A Note on Effect of Geometric Dimensions, Shape
and Arrangement of Columns and Pontoons on Heave
and Pitch Response of Semi-Submersible
Vamshikrishna Domala, M. Ranjeet and R. Sharma
Department of Ocean Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai (TN) 600 036
India
vamshikrishna9@gmail.com, chauhan.ranjith67@gmail.com, rajivatri@iitm.ac.in
Abstract: The study of motion response of offshore structures
is important in design and operation of offshore structures.
Primarily, the motion response of a semi-submersible depends
upon centre of gravity, meta-centric height, geometric
dimensions, arrangement and shape of the structural elements
such as columns and pontoons, and operating draft of the
structure. This paper reports a numerical study on the effect of
geometric dimensions, shape and arrangement of columns and
pontoons on the hydrodynamic response of a semi-submersible.
In this paper five design configurations of a semi-submersibles
with different dimensions are studied numerically using a
commercially available software (i.e. ANSYS-AWQA*TM) and in
semi-submersible design the geometric dimensions, shape and
arrangement of columns and pontoons are varied and a time
domain analysis is performed for head and beam sea conditions
with an eight point moorings for 1000 m depth with an angle of
45 between each set of mooring lines for regular waves and also
for different sea state conditions. In the numerical study, the
potential flow diffraction analysis is used and the viscous
damping is suitably assumed from the available results from
literature and that is given as an input in the numerical
simulation.
In this paper, the heave and pitch responses are studied and
in the first step frequency domain analysis is carried out for
obtaining response amplitude operators of heave and pitch
responses for head and beam sea, and these gives an idea about
the geometry which has the minimum response. In second step
three hour time domain analysis is performed to study heave,
pitch, surge and sway responses with the two sea states (i.e. 9 and
10). The responses are analyzed for a better geometry between
the five designs. Two types of mooring system are studied by
varying the length of mooring lines to vary the tension. The
results obtained are analyzed for minimum motion response for
surge, sway, heave and pitch degrees of freedom for the design
configurations and compared with each other. The shape of
column is changed for the design to study the effect of shape and
compute the minimum response for further study. All the results
are analyzed in detail and are used to derive favourable range of
column and pontoon dimensions for achieving low motion
response. The presented results show the effect of geometric
dimensions, shape and arrangement of columns and pontoons on
heave and pitch response of semi-submersible and they can be
used to arrive at the suitable shape, dimension and arrangement
of columns and pontoons for minimum response.
Keywords: Beam sea; Geometric dimensions; Head sea; Semi-
submersible; Time domain analysis.
978-1-4799-4918-2/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE
I. INTRODUCTION
The increase in demand of energy resources and minerals
led to increase the production of oil, gas and minerals. The
search for offshore energy resources happened way back in
1940's due to the depletion of oil and gas reservoirs on the
land. From land the exploration of oil and gas moved to
shallow water and then to the deeper water. Many structures
such as jacket platform, jack up, tension leg platform, semi-
submersibles are used in shallow and deep water depths for
the oil and gas exploration and production. The semi-
submersibles are moored floating structures used for
exploration and production of oil and gas especially from deep
water depths. It has a simple geometry which is made of
pontoons, columns, lower deck and upper deck structures.
Different shapes are used for pontoons, e.g. square,
rectangular, ellipse and circular. The column shapes are
mostly either square or circular. The responses of semi-
submersible depend on arrangement of these pontoons,
columns and concentration of its weight. From the early 1960s
to 2010, various shapes of semi-submersibles have been
designed depending on water depth and motion response.
The experimental investigations are done on models in
wave basin or wave flume to study the hydrodynamic
responses. The experimental investigations require time and
good instrumentation setup and they are costly. Hence because
