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

TAMU Team West Africa

-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 Carrier’s 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

TAMU Team West Africa

-2-

ISODC Report

........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52 Chain Characteristics......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined............... Area Classifications for Environmental Loading Spreadsheet ........................................................... 48 Environmental Data for Wind and Current Loading ............................................... 49 Wind and Wave Loading Calculations Spreadsheet for 100 Year Storm................................ 52 Environmental Forces for 1. 28 Masses of Terminal Components (Lightship) ................. 51 Environmental Forces for 100-Year Return Period ....................................................... 59 Displacement of LNG Terminal ..................Year Return Period................................................................................................................................................................... 61 LNGC Displacement with 60° Heading ..... 62 TAMU Team West Africa -3- ISODC Report ................Competency Tasks................................................... 14 Team Assignment ......................................... 55 Loading Percentages For 5.... 39 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Uncoupled Natural Periods in Heave............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Area Moment of Inertia ................ 41 Weight and Location of Point Loads ..................................... 17 Team Assignments .......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 ............ 18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Catamaran Hull and Ship Shape Barge.......... 55 Maximum Tensions for Different Lengths of 4................................. 52 Environmental Forces for 10-Year Return Period............ 61 Cost Analysis......................................5.........5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event .............................................................................................................................................. 57 Heave Period for Vessel (Unloaded and Loaded) .............................................. 54 Maximum Tensions For 100 Year Survival Condition...... 40 Stability Under Different Damage Scenarios .................................................... 4 Inch Chain For API Intact Case .... 42 Weight and Location of Distributed Loads........................................................................................................... 14 Current Characteristics ........................................ 38 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Aft Ballast Tank .......................................................................................... and Roll for the Vessel.............................................. 43 Comparison of the Three Load Cases....... Pitch........................................ 34 Centers of Mass and Drafts in Loaded/Unloaded Conditions ............................... 4.............................. 35 Stability Criteria for Intact Condition....................................................................................................................General Roles .................

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 ρ TotalSAwetted SAi.below waterline S(f) T ∀ ω ωn γ γA TAMU Team West Africa -4- ISODC Report .

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 TAMU Team West Africa -5- ISODC Report . as well as design constraints imposed by ConocoPhillips concerning operational expectations. so alternative resources are being investigated by the energy industry to address the deficit in energy production. 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. and because of the impending energy shortage. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is one of the alternatives being explored. Six members of Texas A&M University’s 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). Recent advancements in technology have given energy companies the ability to transport and deliver LNG long distances.Executive Summary Introduction: The world’s energy demand is growing far more rapidly than the energy industry can supply. 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.

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. the team began its analysis. The first option consisted of a ship-shape barge with Moss (spherical) LNG tanks located longitudinally along the beam of the terminal. General Arrangements: The team considered three design alternatives. the team decided to design the terminal as a shipshape barge with LNG tanks contained within the hull.• Must survive a 100-year storm event With these parameters defined. SPB tanks are advantageous in that they are independent from the hull structure and the geometry of the tanks can be designed to conform to the hull’s final shape. but with single-point (turret) mooring. The third option was the same catamaran hull. After careful consideration and input from industry representatives. with twin hulls bridged by a large square platform and spread-moored to the sea floor. 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. for a total of ten tanks. This system was selected because of the internal flexibility of the hoses and the added range of TAMU Team West Africa -6- ISODC Report . A double-hull layout was a direct effect of this ballast configuration. The ballast tanks were designed as five adjacent J-tanks on each side of the terminal. The second option was catamaran-shaped.

The possibility exists that these mechanisms will not be available from Technip-Coflexip upon project completion. the smallest calculated allowable KG is 36. The mechanical arms have a smaller overall range of displacement. The smallest allowable KG value in the damaged condition was calculated using the same procedure as the intact TAMU Team West Africa -7- ISODC Report . If the vessel’s KG is larger than any of the allowable values. including the hull. ballast tanks.6 m. the draft remains constant at 11. a contingency design using conventional mechanical arms designed by FMC has been considered. In addition. The lightship mass of the terminal. After simulating the terminal and running the analysis for the intact vessel. a graphically-oriented simulation program. With the estimated lightship weight determined and the dimensions of the ship optimized. which in turn depends on the lightship weight. One of the design constraints is that the terminal must maintain a constant draft so that the terminal’s vertical position remains unchanged as it takes on cargo from berthing carriers. The actual KG of the terminal is 17. the vessel is unstable.6 m.displacement within the support booms. Whether the terminal is loaded or unloaded. and topside equipment.4 m. which is lower than the smallest allowable KG value. Stability: The overall stability of the terminal is a function of the draft. StabCAD calculates the maximum KG a vessel can have while remaining stable under different stability criteria. therefore.235 tonnes. ABS requires that the ship maintain stability when two adjacent ballast tanks are damaged simultaneously. requiring more stringent design constraints and thus giving the team versatility in using either offloading system without a significant redesign or reanalysis. is 91. The FSRU is therefore stable in its intact condition. the team conducted a stability analysis using StabCAD. LNG tanks.

3 s.000 kN were treated as point loads whereas weights greater than 3. Three load cases were evaluated for the global loading analysis.0 s. 2.45x107cm2-m2. topside structures. the terminal meets the ABS damaged stability requirements. which yielded 1. and the third case is where one wave crest is located at mid-ship. and buoyancy. The second load case is where two wave crests are located at the bow and stern. The terminal’s KG value is lower than the smallest allowable KG for both a single tank damaged and two adjacent tanks damaged.66 m. These loads include the weights of the vessel.analysis. and 3. but with different stability criteria. Weights lower than 3. The moment of inertia was calculated using ABS guidelines. The environmental conditions for the 40-meter water depth for the 1-year. The inertia was then used with the cross-sectional area to determine a minimum hull plate thickness of 0. 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. and 15. Therefore. LNG. representing still water. Environmental Conditions: After obtaining the raw environmental data from ConocoPhillips. Load case two produced the largest shear and moment magnitudes. 10-year.032m (1. and 100-year return periods were determined to be: • • Significant wave heights: 2. The last two cases are the worst-case scenarios.29 m.04 m Peak periods: 15. These values are in compliance with those calculated from ABS requirements.5 s TAMU Team West Africa -8- ISODC Report . The first is in the calmest conditions where the buoyancy force is distributed evenly along the keel. 15.000 kN were treated as distributed loads. the data was shoaled to the depth at the terminal.25in).

7 kN.9 kN As the results indicate. roll.4 s. and heave is essential for determining the terminal’s ability to achieve the given design constraints.6 s.0m vertical and ± 1. The periods were computed and produced the following results for unloaded and loaded conditions. none of the periods corresponding to each degree of freedom coincide with the environmental peak periods. 4165. 13.7m horizontal) of the FMC mechanical offloading arms for vertical displacement.74 s and 10.37 s and 5.7 kN. 1128. resonance will not occur.37 s Roll: 9. therefore. Hydrodynamics: Establishing the natural periods in pitch.1 kN.8 kN. respectively.8 kN.23 m occurs when the two vessels are 180 degrees out of phase.1 kN Quartering Seas: 949.74 s Pitch: 5. 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 forces for the 1. 10.8 kN. and 1463. and 13. This displacement is within allowable tolerances (± 2.39 s These results also indicate that heave will produce the largest displacement. in the three headings were calculated to be: • • • Bow Seas: 698.• Periods of maximum wave: 13.3 kN Beam Seas: 3436. The maximum displacement of 2. and 100 year return periods.30 s and 9. and 1090.8 s Those conditions were used to calculate the environmental forces. The terminal will therefore be oriented with the bow facing in the southwest direction. respectively: • • • Heave: 10. Since the TAMU Team West Africa -9- ISODC Report . and 5328. After careful analysis. 827.

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. which is 45% of the breaking strength of the 114. At current market prices. 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 expected maximum tension for a 100-year return is 5. A mooring system consisting of 12 lines (three lines per vessel quadrant) made up of 114.FMC arms have a smaller allowable displacement than the “In-Air Flexibles”.693kN and 5.3 mm inch chain (12. and contingency. The mooring system must not fail during a 100-year event. Spain is the least-expensive location. Cost Analysis: ConocoPhillips provided Team West Africa with the unit cost of each terminal component for three shipyards in Korea. The mooring design for the regasification terminal is a spread system due to the benign and directional nature of the environmental conditions.685kN respectively. Line tensions under damaged and intact cases are 9. The radius of the watch circle can be no more than 25% of the water depth. Japan.3 mm (4. including construction. and Spain respectively. The system therefore remains intact in a 100-year event.10 - ISODC Report . Mooring/Station Keeping: The mooring system must be designed to satisfy maximum tensions and offset requirements as specified by API. TAMU Team West Africa . These values are both below the 25% allowed by API. is US $563 million. In each instance. the terminal motion meets the requirements for both offloading systems.5 in) chain was assessed.440kN). The total cost for constructing the FSRU in Spain.3 meters for damaged lines.685 kN. transportation. or 10 meters at the current location.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dr. Lovett. ARUP J. O’Sullivan. Thomas. Robert Randall. Lloyd’s Register Tor Skjelby. Technip-Coflexip G. DNV Sam Hwong. Engineering Dynamics Inc (StabCAD) Brittany Goldsmith. Foster Wheeler R. KBR (Mimosa) David Garland.11 - ISODC Report .Acknowledgements Team West Africa would like to thank the following individuals and companies. Batavia. SBM-Imodco C. KBR (StabCAD) Mike Brannan. Remora Technology Rune Nyvseen. Bradley. for their assistance and guidance throughout the course of the project. without whom the project would not have been completed. Consultant Bill Westcott. ConocoPhillips Nick Heather. Pepper. ConocoPhillips Rodney King. ConocoPhillips Jack Mercier. Bechtel G. DNV (Mimosa) Ravi Kota. Global Maritime Bill Kenney. Aker Kvaerner G. TAMU Peter Noble. FMC Energy System J. Olsen. ConocoPhillips TAMU Team West Africa .

Some regions that have unexploited natural gas reserves. the natural gas is cooled and converted into liquid. it creates significantly less pollution than many other forms of energy. At the terminal. It burns cleaner. which generates an immense need for imported gas. The LNG is stored and then shipped on a carrier to a regasification terminal where it will be returned to its gaseous state. which is then transferred by pipelines to a terminal. As a result.12 - ISODC Report . would like to monetize their ample resources. TAMU Team West Africa . for example the Middle East. there is a constant increase in the utilization of gas. LNG is becoming more feasible because of recent improvements in technology (Share 2003). such as North America and Europe. The advances will allow the cost of LNG carriers and tankers to decrease. A diagram of the regasification process can be seen in Figure 1. This decrease in production is occurring because the gas sources are no longer able to sustain the current production level. Another influential factor is the lack of gas production in nations that require the most gas. Natural gas is rapidly becoming the fuel of choice for today’s industry. in its natural state. making this method even more achievable than previously thought. According to the International Energy Agency. are experiencing a decline in gas supplies due to a decrease in gas production. Another positive aspect of natural gas is the decrease in production cost in the future with each advance in technology.1 Background Many areas worldwide. The gas travels from the terminal through pipelines to be distributed. That fact is important to today’s society because it is becoming much more environmentally concerned than before. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) appears to be the best option to appease the constant demand of gas. Lastly. 28% of global energy usage will come from gas by 2025 due to a 2. The operation of LNG essentially began in the 1960s when an LNG trade began between Algeria and the UK. A natural gas reservoir is drilled to extract the natural gas. other sources of gas production are being examined.8% per year rise in gas expenditure (Robertson 2004).1 Introduction 1. hence. Presently.

The engineering companies are contracted for their specialization and expertise in certain areas of offshore projects. the demand for natural gas is so large that suppliers are having a hard time keeping up. Batavia. The final topic covered for the day dealt with the off-loading systems utilized in the market. and R. Currently.Figure 1 Flow Diagram of the LNG Regasification Process Many large countries are interested in these new types of facilities. The selected site should also be able to regasify at an output of 1 billion cubic feet per day. however. laws are making offshore terminals more feasible. Each topic had one or two speakers for a total of 13 presentations.13 ISODC Report . Tor Skjelby from Det Norske Vertias (DNV) supplied crucial descriptions and functions of the independent and dependent containment systems. 2004 in Houston. Recent changes to U. Sam Hwong. Specifically. topsides.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. Some references to codes and standards were also identified. as well as be able to store the LNG tanker’s entire supply. provided insight as to the re-gasification process and layout. The overall presentations were informative. The industry lectures essentially covered six topics. 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 growth of offshore LNG terminals will become vital components in the future of the world’s energy systems. China is considering building three such terminals. The purpose was to introduce the spring 2004 senior design teams to industry engineering consulting firms that work with ConocoPhillips. 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. on February 6. from Bechtel. In fact.S. as well as innovative new designs that need TAMU Team West Africa . 1. Texas. ConocoPhillips hosted a term project meeting. Two more countries interested in offshore LNG production are Canada and the United States (Value 2003). The design must be able to operate in a water depth of 40 meters. 1. and the loading/off-loading systems were of particular interest for team West Africa. the topics pertaining to LNG containment. from Foster Wheeler.3 Field Trip It is essential for a successful report to have innovative and intelligent ideas.

5 Environment The weather off the coast of West Africa is very benign. 1.0 0. the original values for wind speed and current speed were used. Data provided by ConocoPhillips were only applicable for the 20-30 meter water depth.20 2. Those dimensions will help determine the relative position of the connection between the tanker and the terminal. Bradley.testing and approval. Upper management is providing physical dimensions of three nominal LNG carriers. The regasification terminal must be able to sustain unloading operations in a 1-year storm event. which requires approval. as well as for the whole class.14 - ISODC Report . Since the wind and current are not dependent upon the depth of the water. Ks = H = H0 n 0 L0 nL (1) The shoaled wave characteristics can be found in Table 1. from FMC.5 seconds. The physical properties include: length. TAMU Team West Africa .54 meters with a period of 15. The field trip was impressive and educational for the team members of West Africa.4 Design Constraints According to ConocoPhillips. vessel drafts.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. In addition.54 15. Table 1 Shoaled Wave Characteristics 3. Since the given depth at site is 40 meters the data given had to first be reverse shoaled using the standard shoaling equation. 1.3 meters.03 375. presented a mechanical arm off-loading system that has been proven in the oil industry and LPG delivery.5 The significant wave height at the given site is 2. J. O’Sullivan from Technip-Coflexip introduced his company’s prototype of the flexible pipe for off-loading. yet it is still unproven in the LNG market.03 and 375. shown below. and height of manifolds above the waterline. This method is not new to oil delivery systems.6 0.50 236. it must be able to survive a 100-year storm event. The corresponding wavelengths at this location are 236. breadth. The terminal must also be able to deliver natural gas to the shore in a 10-year storm event.8 0. G. the facility must be able to process one billion cubic feet of gas per day. Table 2 shows the current with respect to depth.

