Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Regan Miller
Rolla Wattinger
April Van Valkenburg
Flor Foreman
Steven Schaefer
Jennifer Dupalo
The world’s energy demand is growing far more rapidly than the energy industry can
supply, so alternative resources are being investigated by the energy industry to address
the deficit in energy production. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is one of the alternatives
being explored. Recent advancements in technology have given energy companies the
ability to transport and deliver LNG long distances, and because of the impending energy
shortage, federal regulatory agencies have relaxed the constraints that have been imposed
These terminals will help in the delivery of LNG to onshore locations via an
Engineering senior class were tasked to provide a front-end engineering analysis for a
Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) located in the Niger delta region off the
coast of West Africa. The terminal is required to satisfy regulations as set forth by the
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and the American Petroleum Institute (API), as well
• Must be able to process 1 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas per day
General Arrangements:
The team considered three design alternatives. The first option consisted of a ship-shape
barge with Moss (spherical) LNG tanks located longitudinally along the beam of the
terminal. The second option was catamaran-shaped, with twin hulls bridged by a large
square platform and spread-moored to the sea floor. The third option was the same
catamaran hull, but with single-point (turret) mooring. After careful consideration and
input from industry representatives, the team decided to design the terminal as a ship-
shape barge with LNG tanks contained within the hull. The final dimensions of the FSRU
are as follows:
• Breadth – 65 m
• Molded depth – 33 m
Five semi-prismatic type B (SPB) tanks were selected for the LNG containment. SPB
tanks are advantageous in that they are independent from the hull structure and the
geometry of the tanks can be designed to conform to the hull’s final shape. The ballast
tanks were designed as five adjacent J-tanks on each side of the terminal, for a total of ten
tanks. A double-hull layout was a direct effect of this ballast configuration, which
optimized the safety of the terminal as well as complying with ABS steel vessel design
guidelines. The offloading system selected for the terminal is a series of four “In-Air
selected because of the internal flexibility of the hoses and the added range of
contingency design using conventional mechanical arms designed by FMC has been
considered. The mechanical arms have a smaller overall range of displacement, requiring
more stringent design constraints and thus giving the team versatility in using either
Stability:
The overall stability of the terminal is a function of the draft, which in turn depends on
the lightship weight. The lightship mass of the terminal, including the hull, ballast tanks,
LNG tanks, and topside equipment, is 91,235 tonnes. One of the design constraints is that
the terminal must maintain a constant draft so that the terminal’s vertical position remains
unchanged as it takes on cargo from berthing carriers. Whether the terminal is loaded or
unloaded, the draft remains constant at 11.6 m. With the estimated lightship weight
determined and the dimensions of the ship optimized, the team conducted a stability
StabCAD calculates the maximum KG a vessel can have while remaining stable under
different stability criteria. If the vessel’s KG is larger than any of the allowable values,
the vessel is unstable. After simulating the terminal and running the analysis for the intact
vessel, the smallest calculated allowable KG is 36.6 m. The actual KG of the terminal is
17.4 m, which is lower than the smallest allowable KG value. The FSRU is therefore
stable in its intact condition. In addition, ABS requires that the ship maintain stability
when two adjacent ballast tanks are damaged simultaneously. The smallest allowable KG
value in the damaged condition was calculated using the same procedure as the intact
smallest allowable KG for both a single tank damaged and two adjacent tanks damaged.
A global loading and general strength analysis was performed to determine how the
vessel responds to applied loads. These loads include the weights of the vessel, topside
structures, LNG, and buoyancy. Weights lower than 3,000 kN were treated as point loads
whereas weights greater than 3,000 kN were treated as distributed loads. Three load cases
were evaluated for the global loading analysis. The first is in the calmest conditions
where the buoyancy force is distributed evenly along the keel, representing still water.
The second load case is where two wave crests are located at the bow and stern, and the
third case is where one wave crest is located at mid-ship. The last two cases are the
worst-case scenarios. Load case two produced the largest shear and moment magnitudes.
These values are in compliance with those calculated from ABS requirements. The
moment of inertia was calculated using ABS guidelines, which yielded 1.45x107cm2-m2.
The inertia was then used with the cross-sectional area to determine a minimum hull plate
Environmental Conditions:
After obtaining the raw environmental data from ConocoPhillips, the data was shoaled to
the depth at the terminal. The environmental conditions for the 40-meter water depth for
the 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year return periods were determined to be:
Those conditions were used to calculate the environmental forces. The forces for the 1,
10, and 100 year return periods, respectively, in the three headings were calculated to be:
As the results indicate, forces in beam seas are significantly larger than bow and
quartering seas because of the substantial surface area along the length of the vessel. The
terminal will therefore be oriented with the bow facing in the southwest direction.
Hydrodynamics:
Establishing the natural periods in pitch, roll, and heave is essential for determining the
terminal’s ability to achieve the given design constraints. After careful analysis, none of
the periods corresponding to each degree of freedom coincide with the environmental
peak periods; therefore, resonance will not occur. The periods were computed and
produced the following results for unloaded and loaded conditions, respectively:
These results also indicate that heave will produce the largest displacement. The
maximum displacement of 2.23 m occurs when the two vessels are 180 degrees out of
phase. This displacement is within allowable tolerances (± 2.0m vertical and ± 1.7m
horizontal) of the FMC mechanical offloading arms for vertical displacement. Since the
Mooring/Station Keeping:
The mooring system must be designed to satisfy maximum tensions and offset
requirements as specified by API. The line tension is allowed to reach 60% of its
breaking strength for an undamaged line and 80% for a damaged line in a 100-year event.
The radius of the watch circle can be no more than 25% of the water depth, or 10 meters
at the current location. The mooring system must not fail during a 100-year event. The
mooring design for the regasification terminal is a spread system due to the benign and
lines (three lines per vessel quadrant) made up of 114.3 mm (4.5 in) chain was assessed.
Line tensions under damaged and intact cases are 9,693kN and 5,685kN respectively. In
each instance, the constraints are met. The offsets produced in the aforementioned
environmental conditions during a 100-year event are 4.2 meters for intact lines in
oblique seas and 5.3 meters for damaged lines. These values are both below the 25%
allowed by API. The expected maximum tension for a 100-year return is 5,685 kN, which
is 45% of the breaking strength of the 114.3 mm inch chain (12,440kN). The system
Cost Analysis:
ConocoPhillips provided Team West Africa with the unit cost of each terminal
component for three shipyards in Korea, Japan, and Spain respectively. At current market
prices, Spain is the least-expensive location. The total cost for constructing the FSRU in
1.1 Background
Many areas worldwide, such as North America and Europe, are experiencing a decline in gas supplies due
to a decrease in gas production. This decrease in production is occurring because the gas sources are no
longer able to sustain the current production level. As a result, other sources of gas production are being
examined. Natural gas is rapidly becoming the fuel of choice for today’s industry. It burns cleaner; hence, it
creates significantly less pollution than many other forms of energy. That fact is important to today’s
society because it is becoming much more environmentally concerned than before. Another positive aspect
of natural gas is the decrease in production cost in the future with each advance in technology.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) appears to be the best option to appease the constant demand of gas. The
operation of LNG essentially began in the 1960s when an LNG trade began between Algeria and the UK.
Presently, there is a constant increase in the utilization of gas. According to the International Energy
Agency, 28% of global energy usage will come from gas by 2025 due to a 2.8% per year rise in gas
expenditure (Robertson 2004). Another influential factor is the lack of gas production in nations that
require the most gas, which generates an immense need for imported gas. Some regions that have
unexploited natural gas reserves, for example the Middle East, would like to monetize their ample
resources. Lastly, LNG is becoming more feasible because of recent improvements in technology (Share
2003). The advances will allow the cost of LNG carriers and tankers to decrease, making this method even
more achievable than previously thought.
A natural gas reservoir is drilled to extract the natural gas, in its natural state, which is then transferred by
pipelines to a terminal. At the terminal, the natural gas is cooled and converted into liquid. The LNG is
stored and then shipped on a carrier to a regasification terminal where it will be returned to its gaseous
state. The gas travels from the terminal through pipelines to be distributed. A diagram of the regasification
process can be seen in Figure 1.
1.2 Objective
The scope of the project is to complete the front-end design concept of a floating LNG receiving terminal
off the coast of West Africa. The design must be able to operate in a water depth of 40 meters. The selected
site should also be able to regasify at an output of 1 billion cubic feet per day, as well as be able to store the
LNG tanker’s entire supply.
