0 views

Uploaded by rendezvous26

dsdsfsdfkjnvjkvjbdsfjbvfdjvbjdfvkjbfdkjskvjbdfkjkvfdv

- Mech-HT 13.0 L07 Transient
- 03PO_GB_1_1.pdf
- Additively manufactured PLA under Static Loading
- ebow.docx
- Forces in Equilibrium
- Vessels 2011 Web
- Production of Oil
- 2 09 Contact
- For Web FLEX LNG and InterOil Presentation at Seoul FLNG Conference 25 October 2011
- Commissioning of Offshore Oil & Gas Projects
- Chapter 13x
- Skop Fizik Peperiksaan Pertengahan Tahun 2012
- Vim Method
- Brandon Edison Lesson Plan
- DeepLines Training (1) - Overview
- International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365
- STUDENT STUDY GUIDE - BB101.pdf
- teachers - assessment evidence rig learning
- Physics class 11 cbse physics
- forces video reflection lesson plan

You are on page 1of 41

Chapter 10

MARINTEK

Trondheim, Norway.

10.1 Introduction

dynamic analysis of complete offshore floating systems, including the motions

of a floater as well as dynamic responses in moorings and risers. Thus, while the

hydrodynamic forces on the floater are usually modelled by a large-volume

diffraction-radiation analysis based on potential theory with a rigid body, the

responses on lines and risers are obtained from slender-body analysis with

elastic elements. Also, the actual time scales needed in the numerical

implementations may be quite different. Therefore, the total (or global) analysis

has traditionally been carried out in two steps, by the so-called de-coupled

approach where the forces from the lines/riser on the floater are first modelled as

simplified spring elements and empirical damping coefficients. Then the slender-

body responses are analysed using the predicted floater motions as input.

This approach is widely in use and is often a valuable tool if properly

calibrated and validated. However, dynamic coupling effects between the

slender line/riser system and the rigid hull are not directly modelled and must be

approximated in one way or another, depending on the type of floater system. A

more direct modelling, called coupled analysis, has been developed during the

last decade, where the coupling effects are accounted for by including the

389

WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 18, © 2005 WIT Press

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

doi:10.2495/978-1-85312-837-0/10

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

a simultaneous analysis of all motions and response dynamics in the system. One

challenge encountered with this approach has been the considerable computing

time required, due to, for example, simultaneous finite-element models of each

line and riser. But with the fast development of computing speed and efficiency,

the potential application area of coupled analysis seems to increase significantly.

A basic methodology for the coupled analysis, with examples from a

numerical implementation, was presented by Ormberg et al. [1], and further

discussed by Ormberg and Larsen [2]. Other developments following the same

principles include, e.g., those by Kim et al. [3] and Ma et al. [4]. Similar tools

have also been described by Wichers and Huijsmans [5], and Luo and Baudic

[6]. General aspects on the use of coupled analysis in a wide area of offshore

applications were presented by Løken et al. [7]. The use of coupled analysis to

illustrate particular effects has been demonstrated by Astrup et al. [8].

In this chapter, the basic principles and some practical applications of

coupled analysis are reviewed. A brief introduction into offshore floating

systems and global analysis is given first, followed by an overview of coupled

analysis with definitions and main characteristics. Basic principles of numerical

methods are then described. Finally, some examples on implementation,

validation and practical use are shown.

In this section, an overview of some typical offshore floating systems and their

key components is presented in general terms, as a practical background for the

global system analysis in the later sections. Key response characteristics of the

systems are also described, which are crucial to take into account when

performing coupled analysis on the different systems. The following is based

partly on descriptions in [7, 9, 10].

The main components of an offshore floating system normally include one

or several floaters, a positioning system, and risers (and possibly other flow

lines). Together, they comprise an integrated dynamic system responding to

environmental loading due to wind, waves and current in a complex way. The

station-keeping system consists of a mooring system, often combined with

thrusters, or it consists of pre-tensioned tendons for tension-leg platforms

(TLPs).

Both mooring lines and risers are commonly termed slender marine

structures, to emphasise similarities in their system topology and global

behaviour. Their main difference in mechanical properties, which affects the

global analysis, is normally that the riser responses are influenced by bending

stiffness, while mooring lines are not.

390

WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 18, © 2005 WIT Press

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

The floater motions are most often described by separating them into the

following components:

• Mean response due to steady current, mean wave drift and mean wind load

st

• Wave-frequency (WF) response due to 1 -order wave excitations

• Low-frequency (LF) response due to wave drift, wind gusts and viscous drift

• High-frequency (HF) response (e.g., TLP)

• Hull VIV (e.g., SPAR, TLP, SEMI)

These response components will consequently also be reflected in the slender-

structure response.

The overall purpose of global analysis of floating offshore installations is

the accurate prediction of floater motions as well as responses in the station-

keeping system and the risers. Input waves and wind are usually modelled as

stochastic processes. Consistent treatment of the coupling (interaction) effects

between the floater and the slender structures is decisive for adequate prediction

of floater motions, as well as riser- and station-keeping-system responses.

10.2.1 Floaters

A common feature of all types of floaters is that they utilise excess buoyancy to

support deck payload and provide tensions to mooring and riser system. They

are, therefore, weight sensitive to some extent.

Typical floater concepts for application are floating mono-hull vessels

(FPSO), semisubmersibles (SEMI), spar buoys (SPAR) and tension-leg

platforms (TLP).

Depending on the location of the field and the sea state, ocean waves contain

energy for (1st-order) wave periods in the range 5−25 s. For a floating unit, the

eigenperiods of the 6 different modes of rigid motions are, therefore, of primary

interest, and in many cases reflected in the design philosophy. Typical motion

eigenperiods of different floaters are presented in Table 10.1.

Unit FPSO SEMI SPAR TLP

Surge > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100

Sway > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100

Heave 5−12 20−50 19−35 <5

Roll 5−30 30−60 50−90 <5

Pitch 5−12 30−60 50−90 <5

Yaw >100 > 100 > 100 > 100

Another common characteristic of all floater types is that they are “soft” in

the horizontal plane, implying that the surge, sway and yaw periods are generally

391

WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 18, © 2005 WIT Press

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

longer than 100 s. The fundamental differences among the floaters are related to

their motions in the vertical plane, i.e. heave, roll and pitch.

The heave motion of the units is decisive for the choice of riser (and

mooring) system. As indicated in Table 10.1 FPSO will be excited in resonance

for heave motions, which means that this unit will have relatively large vertical

motions. Both SEMI and SPAR have larger eigenperiods in heave than typical

1st-order wave periods and will have less vertical motions compared to the

FPSO. TLP will have small motions due to waves because of the stiff vertical

mooring (tender system).

(FPSO) consists of a ship-shaped hull with production equipment on deck. The

unit is normally designed for oil storage and offloading. Figure 10.1 illustrates

an FPSO system.

In hostile waters (e.g., Norwegian Sea, Offshore Canada) the unit will

normally be installed with a turret. This is a device that allows the unit to rotate

around the turret without twisting the risers and the mooring lines. The crucial

benefit with using a turret is that it allows the ship to rotate with the prevailing

weather and thus reduce the environmental loads on the unit and its responses.

The turret also provides the medium for the connection between the riser and

mooring system and the unit. The fluid transfer from the riser to the hull can

either be via a swivel system or by a drag-chain system. A turret can either be

located inside the hull (internal turret) or in front of its bow (external turret).

In more benign waters (e.g., West of Africa, Offshore Brazil) a simpler riser

and mooring systems can be applied. Here, a spread mooring system can be used

together with a riser system that is terminated directly to the unit. Alternatively,

one may apply a CALM buoy to moor an FPSO.

Because of the large superstructures of the FPSO the wind forces will often

be dominant relative to the current forces, at least for ship-shaped floaters.

Since the eigenperiods of all vertical modes of motion are in the wave period

range (see Table 10.1) an FPSO will experience significant wave-frequency

motions. It is therefore necessary to use flexible riser systems, at least for harsh

environments.

392

WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 18, © 2005 WIT Press

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

in the horizontal plane. The LF forces act in the same frequency range as the

unit's horizontal eigenperiods, i.e. giving a resonance-dominated dynamic

system. For such systems, the damping becomes a crucial limiting factor for the

magnitude of response. Ship-shaped units will normally have relatively large

damping in sway and yaw because of drag forces acting on the hull. However,

the hull damping in surge can often be small and one may find significant surge-

induced response. The damping forces from the mooring and riser system can be

important contributions for the LF surge motion.

Fishtailing is an unstable coupled yaw and sway motion excited by mean

forces/moments from wind, waves and current. It is associated with the

horizontal stiffness of the mooring system and the location of the turret.

The responses of an FPSO are sensitive to the direction of the environment

(i.e. waves, wind and current) versus vessel heading. Non-aligned environmental

conditions may often cause larger responses than a corresponding aligned

environmental condition. Also, a combination of wind-generated waves and

swell with different headings can cause large vessel responses and should be

considered in an analysis of the unit's behaviour.

unit, which consists of a deck structure with large-diameter support columns

attached between the deck and the submerged pontoons, see example in Figure

393

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

arrangement.

