You are on page 1of 0

OTC 24041

Liuhua 11-1 FPS Dry-dock Upgrade and Life Extension - Mooring System
Evaluation and Optimization
H. Yang, W.J . Zhong, China Offshore Oil Engineering Co., Ltd; Y. Luo, COTEC Inc; H.J . Yin, B. Liu, China
Offshore Oil Engineering Co., Ltd
Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 69 May 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.


Abstract
The evaluation of existing mooring system and the development of an appropriate optimization design became the key issues
in the Liuhua 11-1 FPS dry-dock updating project because this optimized mooring system has to face new challenges, such as
the update of site metocean conditions, the revision of wind force coefficients due to upgraded topsides, and the additional
corrosion allowance for chain links due to extra 15-year service life extension compared with the original system design.

A design team was formed to give the evaluation of the existing mooring system based on mooring line tensions and
offset limits according to the latest industry standard for a permanent mooring system. Since the existing mooring system
marginally failed the design requirements based on the evaluation, system optimization design focused on the adjustment of
mooring line pretensions has been carried out to improve the mooring system performance and eventually to satisfy the
classification requirements for the tension safety factors and the platform offset limits driven by the riser designs. The
mooring system analysis was conducted in time domain. The Ariane program developed by BV was used in the detailed
mooring system analyses. For the calibration and verification purpose, the system evaluation and the optimization design had
also been independently verified with DNVs DeepC program.

Introduction
The LH 11-1 oil field is located about 200km southeast of Hong Kong in the South China Sea in approximately 310m depth of
water. LH 11-1 FPS, which named Nanhai TiaoZhan, is a major component of LH 11-1 oil field development. The FPS was a
modified drilling semi-submersible converted from a Sedco 700 series drilling rig built in 1975 and in 1995, it was converted
again to a floating production unit in Singapore and then deployed at LH 11-1 oil field, permanently moored by 11 mooring
legs. The Unit is classed by American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). It was originally designed for a service life of 10 years (from
1995) and has been continuously operating for more than 15 years. At the same time, a new oil field Liuhua 4-1 (OTC-24042),
about 11 km away northwest LH 11-1, was in development planning with the utilization of LH 11-1 FPS facilities through a
subsea tieback. Therefore, additional topsides capacities and the life extension of this aged semi-submersible FPS became
necessary. CNOOC Ltd, Shenzhen is the owner of this LH 11-1 FPS. COOEC was selected as the contractor for the
engineering and construction support of this FPS dry-docking upgrading and life extension project. CSSC Guanzhou Huangpu
Shipbuilding Co., Ltd was contracted by the owner as the dry-docking shipyard for the upgrading construction.

Based on project requirements, this unit needs to extend its service life for another 15 years after this dry-docking
upgrading program planned in 2011. The objective of the mooring system analysis is to assess the existing system conditions,
in conjunction with the field survey report and the latest environmental design data, to provide recommendations for the
upgrading program.

The original plan was to replace the top platform chains during the dry-docking phase and to release the suspended wire
ropes and bottom chains to sea floor during the period for the dry-docking operation. After the completion of the dry-docking
operation, the mooring lines will be re-connected to the platform at the field. Compared to the 1995 design, the updated
mooring system has to take additional considerations such as the revised metocean conditions, the revision of wind force
coefficients due to the updated topsides, and the extra corrosion allowance of chain links due to extra service life extension.
2 OTC 24041
The design team conducted an evaluation of the existing mooring system design. The mooring system was analyzed and
assessed in accordance with the design requirements of API RP 2SK Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of
Stationkeeping System for Floating Structures. Since the existing mooring system marginally failed the design requirements
in the preliminary evaluation, a system optimization design was carried out to improve the mooring system performance and
eventually to satisfy the classification requirements for line tension safety factors and the allowable platform offset limits
driven by the riser design. The Ariane program developed by BV was used in the analysis. For the calibration and verification
purpose, the system evaluation and optimization design were independently verified using DNVs DeepC program.

Mooring System Particulars
A permanent 11-point chain-wire spread mooring system has been designed for the LH11-1 FPS for operations in 304.88m
water depth. The FPS heading is 307 degrees from the true north, which aligns with the prevalent strong current associated
with soliton and typhoon events. Each of the 11 mooring lines consists of platform chains, riser wire, ground chains and
anchor wire. Figure 1 illustrates the 11 point mooring arrangement and the mooring line component. The particulars of
mooring legs are presented in Table 1, where a corrosion rate of 0.4mm/year is assumed for both platform chains and ground
chains, and 5% strength deduction after another 15 years service is also assumed for the wire rope segments. 113m design
payout (from the fairlead) of the platform chains, and an averaged value of 125T (275kips) pretension, in both storm
condition and operating conditions are assumed as the initial assessment of the mooring system based on the original design.

Figure 1 - Mooring System Arrangement & Mooring Line Component

Table 1 - Mooring Line Composition
Line Properties
Line Segment
Platform chain Riser Wire Ground Chain Anchor Wire
Grade RQ4 Spiral strand RQ3 Spiral strand
Length(m) 221 503 610(max) 122
Diameter
New (inches) 4-3/4 5-3/16 5-1/2 5-3/16
New (mm) 121 132 140 132
Corrosion Allowance 15 years - 6mm NA 30 year 12mm NA
Design (mm) 115 132 128 132
Weight(T/m)
In air 0.319 0.085 0.428 0.085
In water 0.277 0.071 0.372 0.071
EA Elasticity(T) 110,968 164,199 145,056 164,199
Breaking Strength(T)
New Condition 1398 1383 1461 1383
Design Condition 1285 1315 1275 1315
OTC 24041 3

Design Environmental Conditions
The environmental criteria were based on 1995 FPS Design Premise Manual and the revised criteria based on the document
of Liuhua Oil Field Environmental Criteria (2006). According to the 1995 FPS Design Premise, the FPS mooring was
required to withstand the 100-year return typhoon storms. A summary of directional environmental conditions is listed in
Table 2 below based on 100 year return typhoon conditions from the 2006 Environment Report:

Table 2 - Directional Environmental Criteria-100 Year Typhoon Condition


The selected design conditions, corresponding to the maximum workover conditions with 100-year soliton conditions and
the maximum drilling conditions with 10-year monsoon wind and wave conditions, were considered. For the soliton and
monsoon conditions, the original 1995 environmental criteria were utilized, which are listed in Table 3 and Table 4.

Table 3 - 100-Year Soliton Conditions
1 2 5 10 25 50/100
10-mWind Speed(knots)
Most frequent direction
15-75
45
20 20 20 20 20 20
Hs Sig. Wave(m)
Most frequent direction
15-75
45
6 6 5 4 3 2
Tp Spectral Peak (sec) 11 11 10 10 9 8
Background Current(cm/sec)
Depth(m) 0-35 20-160 30 30 30 30 30 30
35-75 20-160 30 30 30 30 30 30
75-150 20-160 25 25 25 25 25 25
150-250 20-160 20 20 20 20 20 20
250-305 315-160 20 20 20 20 20 20
90
Soliton Current(cm/sec)
Max.positive speed 210 230 250 270 300 310
Max.negative speed -175 -220 -255 -280 -340 -395
Range of direction 75-154
Most frequent direction 127
Depth(m) 0 110 120 130 140 155 155
25 210 230 250 270 300 310
60 210 230 250 270 300 310
80 200 220 240 260 290 310
100 170 190 220 240 270 280
140 70 90 110 130 160 170
180 10 20 30 40 60 70
200 -30 -20 0 10 20 30
220 -80 -70 -65 -60 -40 -30
270 -175 -220 -250 -260 -280 -290
275 -160 -200 -255 -280 -325 -330
280 -140 -190 -240 -280 -340 -395
305 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most frequent direction
Timescale 18.8 min
Parameter
Azimuth Direction
from (degrees)
Return Period(Years)

4 OTC 24041

Table 4 - 10-year monsoon conditions
Return Period
(Years)
Wave Spectrum
gamma=3.0
sigma=0.1
Significant Wave
Height(m)
Spectral Peak
Period(sec)
Zero Crossing
Period(sec)
Current Profile D V D V D V D V D V
0 114 0 120 0 121 0 122 0 123
20 100 20 106 20 107 20 108 20 109
40 86 40 92 40 93 40 94 40 95
90 30 90 30 90 30 90 30 90 30
305 30 305 30 305 30 305 30 305 30
10.2-11.4
11.5-13.0 12.8-14.3 13.1-14.6
8.8-10.0 9.8-11.0 10.1-11.2
P=4.5 P=4.5 P=4.5
10.4-11.5
D=Depth(meters
frommean
waterline)
V=Current
velocity(cm/sec)
6.5 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.9
32 40 41
13.3-14.8 13.5-15.0
J ONSWAP J ONSWAP J ONSWAP J ONSWAP J ONSWAP
42 43
Wind(knots)
60-Min.at 10melev.
P=4.5 P=4.5
1 10 25 50 100


Design Criteria
The FPS mooring system was designed in accordance with API RP 2SK for a permanent mooring system. The design safety
factors specified in API specification for mooring lines and offset limits are presented in Table 5 below, where the limited
offsets of the FPS under the maximum design and operation conditions are driven by the riser designs.

Table 5 - Mooring Lines Design Criteria
No Drilling Drilling
Weather -
Return Period
100-year typhoon 100-year solition
10-year
monsoon
Normal
condition
Design Offset -
Intact Mooring 120 feet transverse 50 feet transverse 50 feet N/A
140 feet longitudinal 60 feet longitudinal
One-Line Broken
1
160 feet transverse No Specifics No Specifics N/A
180 feet longitudinal
FPS Postioning -
Bow-Stern direction 0 feet 150 feet 150 feet 0 feet
Port-Starboard 0 feet 21 feet 21 feet 0 feet
Tension FOS -
Dynamic Analysis
Intact 1.67 1.67 1.67 N/A
Damaged 1.25 1.25 1.25 N/A
Fatigue Life N/A N/A N/A
30 year
2
Anchor Load FOS -
Dynamic Analysis
Intact 1.5 N/A N/A N/A
Damaged 1.0 N/A N/A N/A
Max Angle at the Seabed -
Intact, max, offset 0 0 0 N/A
Damage, max, offset 0 0 0 N/A
Criteria Max.Design
Max.Operating
Fatigue

OTC 24041 5

Analysis Method
The mooring system analysis was conducted in the time domain. The hydrodynamic properties of the FPS were first
computed and obtained using DNVs software SESAM, module HydroD. Ariane 7 program developed by Bureau Veritas
were used for mooring analysis, utilizing the obtained hydrodynamic properties. For the calibration and verification purposes,
DNVs DeepC program was also utilized in the analysis for critical load cases.

Since Ariane 7 computes the line tension quasi-statically, a dynamic amplification factor (DAF), which is derived by
comparing the results from the Arianes quasi-static tensions with the full dynamic simulation tensions produced by the
Orcaflex program. The derived DAF was then applied to tensions derived by the Ariane program to obtain the full line
dynamic tensions.

The mooring analysis procedure is generally divided into 3 steps as described below:

Step 1 - Vessel hydrodynamics
Hydrodynamic models including panel models and Morrison models of the FPS at various loading conditions were
developed using SESAM/GeniE. A three-dimensional diffraction/radiation analysis was performed using SESAM/HydroD to
compute hydrodynamic coefficients, such as added mass, radiation damping, first order wave exciting forces, wave drift force
coefficients, and motion RAO's. All major FPS columns and pontoons were modeled by quadrilateral panels to account for
potential-flow forces. In addition, HydroD allows the modeling of brace members as Morison-type cylinders to account for
viscous forces. The motion calculation model was generated by GeniE software as shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2 - FPS Hydrodynamic Analysis Model

Motion RAOs and wave drift force coefficients, or QTFs, were inputted into the ARIANE or SESAM/DeepC programs for
the calculations of mean drift forces and slow drift motions.

Step 2 - Definition of anchor legs and mean environmental loads
The anchor legs have been modeled using the program ARIANE or DeepC. The line compositions and actual mechanical
properties of the various segments such as linear weights in air and water, axial stiffness, etc., were properly defined in the
model. Mean environmental loads acting on the vessel were obtained by using the defined winds, currents and wave drift
force coefficients. Mean wave drift load was computed based on the wave drift coefficients (QTFs) obtained from the FPS
wave diffraction analysis using the specified wave energy spectrum. The QTFs were corrected to account for the
wave/current interactions.

Step 3 Quasistatic / Dynamic analysis
In Ariane program, each elementary loading case was defined as the combination of a loading condition of the vessel with
a set of design environmental conditions, multiple independent 3-hour time domain simulations of the vessel motions,
including low and wave frequency motions in a 3-D dynamic analysis. In each simulation, the maximum quasi-dynamic leg
tensions and the maximum FPS offsets were recorded. Then, these maxima were statistically processed with a view to
deriving the most probable maximum values (MPM). In the quasi-dynamic analysis, the line tensions were derived from
6 OTC 24041
the static load-excursion curve of one appropriate anchor leg, considering the instantaneous altitude and horizontal position
of the chain stopper. In this approach, the dynamic response of the legs, due to inertial and drag effects, were not directly
accounted for. In order to obtain the dynamic amplification factors (DAF) defined above, Orcaflex program was used, which
is able to perform 3-D fully dynamic analyses of anchor legs. These derived DAFs were then incorporated into the
calculations to obtain the full dynamic line tensions.

In DeepC program, time domain dynamic method was used to predict the maximum mooring line tensions and the vessel
offsets, with calculations taking into the account of waves, currents, and inertia loads from the mooring system. Three-hour
time-domain irregular wave simulations were performed for each environmental direction using five different random wave
realizations. The design maximum mooring tensions and vessel offsets were obtained by averaging the maximum tensions
over the five realizations to avoid any misrepresentations.

Existing Mooring System Evaluation in the Survival Condition
The existing mooring system was evaluated initially to have an indication that the system could fail the code checks. An
analysis was then conducted for the system intact and one line damage conditions and the derived safety factors and offsets
were obtained. The results indicated that the existing mooring design marginally failed to meet the API RP 2SK design
criteria, due to the revised design metocean conditions, with regards to minimum safety factors of line tensions under survival
conditions. The FPS offsets also exceeded the design limits under either survival conditions or operation conditions.

Ariane results of tension safety factors and the FPS offsets in intact survival conditions are listed in Table 6 and Figure 3.
The maximum offsets in the one line damaged survival conditions are illustrated in Figure 4.

Table 6 - Tension Safety factors in the Intact Survival Condition- Pretension 275kips
Environment
Most
Loaded
Line
MaximumDynamic Tension
PlatformChain Riser Wire Ground Chain Anchor Chain
Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS
N 0 2 470.0 2.73 448.7 2.93 432.7 2.91 410.1 3.21
NE 45 4 503.2 2.55 483.2 2.72 468.3 2.68 444.3 2.96
E 90 6 536.9 2.39 516.8 2.54 501.5 2.51 475.4 2.77
SE 135 8 481.9 2.67 460.5 2.86 444.5 2.83 421.0 3.12
S 180 9 689.7 1.86 668.9 1.97 654.7 1.92 624.6 2.11
SW 225 10 806.9 1.59 788.6 1.67 774.4 1.62 739.1 1.78
W 270 10 687.3 1.87 668.0 1.97 653.2 1.92 621.7 2.12
NW 315 11 474.2 2.71 442.0 2.97 426.6 2.95 404.8 3.25

Figure 3 - Offsets for Intact Condition-Pretension 275kips Figure 4 - Offsets for One Line Damaged -Pretension 275kips

The safety factors of top platform chains have also been compared and calibrated with those derived from DeepC analysis
and the results of comparison are presented in Table 7. Overall, a good agreement has been achieved based on these
comparisons. However, the results indicated that the mooring system marginally failed to meet the API design criteria in
safety factors of the mooring system intact condition in SW direction. In addition, the mooring offsets exceed the design
limits in a number of cases.

OTC 24041 7
Table 7 - Tension Safety factors Comparison with Deep C
Dir DeepC Ariane
N 2.69 2.73
NE 2.89 2.55
E 2.44 2.39
SE 2.12 2.67
S 1.77 1.86
SW 1.61 1.59
W 1.83 1.87
NW 2.22 2.71

Mooring System Optimization for Survival Conditions
Mooring system optimization design was carried out to improve the mooring system performance. The optimization focused
on the adjustment of line pre-tensions so that the loads could be better shared among these different mooring legs. As the
critical environmental heading is from SW and the most loaded line is L10, pre-tensions increased on L2 and L8 were
considered. The increased L8 pre-tension also helps to balance L9 and L10 loading in SW and S extreme cases. In order to
limit the platform offsets, the average pre-tension is marginally increased to 285kips.

The optimized results from Arinane of line tensions and safety factors are presented in Table 8, and the offsets in intact
and one line damage survival conditions are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively.

Table 8 - Tension Safety factors in the Intact Survival Condition- Pretension 285kips
Environment
Most
Loaded
Line
Maximum Dynamic Tension
Platform Chain Riser Wire Ground Chain Anchor Chain
Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS
N 0 2 552.8 2.32 538.3 2.44 522.2 2.41 492.5 2.67
NE 45 4 464.4 2.77 448 2.94 432.1 2.91 407 3.23
E 90 6 505.7 2.54 489 2.69 472.8 2.66 445.2 2.95
SE 135 8 557.1 2.31 541.3 2.43 525 2.39 494.6 2.66
S 180 9 747.3 1.72 733.3 1.79 718.4 1.75 681.3 1.93
SW 225 10 749.1 1.72 734.1 1.79 719.1 1.75 682.3 1.93
W 270 10 684.4 1.88 669 1.97 653.5 1.92 619 2.12
NW 315 11 451.7 2.84 426 3.09 409.4 3.07 385.3 3.41

Figure 5 - Offset for Intact Condition-Pretension 285kips Figure 6 - Offset for One Line Damaged -Pretension 285kips

The mooring analysis results after optimization design using Ariane were independently verified by DeepC program. The
result comparisons are listed in Table 9. It indicated that the mooring system based on the optimization design meets the
8 OTC 24041
design requirements in safety factors of line tensions and FPS offset limits. The results, derived from Ariane analysis and
DeepC analysis, agree well.

Table 9 - Tension Safety Factor Comparison With DeepC-After Optimization
Dir DeepC Ariane
N 2.13 2.32
NE 2.42 2.77
E 2.44 2.54
SE 2.05 2.31
S 1.88 1.72
SW 1.68 1.72
W 1.85 1.88
NW 2.71 2.84

Mooring System Performance in the Operating Condition
The calculations of the mooring system responses in the operating conditions, namely the 100 year return soliton condition
and the 10 year return monsoon condition, were subsequently conducted to derive the tension safety factors and platform
offsets. The results indicated that the 100-year return soliton environmental condition was the more critical one than the 10-
year return monsoon condition, and the safety factors of line tensions satisfied the design requirements well, while the FPS
offsets exceeded the design limits in the 100-year return soliton environmental conditions, see Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Offsets for 100y Soliton Condition-285kips Figure 8 - Offsets for 100y Soliton Condition-410kips

To limit the platform offsets, higher average line pre-tensions at 410kips were proposed in the soliton related design
environments. The FPS offsets with higher pre-tensions are presented in Figure 8. Associated line tensions and safety factors
are presented in Table 10. It clear indicated that with higher pre-tensions, the mooring line tension safety factors and FPS
offsets all satisfid the design criteria. It was therefore recommended that the higher mooring line pretensions at 410kips
should be applied in the mooring system.

Table 10 - Tension Safety factors in the 100y Soliton Condition- Pretension 410kips
Environment
Most
Loaded
Line
MaximumDynamic Tension
PlatformChain Riser Wire Ground Chain Anchor Chain
Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS Tension (T) FOS
N 0 2 406.2 3.16 391.5 3.36 374.2 3.36 351.4 3.74
NE 45 4 369.3 3.48 354.1 3.71 336.5 3.74 315.7 4.16
E 90 6 308 4.17 290.5 4.53 272.8 4.61 256.2 5.13
SE 135 8 334.9 3.84 317.4 4.14 299.6 4.20 281.3 4.67
S 180 9 465.4 2.76 450.0 2.92 433.5 2.90 407.9 3.22
SW 225 10 548.1 2.34 533.1 2.47 516.8 2.43 487.2 2.70
W 270 10 470.6 2.73 454.9 2.89 438.1 2.87 412.1 3.19
NW 315 11 357.6 3.59 334.2 3.93 316.9 3.97 297.5 4.42
OTC 24041 9

Conclusion
The existing mooring system was first evaluated using the revised metocean conditions. It was noted that the revised
environmental conditions from South and Southwest directions were increased from the 1995 design basis. Based on
calculations, the tension safety factors for line no. 9, 10 and 11 were reduced and the line no. 10 tension safety factor
marginally failed the API design code.

Based on these results, the existing mooring system was optimized by adjusting the pre-tensions among different mooring
legs to achieve a better balanced loading condition among these mooring lines. It was also noted that under the existing
mooring line pre-tensions, the FPS offsets in 100-year return soliton operating condition exceed the design limits in a few
directions. In order to satisfy allowable offset limits, the average pre-tensions of the mooring system were also adjusted
higher. Consequently, both the line tension safety factors and the FPS offsets satisfid all design requirements.

The evaluation of the condition of mooring hardware and mooring line fatigue analysis are outside the scope of work.
However, recently conducted wire rope inspection and breaking test report has been considered to derive a reduced wire rope
breaking strength for calculating the tension safety factors. The wire rope inspection and breaking test report concluded that
there is no significant deterioration of wire breaking strength. While the extensive inspection once a year for the whole
mooring system is recommended on safety consideration.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), CNOOC Ltd Shenzhen, Offshore Oil Engineer Co., Ltd
(COOEC) for their permission to publish this paper. The authors are pleased to recognize and thank for all the teams worked
so hard over these years to make this project a success one.

References
[1] ABS, Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. 2012
[2] Bryant, J .H, Methvin, J.R., Dague, E.E., Zhu, M.C., Wang, H.K., Liuhua 11-1 Development Field Development Overview, Paper
OTC 8172 presented at the 1996 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 6-9, 1996.
[3] API RP 2SK Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systemfor Floating Structures.
[4] Sorrel, D., Green, J .D., Florida, M.J ., Chen, M., Sheridan, J ., Liuhua 11-1 development Phase I Installation, Paper OTC 8186
presented at the 1996 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 6-9, 1996.