Proceedings of OMAE2007

26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

June 10-15, 2007, San-Diego, USA

OMAE2007-29244

INVESTIGATION INTO THE SENSITIVITY OF THE DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD DURING SUBSEA
DEPLOYMENT OF A SUCTION CAN

J. Ireland G. Macfarlane Y. Drobyshevski

Subsea7 Australian Maritime College INTEC Engineering Pty Ltd
PO Box 205, Eldfiskvegen 1, PO Box 986 Launceston, 190 St Georges Terrace, Perth,
N-4056 Tananger, Tasmania, 7250 Western Australia 6000
Norway Australia Australia

ABSTRACT empirical data for non-oscillatory flow. Within the Keulegan-

Suction cans are commonly used as foundations of fixed
offshore structures, subsea equipment, and anchors of mooring
lines. During the offshore installation phase, when a suction can
is submerged, it attracts large heave added mass, which may be
an order of magnitude higher than the mass of the can in air.
Due to motions of an installation vessel the dynamic hook load
may significantly exceed the submerged weight of the can. The
dynamic hook load must be accurately predicted, as it governs
selection of the vessel, lifting gear and rigging, and defines the
allowable installation sea state.
The objective of this paper is to examine the sensitivity of
the dynamic hook load to hydrodynamic properties of the
suction can, in particular its heave added mass and damping.
This research is motivated by the lack of data on such
properties, which are usually estimated by simplified methods
with some engineering judgement and assumptions. A single
degree of freedom system is considered and the frequency
domain spectral analysis is used, which employs the stochastic
linearization of the nonlinear damping component.
The added mass and damping of a 6-meter diameter
suction can of dimensions typical for Australian North West
Shelf developments have been determined by testing a 1:10
model in the 4.1 m deep basin of the Australian Maritime
College. Free decay tests were conducted at several frequencies
and the added mass, linear and nonlinear damping components
determined. The effect of open hatches on the hydrodynamic
properties was examined by fitting the model with hatches of
various diameters, with up to 4.8% of the relative area open.
Results of the tests demonstrate that the added mass and
damping are higher, when compared with estimates based on
Carpenter number range of 0.1 – 1.0, open hatches impact
significantly on the added mass and produce additional
damping, which is found to be linear with the heave velocity.
Results of the tests and their interpretation are discussed.
Sensitivity analysis shows that if the model test results are
used in the dynamic lift analysis for an installation vessel and
sea states considered, the predicted hook load is generally less
than its values obtained by using simplified estimates. In
particular, the increase in linear damping due to open hatches is
responsible for up to 20% reduction in the dynamic hook load,
with 2.4% of the relative top area open.
1. INTRODUCTION
Offshore operations often require deployment and recovery
of heavy objects (structures, subsea packages, anchors, etc.) to
or from the seabed. The analysis of lifting operations in these
conditions usually aims at prediction of the maximum hook
loads, so that the installation vessel and the lift equipment can
be selected and the lift rigging designed. Due to wave induced
motions of an installation vessel, hydrodynamic forces on the
object and flexibility of the lift rigging the dynamic hook load
may significantly exceed the weight of the object. In deep
water conditions, as the stiffness of the rigging reduces and its
weight increases, the system may be prone to adverse dynamic
amplification, as the natural period of a suspended structure
may fall in the range of predominant wave periods, which
excite the installation vessel.
Prediction of the dynamic hook loads and related issues
have been addressed in several design codes, for example DNV