It is essential for a successful report to have innovative and intelligent ideas. ConocoPhillips hosted a term
project meeting, on February 6, 2004 in Houston, Texas. The purpose was to introduce the spring 2004
senior design teams to industry engineering consulting firms that work with ConocoPhillips. The
engineering companies are contracted for their specialization and expertise in certain areas of offshore
projects. The industry lectures essentially covered six topics. Each topic had one or two speakers for a total
of 13 presentations. The overall presentations were informative; however, the topics pertaining to LNG
containment, topsides, and the loading/off-loading systems were of particular interest for team West Africa.
Specifically, Tor Skjelby from Det Norske Vertias (DNV) supplied crucial descriptions and functions of the
independent and dependent containment systems. A containment system for West Africa can better be
selected for the particular design requirements of the vessel using the information from that presentation.
As for the topside presentations, Sam Hwong, from Foster Wheeler, and R. Batavia, from Bechtel, provided
insight as to the re-gasification process and layout. Some references to codes and standards were also
identified. A valuable point made in both presentations was to think about the layout and the processes
involved in order tohave an efficient and safe working environment. The final topic covered for the day
dealt with the off-loading systems utilized in the market, as well as innovative new designs that need
According to ConocoPhillips, the facility must be able to process one billion cubic feet of gas per day.
Upper management is providing physical dimensions of three nominal LNG carriers. The physical
properties include: length, breadth, vessel drafts, and height of manifolds above the waterline. Those
dimensions will help determine the relative position of the connection between the tanker and the terminal.
The regasification terminal must be able to sustain unloading operations in a 1-year storm event. The
terminal must also be able to deliver natural gas to the shore in a 10-year storm event. In addition, it must
be able to survive a 100-year storm event.
1.5 Environment
The weather off the coast of West Africa is very benign. Data provided by ConocoPhillips were only
applicable for the 20-30 meter water depth. Since the given depth at site is 40 meters the data given had to
first be reverse shoaled using the standard shoaling equation, shown below.
H n 0 L0
Ks = = (1)
H0 nL
The significant wave height at the given site is 2.54 meters with a period of 15.5 seconds. The
corresponding wavelengths at this location are 236.03 and 375.3 meters. Since the wind and current are not
dependent upon the depth of the water, the original values for wind speed and current speed were used.
Table 2 shows the current with respect to depth.
10.00
5.00
W E
0.00 One hour sustained
Figure 2 represents the directional distribution of wind speed with the top of the figure being true north.
This figure suggests the majority of the wind coming from the southwest.
Figure 3 contains a large amount of valuable data. This figure shows a correlation between the directions of
the prominent winds and waves. From this figure it can be concluded that the larger period waves and the
waves with the highest significant wave heights all seem to be propagating from the same direction,
southwest. This correlates with the wind data in Figure 2.
Figure 4 shows the current direction and intensity distribution. It should be noted that the current seems to
have a tendency to have opposing directions from the surface to the bottom on the original data.
The terminal is oriented so that the bow is facing southwest. Because the current distribution is independent
of the wind and wave forces, analysis using Mimosa and StabCad was used to determine how much of an
effect the current has on the beam of the terminal.
The regasification terminals are necessary for the production process, however establishing the terminals
are difficult. The risks of LNG are frequently misinterpreted by the public, and in turn negatively influence
the opinion of the local communities toward a LNG terminal in their vicinity despite the job opportunities
such a terminal would bring. An acronym for the local opposition controversy is NIMBY, which represents
“Not In My Backyard.” The locals’ resistance can significantly impede the project. In an effort to mitigate
the numerous obstacles involved in overcoming NIMBY opposition, companies are researching offshore
regasification terminals. If the terminal is over the horizon, and thus out of sight, local opposition would
drop significantly. An offshore terminal would also decrease transportation costs since it would bring the
production facilities closer to the gas reservoir.
Illegal oil bunkering is a substantial issue in West Africa, specifically Nigeria. “Under the Nigerian
constitution, all minerals, oil and gas in Nigeria belong to the federal government.” (HRW 2003)
Consequently, any removal of the materials without the Nigerian government’s approval is illegal.
However, crude oil theft is such a frequent occurrence that it accounts for 10% of the daily production. The
frequency of the theft is indicative of an entrenched and well-organized criminal element. As a result,
violence has increased significantly in the surrounding area. Currently, American forces are stationed in the
Niger Delta to assist with security.
The selection of the shipyard in which to build the proposed facility is of vital importance, as the
production costs are directly tied to the market conditions within the shipbuilding industry. Fortunately,
several of the larger shipyards have websites with information for potential clients which aided in shipyard
selection.
The manufacturability of the FSRU design itself is also of paramount importance. In order to keep
construction costs down, it was necessary to limit the dimensions of the terminal’s hull to a reasonable
trade off between the breadth and length. In this case, the hull is designed to optimize the storage capacity
of the LNG by holding the breadth within a specific range and the length being varied to achieve the
specified storage requirements. This approach has two benefits associated with it. First it allows for
competitive pricing between the shipyards. An overly wide breadth in the design would mean that only a
small number of shipyards would be large enough to build the vessel, ultimately driving up the cost of
construction because the shipyard would be free to dictate a price to the company as a result of market
forces, instead of competing with equally-capable shipyards for the contract. Secondly, it reduces any
potential scheduling conflicts, keeping the project on time. If for any reason the shipyard was unable to
complete construction of the facility, a narrower design could be relocated to another shipyard instead of
being locked into a single yard.
For the particular dimensions of the West Africa terminal, several potential shipyards have been identified.
The Zamakona Ship Yard, IZAR, and Astilleros Cardama, all located in Spain, illustrate a few of the
different contractors with adequate facilities for the FSRU terminal project.
This team is comprised of six members. Each member has a general role for the overall design and
presentation of the project shown in Table 3.
In addition to the general tasks, everyone is assigned to five out of the eight required areas of competency
shown below in Table 4.
Meetings were set for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Friday meetings
occurred when there was no industry speaker scheduled for that time. Additional meeting times also
scheduled as the project progressed.
Gantt charts are used to break down the complexity of the project into smaller assignments. The chart is
divided into two figures for readability purposes.
Figure 5 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, January 25 through March 14
Figure 6 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, March 14 through May 5
The final design of the offshore LNG terminal must satisfy design requirements in eight general
competency areas: (1) regulatory compliance, (2) general arrangement and overall hull/system design, (3)
weight, buoyancy, and stability, (4) global loading, (5) wind and current loading, (6) mooring/station
keeping, (7) hydrodynamics of moorings and loading, and (8) cost.
The design must meet classification guidelines from several public, private, and international regulatory
agencies. API and ABS are the two primary codes that are focused on for this project because of the
relatively high cost of obtaining detailed regulations from other agencies such as DNV and Lloyd’s. The
following constraints and regulations from the American Bureau of Shipping can be found in both “Guide
for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations (a)” and “Guide for Building and Classing
Floating Production Installations (b).”
• General arrangement of the facility, living quarters, and storage tanks can be found in 3-3/5.1, 3-
3/5.3 and 3-3/5.7 respectively, and structural considerations for the process deck in 3-3/5.11 (ABS
2000).
• The design must have a safety system that meets 3-3/7.3 requirements. The system must include
safety sensors and self-acting devices in case of over-pressuring or to simply “maintain normal
process parameters.” A pressure relief system must be built, according to API 14C code, to
prevent catastrophic failure (3-3/11). The safety system is also required to have a fire and gas
detection system as well as a process Emergency Shutdown system (ESO). These items can be
found in regulations 3-3/7.3.
• Locations of flares and vents are dependent on the directions of the winds, which follow the API
RP 2A building code. Atmospheric conditions, heat radiation from elevated flares, atmospheric
discharge, and other parameters will need to be examined further before their construction can
begin.
• In case of a spill, there are also guidelines to follow, such as 3-3/13.1.1. Natural gas compressors
and pumps must be built in accordance with ABS codes. “Compressors are to apply with
applicable API standards such as API Std 617” stated in 3-3/17.11 and 17.13 of ABS. The flow
lines and manifolds, used to transport either gas or liquid, have to follow API RP 14E standards.
Certain sections of the pipeline may have to be isolated with block valves or filled with cold liquid
in order to protect them from solar fires (3-3/19.3).
• Constraints regarding corrosion and the effects of marine life must correspond to 3-3/7.3.1.
