Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

Multibody system dynamics simulator for process simulation of ships

and offshore plants in shipyards
Sol Ha a, Nam-Kug Ku b, Myung-Il Roh c,, Ho-Jin Hwang d
a
Engineering Research Institute, Seoul National University, Daehak-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-744, Republic of Korea
b
Department of the Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Dong-eui University, Eomgwang-ro, Bisanjin-ku, Busan 614-714, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Research Institute of Marine Systems Engineering, Seoul National University, Daehak-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul
151-744, Republic of Korea
d
Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Yuseong-daero, Youseong-ku, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Since various existing simulation tools based on multibody system dynamics focus on conventional
Received 28 November 2014 mechanical systems, such as machinery, cars, and spacecraft, there are some problems with the applica-
Received in revised form 19 January 2015 tion of such simulation tools to shipbuilding domains due to the absence of specic items in the eld of
Accepted 15 February 2015
naval architecture and ocean engineering, such as hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, and mooring forces.
Available online 6 March 2015
Thus, in this study, we developed a multibody system dynamics simulator for the process simulation
of ships and offshore structures. We based the simulator on six kernels: the multibody system dynamics
Keywords:
kernel, the force calculation kernel, the numerical analysis kernel, the hybrid simulation kernel, the
Multibody system dynamics
Modeling and simulation
scenario management kernel, and the collision detection kernel. Based on these kernels, we implemented
Ship a simulator that had the following Graphic User Interfaces (GUIs): the modeling, visualization, and report
Offshore plant GUIs. In addition, the geometric properties of blocks and facilities in shipyards are needed to congure
Scenario management the simulation for the production of ships and offshore plants, so these are managed in a database and
Lifting connected to a specic commercial CAD system in shipyards. We used the simulator we developed in
Transporting various cases of the process simulation of ships and offshore plants. The results show that the simulator
is useful for various simulations of operations in shipyards and offshore industries.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction various existing simulation tools based on multibody system