of these reasons the numerical simulations are preferred with
softwares. In simulation based designs, the design parameters
can be changed and their effects on the performance of a
selected parameter/s can be studied, e.g. by varying selected
parameters in ship and in semi-submersible like pontoon
shape, column diameter, weight of the structure to study the
shape optimization, hydrodynamic responses, coupled analysis
[1,2,3,4,6,7,8,12]. The mathematical formulation is required
for calculating forces, responses and for developing numerical
formulation. In the past the focus was on approximate and
empirical formulations, e.g. the approximate formulas are
given by [5]. Now, the focus is on the Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD based numerical simulations. The general
layout of semi-submersible was discussed in [9] based on
column and pontoon storage, upper and lower hull for better
design and performance of semi-submersible. The motion
optimization of semi-submersible was reported in [10] and the
authors compared various pontoon dimensions to arrive at low
motion.
This is a DRAFT. As such it may not be cited in other works.
The citable Proceedings of the Conference will be published in
IEEE Xplore shortly after the conclusion of the conference.
 At present, many numerical softwaress are designed to
compute the responses of offshore structuress subjected to first
order waves, second order waves, and irreegular waves, etc.
The responses of damaged semi-submersiblle were studied in
[11] using numerical software ANSYS S-AWQA*TM, by
damaging two different hulls in simulationns. The frequency
and time domain analyses can be donee using ANSYS-
AWQA*TM for the first order waves, secondd order waves, and
for different sea sates, etc. In [13] the simulaations were carried
out to study the effect of structural motionss on steel catenary
risers and mooring lines in time domaiin analysis using
ANSYS-AWQA*TM and also to study thee fatigue on steel
catenary risers and mooring lines. In [115] the ANSYS-
AWQA*TM was used to study the hydrodynnamic analysis and
stability of the offshore structures. In the present paper we
Fig .1. The mooring line patttern
select five design configurations of semi-subbmersible and they
are generated by genetic algorithm to study the hydrodynamic
TABLE II. DETAILS OF FIVE DESIGN CONFIGURATIONS
responses using Ansys AWQA*TM, for more details see [12].
In the selected five design configurations, the t dimensions of Design Design Design Design Design
Details in SI units
pontoons, columns, draft, and centre of graavity, meta-centric 1 2 3 4 5
height and weight have been varied. Inittially, we do the Length of pontoon (m) 90.5 107.6 90.1 91.6 94.1
frequency domain analysis with ANSYS-A AWQA*TM to find
the added mass, damping, diffraction forcees and Responses Breadth of pontoon(m) 12.72 13.7 11.92 11.9 11.72
Amplitude Operators (RAOs) and then we do the time Height of pontoon (m) 6.43 6.9 6.22 5.953 6.15
domain analysis to find the hydrodynamic response of semi-
Column diameter (m) 12.54 13.67 11.74 11.77 11.69
submersible with mooring lines. From the obbtained results, an
optimum design is selected and further the shapes of column is Height of column (m) 24.97 18.09 35.23 35.23 37.37
changed from circular to square and elliptic to find out which Pontoon Spacing (m) 66.39 64.41 74.89 73.45 74.93
shape gives the minimum response.
Centre of gravity from
18.7 15.8 23.8 23.9 24.9
II. MODEL AND NUMERICAL SIMULA
ATION DETAILS keel (m)
Meta-centric height in
A. Model and mooring line details x (GMr) (m)
4.26 4 4.2 3.66 3.15
The spiral stranded steel wires are chosen for the present Meta-centric height in
simulation and the properties of mooring linesl are listed in 13.67 26.49 6.83 7.78 7.24
y (GMp) (m)
Table 1, adapted from [14]. The model detailsd of the five Radius of gyration in x
semi-submersibles from [12] are given below w in Table 2. The 29.4 27 34.9 34.5 35.5
Rr (m)
adopted water depth for the numerical simuulation is 1000 m
Radius of gyration in y
and two types of mooring system are used in the analysis: 1) Ry (m)
31.8 35.2 34.1 34.6 35.72
mooring lines are shorter in length than type 2; and 2) mooring
Radius of gyration in z
lines are longer in length and almost double that of type 1 and Rz (m)
26.9 40.1 39.4 39.3 40.35
horizontal range is almost three times that off type 1. The type
2 mooring line has greater tension as comppared to the type Draft (m) 22.37 21.9 32.45 32.62 34.52
1. The constant horizontal range is not maintained
m because Weight (tons) 22710 25897 24741 24602 25752
