Journal of Subsea and Offshore March 20 , 2015

-Science and Engineering-, Vol.1

A Study of The Dynamic Longitudinal Hull Structural Responses

and Ultimate Strength of Drillship

I Dewa G.A.S. Yuda,a,* Eko B. Djatmiko,b and Daniel M. Rosyid,b

a)
Master Degree Student,Marine Technology Post-Graduate Program, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember(ITS), Surabaya,
Indonesia.
b)
Dept. Of Ocean Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia.

*Corresponding author: idewagedeadi@gmail.com

Paper History MBPOD Million Barrels of Oil Per Day

ITS Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Received: 29-January-2015 RAO Response Amplitude Operator
Received in revised form: 4-March-2015
Lpp Length between Perpendicular
Accepted: 19-March-2015
B Breadth
H Height
T Draught
ABSTRACT LCB Longitudinal Center of Bouyancy
LCF Longitudinal Center of Floatation
Sustainability studies will support the development of drillship KMT Transversal Keel to Metacenter
design. One primary aspect to be explored during the design KML Longitudinal Keel to Metacenter
stageis the global structural responses due to the excitation of
head sea waves. This paper presents the global structural response
BMT Transversal Bouyancy to Metacenter
analysis by implementing the so called quasi-static approach and BML Longitudinal Bouyancy to Metacenter
the effect for ultimate strength. In this respect, a motion analysis Hs Significant Wave Height
should be first carried out to obtain the coupled heave and pitch FEM Finite Element Method
motion data for a range of regular wave frequency.The next step SF Shear Force
is performing the quasi-static computation for a number of wave BM Bending Moment
frequencies, where the magnitudes of heave and pitch motions are LWT Lightweight
considered important. After accomplishing RAO of shear force DWT Deadweight
and bending moment calculation, further analysis is obtained the Mjk Matrixof ship mass and mass moment of inertia
extreme global structural responses by implementing the spectral
approach. It will be inputed to Global Finite Element Model
Ajk Matrix of hydrodynamic added mass coefficient
(FEM) to get the ultimate condition of drillship material. Final Bjk Matrix of hydrodynamic damping coefficient
results of the global analysis indicates the ultimate condition is Kjk Matrix of hydrostatic stiffness,
exceeded on 12 meter wave height by the Structural Stress output Fj Matrix of excitation Forces (F1, F2, F3) and
of 585 Mpa. Moments (F4, F5, F6)
w(x) Weight distribution along the ship hull
Δ(x) Buoyancy distribution along the ship hull
KEY WORDS: Drillship; Dynamic Wave Load; Structural ITTC International Towing Tank Conference
Spectral Response; Finite Element Analysis; Ultimate strength. ISSC International Ship Structure Congress
m0 The area under the structural response spectra
m2 The second moment of the area under structural
NOMENCLATURE
response spetra
EPI Eastern Part of Indonesia Ts Storm duration (3.0 hours)

