OTC 5822

Prediction of Motion, Wave Load, and Sling Tension of Crane

Vessels During Heavy Lifting Operations
by X. Zheng and R.C. McGregor, U. of Glasgow

Copyright 1988 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was preeented at the 20th Annual OTC In Houston,Taxas, May 2-5, 1988, The material is subject to correction by the author. Parmiasion
to copy la restricted to an abstract of not more than 3W words.

A13STWCI’
A computational method for predicting motion,
dynamic wave load and sling tension of a crane
vessel during heavy lifting operations is presented.
The coupling motion effect between the vessel and
the weight being lifted and the viscous damping have
been taken into account. Solutions for a barge shaped
and a semi-submersible crane vessel have been
calculated as numerical examples and the results
agree well with the available experimental data. In
addition, a method to evaluate the workability of a
crane vessel in given ocean environment is presented.
INTRODUCTI ON
In the past, many theoretical methods have
been used to predict the motions and wave loads of
mono hull and semi-submersible shipsl ~z!s,but few
papers deal with crane vessels during heavy lift
operations taking into account the effects of the
weight being lifted and the viscosity. The
expenments show the effect of the weight is so great
that the motion responses of the vessel are quite
different from the those without this effect. The
viscous effects also influence the motion responses
significantly when the effect of the weight is
bending moment on the cross-deck structure and that
this kind of wave loads can be predicted by the
present method. The motion resonant frequencies of
entire system were shown to be different from those
without the weight effect. Finally, the workability of
the crane vessel in given ocean environment was
calculated in terms of regular wave results and ocean
environmental data.
Mo TION PREDICITO N MEI’HOD
1, Motion of Vessel
In order to describe the motion of the vessel
and the weight being lifted, it is appropriate to divide
the entire system into two parts, the vessel and the
weight alone. Both of them satisfy Newton’s second
law. Small wave and motion amplitudes are assumed
in order to apply linear theory. A right handed
Cartesian coordinate system o-xyz with x-y plane in
still water surface and z positive upward through the
centre of the gravity is used. For the vessel, the six-
degree-motion equations with viscous effect may be
written as
~[(Mti+Aij )”&j+(Bti +BvU)&j +Ci&j]=Fi+Fvi+fi
j=l

included (especially for semi-submersible type of for i=l,2,...6 (1)

vessels).
where Mij is generalized inertia matrix of the vessel
In this paper, the 3D diffraction theory was alone. Aij, Bij and Cij are added mass, wave
used to calculate the hydrodynamic forces on the damping and hydrostatic restoring coefficient
submerged hull of vessels and the viscous effect was matrices, Fi is wave exciting force, Bvij ~d Fvi are
taken into account. The motion equation has been viscous damping and viscous wave exciting force due
modified to include the effect of the weight being
to drag, iJ=l,2,... 6 denote the motion modes of
lifted which has 8 degrees of freedom. The motion
surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw respectively,
responses of the vessel and the sling tension during
the heavy lift operation were analysed for both ship &i= &iOe-io’ is the displacement of motion in ith
shaped and semi-submersible types of vessels and the mode with the amplitude of &i., and fi is the
results agree well with available experiments.
component of the sling cable tension force, f, in ith
direction about the origin.
A method to predict wave loads on cross deck
of semi-submersibles is also presented. The results 2, Motion of the Weight
show that the effects of standing waves in the
vicinity of the twin hulls may produce the maximum
To describe the motion of the weight relative to
References and illustrations at end of paper the coordinate system O-XYZ, two additional variables
---
155
 PREDICI’ION OF MO’llON, WAVE LOAD AND SLING TENSION
2 OF CRANE
_———.—VESSEU3 —_——._
DURING HEAVY LIFITNG
—-— .——. —. ATTONS
C)PF.R ------ - OTC—5822

