You are on page 1of 7

OTC 21292

Methodology to Define Design Motion Criteria for Performance of Floating
LNG Process Facilities
T. Terashima, SPE, INPEX Corporation, K. Shimada, Akishima Laboratories (Mitsui Zosen) Inc., Y. Ichimaru and
Y. Orimo, INPEX Corporation

Copyright 2011, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 2–5 May 2011.
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
This paper proposes a generalized methodology to determine motion criteria for required performance of process facilities
using the Abadi Floating LNG (Abadi FLNG) as a sample. The Abadi FLNG is planned to be installed in the Indonesian
territory of the Arafura Sea by INPEX Masela, Ltd.
Although existing FPSOs all have its own motion criteria fed into topside equipment design, it is known that there is no
codified nor comprehensive approach as to how those motion criteria can be specified. Those circumstances could lead to
misunderstanding of information among owner, contractors and vendors, and potentially unnecessary cost increase. One of
the conventional methods is that the design motion criteria are given as single maximum motion amplitude in the extreme
condition for operation. Usually 1 year or 10 year cyclonic condition is adopted as the extreme condition for operation where
motion is calculated under assumed wave heading angle with short term prediction manner. In this approach, the wave
heading has to be conservatively assumed with some fixed angle, as there is no concurrent environmental data, such as wind,
wave, and current, which should be utilized. In addition, the common method to present associated period is not established.
For the application to FLNG case, there are some motion sensitive process facilities, such as cryogenic heat exchangers
and acid gas absorbers, whose performances degrade with given motion criterion, and the degree of degradation varies with
concurrent motion period. To establish the comprehensive motion criteria, FLNG wave heading analysis followed by motion
analysis were performed for 10 years time-series concurrent wind, wave, swell and current data including extreme and nonextreme conditions. Calculated motions were incorporated into scatter diagram, which is a table of occurrence probability for
motion amplitude and period to develop motion envelope of amplitude and period. This envelope was adopted as design
motion criteria of motion sensitive process facilities.
This envelope approach to define performace of process facilities due to motion criteria is recommended to other FPSO
and FLNG as a generalized approach which has great benefit for clear understanding among owner, contractors and vendors
while minimizing unnecessary margins which could have tremendous cost impact particularly for those with motion sensitive
floaters.
Introduction
There are more than 100 FPSOs in operation in the world today. Those FPSOs apply their own design motion criteria their
facilities, however there is no standard method to define those motion criteria.
There are two types of design motion criteria. One is design motion criteria for extreme condition, which is applied to all
structural design on FPSO. Another one is design motion criteria for operation condition. Under such condition, all topside
process facilities are designed to satisfy its full performance. As process facilities performance can be affected by relatively
small motion amplitude, both dynamic and static motions are included in design motion criteria for operation condition.
In this paper, only dynamic motion of design motion criteria for operation condition are discussed. As for static motion
condition, equipment fabrication tolerance, equipment installation tolerance, module frame fabrication tolerance, module
frame deflection, hull main deck construction tolerance and ballast water control margin are considered..
On the FLNG, there are some motion sensitive facilities and their process performance can degrade due to FLNG motion.
The degree of performance degradation is dependent on both motion amplitude and motion period. To assess the impact of
performance degradation due to motion, it is essential to grasp possible motion envelope composed of concurrent motion
amplitude and motion period, which cannot be presented with conventional approach adopted for existing FPSOs.