One hour sustained distribution for 100 Year Return Period (m/s) N 15. TAMU Team West Africa . Figure 3 .00 E One hour sustained S 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.00 10. Wave Direction and Distribution for 100 Year Return Period N 20. This figure shows a correlation between the directions of the prominent winds and waves.The directions of the winds. and currents are displayed in Figure 2. This figure suggests the majority of the wind coming from the southwest.00 5.00 E S Figure 3 Wave Characteristics and Direction Distribution Figure 3 contains a large amount of valuable data. waves.00 5. 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.00 15.00 10.00 W 0. This correlates with the wind data in Figure 2. and Figure 4 below.15 - ISODC Report . southwest.00 Peak wave period (s) Max wave period (s) Max wave height (m) Sig wave height (m) W 0.

Currently.” The locals’ resistance can significantly impede the project.7 Sustainability and Manufacturability The selection of the shipyard in which to build the proposed facility is of vital importance. violence has increased significantly in the surrounding area. The risks of LNG are frequently misinterpreted by the public. An offshore terminal would also decrease transportation costs since it would bring the production facilities closer to the gas reservoir. any removal of the materials without the Nigerian government’s approval is illegal. however establishing the terminals are difficult. 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.00 W E Surface 25% depth 75% depth Bottom S Figure 4 Current Direction Distribution Figure 4 shows the current direction and intensity distribution. “Under the Nigerian constitution. As a result. 1.16 ISODC Report . If the terminal is over the horizon. However. TAMU Team West Africa . In an effort to mitigate the numerous obstacles involved in overcoming NIMBY opposition. crude oil theft is such a frequent occurrence that it accounts for 10% of the daily production.80 0. The frequency of the theft is indicative of an entrenched and well-organized criminal element. Because the current distribution is independent of the wind and wave forces. Fortunately.40 0. all minerals.20 0. 1.6 Social and Political Issues The regasification terminals are necessary for the production process.60 0. oil and gas in Nigeria belong to the federal government.Current Distribution for 100 Year Return Period (m/s) N 1.00 0. local opposition would drop significantly. as the production costs are directly tied to the market conditions within the shipbuilding industry. specifically Nigeria. several of the larger shipyards have websites with information for potential clients which aided in shipyard selection. The terminal is oriented so that the bow is facing southwest. companies are researching offshore regasification terminals. which represents “Not In My Backyard. An acronym for the local opposition controversy is NIMBY. 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. analysis using Mimosa and StabCad was used to determine how much of an effect the current has on the beam of the terminal. American forces are stationed in the Niger Delta to assist with security. and thus out of sight. Illegal oil bunkering is a substantial issue in West Africa.” (HRW 2003) Consequently.

III. illustrate a few of the different contractors with adequate facilities for the FSRU terminal project. keeping the project on time.htm IZAR http://www.17 - ISODC Report .do Astilleros Cardama http://www. If for any reason the shipyard was unable to complete construction of the facility.enbazan.asp The manufacturability of the FSRU design itself is also of paramount importance.com/english/others. a narrower design could be relocated to another shipyard instead of being locked into a single yard. 1.8 Team Organization This team is comprised of six members.Names of companies with web-site links: I. In order to keep construction costs down. 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. it was necessary to limit the dimensions of the terminal’s hull to a reasonable trade off between the breadth and length. and Astilleros Cardama. all located in Spain. instead of competing with equally-capable shipyards for the contract. The Zamakona Ship Yard. several potential shipyards have been identified. In this case. everyone is assigned to five out of the eight required areas of competency shown below in Table 4.astilleroscardama.dll/portalizar/jsp/home. An overly wide breadth in the design would mean that only a small number of shipyards would be large enough to build the vessel. First it allows for competitive pricing between the shipyards. Rolla Wattinger Steven Schaefer In addition to the general tasks. 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. Secondly. This approach has two benefits associated with it.com/castellano/principal.es/cgi-bin/run. Table 3 General Task Editing Design Recorder Research Project Manager Team Assignment . Zamakona Ship Yard http://astilleroszamakona.General Roles Member Jennifer Dupalo. II. it reduces any potential scheduling conflicts. Each member has a general role for the overall design and presentation of the project shown in Table 3. TAMU Team West Africa . Regan Miller Everyone April Van Valkenburg Flor Foreman. IZAR. For the particular dimensions of the West Africa terminal.

Rolla Wattinger Flor Foreman. TAMU Team West Africa . April Van Valkenburg. Buoyancy and Stability (StabCAD) Environmental Loading Mooring/Station Keeping Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading Cost Report Formatting/Editing Meetings were set for Mondays. Steven Schaefer Everyone Regan Miller. Additional meeting times also scheduled as the project progressed. Friday meetings occurred when there was no industry speaker scheduled for that time. The chart is divided into two figures for readability purposes. Rolla Wattinger April Van Valkenburg. Regan Miller.18 - ISODC Report .Competency Tasks MEMBER Flor Foreman. Regan Miller. Jennifer Dupalo. and Fridays from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Steven Schaefer Jennifer Dupalo. Wednesdays.Table 4 Team Assignments . Jennifer Dupalo ASSIGNMENTS Regulatory Compliance General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Designs (AutoCAD) Weight. Rolla Wattinger. 1. Regan Miller.9 Gantt Charts Gantt charts are used to break down the complexity of the project into smaller assignments. Flor Foreman. Steven Schaefer Everyone April Van Valkenburg.

'04 S M T W T F S Feb 8. January 25 through March 14 TAMU Team West Africa ISODC Report . '04 S S M T W T F S Mar 7. '04 S S M T W T F S Feb 1. '04 S M T W T F Feb 15. '04 S M T W T F S Mar S 3/12 Figure 5 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa.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 Feb 22. '04 S S M T W T F Feb 29.

'04 S S M T W T F May 2. '04 S S M T W T F Apr 4. '04 S M T W T F Mar 21.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 S M T W T F S Apr 11. '04 S M T W T F Apr 25. '04 S S M T W 4/2 4/30 5 Figure 6 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa. March 14 through May 5 TAMU Team West Africa ISODC Report . '04 S S M T W T F Mar 28. '04 S M T W T F S Apr 18.

1. Alarm systems should comply with the following ABS standards.1.3). 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 and 3-3/5.1. The flow lines and manifolds. gas and smoke). For the safety of personnel there should be means of escape in which • • • • • • Team West Africa -21- ISODC Report . There locations must also follow standards design code. The system must include safety sensors and self-acting devices in case of over-pressuring or to simply “maintain normal process parameters.” • General arrangement of the facility. living quarters. atmospheric discharge. There needs to be at least 2 emergency control stations.1a).1 Regulatory Compliance The design must meet classification guidelines from several public. (5) wind and current loading.7 respectively. This ensures safety systems will be totally independent from the main system in case of a failure or emergency situations.” A pressure relief system must be built. Detectors (fire. and stability.11 (ABS 2000). (3) weight. The safety system is also required to have a fire and gas detection system as well as a process Emergency Shutdown system (ESO). there are also guidelines to follow. buoyancy. (6) mooring/station keeping.5. 2. (2) general arrangement and overall hull/system design.3 requirements.13 of ABS. detection wiring and general alarm systems should comply with codes (3-8/7a).1. 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). 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. and storage tanks can be found in 3-3/5. There will be stations where certain actions will be taken if a failure does occur (37/11. Atmospheric conditions. Locations of flares and vents are dependent on the directions of the winds. and structural considerations for the process deck in 3-3/5. heat radiation from elevated flares. used to transport either gas or liquid. according to API 14C code. Natural gas compressors and pumps must be built in accordance with ABS codes. have to follow API RP 14E standards. which follow the API RP 2A building code.13a).3. 33/5. and other parameters will need to be examined further before their construction can begin. The design must have a safety system that meets 3-3/7.3. Constraints regarding corrosion and the effects of marine life must correspond to 3-3/7. such as 3-3/13. (7) hydrodynamics of moorings and loading. to prevent catastrophic failure (3-3/11).2 Competency Areas The final design of the offshore LNG terminal must satisfy design requirements in eight general competency areas: (1) regulatory compliance. private. API and ABS are the two primary codes that are focused on for this project because of the relatively high cost of obtaining detailed regulations from other agencies such as DNV and Lloyd’s. The alarm system should have built in testing systems that do not disturb the normal operating system (3-7/3. (4) global loading.11 and 17. “Compressors are to apply with applicable API standards such as API Std 617” stated in 3-3/17.5a). and (8) cost. In case of a spill. These items can be found in regulations 3-3/7. alarm panels. and international regulatory agencies.

22 - ISODC Report . The life of the mooring lines need to be 3 times that of the design service life (API 2SK 5. 1.7. These systems should be designed for system overloading and fatigue.2 discusses the area three meters above the Open Deck Over Crude Storage Tanks.) Ice and snow 4. which are to be considered as Class I.1a). Surfaces that are at risk of becoming extremely hot must be insulated for personnel protection.1) determine the elasticity in lb/ft of stretch. spillage protection and combustible gases (3-8/17.9a) • The life saving requirements can be found in 3-8/15. • (2) There also needs to be a designed fatigue life for permanent moorings.) Currents 3. 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. The equations found in (API 2SK 6.) Tides and Storm surges 5. Engineers must look at significant height and period for when ever the terminal is operating (3-4/9b). one life jacket per person. “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.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 5.8). • • TAMU Team West Africa . This section covers the capacity of the life boats and life rafts.5 and 5. Waves are also a very influential part in the design process of the structure. When looking at wave induced vessel motion response on must consider first order and lower frequency motions (3-4/9. one work vest per person. There must be at least four buoys. meaning the conditions of the see floor must be adequate for sustaining the anchor and mooring system. and a breathing apparatus for each person.) Waves 6.” For this analysis the T-N approach is a method most often used found in (API 2FPI 6). API 2FPI 3.5a. In addition.5.7.) Air and sea temperature 2. everybody on the terminal should have a fireman’s outfit so as to meet requirements of SOLAS (3-8/11. • • • • 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 5.1b which help to calculate wind pressure and wind velocity. Wind loading has several equations from 3-4/7. These equations are to be used to build the structure accordingly.the escape route is in accordance with ABS.5a) The following environmental conditions must be considered to determine loading parameters (34/3b).3b) ABS 3-6/15.) Winds Current forces are calculated by using the equation in 3-4/5b.9. Division 2. The soil conditions should be determined for the indented site of the anchoring system.

the time varying motions are “calculated from the vessels. a fixed water spray is installed to maintain a cool environment for the equipment.1 Fire Safety In the case that of a fire on the facility. • • • 2. The helipad station also has a fire fighting requirement that it must follow. surge.23 - ISODC Report . pitch.” The valves on the system must pass fire test acceptances according to ABS standards. The piping system should be maintained against corrosion. The water spray system’s material is design from and must comply with a list of ABS standards found in (ABS 3-8/5.2). mean wind and mean wave drift forces . and offshore environmental exposures. a fixed water fire fighting systems should be provided. mildew. The Quasi-Static approach can be found in API RP 2P.5 inches. If the engineers decide to put drains in the facility. electric cables. Pump drivers can be operated by diesel engines.” The maximum and significant wave frequency line tension is a parameter that has to be examined when designing the mooring line. and yaw motions. The primary connections and the standby pumps must be as far from each other as possible. then it would not affect both pumps. The operability and control for this system is also carefully addressed by ABS.1. Several programs such as Hydrodynamic Analysis. The first is known as Quasi-Static Analysis and the other is known as the Dynamic Analysis. The plastics on the system are required to also meet guidelines written by ABS. make analysis for extreme responses. etc. specifically (ABS3-5. Both the primary and standby fire pumps should be able to sustain “the maximum probable water demand. Their placement on the vessel should be such that if a fire occurs. They have to be comprised of a non-collapsible material with a maximum length of 100 ft. The dynamic approach. which cause the extreme amount of load (API RP 2FPI 3.Wave frequency vessel motions The mooring systems consider wind. computer programs will most likely perform the analysis. but this approach is usually used in preliminary studies because of its simplicity. fuel supply. or electric motors which must comply with ABS and API standards. the anchor load. These can also be found in (API 2FPI 6.1. The other purpose is to reduce the risk of an escalated fire.” 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)”. having their own source of power. The pumps are also independent from the entire system. rot.Low frequency vessel motions due to wind and waves . and the suspended line length. The nozzles on the fire stations must have diameters of at least 0. The hoses will be mounted on reels. Several approaches are offered in (API 2FPI 6. chemical deteriorations.2) manual. heave. then they must be placed at the lowest points. Since a thruster will not assist the mooring system for LNG terminal.Steady state forces including current force. The ABS manual refers to the Steel Vessel Rules for these requirements. The fire system must have at least two self-priming fire pumps that are independent of each other. Static Mooring Analysis. The fire stations need to be located on the perimeter of the process area. roll. For the process equipment. and Dynamic Mooring Analysis. sway. mooring line tension. The water spray systems should be provided with an automatic start. In case of an emergency such as a fire. If the heat damages or “renders” some material. at least two emergency control TAMU Team West Africa . and current conditions. The minimum flow of the monitors is 500 gallons per minute at 100 psig. There are two approaches that can be taken when trying to predict the response to wave frequency vessel motion. ABS (3-8/7a) provides three floating installation fire pump arrangement scenarios as guidelines for a fire system design. wave. It is these extreme responses that determine the vessel offset. environmental effects can be split up into 3 groups: . natural engines. The piping for the fire system should be arranged so that the water sources come from at least two different locations on the vessel.1).• When designing the FPS mooring. It must be constructed of steel or any other material that has the same fire integrity properties.4).2) and API RP 14G. The fuel systems should be able to operate for a minimum of 18 hours. then that material is “not to be used to in the fire piping systems. Fire hoses that are located on the production deck should be constructed of materials resistant to oils.

