Berkeley Catamaran Design Competition

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

102 views

Berkeley Catamaran Design Competition

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Fluid Mechanics
- catamaran analysis
- Kmart Catamaran
- Catamaran
- Armstrong, Schmieman - On the Added Resistance of Catamarans in Waves - 2005
- The Wharram Design Book PDF
- Catamaran
- Savitsky - On the Subject of High Speed Monohulls
- Resistance Characteristics of Semi-Displacement Mega Yacht Hull Forms[1][1]
- Wave Restance for High-speed Catamarans
- Experimental Assessment of Interference Resistance for a Series 60 Catamaran
- Resistance Components of a Catamaran
- Catamaran
- Anthony F Molland_ Stephen R Turnock_ Dominic a Hudson-Ship Resistance and Propulsion _ Practical Estimation of Ship Propulsive Power-Cambridge University Press (2011)
- Archimedes Law Lesson Plan
- Surge-Pressure-Prediction-for-Running-Liners.pdf
- Mech_All.pdf
- Ansys Cfx Intro 12.0 1st-Edition - Workshops
- Hydraulics_-_H_W._King_and_C_O._Wisler.pdf
- solarboatadvanced

You are on page 1of 88

Acknowledgements

This work has been carried out on the department of Ocean Engineering at The University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Professor R. G. Bea and his valuable guidance. The project work started January 2002 and was submitted for review and grading as a part of the course OE 180: Design, Construction & Maintenance of Engineered Systems, May 16th 2002. The group worked together as experts in team, where each member contributed with their own special area of expertise: Alexandra Koefoed Geir Olav Kaase Mathieu Beunier Shaik Mushtaq Amir Conrad Osmanagic Managed the hydrodynamics, and stability Managed the structural design Managed the flow rates and system design Managed the fender and sea fastening design Coordinated the report and managed the procedures, transport and risk analysis. All members worked on the design where we followed a design spiral, i.e. the vessel was redesigned several times. We wish to thank Chevron Texaco represented by James Stear and Owen Oakley, John Halkyard CSO Aker Engineering, James Wiseman Intec, and Professor Mansour at UC Berkeley for their help, encouragement and participation as coaches during the whole project period. Berkeley, June 20th 2002

ii

Executive Summary

This report describes an offshore deck installation system capable of installing platforms weighing up to 30 000 tons in open seas. The system is designed to be a multi purpose installation system. The desire is to meet the needs of the future deep water offshore fields, in particular spar structures (where an onsite installation is required). The system utilizes the float over deck concept, were the offshore platform deck is lowered onto a substructure by ballasting the carrying vessel and or raising the substructure. The project focuses on meeting the challenge of having an ultra heavy capability installation system that requires far smaller instillation periods than conventional methods. These goals are met by creating a catamaran system with unique rapid ballasting capabilities. The catamaran is a purpose built vessel that consists of two rectangular hulls connected by a box girder. Each hull is divided into conventional buoyancy sections and sections that have large flood valves. The tanks with large flood valves allow for rapid flooding. This action also compress the existing air in the cells. This air is later vented to lower the system even further. The compressed air is piped to the substructure to increase its buoyancy by evacuating water from its ballast tanks. The ballasting of the catamaran system is studied in detail and rates for lowering are found to be reduced to as little as 40 minutes. A other time reducing measure that has been introduced is a unique fender system. The fender is primarily designed to absorb the contact shock, however it will also work as a guide when a substructure enters the catamaran. The idea is to reduce hook up time during the Spar installation sequence. The catamaran is not self-propelled and is transported by way of heavy lift carrier vessel or towed with tugs. Important analysis that has been performed is: Stability calculations for the HLV transport, in field waiting and installation. A linear frequency based hydrodynamic analyze on both the transportation scenario and the installation scenario. An overview of a preliminary risk analysis, considering every stage from deck load-out to deck installation. The risk analysis of such a novel system is important due to its inherent unproven characteristics. A rough cost estimate is done of the system versus a crane lifted deck installation. Structural analysis of the hull

The system was analyzed to prove its feasibility with respect to construction, transportation, offshore operation and cost. All limiting codes and regulations are taken into consideration. The analyses of the actual design of the vessel is reasonably well detailed, due to the fact that the building of the vessel would represent the greatest cost and accurate construction quotes would be needed to justify the project.

20m 88m

100m

i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..2 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...3 1 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 8 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT AND SPECIALIZED VESSEL DESIGN ................... 10 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 5.1 5.2 6 6.1 6.2 7 8 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT ........................................................................................... 10 WEIGHT...................................................................................................................... 13 SPECIALIZED VESSEL DESIGN ....................................................................................... 15 LOWERING PROCESS.................................................................................................... 16 STEP-BY-STEP SEQUENCE: ............................................................................................ 23 TIME MANAGEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ............................................................................. 30 TRANSPORT OPTIONS .................................................................................................. 32 SEA STATE ................................................................................................................. 34 STABILITY .................................................................................................................. 35 ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN ANALYSES .............................................................................. 37 RESULTS..................................................................................................................... 38 STABILITY DURING IN FIELD WAITING .......................................................................... 41 FENDERS .................................................................................................................... 42

TRANSPORT .................................................................................................................. 32

SEA FASTENING ........................................................................................................... 45 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS .................................................................. 48 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 48 STRUCTURAL DESIGN ................................................................................................. 49 CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................ 53 LOAD CALCULATIONS................................................................................................. 54 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 57

9 RISKS FOR SEVERE OR CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE OF DECK, VESSEL OR SUBSTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................. 60 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 10 10.1 10.2 DECK LOAD FROM QUAY............................................................................................ 60 DECK INSTALLATION ON SUBSTRUCTURE .................................................................... 61 WAITING IN FIELD HAZARDS ...................................................................................... 61 TRANSPORT ................................................................................................................ 61 INSTALLATION RISK TO PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT. .................................................. 63 COST ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 66 CONSTRUCTION COST ................................................................................................. 66 TRANSPORTATION AND INSTALLATION COST COMPARATIVE STUDY .............................. 66 5

11 12 1. 2. 3. 4.

DELIVERABLES. ....................................................................................................... 69 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 70 APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................... 81 APPENDIX 3 ................................................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX 4 ................................................................................................................... 88

FIGURES Figure 2.1 Main Dimensions side view. .................................................................................. 11 Figure 2.2 Main Dimensions front view.................................................................................. 11 Figure 2.3.Main Dimensions top view..................................................................................... 11 Figure 2.4: Pipes and valves arrangement ............................................................................. 16 Figure 2.5................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2.6................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2.8................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 3.1................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3.2. Quay slide.............................................................................................................. 24 Figure 3.3, Catamaran on HLV, side view ............................................................................. 25 Figure 3.4, Catamaran on HLV, top view. ............................................................................. 25 Figure 3.5, towing to site ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3.6, positioning of catamaran. ..................................................................................... 27 Figure 3.7, first stage of lowering, contact is made. ............................................................... 28 Figure 3.8, second stage of lowering, 100%weight transfer................................................... 29 Figure 4.1, Towing................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 4.2, Transport on HLV................................................................................................ 33 Figure 4.3, Separate transportation........................................................................................ 34 Figure 4.4. GZ-curve for transport......................................................................................... 36 Figure 5.1 Response Amplitude Operator for the Catamaran in Head Seas........................ 39 Figure 5.2 Response Amplitude Operator for HLCV in Head Seas...................................... 40 Figure:6.1. GZ-curve for in field waiting. .............................................................................. 41 Figure 6.2: Fender design........................................................................................................ 43 Figure 6.4: Tugs keeping the whole system together ............................................................. 44 Figure 7.1: Forces acting on the Sea Fastening and the Launch Rail ................................... 46 Figure 8.1: Pontoon cross-section: Web-frame and bulkhead............................................... 50 Figure 8.2: Boxgirder cross-section ........................................................................................ 51 Figure 8.3: Horizontal Froude-Krilov forces ......................................................................... 54 Figure 8.4: Top view of catamaran with load case 1.............................................................. 54 Figure 8.5: Vertical bending of the box-girder....................................................................... 55 Figure 8.6 Catamaran on HLV............................................................................................... 55 Figure 8.7: Beam model of pontoon outside HLV deck ......................................................... 56 Figure 8.7: Global forces on pontoon beam ........................................................................... 57 Figures appendix 1 Figure 1: Time management. .................................................................................................. 74 Figure 2: Global shear force on a pontoon............................................................................. 77

Figure 3: Global bending moment on a pontoon.................................................................... 78 Figure 4: FEA mesh of bottom plate field .............................................................................. 80 Figures appendix 2 Figure 1, flow chart ................................................................................................................. 81 Tables Table 2.1.Main Dimensions..................................................................................................... 10 Table 2.2 Heavy Lift Vessel Data............................................................................................ 13 Table 2.3. Mass and Inertia Data............................................................................................ 14 Table 2.4 .................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 3.10, Task time measures.............................................................................................. 30 Table 4.4 Stability in transportation....................................................................................... 36 Table 5.1 Resonant Frequencies for the Catamaran.............................................................. 38 Table 6.1. Stability in field waiting. ........................................................................................ 41 Table 6.2 Stability in Installation............................................................................................ 42 Table 8.1: Dimensions of structural members in the catamaran........................................... 52 Table 8.2: ABS class-rules....................................................................................................... 53 Table 8.3: ABS scantling requirements .................................................................................. 53 Table 8.6: Global forces .......................................................................................................... 58 Table 8.6: Resulting forces and moments on box-girder ....................................................... 59 Table 8.7: Box-girder stresses................................................................................................. 59 Table 8.8: Plate analysis results .............................................................................................. 59 Table 9.1 .................................................................................................................................. 64 Table 9.2 .................................................................................................................................. 64 Table 9.3 .................................................................................................................................. 64 Tables appendix 1 Table 1: Weight Data .............................................................................................................. 71 Table 2 Time consumption...................................................................................................... 73 Table 3: Stress analysis parameters........................................................................................ 75 Table 4: Froude-Krilov forces due to load case 1, load case 2 and load case 3:.................... 75 Table 5: FEA Properties ......................................................................................................... 79 Table 6: Material properties................................................................................................... 79 Tables appendix 2 Table 2, hazard analysis.......................................................................................................... 82

1 Introduction

Offshore structures consist of 3 primary sections foundation, substructure and topside. As the oil and gas industry has ventured into deeper waters the substructures have become floating units. Such deep-water fields are often far from any land based processing facilities and therefore require heavy topside structures. The problem we present a solution to be how an ultra heavy deck can be installed at sea on a floating substructure. The solution has applications for installations of decks on a variety substructures but lends its self particularly well to the floating SPAR substructures. Our concept is to construct a catamaran vessel that can engulf a substructure, while supporting a 30 000 ton deck. The Catamaran can then de-ballast and transfer the deck onto the substructure. The concept of float-over decks is not new, it extends back to an original patent for truss installation for bridges were bridge spans were floated in between pillars on barges and then lowered by ballasting. Since the 1894 patent there have been approximately 17 float-over decks installed on permanent structures in open waters, and 20 decks installed in sheltered waters on CONDEEPS or TLPS. The largest ever float-over deck in open waters was 10 000 tons, while decks in excess of 50 000 tons have been floated onto structures in sheltered waters. Our idea is to create a system that could install the ultra heavy decks achieved in sheltered waters in the open seas. The system is based on installing on the relatively new concept of a Spar substructure. A spar is basically a long heavily ballasted cylinder floating vertically, which supports a deck system and is moored into position. There are currently multiple Spars in use with their decks being installed by way of heavy lift crane vessel. Heavy lift crane vessels are limited to maximum lifts of the order of 10,000 tons and have a steep daily rate. In addition huge costs associated with connecting the modules make this solution a very expensive one. This is the direct and established alternative to the float-over method. All installation systems have an allowable sea state; in general this sea state is around 1 m significant wave height and can have direction and wave period limitations. The likelihood of this weather occurring and for how long is directly relates to the cost of the system. This is due to the high cost of heavy lift installation cranes as well as the cost of all of the support personnel, carrying vessel, support boats and equipment on an hourly rate. There are two ways the weather window can be affected given a certain field. One is to use a system that has a high allowable weather installation sea state and thereby increase the chance of the weather window occurring. The other is to do the operation in a short amount of time and therefore requiring a smaller span of good weather and hence increase the chance of its occurrence, or more correctly its prediction.

Our idea focused on meeting the challenge of having an ultra heavy capability installation system that required far smaller installation periods than conventional methods. We tried to incorporate measures that would allow the system to dampen motions and therefore have a higher allowable installation sea state. It was felt that these measures could not be sufficiently proven in a feasibility study and are only commented on in the report.

