Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
[
%
]
Hs[m]
4
AsiaPacific
Brazil
GulfofMexico
WestAfrica
Figure 2: H
s
distribution for various operational regions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
A
n
n
u
a
l
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
[
%
]
Tp[s]
19
AsiaPacific
Brazil
GulfofMexico
WestAfrica
Figure 3: T
p
distribution for various operational regions
4 OTC 21527
Model for Seabed Landing
Analysis of predicting the package velocity was carried out using time-domain simulation with additional verification of the
results being carried out using a frequency-domain in-house tool based on DNV-RP-H103 (DISH 2006). The frequency-
domain tool simulated a package connected to a suspension point using a lowering wire - the mass element included the
package mass, its added mass and the mass of the lowering wire as well as rigging with additional drag on the package
damped the system. The tool solved the single degree of freedom damped spring-mass system for motion amplitude, velocity
and acceleration of the package in the frequency-domain. The results from the tool compared well with those from time-
domain analysis and therefore validated the results obtained.
Analysis sequence
The following sequence was followed for the analysis.
i. Analysis in irregular waves for velocity of the package with it suspended from A&R winch sheave.
ii. Repeat of analysis to predict package velocity as in (i) with the inclusion of passive heave compensator stiffness
directly above the package rigging.
Vessel & Lowering Point
Installation using two typical deepwater installation vessels was simulated. The two vessels were considered to be broadly
representative of the spectrum of vessel excitation amplitudes for a typical construction fleet (Figure 4). In the figure, the
heave motion amplitude was non-dimensionalized with respect to wave amplitude.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Vessel1
Vessel2
Period(seconds)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
(
m
/
m
)
Figure 4: Heave RAOs for Typical Deepwater Installation Vessels
The study considered the lowering of two packages (a manifold & a suction pile) using A&R winches through the vessel
moon pool / work pool. These locations accorded the benefit of imparting lower excitation to the lowering system and thus
maximizing payload that could be installed.
OTC 21527 5
Package type
Two typical subsea packages were considered:
i. Manifold: 18.6 x 11.8 x 6.3m mass=145Te
ii. Pile: 25m x 5m dia. mass=100Te
Hydrodynamic coefficients for the typical packages were estimated and are summarized in Table 1. Added mass values for
manifold and pile evolved from flat plate and vertical cylinder idealizations respectively, corrected for equivalent
perforations and plate end effects. Drag coefficients in oscillatory flow were used.
Manifold Pile
Added mass [Te] 495.4 570.0
Damping coefficient, Cd [-] 5.0 5.0
Table 1: Added mass and damping for the packages
Waves
Analysis was carried out in irregular waves characterized by JONSWAP spectrum. The spectral peakedness parameter
either varied with (H
s
, T
p
) or kept constant, corresponding to the wave scatter data used. A range of H
s
from 1.0 - 2.5m in
increments of 0.5m was studied. Peak spectral wave periods from 4 to 20 seconds were considered with one hour simulations
carried out.
In order to limit the number of analyses, the ranges of H
s
considered for package velocity analysis were limited to H
s
=2.5m.
This is also in line with practice, whereby installation is generally not performed at H
s
>2.5m. For all sea states with H
s
>2.5m
appearing in the metocean data, installation was assumed not possible (i.e., operability assumed as zero).
Assumptions in time-domain model
The following assumptions or simplifications were made in the computational assessment using the time-domain package
response model.
i. Winch support and overboarding structure stiffness was not modeled, this was assumed not to significantly
affect the results.
ii. A typical passive heave compensator suitable for the maximum expected line tensions has been used for all
analyses. The stiffness and damping data were obtained from the manufacturer supplied data.
iii. Damping of the lowering wire was ignored since it would be negligible compared to the package damping. The
effect of inclusion on package velocity prediction was therefore not considered to be significant.
iv. For each analysis, the PHC pre-tension was adjusted so that at static equilibrium, the PHC elongation is about
half the limiting stroke. This was intended to ensure optimum response for the dynamic variations in line
tension.
v. PHC was modeled between the lower end of the crane wire and the rigging for the package to simulate the
actual rigging configuration.
vi. Lowering wire payout was not modeled, i.e., the package was assumed to be positioned at the water depth.
The effect of ignoring wire payout on the package velocity was expected to be negligible as the increase in
damping resulting from inclusion of velocity of lowering (DISH 2006) would be offset by the resulting reduced
effect of oscillatory motion and associated damping.
vii. For reasons of simplicity, open-water hydrodynamic coefficients were used and therefore the load / seabed
interaction was not considered in this analysis.
