search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Figure 2: Side-by-side configuration with vorticity iso-surface (left) and comparison between CFD (black crosses) to wind tunnel (red) for the shuttle tanker (right)


we have a better understanding of why the wind is behaving in a certain manner.


ReFRESCO At MARIN, we use our CFD software ReFRESCO to calculate wind loads. Developed in cooperation with several universities, ReFRESCO has been tailormade for the marine industry. ReFRESCO is ideal for research purposes, where full control over the numerical settings is required. Based on these research projects, common best practice guidelines are established, which are used for industry projects.


WINDLOAD JIP Within the WINDLOAD Joint Industry Project (see page 17), a semi-submersible platform and a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) unit have been tested in three different wind tunnel facilities and CFD computations were performed by different companies. The results obtained by the CFD benchmark participants1


have been published.


The comparison showed that the scatter between the different CFD results is comparable to the scatter between the wind tunnel tests. Generally, CFD tends to give loads that are a few percent lower, which is most likely due to a slightly lower wind velocity at the target location


compared to the wind tunnel tests. The lower velocity in the CFD calculations is due to numerical diffusion, which reduces the wind speed by around 1%.


A snapshot of a result is shown in Figure 1. The colours are used to indicate the pressure coefficient, with red indicating a high pressure and blue a low pressure region. Furthermore, regions with high vorticity (rotation of air) are shown as isosurfaces. From video material, regions are visible where vortices are shed from the turret and helideck, which result in unsteady wind flow behind these structures.


Side-by-side and tandem offloading configurations In addition to single vessels, CFD is used to establish coefficients for side-by-side and tandem offloading configurations. One example is shown in Figure 2 for a simplified FPSO and a shuttle tanker2


. Coefficients for the shuttle tanker


match the experiments well, for both the shielded and unshielded configurations.


Increasingly complex calculations At the moment, CFD is capable of computing wind load coefficients with a similar level of accuracy as wind tunnel tests. With the


increase in computational power, such calculations will become faster and easier. As a result, CFD calculations are being conducted more often for a wide range of vessel types. The growth in computational power also allows for the increasing complexity of the calculations. Instead of simplified vessels, more complex topside configurations are now taken into account and multiple vessels in close proximity. Meanwhile, the WINDLASS JIP (see page 18) is aiming to compute wind loads on ships in a harbour, including the surrounding buildings. The buildings lead to large spatial wind speed differences, which may have a big influence on the wind loads.


References [1] J.J. de Wilde, P. Schrijvers & J. Witz – CFD Benchmark Study from the WINDLOAD Joint Industry Project, OTC-28832-MS, Offshore Technology Conference Houston, Texas, USA (2017)


[2] P. Schrijvers, W. Xu, A. Koop & D. Yoo – Current Status of Wind Load Calculations with CFD, International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE, Sapporo, Japan (2018)


report 27


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28