Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2016, Vol. 8(6) 1–13
Ó The Author(s) 2016
Lifting simulation of an offshore supply DOI: 10.1177/1687814016654633
aime.sagepub.com
vessel considering various operating
conditions

Dong-Hoon Jeong1, Myung-Il Roh1,2 and Seung-Ho Ham1

Abstract
Recently, an offshore support vessel is being widely used to install an offshore structure such as a subsea equipment
which is laid on its deck. The lifting operation which is one of the installation operations includes lifting off, lifting in the
air, splash zone crossing, deep submerging, and finally landing of the structure with an offshore support vessel crane.
There are some major considerations during this operation. Especially, when lifting off the structure, if operating condi-
tions such as ocean environmental loads and hoisting (or lowering) speed are bad, the excess of tension of wire ropes of
the crane and the collision between the offshore support vessel and the structure can be occurred due to the relative
motion between them. To solve this problem, this study performs the lifting simulation while the offshore support vessel
installs the structure. The simulation includes the calculation of dynamic responses of the offshore support vessel and
the equipment, including the wire tension and the collision detection. To check the applicability of the simulation, it is
applied to some lifting steps by varying operating conditions. As a result, it is confirmed that the conditions affect the
operability of those steps.

Keywords
Offshore support vessel, lifting simulation, operating condition, ocean environmental loads, hoisting or lowering speed

Date received: 19 November 2015; accepted: 23 May 2016

Academic Editor: Chuanzeng Zhang

Introduction offshore structure such as a jacket and a load tower

The particular characteristics of an offshore structure
are not like those of an onshore or near-shore structure.
Therefore, it cannot be constructed in its operating site
and is being built in shipyard, transferred, transported
to the site, and finally deployed at there. There are vari-
ous methods to transfer, transport, and deploy it.
The transfer operation is to move the offshore struc-
ture from shipyard to means of transport such as a
transport barge. The major methods for the transfer
operation are the loading out method, the floating out
method, and the lifting off method. The loading out
method is to move an offshore structure onto a trans-
port barge in the longitudinal or transverse direction of
the barge. And the floating out method is to bring an
fabricated in a dry dock afloat and to float it out from
the fabrication site like the launching of a ship. Finally,
the lifting off method is to lift off offshore structures
such as an offshore module and a deck structure and to
move it with an offshore support vessel (OSV) crane.
1
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul
National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2
Research Institute of Marine Systems Engineering, Seoul National
University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Corresponding author:
Myung-Il Roh, Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826,
Republic of Korea.
Email: miroh@snu.ac.kr