and physical damage. ii.” On the terminal. stairways.3 describe fire integrity of bulkheads separating adjacent spaces. Fireman’s outfits and breathing apparatus are stored in an appropriate container together. The two alternatives remaining were to design either a ship-shape barge or a completely new design. 2. The final design was selected. iv. The facility should also be provided with fire detectors. iii. open decks. Steel and Fiber Reinforced Plastic are to be used to construct these marshalling areas. and a general alarm. which are required to comply with ABS standards.5). as well as the lifesaving embankment areas. the relatively shallow location of the proposed site at 40 meters depth negates several possibilities.” Table 3a and Table 3b on 3-8/9. Firewalls are also used to protect from “fire hazard to the vessels. There must also be escape route plans. Its shut in pressure is required to be a minimum of 600psi. “Surfaces that exceed 482°C need to be protected from combustible gas. life jacks. Although the large pontoons on a semi-submersible would be advantageous with regards to storage capacity. smoke detectors. a SPAR platform is only suitable for deep-water conditions. The same holds true for tension-leg platforms (TLPs) and mini-TLPs. 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. v. and breathing apparatus must all be available for the personnel.stations should be provided. like buoys. life rafts. work vest. The following section will show the team’s two initial concept designs plus a third concept showing a different mooring scheme for one of the base designs. it is required to have marshalling areas for personnel before entering the lifeboats. the draft required to keep the pontoons fully submerged would mean that the entire platform would be resting on the sea floor. Its material should be water resistant and radiate heat from fires. Surfaces that are exposed should not exceed temperatures of 71°C. both of which must have an efficient means of communication and process system shutdown.” as well as weather. which explain the required size and location. and other types of places on the facility which have open areas.24 - ISODC Report . and fire integrity of decks separating adjacent spaces.2 General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design In the initial brainstorming sessions. mechanical wear. so the design is not feasible in this case. Combustible gas detectors must be in accordance with API RP 14c and API RP 14F standards. Lifesaving equipment such as lifeboats. Thus the team narrowed the possible designs to a manageable number with little or no computations required. an alarm panel. the team considered all types of floating facilities currently in use throughout the world. For example. It includes accommodation spaces. corridors. 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. However. Each of those items listed must follow the rules in section (ABS 3-8/15. and the modifications to this design are discussed. then the following services must still be operable: i. which are to be displayed in and around the facility. fire and gas detection wiring. gas detectors. because the shallow depth makes these types of structures impractical. Personal safety equipment and safety measures are a very important issue. If the facility is shut down. etc. Structural fire protection requirements address “the need for protection boundaries which separate spaces onboard the installation from the process facility equipment. TAMU Team West Africa . Firewalls should be designed from “uncontrollable flare font wellheads”.

each 60m in diameter. Due to limited deck space. For additional security a blast wall is attached to the bow side of the crew accommodations.25 - ISODC Report . This design supports three LNG storage tanks.1 Ship Shape Barge with Spherical Tanks Figure 7 Ship-Shape Barge with Turret Mooring The dimensions of this vessel are 350m in length.2. Cranes are located at the bow and stern of the vessel. LNG booster pumps. This design also accommodates for instruments such as seawater pumps. and a potable and auxiliary water unit. This dimension enables approximately 339. six open rack vaporizers are stacked three on three with a three-meter clearance below and above each 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.2. Offloading processes are designed to take place on the starboard side of the vessel. 90m in width and 35m in height. TAMU Team West Africa . This vessel is designed to be turret moored. Crew accommodations are placed farthest away from the regasification unit to comply with regulatory safety standards.000 cubic meters of storage. a control substation. This design also included a submerged combustion vaporizer. allowing it to weather vane.

between two of the tanks on one side.26 - ISODC Report . When full.2. the weight of the LNG in the tanks would increase the draft of the platform by approximately 5. 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. These twin hulls are hollow to allow for four semiprismatic LNG storage tanks (two per hull). The team also considered using four Moss spherical tanks instead of four SPB tanks. TAMU Team West Africa . However. with three mooring lines at each of the four corners. The hulls are 200 meters long. as the spherical tank design suffers from a lack of deck space and the SPB tank design suffers from an overabundance of deck space. LNG carriers arriving at the terminal would offload their LNG by berthing along the side of the terminal. and 22 meters high. 60 meters wide and 25 meters high. It must also be noted that at the placement of topside structures for the catamaran hull is problematic. 50 meters wide.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.e. with two outrigger hulls beneath. etc. each approximately 75 meters long.8 meters. The deck is two hundred meters square. This particular design tests the feasibility of a spreadmooring configuration. while still allowing room in the hulls for two ballast tanks per hull to aid in leveling and stability of the platform. parallel to the long side of the deck. The total volume of all four tanks will exactly satisfy the design constraint of 330.2.000 cubic meters of LNG storage. it soon became apparent that since each sphere would have to be about 55 meters in diameter.).

This would allow the entire platform to weathervane in response to changing weather conditions. First. Lastly. 2. The turret is also placed so that when the platform reaches a stable position.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. The large surface areas for the environmental forces and the turret. but with a turret-mooring system instead of a spread-mooring system. which would not be a recommended service condition for either the carrier or the terminal. magnifying their effects and making the design less efficient in shedding the environmental forces. the spherical Mosstanks originally conceived for the ship shape barge forced the dimensions of the overall vessel to become too large. the catamaran hull with the spread mooring allotted too much deck space. Also. TAMU Team West Africa . The overall size of the deck and the pontoon areas created excessive surface areas for wind and wave forces.2.3 Selected Design and General Layout The three preliminary designs the team derived presented different problems. the cross-section of the platform exposed to wind and wave forces is at a minimum. a turret moored system in the relatively benign area of the Nigerian delta would not be cost-effective. 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. thus making manufacturability costs a premium. as mentioned previously. were both areas of concern. Table 5 lists other considerations that aided in the final design process.27 - ISODC Report . the catamaran with a turret moored station keeping design presented a combination of problems. This configuration uses side offloading for arriving LNG carriers. Secondly. There would be a limited number of facilities that could construct the vessel. with the carrier berthing parallel to the side of the platform and its bow facing into the wind.

28 - ISODC Report . Like the catamaran design. • • • Length between perpendiculars (LBP) – 340m Breadth – 65m Molded depth – 33m TAMU Team West Africa . In minimizing the environmental forces that the vessel would experience. An iterative process allowed for optimizing the hull’s final dimension and is listed below as well as represented in Figure 10 and Figure 11. a spread mooring system would be utilized due to the environmental conditions and the water depth. it was proposed to contain the LNG within the hull of the vessel as to maximize the deck space for equipment. and progress reports.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. With the terminal’s breadth a major concern. This in turn led to exploring different types of LNG containment systems available on the market. Also. feedback from industry representatives. the team decided to utilize the positive attributes associated with the first two designs and combine them into the final design selection. 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. it was decided to use the ship-shape barge but limit its size for competitive construction bidding. the LNG tanks drove the rest of the dimensions.

it became possible to contain the entire 330. Having defined the terminal’s dimensions and using a standard package of processing equipment. the team then optimized the remaining open-ended equipment and containment system selections. The final design of the FSRU is depicted in the CAD renderings in Figure 12. showing the scale of the vessel along with the overall placement and location of the processing equipment. This allowed for ample space for processing equipment as well as safety for crew members to perform daily operations. TAMU Team West Africa . Figure 13. and Figure 14.Figure 10 Bow View of Selected Design Figure 11 Beam View of Selected Design With these dimensions defined.000m3 of LNG storage within the hull structure.29 - ISODC Report .

Figure 12 Isometric View of Selected Design Figure 13 Topside Configuration of Processing Equipment TAMU Team West Africa .30 - ISODC Report .

Figure 14 Processing Equipment Locations Team West Africa -31- ISODC Report .

In optimizing the number of tanks to be utilized. Figure 15 details the LNG tanks along with the ballast tanks in an exploded view of the vessel’s hull. The tanks were oriented down the port and starboard side and turning at the keel. This could cause costly time delays for the schedule of the carrier. However. which also optimizes the safety of the terminal as well as complying with ABS steel vessel design guidelines. it is an acceptable trade-off for maintaining an uninterrupted operation and delivery of product to the client. This allowed for a potential scenario of having a containment tank out of service. the terminal will be able to accept and process a carrier benchmark of 255. This is in contrast to the scenario of the terminal in operation with a total of four tanks. The tanks are adjacent to each other but function independently. Limiting the TAMU Team West Africa . With only four tanks in operation. 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. then varying the height and length of the structure to determine the required storage capacity of LNG within the hull. For clarity. An iterative process allowed for the sizing of the actual containment dimensions. leaving four operational. this is not without tradeoffs. In this case. Five tanks per side were chosen for a total of 10 tanks. the terminal would only receive 98% capacity from the carrier. By limiting the number of tanks to 10. the cost of outfitting the tanks decreased.32 - ISODC Report . This yields values to compare with the transport carrier’s capacity. forming a J-style tank. Figure 15 LNG and Ballast Tank Configuration Ballast Tanks: A J-tank design proved to be optimal for the ballast tank configuration.000m3 without delaying departure of the vessel. the topside arrangements in the figure are omitted. this will translate to dollar cost averaging of the added expense which will be absorbed in capital gains. A double-hull layout is a direct effect of this ballast configuration. Even though the extra tank will impose an additional cost.LNG Containment System: The LNG containment system was optimized by constraining the breadth dimension of the ship for purposes of manufacturability. The ideal configuration for the selected design is with five tanks. Ultimately. if one tank were taken out of the process. the total volume of the inner tank capacity is divided by the number of tanks being analyzed.

TAMU Team West Africa . 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 makes the interface the weak link in the design of the offloading equipment.number of ballast tanks sacrifices stability. the loading arm coupling and carrier interface need to withstand the maximum displacement that might occur. the ballast configuration meets the requirements as directed by ship design guidelines. The arms are located at mid-ship along the starboard side of the terminal. Figure 17 illustrates the flexibility and range of the offloading system while interfaced with a berthed carrier. however. If at any one time. As discussed in the stability section. Figure 16 represents the offloading system in its stowed position. This allows for a larger heave motion between the two vessels. Four loading arms are arranged in a side-by-side layout with six meters of spacing between each unit. This is of particular concern because of the side-by-side position for the off-loading process between the terminal and the carrier.33 - ISODC Report . Loading Arms: For the offloading procedure. the two vessels exhibit a 180 degrees phase lag in the heave motion. the “In-Air Flexible” offloading system designed by Technip-Coflexip serves as the terminal’s cargo transfer system. Three of the arms serve as the terminal input lines while the fourth is a vapor return line to the transport vessel.

600 Mooring lines 581 Confidence (15%) 11. a spreadsheet was developed to calculate the lightship weight of the vessel. The spreadsheet is included in Appendix A. etc) that hold the plates together.235 The terminal was then analyzed in both the loaded and unloaded conditions to determine the terminal’s center of mass and draft in each case. A more precise measurement of the total mass can be obtained once the detailed structural engineering design is complete. the topsides. however. the LNG tanks. keel. including the weight of the hull itself.3 Weight. Once the dimensions were finalized. girders. the weight of the vessel was calculated. To maintain a constant draft. 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. The masses of each component of the terminal are shown in Table 6 below.668 LNG tanks 23. To this end.334 Ballast tanks 13. Table 6 Masses of Terminal Components (Lightship) Item Mass (mt) Hull 29. 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. 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.34 ISODC Report . the loaded condition is defined as full TAMU Team West Africa . but this estimated value is an extremely useful approximation for front-end engineering analysis. 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. and miscellaneous utility weights.Figure 17 Offloading System Connected to Carrier’s Manifold 2.733 Topsides 12. It must be stressed.900 TOTAL 91.

LNG tanks and empty ballast tanks.6 11. a program specifically designed to this end. Table 7 Centers of Mass and Drafts in Loaded/Unloaded Conditions Loaded Unloaded KG (m) 17. and Figure 20 shows the ballast tank configuration. which is well within an acceptable range for this particular site depth.6 In addition to the weight and buoyancy calculations. The draft of the vessel was calculated to be roughly 11. TAMU Team West Africa . StabCAD. The next three figures show the vessel within StabCAD at the time of this writing. was used to simulate the terminal. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7 below. 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.35 - ISODC Report . The bow shape is simulated as a triangular prism temporarily until a more accurate method of inputting complex curved surfaces within StabCAD is established. with 5 tanks along each side.4 17.58 meters. extending the entire length of the ship. and the unloaded condition is defined as empty LNG tanks and full ballast tanks. Team West Africa also began preliminary analysis of the stability of the vessel under the previously-discussed environmental conditions.0 Draft (m) 11.

the program analyzes the data and generates visual outputs of the hydrostatic data.36 - ISODC Report . cross curves of stability. The longitudinal and transverse metacenters are shown in Figure 21 below as an example. intact stability curves.Figure 19 LNG Tank Configuration Figure 20 Ballast Tank Configuration Once the terminal is inputted into StabCAD. and the damaged stability of the vessel. TAMU Team West Africa .

The graph of this curve is shown in Figure 22.37 - ISODC Report . The lowest magnitude of these calculated allowable KG values is then compared against the user- TAMU Team West Africa .Figure 21 Metacenters In the intact stability analysis.4 meters above the keel in the loaded condition. which was determined to be about 17. StabCAD also calculated the maximum allowable KG values for several different stability criteria. StabCAD first calculates the intact curve at a user-inputted value for the center of gravity KG. Figure 22 Intact Stability Curve with KG=17.4 m In addition.

60 36. plus the user-inputted KG value.81 31.53 13. One can therefore conclude that the ship is stable with regards to the intact stability analysis.0 ROS btwn 1st & 2nd intercepts = 7.00 25.87 36.inputted value of the terminal’s actual KG.90 26.81 36.90 24.78 1.40 36.0 1st intercept @ 15o heel nd 2 intercept @ 30o heel The cross curves of stability are shown in Figure 23.75 Area Ratio 25.84 27. The table shows that the actual KG value of 17.27 1.91 13. Table 8 Stability Criteria for Intact Condition Allowable KG (m) 17. then the vessel meets all the stability criteria and is therefore stable.00 Stability Criterion Actual KG of terminal Area ratio = 1.38 - ISODC Report .35 11.83 24.01 5.87 30.40 1.78 5. The curves generated by StabCad are in line with expectations.60 34.21 2nd Intercept (degrees) 85.84 26. If the actual KG is lower than the smallest allowable KG calculated by StabCAD.46m (in the case of the range of stability must be larger than 7.27 Range of Stability (degrees) 36.89 36.60 36.77 1st Intercept (degrees) 0. Figure 23 Cross Curves of Stability TAMU Team West Africa .0 degrees).4 Intact ROS = 7. Table 8 shows the results of the intact stability analysis for five stability criteria.01 2.4m is well below the lowest allowable KG value of 34.32 1.

0 Area Ratio = 1.80 21. Figure 24 below shows the stability in the event of damage on the tank located on the starboard side at the aft end.87 6. which is the tank with the largest effect on the stability of the terminal.14 10.41 Static Angle (degrees) 0.74 35. the ship remains stable if this particular ballast tank is damaged.11 17.66 25.39 33.0 ROS 1 & 2 = 7. Therefore.91 19.0 Static Angle = 15.84 20. flooded with water.84 1st Intercept (degrees) 0.40 35. The lowest allowable KG value is 35.00 18.53 2nd Intercept (degrees) 85. 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.00 6.82 6.0 RM/HM Ratio = 2.39 - ISODC Report .0 st nd Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Aft Ballast Tank Allowable KG (m) 17.93 35. i.23 34.90 35.20 18.02 28.92 4.37 20.77 35.40 15. Table 9 Stability Criterion Actual KG of terminal Heel Arm = Right Arm Damage ROS = 7.4m.23 TAMU Team West Africa .For damaged stability.75 5. each ballast tank was modeled as a separate body.04m.e.00 33.00 20. Figure 24 Damaged Stability. The results of this analysis are included in Table 9.13 15.45 28.86 15.24 Range of Stability (degrees) 33.84 18. Starboard Aft Ballast Tank The damage stability module in StabCad tests various stability criteria in a similar manner to the intact stability. which is again higher than the actual KG value of 17.16 5.

