6.4 Results and discussion
6.4.2 Numerical experiments
By using program Matlab R2019a, we solve the system of equations given by (6.42). For computing, fixed values of some parameters are considered as follows: d/h= 0.5; a/h= 0.8; ρ = 0.9; E/ghˆ 4 = 0.1; Q/ghˆ 2 = 0.1;δ/h = 0.1; Kh = 0.1; θ = 30◦; Rw = 0.5; Smoor = 103; Θ = 45◦; ν = 0.3. For an in-depth information of selection of such parameter values, one can refer to Appendix D.
Effect of the confined region for various structural configuration of the poro- elastic barrier
Figures 6.7(a) and 6.7(b) show how the reflection coefficients fluctuate as per the variation of the structural arrangement for both propagating modes. The periodic nature of reflec- tion in both propagating modes becomes more apparent as length L/hincreases. In SM, different edge conditions result in significant differences in reflection coefficients, while in IM, the difference is negligible. In SM, the moored-moored edge yields higher reflection whilst the moored-free edge returns lesser reflection. In both propagating modes, the reflection trough has a period of (j −1) < L/h < j for j = 1,2, . . .. In the case of IM, however, the greatest influence of reflection occurs for the starting length of L/h. The waveload on the reflecting harbour wall and the wave run-up indicate that the moored- free edge has the lowest impact and the moored-moored edge has the highest impact. KR
displays a waveload-specific return pattern. The size of the dip in each period decreases progressively as the length of the confined zone between the wall and the barrier grows
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
R SM
Clamped-free Clamped-moored Moored-free Moored-moored
(a)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
RIM
Clamped-free Clamped-moored
Moored-free Moored-moored
(b)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
F w
Clamped-free Clamped-moored Moored-free Moored-moored
(c)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
KR
Clamped-free Clamped-moored Moored-free Moored-moored
(d)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
max(0)
Clamped-free Clamped-moored
Moored-free Moored-moored
(e)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
max(-a)
Clamped-free Clamped-moored Moored-free Moored-moored
(f)
Figure 6.7: Behaviour of (a) RSM, (b)RIM, (c)Fw, (d)KR, (e)ζmax(0) and (f)ζmax(−a) against incident non-dimensional distance L/hwith Gh= 10 + 10i, G1 = 1 + i.
for bothFw andKR. Furthermore, the deflection of the poro-elastic barrier at both edges is plotted in Figures 6.7(e) and 6.7(f). For clamped upper edges, the least influence is observed for deflection. The clamped edge makes the deflection vanish which is clear from Figure 6.7(e). A periodic pattern may be observed in the deflection at both edges of the poro-elastic barrier with its upper edge anchored. For the clamped free condition, min- imal periodicity is noticed due to the clamped upper edge whereas for clamped-moored edge, it almost vanishes in the lower edge. Despite of the fact that all situations result in a significant variation owing to structural construction, the optimal values for different configurations in reflection coefficients, waveload, and wave run-up may be seen at roughly the same restricted zone spacing. Furthermore, all of the hydrodynamic coefficients have
6.4. Results and discussion 155 a consistent periodic behaviour with regard to the length L/h, indicating that at a cer- tain value of spacing, a larger value ofL/h has no significant effect on reflection and the associated hydrodynamic coefficients. Poro-elastic structures may be utilized as break- waters by precisely integrating structural layout as well as spacing in order to achieve lower waveload and lower run-up, which would make it possible to safeguard maritime infrastructures.
Effect of the confined region on reflection for various structural height
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
RSM
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6 a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8 a/h=0.9
(a)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
R IM
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6 a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8 a/h=0.9
(b)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Fb
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6 a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8 a/h=0.9
(c)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fw
10-3
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6
a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8
a/h=0.9
(d)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0.54 0.56 0.58 0.6 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.7
KR
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6
a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8
a/h=0.9
(e)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
max(-a)
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6 a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8 a/h=0.9
(f)
Figure 6.8: Behaviour of (a) RSM, (b) RIM, (c) Fb, (d) Fw, (e) KR and (f) ζmax(−a) against non-dimensional lengthL/h corresponding to various structural height a/h with G1 = 1, Gh= 10 + 10i.
