31/10/2016

OIL & GAS

Floating Offshore Structures

Hydrodynamics and Structural Analysis

01 November 2016

01 November 2016 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Table of Contents

 Wave theory
 Wave conditions: Short-term vs long-term
 Wave loads
 Motions
 Characteristic response
 Design waves (for different unit types)
 Air gap /model test
 Design loads calculation
 Structural analysis /evaluation (yield, buckling, fatigue)

2 01 November 2016

1
 31/10/2016

Environmental Loads

 Wind
 Wave
 Current
 Tide

3 01 November 2016

Wave Theories

4 01 November 2016

2
 31/10/2016

Basic Wave Terminology

8
Crest, peak
6

4
Wave elevation (m)
2
Height
0

-2

-4 Trough

-6 Zero-up-crossing
period
-8
5 10 15 20 25
Time (s)

5 01 November 2016

Airy Wave Theory – Linear Regular Wave

g 2
• wavelength  T
2
• wave profile   a  sin( t  kx)
• horizontal
particle velocity
u  a ekz sin( t  kx)

• vertical w  a ekz cos( t  kx)

particle velocity
Deep water

6 01 November 2016

3
 31/10/2016

Stokes 2nd order Wave Theory

a 2  3 
  a sin( t  kx)  sin2( t  kx)  
  2

6
Surface elevation (m)

2
Airy
Stokes 2nd
0
50 100 150 200 250
-2

-4

-6
x-coordinate (m)

7 01 November 2016

Stokes 5th Wave Theory

8 01 November 2016

4
 31/10/2016

Validity of Various Wave Theories

9 01 November 2016

Irregular Waves

Linear theory is used to simulate

irregular waves by superpositiong.
N
   A j sin( j t  k j x   j )
j
Then
1
2 A2j  S ( j ) 
The instantaneous wave elevation is Gaussian distributed
with zero mean and variance

 2   0 S ( )d

10 01 November 2016

5
 31/10/2016

Wave Conditions

11 01 November 2016

Short-Term Wave Height Distribution

1.4
Cum.prob. or Prob.density

1.2

1
0.86
0.8 Cum.

0.6 density

0.4
Hs
0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20

Wave height (m)

Wave elevation:
Narrow-banded, Gaussian process
  h  
2
Maximum:
FH (h)  1  exp  2   
Rayleigh distribution
  H S  

12 01 November 2016

6
 31/10/2016

Pierson Moskowitz Wave Spectrum

For Fully Developed Wind Sea

H S2TZ  2 
5
 1  2 4 
S ()    exp    
8 2  TZ     TZ  
TP

TZ

13 01 November 2016

Jonswap Wave Spectrum

14 01 November 2016

7
 31/10/2016

Two Peak Spectrum

For Wind Sea and Swell

15 01 November 2016

Examples

Now it is your turn 

16 01 November 2016

8
 31/10/2016

Short-Term Wave Conditions

Example:
 Time duration of 3 hours
 Zero-up-crossing period 10 s
 Significant wave height 10 m
 Estimate for most probable maximum wave height by
setting the probability of exceedance
1  1  FH (hmax )
N

N  3 3600  1080
10

hmax  H S 0.5 ln N  10 0.5 ln 10800  18.7m

17 01 November 2016

Long-Term Wave Conditions

Tz (s) 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5
Hs(m)
Wave Height & 0.25 5 17 18 9 2 0 0 0 0 0
Period 0.75 21 708 755 328 98 19 3 0 0 0
1.25 0 725 1600 873 365 70 7 3 0 0
Scatter Diagram 1.75 0 83 1151 1106 607 198 39 7 0 0
2.25 0 0 310 1010 744 283 72 18 3 0
2.75 0 0 16 640 642 304 97 15 2 0
3.25 0 0 0 187 514 293 78 16 0 0
3.75 0 0 0 33 407 263 101 9 0 0
4.25 0 0 0 1 235 271 75 28 2 0
4.75 0 0 0 0 79 256 86 16 1 0
5.25 0 0 0 0 7 194 75 17 0 1
5.75 0 0 0 0 0 117 91 14 1 0
6.25 0 0 0 0 0 31 91 7 3 0
6.75 0 0 0 0 0 8 61 16 1 0
7.25 0 0 0 0 0 3 30 14 1 0
7.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 27 5 0
8.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 22 3 0
8.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 0
9.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 1
9.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1
10.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
10.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
11.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
11.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

18 01 November 2016

9
 31/10/2016

Long-term vs Short-term Wave Statistics

Long-term: Scatter Diagram

Short-term: Single Seastate Short-term: Seastate Contour

100-year Hurricane:
Hs = 15.8m
Tp = 15.4s

Wave period variation has to be included!