1 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Subsea and Offshore
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.1
α The probability of exceedance
The level of confidence that the extreme response
σ Stress matrix σ σ σ σ σ σ
Stiffness matrix of model
Deformation matrix
fL Longitudinal stress of component
fT Vertical stress of component
fLT Vertical plane stress
fUL Ultimate strength of material
Sm Strength reduction factor (1 for ordinary steel)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Indonesia requires an oil supply of approximately 1,450
MBPOD, while the national production could only reach
the range of 860 MBPOD. In future the shortage is planned
to be tackled by exploiting the resources from the EPI,
where a reserve in the quantity of 3.5 billion barrels is
predicted to be available, with a further potential up to 50
billion barrels. However it should be realized that oil
reserves in EPI mostly located in the deepsea and harsher
environment. Deepsea oil and gas exploration and
exploitation such as in EPI necessitate the utilization of
floating structures to support the operation. Therefore
national capacity building in the design and engineering of
floating offshore structures should be greatly encouraged.
One type of the floating offshore structures of interest is
the drillship.
An intensive study on drillship has been commenced at
ITS since 2013, covering the basic design, motion analysis
and followed by the operability analysis [1]. The
preliminary evaluation of the global structural responses of
the drillship induced by wave excitations has been
concluded that moonpool is a critical area of structure [2].
Results of evaluation will be in the form SF andBM to be
further implemented in the structural design of the
drillship. In the current study, Dynamic hull structural
response analysis is conducted by implementing the
designated quasi-static approach, which is basically the
enhancement to the classical static wave approach long
practiced in the monohull ship design [3]. While in the
classical approach the wave considered in the analysis is
characterized with length equal to ship length and height
equal to 1/20 of the wave length, the quasi-static will
consider the effect of waves in a number of frequencies.
Realizing that one of the most critical design condition is
the longitudinal strength, then the current study is chiefly
concentrated to observe the effect of head waves, with
dominant motion modes to be tackled are heave and pitch.
In general the quasi-static analysis will be conducted in a
number of regular wave frequencies where the heave and
pitch motions are regarded to have important effect on the
global structure responses. The heave and pitch motion
2 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
March 20 , 2015
data is taken from executing a hydrodynamic mathematical
model based on the 3-dimensional diffraction theory. The
regular wave height accounted for has a small amplitude
and hence the heave and pitch motions are also relatively
small so that assumption of straight down weight vector of
every hull section applies. For each wave frequency
selected the computation of global structural responses is
conducted for one wave cycle, divided in 11 time steps.
Therefore information on the changing of SF and BM
distribution along the hull in each time step could be
recorded. This could be further evaluated to see any of
those that may instigate sizable stress or deflection on the
hull structure.
After accomplishing computation on all of the wave
frequencies observation is then made to pick up the
maximum SF and BM in each frequency, at any position of
interest on the drillship hull. For the global structural
analysis input, all maximum SF and BM in each drillship
position (section 1-40) should be computed. By the
variation of frequency, it will be arranged as SF and BM
RAO for each station. Such RAO will be incorporated in
the spectral analysis to derive the extreme values of SF and
BM. It will necessary for evaluation of global ultimate
strength of the structure.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Data Accumulation
The first primary data for this study is the reference ship, namely
the drillship Oribis One.as made avaliable by Fossli and Hendriks
[4]. Based on this data, New drillship was designed as reported in
ref [1]. The general arrangement is exhibited in Figure 1 with
principal particulars as presented in Table 1.
Figure 1: General Arrangement of Drillship [1].
The peculiar feature of a drillship is the arrangement of
moonpool to accommodate the extension of drill pipe and riser
from the drilling rig down to the seabed. As a moonpool basically
is a large opening, then hull structural strength in this location is
 Journal of Subsea and Offshore March 20 , 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.1

reduced substantially. Therefore certain strengthening should be FEM All The design is combined with the vessel weight
established in this respect. distribution to obtain SF and BM distribution, then the stress of
structure.
Table 1: Principal parameter of drillship [2].
Parameter Design Hydro Difference
Check (%)
Displacement (ton) 35,193.0 35,421.7 0.65
Lpp (m) 156.0 156.0 0.00
B (m) 29.9 29.9 0.00
H (m) 15.6 15.6 0.00
T (m) 9.0 9.0 0.00
LCB to Midship (m) 3.265 3.270 0.15
LCF to Midship (m) -7.203 -7.164 0.54
KMT (m) 13.29 13.33 0.30
KML (m) 222.82 223.21 0.17
BMT (m) 8.64 8.68 0.41
BML (m) 218.17 218.55 0.18 Figure 2: Hull model for general design with Hidrostar Software.

The next data needed in the study is related to the environment

regarded as the primary source of excitation. For this the wave
distribution data has been obtained from ABS in 2010 [5], related
to the world wave scatter diagram, as contained in table 2. Based
on this data, wave spectral analysis is calculated as the increasing
of Hs. In this study,depend on the summary over all periods of the
worldwide wave data, Distribution of Hs is arranged from 1 up to
14m. In this range, The Significant wave height will occured as
the probability value in the table 2. All probability will cause the
structural effect for the drillship. So, this range will be very
important to be analyzed.
Figure 3: Hull structure for Finite Element Model.
Table 2: Unrestricted worldwide wave data [5].

Figure 4: Lines plan of drillship [1].