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 1. Five steps of the lifting method by the OSV.
The transport operation is to transport the structure
to its operating site with the means of transport. The
major methods for the transport operation are the
barge towing method, the self-floating towing method,
and the self-propelled carrier transporting method. The
barge towing method is to transport the structure which
rests on the deck of a transport barge by several tugs.
The self-floating towing method is to support the struc-
ture with not a transport barge but its own buoyancy
and to push or pull it by tugs. And, the self-propelled
carrier transporting method is to transport the structure
which rests on the deck of a transport barge or an OSV
with the propulsion of the transport barge or the OSV.
Finally, the deploy operation is to deploy the struc-
ture at its operating site. The major methods for the
deploy operation are the floating over method, the
launching method, and the lifting method. Both the
floating over method and the launching method take
the advantage of ballasting of a transport barge when
deploying the structure. Especially, the launching
method obtains the slope of the transport barge by bal-
lasting and pulls the structure forward while the float
over method mates the structure onto a fixed structure
by changing the draft of the transport barge. In the case
of the lifting method, the offshore structure is lifted and
moved by an OSV crane. These methods for transfer,
transport, and deploy operations are selected depend-
ing on some considerations such as the circumstances
and characteristics of the structure to be installed. Also,
each method has its own considerations during the
operation.
As mentioned above, an offshore structure is trans-
ported to the actual operating site after constructed on
shore. The transported structure is deployed in the way
of something such as float over, launching, and lifting.
Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016
Among them, the lifting method is usually carried out
by an OSV and it consists of five steps,1 as shown in
Figure 1. There are some major considerations on each
step in the lifting method. In the step of lifting off
(Figure 1 (1)), an OSV lifts off the structure which is
laid on the deck or the adjacent transport barge with
its own crane. At this moment, there should be no colli-
sion between the structure and others resulting from
the relative motion among them. In the step of lifting
in the air (Figure 1 (2)), the lifted structure is moved to
the specified position in the air. At this time, the severe
and undesirable pendulum motion should be avoided,
because it is very important to control the structure
exactly. In the step of splash zone crossing (Figure 1
(3)), the structure penetrates the water surface. The
varying buoyancy force and slamming impact force
exerted on the structure should be considered in this
step. In the step of deep submerging (Figure 1 (4)) in
which the structure submerges deeply, the motion of
the lifted structure, in response to wave-induced motion
of the OSV crane tip, is important because of the possi-
bility of resonance. In the last step of landing (Figure 1
(5)), the structure should be landed exactly and there
should not be large impact which could cause damage
to the structure.
If we can simulate each step in the aspect of the
above major considerations, the validity or operability
of the given or planned operating condition can be veri-
fied. Thus, the physics-based simulation based on mul-
tibody system dynamics is performed for the former
three steps (lifting off, lifting in the air, and splash zone
crossing) of the lifting method in this study. Through
the simulation, the tension acting on wire ropes of an
OSV crane and the collision between the OSV and the
structure are analyzed. At this time, various operating
Jeong et al.
conditions such as ocean environmental loads and
hoisting (or lowering) speed are applied to the
simulation.
Related studies
There are some studies related to the simulation in the
field of ship production. Cha et al.2 proposed an inte-
grated simulation framework for shipbuilding produc-
tion. The proposed simulation framework provides an
environment for developing various simulation systems
for shipbuilding process planning. It consists of a simu-
lation kernel, basic simulation component, and
application-specific simulation component. Cha et al.3
performed dynamic response simulation of a heavy
cargo suspended by a floating crane. The dynamic
equations of motions of the floating crane and the
heavy cargo were considered by coupled equations,
because the floating crane and the heavy cargo are con-
nected by wire ropes and provide a force and a moment
for each other. Also, the nonlinear hydrostatic force,
the linearized hydrodynamic force, the wire rope force,
and the mooring force were considered as external
forces. And, they estimated the motion of the floating
crane and the heavy cargo, and also calculated the ten-
sion acting on the wire ropes between the two. Ha
et al.4 developed a multibody system dynamics simula-
tor for the process simulation of ships and offshore
structures. The developed simulator consists of six
components: the multibody system dynamics kernel,
the force calculation kernel, the numerical analysis ker-
nel, the hybrid simulation kernel, the scenario manage-
ment kernel, and the collision detection kernel. They
applied the simulator to various cases of the process
simulation of the ships and the offshore structures.
There are also some studies related to the simulation
in the field of offshore engineering, especially the lifting
method for the deploy operation. Masoud5 applied
delayed-position feedback together with the luff-and-
slew angle actuation to a crane vessel in order to con-
trol pendulum motion of a lifted structure in the air.
And the effectiveness of this method was demonstrated
with a fully nonlinear three-dimensional simulation
and with an experiment on a 1/24 scale model. Boe and
Nestegard6 developed dynamic response equations of
the lifted structure in deep water and described how
these equations can be applied in order to establish lim-
iting sea-states for the operation. Wu7 analyzed
dynamic responses of a template suspended by a float-
ing crane through splash zone. He carried out dynamic
and static analysis using the Simulation and
Engineering Analysis of Marine Operations and
Floating Systems (SIMA) which is a commercial pro-
gram developed by MARINTEK. Ku and Roh8 per-
formed dynamic response simulation of an offshore
Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016
3
wind turbine suspended by the floating crane. For this,
they supposed that the motion of the floating crane
and the wind turbine has 14 degrees of freedom, and
considered the interactions among them by constraints.
In addition, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces were
considered as external forces acting on the floating
crane. Through the simulation, they estimated the
motion of the floating crane and the offshore wind tur-
bine, and also calculated the tension acting on the wire
ropes between the two. Vorhölter et al.9 performed a
time-domain analysis of typical lifting operations for
the offshore wind industry. Three different vessels and
two different load variations of the lifting operations
were considered in the analyses. For this, they sup-
posed that the motion of the vessel and the lifted struc-
ture has 8 degrees of freedom. And, they took not
multibody system dynamics analysis but quasi-static
analysis to analyze dynamic motion of the vessel and
the structure. Through the analysis, dynamic motion of
the vessel and the structure was derived, but wire ten-
sion and collision were not calculated.
Table 1 shows the summary of related studies about
the lifting method for the deploy operation and the
comparison of them with this study. As shown in Table
1, the studies mentioned above did not cover dynamic
responses such as wire tension and collision, and vari-
ous operating conditions such as ocean environmental
loads and hoisting (or lowering) speed all for the steps
of the lifting method. Thus, this study performs the
physics-based simulation of the steps of lifting off, lift-
ing in the air, and splash zone crossing while the OSV
deploys the structure by the lifting method. The simula-
tion includes the calculation of the dynamic responses
of the OSV and the structure, including the wire ten-
sion and the collision detection between them.
Methodologies for lifting simulation
In this section, some methodologies that are required to
perform the lifting simulation are described. Basically,
the Newton’s second law might be applied to describe
the motion of the OSV and the offshore structure.
Multibody system dynamics
A vessel-mounted crane can be regarded as a multibody
system which consists of interconnected rigid bodies
with joints and springs-like wire ropes. Thus, the equa-
tions of motion based on multibody system dynamics
are required to analyze the motion of a crane system
including the lifted object (e.g. offshore structure to be
lifted by the OSV crane). In this section, the equations
of motion based on the multibody system dynamics are
explained.10
The relative motion that is permitted between bodies
in the multibody system is often constrained by
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 1. Summary of related studies and comparison with this study.

