AquaSim verification report

REPORT
VERIFICATION AND BENCHMARKING OF AQUASIM,

A SOFTWARETOOL FOR SIMULATION OF FLEXIBLE
OFFSHORE FACILITIES EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL
AND OPERATIONAL LOADS
REPORT NO. 2012-1755-1

REVISION NO. 01
AQUASTRUCTURES
Date of first issue:
Project No.:
20 September 2012
1755
Approved by:
Organisational unit:
Research and development

Are Berstad
Project Manager
Client:
Client ref.:
Norges forskningsrd
Summary:
With support from Norges Forskningsrd, the simulation and analysis software tool Aquasim has been
developed for over a 10 year period. This report outlines several benchmarking tests verifying the
accuracy and capabilities of the software program.
Report No.:
Subject Group:
2012-1755-1
Indexing terms
Report title:
Verification and benchmarking of AquaSim, a

software-tool for simulation of flexible offshore
facilities exposed to environmental and
operational loads
Finite Element Analysis

Flexible structures and systems
Sea loads
Work carried out by:
Are Johan Berstad, Line Heimstad
No distribution without permission from the Client

or responsible organisational unit
Work verified by:
Limited distribution within

Aquastructures AS
Ole Chr. Wroldsen

Date of this revision:
Rev. No.:
Number of pages:
01
64
Unrestricted distribution
Head quarter: Kjpmannsgaten 21 - 7013 Trondheim, Norway

29 November 2012 , a/reportfouverifikasjon_2012_v_2.docx
Table of Content
Page
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................... 1
2.
SCOPE OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................................... 1
3.
3.1.
3.1.1.
3.1.2.
3.1.3.
3.1.4.
3.1.5.
3.2.
3.2.1.
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.4.
BENCHMARK CASES STATIC ELEMENT RESPONSE ....................................... 1

Bar elements
1
Bar element with clamped ends
1
Two crossing cables
3
Cable with axial tension load
4
Net built up by cable elements
5
Net built up with cable elements, 2nd boundary condition
8
Beam elements
9
Beam element clamped at one end
9
Membrane elements
10
Membrane elements
10
Node to node springs
13
4.
4.1.
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.2.
BENCHMARK CASES ELEMENT DYNAMICS ................................................... 14

Swinging spring case
14
Static displacement
15
Dynamic displacement
16
Swinging pendulum
17
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
BENCHMARK CASES MORRISON LOAD APPLICATION ............................... 18

Beam exposed to current
19
Beam exposed to wave loads
21
Beam exposed to wave and current
23
Horizontally hanging cable exposed to current loads.
23
Morison load application on membrane elements
27
6.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
BENCHMARK CASES HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS APPLICATION ................. 27

AquaSim results compared with the small body asymptote.
27
AquaSim results compared with the wave reflection asymptote.
31
Added mass and damping
34
Drift forces on hydrodynamic elements
35
7.
7.1.
LIFT LOAD APPLICATION .................................................................................... 39

Beam exposed to lift load
39
8.
8.1.
PROPERTIES ON NODES ....................................................................................... 40

Fixed nodes
40
Page i
Aquastructures 2012 Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
29 November 2012,
8.2.
8.2.1.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
8.7.
8.8.
Linear node to ground spring

More springs, dampeners and mass
Local coordinates
Buoys
Prescribed displacements
RAO on nodes
Time domain fixed node motion and rotation
Node loads
9.
WIND LOADS .......................................................................................................... 51
10.
REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 53
11.
11.1.
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................ 55
Loading when ropes gets stiff
55
40
41
42
42
44
47
47
49
Page ii
Aquastructures 2012 Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
29 November 2012,
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aquasim has been developed over a 10 year period with support from the Norwegian research
council. The program is capable of carrying out static as well as dynamic time domain
simulation of structures exposed to time varying loads and structure response such as current and
wave loads as well as operational conditions. The program accounts for the hydroelastic relation
between fluid and structure.
Several element types are included in the program. This report validates many of the different
elements by doing analysis for cases where analytic solutions can be derived. The loads from
waves and current are described and validated. Node properties are validated.
2. SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

This report is issued in order to verify the Aquastructures software-tool AquaSim to be used for
calculating structural response for systems and structures in a marine environment.
Calculations carried out by AquaSim are compared to handbook formulas and analytical
solutions for the elements used, and loads and boundary conditions.
Recalculation of the cases analysed in the 2006 validation report (Aquastructures 2006) with the
most recent version of AquaSim (2012 version) have been carried out.
New validation cases have been established and analysed.
The work in Section 3- 5 has been carried out by either Line Heimstad or Are Berstad The
analysis in Section 6 and outwards have been carried out by Are Berstad
3. BENCHMARK CASES STATIC ELEMENT RESPONSE

Case studies have been carried out to verify the results calculated by the program to analytical
results.
3.1. Bar elements

Bar elements can take only axial loads and are hence applicable for e.g mooring lines.
3.1.1. Bar element with clamped ends

Based on geometry considerations, the bar element used in the computer program has been tested
against analytic results. The geometry of Case 1 is shown in Figure 1.
Page 1
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
29 November 2012, a/reportfouverifikasjon_2012_v_2.docx
L/2
Area, A
Youngs modulus, E
L/2
Figure 1 Cable with both ends clamped.

Figure 2 presents the deformed geometry of the cable of Case 1. The material and load data used
in the calculation is given in
Table 1.
Cable force, Pc
Area, A
Youngs modulus, E
Displacement, U
L/2
L/2
Figure 2 Cable in initial and deformed condition. U is the cable displacement under the
point load and Pc is the cable force.
Table 1 Structural data, bar with both ends clamped
Structural data
Abbreviation
Value
Length of cable from end to end
10 m
Cross sectional area of cable
100 mm2
Module of elasticity of cable
2.1 * 109 N/m3
Program calculated and analytical results are compared in Table 2.

Table 2 Results for cable. U is the displacement in meters and Pc in the cable force in
Newton as given in Figure 2.
Applied load AquaSim results
Analytical results
Relative difference
U (m)
Pc (N)
Pc
Pc
Page 2
100 N
0.391
641
0.391
641
10 000 N
1.873
14252
1.873
14252
1 000 000 N
16.69
521 900
16.69
521900
As seen from Table 2, the program calculation compares fully with analytical results. This means
that AquaSim calculates geometric nonlinearities of bar elements in a proper manner.
3.1.2. Two crossing cables

A case has been considered where two crossing cables have been modelled as shown in Figure 3.
Both cables have the same length, and the load is applied to the centre point.
L/2
Area, A
Youngs modulus, E
L/2
Figure 3 Case with two cables crossing at 90o

Results for the geometry shown in Figure 3 were calculated with structural data as given in Table
3:
Table 3 Structural data, case with two cables crossed 90o
Structural data
Abbreviation
Value
Length of cable from end to end
10 m
100 mm2
Module of elasticity of cable
2.1 * 109 N/m3
Program calculated and analytical results are compared in Table 4. Analytical results are derived
by considering the load situation in the case of Section 3.1.1. With two times the load applied to
the centre point, the displacement U of the crossing cables will be equal to the displacement
found for the case of a single cable in Section 3.1.1
Page 3
Table 4 Results for crossing cables. U is the displacement in meters and Pc in the cable
force in Newton as given in Figure 2.
Applied load AquaSim results
Analytical results
Relative difference
U [m]
Pc [N]
U[m]
Pc[N]
Pc
200 N
0.391
641
0.391
641
20 000 N
1.873
14252
1.873
14252
2 000 000 N
16.69
521 900
16.69
521900
As seen from Table 4, by multiplying the applied loads with 2, the calculated results for crossing
cables equals the results for a single cable described in Section 3.1.1, which again equals the
analytically calculated results.
3.1.3. Cable with axial tension load

Axial force is applied to the cable end as shown in Figure 4.
Cable:
Youngs module E
Area A
z
x
Force F
Figure 4 Cable with tension force

The structural data for this case is given in Table 5.
Table 5 Values used in case study. Cable with tension force
Abbreviation Description
Value
10 mm2
L0
Length of cable in original configuration
10 m
Youngs module of the cable
1.0E08 N/m2
The results for a cable with tension force are given in Table 6.
Page 4
Table 6 Calculated and analytic values case study with cable with axial tension load
Cable force
Displacement calculated with AquaSim
Analytical displacement
-100 N
-1.0
-1.0
-1000 N
-10
-10
-3000 N
-30
-30
As seen from Table 6, analytic and numerical results are identical. The above analysis was
repeated using 4 elements. The results correspond perfectly.
3.1.4. Net built up by cable elements

A net structure as shown in Figure 5 has been established.
L/4
z
L/4
x
L/4
L/4
P
L/4
L/4
L/4
L/4
Figure 5 Net structure built up with cable elements

The structural data for the net built up with cable elements is given in Table 7.
Table 7 Values used in net structure built up with cable elements
Value
A
Cross sectional area of horizontal and vertical cables
10 mm2
10 m
1.0E08 N/m2
Page 5
Node loads have been distributed on the 5 lowermost nodes as shown in Figure 5. The five upper
nodes are all fixed. The results for the net structure built up with cable elements are given in
Table 6.
Table 8 Calculated and analytic values case study with net structure built up with cable
elements
Node load, each node Vertical displacement lower side Horizontal displacement
-100 N
-1.0
0.0
-1000 N
-10
0.0
-3000 N
-30
0.0
Figure 6 Applied loads are 5 times 1000 N downwards at each bottom node. The legend
shows the vertical displacement.
Page 6
Figure 7 Applied loads 1000 N downwards at each weight. The legend shows the stress level
in each cable.
A second load case was applied including a load component in the horizontal direction. Load
values and calculated results are given in Table 9.
Table 9 Calculated and analytic values present case
Vertical node Horizontal node Vertical displacement
loads
loads
lower side
Horizontal displacement
lower side
-800 N
12.0 m
600 N
-6.0 m
Page 7
Figure 8 Vertical and horizontal loads at the bottom of the structure. The colours shown on
the cables reflect the axial forces found in the cables of the legend.
3.1.5. Net built up with cable elements, 2nd boundary condition

The same structure of cables from Figure 5 is now fixed only at the two endpoints of the top, as
shown in Figure 9.
L/4
z
L/4
x
L/4
L/4
P
L/4
L/4
L/4
L/4
Figure 9 Geometry of present case. Cables are only fixed at two nodes at the top
The displacement for the structure of cables with the 2nd boundary condition is shown in Figure
10. The results derived from this 2nd boundary condition are not validated to handbook results.
Page 8
The results are only considered plausible. Cases for the validation of the membrane elements will
be compared to the results presented in Figure 10.
Figure 10 Structural displacements, case with cables only fixed at two nodes, 1000 N
vertical downwards load where weights are shown. The colour scale represents the axial
forces found in the cables.
3.2. Beam elements

3.2.1. Beam element clamped at one end
A beam element clamped at one end is considered. The case is shown in Figure 11.
z
P
x
Area, A
Youngs modulus, E
Area moment of inertia
Iy and Iz
Figure 11 Beam element clamed in one end. Point load has been applied at free end.
Page 9
In this case, analytical linear displacements can be derived as

Pl 3
3EI
Equation 1
The structural data for this case is given in Table 10.
Table 10 Values used in beam case study
Value
Cross sectional area of horizontal and vertical cables
0.05 m2
Length of beam in original configuration
10 m
Iy
Area moment of inertia about local y- axis
0.001 (1/m4)
Iz
Area moment of inertia about local z- axis
0.001 (1/m4)
IT
Torsional area moment of inertia
0.002(1/m4)
Torsional module
0.8E09 N/m2
Youngs module of the beam
2.1E11 N/m2
r3
Loads have been applied as shown in Figure 11. Results derived by AquaSim and analytical
results are given in Table 11.
Table 11 Calculated and analytic values using one element
Vertical node load Displacement calculated by
Analytic linear displacement
AquaSim
z- direction
x- direction
z-direction
x- direction
-100 N
-0.0002
0.0
-0.0002
0.0
-100 000N
-0.1587
-0.0013
-0.1587
0.0
-1 000 000 N
-1.5540
-0.1213
-1.587
0.0
-10 000 000 N
-7.7361
-3.3487
-15.87
0.0
As seen from Table 11 results are exactly similar for small loads. This is expected since the
beam response is almost exactly linear in this case. As the load is increased, the nonlinear effect
becomes important and the analytical results are no longer valid. AquaSim accounts for the nonlinear effects.
3.3. Membrane elements

3.3.1. Membrane elements
One membrane elements mesh is shown in Figure 12. In this figure, the membrane element
represents a 7 x 7 mesh. Generally, membrane elements represent meshes of m x n, depending on
membrane element size and the established mesh size.
Page 10
Dy
Dx
Figure 12 One membrane element representing 7*7 twines of flag shaped net.
The mesh structure made up with cable elements shown in Figure 5 and Figure 9 is now rebuilt
using membrane elements. Results will be compared for the two cases in order to validate the
results derived from using membrane elements. Each membrane element is 2.5 x 2.5 meters, and
the mesh size is assumed to be the same, meaning the the halfmesh size is 2.5 meters. This is not
a normal value for aquaculture nets, but is used to have a 1 to 1 relation between the net model
and the model built with bars. This means that each mesh will have a half thread along each side
of the mesh. In order to make the model similar to the models shown in Figure 5 and Figure 9, a
cable is arranged around the structure as shown in blue in Figure 13.
Page 11
L/4
z
L/4
x
L/4
L/4
P
L/4
L/4
L/4
L/4
Figure 13 Model for test of the membrane elements. Each square is at membrane element.
The blue line corresponds to cable elements with cross sectional area of half the area of one
membrane element twine.
The present membrane model was tested with the same boundary condition as given in Figure 5.
Both load conditions described in Table 8 and Table 9 gave exactly the same results for the
present membrane case as for the case when modelled as bars.
Now consider the case which is only clamped in two upper nodes as shown in Figure 13. This
case was run for the same condition as the case shown in Figure 10. The results are shown in
Figure 14.
Figure 14 Membrane structure clamped at two nodes. Node loads have been applied at the
lower end of the net.
Page 12
As seen from Figure 14, the results correspond very well to the results in Figure 10. This means
that cable elements and membrane elements gives the same results for a case study where they
represent the same geometry.
3.4. Node to node springs

Element type 4 in AquaSim is the node to node spring element. For node to node springs, the
spring force is proportional to the difference in respective DOFs at the two nodes the spring is
connecting.
Figure 15 shows a test case where node to node springs have been tested. The beam is the same
as in Table 10 of section 3.2.
Node 1
Fixed all DOFs
Node 2
Node 2 Node 3
1m
1m
Node to node springs at

all degrees of freedom
between node 2 and 3
Value: 1000 N/M
Figure 15 Geometry of test of node to node springs. Beam data not expressed explicitly in
this figure are the same as in the previous section in Table 21. The beam is very stiff
relative to the stiffness of springs
Table 12 shows results. As seen from this table, results using AquaSim corresponds well with
analytic results.
Page 13
Table 12 Results verifying node to node spring elements. Node numbers are referring to
Figure 15.
Force
Force location
Result
Analytical
Aquasim result
magnitude
parameter
result
1000
Node 3 DOF 1
x/y/z-translation
node 4
1.0/0.0/0.0
1.0/0.0/0.0
1000
Node 3 DOF 2
x/y/z-translation
node 4
0.0/1.0/0.0
0.0/1.0/0.0
1000
Node 3 DOF 3
x/y/z-translation
node 4
0.0/0.0/1.0
0.0/0.0/1.0
1000
Node 3 DOF 4
x/y/z-translation
node 4
0.0/-0.46/0.84
0.0/-0.46/0.84
1000
Node 3 DOF 5
x/y/z-translation
node 4
0.0/0.0/0.0
0.0/0.0/0.0
1000
Node 3 DOF 6
x/y/z-translation
node 4
-0.84/-0.46/0.0
-0.84/-0.46/0.0
4. BENCHMARK CASES ELEMENT DYNAMICS

4.1. Swinging spring case
The objective of this case is to verify that the load, mass and stiffness calculation give correct
results for a simple case where the eigenfrequency and amplitude can be found analytically.
Consider a weight with mass M hanging at the end of a truss element as shown in Figure 16.
The end node of the truss element, where the weight is located, is free to move in z- direction
only, i.e. one degree of freedom.
Cable:
Youngs module E
Area A
z
x
Mass: M
Weight: Mg
Page 14
Figure 16 Test of dynamic loading. The weight is applied and left free to fall downwards.
The following values has been applied to the configuration shown in Figure 16
Table 13 Structural data in case study with a weight swinging freely.
Value
A
10 mm2
L0
10 m
1.0E08 N/m2
Mass of weight
305.81 kg
The force of the weight =Mg
-3000 N
4.1.1. Static displacement