The effect of the confined region spacing on wave hydrodynamic coefficients is examined in Figures 6.8(a) to 6.8(f) for various values of relative barrier height. The reflection
coefficients in both propagating modes show an undulating pattern. Wave trapping is a common result of standing waves, and it is characterized by a periodic dip in reflection.
The trapped wave behaviour is said to be more dynamic due to different interactions of transmitted and reflected waves within the confined region. The π-shift of incident waves generated by the partially reflecting wall and the poro-elastic barrier causes the corresponding periodic peak in reflection. Less reflection is noticed when the barrier height is raised, which is due to the increased energy dissipation. However, whena/h= 0.9, 0.95, the barrier end edge seems to be closer to the bed, and as a result of mutual interaction between the reflected waves from the barrier and the bottom, reflection rises quickly in both propagating modes, which, fora/h= 0.55anda/h= 0.8, appear to have the highest and the least amount of reflection, respectively. The higher dissipation of energy implies such a result. From Figure 6.8(c), it is clear that the waveloadFb on the structure reduces as the height of the structure increases. The trapping locations of reflection coefficients have a direct impact on the barrier force Fb. This might be attributed to the flexible structure’s optimum wave damping owing to its location where high wave energy resides.
The total length of the confined region examined in this work is L/h = 4 and in the initial confined space, the minimum of each of Fw and KR, is achieved for different a/h, but afterL/h >1/2,the highest structural configuration results in the optima which may be termed an ideal structure height. Due to minimum wave damping, the lower the value of flexible structure height, the greater the value ofFw may occur which is clearly observed from Figure 6.8(d). The phase lag plays a key role in reducing the waveload on the wall, which is a consequence of partial reflection owing to the existence of a partially reflected harbour wall. The waveload Fw on the wall displays a similar pattern like the one seen in the run-up. The run-up coefficient is a complimentary phenomenon of waveload on the wall, and in the initial regime, a change in the optima of Fw and KR is seen due to the inference of reflected waves to the harbour wall and transmitted waves via the flexible structure. The poro-elastic barrier is subjected to incident wave train, and the maximal relative structure height a/hillustrates the maximum deflection ζmax, with the deflection coefficient decreasing as the heighta/hgets lowered. The minimum deflection is observed for minimal height a/h = 0.55, 0.6, resulting in the higher reflection and waveload. As a consequence, the numerical findings of the investigation suggest that the size of the flexible structure does not ensure optimal performance. The length of the confined area as well as other physical characteristics of the barrier play important roles in producing the most desirable results.
Effect of (a) barrier height and (b) porosity on pressure distribution
The hydrodynamic pressure distribution DP on the poro-elastic barrier is illustrated in Figures 6.9(a) and 6.9(b) for various values of depth ratioa/hand porous-effect parameter G1, respectively. For any height ratio, the pressure distribution is lower near the inter-
6.4. Results and discussion 157
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
DP
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6 a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8 a/h=0.9
(a)
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 1 2 3 4 5
DP
G1=0 G1=0.1 G1=0.5 G1=1 G1=1+i G1=2+2i
(b)
Figure 6.9: Behaviour of DP against non-dimensional length z/h corresponding to (a) various structural height a/h with G1 = 2 + 2i and (b) various porosity G1 with Gh = 10 + 10i.
face in general. Furthermore, as compared to the bottom, the hydrodynamic pressure DP is higher at the free surface. This clearly establishes the fact that the wave energy concentration is higher near the free surface. The pressure distribution increases as the depth ratio a/h rises, as seen in Figure 6.9(a). Again, when the barrier is placed nearer the bottom, the pressure distribution increases which can be justified by higher reflection and higher deflection ζmax(−a) in Figures 6.8(a) and 6.8(f). For a range of z, the min- imum pressure difference is obtained for a relative height a/h = 0.8. In Figure 6.9(b), DP exhibits a similar pattern in the pressure distribution for different values of G1. As the absolute value of the porous-effect parameter G1 grows, the average hydrodynamic pressureDP falls. This might be because greater values ofG1 allow more amount of wave energy to pass through the pores of the barrier.
