You are on page 1of 137

Design of a Floating, Production, Storage,

and Offloading Liquefied Natural Gas Facility


for Offshore West Africa

Lauren Augustin
Victor Birch
Ashley Grulich
Sergio Gutierrez
Jason Pasternak
John Shelton

OCEN 407 - Design of Ocean Engineering Facility


Ocean Engineering Program
Texas A&M University
Final Report
May 16, 2005

Table of Contents
List of Figures _______________________________________________________________ ii
List of Tables _______________________________________________________________ iv
Acknowledgements___________________________________________________________ v
Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ vii
Executive Summary ________________________________________________________ viii
1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 1
1.1 LNG Background __________________________________________________________ 1
1.2 Objective _________________________________________________________________ 1
1.3 Industry Day ______________________________________________________________ 1
1.4 Environment ______________________________________________________________ 2
1.5 Design Criteria ____________________________________________________________ 6
1.6 Manufacturability __________________________________________________________ 6
1.7 Gantt Charts ______________________________________________________________ 7
1.8 Social and Political Issues _______________________________________________________ 9
2 Regulatory Compliance ______________________________________________________ 9
2.1 General Considerations ___________________________________________________ 10
2.2 Containment Tanks _______________________________________________________ 10
2.3 Accommodations _________________________________________________________ 11
2.4 Facility Arrangements _____________________________________________________ 11
2.5 Cargo Transfer Methods___________________________________________________ 12
2.6 Fire Safety_______________________________________________________________ 12
2.7 Personnel Protection ______________________________________________________ 12
2.8 Flood Survival Requirements _______________________________________________ 13
2.9 Helicopter Deck __________________________________________________________ 13
2.10 Environmental/Global Loading and General Strength of Hull ___________________ 13
2.11 Position Mooring System _________________________________________________ 14
2.12 Stability ________________________________________________________________ 16
3 General Arrangement and Hull/System Design__________________________________ 18
3.1 Option One ______________________________________________________________ 18
3.2 Option Two ______________________________________________________________ 18
3.3 Selected Design and General Layout ________________________________________ 19
4 Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability______________________________________________ 25
5 Local and Global Loading ___________________________________________________ 37
6 General Strength and Structural Design _______________________________________ 38
7 Wind and Current Loading __________________________________________________ 45
8 Mooring/Station Keeping____________________________________________________ 49
9 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading _______________________________________ 56
10 Cost Analysis ____________________________________________________________ 64
11 Summary and Conclusions _________________________________________________ 65
12 References ______________________________________________________________ 67
Appendix A: Environmental Data & Load Spreadsheets____________________________ 69
Appendix B: Weight and Structural Calculations__________________________________ 77
Appendix C: Visual Analysis Output ____________________________________________ 83
Appendix D: Mimosa Input/Output Files _________________________________________ 86
Appendix E: StabCAD Input/Output Files ________________________________________ 95
Appendix F: Cost Factors____________________________________________________ 121

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

List of Figures
Figure 1: West Africa design team in first row at ConocoPhillip's Industry Day ( Left to right,
Sergio Gutierrez, Victor Birch, Ashley Grulich, Lauren Augustin, Jason Pasternak, and John
Shelton). ____________________________________________________________________ 2
Figure 2: FLNG facility design location _____________________________________________ 3
Figure 3: Directional distribution of wind speed for 1, 10, and 100-year return periods ________ 4
Figure 4: Directional distributions of max wave heights for 1, 10, and 100-year return periods __ 5
Figure 5: Directional distribution of surface current speed for 1, 10, and 100 year return periods 5
Figure 6: SHI Geoje Shipyard Dock No. 3 (www.shi.samsung.co.kr/eng)___________________ 7
Figure 7: Gantt Chart Part I ______________________________________________________ 8
Figure 8: Gantt Chart Part II _____________________________________________________ 8
Figure 9: Designated passageway dimensions above cargo tanks (ABS 2005) _____________ 11
Figure 10: Designated passageway dimensions between flat and parallel surfaces__________ 12
Figure 11: Isometric view of option one____________________________________________ 18
Figure 12: Isometric view of hull for option two ______________________________________ 19
Figure 13: Final design ________________________________________________________ 19
Figure 14: Containment tank layout ______________________________________________ 21
Figure 15: Cross-section of LNG containment tank___________________________________ 22
Figure 16: View of inner hull ____________________________________________________ 22
Figure 17: Ballast tank layout ___________________________________________________ 23
Figure 18: Dimensions of accommodations, helideck, and blast wall (meters) ______________ 24
Figure 19: Solid model of designed FLNG in StabCAD________________________________ 28
Figure 20: StabCAD model of ballast tanks and cofferdams____________________________ 28
Figure 21: StabCAD model of the entire inside of the FLNG hull ________________________ 29
Figure 22: Cross curves of stability _______________________________________________ 30
Figure 23: Cross curve of statical stability __________________________________________ 30
Figure 24: ABS MODU 2005 intact stability curve____________________________________ 31
Figure 25: Intact stability curve for FLNG __________________________________________ 32
Figure 26: ABS MODU 2005 damage stability curve _________________________________ 33
Figure 27: Adjacent damaged ballast tanks (2 total) __________________________________ 34
Figure 28: Damage stability curve for FLNG ________________________________________ 34
Figure 29: IMO IGC code side damage assumption __________________________________ 35
Figure 30: Damage stability curve for FLNG ________________________________________ 35
Figure 31: Longitudinal load distributions of topside weights ___________________________ 37
Figure 32: Global distribution for wet and dry loading conditions ________________________ 38
Figure 33: Transverse cross-section of hull_________________________________________ 39
Figure 34: Internal and miscellaneous lightship loads_________________________________ 40
Figure 35: Internal and miscellaneous wet loads ____________________________________ 40
Figure 36: Moment applied to vessel by mooring system ______________________________ 41
Figure 37: Load case 1- still water _______________________________________________ 41
Figure 38: Still water deflection __________________________________________________ 41
Figure 39: Shear diagram for still water condition ____________________________________ 42
Figure 40: Still water bending moment diagram _____________________________________ 42
Figure 41: Load case 2- sagging conditions ________________________________________ 42
Figure 42: Deflection due to sagging loads _________________________________________ 43
Figure 43: Shear diagram for sagging conditions ____________________________________ 43
Figure 44: Bending moment diagram for sagging wave _______________________________ 43
Figure 45: Load case 3- hogging conditions ________________________________________ 43
Figure 46: Deflection of vessel due to extreme hogging conditions ______________________ 44
Figure 47: Shear diagram for hogging conditions ____________________________________ 44
Figure 48: Moment diagram for hogging case_______________________________________ 44

TAMU Team West Africa

ii

Final Report

Figure 49: Bow view of projected wind areas _______________________________________ 45


Figure 50: Beam view of projected wind areas ______________________________________ 46
Figure 51: Comparison of total environmental load for the 1, 10 and 100-year return periods __ 48
Figure 52: HHC Drag embedment anchor__________________________________________ 50
Figure 53: Mooring line and hull clearance _________________________________________ 51
Figure 54: Catenary leg with 1441-kN tension ______________________________________ 52
Figure 55: Catenary leg with 7687-kN tension ______________________________________ 52
Figure 56: FLNG facility mooring pattern plan view___________________________________ 53
Figure 57: 114.3 mm Chain - Line Tension FOS_____________________________________ 54
Figure 58: 101.6-mm Chain - Line Tension FOS_____________________________________ 55
Figure 59: JONSWAP energy density spectrum _____________________________________ 56
Figure 60: FLNG response amplitude operators - Heave ______________________________ 59
Figure 61: FLNG response amplitude operators Pitch _______________________________ 59
Figure 62: FLNG response amplitude operators Roll ________________________________ 60
Figure 63: FLNG response amplitude operators Surge ______________________________ 60
Figure 64: FLNG response amplitude operators Sway ______________________________ 61
Figure 65: FLNG response amplitude operators Yaw _______________________________ 61
Figure 66: Carrier response amplitude operators - Heave _____________________________ 62
Figure 67: Joint numbers displayed in the Prestab module screen_______________________ 98
Figure 68: Drawing panels in StabCAD____________________________________________ 99
Figure 69: Completed barge model drawn in StabCAD ______________________________ 100

TAMU Team West Africa

iii

Final Report

List of Tables
Table 1: Design wave parameters for 1, 10, and 100 year return periods __________________ 4
Table 2: Factor of safety for anchoring lines (ABS 2004) ______________________________ 16
Table 3: Total available and allowable product storage _______________________________ 20
Table 4: Weighted objectives for LNG containment tank ______________________________ 20
Table 5: Lightship estimations for FLNG facility _____________________________________ 25
Table 6: Trim and stability calculations for a full load condition__________________________ 26
Table 7: Trim and stability calculations for ballast condition ____________________________ 27
Table 8: Summary of full load and ballast conditions _________________________________ 27
Table 9: Hydrostatic Properties __________________________________________________ 29
Table 10: Allowable KG calculations for intact stability ________________________________ 32
Table 11: Allowable KG calculations for damaged stability _____________________________ 36
Table 12: Required Minimum Section Modulus and Moment of Inertia ____________________ 38
Table 13: Calculation of Section Modulus, Hull Thickness, and Moment of Inertia ___________ 39
Table 14: FLNG Section Modulus and Moment of Inertia ______________________________ 39
Table 15: Beam Properties used in Visual Analysis __________________________________ 40
Table 16: Environmental load data for 1, 10 and 100-year return periods. _________________ 45
Table 17: Area definitions for bow view____________________________________________ 46
Table 18: Area definitions for beam view __________________________________________ 46
Table 19: Total environmental load for a 1-year return period __________________________ 47
Table 20: Total environmental load for 10-year return period ___________________________ 47
Table 21: Total environmental load for 100-year return period __________________________ 48
Table 22: FLNG and carrier parameters ___________________________________________ 57
Table 23: FLNG and carrier natural periods ________________________________________ 58
Table 24: FLNG and carrier displacements_________________________________________ 63
Table 25: Cost Analysis________________________________________________________ 64
Table 26: Indicative cost factors, ConocoPhillips-Rod King, 2005 ______________________ 122
Table 27: Cost analysis _______________________________________________________ 123

TAMU Team West Africa

iv

Final Report

Acknowledgements
Team West Africa would like to thank the following individuals and companies, without whom the
project would not have been completed, for their assistance and guidance throughout the course
of the project.
Dr. Robert Randall, TAMU
Rodney King, ConocoPhillips
Kent Anderson, ConocoPhillips
Nick Heather, ConocoPhillips
Mike Stice, ConocoPhillips
Matthew Pritchard, ConocoPhillips
Jenny Lu, Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
Tony Bingham, Lloyds Register
Tim Colton, ConocoPhillips
Claes Olsen, Remora Technology
Wayne Herbrich, FMC SOFEC
Joe Lovett, SBM-Imodco
Ian Wilkie, FMC Energy Systems
Jim OSullivan, Technip-Coflexip
Ravi Kota, Halliburton
Stephen Ralph, Halliburton
Lars Ronning, ConocoPhillips
Rune Nysveen, DNV - SESAM Software
Structural Dynamics, LLC. - StabCAD Software
Bill Westcott, Lloyds Register
David Tuturea, ConocoPhillips
Bill Kinney, Consultant
Ray Fales, Bureau Veritas
Lanny Waguespack, Intec Engineering

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

Nomenclature
Hs
Tp
Ks
L
Lo
n
n

Significant Wave Height


Peak Period
Shoaling Coefficient
Wave Length for Shallow Water Wave
Wave Length for Deep Water Wave
Wave Number for Shallow Water Wave
Wave Number for Deep Water Wave

F
SM
I
A
V

D
CC
CH
CS
CB
CW
CAM
KG
ORQ
RAO
VCG
LCG
TCG
FPT
APT
WBT
P
S

Seawater Density
Force
Section Modulus
Moment of Inertia
Area
Velocity
Wind Velocity Time Factor
Direction of Approaching Oblique Seas
Draft
Current Coefficient
Height Coefficient
Shape Coefficient
Block Coefficient
Waterplane Area Coefficient
Added Mass Coefficient
Center of Gravity from Keel
Oil Rig Quality
Response Amplication Operator
Vertical Center of Gravity
Longitudinal Center of Gravity
Transverse Center of Gravity
Forward Peak Ballast Tank
Aft Peak Ballast Tank
Water Ballast Tank
Port
Starboard

TAMU Team West Africa

vi

Final Report

Abstract
Team West Africa designed a floating offshore facility that accommodates a 5.2 MTPA LNG
processing plant as the topsides of a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel.
The scope of this task is limited to designing a stable, weathervaning hull, and turret-mooring
system for a constant draft terminal in 50 meters of open water off the coast of West Africa. The
facility is required to stay operational in 1-year storm conditions and survive 100-year storm
conditions. The facility must have the capacity to store 350,000 m3 of LNG, 160,000 m3 of
condensate, 40,000 m3 of propane, and 40,000 m3 of butane. Additionally, the cargo containment
systems must be tolerant of slack fill conditions.
Due to the magnitude of this facility, a double-hulled steel vessel design has been chosen. The
Samsung Heavy Industries Geoje Shipyard in Korea was determined to be the most suitable
shipyard for manufacturing this FLNG facility. After doing a cost analysis of Korea, Spain, and
Japan shipyards, Korea has been chosen due its manufacturing ability, low cost, and stable
workforce. The overall cost for this project is approximately $2.2 billion.
The main environmental factor affecting the FLNG design are the long period swells approaching
from the southern mid-latitudes. Environmental loads acting on the vessel are primarily due to
wind and current loading. The average swell period and calculated heave period of the vessel are
15.0 seconds and 10.9 seconds. As a result, the vessel does not reach resonance with the
surrounding environment.
To determine the overall strength of the hull, the vessel was modeled as a steel I-beam with a
3
section modulus of 230 m . The three different load cases analyzed are still water, extreme
sagging and extreme hogging conditions. The worst-case scenario, sagging conditions, results in
a maximum downward deflection of 79.2 cm.
Team West Africa used StabCAD to conduct a stability analysis on the FLNG for intact and
damaged conditions. Results for each analysis show the vessel KG of 24.5 m to be lower than
the smallest allowable KG calculated by StabCAD. Therefore, the FLNG is considered stable and
meets ABS MODU Regulations and IGC Code.
The offshore Nigeria FLNG facility exceeds the minimum factor of safety recommendation set
forth by API RP-2SK for a dynamic mooring analysis. The vessel offsets are reasonable for both
the intact and damaged conditions in the shallow water depth. The maximum combined heave
displacement of the vessel and carrier in worst case scenario conditions is 1.53 m. Therefore, the
FLNG is able to safely continue offloading to adjacent carrier ships during a 1-year storm.
Offloading is completed through 3 liquid arms and 1 vapor for LNG, 1 hose floating for
condensate, and 1 loading and 1 vapor hose for LPG. For 1-year storm conditions the rolling
motion was found to be less than 2, therefore the facility maintains a 100% overall operating
efficiency.

TAMU Team West Africa

vii

Final Report

Executive Summary
Introduction
Gas supplies around the world are declining while the demand for a clean and
efficient energy source is on the rise. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) provides
access to the global supply of natural gas and is a critical component in meeting
the worlds energy needs. Recent advances in technology and production have
decreased the unit cost by 30% in the past decade, making LNG a competitive
energy choice. To meet the demand for LNG, new production and offloading
facilities must be designed. Team West Africa was asked to develop a Floating
Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) Unit that accommodates a 5.2 MTPA LNG
processing plant as the topsides of a floating production, storage and offloading
(FPSO) vessel. This facility is to be a turret-moored, weathervaning hull designed
for open water offshore West Africa. The FLNG must operate in a 50 meter water
depth and maintain an overall 95% operating factor. Environmental and safety
concerns are accounted for with American Petroleum Institute (API), International
Gas Codes (IGC), and American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) guidelines. Design
requirements and constraints for the FLNG have been given by ConocoPhillips.
Requirements consist of the following:

Stable work base for a motion sensitive process

Constant Draft Hull

Deck area to accommodate large topsides footprint\weight

TAMU Team West Africa

viii

Final Report

Weathervaning hull with a turret-mooring system suitable to survive 100year storm conditions

High degree of availability for off take systems

Capacity to store 350,000 m3 of LNG, 160,000 m3 of condensate, 40,000


m3 of propane, 40,000 m3 of butane

Cargo containment systems tolerant of slack fill conditions

The eight competency areas addressed are (1) wind and current loading, (2)
general arrangement and overall hull or system design, (3) weight, buoyancy and
stability, (4) local and global loading, (5) general strength and structural design,
(6) mooring/station keeping, (7) hydrodynamics of motions and loading, and (8)
cost analysis.

Environment
The environment of offshore West Africa is benign and very mild in nature. The
main concerns in this region are the long period swells approaching the Nigerian
Delta from the south mid-latitudes. ConocoPhillips (King, 2005) provided
environmental data for 1, 10 and 100 year return periods at a water depth of 25
meters. This data was then reverse shoaled to 50 meters for the design location.
In Block 74, the significant wave heights range from 2.3 meters to 3.0 meters, the
swell period varies from 15.0 to 15.5 seconds and the maximum occurring
wavelength is 295.3 meters. These conditions are used to calculate the total
environmental load acting on the vessel for bow, beam and quartering seas. Due

TAMU Team West Africa

ix

Final Report

to the weathervaning nature of the vessel and stern thruster, the vessel design is
such that high beam loads are not experienced. The total environmental loads
acting on the bow for 1, 10 and 100-year return periods are 605 kN, 718 kN and
945 kN, respectively. These loads are used to determine the environmental
coefficients put into MIMOSA for the mooring analysis.

Selected Design and General Arrangement of Hull


The final design of the FLNG facility consists of a double-hulled barge shape
steel vessel. The overall length, breadth and depth of the facility are 400, 80 and
41 meters, respectively. The flare stack and external-turret mooring system are
located on the bow. For safety, a 40 meter tall blast wall separates the topside
processing plant from the living quarters. The helideck and accommodations are
placed near the stern of the vessel away from hazardous gases and liquids. This
design is optimal because it stores all products below deck, providing maximum
utilization of interior hull space. The LPG products are stored in four Type-A
independent tanks located near the bow. The LNG is stored just aft of the LPG in
six SPB tanks. The LNG and machinery area is separated by four condensate
tanks which are integrated into the hull structure.

Global Loading and General Strength of Structural Design


ABS 2005 Steel Vessels rules were used to establish strength requirements and
hull thickness for design criteria. After structural dimensions were determined,

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

the metaocean data provided by ConocoPhillips were used to induce buoyant


wave forces in Visual Analysis. These forces are derived from the trapezoidal
method at steps of 10 meters, for a sine wave with a height of 5.39 meters (the
100-year maximum wave height). Once the reaction forces due to the waves and
still water were input, the distributed loads due to structural and cargo weights
were entered into the application. Visual Analysis then output the deflections,
shear forces and bending moments along the vessel. The sagging wave loading
is the worst of the analyzed conditions for the vessel. From this scenario, the
maximum deflection of the hull is 79.2 centimeters amidships. The peak shear
force is 54,000 tons at 50 meters from the aft perpendicular. The highest bending
moment experienced by the vessel is 4.87 million ton-meters at 50 meters aft of
amidships. Due to the 400 meter wavelength applied to the vessel, however, this
condition is well above the maximum that the vessel would experience in a 100year storm.

Weight and Stability


The lightship weight of the vessel is approximately 210,900 metric tons, and
consists of items such as the hull steel and outfitting, dry cargo tanks, topside
equipment, offloading arms, etc. The deadweight load is roughly 341,900 metric
tons and includes all the product, ballast, oil, slops and water produced on board.
The lightship and deadweight loads give a total weight of 552,800 metric tons for
the FLNG facility. To satisfy the design constraints, the vessel maintains a

TAMU Team West Africa

xi

Final Report

constant draft of 17 meters under all operating conditions. The calculated KG


under full load and ballast conditions are 24.5 meters and 18.8 meters,
respectively. Once the vessel design and weight calculations were finalized,
Team West Africa conducted a stability analysis of the FLNG using StabCAD
software. The first case examined for the FLNG facility is intact stability.
StabCAD generates the allowable KG of a vessel under various stability criteria.
For the vessel to be stable, the design KG must be less than the smallest
allowable KG. For intact stability, the wind-heeling curve was constructed at 51.5
meters per second for the survival condition. StabCAD results show the design
KG of 24.5 meters was less than the smallest calculated allowable KG of 38.9
meters, therefore the FLNG facility is considered stable for intact conditions. The
vessel also must satisfy IGC Code for damaged stability. For damage stability
analysis, the wind-heeling curve is constructed at 25.8 meters per second for all
conditions. The StabCAD analysis results show that the FLNG design meets the
requirements set by ABS MODU 2005 Regulations for both intact and damage
conditions, along with IGC Code for side damage assumptions.

Mooring/Station Keeping
The mooring system is comprised of a 6-leg, equally spread, all chain, catenary
arrangement. Each leg is 610 meters of 101.6 millimeter (4 inch) ORQ chain with
high holding capacity drag embedment anchors as the foundation. The mooring
system was analyzed, according to API guidelines, for both intact and damaged

TAMU Team West Africa

xii

Final Report

conditions. The damaged condition was run with the most loaded and second
most loaded lines broken. The dominating environmental case for line tensions
considers the wind and current to be 30 to the waves. This case was run for the
1-year storm operating conditions and the 100-year storm survival conditions to
check line tensions and vessel offsets. The line tensions were maintained above
a 1.67 factor of safety (FOS) for intact condition and a 1.25 FOS for damaged
condition as required by API guidelines. In short, the offshore Nigeria FLNG
facility exceeds the minimum FOS recommendation set forth by API RP-2SK for
a dynamic mooring analysis. Also, the vessel offsets of 2 meters to 15 meters are
reasonable for both the intact and damaged conditions in the 50 meter water
depth.

Hydrodynamics of Motions and Offloading


The heave displacement for the FLNG facility and the carrier was determined to
be 0.85-m and 0.68-m, respectively. Therefore, the combined heave motion of
the two vessels completely out of phase, which is the worst possible case, is
1.53-m. The maximum allowed heave displacement to stay within the loading
arm limitations is 2.0-m. Hence, during the 1-year storm, the FLNG will be able to
safely continue offloading to adjacent carrier ships. Also, the maximum allowed
roll of the FLNG facility is 2 limited by topside operation components. The rolling
motion during a 1-year storm was found to be less than 0.01, and therefore, the
facility easily maintains topside operations during a 1-year storm.

These

hydrodynamic results indicate an overall operating factor exceeding 95%.

TAMU Team West Africa

xiii

Final Report

1 Introduction
1.1 LNG Background
Liquefied natural gas is a critical component in meeting the growing demand for energy around the world.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas consumption is expected to
increase in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors as environmental and economic pressures
benefit natural gas at the expense of petroleum and coal consumption. Natural gas burns cleaner than
other fossil fuels and is widely known for its superior thermal efficiency when used in power generation.
Currently, natural gas makes up about one-fourth of all energy consumed in the United States each year.
Liquefaction of natural gas reduces the volume by approximately 600 times. This allows for huge
quantities to be stored in a limited amount of space and readily transported long distances. A single
tanker filled with LNG can supply the energy needs for over 10 million homes a day (CLNG, 2005).
Other major factors for the sudden interest in LNG include new technology and the recent decline in
exploration and production costs. Expanding shipyards and increased competition in the Far East in the
past decade has shown a significant decrease in the cost of LNG tanker production. This decline will
allow for LNG imports to grow and hopefully fill the supply gap of the worlds energy needs. The EIA
forecasts the net imports of LNG in 2025 to range between 1.3 to 2.4 billion cubic meters.

1.2 Objective
The purpose of this project is to design a Floating Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) hull that accommodates
a 5.2 million tones per year LNG processing plant. This facility is self-contained and processes, stores
and offloads LNG, Propane, Butane and Condensate products. The scope of this task is limited to
designing a stable, weathervaning hull, and turret-mooring system for this terminal in 50 meters of open
water off the coast of West Africa. API and ABS guidelines account for all environmental and safety
concerns.

1.3 Industry Day


ConocoPhillips hosted an industry conference day at their headquarters in Houston, Texas on February
4, 2005. The main purpose of the industry conference day was to provide the senior design teams with
important topics detailing aspects, concepts, and technologies pertaining to the design of the FLNG
facility.
The topics, presented by various representatives from different companies, were as follows in
chronological order:

LNG-CoP Marine by ConocoPhillips.


Class of LNG/LPG Floating Production Units by Det Norske Veritas (DNV).
LNG Hull Containment Systems by Lloyds Register.
LNG Shipbuilding by ConocoPhillips.
Mooring/Loading Systems by Remora Technology, FMC SOFEC, and SBM-Imodco.
LNG Offloading by FMC Energy Systems and Technip-Coflexip.

All given presentations were of important value to the members of Team West Africa. However, the
presentations that were of particular interest were: LNG Hull Containment Systems by Lloyds Register,
Mooring/Loading Systems by Remora Technology and FMC SOFEC, and LNG Offloading by FMC
Energy Systems.

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

The Lloyds Register presentation on LNG Hull Containment Systems provided Team West Africa with a
clear understanding of the composition of the different types of LNG containment tanks, as well as the
advantages and disadvantages between them. This presentation allowed the members of Team West
Africa to make a secure and confident decision for the appropriate LNG containment tanks.
FMC SOFEC and FMC Energy Systems provided insight on LNG loading technology such as the Chiksan
LNG Marine Loading Arms as well as important information regarding the different types of offloading
systems.
The last presentation that was of particular interest to Team West Africa was Mooring/Loading Systems
by Remora Technology. Remora Technology introduced their recent design called the HiLoad which is
an L-shaped floating docking unit that connects to vessels in a method similar to a forklift using ballast.
This innovative design could prove useful in terms of using it as an attachable propulsion unit for the
FLNG facility.
The Industry Conference Day at ConocoPhillips helped the Spring 2005 Texas A&M University senior
design teams broaden their scope and consider the many offshore projects and processes which make
up the design of the FLNG facility. Team West Africa would like to thank all the visiting organizations
representatives for their time, effort, and dedication in providing their knowledge and expertise.

Figure 1: West Africa design team in first row at ConocoPhillip's Industry Day ( Left to right,
Sergio Gutierrez, Victor Birch, Ashley Grulich, Lauren Augustin, Jason Pasternak, and John
Shelton).

1.4 Environment
In general, the environment offshore West Africa is very mild in nature with minimal variability in wind and
wave direction. The most critical factor affecting our design are the long period swell waves approaching
from the mid-latitudes south of the 35th parallel into the offshore Nigeria area. The swell approach is
limited to three 45 sectors 155, 200 and 245 of true north and is produced by the extreme sea states
that occur in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. The environment lacks locally generated storms, therefore storm
surge is minimal and tidal components dominate water level variations.

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

ConocoPhillips has provided extreme metaocean environmental data for the Ukpokiti Development in
Block 74. Ukpokiti is located approximately 15 miles off the coast of Nigeria at 05 44.0' N latitude and
004 50.0' E longitude in a water depth of 25 meters. Block 74 is marked by the star shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: FLNG facility design location


The design depth for the location in Block 74 is 50 meters. Therefore, the wave conditions were shoaled
backwards using the standard shoaling equation.

Ks =

nL
H
= o o
Ho
nL

The resulting design wave parameters for 1, 10, and 100 year storm conditions in 50 meter water depth
are tabulated below in Table 1.

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

Table 1: Design wave parameters for 1, 10, and 100 year return periods
Design Wave
Parameters

1 year

10 year

100 year

Hs (m)
Peak Period (s)
Wave Length (m)
Wave Celerity (m/s)

2.3
15.0
282.7
18.8

2.6
15.3
290.2
19.0

3.0
15.5
295.3
19.1

The current and wind speed is independent of water depth; therefore, the original values given by
ConocoPhillips for wind speed and current speed are utilized.
The radar plots below in Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the directional distributions from true north of wind
speeds, maximum wave heights and surface current velocity for the 1, 10 and 100-year return periods. In
Figure 3, it is apparent that wind direction is associated with the incoming swells.
1-Hour Sustained Wind Speed Directional Distribution [m/s]

0
15
335

20

10

100 year

5
65

290

10 year

1 year
245

110
200

155

Figure 3: Directional distribution of wind speed for 1, 10, and 100-year return periods
The maximum wave heights plotted in Figure 4 are dominant in the 155, 200 and 245 sectors. These
wave heights are also correlated with the swell approach.

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

Maximum Wave Height Directional Distribution [m]

0
6
335

20

100 year

290

65

10 year

0
1 year
245

110
200

155

Figure 4: Directional distributions of max wave heights for 1, 10, and 100-year return periods

The current distribution is independent of the wave and wind forces. The direction and intensity
distribution of the surface currents for the 1, 10 and 100-year return periods are shown below in Figure 5.
The direction of the current is assumed to be constant with depth in Figure 5, although reversals in
current direction may possibly occur with depth.