2 appraisal wells were drilled in 2002 and another 4 exploration wells were drilled in 2007/ 2008. environmental and commercial aspects. Hull is the barge part of the facility.2 OTC 21292 To establish the comprehensive motion criteria for the Abadi FLNG. current and wave direction tend to be very close in extreme condition. ¾ Wind speed and direction ¾ Current speed and direction ¾ Wave height. There had been several concepts to develop the Abadi gas field. FPSO is headed to the direction where all the external forcecs. Description of Abadi FLNG Project Background INPEX acquired a 100% working interest in the Masela PSC (Production Sharing Contract) block located in the Arafura sea in Indonesia in November 1998 through a public tender process. ¾ Environmental Condition (Wave height and wave period) ¾ Wave Heading Angle With regard to the environmental condition. Abadi 1. The 1st exploration well. and other marine related equipment and machineries.e. Another approach is to give motion criteria as single maximum motion amplitude and possible range of motion period. those are hull and topside. which contains storage systems for the products. utility plant and process plant. This conservative assumption of wave heading angle could result in unrealistic harsh motion. it was concluded that Floating LNG is the most preferable development option. . liquefaction and stabilization units. Methodologies There are several methodologies to define design motion criteria adopted for existing FPSOs. as wind. where actual wave heading is expected to be much more smaller. such as 30 degrees or 45 degrees. following concurrent directional environmental data are required. i. Wave heading angle is relative angle of wave direction and FPSO heading. (P. Topside is the upper part of the facility. which consists of living quarters. Facility Description The main purpose of the Floating LNG is to produce LNG and export to LNG Carriers. period and direction As oncurrent directional information does not usually exist.M Lapidaire et al. LNG and condensate. are balanced. which is single point moored with turret system. wave heading and motion analysis were conducted. Design Motion Criteria for Performance of Process Facilities on Existing FPSOs Basis of Motion Criteria To calculate the FPSO motions. pre-FEED work was conducted from 2007 to 2008 and confirmed that there was no technical show-stopper in this concept. and those are inlet. The facility is a floating ship shaped structure with the process plant on it. Utility plant includes power plant and other miscellaneous utility systems. pre-treatment. Process plant consists of 4 units. 1996) In both approaches. 1 year or 10 year cyclonic condition is usually adopted to calculate motion criteria for performance of process facilities on exixting FPSOs. but considering technical. This marked the first discovery of natural gas and condensate in the Indonesian Arafura Sea. following data are required.e. criteria can only specify a part of possible envelope of motion amplitude and motion period. wave drifting forces and current forces. wave heading has to be conservatively assumed. and all of them confirmed the extent of the reservoir. To calculate the wave heading angle. wind forces. This envelope was adopted as design motion criteria of motion sensitive process facilities. One typical approach is to give motion criteria as single maximum motion amplitude in extreme condition. To assess the technical feasibility of the Floating LNG deeper. This facility consists of two parts. i. Calculated concurrent motion amplitude and motion period were incorporated into possible motion envelope.J. was drilled in 2000 and confirmed the presence of gas and condensate.

However influence of those motions is negligibly small compared with those of roll and pitch. if necessary. Separated gas goes into the pre-treatment unit. Motion Sensitive Facilities on Abadi FLNG There are some motion sensitive facilities on the Abadi FLNG. oil and water in the inlet unit. such as shortening the distance of internal trays inside the towers and increasing the number of trays. Their performance can degrade due to maldistribution inside columns induced by FLNG motion. such as the acid gas absorber in the pre-treatment unit.208 sets of . wave heading and motion analysis are conducted. wave height. wave period and JONSWAP parameters) There is seasonal distinct directionalities in wind and also wind wave. wave height. Produced fluid is then separated into gas. All of them are very tall columns.e. Pre-treated gas is liquefied in the liquefaction unit and stored in the LNG storage tanks in the hull. possible FLNG motion envelope composed of concurrent inclining motion amplitude and motion period has to be established from early design stage. with heights of more than 30m. Strictly speaking. Design Motion Criteria for Performance of Abadi FLNG Process Facilities To obtain the possible motion envelope. too conservative motion criteria could result in large design margins and subsequently tremendous cost impact. On the other hand. motion performance degradation can be complemented by adding margins in the facilities’ designs. Stored LNG is exported to the LNG carriers through the off-loading arm with side by side configuration and stored condensate is exported to the condensate carriers through the floating hose with tandem configuration. wave height. or the cryogenic heat exchanger and fractionation towers located in liquefaction unit. They are especially sensitive to inclining motion. and such tall equipment is unique to FLNGs. In other words. All of the environmental data include non-cyclonic and also cyclonic information. therefore there are total 29. wave period and JONSWAP parameters) ¾ Swell data (direction. The environmental data includes following items. Utilizing this envelope. those are easterly wind wave. Separated oil in the inlet unit is stabilized in the stabilization unit and stored in the condensate storage tanks in the hull. To investigate the performance degradation due to motion and design margins of motion sensitive facilities.. Data exisit with 3hr interval for 10 years. i. those are summer westerly and winter easterly. pitch and roll. motions other than roll and pitch affect the motion accelerations as well. the risers. the swivel in the turret. There is also a long period westerly swell come from Indian Oncean. westerly wind wave and westerly swell. where acid gas. Wave Heading and Motion Analysis 10 year time series data are used in the analysis. The produced fluid from the subsea wells go through the subsea flowlines. or increasing the heat transfer area inside the heat exchangers. ¾ Current data (direction and speed) ¾ Wind data (direction and speed) ¾ Easterly Wind wave data (direction.OTC 21292 3 Topside Hull Figure 1: Overview of Abadi Floating LNG Overview of the Abadi Floating LNG is shown in Figure 1. wave data are separated into three types. wave period and JONSWAP parameters) ¾ Westerly Wind wave data (direction. and the degree of degradation is dependent on both motion amplitude and motion period (acceleration & angle). possible motion accelerations can be calculated. mercury and residual water are removed from the gas. To cover all of those aspects. then go into the Floating LNG facilities.