91 and 92, the swing angles of the weight about x, y For the ship shaped crane vessel it was found
axes, are introduced. If small swing angles are that the rolling viscous damping B,44 is the most
assumed, the motion equation of the weight alone can important term and the other viscous terms can be
be derived in x, y and z directions respectively. neglected. The BV4.4can be estimated by the method
of Tanaka4 which is commonly used in prediction of
f~z + ml$~=m ( ~~+ X~~5- XZ&6) viscous damping for mono hull ships.
-fqll - ml$l=,rn ( ~Z.: X3&4$,+ XI~6) (2) The viscous effect on the semi-submersible
f-mg=m( &3+ X2&4. 21{5) type of crane vessel is more sensitive than those on
the ship shaped one, because its small waterplane
where 1 is the cable length, x 1, X2 and X3 are area makes it have small wave damping especially in
the vertical modes of motion (heave and pitch) and
coordinates of the jib extremity in x, y and z
the contribution from the viscous effect to the total
directions and m is the mass of the weight.
damping becomes more important. The viscous effect
due to drag has been discussed in detail for SWATH
3, Motion of Coupled System
ships5 in fke degrees of freedom based on a semi-
Substituting Eqn.(2) into (1) and taking empirical formula derived from crossflow approach
account of different direction of the tension force f to a slender body. This approach has been extended
acting on the jib and the weight gives to the six degrees of freedomG. It is adopted as
follows.
~[(~ti+Aij )~+(Bij+Bvti )&j+~ij~j ]-m~R=Fi+Fti
The structure is divided into two sets of strips
j=l
along x and z axes. Then suitable points on the
i=l,2,...6 (3) contour of each strips are chosen as representative
.. points for evaluating the relative velocity. Then the
where &Riis the relative acceleration of the weight to viscous forces and moments due to drag in six
the o-xyz in ith direction with degrees may be approximated as

AFD1 = 0.5pAS1CD&r11&11,
~; = 1(i2>til, o) for i=l,2,3
AFDZ = 0.5pAS2CD~fil~r21,

&Ri = 1 (XI, ~z, %3)x(~2, $*, 0) for i=4, 5>6 AFD3 = 0.5pASgC!&31&rS!,
and (5)
The exact relative acceleration in z direction, FDi = ~ AFDi, for i=l ,2,3
&R3= I ($12+ @22), is a higher order tem_which FD4 = - ZZAFDZ + Z y AFD3,
Las already been neglected in the formula. Mij tmd F~=- XXAFDS+XZAFD1,
Cij are the mass inertia and restoring coefficient
FD6 = - X y AFD1 + Z x AFD2,
matrices of the entire system when the weight is
located at the top of the jib respectively.
where CD is the crossflow drag coefficient which is
Reynolds number dependent, and for the twin hull
The system of Eqn.(2) and (3) is solvable and
also applicable for any type of crane vessels. In this semi-submersible it may be chosen between 0.4 -
paper both shipshaped ~d semi-submersible type of 0.7, AS 1 is the projected area of the strip along z
crane vessels are analysed. 3D difl%action theory is axis, and AS2 and AS3 are the projected area of the
adopted to yield the potential terms such as Aij$ Bij
strip along x axis in y and z directions, AFDi denotes
and Fi. The 3D source-doublet distribution method is
the viscous force in ith direction and &n, i = 1,2,3
used. Since there are several detailed papers 1*2*3
are relative velocities in x, y and z direction which
available for this method, no description of it is
can be written as
presented here.
4, Dynamic Sling Tension
&=-$1 -Z{5+Y~6+~X’Y

If the motion responses are known, the ~T2.=-~2-~{6+&+(y’, (6)

dynamic sling tension can be obtained by &3=- G3-Y~4+x&+ L’,

f~=f-mg=m(is+xz~-xl~s) (4) where the velocity components of a wave particle in

a~ a~
where fd is dynamic sling tension of the cable.
x, y and z directions are (’X=-#, < =~ and
Y ay
VISC(XJ S EFFECT

The viscous terms, Bvij ~d Fvi play the

a~
sensitive role when the coupling effect between the
<z=$ Wifi
vessel and the weight is taken into account and must
be considered. Two different empirical methods are
used for ship shaped and semi-submersible types of 40 =-~ “ exp [ ik ( xcos~ + Ysir$ )] eh e-iot
vessels respectively.

156
OTC 5822 X. ZHENG AND R.C. McGREGOR
In the foregoing expressions, Eqn.(5), the
crossflow drag terms are nonlinear, hence, they can
not be directly introduced into the linear motion
equations. By using Fourier Series, it can be shown
that for the harmonic motion x = Xocos@t
ilil=lcoioi
(7)
3n
Substituting (6) into (5) and applying the equivalent
linearization procedure of equation (7) gives
AFDi = ; pASiC&.O~n i=l,2,3 (8)
~here ~.10~ ~20 ~d ~.so =e ~plimde of &l, &fi and
~r~respectively. Furthermore the viscous force can
be divided into viscous damping and viscous wave
exciting force terms, i.e.
6.
Fm = ~ B,ij &j+ F,i
i = 1, 2, ...6 (9)
j=l
It is clear the terms associated with oscillatory
velocity term &j are viscous damping terms, whereas
associated with velocity of wave particle ~x’, Q’ and
~; are the viscous wave exciting terms. All these
terms are dependent on the motion amplitude, so they
will be determined simultaneously with the solution
of the motion equation by an iterative procedure.
PREDICI’10 N OF DYNAMIC WAVE LOAD5$
The prediction of wave load on the lmmsverse
section of ship shaped vessel can be found in many
paperss~T. Therefore, the discussion is here
concentrated on the semi-submersibles. To find the
loads at the mid-section of the cross-deck, a standard
approach of the structural analysis would be to cut
the body at the section where the loading is to be
determined and consider all of the forces and
moments (both inertia and hydrodynamic) acting on
the free end, see Fig.1.
If the portion to the right of the cut is taken to
be the free end as shown in Fig. 1 the moments and
shears are given by the mass inertia force minus the
total external forces acting on the free portion in a
sense which provide the moment or force in a given
d~rection. On the other hand, the same loading
quantities with opposite sign must also be obtained if
the left portion is taken as the free end and all forces
and moments acting on the left hull are considered.
For convenience, the formula of the structural
loading at mid-section of cross deck (y=O and z=ho)
can be written following the method of summation of
the loading on the two fkee ends described above,
i.e.
157
3
+ jj p [ nz sgn(y) ] ds
s
..
1
V3 = ; Myo$ - ~ /j p [ n~sgn(y) ] ds
s
where Mb, MT, V2 and V3 are bending moment,
torsional moment, horizontal shear force and vertical
shear force respectively. S is wetted surface of
submerged hull, including both port and starboard
hulls. yo is the y-coordinate of the centre of gravity,
(Xo,yo,zo), of the demi hull, and ho is the distance
between the middle of cross deck and fkee surface.
Once the loads at mid-section of cross-deck
structure are determined, the loading at any section
above the waterline can be found. This can be done
by subtracting the mass inertia forces of the portion
between the mid-section and the section calculated
from the already known loading at the mid-section
because the both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
forces acting only on the submerged part of the hull.
The hydrodynamic pressure p can be expressed
as,
. .
where the terms in the first bracket are the
contributions from hydrodynamic effect and those in
the second bracket from the hydrostatic effect. $i,
i=l ,2,...6 present the radiation potentials for surge,
sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw modes of oscillation
respectively. @O is incident wave potential and $D iS
diffraction potential.
The amplitude of motion responses ~i,
i=l ,2,...6, contained in Eqn.(11 ) can be solved fkom
Eqn.13). Once the motion responses are known there
is no difficulty in solving the wave load equations.
The detail discussion of wave loads on twin
hull ships can be found in reference(7)
UGTS IN REGULAR WAW
Two types of crane vessels, ship shaped and
semi-submersible as shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3, are
analysed. The both vessels are examined for abaft
(A) lifting condition. The principal particulars of the
vessels are listed in the Table 1. The models are
represented by 120 panel elements for the ship
shaped vessel and 272 for semi- submersible.
The motion results for the ship shaped vessel
are shown in Fig,4 against the non-dimensional
frequency Od(L/g). The most distinctive feature of
 PREDICTION OF MtYIION, WAVE LGAD AND SLING TENSION
4 OF CRANE VESSELS DURING HEAVY LIFTING OPERATIONS OTC 5822

the results is that the coupling motion effects Since the wave spectrum and ship motion are
introduce the multi resonant frequencies on the assumed narrow banded, the distribution of motions
curves of the motion responses and the dynamic sling or wave loads may be described by a Rayleigh
tension, in contrast to the motion responses of the probability density function, although this may not
vessel without the weight which usually have only be quite true in some cases. Under thk assumption,
one resonant frequency on each mode of motion. The the statistical averages of ship responses can be
resonant frequencies are closely related to the natural expressed in the form
frequencies of uncoupled vessel and the weight
pendulum, but usually do not coincide with them. ‘Average’ amplitude = C 4(E) (13)
The viscous effect influences the roll response near
the resonant frequencies significantly, but for pitch Here ~(E) is called root mean square (RMS) of
response it is negligible. Generally, very good a particular motion amplitude; C=l .253 gives the
agreements between theoretical and experimental average; C=2.O gives the one-third highest average or
results have been achieved. The experimental data for significant value; C=2.546 gives the one-tenth
ship shaped vessel is taken from reference (8). highest average.

The results of the semi-submersible type of If the absolute motion amplitudes l~il are
vessel are presented in Fig.5 and 6 for free floating replaced by the absolute load amplitudes IV21, IV31,
and ~lfting conditions. The results of the free floating !Mb! or IMTI, the Eqn.(12)-(13) can be used to predict
condition have been compared with the experimental the statistical averages of horizontal forces, vertical
resul tsg for heave and roll in beam sea and the shear forces, bending moments or torsional moments
agreements are good. In the lifting condition, it is on the ship structure respectively.
found that the coupled motion effect on the heave is
negligible, whereas the effect on the roll response is There are many available wave spectra.
quite clear. On the roll response curve, the coupled Common mathematical expressions which are
motion effect seems to reduce the peak value at the frequently used by ship investigators are Pierson-
resonant frequencies. The second resonant frequency Moskowitz spectrum and 17th ITTC spectrum. These
effect is barely observable when viscosity is included spectra were employed in this study.