19 01 November 2016

Weibull Distribution of Significant Wave Height

  h    
FHs (h)  1  exp    
    

  1.92,   1.28,   0.53

20 01 November 2016

10
 31/10/2016

Wave Loads and Motions

21 01 November 2016

Wave Loads on Offshore Structures

• Morison equation

• Froude-Krylov theory

• Diffraction theory

22 01 November 2016

11
 31/10/2016

Loads on Slender Structures

Morison Equation:
D2 
F   CM u  DCD u u
4 2
Inertia Drag

Usage:
When member diameters
are smaller than
approximately 1/5th of the
wave length.

23 01 November 2016

Coefficients CM, CD

CM, CD dependent on the flow

conditions:

• Viscosity - Reynold's no.

• Water particle oscillation
• Surface roughness
• Relative current magnitude
• Body shape

Drag coefficient for fixed circular

cylinder for steady flow in critical
flow regime, for various
roughness

24 01 November 2016

12
 31/10/2016

Loads on Large Bodies

 Inertia forces dominate compared to

viscous forces  Potential theory

 Fluid flow described by potential

 Offshore structure described by surface
panels
 Pressure on panels from potential
 Integrated pressure  loads on body

25 01 November 2016

Froude-Krylov Theory

• Froude-Krylov forces are calculated by a pressure-area

method

• Pressure on structure surface is due to the incident

(non-disturbed) waves only

Fx  CH  p nx dS
Sw

Fy  CV  p ny dS
Sw
Where,

C H  horizontal force coefficient ;

CV  vertical force coefficient ;

26 01 November 2016

13
 31/10/2016

Diffraction Theory

Diffraction theory is applicable to the large structures compared

to the wave length, especially for the structures which span a
significant portion of a wave length.
Perturbation method is usually applied:


   nn
n1
where
kH

2
K – wave number; H – wave height

27 01 November 2016

Rigid Body Motion

Mode Eigenperiods
(Tn)
X1 – surge T1
X2 – sway T2
X3 – heave T3
X4 – roll T4
X5 – pitch T5
X6 – yaw T6

28 01 November 2016

14
 31/10/2016

Equation of motion (rigid body)

( m  a ) x  c x  kx  F ( t )
Excitation forces

Stiffness
Damping

Mass & added mass

Radiation problem Diffraction problem

• Hydrodynamic coefficients (a & c) and excitation (F(t)) are frequency

dependent

• Response is proportional to the amplitude of the incident waves

29 01 November 2016

Typical Eigen Periods for Deepwater Floaters

Natural periods (seconds)

Floater FPSO Spar TLP Semi

Mode

Surge > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100

Sway > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100

Heave 5 – 12 20 – 35 <5 20 – 50

Roll 5 – 30 50–90 <5 30 - 60

Pitch 5 – 12 50 –90 <5 30 - 60

Yaw > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100

30 01 November 2016

15
 31/10/2016

Motion Characteristics

31 01 November 2016

Examples

Now it is your turn 

32 01 November 2016

16
 31/10/2016

Example: Calculate Heave Eigen Period - Vertical Cylinder

T3  2 1 .1  d / g
T3  2 (m  a33 ) / k33
m  Aw d Example:
D
d k33  gAw d = 30m, T3 = 11.5s
a33  0.1m d = 50m, T3 = 15s
Closed
Cylinder d = 100m, T3 = 21s
d = 200m, T3 = 30s
Calculate T3:
d = 30m, 50m, 100m, 200m

33 01 November 2016

WF and LF Floater Motion Characteristics

WF LF
Surge motion

mean

Mean +LF+WF motion components

time

– Wave frequency (WF) response due to wave loading

on the floater.

– Low frequency response (LF) due to dynamic

excitation from wind- and 2nd order wave forces.

– Horizontal LF is motion governed by resonance

dynamics of the riser/mooring/floater system.
Damping is essential for prediction of LF motions.

– Mean offset governed by mean environmental

loading and restoring characteristics of the
riser/mooring/floater system.