Current Speed Directional Distribution at Surface [m/s]

0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

335

290

20

65

100 year
10 year
1 year

245

110
200

155

Figure 5: Directional distribution of surface current speed for 1, 10, and 100 year return periods

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

1.5 Design Criteria


This hull design must meet the following requirements and constraints with a minimal cost. Durability,
stability, and cost are paramount in all considerations.
Functional Requirements:
Hull design suitable to store 350,000 m3 of LNG, 160,000 m3 of condensate, 40,000 m3 of
propane, 40,000 m3 of butane, and 55,000 metric tons of topside facilities.
To produce up to 5.48 MTPA LNG, 2,310 m3/day commercial propane, 1,710 m3/day butane and
10,870 m3/day condensate
LNG off take system with 3 liquid arms and 1 vapor @ 12,500 m3/hr
LPG off take system with 1 loading and 1 vapor hose @ 2,500 m3/hr
Condensate off take system with 1 hose floating @ 6,400 m3/hr
High degree of availability for off take systems
Constant draft
Weathervaning turret-mooring system suitable for 100-year storm conditions
Stable work base for a motion sensitive process
Deck area to accommodate large topsides
Cargo containment systems tolerant of slack fill conditions
Constraints:
20 year design life
Remain operational in a 1-year return period
No greater than 2 max roll in 1-year return period storm
Maintain a 95% operating factor
Structural constraints due to double hull design
Must allow for accommodations for 100 people
Heave displacement between design vessel and carrier must not exceed 2.0 m
Storage Limitations:
o LNG @ 15.4 psia and -260 F/ 160 C
o LPG @ 15.2 psia and -44 F/ -36 C

1.6 Manufacturability
Due to the massive size of this facility, the manufacturability of the FLNG unit is vital when considering
design options. The overall hull size is limited by the dry dock capacities at shipyards worldwide. The
most suitable shipyard for this project has been determined to be the Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI)
Geoje Shipyard on the Korean Island of Geoje based on its size and efficiency. The Geoje Shipyard is the
second largest shipyard in the world. SHIs Dock No. 3, shown in Figure 6, is 640 meters long, 97.5
meters wide, 12.7 meters wide and has annual shipbuilding capacities of 1.2 million tons.

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

Figure 6: SHI Geoje Shipyard Dock No. 3 (www.shi.samsung.co.kr/eng)


This dock was built with concepts of cutting edge shipbuilding methods, automated and integrated
logistics systems, and an optimum working environment. Its multiple Goliath cranes (shown in Figure 6)
expedite assembly work by as much as 54%. The SHI Geoje Shipyard has the worlds greatest dock
turnover rate and was the first shipyard certified by the worlds three most recognized international
standards. Multiple shipyards have been identified as being capable of this large project and are further
discussed in Section 10, Cost Analysis.

1.7 Gantt Charts


Gantt charts were developed at the beginning of the design process to keep the members of Team West
Africa motivated and on track. The Gantt charts showing the teams progress and organization are
presented below in Figures 7 and 8. As depicted in Figures 7 and 8, a rough breakdown of individual task
assignments is as follows:

Lauren Augustin Ballasting, Environmental loading & Weight distributions


Victor Birch Containment tanks, Graphics & Hull design
Ashley Grulich Containment tanks, Cost analysis & General regulations
Sergio Gutierrez Vessel stability analysis (Intact & Damage)
Jason Pasternak Ballasting, Global loading & Structural calculations
John Shelton Mooring analysis & Vessel motions

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

Figure 7: Gantt Chart Part I

Figure 8: Gantt Chart Part II

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

1.8 Social and Political Issues


Although FLNG facilities are considered to be extremely safe and far less hazardous than other fuel
production facilities, their risks are frequently misinterpreted by the public. This leads to negatively biased
opinions of local communities and results in problems when trying to obtain production permits. One such
local opposition is commonly referred to as NIMBY, or not in my backyard. The idea of the offshore
terminal is that it will reside past the horizon, thus being out of sight of the local residents. This is a large
factor in persuading a community to approve FLNG construction; however the citizens are also greatly
concerned with the risks and safety of such a facility.
According to Hart Publications, Incorporated, Extensive Shell research indicates the health and safety
profile of an FLNG facility is similar to the best North Sea platforms and FPSOs worldwide. They also
claim that FLNG facilities are inherently safer than FPSOs due to their gas treatment facilities and crew
accommodations being at opposite ends of the terminal. This feature would benefit the local citizens since
they will most likely be the employees at the nearby terminal. FMC Europe determined that the transfer of
LNG at sea could be safely carried out by employing a tandem loading configuration with conventional
loading arms. Oil companies are currently working with West African authorities to develop legislative
framework and a monitoring system for EHS, or Environment, Health, and Safety.
Illegal oil bunkering is a large problem in West Africa and leads to the loss of billions of dollars in public
funds. This problem is estimated to account for ten percent of Nigerias daily production. This high
frequency of theft is indicative that it is the consequence of a highly organized crime organization. Under
the Nigerian Constitution, all minerals, oil and gas in Nigeria belong to the federal government. Oil
extraction outside the framework of an agreement with the federal government is illegal, as is the
possession of crude oil by anyone not licensed to do so. In an attempt to address the demand side of the
illegal operations, the Nigerian federal government has taken action to reduce the sale of fuel to
neighboring states. They have also begun signing contracts with neighboring countries for supply of
petroleum products to ensure they source oil from lawful suppliers. (HRW, 2003).

2 Regulatory Compliance
This design must meet the requirements of several agencies worldwide. The American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS) is the primary agency used in determining regulations and design constraints for this
particular project. The major categories for which regulations will govern include general considerations,
containment tanks, accommodation, facility arrangements, cargo transfer methods, fire safety, personnel
protection, flood survival requirements, helicopter deck, environmental/global loading, general strength of
hull, and the position mooring system.
The following regulations are taken from the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 2005
(a), ABS Guide for Building and Classing Offshore LNG Terminals, 2004 (b), ABS Rules for Building and
Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 2005 (c), ABS Guide for Building and Classing Floating
Production Installations, 2004 (d), and International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code) 1993 Edition (e).

TAMU Team West Africa

Final Report

2.1 General Considerations

The thickness of double side transverses in wing tanks is to be equal to or greater than obtained
from the following equation (5-8-1/11.5a):
t = 0.036L + 4.7 mm
t = thickness, in mm
L = length of vessel, in m
Materials used should be suitable for use with the cargoes to be carried. For normal service, the
upper ambient design temperature should be 32C for sea and 45C for air (5-8-7/1.2a)
A refrigeration system should consist of one or more units capable of maintaining the required
cargo pressure/temperature under conditions of the upper ambient design temperature. A standby unit should consist of a compressor with its driving motor, control system and any necessary
fittings to permit operation independently of the normal service units (5-8-7/2.1a).
Each cargo tank should be provided with means for indicating level, pressure and temperature of
the cargo. Pressure gauges and temperature indicating devices should be installed in the liquid
and vapor piping systems, in cargo refrigerating installations and in the inert gas system (5-813/1.1a).
A risk assessment shall be carried out to identify significant hazards and accident scenarios that
may affect the installation or any part thereof, and consider the benefit of existing or potential risk
control options. The risk assessment shall consider the following events (3-2/3b):
o Damage to the primary structure due to extreme weather, impact/collision, dropped
objects, helicopter collision, exposure to unsuitably cold temperatures, exposure to high
radiant heat
o Fire and explosion
o Loss of primary liquid containment
o LNG leakage
o Release of flammable or toxic gas to the atmosphere or inside an enclosed space
o Roll-Over
o Loss of stability
o Loss of any single component in the station keeping/mooring system
o Loss of ability to offload LNG or discharge gas ashore
o Loss of any one critical component in the process system
o Loss of electrical power
The ship-shaped terminal is to have a length not exceeding 500 m and breadth not exceeding
one-fifth of the length nor more than 2.5 times the depth (3-2/5.1.1b).

2.2 Containment Tanks

According to 5-8-19a, this FLNG structure is a 2G/2PG ship type based on the fact that it will be
containing butane, methane (LNG), and propane.
For type 2G/2PG ships, cargo tanks should be located at the following distances inboard: from
the moulded line of the bottom shell plating at centerline not less than the vertical extent of
damage and nowhere less than 760 mm from the shell plating (5-8-2/6.1.2a). for the purpose of
tank location, the vertical extent of bottom damage should be measured to the bottom of the
cargo tanks (5-8-2/6.2a).
When cargo is carried in a cargo containment system requiring a secondary barrier: at
temperatures below -10C, hold spaces should be segregated from the sea by a double bottom,
and at temperatures below -55C, the ship should also have a longitudinal bulkhead forming side
tanks (5-8-3/1.4a).
Independent tanks are self-supporting; they do not form part of the ship hull and are not essential
to the hull strength (5-8-4/2.4.1a).

TAMU Team West Africa

10

Final Report

Type B independent tanks are tanks which are designated using model tests, refined analytical
tools and analysis methods to determine stress levels, fatigue life and crack propagation
characteristics. Where such tanks are primarily constructed of plan surfaces the design vapor
pressure P0 should be less than 0.7 bar (5-8-4/2.4.3a).
No cargo tanks should be more than 98% liquid full at the reference temperature (5-8-15/1.1a).
The maximum volume to which a cargo tank may be loaded is determined by the following
formula (5-8-15/1.2a):

VL = 0.98V

R
L

where
VL = maximum volume to which the tank may be loaded
V = volume of the tank
R = relative density of cargo at the reference temperature
L = relative density of cargo at the loading temperature and pressure

2.3 Accommodations

No accommodation space should be located within the cargo area. The bulkhead of
accommodation spaces which face the cargo area should be located as to avoid the entry of gas
from the hold space to such spaces through a single failure of a deck or bulkhead on a ship
having a containment system requiring a secondary barrier (5-8-3/2.1a).

2.4 Facility Arrangements

The distance between the cargo tanks and the free edge of structural elements such as deck
beams, stiffeners, frames, girders, etc. should be at least 380 mm. The distance between the
cargo tanks and the surface to which the above structural elements are fitted, e.g. deck, bulkhead
or shell, should be at least 600 mm in case of a flat tank surface (5-8-3/5.2.1a). (See Figure 9)

Figure 9: Designated passageway dimensions above cargo tanks (ABS 2005)

If there needs to be a passageway between two approximately flat and approximately parallel
surfaces to which no structural elements are fitted, the distance between those surfaces should
be at least 600 mm (5-8-3/5.2.4a). (See Figure 10)

TAMU Team West Africa

11

Final Report

Figure 10: Designated passageway dimensions between flat and parallel surfaces

The distance between a cargo tank dome and deck structures should not be less than 150 mm
(5-8-3/5.2.6a).

2.5 Cargo Transfer Methods

Liquid and vapor hoses used for cargo transfer should be compatible with the cargo and suitable
for the cargo temperature (5-8-5/7.1a).
Where cargo transfer is by means of cargo pumps not accessible for repair with the tanks in
service, at least two separate means should be provided to transfer cargo from each cargo tank
and the design should be such that failure of one cargo pump, or means of transfer, will not
prevent the cargo transfer by another pump or pumps, or other cargo means (5-8-5/8.1a).

2.6 Fire Safety

All sources of ignition should be excluded from spaces where flammable vapor may be present
(5-8-11/1.2a).
The arrangements should be such that at least two jets of water can reach any part of the deck in
the cargo area and those portions of the cargo containment system and tank covers above the
deck. The necessary number of fire hydrants should be located to satisfy the above
arrangements, with hose lengths not exceeding 33m (5-8-11/2.2a).
The water spray system should be capable of covering all areas with a uniformly distributed water
spray of at least 10 /m2 per minute for horizontal projected surfaces and 4 /m2 per minute for
vertical surfaces (5-8-11/3.2a).
Every ship carrying flammable products should carry firemens outfits. For ships with a total cargo
capacity above 5,000 m3, 5 outfits are required (5-8-11/6.1a).
Any breathing apparatus required as part of a firemans outfit should be a self-contained airbreathing apparatus having a capacity of at least 1,200 of free air (5-8-11/6.2a).

2.7 Personnel Protection

Sufficient, but not less than two complete sets of safety equipment in addition to the firemens
outfits, each permitting personnel to enter and work in a gas-filled space, should be provided (58-14/2.1a).
One complete set of safety equipment should consist of: one self-contained air-breathing
apparatus not using stored oxygen, having a capacity of at least 1,200 of free air; protective
clothing, boots, gloves and tight-fitting goggles; steel-cored rescue line with belt; and an
explosion-proof lamp (5-8-14/2.2a).

TAMU Team West Africa

12

Final Report

Personnel involved in cargo operations should be adequately trained in handling procedures (5-818/3.1a).

2.8 Flood Survival Requirements

In any stage of flooding, taking into account sinkage, heel and trim, should be below the lower
edge of any opening through which progressive flooding or downflooding may take place. This
includes air pipes, weathertight doors, and hatch covers (5-8-2/9.1.1a).
The maximum angle of heel due to unsymmetrical flooding should not exceed 30 (5-8-2/9.1.2a).
At final equilibrium after flooding, the emergency source of power should be capable of operating
(5-8-2/9.2.2a).

2.9 Helicopter Deck

A minimum distributed loading of 2010 N/m2 is to be taken over the entire helicopter deck (3-22/3.3.1c).
The structure supporting helicopter decks is to withstand the loads resulting from the motions of
the unit (3-2-2/3.3.4c).

2.10 Environmental/Global Loading and General Strength of Hull

The minimum recurrence interval used to establish the magnitude of the Design Environmental
Condition is 100 years (3-2/1.1.1b).
The design of the LNG terminal will require investigation of the following environmental factors, as
appropriate to the type of terminal structure and the terminals installation site: waves, wind, and
currents (3-2/1.1.3b).
The current force, Fcurrent, on the submerged part of any structure is calculated as the drag force
by the following equation (3-4/5d):

Fcurrent =

1
water CD Acurrent uc uc
2

kN

where

water = density of sea water, 0.1045 tonnes/m3


= drag coefficient, in steady flow (dimensionless)
Cd
= current velocity vector normal to the plane of projected area, in m/s
uc
Acurrent = projected area exposed to current, in m2
Wind pressure, Pwind, on a particular windage of a floating vessel may be calculated as drag
forces using the following equations (3-4/7.1d):
Pwind = 0.610CsChVref2 N/m2 with Vref in m/s
where
Cs = shape coefficient (dimensionless)
Ch = height coefficient (dimensionless)
The corresponding wind force, Fwind, on the windage is:
Fwind = PwindAwind
where
Awind = projected area of windage on a plane normal to the direction of the wind,
in m2
The wave bending moment, expressed in kN-m may be obtained from the
following equations (3-2-1/3.5.1a).
Mws = k1C1L2B(Cb + 0.7 ) 10-3 Sagging Moment
Mwh = + k2C1L2BCb 10-3 Hogging Moment
where
k1 = 110 (11.22, 1.026)

TAMU Team West Africa

13

Final Report

k2 = 190 (19.37, 1.772)

300 L
C1 = 10.75

100

1.5

90 L 300 m
300 < L 350 m

= 10.75

L 350

150

1.5

= 10.75

L 350 L 500 m

L = length of vessel, in m (ft)


B = breadth of vessel, in m (ft)
Cb = block coefficient, but is not to be taken less than 0.6
The envelopes of maximum shearing forces induced by waves, Fw, may be obtained from the
following equations (3-2-1/3.5.3a):
Fwp = + kF1C1L B (Cb + 0.7) 10-2 For positive shear force
Fwn = kF2C1L B (Cb + 0.7) 10-2 For negative shear force
where
Fwp, Fwn = maximum shearing force induced by wave, in kN
L = length of vessel, in m
B = breadth of vessel, in m
C1 = as defined in 3-2-1/3.5
Cb = block coefficient, but not to be taken less than 0.6
k = 30 (3.059, 0.2797)
F1 = distribution factor
F2 = distribution factor
The minimum hull girder section modulus amidships is not to be less than obtained from the
following equation (3-2-1/3.7.1a):
SM = C1C2L2B (Cb + 0.7) cm2-m (in2-ft)
where
C1 = as defined in 3-2-1/3.5
C2 = 0.01 (0.01, 1.44 10-4)
L = length of vessel, in m
B = breadth of vessel, in m
Cb = block coefficient, but is not to be taken less than 0.6
The hull girder moment of inertia, I, amidships, is to be not less than (3-2-1/3.7.2a):
I = L SM / 33.3 cm2-m2 (in2-ft2)
where
L = length of vessel, in m
SM = required hull girder section modulus, in cm2-m

2.11 Position Mooring System

The various conditions of a Floating Installation which are important for the designer to consider
are as follows:
o Intact Design
A condition with all components of the system intact and exposed to an
environment as described by the design environmental condition (DEC) (51/1.1d).
o Damaged Case with One Broken Mooring Line
A condition with any one mooring line broken at the design environmental
condition (DEC) that would cause maximum mooring line load for the system.
The mooring line subjected to the maximum load in intact extreme conditions
when broken might not lead to the worst broken mooring line case. The designer

TAMU Team West Africa

14

Final Report

should determine the worst case by analyzing several cases of broken mooring
line, including lead line broken and adjacent line broken cases (5-1/1.3d).
o Transient Condition with One Broken Mooring Line
A condition with one mooring line broken (usually the lead line) in which the
moored vessel exhibits transient motions (overshooting) before it settles at a new
equilibrium position. The transient condition can be an important consideration
when proper clearance is to be maintained between the moored vessel and
nearby structures. An analysis for this condition under the design environmental
condition (DEC) is required. The effect of increased line tensions due to
overshoot upon failure of one mooring line (or thruster or propeller if mooring is
power-assisted) should also be considered (5-1/1.5d).
In the structural design of terminals, the interface between the positioning mooring system and
the hull structure are to be considered and a finite element method analysis is to be submitted for
review. For a fore end, external turret mooring, the minimum extent of the model is from the fore
end of the vessel, including the turret structure and its attachment to the hull, to a transverse
plane after the aft end of the foremost cargo oil tank in the vessel. The model can be considered
fixed at the aft end of the model. The loads modeled are to correspond to the worst-case tank
loads, seakeeping loads as determined for both the transit case and the on-site case, ancillary
structure loads, and, for the on-site case, mooring loads.
The mean tension in a mooring line corresponds to the mean offset and equilibrium heading of
the vessel. The design (maximum) mooring line tension, Tmax, is to be determined as shown
below (5-1/3.5d):
Tmax = Tmean + Tlf(max) + Twf(sig) ; or
Tmax = Tmean + Tlf(sig) + Twf(max) ; whichever is greater.
where
Tmean = mean mooring line tension due to wind, current and mean (steady) drift
force.
Tlf(sig) = significant single amplitude low frequency tension.
Twf(sig) = significant single amplitude wave frequency tension.
The mooring designer may divide the environmental effects into three categories of response (34/9.3d):
o First Order Motions
o Low Frequency Motions
o Steady (Mean) Drift
The fatigue life of mooring lines is to be assessed using the T-N approach, using a T-N curve that
gives the number of cycles, N, to failure for a specific tension range, T. The fatigue damage ratio,
Di, for a particular sea state, i, is estimated in accordance with the Miners Rule, as follows:

Di =

ni
Ni

where
ni = number of cycles within the tension range interval, i, for a given sea state.
Ni = number of cycles to failure at tension range, i, as given by the appropriate TN curve.
The cumulative fatigue damage, D, for all of the expected number of sea states, NN (identified in
a wave scatter diagram), is to be calculated as follows:
NN

D = Di
i =1

D is not to exceed unity for the design life, which is the field service life multiplied by a factor of
safety, as specified in Table 2 (5-1/3.7d).

TAMU Team West Africa

15

Final Report

Table 2: Factor of safety for anchoring lines (ABS 2004)

Where Floating Installations are equipped with thrusters to assist the mooring system, the
thrusters are subject to approval in accordance with Section 4-3-5 of the Steel Vessel Rules. The
contribution of the thrusters in the mooring system design will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis (5-1/11d).
For a mooring system with drag anchors, the mooring line length should be sufficiently long such
that there is no angle between the mooring line and the seabed at any design condition (5-2/1d).
The maximum load at anchor, Fanchor, is to be calculated, in consistent units, as follows:
Fanchor = Pline WsubWD Ffriction
Ffriction = fslLbedWsub
where
Pline = maximum mooring line tension
WD = water depth
fsl = frictional coefficient of mooring line on sea bed at sliding
Lbed = length of mooring line on seabed at the design storm condition, not to
exceed 20 percent of the total length of a mooring line
Wsub = submerged unit weight of mooring line
The coefficient of friction, fsl, depends on the soil condition and the type of mooring line. For the
4.5 inch oil rig quality chain used in this project, the representative values for the coefficient of
friction at start, fst, and the coefficient of friction at sliding, fsl, are 1.00 and 0.70, respectively (52/1d).
The factors of safety for anchor holding capacity in the design of drag anchors are specified
above in Table 2. The required ultimate holding capacity should be determined based on mooring
line loads derived from a dynamic analysis to account for mooring line dynamics.

2.12 Stability

Intact Stability Criteria


For all units, except column-stabilized units, the area under the righting moment curve at
or before the second intercept angle or the downflooding angle, whichever is less, is to
reach a value of not less than 40% in excess of the area under the overturning moment

TAMU Team West Africa

16

Final Report

curve to the same limiting angle. In all cases, the righting moment curve is to be positive
over the entire range of angles from upright to the second intercept angle (3-3-1/3.3.1c).
Surface Type Drilling Units
For surface-type drilling units, the following extent of damage is to be assumed to occur
between effective watertight bulkheads. (3-3-1/7.7.5c).
i)
Horizontal depth of penetration of 1.5 m (5ft).
ii)
Vertical extent of damage from the bottom shell upwards without limit.
Damage Assumptions
Side damage:
.1
2/3
1/3L or 14.5 m,
Longitudinal extent:
.1.1
whichever is less
Transverse extent:
measured inboard from the ships side at right
B/5 or 11.5 m,
.1.2
angles to the centreline at the level of the
whichever is less
summer load line
Vertical extent:
upwards without
from the moulded line of the bottom shell
.1.3
limit
plating at centreline

TAMU Team West Africa

17

Final Report

3 General Arrangement and Hull/System Design


The final design of the offshore floating liquefied natural gas terminal must satisfy design requirements in
eight general competency areas: (1) wind and current loading, (2) general arrangement and overall
hull/system design, (3) weight, buoyancy and stability, (4) local and global loading, (5) general strength
and structural design, (6) mooring/station keeping, (7) hydrodynamics of motions and loading, and (8)
cost analysis. Three different options for the FLNG design are discussed below.

3.1 Option One


The first option for the FLNG design consists of a ship-shape barge vessel with an external turret mooring
system. The LNG is contained in a large spherical Moss tank toward the bow of the vessel and in two
side by side SPB tanks just aft of the Moss tank under the deck. The propane and butane products are
stored just aft of the LNG, amidships of the vessel in four self-supporting Type-A independent tanks under
the deck. Four condensate tanks are located between the LPG tanks and forward of the machinery area.
These tanks are integrated within the hull structure. This setup keeps the more hazardous liquids away
from the crew quarters, which are located on the stern of the vessel. For safety reasons a blast wall
separates the topside plant from the accommodations. An isometric view of the initial design is presented
below in Figure 11. Unfortunately, with this option the length of the vessel is too large once the topside
plant is included. Therefore, Team West Africa opted for a different tank layout.

Figure 11: Isometric view of option one

3.2 Option Two


The second option for the FLNG design has the same basic layout as option one. As seen below in
Figure 12, the main difference is the large spherical Type-C independent tank towards the stern of the
vessel. This tank is used for condensate storage as opposed to the four tanks located within the ships
structure. However, this option results in extra expense and does not allow ample space for the topside
equipment. Also, the Moss and Type-C tanks will result in a high center of gravity, therefore decreasing
the stability of the vessel.

TAMU Team West Africa

18

Final Report

Figure 12: Isometric view of hull for option two

3.3 Selected Design and General Layout


The final design for the FLNG terminal consists of a double hull barge shaped vessel with an external
turret mooring system located on the bow. The length, breadth and depth of the vessel are 400, 80 and
41 meters, respectively. The selected design is shown below in Figure 13. This option stores all products
under the deck, allowing adequate room for the topside processing plant and equipment. The
containment tanks are designed to hold the required 350,000 m3 of LNG, 40,000 m3 of propane, 40,000
m3 of butane and 160,000 m3 of condensate when the vessel is fully loaded at 98% capacity. The total
and allowable storage volumes inside the vessel for each product are given below in Table 3.

Figure 13: Final design

TAMU Team West Africa

19

Final Report

Table 3: Total available and allowable product storage


Product Storage Volume
Required

Product

Total Available Storage


Volume

Total Product Storage Volume at 98%

LNG

350,000

357,225

350,080

Propane

40,000

41,000

40,180

40,180

163,670

160,396

602,895

590,836

Butane

40,000

Condensate

160,000

TOTAL

590,000

41,000

The LPG products are placed near the bow of the vessel in four Type-A independent tanks. The Type-A
tanks are self-supporting and of prismatic shape to provide maximum utilization of hull space. The
propane and butane each require two separate tanks so the product can be loading and offloading at the
same time. The propane tanks are located on the starboard side, and butane tanks are located on the
port side of the vessel. Each product tank is side by side to increase stability and help reduce the roll of
the vessel. This way, the butane and propane products can be equally loaded and offloaded at the same
time from each side without having to adjust the transverse trim of the vessel. The LNG is stored between
the LPG and condensate tanks in six IHI self-supporting Type-B (SPB) tanks. The placement of the LNG
tanks in the center between propane, butane and condensate tanks helps move the longitudinal center of
gravity to the center of the vessel. Sloshing effects, available topside area, boil-off rate, and cost were
taken into consideration while choosing a containment tank to store the LNG. A weighted objectives table
for the different LNG containment systems is presented below in Table 4. Each objective was weighted
based on a scale of 1 to 5, and each tank was scored by multiplying the objective weight by the tank
score, which was based on the same 1 to 5 scale. The highest total point value results in the best option.
Table 4: Weighted objectives for LNG containment tank
Objective
Minimize
Tank
Sloshing
Maximize
Topsides
Area
Decrease
Boil-Off
Rate
Minimize
Cost

GT Membrane Tank

MOSS Spherical Tank

Prismatic Type-B Tank

Weight

Parameter

Amount of
Sloshing

Very High

Average

2.5

7.5

V er y
Minimal

12

Topside Area
Used

Medium

12

Hi gh

None

15

BOR

0.16%/d

0.15%/d

0.13%/d

10

Average

2.5

Very High

Magnitude Score Value Magnitude Score Value Magnitude Score Value

Cost
Relatively
Comparison Inexpensive
Overall Utility Value

27

18.5

33

The SPB tank was chosen because it scored the highest overall utility value. An additional advantage of
the SPB tank is the ability to be built to conform to the hull shape, therefore taking full advantage of the
available space inside the hull. Due to the large capacity and partial filling of the tanks, sloshing will most
likely be a problem in the swell environment. Sloshing effects are dependent on the tank fill level, sea
state severity and total subjected area. Unlike the GT Membrane tank, the SPB eliminates sloshing
effects and will not result in fracture to the ships hull if a crack occurs.
The condensate is stored aft of the LNG in four tanks integrated into the hull which are separated by
bulkheads. These tanks form part of the vessels structure, therefore contributing to the overall strength of
the hull. Figure 14 shows a view of the containment tank layout.

TAMU Team West Africa

20

Final Report

Figure 14: Containment tank layout


According to the ABS Guide for Building and Classing Offshore LNG Terminals (2004), there must be at
least 0.6 meters spacing between cargo tanks and structural elements such as the deck, bulkheads or
hull steel. To satisfy the regulatory requirement there is a 1.0 meter gap between all tank skins and hull
steel. A cross-sectional view of the LNG tanks on supports with the one meter spacing is shown in Figure
15. There is also 1.0 meter spacing between the top of the tanks and the deck. A 3.0 meter cofferdam is
fitted between all cargo tanks and at the end of the cargo area. Throughout the vessel there are a total of
16 cofferdams with a total of 37 strengthening bulkheads. Figure 16 shows a view of the inner hull of the
vessel. To assist with vessel positioning, two twin thrusters are located on the stern of the vessel. The
thruster room is located behind the machinery area, between the port and starboard aft peak tanks.

TAMU Team West Africa

21

Final Report

Figure 15: Cross-section of LNG containment tank

Figure 16: View of inner hull

TAMU Team West Africa

22

Final Report

Ballast Tanks
A total of 36 ballast tanks are fitted between the double hull and the inside of the vessel to help maintain
stability. There are 16 L-shaped wing tanks to help counterbalance each containment tank during loading.
There are 7 middle lower tanks located under the cofferdams between the wing tanks across the beam of
the vessel. The forward machinery and aft peak tanks are split into two separate port and starboard
tanks. These tanks are necessary to adjust the trim of the vessel for the full load and ballast conditions.
The arrangement of the ballast tanks is shown below in Figure 17. The 36 tanks provide a total available
fill volume of 399,600 m3.

