0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

11 просмотров80 страницMA_2018_Assbrock

© © All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

11 просмотров80 страницMA_2018_Assbrock

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 80

Chair of Dynamics of Maritime Systems

Modellingofacranevesselondynamicpositioning

andassessmentofitsoperationalcapability

Master's Thesis

Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering

Student registration no. 371413

Supervisors Prof. Dr.-Ing. Andrés Cura Hochbaum

Dr.-Ing. Florian Stempinski (GeoSea NV)

Sebastian Uharek M.Sc.

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

Gerrit Aÿbrock

Abstract

are entrenched vessels to install the foundations. As future parks attain deeper waters,

oating crane vessels are gaining ground. Utilising these saves the time to jack the vessel

up. Nevertheless, motions during installation restrict their operational capability. This fore-

grounds the vessel's Dynamic Positioning (DP) system. To ensure save operations, time

domain simulations are a reliable tool as long as environmental loads and vessel dynamics

are properly modelled. Both is outlined here, with emphasis on vessel dynamics and the

signicance of modelling the vessel's DP system. However, the importance of considering

slowly varying wave forces is proven as well.

A developed external function comprises a feedback lter, a PID controller and an optim-

ised thrust allocation by quadratic programming. It relieves a previously used analytical

spring-damper system for positioning. Results from model tests are analysed and validate

calculations in irregular sea states. Most Probable Maximum (MPM) vessel motions are the

performance indicators to assess response based operability. Simulations with a crane vessel

show, that save operations are possible up to a signicant wave height of three meters in

bow quartering waves. The developed external function and derived operational limits serve

as a basis to investigate upcoming installation methods.

Keywords: dynamic positioning; external function; slowly varying wave forces

Kurzfassung (Abstract)

Die Errichtung von Oshorewindparks leistet einen erheblichen Beitrag zur Energiewende.

Meist werden Jack-Up Schie zur Installation der Fundamente eingesetzt. Da neue Parks

in mit unter tieferen Gewässern geplant sind, werden schwimmende Kranschie immer rel-

evanter. Der Einsatz dieser erspart die nötige Zeit zur Errichtung des Jack-Up Schies.

Allerdings ist die Einsatzfähigkeit des schwimmenden Schies durch die Bewegungen be-

grenzt. Dies rückt dessen System zur Dynamischen Positionierung (DP) in den Vorder-

grund. Solange Umweltlasten und die Dynamik des Schies korrekt modelliert sind, dienen

Simulationen der Planung sicherer Oshore Operationen. Beide Aspekte werden behandelt,

obgleich der Fokus auf der Modellierung des Schies und seines DP Systems liegt.

Die Berücksichtigung von Wellenlasten im Bereich der Dierenzenfrequenzen erweist sich

als wesentlich. Die entwickelte Routine zur Modellierung des DP Systems umfasst einen

geschlossenen Regelkreis sowie eine Schnittstelle zur Allokation der gesamt Kraft mittels

eines Optimierungsalgorithmus. Ein herkömmliches Feder-Dämpfer System zur Positionier-

ung wird dadurch abgelöst. Ergebnisse aus Modellversuchen dienen der Validierung von

Seegangssimulationen. Anhand von wahrscheinlich höchsten Bewegungen ("most probable

maximum") werden Indikatoren zur Bemessung der Einsatzfähigkeit abgeleitet. Zur Planung

sicherer Oshore Operationen mit einem Kranschi kann die Einsatzgrenze mit drei Metern

HS in schräg von vorn einlaufenden Wellen beziert werden. Das modellierte DP System

sowie ermittelte Einsatzgrenzen dienen der Überprüfung neuer Installationsmethoden.

Contents

Contents

Abstract III

Nomenclature IX

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Discussion of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Objective and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Wave Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 Vessel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.1 Response in Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.2 Second Order Wave Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3.3 Wind Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3.4 Current Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3.5 Roll Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.4 Dynamic Positioning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4.1 Feedback Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.4.2 Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.4.3 Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.4.4 Optimisation Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.4.5 Solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.5 Equation of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 Numerical Model 25

3.1 Panel Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.2 Mesh and Grid Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.3 Results Frequency Domain Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.4 Current and Wind Coecients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.5 Time Domain Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.6 Postprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

V

Contents

4.1 Feedback Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2 Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.3 Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.4 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5 Results 48

5.1 Inuence Filter Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.2 Inuence Second Order Wave Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.3 DP Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.4 Statistics Thrust Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5.5 DP Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6 Conclusion 58

7 Perspective 59

References 61

Appendix 64

A Comparison Environmental Loads in Time Domain 64

B Comparison Commanded and Allocated Forces 65

C Source Code External Function 66

C.1 Basic Structure of the External Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

C.2 Part of Allocation in the Main Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

VI

List of Figures

List of Figures

2.1 Coordinate systems and unit vectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Local coordinate systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 Absolut QTF of dierence frequencies in yaw at. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4 General view of the computational grid above the SWL. . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.5 Total roll damping derived from model tests at load case one. . . . . . . . 17

2.6 Block diagram of time domain calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.7 Bode plot open controller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.1 Mesh convergence in frequency domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 Visualisation and comparison of panel mesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.3 RAOs of motions in six DoFs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.4 Dimensionless mean wave forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.5 Current coecients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.6 Comparison of wind coecients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.7 Convergence of forces and motions for a decreasing time step. . . . . . . . 36

4.1 Dynamic thrust region and overall thrust limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.2 Step test in surge direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.3 Step test in sway direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.4 Step test in yaw direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.1 Comparison of feedback lter settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.2 Power spectra of yaw motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.3 DP footprint in irregular sea state 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.4 Comparison of mean and standard deviation of bow tunnel thrust. . . . . . 53

5.5 Comparison of thrust allocation statistics in sea state irregular 2. . . . . . 54

5.6 DP Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

A.1 Comparison of yaw moments in time domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

B.1 Comparison of forces by the PID controller and allocator. . . . . . . . . . . 65

List of Tables

3.1 Mesh parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 References values wind and current coecients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.3 Comparison current coecients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.4 Convergence of forces and motions with dt by standard deviations. . . . . 36

4.1 Main particulars and parameters of the vessel's Load Case. . . . . . . . . . 43

4.2 Overview tank step tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.1 Overview model tests in irregular waves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.2 Comparison of statistics in irregular waves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.3 MPM motion in surge and sway at the PoI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

VII

List of Abbreviations

4.2 PID Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.3 Limiting PID output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

C.1 Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

C.2 Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

List of Abbreviations

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

CoG Center of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CoR Center of Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

DoF Dimension of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

DLL Dynamic Link Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DP Dynamic Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III

FRA Fixed Reference Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

GM Metacentric Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

LC Load Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

LCG Longitudinal Center of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

LSA Local Ship Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

MPM Most Probable Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III

OCV Oshore Construction Vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PDF Probability Density Function

PID Proportional Integral Derivative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

PoI Point of Installation

QTF Quadratic Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

RANSE Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

RAO Response Amplitude Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

SLSQP Sequential Least Squares Quadratic Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

SWL Still Water Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

TLP Tension Leg Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

VCG Vertical Center of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

VLCC Very Large Crudeoil Carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VIII

Nomenclature

Nomenclature

Latin Symbols

[x 0; y 0; z 0]T Coordinates in hybrid/heading xed system at CoG [m ]

[x; y; z ]T Coordinates in hybrid/heading xed system at PoI [m ]

[x ; y ; z ]T Coordinates in vessel xed system (LSA) [m]

B Matrix of damping coecients [kg=s ] and [kgm=s ]

F Vector of forces and moments [N ] and [Nm]

MA Matrix of added masse and inertia [kg ] and [kgm2 ]

MRB Matrix of mass and inertia [kg ] and [kgm2 ]

P Matrix of real part of QTF [N=m2 ] and [Nm=m2 ]

Q Matrix of imaginary part of QTF [N=m2 ] and [Nm=m2 ]

s Vector of slock forces and moments [N ] and [Nm]

T Matrix of absolute QTF [N=m ] and [Nm=m2 ]

2

B Breadth [m]

D Draught [m ]

d Water depth [m ]

fx Single thruster force heading xed x direction [N ]

fy Single thruster force heading xed x direction [N ]

Hs Signicant wave height [m ]

LP P Length between perpendiculars [m ]

T Period [s ]

t Time variable [s ]

Tp Peak period [s ]

TZ Zero up-crossing period [s ]

U Absolut relative velocity [m=s ]

T j;t Thrust of single actuator j 2 f1; :::; 8g at time t [N ]

Greek Symbols

[; ; ]T Coordinates in inertial/earth xed system(FRA) [m]

Azimuth thruster angle [ ]

Relative angle of encounter [ ]

^W Wave amplitude [m]

Angle of encouter [ ]

r Displacement [m3 ]

! Circular frequency [rad=s ]

!p Circular peak frequency [rad=s ]

Velocity potential [m2 =s ]

7 Velocity potential due to diraction [m2 =s ]

j Velocity potential due to radiation j 2 f1; :::; 6g [m2 =s ]

IX

Nomenclature

'; ; Euler angles [ ]

'a Roll amplitude [ ]

W Surface elevation [m ]

2 Variance [ 2 ]

Constants

Density sea water 1025:00 [ mkg3 ]

g Acceleration due to gravity 9:81 [ sm2 ]

X

1 Introduction

For the installation of oshore wind farm foundations, GeoSea NV is currently building a new

oating crane vessel. Operability of these vessels is restricted by many indicators, whereas

the ability to maintain position and heading is a minimum requirement. Within the scope of

this thesis an external function for an existing time domain simulation is developed. Taking

the vessel's DP system into account, assessment of the its operational capability is done.

An early design of the vessel in operational condition is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

So far transport and installation as well as maintenance work on turbines and blades is

done with Jack-Up vessels. The process of jacking a vessel up is complex and asks a lot

of preliminary calculation considering soil conditions and the vessel's hull structure (see

DNVGL [8]). Those vessels are always a compromise. On the one hand a hydrodynamic

optimised hull regarding sea keeping performance and transit speed is asked and on the

other hand a stationary platform that has to withstand rough environmental conditions is

needed. Since oshore installations seek deeper waters and rougher soil conditions the need

of oating crane vessels grows. In opposite to cranes on semi-submersible platforms, they

have the advantage of higher transit speeds. Time lost in transit is one point that needs to

be considered when planning oshore operations. During installation at a xed location, the

vessel's ability to maintain that position needs particular examination. Oshore Construction

Vessels (OCVs) in general operate either moored, assisted by tugs, or do have a DP system

that takes the task of stationing and correcting the heading.

1.1 Motivation

The analysed crane vessel will mainly operate on DP. Disregarding other operational limits,

the vessel motions in the horizontal plane can already restrict the operational capability. To

1

1 Introduction

project save oshore operations time domain simulations are conducted. These calculations

strongly depend on considered environmental loads and the vessel model. Loads are modelled

by forces due to irregular waves as well as almost static wind and current velocities. Knowing

the characteristics of the vessel's DP system is crucial for successful operations, hence

the vessel model needs to incorporate that. Therefore, an external function is developed

that comprises the implementation of a position feedback to a controller and an allocation

algorithm that distributes total forces and the yawing moment to the individual thrusters.

DP systems help the crew to keep their vessel in place since years. What all systems do

have in common are a position feedback and the controlled allocation of forces and mo-

ments generated by single thrusters. Following Pinkster and Nienhuis [26] DP systems are

introduced rst in the sixties and have been intensively used and developed in the oshore

industry. They presented an approach to minimize the consumed power by thrusters to the

price of reducing the number of controlled Dimension of Freedoms (DoFs). One thruster is

located at the vessel's bow or aft at the point of environmental load incident. The vessel's

heading is unrestrained and governed by the environmental loads. Although, for purposes

of foundation installation a dedicated heading has to be maintained, since the operation

can benet from shielding eects on the vessel's lee side. A more complex time domain

model has been developed by van den Boom, H. J. J. and Nienhuis [32] and [22]. Thruster

- thruster interactions are considered to compensate for their wake eld and its inuence on

other actuators in close proximity. Wichers et al. [35] promoted research on DP system and

explained that observers are not necessary for time domain simulation since the entire state

vector of the vessel is available. A comprehensive study is provided by Ruth [30]. Dier-

ent allocation algorithms are compared as well as an approach to take thruster ventilation

into account when vessels operate in harsh conditions. Moreover the inuence of dierent

types of controllers is addressed by Rabanal et al. [27]. A way to combine the control and

allocation task trying to avoid infeasible thruster commands is analysed by Veksler et al.

[34] contrasting advantages and disadvantage of model predictive control. Considering roll

motion as being aected by a DP system is done by Rudaa et al. [29]. Additionally classi-

cation societies publish standards on how to model and test DP systems for time domain

calculations (see DNV GL [6]). Most of those subjects are far beyond this thesis. But it

helped a lot to distinguish necessary features for a reliable model from complex full scale

system considering e.g. noises on position signals and observer models like summarized by

Fossen [11].

Regarding the model of environmental loads van Oortmerssen [33] and Pinkster [25] ex-

plained the need to consider slowly varying wave forces of second order that cause motions

at dierence frequencies. A propulsion system cannot counter act high frequent wave forces,

thus that second order forces at dierence frequencies are the governing dynamic load for

a DP system. Slowly varying forces occur in irregular sea state like described by Newman

[20]. Lately Pessoa et al. [24] measured second order motions of an ordinary oating body

in bi-chromatic waves in good agreement with numerical calculations.

2

1.3 Objective and Approach

Following Gutsch et al. [12] assessing response-based operability of OCVs can be summarized

by performance indicators. Here MPM vessel motions indicate the vessels operability.

The main goal of this thesis is the development of an external function that models the

crane vessel's DP system in time domain. The function is written in Fortran and interferes

with the simulation framework of ANSYS Aqwa1 . Although, it is compiled to an Dynamic

Link Library (DLL), hence it can be integrated in other software.2 To counteract the slow

varying motions of the vessel a moving time average lters the position signal derived from

the time integration. Single PID controllers for the three DoFs predict forces in surge and

sway and the yawing moment based on the negative feedback from the lter. After limiting

the maximum commanded forces of the controller, an optimised allocation algorithm is asked

to distribute the total forces and the moment. The implementation of maximum azimuth

rates and a linear acceleration of rpm considers the DP systems dynamics.

Aiming to obtain a reliable vessel model, the response to waves is calculated preliminary in

frequency domain. The inuence of slowly varying second order wave forces is discussed,

and found to have a signicant contribution to the vessel's response. Loads due to wind

and current are considered by force coecients. Although, the DP system acts only in the

three horizontal DoFs roll damping is properly corrected by results from decay tests at model

scale.

The developed model is validated against model tests. Analysing the new build crane vessel,

predictions of MPM motions are calculated in dierent sea states.

1.4 Outline

First, assumptions and the theoretical background are outlined (see section 2) before the

developed numerical model (see section 3) and the implemented external function are in-

troduced in section 4. Validation of the model is done in section 4.4 before results are

presented, conclusions drawn and perspectives given.

A digital version of this thesis comprises the source code of the external function, a script

to compile the function and an exemplary input le.

1 Introduction: https://ansys.com

2 Integration can be done using libraries like python's ctypes that can make Fortran subroutines available.

https://docs.python.org

3

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

Assumptions modelling the crane vessel and its DP system to simulate motion in time

domain are summarised in the following sections. As soon as coordinate systems are given,

theory and assumption on the three environmental disturbances, wave, wind and current are

documented.

