the loads on the connection systems which are related
with the relative motion responses of the two vessels.
3.2.1 Hawsers
The typical connection hawsers such as hawser
#1, hawser #4, hawser #5 and hawser #8 (whose arra-
ngements are shown in Fig.1 in Section 2) are selected
as the representative cases. As the time series of the
hawser forces have rich wave frequency components,
the power density function would be a good measure
to analyze the hawser responses. And thus, the spe-
ctrum analyses are carried out for the time series of
the loads acting on the representative hawsers.
Figure 6 shows the spectra of the tensions acting
on the typical connection hawsers with and without
considering the hydrodynamic interactions between
the multiple bodies. Figure 6 shows that the conne-
ction hawsers in different locations are acted by diffe-
rent forces. The loads acting on the hawsers located in
the bow of the vessels are much smaller that those in Fig.7 Comparison of the time series of the forces acting on the
the stern of the vessels. The hawser #4 in the middle fenders with and without considering the hydrodynamic
section of the vessels is acted by similar loads as those interactions
acting on the hawser #5. It can also been from Fig.6
that the spectrum peak frequency of hawser #1 is simi- 3.2.2 Fenders
lar to that of hawser #8, and that the spectrum peak Figure 7 (where f1 and f 4 indicate the force
frequency of hawser #4 is similar to that of hawser #5. acting on Fender #1 and Fender #4, respectively) and
This means that the spectrum peak frequencies of the Table 6 show the time series and the statistics of the
656
fender forces with and without considering the hydro-
dynamic interactions. From Fig.7, it can be seen that
the time series of the fender forces are in the form of
impulses, which means that there are many collisions
between the two vessels. In addition, the fender loca-
ted in the bow is acted by larger loads than that in the
stern. Figure 7 shows that the hydrodynamic intera-
ctions can significantly affect the phase of the force
responses. Table 6 shows that the maximum and mean
values of the fender forces are slightly affected by the
hydrodynamic interactions, but the standard deviation
of the Fender #1 changes from 269.3 kN to 375 kN,
an increase of 39.4%, due to the effects of the hydro-
dynamic interactions.
Table 6 Statistics of the fender forces with and without con-
sidering the hydrodynamic interactions
Designation Max. Min. Mean Std.
With
2 914.4 0 115.5 375.4
interaction
Fender #1
Without
3 051.5 0 110.5 269.3
interaction
With
1 975.3 0 114.1 295.7
interaction
Fender #4
Without
1 953.2 0 115.1 290.0
interaction
4. Conclusion remarks
A numerical model for the multi-body problem is
established with consideration of the hydrodynamic
interactions between the two floating vessels and the
mechanical coupling effects between vessels, mooring
systems and connection systems. Hydrodynamic inte-
ractions between multiple bodies are investigated
through the comparison of the numerical results with
and without considering the hydrodynamic intera-
ctions. The following conclusions are obtained:
(1) The hydrodynamic interactions between mul-
tiple bodies can significantly affect the phases of the
low frequency motion responses, but have little effect
on the frequency motion responses.
(2) Due to the existence of the hydrodynamic in-
teractions between multiple bodies, the response
energy of the loads acting on the hawsers would in-
crease. And the largest increase can reach 39.7%
under the given condition in this study.
(3) Hawsers in different locations would be acted
by different loads. Generally, the hawsers in the stern
of the vessels would be acted by larger loads than
those in the bow of the vessels.
(4) The effects of the hydrodynamic interactions
on the fender forces are mainly shown in the standard
deviation of the force response. The loads acting the
fenders are in the form of impulses, instead of conti-
nuous series.
This paper comes to some basic understanding of
the hydrodynamic interactions between multiple
bodies, focusing on their effects on the hydrodyna-
mics of floating vessels and the connection system
between the two vessels. Further study should be
carried out on the relationship between the distances
and the hydrodynamic interactions of the multiple
bodies.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Lloyds Register
Educational Trust (LRET) to the Joint Centre
Involving University Coollege London, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University and Harbin Engineering University.
