SEAKEEPING AND MANUEVERING

LNB 31203

ASSIGNMENT 1
INDIVIDUAL REPORT

NAME : MUHAMMAD ASYRAF BIN MAHAT

ID : 56211115023
LECTURER NAME : DR YASEEN ADNAN AHMED
 TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE
1.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

QUESTION 1 1
QUESTION 2 1
QUESTION 3 16
QUESTION 4 18
QUESTION 5 19
QUESTION 6 20
QUESTION 7 21
QUESTION 8 22
QUESTION 9 23
QUESTION 10 24
QUESTION 11 24
QUESTION 12 24

2.0 CONCLUSION 28

3.0 REFERENCE 31
1.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1. The result were obtained after running a FPSO and SPAR in
wave tank at UTP wave tank.
2. The graph of heave (Za), pitch (θa) and wave height (Hw) in
time domain has been plotted for every test.

a) This graph was obtain for FPSO test

Test 1:

Heave & Pitch vs Time

4 3
2
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-2
1
-4
Heave
-6 0
Pitch
-8
-1
-10
-12
-2
-14
-16 -3

Test 2:

Heave and Pitch v sTime

4 3
2
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-2
1
-4
Heave
-6 0
Pitch
-8
-1
-10
-12
-2
-14
-16 -3
Test 3:
20 3
Heave & Pitch vs Time
10
2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1
-10
0
-20

-1
-30

-2
-40

-50 -3

Test 4:
20 3
Heave & Pitch vs Time
10
2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1
-10
0
-20

-1
-30

-2
-40

-50 -3
Test 5 :

TEST 5
60 3

40 2

20
1
0 Heave
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0
-20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Pitch

-1
-40

-60 -2

-80 -3

Test 6:

TEST 6
40 3

20 2

0 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Heave
-20 0
Pitch

-40 -1

-60 -2

-80 -3
Test 7:
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0.5 80

0.4 60
40
0.3
20
0.2
0
0.1 -20

0 -40
-60
-0.1
-80
-0.2
-100
-0.3 -120
-0.4 -140

Test 8:
80 0.6
60 0.5
40
0.4
20
0.3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0.2
-20
-40 0.1
-60
0
-80
-0.1
-100
-120 -0.2

-140 -0.3
Test 9:

Test 9
150 0.8

100 0.6

0.4
50
0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0
-50
-0.2

-100 -0.4

-150 -0.6

Test 10:

TEST 10
150 3

100 2

50
1
0 Heave
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0
-50 Pitch

-1
-100

-150 -2

-200 -3
 b) Ship with Submersible/ Spar floating nearby

Test 6:

Test 6
60 3

40 2

20
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0
-20
-1
-40

-60 -2

-80 -3

Test 7:

TEST 7
80 3
60
40 2
20
1
0
-20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Heave
0
-40 Pitch
-60
-1
-80
-100 -2
-120
-140 -3
Test 8:
80 0.6
60 0.5
40
0.4
20
0.3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0.2
-20
-40 0.1
-60
0
-80
-0.1
-100
-120 -0.2

-140 -0.3

Test 9:

Test 9
150 0.8

100 0.6

0.4
50
0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0
-50
-0.2

-100 -0.4

-150 -0.6
Test 10:

TEST 10
150 3

100
2
50
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Heave
-50 0
Pitch
-100
-1
-150
-2
-200

-250 -3

3. Heave and pitch value need to be considered is the average

value.

• Average Value for Heave and Pitch for FPSO (Ship without
semisubmersible/ spar platform floating nearby)
 • Average value for Heave and Pitch for (SPAR+FPSO)

4. The value for wave height, HW, and wave period, TW, will
follow the same step as in step number Therefore, fill in the
table 3 given below.

HW (m) TW (s)

0.031 0.566

0.038 0.620

0.044 0.670

0.050 0.716

0.063 0.800

0.069 0.839

0.075 0.877

0.081 0.913

0.088 0.947

0.094 0.980
5. Repeat step 1 – 4 for each test (Lw/Lm) and fill in the table 4
given below.

a. For FPSO

b. FPSO + SPAR
6. Plot the graph of Heave RAO against Encountering
frequency
• FPSO
0.9 ROA vs Encountering Frequency
0.8

0.7
Heave ROA
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

• SPAR + FPSO

Heave ROA vs Encountering Frequency

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
-50
 7. Plot the graph of Heave RAO against Lw/Lm
• FPSO

ROA vs LW/LM
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
Heave ROA
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

• SPAR + FPSO

Heave ROA vs Lw/Lm

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-50
8. Plot the graph of Pitch RAO against encountering
frequency

• FPSO
Pitch ROA vs Encountering Frequency
10
9
8
7
6
5
Pitch ROA
4
3
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

• SPAR + FPSO
Pitch ROA vs Encountering Frequency
450
400
350
300
250
Pitch ROA vs
200
Encountering Frequency
150
100
50
0
6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
-50
 9. Plot the graph of Pitch RAO against Lw/Lm
• FPSO

Pitch ROA vs Lw/Lm

10

5
Pitch ROA
4

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

• SPAR + FPSO

Pitch ROA vs Lw/Lm

450
400
350
300
250
200 Pitch ROA vs Lw/Lm
150
100
50
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-50
10. Discuss the result
11. Calculate the heave and pitch response of the submersible
at 0 knot, in a 40 knots Pierson-Moskiwitz wave
spectrum, where the wave spectrum given as:

12. Plot the wave spectrum and motion response for heaving
and pitching
• FPSO
• SPAR + FPSO
Motion Response for SPAR + FPSO

Motion Response For Heave

0.0018

0.0016

0.0014

0.0012

0.001

0.0008

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

Motion Response for Pitch

250

200

150

100

50

0
6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
-50
 Wave Spectrum for Heave & Pitch
0.00008

0.00007

0.00006

0.00005

0.00004

0.00003

0.00002

0.00001

0
6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6

Motion response for FPSO

Motion Response for Pitch

0.04

0.035

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.005
 Motion Response for Heave
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.0001

Wave Spectrum for Heave & Pitch

0.00008

0.00007

0.00006

0.00005

0.00004

0.00003

0.00002

0.00001

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2.0 Conclusion

1) What can you conclude from this experiment?

The tanks provided by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP) really provide the opportunity to perform
this test to experience how to measure the wavelength or wave height manually. In conclusion, many
experiments provide an overview of wave effects on dive models, given the fluctuations, rolling and
pitching motion predictions. One of the recorded signals is the value of undulation, field and roll caused
by wave height and length changes in each run. By calculating, ship movement data in an irregular
course is obtained, and then displayed in curve form. However, this experiment was well understood in
the study of wave resistance and mobility in this chapter.

2) What is the physical relationship between wave length and wave frequency to the heave and pitch
response of the semisubmersible?

Wave frequency and wave frequency are closely related. The relationship between wavelength and
frequency is higher frequency, shorter wavelength, lower frequency, and longer wavelength. If high
waves hit them, half submersibles will experience some effects

3. Discuss any error you observed during the experiments or the experiment data itself. From the
observation of this experiment, the chance of mistakes is high due to the usage of excel software that
need high focus all the time. Human error may occur in order to insert the formula since there are so
many number of frame and 15 test to conduct. 29

4. Is this submersible / spar platform is seaworthy to sea-state 7. Please give your comment

According to the World Meteorological Organization, sea level 7 is defined as a wave height of 6 to 9
meters. WMO states that high wave conditions 7. Partial submerged type is the most stable drilling rig in
all floating platforms and can withstand rough and deep water for many times due to harsh conditions.
In the sea state 7, there is no problem with survival of the spar platform. Semi-submersible submarine
gets most of its buoyancy from its surface below the surface of the ocean, waterproof floats and waves.
Structure columns connect pontoons and consoles. Due to the good design stability, the operating
platform may lie above sea level and thus be kept away from the waves. Since the structure of the ship's
body has been submerged, submarine ships are less affected by wave loading. Partially immersed rigs
are designed to reduce rolls and pitches.
3.0 References

1. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=YNyptgAACAAJ&dq=seakeeping+and+maneuve
ring&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitgbfmsoDeAhXFMY8KHTMfDFwQ6AEIKTAA
2. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=MeXUCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR6&dq=seakeeping+and
+maneuvering&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitgbfmsoDeAhXFMY8KHTMfDFwQ6AEILTAB
3. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=GXCouAAACAAJ&dq=seakeeping+and+maneuv
ering&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitgbfmsoDeAhXFMY8KHTMfDFwQ6AEIOTAD