ABSTRACT
Nonlinear time-domain simulations are performed to analyze various
floatover installation scenarios, including docking, mating, and
undocking operations at different critical stages. Their findings are used
to properly define the limiting environmental conditions, the dynamic
behavior of the floatover barge, the movement of stabbing cones, as
well as guide the design of LMUs, DSUs, and fender system, etc. This
paper takes the 8,700Te integrated topsides of BZ34-1 CPP Platform as
an example and presents the nonlinear time-domain mating analysis
and its application to a typical floatover installation design in the
shallow water and benign environment of Bohai Bay, China.
INTRODUCTION
Floatover technologies have been gaining more and more popularity in
recent years, particularly in the shallow water and benign environment,
such as Bohai Bay, China. Since 2002 there have been eleven
successful floatover installations performed in the Bohai Bay using
conventional floatover method and strand jack lifting scheme, and
many more floatover installations will follow thereafter. The floatover
technology uses varied functions of floatover systems and lets large
platform topsides be installed as a single integrated package without the
use of a heavy lift crane vessel. This allows not only elimination of
expensive day-rate derrick barges, minimization of offshore hookup,
and maximization of onshore testing and commissioning, but also
freedom of equipment layout within the deck compared to modular
lifting designs.
71
size between barge and jacket legs. The mating analysis also addresses
the sensitivity study and put these variable quantities into perspective,
and thereby being devoted to the analysis and optimization of floatover
operations.
deck structure. This mating analysis is based on the jacket entry from
the weak end of the jacket structure. Table 2 lists the particulars of the
jacket.
Table 2: Particulars of BZ34-1 Jacket
Height Overall
Values
26.7m
EL(+)6.0m
37.975m
40.0m
st
EL(-)7.543m
EL(+)5.000m
st
EL(-)8.000m
nd
EL(-)19.700m
1,800Te
Values
Length Overall
60.0m
Width Overall
64.0m
28.0m
22.0m
14.0m
Elevation of Heli-Deck
43.30m
Floatover Weight
8,700Te
Values
Length Overall
142.0m
Breath Moulded
36.0m
Depth Moulded
9.75m
4.5m
Lightship Weight
Longitudinal Center of Gravity from bow (LCG)
72
8,592.5Te
70.19m
Particulars
Values
0.00m
4.953m
The time histories of the motion response of the barge and the topsides,
as well as the impact loads have been calculated based on given sea
states. The gaps between the LMU and the jacket leg, the DSU and the
under deck structure, as well as the barge fender and the jacket legs
have been considered. The impact loads have been calculated using the
defined load and deflection relationship of each LMU and DSU. The
impact loads are very sensitive to the fender gaps. The smaller the
fender gaps, the less the dynamic amplification of the wave loads, and
therefore the less the impact loads applied onto the jacket and the barge.
Refer to Hamilton et al. (2008) for the sensitivity study of the fender
gaps. The motions at the mating cones of the LMUs and the upper
points of the DSUs have been calculated using the post-process module
of MOSES. Post processing of the results has been carried out using
this post process module. The reports, graphs and other types of
information about the time domain simulations can be readily obtained.
MATING ANALYSIS
Mating analyses are nonlinear time-domain simulations based on the
equations of a multi-structures system coupled with hydrodynamic
models and structural models. There are three types of structures to be
taken into considerations. The floating vessel, subject to the
environmental loads due to wind, waves, and currents, shall be
represented by a hydrodynamic panel model of the wet hull in the
coordinate system of the barge body, which may vary with the different
ballast conditions. The dry structure, subject to wind loads only, shall
be modeled by a lumped mass point with the inertial properties of the
integrated topsides in the coordinate system of the topsides model. The
fixed jacket substructure is modeled as contact points in the global
coordinate system. The mating analysis is performed based on the
coupled hydro-structure models with various mooring positioning
elements and contact elements. The mooring positioning elements
include primary mooring spread and secondary soft-line positioning
hawsers which are modeled with weak nonlinear stiffness laws, as well
as constant pull loads modeled for positioning tugs. The contact
elements consist of rubber fenders, LMUs, and DSUs, which are
modeled with high nonlinear stiffness. Contact law shall be applied
during a very short duration if the rattling impacts occur during
intermittent contacts, or be permanently active where only the nonlinear
stiffness of the contact devices is applied.
In the mathematical model, the barge and the topside are linked
together through the DSUs which are modeled as bilinear springs in
73
Cases
Description
M3: 25% topsides load transferred at draft of 5.94m;
Peak Period
Hs
Tp
Head Seas
1.00m
5.0 sec
Quartering Seas
0.75m
5.0 sec
Beam Seas
0.50m
5.0 sec
MOSES MODELLING
Docking the barge into the jacket slot is only allowed when the tidal
level is above MSL. All subsequent stages of the floatover operation
are not restricted to any tidal phases. However the mating operation
should be scheduled to account for the beneficial effects on load
transfer during a falling tide. Therefore the mating analysis is
performed based on the MSL, that is, 0.8m above Chart Datum.
Description
Five docking cases denote that the barge stern just
passes different rows of jacket legs, that is,
D1: Just passed 2 meters through Row 1;
Docking
74
hysy221
bow
Chain
Diameter
[mm]
52
76
MBL
[kN]
1,420
6,001
Young's Modulus
Weight in water
[kg/m]
6.010
9.38
5.610
109.6
E [kN/m ]
Sway Fenders: The sway fenders are installed along both the gunwales
of the barge, that is, 0.325 meter above the deck. The sway fenders are
used to protect the jacket from contact with the barge hull during the
docking operation. The fenders consist of rubbers and are simulated by
horizontal non-linear compression-only springs with the equivalent
stiffness that combines both the fender stiffness and the jacket
structural flexibility at the impact elevation. The gap between the jacket
75
Force(t)
350
300
250
200
150
FenderStiffness
100
50
0
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Compression(m)
Force(KN)
4000
3000
Row1
Row2
Row3
2000
Row4
1000
0.030
0.060
0.090
0.120
0.150
Compression(m)
LMUs: The LMU is installed on the top of the jacket pile and is used to
absorb the impact load between the stabbing cones and the LMU
receptor during mating operation. The capture radius depends on the
top radius of the receptors and the bottom radius of the stabbing cones.
At the final mating position, the alignment will ensure the stabbing
cones within the capture radius of the LMU receptors. The LMU and
jacket leg system has been represented by vertical non-linear
76
design maxima.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
The main findings are summarized as follows:
Docking Cases: The maximum impact loads acting on the sway
fenders and the minimum dynamic clearance between the mating cone
and the LMU receptor are summarized in the following table:
Case
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
LMU Clearance
0.760m
0.761m
0.760m
0.757m
0.765m
Wave Heading
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Fig. 16: Separation & DSU Gap upon 100% Load Transfer
Damping: Only wave damping is taken into consideration in the
mating analysis. No structural damping or positioning element damping
is assumed since they are much smaller than the wave damping. This
may yield conservative results.
ANALYSIS METHOD
Mating Cases: The maximum impact loads acting on the LMUs and
DSUs, as well as occurrence of premature separation at DSUs, are
summarized in the following table:
The mating analysis has adopted a snap shoot approach to the entire
operation at different docking, mating, and undocking stages. The
operations have been assumed to be halted at different stages. The
exposure duration has been assumed to be 3 hours for different stages
of the operation which will be long enough to simulate the whole
installation procedure and thereby obtaining the rational statistic results.
Case
M1
The time steps used in the analysis are 0.05 sec during the docking and
undocking stages, and 0.02 sec during the mating stages where there is
stronger geometric and material nonlinearity due to the LMUs and
DSUs. A ramping time of 400 seconds is used in the time-domain
simulation in order to avoid any unrealistic transient motion induced
numerically. The results within the ramping time period are disregarded
in the statistical analysis.
M2
Due to strong nonlinear nature, the existing statistics theory may not be
accurate when predicting the design maxima. Therefore the maximum
values observed in the time series are recommended to be used as the
M3
77
Major Findings
Max Vertical Load = 420.5Te @ LMU S1 in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 278.3Te @ LMU S3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 562.7 1,235.2Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 186.8Te @ DSU P4 in Beam Seas;
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 511.5Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 164.3Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 542.0 1,129.1Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 118.6Te @ DSU S4 in Beam Seas;
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 693.1Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 146.6Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 427.0 1,015.5Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 112.6Te @ DSU S4 in Beam Seas;
Case
M4
M5
M6
M7
Major Findings
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 1,073.3Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 158.6Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 280.7 731.4Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 121.6Te @ DSU P4 in Beam Seas;
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 1,924.9Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 179.4Te @ LMU S3 in Beam Seas;
Max Vertical Load = 558.7Te @ DSU S4 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 137.0Te @ DSU P4 in Quartering;
DSU separation may occur.
Max Vertical Load = 2,062.5Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 216.8Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Max Vertical Load = 582.2Te @ DSU S4 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 142.0Te @ DSU P4 in Quartering;
DSU separation may occur.
Max Vertical Load = 2,550.0Te @ LMU S1 in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 226.1Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Max Vertical Load = 644.8Te @ DSU S4 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 204.4Te @ DSU P4 in Beam Seas;
DSU separation may occur.
7)
8)
Fig. 18: Case M1: Time Series of Maximum Vertical Load on DSU
Undocking Cases: The maximum impact loads acting on the sway
fenders and the minimum dynamic under-keel clearances between the
barge bottom and the jacket underwater horizontal frame, derived from
the maximum vertical motion at the four corners of the barge bottom,
are summarized in the following table:
Case
Fig. 17: Case M7: Time Series of Maximum Vertical Load on LMU
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
Maximum Sway
Fender Load
122.8Te @ Leg P1
168.8Te @ Leg P1
240.1Te @ Leg P1
180.9Te @ Leg S1
89.6Te @ Leg P4
Wave
Heading
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
78
3)
4)
5)
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the nonlinear time-domain mating simulations and
their major findings successfully applied in designing the installation
devices and selecting the dominant design parameters, thus ensuring the
successful execution of the floatover installation for the BZ34-1
integrated topsides. It is essential to correctly and accurately model the
jacket flexibility, fender gaps, nonlinear fender stiffness, as well as the
contact mechanism and high nonlinearities of the elastomeric elements
in LMUs and DSUs, etc., and therefore obtain reliable and repeatable
design maxima.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several people have contributed to this work in many vital ways. Very
special thanks to Mr. Wang Xinwei, Mr. Liu Bo and Mr. Su Jie for their
enthusiastic support and drafting expertise.
REFERENCES
GL Noble Denton (2010). "Guidelines for Float-over Installations,"
0031/ND, Dec 6, 2010, Rev. 0, 36pp.
Hamilton, J, French, R and Rawstron, P (2008). "Topsides and Jacket
Modelling for Floatover Installation Design," Offshore Tech Conf, Paper
No 19227, 14 pp.
Liu, LM, Zhang, SF, Fang, XM, Chen BJ, Hao J, and Wang, AM (2006).
"Floatover Installation Succeeds for Nan Bao 35-2 Topsides," J World
Oil, Vol 227, No 7, pp 63-69.
Wang, AM, Jiang, XZ, Yu, CS, Zhu, SH, Li, HL and Wei, YG (2010).
"Latest Progress in Floatover Technologies for Offshore Installations and
Decommissioning," Proc 20th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Beijing, China, ISOPE, Vol 1, pp 9-20.
Fig. 19: Case U3: Time Series of Max Lateral Load on Sway Fender
ANNEX A
Table A-1: Inertial Properties of Barge & Equipment
Case
Description
Draft
RYY
RZZ
LCG
TCG
VCG
RXX
Weight*
Unit
[m]
[Te]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
D1-D5 Docking draft condition
4.500
13409.5
74.90
-0.24
5.18
11.60
40.23
41.31
M1
0% load transfer draft condition
5.875
20570.7
73.69
-0.16
4.53
11.13
41.05
42.14
M2
5% load transfer draft condition
5.890
21083.9
73.57
-0.15
4.44
11.21
40.58
41.70
M3
25% load transfer draft condition
5.940
23084.4
73.19
-0.11
4.35
11.43
38.86
40.12
M4
50% load transfer draft condition
6.010
25624.3
72.79
-0.06
4.06
11.29
37.44
38.72
M5
75% load transfer draft condition
6.075
28138.0
72.47
-0.03
3.99
11.20
36.24
37.56
M6
95% load transfer draft condition
6.081
29909.3
72.26
-0.01
4.05
11.13
35.50
36.84
M7
100% load transfer draft condition
6.100
30443.3
72.21
0.00
4.08
11.11
35.29
36.63
U1-U5 Undocking draft condition
6.900
34873.5
72.10
0.00
4.40
11.25
33.93
35.43
Note: The weight* = the total weight (displacement) - the weight of the topsides, which varies with ballast conditions at different mating stages.
79