Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Experimental Investigation on Hydrodynamic Coefficients
of a Column-Stabilized Fish Cage in Waves
Yun-Peng Zhao 1 , Qiu-Pan Chen 1 , Chun-Wei Bi 1, * and Yong Cui 2,3
1 State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian 116024, China
2 Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao), Qingdao 266237, China
3 Qingdao Key Laboratory for Marine Fish Breeding and Biotechnology, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute,
Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China
* Correspondence: bicw@dlut.edu.cn




Received: 18 October 2019; Accepted: 7 November 2019; Published: 14 November 2019


Abstract: This study on hydrodynamic coefficients of a column-stabilized fish cage under wave
action plays an important role in the anti-wave design of cages. The regular wave test was used to
study the horizontal wave force of the jacket and column-stabilized fish cage under different wave
heights, periods, and incident angles; the finite element model of the jacket and the column-stabilized
fish cage was established according to the test model. On the basis of the calculation of the finite
element model, combined with the wave force obtained from the experiment, the hydrodynamic
coefficients of the structure was fitted by the least squares method, and then the drag force, inertial
force, and total force of the structure under different conditions were calculated. The results show that
the hydrodynamic coefficients of the jacket and netting under the wave condition were more obvious
with the change of the KC number and wave incident angles. And as the wave height increased, the
drag force, the inertial force, and the proportion of the drag force to the horizontal wave force both
increased. When the wavelength was large, the same trend occured as the wave period increased.
When the wave incident angles were different, the forces of the jacket and the column-stabilized fish
cage were always small in lateral low-frequency waves, which is consistent with the change law of
hydrodynamic coefficients of the jacket and netting.

Keywords: column-stabilized fish cage; horizontal wave force; least squares method; hydrodynamic coefficient

1. Introduction
There are developments made almost daily in marine aquaculture equipment in China. One such
development is that of column-stabilized fish cages, which have gradually been recognized because
of their structure safety, steadfast and reliable, and convenient integration with other marine jacket
platforms. A typical column-stabilized fish cage mainly consists of the main jacket structure and
the netting structure surrounding the culture space. As the coastal environment is deteriorating,
aquaculture is gradually developing into more open sea; there are a large number of abandoned or
newly developed jacket platforms, such as developing oil and wind energy. Combining this jacket
structure with the netting structure not only improves the capacity of anti-storm of the deep sea
cage, but also effectively solves the power supply problem of the breeding equipment, and facilitates
the automation and intelligence of the deep sea aquaculture industry. However, the jacket platform
combined with the netting has a complex response under the action of the marine environment, such as
waves and currents, and the netting structure also faces more serious hydroid-fouled problems [1].
Therefore, it is necessary to carry out relevant experiments to study the force and hydrodynamic
coefficients law of the column-stable cage under regular waves.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418; doi:10.3390/jmse7110418 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 2 of 20

In previous research, estimation of hydrodynamic forces and hydrodynamic coefficients on isolated

slender cylinders and pile groups is not new. Sarpkaya [2] carried out extensive experiments, and found
that both CD and CM correlated with KC number reasonably well, while absolutely no correlation was
found between the Reynolds number and CD and CM . Sundar et al. [3] used the least squares method
to analyze the force of the pile column under the action of regular waves, and obtained the relationship
between the hydrodynamic coefficients and the KC number of the pile column with different inclination
angles. Bushnell [4] studied the mutual interaction and influence of array cylinders by means of a
pulsating water tunnel. It was pointed out that this interference increases with the increase of the flow
orbit length, and the maximum resistance of the shielded cylinder can be reduced to half of the single
cylinder. Chakrabarti [5,6] studied the variation of hydrodynamic coefficients of group piles with
KC number and pile spacing under regular wave action. Kurrian et al. [7] studied the comparison of
hydrodynamic forces and force coefficients for the effects of spacing between the cylinders, shape, and
arrangement of arrays, and found that the hydrodynamic force and force coefficients of the cylinders
have similar trends when the KC number is the same. Besides, the measurements were compared with
numerical predictions by Santo et al. [8] using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), with the actual
jacket represented in a three-dimensional numerical wave tank as a porous tower model, simulating a
uniformly distributed Morison stress field. Good agreement was achieved, both in terms of incident
surface elevation as well as total force time histories, all using a single set of CD and CM . Palm et al. [9]
studied the scale effects between a model scale and a prototype scale device, and compared inviscid
Euler simulations with RANS results to quantify the viscous contribution to the loads and responses
of the wave energy converter (WEC). Amaechi et al. [10] developed a coupled dynamic models with
both buoys and hoses using Orcaflex to investigate the effects of hose hydrodynamic loads and flow
angles on the structural behavior of the hoses. Gadelho et al. [11] presented an numerical analysis on
determining the hydrodynamic coefficients of an oscillating two-dimensional rigid cylindrical body,
using a time domain Navier–Stokes model. However, as of now, only a very limited number of studies
have addressed the determination of hydrodynamic coefficients for large-span jacket structure.
As for the netting cage, Norwegian scholars Lader et al. [12] studied the deformation and water
resistance of circular gravity cage with different weights under different flow rates by using a flume
model experiment, and the experimental results were compared with the calculated results of the
water resistance of the net using the empirical formula. It was found that the water resistance and
deformation of the flexible net are highly dependent on each other. Decew et al. [13] conducted a
flume towing test on the hydrodynamic characteristics of a single-point anchored harbor cage under
the action of water flow according to Froude criterion. Zhao et al. [14] used a porous media model
to simulate the netting, and established a three-dimensional numerical flume model to simulate the
interaction between netting and water flow. Based on this numerical model, they studied the law of
velocity attenuation after the interaction of netting and compared it with the experimental results
of a physical model. Bi et al. [15,16] established a fluid–structure coupled model between flow and
flexible nets, and simulated drag force and flow through the hydroid-fouled nets in currents. Based on
the structural characteristics of floating aquaculture cages, Cui et al. [17] used the finite element
method to simulate the motion and force of the cage under the action of wave–current interaction;
they also did a comparative analysis of the numerical simulation results and tank model experiment
results. Dong et al. [18] conducted a series of experiments on different types of mesh plates in wave
flume to study the hydrodynamic force of the net panel under the wave action. Based on the fluid
dynamics of the cylinder in wave, they proposed the wave force model of the net panel and compared
it with existing experimental measurements. Zhao et al. [19] conducted a wave test on hydrodynamic
responses of a semi-submersible offshore fish farm. Huang et al. [20] proposed a numerical model
based on the lumped-mass method to analyze the dynamic characteristics of a net–cage system in
waves and currents. Xu et al. [21] developed a numerical model based on the lumped-mass method
and the principle of rigid body kinematics to predict the hydrodynamic response of a fish cage and
mooring grid system in regular.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 3 of 20

and the principle of rigid body kinematics to predict the hydrodynamic response of a fish cage and
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 3 of 20
mooring grid system in regular.
Previous studies have done some research on simple group piles and floating cages, but research
on the hydrodynamic
Previous forcesdone
studies have and some
hydrodynamic
research oncoefficients of the
simple group long-span
piles jacketcages,
and floating structure and the
but research
jacket–netted
on the hydrodynamicstructureforces
has not been
and reported. In coefficients
hydrodynamic this study, aofnew
thecage form of
long-span combining
jacket jacket
structure andand
the
netting was designed. The hydrodynamics of the structure with or without the
jacket–netted structure has not been reported. In this study, a new cage form of combining jacket andadditional netting
were
nettingstudied, respectively,
was designed. and the leastof squares
The hydrodynamics method
the structure with was used the
or without to fit the hydrodynamic
additional netting were
coefficients based onand
studied, respectively, the the
calculation of the
least squares finite was
method element
used model,
to fit thewhich providedcoefficients
hydrodynamic support for the
based
numerical simulation and engineering design of the column-stabilized fish cages.
on the calculation of the finite element model, which provided support for the numerical simulation The comparison
between the calculated
and engineering designand measured
of the values of the
column-stabilized horizontal
fish wave
cages. The force verifies
comparison the effectiveness
between of
the calculated
the research method.
and measured values of the horizontal wave force verifies the effectiveness of the research method.

