Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OMAE2007-29244
INVESTIGATION INTO THE SENSITIVITY OF THE DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD DURING SUBSEA
DEPLOYMENT OF A SUCTION CAN
&x& + β 1 x& + β 2 x& x& + β 3 x& 3 + ... + ω n2 x = ω n2 x h 0 cos ωt (5) As the amplitude of motion x0 is unknown, equations (8)
and (10) are solved by iterations, with the new damping
Bi K
βi = ; ωn = (6) coefficient β E computed at each iteration step after the
M M
amplitude x0 at the previous step has been determined.
To obtain a solution of (5) in the frequency domain, the
damping force is usually linearised by replacing (4) with: The extension of the above approach to irregular sea state
is possible by using spectrums of waves and responses. For a
FD ≈ M (β E x& ) (7) given sea state spectrum S w (ω ) , the heave motion spectrum at
the crane tip S h (ω ) is determined from the heave RAO x h (ω ) :
A common method for obtaining the damping coefficient β E is
S h (ω ) = SW (ω ) ⋅ [x h (ω )]
2
to equate the work done by the nonlinear (quadratic) and the (12)
linearised damping forces (Timoshenko, 1954). An equivalent
If the structure RAO x (ω ) is known from (10), spectrums
method, presented for example by Krylov (1932) with further
reference to Newton, assumes that the damping is relatively
weak, i.e. coefficients β k are small, and leads to the following of the structure response and the dynamic tension can be
general expansion: computed:
+ O (β )≈
2
[
S S (ω ) = S h (ω ) ⋅ [x (ω )] ; S F (ω ) = S h (ω ) ⋅ TD (ω ) ]2
(13)
∑ β k ⋅ N k ⋅ (ω ⋅ x 0 )
4 k −1
βE = 2
π k
k
Structure Details
Particulars of the suction can used in this study are given in
Table 1. Selected dimensions are typical for suction cans used
as foundations of subsea manifolds in oil and gas developments
in Australia’s North West Shelf. Figure 1 shows geometry and
dimensions of the model made to scale 1:10. The model was
fabricated out of rolled 2mm steel plate. A photograph of the
model is shown in Figure 2.
00
00,
E 6
Table 1: Details of the suction can TRU
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-10
-20
-30
-40
Time (sec)
Troughs Peaks Heave Time History
1.60
No Hatches Open
1.50
Hatches #1 Open
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
Percentage of Top Area Open (%)
B1(bar)
0.16
0.14
No Hatches Open
0.12
Hatches #1 Open
0.02
0.00
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
Percentage of Top Area Open (%)
B2(bar)
5.0
Hatches #1 Open
Hatches #3 Open
2.0
All Hatches Open
Average
1.0
0.0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
Percentage of Top Area Open (%)
12.0
Table 6: Stiffness properties of the rigging
10.0
Description Parameter
8.0
Wire length 750 m
Spring constant 150,000 kN 6.0
0.0
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
The analysis utilized motion RAOs of a typical installation Omega, 1/s
vessel, from which motions at the lifting winch were predicted. Estimations No hatches Hatch 1 Hatch 2 Hatch 3
The spectrum of the dynamic hook load was calculated for two
sea states, presented in Table 7, both with the significant wave Figure 11: Suction can heave RAO. Sea state “A”
height of Hs =2.0 m.
X, m/m
18.0
Table 7: Sea states
16.0
8.0
Peak period 7.0 s 12.0 s
6.0
Peakedness parameter 1.00 3.00
4.0
2.0
Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 9 and
Table 10. Heave RAOs of the suction can for various hatch 0.0
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
conditions are given in Figures 11 and 12.
Omega, 1/s
First of all, it can be seen that open hatches impact Estimations No hatches Hatch 1 Hatch 2 Hatch 3
significantly on the dynamic hook load, as could be expected
from the differences in hydrodynamic properties. For the
Figure 12: Suction can heave RAO. Sea state “B”
percentage of hatch area considered in this study (from 0.8% to
2.4%), the effect of open hatches reduces the dynamic hook
load up to 20% compared with “all hatches closed” condition.
The corresponding reduction in the maximum heave RAO is as
large as 40% for the largest pair of hatches with 2.4% of open
area.
Secondly, it is evident that by using accurate
hydrodynamic properties, rather than empirical estimations,
less onerous hook loads are predicted. In terms of the total
maximum hook load (dynamic + submerged weight), the
difference ranges from 22% to 29%, depending on the size of
the hatches. For the dynamic component alone, the tension
Model tests
DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD Estimations Hatches Open hatches
closed #1 #2 #3
Significant Tension TSIG = 2*RMS kN 218.1 139.9 133.1 123.6 116.1
Maximum Tension TMAX = 1.86* TSIG kN 422.9 272.2 258.8 240.1 225.2
Change in TSIG or TMAX due to hatches % 100% 95% 88% 83%
Static Tension TSTATIC kN 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0
TOTAL Maximum TTOTAL kN 672.9 522.2 508.8 490.1 475.2
Change in TTOTAL due to hatches % 100% 97% 94% 91%
Change in TTOTAL % 100% 78% 76% 73% 71%
Model tests
DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD Estimations Hatches Open hatches
closed #1 #2 #3
Significant Tension TSIG = 2*RMS kN 138.1 121.3 115.8 105.3 97.5
Maximum Tension TMAX = 1.86* TSIG kN 269.5 240.0 229.1 208.2 192.8
Change in TSIG or TMAX due to hatches % 100% 95% 87% 80%
Static Tension TSTATIC kN 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0
TOTAL Maximum TTOTAL kN 519.5 490.0 479.1 458.2 442.8
Change in TTOTAL due to hatches % 100% 98% 94% 90%
Change in TTOTAL 100% 94% 92% 88% 85%