34 01 November 2016

17
 31/10/2016

High Frequency Loads

 Springing
– Continuous high-frequency response
– Low to moderate sea states
– Low energy level. High number of cycles.
– Important for tether fatigue (FLS)

 Ringing
- High-frequency transient response
- High sea states. Steep individual waves.
- Few events
- Important for extreme tether tension
(ULS)

35 01 November 2016

Disturbed Kinematics Due to Diffraction/Radiation Effects

 Floater motions will change the wave

kinematics close to the hull due to
radiation/diffraction effects
 This may significantly affect the loading on
risers/umbilicals close to the hull
 Effects will be strongly dependent on the
location relative to the hull and wave
direction

36 01 November 2016

18
 31/10/2016

Design Wave Analysis

37 01 November 2016

Wave Load Analysis

 Frequency Domain Analysis

- Linearly superposing loads due to regular
wave components

 Time Domain Analysis

- Capture higher order load (non-linear)
effects
- Gives response statistics without
assumptions regarding the response
distribution

38 01 November 2016

19
 31/10/2016

RAO – Transfer Functions

Calculate motion response

for unit waves covering
- All wave headings
- All wave periods

Design input:
- Wet Surface (panel model)
- Mass model (distributed
mass or mass matrix)
- Damping

39 01 November 2016

Example of Panel Models Used to Establish RAO’s

40 01 November 2016

20
 31/10/2016

Modelling recommendations
 Diagonal length of panel mesh should be less
than 1/6 of smallest wave length analysed
 Fine mesh should be applied in areas with abrupt
changes in geometry (edges, corners).
 When modelling thin walled structures with water
on both sides, the panel size should not exceed
3-4 times the modelled wall thickness.

 Finer panel mesh should be used towards water-line when calculating wave drift
excitation forces.
 The water plane area and volume of the discretized model should match closely to the
real structure.

41 01 November 2016

Hydrodynamic Analysis for Semi

 Potential theory dominant

 Morrison loads important for slender

members, e.g. braces

 Damping due to drag on braces/pontoons

can be important too

 Braces should be represented as ‘dual-

model’: panel model to capture potential
loads and Morrison model

 Additional heave damping may have to be

added – based on model test calibration

42 01 November 2016

21
 31/10/2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

Max acceleration, displacement etc. (e.g. MPME of 100-Year seastate)

• Typical max responses: MPME, P90 (90 percentile)

• Short-term vs. long-term approach
• Percentile level is Regional/site specific

43 01 November 2016

Design Wave Approach - Frequency Domain Analysis

Global Characteristic Responses

44 01 November 2016

22
 31/10/2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

1) Split force between pontoon, Fs:

– Give max axial force in transverse horizontal braces of a twin pontoon unit
– Give max bending moment for transverse deck structure of unit without braces

45 01 November 2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

2) Torsion moment, Mt:

– Give max axial force in diagonal horizontal and vertical braces of a twin pontoon unit
– Main deck structure has to be designed for this moment of unit without braces

46 01 November 2016

23
 31/10/2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

3) Longitudinal shear force between the pontoons, FL

– For twin pontoon units with braces, it is normally governing loadcase for all horizontal
bracing members
– For a ring pontoon unit, this response will give maximum responses at the
pontoon/node/column intersections and at the column to deck connections.

47 01 November 2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

4) Longitudinal acceleration of deck mass

– The longitudinal acceleration of deck mass will introduce shear force and corresponding
bending moments for the columns connecting the upper and lower hulls (deck and
pontoon)

48 01 November 2016

24
 31/10/2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

5) Transverse acceleration of deck mass

– For units without diagonal braces, the longitudinal acceleration of deck mass will introduce
shear force and corresponding bending moments for the columns connecting the upper
and lower hulls (deck and pontoon)
– For units with diagonal braces the shear force will be experienced as axial force in the
braces and shear force with corresponding bending moments in the columns.

49 01 November 2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

6) Vertical acceleration of deck mass

– In most cases, it is not critical for any global structural element in submerged conditions

50 01 November 2016

25
 31/10/2016

Structural design checks – design wave analysis

7) Vertical wave bending moment on the pontoon

– This response will reach its maximum value at head seas, θ = 0°.