Effect of the barrier porosity for varying incident angle θ
The ultimate objective of a flexible poro-elastic barrier is to achieve the lowest waveload on the wall by maximising wave dissipation. The incident wave dissipation coefficient is influenced by two important factors: (a) porosity, (b) fluid discharge through the flexible barrier. The barrier porosity and viscosity of the fluid define the fluid that flows through the structure. As a result, the porosity of the flexible structure is critical in the damping of incident wave trains. The barrier is considered to be made up of small pore spaces. Yu and Chwang [121], Chwang [20], Wu et al. [113] and Cho and Kim [19] have demonstrated that the typical velocity of the fluid propagating through a submerged poro-elastic barrier is linearly proportional to the dynamic pressure difference in the barrier occupied area.
An ideal condition of moderate structural porosity induces critical damping which allows for modest fluid discharge through the flexible barrier and reduces the ensuing waveload on the wall.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
R SM
G1=0 G1=0.1 G1=0.5 G1=1 G1=1+i G1=2+2i
(a)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
RIM
G1=0 G1=0.1 G1=0.5 G1=1 G1=1+i G1=2+2i
(b)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
F b
G1=0 G1=0.1
G1=0.5 G1=1
G1=1+i G1=2+2i
(c)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 1 2 3 4 5
F w
10-3
G1=0 G1=0.1
G1=0.5 G1=1
G1=1+i G1=2+2i
(d)
Figure 6.10: Behaviour of (a) RSM, (b) RIM, (c) Fb and (d) Fw against θ corresponding to different values of porosity G1 with a/h= 0.8, L/h= 2 and Gh= 10 + 10i.
Figures 6.10(a) to 6.10(d) show the effect of porous-effect parameter G1 on hydrody- namic coefficients with respect to the incident angle θ. To reduce the remaining wave amplitudes transmitted by the barrier, it is suggested that a partially reflecting harbour wall be utilized. The reflection coefficients in both propagating modes have the same tendency in the form of greater amplitude fluctuations in the case of the smallest abso- lute value of the porous-effect parameter G1 = 0 (impermeable barrier) and G1 = 0.1 (very minimal porosity). In the presence of a rigid barrier, the incident wave contacts the barrier and is reflected towards the seaward far-field area. Consequently, the reflection co- efficients are enhanced. Because of the enhanced wave decay, significant porosity in both propagating modes can result in a reduction in total wave reflection. The wave passes through the poro-elastic barrier, and the interaction between the fluid particles and the structure generates considerable wave damping, followed by wave entrapment beneath the barrier. As a result, the relevant hydrodynamic coefficients are regulated by wave damping when the orbit of the fluid particle is disturbed. Due to this, for producing the trapping modes with various porous-effect parameter values in both propagating modes, a slight change in the incident angle is required. Full reflection is observed for waves at θ ≈ 90◦. In IM, however, the maximum porosity yields the highest value at nearly 80◦. The non-dimensional wave forces Fb and Fw versus the oblique angle of incidence θ are plotted in Figures 6.10(c) and 6.10(d) for different values of the porous-effect parameter
6.4. Results and discussion 159
G1. In general, the force coefficientFb drops asG1 rises, whereas the force coefficient Fw
behaves in an opposite manner. The porous flexible structure transmits more wave as the value ofG1 rises, and the incident wave smacks the partially reflecting harbour wall directly in the face. The waveload on the wall soon increases due to the increased poros- ity of the poro-elastic barrier. Furthermore, the waveload of the barrier is greater than that of the partly reflecting wall. Significant wave blockage is conceivable from a physical standpoint due to viscous damping through pore gaps. Local optima in waveloads are ob- served attenuately in both situations for varying values of angle of incidenceθ. However, regardless of the value ofG1, θ = 90◦ results in zero minima for waveload Fw. As shown in Figure 6.10(a), the optimality of waveload on the flexible structure can be observed in a similar manner. The reciprocal interaction of waves in free surface and interfacial modes might explain the local optima in wave forces.
Effect of the barrier porosity on wave elevation
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
x/h
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
|1/h| Barrier
G1=0 G1=0.1
G1=0.5 G1=1
G1=1+i G1=2+2i
(a)
-5 0 5 10 15 20
x/h
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
| 2/h| Barrier
G1=0 G1=0.1
G1=0.5 G1=1
G1=1+i G1=2+2i
(b)
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
x/h
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
z/h
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
(c)
-0.5 0 0.5 1
x/h
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
z/h
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
(d)
Figure 6.11: Non-dimensional elevation amplitude for (a) free surface and (b) interfacial modes versusx/hdifferent values ofG1and the contour plot of non-dimensional amplitude for (c) free surface and (d) interface modes corresponding for L/h = 1, Gh = 10 + 10i, G1 = 2 + 2i(for (c,d)).
