Garcia-Espinosa et al 2023a - Revision history

Julio: Julio moved page Draft Garcia-Espinosa 591712674 to Garcia-Espinosa et al 2023a

2024-06-04T16:20:42Z

Julio moved page Draft Garcia-Espinosa 591712674 to Garcia-Espinosa et al 2023a

Julio at 16:20, 4 June 2024

2024-06-04T16:20:05Z

Julio at 16:18, 4 June 2024

2024-06-04T16:18:47Z

Julio at 16:17, 4 June 2024

2024-06-04T16:17:33Z

Julio: Created page with "

@@ Line 719: / Line 719: @@
 ==References==
-<span id='OLE_LINK6'></span><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">1. Jiao, J.; Chen, C.; Ren, H. A comprehensive study on ship motion and load responses in short-crested irregular waves. ''Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean. Eng. '' '''2019''', ''11'', 364–379.</span>
+. Jiao, J.; Chen, C.; Ren, H. A comprehensive study on ship motion and load responses in short-crested irregular waves. ''Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean. Eng. '' '''2019''', ''11'', 364–379.
 . Jiao, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Chen, C. Predictions of ship extreme hydroelastic load responses in harsh irregular waves and hull girder ultimate strength assessment. ''Appl. Sci.'' '''2019''', ''9'', 240. [https://doi.org/10.3390/app9020240. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9020240.]
@@ Line 725: / Line 725: @@
 . Shin, K.-H.; Jo, J.-W.; Hirdaris, S.E.; Jeong, S.-G.; Park, J.B.; Lin, F.; Wang, Z.; White, N. Two- and three-dimensional springing analysis of a 16,000 TEU container ship in regular waves. ''Ships Offshore Struct. '' '''2015''', ''10'', 498–509.
-<span id='OLE_LINK1'></span><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">4. Kim, Y.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, Y. Development of a highfidelity procedure for the numerical analysis of ship structural hydroelasticity. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Split, Croatia, 16–19 September 2015; pp. 457–476.</span>
+. Kim, Y.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, Y. Development of a highfidelity procedure for the numerical analysis of ship structural hydroelasticity. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Split, Croatia, 16–19 September 2015; pp. 457–476.
-<span id='OLE_LINK3'></span><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">5. Datta, R.; Guedes Soares, C. Analysis of the hydroelastic effect on a container vessel using coupled BEM–FEM method in the time domain. ''Ships Offshore Struct. '' '''2019''', ''15'', 393–402. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1625848. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1625848.] [15] Oberhagemann, J.; Shigunov, V.; Radon, M.; Mumm, H.; Won, S.I.</span>
+. Datta, R.; Guedes Soares, C. Analysis of the hydroelastic effect on a container vessel using coupled BEM–FEM method in the time domain. ''Ships Offshore Struct. '' '''2019''', ''15'', 393–402. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1625848. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1625848.] [15] Oberhagemann, J.; Shigunov, V.; Radon, M.; Mumm, H.; Won, S.I.
-<span id='OLE_LINK4'></span><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">6. Jagite, G.; Xu, X.-D.; Chen, X.-B.; Malenica, Š. Hydroelastic analysis of global and local ship response using 1D–3D hybrid structural model. ''Ships Offshore Struct. '' '''2018''', ''13'', 37–46. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1425521. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1425521.]</span>
+. Jagite, G.; Xu, X.-D.; Chen, X.-B.; Malenica, Š. Hydroelastic analysis of global and local ship response using 1D–3D hybrid structural model. ''Ships Offshore Struct. '' '''2018''', ''13'', 37–46. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1425521. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1425521.]
 . Oberhagemann, J.; Shigunov, V.; Radon, M.; Mumm, H.; Won, S.I. Hydrodynamic load analysis and ultimate strength check of an 18,000 TEU containership. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Split, Croatia, 16–19 September 2015; pp. 591–606.
@@ Line 751: / Line 751: @@
 . Chen, Z.; Gui, H.; Dong, P. Nonlinear time-domain hydroelastic analysis for a container ship in regular and irregular head waves by the Rankine panel method. ''Ships Offshore Struct. '' '''2018''', ''14'', 631–645. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1535243. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1535243.]
-<span id='OLE_LINK5'></span><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">17. Hess, P. Fluid structure interaction: A community view. MSDL report number: 2016-003. 2016.</span>
+. Hess, P. Fluid structure interaction: A community view. MSDL report number: 2016-003. 2016.
 . Garcia-Espinosa, J.; Di Capua, D.; Servan-Camas, B.; Ubach, P.-A.; Onate, E. A FEM fluid–structure interaction algorithm for analysis of the seal dynamics of a Surface-Effect Ship. ''Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.'' '''2015''', ''295'', 290–304.
@@ Line 764: / Line 764: @@
 . Mahérault, S.; Derbanne, Q.; Bigot, F. Fatigue damage calculation of ULCS based on hydroelastic model for springing. ''Ships Offshore Struct. '' '''2013''', ''8'', 289–302. [https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/]10.1080/17445302.2012.750087.