1 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

(1996, 2000), and in a number of studies, which point to the
importance of the hydrodynamic properties of the object. For
example, Oritsland and Lehn (1987) presented findings from
the experimental study on added mass and drag coefficients of
several generic structures during subsea lowing. Niedzwecki
and Thampi (1991) examined the occurrence of snap loads in
cable systems, and concluded that the use of idealized models
to predict the hydrodynamic added mass of a subsea package
was not entirely a satisfactory approach. Rowe, et al (2001)
indicates that the shape of the item to be installed, which
determines its added mass, is crucial to the dynamic response of
the package, and to the ability to install it.
An important example of such a situation, referred to by
Rowe, et al (2001) and Frazer, et al (2005), is a suction can
(pile, caisson). Suction structures are commonly used as
foundations of fixed offshore structures, subsea equipment, and
mooring anchors. When the suction can is suspended off the
crane and submerged, it attracts large heave added mass, which,
due to its special shape, may be an order of magnitude higher
than mass of the structure in air. Therefore, the dynamic hook
load may reach unexpectedly high values.
Dynamic loads of large amplitude may result in snap
loading on the wire or dictate the increased capacity of lifting
equipment, or a different vessel. In Australian conditions, such
an option is rarely attractive due to high mobilization costs of
heavy lift vessels, many of which are based in South East Asia.
Active or passive heave compensators may need to be used,
which add to project costs. The same applies to passive
compensators in the form of synthetic slings (“stretchers”),
which are to be sized to higher safety factors than wire slings,
and tend to be long and inefficient. Long period South Westerly
swell, a persistent feature of the Australian North West Shelf,
also makes selection of the passive heave compensator difficult.
The above circumstances place special emphasis on the
accuracy of the installation analysis, which provides
background information for key project decisions, and which in
turn depends on the level of knowledge of the hydrodynamic
properties. A review conducted by the authors indicates that, in
spite of common use of suction cans, there is little information
in open literature on hydrodynamic coefficients of such
structures, which would reflect their real shapes and
dimensions. An interesting study described by Morrison and
Cermelli (2003) for a suction pile model (6“ in diameter and
30” long) identified that openings in the top plate can impact
significantly on the heave added mass and increase the
hydrodynamic damping. For the subsea lift analysis, however,
it is a common practice to estimate the added mass and drag
coefficients using data on generic bodies from design codes and
textbooks with some simplifying assumptions. The objective of
this paper is to examine how the availability (or accuracy) of
such information may impact on the predicted hook loads.
The material is set out as follows. In Section 2, a
methodology of the dynamic lift analysis is described, which
employs the single degree of freedom model and follows the
frequency domain approach. Stochastic linearization of the
nonlinear damping is used, a common method for linearizing
viscous drag forces in the spectral analysis of offshore
structures (Brebbia and Walker, 1979). In Section 3, the
hydrodynamic coefficients of a 6-meter diameter suction can
are estimated from empirical data, and also determined by
conducting free decay tests with a 1:10 model. Heave added
mass, linear and quadratic damping coefficients were
determined for several frequencies, and the effect of open
hatches in the top plate was investigated. In Section 4, these
hydrodynamic coefficients are used in the sensitivity analysis,
which shows significant impact of the open hatches on the
dynamic hook loads, and demonstrates that hydrodynamic
properties obtained by the model tests produce less onerous
results. Concluding remarks and recommendations are given in
Section 5
2. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The dynamic system considered involves a subsea
structure (suction can), which is suspended on the crane wire
from an installation vessel. The purpose of the analysis is to
determine dynamic tension in the wire due to wave induced
motions of the vessel. It is assumed that the structure is
submerged well below the free surface and above the sea bed,
so that the effects of the free surface and the sea bed proximity
can be neglected. Due to motions of the vessel the tip of the
crane moves in surge, sway, and heave. Heave motions play the
dominant role in the wire tension, while surge and sway
produce pendulum-type oscillations of the structure. For the
axis-symmetric body, such as suction can, coupling between
heave and other motions is negligible, so that surge and sway of
the crane will have minor effect on the wire tension. Therefore,
in the following analysis the attention is focused on heave
motions, and the resulting dynamic tension in the lift rigging.
The analysis can be conducted in the frequency or time
domain. Time domain simulations are widely used nowadays,
in particular for complex marine operations. For a simple single
degree of freedom system frequency domain analysis is
preferred owing to its simplicity and ease of interpretation; the
analysis algorithm is outlined below.
Let us assume that in regular waves, heave motions of the
crane tip x h (t ) and that of the structure x (t ) can be expressed
in the form:
x h = x h 0 cos ωt ; x = x0 cos(ωt − α ) (1)
Here ω denotes the circular frequency and α is the phase
shift between the two motions. Assuming that within the
expected range of motions the lift rigging has constant
stiffness K , the dynamic tension in the rigging can be obtained
as:
TD = K ( x − x h ) = Kx h 0 [x (ω ) ⋅ cos(ωt − α ) − cos ωt ] ;
TD
TD = =K (x (ω ) ⋅ cos α − 1)2 + (x (ω ) sin α )2 . (2)
xh0
Here x (ω ) = x 0 / x h 0 - is the response amplitude operator
(RAO) of the structure heave, and TD denotes the RAO of
tension in the lift rigging.
In the simplest case of an axis-symmetrical structure, its
heave response is decoupled from other motions; it can be
described by single equation:
2 Copyright © 2007 by ASME
 Once the equation of motion (3) has been linearised, its
M ⋅ &x& + FD ( x& ) + Kx = Kx h 0 cos ωt . (3) solution is given by the known formulae (Timoshenko, 1954):