2.1.1 Objective and functionalities The objective of the system is to carry an ultra heavy deck and quickly lower into place on a supporting structure. (For this study we have used a spar as target structure.) The following are specific key functionalities: stabilizing the pontoons around the substructure, lowering the deck on top of it, controlling the lowering rate. We adapted the general arrangement of our system to meet the requirements associated with these special operations. 2.1.2 Main Dimensions The catamaran that we have designed for installation of the deck on the substructure consists of two rectangular pontoons. They are connected aft with a box girder to form one rigid body. The box girder has openings in top and bottom to let water and air flow in and out, hence it does not contribute to buoyancy. The hulls of the pontoons are divided into three sections. The two end sections are conventional buoyancy tanks and the middle section is what we call cells. These were originally thought to have an open bottom. Buoyancy contribution from this section would thus be pressurized air. In the final design the middle cells have a closed bottom with large valves to let seawater in. Reasoning for this decision can be found under the paragraph Constraints on Main Dimensions. The final Main Dimensions for the catamaran are presented in table 2.1. Table 2.1.Main Dimensions. Length of Pontoons Length of Cells Length of Buoyancy Tanks Length of Box Girder Width of Pontoons Width of Box Girder Height of Pontoons Height of Box Girder

The abbreviations for main dimensions are shown in figure 2.1. to 2.3. below.

10

11

2.1.3 Analysis for main dimensions. The main challenge associated with selecting the main dimensions was the new concept of an open cell bottom. This configuration implies that conventional buoyancy calculations dont apply. Three basic physical principles were applied to calculate the contribution from air under pressure in the cells to total buoyancy in the system. Ideal gas law governs the compression of air inside the open cells. Assuming an isothermal process, temperature is constant during compression, and that no air escapes so that the mass is constant the equation for our system becomes: (for definition of symbols see figures above or abbreviation list.) p = cons tan t a gives, p int = p atm h h d int (2.1)

Where dint is draft inside the open cells and pint is internal pressure in ballast tanks. Bernoullis law along a streamline assuming no velocity in the fluid provide the relation between water level inside the open cells and draft of the pontoons. p + w gz = cons tan t gives, p atm = p int + g (d int d out ) (2.2)

Where dout is draft of the pontoons measured on the outside. Finally the system has to be in equilibrium. Forces from pressurized and conventional buoyancy tanks have to equal weight of deck and catamaran. M g = 2 ( d out w lb w g + ( pint patm ) w lc ) (2.3)

The three relations above constitute a set of three equations that can be solved for the three unknowns: dint , pint and dout. 2.1.4 Constraints on Main Dimensions. All modes of operation for the catamaran represent different constraints on the main dimensions. In transport, dimensions have to fit the capacity of heavy lift vessel, for our design we have used the dimensions of Mighty Servant 1. From a selection of heavy lift vessels that are in operation today it had the more optimal dimensions. For data see table 2.2. Constraints from the heavy lift vessel include total length and width and area of pontoons to comply with size of cargo deck and load per square meters respectively. Furthermore the heavy lift vessel sets a limitation to draft of pontoons when they float on and off the cargo deck.

12

Table 2.2 Heavy Lift Vessel Data. Name of vessel Deadweight Deck Load Deck Width Deck Length Launch Draft [metric tons] [t/sq.m] [m] [m] [m] Black Marlin 57021 27.5 42 178.2 10.03 Blue Marlin 57021 27.5 42 178.2 10.03 Mighty Servant 1 40190 19-40 50 150 14 Mighty Servant 3 27720 19-25 40 140 10 Transshelf 34.03 19-25 40 132 9 However the most important constraints come from the installation procedure, in view of the fact that this is the catamarans purpose. The catamaran has to fit around the target installation structure, in our study a spar of 48 m diameter. Accordingly the catamaran gets a considerable width, which has a very positive effect on initial stability as a result of increased waterline moment of inertia. The catamaran needs a large range of drafts. This was one of the reasons for closing off the bottom. Conventional buoyancy is more effective than air under pressure and thus it gives us larger range of drafts. Closed bottoms create the possibility to have three different modes of operation: Closed bottom and top valves, open bottom and closed top valves and open bottom and top valves. The conventional buoyancy tanks are dimensional zed to keep the catamaran floating just above water level when the deck is off loaded and all valves are open. This minimizes the risk of the pontoon floating up and getting jammed under the deck after installation. The three modes of operation acquired by closing the bottom also provides flexibility towards what speed the catamaran is lowered with. Next with closed bottom the stability is better and easier to calculate. We have good stability while waiting for a sufficient weather window to start the installation.

2.2 Weight.

This section covers the assumptions, calculations and results for mass and mass-moments of inertia (also known as radius of gyration.) that are used in computations throughout the design. More details can be found in Appendix 1. Weight is assumed uniformly distributed in all bodies. Two systems are calculated, System 1:deck on catamaran and System 2:deck and catamaran on the HLV. The results are presented in Table 2.3. For system 1, the origin of the coordinate system is located aft at the keel and center plane is plane of symmetry. For system 2 the origin is aft at the keel of the HLV and center plane in the HLV is plane of symmetry.

13

Table 2.3. Mass and Inertia Data System 1 System 2 Total Mass 3.84E7 kg 7.73E7 kg Center of Gravity x-coordinate 50.0 m 91.3 m Center of Gravity y-coordinate 0.0 m 0.0 m Center of Gravity z-coordinate 26.8 m 22.3 m 4 Global Moment of Inertia Ixx 5.53E10 m 8.54E10 m4 Global Moment of Inertia Iyy 1.48E11 m4 8.57E11 m4 Global Moment of Inertia Izz 1.39E11 m4 8.14E11 m4 4 Global Moment of Inertia Ixy 0m 0 m4 Global Moment of Inertia Ixz 0 m4 1.53E11 m4

x-coordinate is longitudinal, y coordinate is transversal and z coordinate is vertically.

14

2.3.1 Fenders In order to reduce the time required to hook up the catamaran to the spar hull, it is decided to use a method that would require less mating lines than usual. A fender system is added to the pontoons and the box girder to give the entire catamaran a U shape. A complementary male fender system is added to the substructure hull that fits neatly the catamarans fenders. Tugs tension the catamaran against the substructure to maintain contact. 2.3.2 Pipes and valves The lowering of the catamaran carrying the deck is performed by filling the pontoons with water. Each pontoon is divided into three sections. One of them is a ballast tank. For structural reasons, it is actually made of six independent and identical cells. The total ballasting volume is 3.41*104 m3 . The other two, located at the ends, are buoyancy tanks. They are sealed and provide enough buoyancy to carry the pontoons (without deck load). Hydraulic valves on the bottom of the cells are used to control the incoming water flow rate. There is one valve per cell. 30 inches diameter valves were chosen to maximize the flow rate. For the given range of draft and thus of water pressure at the bottom of the catamaran, the flow rate is estimated to Qmax = 1.5m3 / s . This gives a total maximum ballasting rate capacity of Qmax,tot = 2 6* Qmax = 18m3 / s = 6.48m3 / hr At the top of each cell there are air valves. The air can be either released to the atmosphere, or, in order to reduce the lowering time, be injected into the ballast tanks of the substructure, thereby forcing it to rise as the catamaran sinks. This latter option is made possible by connecting air valves on top of the pontoons to the substructure by flexible pipes. To ensure equilibrium of pressure between the different cells, they are interconnected with pipes. The design pressure inside the cells is two times the atmospheric pressure.

15

Figure 2.4: Pipes and valves arrangement As shown in Figure 2.4, both air and water valves can be operated from a cat way located above the top of each pontoon. At this elevated position, operators can work the equipment without getting wet. 2.3.3 De ballasting pumps At the end of the lowering process, the cells of the catamaran are filled with water. The catamaran is towed away from the substructure, and, in order to put it back on the HLV, water has to be pumped out (according to the results, the final draft of the catamaran would have to be reduced by 2 meters). We will be using standard ballasting pumps for this operation, which will be installed on top of the catamaran.

The entire lowering process can be divided into two successive phases. First, the deck, supported by the catamaran, is lowered over the substructure by means of letting water into the pontoons. In case of a fixed substructure, the catamaran then sinks a little bit more and is towed away, while the deck remains on top of the substructure. For a floating substructure, once the deck comes into contact, a second phase starts: the deck weight is progressively transferred from the catamaran to the substructure. This can be achieved by pumping water out of the substructure ballast tank or by injecting compressed air from the pontoon tanks (by closing the air valves during the first phase, the water entering the tank is compressing the air). These two phases will be described in the following sections.

16

2.4.1 First phase: lowering of the deck over the substructure The motion of the catamaran and of the deck is governed by a set of four equations: Newtons second law for the entire system, conservation of water flow rate, adiabatic compressibility of the air and equation of motion for the incoming water. The position of the structure is described using a vertical axis (Oz) pointing up, the origin being on the sea level. We use the following notations: Table 2.4

Depth at the bottom of the pontoon Depth of the water level inside the tank Total height Beam Cumulated length of buoyancy tanks Length of ballast tank Incoming flow rate (per valve) Number of water valves per pontoon Surface area of a valve

z2 z1 h w lb lc Q N S

Figure 2.5 Considering a mechanical system that consists of a deck (mass M d ), rigidly attached to the catamaran (mass M p ), whose ballast tanks contain a mass M w of water. It is subjected to the following forces: its weight: W = ( M p + M d + M w ) g where M w increases with time, &2 where is the heave damping coefficient of the a damping force: Fdamp = z catamaran, a buoyancy force: Fb = 2 w gw(lc + lb ) z 2 if assuming the box girder is flooded and does not contribute to buoyancy.

Newtons second law of motion for the system will be: &2 2 w gw(lc + lb ) z2 ( M p + M d + M w )&& z2 = ( M p + M d + M w ) g z The mass of water in the tanks at time t is: M w = w Q ( )d

0 t

(3.1)

The conservation of water flow rate between the valve and the tank is &1 NQ = wlc z (3.2)

The adiabatic compressibility of the air governs the pressure inside the tank. If the air is released, it is simply 17

pin = patm

(3.3)

If the air is compressed, the pressure has to be related to the volume occupied by the air. It is commonly done assuming an adiabatic transformation, and therefore the conservation of the quantity pV , where V is the volume occupied and is a constant ( = 1.4 for the air): pin ( wlc (h ( z1 z2 )) = patm ( wlc h) (3.4)

Finally, to relate the incoming flow rate to the internal pressure, the equation of motion is written for a system made of: At time t : the water inside the tank (its linear momentum is P0 ) plus the water that will Q2 dt ). S At time t + dt : the same volume of water as at t (unchanged linear momentum) plus the &1 ) 2 dt ). increase of water level due to incoming water (add linear momentum is w wlc ( z This system is experiencing its weight, equal and opposed to the support reaction from the pontoon, and two pressure forces: 2 w Q At the valve: p2 S = patm w gz2 S using Bernoulli theorem to relate the 2 S Q pressure p2 at the valve to the atmospheric pressure and the flow velocity at the valve . S At the interface with the air: p1wlc (negative sign indicates downward direction). The equation of motion is: 2 Q Q2 &1 ) 2 w w wlc ( z = patm w gz 2 w S p1wlc (3.5) S S 2 The unknowns are z1 , z2 , Q and p1 (internal pressure). Equations (3.1), (3.2), (3.4) and (3.5) can be combined to get a system of nonlinear differential equations governing the motion of the structure (if the air is released, use equation (3.3) instead of (3.4)). The main difficulties to solve the equations are: The quadratic term Q 2 , which cannot be neglected because of the high values of the incoming flow rate, especially just after the opening of the valves. The discontinuity of pressure at the valve when it is opened. The inclusion of the operators action on the valve, modifying the flow rate. After some simplifications, this system is solved using Matlab, which yields the time evolution of the internal draft ( z1 ) and the external draft ( z2 ), shown in Figure 2.6. For this simulation, the parameters are set to the following numerical values: enter the tank in a period dt (its linear momentum is w

18

h w lb lc N S

Mp Md patm

The initial conditions are: z1,0 = z2,0 = 9.9m (draft of the pontoons carrying the deck with empty ballast tanks), zero velocity, internal pressure equal to atmospheric pressure Q0 = 1.5m3 / s In Figure 2.6 one can see that the water level inside the tank ( z1 ) increases rapidly at the beginning, but then it quickly reaches a maximum value of roughly 7 meters, and oscillates slightly around this value. The external draft ( z2 ) increases in a faster way at the beginning. The horizontal line ( dout = 12.8m ) corresponds to the point where the top of the deck reaches the spar, for an initial gap of 3 meters. For the considered flow rate, this occurs after 25 minutes.