The earth xed, inertial system is a right hand orientated and is in the following referred to

as the Fixed Reference Axes (FRA). Its positive longitudinal axis points to the bow of the

vessel and the transverse axis points positive to port-side, thus the vertical axis is orient-

ated positive upward. The origin of the FRA is located in the Still Water Level (SWL) at

the vessels transom on the centre line. The DP system works in the hybrid reference axis,

which has the same orientation as the FRA but is rotated by the yaw angle about the

vertical axis, thus orientation of ~k and the vertical inertial axis are identical (see Figure 2.1

comparing the green hybrid and the black FRA system). Therefore the DP system will only

return forces and moments in the DoFs of the horizontal plane. These are surge with unit

vector ~i, sway with unit vector ~j and yaw indicated with the angle about the axis along

the unit vector ~k . The hybrid system is hereafter also referred to as the heading xed system.

Transformation between coordinate systems are made using the common rigid body trans-

formations about the Euler angles ['; ; ]. The angle ' describes the vessels roll angle

about the ship xed longitudinal axis with the unit vector ~i , the pitch angle about the

transverse axis in the hybrid system ~j.

0 [~i ;~j ; ~k ]T ship xed/LSA

z0

inertial/FRA

90

y0 z

= 0

[0 ; 0 ; 0 ]T ' 0

y

0

x0

CoG x

4

2.1 Coordinate Systems

vessel fore

BTF

BTA fx

0

RFF

T ()

y

0

RFA

x

0

0

fy

y

ld

x

e

ke

PS

wa

P oI

PSM SB

SBM vessel aft

(a) (b)

Figure 2.2: Local coordinate systems. (a) Local heading xed coordinate sys-

tem at PoI and sketch of thruster arrangement. (b) Orientation and

denition of positive thrust direction for azimuth thrusters.

The position vector of the Local Ship Axes (LSA) is given by [0 ; 0 ; 0 ] and points to the

vessel's Center of Gravity (CoG). Values for the analysed Load Case (LC) are given in

Table 4.1. The DP system's set and reference point is dened at a remote location, the

Point of Installation (PoI) (see Figure 2.2 (a)). Presented vessel motions are transferred

to the PoI. Deviations are always given in that heading xed coordinate system. This axis

system is still parallel to the FRA, thus nor roll or pitch are considered. The DP systems

Center of Rotation (CoR) is identical to the PoI.

Figure 2.2 (a) additionally provides a sketch of the foreseen thrusters and their arrangement.

Only azimuth and tunnel thrusters will equip the vessel, thus speaking of a thruster refers to

one of the actuators. Azimuth thrusters are indicated by trapezia and bow tunnel thruster

(BT) by squares. Abbreviations are given according to location on the vessel. E.g. PSM

refers to the azimuth thruster at port-sid mid and RFF to the retractable azimuth thruster at

fore-fore location. Both azimuths at fore-fore and fore-aft location are retractable. Delivered

forces by bow tunnel thrusters are dened positive to port-side.

Figure 2.2 (b) provides the translation of local thruster forces in Cartesian coordinates fx

and fy to the polar coordinate system. Thrust T j () of a single thruster j is referred to as

the resulting pulling force on the vessel. E.g. T P S (90 ) would pull the vessel to port side

and mainly cause a negative yawing moment.

Angles of encounter for environmental loads are dened in the FRA (see Figure 2.1). E.g.

waves hitting on starboard-side correspond to = 90 , since the wave force points in the

same direction as the just explained pulling thrust force. Considering that deviation from

the set heading in operations on DP can be expected to be small , dierent systems become

only relevant performing step tests.

5

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

Waves are dened in the FRA. The assumption of linear Airy wave theory are given below.

The sea bed is horizontal and impermeable.

The uid's density is constant, it is incompressible.

The uid is ideal, it is inviscid.

The surface tension is not considered.

The wave is two dimensional, it is long-crested.

The analysed wave is not aected by other water movement.

The wave motion is assumed to be a potential ow.

The wave amplitude ^W is considerable small in comparison to the wave length .

The wave steepness is considered to be small. Ratios of wave height H and wave

length of H < 0:05 are assumed.

The Laplace equation r2 = 0 can be simplied by applying these assumptions and the

boundary conditions, thus non-linear components in the boundary conditions will be disreg-

arded. The velocity potential is introduced to describe water particle motions and the

wave elevation. It is derived from the Laplace equation which is

@ 2 @ 2

@2 + @ 2 = 0 (2.1)

for the two dimensional case. The following boundary conditions are set to solve this

dierential equation:

@

w = @ = 0 on = d (2.2)

The particle velocity w orthogonal to the sea bed at z= d is zero. This condition

states the impermeability of the bottom.

Kinematic free surface boundary condition

@W @

@t @ = 0 with W (; t ) = 0 (2.3)

This statement denes that no particle leaves the free surface. Particles that are part

of the free surface at (; ) at time t are still part of the free surface at ( + d; + d )

at t + dt .

6

2.2 Wave Theory

@

@t + g W = 0 on =0 (2.4)

It is stated by the dynamic free surface condition that the pressure at the bottom

= 0 is constant. Neglecting the convective terms of the Bernoulli equation this

expression can be derived.

Finally, the linearised and generalised free surface boundary condition:

@ !2

@ + g = 0 on =0 (2.5)

Combining the kinematic, dynamic surface condition and the presence of an harmonic-

ally oscillating velocity potential with the circular frequency ! yields to the general-

ized free-surface boundary condition (see Faltinsen [9]). With the complex, harmonic

approach for the velocity potential = 'e i!t it is one of the conditions used to solve

Equation 2.1.

Considering these boundary conditions together with the Bernoulli approach the Laplace

equation can be solved and derives:

^

= W k!(k ) cosh( k (d + ))

sinh(kd ) sin(k !(k )t ) (2.6)

!(k ) = kg tanh(kd ) (2.7)

p

2

k= (2.8)

Introducing the velocity potential to the dynamic free surface boundary condition the form

of the water surface of a regular linear wave can be described as a function of location x

and time t :

Further references and a thorough description of the linearisation of the Laplace equation is

provided by Clauss et al. [5].

Irregular waves - sea states Surface elevations oshore usually do not have the shape of

one regular linear wave. It is rather an entire sea state consisting of several superimposed

regular waves. This is called an irregular sea state. It is a composition of multiple, linear

sinusoidal waves, each individual wave with its own amplitude, frequency and phase. The

7

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

surface elevation at an arbitrary location can be described as the sum of dierent regular

waves:

n

W i (t ) = ^W cos(!i t i )

X

i

(2.10)

i =1

A Fourier analysis enables the identication of individual values of the wave components

such as the wave amplitude ^Wi from a time trace of an irregular wave. Amplitudes and

frequencies of individual wave components of an entire sea state can be summarised by

an energy density spectrum where the energy density S (! ) is a function of the circular

frequency ! . The wave energy density S (! ) multiplied with the constants as there are the

uid's density and the acceleration due to gravity g results in the energy per unit area of

the wave within the frequency interval ! . As ! ! 0 the wave energy density is dened

to:

S W W

(!i )d! = 21 ^W2 i

(2.11)

Z 1

mn = !n S W W

(!)d! (2.12)

0

The zeroth moment m0 is directly related to the surface elevation in time. The variance of

the surface elevation at a particular location 2 (x;t ) equals the zeroth moment.

Pn

( x; t )

(x; t )

2 Z 1

(x;t ) =

2

W

i =1 W

n 1

i W

= m0 = S (!)d! W W

(2.13)

0

The mean of the surface elevation is given by (x; t ) where (x; t )i indicates one time step.

Parameters which are commonly used to dene a sea state are the peak period and the

signicant wave height. The signicant wave height is directly related to the zero spectral

moment and is dened as:

HS = 4 m0

p (2.14)

At the frequency where the energy density spectrum peaks the circular peak frequency !p is

dened. The more commonly used peak period Tp = 2=!p can be easily converted. Other

periods used to dene a sea state are the averaged wave period T1 = 2 m 0 and the mean

m1

zero up-crossing period TZ = 2 m

q

0.

m2

8

2.3 Vessel Model

Analytical Sea States Simulated sea states are modelled using the analytical formulation

of the JONSWAP spectrum by Houmb and Overvik [14].The spectrum's ordinate denotes

to

g2 a

SW W (!) = 5
exp

5!P4

(2.15)

! 4

4!

where !P is the peak frequency,
the peak enhancement factor, being a constant de-

pending on the signicant wave height HS and

(! !P )2

a = exp 22!P2 (2.16)

0:07 where ! !P

(

= (2.17)

0:09 where ! > !P

The constant factor can be calculated by the spectrums zeroth moment (see Equa-

tion (2.12)).

(

= m

HS =4)2

(2.18)

0 W W

To meet the required HS , scales the discrete spectrum. The peak enhancement factor

is chosen according to [7] if it is not dened by conducted model tests used for validation.

following sections.

Assuming a linear superposition of vessel response per frequency, the common distinction

between loads due to incident waves and loads due to the structure's motion is made (see

Faltinsen [9, ch. 3, pp.39]).

Wave excitation loads on structures being restrained from oscillating, are calculated

according to Froude-Krylo and diraction forces and moments. Froude-Krylo forces

FKr are derived from the velocity potential of the incident wave 0 . Integrating the

pressure on the structures surface Sb in the incident velocity eld yields the Froude-

Krylo forces.

FKr =

Z

0 n~ dS (2.19)

@t

Sb

9

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

Here the vector n~ points into the uid and the potential 0 corresponds to Equa-

tion (2.6). Loads due to the presents of a hydrodynamic compact3 structure, so

called diraction forces and moments caused by deection and reection of incident

waves, are considered introducing the diraction potential 7 . Following Chakrabarti

[4] the diraction potential is also called scattering potential.

Forces and moments acting on the structure, when it is obliged to oscillate in any DoF

at excitation frequency, are described by the additional and individual velocity potential

per DoF, called radiation potential (see Chakrabarti [4, ch.8.1, pp.330]). As soon as

these potentials are derived for a given structure, they are considered as the added

mass and potential damping per exciting wave frequency.

Summarizing the total velocity potential at a point within the uid due to the presents of a

compact moving structure in waves is given by

6

= 0 + j + 7

X

(2.20)

j =1

Additionally to boundary conditions mentioned for 0 in section 2.2 the boundary on the

structures wetted surface is needed

@

s_ T n = (2.21)

@n

where the velocities of the structure's CoG are given by s_ T = [x;_ y;_ z;_ p; q; r ] and the

vector

n

n = (2.22)

rn

with r the vector from the LSA origin (CoG) to the surface. In order to solve the dened

boundary value problem the direction of propagation needs to be dened for the potentials

one to seven. This is done considering the Sommerfeld radiation condition

p @

lim R @R i j = 0 j 2 1; :::6; 7

(2.23)

R!1

p

where = eigenvalues and i = 1. It states that at a innite, radial distance R from

the structures centre (origin LSA) the scattered/diracted and radiated potential need to

vanish.

Linear Transfer Functions Decomposition of linear forces due to the radiated waves of

a oscillating structure delivers hydrodynamic mass and damping coecients. Since these

inertia and damping forces depend on the structures relative acceleration and velocity to the

3 The structures characteristic diameter is larger than 20% of the wave length.

10

2.3 Vessel Model

uid they are considered as the structures response. Obtaining Response Amplitude Oper-

ators (RAOs) this response (radiation potential) is divided by the excitation (incident wave

and the diraction potential). Such RAOs describe the structure's response per unit wave

amplitude and summarize the solution of the rst order boundary value problem. Results

for the six DoF and dierent angles of encounter are presented in section 3.3.

As long as viscous damping is properly considered, wave induced ship motions can be reas-

onably predicted by linear potential theory. But in order to design a mooring or DP system,

forces of second order need to be considered. Second order forces and motions can be

approximated by a Taylor expansion, the pressure can also be expressed as a rst order term

p(1) and a second order term p(2) oscillating about a mean p(0) .

The pressure at a point within the uid of a known velocity potential can be determined

using the Bernoulli equation. The second order term expansion denotes to

p = r

1 ~ @

2 (2)

2 X r ~ ~ @ (1)

:

2

(2) (1)

(2.24)

2 @t @t

According to Journée and Massie [16, Eq. 9.37] this is just one contribution to the calcu-

lation of second order forces. Following Chakrabarti [4, pp. 260] wave induced forces of

second order have dierent causes. Combination of rst order terms like the relative wave

height r as well as the squared velocity within the Bernoulli equation contribute to second

order forces. Using the method of direct pressure integration on the hull Journée and Massie

[16, Eq. (9.52)] distinguish two main contributions.

1. Integration of the second order pressure p(2) (see Equation 2.24) about the mean

wetted surface S0 .

2. Integrating the rst order pressure over the instantaneous wetted surface s results in

a force proportional to the relative wave height r squared.

F~ =

I

1 n~ dl

2 g r

(2) (1) 2

(2.25)

r

wl

Here, the normal vector n~ is pointing from the structure into the uid in the FRA.

The initial surface integral about s degrades to an integral about the waterline (see

Equation 2.25). Drawing on rst order RAOs, r in Equation (2.25) can be substituted

by the transfer function, thus the wave amplitude ^ and the force depends just on the

incident wave amplitude squared.

Pinkster [25] showed that the main contribution to second order forces are to be expected

from the relative surface elevation along the hull. Based on this, contribution from second

order potential (see Equation 2.24 second term) is neglected here on, where as for situation

in shallow water and consideration of forces also in the vertical plane the second order

potential is signicant. According to Faltinsen [9, p. 145] added resistance is equivalent

11

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

to the longitudinal second order wave force component. The added resistance in waves is

caused by products of two rst order terms (see Boese [3]). The time invariant mean is of

this second order forces is commonly known as the mean wave force of individual regular

waves or the wave drift force.

Quadratic Transfer Function In a long-crested irregular sea state the second order force

occurs as a time invariant function, mainly due to the relative wave elevation. Looking at

pairs of waves with frequency !1 and !2 the analogy of a bi-chromatic wave and its envelope

can be drawn. A wave representing that envelope oscillates at a lower frequency than !1 or

!2 . This low frequency waves cause additional forces and following linear superposition also

signicant responses in the low frequency band. This contributions mainly draw on dierence

of frequency pairs !1 !2 called dierence frequencies. The second order force due to this

contribution can be calculated by discrete summation over all frequency combination.