2. Materials
2. Materials and
and Methods
Methods

2.1. Experimental
2.1. Experimental Model
Model
The experiments
The experiments were were carried
carried outout in
in aa wave
wave andand current
current flume
flume atat the
the State
State Key
Key Laboratory
Laboratory of of
Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian,
Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China. The flume was China. The flume was
60 m
60 m in
in length,
length, 44 m
m inin widthm
widthmand and2.52.5mminindepth,
depth,and andhadhada amaximum
maximum working
working water
waterdepth
depth of of
2.02.0
m.
The arrangement of the experimental model is shown
m. The arrangement of the experimental model is shown in Figure 1. in
The tested
The tested model
model was was placed
placed23 23m maway
awayfromfromthe thewave
wavepaddle.
paddle.OneOnewave
wavegagegagewas
wasarranged
arranged 1m 1
before, and three wave gages arranged 1, 1.6, and 3.2 m behind the structure, respectively.
m before, and three wave gages arranged 1, 1.6, and 3.2 m behind the structure, respectively. In order In order to
collect
to thethe
collect hydrodynamic
hydrodynamic forces on the
forces onstructure easily,easily,
the structure the model was suspended
the model from thefrom
was suspended carriage
the
with dynamometers,
carriage such thatsuch
with dynamometers, the bottom
that theof the structure
bottom was 0.26was
of the structure m above
0.26 m theabove
bottom
theofbottom
the tank.
of
In this study, the real and effective horizontal wave forces were obtained
the tank. In this study, the real and effective horizontal wave forces were obtained by model by model experiments,
which was the
experiments, basiswas
which for the
studying thestudying
basis for hydrodynamic
the hydrodynamic CD and CMC
coefficientscoefficients . DOther
and Cforces were
M. Other not
forces
considered
were for the time
not considered being.
for the timeDue
being.to Due
the large
to thestructure frame,frame,
large structure four dynamometers
four dynamometers were wereused
symmetrically to obtain the horizontal wave force. The measurement range
used symmetrically to obtain the horizontal wave force. The measurement range of the four of the four dynamometers
in the horizontalindirection
dynamometers was 50direction
the horizontal N, and the waspositive
50 N, direction remained
and the positive consistent
direction with theconsistent
remained direction
of wave propagation. As shown in Figure 2, the hydrodynamic data collected
with the direction of wave propagation. As shown in Figure 2, the hydrodynamic data collected under the action of
a certain working condition, the phase of each dynamometer was always
under the action of a certain working condition, the phase of each dynamometer was always consistent, and present
periodic variation
consistent, consistent
and present with the
periodic action consistent
variation of regular wave, which
with the also of
action reflected
regularthe rationality
wave, whichofalsothe
dynamometer arrangement of the experiment. Figure 1.
reflected the rationality of the dynamometer arrangement of the experiment.

Figure 1. Experimental set-up of the column-stabilized fish cage.

Figure 1. Experimental set-up of the column-stabilized fish cage.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 4 of 20
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 4 of 20

Figure2.2.Comparison
Figure ofthe
Comparison of thetime
time history
history of the
of the fourfour measurements
measurements (A4). (A4).

TheThe column-stabilized
column-stabilized fish
fishcagecagetesttest
model
model mainly consisted
mainly consisted of the main
of the jacket
main and and
jacket the additional
the
netting structure.
additional nettingTostructure.
analyze the hydrodynamic
To analyze characteristics
the hydrodynamic of this particular
characteristics structure,
of this particular the test was
structure,
divided
the testinto
wastwo parts,
divided one
into two was
parts,theonehydrodynamic test of the
was the hydrodynamic testmain
of thejacket (M1), (M1),
main jacket and the
and other
the was
theother was the hydrodynamic
hydrodynamic test of the column-stabilized
test of the column-stabilized fish cagefish cageThe
(M2). (M2). The jacket
jacket was the wasbasic
the basic
part of an
part ofelectrical
offshore an offshore electrical
platform, platform,
which was which was assembled
assembled by polymethylby polymethyl
methacrylatemethacrylate
(PMMA) (PMMA)
tubes for this
tubes for this test. The length and outer diameter of the pipes were designed according to the gravity
test. The length and outer diameter of the pipes were designed according to the gravity similarity
similarity criterion, and the geometric scale λ was 60; the wall thickness of the pipes was designed
criterion, and the geometric scale λ was 60; the wall thickness of the pipes was designed according
according to the hydroelasticity similarity criterion, and the inertia radius scale λr was 64.027.
to the hydroelasticity similarity criterion, and the inertia radius scale λr was
According to λ and λr, the prototype structure of the jacket was equivalent to
64.027. According to
the model structure.
λ and λ r , the
The specific prototype
parameters are shown in Table 1. The outer contour of the jacket was 1.47 m long,The
structure of the jacket was equivalent to the model structure. 1.2 mspecific
parameters
wide, andare 1.18shown in Table
m heigh; 12 large1. The outer contour
cylindrical of the
hollow pipes withjacket was 1.47
a diameter of m32long,
mm and 1.2 m wide, and
a wall
1.18thickness
m heigh;of12 largeformed
3 mm cylindrical hollow
the jacket legs,pipes with
and thin a diameter
round pipes withof 32 mm andofa 25
a diameter wall mm thickness
and a wallof 3 mm
thickness
formed of 2 mm
the jacket were
legs, distributed
and thin round frompipes
the top to 0.62
with m under of
a diameter the25water
mmsurface
and a as diagonal
wall braces
thickness of 2 mm
wereand cross braces.
distributed Water
from thedepth
top to below
0.620.62 m wasthe
m under a bottom
waterstructure.
surface as diagonal braces and cross braces.
Water depth below 0.62 m was a bottom structure. water flow resistance, the equivalent netting
Considering that the netting force was mainly the
can be used instead of the theoretical model netting. The geometric scale of the netting was 60, and
Considering that the netting force was mainly the water flow resistance, the equivalent netting
the mesh size and diameter refer to the study of Tsukrov [22]. The netting part of the test adopted the
can be used instead of the theoretical model netting. The geometric scale of the netting was 60, and
knotted nylon netting with diamond mesh, with a mesh size of 12 mm and a mesh diameter of 0.82
themm.
meshThe sizehorizontal
and diameter refer to the study of Tsukrov [22]. The netting part of the test adopted
and vertical shrinkage coefficients were 0.6 and 0.8, respectively, and the
thecompactness
knotted nylon wasnetting
0.137. with diamond mesh, with a mesh size of 12 mm and a mesh diameter of
0.82 mm. The horizontal and vertical
A typical column-stabilized shrinkage
cage consists of thecoefficients
jacket structure wereand0.6theand 0.8,structure.
netting respectively,
Duringand the
compactness
the test, wewas tied 0.137.
the netting and the jacket together with strings, and tensioned the mesh as evenly as
possible
A typical while maintaining the mesh
column-stabilized cage shape.
consists Soof
that
thethe environmental
jacket structure and load the
received
netting by structure.
the mesh isDuring
the transmitted
test, we tied to the
the surrounding
netting andpiles through
the jacket the strings,
together withand the data
strings, andobtained by thethe
tensioned dynamometers
mesh as evenly as
were the
possible totalmaintaining
while force of the jacket
the meshand the netting.
shape. So that the environmental load received by the mesh is
transmitted to the surrounding piles through the strings, and the data obtained by the dynamometers
Table 1. Geometric dimension parameters of the prototype and model.
were the total force of the jacket and the netting.
Section for Section for
Model
Member
Table 1. Geometric dimension Prototype Model
Number parameters of the prototype and model.
(mm) (mm)
Section for Section for
Jacket (Outside P2000×50 2000*50 32*3
Member Model Number Prototype Model
diameter * P1500×40 1500*40(mm) 25*2 (mm)
Thickness) P1200×40
P2000 × 50 1200*40
2000 * 50 20*2 32 * 3
Jacket
P1500 × 40 1500 * 40 25 * 2
(Outside diameter * Thickness)
During the test, three arrangement P1200 × 40
angles (0°, 45°, 90°) 1200
were* 40 20 * 2the model to
realized by rotating
simulate the hydrodynamic response of the structure under different wave incident directions (see
Figure 3). The
During waterthree
the test, deptharrangement
was 1.13 m. Considering
angles (0◦ ,the
45◦actual
, 90◦ )marine environment,
were realized nine regular
by rotating the model
wave conditions with different wave heights and periods were applied. They were
to simulate the hydrodynamic response of the structure under different wave incident used in the design
directions
for each incident angle. The parameters of the regular wave are shown in Table 2.
(see Figure 3). The water depth was 1.13 m. Considering the actual marine environment, nine regular
wave conditions with different wave heights and periods were applied. They were used in the design
for each incident angle. The parameters of the regular wave are shown in Table 2.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 5 of
5 20
J. Mar. Sci.J. Mar.
Eng.Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418
2019, 7, 418 of 20
5 of 20
Table2.2.Wave
Table Wave conditions.
conditions.

Wave
Wave Table 2. Wave conditions. Wave
WaveIncident
Incident
Test
Test Wave
Wave Period
Period
Height
Height Angle
Angle
Number
Number T/s
Test Number H/m H/m
Wave Height WaveT/s Period T/s Wave Incident Angle β (◦ )
β (°)
H/m β (°)
A1 A1 0.05
0.05 1.6
A1 0.05 1.6 1.6
A2 A2 0.1
0.1 1.6
A2 0.1 1.6 1.6 0(A), 45(B),
0(A), 45(B),
A3 A3 0.15
0.15 1.0, 1.2,
1.0,1.4,
1.2, 1.6, 1.8 1.8
1.4, 1.6, 0(A), 45(B),
90(C)
A3 0.15 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 90(C)
A4 A4 0.2
0.2 1.6 1.6 90(C)
A5 A4A5 0.2
0.25
0.25 1.6
1.6 1.6
A5 0.25 1.6

Figure 3. Wave ◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ were incident direction.