Figure 25 Damaged Stability.0 Area Ratio = 1.0 Static Angle = 15.63 32.24 11. The graphical version of the output is included in Figure 25.44 13.49 1st Intercept (degrees) 1.13 2nd Intercept (degrees) 85.91 15.48 19.75 30. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 11 below.15 m is well above the terminal’s KG of 17.10 20.15 33.00 20.86 Static Angle (degrees) 1.89 20.41 22.40 - ISODC Report . 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 = 7.77 32.59 33.0 Allowable KG (m) 17.58 15.0 RM/HM Ratio = 2.00 18.59 Range of Stability (degrees) 30.69 19.61 18.73 28.The terminal was also tested to see the effects of damaging two tanks adjacent to one another.31 7.83 6.25 20.79 19. TAMU Team West Africa .0 ROS 1st & 2nd = 7.30 In addition to the two damaged tanks.10 11.00 12. and the tabulated stability criteria are included in Table 10.4 meters. The smallest allowable KG of 30.51 13.10 12.01 21.48 32.40 33.00 31. the team also ran an optimization analysis to see how many ballast tanks could be damaged before the ship became unstable.

the three environmental forces from wind. The environmental loads are discussed in detail in Section 3. and buoyancy.44 22. hitting perpendicular to the bow. 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. Therefore.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. and at a heel angle of 25 degrees the freeboard drops to 2. TAMU Team West Africa .1 meters.82 19. Figure 26 shows the loads from the topside structures along the longitudinal axis.15 26. waves and currents are hitting the bow at different angles. weight of the LNG onboard. Table 12 and Table 13 show these values along with the values of the load that the LNG places on the vessel. General Strength and Structural Design.13 Even with all five ballast tanks on one side damaged. In this section and the next section. 2. one can conclude that the terminal can be considered stable and seaworthy if a maximum of four ballast tanks are damaged on one side. however for the purposes of a conservative engineering estimate.4 m is still below the allowable KG of 19. A freeboard this small would risk allowing greenwater to wash over the main deck. the terminal’s KG value of 17.Table 11 Stability Under Different Damage Scenarios Number of damaged tanks (starboard side) 1 2 3 4 5 Allowable KG (m) 33. However. at a static angle of 15 degrees the deck on the port side is only 8. In a real-world scenario.41 - ISODC Report .9 m above the waterline. which is unacceptable for safe operation.93 30.13 m. vertical loads are located and evaluated using RISA-2D Software. topside weights. including the weight of the vessel.6. all three forces are assumed to be horizontal.

0 -1962.0 -567.Longitudinal Axis Load Distribution 9000 8000 Acc.5 340 0 ISODC Report .4 -1962.0 -1485.5 55 64.1 150.0 -1510.1 -157.8 .0 -567.0 -1962.0 -567.0 -567.1 170.8 -2849.1 329.7 -567.4 -2849. 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) -78.4 -588.2 -392.6 -98.0 -392.0 -1962.42 Location from FP (m) 29 40 257 43.5 223 188 172 156 140 124 108 89 140.0 -567.5 -196.1 160.

8 -5305.8 -5305.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 2.4 205. A maximum shear force of 16.5mm downwards.8 -109.4 134.2 MN occurs at 7. 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.2 71.5 -186.08m from the forward perpendicular.6 7602.5 -186.0 -5305.8 Ending Location from FP (m) 69 71 108 294 337 67.7 2920.5 Starting magnitude (kN) -125.8 -5305.6 0 0 0 170 0 170 Ending Magnitude (kN) -125.8 -5305.9 5549.8 -5305.8 -523. The first load case although not a worst case scenario is used as a reference under calmest conditions.8 -5305.8 -5305.3 9654.3 5081. An extreme sagging moment of 786 MNm occurs at 159m from the forward perpendicular.7 Starting Location from FP (m) 44 50 72 261 322 4.9 5549.6 268.5 201. where buoyancy is distributed evenly along the keel as seen in Figure 27.7 9654. This software evaluates the barge to act as a simple beam under three load cases according to worst case scenarios. moment and deflection under this load condition.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.7 335.43 - ISODC Report .8 -2541.0 -5305.6 7602.0 -99.8 -2541. still-water.7 9961.5 272. Load Case 1 This load case evaluates the beam under the calmest of conditions. TAMU Team West Africa .e.8 -5305.0 -99. i.3 138.4 9961. Figure 27 Load Case 1 Figure 28 below displays the maximum shear.8 -523.8 -109. At this location the largest deflection occurs and is 29. and a minimum shear force of -17 MN occurs at 333m from the forward perpendicular.

9 MN occurs at 74.700 MN-m occurs at mid-ship along with the largest deflection of 375mm downwards.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. The maximum shear force of 97.4m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal.1 MN occurs at 266m from the forward perpendicular. moment and deflection under Load Case 2. While this condition could potentially occur over the service life of the terminal. Figure 29 Load Case 2 Figure 30 below shows the maximum shear. where a wave crest occurs at either end of the beam as seen in Figure 29. TAMU Team West Africa . Load Case 2 only occurs in conditions where the wavelength is 340m. and the minimum shear force of -97. An extreme sagging moment of 10.44 - ISODC Report . 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. the length of the vessel.

10. TAMU Team West Africa . Wavelengths of the 1. and 100 yr storm are all larger than this value therefore this scenario could occur in any of these storm conditions.2 MN occurs at 67.5 MN occurs at 273m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal.120 MN-m occurs at 174m from the forward perpendicular.3m from the forward perpendicular. 170m. The maximum shear force of 90.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. Figure 31 Load Case 3 Figure 32 below shows the maximum shear. This scenario could occur in storm conditions where the wavelength is larger than half the length of the vessel. moment and deflection under this load condition.45 - ISODC Report . The largest deflection under this load case occurs at mid-ship and is 316mm upwards. An extreme hogging moment of 9. and the minimum shear force of -89.

moment. Load case two produced the largest magnitudes of shear. and bending stresses.120 Max Bending Stress (MPa) 8.97 (keel) 122 (keel) 104 (deck) TAMU Team West Africa . Table 14 Comparison of the Three Load Cases Load Case 1 2 3 Max Shear (MN) -17 97. which yielded 1. This value was then used with the cross-sectional area shown in Figure 34 to determine a minimum hull thickness shown in Table 15.25 in).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 14.45x107cm2-m2. The thickness was determined to be 0.032m (1.700 -9. 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.46 - ISODC Report . The moment of inertia was also calculated using ABS guidelines.9 90.5 Max Moment (MN-m) 786 10.

96 2 Mws=-k1C1L B(Cb+0.004936081 Shear Force Fsw (kN) 145181.762 SM=Mt/fp Total Bending Moment.972 10.71 2 SM=C1C2L B(Cb+0.44 Fwp(136-204m) 8341733.81 Fwn=-kF2C1LB(Cb+0.923801653 136-204m 0. Mt=Msw+Mw (kN-m) Nominal permissible bending stress.5 Hull Girder Moment of Inertia I=L*SM/33.39 Fwp(238-289m) -11966004.Longitudinal Hull Girder Strength: Wave Loads Wave Bending Moment Amidships Sagging Moment (kN-m) Mws -14856229.01 Fwp=+kF1C1LB(Cb+0.004132231 Fwp(0/340m) 0 Fwp (68-102m) -10963421.41 Fwp(238-289m) 11916762.92 136-204m 0.3 (cm2-m2) 14463485.5B(Cb+0.5) Cst 0.003 Ms=CstL2.26 TAMU Team West Africa .7) C2 0.81 k 30 Still Water Bending Moment Msw (kN-m) 9872369.7)x10-2 F2 0/340m 0 68-102m 0.7 238-289m 1 Fwp(0/340m) 0 Fwp (68-102m) 11008724.34 17.7)x10-3 k1 110 C1 L (m) 340 B (m) Hogging Moment (kN-m) Mwh 14917619.01 24789988.8971 Fsw=5.7)x10-2 F1 0/340m 0 68-102m 0.75 65 Wave Shear Force max positive shear force (kN) Fwp 11916762.34 2 Mwh=+k2C1L BCbx10-3 k2 190 Cb 0.03 Fwp(136-204m) -8341733.0Ms/L Bending Strength Hull Girder Section Modulus Section Modulus (cm2-m) SM 1416570. fp (kN/cm2) Minimum Section Modulus (cm2-m) SM 841680.01 max negative shear force (kN) Fwn -11966004.7 238-289m 1.47 ISODC Report .

05 0. and 100-year storm return periods were analyzed using Microsoft Excel.03 16.00 590.57 455. 10.75 0.68 0.74 247.75 0.00 399. According to ABS regulations. The wind speeds used in the analysis are extracted from 1hour sustained winds and the current speeds used are from the surface speeds.85 76.09 0.00 B4 0.85 76.30 B6 57.49 0.30 sums: 263.68 0. then the wind velocity must be derived from the 1-minute average velocity (found in API RP 2SK 3.99 Adx^2 896.03 12.3. The data from the three return periods are tabulated in Table 16 below.51 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.76 54.49 0.88 0.00 32.00 B5 65.36 1579.49 0.09 0.50 14.00 590.6 Wind and Current Loading The forces induced by the winds and currents for the 1.032m (1. As a result.36 0.42 1.00 3027.22 19.72 0.48 - ISODC Report .51 0.76 28.03 32.00 B2 0.47 0.00 B8 65.00 1.03 32.74 1182.00 0.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 0.00 455.00 0.96 0.76 Ixx (m4): 1446.7.25in) Ady^2 0.36 2.03 3.88 0.00 32.42 1.03 29.95 0.95 0.76 54.00 1.99 896.18.49 0.00 0.96 616.90 2.00 0.76 28.35 Thickness used in design: 0.96 0. The wind speeds and current speeds for those return periods are obtained from shoaling analysis of the Metocean data.15 B7 0. if a sustained wind force is being examined for wind loads.03 16. the wind velocity time factor (α) must correspond to a 1-minute average time period of 1.03 29.1).99 616.00 2.00 B3 0. TAMU Team West Africa .

50 1. 2) height coefficients. one must determine: 1) surface areas.18 To calculate the wind loads.33 1. The classification of the areas for the preceding figure can be found in Table 17 below.56 7. In that case. port. The total wetted surface area is determined by calculating each surface area (bow. Omni (knots) Current Speed. 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 . For the shape coefficients. the shape coefficient must be 1. and 100-year return periods.18 10 25. it is possible to determine the wetted surface areas using simple geometric formulas.49 ISODC Report . 10-year.96 1.75 8.10. Since the hull of the ship is relatively rectangular. starboard. one must calculate: 1) surface areas and 2) drag coefficients. Surface (knots) Significant Wave Height (ft) Wind Velocity Time Factor 100 29. and bottom) located below the water line.Table 16 Environmental Data for Wind and Current Loading Return Period (years) Wind Speed.27 1.94 9. stern. it is possible to group a structure’s surface areas together. For the current loads.18 1 23. and 3) shape coefficients. Table 18 is the spreadsheet used to determine the wind and current loads for the 1-year.16 1.73 1.

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 . TAMU Team West Africa .

500 1.000 1.0 156898.7 216.520 1.400Fc(kips) 341091.0003x^3-0.6 50.0638x^2+4.1 9.0 6050.0 2385.494 1.520 Beam Seas A(Beam) 81506.4 20.9 AChCs 100252.5 515.016SVc2 0.9 0.9346 y=0.0 Current Force Beam Seas 1289032.0 50.2 0.0 6393.6 TAMU Team West Africa .0 250.0 2653.0 0.500 1.4 Sum(CsChA) Fwy Cs 1.7 Quartering Seas 28.100 1.8 6626.180 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 1.7 1628.6 0.000 Ch 1.0 15098. y=Force (kips)] y=9.7 1197.230 1.944 0.6 8.100 1.0 2755.400 1.5 0.3 6626.230 1.1 245.2682 Bow Seas 8.230 1.000 1.3 2736.613 Fc(kips) Oblique Environment 10.1 Total Environmental Forces Beam Seas 631.9 0.8 Quartering Seas 250.0 53752.3 12947.6 1163.4 0.230 1.620 1.3 1954.51 - ISODC Report .0 0.620 1.9366x+1.520 1.8 4897.000 1.3 0.230 1.0 6621.230 1.500 Ch 1.500 0.3983*X-8.520 1.500 1.3 5328.3 5328.3 0.4 8650.500 1.3 2927.400 1.158 alpha 1.520 1.500 0.948 Fwq Bow Seas 1289032.5 28.2207 y=1E-5x^4-0.0954x-7.961 Cubic Spline Curve Fitting Formulae [x=Hs(ft).500 1.63ln(x)-14 y=2E-5X^4-5E-5X^3-0.7 6024.859SVc2 20.1433X^2+7.0 0.500 1.100 1.000 50.Table 18 Wind and Wave Loading Calculations Spreadsheet for 100 Year Storm Environmental Load Calculations (Ship-Shape FSRU) Wind Force Wind Speed Vw(knots) 29.000 1.8 2906.1 Beam Seas 50.230 1.230 1.625Fc(kips) 10.500 1.6 329.859Theta 515.5 12947.8 2906.5 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 216.0 3961.0 6282.0 1046.520 1.100 1.230 A(Bow) 14986.8 631.6 AChCs 18433.

4 20. which in this case is the 10 year storm event.9 38.5 515.0 253.8 Quartering Seas 250.6 8.5 13.5 Quartering Seas 187.1 Beam Seas 474.6 772.9 25.1 Table 20 Environmental Forces for 10-Year Return Period Total Environmental Forces Force(Kips) Wind Current Mean Wave Drift Force Total Force(Kips) Bow Seas 162. The facility must also be able to survive a 100 year storm event.5 28.4 157.5 16. With this in mind. the maximum operating condition is the condition that still allows the facility to send gas to shore.4 44.6 Table 21 Environmental Forces for 1.2 329. The beam seas forces are the most significant because of the substantial surface area along the length of the vessel. According to API codes this amount for shallow water is between 15 and 25% of the water depth.8 936.1 Beam Seas 631. this would translate to offsets ranging from 6 to 10 m for this facilities depth of 40 m. 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. The overall dimensions of the vessel directly influence the magnitudes of the forces.Year Return Period Total Environmental Forces Force(Kips) Wind Current Mean Wave Drift Force Total Force(Kips) Bow Seas 138.6 50.8 40.7 6.9 186. it is necessary for the facility to not offset more than what the flexible connections to the pipeline can handle. 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).7 Mooring/Station Keeping Since the regasified LNG must be piped to market.3 417. The above requirements are used for what is called the maximum operating condition.6 329.3 21.The results from the wind and wave analysis for the three return periods are shown below in Table 19.2 5.1 245. 2. In actual distance. 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).7 1197.0 32.1 Beam Seas 404.6 Quartering Seas 160. TAMU Team West Africa .52 - ISODC Report .5 The results from the environmental analysis indicate the majority of the forces are due to wind loads.2 213. Table 20. and Table 21. 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.0 50.

and cost of the system. A 12 line system was chosen for the initial design due in part to its safety factor and large restoring force. what their layout is. Since the system is a catenary spread moored system. Figure 37 shows the initial layout of the proposed system. Along with the system being spread moored. Figure 37 Horizontal Layout of Mooring Lines TAMU Team West Africa . the next step is to design how many legs (lines) in the system. Some of these factors are the soil composition of the sea floor. This influenced the decision between a turret and a spread moored system. the types of loading and unloading procedures to and from the facility. 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.There are several factors for deciding what type of mooring system to have.53 - ISODC Report . the directionality of the environmental data. the bow will face towards the 225 degree direction relative to true north. Spread moored systems are typically utilized when the environment predominately is generated in certain directions. and what diameter size of chain should be used to satisfy the API codes stated above. Once the leg type was decided the next step is to decide if there is directionality to the environmental data. This leaves only the option of the catenary style mooring system. what their length is. The sea bottom at this particular site is soft sand so a taut type mooring system is out of the question.

