See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/302955915

International Conference Technology and Engineering (MARTECH)

Conference Paper · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 54

5 authors, including:

Jaswar Koto C. L. Siow

Ocean and Aerospace Research Institute, Indonesia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
100 PUBLICATIONS   160 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nik Mohd Khairuddin Hassan Abyn

Universiti Teknologi MARA Persian Gulf University
11 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HANDLING WAVES View project

MSC research Project at Southampton university sponsored by Houlder Offshore View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nik Mohd Khairuddin on 12 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparison of floating structures motion prediction between diffraction,
diffraction-viscous and diffraction-Morison methods
Koto Jaswar
Ocean and Aerospace Research Institute, Indonesia.
Department of Aeronautical, Automotive and Ocean Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
C.L. Siow & N.M. Khairuddin
Department of Aeronautical, Automotive and Ocean Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
Hassan Abyn
Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture Department, Engineering Faculty, Persian Gulf University, Iran.
C. Guedes Soares
Centre for Marine Technology and Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de
Lisboa, Portugal.

ABSTRACT: This research is targeted to improve the accuracy of diffraction potential theory to predict semi-
submersible heave motion response by considering the drag effect in the prediction. From both the numerical
and experimental studies, it can be observed that the diffraction potential theory is not predicting well the
semi-submersible heave motion response when the motion is dominated by damping. In this research, the vis-
cous damping correction method and Morison equation drag correction method are applied to improve the mo-
tion response predicted by diffraction potential theory. This paper will briefly present the procedure to inte-
grate the viscous damping correction method or Morison equation drag term correction method with the
diffraction potential theory. The proposed numerical methods are applied in this research to simulate the semi-
submersible heave motion response. After that, all simulation results are compared to the experimental result
from tests at the same wave condition to validate the proposed numerical methods. From the comparison, it is
concluded that Morison equation drag correction method is able to estimate the semi-submersible heave re-
sponse in the damping dominated region and provides more reasonable motion tendency compare to other
methods.

1 INTRODUCTION motion of a semi-submersible by diffraction poten-

This work is targeted to propose correction methods
which can be applied to the diffraction potential the-
ory in order to evaluate the motion response of se-
lected offshore floating structure. The diffraction po-
tential theory estimates wave exciting forces on the
floating body based on the frequency domain and
this method can be considered as an efficient one to
study the motion of large size floating structure with
acceptable accuracy. The good accuracy of this dif-
fraction theory applied to large structures is due to
the significant diffraction effect that exists in the
large size structure in wave (Kvittem et al. 2012).
However, offshore structures such as semi-
submersible, TLP and spar are having also several
slender bodies as for example, braces in the semi-
submersible. Therefore, some modification may be
required to improve the diffraction potential theory
to analysis this type of offshore structure.
In this study, a semi-submersible structure is se-
lected as an offshore structure model. This structure
is one of the favourite structures used in deep water
oil and gas exploration activities. To simulate the
tial theory, a programming code was developed and
written in visual basic programming language. By
comparing the numerical results predicted by using
diffraction potential theory to experimental results, it
is concluded that the motion prediction by diffrac-
tion potential theory has an acceptable accuracy in
most cases, except for heave motion when the wave
frequency is near to the structure natural frequency
(Siow et al. 2013b & 2014a).
As presented by Siow et al. (2014a, 2014b), the
diffraction potential theory is less accurate to predict
the structure heave motion response when the wave
frequency is close to the structure’s natural frequen-
cy. In this situation, the heave response calculated
by the diffraction potential theory is significantly
higher compared to experimental result due to the
low damping represented by the theory. Then, the
heave response tendency will follow a large drop
and show an underestimating result compared to ex-
perimental results before it returns to the normal
tendency (Siow et al. 2013b).
In order to improve the heave motion prediction
by the diffraction potential theory, this research tried
to increase the damping coefficient by adding vis-
cous damping into the motion equation. In this
study, the viscous damping is treated as an extra ma-
trix and can be added into the motion equation sepa-
rately. This extra viscous damping is estimated
based on the equation proposed by Nallayarasu &
Prasad (2012). As second method, this research tried
to integrate the linearized Morison drag equation
with diffraction potential theory. This linear Morison
drag equation will modify both the damping term
and exciting force in the motion equation compared
to the viscous damping correction method which on-
ly modified the damping term in motion equation.
The accuracy of these modification solutions are
also checked with the previous semi-submersible
experiment result which was carried out at the tow-
ing tank of the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Abyn
2012a & Siow 2013a). The experiment is conducted
in head sea condition and slack mooring condition
for wavelength from 1 meter to 9 meters. In the
comparison, it is shown that the diffraction potential
theory is able to predict the semi-submersible heave
motion response with reasonable accuracy. Both cor-
rection methods applied in this study also improved
the accuracy of motion response predicted by dif-
fraction potential theory at damping dominated re-
gion.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Hess & Smith (1964), Van Oortmerssen (1979) &
Loken (1981) studied on non-lifting potential flow
calculation about arbitrary 3D objects. They utilized
a source density distribution on the surface of the
structure and solved for the distribution necessary to
make the normal component of fluid velocity zero
on the boundary. Plane quadrilateral source elements
are used to approximate the structure surface, and
the integral equation for the source density is re-
placed by a set of linear algebraic equations for the
values of the source density on the quadrilateral el-
ements. By solving this set of equations, the flow ve-
locity both on and off the surface was calculated.
Besides, Wu et al. (1997) also studied on the motion
of a moored semi-submersible in regular waves and
determined the wave induced internal forces numer-
ically and experimentally. In their mathematical
formulation, the moored semi-submersible was
modelled as an external constrained floating body in
waves, and derived the linearized equation of mo-
tion.
Comparison between the capability of potential
theory and viscous fluid theory to predict the fluid
characteristic in the narrow gaps between the float-
ing bodies was studied by Lu et al. (2011). Their
simulation result showed that the potential theory
over predicted the fluid resonance amplitude but it
can correct by modifying the theory with included