6 OTC 21527
Performance criteria
Judgment on operability required the use of a limiting performance criterion. Based on reviews of project installation
analyses, package vertical velocity requirement of less than 0.5 m/s were considered acceptable as a typical seabed landing
velocity criterion and has been used for the purposes of this study. The limit of 0.5m/s is a lower bound client requirement,
but this limit should be appropriate for the installed package and could be much higher depending on the structure being
installed. It is important to use realistic limits so that installation of the structure is not restricted by inappropriate installation
criterion, such criterion should be checked with the equipment designer/supplier to fully understand their origin.
Offshore operations of this nature have their environmental condition limits based upon this type of analysis. These limits
would be termed Design Criteria (DNV 1996). The weather criteria to be used on actual operations are usually lower and
would be referred to as Operational Criteria. The reason these are more stringent is that weather-restricted operations are
performed based on a forecast and always face the possibility of the environmental conditions of interest (e.g. wave height)
exceeding those forecast. However, the operability in this analysis was compared on the basis of design limits and not
operational limits.
Results of Region-wise Operability
Region-wise Operability Calculation
Pile and manifold velocities near the seabed were predicted based on time-domain analysis. The package velocities were
mapped onto the appropriate wave scatter data to depict the feasibility of operation in terms of percentage operability. The
percentage value calculated was the fraction of number of acceptable H
s
and T
p
combinations upon the total number of
combinations covered in the wave scatter data.
Below, Tables 2 & 3 presents the typical vessel operability for the Asia-Pacific & Brazilian regions respectively.
OPERABILITYWITHOUTPHC(PackageVelocityCriterion) OPERABILITYWITHPHC(PackageVelocityCriterion)
Manifold Manifold
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
1 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.48% 0.58% 0.22% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.48% 0.58% 0.22% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01%
1.5 0.04% 0.12% 0.46% 3.01% 4.94% 2.68% 0.51% 0.20% 0.06% 1.5 0.04% 0.12% 0.46% 3.01% 4.94% 2.68% 0.51% 0.20% 0.06%
2 0.11% 0.37% 4.56% 2 0.11% 0.37% 0.72% 4.56% 11.50% 8.47% 1.47%
2.5 0.02% 0.47% 2.5 0.02% 0.47% 0.83% 2.67% 11.26%
MaximumOperability 19% MaximumOperability 56%
Pile Pile
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
1 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.48% 0.58% 0.22% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01%
1.5 0.04% 0.12% 1.5 0.04% 0.12% 0.46% 3.01% 4.94% 2.68%
2 0.11% 0.37% 2 0.11% 0.37% 0.72% 4.56% 11.50%
2.5 0.02% 0.47% 2.5 0.02% 0.47% 0.83% 2.67%
MaximumOperability 1% MaximumOperability 34%
Table 2: Vessel Operability using Package Landing Velocity Acceptance Criterion Asia Pacific & Vessel 1
OPERABILITYWITHOUTPHC(PackageVelocityCriterion) OPERABILITYWITHPHC(PackageVelocityCriterion)
Manifold Manifold
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
1 0.05% 0.48% 0.53% 0.21% 0.08% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.05% 0.48% 0.53% 0.21% 0.08% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1.5 0.84% 5.33% 9.28% 4.53% 2.55% 0.65% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 1.5 0.84% 5.33% 9.28% 4.53% 2.55% 0.65% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00%
2 0.33% 10.37% 12.18% 8.14% 2 0.33% 10.37% 12.18% 8.14% 5.76% 1.28% 0.24% 0.03% 0.00%
2.5 0.03% 3.36% 6.47% 4.38% 2.5 0.03% 3.36% 6.47% 4.38% 4.49% 0.96%
MaximumOperability 70% MaximumOperability 83%
Pile Pile
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
Tp[s]
Hs[m]
4s 6s 8s 10s 12s 14s 16s 18s 20s
1 0.05% 0.48% 0.53% 0.21% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.05% 0.48% 0.53% 0.21% 0.08% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1.5 0.84% 5.33% 9.28% 1.5 0.84% 5.33% 9.28% 4.53% 2.55% 0.65%
2 0.33% 10.37% 2 0.33% 10.37% 12.18% 8.14% 5.76%
2.5 0.03% 3.36% 2.5 0.03% 3.36% 6.47% 4.38%
MaximumOperability 31% MaximumOperability 76%
Table 3: Vessel Operability using Package Landing Velocity Acceptance Criterion Brazil & Vessel 2
OTC 21527 7
Region-wise Operability Comparison
A summary of the region-wise vessel operability is presented in Table 4.