Figures 6.11(a) and 6.11(b) show how the free surface and interfacial height undergo changes corresponding to different values of the porous-effect parameterG1. The presence
of the poro-elastic structure reduces the elevation considerably in both propagating modes.
This is owing to the fact that, for a surface-piercing barrier, wave energy dissipation is greater than for other barrier designs. Figure 6.11(b) demonstrates that the absolute value of |η2/h| exceeds |η1/h|. We can infer that the resonant interaction between free surface waves and interfacial waves causes the difference in heights of these two modes. With an increase in the absolute value of G1, the amplitude of oscillation in both propagating modes drops considerably. This happens because, for moderate values of the porous-effect parameter, when the porosity of the barrier rises, a significant portion of the incoming wave energy is dissipated, as already shown in Figure 6.9. Furthermore, when the absolute value of the porous-effect parameterG1 changes, so does the phase shift in the free surface and interfacial elevation. This is due to a change in the argument of the complicated porous-effect parameter of the poro-elastic barrier. The flow distributions corresponding to the flexible structure are shown in Figures 6.11(c) and 6.11(d). In Figure 6.11(c), both constructive and destructive interference occur in front of the barrier. The flexible porous structure behaves like a kinetic barrier which blocks the fluid flow through wave damping and causes minimal deflection. On the other hand, the distance between the poro-elastic structure and the sea-wall is one of the incentives, which contributes to the multiple oscillatory peaks and troughs in elevation as observed in Figures 6.11(a) and 6.11(b).
Changing the location of the reflecting wall causes constructive interference after the structure (Figure 6.11(d)). The existence of the structure causes energy dissipation, which might be the cause of such an occurrence. The damage to the barrier is significantly reduced with this sort of suitable reflecting wall position. Destructive interference may be seen in both situations when the waves are closer to the reflecting sea-wall. Such an event is caused by the interference of the reflected and absorbed waves.
Effect of non-dimensional length on energy identity terms
Figures 6.12(a) and 6.12(b) show the variations in |V2| and |V3| versus L/h for different values of a/h. Both figures exhibit oscillatory patterns with an increase in L/h. Similar occurrence was observed in Figures 6.8(a) to 6.8(d). The oscillatory patterns in the reflection, transmission, and dissipation coefficients are due to the combined effect of wave resonance occurring between the poro-elastic barrier and the partially reflecting wall. As a/h increases, the dissipation of wave increases which is clearly observed in the result.
Optimum values occur in periodic positions. In 1 ≤ L/h ≤ 2.5, the maximum energy dissipation can be observed which reduces after increasing L/h whereas the minimum value remains the same in our investigation area. Furthermore, increase of the barrier height also reduces the amount of waves in Region 2 which results in higher amount of energy contribution due to the partially reflecting wall. Optimum values for specific structural height remain the same while changing L/h. With an increase in the porous-
6.4. Results and discussion 161 effect parameter, the poro-elastic plate becomes transparent to wave motion and thus the oscillatory trend diminishes.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 5 10 15 20 25
|V 3|
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6 a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8 a/h=0.9
(a)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
|V 2|
a/h=0.55 a/h=0.6 a/h=0.7 a/h=0.8 a/h=0.9
(b)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
|V 3|
G1=0.5 G 1=1 G
1=1+i G 1=2 G
1=2+2i
(c)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
|V 2|
G1=0.5 G
1=1 G
1=1+i G
1=2 G
1=2+2i
(d)
Figure 6.12: Effect of nondimensionalL/hagainst energy contribution due to the (a) poro- elastic barrier and (b) partially reflecting wall corresponding to different values ofa/hfor G1 = 1 + i, Gh = 10 and effect of nondimensional L/h against energy contribution due to the (c) poro-elastic barrier and (d) partially reflecting wall corresponding to different values of G1 fora/h = 0.9, Gh= 10.
