Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

404 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Aerodynamics Basics of Airfoil
- 2_Theory Related to Subsea Lifting Op_Sandvik
- Vibration and Its Measurement
- The Reynolds Equation
- #3 Fluid Mechanics
- gas dispersion
- Performance-Energy Excess Power
- Sample Calculations Aerofoil
- What Cause Flight
- Perforation
- CTUFCH02
- Px c 3872109
- 604227
- SolidWorks_Flow_Instructor_Guide.ppt
- Am 1413 Final 2012
- 004 Life of Field Stability in a North Sea Oil Development
- 105215178 Erosion Guidelines
- Worner - A Compact Introductions to the Numerical Modeling of Multiphase Flows
- CHEG521_2015_Syllabus
- DC-1

You are on page 1of 11

June 10-15, 2007, San-Diego, USA

OMAE2007-29244

INVESTIGATION INTO THE SENSITIVITY OF THE DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD DURING SUBSEA

DEPLOYMENT OF A SUCTION CAN

Subsea7 Australian Maritime College INTEC Engineering Pty Ltd

PO Box 205, Eldfiskvegen 1, PO Box 986 Launceston, 190 St Georges Terrace, Perth,

N-4056 Tananger, Tasmania, 7250 Western Australia 6000

Norway Australia Australia

Carpenter number range of 0.1 – 1.0, open hatches impact

Suction cans are commonly used as foundations of fixed significantly on the added mass and produce additional

offshore structures, subsea equipment, and anchors of mooring damping, which is found to be linear with the heave velocity.

lines. During the offshore installation phase, when a suction can Results of the tests and their interpretation are discussed.

is submerged, it attracts large heave added mass, which may be Sensitivity analysis shows that if the model test results are

an order of magnitude higher than the mass of the can in air. used in the dynamic lift analysis for an installation vessel and

Due to motions of an installation vessel the dynamic hook load sea states considered, the predicted hook load is generally less

may significantly exceed the submerged weight of the can. The than its values obtained by using simplified estimates. In

dynamic hook load must be accurately predicted, as it governs particular, the increase in linear damping due to open hatches is

selection of the vessel, lifting gear and rigging, and defines the responsible for up to 20% reduction in the dynamic hook load,

allowable installation sea state. with 2.4% of the relative top area open.

The objective of this paper is to examine the sensitivity of

the dynamic hook load to hydrodynamic properties of the

suction can, in particular its heave added mass and damping.

This research is motivated by the lack of data on such 1. INTRODUCTION

properties, which are usually estimated by simplified methods Offshore operations often require deployment and recovery

with some engineering judgement and assumptions. A single of heavy objects (structures, subsea packages, anchors, etc.) to

degree of freedom system is considered and the frequency or from the seabed. The analysis of lifting operations in these

domain spectral analysis is used, which employs the stochastic conditions usually aims at prediction of the maximum hook

linearization of the nonlinear damping component. loads, so that the installation vessel and the lift equipment can

The added mass and damping of a 6-meter diameter be selected and the lift rigging designed. Due to wave induced

suction can of dimensions typical for Australian North West motions of an installation vessel, hydrodynamic forces on the

Shelf developments have been determined by testing a 1:10 object and flexibility of the lift rigging the dynamic hook load

model in the 4.1 m deep basin of the Australian Maritime may significantly exceed the weight of the object. In deep

College. Free decay tests were conducted at several frequencies water conditions, as the stiffness of the rigging reduces and its

and the added mass, linear and nonlinear damping components weight increases, the system may be prone to adverse dynamic

determined. The effect of open hatches on the hydrodynamic amplification, as the natural period of a suspended structure

properties was examined by fitting the model with hatches of may fall in the range of predominant wave periods, which

various diameters, with up to 4.8% of the relative area open. excite the installation vessel.

Results of the tests demonstrate that the added mass and Prediction of the dynamic hook loads and related issues

damping are higher, when compared with estimates based on have been addressed in several design codes, for example DNV

(1996, 2000), and in a number of studies, which point to the mass, linear and quadratic damping coefficients were

importance of the hydrodynamic properties of the object. For determined for several frequencies, and the effect of open

example, Oritsland and Lehn (1987) presented findings from hatches in the top plate was investigated. In Section 4, these

the experimental study on added mass and drag coefficients of hydrodynamic coefficients are used in the sensitivity analysis,

several generic structures during subsea lowing. Niedzwecki which shows significant impact of the open hatches on the

and Thampi (1991) examined the occurrence of snap loads in dynamic hook loads, and demonstrates that hydrodynamic

cable systems, and concluded that the use of idealized models properties obtained by the model tests produce less onerous

to predict the hydrodynamic added mass of a subsea package results. Concluding remarks and recommendations are given in

was not entirely a satisfactory approach. Rowe, et al (2001) Section 5

indicates that the shape of the item to be installed, which

determines its added mass, is crucial to the dynamic response of

the package, and to the ability to install it. 2. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

An important example of such a situation, referred to by

Rowe, et al (2001) and Frazer, et al (2005), is a suction can The dynamic system considered involves a subsea

(pile, caisson). Suction structures are commonly used as structure (suction can), which is suspended on the crane wire

foundations of fixed offshore structures, subsea equipment, and from an installation vessel. The purpose of the analysis is to

mooring anchors. When the suction can is suspended off the determine dynamic tension in the wire due to wave induced

crane and submerged, it attracts large heave added mass, which, motions of the vessel. It is assumed that the structure is

due to its special shape, may be an order of magnitude higher submerged well below the free surface and above the sea bed,

than mass of the structure in air. Therefore, the dynamic hook so that the effects of the free surface and the sea bed proximity

load may reach unexpectedly high values. can be neglected. Due to motions of the vessel the tip of the

Dynamic loads of large amplitude may result in snap crane moves in surge, sway, and heave. Heave motions play the

loading on the wire or dictate the increased capacity of lifting dominant role in the wire tension, while surge and sway

equipment, or a different vessel. In Australian conditions, such produce pendulum-type oscillations of the structure. For the

an option is rarely attractive due to high mobilization costs of axis-symmetric body, such as suction can, coupling between

heavy lift vessels, many of which are based in South East Asia. heave and other motions is negligible, so that surge and sway of

Active or passive heave compensators may need to be used, the crane will have minor effect on the wire tension. Therefore,

which add to project costs. The same applies to passive in the following analysis the attention is focused on heave

compensators in the form of synthetic slings (“stretchers”), motions, and the resulting dynamic tension in the lift rigging.

which are to be sized to higher safety factors than wire slings, The analysis can be conducted in the frequency or time

and tend to be long and inefficient. Long period South Westerly domain. Time domain simulations are widely used nowadays,

swell, a persistent feature of the Australian North West Shelf, in particular for complex marine operations. For a simple single

also makes selection of the passive heave compensator difficult. degree of freedom system frequency domain analysis is

The above circumstances place special emphasis on the preferred owing to its simplicity and ease of interpretation; the

accuracy of the installation analysis, which provides analysis algorithm is outlined below.

background information for key project decisions, and which in

turn depends on the level of knowledge of the hydrodynamic Let us assume that in regular waves, heave motions of the

properties. A review conducted by the authors indicates that, in crane tip x h (t ) and that of the structure x (t ) can be expressed

spite of common use of suction cans, there is little information in the form:

in open literature on hydrodynamic coefficients of such

structures, which would reflect their real shapes and

dimensions. An interesting study described by Morrison and x h = x h 0 cos ωt ; x = x0 cos(ωt − α ) (1)

Cermelli (2003) for a suction pile model (6“ in diameter and

30” long) identified that openings in the top plate can impact Here ω denotes the circular frequency and α is the phase

significantly on the heave added mass and increase the shift between the two motions. Assuming that within the

hydrodynamic damping. For the subsea lift analysis, however, expected range of motions the lift rigging has constant

it is a common practice to estimate the added mass and drag stiffness K , the dynamic tension in the rigging can be obtained

coefficients using data on generic bodies from design codes and as:

textbooks with some simplifying assumptions. The objective of

this paper is to examine how the availability (or accuracy) of TD = K ( x − x h ) = Kx h 0 [x (ω ) ⋅ cos(ωt − α ) − cos ωt ] ;

such information may impact on the predicted hook loads.

TD

The material is set out as follows. In Section 2, a

methodology of the dynamic lift analysis is described, which TD = =K (x (ω ) ⋅ cos α − 1)2 + (x (ω ) sin α )2 . (2)

xh0

employs the single degree of freedom model and follows the

frequency domain approach. Stochastic linearization of the

nonlinear damping is used, a common method for linearizing Here x (ω ) = x 0 / x h 0 - is the response amplitude operator

viscous drag forces in the spectral analysis of offshore (RAO) of the structure heave, and TD denotes the RAO of

structures (Brebbia and Walker, 1979). In Section 3, the

hydrodynamic coefficients of a 6-meter diameter suction can tension in the lift rigging.

are estimated from empirical data, and also determined by In the simplest case of an axis-symmetrical structure, its

conducting free decay tests with a 1:10 model. Heave added heave response is decoupled from other motions; it can be

described by single equation:

Once the equation of motion (3) has been linearised, its

M ⋅ &x& + FD ( x& ) + Kx = Kx h 0 cos ωt . (3) solution is given by the known formulae (Timoshenko, 1954):

x (ω ) = ;

structural mass in air m (including mass of the lift rigging) (1 − ω ) + (2β ⋅ ω )

2 2 2

2β ⋅ ω

FD is usually expressed in the form: tan α = ; ω = ω / ωn (10)

1−ω 2

FD ( x& ) = B1 x& + B2 x& x& + B3 x& 3 + ... . (4)

Here the ratio β expresses the damping coefficient BE as a

percentage of the critical damping:

Here coefficients Bi are assumed to be independent of the

motion velocity. Introducing coefficients β i and the natural BE βE

β = = . (11)

frequency ω n , the equation of motion (3) can be re-written as: 2 KM 2ω n

&x& + β 1 x& + β 2 x& x& + β 3 x& 3 + ... + ω n2 x = ω n2 x h 0 cos ωt (5) As the amplitude of motion x0 is unknown, equations (8)

and (10) are solved by iterations, with the new damping

Bi K

βi = ; ωn = (6) coefficient β E computed at each iteration step after the

M M

amplitude x0 at the previous step has been determined.

To obtain a solution of (5) in the frequency domain, the

damping force is usually linearised by replacing (4) with: The extension of the above approach to irregular sea state

is possible by using spectrums of waves and responses. For a

FD ≈ M (β E x& ) (7) given sea state spectrum S w (ω ) , the heave motion spectrum at

the crane tip S h (ω ) is determined from the heave RAO x h (ω ) :

A common method for obtaining the damping coefficient β E is

S h (ω ) = SW (ω ) ⋅ [x h (ω )]

2

to equate the work done by the nonlinear (quadratic) and the (12)

linearised damping forces (Timoshenko, 1954). An equivalent

If the structure RAO x (ω ) is known from (10), spectrums

method, presented for example by Krylov (1932) with further

reference to Newton, assumes that the damping is relatively

weak, i.e. coefficients β k are small, and leads to the following of the structure response and the dynamic tension can be

general expansion: computed:

+ O (β )≈

2

[

S S (ω ) = S h (ω ) ⋅ [x (ω )] ; S F (ω ) = S h (ω ) ⋅ TD (ω ) ]2

(13)

∑ β k ⋅ N k ⋅ (ω ⋅ x 0 )

4 k −1

βE = 2

π k

k

β 2 ωx 0 + β 3 (ωx 0 )2 + ...

8 3

≈ β1 + (8) is unknown at this stage and must be found by iterations.

3π 4 Linearization formula (8) is now replaced with a more general

approach known as the stochastic linearization, which is based

Here the sum is taken over all terms in (4) and members of the on minimizing the variance between the nonlinear and the

higher order in β k are neglected. Coefficients N k are given by equivalent linearised damping forces over the spectrum

(Brebbia and Walker, 1979). If only the first and second order

the following formula: terms in velocity are included in (4), it leads to:

N k = ∫ (1 − t 2 )

1

k /2

dt ;

8

0 β E = β1 + β2 ⋅σ V . (14)

π 2 3π

8 (9) π

Nk = ; ; ; ;... k = 1, 2 ,3, 4 ...

4 3 16 15 Here σ V denotes the standard deviation of the heave velocity,

Equations (8) and (9) enable representation of the damping computed from the velocity spectrum:

force (4) involving any powers of the velocity by the equivalent

1/ 2

linear damping force. Most frequently only two terms (linear ⎛∞ ⎞

and quadratic) in (8) are used; in studies on viscous roll σ V = ⎜ ∫ ω 2 ⋅ S S (ω )dω ⎟ (15)

damping, for example (Himeno, 1981), three terms in equation ⎝0 ⎠

(8) were retained.

The equivalent damping coefficient (14) should be using empirical data on similar bodies available in literature.

substituted back in (13) and iterations repeated until its value Table 2 presents results of such estimations, which utilized the

stabilizes. Then, the spectrum of the heave motion and dynamic following data and assumptions:

tension (16) can be computed. This enables the stochastic

responses to be predicted, including significant and maximum

motions and tensions over given exposure time. Finally, the

submerged weight of the structure is added to the dynamic

tension, to produce the total maximum tension in the lift rigging

(hook load).

TRUE R300,00

Structure Details

Particulars of the suction can used in this study are given in

Table 1. Selected dimensions are typical for suction cans used

as foundations of subsea manifolds in oil and gas developments

in Australia’s North West Shelf. Figure 1 shows geometry and

dimensions of the model made to scale 1:10. The model was

fabricated out of rolled 2mm steel plate. A photograph of the

model is shown in Figure 2.

00

00,

E 6

Table 1: Details of the suction can TRU

Diameter D 6.000 0.600 m

Height H 6.000 0.600 m

Top plate area S 28.27 0.2827 m Figure 1 Layout of the suction can

Hatch pair # 1diameter d 0.380 0.038 m

area SH 0.113 0.00113 m2

Hatch pair #2 diameter d 0.537 0.054 m

area SH 0.226 0.00226 m2

Hatch pair #3 diameter d 0.658 0.066 m

area SH 0.340 0.00340 m2

Height of coaming -- 0.500 0.050 m

Wall thickness -- 0.020 0.002 m

Water density ρ 1025 1000 kg/m3

the top plate, which can be left open during the descent to vent

out air and water and closed by a remotely operated vehicle

before the suction operation commences. To investigate the

effect of open hatches on the hydrodynamic properties, three

pairs of hatches were installed in the top plate with 50 mm high

coaming; all hatches were fitted with polyethylene plugs. Each

of the three pairs of hatches provided the relative open area S H

of 0.8%, 1.6% and 2.4%.

For the purpose of the sensitivity analysis, hydrodynamic Figure 2 General view of the model

properties of the suction can (full scale) were initially estimated

The model test program (Table 4) included free decay tests at

• Unbounded fluid flow and infinite water depth are several frequencies of oscillations to cover the range of periods

assumed. 5.0 – 10.0 s in full scale, usually associated with ship motions.

• Hydrodynamic added mass is calculated as mass of the This was achieved by incorporating springs of different

entrapped water inside the can plus 50% of added mass of stiffness into the suspensions system (above water), so that

a circular flat disk, to account for the added mass attracted heave oscillations at 5 frequencies could be generated. The

by the top plate. springs were made of stainless steel and calibrated to confirm

• Pressure drag is assumed to be the equivalent to that of a their linear behaviour within the target range of deflections.

hollow hemisphere in steady flow, for which Hoerner’s

(1965) data is available. Formulation of Tao et al. (2000) Table 4: Summary of model test program

for the viscous damping of a half-submerged vertical

cylinder in heave has been also used and found to produce Description Parameter

a similar value.

Spring Stiffness 3407.3 N/m

• Friction drag on the outside surface is estimated using data

in Hoerner (1965); it is found to be small and incorporated 2329.8 N/m

into the total quadratic drag.

1641.6 N/m

• The effect of open hatches has not been included on the

assumption of their small size and because no method is 1227.6 N/m

readily available.

824.3 N/m

Table 2: Estimated hydrodynamic properties in heave Initial Displacements 90 mm, 60 mm, 30 mm

Hatch Conditions All hatches closed

Description Notation Full scale Units

Pair of hatches #1 (small) open

Added mass mA 211.0 tonne

Pair of hatches #2 (medium) open

Added mass coefficient CA 1.21 -

Pair of hatches #3 (large) open

Pressure drag area S 28.3 m2

All hatches open

Pressure drag coefficient CD 1.42 -

Friction drag area 2 π RH 113.1 m2

The initial downward offset of the model was generated

Friction drag coefficient Cf 0.007 - with a special pulley system with an electro-magnetic release;

offsets of 30 mm, 60 mm, and 90 mm were tested for

Total drag reference area S 28.3 m2 comparison. Heave motions of the model were measured by a

Total drag coefficient CD 1.45 - linear transducer; a wave probe was also installed in the tank to

check amplitudes of radiated free surface waves. Throughout

the tests no radiated waves were detected; the wave motion in

Model Test Program the tank was found to remain at its usual background level. This

confirmed the expectation of negligible free surface effects due

In order to determine the hydrodynamic coefficients more to relatively large submergence of the model. Therefore, the

accurately, model tests were conducted in a deep water basin at effect of wave reflection in the tank was considered to be

the Australian Maritime College; details of the testing facility negligible, and no special measures were taken. Photographs of

are given in Table 3. The model was suspended in the middle of the test rig can be seen in Figures 3 and 4.

the tank depth, so that the distance between the top plate (or When the model was oscillating in heave, no sway

bottom) of the model and the water surface (or the tank floor) (pendulum), roll or yaw motions were observed, although the

was 1.75 m, or 2.92 the model height. The distance of the model was free to move in these degrees of freedom. In total,

model vertical axis from the nearest wall was 2.6 m, or 4.33 the 46 tests were run; several tests were repeated to confirm

model diameter. It is estimated that such clearances make consistency of results.

boundary effects negligible, and the hydrodynamic properties Test records have been post-processed to determine the

should not be appreciably affected by the free surface. added mass, linear and nonlinear (quadratic) damping

components. The added mass is determined from the natural

Table 3: Dimensions of testing facility frequency of un-damped motions; the added mass coefficient is

defined as:

Dimension Magnitude mA

CA = (16)

Length 25 metres ρπR 2 H

Width 12.5 metres

The two damping components were obtained by fitting a

Water Depth 4.13 metres straight line to the decrement curve, which is proportional to

the equivalent damping (8):

a−b π

≈ βE =

c 2ω

= 2 β 1ω −1 N 1 + 2 β 2 N 2 c + O(c 2 ) ≈ H 1 + H 2 c ; (17)

troughs, and the average, respectively, in the motions time

history. Typical heave time history and the decrement curve are

shown in Figures 5 and 6. After coefficients of the linear

approximation are found, the damping coefficients can be

calculated from the equations:

π 4

H 1 = β1 ; H2 = β2 (18)

2ω 3

The two damping components have been presented in the

non-dimensional form:

B1 β

B1 = = 1 ; (19)

2 Mω 2ω

B 2β 2 M

B2 = 2 = = CD ; (20)

1 ρS

ρS

2

Here the second (quadratic) term is identical to usual drag

coefficient. The total equivalent damping links the two

components by the following equation:

βE 1 8 ωc 2 ρSR

BE = = B1 + B 2 ρS = B1 + B 2 ⋅ KC

2ω 2 3π 2 Mω 3π 2 M

(21)

where the Keulegan-Carpenter number is:

KC = πc / R (22)

Heave X (mm)

Figure 3 Model test set up 40

30

20

10

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

-10

-20

-30

-40

Time (sec)

Troughs Peaks Heave Time History

Decrement and Garrison (1990) proposed the “wake flow model”, which

(a-b)/c

accounts approximately for the effect of the body moving

0.25

through its own wake, and confirms in particular that the drag

coefficient CD becomes inversely proportional to KC number.

0.20

If a similar “wake flow” dependence CD (KC) is assumed

for the flow through an orifice, it leads to the following formula

0.15 for the linear damping of the suction can with open hatches:

2 ρSR

B1 = B1C + BH ⋅ SH . (24)

0.10

3 π 2M

Here B1C is the linear damping coefficient in “all hatches

0.05

closed” condition, M is the total mass as in (3), and BH is a

0.00 special factor to account for the effect of hatches. This factor is

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 found to be relatively stable with an average value of about

Average amplitude c (m) 100; it reduces slowly when the relative open hatch area

Figure 6 Typical extinction curve and linear approximation increases in the range S H = 0.8%.....4.8% ; refer to Figure 7.

It is also found by the tests that the quadratic drag

coefficient (with all hatches closed) is significantly higher than

Results of Model Tests the estimation based on the steady flow with the error

exceeding 100%; it also exceeds the prediction for the heaving

Heave added mass is found to be stable and almost half-submerged cylinder based on formulation of Tao et al

independent of frequency of oscillations for all hatch (2000).

conditions. In conditions with open hatches some reduction in As the size of open hatches increases, more fluid is

the added mass was observed with decreasing amplitude (KC allowed to pass through the hatches, rather than around the

number). As the size of open hatches increases, the added mass outer edge of the top plate. As a result, fluid velocities at the

reduces significantly, much faster than one would anticipate outer edge reduce, which may explain the reduction in the

from proportional reduction of the impermeable top area; refer quadratic damping, evident in Figure 10.

to Figure 8 and Table 5. When all three groups of hatches were

open, this corresponded to 4.8% of the top area open, the added Table 5: Effect of open hatches on heave added mass

mass reduced by more than 30%. Compared with empirical

estimates (Table 2), the added mass in “all hatches closed” Percentage of Added Mass Reduction in

condition found in the tests is higher by about 25%. Top Area Open Coefficient Added Mass

Another phenomenon observed in the tests was rapid

increase in the linear damping with increasing size of open 0.00% 1.53 0.00%

hatches, along with gradual reduction in the quadratic damping

0.80% 1.48 - 9.7%

component; this can be observed in Figure 9 and Figure 10. In

“all hatches closed” condition, the linear damping is generally 1.60% 1.40 - 8.4%

small, being dominated by the quadratic (drag) component. As

the size of the open hatches increases this situation slowly 2.40% 1.33 - 13.1%

reverses, the linear damping becomes more pronounced, and in 4.80% 1.06 - 30.6%

“all hatches open” condition its contribution is clearly

dominant. The drag coefficient, on the contrary, reduces from

the average value of about 3.6 in “all hatches closed” to about BH bar _

2.0 in “all hatches open” condition. 120

To interpret the change in damping caused by the open

hatches, especially the significant increase in the linear 100

flow through the hatch is estimated to be KC = 1.0 - 10.0 based

on the orifice diameter, while the corresponding KC number for 60

the suction can itself is KC = 0.1 – 1.0. The pressure gradient

exerted on the portion of the top plate around the orifice may 40

20

number. For example, it is evident from results reported by De

Bernardinis et al. (1981) that the “drag coefficient” which 0

expresses the pressure drop in the oscillating flow through an 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

orifice increases rapidly with reduction in KC number. Percentage of Top Area Open

oscillatory motion) has been investigated by many researches Figure 7 Hatch damping factor in equation (24)

(for example, Bearman et al (1985), Venugopal et al (2006)).

To describe this trend in CD, Huse (1987), Huse et al. (1990),

CA

1.70

1.60

No Hatches Open

1.50

Hatches #1 Open

1.20

Average Ca

1.10

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

Percentage of Top Area Open (%)

B1(bar)

0.16

0.14

No Hatches Open

0.12

Hatches #1 Open

0.06

Average

0.04

0.02

0.00

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

Percentage of Top Area Open (%)

B2(bar)

5.0

Hatches #1 Open

Hatches #3 Open

2.0

All Hatches Open

Average

1.0

0.0

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

Percentage of Top Area Open (%)

amplitude is reduced by 36% to 47%. Even in “all hatches

closed” condition, using hydrodynamic coefficients obtained by

4. SENSITIVITY OF THE DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD model tests reduces the peak of heave RAO by about 35% in

short period sea, and up to 60% in the long period sea,

Results of the model tests have been used to carry out compared with the RAO based on estimations.

several sensitivity studies, to determine the impact of the Finally, it can be seen that changes in the dynamic wire

hydrodynamic coefficients on the hook loads during the tension are somewhat more pronounced in the short period sea,

deployment or recovery of the suction can. because of its peak period being closer to the natural heave

Stiffness properties of a typical rigging system are given in period of the system. This situation may change, however, if

Table 6; dynamic system properties, which are based on the different type vessel is used, which may have different motion

model tests, are given in Table 8. Heave natural period of the characteristics.

suction can varies within 7.3. – 7.5 s, depending on the size of

open hatches, compared to 6.8 s, which follows from the X, m/m

estimations. 14.0

12.0

Table 6: Stiffness properties of the rigging

10.0

Description Parameter

8.0

Wire length 750 m

Spring constant 150,000 kN 6.0

0.0

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20

The analysis utilized motion RAOs of a typical installation Omega, 1/s

vessel, from which motions at the lifting winch were predicted. Estimations No hatches Hatch 1 Hatch 2 Hatch 3

The spectrum of the dynamic hook load was calculated for two

sea states, presented in Table 7, both with the significant wave Figure 11: Suction can heave RAO. Sea state “A”

height of Hs =2.0 m.

X, m/m

18.0

Table 7: Sea states

16.0

8.0

Peak period 7.0 s 12.0 s

6.0

Peakedness parameter 1.00 3.00

4.0

2.0

Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 9 and

Table 10. Heave RAOs of the suction can for various hatch 0.0

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20

conditions are given in Figures 11 and 12.

Omega, 1/s

First of all, it can be seen that open hatches impact Estimations No hatches Hatch 1 Hatch 2 Hatch 3

significantly on the dynamic hook load, as could be expected

from the differences in hydrodynamic properties. For the

Figure 12: Suction can heave RAO. Sea state “B”

percentage of hatch area considered in this study (from 0.8% to

2.4%), the effect of open hatches reduces the dynamic hook

load up to 20% compared with “all hatches closed” condition.

The corresponding reduction in the maximum heave RAO is as

large as 40% for the largest pair of hatches with 2.4% of open

area.

Secondly, it is evident that by using accurate

hydrodynamic properties, rather than empirical estimations,

less onerous hook loads are predicted. In terms of the total

maximum hook load (dynamic + submerged weight), the

difference ranges from 22% to 29%, depending on the size of

the hatches. For the dynamic component alone, the tension

Table 8: Properties of the system

coefficient frequency damping damping

Case M ,t

CA ω n , 1/s B1 B2 = C D

Estimations 1.21 236.0 0.921 0.000 1.45

Hatches closed 1.51 288.0 0.833 0.010 3.60

Hatches # 1 open 1.48 282.0 0.842 0.030 3.12

Hatches # 2 open 1.40 268.5 0.863 0.051 2.71

Hatches # 3 open 1.33 256.0 0.884 0.067 2.43

Model tests

DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD Estimations Hatches Open hatches

closed #1 #2 #3

Significant Tension TSIG = 2*RMS kN 218.1 139.9 133.1 123.6 116.1

Maximum Tension TMAX = 1.86* TSIG kN 422.9 272.2 258.8 240.1 225.2

Change in TSIG or TMAX due to hatches % 100% 95% 88% 83%

Static Tension TSTATIC kN 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0

TOTAL Maximum TTOTAL kN 672.9 522.2 508.8 490.1 475.2

Change in TTOTAL due to hatches % 100% 97% 94% 91%

Change in TTOTAL % 100% 78% 76% 73% 71%

Model tests

DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD Estimations Hatches Open hatches

closed #1 #2 #3

Significant Tension TSIG = 2*RMS kN 138.1 121.3 115.8 105.3 97.5

Maximum Tension TMAX = 1.86* TSIG kN 269.5 240.0 229.1 208.2 192.8

Change in TSIG or TMAX due to hatches % 100% 95% 87% 80%

Static Tension TSTATIC kN 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0

TOTAL Maximum TTOTAL kN 519.5 490.0 479.1 458.2 442.8

Change in TTOTAL due to hatches % 100% 98% 94% 90%

Change in TTOTAL 100% 94% 92% 88% 85%

Det Norske Veritas (2000) Environmental Conditions and

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS Environmental Loads. Classification Notes No. 30.5., Det

Norske Veritas.

The following conclusions can be made upon the results of Frazer I., Perinet D., Vennemann O. (2005) Technology

this study: required for the installation of production facilities in 10,000 ft

of water. Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference

• Open hatches in the top plate of the suction can 2005, OTC 17317

significantly increase the hydrodynamic damping, in Garrison, C.J. (1990) Drag and Inertia Forces on Circular

particular its linear component. This phenomenon could be Cylinder in Harmonic Flow, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal

attributed to strong increase in the pressure drop across the and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 116, No.2 March / April, 169 –

hatch orifice as the local KC number of the orifice flow 190

reduces. Himeno, Y. (1981) Prediction of Ship Roll Damping -

• The increase in linear damping due to open hatches State of the Art. Report 239. The University of Michigan.

translates into reduction in the dynamic hook load; for the Hoerner, S. F. (1965) Fluid Dynamic Drag Hoerner Fluid

system and vessel properties used in this study the Dynamics

reduction is of the order of 20%. Therefore, open hatches Huse, E. (1990) Resonant Damping of Tension Leg

(or other small penetrations) in the top plate can be Platforms. Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference

recommended as means to reduce motions and hook loads, 1990, OTC 6317

and they should be included in the subsea lift analysis. Huse., E., Muren. P. (1987) Drag in oscillatory flow

• Hydrodynamic coefficients, which are based on the interpreted from wake considerations. Proceedings of Offshore

empirical data for steady flow or heaving half-submerged Technology Conference 1987, OTC 5370

cylinders, underestimate both the heave added mass and Krylov, A.N. (1932). Ship Motions. In: Collection of

the viscous damping for the suction can. The predicted papers, USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol. 11, Moscow, 1951.

hook load is likely to be overestimated; the error may reach Morrison D., Cermelli C. (2003) Deployment of subsea

30%, depending on the sea state and vessel details. equipment in ultradeep water. Proceeding of OMAE03 22nd

International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic

This study shows that small changes in the geometry of Engineering, June 8-13, Cancun, Mexico, OMAE2003-37190.

subsea equipment may alter significantly its hydrodynamic Niedzwecki, J.M., Thampi, S.K. (1991) Snap loading in

properties. For the subsea lift analysis to provide desired Marine cable systems. Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 13, No.1

accuracy, such changes should be carefully examined and taken Oritsland, O. & Lehn, E. (1987) Hydrodynamic forces on

into account. subsea modules during lifting operations. Third International

Symposium on the Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units.

6. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS Trondheim.

Rowe S. J., Mackenzie B., Snell R. (2001) Deep water

The authors are thankful to the Australian Maritime installation of subsea hardware. Proceedings of the 10th

College for providing support to this study. Offshore Symposium, 2001, Houston, Texas Section of the

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

Sandvik, P. C., Ing, J. T. L. & Lunde, S. (1993) Analysis of

REFERENCES the dynamics during installation of subsea structures. Offshore

93. United Kingdom, Marine Management (Holdings) Ltd.

Bearman, P.W., Downie, M.J., Graham, J.M.R., Obasaju, Tao, L., Thiagarajan, K. P. & Cheng, L. (2000) On the

E.D. (1985). Forces on cylinders in viscous oscillatory flow at parametric dependence of springing damping of TLP and Spar

low Keulegan-Carpenter numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, columns. Applied Ocean Research, 22, 281-294.

1985, Vol. 154, pp. 337 – 356 Timoshenko, S. & Young, D. H. (1954) Vibration

Bernardis, B. De., Graham, J.M.R., Parker, K.H. (1981) Problems in Engineering, New York, Litton Educational

Oscillatory flow around discs and through orifices. Journal of Publishing.

Fluid Mechanics, 1981, Vol. 102, pp. 279 – 299 Venugopal, V., Varyani, K.S., Barltrop, N.D.P. (2006).

Brebbia, C.A., Walker, S. (1979). Dynamic Analysis of Wave force coefficients for horizontally submerged rectangular

Offshore Structures, Newnes – Butterworths. cylinders, Ocean Engineering, 2006, Vol.33, pp 1669- 1704

Det Norske Veritas (1996) Rules for Planning and

Execution of Marine Operations - Part 2: Operation Specific

Requirements. Chapter 5. Lifting., Chapter 6. Sub Sea

Operations Det Norske Veritas.

- Aerodynamics Basics of AirfoilUploaded byaeroromeos
- 2_Theory Related to Subsea Lifting Op_SandvikUploaded byNicholas Waters
- Vibration and Its MeasurementUploaded byjachampe
- The Reynolds EquationUploaded byr27kumar
- #3 Fluid MechanicsUploaded byRom Perez
- gas dispersionUploaded byangusyoung1
- Performance-Energy Excess PowerUploaded byÇalanyalıoğlu
- Sample Calculations AerofoilUploaded byKunal Patel
- What Cause FlightUploaded byjomy_pj8106
- PerforationUploaded bymohammed mizbauddin
- CTUFCH02Uploaded byNeetish Kumar Maurya
- Px c 3872109Uploaded byNahas Nazar
- 604227Uploaded byKhadijah Ahmad
- SolidWorks_Flow_Instructor_Guide.pptUploaded byjasbir999
- Am 1413 Final 2012Uploaded byChilla Tenga
- 004 Life of Field Stability in a North Sea Oil DevelopmentUploaded byKarthikaAravindan
- 105215178 Erosion GuidelinesUploaded byPilar Ruiz Ramirez
- Worner - A Compact Introductions to the Numerical Modeling of Multiphase FlowsUploaded bystelasience
- CHEG521_2015_SyllabusUploaded byayotech08_762989644
- DC-1Uploaded byGustavo Valle
- 101lec8Uploaded byBerry101
- AssignmentUploaded bysadyehclen
- What Are the Navier-Stokes EquationsUploaded byAldo Dwi Rizaldi
- Pressure DistributionUploaded byMahadevan
- 3221Uploaded byFatih Fırat
- Heavy Vehicle Drag Reduction -Fyp-finalUploaded byRavichandran Srinivasan
- YuLaugaHosoi06Uploaded byamal
- AE1110x-3b-Slides-boundary Layer on a Flat PlateUploaded byAlan Chau
- 12-p2338-951471Uploaded byEric C
- control report.docxUploaded byAnmol Ganjoo

- GL Marine Operations IV-6-10Uploaded byruov
- BS Delos JuneUploaded bylittel
- Pipe LayingUploaded byjohariak
- Dnvgl Os e301Uploaded byAbi Latiful Hakim
- Part 5 Anchoring,Moor,Berthing,EtcUploaded byaungthein_san
- Cable AnchoringUploaded byanku4frenz
- T11M408-I1-TAKRAF-03910-VDCME02-P1ME01-004Uploaded bymanuelarrano
- Comporta_OrbinoxUploaded byAlexandre Coutinho
- Lecture No 6Uploaded byMiruna Clinciu
- Fixed Access Ladders: Engineering Data Sheet 2-04 | Ministry of LabourUploaded byEd Cortes
- WWII 1945 Bombay India ReportUploaded byCAP History Library
- Unit 1Uploaded byAnaJovanovic
- Standard MarineUploaded byAnonymous rmIWDb
- Magenta Book Test Methods WebFinal29!08!09Uploaded bybrijeshmaurya2
- wpsresumeUploaded bypinchi877012
- Britannia P&I Risk-Watch 2017_04.pdfUploaded byToheid Asadi
- Nautical VocabularyUploaded byvrcatc884
- Tractel-Price-List-2016-LR.pdfUploaded bytangouze
- FischerUploaded byArief Akhbar
- Vare 6700 - Level Gauge IndicatorUploaded byDylan Ramasamy
- HAZID Worksheet FORM Rev.25 May 2012 - Timas & Premier Oil IndonesiaUploaded byAbu Ainul Amani
- Dreadfleet_v1.pdfUploaded bymariopace
- Glen Formerly Global EmeraldUploaded byGloriaKoeva
- Conneau,Theopilus-A Slaver's Logbook or 20 Years'Residence in AfricaUploaded bypoutourrou
- guy_wires.pdfUploaded byTyler Smith
- CAP Regulation 66-1 - 07/31/2013Uploaded byCAP History Library
- BTI Drilling Sawing CuttingUploaded bysebkahn
- Survival Center - Underground Shelters, Bomb SheltersUploaded byChristopher DeWitt
- Notice: Deepwater ports; license applications: Calypso LNG LLCUploaded byJustia.com
- Driver's Handbook on Cargo Securement - Chapter 2_ General Cargo Securement Requirements _ Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationUploaded bySami Khaled

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.