2.2 Modeling the Drillship Hull.

Following the design and development of the general
arrangement, further step is aimed at the establishment of hull
model. There are 2 model that will be established for this Figure 5: Bonjean curve of drillship [2].
analysis. The first one is related to general design, hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic analysis as depicted in figure 2, and the second is
required for Finite Element analysis as shown in figure 3. Model
of FEM is the result of mesh sensitivity stage. For global
structural analysis, The number of meshes are 2,114,808 units.
The hull model for general design is related to the lines plan Figure 6: Center frame design of drillship.
and Bonjean curve of drillship as shown in figure 4 and 5. This
model design and computation is helped by Hidrostar Software.
Finite element model of drillship is made by using the
construction design of drillship as shown in figure 6 up to 10. By
the rule of drillship construction[6], It will arranged in the 3
dimensional desain that contained with thousand of elements. Figure 7: Longitudinal Stiffener design of drillship
Number of element is dependent on the mesh size definition in

3 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Subsea and Offshore
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.1
Figure 8: Typical frame design of drillship.
Figure 9: Bulkhead design of drillship.
Figure 10: Moonpool frame design of drillship.
2.3 Weight Distribution
Ship weight comprises of LWT and DWT. In addition to common
ship components, the LWT of a drillship also covers the drilling
equipments, drilling rigs, and specific topside facilities. In the
case of DWT, specific components for a drillship include drill
water, liquid mud, brine, base oil, barite and/or bentonite, cement,
and bulks. For the current study the weight distribution of the
drillship is shown in Figure 11. By the 40 It is noticeable from
the graph that for station 16 – 19 the weight distribution is low, as
4 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
March 20 , 2015
this is the position of moonpool. By this Dristribution in each
frequency, RAO of each potition (station) in drillship as a load in
regular wave will be obtained by quasi static approach.
Figure 11: Total weight distribution of drillship
2.4 Procedure of Computations
The first stage of computation is directed towards the generation
of drillship motion RAO. The numerical model is developed on
the basis of the 3-dimensional diffraction theory. Computation is
executed for the drillship in free floating stationary condition
induced by the regular head waves in the frequency range from
0.25 up to 2.0 rad/s. The general motion equation is expressed as
follows [7,8]:
∑ ζ ζ ζ ; , 1 … 6 (1)
The second stage of the computation is aimed at generating the
shear force and bending moment. The shear force is basically
obtained by integration of the difference between the ship weight
and buoyancy distribution. Whereas the bending moment is
obtained from integrating the shear force distribution, as
described by the equation 2 and 3 [3].
∆ (2)
(3)
After completing the SF and BM computation in regular waves
up to the composition of their RAOs, the next stage of analysis is
dedicated to attain the characteristics of global responses in
random waves. For this case the spectral form to be applied is the
ITTC/ISSC spectrum [7] which is suitable in common world
waters.
Following the global responses in random waves, the most
probable extreme value of the structural response brought about a
random wave may be found by applying the equation 4 [7].
2 2 ln (4)
To be more conservative in the design so that a certain level of
structural response would not be exceeded, or in other words the
 Journal of Subsea and Offshore March 20 , 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.1

level of confidence is to be enhanced, then equation 4 should be 3.2 Quasi-Static Analysis

modified into equation 5. Usually is taken as a small value, for
instance 1% or 0.01. Reversely the level of confidence that the
extreme response would not be exceeded is calculated as 1-
0.01, that is 0.99 or 99%.
2 2ln (5)
By increasing Hs, structural response of SF and BM on each
component (station) will be obtained in computation. This will be
inputed to FEM of drillship. Stress on elements (component) will
be computed by Finite Element method as results. The results
depend on the number of mesh of the model. Therefore, mesh
sensitivity step should be done before computation. Equation 6
shows the method to obtain result stress in FEM [9].
σ (6)
Ultimate strength analysis will be obtained by applying the
ultimate limit strength of the component material. Structure of
drillship will be failure when the limit of material ultimate
strength is exceeded, as shown in equation 7 and 8 [9].
(7)
(8)
For the quasi-static analysis the heave and pitch motions related
to totally eleven frequencies are selected to cover the appropriate
range of the motion effects. Referring to figure 12, the range
accordingly is between 0.25 rad/s up to 1.25 rad/s, with an
interval of 0.1 rad/s. In relation to each frequency, the magnitudes
of heave and pitch motion are then measured. Combined with the
corresponding phase angles, heave and pitch motion elevations
are then established together with the wave elevation. The
computation of these elevations for one cycle is listed in table 3
and the plots are presented in figure 13. The elevations of motion
are indicated by Zw, Zz and Zθ, respectively, for this particular
example, computation and plots are made for the case of wave
and motion having a frequency of ω = 0.65 rad/s and the
associated period for one cycles is T=9.67 sec, with a time
interval of about 0.967 sec. The elevations on each time will be
further applied in the computation of the global structural
responses, namely SF and BM.
In each time step the ship buoyancy of every station along the
hull due to wave and motion elevations is computed. The
buoyancy distribution so obtained is then correlated to the weight
distribution, as shown in Figure 11, by means of equation (2) to
derive the shear force distribution. Subsequently, referring to
equation (3), the integration on the shear force is carried out to
generate the bending moment distribution. The computation is
conducted for all 11 time steps, and the results are plotted as
exemplified in Figure 14. This figure essentially exhibits the
wave elevation along the hull, hullposition brought about the
heave and pitch motions, shear force distribution as well as
bending moment distribution for each time step in one cycle.