the five geometries have varying dimensionss, and so length of
mooring lines is kept constant. The length of mooring lines 1- TABLE III. THE LENGTH
E OF MOORING LINE
8 is listed in Table 3. The mooring system used
u for both types
is 45 and 90 system. The angle between thhe mooring line 5 Length of mooring
m lines
and 8 is 90 and angle between the mooring line
l 5 and 1 is 45. Description Type 1 Type 2
The mooring line pattern is shown in Fig. 1.
Mooring line 1 1200 2100
Mooring line 2 1200 2100
TABLE I. THE PROPERTIES OF MOOR
RING LINES
Mooring line 3 1200 2100
Submergedd
Stiffness/length Breaking
Description weight/lengtth Mooring line 4 1200 2100
(EA) strength
( w)
Spiral Mooring line 5 1300 2700
90000d2 N 0.043d2 N 900d2 N
stranded Mooring line 6 1300 2700
(d in mm) (d in mm) (d in mm)
steel wire
Mooring line 7 1300 2700
Mooring line 8 1300 2700
B. Details of the program (ANSYS-AWQA*TM) condition, we can also find out the tension in mooring lines at
The numerical analysis has been done using hydrodynamic the initial condition. The computed natural periods are listed
software ANSYS-AWQA*TM, which is developed using for two types of mooring system in Table 4.
potential fluid theory. In frequency domain analysis the waves From Table 5, the Design 5 has longer time period
have been added in the range of 0 to 180 with an increment of compared to other four, and it is clear that longer length and
45, a maximum of 50 periods can be run in the program. The longer horizontal range of mooring lines reduces the natural
frequency domain analysis is performed using diffraction time periods of surge, sway and yaw, but mooring lines has
theory to obtain the RAO, damping and added mass, etc. After very little effect on heave, roll and pitch. From Table 5 we can
the frequency domain analysis, time domain analysis is assume that surge, sway and yaw responses depend on the
performed on all the five design configurations to obtain the horizontal range of mooring lines and also on the pattern of
heave and pitch response on moored semi-submersible using mooring system adopted. Here, we only use 45 and 90
irregular wave for head sea and beam sea conditions. For the mooring systems and all the results are confined to these.
present numerical analysis only irregular wave is used, and the Eigen values are listed in Table 5.
wind and current are ignored. We use wave spectrum of
Pierson Moskowitz and the details of irregular wave spectrum TABLE V. EIGEN VALUES FOR TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2
is given in Table 4.
Natural time periods (seconds)
TABLE IV. THE SPECTRUM DETAILS For type 1 mooring system
Design Design Design Design Design
Details
Pierson Moskowitz spectrum 1 2 3 4 5
Surge 862.5 897.6 987.4 992.7 1047.5
Description Sea state 9 Sea state 10
Sway 731.4 750 837 833.5 878.7
Zero crossing period Heave 20 21.1 21 21 21.5
12 14
(Ts) (sec)
Pitch 21.5 18.6 30.8 29.6 31.5
Significant wave
7.6 12
height (Hs) (m) Roll 40.1 40.4 45.6 48.5 53.33
Yaw 262.4 285.6 299.8 300.8 316.61
The ANSYS-AWQA*TM does not consider the viscous For type 2 mooring system
effects, so an additional damping of 2 percentage is assumed Design Design Design Design Design
and that is used as an input to the program. As the program is Details
1 2 3 4 5
developed using the potential flow theory, the program has the Surge 309 325 355 356 453.9
following assumptions:
Sway 307.8 318.7 346.9 344 408.2
Flow is inviscid,
Heave 20 21.1 21 28.9 21.46
Flow is irrotational,
Flow is incompressible, Pitch 21.1 18.4 30 21 30.8
Seabed is rigid, horizontal and impermeable, Roll 38.2 38.7 43.4 45.8 50.4
Kinematic free surface condition, Yaw 108 117.2 123.5 124 140.4
dynamic free surface condition,
Pressure at the free surface is uniform and constant, III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Surface tension is neglected,
A. Response amplitude operators for heave and pitch
Velocity potential exists, and
No particle flow through the structure. All the five semi-submersible design configurations are
modeled as single point mass system with six degrees of
C. Eigen values freedom. As ANSYS-AWQA*TM has meshing limitation up to
12000 only or the diffraction elements are restricted up to
Eigen value analysis is performed to find the natural 12000, all the five design configurations are discretized
frequencies or natural time periods of the structure. The air approximately in to 7000 panels. Then the frequency domain
generated waves have time period in between 4 and 35 analysis is done using first order waves to obtain stability,