The bending moments in beam seas and Fig.9(a) and (b) show the significant values of
torsional moments in quartering seas on the cross typical and most important responses with crane
deck mid-section of the semi-submersible crane vessels, i.e. vertical displacement at jib top and roll
vessel are shown in Fig.7 and 8. Eatock Taylor1° for both the prototype ship shaped and semi-
suggested that the first longitudinal standing wave submersible crane vessels using the 17th ITTC
occurs at l/L&2.0, where % is wave length, L= is the spectrum. Fig .9(c) and (d) present the significant
length of the canal in tie vicinity of twin hulls. Fig.7 bending moment in beam seas and the torsional
shows that the maximum bending moment occurs near moments in quartering seas on its cross deck mid-
section using the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum.
the ratio of L/Lc=l.5. This maximum bending
moment is believed to be caused by the Ilrst DE-SIGN CRITE RIA
longitudinal standing wave. The reason that the
longitudinal standing does not occur at l,&=2.O may To simplify the discussion the simple design
attribute to the three dimensional effect. The detail criteria were used in this study. For more
discussion can be found in (2). This kind of comprehensive criteria the procedure of calculation is
hydrodynamical interaction in the vicinity of twin similar. The criteria for crane vessel operation are:
hulls and its effect on the wave loads can be directly
predicted by the three dimension diffraction theory. 1, Significant value of vertical displacement
amplitude at jib top Z1~<0.5m;
RES Uurs IN IIWEGULAR WAW 2, Significant value of roll amplitude .Q<3°;
The results of prediction in pure regular waves 3, Significant value of pitch amplitude <5<1°.
are rather academic since the sea is never regular but
EVALUATION OF WORKAEIIJTY
always behaves randomly. Therefore, it is the
predictions in irregular waves that are primarily
Workability is the percentage of time that a
important for designers. Here, the wave energy
crane vessel could expect to operate in given oceari
spectrum method was used to predict the statistical
environment without violating any of the specified
responses of crane vessels in irregular waves.
criteria. To evaluate the workability of a vessel, the
Following this approach, the variance of the absolute
motion responses in irregular waves should be
value of a transfer function, say I&iI/a, can be compared with the specific seakeeping criteria for all
obtained by possible wave headings. For the present study, the
2 calculation consists of estimates of the motion
m 1$1 spectra and statistical averages of motion responses
E= ~ S(o)) do (12) in wave modal period of 5.0, 6.5, 8.5, 10.5 and 12.0
J[ ]
o seconds, for heading angles from 0° to 180° in 15°
increments.
where [l&il/a]2 is often called the response amplitude
operation (RAO), S(O) is the wave spectrum which The results of above calculations are shown in
Table 2 for the prototype semi-submersible crane
has the dimensional unit of [m2s].
158
OTC 5822 X. ZHENG AND R.C. McGREGOR 5

vessel. The upper matrix in the table identify the The study presented here has shown that the
seakeeping criterion that is first exceeded for each coupled motion effect should be considered in
combination of heading angle and wave modal reasonable way in design of crane vessels. The
period. The lower matrix of the table identifies tie present method may help to reduce the expensive
significant wave heights (in metres) at which the experiments to a minimum in the primary design
limiting criterion is exceeded. Thus the two matrices stage.
in each table are complementary.

The data in Table 2 were derived based on the

17th ITTC spectrum (two parameters), it is then
possible to take the observed wave heights for a
specified ocean en,vironm’ent and evaluate the
workability of crane vessels. The average probability
of occurrence of specific ocean conditions in the
North Sea are listed in Table 3 which were derived
from the data in reference (11). By means of those
probability data and the data in Table 2, the
workability of the semi-submersible crane vessel in
the North Sea can be estimated. To do this a
assumption should be made, i.e. the probability of
the encountering a sea at a specific heading angle
relative to the vessel is equally likely for all
headings.
The results for the semi-submersible vessel in
the North Sea for different seasons are shown in
Table 4. The workability of the prototype ship
shaped crane vessel was derived in the same way as
the semi-submersible vessel. The results were also
presented in the Table.4 for comparison.
The results in Table 4 show that the
workability of the semi-submersible vessel is much
better than that of the ship shaped vessel of similar
displacement and the weight being lifted.
The authors would like to thank Chinese
Government, British Council and the Committee of
Vice-Chancellors and Principals of U.K. Universities
for their support to the first author during his study
at University of Glasgow.
1, Faltinsen, O.M. and Michelsen, F.C.:Motions of
Large Structures in Waves at Zero Freud
Number’, Int. Symp. Dynamics of Marine
Vehicles and Structures in Waves, University
College, London, 1974, pp 99-114
2, Zheng, X and McGregor, R.C.,’ Alternative
Approaches for Three Dimensional Radiation and
Diffraction Problem’, ‘Advances in Underwater
Technology, Ocean Science and Offshore Eng.’
Vol. 15, ‘Tech. Common to Aero and Marine
Eng.’, Chapter 14, Graham &Trotrnan, 1988,
pp.195-206
3, Chen, H.H., Tomg, J.M. and Shin, Y. S.:
‘Progress Report Task 1 of Hydrodynamic
Pressure Project for NSMB Cooperative Research
Sea Loads WorkMg Group’, American Bureau of
Shipping, May, 1985

coNCL UDING REMARKS 4, Tanaka, N.;A Study on the Bilge Keels, Part 4,
on the Eddy M~ng Resistance to the Rolling of
a Ship Hull Japan Society of Naval
From the study presented in this paper the
Architecture, Volt 109, 1960, pp. 205-212
following conclusions may be drawn.
5, McGregor, R.C., Drysdale, L.H. and Wu, J-Y:
1, A general method for predicting motion On the Response ?f SWATH Ship in the presence
response, wave load (for semi-submersible) of crane of control fins 8th Ship Control Systems
vessels during heavy lifting operation in regular and Symposium, The Hague, 1987
irregular waves has been developed. Good
agreements with available data for motion responses 6, Zheng, X. and McGregor, R.C.,’Prediction of
have been achieved. Furthermore, the method to ~:~;e.d Motion Response in Design of Crane
evaluate the workability of crane vessels in given Proc. Marintec China 87 Int.
ocean environment has also been demonstrated. Conferen~e, Shanghai, Dec. 1987

7, Zheng, X.,’Prediction of Motion and Wave Load

2, The coupled motion effects between the
vessel and the weight being lifted influence the
motion response of both ship shaped and semi-
submersible crane vessels significantly and must be
taken into account in predicting the motion
responses.
3, The viscous effect may be neglected in the
prediction of the motion responses of the vessel
alone, but when the coupling effect of the weight
being lifted is considered it changes the peak values
at resonant frequencies especially for the semi-
submersible, so it should be included.
4, The motion behaviour of the semi-
submersible type of crane vessels is generally better
than that of the ship shaped one. The former has
higher workability than the later with similar
displacement and the weight being lifted.
of Mono and Twin Hull Ships in Waves’, Ph.D.
Thesis, Submitting to Dept. of Naval Architecture
and Ocean Eng., University of Glasgow, 1988
8, Nojiri, N. and Sasaki, T.:Motion characteristics
of Crane Vessels in Lifting Operation ‘, Paper
no. 4603, OTC, Houston, 1983
9, Bassiouny, A.:The Stabilization of Semi-
submersibles ‘, Ph.D Thesis, Dept. of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Eng., University of
Glasgow, April 1980
10, Eatock Taylor, R. and Hung, M.,’Some Wave
Load Effects in the Design of SWATH Ships’,
Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Practical Design of
Ships and Mobile Units, Trondheim, June 1987
11, Hogben, N. and Lumb, F.E.,’Ocean Statistics’,.
H.M.S.O., London, 1967

159
 Table1. PrincipalParticulars
of Cranevessels Table2 %ni-sttbmemible
CraneVesselDesignCriteria

Modsl Fkai Ikzm Following

sidpShsped Semi-sub Semi-sub
(FRefloadng) (AhftLifdng) Wave sea sea sea
Period (WC 180 165 150 13512010590756045 30150

L. B,T (m) 100., 38.,4.87 75., 4%, 13.1 75.,48., 16.44

5.0 0000010 100001
(2.0, 0.76, 0.0974) (1.82 1.164, 0318) (1.gz 1.164, 0.399)
65 1 11 11 1211 11 11
85 1111112 211111
A (ton) 17,310 17,42s 19,62S 10.5 1 1111111 11111
(0.1351) (2492) (280.66)
12.0 1 11 1111111 111

KG (m) 19.07 9.97 12.89

(0.381) (0.242) (0313) Limiting Seakcqing Factmx
o No acakqing tbmshold exceeded for wave with signifkam heights up to 9.75 meoea
GMT, GML (m) 10.4, 170.8 5.97,22.08 3.049, 19.16 1-3 JIxlicatcathe design aitc?ia which k fmt ecectkd
(0.208, 3.416) (0.145, 0.536) (0.074, 0.465)

Ac$qxable Signifimm Wave He@t (rnemes)