Study Step to be applied Output Considerations on

Dynamic Wire Collision Ocean Hoisting or
motion tension environmental lowering
loads speed

Masoud5 Lifting in the air X X X X X

Boe and Nestegard6 Deep submerging X O X O X
Wu7 Splash zone crossing O O X O X
Ku and Roh8 Lifting off O O X O X
Vorhölter et al.9 Lifting off, lifting in the air, O X X O X
and splash zone crossing
This study Lifting off, lifting in the air, O O O O O
and splash zone crossing

O: Covered, X: Not covered.

connections between those bodies. Therefore, Newton’s may be suppressed by taking the scalar product of both
equation of motion for the multibody system can be sides of Newton’s equation of motion with vectors that
stated as follows are tangent to the path. Then, we can derive

M€r = Fe + Fc ð1Þ ~ q+k

The vectors in equation (1) are represented in terms
of the Cartesian coordinates. M is the mass and the
mass moment of inertia matrices, and r is the position
vector of the center of gravity of the bodies with respect
to the Cartesian coordinates. The resultant force con-
sists of the external force Fe and the constraint force Fc
caused by kinematic constraints.
The position vector r of the Cartesian coordinates
can be presented as a function of the generalized coor-
dinate q according to
r = r(q)
M€ ~e
~=F ð7Þ
where M ~ = JT MJ, k ~= JT MJ_ q,_ and F~ e = JT Fe ; M
~ is
the mass and the generalized mass moment of the iner-
~ is the generalized Coriolis and centrifugal
tia matrix; k
~ e
force; F is the generalized external force; J is the velo-
city transformation matrix; and J_ is the acceleration
transformation matrix. Equation (7) is the final form of
the equations of motion of the multibody system based
on the multibody system dynamics. If we use this equa-
tion, we can get dynamic motion of the OSV, the OSV
crane, and the offshore structure, including constraint
ð2Þ forces among them.

Differentiating equation (2) yields the velocity

relation Hydrodynamic force calculation
The lifting operation is carried out in offshore. Thus,
r_ = Jq_ ð3Þ
hydrodynamic force would be exerted on an OSV and
where the velocity transformation matrix J transforms should be added to external forces of the equations of
the velocity of generalized coordinate q_ into the velocity motion based on the multibody system dynamics. The
of the Cartesian coordinates. hydrodynamic force can be divided into two parts, as
Differentiating equation (3) yields the acceleration shown in equation (8); the wave exciting force exerted
by the incident wave and the diffraction wave, and the
€r = J€q + J_ q_ ð4Þ radiation force from the wave generated by the motion
of the OSV itself
Substituting equation (4) into equation (1), we can
obtain the following equation FHydrodynamic = FExciting + FRadiation ð8Þ

MJ€q + MJ_ q_ = Fe + Fc ð5Þ FExciting can be calculated by the force response

T amplitude operator (RAO) times the sinusoidal func-
Multiplying both sides of equation (5) by J yields
q + JT MJ_ q_ = JT Fe + JT Fc
JT MJ€
The constraint reaction forces are perpendicular to
the path along which the bodies are constrained to
move. This says that the constraint reaction force Fc
tion at a given frequency. The force RAO can be
obtained from a commercial solver. Cummins11 equa-
ð6Þ
tion can be used to calculate FRadiation in the time
domain. The added mass and the damping coefficient
can also be obtained from the commercial solver.
Figure 2 summarizes the calculation procedure.