51 01 November 2016

Sectional Force RAO

52 01 November 2016

26
 31/10/2016

Design Waves

Max response = 90% fractile

53 01 November 2016

Buzz Group Discussion

Unique features and challenges for other floaters:

– TLP
– Spar
– FPSO

54 01 November 2016

27
 31/10/2016

Global Characteristic Response for TLP

Squeeze-Pry Loads

55 01 November 2016

Design Wave Selection

 Section cuts: vertical and horizontal

 Section force calculation
– Wave periods: 2s – 30s
– Wave headings 0deg-360deg, 15deg interval
Motion RAO Sectional force RAO

Squeeze-Pry load:
Combine Fx and Fy with a
vertical section cut

56 01 November 2016

28
 31/10/2016

Motion Characteristics of Spar

Pontoons, foundations and

added mass/heave plates are
crucial for moving the heave
eigen-period outside the
dominating wave periods

57 01 November 2016

Characteristic Response Calculation for Spar

Global Response Characteristics:

• Global bending: along the depth
• Translational acceleration of
decks/elevations
• Vertical acceleration of
decks/elevations
• Split force between cylinders (for
cells spar)

58 01 November 2016

29
 31/10/2016

Global Responses for FPSO

59 01 November 2016

Multi-body Interactions
and Airgap

61 01 November 2016

30
 31/10/2016

Multi-Body Interaction

62 01 November 2016

Multi-body Interactions

63 01 November 2016

31
 31/10/2016

Air Gap Calculation

 Air Gap Requirement for Semi

– Positive for 100-year event Run-up

 Relative motion between structure

& wave
 Disturbed wave shall be used
 Wave asymmetry factor
 Local structure can be reinforced
Upwelling
against wave slamming, if
necessary
 Horizontal slamming force
 Should be checked at early design
phase
 Calibrate against model test

64 01 November 2016

Air Gap Calculation - Example

Offbody points in HydroD

• Cover sufficient points below deck

• Results for points too close to columns not reliable

65 01 November 2016

32
 31/10/2016

Air Gap

66 01 November 2016

Structural Analysis

68 01 November 2016

33
 31/10/2016

Design Conditions for Semi

Design Phases to
Be Considered:
 In-Place:
Operating,
Survival,
Accidental
 Transit
 Failure Modes:
Yield, Buckling,
Fatigue

69 01 November 2016

Accidental and Redundancy Requirements

 Heeled Condition
- Max 170 heel
- Combined with 1-year environmental loads
(allowable factor 1.0) or no environmental
loads with allowable factor 0.75

 Loss of one brace

- Worst scenario to be considered
- Combined with 1-year environmental loads
(allowable factor 1.0) or no environmental
loads with allowable factor 0.75

 Local over-stress acceptable provided

redistribution for forces accounted for.

70 01 November 2016

34
 31/10/2016

Design Loads

 Wave Loads

 Wind Loads on
Deck Structure

 Gravity (steel,
equipment, tank
loading, etc.)

71 01 November 2016

Structural Design Analysis

72 01 November 2016

35
 31/10/2016

Ultimate Strength

Capacity Check
 Yield: based on rule scantling
check
– Longitudinal stress from global
FEA
– Lateral pressure: rule formulae
 Buckling
– Longitudinal stress from global
FEA
– Transverse stress from local FEA
(webframe models)
– Lateral pressure: rule formulae

73 01 November 2016

Ultimate Strength Check

Each wave is represented by 1 ‘real wave’

+ 1 ‘imaginary wave’

Combine dynamic wave cases with static

cases by stepping through the wave and
maximizing the stress at each structural
element

Scanning for max yield, max compression

etc.

74 01 November 2016

36
 31/10/2016

Fatigue Load Cases

 1. Apply unit waves in all headings and all periods (e.g. 2s-30s)
 2. Apply scatter diagram
 3. Apply heading profile

75 01 November 2016

Fatigue

Typical Fatigue Locations:

 Pontoon to column connection
 Column to brace connection
 Column to deck connection

76 01 November 2016

37
 31/10/2016

Buzz Group Discussion

Unique features and challenges for structural analysis TLP, how is it

different from Semi?

77 01 November 2016

Typical Parameters To Be Considered

Different TLP drafts Tendons to be

modelled as springs

Tendon flooding, Tidal effects, storm

tendon removal & surges, set down,
hull subsidence, mis-
compartment(s) positioning,
flooding tolerances

78 01 November 2016

38
 31/10/2016

Thank you

DNV GL Oil & Gas

www.dnvgl.com

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

79 01 November 2016

39