Requests for accurate dynamic analysis using a simulation tool
have been increasing in many engineering elds, including in the
shipbuilding industry. Unlike the conventional mechanical systems
such as cars and machinery, all ships and offshore structures differ
in purpose, shape, and size [1]. Thus, even though process planning
may be set up based on the experience of similar ships and offshore
structures, many unexpected problems may occur during their
production. For example, an interference between a block and
the wire ropes, the desynchronization between the cranes, the
excess of the maximum tension of the wire ropes, etc. can occur
during the production of ships and offshore plants. Fig. 1 shows
such problem during production in shipyards.
Moreover, due to the recent increase in the demand for offshore
plants and new-concept ships, new manufacturing methods in
shipyards are frequently reviewed with simulation, including with
dynamic analysis, to conrm their availability and safety [2]. Since
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: miroh@snu.ac.kr (M.-I. Roh).
dynamics focus on conventional mechanical systems, such as
machinery, cars, and spacecraft, there are some problems with
the application of these simulation tools to shipbuilding domains
due to the absence of specic items in the eld of naval architec-
ture and ocean engineering, such as hydrostatic, hydrodynamic,
wake, and mooring forces. Therefore, some recent studies focused
on developing a simulation tool for the shipbuilding process based
on the multibody system dynamics theorem.
The remainder of this paper is as follows. Section 2 reviews pre-
vious works related to this study. In Section 3, the developed
multibody system dynamics simulator for the shipbuilding process
is introduced. Its application to shipbuilding follows in Section 4.
The last section summarizes this study and briey discusses the
next study.
2. Related works
There are various open-source-based or commercial software
programs that are based on the multibody system dynamics theo-
rem. However, there are few cases of their application to the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.02.008
0965-9978/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225
Fig. 1. Some problems during the production of ships and offshore plants.
simulation of the shipbuilding production process, because it is dif-
cult for these systems to support shipbuilding-friendly external
forces such as hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces.
ADAMS (Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems) is
a software system with a number of integrated programs that help
engineers perform three-dimensional kinematic and dynamic ana-
lyses of mechanical systems [3,4]. ADAMS generates equations of
motion for multibody systems using augmented formulation. The
user can dene any multibody system composed of several rigid
and exible bodies that are interconnected by joints. ADAMS sup-
plies various types of joints, such as xed, revolute, and spherical
joints. Various external forces can also be applied to multibody sys-
tems, but hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, which are the
dominant forces exerted on the oating platform and are often
used in shipyards, cannot be handled by ADAMS. ODE (Open
Dynamics Engine) is an open-source library for simulating multi-
body dynamics [5]. Similar to ADAMS, ODE derives equations of
motion for multibody systems using augmented formulation.
However, ODE can treat only rigid bodies, not exible bodies.
Moreover, it cannot handle hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces.
RecurDyn [6] is a three-dimensional simulation program that com-
bines dynamic response analysis tools and nite element analysis
tools for multibody systems. It is two to 20 times faster than other
dynamic solutions because of its advanced fully recursive formula-
tion. Various joints and external forces can also be applied to
multibody systems, but RecurDyn cannot handle hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic forces.
Unlike these programs that are based on multibody system
dynamics, MOSES (Multi-Operational Structural Engineering
Simulator) is a simulation program that can analyze the motion of
a single body in a uid by applying hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
forces to it [7]. With this program, a restrictively connected multi-
body system cannot be simulated because the program does not
support a connective relation between the bodies, but a simulation
that considers hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces as external
forces is possible. Thus, MOSES is often used for ocean simulation
for a oating single body in shipyards.
In other areas of study that do not use the aforementioned pro-
grams, some researches related to shipbuilding domains have been
13
conducted. Cha et al. proposed and developed a simulation frame-
work for the dynamic analysis of the shipbuilding production pro-
cess [8,9,10]. Based on Cha et al.s studies, the formulation of
multibody system dynamics was changed in order to make automat-
ed dynamic analysis efcient, and the component-based scenario
management and GUIs were enhanced in this study. The aforemen-
tioned related works are summarized and compared with this study
in Table 1.
3. Multibody system dynamics simulator for ships and offshore
plants
3.1. Conguration of the multibody system dynamics simulator
Fig. 2 shows the conguration of the multibody system dynam-
ics simulator developed in this study. The developed simulator has
three layers: the Database, Kernels, and Graphic User Interface
(GUI). The core function of the kernels layer is to simulate the
operations in shipyards and offshore industries. It has six compo-
nents: the multibody system dynamics kernel, force calculation
kernel, numerical analysis kernel, hybrid discrete event system
specication (DEVS)/discrete time system specication (DTSS)
kernel, scenario management kernel, and collision detection
kernel. The GUI layer is based on these kernels and supports the
users simple simulations from various cases in shipyards or
offshore industries. In addition, the geometric properties of the
block and facilities in shipyards are needed to congure the
simulation for the production of ships and offshore plants, so these
are managed in the database layer. In the following sections, the
kernels and GUI layers are described in detail.
3.2. Kernels
As mentioned in the previous section, the developed system has
six core kernels. The function and role of each kernel are as follows.
3.2.1. Multibody system dynamics kernel
The crane systems in shipyards are all multibody systems in
which multiple rigid bodies are joined together. Thus, we devel-
oped the dynamic analysis kernel for the multibody system. The
computer methods used in the automated dynamic analysis of
multibody systems that consist of rigid bodies are generally classi-
ed into two main approaches [11]. In the rst approach, the con-
guration of the system is identied using a set of Cartesian
coordinates that describe the locations and orientations of the bod-
ies. This approach is called augmented formulation. In the second
approach, relative joint variables are used to formulate a minimum
set of differential equations of motion, and two types of formula-
tion use relative joint variables: embedding formulation and recur-
sive formulation. However, embedding formulation has difculty
with automatically modeling multibody systems, so a multibody
system dynamics kernel was developed based on recursive formu-
lation [12] in a previous study [13]. To validate the developed ker-
nel, the analysis results were compared with the data measured
from a shipyard. This comparison conrmed that the simulation
and measured data differed by only 10%. This 10% difference might
have been caused mainly by the uncertainty of each multibody sys-
tem and environmental factors, so we are planning to consider this
uncertainty a factor of each term.
The dynamics of a rigid body system are described according to
the systems equations of motion, which specify the relationship
between the forces that act on the system and the accelerations
they produce. The developed kernel contains the algorithms for
the following two calculations: the calculation of the forward
dynamics, or of the acceleration response of a given rigid body
14 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225

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

Items This study Cha et al. ADAMS ODE RecurDyn MOSES

Multibody formulation Recursive Embedding Augmented Augmented Recursive General NewtonEuler
formulation technique formulation formulation formulation equation
Various joints O O O O O X
Flexible body X X O X O X
Hydrostatic force O O X X X O
Linearized hydrodynamic O O X X X O
force
Scenario management O O O X O 4

Modeling GUI Visualization GUI Report GUI

Multibody System Scenario 3D Table Chart
Modeling Modeling Rendering Generator Generator

Kernels
Scenario Management Force Calculation Kernel
Kernel
Combination of Actors External Forces
Hybrid DEVS/DTSS Wind, Current, Control, etc.
Kernel
Discrete Event & Time Simulation
Collision Detection Interactive Forces
Wire Rope, Contact, Mooring, etc.
Kernel
Broad & Narrow Phase
Numerical Analysis Forces Acting On Floater
Kernel Hydrostatic, Hydrodynamic
Euler, Runge-Kutta, Adams-Bashforth, etc.
Multibody System Dynamics
Kernel
Recursive Newton-Euler Formulation

Database

Block Facility
Geometry & Geometry &
Property Property

Fig. 2. Conguration of the multibody system dynamics simulator for the process simulation of ships and offshore plants.

system to a given applied force, and the calculation of the inverse
dynamics, or of the force that must be applied to a given rigid body
system to produce a given acceleration response. The equations of
motion for each body of a multibody system based on recursive
formulation can be summarized as follows.
v^ i i Xi1  v^ i1 Si  q_ i ; a^i i Xi1  a^i1 Si  qi S_ i  q_ i v^ i  Si  q_ i
^f B ^I  a ^ i ; ^f i ^f Bi i Xi1  ^f i1  ^f ext
^ i ^Ii  v
i i ^i v
si STi  ^f i
3.2.2. Force calculation kernel
The force calculation kernel calculates the forces that act on the
multibody system. Some forces act on a rigid body of the system,
and other forces act on a joint of the system. As shown in Fig. 2,
the force calculation kernel has three kinds of forces: external
forces, interactive forces, and forces that act on a oater such as
a ship or an offshore plant. External forces act on a body or joint.
Some forces such as wind and current forces are caused by the
environment, and other forces, such as the controlling force, are
planned by an engineer. Interactive forces act on two or more bod-
ies by interconnecting them with a certain mechanical system (for
example, a wire rope or a spring) or by colliding them. A tension
i force caused by a wire rope, a contact force caused by colliding
two rigid bodies, and a mooring force are examples of interactive
forces. Moreover, a load-balancing system, called an equalizer
1 in shipyards, is also considered a type of this kernel. To apply
equivalent tensions to all wires, the length of each wire is con-
trolled in proportion to the tension that acts on it after classifying
it as an equalizer.
The forces that act on a oater are only existing forces on the
domain in ships and offshore plants (actually, these are kinds of
external forces). There are two kinds of these forces: hydrostatic
 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225 15

Scenario for moving block Generation of a scenario using actors

1. Set position and orientation of Crane Target: J1 Target: J2
2. Hoist up Block Joint Joint
Action: rotate Action: rotate
3. Change position and orientation of Crane Actor Actor
4. Hoist down Block
Wire Target: W1
Action: hoist (up)
Actor

Joint Target: J1 Joint Target: J2

Action: rotate Action: rotate
Actor Actor

Wire Target: W1
Action: hoist (down)
Actor

Fig. 3. Generation of a scenario using actors: Scenario for moving a block.

and hydrodynamic forces. The hydrostatic force applied to a oat-
ing body is calculated while considering the bodys instantaneous
position, and is expressed as follows.
" Z Z Z #T
^f ext q;t q g 0; 0; dV; y dV;  xBuoy dV; 0
Hydrostatic sw Buoy
Vq;t Vq;t Vq;t
In the preceding equation, qsw is the density of sea water, g is
the gravitational acceleration, V(q, t) is the submerged volume of
the oating body, and xBuoy and yBuoy are the coordinates of the cen-
ter of buoyancy. The shape of a rigid body is modeled as a trigonal-
ized mesh. To calculate the physical properties of the submerged
volume of the oating platform, its mesh is rst intersected with
the waterplane, after which the mesh under the waterplane is cho-
sen. Then this mesh is divided into a number of tetrahedrons using
the triangles on the mesh surface, and the submerged volume of
the oating platform can be calculated by summarizing the vol-
umes of the tetrahedrons. Other physical properties, including
the center of buoyancy and the second moment of the submerged
volume, are also similarly calculated [14]. The hydrodynamic force
is calculated in the time domain using the 3D Rankine panel
method. The hydrodynamic force exerted on a oating body can
be determined by integrating the pressure over the wet surface,
as shown in the following equation.
2 3T
ZZ ZZ
^f ext 4 @/ @/
hydrodynamic  ndS13 ;  r  ndS13 5
@t @t
S S
In the preceding equation, S is the submerged surface, and r is
each panels position vector located on the bodys surface dened
in body-xed coordination. The algorithms for the calculation of
these forces were studied in previous works [15,13] and modular-
ized in this study.
3.2.3. Numerical analysis kernel
To simulate and analyze the dynamic phenomena in the ship-
building process for each time unit, a numerical analysis kernel
was developed in this study. Because of some strict cases of simula-
tion for the production of ships and offshore plants, the numerical
analysis kernel provides various numerical integration methods
such as the Euler method, RungeKutta method, Adams
Bashforth method, and HilberHughesTaylor method. The
RungeKutta method is one of the best solutions for numerical inte-
gration, but the target block in shipyards is much heavier than the
spring coefcient of wire ropes. Thus, the numerical integration of
the operation in shipyards is often unstable when the Runge
Kutta method is used. Because of this problem, this system supports
other numerical integration methods for the achievement of
numerical stability, and the user can choose one method depending
on his or her case. Using the kernel, the integrator integrates the
equations of motion and calculates the position and velocity of each
body in the given systems at each time unit.
2
3.2.4. Hybrid DEVS/DTSS kernel
There are two kinds of simulation. A simulation in which the
state of a model changes by means of any event is called discrete
event simulation. The discrete event simulation processes events,
which change the state variables of a model, in the order in which
they occur. A simulation that calculates the state of a model at each
unit time is called discrete time simulation. It is mostly used to
analyze dynamic or mechanical systems because it calculates the
state of a model at each time unit.
Zeigler et al. [16] proposed formal structures, DEVS, and dis-
crete time system specications (DTSS) for handling simulation
models of discrete events and times. They are widely used as stan-
dard modeling and simulation formalisms. The DEVS formalism is
a hierarchical and modular modeling approach centered on the
state concept. In its basic form, it does not consider the system
structure evolution. Instead, only the states can evolve or move.
Each system is described functionally (behaviorally) and struc-
turally. Likewise, the DEVS formalism is composed of two types
of models: atomic models and coupled models. The atomic model
represents the basic behavior of the system, and the computed
3
model denotes its internal structure. On the other hand, the cou-
pled model assembles several atomic and/or coupled models to
build a complex system hierarchy.
The DTSS formalism is a model structure that continuously cal-
culates the state of a model at each time unit. An atomic model
based on DTSS formalism has a structure similar to that of the
DEVS formalism. In addition, it is connected to the atomic model
of DEVS formalism. Its overall system is composed of a set of com-
ponent models, either atomic or coupled, and thus, has a hierarchi-
cal structure. Each DEVS or DTSS model, also either atomic or
coupled, corresponds to an object in the real system to be modeled.
Bang developed a simulation framework based on the hybrid
DEVS and DTSS formalism [17]. To evaluate the efciency and
applicability of this simulation framework, it was applied to the
block erection process in shipbuilding [8], the dive of a submarine
[18], and an analysis of the evacuation of a passenger ship [19].
Most analyses based on multibody system dynamics are
time-based. However, as mentioned in the previous section, the
shipbuilding process is a kind of event-based analysis. Thus, in this
study, the hybrid DEVS and DTSS formalism is used to cover both
16 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225

(a) Ribbon style menu

(f) Timeline
(c) 3D simulation view,
Scenario editor,
Report view

(b) Model
Tree

(e) Log window

(d) Property editor

Fig. 4. Components of the GUI of the multibody dynamics simulator developed in this study: (a) ribbon-style menu, (b) model tree of the target multibody systems, (c) 3D
simulation view, scenario editor, and report view, (d) property editor, (e) log window, and (f) timeline.

Edit Edit Edit Edit Import and export

multibody rigid body joint wire rope multibody

Editable
in model tree

Fig. 5. Graphic user interface: Multibody system modeling GUI.

time-based and event-based analyses. The simulation kernel devel-
oped by Bang was also used in this study.
3.2.5. Scenario management kernel
In this study, the scenario management kernel was developed
to help congure a scenario of heavy load operations in shipyards
or offshore industries. By analyzing a sequence of motions in a
multibody system, the scenario can be specied by the combina-
tion of unit actions. A unit action is a user-dened input that acts
on subcomponents of a multibody system. Each action should be
performed at the proper time with the desired functions, so a mod-
el for performing this action, named Actor, was dened. An actor
is a user-dened input that acts on a multibody system. All bodies,
joints, and wire ropes in a multibody system can be connected
S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225 17

Fig. 6. Graphic user interface: Scenario modeling GUI.

Fig. 7. Graphic user interface: Report GUI.

18 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225

(a) (b) to the rst group of actors, and the crane may move to the desired
position and orientation.
Body 0
Joint 0
Joint Actor 1 Joint Actor 3
Body 1 Target: Joint 0 Target: Joint 0 3.2.6. Collision detection kernel
(Link 1) Degree: 45 Degree: 90 To minimize the risk during the production of ships and off-
shore plants, the interferences among the bodies and wire ropes
Joint 1 Joint Actor 2 must be checked. One of the functions of the collision detection
Target: Joint 1 kernel is to detect their collision with other bodies and wire ropes
Body 2 Degree: 30
during the simulation, which is particularly important as there can
(Link 2)
be more than 10,000 subcomponents and pieces. The collision
detection modules available to the public are OPCODE, RAPID,
Fig. 8. Double compound pendulum: (a) system conguration and (b) scenario I-COLLIDE, V-COLLIDE, SWIFT++, etc. The collision detection kernel
conguration. was based on some of these modules and it modularized them.

3.3. Graphic user interfaces

with multiple actors. According to the type of interaction, the actor
is specialized in the body, joint, or wire rope.
Using the actors, the user may be able to implement an action in
an existing multibody system. However, to dene the procedure of
the action, it should be dened when the actor starts working and
when it stops. The combination of the actors is a set of details of
each action in a simulation procedure, and lists how to run an
existing multibody system according to a given objective. Fig. 3
shows a sequence for generating a scenario for moving a block.
The scenario for moving a block is as follows: (1) change the posi-
tion and orientation of the Crane, (2) hoist up the Block, (3)
change the position and orientation of the Crane (meaning as
the Crane moves to the desired position and orientation), and
(4) hoist down the Block. For example, in Step (1), to change
the posture of the crane, two joint actors are allocated and con-
nected with the two joints J1 and J2. These two actors should
be started after the simulation starts, so the trigger for starting
the action is given by the starting time, which is normally zero,
As shown in Fig. 2, the GUI layer has three parts: the modeling
GUI, the visualization GUI, and the report GUI.
Fig. 4 shows the GUI overview of the multibody system dynam-
ics simulator developed in this study. As shown in Fig. 4(a)(f), the
GUI of the developed simulator has six components: a ribbon style
menu, a model tree, a property editor, a 3D simulation view, a sce-
nario editor, a report view, a log window, and a timeline.
The modeling GUI has two subcomponents: the multibody sys-
tem modeling GUI and the scenario modeling GUI. Fig. 5 shows the
modeling GUI of the developed simulator. It can be used to edit
multibodies, rigid bodies, joints, and wire ropes, and to import or
export multibodies. The multibody system can be editable in a
model tree. Fig. 5 also shows an example of the modeling of a jib
crane by combining four rigid bodies and three joints.
Fig. 6 shows the scenario modeling GUI developed in this study.
It edits a basic actor, converts it to another actor type, and provides
tools for convenience. The scenario can be created by connecting

(a) System Configuration (b) Scenario

Fig. 9. Conguration of the double compound pendulum system and scenario conguration using the developed simulator.
 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225 19

Actor 1 and 2 Actor 2 was deactivated. Actor 3 was activated. All actors were
were activated. Actor 1 is still activated. deactivated.

Fig. 10. Simulation result: Change in the Euler angles Body 1 of the double compound pendulum.

Actor 1 and 2 Actor 2 was deactivated. Actor 3 was activated. All actors were
were activated. Actor 1 is still activated. deactivated.

Fig. 11. Simulation result: Change in the Euler angles Body 2 of the double compound pendulum.

the actors, and the priority of each actor can be set by connecting it
with the other actors.
The developed simulator also has the visualization GUI. The
visualization GUI is used to manipulate multibodies in the 3D
simulation view, as shown in Fig. 4. Finally, Fig. 7 shows an exam-
ple of the report GUI developed in this study. To generate simula-
tion reports, the target items should be chosen before the
simulation is started. After the start of the simulation, the report
GUI supports a real-time view of the simulation results, as shown
in Fig. 7.
4. Applications of the multibody system dynamics simulator
To conrm the exibility and usefulness of the developed
simulator, it was applied to various examples in the shipbuilding
process. In this paper, two such examples are presented: the dou-
ble compound pendulum, and the block-lifting, transportation, and
turnover simulation using two goliath cranes.
4.1. Double compound pendulum
4.1.1. Overview
To verify the functions of the simulator, it was rst applied to a
simple example, the double compound pendulum, with a simple
scenario. Fig. 8(a) shows the conguration of the double compound
pendulum. Any swinging rigid body free to rotate around a xed
horizontal axis is called a compound pendulum. As shown in
Fig. 8(a), Bodies 0, 1, and 2 are rigid bodies, and Body 1 is intercon-
nected to Bodies 0 and 2 with rotational joints. Body 0 is xed to
the inertial space and does not move.
20 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225

1. Block lifting 2. Move to dock

Upper Trolley

Lower Trolley

3. Turn-over
Block Loader

Goliath Crane 2
Block
(P0025-S03S) Goliath Crane 1

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Two goliath cranes and a block for the block-lifting, transportation, and turnover procedure: (a) the conceptual modeling result of the simulation and (b) the
operation sequence.

Multibody Scenario
Multibody
Block Goliath Crane GOC201
Body
Actor
Wire Upper Trolley Action List
Multibody
Wire 1)
Block Loader Actor Joint GOC201s Upper Trolley:
Actor Actor
Hoist: 0.083m/s, -3.9m
GOC201s Lower Trolley:
Joint Body Hoist: 0.083m/s, -3.9m
Multibody Body GOC202s Upper Trolley:
Dock Hoist: 0.083m/s, -3.9m
Actor Joint GOC202s Lower Trolley:
Hoist: 0.083m/s, -3.9m

Wire Actor Actor Joint

2)
Multibody Body GOC201s Body:
Block Loader Wire Lower Trolley Slide: 0.677m/s, 100m
GOC201s Body:
Slide: 0.677m/s, 100m
Actor
3)
Multibody GOC201s Upper Trolley:
Goliath Crane GOC202 Hoist: 0.083m/s, -9m

Fig. 13. Dynamics models, simulation models, and scenario for the block-lifting and transportation simulation.

4.1.2. Scenario conguration
In the rest of the double compound pendulum, its subcompo-
nents, i.e., rigid bodies, do not move. Thus, it attempts to act via
external forces to its joints step by step. At rst, we simultaneously
changed the angle of Joint 0 to 45 and the angle of Joint 1 to 30.
Then we rotated Joint 0 by an additional 90. These two actions can
be represented in a scenario using the joint actor. Fig. 8(b) shows
this scenario represented by multiple joint actors. When the
simulation starts, Joint Actors 1 and 2 in Fig. 8(b) will be activated,
so the external forces will act on the target joints Joints 0 and 1.
These actors will be deactivated when Joint 0 reaches 45 and
when Joint 1 reaches 30. When each joint nishes its job, it will
send a trigger to the connected joint, Joint Actor 3 in this example.
Since Joint Actor 3 gets two triggers one each from Joint Actors 1
and 2 it will nally be activated and will act on an external force
to the connected joint (Joint 0) to rotate it by an additional 90.
Fig. 9 shows the conguration of the double compound pendu-
lum and the scenario conguration using the developed scenario
manager. Fig. 9(a) shows that three rigid bodies are modeled and
interconnected using two rotating joints. In Fig. 9(b), three joint
actors are used to represent the given scenario. The two actors
on the left will be activated simultaneously just after the simula-
tion starts, and the actor on the right will be activated after the
two actors on the left nish their jobs.
4.1.3. Simulation results
Figs. 10 and 11 show the simulation results of the double com-
pound pendulum with the given scenario mentioned in the previ-
ous section. As shown in Figs. 10 and 11, the change in the Euler
angles of each body is divided in four steps. The simulation started,
and Actors 1 and 2 were activated simultaneously. Actor 1 tried to
change the degree of Joint 0 to 45, and Actor 2 tried to change the
degree of Joint 1 to 30. Since we set those angular velocities to be
the same, Actor 2 obviously did its job faster than Actor 1 did. Thus,
about 516 s after the simulation started, Actor 1 was still activat-
ed, but Actor 2 was deactivated after 5 s. After about 16 s, Actor 1
was also deactivated, and then Actor 3 was activated. Actor 3 tried
to change the angle of Joint 0, so the angles of Joints 0 and 1 were
changed. After Joint 0 was rotated by an additional 90, Actor 3 was
deactivated, and the execution of the scenario was nished after
about 25 s.
 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225 21

(c) Move lower trolley

(a) Hoist up

(b) Move two

goliath cranes

(d) Hoist up and down

for turn-over

Fig. 14. Block-lifting, transportation, and turnover simulation using two goliath cranes: Scenario conguration using the developed simulator.

VQP

Time
$NQEM $NQEM $NQEM $NQEM
.KHVKPI .KHVKPI 6WTPQXGT 6WTPQXGT
UVCTVU GPFU UVCTVU GPFU
)QNKCVJETCPG )QNKCVJETCPG
UVCTVUVQOQXGVQVJGFQEM GPFUVQOQXGVQVJGFQEM

Fig. 15. Tension of Block Loader 1 calculated in the block-lifting, transportation, and turnover simulation using the developed simulator.

4.2. Block-lifting, transportation, and turnover simulation using two
goliath cranes
4.2.1. Overview
The block-lifting, transportation, and turnover procedure is the
most frequently implemented production process in shipyards.
Fig. 12 shows an example of a block-lifting, transportation, and
turnover process using two goliath cranes on a dry dock. The block
with a weight of about 920 tons is connected to two goliath cranes
via wire ropes. Some parts of these wire ropes are grouped by a
block loader. Fig. 12(b) shows a sequence of the operation for the
block-lifting, transportation, and turnover process. At rst, two
goliath cranes lift the block by shortening the connected wire
ropes. Then the two goliath cranes move to a certain location to
22 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225

(a) Target block (c)

Weight: 3,500 tons 600Ton GC x 2

3500Ton Block
Block
3000Ton FC Dock
gate Ground

Sea Dry dock

(d)

(b) Two 600 tonnes capacity goliath cranes

(e)

Fig. 16. Lifting and transportation of a mega-block using two goliath cranes and a oating crane: (a) the target mega-block with a weight of 3500 tons, (b) the two goliath
cranes, and (c)(e) the operation sequence.

Two goliath cranes

(based on multibody dynamics)

Floating crane
(based on multibody dynamics)

Target block

Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces

acting on a floating crane

Fig. 17. Result of the conceptual modeling of the lifting and transportation operation simulation.

move the block into the dock. Finally, the goliath cranes continue
the turnover process by alternately shortening and lengthening
each wire rope.
To simulate this operation sequence, dynamic models; simula-
tion models, including actors; and the scenario should be dened.
The detailed descriptions of the conguration of the simulation
will be explained in the following sections.
shown in Fig. 12(a). The goliath crane is composed of the main body,
the upper trolley, and the lower trolley. The upper trolley and the
lower trolley are interconnected with the main body by sliding
joints. The block loader consists of two bodies interconnected by
a revolute joint. To simulate the block-lifting and transportation,
dynamic models should be made using the developed multibody
dynamics kernel.

4.2.2. Model conguration of the multibody dynamics system

To analyze the dynamic responses through the simulation, we 4.2.3. Scenario conguration
assumed that the block-lifting and transportation were carried Fig. 13 shows the entire conguration, including the dynamic
out using two goliath cranes, six block loaders, and one block, as models, simulation models, and scenario, for the block-lifting,
 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225
Wave force
for floating crane
(a) Hoist up
Wind force
for block
Fig. 18. Lifting and transportation of a mega-block using two goliath cranes and a oating crane: Scenario conguration using the developed simulator.
Plan view
Fig. 19. Plan view of the simulation and points connected to the wires.
transportation, and turnover simulation. The actor atomic models
are allocated to some dynamic models that need to act according
to the action list in the scenario. For example, a joint connects
the body Upper Trolley and the body Body, and the joint actor
atomic model is allocated to this actor.
In the right box in Fig. 13, the block-lifting, transportation, and
turnover sequence scenario is specied using an action list. Various
actions are dened in the action list, including an action for moving
the crane and an action for lifting the block up and down.
Fig. 14 shows the scenario conguration of the target simula-
tion using the developed simulator. Since the target scenario has
many operations for hoisting the wire up and down, there are
many wire actors in the scenario, as shown in Fig. 14. At rst, eight
wire actors were activated and tried to hoist the block up after the
simulation started [Fig. 14(a)]. Then two joint actors tried to move
two goliath cranes to the given position for their turnover and
erection [Fig. 14(b)]. Later, two joint actors for the lower trolley
[Fig. 14(c)] and eight wire actors [Fig. 14(d)] tried to turn the block
over.
4.2.4. Simulation results
Fig. 15 shows the simulation results. The graph shows the
change in the tension that acted on Block Loader 1 of the rst crane
(GOC201). The results show that the scenario was successfully
progressed by activating and deactivating the actors. At rst, the
23
(c) Hoist down
(b) Move to dock
x6 x7 x10
x3 x4
Points
connected to wire
x1 x2
x5 x8 x9
wire actor tried to change the length of the target wire rope, so
the graph shows that the tension that acted on the wire rope
increased. After the block-lifting ended, the goliath crane started
to move to the dock by activating the joint actors on it. Then the
goliath carne stopped moving and the block turnover started.
This procedure can be conrmed with the change in the tension
that acted on the wire rope in Fig. 15.
4.3. Simulation of the lifting and transporting of a mega-block using
two goliath cranes and a oating crane
4.3.1. Overview
A shipyard often requires handling of a mega-block that is about
more than 500 tons heavy. In this case, multiple cranes should
co-operate to handle the block. Fig. 16 shows an example of the
lifting and transportation of a mega-block using two goliath cranes
and a oating crane. The block with a weight of about 3500 tons
[Fig. 16(a)] is connected to two goliath cranes [Fig. 16(b)] and a
oating crane via wire ropes. Some parts of the wire ropes are
grouped by a block loader. Fig. 16(c)(e) shows a sequence of the
block-lifting and transportation operation. At rst, three cranes lift
the block by shortening the connected wire ropes. Then the cranes
move along to the right by about 100 meters to move the block into
the dock. Finally, the cranes continue the lift-down process by
alternately lengthening each wire rope.
24 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225

Tensions acting on the wires of floating crane

Tension
8.00E+03

7.00E+03

6.00E+03

5.00E+03

4.00E+03 x1
x2
3.00E+03

2.00E+03

1.00E+03

0.00E+00
Time
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

9.00E+03
Hoisting up Transportation Hoisting down
8.00E+03
7.00E+03
6.00E+03
5.00E+03
x3
4.00E+03
x4
3.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
0.00E+00 Time
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Fig. 20. Tensions that acted on the wires of the oating crane during the simulation of the lifting and transportation of a mega-block.

Tensions acting on the wires of goliath cranes

Tension
1.60E+03

1.40E+03

1.20E+03

1.00E+03
x5
8.00E+02
x8
6.00E+02 x9
4.00E+02

2.00E+02

0.00E+00 Time
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

2.00E+03 Hoisting up Transportation Hoisting down

1.80E+03
1.60E+03
1.40E+03
1.20E+03
x6
1.00E+03
x7
8.00E+02
x10
6.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
0.00E+00 Time
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Fig. 21. Tensions acting on the wires of two goliath cranes during the simulation of the lifting and transportation of a mega-block.
 S. Ha et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 85 (2015) 1225
The operator wanted to check the following three potential
risks: (a) the interference among the three cranes, (b) the
load-unbalancing phenomenon due to the wave and wind, and
(c) the dynamic effect according to the change in the tension acting
on each wire.
4.3.2. Model conguration of the multibody dynamics system
To analyze the dynamic responses through the simulation, we
assumed that the block-lifting and transportation were carried out
using two goliath cranes and a oating crane, as shown in Fig. 17.
The goliath crane is composed of the main body, the upper trolley,
and the lower trolley. The upper trolley and the lower trolley are
interconnected with the main body by sliding joints. To simulate
the block-lifting and transportation, dynamics models should be
made using the developed multibody dynamics kernel. To consider
the environmental factors, we also applied hydrostatic and hydro-
dynamic forces and wind force.
4.3.3. Scenario conguration
Fig. 18 shows the scenario for the simulation of the lifting and
transportation of a mega-block using two goliath cranes and a
oating crane. In Fig. 18, the two body actors on the left are used
to consider the environmental factors: the upper actor for the wave
force acting on the oating crane and the lower actor for the wind
force acting on the target block. The rest of the actors describe the
procedure of the operation. At rst, three cranes lift the block by
shortening the 10 connected wire ropes. This operation is per-
formed using the wire actors [Fig. 18(a)]. Then the cranes move
along to the right by about 100 meters to move the block into
the dock using three joint actors [Fig. 18(b)]. Finally, the cranes
continue the lift-down process by alternately lengthening each
wire rope [Fig. 18(c)].
4.3.4. Simulation results
Fig. 19 shows the plan view of the simulation and the points on
the cranes, which were connected to the block using wires. Points
x1x4 are for the oating crane, points x5x7 are for the left
goliath crane, and points x8x10 are for the right goliath crane.
The tensions acting on the wires of each point were calculated
by performing the simulation with the given scenario. Figs. 20
and 21 show the simulation results. The graph shows the change
in the tension that acted on each wire. The results show that the
scenario was successfully created by activating and deactivating
the actors. From this result, we can also assume that the dynamic
loads were about 1015% larger than the static loads.
5. Conclusions and remaining works
In this study, the multibody system dynamics simulator was
developed for the process simulation of ships and offshore plants.
To evaluate the applicability of the developed simulator, it was
applied to various examples of simulation in shipyards. Among
such examples, three were presented in this paper: the double
compound pendulum; the block-lifting, transportation, and turn-
over process; and the lifting and transportation of a mega-block.
From these examples, it was conrmed that the developed simula-
tor can be applied to most examples in shipyards, and can be
extended to support the functions for other exceptional situations
and considerations. In a future study, we will apply the developed
simulator to more diverse simulations of the shipbuilding process,
25
such as to a simulation of the dynamic analysis of the offshore
structure and the block assembly process, including the design
process of ships and offshore plants, such as to the lug arrange-
ment of blocks, and will improve the efciency of the developed
simulator and its applicability. In addition, we will improve the
developed simulator to make it suitable for treating multibody sys-
tem dynamics for exible bodies.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by,
(a) Industrial Strategic Technology Development Program
(10035331, Simulation-based Manufacturing Technology
for Ships and Offshore Plants) funded by the Ministry of
Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea,
(b) Brain Korea 21 Plus Program (Education and Research Center
for Creative Offshore Plant Engineers of Seoul National
University) funded by the Ministry of Education, Republic
of Korea,
(c) Engineering Research Institute of Seoul National University,
Republic of Korea,
(d) Research Institute of Marine Systems Engineering of Seoul
National University, Republic of Korea, and
(e) Dong-Eui University Grant (2014AA443), Republic of Korea.
References
[1] Roh MI, Lee KY. An initial hull structural modeling system for computer-aided
process planning in shipbuilding. Adv Eng Softw 2006;37(7):45776.
[2] Woo JH, Nam JH, Ko KH. Development of a simulation method for the subsea
production system. J Comput Des Eng 2014;1(3):17386.
[3] Orlandea N, Chace MA, Calahan DA. A sparsity-oriented approach to the
dynamic analysis and design of mechanical systems Part 1 & 2. J Eng Ind
Trans ASME 1977;99(3):7739.
[4] Schiehlen W. Multibody systems handbook. Springer; 1990.
[5] Smith R. Open dynamics engine v0.5 user guide; 2006.
[6] FunctionBay Inc. RecurDynTM Solver theoretical manual; 2003.
[7] Ultramarine Inc. An introduction to MOSES; 2013.
[8] Cha JH, Roh MI. Combined discrete event and discrete time simulation
framework and its application to the block erection process in shipbuilding.
Adv Eng Softw 2010;41(4):65665.
[9] Cha JH, Roh MI, Lee KY. Integrated simulation framework for the process
planning of ships and offshore structures. Robotic Comput Integrat Manuf
2010;26(5):43053.
[10] Cha JH, Park KP, Lee KY. Development of a simulation framework and
applications to new production processes in shipyards. Comput Aided Des
2012;44(3):24152.
[11] Shabana AA. Dynamics of multibody systems. Cambridge University Press;
2005.
[12] Featherstone R. Rigid body dynamics. Springer; 2008.
[13] Ku NK, Ha S. Dynamic response analysis of heavy load lifting operation in
shipyard using multi-cranes. Ocean Eng 2014;83:6375.
[14] Ohanian OJ. Mass properties calculation and fuel analysis in the conceptual
design of uninhabited air vehicles, master thesis. Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute & State University; 2003.
[15] Cha JH, Roh MI, Lee KY. Dynamic response simulation of a heavy cargo
suspended by a oating crane based on multibody system dynamics. Ocean
Eng 2010;37(1415):127391.
[16] Zeigler BP, Praehofer H, Kim TG. Theory of modeling and simulation. 2nd
ed. Academic Press; 2000.
[17] Bang KW. Combined discrete event and discrete time simulation framework
for shipbuilding process planning. MSc thesis, Seoul National University; 2006.
[18] Ha S, Cha JH, Roh MI, Lee KY. Implementation of the submarine diving
simulation in a distributed environment. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng
2012;4(3):21127.
[19] Ha S, Ku NK, Roh MI, Lee KY. Cell-based evacuation simulation considering
human behavior in a passenger ship. Ocean Eng 2012;53:13852.