This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sid Sircar, PMB Engineering Inc.; J, W. Kleinhans, BP Exploration Inc. and Jitendra Prasad, PMB Engineering Inc.
Copyright 1993, Offshore Technology Conference This paper wee presented at the 25th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U. S.A., 3-6 May 1993. This peper was selected for presentation by the OTC Progrem Committee following review of information contained in an ebstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, hsve not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, es presented, does not neceeserily reflect eny position of the Offshore Technofegy Conference or ite officers. Permissionto copy is restricted to an abstrsct of not more than 300 words. I)lustratlonsmay not be copied. The sbstract should oentaln censplcuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented,
ABSTRACT This paper presents the results and conclusions of a study whose objective was to determine whether a “linear spring” analysis approach can adequately predict the global performance behavior of a relatively large TLP in 3,000 ft of water for a typical Gulf of Mexico (GOM) site. “Coupled” and “linear spring” analyses of the TLP were performed using random time simulation techniques in extreme, reducectextreme and normal environments, with the TLP in the intact, one-compartment damaged and one-tendon removed conditions. The results presented in this paper show that “coupled” analysis does not have significant impact on the prediction of the total design responses of the TLP. It however significantly impacts the prediction of the dynamic part of design responses. k is further demonstrated that for such TLPs, high-frequency resonant response of the tendons could significantly impact the strength and fatigue design of these tendons.
lNTRODUCTIO~ Conventional approach to global analysis of Tension Leg Platforms (TLP) includes modeling the tendons as simplified “linear springs”, i.e., as straight rods having only axial stiffness. It is also assumed that these tendons do not attract any hydrodynamic loads and have no inertia. This approach to TLP design is based on the offshore industry’s past experience with design, operation and performance of TLPs in water depths less than 2,000 ft (see reference 1). More complex analytical studies and model test experience on these past projects have confirmed the validity of using the “linear spring” approach. One such complex analytical technique is where the global analysis is performed using a “coupled analysis” technique in which each tendon is inodeled as a series of beam elements having axial and bending stiffness and which are exposed to hydrodynamic loads and also have inertia. In water depths 3,000 ft and more, limited experience exists in analyzing and model testing TLPs, Hence, it is not certain if the simplified “linear spring” approach would produce acceptable global analysis results of such a TLP. API RP 2T (see reference 2) and other codes discuss this issue but do not provide any clear guidance as to when “coupled” analysis is more applicable. Past publications on this topic (e.g. see Reference 3) have compared analytical methods which were different 103 in other ways besides the tendon
and figures at end of paper
maximum vessel offset. In the upstream and downstream columns. current profiles and tides are shown in Table 2. all analysis were performed for the TLP with no production or drilling risers installed. The results of this study are presented in this paper. comDu ter Model The TLP configuration has port/starboard symmetry in head. This has resulted in not knowing with certainty whether the differences between the responses predicted by these two methods are significant enough to impact the design of one or more components of a TLP. The total riser load shown in Table 1 was replaced with the same amount of ballast. The focus of this study was to investigate the differences in global analysis results solely because of the differences between the two types of tendon mathematical models. such as timelfrequency-domain. It is a general purpose. To take further advantage of the symmetry. A study was initiated to determine whether global analysis results of a 3. all other differences. To take advantage of the symmetry. To reduce the computational effort of this study. wind speeds.e. stochastic maximum wave heights were defined for the 100-year. (see Reference 5). only half the TLP about the quartering axis was modeled. The hull structure was modeled with a series of 104 . wave theory. To ensure that the theoretically generated random wave elevation included the maximum wave. Env ironmental Criteria The environmental criteria used in this study. In this model the X-axis is located at the center of the TLP and runs parallel to the quartering environmental heading. 