• Alarm systems should comply with the following ABS standards. The alarm system should have
built in testing systems that do not disturb the normal operating system (3-7/3.13a). This ensures
safety systems will be totally independent from the main system in case of a failure or emergency
situations. There will be stations where certain actions will be taken if a failure does occur (3-
7/11.5a). There should be an emergency shutdown system which takes “place with in 45 seconds
or less… after the detection of a trouble condition” (3-7/13.5.1a). There needs to be at least 2
emergency control stations. There locations must also follow standards design code.
• Detectors (fire, gas and smoke), alarm panels, detection wiring and general alarm systems should
comply with codes (3-8/7a). For the safety of personnel there should be means of escape in which
• The life saving requirements can be found in 3-8/15.5a. This section covers the capacity of the life
boats and life rafts. There must be at least four buoys, one life jacket per person, one work vest per
person, and a breathing apparatus for each person. In addition, everybody on the terminal should
have a fireman’s outfit so as to meet requirements of SOLAS (3-8/11.7.1a).
• Surfaces that are at risk of becoming extremely hot must be insulated for personnel protection,
spillage protection and combustible gases (3-8/17.5a)
• The following environmental conditions must be considered to determine loading parameters (3-
4/3b).
1.) Air and sea temperature
2.) Currents
3.) Ice and snow
4.) Tides and Storm surges
5.) Waves
6.) Winds
• Current forces are calculated by using the equation in 3-4/5b. Wind loading has several equations
from 3-4/7.1b which help to calculate wind pressure and wind velocity. These equations are to be
used to build the structure accordingly. Waves are also a very influential part in the design process
of the structure. Engineers must look at significant height and period for when ever the terminal is
operating (3-4/9b). When looking at wave induced vessel motion response on must consider first
order and lower frequency motions (3-4/9.3b)
• ABS 3-6/15.5.2 discusses the area three meters above the Open Deck Over Crude Storage Tanks,
which are to be considered as Class I, Division 2.
API has the following constraints for the FPSO mooring system:
• The design criteria for the anchors that will be holding the mooring lines in place are found in API
2SK 5.5 and 5.6 “The holding chain capacity from friction of chain and wire rope on the seafloor
may be estimated using” the following equation:
• There also needs to be a designed fatigue life for permanent moorings. The life of the mooring
lines need to be 3 times that of the design service life (API 2SK 5.8). These systems should be
designed for system overloading and fatigue. The equations found in (API 2SK 6.1) determine the
elasticity in lb/ft of stretch.
• “Fatigue life estimates are made by comparing the long-term cyclic loading in a mooring
component with the resistance if that component with the resistance if that component to fatigue
damage.” For this analysis the T-N approach is a method most often used found in (API 2FPI 6).
• The soil conditions should be determined for the indented site of the anchoring system. API 2FPI
3.7, meaning the conditions of the see floor must be adequate for sustaining the anchor and
mooring system.
• The mooring systems consider wind, wave, and current conditions, which cause the extreme
amount of load (API RP 2FPI 3.1). It is these extreme responses that determine the vessel offset,
mooring line tension, the anchor load, and the suspended line length.
• There are two approaches that can be taken when trying to predict the response to wave frequency
vessel motion. The first is known as Quasi-Static Analysis and the other is known as the Dynamic
Analysis. The Quasi-Static approach can be found in API RP 2P, but this approach is usually used
in preliminary studies because of its simplicity. The dynamic approach, the time varying motions
are “calculated from the vessels, surge, sway, heave, pitch, roll, and yaw motions.”
• The maximum and significant wave frequency line tension is a parameter that has to be examined
when designing the mooring line. Several approaches are offered in (API 2FPI 6.2) manual. Since a
thruster will not assist the mooring system for LNG terminal, computer programs will most likely
perform the analysis. Several programs such as Hydrodynamic Analysis, Static Mooring Analysis,
and Dynamic Mooring Analysis, make analysis for extreme responses. These can also be found in
(API 2FPI 6.2).
In the case that of a fire on the facility, a fixed water fire fighting systems should be provided. The piping
for the fire system should be arranged so that the water sources come from at least two different locations
on the vessel. The primary connections and the standby pumps must be as far from each other as possible.
If the heat damages or “renders” some material, then that material is “not to be used to in the fire piping
systems.” The valves on the system must pass fire test acceptances according to ABS standards. The
plastics on the system are required to also meet guidelines written by ABS. The piping system should be
maintained against corrosion. If the engineers decide to put drains in the facility, then they must be placed
at the lowest points. The fire system must have at least two self-priming fire pumps that are independent of
each other. The pumps are also independent from the entire system, having their own source of power, fuel
supply, electric cables, etc. Their placement on the vessel should be such that if a fire occurs, then it would
not affect both pumps. Both the primary and standby fire pumps should be able to sustain “the maximum
probable water demand,” which is described as the “total water requirement for protection of the largest
single fire area plus two jets of fire pressure at pressure of at least (50 psi)”. ABS (3-8/7a) provides three
floating installation fire pump arrangement scenarios as guidelines for a fire system design. The operability
and control for this system is also carefully addressed by ABS. The water spray systems should be provided
with an automatic start. Pump drivers can be operated by diesel engines, natural engines, or electric motors
which must comply with ABS and API standards, specifically (ABS3-5.2) and API RP 14G. The fuel
systems should be able to operate for a minimum of 18 hours. The fire stations need to be located on the
perimeter of the process area. The minimum flow of the monitors is 500 gallons per minute at 100 psig.
The nozzles on the fire stations must have diameters of at least 0.5 inches. Fire hoses that are located on the
production deck should be constructed of materials resistant to oils, chemical deteriorations, mildew, rot,
and offshore environmental exposures. They have to be comprised of a non-collapsible material with a
maximum length of 100 ft. The hoses will be mounted on reels. For the process equipment, a fixed water
spray is installed to maintain a cool environment for the equipment. The other purpose is to reduce the risk
of an escalated fire. The water spray system’s material is design from and must comply with a list of ABS
standards found in (ABS 3-8/5.1.4).
The helipad station also has a fire fighting requirement that it must follow. It must be constructed of steel or
any other material that has the same fire integrity properties. The ABS manual refers to the Steel Vessel
Rules for these requirements. In case of an emergency such as a fire, at least two emergency control
i. Emergency lighting
ii. General Alarm
iii. Blowout preventer control system
iv. Public address system
v. Distress and radio communications
Portable and semi portable extinguishers must meet certain requirements found in Table 2, which explain
the required size and location. The facility should also be provided with fire detectors, gas detectors,
smoke detectors, an alarm panel, fire and gas detection wiring, and a general alarm. Combustible gas
detectors must be in accordance with API RP 14c and API RP 14F standards. Structural fire protection
requirements address “the need for protection boundaries which separate spaces onboard the installation
from the process facility equipment.” Table 3a and Table 3b on 3-8/9.3 describe fire integrity of bulkheads
separating adjacent spaces, and fire integrity of decks separating adjacent spaces. It includes
accommodation spaces, stairways, open decks, corridors, and other types of places on the facility which
have open areas. Firewalls should be designed from “uncontrollable flare font wellheads”. Its shut in
pressure is required to be a minimum of 600psi. Firewalls are also used to protect from “fire hazard to the
vessels.” On the terminal, it is required to have marshalling areas for personnel before entering the
lifeboats. Steel and Fiber Reinforced Plastic are to be used to construct these marshalling areas, as well as
the lifesaving embankment areas. The material chosen must be in accordance with the Flag Administration
in Appendix 3 of the ABS manual. Two escape routes have to be considered in the design of the terminal
with markings and adequate lighting. There must also be escape route plans, which are to be displayed in
and around the facility. Lifesaving equipment such as lifeboats, life rafts, like buoys, life jacks, work vest,
and breathing apparatus must all be available for the personnel. Each of those items listed must follow the
rules in section (ABS 3-8/15.5). Personal safety equipment and safety measures are a very important issue,
which are required to comply with ABS standards. Fireman’s outfits and breathing apparatus are stored in
an appropriate container together. Its material should be water resistant and radiate heat from fires.
Surfaces that are exposed should not exceed temperatures of 71°C. “Surfaces that exceed 482°C need to be
protected from combustible gas,” as well as weather, mechanical wear, and physical damage.