Analytic static solution is as follows:
F = K x L
(Where F is the force in Newton and L is the elongation of L0)
K= EA/L0 = 100
(Where K is the cross sectional stiffness of the cable)
L = (L - L0) = F/K = -3000/100 = -30 m.
This means that the static vertical displacement of the weight when applied statically to this load
is 30 meters. This corresponds well to the values calculated by the program shown in Figure 17.
Page 15
Weight at end of cable

0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Displacement[meter]
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Time [Seconds]
Figure 17 Static and dynamic solution for the cable with weight. The red line is static
displacement and the blue line is dynamic displacement as a function of time.
4.1.2. Dynamic displacement

In general, the motion of a system without damping can be describes by
r
r ( t ) 0 sin(t ) (r0 rs ) cos(t )
Equation 2
Applying loads in the present case, r will be 0 since there is no velocity of the weight at t = 0. r0
rs is the deviance from the position of static equilibrium at t = 0. In the present case this deviance
is 30 meter. This means that according to Equation 2 the amplitude of the harmonic motion will
be 30, and the motion can be described as
r(t ) (r0 rs ) cos(t ) 30 cos(t )

Where is the eigenfrequency of the motion being found as
k
M
The analytically calculated period T will in this case the be
2
M
2
10.99
k
Compare this value with Figure 17, and a full match is observed. The results are summarized in
Table 14.
T
Page 16
Table 14 Calculated and analytic values in case study with weight swinging freely in the zdirection.
Value calculated by Aquasim Analytic value
K
Cable stiffness
100
100
rs
Static displacement
-30
-30
rd
Dynamic amplitude
30
30
Eigenperiod
10.99
10.99
4.2. Swinging pendulum

In this case a cable was modelled along the x-axis as shown in Figure 18. A weight was put on
one end of the cable, and the other end was fixed. This means that the structure will act as a
swinging pendulum.
Cable:
Youngs module E
Area A
z
x
Mass: M
Weight: Mg
Figure 18 Horizontal cable with weight at the end

The data used for this case is given in Table 15.
Table 15 Values used in case study with cable swinging sideways
Value
A
1000 mm2
L0
10 m
1.0E12 N/m2
Mass of weight
305.81 kg
The force of the weight =Mg
-3000 N
The analytic results in this case will give a weight swinging from one side to the other with
minimum z- displacement being -10 meters. This corresponds to AquaSim results shown in
Figure 19. So does the horizontal displacement.
Page 17
The period for the swinging pendulum can be found as
T 4
L /2
d
g 0
1 k 2 sin 2
Equation 3
where T is the swinging period, L is the cable length and g is the acceleration of gravitation.
k sin
2
where is the angle of the pendulum in the original configuration relative to the vertical axis. In
the present study = 90 degrees. Introducing into Equation 3 the period T, the period is found
to be 7.49 s. Comparing with results found from AquaSim shown in Figure 19 it is seen the
period calculated by AquaSim is exactly the same.
Swinging pendulum
5
0
Displacement
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time
y-displacement
z-displacement
Figure 19 Weight attached to cable end. Cable is swinging sideways. The red line shows
vertical displacement and the blue line shows horizontal displacement of weight
5. BENCHMARK CASES MORRISON LOAD APPLICATION

On beams and cables, the cross flow principle is used to derive the Morrison loads. Referring to
a local coordinate system where the beam or cable is located along the local x- axis, forces in the
local y- direction can be found as given in Equation 4.
Page 18
F2
w C dy Diam N L0
u 2 v2 u 2 v2 2 u3 v3 2
2
w AL0 C m a 2 w AL0 (C m 1)v2
Equation 4
Here Cdy is the drag coefficient in the local y- direction, DiamN is the diameter of the cross
section in the direction of the relative velocity
u 2 v2m 2 u3 v3m 2 vector in the cross
sectional plane. u 2 u 2 wave u 2 current where u2 wave is the fluid velocity due to waves and u2 current
is the current velocity in the local y- direction. The calculations are carried out at two separate
locations 20% of the length away from each node being applied as load for that particular node.
a2 is the fluid acceleration in the local y- direction and Cmy is the mass coefficient = Ca + 1 where
Ca is the added mass. A is the cross sectional area of the element. The expression will be similar
in the local z direction.
5.1. Beam exposed to current

Consider a case with a vertical beam exposed to uniform current as shown in Figure 20. The
beam has a circular cross section.
Beam:
Youngs module E
Area A
Area moment of inertia I
z
x
Uniform current velocity u

Figure 20 Beam exposed to uniform current
Structural data for the exposed beam is given in Table 16
Table 16 Values used in beam exposed to current load case study
Value
A
Cross sectional area
0.1 m2
10 m
Iy
0.001 (1/m4)
Page 19
Iz
0.001 (1/m4)
IT
0.002(1/m4)
Torsional module
4E10 N/m2
Youngs modulus of the beam
1.0E11 N/m2
The distributed load over the cross section can be found by using the Morison equation (e.g.
Equation 4.). Applied to this static case, this equation reads:
q CD D u u
2
Equation 5
where q is the uniformly distributed load. D is the diameter of the cross section. The
displacement r of the lower end of the beam and the shear force Vz and moment My at the upper
end can then be found as
qL4
qL2
rzend
, M yUpperend
, VzUpperend qL
8EI
2
Equation 6
Introducing the following data
Table 17 Data for test of beam exposed to current loads
Description
Abbreviation
Value
Drag coefficient
CD
Water density
1025
Diameter of cross section
0.35 m
Current velocity
1 m/s
Mass coefficient
Cm
Analytical and computed results are compared in Table 18.

Table 18 Results for beam exposed to current in x direction
Response
Analytical results Computed results 10
Computed results 100
parameter
elements
elements
r lower end
2.24 mm
2.24 mm
2.24 mm
My upper end
8968.75 NM
7250 Nm
8790 Nm
Vz upper end
1793.75 N
1704 N
1785 N
As seen from this table the results correspond very well. The shear force is computed as constant
over each element meaning that the response at the clamped beam end will be under predicted
Page 20
proportional to element size. For this circular cross section, the test is repeated by exposing the
beam to current 45 degrees this means that Ux = Uy = 0.70710678. All other data is the same.
Table 19 Results for beam expose to current 45 degrees relative to the x- and y- axis
Response
Analytical
Computed results 10
Computed results 100
parameter
results
elements
elements
Rx =Ry lower end
1.585 mm
1.585 mm
1.585 mm
|r| lower end
2.242 mm
2.242 mm
2.242 mm
My=Mz upper end
6342 Nm
5126 Nm
6216 Nm
|M| upper end
8969 Nm
7250 Nm
8790 Nm
Vy = Vz upper end
1268 N
1205 N
1262 N
|V| upper end
1794 N
1704 N
1785 N
This shows that response calculated by AquaSim corresponds well with analytical predictions
using the Morison formulae for load calculation as the drag load is quadratic with respect to
velocity.
Displacement
25
20
15
Displacement
10
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Figure 21 Displacement at end of beam as function of current velocity in current direction
5.2. Beam exposed to wave loads

Wave loads are considered, using the Morison formula (see Equation 4). The same beam as
described in section 5.1 is considered (see Table 17 and Equation 6). In the present case the
beam is positioned horizontally, along the y- axis, 5 meters below wave surface. The beam
response is assumed static. Infinite wave depth is assumed.
Page 21
z
y
L = 10 m
Figure 22 Beam exposed to waves
The beam is exposed to waves in the x- direction with 5 meter wave height. The wave frequency,
is 1,0 second. As seen from Figure 23 the analytical and the program calculated results
correspond very well with analytical results calculated according to Equation 4.
Displacement due to waves calculated by Morrissons formulae

25.00
20.00
Dx-analytical
Displacement [mm]
15.00
10.00
Dz-analytical
5.00
0.00
0.00E+00
-5.00
Dx-Calculated
2.00E+00
4.00E+00
6.00E+00
8.00E+00
Dz-Calculated
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
-25.00
Time [Sec]
Figure 23 Horizontal beam exposed to waves. Wave elevation 5 meter, Wave frequency, ,
1 sec. Displacement at the beams free end is shown.
Page 22
5.3. Beam exposed to wave and current

A similar case is considered applying both current and waves. In this case the wave period is 10
seconds and a current velocity of one meter per second is applied in addition to the wave. It is
assumed that the waves are riding on top of the current field.
Displacement due to waves and current calculated by Morrissons
formulae
40.00
30.00
Displacement [mm]
20.00
Dx-analytical
10.00
Dz-analytical
Dx-Calculated
0.00
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Dz-Calculated
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
Time [seconds]
Figure 24 Horizontal beam exposed to waves. Wave elevation 5 meter, the wave period is
10 sec. Current velocity is 1 m/s in the x-direction. Displacement at the beams free end is
shown.
5.4. Horizontally hanging cable exposed to current loads.

This case considers a vertical cable with a point load of 5000N applied to the lower end, as
shown in Figure 25.
Page 23
Cable:
Youngs module E
Area A = 0.1 m2
z
x
Downwards load Pz
5000 N
Uniform current velocity u
Figure 25 Cable with a hanging weight is exposed to current flow
The E modulus and cross sectional area for this case is the same as in the above cases shown in
Table 16 and Table 17, E = 1.0*1011 N/m2 and A = 0.1 m2. Displacements have been calculated
by a simplified formulae stating that there must be equilibrium at each cross section of the cable
as shown in Figure 26. In contrast to the AquaSim simulation program, the simplified formulae
does not account for the updated geometry of the cable when loads from current is derived. This
means that the simplified formulae will differ from the nonlinear results calculated by AquaSim
as the displacements increase. This is clearly seen in Figure 27, the results predicted by AquaSim
and the simplified formula corresponds exactly when the horizontal displacement is less than 0.2
meters. For this case the nonlinear geometry effect is not very important. Figure 28 shows the
same as Figure 27, but in Figure 28 the current velocity has been increased from 0.3 m/s to 1
m/s. This gives a displacement of the cable of almost two meters in the horizontal plane. As seen
from this figure there is a deviation between results predicted by AquaSim and the simplified
formulae which was expected since the simplified formulae does not account for the geometric
nonlinearities effect on the load.
Page 24
Q(L-l)dx = pdz
z
L-l
Downwards load Pz
5000 N
Uniform force q caused by uniform flow u
Figure 26 Sketch of how the simplified expression for cable displacement assumes
equilibrium at each vertical level but not accounting for the cable displacement, i.e. the
uniform force is calculated over the initial cable configuration.
Results compared to simplified formulae
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Vertical location
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Horizontal displacement [m]
Figure 27 Cable displacement predicted by the simplified formulae and the Aquasim
program respectively. The current velocity is 0.3 m/s. The red dots are the AquaSim results
whereas the blue line is the results predicted with the simplified formulae. There is no
deviation in this case.
Page 25
Results compared to simplified formulae

0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Vertical location
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Horizontal displacement [m]
Figure 28 Cable displacement predicted by the simplified formulae and the Aquasim
program respectively. The current velocity is 1.0 m/s. The red dots are the AquaSim results
whereas the blue line is the results predicted with the simplified formulae. The simplified
formulae is based on a linear consideration, and as nonlinear effects becomes more
predominant the deviation between this formulae and AquaSim increase.
Page 26
Figure 29 Cable with weight at the bottom. The legend gives the horizontal displacement in
the cable.
5.5. Morison load application on membrane elements

For Morison load application on membrane elements it is referred to Berstad et al (2012) for
documentation and validation of 3 alternative load formulations to nets and also Berstad et al
(2004).
6. BENCHMARK CASES HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS APPLICATION

This section shows results for calculations based on hydrodynamic loads. Case studies are used
to investigate how the program corresponds with results for cases where asymptotic solutions or
hand book solutions do exist.
In AquaSim added mass and hydrodynamic damping is established for elements based on linear
coefficients established at a user specified mean water line. Diffraction properties are established
in the same manner. During time domain simulation, the Froude Kriloff and diffraction of the
pressure is applied at the elements actual horizontal location.
6.1. AquaSim results compared with the small body asymptote.

When a submerged body is small relative to the wave length, the forces acting on the body can
be approximated as (see e.g. Faltinsen 1990 pp 59-60)
Fi pni ds A i1a 1 A i 2 a 2 A i 3 a 3
S
Equation 7
Page 27
where p is the dynamic pressure in the undisturbed wave field, n = [n1,n2,n3] is the unit vector
normal to the body with positive direction into the fluid. a1,a2,a3 are the acceleration components
along the x-, y- and z- axis of the undisturbed wave field, which are to be evaluated at the
geometrical mass centre of the body. For a totally submerged body
pni ds Va i
S
Equation 8
where V is the volume of the body. For a body not totally submerged, the above equation is valid
only in the horizontal direction. A case as shown in Figure 30 is used as a case study. The beam
is located with its origin in the free surface (z = 0).
z
y
L = 10 m
Figure 30 Geometry of case study for testing is the program results corresponds to results
derived from the long wave approximation. The diameter of the cylinder is 0.4 meters.
A wave with 1 meter amplitude and a period of 8 seconds is applied. Based on the long wave
approximation, the evenly distributed force amplitude due to Froude Kriloff and added mass can
be derived from Equation 7 and Equation 8 can be found as 79.45 N/m. The force will be a
sinusoidal for with this amplitude. Introducing this into the equation for free end displacement
for a beam clamped as shown in Figure 30
qL4
8EI
Equation 9
rzend
Structural data for this case is given in Table 20

Table 20 Values used in beam exposed wave loads using numerical strip theory wave
diffraction theory.
Value
0.12566371 m2
Submerged part of circular cross sectional area
50%
10 m
Iy
0.001 (1/m4)
Page 28
Iz
0.001 (1/m4)
IT
0.002(1/m4)
Torsional module
4E10 N/m2
Cd
Drag coefficient
Wave direction
Beam seas
Using the beam properties for this case gives a sinusoidal response as shown in Figure 31. In this
figure, analytic results using the small body approximation is compared to the results predicted
by AquaSim which use a strip theory panel method. As seen from the figure predicted response
corresponds very well. Note that beam response is calculated statically.
Program results compared to small body approximation
1.5
x- displacement [mm]
1.0
0.5
Small body approximation
0.0
8
10
12
14
16
Calculated displacement
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Seconds
Figure 31 Comparison of AquaSim results with results derived from calculating

analytically results using the long wave approximation. The results show horizontal
displacement at the beam end for the 10 meter long beam with hydrodynamic and
structural properties given in Figure 30, and Table 20 and with load formulation in
Equation 9. 1 meter high wave
Figure 32 shows visualization of the calculated displacement. Note that the results depend on the
numerical calculation of the hull. AquaSim generates straight lines between the given input
points, which indicate that with fewer points a true circle is not predicted. The shown case is for
a case with input points per 5 degrees, and number of hydrodynamic points are 40. In this case
there are no there is no viscous drag load added to the hydrodynamic loads.
Page 29
Figure 32 Calculated displacement, AquaSim. Case in Figure 31.

Figure 33 shows the same as Figure 32 but for a 10 meter high wave. As seen the results
compare well as this load component is linear with respect to wave height.
Page 30
Figure 33 Calculated displacement, AquaSim. Case in Figure 31 but with 10 meter high
wave.
6.2. AquaSim results compared with the wave reflection asymptote.

In this section a cross section is established in order to compare calculated beam displacement
using the reflected wave asymptote with results using the AquaSim program. The reflected wave
asymptote is valid for waves approaching a wall. The wave will then be reflected causing at
oppositely directed wave of equal magnitude.
z
y
L = 10 m
D = 10 m
Figure 34 Data used for case study where data are compared to data using the reflected
wave asymptotic results. The depth below the water of the beam is 10 meters and the width
of the beam is 1 meter.
Page 31
Structural data for this case is given in Table 21

Table 21 Beam properties in case study using a beam to test closeness to the wave reflection
asymptote.
Abbreviation Parameter
Value
A
0.1 m2
10 m
Iy
4.0 (1/m4)
Iz
0.4 (1/m4)
IT
2.0 (1/m4)
Torsional module
4E10 N/m2
1.0E11 N/m2
The wave data applied are given in Table 22

Table 22 Wave data
Description
Abbreviation
Value
Wave amplitude
Water density
1025
Direction
Beam seas (90o)
Current velocity
0 m/s
The analytical results for this case have been derived by integrating the Froude Kriloff pressure
over the weather side of the beam. This leads to the following expression for the horizontally
distributed load q in this case
gA
* 1 exp kD
k
Equation 10
The total distributed force using the above expression is then
gA
q2
* 1 exp kD
k
Equation 11
q fc
These analytic values have been introduced to the above expressions, and compared with results
from the AquaSim program. Figure 35 shows this comparison for a wave period of 4 seconds. In
this case most of the wave will be reflected since the particle velocities are reduced downwards
proportional to exp(kz). In this case this means that at z = -10 the wave velocity will only be
Page 32
approximately 8 % of the velocity at the surface. This means that due to continuity, most of the
wave will have to be reflected. As seen from Figure 35 this clearly happens.
Program results compare to reflection asymptote
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
Displacement by asyptptic
expression
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
Seconds
Figure 35 Horizontal displacement at the end of beam. Calculated results are calculated by
Aquasim. Wave period is 4 seconds.
As seen from Figure 35 results calculated by AquaSim correspond very well with the analytic
expression based on the small body approximation. The deviation is results is due to the fact that
the small body approximation is not fully valid for this case. AquaSim reflects the actual beam in
a proper manner whereas the small body approximation is a slight simplification.
Figure 36 shows the same as Figure 35 but in this case the wave period is 10 seconds. This
means that the wave velocity at z = -10 meter is approximately 50 % of the wave velocity at the
surface. This means that much of the water is transported below the beam, and a smaller part is
reflected. Hence it is not expected to find results close to the reflected wave asymptote for this
case. As seen from Figure 36 this is also the case.
Page 33
Program results compare to reflection asymptote

30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0
10
Displacement by asyptptic
expression
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
Seconds
Figure 36 Horizontal displacement at the end of beam. Calculated results are calculated by
Aquasim. Wave period is 10 seconds.
As seen from Figure 36 the response calculated by AquaSim is smaller than response predicted
by the small body asymptote. This is in good correspondence with the physics since AquaSim
accounts for the fact that much of the wave is not reflected in this case. The wave reflection
asymptote assumes that the whole wave is reflected.
6.3. Added mass and damping

Added mass and damping has been calculated for a cylinder with geometry as shown in Figure
22. The results have been normalized with respect to the wave frequency (shown as w in
Figure 37 ) the cross sectional area of the cylinder and the density of the fluid . The results are
shown in Figure 37. These values can be compared with results given in Faltinsen (1990). Good
correspondence is seen. This means that AquaSim calculates added mass and damping from
hydrodynamic loads in a proper manner.
Page 34
Normalized added mass and damping

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
A22/A
B22/A
A33/A
0.8
B33/A
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2R/g
Figure 37 Normalized 2D added mass and damping for a cylinder. A is the cross sectional
area of the cylinder. The values in this figure can be compared with values in Faltinsen
(1990) pp 50. A22 is the added mass in sway (horizontal), B22 is the damping. A33 is the
added mass in heave and B33 is the damping in heave.
6.4. Drift forces on hydrodynamic elements

AquaSim has an option for calculating drift loads to elements where the hydrodynamic load
formulation is applied. This option calculates both an average drift force based on conservation
of momentum according for Maouro as well as a sum frequency load. This drift and sum
frequency calculation carried out in AquaSim works as follows:
Consider a 2 dimensional situation as assumed in strip theory.
The average drift force over a time period is assumed being according to Maoros formulae (See
e.g. Faltinsen 1990)
g 2
F2
Ar
2
Equation 12
whereF2 is the second order force averaged over a wave period. The normal linearized forces
consisting of Froude Kriloff and diffraction as well as added mass and damping is then F1.
is the density of water.
g is the gravity constant.
Page 35
Ar is the peak value of the reflected wave. This wave originates from the first order solution of
the boundary value problem and is a sinusoidal wave with the same wave period as the incident
wave.
Using this information an alternative way to calculate F2 can then be
F2 gAr 2
Equation 13
where Ar is the amplitude of the instantaneous reflected wave elevation. Comparing Equation 13
to Equation 12 it is seen that using Equation 13 will over one wave cycle give an average force
as given in Equation 12 which is the force according to Maouros formulae ( F2 always acts
normal to the hull in in the opposite direction of the reflected waves.) Ar is the reflected wave
calculated by the strip theory accounting for diffraction and radiation.
The reflected wave is derived by accounting for all components in the analysis contributing to
this wave. The instantaneous reflected wave elevation, Ar in the far field and then phase shifted
to along the ship side is traced caused by both diffraction and vessel motion. Then an
instantaneous force can be found from Equation 13.
The case study reported in Figure 34 and Table 21 is exposed to drift forces according to
Equation 13. The environmental data used for this case is given in Table 22 and Figure 35. The
resulting forces are seen in Figure 38 where;
Displacement from drift is calculated analytically from Equation 13.
Linear displacement is the displacement caused by the regular non-drift forces (the first
order terms, corresponding to the results seen in Figure 38.
Total is analytically summarized linear and drift forces analytically.
Total AquaSim are the forces calculated by AquaSim which should correspond to the
total forces calculated analytically.
Page 36
Response including drift forces

25
End displacement [mm]
20
15
10
Displacement from drift [mm]

Linear displacement
Total
0
0
Total Aquasim
-5
-10
-15
Time [s]
Figure 38 Response from wave with wave amplitude 5 meter and wave period 4 seconds.
As seen from Figure 38 the results from AquaSim and the analytical results correspond very
well. Note that the reverse Maoro formulation used by AquaSim does not mean that the sum
frequency forces have the correct phase relative to the first order forces. The AquaSim
formulation is based on calculating the wave elevation of the reflected wave according to strip
theory and then, when this wave peaks at the location where the ship wall enters the water, the
calculated force peaks as seen in Figure 38.
Alternative drift forces can be introduced by the user. The reflected wave used as basis for the
drift force calculation according to Equation 13, Ar can be set by the user from 100% of the
incident wave down to 1%. Introducing this option to calculate drift forces means that Ar is in
phase with the incident wave and the peak force occurs when the incident wave peaks at the
upstream vessel side.
Figure 39 shows results for the case where the reflected wave amplitude is set to 100% of the
incident wave amplitude. As seen from the figure, results are as expected.
Page 37
Reflection 100% of incident wave

25
Displacement [mm]
20
15
10
Linear displacement
Total
0
0
-5
Total Aquasim
-10
-15
Time [s]
Figure 39 Calculation of beam displacement including drift forces where the reflected wave
is set to 100% of the incident wave
AquaSim calculates the reflected wave based on a wave perpendicular to the hydrodynamic
object. In case waves are not perpendicular to the upstream line where the vessel side
intercepts the water, the drift force is corrected by
Fac c sin 2 ( )
Equation 14
where is the angle between the incident wave and the vessel water intersection line.
The current velocity is accounted for by formulae 5.22 in Faltinsen (1970), by adjusting the force
found in Equation 13 as
F2 F2 (1
UCos
g
Equation 15
where is the wave frequency or peak frequency of the spectrum, U is the current velocity and
is the angle between the wave velocity and the current velocity. g is the gravity constant.
Figure 40 shows analysis for the same case as in Figure 38 but with an additional current
velocity of 3 m/s in the same direction as the waves. As seen from the results, the applied forces
to the beam have increased, increasing the maximum displacement of the beam Note that a
current velocity of 3 m/s is an extremely large value. It should also be noted that the waves used
in the present case is also way too steep with respect to physical criteria. Realistically, the
amplitude for this wave can at max be 1.8 meters which means that the drift forces will matter
only 1/3 relative to the first order forces compared to what is reported here.
Page 38
There are also first order viscous forces which may be much larger than the forces derived from
the current correction in Equation 15.
Response including drift forces with current

25
End displacement [mm]
20
15
10

Linear displacement
Total
0
0
Total Aquasim
-5
-10
-15
Time [s]
Figure 40 Analysis with a current of 3 m/s.
7. LIFT LOAD APPLICATION

Lift loads have been used for a wide range of cases and compared to measurements and analytic
considerations. The lift load model works such that a lift, drag and moment coefficient is applied
where these coefficients in general are functions of the relative angle of the inflow of the element
and the component. Lift elements are typically used in towing operations such as seismic
acquisition, see e.g Berstad and Tronstad (2008).
There are a set of options which need to be chosen carefully in the input to obtain correct input.
7.1. Beam exposed to lift load

AquaSim allows for lift loads applied on beam and bar elements. This has been considered in
Berstad and Tronstad (2008). Consider the case with results presented in Figure 21. The case
shown in Figure 41 has been designed such that the vertical displacement at the tip shall be the
same as the horizontal displacement in Figure 21 for the same horizontal current. As seen in
Figure 41 the results compare.
Page 39
Figure 41 Vertical displacement at horizontal current velocity 3 m/s.
8. PROPERTIES ON NODES
Several types of properties may be introduced to nodes in AquaSim. Basically nodes can be free
or have prescribed properties. Otherwise node loads or springs may be attached to nodes
8.1. Fixed nodes

Several papers have been issued and several analyses have been carried out where nodes have
been fixed including references, Berstad et. al. (2003-2012). This validates this property.
8.2. Linear node to ground spring

Node to ground springs may be attached to nodes in 6 degrees of freedom. Translation along the
x- y- and z- axis, as well as rotation about the x- y- and z- axis as possible input. Using DOF as
abbreviation for degree of freedom means that x- translation is DOF 1, y- translation DOF 2 and
z- translation DOF 3. Respectively, rotation about the x- axis is DOF 4, y- axis DOF 5 and z-axis
DOF 6.
In the present case a very stiff beam is considered. The beam consists of ten elements with one
element as shown in Figure 42. The spring resistance is in this case 1000 N/mm. The springs are
applied to node 1 the other nodes are free. Loads are also applied to node 1. The displacement of
the beam is calculated by AquaSim and compared to analytical results. Conservative node loads
are applied to various nodes and DOFs are given in Table 23. As seen from this table the results
correspond very well. Note that node to ground springs are conservative meaning that a spring
Page 40
attached to a node will not rotate proportional to other elements attached to the nodes. Using
local coordinates such effects can be introduced
Node 1
Node 2
Springs at all degrees

Of freedom at node 1
Value: 1000 N/M
1m
Figure 42 Geometry of the test case node to ground springs. For beam data not expressed
explicitly in this figure they are the same as in the previous section in Table 21. The beam is
very stiff relative to the stiffness of springs
Table 23 Results verifying node to ground spring elements
Force
Force location
Result
Analytical
magnitude
parameter
result
AquaSim result
1000
Node 1 DOF 1
x/y/z-translation
node 2
1.0/0.0/0.0
1.0/0.0/0.0
1000
Node 1 DOF 2
x/y/z-translation
node 2
0.0/1.0/0.0
0.0/1.0/0.0
1000
Node 1 DOF 3
x/y/z-translation
node 2
0.0/0.0/1.0
0.0/0.0/1.0
1000
Node 1 DOF 4
x/y/z-translation
node 2
0.0/-0.46/0.84
0.0/-0.46/0.84
1000
Node 1 DOF 5
x/y/z-translation
node 2
0.0/0.0/0.0
0.0/0.0/0.0
1000
Node 1 DOF 6
x/y/z-translation
node 2
-0.84/-0.46/0.0
-0.84/-0.46/0.0
As seen from Table 23 results predicted by AquaSim are equal to analytic results.
8.2.1. More springs, dampeners and mass

AquaSim allows for a wide range of springs, dampeners and point masses that may be
introduced. Thi type of node load applicationshave been validated through extended usage in
projects. To avoid misinterpretations and possible errors, the AquaSim user manual should be
carefully studied and the various node applications should be introduced to simple test cases and
validated by the end user before implementation into larger, more complex analysis models.
Page 41
8.3. Local coordinates

AquaSim allows for the introduction of a local coordinate system at any node. The advantage of
this is that one may introduce for example hinges in any direction by specifying which nodes that
are coupled and which that are not in any. The local coordinate system at a node may follow
node rotations such that the location of the local coordinate system always follows rotations. In
this case the elements the local coordinate system shall rotate in proportion to must be specified
A totally fixed hinge from node 2 to 3 with a local coordinate system was introduced to the case
study above. This was applied by making node 4 having a local coordinate system. The results
were the same as the results presented in Table 23.
8.4. Buoys
Consider a buoy located at the free surface. The buoy will then act as a spring relative to the sea
surface in the z direction with a spring force of
gA w
where Aw is the cross sectional area of the buoy in the horizontal plane at the water surface.
Consider a case with a beam located at the free surface. Assume the beam have no water plane
area or weight itself, but that there are one buoy connected to the beam at each side as shown in
Figure 43.
Beam located at water line

No buoyancy in beam.
Buoys at both sides
L = 10 m
Figure 43 Beam located at the water line with a buoy at each end. Beam data not expressed
explicitly in this figure are the same as in Table 21. The buoy force is 10,000
Figure 44 shows the AquaSim analysis model. It is seen that the beam follows the wave
elevation. Wave amplitude is 5 meters. Wave period 8 seconds.
Page 42
Figure 44 Beam element seen in wave. The beam follows the wave elevation
Figure 45 shows the wave elevation compared to the vertical z elevation of the buoys for this
case. As seen from this figure, the buoy follows the vertical wave elevation as one will assume.
Forces acting on the buoy in the horizontal direction can be added.
buoy
Vertical displacemen [m]
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
-2
-4
-6
Time [s]
Displacement by analytic expression
Calculated displacement Aquasim
Figure 45 Buoy elevation compared to wave elevation
Page 43
8.5. Prescribed displacements

Prescribed displacements may be used in AquaSim. A test case study has been established. The
structural data for this case is given in Table 24.
Table 24 Values used in beam case study testing predescribed displacements
Abbreviation Parameter
Value
A
0.1 m2
10 m
Iy
0.001 (1/m4)
Iz
0.001 (1/m4)
IT
0.002(1/m4)
Torsional module
4E10 N/m2
1.0E11 N/m2
The beam is exposed to a set of different boundary conditions at Node 2 whereas at Node 1 the
beam is fixed as shown in Figure 46.
z
Node 1
Node 2
L = 10 m
Figure 46 Beam for testing prescribed displacements
Different boundary conditions have been applied for Node 2. The status of the DOFs and results
are given in Table 25. As seen from this table AquaSim and analytical results corresponds very
well. AquaSim results for load case 1, 3 and 4 is shown in Figure 47, Figure 48 and Figure 49.
Table 25 Results applying prescribed displacements
Case
Node2 status
Bending moment Node 1
1
DOF 1 = 0.1
AquaSim results
Analytical results
Mx = 0 kN
Mx = 0 kN
Page 44
DOF 2-6 = Free
My = 0 kN
Mz = -300 kN
My = 0 kN
Mz = -300 kN
DOF 3 = 0.1
DOF 1-2, 3-6 =
Free
Mx = 0 kN
My = -300 kN
Mz = 0 kN
Mx = 0 kN
My = -300 kN
Mz = 0 kN
DOF 3 = 0.0
DOF 4 = 0.1
Others = Free
Mx = 0 kN
My = 2000 kN
Mz = 0 kN
Mx = 0 kN
My = 2000 kN
Mz = 0 kN
DOF 1 = 0.1
DOF 6 = 0.0
DOF 2-5 = Free
Mx = 0 kN
My = -600 kN
Mz = 0 kN
Mx = 0 kN
My = -600 kN
Mz = 0 kN
Figure 47 Load case 1. Bending moment about vertical (z-) axis
Page 45
Figure 48 Load case 3. Bending moment about horizontal axis
Figure 49 Load case 4
Page 46
8.6. RAO on nodes

In AquaSim there is a possibility for applying RAO. There is a large variety in possibilities on
how to arrange the input data. In the case shown in Figure 50 a vessel was exposed to sinusoidal
waves, then the response displacements and rotations was compared to the input values in the
RAO tables and correspondence was seen. To avoid misinterpretations and possible errors, the
AquaSim user manual should be carefully studied and the RAO applications should be
introduced to simple test cases and validated by the end user before implementation into larger,
more complex analysis models.
Figure 50 RAO applied to node on vessel Results shows pitch [DEG]
8.7. Time domain fixed node motion and rotation

A test case as shown in Figure 51 was established. A time domain RAO was applied to the
towing vessel. A time domain RAO means that node motions and/or rotations are parametrically
introduced as a function of time. In this case the aim was to see how the system laid out when the
vessel did a 360 degrees turn with a given radius. In order to obtain this, both translation and
rotation to a node on the vessel was specified.
Page 47
Towing vessel
Door /
Deflector
Streamers
Figure 51 Towed system analysis

Figure 52 shows the system at the start of the circling motion.
Figure 52 Towed system at the beginning of circle motion

Figure 53 shows the system towards the end of the circling motion. Note that the colours
indicating rotation are only shown on vessel and door as these components are modelled with
beam elements which have rotation degrees of freedom.
Page 48
Figure 53 Towed system towards the end of circle

By comparing the AquaSim results to what the results expected from the input, the possibility for
prescribing a time series for node motions and rotations in AquaSim are exactly as they should.
Hence, the AquaSim calculations are validated.
8.8. Node loads