artificial damping term, µ=0. 4~0.5.
Yilmaz & Incecik (1996) analysed the excessive
motion of a moored semi-submersible. They devel-
oped and employed two different time domain tech-
niques to study mooring stiffness, viscous drag forc-
es and damping. In the first technique, first-order
wave forces acting on the floating structure which
considered as a solitary excitation force and evaluat-
ed according Morison equation. In the second tech-
nique, they used mean drift forces to calculate slow-
ly varying wave forces and simulate for slow
varying and steady motions. Söylemez (1995) de-
veloped a technique to predict damaged semi-
submersible motion under wind, current and wave.
He used Newton’s second law for an approaching
equation of motion and developed a numerical tech-
nique for nonlinear equations for the intact and dam-
aged condition in time domain.
Clauss et al. (2002) analysed the sea-keeping be-
haviour of a semi-submersible in rough waves nu-
merically and experimentally. They applied panel
method TiMIT (Time-domain investigations, devel-
oped at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
to study wave-structure interactions in time domain.
The theory behind TiMIT is strictly linear and thus
applicable to moderate sea condition only.
An important requirement for a unit with drilling
capabilities is the low level of motions in the vertical
plane associated with heave, roll and pitch. Matos et
al. (2011) have investigated the second-order reso-
nant of a deep-draft semi-submersible heave, roll
and pitch motions numerically and experimentally.
One of the manners to improve the hydrodynamic
behaviour of a semi-submersible is to increase the
draft. The low frequency forces computations were
performed in the frequency domain by WAMIT a
commercial Boundary Element Method (BEM)
code. They generated few different meshes on the
structure and calculated pitch forces.
Due to the complexity of actual structures’ hull
form, Nallayarasu & Prasad (2012) studied the hy-
drodynamic response of an offshore spar structure
which linked to semi-submersible under regular
waves by using experimental and numerical soft-
ware (ANSYS AQWA). From both the experimental
and numerical result, it is obtained that the response
of the spar is reduced after linked to semi-
submersible due to the interaction of radiation wave
generated by both the structures. The research also
obtained that the motion response for unmoored
semi-submersible is increased when linked to spar.
Wackers et al. (2011) reviewed the surface dis-
cretisation methods for CFD application with differ-
ent codes. Besides, simulation of fluid flow Charac-
teristic around Rounded-Shape FPSO had also
conducted by Efi et al. (2013) using RANs Method.
Jaswar et al. (2011) also developed integrated CFD
simulation software to analyse the hull performance
of a VLCC tanker. The integrated CFD simulation
tool is developed based on potential theory and able
to simulate the wave profile, wave resistance and
pressure distribution around ship’s hull.
In addition, experimental tests were carried out to
obtain the motion response of semi-submersible. A
model test related to interaction between semi-
submersible and TLP was conducted by Abyn et al.
(2012a). In continuing Abyn et al. (2012b) also tried
to simulate the motion of a semi-submersible by us-
ing HydroSTAR and then analyse the effect of
meshing number to the accuracy of execution result
and execution time. Siow et al. (2013a) also made a
comparison on the motion of semi-submersible
when it was alone to interaction condition by exper-
imental approach. Besides that, Tiau (2012) was also
simulated the motion of the mobile floating harbour
where the selected hull form is similar to semi-
submersible by using Morison Equation. In addition,
Siow et.al (2014a) also exanimated the heave damp-
ing coefficient of semi-submersible calculated by the
diffraction potential theory at the damping dominate
region and then they proposed a viscous damping
correction method to increase the heave damping in
order to improve the numerical result. By adding the
extra viscous damping into the motion equation, it
can be concluded that the significant over-prediction
, , = , , + , , +
∑ , ,
! (2)
where,
g : Acceleration of gravity
"# : Incident wave amplitude
: Motions amplitude
: Incident wave potential
: Scattering wave potential
: Radiation wave potential due to motions
$ : Direction of motion
From the above equation, it is shown that the total
wave potential in the system is contributed by the
potential of the incident wave, the scattering wave
and the radiation wave. In addition, the phase and
amplitude for both the incident wave and scattering
wave is assumed to be the same. However, the radia-
tion wave potentials are affected by each type of mo-
tion of each single floating body inside system,
where the total potential for radiation wave for the
single body is the summation of the radiation wave
generated by each type of body motions such as roll,
pitch, yaw, surge, sway and heave.
Also, the wave potential ∅ must be satisfied to-
gether with the boundary conditions as below:

∇' ∅ = 0 )*+ 0 ≤ ≤ℎ
of heave motion when the wave frequency is near to
the floating structure natural frequency is corrected (3)
and the result is more similar to the experimental 3
.∅
one. However, the under-prediction of the heave re- + 0∅ 12 =0 0= (4)
./
sponse by diffraction potential theory in a certain
.∅
=0 12 =ℎ
wave frequency region still remains unsolved by
adding the viscous damping to the motion equation ./
(5)
as discussed in the previous study. To avoid the sud-
!
den drop of the exciting force acting on the semi- ∅~ 7 89 6
:ℎ*;<= > 0 ) + ∞ (6)
submersible structure, Siow et al. (2014b) also pro- √6

.@A .∅9
=− *D 2ℎ >*= >*;D=1+
posed an integrating model where the linearized Mo-
(7)
rison drag term is employed in their diffraction po- .B .B
tential numerical solution to improve the accuracy of
heave motion prediction in the damping dominate
region. 3.2 Green Theorem
By considering the wave potential only affected by
structure surface, SH, the wave potential at any point
3 MATHEMATICAL MODELS can be presented by the following equation:

H∅ I
3.1 Diffraction Potential
∅ E =F G K E; I
HDJ
In this study, the diffraction potential method is used
to obtain the wave force acting on the semi- MN
HK E; I
−∅ I O =P I 8
submersible structure and the added mass and damp-
ing for all six directions of motions. The regular HDJ
wave acting on floating bodies can be described by a where P =(x, y, z) represents the fluid flow pointed
velocity potential. The velocity potential is normally at any coordinate and I = R, S, " represents any
written with respect to the flow direction and time coordinate, (x, y, z) on the structure surface, SH. The
as: Green function can be applied here to estimate the
strength of the wave flow potential. The Green func-
Φ , , = , , (1) tion in eq. (8) can be summarized as follows:
 ! !
K E; I = − +] − s = ln v 9 x
TUV W7X 3 Y Z7[ 3 Y /7\ 3
R, − S, + ^
where ] − R, − S, + ^ in eq. (9) represent the
effect of free surface and can be solved by second
kind of Bessel function.
3.3 Wave Force, Added Mass and Damping
The wave force acting on the structure to cause its
motions can be obtained by the integral of the dif-
fraction wave potential along the structure surface.
` = − ∬M b , , D =P
(10)
N
where, b is diffraction potential, b = c + .
Also, the added mass, Aij and damping, Bij for
each motion can be obtained by the integral of the
radiation wave due to each motion along the struc-
ture surface.
d = −e F , , D =P
MN
g = −e F hi , , D =P
MN
D in eq. (10) to eq. (12) is the normal vector for
each direction of motion, i = 1~ 6 represent the di-
rection of motion and j = 1~6 represent the six type
of motions.
3.4 Viscous Damping Correction Method
The modified viscous damping from the equation
provided by Nallayarasu & Prasad (2012) is shown
in the following expression:
>k = l m n + doo Bp q
where > is the heave viscous damping of the floating
structure, l is the damping ratio of heave, n is the
mass of the floating structure, doo is the heave add-
ed mass of floating structure, calculated from the
diffraction potential theory, B is the heave natural
frequency and C is the constant in the viscous damp-
ing equation.
The damping ratio, l and heave natural frequen-
cy, r in eq. 13 can be found from the heave decay
experiment. Based on the result obtained from heave
decay experiment, the logarithmic decrement meth-
od which defines the natural log of the amplitude of
any two peaks can be used to find the damping ratio
of an under-damped system. The equation for the
logarithmic decrement, s as follows
W
14
B Ww
9
where is the first peak amplitude and B is the n-
th peak amplitude. After finding the logarithmic dec-
rement, s, the damping ratio l can be found from:
s
l= 15
√s ' − 4z '
Besides, the heave decay experiment can also be
used to obtain the heave damped natural frequency,
| and the heave natural frequency, B by follow-
ing equations:
2z
| = 16
}
|
B = 17
V1 − "
where the variable } is the period of heave oscilla-
tion motion or the time required for two continuous
successive amplitude peaks.
11 By inserting the data obtained from the heave de-
cay experiment into eq. 13 the heave viscous damp-
ing will able to be calculated and inserted into the
motion equation as follow:
12
n + doo € / + goo + >k •/ + ‚ = ƒ 18
where M is the structure mass, doo is the heave add-
ed mass, goo is the linear damping from diffraction
potential theory, >k is the viscous damping defined
by eq. 13, c is the heave restoring force, and F is the
wave force contributing to heave motion.
3.5 Drag Term of Morison Equation
The drag term due to the wave effect on the floating
structure can be calculated using the drag force
equation as given by Morison equation:
(13)
ƒb = ' ed„6c qb … • † − • / …‡ • † − • / ˆ
!
19
where e is fluid density, d„6c is projected area in Z
direction, qb is drag coefficient in wave particular
motion direction, • † is velocity of particle motion at
Z-direction in complex form and • / is structure ve-
locity at Z-direction
In order to simplify the study, the calculation in
this research is carried out based on the absolute ve-
locity approach. The structure velocity is ignored in
the calculation because it is assumed that the fluid
velocity is much higher compared to the structure
velocity. Expansion of the eq. 19 is shown as fol-
lows:
ƒb = ed„6c qb … • † …‡ • † ˆ − ed„6c qb … • † … • / −
! ! 4 MODEL PARTICULARS
' '
!
•
ed„6c qb … / … † + ed„6c qb … • / … • /
• !
20
' ' As mentioned, the semi-submersible model was se-

By ignoring all the term consisting of … • / …, eq. 20

can be reduced into the following format.
1
ƒb = ed„6c qb … • † …‡ • † ˆ
2
1
− ed„6c qb … • † … • / 21
2 struments. The model was constructed from wood
The above eq. 21 is still highly nonlinear and this
is impossible to combine with the linear analysis ap-
proach as the diffraction potential theory applies. To
be able to add the drag force to the diffraction force
calculated with the diffraction potential theory, the
nonlinear drag term is then expanded in Fourier se-
ries. By using the Fourier series linearization meth-
od, eq. 21 can be written in linear form as follows:
lected as the test model in this study. This Semi-
submersible model was constructed based on GVA
4000. The model has four circular columns connect-
ed to two pontoons and two braces. Two pieces of
plywood are fastened to the top of the Semi-
submersible to act as two decks to mount the test in-
following the scale of 1:70 (Table 1).
Upon the model complete constructed, few tests
were carried out to obtain the model particulars. In-
clining test, swing frame test, oscillating test, decay
test and bifilar test were carried out to identify the
hydrostatic particular of the semi-submersible. The
dimension and measured data of the model was
summarized as in Table 1.

1 8
ƒb = ed„6c qb Š ‡ • ˆ
Table 1. Principal particular of the Structures
2 3z ‹#W † Length 0.954 m
1 8
− ed„6c qb Š • 22 Width 0.835 m
2 3z ‹#W / Draft 0.239 m
Displacement 0.043501 m3
where, Š‹#W in eq. 22 is the magnitude of complex Water Plan Area 0.108082 m2
fluid particle velocity in Z direction. From the eq. Number of Columns 4
22, it can be summarized that the first term is linear- Pontoon length 0.954 m
ized drag force due to wave and the second term is Pontoon depth 0.09 m
the viscous damping force due to the drag effect. Pontoon width 0.19 m
According to Sjöbris (2012), the linearized term
8⁄3z Š‹#W in eq. 22 is the standard result which can
Pontoons centerline 0.645 m
be obtained if the work of floating structure perfor- separation
mance at resonance is assumed to be equal in the Columns longitudinal 0.651143 m
nonlinear and linearized damping term. spacing (centre)
The linearized drag equation as shown in equa- Column diameter 0.151286 m
tion (22) can now be combined with the diffraction GMT 0.041 m
term which calculated by diffraction potential theo- GML 0.058 m
ry. The modified motion equation is shown as fol- KXX 0.452 m
lows:
KYY 0.385 m
1 8
€ / + •>Ž + ed„6c qb Š • • +0
KZZ 0.5 m
i + i#
2 3z ‹#W /
1 8
= ƒŽ + ed„6c qb Š ‡ • ˆ 23
2 3z ‹#W †
5 NUMERICAL SOLUTION SETUP