A SEMI will normally not have storage capacity for oil. Since this unit has

small water-plane areas, it is sensitive to deck-weight changes and one must use

active ballasting in order to achieve acceptable hydrostatic stability.

Since the semisubmersibles have the small water-plane areas, the natural

periods (in vertical modes) become relative high, i.e. slightly above 20 s. This is

usually outside the range of wave period except for extreme sea states. This

implies small vertical motions compared to the mono-hull. However, the

behaviour in extreme weather requires flexible, compliant metallic riser systems

or a hybrid arrangement for this concept.

A semisubmersible may be quipped with a variety of spread mooring

systems similar to a FPSO.

Compared to the ship-shaped floaters, current forces will be larger on semi-

submersibles due to bluff shapes of the underwater columns and pontoons. Wind

loads still dominate the mean forces, except in calm areas with strong currents.

A SEMI is less sensitive for environmental direction versus vessel heading,

compared to a ship-shaped floater.

As shown in Table 10.1 the eigenperiods of the motion modes are all above

the range of natural wave periods. However, the wave-frequency motions are not

insignificant, especially in extreme conditions.

394

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

generally less sensitive to WF responses. Static and LF responses can be server

and LF response may be more dominating in the roll and pitch motions.

For SEMIs, wave impact underneath the deck due to insufficient airgap may

influence the global motions and local structural responses. These loads are

normally difficult to calculate and model testing is often recommended.

Catenary-moored SEMIs may experience significant dynamic mooring

forces due to WF responses.

floater with small heave motions. The deck/topside may be modular or

integrated type. The hull has a central moonpool for a riser system in tension.

The hard-tank area provides buoyancy and part below may constitute a shell

structure (Classic SPAR) or a truss structure (Truss SPAR). The Classic SPAR

may also provide a large oil-storage capacity.

With a typical draft of 150−200 m (450−650 feet) and a diameter of 30−40

m (90−120 feet), the SPAR has a large area exposed to current forces, which is

usually the dominant mean force on SPAR. Low-frequency vortex-induced

oscillations may increase the effective drag leading to even higher mean current

forces.

By applying strakes on the SPAR hull, the vortex-induced cross-flow

oscillation can be reduced by 50 to 80 per cent compared to the oscillation of a

bared SPAR. However, the strakes will increase the cross-section the hull.

Consequently, the reduction in drag coefficient obtained by strakes may more or

less be cancelled by the increased exposed area, resulting in the same amount of

drag forces as for a bared SPAR. The strakes will also increase the added mass.

The SPAR normally uses rigid top-tensioned vertical risers, where the risers

are supported inside the moonpool by either air cans or by a heave-compensator

system. The latter system will introduce a higher coupling between the riser

system and the unit's heave motion, as the heave restoring as well as eigenperiod

will be influenced by the riser system. This also means that heave-damping

assessment will be crucial for prediction of the SPAR heave response.

The WF part of the surge motion of a SPAR will have a rotation centre close

to the keel. This is because the wave-particle accelerations are the main

excitation force, which decrease from the water surface and because the SPAR

reacts as an inertia-dominated dynamic system.

395

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

permission of ChevronTexaco Corporation).

The LF excitation forces are mainly wave-drift forces and wind-gust forces.

These forces act near the water surface and consequently the platform will

basically be excited by the pitch mode with a rotation centre close to COG near

the fairlead. This means that the participant from LF and WF motion varies

along the hull, where a significant contribution from WF excitation is found in

the upper part, while the keel motion is entirely dominated by the LF motion.

Current fluctuation may induce significant excitation forces on a SPAR. The

amount of fluctuation and the correlation along the water depth are central issues

when determining the level of this excitation.

Due to low WF motions, the SPAR is generally not subject to large dynamic

mooring line forces. This has to be evaluated in relation to the selected location

of fairlead and the increase of WF motion towards the waterline. As an example,

396

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

by moving the fairlead from a typical position at mid-draft against the surface,

the dynamic force will increase because of the increased WF motion and also the

mooring-line damping relevant for the LF pitch motion will increase.

Consequently, the mooring-line tension will increase and the LF pitch motion

will decrease by this change.

installation connected to fixed foundations by pre-tensioned tendons. The hull

may be composed of buoyant columns, pontoons and bracings, see Figure 10.4.

The TLP is restrained from oscillating vertically by the tendons, which are

tensioned by the hull buoyancy being larger than the hull weight. Because the

tendons system will give a high stiffness in the vertical plane, no hydrostatic

(water-plane) stiffness from columns is needed for TLPs, despotised from the

other floaters where this is a crucial property. As for the SEMI, TLP is

considered to be relatively weight sensitive. Mini-TLPs with multiple or single

columns have been designed and installed. Conceptual designs on heave

restricted (free to roll/pitch) TLPs have been performed, but so far no such

concept has been built.

397

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

compliant metallic risers as steel catenary risers.

The TLP is basically free to move in the horizontal plane (surge, sway and

pitch), but restrained in motion in the vertical plane (heave, roll and pitch). This

means that a TLP will have about the same motions in the horizontal plane as a

SEMI with comparable size. In the vertical plane, however, the TLP will behave

like a fixed platform with hardly any wave-frequency motions, because the stiff

tendons counteract the WF forces.

Higher-order wave forces at different sum frequencies may introduce

resonant, stationary (springing) or transient (ringing) responses in the vertical

plane. These force components may give significant contributions to both

extreme and fatigue tether loads.

Because the tendons are axially stiff, the TLP will move along a spherical

surface (like an up-down pendulum system). This results in a vertical set-down

when the TLP is moving (both statically and dynamically) in the horizontal

plane. The set-down is important to the wave air-gap, tether forces and riser-

system response. Top-tensioned risers will normally have heave compensators in

order to account for the vertical set-down.

Positioning system: The primary function of a station-keeping system is to keep

the floater within position tolerances. The station-keeping system is governed by

a passive mooring system, sometimes combined with a dynamic-positioning

(DP) system using thrusters. Hence, a mooring system acts basically as a

"spring" system, where the restoring-force characteristics are given by the

number of mooring lines, line-layout pattern, pre-tension and restoring-force

characteristics for each individual line. Conventionally, mooring lines consist of

a steel-rope segment, a chain segment or a combination of these segments.

Sometimes one also includes buoys and/or clump weights to a mooring line in

order to achieve the required restoring characteristics and line performance.

For deep-water systems, the cost and weight of traditional mooring will

increase. Hence one has been looking for alternative materials, such as synthetic

fibre ropes and alternative configurations, e.g., taut or semi-taut mooring

systems. These systems may give vertical lift forces on the anchor, which must

be accounted for in the anchor design.

Riser system: The main functional requirements for marine risers are to provide

for transfer of fluids and gas between seafloor and a floater. It is convenient to

distinguish between top-tensioned rigid risers and compliant risers. The first

riser type basically consists of vertical steel pipes that are sensitive to floater

motions and hence will require floater types with small heave motions, such as

398

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

TLP and SPAR floaters. The benefit of using top-tensioned risers is that one

may use dry wells (located on the unit's deck), which gives easy access to the

well. One critical response on these riser systems is bending moments introduced

by wave-loading and floater motions. In order to reduce high local bending

moments, taper joints, bell-mouth, flex-joints or ball joints are introduced at the

bottom and at support point(s) on the floater.

Compliant riser systems consist of either conventional flexible (unbounded)

risers or metallic catenary risers. The flexible risers are characterized by its large

capacity regarding tensile loading and external/internal pressure combined with

low bending stiffness and low critical radius of curvature. The desired cross-

sectional properties are normally obtained by introduction of a flexible layered

pipe where each layer has a dedicated function. They accept more floater

motions than the top-tensioned riser systems and all type of floaters can

normally be used to support them. A metallic catenary riser system consists

normally of a steel or titanium pipe, which has been given a compliant

configuration, such as a free-hanging or a lazy wave. These riser systems also

accept some floater motions, but are more sensitive to floater motions than the

flexible risers systems.

Compliant riser systems are normally used with wet wells located at the

seafloor.

The following is basically taken from the original descriptions in [1, 2].

The response analysis of a moored floating structure and the load effects in

mooring lines and risers, has traditionally been carried out as a sequence of de-

coupled analysis with the two main steps as illustrated in Figure 10.5:

1) The floater motions are first calculated with the stiffness from moorings and

risers modelled by springs, and with their load and damping effects included

as additional “vessel coefficients”. Motion responses of the floater are often

also separated into wave-frequency (WF) and low-frequency (LF) responses.

2) Dynamic-response analysis of individual mooring elements and risers, using

the previously calculated vessel-motion responses from step 1 as top-end

excitations.

399

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

- The velocity-dependent (damping) forces, which for most concepts are very

important for accurate estimates of LF-motions, are either neglected or

implemented in a rough manner by (linear) damping forces acting on the

floater itself.

- The effect on the floater from mooring and riser current forces are either

neglected or incorporated simplified as an additional current force on the

floater.

In the present context, a de-coupled analysis will normally still include

coupling effects between different degrees of freedom of the vessel motions.

With the latter included, this approach is sometimes also called “semi-coupled”.

In a coupled analysis approach, the floater-force model is introduced in a

detailed model of the complete slender-structure system, such as mooring lines,

tendons and risers. Normally non-linear time-domain analysis considering

irregular (WF, HF and LF) loading, is used to give an adequate representation of

the coupled floater/slender-structure response at every time instant. It should be

noted that this approach yields dynamic equilibrium between the forces acting

on the floater, moorings and risers and structural response at every time instant.

In this way, the full interaction is taken into account and accurate floater motions

and dynamic loads in mooring lines and risers are obtained simultaneously. The

output from such analysis will be floater motions as well as the slender-structure

response description. In this context, the term coupled analysis, illustrated by the

example in Figure 10.6, means:

Simultaneous dynamic analysis of floater motions and mooring lines

(tendons) and riser responses.

The analysis described here is sometimes also denoted as “fully coupled

analysis”. A synonymous definition of coupling effects is used in [8]: “Influence

on floater mean position and dynamic response due to slender structure

restoring, damping and inertia forces”.

A variety of coupled analysis developments are found in the literature.

Descriptions of approaches following basically the above definitions or similar

are given in [3, 4, 11, 12] in addition to the present reference works [1,2].

400

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

z Z(t)

X(t)

x

Step 1: Step 2:

Vessel motion analysis Dynamic mooring and riser analysis

Slender structures

Simultaneous analysis of vessel motions and mooring line and riser dynamics

and also described in [6]. The approach is based on a lumped-mass model for the

mooring lines and a combined wave-frequency and second-order wave-force

model for the ship. The lump-mass model has also been described as an option

in [11].

For TLP, a coupled analysis approach was reported in [13]. This, however,

did not include LF responses.

401

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

Hydrodynamic forces on the floater are usually modelled through a 6-dof large-

volume (diffraction) analysis, often in combination with a viscous strip force

model. Purely hydrodynamic coupling effects should also be taken care of in

this model. For SPAR buoys, simple Morison-formulation types of description

have also been applied, and it has been reported that it may give reasonable

results in some cases. Notice that with the present definitions, there may be no

difference between the vessel model of a coupled and a de-coupled analysis,

except in the representation of slender-body forces.

10.3.4 Motivation/objective

The main shortcomings of the de-coupled (separated) approach are:

- The mean current loads on moorings and risers are normally not accounted

for. Particularly in deep water, with strong current and many risers attached,

the interactions between current forces on the underwater elements and the

mean offset and LF-motions of the floater are pronounced.

- The important damping effect from moorings and risers on LF-motions has

to be included in a simplified way, usually as linear damping forces on the

floater. Establishing simplified models of this phenomenon is not

straightforward because several parameters are involved. An important

parameter is the WF-motion dynamics of the moorings, which also requires

comprehensive computer modelling.

- Incomplete modelling of non-linear coupling between different modes and

frequency ranges (damping, added mass, etc.).

These problems are, in principle, solved by use of coupled analysis.

Furthermore, the coupled approach provides a more direct and straightforward,

and physically correct, modelling of the whole system.

The scenario for practical applications of coupled analysis in offshore

engineering has grown significantly from the initial developments in the 1990s.

Still, there is some potential for even more improvement and more efficient and

robust use. The computer power and time consumption has been one limiting

factor, although today’s implementations are far more speedy than the early

versions, due to faster computers as well as more efficient use of them. In many

cases, the time consumption of a full global analysis of a total floater system

with moorings and risers is today comparable to real full-scale time.

For design analyses, the coupled analysis has been proven to reproduce

responses from experiments, as well as from standard well-checked and

402

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

calibrated analysis tools, quite well, but there are still weak points. Since the

modelling involves direct implementation of elements in the model, in a

“transparent” way, there is less room for empirical or phenomenological

adjustments as is sometimes done in standard de-coupled tools. Thus

adjustments of a coupled tool will be different, and sometimes more complex,

than for other tools.

Another application is within verification of global floater-system design,

especially for deep-water structures. Traditionally, verification is carried out by

model testing of the total system, including full-depth models of the floater,

mooring lines, and riser system. With increasing water depths, limited sizes of

available model basins require either ultra-small scales (far beyond the

traditional 1:50 scale range) and/or alternative solutions such as the “hybrid

verification” approach [14]. Here, model tests with truncated set-ups are

combined with numerical extrapolations to full depth. Coupled analysis is

generally recommended for the numerical part.

Future applications are also being developed within the simulation of marine

operations, combining the mutual interaction between several bodies including

their positioning systems.

For practical analysis of a continuous system, one normally has to simplify it by

a discretization to a finite number of degrees of freedom and the solution is

established related to these. With increases in computer technology, the more

popular used, are the finite-element method (FEM) and the boundary-element

method (BEM). Both methods are applied within hydrodynamics and structural

engineering, but are also commonly used within other branches of knowledge.

The basic concepts of these methods are described in numerous textbooks, see,

e.g., Zienkiewics and Taylor [15], Banerjee and Butterfield [16] and Banerjee

[17].

For coupled analysis, as described herein, the floater is considered as a rigid

body. That is, the strength analysis of the hull itself is not considered. The floater

hydrodynamics are normally solved by use of BEM (panel methods), but the so-

called strip methods are also used. Both are based on the potential-flow

conditions, solving the Laplace equation. Basic descriptions on these topics are

found in, e.g., the textbooks by Newman [18] and Faltinsen [19].

It is, in principle, possible to solve the entire fluid and structural problem as

one system, termed the hydro-elastic approach. However, in this chapter it is

403

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

assumed that the floater-force models are found separately and are represented

by force coefficients that serve as input to the coupled analysis.

The floater-load model due to environmental loads has to include load

effects due to wind, waves and current. The low-frequency, wave-frequency and,

depending on type of floater, high-frequency wave forces and the concurrent

effects of these have to be reflected. Viscous loads acting on slender parts

(columns) of a floater (TLP, SEMI, SPAR) might be important and the load

model used should integrate the viscous load effects to instantaneous surface

elevation.

An adequate structural-response model is required for the mooring and riser

system. The overall behaviour of these types of structures basically involves

large displacements, nonlinear constraints and nonlinear interaction between the

environmental loads and the structural system. Thus, the nature of the slender

systems is inherently nonlinear and three-dimensional, owing to the compliant

response during random directional seas, current and floater motions. The finite-

element (FE) approach is normally considered for global slender structure

analysis. But also the lumped mass procedure described, e.g., in [11] is applied

as a basic theoretical formulation for computer programs used by the industry.

Another approach that might be used is the finite-difference method.

For coupled analysis the most important nonlinearities to be reflected by the

structural response model are the lateral stiffness contribution from axial forces

(geometric stiffness), viscous forces acting on the slender system and the

instantaneous angle between the floater and the slender system.

It is, in principle, straightforward to obtain a coupled dynamic model of the

floater system by a proper combination of a rigid-body floater model together

with a dynamic model of the complete mooring and riser system. Solution of this

coupled system of equations in the time domain using a non-linear integration

scheme will ensure consistent treatment of floater and slender-structure coupling

effects. (i.e. these coupling effects will automatically be included in the solution)

and give an adequate description of all nonlinear effects.

It should be noted that response analysis of the coupled system might also be

solved in the frequency domain by non-linear frequency analysis introducing

higher-order moments, covariances and spectra. However, this implies a

linearization of the problem, which is considered as a challenge. The solution in

the frequency domain will not be discussed further.

The dynamic loadings from wind and waves are, in coupled analyses,

modelled as stationary stochastic processes. In the time domain rather long

simulations (typically 6−9 h and even longer) will be required to obtain extreme

response estimates with sufficient statistical confidence. This is of particular

importance for non-Gaussian responses and for quantities with significant LF

components.

404

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

The method described here follows the methodology established in [1]. The

applied FE formulation is established based on the virtual-work principle and is

a displacement method. A more detailed description on the FE-formulation,

method and procedure for static and dynamic analyses is given in RIFLEX [20].

Details on floater force and motion models are described in SIMO [21].

equation for the non-linear time evolution of the floater motion can be

schematically written:

where:

M : 6×6 system mass matrix, including mechanical and hydrodynamic added

mass. It includes effects from the hull as well as from the slender parts

C : 6×6 hull damping matrix, including all linear (hydrodynamic and

structural)

K : 6×6 stiffness matrix including hydrostatic stiffness

FE : 6×1 total force vector from wave, current and wind loads on the hull

FR : 6×1 total radiation force vector (frequency-dependent added mass and

damping)

FM : 6×1 total force vector from mooring/tendons/risers

x : 6×1 vessel-displacement vector

x& : 6×1 vessel-velocity vector

&x& : 6×1 vessel-acceleration vector

model, i.e. eqn (10.13).

In the present floater model the interaction effects between waves and vessel

are described by a set of frequency-dependent coefficients for inertia, damping

and exciting forces. These coefficients have to be obtained from a hydrodynamic

response analysis program, such as a 3D diffraction-analysis program. A linear

analysis is normally carried out, but in many cases a second-order model is

required. An example of the use of a second-order diffraction model in a coupled

analysis is given in [22].

405

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

outside the scope of the present text, and we refer to standard textbooks [18, 19]

as well as to the recent developments in the literature.

The radiation forces (frequency-dependent added mass and damping

coefficients) are converted to a time-domain retardation function, and the

frequency-dependent forces are included in the form of a convolution integral,

introducing a memory effect in the time domain. The retardation function is

obtained by

t

1

∫ [b(ω ) + iω a(ω )]e

iωt

h(t ) = dω . (10.2)

2π

0

added-mass, a (ω ) , and damping, b(ω ) . Thus the radiation force vector, FR ,

in eqn (10.1) is written:

t

∫

FR = − h(t − τ ) ⋅ r&(τ )dτ . (10.3)

0

The wave forces (LF, WF and HF contributions) are calculated for the mean

(initial) heading and for a range of other headings to allow for large yawing

motions of the vessel. Wind and current forces are each calculated by a set of

direction-dependent coefficients specifying linear and quadratic forces as

functions of wind and current directions relative to the vessel.

Additional hydrodynamic forces can be included by attaching a rigid,

slender-body strip model to the different structure elements, and thus providing a

distributed drag-force model according to the generalized Morison formula

presented in the next section.

non-linear FE modelling using beam and bar types of elements. The formulation

allows for unlimited displacements and rotations in 3-D space, while the strains

are assumed to be moderately small. Ball joints, hinges and swivels may be

modelled by link or connector type of elements.

To obtain efficient analysis, the resulting (non-linear) cross-sectional

properties of the elements are modelled rather than material properties, i.e. axial

load versus elongation, bending moment versus curvature and torsion moment

versus twist angle rather than the stress−strain relation. This is done to avoid

integration over the cross section for computation of resulting forces.

406

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

the effective-tension concept [23] and thus treated as conservative forces.

The hydrodynamic forces on slender elements are modelled by means of the

generalized Morison’s equation, specifying added mass and drag coefficients for

each element. The generalized Morison equation for a circular cross section is

expressed as:

1 πD 2 n

f n = ρC Dn Dh u n − x& n (u n − x& n ) + ρ b CM

2 4

πD 2 n

u& n − ρ b C M

4

− 1 &x&n ( )

(10.4)

1

f t = ρC D Dh ut − xt (ut − xt ) + ρ

2

t

& &

πDb2 t

4

C M ut − ρ

&

πDb2 t

4

C M − 1 xt ,

&& ( )

where:

fn : Force per unit length in normal direction

ft : Force per unit length in tangential direction

ρ : Water density

Db : Buoyancy diameter

Dh : Hydrodynamic diameter

u n , u& n : Fluid velocity and acceleration in normal direction

x& n , &x&n : Structural velocity and acceleration in normal direction

C Dn , CM n

: Drag and mass coefficients in normal direction

ut , u&t : Fluid velocity and acceleration in tangential direction

x&t , &x&t : Structural velocity and acceleration in tangential direction

C Dt , C M

t

: Drag and mass coefficients in tangential direction

element model. The governing dynamic equilibrium equation of the spatially

discrete finite-element system can, in general, be expressed by

R I (r , &r&, t ) + R D (r , r&, t ) + R S (r , t ) = R E (r,r&, t ) , (10.5)

where

RI : Nodal inertia-force vector

RD : Nodal damping-force vector

RS : Nodal internal-reaction force vector

RE : Nodal external-load vector

r , r&, &r& : Nodal displacement, velocity and acceleration vector

407

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

element- and nodal-component contributions. This is a nonlinear system of

differential equations due to displacement dependencies in the inertia, the

damping and the internal reaction forces and the coupling between the external

load vector and structural displacement and velocity. The inertia force vector and

the damping force vector are given in eqns (10.6) and (10.7) respectively:

accounting for internal fluid flow and hydrodynamic mass. C is the system-

damping matrix that includes contributions from internal structural damping and

discrete dashpot dampers.

The internal reaction force vector, R S , is calculated based on the

instantaneous state of stress in the elements. The external load vector accounts

for weight and buoyancy, forced displacements, environmental forces and

specified forces.

The numerical solution of eqn (10.5) is based on a step-by-step numerical

integration of the incremental dynamic equilibrium equations, eqn (10.8), with

equilibrium iteration at each time step. The incremental form of the dynamic

equilibrium equation is obtained by considering dynamic equilibrium at two

configurations a short time interval ∆t apart:

increments in inertia-, damping- and structural-reaction forces over the time

interval ∆t. For numerical solution, the nonlinear incremental equation of motion

is linearized by introducing the tangential mass, damping and stiffness matrices

at the start of the increment. Furthermore, due to nonlinearities the dynamic

equilibrium equation is not satisfied at the end of the time step. To prevent error

accumulation, the residual-load vector is added to the incremental equilibrium

equation at the next time step. Thus, the linearized incremental equation of

motion is given by

408

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

where ∆ rt , ∆r&t and ∆&r&t are incremental nodal displacement, velocity and

acceleration vectors, respectively. The tangential stiffness matrix K t accounts for

material stiffness and geometric stiffness, i.e. the contribution from the axial

force to transverse stiffness. In addition, the contribution from non-conservative

(i.e. position-dependent) loads may be included, e.g., forces based on the

Morison equation, depth-dependent buoyancy forces (water-plane stiffness), etc.

It should be noted that the implementation of the stiffness matrix due to non-

conservative loading only has consequences for the rate of convergence.

Provided there is uniqueness of the solution it is the dynamic equilibrium alone

that govern the final solution, and the equilibrium equations are only influenced

by the loads.

The linearized incremental equation of motion, eqn (10.9), is the basis for

the applied step-by-step numerical integration process adopting the Newmark

integration method [24]. Thus, the increments in acceleration and velocities are

expressed as linear functions of the increment in displacement. The first estimate

of the unknown incremental displacement vector is therefore found as the

solution of the following system of linear equations

combination of tangential mass, damping, and stiffness matrix and ∆R̂t is the

effective incremental load vector.

Due to the non-linearities, the dynamic equilibrium equation is not satisfied

at the end of an increment. An iterative approach according to the following

Newton−Raphson iteration procedure is applied to obtain dynamic equilibrium

at the end of an increment:

The tangential mass, damping and stiffness matrices and the external and

internal load vectors are recalculated at each iteration cycle, which will give a

so-called true Newton−Raphson iteration procedure. The iteration is terminated

by use of a Euclidian displacement norm.

409

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

introduced as a one-node rigid element with 6 degrees of freedom (three

translational and three rotational) in the FE model of the complete system. A

“master-slave” approach is the effective technique used for connecting relevant

mooring lines/tethers/risers to the floater.

The dynamic equilibrium equation for the rigid element is written:

where

S I (v , v&&, t ) : Inertia force vector, S I (v , v&&, t ) = m (v ) v&& , where m is the floater-

mass matrix that includes the structural mass and frequency-

independent part of added mass.

S D (v&, t ) : Damping force vector, S D (v&, t ) = cv& where c is the floater linear

damping matrix

E

S (v , v , t ) : External force vector from wave, current and wind loads including

&

gravity and buoyancy forces

R

S (v , t ) : Radiation-force vector (frequency-dependent added mass and

&

damping)

v, v&, v&& : Nodal displacement, velocity and acceleration vector

(10.13), is written:

hydrostatic stiffness, direction-dependent environmental forces, etc. This

contribution is very important to obtain a numerically stable solution, especially

during static analysis and for turret-moored vessels.

The rigid-floater-element contributions to the system matrices and load

vectors are assembled into the total system matrices, eqn (10.9). Thus, the

solution for the total system will ensure consistent treatment of floater and

slender-structure coupling effects.

Floater response as well as detailed mooring line/riser response can be computed

by coupled analysis using a detailed model of the total system. The output from

410

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

response description (e.g., tension in mooring lines as well as tension, moment,

shear, curvature and displacement in risers). However, coupled analyses

normally demand substantial computational efforts. Coupled analyses of the

detailed numerical model are normally used in the final verification process.

In design analyses of floating offshore installations global analysis need to

be conducted for numerous stationary design conditions to cover extreme

conditions, fatigue-load cases, accidental conditions as well as temporary

conditions. Furthermore, analysis of several modifications of the design should

be foreseen as a part of the design process. Hence, computational efficiency and

numerical stability is an additional key issue in practical design analyses of

floating offshore installations. More efficient computation schemes are therefore

needed for use in practical design analyses.

To achieve computational efficiency, a coupled analysis with a simplified

model of the slender structure in combination with subsequent slender-structure

analysis, can be attractive. The first step in this approach is denoted as coupled

floater-motion analysis. The primary purpose of the coupled vessel-motion

analysis is to give a good description of vessel motions, while some local

responses in the slender structure become secondary.

The principle applied to establish an adequate simplified slender-structure

model depends on the actual system layout as well as the required output from

the analyses. The primary requirement is to give adequate representations of

coupling effects (restoring, damping, and mass). However, it is also often

desirable to establish some key results for the mooring and riser system directly

as output from the coupled floater motion analyses. Such information can be

used to identify critically loaded slender structures to be analysed in detail.

In most situations, it is convenient to include all mooring lines, tethers and

risers in the FE slender structure model. The FE model of each slender-structure

component is simplified to the extent possible using a rather rough mesh and

omission of bending and torsional stiffness of most parts of the riser system.

This will allow for output of key slender-structure responses (e.g., mooring-line

tensions at fairlead, riser-top tensions, tensioner stroke, etc.) directly from the

coupled floater-motion analysis. This approach gives a significant reduction in

computation time due to a reduced number of degrees of freedom in the coupled

analyses.

More detailed riser responses requiring a refined FE model of the riser

system is carried out separately in dedicated riser analysis to save computation

time and increase the analysis flexibility. Examples are modelling of special

components such as taper joints as well as refined mesh for adequate calculation

of moment, shear and curvature in critical areas (e.g., touch-down area for steel

catenary risers).

411

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

Descriptions of the approach with FPSO and SPAR system examples are

found in [8, 25].

selected case studies are reviewed in the following, with the purpose of

illustrating coupling effects and coupled numerical analysis in practical

applications. The numerical modelling and analysis is addressed first. Although

the basic principles are general, practical details will differ between different

floater types. Therefore, the examples cover the range from FPSO through

SEMI, TLP and SPAR. Validation against model tests is finally shown for some

of the cases.

The examples are chosen from applications with the time-domain coupled

analysis software system RIFLEX-C, which is based upon the programs

RIFLEX [20] and SIMO [21]. This is an implementation of the description in [1]

(basically the same as the DeepC [26] software).

The coupling effects normally increase in deep water and can become larger

than the direct hydrodynamic loads on the vessel, especially if catenary or semi-

taut mooring is applied and/or if the number of risers is high (with polyester taut

mooring, line dynamics may in very deep water be partly transferred into axial

line loads, leading to less lateral dynamics and resulting drag loads). Bottom

friction on catenary lines and effects on the vessel motion are also included in

the coupled analysis.

For large-volume floaters, the dynamics of lines and risers are dominated by

the WF vessel motions, while the WF vessel motions themselves are more or

less unaffected by them (perhaps except for roll in some cases). Thus the WF

part of the problem can most often also be considered to be determined by de-

coupled analysis. But one should recall that horizontal floater motions, which

may be critical to mooring loads, are often totally dominated by the LF

components.

For smaller floaters like buoys, WF hydrodynamic loads on the floater are

comparable to those on the lines/risers, and WF coupling effects on the buoy

motions may become important.

Particular effects connected with the different floater types are discussed in

connection with the examples below.

412

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

10.5.1.1 FPSO Coupling effects are seen mainly between the LF horizontal

motions and mooring and riser systems, as described in the general introduction

above.

FPSO example 1: Case studies on the investigation of coupling effects were

presented in [2] including three different water depths: 150 m, 330 m, and 2000

m. Fully time-domain coupled analysis with RIFLEX-C, with finite-element

modelling of slender elements, was compared against un-coupled analysis using

SIMO [21]. Model tests were also run for the 330 m case. The cases were all

based on the same turret-moored ship, with length 215 m, breadth 42 m, draught

15 m, and displacement 120 000 tonnes. Eight-line symmetrical steel chain/wire

anchor systems were modelled. One riser and one umbilical were included in the

330 m case, while 4 flexible risers were included in the 2000 m case. A sea state

similar to a steep 100-year condition in the Norwegian Sea was simulated,

including collinear waves, current and wind.

The results showed that the contributions from the lines/risers to the surge

damping and mean surge force are significant, and cannot be disregarded. This is

seen especially in 2000 m depth where the relative damping contribution was

62%, i.e. much higher than all the others, and the mean offset contribution

represented 45% of the total. In order to take this into account in the un-coupled

analysis, these forces were added as external forces acting directly on the hull. It

was then seen that resulting turret forces and line tensions were under-predicted

by the un-coupled quasi-static analysis, especially the vertical turret forces.

3000 m water depth was presented in [27] using the same computer program

system as in example 1 above (RIFLEX-C). The main purpose of the study was

to apply coupled analysis, together with available model test data, in the

verification of a mooring design obtained by use of the quasi-static, frequency-

domain computer tool MOOROPT [28]. This is an optimisation program based

upon the mooring analysis program MIMOSA [29]. In the following, some

details from the RIFLEX-C modelling and the analysis are highlighted, with

particular emphasis on the coupling effects. The total system is illustrated in

Figure 10.7, viewed from the side, with finite-element (FE) details in Figure

10.8.

The FPSO length (Lpp) was 233 m, the breadth 42 m, draught 13 m and

displacement 95 000 tonnes. The mooring consisted of a 9-line taut steel wire

system, in groups of 3 and 3 with 120 deg between each group and 5 deg within

a group. No risers were included. A 100-year storm as well as an operation sea

state for the Norwegian Sea were modelled, including waves, wind and current.

413

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

were initially estimated by linear diffraction analysis (WAMIT). Finally in the

analysis, the surge wave-drift coefficients were empirically adjusted by use of

available model test results for the same vessel, showing significant additional

contributions − about 100% − due to steep waves and current. The mooring lines

were modelled by bar elements and connected to the bow turret, as indicated in

Figure 10.8.

ZG

ZV

master node

Vessel node XG

XV

15.28 m

beam element slave node

bar elements

414

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

from the simulations) are shown in Figure 10.9. Qualitatively, we recognise the

observations from example 1 above. In the 100-year design condition, the

contribution from the 9 lines account for 56% of critical, compared to 36% for

the hull part. The presence of current is seen to increase the damping. One

should recall that no risers were included in the analysis, which would have

increased the damping, but at the same time the current profile was chosen to be

conservative (uniform).

Special comments − FPSO: A particular challenge in the numerical modelling of

FPSOs is the complex coupling between LF yaw and sway, and the proper

estimation of current, wind and wave-drift coefficients. FPSO roll excitation and

damping is another topic of concern.

5000

4500

hull

4000 mooring

3500

36% 36%

3000

(kNs/m)

2500

1500

1000

59% 42% 56% 56%

500

0

Operation

Oper 100-yr. 100-yr. 100-yr.

no cur oblique

Figure 10.9: Estimated linear surge damping coefficients from hull and mooring

[27]. Absolute values and damping relative to critical level. Heights

of dashed columns indicate critical damping.

systems, there are additional coupling effects, since the vertical motions are also

sensitive to moorings/risers due to their lower natural frequencies. Thus, in

addition to the general effects described earlier, we also have:

1) Increased damping in LF heave, roll and pitch, due to line and riser drag.

2) A quasi-static LF coupling between motion components surge-pitch-

heave, and sway-roll-heave, due to stiffness from the mooring system.

415

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

semisubmersible in 335 m water depth was carried out as a part of the

VERIDEEP project [30, 31]. The RIFLEX-C software was used. The platform

had four columns and a square ring pontoon, and was moored with twelve

catenary lines, composed of segments of chains and steel ropes, grouped with

three in each corner. See Figures 10.2 and 10.10. Eight risers were also included.

The natural periods in surge, pitch and heave were 124 s, 47 s and 23 s,

respectively, which means that horizontal as well as vertical vessel motions are

strongly influenced by slowdrift-wave excitation.

The purpose of the study was to compare and calibrate a coupled-analysis

numerical model against experiments, as a check on the possibility to use this

software to numerically reconstruct model test data (“model the model”). This

was used in the development of a hybrid verification technique, where model

testing of deepwater systems with truncated moorings and risers is combined

with computer simulations to obtain full-depth verification results. The model

test comparisons are described later in Section 10.5.2, while the numerical

modelling is presented in the following.

The hybrid technique in itself is not addressed further here, but is described

in more detail in [30] and in [14].

Finite-element models of each mooring line and riser are made with a single

line made up of 65 elements. The total number of degrees of freedom in the

model is 3500. The static mooring system calibration from the model tests is

reconstructed by a careful numerical tuning. Drag coefficients used for the lines

are 1.2 for steel rope segments, and 2.4 for chain segments. The single-line

pretension was 2000 kN.

3-hour North Sea storm simulations with waves only were run with zero

degree heading (waves go in the negative X-direction), with two and two

columns parallel with the waves.

Vessel motions were modelled by 3D linear diffraction analysis (WAMIT),

also including LF (slow-drift) excitation by use of Newman’s approximation.

The slow-drift coefficients were eventually empirically adjusted after

calibration against experiments (discussed in a later section).

It was found that the moorings and risers contributed 30−50% to the total LF

surge and heave damping. For LF pitch it was 70% or more (note that these

were waves-only conditions – with current present the ratios might change).

Further results are discussed later in Section 10.5.2 on model-test validation.

Compared to initial quasi-static simulations, significant dynamic

magnification effects were observed in the WF line tensions from the final

analysis.

416

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

2 3

W AVES

1

4

X

12 5

11 6

10

Y

7

8

9

Figure 10.10: Moorings and risers of semisubmersible system [30].

SEMI example 2: The same semisubmersible hull formed part of another study of

systems on 1100 m and 3000 m water depths [32]. Sixteen semi-taut steel-rope

catenary mooring lines were modelled, grouped four and four, with single-line

pretensions at 1811 kN and 5000 kN, respectively. Since this was an

introductory study for ultra-deep water simulation, no risers were modelled for

simplicity. Also in this case, the simulations were combined with model tests for

the investigation of a hybrid verification procedure.

Storm-sea states in the Norwegian Sea were modelled, including waves-only

cases as well as collinear waves, current and wind.

Due to the deep water, the drag forces on the mooring lines introduced over-

critical surge damping on the vessel, even in waves-only (for the 3000 m case).

With current present, the damping was further increased, due to effects on the

semisubmersible hull as well as on the lines, and the static loads on the lines

dominated the total offset force. It was also found that in heavy seas with long

waves, direct loads from the wave-particle kinematics contributed to the line

loads.

forces on tethers and risers, additional coupling effects arise between the

tethers/risers and the hull for a tension-leg platform:

1) The high axial stiffness in the pre-tensioned tethers determines the high

natural frequencies in vessel heave and roll/pitch, leading to

springing/ringing tether loads.

417

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

significantly to the total HF heave/pitch damping.

3) The real effective mass for hull motions is different for LF and WF

motions, since the LF part will include more of the riser/tether mass as a

result of drag resistance in the WF case (see Figure 10.11).

TLP example: A deepwater TLP case study for 1830 m water depth was carried

out in [22] using the RIFLEX-C coupled analysis software. Comparisons were

made to a parallel study with decoupled analysis (SIMO). In the SIMO analysis,

no additional damping was included to simulate the tether/riser-induced

damping, thus these effects could be directly observed from the comparison.

Twelve tendons, grouped three and three, and twelve risers, were modelled by

FEM through a number of bar elements only, i.e. bending and torsional stiffness

was neglected. The single-tether pretension was 11 000 kN.

Linear and second-order wave loads on the hull were modelled by a second-

order 3D diffraction analysis (WAMIT [33]), including full quadratic transfer

function (QTFs) for the HF heave, roll and pitch loads. Slow-drift coefficients

were estimated by Newman’s approximation [34]. 9080 panels were utilised to

describe the hull, while 7392 panels were used for the free surface. Viscous-

wave forces on the hull were added through a Morison formulation, integrating

column forces up to the linear free surface.

Hurricane irregular sea states from the Gulf of Mexico were simulated, with

waves-only as well as with non-collinear waves, wind and current.

In the results, it was found that the effect of distributed tether mass (typically

10% of the total mass) was significant. Thus, in the de-coupled analysis, the

tethers were modelled with lump masses and spring elements, which failed to

reproduce these inertia effects properly, while the coupled analysis models them

directly. This gives, e.g., different behaviour for LF and WF motions, such as

illustrated in Figure 10.11.

418

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

WF LF

Figure 10.11: TLP: Tendon/riser inertia contribution for WF-surge vs. LF-surge

(illustration only – not properly scaled) [22].

It was also found that the LF surge/sway damping in the coupled analysis

was over-critical and totally dominated by tether/riser drag due to the deep

water. This qualitatively confirms findings in [35] and in [4]. Thus LF tensions

are over-estimated by the de-coupled analysis. The damping from the hull

represented 20% of critical damping in waves only, and 40% in waves and

current. For the HF heave/pitch/roll damping, the major contribution came from

Rayleigh damping in the tethers/risers.

SPAR platforms as compared to the FPSO case, since vertical LF-motions are

sensitive to lines/riser effects:

1) Increased damping in LF heave, roll and pitch, due to line and riser drag.

2) A quasi-static LF coupling between motion components surge-pitch-

heave, and sway-roll-heave, due to stiffness from the mooring system.

3) For SPARs with riser buoyancy-cans, additional WF and LF heave

damping comes from friction in the moonpools.

Resonant pitch/roll damping of SPARs is often insensitive to moorings, since the

axes of rotation for the LF angular motions is often close to fairlead (while for

the WF motions the axes are located at a deeper level), ref., e.g., SPAR example

1 below. This particular pitch behaviour is directly modelled by the coupled

analysis. Riser-induced pitch damping, however, can be more important due to

riser interaction with the keel motion.

419

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

SPAR for Gulf of Mexico extreme-storm conditions, by use of the RIFLEX-C

code, were presented in [36]. Three different water depths were considered:

3000, 6000 and 10 000 ft. For the 3000 ft case, semi-taut steel-wire mooring

was applied, while polyester mooring was chosen for 6000 ft and 10 000 ft. A

riser system with 23 top-tensioned risers was also modelled. Waves, current and

wind were modelled in a non-collinear condition. The results were compared to

de-coupled simulations of the same systems.

Three items were particularly considered when discussing coupling effects:

1) Restoring force (static characteristics; current loading; sea-floor

friction)

2) SPAR motion damping (from moorings and risers; hull/riser contact

3) Inertia (additional inertia forces due to the moorings and risers)

of all these effects. A de-coupled analysis may include some of the effects in

approximate ways, while others may be difficult to account for, such as bottom

friction and hull/riser contact. It was observed that the SPAR motion shows a

complex behaviour, including a particular coupling of LF and WF surge, heave

and pitch motions, which may be difficult to approximate. While the WF pitch

rotation centre is close to the keel, the LF rotation centre is at fairlead.

It was also observed that the largest reduction effects from coupled analysis

occur in the keel surge motion and the heave response. This reduction generally

increases with the water depth, although the comparison in this case was difficult

to scale since different mooring systems were applied.

Damping effects similar to those reported above were also observed in [12]

and in [37].

SPAR example 2: Influences from coupling on the surge damping and line

dynamics of a truss SPAR with taut polyester mooring in 2000 m water depth

are illustrated in Figure 10.12 (from previously unpublished MARINTEK

internal research). Coupled analysis with RIFLEX-C is compared to de-coupled

analysis (SIMO). In the latter, all hydrodynamic damping forces acting directly

on the hull is included, while no effect from the mooring line damping was

added, i.e. quasi-static mooring line model, with the purpose to highlight this

effect.

420

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

Figure 10.12: Power spectrum of tension in polyester line of truss SPAR in 2000

m water depth: Coupled (----) vs. quasi-static () analysis. (No

artificial mooring/riser damping added in quasi-static case.)

The coupling effects are anticipated to be less pronounced than for a steel-

rope mooring with catenary effects, due to less relative motions between lines

and water, and less resulting line dynamics. The line dynamics with polyester

mooring appear to be less pronounced in ultra-deep water compared to

conventional depths, since much of the tensions are transferred into axial strains.

But we still observe considerable effects, both in the increased LF surge

damping and in dynamic magnification effects in the WF line force.

Case description: As a part of the VERIDEEP semisubmersible study [31],

which was addressed earlier in Section 10.5.1.2, RIFLEX-C numerical

simulations were compared to and empirically calibrated against model test

records obtained with the same system. Vessel motions, catenary mooring-line

tensions and riser tensions were considered, both LF and WF components. The

measured, pre-calibrated wave record was applied as input to the simulations.

421

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

The model test runs reported here, which formed parts of a larger set of

tests, were carried out in scale 1:55 in 50 m × 80 m Ocean Basin at

MARINTEK, Norway, with twelve realistic, individually modelled catenary

mooring lines and eight risers in 335 m full-scale water depth (i.e. not

truncated). North Sea storm-sea states were simulated, including waves-only as

well as waves and current conditions. Here we focus on waves-only.

Selected results: Some previously unpublished time series plots from the study,

comparing measured and simulated motion and line-tension responses for a sea

state with significant wave height HS=8 m and spectral peak period TP=12 s, are

shown in Figures 10.13 and 10.14. The total signals are shown, including both

LF and WF contributions. A good agreement is observed. For the simulated

results shown here, some calibration was carried out on slow-drift motion

parameters (surge and pitch): Using potential-flow drift coefficients alone,

applying Newman’s approximation [34], gave too low excitation, especially in

the highest sea state (HS=14.7 m, TP=14.5 m) where the initially estimated drift

force was several times too low [38]. The reason is considered to be viscous

forces on the columns in the wave zone, and, for pitch motion also, off-diagonal

terms in the full quadratic transfer function (QTF). Empirical drift coefficients

were obtained through cross-bispectral analysis [39]. It was also observed that

by integrating distributed viscous forces on the columns up to the time-varying

free surface, using a drag coefficient of 1.5, a better comparison was obtained

without calibration of the QTF model.

The initially simulated LF surge damping, including mooring and riser drag

effects, was only slightly adjusted to match the measurements, by use of an

additional linear damping coefficient. For all WF vessel motions, the

comparisons showed very good agreement without any need for calibration, in

both sea states. Thus the 3D diffraction analysis works well in the linear mass-

dominated frequency range. No adjustments were made on the initially chosen

line drag coefficients Cd (1.2 for steel wire, 2.4 for chain).

422

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

above: Surge motion (measured and simulated) and pitch motion

(measured and simulated).

423

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

tension (upper: measured; lower: simulated).

Case description: The TLP analysis in Section 10.5.1.3 was compared to

experimental data from 1:87 scaled model tests carried out in the 30 m×40 m

Ocean Basin at MARIN, the Netherlands [40]. Tests in waves only, as well as in

waves, wind and current conditions were run. As for the VERIDEEP study

above, the purpose of the numerical simulations was to reproduce measured

irregular time series for the vessel motions and tether and riser tensions, using

measured wave records as input.

For further details on the actual work we refer to [22]. A few results are

presented below. A comparison to results from use of a different coupled

analysis tool in the same study is given in [41].

Selected results: The spectral plots in Figs. 10.15 & 10.16 show the coupled

analysis (RIFLEX-C) compared against measurements and a de-coupled

approach (SIMO) for TLP pitch motion and an upstream tether tension, where

the LF, WF as well as the HF (springing) ranges are included. Material damping

in the tethers was not included in the SIMO analysis, in order to highlight and

identify this effect from the comparison. An overall reasonable comparison is

observed between the coupled analysis spectra and those of the measurements, in

the whole frequency range.

424

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

Figure 10.15: Measured and computed TLP pitch spectra (hurricane waves,

current and wind) [22].

Figure 10.16: Measured and computed tether tension spectra (hurricane waves,

current and wind) [22].

425

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

difference in the actual load distribution between the upstream and downstream

tethers, since the downstream tethers showed the opposite discrepancy (this then

also explains why there is no such discrepancy in pitch). For particularly low

frequencies, a discrepancy is observed that is due to experimental current

fluctuations not included in the simulations.

Acknowledgement

Results from a semisubmersible case study were obtained from the VERIDEEP

project, financed by Norsk Hydro and The Norwegian Research Council.

References

[1] Ormberg, H., Fylling, I.J., Larsen, K. & Sodahl, N., Coupled analysis of

vessel motions and mooring and riser system dynamics. Proc., 16th

OMAE Conf., Yokohama, Japan, 1997.

[2] Ormberg, H. & Larsen, K., Coupled analysis of floater motion and

mooring dynamics for a turret moored ship. Applied Ocean Research, 20,

pp. 55−67, 1998.

[3] Kim, M.H., Ran, Z. & Zheng, W., Hull/mooring coupled dynamic

analysis of a truss Spar in time domain. Proc., 9th ISOPE Conf., I, Brest,

France, 1999.

[4] Ma, W., Lee, M.Y., Zou, J. & Huang, E.W., Deepwater nonlinear

coupled analysis tool. Proc., OTC 2000, Paper No. 12085, Houston, TX,

USA, 2000.

[5] Wichers, J.E.W. & Huijsmans, R.H.M., The contribution of

hydrodynamic damping induced by mooring chains on low-frequency

vessel motions. Proc., OTC 1990, Paper No. 6218, Houston, TX, USA,

1990.

[6] Luo, Y. & Baudic, S., Predicting FPSO responses using model tests and

numerical analysis. Proc., 13th ISOPE Conf., I, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA,

2003.

[7] Loken, A., Sodahl, N. & Hagen, O., Efficient integrated analysis methods

for deep-water platforms. Proc., OTC 1999, Paper No. 10809, Houston,

TX, USA, 1999.

[8] Astrup, O.C., Nestegård, A., Ronæss, M. & Sødahl, N., Coupled analysis

strategies for deepwater Spar platform. Proc., 11th ISOPE Conf., III,

Stavanger, Norway, pp. 449−456.

426

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

[9] Hansen, V.L, Wang, L., Ward, E.G. & Sodahl, N., Guidelines on coupled

analyses of deepwater floating systems. Proc., OTC 2004 Conference,

Paper No. 16588, Houston, TX, USA, 2004.

[10] Sødahl, N., Hagen, Ø. & Løken, A. E., Efficient analysis methods for

dynamics of risers and mooring systems. Proc., Mooring and Riser

Systems New Materials and Design Solutions, Aberdeen, UK, November

1996.

[11] Chen, X.H., Zhang, J. & Ma, W., Coupled time-domain analysis of the

response of a Spar and its mooring system. Proc. 9th ISOPE Conf., I,

Brest, France, pp. 293−300, 1999.

[12] Gupta, H., Finn, L. & Weaver, T., Effect of Spar coupled analysis, Proc.

OTC 2000, Paper No. 12082, Houston, TX, USA, 2000.

[13] Davies, K.B. & Mungall, J.C.H., Methods for coupled analysis of TLPs.

Proc. OTC 1991, Paper No. 6567, Houston, TX, USA, 1991.

[14] Stansberg, C.T., Ormberg, H. & Oritsland, O., Challenges in deep water

experiments: Hybrid approach. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic

Engineering (JOMAE), 124, pp. 90−96, 2002.

[15] Zienkiewicz, O.C. & Taylor, R.L., The Finite Element Method. 4th

Edition, Vols. 1 & 2. McGraw-Hill, 1989.

[16] Banerjee, P.K. & Butterfield, R., Boundary Element Method in

Engineering Science, McGraw-Hill, 1981.

[17] Banerjee, P.K., The Boundary Element Methods in Engineering,

McGraw-Hill, 1994.

[18] Newman, J.N., Marine Hydrodynamics, The MIT Press: Cambridge,

Mass., USA, 1977.

[19] Faltinsen, O.M., Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.

[20] MARINTEK, RIFLEX Program Documentation, MARINTEK,

Trondheim, Norway, 2003 (Version 3.2).

[21] MARINTEK, SIMO User Manual, MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway,

2003 (Version 3.2).

[22] Ormberg, H., Baarholm R. & Stansberg, C.T., Time-domain coupled

analysis of deepwater TLP, and verification against model tests. Proc.

13th ISOPE Conf., Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2003.

[23] Sparks, C.P., The influence of tension, pressure and weight on pipe and

riser deformations and stresses. Journal of Energy Resources Technology,

106, pp. 46−54, 1984.

[24] Newmark, N.M., A method of computation for structural dynamics.

Journal of Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE, 85, EM3, 1959.

427

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

[25] Ormberg, H., Sødahl, N. & Steinkjer, O., Efficient analysis of mooring

systems using de-coupled and coupled analysis. Proc. 17th OMAE Conf.,

Lisbon, Portugal, 1998.

[26] Astrup, O.C., DeepC – An efficient tool for the analysis and design of

deep water floating structures. PetroMin Deepwater Technology, Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia, 2003.

[27] Ormberg, H. & Stansberg, C.T., Mooring design and verification of

FPSO in 3000m water depth. Proc., Deep Offshore Technology 2000,

New Orleans, LA, USA, 2000.

[28] MARINTEK, MIMOSA User Documentation, MARINTEK, Trondheim,

Norway, 2003 (Version 5.7).

[29] Fylling, I. J., Kleiven, G., Simultaneous optimisation of mooring and riser

systems for floating production vessels, Proc. 19th OMAE Conf., New

Orleans, LA, USA, 2000.

[30] Ormberg, H., Stansberg, C.T., Yttervik, R. & Kleiven, G., Integrated

vessel motion and mooring analysis applied in hybrid model testing.

Proc. 9th ISOPE Conference, 1, Brest, France, pp. 339−346, 1999.

[31] Stansberg, C.T., Øritsland, O. & Kleiven, G., VERIDEEP: Reliable

methods for verification of mooring and stationkeeping in deep water.

Proc. OTC 2000, Paper No. 12087, Houston, TX, USA, 2000.

[32] Stansberg, C.T., Yttervik, R., Oritsland, O. & Kleiven, G., Hydrodynamic

model test verification of a floating platform system in 3000m water

depth. Proc. 19th OMAE Conf., Paper No. OMAE00-4145, New Orleans,

LA, USA, 2000.

[33] Wamit, Inc., WAMIT User Manual, Version 6.1, WAMIT Inc.: Chestnut

Hill, 2002.

[34] Newman, J.N., Second-order, slowly varying forces on vessels in

irregular waves. Proc. Int. Symp. on Dynamics of Marine Vehicles and

Structures in Waves, London, UK, 1974.

[35] Kim, M.H., Tahar, A. & Kim, Y.B., Variability of TLP motion analysis

against various design methodologies/parameters. Proc. 10th ISOPE

Conf., Seattle, WA, USA, 2000.

[36] Colby, C., Sødahl, N., Katla, E. & Okkenhaug, S., Coupling effects for a

Deepwater Spar. Proc. OTC 2000, Paper No. 12083, Houston, TX, USA,

2000.

[37] Tahar, A., Ran, Z. & Kim, M.H., Hull/mooring/riser coupled Spar motion

analysis with buoyancy-can effects. Proc. 12th ISOPE Conf., Kitakyushu,

Japan, pp. 223−230, 2002.

[38] Stansberg, C.T., Nielsen, F.G. & Yttervik, R., Wave drift forces and

responses in storm waves. Proc. PRADS’98 Conf., eds. M. Oosterveld

and S.G. Tan, Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp. 1005−1012, 1998.

428

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

Numerical Models in Fluid-Structure Interaction

hydrodynamic model testing. Proc. 11th ISOPE Conf., III, Stavanger,

Norway, pp. 1-9, 2001.

[40] Wichers, J. & Devlin, P.V., Benchmark model tests on the DeepStar

Theme Structures FPSO, Spar, and TLP. Proc. OTC 2004, Paper No.

16582, Houston, TX, USA, 2004.

[41] Zou, J., Ormberg, H. & Stansberg, C.T., Prediction of TLP responses:

Model tests vs. analysis. Proc. OTC 2004, Paper No. 16584, Houston,

TX, USA, 2004.

429

WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, Vol 18, © 2005 WIT Press

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1755-8336 (on-line)

- Mech-HT 13.0 L07 TransientUploaded byPercy Romero Murillo
- 03PO_GB_1_1.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Additively manufactured PLA under Static LoadingUploaded byEdward
- ebow.docxUploaded byFrimpong Justice Alex
- Forces in EquilibriumUploaded byPauling Chia
- Vessels 2011 WebUploaded bycmhyachts
- Production of OilUploaded byRajesh Kumar
- 2 09 ContactUploaded byAbhishek Yamini
- For Web FLEX LNG and InterOil Presentation at Seoul FLNG Conference 25 October 2011Uploaded bystavros7
- Commissioning of Offshore Oil & Gas ProjectsUploaded bymarktanner
- Chapter 13xUploaded byalfasel
- Skop Fizik Peperiksaan Pertengahan Tahun 2012Uploaded byIzyan Ismail
- Vim MethodUploaded byLaksh Manan
- Brandon Edison Lesson PlanUploaded bymcaudill8288
- DeepLines Training (1) - OverviewUploaded byTran Thanh Tung
- International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365Uploaded byjshanaka
- STUDENT STUDY GUIDE - BB101.pdfUploaded byKhairul Izham
- teachers - assessment evidence rig learningUploaded byapi-225674927
- Physics class 11 cbse physicsUploaded byDevanshu Kathrecha
- forces video reflection lesson planUploaded byapi-349554849
- OMAE2009-79778 - ADVANCED DYNAMIC STABILITY ANALYSISUploaded byschpiplik
- Force DiagramsUploaded bykasreedhar
- forces and motion lesson plan to teachUploaded byapi-252918385
- Solution of green naghde equations phd thesisUploaded byAdnan M
- As-Al Sow 9709 04 Mechanics1 m1Uploaded byBalkis
- GNL-05Uploaded byMauricio Bustamante Huaquipa
- 3-ASD Starter Cable Selection With Factor @0.8Uploaded byAdnan Ahmad
- Halliday Fundamentals of Physics 10e One PagerUploaded byChandan Sahoo
- ConferencesUploaded byKanaga Kirupanangtan
- TORRE 15 - 20Uploaded byjose

- kelompok 3Uploaded byrendezvous26
- TAvanBruggen_4036573_Thesis.pdfUploaded bySachin Sithik
- AksalUploaded byrendezvous26
- Abdul & DewiUploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 4Uploaded byrendezvous26
- AangUploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 1Uploaded byrendezvous26
- powerpoint templateUploaded byhesziananda
- 5 Pedoman Penyusunan Dan Evaluasi BKD PPNS 2017 UploadUploaded bysiti mudawanah
- 5 Pedoman Penyusunan Dan Evaluasi BKD PPNS 2017 UploadUploaded bysiti mudawanah
- Kelompok 2 TKL Remaja Fisika Terapan (Agung,Aldan,Ali,Kiki,Vilda)Uploaded byrendezvous26
- Marios KoenUploaded byrendezvous26
- bla.txtUploaded byrendezvous26
- (REVISI) Rundown Tasyakuran & Silaturahmi Politeknik KP PangandaranUploaded byrendezvous26
- ,maulana baut.docxUploaded byrendezvous26
- Gao (2009) Mooring system analysis of multiple wave energy converters in a farm configuration.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Ganesan (2014) Direct time domain analysis of floating structures with linear and nonlinear mooring stiffness in a 3D numerical wave tank.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Wu (2016) Design, Implementation and Analysis of Full Coupled Monitoring System of FPSO With Soft Yoke Mooring SystemUploaded byrendezvous26
- (OK) 2002 OWA - FPSO Mooring and Offloading System Alternatives for Deepwater West AfricaUploaded byAlejandro Gil
- Yang (2016) Mooring Line Damping Due to Low-frequency Superimposed With Wave-frequency Random Line Top End MotionUploaded byrendezvous26
- Rho (2013) Static and Dynamic Mooring Analysis - Stability of FPSO Risers for Extreme Environmental ConditionsUploaded byrendezvous26
- Cozijn (2004) Coupled Mooring Analysis for a Deep Water Calm BuoyUploaded byrendezvous26
- Oever (2014) A Practical Approach to Shallow Water Mooring with Varying Seabed.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Tajali (2011) Hydrodynamic Analysis of Multi-body Floating Piers Under Wave ActionUploaded byrendezvous26
- Xiang (2010) Maneuvering of Two Interacting Ships in Calm Water.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Lin (2014) Influence of water depth variation on the hydrodynamics of deep-water mooring characteristics.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Lin (2014) Influence of water depth variation on the hydrodynamics of deep-water mooring characteristics.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Buchner (2007) Extreme Wave Effects on Deepwater Floating StructuresUploaded byrendezvous26
- Buku Wirausaha Acc 2 Pressss Revisi Ke 2Uploaded byrendezvous26
- Watai (2014) Rankine time-domain method with application to side-by-side gap flow modeling.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26

- NRA American Warrior #1Uploaded byYaroslav Sergeev
- Qtm ProjectUploaded byDipannita Ghosh
- EVUL1Premium.2015Uploaded byLenard Davenport
- Comparative Study of Spurious Power Suppression Technique Based Carry Look Ahead Adder And Carry Select AdderUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- 0625 w06 ms 2Uploaded byHubbak Khan
- Inventory control mistakes (Version 1)Uploaded bywatchingu
- Takema (Aire Caliente) ZD939LUploaded byJose Berrospi
- Beautiful Forest Trip at Jaldapara National SanctuaryUploaded byDooars Ecoviillege
- Honeywell 6460 Data SheetUploaded byAlarm Grid Home Security and Alarm Monitoring
- caTissueSuitev112DeploymentManualUploaded byVijayalakshmi Chanumolu
- Chapter1 F3Uploaded byHalizah Ramthan
- CharacterSheet 3Pgs -CompleteUploaded bymastroirmo
- SUMMER PROJECT[10)Uploaded byPoonam Dhakol
- aggregate impact value.pdfUploaded byvino
- Xantia 2 Body ComputerUploaded bymarcosftavares
- case presentationUploaded byapi-352673659
- consumption and consumerismUploaded byapi-238577312
- The Effect of Coconut Shell Charcoal on Sesame (Sesamum Indicum L.) Yield Grown on Coastal Sandy Land Area in Bantul, IndonesiaUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Auditing Issue.pptUploaded bysoin123
- Dell_Precision_5520_Spec_Sheet.pdfUploaded byjeffjozo
- Letter RogatoryUploaded byAndre Duke Coulter
- Cda and IdeologyUploaded byhela_makhlouf
- RE Fairmont Brine Processing (104)Uploaded byAppCitizensLaw
- 23bba 24bba Typical SchematicsUploaded byFrancisco Martinez
- QBXLH-6565A-VTMUploaded bySebastian
- Homogeneous ReactionUploaded byAmina Tahreen
- OO0526Uploaded byAnonymous 9eadjPSJNg
- Microsoft Word - EEPB383 Final Sem 2 1112 With Solution (1)Uploaded byMuhammad Hafiz
- The Hindu Diary of Events 2014-2015Uploaded bysatishfactory
- Ultraviolet SpectroscopyUploaded byBea Uy