Figure incident anglesangles
3. Wave incident and and
toptop
view
viewofofthe model(0°,
the model (045°, and 90° were incident direction.
Thereafter,Thereafter,
they were denoted
they respectively
were denoted as as
respectively forward
forward wave, oblique
wave, oblique wave,
wave, and lateral
and lateral wave). wave).
Figure 3. Wave incident angles and top view of the model (0°, 45°, and 90° were incident direction.
Thereafter,
M1 and they were denoted
M2 were exposed respectively as forward
as two structures to allwave,
of theoblique
above wave, and
regular lateral
wave wave). which
conditions,
M1 and M2 were exposed as two structures to all of the above regular wave conditions, which would
would help us to have a deeper understanding of the hydrodynamic characteristics of the column-
help us to haveM1 anda deeper
M2 cage understanding
were exposed Itasistwo of the hydrodynamic
structures to all characteristics ofconditions,
the column-stabilized
stabilized fish structure. worth noting that theof the above
regular waveregular wave
generated by the wave paddlewhich
fish cagewould
structure.
is strongly nonlinear. After comparison, it was found to be in good agreement with the fifth orderis strongly
help usIttois worth
have a noting
deeper that the
understanding regular
of thewave generated
hydrodynamic by the wave
characteristics of paddle
the column-
stabilized
nonlinear. Stokes fish
Afterwave cage
comparison,structure.
surfer It is
it was
elevation. worth
found
Figure noting that
to bethe
4 shows the histories
in time
good regular wave
of thegenerated
agreement with theby the
fifth
wave height wave
andorder paddle
Stokes wave
horizontal
surfer elevation. Figure 4 shows the time histories of the wave height and horizontal forceorder
is strongly
force on nonlinear.
M1 and M2 After
in A5,comparison,
both on the it was found
measurement to
andbe in
the good agreement
calculation. This with
providedthea fifth
basis for
on M1 and
Stokes wave surfer
the selection of theelevation.
wave theory Figure 4 shows
applied duringthe
thetime histories
numerical of the wave height and horizontal
analysis.
M2 in A5, both on the measurement and the calculation. This provided a basis for the selection of the
force on M1 and M2 in A5, both on the measurement and the calculation. This provided a basis for
wave theory applied during
(a) of the
the selection wavethe numerical
theory analysis.
applied during the numerical analysis.

(a)

(b)

(b)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 6 of 20

(c)

Figure 4. Time histories of the wave height and horizontal force on M1 and M2 for A5. (a)Wave height,
Figure 4. Time histories of the wave height and horizontal force on M1 and M2 for A5. (a)Wave
(b) forceheight,
of M1(b)and (c)offorce
force of M2.
M1 and (c) force of M2

2.2. Hydrodynamic Coefficient

Since the jacket structure and the fishing net structure can be regarded as consisting of a series
of cylinders, the force is the sum of the forces of the formed cylinders. Based on the fluid dynamics
of a small-scale cylindrical member in wave, the Morison equation can be used to calculate the wave
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 6 of 20

2.2. Hydrodynamic Coefficient

Since the jacket structure and the fishing net structure can be regarded as consisting of a series of
cylinders, the force is the sum of the forces of the formed cylinders. Based on the fluid dynamics of a
small-scale cylindrical member in wave, the Morison equation can be used to calculate the wave force
(F) on a column of unit length, including the drag force (Fd ) and the inertial force (Fi ) [23]. The formula
is as follows: ·
F = Fd + Fi = 0.5ρCD DU|U| + ρCM AU (1)
·
where U and U are the velocity and acceleration of the water particles, D is the diameter of the cylinder,
A is the cross-sectional area of the cylinder,ρ is the fluid density, CD is the velocity force coefficient, and
CM is the inertial force coefficient.
Based on the fifth order Stokes wave theory, the horizontal velocity ux and the horizontal
acceleration ax of water particles at any position of the structure are:

5
X
ux = c nλn cosh[nk(z + d)] cos[n(kx − ωt)] (−d ≤ z ≤ η) (2)
n=1

5
X
ax = ωc n2 λn cosh[nk(z + d)] sin[n(kx − ωt)] (−d ≤ z ≤ η) (3)
n=1

The coefficients are as follows:

λ1 = λ; λ2 = λ2 B22 + λ4 B24 ; λ3 = λ3 B33 + λ5 B35 ; λ4 = λ4 B44 ; λ5 = λ5 B55

where ω, h, k are angular frequency, water depth, wave number, definite c = coshkd, s = sinhkd.
Equation (1) can be written as follows:

Fc (t) = CD X(t) + CM Y(t) (4)

s   s
Among them,X(t) = 0.5ρD u(x, z, t)u(x, z, t)dzdx, Y(t) = ρA a(x, z, t)dzdx.
Setting the measured wave force Fm (i), then the sum of the squared error is:
n
X n
X
Q= [Fc (i) − Fm (i)]2 = [CD X(i) + CM Y(i) − Fm (i)]2 (5)
i=1 i=1

Using the least squares method to make ∂Q/∂CD = ∂Q/∂CM = 0.Thus, the solution for CD and
CM can be obtained as follows:

A1 CD + A2 CM = A4 A2 CD + A3 CM = A5 (6)

where A1 = X2 (i), A2 = X(i)Y(i), A3 = Y2 (i), A4 = Fm (i)X(i), A5 = Fm (i)Y(i).

P P P P P

We can finally find the results:

   
 A4 A2   A1 A2 
CD =  /
A5 A3   A2 A3 
 
(7)
A1 A4   A1 A2 
   
CM =  /
A2 A5   A2 A3 
   

2.3. Numerical Model

The simulation was carried out using the finite element software ANSYS APDL 18.2, Ansys, Inc.;
America. The test model used the equivalent nylon netting. In order to improve the calculation efficiency,
America. The test model used the equivalent nylon netting. In order to improve the calculation
efficiency, the netting model for numerical simulation in this paper was simplified by the “mesh
grouping” method (see Figure 5). Under the condition that the total mass and the total wave load of
the netting were unchanged, four meshes in the test model were grouped into one mesh in the
numerical model, and the parameters of the original and mesh-grouped net pen are shown in Table
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 7 of 20
3.
Furthermore, the finite element model of testing model was built as shown in Figure 6. In order
to
theensure
netting that the results
model of numerical
for numerical simulation
simulation can paper
in this better was
reflect the test data,
simplified by thethe“mesh
main settings
grouping” in
the numerical
method calculations
(see Figure 5). Underwerethe ascondition
follows: that the total mass and the total wave load of the netting
wereFor the jacketfour
unchanged, structure,
meshes the in thePIPE59 element
test model werewas used into
grouped to establish
one meshainfinite element model
the numerical model,
consistent with the of
and the parameters experimental
the original model. In the test, net
and mesh-grouped plexiglass
pen are plate
shownwith 1.2 cm
in Table 3. thickness was
attached to the top the
Furthermore, of the jacket,
finite which
element was of
model used to connect
testing the jacket
model was and
built as the dynamometer
shown in Figure 6. In to form
order to
aensure
stable that
test the
force model. The numerical model was also fixed at the top of the jacket
results of numerical simulation can better reflect the test data, the main settings in the with the same
plexiglass
numericalplate (SHELL181).
calculations were as Tofollows:
simulate the real dynamometer and board constraints, there were
four fixed points at each position
For the jacket structure, the PIPE59 of the element
dynamometer,was used as to
shown in Figure
establish a finite6.element model consistent
withThe netting was also
the experimental model.simulated withplexiglass
In the test, the PIPE59 element.
plate with 1.2Unlike the jacket,
cm thickness wasthe element
attached of the
to the top
netting simulated
of the jacket, whichits flexibility
was used by eliminating
to connect the bending
the jacket and thestiffness, and set its
dynamometer to inner
form diameter to zero.
a stable test force
In order The
model. to ensure
numericalthe load
model transfer between
was also fixed at thethe
netting
top ofand
the the jacket,
jacket withthe thetwo
same must be coupled
plexiglass plate
together.
(SHELL181). SinceTothey were of
simulate thethe same
real element type,
dynamometer andit board
was only necessarythere
constraints, to establish
were four a common node
fixed points at
between the netting
each position of the and the jacket toasachieve
dynamometer, shown the connection.
in Figure 6.

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Mesh
Figure grouping
5. Mesh method.
grouping (a) The
method. (a) original netting
The original and (b)
netting andThe
(b) mesh-grouped netting
The mesh-grouped netting.

Table 3. Parameters of the netting.