In the initial brainstorming sessions, the team considered all types of floating facilities currently in use
throughout the world. However, the relatively shallow location of the proposed site at 40 meters depth
negates several possibilities. For example, a SPAR platform is only suitable for deep-water conditions, so
the design is not feasible in this case. The same holds true for tension-leg platforms (TLPs) and mini-TLPs,
because the shallow depth makes these types of structures impractical. Although the large pontoons on a
semi-submersible would be advantageous with regards to storage capacity, the draft required to keep the
pontoons fully submerged would mean that the entire platform would be resting on the sea floor. Thus the
team narrowed the possible designs to a manageable number with little or no computations required.
The two alternatives remaining were to design either a ship-shape barge or a completely new design. The
following section will show the team’s two initial concept designs plus a third concept showing a different
mooring scheme for one of the base designs. The final design was selected, and the modifications to this
design are discussed.
This design combines the stability of a semi-submersible with the storage capacity and shallow draft of an
oil-based FPSO. The deck is two hundred meters square, with two outrigger hulls beneath. The hulls are
200 meters long, 60 meters wide and 25 meters high. These twin hulls are hollow to allow for four semi-
prismatic LNG storage tanks (two per hull), each approximately 75 meters long, 50 meters wide, and 22
meters high. The total volume of all four tanks will exactly satisfy the design constraint of 330,000 cubic
meters of LNG storage, while still allowing room in the hulls for two ballast tanks per hull to aid in leveling
and stability of the platform. When full, the weight of the LNG in the tanks would increase the draft of the
platform by approximately 5.8 meters.
The team also considered using four Moss spherical tanks instead of four SPB tanks. However, it soon
became apparent that since each sphere would have to be about 55 meters in diameter, the large footprint of
the tanks on the main tank (in addition to the footprint of the regasification plant itself) would leave little
deck space for the safe placement of the living quarters away from dangerous areas (i.e. between two of the
tanks on one side, etc.). It must also be noted that at the placement of topside structures for the catamaran
hull is problematic, as the spherical tank design suffers from a lack of deck space and the SPB tank design
suffers from an overabundance of deck space. This particular design tests the feasibility of a spread-
mooring configuration, with three mooring lines at each of the four corners. LNG carriers arriving at the
terminal would offload their LNG by berthing along the side of the terminal, parallel to the long side of the
deck.
The third design considered is the same catamaran hull with a similar deck and storage tank configuration,
but with a turret-mooring system instead of a spread-mooring system. This would allow the entire platform
to weathervane in response to changing weather conditions. The turret is also placed so that when the
platform reaches a stable position, the cross-section of the platform exposed to wind and wave forces is at a
minimum.
This configuration uses side offloading for arriving LNG carriers, with the carrier berthing parallel to the
side of the platform and its bow facing into the wind. A tandem configuration would not be practical for
this design because the wake vortices from the twin hulls would interact with each other near the exact
location of the berthed carrier, which would not be a recommended service condition for either the carrier
or the terminal.
The three preliminary designs the team derived presented different problems. First, the spherical Moss-
tanks originally conceived for the ship shape barge forced the dimensions of the overall vessel to become
too large. There would be a limited number of facilities that could construct the vessel, thus making
manufacturability costs a premium. Also, a turret moored system in the relatively benign area of the
Nigerian delta would not be cost-effective. Secondly, the catamaran hull with the spread mooring allotted
too much deck space. The overall size of the deck and the pontoon areas created excessive surface areas for
wind and wave forces, magnifying their effects and making the design less efficient in shedding the
environmental forces. Lastly, the catamaran with a turret moored station keeping design presented a
combination of problems. The large surface areas for the environmental forces and the turret, as mentioned
previously, were both areas of concern.
Table 5 lists other considerations that aided in the final design process.
Ample deck space Wide hull width required to accommodate SPB tanks
Inherent stability in
Difficulty in construction (two shipyards required)
roll/pitch/yaw conditions
Flexibility in selecting
Constructability constraint (length and width of hull)
mooring systems
After assessing comments from visiting guest lecturers, feedback from industry representatives, and
progress reports, the team decided to utilize the positive attributes associated with the first two designs and
combine them into the final design selection. In minimizing the environmental forces that the vessel would
experience, it was decided to use the ship-shape barge but limit its size for competitive construction
bidding. This in turn led to exploring different types of LNG containment systems available on the market.
Like the catamaran design, it was proposed to contain the LNG within the hull of the vessel as to maximize
the deck space for equipment. Also, a spread mooring system would be utilized due to the environmental
conditions and the water depth.
One of the goals was to limit the vessels beam to within 60m-70m to allow for a variety of options in terms
of shipyard selection and pricing. With the terminal’s breadth a major concern, the LNG tanks drove the
rest of the dimensions. An iterative process allowed for optimizing the hull’s final dimension and is listed
below as well as represented in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
With these dimensions defined, it became possible to contain the entire 330,000m3 of LNG storage within
the hull structure. This allowed for ample space for processing equipment as well as safety for crew
members to perform daily operations. The final design of the FSRU is depicted in the CAD renderings in
Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14, showing the scale of the vessel along with the overall placement and
location of the processing equipment. Having defined the terminal’s dimensions and using a standard
package of processing equipment, the team then optimized the remaining open-ended equipment and
containment system selections.
The LNG containment system was optimized by constraining the breadth dimension of the ship for
purposes of manufacturability, then varying the height and length of the structure to determine the required
storage capacity of LNG within the hull. An iterative process allowed for the sizing of the actual
containment dimensions.
In optimizing the number of tanks to be utilized, the total volume of the inner tank capacity is divided by
the number of tanks being analyzed. This yields values to compare with the transport carrier’s capacity.
The ideal configuration for the selected design is with five tanks. This allowed for a potential scenario of
having a containment tank out of service, leaving four operational. With only four tanks in operation, the
terminal will be able to accept and process a carrier benchmark of 255,000m3 without delaying departure of
the vessel. This is in contrast to the scenario of the terminal in operation with a total of four tanks. In this
case, if one tank were taken out of the process, the terminal would only receive 98% capacity from the
carrier. This could cause costly time delays for the schedule of the carrier.
Even though the extra tank will impose an additional cost, it is an acceptable trade-off for maintaining an
uninterrupted operation and delivery of product to the client. Ultimately, this will translate to dollar cost
averaging of the added expense which will be absorbed in capital gains. Figure 15 details the LNG tanks
along with the ballast tanks in an exploded view of the vessel’s hull. For clarity, the topside arrangements
in the figure are omitted.
Ballast Tanks:
A J-tank design proved to be optimal for the ballast tank configuration. The tanks were oriented down the
port and starboard side and turning at the keel, forming a J-style tank. Five tanks per side were chosen for a
total of 10 tanks. The tanks are adjacent to each other but function independently. A double-hull layout is a
direct effect of this ballast configuration, which also optimizes the safety of the terminal as well as
complying with ABS steel vessel design guidelines. The number of tanks selected is based on minimizing
the cost of the bilge pumps necessary to transfer ballast into and out of the tanks. By limiting the number of
tanks to 10, the cost of outfitting the tanks decreased. However, this is not without tradeoffs. Limiting the
Loading Arms:
For the offloading procedure, the “In-Air Flexible” offloading system designed by Technip-Coflexip serves
as the terminal’s cargo transfer system. Four loading arms are arranged in a side-by-side layout with six
meters of spacing between each unit. The arms are located at mid-ship along the starboard side of the
terminal. Three of the arms serve as the terminal input lines while the fourth is a vapor return line to the
transport vessel. Figure 16 represents the offloading system in its stowed position.
This particular style of loading arm was chosen for its flexibility within the hoses and the added range of
motion within the support booms. This allows for a larger heave motion between the two vessels. This is of
particular concern because of the side-by-side position for the off-loading process between the terminal and
the carrier. If at any one time, the two vessels exhibit a 180 degrees phase lag in the heave motion, the
loading arm coupling and carrier interface need to withstand the maximum displacement that might occur.
This makes the interface the weak link in the design of the offloading equipment. Figure 17 illustrates the
flexibility and range of the offloading system while interfaced with a berthed carrier.
The shallow water at the site location dictates that the draft of the vessel must be established early in the
design process to ensure that the vessel floats with enough distance between the keel and the sea floor to
allow for the mooring and to prevent slamming against the bottom in extreme weather events. To this end,
a spreadsheet was developed to calculate the lightship weight of the vessel, including the weight of the hull
itself, the LNG tanks, the topsides, and miscellaneous utility weights. The spreadsheet is included in
Appendix A.