10-year and 1-year return period storms. i. using a “coupled analysis” technique would confirm “linear spring” analysis’ results. only half the column and half the number of tendons were modeled.000 ft water depth TLP. For the midstream column. minimum airgap and maximum tendon stress interaction ratio. were kept the same for both analytical techniques. Compliant Towers. heave and pitch DOF were released. All analysis were performed in quartering seas since this heading is expected to produce the most conservative results. fixed structures. non-linear. Surge is defined as motions along the X-axis and pitch as rotations about a horizontal axis perpendicular to the X-axis (see Figure 2). These design load cases are shown in Table 3. etc. This symmetric model significantly reduced computer run times without having to compromise on any of the analyses results. ~~f Design load cases for this study were identified based on a combination of past TLP design experience and the design practice recommended in API RP 2T. the TLP condition and the corresponding environmental criteria were selected to produce conservative estimates of maximum and minimum tendon tensions. as described above. program dynamic analysis developed specifically for the design and analysis of TLPs. DESIGN BASIS Studv Data The overall TLP configuration used in this study is shown in Figure 1. beam and quartering seas. the complete column and all tendons were modeled. etc. For each load case. To meet this objective. These particulars were developed in conjunction with non-site specific engineering studies as previously reported in Reference 4. time-domain. only surge. semi-submersibles. all out-of-plane Degrees Of Freedom (DOF) were constrained. OBAL ANAL YSIS METHODOLOGY Qmw ter Proaram Des criDtioq All analytical work in this study were performed using a Joint Industry developed computer program. hydrodynamic theory. The principal dimensions and major weight categories are summarized in Table 1.2 “IMPACTOF COUPLED ANALYSISON GLOBAL PERFORMANCE OF DEEP WATERTLP’S” OTC 7145 mathematical model. defining the design wave statistics.
These elements have axial stiffness only. The following table identifies the sources of origin of these forces: Based on past model test experience of TLPs. C urrent And Wave Induce d Forces In this study the wind. This necessitate using the same hydrodynamic forces for the two different global analyses. diffraction theory (see Reference 7).OTC 7145 AND J. Hvd rodv namic Model Hydrodynamic loads on all elements were 105 . Weights were also similarly modeled as lumped weights.J.0 2.0 2. The tendons at each column were represented by a single equivalent tendon consisting of: G generated using Morison’s equation. It is for this reason that the computationally more efficient Morison’s equation (see Reference 6) was selected for hydrodynamic load generation instead of the more time consuming first-order. Wind. They attract potential and viscous hydrodynamic forces and have inertia. Since the pontoons of this TLP configuration have varying cross section area and shape along their lengths between the columns. For the tendons the program computes buoyancy and mass per unit length.4 2. KLEINHANS. current and the various components of wave induced forces were obtained from a combination of direct computations by the program or defined by the user in the program. they were modeled with two different member properties representing more closely the actual configuration.0 The main objective of this study was to determine whether the “coupled analysis” approach results in significantly different global response behavior of the study TLP as compared to the “linear spring” ana[YSiS predictions. maximum tension and maximum tendon stress ratio design cases. They do not attract potential or viscous hydrodynamic forces and have no inertia. In this model.0 0. three dimensional. The mass of the hull was modeled as lumped masses distributed to produce the correct total mass and radii of gyration. The horizontal stiffness of the tendons is derived from the geometric stiffness resulting from the axial load in the tendons. This estimate is reasonable if it is added directly to the wave-induced offset as calculated by the program.7 1. Each pontoon was modeled with tubular beam elements having different cross section areas to represent the pontoon flare at the pontoon-to-column connection.75 1. added mass and drag coefficients. In other words the objectives of the study could be met irrespective of which hydrodynamic theory was used.9 0. the program computes hydrodynamic loads for these elements based on user-defined inertia.g 2. SIRCAR.2 1.8 2. One tubular weightless rod element 2. no hydrodynamic coefficients were specified. For the maximum offset. The drag and inertia coefficients used are shown below: Element “Coupled” Cd CM “Linear Spring” Cd CM Columns Pent at Midapan pent. 3 tubular beam elements as shown in Figure 2. For the TLP model where tendons are modeled as beam elements. onethird of the tendon’s mass was lumped at the top node of each tendon to represent the tendon’s mass contribution. PRASAD S. were modelled to represent one half the volume of the full column.8 1.75 1.2 1. near COL Tandons 0.884 ft long for the “linear spring” case. it is conservatively 28 tubular beam elements of equal 100 ft lengths and one beam element 84 fi long for the “coupled analysis” case. the potential component of low-frequency offset was estimated to be +/-1 O ft for all combinations of TLP and environmental conditions. G The axial stiffness of the tendons was modeled to match the physical structure.0 0.7 1. The columns which are cut in half. For the TLP model where tendons are modelled as “linear springs”. These elements have axial as well as bending stiffness. W.