Table 3. Parameters of the netting.
Parameter Experimental Numerical
Parameter
Type Experimental
Values Numerical
Values
Type
Mesh size (mm) Values
12 Values 24
Mesh size
Twine diameter (mm)
(mm) 12
0.82 24 1.64
Horizontal shrinkage coefficient 0.6 0.6
Vertical shrinkage coefficient 0.8 0.8
Solidity ratio 0.137 0.137

The netting was also simulated with the PIPE59 element. Unlike the jacket, the element of the
netting simulated its flexibility by eliminating the bending stiffness, and set its inner diameter to zero.
In order to ensure the load transfer between the netting and the jacket, the two must be coupled
together. Since they were of the same element type, it was only necessary to establish a common node
between the netting and the jacket to achieve the connection.
The hydrodynamic calculation for the PIPE59 element in ANSYS was based on the Morison
equation shown in Equation (1). CD and CM were obtained by the least square method described above.
In addition, the origin of the global coordinate system of the numerical model must be located at stilling
water surface, and the vertical axis was the Z axis, the positive direction of the Z axis was upward.
 Twine diameter (mm) 0.82 1.64
Horizontal shrinkage
0.6 0.6
coefficient
Vertical shrinkage
0.8 0.8
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 coefficient 8 of 20
Solidity ratio 0.137 0.137

SHELL181 Retaining Plate

PIPE 59 Netting

P2000×50 （PIPE 59）

P1200×40 （PIPE 59） Jacket

P1500×40 （PIPE 59）

Figure 6. Finite element model of the testing model.

Figure 6. Finite element model of the testing model.
3. Results
The hydrodynamic calculation for the PIPE59 element in ANSYS was based on the Morison
equationForce
3.1. Horizontal shownon in Equation
Various (1). Cin
Models D and CM were obtained by the least square method described
Waves
above. In addition, the origin of the global coordinate system of the numerical model must be located
Forateach setwater
stilling of wave conditions,
surface, the component
and the vertical axis was the vector of each
Z axis, the dynamometer
positive direction of thewas added
Z axis was along
the wave direction to obtain the total horizontal wave force of M1 and M2. The time histories of the
upward.
wave height and horizontal forces on M1 and M2 in A3-3 and A4 are shown in Figure 7. The result
3. Results
showed a steady state in the range of 10 s, and the time history of the force and the wave height were
basically3.1.
synchronous,
Horizontal
J. Mar. Force
Sci. Eng. 2019,
while
7, on
the peak and valley values had the same asymmetry.
418Various Models in Waves 9 of 20

For each set of wave conditions, the component vector of each dynamometer was added along
the wave direction to obtain the total horizontal wave force of M1 and M2. The time histories of the
wave height and horizontal forces on M1 and M2 in A3-3 and A4 are shown in Figure 7. The result
showed a steady state in the range of 10 s, and the time history of the force and the wave height were
basically synchronous, while the peak and valley values had the same asymmetry.
The relationship between the peak value of the horizontal wave force on the test model and the
wave conditions is shown in Figures 8 and 9. Since the presence of the netting increased the flow area
of the structure, the wave forces on the structure were increased to some extent. Comparing the
horizontal wave force data of all test conditions, it can be found that the horizontal force of M2 was
greater than M1. When the period was 1.6 s, the peak of the horizontal wave force on the structure
increased with the increment of the wave height, and the contribution of the additional netting to the
horizontal wave force of the structure became more and more obvious. When the wave height was
0.15 m, the wave force of the structure increase with the increment of the period and step diameter
was decreased except C3-1, where the peaks of the wave forces on M1 and M2 were all abnormally
large; 17.73 N for M1 and 24.7 N for M2.

(a) (b)

Figure 7.Figure
Time 7.histories
Time histories
of theofwave
the wave height
height andand horizontalforces
horizontal forceson
on M1
M1 and
andM2.
M2.(a)
(a)A3-3
A3-3and (b) (b)
and A4. A4.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 9 of 20

The relationship between the peak value of the horizontal wave force on the test model and the
wave conditions is shown in Figures 8 and 9. Since the presence of the netting increased the flow
area of the structure, the wave forces on the structure were increased to some extent. Comparing the
horizontal wave force data of all test conditions, it can be found that the horizontal force of M2 was
greater than M1. When the period was 1.6 s, the peak of the horizontal wave force on the structure
increased with the increment of the wave height, and the contribution of the additional netting to the
horizontal wave force of the structure became more and more obvious. When the wave height was
0.15 m, the wave force of the structure increase with the increment of the period and step diameter was
(a) (b)
decreased except C3-1, where the peaks of the wave forces on M1 and M2 were all abnormally large;
17.73 N for7.M1
Figure and
Time 24.7 Noffor
histories theM2.
wave height and horizontal forces on M1 and M2. (a) A3-3 and (b) A4.

(a) (b) (c)

Horizontalforces
Figure8.8.Horizontal
Figure forcesofofthe
thestructure
structureunder
underthe
theaction
actionofofwave (T==1.6
wave(T 1.6s). (a)ββ==0°,
s).(a) , (b)β β==45°
0◦(b) 45◦
J. Mar.and
Sci. (c)β β
Eng.
and(c) == 907,◦ 418
2019,
90° . 10 of 20

(a) (b) (c)

Horizontalforces
Figure9.9.Horizontal
Figure forces of
of the structure
structure under
underthe
theaction
actionofofwave
wave = 0.15
(H(H m).m).
= 0.15 β =β0=◦ ,0°,
(a)(a) β =β45
(b)(b) =◦
and
45° and β =β 90
(c)(c) ◦
= 90°.

3.2. Hydrodynamic Coefficients of Various Models in Waves

3.2. Hydrodynamic Coefficients of Various Models in Waves
The effects of the KC number (KC = U T/D; U : The maximum velocity of the wave; D:
The effects of the KC number (KC = Umaxmax T/D; Umax: max
The maximum velocity of the wave; D: The
The maximum diameter of the jacket member) and the incident angle on the hydrodynamic coefficients
maximum diameter of the jacket member) and the incident angle on the hydrodynamic coefficients
of the two models in the wave are shown in this section. For the two models in each wave condition,
of the two models in the wave are shown in this section. For the two models in each wave condition,
we calculated the drag coefficient CD and the inertia coefficient CM by Equation (7) with the least
we calculated the drag coefficient CD and the inertia coefficient CM by Equation (7) with the least
square method using fifth order Stokes wave.
square method using fifth order Stokes wave.
The variation of the jacket hydrodynamic coefficients with the KC number in waves is shown in
The variation of the jacket hydrodynamic coefficients with the KC number in waves is shown in
Figure 10. The results indicate that the drag coefficient CD decreased gradually with the increase in
Figure 10. The results indicate that the drag coefficient CD decreased gradually with the increase in
KC number, and the step diameter was decreased as the KC number increased; CD got the maximum
KC number, and the step diameter was decreased as the KC number increased; CD got the maximum
value in oblique wave (β = 45◦ ), and the minimum value in lateral wave (β = 90◦ ). The effect of KC
value in oblique wave (β = 45°), and the minimum value in lateral wave (β = 90°). The effect of KC
number
number on onCCMMwas
wasinsignificant
insignificantfor
forthe
thejacket,
jacket,but
butthe
theeffect
effectofofwave
waveincident
incidentangle
anglewas distinct;CCMM
wasdistinct;
got the maximum value in forward wave (β = 0°), and the minimum value in lateral wave (β = 90°).
For M2, it was considered that the jacket and the netting were two independent parts; that is, the
horizontal wave force of the netting can be obtained by the force of M2 minus the force of M1, and
the composition of the horizontal wave force of the netting was based on the study of Zhao et al. [24],
whom conducted wave tests on a variety of densities of netting, and concluded that the value of the
we calculated the drag coefficient CD and the inertia coefficient CM by Equation (7) with the least
square method using fifth order Stokes wave.
The variation of the jacket hydrodynamic coefficients with the KC number in waves is shown in
Figure 10. The results indicate that the drag coefficient CD decreased gradually with the increase in
KC number,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng.and
2019,the
7, 418step diameter was decreased as the KC number increased; CD got the maximum 10 of 20
value in oblique wave (β = 45°), and the minimum value in lateral wave (β = 90°). The effect of KC
number on CM was insignificant for the jacket, but the effect of wave incident angle was distinct; CM
got the
got the maximum
maximum value value in in forward
forward wave
wave (β (β = 0◦ ), and
= 0°), and the
the minimum
minimum value value in in lateral
lateral wave
wave (β(β == 90°).
90◦ ).
For M2,
For M2, it it was
was considered
considered that that the
the jacket
jacket and
and the
the netting
netting were
were two
two independent
independent parts; parts; that
that is,
is, the
the
horizontal wave
horizontal wave force
force of of the
the netting
netting can
can bebe obtained
obtained by by the
the force
force ofof M2
M2 minus
minus the the force
force of
of M1,
M1, and
and
the composition of the horizontal wave force of the netting was based on the
the composition of the horizontal wave force of the netting was based on the study of Zhao et al. [24],study of Zhao et al. [24],
whom conducted
whom conducted wave wave tests
tests on
on aa variety
variety of
of densities
densities of of netting,
netting, and
and concluded
concluded that that the
the value
value of of the
the
inertial force
inertial force of
of the
the netting
netting was
was much
much smaller
smaller thanthan the
the value
value ofof the
the wave
wave force
force it
it received,
received, can
can bebe
ignored. Therefore, it was considered that the horizontal wave force of the netting
ignored. Therefore, it was considered that the horizontal wave force of the netting can be expressed can be expressed by
only
by onlythethedrag force.
drag force.The variation
The of the
variation netting
of the nettingdrag
dragcoefficient CDCwith
coefficient D with thetheKCKCnumber
number in in
waves
waves is
shown in Figure 11, which had consistent regularity compared
is shown in Figure 11, which had consistent regularity compared with CD of jacket. with C D of jacket.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Variationofofhydrodynamic
10. Variation hydrodynamiccoefficients
coefficients
ofof jacket,
jacket, along
along with
with thethe change
change KC number.
of number.
of KC (a)
J. Mar.(a)
Sci.Relationship
Eng. 2019, 7, 418
Relationship between CDCDand
between andKC
KCnumber
numberand
and(b)
(b)relationship betweenCC
relationshipbetween andKC
MMand KCnumber.
number 11 of 20