χ w. In each of 29.208 environmental cases. Wave heading angle is calculated in wave heading analysis using concurrent wind. wind wave and swell data. χ w . Current) Environmental Data (Wind Wave. Detailed procedures of wave heading analysis and motion analysis are described below. χ w. j ) dωdθ M dz (ω . set in heading angle. which is described as steady component of azimuth moment induced by wind.s ( j ) + θ ) ς a2 2 S (ω . χ c . Lm S (ω. =3: swell. where j =1:easterly wave. where head wave is defined zero. Swell) Wave Heading Analysis Motion Analysis Wave Heading Angle Data Data Motion Data (Motion Amplitude and Motion Period) Analysis Figure 2: Schematic Flow Chart of Wave Heading and Motion Analysis Schematic flow chart of wave heading and motion analysis is shown in figure 2. two wind waves and swell at the turret position. 3 3 ⎛ ⎞ M t ( χ ) = − Lm ⎜⎜ Fwy ( χ w ) + Fcy ( χ c ) + ∑ FdyS ( χ w. current and wave/swell. wind wave and current data. j ) : distance from the turret position to the midship : frequency spectrum of incident wave/swell . Wave Heading Analysis Following external forces on FLNG are calculated in each environmental case. current. Wave heading and motion analysis are conducted based on this time series environmental data. Those data are produced utilizing existing data base. Motion amplitude and motion period are calculated using wave heading angle. s ( j ) : incident angle of wind.s ( j )) ⎟⎟ + M wz ( χ w ) + M cz ( χ c ) + ∑ M dzS ( χ w. 2. measured data at Abadi location and hindcast ocean model.s ( j )) j =1 j =1 ⎝ ⎠ π 2 ∞ FdyS ( χ w. =2:westerly wave. s ( j )) = ∫π ∫ Fdy (ω . following processes are conducted. ¾ Wind forces ¾ Current forces ¾ Wave drifting forces (easterly wind wave) ¾ Wave drifting forces (westerly wind wave) ¾ Wave drifting forces (swell) The FLNG. j ) dωdθ j : number of waves and swell. 1. χ w. j )G (θ .s ( j )) = 2 ∞ ∫π ∫ − 0 2 ς a2 2 S (ω . j )G (θ . χ . is subjected to external forces as shown in the equation below. current.4 OTC 21292 environmental data. Environmental Data (Wind.s ( j ) + θ ) − 0 2 π M dzS ( χ w.

. motion amplitudes and motion periods for some environmental cases are shown in Table 1. j ) + θ )G (θ .208 : standard deviations of the FLNG motions due to wave/swell T j (n) A(ω . j )dωdθ for Roll. gives balanced heading angle of the FLNG. n =1~29. because the turret is free from moment.208 environmental cases are incorporated into a scatter diagram. Combined responses of the FLNG in two wind waves and a swell are given as a sum of the three responses to individual wind waves and a swell. which is a table of occurrence probability for combination of motion inclining amplitude and motion period. j )Ai2 (ω . Pitch and Yaw 0 2 π ⎛ω m1 ( j . χ . j )Ai2 (ω .208 environmental cases. showing weather-vane effect. Equations are shown below for standard deviations and representative periods of the FLNG motions. n) 1 j =1 π ⎛ω m0 ( j .OTC 21292 5 G (θ . χ (n. χ (n. n) 3 T j (n) = 2π ∑ m ( j . n) 0 j =1 3 ∑ m ( j . j ) + θ )G (θ . j ) : directional distribution of incident wave/swell An angle. n) = ⎜⎜ ⎝ g 2 ⎞ ⎟⎟ ⎠ 2 2 ∞ ∫π ∫ S − n (ω . j ) : representative periods of the FLNG motions due to wave/swell ν j (n) ω : response functions of the FLNG motions : direction of wind wave or swell incident to FLNG : circular frequency Sample of calculated wave heading angles. Balanced heading angle of the FLNG is calculated for each of 29. j )dωdθ for Roll. motion amplitudes and motion periods for some environmental cases Calculated motions for the 29. where the moment at the turret position is zero. χ ) χ ( n. Table 1: Sample of calculated wave heading angles. ν j ( n) = 3 ∑m j =1 0 ( j . Pitch and Yaw 0 2 n : environmental case number. Scatter diagram of combined angle of roll and pitch is shown in Table 2. n) = ⎜⎜ ⎝ g 2 ⎞ ⎟⎟ ⎠ 2 2 ∞ ∫π ∫ ωS − n (ω .208 environmental cases. Motion Analysis Roll and pitch motion amplitudes and motion periods are calculated for the 29.

000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 3. combined angle of roll and pitch.300 0.0 16.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 6.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.014% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 24.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 13.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.147% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.178% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 4.0 2.000% 0. this possible motion envelope is applied as design motion criteria for performance of motion sensitive equipment.000% 0.000% 0. this new methodology has following advantages.000% 0.000% 0.400 2.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.422% 6.200 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.113% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.021% 0.681% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 20.981% 3.205% 0.000% 0.200 1.000% 0.000% 0.038% 0.003% 0.007% 0.000% 0.200 0.500 0.500 1.000% 0.000% 0.800 0.600 0.0 22.000% 0.007% 0.000% 0.000% 0.092% 0.000% 0.000% 0.144% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 4.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.928% 2.400 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000 2.000% 0.000% 0.099% 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.500 10.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 18.000% 0.300 1.000% 0.0 15.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.014% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.202% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.935% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.034% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. Compared with the conventional methods applied for existing FPSOs.000% 0.000% 0.524% 0.640% 4.6 OTC 21292 Table 2: Scatter diagram of combined angle of roll and pitch m axim um (deg) R oll-pitch 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. and INPEX Corporation for supporting the study and allowing the publishing of this paper.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. By adding sufficient margin on this envelope sustaining the future design flexibility.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.400 1.000% 0.0 19.000% 0.0 14.700 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000 1. equipment shall be designed to satisfy its full performance.000% 0.000% 0.0 23.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.300 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 8.000% 0.e.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 period of m otion (s) 12.000% 0.000% 0.647% 0.000% 0.511% 9.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. the possible motion envelope for inclining motion.034% 0. i.000% 0.716% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.300 2.034% 0.000% 0.0 21.000% 0.900 1.000% 0.200 2.000% 0.000% 0.600 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 11. ¾ Wave heading angles calculated with concurrent directional environmental data are used.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.200 2.000% 0.0 17.000% 0.0 24.0 5.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.876% 1.0 7.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.007% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.800 1.000% 0.216% 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.089% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.124% 11.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.524% 1.000% 0. In conventional methods.000% 0. contractors and vendors while minimizing unnecessary margins which could have tremendous cost impact particularly for those with motion sensitive floaters.000% 0.0 22.000% 0. ¾ Obtained motion criteria can cover all of the possible motion amplitude and motion period.003% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. Table 3: Possible motion envelope for inclining motion Roll-pitch m axim um (deg) 1.000% 0.000% 0.500 Conclusion The methodology to determine the motion criteria for required performance of process facilities on floating LNG is established.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.400 0.100 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 23.000% 0.003% 0. conservative wave heading with some fixed angles are used.000% 0.0 18.000% 0.0 15. while only a part of the possible motion envelope can be specified with conventional method.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. .000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.100 2.000% 0.0 25.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.281% 0.0 0.000% 0.000% 0.315% 9.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.164% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000 1.000% 0.000% 0.0 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 0.0 21.000% 0.031% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.700 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.144% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.400 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.075% 0.800 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 17.0 14.000% 0. Acknowledgement Authors appreciate Akishima Laboratories (Mitsui Zosen) Inc.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. This envelope approach to define design motion criteria is recommended to other FPSO and FLNG designs as a generalized approach which has great benefit for clear understanding among owner.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.051% 0.900 2.000% 0.000% 0.400 2.900 2.007% 0.010% 0.0 20.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.401% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. can be made as shown in Table 3.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.876% 1.0 5.278% 10.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 period of m otion (s) 12.000% 0. Under these motion criteria.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.007% 0.000% 0.000% 0.600 0.0 10.185% 1.000% 0.000% 0.100 1.000% 0.000% 0.290% 10.000% 0.0 16.000% 0.000% 0.000% 25.100 2.000% 0.0 2.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.571% 0.0 9.000% 0.194% 5.007% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.600 1.000% 0.000% 0.509% 1.880% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 13.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.200 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0 8.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.800 0.000% 0.500 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0. which could result in unrealistic harsh motion.000% 0.000% 0.100 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.500 1.000% 0.000% 0.0 6.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.403% 5.0 9.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.010% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.900 1.0 19.000% 0.000% 0.000 2.0 3.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.300 2.000% 0.000% 0.0 11.000% 0.000% 0.300 0.0 7.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.700 0.100 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.301% 2.000% 0.726% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.700 1.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.062% 0.000% 0.000% From the scatter diagram shown above.000% 0.

Offshore Technology Conference.OTC 21292 7 References P. “The Effect of Ship Motions on FPSO Topsides Design”.J. 411420 (May 1996) .M. de Leeuw.J. Lapidaire and P. pp.