N X

N

F~ (2) = i(1) j(1) P~ij cos((!i !j )t + (i j ))

X

i =1 j =1

N

N X

+ i(1) j(1) Q~ ij sin((!i !j )t + (i j ))

X

(2.26)

i =1 j =1

The vectors P~ij and Q ~ ij are known as Quadratic Transfer Functions (QTFs) since they

are independent of the wave amplitude. For example the second order force component

due to relative wave elevation of the QTFs is determined solving the integral along the

waterline (see Equation (2.25)). While substituting a time dependent formulation for r(1)

into Equation (2.25), addition theorem of trigonometry are needed to express the second

order force Equation 2.26 as a function of dierence frequencies (!i !j ) and actually sum

frequencies. Thus originally also Pij and Pij+ need to be distinguished. Similar developments

can be made for the other contributions to the second order forces (see Chakrabarti [4,

ch.7.2.1.1.2, pp.260] for detailed derivation of contributions). As soon as P and Q consider

all contributions, Equation (2.26) is valid for the total second order force. The QTF matrix

can be calculated in frequency domain after the boundary value problems are solved for the

rst odrer potential and if necessary also the second order potential. In directional sea states

the QTFs also depend on the incident wave direction. Equation (2.26) does not consider

sum frequencies, since these high frequency excitations are more relevant analysing e.g. a

Tension Leg Platform (TLP) where resonance frequencies are higher due to the systems

stiness (see Faltinsen [9, p. 133]). Forces calculated at these dierence frequencies, are

often referred to as slowly varying forces.

The double summation in Equation (2.26) is relatively time consuming and can be simplied.

In order to compute the QTF, ANSYS Aqwa makes use of the approximation by Newman

[20], as long as the contribution of the second order potential is not required. As explained

by Faltinsen [9, pp. 157] Newman's approximation implies that Qij = Qji = 0 and the

summations decrease to one since Pij = Pji = 0:5(Pii + Pjj ), thus low frequency forces

can be calculated by means of the main diagonal of the QTF matrix. Since mean wave

forces and moments do not have a phase information Pii = Tii is required.

12

2.3 Vessel Model

During a time domain simulation ANSYS Aqwa calculates in-stationary second order forces

based on this transfer functions and the instantaneous wave amplitude. Figure 2.3 b) gives

an example of the QTF in yaw, which qis subject to !i and !j and therefore plotted with

isolines of absolute QTF value Tij = (Pij )2 + (Qij )2 .Since the calculation takes advant-

age of the approximation by Newman the plotted matrix is symmetric.

a) b) 1e 4

1.0 4.8

0.9 4.2

[rad/s]

0.8

2

3.6

0.7

2]

W

3.0

0.5 g LPP

Tij

0.6

[

2.4

0.5

1e 4 c)

1.8

0.4 0.00

0.25 1.2

[1/ 2W]

0.3

0.50 Pii

10T1, i 0.75 M3FF 0.6

0.2

|M3FK|

|M3 | 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

7

1= 2 [rad/s]

4 2 0 0.10.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0

[1/ 2W] 1e 3 1 [rad/s]

= 210 .a) Comparison of the matrix's edge !1 = 0:1 rad=s with linear

moment. b) symmetric matrix of absolute QTF. c) Comparison of matrix

main diagonal and absolute mean wave moment by far eld method. All

moments are made dimensionless by 0:5g rLP P .

Averaging Equation (2.26) in time only the matrix main diagonal contributes, and the mean

wave force, is extracted by taking the QTF real part Pii . Using the QTF to calculate

mean wave forces is referred to as the near eld method, since it makes use of the direct

pressure integration along the hull. Although, mean wave (drift) forces are usually calculated

by means of the far eld method, as long as only components in the horizontal plane are

needed. In Figure 2.3 c) the QTF real part Pii is plotted together with the mean wave

force calculated by the far eld method, since the mean does not has a phase delay. Here

the time derivative of the momentum conservation within the structures surrounding uid

is considered. The boundary surfaces are the structure's surface Sb , the lateral surface of

the bounding cylinder S1 at R ! 1, the free surface SF and the sea bed SB . Applying the

13

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

generalized Gauss theorem the volume integral of the momentum G decreases to a surface

integral over the boundaries described above.

@G @

@t n~ + rUn ds

ZZ

@t = (2.27)

S

n~ denotes the positive normal pointing outside of the uid and Un the normal velocity of the

boundary surface (see Faltinsen [9, p. 134 ]). The denoted velocity potential is subject to

the incident wave as well as the diracted and radiated waves by the structure.

Figure 2.3 c) compares both methods. Good agreement is obtained, thus that in section

3.3 only mean wave forces calculated by the far eld method are presented. In case !1

or !2 approaches zero the QTF can be compared against the linear excitation moment

in form of Froud-Krylo M3F K and diraction moments M37 (see Figure 2.3 a)). This

examples indicates up to almost ten times higher linear forces than second order forces.

Although, already Remery and van Oortmerssen [28] showed that slow varying forces should

be considered designing mooring spreads. Since DP systems are only capable to counter

act motions at low frequencies, wave excitation forces in time domain will be considered

applying QTFs here after.

Wind loads are determined using force coecients in the three DoFs of the horizontal plane

in the hybrid reference axes. These are given as functions of the relative angel of encounter

= and the absolute relative wind velocity U . According to DNV GL [6] a one minute

mean value for stationary wind loads is considered.

F ( ) F ( ) M ( )

C1 ( ) = jU 1 jU

W ind

C2 ( ) = jU 2 jU

W ind

C6 ( ) = jU 3 jU

W ind

(2.28)

W ind W ind W ind W ind W ind W ind

Coecients are available for a load case with seven monopiles fastened orthogonal to the

longitudinal axis on the main deck. As illustrated in Figure 2.4 seven transition pieces nd

their place upright on the aft deck for installation of oshore wind farm foundations. A set

of coecients is determined using numerical calculations based on the Reynolds Averaged

Navier Stokes Equations (RANSE) by Maximiano and Schrijvers [19]. The method and

results are presented in section 3. The fact that the crane boom is in rest position, is

expected to have less inuence on the resulting yawing moment and side force due to

wind.

When the vessel's DP system can maintain position and currents are low, relative velocities

are small, according to Fossen [11, p.138] jU j < 2 m=s . Available current coecients are

determined by Maximiano and Schrijvers [19] solving the RANSE. These are provided for a

14

2.3 Vessel Model

Figure 2.4: General view of the computational grid above the SWL. Blue lines

show the grid resolution on the SWL and black lines the surface mesh on

the geometry. [19]

reference velocity of 2 kn and have a quadratic dependency on the velocity. For time domain

simulations they are implemented following Equation (2.28). Validating the numerical model

against model test results from step tests (see section 4.4) have shown that damping in all

three DoFs is underestimated. To match step tests presented in Figure 4.2,4.3 and 4.4 linear

damping is added (see Equation 2.29). Entries of B(1) and B(2) are compared in Table 3.3.

The additional damping is necessary since current coecients by Maximiano and Schrijvers

[19] do not provide forces depending on the yaw rate r . Adding also linear damping in surge

and sway contributes to stabilize the model already at small velocities.

Xu 0 0 Xjuju Xjv jv 0

0 Yv Yr Yju ju Yjv jv 0

B =

(1)

..

. ... .. B

(2)

=

.. . . . .. (2.29)

. . .

0 Nv Nr Njuju Njv jv 0

For simulations of step tests in calm water the software does not take the frequency depended

damping or added mass into account, since no waves are present. Therefore also a frequency

independent added mass is introduced, to take inertia eects into account.

Xu_ 0 0

0 Yv_ Yr_

M =

A

.. ... .. (2.30)

. .

0 Yv_ Nr_

15

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

Added masses and linear damping contributions are taken from calculations in frequency

domain (see section 2.3.1) from the largest available period T = 60 s . Values are given

in section 3.4. Overshoots could be reduced taking inertia forces into account where as

settling times elongate.

Although, the implemented DP system acts only in three DoFs roll damping in time domain

calculations, that are based on potential theory, needs to be properly corrected. That way

calculated accelerations are still available and reasonable, since the system of dierential

equations (see section 2.5 Equation 2.50) is solved in six DoFs.

additional calculations or test results. Here the damping of role motion by radiated waves is

computed by the potential panel code Aqwa Line (see section 3). To consider the missing

viscous damping, results from roll decay model tests are used. Fitting model test data, a

quadratic approach is made to distinguish between governing linear phenomena like damping

by wave radiation and quadratic ones like damping by viscous drag forces or eddy creation.

Therefore, the work done by the damping force acting on the vessel in one roll period is

considered as the sum of a linear and quadratic part and is set to equal the equivalent work

just by a linear force.

ZT ZT

_ (t}) '_ (t )dt = [b| L'{z_ (t}) + b| Qj'_ ({z

b| '{z t )j'_ (t})]'_ (t )dt (2.31)

0 Fequv : 0 FL FQ

The roll motion and its velocity are modelled as harmonics with amplitude 'a and angular

frequency ! .

'_ (t ) = !'a sin(!t ) (2.33)

Substituting Equation 2.32 and 2.33 into Equation 2.31 the work done to damp the roll

motion within one period is described by

ZT ZT ZT

! 'a b sin (!t )dt = ! 'a bL

2 2 2 2 2

sin (!t )dt +! 'a bQ j sin(!t )j sin2(!t )dt

2 3 3

(2.34)

|0 {z } |0 {z } |0 {z }

=! =! 8=(3! )

16

2.3 Vessel Model

Solving the integrals Equation 2.35 gets linearised. Dividing both sides by !'2a the equi-

valent damping value b, which is obtained from model test, is isolated.

8

b = bL + 3 !'a bQ (2.35)

| {z }

FIDP

The total damping derived from model tests is presented in Figure 2.5. Since additional

damping for the diraction analyses will be considered frequency independent b is only a

function of the roll amplitude 'a . For purposes discussed in this thesis only small roll

1e10

1.2

Total damping b in [kgm2/s]

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0

Roll amplitude a in[ ]

Figure 2.5: Total roll damping derived from model tests at load case one.

angles will be relevant, hence a roll damping of the model tests for an amplitude of 'a = 2

is considered. In order to modify the roll damping used during the sea keeping analyses with

Aqwa Line the quadratic part as already marked in Equation 2.35, is taken as a additional

frequency independent damping (FIPD).

kgm2

b('a = 2 ) bL (!' ) = (1:9 109 8:64 108 ) s (2.36)

9 kgm

2

= 1:036 10 s (2.37)

This is a suitable approach, since the inuence in the low frequency part, where hydrostatic

moments related to the vessels Metacentric Height (GM) and also in the high frequency

17

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

range, out of the resonance, where radiation damping and inertias are the governing factors,

is negligible. Usually damping values are given as portion of the linear critical damping bcr it .

2g r GM

bcr it = (2.38)

!'

= 2gH2O 91765 m2 12:44 m 14:8 s

3

2

s

Fraction of critical damping are given in the Table 2.1. Note that the quadratic part is

linearised.

damping for the LC dened in Table 4.1.

Damping %=bcr it

linear 1.598

quadratic 1.916

total (model test) 3.513

The vessel will be controlled in three DoFs - surge, sway and yaw. In automation and control

theory the vessel and its hydrodynamic behaviour are referred to as the plant and the DP

system is evaluated separately as the controller of the plant. The control loop is closed

by a negative feedback of the plant's output, the vessel's position (see Figure 2.6). The

plant is indicated by the green box on the right called ANSYS Aqwa since forces due to

the environment are considered using the existing framework. The other box named DP

user_force shows the comprises the external function with its subroutines.

For a DP system ltering the feedback signal is important to save the actuators from wear

and tear due to oscillating loads in the band of wave frequencies where ! !P . To maintain

position the controller also needs to distribute forces to dierent actuators of the propulsion

units. The considered vessel has in total eight actuators being six azimuth propellers and

two tunnel thrusters. The arrangement is illustrated in Figure 2.2 (a). At the bow azimuth

thrusters are retractable, since enough power is installed at the aft for transit. More detailed

information on the propulsion per thruster regarding open water diagram or comparable has

not been available for this thesis. No machinery or mechanical dynamics are considered.

Commanded thrusts by the allocator are assumed to be available immediately. Nevertheless,

azimuth rates and a constant acceleration of the rpm is considered in both directions and

implemented in the external force.

18

2.4 Dynamic Positioning System

Position & Heading mass and damping Coes.

r

e FPID Thrust Time domain y Position

Controller Integration [; ; ]

Allocation

_ jmax ; T_ max

j

Dynamics QTF

ANSYS Aqwa

Filter

DP user force

Figure 2.6: Block diagram of time domain calculation indicating the interface

for the external function.

The actual DP system on the vessel will have an observer to calculate the prevalent posi-

tion and velocity, based on position measurements and an appropriate mathematical model

following control theory (see Fossen [11]). Since position and velocity are available in a

time domain simulation by integrating the dierential equation explained in section 2.5 no

estimates are needed. Only the time step and the modelling assumptions in the previous

sections inuence the results. An online transformation to frequency domain every time

step to apply dedicated band lters would slow down the computation and is not required,

since the eect of a moving time average is similar to a low pass lter [23]. For a moving

time average the time step and the time constant are necessary to dene the number of

time samples to be averaged. This denitely causes a phase delay between actual position

and average position, which is compensated by a sti controller.

2.4.2 Controller

Three individual controllers are considered to provide the two required forces and the yawing

moment to correct for the error between ltered position and set point. The error e (t ) is

dened in the hybrid system for each DoF by adding the negative feedback y (t ) to the

set point r .

19

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

The set point can be considered as a function in time r (t ) for step tests or to approach an

installation side with a load already on the hook. This mode comparable to a joystick mode

is not further developed. Here the set point is meant to be constant and dened at the PoI

including the yaw angle = 0.

The controllers are chosen to have proportional, integral and derivative gain, thus repres-

enting PID controllers. In a rst attempt the controller was designed to have only a P and

D part comparable to a spring damper system with natural period and a percentage critical

damping. But the back draw of the stationary deviation from the set point remained and an

I part had to be introduced. Although the plant itself already provides an integrative part,

since its transfer function can be modelled by an IT1 element, controllers with additional

integrative contribution are necessary. Characteristic for an IT1 element is a linear increase

of the output for t ! 1 as a response to a step input. A so rough comparison of con-

trollers being capable to work in dierent dedicated modes on a full scale vessel is provided

by Rabanal et al. [27]. The gains of the here implemented PID-Controller are determined

setting the proportional gain and two time constants, the reset time ("Nachstellzeit") I

and the rate time ("Vorhaltezeit") D (see Lunze [18]).

K

KI = P

j

j

; K D = KP D

j j j

(2.40)

I j

Zt

dej (t )

FP ID = KP ej (t ) + KI

j j j

ej (t )dt + KD dt

j

for j 2 f1; 2; 6g (2.41)

0

where the controllers output is either a force in [N ] or the yawing moment in [Nm], thus

the unit of the corresponding gain is dened as [N=m] or [Nm=rad ] respectively.

The gains and time constants are scaled to full scale from the controller used during model

tests. In case no gains are available they can be estimated following Nienhuis [22]. and van

den Boom, H. J. J. and Nienhuis [32] who suggest a procedure based on the vessel's added

mass in the controlled DoFs. The amplitude and phase response of the open controllers are

shown in Bode4 plot Figure 2.7. In the low frequency range the controller shows the typical

integrative behaviour, compensating a stationary set point deviation well. The derivative part

is causing the behaviour in the high frequency range. An innite gain for high frequencies

is usually not desirable, but in combination with the feedback lter, the gain approaches a

constant value.

4 Hendrik Wade Bode (1905 1982), electrical engineer

20

2.4 Dynamic Positioning System

1011

Magnitude

109

107

10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100

90

[ ]

60 Surge

30 Sway

0 Yaw

30

60

90

10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100

[rad/s]

Figure 2.7: Bode plot comparing open controller's frequency response for the

three individually controlled DoFs. Gains are taken from model test, trans-

lated to full scale.

2.4.3 Allocation

The previous described controller provides forces and a moment, that are necessary to keep

the vessel in place. Now these are distributed to the actuators, which is called allocation.

This task usually needs to be described by an optimisation problem, since there are more

free variables than constraints. Here 6 2 + 2 2 + 3 = 17 free variables are chosen.

In total 12 individual forces for x and y direction per azimuth thruster: fxj , fyj with

j 2 f1; :::; 6g,

and three slack variables s = [sx ; sy ; s ]T to allow the optimiser a deviation to the

commanded force by the Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller.

The choice of variables is some how predened by the choice of the actual optimiser. It needs

to be considered beforehand what kind of constraints are required, and what a reasonable

cost function should penalise.

21

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

An optimisation problem is dened in order to nd the individual thrust and azimuth angle

commands per actuator (see section 2.4.3).

min

u;s

u Wu + s Qs

T T

(2.45)

subject to Bu = FP ID + s (2.46)

Au b (2.47)

1s1 (2.48)

It is the optimisers task to minimize the cost function Equation (2.45) with respect to 14

sub forces summarized by u 2 <141 and the three slack variables denoted by s 2 <31 .

The matrices Q 2 <33 and W 2 <1414 are weights to ensure a high cost for missing

the commanded force, by Q >> W. No weights are applied between individual thrusters.

Minimizing the squared forces, has the advantage of achieving a solution that does not

favour uneven distribution of forces. Usually all thrusters should be used in the same range

of workload. The equality constraints are given by Equation 2.46 and represent the need

to match the commanded forces and yawing moment by the controller. Matrix B 2 <1414

contains the thrusters lever arms with respect to the CoR and can reallocate all individual

thruster forces to the two forces and one moment of, FAllocated 2 <61 . The inequality

constraint is introduced by Equation 2.47, in order to stay with in the physical boundaries

of each thruster. Therefore b 2 <141 and A 2 <1414 respectively contain the solution of

the last time step and the thrust rate to ensure a new optimum considering the maximum

turning speed and change in thrust per time step and actuator. The slack variable instead

is unbounded, but remembering the high weight Q it contributes to the cost function quiet

a lot. This kind of problem formulation is solved by an optimiser that can handle quadratic

cost functions.

2.4.5 Solver

The implemented solver uses quadratic programming methods combined with disjunctive

programming techniques. Choosing quadratic programming methods ensures to nd the

global minimum. Likewise it enables using quadratic cost functions that can minimize the

consumed power of all thrusters. For simplicity the power consumption is approximated

by the sum of squared thruster forces. Nevertheless, constraints can only be linear, thus

that the absolute maximum thrust needs to be linearised. This is done approximating the

circle with the radius fx2l + fy2l by a polygon. The easiest approach is done setting four

p

constraints per thruster (see Figure 4.1). Moreover the partial derivatives with respect to all

parameters of cost and constraint functions are needed since the optimiser uses a line search

method. Additional constrains are required to always dene a convex room of solution, that

saves convergence of the solver

The implemented solver is based on the Sequential Least Squares Quadratic Program-

ming (SLSQP) method and is developed by Kraft [17]. Before the actual problem is handed

22

2.5 Equation of Motion

over to the solver it is scaled by the maximum available thrust squared of an azimuth thruster

at the aft of the vessel. The accuracy of the solvers solution as well as the step size is ad-

justed to the scaled problem formulation. Regarding details on the solvers convergence

reference is given to Kraft [17].

optimiser following the algorithm by Nelder-Mead method was tested. Subroutines are

available from the numerical recipes.5 In principle it has the advantage of approaching the

minimum geometrically. Although constraints can only be implemented modifying the cost

function which became soon complex as more and more actuators were considered.

Therefore the quadratic programming algorithm is chosen, not least because deriving the

global minimum is always preferred.

Although only three DoFs in the hybrid reference system are controlled by the DP system

the equation of motion is solved in all six DoFs.

Mx = F

X

(2.49)

[MRB MA + MA(!)] x = FW av e + FW ind + FDP B + B(1)(!) + B(2)jx_ j x_ (2.50)

(1)

where

x_ = [u; v; w; p; q; r ]T (2.51)

Following Fossen [10, p.33] for surface ships at U 0, MA = MA T and MA strictly positive

denite. To acknowledge common sign convention of hydrodynamic derivatives for man-

oeuvring simulations, where e.g. Xu_ is generally negative MA is subtracted in Equation 2.50.

MA(!) denotes the frequency depended added mass due to the radiation potential. The ri-

gid bodies mass matrix with given inertias following Table 4.1 is given by MRB . No moments

of deviation are taken into account. The right hand side has the following contributions:

FW av e denotes the sum of second and rst order wave force. Either excitation forces on

the vessel are calculated using the full QTF of dierence frequencies as explained in

section 2.3.2 page 12 and the rst order forces, or Froud-Krylo and diraction forces

as well as the corresponding mean wave forces calculated by the far eld method are

considered.

FW ind considers the loads due to coecients dened in section 2.3.3. The coecients are

based on the relative wind velocity and loads are calculated multiplying the coecient

with the velocity and its absolute value.

5 http://numerical.recipes

23

2 Background Hydrodynamic Analysis

FDP represents the allocated forces in surge and sway as well as the yawing moment by the

DP system.

B contains linear, frequency independent damping (see section 2.3.4),

(1)

(2)

B (!) the linear, frequency dependent damping derived from the six radiation potentials

(1)

24

3 Numerical Model

The solution of problem statements above either boundary value problems in section 2.3.1

or integration of the system of dierential equations in section 2.5 or the solution of the

optimisation problem in section 2.4.3 is calculated by the potential code Aqwa version 17

which is part of the ANSYS Inc. software framework. The developed external function is

also tested for compatibility with version 18.1 and works with both versions.

Aqwa oers to perform the hydrodynamic analysis in stages.

Stage 1-3 are called Aqwa Line and solves the boundary value problem by calculating source

strengths on a panelled surface. Results are given in form of the rst and second order

excitation forces and the hydrodynamic added mass and damping coecients.

Stage 4-5 comprise the analyses of hydrodynamic responses in sea states, called Aqwa Drift.

At this stage the developed external function to model the DP system is included. The

forces per time step are calculated and Equation (2.50) is integrated in time with a

predictor-corrector method.

Forces on the structure are calculated following potential theory as introduced by Newman

[21]. Considering the software's manual [1, ch. 4.1.2, pp.36], a database of pulsating

Green's function is used to calculate the sought potentials. The lower limit of evaluated

Green's function is ! = 0:001 g=d . To obtain the source distribution over the mean wetted

p

surface, the Hess-Smith constant panel method is used on quadrilateral and triangular panels.

This implies constant potential and source strength on each panel. For detailed derivation

of the numerically solved Fredholm Integrals reference is made to [1].

To analyse the crane vessel for its hydrodynamic response the hull surface needs to be

meshed. The geometry is provided as a .step le by the new building department of

GeoSea NV. Minor simplication are performed. Tunnels for bow thrusters are closed.

The displaced water mass is included in the total displacement mentioned in Table 4.1.

Additionally small single faces at the aft part of the vessel are merged with neighbouring

faces. This allows the meshing algorithm to calculate a homogeneous mesh. This steps

are done with DesignModeller which is part of the Ansys Inc. framework. The surface

mesh, dening the spacial distribution of source strengths is generated by Ansys Workbench.

Mesh settings are documented in Table 3.1. Figure 3.2 gives an impression of the mesh's

resolution. Most of the panels are rectangular. Some interfaces are bridge with triangles.

Force calculation in frequency domain is analysed for convergence with the amount of panels

to discretise the hull. Figure 3.1 shows convergence of mean wave forces and moments with

an increasing number of panels in bow and aft quartering seas heading on port side. Forces

25

3 Numerical Model

01 coarse 1816 5m

02 medium 2812 4m

03 med. ne 6617 3m

04 ne 10107 2m

are compared against results of the next coarser mesh. The mesh no. 02 is compared

against no. 01 and so on. The criterion is calculated averaging over a frequency range of

! = [0:1; 1:0]rad=s .

Z1:0

Fj (; !)d! for j 2 f1; 2; 6g (3.1)

0:1

The relative error documented in Figure 3.1 is always based on the next coarser grid. Except

F1 at 300.00 F2 at 300.00 M3 at 300.00

% difference to coarser grid

10

20

30

40

50

60

2812 6617 10107

No. of diffracting panels.

Figure 3.1: Mesh convergence of mean wave forces in frequency domain in bow

and aft quartering waves for the three controlled DoFs.

26

3.3 Results Frequency Domain Calculation

for mean forces in sway and moments in yaw at waves inciding from 0 and 180 (not

plotted here) convergence could be shown. In that direction diverging forces are acceptable,

since absolute values in that DoFs are small. Although Figure 3.2 does not show obvious

01 coarse mesh

Figure 3.2: Mesh comparison with mesh no. 01 at the bottom and 02 on top

of the picture

dierences the mean wave forces dier signicantly. The mesh used for calculation further

on is chosen to be the medium ne one no. 04 since another renement does not change

mean wave forces signicantly.

The background on wave induced forces is summarized in section 2.3.1. Running Aqwa from

stage one to three the linear response, mean wave forces and the QTFs are calculated. This

hydrodynamic basis is present in the following.

Linear Wave Forces Calculating the frequency dependent added mass and damping of the

vessel by estimating the radiation potential on each panel, RAOs based on linear superposi-

tion of the frequency components are derived for the motion in six DoFs. Figure 3.3 shows

the vessel's responses per unit wave amplitude ^W for the LC of Table 4.1 in operational

condition at 10:5 m draught and a water depth of 40 m. Responses are plotted in steps of

= 30 . Similar motion RAO can be obtained for pairs of bow/aft quartering directions.

The roll resonance frequency at !' = 0:42 rad=s corresponds well to the period derived

from model tests (see Table 4.1).

27

3 Numerical Model

Yawing moments reach a maximum for 60 and 120 .

Surge and sway motion decline fast to almost half the wave amplitude for frequencies

smaller than 0:5 rad=s

Mean Wave Forces Since rst order inciding waves and rst order vessel motion cause

second order wave forces with a mean 6= 0 resulting forces and yawing moments are shown

below. Loads are computed using the method of momentum conservation as described in

section 2.3.2.Here M3 as the mean wave moment in yaw is equivalent to the main diagonal

jTii j in Figure 2.3. Ordinates in Figure 3.4 are made dimensionless, dividing by the waters

density , acceleration of gravity g and the corresponding power of the displacement r.

The oberservations are:

In bow and aft quartering conditions almost symmetric forces and moments act on

the hull.

Yawing moments in bow quartering waves at = 150 result in larger loads, compared

to waves inciding at aft quartering waves ( = 30 ).

In all three DoFs a rst peak is reached in the area of roll resonance, before the mean

forces and moments approach a constant value.

Oscillations at ! > 0:1rad=s are of numerical nature, due to the far eld method.

Even in beam seas the hull encounters a mean force 6= 0 in surge direction (see

Figure 3.4 a) ). 0:6 rad=s .

28

3.3 Results Frequency Domain Calculation

0 60 120 180

30 90 150

1e1

1.6

Roll in [ /m]

Surge in [m/m]

4 1.4

1.2

3 1.0

0.8

2

0.6

1 0.4

0.2

0 0.0

5 1.0

Sway in [m/m]

Pitch in [ /m]

4 0.8

3 0.6

2 0.4

1 0.2

0 0.0

1e 1

1.2

Yaw in [ /m]

Heave in [m/m]

5

1.0

4

0.8

0.6 3

0.4 2

0.2 1

0.0 0

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

in [rad/s] in [rad/s]

Figure 3.3: RAOs of motions in six DoFs for dierent angles of encounter at

10:5 m draught and 40 m water depth.

29

3 Numerical Model

0 60 120 180

30 90 150

1e 4 a)

]

4

g 2W

2 F1

[

Surge in

4

1e 3 b)

2.0

g 2W]

2 F2

[

1.5

Sway in

1.0

0.5

0.0

c)

1.5 1e 4

2]

W

2 M3

1.0

g LPP

[

Yaw in

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

in [rad/s]

Figure 3.4: Dimensionless mean wave forces a) surge b) sway and c) yaw mo-

ment per squared wave amplitude ^W for dierent angle of encounter at

2

30

3.4 Current and Wind Coecients

Coecients used to determine wind and current loads as explained in section 2.3.3 and 2.3.4

are calculated by means of the open-usage CFD code ReFRESCO 6 solving the RANSE.

Maximiano and Schrijvers [19] decided for the following assumptions to derive the coe-

cients.

A stationary ow and forces are considered, thus that unsteady eects in the wake

are neglected.

The inow velocity is uniform; for the wind calculations the atmospheric boundary

layer is foreseen in vertical direction.

Eects of a free deforming water surface are not considered, thus a at slip wall is

implemented.

The water depth is meant to be large enough that no shallow water eects are expec-

ted.

The grid for current calculations has 33 million cells and is rened for the centre skeg at

the aft and the bilge keels. The maximum y + is smaller than ve, thus no wall function is

used. Almost 31 million cells are necessary to mesh the structures above the SWL. The

deck layout is mainly shaped by six monopiles and corresponding transition pieces as well as

the deckhouse, crane pedestal and boom. The maximum y + is smaller than two. Numerical

settings are:

The boundaries of the cylindrical domain (radius with respect to vessels main frame 4 LP P ,

bottom for at 500 m or atmosphere at 4 LP P respectively) are dened as follows - inow:

zero normal gradient for the pressure,

eddy viscosity ratio equals one and the turbulence intensity is set to 1%.

6 http://refresco.org

31

3 Numerical Model

At the outow boundary a constant zero pressure and for all other quantities a zero gradient

boundary is applied. At the water surface a free-slip boundary with a normal velocity of zero

is set. For wind calculations the water surface is meant to be a no-slip boundary. The wind

prole is dened by a reference wind speed Ur ef = 30 m=s at a height of ten meter above

the SWL.

z

0:135

U (z ) = Ur ef z10 (3.2)

Initial conditions are chosen according to the inow boundary settings. Iterative convergence

is understood to be reached considering the L2 norm where residuals decrease by third order

and more. Following Maximiano and Schrijvers [19] this is commonly considered to be

sucient convergence for steady state calculations.

the vessel's centre line at the main frame. Reference values of coecient determined by

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) are summarized in Table 3.2.

F

Cj () = 0:5 U 2 j L z with j 2 f1; 2; 6g (3.3)

r ef PP r ef

Applied quadratic coecients depending on the absolute, relative current velocity and its

angle of encounter Cl () are presented in Figure 3.5 and are calculated following Equa-

tion (3.3). Results of currents from > 180 on port-side are mirrored and shown in

dashed lines and empty markers. Symmetry along the vessel's longitudinal centre is proven.

Environment Ur ef zr ef

Wind 30 m=s 51 m

Current 2 kn 10:5 m

Current Since coecients calculated by CFD do not supply loads due to yaw motion,

alternatives are sought. The idea is to take the radiation damping in yaw due to yaw motion

B66

(1)

at the lowest available frequency. In order to categorise this value, comparison is also

presented in the other two DoFs. The third reference is taken from the SIMMAN 7 workshop

2008. A Very Large Crudeoil Carrier (VLCC) has been investigated for its manoeuvring

performance. The carriers main dimensions are LP P = 320 m, B = 58 m,D = 20:8 m and

a block coecient of cB = 0:81. A summary of the workshop is given by Stern et al. [31].

Table 3.3 compares the coecients of dierent dependency. all are calculated following

Equation (3.3) and are multiplied by 103 . However, comparison is dicult, since dierent

7 Reference tanker beeing investigated in the SIMMAN workshop 2008. http://simman2008.dk

32

3.4 Current and Wind Coecients

C2(0 180 ) C2(195 345 )

10 C6(0 180 ) 10 C6(195 345 )

1.00

C( ) [ ]

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Angle of encounter [ ]

Figure 3.5: Quadratic current coecients calculated by CFD.

Table 3.3: Comparison of linear and quadratic current coecients per unit ve-

locity. All coecients are multiplied by 103.

DoF X Y N

Order u ju ju v jv jv vvv r jr jr rrr

Bll(1) (0:1 r ads ) 68:90 16:60 34:45

MARIN CFD 23:00 734:00

KVLCC1 2:20 1:50 24:00 2:23 74:7 3:32 0:27 1:25

assumptions lead to that coecients. Data for the VLCC are given for a quasi stationary

situation at a transit speed of 15:5 kn. Even if they are multiplied by the transit speed, thus

all values in Table 3.3 are based on a unit velocity of 1 m=s , coecients in any DoF or by

any method do not seem related. Anyhow, a damping due to yaw was missing and is applied

by adding the radiation damping at ! = 0:1 rad=s . Moreover the linear damping in surge

and sway is also added frequency independent, since the vessel on DP turns about a remote

CoR it starts to drift, thus that u and v are 6= 0. A comparison of the dierent applied

coecients, additionally to the quadratic coecients from Maximiano and Schrijvers [19],

is done for the yaw step test (see Figure 4.4). It is observed that linear damping and added

mass result in a numerical model closer to model tests.

33

3 Numerical Model

The corresponding added mass coecient are taken into account as well like described in

section 2.3.4 page 14. The main diagonal in Equation (3.4) is given dimensionless, relative

to the vessel's displacement in kg or the inertia kgm2 (see Table 4.1).

0:082 0 0

M =

A .. ... .. (3.4)

. .

2:0 108kgm2

0 0:385

The performance during step test could be improved by minimizing overshoots considering

the frequency independent added mass and damping.

Finally it needs to be concluded, that largest velocities and acceleration are observed during

step tests. Since the main goal is the simulation of the DP system in irregular waves, where

only much smaller velocities occur, the choice of current coecients is not outstanding

(compare appendix A, Figure A.1).

Wind Wind coecients resulting from CFD calculations are presented in Figure 3.6 and

derived from [19]. A wind Moment due to yawing like for relatives velocities in water, is

not added. Comparison is made to coecients calculated following Blendermann [2]. The

C1 CFD C2 CFD 10 C6 CFD

1.00

C( ) [ ]

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Angle of encounter [ ]

Figure 3.6: Comparison of wind coecients.

chosen vessel for comparison is identied by its number DRI0103 [2, p. 25] and has the deck

34

3.5 Time Domain Calculation

layout of a drilling vessel with the tower around the mainframe. The equivalent wind prole

is applied. Loads predicted following Blendermann [2] are generally larger except for the

surge direction. Here the inuence of the monopiles (length>BW L ) orientated orthogonal

to the longitudinal axis make the dierence. Calculations regarding station keeping are only

made with coecients taken from CFD calculations.

Equation (2.50) is integrated in two steps following a predictor corrector method (see AN-

SYS Inc. [1, ch.13.8, p.161].

Predictor Forces on the right hand side are calculated considering the initial position and

velocity or the ones of the last time step. Initial position is given by [0 ; 0 ; 0 ] also all angles

set to zero. Velocities are set to zero as well, thus the calculations starts at rest position.

prevalent acceleration is won substituting the total force in Equation (2.49) and solving for

x. An intermediate new velocity x_ and position x is derived.

x_ (t + dt ) = x_ (t ) + x(t ) dt (3.5)

dt 2

x (t + dt ) = x + x_ (t ) dt + x(t ) (3.6)

2

(3.7)

Corrector Again the total force is calculated but now based on the intermediate position

and velocity and an intermediate force F (t + dt ) is derived. This is again substituted in

Equation (2.49) to obtain accelerations at t + dt . Finally the new position and velocity can

be derived integrating the new acceleration.

x(t ) + x(t + dt ) dt

x_ (t + dt ) = x_ (t ) + (3.8)

2

x(t + dt ) = x + x_ (t ) dt +

2x(t ) + x(t + dt ) dt 2 (3.9)

6

(3.10)

Time Step Dependency For time domain simulations it is essential to use a dedicated

time step, that is proven to do not inuence the results. A set of time steps is investigated

and standard deviations of the allocated force in surge and sway as well as the yawing

moment are compared in Table 3.4. Standard deviations of forces and moments are made

dimensionless by g; ; r and LP P . Additional standard deviations of the resulting position of

the PoI in the hybrid axes as well as of the heading are given for decreasing time step. Time

step dt = 0:2 s is chosen as accurate enough since standard deviation of allocated forces by

35

3 Numerical Model

dt x y F 1 F 2 M3

[s ] [m] [m ] [m ] r]

[ 104

g r]

[ 104

g

[ r

g LP P

]

105

0.050 0.313 0.410 0.284 1.538 3.679 9.148

0.100 0.309 0.413 0.284 1.546 3.688 9.229

0.150 0.307 0.416 0.284 1.540 3.700 9.303

0.200 0.308 0.420 0.286 1.546 3.738 9.341

0.300 0.308 0.447 0.291 1.555 3.951 9.236

0.400 0.314 0.498 0.307 1.557 4.010 9.100

the user_force and resulting positions do not change much, as the dt is further decreased.

Figure 3.7 proves this choice since with time steps dt < 0:2 s standard deviations of motions

and most forces/moment, do not change signicantly compared to the next longer time

step. Note that this is an exemplary study for approximately half an hour duration, since

the maximum result le size is easily reached with short time steps. The computation time

% difference to next longer time step

6

x

y

8

F1

10 F2

M3

12 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.02

dt [s]

Figure 3.7: Convergence of forces and motions for a decreasing time step in-

dicated by standard deviations for x; y; (solid) and allocated forces

F1 ; F2 ; M3 (dashed) in an irregular sea state of HS = 3 m, TP = 8 s ,

= 1:55 and an angle of encounter = 210 .

36

3.6 Postprocessing

increased from approximately some minutes for the largest time step to almost a quarter of

an hour for the shortest one.

3.6 Postprocessing

5 by a footprint of the deviation in x and y and a distribution of the heading angle. The

footprint is calculated transforming the Cartesian coordinates in a polar system. The nal

footprint is the result of a two dimensional histogram with 36 bins in angular direction and

a radial step of 2 mm. The last bin ends at r = 2 m. Summing the lled bins along each

direction and stopping e.g when 99% of all trajectory points in that direction are summed

up, gives the probable radius per angular bin that will not be exceeded in 99% of time. Since

this is signicantly inuenced by outliers and events are also evaluated independent of their

occurrence. The MPM is used as the criterion for DP envelopes (see section 5.5).

Most probable maximum Denition is exemplary shown for the surge motion.

xmax = 2 x ln2Nx

r

(3.11)

Here x denotes the standard deviation of x (t ) and Nx the number of cycles determined

analysing the corresponding time trace for its zero up crossings TZx . Signals analysed for

their zero crossings do have a zero mean.

37

4 Implementation of Dynamic Positioning System

The DP routine is written to interfere at the user_force interface of the ANSYS Inc. Aqwa

time domain simulation called Aqwa Drift. The external function or user_force needs to

be provided as a DLL which is called twice per time step by the Aqwa main routine, since

it uses a predictor corrector time integration scheme. The steps are called stages and are

distinguished by the user_force input variable integer::stage 2 f1; 2g. Just before the

system of equations is solved the user_force is asked for forces to be considered that step

of integration. Generally the user_force runs in three dierent modi. The integer::mode

2 f0; 1; 99g is passed on from the main routine. Initially mode=0 is only called once, mode=1

every time step twice and mode=99 once after the last time step is completed.

The header of the external function's template by the software developer provides the

declared variables and is provided by programme code C.1 in the appendix. The main

routine of the developed external function is only provided on the digital appendix called

uf_sourceCode.f90. The variables I_CONTROL,R_CONTROL can be used to pass on integers

and real values from the Aqwa Drift conguration le to the user_force. The following

parameters need to be set. A template AD_template.dat is provided on the appended disc

R_CONTROL[19] sets the time constant F for the feedback lter in seconds.

R_CONTROL[93,...,96] set the PoI by three coordinates in the FRA and the heading

that has to be maintained.

R_CONTROL[87,...,92] set the delta for a step test in the FRA. Entry 89

provides the dt relative to the rst time step.

and is structured in decks. Within deck zero options to use the full QTF matrix and to

call the external function are set. Deck one to eight are not used before in deck nine the

frequency independent added masses and damping values are given. Deck ten holds the

interface variables I_ and R_CONTROL as well as the current and wind coecients of second

order. Wind and current speeds are dened in deck 11 before deck 13 takes the information

about wave spectra. The time step is set in deck 16. The other pre declared variables

denote as follows. POSITION contains the vector to the prevalent CoG's position and the

structures Euler angles in the FRA. VELOCITIES are also passed on by the main routine in

the FRA and are given for the vessels CoG. The CoG's coordinates [0 ; 0 ; 0 ] are stored

for t = 0 and provided by COG in the FRA relative to the vessel's transom, the centre line

and the SWL.

Returned to the main routine are the variables FORCE, ADDMASS and ERRORFLAG. The re-

turned added mass is always zero where as the force passed back to the main routine has

three entries 6= 0 for the rst two DoFs and the sixth, representing the allocated yawing

moment. As position and velocity are provided for the vessel's CoG also forces, meant to

be returned to the main routine, need to be translated to that point and act along the FRA.

Declarations of variables are documented in programme code C.1.

Additional declaration for implemented subroutines are explained by comments within the

les on the digital appendix. To compile and link the source code written in Fortran the

38

4.1 Feedback Filter

gfortran gcc-7.2.0 compiler, part of the mingw-64 project8 (version 5), is used. The

script to compile and link the function built-user_force64.bat is also provided on the

appended disc.

The results calculated by the external function are saved to the hard drive each time step.

Files are rst temporary located at C:\temp\user_force64\ before they are copied to the

current working directory at the end of each simulation. It is strongly recommended to run

every computation in a dedicated directory, hence existing les will be overwritten. The

vessel's position by the CoG, the set point, the vessel xed velocity and the ltered motion

of the CoG in the FRA is stored in pos.txt. Values are given in m or rad respectively.

Forces calculated by the controller, and allocated forces by the optimiser routine are saved

to forces.txt. Values are given in N or Nm respectively. The allocated thrusts and

azimuth angles per thruster, as dened in Figure 2.2 (b), are stored in thruster.txt each

time step. Angles are given in deg between 180 and +180 . The last two columns of

that le provide also the number of iterations of the optimiser and the status. Regarding

dierent statuses reference is given to Williams [36]. The le log.txt provides even more

information on the gains and optimiser runs.

According to section 2.4.1 the position lter is implemented as a moving average in time. In

a temporary le a list with the inertial trajectory and Euler angles [; ; ; '; ; ] is stored.

The list's length corresponds to the lter's time constant and the chosen time step. In

predictor stage, the ltered position from the last time step is used. Each corrector step,

the list gets updated with the new position. Before the list gets updated, the actual ltered

position is calculated by averaging the list's entries unweighted in time. Programme code

4.1 shows the lter's implementation.

,! (2)

2 ! Just for initializing

3 POSITION_avg(:,1) = (/ (0.), (0.), (0.), (0.), (0.), (0.) /)

4 ! Kick first entry in the list.

5 last_Positions(1:avg_timesteps-1,:) = last_Positions(2:avg_timesteps,:)

6 ! Append current position at the end of the list.

7 last_Positions(avg_timesteps,:) = POSITION(:,1)

8 ! Write updated list to file, to save for next time step

9 open(unit=50,file="c:\\temp\\user_force64\\lastFRA.dat", &

10 form='formatted',status='REPLACE')

11 ! Summation over all entries in list

12 DO i=1,avg_timesteps

13 WRITE(50,*) (last_Positions(i,j),j=1,DOF)

14 POSITION_avg(:,1) = POSITION_avg(:,1) + last_Positions(i,:)

15 ENDDO

8 Project reference: MinGW-64 original project MinGW for 64 bit. Ready build gcc compiler are hosted on

sourceforge.net

39

4 Implementation of Dynamic Positioning System

16 close(50)

17 ! Average

18 POSITION_avg(:,1) = POSITION_avg(:,1)/avg_timesteps

19 ELSEIF (STAGE.EQ.1) THEN ! Moving average predictor stage (1)

20 ! List is not updated, but position is always averaged.

21 POSITION_avg(:,1) = (SUM(last_Positions, DIM=1))/avg_timesteps

22 ENDIF

4.2 Controller

Commanded forces for the allocator are calculated by a PID Controller according to section

2.4.2. Gains are hard coded and chosen like explained above. Forces and the yawing moment

are returned to the main routine as well as the error in all DoFs and the controllers integral

part. Where as the subroutine PID is called in both stages, error and integral are only

updated after the corrector stage. Although the set point in the conguration le is given

at the PoI it is translated to the CoG, thus the error is calculated there and in the FRA.

This way the calculated position by the Aqwa main routine does not need to be translated to

the PoI. Since no big deviations from the set point in yaw are expected this is a reasonable

approach. Programme code 2.41 shows the way of implementation.

2 sub_Error, sub_Error_old, &

3 sub_Integral, sub_Integral_old, &

4 sub_FORCE, sub_dt, sub_PID_Gains)

5 IMPLICIT NONE

6 REAL, INTENT(IN) :: sub_dt

7 REAL, DIMENSION (6), INTENT(IN) :: sub_POSITION, &

8 sub_Setpoint, sub_Error_old, sub_Integral_old

9 REAL, DIMENSION (6), INTENT(OUT) :: sub_FORCE, sub_Error

10 REAL, DIMENSION (6), INTENT(OUT) :: sub_Integral

11 REAL, DIMENSION (6,3), INTENT(OUT) :: sub_PID_Gains

12 REAL, DIMENSION (6) :: sub_Derivative, sub_Kp, sub_Kr, sub_Ki

13 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

14 sub_Kp = [3.203e+05,5.678e+05,0.,0.,0.,1.522e+09] ! P

15 sub_Ki = [2.142e+03,3.797e+03,0.,0.,0.,9.499e+06] ! I

16 sub_Kr = [9.655e+06,1.712e+07,0.,0.,0.,4.918e+10] ! D

17 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

18 sub_Error = (sub_Setpoint - sub_POSITION) *sub_Kp

19 sub_Integral = sub_Integral_old + sub_Error*sub_dt*sub_Ki

20 sub_Derivative = (sub_Error-sub_Error_old)/sub_dt *sub_Kr

21 sub_FORCE = sub_Error + sub_Derivative + sub_Integral

22 END SUBROUTINE PID

40

4.3 Allocation

Limiting the commanded force and moment is necessary since the allocator, which is

connected in series to the controller is bounded to maximum thruster forces and a max-

imum yawing moment. Summing up an absolute, maximum force ahead, transverse and the

absolute, maximum moment by all thrusters can raise is used to limit the PID command.

Necessity is tested by two independent if statements (see row 3 and 8).

2 FORCE_pre_ang(1,1) = ATAN2(FORCE_pre(2,1),FORCE_pre(1,1))

3 IF (FORCE_pre_abs(1,1).GE.FORCE_max(1,1)) THEN

4 WRITE(99,*) 'Lidding abs. force :', FORCE_max(1,1), ' < ', FORCE_pre_abs

5 FORCE_pre(1,1) = FORCE_max(1,1) * COS(FORCE_pre_ang(1,1))

6 FORCE_pre(2,1) = FORCE_max(1,1) * SIN(FORCE_pre_ang(1,1))

7 ENDIF

8 IF (ABS(FORCE_pre(6,1)).GE.MOMENT_max(1,1)) THEN

9 WRITE(99,*) 'Lidding abs. moment:', MOMENT_max(1,1), ' < ', FORCE_pre(6,1)

10 FORCE_pre(6,1) = SIGN(MOMENT_max(1,1),FORCE_pre(6,1))

11 ENDIF

4.3 Allocation

Commanded forces from the controller are distributed to the individual actuators. Two

free variables per azimuth thruster and one free variable for a tunnel thruster are chosen

(see section 2.4.3). The optimisation algorithm collaborates all these in one vector x. To

implement the dynamic thrust regions also x_old is introduced but misses the information

for the slack variables. Like it is implemented in programme code C.2 row four, the slack

variables are initialized with zero each optimiser run. More detail on the used optimiser and

its implementation can be found in section 2.4.5 and here below on page 42. The optimiser's

source is provided in the digital appendix in the modules beginning with slsqp_ ...f90 or

can be downloaded at reference [36]. Since the optimiser is expected to match allocated

and the commanded force tau_pid, it is proven to save simulation time by running the

allocation algorithm only in the corrector stage (stage=2), maintaining results unaected.

In appendix B the controller and allocator forces and moments are compared for a time

domain simulation of an exemplary sea state. The resulting footprint stays unaected.

Only in sway the allocator can not aord the commanded force by the controller and shows

slightly lower forces in the low frequency range (see Figure B.1). Before the optimiser is

initialized the problem is scaled by the squared maximum available thrust of azimuth thruster

one. Either the input or the step size needs to be scaled to the problem. Scaling the input

aims numerical stability of the solver.

Thruster dynamics Thruster rates in angular as well as in radial direction are considered,

adjusting the optimiser's over all bounds each run. Initial values are set in the source le

craneVessel_62_thrustutils.f90. The optimiser oers the x_u and x_l variable for

upper and lower bounds for each component of the free variable vector x. As shown in row

41

4 Implementation of Dynamic Positioning System

10 to 20 of programme code C.2 in the appendix, either the thrust rate or the thrusters

maximum thrust sets the upper bound x_u. Like illustrated in Figure 4.1 e.g. the lower

limits per azimuth thruster x_l[j] and x_l[j+1] are set to fxjmin and fyjmin . This is done

for all actuators up to index 14 of x. The azimuth rate is checked after the optimiser has

found the best solution. It is checked and probably reset if change rates are exceeded in

the subroutine checkAzimuthRates dened in craneVessel_62_thrustutils.f90. The

subroutine in row 51 translates x and y forces to the polar notation and compares azimuth

angles of last and current time steps (see subroutine fxfy2rpmAlpha also implemented

in module craneVessel_62_thrustutils.f90). It then resets the new angle if neces-

sary, but keeps the new allocated thrust command. The sum of thruster forces and the

yawing moment is recalculated in sumAllocated, which is agian provided by the module

craneVessel_62_thrustutils.f90.

fxj

j

T m ax

fxjmax = Tmax

j

= 2

p

t +1

fxj;max

t +1

fyj;max T j; t fyj;mint +1

fyjmax = fxjmax

fxj;mint +1

fyj

Figure 4.1: Dynamic thrust region and overall thrust limits. (Source: author)

tion 2.4.5). It can handle a quadratic cost function and linear constraints. A mod-

ern Fortran version of the SLSQP algorithm is provided by Williams [36]. The open

source code comes in modules, which are compiled by the gfortran compiler like the

other code of the external function. The cost function is implemented as shown by

slsqp_costfunc_craneVessel_62_slack.f90 on the digital appendix.Equality constraints

need to be implemented rst, before inequality constraints. Since this optimiser already

provided the overall bound x_u and x_l no inequality constraints are needed. In case a

better denition of the maximum thrust region as shown in Figure 4.1 is needed linear

constraints can be implemented after the rst three equality constraints to meet the com-

manded controller forces and the yawing moment. A detailed description of how to dene

those constraints and translate them from the polar coordinate system to the here chosen

42

4.4 Validation

free variables per azimuth thruster in x and y direction is provided by Ruth [30, pp.74, ch.

4.4.2]. Since the optimiser works only with constraints that dene a convex environment

where it can converge and nd the minimum, easily sub allocation problems occur. As soon

as a thruster has two possible convex sub environments, where valid solutions for x can be

found combinations of sub allocation problems have to be optimised after each other and

nally evaluated for the global minimum.

4.4 Validation

System properties are investigated best performing step tests in the three DoFs the

system is controlled (see DNV GL [6, ch.6.1.3.10; p.42]). Here the controller's set

point resembles a step function with dened deltas. Step tests shown in Figure 4.2 to

4.4 show the behaviour of the entire closed control loop with negative feedback (section 2.4).

To judge simulation results model test data is analysed. Tank tests were conducted at the

Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) by Heerink and Beks [13]. At a geometric

scale of 1 to 40 the water depth in the shallow water basin corresponds to 40 m full scale.

The position measurement was done by an optical system consisting of three cameras fol-

lowing a target mounted on the vessel. Control of the actuators was done by the DP system

of the actual propulsion supplier of the analysed crane vessel. Table 4.1 presents the tested

LC.

Table 4.1: Main particulars and parameters of the vessel's Load Case.

Draught T 10.50 [m]

Displacement r 91765 [m3]

Length between perpendiculars LP P 206.30 [m]

Breadth moulded on SWL BW L 49.00 [m]

Longitudinal Center of Gravity (LCG) 0 102.28 [m]

Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG) 0 2.27 [m]

Metacentric height GM 1.94 [m]

Mass radius of gyration around x -axis Kxx 0 0:49 [BW L]

Mass radius of gyration around y -axis Ky y 0 0:27 [LP P ]

Mass radius of gyration around z -axis K 0 zz 0:28 [LP P ]

Natural period in roll motion T' 14.80 [s ]

The mass matrix for calculations with the external function is based on the given

particulars, the CoG and the radii of gyration from Table 4.1. The location of the Aft

Perpendicular (AP) is dened at 8:477 m in front of the transom.

43

4 Implementation of Dynamic Positioning System

Results from these tests are analysed to judge the performance of the external function and

the numerical model in general. Here, regarding the vessel's step response (see section 4.3)

and in section 5 the vessel's station keeping performance in waves (see section 5).

Step test parameters are summarised in Table 4.2. Out of rest position the DP set point is

001_007_01 Surge step 1:0 m

001_008_01 Sway step +1:0 m

001_009_01 Yaw step +5:0

set immediately to 1 m in surge or sway or to 5 in yaw direction. Steps have always been

conducted independently for every DoF. Corresponding test numbers are given in Table 4.2.

The vessel's response is analysed for overshoot and settling time.

All gures present the time traces of the heading xed motions of the PoI x and y and

the vessel's yaw angle. Model test show dierent raise and settling times depending on

the step size. One step test is depicted for validation and shown in the following gures.

This non-linear behaviour can be provoked by additional lters, virtual moving set points

that approach the actual set point or other limitations to the controllers output that are

not modelled by the external function. As long as relative velocities are small, step tests

computed with the developed DP system, show a linear response disregarding the step delta

(see section 2.3.4).

The yaw step shown in Figure 4.3 is performed around the PoI since position of x and y

almost do not change. Although, the vessel turns much slower during model test, larger

deviation from the set point in both DoFs are observed.

Speeds to approach the new set point in x or y direction shown in Figure 4.2 and 4.3 match

model test results best. Gains from model test work well with the numerical model, even

though not all characteristics of the full scale DP could be implemented in the numerical

model. In surge the settling time agrees well with derived times at model tests, although

the overshoot is predicted smaller by simulation. This could indicate a too soft model in

surge or sway. However in yaw direction the numerical model tends to be way to sti.

Generally, step responses with the controller settings explained in section 2.4.2 are satisfying,

and prove a reasonable model. Although, it is still to be shown that the numerical model is

not too sti or too soft in all DoFs, to match also model test results in waves, since step

test do not explain the model response to high frequent disturbances.

44

4.4 Validation

a)

1

x [m]

MARIN

AQWA

0

y [m]

2 MARIN

AQWA

1

0

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 c)

[ ]

MARIN

6 AQWA

4

2

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

t [s]

Figure 4.2: Time traces of PoI in hybrid axes (a), b)) and the vessels yaw angle

during surge step test comparing model test (blue) and simulation results

(green).

45

4 Implementation of Dynamic Positioning System

a)

1

x [m]

1

MARIN

AQWA

20 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 b)

y [m]

2 MARIN

AQWA

1

0

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 c)

[ ]

MARIN

6 AQWA

4

2

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

t [s]

Figure 4.3: Time traces of PoI in hybrid axes (a), b)) and the vessels yaw angle

during sway step test comparing model test (blue) and simulation results

(green).

46

4.4 Validation

a)

1

x [m]

0

MARIN

AQWA

1 AQWA VLCC

AQWA B(1) = 0

20 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 b)

y [m]

2 MARIN

AQWA

1 AQWA VLCC

AQWA B(1) = 0

0

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 c)

8

[ ]

6

4 MARIN

AQWA

2 AQWA VLCC

AQWA B(1) = 0

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

t [s]

Figure 4.4: Time traces of PoI in hybrid axes (a), b)) and the vessels yaw angle

during yaw step test comparing model test (blue) and simulation results

(green). For the step test in yaw additional dierent current coecients

are tested. No linear coecients dashed dotted, and coecients from the

tanker by dashed lines.

47

5 Results

5 Results

oshore. In order to assess the vessels operational capability at a given sea state, dierent

scenarios are simulated with the developed external function. The indicators that evaluate

the capability are the MPM motions in the horizontal plane. Inuences of the assumptions

on the station keeping performance are discussed and criteria to judge the operational

capability are given.

The considered LC is described in Table 4.1. Presented trajectories, envelopes or footprints

are always given for the PoI in the heading xed coordinate system. For installation

purposes it is easier to judge operability by deviation from the PoI, orthogonal to and inline

with the vessel's centre line. Therefore results are translated from CoG to the PoI and are

corrected only for the yaw angle , to obtain heading xed trajectories.

To evaluate simulations on DP in waves, model test results are analysed from Heerink

and Beks [13] (see also section 4.4). The conducted sea state, that serves for validation,

is summarised in Table 5.1. For this test campaign the vessel has only been exposed

Table 5.1: Overview model tests in irregular waves.

Description Type

02BT_03_ [h] [m] [s] [] [-]

006_001_01 Irregular 2 JONSWAP 3.0 3.0 8.0 210.0 1.55

to waves. In the 220 m long and 15:8 m wide basin, waves are generated at the far

short end. The vessel was located at approximately three quarters of the basin length

before the lattice type beach that absorbs the waves generated at the other short end

by a piston type wave maker. To realise dierent angles of encounter the vessel was rotated.

In section 2.4.1 the feedback lter is introduced. To avoid oscillating commands to the

actuators at high frequencies, a reasonable time constant F is sought for the time average.

For simplicity the same time constant is applied for all three DoFs.

Three settings are investigated, where F = 1 s corresponds to almost no ltering of the

position signal. Sea state 2 from model tests is simulated for approximately 30 min with

F set to 8 and 16 s . Figure 5.1 shows the overall allocated forces in Figure a) and c)

and the yawing moment in d) transformed back from time domain to frequency domain. It

is observed that the time constant and the lter in general have a signicant inuence on

the allocated forces. For F = 8 s almost all energy in the region of the wave frequency

is ltered out. Figure 5.1 b) shows the nal inuence on the DP footprint. It is obvious

that a too long time constant causes delays, that let the actuators react too slowly, thus

that the station keeping performance decreases. For all other simulations F = 8 s is proven

to contribute to a stable controller-plant behaviour. During calculation of sea states with

48

5.2 Inuence Second Order Wave Forces

1e12 a) b)

2

Power spectrum F1 [N 2/s]

x in [m]

F =1s 99% Footprint F = 1 s

3.0 F =8s 99% Footprint F = 8 s

F = 16 s 99% Footprint F = 16 s

2.5 1

2.0

0

1.5

1.0

1

0.5

0.00 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 22 1 0 1 2

Period T [s] y in [m]

1e13 c) 1e16 d)

Power spectrum F2 [N 2/s]

F =8s F =8s

1.75 F = 16 s 3.0 F = 16 s

1.50 2.5

1.25

2.0

1.00

1.5

0.75

0.50 1.0

0.25 0.5

0.000 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0.00 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Period T [s] Period T [s]

Figure 5.1: Comparison of feedback lter settings by force power spectra in the

three controlled DoFs and DP footprints for three dierent time constants

F in sea state 2 (JONSWAP HS = 3 m; Tp = 8 s ;
= 1:55).

durations comparable to tank tests, the chosen time constant and the lter technique in

general are conrmed.

The inuence of calculating excitation forces due to waves with QTFs is already indicated

in section 2.3.2.

Both, time domain simulations considering wave forces using QTFs and just applying Froud-

Krylo and Diraction forces in combination with mean wave forces are conducted. The

sea state 2 is used as an example and simulated for three hours. The resulting yaw motion

of the vessel is transformed back to frequency domain, thus the power spectrum is shown in

Figure 5.2. Considering wave forces by QTFs results in larger yaw amplitudes at long periods

above T 40 s . The gures legend provides the standard deviation of yaw motion. Since

it corresponds to the zeroth moment of the plotted power spectra, larger over all motions

are conrmed, when wave forces due to QTFs are taken into account. It can clearly be

observed that considering wave forces at dierence frequencies is denitely conservative if

position keeping is addressed. Remembering that an azimuth thruster is usually restricted to

49

5 Results

0.0025

S ( ) in [rad 2/s]

With QTF = 0.25

Without QTF = 0.06

0.0020

0.0015

0.0010

0.0005

T in [s]

Figure 5.2: Power spectra of yaw motion in bow quartering waves at 210 ,

comparing the inuence of wave forces by QTF in sea state 2 (JONSWAP

HS = 3 m; Tp = 8 s ; = 1:55).

rates of 720 per minute, a lot of energy of the yaw motion is located in that low frequency

region above 40 s (see Figure 5.2).

5.3 DP Footprint

For given environmental conditions like at conducted model tests presented in section 4.4,

DP footprints are the means of visualising the vessels trajectory. Background on how

these are determined can be obtained from subsection 3.6, page 37. Additionally, the

combination of the MPM motion in heading xed longitudinal and transverse direction give

a rectangular, which indicates the maximum expected motion.

