Fsru LNG

DESIGN OF A FLOATING STORAGE AND REGASIFICATION UNIT (FSRU) FOR OFFSHORE WEST AFRICA
Regan Miller Rolla Wattinger April Van Valkenburg Flor Foreman Steven Schaefer Jennifer Dupalo
OCEN 407 - Design of Ocean Engineering Facility Ocean Engineering Program Texas A&M University May 28, 2004
TAMU Team West Africa
ISODC Report
Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables................................................................................................................................................. 3 Nomenclature................................................................................................................................................ 4 Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 11 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 12 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Objective ................................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 Field Trip................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Design Constraints .................................................................................................................... 14 1.5 Environment .............................................................................................................................. 14 1.6 Social and Political Issues ......................................................................................................... 16 1.7 Sustainability and Manufacturability......................................................................................... 16 1.8 Team Organization .................................................................................................................... 17 1.9 Gantt Charts............................................................................................................................... 18 2 Competency Areas ............................................................................................................................ 21 2.1 Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................................. 21 2.1.1 Fire Safety ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.2 General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design............................................................ 24 2.2.1 Ship Shape Barge with Spherical Tanks............................................................................... 25 2.2.2 Catamaran Hull with SPB Tanks .......................................................................................... 26 2.2.3 Selected Design and General Layout.................................................................................... 27 2.3 Weight, Buoyancy and Stability................................................................................................ 34 2.4 Global Loading.......................................................................................................................... 41 2.5 General Strength and Structural Design .................................................................................... 43 2.6 Wind and Current Loading........................................................................................................ 48 2.7 Mooring/Station Keeping .......................................................................................................... 52 2.8 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading .................................................................................. 57 2.9 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................. 62 3 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 62 4 References.......................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix A: Lightship weight spreadsheet ............................................................................................. 65 Appendix B: Mimosa Input and Output Files.......................................................................................... 67 Appendix C: StabCAD Input and Output................................................................................................ 79
-1-
ISODC Report
List of Figures
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Flow Diagram of the LNG Regasification Process .................................................................... 13 One Hour Sustained Wind Speed Directional Distribution........................................................ 15 Wave Characteristics and Direction Distribution....................................................................... 15 Current Direction Distribution ................................................................................................... 16 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, January 25 through March 14 ............................................ 19 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, March 14 through May 5 ................................................... 20 Ship-Shape Barge with Turret Mooring..................................................................................... 25 Catamaran Hull with Spread Mooring ....................................................................................... 26 Catamaran Hull with Single-Point Mooring............................................................................... 27 Bow View of Selected Design ................................................................................................... 29 Beam View of Selected Design.................................................................................................. 29 Isometric View of Selected Design ............................................................................................ 30 Topside Configuration of Processing Equipment....................................................................... 30 Processing Equipment Locations ............................................................................................... 31 LNG and Ballast Tank Configuration ........................................................................................ 32 Stowed Position of Offloading System ...................................................................................... 33 Offloading System Connected to Carriers Manifold................................................................. 34 StabCAD Exploded Panel View ................................................................................................ 35 LNG Tank Configuration ........................................................................................................... 36 Ballast Tank Configuration ........................................................................................................ 36 Metacenters ................................................................................................................................ 37 Intact Stability Curve with KG=17.4 m ..................................................................................... 37 Cross Curves of Stability ........................................................................................................... 38 Damaged Stability, Starboard Aft Ballast Tank ......................................................................... 39 Damaged Stability, Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 damaged ................................................................ 40 Topside Loading ........................................................................................................................ 42 Load Case 1................................................................................................................................ 43 Load Case 1 Results ................................................................................................................... 44 Load Case 2................................................................................................................................ 44 Load Case 2 Results ................................................................................................................... 45 Load Case 3................................................................................................................................ 45 Load Case 3 Results ................................................................................................................... 46 ABS Longitudinal Hull Girder Strength .................................................................................... 48 Cross-Section of Longitudinal Beam ......................................................................................... 48 Beam View with Height Ranges for Environmental Calculations ............................................. 49 Bow View with Height Ranges for Environmental Calculations............................................... 50 Horizontal Layout of Mooring Lines ......................................................................................... 53 Comparison of Line Lengths...................................................................................................... 54 Comparison of Line Tension and Line Size ............................................................................... 56 Energy Density........................................................................................................................... 58 RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading ......................................................................................... 60 RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading .................................................................................. 60
-2-
ISODC Report
List of Tables
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Shoaled Wave Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 14 Current Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 14 Team Assignment - General Roles .............................................................................................. 17 Team Assignments - Competency Tasks..................................................................................... 18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Catamaran Hull and Ship Shape Barge................................. 28 Masses of Terminal Components (Lightship) ............................................................................. 34 Centers of Mass and Drafts in Loaded/Unloaded Conditions ..................................................... 35 Stability Criteria for Intact Condition.......................................................................................... 38 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Aft Ballast Tank ...................................................... 39 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 ............................................................. 40 Stability Under Different Damage Scenarios .............................................................................. 41 Weight and Location of Point Loads ........................................................................................... 42 Weight and Location of Distributed Loads.................................................................................. 43 Comparison of the Three Load Cases.......................................................................................... 46 Area Moment of Inertia ............................................................................................................... 48 Environmental Data for Wind and Current Loading .................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Area Classifications for Environmental Loading Spreadsheet .................................................... 49 Wind and Wave Loading Calculations Spreadsheet for 100 Year Storm.................................... 51 Environmental Forces for 100-Year Return Period ..................................................................... 52 Environmental Forces for 10-Year Return Period....................................................................... 52 Environmental Forces for 1- Year Return Period........................................................................ 52 Chain Characteristics................................................................................................................... 54 Maximum Tensions For 100 Year Survival Condition................................................................ 55 Loading Percentages For 5, 4.5, 4 Inch Chain For API Intact Case ............................................ 55 Maximum Tensions for Different Lengths of 4.5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event ....... 57 Heave Period for Vessel (Unloaded and Loaded) ....................................................................... 59 Uncoupled Natural Periods in Heave, Pitch, and Roll for the Vessel.......................................... 59 Displacement of LNG Terminal .................................................................................................. 61 LNGC Displacement with 60 Heading ...................................................................................... 61 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................... 62
-3-
ISODC Report
Nomenclature
CAM CB CW D g Added Mass Coefficient Block Coefficient Waterplane Coefficient Draft Gravity Longitudinal Metacentric Height Transverse Metacentric Height Coefficient of Shoaling Shallow Water Wave Height Deep Water Wave Height Wave Length for Shallow Water Wave Wave Length for Deep Water Wave Mass of the Vessel Added Mass of the Vessel Wave Number for Shallow Water Wave Wave Number for Deep Water Wave Radius of Gyration Response Amplification Operator Density Total Surface Area Below the Waterline Surface Area Below the Waterline of Each Side JONSWAP Energy Spectrum Period Displaced Volume Frequency Natural Frequency Peak Shape Parameter Peak Enhancement Factor
GM L GM T
KS H H0 L L0 M Ma n n0 r RAO TotalSAwetted SAi,below waterline S(f) T
n A
-4-
ISODC Report
Executive Summary
Introduction: The worlds 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 in recent years on granting offshore construction permits in relation to LNG terminals. These terminals will help in the delivery of LNG to onshore locations via an infrastructure of sub-sea pipelines. Six members of Texas A&M Universitys Ocean 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 as design constraints imposed by ConocoPhillips concerning operational expectations. Such constraints consisted of the following: Will be permanently moored in 40 m of water Must be able to process 1 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas per day Must have a storage capacity of 330,000 m3 of LNG Must maintain a constant draft condition while loading or offloading Must sustain offloading operations in a 1-year storm event Must sustain shoreline delivery of LNG in a 10-year storm event
-5-
ISODC Report
Must survive a 100-year storm event
With these parameters defined, the team began its analysis. 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 shipshape barge with LNG tanks contained within the hull. The final dimensions of the FSRU are as follows: Length between perpendiculars (LBP) 340 m 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 hulls 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 Flexible offloading mechanisms designed by Technip-Coflexip. This system was selected because of the internal flexibility of the hoses and the added range of
-6-
ISODC Report
displacement within the support booms. The possibility exists that these mechanisms will not be available from Technip-Coflexip upon project completion; therefore, a 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 offloading system without a significant redesign or reanalysis. 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 terminals 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 analysis using StabCAD, a graphically-oriented simulation program. StabCAD calculates the maximum KG a vessel can have while remaining stable under different stability criteria. If the vessels 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
-7-
ISODC Report
analysis, but with different stability criteria. The terminals KG value is lower than the smallest allowable KG for both a single tank damaged and two adjacent tanks damaged. Therefore, the terminal meets the ABS damaged stability requirements. Global Loading/General Strength and Structural Design: 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 thickness of 0.032m (1.25in). 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: Significant wave heights: 2.29 m, 2.66 m, and 3.04 m Peak periods: 15.0 s, 15.3 s, and 15.5 s
-8-
ISODC Report
Periods of maximum wave: 13.4 s, 13.6 s, and 13.8 s
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: Bow Seas: 698.8 kN, 827.8 kN, and 1090.3 kN Beam Seas: 3436.7 kN, 4165.8 kN, and 5328.1 kN Quartering Seas: 949.7 kN, 1128.1 kN, and 1463.9 kN
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 terminals 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: Heave: 10.74 s and 10.74 s Pitch: 5.37 s and 5.37 s Roll: 9.30 s and 9.39 s
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
-9-
ISODC Report
FMC arms have a smaller allowable displacement than the In-Air Flexibles, the terminal motion meets the requirements for both offloading systems. 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 directional nature of the environmental conditions. A mooring system consisting of 12 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 therefore remains intact in a 100-year event. 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 Spain, including construction, transportation, and contingency, is US $563 million.
- 10 -
ISODC Report
Acknowledgements
Team West Africa would like to thank the following individuals and companies, without whom the project would not have been completed, for their assistance and guidance throughout the course of the project. Dr. Robert Randall, TAMU Peter Noble, ConocoPhillips Rodney King, ConocoPhillips Nick Heather, ConocoPhillips Jack Mercier, Global Maritime Bill Kenney, Consultant Bill Westcott, Lloyds Register Tor Skjelby, DNV Sam Hwong, Foster Wheeler R. Batavia, Bechtel G. Bradley, FMC Energy System J. OSullivan, Technip-Coflexip G. Pepper, Aker Kvaerner G. Thomas, ARUP J. Lovett, SBM-Imodco C. Olsen, Remora Technology Rune Nyvseen, DNV (Mimosa) Ravi Kota, KBR (Mimosa) David Garland, Engineering Dynamics Inc (StabCAD) Brittany Goldsmith, KBR (StabCAD) Mike Brannan, ConocoPhillips
- 11 -
ISODC Report
1 Introduction
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 todays industry. It burns cleaner; hence, it creates significantly less pollution than many other forms of energy. That fact is important to todays 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.
- 12 -
ISODC Report
Figure 1
Flow Diagram of the LNG Regasification Process
Many large countries are interested in these new types of facilities. In fact, China is considering building three such terminals. Two more countries interested in offshore LNG production are Canada and the United States (Value 2003). Recent changes to U.S. laws are making offshore terminals more feasible. Currently, the demand for natural gas is so large that suppliers are having a hard time keeping up. The growth of offshore LNG terminals will become vital components in the future of the worlds energy systems. 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 tankers entire supply. 1.3
Field Trip
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 TAMU Team West Africa - 13 ISODC Report
testing and approval. G. Bradley, from FMC, presented a mechanical arm off-loading system that has been proven in the oil industry and LPG delivery. J. OSullivan from Technip-Coflexip introduced his companys prototype of the flexible pipe for off-loading, which requires approval. This method is not new to oil delivery systems, yet it is still unproven in the LNG market. The field trip was impressive and educational for the team members of West Africa, as well as for the whole class. 1.4
Design Constraints
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.
Ks =
H = H0
n 0 L0 nL
(1)
The shoaled wave characteristics can be found in Table 1. Table 1 Shoaled Wave Characteristics 3.20 2.54 15.50 236.03 375.30
Significant wave height H at 25 m depth (m) Significant wave height H at 40 m depth (m) Peak period T (s) Wavelength L at 25 m depth (m) Wavelength L at 40 m depth (m) Table 2 Current Characteristics
Current velocity at surface (m/s) Current velocity at 25 % of site depth (m/s) Current velocity at 75 % of site depth (m/s) Current velocity at sea floor (m/s)
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5
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.
- 14 -
ISODC Report
The directions of the winds, waves, and currents are displayed in Figure 2, Figure 3 , and Figure 4 below.
One hour sustained distribution for 100 Year Return Period (m/s)
N 15.00 10.00 5.00
W
0.00
One hour sustained
Figure 2
One Hour Sustained Wind Speed Directional Distribution
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.
Wave Direction and Distribution for 100 Year Return Period

N
20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 Peak wave period (s) Max wave period (s) Max wave height (m) Sig wave height (m)
0.00
Figure 3
Wave Characteristics and Direction Distribution
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.
- 15 -
ISODC Report
Current Distribution for 100 Year Return Period (m/s)

N
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Surface 25% depth 75% depth Bottom
Figure 4
Current Direction Distribution
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. 1.6
Social and Political Issues
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 governments 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. 1.7
Sustainability and Manufacturability
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. TAMU Team West Africa - 16 ISODC Report
Names of companies with web-site links: I. II. III. Zamakona Ship Yard http://astilleroszamakona.com/english/others.htm IZAR http://www.enbazan.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/portalizar/jsp/home.do Astilleros Cardama http://www.astilleroscardama.com/castellano/principal.asp
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 terminals 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.
1.8
Team Organization
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.
Table 3 General Task Editing Design Recorder Research Project Manager
Team Assignment - General Roles Member Jennifer Dupalo, Regan Miller Everyone April Van Valkenburg Flor Foreman, Rolla Wattinger Steven Schaefer
In addition to the general tasks, everyone is assigned to five out of the eight required areas of competency shown below in Table 4.
- 17 -
ISODC Report
Table 4
Team Assignments - Competency Tasks MEMBER Flor Foreman, Jennifer Dupalo, Steven Schaefer Everyone April Van Valkenburg, Flor Foreman, Regan Miller, Rolla Wattinger April Van Valkenburg, Regan Miller, Rolla Wattinger Flor Foreman, Rolla Wattinger, Steven Schaefer Jennifer Dupalo, Regan Miller, Steven Schaefer Everyone Regan Miller, April Van Valkenburg, Jennifer Dupalo
ASSIGNMENTS Regulatory Compliance General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Designs (AutoCAD) Weight, Buoyancy and Stability (StabCAD)
Environmental Loading Mooring/Station Keeping Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading Cost Report Formatting/Editing
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. 1.9
Gantt Charts
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.
- 18 -
ISODC Report
ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Task Name Design criteria Identify design problem Organize design groups Obtain industry contacts Define problem Brainstorming & research Establish design criteria Research classification g Alternate solutions Determine alternate solut Design & analyze alterna Computer simulations for Draft midterm report Finalize midterm report & Submit midterm report Select best design Review industry/instructo Select best alternate des Revise chosen design op SNAME presentation Prepare/practice SNAME Give presentation to SNA Final report & presentation Refine final design Prepare final report Organize final oral prese Rehearse final oral prese Present final oral present Refine & complete final r Submit final report
Duration F 30 days 4 days 4 days 6 wks 3 wks 4 wks 19 days 3 wks 34 days 22 days 29 days 15 days 5 days 3 days 0 days 5 days 5 days 5 days 3 days 4 days 3 days 0 days 22 days 3 wks 2 wks 3 days 3 days 0 days 3 days 0 days
Jan 25, '04 S S M T W T
F S
Feb 1, '04 S M T W T
Feb 8, '04 S M T W T
Feb 15, '04 S S M T W T
Feb 22, '04 S S M T W T
Feb 29, '04 S S M T W T
F S
Mar 7, '04 S M T W T
Mar S
3/12
Figure 5
Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, January 25 through March 14
ISODC Report
ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Task Name Design criteria Identify design problem Organize design groups Obtain industry contacts Define problem Brainstorming & research Establish design criteria Research classification g Alternate solutions Determine alternate solu Design & analyze alterna Computer simulations for Draft midterm report Finalize midterm report & Submit midterm report Select best design Review industry/instructo Select best alternate des Revise chosen design op SNAME presentation Prepare/practice SNAME Give presentation to SNA Final report & presentation Refine final design Prepare final report Organize final oral prese Rehearse final oral prese Present final oral present Refine & complete final r Submit final report
Duration 30 days 4 days 4 days 6 wks 3 wks 4 wks 19 days 3 wks 34 days 22 days 29 days 15 days 5 days 3 days 0 days 5 days 5 days 5 days 3 days 4 days 3 days 0 days 22 days 3 wks 2 wks 3 days 3 days 0 days 3 days 0 days
Mar 14, '04 S M T W T
Mar 21, '04 S S M T W T
Mar 28, '04 S S M T W T
Apr 4, '04 S S M T W T
F S
Apr 11, '04 S M T W T
Apr 18, '04 S M T W T
Apr 25, '04 S S M T W T
May 2, '04 S S M T W
4/2
4/30
5
Figure 6
Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, March 14 through May 5
ISODC Report
2 Competency Areas
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. 2.1
Regulatory Compliance
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 Lloyds. 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, 33/5.3 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 (37/11.5a). 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
Team West Africa
-21-
ISODC Report
the escape route is in accordance with ABS. At least two escape routes must be designed and the escape route plan should be displayed at various points in/of the facility (3-8/13.9a) 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 firemans 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 (34/3b). 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:
Pcw = fLcwWcw
The variables are described in API 2SK 5.9.
(2)
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.
- 22 -
ISODC Report
When designing the FPS mooring, environmental effects can be split up into 3 groups: - Steady state forces including current force, mean wind and mean wave drift forces - Low frequency vessel motions due to wind and waves - Wave frequency vessel motions 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).
2.1.1
Fire Safety
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 systems 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
- 23 -
ISODC Report
stations should be provided, both of which must have an efficient means of communication and process system shutdown, etc. If the facility is shut down, then the following services must still be operable: i. ii. iii. iv. v. Emergency lighting General Alarm Blowout preventer control system Public address system 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. Firemans 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 71C. Surfaces that exceed 482C need to be protected from combustible gas, as well as weather, mechanical wear, and physical damage. 2.2
General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design
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 teams 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.
- 24 -
ISODC Report
2.2.1
Ship Shape Barge with Spherical Tanks
Figure 7
Ship-Shape Barge with Turret Mooring
The dimensions of this vessel are 350m in length, 90m in width and 35m in height. This design supports three LNG storage tanks, each 60m in diameter. This dimension enables approximately 339,000 cubic meters of storage. Crew accommodations are placed farthest away from the regasification unit to comply with regulatory safety standards. For additional security a blast wall is attached to the bow side of the crew accommodations. Cranes are located at the bow and stern of the vessel. Due to limited deck space, six open rack vaporizers are stacked three on three with a three-meter clearance below and above each vaporizer. This design also included a submerged combustion vaporizer. Boil Off Gas (BOG) compressors are located on the port side while diesel storage tanks and power generators are located on the starboard side. Offloading processes are designed to take place on the starboard side of the vessel. This vessel is designed to be turret moored, allowing it to weather vane. This design also accommodates for instruments such as seawater pumps, LNG booster pumps, a control substation, and a potable and auxiliary water unit.
- 25 -
ISODC Report
2.2.2
Catamaran Hull with SPB Tanks
Figure 8
Catamaran Hull with Spread Mooring
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 semiprismatic 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 spreadmooring 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.
- 26 -
ISODC Report
Figure 9
Catamaran Hull with Single-Point Mooring
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.
2.2.3
Selected Design and General Layout
The three preliminary designs the team derived presented different problems. First, the spherical Mosstanks 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.
- 27 -
ISODC Report
Table 5 Design
Advantages and Disadvantages of Catamaran Hull and Ship Shape Barge Advantages Innovative design Ample deck space Low center of gravity Inherent stability in roll/pitch/yaw conditions Shallow draft Disadvantages Inability to align itself to weather conditions (short moment arm) spread mooring only Wide hull width required to accommodate SPB tanks Large frontal area exposed to wind Difficulty in construction (two shipyards required) Fatigue and bending stresses on centerline of main deck between hulls Limited deck space
Catamaran Hull
Ship Shape Barge
Well-established and proven design Flexibility in selecting mooring systems
Constructability constraint (length and width of hull)
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 terminals breadth a major concern, the LNG tanks drove the rest of the dimensions. An iterative process allowed for optimizing the hulls final dimension and is listed below as well as represented in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Length between perpendiculars (LBP) 340m Breadth 65m Molded depth 33m
- 28 -
ISODC Report
Figure 10 Bow View of Selected Design
Figure 11 Beam View of Selected Design 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 terminals dimensions and using a standard package of processing equipment, the team then optimized the remaining open-ended equipment and containment system selections.
- 29 -
ISODC Report
Figure 12 Isometric View of Selected Design
Figure 13 Topside Configuration of Processing Equipment
- 30 -
ISODC Report
Figure 14 Processing Equipment Locations
Team West Africa
-31-
ISODC Report
LNG Containment System:

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 carriers 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 vessels hull. For clarity, the topside arrangements in the figure are omitted.
Figure 15 LNG and Ballast Tank Configuration
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
- 32 -
ISODC Report
number of ballast tanks sacrifices stability. As discussed in the stability section, however, the ballast configuration meets the requirements as directed by ship design guidelines. Loading Arms: For the offloading procedure, the In-Air Flexible offloading system designed by Technip-Coflexip serves as the terminals 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.
Figure 16 Stowed Position of Offloading System
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.
- 33 -
ISODC Report
Figure 17 Offloading System Connected to Carriers Manifold
2.3
Weight, Buoyancy and Stability
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. Table 6 Masses of Terminal Components (Lightship) Item Mass (mt) Hull 29,668 LNG tanks 23,334 Ballast tanks 13,733 Topsides 12,600 Mooring lines 581 Confidence (15%) 11,900 TOTAL 91,235
The terminal was then analyzed in both the loaded and unloaded conditions to determine the terminals center of mass and draft in each case. To maintain a constant draft, the loaded condition is defined as full TAMU Team West Africa - 34 ISODC Report
LNG tanks and empty ballast tanks, and the unloaded condition is defined as empty LNG tanks and full ballast tanks. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7 below. The draft of the vessel was calculated to be roughly 11.58 meters, which is well within an acceptable range for this particular site depth. Table 7 Centers of Mass and Drafts in Loaded/Unloaded Conditions Loaded Unloaded KG (m) 17.4 17.0 Draft (m) 11.6 11.6
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 18 StabCAD Exploded Panel View 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.
- 35 -
ISODC Report
Figure 19 LNG Tank Configuration
Figure 20 Ballast Tank Configuration 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.
- 36 -
ISODC Report
Figure 21 Metacenters 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.
Figure 22 Intact Stability Curve with KG=17.4 m 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-
- 37 -
ISODC Report
inputted value of the terminals actual KG. If the actual KG is lower than the smallest allowable KG calculated by StabCAD, then the vessel meets all the stability criteria and is therefore stable. 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. Table 8 Stability Criteria for Intact Condition Allowable KG (m) 17.40 36.60 36.60 34.89 36.60 36.27 Range of Stability (degrees) 36.84 27.90 26.81 36.84 26.81 31.75 Area Ratio 25.27 1.40 1.01 5.32 1.01 2.77 1st Intercept (degrees) 0.35 11.53 13.78 1.91 13.78 5.21 2nd Intercept (degrees) 85.00 25.90 24.87 36.83 24.87 30.00
Stability Criterion Actual KG of terminal Area ratio = 1.4 Intact ROS = 7.0 ROS btwn 1st & 2nd intercepts = 7.0 1st intercept @ 15o heel nd 2 intercept @ 30o heel
The cross curves of stability are shown in Figure 23. The curves generated by StabCad are in line with expectations.
Figure 23 Cross Curves of Stability
- 38 -
ISODC Report
For damaged stability, each ballast tank was modeled as a separate body. StabCad then cycled through all twenty ballast tanks and calculated a curve of stability in the event that the ballast tank in question was damaged, i.e. flooded with water. Figure 24 below shows the stability in the event of damage on the tank located on the starboard side at the aft end, which is the tank with the largest effect on the stability of the terminal.
Figure 24 Damaged Stability, Starboard Aft Ballast Tank The damage stability module in StabCad tests various stability criteria in a similar manner to the intact stability. The results of this analysis are included in Table 9. The lowest allowable KG value is 35.04m, which is again higher than the actual KG value of 17.4m. Therefore, the ship remains stable if this particular ballast tank is damaged. Table 9 Stability Criterion Actual KG of terminal Heel Arm = Right Arm Damage ROS = 7.0 Static Angle = 15.0 Area Ratio = 1.0 RM/HM Ratio = 2.0 ROS 1 & 2 = 7.0
st nd
Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Aft Ballast Tank Allowable KG (m) 17.40 35.90 35.39 33.93 35.77 35.74 35.24 Range of Stability (degrees) 33.40 15.45 28.14 10.92 4.16 5.02 28.41 Static Angle (degrees) 0.84 18.87 6.13 15.00 18.11 17.75 5.84 1st Intercept (degrees) 0.84 20.00 6.86 15.91 19.20 18.82 6.53 2nd Intercept (degrees) 85.00 20.00 33.66 25.37 20.80 21.23 34.23
- 39 -
ISODC Report
The terminal was also tested to see the effects of damaging two tanks adjacent to one another. The graphical version of the output is included in Figure 25, and the tabulated stability criteria are included in Table 10. The smallest allowable KG of 30.15 m is well above the terminals KG of 17.4 meters.
Figure 25 Damaged Stability, Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 damaged
Table 10 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 Stability Criterion Actual KG of terminal Heel Arm = Right Arm Damage ROS = 7.0 Static Angle = 15.0 Area Ratio = 1.0 RM/HM Ratio = 2.0 ROS 1st & 2nd = 7.0 Allowable KG (m) 17.40 33.63 32.75 30.15 33.59 33.48 32.59 Range of Stability (degrees) 30.51 13.25 20.44 13.83 6.31 7.10 20.86 Static Angle (degrees) 1.79 19.10 11.91 15.00 18.61 18.24 11.49 1st Intercept (degrees) 1.89 20.00 12.58 15.69 19.48 19.10 12.13 2nd Intercept (degrees) 85.00 20.00 31.73 28.01 21.41 22.77 32.30
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.
- 40 -
ISODC Report
Table 11 Stability Under Different Damage Scenarios Number of damaged tanks (starboard side) 1 2 3 4 5 Allowable KG (m) 33.93 30.15 26.44 22.82 19.13
Even with all five ballast tanks on one side damaged, the terminals 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.
2.4
Global Loading
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.
- 41 -
ISODC Report
Longitudinal Axis Load Distribution

9000
8000
Acc.
7000
6000
Weight (kN)
5000
4000
BOG Unit
P4101 H20
3000
G4101
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 Longitudinal axis (m) 360
Figure 26 Topside Loading
Table 12 Weight and Location of Point Loads Unit D-4701 G-4201 Starb crane C-3301 D-3101 D-3201 P-3101 E-3101 E-3102 E-3103 E-3104 E-3105 E-3106 Port crane Offload arm 1 Offload arm 2 Offload arm 3 Offload arm 4 Helideck Stern Mooring Lines (wt) Bow Mooring Lines (wt) TAMU Team West Africa Force (kN) -78.5 -196.2 -392.4 -588.6 -98.1 -157.0 -1510.7 -567.0 -567.0 -567.0 -567.0 -567.0 -567.0 -392.4 -1962.0 -1962.0 -1962.0 -1962.0 -1485.4 -2849.8 -2849.8 - 42 Location from FP (m) 29 40 257 43.5 55 64.5 223 188 172 156 140 124 108 89 140.1 150.1 160.1 170.1 329.5 340 0 ISODC Report
Table 13 Weight and Location of Distributed Loads Unit G-4101 BOG unit P-4101 Serv H2O total Accom LNG 1 LNG 2 LNG 3 LNG 4 LNG 5 Hull steel Buoyancy 1 Buoyancy 2a Buoyancy 2b Buoyancy 3a Buoyancy 3b 2.5 Starting magnitude (kN) -125.5 -186.8 -109.0 -99.8 -523.0 -5305.8 -5305.8 -5305.8 -5305.8 -5305.8 -2541.6 7602.3 9654.9 5549.7 9654.9 5549.7 Starting Location from FP (m) 44 50 72 261 322 4.2 71.3 138.4 205.5 272.6 0 0 0 170 0 170 Ending Magnitude (kN) -125.5 -186.8 -109.0 -99.8 -523.0 -5305.8 -5305.8 -5305.8 -5305.8 -5305.8 -2541.6 7602.3 5081.4 9961.7 9961.7 2920.8 Ending Location from FP (m) 69 71 108 294 337 67.4 134.5 201.6 268.7 335.8 340 340 170 340 170 340
General Strength and Structural Design
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.
Figure 27 Load Case 1 Figure 28 below displays the maximum shear, moment and deflection under this load condition. A maximum shear force of 16.2 MN occurs at 7.08m from the forward perpendicular, and a minimum shear force of -17 MN occurs at 333m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme sagging moment of 786 MNm occurs at 159m from the forward perpendicular. At this location the largest deflection occurs and is 29.5mm downwards.
- 43 -
ISODC Report
Shear Moment
Deflection
Figure 28 Load Case 1 Results 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.
Figure 29 Load Case 2 Figure 30 below shows the maximum shear, moment and deflection under Load Case 2. The maximum shear force of 97.9 MN occurs at 74.4m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal, and the minimum shear force of -97.1 MN occurs at 266m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme sagging moment of 10,700 MN-m occurs at mid-ship along with the largest deflection of 375mm downwards.
- 44 -
ISODC Report
Shear Moment
Deflection
Figure 30 Load Case 2 Results 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.
Figure 31 Load Case 3 Figure 32 below shows the maximum shear, moment and deflection under this load condition. The maximum shear force of 90.5 MN occurs at 273m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal, and the minimum shear force of -89.2 MN occurs at 67.3m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme hogging moment of 9,120 MN-m occurs at 174m from the forward perpendicular. The largest deflection under this load case occurs at mid-ship and is 316mm upwards.
- 45 -
ISODC Report
Shear
Moment Deflection
Figure 32 Load Case 3 Results 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).
Table 14 Comparison of the Three Load Cases Load Case 1 2 3 Max Shear (MN) -17 97.9 90.5 Max Moment (MN-m) 786 10,700 -9,120 Max Bending Stress (MPa) 8.97 (keel) 122 (keel) 104 (deck)
- 46 -
ISODC Report
Longitudinal Hull Girder Strength: Wave Loads

Wave Bending Moment Amidships Sagging Moment (kN-m) Mws -14856229.96 2 Mws=-k1C1L B(Cb+0.7)x10-3 k1 110 C1 L (m) 340 B (m) Hogging Moment (kN-m) Mwh 14917619.34 2 Mwh=+k2C1L BCbx10-3 k2 190 Cb 0.972
10.75 65
Wave Shear Force max positive shear force (kN) Fwp 11916762.01 Fwp=+kF1C1LB(Cb+0.7)x10-2 F1 0/340m 0 68-102m 0.923801653 136-204m 0.7 238-289m 1 Fwp(0/340m) 0 Fwp (68-102m) 11008724.44 Fwp(136-204m) 8341733.41 Fwp(238-289m) 11916762.01 max negative shear force (kN) Fwn -11966004.81 Fwn=-kF2C1LB(Cb+0.7)x10-2 F2 0/340m 0 68-102m 0.92 136-204m 0.7 238-289m 1.004132231 Fwp(0/340m) 0 Fwp (68-102m) -10963421.03 Fwp(136-204m) -8341733.39 Fwp(238-289m) -11966004.81
30
Still Water
Bending Moment Msw (kN-m) 9872369.003 Ms=CstL2.5B(Cb+0.5) Cst 0.004936081 Shear Force Fsw (kN) 145181.8971 Fsw=5.0Ms/L
Bending Strength
Hull Girder Section Modulus Section Modulus (cm2-m) SM 1416570.762 SM=Mt/fp Total Bending Moment, Mt=Msw+Mw (kN-m) Nominal permissible bending stress, fp (kN/cm2) Minimum Section Modulus (cm2-m) SM 841680.71 2 SM=C1C2L B(Cb+0.7) C2 0.01
24789988.34 17.5
Hull Girder Moment of Inertia I=L*SM/33.3 (cm2-m2) 14463485.26 TAMU Team West Africa - 47 ISODC Report
Figure 33 ABS Longitudinal Hull Girder Strength B5
B1
B2
B3
B4
B6 B7 B8 Figure 34 Cross-Section of Longitudinal Beam
Table 15 Area Moment of Inertia Base Height dy dx Area (m) (m) (m) (m) (m^2) 1/12bh^3 1/12b^3h MEMBER B1 0.03 32.95 0.00 32.49 0.85 76.88 0.00 B2 0.03 29.42 1.76 28.51 0.76 54.75 0.00 B3 0.03 29.42 1.76 28.51 0.76 54.75 0.00 B4 0.03 32.95 0.00 32.49 0.85 76.88 0.00 B5 65.00 0.03 16.49 0.00 1.68 0.00 590.30 B6 57.05 0.03 12.96 0.00 1.47 0.00 399.15 B7 0.03 3.50 14.72 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 B8 65.00 0.03 16.49 0.00 1.68 0.00 590.30 sums: 263.36 1579.76 Ixx (m4): 1446.35 Thickness used in design: 0.032m (1.25in) Ady^2 0.00 2.36 2.36 0.00 455.74 247.22 19.57 455.74 1182.99 Adx^2 896.96 616.99 616.99 896.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3027.90
2.6
Wind and Current Loading
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 1hour 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 () 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.
- 48 -
ISODC Report
Table 16 Environmental Data for Wind and Current Loading Return Period (years) Wind Speed, Omni (knots) Current Speed, Surface (knots) Significant Wave Height (ft) Wind Velocity Time Factor 100 29.16 1.94 9.96 1.18 10 25.27 1.75 8.73 1.18 1 23.33 1.56 7.50 1.18
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 structures 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. Table 17 Area Classifications for Environmental Loading Spreadsheet A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 Hull Starboard Process Starboard Crane Accommodations Module Port Process Port Crane Flare Tower Piperack Loading Arms Green Water
Figure 35 Beam View with Height Ranges for Environmental Calculations TAMU Team West Africa - 49 ISODC Report
Figure 36 Bow View with Height Ranges for Environmental Calculations
The wind and wave forces are calculated using the spreadsheet on the following page.
- 50 -
ISODC Report
Table 18 Wind and Wave Loading Calculations Spreadsheet for 100 Year Storm
Environmental Load Calculations (Ship-Shape FSRU)

Wind Force Wind Speed Vw(knots) 29.158 alpha 1.180 Projected Areas ft2 (Above Water Line) Bow Seas Cs A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 Sum(CsChA) Force(Kips) Fwx Quartering Seas Theta Force(Kips) Current Speed Vc(knot) Cs(Bow Sea) Csy(Beam Sea) Wetted Area 1.944 0.016SVc2 0.400Fc(kips) 341091.948 Fwq Bow Seas 1289032.859SVc2 20.625Fc(kips) 10.0 250.0 Current Force Beam Seas 1289032.859Theta 515.613 Fc(kips) Oblique Environment 10.000 50.494 1.000 1.100 1.500 1.000 1.100 1.500 1.500 0.500 1.500 1.000 Ch 1.230 1.230 1.520 1.400 1.230 1.520 1.620 1.230 1.520 1.230 A(Bow) 14986.6 0.0 2755.6 1163.2 0.0 1046.3 5328.3 0.0 2653.8 4897.6 AChCs 18433.5 0.0 6282.7 1628.4 0.0 2385.5 12947.9 0.0 6050.7 6024.0 0.0 53752.7 216.4 Sum(CsChA) Fwy Cs 1.000 1.100 1.500 1.000 1.100 1.500 1.500 0.500 1.500 Ch 1.230 1.230 1.520 1.400 1.230 1.520 1.620 1.230 1.520 Beam Seas A(Beam) 81506.0 6393.8 2906.3 1954.3 2927.8 2906.3 5328.3 0.0 6621.9 AChCs 100252.4 8650.8 6626.3 2736.0 3961.3 6626.3 12947.9 0.0 15098.0 0.0 0.0 156898.8 631.5
Mean Wave Drift Force Bow Seas Beam Seas Quartering Seas (Surge) Quartering Seas (Sway) Significant Wave Height Force(Kips) Force(Kips) Wind Current Mean Wave Drift Force Total Force(Kips) Bow Seas 216.4 20.6 8.1 245.1 9.961 Cubic Spline Curve Fitting Formulae [x=Hs(ft), y=Force (kips)] y=9.63ln(x)-14 y=2E-5X^4-5E-5X^3-0.1433X^2+7.3983*X-8.9346 y=0.9366x+1.2207 y=1E-5x^4-0.0003x^3-0.0638x^2+4.0954x-7.2682 Bow Seas 8.1 Total Environmental Forces Beam Seas 631.5 515.6 50.7 1197.8 Quartering Seas 250.0 50.5 28.6 329.1 Beam Seas 50.7 Quartering Seas 28.6
- 51 -
ISODC Report
The results from the wind and wave analysis for the three return periods are shown below in Table 19, Table 20, and Table 21. Table 19 Environmental Forces for 100-Year Return Period
Total Environmental Forces Force(Kips) Wind Current Mean Wave Drift Force Total Force(Kips) Bow Seas 216.4 20.6 8.1 245.1 Beam Seas 631.5 515.6 50.7 1197.8 Quartering Seas 250.0 50.5 28.6 329.1
Table 20 Environmental Forces for 10-Year Return Period

Table 21 Environmental Forces for 1- Year Return Period

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.
2.7
Mooring/Station Keeping
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).
- 52 -
ISODC Report
There are several factors for deciding what type of mooring system to have. Some of these factors are the soil composition of the sea floor, the directionality of the environmental data, the types of loading and unloading procedures to and from the facility, and cost of the system. The sea bottom at this particular site is soft sand so a taut type mooring system is out of the question. This leaves only the option of the catenary style mooring system. Once the leg type was decided the next step is to decide if there is directionality to the environmental data. This influenced the decision between a turret and a spread moored system. Spread moored systems are typically utilized when the environment predominately is generated in certain directions. Due in large part to the directionality of the environment in the West Africa area the spread moored system was decided on rather than a turret moored system. Along with the system being spread moored, the bow will face towards the 225 degree direction relative to true north. 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.
Figure 37 Horizontal Layout of Mooring Lines
- 53 -
ISODC Report
These lines are separated into 4 different legs, with a leg extending off the facility at the four corners at an angle of 45 degrees off of the longitudinal axis. This angle is the angle of the center line, with the other two lines being spaced at 5 degrees off of the center line. The first chain size analyzed was the 5 inch chain. In the table below the characteristics of different chains being considered can be compared. Table 22 Chain Characteristics Size (in) 5 4.5 4 Size (m) 0.127 0.1143 0.1016 Weight in water (kN/n) 3.465 2.445 1.932 Breaking Strength (kN) 14,980 12,440 7,811
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 vs Twelve leg system Eight Leg (6.5 inch) vs Twelve Leg (5 inch) System
7000 6000 5000 Length (m) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 5 inch 6.5 inch 6.5 inch 15 inch single leg total chain single leg total chain length length length length 6.5 line 6.5 line total 5 line 5 line total
Figure 38 Comparison of Line Lengths
- 54 -
ISODC Report
At that point in time it was decided to keep the 12 line system and further try to optimize both its diameter and overall leg 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. Table 23 Maximum Tensions For 100 Year Survival Condition Size (in) 5 4.5 4 Size (m) 0.127 0.1143 0.1016 Max Tension (kN) 5,850 5,685 5,027 Breaking Strength (kN) 14,980 12,440 7,811 Safety Factor 2.56 2.18 1.55
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 (in) 5 4.5 4 Size (m) 0.127 0.1143 0.1016 Max tension (kN) 5,928 5,685 5,027 Breaking Strength (kN) 14,980 12,440 7,811 Safety Factor 2.53 2.18 1.55 L% 39.57 45.69 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.
- 55 -
ISODC Report
Tension vs. Line Size Intact

16000 14000 12000 Tensions (kN) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 5" BS 5" 5" 4.5" 4.5" 4.5" 4" 1 Exp 60% BS 60 Exp BS % 4" 60 % 4" Exp 5 inch BS 5 inch60% 5 inch found 4.5 inch BS 4.5 inch60% 4.5 inch found 4 inch BS 4 inch60% 4 inch found
Line Sizes
Figure 39 Comparison of Line Tension and Line Size 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. TAMU Team West Africa - 56 ISODC Report
The next step was to optimize the length now that the diameter is set. An initial length of 300 m was assumed but that needs to be refined. Shorter lengths for the system where run in Mimosa to see if they still satisfy the API requirements of 60% intact and 80% damage maximum tensions, which the 285 m length did satisfy. These values of maximum intact tensions can be found in Table 25. Table 25 Maximum Tensions for Different Lengths of 4.5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event Length (m) 300 250 275 285 Max Tension (kN) 5,685 6,207 6,008 5,607 L% 59.2 64.6 62.5 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).
2.8
Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading
It is essential to predict the vessels 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:
2 S ( f ) = 0.3125 H S TP ( f / f P ) 5 exp[1.25( f / f P ) 4] (1 0.287) ln( ) A
(3)
where the coefficients A and are:
A = exp[0.5( f f P / f P ) 2 ]
= 0.07 f < f P = 0.09 f > f P
- 57 -
ISODC Report
A graphical representation of the JONSWAP analysis can be seen in the figure below.
Energy Density of the Wave using Jonswap Analysis
7
S(f)
0 0 -1 Frequency (rad/s) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Figure 40 Energy Density The natural spectral peak period of the wave in a 1-year return period is 15 seconds, which corresponds to the natural peak frequency of 0.42 rad/s shown above. The formula for the heave period is shown below:
T = 2
CB D (1 + C AM ) CW g
( M + M A )r 2 g GM L
(4)
The formula for the uncoupled natural period in pitch is:
T = 2
(5)
The uncoupled natural period in roll for this structure is:
( M + M A )r 2 T = 2 gGM T
(6)
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.
- 58 -
ISODC Report
Table 26 Heave Period for Vessel (Unloaded and Loaded) Units Block Coefficient Waterplane Area Coefficient Waterplane Area (m , ft ) Draft (m, ft) Gravity (m/s2, ft/s2) Mass of the Vessel (kg, slug) Added Mass (kg, slug) Added Mass Coefficient Heave Natural Period (s)
2 2
CB CW AW D g M Ma CAM T
Metric 0.99 1.00 22,556 11.58 9.81 91,235,000 136,852,500 1.50 10.74
English 0.99 1.00 242,792 37.99 32.18 6,251,584 9,377,376 1.50 10.74
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) Motion Direction Heave Pitch Roll Unloaded 10.74 5.37 9.30 Loaded 10.74 5.37 9.39 Frequency (rad/s) Unloaded Loaded 0.58 0.58 1.17 1.17 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.
- 59 -
ISODC Report
RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading

1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01 Response (m/m) Heave Pitch 6.00E-01 Roll 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)
Figure 41 RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading
RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading
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)
Figure 42 RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading
- 60 -
ISODC Report
For each motion, take the amplitude response that corresponds to the frequency of 0.42 rad/s and then multiply it by the significant amplitude in a 1-year storm (1.14 m), thus determining the vessel displacements for each motion shown in Table 28 below. Table 28 Displacement of LNG Terminal Motion Heave Pitch Roll Surge Yaw Sway 0 0.57 m 0.58 0.00 0.69 m 0.00 0.00 Displacement (m) 67.5 90 2.01 m 2.40 m 0.43 0.00 0.23 3.13 0.85 m 0.00 0.01 m 0.00 0.80 m 1.03 m 180 0.46 m 0.58 0.00 0.69 m 0.00 0.00
The largest motion is in heave. The chosen loading arms for this vessel are In-Air Flexibles by TechnipCoflexip. 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.
Table 29 LNGC Displacement with 60 Heading Motion Sway Heave Roll Surge Pitch Displacement Significant Maximum 0.12 m 0.3 m 0.22 m 0.4 m 0.12 0.3 0.08 m 0.2 m 0.48 1.0
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.
- 61 -
ISODC Report
2.9
Cost Analysis
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. Table 30 Cost Analysis Hull Steel Hull Outfittings Hull Machinery Electric Outfitting Accommodations Cargo Fitting Topsides Module Supports SPB LNG Tanks Regas Process & Engineering Owners Costs & Contingency Transportation--Floater Installation--Floater Weight (mton) 50,579 7,500 1,000 1,000 800 2,000 2,000 23,334 Japan $ 106 $ 43 $ 1 $ 2 $ 23 $ 27 $ 2 $ 93 $ 184 $ 97 $ 15 $ 15 Total (millions) $ 608 Korea $ 96 $ 39 $ 1 $ 2 $ 21 $ 24 $ 1 $ 93 $ 184 $ 92 $ 15 $ 15 $ 585 Spain $ 121 $ 36 $ $ $ 24 $ $ 2 $ 93 $ 176 $ 90 $ 5 $ 15 $ 563
3 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

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 -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 ships 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 TAMU Team West Africa - 62 ISODC Report
period as required by the design constraints. In the event of an unavailability of this type of arm the FMC mechanical offloading arms can be substituted in their place without necessitating a redesign or reanalysis of the hydrodynamic motions. The team decided to have the terminal built in Spain, and its total cost including transportation is roughly US $563 million. 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 terminals hydrodynamic motions and reducing the vessels total mass, draft, and final cost. In addition, completion of the structural engineering design will allow for a more accurate measure of the vessels 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.
- 63 -
ISODC Report
4 References
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. Vryhof Anchor Manual, Vryhof Anchor Company, 2000.
- 64 -
ISODC Report
Appendix A: Lightship weight spreadsheet

Lightship Weight & Total Weight
Dimensions Length (L) Width (B) Height (H) Draft (T) Freebrd 340 65 33 11.58 21.42 m m m m m L/B L/H B/H Block c_b 5.23 4.5-6.0 10.30 8.0-13.0 1.97 1.7-2.3 0.972 BMT (est.) KMT (est.) KGT (est.) BML (est.) KML (est.) 30.417 36.205 5.788 832 838 m m m m m
Number of longitudinal bulkheads Number of transverse bulkheads Mass per unit area (kg/m2) Density of steel Equivalent plate thickness
0 0 405 7850 0.0516 2.03 2508 2145 11550 11550 22100 23400 kg/m2 kg/m3 m in m m2 m2 m2 m2 m2
2
SPB Number of tanks Spacing btwn LNG tanks Spacing btwn LNG and wing blsts Spacing btwn LNG and top/btm Wing ballast tank width Btm ballast tank height Total volume of cargo hold LNG storage volume Thickness of steel Volume per tank Length of tank Width of tank Height of tank Volume of reqd ballast Reqd wing ballast width Reqd btm ballast height Actual blst tank volume (total) Surface area of tanks Unit weight of tanks Total mass of all insulation
5 4m 3m 4.5 m 4m 3.5 m 347106 3 330378 m 0.250 m 3 66076 m 63.2 51.0 20.5 145044 4.000 m 3.500 m 3 154674 m 55643 73 4061939 4062 m2 kg/m2 kg mt
SA of front SA of back SA of port side SA of starboard side SA of bottom SA of top Total SA of hull SA of each long. bulkhead SA of each trans. bulkhead Overall SA of lightship Mass of hull Mass of hull Weight of hull Displacement
2 73253 m 2 11550 m 2 2145 m 2 73253 m 29667543 kg 29668 mt
291039 kN 955295 tonf 257224 tonnes
- 65 -
ISODC Report
Weight of LNG (kN) Mass of LNG
1458454 291691 29734 148670
kN kN/tank mt/tank mt total
Total mass of aluminum Total mass of LNG tanks (empty) Total weight of LNG tanks (empty) Ballast Tanks Total number of blst tanks Number of tanks per side Wing Tank Width (inner) Wing Tank Height (inner) Bottom Tank Length (inner) Frontal area of J partitions Inner hull surface area Keel divider plate Total surface area of ballast tanks Total mass of ballast tanks Total weight of ballast tanks
19272 mt 23334 mt 228906 kN
Outfitting masses Electrical (mt) Mechanical (mt) Outfitting equipment (mt) Accommodation (mt) Cargo systems (mt) Cargo loading arm (mt) Total outfitting mass Total outfitting weight Mass of Mooring Lines Mass of Vessel (Empty) 79335 mt 79334999 kg 778276 kN Theoretical Lightship Mass Theoretical Loaded Mass Theoretical Lightship Weight Theoretical Loaded Weight Margin (% confidence) Total Lightship Mass Total Loaded Mass Total Lightship Weight Total Loaded Weight
1000 1000 7000 800 2000 800 12600 12600000 405720 123606 581
mt kg tonf kN mt
10 5 3.9484 32.8968 32.3968 229.46 30425.38 1189.82 33910 13733 134725
m m m m2 m2 m2 m2 mt kN
79335 228005 778276 2236730 15 91235 262206 895018 2572240
mt mt kN kN % mt mt kN kN
- 66 -
ISODC Report
Appendix B: Mimosa Input and Output Files

This appendix contains the input files for use with Mimosa. The first file, masswindcurrent2.dat is the mossi file that contains all the vessel mass information including added mass in the three primary directions, system damping in surge and sway and the force coefficients for the wind and current loads. There are three different chain characteristic files used. Mooringsystem12 is the 4.5 inch chain file. This chain file contains all the characteristics about this particular mooring system. It contains values for breaking strength, length, weight, pretension, and fairlead and anchor locations. RAOs for the system were obtained from a sif file that was provided from Halliburton and KBR. It will not be included in this appendix due to document length constraints. It is available upon request if need. Output from Mimosa is included in this appendix. Report5 Twelve line 100 year condition for 4.5 inch chain.
- 67 -
ISODC Report
Masswindcurrent2.dat 20000 22100 23100 23101 23102 23103 23104 23105 23106 23107 23108 23109 23110 23111 23112 23113 23114 23115 23116 23117 23118 23119 23501 23502 23503 24100 24101 24102 24103 24104 24105 24106 24107 24108 24109 24110 24111 24112 24113 24114 24115 24116 24117 24118 24119 Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients 2.28E+08 1.58E+13 3 4 45000 19 0 0 9.172E+4 0.000E+00 0 10 2.211E+5 3.899E+04 0 20 5.322E+5 1.937E+05 0 30 8.624E+5 4.979E+05 0 40 1.079E+6 9.055E+05 0 50 1.124E+6 1.340E+06 0 60 1.001E+6 1.734E+06 0 70 7.421E+5 2.039E+06 0 80 3.930E+5 2.229E+06 0 90 0.000 2.293E+06 0 100 -3.930E+5 2.229E+06 0 110 -7.421E+5 2.039E+06 0 120 -1.001E+6 1.734E+06 0 130 -1.124E+6 1.340E+06 0 140 -1.079E+6 9.055E+05 0 150 -8.624E+5 4.979E+05 0 160 -5.322E+5 1.937E+05 0 170 -2.211E+5 3.899E+04 0 180 -9.172E+4 0.000E+00 0 2.638E+6 0 0 6.9227E+6 3.12E+09 0 19 0 0 -4.606E+03 0 0 10 -5.186E+03 -0.914E+03 0 20 -6.517E+03 -2.372E+03 0 30 -7.744E+03 -4.471E+03 0 40 -8.202E+03 -6.882E+03 0 50 -7.666E+03 -9.136E+03 0 60 -6.271E+03 -1.086E+04 0 70 -4.334E+03 -1.190E+04 0 80 -2.181E+03 -1.237E+04 0 90 0 -1.248E+04 0 100 2.181E+03 -1.237E+04 0 110 4.334E+03 -1.190E+04 0 120 6.271E+03 -1.086E+04 0 130 7.666E+03 -9.136E+03 0 140 8.202E+03 -6.882E+03 0 150 7.744E+03 -4.471E+03 0 160 6.516E+03 -2.371E+03 0 170 5.186E+03 -0.914E+03 0 180 4.606E+03 0.000E+00 0
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 TAMU Team West Africa - 68 ISODC Report
'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 1 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 50.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 2 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 45.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 3 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 40.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 4 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -40.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 5 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -45.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 6 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -50.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 7 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -130.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 8 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -135.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA TAMU Team West Africa - 69 ISODC Report
'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 9 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -140.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 10 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 140.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 11 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 135.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 12 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 130.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 1 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 2 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 3 TAMU Team West Africa - 70 ISODC Report
'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 4 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 5 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 6 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 7 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 TAMU Team West Africa - 71 -
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
ISODC Report
'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 8 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 9 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 10 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 11 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 TAMU Team West Africa - 72 -
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
ISODC Report
'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 12 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000 'termination of input data END Report5 1 MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 1 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave MARINTEK
Marketing and Support by DNV Software Program id : 5.7-01 Computer : 586 Release date : 14-MAY-2003 Impl. update : Access time : 14-APR-2004 18:14:51 Operating system : Win NT 5.0 [2195] User id : sts4924 CPU id : 0000200404 Installation : , CE220NO04 Copyright DET NORSKE VERITAS AS, P.O.Box 300, N-1322 Hovik, Norway
Input file : y:\masswindcurrent2.dat * Vessel mass and added mass Text : Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients Input file : y:\masswindcurrent2.dat * Current force coefficients Text : Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients TAMU Team West Africa - 73 ISODC Report
MIMOSA Version 5.7-01
14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 2 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave
MARINTEK
Input file : y:\masswindcurrent2.dat * Wind force coefficients Text : Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients Input file : y:\g15m.sif * HF motion transfer functions Text : AKPO MOORING VERIFICATION - KBR 11/05/2003" Water depth used in calculation of roll, pitch and yaw : 40.0 m Duration for short-term statistics : 180.00 min. Input file : y:\g15m.sif * Wave drift force coefficients Text : AKPO MOORING VERIFICATION - KBR 11/05/2003" Input file : y:\mooringsystem12 * Mooring system data Text : 4.5 inch chain system MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 3 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS * ---------------------------NOTE ! Propagation direction ( 0 deg : towards North ) ( 90 deg : towards East ) WIND NPD SPECTRUM Mean speed ........................ : 15.00 m/s Direction ......................... : 230.00 deg. MARINTEK
- 74 -
ISODC Report
CURRENT Speed .. .......................... : 1.00 m/s Direction ......................... : 150.00 deg. Current profile used in comp. of line profile: Number Level Speed Direction rel. (m) (m/s) north (deg) 1 2 3 4 WAVE 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.500 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00
JONSWAP SPECTRUM, Significant wave height (HS) ...... : 3.03 m Peak period (TP) .................. : 15.500 s Phillip constant (ALPHA) .......... : 0.00053 Form parameter (BETA) ............. : 1.250 Peakedness parameter (GAMMA) ...... : 3.300 Spectrum width parameter (SIGA) ... : 0.070 Spectrum width parameter (SIGB) ... : 0.090 Direction ......................... : 230.00 deg Short crested representation ...... : COS^4
NO SWELL * STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES * -------------------------!--------------------------------------------------------! ! ! 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! !--------------------------------------------------------! TOTAL FORCE : 3171.2 kN Dir. rel. Vessel : 213.7 deg ------------------------- Dir. rel. North : 213.7 deg 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * EQUILIBRIUM POSITION * -----------------------Relative to Relative to GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position OFFSET ................. 3.9 m DIRECTION (rel. North).. 217.2 deg HEADING ................ 0.6 deg 3.9 m 217.2 deg 0.6 deg
- 75 -
ISODC Report
X1 (North) ............. -3.1 m X2 (East) .............. -2.4 m
-3.1 m -2.4 m
12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS. LF AND HF MOTION * -----------------------------------------------** Line Dynamics Included ** Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---- Top tension ---Max. Direction Type Mean Max Safety Segm. tangent from hor. (kN) (kN) factor No. motion (m) plane (deg) 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3996.3 4599.9 5271.2 3551.8 3104.2 2690.7 3329.8 3890.2 4520.8 3474.0 3009.3 2602.9 3.75 3.26 2.84 4.22 4.83 5.57 4.50 3.85 3.31 4.31 4.98 5.76 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.01 1.79 1.58 1.36 1.60 1.85 1.84 1.66 1.46 1.47 1.73 1.99 -21.1 -19.3 -17.7 -19.7 -21.6 -23.7 -21.9 -20.0 -18.3 -20.3 -22.4 -24.5 SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM
SAM = Tensions are estimated with the Simplified Analytic Method HF max tension: Non-Rayleigh based LF max offset : Non-Rayleigh based Details on dynamic tension (in kN): ------------------------------------------------------Line Standard Maximum Maximum Zero crossing No. deviation amplitude tension period (s) ------------------------------------------------------1 672.5 2442.2 3996.3 14.44 2 757.0 2749.6 4599.9 14.44 3 843.4 3063.8 5271.2 14.44 4 487.5 1769.7 3551.8 14.65 5 449.1 1629.6 3104.2 14.73 6 402.6 1460.2 2690.7 14.78 7 521.1 1887.3 3329.8 15.05 8 598.9 2169.2 3890.2 15.07 9 679.1 2459.7 4520.8 15.09 10 494.7 1800.2 3474.0 14.18 11 447.5 1627.2 3009.3 14.28 12 398.6 1448.6 2602.9 14.36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 * STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES * TAMU Team West Africa - 76 ISODC Report
-------------------------!--------------------------------------------------------! ! ! 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! !--------------------------------------------------------! TOTAL FORCE : 3023.5 kN Dir. rel. Vessel : 203.7 deg ------------------------- Dir. rel. North : 203.7 deg * EQUILIBRIUM POSITION * -----------------------Relative to Relative to GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position OFFSET ................. 3.6 m DIRECTION (rel. North).. 209.3 deg HEADING ................ 0.5 deg X1 (North) ............. -3.1 m X2 (East) .............. -1.8 m 3.6 m 209.3 deg 0.5 deg -3.1 m -1.8 m
12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS. LF AND HF MOTION * -----------------------------------------------** Line Dynamics Included ** Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---- Top tension ---Max. Direction Type Mean Max Safety Segm. tangent from hor. (kN) (kN) factor No. motion (m) plane (deg) 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 4252.7 5007.8 5850.7 4266.8 3672.7 3133.7 3583.9 4299.7 5127.4 4042.4 3450.4 2931.2 3.52 2.99 2.56 3.51 4.08 4.78 4.18 3.48 2.92 3.71 4.34 5.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.90 1.67 1.46 1.20 1.46 1.72 1.79 1.59 1.40 1.28 1.55 1.83 -20.2 -18.3 -16.5 -17.8 -19.8 -22.0 -21.1 -19.1 -17.2 -18.5 -20.6 -22.9 SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM
- 77 -
ISODC Report
SAM = Tensions are estimated with the Simplified Analytic Method HF max tension: Non-Rayleigh based LF max offset : Non-Rayleigh based Details on dynamic tension (in kN): ------------------------------------------------------Line Standard Maximum Maximum Zero crossing No. deviation amplitude tension period (s) ------------------------------------------------------1 706.3 2563.6 4252.7 14.57 2 812.7 2950.2 5007.8 14.56 3 919.1 3337.1 5850.7 14.58 4 575.2 2088.2 4266.8 14.68 5 528.0 1915.6 3672.7 14.77 6 469.8 1703.6 3133.7 14.84 7 561.7 2034.2 3583.9 15.09 8 664.9 2407.6 4299.7 15.11 9 774.0 2802.7 5127.4 15.15 10 556.9 2025.5 4042.4 14.31 11 503.4 1829.4 3450.4 14.43 12 444.2 1613.2 2931.2 14.52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 8 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave MARINTEK
- 78 -
ISODC Report
Appendix C: StabCAD Input and Output

This appendix includes the full StabCAD input file as well as the partial output file in the intact condition. The dimensions of the vessel can be inputted using either a CAD graphical user interface (Alpha module) or by editing the text file directly (Beta module). Once the vessel itself has been drawn, additional commands are typed into the text file using Beta that tell StabCAD which stability analysis to perform (intact, cross, damaged, etc). In addition, miscellaneous dimensions such as the vessels draft and its CG values must be calculated outside of StabCAD and typed in manually. 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: ALPID 3D View ALPID Global XY Pl ALPID Global YZ Pl ALPID Global XZ Pl ALPREF 3D View 0.707 0.707 10.000 10.000 10.000 0.0 D -0.424 0.424 0.800 1 10.000 10.000 10.000 0.75 1
FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS STBOPT 0 CALC ME ME ST PT KGPAR 51.4444 25.7222 1.4 7. 7. 7. 4. CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 0. 0. 0. 340. 170. *CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 15. 0. 0. 340. 170. *CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 30. 0. 0. 340. 170. *CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 45. 0. 0. 340. 170. INTACT 0. 85. 5. *DAMAGE 0. 85. 5. *CROSS DF 5. 15. 1. DRAFT GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES 11.58 169.98
0. 90. 10. 0. 17.4
0. 36.
0. USER USER
STB STARBOARD SIDE PRT PORT SIDE TOP MAIN DECK BOT BOTTOM DECK AFT AFT END RKE RAKE END ACC ACCOMODATIONS SPL SUPPLY CRANES FLR FLARE TOWER OF1 OFFLOADING ARM 1 OF2 OFFLOADING ARM 2 OF3 OFFLOADING ARM 3 OF4 OFFLOADING ARM 4 LG1 LNG TANK 1 LG2 LNG TANK 2 LG3 LNG TANK 3 LG4 LNG TANK 4 LG5 LNG TANK 5 9 5 8 4
DWNFLD BOW, PORT SIDE DWNFLD BOW, STARB SIDE DWNFLD AFT, PORT SIDE DWNFLD AFT, STARB SIDE
- 79 -
ISODC Report
*TNKTBL JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT
1 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000-32.500 0.000 3 340.000-32.500 0.000 4 0.000-32.500 33.000 5 360.000-32.500 33.000 6 0.000 32.500 0.000 7 340.000 32.500 0.000 8 0.000 32.500 33.000 9 360.000 32.500 33.000 10 0.000-24.000 33.000 11 0.000 24.000 33.000 12 0.000-24.000 48.000 13 0.000 24.000 48.000 14 12.000-24.000 33.000 15 12.000 24.000 33.000 16 12.000-24.000 48.000 17 12.000 24.000 48.000 18 175.000-27.500 33.000 19 185.000-27.500 33.000 20 185.000-27.500 73.000 21 195.000-27.500 33.000 22 175.000-27.500 73.000 23 195.000-27.500 73.000 24 165.000-27.500 33.000 25 165.000-27.500 73.000 26 175.000-27.500 73.000 27 175.000-67.500 73.000 28 185.000-27.500 73.000 29 185.000-67.500 73.000 30 195.000-27.500 73.000 31 195.000-67.500 73.000 32 350.000 22.500 33.000 33 165.000-67.500 73.000 34 350.000 22.500 93.000 35 240.000 25.000 33.000 36 240.000 25.000 73.000 37 240.000 65.000 73.000 38 100.000-25.000 33.000 39 100.000-25.000 73.000 40 100.000-65.000 73.000 41 4.300-21.600 4.300 42 4.300 21.600 4.300 43 4.300-21.600 28.700 44 4.300 21.600 28.700 45 67.400-21.600 4.300 46 67.400 21.600 4.300 47 67.400-21.600 28.700 48 67.400 21.600 28.700 49 0.052-32.500 0.052 50 0.052-32.500 32.846 51 0.052-25.946 0.052 52 0.052-25.946 32.846 53 34.000-32.500 0.052 54 34.000-32.500 32.846 - 80 ISODC Report
JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT
55 34.000-25.946 0.052 56 71.400-21.600 4.300 57 71.400 21.600 4.300 58 71.400-21.600 28.700 59 71.400 21.600 28.700 60 134.500-21.600 4.300 61 134.500 21.600 4.300 62 134.500-21.600 28.700 63 134.500 21.600 28.700 64 138.500-21.600 4.300 65 138.500 21.600 4.300 66 138.500-21.600 28.700 67 138.500 21.600 28.700 68 201.600-21.600 4.300 69 201.600 21.600 4.300 70 201.600-21.600 28.700 71 201.600 21.600 28.700 72 205.600-21.600 4.300 73 205.600 21.600 4.300 74 205.600-21.600 28.700 75 205.600 21.600 28.700 76 268.700-21.600 4.300 77 268.700 21.600 4.300 78 268.700-21.600 28.700 79 268.700 21.600 28.700 80 272.700-21.600 4.300 81 272.700 21.600 4.300 82 272.700-21.600 28.700 83 272.700 21.600 28.700 84 335.800-21.600 4.300 85 335.800 21.600 4.300 86 335.800-21.600 28.700 87 335.800 21.600 28.700 88 34.000-25.946 32.846 96 34.104-32.500 0.052 97 34.104-32.500 32.846 98 34.104-25.946 0.052 99 34.104-25.946 32.846 100 68.052-32.500 0.052 101 68.052-32.500 32.846 102 68.052-25.946 0.052 103 68.052-25.946 32.846 104 68.155-32.500 0.052 105 68.155-32.500 32.846 106 68.155-25.946 0.052 107 68.155-25.946 32.846 108 102.103-32.500 0.052 109 102.103-32.500 32.846 110 102.103-25.946 0.052 111 102.103-25.946 32.846 112 102.207-32.500 0.052 113 102.207-32.500 32.846 114 102.207-25.946 0.052 115 102.207-25.946 32.846 116 136.155-32.500 0.052 117 136.155-32.500 32.846 - 81 ISODC Report
118 136.155-25.946 0.052 119 136.155-25.946 32.846 120 136.258-32.500 0.052 121 136.258-32.500 32.846 122 136.258-25.946 0.052 123 136.258-25.946 32.846 124 170.206-32.500 0.052 125 170.206-32.500 32.846 126 170.206-25.946 0.052 127 170.206-25.946 32.846 128 170.310-32.500 0.052 129 170.310-32.500 32.846 130 170.310-25.946 0.052 131 170.310-25.946 32.846 132 204.258-32.500 0.052 133 204.258-32.500 32.846 134 204.258-25.946 0.052 135 204.258-25.946 32.846 136 204.362-32.500 0.052 137 204.362-32.500 32.846 138 204.362-25.946 0.052 139 204.362-25.946 32.846 140 238.310-32.500 0.052 141 238.310-32.500 32.846 142 238.310-25.946 0.052 143 238.310-25.946 32.846 144 238.413-32.500 0.052 145 238.413-32.500 32.846 146 238.413-25.946 0.052 147 238.413-25.946 32.846 148 272.361-32.500 0.052 149 272.361-32.500 32.846 150 272.361-25.946 0.052 151 272.361-25.946 32.846 152 272.465-32.500 0.052 153 272.465-32.500 32.846 154 272.465-25.946 0.052 155 272.465-25.946 32.846 156 306.413-32.500 0.052 157 306.413-32.500 32.846 158 306.413-25.946 0.052 159 306.413-25.946 32.846 160 306.516-32.500 0.052 161 306.516-32.500 32.846 162 306.516-25.946 0.052 163 306.516-25.946 32.846 164 340.464-32.500 0.052 165 340.464-32.500 32.846 166 340.464-25.946 0.052 167 340.464-25.946 32.846 240 0.052 32.500 0.052 241 0.052 32.500 32.846 242 0.052 25.946 0.052 243 0.052 25.946 32.846 244 34.000 32.500 0.052 245 34.000 32.500 32.846 - 82 ISODC Report
246 34.000 25.946 0.052 247 34.000 25.946 32.846 248 34.104 32.500 0.052 249 34.104 32.500 32.846 250 34.104 25.946 0.052 251 34.104 25.946 32.846 252 68.052 32.500 0.052 253 68.052 32.500 32.846 254 68.052 25.946 0.052 255 68.052 25.946 32.846 256 68.155 32.500 0.052 257 68.155 32.500 32.846 258 68.155 25.946 0.052 259 68.155 25.946 32.846 260 102.103 32.500 0.052 261 102.103 32.500 32.846 262 102.103 25.946 0.052 263 102.103 25.946 32.846 264 102.207 32.500 0.052 265 102.207 32.500 32.846 266 102.207 25.946 0.052 267 102.207 25.946 32.846 268 136.155 32.500 0.052 269 136.155 32.500 32.846 270 136.155 25.946 0.052 271 136.155 25.946 32.846 272 136.258 32.500 0.052 273 136.258 32.500 32.846 274 136.258 25.946 0.052 275 136.258 25.946 32.846 276 170.206 32.500 0.052 277 170.206 32.500 32.846 278 170.206 25.946 0.052 279 170.206 25.946 32.846 280 170.310 32.500 0.052 281 170.310 32.500 32.846 282 170.310 25.946 0.052 283 170.310 25.946 32.846 284 204.258 32.500 0.052 285 204.258 32.500 32.846 286 204.258 25.946 0.052 287 204.258 25.946 32.846 288 204.362 32.500 0.052 289 204.362 32.500 32.846 290 204.362 25.946 0.052 291 204.362 25.946 32.846 292 238.310 32.500 0.052 293 238.310 32.500 32.846 294 238.310 25.946 0.052 295 238.310 25.946 32.846 296 238.413 32.500 0.052 297 238.413 32.500 32.846 298 238.413 25.946 0.052 299 238.413 25.946 32.846 300 272.361 32.500 0.052 301 272.361 32.500 32.846 - 83 ISODC Report
JOINT 302 272.361 25.946 0.052 JOINT 303 272.361 25.946 32.846 JOINT 304 272.465 32.500 0.052 JOINT 305 272.465 32.500 32.846 JOINT 306 272.465 25.946 0.052 JOINT 307 272.465 25.946 32.846 JOINT 308 306.413 32.500 0.052 JOINT 309 306.413 32.500 32.846 JOINT 310 306.413 25.946 0.052 JOINT 311 306.413 25.946 32.846 JOINT 312 306.516 32.500 0.052 JOINT 313 306.516 32.500 32.846 JOINT 314 306.516 25.946 0.052 JOINT 315 306.516 25.946 32.846 JOINT 316 340.464 32.500 0.052 JOINT 317 340.464 32.500 32.846 JOINT 318 340.464 25.946 0.052 JOINT 319 340.464 25.946 32.846 PANEL STB 4 5 3 2 PANEL PRT 6 7 9 8 PANEL TOP 8 9 5 4 PANEL BOT 6 2 3 7 PANEL AFT 4 2 6 8 PANEL W ACC 12 10 11 13 PANEL W ACC 16 17 15 14 PANEL W ACC 12 16 14 10 PANEL W ACC 13 11 15 17 PANEL W ACC 12 13 17 16 PANEL W ACC 10 14 15 11 PANEL RKE 5 9 7 3 CYLIND W OF1 18 22 5.000 CYLIND W OF2 19 20 5.000 CYLIND W OF3 21 23 5.000 CYLIND W OF4 24 25 5.000 CYLIND W OF1 25 33 5.000 CYLIND W OF2 26 27 5.000 CYLIND W OF3 28 29 5.000 CYLIND W OF4 30 31 5.000 CYLIND W FLR 32 34 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 35 36 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 36 37 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 39 40 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 38 39 5.000 BODY 1 T 0.45 100. LNG STORAGE TANKS (5 TOTAL) TNKDEF 0.45 0. 0. 3. 15. 3. 24. PANEL LG1 42 44 43 41 PANEL LG1 47 48 46 45 PANEL LG1 47 43 44 48 PANEL LG1 42 41 45 46 PANEL LG1 42 46 48 44 PANEL LG1 47 45 41 43 PANEL LG2 57 59 58 56 PANEL LG2 62 63 61 60 PANEL LG2 62 58 59 63 PANEL LG2 57 56 60 61 PANEL LG2 57 61 63 59 TAMU Team West Africa - 84 ISODC Report
PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL
LG2 LG3 LG3 LG3 LG3 LG3 LG3 LG4 LG4 LG4 LG4 LG4 LG4 LG5 LG5 LG5 LG5 LG5 LG5 2D S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 3D S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 4D S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 5D S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 6D S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 7D S6
56 58 66 64 69 68 67 71 68 69 71 67 64 66 74 72 77 76 75 79 76 77 79 75 72 74 82 80 85 84 83 87 84 85 87 83 80 82 BALLAST, STARB AFT (1) 49 51 52 50 54 88 55 53 50 52 88 54 52 51 55 88 51 49 53 55 50 54 53 49 BALLAST, STARB 2 96 98 99 97 101 103 102 100 97 99 103 101 99 98 102 103 98 96 100 102 97 101 100 96 BALLAST, STARB 3 104 106 107 105 109 111 110 108 105 107 111 109 107 106 110 111 106 104 108 110 105 109 108 104 BALLAST, STARB 4 112 114 115 113 117 119 118 116 113 115 119 117 115 114 118 119 114 112 116 118 113 117 116 112 BALLAST, STARB 5 120 122 123 121 125 127 126 124 121 123 127 125 123 122 126 127 122 120 124 126 121 125 124 120 BALLAST, STARB 6 128 130 131 129 - 85 ISODC Report
62 65 70 70 65 65 70 73 78 78 73 73 78 81 86 86 81 81 86
60 67 71 66 64 69 68 75 79 74 72 77 76 83 87 82 80 85 84
PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL
7D
8D
9D
10 D
11 D
12 D
13 D
14 D
134 132 135 133 134 135 132 134 132 128 BALLAST, STARB 7 S7 136 138 139 137 S7 141 143 142 140 S7 137 139 143 141 S7 139 138 142 143 S7 138 136 140 142 S7 137 141 140 136 BALLAST, STARB 8 S8 144 146 147 145 S8 149 151 150 148 S8 145 147 151 149 S8 147 146 150 151 S8 146 144 148 150 S8 145 149 148 144 BALLAST, STARB 9 S9 152 154 155 153 S9 157 159 158 156 S9 153 155 159 157 S9 155 154 158 159 S9 154 152 156 158 S9 153 157 156 152 BALLAST, STARB 10 S10 160 162 163 161 S10 165 167 166 164 S10 161 163 167 165 S10 163 162 166 167 S10 162 160 164 166 S10 161 165 164 160 BALLAST, PORT AFT (1) P1 241 243 242 240 P1 244 246 247 245 P1 245 247 243 241 P1 247 246 242 243 P1 246 244 240 242 P1 240 244 245 241 BALLAST, PORT 2 P2 249 251 250 248 P2 252 254 255 253 P2 253 255 251 249 P2 255 254 250 251 P2 254 252 248 250 P2 248 252 253 249 BALLAST, PORT 3 P3 257 259 258 256 P3 260 262 263 261 P3 261 263 259 257 P3 263 262 258 259 P3 262 260 256 258 P3 256 260 261 257 BALLAST, PORT 4 P4 265 267 266 264 - 86 ISODC Report
S6 S6 S6 S6 S6
133 129 131 130 129
135 131 130 128 133
PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL END
15 D
16 D
17 D
18 D
19 D
20 D
271 269 267 265 266 267 264 266 269 265 BALLAST, PORT 5 P5 273 275 274 272 P5 276 278 279 277 P5 277 279 275 273 P5 279 278 274 275 P5 278 276 272 274 P5 272 276 277 273 BALLAST, PORT 6 P6 281 283 282 280 P6 284 286 287 285 P6 285 287 283 281 P6 287 286 282 283 P6 286 284 280 282 P6 280 284 285 281 BALLAST, PORT 7 P7 289 291 290 288 P7 292 294 295 293 P7 293 295 291 289 P7 295 294 290 291 P7 294 292 288 290 P7 288 292 293 289 BALLAST, PORT 8 P8 297 299 298 296 P8 300 302 303 301 P8 301 303 299 297 P8 303 302 298 299 P8 302 300 296 298 P8 296 300 301 297 BALLAST, PORT 9 P9 305 307 306 304 P9 308 310 311 309 P9 309 311 307 305 P9 311 310 306 307 P9 310 308 304 306 P9 304 308 309 305 BALLAST, PORT 10 (BOW) P10 313 315 314 312 P10 316 318 319 317 P10 317 319 315 313 P10 319 318 314 315 P10 318 316 312 314 P10 312 316 317 313
P4 P4 P4 P4 P4
268 269 271 270 264
270 271 270 268 268
OUTPUT FILE: StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 Page 1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
- 87 -
ISODC Report
The following Nomenclature is used in the computer output: 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 Volume .. of submerged body Tilt Axis The angle of the tilt axis is measured from the posive x-axis Optimum tilt angle The minimum tilt angle at which the area ratio requirement is satisfied KG that satisfies : Heeling arm = Righting arm at or before the downflooding angle Static angle At which the righting moment is zero Area ratio = 1.0 For damage stability starting at the static angle RM/HM Ratio KG that satisfies the requirement : Righting Moment/Heeling Moment >or= 2 within 7 deg past static angle Equilibrium position tilt angle TAMU Team West Africa - 88 ISODC Report
When vessel is in equilibrium and not at the upright position, the positive angle indicate that the part of the vessel to the right of the tilt axis is immersed in water StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 Page 2 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
***
Hydrostatic Table
*** Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter
Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Reference Point for LCB & LCF (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 TAMU Team West Africa - 89 ISODC Report
11.40 11.60 11.80 12.00 12.20 12.40 12.60 12.80
11.40 11.60 11.80 12.00 12.20 12.40 12.60 12.80
260862.3 265485.7 270110.7 274737.3 279365.5 283995.3 288626.8 293259.8
231.14 231.22 231.28 231.34 231.47 231.50 231.62 231.69
1.73 1.76 1.79 1.82 1.86 1.89 1.92 1.95
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.72 5.82 5.92 6.02 6.12 6.22 6.32 6.42
3.44 3.52 3.58 3.66 3.68 3.78 3.82 3.88
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22550.3 22557.9 22564.0 22570.1 22582.3 22585.4 22597.6 22603.7
254499.8 259010.4 263522.6 268036.4 272551.7 277068.6 281587.1 286107.2
StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 Page 3
FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
***
Hydrostatic Table
/--- 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 Page 4 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS
***
Hydrostatic Table
/--- Draft ---/ Moment to Trim
/----- Water Plane -----/ With KG=0 With KG=0 /---------- Metacenter ---------/ /-- Moment Of Inertia --/ Moment to Heel
- 90 -
ISODC Report
AFT FWD Disp KMT KML BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal 0.01 Deg. 0.01 Deg. ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M^4) ( M^4) (M.Ton-M) (M.Ton-M) ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------------ ----------- -------------- -------------5.00 5.00 113767.2 73.23 1972.03 70.73 1969.53 7850407. 218602848. 1454.1 39156.9 5.20 5.20 118338.9 70.62 1898.02 68.02 1895.41 7853002. 218830528. 1458.7 39201.7 5.40 5.40 122912.2 68.22 1829.54 65.51 1826.84 7855877. 219064096. 1463.4 39247.8 5.60 5.60 127487.1 65.99 1765.98 63.18 1763.18 7858744. 219300272. 1468.3 39294.4 5.80 5.80 132063.7 63.92 1706.76 61.02 1703.86 7861454. 219529648. 1473.3 39340.0 6.00 6.00 136641.8 62.00 1651.55 58.99 1648.54 7864266. 219765936. 1478.6 39387.0 6.20 6.20 141221.6 60.21 1599.91 57.10 1596.81 7867306. 220003264. 1484.0 39434.3 6.40 6.40 145803.0 58.53 1551.38 55.32 1548.18 7869570. 220223264. 1489.4 39478.7 6.60 6.60 150386.0 56.96 1505.88 53.66 1502.58 7872366. 220455296. 1495.1 39525.4 6.80 6.80 154970.6 55.50 1463.13 52.09 1459.73 7875328. 220697184. 1501.0 39574.0 7.00 7.00 159556.8 54.12 1422.80 50.61 1419.30 7878375. 220934992. 1507.1 39622.1 7.20 7.20 164144.6 52.82 1384.68 49.21 1381.07 7881005. 221166704. 1513.2 39669.2 7.40 7.40 168734.1 51.60 1348.57 47.89 1344.86 7883518. 221389648. 1519.5 39715.0 7.60 7.60 173325.1 50.44 1314.41 46.64 1310.60 7886078. 221619008. 1526.0 39762.0 7.80 7.80 177917.8 49.36 1282.16 45.45 1278.25 7889662. 221876400. 1532.8 39814.2 8.00 8.00 182512.1 48.33 1251.25 44.32 1247.24 7891525. 222084496. 1539.5 39857.8 8.20 8.20 187108.0 47.36 1222.10 43.25 1217.99 7894912. 222337232. 1546.6 39909.5 8.40 8.40 191705.5 46.44 1194.25 42.23 1190.04 7897664. 222573072. 1553.7 39958.4 8.60 8.60 196304.7 45.56 1167.65 41.25 1163.34 7900308. 222799216. 1561.0 40005.6 8.80 8.80 200905.5 44.73 1142.30 40.32 1137.89 7902972. 223031776. 1568.5 40054.2 9.00 9.00 205507.8 43.94 1118.15 39.43 1113.63 7906088. 223278512. 1576.2 40105.5 9.20 9.20 210111.8 43.19 1094.98 38.58 1090.36 7908732. 223510576. 1584.0 40154.3 9.40 9.40 214717.4 42.48 1072.78 37.77 1068.07 7911412. 223739664. 1591.9 40202.8 9.60 9.60 219324.7 41.80 1051.53 36.99 1046.72 7913985. 223971760. 1600.0 40252.0 9.80 9.80 223933.5 41.15 1031.19 36.24 1026.27 7917050. 224211328. 1608.4 40302.6
- 91 -
ISODC Report
10.00 40353.0 10.20 40404.8 10.40 40451.8 10.60 40504.7 10.80 40554.1 11.00 40608.2 11.20 40658.0 11.40 40709.8 11.60 40759.8 11.80 40811.0 12.00 40863.5 12.20 40917.8 12.40 40968.3 12.60 41021.6 12.80 41073.2
10.00 228543.9 40.53 1011.65 35.52 1006.63 10.20 233156.0 39.95 992.91 34.83 987.79 10.40 237769.7 39.38 974.78 34.16 969.56 10.60 242385.0 38.84 957.46 33.53 952.15 10.80 247001.9 38.33 940.71 32.91 935.29 11.00 251620.4 37.84 924.68 32.32 919.16 11.20 256240.5 37.36 909.12 31.75 903.50 11.40 260862.3 36.91 894.15 31.20 888.43 11.60 265485.7 36.48 879.66 30.66 873.84 11.80 270110.7 36.07 865.68 30.15 859.76 12.00 274737.3 35.67 852.20 29.65 846.18 12.20 279365.5 35.29 839.19 29.17 833.07 12.40 283995.3 34.93 826.53 28.70 820.31 12.60 288626.8 34.58 814.33 28.25 808.00 12.80 293259.8 34.24 802.47 27.82 796.05
7919694. 224448192. 7922686. 224692464. 7924928. 224909024. 7928140. 225157168. 7930530. 225384992. 7933845. 225638752. 7936330. 225867120. 7939227. 226105296. 7941616. 226332944. 7944182. 226566224. 7947082. 226806320. 7950380. 227055376. 7952710. 227282032. 7955568. 227523376. 7958260. 227754272.
1616.8 1625.5 1634.2 1643.2 1652.3 1661.7 1671.1 1680.7 1690.4 1700.3 1710.4 1720.8 1731.1 1741.8 1752.5
***
Hydrostatic Table
/----- Water Plane -----/ With KG=0 With KG=0 /--- Draft ---/ /---------- Metacenter ---------/ /-- Moment Of Inertia --/ Moment to Heel Moment to Trim AFT FWD Disp KMT KML BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal 0.01 Deg. 0.01 Deg. ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M^4) ( M^4) (M.Ton-M) (M.Ton-M) ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------------ ----------- -------------- -------------13.00 13.00 297894.5 33.92 791.08 27.39 784.55 7961468. 228013152. 1763.5 41129.9
- 92 -
ISODC Report
13.20 41181.0 13.40 41234.6 13.60 41286.3 13.80 41344.1 14.00 41394.4 14.20 41449.3 14.40 41504.3 14.60 41556.6 14.80 41614.8 15.00 41667.3
13.20 302530.8 33.61 779.92 26.98 773.30 13.40 307168.7 33.31 769.14 26.59 762.42 13.60 311808.2 33.02 758.65 26.20 751.82 13.80 316449.4 32.75 748.57 25.82 741.64 14.00 321092.1 32.49 738.64 25.46 731.61 14.20 325736.5 32.23 729.08 25.10 721.95 14.40 330382.5 31.99 719.78 24.76 712.55 14.60 335030.1 31.75 710.69 24.42 703.36 14.80 339679.3 31.53 701.94 24.10 694.51 15.00 344330.1 31.31 693.33 23.78 685.80
7964088. 228239600. 7966944. 228478816. 7969370. 228706656. 7972528. 228967824. 7974938. 229185760. 7977638. 229428800. 7980468. 229671808. 7983038. 229897968. 7986286. 230156864. 7988608. 230382416.
1774.6 1785.9 1797.2 1808.9 1820.6 1832.5 1844.6 1856.8 1869.3 1881.8
Friday 3/12/2004 15:25: 9 Input File Name:X:\STABCAD\FSRU-LOADED-INTACT Output File Name:X:\STABCAD\FSRU-LOADED-INTACT.OT9 * * * Problem Description * * * Number Of Joints ............. 240 Number Of Plates ............. 162 Number Of Cylinders .......... 13 Number Of Stations ........... 0
Total Execution time =
0: 0: 0
(000)
- 93 -
ISODC Report

Fsru LNG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fsru LNG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN OF A FLOATING STORAGE AND REGASIFICATION UNIT (FSRU) FOR OFFSHORE WEST AFRICA

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

Must survive a 100-year storm event

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

Periods of maximum wave: 13.4 s, 13.6 s, and 13.8 s

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

Flow Diagram of the LNG Regasification Process

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5

TAMU Team West Africa

One hour sustained

One Hour Sustained Wind Speed Directional Distribution

Wave Direction and Distribution for 100 Year Return Period

Wave Characteristics and Direction Distribution

TAMU Team West Africa

Current Distribution for 100 Year Return Period (m/s)

Surface 25% depth 75% depth Bottom

Current Direction Distribution

Social and Political Issues

Sustainability and Manufacturability

Table 3 General Task Editing Design Recorder Research Project Manager

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

Jan 25, '04 S S M T W T

Feb 15, '04 S S M T W T

Feb 22, '04 S S M T W T

Feb 29, '04 S S M T W T

Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, January 25 through March 14

TAMU Team West Africa

Mar 14, '04 S M T W T

Mar 21, '04 S S M T W T

Mar 28, '04 S S M T W T

Apr 11, '04 S M T W T

Apr 18, '04 S M T W T

Apr 25, '04 S S M T W T

Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, March 14 through May 5

TAMU Team West Africa

Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

TAMU Team West Africa

General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design

TAMU Team West Africa

Ship Shape Barge with Spherical Tanks

Ship-Shape Barge with Turret Mooring

TAMU Team West Africa

Catamaran Hull with SPB Tanks

Catamaran Hull with Spread Mooring

TAMU Team West Africa

Catamaran Hull with Single-Point Mooring

Selected Design and General Layout

TAMU Team West Africa

Ship Shape Barge

Well-established and proven design Flexibility in selecting mooring systems

Constructability constraint (length and width of hull)