seconds approximately, so the Eigen values gives an idea damping, heave and pitch RAOs for head sea (0 wave
about the geometry that has the time periods which are in the direction) and beam sea (90 wave direction) condition for all
range of wave periods, from this we can find out the type of the five semisubmersible design configurations. As the
degree of freedom which will be excited to the wave periods. ANSYS-AWQA*TM program can take only 50 wave periods at
For the present numerical simulation 2 percent additional once, so in order to get the accurate heave and pitch RAOs,
damping is assumed and given as input to the program to find simulations for both heave and pitch have been done
the Eigen values. Librium analysis in ANSYS-AWQA*TM is separately. The heave and pitch RAOs are shown in Figs. 2 to
performed to find the equilibrium positions of the structure in 5.
six degrees of freedom after the structure is installed and to get
the natural frequencies in each degree of freedom in still water
 1) For head sea condition: before concluding that Design 5 needs to be tested for
a) Heave response: From Fig. 2 all five designs have the irregular waves for heave, pitch, surge and sway responses.
peak responses between 20 to 25 seconds and responses are This is discussed in the next section.
between 1 and 4 (unit less). The Design 2 and Design 5 have
approximately equal responses, the Design 5 response almost
occurs at 24 seconds, which is above the natural period. The
geometry of Design 2 is completely different when compared
to Design 5, e.g. Design 2 is a shallow draft vessel, where as
Design 5 is deep draft vessel. So for the head sea condition
with first order waves, Design 2 and Design 5 have minimum
response.
b) The pitch response: From Fig. 3 the responses of five
designs are between 18 to 35 seconds, where Design 2 occurs
at lower time level and Design 5 occurs at higher time level.
The Designs 4 and 5 responses are low compared to others,
whereas Design 3 has the highest response. When the
geometries of Designs 3, 4, 5 are compared with each other
the three have similar geometry except that Design 5 has draft
higher than 3 and 4, this may have been an advantage for
Fig .2. Heave response for the head sea condition.
Design 5 to have a minimum response compared with Design
3 and Design 4. The Design 3 has high response even though
Design 3 and Design 4 have similar geometry, the reason is
not known presently. So for the head sea condition Design 5
has minimum response.
2) For beam sea condition
a) Heave response: The beam sea condition is almost
similar to that of head sea condition. From Figs. 2 and 4, we
can say that the heave response does not change much for
head sea and beam sea conditions. From Fig. 4 all the
responses are in 20 to 24 seconds and Design 2 and 5 have low
responses compared to the others. Unlike in Fig. 2, Design 5
response is low compared to Design 2 in Fig. 4. The Design 2
has a shallow draft compared to Design 5, and for beam sea
condition the deep draft vessel has a better response, even
though the other geometries 3 and 4 have deeper drafts than
Design 2 their response is higher than Design 2, and the
Fig .3. Pitch response for the head sea condition.
reason for this may be due to the length of the hull of Design 2
which is higher than the rest of geometries. So heave response
for the beam sea is minimum for Design 5.
b) Pitch response: From Fig 5 the motion responses of
all the geometries are very low and approximately equal to
zero. The reason for this is that the wave direction at 90 degree
to the structure along the y-axis is the pitch axis of the
structure Even though Design 2 response is very less it is
greater than the remaining other four geometries and the
reason for this may be the meta-centric height (GMp) in y-
direction which is greater than the all four geometries.
From frequency domain analysis with regular waves the
overall responses of Design 5 for head sea and beam sea
conditions are minimum. From Table 2 the geometry is same
for Designs 3, 4 and 5, but response wise Design 5 is better
when compared to 3 and 4 and the reason for this might be
that the Design 5 is approximately 1000 tons heavier than
Designs 3 and 4 and it has a draft which is higher than Designs Fig .4. Heave response for the beam sea condition.
3 and 4. From Figs. 2 to 4, overall response of Design 5 is
minimum compared to other designs, so for regular waves
Design 5 can be considered as the optimum design. However,

