CFD in subsea lifting analysis

Subsea Lifting Operations 29-30 November 2011 Clarion Hotel Stavanger

Petter Moen

21-Nov11

Page 1

Lifting analysis - input

Agenda

CFD Added mass & damping Examples on use of CFD Benefits & challenges

21-Nov11

Page 2

Lifting analysis - input

Agenda

CFD Added mass & damping Examples on use of CFD Benefits & challenges

21-Nov11

Page 3

Workflow for standard lifting analysis through wave zone

Input
Environmental data Vessel/crane tip motions Object mass & volume properties Hydrodynamic properties for object Couplings data

Analysis
Simplified method Regular design wave approach Time domain analysis

Output
Design loads Slack wire?

Weather criteria for installation

21-Nov11

Page 4

Lifting analysis Hydrodynamic coefficients

Traditional approach:
Estimate based on empirical results of simple geometries
- Not always valid for flow regime of interest - Data only available for limited set of simple geometries - Interaction effects not captured

Model tests
Current recognized practice Expensive Time consuming Scaling effects?

New approach (acknowledged in DNV-RP-H103):

CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) may be used
- Alternative to model tests - Forces, pressures and velocities should be validated with approximate hand-calculations - Results should be validated with model test results if available

21-Nov11

Page 5

Lifting analysis - input

Agenda

CFD Added mass & damping Examples on use of CFD Benefits & challenges

21-Nov11

Page 6

CFD Added mass & damping What is CFD?

Colourful Fluid Dynamics? Complicated Fluid Dynamics? Completely Fictitious Data? Colours For Directors? Computational Fluid Dynamics
Calculation of fluid flow and related variables using computers The fluid (e.g. water) is discretized into small cells forming a mesh Fluid behaviour needs to be defined at boundaries of problem (boundary conditions) Conservation equations (mass, momentum, etc.) solved for each cell in an iterative process (~ impossible to solve analytically)

21-Nov11

Page 7

CFD Added mass & damping Calculation of added mass & damping I/II
Forced harmonic oscillations mesh deformation
0.2

Motion [m]

0 -0.2 0 5 10 15 20 Time [s] 25 30 35 40

(movie)

Force-Time series from CFD analysis post processed by least square method in MATLAB
100

Force [kN]

-100 0

10

15

20 Time [s]

25

30

35

40

B z F = A z lin or B z F = A z z quad
21-Nov11 Page 8

LSM

A Blin

or

A Bquad

CFD Added mass & damping Calculation of added mass & damping II/II
Alternative formulation:

B1 z B2 z z F = A z

Added mass (A) derived directly from least square method Linear (B1) and quadratic (B2) damping derived from plot of linearized damping (Blin) as function of oscillation amplitude, z
Linearized Damping [kN/(m/s)] 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 Amplitude [m] 3

B [kN/(m/s)]

B1 = Blin (0) B2 = ( Blin ( z ) B1 ) 3 T 16 z

21-Nov11

Page 9

Lifting analysis - input

Agenda

CFD Added mass & damping Examples on use of CFD Benefits & challenges

21-Nov11

Page 10

I/IV - Mudmats Perforation ratio of 0, 15 and 25 %

21-Nov11

Page 11

I/IV Mudmats Comparison with experiments and CFD

Mud mat added mass
0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60

Ca [-]

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 10 20 30 Perforation [%]

Subsea7 CFD BMT CFD BMT EXP

Mud mat damping

8.00 7.00 6.00

Cdd [-]

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 Perforation [%]

Subsea 7 CFD BMT CFD BMT EXP

21-Nov11

Page 12

II/IV - Suction Anchor Added mass comparison with experiments

Suction Anchor added mass
1.60 1.40 1.20 Exp., KC=0.1 Exp., KC=0.6 Exp., KC=1.2 CFD, KC=0.1 CFD, KC=0.6 CFD, KC=1.2

Ca [-]

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 2 4 6 Perforation [%] 8 10 12

U T 2 A KC = = D D
21-Nov11

Page 13

III/IV - Integrated Template Structure (ITS) Comparison with experiments

Max. force with CFD is 5% higher than max in model tests

Total Hydrodynamic Force 500 CFD Experimental 0 -500 10

Force

15

20

25

30 Time

35

40

45

50

21-Nov11

Page 14

III/IV - Integrated Template Structure (ITS) Comparison with experiments

Normalized added mass

2 1.75

Normalized damping
5

Experimental CFD
4

Experimental CFD

Added mass

1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Damping

1.5

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Amplitude [m]

Amplitude [m]

21-Nov11

Page 15

IV/IV - Submerged towing of Riser Bundle Comparison with experiments

Model of riser bundle

Model testing of riser bundle (movie)

21-Nov11 Page 16

CFD analysis of riser bundle (movie)

IV/IV - Submerged towing of Riser Bundle Comparison with experiments Forced oscillations only (no current)
Vertical force on riser bundle 20 15 10 5 CFD Exp

Amplitude = 0.017 m Period = 1 s

Force

0 -5 -10 -15 -20 3 4 5 6 Time 7 8 9 10

Parameter Added mass Damping

CFD 0.38 1.10

Experiment 0.38 0.66

21-Nov11

Page 17

IV/IV - Submerged towing of Riser Bundle Comparison with experiments Forced oscillations + current
Vertical force on riser bundle 40 20 Exp CFD

Amplitude = 0.16 m Period = 1.75 s Current = 0.75 m/s

26 27 28 Time 29 30 31 32

Force

0 -20 -40 -60 25

Parameter Added mass Damping

CFD 0.36 0.15

Experiment 0.34 0.36

21-Nov11

Page 18

Lifting analysis - input

Agenda

CFD Added mass & damping Examples on use of CFD Benefits & challenges

21-Nov11

Page 19

Benefits & challenges of using CFD

+ By using CFD to estimate added mass and damping, the following effects will be included:
+ + + + Effect of Reynolds number (no scale effects) KC-number dependency Shielding/interaction between different parts of structure Other...

+ Less time consuming than model tests + Less expensive than model tests - High user threshold - More time consuming (and expensive) than simplified estimate - Validation required

21-Nov11

Page 20

Questions?

21-Nov11

Page 21

seabed-to-surface
www.subsea7.com
10.01.11 Page 22