5 inch) vs Twelve Leg (5 inch) System 7000 6000 5000 Length (m) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 5 inch 6.54 - ISODC Report . This can be seen in Figure 38 below.127 0. The first chain size analyzed was the 5 inch chain.1016 Weight in water (kN/n) 3.5-inch and a minimum length of 800m per leg was necessary. not to mention the expense of the larger chain itself.980 12.5 4 Size (m) 0. 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.5 line total 5 line 5 line total Figure 38 Comparison of Line Lengths TAMU Team West Africa .440 7.1143 0. In the table below the characteristics of different chains being considered can be compared.5 inch 6. It was thought best to try an eight line system to see if it would be a viable solution. a line length of 300 m. and the 100 year storm condition. It was found that the actual environment (non-collinear) provided the worst case scenario. Eight vs Twelve leg system Eight Leg (6. with the other two lines being spaced at ±5 degrees off of the center line.445 1. This angle is the angle of the center line. The total length of the system for the eight line system is almost twice as much as the 12 line 5-inch chain.5 line 6.5 inch 15 inch single leg total chain single leg total chain length length length length 6.465 2. What was found was that with the eight line system a minimum size of 6.811 By using the mooring program Mimosa. with a leg extending off the facility at the four corners at an angle of 45 degrees off of the longitudinal axis. 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.These lines are separated into 4 different legs.932 Breaking Strength (kN) 14. 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. Table 22 Chain Characteristics Size (in) 5 4.

5-inch line was further chosen to check the maximum operating condition.1143 0.1143 0. 4. 4.5. This can also be viewed in Figure 39 on the following page.127 0.440 7. TAMU Team West Africa . The 100 year survival condition tensions can be found in the following table.127 0. The 5 inch chain satisfied the conditions but had a higher safety factor. 4. The loadings for 5. 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.1016 Max tension (kN) 5. while the 4 inch chain did not meet the API tension requirements.685 5.440 7.57 45.5.5-inch chain was selected is because in the intact case it met the 60% of the breaking strength requirement without a large safety factor.18 1.685 5.980 12.36 Loading percentages for the different chain sizes in the above table agree with the selection of the 4.56 2.5 4 Size (m) 0.850 5.5 inch chain versus the 5 and 4 inch chain. 4 Inch Chain For API Intact Case Size (in) 5 4.811 Safety Factor 2.928 5.980 12.5-inch. and 4 inch chain can be seen in Table 24 below.55 With the 4. and 4-inch chain for the 100 year survival condition.5 inch chain satisfying the survival condition of not breaking a line it was necessary to check how the system satisfies the API requirements. The reason the 4.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.1016 Max Tension (kN) 5. Table 23 Maximum Tensions For 100 Year Survival Condition Size (in) 5 4.027 Breaking Strength (kN) 14.53 2.55 L% 39.027 Breaking Strength (kN) 14.55 - ISODC Report . Along with the intact case. Table 24 Loading Percentages For 5. the damaged case allows the next most loaded line to reach 80% of the breaking strength.5 4 Size (m) 0.18 1.811 Safety Factor 2. the 4.69 64.

Along with the damaged tensions are the damaged offset values. To better understand the system it was decided to break an additional line in the system while the most loaded line was already broken.5 inch chain as the primary line to run from the facility to the anchors. What was found is that the tension found depended on which two lines were broken and how the environment was impacting the facility. For the damaged case the system reacted very unexpectedly. The two lines that need to be broken to produce the maximum damage tensions are line 1 and line 4.3 % of the maximum breaking strength of the chain wa experienced within the system.5" 4. which is to be expected. The maximum tension was found to be 9.5 inch BS 4. There are 66 different combinations for the dual line breakage technique. 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. When the highest loaded line was broken in the 100 year event. and those values are larger than the intact values.693 kN which translates to 77% of the breaking strength of the chain. This value of offset is well below the amount allowed by API (API 1995).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" 4" 1 Exp 60% BS 60 Exp BS % 4" 60 % 4" Exp 5 inch BS 5 inch60% 5 inch found 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.2m for the intact case. TAMU Team West Africa . This indicates that the system became softer as the most loaded line was broken. with a maximum offset of 5. It was found that the aforementioned worst case directions for the intact case are the worst directions for the damaged case.3 m for the maximum operating condition. the values of the damaged tension in the lines of the system was lower than the intact case. Line Size Intact 16000 14000 12000 Tensions (kN) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 5" BS 5" 5" 4. Again this is for a system that has two broken lines not one. Values for the amount of offset are restricted to 15 to 25% of the water depth.Tension vs.56 ISODC Report . A top tension that was only 34. The value of offset was found to be 4.5" 4. All of this data agrees with the selection of the 4. which in this case is between 6 to 10 m. but the offset values are still well within the API requirements.5 inch chain satisfies the API requirements for the intact maximum operating condition. The system loads more symmetrically. but loads to a lower tension. The overall tensions in the line increase but there was no spike in tension like in the intact case.

3125 H S TP ( f / f P ) −5 exp[−1. Using a manual provided by Vryhof the anchor selection process is relatively straightforward. diameter.09 f > f P TAMU Team West Africa . For this the model anchor selected is the Stevpris Mk5 with the angle of the fluke set at 32 degrees. When graphed the JONSWAP curve has a narrow bandwidth and a high peak. The uncoupled natural heave period is the most significant heave period for this analysis. and yaw.The next step was to optimize the length now that the diameter is set. Using a factor safety of 1.5 as per API (API 1995). The maximum intact tension for the chain is 5.5 58. and 100 year return periods. 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.008 5.607 L% 59. The vessel results are compared to the wave results to ensure that harmonic oscillation does not occur.57 - ISODC Report . The damaged case was checked and found to be 77% of the breaking strength with a maximum offset of 5. Next the anchor size was chosen.6 62. and length of the system have been decided the last thing to select is the anchor size and weight. the value of 8. The Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP) wave spectrum equation is a method of analyzing the environmental data for a nonlinear wave. Now that the number. To determine the effects of the wave conditions on the motions of the vessel. pitch. the anchor size to be chosen is 15 t (Vryhof 136).3 m.07 f < f P σ = 0. roll.8 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading It is essential to predict the vessel’s response to establish its ability to survive the given design constraints of 1. This offset is still well below the 6m allowable.25( f / f P ) − 4] × (1 − 0.607kN which translates to 571.287) ln(γ )γ A (3) where the coefficients A and σ are: A = exp[−0. sway. 2.5( f − f P / f Pσ ) 2 ] σ = 0.3 t. yielding 857.207 6. a length of 285 m still satisfies the API requirements of only 60% of the breaking strength in the intact condition. An initial length of 300 m was assumed but that needs to be refined. To execute a JONSWAP analysis.5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event Length (m) 300 250 275 285 Max Tension (kN) 5. This is the ultimate holding power of the anchor in kg.559 kg of chain. the mass in kilograms is divided by 1000. the following equation is employed: 2 S ( f ) = 0. surge. 10. Table 25 Maximum Tensions for Different Lengths of 4. In units of tonnes. Using the chart contained within the manual for sand and hard clay. which the 285 m length did satisfy.4 As can be seen in the table above. This fluke setting comes from the manufacturer as the value for this particular soil type. The sea bottom is assumed to be made of sand and/or medium hard clay.2 64. First the style and angle of the anchor were selected. with a predicted penetration into the soil of 5 m (Vryhof 137). These values of maximum intact tensions can be found in Table 25.685 6. it is necessary to determine the heave.573E+05 kg is found. Therefore the anchor of choice is the Stevpris Mk5 with a fluke setting of 32 degrees and an anchor weight of 15 t.

TAMU Team West Africa .58 - ISODC Report . The results for the uncoupled natural period in heave can be seen in Table 26 below.5 Figure 40 Energy Density The natural spectral peak period of the wave in a 1-year return period is 15 seconds.A graphical representation of the JONSWAP analysis can be seen in the figure below.5 1 1. Energy Density of the Wave using Jonswap Analysis 7 6 5 4 S(f) 3 2 1 0 0 -1 Frequency (rad/s) 0.5 2 2. the most significant parameters are the metacentric heights.42 rad/s shown above. which corresponds to the natural peak frequency of 0. The formula for the heave period is shown below: T = 2π CB D (1 + C AM ) CW g ( M + M A )r 2 ρ g ∀GM L (4) The formula for the uncoupled natural period in pitch is: T = 2π (5) The uncoupled natural period in roll for this structure is: ( M + M A )r 2 T = 2π ρ g∀GM T (6) In the formulas for the uncoupled natural periods in pitch and roll.

and 15.6. 10. The following two graphs are output results in 0° and 67.792 37.5° headings.59 - ISODC Report . The output plot results have units of amplitude response (m/m) versus angular frequency (rad/s). the radius of gyration was also altered.74 5. Consequently. The RAO values are extracted from SIF files. ft/s2) Mass of the Vessel (kg. The periods of maximum wave are 13.58 1.74 5.000 136.17 1.99 1. 61m. and roll are shown in Table 27 below.5m.50 10.74 English 0.99 32. ft) Gravity (m/s2.556 11.5 s for the 1. 10.50 10. of 300.67 The natural spectral peak periods of the wave are 15. and 100 year return period respectively. respectively. As a result. respectively. Pitch.17 0.37 9.68 0.58 0. TAMU Team West Africa .377. the natural frequencies of the wave in all three return periods are lower than the natural frequencies of the vessel.4. The results for the period in roll are not the same because of the shift in mass. Table 27 Uncoupled Natural Periods in Heave.251.235. and 100 year return period respectively. 15. The results for the uncoupled periods in heave.37 9.58 9. The uncoupled natural period in heave is constant for unloaded and loaded condition. The produced SIF files are for a barge type vessel with dimensions in length.500 1. using MIMOSA. slug) Added Mass (kg. The natural periods and frequencies are utilized in computing the Response Amplification Operator (RAO). The heave motion is a vertical motion.18 6.852. the mass moment of inertia is different from the loaded condition because of the locations of the ballast and the LNG.8 s for the 1. and Roll for the Vessel Natural Period (s) Motion Direction Heave Pitch Roll Unloaded 10. height. breadth. which does not cause the mass to shift. slug) Added Mass Coefficient Heave Natural Period (s) 2 2 CB CW AW D g M Ma CAM T Metric 0.30 Loaded 10.39 Frequency (rad/s) Unloaded Loaded 0.00 242. In the unloaded condition. Consequently. ft ) Draft (m.376 1.584 9. and 13. Accordingly. and 30.74 The results are determined in metric and English units to ensure accuracy.7m. generated by Ravi Kota (KBR). pitch.00 22. The results indicate that the most significant direction of motion of the vessel is in heave. the periods in the unloaded and loaded condition in roll will not be the same.Table 26 Heave Period for Vessel (Unloaded and Loaded) Units Block Coefficient Waterplane Area Coefficient Waterplane Area (m .3. harmonic oscillation does not occur.99 1. 13.81 91.

00E-01 Roll Surge Sway Yaw 4.00E-01 Heave Pit ch Roll 6.6 0.2 0.8 Fr e qu e n c y ( r a d/ s) Figure 42 RAO Response for 67.2 1.6 1.00E-01 2.00E-01 0.00E+00 8.00E+00 0 0.2 0.6 1.4 1.00E-01 0.00E-01 Surge Sway Yaw 4.00E+00 8.00E-01 2.8 Frequency (rad/s) Figure 41 RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading TAMU Team West Africa .20E+00 1.8 1 1.6 0.8 1 1.4 1.60 - ISODC Report .5 Degree Heading 1.4 0.RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading 1.2 1.00E+00 0 0.4 0.20E+00 1.00E-01 Response (m/m) Heave Pitch 6.

In fact.80 m 1. Therefore. The total vertical displacement would then be 2. Accordingly.For each motion. the carrier can still connect to the terminal in wave heights of 4.58° 0. Table 29 LNGC Displacement with 60° Heading Motion Sway Heave Roll Surge Pitch Displacement Significant Maximum 0. The total horizontal displacement is also within the horizontal range of ±1.01 m 2.22 m in a 60° heading.23° 3. 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.29 m.5° 90° 2.00 0.22 m 0.00 0. take the amplitude response that corresponds to the frequency of 0.00 0.43° 0. the “In-Air Flexibles” are also applicable in these conditions. thus determining the vessel displacements for each motion shown in Table 28 below. 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. which is within the ± 4 m vertical range of the loading arms.69 m 0.00 Displacement (m) 67.00 0. the loading arms are feasible for this vessel.12 ° 0. the largest motion is calculated by adding the vessel displacement and LNGC displacement. The vessel has a heave displacement of 2.08 m 0. However. then the “In-Air Flexibles” can also be employed because they have a greater range of motion than the conventional loading arms.48 ° 1.2 m 0.85 m 0.00 0. Thus. then conventional offloading arms presented by FMC will be utilized.7m.00 0.13° 0. If the “In-Air Flexibles” are not availably upon completion of the project.12 m 0.42 rad/s and then multiply it by the significant amplitude in a 1-year storm (1.04 m.58° 0.14 m). The table below contains the displacement values for an LNGC provided by ConocoPhillips.23 m. The chosen loading arms for this vessel are “In-Air Flexibles” by TechnipCoflexip.57 m 0.69 m 0.3 ° 0.00 0.61 - ISODC Report . If the FMC loading arms can sustain the offloading process in a 1 year return period.5° heading and the LNGC carrier has a heave displacement of 0. Table 28 Displacement of LNG Terminal Motion Heave Pitch Roll Surge Yaw Sway 0° 0.3 m 0. TAMU Team West Africa .46 m 0. The displacement results from Table 28 are compared to the displacements from an LNG carrier.01 m 0.4 m 0.00 The largest motion is in heave. 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.40 m 0.01 m in a 67.0 ° The largest displacement will occur when the vessel and the carrier are 180° out of phase.03 m 180° 0.