Kn, Kn, KZZ (m) (0.481, 0.977, 0.882) (0.407, 0.525, 0.665) (0.550, 0.644, 0.730]
Modtd Ik8t F&o Followiog
Kxy, KW, K= (m) (0.0, 0.0, -0.54) (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) (0.0, 0.0, -0384) Wave sea sea sea
kiod(s?s 180 165 150 135 120 105907560453015 0

Luad (m) Z439 0.0 m 5.0 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 8.75 9.75 8.5 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 7.2s
(0.0195) (0.0) (0.03146)
6.5 3.25 3.5 4.75 5.0 7.0 6.25 8.0 g.O 8.0 6.25 4.5 3.5 3.25
8.5 1.5 1.5 1.75 1.75 2.0 3.0 3.75 3.75 3.25 2.25 2.0 1.75 1.75
Note 1) Figures in pur.nthcsm denote tho VdlCS for scale models, 10,5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 15 2.0 2.0 2.25 2.0 1.75 1.5 1.5 1.0
2) Kxy etc nwana Ixy = sign(Kxy) KXY2W where IxY ~ P*t of ~~ 12.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.75 1.75 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0
 Table 3 Wave HeightDistributionsin theNorthSea

NorthSea&JQIJXX
(June-August)
Signifkant WavePeriod(T,seconds)
WaveHeight
(Z,melxes) TG 64’S7 8~<9 lod%l 1 12ST

22S0.75 .29 .02 .01 .00 .01

0.75CZS1.75 .28 .14 .03 .01 .01
1.75c2x2.75 .03 ,07 .03 .01 .00
2.75QX3.75 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00
3.754%5.75 .00 .01 .01 .00 .00
5.75CZS7.75 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
7.75US9.75 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

NorthSea- (Dee.-Feb.)
Signifkant WavePeriod(1’,secnnds)
WaveHeight
(Z,metres) TS5 6d%7 80S9 lk’rsll lzsr

22.S0.75 .16 .01 .01 .00 .00

0.754%1.75 .23 .12 .03 .01 .01
1.75CZ2.75 .04 .12 .06 .01 .00
2.75QS3.75 .01 .04 .04 .01 .01
3.75QS5.75 ,01 .02 .02 .02 .01
5.75CZS7.75 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
7.75CK9.75 .00 .00 00 .00 .00

Table4 Workabfity Comparisonof ShipShapedandSemi-

SubmersibleCraneVesselsin theNorthSea

season shipstuqxdVewel Semi-Submersible

Vessel

summer 0.47 0.90

Wm 0.35 0.78

Gemxsl 0.41 0.84

161
 ----

Fig. 1 Load conventions on the cross deck

Fig. 2 Model of ship shaped crane vessel
Ofsemi-submersibles

I f!i’r
J

Fig. 3 Model of semi-submersible

mane vessel

162
 3.0

4.5 H
II
~Potentlal
—x — Inc. vtscoslty
0 Experiment I
?.5- -

3.0- -

2.5- -

20 --

1.5 --

1.0-.

0.5 --

0.0 0.5 Lo 1.5 Lo

3.0 3.5 4.0

WMJRT (~?g)
(b) Pitch responses inhead seas

5.5
o Exp. Cal. Heading
so. -
+
o~ Headsea
A -*-- Beamsea
4.5. -

g 4,0. .

S/
<
2,5- .
so
;U
Z5 . .
s- - %0 -.

