0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

An Independent-Flow-Field Model for a SDOF Nonlinear Structural System–Part I: Identification and Comparisons

[+] Author and Article Information
Solomon C. Yim1

Ocean Engineering Program, Department of Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331solomon.yim@oregonstate.edu

Huan Lin

Ocean Engineering Program, Department of Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331linh@engr.orst.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 128(1), 17-22 (Sep 27, 2005) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2151200 History: Received September 27, 2005

An independent-flow-field (IFF) model selected in this study to investigate the nonlinear response behavior of a medium-scale, experimental, submerged, moored structure is validated via parametric studies. Bifurcations in experimental responses are frequently observed, and the associated nonlinear primary and secondary resonances are identified in frequency response diagrams. Distinct from previous investigations, this study intends to identify a set of “best-fit” constant coefficients for predictions and comparisons over the entire wave frequencies examined. It is concluded that the small-body, IFF model predicts, reasonably well, the nonlinear, moored, and submerged structural response subjected to regular waves.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Experimental model of a submerged, hydrodynamically damped, and excited nonlinear structural system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Comparison of experimental results (엯) and analytical prediction (—) in normalized frequency response diagram: CA=0.25, CD=0.1, k1=9.3lb∕ft, k2=4.0lb∕ft2, k3=4.0lb∕ft3, CD′=0.02, and ζS=6%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Transition from small-amplitude to large-amplitude harmonics at wave frequency of 0.27Hz (Test D14): (a) wave profile and (b) sphere displacement

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Transition from harmonic response (0.5Hz) to subharmonic response (0.25Hz) at wave frequency of 0.5Hz (Test D2): (a) wave profile and (b) sphere displacement

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparisons of experimental results (엯) and IFF model predictions (+) in normalized frequency response diagram: CA=0.25, CD=0.1, k1=9.3lb∕ft, k2=4.0lb∕ft2, k3=4.0lb∕ft3, CD′=0.02, and ζS=6%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Coexisting responses near primary resonance at wave frequency of wave frequency of 0.27Hz (Test D14): (a) small-amplitude harmonics and (b) large-amplitude harmonics; experimental results, solid lines; and simulations, dashed lines

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Coexisting responses near sub-harmonic resonance at wave frequency of 0.5Hz (Test D2): (a) small-amplitude harmonics, (b) subharmonics (experimental results, solid lines; simulations, dashed lines), and (c) large-amplitude harmonics (simulation)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of superharmonic response at wave frequency of 0.13Hz: (a) experimental result (Test D3) and (b) comparison (experimental, solid line; simulated, dashed line)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In