Fig .5. Pitch response for the beam sea condition.
B. Time domain simulation
The time domain simulations are carried out using NAUT
analysis in ANSYS-AWQA*TM for moored semi-submersible
with irregular waves. The irregular wave is represented by a
wave spectrum whose details are given in Table 4. The
dynamic effects of mooring lines on the response of semi-
submersible can be studied using the NAUT analysis. As the
surge and sway response depend on mooring lines, in time
domain simulation, integration is performed in steps for both
the semi-submersible and the mooring lines, so that the
interaction between the vessel and the mooring lines is
studied. As the surge and sway natural periods of the designs
for type 1 mooring are above 700 seconds, so in order to get at
least ten surge and sway cycles of response, a three hour time
domain simulation is carried out with a time step of 0.01.
Following [14], the semi-submersible motion is given:
(M + ma ) x + Cx + Kx = F(t) (1)
where M is mass of the structure, ma is added mass, C is the
damping, K is the stiffness of structures, F(t) is the excitation
force due to waves, current, mooring lines and wind.
For the present simulation wind and current are ignored.
The heave, pitch, surge and sway responses for head sea
condition in sea state 9 for type 1 and type 2 mooring system
are given in Figs. 6 to 11. For head sea condition the responses
for two sea states and two mooring system are listed in Tables
6 to 9. For beam sea condition the responses for two sea states
and two mooring system are listed in Tables 10 to 13.
1) Responses for head sea condition for type 1 and 2
mooring system
a) Heave and pitch response: From Fig. 6 and Tables 6
to 9, the heave response is minimum for type 2 mooring
system for both the sea states. The horizontal range of
mooring lines in type 2 mooring system is almost 3 times than
that of type 1 mooring system. From this we can observe that
longer horizontal range of mooring lines decreases the
response of heave for head sea condition. When we compare
the response values from Tables 6 to 9, the Design 2 has a
lower response compared to other designs. However, the value
is not constant for all the sea states and it varies from 0.68 to
1.52. The Design 5 response is constant except for sea state 10
type 2 mooring system where it is decreasing. The Design 2 is
a shallow draft vessel when compared to others, so from the
tables we can observe that a shallow draft vessel gives a
minimum response. From Fig. 7 and Tables 6 to 9, the pitch
response is random for all the designs for both the sea states.
For sea state 9 and both the mooring systems the pitch
response is the minimum for Design 5. For sea state 10 and
both the mooring systems Design 2 has overall minimum pitch
response. So from Tables 6 to 9, we can observe that pitch
response varies according to the sea state and will not be
constant or minimum to certain geometries.
b) Surge response: From Figs. 8 and 9 and Tables 6 to
9, the surge response is reduced for type 2 mooring system
compared with type 1 for both the sea states. The Design 3 has
minimum response for all the sea states and mooring system.
The Design 3 has a minimum pontoon length of all the five
designs and this can be the reason for minimum response.
c) Sway response: From Tables 6 to 9, response of all
the designs is the minimum for sea state 9 and for both type of
mooring system. The Design 3 has minimum response for
both sea states and two type of mooring systems
2) Responses for beam sea condition for type 1 and 2
mooring system
a) Heave and pitch response: From Tables 10 to 13, the
heave response is the minimum for Design 2 for all the sea
states and mooring systems when compared with rest of the
designs. As observed in the head sea case, in beam sea
condition also the shallow draft vessel has the minimum
response. The type 2 mooring system has minimum response
for both the sea states except for Design 1 in type 2 mooring
system for sea state 9, which is higher than the Design 1 in
type 1 mooring system for sea state 9. From Tables 10 to 13,
the pitch is very low for all the design except for Design 5 in
sea state 10 for type 2 mooring system. As the spectrum is
along the y-axis (90) the pitch responses is greatly reduced for
all the geometries.
b) Surge response: From Tables 10 to 13, for type 1
mooring system Design 1 and for type 2 mooring system
Design 3 have the minimum response. The surge is at
minimum for type 2 mooring system for both the sea states,
except for Design 5 in sea state 10 for both the mooring
systems. The Design 3 has minimum response for both sea
states and mooring systems.
c) Sway response: From Tables 10 to 13, the five
designs show varied response for both the sea states and
mooring systems. For type 1 mooring system the Design 5 has
minimum response and for type 2 mooring system Design 1
has minimum response. From the brief survey, we can say the
overall responses of Designs 2, 3 and 4 are minimum
compared with rest of the two designs.
Fig .6. Heave amplitude for head sea, sea state 9 - type 1 mooring.
Fig .9. Sway response for head sea, sea state 9 - type 1 mooring.