19

Figure 2.6 Equation (3.1) has to be modified when the deck reaches the substructure (from now on considered to be a floating structure). In order to predict the motion of the new system, consisting of the deck, the catamaran and the substructure. It now includes the mass of the substructure and its added buoyancy:

&2 2 w gw(lc + lb ) z2 + w gAs ( z 2, r z 2 ) (3.5) ( M p + M d + M s + M w ) && z2 = ( M p + M d + M w ) g z

where z2,r is the external draft of the catamaran when the deck reaches the substructure, and As is the surface area of the substructure ballasting tank. After 25 minutes, Figure 2.6 shows that the external draft oscillates over a mean value, which corresponds to the stabilization of the deck and the pontoons supported by the substructure. 2.4.2 Second phase: deck weight transfer During this stabilization, the last of the sea fastenings (about 25%) are cut off. The deck is still almost entirely carried by the catamaran, but is now attached to the substructure. The time required to perform the release is estimated to 40 minutes. During this time, both air and water

20

valves are closed. The sea fastening is completely released about 65 minutes after the beginning of the lowering process. The next step consists of the transfer of the deck weight from the catamaran to the substructure. This can be done by pumping water out from the substructure (using auxiliary ballasting pumps), or by injecting the compressed air in the catamaran tanks into the substructure. The latter option is described below. The deck, the catamaran and the substructure move together as one entire structure. The small oscillations of the external draft found in the previous section are neglected, and this entire structure is at equilibrium. The water coming into the pontoons increases their weight, air flows over into the substructure and pushes water out and increases its buoyancy, and also the fraction of the deck weight the substructure is carrying. The airflow inside the connecting pipe is compressible and subsonic. The expansion of the air in the catamaran tank (pressure p1 ) and the compression of the air in the substructure ballasting p3 ) are tank (pressure assumed to be isentropic. The governing quantity is the flow velocity v in the pipe. It dictates the pressure drop, and therefore the evolution of the Figure 2.7 water level in the pontoon and in the substructure (labeled z3 ). The balance of pressure is (3.7) 2 gD The friction factor C f is around 0.05 for a Reynolds number of 106 . The outgoing water flow &3 , where As is the surface area of the substructures ballasting tank. The last rate is Qout = As z governing equation is the conservation of mass of air. The introduction of a compressible flow into the problem makes it more difficult to solve. To simplify it, the outgoing water flow rate is assumed to be equal to the incoming rate, constant and equal to Q0 = 1.5m3 / s for one valve. Under these assumptions, the total weight transfer time will be about 30 minutes. Then, the catamaran is lowered by one meter (heave motion amplitude for the design sea state), and is towed away. This last part takes 4 to 5 minutes. The total duration of the lowering process is thus estimated to 100 minutes, as shown in figure 2.8. p1 = ( patm + w gz3 ) + C f L v2

21

Figure 2.8

22

The installation planning and procedure will be a key issue when organizing an operation of this size. Several hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake and every step must be carefully considered and thought through. Our target installation deck is 30 000 tons and can be built at many construction yards which have both the capacity for building decks this size and a quay slide option. The quay slide will operate on a greased rail system, where stran jacks and the low friction surface allows the deck to slide from the quay onto the pontoons. The weather-window surveillance is one of the most critical elements during the installation sequence. A constant surveillance of the field and transport route is necessary through out all steps because a 24-hour weather window is a requirement for installing the deck. Time is measured from arrival at target installation site. If this requirement is not fore-filled the operation needs to abort and wait for the next possibility in a sheltered area. The limiting sea state for transport and installation is addressed and discussed in chapters 4 and 6.

1 Fit-up to quay, pontoons slides on rail:

Rails

Pontoon

Figure 3.1 shows how the rails between the quay and each of the pontoons are connected. The joint between them is flexible. The connection between the rails in the bow and the box-girder in the stern will provide sufficient stiffness so that the pontoons do not spread out when exposed to the load of the deck.

23

The deck will slide on greased rails onto the catamaran, illustrated in figure 2.2. The slide rate will be dictated by the de-ballasting capacity of the submerged ballast pumps.

Figure 3.2. Quay slide All the equipment onboard the catamaran is manually operated, thus it will require operating personnel on deck for any adjustments. Each pontoon has six separate watertight compartments with individual pumps compensate the changing loads. Uneven leverage onto the catamaran could cause severe structural stresses which exceeds the structural capacity. The consequences of any failure in this order is catastrophic and the risk has to be eliminated in the design process. Several large structures have in a similar manner been slide onto barges, thus regarded feasible. 3 Secure fastenings

After the deck is safely transported onto the catamaran it has to be secured with proper sea fastening (design of sea-fastening is discussed and analyzed in section 7). The sea fastening is categorized as internal and external. The internal fastenings cover all equipment on the deck, whilst external fastening is the connections between the deck and the catamaran. Internal sea fastening will not be analyzed, it is assumed to be standard and provided by the deck owner. Once at installation site time will be a critical factor, therefore an optimization of the amount of sea-fastenings will be of importance. Male/female steel guides, making the installation precision between the spar hull and deck more accurate will be attached to the lower parts of the deck while still in quay slide area, where the males are welded onto the deck. Total number of guides/pins will vary with different structures, each with a length of 2 meters. 4 Check in sheltered water

A last and final check in sheltered water of sea-fastenings, and equipment is done before preparing for load-up on HLV. All possible work should be carried out in this protected environment, since cost and risk increases further from shore.

24

For transportation of deck and catamaran we have assumed that a HLV such as Mighty Servant 1 or a similar vessel is available and used for this purpose.

Figure 3.4, Catamaran on HLV, top view. Transportation on HLV is proven feasible in chapter 2 and 4, where a selection of commercially available vessels has been analyzed 6 Sea-fastenings and securing

The loads experienced at the maximum design wave during transportation will be the dimensioning criteria for this system. The accelerations at this state will also govern the capacity of the fastenings between the catamaran and deck, chapter 7

25

This is the last possibility to check all systems before the transportation starts. 8 Transportation, route selection.

Transport route selection and traffic clearing will be achieved by working together with local maritime authorities. Alternative routs and contingency plans needs to be mapped out, together with traffic modeling in critical sections of the routes. High-density traffic fairways will typically be in narrow straits and around load-up area. Lessons learned from previous transportation accidents where offshore platform decks had to be replaced, are that transportation should be conducted in well-known water and fairways. Weather-window monitoring, and route selection in terms of minimizing the exposure of the vessel to large and high period waves will be a crucial factor for relieving the sea-fastenings of cyclic loads and the danger of fatigue. 9 Arrival at installation site and load off

All sea fastening between HLV and catamaran is removed and the HLV lowers until the catamaran is floating. 10 Tug hook up to catamaran.

There will be a maximum significant wave height in which the installation can proceed, which means that any sea-state higher than this will result in abortion of mission. A re-confirmation of a 24-hour weather window will be necessary. Tug hookup starts during the last two hours of ballasting/lowering the HLV. From this point of time the cost of reversibility increases drastically. Having a fully operating installation organization at a remote installation site in extremely costly and it exposes both equipment and personnel to higher risk. Catamaran is temporarily moored. As load-off is initiated all systems must be ready to go. 11 Hook-up preparation time

Hook-up and preparation is estimated to take 2 hours. The estimation is based on similar projects where tugs and personnel time frames are evaluated. The hook-up is defined as getting tugs in position, and connecting towlines (with redundancy) to standardized connections on the catamaran and getting personnel on each of the pontoons.

26

Figure 3.5, towing to site All our analysis is based on a three tug tow-out as shown in figure 3.5, where the tug at the stern acts as a rudder. 12 Reduction of sea fastening.

As preparation for installation is in process, a gradual reduction of sea-fastenings are performed. The idea is to minimize the risk of losing the deck if the weather window closes or there is an infield collision between tug/catamaran, support vessels/catamaran or unwanted collision between spar hull and catamaran. The reduction will stop at 75%, the last 25% will be removed during the two stages of lowering. 13 Pull into position.

Figure 3.6, positioning of catamaran. Pulling into position will require a great deal of precision. Tug-tow coordinators will have to guide the catamaran through a 20 cm clearance on each side of the spar hull. This will probably require additional mating lines between hull and catamaran.

27

14

When in final position, mating lines between deck and spar hull are attached. The mating lines will ensure stability and precision when exposed to unwanted roll motions under the lowering sequence. 15 Slow ballasting for line-up.

At the first stage of the lowering sequence, the bottom valves will slowly release water into the ballast tanks (There are six watertight compartments on each pontoon with a corresponding valve). As the lowering starts, the male/female guides mate. The deck will make contact with the spar hull of 12.8 m draft. With fully open valves the system (catamaran/deck/hull) will get to an equilibrium draft at 13.2 m, and there will have been a minor amount of weight transfer from the catamaran to the spar (figure 3.7). All the sea fastening will now be removed. The final removal of the 25% is estimated to take 40 minutes. At this point the catamaran buoyancy is a result of pressurized air trapped in air pockets inside each of the pontoons. All airflow analysis, weight transfers, and drafts at different stages are included in section 2, General arrangement, and specialized vessel system design

28

16

Rapid ballasting.

At the second stage of the lowering sequence, there will be flexible pipes connected from the air release valve at the catamaran deck to the ballast tanks on the spar hull. The idea is to evacuate water from the upper (close to the water line) spar ballast tanks using the trapped air in the pontoons. Since contact between hull and deck already is obtained, the last lowering stage should be done fast and controlled.

Figure 3.8, second stage of lowering, 100%weight transfer. As the pressurized air enters the hull, the spar raises and the weight transfer is now complete (figure 3.8). Two watertight compartments on each of the pontoons designed for reserve buoyancy is keeping the catamaran afloat at the waterline. 17 Un-hook, secure

All mating lines are unhooked and the securing of the platform deck to the hull starts. 18 Pull away, tow back

Last stage of the installation sequence is getting the catamaran safely away from the area. The installation is now complete.

29

An overall installation sequence flowchart is summarized in figure 1 in appendix 3 where criterias for abortion is visualized.

As a part of our time reduction measurers we have developed two significant time saving features. One of the effects introduced by our air injection lowering system, is the reduction in exposure time while in a fragile state. By decreasing the lowering time the catamaran is not as vulnerable and the risk of closure of the weather window is reduced, but more importantly we only need a small window. The second reduction comes from the fender and self-align guide system. This will aid the tugs to guide the spar hull into position faster than a conventional fender system. The fender/guide design is described in section 6.3. Table 3.10, Task time measures. Task

Load off HLV

No. Sub-activities

Removal of HLV-Pontoon sea fastenings Ballasting of HLV Attaching tow lines Getting tugs in position Preparing people and equipment Welding operations Towing deck Coordinating tugs Hook up mooring lines Positioning Hook up fenders Hook up flex. Air pipes Getting operators in position Eliminating all sea fastenings Slow ballasting for line-up, opening of bottom valves Rapid ballasting, opening of top valves De-ballasting of Spar hull with air pressure from pontoons Un-hook all connections Secure deck Tow back

1 2 Hook up, after sea launching 3 4 Reduce sea fastenings 5 6 Pull into position 7 8 9 10 Hook up, before final lowering 11 12 13 14 Lowering 15 16 17 18 19 20

Pull-away

30

Figure 1 in appendix 1 gives a graphic illustration of the time spent on each task, and a description of when in the installation process we are. It takes 24 hours from the point where our system is loaded off the HLV to the securing of the deck onto the substructure and tow back is performed.

31

4 Transport

For the feasibility study no specific site for the deck and catamaran construction was considered. It was thought that the system could be built anywhere and be transported to a field anywhere. This meant making some general assumption about the sea state during travel. The feasibility of the transportation was proven using static stability and a more detailed analysis would have to be performed to meet the finer points of the certifying authorities codes. Three transportation options were considered and a final choice of transporting the entire system together was deemed the best.

The three transportation scenarios were considered are described below with their advantages and disadvantages 4.1.1 Tow Combined System

Figure 4.1, Towing Issues This system is most likely cheaper assuming the towing distance is not to great This system will require the vessel to be the most robust and will also mean that a higher stability requirement will be placed on system This system will be the slowest and will have the highest risk factors

32

4.1.2

Figure 4.2, Transport on HLV Issues This is the fastest transport system but for ultra heavy decks it would be limited to ten or less capable vessels based on the static stabilty requerment used in the anaylisis described in section 4.3. Dynamics transport and dynamic stabity conditions are not yet understood. It is thought that the roll accelerations may be too high therefore making the sea fastening for the deck and the pontoons to the HLCV excessive. This system has the advantage of being a temporary operation once offloaded and the pontoons only have to meet the standard of a positive GM. This is a standard transportation scenario and the risk is well midigated.

33

4.1.3 Transport deck and Pontoons separately and connect at site. This system involves transporting the deck and catamaran separately and then matting them at the field. They can then perform the installation when the weather window arises.

Figure 4.3, Separate transportation Issues The deck transfer at sea requires more engineering in the system as well as a longer weather window. The sytem requires either two separate transport vessels or 1 vessel and a tow sytem for the pontoons This system has the advantage of being a temporary operation and only has to meet the of a positive GM. Transfering the deck to the catamaran in an open sea poses an additional risk The deck and hlcv will have a lower center of gravity during tranport and therefore have a smaller roll acceleration. This means less sea fastning. Option number twowas choosen because it lessoned the constraints on the design of the pontoon. It was also qualititvly deemed the safest tranporation scenario. When considering large tranportation distences option 2 is also the cheapest scenario.

The Sea state plays an important role in determining the motions of the system. The following sea state was considered for transportation. Significant wave height, HS: 5 m. Time Period of the wave, T Z: 10 sec.

34

For the installation process, the following sea state was considered. Significant wave height, HS: 2 m. Time Period of the wave, T Z: 7 sec. A severe sea state would result in increased motions (accelerations).

4.3 Stability

4.3.1 Stability during transportation. There are three main cases for which stability needs to be checked. GZ-curves for the two first cases, (transportation and waiting) are generated by calculations in ProSurf3. GZ curves are important because they form the foundation for stability requirements. Conditions placed by the authorities are taken from IMOs General intact stability criteria for all ships., and listed below. The area under the GZ-curve up to 30o should not be less than 0.055 [m*rad] The area under the GZ-curve up to 40o or flooding angle f1 whichever comes first should not be less than 0.09 [m*rad] The difference between the two abovementioned areas should not be less than 0.03 [m*rad] The GZ-arm should be at least 0.20m at an angle of heal equal to or larger than 30 degrees. The maximum righting arm should occur at an angle of heel preferably exceeding 30o but not less than 25o. The initial metacentric height should not be less than 0.15m.

In figure 4.4. the GZ- curve for the transportation mode, when the catamaran and deck are on the heavy lift vessel is exhibited and table 4.1 shows how the criteria above are satisfied. The GZcurve for transportation is calculated taking into account the extra buoyancy and water plane area from immersion of the pontoons. This happens at 5.7o as can be clearly seen in the plot. It should be noted that only stability for the static case is considered here.

Where f is an angle of heel at which openings in the hull , superstructures or deckhouses which cannot be closed watertight immerse.

1

35

o

Area under GZ up to 30 Area under GZ up to 40o Area under GZ between 30o and 40o GZ-arm at 30o Max righting arm occur at XXo Initial Metacentric height.

Regulations 0.055 [rad*m] 0.09 [rad*m] 0.03 [rad*m] 0.2 [m] 25o 1.5 [m]

Transport mode. 3.941 [rad*m] 5.450 [rad*m] 1.509 [rad*m] 11.63 [m] 35o 11.0 [m]

36

The frequency domain hydrodynamic program Wamit was used to model the transportation of the deck and pontoons on the HLCV and the pontoons and deck floating in the field. The modeling produced the following results First order wave excitation forces and moments Hydrodynamic added mass and damping Rigid body motions (see fig 1-12) Sectional forces and moments Steady drift forces (see fig 13-18) Inertia loads Pressure loads for structural shells

For the preliminary design these results were not used to their full potential in the structural design. Given the need for a more precise design the above forces could be directly applied in a finite element program. The response amplitude curves were used to approximate maximum accelerations that were then used in sea fastening design for both systems.

5.1.1 -Pontoons System The analysis is a 1st order approximation and therefore assumes a mean water level and that the shape of the body above the water has straight sides. The mass distribution for the system was considered constant for the pontoons and deck. The deck was not restrained by a temporary mooring system 5.1.2 HLCV The analysis is a fist order approximation and therefore assumes a mean water level and that the shape of the body above the water is the same as the water plane area. This means that the submergence of the over hanging pontoons (occurring at 5.7 deg) is not modeled. The mass distribution for the system was considered constant for the HLCV, pontoons and deck The forward speed of the vessel was not modeled.

37

5.2 Results

5.2.1 Pontoons System The catamaran RAOs, drift forces and force transfer functions all with respect to the center of mass are shown in Appendix 4.1. The amplitudes are non-dimensionalized to a unit wave input and are given in meters or degrees. Forces are non-dimensionalized by the density of water times the submerged volume times gravity (*V*g) for a given unit wave. The resonant frequency for the unrestrained catamaran is listed in the table below. Table 5.1 Resonant Frequencies for the Catamaran Peak Period Amplitude in m or deg Sea Direction 11 7.2 Head Sea 11 7.9 Head Sea 10 4.61 Beam Sea 11 2.5 Head Sea 11 1.5 Beam Sea 10 1.7 Beam Sea

The peak period of around 10 sec can be a problem in some installation sea states. The design engineer may want the installation restraint mechanisms to shift the period up depending on the sea state. A RAO for a head sea state is given below

38

Figure 5.1 Response Amplitude Operator for the Catamaran in Head Seas

5.2.2 HLCV System The HLCV RAOs, and force transfer functions all with respect to the center of mass are shown in Appendix 5.2. The amplitudes are non-dimensionalized to a unit wave input and are given in meters or degrees. Forces are non-dimensionalized by *V*g for a given unit wave. The HLCV results are a crude approximation of the system due to the possible large roll motions of the system and the forward speed. The numbers were however used to get a feel for accelerations during the voyage.

39

40

6 Installation Procedure

6.1 Stability during in field waiting

Rules governing this state are the same as for transport given chapter about transportation Stability calculated under this section would also be the static stability of the pontoons during tow. In this mode the pontoons are off loaded from the heavy lift vessel and are waiting for sufficiently good weather to proceed with installation. GZ curve for this scenario is shown in figure 6.1. and related results are shown in table.6.1. The fact that the maximum righting arm occurs at 15o is due to the fact that one of the hulls starts getting lifted out of the water. This should not represent a major problem since the righting arm is also large at heeling angles exceeding 25o. The GZ-arm starts decreasing at about 22 deg, when one hull is out of the water. The relatively slow decrease can probably be explained by the large depth of the pontoons.

Table 6.1. Stability in field waiting. Regulations Waiting mode. o Area under GZ up to 30 0.055 [rad*m] 11.26 [rad*m] Area under GZ up to 40o 0.09 [rad*m] 13.42 [rad*m] o o Area under GZ between 30 and 40 0.03 [rad*m] 2.16 [rad*m] GZ-arm at 30o 0.2 [m] 20.94 [m] Max righting arm occur at XXo 25o 15o Initial Metacentric height. 1.5 [m] 101.7 [m]

41

6.1.1 Stability during Installation. Given the fact that installation only lasts for a relatively short period of time and that the sea conditions will be very moderate, the common stability requirement by the Coastguard for this operation mode is that the system has a positive initial metacentric height, GM, which is given by: I (6.1) KG is the distance from keel to center of gravity, KB is the distance from keel to center of buoyancy, I is area moment of inertia of the water plane and is the catamarans volume displacement. To take account for the cells with open valves at the bottom correction for the effect of free fluid surface is used. It reduces the GM by a imaginary elevation of the catamarans center of gravity GG: GM = KB + BM KG ,where BM = i (6.2) n where i is the moment of inertia of the free surface around its own area center and n is number of tanks with free surface. It is summed up over the number of compartments in the cells, which are 12, six in each pontoon. This method is not accurate, but the best approximation. It is valid for closed tanks with free fluid surface. Both transversal and longitudinal stability is checked and are presented in table 4.6. below. GG ' = Table 6.2 Stability in Installation Transversal Longitudinal Initial Metacentric height GM 101.8m 62.6m Metacentric height corrected for 99.1m 60.9m free surface GM

6.2 Fenders

A way to make sure that the installation process goes smoothly is to design a fender system that guides the Spar hull in position quick and safe. The deck and the spar hull will be joined in a manner so that the deck guides will penetrate into their respectively Spar hull female receivers accurately. Figure 6.2 illustrates the tight fender design, which will hold the hull in place.

42

Figure 6.2: Fender design The fenders provide better accuracy and help save time as the hull enters the catamaran. A rubber sheet is placed at the joint to take the compressive forces generated by the waves/tugs to keep the pontoons and the spar hull together. The rubber sheet will also take some of the impact forces if there are any.

43

The fenders as shown in figure 6.4 are made of pipes of outer diameter of 0.2 m and thickness of 0.02 m. The fender attached to the pontoons box girder is 0.6 m wide and the shortest width of the fender attached to the spar hull is also 0.6 m. The tugs pull the catamaran in opposite directions so that the hull and vessel stays together. The force would be a little more than the highest surge acceleration expected during the installation. Rubber sheet each of thickness 0.5 m. is attached to the fenders of pontoons and spar hull. The tugs pull with a minimum force of 200 ton so that the catamaran and deck stay together. According to calculations, rubber with a thickness of 1 m will be compressed by 0.2 m. Natural rubber with a suitable hardness to satisfy the above condition is to be chosen.

44

7 Sea Fastening

The catamaran and the deck are subjected to six degrees of motions during its transportation. The HLV carries the catamaran with the deck from the manufacturing site to the installation site. The transportation phase is crucial and proper sea fastening has to be designed to prevent the loss of the deck. The HLV undertakes the mission when the weather is suitable i.e., the probability of encountering high waves is very small. The design case for the sea fastening is the worst expected sea state. For a given sea state, the RAOs can be used to get the Response Spectra for the six modes of motion from which the angular accelerations for each motion are calculated. The Response Amplitude Operators or the Transfer Functions are described in chapter 6, Hydrodynamics. There are 31 sea fastenings each on port and starboard side of the deck to encounter the roll and sway motions and 10 sea fasteners each on aft and fore of the deck to encounter the pitch and surge motions. Totally 41 on each pontoon. The sea fastenings are placed with a distance of 2.4 meters between them. They are pipes welded to a plate 1cm thick, which is welded to the deck of the pontoon. This is done to avoid stress localization. The pipe dimensions are: Outer Diameter, D = 0.7 m. Thickness, t = 0.06 m. Inner diameter, d = 0.6 m. Length, l = 3 m. Angle of the pipe to the deck to the pontoon, = 45 deg. The following is the force calculation on the launch rail and the sea fasteners. The assumed sea state from section 4.2: Significant wave height, HS: 5 m Time Period, TZ: 10 sec System I: HLV, catamaran and deck The Area under the Response Spectra, A = 7.42*10-6 rad2 from SESAM Assuming that the transportation phase has N = 100,000 peaks 0.5772 The expected value of the largest roll is 2. A.ln( N ) + = 0.77 degrees assuming a 2.A.ln(N ) Rayleigh distribution. Peak period is 19 sec from SESAM Therefore, maximum expected roll angular acceleration, = 0.034 rad/sec2 Similarly from the RAOs of other motions, 45

maximum expected heave acceleration is 2.7 m/sec2 maximum expected sway acceleration is 0.22 m/sec2 System II: Catamaran and deck The Area under the Response Spectra, A = 1.86*10-3 rad2 from SESAM Assuming that the transportation phase has N = 1000 peaks 0.5772 The expected value of the largest roll is 2. A.ln( N ) + = 5.9 degrees assuming a 2.A.ln(N ) Rayleigh distribution. Peak period is 9.97 sec from SESAM Therefore, maximum expected roll acceleration, = 0.052 rad/sec2 Similarly from the RAOs of other motions, Maximum expected heave acceleration is 3.27 m/sec2 Maximum expected sway acceleration is 1.12 m/sec2 Forces acting on the sea fastening are shown in the figure 7.1 Vertical force acting on the launch and the sea fastening = weight of the deck + force due to heave Horizontal force acting on the launch and the sea fastening: = Partial weight due to gravity + force due to roll + force due to sway Frictional force by launch

Figure 7.1: Forces acting on the Sea Fastening and the Launch Rail mass of the deck, m = 30,000 metric tons acceleration due to gravity, g = 9.81 m/sec2

46

From the angular accelerations calculated for both the systems, the highest are chosen as the sea fastenings have to withstand forces in both the systems. maximum roll acceleration, aR = 0.52 m/sec2 maximum heave acceleration, aH = 3.27 m/sec2 maximum sway acceleration, aS = 1.12 m/sec2 maximum roll angle, R = 10 degrees (say) vertical force, FV = m (aH) horizontal force, FH = m (g sinR + aR + aS) FB = Bending force acting on the pipe perpendicular to the pipe = FV cos + FH sin FC = Compressive force acting on the pipe = FV sin + FH cos Section Modulus of pipe, SM = ( D4 d 4 )

32 D 1 Cross-sectional Area of the pipe, AC = ( D 2 d 2 ) 4 F .l Maximum pipe bending stress = B = 2.5 * 108 N/m2 = 250 MPA SM The yield stress of high strength steel is 400 MPA F Maximum compressive stress in the pipe = C =1.42 * 107 N/m2 AC In the fatigue analysis, the calculated stress is less than the critical stress for 2.0*108 cycles. The shear force acting on the launch rail is only the frictional force between the spar deck and the launch rail. The launch rail is not welded to the spar deck. The coefficient of friction is assumed to be 0.3. The forces acting on the launch rail cannot exceed the frictional forces. If the horizontal forces exceed the frictional forces, the sea fasteners will share them.

47

8.1 Introduction

Prior to this structural design and analysis part of the project the only design constraint is the main dimensions of the pontoons in the system. The main dimensions are established from geometrical dimensions of the Spar-deck, the Spar itself, the complicated buoyancy and the loads a floating structure will encounter in a sea environment. The purpose of the structural design and analysis is to verify that the catamaran main dimensions are appropriate considering the different loads it is exposed to. And design a connection between the two pontoons that is able to keep the two pontoons together in the sea load the catamaran could encounter during operation, and an overall design of the structural support framing inside the pontoons and the box-girder. The structural analysis consist of what you could call a first stage analysis, that is establishing scantlings of all elements like shell, frames, beams and stiffeners in the catamaran. Then the scantling against the ABS classification rules are checked to verify that they meet minimum requirements. Then the global loads are calculated, and stresses from these loads are calculated for the pontoon cross-section to see if it has sufficient moment of inertia. When all the scantlings are set for the pontoons ,a plate analysis of a local plate-field on the bottom shell is done. That is, where the global moment is largest. The stresses in the box-girder are analyzed to see if it is able to carry the stresses induced by the most extreme load cases during operation. If the catamaran were to be built and put into service, the structural analysis should be continued to a second stage of analysis. That would be an analysis of the stresses in the box-girder having a much more accurate estimate of the hydrodynamic forces acting on the catamaran, which might lead to less support and decrease support scantlings. This stage would also involve finite element analysis of other parts in the system, like sea fastening, valve connections and the box-girder pontoon intersection that certainly would have stress concentrations.

48

8.2.1 Pontoon When the catamaran main dimensions are set the next stage is to give it an internal supporting structure that is able to withstand external loads form deck and waves, and internal loads due to ballast water. The pontoons are designed in a way very similar to an ordinary crude oil tanker with bulkheads, web-frames, longitudinal beams, transverse beams and stiffeners on all shell plating and bulkheads. As a first support for the shell and the bulkheads, all plates are provided with stiffeners to prevent buckling and increase the strength of the plates. The stiffeners are placed with a spacing of 1 m horizontally on the shell and vertically on the bulkheads. Then the pontoon has bulkheads and web-frames to support the shell against external/internal pressure, load from the Spar-deck and global torque from angled waves. The bulkheads are placed with 15 m spacing except in the ends where the last compartment is only 5 m long. This means that there is one bulkhead in the middle of the pontoon and three behind and three in front of the mid-bulkhead. In addition to the bulkheads a web-frame is placed halfway between the bulkheads. Accordingly the pontoon has transverse support for each 7.5 m, measured from mid-ship, and totally six webframes. For global bending in horizontal and vertical direction, and for supporting the plates, the pontoon has one longitudinal beam under deck, one on bottom and two on each side plating. For support of bulkheads, the stiffeners on the bulkhead, and the longitudinal beams each bulkhead is provided with two transverse horizontal beams, in same height as the longitudinal beams on the sides, and a vertical beam in the centerline, supporting the longitudinal beams under deck and on bottom. Table 8.1 gives all scantlings for the supporting members, and Figure 8.1 shows sketches of the structural design with dimensions.

49

Figure 8.1 show a transverse cross-section of a pontoon on two different places. The left figure shows a web frame, the six longitudinal beams and some stiffeners on bottom and side plating. The right figure shows a bulkhead, two horizontal transverse beams on the bulkhead, the vertical beam on bulkhead and some stiffeners on bottom plating and bulkhead.

50

8.2.2 Box-girder One of the biggest challenges in the structural design of the catamaran is to come up with a design of the connection between the two pontoons that are able to take the substantial loads that could be induced in the connecting structure due to extreme hydrodynamic wave loads and inertia forces when the entire catamaran system is moving in sea. Initially two design options were proposed for the connection. We could either make it of some kind of truss, and there could be several ways to design this truss, or make the connection of a closed structure like the pontoons with shell and supporting structure. Since one main objective in our system is to come up with cheap, cost competitive solution, we chose to connect the pontoons by a closed structure. This kind of structure is much cheaper to build than a tubular-truss that is expensive mainly because of the all the joints and that it has to be designed specifically for this structure. A closed structure is a standard shipyard design and can easily be made by any shipyard with customized dimensions. The box-girder is a 50 m long, 6 m high and 24 m wide box made up of top, bottom and side shell plating. The internal supporting structure consisting of ten beams in longitudinal direction, three longitudinal bulkheads, mid-deck halfway between bottom and deck, and stiffeners on all plates. The dimensions of the box-girder are constrained by several factors. The length is constrained by the diameter of the Spar, and the dimensions of the Spar-deck. Since the pontoons are 100m long, the radius of the Spar is 24 m and a 2 m fender is put between Spar end box-girder there is 24 m left for the box-girder width. The length of the box-girder are set to 50 m so the gap between the pontoon is sufficient to fit a 48 m diameter Spar and a 1m clearance on each side for rubber fenders. The height of the box-girder is constrained by the expected wave height during installation. The height of the pontoons is 20 m, with a 10 m draft while waiting on site for installation, and a maximum wave height of 3m, plus 1m clearances, leaves 6 m for the box-girder height. Dimensions of the box-girder are showed in Figure 8.2 and scantlings of supporting members listed in Table 8.1.

24 m z 6m x

Table 8.1: Dimensions of structural members in the catamaran Transverse Stiffeners Vertical Long. Long. Shell plate, beam beam beam boxbeam bulkheads, pontoon pontoon girder web-frames pontoon 0.03 m 4700 cm3 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.015 m 1.0 m 0.02 m 3.0 m 1.0 m 0.02 m 2.0 m 1.0 m 0.02 m 2.0 m 1.0 m 0.02 m 2.0 m 0.4 m 0.015 m 0.9 m

52

When all the main dimensions are set and the internal supporting structure is established a check of all scantlings are done to see if they satisfy the minimum requirements set by a classification agency like the American Bureau of Shipping, ABS. Since the pontoons are both structurally designed and loaded much like a crude tanker, the class-rules for a vessel with oil in bulk is applied as a first minimum demand for structural dimensions. The scantlings that are checked are bottom-, side-, and deck shell plating, stiffeners, longitudinal beams and transverse bulkheads. The rules that are used are ABS Rules for building and classing, Steel Vessels Part 5 Specialized vessels and services, 1998-99, Section 2 Vessel Intended to carry oil in bulk. The scantlings given by the ABS rules are just a minimum requirement and the design scantling should exceed the class requirements. The calculations are shown in Appendix 1, Table 8.2 lists the particular rules that are applied and Table 8.3 summaries the resulting dimensions.

Table 8.2: ABS class-rules Section ABS 5/2A.4.3.2 ABS 5/2A.4.3.3 ABS 5/2A.4.3.4 ABS 5/2A.4.5.2 Structural part Shell plating Stiffeners Beams Bulkheads

Table 8.3: ABS scantling requirements Structural member ABS requirements Bottom plate thickness 19.2 mm Side plate thickness 19.2 mm Deck plate thickness 19.2 mm Longitudinal beam thickness 9 mm Stiffener section modulus 4600 cm^3 Transverse bulkhead thickness 13.6 mm

The results prove that the design dimensions for the catamaran structural members are inside the required dimensions set by ABS.

53

In the following section the simplified hydrodynamic forces acting on the pontoons are calculated for some extreme cases and will be used for calculation of extreme stress values in the boxgirder. The forces are calculated by Froude-Krilov assumption, that is, the wave forces are acting on the structure as if the structure was not there. By applying Froude-Krilov assumption a major load factor as wave-diffraction is neglected. But the forces calculated are most likely very conservative in the wave situation that is considered. A simplified load calculation is also done for the case when the catamaran is placed on deck of the heavy lift vessel for transportation to installation site. 8.4.1 Load case 1: Horizontal bending of box-girder A load case of perpendicular wave direction to the pontoons with a wavelength of exactly two times the distance between the centerlines of the pontoons, and a wave height equal the extreme expected wave height under preparation for installation, are considered. This load case is expected to represent the absolute maximum horizontal bending moment that could be induced in the box-girder. Figure 8.3 and 8.4 shows the case. The horizontal Froude-Krilov forces acting on the pontoons are calculated. These forces will later be used for calculation of a bending moment in the box-girder.

54

8.4.2 Load case 2: Vertical bending of box-girder The same load scenario that results in the extreme horizontal bending moment, load case 1 is also used to estimate an extreme vertical bending moment in the box-girder, Figure 8.5. The only difference is that in this case the entire force along the pontoon is effective.

Figure 8.5: Vertical bending of the box-girder 8.4.3 Load case 3: Catamaran and Spar-deck on heavy lift vessel When the catamaran, with Spar-deck, is carried on the heavy lift vessel some parts of it will be hanging outside on each side of the heavy lift vessel. The Spar-deck and the weight of the pontoon itself will induce a moment in the pontoon. A simplified model is used to calculate the induced moment. To estimate a bending moment in the pontoon, only the parts of the deck and the catamaran hanging outside of the heavy lift vessel deck is considered.

55

Figure 8.7 shows the model used for stress calculations when the catamaran with Spar-deck is resting on the HLV. The two uniform distributed loads represent the pontoon weight and the Spar-deck weight.

56

The structural analysis of the catamaran is divided into four different parts. First an analysis of the global forces on the pontoons are calculated, that is global bending moment and global shear forces. These forces are then used to calculate bending stresses and shear stresses in the pontoon cross-section. Then the stresses in the box-girder cross-section are calculated from global boxgirder forces. The forces are based on some extreme load cases described in section 8.4. Last, a plate analysis of the bottom shell plating is done by use of plate-strip theory and finite element analysis. 8.5.1 Global forces The pontoon is considered to be a beam in equilibrium. It is exposed to a positive buoyancy force and a negative force from the load and its own steel-weight. The buoyancy force is a uniform distributed force acting upward, while the steel weight is assumed uniform distributed over the pontoon beam acting downward. The Spar-deck weight is also a uniform distributed force acting downwards directly on the skid rails. When the forces acting on the pontoon beam are established the resulting shear forces and bending moment is calculated which then give the maximum bending stresses and shear stresses in the pontoon cross-section. If the stresses are too high, exceeding yield criteria, the crosssection area has to be increased by making the plating thicker or by adding more or larger longitudinal beams. The calculations are shown in Appendix 1 and the main results summarized in Table 8.6 Deckload Pontoon weight Buoyancy

V Cross-section

57

Global load case 1: The catamaran is floating with the Spar-deck on top in calm water with a normal draft of 10 m. That is, no ballast water is added to lower the deck onto the Spar. Global load case 2: The catamaran is floating with maximum draft under lowering, 20m, and the deck is still totally loaded on the pontoons. The tanks in the ends have no ballast water, while the ballast tanks used for lowering is filled with water and compressed air. This is not a realistic scenario, since the Spar-deck load is gradually transferred to the Spar. But the case represents a worst case, so if the pontoon is able to carry these loads, it will be able to take the load occurring in the transfer phase. Table 8.6: Global forces Global case 1 Global case 2 5150 MNm 7200 MNm 20.5 MN 27 MN 181 m2 181 m2 2 1.2 m 1.2 m2 284 MPa 397 MPa 17 Mpa 22.5 Mpa

The box-girder is probably the most critically loaded part of the catamaran. Depending on the sea-state it could be severely loaded in vertical bending, horizontal bending and torque. At the same time it is also to some degree limited how large forces it will encounter. This because the transportation phase is done on a HLV and the potential large sea states under transportation do not affect the box-girder at all. While under installation the maximum allowed wave height is 2m, which decreases the critical stresses significantly. The only real critical phase is the waiting on site for the weather window. And while waiting the catamaran can easily be turned so that the sea is either meeting or following, which will remove the most critical load cases. To be sure the box-girder can take a worst-case load scenario, some critical load cases are assumed and the stresses induced are calculated. The load cases and stress calculations are very conservative. If the box-girder can withstand the loads used in the calculations it should be able to withstand almost all other load cases. The use of such conservative stress calculation proves to some extent that the catamaran could be used in more severe weather areas of the world, but a site-specific calculation should off course be conducted in each case. On the other hand a too conservative stress analysis will lead to use of too extensive strengthening, which will increase the cost. The three load cases considered represent extreme vertical bending, horizontal bending of the box-girder. From the loads a maximum stress value is calculated and compared to yield criteria to see if the cross-section area is enough to take the stresses. The load cases are described in section 8.4. The calculations are shown in Appendix 1 and the results are summarized in Table 8.6.and 8.7.

58

Table 8.6: Resulting forces and moments on box-girder Force Moment arm Moment 124 MN 12 m 1488 MNm 94 MN 38 m 3581 MNm

I y y max

Table 8.7: Box-girder stresses Load case 1 Load case 2 4 185 m 18m4 12 m 3m 380MPa 380MPa 327 MPa 350 MPa

8.5.3 Plate Analysis A local plate field on the bottom shell plating is analyzed to check that it can withstand the local hydrostatic pressure. This analysis can be done either by plate-strip theory, plate theory or finite element analysis, FEA. Plate-strip analysis is only accurate when the length of the plate is long compared to the width, and will generally give a too large stress since the short end sides are assumed free. On a ship structure the shell plating is exposed to hydrostatic pressure, and when a single plate, bounded by stiffeners and transverse support, is removed form the shell it will have fixed boundary conditions. And an exact solution to the fixed thin walled plate does not exist. Therefore a finite element analysis will give the best solution to the problem. A finite element analysis is conducted for the plate, and a plate-strip analysis is done to verify that the FEA results are reasonable. The plate strip analysis and a figure of the stress distribution are showed in Appendix 1. The finite element analysis is done in MCS/NASTRAN and some FEA properties and the results from the two analyses are listed in Table 8.6. Table 8.8: Plate analysis results Method Stress Max plate stress, strip theory 111 Mpa Max plate stress, FEA 81 Mpa The FEA results show that the plate stresses are well inside yield criteria.

59

The float over deck operation can essentially be broken down in to 6 subsections, which can be qualitatively ranked with respect to the highest risk. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Deck Installation on Substructure In field waiting Transport to site Deck load out onto the catamaran Catamaran offloading Deck load out onto the catamaran

Efforts should be made to mediate the risks of the top three operations to bring them in line with the acceptable risk level of the system. Codes, marine warranty surveyors and finances will dictate the acceptable risk for the system. The three failure outcomes that should be considered for an installation are: 1. Catastrophic failures were the deck or substructure is damaged beyond feasible repair or recovery. 2. Damage that would lead to a lengthy repair and/or a temporary abandoning of the installation process. 3. Damage that would require a small time to repair and would result in a small delay, leaving the possibility of missing an installation weather window, or being damaged while in use for installation and requiring a longer weather window.

The largest risk during the deck slide out is for the ballasting of the catamaran to be out of sink with the deck load. This may cause the decks or catamarans allowable bending moment to be exceeded. The reaction would be to correct the ballasting rate process and reverse the deck load out. The deck would then have to be surveyed for damage. In the case of skid load out, new skid rails may have to be laid for reversal, this is do to warping of rails when the deck weight passes over them. Any damage to the deck structurally would be expensive to correct. The risk of this happening is low due to the slow rate of the process but would mainly be a function of human factors. Other severe failings, such as quay failure, capsizing of the ship or support grillage failure is not considered likely because of its extreme low probability. This low probability of failure comes from the fact that these failures come from exceeding the allowable forces of the systems or having a poor understanding of the systems. These failures can be taken care of with accurate calculation, surveying and adequate margins for safety. Ballasting however is a dynamic process and also has a large amount of human interactions. Real time monitoring of the forces on the vessel and deck along with the vessels position and deck position would reduce the risk.

60

Damage to the system during deck installation will most likely be a resultant of the forces on the sub-structure, deck and catamaran exceeding limitations. These forces will be directly related to the installation sea state and are some what controlled by the engineering design mechanisms. The installation design can affect the forces to a degree by such mechanisms as tugs, fenders, and hydraulics to mediate the forces. Given the designed system the forces will ultimately be determined by the weather during installation. The risk analysis for the installation can come down to knowing the probabilities of the engineered design system failing as well as the probabilities of the weather forecast being incorrect. The engineered system in this case is heavily dependent on human factors and communication.

While waiting for an acceptable weather window the vessel and deck are put at risk. The obvious risk is if the weather at site changes to exceeding the allowable sea state for the vessel. This is unlikely if the vessel and deck are in the same state as it was transported in. Often though this is not the case, sea fastening could be cut to lower installations time and/or the deck could now be on a vessel that it was not transported on. This then means that the allowable field sea state is lower then the transport sea state and is dictated by the stability limitations of the system. Therefore the risk in this system lies in the choice of design sea state. This Sea state can be chosen from weather data and a probability assigned. The other risk to the system is collision were possible collisions are: Structure and catamaran Support vessel and catamaran Structure and support vessels

In field collisions are reasonably well researched and models can be produced.

9.4 Transport

The greatest dangers for the vessel during transport are: Unforeseeable environment change Collisions with uncharted obstacles Collision with other moving objects Mechanical failure on the vessel Human error during vessel operation resulting in any of the above The two factors that need closer attention are the collisions and exceeding weather as they may results in the type 1 outcomes. Transport is made up of 4 important factors 1. Route Selection

61

2. Allowable transport sea state dictated by stability and the systems maximum allowable motions 3. Quality of route survey 4. Environment forecasting The following can lower the risk of transport: 1. Speed of transport- The faster the transport, the less time exposed to environmental risks. For deck transport this usually comes down to a decision between using a towed system or a self-propelled vessel, the difference being 4 to 8 knots respectively. 2. Length of transport- Having a shorter transport route means a faster transport and less exposure to risk. 3. Sheltered Route- Having a route that is or has closely available shelter from harsh environment. 4. Excess static and dynamic stability- This means having a high allowable transport sea state 5. Vessel Selection- There is a large variability in vessel quality and crew capability. Selection of a proven and surveyed ship is important, equally is the capability and track record of her crew.

62

The risk identification is evaluated from the time the catamaran is self-afloat at the installation site. People involved in this sequence are a part of the risk picture and can be divided into four different work groups: Operators: The operators are roughnecks that are employed by the installation operator; they perform various tasks on the catamaran. The tasks are defined as: Tug operators Removing sea-fastening. Administer all pipes, valves and pumps. Hookup tugs Act as eyes and ears for the managers.

The tug vessel operators consists of master and crew on each tug. They are managed and directed by a tug coordinator who is monitoring the whole tow operation. The supervisor is coordinating the operators, and they are recording the sequence of the installation The managers will be representatives from both owner and operator. They are recording monitoring and coordinating the whole project

Supervisor

Manager

As a part of the risk identification for different users, which are described above will be performing different tasks. The tasks are defined as scenarios that occur or can occur during the installation sequence. Each task has a corresponding hazard and failure mode. The failure mode is a result of the hazard, i.e. when doing the task the [user/equipment] could be injured/damaged by the [hazard] due to the failure [mode]. The idea is to identify the high probability high consequence risks involved and try to reduce or eliminate their severity. All the analysis is done on a qualititative bases, where we have identified four different risk levels: high, moderate, low and negligible, an explanation of the method used to define the risk levels is shown in table 9.1 and 9.2.

63

Table 9.1 Catastrophic Hazards may cause deaths, severe damage or permanently disabling injury, illness or environmental damage; irreversible damage or injury with permanent loss in working capacity and/or stop in installation. Hazards may cause severe damage and/or injury. Illness or damage; normally reversible, hospitalization required Hazards may cause slight injury, illness or damage; normally reversible, treatment necessary. Hazards will not result in significant damage or injury, can be treated or fixed on site. Table 9.2

Probable Possible Unlikely Negligible Catastrophic High High Moderate Negligible Serious High High Moderate Negligible Slight Low Low Low Negligible Minimal Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Serious

Slight

Minimal

Table 7.1.3 is a summary of all risk levels that qualified as high. A complete analysis of all user, tasks, hazards and failure modes is included in table 2 in appendix 2 Table 9.3

User

Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Supervisor

Task

Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Shut down Shut down Shut down

Hazard

Collisions with in-field vessels Lack of communication Lack of communication Collisions with in-field vessels Lack of communication

Failure mode

Loss of control of in-field vessels Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Misunderstanding of orders Loss of control of a in-field vessel Wrongful execution of instructions/orders

Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious

Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

High High High High High High High High High High High High High

Guard against hazard Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Guard against hazard Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Train user Guard against hazard Guard against hazard Warn of hazard Train user Train user

Deviations from safe work Failure in the procedures practices Wrongful execution of Parts replacement Lack of communication instructions/orders Parts replacement Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Supervisory task(s) Crushing Collision with spar buoy Lack of communication Lack of training Human errors / behaviors Lowering of deck out of control Un-controlled lowering Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Wrongfully exercise of tasks

64

Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Hook-up Shut down

Lack of communication

Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Train user Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Warn of hazard

Deviations from safe work Failure in the procedures practices Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders

Deviations from safe work Failure in the procedures practices Wrongful execution of Lack of communication instructions/orders Wrongful execution of Lack of communication instructions/orders

The remedy action is a way of managing the hazards by incorporating preventive action. By suggesting an initiative we expect to reduce the likelihood of occurrence. Three types of remedy actions are described in table 9.3: Guard against hazard This means that the hazard will to some extent be eliminated by design, and it can be avoided by frequent monitoring the critical area. The hazard is of such a character that it cannot be eliminated by design. However, all personnel will be warned of the specific critical area. To minimize the hazard, the user has to be trained to perform in two different scenarios, normal and abnormal.

Warn of hazard

Train user

65

10 Cost analysis

10.1 Construction Cost

Fabrication cost for the catamaran hull with all its topside equipment, piping, pumps, valves, etc is estimated by calculating total hull weight and multiplied by average building cost/ton steel. The cost used in the analysis is supplied by Chevron Texaco, and is characteristic for a typical Japanese yard. Fabrication cost / ton steel Ton steel Fabrication cost $4500 8440 ton $37 980 000

The objective is to compare the total cost of the float over deck installation system presently described with a standard transportation and installation system involving a HLV versus a heavy lift crane vessel. This study is based on two examples: the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa. They are both deep-sea offshore development sites. The Gulf of Mexico is characterized by the proximity of offshore installation equipment and by calm seas. West Africa is the exact far from any major onshore terminal and equipment suppliers, this area is dominated by long swells. 10.2.1 Cost factors Three cost factors were found to be common to both the float over deck installation process and the lifting installation process, however they differ in amount: heavy lift vessel, tugs, operators.

An additional cost factor has to be included for the crane system: which is the time charter rate(TC) These costs are functions of the transportation time and the installation time. HLV costs are the same for the two systems. Transportation phase The cost of chartering a HLV is the same for both alternatives, thus it will not be analyzed. The crane vessel will change the total cost of the transportation phase significantly. The transportation time is assumed to be a function of two parameters: 1. The transportation distance and 2.The velocity of the crane vessel.. The service speed of the crane vessel is averaging 5 knots. The main operating areas for these type of crane vessels are the Gulf of

66

Mexico and the North Sea. The TC rates are approximately 1,000,000 usd/d. This yields the following time and cost for the transportation phase (roundtrip, on site waiting not included): Installation site Gulf of Mexico West Africa Location of lifting vessel Gulf of Mexico North Sea Gulf of Mexico North Sea Transportation time (days) 2 43 49 40 Transportation cost (million $) 2 43 49 40

Installation phase The part of the total cost due to the installation phase is governed by the time spent waiting for the appropriate weather window. The weather window for the float over deck installation system is about the same length as the window for the first lift of the lifting installation process, and is estimated to 24 hours. The maximum sea state is between 1 and 1.2 meters. The maximum lift capacity of the largest lifting cranes is approximately 10 000 tons. At least three lifts will be required to install the deck. Wave data show that, in West Africa, a 24-hour weather window with one meter significant wave height occurs every 5 days. The total installation phase will last much longer for the lifting installation system, even though it will probably not be six times the duration of one lift, because some lifts could be combined in a larger weather window. For an installation in the Gulf of Mexico, the installation phase is assumed to be much shorter. It could come right after the transportation, or last up to 2 days. The cost analysis below is based on the following values: Waiting time for weather window (min/max) 0/2 days 3/8 days 0/2 days 3/8 days Total installation time (min/max) 1/3 days 4/11 days 3/5 days 6/11 days

Installation site Gulf of Mexico West Africa Gulf of Mexico West Africa

The day rate on installation site without the crane vessel is assumed to be roughly the same for the two installation systems, and is equal to $500,000. It includes operators, tugs and HLV. Operators and tugs cost $100,000 per day, while the HLV costs $400,000 per day. The total cost of the installation phase for the two systems can be compared once the cost of chartering the crane vessel has been added to the cost of the lifting process: Costs for the float over deck system: Gulf of Mexico Operators and tugs cost (min/max in million $) HLV cost (min/max in million $) Total cost (min/max in million $) 0.1/0.3 0.4 0.5/0.7 West Africa 0.4/1.1 0.4 1.0/1.5

67

Costs for the crane lift vessel system Gulf of Mexico Total cost without lift crane vessel (min/max in million $) HLV cost (min/max in million $) Crane lift vessel (min/max in million $) Total cost (min/max in million $) 0.3/0.5 1.2/2.0 3.0/5.0 4.5/7.50 West Africa 0.6/1.1 2.4/4.4 6.0/11.0 9.0/16.5

Finally, the installation and transportation costs are added up to get an estimate of the total cost of each installation system: Costs for the float over deck system (without heavy lift crane vessel.) Gulf of Mexico Installation cost (min/max, million $) Total cost (min/max, million $) 0.5/0.7 2.5/2.7 West of Africa 1.0/1.5 41.0/41.5

Costs for the lifting vessel system (including heavy lift crane vessel): Gulf of Mexico 2 4.5/7.5 6.5/9.5 West of Africa 40 9.0/16.5 49.0/56.5

Transportation cost (million $) Installation cost (min/max, million $) Total cost (min/max, million $)

68

11 Deliverables.

The catamaran has a few new design features. 1. A catamaran that engulfs the structure as opposed to two barges. 2. A fender system that provides a nearly perfect fit between catamaran and structure. 3. A ballasting system based on airflow rather than water flow. Air has less friction and thus flows faster. The air is compressed during the first ballasting stage and when release can be used to evacuate water from the spars ballast tanks. These key features contribute to the following qualities of the system: Total lowering rate Maximum allowable sea state while in-field Cargo capacity Minimize installation risk Production cost Simplicity of design

69

References

1. ABS Rules for building and classing Steel Vessels 1998-99, Part 3 and 5 2. Bea, Robert: Load Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UCB, 2001 3. DNV SESAM Manual 4. Irgens, Fritjov: Formelsamling, Tapir, 1999 5. Leira, Bernt: SIN1010 Marin hydrodynamikk og konstruksjonsteknikk gk2 Department of Marine Structures, NTNU, 2001 6. MSC/NASTRAN User Manual 7. Petterson, Bjoernar: SIN1501 Marin hydrodynamikk og konstruksjonsteknikk gk1 Department of Marine Hydrodynamics, NTNU, 2000 8. Thimoshenko and Gere: Mechanics of Materials, 1972 9. Crane Co., Flow of fluids through valves, fittings, and pipe, 1942 10. Donald M. Fryer, High pressure vessels, 1998 11. Patrick H. Oosthuizen, Compressible fluid flow, McGraw-Hill, 1997 12. Bruce R. Munson, Donald F. Young, Theodore H. Okiiski, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 1990 13. J. Amdahl & al., SIN 0501 Marin Teknikk 1, NTNU, 2001 14. Code on Intact Stability, IMO, 1995

70

1.

Appendix 1

Pontoon Density Length (x) Width (y) Height (z) Volume Mass Boxgirder length draft Check Port Pontoon global, case1 CG x y z 1.11E+02kg/m^3 100m 19m 20m 38000m^3 4.22E+06kg 50m 9.87E+00 3.84E+07=

local for pontoon k Ixx 2.68E+08 7.963458 Iyy 3.66E+09 29.4392 Izz 3.64E+09 29.38395 0.00E+00 Star Pontoon global case 1 CG x y z

50 -34.5 10

50 34.5 10

with respect to global k Ixx 5.71E+09 36.79221 Iyy 1.46E+10 58.87841 Izz 1.92E+10 67.48086 Ixy -7.3E+09 #NUM!

with respect to global k Ixx 5.71E+09 36.79221 Iyy 1.46E+10 58.87841 Izz 1.92E+10 67.48086 Ixy 7.28E+09 41.53312

-34.5 0 10

34.5 0 10

with respect to global k Ixx 6.9E+08 12.78345 Iyy 9.1E+09 46.44262 Izz 8.67E+09 45.3174 Ixz -1.5E+09

with respect to global k Ixx 6.9E+08 12.78345 Iyy 9.1E+09 46.44262 Izz 8.67E+09 45.3174 Ixz 1.46E+09

71

DECK Density 157.4kg/m^3 Length (x) 72m Width (y) 72m Height (z) 21m Volume 108864m^3 Mass 30000000kg Grillage Height 1m

local for deck k Ixx 1.41E+10 21.65064 Iyy 1.41E+10 21.65064 Izz 2.59E+10 29.39388

global case 1 CG x y z

50 0 31.5

global case 2 CG x y z

87.5 0 43.5

with respect to global k Ixx 4.38E+10 38.22303 Iyy 1.19E+11 62.93648 Izz 1.01E+11 58 Ixy 0 0

with respect to global K Ixx 7.08E+10 48.59012 Iyy 3.01E+11 100.0862 Izz 2.56E+11 92.3052 Ixz 1.14E+11 61.69481

Heavy lift Vessel.( data for Mighty servant 1 is used here, will give typical data.) Length (x) L cargo deck Width (y) Height (z) Mass 190m 175m 50m 12m 38900000kg local for heavylift vessel Ixx Iyy Izz 8.57E+09 1.17E+11 1.25E+11

global case2. CG x y z

with respect to global k Ixx 9.97E+09 16.01041 Iyy 4.7E+11 109.9151 Izz 4.76E+11 110.6421 Ixz 2.22E+10

72

Combined system 1, deck and pontoons. Mass 3.84E+07 kg CG-global with respect to global k x 5.00E+01 Ixx 5.53E+10 37.9135 y 0.00E+00 Iyy 1.48E+11 62.06821 z 2.68E+01 Izz 1.39E+11 60.20969 Ixy 0.00E+00 0 Combined system 2, deck, pontoons and semisub. Mass 77340000 kg CG-global with respect to global k x 91.2723 Ixx 8.54E+10 33.23393 y 0 Iyy 8.57E+11 105.2381 z 22.29222 Izz 8.14E+11 102.5761 Ixy 1.53E+11 44.42075

Load off HLV

no Sub-activities

Removal of HLV-Pontoon sea fastenings Ballasting of HLV Attaching tow lines Getting tugs in position Preparing people and equipment Welding operations Towing deck Coordinating tugs Hook up mooring lines Positioning Hook up fenders Hook up flex. Air pipes Getting operators in position Eliminating all sea fastenings Slow ballasting for line-up, opening of bottom valves Rapid ballasting, opening of top valves De-ballasting of Spar hull with air pressure from pontoons Un-hook all connections Secure deck Tow back

1 2 Hook up, after sea launching 3 4 Reduce sea fastenings 5 6 Pull into position 7 8 9 10 Hook up, before final lowering 11 12 13 14 Lowering 15 16 17 18 19 20

Pull-away

73

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Task number

Tim e , in hours

74

Load and Stress analysis. Hydrodynamic forces Expressions and parameters used for calculation of hydrodynamic forces are presented. Table 3: Stress analysis parameters Parameter Value Wavelength 69 m Waveamplitude 3.5 m Gravity 9.81 m/s2 Effective length for FK 76 m force on pontoon Draft 20 m Length of pontoon 100 m Water density 1025 kg/m3 Normal vector -1 / 1 Unit plate strip 1m Plate thickness 0.03 m Maximum hydrostatic 201105 Pa pressure

Froude-Krilov pressure:

p = g a e kz sin( t kx)

Froude-Krilov force:

F = L

pndx

k=

T=

2 g

2 T

Table 4: Froude-Krilov forces due to load case 1, load case 2 and load case 3: n x t z F -1 -9.5m T/2 Variable -62MN Port pontoon Port side 1 9.5m T/2 Variable -62MN Port pontoon Starb. side -1 T/2 Variable 62MN Starb. pontoon

75

port side Starb. pontoon Starb. side Vertical force Port pontoon Vertical force Starb. pontoon Net horizontal Starb. pontoon Net horizontal Port pontoon

T/2

Variable

62MN

-1 -1

Variable Variable

3T/4 3T/4

-10m -10m

38 MN 38 MN

124 MN

124 MN

Global pontoon and box-girder stress theory Area moment of inertia bd 3 I= + Aa 2 12 Bending stress and moment:

M max y I

M max = Fmax a

Shear stress:

VQ V Ib Aw

Since the thickness of the web is very small in comparison with the width of the flange. The difference between max and min is not big, and the distribution of the shear stresses over the cross-section of the web is nearly uniform. A good approximation for max is obtained by dividing total shear force V by the cross sectional area Aw of the web alone.

76

Global pontoon loads Global bending moment and shear force for the pontoon are calculated, then are the stresses induced in the pontoon beam due to the global forces calculated. This is done for the two load cases described in section 1.6.

20000

10000

kNm

0 4.3 8.6 12.9 17.2 21.5 25.8 30.1 34.4 38.7 47.3 51.6 55.9 60.2 64.5 68.8 73.1 77.4 81.7 90.3 94.6 98.9 0 43 86

-10000

-20000

-30000 m

77

Global Pontoon Bending moment 8000000 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 12.6 16.8 25.2 29.4 33.6 37.8 46.2 50.4 54.6 58.8 67.2 71.4 75.6 79.8 88.2 92.4 -1000000 96.6 21 42 63 4.2 8.4 84 0

kNm

78

Bottom plate analysis The theory used to analyze bottom shell plating is presented together with the results. Plate strip theory: When a plate is long compared to its width, the plate strip theory will give approximate stresses for the plate. The theory is considering a unit width strip of the plate as a beam and applying beam theory for stress calculations. This method does not consider the plate as supported on all boundaries which make it more flexible and the results will give a too high stress value. In this case the plate strip is fixed due to the hydrostatic load condition on the surrounding plates. Following expression is used:

max =

Finite element analysis: Considering the same plate but with use of the FEA program MSC/NASTRAN. The FEA program gives the opportunity to consider the entire plate field and not only a unit strip. This allows a more realistic stress analysis where the plate has its fixed boundary conditions and support on all boundaries. Table 5: FEA Properties Properties # Elements # Nodes Boundary conditions Material properties Element type Plate length Plate width Load Table 6: Material properties Properties Density Youngs modulus Poisson Yield strength

750 836 Fixed As defined in Table 6 4 node quadrilateral 7.5 m 1.0 m Elemental pressure

A MSC/NASTRAN output list is attached in Appendix 5 listing the FEA properties and output results.

79

80

2.

Appendix 2

81

User

Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators

Task

Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Parts replacement Parts replacement Parts replacement Parts replacement Parts replacement Parts replacement Parts replacement Parts replacement Parts replacement

Hazard

Collisions with in-field vessels Instability Object falling onto Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Equipment damage Unfamiliarity with hazards and risks Lack of communication Lack of training Collisions with in-field vessels Instability Object falling onto Collision with spar buoy Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Ruptures Equipment damage Weather interference Stabbing / puncture Instability Object falling onto Human machinery mismatch Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Ruptures

Failure mode

Loss of control of in-field vessels Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Danger of process equipment falling from the deck Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of orders/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Lack of understanding of the operation Misunderstanding of orders Unfamiliar with tasks Loss of control of a in-field vessel Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Danger of process equipment falling from deck Uncontrolled motion of the catamaran Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Structural failure Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Loss of deck Loss air pressure Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Danger of process equipment falling from the deck Wrong installation Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Structural failures

Severity

Serious Minimal Serious Slight Serious Slight Slight Slight Slight Serious Serious Serious Slight Serious Slight Slight Serious Slight Serious Catastrophic Slight Catastrophic Slight Slight Serious Slight Slight Serious Serious Slight Catastrophic

Possible Probable Unlikely Possible Possible Probable Possible Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Probable Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Possible Unlikely High Negligible Moderate Low High Low Low Low Low High Moderate High Low Moderate Low Low High Low High Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low High High Low Moderate

Guard against hazard Train user Warn of hazard Train user Warn of hazard Eliminate by design Train user Warn of hazard Train user

Guard against hazard Provide PPE Provide PPE Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Train user Warn of hazard Eliminate by design Eliminate by design Eliminate by design Provide PPE Train user Warn of hazard Warn of hazard Train user Train user Eliminate by design

82

Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Operators Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators

Parts replacement Parts replacement Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Lowering deck Documentation Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Problem solving Documentation Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Supervisory task(s) Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up Hook-up

Leakages Equipment damage Crushing Shearing Impact Collisions with in-field vessels Instability Object falling onto Collision with spar buoy Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Equipment damage Weather interference <None> Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices <None> <None> Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Collisions with in-field vessels Collision with spar buoy Human machinery mismatch Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Equipment damage

Error on pressurized equipment Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Lowering of deck out of control Lowering of deck to fast Lowering of deck is out of control Loss of control of in-field vessels Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Danger of process equipment falling from the deck Un-controlled lowering Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Severe storms, loss of deck

Slight Slight Serious Serious Slight Serious Slight Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious Slight Slight Catastrophic

Unlikely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Probable Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Unlikely

Low Low High Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate High High Low Low Moderate

Guard against hazard Train user Warn of hazard Train user Train user Eliminate by design

Wrongfully exercise of tasks Inadequate instructions/ requirements Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures

Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Loss of control of in-field vessels Negligence and\or loss of control of vessel Inexperience with tug and\or equipment Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Exposing the tug in a vulnerable condition

Serious Serious Slight Serious Serious Serious Minimal Serious Serious Serious Slight Slight

Possible Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

High High Low High Moderate Moderate Negligible Moderate High Moderate Low Low

Guard against hazard Train user Train user Warn of hazard Train user Warn of hazard Eliminate by design

83

Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators Tug operators

Hook-up Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Shut down Towing Towing Towing Towing Towing Towing Towing Towing Towing

Loss of control Collisions with in-field vessels Collision with spar buoy Human machinery mismatch Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Equipment damage Loss of control Weather interference Collisions with in-field vessels Collision with spar buoy Human machinery mismatch Human errors / behaviors Lack of communication Lack of training Deviations from safe work practices Equipment damage Loss of control

Unknown situations Loss of control of in-field vessels Negligence and\or loss of control of vessel Inexperience with tug and\or equipment Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Exposing the tug in a vulnerable condition Unknown situations Loss of deck Loss of control of in-field vessels Negligence and\or loss of control of vessel Inexperience with tug and\or equipment Wrongfully exercise of tasks Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Wrongful execution of task Failure in the procedures Exposing the tug in a vulnerable condition Unknown situations

Serious Serious Serious Slight Serious Serious Serious Slight Slight Serious Catastrophic Serious Serious Slight Serious Serious Slight Slight Slight Serious

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Moderate

Guard against ha

Guard against hazard Train user Train user Warn of hazard Train user Warn of hazard Eliminate by design

84

3.

Appendix 3:

Matlab code for lowering process analysis The analysis was performed using Matlab 6.1. The main program is lowering.m, and it calls a function lowering_phase1.m. Lowering.m

function lowering clear all; close all; % Mass of deck M=3E7; % Mass of pontoons Mp=8.44E6; % Mass of the spar Ms=3000; % Gravitational constant g=9.81; % Sea water density rhow=1.025E3; % Atmopsheric pressure patm=1.01E5; % Pontoons height h=20; % Beam w=19; % Length of middle tanks lc=89.7; % Length of buoyancy tanks lb=10.3; % Surface area of middle tanks Ac=lc*w; % Surface area of buoyancy tanks Ab=lb*w; % Gamma constant for the air gamma=1.4; % Initial incoming water flow rate Q0=1.4; alpha1=800; % Surface area of one valve S=0.45; % Number of valves per pontoon N=6; % Heave damping coefficient lambda=2E6; % End of phase1 tf1=80*60; % Initial external draft (<0) dout0=-9.8;

85

% Initial internal draft (<0) dint0=-9.8; % Initial condition for phase 1 y01 = [dint0 ; dout0 ; 0 ]; % Number of points, 1st phase Np1=20; % Diameter of the spar Ds=48; % Surface area of spar tanks As=pi/4*(Ds^2-(Ds/2)^2); % Lowering height to reach the spar L=3; % Time required for cutting off sea fastening tfasten=40*60; % Calling lowering_phase1.m for first phase analysis [y1,t1]=lowering_phase1(M+Mp,h,gamma,rhow,g,patm,w,lc,lb,lambda, Q0,S,N,alpha1,tf1,dout0,dint0,Ds,As,Ms,L) size(t1) size(y1) % Plots figure(1); plot(t1/60,y1(:,1), 'g+-') hold on plot(t1/60,y1(:,2),'bx-') hold on plot(t1/60,(dout0-L)*ones(length(y1)),'r-'); grid on; xlabel('time (min)'); ylabel('depth (m)'); legend('d_{int}','d_{out}'); title('Time evolution of the internal and external drafts, first phase'); % Find the time, external and internal draft when deck reaches spar k=1; while abs(y1(k+1,2)-(y01(2)-L))<abs(y1(k,2)-(y01(2)-L)) treach=t1(k+1); doutreach=y1(k+1,2); dintreach=y1(k+1,1); k=k+1;

Lowering_phase.m

function [y,t] = lowering_phase1(M,h,gamma,rhow,g,patm,w, lc,lb,lambda,Q0,S,N,alpha,tf1,dout0,dint0,Ds,As,Ms,L)

y0 = [dint0 ; dout0 ; 0 ]; y=y0; % Number of points, 1st phase Np1=20; tspan1 = linspace(0,tf1,Np1);

86

%--------------------------------function out = f1(t,y,M,h,gamma,rhow,g,patm,w,lc,lb,lambda,Q0,S, N,alpha,y01,Ds,As,Ms,L) Ac=lc*w; Ab=lb*w; Mt=mass(t,Q0,rhow,alpha,N); Q=N*Q0*exp(-t/alpha); p1=patm-rhow*g*y(1,:); deltap=10*rhow.*(Q/N/S).^2/(144*(2*g))*6.895E3/2.43; if (y01(2)-y(2))<L % 'case1' out =[patm*(h./(h-y(1,:)+y(2,:))).^gamma-patm+rhow*g*y(1,:) + deltap y(3,:) 1./(M)*(-lambda*y(3,:)-(M+2*Mt)*g*ones(1,size(y(1,:),2)) -2*y(2,:)*rhow*(Ac+Ab)*g)]; else % 'case2' out=[patm*(h./(h-y(1,:)+y(2,:))).^gamma-patm+rhow*g*y(1,:) + deltap y(3,:) 1./(M)*(-lambda*y(3,:)-(M+2*Mt)*g*ones(1,size(y(1,:),2)) -2*y(2,:)*rhow*(Ac+Ab)*g+rhow*g*As.*(y01(2)-L-y(2,:)))]; end %--------------------------------function Mt=mass(t,Q0,rhow,alpha,N) Mt=N*rhow*Q0*alpha*(1-exp(-t/alpha));

87

4.

Appendix 4

Hydrodynamic Results For Unrestrained Catamaran. The Catamaran is Carrying the Deck Hydrodynamic Results For Unrestrained Heavy Lift Carry Vessel. The Vessel is Carrying the Catamaran and Deck System.

88

- Fluid MechanicsUploaded byNikhil Singla
- catamaran analysisUploaded bybhuktha
- Kmart CatamaranUploaded byAnonymous 6f8RIS6
- CatamaranUploaded bynecatiygt
- Armstrong, Schmieman - On the Added Resistance of Catamarans in Waves - 2005Uploaded byTullio Opatti
- The Wharram Design Book PDFUploaded byjucassabao
- CatamaranUploaded byAdrian Angulo
- Savitsky - On the Subject of High Speed MonohullsUploaded bysearchile
- Resistance Characteristics of Semi-Displacement Mega Yacht Hull Forms[1][1]Uploaded byAhmet Gültekin Avcı
- Wave Restance for High-speed CatamaransUploaded byKay Oosterwegel
- Experimental Assessment of Interference Resistance for a Series 60 CatamaranUploaded bySalma Sherbaz
- Resistance Components of a CatamaranUploaded bySciencez
- CatamaranUploaded byCornel N. Şeitan
- Anthony F Molland_ Stephen R Turnock_ Dominic a Hudson-Ship Resistance and Propulsion _ Practical Estimation of Ship Propulsive Power-Cambridge University Press (2011)Uploaded byghanbari8668
- Archimedes Law Lesson PlanUploaded byKissiMarwanti
- Surge-Pressure-Prediction-for-Running-Liners.pdfUploaded bymohamad miri
- Mech_All.pdfUploaded bytoshugo
- Ansys Cfx Intro 12.0 1st-Edition - WorkshopsUploaded bykdennis_nguyen
- Hydraulics_-_H_W._King_and_C_O._Wisler.pdfUploaded byJerrick Antimano
- solarboatadvancedUploaded byNur Fadhila Che Pee
- Prod CoursesofstudyUploaded byHamid Mojiry
- Ship Stability Mates Masters.pdfUploaded byTomislav Čerina
- FLOATING ARCHITECTURE.docxUploaded byMarhaba Nigar
- 8 Strand PolypropyleneUploaded bydhana_benz
- ABTcompiled-rayarpalayamUploaded bySathiyaseelan Subramani
- Syllabus (6th Sem) ned uniUploaded byMaaz Al-Hussaini
- fmhmUploaded byVijendra
- Bouyancy and Float at IonUploaded byJoseph Berlin Juanzon
- LabB_Archimedes.docUploaded byNurul Farihah

- List of Swec External -Product for Petronas Licensing PurposeUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- Petrobras career startUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- New Supplier Registration Part 1.pdfUploaded byRatu Unkle
- Supplier First Time LoginUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- How to Read PIDUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- Guideline for Petronas RegistrationUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- Example of Fill-Up form for Chemical Injection PackageUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- WEF Capital Markets Report 2015Uploaded byHabib Mukmin
- WEF TT Competitiveness Report 2013Uploaded byHabib Mukmin
- Axiomatic DesignUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- Megatrends and Their Impacts to Public PolicyUploaded byHabib Mukmin
- Design Methodology , Problem Solving and Creative Thinking [Autosaved]Uploaded byHabib Mukmin
- Thesis I AnggreeniUploaded byHabib Mukmin

- Kaitak TerminalUploaded byRonak Bhanushali
- Corle Insulated Panels BrochureUploaded byjh50000
- 55TeddiBearUploaded byfj40dive
- Tutorial ArchiNav StructDesign en 20120112Uploaded bylavrik
- Steel Products for ShipbuildingUploaded byRoo Fa
- NR445 Part D May 2014.pdfUploaded bymarboledt
- Towage at Sea by Cina ClassUploaded byJogi Oscar Sinaga
- Suplement Specification 500 ConcreteUploaded byPhilipHandoko
- 11tank Gauging and Oil AccountingUploaded bySagar Das
- GUIDE TO STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION.pdfUploaded byAnonymous
- APPENDIX_tcm155-240358Uploaded bynazari123
- MAIB Timber Deck Cargo StudyUploaded byVito Digeo
- Value Engineering and Steel EconomyUploaded byredinez
- Multi-purpose Marine Science and Technology Research Vessel - Bulbous Bow - 2013Uploaded byMaurizio Bernasconi
- Aluminum ship 2013_Final(Web).pdfUploaded bypita77
- Safe Room Designs - Tiny House 2019 Catalog - Revised 1-4-2019Uploaded byRick Clarke
- IRS SCANTLINGSUploaded bysuresh kumar
- Load line.pdfUploaded bySimon Laurent
- DNV. Less Than 100mUploaded bykimurapedros
- Double Deck Floating RoofUploaded byInamullah Khan
- Mayflower Chuck Pass AroUploaded byLucian
- Alkorplan F InstallationUploaded bydracunciliasiz
- Tug DesignUploaded byCharles Dublin
- Principal structural members of a shipUploaded byDheerajKaushal
- MN_2005_02Uploaded bymalex_g
- ESP_Booklet for Oil Tankers_tcm155-206361Uploaded byuntamedsailor
- DATA-SEAZIP-12-OKT-2013Uploaded bygeorgekc77
- De-Icing & Anti-Icing 1_engUploaded byMinca Andrei
- REC_47_pdf193Uploaded byszafak
- Bonding CompositesUploaded byAbyss Dweller