Figure 17: Ballast tank layout

TAMU Team West Africa

23

Final Report

Accommodations and Helipad


The accommodations are placed on the aft end of the vessel away from harmful gases and liquids. There
are four decks that will accommodate up to 100 people on board. A helicopter deck is located on top of
the accommodations. For safety, a 40 meter tall blast wall separates the quarters from the facility
processing plant. Dimensions for the accommodations, helideck and blast wall are given below in Figure
18.

Figure 18: Dimensions of accommodations, helideck, and blast wall (meters)


Lifeboats
According to the ABS guide for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations, a vessel is
required to have lifeboats that are capable of holding twice the maximum number of people on board. To
meet these requirements, four NorMar Telb 8.00 closed lifeboats with a capacity to hold 50 persons each
are located on the bow and stern of the vessel. Two lifeboats are located on the starboard and port sides
near the crew accommodations, while the remaining lifeboats are placed on the bow of the vessel near
the turret. This allows for the crew to easily and rapidly evacuate the vessel in the case of an emergency.
Each lifeboat is motorized and equipped with a Bukh engine. This particular lifeboat design is approved
by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and complies with Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 74
regulations. The length, breadth and depth of each lifeboat are 8.00 x 2.85 x 3.12 meters. Total boat
weight including equipment is 3526 kilograms and requires a 7 meter hook distance.

TAMU Team West Africa

24

Final Report

Offloading
Off-take systems for the FLNG facility have a high degree of availability and are capable of
accommodating a variety of carrier sizes. The offloading system for LNG consists of 1 vapor and 3 liquid
FMC loading arms that produce a net flow of 12,500 m3/hr. The propane and butane products are
offloaded to the carrier side by side through two separate vapor hoses at a rate of 2,500 m3/hr. The LNG
and LPG off-take systems are installed using the ship to ship method. The condensate is offloaded
tandem of the vessel through a single floating hose at 6400 m3/hr. The FMC loading arms limit the vertical
and horizontal displacement of the vessel and carrier to 2.0 and 1.7 meters, respectively. A water
curtain system is installed on the vessel to provide a barrier between the hull and offloading arms. This is
necessary to prevent damage to the steel if the loading arms leak.

4 Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability


The total weight of the vessel is a combination of the lightweight and deadweight loads. The lightweight
estimations include dry weights for the hull, containment tanks, topsides, turret and loading arms. These
values are presented below in Table 5. Vertical, longitudinal and transverse moments for the lightship
items also are calculated for stability purposes. These calculations are necessary for adjusting the trim of
the vessel under different loading conditions. The origin of the vessel is located at mid-ship of the vessel
from the bottom center of the keel. Forward of the origin toward the bow is considered positive, while the
aft direction towards the vessels stern is negative. For the transverse center of gravity the starboard side
of the vessel is regarded as positive, and the port side is negative.
Table 5: Lightship estimations for FLNG facility
Weight
[mt]

VCG
(K+)[m]

LCG
(Aft+) [m]

TCG
(S+)[m]

MV

ML

MT

93553

23.2

-2.2

0.0

2173550

-210417

Hull Outfitting
Machinery

7500

21.8

10.0

3.4

163500

75000

25500

1000

21.8

160.7

0.0

21800

160738

Electric

1000

21.8

50.0

0.0

21800

50000

LNG Tanks

25084

22.8

-26.0

0.0

570976

-652578

LPG Tanks

5900

22.8

-139.4

0.0

134300

-822310

Cargo Fitting

2000

22.8

-139.4

0.0

45525

-278749

Topside Plant

57754

53.6

-13.6

0.28

3093802

-785472

16438

Topside Module Support

3000

43.2

-13.6

0.28

129731

-40801

854

Turret

2500

66.0

-242.3

0.0

164984

-605833

Mooring Lines

643

66.0

-242.3

0.0

42451

-155882

Mooring Arm (Steel)

3036

51.0

-214.8

0.0

154821

-652253

Loading Arm

200

56.0

0.0

35.0

11199

7000

Accommodations

600

51.0

181.8

0.0

30596

109100

Blast Wall

Lightweight
Hull Steel

1020

61.0

156.3

0.0

62214

159460

Helideck

65.0

181.8

0.0

49

136

Lifeboats (4)

12

42.0

0.0

0.0

375

32.3

-17

0.2

Margin

3% of LS
Totals:

TAMU Team West Africa

6095
210,900

25

6,822,000 -3,650,000

49,800

Final Report

The deadweight load is the total amount of product, produced water, diesel and lube oils, slops and
ballast water on board. For the full load condition all the product tanks have a max fill capacity of 98%. All
the ballast tanks are empty except the forward and aft peak tanks. These tanks are slightly filled to
account for trim of the vessel. For ballast conditions, the LNG are filled to 42% of capacity, the LPG tanks
are filled to 7%, and the condensate tanks are filled to 33% of capacity. To maintain a constant draft,
several of the ballast tanks are filled to account for the loss in cargo weight. The total deadweight loads
and trim calculations for full load and ballast conditions are tabulated below in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6: Trim and stability calculations for a full load condition
Total Trim and Stability Calculation (Full Load Condition)
Deadweight
Fill Rate Weight [mt] VCG [m] LCG (Aft+) [m]
LNG Tanks (P/S)
98.0%
157536.1
22.4
-26.0
Butane Tanks (P/S)
98.0%
24108.1
11.4
-139.4
Propane Tanks (P/S)
98.0%
24108.1
11.4
-139.4
Condensate Tanks (P/S)
98.0%
109069.3
21.9
100.8
Diesel Oils
100.0%
5400.0
18.2
145.0
Lube Oils
100.0%
40.0
18.2
145.0
Slops
40.0%
4000.0
18.2
143.0
Produced Water
40.0%
1600.0
18.2
143.0
Fresh Water, Demineralized Water 100.0%
3600.0
18.2
176.5
Constant
100.0%
500.0
53.6
0.0
F.P.T
0.0%
0.0
0.0
-194.8
Fwd W.B.T.(P) - Fwd Mach Part
0.0%
0.0
0.0
-177.3
Fwd W.B.T.(S) - Fwd Mach Part
5.2%
1635.8
1.1
-177.3
0.0%
0.1
4.6
-152.8
W.B.T. (P/S/C) - LPG Part
0.0%
0.0
4.6
-129.0
0.0%
0.6
0.0
-87.2
W.B.T. (P/S/C) - LNG Part
0.0%
0.5
0.0
-27.5
0.6%
304.6
0.2
32.1
1.2%
365.0
0.2
80.6
W.B.T. (P/S/C) - Condensate Part
1.8%
542.8
0.2
116.5
W.B.T.(P/S/C) - Aft Mach. Part
7.7%
3041.6
0.7
160.7
A.P.T. (P)
0.0%
0.0
0.0
192.3
A.P.T. (S)
2.9%
544.6
0.6
192.3
Cooling Seawater Intake Reservoir 100.0%
5000.0
10.2
167.7
Others
100.0%
500.0
53.6
0.0
Deadweight Total:
341,900
20.0
10.7

TAMU Team West Africa

26

TCG (S+) [m]


0.0
-18.4
18.4
0.0
-24.9
0.0
0.0
24.9
26.0
0.0
0.0
-25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.5
-25.0
25.0
-22.0
0.0
-0.2

Final Report

Table 7: Trim and stability calculations for ballast condition


Trim and Stability Calculation (Ballast Condition)
Deadweight
Fill Rate Weight [mt] VCG [m] LCG (Aft+) [m]
LNG Tanks (P/S)
42.0%
69015.8
12.8
-26.0
Propane Tanks (P/S)
7.0%
1722.0
6.8
-139.4
Butane Tanks (P/S)
7.0%
1722.0
6.8
-139.4
Condensate Tanks (P/S)
33.0%
36727.4
10.4
100.8
Diesel Oils
100.0%
5400.0
18.2
145.0
Lube Oils
100.0%
40.0
18.2
145.0
Slops
40.0%
4000.0
18.2
143.0
Produced Water
40.0%
1600.0
18.2
143.0
Fresh Water, Demineralized Water 100.0%
3600.0
18.2
176.5
Constant
100.0%
500.0
10.0
0.0
F.P.T
0.0%
0.0
0.0
-194.8
Fwd W.B.T.(P) - Fwd Mach Part
18.2%
5738.8
3.8
-177.3
Fwd W.B.T.(S) - Fwd Mach Part
22.6%
7124.1
4.7
-177.3
88.0%
17251.4
12.8
-152.8
W.B.T. (P/S/C) - LPG Part
61.0%
11972.3
7.9
-129.0
95.1%
46687.8
15.1
-87.2
W.B.T. (P/S/C) - LNG Part
55.1%
27056.9
7.7
-27.5
54.3%
26626.9
7.7
32.1
55.0%
16885.7
7.7
80.6
W.B.T. (P/S/C) - Cond. Part
54.5%
16739.4
7.6
116.5
W.B.T.(P/S/C) - Aft Mach. Part
52.3%
20689.1
7.2
160.7
A.P.T. (P)
30.7%
5806.8
6.3
192.3
A.P.T. (S)
50.2%
9490.6
10.3
192.3
Cooling Seawater Intake Reservoir 100.0%
5000.0
10.2
167.7
Others
100.0%
500.0
53.6
0.0
Deadweight Total
341,900
10.7
10.7

TCG (S+) [m]


0.0
-18.4
18.4
0.0
-24.9
0.0
0.0
24.9
26.0
0.0
0.0
-25.0
25.0
-2.2
2.7
-1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-25.0
25.0
-22.0
0.0
-0.1

The KG and total displaced weight of the vessel for full load and ballast conditions are summarized below
in Table 8. A weight of 553,000 metric tons gives the FLNG facility a constant operating draft of 17
meters.
Table 8: Summary of full load and ballast conditions
Full Load Condition
Weight [mt] KG [m] LCG (Aft+) [m] TCG (S+) [m]
553,000
24.5
0.00
0.00
Ballast Condition
Weight [mt] KG [m] LCG (Aft+) [m] TCG (S+) [m]
553,000
18.8
0.00
0.00

TAMU Team West Africa

27

Final Report

In addition to analyzing weight and buoyancy, the stability of the designed FLNG also needs to be
considered. StabCAD, a general purpose computer program for designing and analyzing the stability of
any floating body, is used for this purpose. However, before any stability analysis can occur, a model of
the entire designed structure needs to be generated. Figure 19 depicts a rendered view of the modeled
FLNG facility drawn to scale. This figure focuses on the exterior components of the designed FLNG, such
as the exterior wall of the hull, the topside arrangements, blast wall, accommodation, and helipad.

Figure 19: Solid model of designed FLNG in StabCAD


Figure 20 illustrates the conceptual hull design of the FLNG. This image shows a rendered view of the
internal hull structure, focusing on ballast tanks and cofferdams.

Figure 20: StabCAD model of ballast tanks and cofferdams

TAMU Team West Africa

28

Final Report

Lastly, Figure 21 displays a rendered view of the entire hull interior. This figure shows the complete
interior components of the hull structure, including ballast tanks, cofferdams, containment tanks, thruster
room, and machinery area.

Figure 21: StabCAD model of the entire inside of the FLNG hull
After achieving a complete, detailed model of the designed FLNG facility, a preliminary analysis of the
terminals stability has been performed.
To better understand the static behavior of this floating body, its hydrostatic properties are calculated.
Some of the computed hydrostatic properties, as shown in Table 9, are displacement, center of
buoyancy, and metacentric height and radius.

Draft
(m)
17.0

Displacement
(mt)
553,000

Table 9: Hydrostatic properties


Center of Buoyancy
Metacenter
LCB
VCB
KMT
KML
BMT
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
198.2
8.5
40.0
793.0
31.4

BML
(m)
784.4

Cross curves of stability are developed to examine the righting arm for several displacements and
different heel angles that tend to restore a vessel to its upright position. The cross curves of stability for
the designed FLNG are shown in Figure 22. The angles of heel used in Figure 22 range from 0 to 75
degrees.
An important aspect of the cross curves of stability is that they depend only upon the geometry of the ship
and not upon its loading. Therefore, they apply to all conditions in which the ship may operate.

TAMU Team West Africa

29

Final Report

Figure 22: Cross curves of stability


Another interesting aspect of the cross curves of stability, is that one can derive a curve of statical stability
for any desired displacement or draft. This is accomplished by plotting the values of the righting arm
obtained from the various angles of heel for a defined displacement or draft. Referring to Figure 22, for a
designed draft of 17 meters, a curve of statical stability is derived and displayed in Figure 23.
Curve of Statical Stability
12.00

Righting Arm (M)

10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Heel Angles (Deg)

Figure 23: Cross curve of statical stability

TAMU Team West Africa

30

Final Report

From this figure, one can observe that the range of stability for the designed FLNG is from 0 to roughly 77
degrees. Also, its maximum righting arm of approximately 9.9 meters occurs at an angle of 35 degrees.
Any value beyond the maximum righting arm value will capsize the designed FLNG.
Even though the calculation of hydrostatic properties and the derivation of a statical stability curve from
the cross curves of stability provide a basic stability analysis, it is not sufficient to satisfy the stability
criteria set by ABS MODU 2005 Regulations and IMO IGC Code. The stability criteria set by both
organizations require the floating unit to be stable for both intact and damaged conditions under the
following assumptions:

The unit is floating free of mooring restraints


The wind speeds used to calculate the wind-heeling moments for intact and damage stability
calculations, are not intended to represent actual environmental limits.

With these assumptions, Team West Africa began its stability analysis for the first stability criterion, intact
stability. For intact stability analysis, the wind-heeling moment curve was constructed at 51.5 m/s (100
knots) since ABS MODU 2005 regulations require that all units should have sufficient stability to withstand
the overturning moment produced by a severe storm condition of such wind speed.
As stated in Section 2.12, the intact stability criteria set by ABS MODU 2005 regulations indicates that the
area under the righting moment curve to the second intercept or downflooding angle, whichever is less,
shall be greater than 40% in excess of the area under the wind-heeling moment curve to the same
limiting angle. Looking at Figure 24, the area under A and B has to be greater than 1.4 times the area
under B and C.

Figure 24: ABS MODU 2005 intact stability curve


As shown in Figure 24, the righting moment curve has to be positive over the entire range of angles from
upright to the second intercept angle, and no downflooding can occur before the first intercept angle.

TAMU Team West Africa

31

Final Report

Comparing Figure 24 to the intact stability curve for the designed FLNG generated by StabCAD in Figure
25, it is apparent that Figure 25 satisfies the intact stability criteria. Using Simpsons Rules, the area
under A and B is approximately 135 meter-radians which is greater than 1.4 times the area under B and
C (28 meter-radians). The righting moment curve is positive over the entire range of angles. Also, the
downflooding angle, denoted by the blue vertical line, occurs at 32.2 degrees, which is past the first
intercept angle of 2.2 degrees.

Figure 25: Intact stability curve for FLNG


Furthermore, StabCAD calculates the minimum allowable KG under various conditions, using the
requirements of ABS and IMO as shown in Table 10. From this table, the designed FLNG also meets the
requirements for intact stability, as its vertical center of gravity (KG) is lower than the smallest calculated
allowable KG.
Table 10: Allowable KG calculations for intact stability
Criterion

Allowable KG
(m)

KG of FLNG:

24.5

Area Ratio = 1.4

38.6

1st Intercept = 15.00

38.5

2nd Intercept = 30.00

40.1

Having satisfied the intact stability criteria established by ABS MODU 2005 regulations, Team West Africa
has adressed the second stability criterion, damage stability.
Damage stability analysis for the designed FLNG is considered under the following conditions and
assumptions:

TAMU Team West Africa

32

Final Report

The designed FLNG is treated as a surface-type drilling unit. According to ABS MODU 2005
regulations, a surface-type drilling unit is a unit with a displacement hull of single or multiple hull
construction designed for drilling operation in the floating condition.
If damage penetrates a containment tank containing liquids, it should be assumed that the
contents are completely lost from that compartment and replaced by salt water up to the level of
the final plane of equilibrium (i.e; flooded to the damage waterline).
For calculation purposes, the permeabilities of spaces assumed to be damaged should be as
follows: (Permeability of the space is defined as the ratio of the volume that is floodable to the
total volume.).
Spaces
Appropriated to stores
Occupied by accommodation
Occupied by machinery
Tanks and voids

Permeabilities
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95

For damage stability analysis, the wind-heeling moment curve is constructed at 25.8 m/s (50 knots), since
ABS MODU 2005 regulations require that all units should have sufficient buoyancy and stability to
withstand an overturning moment equivalent to such wind speed.
Having indicated all conditions and assumptions, two approaches are taken in order to examine the
damage stability analysis for the designed FLNG. Both approaches consist of satisfying the damage
stability criteria established by ABS MODU 2005 regulations (Figure 26). However, the second approach
takes into account the extent of damage assumptions set by the IMO IGC Code.

Figure 26: ABS MODU 2005 damage stability curve


Under the ABS MODU 2005 damage stability criteria, the righting moment curve has to be greater or
equal to the wind-heeling moment curve, and no downflooding can occur before the first intercept angle.
Therefore, the downflooding angle has to be greater than the first intercept angle.

TAMU Team West Africa

33

Final Report

For the first approach, the extent of damage is assumed for a surface-type drilling unit. This means that
only two adjacent ballast tanks are damaged, since the transverse extent of damage is 1.5 meters, and
the vertical extent of damage is from the bottom shell upwards without limit. Figure 27 illustrates the
adjacent damaged ballast tanks, which are highlighted, that yield the worst case scenario.

Figure 27: Adjacent damaged ballast tanks (2 total)


The damage stability curve for the designed FLNG generated by StabCAD for two adjacent damaged
ballast tanks is shown in Figure 28 below. Comparing Figure 28 to the ABS MODU 2005 damage
stability curve, one can observe that it satisfies the damage stability criteria. The righting moment curve is
greater than the wind-heeling moment curve. The downflooding angle, denoted by the blue vertical line,
occurs at 29 degrees which is past the first intercept (5.2 degrees).

Figure 28: Damage stability curve for FLNG


For the second approach, as explained earlier, the ABS MODU 2005 damage stability criterion is used;
however, the extent of damage changes to the side damage assumptions established by the IMO IGC

TAMU Team West Africa

34

Final Report

Code. Under the IMO IGC Code, as stated in Section 2.12, the assumed maximum extent of side
damage is 14.5 meters in length, 11.5 meters in penetration, and from the bottom shell upwards without
limit in height. Under this damage assumption, two adjacent ballast tanks, as well as their corresponding
containment tanks, are damaged as shown in orange in Figure 29.

Figure 29: IMO IGC code side damage assumption


This side damage assumption produces a damage stability curve illustrated in Figure 30. Comparing
Figure 30 to the ABS MODU 2005 damage stability curve, one can conclude that the FLNG satisfies the
damage stability criteria again.

Figure 30: Damage stability curve for FLNG


Calculations of the minimum allowable KG under various conditions for both approaches, as shown in
Table 11, indicate that the designed FLNG is stable under damaged conditions. Its vertical center of
gravity (KG) is lower than the smallest calculated allowable KG.

TAMU Team West Africa

35

Final Report

Table 11: Allowable KG calculations for damaged stability


ABS MODU & IGC
ABS MODU ONLY
CODE
Allowable KG
(m)

Allowable KG
(m)

KG of FLNG:

24.5

24.5

Heeling Arm = Righting


Arm

39.8

32.2

Static Angle = 15.00

35.6

26.7

Area Ratio = 1.00

39.5

31.7

RM/HR Ratio = 2.00

39.4

31.8

Criterion

TAMU Team West Africa

36

Final Report

5 Local and Global Loading


Regulatory guidelines (ABS 2005) require certain survivability criteria for hull strengths of vessels. To
calculate the required longitudinal girder strengths of the vessel, load and buoyancy distributions are
established. The load distribution in relation to amidships for the topside processing equipment is shown
below in Figure 31.

Longitudinal Load Dis tribution of Tops ide s

6000

5000

Weight [mt]

4000

Wet Weights

3000

Dry Weights

2000

1000

-1

96
- 1 .7 7
50
- 1 .9 7
43
- 1 .7 7
37
- 1 .4 7
20
- 1 .1 7
12
.1
-9 7
5.
1
-7 7
7.
2
-7 7
4.
8
-4 7
5.
2
-2 7
6.
07
-4
.2
7
21
.0
26 3
.0
41 3
.8
72 3
.0
76 3
.5
3
81
.3
10 3
4.
12 8 3
2.
12 6 3
7.
23

LCG (AFT+) [m ]

Figure 31: Longitudinal load distributions of topside weights


The processing equipment is then pooled with other topside and below deck loads to create a global
loading distribution (Figure 32), which is entered into Visual Analysis for finite element modeling. That
model is combined with hand calculations that are based upon regulatory formulas (ABS 2005) for steel
hulls of varying lengths.

TAMU Team West Africa

37

Final Report

Global Loading

3500.00

3000.00

Metric Tons

2500.00

2000.00

W et Loading
Dry Loading

1500.00

1000.00

500.00

92
10
1
11
0
13
8
14
4
15
5
17
8
19
7
20
3
23
8
25
1
25
8
26
4
29
9
31
6
32
7
34
1
35
9
36
5
38
4

65

52
60

44

28

0
15

0.00

Dis tance Forw ard from Aft Pe rpe ndicular

Figure 32: Global distribution for wet and dry loading conditions

6 General Strength and Structural Design


A model of the transverse cross-section of the vessel (Figure 33 and Table 13) is constructed to
determine the hull thickness and structural supports required for the vessel design. These values are then
used to numerically determine the section modulus and moment of inertia of the FLNG (Table 14). Steel
Vessel rules (ABS 2005) are used to determine the required minimum section modulus and moment of
inertia of the vessel (Table 12).

Table 12: Required Minimum Section Modulus and Moment of Inertia


Required Hull Girder Moment of Inertia
I = L*SM / 33.3

TAMU Team West Africa

L=

400

SM =

225

m
m3

Ix =

2701

m4

38

Final Report

Figure 33: Transverse cross-section of hull


Table 13: Calculation of Section Modulus, Hull Thickness, and Moment of Inertia
2

Member Breadth [m] Height [m]

dy [m]

dx [m]

Area [m ] 1/12*b*h 1/12*h*b

A*dy

A*dx

0.00

Cg

Cg*Area

G1

79.99

0.0318

20.48

0.00

2.54

2.13E-04 1.35E+03 1065.33

G2

0.0318

40.93

0.00

39.98

1.30

1.81E+02 1.09E-04

0.00

2077.11 20.50

26.64

G3

0.0318

40.93

0.00

39.98

1.30

1.81E+02 1.09E-04

0.00

2077.11 20.50

26.64

G4

0.0318

36.40

2.27

35.25

1.16

1.28E+02 9.71E-05

5.93

1435.77 22.76

26.31

G5

0.0318

36.40

2.27

1.52

1.16

1.28E+02 9.71E-05

5.93

2.66

22.76

G6

0.0318

36.40

2.27

1.52

1.16

1.28E+02 9.71E-05

5.93

2.66

22.76

26.31

G7

0.0318

36.40

2.27

35.25

1.16

1.28E+02 9.71E-05

5.93

1435.77 22.76

26.31

G8

70.53

0.0318

15.95

0.00

2.24

1.88E-04 9.28E+02 569.61

0.00

40.98 104.07

4.55

26.31

10.18

G9

0.0318

4.50

18.22

18.90

0.14

2.41E-01 1.20E-05 47.40

51.02

2.28

0.33

G10

0.0318

4.50

18.22

17.87

0.14

2.41E-01 1.20E-05 47.40

45.60

2.28

0.33

G11

0.0318

4.50

18.22

17.87

0.14

2.41E-01 1.20E-05 47.40

45.60

2.28

0.33

G12

0.0318

4.50

18.22

18.90

0.14

2.41E-01 1.20E-05 47.40

51.02

2.28

0.33

G13

79.99

0.0318

20.48

0.00

2.54

2.13E-04 1.35E+03 1065.33

0.00

0.02

0.04

Framework

79.99

1.00

19.97

0.00

3.19

6.67E+00 4.27E+04 1273.10

0.00

40.46 129.23

IY [m ] = 53512.34 =

18.31

7224

227.2

Hull Thickness Used =

0.03175

IX [m ] =

5068

880.8
m

46290
1.25

4187

403.3

in

Table 14: FLNG Section Modulus and Moment of Inertia


Actual Hull Girder Moment of Inertia
SM = I / Cg
Ix =

5068

m4

Cg =

22.03

SM =

230.0

m3

An analysis under three different load cases using the total wet weight of vessel has been performed with
Visual Analysis 4.0. The vessel is modeled as a simply supported beam under still water, extreme
sagging and extreme hogging conditions. Due to software limitations, however, the beam properties do
not match those of the vessel. In Visual Analysis, once a moment of inertia value reaches roughly 4,200

TAMU Team West Africa

39

Final Report

m4, it becomes infinite and greatly skews deflection results. Consequently, an I-Beam with properties of
those listed in Table 15 is used to approximate the vessel hull.
Table 15: Beam Properties used in Visual Analysis
Visual Analysis Girder Properties
L=
SM =

400.0
230.0

m
m3

Ix =

4161

m4

The lightship loads are added to the maximum wet weights from above and below deck and are the same
for each load case. These two loading distributions are seen in Figures 34 and 35, with the bow
positioned on the right of each diagram.

Figure 34: Internal and miscellaneous lightship loads

Figure 35: Internal and miscellaneous wet loads


In addition to the two distributed load cases, the mooring system applies a moment to the fore
perpendicular of the hull (Figure 36).

TAMU Team West Africa

40

Final Report

Figure 36: Moment applied to vessel by mooring system

Load Case 1
Load case 1 evaluates the vessel under calm seas, where the water is assumed to be perfectly still. As
seen in Figure 37, the buoyancy force is evenly distributed along the majority of the keel, with lower
forces at the fore of the vessel due to the sloping hull.

Figure 37: Load case 1- still water


The deflection, shear and moment diagrams for the still water loading condition are given below in
Figures 38, 39 and 40, respectively. A maximum shear force for still water of 42,300 tons occurs at 50
meters from the aft perpendicular, while the highest still water bending moment of 3,280,000 t-m occurs
at 130 meters from the aft end. The vessel deflects a maximum of 52.3 cm downwards for the still water
load.

Figure 38: Still water deflection

TAMU Team West Africa

41

Final Report

Figure 39: Shear diagram for still water condition

Figure 40: Still water bending moment diagram

Load Case 2
Load case 2, as seen in Figure 41, evaluates the vessel under extreme sagging conditions and is the
worst scenario considered for structural analysis. Here, a wave crest occurs at both ends of the beam,
with the trough amidships. This case can only occur when the wavelength is the same length as the
vessel, 400 m. At our design location the incoming swells produce long wavelengths, but all are less than
300 meters, so this scenario, even in extreme storm conditions, is highly unlikely.

Figure 41: Load case 2- sagging conditions


The deflection, shear and moment diagrams for sagging conditions are presented below in Figures 42, 43
and 44, respectively. A maximum shear force of 54,000 tons at 50 meters from the aft perpendicular and
an extreme moment of 4,874,000 t-m at 50 meters aft from amidships occur under sagging conditions.
The largest deflection for this case is 79.2 cm downwards.
.

TAMU Team West Africa

42

Final Report

Figure 42: Deflection due to sagging loads

Figure 43: Shear diagram for sagging conditions

Figure 44: Bending moment diagram for sagging wave

Load Case 3
Load case three, which can be seen below in Figure 45, evaluates the beam under extreme hogging
conditions. Here, the wave crest is located at mid-ship of the vessel, and the troughs are at the fore and
aft perpendiculars. As with load case 2, this condition requires the wave to reach lengths of
approximately 400 meters. However, the longest wave lengths for the provided location never reach 300
meters, making this case extremely improbable.

Figure 45: Load case 3- hogging conditions

TAMU Team West Africa

43

Final Report

The deflection and shear diagrams for hogging conditions are given in Figures 46 and 47. The maximum
deflection for this case is 25.7 cm downward with a peak shear value of 31,400 tons at 50 meters fore of
the aft perpendicular. An extreme hogging moment of 2,033,000 t-m occurs at 110 meters from the aft
perpendicular (Figure 48).

Figure 46: Deflection of vessel due to extreme hogging conditions

Figure 47: Shear diagram for hogging conditions

Figure 48: Moment diagram for hogging case

Cases 2 and 3 can occur only if the wavelength is approximately the length of the vessel, 400 meters. For
these loadings, a wavelength of 400 m and wave height of 5.39 m are assumed. The wave height
corresponds with the 100-year maximum wave height. The maximum wavelength for a 100-year return
period is 295.27 m; therefore, the assumed wavelength greatly exceeds the worst-case value.