Vessel 1 - Manifold Vessel 1 - Pile
Asia-
Pacific
Brazil
Gulf of
Mexico
West
Africa
Asia-
Pacific
Brazil
Gulf of
Mexico
West
Africa
w/o
PHC
19% 70% 95% 58%
w/o
PHC
1% 31% 77% 17%
with
PHC
56% 83% 95% 91%
with
PHC
34% 76% 95% 70%
Vessel 2 - Manifold Vessel 2 - Pile
Asia-
Pacific
Brazil
Gulf of
Mexico
West
Africa
Asia-
Pacific
Brazil
Gulf of
Mexico
West
Africa
w/o
PHC
3% 43% 86% 16%
w/o
PHC
1% 21% 52% 3%
with
PHC
23% 69% 95% 60%
with
PHC
8% 62% 93% 42%
Table 4: Comparison of Vessel Operability
The results from the operability analysis based on landing velocity criterion showed that:
1. In general, the vessel operability was significantly higher for the manifold than for the pile. This was due to the
beneficial effects of greater damping forces associated with the manifold structure.
2. The use of a suitably tuned PHC system resulted in improved vessel operability in all the cases considered.
3. The improvement in vessel operability by the use of the PHC system could be attributed to the shifting of resonant
responses of the system to higher wave periods, thereby reducing the package landing velocities.
4. The increase in operability could be sufficient to preclude the requirement for more complex heave compensation
methods such as active heave compensation. For example, for Brazil and West Africa, with long-period swells, the
operability was found to be greatly improved with the use of PHC.
High H
s
and T
p
are both likely to increase package landing velocity. In general, the PHC system works efficiently in
seastates with wave periods lower than 10s. For this reason, this type of compensation is particularly effective in the Gulf of
Mexico, Brazil & West Africa. For example, PHC systems have been used during the installation of a manifold and suction
pile, to a depth of 2800m, for the Petrobras Cascade-Chinook project in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, manifolds have
installed to a depth of 1450m on the Reliance MA-D6 project offshore India.
However, for Asia-Pacific, about 60% of waves have H
s
greater than 1.75m, with nearly 80% of seastates occur with a wave
period of 10s or greater. Therefore, performance of PHC systems in this case is not as significant. Hence, the combination of
high H
s
and T
p
waves in Asia-Pacific significantly reduces the effectiveness of PHC systems when compared to other
regions.
8 OTC 21527
Conclusion
In many cases, the increase in vessel operability due to use of PHC systems may be enough to remove the need for other
more complex heave compensation methods such as AHC. However, PHC systems cannot always guarantee sufficiently
high operability when based on seabed landing speed criteria. In such cases, the use of active heave compensation, or
alternative installation methods, may be needed to gain a significant increase in operability.
This paper has demonstrated that PHC devices can significantly improve vessel operability. With a suitably tuned PHC
further improvement to vessel operability can be made. Pre-tension, stiffness and damping characteristics may all have to be
adjusted to achieve optimum performance. These optimum settings may depend on the package characteristics, seastates for
operation, water depth and acceptable limits for package velocity. Consultation with manufacturers may highlight any
practical limitations and the possibility of devising a bespoke PHC system. However, for reliable operability estimates,
accurate environmental data specific to the installation location is essential.
Indeed, Technip have shown that during executed projects, such as Petrobras Cascade Chinook and Reliance MA-D6, that
such passive heave compensation systems do provide sufficient compensation to meet the required installation criterion.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their colleagues in Technip, particularly Geoffrey Marmonier and Sojan Vasudevan for their
help in carrying out this study.
Nomenclature
AHC Active Heave Compensation
JONSWAP Joint North Sea Wave Project
H
s
Significant wave height
PHC Passive Heave Compensation
T
p
Peak wave period
References
DISH 2006 Deepwater Installation of Subsea Hardware (DISH) Joint Industry Project, Final DISH Phase 3 Summary report, 24
November 2006.
DNV 2010 DNV, DNV-RP-H103, Modeling and Analysis of Marine Operations, April 2010.
DNV 1996 DNV, Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations, Part 2 Chapter 6 Subsea Operations, 1996.