Re-evaluation of DNV Simplified Formulae for Crane Tip Motions

Xiaoming Gu1)2), Helge Nesse2), Per R. Nystrm2) Abstract

Offshore lifting operation is expensive, especially when the assigned vessel has to wait for good weather offshore. Accurate predictions of the hydrodynamic forces on the lifted object during offshore lifting operation are essential to widen the selection of suitable installation vessels, to catch an acceptable weather window and also to assure a safe operation. Realistic hydrodynamic force results can be obtained using a time domain analyses of multi-body systems. However, a refined analysis is normally complicated and time consuming for analysis at early tendering stage or for light lifts. Therefore, simplified methods are in need to calculate the hydrodynamic forces. DNV-RP-H103 (Ref. /1/) Chapter 4 provides a good example. Among all the parameters involved in the DNV simplified method, crane tip motions including displacement, velocity and acceleration play an important role in the hydrodynamic force calculation. Typical formulae to calculate crane tip motions can be found from DNV Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operation (Ref. /2/). These formulae are handy to use and convenient to get a quick result. However, they have been long reckoned excessively conservative and therefore they are excluded in the DNV simplified method (Ref. /1/). By comparing with results from Orcaflex, it is found in the present article that not all formulae are conservative. The resulted crane tip displacement is underestimated while the acceleration is significantly overestimated. By reexamining the format of the formulae, modifications are proposed in this article. Using RAO data from a real vessel operating in North Sea, the crane tip motions are calculated with the revised formulae and the numerical simulation software Orcaflex. It is found that the results from the revised formulae match the simulation reasonably well and maintain a consistent level of conservatism for analysis at early tendering stage or for light lifts. Keywords: offshore lifting, hydrodynamic forces, crane tip motions, DNV formulae

1) Corresponding author 2) IKM Ocean Design AS, Norway 3) Dr. Zhenguo Tu from IKM Ocean Design AS also contributes to this article

Introduction
Offshore lifting operation is expensive, especially when the assigned vessel has to wait for good weather offshore. Accurate predictions of the hydrodynamic forces on the lifted object during offshore lifting operation are essential to widen the selection of suitable installation vessels, to catch an acceptable weather window and also to assure a safe operation. Realistic hydrodynamic force results can be obtained using a time domain analyses of multi-body systems. However, a refined numerical simulation is normally complicated and time consuming, especially for analysis at early tendering stage or for light lifts. Therefore, simplified methods based on analytical formulae are required for hydrodynamic force calculations. A good example of simplified methods is the one presented in DNV-RP-H103 (Ref. /1/) Chapter 4. There are many factors affecting the hydrodynamic force to which an offshore lifting operation may subject, among the important ones are sea state parameters, geometry of lifting objects, position of lifting objects related to sea surface and crane tip motions. Normally, the parameters about the sea state, the geometry and the position are straightforward input to the simplified calculation. However, the crane tip motions, involving installation vessel hydrodynamic characteristics (RAO), vessel heading and crane booming configuration during the lifting operation and the stiffness of the hoisting system, need to be calculated either by a refined numerical analysis or an acceptable simplified calculation. Once the simplified method is selected to calculate the hydrodynamic force for an offshore lifting analysis, engineers may prefer to keep the calculation in a spreadsheet without entering a refined numerical model. Therefore, it is natural to use simplified formulae for the crane tip motions as an integrated part of the simplified calculation of hydrodynamic forces. DNV Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operation (herein after referred to as DNV Rules, Ref. /2/ ) provided three formulae to calculate the crane tip displacement, velocity and acceleration in Section 2 Part 2 Chapter 6. The formulae are mathematically simple and easy to use in daily engineering. However, they have been long reckoned excessively conservative comparing to the numerical results and consequently, reduce the operation window for the offshore lifting. In Chapter 4 of the latest DNV-RP-H103 (Ref. /1/), which is to replace Section 2 Part 2 Chapter 6 of DNV Rules (Ref. /2/), those formulae are excluded. This article presents a comparison study on the crane tip motion results from the DNV Rules (Ref. /2/) simplified formulae and a refined analysis by Orcaflex (Ref. /3/). The performance of DNV simplified formulae is reevaluated. By comparing the two sets of results and analyzing the format of the DNV Rules formulae, a set of revised formulae for crane tip motions are proposed. The results from the new formulae are proved sufficiently accurate and maintain a consistent level of conservatism for analysis at early tendering stage or for light lifts.