@@ Line 713: / Line 713: @@
 The authors have shown, only for demonstration purposes, how an energy criterion can be used for the selection of modes. The proper level of reduction can be formulated in terms of the elastic energy retained, leading to a significant reduction, even for high levels of energy retention. However, other criteria could be used. Additionally, the level of reduction achieved will depend on the specific problem to deal with. For instance, this is the case if the model is applied for a local analysis on one specific location of the structure. In that case, the selection of those modes that most contribute to that specific location will result in a larger reduction than if details are to be preserved all over the structure.
-'''Author Contributions:'''
+'''Funding:''' This work has been granted by the European Commission under grant agreements H2020 FibreGY (ref. 952966) and H2020 Fibre4Yards (ref. 101006860), and by the Spanish “Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion” under grant agreement MLAMAR (ref. PID2021-126561OB-C31).
-'''Funding:'''
+'''Acknowledgments:''' The authors are thankful to all the partners on those projects, and in particular to CompassIS for helping to implement the present methodology on their computational solvers SeaFEM and RamSeries. The authors are also thankful to Joaquín Hernández Ortega for its collaboration on the development of reduced order models, and to Andres Pastor for its contribution on the postprocess of results.
-−
-'''Institutional Review Board Statement:'''
-−
-'''Informed Consent Statement:'''
-−
-'''Data Availability Statement:'''
-−
-'''Acknowledgments:''' This work has been granted by the European Commission under grant agreements H2020 FibreGy (ref. 952966) and H2020 Fibre4Yards (ref. 101006860), and by the Spanish “Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion” under grant agreement MLAMAR (ref. PID2021-126561OB-C31). The authors are thankful to all the partners on those projects, and in particular to CompassIS for helping to implement the present methodology on their computational solvers SeaFEM and RamSeries. The authors are also thankful to Joaquín Hernández Ortega for its collaboration on the development of reduced order models, and to Andres Pastor for its contribution on the postprocess of results.
-−
-'''Conflicts of Interest:'''
 ==References==

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 One of the most recent works in hydroelasticity using potential flow for seakeeping hydrodynamics was published by the present authors in [19]. In that work, a tightly coupled hydroelastic model was developed within SeaFEM (a time–domain wave diffraction-radiation solver based on FEM [20–22]). A comparison between iterative and monolithic coupling is carried out, as well as a comparison between loose (weak, one-way) and tight (strong, two-way) coupling. It was concluded that monolithic coupling is the most robust (from the numerical stability). In any case, the computational cost is still too high and is mostly taken by the structural dynamics solver. The governing equations of the hydroelastic problem are those of the wave diffraction-radiation problem in the time domain, along with the linear structural equations solved with FEM [19]. The coupling is carried out at the wet surface of the floater, where the seakeeping hydrodynamics solver (SeaFEM) sends pressure values to the structural solver, and the latter sends back the structural displacements on the same surface. The time variation of the structural displacements along the surface normal direction are imposed as a normal velocity boundary condition on the wet surface (see Figure 1).
-[[Image:Draft_Garcia-Espinosa_591712674-image2.png|306px]]
+[[Image:Draft_Garcia-Espinosa_591712674-image2.png|400px]]
 <span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Figure 1. '''Hydroelastic coupling on the body wet surface.</span>

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:20, 4 June 2024
(No difference)