Experimental Study on the Effect of Sloshing on Side-by-Side moored FSRU and LNGC

Seokkyu Cho, Honggun Sung, Sayoung Hong and Seokwon Hong

Maritime and Ocean Engineering Research Institute, KORDI (MOERI/KORDI), Daejeon, Korea

Yongsu Kim
DAEWOO Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME), Goje, Korea

Moonkeun Ha
Samsung Heavy Industry (SHI), Goje, Korea

Youngdal Choi
STX Offshore & Shipbuilding (STX), Changwon, Korea

Byoungsuk Yu
Total Marine Services (TMS), Busan, Korea

Raedae Jang
Korean register of shipping (KR), Daejeon, Korea

Hangshoon Choi
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

ABSTRACT
The motions and drift forces of side-by-side (SbS) moored FSRU and LNGC including sloshing effect are studied by experiments. FSRU and LNGC have LNG cargo tanks and sloshing of LNG can affect the motions and drift forces of structures due to the coupling between sloshing and floating body motion. The effect of coupling can vary by filling level of LNG and the effect of filling level is investigated. The coupling effect is most strong at low filling level in beam sea. The effect of gap flow and sloshing is also investigated in the present study as well. The horizontal motions and drift forces are analyzed and it is confirmed that the gap flow is affected by the sloshing. The sway motion, sway drift force and gap flow are influenced by the sloshing in head sea although the sloshing is weak.

KEY WORDS: Sloshing; hydrodynamic interaction; side-by-side; gap flow; FSRU; LNGC; drift force. INTRODUCTION
Sloshing influences the motions and mooring loads of FSRU and LNGC. When FSRU and LNGC is moored side-by-side, the internal sloshing can also interact with the sloshing flow in the gap between FSRU and LNGC. The motions and drift forces in SbS moored vessels are important design factors and must be considered for heading control, mooring design, loading arm operation and berthing. The studies of the coupling effect of sloshing on the motions are well known. Representative studies are Gaillarde (2004), Kim (2007), Kim (2008), Lee (2008), and Lee (2009). The gap flow problem is difficult to

predict, especially gap flow height and drift forces. Hong (2010) and Bunnik (2009) showed new methods for modeling of gap flow problem. But the study of SbS moored two bodies including the sloshing has not been reported yet. The gap flow and sloshing of LNG can interact of course and this interaction may affect the characteristics of motion and drift force. In this study, in order to investigate how the internal sloshing interacts with the gap flow and how it affects the motions and drift forces, experiments were carried out at MOERI (Maritime and Ocean Engineering Research Institute)s ocean engineering basin. FSRU and LNGC are moored by soft spring and wire at bow and stern. LNGC is located to starboard side of FSRU and the distance between starboard of FSRU and port of LNGC is 4.0 m in proto type scale. The filling ratios of cargo tanks are decided by loading scenario. The loading conditions consist of berthing condition (R1; FSRU 30%, LNGC 95%), intermediate condition (R2; FSRU 67.5%, LNGC 20%) and solid condition (no free surface). Experimental results show that sloshing and gap flow influence the motions and drift forces to some extent. Roll and sway are strongly affected by sloshing at low filling ratio conditions and the transverse mode is dominant. Sway and yaw are influenced by gap flow and the longitudinal sloshing mode is dominant. The LNG tank sloshing interacts with the gap flow and sway and yaw are affected by sloshing and gap flow. Therefore the drift forces also are influenced by the sloshing and gap flow. Thus the analysis considering sloshing and gap flow is needed in order to precisely predict the motions and drift forces of the SbS moored FSRU and LNGC.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Experiments were carried out at MOERI ocean engineering basin. The basin is 56 m long, 30 m wide and a water depth is 3.2 m. The tests were carried out on a 1:60 scale model. The contents of model test are the motion dynamics, sloshing, two body interaction and drift force characteristics of SbS moored FSRU and LNGC in waves. FSRU and LNGC model The main particulars of FSRU and LNGC are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. FSRU was fitted with bilge keels. The length of bilge keel in full scale is 180.5 m and depth is 1.25 m. They are symmetrically located about the mid ship at half bilge girth. The inclination with the vertical plane is 45 deg. Fig. 1 shows the model of side-by-side moored FSRU and LNGC. FSRU and LNGC are moored by soft spring and wire at bow and stern. LNGC is located to starboard side of FSRU and the distance between starboard of FSRU and port of LNGC is 4.0 m in proto type scale. Table 1. Main particulars of FSRU Item Breadth, B Draft Displacement KG kxx kyy, kzz Table 2. Main particulars of LNGC Item Breadth, B Draft Displacement KG kxx kyy, kzz 0.163 Lpp 0.035 Lpp 0.004 Lpp3 0.045Lpp 0.25Lpp 0.35B 0.168 Lpp 0.038 Lpp 0.006 Lpp3 0.06Lpp 0.25Lpp 0.36B

Fig. 2 LNGC cargo tank model

(a) FSRU cargo tanks

(b) LNGC cargo tanks Fig. 3 Dimensions and locations of LNG cargo tanks Loading scenario and conditions The loading conditions are selected considering the loading scenario of FSRU and LNGC. According to the present loading scenario, the lowest filling ratio of FSRU is set to 30% and the transfer of LNG from LNGC starts. Two different filling levels were considered during the model tests. The first loading condition is berthing condition (R1; FSRU 30%, LNGC 95%). This is the initial filling ratio at which LNG transfer starts. The second loading condition is intermediate condition (R2; FSRU 67.5%, LNGC 20%). This condition is chosen for intermediate transfer condition which shows the violent sloshing flow due to the low filling ratio. The filling level of fore and aft cargo tank is the same. The first sloshing natural periods are summarized in Table 3. In order to compare the effect of sloshing, the solid condition (RS; no free surface) which draft and GM are the same is also considered. The draft and GM are kept constant at each filling condition. Table 3. Filling level of LNG and resonance period of transverse mode Tank FSRU Filling level (% of height) RS R1 30 R2 67.5 RS R1 95 R2 20 1st resonance period (sec) 9.790(0.64) 7.754(0.81) 6.379(0.98) 8.929(0.70)

Fig. 1 Side-by-side moored FSRU and LNGC model LNG containment tank model Sloshing cargo tanks are prismatic tanks and the models are made of transparent acryl. Fig. 2 shows the cargo tank of LNGC. FSRU and LNGC have two cargo tanks each and cargo tanks are located at fore and after part of model. The configuration of cargo tanks are presented at Fig. 3. The water is used for working fluid.

LNGC

Side-by-Side configuration The configuration of FSRU and LNGC is side-by-side. FSRU and LNGC are moored by soft spring and wire at bow and stern. LNGC is located to starboard side of FSRU and the distance between starboard of FSRU and port of LNGC is 4.0 m in proto type scale. In this configuration, hydrodynamic interaction between two hulls occurs. The several gap flows might appear. The basic modes are the transverse sloshing, longitudinal sloshing and piston mode. Theoretical formulations by Molin (2002) are used to approximate the three possible modes in gap. The calculated natural frequencies are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Approximated resonance frequencies of gap flow Piston mode Transverse sloshing mode Longitudinal sloshing mode 0.8016 rad/s 2.7753 rad/s 0.8613 rad/s

Fig. 5 Measuring positions of gap flow Environmental conditions The model tests are conducted in regular waves and white noise waves. The white noise tests are done first. Because the sloshing period for each filling levels and gap flow periods are different, the characteristics of RAO (Response Amplitude Operator) are different for each conditions. Then the wave frequencies of regular wave are decided through the results of white noise tests. The heading condition for FSRU only case is head sea (180 deg). The heading condition for LNGC only case is beam sea (270 deg). The heading condition for SbS moored FSRU and LNGC is head sea (180 deg). Table 6 summarizes white noise conditions. The wave slope of regular waves is 1/30. Table 6. White noise conditions No ID WH01 WH02 WH03 H [m] 3 6 1

Measuring The coordinate system for each vessel is body fixed at the center of gravity (CoG) of FSRU and LNGC. The measuring items are listed below. The measuring locations of gap flow and sloshing wave height are presented in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Table 5. Measurement items Channel Unit Name Surge Sway Heave Roll Pitch Yaw Sloshing flow height Wave height of gap flow Drift force m m m deg deg Coord. Positive

system Direction Global Global Global Local Forward Port Up Stb. down

Sensor

Remarks

RODYM6D

motions at COG

Local Bow down

1 2 3

deg Global Bow to port m Local Up Wave height gauge Wave height Up gauge Loadcell in cargo tanks attached to hull

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
FSRU test The results of FSRU in head sea are presented in Fig. 6~8. Fig. 6 and 7 shows the surge RAOs. Surge RAOs have peak frequencies, 0.76 rad/s for R1 and 0.96 rad/s for R2 due to the longitudinal sloshing coupling. Also the white noise results agree well with the regular wave results. Fig. 8 shows the surge drift forces. The variation of drift forces at new peak frequencies is small. LNGC test The results of LNGC in beam sea are presented in Fig. 9~17. Fig. 9~11 shows the sway RAOs and Fig. 12~14 the roll RAOs. Sway and roll RAOs shows the strong coupling effect of sloshing at low filling level, R2 (20%).The sloshing reduces the roll resonance at 0.45 rad/s and makes the new peak at 0.8 rad/s due to sloshing resonance for R2. Also the sway RAO shows well the coupling effect at 0.8 rad/s. The R1 condition is similar to solid condition, RS. The behavior of sway drift forces are presented at Fig. 15. Because the first order motion is changed, the drift force varies considerably due to the change of first order term of second order force. Fig. 16 and 17 show the sloshing wave height RAOs in cargo tanks. The sloshing RAOs also indicate the sloshing coupling effect definitely. When the height of white noise is 1 m, results of white noise overestimated.

m kN

Local Local

Fig. 4 Measuring positions of sloshing wave height

Fig. 6 Surge RAO of FSRU-R1 in head sea

Fig. 9 Sway RAO of LNGC-RS in beam sea

Fig. 7 Surge RAO of FSRU-R2 in head sea

Fig. 10 Sway RAO of LNGC-R2 in beam sea

Fig. 8 Surge drift force of FSRU in head sea

Fig. 11 Sway RAO of LNGC-R1 in beam sea

Fig. 12 Roll RAO of LNGC-RS in beam sea

Fig. 15 Sway drift force of LNGC in beam sea

Fig. 13 Roll RAO of LNGC-R2 in beam sea

Fig. 16 Fore tanks sloshing wave height RAO of LNGC-R2 in beam sea

Fig. 14 Roll RAO of LNGC-R1 in beam sea Fig. 17 After tanks sloshing wave height RAO of LNGC-R2 in beam sea

Side-by-Side moored FSRU and LNGC test The results of SbS moored FSRU and LNGC in head sea condition are presented in Fig. 18~28. Fig. 18~20 shows the surge, sway and yaw RAOs for white noise 3 m. The surge RAOs of FSRU are slightly affected by sloshing. The sway RAOs show the interaction of gap flow and sloshing. The solid condition (RS) shows only the hydrodynamic interaction at gap, longitudinal sloshing mode, 0.9 rad/s. The results of R1 and R2 conditions show the effect of interaction of sloshing and gap flow. The sway peak at 0.9 rad/s due to gap flow is suppressed by sloshing and new peak at 0.7 rad/s, 0.85 rad/d and 1 rad/s occurs due to sloshing. The yaw RAOs show similar trend to sway RAOs. Fig. 21~23 shows the sway RAOs for white noise and regular waves. Although white noise 1 m (WH03) makes the overestimated results, the results of WH02 (6 m) agree with regular wave results. Fig. 24~26 shows the gap flow RAOs. The RAOs at entrance (denoted F) do not change. But the RAOs at center (C) and after (A) are suppressed. This indicates that once the gap flow is restrained, the sloshing become dominant. Fig. 27 and 28 represent the drift forces. The surge drift force is not affected by gap flow and sloshing in head sea condition. The sway drift force is reduced at 0.9 rad/s due to the decrease of first order sway.

Kim, Y., Nam, B., Kim, D. and Kim, Y. (2007). Study on Coupling Effects of Ship Motion and Sloshing, Ocean Engineering, Vol 34, pp 21762187. Lee, Y., Godderidge, B., Tan, M., Temarel, P., Turnock, S. and Cowlan, N. (2009). Coupling between Ship Motion and Sloshing Using Potential Flow Analysis and Rapid Sloshing Model, Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf, Osaka, Japan, ISOPE, Vol 3, pp 5462. Lee, S. and Kim, M. (2008). The Effect of Tank Sloshing on LNG Vessel and Floating Terminal Responses, IWWWFB. Molin, B. (2001). On the Piston and Sloshing Modes in Moonpools, Journal of Fluid mechanics, Vol 430, pp 2750.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigates the motions and drift forces of side-by-side moored FSRU and LNGC including sloshing through experiments. Conclusions are as follows; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Effects of sloshing on the motions and drift forces were confirmed. Drift forces are altered due to the change of first order motion. The longitudinal sloshing mode is dominant for the SbS moored FSRU and LNGC Sloshing interacts with gap flow in SbS moored FSRU and LNGC. The interaction of sloshing and gap flow affects the sway motion and drift force.

This shows that the sloshing and gap flow need to be considered simultaneously for the analysis of SbS moored FSRU and LNGC. The characteristics of motions and drift forces for SbS moored FSRU and LNGC must be studied in consideration of sloshing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This is a part of research program, Development of Engineering Technologies for Floating Offshore LNG Terminal supported by Ministry of Knowledge Economy of KOREA.

REFERENCES
Bunnik, T., Pauw, W. and Voogt, A. (2009). Hydrodynamic Analysis for Side-by-Side Offloading, Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf, Osaka, Japan, ISOPE, Vol 3, pp 648653. Gaillarde, G., Ledoux, A. and Lynch, M. (2004). Coupling between Liquefied Gas and Vesselss Motion for Partially Filled Tanks: Effect on Seakeeping , Design and Operation of Gas Carriers, RINA, London, U.K., pp 3337. Hong, S. and Nam, B. (2010). A Time Domain Simulation of Wave Mean Drift Forces Acting on Side-by-Side Moored Vessels, Proc of the Korean Association of Ocean Science and Technology Societies, Jeju, Korea, KAOST, pp 24732476. Kim, B. and Shin, Y. (2008). Coupled Seakeeping with Liquid Sloshing in Ship Tanks, Int Conf on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Eng, Estoril, Portugal, OMAE, Vol 3, pp 5462.

Fig. 18 Surge RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC in head sea, WH01

Fig. 21 Sway RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC-RS in head sea

Fig. 19 Sway RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC in head sea, WH01

Fig. 22 Sway RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC-R1 in head sea

Fig. 20 Yaw RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC in head sea, WH01

Fig. 23 Sway RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC-R2 in head sea

Fig. 24 Gap flow RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC-RS in head sea Fig. 27 Surge drift force of SbS FSRU-LNGC in head sea

Fig. 25 Gap flow RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC-R1 in head sea Fig. 28 Sway drift force of SbS FSRU-LNGC in head sea

Fig. 26 Gap flow RAO of SbS FSRU-LNGC-R2 in head sea