DNV Rules (Ref. /2/) Formulae

According to Section 2 Design Loads, Part 2 Chapter 6 of DNV Rules (Ref. /2/), characteristic crane tip displacement, velocity and acceleration are calculated as follows:
2 h ct = h H + (b sin (j R )) + (l sin (j P )) 2 2

Equation 1
2

h vct = 2p H T H act = 4p
2

b sin (j R ) l sin (j P ) + + T T R P
2 2 2 2

Equation 2

hH 2 T H

b sin (j R ) l sin (j P ) + + T2 T2 R P

Equation 3

where hct: characteristic single amplitude vertical motion of crane tip, m vct: characteristic single amplitude vertical velocity of crane tip, m/s act: characteristic single amplitude vertical acceleration of crane tip, m/s2 hH: characteristic single amplitude heave motion of vessel, m jR: characteristic single amplitude roll motion of vessel, deg jP: characteristic single amplitude pitch motion of vessel, deg b: the horizontal distance from the vessels centre line to the crane tip, or the outboard sheave block, m l: the horizontal distance from midship to the crane tip, or the outboard sheave block, m TH: heave natural period, s TR: roll natural period, s TP: pitch period, s It is obvious that these formulae are essentially combinations of computed heave, pitch and roll RAO for the vessel and the crane tip position in the vessels global coordinate system. For a simplified calculation, the characteristic single amplitude vessel motions and the natural periods can be read from the vessel RAO plots. The crane tip position can be found from the vessel deck layout and crane boom diagram. Thus, without entering any refined analysis, the crane tip motions can be obtained using Eq. 1~3 by a spreadsheet. With the obtained crane tip motions, the hydrodynamic forces are calculated using the simplified method from Chapter 4, DNV-RP-H103 (Ref. /1/). However, it has been long believed that these formulae are excessively conservative and thus significantly reduce the acceptable weather window for the lifting operation. As an effort to document the performance of the DNV formulae, a comparison study is carried out in the following sections using both Eq. 1~3 and Orcaflex.

Vessel Data
RAO and geometry data from a real vessel are used in the comparison study. Edda Flora is a typical installation vessel in North Sea currently. Table 1 presents parameters related to vessel geometry and crane tip position. RAO plots with vessel speed of 0 are given in Figure 1. Parameter Length Width COG from AP COG from centerline COG from keel Draught Horizontal distance from vessels centerline to crane tip Horizontal distance from midship to crane tip Table 1 Vessel Geometry and Crane Tip Position Value 82 20 38.356 0 8.593 6.483 15 25 Unit m m m m m m m m

Figure 1 RAO- Edda Flora (Ref. /4/, courtesy of stensj Rederi AS)
4

Comparison of results from Eq. 1~3 and from Orcaflex

The crane tip motions are calculated by both Eq. 1~3 and the dynamic analysis software for offshore marine system, Orcaflex 9.2. Typical sea state parameters in North Sea are used in the calculation. Table 2 shows the incomplete scatter diagram of the sea state parameters. Tz (s) 6.5 Hs (m) 1.5 22.0% 3.5 3.6% 5.5 0.6% Table 2 Typical Sea States in North Sea 8.5 24.7% 29.7% 19.2% 10.5 3.1% 14.8% 24.1% 12.5 0.1% 1.8% 5.6%

Assumptions that are common for both the simplified method and Orcaflex calculations are listed below: The duration of lowering through the wave zone is assumed 30 mins. Vessel heading 45 deg (0 degrees are waves from ahead while 90 degrees are waves from port) Vessel speed 0

Results from Eq. 1-3 and from Orcaflex are presented in Table 3 and plotted in Figure 2. Crane tip 6.5 8.5 motion Eq. 1-3 Orcaflex Eq. 1-3 Orcaflex 0.924 1.01 1.074 1.28 hct vct 0.959 0.78 1.098 0.81 act 1.002 0.62 1.144 0.56 3.5 2.128 2.57 2.503 2.99 hct vct 2.21 1.75 2.561 1.86 act 2.311 1.29 2.668 1.31 5.5 2.912 4.09 3.928 4.72 hct vct 3.032 2.95 4.021 2.90 act 3.172 2.29 4.19 2.07 Table 3 Results for Crane Tip Motions from Eq. 1~3 and Orcaflex Tz (s) Hs (m) 1.5 10.5 Eq. 1-3 Orcaflex 1.078 1.61 1.118 0.86 1.168 0.48 2.515 3.77 2.608 1.99 2.725 1.11 3.951 5.96 4.097 3.11 4.282 1.73 12.5 Eq. 1-3 Orcaflex 1.064 1.43 1.112 0.68 1.164 0.39 2.483 3.34 2.594 1.59 2.716 0.90 3.901 5.26 4.077 2.49 4.267 1.41

Figure 2 Comparison of Results from Eq. 1~3 and Orcaflex

6

A few facts are discovered from the comparison in Figure 2 as follows: The crane tip displacement hct is underestimated by 10~35% using Eq. 1 The crane tip velocity vct is overestimated with a safety margin of 20~60% using Eq. 2 (the conservatism varies from 20% to 40% while Tz falls in a range between 6.5 s and 10.5 s, 60% is only for Tz=12.5 s) The crane tip acceleration act is overestimated with a safety margin by 40~200% using Eq. 3 In general, the conservatism of Eq. 2 and 3 increases as Tz increases.

