Heave Compensator Selection
How do the various products perform when used for typical applications?
| Application | Example | Shock absorber | Basic PHC | Adaptive PHC | Topside AHC | Subsea AHC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intermittent shock load | Sudden drop of piling hammer | |||||
| Frequent shock load | Storm overload protection | |||||
| Splash zone crossing, low buoyancy | Steel structure lowering | |||||
| Splash zone crossing, high buoyancy | GRP structure lowering | |||||
| Resonance avoidance | Lowering to ultra deep waters | |||||
| Subsea landing, high added mass | Suction anchor | |||||
| Subsea landing, slender payload | Vertical piping | |||||
| Subsea landing, long wave period | ≥12 s | |||||
| Subsea retrieval | Pulling anchor out of seabed | |||||
| Multi-application subsea lift | Splash zone plus subsea landing | |||||
| Topside motion compensation | Landing of payload in air | |||||
| Quick lifting | Lift payload from deck quickly |
Legend
Best performance
Good performance
Suitable under special conditions
Not suitable
Best performance
Good performance
Suitable under special conditions
Not suitable
Let’s go into a little bit of details about this table.
- Shock absorbers, like POLARIS, are unmatched when it comes to shock absorption, but they are useless for other applications as the spring component is effectively missing.
- Basic passive heave compensators, like RIGEL, has generally a lower gas to oil ratio than an adaptive PHC which gives lower performance.
- Adaptive passive heave compensators, like ANTARES, are the best allrounders, they can do almost everything reasonably well, except for motion compensation in air or subsea motion compensation under unfavorable conditions
- Topside active heave compensators, cannot do subsea applications as they not designed to be submerged.
- Active heave compensators are not well suited for “fast” applications such as shock absorption and gives generally worse performance than a passive heave compensator when operated in passive mode due to higher weight and friction.
What is the relative cost between the products?
| Product | Relative Cost |
|---|---|
| Shock absorber | 1x |
| Basic PHC | 2–3x |
| Adaptive PHC | 3–6x |
| Topside AHC | 10–20x |
| Subsea AHC | 15–30x |
Legend
Lowest cost
Low-medium cost
Medium-high cost
Highest cost
Lowest cost
Low-medium cost
Medium-high cost
Highest cost
The relative cost is relative to a shock absorber cost (with similar capacity/stroke) and can be considered a rough indicator.
Related on Norwegian Dynamics
- Passive Heave Compensation Basics — Equations, derivation and the efficiency calculator.
- Active Heave Compensation — Inline AHC, MRU input, hydraulic actuation and where AHC fits.
- DNV Standards for Offshore Lifting — ST-0378, ST-N001, RP-N103 and how they apply to compensators.
Working on a lift that needs this?
Send the lift envelope (Hs, Tp, payload, accuracy) and we'll come back with the right architecture and indicative dimensions.
How do the products rank in terms of reliability?
- Shock absorber
- Passive heave compensator
- Adaptive passive heave compensator
- Topside active heave compensator
- Subsea active heave compensator
Where shock absorber is the most reliable.