In this study, the numerical method was applied to

where i is mass, 0 is restoring force, i# , >Ž , ƒŽ are
heave added mass, heave diffraction damping coef-
ficient and heave diffraction force calculated from
diffraction potential method respectively.
⁄ ⁄
1 2 ed„6c qb 8 3z Š‹#W is the viscous damping
and 1⁄2 ed„6c qb 8⁄3z Š‹#W ‡ • † ˆ is the drag force
based on drag term of Morison equation.
execute the motion response of semi-submersible by
estimate the wave force acting on the surface of the
port side structure of semi-submersible. After that,
the total wave force acting on the semi-submersible
is double before it fixed into the motion equation.
The total number of panels used in the execution
are 272 where 25 panels on each column surface and
222 panels on pontoon surface. The sample of mesh
constructed by this numerical method for this semi-
submersible model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Meshing for semi-submersible model
6 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Heave Decay Experiment
The heave decay experiment was conducted to col-
lect the required data, such as damping ratio and
natural heave frequency to allow the programming
to execute the heave viscous damping. This decay
experiment was carried out by displacing the model
in the heave directions or along the heave axes, re-
leasing and recording the displacement time histo-
ries. The tests are repeated when necessary to obtain
reliable results. The data was collected from the de-
cay experiment after what it was processed to obtain
the required information to execute the heave vis-
cous damping following the discussion in section
3.4. From the calculation, it is concluded that the
heave damping ratio, l is 1.628 %, while the heave
natural frequency is 3.23 rad/Sec in model scale.
The time domain heave decay data collected from
the experiment is shown in Figure 2.
0.02
0.015
0.01
Heane amplitude, m
0.005
0
0 20 40 60
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
Time (sec)
Figure 2. Heave amplitude of semi-submersible in the time
domain collected from heave decay experiment.
6.2 Heave Motion Response, RAO
The heave RAO calculated by the diffraction poten-
tial theory, the corrected diffraction potential theory
by viscous damping correction and the corrected dif-
fraction potential theory by the Morison drag term
are presented in Figure 3. The experimental data col-
lected is only ranged from wavelength around 1 me-
ter to wavelength around 9 meters due to the limita-
tion of the wave generating device in the laboratory.
From Figure 3, it can be seen that the diffraction po-
tential theory with linearized Morison drag correc-
tion is more accurate compared to the diffraction po-
tential theory without any correction and the
corrected diffraction potential theory by viscous
damping correction.
The tendency of the heave response calculated by
the diffraction potential theory with and without vis-
cous damping correction is similar between each
other. Figure 3 also shows that the diffraction poten-
tial theory with viscous damping correction has re-
duced the infinite heave response to the reasonable
range compared to the result obtained by the diffrac-
tion potential theory without viscous damping cor-
rection. The significantly high prediction of the
heave motion of the semi-submersible by diffraction
potential theory is due to the small prediction of the
heave damping by this theory alone. The heave vis-
cous damping calculated by the proposed equation in
section 3.4 in this paper is increasing gradually when
the wave length increased (Siow et al. 2014a). Ap-
plication of the viscous damping method to diffrac-
tion potential theory will increase the damping coef-
ficient. As a result the motion response calculated by
the diffraction potential theory with viscous damp-
ing correction method can be improved and the mo-
tion response do not overshoot to infinity at the
damping dominate region (Siow et al. 2014a). This
observation also shows that a good prediction of vis-
cous damping is very important to estimate the
heave motion response of semi-submersible struc-
ture in the damping dominated region. Therefore, it
can be summarized that the neglect of the viscous ef-
fect on the estimate heave response of semi-
submersible like the diffraction potential theory will
lead to over prediction of heave response at the re-
gion where the motion is dominated by damping.
However, this correction method still did not solve
80 for the under-predicting of motion response because
this correction method did not modify the exciting
force act on the semi-submersible.
To improve the accuracy of diffraction potential
theory in predicting the heave damping coefficient
and exciting force, the linearized Morison drags cor-
rection method is introduced in this research. The
tendency of the heave response calculated by the dif-
fraction potential theory with and without Morison
drag correction method shown non-similarity start
from the wavelength around 3 meters. It can be ob-
served that the drag force from the Morison equation
is significantly important to estimate the heave mo-
tion response for semi-submersible structure in Fig-
ure 3. The drag term of the linearized Morison equa-
tion has contributed to increase the damping and
exciting force in the motion equation as shown in eq.
23 (Siow et al. 2014b). The good prediction of the
drag effect by using Morison drag equation contrib-
utes a lot to correct the weakness of the diffraction
potential theory when this theory is applied to pre-
dict the semi-submersible heave motion at damping
dominate region. This is because the drag effect be-
comes significant at damping dominating region
while the diffraction potential theory was neglected
the drag effect in its prediction. By involving the
drag effect in the calculation, the tendency of the
numerical result will be more similar to the experi-
mental result. Therefore, it can be summarized that
the neglected of the drag effect on the estimated
heave response of semi-submersible like the diffrac-
tion potential theory will lead to less accurate pre-
diction of heave response in the region where the
motion is dominated by damping.
Diffraction
Diffraction + Morison
2
1.8
1.6
Heave Response, m.m
1.4
1.2
1 to the Marine Technology Center staff for their as-
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 REFERENCES
0 5 10
Wave Length, m
Figure 3. Different numerical method and experiment result.
7 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this paper presented the correction
methods to improve the tendency of heave response
predicted by the diffraction potential theory. In gen-
eral, the diffraction potential theory is a good meth-
od to predict the motion of offshore structures, espe-
cially semi-submersible. Compared to the
experimental results, it is concluded that the pure
diffraction potential theory is less accurate in pre-
dicting the heave response in the region where the
heave motion is dominated by damping or drag term.
The weakness of the diffraction potential theory to
neglect the drag effect caused the damping and the
heave force to be smaller than the actual situation
and lead to wrong heave response tendency at the
damping and drag dominated region. By involving
the viscous damping calculation using the proposed
equation, the small damping magnitude calculated
from diffraction potential theory can be corrected.
This correction method can reduce the calculated
heave motion response at the damping dominated
region and make the numerical result closer to the
experimental one. However, the very low exciting
force predicted by the diffraction potential theory is
still unsolved by this viscous damping correction
method because this method does not contribute to
increase the exciting force.
The less accurate of damping and heave force
calculated by diffraction potential theory can be also
corrected by involving the drag calculation using the
drag term from the linearized Morison equation.
This correction method can increase both the damp-
ing coefficient and exciting force act on semi-
submersible. As a result, the predicted heave motion
response is closer to the experimental one. There-
fore, it can be concluded that the diffraction poten-
tial theory with the Morison drag correction can be a
Diffraction + Viscous better numerical approach to estimate the motion of
semi-submersible structure.
Experiment
ACKNOWLEGMENT
The authors are very grateful for guidance of Dr. Al-
lan Magee from Technip during the test and also
would like to gratefully acknowledge their gratitude
sistance in conducting the experiment.
15 20
Abyn, H., Maimun, A., Jaswar, Islam, M.R., Magee, A., Boda-
