CE6392E

OFFSHORE STRUCTURES DESIGN STUDIO

REPORT

Submitted by

ROSHAN THOMAS (M240949CE)

In partial fulfilment for the award of the Degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

(OFFSHORE STRUCTURES)

National Institute of Technology, Calicut

DEPARTMENT OF CIVILENGINEERING
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

NIT CAMPUS P.O, CALICUT

KERALA, INDIA-673601
MARCH 2025
 CONTENTS

1. NUMERICAL MODELLING OF VORTEX INDUCED VIBRATION OF

ELASTICALLY MOUNTED RIGID CYLINDER ..................................................... 6
1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 6
1.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................ 6
1.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 7
1.4 POST PROCESSING OF RESULTS ............................................................................ 14
1.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 18
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 19
2. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF JACKET PLATFORM USING SACS
SOFTWARE ......................................................................................................... 20
2.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 20
2.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................... 20
2.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 21
2.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 37
3. MODELLING AND HYDROSTATIC ANALYSIS OF CYLINDERICAL BUOY. ... 38
3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 38
3.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................... 39
3.4 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 39
3.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 43
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 51
4. ANALYSIS OF SHIP RESISTANCE UNDER STATIC DRIFT MOTION AGAINST
SWAY, SURGE AND YAW MOTION. ..................................................................... 53
4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 53
4.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................... 54
4.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 55
4.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 57
4.5 POST-PROCESSING OF RESULTS ............................................................................ 59

1
 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 63
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 63
5. FLOW PAST A 2D CIRCULAR CYLINDER AT REYNOLDS NUMBER 250 USING
ANSYS FLUENT AND VISUALIZATION OF VORTEX SHEDDING. ..................... 65
5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 65
5.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................... 67
5.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 68
5.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 75
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 82
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 83

2
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure No Figure Name
No
Figure 1.1 MATLAB Code 12
Figure 1.2 ODE Code. 13
Figure 1.3 RMS Displacement VS Reduced velocity 14
Figure 1.4 Code for FFT Transformation. 15
Figure 1.5 Time domain and Frequency domain 17
Figure 2.1 Frequency vs amplitude plot 24
Figure 2.2 Deflected Shape (Self Load). 25
Figure 2.3 Deflected Shape (Wave Load) 26
Figure 2.4 Mode shape 1 27
Figure 2.5 Mode shape 2 27
Figure 2.6 Mode shape 4 28
Figure 2.7 Mode shape 4 28
Figure 2.8 Mode shape 5 29
Figure 2.9 Mode shape 6 29
Figure 2.10 Mode shape 10 30
Figure 2.11 Deflection VS Modes. 32
Figure 3.1 Geometry of cylinder. 39
Figure 3.2 Wave direction. 40
Figure 3.3 Boundary Conditions. 41
Figure 3.4 Mesh Generation. 42
Figure 3.5 Analysis setting. 43
Figure 3.6 Hydrostatic result. 44
Figure 3.7 Stability of Floating Body 47
Figure 3.8. RAO vs Frequency 49
Figure 4.1 Ship motion and axis 54
Figure 4.2 Static drift 56
Figure 4.3 Excel result 58
Figure 4.4 forces and yaw moment vs time 62

3
Figure 5.1 Regimes of fluid flow over circular cylinder. 66
Figure 5.2 Problem model 71
Figure 5.3 Computational domain 72
Figure 5.4 Mesh generation 73
Figure 5.5 Solver setup 74
Figure 5.6 Setup. 75
Figure 5.7 Lift Coefficient 75
Figure 5.8 Drag Coefficient 76
Figure 5.9 Frequency vs amplitude plot 76
Figure 5.10 Strouhal Number vs Reynolds Number plot. 78
Figure 5.11 Velocity contour at time 0.75 s. 79
Figure 5.12 Velocity contour at time 1.37s. 79
Figure 5.13 Static Pressure contour. 81
Figure 5.14 Streamlines and formation of vortices. 82

4
Table NO. Table Name Page No.
Table 2.1 Modes and frequency 31
Table 2.2 Modes and Deflection 32
Table 2.3 Modes and Moments 35
Table 3.1 Frequency and Amplitude 48
Table 4.1 Sway Force, Surge Force and 61
Yaw Moment

Table 5.1 Boundary Conditions 72

5
 EXERCISE 1

NUMERICAL MODELLING OF VORTEX INDUCED VIBRATION OF

ELASTICALLY MOUNTED RIGID CYLINDER

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In fluid dynamics, vortex-induced vibrations (VIVs) refer to the oscillatory motions
experienced by bodies interacting with external fluid flows, caused by periodic irregularities in
the flow. A classic example is the VIV of an underwater cylinder. When a cylinder moves
through water perpendicular to its axis, the flow around it slows near its surface due to viscosity,
forming a boundary layer. As the boundary layer separates from the cylinder due to excessive
curvature, vortices form, altering the pressure distribution along its surface. Asymmetrical
vortex formation induces lift forces on opposite sides of the cylinder, resulting in transverse
motion. This interaction limits the vibration amplitude but leads to significant dynamic effects
(El-Reedy, 2015, p. 179).

VIV is particularly critical in offshore engineering, as it can cause fatigue damage to slender
structures such as oil exploration risers. These risers are subject to both steady current flows
and top-end vessel motions, creating complex flow-structure interactions and unsteady flow
profiles. Understanding and mitigating VIV is essential to ensure the structural integrity and
longevity of these systems.

1.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

1. Structural Integrity and Fatigue Analysis: Columns subjected to VIV experience
cyclic loading, which can lead to material fatigue and eventual failure. Research into
VIV responses enables engineers to predict fatigue life and design structures that can
withstand these oscillatory forces, thereby enhancing safety and durability.

2. Design Optimization: By comprehending how columns respond to VIV, engineers can

optimize structural designs to either mitigate or exploit these vibrations. For instance,
incorporating specific geometric features or employing dampers can reduce VIV
effects, while in some cases, controlled VIV can be harnessed for energy harvesting.

6
 3. Development of Predictive Models: Investigating VIV responses contributes to the
creation of accurate predictive models and simulation tools. These models assist in
forecasting the behavior of columns under various flow conditions, facilitating
informed decision-making during the design and assessment phases.

4. Advancement of Mitigation Strategies: Research provides insights into effective VIV

suppression techniques, such as the use of helical strakes, fairings, or tuned mass
dampers. Understanding the column's response is essential for tailoring these strategies
to specific applications.

5. Economic Implications: Addressing VIV-related challenges can lead to significant

cost savings by preventing structural failures, reducing maintenance needs, and
extending the operational lifespan of infrastructure.

6. Environmental and Safety Considerations: In offshore structures, uncontrolled VIV

can result in oil spills or other environmental hazards. Researching VIV responses
ensures that columns and related structures operate safely within environmental
regulations.

In summary, studying the response of columns to VIV is vital for ensuring structural safety,
optimizing design, developing effective mitigation measures, and minimizing economic and
environmental risks associated with these oscillatory phenomena.

1.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY

1.Problem definition

As fluid flows past the cylinder, the flow separates from the surface at a certain point, forming
vortices in the wake of the cylinder. These vortices shed alternately from opposite sides,
creating a pattern known as the von Kármán vortex street. When a vortex is shed from one side,
the pressure on that side decreases, while the opposite side has higher pressure. This
asymmetric pressure generates a lift force perpendicular to the flow, causing the cylinder to
oscillate in the cross-flow direction.

An elastically mounted cylinder is free to move in response to these forces, typically in

two directions:

Cross-Flow: Perpendicular to the flow direction, driven by lift forces.

7
In-Line: Parallel to the flow direction, influenced by changes in drag forces.

As the flow velocity increases, the frequency of vortex shedding (𝑓𝑠 ) can approach the natural
frequency (𝑓𝑛 ) of the cylinder’s elastic system.

When 𝑓𝑠 ≈𝑓𝑛 , a resonance condition occurs, known as lock-in, where the cylinder's vibration
frequency matches the vortex shedding frequency. In this state, large-amplitude oscillations
occur, as energy from the fluid is efficiently transferred to the structure. As the oscillation
amplitude increases, the interaction between the moving cylinder and the vortex-shedding
process changes. The motion of the cylinder modifies the wake structure, leading to a self-
limiting effect where the vibration amplitude reaches a steady-state value. This is a result of
the balance between energy input from the fluid and energy dissipated due to damping and
structural resistance (Kawai, 1993).

Cross-flow oscillations typically occur at a frequency close to the vortex shedding frequency
and In-line oscillations occur at approximately twice this frequency (second harmonic. The
combined effect can produce complex motion paths, such as elliptical trajectories.

The flow transfers kinetic energy to the cylinder, sustaining the oscillations.

• The amplitude and frequency of the response depend on factors such as:

o Structural damping (ability of the system to dissipate energy).

o Flow velocity and fluid properties (density, viscosity).

o Mass ratio (ratio of the cylinder’s mass to the displaced fluid mass).

o Reynolds number (governing flow regime and vortex dynamics).

o The Strouhal number relates the frequency of shedding to the velocity of the
flow and a characteristic dimension of the body (diameter in the case of a
cylinder).

2.Governing equations

a) Equations of Motion for the Cylinder:

An elastically mounted cylinder in VIV typically moves in two directions:

8
 • Cross-flow (transverse to the flow)

• In-line (parallel to the flow)

The equations of motion for these directions can be expressed as:

Cross-Flow Direction:

m𝑦̈ +c𝑦̇ +k𝑦=𝐹𝑦(𝑡)

In-Line Direction:

M𝑥̈ +c𝑥̇ +k𝑥=𝐹𝑥(𝑡)

where:

• 𝑚: Mass of the cylinder (including added mass due to fluid).

• 𝑐: Damping coefficient (Structural damping and added damping from fluid).

• 𝑘: Spring constant (stiffness).

• 𝑥: In-line displacement.

• 𝑦: Cross-flow displacement.

• 𝑥̈ ,𝑦̈ Accelerations in the in-line and cross-flow directions.

• 𝐹𝑥(𝑡), 𝐹𝑦(𝑡): Fluid forces acting on the cylinder in the respective directions.

b) Fluid Forces (Hydrodynamic Loading)

The fluid forces (F𝑥(t) and F𝑦(t)) are generated by vortex shedding and are typically expressed
as:

𝐹(𝑡) = 𝐹0 cos(𝛺𝑓𝑡 )

1
𝐹0 = 𝐶 𝜌𝐷𝑈 2
2 𝐿

where:

• 𝜌: Fluid density

• 𝑈: Flow velocity

9
 • 𝐶𝐿 : Time-dependent in-line and cross-flow force coefficients, which depend on the
vortex shedding dynamics (𝑉𝑟 and Re) (Narendran et al., 2015, p.8).

c)Vortex Shedding Frequency 𝜴𝒇 (Strouhal Relation)

The frequency of vortex shedding, 𝛺𝑓 , is related to the flow velocity and the cylinder diameter
via the Strouhal number (𝑆𝑡 ):

𝑈
𝛺𝑓 = 2𝜋𝑆𝑡
𝐷

𝑈
𝑓𝑠 = 𝑆𝑡
𝐷

where:

• 𝐷: Diameter of the cylinder

• 𝑆𝑡 : Strouhal number (typically between 0.18 and 0.21 for a circular cylinder).