TAMU Team West Africa

44

Final Report

7 Wind and Current Loading


Wind, wave and current loading calculations are based on the extreme metaocean data provided by
ConocoPhillips. Wave data has been reverse-shoaled to better represent the 50 meter water depth. A
summary of the environmental data for the 1, 10 and 100-year return periods are shown below in Table
16.
Table 16: Environmental load data for 1, 10 and 100-year return periods.
Environmental Load Parameters
1 year
10 year 100 year
1-Hour Sustained Wind Speed (m/s)
12.0
13.0
15.0
Wind Velocity Time Factor
1.18
1.18
1.18
1-Minute Sustained Wind Speed (m/s)
14.2
15.3
17.7
Significant Wave Height (m)
2.3
2.6
3.0
Surface Current Speed (m/s)
0.8
0.9
1.0
All environmental load calculations have been performed according to the ABS Guide for Building and
Classing Floating Production Installations (2004). For wind load calculations, the wind force at the design
location is assumed steady, since variation is minimal. According to ABS, when the wind load calculations
are considered a steady force, the velocity must be derived using the 1-minute average wind velocity.
Therefore, a wind velocity time factor of 1.18 has been applied to the one-hour sustained wind speed to
obtain the one-minute average. The projected areas of windage for planes normal to the bow and beam
seas have been calculated for the 17 m operating draft. Bow and beam drawings of the projected areas
are presented below in Figures 49 and 50. Each area can be referenced in Tables 17 and 18.

Figure 49: Bow view of projected wind areas

TAMU Team West Africa

45

Final Report

Table 17: Area definitions for bow view


Bow Areas
A1: Exposed Hull
A2: Flare Tower
A3: Turret Arm
A4: Turret
A5: Blast Wall
A6: Module Support
A7: Topsides
A8: Topsides
A9: Topsides

Figure 50: Beam view of projected wind areas

Table 18: Area definitions for beam view


BEAM
A1: Exposed Hull
A2: Accommodations
A3: Blast Wall
A4: Topsides
A5: Module Support
A6: Topsides
A7: Cranes
A8: Topsides
A9: Topsides
A10: Topsides
A11: Flare Tower
A12:Turret

Height coefficients for each area are based on 15.3 meter increments above sea level. The wind force
shape coefficient applied to each exposed area has been determined according to the type of structure
given in ABS guidelines. A complete summary of the projected areas along with height and shape
coefficients for bow and beam seas may be referenced in Appendix A.

TAMU Team West Africa

46

Final Report

The most significant forces acting on this FLNG facility are due to wind and current loading. Only the
surface current speed is of interest for current load calculations on the submerged-area of the hull. The
wetted surface area of the hull is found by calculating the total surface area of the hull below the waterline for the desired operating draft. The current force coefficients for the bow and beam of a ship shape
hull are 2.89 N sec2/m4 and 72.37 N sec2/m4, respectively. The mean wave drift force is the steady
component of the second order wave forces that are acting on the vessel. These forces induce low
frequency motions to the vessel. The wave drift force calculations on bow, beam and quartering seas
were found using a cubic spline fitting curve for a large drillship. The total wind, wave and current loads
for the 1, 10 and 100-year return periods are tabulated below in Tables 19, 20 and 21. A graphical
comparison of the total environmental loads is also shown in Figure 48.
Table 19: Total environmental load for a 1-year return period
Total Load for 1-year Return Period
Wind Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
Fw [kN] =
515
7873
5592
Mean Wave Drift Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
Fdrift [kN] =
1
4
3
Current Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
FC [kN] =
89
2236
754
Total Environmental Load on Vessel
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
FTotal [kN] =
605
10113
6349
Table 20: Total environmental load for 10-year return period
Total Load for 10-year Return Period
Wind Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
Fw [kN] =
604
9239
6562
Mean Wave Drift Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
Fdrift [kN] =
1
5
3
Current Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
FC [kN] =
113
2830
955
Total Environmental Load on Vessel
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
FTotal [kN] =
12074
718
7521

TAMU Team West Africa

47

Final Report

Table 21: Total environmental load for 100-year return period


Total Load for 100-year Return Period
Wind Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
Fw [kN] =
805
12301
8737
Mean Wave Drift Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
Fdrift [kN] =
1
5
4
Current Force
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
FC [kN] =
140
3494
1179
Total Environmental Load on Vessel
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
Quartering Seas
FTotal [kN] =
15800
945
9920

18000
15800

16000
14000
12074
Load [kN]

12000
10113

9920

10000
7521

8000

6349

1 Y ear
10 Y ear
100 Y ear

6000
4000
2000

605

718

945

0
Bow Seas

Beam Seas

Quartering Seas

Figure 51: Comparison of total environmental load for the 1, 10 and 100-year return periods
The results from the environmental load analysis indicate that wind loads are the primary forces acting on
the vessel. Wind forces acting on the beam will cause the vessel to weathervane. Therefore, it is very
difficult to see a full beam load. Quartering sea wind loads are also significant due to the approaching
swells towards the Nigerian delta. Although, due to the weathervaning nature of the vessel, beam and
quartering sea loads will decrease as the stern of the vessel rotates. Figure 51 reflects the mild nature
and moderate variability in environmental conditions for each return period. The total loads acting on the
vessel are used to determine the environmental coefficients input into MIMOSA for the mooring analysis.

TAMU Team West Africa

48

Final Report

8 Mooring/Station Keeping
An integrated motion-mooring analysis was performed for the West Africa FLNG facility located in Block
74 offshore Nigeria.
The environmental conditions considered are shown below.
1-Year Storm (Operating)
Hs:
Tp:
Wind Speed (1-hour):
Surface Current Speed:

2.26 meters
15.0 seconds
12.0 meters/second
0.80 meters/second

10-Year Storm
Hs:
Tp:
Wind Speed (1-hour):
Surface Current Speed:

2.63 meters
15.3 seconds
13.0 meters/second
0.90 meters/second

100-Year Storm (Survival)


Hs:
Tp:
Wind Speed (1-hour):
Surface Current Speed:

3.00 meters
15.5 seconds
15.0 meters/second
1.00 meters/second

Mimosa, a program used for the analysis of mooring systems for moored vessels, is used to conduct all
mooring analyses. The referenced API guidelines for measuring the factors of safety in the analysis are
shown below:
API RP-2SK Mooring Code:
Dynamic Intact FOS = 1.67
Dynamic Damaged FOS = 1.25

Since shallow water is the case, the proposed mooring system is comprised of an all chain system with
high holding capacity 18MT drag embedment anchors as the foundation. Vertical loading should not be
an existing factor in the shallow water location. The configuration consists of 6 legs equally spaced 60
apart. A solid model of a HHC drag embedment anchor is shown below in Figure 52.

TAMU Team West Africa

49

Final Report

Figure 52: HHC Drag embedment anchor


Grouped mooring systems, such as a 3x3 system with 3 groups of 3 legs, are also analyzed. The benefit
of a grouped mooring system is the added space between the anchor legs to allow ample clearance for
the path of risers. After careful consideration, it has been concluded that the added cost of the additional
lines in a grouped mooring system for the benign environment is not necessary. The 6-leg equally spaced
system allows nearly 20 risers to reside between two anchor legs with 10m of clearance on either side
when the spread buoy is held at a water depth of 30 m. It is estimated that only 15 to 18 risers will
actually be needed which allows ample clearance for the path of risers. Again, since shallow water is the
case, vessel motions can be expected to significantly effect line tensions. Therefore, a catenary mooring
system is used.
First, the system is analyzed with each leg containing 610 m of 101.6 mm ORQ (oil rig quality) chain. The
chain weighs 23.08 kg/m. An initial scope of chain is pre-determined by applying tension equal to
breaking strength divided by 1.25 (80% BS) and maintaining zero uplift at the anchor. The breaking
strength of 101.6 mm chain is 9608 kN. Chain of this size is relatively common, while larger components
are more expensive with fewer manufacturing locations. There is an allowance factor of 8mm for
corrosion processes taken into account when running the analysis. Also, as illustrated in Figure 53, the
clearance between the mooring lines and the vessels hull is maintained at a minimum of 7 m to avoid
contact.

TAMU Team West Africa

50

Final Report

Figure 53: Mooring line and hull clearance


The maximum vessel offset, as recommended by API for intact condition, is 8% of the water depth for
rigid risers and 10% of the water depth for flexible risers. For damaged condition, API allows for an offset
of 12% to 15% of the water depth. However, according to API codes, the maximum allowable offset for a
shallow water location is between 15% and 25% of the water depth. Therefore, since the depth of the
target site is 50 m, the maximum vessel offset needs to remain within a 7.5 m to 12.5 m radius. Vessel
offsets are controlled by adjusting the pretension and total line length associated with each leg. Initial
pretensions of the chain legs are approximately 15% of the breaking strength. However, the vessel offset
limitations determine if these pretensions need to be increased up to a maximum of 30% of breaking
strength.
Figure 54 shows a single leg of the catenary system with an initial pretension of 1441 kN (15% of
breaking strength). This pretension gives the catenary leg a fairlead angle of 66.4, an anchor distance of
605 m, a grounded length of 372 m, a total stretch of 0.82 m, and a tension at the anchor of 414 kN with
zero uplift.

TAMU Team West Africa

51

Final Report

Figure 54: Catenary leg with 1441-kN tension

Figure 55 shows a single leg of the catenary system with a tension of 7687 kN (80% of breaking
strength). The most loaded line will never likely see over 80% breaking strength as this would mean the
system was not meeting the API damaged guideline of a 1.25 FOS. This tension gives the catenary leg a
fairlead angle of 79.8, an anchor distance of 613m, a grounded length of 52 m, a total stretch of 4.4 m,
and a tension at the anchor of 7433 kN with zero uplift. Therefore, with zero uplift, the initial leg
configuration satisfies general mooring rules of thumb for the initial line length selection process.

Figure 55: Catenary leg with 7687-kN tension


The exact configuration analyzed is detailed below.
Mooring Configuration (Each Leg)
18 mT HHC Drag Embedment Anchor
610 m x 101.6 mm ORQ Chain

TAMU Team West Africa

52

Final Report

A plan view of the mooring pattern output from Mimosa is shown in Figure 56 below.

Figure 56: FLNG facility mooring pattern plan view

The vessels mooring system is analyzed for the following cases (API-RP 2SK):
Environmental Cases:
a.) 100-year waves + 100-year wind + 10-year current, and
b.) 100-year waves + 10-year wind + 10-year current
For weathervaning vessels, consider:
Wave, wind and current collinear for cases (a) and (b),
Wind and current at 30 to waves for cases (a) and (b), and
Wind at 30 to waves, and current at 90 to waves for case (a) only
Case (a) that considers the wind and current 30 to waves proved to be the dominant case for mooring
line tensions. Therefore, this case is what was used to generate the mooring line tension graphs below.
It is important to note that when the carrier is side-by-side with the FLNG during offloading in operating
conditions, the loads are relatively similar to the loads realized by the FLNG alone during the survival
100-year conditions. These loads are the determining factor for the size of mooring chain used in the
system.

TAMU Team West Africa

53

Final Report

Figure 57 shows the intact and damaged factor of safety (FOS) for each leg using 114.3 mm or 4.5 in
chain for survival conditions in a 100-year storm. It is clear that the system is over-designed and the chain
size is not optimized.

114.3-mm Chain - Line Tension FOS - Wind, Current 30 deg. To Waves

Intact

3.00

Damaged

2.75
2.50

Factor of Safety (FOS

2.25
2.00
1.75
1.67
1.50
1.25
1.00

1.25
1.95

2.09

2.47
1.69

0.75

2.76
2.03

2.45
2.23

2.01
1.94

1.65

0.50
0.25
0.00
1

Line #

Figure 57: 114.3 mm Chain - Line Tension FOS


Figure 58 shows the intact and damaged factor of safety (FOS) for each line using 101.6 mm or 4.0 in
chain for survival conditions in a 100-year storm. It is clear that the system is designed to the optimized
chain size according to API standards. In conjunction with Figure 58, line # 6, the second most loaded
line, was broken as well. This resulted in line # 2, the third most loaded line, experiencing a safety factor
of 1.32 in the damaged condition which still satisfies the API standard of 1.25.

TAMU Team West Africa

54

Final Report

101.6-mm Chain - Line Tension FOS - Wind, Current 30 deg. To Waves

Intact

Damaged

3.00
2.75
2.50

Factor of Safety (FOS

2.25
2.00
1.75
1.67
1.50
1.25
1.00

1.25
1.75

1.51

0.75

2.51

2.25

1.89

1.82

2.18
2.01

1.82
1.72

1.42

0.50
0.25
0.00
1

Line #

Figure 58: 101.6-mm Chain - Line Tension FOS


Also, vessel offsets were analyzed through Mimosa for both operating and survival conditions. For the 1year storm, or during operating conditions, the vessel experiences an offset of 1.9 m for intact condition
and a 13.1 m offset for the damaged condition with 1 line broken. For the 100-year storm, or during
survival conditions, the vessel experiences an offset of 2.1 m for the intact condition and a 14.0 m offset
for the damaged condition with 1 line broken. These excursion radii are reasonable for a shallow 50 m
water depth and will allow for a safe operation of the FLNG facility.
In summation, the offshore Nigeria FLNG facility exceeds the minimum FOS recommendation set forth by
API RP-2SK for a dynamic mooring analysis and experiences satisfying offsets in all conditions.

TAMU Team West Africa

55

Final Report

9 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading


The Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP) wave spectrum equation was the method of choice for
analyzing the environmental data with nonlinear waves. The JONSWAP curve maintains a narrow
bandwidth and a high peak as seen in Figure 59. The following equation is used for the JONSWAP
analysis.

S ( f ) = 0.3125 H S2Tp ( f / f p ) 5 exp[1.25( f / f p ) 4] (1 0.287) ln( ) 4


where the coefficients A and are:

A = exp[0.5( f f p / f p ) 2 ]

= 0.07 f < f p
= 0.09 f > f p

Figure 59: JONSWAP energy density spectrum


Characteristics of the FLNG facility and a typical carrier are tabulated below in Table 22. These
parameters were used to determine natural periods of the two vessels for the degree of freedoms of
interest.

TAMU Team West Africa

56

Final Report

Table 22: FLNG and carrier parameters


FLNG
Waterplane Area (m2)
Draft (m)

AW
D

31,876
17.0

9.81

1,025
552,792,000

Gravity (m/s2)
3

Seawater Density (kg/m )


Vessel Mass (kg)

Ma 221,116,800

Added Mass (kg)


Added Mass Coefficient

CAM

0.7

Block Coefficient

CB

0.97

538,784

Displaced Volume (m )
Waterplane Area Coefficient
Radius of Gyration (y-axis) (m)
Radius of Gyration (x-axis) (m)

CW
r
r

0.95
28.3
15.03

Longitudinal Metacentric Height (m)

GML

70.31

Transverse Metacentric Height (m)

GMT

15.56

21.0

Gravity (m/s )

9.81

Added Mass Coefficient

CAM

0.7

Block Coefficient

CB

0.74

Waterplane Area Coefficient

CW

0.89

Carrier
Draft (m)
2

The heave natural period of the vessel is calculated using the following formula.

CB D
(1 + C AM )
CW g

T = 2

The pitch natural period of the vessel is calculated with the formula below.

T = 2

( M + M A )r 2
gGM L

To calculate the vessels roll natural period, the same equation above is applied to the transverse
metacentric height rather than the longitudinal metacentric height as given below.

TAMU Team West Africa

57

Final Report

( M + M A )r 2
gGM T

T = 2

A summary of the heave, pitch and roll natural periods and frequencies for the FLNG and carrier are
given in Table 23. It is evident that the natural periods of the vessels range between 8 s and 11 s. Since
the wave period in the benign West Africa environment ranges from 15.0 s to 15.5 s, neither vessel
should experience resonance during operating or survival conditions. The natural periods calculated in
the table are for a fully loaded facility. The natural periods of a ballasted facility are similar due to the
layout arrangement of the ballast tanks and the fact that a constant operating draft is required.
Table 23: FLNG and carrier natural periods
FLNG
Motion Direction Frequency (rad/s) Natural Period (s)
Heave

0.58

10.90

Pitch

0.78

8.01

Roll

0.69

9.05

Carrier
Motion Direction Frequency (rad/s) Natural Period (s)
Heave

0.57

10.93

To obtain the vessel displacements, response amplification operators (RAOs) were extracted from SIF
files, given by Ravi Kota with Halliburton, using MIMOSA. The given SIF file, which represents the FLNG
facility, is for a FPSO with a length of 480 m, breadth of 75 m, and loaded draft of 17 m which gives
similar response results to the FLNG facility. The plotted RAO results shown below relate the amplitude
response (m/m) versus angular frequency (rad/s). The following seven graphs are output results for
heave, pitch, roll, surge, sway, and yaw with 0, 45, and 90 environmental headings, respectively.
Figures 60 through 65 give the RAO plots for the FLNG vessel only.

TAMU Team West Africa

58

Final Report

Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) - Heave


1.4

1.2

Amplitude (m/m)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

Frequency (rad/s)

0 deg

45 deg

90 deg

Figure 60: FLNG response amplitude operators - Heave

Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) - Pitch


0.006

0.005

Amplitude (m/m)

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0
0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

Frequency (rad/s)

0 deg

45 deg

90 deg

Figure 61: FLNG response amplitude operators Pitch

TAMU Team West Africa

59

Final Report

Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) - Roll


0.5
0.45
0.4

Amplitude (m/m)

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

Frequency (rad/s)

0 deg

45 deg

90 deg

Figure 62: FLNG response amplitude operators Roll

Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) - Surge


0.8

0.7

Amplitude (m/m)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

Frequency (rad/s)

0 deg

45 deg

90 deg

Figure 63: FLNG response amplitude operators Surge

TAMU Team West Africa

60

Final Report

Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) - Sway


5
4.5
4

Amplitude (m/m)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

Frequency (rad/s)

0 deg

45 deg

90 deg

Figure 64: FLNG response amplitude operators Sway

Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) - Yaw


0.004

0.0035

Amplitude (m/m)

0.003

0.0025

0.002

0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0
0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

Frequency (rad/s)

0 deg

45 deg

90 deg

Figure 65: FLNG response amplitude operators Yaw

TAMU Team West Africa

61

Final Report

Figure 66 gives the RAO plot of the carrier vessel for the heave motion with 0, 45, and 90
environmental headings. This plot was used to obtain the heave displacement of the carrier so that the
combined worst case heave scenario of the two vessels could be examined. The worst case scenario is
an unlikely situation when the FLNG and the carrier are 180 out of phase.

Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) - Heave


1.4000

1.2000

Amplitude (m/m)

1.0000

0.8000

0.6000

0.4000

0.2000

0.0000
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

Frequency (rad/s)

0 deg

45 deg

90 deg

Figure 66: Carrier response amplitude operators - Heave


Table 24 lists the FLNG terminal and carrier displacements for the degree of freedoms of interest. The
main idea is to keep the FLNG facility fully operational during a 1-year storm. Although the vessels will be
weathervaning as a system, the heave motions were calculated using the 45 wave heading and the roll
motion was calculated using a 90 wave heading. The wave headings used for the calculations actually
produce more extreme displacements than would actually be seen with a near 0 wave heading of a
weathervaning system. Therefore, there is an automatic factor of safety within these calculations. The
heave displacement for the FLNG facility and the carrier is 0.85 m and 0.68 m, respectively. Therefore,
the combined heave motion of the two vessels, if completely out of phase, is 1.53 m. The maximum
allowed heave displacement, in order to stay within the loading arm limitations, is 2.0 m. Hence, it is
appropriate to say that during the 1-year storm, the FLNG will be able to safely continue offloading to
adjacent carrier ships. Also, the maximum allowed roll, limited by operation capabilities of sensitive
topside components, of the FLNG facility is 2 degrees. The rolling motion during a 1-year storm was
found to be less than 0.01, and therefore, the facility easily maintains the topsides operations during a 1year storm.

TAMU Team West Africa

62

Final Report

Table 24: FLNG and carrier displacements


Displacements
FLNG

Heave (m)
Pitch (m)

2.26
15
Amplitude Displacement
0.1886
0.85
0.004953
0.0224

Roll (deg)

0.0001534

Hs (1-Year) (m)
Wave Period (1-Year) (s)

6.93E-04

Carrier
0.1506

Heave (m)

0.68

Combined
0.0001534

Heave (m)

TAMU Team West Africa

63

1.53

Final Report

10 Cost Analysis
Team West Africa has researched shipyards to determine those with adequate facilities to build structures
of this magnitude. The selection of the shipyard is pertinent in determining production costs and the
manufacturability of the FLNG. ConocoPhillips provided Team West Africa with unit costs of producing
each component to assist in selecting the best shipyard to contract for the project. This cost data can be
referenced in Appendix E. Shipyards that have been researched include those in Japan, Korea, and
Spain. An overall cost analysis for the FLNG facility is shown in Table 25. Korea has been selected for
this particular project due to its relatively low cost, stable work force, and currency rate. The total
estimated cost of the FLNG facility is $2.2 billion.

Table 25: Cost Analysis

LNG Tanks
Propane & Butane Tanks
Hull Steel
Hull Outfitting
Hull Machinery
Electric Outfitting
Accommodations
Cargo Fitting
Topsides Module Supports
Mooring Lines
Topsides Equipment
Additional Marine Costs
External Turret
Loading Arms
Transportation-Floater
Installation Floater
Subtotal
Contingency (12%)

Japan
(US $MM)
100
24
199
46
1
2
16
27
2
.41
1,375
130
40
15
13
15
2,006
241

Total Cost
Korea
(US $MM)
100
24
180
42
1
2
17
24
2
.41
1,375
130
40
15
13
15
1,981
238

Spain
(US $MM)
100
24
228
39
--18
-3
.41
1,375
130
40
15
4
15
1,991
239

Total

2,247

2,219

2,230

Parameter

TAMU Team West Africa

64

Final Report

11 Summary and Conclusions


Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a critical component in meeting the worlds energy needs. To provide
access to the global supply of natural gas and meet the increasing demand for energy, larger capacity
offshore production facilities, re-gasification units and LNG carriers must be designed and manufactured.
Over a period of five months Team West Africa developed an economical and efficient design for a FLNG
terminal with a product storage capacity of 590,000 m3. The massive size and functional requirements
necessary for this liquefied natural gas facility induced many constraints and limitations to the teams
available design options. The final design selected by Team West Africa consists of a double-hulled,
barge shape steel vessel. This design is optimal due to the large amount of available topside area for the
processing plant, the large amount of storage capacity available under deck for product and ballast
storage, and it allows a stable foundation for the motion sensitive process on board.
ConocoPhillips provided environmental data for 1, 10 and 100-year return periods for Block 74 offshore
West Africa at a water depth of 25 meters. This data was then reverse shoaled to a 50 meter water depth
suitable for the Ukpokiti design location. The site is characterized by long period swells generated in the
south mid-latitudes which limit the approach to the 155, 200 and 245 sectors. The swell waves are the
primary factor affecting the design and is reflected in the wind and maximum wave height directional
distributions. The total wind, wave and current loads acting on the vessel were calculated according to
ABS regulations for bow, beam and quartering seas. The large magnitude of the vessel results in high
beam and quartering sea loads. Although, due to the weathervaning nature of the vessel a full beam load
is difficult to be seen. The total bow loads for the 1, 10 and 100-year return periods are 605 kN, 718 kN
and 945 kN, respectively. These loads are critical for calculating the environmental coefficients for the
mooring analysis.
Although the loading conditions applied to the model are much more extreme than those that should be
experienced by the vessel, the maximum deflection experienced (79.2 cm) is well within acceptable limits.
This deflection occurs at the longitudinal center of the vessel. Therefore, the deflection is less than 4 mm
per meter of length. Given the structural compliance with ABS steel vessel rules (ABS 2005) and the
finite element analysis results, this hull design is capable of surviving conditions that surpass those of a
100-year storm for the FLNG service area.
To determine the overall operating efficiency, natural motions of the vessel and relative motions between
a typical carrier and the FLNG facility were analyzed. The vessel rolls less than 0.01 degrees and has
approximately 0.85 m of heave displacement in a 1-year storm. A typical carrier was determined to
experience 0.68 m in the same storm conditions. In the worst case scenario with the carrier and the FLNG
facility completely out of phase, the maximum heave displacement was just over 1.5 m. Therefore, the
facility operates at 100% efficiency in a 1-year storm without experiencing any downtime caused by
heave limitations of the loading arms or roll sensitive topside components.
The mooring system is comprised of a 6-leg, equally spread, all chain, catenary arrangement. Each leg is
610-m of 101.6-mm (4-in) ORQ chain with 6 high holding capacity drag embedment anchors as the
foundation. The dominating environmental case considers the wind and current 30 to the waves during a
100-year storm. The total loads on the facilitys mooring system during a 100-year storm compares
closely to the total loads on the mooring system when a carrier vessel is offloading side-by-side with the
FLNG facility in a 1-year storm. In this environment, the line tensions maintained above a 1.67 FOS for
the intact condition and a 1.25 FOS for the damaged condition as required by API guidelines. Therefore,
the offshore Nigeria FLNG facility exceeds the minimum FOS recommendation set forth by API RP-2SK
for a dynamic mooring analysis. Additionally, the vessel offsets of 2 m in the intact condition to 15 m in
the damaged condition suggest reasonable excursion radii for the 50 m shallow water depth.

TAMU Team West Africa

65

Final Report

Shipyards have been researched to determine those with adequate facilities to build structures of this
size. Although Spain is the least expensive, Korea has been selected for this particular project due to its
stable work force and currency rate. The total estimated cost of the FLNG facility is $2.2 billion.

TAMU Team West Africa

66

Final Report

12 References
American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations,
Houston, TX. 2004
American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Building and Classing Offshore LNG Terminals,
Houston, TX. 2004
American Bureau of Shipping. Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units,
Houston, TX. 2004
American Bureau of Shipping. Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, Houston, TX. 2005.
American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Station Keeping
Systems for Floating Structures, First Edition. Washington D.C., June 1995. (API 2SK)
American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design, Analysis, and Maintenance of Mooring
for Floating Production Systems, First Edition. Washington D.C., February 1993.
Autodesk, Inc. AutoCAD Software, 2004.
ConocoPhillips. King, Rodney. Personal communication, 2005.
ConocoPhillips. Metocean Criteria for the Ukpokiti Development. January 1996.
Det Norske Veritas. MIMOSA Mooring Analysis Software, Version 5.7. November 2004.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 3 May 2005 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/>.
Guntur and Associates, Inc. StabCAD Users Manual, 1999.
Halvor Lie, Knut Mo and Karl E. Kaasen. MIMOSA Users Documentation Version 5.6. April 2002.
Human Rights Watch. The Warri Crisis: Fueling Violence. VOL 15, NO 18 A, December 2003.
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. Visual Analysis, Version 4.01.014, 2004.
International Maritime Organization. Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling
Units (MODU), 1989.
International Maritime Organization. International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, Second Edition. London, 1993.
Lloyds Register. Liquefied Natural Gas Ship Training: Introduction. Delegate Notes: Section 1, Version
2.0 rev 001. January 2005.
Lloyds Register. Liquefied Natural Gas Ship Training: Cargo Containment. Delegate Notes: Section 2,
Version 2.0 rev 001. January 2005.

TAMU Team West Africa

67

Final Report

Norwegian Maritime Equipment. 4 May 2005 <http://www.nme.no/>.


Solidworks Corporation. Solidworks 3D Mechanical Design Software, Educational Edition, 2004.
Maya Unlimited, Version 6.0. Alias Systems, a division of Silicon Graphics Limited, 2004
Structural Dynamics, LLC. StabCAD Stability Analysis Software, Version 4.3 SPI. October 2003.
The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG). 25 February 2005 <http://www.lngfacts.org/>.
The Geoje Shipyard Virtual Tour. Samsung Heavy Industries. 27 January 2005
<http://www.shi.samsung.co.kr/eng/>.
Vryhof Anchor Manual. Vryhof Anchor Company, 2000.
West Africa 2004 Offshore Oil & Gas Consession Map. Oil and Gas Journal. 11 March 2005
<http://ogj.pennnet.com/datastats/os_poster_series.cfm>.
* Unless otherwise noted, all drawings were made by Team West Africa.

TAMU Team West Africa

68

Final Report

Appendix A: Environmental Data & Load Spreadsheets

TAMU Team West Africa

69

Final Report

Shoaled Metocean Criteria for Ukpokiti


1-Year Return Period
Direction from True North (degrees)
20

65

110

155

200

245

290

335

1-hour Sustained Wind Speed (m/s)

7.6

7.4

8.0

10.2

12.0

12.0

10.2

8.0

3-Second Gust (m/s)

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

Surface (m/s)

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.8

Near Bottom (m/s)

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.4

Significant Wave Height (m)

0.90

0.90

1.21

1.62

2.26

1.89

1.42

1.21

Spectral Peak Period (s)

4.7

4.7

5.5

14.5

15.0

14.8

6.0

5.6

Maximum Wave Height (m)

1.60

1.60

2.10

2.94

4.07

3.51

2.51

2.20

Period of Maximum Wave (s)

4.2

4.2

4.9

12.9

13.4

13.1

5.3

5.0

Wind Speed

Current Speed

Wave Parameters

Water Levels
Highest Astronomical Tide (m)

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

Mean High Water Spring (m)

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

Mean Low Water Spring (m)

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

10-Year Return Period


Direction from True North (degrees)
20

65

110

155

200

245

290

335

1-hour Sustained Wind Speed (m/s)

8.2

8.1

8.7

11.1

13.0

13.0

11.1

8.7

3-Second Gust (m/s)

22.0

22.0

22.0

22.0

22.0

22.0

22.0

22.0

Surface (m/s)

0.7

0.5

0.7

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.7

0.9

Near Bottom (m/s)

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.5

1.10

1.10

1.42

1.90

2.63

2.26

1.75

1.52

Wind Speed

Current Speed

Wave Parameters
Significant Wave Height (m)
Spectral Peak Period (s)

5.1

5.1

5.9

14.7

15.3

15.0

6.5

6.0

Maximum Wave Height (m)

1.80

1.80

2.51

3.41

4.73

4.07

3.04

2.62

Period of Maximum Wave (s)

4.6

4.6

5.3

13.1

13.6

13.4

5.8

5.4

Highest Astronomical Tide (m)

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

Mean High Water Spring (m)

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

Mean Low Water Spring (m)

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Water Levels

TAMU Team West Africa

70

Final Report

Shoaled Metocean Criteria for Ukpokiti


100-Year Return Period
Direction from True North (degrees)
20

65

110

155

200

245

290

335

Wind Speed
1-hour Sustained Wind Speed (m/s)

9.5

9.3

10.1

12.8

15.0

15.0

12.8

10.1

3-Second Gust (m/s)

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

Surface (m/s)

0.8

0.5

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.5

0.8

1.0

Near Bottom (m/s)

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.5

Significant Wave Height (m)

1.21

1.21

1.64

2.17

3.00

2.54

1.98

1.74

Spectral Peak Period (s)

5.5

5.5

6.3

14.9

15.5

15.2

6.9

6.4

Maximum Wave Height (m)

2.10

2.10

2.82

3.89

5.39

4.64

3.47

2.93

Period of Maximum Wave (s)

4.9

4.9

5.6

13.3

13.8

13.6

6.2

5.7

Highest Astronomical Tide (m)

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

Mean High Water Spring (m)

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

Mean Low Water Spring (m)

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Current Speed

Wave Parameters

Water Levels

**Primary Direction of Swell Waves

TAMU Team West Africa

71

Final Report

Current Velocity Profile and Force Calculations


1-Year Return Period
CC,bow =

2.9

10-Year Return Period

CC,beam =

72.4

CC,bow =

2.9

CC,beam =

72.4

Wetted Surface Area of Bow =

48277.9

Wetted Surface Area of Bow =

48277.9

Wetted Surface Area of Beam =

48277.9

Wetted Surface Area of Beam =

48277.9

Direction of approaching environment = =

0.7854 rad Direction of approaching environment = =

Bow Seas
VC,surface=

0.80 m/sec

FC,surface =

VC,25% depth=

0.60 m/sec

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

VC,near bottom=

0.40 m/sec

2
2

0.7854 rad

Bow Seas
89

kN

VC,surface=

0.90 m/sec

FC,surface =

FC,25% depth =

50

kN

VC,25% depth=

0.70 m/sec

FC,75% depth=

35

kN

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

FC,near bottom =

22

kN

VC,near bottom=

0.50 m/sec

Beam Seas

113

kN

FC,25% depth =

68

kN

FC,75% depth=

35

kN

FC,near bottom =

35

kN

Beam Seas

VC,surface=

0.80 m/sec

FC,surface =

2236

kN

VC,surface=

0.90 m/sec

FC,surface =

2830

kN

VC,25% depth=

0.60 m/sec

FC,25% depth =

1258

kN

VC,25% depth=

0.70 m/sec

FC,25% depth =

1712

kN

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

FC,75% depth=

873

kN

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

FC,75% depth=

873

kN

VC,near bottom=

0.40 m/sec

FC,near bottom =

559

kN

VC,near bottom=

0.50 m/sec

FC,near bottom =

873

kN

Quartering Seas
VC,surface=

0.80 m/sec

FC,surface =

VC,25% depth=

0.60 m/sec

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

VC,near bottom=

0.40 m/sec

Quartering Seas
1550

kN

VC,surface=

0.90 m/sec

FC,surface =

1962

kN

FC,25% depth =

872

kN

VC,25% depth=

0.70 m/sec

FC,25% depth =

1187

kN

FC,75% depth=

606

kN

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

FC,75% depth=

606

kN

FC,near bottom =

388

kN

VC,near bottom=

0.50 m/sec

FC,near bottom =

606

kN

10-Year Return Period


CC,bow =

2.89

CC,beam =

Wetted Surface Area of Bow =

48277.89

Direction of approaching environment = =

72.37
m

Wetted Surface Area of Beam =

Bow Seas
VC,surface=

0.90 m/sec

FC,surface =

VC,25% depth=

0.70 m/sec

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

VC,near bottom=

0.50 m/sec

48277.89

0.7854 rad
m

Beam Seas
113

kN VC,surface=

0.90 m/sec

FC,surface =

2830

kN

FC,25% depth =

68

kN VC,25% depth=

0.70 m/sec

FC,25% depth =

1712

kN

FC,75% depth=

35

kN VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

FC,75% depth=

873

kN

FC,near bottom =

35

kN VC,near bottom=

0.50 m/sec

FC,near bottom =

873

kN

Quartering Seas
VC,surface=

0.90 m/sec

FC,surface =

1962

kN

VC,25% depth=

0.70 m/sec

FC,25% depth =

1187

kN

VC,75% depth=

0.50 m/sec

FC,75% depth=

606

kN

VC,near bottom=

0.50 m/sec

FC,near bottom =

606

kN

TAMU Team West Africa

72

Final Report

Wind Force Calculations


Item Name

Height
[m]

H0 [m]
(above SWL)

HTOP [m]
(above SWL)

Ch

Cs

Width
[m]

A
2
[m ]

CsChA

20.0

0.0

20.0

1.23

1.00

20.0

400.0

492

BOW
A1: Exposed Hull
A2: Flare Tower

19.2

20.0

39.2

1.40

1.25

6.0

115.2

201.6

A3: Turret Arm

20.0

20.0

40.0

1.40

1.50

39.1

782.4

1643.04

A4: Turret

26.6

40.0

66.6

1.62

1.50

3.0

79.8

193.914

A5: Blast Wall


A6: Module Support
A7: Topsides

40.0
4.5
20.0

20.0
20.0
26.4

60.0
24.5
46.4

1.52
1.23
1.52

1.00
1.30
1.10

50.0
80.0
15.0

634.5
112.5
300.0

964.364
179.8875
501.6

A8: Topsides

2.0

26.4

28.4

1.23

1.10

15.0

30.0

40.59

A0: Topsides

34.8

26.4

61.2

1.62

1.10

216.9

386.5158
4176.4

Totals:
BEAM
21.9
20
40
26.6
4.5
35.2
44.92
24
38
25.8
34.8
30.0

A1: Exposed Hull


A2: Accommodations
A3: Blast Wall
A4: Topsides
A5: Module Support
A6: Topsides
A7: Cranes
A8: Topsides
A9: Topsides
A10: Topsides
A11: Flare Tower
A12:Turret

21.9
41.9
61.9
53.0
26.4
61.6
66.8
50.4
64.4
52.2
56.7
51.9

0.0
21.9
21.9
26.4
21.9
26.4
21.9
26.4
26.4
26.4
21.9
21.9

1.23

1.00

411.7

9016.2

11089.96

1.40

1.00

30.0

1257.0

1759.80

1.62

1.00

1.0

61.9

100.28

1.52

1.10

46.0

2438.0

4076.34

1.23

1.30

310.0

8184.0

13086.22

1.62

1.10

148.5

9147.6

16301.02

1.62

1.50

3.6

254.2

617.62

1.52

1.10

91.1

4591.4

7676.89

1.62

1.10

20.0

1288.0

2295.22

1.52

1.10

34.1

1780.0

2976.19

1.52

1.25

16.0

907.2

1723.68

1.52

1.50

100.0

938.6

2139.94
63843.2

Totals:
=

45

(degree off
bow)

= 1.18
Wind Load on Bow (kN) =
Wind Load on Beam (kN) =
Wind Load on Oblique Seas (kN) =

TAMU Team West Africa

1-Year

VW,hour =
VW,min =

10-Year
12.0
14.2

515
7873
5592

VW,hour =
VW,min =
604
9239
6563

73

100-Year
13.0
15.3

VW,hour=
VW,min =

15.0
17.7
805
12301
8737

Final Report

Wind Force
=1.18
Quartering Seas
=45.00

14.16
One-Minute Sustained Wind Speed VW (m/s) =
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
4176.4
CsChA =
63843.2
CsChA =
Fw [kN] =

515

7873

5592

Mean Wave Drift Force


Cubic Spline Curve Fitting Formula [x=Hs, y=Fdrift]
Bow Seas
y=9.63ln(x)-14
4
Beam Seas
y=0.00002x -0.00005x3-0.1433x2+7.3983x-8.9346
Quartering Seas (Surge)
y=0.9366x+1.2207
Quartering Seas (Sway)
y=0.00001x4-0.0003x3-0.0638x2+4.0954x-7.2682
Hs
7.41
ft
=
2.26
m
Beam Seas
Bow Seas
Quartering Seas
Fdrift [kN] =

0.5

3.9

2.8

Current Force
VC [m/s]
CC,bow
CC,beam

0.80
2.89
72.37
Bow Seas

FC [kN] =

(degree off bow) =


2

Wetted Surface Area of Bow [m ] =


Wetted Surface Area of Beam [m2] =
Beam Seas

89

45
48277.89
48277.89
Quartering Seas

2236

754

Total Environmental Load on Vessel for 1-year Return Period


Bow Seas
FTotal [kN] =

TAMU Team West Africa

Beam Seas
10113

605

74

Quartering Seas
6349

Final Report

Wind Force
=1.18
Quartering Seas
=45.00

15.34
One-Minute Sustained Wind Speed VW (m/s) =
Bow Seas
Beam Seas
4176.4
CsChA =
63843.2
CsChA =
Fw [kN] =

604

9239

6562

Mean Wave Drift Force


Cubic Spline Curve Fitting Formula [x=Hs, y=Fdrift]
Bow Seas
y=9.63ln(x)-14
4
Beam Seas
y=0.00002x -0.00005x3-0.1433x2+7.3983x-8.9346
Quartering Seas (Surge)
y=0.9366x+1.2207
Quartering Seas (Sway)
y=0.00001x4-0.0003x3-0.0638x2+4.0954x-7.2682
Hs
8.63
ft
=
2.63
m
Beam Seas
Bow Seas
Quartering Seas
Fdrift [kN] =

Current Force
VC [m/s]
CC,bow
CC,beam

0.90
2.89
72.37
Bow Seas

FC [kN] =

(degree off bow) =


2

Wetted Surface Area of Bow [m ] =


Wetted Surface Area of Beam [m2] =
Beam Seas

113

45
48277.89
48277.89
Quartering Seas

2830

955

Total Environmental Load on Vessel for 10-year Return Period


Bow Seas
FTotal [kN] =

TAMU Team West Africa

Beam Seas
12074

718

75

Quartering Seas
7521

Final Report

Wind Force
One-Minute Sustained Wind Speed VW (m/s) =
Bow Seas
4176.4
CsChA =
Fw [kN] =

17.7
Beam Seas
CsChA =
63843.2

805

=1.18
Quartering Seas
=45.00

12301

8737

Mean Wave Drift Force


Cubic Spline Curve Fitting Formula [x=Hs, y=Fdrift]
Bow Seas
y=9.63ln(x)-14
4
Beam Seas
y=0.00002x -0.00005x3-0.1433x2+7.3983x-8.9346
Quartering Seas (Surge)
y=0.9366x+1.2207
Quartering Seas (Sway)
y=0.00001x4-0.0003x3-0.0638x2+4.0954x-7.2682
Hs
9.84
ft
=
3.00
m
Beam Seas
Bow Seas
Quartering Seas
Fdrift [kN] =

Current Force
VC [m/s]
CC,bow
CC,beam

(degree off bow) =

1.00
2.89
72.37
Bow Seas

FC [kN] =

Wetted Surface Area of Bow [m2] =


Wetted Surface Area of Beam [m2] =
Beam Seas

140

45
48277.89
48277.89
Quartering Seas

3494

1179

Total Environmental Load on Vessel for 100-year Return Period


Bow Seas
FTotal [kN] =

TAMU Team West Africa

Beam Seas
15800

945

76

Quartering Seas
9920

Final Report

Appendix B: Weight and Structural Calculations

TAMU Team West Africa

77

Final Report

Item
Name

Dry
Frame
Weight
Numbe
(metric
r
tons)

FM01
FM02
FM03
FM04
PM01 Process Module
PM02 Process Module
PM03 Process Module
PM04 Process Module
PM05 Process Module
PM06 Process Module
PM07 Process Module
PM08 Process Module
PM09 Process Module
PM10 Process Module
PM11 Process Module
PM12 Process Module
PM13 Process Module
PM14 Process Module
PM15 Process Module
PM16 Process Module
PM17 Process Module
PM18 Process Module
PM19 Process Module
PM20 Process Module
PM21 Process Module
PM22 Process Module
PM23 Process Module
PM24 Process Module
PM25 Process Module
RM01 Rack Module
RM02 Rack Module
RM03 Rack Module
RM04 Rack Module
RM05 Rack Module
RM06 Rack Module
RM07 Rack Module
RM08 Rack Module
UM01 Utility Module
UM02 Utility Module
UM03 Utility Module
UM04 Utility Module

TAMU Team West Africa

1408
390
390
390
1624
1270
2114
1062
2209
2209
1847
2412
1347
1335
1787
2495
1186
267
1409
1686
1372
1832
268
1463
1876
1288
1925
1403
1989
513
664
992
992
992
461
200
220
1734
1579
994
1481

Wet
Weight
(metric
tons)

VCG [m]
LCG
VCG
TCG (S+) (above
(AFT+)
[m]
[m]
supports
(ABL)
[m]
)

1554
409
409
409
1778
1340
2292
1185
2299
2299
1933
2629
1667
1433
2185
2752
1203
280
1542
1845
1507
2046
277
1688
1959
1307
2196
1602
2057
575
749
1105
1105
1105
517
216
240
1805
1673
1065
1517

-143.6
-112.2
-120.2
-128.2
-95.2
-74.9
-52.0
3.0
25.7
51.3
77.5
-143.8
-79.6
-151.0
-45.3
-4.3
39.5
104.8
-26.1
26.0
76.5
-21.6
-196.8
-137.5
72.5
81.3
-111.6
-77.3
41.8
-114.2
-75.0
-27.1
21.0
72.0
122.6
-176.9
-144.0
102.8
127.2
106.7
126.3

78

-29.6
-29.0
-29.0
-29.0
-21.9
-23.2
-21.7
-19.1
-25.5
-25.5
-23.2
19.1
28.5
4.0
23.0
22.8
21.4
8.1
6.5
6.5
6.5
-20.2
-36.3
-13.2
23.5
31.5
17.2
12.0
26.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
-2.0
-2.0
-19.0
19.9
21.5
-23.3

3.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.6
4.0
8.0
3.3
8.8
8.8
4.0
4.1
10.0
19.0
3.5
3.2
2.5
10.3
18.9
18.8
18.9
5.3
17.4
3.3
8.7
7.3
9.6
8.8
7.9
13.3
13.3
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.3
12.9
13.0
7.3
3.1
3.1
5.3

48.9
49.3
49.3
49.3
50.1
49.5
53.5
48.8
54.3
54.3
49.5
49.6
55.5
64.5
49.0
48.7
48.0
55.8
64.4
64.3
64.4
50.8
62.9
48.8
54.2
52.8
55.1
54.3
53.4
58.8
58.8
58.7
58.7
58.7
58.8
58.4
58.5
52.8
48.6
48.6
50.8

ML
(Wet)

MT
(Wet)

MV
(Wet)

-223103 -45998 75981


-45876 -11861 20161
-49148 -11861 20161
-52420 -11861 20161
-169206 -38938 89067
-100321 -31088 66321
-119108 -49736 122607
3595 -22634 57820
59161 -58625 124821
118015 -58625 124821
149872 -44846 95671
-377962 50214 130382
-132638 47510 92508
-216335 5732 92419
-98908 50255 107051
-11742 62746 134005
47559 25744 57736
29353 2268 15622
-40195 10023 99295
48032 11993 118622
115336 9796 97041
-44125 -41329 103924
-54504 -10055 17422
-232044 -22282 82364
142093 46037 106165
106303 41171 69001
-245000 37771 120986
-123781 19224 86978
86051 53482 109831
-65646
0
33806
-56150
0
44036
-29909 5525 64856
23242 5525 64856
79597 5525 64856
63401
0
30396
-38203 -432 12613
-34552 -480 14038
185614 -34295 95293
212861 33293 81297
113671 22898 51752
191648 -35346 77054

Final Report

Hull Depth Components (Keel to Deck)


Outer Hull
Thickness
(m)

Ballast Tank
Height
(m)

Inner Hull
Thickness
(m)

0.03

4.50

0.03

Tank Height
(m)
34.40

Total Tank and


Deck Thickness
Deck Spacing
(m)
(m)
2.00

Total Depth of Vessel


(m)

0.03

40.99

Hull Breadth Components


Outer Hull
Thickness
(m)

Inner Hull
Thickness
(m)

Total Tank
Allowance
(m)

0.03

0.03

63.40

Cofferdam and
Total Space b/t
Tank Skin and
Bulkhead
(m)

Total Ballast
Allowance
(m)

Inner Hull
Thickness
(m)

Outer Hull
Thickness
(m)

Total Breadth
(m)

7.06

9.40

0.03

0.03

79.99

Hull Length Components


Inner/Outter
Hull Thickness
(m)

Total
Forward/Aft
Ballast
Allowance
(m)

Total Cofferdam
and Space b/t
Tank Skins and
Bulkhead
(m)

0.13

50.00

37.00

Total Bulkhead
Thickness (m)

Total Tank
Length
(m)

Machinery Area
(m)

Total Length of Vessel


(m)

0.54

270.00

42.00

399.67

Hull Dimensions/Stability Guidelines


Length =

399.67

Draft (m) =

16.70

L/B =

5.00

(4.5 to 6)

Breadth =

79.99

Freeboard (m) =

24.29

L/D =

9.75

(8.0 to 13.0)

Depth =

40.99

Total Displaced
3
Volume (m ) =

B/D =

1.95

(1.7 to 2.3)

Total Volume 1303452.79

529222.96

Tank Capacities
Product
LNG
Propane
Butane

Product Storage Volume


Required
350,000.0
40,000.0
40,000.0

Condensate

160,000.0

TOTAL

590,000.0

Volume
Needed
3
(m )

Length
(m)

Product

Total Available Storage Volume

Percent Fill at Total Product Storage Volume at


Full Load
98%

98%

350,080.1

98%

40,180.1

98%

40,180.1

163,669.5

98%

160,396.1

602,894.4

98%

590,836.5

Width
(m)

Height
(m)

357,224.6
41,000.1
41,000.1

Number of
Tanks

Volume per Tank Total Available


Storage Volume
3
(m )
(m3)

LNG

350000.0

54.6

31.7

34.4

59,537.4

357,224.6

Propane

40000.0

18.8

31.7

34.4

20,500.1

41,000.1

Butane

40000.0

18.8

31.7

34.4

20,500.1

41,000.1

Condensate

160000.0

34.3

33.7

35.4

40,917.4

163,669.5

Tank Weight
Product

Specific
gravity

Density
3
(kg/m )

Total Liquid Weight per Tank @


98% Storage

Total Surface
Dry Tank Weight
Area
(metric ton)
2
(m )

Total Tank
Weight
(metric ton)

LNG

0.45

450

26,256.01 metric ton

9693.46912

4180.64

30,436.65

Propane

0.6

600

12,054.04 metric ton

4767.61824

1475.00

13,529.04

Butane

0.6

600

12,054.04 metric ton

4767.61824

1475.00

13,529.04

Condensate

0.68

680

27267.33173metric ton

7242.51264

27,267.33

TAMU Team West Africa

79

Final Report

Tank Center of Gravities


Product
LNG
Propane
Butane
Condensate

Percent Fill

Total Storage
Volume
3
(m )

VCG
(m)

Percent Fill

Total Storage
Volume
3
(m )

Total Tank
Weight
(metric ton)

VCG
(m)

98%
98%
98%
98%

58,346.69
20,090.07
20,090.07
40,099.02

22.42
11.37
11.37
21.91

42%
7%
7%
33%

25,005.72
1,435.00
1,435.00
13,502.73

11502.63
861.00
861.00
9181.86

12.79
6.77
6.77
10.40

TAMU Team West Africa

80

Final Report

Wave Loads
Wave Bending Moments Amidship
Mws -2.473E+07 kN-m

Wave Loads
Wave Shear Forces Along Ship

Sagging Moment

@ x = 0.1*L

Mwh 2.477E+07 kN-m


Hogging Moment
k1
110
k2
190
C1
10.6
Cb
0.97
Block Coeff.
L
399.7
m
Ship Length
B
80.0
m
Ship Breadth
Wave Bending Moments Along Ship
Sagging
Ma1
0
@x=0

Fwp
Fwn
F1b
F2b

7.775E+04 kN
Positive Shear
-7.762E+04 kN Negative Shear
30
0.461
0.460
@ 0.2*L < x < 0.3*L
1.555E+05 kN
Positive Shear
-1.552E+05 kN Negative Shear
0.921
0.920

M
Ma2

@ x = 0.2*L

Fwp

@ x = 0.35*L
1.368E+05 kN
Positive Shear

@ x = 0.4*L

Fwn
F1c

-1.367E+05
0.811

F2c

0.810

0
0.5

kN-m

M -1.236E+07 kN-m
Ma3
1
M

-2.473E+07 kN-m

Mb
1
M -2.473E+07 kN-m
Mc1
M

@ 0.4*L < x < 0.65*L

@ x = 0.65*L

-2.473E+07 kN-m

Mc2
0.571
M -1.413E+07 kN-m
Mc3

Ma1
M

0
0

Ma2

0.5

Fwp
Fwn
k
F1a
F2a

@ x = 0.8*L

Fwp

@ 0.4*L < x < 0.6*L


1.181E+05 kN
Positive Shear

Fwn

-1.181E+05

F1d

0.7

F2d

0.7

Negative Shear

Fwp

1.434E+05

@x=0

Fwn
F1e
F2e

-1.436E+05 kN Negative Shear


0.85
0.851
@ 0.7*L < x < 0.85*L

@ x = 0.2*L

Fwp

1.687E+05

kN

Positive Shear

Fwn

-1.690E+05

kN

Negative Shear

F1f
F2f

1
1.002

1.238E+07 kN-m

TAMU Team West Africa

kN

@x=L

kN-m

Mc1
1
M 2.477E+07 kN-m
Mc2
0.571
M 1.415E+07 kN-m
Mc3
0
M
0
kN-m

Negative Shear

@ x = 0.65*L

kN-m
Hogging

Ma3
1
M 2.477E+07 kN-m
Mb
1
M 2.477E+07 kN-m

kN

@ x = 0.4*L
@ 0.4*L < x < 0.65*L
@ x = 0.65*L
@ x = 0.8*L

kN

Positive Shear

Fwp

@ x = 0.925*L
8.437E+04 kN
Positive Shear

Fwn
F1g
F2g

-8.451E+04
0.5
0.501

kN

Negative Shear

@x=L

81

Final Report

Max Wave Loads


Wave Bending Moments Amidship
Mws = -2.473E+07 kN-m Sagging Moment
Mwh = 2.477E+07 kN-m Hogging Moment
Max Wave Shear Forces Along Ship
Fwp = 1.687E+05

kN

Positive Shear

Fwn = -1.690E+05

kN

Negative Shear

Block Coefficient
Cb = /(L*Bwl*d)
3
displacement
5.388E+05 m

=
L=

399.67

scantling length

d=

17

summer draft

79.99
0.97

breadth
block coefficient

Bwl =
Cb =

Still Water
Sagging Moment
Msw,s = 175*C*L2*B*(CB+0.7)*10-3 - Mws
C=
10.559
Msw,s =

1.461E+07
Hogging Moment

kN-m

Msw,h = 175*C*L2*B*(CB+0.7)*10-3 - Mwh


C=
10.559
Msw,h =
1.457E+07
kN-m
Max Still Water Moment Amidship
Msw =

1.461E+07

kN-m

Hull Girder Section Modulus


Section Modulus
SM = Mt/fp
fp =

17.5

kN/cm2

Mt = Msw + Mwmax
Mt =

3.938E+07

kN-m

SM =
2.250E+06
cm2-m
Minimum Section Modulus
SM = C1*C2*L2*B*(Cb+0.7)

TAMU Team West Africa

C2 =

0.01

SM =

2.248E+06

82

cm2-m

Final Report

Appendix C: Visual Analysis Output

TAMU Team West Africa

83

Final Report

This is a truncated output file of results from Visual Analysis. All maximum and minimum values for each
condition were obtained from an interactive graphical output, similar to those seen in the report.

Member Elements

Member
Section Material Length Weight
Theta
m
t
rad

Hull
I39X80 ASTM A36 400.000 62817.7 0.0000

Section Properties

Category Section
Ax
Iz
Sy+
Sycm^2
m^4
m^3
m^3

Standard I39X80
199774
+INF 230.993 230.993

Member Internal Forces

Member
Result Case Name
Offset
Vy
Mz
m
t
t-m

Hull
Hogging Case First Order
0.00 553.0 -0.00
Hull
Hogging Case First Order
44.44 28915 708212
Hull
Hogging Case First Order
88.89 12802 1844796
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 133.33 -10390 1930779
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 177.78 -12764 1430302
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 222.22 -5895 1032420
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 266.67 -2808 804676
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 311.11 -14163 552267
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 355.56 -22916 -298216
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 400.00 -371 -854719
Hull
Sagging Case First Order
0.00 557.5 -0.00
Hull
Sagging Case First Order
44.44 46760 1125309
Hull
Sagging Case First Order
88.89 40158 3308187
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 133.33 13614 4584094
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 177.78 -3328 4858996
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 222.22 -15460 4458144
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 266.67 -26876 3450529
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 311.11 -41486 2007449
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 355.56 -40640 114250
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 400.00 269.7 -849124
Hull
Still Water Case First Or
0.00 555.3 -0.00
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 44.44 37837 916750
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 88.89 26479 2576464
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 133.33 1611 3257397
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 177.78 -8046 3144611
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 222.22 -10678 2745247
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 266.67 -14842 2127565
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 311.11 -27824 1279839
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 355.56 -31777 -91988
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 400.00 -50.5 -851921

TAMU Team West Africa

84

Final Report

Member Local Displacements

Member
Result Case Name
Offset
Dy Span/Dy
m
cm

Hull
Hogging Case First Order
0.00 0.00
-NAHull
Hogging Case First Order
44.44 -10.5 < -2000
Hull
Hogging Case First Order
88.89 -19.4 < -2000
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 133.33 -24.5 -1629.78
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 177.78 -25.6 -1561.77
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 222.22 -23.5 -1695.78
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 266.67 -19.3 < -2000
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 311.11 -13.3 < -2000
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 355.56 -6.34 < -2000
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 400.00 0.00
-NAHull
Sagging Case First Order
0.00 0.00
-NAHull
Sagging Case First Order
44.44 -27.5 -1451.11
Hull
Sagging Case First Order
88.89 -52.4 -762.036
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 133.33 -70.4 -567.782
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 177.78 -78.7 -507.990
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 222.22 -76.7 -521.478
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 266.67 -65.2 -613.472
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 311.11 -46.3 -862.679
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 355.56 -23.3 -1712.50
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 400.00 0.00
-NAHull
Still Water Case First Or
0.00 0.00
-NAHull
Still Water Case First Or 44.44 -19.0 < -2000
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 88.89 -35.9 -1112.39
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 133.33 -47.5 -842.181
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 177.78 -52.1 -766.633
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 222.22 -50.1 -797.674
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 266.67 -42.2 -946.415
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 311.11 -29.8 -1339.92
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 355.56 -14.8 < -2000
Hull
Still Water Case First Or 400.00 0.00
-NA

Member Min/Max Displacements

Extreme Item Member


Result Case Name
Offset
Dy
m
cm

Max Dy
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 400.00 0.00
Min Dy
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 192.00 -79.2

Member Min/Max Forces

Extreme Item Member


Result Case Name
Offset
Vy
Mz
m
t
t-m

Max Mz
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 168.00 884.0 4873807
Max Vy
Hull
Sagging Case First Order
64.00 54046 2132116
Min Mz
Hull
Hogging Case First Order 400.00 -371 -854719
Min Vy
Hull
Sagging Case First Order 328.00 -49117 1221637

TAMU Team West Africa

85

Final Report

Appendix D: Mimosa Input/Output Files

TAMU Team West Africa

86

Final Report

Short Instruction to run a MIMOSA mooring analysis:


To begin a mooring analysis using Mimosa, open SESAM, and either load or open a new project. When
opening a new project, give the project a name like run1 in the screen that pops up. That will create a
folder in C:\SESAM\sesamprj/ called run1. You must copy the vessels input .sif, mossi, and mooring files
to this folder. See the MIMOSA manual for details regarding the creation of these 3 files. This run1 folder
will also be the location that MIMOSA sends any output files that are requested. Next, click on the
Analysis menu and then choose Mooring Analysis MIMOSA. Click on Run Mooring Analysis on the
screen that pops up. Type Y and hit enter to run a long term simulation. Continue hitting enter until the
System menu appears.
The first step is to read the input files located in the run1 folder by selecting Read System. The following
steps must be completed in the exact order explained. To start, the mass data, current drag coefficients,
and the wind drag coefficients (items 1-3) are read from the vessels mossi file. Next, the motion transfer
functions (item 4) are read from the .sif file. Then, the wave drift force coefficients (item5) are read from
the vessels same mossi file as items 1-3. Finally, the mooring system (item 7) is read from the mooring
input file. The environment is easier to input directly into MIMOSA in the Modify System menu allowing for
quick changes. Select item 12, Environmental Conditions, and directly edit your wind, current, wave, and
swell conditions.
Return to the main menu and select item 6, Mooring System Computation, and then choose Equilibrium
Position, item 6 to check the vessel offsets. Return to the previous menu and select Maximum Line
Tensions, item 7, to check the factor of safety for each leg of the mooring system. Repeat these steps for
all of the required environment situations for an intact mooring system. The worst case environment
should also be run two separate times under damaged condition with the most loaded line and then the
second most loaded line broken. See the MIMOSA manual regarding the method of breaking a line.
If the MIMOSA output is not making sense, there are a couple of troubleshooting tips that might help.
First, try completely closing the program, re-opening, and then making sure to reload each file in the
correct order. If that does not work, delete the input files in the run1 folder. Then, go to your original input
files and save them as a different name in the run1 folder.

TAMU Team West Africa

87

Final Report

MIMOSA Example Input Files


Partial example of .sif file input
IDENT
DATE

1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00


1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 4.00000000E+00 7.20000000E+01
DATE:
01-JUL-2003
TIME:
14:09:34
PROGRAM: SESAM WADAM
VERSION:
7.2-04 7-NOV-2002
COMPUTER: 586 WIN NT 5.1 [2600INSTALLATION: KELLOGG BGA6432
USER:
HBB8792
ACCOUNT:
TEXT
1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 3.00000000E+00 7.20000000E+01
XXXXXXX FPSOLOADED

WBODCON
WDRESREF

WDRESREF

7.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+01
1.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+01
1.00000000E+00
2.00000000E+00

1.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+00
2.51327425E-01
2.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+00
2.61799395E-01

1.00000000E+00
0.00000000E+00
1.00000000E+00
0.00000000E+00

1.00000000E+00

1.00000000E+00
0.00000000E+00

2.00000000E+00
2.00000000E+00

2.00000000E+00
2.00000000E+00

Continued..

Partial example of vessels mossi file input


10000
10001
11001
2
11002
11003
1
11004
20000
m/s
22100
1
23100
23101
0.00E+00
23102
5.76E+06
23103
1.21E+07
23104
2.00E+07
23105
2.49E+07

FPSO
1

3
12

3
11

11

25

1
Riser Load =

0
3.70E+06

0
kN for Vc =

1
2.5

1.33E+08

2.97E+11

1.90E+01
0

0.00E+00
6.71E+05

0.00E+00

10

6.53E+05

2.53E+05

20

6.34E+05

5.54E+05

30

5.75E+05

8.90E+05

40

4.70E+05

1.22E+06

TAMU Team West Africa

88

Final Report

23106
2.75E+07
23107
2.77E+07
Continued

50

3.48E+05

1.56E+06

60

2.10E+05

1.85E+06

Complete mooring system file input


VESSEL POSITION
'Text describing positioning system
Vessel CG position coordinates with respect to globalWL coordinate system.
'
x1ves
x2ves
x3ves
head
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LINE DATA
'iline
lichar
inilin
iwirun
intact
1
1
1
1
1
'
tpx1
tpx2
12.5
0.00
'
alfa
tens
xwinch
0.00
1441.20
0.00
LINE DATA
'iline
lichar
inilin
iwirun
intact
2
1
1
1
1
'
tpx1
tpx2
6.25
-10.8253
'
alfa
tens
xwinch
60.00
1441.20
0.00
LINE DATA
'iline
lichar
inilin
iwirun
intact
3
1
1
1
1
'
tpx1
tpx2
-6.25
-10.8253
'
alfa
tens
xwinch
120.00
1441.20
0.00
LINE DATA
'iline
lichar
inilin
iwirun
intact
4
1
1
1
1
'
tpx1
tpx2
-12.50
0.00
'
alfa
tens
xwinch
180.00
1441.20
0.00
LINE DATA
'iline
lichar
inilin
iwirun
intact
5
1
1
1
1
'
tpx1
tpx2
-6.25
10.8253
'
alfa
tens
xwinch
240.00
1441.20
0.00
LINE DATA
'iline
lichar
inilin
iwirun
intact
6
1
1
1
1

TAMU Team West Africa

89

Final Report

'

tpx1
tpx2
6.25
10.8253
'
alfa
tens
xwinch
300.00
1441.20
0.00
LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA
'lichar
1
'linpty
npocha
2
40
'nseg
ibotco
icurli
1
1
1
'anbot
tpx3
x3ganc
tmax
fric
0
0.000
50.000
10000.000
1.000
'iseg
ieltyp
nel
ibuoy
sleng
nea
brkstr
1
0
10
0
610.00
1
10005.00
'iseg
dia
emod
emfact
uwiw
watfac
cdn
cdl
1
0.1143
5.6E+07
2
2.229
0.87
2.539
0.160
END

MIMOSA Example Output Files


***************************
*
*
*
M I M O S A
*
*
*
*
Mooring Analysis
*
*
*
***************************
Marketing and Support by DNV Software
Program id
Release date
Access time
[2600]
User id

: 5.7-03
: 24-NOV-2004
: 21-APR-2005 22:45:23

Computer
: 586
Impl. update
:
Operating system : Win NT 5.1

: jts4633

CPU id
Installation

: 0000200504
: , CE220NO05

Copyright DET NORSKE VERITAS AS, P.O.Box 300, N-1322 Hovik, Norway

* ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS *
---------------------------NOTE !

Propagation direction

TAMU Team West Africa

90

( 0 deg : towards North )


( 90 deg : towards East )

Final Report

WIND

DAVENPORT SPECTRUM
Mean speed ........................
Direction .........................
Scale length ......................
Surface drag coefficent ...........

:
:
:
:

17.70 m/s
0.00 deg.
1200. m
0.0025

CURRENT

Speed .. .......................... : 1.00 m/s


Direction ......................... : 0.00 deg.

WAVE

PM-2 (Two parameter Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum)


Significant wave height (HS) ...... : 3.00 m
Zero crossing period (TZ) ......... : 15.50 s
Direction ......................... : 0.00 deg
Long crested waves

NO SWELL

* POSITIONING SYSTEM *
----------------------

VESSEL POSITION :
----------------X1 (Northwards) .......
X2 (Eastwards) ........
X3 ....................
HEADING (rel. North)....

:
:
:
:

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

m
m
m
deg.

(DP-system has not been defined)

LINE DATA:
---------Line
no.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Line
characteristics no.
1
1
1
1
1
1

TAMU Team West Africa

Winch
may be
run

Line
intact/
broken

Fairlead Coordinates
X(m)
Y(m)

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact

12.5
6.2
-6.2
-12.5
-6.2
6.2

91

0.0
-10.8
-10.8
0.0
10.8
10.8

Final Report

LINE INITIALIZING DATA:


----------------------Line
no

Dir.
(deg)

Tension
(kN)

Horizontal
distance (m)

Anchor coordinates
XG(m)
YG(m)

Run length
of winch

(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6

0.0
60.0
120.0
180.0
240.0
300.0

*)
*)
*)
*)
*)
*)

1441.20
1441.20
1441.20
1441.20
1441.20
1441.20

*)
*)
*)
*)
*)
*)

603.85
603.85
603.85
603.85
603.85
603.85

616.35
308.18
-308.18
-616.35
-308.18
308.18

0.00
512.12
512.12
0.00
-512.12
-512.12

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

*)
*)
*)
*)
*)
*)

*) This parameter is used in initialization


(NO THRUSTERS)

* LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA *


----------------------------Data for line characteristics number. . :
Input type . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of values in the line
characteristics table. . . . . . . . .
Number of segments . . . . . . . . . .
Bottom tangent option. . . . . . . . .
Current forces included. . . . . . . .
Angle from horizontal to bottom (deg).
Z-coordinate of fairlead (m) . . . . .
Z-coordinate of anchor (m) . . . . . .
Max tension in line charct. table (kN)
Friction coefficient at bottom . . . .
Segment
number
1
Segment
number
1

Segment
type
Catenary

Number of
elements
10

.:

1
2 (Computed by MIMOSA)

.:
40
.:
1
.:(Bottom tangent possible)
.:
Yes
.:
0.00
.:
0.00
.:
50.00
.:
10000.00
.:
1.00

Buoy
Segment
number length (m)
0
610.00

Breaking
load (kN)
10005.0

Diameter
(m)
0.114

Elastic
Factor of Unit weight Weight Drag coeff.
modulus
elasticity in water
in water normal
(kN/(m)2)
(kN/m)
and air/longitudinal
0.5600E+08 2.00
2.229
0.870
2.539 0.000

* BUOY DATA *
-------------(No buoy data)

TAMU Team West Africa

92

Final Report

* EQUILIBRIUM POSITION *
-----------------------Relative to
GLOBAL ORIGIN

Relative to
CURRENT Position

OFFSET .................
DIRECTION (rel. North)..
HEADING ................

1.0 m
359.1 deg
-0.3 deg

1.0 m
359.1 deg
-0.3 deg

X1 (North) .............
X2 (East) ..............

1.0 m
0.0 m

1.0 m
0.0 m

The Vessel is moved to Equilibrium Position !

* STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES *


-------------------------!--------------------------------------------------------!
!
! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp.
!
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! Wind
!
291.9 kN !
-8.4 kN !-653.8
kNm!
! Wave
!
11.6 kN !
0.3 kN !-8.361
kNm!
! Current
!
670.4 kN !
8.1 kN !-183.7
kNm!
!
!
!
!
!
! Fixed force !
0.0 kN !
0.0 kN !
0.0000 kNm!
!--------------------------------------------------------!
! Total
!
973.9 kN !
-0.1 kN !-845.8
kNm!
!--------------------------------------------------------!
TOTAL FORCE :
973.9 kN
-------------------------

Dir. rel. Vessel :


Dir. rel. North :

360.0 deg
359.7 deg

COEFFICENT
MATRICES OF LINEARIZED LF MODEL
Units: kg, N, s, m, rad
*** Mass matrix ***
0.26600E+09
0.00000
0.00000

0.00000
0.26600E+09
0.00000

0.00000
0.00000
0.59400E+12

*** Damping matrix ***

TAMU Team West Africa

93

Final Report

0.13420E+07
0.00000
0.00000

0.00000
28153.
0.00000

0.00000
0.00000
0.88867E+09

*** Stiffness matrix ***


0.10721E+07
9966.8
9156.1

10060.
0.10559E+07
-0.18057E+07

-25164.
-0.55927E+06
0.10213E+09

* MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS. LF AND HF MOTION *


-----------------------------------------------** Line Dynamics Included **
Line
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6

---- Top tension ---Mean


Max
(kN)
(kN)
1163.1
1312.8
1594.8
1810.0
1630.0
1271.3

1591.7
1625.2
1992.3
2583.3
2047.8
1564.1

Safety
factor

Segm.
No.

6.29
6.16
5.02
3.87
4.89
6.40

1
1
1
1
1
1

Max.
tangent
motion (m)
1.22
0.75
0.75
1.25
0.74
0.76

Direction
Type
from hor.
plane (deg)
-24.6
-23.2
-21.1
-19.6
-20.8
-23.7

SAM
SAM
SAM
SAM
SAM
SAM

SAM = Tensions are estimated with the Simplified Analytic Method


HF max tension: Non-Rayleigh based
LF max offset : Non-Rayleigh based

Details on dynamic tension (in kN):


------------------------------------------------------Line Standard
Maximum
Maximum
Zero crossing
No. deviation amplitude
tension
period (s)
------------------------------------------------------1
107.3
364.1
1591.7
22.47
2
74.1
251.6
1625.2
22.38
3
97.4
330.8
1992.3
22.29
4
194.3
659.4
2583.3
22.39
5
99.1
336.6
2047.8
22.29
6
71.7
243.4
1564.1
22.38

TAMU Team West Africa

94

Final Report

Appendix E: StabCAD Input/Output Files

TAMU Team West Africa

95

Final Report

Mini-Instructions Manual for StabCAD


The following content serves only as a guide to new StabCAD users; it is not intended to replace or
function as the official StabCAD users manual. The purpose of this mini-instructions manual is to provide
students enrolled in OCEN 407 with straightforward information that will facilitate the stability analysis of
their design project. Please refer to the official StabCAD users manual for more information or better
clarification.
StabCAD is a general purpose computer program for designing and analyzing the stability of a floating
body. For this design project, StabCAD was used to generate results such as:
Hydrostatic properties
Cross curves of stability
Intact Stability Curve
Damage Stability Curve
Allowable KG calculations to the rules of associations like ABS, USCG, DNV, NMD, and DEN
These results gave a better understanding to the stability of the designed floating body. In order to arrive
at these results, the reader must become familiar with the StabCAD program. The following is a step-bystep guide that will help the reader get started with the program. Please refer to Chapter Three Tutorial
and Examples in the StabCAD users manual for more information.
1. Creating a StabCAD File
When the StabCAD program is active, go to File on the main menu and click on New. Once
the New StabCAD Data File sub-menu appears, type in Sample and click on Open. Since the
file called Sample does not exist, StabCAD will ask the user to create it. Create the file by
clicking Yes and a directory with the newly created filename will be displayed at the bottom left
corner of the StabCAD main window.
2. Prestab versus Beta
There are two ways to draw a model in StabCAD, graphically by using Prestab or through a
spreadsheet editor called Beta. Both approaches can result in the same drawing. In this guide,
both approaches will be used; however, more emphasis will be given to the Beta spreadsheet
editor.
From the main menu, click on Input and select Prestab Graphics Input. When the
General Options screen pops up, select the desired system of units and click on OK. For this
particular exercise, the created StabCAD Sample file will use the metric system.
The main screen of the Prestab module will be displayed. In this screen, choose Misc, click on
Select Colors. Check the square that allows the color black to be the background color and
click on OK. An asterisk will now be visible at the center of the Prestab screen. This asterisk is
the point of origin that will serve as the reference point for the entire designed model and is
located at X = 0, Y = 0, and Z = 0.
Exit the Prestab program module by clicking on Exit from the File menu and selecting Yes to
save all the data.
3. Drawing a Model in StabCAD (Joints)
Once in the programs main menu, click on Input, and choose Edit Input File Beta. The
Beta module is an on-screen text editor which can be used to draw a designed model, or define
the type of analysis needed by the user.

TAMU Team West Africa

96

Final Report

The Beta file for this example should look similar to the following:
ALPID 3D View
0.707 0.707
ALPID Global XY Pl
10.000
ALPID Global YZ Pl
10.000
ALPID Global XZ Pl
10.000
ALPREF Global XY Pl
0.0 0.0
STBOPT
ME
JOINT 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
END

-0.424 0.424 0.800 1


10.000
10.000
10.000
0.75
1

The point of origin from the Prestab module is expressed as JOINT 1 in the Beta file. Now that
a point of origin has been defined in the Beta file, the user can start drawing a model of his/her
design. For simplicity purposes, the StabCAD Sample file will constitute of a barge with its crew
quarters. The barge shall be represented as a large rectangular box and its dimensions will be
40 meters in width, 60 meters in length, and 20 meters in height. The crew quarters shall be
represented by a small rectangular box located on top of the barge at the stern. Its dimensions
will be 10, 20 and 5 meter for width, length, and height, respectively. Updating all of these
dimensions in the Beta file, should result in a file similar to the one shown below:
ALPID 3D View
0.707 0.707
ALPID Global XY Pl
10.000
ALPID Global YZ Pl
10.000
ALPID Global XZ Pl
10.000
ALPREF Global XY Pl
0.0 0.0
STBOPT
ME
JOINT 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
JOINT 2 0.000 20.000 0.000
JOINT 3 0.000-20.000 0.000
JOINT 4 60.000 20.000 0.000
JOINT 5 60.000-20.000 0.000
JOINT 7 0.000 20.000 20.000
JOINT 8 0.000-20.000 20.000
JOINT 9 60.000 20.000 20.000
JOINT 10 60.000-20.000 20.000
JOINT 11 0.000 5.000 20.000
JOINT 12 0.000 -5.000 20.000
JOINT 13 20.000 5.000 20.000
JOINT 14 20.000 -5.000 20.000
JOINT 15 0.000 5.000 25.000
JOINT 16 0.000 -5.000 25.000
JOINT 17 20.000 5.000 25.000
JOINT 18 20.000 -5.000 25.000
END

-0.424 0.424 0.800 1


10.000
10.000
10.000
0.75
1

It is helpful to know that the Beta file or the Prestab module can be treated as a Cartesian threedimensional coordinate system where every point that illustrates an object has to be defined with
respect to the origin.
One aspect that was not explained earlier was how to add joints in the Beta File. The easiest
approach would be to click on JOINT 1, and once highlighted in green, press the F9 key on the

TAMU Team West Africa

97

Final Report

keyboard. A blank line should appear just beneath the JOINT 1 line. Click in this blank area
and, with capitalized letters, type in JOINT.
This activates the JOINT Coordinate Card, which is one of many data specification cards found in
StabCAD. All data specification cards have fixed fields where data are input. For this JOINT
Coordinate Card example, a joint number (2) and its corresponding coordinates (0.000,
20.000, 0.000) are needed.
Move the cursor back and forth using the arrow keys and fill in the fixed fields with their
corresponding datum. Repeat the procedure for all needed joints.
4. Drawing a Model in StabCAD (Panels)
Now that all needed joints are defined in the Beta file, exit the file and ensure that all of the
inputted data is saved. Back at the main screen, click on Input and select Prestab Graphics
Input. Notice that there are more joints displayed onscreen than before; however, not all of the
joints defined in the Beta file are displayed. To correct this error, click on View and select 3D
View to obtain a better illustration of the barge. Before adding panels to the model, it would
prove useful to display the joint numbers for easy modeling. This is achieved by clicking on
Display and selecting Plot Joint Data. When the Display Data menu appears, choose
Number under Joint Label and click on OK. If this is done properly, the Prestab module
screen should resemble Figure 67.

Figure 67: Joint numbers displayed in the Prestab module screen


A panel in StabCAD is defined as a flat area composed of a minimum of three joints. StabCAD
requires that all joints in the panel are in the same plane; otherwise, the program will warn for
warped panels and discontinue its stability analysis.
Whenever panels are drawn, the user has to take into account the right hand rule technique. The
right hand rule technique, as explained in detail on page 3.1-16 of the StabCAD users manual, is
used to denote the direction that delineates the panels perimeter. This direction is important
because it defines the pressure vector.

TAMU Team West Africa

98

Final Report

A simple way to double-check the right hand rule technique is to treat the panels as two-sided
walls. All exterior walls have green contour lines while all interior walls have red contour lines.
Application of the right hand rule is shown on Figure 68 for the barge example.

Figure 68: Drawing panels in StabCAD


In order to draw panels, click on Elements and select Panel Add. StabCAD then asks the
user to enter a group ID for the panels that are going to be drawn, so type in BRG for barge and
press Enter. Draw the panels for the barge according to the right hand rule and right-click the
mouse button when finished. Remember to click around the joints following the right hand rule,
and to return to the starting point to complete the panel. Also, if there is a mistake while drawing
a panel, clicking the right mouse button will end the Panel Add command. Repeat the same
process for the barges crew quarters but replace the BRG group ID with CRW. Moreover,
drawing the crew quarters bottom panel is optional since the barges top panel already comes in
contact with it. A finished model of the barge example is shown in Figure 69.This concludes the
drawing portion of the mini-instructions manual. Exit the Prestab module screen and save all
progress.

TAMU Team West Africa

99

Final Report

Figure 69: Completed barge model drawn in StabCAD

5. Stability Analysis using StabCAD


As stated before, the Beta module can be used to define the type of analysis required by the
user. This second part of the mini-instructions manual is devoted to stability analysis. StabCAD
uses data specification cards to analyze the stability of any floating body. Refer to Chapter Five
Data Reference for a complete list of the data specification cards, as well as detailed information
pertaining to each card.
As one will notice in the StabCAD Input/Output Files section of this report, the following data
specification cards were used for this design project:

STBOPT: controls the system of units used in StabCAD, calculates the wind loads for
intact and damage stability analysis, and creates a report of results.
CFORM: calculates the hydrostatic properties of the floating body.
CROSS: calculates the cross curves of stability for different displacements and various
angles of inclination.
INTACT: is used for intact stability analysis.
DAMAGE: is used for damage stability analysis.
DRAFT: is required for both intact and damage stability analysis. This card calls for
parameters such as the floating bodys draft, KG, and yaw angle as well as the type of
instructions the program must follow to perform the analysis.
KGPAR: is required for both intact and damage stability analysis. In this card, the wind
velocities and parameters required for allowable KG calculations must be provided for
both intact and damage stability calculations.
DWNFLD: is required for both intact and damage stability analysis. A downflooding
point is the lower edge of an opening through which progressive flooding may take place.

TAMU Team West Africa

100

Final Report

BODY: is required for damage stability calculations only. This card is used to create
various compartments from within the floating body such as ballast tanks, cargo tanks,
and void spaces.
JTREF: lets the user keep track of the floating bodys position during any type of
analysis.
JOINT: is required to start drawing a model in StabCAD. A joint is simply a point in
space defined by its coordinates with respect to a point of origin.
PANEL: is also required to start drawing a model in StabCAD. A panel is simply a flat
area or wall composed of at least three joints.
CYLIND: creates cylinder objects that can be used to represent cranes, offloading arms,
columns, etc.
END: indicates the end of the input data.

TAMU Team West Africa

101

Final Report

Stabcad Input File


ALPID 3D View
0.707 0.707
-0.424 0.424 0.800 1
ALPID Global XY Pl
10.000
10.000
ALPID Global YZ Pl
10.000
10.000
ALPID Global XZ Pl
10.000
10.000
ALPID MAIN DECK
-40.0040.000
40.00040.000380.0040.00040.000
ALPID AFT END
-40.00
-40.0040.000
40.00040.000
ALPID BOTTOM DECK
40.000
-40.00
360.00-40.00

ALPID TEST
406.00 1.50042.000410.00 1.50042.000425.0010.00042.000
ALPID BOW1
404.00-30.0010.000394.00-40.00
394.00-40.0041.000
ALPID BO2
404.0030.00010.000394.0040.000
404.0030.00041.000
ALPID RAKED
394.00-40.00
404.00-30.0010.000394.0040.000
ALPREF 3D View
0.0 0.0
0.75
1
OCEN 407 Design of an FLNG Facility - Team West Africa
STBOPT
0
CALC ME ME
PTPT
KGPAR
51.5
25.8 1.4
*CFORM
0. 20. 0.1
*CROSS DS26021.4650535.26021.4 0. 75. 5. 0. 24.5
*INTACT
0. 80. 5.
DAMAGE
0. 80. 5.
DRAFT
17.0
24.5 0. USER USER
JTREF PORT STERN SIDE
3
JTREF STARBOARD STERN SIDE 5
JTREF STARBOARD BACK ACC 301
JTREF STARBOARD FRONT ACC 303
JTREF PORT BACK SIDE ACC 302
JTREF PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 304
JTREF PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 6
JTREF PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 7
JTREF STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 8
JTREF STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 9
DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 1
906
DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 2
907
DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 3
908

DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 14


919
DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 15
920
DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 16
921
DWNFLD AFT PEAK BT STB
922
DWNFLD AFT PEAK BT PORT
923
DWNFLD FORWARD PEAK BT STB 924
DWNFLD FORWARD PEAK BT PORT 925
DWNFLD THRUSTER ROOM
926
DWNFLD FORWARD PEAK BT
927
JOINT 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
JOINT 2 0.000-40.000 0.000
JOINT 3 0.000-40.000 41.000
JOINT 4 0.000 40.000 0.000
JOINT 5 0.000 40.000 41.000
JOINT 6 390.000-40.000 41.000
JOINT 7 400.000-30.000 41.000
JOINT 8 400.000 30.000 41.000
JOINT 9 390.000 40.000 41.000
JOINT 10 390.000-40.000 0.000

TAMU Team West Africa

102

Final Report

JOINT 917 328.300-40.000 41.000


JOINT 918 352.100 40.000 41.000
JOINT 919 352.100-40.000 41.000
JOINT 920 39.000 40.000 41.000
JOINT 921 39.000-40.000 41.000
JOINT 922 7.500 40.000 41.000
JOINT 923 7.500-40.000 41.000
JOINT 924 377.000 40.000 41.000
JOINT 925 377.000-40.000 41.000
JOINT 926 0.000 0.000 41.000
JOINT 927 400.000 0.000 41.000
PANEL
BOT 11 4 2 10
PANEL
HUL 3 2 4 5
PANEL
HUL 3 6 10 2
PANEL
HUL 9 5 4 11
PANEL
HUL 7 6 3 5 9 8
PANEL
HUL 7 8 12 13
PANEL
HUL 10 6 7 13
PANEL
HUL 8 9 11 12
PANEL
HUL 13 12 11 10
PANEL W
SPC 19 21 17 15
PANEL W
SPC 21 20 16 17
PANEL W
SPC 20 18 14 16
PANEL W
SPC 18 19 15 14
PANEL W
PA 19 25 28 24
PANEL W
PA 25 26 27 28
PANEL W
PA 24 28 27 23
PANEL W
PA 26 25 19 22
PANEL W
PA 27 26 22 23
PANEL W
SPC 149 150 143 136

PANEL W
PAA 176 175 172 173
PANEL W
PAA 178 176 173 174
PANEL W
PAA 177 178 156 155
PANEL W
PAA 175 177 155 172
PANEL W
PAA 175 179 182 188
PANEL W
PAA 188 189 178 177
PANEL W
PAA 183 180 176 189
PANEL W
SPC 192 193 173 172
PANEL W
SPC 200 130 191 190
PANEL W
SPC 276 267 272 275
PANEL W
SPC 234 276 275 274
PANEL W
SPC 268 234 274 273
PANEL W
SPC 272 267 268 273
PANEL W
SPC 111 260 266 276

CYLIND W
HEC 329 330 1.000
CYLIND W
HEC 331 332 1.000
CYLIND W
HEC 333 334 1.000
CYLIND W
HEC 335 336 1.000
CYLIND W
HEC 337 338 1.000
BODY 1
95.COFFERDAM 1
PANEL
INT 355 356 358 357
PANEL
INT 356 360 362 358
PANEL
INT 360 359 361 362
PANEL
INT 357 361 359 355
PANEL
INT 362 361 357 358
PANEL
INT 359 360 356 355

TAMU Team West Africa

1.100
1.100
1.100
1.100
1.100

103

Final Report

BODY
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
BODY
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
BODY
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
BODY
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL

BODY
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
BODY
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
BODY
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
END

85.MACHINERY SPACE
341 339 340
346 342 340
343 345 346
343 339 341
344 340 339
345 341 342
COFFERDAM 2
INT 348 352 354 350
INT 352 351 353 354
INT 350 349 347 348
INT 349 353 351 347
INT 354 353 349 350
INT 351 352 348 347
95.CONDENSATE TANK 1
CON 364 363 365 366
CON 364 368 367 363
CON 366 370 368 364
CON 365 369 370 366
CON 367 368 370 369
CON 363 367 369 365
95.CONDENSATE TANK 2
CON 371 372 374 373
CON 374 378 377 373
CON 378 376 375 377
CON 373 377 375 371
CON 371 375 376 372
CON 374 372 376 378
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC

60
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
61
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
62
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT

342
344
344
345
343
346

95.BALLAST TANK 14 PORT


780 782 772
776 771 772
775 770 769
773 769 771
771 769 770
781 777 778
779 780 775
774 773 776
781 779 774
780 779 781
95.FORWARD PEAK BALLAST TANK PORT
10 901 899 900
901 905 903 899
6 905 901 10
903 904 900 899
904 6 10 900
6 904 903 905
95.FORWARD PEAK BALLAST TANK
6 10 11 9
7 8 12 13
10 13 12 11
11 12 8 9
10 6 7 13
7 6 9 8
770
778
773
776
772
782
774
777
777
782

TAMU Team West Africa

104

Final Report

Stabcad Output File


StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1

OCEN 407 Design of an FLNG Facility - Team West Africa

The following Nomenclature is used in the computer output:

Draft ... Measured from the base line (z=0, or x-y plane)
Disp .... Displacemet of the vessel
TPI ..... Tons/inch displacement
KPI ..... Kips/inch displacement
MT/Cm ... Metric Ton/ cm displacement
KMT ..... Transverse metacentric height
(measured from base line)
KML ..... Longitudinal metacentric height
(measured from base line)
LCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Longitudinal)
(measured from reference point for LCB & LCF)
TCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Transverse)
(measured from coordinate system origin)
VCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Vertical)
(measured from base line)
WPA ..... Water plane Area
BMT ..... Transv metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy)
BML ..... Longit metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy)
LCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Longitudinal)
(measured from reference point for LCB & LCF)
TCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Transverse)
(measured from coordinate system origin)
W.P.Moment of Inertia:
Longitudinal About neutral axis of water plane area
Transverse About neutral axis of water plane area
Volume .. of submerged body
Tilt Axis
The angle of the tilt axis is measured from the
posive x-axis
Optimum tilt angle
The minimum tilt angle at which the area ratio
requirement is satisfied
KG that satisfies : Heeling arm = Righting arm
at or before the downflooding angle
Static angle
At which the righting moment is zero
Area ratio = 1.0
For damage stability starting at the static angle
RM/HM Ratio
KG that satisfies the requirement :
Righting Moment/Heeling Moment >or= 2 within

TAMU Team West Africa

105

Final Report

7 deg past static angle


Equilibrium position tilt angle
When vessel is in equilibrium and not at the
upright position, the positive angle indicate
that the part of the vessel to the right of the
tilt axis is immersed in water

***

Hydrostatic Table

***

Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00


Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00
Reference Point for LCB & LCF
(X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00

Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg


Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg
Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter

/--- Draft ---/


/-- Center of Buoyancy--/ /-Center of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged
AFT
FWD Disp
TPI
LCB
TCB
VCB
LCF
TCF
Area
Volume
( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.) ( M.)
( M.)
( M.)
( M.)
(S.Meter)
(M^3)
------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----------------- --------- -------------------------------0.00
0.00
0.0 319.80 198.35 0.00 0.00
195.00
0.00
31199.8
0.0
1.00
1.00 32020.7 320.62 195.25 0.00 0.50
195.50
0.00
31279.5
31239.7
2.00
2.00 64121.3 321.40 195.49 0.00 1.00
195.98
0.00
31355.9
62557.3
3.00
3.00 96299.8 322.17 195.73 0.00 1.50
196.45
0.00
31431.4
93951.0
4.00
4.00 128554.1 322.93 195.97 0.00 2.00
196.90
0.00
31505.3
125418.7
5.00
5.00 160882.3 323.66 196.20 0.00 2.50
197.35
0.00
31576.2
156958.3
6.00
6.00 193282.2 324.36 196.43 0.00 3.01
197.78
0.00
31644.8
188568.0
7.00
7.00 225751.8 325.03 196.65 0.00 3.51
198.19
0.00
31710.4
220245.7
8.00
8.00 258289.1 325.72 196.87 0.00 4.01
198.61
0.00
31777.4
251989.3
9.00
9.00 290891.9 326.38 197.09 0.00 4.52
199.01
0.00
31841.5
283797.0
10.00 10.00 323558.3 327.00 197.30 0.00 5.02
199.39
0.00
31902.4
315666.7
11.00 11.00 356255.8 327.00 197.49 0.00 5.52
199.39
0.00
31902.4
347566.7
12.00 12.00 388953.3 327.00 197.65 0.00 6.02
199.41
0.00
31902.4
379466.7
13.00 13.00 421650.8 327.00 197.79 0.00 6.53
199.38
0.00
31902.4
411366.7
14.00 14.00 454348.3 327.00 197.90 0.00 7.03
199.41
0.00
31902.4
443266.7
15.00 15.00 487045.8 327.00 198.00 0.00 7.53
199.39
0.00
31902.4
475166.7
16.00 16.00 519743.3 327.00 198.09 0.00 8.03
199.40
0.00
31902.4
507066.7
17.00 17.00 552440.8 327.00 198.16 0.00 8.53
199.40
0.00
31902.4
538966.7
18.00 18.00 585138.3 327.00 198.23 0.00 9.03
199.35
0.00
31902.4
570866.7
19.00 19.00 617835.8 327.00 198.29 0.00 9.53
199.39
0.00
31902.4
602766.7
20.00 20.00 650533.3 326.94 198.35 0.00 10.04
199.41
0.00
31896.3
634666.7

/----- Water Plane -----/


With KG=0
With KG=0
/--- Draft ---/
/---------- Metacenter ---------/
/-- Moment Of Inertia --/
Moment to Heel Moment to Trim
AFT
FWD Disp
KMT
KML
BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal
0.01 Deg.
0.01 Deg.
( M.)
( M.) (M.Tons) ( M.) ( M.)
( M.) ( M.)
( M^4)
( M^4)
(M.Ton-M)
(M.Ton-M)
------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------------ ----------- -------------- ------------------------------------------------0.00 0.00
0.0 15278.23 74505.16 15278.23 74505.16
87.
426.
0.0
0.1
1.00 1.00 32020.7 534.47 12752.00
533.97 12751.50 16681156. 398352544.
2987.0
71266.6
2.00 2.00 64121.3 268.26 6416.35
267.26 6415.35 16719005. 401326912.
3002.2
71807.1
3.00 3.00 96299.8 179.83 4304.04
178.33 4302.53 16754301. 404227392.
3022.5
72340.0
4.00 4.00 128554.1 135.85 3247.63
133.85 3245.63 16786752. 407062432.
3048.0
72866.9
5.00 5.00 160882.3 109.65 2613.61
107.14 2611.10 16816716. 409834144.
3078.8
73388.1
6.00 6.00 193282.2
92.33 2190.74
89.33 2187.73 16844026. 412535520.
3114.8
73902.5
7.00 7.00 225751.8
80.10 1888.54
76.59 1885.03 16868848. 415170656.
3156.1
74410.7
8.00 8.00 258289.1
71.04 1661.77
67.03 1657.76 16891234. 417737344.
3202.6
74912.5
9.00 9.00 290891.9
64.11 1485.34
59.59 1480.83 16912412. 420254880.
3254.8
75411.3
10.00 10.00 323558.3
58.66 1343.46
53.64 1338.44 16931382. 422502336.
3312.4
75867.5

TAMU Team West Africa

106

Final Report

11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00

11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00

***

356255.8
388953.3
421650.8
454348.3
487045.8
519743.3
552440.8
585138.3
617835.8
650533.3

54.24 1221.71
50.65 1120.05
47.68 1034.06
45.23 960.66
43.16 897.11
41.43 841.77
39.95 792.92
38.70 749.58
37.63 710.87
36.71 676.06

48.71 1216.19
44.62 1114.03
41.16 1027.54
38.20
953.63
35.63
889.58
33.39
833.74
31.42 784.39
29.66 740.55
28.09 701.34
26.68 666.03

Cross Curves of Stability

Vertical Center of Gravity .....


Yaw Angle of Heel Axis .....

16931420.
16932350.
16930568.
16931564.
16930876.
16932928.
16933144.
16932918.
16932704.
16931662.

422708128.
422736416.
422694400.
422713024.
422697472.
422762464.
422761344.
422753024.
422742368.
422705824.

3372.3
3438.1
3509.1
3586.3
3668.9
3757.8
3852.0
3951.8
4057.3
4168.4

75964.2
76034.9
76098.7
76179.1
76259.1
76359.1
76453.1
76551.5
76655.2
76759.9

***
24.50 M
0.00 Deg

Draft Disp /---------------------------- Righting Arm (M.) @ Heel Angles (Deg) -------------------------/
(M.) (M.Tons) 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00
11.25
12.04
12.84
13.63
14.43
15.23
16.02
16.82
17.61
18.41
19.20
20.00

364299.6
390321.0
416342.4
442363.8
468385.2
494406.6
520428.0
546449.4
572470.8
598492.2
624513.6
650535.0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

2.52
2.28
2.07
1.89
1.74
1.60
1.48
1.38
1.29
1.21
1.14
1.07

5.12
4.63
4.21
3.85
3.54
3.26
3.02
2.81
2.63
2.46
2.32
2.19

7.87 10.14 11.24 11.67 11.67 11.40


7.13 9.47 10.73 11.29 11.43 11.28
6.49 8.83 10.23 10.93 11.19 11.16
5.94 8.20 9.75 10.58 10.96 10.99
5.47 7.60 9.29 10.24 10.73 10.78
5.05 7.03 8.83 9.91 10.51 10.53
4.68 6.53 8.39 9.58 10.27 10.24
4.36 6.09 7.96 9.27 9.98 9.93
4.07 5.70 7.54 8.96 9.67 9.59
3.82 5.35 7.13 8.66 9.32 9.23
3.60 5.05 6.74 8.34 8.96 8.84
3.41 4.78 6.39 7.99 8.57 8.45

10.93 10.05
10.83 9.92
10.68 9.75
10.48 9.54
10.24 9.30
9.97 9.02
9.67 8.73
9.35 8.42
9.01 8.09
8.65 7.74
8.27 7.39
7.88 7.02

8.83
8.69
8.51
8.30
8.06
7.81
7.53
7.24
6.93
6.61
6.28
5.95

Draft Disp /---------------------------- Righting Arm (M.) @ Heel Angles (Deg) -------------------------/
(M.) (M.Tons) 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00
11.25
12.04
12.84
13.63
14.43
15.23
16.02
16.82
17.61
18.41
19.20
20.00

364299.6
390321.0
416342.4
442363.8
468385.2
494406.6
520428.0
546449.4
572470.8
598492.2
624513.6
650535.0

7.34
7.20
7.04
6.84
6.62
6.39
6.14
5.88
5.60
5.32
5.02
4.72

TAMU Team West Africa

5.67
5.55
5.39
5.22
5.03
4.83
4.61
4.38
4.14
3.90
3.65
3.39

3.87
3.76
3.63
3.49
3.33
3.16
2.98
2.79
2.60
2.40
2.19
1.98

1.97
1.88
1.78
1.67
1.55
1.42
1.28
1.14
0.99
0.84
0.68
0.52

107

Final Report

* * * Intact Stability Reference Point Table * * *


Intact Draft .............. 17.00 M
Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;
Angle of Tilt Axis ........
0.00 Deg

24.50 M

Reference Points Height Above Water (M)


----------------------------------------HEEL ANGLES
------ - -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jnt No. Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
------- -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8
8.9
4.9
1.2 -2.3 -5.7 -9.0 -12.3 -15.5 -18.6
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.6 45.8 47.5 49.0 50.0 50.7
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 44.0 45.8 47.3 48.5 49.2 49.6 50.0 50.3 50.1 49.7 48.8 47.6 46.0
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 44.0 45.8 47.3 48.5 49.2 49.6 50.0 50.3 50.2 49.7 48.8 47.6 46.0
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC
44.0 41.8 39.3 36.5 33.5 30.2 27.0 23.9 20.6 17.1 13.6
9.9
6.1
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 44.0 41.8 39.3 36.5 33.5 30.2 27.0 23.9 20.6 17.1 13.6 9.9
6.1
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8
8.9
4.9
1.2 -2.2 -5.5 -8.8 -12.1 -15.2 -18.2
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 24.0 21.3 18.4 15.4 12.3
9.1
6.2
3.6
0.9 -1.7
-4.4 -7.0
-9.6
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 24.0 26.5 28.8 30.9 32.8 34.5 36.2 38.0 39.5 40.7 41.6 42.1 42.4
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.7 45.9 47.7 49.2 50.3 51.1
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------Jnt No. Description
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
-21.5 -24.3 -26.9 -29.3
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 51.0 50.9 50.4 49.5
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 44.0 41.7 39.1 36.2
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 44.0 41.8 39.2 36.3
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC
2.3 -1.5 -5.3 -9.1
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 2.3 -1.5 -5.3 -9.0
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE -21.1 -23.8 -26.4 -28.7
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE -12.0 -14.4 -16.7 -18.9
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 42.3 41.9 41.2 40.2
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 51.4 51.3 50.9 50.0
------- -------------------- -----------------------------

Draft Marks at Reference Points (M)


----------------------------------HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jnt No. Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
17.0 20.5 24.1 27.7 31.6 35.6 39.7 43.8 48.4 53.8 60.2 68.1 78.2
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 17.0 13.5 9.9
6.3 2.4 -1.7 -6.5 -12.2 -18.7 -26.2 -35.2 -46.2 -60.3
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 17.0 15.0 12.9 10.8 8.6 6.2 3.3 -0.3 -4.5 -9.2 -14.9 -21.9 -30.9
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 17.0 15.0 12.9 10.8 8.6 6.2 3.3 -0.4 -4.5 -9.3 -14.9 -22.0 -31.0
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC
17.0 19.0 21.1 23.2 25.4 27.7 29.8 31.9 34.1 36.8 39.9 43.8 48.8
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 17.0 19.0 21.1 23.2 25.4 27.7 29.8 31.9 34.1 36.7 39.9 43.7 48.7
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 17.0 20.5 24.1 27.7 31.6 35.6 39.6 43.6 48.2 53.5 59.8 67.5 77.5
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 17.0 19.6 22.3 25.0 27.9 30.9 33.8 36.6 39.8 43.5 47.8 53.2 60.1
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 17.0 14.4 11.7 9.0 6.1 2.9 -0.8 -5.4 -10.5 -16.5 -23.7 -32.5 -43.8
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 17.0 13.5 9.9 6.3 2.4 -1.7 -6.6 -12.4 -18.9 -26.5 -35.6 -46.7 -61.1
------- -------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMU Team West Africa

108

Final Report

HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------Jnt No. Description
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
92.0 112.1 145.0 209.7
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE -79.6 -107.7 -153.6 -244.0
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC -43.1 -61.0 -90.1 -147.6
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC -43.2 -61.1 -90.3 -147.8
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC 55.5 65.4 81.5 113.3
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 55.4 65.3 81.4 113.1
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 91.0 110.7 143.0 206.5
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 69.5 83.2 105.6 149.7
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE -59.2 -81.6 -118.3 -190.5
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE -80.6 -109.1 -155.6 -247.2
------- -------------------- -----------------------------

* * * Intact Stability Downflooding Point Table * * *

Intact Draft .............. 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;
Angle of Tilt Axis ........

24.50 M

0.00 Deg

Downflooding Points Height Above Water (M)


-------------------------------------------Downflooding Angle = 31.70 Deg @ AFT PEAK BT PORT
Weathertight Angle = 31.70 Deg @ AFT PEAK BT PORT
HEEL ANGLES
------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.6 45.8 47.6 49.0 50.1
2 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.6 -9.0 -12.3 -15.5
3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.6 45.8 47.6 49.0 50.1
4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.6 -9.0 -12.2 -15.4
5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.7 45.8 47.6 49.1 50.1
6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.6 -8.9 -12.2 -15.4
7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 7
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.7 45.8 47.7 49.1 50.2
8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.6 -8.9 -12.2 -15.3
9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 9
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.7 45.9 47.7 49.2 50.2
10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.6 -8.9 -12.1 -15.3
11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.7 45.9 47.7 49.2 50.3
12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.5 -8.9 -12.1 -15.3
13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 13
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.7 45.9 47.7 49.2 50.3
14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 14
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.5 -8.8 -12.1 -15.2
15 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 15
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.6 45.8 47.6 49.0 50.0
16 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 16
24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.3 -5.7 -9.0 -12.3 -15.5
17 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT STB
24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.6 45.8 47.5 49.0 50.0
18 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT PORT 24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.3 -5.7 -9.0 -12.3 -15.5
19 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT STB 24.0 27.4 30.6 33.5 36.2 38.7 41.2 43.7 45.9 47.7 49.2 50.3
20 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT PORT 24.0 20.4 16.7 12.8 8.9 4.9 1.2 -2.2 -5.5 -8.8 -12.1 -15.2
21 Int/Dam THRUSTER ROOM
24.0 23.9 23.6 23.2 22.5 21.8 21.2 20.7 20.0 19.3 18.3 17.2
22 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT 24.0 23.9 23.6 23.2 22.6 21.8 21.2 20.8 20.2 19.5 18.6 17.6
------- ------- -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMU Team West Africa

109

Final Report

HEEL ANGLES
------- ------- -------------------- ------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description
60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- ------- -------------------- ------------------------------------1 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1
50.8 51.0 51.0 50.5 49.6
2 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2
-18.5 -21.5 -24.2 -26.8 -29.2
3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3
50.8 51.1 51.0 50.5 49.7
4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4
-18.5 -21.4 -24.2 -26.8 -29.1
5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5
50.8 51.1 51.1 50.6 49.7
6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6
-18.4 -21.4 -24.1 -26.7 -29.1
7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 7
50.9 51.2 51.1 50.7 49.8
8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8
-18.4 -21.3 -24.0 -26.6 -29.0
9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 9
51.0 51.3 51.2 50.7 49.9
10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10
-18.3 -21.2 -24.0 -26.5 -28.9
11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11
51.0 51.3 51.3 50.8 50.0
12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12
-18.3 -21.2 -23.9 -26.5 -28.8
13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 13
51.0 51.3 51.3 50.8 50.0
14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 14
-18.3 -21.2 -23.9 -26.4 -28.8
15 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 15
50.7 51.0 50.9 50.4 49.5
16 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 16
-18.6 -21.5 -24.3 -26.9 -29.2
17 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT STB
50.7 51.0 50.9 50.4 49.5
18 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT PORT
-18.6 -21.5 -24.3 -26.9 -29.3
19 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT STB 51.0 51.4 51.3 50.9 50.0
20 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT PORT -18.2 -21.1 -23.9 -26.4 -28.8
21 Int/Dam THRUSTER ROOM
16.0 14.7 13.3 11.7 10.1
22 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT
16.4 15.1 13.8 12.3 10.7
------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------

***

Intact Stability Parameters

***

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;

24.50 M

Wind Speed ................ 51.50 M/Sec


Wind Direction is Normal to Tilt Axis
Range of Stability ........ 78.28 Deg
Downflooding Angle ........ 31.70 Deg @ AFT PEAK BT PORT
Weathertight Angle ........ 31.70 Deg @ AFT PEAK BT PORT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/--Angles w.r.t.--/ Critical Yaw Angle /--- Angles ---/
/-- Yawed axis ---/ Downflood Of
/- w.r.t. Ship-/ Righting Heeling /-- Center of Buoyancy--/
Heel
Trim Height Tilt Axis Heel Trim
Arm
Arm
LCB
TCB
VCB
(Deg)
(Deg) (M)
(Deg) (Deg) (Deg) (M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
------------------- -------- -------- ---------------- ------- -------- -------------------------0.00
0.00 24.0( 1) 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.57 198.16 0.00 8.53
5.00
0.00 20.4( 2) 0.00
5.00 0.00
1.36
0.61 198.16 -2.75 8.65
10.00
0.00 16.7( 2) 0.00 10.00 0.00
2.77
0.64 198.16 -5.54 9.02
15.00
0.00 12.8(18) 0.00 15.00 0.00
4.29
0.67 198.16 -8.42 9.66
20.00
0.00
8.9(18) 0.00 20.00 0.00
5.99
0.69 198.16 -11.43 10.61
25.00 -0.01
4.9(18) 0.00 25.00 0.01
7.86
0.70 198.16 -14.55 11.90
30.00 -0.01
1.2(18) 0.00 30.00 0.01
9.20
0.71 198.16 -17.12 13.24
35.00 -0.01 -2.3(18) 0.00 35.00 0.02
9.91
0.69 198.16 -19.11 14.50
40.00 -0.02 -5.7(18) 0.00 40.00 0.03
9.85
0.67 198.16 -20.42 15.50
45.00 -0.03 -9.0(18) 0.00 45.00 0.04
9.27
0.64 198.15 -21.31 16.31
50.00 -0.04 -12.3(18) 0.00 50.00 0.06
8.34
0.61 198.15 -21.93 16.99
55.00 -0.05 -15.5(18) 0.00 55.00 0.08
7.17
0.57 198.15 -22.38 17.58
60.00 -0.06 -18.6(18) 0.00 60.00 0.11
5.81
0.53 198.14 -22.72 18.10
65.00 -0.06 -21.5(18) 0.00 65.00 0.15
4.33
0.49 198.14 -22.96 18.57

TAMU Team West Africa

110

Final Report

70.00 -0.07 -24.3(18) 0.00 70.00 0.20


2.75
0.44 198.14 -23.14
75.00 -0.08 -26.9(18) 0.00 75.00 0.29
1.10
0.39 198.13 -23.27
80.00 -0.08 -29.3(18) 0.00 80.00 0.47 -0.58
0.34 198.13 -23.36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***

Intact Stability Allowable KG

19.00
19.41
19.80

***

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.81 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;

24.50 M

Yaw Angle Of Tilt Axis ....


0.00 Deg
Downflooding Angle ........ 31.70 Deg @ AFT PEAK BT PORT
Weathertight Angle ........ 31.70 Deg @ AFT PEAK BT PORT
*****

Wind Speed 51.50 M/Sec

*****

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Allowable Optimum Range Of Area /--Intercept--/


Condition
KG
Tilt Angle Stability
Ratio 1st 2nd
(M)
(Deg)
(Deg)
/----(Deg)----/
----------------------------------- ---------- --------- ------ --------------For Input KG = 24.50

31.70

31.70

7.17

2.15

77.18

Area Ratio

= 1.40

38.64

31.70

31.70

1.40 15.42

40.32

1st Intercept

= 15.00

38.48

31.70

31.70

1.46 15.00

40.66

40.05

31.70

31.70

0.82 20.14

36.32

2nd Intercept

= 30.00*

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***

Righting Arm And Heeling Arm Curves

***

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
---------------------------------------------------------------------Heel
Heeling Arm
Righting Arm Data For Calculated KG
(Deg)
51.50
0.00 24.50 38.64 38.48 40.05
---------------------------------------------------------------------0.00
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.61
0.00
1.36
0.12
0.14
0.00
10.00
0.64
0.00
2.77
0.31
0.34
0.07
15.00
0.67
0.00
4.29
0.63
0.67
0.27
20.00
0.69
0.00
5.99
1.16
1.21
0.67
25.00
0.70
0.00
7.86
1.89
1.96
1.29
30.00
0.71
0.00
9.20
2.13
2.21
1.42
35.00
0.69
0.00
9.91
1.80
1.89
0.99
40.00
0.67
0.00
9.85
0.76
0.87 -0.14
45.00
0.64
0.00
9.27 -0.72 -0.61 -1.72
50.00
0.61
0.00
8.34 -2.49 -2.36 -3.57
55.00
0.57
0.00
7.17 -4.41 -4.28 -5.57
60.00
0.53
0.00
5.81 -6.43 -6.29 -7.65
65.00
0.49
0.00
4.33 -8.49 -8.34 -9.76
70.00
0.44
0.00
2.75 -10.54 -10.39 -11.86
75.00
0.39
0.00
1.10 -12.55 -12.40 -13.91
80.00
0.34
0.00 -0.58 -14.50 -14.34 -15.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMU Team West Africa

111

Final Report

* * * Damage Stability Reference Point Table * * *


Damaged Body ID. No. 24
Title : BALLAST TANK 7 STARBOARD
Permeability = 95.0 %
Intact Draft .............. 17.00 M
Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;
Angle of Tilt Axis ........

24.50 M

180.00 Deg

Reference Points Height Above Water (M)


----------------------------------------HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jnt No. Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
23.9 27.3 30.5 33.4 36.1 38.6 41.0 43.5 45.6 47.4 48.8 49.8 50.5
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 23.9 20.3 16.6 12.7 8.8 4.8 1.0 -2.4 -5.8 -9.2 -12.5 -15.7 -18.8
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 43.9 41.7 39.2 36.4 33.4 30.1 26.9 23.7 20.4 17.0 13.4 9.7 5.9
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 43.8 41.6 39.1 36.3 33.3 29.9 26.7 23.6 20.2 16.8 13.2 9.5 5.7
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC
43.9 45.7 47.2 48.3 49.1 49.5 49.9 50.1 50.0 49.5 48.6 47.4 45.8
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 43.8 45.7 47.1 48.2 49.0 49.4 49.7 50.0 49.8 49.3 48.4 47.2 45.5
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 22.8 26.1 29.2 32.1 34.7 37.1 39.3 41.5 43.4 45.0 46.3 47.2 47.7
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 22.8 25.2 27.4 29.5 31.2 32.8 34.3 35.7 37.0 37.9 38.5 38.9 38.9
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 22.8 20.0 17.0 13.9 10.7 7.4 4.3 1.3 -1.6 -4.5 -7.4 -10.3 -13.0
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 22.8 19.2 15.3 11.4 7.3 3.3 -0.7 -4.4 -8.0 -11.5 -15.0 -18.4 -21.6
------- -------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------Jnt No. Description
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
50.8 50.7 50.2 49.3
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE -21.7 -24.5 -27.1 -29.5
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC
2.1 -1.7 -5.5 -9.3
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 1.9 -1.9 -5.8 -9.5
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC 43.8 41.5 38.9 36.0
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 43.6 41.3 38.7 35.8
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 47.8 47.6 47.1 46.2
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 38.7 38.2 37.3 36.2
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE -15.7 -18.2 -20.6 -22.8
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE -24.7 -27.5 -30.2 -32.6
------- -------------------- -----------------------------

Draft Marks at Reference Points (M)


----------------------------------HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jnt No. Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
17.1 13.6 10.0 6.4 2.5 -1.6 -6.4 -12.1 -18.5 -26.0 -34.9 -45.9 -60.0
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 17.1 20.6 24.1 27.8 31.7 35.7 39.8 43.9 48.6 54.0 60.4 68.4 78.6
30 STARBOARD BACK ACC 17.1 19.1 21.2 23.3 25.5 27.8 30.0 32.0 34.4 37.0 40.2 44.1 49.2
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 17.2 19.2 21.3 23.4 25.6 28.0 30.1 32.2 34.6 37.3 40.5 44.5 49.6

TAMU Team West Africa

112

Final Report

302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC


17.1 15.1 13.0 10.9 8.7 6.4 3.4 -0.2 -4.2 -9.0 -14.6 -21.6 -30.5
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 17.2 15.2 13.1 11.1 8.9 6.5 3.6 0.0 -4.0 -8.7 -14.3 -21.2 -30.1
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 18.2 14.8 11.3 7.8 4.1 0.1 -4.4 -9.7 -15.7 -22.7 -31.0 -41.2 -54.4
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 18.2 15.7 13.1 10.5 7.7 4.8 1.4 -2.6 -7.3 -12.6 -19.0 -26.8 -36.9
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 18.2 20.9 23.7 26.6 29.6 32.8 36.0 39.4 43.1 47.4 52.5 58.9 67.0
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 18.2 21.8 25.4 29.2 33.2 37.4 41.8 46.3 51.4 57.3 64.4 73.0 84.2
------- -------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------Jnt No. Description
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
-79.2 -107.2 -152.9 -242.9
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 92.4 112.6 145.7 210.8
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 56.0 66.0 82.3 114.5
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 56.5 66.7 83.3 115.9
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC -42.6 -60.4 -89.3 -146.4
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC -42.1 -59.7 -88.4 -145.0
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE -72.2 -98.3 -140.9 -224.9
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE -50.6 -70.6 -103.3 -167.7
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 78.1 94.2 120.6 172.5
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 99.3 121.5 157.6 228.8
------- -------------------- -----------------------------

* * * Damage Stability Reference Point Table * * *

Damaged Body ID. No. 24


Title : BALLAST TANK 7 STARBOARD
Permeability = 95.0 %

Intact Draft .............. 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;
Angle of Tilt Axis ........