Figure
Figure 11. Variationofofhydrodynamic
11. Variation hydrodynamiccoefficient
coefficient(C(C ) of the netting, along with the change of
D)Dof the netting, along with the change of KC
KC number.
number.

3.3. Components of Horizontal Force in Waves

3.3. Components of Horizontal Force in Waves
3.3.1. Components of Horizontal Force of the Jacket Structure
3.3.1. Components of Horizontal Force of the Jacket Structure
For M1, in order to deeply study the horizontal force variation caused by the change of wave
Forperiod,
height, M1, inand
order to deeply
incident study
angle, the horizontal
the horizontal force force
of thevariation caused by the
test was decomposed change
into of wave
the drag force
height, period, and incident angle, the horizontal force of the test was decomposed into
and the inertial force according to the Morison equation, as shown in Figures 12 and 13. the drag force
and the inertial force according to the Morison equation, as shown in Figures 12 and 13.
The results indicate that there was a peak phase difference between the drag force and the
inertial force that make up the wave force, and the peak phase of the inertial force was before the
total force, while the peak phase of the drag force was after the total force, which were determined
by Equations (2) and (3). Comparing the peak and valley values of the inertial force and the drag
force, it can be found that the peak and valley values of the inertial force are equal, while the peak
value of the drag force is significantly larger than the valley value. When the period was constant (T
= 1.6 s) and the wave heights were large, the inertial force and the drag force increased with the
3.3. Components of Horizontal Force in Waves

3.3.1. Components of Horizontal Force of the Jacket Structure

ForSci.
J. Mar. M1, in2019,
Eng. order to
7, 418 deeply study the horizontal force variation caused by the change of wave 11 of 20
height, period, and incident angle, the horizontal force of the test was decomposed into the drag force
and the inertial force according to the Morison equation, as shown in Figures 12 and 13.
TheTheresults
resultsindicate
indicatethatthat there waswas aapeak
peakphase
phase difference
difference between
between the the
dragdrag
forceforce
and the
andinertial
the
inertial force that make up the wave force, and the peak phase of the inertial force was before force,
force that make up the wave force, and the peak phase of the inertial force was before the total the
while
total the while
force, peak phase
the peakof the dragof
phase force
thewas
dragafter
forcethewas
totalafter
force,
thewhich
total were
force,determined
which were bydetermined
Equations (2)
byand (3). Comparing
Equations (2) and (3).the peak and valley
Comparing the values
peak and of the inertial
valley force
values ofand
the the drag force
inertial force,and
it can
thebedrag
found
that the peak and valley values of the inertial force are equal, while the peak
force, it can be found that the peak and valley values of the inertial force are equal, while the peak value of the drag force
is significantly
value of the drag larger
force isthan the valleylarger
significantly value.than
When the the period
valley value.was constant
When (T = 1.6
the period wass) and the wave
constant (T
heights were large, the inertial force and the drag force increased with the
= 1.6 s) and the wave heights were large, the inertial force and the drag force increased with the increment of the wave height
in different
increment of incident
the wave angles.
height Similarly, whenincident
in different the waveangles.
height was constant
Similarly, when(H =the
0.15wave
m) and the periods
height was
were large,
constant (H = the
0.15inertial
m) andforce and thewere
the periods drag large,
force increased
the inertialwithforceincreasing
and the drag period in different
force increasedincident
with
angles. In
increasing addition,
period the proportion
in different incidentofangles.
the drag force in the
In addition, thetotal force increased
proportion of the dragwith the in
force increment
the total of
the increased
force wave height with and
theperiod,
incrementwhich waswave
of the considered
height toand beperiod,
causedwhich
by thewasdragconsidered
force beingtoproportional
be caused
to the square of the water point speed.
by the drag force being proportional to the square of the water point speed.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 12 of 20

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure
Figure12. 12.Composition
Composition of of
measured
measured horizontal
horizontal wave
waveforce of of
force M1M1 (T (T = 1.6
= 1.6 s). s). β = β0°,
(a) (a) =H 0◦ ,=H = 0.15
0.15 m, Tm,
=T1.6=s,1.6
(b)s,β(b) β =H0= ,0.20
= 0°, ◦ H =m, 1.6Ts,=(c)
T =m,
0.20 1.6β s, (c) βH==45
= 45°, ◦
0.15, Hm,=T0.15 = β1.6
m,s,T(d)
= 1.6 = 45°, Hβ= =0.20
s, (d) , HT== 0.20
45◦m, 1.6 s,m,
(e)T β==1.6 s, H
90°, (e)=β0.15
= 90m,
◦ , H = 0.15 m, T = 1.6 s and (f) β = 90◦ , H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s.
T = 1.6 s and (f) β = 90°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s
 (e) (f)
Figure 12. Composition of measured horizontal wave force of M1 (T = 1.6 s). (a) β = 0°, H = 0.15 m, T
= 1.6Sci.
J. Mar. s, Eng.
(b) β2019,
= 0°,7,H418
= 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s, (c) β = 45°, H = 0.15 m, T = 1.6 s, (d) β = 45°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s, 12 of 20
(e) β = 90°, H = 0.15 m, T = 1.6 s and (f) β = 90°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s

(a) (b)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 13 of 20

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure
Figure 13.13. Composition
Composition of measured
of measured horizontal
horizontal wavewave force
force of M1
of M1 (H =(H = 0.15
0.15 m).β(a)
m). (a) β =T0=◦ ,1.4
= 0°, T= s, 1.4
H s,
H =m,
= 0.15 0.15
(b)m, 0°,βT==01.8
β =(b) ◦ , Ts,=H1.8 s, Hm,
= 0.15 = (c)
0.15β m, (c) Tβ ==1.4
= 45°, 45 s,, TH== 1.4
◦
0.15s,m,H T==0.15 T=
m,(d)
1.6 s, β =1.6 (d)= β
s, T
45°, 1.8= s,45◦ ,
= 1.8m,
H =T 0.15 H =β 0.15
s, (e) = 90°,m,T (e) β =s,90
= 1.4 H◦=, T = 1.4
0.15 = 0.15
s, H (f)
m and m and
β = 90°, 1.8βs,=H90=◦ 0.15
T = (f) , T =m1.8 s, H = 0.15 m.

3.3.2.
3.3.2. Components
Components of of Horizontal
Horizontal Force
Force of of
thethe Fish
Fish Cage
Cage Structure
Structure
Considering
Considering that that
thethe wave
wave force
force of of
M2M2 waswas composed
composed of the
of the wave
wave force
force of of
M1M1 andand
thethe netting,
netting,
respectively, in order to explore the influence of the netting on M2, time histories of the wave forceon
respectively, in order to explore the influence of the netting on M2, time histories of the wave force
onM1,
M1,M2,M2,and
andnetting
nettingare areshown
shownin inthe
theFigures
Figures14 14and
and15.
15.Figure
Figure1414isisfor
forthe
thefixed
fixedperiod
period(T(T== 1.6
1.6 s),
s),while
whileFigure
Figure15 15isisfor
forthe
thefixed
fixedwave
waveheight
height(H(H= =0.15 m).
0.15 m).The
The wave
wave force of of
force M1M1 andandM2M2areare
taken from
taken
the test data, and the wave force of netting, considering only the drag force, taken
from the test data, and the wave force of netting, considering only the drag force, taken from the from the numerical
calculation
numerical data.
calculation data.
It can be seen from the Figures 14 and 15 that the peak phase of the drag force of the netting is
behind the peak phase of the wave force of M2, which is consistent with the law of the peak phase of
the drag force of M1. When the period was constant (T = 1.6 s) and the wave height was large, the
drag force of the netting increased with the increase of the wave height; similarly, when the wave
height was constant (H = 0.15 m) and the period was large, the drag force of the netting increased
with the increment of the period.
 Considering that the wave force of M2 was composed of the wave force of M1 and the netting,
respectively, in order to explore the influence of the netting on M2, time histories of the wave force
on M1, M2, and netting are shown in the Figures 14 and 15. Figure 14 is for the fixed period (T = 1.6
s), while Figure 15 is for the fixed wave height (H = 0.15 m). The wave force of M1 and M2 are taken
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 13 of 20
from the test data, and the wave force of netting, considering only the drag force, taken from the
numerical calculation data.
It can be seen
It can from
be seen the the
from Figures 14 14
Figures and 15 15
and that thethe
that peak
peakphase
phaseofofthe
thedrag
dragforce
forceofofthe
thenetting
netting isis
behind the peak
behind phase
the peak phaseof the wave
of the force
wave of M2,
force which
of M2, which is is
consistent
consistentwith
withthe
thelaw
lawofofthe
thepeak
peakphase
phase ofof
the drag
the drag force force of M1.
of M1. When
When theperiod
the periodwas
was constant
constant (T(T==1.61.6s)s)and
andthethe
wave
waveheight waswas
height large, the drag
large, the
dragforce
forceofofthethenetting
netting increased
increasedwith the the
with increase of the
increase of wave height;
the wave similarly,
height; when when
similarly, the wave
the height
wave
waswas
height constant
constant(H =(H 0.15 m) and
= 0.15 m) the
andperiod was large,
the period the drag
was large, theforce
dragofforce
the netting
of the increased with the
netting increased
withincrement
the incrementof theofperiod.
the period.