Rough surfaced cylinders or vibrating cylinders (both smooth and rough sur faced) have
Strouhal numbers that are relatively insensitive to the Reynolds number. For cross sections
with sharp corners, the vortex shedding is well defined for all velocities, giving Strouhal
numbers that are independent of flow velocity (Re). Structural damping is due to internal
friction forces of the member material and depends on the strain level and associated
deflection. For wind-exposed steel members, the structural damping ratio may be taken as
0.0015, if no other information is available. For slender elements in water, the structural
damping ratio at moderate deflection typically ranges from 0.005 for pure steel pipes to
0.03 0.04 for flexible pipes (El-Reedy, 2015, p. 182).

Relationship between Reynolds number and types of shedding

Periodic shedding 102 < 𝑅𝑒 < 0.6 × 106

Wide-band random shedding 0.6 × 106 < 𝑅𝑒 < 3.0 × 106
Narrow-band random shedding 3.0 × 106 < 𝑅𝑒 < 6.0 × 106
Quasi-periodic shedding 𝑅𝑒 > 6.0 × 106

d. Non-Dimensionalized Form

10
The governing equations are often non-dimensionalised for analysis, using parameters such as:

𝑈
• Reduced velocity: 𝑉𝑟 = 𝑓 𝐷, where 𝑓𝑛 is the natural frequency of the cylinder.
𝑛

Solving the equation of motion of cylinder mentioned above will give us the response of
cylinder under vortex induced vibration.

3.Software and Tools

The VIV response of an elastically mounted cylinder was analysed using MATLAB R2024b
and plotted normalised RMS displacement for different reduced velocities. The following
scripts and toolboxes were employed:

1.Toolboxes: ODE Solvers (for solving differential equations, e.g., ode45, ode23).

2.Scripts:

• Exp_1.m to set up and run the simulation.

11
 Figure 1.1 MATLAB Code

• Ode_code.m to numerically solve the equations of motion using the ode45 solver.

12
 Figure 1.2 ODE Code.

3.Parameters: The analysis used an EMRC subjected to flow velocity varying from
0.1m/s to 1m/s. The properties of EMRC are given below in the table

Input parameters Values

Diameter (d) 0.1m
Mass of structure (m) 8.85kg
Damping constant (c) 10Ns/m
Reynolds number 10000 to 100000
Stiffness (k) 1000N/m
Density 𝜌 1000kg/𝑚3

13
1.4 POST PROCESSING OF RESULTS
Using the MATLAB code shown in fig 1. and fig 2. VIV graph with Reduced velocity along
abscissa and Normalized RMS displacement along the ordinate as shown in fig 3.

Figure 1.3 RMS Displacement VS Reduced velocity

The code from fig 1 is used to plot the time domain response of EMRC as displacement y(t)
along y-axis and time (seconds) along x-axis and these results are used to plot the
corresponding frequency domain responses using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method.
The FFT decomposes a complex signal into its individual frequency components using a
mathematical process called the Fourier Transform. The MATLAB code used for the
transformation is shown in fig 4.

14
 Figure 1.4 Code for FFT Transformation.
.

Following observations were seen when the time domain and frequency domain analysis was
done for an EMRC of diameter 0.1m is induced with waves of velocity ranging from 0.1m/s
to 1m/s.

15
16
Fig 5. Time domain and Frequency domain
17
In fig 5 left section shows the time domain analysis and right section displays respective
frequency domain analysis. Frequency domain is derived from time domain using FFT
method mentioned as earlier.

1.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From Fig 3. the max normalized displacement (0.51279) was observed for a reduced velocity
of 4.988.

𝑈
From equation 𝑉𝑟 = 𝑓 , 𝑈 for natural frequency (𝑓𝑛 ) 1.2314 hz will be 0.6142m/s.
𝑛𝐷

So maximum response will be observed for 𝑈 = 0.6142m/s.

𝑈
The shedding frequency 𝑓𝑠 = 𝑆𝑡 × 𝐷 , implying 𝑈 = 0.6142m/s, 𝐷 = 0.1𝑚 and 𝑆𝑡 = 0.2 will

give 𝑓𝑠 = 1.228 ℎ𝑧.

The above observation will be end up in Lock-in condition ( 𝑓𝑠 ≈ 𝑓𝑛 ) which is described at

the beginning of this discussion (Kawai, 1993).

From frequency domain analysis following observation were observed.

Maximum Amplitude (m) for U 0.1m/s to Frequency (hz)

1m/s
0.00015 0.2067
0.00065 0.4033
0.0015 0.603
0.0035 0.803
0.009 1.003
0.05 1.203
0.0213 1.4
0.0124 1.603
0.0099 1.803
0.0093 2.003

18
From the above table it is shown that max amplitude 0.05 m is observed for 𝑈 = 0.61𝑚/𝑠
when frequency is 1.203 hz. For the above considering EMRC natural frequency 𝑓𝑛 = 1.23.
Hence from the all above discussions it is proven that here max response is observed when
𝒇 ≈ 𝒇𝒏 which is nothing but the Resonant condition. From the above 2 approaches it is
shown that when Velocity 𝑈 = 0.6142m/s at a frequency of 𝑓 = 1.2 hz maximum response
is observed.

CONCLUSION
The normalized RMS displacement increases rapidly as the reduced velocity (𝑉𝑟) approaches
a critical value of around 5, where it reaches a peak. This indicates that the structure
experiences the maximum amplitude of VIV at this critical velocity of 0.614m/s, likely due to
resonance when the vortex-shedding frequency matches the natural frequency of the
structure. Beyond this point, the displacement decreases, suggesting a detuning effect where
the excitation frequency moves away from the natural frequency. This behaviour highlights
the importance of avoiding certain reduced velocities during the design of structures prone to
VIV, such as offshore risers, pipelines, or cables, to prevent excessive vibrations and potential
structural fatigue.

REFERENCES

1.El-Reedy, M. A. (2015). Marine Structural Design Calculations. Elsevier.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099987-6.00004-0.

2. Narendran, K., Murali, K., & Sundar, V. (2015). Vortex-induced vibrations of elastically mounted
circular cylinder at Re of the O(10⁵). Journal of Fluids and Structures.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.12.006.

3. Kawai, H. (1993). Vortex induced vibration of circular cylinder. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 46-47(1), 605–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(93)90111-M

19
 EXERCISE 2

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF JACKET PLATFORM USING SACS

SOFTWARE

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Offshore jacket platforms are widely used in the oil and gas industry to support drilling and
production facilities in shallow to medium water depths. These structures are subjected to
complex environmental loads, including wind, waves, currents, and seismic forces, making
their structural integrity and stability a critical aspect of design and operation. Ensuring the
reliability of offshore jacket platforms requires a comprehensive understanding of their static
and dynamic behaviour under various loading conditions.

In this report, the structural analysis of four-legged offshore jacket platform is

conducted using SACS (Structural Analysis Computer System), a widely recognized
engineering software used for offshore structural analysis and design. The study focuses on
both static and dynamic analysis to evaluate the platform's performance under operational and
extreme environmental conditions.

The static analysis aims to find out the structural response under steady-state loads such
as self-weight, buoyancy, and environmental forces. This accounts with strength and
serviceability criteria. Whereas the dynamic analysis considers time-dependent effects such as
wave-induced vibrations, wind gusts, and seismic excitations, which play a significant role in
the fatigue and long-term performance of the platform.

2.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The research conducted using SACS (Structural Analysis Computer System)
contributes to the advancement of offshore structural engineering by enhancing our
understanding of the platform’s behaviour under various loading conditions.

1. Structural Reliability and Safety:

• Offshore jacket platforms are subjected to harsh environmental conditions, including

wave forces, wind loads, and seismic effects. Accurate static and dynamic analysis help
20
 ensure structural integrity, minimizing the risk of catastrophic failures that could lead
to economic losses and environmental hazards.

2. Optimization of Design and Material Usage:

• By analyzing the platform under different loading scenarios, this research provides
insights into optimizing structural design, leading to efficient material utilization, cost
savings, and improved sustainability without compromising safety standards.

3.Regulatory Compliance and Industry Standards:

• Offshore structures must adhere to stringent international design codes and standards
such as API RP 2A, ISO 19902, and DNVGL guidelines. This research aids in verifying
compliance with these standards, ensuring that the design meets legal and operational
requirements.

2.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY

Types of loads

1.Environmental loads: Water force can be classified as forces due to waves and forces
due to current. Wind blowing over the ocean’s surface drags water along with it, thus
forming current and generating waves. The forces induced by ocean waves on platform are
dynamic in nature. However, it is the accepted practice to design shallow water platforms
by static approach. As a water depth increases and platforms become flexible, dynamic
effect becomes significant [9].

2.Waves: Regular wave theories used for calculation of wave forces on fixed offshore
structures are based on the three parameters water depth (d), wave height (h) and wave
period (T) as obtained from wave measurements adapted to different statistical models.
Wave plus current kinematics (velocity and acceleration fields) are generated using 5th
order Stokes wave theory, the forces on individual structural elements are calculated using
Morison equation, based on hydrodynamic drag and mass coefficients (Cd , Cm) and
particle velocity and acceleration obtained by the 5th order Stokes wave theory. Stokes 5th
order wave is defined by providing wave height and period in the input data with the wave
type specified as Stokes in the SACS options [7].

21
3.Wind loads: When a structure is placed in the path of the moving air so that wind is
stopped or is deflected from its path, then all or part of the kinetic energy is transformed
into the potential energy pressure. Wind forces on any structure therefore result from the
differential pressure caused by the obstruction to the free flow of the wind. These forces
are functions of the wind velocity, orientation, area, and shape of the structural elements.
Wind forces on a structure are a dynamic problem, but for design purposes, it is sufficient
to consider these forces as an equivalent static pressure [1].

Analysis software

SACS (structural analysis computer systems), a design and analysis software for offshore
structures and vessels, is used for the modelling and analysis of the jacket. SACS is an
integrated software of finite element-based software that supports the analysis, design and
fabrication of offshore structures, including oil, gas, and wind farm platforms and topsides
[7]. Its ability to dynamically iterate designs allows users to perform advanced analysis,
comply with offshore design criteria, and visualize the response and results of the structure.
SACS provides reliable beam member code checking and tubular joint code checking
capacity； therefore, it is very suitable for topsides structures and jackets consisting of
plate girders and tubular columns/ braces [4].

Modelling Data

Drawing-Details:
The inputs given are as follows:
• Water depth: 79.5 m
• Working point elevation: 4.0 m
• Pile connecting elevation: 4.0 m
• Mud line elevation, pile stub elevation, and leg extension elevation: -79.5 m
• Other intermediate elevations: -50.0, -21.0, 15.3 (cellar deck), 23.0 m (main deck)
Number of legs: 4
• Leg type: Ungrouted
• Leg spacing at working point: X1 = 15 m, Y1 = 10 m
• Leg spacing at Mud line: X1 = 20 m, Y1 = 15 m
Connectivity:
• Diagonal braced with horizontals

22
• Only horizontals at cellar and main deck
Inputs given in the structural definition gives to member groups with undefined properties.
The properties of these groups are LG1, LG2, LG3 are defined in segments as follows:
• Segment 1: D = 48.5 in, T = 1.75 in, Fy = 34.50 kN/cm²
• Segment 2: D = 47.0 in, T = 1.0 in, Fy = 24.80 kN/cm²
• Segment 3: D = 48.5 in, T = 1.75 in, Fy = 34.50 kN/cm²
• DL4 = 42"x1.5"
• DL5 = 42"x1.5"
Connections (both horizontal and diagonals):
• 30"x1" (flooded)
• PL* = 42"x1.5" (pile)
• W.B. = 30"x1" flooded
Where D is outer diameter and T is thickness.
Density of all members is 7.849 tonne/m³.

23
 Figure 2.1. Jacket model

2.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Static analysis

Static analysis refers to a structural analysis method where the forces acting on a structure are
considered to be constant and unchanging over time, allowing the software to calculate the
stresses, strains, and displacements within the structure without considering dynamic effects
like vibrations or wave loading.

The following responses were observed under static analysis of the structure. The static analysis
includes wave load interaction and self weight responses for the structure.

24
 Figure 2.2 Deflected Shape (Self Load).
Figure two shows the response of structure under its own self weight. The self weight of
structure observed was -9205.33KN. The red representation in fig 2 is the deflected shape
from its original configuration. Under this loading maximum deflection observed was for
joint 304L in Y direction which is highlighted in fig 2. Max deflection occurs in joint at
almost at mid bay of structure.

25
 Figure 2.3 Deflected Shape ( Wave Load)
Figure 3 represents the response of the jacket under a wave action. The wave induced was an
airy wave of height 10m and time period 12 seconds. The wave attack is at an angle of 120
degree. The red representation in the fig 3 shows the deflected shape of structure under the
action of wave. For wave induced loading the maximum deflection observed for joint 604L
which is highlighted in fig 3. Max deflection observed in joint at top bay of structure. Even
though maximum defelction due to wave load and self weight occurs in Y direction they are in
opposite directions. The one is in direction of interaction of wave and deflection due to self
weight is opposite to thatdirection.

26
Dynamic analysis
The following six mode shapes where observed from the dynamic analysis for the above
structure (fig 1).

Figure 2.4 (mode shape 1).

27
Figure 2.5 (mode shape 2).

Figure 2.6 (mode shape 3).

28
Figure 2.7 (mode shape 4).

Figure 2.8 (mode shape 5).

29
Figure 2.9 (mode shape 6).

Figure 2.10(mode shape 10).

30
The deflected shapes or mode shapes and their respective frequency of vibration are show from
figure 4 to 9

MODE FREQ(CPS) PERIOD(SECS)

1 0.855128 1.1694162
2 1.043697 0.9581326
3 1.314417 0.7607937
4 1.89535 0.527607
5 2.09846 0.47654
6 2.351984 0.425173
7 2.588142 0.3863775
8 2.980022 0.335568
9 3.153645 0.3170934
10 3.458606 0.2891338

Table 2.1. Modes and Frequency

Table 1 shows the results obtained from dynamic analysis of structure. It shows the mode
shapes and respective frequency of vibration for that mode shape. From the above figures and
Table 1 one can easily visualise possible vibrating or deflected shapes of the structure under
given loading conditions.

Critical values of observation

MODE X-DIRECTION Y-DIRECTION Z-DIRECTION

DEFL.CM JOINT DEFL.CM JOINT DEFL.CM JOINT
1 0.27 302P 2.54 602L 0.14 302L
2 2.54 603L 0.59 602L 0.16 303L
3 2.54 601L 2.43 601L 0.08 302L
4 2.54 304P 2.24 602L 0.23 304L
5 1.05 603L 2.54 601L 0.17 304L
6 2.54 603L 0.89 602L 0.09 602L
7 2.04 601L 2.54 602L 0.12 304L
8 0.76 601L 2.54 601L 0.2 204L

31
 9 2.2 603L 2.54 601L 0.13 204L
10 2.54 601L 2.67 601L 0.2 302L
TABLE 2.2. Modes and Deflectiom

The table 2 gives the maximum deflection observed at different joints for different mode shapes
in X, Y and Z directions. From table 2 it is observed that the deflection along Z direction is our
least concern. Whereas a maximum deflection of 2.54 cm is observed for different modes at
different joints in X and Y directions. From the designers point of view this much of deflection
for this number of joints is not good while considering strength as well as serviceability of the
structure. The maximum deflection permitted at a joint in an offshore jacket platform depends
on several factors, including the design codes, environmental conditions, and operational
requirements. Typically, offshore structures are designed to limit deflections to ensure
structural integrity, maintain operational performance, and avoid excessive fatigue damage [1].
From a designers point of view smaller modes are of more concern as it will excite in smaller
excitation frequency.

Figure 2.11. Deflection VS Modes.

Figure 11 gives the maximum values of the deflection foe different mode shapes from 1-10,
in X, Y and Z directions.
32
From API RP 2A the below mentioned are the provisions to be followed while considering the
deflections.

General Guidelines for Maximum Deflection in Offshore Structures (as per API RP 2A):

API does not specify a fixed universal deflection limit for joints but provides guidelines based
on serviceability, functionality, and operational criteria. The allowable deflections are generally
controlled by[1]:
1. Operational Requirements:
o For topside structures (e.g., decks, living quarters):
▪ 1/400 to 1/600 of the span length to avoid excessive vibration and
serviceability issues.
o For slender members like risers and conductors:
▪ Limited deflections to avoid misalignment and fatigue.
2. Environmental Load Considerations:
o Jacket structures exposed to wave and current forces should limit deflections to
prevent fatigue failure and misalignment of critical equipment.
o Displacements should generally not exceed H/400 to H/200, where H is the
height of the structure.
3. Fatigue and Structural Integrity:
o Excessive deflections can induce fatigue damage, so API recommends
performing fatigue analysis to ensure deflections do not compromise long-term
integrity.
4. Specific Guidelines in API RP 2A:
o Legs and Bracing: Typically, the overall platform deflection should not exceed
1/200 of the total height.
o Deck Deflections: Generally limited to 1/240 to 1/360 of the span length,
depending on functional requirements.
o Local Joint Displacements: Should be limited based on equipment tolerances
and alignment requirements.
Practical Values for Jacket Platforms:
• Vertical Deflection (Deck):
o Acceptable range: Span/400 to Span/600
• Horizontal Deflection (Under Environmental Loads):
33
 o Acceptable range: H/400 to H/200
• Serviceability Considerations:
o Deflections should not impair equipment operation or human comfort.

From table 2 the joints 601L,603L and 304P are having maximum deflections which has to be
considered for further analysis or during construction.
From all figures from figure 4 to 10 the lower part of the structure (legs and braces) experiences
relatively less movement compared to the upper deck. This is typical for offshore platforms
where the jacket structure is anchored to the seabed. The upper portion of the platform seems
to show larger deflections, possibly indicating flexibility in the topside area due to higher
exposure to environmental forces. Joints 601L, 602L, and 603L frequently appear in both X
and Y directions, meaning these joints experience the highest sway movement. In the Z-
direction, joints 304L and 204L show the highest vertical deflection, potentially indicating
areas affected by dynamic forces such as wave impact or deck loads.

Mode-Specific Observations:
• Mode 1:
o Minimal deflection in the X and Z directions but significant lateral sway (2.54
cm) at joint 602L.

• Mode 2:
o Major deflection (2.54 cm) in the X-direction at joint 603L, indicating strong
longitudinal movement.
• Mode 5:
o Maximum lateral displacement at joint 601L, which could indicate local
flexibility or bending effects.
• Mode 7:
o Balanced large deflections in both X and Y directions, highlighting complex
structural movement.
• Mode 10:
o Notable deflections in both X and Y axes, showing coupled motion effects.

Reaction summary about origin

34
 MOD FORCE-X FORCE- FORCE- MOMENT- MOMENT- MOMENT-
E (KIPS) Y (KIPS) Z (KIPS) X (FT-KIP) Y (FT-KIP) Z (FT-KIP)
1 -10.918 -133.043 -3.6 -8114.3 -6579.4 -1731.2
2 -173.12 7.612 -4.972 9091.7 15525.6 2751.8
3 -159.693 47.83 -4.574 -23853.6 -20833.6 -5245.9
4 -64.032 -178.278 -28.033 -20310.8 49141.7 2320
5 40.276 154.899 29.124 19249.8 422.9 2536.8
6 112.153 -41.497 9.083 -9797.8 -16859.4 -2898.5
7 110.565 -42.183 11.632 22040.4 -6086.7 2192.1
8 -89.813 -218.973 -49.831 -26607.8 9994.4 -2485.3
9 -17.847 28.91 13.501 26002.2 -16123.1 1830.7
10 -441.914 153.205 -61.431 21949 68612.5 9464.6
Table 2.3 Modes and Moment
1. Force Analysis
• FORCE-X, FORCE-Y, FORCE-Z:
o These represent the reaction forces in the global X, Y, and Z directions.
o Large magnitudes of forces in FORCE-Y (vertical) indicate substantial gravity-
related effects, such as self-weight and buoyancy.
o The FORCE-X and FORCE-Z values correspond to horizontal forces, likely
influenced by environmental loads such as wave, wind, and current effects.
o Forces such as -441.914 KIPS in MODE 10 (FORCE-X) and -133.043 KIPS in
MODE 1 (FORCE-Y) suggest significant dynamic contributions, which might
point to higher modes affecting the overall system's stability.
2. Moment Analysis
• MOMENT-X, MOMENT-Y, MOMENT-Z:
o The moments (FT-KIP) indicate rotational effects about the respective global
axes.
o MOMENT-X shows a wide range from -8114.3 to -26607.8 FT-KIP, suggesting
significant torsional and bending effects due to lateral and environmental loads.

35
 o MOMENT-Y exhibits extreme values, such as 68612.5 FT-KIP in MODE 10,
indicating a dominant bending moment likely due to wave or wind loads along
one axis.
o MOMENT-Z, while smaller in magnitude compared to other moments, can still
influence stability due to out-of-plane forces, especially in Mode 8.

Concerns for the design

The significant reactions in higher modes (e.g., MOMENT-Y of 68612.5 FT-KIP) suggest
potential resonance effects or sensitivity to dynamic environmental loads. While MOMENT-
Z is smaller compared to other moments, localized torsional moments can amplify stress in
joints and connections, leading to fatigue in welded areas. FORCE-Y being dominant indicates
the need to carefully account for vertical pile foundation loads and ensure adequate axial
capacity. High moments, especially in MOMENT-Y and MOMENT-X, indicate significant
bending stresses due to lateral loading. Higher modes (e.g., Mode 8 and Mode 10) exhibit large
reactions, suggesting dynamic amplification. This could lead to Resonance if the structure's
natural frequency aligns with environmental forcing frequencies and increased deflection and
forces, potentially exceeding design limits.

Moment mitigation and Buckling prevention

Reinforce critical joints to withstand the high bending moments observed, particularly in
MOMENT-Y (FT-KIP). Use advanced tubular joint designs (e.g., ring-stiffened joints) to
reduce localized stress concentrations. Perform buckling checks for tubular members under
combined axial and bending loads using codes. Ensure member slenderness ratios are within
acceptable limits to prevent instability [1].

CONCLUSION
Typical four-legged jacket is modeled in SACS. It is analysed for environmental and gravity
load conditions. The deflection for the structure and overturning moments are found. Different
mode shapes are generated and analysed for dynamic analysis of the structure. The identified
joint locations with high deflection should be reviewed for potential fatigue or stress
concentration. If specific modes have high deflections, they might contribute significantly to
the platform's dynamic response and should be included in fatigue analysis. Excessive lateral

36
deflection (Y-axis) in some modes might indicate the need for additional bracing or stiffness to
resist wave and wind forces. Vertical deflections (Z-axis) are relatively low, meaning the
platform has sufficient stiffness against gravity and buoyancy effects. Higher modes exhibit
higher frequency but lower time period for oscillation. This means even though the deflection
is more in these higher modes their oscillation or vibration will be executed for a very small
time period which means the specific excitation could die out faster than lower modes.

REFERENCES
1.American Petroleum Institute. (2005). Recommended practice for planning, designing and
constructing fixed offshore platforms: Working stress design (21st ed.). USA: American
Petroleum Institute. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books/about/Recommended_Practice_for_Planning_Design.html?i
d=_2DCGAAACAAJ
2. Faseela, A., & Jayalekshmi, R. (2015). In-place strength evaluation of jacket platforms and
optimization of bracing configurations. International Conference on Technological
Advancements in Structures and Construction, 15, 121–125. Retrieved from
http://www.ijrat.org/downloads/tasc15/TASC%2015-304.pdf
3. Kabir, S. (2007). An overview of design, analysis, construction and installation of offshore
petroleum platforms suitable for Cyprus oil/gas fields. GAU Journal of Social & Applied
Sciences, 2(4), 1–16. Retrieved from https://cemtelecoms.iqpc.co.uk/media/6514/786.pdf
4. Shehata, E. A., Elsayed, M. A. A., Aly, G. A. A., & Fayez, K. A. S. (2012). Nonlinear analysis
of offshore structures under wave loadings. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), Paper No. 3270, 1–10. Retrieved from
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_3270.pdf

37
 EXERCISE 3

MODELLING AND HYDROSTATIC ANALYSIS OF CYLINDERICAL

BUOY.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
ANSYS AQWA is an engineering toolset for the investigation of the effects of wave, wind and
current on floating and fixed offshore and marine structures, including spars, floating
production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) systems, semi-submersibles, tension leg platforms
(TLPs), ships, renewable energy systems, and breakwater design. AQWA Hydrodynamic
Diffraction provides an integrated environment for developing the primary hydro dynamic
parameters required for undertaking complex motions and response analyses. Three-
dimensional linear radiation and diffraction analysis may be undertaken with multiple bodies,
taking full account of hydrodynamic interaction effects that occur between bodies. While
primarily designed for floating structures, fixed bodies such as breakwaters or gravity-based
structures may be included in the models. AQWA Hydrodynamic Time Response provides
dynamic analysis capabilities for undertaking global performance assessment of floating
structures in the time domain.

The analysis follows these key steps:

1. Geometry and Meshing – Defining the cylindrical structure and discretizing it into
elements suitable for hydrodynamic analysis.

2. Wave Environment Setup – Specifying wave parameters such as wave height, period,
and direction to simulate realistic ocean conditions.

3. Hydrodynamic Diffraction Analysis – Solving the diffraction problem to obtain wave

forces, pressure distribution, and added mass coefficients.

4. Result Interpretation – Extracting wave induced loads and response characteristics

for further structural assessment.

38
3.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Understanding the hydrodynamic behaviour of floating structures is crucial for ensuring their
safety, stability, and performance in marine environments. This analysis provides details about
how the structure responds to wave forces, which is essential for optimizing design parameters
such as stability, buoyancy, and motion characteristics. The results can be used to improve the
structural integrity and operational efficiency of offshore platforms, ships, and other marine
structures.

3.4 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY

The analysis was conducted using Ansys AQWA, which employs a numerical approach based
on potential flow theory and the boundary element method (BEM). The key steps in the
methodology are as follows

Model setup

The geometry of the structure was defined, including its mass properties, centre of gravity, and
moments of inertia. The model was set up in a metric unit system (kg, m, N). The structure
consists of a single part with a fully defined cylinder of 0.8 m diameter and 0.6 m depth. The
part is represented as a solid body with specific dimensions and properties. The total mass of
the structure is 180 kg, with the centre of gravity (CoG) located at (0.0 m, 0.0 m, -0.15
m) relative to the global coordinate system. This mass of 180kg is defined as a point mass at a
depth of -0.15m from the surface. The moments of inertia were defined to capture the structure's
rotational behaviour. For example: Ixx: 21 kg·m² , Iyy: 21 kg·m², Izz: 19 kg·m²

Fig 3.1. Geometry of cylinder.

39
Environmental conditions.

The environmental conditions define the water properties and wave characteristics that the
structure will be exposed to. These conditions are essential for simulating realistic sea states.
The water depth was set to 100 meters and the density of water was set to 1025 kg/m³,
representing seawater. The acceleration due to gravity was set to 9.80665 m/s². The wave
directions ranged from -180° to 180° with intervals of 45°, covering all possible wave approach
angles. The wave frequencies ranged from 0.01562 Hz to 1.48231 Hz, capturing both low-
frequency (long-wavelength) and high-frequency (short-wavelength) waves. Sea mud
mudlayer depth of 2m is also defined.

Fig 3.2. Wave direction.

Boundary Conditions.

Boundary conditions define how the structure interacts with its environment. In this analysis a
fixed point was defined at a depth of 100 meters to represent the seabed. This fixed point was
used to anchor the structure during the analysis. A connection point was defined at (0.0 m, 0.0
m, -0.45 m) to represent the attachment point for cables or mooring lines to the structure. A
linear cable with a stiffness of 60 N/m was defined to connect the structure to the fixed point
at the seabed. The unstretched length of the cable was set to 0.0 meters.

40
 Fig 3.3. Boundary Conditions.

Mesh Generation
The structure was discretized into a finite element mesh to enable numerical calculations. The
default element size of 0.09878 meters was used, ensuring a balance between accuracy and
computational efficiency. The mesh was checked for quality, with a total of 322 nodes and 321
elements generated. Automatic waterline nodes were created to capture the interaction between
the structure and the water surface.

41
 Fig 3.4. Mesh Generation.

Hydrostatic and Stability Analysis

The hydrostatic and stability analysis was performed to evaluate the structure's buoyancy and
stability in calm water. Here, the actual volumetric displacement is the fluid displacement of
the structure calculated by Aqwa, based on the diffracting surface mesh and any line bodies.
The equivalent volumetric displacement is the total mass of the structure divided by the water
density. The hydrostatic details observed were as follows, the actual displaced volume
was 0.2229632 m³, the metacentric height in the X-direction was 1.25396e-2 meters, indicating
the structure's initial stability. The Centre of Buoyancy was located at (7.3493e-5 m, -5.4027e-
9 m, -0.2249993 m) with respect to the global reference.

Hydrodynamic Analysis Settings

The hydrodynamic analysis settings define the type of analysis to be performed and the
parameters to be calculate. The analysis type was set to Hydrodynamic Diffraction/Radiation,
which calculates the wave forces and motion response of the structure. The wave grid
resolution was set to Standard (81 x 51), ensuring accurate representation of wave forces. The

42
analysis generated output files for hydrodynamic forces, RAOs, and hydrostatic properties and
also parallel processing was enabled to speed up the computation.

Fig 3.5. Analysis setting.

The grid is generated at the reference surface which is considered as the water level, above it
0.15m projection of cylinder and 0.45m projection down z axis from the grid position.

3.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Hydrostatic results

The hydrostatic stiffness is a critical parameter in the analysis of floating structures, as it

quantifies the structure's resistance to heave, roll, and pitch motions due to hydrostatic forces.
In view of the results (fig 6) obtained from the hydrostatic analysis, the hydrostatic stiffness
values provide details into how the structure responds to small displacements. The hydrostatic
stiffness values were calculated for the structure in the heave (Z), roll (RX), and pitch (RY)
directions.

The heave stiffness represents the structure's resistance to vertical motion (up and down). A
high heave stiffness value indicates that the structure will experience significant restoring

43
forces when displaced vertically. In this case, the heave stiffness of 4979.5938 N/m is relatively
high, suggesting that the structure will resist heave motion effectively.

Figure 3.6. Hydrostatic result.

This is important for maintaining stability in waves, as excessive heave motion can lead to
operational issues or structural damage.

44
The roll stiffness represents the structure's resistance to rolling motion (side-to-side tilting ie,
rotation about X-axis). A low roll stiffness value indicates that the structure is less resistant to
rolling motions. The roll stiffness of 1.2304e-2 N/° is relatively low, suggesting that the
structure may experience significant rolling motions in waves. This could be a concern in rough
sea conditions, where large rolling motions can affect stability and safety.

The pitch stiffness represents the structure's resistance to pitching motion (front-to-back tilting
ie, rotation about y axis). A moderate pitch stiffness value indicates that the structure will
experience some resistance to pitching motions. The pitch stiffness of 0.4946387 N·m/° is
moderate, suggesting that the structure will resist pitching motions to some extent. However,
like roll stiffness, the pitch stiffness may not be sufficient to prevent large pitching motions in
rough seas.

The high heave stiffness (4979.5938 N/m) is a positive finding, as it indicates that the structure
will resist vertical motions effectively. This is important for maintaining stability and
preventing excessive heave in waves. However, the high heave stiffness also means that the
structure may experience significant vertical forces in waves, which could lead to fatigue or
structural damage over time.

The low roll stiffness (1.2304e-2 N/°) and moderate pitch stiffness (0.4946387 N·m/°) suggest
that the structure is less resistant to rolling and pitching motions. This could be a concern in
rough sea conditions, where large rolling and pitching motions can affect stability, safety, and
operational performance. The low roll stiffness, in particular, indicates that the structure may
be prone to rolling motions.

The hydrostatic stiffness values highlights the need for design improvements to enhance the
structure's resistance to rolling and pitching motions. For example, increasing the water plane
area or adding stabilizing fins could improve roll and pitch stiffness.

Hydrostatic Displacements

The hydrostatic displacement properties are critical for understanding the buoyancy, stability,
and equilibrium of the floating structure. These properties were calculated as part of the
hydrostatic analysis, and the results provide valuable insights into the structure's behavior when
subjected to hydrostatic forces. From fig 6 the following observations and results can be
discussed,

45
The actual displaced volume of the structure is 0.2229632 m³. The displaced volume represents
the volume of water displaced by the structure when it is floating. This value is directly related
to the buoyant force acting on the structure, which balances the structure's weight. A displaced
volume of 0.2229632 m³ indicates that the structure is relatively small, which is consistent with
the total mass of 180 kg. This value is crucial for ensuring that the structure remains afloat and
maintains its equilibrium. Also the equivalent volumetric displacement is 0.1756098 m³. The
equivalent volumetric displacement is a theoretical value that represents the volume of water
displaced if the structure were perfectly shaped to minimize drag and maximize buoyancy. The
difference between the actual displaced volume (0.2229632 m³) and the equivalent volumetric
displacement (0.1756098 m³) suggests that the structure's shape is not perfectly optimized for
buoyancy. This could be due to the presence of appendages, irregular geometry, or other design
features that increase the displaced volume.

The Centre of Buoyancy is the point where the buoyant force acts on the structure. Its location
is critical for determining the structure's stability. The centre of buoyancy (CoB) is located at (
7.3493e-5, -5.4027e-9, -0.2249993) with respect to the reference. In this case, the CoB is
located slightly below the center of gravity (CoG) at Z = -0.15 m. This vertical separation
between the CoB and CoG is essential for ensuring positive stability. The structure will tend to
return to its equilibrium position if tilted, as the buoyant force creates a restoring moment.

From fig 6 other parameters observed was out of balance forces and moments. The out-of-
balance force and moment indicate any resulting or residual forces or moments acting on the
structure after considering for buoyancy and weight. The small values of the out-of-balance
force (0.2696517 N) and moment (2.8702e-9 N·m) suggest that the structure is in near-perfect
hydrostatic equilibrium. This is a positive finding, as it indicates that the structure is well-
balanced and stable in calm water.

The other important parameter to be discussed from the hydrostatic result is the metacentric
height GM, which has great influence on stability of a floating structure. The metacentric height
in the X-direction (GMX) is 1.25396e-2 meters. The metacentric height (GM) is a measure of
the structure's initial stability. It represents the distance between the centre of gravity (CoG)
and the metacentre (the point where the buoyant force acts when the structure is tilted) (fig 7).

46
 Figure 3.7. Stability of Floating Body

A positive GM value (1.25396e-2 meters) indicates that the structure is stable. If the structure
is tilted, the buoyant force will create a restoring moment that returns the structure to its upright
position. However, the relatively small GM value suggests that the structure has limited
stability. This could be a concern in rough sea conditions, where larger waves might induce
significant rolling or pitching motions.

Fig

The cut water plane area represents the area of the structure that is in contact with the water
surface. A larger water plane area generally contributes to greater stability for floating objects
whereas for submerging the structure need to have deep draft with lesser waterplane area. The

47
centre of flotation is the centroid of the water plane area. Its location is important for
understanding how the structure will respond to tilting or heeling. The principal second
moments of area (Ixx and Iyy) indicate the distribution of the water plane area about the
principal axes. These values are used to calculate the structure's resistance to rolling and
pitching motions.

Frome fig 6 the small angle stability parameters conveys that a BG of 7.4999e-2 meter and
restoring moments (MX/MY) of 0.4904677 N·m/° (MX) and 0.494702 N·m/° (MY). The
distance between the center of gravity (CoG) and the center of buoyancy (CoB) is 7.4999e-2
meters. This distance known as BG, is an important parameter for assessing stability and the
restoring moments (MX and MY) represent the structure's ability to resist rolling and pitching
motions. The values of 0.4904677 N·m/° and 0.494702 N·m/° indicate that the structure might
have moderate resistance to tilting.

Parameters vs Frequency

The Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) were analysed to understand the structure's motion
response in the global Z-direction (heave) under various wave frequencies. The RAOs
represent the ratio of the structure's motion amplitude to the wave amplitude, providing details
into how the structure responds to wave forces.

Table 3. Frequency and Amplitude.

48
The maximum RAO value was 3.15003 m/m at a wave frequency of 0.63334 Hz. This
indicates that the structure experiences the highest heave motion at this frequency, which can
be considered the resonant frequency of the structure and the minimum RAO value
was 8.19248e-4 m/m at a wave frequency of 1.48231 Hz. This suggests that the structure's
heave motion is minimal at higher frequencies, indicating that the structure is less affected by
high-frequency waves.

Figure 3.8. RAO vs Frequency

The RAOs show a clear dependence on wave frequency. The structure's heave response
increases as the wave frequency increases, peaking at 0.63334 Hz, and then decreases as the
frequency increases further. The maximum RAO value at 0.63334 Hz indicates resonance,
where the structure's natural frequency could match the wave frequency, leading to amplified
motion. This is a critical finding for operational safety, as resonance can lead to excessive
motion and potential structural damage. Whereas considering this structure response in view

49
of wave energy converters peak RAO at 0.63334 Hz that it is most efficient at capturing energy
from waves near this frequency and performance is limited at higher frequencies, where the
RAO values are minimum. To maximize energy capture, the structure should be optimized for
operation in wave conditions near its resonant frequency.

From fig 6 the heave displacement analysis focuses on the vertical motion of the structure's
centre of gravity (CoG) relative to the origin of the fixed reference axes (FRA). The heave
displacement is a critical parameter for assessing the structure's stability and comfort in induced
conditions. At the resonant frequency of 0.63334 Hz, the heave displacement reaches its
maximum value of 3.15003 m/m (Table 1). This indicates that the structure experiences
significant vertical motion at this frequency, which could impact stability and performance. At
higher frequencies, such as 1.48231 Hz, the heave displacement is minimal (8.19248e-4 m/m).
This suggests that the structure is relatively stable and less affected by high-frequency waves.
At low frequencies, such as 0.01562 Hz, the heave displacement is also minimal. This indicates
that the structure is less responsive to very low-frequency waves, which is typical for floating
structures (Table 1).

The maximum RAO value at 0.63334 Hz highlights the importance of avoiding

r6tioperational conditions near this frequency. Resonance can lead to excessive heave motion,
which may affect the structure's stability and safety. Operational limits should be established
to ensure that the structure is not exposed to wave conditions near this resonant frequency. The
minimum heave displacement at high frequencies (1.48231 Hz) indicates that the structure is
stable and less susceptible to high-frequency wave forces. This is a positive finding, as high-
frequency waves are common in harsh sea conditions. The RAO and heave displacement results
provide critical data for optimizing the structure's design. For example, the structure's natural
frequency could be adjusted (e.g., by changing mass distribution or adding damping
mechanisms) according to the wave conditions to move the resonant frequency away from
common wave frequencies encountered in the working condition.

CONCLUSION
The hydrostatic displacement properties provide a combined understanding of the structure's
buoyancy, stability, and equilibrium in calm water. Key findings include:

1. The structure has a displaced volume of 0.2229632 m³, which ensures sufficient
buoyancy to support its weight.

50
 2. The centre of buoyancy (CoB) is located slightly below the centre of gravity (CoG),
contributing to positive stability.

3. The metacentric height (GMX) of 1.25396e-2 meters indicates that the structure is
stable but has limited resistance to tilting.

4. The out-of-balance forces and moments are minimum, confirming that the structure is
in near a stable hydrostatic equilibrium.

5. The structure has a high heave stiffness (4979.5938 N/m), indicating strong resistance
to vertical motions. This is beneficial for maintaining stability in waves but may lead
to significant vertical forces in rough seas.

6. The low roll stiffness (1.2304e-2 N/°) suggests that the structure is prone to rolling
motions, which could affect stability and safety in rough sea conditions.

The analysis of RAOs and heave displacement provides critical insights into the structure's
hydrodynamic behaviour. The structure exhibits significant heave motion at its resonant
frequency (0.63334 Hz), which must be considered in operational planning to avoid excessive
motion. At higher frequencies, the structure remains stable, with minimal heave displacement.
These observations are essential for optimizing the design and ensuring the safe operation of
the structure in marine environments. Whereas considering the structure for a wave energy
converter, a good heave response is essential for better energy conversion processes. Hence
maintaining this frequency level for higher amplitude also considering structural failure for
these responses could effectively use these data for energy conversion models.

REFERENCES
1. Ghadimi, P., Paselar Bandari, H., & Bankhshandeh Rostami, A. (2012). Determination
of the heave and pitch motions of a floating cylinder by analytical solution of its
diffraction problem and examination of the effects of geometric parameters on its
dynamics in regular waves. International Journal of Applied Mathematical Research,
1(4). https://doi.org/10.14419/ijamr.v1i4.396
2. Riyanto, R. D., & Rahmawati, S. (Year). Hydrostatic stiffness as displacement
boundary condition of floating cylindrical structural analysis in waves.https://doi.org/
10.5220/0010058501310137

51
3. Zheng, S., Zhang, J., Lei, Z., Yan, X., Gao, S., Hu, W., & Cheng, K. (2024). *Structure
design and static analysis of a cylindrical wave buoy*. *Proceedings of SPIE, 12981,
Ninth International Symposium on Sensors, Mechatronics, and Automation System
(ISSMAS 2023)*, 1298136. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3014824

52
 EXERCISE 4

ANALYSIS OF SHIP RESISTANCE UNDER STATIC DRIFT MOTION

AGAINST SWAY, SURGE AND YAW MOTION.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The design of ship and considering its manoeuvring has to deal with many hydrodynamic
forces. Ship manoeuvring in engineering involves understanding and predicting how a vessel
changes its course and position, crucial for safe navigation, especially in confined waters like
harbours and narrow channels. This includes factors like hydrodynamic forces, control
surfaces, and the ship's inbuilt dynamic stability Ship resistance in surge, sway, and rolling
motions is a critical aspect while considering smooth motion of ship and the design of propeller
[2].

1. Surge Motion (forward and backward motion): This is the linear motion of the ship
along its longitudinal axis (along global X-axis). Resistance in surge is primarily due
to the hydrodynamic drag acting on the hull as it moves forward or backward through
the water.

2. Sway Motion (sideways motion): This is the linear motion of the ship along its
transverse axis (along global Y-axis). Resistance in sway is influenced by the lateral
forces acting on the hull, which can be significant during manoeuvrs or in crosswinds
and currents.

3. Yaw Motion (Rotational Motion about Z-Axis): Yaw motion is the rotational
movement of a ship around its vertical (z) axis. It determines the ship’s ability to turn,
manoeuvring, and maintain course. Yawing occurs due to external forces like waves,
wind, rudder deflection, or asymmetric hull resistance. A yaw moment (M_z) is
generated, causing the bow and stern to rotate in opposite directions.

By using CFD simulations in OpenFOAM, engineers can accurately predict these resistance
forces and develop better, more efficient ship designs.

53
 Figure 4.1. Ship motion and axis

4.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The main importance of the above analysis is to fix the shape, weight and type of propulsion
to withstand against the resistance to its motion which will affect the smooth operation of ship.

1. Design Optimization: Accurate prediction of ship resistance in surge, sway, and rolling
motions allows for the optimization of hull forms and appendages to minimize
resistance, leading to more fuel-efficient ships.
2. Stability and Safety: Understanding the resistance in these motions is important for
assessing the stability and safety of ships, especially in rough seas where large
amplitudes of motion can occur.
3. Operational Efficiency: Ships with lower resistance in various motions can operate
more efficiently, leading to cost savings and improved performance in commercial and
military applications.

54
 4. Manoeuvrability: Resistance in sway and rolling motions directly impacts the ship's
manoeuvrability. Accurate simulations can help in designing ships with better handling
characteristics.

4.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY

OpenFOAM uses the finite volume method to discretize the governing equations. Which is
nothing but converting all differential equations into algebraic equations and defining them at
every nodes thus solving. Navier stokes equation is the foundation of CFD in OpenFOAM.
They are based on conservation laws of mass and momentum [1].

Model setup

A ship model of length (𝐿𝑝𝑝 ) 5.72 m is considered within a domain. Ship is considered as under
a static drift of β= 100 . Static drift refers to a condition where a ship moves forward while
maintaining a constant side-slip angle (drift angle, β\betaβ) due to external forces like wind,
waves, or manoeuvring. This leads to lateral (sway) resistance and affects the ship’s
hydrodynamic performance. It helps in evaluating how well a ship maintains course without
excessive rudder corrections. Here a constant inlet velocity of 0.819 m/s is given for analysis
in the direction of ship motion (Global X direction). As the ship has a drift angle with respect
to this direction, forces along y direction and concerns about sway motion is coming into
picture. From figure 2 we can depict the direction of motion of ship with a velocity U and drift
angle of β degrees. But in this analysis an equivalent different approach is employed, that is
instead of considering the ship moving, the ship is considered to be at rest and the water id
flowing against the ship at rest with a velocity of U. So, the direction of U will be opposite to
the U represented un figure 2. So whatever U we are processing for it would be entered as -U
in analysis domain. Also as mentioned earlier due to the drift angle from the X-axis or direction
of motion, motion and forces along Y-axis (sway) is also considered. Which is velocity V
should be also occupied for the analysis. The inputs for Velocity along X-axis (U) and velocity
along Y-axis can be represented as

𝑈 = −|𝑈𝛼 cos 𝛽| eq(1)

V = ±|𝑈𝛼 sin 𝛽| eq(2)

Where 𝑈𝛼 is the inlet velocity of 0.819m/s.