References
[1] BUCHNER B., Van DIJK A. and De WILDE J. Nume-
rical multiple-body simulations of side-by-side mooring
to an FPSO[C]. Proceedings of the 11th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Con- ference.
Stavanger, Norway, 2001, 343-353.
[2] NACIRI M. Time domain simulations of side-by-side
moored vessels lessons learnt from a benchmark test[C].
Proceeding of 26th International Conference on Off-
shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. San Deigo,
California, USA, 2007, OMAE 2007-29756.
[3] PAUW W. H., HUIJSMANS R. H. M. and VOOGT A.
Advances in the hydrodynamics of side-by-side moo-
red vessels[C]. Proceedings of 26th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering. San Deigo, California, USA, 2007,
OMAE2007-29374.
[4] KASHIWAGI Masashi, SHI Qi-qi. Pressure distribution
computed by wave-interaction theory for adjacent mul-
tiple bodies[J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B,
2010, 22(5 Suppl.): 526-531.
[5] LU Lin, TENG Bin and SUN Liang et al. Modelling of
multi-bodies in close proximity under water waves-
Fluid forces on floating bodies[J]. Ocean Engineering,
2011, 38(13): 1403-1416.
[6] INOUE Y., KAMRUZZAMAN M. Numerical simula-
tion on mooring performance of LNG-FPSO system in
realistic seas[C]. Proceedings of 24th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engi-
neering. Halkidiki, Greece, 2005, OMAE 2005-67190.
[7] CHITRAPU A. S. M., MORDFIN T. G. and CHANCE
H. M. Efficient time-domain simulation of side-by-side
moored vessels advancing in waves[C]. Proceedings of
26th International Conference on Offshore Mecha-
nics and Arctic Engineering. San Deigo, California,
USA, 2007, OMAE 2007-29749.
[8] LEE H. W., LEE D. Y. and KIM B. et al. A motion ana-
lysis of two floaters in shallow water using Boussinesq
equations[C]. Proceedings of the 20th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Beijing,
2010, 480-484.
[9] KRISTIANSEN T., FALTINSEN O. M. A two-dimen-
sional numerical and experimental study of resonant
coupled ship and piston-mode motion[J]. Applied
Ocean Research, 2010, 32(2): 158-176.
[10] YU X., LAKHOTIA C. and FALZARANO J. M. Deve-

lopment of a multi-body vessel dynamics simulation
tool[C]. Proceedings of 28th International Confere-
nce on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.
Honolulu, Hawaii, 2009, OMAE 2009-80111.
[11] CHEN H. B., MOAN T. and HAVER S. et al. Predi-
ction of relative motion and probability of contact
between FPSO and shuttle tanker in tandem offloading
operation[J]. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, 2004, 126(3): 235-242.
[12] GOU Y., TENG B. Research on hydrodynamic intera-
ctions between multiple floating bodies[C]. The 8th
International Conference on Hydrodynamics. Nantes,
France, 2008.
[13] KOO B. J., KIM M. H. Hydrodynamic interactions and
relative motions of two floating platforms with mooring
lines in side-by-side offloading operation[J]. Applied
Ocean Research, 2005, 27(6): 292-310.
657
[14] RHO J. B., KOROBKIN A. A. and JUNG J. J. et al.
Coupled analysis of deepwater floating system inclu-
ding VIV in time domain[C]. Proceedings of 26th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering. San Deigo, California, USA,
2007, OMAE2007-29523.
[15] SIMO PROJECT TEAM. SIMO-theory manual
Version 3.6, rev:2[M], Trondheim, Norway: MARI-
NTEK, 2009.
[16] HONG S. Y., KIM J. H. and CHO S. K. et al. Numeri-
cal and experimental study on hydrodynamic interaction
of side-by-side moored multiple vessels[J]. Ocean
Engineering, 2005, 32(7): 783-801.