24.50 M

180.00 Deg

Downflooding Points Height Above Water (M)


-------------------------------------------Downflooding Angle = 29.23 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB
Weathertight Angle = 29.23 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB

HEEL ANGLES
------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1
23.7 20.1 16.3 12.5 8.5 4.4 0.7 -2.8 -6.3 -9.7 -13.0 -16.3
2 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2
23.7 27.1 30.2 33.2 35.8 38.3 40.7 43.1 45.2 46.9 48.3 49.3
3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3
23.6 20.0 16.2 12.3 8.3 4.3 0.5 -3.0 -6.5 -9.9 -13.3 -16.5
4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4
23.6 27.0 30.1 33.0 35.7 38.1 40.5 42.9 44.9 46.7 48.0 49.0
5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5
23.5 19.8 16.1 12.2 8.2 4.1 0.3 -3.2 -6.7 -10.2 -13.6 -16.8
6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6
23.5 26.8 29.9 32.9 35.5 37.9 40.3 42.6 44.7 46.4 47.7 48.7
7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8
23.3 26.6 29.7 32.6 35.3 37.7 40.1 42.3 44.3 46.0 47.3 48.3
8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10
23.1 26.4 29.6 32.4 35.1 37.5 39.8 42.1 44.0 45.7 46.9 47.9
9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11
23.0 19.3 15.5 11.6 7.6 3.5 -0.4 -4.0 -7.6 -11.2 -14.6 -18.0
10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12
23.0 26.3 29.4 32.3 34.9 37.3 39.6 41.8 43.8 45.4 46.7 47.6
11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 13
22.9 19.3 15.4 11.5 7.5 3.4 -0.5 -4.2 -7.8 -11.3 -14.8 -18.1
12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 14
22.9 26.2 29.3 32.2 34.8 37.2 39.5 41.7 43.7 45.3 46.5 47.4

TAMU Team West Africa

113

Final Report

13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 15


23.8 20.2 16.5 12.6 8.6 4.6 0.9 -2.6 -6.0 -9.4 -12.7 -16.0
14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 16
23.8 27.2 30.4 33.3 36.0 38.4 40.9 43.3 45.4 47.1 48.5 49.6
15 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT STB
23.9 20.3 16.6 12.7 8.7 4.7 1.0 -2.4 -5.9 -9.2 -12.5 -15.7
16 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT PORT
23.9 27.3 30.5 33.4 36.1 38.5 41.0 43.4 45.6 47.3 48.7 49.8
17 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT STB 22.9 19.2 15.4 11.4 7.4 3.3 -0.6 -4.3 -7.9 -11.5 -14.9 -18.3
18 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT PORT 22.9 26.2 29.3 32.1 34.8 37.1 39.4 41.6 43.5 45.1 46.4 47.2
19 Int/Dam THRUSTER ROOM
23.9 23.8 23.5 23.1 22.5 21.7 21.0 20.5 19.9 19.1 18.2 17.1
20 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT
22.8 22.6 22.2 21.7 21.0 20.1 19.3 18.5 17.7 16.7 15.6 14.3
------- ------- -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEEL ANGLES
------- ------- -------------------- ------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description
60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- ------- -------------------- ------------------------------------1 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1
-19.4 -22.3 -25.1 -27.7 -30.1
2 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2
49.9 50.2 50.0 49.5 48.6
3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3
-19.6 -22.6 -25.4 -28.0 -30.4
4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4
49.6 49.9 49.7 49.2 48.3
5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5
-20.0 -23.0 -25.8 -28.4 -30.8
6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6
49.3 49.5 49.4 48.8 48.0
7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8
48.9 49.1 48.9 48.4 47.5
8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10
48.4 48.6 48.4 47.9 47.0
9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11
-21.2 -24.2 -27.0 -29.7 -32.1
10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12
48.1 48.3 48.1 47.6 46.7
11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 13
-21.3 -24.4 -27.2 -29.9 -32.3
12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 14
48.0 48.1 47.9 47.4 46.5
13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 15
-19.1 -22.0 -24.8 -27.4 -29.8
14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 16
50.2 50.5 50.4 49.9 49.0
15 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT STB
-18.8 -21.8 -24.6 -27.2 -29.5
16 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT PORT
50.4 50.7 50.6 50.1 49.2
17 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT STB -21.5 -24.6 -27.4 -30.1 -32.5
18 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT PORT 47.8 47.9 47.7 47.2 46.3
19 Int/Dam THRUSTER ROOM
15.9 14.5 13.1 11.5 9.9
20 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT
13.0 11.5 10.0 8.4 6.7
------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------

***

Damage Stability Parameters

***

Damaged Body ID. No. 24


Title : BALLAST TANK 7 STARBOARD
Permeability = 95.0 %

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;

24.50 M

Wind Speed ................ 25.80 M/Sec


Wind Direction is Normal to Tilt Axis
Range of Stability ........ 78.14 Deg
Downflooding Angle ........ 29.23 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB
Weathertight Angle ........ 29.23 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB

TAMU Team West Africa

114

Final Report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/--Angles w.r.t.--/ Critical Yaw Angle /--- Angles ---/


/-- Yawed axis ---/ Downflood Of
/- w.r.t. Ship-/ Righting Heeling /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ Flood
Heel
Trim Height Tilt Axis Heel Trim
Arm
Arm
LCB
TCB
VCB Water
(Deg)
(Deg) (M)
(Deg) (Deg) (Deg) (M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M) (M.Tons)
------------------- -------- -------- ---------------- ------- -------- -------------------------- -------0.00 -0.16 22.8(20) 180.00
0.00 -0.16 -1.16
0.14 198.21 -1.16 8.96 20570.6
5.00 -0.17 19.2(17) 180.00 -5.00 -0.17
0.11
0.15 198.21 1.46 9.07 22576.0
10.00 -0.19 15.4(17) 180.00 -10.00 -0.19
1.43
0.16 198.22 4.11 9.42 24612.2
15.00 -0.20 11.4(17) 180.00 -15.00 -0.21
2.88
0.17 198.22 6.85 10.03 26712.2
20.00 -0.21
7.4(17) 180.00 -20.00 -0.22
4.50
0.18 198.22 9.72 10.94 28912.8
25.00 -0.22
3.3(17) 180.00 -25.00 -0.24
6.36
0.18 198.23 12.76 12.20 31251.7
30.00 -0.25 -0.6(17) 180.00 -30.00 -0.29
7.88
0.18 198.24 15.41 13.57 33605.0
35.00 -0.29 -4.3(17) 180.00 -35.00 -0.35
8.69
0.18 198.25 17.39 14.83 34472.1
40.00 -0.32 -7.9(17) 180.00 -40.00 -0.41
8.74
0.17 198.27 18.69 15.82 34615.0
45.00 -0.35 -11.5(17) 180.00 -45.00 -0.49
8.28
0.16 198.28 19.58 16.63 34730.4
50.00 -0.37 -14.9(17) 180.00 -50.00 -0.58
7.48
0.16 198.29 20.21 17.31 34826.7
55.00 -0.39 -18.3(17) 180.00 -55.00 -0.69
6.44
0.15 198.31 20.66 17.90 34908.9
60.00 -0.41 -21.5(17) 180.00 -60.00 -0.83
5.22
0.13 198.32 20.99 18.42 34980.6
65.00 -0.43 -24.6(17) 180.00 -65.00 -1.02
3.88
0.12 198.33 21.23 18.88 35043.8
70.00 -0.44 -27.4(17) 180.00 -70.00 -1.30
2.45
0.11 198.33 21.41 19.32 35099.6
75.00 -0.45 -30.1(17) 180.00 -75.00 -1.75
0.96
0.10 198.34 21.54 19.72 35147.2
80.00 -0.46 -32.5(17) 180.00 -80.00 -2.64 -0.57
0.09 198.34 21.62 20.11 35181.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***

Damage Stability Allowable KG

***

Damaged Body ID. No. 24


Title : BALLAST TANK 7 STARBOARD
Permeability = 95.0 %

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.81 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;

24.50 M

Yaw Angle Of Tilt Axis .... 180.00 Deg


Downflooding Angle ........ 29.23 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB
Weathertight Angle ........ 29.23 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB

*****

Wind Speed 25.80 M/Sec

*****

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Allowable Optimum Range Of Static /---Intercept---/ R.O.S.


Condition To Satisfy
KG
Tilt Angle Stability
Angle 1st
2nd 1st-2nd/DF
(M)
(Deg)
(Deg)
(Deg) /-----(Deg)-----/ (Deg)
------------------------------------ ---------- --------- --------- ----------------- ---------For Input KG = 24.50
24.66
4.57
5.17
77.84 24.07
Heeling Arm =
Righting Arm

39.79

29.23

2.75

26.57

29.22

Static Angle = 15.00

35.61

15.00

14.23

15.00

16.25

45.89

12.98

Area Ratio =

39.45

29.23

4.58

24.66

26.94

33.93

2.30

1.00

RM/HM Ratio = 2.00


39.42
29.23
4.68
24.57
26.73
34.27 2.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMU Team West Africa

115

Final Report

***

Righting Arm And Heeling Arm Curves

***

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
-------------------------------------------------------------------Heel Heeling Arm Righting Arm Data For Calculated KG ........
(Deg)
25.80 24.50 39.79 35.61 39.45 39.42
-------------------------------------------------------------------0.00
0.14 -1.16 -1.16 -1.16 -1.16 -1.16
5.00
0.15
0.11 -1.22 -0.86 -1.19 -1.19
10.00
0.16
1.43 -1.22 -0.50 -1.16 -1.16
15.00
0.17
2.88 -1.08
0.00 -0.99 -0.98
20.00
0.18
4.50 -0.73
0.70 -0.61 -0.60
25.00
0.18
6.36 -0.10
1.67
0.05
0.06
30.00
0.18
7.88
0.24
2.33
0.41
0.43
35.00
0.18
8.69 -0.08
2.32
0.12
0.14
40.00
0.17
8.74 -1.09
1.60 -0.86 -0.84
45.00
0.16
8.28 -2.53
0.43 -2.29 -2.26
50.00
0.16
7.48 -4.23 -1.03 -3.97 -3.94
55.00
0.15
6.44 -6.09 -2.66 -5.80 -5.78
60.00
0.13
5.22 -8.02 -4.40 -7.72 -7.69
65.00
0.12
3.88 -9.98 -6.19 -9.66 -9.63
70.00
0.11
2.45 -11.92 -7.99 -11.59 -11.56
75.00
0.10
0.96 -13.81 -9.77 -13.48 -13.45
80.00
0.09 -0.57 -15.63 -11.51 -15.29 -15.26
--------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * Damage Stability Reference Point Table * * *

Damaged Body ID. No. 16


Title : LNG TANK 3
Permeability = 95.0 %

Intact Draft .............. 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;
Angle of Tilt Axis ........

24.50 M

180.00 Deg

Reference Points Height Above Water (M)


----------------------------------------HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jnt No. Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
23.7 27.1 30.2 33.2 35.8 38.2 40.7 43.0 45.1 46.8 48.1 49.1 49.8
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 23.7 20.1 16.4 12.5 8.5 4.4 0.7 -2.8 -6.3 -9.8 -13.1 -16.4 -19.5
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 43.7 41.5 39.0 36.1 33.0 29.7 26.4 23.2 19.9 16.3 12.7 8.9 5.1
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 43.4 41.2 38.6 35.8 32.6 29.3 26.0 22.6 19.2 15.5 11.8 8.0 4.1
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC
43.7 45.5 47.0 48.0 48.8 49.1 49.4 49.6 49.4 48.8 47.9 46.6 44.9
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC
43.4 45.2 46.6 47.7 48.4 48.7 49.0 49.0 48.7 48.1 47.0 45.7 43.9
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 20.1 23.0 25.8 28.3 30.7 32.8 34.3 35.4 36.2 36.7 37.0 37.0 36.8

TAMU Team West Africa

116

Final Report

7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 20.0 22.0 23.9 25.6 27.1 28.4 29.1 29.4 29.5 29.4 29.1 28.5 27.8
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 20.0 16.8 13.5 10.1 6.6 3.0 -0.8 -5.0 -9.0 -13.0 -16.9 -20.6 -24.1
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 20.1 16.1 11.9 7.6 3.3 -1.1 -5.7 -10.5 -15.2 -19.8 -24.3 -28.5 -32.5
------- -------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------Jnt No. Description
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
50.0 49.8 49.3 48.4
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE -22.5 -25.3 -27.9 -30.3
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC
1.3 -2.6 -6.4 -10.2
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 0.2 -3.7 -7.6 -11.4
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC 42.9 40.6 38.0 35.1
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC 41.9 39.5 36.9 33.9
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 36.3 35.6 34.7 33.6
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 26.9 25.9 24.7 23.4
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE -27.4 -30.5 -33.2 -35.7
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE -36.1 -39.5 -42.5 -45.1
------- -------------------- -----------------------------

Draft Marks at Reference Points (M)


----------------------------------HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jnt No. Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
17.3 13.8 10.3 6.7 2.9 -1.2 -6.0 -11.6 -17.9 -25.2 -33.9 -44.7 -58.6
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 17.3 20.8 24.4 28.1 32.0 36.1 40.2 44.5 49.3 54.8 61.4 69.5 80.0
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 17.3 19.3 21.4 23.6 25.8 28.2 30.5 32.6 35.1 37.9 41.3 45.4 50.8
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 17.6 19.7 21.8 24.0 26.3 28.7 31.0 33.4 36.0 39.0 42.6 47.1 52.8
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC
17.3 15.3 13.3 11.3 9.1 6.8 3.9 0.4 -3.5 -8.1 -13.5 -20.3 -28.9
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC
17.6 15.6 13.7 11.6 9.5 7.2 4.5 1.1 -2.6 -7.0 -12.2 -18.6 -26.9
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 20.9 17.9 14.8 11.7 8.4 4.9 1.4 -2.2 -6.2 -11.0 -16.6 -23.6 -32.6
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE 21.0 18.9 16.7 14.5 12.2 9.7 7.3 5.0 2.4 -0.6 -4.2 -8.7 -14.6
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 21.0 24.1 27.3 30.6 34.0 37.7 42.0 47.1 52.8 59.4 67.3 76.9 89.3
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 20.9 24.9 28.9 33.1 37.5 42.2 47.6 53.8 60.9 69.0 78.8 90.7 106.0
------- -------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEEL ANGLES
------- -------------------- ----------------------------Jnt No. Description
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- -------------------- ----------------------------3 PORT STERN SIDE
-77.4 -104.8 -149.7 -238.1
5 STARBOARD STERN SIDE 94.2 115.0 148.9 215.6
301 STARBOARD BACK ACC 58.0 68.6 85.9 119.8
303 STARBOARD FRONT ACC 60.5 71.8 90.2 126.4
302 PORT BACK SIDE ACC -40.6 -57.8 -85.8 -141.0
304 PORT FRONT SIDE ACC -38.2 -54.6 -81.5 -134.5
6 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE -45.0 -63.3 -93.3 -152.5
7 PORT BOW ANGLE SIDE -22.7 -34.7 -54.5 -93.6
8 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 105.9 130.1 169.4 246.7
9 STARBOARD BOW ANGLE 126.6 156.5 205.3 301.2
------- -------------------- -----------------------------

TAMU Team West Africa

117

Final Report

* * * Damage Stability Reference Point Table * * *

Damaged Body ID. No. 16


Title : LNG TANK 3
Permeability = 95.0 %

Intact Draft .............. 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;
Angle of Tilt Axis ........

24.50 M

180.00 Deg

Downflooding Points Height Above Water (M)


-------------------------------------------Downflooding Angle = 24.00 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB
Weathertight Angle = 24.00 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB

HEEL ANGLES
------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1
23.0 19.3 15.4 11.4 7.4 3.3 -0.7 -4.4 -8.2 -11.9 -15.4 -18.9
2 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2
23.0 26.2 29.3 32.2 34.8 37.1 39.3 41.4 43.2 44.7 45.8 46.6
3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3
22.6 18.9 15.0 11.0 6.9 2.8 -1.3 -5.2 -9.0 -12.8 -16.5 -20.1
4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4
22.6 25.8 28.9 31.7 34.3 36.6 38.7 40.7 42.4 43.7 44.7 45.4
5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5
22.2 18.4 14.4 10.4 6.3 2.1 -2.1 -6.1 -10.1 -14.1 -17.9 -21.6
6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6
22.2 25.3 28.3 31.1 33.6 35.9 37.9 39.8 41.3 42.5 43.4 43.9
7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8
21.6 24.7 27.6 30.3 32.8 35.0 37.0 38.6 39.9 40.9 41.7 42.1
8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10
21.1 24.1 27.0 29.6 32.0 34.2 36.0 37.4 38.5 39.4 40.0 40.2
9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11
20.7 16.7 12.6 8.4 4.1 -0.2 -4.7 -9.3 -13.8 -18.2 -22.5 -26.6
10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12
20.7 23.7 26.5 29.1 31.5 33.6 35.3 36.6 37.6 38.3 38.8 38.9
11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 13
20.5 16.4 12.3 8.1 3.8 -0.5 -5.1 -9.8 -14.4 -18.8 -23.2 -27.3
12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 14
20.5 23.4 26.2 28.8 31.2 33.3 34.9 36.1 37.0 37.7 38.1 38.2
13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 15
23.4 19.7 15.9 12.0 8.0 3.9 0.0 -3.6 -7.2 -10.8 -14.2 -17.6
14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 16
23.4 26.7 29.8 32.7 35.3 37.7 40.0 42.3 44.2 45.8 47.0 47.9
15 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT STB
23.7 20.0 16.3 12.4 8.4 4.3 0.6 -3.0 -6.5 -9.9 -13.3 -16.6
16 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT PORT 23.7 27.0 30.2 33.1 35.7 38.1 40.5 42.9 44.9 46.6 47.9 48.9
17 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT STB 20.2 16.2 12.0 7.8 3.5 -0.9 -5.5 -10.2 -14.9 -19.5 -23.9 -28.1
18 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT PORT 20.2 23.2 25.9 28.5 30.8 32.9 34.5 35.6 36.5 37.1 37.4 37.4
19 Int/Dam THRUSTER ROOM
23.7 23.6 23.3 22.8 22.2 21.3 20.7 20.1 19.4 18.5 17.5 16.4
20 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT 20.0 19.4 18.7 17.8 16.8 15.7 14.1 12.2 10.3 8.2 6.1 4.0
------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEEL ANGLES
------- ------- -------------------- ------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description
60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0
------- ------- -------------------- ------------------------------------1 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1
-22.2 -25.3 -28.3 -31.0 -33.4
2 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2
47.0 47.1 46.9 46.3 45.3
3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3
-23.4 -26.6 -29.6 -32.3 -34.8
4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4
45.8 45.8 45.5 44.9 43.9
5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5
-25.1 -28.3 -31.4 -34.2 -36.7
6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6
44.2 44.1 43.7 43.1 42.1
7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8
42.2 42.0 41.6 40.8 39.8

TAMU Team West Africa

118

Final Report

8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10


40.2 39.9 39.4 38.6 37.5
9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11
-30.4 -34.0 -37.2 -40.2 -42.8
10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12
38.8 38.5 37.9 37.0 35.9
11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 13
-31.2 -34.8 -38.1 -41.1 -43.7
12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 14
38.0 37.6 37.0 36.2 35.0
13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 15
-20.8 -23.8 -26.7 -29.4 -31.8
14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 16
48.5 48.6 48.4 47.9 46.9
15 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT STB
-19.7 -22.7 -25.6 -28.2 -30.6
16 Int/Dam AFT PEAK BT PORT
49.5 49.7 49.6 49.0 48.1
17 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT STB -32.0 -35.7 -39.0 -42.0 -44.7
18 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT PORT 37.2 36.8 36.1 35.2 34.1
19 Int/Dam THRUSTER ROOM
15.1 13.8 12.3 10.7 9.1
20 Int/Dam FORWARD PEAK BT
1.8 -0.3 -2.3 -4.2 -6.2
------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------

***

Damage Stability Parameters

***

Damaged Body ID. No. 16


Title : LNG TANK 3
Permeability = 95.0 %

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;

24.50 M

Wind Speed ................ 25.80 M/Sec


Wind Direction is Normal to Tilt Axis
Range of Stability ........ 72.99 Deg
Downflooding Angle ........ 24.00 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB
Weathertight Angle ........ 24.00 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/--Angles w.r.t.--/ Critical Yaw Angle /--- Angles ---/


/-- Yawed axis ---/ Downflood Of
/- w.r.t. Ship-/ Righting Heeling /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ Flood
Heel
Trim Height Tilt Axis Heel Trim
Arm
Arm
LCB
TCB
VCB Water
(Deg)
(Deg) (M)
(Deg) (Deg) (Deg) (M)
(M)
(M)
(M)
(M) (M.Tons)
------------------- -------- -------- ---------------- ------- -------- -------------------------- -------0.00 -0.53 20.0(20) 180.00
0.00 -0.53 -2.83
0.14 198.30 -2.83 9.49 69451.2
5.00 -0.60 16.2(17) 180.00 -5.00 -0.60 -1.78
0.15 198.32 -0.48 9.59 78182.4
10.00 -0.66 12.0(17) 180.00 -10.00 -0.67 -0.67
0.16 198.33 1.89 9.91 87048.1
15.00 -0.71
7.8(17) 180.00 -15.00 -0.74
0.56
0.16 198.35 4.35 10.45 96191.3
20.00 -0.76
3.5(17) 180.00 -20.00 -0.81
1.97
0.17 198.36 6.92 11.26 105773.4
25.00 -0.81 -0.9(17) 180.00 -25.00 -0.89
3.63
0.17 198.38 9.65 12.40 115994.0
30.00 -0.93 -5.5(17) 180.00 -30.00 -1.08
5.18
0.17 198.42 12.20 13.72 125638.8
35.00 -1.13 -10.2(17) 180.00 -35.00 -1.37
5.91
0.16 198.48 13.97 14.84 132554.4
40.00 -1.31 -14.9(17) 180.00 -40.00 -1.71
5.94
0.16 198.54 15.12 15.72 137773.8
45.00 -1.48 -19.5(17) 180.00 -45.00 -2.09
5.54
0.15 198.60 15.90 16.43 141825.2
50.00 -1.64 -23.9(17) 180.00 -50.00 -2.55
4.85
0.14 198.66 16.45 17.03 145015.9
55.00 -1.78 -28.1(17) 180.00 -55.00 -3.10
3.97
0.13 198.72 16.85 17.56 147518.6
60.00 -1.91 -32.0(17) 180.00 -60.00 -3.81
2.96
0.12 198.77 17.14 18.02 149411.6
65.00 -2.01 -35.7(17) 180.00 -65.00 -4.74
1.86
0.11 198.81 17.37 18.46 150684.9
70.00 -2.09 -39.0(17) 180.00 -70.00 -6.08
0.71
0.10 198.83 17.54 18.87 151306.2
75.00 -2.14 -42.0(17) 180.00 -75.00 -8.23 -0.48
0.08 198.85 17.66 19.27 151470.9
80.00 -2.18 -44.7(17) 180.00 -80.00 -12.38 -1.68
0.07 198.86 17.75 19.66 151473.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMU Team West Africa

119

Final Report

***

Damage Stability Allowable KG

***

Damaged Body ID. No. 16


Title : LNG TANK 3
Permeability = 95.0 %
Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M
Displacement .............. 552440.81 M.Tons
Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 198.16;
0.00;
Yaw Angle Of Tilt Axis ....
Downflooding Angle ........
Weathertight Angle ........

*****

24.50 M

180.00 Deg
24.00 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB
24.00 Deg @ FORWARD PEAK BT STB

Wind Speed 25.80 M/Sec

*****

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Allowable Optimum Range Of Static /---Intercept---/ R.O.S.


Condition To Satisfy
KG
Tilt Angle
Stability
Angle
1st
2nd 1st-2nd/DF
(M)
(Deg)
(Deg)
(Deg) /-----(Deg)-----/ (Deg)
------------------------------------ ---------- --------- --------- ----------------- ---------For Input KG = 24.50
11.28
12.72 13.37 72.61 10.62
Heeling Arm =
Righting Arm

32.18

24.00

0.84

23.17

23.99

Static Angle = 15.00

26.67

15.00

9.00

15.00

15.67 64.09

8.33

Area Ratio =

31.73

24.00

1.67

22.34

23.14 46.22

0.86

31.77

24.00

1.61

22.40 23.20 46.11

0.80

RM/HM Ratio =

1.00
2.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***

Righting Arm And Heeling Arm Curves

***

Draft at no Heel .......... 17.00 M


Displacement .............. 552440.8 M.Tons

-------------------------------------------------------------------Heel Heeling Arm Righting Arm Data For Calculated KG ........


(Deg)
25.80 24.50 32.18 26.67 31.73 31.77
-------------------------------------------------------------------0.00
0.14 -2.83 -2.83 -2.83 -2.83 -2.83
5.00
0.15 -1.78 -2.45 -1.97 -2.41 -2.41
10.00
0.16 -0.67 -2.00 -1.05 -1.92 -1.93
15.00
0.16
0.56 -1.43
0.00 -1.31 -1.32
20.00
0.17
1.97 -0.66
1.23 -0.50 -0.51
25.00
0.17
3.63
0.38
2.71
0.57
0.56
30.00
0.17
5.18
1.33
4.09
1.56
1.54
35.00
0.16
5.91
1.50
4.66
1.76
1.74
40.00
0.16
5.94
1.00
4.54
1.29
1.27
45.00
0.15
5.54
0.10
4.00
0.42
0.40
50.00
0.14
4.85 -1.03
3.19 -0.69 -0.71
55.00
0.13
3.97 -2.32
2.19 -1.95 -1.98
60.00
0.12
2.96 -3.69
1.08 -3.30 -3.33
65.00
0.11
1.86 -5.10 -0.11 -4.69 -4.72
70.00
0.10
0.71 -6.51 -1.33 -6.09 -6.12
75.00
0.08 -0.48 -7.90 -2.57 -7.46 -7.49
80.00
0.07 -1.68 -9.25 -3.82 -8.81 -8.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMU Team West Africa

120

Final Report

Appendix F: Cost Factors

TAMU Team West Africa

121

Final Report

Table 26: Indicative cost factors, ConocoPhillips-Rod King, 2005


Weight
(mt)
Hull Steel
Hull Outfitting

7,500

Unit Costs
($/mt)
Japan
2,100
6,150

Unit Costs
($/mt)
Korea
1,900
5,550

Unit Costs
($/mt)
Spain
2,400
5,190

Unit Costs
($/mt)
GOM

Comments
incl'ds coating system/cathodic protection
Incl'ds mooring eqpt, cranes,hull piping, fire & safety eqpt,
life saving eqpt,misc outfitting

Hull Machinery

1,000

1,350

1,200

incl'd in hull outfitting

Incl'ds machinery fittings, utility pumps & eqpt.

Electric Outfitting

1,000

2,250

2,000

incl'd in hull outfitting

incl'ds emer generator, panels, cables, lighting elec


fittings, control systs

Accommodations

600

29,000

26,100

30,000

Furniture, joiner, HVAC, accommodation fittings

Cargo Fitting

2,000

13,500

12,150

incl'd in hull outfitting

cargo pumps, piping, fittings

Topsides Module Supports

3,000

800

700

900

SPB LNG Tanks

$4,000/mt

Membrane Tanks

$2,700/sq m $2,500/sq m

Single Source= IHI of Japan--Incl'ds tank structures,


insulation, tank supports, fittings, in tank piping
Multi Source--Incl'ds tank insulation, tank supports,
fittings, in tank piping

$2,765/sq m

Additional Marine Costs

$ 130 MM

--

--

--

--

Topsides Equipment

$ 1,375 MM

--

--

--

--

External Turret

$ 40 MM

--

--

--

--

Incl'ds hull mounting, risers, jumper legs, fluid swivel assm

Loading Arms

$ 15 MM

--

--

--

--

Incl'ds 3x20" liquid arms + 1 Vapor arm

Contingency

12% of Total

--

--

--

--

Excludes Turret, Transport, installation

Transportation-Floater

$ 5 MM/5000 miles

--

--

--

--

Based on 3 x 150 mt bollard pull tugs

Installation Floater

$ 15 MM

--

--

--

--

Piled Anchor points + hook up risers & legs to turret

TAMU Team West Africa

122

Includes Yard Egr, Gas Trails, Commissioning, Class,


Yard Overheads and expenses
(Includes Equipment+ Fab + Integration + Owners Costs
+ Engineering + other Fees)

Final Report

Table 27: Cost analysis


Unit Costs
Length Width Height Surface Area Volume
2

Weight

Weight Amount Total Weight Japan

(m)

(m)

(m)

(m )

(m )

(kg)

(mt)

LNG Tanks

60.1

33.3

32.5

10,074

65,043

735,377

4,530

Propane & Butane Tanks

20.8

33.3

32.5

4,902

22,511

357,830

Hull Steel

--

--

--

--

--

(mt)
6

25,084

Korea

Spain

Total Cost
General

Japan

Korea

Spain

(US $/mt) (US $/mt) (US $/mt) (US $/mt) (US $MM) (US $MM) (US $MM)
--

--

--

4,000

100

100

100

1,475

5,900

--

--

--

4,000

24

24

24

94,901

--

94,901

2,100

1,900

2,400

--

199

180

228
39

Hull Outfitting

--

--

--

--

--

7,500,000 7,500

--

7,500

6,150

5,550

5,190

--

46

42

Hull Machinery

--

--

--

--

--

1,000,000 1,000

--

1,000

1,350

1,200

--

--

--

Electric Outfitting

--

--

--

--

--

1,000,000 1,000

--

1,000

2,250

2,000

--

--

--

Accommodations

--

--

--

--

--

--

600

29,000

26,100

30,000

--

16

17

18

Cargo Fitting

--

--

--

--

--

2,000,000 2,000

--

2,000

13,500

12,150

--

--

27

24

--

Topsides Module Supports

--

--

--

--

--

3,000,000 3,000

--

3,000

800

700

900

--

Mooring Lines

609.6

--

--

--

--

384,000 lb

--

--

--

1,068

0.41

0.41

0.41

Topsides Equipment

--

--

--

--

--

--

57,754

--

--

--

1,375

1,375

1,375

1,375

Aditional Marine Costs

--

--

--

--

--

External Turret

--

--

--

--

--

Loading Arms

--

Transportation-Floater

600,000

--

600

--

57,754,000 57,754
--

--

2,500,000 2,500

--

--

--

--

--

130

130

130

130

--

2,500

--

--

--

40

40

40

40

--

--

--

15

15

15

15

13

13

13

--

--

--

--

200,000

200

--

200

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Installation Floater

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

15

15

15

15

Contingency (12%)

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

241

238

239

2,247

2,219

2,230

TAMU Team West Africa

123

Final Report