Figure 5.3 compares footprints of model tests in irregular sea state 2 and simulation results

(see Table 5.1, page 48). Subgure 5.3 a) gives indication on the probability density function

of the vessel's heading.

As the result of a smaller standard deviation psi during model test, the modelled DP

seems less sti in yaw.

Statistics of the vessel's trajectory are compared in Figure 5.3 b). The following is ob-

served.

Generally, statistical predictions, by means of simulations with the external function

to maintain position, match model test results well.

50

5.3 DP Footprint

The rectangular of MPM motion in x and y of model test results in sea state 2 predicts

less motion in sway than in surge.

The trajectory calculated (green) indicates an opposing behaviour.

As per Table 5.2 the mean zero up-crossing period and standard deviation for the three

controlled DoFs are summarised for sea state 2. The zero crossing periods are determined

standard deviations and averaged zero up-crossing periods of horizontal vessel

motion and yaw angle in sea state 2.

HS = 3 m x y psi TZ x TZ y TZ

Tp = 8 s [m] [m] [m] [s ] [s ] [s ]

AQWA 0.34 0.40 0.26 30.6 65.3 43.5

MARIN 0.43 0.39 0.18 55.3 66.0 23.8

directly from individual time traces with a zero mean. Interpreting the periods of a single

DoF as individual natural periods for that particular sea state observations from Figure 5.3

b) are conrmed, since larger natural periods correspond to softer systems. The numerical

vessel model is less sti in yaw compared to model test results but stier in surge. Motions

in sway direction generally match, considering the MPM motion in Cartesian coordinates.

51

5 Results

PDF( ) [ ] 1e 2 a)

2 = 0.18

= 0.26

1

0

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

[ ]

b)

2

x [m]

99% Footprint AQWA

22 1 0 1 2

y [m]

Figure 5.3: DP footprint in irregular sea state 2 (JONSWAP HS = 3 m; Tp =

8 s ;
= 1:55) at = 210 , bow quartering seas. Green and blue lines

compare simulation and model test results based on a three hours sea state.

Subgure a) compares the heading's probability density function and Sub-

gure b) 99% condence footprints of the heading xed position of the PoI.

Dashed lines indicate the combination of MPM motion in x and y .

52

5.4 Statistics Thrust Allocation

Since a stable thrust allocation method is implemented, that corresponds to the full scale

system, thruster behaviour simulated by the external function and during model test is

confronted in the following. Presented thrust is given with respect to the maximum

capacity of each actuator.

Figure 5.4 and 5.5 compare statistics of thrust allocation from model tests and simulation.

Sea state 2 is simulated for approximately three hours. From model tests only the feedback

signal of each thruster is analysed, since the external function does not distinguish between

allocated command and feedback.

Mean values of thrust and the mean orientation are indicated by markers. In radial

direction simulated mean thrust per actuators is in good agreement with the model test.

However, the mean thrust direction diers for ve of six thrusters by almost 15 . Since,

resulting motion of the vessel is still comparable to model tests (see Figure 5.3), the bow

thrusters are used more during simulation as indicated by about 30% higher mean thrusts

in Figure 5.4.

T[%] BTA AQWA T[%] BTA MARIN

40 20 0 20 40

% of Tmax

Figure 5.4: Comparison of mean and standard deviation of bow tunnel thrust in

percentage of maximum available thrust from simulation (green) and model

test (blue) in sea state 2 (JONSWAP HS = 3 m; Tp = 8 s ;
= 1:55.

Areas represent the corresponding standard deviation in percentage of maximum thrust and

angular direction. For comparison red areas mark the spoil zones, that are only considered

at tank tests. A spoil zone denes an angle range that is unfavourable regarding thruster

hull or thruster-thruster interaction. Both is not considered by the external function, since

the process of allocation would need much more development. Reference is given to Ruth

[30]. Since that green and red angle ranges overlap only slightly for the fore retractable

thruster RFF and the port-side thruster PS, results of the external function are still reliable.

All six simulated thrusters show a wide angular standard deviation compared to the model

test records. Although, the area indicated by feedback signals from model tests always lays

within the simulated one.

53

5 Results

AQWA: PDF( ) 100 % [ , T] [± , ± T]

RFF vessel fore a) RFA vessel fore b)

30 330 30 330

60 300 60 300

90 270 90 270

5% 5%

10 % 10 %

120 15 % 240 120 15 % 240

20 % 20 %

PS 150 210 c) SB 150 210 d)

30 330 30 330

60 300 60 300

90 270 90 270

5% 5%

10 % 10 %

120 15 % 240 120 15 % 240

20 % 20 %

PSM 150 210 e) SBM 150 210 f)

30 330 30 330

60 300 60 300

90 270 90 270

5% 5%

10 % 10 %

120 15 % 240 120 15 % 240

20 % 20 %

150 210 150 210

vessel aft vessel aft

Figure 5.5: Comparison of thrust allocation statistics for azimuth thrusters in

sea state 2 (JONSWAP HS = 3 m; Tp = 8 s ;
= 1:55). Comparison of

simulation (green) and model test (blue) by mean values (dots). Areas

give the standard deviation of azimuth angle [ ] and thrust in percentage

of maximum thrust. Red areas indicate spoil zones. Lines show PDFs of

azimuth angles .

54

5.5 DP Envelope

Additionally, Figure 5.5 provides PDFs of the thrusters azimuth angle. Presented distribu-

tions are scaled to full '()d = 100. Mean angle and the angle with the maximum

R

Generally the propulsion system is not used to capacity. The areas given by the standard

deviation of the azimuth angle and the feedback thrust signal show no saturation of any

thruster. Since MPM vessel motion in the horizontal are already close to the operational

limit, it can be concluded, that the propulsion system will not be the limiting factor.

5.5 DP Envelope

In order to evaluate the vessel's operational capability referring to horizontal motions, it is

a common approach to calculate the maximum sea state, where the vessel can maintain

position within a given tolerance. Such studies can also be asked by the classication society

or the marine warranty surveyor and are summarised by a DP envelope plot.

180 170 16

12.0 0 15

01

10.5 40

MPM x 9.0

13

MPM y 7.5

01

vWmin 6.0

20

vWmax 4.5

11

3.0

0 100 90 80 70 6

1.5

0.0

[ ]

vW [m/s]

0

50

40

30

20 1

0 0

Figure 5.6: DP Envelope for a current velocity of 1:03 m=s . Envelopes ensure

a MPM surge (blue) or sway motion (orange) of less then 2 m at that sea

state dened by the radial plotted wind speed vW .

55

5 Results

Parameters dening the sea state are related. Here relations according to the table by

IMCA [15, p.2] are considered. The wave spectrum is a JONSWAP spectrum and follows

the formulation in section 2.3.1. The peak enhancement factor
is chosen to 3:3. To

calculate the maximum sea state, wind wave and current are aligned. A DP envelope for a

constant current of 1:03 m=s is shown by the maximum one minute mean wind velocity in

Figure 5.6.

The criteria are the MPM motion smaller than 2 m in x and y , that ensure safe installation

operations. For a symmetric vessel only half of the envelop is calculated. Even though the

deck layout might not be symmetric along the longitudinal axis, the wind coecients for

loads from port and starboard side do not dier much (see section 3.4). Wind loads are

based on a constant one minute mean velocity.

Table 5.3: MPM motion in surge and sway at the PoI for a maximum one

minute wind velocity corresponding to Figure 5.6.

MPM x MPM y

[] [m] [m ]

0.0 1.727 0.038

15.0 2.436 1.174

20.0 1.977 0.963

30.0 1.962 1.446

45.0 1.542 1.854

60.0 1.642 1.960

75.0 1.775 1.733

90.0 0.789 1.729

105.0 1.713 1.923

120.0 1.631 1.967

135.0 1.545 1.772

150.0 1.563 1.794

160.0 1.692 1.170

165.0 1.968 1.364

180.0 1.687 0.052

The blue envelope gives the maximum sea state with MPM surge motion of less than 2 m.

Respectively, the orange line ensures a MPM sway motion of less then 2 m. Obviously

the vessels surge motion is less in beam seas and the vessel's sway motion is less in head

or following seas, thus at those angle of encounter good operability can be predicted.

However, the maximum wind velocity for both motions dene the performance indicator

to assess operational capability. Since a shielding eect of the vessel can be expected at a

draught of 10:5 m, installation on the vessel's lee side might be favourable when objects

need to be lifted through the splash zone. Short waves with length in the range of the

lifted object's characteristic length might be diracted on the vessel's lu side. For small

deviations from head seas up to 150 the sway motion is not the limiting factor. At

this angle of encounter the same maximum wind velocity is derived for both motions in

56

5.5 DP Envelope

the horizontal plane, hence it is found to be the favourable corresponding relative angle of

encounter = = 30 for oshore installations with environmental loads from one

direction. Although, in an environment heading in from beam direction, the allowable wind

speed decreases to 4 m=s which corresponds to a sea state of HS = 1:58 m TP = 5:86 s .

The corresponding MPM motions are summarised in Table 5.3. For = 15 the

minimum wind velocity for the set of simulation was chosen to fast, thus that the criterion

in surge can not be fullled. The actually operational capability regarding MPM hori-

zontal motion of the vessel in that direction will be smaller, speaking of a less high sea state.

In order to get reliable data per direction the wind speed should only be increased by small

steps. Moreover a duration of at least three hours needs to be simulated per wind speed.

Although, it occurs that the criterion is missed in a particular sea state but is again met

in a slightly higher wind speed. Here the maximum wind speed is obtained as soon as the

allowable MPM is exceeded. Actually, also dierent seeds have to be simulated or even

longer duration than three hours are necessary to get a statistically better database. The

amount of simulation is already reduced, since the range of wind speeds is adjusted for

the angle of encounter. The wind speed increment is constant but for loads around beam

conditions only smaller wind speeds are simulated. Therefore the maximum and minimum

expected wind speed is plotted in Figure 5.6, to indicate if the performance could even be

better or worse if the minimum wind speed was considered too slow or too fast at a particular

angle of encounter.

57

6 Conclusion

6 Conclusion

A crane vessel operating on dynamic positioning is modelled. The time domain simulation

software Aqwa Drift as part of the ANSYS Inc. framework is extended by an external

function in the form of a DLL written in Fortran. The library provides the developed model

of the vessel's DP system for three DoFs. Subroutines are implemented for

the position feedback lter,

the PID controller,

and an interface to an optimised allocation algorithm by quadratic programming.

Previous to the development of the external function, the vessel is analysed for its response

in waves and sea states. Frequency domain calculations with the panel code Aqwa Line are

conducted. Convergence of mean wave forces is obtained with increasing mesh resolution.

Considering QTFs of dierence frequencies, in order to calculate the second order wave

forces, is proven to be necessary, since larger motions are observed in later time domain

simulations.

Environmental inuences by wind and current are modelled using a system of coecients

derived from CFD calculations by Maximiano and Schrijvers [19]. In order to perform step

tests in calm water, frequency independent damping and added mass is utilised to account

for linear derivatives. This is found to be necessary, since it stabilises the vessel model in

calm water.

Results in time domain are investigated for their time step dependency. Convergence of

forces and resulting motions is derived for a time step of dt = 0:2 s .

Step tests in calm water as well as simulations on DP in waves are validated against model

tests. Comparing step test results show a well behaved numerical model in all three DoFs.

Since the actual set point during model tests remains unclear, larger overshoots and settling

times are observed in yaw step tests.

Regardless those uncertainties at step tests the controller behaves well in irregular

disturbances. The model's response on DP in sea state 2 from model tests, is in good

agreement with the test results. DP footprints in sea state only simulations match model

test results well. In a three hours sea state of HS = 3 m and TP = 8 s the PoI alongside

the vessel stays within a square of 3 m edge length. However, simulations show a less sti

numerical model in yaw compared to tank tests and oppositely stier in surge direction.

The feedback lter of the external function is identical for the three DoFs. Since this might

not be the case for the model test DP, individual time constants for the external function

could solve this problem of dierent natural periods.

The external function comprises a thrust allocation for six azimuth thrusters and two bow

tunnel thrusters. Statistics of simulations in waves on DP are compared against feedback

signals from thrusters at tank tests. Except for the bow tunnel thrusters, mean thrust can

be reliably predicted but standard deviations of azimuth angles are larger than during model

tests. For the conducted sea state the propulsion system's workload does not seem to be

the limiting factor, since horizontal vessel motions are close to the operational limit.

58

From calculations where the vessel is exposed to directionally aligned disturbances due to

wind, current and waves a DP envelope is derived. This holding study, evaluates MPM

motions of the vessel in sea states dened by increasing wind velocities.

Assessing the vessel's operational capability, is based on its DP envelope (see Figure 5.6).

The MPM horizontal motions in x and y at the PoI are the performance indicators that

are evaluated to calculate the maximum one minute wind velocity for each angle of en-

counter. For save operations the MPM is restricted to a amplitude of 2:0 m. Combining

both indicators results in a maximum wind velocity of 10 m=s at bow quartering seas (see

Figure 5.6 = 160 ). Following IMCA [15] it corresponds to a sea state with HS = 3:1 m

and TP = 8:2 s .

7 Perspective

The developed external function is dedicated to model the DP system of the specic crane

vessel. Both the numerical vessel model and the external function are coordinated to

represent a reliable closed control loop. This is the basis for further analyses of installation

methods. Next to the introduced indicators of motion in surge and sway, the consideration

of the MPM yaw motion could make predictions for save installation operations more reliable.

Since the vessel is currently build, predictions of expected motions during operation are

meant to be conservative. In case future operations or safety standards set stricter limits

for horizontal motion, more advanced DP modes are necessary, to allow less vessel motion.

A known feature, that can improve the accuracy of a DP system, is the direct collaboration

of thrusters in groups. The power supply for the actuators will anyhow be provided for single

groups of thrusters, to full redundancy requirements. Thrusters in groups, work against

each other,thus only the dierence in thrust of both results in overall forces and moments.

This serves a system that does not need much azimuth angle changes and works up to a

limit of absolute environmental loads. Since at a point, more than half of the DP capacity

is needed, azimuth thruster would need to rotate and the DP mode has to change.

To include such a feature the external function would need further development. Regarding

the optimiser's cost function a more complex allocation problem needs to be dened. As

already indicated in section 4 sub allocation problems for dierent convex rooms of local

minimums need to be optimised before the global minimum can be derived from the results

of sub solutions.

Another aspect is the consideration of roll motion. Since this model already incorporates

proper correction of viscous roll damping (see section 2.3.5) the inuence of the DP system

on roll motion can be investigated. The developed user force needs to be expanded by

a second moment. As shown in section 5.4 unused resources of thrust could be used for

additional roll damping due to single dedicated thrusters operating in a roll damping mode.

59

References

[2] Blendermann, W. (Dezember 1996). Wind Loading of Ships - Collected Data from Wind

Tunnel tests in Uniform Flow: Bericht Nr. 574.

[3] Boese, P. (1970). Eine einfache Methode zur Berechnung der Widerstandserhöhung

eines Schies im Seegang. Technical Report 258, Institut fuer Schibau der Universitaet

Hamburg, Hamburg.