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

Jeong et al.
Figure 2. Calculation procedure of the hydrodynamic force.
Figure 3. Varying buoyancy force and slamming impact force in the step of splash zone crossing.
Varying buoyancy force and slamming impact force
In the step of splash zone crossing, the buoyancy of an
offshore structure is changed as it enters the water and
a slamming impact force acts on the structure when it
crosses the water surface, as shown in Figure 3. The
buoyancy is related to the submerged volume of the
structure by Archimedes’ principle. If the water surface
changes, the submerged volume changes, as well. This
leads to the change in buoyancy. In the simulation of
the step of splash zone crossing, the water surface
changes as the structure crosses the splash zone. Hence,
the change in buoyancy should be considered. Also, the
slamming impact force, that is, the impulsive force
which frequently exerts on the structure due to the
breaking wave, should be considered in the splash
zone of structure. These two forces could be calculated
by simplified methods presented in equations (9)
and (10)12
Fr = r  dV  g
FSlam = 0:5  r  CS  AS  v2S
Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016
5
where Fr is the varying buoyancy force, r is the density
of sea water, dV is the change in volume of displaced
water from still water surface to wave crest or wave
trough, g is the gravitational acceleration, FSlam is the
slamming impact force, CS is the slamming coefficient,
AS is the slamming area, and vs is the slamming impact
velocity.
Wire tension calculation
To lift an offshore structure by a vessel-mounted crane,
the offshore structure and the crane should be con-
nected by wire ropes. When the offshore structure is
lifted, these wire ropes are extended and exert tension.
On the other hand, when these wire ropes are not
extended, they are loosened and exert no force. Thus,
they could be modeled as incompressible springs which
exert force only when extended. And the force by the
incompressible springs is added to one of the external
ð9Þ forces of the equations of motion based on the multi-
body system dynamics. The modeling of the incompres-
ð10Þ sible spring force is shown in Figure 4.
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 4. Modeling of the incompressible spring force.

which the velocity of the objects is changed if they

collide.
In the ‘‘Collision response’’ step, the linear velocity
and angular velocity are changed by following equa-
tions (11) and (12)

i
vA2 = vA1 + n ð11Þ
MA
rAP  in
Figure 5. Configuration of the objects A and B colliding each vA2 = vA1 + ð12Þ
other.
IA
where subscripts 1 and 2 mean before and after colli-
sion, respectively. MA means the mass of the object A,
Collision detection IA means the moment of inertia of the object A, i means
Collision is the major consideration in the lifting opera- the magnitude of impulse by collision, and ‘‘  ’’ opera-
tion, especially in the step of lifting off. In the simula- tor means perpendicular dot product which means the
tion of the step of lifting off, it should be checked by magnitude of cross products of two vectors.
calculating the position of objects whether the objects Equations (11) and (12) show how the collision
collide with each other or not. And then, if the objects affects pre-collision velocity of the object A. The equa-
collide with each other, their motions should be chan- tions for the object B are the same when i is replaced
ged. This study introduces collision detection13,14 to with 2i. These equations can be obtained from
change the motions of the collided objects through Newton’s law of motion. According to Newton’s law
changing the velocities of the collided objects. In this of motion, the impulse is same with the change of
section, the process of collision detection in the case of momentum as following equation (13)
two-dimensional (2D) collision is explained, as shown
in Figure 5. I = M A (vA2  vA1 ) ð13Þ
The collision detection handles collision by changing
the velocity of the objects which collide before and after where I means impulse.
collision. First, to check whether some objects collide Dividing both sides of equation (13) by MA yields
or not, the penetration depth is defined. The penetra-
I
tion depth means how much the objects which collide = vA2  vA1 ð14Þ
MA
penetrate each other before collision process. The step
to determine the penetration depth is ‘‘Collision check.’’ The direction of I is same with the direction of n and
Also, in this step, the normal vector (n) is obtained and thus, I can be expressed as the product of i and n as pre-
necessary for the next step ‘‘Collision response’’ in sented in equation (15)