Fig .7. Pitch amplitude for head sea, sea state 9 - type 1 mooring.
Fig .10. Surge response for head sea, sea state 10 - type 2 mooring.

Fig .8. Surge response for head sea, sea state 9 - type 1 mooring.
Fig .11. Sway response for head sea, sea state 10 - type 2 mooring.
 TABLE VI. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR HEAD SEA TYPE 1 TABLE X. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR BEAM SEA- TYPE 1
MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 9 MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 9

For head sea- type 1 mooring system For beam sea- type 1 mooring system
Sea state 9 Sea state 9
Pitch Sway Heave
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m) Surge (m) Pitch (degree)
(degree) (m) (m)
Design 1 25 0.13 1.6 1.56 Design 1 5.00E-03 20.5 1.9 1.00E-04

Design 2 41 0.13 0.74 2.6 Design 2 1.1 11.9 1.1 0.026

Design 3 12.2 0.11 3.4 0.36 Design 3 0.01 14.5 3.6 2.20E-03

Design 4 12 0.17 3.26 0.86 Design 4 27 29 1.8 1.5

Design 5 6.4 0.23 2.2 0.26 Design 5 5.4 6.5 2.3 8.00E-04

TABLE VII. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR HEAD SEA TYPE 2 TABLE XI. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR BEAM SEA- TYPE 2
MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 9 MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 9

For head sea- type 2 mooring system For beam sea- type 2 mooring system
Sea state 9 Sea state 9
Pitch Sway Heave Pitch
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m) Surge (m)
(degree) (m) (m) (degree)
Design 1 1.6 0.03 1.2 0.95 Design 1 6.50E-04 2.2 1.5 1.00E-04

Design 2 6.3 0.03 0.68 1.2 Design 2 0.08 3.1 0.9 0.011

Design 3 1.8 0.02 1.58 0.11 Design 3 2.30E-03 1.8 1.75 1.00E-04

Design 4 1.85 0.05 1.55 0.11 Design 4 9.50E-04 1.8 1.75 1.80E-04

Design 5 3 0.9 1.75 0.14 Design 5 1.20E-03 2.6 1.8 8.00E-04

TABLE VIII. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR HEAD SEA TYPE 1 TABLE XII. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR BEAM SEA- TYPE 1
MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 10 MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 10

For head sea- type 1 mooring system For beam sea- type 1 mooring system
Sea state 10 Sea state 10
Pitch Pitch
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m) Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m)
(degree) (degree)
Design 1 81.7 1.7 2.35 2.7 Design 1 34 41 2.8 1.42

Design 2 65 1.7 1.52 2 Design 2 2.2 44 2.3 0.016

Design 3 38.1 16 5.2 5.3 Design 3 0.12 74 4.1 0.02

Design 4 90 31 2 4.25 Design 4 63 42 2 2.35

Design 5 125 32.5 2.2 4.1 Design 5 119 42 2.6 4.1

TABLE IX. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR HEAD SEA TYPE 2 TABLE XIII. THE MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR BEAM SEA- TYPE 2
MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 10 MOORING SYSTEM FOR SEA STATE 10

For head sea- type 2 mooring system For beam sea- type 2 mooring system
Sea state 10 Sea state 10
Pitch Sway Heave
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m) Surge (m) Pitch (degree)
(degree) (m) (m)
Design 1 6.1 0.02 2 1.9 Design 1 0.055 7.2 2.3 0.04