2- - 1.s ..
I
1.0 -.
1- -
0.s --

—.
0.0 0.s L o 1.5 20 25 3.0 5.s Lo 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.s 2.0 2s 3.0 ~s 4.0

WAQRT(L/g) W*SQRT(L/g)
(d) Dynamic tension responses of the cable
(c) Swing responses oftieweig htinbewsea

Fig. 4 Motion and dynamic tension responses of ship shaped crane vessel

3.0-
2s- - .~Potent Ia 1
2A — *— Inc. viscoslt)
2.4 0 Exper Iment
22
20

<

J
% ;:
-m 2.0
$.g
3 :; :- /
1.5 :4

:
1.0
o.b- -

o.s- - 0.4- .
0.2. -
—
0.04- 0.o.1
s 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 ~.o
0.0 0.5 L o L 3.s 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
W*S:;T (L;;) W*S;:T (L;;)

(a) Heave responses in beam seas (b) Rollresponses in beam seas

Fig.5 Motion responses ofseti-submersible amevessel in fieefloating condition

163

,.
 ~PotentlaL ~Potentlal

\ II
+.5

—*— Inc. Vlscoslty _w— Inc. vlscoslty

k.o

0.s - .
1.0
$.s
40J
!
&o 0.s 1.0 L s 2.0 Ss 40 0.0 a3 1.0 L5 10 S5 Lo

W&T(Uz;) U*S:;T (L~;)

(a) Heave responses in beam seas (b) Rollresponses in beam seas

--
~Potent i al z4- - ~Potentlat
%4 .
—*—Inc. viscosity 22. - —*—Inc. v19cosity
?.2.
/ 20. -
20
+ I.a.-
1.4. -

~. l.&. -

s l.z. -
g.y to. .

as. -

a4. -

0.6. -

0.2. -

0.0.

0.0 as 1.0 1.s 20 S.o a9 4.0 &o O#s Lo L 5 so ?.!3 &o

W&U?T (L;;) WS&T (L;;)

(c) Swing responses of theweight in beam seas (d) Pitch responses inhead seas

~Potentlal 4.0 —-a-- potential

5.5 —*—Inc. vlscoslty s!! t —.*- Inc. viscosity
t S.o
So -.
&s t
2.s. . I (p l=4(lq#+ip#) &o. . T
2.s- .
zo- - i so. - ii

L5- -
ii 2.5. -

&o - -
ii
Lo. 1.s.
- -y j ‘%, -_)\
Lo- -
&5- - xl %/*w*-\
~~, 0.5.
‘.1 L* *X -
&o.
&a as t.o 1.s %0 5.s Lo ao as 1.0 1.5 ‘&O S.s 4.0
W&T (L;:) W*S;;T (L;;)

(e) Swing responses of the weight in head seas (f) Dynamic tension respohses of the cable in head seas

Fig.6 Motion and dynamic tension responses of semi-submersible crane vessel (lifting)

164
 L 1
0.70
1.0 Transverse bending moment abs Torsion moment
0.9 a60
[
-[ a.35

VL. I/Lc

Fig.7 Bending moments onthe cross deckmidsection Fig. 8 Torsional moments on the cross deck midsection of
of semi-submersible crane vessel in beam seas semi-submersible crane vessel in bow quartering seas

200-
2.4- -
2.2- - ---- Ship shaped 1.8- . Beam sea —--- Ship shaped
Head sea
2.0- - Semi-submersible 1.6- . — Semi-submersible
?1.4.
,.-, 17thrl-rcspecmun 17th IT’l-c
spectrum
/ \ ~~l,z.. . .---+.
\
~1.2 --/’ \
\
-1.0
z \
Q0,8
&H 0.6
– 0.4 ----
0.2
0“2+./
0.0 0.0 !-
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 i 6 8 10 12 14 16
Average wave period, T, (sec.) Average wave period, T, (sec.)

(a) Significant values of vertical jib top displacement (b) Significant values of roll responses

:~
0.03

F
0.16

0.14
0.04
0.12

0.10 0.03
0. w
0.02
o. C4

0.04

0.02
//
O.oo.1 I aoo-1
I 2 3 b s & 7 8 9 !0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10

Average wave period, T, (sec.) Average wave period, T, (sec.)

(c) Significantvaluesofbendingmoments (d) Significant values of torsional moments
oncross deck midsectionin beam seas on cross deck midsection in,bow quartering seas

Fig.9 Motion and wave load responses of the crane vessels in irregular waves

165