The wave energy concentration is uniform along the horizontal direction, and the ver- tical porous plate helps to dissipate a major portion of the wave energy with an increase in the absolute value of the porous-effect parameterG1. However, Figures 6.10(a) to 6.10(d) showed that the increase of porosity reduced the reflection and higher waveload on the structure. That is why higher energy dissipation can be observed for lowerG1.The com- bined effect of energy reflection and dissipation is greater for higher values of the complex porous-effect parameter, and the wave transmission is negligible since a major portion of the energy concentrated at the free surface and interface is reflected back in addition to the portion of the wave energy dissipated by the poro-elastic structure. As a result, the energy contribution |V3| is overall lower for low porous-effect parameter due to the combined effect of reflection and dissipation. Moreover, Figures 6.12(a) and 6.12(b) reveal that the optima of energy contribution, on changing the value of the complex porous-effect parameter, results in the same L/h.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
|V 1|
Rw=0 R
w=0.25 R
w=0.5 R
w=0.75 R w=1
(a)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
L/h
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
|V 2|
Rw=0 R
w=0.25 R w=0.5 R
w=0.75 R w=1
(b)
Figure 6.13: Effect of non-dimensional L/h against energy contribution due to the (a) reflection coefficients and (b) sea-wall corresponding to different values of Rw for G1 = 1 + i, a/h= 0.9and Gh= 10.
Figure 6.13(a) shows that, with a reduction in the reflectivity of sea-wall, the amplitude of oscillation in the energy contribution increases. This is because of the fact that, with an increase in the reflectivity, a major portion of the wave energy resonating between the barrier and wall is reflected back to Region 1. For a fully transmitting sea-wall, lower energy reflection can be observed. However, some part of the wave energy is transmitted in Region 2 which reveals that the oscillatory pattern in dissipation is stronger for a fully transmitting wall (Figure 6.13(b)).
Effect of the edge conditions and flexural rigidity on barrier characteristics Figures 6.14(a), 6.14(c) and 6.14(e) show how the barrier deflection, bending moment and shear force, respectively, undergo changes corresponding to different edge conditions.
Clamped edge condition is justified at x = 0 in Figure 6.14(a). Free edge gives the maximum deflection and clamped edge results in minimum deflection among all edge conditions. However, a periodic dip in deflection can be observed near the interface.
It clearly shows that depending upon the edges, the optimum barrier deflection can be easily obtained. In Figure 6.14(c), the free and clamped edge conditions can be easily justified. However, a similar periodic pattern can be observed for moored and free edges, but due to the clamped edge, the bending moment at the edge differs. Similarly, as in Figure 6.14(a), a periodic dip can be observed near the interface. Moored edges result in overall lower deflection and bending moment. For shear force, the maximum can be observed near interface. Figures 6.14(b) to 6.14(f) show the influence of flexural rigidity on barrier coefficients. Up to moderate levels (E/ghˆ 4 ≤ 0.5), an admissible difference owing to differing stiffness Eˆ may be detected except that, for larger flexural rigidity, all deflection coefficients show convergence to a fixed value in both propagating modes. It might be because bending a thin elastic plate possessing a high flexural stiffness is more challenging. As a result of the improved rigidity, zero deflection is achieved. BdM is shown
6.4. Results and discussion 163 against several values ofE/ghˆ 4 in Figure 6.14(d) which demonstrates that an insignificant change may be observed by increasing E/ghˆ 4. Irrespective of the rigidity, the periodic dip can be easily observed near the interface. It clearly shows that the barrier deflection goes into an destructive interference due to the interfacial wave attack. Decreased barrier rigidity lowers the amplitude of the shear force at the interface which shows that the maximum load of impact is observed due to the barrier rigidity at the interface. However, in all cases, the linear relationship with deflection, bending moment and shear force is clearly observed. As a result, selecting effective barrier settings for the poro-elastic barrier can improve its stability and subsequently give protection to diverse maritime structures.
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
||/
Clamped-free Clamped-moored Moored-free Moored-moored
(a)
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
||/
(b)
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
BdM
Clamped-free Clamped-moored
Moored-free Moored-moored
(c)
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Bd M
(d)
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
SF
Clamped-free Clamped-moored Moored-free Moored-moored
(e)
-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
z/h
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
S F
(f)
Figure 6.14: Behaviour of poro-elastic barrier (a,b) deflection|ζ|/ω, (c,d) bending moment BdM, and (e,f) shear force SF against non-dimensional z/h corresponding to different values of edge conditions and flexural rigidity parameters witha/h= 0.8, L/h= 4, Gh= 10 + 10iand G1 = 2 + 2i.