AquaSim holds several possibilities for node load application. Depending on type of node load,
the node loads are treated differently.
Conservative node loads are conserving the same magnitude and direction throughout the full
analysis. This can be used with or without automatic introduction of mass corresponding to
negative vertical force (weight) (type 0 or 100)
Input value are multiplied with Vxr*abs(Vxr) where Vxr is the relative velocity between the
fluid and the node. This means that for flow along the x- axis, this can be used to introduced
drag, lift or moment in any direction. Corresponding effect in y- and z- direction (type 1,2 and 3
respectively)
Input value is multiplied with Vi*abs(Vtot) where Vi is the relative velocity between the fluid
and the node in direction x-, y- and z- respectively. Vtot is the total velocity vector (x-,y-,z-). If
the node has rotational DOFs spring stiffness values 4-6 is multiplied with velocities 1-3
respectively (type 4).
Input value is multiplied with Vi*abs(Vxy) where Vi is the relative velocity between the fluid
and the node in direction x- and y- direction. Vxy is the velocity vector in the horizontal plane
(x-,y-). If the node has rotational DOFs spring stiffness values 6 is multiplied with
abs(Vxy)*abs(Vxy) (type 5)
Input value is 6 means lift to the direction such that flow along the positive y- axis leads to force
along the positive y- axis. #=6 means that node Fx is found at -Vy*abs(Vxy) where Vy is the
relative velocity between the fluid and the node in the y- direction. Vxy is the velocity vector in
Page 49
the horizontal plane (x-,y-). Fy is found as Vx*abs(Vxy) where Vx is the relative velocity
between the fluid and the node in the x- direction.
Input value is 7 means lift to the direction such that flow along the positive x- axis leads to force
along the negative y- axis. #=7 means that node Fy is found at -Vv*abs(Vxy) where Vy is the
relative velocity between the fluid and the node in the y- direction. Vxy is the velocity vector in
the horizontal plane (x-,y-). Fy is found as -Vx*abs(Vxy) where Vx is the relative velocity
between the fluid and the node in the x- direction.
Consider the test case with data given in Table 26.
Table 26 Data for test case
Node load at tip
Length
Youngs module
Bending moment of inertia
Beam theory tip displacement
P
L
E
I
10000 N
10 m
1.00E+11
0.001
33.33 mm
Displacement calculated by AquaSim is shown in Figure 54. As seen by comparing Figure 54

and Table 26 it is seen that results compare well.
Figure 54 Displacement in x direction from AquaSim analysis model. 10 elements

Figure 55 shows results calculated with analytic formulae compared to AquaSim results. Load
model 1 is the load model where node load is proportional to the relative velocity squared as
outlined above. As seen from the figure result compare perfectly.
Page 50
Response from node load

Tip displacement [mm]
35.00
30.00
Analytic displacement
conservatice node load
25.00
Aquasim displacement
conservatice node load
20.00
15.00
Analytic displacement load

model 1
10.00
Aquasim displacement load

model 1
5.00
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Current velocity [m/s]
Figure 55 Results calculated with analytic formulae compared to AquaSim results. Load
model 1 is the load model where node load is proportional to the relative velocity squared
as outlined above.
9. WIND LOADS
AquaSim may account for wind loads. Wind loads are calculated in the same manner as drag
loads on an element. It is specified the wind area of the element. There are two alternatives for
application of wind loads. Both have the same type of input wind formulation. The following
wind velocity is applied:
0.113
z
U U10 *
10
Equation 16
U10 is the wind velocity 10 meters above the surface and z is the distance upwards from the
surface. The force on a surface caused by the wind is then calculated by the following expression
C
FD air D AU 2 ( t )
2
Equation 17
air is the density of the air = 1.21 kg/m3 CD is the drag coefficient of the surface an A is the area
of the surface. As a simplification, the wind velocity is averaged over the surface. And the
averaged value is used as the wind value over the full surface. A case study is investigated where
wind is applied on a beam which as shown in Figure 56. Beam data not expressed explicitly in
this figure are the same as in Table 21.
Page 51
z
D=5m
y
L = 10 m
Figure 56 Case study for testing wind loads. Beam data not expressed explicitly in this
figure are the same as in the previous section in Table 21.
Input and analytic results are shown in Table 27 and the AquaSim calculated responding moment
about the vertical axis is seen in Figure 57. Also the other results correspond well.
Table 27 input data and analytic results wind load case
Drag coefficient, Cd
Length of beam to mid point last element
Length of beam full length
Height of wind area
Lower part of wind catch area
Transverse drag area
Half of air desity
Avarage wind at 10 meters height
1
9.5
10
5
0
47.5
m
m
m
m
10
m/s
Average wind used in calculation

Rho_air*Cd/2
windforce, this case
Aquasim shear force
8.30785
0.605
1983.47
1983.5
m/s
Torsion moment
Aquasim Torsion moment
4958.68
4959.8
Nm
Nm
Moment about vertical axis

Azuasim moment about vertical axis
10439.3
10422
Nm
Nm
N
N
Page 52
Figure 57 Bending moment about the vertical axis
10.REFERENCES
Aquastructures (2006) Verification and benchmarking of AquaSim, a softwaretool for safety
simulation of flexible offshore facilities exposed to environmental and operational loads,
Aquastructures report 2003-002.
Berstad, A. J., Tronstad, H., Ytterland, A. (2004) Design Rules for Marine Fish Farms in
Norway. Calculation of the Structural Response of such Flexible Structures to Verify
Structural Integrity. Proceedings of OMAE2004 23rd International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering June 2004, Vancouver, Canada. OMAE2004-51577
Berstad, A. J. and H. Tronstad (2007) Development and design verification of a floating tidal
power unit OMAE 2007, The 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering San Diego, California, 10-15 June, 2007. Paper 29052. ISBN #: .
Berstad, A. J. and H. Tronstad (2005a) Response from current and regular/irregular waves on
a typical polyethylene fish farmMaritime Transportation and Exploitation of Ocean and
Coastal Resources. Eds. C. Guedes Soares, Y. Garbatov, N. Fonseca. 2005 Taylor & Francis
Group London. ISBN #: 0 415 39036 2.
Berstad, A. J., H. Tronstad, S. A. Sivertsen and E. Leite. (2005b) Enhancement of Design
Criteria for Fish Farm Facilities Including Operations OMAE 2005, The 24th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Halkidiki, Greece, 12-17 June,
2005. Paper 67451. ISBN #: 0791837599.
Berstad, A.J. and H. Tronstad (OMAE 2008)"Use of Hydroelastic Analysis for Verification of
Page 53
Towed equipment for Aquisition of Seismic Data" Proceedings of OMAE2008 27th

International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering June 15-20 2008
Estoril, Portugal OMAE2008-57850
Berstad, A.J., J. Walaunet and L. F. Heimstad (2012) "Loads From Currents and Waves on
Net Structures" Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering OMAE2012 July 1-6, 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
OMAE2012-83757
Faltinsen, Odd M. (1990) Sea loads on ships and offshore structures. Cambridge university
press ISBN 0 521 37285 2.
Morison, J. R., M.P. O'Brien, J.W. Johnson and S.A. Schaaf (1950), "The Force Exerted by
Surface Waves on Piles," Petroleum Transactions, AIME. Vol. bold 189, 1950, 149-154
Page 54
11.
APPENDIX
11.1. Loading when ropes gets stiff
A typically occurring load condition for moored offshore structures is that the system moves and
moorings gets stiff leading to large accelerations and forces in the system. Due to the ability to
handle large nonlinear effects, AquaSim may be used to investigate the occurrence and
magnitude of such loading. This effect occur typically for any kind of moored structure including
fish farms, barges, ship shaped structures and offshore platforms. It also typically occurs to
bouys and similar surface penetrating floats.
In order to demonstrate the effect and validate the AquaSim analysis capabilities, a case study
with a float connected to a fixed point by a rope as shown in Figure 58 has been established.
Consider the particular time instant when the distance rope goes from slack (seen in Figure 59)
to straight as seen in Figure 1.
m = mf + ma
k = EA/L
L
Figure 58 Float attached to bottom with rope

In Figure 58, k is the (spring) stiffness of the rope, E is the Young modulus, A is the (nominal)
cross sectional area of the rope and L is the rope length. m = mf + ma is the mass of the float
where mf is the mass of the float itself and ma is the added mass which is the hydrodynamic load
proportional to the float acceleration. Assume that the mass and added mass of the rope itself is
much lower than for the float and hence can be neglected.
Page 55
Figure 59 Float with slack rope