Table 3: Computation of wave load motion elevation at

ω=0.65rad/s
3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS Time step Wave Heave motion Pitch motion
(sec) Zw (meter) Zz (meter) Zθ (deg)
3.1 Drillship Motions 0.000 1.000 -0.346 -0.490
The hydrodynamic computation for the stationary and free 0.967 0.809 -0.077 -0.163
floating drillship in the propagation of regular head waves yields 1.933 0.309 0.223 0.226
the heave and pitch RAOs as depicted in figure 12. RAO’s 2.900 -0.309 0.437 0.528
computation of this study is used hidrostar software. The heave 3.867 -0.809 0.484 0.629
motion characteristic of the drillship is amenable, with largest 4.833 -1.000 0.346 0.490
RAO value approaching 1.0 m/m at very low frequency. The 5.800 -0.809 0.077 0.163
pitch motion has pronounced resonance with the peak RAO of 6.767 -0.309 -0.223 -0.226
some 1.36 deg/m at the wave frequency of about 0.45 rad/s. The 7.733 0.309 -0.437 -0.528
heave and pitch data contained in figure 7 will then be used in the 8.700 0.809 -0.484 -0.629
quasi-static analysis as explained in the sub-section. 9.670 1.000 -0.346 -0.490

Figure13: Plots of wave and motion elevation at ϖ=0.65rad/s

Figure 12: Heave and pitch RAOs of the drillship

5 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal ofo Subsea and Offshorre March 20 , 20015
-Science an ng-, Vol.1
nd Engineerin

The shear force

f and bendding moment distributions
d arre then F
Figure16: Bend ding moment ddistribution forr each time step at
summarized inn Figures 15 and 16. Afterr computation on all frrequency ω = 0.65
0 rad/s
frequencies aree finalized, the maximum values of SF and BM in
every frequenccy at the 40 positions
p along the hull is recorded
grouped accorddingly. Those m maximum valuues which are already
a
grouped accordding to the possition along thee hull are then plotted
p
t frequency tto establish the RAO for SF annd BM,
as function of the
as shown in Figgure 17 and 18.

FFigure17: Shearr force RAO at station 1 up

u to 40 alongg the
ddrillship hull

Figure14: Sheaar force and beending momennt distributions on the

drillship in eaach time step due
d to wave and
a motion efffects at
ω=0.65 rad/s
.

FFigure18: Bendiing moment RA

AO at station 1 up to 40 alon
ng the
ddrillship hull

As can be seeen in Figure 17 and 18, the patttern of RAO for fo SF

aare similar, withh maximum values within thee frequency rannge of
00.55 up to 0.60 rad/s. The largeest maximum SF S eventually occurs
o
aat the section off the moonpooll (st.16), with an a intensity of some
776.6 MN. As forr the case of SF F, the tendencyy of BM RAO curves
inn each position are relativelly consistent, with the maxiimum
vvalues within thet frequency range of 0.55 5 up to 0.65 rad/s.
Inntriguingly thee largest maxim mum BM of all takes place at a the
sttation 28, in thhe order of appproximately 1096.49 MNm. It is
immperative at thhis point to be highlighted
h conncerns related to
t the
Figure15: Sheaar force distribuution for each time
t step at freqquency mmaximum frequuency range of the SF and BM M, which is bettween
ω = 0.65 rad/s saay 0.55 up to 0.65
0 rad/s. Refeerring to the unrrestricted worlddwide
wwave data thosee periods are reelated to wave heights betweeen 3.0
aand 5.0 m. Therrefore, in the ooperation of thee drillship forwarded
inn this study carre should be takken when experriencing wavess with
thhose characteriistic heights, aas there would be a fairly high
pprossibility of resonance
r on tthe global struuctural responsses to
ddevelop.

33.3 Extreme Global

G Structtural Responsses in Random
m
WWaves
N
Numerous studiies has documented various severe casualtiies in
m
marine operatioons. The manyy casualties was w mentioneed by
inntenstive studiies that have been conductted [10-12]. These T
reecommend accurate predictionn on the dynam mic loads shou uld be
conducted durinng the design sttage. Thereforee, this study preedicts

6 P
Published by Internaational Society of Ocean,
O Mechanical and
a Aerospace Scieentists and Engineerrs
 Journal ofo Subsea and Offshorre March 20 , 20
015
-Science an ng-, Vol.1
nd Engineerin

extreme globall structural respponses (SF and

d BM) with incrreasing
of Hs in rand dom wave as shown in figu ure 19 and 20 0. It is
conducted by adopting the extreme
e formullae as put forw ward in
equations 4 annd 5. A proceduure of spectral analysis
a is adop
pted in
this case, by co
orelating the RAAOs as exhibiteed in figure 17 and 18
and the ITTC//ISSC spectral form. The speectral analysis shows
that the region
n of drillship m
moonpool (statio
on 16) has the biggest
b
extreme valuee on the longitudinal dimen nsion of drillship as
increasing Hs.
station 2
station 3
1800 station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
1600 Station 8
Station 9
Station 10
Station 11
Station 12
1400
Station 13
Station 14
Station 15
Station 16
1200
Station 17
Station 18
Station 19
Station 20
1000 Station 21
Station 22

F
Figure 21: Meshh sensitivity of FEM
Shear Force (MN)

Station 23
Station 24

800 Station 25
Station 26
Station 27
Station 28
Station 29
600
Station 30
Station 31
Station 32
Station 33
Responses off SF and BM in each Hs condition (fig. 19 an nd 20)
wwill be inputed to FEM. It aim t ultimate strength
med to obtain the
400
Station 34
Station 35
Station 36
Station 37
200 Station 38
Station 39
Station 40
condition of drilllship. Correlateed by the criteria of global drilllship
0
0 2 4 6 8

Hs (m)
10 12 14 16
uultimate strengthh as shown in table 4, The computation
c preedicts
thhat drillship will get ultimatee failure in aboout 12 meter Hs H by
xtreme responsees of shear forcee in random waave as
Figure19: Ex ddynamic load as a shown in figgure 22. Condiition of structu ure in
incrreasing Hs each Hs is exhiibited in figuree 23 (a up to f)). The critical stress
Hs vs Bending Momen
wwill mostly hap ppened on the moonpool regiion, it is aboutt 585
MPa. Simply sup pport(pinned-ro
Station 2

25000
station 3
station 4
station 5
Station 6
M olled) is assum
med as a constraain of
ddrillship FEM (aaft-fore edge).
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
Station 10
Station 11
20000
Station 12
Station 13
bending momen  (MNm)

Station 14
Station 15
Station 16
Station 17
Station 18
Station 19
Table 4: Criteria of drillship
d ultimatte strength
15000
Station 20
Station 21
Station 22
Station 23
M
Material type Valuue Unit
Station 24

10000
Station 25
Station 26
Station 27
Primaary (ASTM 8977) 7588 MPa
Station 28
Station 29
Station 30
Station 31
Station 32
Secondaary (ASTM A852) 4833 MPa
Station 33
Station 34
5000
Station 35
Station 36
Station 37
Station 38
Station 39
Station 40

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Hs (m)

Figure 20: Ex xtreme responsses of bending

g moment in random
r
wave as increaasing Hs

3.4 Finite Eleement Analyssis

First stage of the FEM com mputation, messh sensitivity step
s of
drillship model should be don ne.By trial force, The graph of mesh
sensitivity is shown
s in figurre 21. The con nvergence starrted by
88302 elementts until higher number of it. With increasiing the
number of elem ment, it made coonvergen resultt trendline.

Figure 22: Ultimate strenggth of global an

nalysis by FEM
M

(a)

(b)

7 P
Published by Internaational Society of Ocean,
O Mechanical and
a Aerospace Scieentists and Engineerrs
 Journal of Subsea and Offshore March 20 , 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.1

• The FEM computation and analysis predict that drillship will

get ultimate failure in about 12 meter Hs with 585 Mpa
stressby inputing spectral responses of SF and BM. The
critical stress will mostly happened on the moonpool region.

(c)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to convey a great appreciation to :
• Fresh Graduate Scholarship Program of DIKTI & ITS that
supported this study.
• Bureau Veritas as ITS’s partner that provides hidrostar
(d) licensed Software to assist this research.

REFERENCE

1. Yuda, I.D.G.A.S., Djatmiko, E.B. and Wardhana, W. (2013).

(e) Evaluation on the Motion and Operability Aspects in the
Design of a 35,000 ton Displacement Drillship. Proc. of
Seminar on the Theory and Application in Marine
Technology, SENTA 2013, Surabaya, Indonesia.
2. Ariyanto, S., Djatmiko, E.B., Murtedjo, M., and Yuda,
I.D.G.A.S. (2014). A Study of The Longitudinal Hull
(f) Structural Responses on a 35,000 Ton Class Drillship due to
Figure 23: FEM Results of drillship (a)Hs=4m (b)Hs=6m Wave Load by the Quasi-Static Approach. Proc. The 9th
(c)Hs=8m (d)Hs=10m (e)Hs=12m (f)Hs=14m International Conference on Marine Technology, MARTEC
2014, Surabaya, Indonesia.
3. Rawson, K.J. dan Tupper, E.C.(2001), Basic Ship Theoryvol.
1, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK
4.0 CONCLUSION
4. Fossli, B. And Hendriks, S.,PRD12,000 Drill Ship;
increasing Efficiency in Deep Water Operations,Proc. of
A study has been carried out to investigate the global structural
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA.
responses of a 35,000 ton class drillship due to the head waves
5. ABS (2010), Guide for Spectral-Based Fatigue Analysis for
excitations by applying the quasi-static approach of dynamic loads.
Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO)
Based on the results of computation and analyses, a number of
Installation, American Bureau of Shipping, USA, May
conclusions may be put forward, as follows:
6. ABS (2011), Drillship : Hull Structural Design and Analysis,
• The regular wave excitation instigate a moderate motion
American Bureau of Shipping, USA.
characteristic in the heave mode, with maximum RAO value
7. Djatmiko, E.B. (2012), Behavior and Operability of Ocean
approaching unity or 1.0 m/m at very low frequency. For the
Structure on Random Waves, ITS Press, Surabaya, Indonesia
pitch mode, the RAO curve show a pronounced hump at the
frequency of 0.60 rad/s, having a magnitude of some 1.36
8. Chakrabarti, S.K. (1987), Hydrodynamics of Offshore
Structures, Computational Mechanics Publications
deg/m. The pitch motion is considered to have a significant
Southampton Boston, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
effect on the shear force and bending moment which also
9. Paik JK, Thayaballi AK. 2003. Ultimate Limit State Design
have the magnified curves at frequency of about 0.60 rad/s.
Of Steel Plated Structures, John Wiley & Sons.
• Making use of the quasi static approach it is possible to
10. Burke, R.J. (1982), The Consequences of Extreme Loadings
generate the global response distributions which explicitely
on Ships Structures, Proc. of Extreme Loads Response
indicate the effect of vessel motions in elapsed times. This
Symposium, SSC/SNAME, Arlington, VA, USA, Oct.
represent an enhancement to the classical static wave
11. Djatmiko, E.B. (1995), Identification of SWATH Ship
approach analysis.
Global Structural Responses Utilizing a Physical Model,
• Computation by adopting the quasi-static approach yields the Research Project Report, LPPM-ITS, Surabaya
maximum shear force on the drillship in the extent of 76.6 12. DNV (2011),Modelling and Analysis of Marine Operations,
MN to occur at section of moonpool (station 16) when DNV-RP-H103, Norway
induced by a regular head wave with frequency of 0.65 rad/s.
Further, the computation gives a maximum bending moment
of 1096.49 MNm with peak frequency of 0.65 rad/s.
• The spectral analysis shows that the region of drillship
moonpool (station 16) has the biggest extreme value on the
longitudinal dimension of drillship as increasing Hs (from 1
up to 14 m).

8 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers