Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014 www.elsevier.

com/locate/oceaneng

Development of load-out design methodology and numerical strength evaluation for on-ground-build oating storage and ofoading system
Y.T. Yang*, B.N. Park, S.S. Ha
Offshore Basic Design and Engineering Department, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd, Ulsan, South Korea Received 25 March 2003; accepted 13 October 2004 Available online 20 January 2005

Abstract This paper presents the design methodology and numerical strength evaluation for the Floating Storage and Ofoading system (FSO) that was built on the ground without dry dock facilities. This was the rst attempt to build FSO entirely on the ground and to launch it using two submersible barges. Successful load-out and oat-off of 340,000 DWT Class Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) size AMENAM KPONO/FSO were carried out at the end of July 2002. The main feature of this successful operation includes the heavy weight and long length compared to breadth and depth of the load-out structure. It was 298 m long and weighs about 53,000 tons. So, special consideration was required to ensure safe load-out, towing and oat-off operations compared with previous load-out of other offshore structures in which case the weight was less than 30,000 Mtons. The strength and longitudinal deection of FSO were carefully designed/analyzed using Hydraulic Jacking System. Various systems and methodology for load-out including FSO fabrication and erection method on the ground, soil strength and stability quay wall located in offshore yard, operation of two multipurpose semi-submersible barges were all combined to develop a successful Ground build method. The load-out operation was carried out using two semi-submersible barges connected together by rigid frame structures. The ballasting operation of double barge unit (DBU) can be controlled like a single barge using a load master control software (LMC). Throughout the operation, relative deection in the form of DBU connection frames was monitored and DBU

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C82 52 230 1310; fax: C82 52 230 1985. E-mail address: ytyang@hhi.co.kr (Y.T. Yang). 0029-8018/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2004.10.014

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

987

motion were analyzed and compared to our model test result. After 4 years of dedicated research, we were nally succeeded in conrming the technology of Ground Build design of oating structure, construction, load-out and oat-off. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ground build; Load-out; Float-off; FSO construction; Double Barge Unit (DBU)

1. Introduction In the last several years, the oating-type offshore structures showed an overall increase in market share in offshore construction eld, and up to the end of 1997, orders were booked for most of the East Asian shipyards for a period of 2 or 3 years thereafter. In general, the fabrication and assembly of oating offshore structures like Floating Production Storage and Ofoading system (FPSO), FSO, Floating production Unit (FPU), Rig, Jack-up, etc. are carried out in the dry docks of shipyards by stacking unit blocks sequentially from lower to upper levels. In case of ship type offshore structures, lower hull part fabrication and assembly are carried out in dry docks as is normally done when using then conventional ship construction method and after which, the topside modules are installed by heavy lifting vessel that are located near the quay side. However, this methodology is very depend on dock schedule and the tight fabrication process of shipyard. Hence, it is very important to match fabrication schedule between hull and topside part to meet total project schedule. In such cases, it is usually difcult for both part to incorporate any design change or modication required by the client in total project schedule. Considering the foregoing, there is a need to develop a new construction methodology to replace conventional dry dock method. Thus to reduce total construction schedule and to increase fabrication exibility in fabrication phase of total project schedule, on-ground build method was applied to the ELF AMENAM FSO project. Hull and topside parts were simultaneously fabricated and assembled on ground at the same time and the completed structure was then loaded-out and oated off using two semi-submersible barges. This construction method requires yard experience including having the engineering capability to carry out load-out and oat-off operations in order to launch a complete structure. This paper will attempt to describe the design methodology and numerical strength evaluation of ground build FSO that were veried through successful operation. The following specialized features were considered and analyzed in developing the new ground build methodology of VLCC size F(P)SO; Whether the yard capability and capacity has the ability to construct either in dock or ground Whether the on-ground build design condition satises the ship registers regulations Results of the construction study to verify the overall structural integrity for ground build load-out.

988

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

Whether there is sufcient strength under topside module loading Results of the simulated Load-out and Float-off studies using Full ship F.E. Analysis Results of the Load-out Scheme Study, DBU Connector load and DBU Connector Type Study Results of the Model Test, Wave induced Response Analysis and F.E. analysis for DBU Connector

2. Overview of the load-out plan 2.1. Characteristic of Amenam FSO The principal dimension of an FSO, in general, can be summarized as follows
Hull type Length (overall) Breadth (mould) Depth (mould) Design draft (mould) Light weight (HullCTopside) Single hull cargo tanker with two longitudinal bulkheads (m) 298 62 32.2 22 53,000 tons Hull : 41,000 tons 18EA topside modules : 12,000 tons

2.2. Load-out plan The assembly location of load-out structure is decided by considering the weight and size of structure and water depth in way of quayside for mooring of load-out barges. In case of the FSO, the construction was carried out in two separate parts as shown in Fig. 1, since the length of 298 m was too long to accommodate and to fabricate in a single unit in offshore yard. For construction purposes, AMENAM FSO was divided into 160 m aft-part and the 138 m forward part, which includes the external turret structure for Single Buoy Mooring (SBM), were constructed with topside modules by block-stacking method. After fabrication, the aft part was moved to the quayside, cantilevered out into sea for about 60 m to facilitate the nal assembling procedure, and then, the forward part was side skidded to t up with the aft part prior to the main load-out. The following conditions were considered for ground build load-out in offshore yard: (1) (2) (3) (4) Pre load-out condition (for aft part), Side skidding condition (for forward part), Fit-up condition (for nal assembly), Main load-out condition

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

989

Fig. 1. Yard layout during fabrication.

Each condition consists of Active Jack Up and Passive Jack Down case to safely support FSO (hull and topside modules) during ground build load-out using hydraulic jacking system as will be described in Section 4.5. The F.E. analysis of FSO hull strength, load-out barges strength,and the soil stability and strength test of offshore yard were performed to verify the structural integrity for ground build load-out.

3. Load-out design basis The load-out design was done based on various static, dynamic loads and other limitations as described below (Det, 1997). 3.1. Static loads Lightweight (with 10% margin) and friction force were considered as static loads for designing a load-out system. About one third of FSO total length (124 m) was supported by hydraulic jacks with which four skidways were equipped in way of FSO midship area. These hydraulic jacks distribute FSO weight evenly and act as a line load to skidway and FSO bottom structures. The line load was calculated from jack loads to ensure a balance with weight distribution, considering center of gravity (COG) variation. The maximum

990

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

line load during Amenam FSO load-out was 158 ton/m. The friction force between skidway and skidshoe was estimated by multiplying weight and friction coefcient. Friction coefcient was selected to be 15% for contact material with conservative design of load-out systems. The observed friction coefcient at the break out condition during actual load-out operation was 10%. 3.2. Dynamic loads Environmental forces, such as wind, wave and current inuences motion of load-out barges includes dynamic load to load-out system. Estimation of barge motion and wave bending moment is very important for designing load-out system. Table 1 shows the environmental condition for carrying out a load-out operation on Amenam FSO.

Table 1 Environmental condition for load-out Environmental condition Design criteria Operational criteria Wind (knots) 40 32 Wave Hs (m) 0.5 0.34 Wave Tz (s) 36 4 Current (knots) 0.6 0.48 Tide (cm) 60 60

3.3. Other limitations There are various limitations to be considered during load-out design depending on load-out facilities, characteristics of load-out structure, and ground condition of the yard (London Offshore Consultants Ltd, 1997; Nobel, 1993). The following limitations were considered in Amenam FSO load-out design. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Hydraulic jack capacity and maximum stroke Pulling jack capacity and speed Strength and deection of FSO structure Ballasting capacity and speed of load-out barges Strength of load-out barges including connectors Capacity of ground and quay wall Other load-out facilities of yard

4. Load-out system design This section presents design viewpoints of load-out system, required analysis items and results considering a given design condition as described in previous section.

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

991

4.1. Skidway on ground and barge The skidding method, which is a general method for load-out of offshore structures, was applied for Amenam FSO load-out. Four skidways on the ground and on the barges were designed to support the rigid frame of FSO, i.e. side shell and longitudinal bulkheads. The surface of skidway was made of special material to reduce friction force as mush as possible. Each skidway was supported by rigid foundation composed of concrete mat and pile foundation for ground skidway, and grillaged beam foundation for barge skidway (KAIST, 1985). These foundations should be designed such that the skidway does not settle down over the jack stroke limitation. 4.2. Quay wall stability Quay wall stability should be veried in the early stage of load-out design by conrming various failure mode considering expected load conditions (American Petroleum Institute (API), 1993). Quay wall is analyzed for the following loads and failure modes. Loads: Earth pressure Differential water pressure Line load due to weight distribution Pulling force Barge berthing/mooring load Failure modes: Sliding failure mode Over turning failure mode Bearing capacity check Overall stability failure mode Local stability check

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Safety margin for each failure mode is given in Section 5.2. The safety of quay wall is mainly related to line load applied during load-out. So, a load-out system should be designed such that the line load is minimized as much as possible. The calculated safety margin of quay wall should be sufcient considering uncertainty. 4.3. Load-out barges and ballasting plan Load-out barge should be selected while considering the following factors; (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Dead weight considering berthing draft Deck area to accommodate for the required active shoe length Ballasting speed considering pulling speed. Longitudinal strength, deck local strength and deections. Float-off stability and submersible depth.

992

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

None of the commercial semi submersible vessel could accommodate for the 300K VLCC size of FSO. Hence, two semi-submersible barges, HDB-1011/HDB-1012 was designed and built for Amenam FSO and Nakika FPU in order to meet the above requirements: dead weight of 53,000 tons (FSO) and submersible depth of 25.5 m (Nakika). Both these barges were similar in construction and were connected together with a rigid frame structure at ve points. 4.3.1. Principal dimension of DBU The principal dimensions of load-out barges (HDB-1011/1012) can be summarized as follows
Single barge unit (m) Length (overall) Breadth (mould) Depth (mould) Design draft (mould) Submerged draft Dead weight Classication 140 37 12 9 25.5 33,000 Mton KR, Steel barges, 1998 Double barge unit (DBU: HDB1011CHDB1012) 140 76Z37C2 (connector) C37 12 9 25.5 66,000 Mton

4.3.2. Two-barge connection To accommodate for the load-out weight and the required skidshoe length, both the barges were connected to each other and berthed in the longitudinal direction as shown in Fig. 2. This arrangement of barges was determined based on the case studies, from which we found benets for efcient and safe transfer of heeling moment and shear force in each ballasting step. Rigid connection frame structures were welded at ve points in the side shell of the barges so that two submerged barges can behave as one barge. In this case, the connection frames were exposed to heeling moment and shear force due to unbalanced forces caused by the difference in the ballasting between the barges as well as wave loads. These connection frames were designed to have maximum strength capacity of 36,000 ton-meter for heeling moment and 23,500 ton for shear force. Ballasting control is very crucial in preventing overstress from occuring along the way to the connection frames during load-out. Using the monitoring system, which is a part of LMC (Load Master Computer), one could check whether relative deection between two barges exceeds the allowable limit in real time during operation. 4.3.3. Ballasting control The ballasting control should be performed to keep barge draft, trim and heel within the operation limits, which is G0.258 for trim, and G0.28 for heel. The ballasting was divided into twenty steps for a distance of 6 m. Furthermore, the ballasting plans were considered for ballasting time due to moving speed in

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

993

Fig. 2. AMENAM FSO load-out plan.

correspondence with the pulling jack speed. The actual ballasting status during load-out was monitored by measuring the draft from draft gauge and theodolite. To compensate for the ballasting due to tide variation (about 600 mm at offshore yard), external pumps independent of main ballasting system were used. The capacity of external pumps and the selection of tank were decided based on the tide variation rate, 140 mm/h, and variation rate of barge displacement. 4.4. FSO strength and deformation The safety of load-out structure was veried based on the 3D FEM analysis for full ship. The stress ratio, plate buckling capacity, and deformation was checked against the actual line load relating to hydraulic jack load.

994

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

Analysis results showed that FSO structure has sufcient safety during load-out. In addition, stress ratio and deformation value were less than those of in-place condition (American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), 1997; Bureau Veritas (BV), 1998). The maximum vonmises stress was found as 180 N/mm2 in side shell plate near the midship bottom area and maximum Z-deection was 120 mm in way of supporting region of hydraulic jacks. Such natural deformation should be maintained by jack stroke during load-out operation so as to prevent/ avoid local concentration of loads. A shimming plate should be designed so that the deformation of FSO is maintained within the allowable limits in case of active jack failure. The deformation of load-out barges due to still water and wave bending moment should be considered in total deformation, which is covered by jack stroke. Fig. 3 shows the combined stress plot and Fig. 4 shows the deformation during load-out condition.

Fig. 3. Von-Mises stress plot for load-out condition.

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

995

Fig. 4. Deection curve for load-out condition.

4.5. Hydraulic jacking system FSO structure was assembled and supported by temporary supports during the fabrication phase. Hydraulic jacks with a capacity of 250 tons and a maximum stroke of 250 mm were used to jack up FSO structure prior to load-out. The arrangement of hydraulic jacks should be in such a manner that calculated line loads due to jack quantity can meet other load-out system design limits, such as FSO strength, deformation, skidway strength, quay wall stability, etc. Total 404EA jacks were arranged for Amenam FSO load-out and maximum jack capacity ratio was maintained below 70% of safe working capacity. Hydraulic jacks were arranged along the skidway and grouped into eight jack pressure groups to compensate for the weight distribution due to COG variation. These jack groups were used for weighing load-out structure prior to the commencement of the load-out. Fig. 5 shows the arrangement of jacks group and Table 2 presents the pressure table of hydraulic jack groups. The main purpose for using a hydraulic jacking system is to support load-out structure without load concentration. The factors that cause concentration of load to occur can be summarized as follows. (1) Structural deformation at the load-out condition (2) Ground settlement (3) Variation of barge level due to trim, heeling, and environmental loads The jack stroke is able to overcome the above factors and maintain a constant line load applied to structure and skidway.

996

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

Fig. 5. Hydraulic Jack group and jack pressure.

4.6. Pulling jack system The required pulling force for load-out structure increases linearly with the increase of friction force. For the Amenam FSO load-out, the required pulling force was about 7650 tons even when a 15% friction coefcient was considered. A pulling system using strand jacks was adopted based on previous load-out cases. Pulling jack system using of 16EA strand jacks was installed at the end of hydraulic jack support. A xed anchor was welded to the load-out barge deck and strand wire was connected to the strand jack. Skidding of load-out structure was made to occur by activating the strand jacks. Strand jacks with a pulling capacity of 560 ton, a stroke of 450 mm, and pulling speed of 12 m/h was used for Amenam FSO load-out. The jack capacity was set to be below 85% of the safe working capacity to cover for any unexpected increase in friction. The components in load-out system design such as link beam, steel fender and skidways, which are subject to pulling force, should be designed while considering total pulling capacity.
Table 2 Hydraulic Jack group pressure table Jack group Group load (Mton) Jack Qty (EA) Theoretical Pressure (kg/cm2) Group P1 Group C1P Group C1S Group S1 Group P2 Group C2P Group C2S Group S2 Sub. Total 4565.0 8287.5 8287.5 4360.0 4565.0 8287.5 8287.5 4360.0 51,000 40 64 64 40 38 60 60 38 404 133.4 151.4 151.4 127.4 140.5 161.5 161.5 134.1 (bar) 136.1 154.4 154.4 130.0 143.2 164.7 164.7 136.8 Load (Mton) 114.1 129.5 129.5 109.0 120.1 138.1 138.1 114.7 Remark

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

997

4.7. Linking system 4EA rigid link beams and steel fenders were used, as shown in Fig. 6, for linking each ground skidway to barges. These two linking facilities support line load and total pulling force, respectively. Link beams were installed in order to transfer lineloads of FSO skidding weight from quaywall to barges. End connection of link beam was designed following a hinge-sliding concept to allow freer movement between barge movement and rigid foundation of quaywall. Steel fenders that were installed between front wall of quay and transom of barges absorbed the compression force due to pulling operation. Based on the quay stability analysis result, the required berthing area per fender was about 5!12 M. Barge Transom was check to conrm whether there was sufcient strength against pulling compression. Fender itself was designed to resist pulling compression and 20% of lateral force considering barge movement.

Fig. 6. Elevation view of load-out.

4.8. Mooring system The mooring lines used to moor the DBU during the load-out were designed to keep barge position against 10-year return environmental condition as shown in Table 1. The maximum mooring force was approximately 460 tons due to wide wind area, which was an unusual case. The most critical condition in mooring design was the condition after load-out, which is when the total force has to be resisted by the mooring lines only. Emergency mooring activities were prepared based on 100-year storm condition to overcome any unexpected typhoon. In this case, link beams were fastened to take a role of mooring line, and also, additional mooring lines were required. 4.9. Monitoring system Major factors that are known to cause disturbances in operation were listed and monitored continuously during load-out. These data were compared with estimated values

998

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

and veried so that they could be kept within controllable limits. The main items to be monitored are listed bellows. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Hull deection level Ground settlement Load-out moving direction Hydraulic jack pressure and stroke Pulling jack load Barge draft level and positioning Relative deection of barge connection frame

5. Numerical strength evaluation for overall hull 5.1. FSO hull strength evaluation 5.1.1. Model geometry and analysis The 3D FE model used for this analysis represents the full aft part hull structure (from A.P. to Fr. 31C1350 mm), based on the basic key plan and structural drawings. In this paper, we will discuss two cases: (1) the pre load-out and (2) main load-out condition. Case 1: Pre load-out Active Jack condition The weight of aft part for load out was about 27,000 ton and fty-two (52) m!4 active shoes were installed at longitudinal bulkhead and side shell of aft part for moving from fabrication area to quayside. During the pre load-out active jack condition, the weight of the aft part was evenly distributed along the skidway foundation and then we could not nd any stress concentration in the FSO hull structure. Case 2: After Pre load-out Passive Jack condition After the pre load-out, web frame no. 12 was located at the end of quay-wall and about 60.0 m hull structures overhang from the quay-wall. 18 fabrication supports were located under each frame from Fr. 12 to Fr. 14 and 4 supports were located under each frame from Fr. 15 to Fr. 30. The after part deection during the active jack condition are shown in Fig. 7. It is known that the edge part near quayside experiences various load concentration due to soil settlement, overhang of structure, environment loads, etc. when the aft part is in cantilevered position as shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 7. The after part deection during the active jack condition.

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

999

Fig. 8. The after part overview at near the quay-wall.

To consider the yard settlement, deformation of temporary supports and to relax load concentration near the quay wall, we studied the following case studies for three types of timber stiffness at each support location. The minimum timber dimension was 700 mm (L)!700 mm (B)!280 mm (T) and an elastic modulus of 66w16,100 N/mm2 is used. (1) Base Case: timber direction perpendicular to grain, (2) Alternate 1: timber direction parallel to grain and (3) Alternate 2: Elastic modulus value was extracted from the test results of shipyard. (1) Base case: KZ6.00EC08N/m (EZ16,100 N/mm2/20) (2) Alternative 1: KZ1.21EC10N/m (EZ16,100 N/mm2) (3) Alternative 2: KZ4.95EC07N/m (EZ66 N/mm2) Case 2A: First, the enforced deformation of 5, 10, 15 and 20 mm in successive cases were applied at frame no. 12 of AMENAM FSO hull to relax a load concentration near the quay wall. In the above cases the support reactions and maximum stresses were found to be within the allowable limit as shown in Fig. 9. However, the soil stability between quayside and pile foundation between frame no 12 and frame no 15 needed to be checked. Case 2B: Second, the relative deformation 020 mm between frame no. 12 and frame no. 31 of AMENAM FSO hull for all possible alternative cases were applied in order to evaluate the construction of the support reaction and the stress. In the above cases support reactions and maximum stresses were found to be within allowable limits. Case 2C and 2D: After investigating the results from the above cases 2A and 2B to avoid soil stability problem temporary supports below frame no. 13 were removed and the enforced deformation were applied in successive cases as per Case 2A and Case 2B, respectively. All of the above cases were combined using a support location optimization to check the stress concentration in FSO hull caused by enforced deformation condition, yard displacements condition and support deformation condition as shown in Figs. 10 and 11.

1000

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

5.1.2. Results From the analysis results of all the cases, the maximum stresses in hull and support reaction values were found to be satisfactory and were below the allowable limits. The following was selected for actual work considering the feasibility of construction. Enforced deformation at frame nos. 12, 15 mm Yard settlement (relative) 20 mm (max) Temporary support below frame no. 13 Removed Timber stiffness considered Base case value

Fig. 9. Case study result for Case 2A.

The maximum deection of AMENAM FSO afterward part was 46.0 mm during the pre load-out active jack condition. The maximum Von-Mises stress of plates was 162 N/mm2 at the side shell in jack passive (after the pre load-out) case as shown in Fig. 12. All plates were within the allowable stress limits during pre load-out condition. The maximum value of buckling unity check was 0.78 in jack passive condition at side shell plate. In the case of all plates, stiffeners and girders buckling stresses were within the allowable limits.

Fig. 10. Case study result for Case 2C.

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

1001

Fig. 11. Hull deection curve for after pre load-out.

5.2. Soil strength and stability check for ground build In pre load-out and nal load-out scheme of FSO structure, the main foundation components were skid way located on mat foundations, skid way located on piles (near the quay-wall), quay-wall with an arrangement of link beam and onshore bridge for load-out.

Fig. 12. Support arrangements after the pre load-out condition.

1002

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

The most critical operation from geo-technical point of view was pre load-out, where a part of the afterward structure was cantilevered on the quay wall off about 60 m. The entire hull was made to rest on fabrication support. The main challenge was to nd-out an optimum support arrangement to satisfy quay-wall stability, bearing capacity, settlement and associated stress in the FSO hull. We also checked for foundation stability and bearing capacity for the various stages of the construction and summarized in Table 3. We found that offshore yard had a sufcient bearing capacity of more than 150 ton/m and settlement estimations were also made to optimize support arrangements and to keep the stresses in the FSO structure within allowable limits. Soil Strength and Stability are summarized in Table 4. 5.3. Load-out using multi-purpose DBU The overall length of AMENAM FSO was 298 m and the estimated weight for the design of load-out was 53,000 tons, which had sufcient engineering margin including
Table 3 Soil strength and stability results Foundation requirement Load out Quay wall Purpose Foundation type Loading Allowable loads Analysis

Earth retaining Load distribute

Live loadZ 124 T/m Earth pressure

250 T/m

Control settlements

Differential water pressure Load from Link Beam and Onshore Bridge Line loadZ 124 T/m Vertical load

Assist loadout to barge

Bearing capacity Sliding at base and interface of blocks Over turning at base and interface of blocks Settlement

Pile

Relieving lateral load on Quay due to skid way loading near Quay

250 T/m

Bearing capacity

Spacer frame on Quay

Resist lateral thrust during load-out operation

LoadZ 120 T/m

168 T/m

Settlement Experience Lateral bearing

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

1003

Table 4 Soil strength and stability summary Load condition During pre-loadout After pre-loadout During loadout Rock pad stability Elevation (m) (K) 11.0 (K) 11.0 (K) 11.0 Factor of safety Sliding 2.52.6 5.65.9 3.73.9 1.4 Overturning 4.55.0 7.98.7 6.16.6 Bearing capacity 3.84.2 2.52.6 3.73.9

environmental effects. AMENAM FSO had two inner skin bulkheads and side shell. These bulkheads were supported by symmetrical 124 m active shoes system during the normal loadout operation. From the 3D FEM analysis results, we found that longitudinal bulkhead and side-shell share 82 and 18% load, respectively, under the active shoe up-lifting force. The large difference between the longitudinal bulkhead and side-shell sharing loads is known to cause overstress in the connection structures of two barges when the ballasting capacity cannot cover the unbalance due to deck load of DBU. In order to maintain the no-heeling condition of DBU and adopt the unbalanced deck load, a special load sharing plan had to be prepared in which longitudinal bulkhead and side shell of FSO would be able to share 65 and 35% of uplifting force respectively, during the main load-out from 124 m active shoes. 5.3.1. Model geometry The AMENAM FSO full ship 3D F.E. model consists of eight (8) super elements and detailed block divisions as shown in the Fig. 13 below. The model was composed of 184,229 nodes and 319,578 plate and beam elements. The AMENAM FSO hull structure was modeled by three or four node shell and two node beam elements. Steel panels were modeled by plate and shell elements with appropriate thickness, while girders, webs and longitudinal stiffeners were modeled by T-beam with appropriate geometrical properties (ange and web thickness) and eccentricity. The plate element sizes in the model were the same as the longitudinal spacing of hull structure (800w930 mm). 5.3.2. Basic model load The load-out weight, FSO hull deection due to active jacking load and barge deections due to still water and wave induced bending moments were the main loads that arose during the load-out operation. For normal operation, we had to determine the maximum stroke of the active jack in order to consider the deection of FSO hull and barge and barge motion and also evaluate the FSO hull strength through full ship 3D F.E. analysis. Vertical gravity LoadThe structural coded weight was generated automatically by SESAM program. The weight of non-coded misc. items, such as. external turrets, living quarters, topsides modules, etc. weights were calculated based on weight control reports and applied as separate loads. The contingency of 10% was considered to account for stiffeners, paint and welds.

1004

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

(1) Hull structural dead loads (BLC 1) (2) Topsides module loads-Include equipments (BLC 2) (3) Turret and suspended loads (BLC 3) (4) Living quarters and heli-deck loads (BLC 4) Uplifting force from Active shoe SystemThe active shoe system was able to distribute load effectively and evenly throughout the load-out beams. To maintain good stability during the load-out operation, different up-lifting forces were calculated at each active jack groups. (5) Active jack up-lifting force (BLC 5) Deformation for boundary displacementsFor the structural integrity at jack-down condition, the Hull boundary displacement was extracted from active jack-up condition, and then, combined with DBU deformation at 10, 60 and 100 m progress of skidding on DBU during the main load-out. (6) Hull deformation (BLC 6) (7) DBU deformation(BLC 79) 5.3.3. Load combinations and boundary conditions During the main load-out, boundary conditions considered are as shown in Fig. 13 and active jack was located on web frame nos. 1842 of the side shell and longitudinal bulkhead. Considering the barge deformation during the main load-out, the combination of hull deformation (BLC6) and barge deformation (BLC7w9) were applied at each load-out step. (1) Load combination 1 (LCB 1)

Fig. 13. The 3D model and boundary condition of AMENAM FSO.

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

1005

Combined vertical gravity loading and up-lifting force for jack active condition (load-out initial condition) LCB1 Z BLC1 C BLC2 C BLC3 C BLC4 C BLC5 (2) Load combination 2 (LCB 2) Combined jack active condition and barge and/or hull deformation after a progress of 10 m on board the barge LCB2 Z BLC1 C BLC2 C BLC3 C BLC4 C BLC6 C BLC7 (3) Load combination 3 (LCB 3) Combined jack active condition and barge and/or hull deformation after a progress of 60 m on board the barge LCB3 Z BLC1 C BLC2 C BLC3 C BLC4 C BLC6 C BLC8

Fig. 14. Load-out Initial condition X-axis normal stress contour (near the L.C.G Location: K161180 N/mm2).

1006

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

(4) Load combination 4 (LCB 4) Combined jack active condition and barge and/or hull deformation after a progress on board the barge LCB4 Z BLC1 C BLC2 C BLC3 C BLC4 C BLC6 C BLC9 5.3.4. Results During the load-out, the maximum deection of AMENAM FSO was 340 mm between A.P. and F.P. However, within the active shoe support, the deection was less than 100 mm. We found that the active jack stroke 250 mm was sufcient for accommodating hull deformation, barge deformation and yard settlement based on yard experience. The maximum Von-Mises stress in plate elements was 214 N/mm2 at side shell after progress of 100 m on board. Stress contours near the longitudinal center of gravity location at the initial condition are shown in Figs. 1417. All plates were within the allowable stress limits during main load-out condition. The yield and buckling checks have been carried out using PLATE WORK module of SESAM programs for plate elements and based on the criteria of DNV classication Notes no. 30.1, respectively. The maximum value of the buckling unity check was 0.88 at side shell plate after progress of 100 m on board the barge. For all the plates, stiffeners, girders buckling stress were found to be within the allowable limits Fig. 13.

Fig. 15. Load-out initial condition Y-axis normal stress contour (near the L.C.G location: K18671 N/mm2).

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

1007

Fig. 16. Load-out initial condition shear stress contour (near the L.C.G location: K5857 N/mm2).

Fig. 17. Load-out initial condition Von-mises stress contour (near the L.C.G location: K161180 N/mm2).

1008

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

6. Numerical simulation for multi purpose double barge unit (DBU) Two submersible barges were designed for multipurpose activities such as load-out, tow and oat-off. Each of the two barges can submerge to 25.5 m with several sizes of portable casing tank and separate control system. The two barges can work separately for small cargo or work together for a heavy cargo. In case of the AMENAM project, the two semi-submersible barges (HDB-1011and1012) were, as shown in Fig. 18, used together with the help of connector to form a single unit called DBU. 6.1. Load-out scheme study Due to the long length and heavy weight of the AMENAM FSO, the load-out direction was studied from the point of view of relative motion, DBU connector load and mooring force for several cases. After examining the variuos case studies, load-out in longitudinal direction with two connected barges was selected. The case study for connector type was also performed based on the motions and loads expected at connectors under each case as mentioned below and model test for load-out scheme are shown in Fig. 19. Scheme 13 Barge Systems: (HDB1011, Space Barge, HDB1012) Load out of FSO in Transverse direction of barges Scheme 22 Barge Systems: (HDB1011, HDB1012) Load out of FSO in Longitudinal direction of barges To verify the structural integrity of the schemes for the load-out process, numerical simulations without linking system and model tests with linking system were performed. Maximum displacements, accelerations and sectional forces were obtained and compared to understand the motion characteristics of two schemes. From the numerical simulations and model test results as tabulated in Table 5 and 6, we found that the connector loads and maneuverability in load-out/ towing operations within

Fig. 18. Conguration of double barge unit (DBU).

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

1009

Fig. 19. Model test for load-out Scheme.

the channel were better in Scheme 2 than in Scheme 1. The synchronizing of ballasting operations was also relatively simpler in Scheme 2. Scheme 2 was found to be more practical than Scheme 1 in case of mooring. Generally, Scheme 1 show the best in motion response from the point of view of whereas Scheme 2 is the most advantageous in terms of design load and operation. 6.2. Connector design The connectors, as shown in Fig. 20, are mainly intended to narrow the differences between stability properties of two barges, accuracy of ballasting and dynamic force from waves. Loads for connector design were studied at each operation with respect to the static forces and wave induced dynamic forces. At load-out and oat off stage, relative heeling moment induced by ballast control error and skid reaction change was the governing factor of the connector load. However, in
Table 5 Maximum accelerationsmodel test
Scheme Scheme 1 Transverse direction 3 barge system Quart. Sea 0.5 5.63 0.0355 0.0348 1 11.26 0.187 0.128 0.5 5.63 0.0282 0.0231 1 11.26 0.1881 0.0701 Scheme 2 Longitudinal direction 2 barge system Beam Sea 0.5 5.63 0.0341 0.0373 1 11.26 0.2029 0.2735 0.5 5.63 0.0328 0.0268 1 11.26 0.1733 0.1775

Wave direction Hs (m) TP (s) Accelerometer 1 Accelerometer 3

Table 6 Maximum loadsnumerical simulation Sectional load Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Hs (m) 1 1 Fx (Kn) 4156 2913 Fy (Kn) 18367 17387 Fz (Kn) 34707 13280 Mx (Kn m) 378417 87225 My (Kn m) 836535 389019 Mz (Kn m) 356655 266910

1010

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

Fig. 20. Rigid frame connector.

towing condition, dynamic forces by waves were the governing factor compared with the static loads. The following design conditions were considered for DBU connector design. (a) Ballast Control Error The following criteria were considered, based on the Ballasting Pump Capacity, to calculate the resulting moment, whose calculation concept is shown in Fig. 21. Ballast Error Time-10 min., BallastZ680 t Resulting Moment due to Ballast ErrorZ5365 t.m (b) Skid Reaction Change While AMENAM FSO is being skidded on DBU skidway, reaction forces can be changed by (1) the difference of vertical acceleration component due to wave and (2) the difference in deballasting operation between two barges. According to the model test result, 2.75% of vertical acceleration was expected. Hence, 5% of load was applied in order to take care of this change in skid reaction. The resulting heeling moment from possible deviation of reaction was considered for connector design, whose calculation concept is shown in Fig. 22.

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

1011

Fig. 21. Ballast errors.

Skid Reaction Change RangeZG5%, Reaction ChangeZ1300 t Resulting Skid Reaction momentZ24,947 t.m (c)Wave force Other load effect on the connector was dynamic load due to wave force. Various characteristic responses was calculated for Load-out, Tow and Float-off conditions for wave loading using WADAM program released by DNV and tabulated in Table 7 (Det, 2002). Characteristic responses considered include the longitudinal shear force (Fx), split force (Fy), vertical shear force (Fz), relative heeling moment (Mx), relative trim moment (My) and yawing moment (Mz). Table 8 presents the maximum characteristic responses for the above operation environment condition. Based on the studies on the connector loads during load out, towing and oat off operation based on the ballasting plan, operation simulation, model test and wave response analysis, we found that relative heeling moment and vertical shear force are the major factors inuencing the design of DBU with connector.

Fig. 22. Skid reaction change.

1012

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

Table 7 Environmental conditions for wave response analysis Draft (m) Load out Towing Float off 8.36 8.36 20.4 Wave Hs (m) 1 2.5 1 Period, Tz (s) 4.56 4.56 4.5 Heading (8) 90 90180 135

Table 8 Environmental force Wave induced forces (maximum) Fx (t) Load out Towing Float off 104 353 103 Fy (t) 1,030 2,574 480 Fz (t) 826 2,066 294 Mx (t.m) 2,861 6,702 9,161 My (t.m) 9,603 32,327 8,978 Mz (t.m) 11,613 40,433 27,824

Different congurations of the connectors, such as hinged type and xed type, were analyzed to meet the required criteria and the conguration of connector as shown in Fig. 20 was selected to cater the requirement of required strength for heeling moment. Additionally one bottom connector was also provided to overcome compression forces from the tugboat during operation. Ballast plan was developed while bearing in mind to keep the bottom connector in compression. 6.3. FEM analysis for connectors We carried out analysis for the above connector conguration to nd the capacity of connector by using the F.E. Models with loading points, which was calibrated to reect the exact effect of submerged barge draft as shown in Fig. 23.

Fig. 23. F.E. models for oat off operation.

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

1013

The results showed that the capacity of the connector was as follows; Against Bending Moment: 40,000 tm Against Shear force : 23,500 t As it is difcult to control and monitor the dynamic loads due to wave, the operation limit based on the capacity of connector was established to keep the maximum heeling static moment less than 30,000 tm. The static bending moment and shear force was monitored from the control room with the help of LMC, and by keeping a margin of about 10,000 tm for dynamic load.

7. Conclusion The Ground Build Load-out of VLCC size AMENAM FSO was veried through F.E. analysis under various conditions and was executed successfully. The maximum stresses and deection of the hull structure during the pre load-out and main load-out was well below the allowable value, almost 60% of the extreme design condition of FSO hull structure. The yield and buckling checks were also checked as per the DNV classication. The concept of using DBU (Double Barge Unit) for load-out was also a challenging move, which also proved to be successful. However, constant monitoring, precise load sharing plan, accurate ballast control, proper mooring arrangement at various stages of on board condition was the essential elements to the success of the project. With the use of Multi Barge unit, Ground Build method could eliminate all the constraints with conventional dry dock construction like capacity, schedule, cost, incorporation of changes, etc. We could conclude that ground build can be used as an efcient construction method. We found that this construction concept can allow major commissioning works to be completed on ground. This in turn is expected to provide a more convenient working environment than conventional construction methods in view of the service of good facilities such as crane, accessibility, multi-working, etc. Ground Build study for irregular type Ultra Heavy Floating Structure construction using multi barge unit is the next step in Floating Offshore Structure construction Industry. Also, the use of Synchronized Multi barge unit for removal and/or shifting of Fixed Structure is another area to cover in the future. The design methodology described in this paper contributed to the successful load-out operation of the worlds rst on-ground built FSO. The paper suggests a new construction methodology that is different from conventional dry dock construction of oating offshore structures, such as FPU, FSO, FPSO, Drilling Rig, and Jack-up, etc. This construction methodology can also be applied to conventional ship construction to reduce assembly schedule and increase efciency of dry dock. Above all, from this study, we were able to develop this design basis, and to gain great experience in developing load-out methodology for huge size structure such as MEGA

1014

Y.T. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 9861014

FLOAT, BMP (Barge Mounted Plant) and MOB (Mobile Offshore Base), which cannot be achieved with the present dry dock facility.

References
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), 1997. Rules for Building and Classing Offshore Mobile Drilling Units, Part 3; Hull Construction and Equipment. American Petroleum Institute (API), 1993. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms; Working Stress Design, API (RP2A-WSD). Bureau Veritas (BV), 1998. Rules and Regulations for the Classication of Ships. Det Norske Veritas (DnV), 1997. Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations. Det Norske Veritas (DnV), 2002. Wave Analysis by Diffraction and Morison Theory (WADAM), SESAM User Manual. KAIST, 1985.Anon., 1985. Development of Design Technology of Offshore Platforms for Offshore Oil Production, Ministry of Korean Science and Technology, vol. 6 1985. London Offshore Consultants Ltd, 1997. Guideline for Marine Operations, Oileld Publications Ltd (OPL). Nobel Denton International (NDI), 1993. Report: Guideline for Loadout, Report No. 0013/NDI.