Here the total mass of the system M = m + m A comprises the 1

x (ω ) = ;
structural mass in air m (including mass of the lift rigging) (1 − ω ) + (2β ⋅ ω )
2 2 2

and the hydrodynamic added mass m A . The damping force

2β ⋅ ω
FD is usually expressed in the form: tan α = ; ω = ω / ωn (10)
1−ω 2
FD ( x& ) = B1 x& + B2 x& x& + B3 x& 3 + ... . (4)
Here the ratio β expresses the damping coefficient BE as a
percentage of the critical damping:
Here coefficients Bi are assumed to be independent of the
motion velocity. Introducing coefficients β i and the natural BE βE
β = = . (11)
frequency ω n , the equation of motion (3) can be re-written as: 2 KM 2ω n

&x& + β 1 x& + β 2 x& x& + β 3 x& 3 + ... + ω n2 x = ω n2 x h 0 cos ωt
Bi K
βi = ; ωn =
M M
To obtain a solution of (5) in the frequency domain, the
damping force is usually linearised by replacing (4) with:
FD ≈ M (β E x& )
A common method for obtaining the damping coefficient β E is
to equate the work done by the nonlinear (quadratic) and the
linearised damping forces (Timoshenko, 1954). An equivalent
method, presented for example by Krylov (1932) with further
reference to Newton, assumes that the damping is relatively
weak, i.e. coefficients β k are small, and leads to the following
general expansion:
(5) As the amplitude of motion x0 is unknown, equations (8)
and (10) are solved by iterations, with the new damping
(6) coefficient β E computed at each iteration step after the
amplitude x0 at the previous step has been determined.
The extension of the above approach to irregular sea state
is possible by using spectrums of waves and responses. For a
(7) given sea state spectrum S w (ω ) , the heave motion spectrum at
the crane tip S h (ω ) is determined from the heave RAO x h (ω ) :
S h (ω ) = SW (ω ) ⋅ [x h (ω )]
2
(12)
If the structure RAO x (ω ) is known from (10), spectrums
of the structure response and the dynamic tension can be
computed:

+ O (β )≈
2
[
S S (ω ) = S h (ω ) ⋅ [x (ω )] ; S F (ω ) = S h (ω ) ⋅ TD (ω ) ]2
(13)
∑ β k ⋅ N k ⋅ (ω ⋅ x 0 )
4 k −1
βE = 2

π k
k

The equivalent damping coefficient involved in (10), (11)

β 2 ωx 0 + β 3 (ωx 0 )2 + ...
8 3
≈ β1 + (8) is unknown at this stage and must be found by iterations.
3π 4 Linearization formula (8) is now replaced with a more general
approach known as the stochastic linearization, which is based
Here the sum is taken over all terms in (4) and members of the on minimizing the variance between the nonlinear and the
higher order in β k are neglected. Coefficients N k are given by equivalent linearised damping forces over the spectrum
(Brebbia and Walker, 1979). If only the first and second order
the following formula: terms in velocity are included in (4), it leads to:
N k = ∫ (1 − t 2 )
1
k /2
dt ;
8
0 β E = β1 + β2 ⋅σ V . (14)
π 2 3π
8 (9) π
Nk = ; ; ; ;... k = 1, 2 ,3, 4 ...
4 3 16 15 Here σ V denotes the standard deviation of the heave velocity,
Equations (8) and (9) enable representation of the damping computed from the velocity spectrum:
force (4) involving any powers of the velocity by the equivalent
1/ 2
linear damping force. Most frequently only two terms (linear ⎛∞ ⎞
and quadratic) in (8) are used; in studies on viscous roll σ V = ⎜ ∫ ω 2 ⋅ S S (ω )dω ⎟ (15)
damping, for example (Himeno, 1981), three terms in equation ⎝0 ⎠
(8) were retained.

3 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

 The equivalent damping coefficient (14) should be using empirical data on similar bodies available in literature.
substituted back in (13) and iterations repeated until its value Table 2 presents results of such estimations, which utilized the
stabilizes. Then, the spectrum of the heave motion and dynamic following data and assumptions:
tension (16) can be computed. This enables the stochastic
responses to be predicted, including significant and maximum
motions and tensions over given exposure time. Finally, the
submerged weight of the structure is added to the dynamic
tension, to produce the total maximum tension in the lift rigging
(hook load).

3. HYDRODYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SUCTION CAN

TRUE R300,00

Structure Details
Particulars of the suction can used in this study are given in
Table 1. Selected dimensions are typical for suction cans used
as foundations of subsea manifolds in oil and gas developments
in Australia’s North West Shelf. Figure 1 shows geometry and
dimensions of the model made to scale 1:10. The model was
fabricated out of rolled 2mm steel plate. A photograph of the
model is shown in Figure 2.
00
00,
E „6
Table 1: Details of the suction can TRU

Description Full scale Model Units

Diameter D 6.000 0.600 m
Height H 6.000 0.600 m
Top plate area S 28.27 0.2827 m Figure 1 Layout of the suction can
Hatch pair # 1diameter d 0.380 0.038 m
area SH 0.113 0.00113 m2
Hatch pair #2 diameter d 0.537 0.054 m
area SH 0.226 0.00226 m2
Hatch pair #3 diameter d 0.658 0.066 m
area SH 0.340 0.00340 m2
Height of coaming -- 0.500 0.050 m
Wall thickness -- 0.020 0.002 m
Water density ρ 1025 1000 kg/m3

Usually, suction cans are fitted with one or two hatches in

the top plate, which can be left open during the descent to vent
out air and water and closed by a remotely operated vehicle
before the suction operation commences. To investigate the
effect of open hatches on the hydrodynamic properties, three
pairs of hatches were installed in the top plate with 50 mm high
coaming; all hatches were fitted with polyethylene plugs. Each
of the three pairs of hatches provided the relative open area S H
of 0.8%, 1.6% and 2.4%.

Estimated Hydrodynamic Properties

For the purpose of the sensitivity analysis, hydrodynamic Figure 2 General view of the model
properties of the suction can (full scale) were initially estimated

4 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

 The model test program (Table 4) included free decay tests at
• Unbounded fluid flow and infinite water depth are several frequencies of oscillations to cover the range of periods
assumed. 5.0 – 10.0 s in full scale, usually associated with ship motions.
• Hydrodynamic added mass is calculated as mass of the This was achieved by incorporating springs of different
entrapped water inside the can plus 50% of added mass of stiffness into the suspensions system (above water), so that
a circular flat disk, to account for the added mass attracted heave oscillations at 5 frequencies could be generated. The
by the top plate. springs were made of stainless steel and calibrated to confirm
• Pressure drag is assumed to be the equivalent to that of a their linear behaviour within the target range of deflections.
hollow hemisphere in steady flow, for which Hoerner’s
(1965) data is available. Formulation of Tao et al. (2000) Table 4: Summary of model test program
for the viscous damping of a half-submerged vertical
cylinder in heave has been also used and found to produce Description Parameter
a similar value.
Spring Stiffness 3407.3 N/m
• Friction drag on the outside surface is estimated using data
in Hoerner (1965); it is found to be small and incorporated 2329.8 N/m
into the total quadratic drag.
1641.6 N/m
• The effect of open hatches has not been included on the
assumption of their small size and because no method is 1227.6 N/m
readily available.
824.3 N/m
Table 2: Estimated hydrodynamic properties in heave Initial Displacements 90 mm, 60 mm, 30 mm
Hatch Conditions All hatches closed
Description Notation Full scale Units
Pair of hatches #1 (small) open
Added mass mA 211.0 tonne
Pair of hatches #2 (medium) open
Added mass coefficient CA 1.21 -
Pair of hatches #3 (large) open
Pressure drag area S 28.3 m2
All hatches open
Pressure drag coefficient CD 1.42 -
Friction drag area 2 π RH 113.1 m2
The initial downward offset of the model was generated
Friction drag coefficient Cf 0.007 - with a special pulley system with an electro-magnetic release;
offsets of 30 mm, 60 mm, and 90 mm were tested for
Total drag reference area S 28.3 m2 comparison. Heave motions of the model were measured by a
Total drag coefficient CD 1.45 - linear transducer; a wave probe was also installed in the tank to
check amplitudes of radiated free surface waves. Throughout
the tests no radiated waves were detected; the wave motion in
Model Test Program the tank was found to remain at its usual background level. This
confirmed the expectation of negligible free surface effects due
In order to determine the hydrodynamic coefficients more to relatively large submergence of the model. Therefore, the
accurately, model tests were conducted in a deep water basin at effect of wave reflection in the tank was considered to be
the Australian Maritime College; details of the testing facility negligible, and no special measures were taken. Photographs of
are given in Table 3. The model was suspended in the middle of the test rig can be seen in Figures 3 and 4.
the tank depth, so that the distance between the top plate (or When the model was oscillating in heave, no sway
bottom) of the model and the water surface (or the tank floor) (pendulum), roll or yaw motions were observed, although the
was 1.75 m, or 2.92 the model height. The distance of the model was free to move in these degrees of freedom. In total,
model vertical axis from the nearest wall was 2.6 m, or 4.33 the 46 tests were run; several tests were repeated to confirm
model diameter. It is estimated that such clearances make consistency of results.
boundary effects negligible, and the hydrodynamic properties Test records have been post-processed to determine the
should not be appreciably affected by the free surface. added mass, linear and nonlinear (quadratic) damping
components. The added mass is determined from the natural
Table 3: Dimensions of testing facility frequency of un-damped motions; the added mass coefficient is
defined as:
Dimension Magnitude mA
CA = (16)
Length 25 metres ρπR 2 H
Width 12.5 metres
The two damping components were obtained by fitting a
Water Depth 4.13 metres straight line to the decrement curve, which is proportional to
the equivalent damping (8):

5 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

 a−b π
≈ βE =
c 2ω
= 2 β 1ω −1 N 1 + 2 β 2 N 2 c + O(c 2 ) ≈ H 1 + H 2 c ; (17)

Here a, b, and c denote absolute heave displacements at peaks,

troughs, and the average, respectively, in the motions time
history. Typical heave time history and the decrement curve are
shown in Figures 5 and 6. After coefficients of the linear
approximation are found, the damping coefficients can be
calculated from the equations:
π 4
H 1 = β1 ; H2 = β2 (18)
2ω 3
The two damping components have been presented in the
non-dimensional form:
B1 β
B1 = = 1 ; (19)
2 Mω 2ω
B 2β 2 M
B2 = 2 = = CD ; (20)
1 ρS
ρS
2
Here the second (quadratic) term is identical to usual drag
coefficient. The total equivalent damping links the two
components by the following equation:
βE 1 8 ωc 2 ρSR
BE = = B1 + B 2 ρS = B1 + B 2 ⋅ KC
2ω 2 3π 2 Mω 3π 2 M
(21)
where the Keulegan-Carpenter number is:
KC = πc / R (22)
Heave X (mm)
Figure 3 Model test set up 40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-10

-20

-30

-40
Time (sec)
Troughs Peaks Heave Time History

Figure 5 Typical heave time history

Figure 4 Suction can model with hatches # 3 open

6 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

Decrement and Garrison (1990) proposed the “wake flow model”, which
(a-b)/c
accounts approximately for the effect of the body moving
0.25
through its own wake, and confirms in particular that the drag
coefficient CD becomes inversely proportional to KC number.
0.20
If a similar “wake flow” dependence CD (KC) is assumed
for the flow through an orifice, it leads to the following formula
0.15 for the linear damping of the suction can with open hatches:
2 ρSR
B1 = B1C + BH ⋅ SH . (24)
0.10
3 π 2M
Here B1C is the linear damping coefficient in “all hatches
0.05
closed” condition, M is the total mass as in (3), and BH is a
0.00 special factor to account for the effect of hatches. This factor is
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 found to be relatively stable with an average value of about
Average amplitude c (m) 100; it reduces slowly when the relative open hatch area
Figure 6 Typical extinction curve and linear approximation increases in the range S H = 0.8%.....4.8% ; refer to Figure 7.
It is also found by the tests that the quadratic drag
coefficient (with all hatches closed) is significantly higher than
Results of Model Tests the estimation based on the steady flow with the error
exceeding 100%; it also exceeds the prediction for the heaving
Heave added mass is found to be stable and almost half-submerged cylinder based on formulation of Tao et al
independent of frequency of oscillations for all hatch (2000).
conditions. In conditions with open hatches some reduction in As the size of open hatches increases, more fluid is
the added mass was observed with decreasing amplitude (KC allowed to pass through the hatches, rather than around the
number). As the size of open hatches increases, the added mass outer edge of the top plate. As a result, fluid velocities at the
reduces significantly, much faster than one would anticipate outer edge reduce, which may explain the reduction in the
from proportional reduction of the impermeable top area; refer quadratic damping, evident in Figure 10.
to Figure 8 and Table 5. When all three groups of hatches were
open, this corresponded to 4.8% of the top area open, the added Table 5: Effect of open hatches on heave added mass
mass reduced by more than 30%. Compared with empirical
estimates (Table 2), the added mass in “all hatches closed” Percentage of Added Mass Reduction in
condition found in the tests is higher by about 25%. Top Area Open Coefficient Added Mass
Another phenomenon observed in the tests was rapid
increase in the linear damping with increasing size of open 0.00% 1.53 0.00%
hatches, along with gradual reduction in the quadratic damping
0.80% 1.48 - 9.7%
component; this can be observed in Figure 9 and Figure 10. In
“all hatches closed” condition, the linear damping is generally 1.60% 1.40 - 8.4%
small, being dominated by the quadratic (drag) component. As
the size of the open hatches increases this situation slowly 2.40% 1.33 - 13.1%
reverses, the linear damping becomes more pronounced, and in 4.80% 1.06 - 30.6%
“all hatches open” condition its contribution is clearly
dominant. The drag coefficient, on the contrary, reduces from
the average value of about 3.6 in “all hatches closed” to about BH bar _
2.0 in “all hatches open” condition. 120
To interpret the change in damping caused by the open
hatches, especially the significant increase in the linear 100

damping, it is worth noting that the range of KC number for the 80

flow through the hatch is estimated to be KC = 1.0 - 10.0 based
on the orifice diameter, while the corresponding KC number for 60
the suction can itself is KC = 0.1 – 1.0. The pressure gradient
exerted on the portion of the top plate around the orifice may 40

vary significantly due to large changes in the “local” KC

20
number. For example, it is evident from results reported by De
Bernardinis et al. (1981) that the “drag coefficient” which 0
expresses the pressure drop in the oscillating flow through an 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
orifice increases rapidly with reduction in KC number. Percentage of Top Area Open

A similar situation in external flows (or bodies in

oscillatory motion) has been investigated by many researches Figure 7 Hatch damping factor in equation (24)
(for example, Bearman et al (1985), Venugopal et al (2006)).
To describe this trend in CD, Huse (1987), Huse et al. (1990),

7 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

CA
1.70

1.60
No Hatches Open
1.50
Hatches #1 Open

1.40 Hatches #2 Open

1.30 Hatches #3 Open

All Hatches Open

1.20
Average Ca
1.10

1.00

0.90

0.80
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
Percentage of Top Area Open (%)

Figure 8 Added mass coefficient vs Percentage of hatch area open

B1(bar)
0.16

0.14
No Hatches Open

0.12
Hatches #1 Open

0.10 Hatches #2 Open

0.08 Hatches #3 Open

All Hatches Open

0.06
Average
0.04

0.02

0.00
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
Percentage of Top Area Open (%)

Figure 9 Linear damping vs Percentage of hatch area open

B2(bar)

5.0

4.0 No Hatches Open

Hatches #1 Open

3.0 Hatches #2 Open

Hatches #3 Open
2.0
All Hatches Open

Average
1.0

0.0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
Percentage of Top Area Open (%)

Figure 10 Quadratic damping vs Percentage of hatch area open

8 Copyright © 2007 by ASME


4. SENSITIVITY OF THE DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD
Results of the model tests have been used to carry out
several sensitivity studies, to determine the impact of the
hydrodynamic coefficients on the hook loads during the
deployment or recovery of the suction can.
Stiffness properties of a typical rigging system are given in
Table 6; dynamic system properties, which are based on the
model tests, are given in Table 8. Heave natural period of the
suction can varies within 7.3. – 7.5 s, depending on the size of
open hatches, compared to 6.8 s, which follows from the
estimations.
amplitude is reduced by 36% to 47%. Even in “all hatches
closed” condition, using hydrodynamic coefficients obtained by
model tests reduces the peak of heave RAO by about 35% in
short period sea, and up to 60% in the long period sea,
compared with the RAO based on estimations.
Finally, it can be seen that changes in the dynamic wire
tension are somewhat more pronounced in the short period sea,
because of its peak period being closer to the natural heave
period of the system. This situation may change, however, if
different type vessel is used, which may have different motion
characteristics.
X, m/m
14.0

12.0
Table 6: Stiffness properties of the rigging
10.0
Description Parameter
8.0
Wire length 750 m
Spring constant 150,000 kN 6.0

Rigging stiffness 200 kN/ m 4.0

Static tension (submerged weight) 250 kN 2.0

0.0
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
The analysis utilized motion RAOs of a typical installation Omega, 1/s

vessel, from which motions at the lifting winch were predicted. Estimations No hatches Hatch 1 Hatch 2 Hatch 3

The spectrum of the dynamic hook load was calculated for two
sea states, presented in Table 7, both with the significant wave Figure 11: Suction can heave RAO. Sea state “A”
height of Hs =2.0 m.
X, m/m
18.0
Table 7: Sea states
16.0

Description Sea state “A” Sea state “B” 14.0

Sea spectrum JONSWAP JONSWAP 12.0

Significant wave height 2.0 m 2.0 m 10.0

8.0
Peak period 7.0 s 12.0 s
6.0
Peakedness parameter 1.00 3.00
4.0

2.0
Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 9 and
Table 10. Heave RAOs of the suction can for various hatch 0.0
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
conditions are given in Figures 11 and 12.
Omega, 1/s
First of all, it can be seen that open hatches impact Estimations No hatches Hatch 1 Hatch 2 Hatch 3
significantly on the dynamic hook load, as could be expected
from the differences in hydrodynamic properties. For the
Figure 12: Suction can heave RAO. Sea state “B”
percentage of hatch area considered in this study (from 0.8% to
2.4%), the effect of open hatches reduces the dynamic hook
load up to 20% compared with “all hatches closed” condition.
The corresponding reduction in the maximum heave RAO is as
large as 40% for the largest pair of hatches with 2.4% of open
area.
Secondly, it is evident that by using accurate
hydrodynamic properties, rather than empirical estimations,
less onerous hook loads are predicted. In terms of the total
maximum hook load (dynamic + submerged weight), the
difference ranges from 22% to 29%, depending on the size of
the hatches. For the dynamic component alone, the tension

9 Copyright © 2007 by ASME

 Table 8: Properties of the system

Added mass Total Mass Natural Linear Quadratic

coefficient frequency damping damping
Case M ,t
CA ω n , 1/s B1 B2 = C D
Estimations 1.21 236.0 0.921 0.000 1.45
Hatches closed 1.51 288.0 0.833 0.010 3.60
Hatches # 1 open 1.48 282.0 0.842 0.030 3.12
Hatches # 2 open 1.40 268.5 0.863 0.051 2.71
Hatches # 3 open 1.33 256.0 0.884 0.067 2.43

Table 9: Dynamic hook load: Sea state “A”

Model tests
DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD Estimations Hatches Open hatches
closed #1 #2 #3
Significant Tension TSIG = 2*RMS kN 218.1 139.9 133.1 123.6 116.1
Maximum Tension TMAX = 1.86* TSIG kN 422.9 272.2 258.8 240.1 225.2
Change in TSIG or TMAX due to hatches % 100% 95% 88% 83%
Static Tension TSTATIC kN 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0
TOTAL Maximum TTOTAL kN 672.9 522.2 508.8 490.1 475.2
Change in TTOTAL due to hatches % 100% 97% 94% 91%
Change in TTOTAL % 100% 78% 76% 73% 71%

Table 10: Dynamic hook load: Sea state “B”

Model tests
DYNAMIC HOOK LOAD Estimations Hatches Open hatches
closed #1 #2 #3
Significant Tension TSIG = 2*RMS kN 138.1 121.3 115.8 105.3 97.5
Maximum Tension TMAX = 1.86* TSIG kN 269.5 240.0 229.1 208.2 192.8
Change in TSIG or TMAX due to hatches % 100% 95% 87% 80%
Static Tension TSTATIC kN 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0
TOTAL Maximum TTOTAL kN 519.5 490.0 479.1 458.2 442.8
Change in TTOTAL due to hatches % 100% 98% 94% 90%
Change in TTOTAL 100% 94% 92% 88% 85%

10 Copyright © 2007 by ASME


5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The following conclusions can be made upon the results of
this study:
• Open hatches in the top plate of the suction can
significantly increase the hydrodynamic damping, in
particular its linear component. This phenomenon could be
attributed to strong increase in the pressure drop across the
hatch orifice as the local KC number of the orifice flow
reduces.
• The increase in linear damping due to open hatches
translates into reduction in the dynamic hook load; for the
system and vessel properties used in this study the
reduction is of the order of 20%. Therefore, open hatches
(or other small penetrations) in the top plate can be
recommended as means to reduce motions and hook loads,
and they should be included in the subsea lift analysis.
• Hydrodynamic coefficients, which are based on the
empirical data for steady flow or heaving half-submerged
cylinders, underestimate both the heave added mass and
the viscous damping for the suction can. The predicted
hook load is likely to be overestimated; the error may reach
30%, depending on the sea state and vessel details.
This study shows that small changes in the geometry of
subsea equipment may alter significantly its hydrodynamic
properties. For the subsea lift analysis to provide desired
accuracy, such changes should be carefully examined and taken
into account.
6. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to the Australian Maritime
College for providing support to this study.
REFERENCES
Bearman, P.W., Downie, M.J., Graham, J.M.R., Obasaju,
E.D. (1985). Forces on cylinders in viscous oscillatory flow at
low Keulegan-Carpenter numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
1985, Vol. 154, pp. 337 – 356
Bernardis, B. De., Graham, J.M.R., Parker, K.H. (1981)
Oscillatory flow around discs and through orifices. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 1981, Vol. 102, pp. 279 – 299
Brebbia, C.A., Walker, S. (1979). Dynamic Analysis of
Offshore Structures, Newnes – Butterworths.
Det Norske Veritas (1996) Rules for Planning and
Execution of Marine Operations - Part 2: Operation Specific
Requirements. Chapter 5. Lifting., Chapter 6. Sub Sea
Operations Det Norske Veritas.
Det Norske Veritas (2000) Environmental Conditions and
Environmental Loads. Classification Notes No. 30.5., Det
Norske Veritas.
Frazer I., Perinet D., Vennemann O. (2005) Technology
required for the installation of production facilities in 10,000 ft
of water. Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference
2005, OTC 17317
Garrison, C.J. (1990) Drag and Inertia Forces on Circular
Cylinder in Harmonic Flow, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal
and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 116, No.2 March / April, 169 –
190
Himeno, Y. (1981) Prediction of Ship Roll Damping -
State of the Art. Report 239. The University of Michigan.
Hoerner, S. F. (1965) Fluid Dynamic Drag Hoerner Fluid
Dynamics
Huse, E. (1990) Resonant Damping of Tension Leg
Platforms. Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference
1990, OTC 6317
Huse., E., Muren. P. (1987) Drag in oscillatory flow
interpreted from wake considerations. Proceedings of Offshore
Technology Conference 1987, OTC 5370
Krylov, A.N. (1932). Ship Motions. In: Collection of
papers, USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol. 11, Moscow, 1951.
Morrison D., Cermelli C. (2003) Deployment of subsea
equipment in ultradeep water. Proceeding of OMAE03 22nd
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, June 8-13, Cancun, Mexico, OMAE2003-37190.
Niedzwecki, J.M., Thampi, S.K. (1991) Snap loading in
Marine cable systems. Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 13, No.1
Oritsland, O. & Lehn, E. (1987) Hydrodynamic forces on
subsea modules during lifting operations. Third International
Symposium on the Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units.
Trondheim.
Rowe S. J., Mackenzie B., Snell R. (2001) Deep water
installation of subsea hardware. Proceedings of the 10th
Offshore Symposium, 2001, Houston, Texas Section of the
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
Sandvik, P. C., Ing, J. T. L. & Lunde, S. (1993) Analysis of
the dynamics during installation of subsea structures. Offshore
93. United Kingdom, Marine Management (Holdings) Ltd.
Tao, L., Thiagarajan, K. P. & Cheng, L. (2000) On the
parametric dependence of springing damping of TLP and Spar
columns. Applied Ocean Research, 22, 281-294.
Timoshenko, S. & Young, D. H. (1954) Vibration
Problems in Engineering, New York, Litton Educational
Publishing.
Venugopal, V., Varyani, K.S., Barltrop, N.D.P. (2006).
Wave force coefficients for horizontally submerged rectangular
cylinders, Ocean Engineering, 2006, Vol.33, pp 1669- 1704
11 Copyright © 2007 by ASME