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

Jeong et al. 7

Figure 6. Actual and simplified models for the simulation: (a) actual models and (b) simplified models.

in Finally, i can be obtained from equation (21). And

= vA2  vA1 ð15Þ
MA the collision detection can be made using equations (11)
Transposing vA1 in equation (15) yields equation (11). and (12).
Equation (12) can be obtained in the same way for
angular impulse and momentum.
Lifting simulation of the offshore supply
Now, i in equations (11) and (12) can be obtained
from Newton’s law of restitution. Newton’s law of res- vessel
titution can be expressed as equation (16) Problem definition
vB2  vA2 =  e(vB1  vA1 ) ð16Þ We developed an in-house program based on multi-
body system dynamics and the program was used for
where e means coefficient of restitution. this simulation. With the use of this program, the
And equation (16) can be expressed as equation (17) dynamic responses of the OSV and the equipment,
by substituting vB  vA to vAP  vBP and perpendicular including the wire tension and collision detection can
dot product of n be calculated. This program was validated through var-
ious examples in our previous studies.4,15,16 Similar to
(vAP BP AP BP
2  v2 )  n =  e(v1  v1 )  n ð17Þ these examples, this study simulated three steps (lifting
off, lifting in the air, and splash zone crossing) of the
where vAP (vBP ) is the velocity vector of point P relative lifting method. Through the simulation, the calculation
to the center of mass of the object A (B) and can be pre- of the dynamic responses of the OSV and the lifted
sented as equation (18) structure (e.g. subsea equipment), including the wire
tension and the collision detection between the OSV
vAP A A AP
2 = v2 + v2 r ð18Þ and the structure, was performed. Also, various operat-
Substituting equations (11) and (12) into equation ing conditions such as ocean environmental loads
(18) yields (wave height, wave period, and heading angle) and
hoisting (or lowering) speed were applied to the simula-
  tion. Before the simulation, actual models of the OSV
i rAP  in AP
vAP A
2 = v1 + n + vA
1 + r ð19Þ and the subsea equipment (simply, equipment) were
MA IA
idealized as simplified models, as shown in Figure 6.
By doing so for object B, equation (20) can be The configuration and specifications of them are shown
derived in Figure 7 and Table 2, respectively.
 
i rBP  in BP
vBP
2 = vB1 B
 A n + v1  r ð20Þ Simulation of the step of lifting off
M IA
In the simulation of the step of lifting off (Figure 1 (1)),
Substituting equations (19) and (20) into equation the OSV lifted off the equipment which was laid on the
(17) and transposing terms out about i yields deck with its own crane. Through this simulation, wire
tension acting on wire ropes of the OSV crane was cal-
(1 + e)vAB
1 n
i= culated according to ocean environmental loads and
n  n((1=M A ) + (1=M B )) + ((rAP  n)2 =I A ) + ((rBP  n)2 =I B )
hoisting speed of the equipment. In addition, the possi-
ð21Þ bility of collision was also checked because the

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

show the simulation results of Cases A01 and A03,

respectively. These figures show the change of wire ten-
sion as time goes. The lower graph is the magnified
view of the moment when the equipment just starts to
be lifted off in the upper graph in each figure. There is
an abnormal point in the change of wire tension of
Case A03 in which there is collision. This point is
marked as the red circle in the lower graph of Figure 9.
On the other hand, an abnormal point is not found in
Case A01 in which there is no collision.
Figure 7. Configuration of the simplified models for the
simulation.
Variation of hoisting speed. Table 4 shows the simulation
results in which the wave height is 1.0 m, the wave
Table 2. Specification of the OSV and the subsea equipment for period is 9.0 s, the heading angle is 0°, and the hoisting
the simulation. speed of the equipment varies from 0.02 to 0.06 m/s. As
shown in this table, the DAF is the highest in Case
OSV A06. There is no collision when the hoisting speed is
0.06, but there is collision when the hoisting speed is
Length (LO) 160.5 m Boom length 37 m
Breadth (BO) 27.5 m Tower height 24 m 0.02 and 0.04 m/s. Figures 10 and 11 show the simula-
Depth (DO) 13.8 m Modulus of 104 kN/m tion results of Cases A04 and A06, respectively. These
elasticity (k) figures show the change of wire tension as time goes.
Draft (TO) 8m Capacity 1000 ton The lower graph is the magnified view of the moment
Displacement 35,310 ton
when the equipment just starts to be lifted off in the
Subsea equipment upper graph in each figure. There are abnormal points
in the change of wire tension of Case A04 in which
Length (LM) 12 m Depth (DM) 6m there is collision. On the other hand, an abnormal
Breadth (BM) 12 m Weight 700 ton point is not found in Case A06 in which there is no col-
Bottom shape Cylinder lision and whose DAF is the highest.
OSV: offshore support vessel.

Variation of wave period. Table 5 shows the simulation

possibility of collision is the major consideration on the
step of lifting off. The simulation was performed for
200 s.
Variation of wave height. Table 3 shows the simulation
results in which the wave height varies from 0.5 to
1.5 m, the wave period is 9.0 s, the heading angle is 0°
(following sea), and the hoisting speed of the equipment
is 0.1 m/s. In this table, a dynamic amplification factor
(DAF) means a value of maximum dynamic load
divided by static load. This static load means the weight
of the equipment in the air. If there is no collision, it is
‘‘X’’ and otherwise, it is ‘‘O.’’ As shown in this table,
the DAF was the highest in Case A03. There is no colli-
sion when the wave height is 0.5 and 1.0 m, but there is
collision when the wave height is 1.5 m. Figures 8 and 9
results in which the wave height is 1.0 m, the wave
period varies from 5.0 to 13.0 s, the heading angle is 0°,
and the hoisting speed of the equipment is 0.1 m/s. As
shown in this table, the DAF is the highest in Case
A08. There is no collision when the wave period is 7.0,
9.0, and 11.0 s, but there is collision when the wave
period is 5.0 and 13.0 s. Figures 12 and 13 show the
simulation results of Cases A08 and A10, respectively.
These figures show the change of wire tension as time
goes. The lower graph is the magnified view of the
moment when the equipment just starts to be lifted off
in the upper graph in each figure. There are abnormal
points in the change of wire tension of Case A10 in
which there is collision. On the other hand, an abnor-
mal point is not found in Case A08 in which there is no
collision and whose DAF is the highest.

Table 3. Simulation results by the variation of wave height in the step of lifting off.

Case Wave Wave Heading Hoisting Max wire Dynamic Collision

height (m) period (s) angle (°) speed (m/s) tension (ton) amplification factor

A01 0.5 9.0 0 0.1 728.399 1.041 X

A02 1.0 9.0 0 0.1 730.583 1.044 X
A03 1.5 9.0 0 0.1 735.113 1.050 O

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

Jeong et al. 9

Figure 8. Simulation results of Case A01 in the step of lifting Figure 9. Simulation results of Case A03 in the step of lifting
off. off.

Table 4. Simulation results by the variation of hoisting speed in the step of lifting off.

Case Wave Wave Heading Hoisting Max wire Dynamic Collision

height (m) period (s) angle (°) speed (m/s) tension (ton) amplification factor

A04 1.0 9.0 0 0.02 707.445 1.011 O

A05 0.04 9.0 0 0.02 714.284 1.020 O
A06 0.06 9.0 0 0.02 720.659 1.030 X

Table 5. Simulation results by the variation of wave period in the step of lifting off.

Case Wave Wave Heading Hoisting Max wire Dynamic Collision

height (m) period (s) angle (°) speed (m/s) tension (ton) amplification factor

A07 1.0 5.0 0 0.1 724.965 1.036 O

A08 1.0 7.0 0 0.1 731.207 1.045 X
A02 1.0 9.0 0 0.1 730.583 1.044 X
A09 1.0 11.0 0 0.1 730.054 1.043 X
A10 1.0 13.0 0 0.1 732.411 1.043 O

Simulation of the step of lifting in the air
In the simulation of the step of lifting in the air (Figure
1 (2)), the OSV lifts the equipment in the air. Through
this simulation, the pendulum motion of the equipment
was checked according to various ocean environmental
loads, because the pendulum motion is the major
consideration on the step of lifting in the air. The simu-
lation was performed for 150 s. Table 6 shows the simu-
lation results for some operating conditions. In this
table, the maximum traveling distance means the maxi-
mum value of the traveling distance of the equipment
from its initial position. As shown in this table, the
DAF is the highest in Case B04 and the maximum

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 10. Simulation results of Case A04 in the step of lifting Figure 11. Simulation results of Case A06 in the step of lifting
off. off.