Consider a time instant when the float rope has become slack as seen in Figure 59. Assume that
the float moves upwards with the wave elevation. At some point, the distance rope goes from
slack to straight as seen in Figure 58. As a simplification one can assume that the vertical
stiffness of the rope is 0 when the rope is slack and that it is EA/L when it gets stiff and the
condition in Figure 58 applies. At that moment, an impact load is introduced to the float.
Assume that the response from this impact load can be described with the classic impulse
response function:
mz kz 0
Equation 18
where z is the vertical displacement. As a simplification a one dimensional system where the
motion is this case is assumed to be vertical in direction parallel with the distance rope is
considered. Define the coordinate system such that vertical motion z = 0 when t = 0 as shown in
Figure 60.
Page 56
m = mf + ma
Z=0
Vz (vertical velocity)
k (z-direction) = EA/L
Figure 60 Initial value condition at moment rope goes stiff

Neglect damping in the system (as has been done in Equation 18). This means the system can be
solved by applying the classic impulse response equation solution for the motion:
z(t ) a sin(t )
Equation 19
where 2 = k/m and a is the amplitude of the response. k is the stiffness of the system caused by
the rope holding the float back like a spring. k = EA/L. This is a linear solution where the
stiffness and mass is assumed to be time invariant. The velocity is the time derivative of the
displacement:
z(t ) a cos(t )
Equation 20
where z(t ) is the vertical velocity of the system. In our case we have an initial velocity v0 which
is the velocity at the initial time (t = 0 (exactly when the ropes gets stiff). Assume that the
velocity of the float follows the vertical velocity of the wave elevation as the wave is built up.
Then v0 can be found from the velocity of the vertical wave elevation at the moment the rope
snap. Assume a regular wave with amplitude . The wave elevation can be expressed as
sin(e t )
Equation 21
where e is the wave frequency of encounter, this frequency has nothing to do with the
eigenfrequency of the rope and float. Applying Equation 19 to timestep t= 0 we get
v0 e cos(et t 0 )
Equation 22
Now assume that the float rope snaps when v0 is at its max possible value, v0 = e:
Page 57
v(0) e z(0) a cos(0) a

Equation 23
This means the amplitude, a is found as
v(0)
a
Equation 24
Now the relation between eigenperiod and mass and stiffness is introduced (2 = k/m) to
Equation 24:
v(0)
v(0)
a
v(0)(m / k ) (1 / 2) v(0) mL / EA
1/ 2
(k / m)
Equation 25
This means that an impact as described above will introduce an harmonic impact response with
amplitude as given in Equation 25.
From the maximum response amplitude, the maximum force can be derives as
EA
v(0) mL / EA v(0) mEA / L
L
Equation 26
Fmax ka
This means the maximum force is proportional to the initial velocity and the square root of the
mass and stiffness. From Equation 22 it is seen that the initial velocity is proportional to the
wave amplitude and the wave frequency of encounter, e. Introducing v0 = e to Equation
26 Fmax can be expressed as
Fmax e mEA / L
Equation 27
Consider a case with parameters shown in Table 28.
Table 28 Main data for system and analysis
Float data
Float length [m]
Float volume [l]
Float circular diameter [m]
Float weight [kg]
Rope data
Length [m]
Cross sectional area [mm2]
5.4
5132
1.1
2907
10
1000
Page 58
E-modulus [Mpa]
Environment data
Wave period [s]
Current velocity n[m/s]
Added mass [kg]
10000
6
1
4737
A model has been established in AquaSim for the case presented in Table 28. The model is
shown in Figure 61.
Figure 61 Analysis model, impact load test case

In the analysis waves and current is from the left to the right along the positive x- direction as
shown in Figure 62.
Page 59
Figure 62 Analysis model, wave and current direction is along positive x- axis.
Analysis has been carried out with varying wave amplitudes and compared to Equation 27. This
is shown in Figure 63. In this figure, the labels mean:
Analytic formulae: Max load calculated from input from Equation 27.
Peak load AquaSim 1: Max load calculated with AquaSim with the analysis model taking
in and out of water into account.
Peak load AquaSim 2: Max load calculated with AquaSim with the analysis model not
taking in and out of water into account.
Page 60
Rope shock response from wave load

700.00
Max load in rope [kN]
600.00
Analytic Formulae [kN]
500.00
Peak load AquaSim 1
400.00
Peak load AquaSim 2
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0
Wave height [m]
Figure 63 Maximum axial load in rope

As seen from Figure 63, the results by Equation 27 and the AquaSim 2 model shows very good
correspondence for all wave heights. Figure 64, Figure 65 and Figure 66 shows how the impact
load strikes the rope as the float is moved from slack rope to the rope getting stiff.
Figure 64 Float when rope is slack. There are no forces in the rope
Page 61
Figure 65 Forces commencing in rope as float is moved upwards by wave motion
Page 62
Figure 66 Impact load to rope as the float has been moved so much upwards that the rope
gets stiff
The time series response for the axial force in the rope is in the AquaSim analysis is shown in
Figure 67 and Figure 68.
Peak load response as function of time

350
300
Force [kN]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50 0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time [s]
Axial force
Figure 67 Time series for the AquaSim analysis of the axial force
Page 63
Peak load response as function of time

350
300
Force [kN]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50 6
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10
Time [s]
Axial force
Figure 68 Excerpt of time series for the AquaSim analysis of the axial force
As seen from Figure 67 and Figure 68 the load is at 0 and then increase sharply due to the rope
going from slack to stiff. As seen from the figures, a harmonic response is then decaying over
time. As seen from Table 29 the natural period of a swinging system with mass and added mass
of the float and stiffness of the rope is approximately 0.55 s.
Table 29 Key data for the natural period of the rope
Length
Youngs module
Stiffness
Total mass
omega
Period
L
E
A
K
m
s
10
1E+10
0.001
1000000
7644
11.4378
0.5493
The natural period of 0.55 seconds corresponds very well to the response seen in Figure 68 apart
from the first succeeding cycles where the time between succeeding peaks are longer. That is
plausible as when inspecting Figure 68 the load gets to 0 between the first and the second
response cycle after the impact, in that case the stiffness decrease and the natural period increase.
This analysis case shows that AquaSim manage to calculate the peak loads occurring in mooring
lines as they goes from slack to stiff. This is an important design criteria for a wide range of
moored structures and equipment. Hence the ability of complex nonlinear dynamic response
calculations of AquaSim is validated.
- o0o -
Page 64

AquaSim verification report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AquaSim verification report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REPORT

VERIFICATION AND BENCHMARKING OF AQUASIM,

REPORT NO. 2012-1755-1

Date of first issue:

Research and development

Verification and benchmarking of AquaSim, a

Finite Element Analysis

Work carried out by:

Are Johan Berstad, Line Heimstad

No distribution without permission from the Client

Work verified by:

Limited distribution within

Ole Chr. Wroldsen

Head quarter: Kjpmannsgaten 21 - 7013 Trondheim, Norway

SCOPE OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................................... 1

BENCHMARK CASES STATIC ELEMENT RESPONSE ....................................... 1

BENCHMARK CASES ELEMENT DYNAMICS ................................................... 14

BENCHMARK CASES MORRISON LOAD APPLICATION ............................... 18

BENCHMARK CASES HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS APPLICATION ................. 27

LIFT LOAD APPLICATION .................................................................................... 39

PROPERTIES ON NODES ....................................................................................... 40

Linear node to ground spring

WIND LOADS .......................................................................................................... 51

2. SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

3. BENCHMARK CASES STATIC ELEMENT RESPONSE

3.1. Bar elements

3.1.1. Bar element with clamped ends

Figure 1 Cable with both ends clamped.

Length of cable from end to end

Cross sectional area of cable

Module of elasticity of cable

2.1 * 109 N/m3

Program calculated and analytical results are compared in Table 2.

3.1.2. Two crossing cables

Figure 3 Case with two cables crossing at 90o

Cross sectional area of cable

Module of elasticity of cable

2.1 * 109 N/m3

3.1.3. Cable with axial tension load

Figure 4 Cable with tension force

Cross sectional area of cable

Length of cable in original configuration

Youngs module of the cable

3.1.4. Net built up by cable elements

Figure 5 Net structure built up with cable elements

Cross sectional area of horizontal and vertical cables

Length of cable in original configuration

Youngs module of the cable

3.1.5. Net built up with cable elements, 2nd boundary condition

3.2. Beam elements

In this case, analytical linear displacements can be derived as

Cross sectional area of horizontal and vertical cables

Length of beam in original configuration

Area moment of inertia about local y- axis

Area moment of inertia about local z- axis

Torsional area moment of inertia

Youngs module of the beam

-10 000 000 N

3.3. Membrane elements

3.4. Node to node springs

Node to node springs at

4. BENCHMARK CASES ELEMENT DYNAMICS

Cross sectional area of cable