55
 Figure 4.2. Static drift

From equation 2 it is to mention that V will be negative when β is negative and will be positive
if β is positive.

Governing equations

In OpenFoam, the Navier-Stokes equations are solved numerically to model fluid flow, which
then needed for the analysis of ship resistance and motion simulations. The equation governs
the motion of incompressible and compressible fluids and are fundamental to Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Basically Navier-Stokes equation is developed from the conservation
of momentum which is one among the three basic conservation laws of CFD [1]. The equation
is as follows

𝜕𝑈 1
+ (𝑈. ∇)𝑈 = − 𝜌 ∇𝑝 + 𝜗∇2 𝑈 + 𝐹 eq (3)
𝜕𝑡

Where:

U=Velocity vector (u,v,w)

P=Pressure

𝜌= density of fluid

56
 𝜗= Kinematic viscosity

∇2 𝑈= Laplacian term (viscous effect)

F= External forces

Along with this conservation of mass is applied and OpenFoam discretizes these equations
using Finite Volume Methods then solves them iteratively. Here for ship resistance problem
OpenFoam uses Volume of Fluid (VOF) method (interFoam), which captures the interaction
between the ship hull and the free surface.

Volume of Fluid Method

In OpenFOAM, the interFoam solver is commonly used for VOF simulations. The VOF
method captures the interaction between the ship hull and the free surface. The process
involves:

1. Mesh Generation: Creating a high-quality mesh around the ship hull using
snappyHexMesh. The shape, size and aspect ratio of elements formed under mesh
have great importance in accuracy of the results generated. The more the elements
the more will be the accuracy and computational time. The mesh generation is
controlled by a file named blockMeshDict, which is located in the system directory.
Here a total of 88*54*28, which is equals to 59136 cells are generated.
2. Boundary Conditions: The boundary conditions involve specifying domain
boundary and size. Implementing inlet velocity and wave profile. It also has to
imply with turbulence flow prediction and no slip conditions for the ship hull for
this specific problem.
3. Post-Processing: Post-Processing includes extracting pressure distribution and
shear stress thus calculating drag forces and hull resistance.

4.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data and results were obtained for a time of 0 to 46.125 with a time step of 0.0005. At every
time steps results were obtained for Pressure, Viscous, Porous force along X, Y, Z axis and
corresponding moments along X, Y, Z axis. These forces are utilized for determining ship
resistance which affect the smooth motion of ship. A portion of results obtained from
OpenFoam is shown in figure 3. A total of 92252 data were obtained for each of forces and
moments mentioned above for each time steps.
57
 Figure 4.3. Excel result.

The significance of each of the forces and moments are discussed below.

1. Pressure forces: Pressure forces arise due to the difference in pressure distribution on
the ship’s hull as it moves through water. These forces influence resistance,
manoeuvrability and stability. Pressure forces are generated by fluid flow around the
hull and are influenced by wave formation at the bow and stern which affects drag,
Flow separation and vortices which affects side forces and yaw moments and buoyancy
and hydrostatic pressure differences which affects vertical stability. The pressure forces
can be further break own into force along X and Y direction (which is our only concern).
Longitudinal Pressure Force (Fp_X) is the pressure-induced component of total
resistance along X direction. These are generated by high pressure at the bow and low
pressure at the stern which contributes to wave-making resistance. They are higher at
58
 higher speeds or drift angles due to increased wave height and flow separation. Second
one is Transverse Pressure Force (Fp_y) or Side Force. This force is responsible for
lateral drift when the ship is at an angle which are caused by asymmetric pressure
distribution on the hull due to drift. It is important for course stability and
manoeuvrability. They increase significantly with higher drift angles.
2. Viscous Force: Viscous forces arise due to the shear stress between the ship’s hull and
the surrounding water. These forces are caused by fluid viscosity and contribute
significantly to total resistance. Viscous forces are generated by friction between the
water and the hull surface which creates shear stress. Here also we are concerned only
about its X and Y components. Longitudinal Viscous Force (Fv_x) or Frictional
Resistance (Drag) is the main contributor to total ship resistance which is caused by
skin friction along the hull due to viscosity. They dominate at low speeds but remains
significant at high speeds. Transverse Viscous Force (Fv_y) or Side Force which acts
against lateral motion of the ship. Thes are affected by eddy formation and shear stress
asymmetry at drift angles. Significant for manoeuvring studies during turns.
3. Yaw Moment (M_Z) or Rotation About Z-Axis: Yaw motion is the left-right turning
tendency of the ship and they have a great important for manoeuvrability and course
stability. These moments are caused by lateral force asymmetry due to drift angle.

4.5 POST-PROCESSING OF RESULTS

After obtaining the results as shown in figure 3, these are used for the calculation of finding
out resistance of ship motion. Under this analysis a static drift of β=10 degree is considered,
whereas carrying out analysis for a different drift angles and analysis of result would give clear
picture of the trend. All other parameters had mentioned under model setup. As to find ship
resistance it will be the sum of pressure force, viscous force and porous force. In addition, the
resistance of moments will be the sum of pressure, viscous and porous moments. Therefore,
the total resistance formula can be mentioned as

𝑅𝑇 = 𝑅𝑝 + 𝑅𝑉 + 𝑅𝑝𝑜 eq(4)

Where 𝑅𝑇 is then total resistance

𝑅𝑝 is the pressure resistance

𝑅𝑉 is the viscous resistance

59
and 𝑅𝑝𝑜 is the porous resistance which is zero in this case.

Therefor the resistance against the X, Y and Z direction of motion of ship can be found out by
adding the respective forces along that direction. Here porous forces and moments are zero
because no porous zone is defined in the simulation. If the porous region is not included in the
OpenFOAM setup (e.g., missing fvOptions for porosity modelling), then 𝐹𝑝𝑜𝑟 and 𝑀𝑝𝑜𝑟 will
be zero. Here a representation of ship model is simulated then the hydrodynamic forces and
moments are depicted in terms of similarity rules and dimensionless parameter for the
prototype.

Dimensionless parameters used are

𝑋
𝑋′ = eq(5)
0.5𝜌𝑈𝛼2 𝑇𝑚 𝐿𝑝𝑝

𝑌
𝑌′ = eq(6)
0.5𝜌𝑈𝛼2 𝑇𝑚 𝐿𝑝𝑝

𝑁
𝑁′ = eq(7)
0.5𝜌𝑈𝛼2 𝑇𝑚 𝐿2𝑝𝑝

Where,

X, Y is the dimensional surge and sway forces (N).

𝜌 is the density of sea water (1025 Kg/𝑚3 ).

𝑈𝛼 is the free stream velocity (0.819 m/s).

𝑇𝑚 is the mean draft (0.248 m).

𝐿𝑝𝑝 is the length between perpendiculars (5.72 m).

N is the yaw moment about the centre of gravity (Nm).

𝑋 ′ and 𝑌 ′ are the non-dimensional longitudinal (surge) and transverse (sway) force
coefficients, respectively.

𝑁 ′ is the non-dimensional yaw moment coefficient.

In this post-processing, the data from figure 3 is analysed and forces along X direction
(pressure, viscous and porous) is sum up in order to get the X terms in equation 5. Similarly

60
forces along Y direction and moments along z direction is sum up for substituting Y and Z in
equation 6 and 7 respectively. After plotting graph for forces (Surge and Sway) and Yaw vs
time, a great variation was observed at the start of time steps as shown in figure 4.

Time Surge Sway Yaw

force Force moment
0 -11.3484 33.4014 -20.83732
0.0005 - 4386.42211 -
5783.304 2041.0232
0.001 - 486.32611 -
1065.742 328.15139
0.0015 - 1653.55574 -
2605.622 1727.0495
0.002 - 229.47211 -
1394.893 748.58261
0.0025 - 277.7513 -
1150.498 682.57253
0.003 - 532.02556 -
1238.954 730.37805
0.0035 - 515.51265 -
1205.763 619.35754
0.004 - 490.80897 -
1212.069 526.87997
0.0045 - 553.4469 -
1237.687 608.57639
0.005 - 235.04754 -
793.5139 156.50969
0.0055 - 73.22307 19.25608
530.3306
0.006 -70.8929 -383.02657 813.66317
0.0065 -84.5915 -292.07003 668.1787
0.007 - 129.34745 -12.8409
497.6647
0.0075 - 894.1194 -
1700.418 1240.1192
0.008 - 853.3423 -
1623.254 1123.7097

Table 4.1 Surge force, Sway force and Yaw moment

61
 Figure 4.4. forces and yaw moment vs time (plotted using python).

These variations are neglected and averaging for the same ranged values imply

Surge force (X) = -45.4095 N

Sway Force (Y) = 32.93575 N

Yaw moment (N) = -11.1753 N

Substituting in equations 5,6 and 7 gives,

𝑋 ′ = -0.09312
𝑌 ′ = 0.06754
𝑁 ′ = -0.004
Ship resistance is a combination of viscous drag, pressure forces, and wave-making resistance.
The non-dimensional coefficients you provided (X′, Y′, N′) help in understanding the
hydrodynamic forces acting on the ship, particularly under static drift conditions (where the
ship is at an angle to the incoming flow). X ′ is directly related to the total resistance of the
62
ship. Since 𝑋′ is negative (−0.09312), it confirms that the resistance force is acting opposite to
the ship’s forward motion. From this non dimensional force the actual resistance for prototype
can be found by considering representative similarity rules. Y′ represents the lateral force on
the ship due to drift angle (β). A nonzero Y′ indicates side forces, which contribute to increased
total resistance due to the additional cross-flow drag and unstable motion, requiring correction
via rudders or thrusters. Based on this X ′ and Y′ we could determine how much thrust should
be implied through propellers to overcome this resistance thus for the smooth motion of ship.
The N′ represents the moment that causes the ship to turn. A nonzero yaw moment means the
ship is experiencing asymmetric flow, leading to additional resistance as more force is required
to correct its path and increased rudder forces to maintain direction, adding to drag.

CONCLUSION
1. X′=−0.09312 indicates resistance is acting against forward motion. A more negative
X′ suggests significant drag, which can impact fuel efficiency and ship speed.
2. Y′=0.06754 imply a positive sway force suggests side forces due to drift angle. This
could lead to increased cross-flow drag and affect manoeuvrability.
3. N′=−0.0044 imply a small negative yaw moment suggests a slight tendency to turn,
meaning some asymmetry in the flow but not a major stability concern.

The ship experiences noticeable resistance, indicating potential drag sources (viscous, wave-
making). Sway forces suggest possible course deviation, important for manoeuvring in currents
or side winds. Yawing tendency is low, meaning the ship is relatively stable but may require
rudder corrections [2].

For Fuel Efficiency reducing X′ (resistance) through hull shape optimization can improve
energy efficiency. For manoeuvrability controlling sway forces (Y′) and yaw moments (N′) is
important for course stability, especially in crosswinds or currents. This analysis provides a
foundation for improving ship design, optimizing performance, and reducing energy
consumption in real-world operations.

REFERENCES
1. Islam, H. A CFD study of a ship moving with constant drift angle in calm water and
waves.
2. Zhang, Y., Díaz-Ojeda, H. R., Windén, B., Hudson, D., & Turnock, S. (2024). A
numerical study of drift angle effect on hydrodynamic performance of a fully appended

63
container ship in head waves. Ocean Engineering, 313, 119343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.11934.

64
 EXERCISE 5

FLOW PAST A 2D CIRCULAR CYLINDER AT REYNOLDS NUMBER

250 USING ANSYS FLUENT AND VISUALIZATION OF VORTEX
SHEDDING.

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Fluid flow around a circular cylinder is a problem of extreme relevance to both research and
engineering practice. It is essential for the design of structures like heat exchangers, cooling
towers, nuclear reactors, bridge piers, and subsea pipelines, all of which are cylindrical in
nature. Flow conditions in most engineering applications are found in the subcritical
Reynolds number range.

As the fluid interacts with the cylinder, vortex shedding and boundary layer separation
happen, especially at high and moderate Reynolds numbers. These flow patterns can cause
unsteady forces, resulting in unwanted vibrations that can lead to fatigue failure or structural
damage. Thus, the study of the impact of vortex shedding on cylindrical structures is an
important research field in fluid dynamics.

Flow Patterns and Reynolds Number Influence:

The nature of flow around a cylinder is a function of the Reynolds number (Re), which is the
ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces. With an increase in the Reynolds number, the
behaviour of the flow goes through various regimes, each with unique characteristics figure
[1].

• Re < 1: At low Reynolds numbers, the flow is fully laminar with no separation.
Viscous forces prevail, leading to smooth, symmetrical flow around the cylinder, with
no wake formation.
• 4 < Re < 40: When the Reynolds number increases somewhat, the flow starts to
separate in the rear of the cylinder and creates a symmetric, stable pair of vortices in
the near wake. These vortices are attached to the cylinder surface.
• 40 < Re < 100: The wake region gets destabilized, and periodic vortex shedding
occurs. This results in the development of the Kármán vortex street, in which

65
 alternating vortices are shed from the cylinder owing to oscillatory flow and pressure
gradients.
• 100 < Re < 200: Vortex shedding becomes more significant, with intense periodic
oscillations in the wake area.
• 200 < Re < 400: The wake flow becomes more unstable, with random disturbances
appearing, indicating the onset of laminar to turbulent flow.
• 400 < Re < 2.5 × 10⁵: The flow becomes subcritical, and boundary layer separation is
at about 80° from the cylinder front. This results in a region of low-pressure wake
behind the cylinder, considerably affecting drag forces.
• 2.5 × 10⁵ < Re < 3.5 × 10⁵: In this critical flow regime, the turbulent and unsteady
boundary layer separation occurs, which results in a significant drag reduction of
almost 70%.
• 3.5 × 10⁵ < Re < 3 × 10⁶: The separated flow region is turbulent and reattaches at the
back of the cylinder, which results in a rise in drag.
• Re > 3 × 10⁶: The flow is completely turbulent, with separation delayed along the
surface of the cylinder (around 140° from the front), further enhancing drag.

Figure 5.1 Regimes of fluid flow over circular cylinder.

66
Numerous experimental and numerical investigations have been performed to study flow
behaviour about a circular cylinder, especially in laminar as well as turbulent flow regimes.
Different parameters such as velocity fields, pressure distribution, drag force, and vortex
dynamics have been analysed through computational techniques such as ANSYS Fluent and
experimental methods.

5.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Experiments on flow past a circular cylinder with a Reynolds number of 250 are of significant
importance in both general fluid mechanics and engineering. At Reynolds number 250, the
nature of flow is unsteady laminar vortex shedding, where the Kármán vortex street is formed
in the wake region. The Kármán vortex street phenomenon is of vital importance in offshore
engineering, aerodynamics, thermal energy systems, and structural analysis.

1. Observation of Unsteady Vortex Shedding at Re = 250.

• At Re = 250, the flow is in the laminar unsteady regime, where periodic vortex
shedding causes oscillating lift and drag forces on the cylinder.
• The present work offers extensive information on wake development, vortex
interaction, and shedding frequency, which is essential for flow-induced vibration
applications.
• The numerically calculated Strouhal number (St) at Re = 250 assists in the
verification of theoretical and empirical correlations employed in vortex-induced
vibration analysis.
2. Applications in Offshore and Marine Engineering.
• Offshore equipment like subsea pipelines, risers, and mooring lines tend to face
flow conditions with Reynolds number ranging from 100–500.
• Knowledge of vortex-induced forces at Re = 250 can contribute to the development
of vibration damping methods, e.g., helical strakes, fairings, and tuned mass
dampers, to provide structural stability.
• This study contributes to the alleviation of fatigue failure in offshore equipment
exposed to cyclic vortex shedding forces.
3. Enhancement of Structural Design and Vortex Control.
• The periodic lift and drag forces caused by vortex shedding can cause unwanted
vibrations in engineering structures.

67
 • Through the study of shedding frequency and aerodynamic forces, this research
assists in the design of flow control devices, including vortex generators and passive
flow control devices, to reduce flow-induced oscillations.

5.3 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY

The research is conducted on the unsteady laminar flow over a 2D circular cylinder at Reynolds
number 250 through Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in ANSYS Fluent. Periodic vortex
shedding is the nature of the flow at this Reynolds number. The aim is to investigate flow
characteristics like vortex shedding frequency, drag and lift coefficients, and wake formation
through numerical simulations.

Governing Equations

The flow is governed by the 2-D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, which consist of:

1. Conservation of Mass (Continuity Equation)

For an incompressible fluid, mass is conserved, meaning the rate of change of mass within
a control volume is zero. The continuity equation ensures that no fluid is created or lost
within the domain.
The continuity equation can be described as
𝜕𝜌
+ ∇. (𝜌𝑉) = 0……………………………………………..eq (1)
𝜕𝑡
If the fluid is incompressible the equation becomes
∇. 𝑉 = 0……………………………………………….………eq (2)
2. Conservation of Momentum (Navier-Stokes Equations)
The momentum equation is derived from Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states
that the rate of change of momentum is equal to the sum of forces acting on the fluid. For
an incompressible, Newtonian fluid, the momentum equations in the x and y directions are:
𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 1 𝜕𝑃 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
+𝑢 +𝑣 =− + 𝜗( 2
+ )……………………..eq (3)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜌 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 2

𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣 1 𝜕𝑃 𝜕2 𝑣 𝜕2 𝑣
+𝑢 +𝑣 =− + 𝜗( 2
+ )…………………….eq (4)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜌 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 2

Where,

• 𝑢, 𝑣 = velocity components in the x and y directions.

• ρ = fluid density (1.225 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3)

68
 • P = pressure
• 𝜗 = kinematic viscosity (1.7894 × 10−5 𝑘𝑔/𝑚 ⋅ 𝑠)
• 𝑥, 𝑦 = spatial coordinates

Explanation:

𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑣
• and is the Unsteady term which represents changes in velocity with time
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
(transient effects).
𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣
• 𝑢 +𝑣 and 𝑢 +𝑣 is the convective term which represents the transport
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦

of momentum due to velocity variations.

1 𝜕𝑃 1 𝜕𝑃
• − and − is the Pressure gradient force which drives the motion of the fluid.
𝜌 𝜕𝑥 𝜌 𝜕𝑦

𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕2 𝑣 𝜕2 𝑣
• 𝜗( 2
+ ) and 𝜗(𝜕𝑥 2 + 𝜕𝑦2 ) is the viscous diffusion term which represents
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 2

momentum diffusion due to viscosity (internal friction of the fluid).

3. Reynolds Number and Flow Regime
The Reynolds number (Re) is a dimensionless parameter that characterizes the nature of
the flow and the balance between inertial forces and viscous forces:
𝜌𝑈𝐷 𝑈𝐷
𝑅𝑒 = =
𝜇 𝜗
• 𝑈= freestream velocity (0.365 m/s)
• 𝐷 = cylinder diameter (10 mm = 0.01 m)
• 𝜗= kinematic viscosity of air (1.7894 × 10−5 𝑘𝑔/𝑚 ⋅ 𝑠)

For Re = 250, the flow is in the laminar unsteady regime, where vortex shedding occurs,
forming a periodic wake.

4. The drag coefficient (Cd) and lift coefficient (Cl) are defined as:
𝐹𝑑
𝐶𝑑 =
1 2
2 𝜌𝑈 𝐴
𝐹𝑙
𝐶𝑙 =
1 2
2 𝜌𝑈 𝐴

69
Where,
• 𝐴 = 𝐷 ⋅ 𝐿 projected area of the cylinder
• 𝑈 =freestream velocity

These coefficients are used to find out corresponding forces.

5. Vortex Shedding and Strouhal Number

The Strouhal number (St) characterizes vortex shedding frequency:

𝑓𝐷
𝑆𝑡 =
𝑈

where:

• 𝑓 = vortex shedding frequency (obtained from simulation).

• 𝐷 = cylinder diameter.

• 𝑈 = freestream velocity.

Model setup

This section provides a detailed model setup for simulating flow past a 2D circular cylinder at
Reynolds number 250 using ANSYS Fluent. A rectangular domain is created to ensure that the
boundaries do not affect the flow around the cylinder. The dimensions are chosen based on
standard CFD best practices for flow past bluff bodies.

70
 Figure 5.2 Problem model

Domain Size:

• Length: 300 mm

• Height: 150 mm

Cylinder Specifications:

• Diameter: 10 mm

• Position: Placed at 1/3rd of the domain length from the inlet to allow sufficient wake
development.

Boundary Conditions.

Proper boundary conditions are set to simulate external flow over a circular cylinder
accurately.

Boundary Type Boundary Condition

Inlet Velocity Inlet (0.365 m/s)
Outlet

71
 Pressure Outlet (0 Pa gauge pressure)
Cylinder Surface No-Slip Wall (Zero velocity)
Top & Bottom Symmetric (Slip condition)

Table 5.1 Boundary conditions.

Figure 5.3. Computational domain

for Reynolds number (𝑅𝑒 )= 250;

𝜌𝑈𝐷 1.225∗𝑈∗0.01
𝑅𝑒 = = ; 𝑈 = 0.365 𝑚/𝑠
µ 1.7894e−05

Mesh Generation

A structured quadrilateral mesh with inflation layers is used to capture boundary layer effects
and wake formation accurately.

• Element Type: Unstructured quadrilateral

• Element Size: 0.003 m
• Inflation Layers (Near-Wall Refinement):

• Method: Total thickness

• Number of Layers: 20

72
 • Maximum Thickness: 0.003 m

• Mesh Quality Checks:

• Aspect Ratio < 5 (ensures numerical stability)

• Orthogonal Quality > 0.1 (for accurate flow resolution)

• Skewness < 0.85 (to avoid numerical diffusion)

The cylinder is positioned at 1/3rd of the domain length from the inlet to provide sufficient
space for both flow acceleration upstream and wake development downstream.

Figure 5.4. Mesh generation

73
Solver Setup

The pressure-based solver is used since the flow is incompressible. The transient solver
captures the unsteady vortex shedding behind the cylinder.

• Solver Type: Pressure-Based

• Time Stepping: Transient (Unsteady flow)

• Viscous Model: Laminar (valid for Re = 250)

𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔
• Material: Air (𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 1.225 𝑚3 , 𝑉𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 1.7894 × 10−5 𝑚−𝑠)

Figure 5.5. Solver setup

74
 Figure 5.6. Setup.

5.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Numerical analysis of the flow past a circular cylinder have been carried out using commercial
CFD, ANSYS/Fluent to solving the governing equations with the corresponding boundary
conditions. The simulated results obtain for the 2D flow past a smooth circular cylinder with
definite geometry (diameter=1cm and length = 40 cm) model and at fixed Reynolds number
(250). The simulation must resolve vortex shedding accurately, so an appropriate time step size
is selected. A time step of 0.005 seconds is set up to 300 seconds. Also considered maximum
iteration per time step was 25.

Figure 5.7. Lift Coefficient

75
 Figure 5.8. Drag Coefficient

Figure 5.9. Frequency vs amplitude plot

Even though lift (Cl) and drag (Cd) are coefficients, they still change over time in this
simulation because of the unsteady nature of vortex shedding at Re = 250. The fluctuations in
these coefficients are a direct result of the periodic flow behaviour around the cylinder.

At Re = 250, the flow around the circular cylinder is in the laminar unsteady regime, meaning
that the flow is not steady but continuously changing. This happens because of vortex shedding,
where alternating vortices are released from the top and bottom of the cylinder, forming a
Kármán vortex street. The Kármán Vortex Street is a repeating pattern of swirling vortices
formed behind a bluff body (such as a circular cylinder) when fluid flows past it at a moderate
Reynolds number.

76
Considering the bluff body, that induced with more drag than lift. The figure 7 represents the
drag coefficient (Cd) variation over time for a bluff body (circular cylinder) flow simulation.
The general behaviour of Cd in the plot can be divided into three key phases:

1. Initial Transient Phase (0 - 0.2 s): A sharp peak in Cd followed by a rapid drop. This is
because at the start, the flow is developing, and the fluid suddenly interacts with the
cylinder, creating a high pressure drag at the front. As the boundary layer starts forming,
separation occurs, leading to a reduction in Cd. This is a common behaviour in unsteady
flow simulations where the flow takes time to stabilize.
2. Stabilization & Mean Cd Plateau (0.2 - 0.8 s) : Cd settles into a more stable region (~1.1 -
1.3). This is due to the flow fully develops and aperiodic vortex shedding cycle starts. Cd
stabilizes around its expected average value, which is consistent with experimental and
numerical studies for Re ≈ 250. The drag force is now primarily due to the combination of
pressure drag and shear drag.
3. Periodic Oscillations in Cd (0.8 - 1.6 s): Cd starts oscillating regularly in a sinusoidal
pattern. The main reason for this can be considered as vortex shedding from the cylinder
alternates between the top and bottom, causing fluctuations in the wake pressure. These
alternating low-pressure zones cause periodic variations in the drag force. The Strouhal
frequency (vortex shedding frequency) is responsible for this periodic behaviour and this
oscillation is characteristic of unsteady wake flow (Kármán vortex street), which dominates
at Re = 250.

Considering the frequency, the figure 8 is a frequency spectrum obtained from the flow analysis
around a bluff body. The x-axis represents frequency (in Hz), and the y-axis represents
magnitude. The sharp peak observed at around 7-10 Hz indicates the dominant vortex shedding
frequency from the bluff body. This peak corresponds to the vortex shedding phenomenon
caused by alternating vortices being released from the object. Using these values Strouhal
number can be found out by

𝑓𝑠 𝐷 7.31∗0.01
𝑆𝑡 = = ; 𝑆𝑡 = 0.2
𝑈 0.365

77
 Figure 5.10. Strouhal Number vs Reynolds Number plot.

From figure 9, for a Reynolds number around Re = 250, the Strouhal number is approximately
0.2 (highlighted in the figure). This confirms that the vortex shedding frequency follows a well-
established trend seen in experiments. The peak in the frequency spectrum aligns with the
expected vortex shedding frequency based on St ≈ 0.2 thus implies the validation for this
problem. For low Reynolds numbers (Re ≈ 250), the shedding process is stable and periodic.
As Reynolds number increases, the Strouhal number remains nearly constant at 0.2 before
showing deviations at very high Re due to turbulence effects.

78
As the floe stabilizes at after 0.8 seconds indicated from figure 6 and 7. It is better to consider
velocity and pressure profiles after this time. Considering these results at 0.75 and 1.37 seconds
implies the following results.

Figure 5.11. Velocity contour at time 0.75 s.

Figure 5.12. Velocity contour at time 1.37s.

The colour scale indicates velocity magnitude, with red representing the highest velocity and
blue representing the lowest. At 0.75 seconds, the flow has started forming a wake region
behind the cylinder, but the vortex shedding is still in its early stages. The velocity behind the
cylinder is lower, as shown by the blue regions, indicating a recirculation zone. The vortex

79
structures are developing asymmetrically, showing the onset of vortex shedding and the wake
is shorter, meaning the flow is still transitioning towards a fully periodic state.

At 1.37 seconds, the wake has fully developed into a periodic Kármán vortex street. The
alternating vortices shed downstream, forming a repeating pattern. Another observation found
was the wake has elongated, showing that the shedding process is fully established and
periodic. The velocity field shows alternating high- and low-velocity regions corresponding to
vortices detaching from the cylinder. The vortex street is characterized by oscillatory lift and
drag forces on the cylinder. The wake transitions from an initial unstable state to a periodic
vortex shedding pattern. It is observed that the highest velocities are around the edges of the
cylinder and in the detached vortices, while the lowest velocities appear in the recirculation
region behind the cylinder.

To infer about Vortex Induced Vibration, Vortex-Induced Vibrations (VIV) occur when
alternating vortex shedding exerts periodic forces on a bluff body, causing it to oscillate. The
second velocity contour (1.37s) shows a well-developed Kármán vortex street, indicating a
stable shedding pattern. Alternating vortices generate fluctuating lift and drag forces on the
cylinder, which can lead to structural oscillations. The previously shown drag coefficient graph
(figure7) displays oscillations, which suggest a periodic force acting on the body. The lift
coefficient plotted was (figure 6), likely shows sinusoidal variation which is the characteristic
of VIV. Frequency spectrum graph (FFT analysis) shows a strong peak around 8-10 Hz,
corresponding to the dominant vortex shedding frequency. This frequency is critical in VIV
analysis because if the shedding frequency (Strouhal frequency) matches the natural frequency
of the body, resonance can occur, amplifying the oscillations. A single dominant peak suggests
a lock-in phenomenon, where the vortex shedding synchronizes with the body’s oscillations,
leading to large-amplitude vibrations. The Strouhal number (St = 0.2) is consistent with vortex-
induced forces, meaning VIV risk is significant in your case if the structure is free to move.

Figure 12 is the pressure contour visualization around a circular bluff body provides key
insights into the flow dynamics and vortex shedding behaviour. The main observations are
mentioned below

1. High-Pressure Region at the Front (Stagnation Point): The red region at the front of the
cylinder indicates a high-pressure stagnation point, where the incoming flow directly

80
 impacts the surface. This is expected because the flow velocity at the stagnation point is
zero (due to no-slip condition), leading to maximum static pressure.
2. Low-Pressure Regions in the Wake (Vortex Shedding): The alternating blue regions behind
the cylinder represent low-pressure vortices, formed due to the periodic vortex shedding.
These low-pressure zones cause fluctuating lift forces, which are responsible for Vortex-
Induced Vibrations (VIV). The main observation of Kármán vortex street is clearly visible,
showing a regular pattern of alternating pressure zones.

Figure 5.13. Static Pressure contour.

The pressure distribution confirms vortex shedding and wake formation, aligning with previous
drag and frequency results and the alternating pressure zones indicate periodic shedding, which
is crucial for VIV analysis.

This streamline contour plot (figure 13) provides a detailed visualization of flow separation,
vortex shedding, and wake dynamics around a 2-D circular cylinder. It is clear that
streamlines curve sharply around the cylinder, signifying flow separation from the surface. A
clearly defined recirculation region occurs behind the cylinder, with streamlines creating closed
loops. This recirculating flow is typical of vortex formation from the adverse pressure gradient
in the wake. The alternating whirling zones in the wake indicate vortex shedding, a
phenomenon of Vortex-Induced Vibrations (VIV). This indicates the existence of a Kármán
vortex street, in which vortices develop on opposite sides, imposing oscillatory lift forces on
the cylinder. This indicates the existence of a Kármán vortex street, in which vortices develop

81
on opposite sides, imposing oscillatory lift and drag forces on the cylinder. From the
calculations, the frequency of shedding can be attributed to the Strouhal number (St = 0.2 in
fig 9).

Figure 5.14 Streamlines and formation of vortices.

The color gradient in the streamlines shows velocity variation, with high-velocity areas in green
or yellow and low-velocity areas in blue. When the vortex shedding is periodic the chance for
VIV is very high at normal Reynolds number range. But at low Reynolds number (<300) and
high Reynolds number (>105 ) even at non-periodic shedding of vortices it can lead to irregular
vibration response of the structure.

The close-spaced thin streamlines about the cylinder demonstrate that there is a high-
velocity shear layer in which fluid speed rapidly changes. As it the streamlines detaches from
cylinder showing flow separation downstream. The small secondary vortex near the cylinder's
surface suggests a localized pressure variation, which can contribute to unsteady forces.

CONCLUSION
The simulation outcomes show a good visualization of vortex shedding and vortex-induced
vibrations (VIV) about a cylindrical shape, which is of utmost importance in offshore structural
design. The frequency spectrum analysis of Ansys shows the presence of a strong peak at 6-10
Hz, signifying a periodic vortex shedding phenomenon. The Strouhal number (St) is
approximately 0.2, as expected for this Reynolds number range. The velocity contours at 0.75s
and 1.37s illustrate the development of the wake from early formation of vortices to a fully

82
developed Kármán vortex street. At 0.75s, small vortices are starting to detach from the surface
of the cylinder, and by 1.37s, a periodic and stable regime of vortex shedding is established.
This periodic wake pattern leads to varying lift forces that can cause cross-flow oscillations,
resulting in VIV excitation if the frequency of shedding is in resonance with the natural
frequency of the cylinder. This oscillatory phenomenon is a significant issue in offshore
engineering since it can lead to fatigue failure in structures such as risers, mooring cables, and
floating wind turbine platforms.

The pressure contour plot emphasizes a high-pressure stagnation region at the upstream and
low-pressure regions in the wake, inducing drag and lift forces that affect structural oscillations.
The streamline contour also illustrates shear layer separation and recirculating vortices, further
affecting wake instability and vortex development. The alternating vortices cause oscillatory
lift forces, which may become a cause of resonance if not controlled. This highlights the need
for VIV suppression methods, like helical strakes or dampers, to reduce structural fatigue and
increase operational stability in offshore conditions. The findings confirm classical vortex
shedding behavior and indicate the importance of fluid-structure interaction analysis in
offshore structural design.

REFERENCES
1. Ali, B. M. S. (2023). Numerical modeling of the flow around a cylinder using FEATool
Multiphysics. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 13(4), 11290-11297.
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.6053
2. Sowoud, K. M., AL-Filfily, A. A., & Abed, B. H. (Year). Numerical investigation of 2D
turbulent flow past a circular cylinder at lower subcritical Reynolds number. [Conference
Name or Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Page Range]. Middle Technical University,
Baghdad, Iraq. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/881/1/01216
3. Rajani, B. N., Kandasamy, A., & Majumdar, S. (Year). Numerical simulation of laminar
flow past a circular cylinder. [Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Page Range].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2008.01.017

83