Minimum airgap corresponding to this maximum offset position is 7. Wave Kine* All analysis performed in this study were based on random wave simulation in time-domain. A time step of 0. measured to the underside of the Module Support Frame (MSF). Figure 5 shows a magnified view of the upstream tendon tension 106 . all loads were computed in a consistent manner up to the instantaneous wave elevation. The tension results are for the upstream tendons and are per TLP column. The variation of surge offset with time is shown in Figure 4.84 degrees. Conversely. “LINEAR SPRINGW ANALYSIS Maxim RESULTS Mean IMnd Force Maan Currant Fbrca Mean Wave Drift Force -R2tantial Component -Viscous Cotnponant Wava-fraquancy Force -Fbtentkl Co~onent -V13cousComponent x x x x x Low-frequancy t%rce -R2tentisi Co~onant -VkOUs Component x x urn Offse t Desian Case as med that this low-frequency offset adds to the total offset. The maximum tide condition is used (as compared to the minimum tide condition) since it produces maximum tendon tension due to the increase in water elevation resulting in increased hull buoyancy. Maximum Tendon Tension Desian Case Global analysis results for the maximum tendon tension design case (defined in Table 3) are summarized in Table 5. and provided reasonably good resolution for the wave spectral peak period of about 16 seconds. The “linear spring” TLP model assumes that the tendons remain straight at all times. This time step modeled wave components with periods as low as 3 seconds adequately. Since Morison’s equation was used for computing wave loads. The maximum angle made by the upstream and the downstream tendons (at the top and bottom of the tendons) to the vertical is 6. The maximum dynamic offset of 41 ft includes both wavefrequency and low-frequency components and includes both potential and viscous contributions. Global analysis results for the maximum offset design case (defined in Table 3) is summarized in Table 4.5 ft. all first-order and most second-order potential forces.4 “IMPACT OF COUPLED ANALYSIS ON GLOBAL PERFORMANCE OF DEEP WATER TLP’S” OTC 7145 I Fbrce Co~onent Rogrern user Defined value x Figure 3 show the time history of wave elevations and its spectral representation for the 100-year storm condition.2 second time step to confirm these assumptions. for the minimum tension design case it is assumed that the lowfrequency offset subtracts from the total offset. The assumption of 10 ft low-frequency offset for all environmental conditions is consistent with the fact that wave drift force is directly proportional to the square of the wave height and inversely proportional to the square of the wave period. “Wheeler Stretching” (see Reference 8) was used to define the water particle kinematics.5 seconds was adopted for all runs. In this calculation it is assumed that the maximum wave crest height is 41 ft (57% of the maximum design wave height). even if second-order diffraction theory (see Reference 9) was used. However. Several computer test runs were made with 0. This results in the tendon angle being the same at the top and the bottom of the tendons. would be computed only up to the still water line.
