Damping ratios=0.=0.K , (t) 50 -1 -J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR
Damping ratios=0.=0.K , (t) 50 -1 -J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER Critique -0 10 20 Time [s] 3023 oftime-domain K5,17 (t) for agree superior with all the frequency-domain final results with all the intro(c) Comparison ofresults candifferent artificial damping ratiosFigure 15. Comparison of the off-diagonal calculated impulse response functions K3,15, and K5,17and K the wind- the Figure 15. Comparison in the off-diagonal calculated impulse response functions K1,13, method3,15 ,many module systems. five,17 in common waves and verifies the necessity of this K1,13 , K in between between ward module and rear module on the 3-module model. windward module and rear module with the 3-module model.duction of artificial damping, which proves the accuracy from the time-domain calculationSince the impulse response function will not attenuate inside the presence of multi-module mutual interference, the Benidipine In stock continuous fluctuation of those sinusoidal curves will lead to the force generated by the impulse motion in the module to stay undissipated. These phenomena will bring about continuous accumulation of errors in solving time-domain convolution, that will continue to magnify soon after a certain time and finally make the motion response not convergent. It’s in particular evident when the frequency of the incident wave is near the resonant frequency (i.e., = 1.7 rad/s in this study). And Figures 169 show the comparisons on the time-domain final results by Equation (10) and frequency-domain benefits by Equation (16) with various damping coefficients in the head sea using a wave height of 1 m as well as a wave frequency of 1.7 rad/s. In this linear challenge, the time-domain model needs to be equal towards the frequency-domain model, whereas when = 0 the motion response final results within the time domain growing and diverging steadily as time goes on. It can be observed that the introduction of artificial damping finally make the time-domain final results converged by accelerating the attenuation with the impulse resonance functions. In addition,, the distinction involving the time and frequency domain final results is having smaller together with the improve on the artificial damping ratio. The Figure 16. Comparison windward module heave motions among frequency-domain benefits and time-domain outcomes Figure 16. Comparison of of windward module heave motions involving frequency-domain final results and time-domain benefits subjected the frequent wave (H = = 1 1.7 rad/s, subjected to for the regular wave (H 1 m,m, = 1.7=rad/s, = 0). = 0).0.03 0.=0.Frequency domain outcomes Time domain results0.03 0.=0.Frequency domain final results Time domain resultsJ. Mar. Sci. Figure 16. 9, 1256 Eng. 2021, Comparison of windward module heave motions involving frequency-domain benefits and time-domain results 22 ofsubjected towards the typical wave (H = 1 m,= 1.7 rad/s,= 0).0.03 0.=0.Frequency domain benefits Time domain results0.03 0.=0.Frequency domain benefits Time domain SBP-3264 manufacturer resultsHeave [m]-0.Heave [m]0.0.-0.-0.-0.J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x 1605PEER Overview FOR 1600-0.1615-0.03Time [s]J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW1610 Time [s]1620 24 of24 of(a) Comparison with the heave motions by the time and frequency domain models for the artificial damping ratio of 0.0.(b) Comparison of the heave motions by the time and frequency domain models for the artificial damping ratio =0.2 of 0.0.03 0.02 0.=0.2Frequency domain results Time domain resultsFrequency domain final results Time domain resultsHeave [m] [m] Heave0.0.-0.-0.-0.-0.-0.1610 [s] 1615 1620 Time Time [s] (c) Com.