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 ½-inch) chain, and has a Vryhof Stevpris Mk5 15 t anchor. Stability analysis using StabCAD has been completed, and the terminal satisfies all of the stability criteria for intact, single-tank damage, and double-tank damaged stability. The bending moment calculations for global loading have been completed, and a minimum outer plate thickness has been calculated to be 0.032 m (1.25 inches) based on the ship’s moment of inertia in cross-section. The heave, pitch and roll natural uncoupled periods are smaller than the natural period of the wave and peak wave for loaded and unloaded conditions, and thus no harmonic resonance on the vessel presented itself. The In-Air Flexible offloading arms can sustain offloading process in a one-year return 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 terminal’s hydrodynamic motions and reducing the vessel’s total mass, draft, and final cost. In addition, completion of the structural engineering design will allow for a more accurate measure of the vessel’s moment of inertia in cross-section and the resultant changes in maximum bending moment, bending stress, and natural period. Design of the LNG intake manifold and the piping between the manifold and the five SPB tanks is paramount in that an efficient design will minimize the required offloading time of any carriers that use the terminal.

TAMU Team West Africa

- 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.

TAMU Team West Africa

- 64 -

ISODC Report

) 30.58 21.0 1.0 20.97 1.) KGT (est.5-6.0 10.205 5.417 36.0-13.30 8.03 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.) KML (est.5 m 347106 3 330378 m 0.23 4.000 m 3.5 m 4m 3.788 832 838 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 0.5 145044 4.) BML (est.972 BMT (est.65 - ISODC Report . bulkhead SA of each trans.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.3 0.) KMT (est.Appendix A: Lightship weight spreadsheet Lightship Weight & Total Weight Dimensions Length (L) Width (B) Height (H) Draft (T) Freebrd 340 65 33 11.7-2. 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 TAMU Team West Africa .0516 2.2 51.42 m m m m m L/B L/H B/H Block c_b 5.250 m 3 66076 m 63.

8968 32.3968 229.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 3.82 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 TAMU Team West Africa .66 - ISODC Report .9484 32.46 30425.38 1189.

Appendix B: Mimosa Input and Output Files This appendix contains the input files for use with Mimosa. There are three different chain characteristic files used. TAMU Team West Africa . It is available upon request if need. pretension. weight. This chain file contains all the characteristics about this particular mooring system.5 inch chain. masswindcurrent2. It contains values for breaking strength. Report5 Twelve line 100 year condition for 4.5 inch chain file. Output from Mimosa is included in this appendix.67 - ISODC Report . Mooringsystem12 is the 4. length. RAOs for the system were obtained from a sif file that was provided from Halliburton and KBR. The first file. It will not be included in this appendix due to document length constraints. and fairlead and anchor locations.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.

Masswindcurrent2.190E+04 0 80 -2.471E+03 0 160 6.516E+03 -2.079E+6 9.202E+03 -6.638E+6 0 0 6.000E+00 0 10 2.271E+03 -1.930E+5 2.624E+5 4.937E+05 0 170 -2.882E+03 0 50 -7.086E+04 0 70 -4.624E+5 4.68 ISODC Report .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.322E+5 1.001E+6 1.58E+13 3 4 45000 19 0 0 9.517E+03 -2.666E+03 -9.124E+6 1.00000 0.930E+5 2.202E+03 -6.914E+03 0 180 4.882E+03 0 150 7.229E+06 0 90 0.606E+03 0.172E+4 0.237E+04 0 90 0 -1.086E+04 0 130 7.186E+03 -0.606E+03 0 0 10 -5.914E+03 0 20 -6.371E+03 0 170 5.9227E+6 3.000E+00 0 Mooringsystem12 VESSEL POSITION 'Text describing positioning system 4.744E+03 -4.190E+04 0 120 6.666E+03 -9.979E+05 0 160 -5.937E+05 0 30 8.079E+6 9.181E+03 -1.039E+06 0 80 3.039E+06 0 120 -1.000 2.055E+05 0 50 1.186E+03 -0.271E+03 -1. Wind.136E+03 0 60 -6.293E+06 0 100 -3.237E+04 0 110 4.136E+03 0 140 8.28E+08 1.372E+03 0 30 -7.899E+04 0 180 -9.734E+06 0 130 -1.340E+06 0 140 -1.229E+06 0 110 -7.00000 0.172E+4 0.00000 LINE DATA TAMU Team West Africa .055E+05 0 150 -8.734E+06 0 70 7.899E+04 0 20 5.471E+03 0 40 -8.211E+5 3.00000 0.181E+03 -1.421E+5 2.744E+03 -4.340E+06 0 60 1.334E+03 -1.12E+09 0 19 0 0 -4.124E+6 1.334E+03 -1.211E+5 3.979E+05 0 40 1. Current Coefficients 2.322E+5 1.421E+5 2.001E+6 1.5 inch chain system 'x1ves x2ves x3ves head 0.000E+00 0 2.248E+04 0 100 2.

500 'alfa tens xwinch -130.82 32.82 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -45.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 2 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.000 500.000 500.82 -32.00 500.00 -32.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 6 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 4 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 3 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.00 -32.000 500.69 ISODC Report .00000 LINE DATA TAMU Team West Africa .00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 5 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.00 0.00 0.500 'alfa tens xwinch 50.500 'alfa tens xwinch -50.'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 1 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 8 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.82 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 45.00 0.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 7 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 500.00 0.500 'alfa tens xwinch -40.500 'alfa tens xwinch -135.500 'alfa tens xwinch 40.00 0.00 0.82 32.000 500.000 500.82 32.

00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 10 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -140.5000 0.00 500.00000 10.500 'alfa tens xwinch 135.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.500 'alfa tens xwinch 130.00 0.00 0.0000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 3 TAMU Team West Africa .000 6000.000 40.1143 0.00000 10.8700 1.0000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 2 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.00 0.000 40.00 1 9608.5000 0.70 ISODC Report .00 -32.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 12 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 32.'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 9 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 500.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 11 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.0000 2.445 0.00 32.000 6000.0000 2.0 1.2068E+09 2.00 500.00000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 1 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.2068E+09 2.500 'alfa tens xwinch 140.8700 1.1143 0.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0 1.00 500.445 0.00 0.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.

445 0.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.0000 2.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.0000 2.1143 0.000 40.00000 10.0000 0.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.445 0.000 6000.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 5 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 4 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.0000 0.0000 2.2068E+09 2.8700 1.00000 10.2068E+09 2.0 1.000 40.0 1.1143 0.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 6 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.8700 1.8700 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 7 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 TAMU Team West Africa .00 1 9608.000 6000.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.445 0.0 1.0000 ISODC Report .00 1 9608.8700 1.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.000 6000.000 40.1143 0.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.000 40.00 1 9608.0 1.0000 0.2068E+09 2.2068E+09 2.00000 10.71 - 0.00 1 9608.0000 2.00000 10.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.1143 0.445 0.000 6000.

5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 9 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.0 1.0000 2.445 0.000 6000.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.445 0.00000 10.00000 10.000 40.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.00000 10.0 1.0000 2.0 1.000 6000.0 TAMU Team West Africa .0000 0.0000 2.2068E+09 2.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.445 0.000 6000.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.0 1.0000 2.72 - 0.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.8700 1.445 0.000 40.0 1.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 10 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.8700 1.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.000 6000.0000 ISODC Report .0000 0.0000 0.1143 0.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 8 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.1143 0.000 40.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300.5000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 11 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.000 6000.2068E+09 2.000 40.8700 1.8700 1.'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.2068E+09 2.00 1 9608.00000 10.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.00000 10.00 1 9608.2068E+09 2.1143 0.00 1 9608.000 40.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.1143 0.

000 6000.73 ISODC Report . Wind.dat * Current force coefficients Text : Mass.8700 1.0000 'termination of input data END Report5 1 MIMOSA Version 5.2068E+09 2. CE220NO04 Copyright DET NORSKE VERITAS AS. Wind.00 1 9608.0 1.445 0.0000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr 1 0 150 0 300. Norway Input file : y:\masswindcurrent2. Current Coefficients Input file : y:\masswindcurrent2.dat * Vessel mass and added mass Text : Mass. Current Coefficients TAMU Team West Africa . update : Access time : 14-APR-2004 18:14:51 Operating system : Win NT 5.445 0.1143 0.Box 300.000 40.5000 0.8700 1.03 sig wave MARINTEK Marketing and Support by DNV Software Program id : 5.5000 0.O.7-01 Computer : 586 Release date : 14-MAY-2003 Impl.00000 10.0000 2.2068E+09 2.0000 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 12 'linpty npocha 2 20 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 0 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric 0.0000 2.1143 0.0 [2195] User id : sts4924 CPU id : 0000200404 Installation : .7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 1 12 line 100 year intact with 3. N-1322 Hovik.0 'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0.'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl 1 0. P.

.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 3 12 line 100 year intact with 3...00 m/s Direction .74 - ISODC Report ..dat * Wind force coefficients Text : Mass.... MARINTEK TAMU Team West Africa ... Input file : y:\g15m...0 m Duration for short-term statistics : 180. : 230......5 inch chain system MIMOSA Version 5..sif * HF motion transfer functions Text : AKPO MOORING VERIFICATION ..03 sig wave * ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS * ---------------------------NOTE ! Propagation direction ( 0 deg : towards North ) ( 90 deg : towards East ) WIND NPD SPECTRUM Mean speed ..KBR 11/05/2003" Input file : y:\mooringsystem12 * Mooring system data Text : 4...00 min. Current Coefficients Input file : y:\g15m..KBR 11/05/2003" Water depth used in calculation of roll. : 15......7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 2 12 line 100 year intact with 3...03 sig wave MARINTEK Input file : y:\masswindcurrent2.00 deg..MIMOSA Version 5.......sif * Wave drift force coefficients Text : AKPO MOORING VERIFICATION ....... Wind. pitch and yaw : 40......

..00 deg..2 deg HEADING ..........6 deg 3. : COS^4 NO SWELL * STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES * -------------------------!--------------------------------------------------------! ! ! Surge comp.0 kN ! 0....090 Direction .9 kN ! -2055. : 0.0 kN ! 0......CURRENT Speed .. : 3. North)........7 deg ------------------------. Current profile used in comp. 0... kNm! ! Current ! -862.00 150.......0 kN !-3503.... : 1.....00 30.......2 kN Dir..00053 Form parameter (BETA) ....00 m/s Direction ...600 0......0000 kNm! ! Wave ! -51.00 20... ! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Wind ! -1724........ ...9 m DIRECTION (rel.. (m) (m/s) north (deg) 1 2 3 4 WAVE 10.......0000 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Total ! -2638..6 kN ! -1759.00 150..500 s Phillip constant (ALPHA) .500 150..00 150.......75 - ISODC Report ... ! Sway comp...0000 kNm! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fixed force ! 0..............7 deg 12 line 100 year intact with 3.4 kN ! 497..... North : 213........... : 150.. rel.070 Spectrum width parameter (SIGB) ... 3..00 40.... of line profile: Number Level Speed Direction rel.00 deg Short crested representation ... 217. : 1.3 kN !-3503. : 3.4 kN ! -201. rel..... Vessel : 213... : 230.Dir. ! Yaw comp. : 0... : 0...9 m 217...6 deg TAMU Team West Africa ...03 sig wave * EQUILIBRIUM POSITION * -----------------------Relative to Relative to GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position OFFSET .250 Peakedness parameter (GAMMA) .00 JONSWAP SPECTRUM.....00 1...800 0..300 Spectrum width parameter (SIGA) ...000 0...... : 15. kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! TOTAL FORCE : 3171.. Significant wave height (HS) ....03 m Peak period (TP) .6 kN ! 0....2 deg 0.9 kN ! 0..

99 -21..5 1769.8 3474.60 1.79 1.0 500.5 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.2 4520. tangent from hor.1 -19.7 1800.76 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.83 5.8 5271.0 500.01 1...1 1887.9 3.44 4 487.57 4.09 10 494..78 7 521. motion (m) plane (deg) 500.22 4..7 -19.73 6 402.50 3.66 1.0 3009.9 14..2 3474..31 4.18 11 447.4 m 12 line 100 year intact with 3.0 500.0 14.76 ISODC Report .47 1.2 14.7 3551.3 2602.07 9 679.46 1.73 1.5 1627.7 14.3 -17.2 3996.. deviation amplitude tension period (s) ------------------------------------------------------1 672.0 500..2 3551.2 3890.6 2602.44 3 843.X1 (North) ..28 12 398.3 14. Direction Type Mean Max Safety Segm.1 1629.3 4599..4 3063.6 1448.2 2690.4 -24.Top tension ---Max.7 -21.3 -20.44 2 757.3 14..85 3.7 -21.0 500..65 5 449.1 2459.1 m -2.98 5.8 15. LF AND HF MOTION * -----------------------------------------------** Line Dynamics Included ** Line No.84 4.8 14.05 8 598...58 1.9 2169...0 500.31 4.2 2690.4 m -3.0 -18. -3.2 14.6 4599.36 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 .6 1460.2 15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---.0 2749.0 3996..9 5271.84 1.1 m X2 (East) .2 3009.8 3890.8 3104.0 500.0 500.9 -20.75 3.85 1. -2.6 3104. (kN) (kN) factor No.0 500.0 500.7 4520.5 2442...26 2.0 500.9 14..7 3329.36 1.3 -22.03 sig wave * MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS.3 3329.6 -23..8 15....

5 deg -3. Vessel : 203..34 5. North).Dir....0 500..55 1..92 3.0 500.8 -19. kNm! ! Current ! -862.0 kN ! 0..46 1.5 deg X1 (North) . 0.59 1. North : 203..5 -17..6 m 209....1 m -1...78 4.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---. -3...52 2..5 kN Dir...0 500.4 kN ! -1215.08 4......8 -22.56 3.8 3672.. 209.-------------------------!--------------------------------------------------------! ! ! Surge comp.9 kN ! 0.0 500.4 kN ! 0.03 sig wave * MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS.83 -20..79 1..7 5007.0000 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Total ! -2768.6 m DIRECTION (rel.9 4299..51 4.20 1.0 -21.8 m 3.0 500.7 5127..0 500.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.99 2...7 deg * EQUILIBRIUM POSITION * -----------------------Relative to Relative to GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position OFFSET .4 2931..0000 kNm! ! Wave ! -60.....6 kN ! -165..28 1.5 -20.4 4042.2 3.7 deg ------------------------.5 kN !-3526. rel.0 kN !-3526.0 500.. (kN) (kN) factor No..... ! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Wind ! -1845.8 m 12 line 100 year intact with 3.6 -22.3 deg HEADING .0 500.7 3583.9 SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM TAMU Team West Africa .4 kN ! 497. motion (m) plane (deg) 500.48 2. rel..... LF AND HF MOTION * -----------------------------------------------** Line Dynamics Included ** Line No.3 -16..1 m X2 (East) . tangent from hor..7 3133. kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! TOTAL FORCE : 3023.90 1.3 deg 0.67 1.72 1.4 kN ! -1548.0 500.7 4266.2 -18... -1. ! Yaw comp.2 -18.0 500.1 -17.0000 kNm! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fixed force ! 0.4 3450.0 500. Direction Type Mean Max Safety Segm. 3. ! Sway comp.Top tension ---Max.0 kN ! 0.1 -19.77 - ISODC Report ....18 3.46 1.8 5850.71 4.40 1...0 4252..