The tension results are for the downstream tendons and are per TLP column. the “linear spring” computer model was modified by replacing each single tubular rod element tendon with a string of 28 beam elements having axial and bending stiffness. Figure 7 shows a magnified view of the upstream tendon tension (per column) time history for this design case. This design case has one upstream tendon removed and is exposed A comparison of global analysis results using the “linear spring” and “coupled analysis” approach is presented in this section. KLEINHANS. cOMPARISON QZ!QGl! OF RESULTS Global analysis results for the maximum tendon stress ratio design case (defined in Table 3) is summarized in Table 7.194 S. All other aspects of the analysis was kept the same. All results presented under the column “Difference” in Tables 4 through 7. High-frequency tension response includes only ViSCOUS fOrCe contribution since the computation of second-order potential forces was outside the scope of this study. Evidence of “springing” contribution due to second-order viscous forces can be seen in this figure. For this particular TLP with a specified maximum tide of 6 ft. maximum design tension.Tons (per column) is at the bottom of the tendons. The total dynamic tension of 1. minimum airgap. Figure 6 shows a magnified view of the downstream tendon tension time history for this 10-year storm case with one downstream compartment flooded. The minimum tide condition is used (aS compared to the maximum tide condition) since it produces minimum tension due to the decrease in water elevation resulting in reduced hull buoyancy. SIRCAR. minimum design tension and maximum tendon stress interaction ratio. Time history of offset and tendon tensions for these four design cases are shown in Figures 4. minimum airgap is obtained for the maximum tendon tension design case instead of the maximum offset design case. low-frequency and high-frequency components of tension response. Minimum Tendon Tension De sifm Cas~ Global analysis results for the minimum tendon tension design case (defined in Table 3) are summarized in Table 6. The minimum tension of 297 S. 5. maximum tension and minimum airgap. 107 . All discussions regarding the results presented in the previous section are equally applicable for these “coupled” analysis results and hence will not be repeated.J. 6 and 7 respectively. PRASAD 5 time history for this 100-year storm case. Maximum tide condition (as compared to minimum tide condition) is used since it produces maximum tension stress ratio due to the increase in water elevation resulting in increased hull buoyancy. Wave-frequency and lowfrequency computations include both the potential and viscous force contributions. The total dynamic tension of 3.027 S. It can be seen from this figure that “springing” contribution to dynamic tension. The parameters compared are maximum design offset. 6 and 7 respectively. The results in Table 7 are for one tendon and the results in the Figure 7 are per column. are in comparison to the “linear spring” results. minimum tension and maximum tension stress ratio design cases are summarized in Tables 4. due to second-order viscous forces. low-frequency and high-frequency components of tension response. Tons shown above includes wave-frequency.OTC 7145 S. W. AND J. Minimum airgap calculation results show that the minimum Airgap corresponding to this offset position is 2. ~as~ im M Tn r to 1-year storm condition. # ~uLT~ For the “coupled” analysis. is almost as significant as wavefrequency contribution. maximum angle made by the tendon to the vertical. Evidence of significant “springing” contribution due to second-order viscous forces can be seen in this figure. Tons shown above includes wave-frequency. 5. Global analysis results for the maximum offset.2 ft.
it is common practice to perform a beam element analysis of a “standalone” tendon.4 ft less airgap than the “linear spring” approach. If “linear spring” analysis is used. For this design case results indicate that it is unconservative approach.8%).5%.8% (O.1 108 .8% (2. The following are observed from this table: 1. Table 4 also shows that the difference in the results of tendon top angle is negligible (1. maximum tendon stress ratio results presented in Table 7 show that the “coupled analysis” approach predicts 22.1 %.6% % less dynamic A comparison of minimum results presented in Table 6 “coupled analysis” approach less mean tension and 22. however.8% more mean tension and 33. tons indicating that it is conservative to use the “linear spring” approach. This is primarily due to the difference in setdown caused by the difference in maximum design offset. N4 PACT ON DESIGN To determine whether the results presented above impacts the design of any of the components of the study TLP. It may be noted that even though a large difference exists in the prediction of the dynamic offset. “Linear spring” approach under-predicts maximum tendon top angle by 1. This indicates that the “linear spring” approach produces conservative maximum tension. the “coupled analysis” approach prediction of maximum design offset is only 5. This difference though small. is not considered to be a problem since as part of conventional tendon design procedure.1 ft less airgap than the “linear spring” approach. This results in a difference in the prediction of minimum design tension of 73 S. this discrepancy can be rectified by including a 5% to 6% margin in the maximum design offset calculations.6 “IMPACT OF COUPLED ANALYSIS ON GLOBAL PERFORMANCE OF DEEP WATER TLP’S” OTC 7145 xi MJ!dt Table 4 shows a comparison of maximum offset results.1 ft. However the difference in the prediction of the tendon bottom angle is quite significant (35.4% less dynamic tension. Minimum airgap results for this design case show that the “coupled analysis” approach predicts 2. It under-predicts maximum tendon bottom angle by 35. a comparison of the overall design values was made and are summarized in Table 8.5% greater than the “linear spring” approach. minimum airgap and tendon angle it may not be conservative to use the “linear spring” approach. This could impact the design of the foundation templates.8% less dynamic tension.8%). could impact the feasibility of a selected configuration. It should be noted that these more realistic tendon angles should be used to develop the inplace foundation template design loads and M . 12 deg). minimum airgap is also under-predicted by about 2.45 deg). As a result.-Q im A comparison of maximum tendon tension results presented in Table 5 show that the “coupled analysis” approach predicts 20. These results indicate that when computing maximum offset. 2. Table 5 shows that the “coupled analysis” approach predicts 2. However. Such an analysis produces the correct tendon top and bottom angles. However the difference in the prediction of maximum tendon stress ratio is only 4. “Linear spring” approach under-predicts maximum design offset by about 5. This.9%. to use the “linear ‘sp&9. ~inimum . tension. Tendon Tens[~ tendon tension shows that the predicts 11 . the difference in the prediction of maximum design tension is only 4. Ma ximum Tendon Stress RatiQ Similar to the maximum tendon tension design case.2% more mean tension and 51. Similar to the maximum offset design case.
“Springing” contribution to total dynamic tension is found to be significant for a 1-year storm and less significant for a 100-year storm G G lMP A CT O F TENDON “SPRINGING” Dynamic tendon tension variation at high frequency is a resonant response of the TLP in heave.OTC 7145 S. this can be resolved by allowing for an offset margin of about 5%. the maximum and minimum design tendon appear to be tension estimates conservative. From this it can be concluded that for this TLP G G c G 109 . These results show that tension contribution from “springing” is significant for the 1-year storm. If a “coupled analysis” approach is used. pitch and roll DOF. estimates of maximum offset and minimum airgap is determined not to be conservative.1% of maximum design tension. KLEINHANS. moderate for the 10-year storm and minimal for the 100-year storm. it is common practice to perform a beam element analysis of a “standalone” tendon. top and bottom connector “Linear spring” approach over-predicts maximum tendon tension by 4. impacts both tendon strength and fatigue life. only the viscous part of these forces were included in the mathematical formulations in this study. However. SIRCAR. Such an analysis will produce the correct tendon stress ratio. “springing” impacts tendon strength design. greater is the possibility of “springing” contribution to total dynamic tension. Using this analysis approach. “springing” of the tendons. Results presented in Figures 5. Using the “Linear spring” approach.9%. As mentioned earlier. This is not considered to be a problem since as part of conventional tendon design procedure. These results indicate that the “Linear spring” approach results in a conservative selection of tendon pretension. For this particular study TLP. it is common practice to perform a beam element analysis of a “stand-alone” tendon. AND J. Minimum tendon tension is also over-predicted by 1. This is not considered to be a problem since as part of conventional tendon design procedure. produces reasonable results. “Linear spring” approach under-predicts maximum tendon stress interaction ratio by 4.e. Past experience with advanced analytical techniques have shown that higher the content of shorter waves in a seastate. 6 and 7 confirm this observation. produced the highest tendon stress ratio. J. “Linear spring” analysis under-predicts maximum tendon angle at the top and at the bottom. “Linear spring” approach to global analysis for the study TLP in 3. SUMMA RY AND C ONCLUSION~ Global analysis results performed as part of this study showed the following: G 4. the 1-year storm combined with one-tendon removed load case. this margin would not be required. Although fatigue analysis was not performed as part of this study. These responses are produced as a result of second-order potential and viscous exciting forces. 3. from the above observation. In other words a 1-year storm is expected to show a higher contribution from “springing” as compared to a 100-year storm. Such an analysis will produce the correct tendon angles and stress ratios. PRASAD 7 tendon design. This analysis approach under-predicts maximum tendon stress interaction ratio. W.000 ft of water. Resonant response i. it can be concluded that “springing” is expected to significantly shorten the fatigue life of the tendons.8% of tendon pretension.
Sircar S.T. Proceedings of 7th OMAE Conference. “Hydrodynamics of large Displacement Fixed and Floating Structures in Waves”.T. N.) 13affaat (S. and Shaaf.T.. Designing and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms.717 9. Garrison & Assoc. Edited bv Zeki Demirbilek.) Hull Syetems Weight (S. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Johnson. 1950.T. 149-154. 1986.. A.) Tendon Buoyancy (S. pp.W. O’Brien. and Mungall J.6 116 16 2. W. Manual. and Adams C. J. J. PMB . I 2. Wheeler J. of Tendon$ Tendon Length @) Tendon O. of Columns &) Column Spaoing @) Column Diameter (ft) Column Height (ft) Pontoon Crose Seotion Shape Pontoon Width (ft) Pontoon Height (ft) Ckaft @) Total No. Morrison J. D. ASME Vol. (in) Tendon W.878 8. “The Forces Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles”. I 3. C.220 7.T. March 1970.J.. 4.852 16.) DISPiACEMENT (S.T.) VALUE 225 X2SS 5..728 WEIGHT~ l-lullSteelWeight (S.) Total F&or bad (S. B.880 5.4375 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was commissioned by BP Exploration Inc.) Total Tendon Tension (S.. R..T. Tension Leg Platform 4... Rager B. Williams. Report No.8 “IMPACT OF COUPLED ANALYSIS ON GLOBAL PERFORMANCE OF DEEP WATER TLP’S” OTC 7145 environment. C. Kleinhans J. Strength and Fatigue Analysis of TLP’s”. ‘A Consistent Method for Motions. 1.708 9. 1992. “A new approach for TLP Installation in the Gulf of Mexico”. D. 4 210 x 210 88 185.L. BEFERENCE~ 1..T.) 18. 1988.J.A state of the Art Review. OTC 6900. Davies K.5 Reotanglo 32 28.) Total Operating Payload (S. W. SEASTAR User’s Engineering. DESCRIPTION VESSEL CONFIGURATION Deoksize(ftxft) No. Recommended Practice for Planning. (in) Total Tendon Weight in Air (S. 189. Petroleum Transactions. “Method for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves”. 80102.. H. Rajabi F.T.. API RP 2T.208 67. “Nonlinear Diffraction Effects on TLPs”.D. 7. Garrison. A. December 1980. “Methods for Coupled Analysis of TLPs”. C. M.T. 110 - . Praught M. OTC 6567.. The authors would like to thank BP Exploration for their support of this work and for permission to publish these results.878 28 I 6.377 3. ASCE Wave and Wave Forces Committee.8s8 7. S.. 1991. P. 1988.T.) Deok Steel Weight (S.
7 0.4 ‘M 160 g ‘M 16. Elev.: [ z: 4.5 2.0 2. t.0 :: 1.2 0.3 3.0 (1/6 power Law. Damage None 1O-yaar 1-hour meen Min Tide Quart. of Riaara Storm Return Period Wind Spaad Tida Lavel Environment Heading Low-frequancy Potential Wave Drift Offset None 100-yaar 1-minute mean Max Tide Quart.sec. MLW Low w.2 0. Wave Height ASS. MLW Wind Fr SEC H 48.0 ! ~ I I 78.4 0.4 0.1 I -1OU (.0 59. +10’ 111 I .0 / I -1.6 1. PM Fr SEC ~~s I 2:0 [ j Ff + &o \ + NORWL OPERATION EDDY CURRENT EVEN 30. +10’ None 100-yaar 1-minute maan Min Tide Quart.0 Fr -2.9 12.0 I 53.8 3.1 Max. Elev.min.0 I i 53.0 67.9 0. measured @ +33 (F7J Abwe 1.7) -200 (~ 400 (r=7) -1.1 I .3 2.0 0.0 59. 5.0 30.hour Avg.7 0.0 98. WaV8 Period Spectrum Hs Tz Duration Tide High w. t.1 SEC / SEC / SEC 4.3 0.5 -1.3 2.0 5.0 fl ~ j SEC F7 f SEC ~ j SEC 1. r.1 I 3. Bonom I IT/ MLW) MPH MPH MPH 1 115. Avg.0 129. +10’ Caae No.2 1.0 45.o 68.TABLE 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA DESCRIPTION 100 YEAR ~REDUCED UNIT STORM yoyME I .7 2. r.5 -1.0 + 3.. Gust Current Linearly hterpola!ed Surface Elev. Elev.000 (F7) 6. -1o’ Maximum Offaat Caae Intact Max Tonrfon Stroaa Ratio One Tandon Ramowsd None 1-year 1-minuta maan Max Tida Quart. 1 .0 9.2 I I TABU 3: DESIGN LOAD CASES Environment & TLP Condition TLP Condition Maximum Torraiors Caso Intact Minimum Tonaion Caao One Compart.0 9.0 45.0 + 3.4 0.
m Max.90!3 ST 0.6 % + 4. TASLS C: MWIMm TENsIoN DEsIGN CASE TASL67: MAXIMW TENDON STRESS RATIO DESNIN CASS ITEM DESCRIPTION “UNIX? SPRINO” RESULTS + 1. &g.630 ST DIFFERENCE RESULTS Mean T~”on -11.s % MaN Tmd.020 ST ST ST Total Dynamic Off-t 41 ft 343 it 7.tiO 2.1 % % % Max.3 % Total + 6. Airgqj to MSF Max.96 9. DIFFERENcE Max.86 ST 6.4 ft Min.S4 ckfj. Tendon Tuwion -1.s4 dq. T.s% + 36.1 % + 297 ST 0.1 S4 ST + 20.016 ST 0.s% + 4.327 ST + 22. Straaa Ratio T~LE S: IMPACT OF DLOBAL PERFORMANCE ITEM DESCRIPTION ‘LINEAR SPRINGRESULTS 343 ft 6. Dasign Tension Min. 8.1 . Tin-don Sottom hgh -2.414 ST 0.414 ST 3.6 ft 6.1 ft + 1.S6 + 1.1 ft 6.1 ft S. Tmdon Sottcm AKIIe Min.s .2 n 0.29 &g.324 ST “COUPLW” DIFFERENCE ITEM DESCRIPTION ‘LINEAR SPRING” RESULTS + 1.S % 6.s2 + 370 ST 0.s % % I I‘ Total Dyrumic Min.2 -61.170ST .029 ST -2. IMsign Offset Top Anglc + 6.9S d~.662 S. Airgap to MSF Max. Duign Off-t Min.29 (kg.TAELS 4 I ITEM DESCRIPTION ! MW’I Offnt MAX3MW OFFSET DESIGN CMS TASLS 8: MA)OMUM TSNSION DSSIDN CASE “LINEAR SUUN& RESULTS 302 n “COUPLED RESULTS 302 tt G DIFFERENCE n I ITEM DESCRIPTION “LINEAR SPRIN& RESULTS M.Soo ST .mion 6s2 ST 3s5 ST Tumica 1. 6. + 48.s% -22.027 ST + 297 ST 1 Total Dyrwnic Mm. a7n @’l- “COUPLED* RESULTS 1.477 1.S4 (k)& “COUPLEDANALYSIS RESULTS 362 tt 6.6 % M@x.S4 chg.1 ft -4.220 Termkm ST 7. Daign ‘b StraOS R.9 ?4 112 . Akgap te MsF 2.s % Mu.2 ft S. Wft 362 fi 5. Tandon TOP AWb Max.--- Totsi Mebn Twmion % 1.1 ft 9.an Tbnoh %wllic 9COUPLEORESULTS DIFFERENCE 1 o% 6.8% + 36.33.6 % + 1. Dadgn Teruhn Max.82 2. Tumion -2.4 -4.
.- I . . / . E /“ . ). .... . \ . x ... . < .. / .. 0 0 ‘. .... ..
. .. — .. .-. 00 Time (see) 400 480 560 640 720 800 88o FIGURE 4: SURGE OFFSET TIM HISTORY I 1 “LinearSpring” z62o 64o 660 66o 7@o m.It I I I 2 v 80 16C 2$0 320 ‘a. .— i 720 140 760 s . 660 680 700 720 Time 740 (Se=) 760 “CoupledAnalysis” 780 Eho FIGURE 5: UPSTREAM TENDON TENSION IN 1W-YEAR STORM 114 . . .
d “Unear Spring” 680 700 720 Time 740 (see) 76o 780 8bo 660 ! : 860 “Unear Spring” 880 900 92!? 940 Time (see) 96o 98o 1001 Iysis’ : 76o 78o 800 820 840 e “CoupledAnaiysis” Time (see) 860 880 900 FIGURE & DOWNSTREAM TENDON TENSION IN 1O-YEAR STORM FIGURE 7: MAXIMUM TENSION STRESS RATlO CASE 115 .
I I I I .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.