[4] Chakrabarti, S. K. (1994). Hydrodynamics of oshore structures. Computational Mech-

anics, Southampton.

[5] Clauss, G., Lehmann, E., and Östergaard, C. (1992). Oshore Structures: Volume I:

Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics. Springer, London.

[6] DNV GL (07.2016). Assessment of station keeping capability of dynamic positioning

vessels. Standard DNVGL-ST-0111.

[7] DNV GL (08.2017). Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads. Recommen-

ded Practice DNVGL-RP-C205.

[8] DNVGL (10.2016). Site specic assessment of mobile oshore units for marine warranty.

Standard DNVGL-ST-N002.

[9] Faltinsen, O. M. (1990). Sea loads on ships and oshore structures. Cambridge ocean

technology series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, paperback ed., reprinted. edi-

tion.

[10] Fossen, T. I. (1994). Guidance and control of ocean vehicles. Wiley, Chichester.

[11] Fossen, T. I. (2011). Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion control.

Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K and Hoboken N.J.

[12] Gutsch, M., Sprenger, F., and Steen, S. (2016). Inuence of Design Parameters on

Operability of Oshore Construction Vessels. Jahrbuch der Schibautechnischen Gesell-

schaft, 110:230241.

[13] Heerink, R. and Beks, D. (2018). Orion HLV model tests for the validation of the

time domain aNySIM model. Technical Report 30384-3-BT, Maritime Research Institute

Netherlands, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

[14] Houmb, O. G. and Overvik, T. (1976). Parameterization of wave spectra. In Technische

Hogeschool Delft and Norges tekniske høgskole, editors, First International Conference on

the Behaviour of O-shore Structures (BOSS '76), volume 1, pages 144169, Trondheim,

Norway. Norwegian Institute of Technology.

[15] IMCA (06.2000). Specication for DP Capability Plots. Technical Report IMCA M I

40.

61

References

of Technology, rst edition.

[17] Kraft, D. (1994). Algorithm 733: TOMPFortran Modules for Optimal Control Cal-

culations. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 20(3):262281.

[18] Lunze, J. (2013). Regelungstechnik 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[19] Maximiano, A. and Schrijvers, P. (2016). Current and Wind Loads on a Wind Tur-

bine Installation Vessel. Technical Report 29817-5-CPO, Maritime Research Institute

Netherlands, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

[20] Newman, J. N. (1974). Second-order, slowly-varying forces on vessels in irregular

waves. In Bishop, R. E. D. and Price, W. G., editors, International Symposium on the

Dynamics of Marine Vehicles on Structures in Waves, pages 193197, London, UK.

Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd.

[21] Newman, J. N. (1979). The theory of ship motions. Advances in Applied Mechanics,

18:221283.

[22] Nienhuis, U. A. (1987). Simulations of Low Frequency Motions of Dynamically Posi-

tioned oshore Structures. In Royal Institution of Naval Architects, editor, RINA Trans-

actions and Annual Report, pages 112, London. RINA.

[23] Oppenheim, A. V., Schafer, R. W., and Buck, J. R. (1998). Discrete-time signal

processing. Prentice Hall and Prentice-Hall International (UK), Upper Saddler River, NJ

and London, 2nd ed. edition.

[24] Pessoa, J., Fonseca, N., and Soares, C. G. (2013). Analysis of the First Order and

Slowly Varying Motions of an Axisymmetric Floating Body in Bichromatic Waves. Journal

of Oshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 135(1):111.

[25] Pinkster, J. A. (1980). Low Frequency Second Order Wave Exciting Forces on Floating

Structures. Doctor, Technische Hogeschool Delft, Delft.

[26] Pinkster, J. A. and Nienhuis, U. A. (1986). Dynamic Positioning Of Large Tankers

At Sea. In American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.,

editor, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Oshore Technology Conference, volume OTC

5208, pages 459467. Oshore Technology Conference.

[27] Rabanal, O. M., Brodtkorb, A. H., and Breivik, M. (2016). Comparing Controllers for

Dynamic Positioning of Ships in Extreme Seas. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(23):258264.

[28] Remery, G. and van Oortmerssen, G. (1973). The Mean Wave, Wind And Current

Forces On Oshore Structures And Their Role In The Design Of Mooring Systems.

In American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., editor,

Proceedings of the 5th Annual Oshore Technology Conference, pages 169184. Oshore

Technology Conference.

[29] Rudaa, S. E., Steen, S., and Hassani, V. (2016). Use of Tunnel- and Azimuthing

Thrusters for Roll Damping of Ships. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(23):546551.

62

[30] Ruth, E. (2008). Propulsion control and thrust allocation on marine vessels. Doctor,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

[31] Stern, F., Agdrup, K., Kim, S. Y., Cura-Hochbaum, A., Rhee, K. P., Quadvlieg,

F., Perdon, P., Hino, T., Broglia, R., and Gorski, J. (2011). Experience from SIMMAN

2008The First Workshop on Verication and Validation of Ship Maneuvering Simulation

Methods. Journal of Ship Research, 55(2):135147.

[32] van den Boom, H. J. J. and Nienhuis, U. A. (1983). Hydrodynamic Analysis of Dy-

namically Positioned Vessels. In Yeung, R. W., editor, The proceedings: International

Workshop on Ship and Platform Motions, pages 363383, Berkeley, CA. Dept. of Naval

Architecture and Oshore Engineering, University of California.

[33] van Oortmerssen, G. (1977). The Behaviour of Moored Ships in Waves. In American

Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., editor, Proceedings of

the 9th annual Oshore Technology Conference, volume OTC1977-2882, Houston.

[34] Veksler, A., Johansen, T. A., Borrelli, F., and Realfsen, B. (2016). Dynamic Positioning

With Model Predictive Control. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,

24(4):13401353.

[35] Wichers, J., Bultema, S., and Matten, R. (1998). Hydrodynamic Research on and

Optimizing Dynamic Positioning System of a Deep Water Drilling Vessel. In American

Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., editor, Proceedings of

the 30th annual Oshore Technology Conference, volume OTC1998-8854, pages 112,

Houston. Oshore Technology Conference.

[36] Williams, J. (2018). Modern Fortran Edition of the SLSQP Optimizer. ht-

tps://github.com/jacobwilliams/slsqp. [Accessed: April 2018].

63

Appendix

Appendix

Figure A.1 compares the three applied environmental loads in an exemplary time domain

simulation by derived power spectra. Wind and current loads are applied following section

3.4. It can be observed that wave loads are the governing environment since the standard

deviation is more than ten times larger.

1e 8 = 5.41e-05 [-]

[ ]

4 Wave

g LPP

M3

0

1e 9 = 5.65e-06 [-]

1.5 Current

1.0

0.5

0.0

1e 13 = 1.03e-07 [-]

3 Wind

2

1

0

1e 7 = 6.92e-05 [-]

2 DP userForce

0

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Period T [s]

and wind. A sea state corresponding to a wind speed of 9:0 m=s (JONSWAP

HS = 2:9 m; Tp = 7:9 s ; = 3:3) is simulated as well as loads due to

wind and a current of 1:03 m=s . Time domain results are presented by

power spectra. All loads are aligned at = 150 and made dimensionless.

Additional comparison is made to the moment allocated by the external DP

function at the bottom.

64

B Comparison Commanded and Allocated Forces

In Figure B.1 the sum of allocated forces and the commanded force by the controller are

compared in the sea state irregular 2.

a) b)

1.0 1e12 2.0

Power spectrum F1 [N 2/s]

x in [m]

PID command 99% Footprint PID command

of Allocated 1.5 99% Footprint of Allocated

0.8

1.0

0.6 0.5

0.0

0.4 0.5

1.0

0.2

1.5

0.00 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 2.02 1 0 1 2

Period T [s] y in [m]

c) d)

1.0 1e13 1e16

Power spectrum M3 [Nm2/s]

Power spectrum F2 [N 2/s]

of Allocated of Allocated

0.8 1.2

1.0

0.6

0.8

0.4 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.00 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0.00 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Period T [s] Period T [s]

Figure B.1: Comparison of forces and the yawing moment by the PID controller

and the allocator in the sea state irregular 2 (JONSWAP HS = 3 m; Tp =

8 s ;
= 1:55). In green forces as commanded by the PID in predictor and

corrector stage and in black the sum of all allocated forces calculated by

the optimizer applied in corrector stage. Figure a) and b) compare the

power spectra of forces, c) the spectrum of the yawing moment and d) the

corresponding footprint.

The green line shows a simulation without allocation. The black the method like describe

in section 4 performing the allocation only in the corrector step. The force in sway and the

yawing moment show some slack (see c) and d)) where as the footprint stays unaected.

This comparison is necessary, since the optimiser is only run in the correcter stage of time

integration. To avoid divergence of the optimiser when sudden high force gradients to the

65

Appendix

previous time steps are calculated in predictor stage it is enough to run the optimiser ones.

It is exemplary shown that the duration of computations can be shortened.

The developed external function is provided by the digital appendix together with this doc-

umentation on a compact disc. It comprises:

The batch script built-user_force64.bat to compile the function with the

gfortran compiler. If the script is edit with the prevalent installation directory of

the installed Aqwa version the compiled user_force.dll is copied, as the user has

permission to that directory.

The source code of the external function with its main routine

uf_sourceCode.f90. Modules and subroutines are located in the sub direct-

ory .\externalFunction_craneVesselDP_v182\src\.

An example of a conguration le for a time domain simulation with Aqwa Drift

and the developed external function (.\aqwaDrift_exampleRun\AD_template.dat).

Exemplary result les saved by the external function, are provided as well.

In the following section parts of source code are appended, that are referenced and explained

in section 4.

Programme code C.1 documents the basic structure of the user_force (see section 4) and

the initial declaration of variables to interfere with the Aqwa main routine.

2 TIMESTEP,STAGE, POSITION,VELOCITY,COG, &

3 FORCE,ADDMASS, &

4 ERRORFLAG) bind(C, name="USER_FORCE")

5 !DECLARATION TO MAKE USER_FORCE PUBLIC WITH UN-MANGLED NAME

6 !DEC$ attributes dllexport , STDCALL , ALIAS : "USER_FORCE" :: user_force

7 !BL

8 !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES REFERENCE :: I_CONTROL, R_CONTROL

9 !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES REFERENCE :: POSITION, VELOCITY, COG, FORCE, ADDMASS

10 !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES REFERENCE :: MODE, NSTRUC, TIME, TIMESTEP, STAGE

11 !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES REFERENCE :: ERRORFLAG

12 ! DECLARATION - USER_FORCE

13 IMPLICIT NONE

14 INTEGER MODE, NSTRUC, STAGE, ERRORFLAG

15 REAL TIME, TIMESTEP

16 INTEGER, DIMENSION (100) :: I_CONTROL

17 REAL, DIMENSION (100) :: R_CONTROL

18 REAL, DIMENSION (3,NSTRUC) :: COG

19 REAL, DIMENSION (6,NSTRUC) :: POSITION, VELOCITY, FORCE

20 REAL, DIMENSION (6,6,NSTRUC) :: ADDMASS

66

21 IF (MODE.EQ.0) THEN

22 !...

23 ELSEIF (MODE.EQ.1) THEN

24 !...

25 ELSEIF (MODE.EQ.99) THEN

26 !...

27 ENDIF

28 RETURN

29 END SUBROUTINE USER_FORCE

1 IF (STAGE.EQ.2) THEN

2 ! Initialize solver with solution from last time step

3 x(1:14) = x_old

4 x(15:17)= [0.0_wp,0.0_wp,0.0_wp]

5 write(99,*) 'Initial solution', x

6 ! Handover commanded force/moment from pid to solver.

7 tau_pid = (/FORCE_pre(1,1), FORCE_pre(2,1), FORCE_pre(6,1)/)

8 tau_pid = MATMUL(TRANSPOSE(TRAFO3),tau_pid) !! FRA to LSA

9 write(99,*) 'PID', tau_pid

10 ! Dynamic thrust regions

11 do i = 1,nAT,1

12 xl(i*2-1) = max(-max_Thrust(i),x_old(i*2-1) -

,! thrustRate(i)*max_Thrust(1)**2/sqrt(2.))

13 xl(i*2 ) = max(-max_Thrust(i),x_old(i*2 ) -

,! thrustRate(i)*max_Thrust(1)**2/sqrt(2.))

14 xu(i*2-1) = min( max_Thrust(i),x_old(i*2-1) +

,! thrustRate(i)*max_Thrust(1)**2/sqrt(2.))

15 xu(i*2 ) = min( max_Thrust(i),x_old(i*2 ) +

,! thrustRate(i)*max_Thrust(1)**2/sqrt(2.))

16 enddo

17 xl(13) = max(-max_Thrust(7),x_old(13) - thrustRate(7)*max_Thrust(1)**2)

18 xu(13) = min( max_Thrust(7),x_old(13) + thrustRate(7)*max_Thrust(1)**2)

19 xl(14) = max(-max_Thrust(8),x_old(14) - thrustRate(8)*max_Thrust(1)**2)

20 xu(14) = min( max_Thrust(8),x_old(14) + thrustRate(8)*max_Thrust(1)**2)

21 ! Scaling the problem

22 x = x / max_Thrust(1)**2

23 x_old = x_old / max_Thrust(1)**2

24 xl = xl / max_Thrust(1)**2

25 xu = xu / max_Thrust(1)**2

26 tau_pid = tau_pid / max_Thrust(1)**2

27 call solver%initialize(n,m,meq,max_iter,acc,test_func,test_grad,&

28 xl,xu,linesearch_mode=linesearch_mode,iprint=0,st c

,! atus_ok=status_ok,&

29 report=report_iteration,&

30 alphamin=0.1_wp, alphamax=1.0_wp) !to limit

,! search steps

31 if (status_ok) then

67

Appendix

32 call solver%optimize(x,istat,iterations)

33 ! Rescaling the problem

34 x = x * max_Thrust(1)**2

35 x_old = x_old * max_Thrust(1)**2

36 xl = xl * max_Thrust(1)**2

37 xu = xu * max_Thrust(1)**2

38 tau_pid = tau_pid * max_Thrust(1)**2

39 write(99,*) 'aziRate', aziRate*180.0/pi

40 write(99,*) 'xu ', xu

41 write(99,*) 'Solution: ', x

42 write(99,*) 'xl ', xl

43 write(99,*) 'Iterations: ', iterations, 'Status: ', istat

44 if (istat.NE.0 .AND. istat.NE.8 .AND. istat.NE.9) then

45 write(*,*) 'Iterations: ', iterations, 'Status: ', istat

46 end if

47 else

48 write(99,*) ' # Error c01: Solver could not initialize!'

49 write(*,*) ' # Error c01: Solver could not initialize!'

50 endif

51 CALL checkAzimuthRates(x(1:nAT*2), x_old(1:nAT*2))

52 CALL sumAllocated(loc_Thrust, x(1:14), FORCE_alloc_LSA)

53 write(99,*) 'ALC', FORCE_alloc_LSA

54 CALL fxfy2rpmAlpha(x(1:14), rpm, Alpha)

55 ENDIF

56 ! LSA to FRA

57 FORCE_alloc_LSA(:,1) = MATMUL(TRAFO3, FORCE_alloc_LSA(:,1))

68