(a) (b)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 14 of 20

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure
Figure 14. Composition
14. Composition of measured
of measured horizontal
horizontal wave
wave force
force ofof
M2 M2 (T(T= =
1.61.6 β β= =
s).s).(a)(a) 0°,0◦H, H = 0.15
= 0.15 m,m,
T
T = 1.6 s, (b) β = 0 ◦ , H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s, (c) β = 45 ◦ , H = 0.15 m, T = 1.6 s, (d) β = 45
= 1.6 s, (b) β = 0°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s, (c) β = 45°, H = 0.15 m, T = 1.6 s, (d) β = 45°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s,
◦ , H = 0.20 m,

(e) βT==90°,
1.6 H
s, (e) β = m,
= 0.15 90◦T, H = 0.15
= 1.6 T =β1.6
m, (f)
s and s and
= 90°, H (f) β = m,
= 0.20 90◦T , H= = s m, T = 1.6 s.
1.60.20
 (e) (f)
Figure 14. Composition of measured horizontal wave force of M2 (T = 1.6 s). (a) β = 0°, H = 0.15 m, T
= 1.6 s, (b) β = 0°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s, (c) β = 45°, H = 0.15 m, T = 1.6 s, (d) β = 45°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 14 of 20
(e) β = 90°, H = 0.15 m, T = 1.6 s and (f) β = 90°, H = 0.20 m, T = 1.6 s

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 15. Composition of measured horizontal wave force of M2 (H = 0.15 m). (a) β = 0°, T =◦1.4 s, H
Figure 15. Composition of measured horizontal wave force of M2 (H = 0.15 m). (a) β = 0 , T = 1.4 s,
= 0.15 m, (b) β = 0°, T = 1.8 s, H = 0.15 m, (c) β = 45°, T = 1.4 s, H = 0.15 m, (d) β = 45°, T = 1.8 s, H = 0.15
H = 0.15 m, (b) β = 0◦ , T = 1.8 s, H = 0.15 m, (c) β = 45◦ , T = 1.4 s, H = 0.15 m, (d) β = 45◦ , T = 1.8 s,
m, (e) β = 90°, T = 1.4 s, H◦ = 0.15 m and (f) β = 90°, T = 1.8 s, H ◦= 0.15 m
H = 0.15 m, (e) β = 90 , T = 1.4 s, H = 0.15 m and (f) β = 90 , T = 1.8 s, H = 0.15 m.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Effect of Incident Angles on Wave Force

The influence of different incident angles on the structural stress were shown in Figures 16 and 17.
The force of the jacket and column-stabilized fish cage was basically the same in forward and oblique
waves (see Figure 16), while the horizontal wave force under the lateral wave was smaller. It was
worth noting that the force were slightly bigger in the positive low-frequency wave (see Figure 17).
In the lateral wave, the structural members were densely distributed along the wave propagation
direction, resulting in an obvious shielding effect between the members. Although the total upstream
area was large, due to the severe shielding of the members on the meeting-wave side, the force of the
subsequent members was significantly reduced, which also directly led to the reduction of the total
oblique waves (see Figure 16), while the horizontal wave force under the lateral wave was smaller. It
was worth noting that the force were slightly bigger in the positive low-frequency wave (see Figure
17). In the lateral wave, the structural members were densely distributed along the wave propagation
direction, resulting in an obvious shielding effect between the members. Although the total upstream
area was large, due to the severe shielding of the members on the meeting-wave side, the force of the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 15 of 20
subsequent members was significantly reduced, which also directly led to the reduction of the total
wave force of the structure, which was consistent with the law of hydrodynamic coefficients reflected
in Figures
wave force10of and 11.
the structure, which was consistent with the law of hydrodynamic coefficients reflected
In Figure
in Figures 10 and 17, 11.
the short-period wave force on both M1 and M2 were obviously abnormal under
the action of the
In Figure 17,lateral wave. Sincewave
the short-period the fundamental
force on bothfrequency
M1 and M2 of were
the structure
obviously was much larger
abnormal underthanthe
the frequency
action of the
of the lateral testSince
wave. wavethecondition,
fundamental the frequency
abnormalofwave force here
the structure wasalmost excluded
much larger than the
possibilityof
frequency ofthe
structural
test wave resonance.
condition,Considering
the abnormal this direction,
wave there
force here was aexcluded
almost gap withthe a large span in
possibility of
the middleresonance.
structural of the structure, and the
Considering thismodal components
direction, there was were
a gap symmetrically
with a large span distributed in a of
in the middle small
the
area on both
structure, andsides. Analyzing
the modal on the wave
components werephase corresponding
symmetrically to the in
distributed maximum wave
a small area onforce
both of the
sides.
structure, when
Analyzing on thethe wavelength
wave was slightly to
phase corresponding larger than the lateral
the maximum wavespan
forceofofthe
thestructure
structure,(C3-1),
when the
wave troughwas
wavelength acted on the
slightly gap,
larger which
than causedspan
the lateral a large
of thevalue of the
structure wavethe
(C3-1), force;
wave and when
trough the
acted
wavelength
on continued
the gap, which to increase
caused a large (C3
value-2),ofthe
thewave
wave trough
force;moved awaythe
and when from the gap and
wavelength inevitably
continued to
acted on one side of the jacket to reduce the wave force. Thereafter, as the
increase (C3 -2), the wave trough moved away from the gap and inevitably acted on one side of the wavelength continued to
increase,
jacket the wave
to reduce thetrough gradually
wave force. left theasstructure,
Thereafter, causingcontinued
the wavelength the wave to force to increase,
increase, andtrough
the wave when
the effect left
gradually of the
the wave trough
structure, was the
causing gradually
wave force reduced, the increased
to increase, and when amplitude
the effect of the
wave force
wave also
trough
slowed
was down.reduced,
gradually While the the structure had no gaps
increased amplitude in the
of wave direction
force of forward
also slowed and oblique
down. While wave
the structure
propagation,
had no gaps inthe theeffect of the
direction oftrough
forward under the short
and oblique period
wave was obvious,
propagation, and the
the effect structural
of the stress
trough under
wasshort
the small. period was obvious, and the structural stress was small.

(a) (b)
J. Mar.Figure
Sci. Eng.16.
2019, 7, 418
Horizontal force of structure under different
different incident
incidentangles (T== 1.6
angles(T 1.6 s). 16 of 20
s). (a) M1 and (b) M2.

(a) (b)
Horizontal force
Figure 17. Horizontal forceof
ofstructure
structureunder
underdifferent incident
different angles
incident (H =
angles (H0.15 m). m).
= 0.15 (a) M1 and and
(a) M1 (b) M2.
(b)
M2.

4.2. The Effect of Incident Angles on Hydrodynamic Coefficients

Since the jacket model in this experiment was a large space frame structure, the density of the
model component was significantly different in any wave propagation direction, which seriously
affected the drag coefficient and inertial coefficient in all directions. It can be seen from Figure 10 that
the drag coefficient CD and the inertial coefficient CM showed obvious differences at different incident
 (a) (b)
Figure 17. Horizontal force of structure under different incident angles (H = 0.15 m). (a) M1 and (b)
M2.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 16 of 20

4.2. The Effect of Incident Angles on Hydrodynamic Coefficients

4.2. The
Since Effect
the of Incident
jacket modelAngles
in thisonexperiment
Hydrodynamic was Coefficients
a large space frame structure, the density of the
model component was significantly
Since the jacket model in this different
experiment inwas
anya wave propagation
large space direction,
frame structure, the which
densityseriously
of the
model
affected the component
drag coefficientwas significantly
and inertial different
coefficientin in
anyallwave propagation
directions. It can direction,
be seen fromwhich seriously
Figure 10 that
affected
the drag the drag
coefficient CDcoefficient and inertial
and the inertial coefficient
coefficient in all directions.
CM showed It can be seen
obvious differences from Figure
at different 10
incident
that the drag coefficient C and the inertial coefficient C showed obvious
angels: CD got the maximum value in the oblique wave, while got the minimum value in the lateral
D M differences at different
wave;incident
CM gotangels: CD got the
the maximum maximum
value in thevalue in thewave,
forward oblique wave,
while while
got the got the minimum
minimum valuevalue
in theinlateral
the
lateral wave; CM got the maximum value in the forward wave, while got the minimum value in the
wave.
lateral wave.
For M1, the drag force, inertial force, and horizontal total force calculated by the numerical
For M1, the drag force, inertial force, and horizontal total force calculated by the numerical model
modelareare shown in Figures 18 and 19. When the wave length was long enough, the wave force got
shown in Figures 18 and 19. When the wave length was long enough, the wave force got the
the maximal
maximalvaluevaluein inthe
thelateral
lateral wave;
wave; we thoughtthat
we thought thatthere
therewas
wasaalarger
largerflowflow area
area along
along thethe incident
incident
direction of the
direction oflateral wave.
the lateral Considering
wave. Considering that
thatmost
mostofofthe
themembers
members wereweresymmetrically
symmetrically distributed
distributed
on both sidessides
on both of the gap,
of the gap,the
theshielding effectofofthe
shielding effect the front
front members
members was was
obviousobvious
and theand the structural
structural force
force was
wasreduced,
reduced, sosothethe
dragdrag coefficient
coefficient andinertial
and the the inertial coefficient
coefficient were smallwere (seesmall (see
Figure 10).Figure
For M2, 10).
theFor
M2, the
wavewave
forceforce
of theofnetting
the netting was obviously
was obviously affected byaffected by the
the jacket, jacket,
so the drag so the drag
coefficient of coefficient
the netting wasof the
basically kept consistent with the drag coefficient of
netting was basically kept consistent with the drag coefficient of M1. M1.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 18. Forces under the action of waves (T = 1.6 s). (a) Drag force (CD = 1), (b) Inertia force (CM = 1)
J. Mar.Figure
Sci. Eng.18.
2019, 7, 418under the action of waves (T = 1.6 s). (a) Drag force (CD = 1), (b) Inertia force (C17
Forces of 20
M =
and (c) Total force (CD = 1, CM = 1).
1) and (c) Total force (CD = 1, CM = 1).

(a) (b) (c)

FigureFigure 19. Forces
19. Forces under under the action
the action of waves
of waves (H =(H = 0.15
0.15 m). m). (a) Drag
(a) Drag force
force = D1),=(b)
(CD(C 1), Inertia
(b) Inertia force
force (CM
= 1) and = 1)
(CM(c) andforce
Total (c) Total
(CDforce (CMD==1).
= 1, C 1, CM = 1).

4.3. The Effect of Wave Parameters on Wave Force Components

Equation (1) showed that the drag force was a function of the water point velocity and the
structural flow area, and the inertial force was a function of the water point acceleration and the
structural flow volume. It can be seen from Figure 12 that when the period was constant, the velocity
and acceleration of water particles gradually became larger, and the structure flow area and volume
affected by the water point movement also gradually increased, resulting in an increase in the drag
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 17 of 20

4.3. The Effect of Wave Parameters on Wave Force Components

Equation (1) showed that the drag force was a function of the water point velocity and the
structural flow area, and the inertial force was a function of the water point acceleration and the
structural flow volume. It can be seen from Figure 12 that when the period was constant, the velocity
and acceleration of water particles gradually became larger, and the structure flow area and volume
affected by the water point movement also gradually increased, resulting in an increase in the drag
force and the inertia force of the structure. The proportion of the drag force in horizontal wave force
increased as the wave height increased, which was caused by the drag force being proportional to the
square of the water particles’ velocity. Similarly, when the wave height was constant, the magnitude of
the drag and inertial force of the jacket increase with the increment of the period in Figure 13 (except for
high frequency waves, see Figure 19), considering that the velocity and acceleration of water particles
decreased with the increase of the period, and did not contribute to the structural force, but the span
of the structure along the wave propagation direction was relatively large. When the wave period
increased, the wavelength increased, resulting in an increase in the number of structural members
affected by the movement of the water particles at the same time, which offset the effects of reduced
velocity and acceleration of water particles, making the drag and inertia forces of the entire structure
larger. For M2, the change law of the drag force of the netting was the same as M1, as shown in
Figures 14 and 15.
Comparing the horizontal wave force composition of M1 under the positive and lateral wave
(Figures 12 and 13), it can be found that the drag force of the jacket appears a regular double peak
under the lateral wave, considering that there was a large gap in this direction, and the structures
on both sides were symmetrically distributed with respect to the gap (see Figure 6). When the peak
was in the middle of the gap, the wave force was small; when the peaks were respectively located at
the two sides of the structure, the wave force was larger; and while the wave peak passed through
the two sides of the structure, the wave surface and the model component were affected by wave
surface symmetrical changes, so the drag force appeared as a symmetric double peak. In addition,
the valley value of the drag force was wide and flat, considering that the water surface was lower,
so that the force of the members in the middle position of the bottom structure compensate for the
fluctuation of the force caused by the upper gap, together with the nonlinearity of the incident wave,
the wave force valley was flattened. Due to the phase difference between the inertial force and the drag
force, two peaks of different magnitudes appeared in the horizontal wave force after the superposition.
For M2 (Figures 14 and 15), the drag force of the netting was not significantly different between the
two angles, and both the peak and the valley were broad and flat, considering that the wave continued
to act on the netting on both sides parallel to the direction of wave propagation after passing through
the first layer of the netting, until the peak of the wave passed through the second layer, the amplitude
of the drag was attenuated, and the wave trough had the same effect.

4.4. Results Comparison between Calculation and Measurement

In order to better demonstrate the accuracy of CD and CM obtained by the least square method
above, the four groups of test conditions were taken as examples in the lateral wave. Using Equation (1),
the horizontal wave forces of the two models were calculated and compared with the horizontal wave
force of the test (see Figures 20 and 21). The comparison results indicate that the prediction error of the
present model was lower than 2%. Of course, only two periods with relatively stable experimental
data were selected for comparison, which was inconsistent with the results of using the complete data,
but the prediction deviation in most cases was lower than 5%, which can be acceptable. In addition,
only the drag force of the netting was considered and the inertial force was ignored, although the
calculation error was introduced, and the approximate solution can be achieved. In summary, the
calculated values agreed very well with the time histories of the measurement values, and it can be
considered that the hydrodynamic coefficients calculated by the FEM results was effective.
 complete
complete data,
data, but
but thethe prediction
prediction deviation
deviation inin most
most cases
cases was
was lower
lower than
than 5%,
5%, which
which cancan bebe
acceptable.
acceptable. InIn addition,
addition, only
only the the drag
drag force
force of
of the
the netting
netting was
was considered
considered and
and the
the inertial
inertial force
force was
was
ignored,
ignored, although
although the the calculation
calculation error error was
was introduced,
introduced, and
and the
the approximate
approximate solution
solution cancan bebe
achieved.
achieved. In In summary,
summary, the the calculated
calculated values
values agreed
agreed very
very well
well with
with the
the time
time histories
histories ofof the
the
measurement
measurement values,
values, and
and itit can
can be
be considered
considered that
that the
the hydrodynamic
hydrodynamic coefficients
coefficients calculated
calculated by by the
the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 18 of 20
FEM
FEMresults
resultswaswaseffective.
effective.

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

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure
Figure20.
Figure 20.Time
20. Timehistories
historiesof
histories ofmeasured
of measured
measured and
and
andcalculated
calculated
calculatedwave
wave
waveforces
forces
forceson
onM1 M1M1
on in
inthe
in lateral
the lateral
the wave
wave
lateral (β
wave = 90◦ ).
(β==90°).
90°).
(β
(a)βββ=
(a)
(a) ==90°,
90°,,H
90 ◦ H===0.15
0.15m,
0.15 m,TTT===1.6
m, 1.6 (b)βββ===
1.6s,s,s,(b)
(b) 90°,
90HH, H
90°, ◦ = 0.20
==0.20
0.20 m,
m,m, = 1.6
TT==T1.6
1.6 s,s,(c)
(c) β==β90°,
s, β(c) = 90
90°, T1.4=s,s,1.4
TT==, 1.4
◦ HH=s,=0.15
H =m
0.15 mand
0.15and
m and
(d)
(d)β
(d) ββ===90°,
◦ ,TT
90°,
90 T===1.8
1.8s,s,s,
1.8 HHH==0.15
=
0.15 m.
m.m.
0.15

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 19 of 20

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

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure21. 21.Time
Timehistories
historiesofofmeasured
measured and calculated
and wave
calculated force
wave on M2
force in the
on M2 in lateral wavewave
the lateral (β = 90◦ ).
(β = 90°).
(a) ββ ==90°,
(a) ◦
90 H, H= =0.15 m,m,
0.15 = s,
T =T1.6 1.6(b)
s, β(b) β =H
= 90°, ◦ H =m,
90= ,0.20 1.6Ts,=(c)1.6
T =m,
0.20 (c) βT =
β =s,90°, 90 s,, TH== 1.4
= 1.4◦ 0.15s,m, = 0.15
H (d) β m,
=(d) β =T 90
90°, ◦ , Ts,=
= 1.8 H1.8 s, Hm= 0.15 m.
= 0.15

5. Conclusions
In this paper, two models (the jacket model and the column-stabilized fish cage model) were
designed according to the similarity theory, and the wave force under different wave height, period,
and incident angle were studied, respectively. According to both the experimental and the numerical
results, the horizontal wave force composition and corresponding hydrodynamic coefficients of each
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 19 of 20

5. Conclusions
In this paper, two models (the jacket model and the column-stabilized fish cage model) were
designed according to the similarity theory, and the wave force under different wave height, period,
and incident angle were studied, respectively. According to both the experimental and the numerical
results, the horizontal wave force composition and corresponding hydrodynamic coefficients of each
part of the column-stabilized fish cage were analyzed. The models had high research value because of
their large span and typical structure form. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) The force of the jacket and column-stabilized fish cage increased rapidly with the increment
of the wave height, as we all know, while the variation of the forces was quite different from that of
most offshore structures: with the variation of wave period, the force can be increased several times in
different periods due to the large span of the structure.
(2) The force of the jacket and the column-stabilized fish cage were basically the same in forward
and oblique waves, while smaller in lateral waves, as the wave period was constant. In addition, the
force was large in the positive low-frequency wave, and small in the lateral low-frequency wave, as the
wave height was constant. The lateral high-frequency waves had a great influence on the wave forces,
due to the special structural form of the jacket.
(3) The presence of the netting increased the flow area of the structure, so the force of the
column-stabilized fish cage was greater than the force of the jacket, and the variation of the wave force
of column-stabilized fish cage was consistent with the jacket.
(4) The variation of the drag coefficient of the jacket and the netting was heavily depend on the
change in the KC number and the incident angle. The variation of the inertial force coefficient of the
jacket mainly depended on the change of the incident angle, and the hydrodynamic coefficient was
small in the lateral wave, which was due to the shielding effect between the components.
(5) The drag and inertial force increased with the increment of the wave height and period (except
for high frequency waves), and the proportion of the drag force gradually increased.

Author Contributions: Data curation, Q.-P.C.; formal analysis, C.-W.B.; funding acquisition, Y.-P.Z. and Y.C.;
investigation, Q.-P.C. and Y.C.; methodology, C.-W.B.; supervision, Y.-P.Z.; writing—original draft, Q.-P.C.;
writing—review and editing, Y.-P.Z. and C.-W.B.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), project nos.
51939002, 51822901, 31872610, 31972843; and the Maritime S&T Fund of Shandong Province for Pilot National
Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao), project no. 2018SDKJ0303-4.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China and the Maritime S&T Fund of Shandong Province for Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and
Technology (Qingdao).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Klebert, P.; Lader, P.; Gansel, L.; Oppedal, F. Hydrodynamic interactions on net panel and aquaculture fish
cages: A review. Ocean Eng. 2013, 58, 260–274. [CrossRef]
2. Sarpkaya, T. Forces on cylinders and spheres in a sinusoidally oscillating Fluid. J. Appl. Mech. 1975, 42,
32–37. [CrossRef]
3. Sundar, V.; Vengatesan, V.; Anandkumar, G.; Schlenkhoff, A. Hydrodynamic coefficients for inclined cylinders.
Ocean Eng. 1998, 25, 277–294. [CrossRef]
4. Bushnell, M.J. Forces on cylinder arrays in oscillating flow. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 2 May 1977.
5. Chakrabatri, S.K. Hydrodynamic coefficients for a vertical tube in array. Appl. Ocean Res. 1981, 3, 121–128.
6. Chakrabatri, S.K. In-line and transverse forces on a tube array in tandem with waves. Appl. Ocean Res. 1982,
4, 25–32. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 418 20 of 20

7. Kurian, V.J.; Al-Yacouby, A.M.; Sebastian, A.A.; Liew, M.S.; Idichandy, V.G. Hydrodynamic coefficients for
array of tubular cylinders. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference, Busan, Korea, 15–20 June 2014; pp. 641–648.
8. Santo, H.; Taylor, P.H.; Day, A.H.; Nixon, E.; Choo, Y.S. Current blockage and extreme forces on a jacket
model in focussed wave groups with current. J. Fluids Struct. 2018, 78, 24–35. [CrossRef]
9. Palm, J.; Eskilsson, C.; Bergdahl, L.; Bensow, R. Assessment of scale effects, viscous forces and induced drag
on a point-absorbing wave energy converter by CFD simulations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 124. [CrossRef]
10. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.C.; Hou, X.N.; Ye, J.Q. Strength of submarine hoses in Chinese-lantern configuration
from hydrodynamic loads on CALM buoy. Ocean Eng. 2018, 171, 429–442. [CrossRef]
11. Gadelho, F.M.; Rodrigues, J.M.; Lavrov, A.; Guedes Soares, C. Determining hydrodynamic coefficients of a
cylinder with Navier-Stokes equations. In Maritime Technology and Engineering; Guedes, S., Santos, T.A., Eds.;
Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-138-02727-5.
12. Lader, P.F.; Enerhaug, B. Experimental investigation of forces and geometry of a net cage in uniform. IEEE J.
Ocean. Eng. 2005, 30, 79–84. [CrossRef]
13. Decew, J.; Tsukrov, I.; Risso, A.; Swift, M.R.; Celikkol, B. Modeling of dynamic behavior of a single-point
moored submersible fish cage under currents. Aquac. Eng. 2010, 43, 38–45. [CrossRef]
14. Zhao, Y.P.; Bi, C.W.; Dong, G.H.; Gui, F.K.; Cui, Y.; Guan, C.T.; Xu, T.J. Numerical simulation of the flow
around fishing plane nets using the porous media model. Ocean Eng. 2013, 62, 25–37. [CrossRef]
15. Bi, C.W.; Zhao, Y.P.; Dong, G.H.; Xu, T.J.; Gui, F.K. Numerical simulation of the interaction between flow and
flexible nets. J. Fluids Struct. 2014, 45, 180–201. [CrossRef]
16. Bi, C.W.; Zhao, Y.P.; Dong, G.H.; Wu, Z.M.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, T.J. Drag on and flow through the hydroid-fouled
nets in currents. Ocean Eng. 2018, 161, 195–204. [CrossRef]
17. Cui, Y.; Guan, C.T.; Wan, R.; Huang, B.; Li, J. Dynamic analysis of hydrodynamic behavior of a flatfish cage
system under wave conditions. China Ocean Eng. 2014, 28, 215–226. [CrossRef]
18. Dong, G.H.; Tang, M.F.; Xu, T.J.; Bi, C.W.; Guo, W.J. Experimental analysis of the hydrodynamic force on the
net panel in wave. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 87, 233–246. [CrossRef]
19. Zhao, Y.P.; Guan, C.T.; Bi, C.W.; Liu, H.F.; Cui, Y. Experimental investigations on hydrodynamic responses of
a semi-submersible offshore fish farm in waves. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 238. [CrossRef]
20. Huang, C.C.; Tang, H.J.; Liu, J.Y. Dynamical analysis of net cage structures for marine aquaculture: Numerical
simulation and model testing. Aquac. Eng. 2006, 35, 258–270. [CrossRef]
21. Xu, T.J.; Dong, G.H.; Zhao, Y.P.; Li, Y.C.; Gui, F.K. Numerical investigation of the hydrodynamic behaviors of
multiple net cages in waves. Aquac. Eng. 2012, 48, 6–18. [CrossRef]
22. Tsukrov, I.; Eroshkin, O.; Fredriksson, D.W.; Swift, M.R.; Celikkol, B. Finite element modeling of net panels
using a consistent net element. Ocean Eng. 2003, 30, 251–270. [CrossRef]
23. Morison, J.R.; Johnson, J.W.; Schaaf, S.A. The force exerted by surface waves on piles. J. Pet. Technol. 1950, 2,
149–154. [CrossRef]
24. Zhao, Y.P.; Li, Y.C.; Dong, G.H.; Gui, F.K.; Wu, H. An experimental and numerical study of hydrodynamic
characteristics of submerged flexible plane nets in waves. Aquac. Eng. 2008, 38, 16–25. [CrossRef]

© 2019 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/).