A re-look at Eq. 1~3

The SRSS format of Eq. 1~3 is a simple way of non-linear coupling of the crane tip motion due to the vessel motion of heave, roll and pitch that are readouts from the vessel RAO. In Eq. 2 and 3, for each motion component, the corresponding natural period is included in such a way to get the result correct in dimensions. It is reasonable to use the natural period to calculate the velocity and acceleration while the wave period is not far from the natural period as the vessel responds to the wave excitation in a period close to the natural period as a result of resonance. However, the vessel motion period tends to be the same as the wave period when the wave period getting long. Therefore, using the natural period in Eq. 2 and 3 for all wave periods are inappropriate. This is the reason why the safety margins of the results from Eq. 2 and 3 at Tz=12.5 s (corresponding to wave peak period Tp=17.56 s while the natural period of vessel heave motion is 6 s) are especially high. As empirical equations, Eq. 2 with the safety margin in a range of 20~60% is reckoned acceptable for analysis at early tendering stage or for light lifts. However, Eq. 1 underestimates the crane tip displacement and Eq. 3 is too conservative. Changes that are related to the wave period on these two equations are required to achieve similar conservatism as Eq. 2.

Proposed changes
Eq. 4~6 are proposed as empirical formulae to calculate the crane tip motions. Eq. 4 and 6 are modified version of the Eq. 1 and 3, respectively while Eq. 5 is the same as Eq. 2.
2 h ct = h H

Pg Tz TH

+ (b sin (j R ))
2

Pg Tz TR
2

+ (l sin (j P ))
2

Pg Tz TP

Equation 4

h vct = 2p H T H act = 4p
2

b sin (j R ) l sin (j P ) + + T T R P
2 2

Equation 5
2

hH PT2 H

b sin (j R ) l sin (j P ) + + PT2 PT2 R P

Equation 6
7

where: Pg =1.5 (0.6673+0.05037g-0.006230g2+0.0003341g3)-1=1.5Tpk/Tz g: non-dimensional peak shape parameter Tpk: wave spectral peak period PTH=Max((TH+Tz)/2.0,0.7Tz) PTR=Max((TR+Tz)/2.0,0.7Tz) PTP=Max((TP+Tz)/2.0,0.7Tz) Calculations of crane tip motions using Eq. 4~6 are preformed and the results are presented in Table 4 and Figure 3. Crane tip 6.5 motion Eq. 4-6 1.387 hct 1.5 vct 0.959 act 0.925 3.178 hct 3.5 vct 2.210 act 2.133 4.12 hct 5.5 vct 3.032 act 2.927 Table 4 Results for Crane Tip Motions from Eq. 4~6 Tz (s) Hs (m) 8.5 Eq. 4-6 1.826 1.098 0.788 4.257 2.561 1.837 6.682 4.021 2.884 10.5 Eq. 4-6 2.057 1.118 0.620 4.797 2.608 1.445 7.537 4.097 2.271 12.5 Eq. 4-6 2.226 1.112 0.490 5.195 2.594 1.143 8.162 4.077 1.797

Figure 3 Comparison of Results from Eq. 1~6 and Orcaflex

9

With the proposed Eq. 4~6, the crane tip motion results are in general on the conservative side comparing with the Orcaflex results. The safety margins of the proposed Eq. 4~6 are: 25~55% -Equation 4 20~60% -Equation 2/5 25~65% -Equation 6

For analysis at early tendering stage or for light lifts, the conservatism achieved by Eq. 4~6 is reasonable and consistent.

Conclusions and recommendations

The DNV simplified formulae for crane tip motion from DNV Rules (Ref. /2/) are evaluated in the present article. By comparing with Orcaflex results, it is found that the conservatism achieved by the formulae is not consistent and for the crane tip displacement, it is even on the unsafe side. After an examination on the format of the formulae, changes related to the wave period are proposed on the formulae. The results obtained from the proposed formulae are conservative with a consistent safety margin which is reckoned reasonable for analysis at early tendering stage or for light lifts. Limited to the data available, the present study is carried out on only one vessel (Edda Flora). It is recommended to verify the results with data from other different vessels.

References
/1/ DNV RP-H103, Modelling and Analysis of Marine Operations, April 2010. /2/ DNV Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operation, January 2000. /3/ Orcina, Orcaflex Manual Version 9.2a. /4/ Skipsteknisk, Response Amplitude Operators, ST-254CD Edda Flora, March 2009.

10