Figure 12. Simulation results of Case A08 in the step of lifting Figure 13. Simulation results of Case A10 in the step of lifting
off. off.

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

Jeong et al. 11

Table 6. Simulation results by the variation of ocean environmental loads in the step of lifting in the air.

Case Wave Wave Heading Max wire Dynamic amplification Maximum traveling
height (m) period (s) angle (°) tension (ton) factor distance (m)

B01 0.5 7.0 90 748.120 1.069 1.317

B02 0.5 6.0 90 741.645 1.059 0.963
B03 0.75 6.0 90 761.983 1.089 1.429
B04 1.0 6.0 90 783.091 1.119 1.960

Simulation of the step of splash zone crossing

Figure 14. Simulation results of Case B04 in the step of lifting
off.
traveling distance of the equipment is also in Case B04.
Figure 14 shows the simulation results of Case B04.
The upper graph shows the change of wire tension as
time goes and the lower graph shows the change of tra-
veling distance of the equipment as time goes. The
maximum traveling distance in Case B04 is marked as
a red circle in the lower graph.
In the simulation of the step of splash zone crossing
(Figure 1 (3)), the equipment penetrates the water sur-
face. Through this simulation, varying buoyancy force
was calculated according to the position of the equip-
ment during lowering and the slamming impact force
was also calculated according to the lowering speed of
the equipment. When calculating the slamming impact
force, the slamming coefficient is very important.
DNV-RP-C20517 presented that for a smooth circular
cylinder, the slamming coefficient can be taken as 5.15.
Since the bottom of the equipment is cylinder shaped,
this value was taken as the slamming coefficient in this
simulation. This slamming impact force acts on the
equipment once at the moment when the equipment
penetrates the water surface in this simulation. That is,
the slamming impact force acts for very short duration.
However, it is not easy to get the duration. Thus, we
assumed that the slamming impact force acts for the
unit time of simulation (i.e. 0.01 s) in this simulation. In
addition, wire tension acting on wire ropes of the OSV
crane was calculated by considering these forces. The
simulation was performed for 150 s. Table 7 shows the
simulation results in which the lowering speed of the
equipment varies from 0.25 to 2.0 m/s. Figure 15 shows
the simulation results of Case 01. The upper graph
shows the vertical position of the equipment as time
goes and the lower graph shows the change of wire ten-
sion as time goes. In the lower graph, the wire tension
changes and the aspect of the change of wire tension
varies as the position of the equipment varies. The
moments when the aspect of the change of wire tension
varies are marked as Positions A, B, and C in the figure.
Position A is when the equipment crossing the splash

Table 7. Simulation results by the variation of lowering speed in the step of splash zone crossing.

Case Lowering speed (m/s) Time to splash zone (s) Slamming impact force (ton) Change of wire tension
when crossing (ton)

C01 0.25 80.0 3.602 2.535

C02 0.5 40.0 14.412 8.127
C03 1.0 20.0 57.644 22.087
C04 2.0 10.0 230.576 118.784

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 16. Change of wire tension of Case C01 when crossing.

Figure 15. Simulation results of Case C01 in the step of splash

zone crossing.

zone. As shown in Table 7, the faster lowering speed is,

the shorter time to splash zone, the larger slamming
impact force, and the larger change of wire tension
when crossing are. Figures 16 and 17 show the change
of wire tension when the equipment crosses the splash
zone in Case C01 and Case C04, respectively. As shown
in these two figures, we could check that the faster low-
ering speed is, the larger change of wire tension and the
more rapid change of wire tension are. It can be seen
that this is the effect of the slamming impact force and
the varying buoyancy force. Especially, as shown in
equation (10), the slamming impact force depends on
the slamming impact velocity which is related to the
lowering speed of the equipment.

Figure 17. Change of wire tension of Case C04 when crossing.

