Case Studies for Evaluating Hydrodynamic Motion

Responses using MOSES

Ashwani Vishwanath
N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f O c e a n Te c h n o l o g y

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 1

 Contents

Concept development of semi-submersible as plant platform for

offshore desalination
Numerical studies on different configurations of Semi-submersible
Motion studies on wave powered navigational buoy
Motion studies on flexible water bag

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2

 Concept Development of Semi-submersible as Plant
Platform for Offshore Desalination

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 3

Concept development of semi-submersible as plant platform for
offshore desalination

A 10MLD offshore platform proposed to be installed at around 1000 m water

depth

The requirement for desalination is

a stable all weather platform to house the plant
a large cold water conduit and station keeping /mooring for the platform
an inter connecting mechanism between conduit and platform to withstand
the differential loads

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4

Semi-submersible as plant platform

Semi-submersible chosen
Motion characteristics
Higher operating window

Based on size and weight of plant equipments, platform sizing for

Deck (sufficient area to accommodate payloads)
Column (rectangular in shape)
Pontoon

Various configurations considered

Split type pontoon
Ring type pontoon
Four corner columns
Six columns
Four center column

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 5

Semi-submersible as plant platform

After initial sizing of platform, checks done for ,

Stability
Global motion response

Response motions in heave, pitch & roll direction is crucial in determining

platform configuration

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 6

Numerical studies on different configurations of Semi-submersible

Global motion responses of the selected configurations

The hydrodynamic loads and motion response have been calculated using MOSES

MOSES a commercial marine potential/diffraction tool

The numerical technique used is panel method for 3-D diffraction

Configurations arrived by varying column size and its positioning on the ring
pontoon

Nine different semi-submersible configurations were considered

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7

Motion Response Analysis of Semi-submersible

Various Semi-submersible configurations considered -

Split pontoon type

Split pontoon type semi-submersible

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8

 Cont..
Ring pontoon type 9 different configurations considered

Semi-submersible with six columns Semi-submersible with four columns at centre

Semi-submersible with four columns

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9
 Nine configurations of Semi- Submersible (Ring pontoon)
Size of Column (m) Size of Pontoon (m) Size of
Configuration
Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse deck(m)
1 (four corner
2 nos 9x5.75x14 2 nos 9x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6
columns)
2 (four corner
2 nos 8x5.75x14 2 nos 8x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6
columns)
3 (four corner
2 nos 6x5.75x14 2 nos 6x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6
columns)
4 (four center
2 nos 8x11x14 2 nos 11x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6
columns)
5 (four center
2 nos 7x11x14 2 nos 11x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6
columns)
6 (four center
2 nos 6x11x14 2 nos 11x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6
columns)

7 (six columns) 4 nos 9x5.75x14 2 nos 5x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6

8 (six columns) 4 nos 8x5.75x14 2 nos 5x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6

9 (six columns) 4 nos 6x4.95x14 2 nos 5x5.75x14 2 nos 36x11x10 2 nos 10x11x10 36x32x6

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10

 RAOs Comparison between different configurations
Heave
Configuration natural
(Ring pontoon type) Period
(sec)
1 (four corner columns)
16
- 9x5.75x14

2 (four corner columns)

16
- 8x5.75x14

3 (four corner columns)

19
- 6x5.75x14

Comparison of Heave RAO between 9 configurations 4 (four center columns) 14

4
5 (four center columns) 14
3
RAO amp. (m/m)

Config.3 (Ring
2
pontoon)
6 (four center columns) 15
1 Split pontoon

0 7 (six columns) 15
0 10 20 30
-1 15
Time period (s) 8 (six columns)
Heave RAO comparison between Split and Ring pontoon 9 (six columns) 16

Observation : Four column ring type (config. 3) has peak response at 19 s.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 11
RAOs in detail for chosen configuration

3.5 1.2
3
RAO amp. (m/m)

RAO amp. (degree/m)

2.5
0.8 0 heading
2
0 heading
1.5 0.6 45 heading
45 heading
1 0.4
0.5 90 heading 90 heading
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 0
Time period (s) 0 10 20 30
-0.2
Time period (s)
Heave RAO Roll RAO
4
3.5
RAO amp. (degree/m)

3
2.5
2 0 heading
1.5 45 heading
1 90 heading
0.5
0
0 10 20 30
Time period (s)

Pitch RAO
Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12
Motion characteristics in operating conditions
Input environment condition (S)
Wave spectrum type JONSWAP spectrum

Significant wave height (m) 5.9

Peak wave period (s) 11.4 s

Wave direction (deg) 0o, 45o & 90o

Sr(e) = S(e) x RAO2

Maximum heave 2.4 m

Maximum Roll 4.1 degree

Resulting acceleration is within human comfort & plant operation

Hence, four column ring pontoon type semi-submersible is selected as plant

platform
Tuesday, November 21, 2017 13
 Motion studies on wave powered navigational buoy

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 14

 Navigational Buoy
A navigational buoy is used to indicate channels, dangerous rocks or shoals, mooring positions etc.

In the proposed configuration, wave powered navigational Buoy utilizes wave energy for its working.

Primary conversion of wave energy is attained by an oscillating system, a floating body, and oscillating water
column within a structure.

Overall efficiency depends on hydrodynamic, turbine and electrical performance of the respective module

Buoys motion and moorings was studied in MOSES ,CFD and model studies in wave flume

Prevalent wave conditions: 0.8 m Hs, 4.5 s Tz

21 November 2017 15
Motion Analysis of Navigational buoy

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 16

Motion Analysis of Navigational buoy

0.8
0.7
Righting Arm (m)

0.6
0.5
Righting Arm
0.4
0.3 Heeling Arm
0.2
0.1
0 1.6 35
0 20 40 60 80 1.4 30
Heel angle (degree)

RAO Magnitude (m/m)

1.2
25
Stability Curve 1

(deg/m)
20
0.8
Heave 15
0.6 Pitch
10
0.4

0.2 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Wave Period(s)

Free Floating RAO

Max Heave RAO is 1.4 occurring at 4s Wave
Period.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017 17
Mooring studies in MOSES
Moorings:
48 mm polyester rope for 15 m,
25 mm chain for 5 m

Conditions:
Wave - 2 m Hs, 10 s Tz
Current 1 m/s
Wind 45 knots

Mooring line tension

Max tension in this line is 34.5kN
 Motion Studies on Flexible Waterbag

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 19

Water Bag technology
Waterbag is a new technology developed for towing large volumes of fresh water through the ocean in
trains of connected fabric bags.
Waterbags are a better value, faster and more greenhouse-friendly method for expanding urban water
supply than pipelines.
Significantly lower capital and operating costs, greater ease of implementation, minimal environmental
impacts, and much lower energy use than these other options.
Numerical studies carried out in MOSES and in CFD to estimate forces on the waterbag
FEA studies with one way coupling to predict the deformations
 Water bag model parameters
Physical parameters

Length 30 m

Breadth 6m

Depth 2m

Draft (m) 1m
Sea conditions

{15.0.0.0,-1.0}m, m, Wave period 8 sec

Centre of mass
m
Wave length 90 m
[52983.0,1612800.0,1
Moment of inertia
612800.0]kg-m^2 Wave height 1m

Wave depth 1000 m

Mass 180 tons
Current 1 m/s

21
Total force and Heave Plot

Max Force on Water Bag is 4T

Max Heave Amplitude is 0.4m

22
Comparison between CFD and MOSES
Mapping data for FEA
Pressure data from a fluid domain is mapped onto the corresponding surface
of a solid domain

Deformation contours (Max deform = 54mm) Stress contours

24
Conclusions

Motion response numerical studies on various ring pontoon semi-

submersible configurations were carried out

Among various configurations considered, four column Semi-submersible

gave better heave response, with a peak response period at 19 s.

Comparison of this configuration with split type pontoon

This configuration was chosen for physical modelling and experimentation.

The variation between numerical & experimental results is observed and may
be attributed to limitations in measuring instruments

This configuration of Semi-submersible was chosen for carrying out further

studies for desalination purposes.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 25

 Thank You

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 26