gi, B. & Pauzi, M. 2012a. Model Test of Hydrodynamic
Interactions of Floating Structures in Regular Waves. Proc.
of the 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynam-
ics: 73 – 78. Malaysia.
Abyn, H., Maimun, A., Jaswar, Islam, M.R., Magee, A., Boda-
gi, B. & Pauzi, M. 2012b. Effect of Mesh Number on Ac-
curacy of Semi-Submersible Motion Prediction. Proc. of
the 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics:
582 – 587. Malaysia.
Afrizal, E., Mufti, F.M., Siow, C.L. & Jaswar. 2013. Study of
Fluid Flow Characteristic around Rounded-Shape FPSO
Using RANS Method. The 8th International Conference on
Numerical Analysis in Engineering: 46 – 56. Pekanbaru,
Indonesia.
Cengel, Y.A & Cimbala, J.M. (2 ed.) 2010. Fluid Mechanics
Fundamentals and Application. New York, America:
McGraw-Hill.
Sjöbris, C. 2012. Decommissioning of SPM buoy. Master of
Science Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Clauss, G.F., Schmittner, C. & Stutz, K. 2002. Time-Domain
Investigation of a Semi Submersible in Rogue Waves.
Proc. of the 21st International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Oslo, Norway.
Hess, J.L. & Smith, A.M.O. 1964. Calculation of Nonlifting
Potential Flow About Arbitrary 3D Bodies. Journal of
Ship Research.
Jaswar et al. 2011. An integrated CFD simulation tool in naval
architecture and offshore (NAO) engineering. The 4th In-
ternational Meeting of Advances in Thermofluids, AIP
Conf. Proc. 1440: 1175 - 1181. Melaka, Malaysia.
Journee, J.M.J & Massie, W.W. (1 ed.) 2001. Offshore Hydro-
mechanics. Delf University of Technology.
Kvittem, M.I., Bachynski, E.E. & Moan, T. 2012. Effect of
Hydrodynamic Modelling in Fully Coupled Simulations of
a Semi-Submersible Wind Turbine. Energy Procedia 24.
Loken, E. 1981. Hydrodynamic interaction between several
floating bodies of arbitrary form in Waves. Proc. of
International Symposium on Hydrodynamics in Ocean
Engineering. NIT, Trondheim.
Lu, L. et al. 2011. Modelling of multi-bodies in close proximity
under water waves—Fluid forces on floating bodies.
Ocean Engineering 38(13): 1403-1416.
Matos, V.L.F., Simos, A.N. & Sphaier, S.H. 2011. Second-order
resonant heave, roll and pitch motions of a deep-draft
semi-submersible: Theoretical and Experimental Results.
Ocean Engineering 38(17–18): 2227-2243.
Nallayarasu, S. & Prasad, P.S. 2012. Hydrodynamic Response
of Spar and Semi-submersible Interlinked by a Rigid Yoke
- Part 1. Regular Wave, Ship and Offshore Structures 7(3).
Oortmerssen, G.V. 1979. Hydrodynamic interaction between
two structures of floating in waves. Proc. of BOSS ’79,
Second International Conference on Behavior of Offshore
Structures. London.
Siow, C.L., Jaswar, Afrizal, E., Abyn, H., Maimun, A. & Pauzi,
M. 2013a. Comparative of Hydrodynamic Effect between
Double Bodies to Single Body in Tank. The 8th Interna-
tional Conference on Numerical Analysis in Engineering:
64 – 73. Pekanbaru, Indonesia.
Siow, C.L., Abby, H. & Jaswar. 2013b. Semi-Submersible’s
Response Prediction by Diffraction Potential Method. The
International Conference on Marine Safety and Environ-
ment: 21 – 28. Johor, Malaysia.
Siow, C.L., Jaswar, K, & Abby, H. 2014a. Semi-Submersible
Heave Response Study Using Diffraction Potential Theory
with Viscous Damping Correction. Journal of Ocean, Me-
chanical and Aerospace Science and Engineering 5: 23-
29.
Siow, C.L., Jaswar, K., Abby, H. & Khairuddin, N.M. 2014b.
Linearized Morison Drag for Improvement Semi-
Submersible Heave Response Prediction by Diffraction
Potential. Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace
Science and Engineering 6: 8-16.
Söylemez, M. 1995. Motion tests of a twin-hulled semi-
submersible. Ocean Engineering 22(6): 643-660.
Tiau, K.U., Jaswar, Abyn, H. & Siow, C.L. 2012. Study On
Mobile Floating Harbor Concept. Proc. of the 6th Asia-
Pacific Workshop on Marine Hydrodynamics: 224 – 228.
Malaysia.
Wackers, J. et al. 2011. Free-Surface Viscous Flow Solution
Methods for Ship Hydrodynamics. Archive of Computa-
tional Methods in Engineering 18 1–41.
Wu, S., Murray, J.J. & Virk, G.S. 1997. The motions and
internal forces of a moored semi-submersible in regular
waves. Ocean Engineering 24(7): 593-603.
Yilmaz & Incecik, A. 1996. Extreme motion response analysis
of moored semi-submersibles. Ocean Engineering 23(6):
497-517.

View publication stats