Conclusion and future works
The lifting simulation when the OSV installs the off-
shore structure such as subsea equipment was per-
formed in this study by varying operating conditions.
Especially, when lifting off the structure, the excess of
tension of wire ropes of the OSV crane and the collision
between the OSV and the structure were assessed for
given operating conditions such as ocean environmental

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016

Jeong et al.
loads and hoisting speed of the structure. That is,
dynamic responses such as the motion, the wire tension,
and the collision were calculated based on multibody
system dynamics in this study. As a result, the maxi-
mum amplification factor of 1.050 was from the case in
which the wave height is 1.5 m, the wave period is 9.0 s,
the heading angle is 0°, and the hoisting speed of the
equipment is 0.1 m/s. And there are some cases having
the collision between the OSV and the equipment. And
when lifting the structure in the air, the pendulum
motion of the equipment was checked according to var-
ious ocean environmental loads. That is, maximum tra-
veling distance of the structure was calculated with the
wire tension. As a result, the maximum traveling dis-
tance of 1.960 m was from the case in which the wave
height is 1.0 m, the wave period is 6.0 s, and the heading
angle is 90°. Finally, when the structure penetrating the
water surface, the varying buoyancy force and the slam-
ming impact force were calculated by considering the
position and the lowering speed of the equipment. And
the wire tension was also calculated by considering
these forces. As a result, it can be seen that the faster
lowering speed is, the larger slamming impact force and
the more rapid varying of buoyancy force are, which
leads to the larger change of wire tension and the more
rapid change of wire tension. From these simulations
for the lifting method, including the steps of lifting off,
lifting in the air, splash zone crossing, the operability of
the method could be investigated at the given operating
condition.
As future works, the improvement of this simulation
will be made. First, the validation of simulation results
will be made with some experiments or real operation
data. And the simulation will be applied to more realis-
tic examples. In addition, the way to quantify the sensi-
tivity of the collisions to different operating conditions
will be studied. A more refined method for estimating
the slamming impact force will be studied. The simula-
tion for other steps of the lifting operation such as deep
submerging and landing will be performed.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was partially supported by (1) BK21 Plus,
Education & Research Center for Offshore Plant Engineers
(COPE) of Seoul National University, Republic of Korea, (2)
Research Institute of Marine Systems Engineering of Seoul
National University, Republic of Korea, and (3) Engineering
Development Research Center (EDRC) funded by the
Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 29, 2016
13
Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE), Republic of
Korea.
References
1. Nielsen FG. Lecture notes: marine operations. Trond-
heim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
2003.
2. Cha JH, Roh MI and Lee KY. Integrated simulation
framework for the process planning of ships and offshore
structures. Robot Cim-Int Manuf 2010; 26: 430–453.
3. Cha JH, Roh MI and Lee KY. Dynamic response simu-
lation of a heavy cargo suspended by a floating crane
based on multibody system dynamics. Ocean Eng 2010;
37: 1273–1291.
4. Ha S, Ku NK, Roh MI, et al. Multibody system
dynamics simulator for process simulation of ships and
offshore plants in shipyards. Adv Eng Softw 2015; 85:
12–25.
5. Masoud ZN. A control system for the reduction of cargo
pendulation of ship-mounted cranes. PhD Thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
VA, 2000.
6. Boe T and Nestegard A. Dynamic forces during deep-
water lifting operations. In: International offshore and
polar engineering conference, Beijing, China, 20–25 June
2010. Mountain View, CA: ISOPE.
7. Wu M. Dynamic analysis of a subsea module during
splash-zone transit. MSc Thesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, 2013.
8. Ku NK and Roh MI. Dynamic response simulation of
an offshore wind turbine suspended by a floating crane.
Ship Offshore Struct 2015; 10: 621–634.
9. Vorhölter H, Hatecke H and Feder DF. Design study of
floating crane vessels for lifting operations in the offshore
wind industry. In: International marine design conference,
Tokyo, Japan, 11–14 May 2015. Tokyo, Japan: IMDC.
10. Shabana A. Computational dynamics. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, 1994.
11. Cummins WE. The impulse response function and ship
motions. Schiffstech 1926; 9: 101–109.
12. DNV-RP-H103:2011. Modelling and analysis of marine
operations.
13. Moore M and Wilhelms J. Collision detection and
response for computer animation. Comp Graph 1988; 22:
289–298.
14. Chris H. Physics, part 3: collision response. Game Develo-
per, March 1997, http://chrishecker.com/images/e/e7/
Gdmphys3.pdf
15. Ku NK, Cha JH, Roh MI, et al. A tagline proportional-
derivative control method for the anti-swing motion of a
heavy load suspended by a floating crane in waves. Proc
IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environ-
ment 2013; 227: 357–366.
16. Ham SH, Roh MI, Lee H, et al. Multibody dynamic
analysis of a heavy load suspended by a floating crane
with constraint-based wire rope. Ocean Eng 2015; 109:
145–160.
17. DNV-RP-C205:2010. Environmental conditions and
environmental loads.