Design 2 14 0.02 1 1.8 Design 2 0.18 7 2 0.017

Design 3 8.5 0.01 2.3 0.5 Design 3 2.50E-03 8 2.4 1.30E-03

Design 4 19 3.6 1.6 2.2 Design 4 0.23 12 1.95 0.06

Design 5 65 18 2.2 3.6 Design 5 65 24 3 3

 From the tables shown above, overall responses of Design
2 and Design 3 are better than the rest of them. The Design 2
is a shallow draft vessel, where as Design 3 is deep draft
vessel. The deep draft vessel has many advantages such as
storage of water, drilling fluid, and fuel etc. The Design 3 may
be the optimum design, but since the results are confined to
the 45 and 90 mooring patterns only, within these mooring
patterns Design 3 can be assumed as an optimum design.
C. Responses for change in column shape of Design 3
As the overall responses for Design 3 are at the minimum,
two basic types of shape variations are investigated for
column, e.g. square and ellipse. To accommodate these
shapes, some minor changes are made to the pontoon designs,
i.e. the edges are rounded with radius 0.5 m (1/12 of pontoon
width) and square column edges are also rounded with radius
0.74 m (1/8th of column diameter). The square column
dimensions and elliptic column major axis (a) and minor axis
(b) dimensions are listed in Table 14. The other parameters of Fig .13. Pitch RAOs for square and elliptic columns
Design 3 are not changed except column and pontoon. By
changing column shape water plane area is also kept constant.

TABLE XIV. CHANGE IN COLUMN DIMENSIONS OF DESIGN 3

Changed column dimensions of
Actual dimension
design 3
Description
Design 3 Square column Elliptic column
diameter (m) L X L (m2) a x b (m2)
Column 11.74 10.4 x 10.4 6.89 x 5

The RAOs for head and beam seas are shown in Figs. 12 to
15, and from them the heave RAOs of Design 3 (cylindrical
column) and square column are approximately the same and
the elliptic column semi-submersible has a very high heave
response. The pitch RAOs of cylindrical, square and elliptic
columns for head and beam seas are at minimum. The surge
and sway responses for type 2 mooring system for sea state 9
and sea state 10 are shown in Figs. 16 and 19 and amplitude
of the responses are listed in Tables 15 to 18. The overall Fig .14. Heave RAOs for square and elliptic columns.
response of square column semi-submersible is better when
compared with cylindrical column (Design 3) and elliptical
column.

Fig .15. Pitch RAOs for square and elliptic columns.

Fig .12. Heave RAOs for square and elliptic columns.

Fig .16. Heave amplitude for sea sate 9, type 2 mooring. Fig .19. Sway response for sea state 9, type 2 mooring system.

TABLE XV. MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR SQUARE AND ELLIPTIC

COLUMNS

For head sea- type 2 mooring system

Sea state 9 Pitch
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m)
(degree)
Design 3 1.8 0.02 1.58 0.11
Square
1.3 3.60E-03 1.5 0.12
column
Elliptic
1.4 1.30E-03 1.5 0.13
column

TABLE XVI. MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR SQUARE AND ELLIPTIC

COLUMNS

For head sea- type 2 mooring system

Sea state 10 Pitch
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m)
(degree)
Design 3 8.5 0.01 2.3 0.5
Square
Fig .17. Pitch amplitude for sea state 9, type 2 mooring. 7 0.4 2 0.85
column
Elliptic
6.5 0.34 2 0.75
column

TABLE XVII. MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR SQUARE AND ELLIPTIC

COLUMNS

For beam sea- type 2 mooring system

Sea state 9 Pitch
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m)
(degree)
Design 3 2.30E-03 1.8 1.75 1.00E-04
Square
2.30E-03 1.5 1.8 2.40E-05
column
Elliptic
2.20E-02 1.6 1.7 1.20E-02
column

Fig .18. Surge response for sea state 9, type 2 mooring.

 TABLE XVIII. MAXIMUM RESPONSES FOR SQUARE AND ELLIPTIC
COLUMNS
For beam sea- type 2 mooring system
Sea state 10 Pitch
Surge (m) Sway (m) Heave (m)
(degree)
Design 3 2.50E-03 8 2.4 1.30E-03
Square
1.30E-03 7 1.8 2.60E-04
column
Elliptic
0.24 7.5 2 7.20E-02
column
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a numerical simulation with
frequency domain analysis using first order waves to obtain
RAOs for heave and pitch of semi-submersible. From the
presented results, we have shown that the Design 5 has
minimum response for heave and pitch for head and beam sea
conditions. However, the heave response is not much affected
by the angle of wave approach (i.e. beam and head sea
conditions). The mooring systems of 45 and 90 and time
domain analysis with irregular waves for head and beam sea
conditions have been reported. The type 2 mooring system has
shown a better response of heave, pitch, surge and sway. The
overall responses of Design 2 and Design 3 are better than the
other designs. As the Design 3 is a deep draft vessel it is
chosen for the further analysis, and our shape related analysis
in frequency domain with regular waves and time domain with
irregular waves reveals that the computed heave RAOs for
elliptic column semi-submersible are very high as compared to
the cylindrical and square column semi-submersibles. The
surge and sway are low frequency responses compared to
heave and pitch which are in the range of wave frequencies, so
overall heave and pitch responses of Design 3 with square
column is better when compared with cylindrical and elliptical
column semi-submersible. However, since the computed
responses are confined to 45 and 90 mooring system the
conclusions can only be drawn within this range. The analysis
needs to be extended to cover a larger range of mooring
systems and sea states. Our future work shall go in that
direction and currently these are under research.
TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT
*
Trademark and copyright with ANSYS Inc., USA.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Birk and G. F. Clauss, Optimization of offshore structures based on
linear analysis of wave body interaction, Proceedings of OMAE,
ASME Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Estoril, portugal,
June 2008.
[2] L. Birk and G. F. Clauss, Parametric hull design and automated
optimization of offshore structures, 10th International congress of the
Mediterranean (I.M.A.M), Crete, paper No - 93, 2002.
[3] L. Birk, G. F. Clauss and J. Y. Lee, Practical application of global
optimization to the design of offshore structures, 23rd International
conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vancouver,
Canada, June 2004.
[4] L. Birk and G. F. Clauss. Automated hull optimization of offshore
structures based on rational sea-keeping criteria, Eleventh
International offshore and Polar Engineering conference, Stavanger,
Norway, June 2001.
[5] J. A van Santen. Approximative formulae for calculating the motions
of semi-submersibles, Ocean Engineering, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 235-252,
1985.
[6] J. Y Lee and G. F. Clauss. Automated development of floating
offshore structures in deepwater with verified global performances by
coupled analysis, 7th International offshore and polar Engineering
Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, July 2007.
[7] M. Adjami and M. Shafieefar. Hydrodynamic shape optimization of
semi-submersible using a Genetic Algorithm, Journal of Marine
Science and Technology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 109 122, 2008.
[8] M.R Martins and D.F.S Burgos. Multi-objective optimization Design
of tanker ships via a genetic algorithm, Journal of Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, vol. 133/041303-1, 2011.
[9] Y. Ji-xiang, Q. Yao-guang, X. Wen-sheng, Y. Lei and Y. Yi-pu. Study
on the general layout of semi-submersible offshore drilling platforms
based on process flow, Journal of Marine Science and Application,
vol. 8, pp. 117-122, 2009.
[10] H. L. Mikenberg and M. F. Van Sluijs, Motion optimization of semi-
submersibles, Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas, Texas-May-
1972.
[11] E. A. Pedersen. Motion analysis of semi-submersible, Student Thesis,
NTNU, Norway, June 2012.
[12] G. D Gosain and R. Sharma. Conceptual design of an ultra-low motion
new-age semi-submersible platform, Journal of the Institution of
Engineers (India) in Marine Engineering, vol. 92, pp. 3-10, July 2011.
[13] W. Ye, J. Shanks and J. Fang. Effects of fully coupled and quasi-static
semi-submersible vessel motions on steel catenary risers wave loading
fatigue, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, May
2003.
[14] N. D. P. Barltrop. Floating structures: a guide for design and analysis,
Oilfield Publications Limited, vol. 2, Herefordshire, England, 1998.
[15] M.A. Jordan and R. Beltran-Aguedo. Optimal identification of
potential-radiation hydrodynamics for moored floating structures - a
new general approach in state space, Ocean Engineering, vol. 31, pp.
1859 1914, 2004.