This spreadsheet allows optimization of the overall dimensions of the vessel as well as more specific
parameters such as the spacing between LNG tanks and the ballast tank dimensions. Once the dimensions
were finalized, the weight of the vessel was calculated. A unit area mass of 405 kilograms per square meter
was multiplied by the total surface area of all the steel components within the vessel to arrive at the
estimated lightship mass. It must be stressed, however, that this unit area mass is an estimate that takes into
account the actual plate thickness as well as a lump estimate of the weights of the structural elements
(beams, girders, keel, etc) that hold the plates together. A more precise measurement of the total mass can
be obtained once the detailed structural engineering design is complete, but this estimated value is an
extremely useful approximation for front-end engineering analysis. The masses of each component of the
terminal are shown in Table 6 below.
The terminal was then analyzed in both the loaded and unloaded conditions to determine the terminal’s
center of mass and draft in each case. To maintain a constant draft, the loaded condition is defined as full
In addition to the weight and buoyancy calculations, Team West Africa also began preliminary analysis of
the stability of the vessel under the previously-discussed environmental conditions. StabCAD, a program
specifically designed to this end, was used to simulate the terminal.
The bow shape is simulated as a triangular prism temporarily until a more accurate method of inputting
complex curved surfaces within StabCAD is established. The next three figures show the vessel within
StabCAD at the time of this writing. Figure 18 shows the exterior hull with exploded solid panels and their
respective directions.
Figure 19 shows the five SPB LNG tanks arranged within the hull, and Figure 20 shows the ballast tank
configuration, with 5 tanks along each side, extending the entire length of the ship.
Once the terminal is inputted into StabCAD, the program analyzes the data and generates visual outputs of
the hydrostatic data, intact stability curves, cross curves of stability, and the damaged stability of the vessel.
The longitudinal and transverse metacenters are shown in Figure 21 below as an example.
In the intact stability analysis, StabCAD first calculates the intact curve at a user-inputted value for the
center of gravity KG, which was determined to be about 17.4 meters above the keel in the loaded condition.
The graph of this curve is shown in Figure 22.
In addition, StabCAD also calculated the maximum allowable KG values for several different stability
criteria. The lowest magnitude of these calculated allowable KG values is then compared against the user-
Table 8 shows the results of the intact stability analysis for five stability criteria, plus the user-inputted KG
value. The table shows that the actual KG value of 17.4m is well below the lowest allowable KG value of
34.46m (in the case of the range of stability must be larger than 7.0 degrees). One can therefore conclude
that the ship is stable with regards to the intact stability analysis.
The cross curves of stability are shown in Figure 23. The curves generated by StabCad are in line with
expectations.
In addition to the two damaged tanks, the team also ran an optimization analysis to see how many ballast
tanks could be damaged before the ship became unstable. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 11
below.
Even with all five ballast tanks on one side damaged, the terminal’s KG value of 17.4 m is still below the
allowable KG of 19.13 m. However, at a static angle of 15 degrees the deck on the port side is only 8.9 m
above the waterline, and at a heel angle of 25 degrees the freeboard drops to 2.1 meters. A freeboard this
small would risk allowing greenwater to wash over the main deck, which is unacceptable for safe
operation. Therefore, one can conclude that the terminal can be considered stable and seaworthy if a
maximum of four ballast tanks are damaged on one side.
Global loading of the ship was taken into account to determine if the ship would be able to sustain all the
vertical loads that are applied to it, including the weight of the vessel, topside weights, weight of the LNG
onboard, and buoyancy. In a real-world scenario, the three environmental forces from wind, waves and
currents are hitting the bow at different angles; however for the purposes of a conservative engineering
estimate, all three forces are assumed to be horizontal, hitting perpendicular to the bow. The environmental
loads are discussed in detail in Section 3.6. In this section and the next section, General Strength and
Structural Design, vertical loads are located and evaluated using RISA-2D Software. Figure 26 shows the
loads from the topside structures along the longitudinal axis.
Table 12 and Table 13 show these values along with the values of the load that the LNG places on the
vessel. Loads greater than 3000 kN are evaluated as distributed loads in the following section whereas
loads smaller than 3000 kN are evaluated as point loads.
9000
8000
Acc.
7000
6000
Weight (kN)
5000
H20
G4101
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
Longitudinal axis (m)
RISA-2D Software is used to calculate bending moments and stresses along the longitudinal axis due to the
vertical forces from weight and buoyancy. This software evaluates the barge to act as a simple beam under
three load cases according to worst case scenarios. The first load case although not a worst case scenario is
used as a reference under calmest conditions. The primary forces on the vessel that significantly impact the
bending moments and stresses are the weight of the LNG onboard and the buoyancy force.
Load Case 1
This load case evaluates the beam under the calmest of conditions, i.e. still-water, where buoyancy is
distributed evenly along the keel as seen in Figure 27.
Moment
Deflection
Load Case 2
This load case evaluates the beam under one of the two worst case scenarios, where a wave crest occurs at
either end of the beam as seen in Figure 29. Load Case 2 only occurs in conditions where the wavelength is
340m, the length of the vessel. While this condition could potentially occur over the service life of the
terminal, it is still very unlikely as the wavelength in the 100 year storm is only 273m. A more likely worst
case scenario is discussed in Load Case 3.
Moment
Deflection
Load Case 3
This load case evaluates the beam under the second of the two worst case scenarios where a wave crest is
located at mid-ship as seen in Figure 31. This scenario could occur in storm conditions where the
wavelength is larger than half the length of the vessel, 170m. Wavelengths of the 1, 10, and 100 yr storm
are all larger than this value therefore this scenario could occur in any of these storm conditions.
Moment
Deflection
A comparison of the stresses and moments produced from each load case is shown in Table 14. Load case
two produced the largest magnitudes of shear, moment, and bending stresses. These values were then
checked with those found from an ABS analysis shown below in Figure 33 and were found to be lower than
the corresponding maximum allowable values.
The moment of inertia was also calculated using ABS guidelines, which yielded 1.45x107cm2-m2. This
value was then used with the cross-sectional area shown in Figure 34 to determine a minimum hull
thickness shown in
Table 15. The thickness was determined to be 0.032m (1.25 in).
Still Water
Bending Moment Shear Force
Msw (kN-m) 9872369.003 Fsw (kN) 145181.8971
Ms=CstL2.5B(Cb+0.5) Fsw=5.0Ms/L
Cst 0.004936081
Bending Strength
Hull Girder Section Modulus
B5
B1 B2 B3 B4
B6
B7
B8
Figure 34 Cross-Section of Longitudinal Beam
The forces induced by the winds and currents for the 1, 10, and 100-year storm return periods were
analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The wind speeds and current speeds for those return periods are obtained
from shoaling analysis of the Metocean data. The wind speeds used in the analysis are extracted from 1-
hour sustained winds and the current speeds used are from the surface speeds. According to ABS
regulations, if a sustained wind force is being examined for wind loads, then the wind velocity must be
derived from the 1-minute average velocity (found in API RP 2SK 3.7.3.1). As a result, the wind velocity
time factor (α) must correspond to a 1-minute average time period of 1.18. The data from the three return
periods are tabulated in Table 16 below.
To calculate the wind loads, one must determine: 1) surface areas, 2) height coefficients, and 3) shape
coefficients. For the shape coefficients, it is possible to group a structure’s surface areas together. In that
case, the shape coefficient must be 1.10. For the current loads, one must calculate: 1) surface areas and 2)
drag coefficients. Table 18 is the spreadsheet used to determine the wind and current loads for the 1-year,
10-year, and 100-year return periods. The total wetted surface area is determined by calculating each
surface area (bow, stern, port, starboard, and bottom) located below the water line. Since the hull of the
ship is relatively rectangular, it is possible to determine the wetted surface areas using simple geometric
formulas. The classification of the areas for the preceding figure can be found in Table 17 below.
The wind and wave forces are calculated using the spreadsheet on the following page.
The results from the environmental analysis indicate the majority of the forces are due to wind loads. The
beam seas forces are the most significant because of the substantial surface area along the length of the
vessel. The overall dimensions of the vessel directly influence the magnitudes of the forces.
Since the regasified LNG must be piped to market, it is necessary for the facility to not offset more than
what the flexible connections to the pipeline can handle. According to API codes this amount for shallow
water is between 15 and 25% of the water depth. In actual distance, this would translate to offsets ranging
from 6 to 10 m for this facilities depth of 40 m. The above requirements are used for what is called the
maximum operating condition. With this in mind, the maximum operating condition is the condition that
still allows the facility to send gas to shore, which in this case is the 10 year storm event. The facility must
also be able to survive a 100 year storm event. During the 100 year storm event the mooring system is not
only required to not fail but certain API requirements for loading and offset must be checked. In the case
where the system is fully intact the most loaded line tension must not exceed 60% of the breaking strength
of the line (API 1995). During the damaged case when the most loaded line is broken the second most
loaded line tension must not exceed 80% of the breaking strength (API 1995).
Since the system is a catenary spread moored system, the next step is to design how many legs (lines) in the
system, what their layout is, what their length is, and what diameter size of chain should be used to satisfy
the API codes stated above. A 12 line system was chosen for the initial design due in part to its safety
factor and large restoring force. Figure 37 shows the initial layout of the proposed system.
By using the mooring program Mimosa, a line length of 300 m, and the 100 year storm condition, tensions
and offsets were found for the intact case by first treating all of the environmental forces as collinear and
then treating them with respect to their actual directions on-site. It was found that the actual environment
(non-collinear) provided the worst case scenario. The worst condition is when the waves and wind are
coming from 270 degrees relative to true north and the current is coming from 160 degrees relative to true
north. The damaged case for the above scenario deals with a mooring system that has the most loaded line
broken. It was thought best to try an eight line system to see if it would be a viable solution. What was
found was that with the eight line system a minimum size of 6.5-inch and a minimum length of 800m per
leg was necessary. With this larger size a larger vessel is necessary to layout the system. These larger
vessels are substantially more expensive on the day rate side, not to mention the expense of the larger chain
itself. The total length of the system for the eight line system is almost twice as much as the 12 line 5-inch
chain. This can be seen in Figure 38 below.
Eight
Eight Leg (6.5 vsvs
inch) Twelve leg
Twelve system
Leg (5 inch) System
7000
6000
5000
Length (m)
1000
0
6.5 inch 6.5 inch 15 inch 5 inch
single leg total chain single leg total chain
length length length length
After using Mimosa to find the tensions in the systems for 5-inch, 4.5-inch, and 4-inch chain for the 100
year survival condition, the 4.5-inch line was further chosen to check the maximum operating condition.
The 5 inch chain satisfied the conditions but had a higher safety factor, while the 4 inch chain did not meet
the API tension requirements. The 100 year survival condition tensions can be found in the following table.
With the 4.5 inch chain satisfying the survival condition of not breaking a line it was necessary to check
how the system satisfies the API requirements. According to the API codes the tensions in the lines are not
allowed to exceed 60% of the breaking strength for the intact case when a dynamic analysis is being done.
Along with the intact case, the damaged case allows the next most loaded line to reach 80% of the breaking
strength. The reason the 4.5-inch chain was selected is because in the intact case it met the 60% of the
breaking strength requirement without a large safety factor. The loadings for 5, 4.5, and 4 inch chain can be
seen in Table 24 below.
Table 24 Loading Percentages For 5, 4.5, 4 Inch Chain For API Intact Case
Size Max tension Breaking Strength Safety
Size (in) L%
(m) (kN) (kN) Factor
5 0.127 5,928 14,980 2.53 39.57
4.5 0.1143 5,685 12,440 2.18 45.69
4 0.1016 5,027 7,811 1.55 64.36
Loading percentages for the different chain sizes in the above table agree with the selection of the 4.5 inch
chain versus the 5 and 4 inch chain. This can also be viewed in Figure 39 on the following page.
16000
14000
12000 5 inch BS
Tensions (kN)
5 inch60%
10000
5 inch found
8000 4.5 inch BS
6000 4.5 inch60%
4.5 inch found
4000
4 inch BS
2000 4 inch60%
0 4 inch found
5" 5" 5" 4.5" 4.5"
1 4.5" 4" 4" 4"
BS Exp 60% BS 60 Exp BS 60 Exp
% %
Line Sizes
The 4.5 inch chain satisfies the API requirements for the intact maximum operating condition. Values for
the amount of offset are restricted to 15 to 25% of the water depth, which in this case is between 6 to 10 m.
The value of offset was found to be 4.2m for the intact case. This value of offset is well below the amount
allowed by API (API 1995).
For the damaged case the system reacted very unexpectedly. When the highest loaded line was broken in
the 100 year event, the values of the damaged tension in the lines of the system was lower than the intact
case. The overall tensions in the line increase but there was no spike in tension like in the intact case. The
system loads more symmetrically, but loads to a lower tension. This indicates that the system became softer
as the most loaded line was broken. A top tension that was only 34.3 % of the maximum breaking strength
of the chain wa experienced within the system. To better understand the system it was decided to break an
additional line in the system while the most loaded line was already broken. What was found is that the
tension found depended on which two lines were broken and how the environment was impacting the
facility. There are 66 different combinations for the dual line breakage technique. It was found that the
aforementioned worst case directions for the intact case are the worst directions for the damaged case. The
two lines that need to be broken to produce the maximum damage tensions are line 1 and line 4. Line 1 is
the line that is headed in the 275 degree direction relative to true north and line 4 is the line that is headed
in the 185 degree direction relative to true north. The maximum tension was found to be 9,693 kN which
translates to 77% of the breaking strength of the chain. Along with the damaged tensions are the damaged
offset values, and those values are larger than the intact values, which is to be expected, but the offset
values are still well within the API requirements, with a maximum offset of 5.3 m for the maximum
operating condition. Again this is for a system that has two broken lines not one.
All of this data agrees with the selection of the 4.5 inch chain as the primary line to run from the facility to
the anchors. This system meets or exceeds the API requirements for offset and line tensions in both the
intact and damaged conditions for the maximum operating condition and the 100 year event.
Table 25 Maximum Tensions for Different Lengths of 4.5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event
Length Max Tension
L%
(m) (kN)
300 5,685 59.2
250 6,207 64.6
275 6,008 62.5
285 5,607 58.4
As can be seen in the table above, a length of 285 m still satisfies the API requirements of only 60% of the
breaking strength in the intact condition. The damaged case was checked and found to be 77% of the
breaking strength with a maximum offset of 5.3 m. This offset is still well below the 6m allowable.
Now that the number, diameter, and length of the system have been decided the last thing to select is the
anchor size and weight. Using a manual provided by Vryhof the anchor selection process is relatively
straightforward. First the style and angle of the anchor were selected. The sea bottom is assumed to be
made of sand and/or medium hard clay. For this the model anchor selected is the Stevpris Mk5 with the
angle of the fluke set at 32 degrees. This fluke setting comes from the manufacturer as the value for this
particular soil type. Next the anchor size was chosen. The maximum intact tension for the chain is 5,607kN
which translates to 571,559 kg of chain. Using a factor safety of 1.5 as per API (API 1995), the value of
8.573E+05 kg is found. This is the ultimate holding power of the anchor in kg, In units of tonnes, the mass
in kilograms is divided by 1000, yielding 857.3 t. Using the chart contained within the manual for sand and
hard clay, the anchor size to be chosen is 15 t (Vryhof 136). Therefore the anchor of choice is the Stevpris
Mk5 with a fluke setting of 32 degrees and an anchor weight of 15 t, with a predicted penetration into the
soil of 5 m (Vryhof 137).
It is essential to predict the vessel’s response to establish its ability to survive the given design constraints
of 1, 10, and 100 year return periods. To determine the effects of the wave conditions on the motions of the
vessel, it is necessary to determine the heave, pitch, roll, surge, sway, and yaw. The vessel results are
compared to the wave results to ensure that harmonic oscillation does not occur. The uncoupled natural
heave period is the most significant heave period for this analysis.
The Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP) wave spectrum equation is a method of analyzing the
environmental data for a nonlinear wave. When graphed the JONSWAP curve has a narrow bandwidth and
a high peak. To execute a JONSWAP analysis, the following equation is employed:
A = exp[−0.5( f − f P / f Pσ ) 2 ]
σ = 0.07 f < f P
σ = 0.09 f > f P
4
S(f)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-1
Frequency (rad/s)
CB D
T = 2π (1 + C AM ) (4)
CW g
( M + M A )r 2
T = 2π (6)
ρ g∀GM T
In the formulas for the uncoupled natural periods in pitch and roll, the most significant parameters are the
metacentric heights. The results for the uncoupled natural period in heave can be seen in Table 26 below.
The results are determined in metric and English units to ensure accuracy. The results for the uncoupled
periods in heave, pitch, and roll are shown in Table 27 below.
Table 27 Uncoupled Natural Periods in Heave, Pitch, and Roll for the Vessel
Natural Period (s) Frequency (rad/s)
Motion Direction Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded
Heave 10.74 10.74 0.58 0.58
Pitch 5.37 5.37 1.17 1.17
Roll 9.30 9.39 0.68 0.67
The natural spectral peak periods of the wave are 15, 15.3, and 15.5 s for the 1, 10, and 100 year return
period respectively. The periods of maximum wave are 13.4, 13.6, and 13.8 s for the 1, 10, and 100 year
return period respectively. As a result, the natural frequencies of the wave in all three return periods are
lower than the natural frequencies of the vessel. Consequently, harmonic oscillation does not occur.
The uncoupled natural period in heave is constant for unloaded and loaded condition. The heave motion is
a vertical motion, which does not cause the mass to shift. The results for the period in roll are not the same
because of the shift in mass. In the unloaded condition, the mass moment of inertia is different from the
loaded condition because of the locations of the ballast and the LNG. Accordingly, the radius of gyration
was also altered. Consequently, the periods in the unloaded and loaded condition in roll will not be the
same. The results indicate that the most significant direction of motion of the vessel is in heave.
The natural periods and frequencies are utilized in computing the Response Amplification Operator (RAO).
The RAO values are extracted from SIF files, generated by Ravi Kota (KBR), using MIMOSA. The
produced SIF files are for a barge type vessel with dimensions in length, breadth, height, of 300.7m, 61m,
and 30.5m, respectively. The output plot results have units of amplitude response (m/m) versus angular
frequency (rad/s). The following two graphs are output results in 0° and 67.5° headings, respectively.
1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
Heave
Response (m/m)
Pitch
Roll
6.00E-01
Surge
Sway
Yaw
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Frequency (rad/s)
1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
Heave
Pit ch
Roll
6.00E-01
Surge
Sway
Yaw
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Fr e qu e n c y ( r a d/ s)
The largest motion is in heave. The chosen loading arms for this vessel are “In-Air Flexibles” by Technip-
Coflexip. If the “In-Air Flexibles” are not availably upon completion of the project, then conventional
offloading arms presented by FMC will be utilized. If the FMC loading arms can sustain the offloading
process in a 1 year return period, then the “In-Air Flexibles” can also be employed because they have a
greater range of motion than the conventional loading arms. The displacement results from Table 28 are
compared to the displacements from an LNG carrier. The table below contains the displacement values for
an LNGC provided by ConocoPhillips.
The largest displacement will occur when the vessel and the carrier are 180° out of phase. Accordingly, the
largest motion is calculated by adding the vessel displacement and LNGC displacement. The vessel has a
heave displacement of 2.01 m in a 67.5° heading and the LNGC carrier has a heave displacement of 0.22 m
in a 60° heading. The total vertical displacement would then be 2.23 m, which is within the ± 4 m vertical
range of the loading arms. The total horizontal displacement is also within the horizontal range of ±1.7m.
Therefore, the loading arms are feasible for this vessel.
The design of the vessel indicates that the FMC loading arms can maintain operability between the vessel
and carrier in a 1-year return period. Thus, the “In-Air Flexibles” are also applicable in these conditions.
Further analysis shows that the connection between the vessel and the LNG carrier is possible even in a
100-year storm event of significant wave height 3.04 m. In fact, the carrier can still connect to the terminal
in wave heights of 4.29 m. However, it must be noted that the uniquely benign environmental conditions in
West Africa allow for carriers to connect to the terminal in more extreme events than would be possible
elsewhere.
To run a cost analysis, ConocoPhilips provided Team West Africa with the unit cost of each component.
Table 30 shows a breakdown of the overall cost calculated by multiplying weights by unit cost. Loading
arms, regasification equipment, engineering, classification, and other fee estimations were provided by
industry contacts and are lumped as Regas Process & Engineering in the table. Transportation and
installation are included in the total cost; however, they are not included in owners’ cost and contingency.
Cost estimates from Korea, Japan, and Spain are evaluated. The transporting distances are determined in
order to calculate transportation cost.
The facility in Spain is the selected location due to the lowest cost and closest proximity to the installation
location in West Africa.
Team West Africa considered three types of floating facilities but concentrated on the ship-shape barge
design. This decision was based on the fact that it is a well established, proven design and it allows
flexibility when selecting the mooring lines. The overall ship dimensions are 340 m in length between
perpendiculars, 360 m in overall length, 65 m in width, 33 m in height, a calculated draft of 11.58m, and a
displacement of approximately 265,000 tonnes. It has five semi-prismatic LNG tanks and ten J-shaped
ballast tanks, five on the port side and five on the starboard. The vessel is oriented with the bow facing in
the southwest direction.
The mooring system has been optimized using the Mimosa program, and the terminal uses a spread-moored
system with twelve lines. Each line is 86.9 m (285 feet long), consists of 114.3 mm (4 ½-inch) chain, and
has a Vryhof Stevpris Mk5 15 t anchor. Stability analysis using StabCAD has been completed, and the
terminal satisfies all of the stability criteria for intact, single-tank damage, and double-tank damaged
stability. The bending moment calculations for global loading have been completed, and a minimum outer
plate thickness has been calculated to be 0.032 m (1.25 inches) based on the ship’s moment of inertia in
cross-section. The heave, pitch and roll natural uncoupled periods are smaller than the natural period of the
wave and peak wave for loaded and unloaded conditions, and thus no harmonic resonance on the vessel
presented itself. The In-Air Flexible offloading arms can sustain offloading process in a one-year return
Since this is a front-end concept design, several assumptions must be addressed in the more detailed final
engineering design. A more accurate estimation of the wind loads on the topside equipment,
accommodations module, and supply cranes can be made once the specific structural elements within each
have been defined. Similarly, the total mass of the vessel can be accurately determined only after the
structural elements of the hull (keel beam, longitudinal and transverse supports, scantlings, etc) have been
selected and optimized. As a result, the 15 percent confidence margin added to the mass in this report can
be reduced since the masses would be more accurately defined, consequently altering the terminal’s
hydrodynamic motions and reducing the vessel’s total mass, draft, and final cost. In addition, completion of
the structural engineering design will allow for a more accurate measure of the vessel’s moment of inertia
in cross-section and the resultant changes in maximum bending moment, bending stress, and natural period.
Design of the LNG intake manifold and the piping between the manifold and the five SPB tanks is
paramount in that an efficient design will minimize the required offloading time of any carriers that use the
terminal.
American Bureau of Shipping. Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations, Houston, TX.
June 2000.
American Bureau of Shipping. Building and Classing Floating Production Installations, Houston, TX. June
2000.
American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Station Keeping Systems
for Floating Structures, First Edition. Washington D.C., June 1995. (API 2SK)
American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design, Analysis, and Maintenance of Mooring
for Floating Production Systems, First Edition. Washington D.C., February 1993.
DeLuca, Marshall. “Terminals Set For Take-Off.” Offshore Engineer, December 2003.
Human Rights Watch. “The Warri Crisis: Fueling Violence.” VOL 15, NO 18 A, December 2003.
Raine, Brian, Al Kaplan, and Gordon Jackson. “Making the Concrete Case.” Offshore Engineer, December
2003.
Robertson, Steve. “Transportation: LNG Spending will reach $39 billion by 2007.” Oil and Gas Journal,
January 2004.
Share, Jeff. “Sempra Energy Credits Success On Its Own Risk Management System.” Pipeline and Gas
Journal, September 2003.
Share, Jeff. “Natural Gas At Forefront of Nations Energy Picture.” Pipeline and Gas Journal, November
2003.
Value, James. “FERC Hackberry decision will spur more US LNG terminal development.” Oil and Gas
Journal, November 2003.
Margin (% confidence) 15 %
Total Lightship Mass 91235 mt
Total Loaded Mass 262206 mt
Total Lightship Weight 895018 kN
Total Loaded Weight 2572240 kN
Report5 Twelve line 100 year condition for 4.5 inch chain.
Mooringsystem12
VESSEL POSITION
'Text describing positioning system
4.5 inch chain system
'x1ves x2ves x3ves head
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
LINE DATA
Report5
1
MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 MARINTEK
Page 1
12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave
Copyright DET NORSKE VERITAS AS, P.O.Box 300, N-1322 Hovik, Norway
Input file :
y:\masswindcurrent2.dat
Input file :
y:\masswindcurrent2.dat
Input file :
y:\masswindcurrent2.dat
Input file :
y:\g15m.sif
Input file :
y:\g15m.sif
Input file :
y:\mooringsystem12
* ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS *
----------------------------
NO SWELL
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! ! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp. !
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! Wind ! -1724.9 kN ! -2055.6 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! Wave ! -51.4 kN ! -201.3 kN !-3503. kNm!
! Current ! -862.4 kN ! 497.9 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! ! ! ! !
! Fixed force ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! Total ! -2638.6 kN ! -1759.0 kN !-3503. kNm!
!--------------------------------------------------------!
* EQUILIBRIUM POSITION *
------------------------
Relative to Relative to
GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! ! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp. !
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! Wind ! -1845.4 kN ! -1548.4 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! Wave ! -60.6 kN ! -165.0 kN !-3526. kNm!
! Current ! -862.4 kN ! 497.9 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! ! ! ! !
! Fixed force ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! Total ! -2768.4 kN ! -1215.5 kN !-3526. kNm!
!--------------------------------------------------------!
* EQUILIBRIUM POSITION *
------------------------
Relative to Relative to
GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position
Joints are the individual points in the drawing, and panels are the two-dimensional faces that connect the
joints to form a three-dimensional body. Defining individual tanks as “bodies” allows StabCAD to isolate
the tanks from the rest of the vessel when running a damaged stability analysis. The user can then specify
which particular “bodies”, i.e. ballast tanks, are to be damaged. In addition, specifying downflooding points
(in this case on the four corners of the main deck) improves the accuracy of the stability analysis as well as
allows the user to track the position of these points relative to the waterline as the heel angle of the vessel is
iterated.
INPUT FILE:
INTACT 0. 85. 5.
*DAMAGE 0. 85. 5.
*CROSS DF 5. 15. 1. 0. 90. 10. 0. 36.
OUTPUT FILE:
StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
Page 1
Draft ... Measured from the base line (z=0, or x-y plane)
Disp .... Displacemet of the vessel
TPI ..... Tons/inch displacement
KPI ..... Kips/inch displacement
MT/Cm ... Metric Ton/ cm displacement
KMT ..... Transverse metacentric height
(measured from base line)
KML ..... Longitudinal metacentric height
(measured from base line)
LCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Longitudinal)
(measured from reference point for LCB & LCF)
TCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Transverse)
(measured from coordinate system origin)
VCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Vertical)
(measured from base line)
WPA ..... Water plane Area
BMT ..... Transv metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy)
BML ..... Longit metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy)
LCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Longitudinal)
(measured from reference point for LCB & LCF)
TCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Transverse)
(measured from coordinate system origin)
W.P.Moment of Inertia:
Longitudinal About neutral axis of water plane area
Transverse About neutral axis of water plane area
Tilt Axis
The angle of the tilt axis is measured from the
posive x-axis
Static angle
At which the righting moment is zero
RM/HM Ratio
KG that satisfies the requirement :
Righting Moment/Heeling Moment >or= 2 within
7 deg past static angle
StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
Page 2
Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter
(X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00
/--- Draft ---/ /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ /-Center of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged
AFT FWD Disp TPI LCB TCB VCB LCF TCF Area Volume
( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) (S.Meter) (M^3)
------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----------- ---------
5.00 5.00 113767.2 228.55 0.76 0.00 2.50 1.51 0.00 22298.0 110992.4
5.20 5.20 118338.9 228.63 0.79 0.00 2.60 1.57 0.00 22305.6 115452.6
5.40 5.40 122912.2 228.71 0.82 0.00 2.70 1.64 0.00 22313.3 119914.4
5.60 5.60 127487.1 228.80 0.85 0.00 2.80 1.70 0.00 22321.6 124377.7
5.80 5.80 132063.7 228.88 0.88 0.00 2.90 1.75 0.00 22329.3 128842.6
6.00 6.00 136641.8 228.97 0.91 0.00 3.01 1.80 0.00 22338.4 133309.1
6.20 6.20 141221.6 229.05 0.94 0.00 3.11 1.88 0.00 22346.0 137777.1
6.40 6.40 145803.0 229.09 0.97 0.00 3.21 1.94 0.00 22350.6 142246.8
6.60 6.60 150386.0 229.19 1.00 0.00 3.31 2.01 0.00 22359.8 146718.0
6.80 6.80 154970.6 229.28 1.03 0.00 3.41 2.05 0.00 22368.9 151190.8
7.00 7.00 159556.8 229.36 1.06 0.00 3.51 2.12 0.00 22376.5 155665.2
7.20 7.20 164144.6 229.45 1.09 0.00 3.61 2.18 0.00 22385.7 160141.1
7.40 7.40 168734.1 229.52 1.12 0.00 3.71 2.25 0.00 22391.8 164618.6
7.60 7.60 173325.1 229.59 1.15 0.00 3.81 2.31 0.00 22399.4 169097.7
7.80 7.80 177917.8 229.69 1.18 0.00 3.91 2.37 0.00 22408.5 173578.4
8.00 8.00 182512.1 229.75 1.21 0.00 4.01 2.43 0.00 22414.6 178060.6
8.20 8.20 187108.0 229.84 1.25 0.00 4.11 2.49 0.00 22423.8 182544.4
8.40 8.40 191705.5 229.92 1.28 0.00 4.21 2.54 0.00 22431.4 187029.8
8.60 8.60 196304.7 230.00 1.31 0.00 4.31 2.61 0.00 22439.0 191516.8
8.80 8.80 200905.5 230.08 1.34 0.00 4.41 2.68 0.00 22446.6 196005.3
9.00 9.00 205507.8 230.17 1.37 0.00 4.51 2.73 0.00 22455.8 200495.5
9.20 9.20 210111.8 230.27 1.40 0.00 4.61 2.79 0.00 22464.9 204987.1
9.40 9.40 214717.4 230.33 1.43 0.00 4.71 2.85 0.00 22471.0 209480.4
9.60 9.60 219324.7 230.42 1.46 0.00 4.81 2.91 0.00 22480.2 213975.3
9.80 9.80 223933.5 230.48 1.49 0.00 4.91 2.97 0.00 22486.3 218471.7
10.00 10.00 228543.9 230.56 1.52 0.00 5.01 3.03 0.00 22493.9 222969.7
10.20 10.20 233156.0 230.67 1.55 0.00 5.12 3.08 0.00 22504.6 227469.3
10.40 10.40 237769.7 230.73 1.58 0.00 5.22 3.15 0.00 22510.7 231970.4
10.60 10.60 242385.0 230.81 1.61 0.00 5.32 3.23 0.00 22518.3 236473.2
10.80 10.80 247001.9 230.89 1.64 0.00 5.42 3.26 0.00 22525.9 240977.5
11.00 11.00 251620.4 230.98 1.67 0.00 5.52 3.32 0.00 22535.1 245483.3
11.20 11.20 256240.5 231.06 1.70 0.00 5.62 3.41 0.00 22542.7 249990.8
StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
Page 3
Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter
(X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00
/--- Draft ---/ /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ /-Center of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged
AFT FWD Disp TPI LCB TCB VCB LCF TCF Area Volume
( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) (S.Meter) (M^3)
------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----------- ---------
13.00 13.00 297894.5 231.78 1.98 0.00 6.52 3.92 0.00 22612.8 290628.8
13.20 13.20 302530.8 231.84 2.01 0.00 6.63 4.02 0.00 22618.9 295152.0
13.40 13.40 307168.7 231.94 2.04 0.00 6.73 4.06 0.00 22628.1 299676.8
13.60 13.60 311808.2 232.03 2.07 0.00 6.83 4.14 0.00 22637.2 304203.2
13.80 13.80 316449.4 232.09 2.10 0.00 6.93 4.18 0.00 22643.3 308731.1
14.00 14.00 321092.1 232.19 2.13 0.00 7.03 4.26 0.00 22652.4 313260.6
14.20 14.20 325736.5 232.25 2.16 0.00 7.13 4.30 0.00 22658.5 317791.7
14.40 14.40 330382.5 232.38 2.19 0.00 7.23 4.34 0.00 22670.7 322324.4
14.60 14.60 335030.1 232.41 2.22 0.00 7.33 4.44 0.00 22673.8 326858.6
14.80 14.80 339679.3 232.50 2.25 0.00 7.43 4.48 0.00 22682.9 331394.4
15.00 15.00 344330.1 232.56 2.28 0.00 7.53 4.54 0.00 22689.0 335931.8
StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
Page 4
Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter
(X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00
StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
Page 5
Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter
(X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00
StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
Page 6
* * * Problem Description * * *