2 14.9 15.4 15.31 11 503.1 3337.0 2802.7 2034.4 3450.7 14.2 3583.11 9 774.68 5 528.2 2088.9 2025.2 1613.7 14.3 2563.5 4042.8 14.1 5850.4 14.6 4252.8 1703.15 10 556.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.7 14.03 sig wave MARINTEK TAMU Team West Africa .7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 Page 8 12 line 100 year intact with 3.2 5007.56 3 919.4 14.0 1915.2 4266.4 1829.7 14.7 2950.9 2407.7 5127.57 2 812.09 8 664.6 3133.7 15.52 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 5.84 7 561.77 6 469.58 4 575.78 - ISODC Report .8 14.2 2931.43 12 444.6 4299. deviation amplitude tension period (s) ------------------------------------------------------1 706.6 3672.

2 45.800 1 10. 0. 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.000 0. 0. 0.2 0. 170.7222 1. 15. ballast tanks. In addition. 340. In addition. 10. additional commands are typed into the text file using Beta that tell StabCAD which stability analysis to perform (intact.79 - ISODC Report . 85. 0. INPUT FILE: ALPID 3D View ALPID Global XY Pl ALPID Global YZ Pl ALPID Global XZ Pl ALPREF 3D View 0.2 15.000 10. The user can then specify which particular “bodies”. DRAFT GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES GRPDES 11. 0. *CFORM 5. 340. 0. 15. 17. 7. *DAMAGE 0. 15. 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. and panels are the two-dimensional faces that connect the joints to form a three-dimensional body. 1. 90. 5.000 10. cross. etc). 15.4 0.58 169.707 10. STARB SIDE TAMU Team West Africa . STARB SIDE DWNFLD AFT. *CROSS DF 5. INTACT 0. 15.75 1 FSRU WEST AFRICA . 0. 0.000 10. *CFORM 5. 5. are to be damaged.0 D -0. i. Defining individual tanks as “bodies” allows StabCAD to isolate the tanks from the rest of the vessel when running a damaged stability analysis. 7.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. Once the vessel itself has been drawn.424 0.INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS STBOPT 0 CALC ME ME ST PT KGPAR 51. 0. 340.000 0.e. 36. 0. *CFORM 5.98 0. 0. 340. 4.707 0. 85.2 30.4 7. PORT SIDE DWNFLD AFT. 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). damaged.000 10. Joints are the individual points in the drawing. 0.4444 25. 0. CFORM 5. 170. miscellaneous dimensions such as the vessel’s draft and its CG values must be calculated outside of StabCAD and typed in manually.424 0. 170. 170. PORT SIDE DWNFLD BOW.

000 36 240.500 0.600 4.500 33.000 32.000 24.000-67.000-32.300 21.300-21.000 3 340.000-32.000 21 195.000 2 0.000 30 195.000-27.000 41 4.000-27.000 33.000 24.000 11 0.000 25.000-27.000 22 175.000 8 0.000 33.000 33.052 52 0.500 73.000 18 175.000-67.500 73.500 73.000-27.000-27.500 93.000 39 100.700 49 0.500 33.000 24.000 40 100.000 6 0.946 32.500 33.500 33.052-25.500 73.300-21.000-27.000 29 185.000-67.000 35 240.500 73.000 33.000 32.000 73.500 33.000 24 165.000 4 0.000 31 195.300 47 67.000-24.000 33.600 4.000 7 340.000 48.000 25 165.052-32.000 15 12.000-24.000 33 165.500 33.000 5 360.600 28.000 0.*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 1 0.000 22.80 ISODC Report TAMU Team West Africa .000 73.000 22.400 21.500 33.000 26 175.000 38 100.000 48.000 32 350.000 32.500 0.000 24.000 9 360.000 48.000-32.000 14 12.000-24.500 73.500 73.000 34 350.000 10 0.946 0.600 28.052-32.600 28.700 44 4.846 .700 48 67.000 19 185.000-32.300 21.000-67.000-32.000-27.000-27.000 23 195.400 21.000 37 240.500 0.300 46 67.000 65.000 27 175.000 0.400-21.300 43 4.500 73.600 4.000 20 185.052 50 0.500 0.000 73.846 51 0.846 53 34.500 33.500 32.300 42 4.000 73.000 25.500 33.500 0.000-24.700 45 67.000-27.000 16 12.000 48.500 73.000-25.600 28.052-25.000-25.052 54 34.000 28 185.000-27.400-21.000-27.000 32.500 32.500 73.000 17 12.000-32.500 0.000 33.600 4.000 12 0.500 73.000-65.000 13 0.

600 28.700 68 201.104-32.103-32.700-21.600 4.846 .700 80 272.700 84 335.600 4.600 28.600 28.700 87 335.500 32.400-21.052 107 68.500 0.700-21.300 69 201.155-25.207-25.700 21.052 101 68.400 21.600 21.300 58 71.155-25.500-21.700 64 138.600 4.207-25.052 113 102.700 88 34.300 85 335.600 28.103-32.700 79 268.600-21.500 32.946 0.946 0.500 32.600 28.300 74 205.700 72 205.600-21.103-25.600 4.600 28.846 100 68.052 97 34.300 77 268.500 21.600 28.300 66 138.846 96 34.700 59 71.700 67 138.846 114 102.600 28.800-21.700 83 272.800-21.300 62 134.600 4.600 4.300 70 201.946 32.946 32.300 73 205.300 86 335.846 116 136.052-32.600-21.104-25.600 21.600 4.800 21.052 111 102.155-32.600 4.600 4.052 105 68.846 108 102.600 28.600 21.700 71 201.052 117 136.846 112 102.600-21.946 0.700 21.207-32.300 82 272.500 0.300 78 268.500 21.600 28.946 0.500 32.700 76 268.500-21.600 4.946 32.700 63 134.700 60 134.155-32.500-21.400 21.846 104 68.600 4.946 32.155-32.052 115 102.600 28.946 0.500 0.600 28.500 32.500 21.500-21.104-25.846 106 68.600 4.103-25.300 57 71.600 28.600 21.600 28.052-25.500 0.946 32.600 28.600 4.846 110 102.207-32.700-21.300 65 138.052 56 71.104-32.400-21.700 75 205.600 4.700-21.500 0.052-25.846 98 34.155-32.700 21.946 32.052-32.300 61 134.000-25.500 21.000-25.500 0.500 32.81 ISODC Report TAMU Team West Africa .600 4.052 109 102.946 0.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 34.600 28.300 81 272.846 102 68.600 4.800 21.052 103 68.052 99 34.700 21.

500 0.052 241 0.258-25.361-25.516-25.846 154 272.310-32.500 32.500 0.846 144 238.464-25.946 0.206-25.052 123 136.946 32.846 160 306.052 153 272.500 0.000 32.052 245 34.052 133 204.052 25.846 150 272.946 0.155-25.846 162 306.946 0.500 0.946 32.413-25.516-25.464-25.052 131 170.052 143 238.258-32.258-32.846 132 204.946 0.946 32.310-32.413-32.846 134 204.052 139 204.155-25.500 32.846 124 170.413-25.052 155 272.258-32.464-32.361-32.258-25.465-25.362-25.258-32.500 32.052 135 204.500 32.516-32.846 128 170.946 32.361-32.052 119 136.052 127 170.846 146 238.052 25.946 0.310-32.946 32.310-25.846 120 136.052 165 340.846 142 238.052 243 0.206-32.362-32.846 240 0.362-25.052 159 306.946 32.846 148 272.310-25.052 151 272.052 161 306.464-32.052 141 238.465-25.946 0.413-32.465-32.500 32.946 0.846 126 170.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 118 136.846 156 306.846 140 238.500 0.500 32.413-25.500 32.516-32.500 32.846 158 306.413-25.846 164 340.946 0.000 32.206-32.362-32.946 0.500 32.946 0.500 0.052 32.052 147 238.500 0.946 32.052 125 170.946 32.310-25.846 152 272.361-25.413-32.500 32.500 0.052 149 272.946 32.500 0.500 32.946 32.052 32.052 167 340.052 145 238.846 166 340.500 0.846 .946 32.946 0.310-32.946 0.052 163 306.846 122 136.052 137 204.052 121 136.500 32.258-25.465-32.846 244 34.500 0.846 130 170.052 157 306.846 242 0.500 0.946 32.946 32.846 136 204.500 0.206-25.500 32.258-25.052 129 170.946 0.946 32.846 138 204.310-25.500 32.500 0.82 ISODC Report TAMU Team West Africa .413-32.946 0.

846 268 136.846 300 272.946 32.155 32.846 292 238.846 282 170.946 32.500 32.052 267 102.946 32.846 278 170.500 32.103 25.052 25.500 0.052 291 204.83 ISODC Report TAMU Team West Africa .052 277 170.500 32.207 25.206 32.362 25.206 25.946 0.946 0.500 32.052 273 136.258 32.052 297 238.310 32.207 32.052 283 170.310 32.052 269 136.361 32.846 248 34.206 32.500 0.946 0.052 289 204.362 25.846 288 204.207 25.946 0.258 32.052 271 136.846 298 238.052 255 68.052 259 68.846 250 34.155 25.052 299 238.207 32.362 32.500 0.846 296 238.052 32.103 32.258 25.500 32.946 32.103 32.413 25.946 0.258 25.310 25.052 265 102.846 262 102.946 32.052 275 136.052 25.052 285 204.946 0.052 261 102.413 32.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 246 34.258 25.052 301 272.310 32.155 32.846 284 204.500 0.946 32.052 293 238.104 32.103 25.946 0.052 287 204.500 32.846 260 102.052 295 238.104 25.946 32.413 32.155 25.500 32.310 32.846 266 102.000 25.946 0.500 32.052 279 170.500 32.500 0.846 254 68.500 32.155 32.052 263 102.500 0.846 274 136.052 251 34.500 32.310 25.500 0.500 0.155 25.500 32.846 270 136.310 25.846 272 136.000 25.946 32.946 32.846 264 102.846 286 204.946 0.362 32.413 25.052 257 68.946 0.500 32.846 258 68.946 32.258 32.052 247 34.946 32.846 276 170.846 294 238.946 0.946 32.206 25.846 .500 0.500 0.258 25.846 290 204.052 281 170.104 25.310 25.846 256 68.361 32.946 32.846 280 170.052 249 34.155 32.052 32.500 0.946 32.500 32.500 0.846 252 68.104 32.258 32.155 25.946 0.500 0.500 0.946 0.946 0.052 253 68.

052 JOINT 303 272.946 0.84 ISODC Report .413 32.45 100. 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 .500 0.464 25.946 32.500 32.000 CYLIND W SPL 38 39 5.846 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 5.464 25.464 32.000 CYLIND W OF2 26 27 5.413 25.465 25.946 0.464 32.500 32.846 JOINT 318 340. LNG STORAGE TANKS (5 TOTAL) TNKDEF 0. 3.052 JOINT 311 306.000 CYLIND W OF3 28 29 5.946 32. 0.000 CYLIND W OF3 21 23 5.516 25.413 32.JOINT 302 272.052 JOINT 319 340.846 JOINT 306 272.000 CYLIND W OF2 19 20 5.052 JOINT 313 306.846 JOINT 316 340.500 32.946 0.946 0.500 0.946 32.846 JOINT 304 272.500 32.000 CYLIND W SPL 39 40 5.500 0.465 32. 15.000 CYLIND W SPL 36 37 5.465 25.45 0.052 JOINT 307 272.052 JOINT 315 306.946 32.000 CYLIND W OF1 25 33 5.000 CYLIND W OF4 24 25 5.413 25.000 CYLIND W FLR 32 34 5.846 JOINT 312 306.465 32.846 JOINT 310 306.052 JOINT 309 306. 3.846 JOINT 308 306.000 BODY 1 T 0.946 0.500 0.516 32.516 25.946 32. 24.052 JOINT 317 340.361 25.000 CYLIND W SPL 35 36 5.516 32.052 JOINT 305 272.361 25.000 CYLIND W OF4 30 31 5.846 JOINT 314 306.

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

TAMU Team West Africa

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

TAMU Team West Africa

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

TAMU Team West Africa

- 87 -

ISODC Report

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..Moment of Inertia: Longitudinal About neutral axis of water plane area Transverse About neutral axis of water plane area Volume .The following Nomenclature is used in the computer output: Draft . Tons/inch displacement KPI ..... Kips/inch displacement MT/Cm .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 .. Displacemet of the vessel TPI ... Center of Buoyancy position (Longitudinal) (measured from reference point for LCB & LCF) TCB ... Transv metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy) BML .P.... Longitudinal metacentric height (measured from base line) LCB ... Center of Buoyancy position (Vertical) (measured from base line) WPA .... Measured from the base line (z=0......... Transverse metacentric height (measured from base line) KML .. Center of Floatation position (Longitudinal) (measured from reference point for LCB & LCF) TCF ......... Metric Ton/ cm displacement KMT ......88 ISODC Report .. Longit metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy) LCF ......... or x-y plane) Disp ...... Center of Floatation position (Transverse) (measured from coordinate system origin) W. Center of Buoyancy position (Transverse) (measured from coordinate system origin) VCB ... Water plane Area BMT .

5 9.60 10.4 8.61 2..55 0.85 0. 0.1 9.94 0. 0.12 3.63 0.40 7.00 1. 170.00 182512.6 229.45 1.00 22439.6 178060..00 22346.81 2..6 5.7 230.60 1.26 0.00 5.4 169097.20 5.) ( M.9 151190.91 2.00 5.40 0.58 0.73 1.80 5.15 0.75 0.42 3.00 5.40 9.80 1.0 229.-------..8 200495.00 0.7 230.6 6.) ( M.00 4.000 Deg Initial Trim Angle .7 10.41 0.) (M.4 230.34 0.57 0.When vessel is in equilibrium and not at the upright position.----------.00 22313.00 5.00 22455.00 22493.20 10.8 164618.00 3.00 3.5 155665.22 3.80 247001.00 159556.00 2.09 0.3 218471.51 2.40 145803.4 230.33 1.00 4..11 1.60 219324.00 4.32 3..00 251620.80 0.40 191705..00 22525.6 142246.18 0.20 187108.60 173325.98 1.4 8.0 110992.92 1.0 229.50 1.80 177917...Draft ---/ /-.1 229.0 209480.00 22298.00 6..61 0.00 2.09 0.4 5.00 22504.00 22464.00 2.73 0.79 0.18 0.20 11.76 0.31 0...00 5..40 214717.71 2..025 MT/Cu.80 7.01 0.0 191516.00 /--.) ( M.06 0.9 228.8 7.4 133309.7 230.40 6.79 0.00 3.20 6.00 22305.80 10.------.00 4.7 231970.6 7.8 229.20 256240.00 4.3 9.00 3..00 7.40 8.00 4.0 6.3 128842.40 5.40 122912.Meter Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) .67 1..) ( M.41 2.00 3.97 0.00 8.20 7..00 4...5 230.40 237769.54 0.000 Deg Density of Water .40 168734.25 0.00 11.5 230.05 0.64 0.1 6.28 1.00 22518.00 22329.43 0.00 5..37 0..00 22446.5 229.41 2.52 0..48 1.60 6.88 0.68 0.7 10..31 0.00 22385.81 2.37 0. the positive angle indicate that the part of the vessel to the right of the tilt axis is immersed in water StabCad Ver.49 0.88 0.Meter) (M^3) ------.) (S.00 22486.------.00 4.80 0.80 8.------.80 9.21 2.8 230..97 0.81 1.00 3.0 230..6 196005.00 5.49 0..00 113767.51 0.91 2.8 TAMU Team West Africa .70 0.71 2.--------5.00 22376.52 1.80 154970.60 7.71 0.3 236473.32 0.08 0.80 200905.00 3.46 0.4 187029.1 7.7 5..60 8.00 136641.82 0.00 22471.97 0.00 2.8 8. 1.7 249990.00 10.3 119914..17 1.60 5..03 0.00 4.2 213975..00 22408.7 7...6 229.12 0.01 3.55 0.1 229.36 1. 340.00 22510.) ( M.2 7.60 9.4 9.1 6.00 22535.80 223933..8 229.1 229.00 9.91 0.70 1.20 9.60 150386..20 164144.60 127487.9 240977.00 2.00 Reference Point for LCB & LCF (X-Coordinate) .1 228.28 0.5 173578.00 22423.2 228.67 0.00 3.9 230.00 205507.------.5 11.94 0.80 132063.6 227469.19 1.3 9.00 22368..85 0.59 1. 0.2 228. 4..00 22338..75 1.00 22321.Center of Buoyancy--/ /-Center of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged AFT FWD Disp TPI LCB TCB VCB LCF TCF Area Volume ( M.00 22480.00 228543.05 0.8 228.------.8 8.30 SP1 Page 2 FSRU WEST AFRICA .31 2.8 146718.00 22399.62 3.7 160141.2 10.40 10.43 0.00 22359.20 233156.12 0.0 229.51 2..23 0.60 242385.11 2.------.15 0.00 22391.8 6.60 196304.8 230.20 118338..61 2.90 1.52 3..0 230.1 245483.89 ISODC Report .8 182544.INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS *** Hydrostatic Table *** Initial Heel Angle .64 0.00 3.00 22414.9 222969.00 5.3 11.00 22431.03 0.56 1.01 2..9 230.5 231..6 124377.6 8.06 1.80 6.3 10..20 210111.70 0.------.08 1.00 Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) .Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.00 3.4 10.21 1.0 137777.31 2.20 8.21 0.61 0.20 141221.6 115452.69 1.7 228.84 1.9 204987.27 1.25 0.01 1..91 0.42 1.88 0.00 22542.00 22350.4 5.89 1.00 4.6 229.

00 0..00 6....025 MT/Cu.3 22585..20 14.) (S. 340....00 22628.00 0.2 232.7 322324..40 307168..14 231.20 12.00 7..30 SP1 Page 3 FSRU WEST AFRICA .8 259010.62 231.-------.73 1.92 0..60 11..00 /--.76 1.------.30 0.Metacenter ---------/ /-.INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS *** Hydrostatic Table *** Initial Heel Angle ..00 0.84 2.00 22652.12 6.60 11.30 SP1 Page 4 FSRU WEST AFRICA .8 13. 170.00 12...------.000 Deg Density of Water .52 3.2 13.025 MT/Cu.00 7.00 22673.Water Plane -----/ With KG=0 With KG=0 /---------. 0.00 0..7 274737.60 12.90 - ISODC Report .5 232.40 12...6 14.. 170.20 302530.32 6.1 299676..000 Deg Initial Trim Angle .07 0.50 2.20 12.40 14.42 3.4 313260.5 317791.00 13.Meter Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) .09 2.0 22570..7 277068.6 268036..00 /--.------.73 4.40 12.8 231.8 StabCad Ver.80 13.00 297894.1 232..7 254499...04 0.) (M.00 12.60 13..02 6.00 Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) .25 0.00 7..26 0..00 Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) .Moment Of Inertia --/ Moment to Heel TAMU Team West Africa .......72 5.Meter Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) .00 22670..13 4. 340.03 4.4 14.2 304203.89 1.00 22550. 0..Center of Buoyancy--/ /-Center of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged AFT FWD Disp TPI LCB TCB VCB LCF TCF Area Volume ( M.00 0.Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.000 Deg Density of Water ....60 335030.) ( M...4 22597..66 3.38 2.0 13..16 0.44 3. 4...00 22658..10 0..22 6.1 286107..4 272551.40 11..60 12.00 7.4 263522.19 2.48 0.00 5.5 232.----------..6 281587.94 2.82 3.22 0.80 12...8 326858.------..00 0..80 339679.1 232..00 6.40 11.79 1.INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS *** Hydrostatic Table *** Initial Heel Angle .6 14.3 265485..00 0.00 6.00 22689..03 2.41 2.00 22612.00 0..1 22582.2 StabCad Ver.8 231.Draft ---/ /-..20 325736.7 270110.20 13.00 321092..------..------..18 0.00 14.60 14.13 0. 1.5 231.00 7.) ( M..34 231.3 232.00 0.00 22682.82 5. 1..) ( M.------..44 0.14 0.000 Deg Initial Trim Angle .3 288626.80 11.23 4.53 4.00 Reference Point for LCB & LCF (X-Coordinate) ...60 311808.47 231.8 13.7 14...9 295152.93 4.33 4.83 4.58 3..00 15...00 6.88 0.3 279365..0 335931...25 2.50 231.9 22564.4 232.56 2.40 330382. 0.78 1.00 22637..8 290628.00 0.9 331394.34 0..22 231.00 22618.02 0.80 12.80 14.80 260862.00 0.3 22557..40 13...92 1.5 283995.--------13.28 231.. 4..43 4.28 0.) ( M.00 0..19 0.11.1 232.6 22603.63 4.4 15.00 22643.86 1.82 1.54 0.00 Reference Point for LCB & LCF (X-Coordinate) .) ( M.06 0.00 7.00 0.7 231.92 6.Meter) (M^3) ------.80 316449.8 293259.69 1.01 0.78 3..3 308731.. 0.1 14.00 6..68 3.00 344330.00 0.52 3.95 0.Draft ---/ Moment to Trim /----.. 0. 0.98 0.

6 39909.30 40.40 122912.6 52.AFT FWD Disp KMT KML BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal 0.) ( M^4) ( M^4) (M. 220455296. 221876400.89 1344.99 1046.1 39525.3 39294.0 39574. 219300272.53 1551.94 1118.80 154970.10 1596. 1489.60 173325.78 37.25 7889662.99 1765. 1600.0 40154.5 9. 221619008.02 68.45 1278.1 50.68 49. 1591.64 1310.25 1217.20 141221.8 43.1 65.81 7867306.25 44.20 9. 1495. 220223264.15 39.4 8. 223278512.2 68.72 7913985.5 40054.-------------.04 7897664. 1454.Ton-M) (M.91 - ISODC Report .99 7894912.43 1113.09 1459. 1501.84 7855877.5 8.0 40005.------.8 54.65 41.24 7891525.7 39201.41 46.40 8. ( M.23 1190.80 7.20 164144.62 1898.00 159556. 1526.15 1031.8 5.60 127487.8 49.51 1826.20 8.5 46.60 9.8 39814. 1553.7 6.02 1895.99 1648.4 39247. 1513. 1608. 223971760. 1568.0 56.03 70.53 7850407.1 7.40 214717.32 1548.0 7.2 7.20 6.5 39715.-------.40 168734. 219064096.40 6.73 1969.) ( M.60 7. 218602848.40 5.------. 0.25 1163.73 7875328.89 7902972. 220934992.58 1090.77 1068.3 6.7 45.00 1651. 1519.60 1348.27 7917050.92 1706.5 39857.20 187108.4 40302.6 55.07 7881005.Ton-M) ------. 1532.80 5. 221389648.00 9. 1584.----------. 1539.0 40252.82 1384.60 7886078. 1561.8 8.98 38.4 42.00 8.96 1505.18 7869570.-----------.32 1137.40 9.50 1463.60 219324.6 8.6 TAMU Team West Africa . 219529648.2 8.54 7864266.18 1763.1 48.60 150386.1 39156. 1463.1 39622.2 40105.38 55.61 1419.0 58.44 1314.5 41.4 39478.9 40202.) ( M.6 60.00 113767.54 65.80 1051.00 5. 1484.5 44.10 43.1 51.8 9.7 63.86 7861454.21 1381.0 6.80 8. 220003264.01 Deg.6 39387.) ( M.3 9.80 223933. 221166704. 223510576.7 5.80 50.40 7.25 42.------.80 9.2 9. 1478.13 52.58 7872366. 220697184.36 7908732.32 1247. 223031776.48 1072.00 136641.------.3 39340.98 63. 1468.80 177917.16 45.7 41.0 39762.2 39669.-------------5.63 7906088.9 5.20 118338.80 200905.36 1282.33 1251.02 1703. 222337232. 222084496.24 1026.60 5.80 6.) ( M.60 6.60 8.00 205507.4 6.41 7853002. 1507. 222573072.40 145803.80 132063.20 210111.91 57.9 70.20 5. 218830528. 224211328.------.19 1094.00 182512.8 62.34 7900308.30 7878375.23 1972.53 36.21 1599. 223739664.76 61.) (M.07 7911412. 1473.0 47.00 7.00 6.88 53.20 7.0 7.40 191705.2 73. 222799216.19 36.18 7858744.55 58.01 Deg.0 9. 1458.56 1167.73 1142.22 1829.0 39434.60 196304. 1576.4 5.57 47.36 1222.86 7883518. 219765936.8 43.0 6.44 1194.Tons) ( M.66 1502.12 1422.7 39958.0 7. 1546.

) ( M^4) ( M^4) (M.48 879.. 4..----------..2 1652. 7924928.-------.82 796.91 935.------.2 10.36 909..20 40658.. 1616. 227055376.------.Ton-M) ------...00 Reference Point for LCB & LCF (X-Coordinate) .93 826.------.80 41073.4 1700.50 11.0 12.60 41021.40 40709.8 34.80 40554.00 228543. 224909024.00 Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ..00 251620.39 784.52 1006.40 40451.15 859.-------------.5 41129.Meter Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) .7 10.32 919.80 247001.1 1741.INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS *** Hydrostatic Table *** Initial Heel Angle .29 839.20 40404.) ( M. 226806320..95 992.000 Deg Density of Water ...5 StabCad Ver.33 940...1 1680.9 TAMU Team West Africa .40 260862.60 40504. 226105296.60 242385.17 833.Moment Of Inertia --/ Moment to Heel Moment to Trim AFT FWD Disp KMT KML BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal 0.5 12. 225867120..84 957..00 40353.8 10.65 35..1 11. ( M.40 237769..68 32.80 270110. 7936330.78 34.0 11..16 969.84 11. 224692464. 227523376.7 36.. 170.01 Deg.55 7961468.Ton-M) (M..12 31.5 37..83 987.70 820.2 11. 0.58 814. 225638752.. 226566224.66 873.65 846.53 28.3 36.4 1720.0 38. 7933845. 227282032.20 29.92 - ISODC Report .00 13.00 40608..07 865..6 12.00 297894.18 12. 7958260.Water Plane -----/ With KG=0 With KG=0 /--.. 225157168.20 40917. 226332944. 7950380.20 256240.29 11.19 29.7 39.91 894.3 34.. 340.8 11.30 SP1 Page 5 FSRU WEST AFRICA .10.000 Deg Initial Trim Angle .16 11.8 34.8 1625.00 12.9 40.60 288626.56 10..Tons) ( M.. 7939227.20 888.. 0.3 1661. 7947082.46 33.15 31.0 10.) ( M..40 40968.05 7919694.71 32.63 10.------. 7930530..66 30.91 34.20 279365.80 40811..) (M. 1763.7 36..07 12.68 30.08 27.84 924.8 1731.8 11.8 10. 0.00 40863.5 35..5 1634.025 MT/Cu.00 274737.38 974. 225384992.4 37..79 10. 224448192.53 952.9 38.8 1752.3 1710. 227754272.-----------.33 28.01 Deg.15 10.------.20 233156.3 12.00 /----.75 903.53 1011.47 27.43 11. 228013152.7 1671.67 852.8 12.) ( M.80 293259. 7955568. 7952710.92 791.. 7928140. 7941616.-------------13. 7944182.7 1690. 7922686..40 283995.25 808.31 12.5 33.. 0.Draft ---/ /---------...60 265485.2 1643.) ( M..3 35.24 802.0 39.Metacenter ---------/ /-..60 40759..76 12. 1..

80 316449.....23 729. 7983038.3 14.02 758.1 14.1 31. 7969370..69 24.33 23.8 StabCad Ver..31 693.. 1774.. 7988608.1 31..0 13. 7977638.80 339679.3 31.20 751..98 773. 7974938.82 741.INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS Friday 3/12/2004 15:25: 9 Input File Name:X:\STABCAD\FSRU-LOADED-INTACT Output File Name:X:\STABCAD\FSRU-LOADED-INTACT.59 762.6 13.08 25..76 712.40 41234.60 41286.9 1797... 229671808..6 1856..3 1881. 230382416.8 15. 228239600.7 33.4 32.65 26..51 15.94 24. 7980468.6 14.8 1869...00 41394.00 41667.60 311808.10 694.. 228967824.20 325736..9 1820.78 24. 229428800.. 240 Number Of Plates ..... 229185760.42 703.99 719.61 14.4 14.OT9 * * * Problem Description * * * Number Of Joints .2 1808.20 41449.64 14.53 701. 229897968. 7986286.92 26... 13 Number Of Stations . 4.49 738.6 1832.3 13..3 13.40 307168..10 721.1 32..2 33. 228478816..80 41614.30 SP1 Page 6 FSRU WEST AFRICA .5 32.40 330382..36 14.20 302530.8 33.95 14.20 41181.. 7972528... 0 Total Execution time = 0: 0: 0 (000) TAMU Team West Africa ...75 748. 228706656.82 13.64 25..40 41504.78 685..14 26. 7966944.46 731.3 14.55 14.31 769.80 41344...61 779.6 1785.57 25.42 13.5 1844.00 321092.30 13.80 7964088.93 - ISODC Report . 230156864.13.60 41556.60 335030..75 710.5 31.00 344330. 162 Number Of Cylinders ..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful