1

i Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out on the department of Ocean Engineering at The University of
California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Professor R. G. Bea and his valuable guidance.

The project work started January 2002 and was submitted for review and grading as a part of the
course OE 180: Design, Construction & Maintenance of Engineered Systems, May 16th 2002.

The group worked together as experts in team, where each member contributed with their own
special area of expertise:

Alexandra Koefoed Managed the hydrodynamics, and stability

Geir Olav Kaase Managed the structural design
Mathieu Beunier Managed the flow rates and system design
Shaik Mushtaq Managed the fender and sea fastening design
Amir Conrad Osmanagic Coordinated the report and managed the procedures, transport and
risk analysis.
All members worked on the design where we followed a “design spiral”, i.e. the vessel was
redesigned several times.

We wish to thank Chevron Texaco represented by James Stear and Owen Oakley, John Halkyard
CSO Aker Engineering, James Wiseman Intec, and Professor Mansour at UC Berkeley for their
help, encouragement and participation as coaches during the whole project period.

Berkeley, June 20th 2002

2
ii Executive Summary

This report describes an offshore deck installation system capable of installing platforms
weighing up to 30 000 tons in open seas. The system is designed to be a multi purpose
installation system. The desire is to meet the needs of the future deep water offshore fields, in
particular spar structures (where an onsite installation is required).

The system utilizes the float over deck concept, were the offshore platform deck is lowered onto
a substructure by ballasting the carrying vessel and or raising the substructure. The project
focuses on meeting the challenge of having an ultra heavy capability installation system that
requires far smaller instillation periods than conventional methods. These goals are met by
creating a catamaran system with unique rapid ballasting capabilities.

The catamaran is a purpose built vessel that consists of two rectangular hulls connected by a box
girder. Each hull is divided into conventional buoyancy sections and sections that have large
flood valves. The tanks with large flood valves allow for rapid flooding. This action also
compress the existing air in the cells. This air is later vented to lower the system even further.
The compressed air is piped to the substructure to increase its buoyancy by evacuating water
from its ballast tanks. The ballasting of the catamaran system is studied in detail and rates for
lowering are found to be reduced to as little as 40 minutes.

A other time reducing measure that has been introduced is a unique fender system. The fender is
primarily designed to absorb the contact shock, however it will also work as a guide when a sub-
structure enters the catamaran. The idea is to reduce hook up time during the Spar installation
sequence.

The catamaran is not self-propelled and is transported by way of heavy lift carrier vessel or towed
with tugs.

Important analysis that has been performed is:

• Stability calculations for the HLV transport, in field waiting and installation.
• A linear frequency based hydrodynamic analyze on both the transportation scenario and
the installation scenario.
• An overview of a preliminary risk analysis, considering every stage from deck load-out to
deck installation. The risk analysis of such a novel system is important due to its inherent
unproven characteristics.
• A rough cost estimate is done of the system versus a crane lifted deck installation.
• Structural analysis of the hull

3
The system was analyzed to prove its feasibility with respect to construction, transportation,
offshore operation and cost. All limiting codes and regulations are taken into consideration. The
analyses of the actual design of the vessel is reasonably well detailed, due to the fact that the
building of the vessel would represent the greatest cost and accurate construction quotes would
be needed to justify the project.

20m 100m

88m

Figure a1. Concept drawing and general layout of Catamaran

4
 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………….……………….2
ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………….………………..3

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 8
2 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT AND SPECIALIZED VESSEL DESIGN ................... 10
2.1 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT ........................................................................................... 10
2.2 WEIGHT...................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 SPECIALIZED VESSEL DESIGN ....................................................................................... 15
2.4 LOWERING PROCESS.................................................................................................... 16
3 OPERATION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURES........................................................ 23
3.1 STEP-BY-STEP SEQUENCE: ............................................................................................ 23
3.2 TIME MANAGEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ............................................................................. 30
4 TRANSPORT .................................................................................................................. 32
4.1 TRANSPORT OPTIONS .................................................................................................. 32
4.2 SEA STATE ................................................................................................................. 34
4.3 STABILITY .................................................................................................................. 35
5 HYDRODYNAMIC MOTIONS AND LOADS.............................................................. 37
5.1 ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN ANALYSES .............................................................................. 37
5.2 RESULTS..................................................................................................................... 38
6 INSTALLATION PROCEDURE ................................................................................... 41
6.1 STABILITY DURING IN FIELD WAITING .......................................................................... 41
6.2 FENDERS .................................................................................................................... 42
7 SEA FASTENING ........................................................................................................... 45
8 STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS .................................................................. 48
8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 48
8.2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN ................................................................................................. 49
8.3 CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................ 53
8.4 LOAD CALCULATIONS................................................................................................. 54
8.5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 57
9 RISKS FOR SEVERE OR CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE OF DECK, VESSEL OR
SUBSTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................. 60
9.1 DECK LOAD FROM QUAY............................................................................................ 60
9.2 DECK INSTALLATION ON SUBSTRUCTURE .................................................................... 61
9.3 WAITING IN FIELD HAZARDS ...................................................................................... 61
9.4 TRANSPORT ................................................................................................................ 61
9.5 INSTALLATION RISK TO PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT. .................................................. 63
10 COST ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 66
10.1 CONSTRUCTION COST ................................................................................................. 66
10.2 TRANSPORTATION AND INSTALLATION COST COMPARATIVE STUDY .............................. 66

5
11 DELIVERABLES. ....................................................................................................... 69
12 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 70
1. APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................... 71
2. APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................... 81
3. APPENDIX 3 ................................................................................................................... 85
4. APPENDIX 4 ................................................................................................................... 88

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

6
Figure 3: Global bending moment on a pontoon.................................................................... 78
Figure 4: FEA mesh of bottom plate field .............................................................................. 80
Figures appendix 2
Figure 1, flow chart ................................................................................................................. 81

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

7
1 Introduction
Offshore structures consist of 3 primary sections foundation, substructure and topside. As the oil
and gas industry has ventured into deeper waters the substructures have become floating units.
Such deep-water fields are often far from any land based processing facilities and therefore
require heavy topside structures. The problem we present a solution to be how an ultra heavy
deck can be installed at sea on a floating substructure. The solution has applications for
installations of decks on a variety substructures but lends its self particularly well to the floating
SPAR substructures.

Our concept is to construct a catamaran vessel that can engulf a substructure, while supporting a
30 000 ton deck. The Catamaran can then de-ballast and transfer the deck onto the substructure.

The concept of float-over decks is not new, it extends back to an original patent for truss
installation for bridges were bridge spans were floated in between pillars on barges and then
lowered by ballasting. Since the 1894 patent there have been approximately 17 float-over decks
installed on permanent structures in open waters, and 20 decks installed in sheltered waters on
CONDEEPS or TLP’S.

The largest ever float-over deck in open waters was 10 000 tons, while decks in excess of 50 000
tons have been floated onto structures in sheltered waters. Our idea is to create a system that
could install the ultra heavy decks achieved in sheltered waters in the open seas.

The system is based on installing on the relatively new concept of a Spar substructure. A spar is
basically a long heavily ballasted cylinder floating vertically, which supports a deck system and
is moored into position. There are currently multiple Spars in use with their decks being installed
by way of heavy lift crane vessel. Heavy lift crane vessels are limited to maximum lifts of the
order of 10,000 tons and have a steep daily rate. In addition huge costs associated with
connecting the modules make this solution a very expensive one. This is the direct and
established alternative to the float-over method.

All installation systems have an allowable sea state; in general this sea state is around 1 m
significant wave height and can have direction and wave period limitations. The likelihood of
this weather occurring and for how long is directly relates to the cost of the system. This is due
to the high cost of heavy lift installation cranes as well as the cost of all of the support personnel,
carrying vessel, support boats and equipment on an hourly rate.

There are two ways the weather window can be affected given a certain field. One is to use a
system that has a high allowable weather installation sea state and thereby increase the chance of
the weather window occurring. The other is to do the operation in a short amount of time and
therefore requiring a smaller span of good weather and hence increase the chance of its
occurrence, or more correctly its prediction.

8
Our idea focused on meeting the challenge of having an ultra heavy capability installation system
that required far smaller installation periods than conventional methods. We tried to incorporate
measures that would allow the system to dampen motions and therefore have a higher allowable
installation sea state. It was felt that these measures could not be sufficiently proven in a
feasibility study and are only commented on in the report.

9
2 General arrangement and specialized vessel design

2.1 General arrangement

2.1.1 Objective and functionalities

The objective of the system is to carry an ultra heavy deck and quickly lower into place on a
supporting structure. (For this study we have used a spar as target structure.) The following are
specific key functionalities:
• stabilizing the pontoons around the substructure,
• lowering the deck on top of it,
• controlling the lowering rate.
We adapted the general arrangement of our system to meet the requirements associated with
these special operations.

2.1.2 Main Dimensions

The catamaran that we have designed for installation of the deck on the substructure consists of
two rectangular pontoons. They are connected aft with a box girder to form one rigid body. The
box girder has openings in top and bottom to let water and air flow in and out, hence it does not
contribute to buoyancy. The hulls of the pontoons are divided into three sections. The two end
sections are conventional buoyancy tanks and the middle section is what we call cells. These
were originally thought to have an open bottom. Buoyancy contribution from this section would
thus be pressurized air. In the final design the middle cells have a closed bottom with large valves
to let seawater in. Reasoning for this decision can be found under the paragraph Constraints on
Main Dimensions. The final Main Dimensions for the catamaran are presented in table 2.1.

Table 2.1.Main Dimensions.

Length of Pontoons l 100.0m
Length of Cells lc 89.2m
Length of Buoyancy Tanks lb 5.4m
Length of Box Girder lbg 24.0m
Width of Pontoons w 19.0m
Width of Box Girder wbg 50.0m
Height of Pontoons h 20.0m
Height of Box Girder hbg 6.0m

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

10
Figure 2.1 Main Dimensions side view.

Figure 2.2 Main Dimensions front view.

Figure 2.3.Main Dimensions top view.

11
2.1.3 Analysis for main dimensions.

The main challenge associated with selecting the main dimensions was the new concept of an
open cell bottom. This configuration implies that conventional buoyancy calculations don’t
apply. Three basic physical principles were applied to calculate the contribution from air under
pressure in the cells to total buoyancy in the system. Ideal gas law governs the compression of air
inside the open cells. Assuming an isothermal process, temperature is constant during
compression, and that no air escapes so that the mass is constant the equation for our system
becomes: (for definition of symbols see figures above or abbreviation list.)

p h
= cons tan t gives, p int = p atm ⋅ (2.1)
ρa h − d int

Where dint is draft inside the open cells and pint is internal pressure in ballast tanks.
Bernoulli’s law along a streamline assuming no velocity in the fluid provide the relation between
water level inside the open cells and draft of the pontoons.

p + ρ w gz = cons tan t gives, p atm = p int + ρ ⋅ g (d int − d out ) (2.2)

Where dout is draft of the pontoons measured on the outside. Finally the system has to be in
equilibrium. Forces from pressurized and conventional buoyancy tanks have to equal weight of
deck and catamaran.

M ⋅ g = 2 ( d out ⋅ w ⋅ lb ⋅ ρ w ⋅ g + ( pint − patm ) ⋅ w ⋅ lc ) (2.3)

The three relations above constitute a set of three equations that can be solved for the three
unknowns: dint , pint and dout.

2.1.4 Constraints on Main Dimensions.

All modes of operation for the catamaran represent different constraints on the main dimensions.
In transport, dimensions have to fit the capacity of heavy lift vessel, for our design we have used
the dimensions of “Mighty Servant 1”. From a selection of heavy lift vessels that are in operation
today it had the more optimal dimensions. For data see table 2.2. Constraints from the heavy lift
vessel include total length and width and area of pontoons to comply with size of cargo deck and
load per square meters respectively. Furthermore the heavy lift vessel sets a limitation to draft of
pontoons when they float on and off the cargo deck.

12
 Table 2.2 Heavy Lift Vessel Data.
Name of vessel Deadweight Deck Load Deck Width Deck Length Launch Draft
[metric tons] [t/sq.m] [m] [m] [m]
Black Marlin 57021 27.5 42 178.2 10.03
Blue Marlin 57021 27.5 42 178.2 10.03
Mighty Servant 1 40190 19-40 50 150 14
Mighty Servant 3 27720 19-25 40 140 10
Transshelf 34.03 19-25 40 132 9

However the most important constraints come from the installation procedure, in view of the fact
that this is the catamarans purpose. The catamaran has to fit around the target installation
structure, in our study a spar of 48 m diameter. Accordingly the catamaran gets a considerable
width, which has a very positive effect on initial stability as a result of increased waterline
moment of inertia. The catamaran needs a large range of drafts. This was one of the reasons for
closing off the bottom. Conventional buoyancy is more effective than air under pressure and thus
it gives us larger range of drafts. Closed bottoms create the possibility to have three different
modes of operation: Closed bottom and top valves, open bottom and closed top valves and open
bottom and top valves. The conventional buoyancy tanks are dimensional zed to keep the
catamaran floating just above water level when the deck is off loaded and all valves are open.
This minimizes the risk of the pontoon floating up and getting jammed under the deck after
installation. The three modes of operation acquired by closing the bottom also provides flexibility
towards what speed the catamaran is lowered with. Next with closed bottom the stability is better
and easier to calculate. We have good stability while waiting for a sufficient weather window to
start the installation.

2.2 Weight.

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

13
 Table 2.3. Mass and Inertia Data
System 1 System 2
Total Mass 3.84E7 kg 7.73E7 kg
Center of Gravity x-coordinate 50.0 m 91.3 m
Center of Gravity y-coordinate 0.0 m 0.0 m
Center of Gravity z-coordinate 26.8 m 22.3 m
4
Global Moment of Inertia Ixx 5.53E10 m 8.54E10 m4
Global Moment of Inertia Iyy 1.48E11 m4 8.57E11 m4
Global Moment of Inertia Izz 1.39E11 m4 8.14E11 m4
4
Global Moment of Inertia Ixy 0m 0 m4
Global Moment of Inertia Ixz 0 m4 1.53E11 m4
x-coordinate is longitudinal, y coordinate is transversal and z coordinate is vertically.

14
2.3 Specialized vessel design

2.3.1 Fenders

In order to reduce the time required to hook up the catamaran to the spar hull, it is decided to use
a method that would require less mating lines than usual. A fender system is added to the
pontoons and the box girder to give the entire catamaran a U shape. A complementary male
fender system is added to the substructure hull that fits neatly the catamaran’s fenders. Tugs
tension the catamaran against the substructure to maintain contact.

2.3.2 Pipes and valves

The lowering of the catamaran carrying the deck is performed by filling the pontoons with water.
Each pontoon is divided into three sections. One of them is a ballast tank. For structural reasons,
it is actually made of six independent and identical cells. The total ballasting volume is
3.41*104 m3 . The other two, located at the ends, are buoyancy tanks. They are sealed and provide
enough buoyancy to carry the pontoons (without deck load). Hydraulic valves on the bottom of
the cells are used to control the incoming water flow rate. There is one valve per cell. 30 inches
diameter valves were chosen to maximize the flow rate. For the given range of draft and thus of
water pressure at the bottom of the catamaran, the flow rate is estimated to Qmax = 1.5m3 / s . This
gives a total maximum ballasting rate capacity of

Qmax,tot = 2 ∗ 6* Qmax = 18m3 / s = 6.48m3 / hr

At the top of each cell there are air valves. The air can be either released to the atmosphere, or, in
order to reduce the lowering time, be injected into the ballast tanks of the substructure, thereby
forcing it to rise as the catamaran sinks. This latter option is made possible by connecting air
valves on top of the pontoons to the substructure by flexible pipes. To ensure equilibrium of
pressure between the different cells, they are interconnected with pipes. The design pressure
inside the cells is two times the atmospheric pressure.

15
 Figure 2.4: Pipes and valves arrangement

As shown in Figure 2.4, both air and water valves can be operated from a cat way located above
the top of each pontoon. At this elevated position, operators can work the equipment without
getting wet.

2.3.3 De ballasting pumps

At the end of the lowering process, the cells of the catamaran are filled with water. The
catamaran is towed away from the substructure, and, in order to put it back on the HLV, water
has to be pumped out (according to the results, the final draft of the catamaran would have to be
reduced by 2 meters). We will be using standard ballasting pumps for this operation, which will
be installed on top of the catamaran.

2.4 Lowering process

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

16
2.4.1 First phase: lowering of the deck over the substructure
The motion of the catamaran and of the deck is governed by a set of four equations: Newton’s
second law for the entire system, conservation of water flow rate, adiabatic compressibility of the
air and equation of motion for the incoming water.

The position of the structure is described using a vertical

axis (Oz) pointing up, the origin being on the sea level.
We use the following notations:

Table 2.4
Depth at the bottom of the pontoon z2
Depth of the water level inside the tank z1
Total height h
Beam w
Cumulated length of buoyancy tanks lb
Length of ballast tank lc
Incoming flow rate (per valve) Q
Number of water valves per pontoon N
Surface area of a valve S

Figure 2.5
Considering a mechanical system that consists of a deck (mass M d ), rigidly attached to the
catamaran (mass M p ), whose ballast tanks contain a mass M w of water. It is subjected to the
following forces:

• its weight: W = −( M p + M d + M w ) g where M w increases with time,

• a damping force: Fdamp = − λ z&2 where λ is the heave damping coefficient of the
catamaran,
• a buoyancy force: Fb = −2 ρ w gw(lc + lb ) z 2 if assuming the box girder is flooded and does
not contribute to buoyancy.

Newton’s second law of motion for the system will be:

( M p + M d + M w )&&
z2 = −( M p + M d + M w ) g − λ z&2 − 2 ρ w gw(lc + lb ) z2 (3.1)

t
The mass of water in the tanks at time t is: M w = ρ w ∫ Q (τ )dτ
0
The conservation of water flow rate between the valve and the tank is

NQ = wlc z&1 (3.2)

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

17
 pin = patm (3.3)

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

pin ( wlc (h − ( z1 − z2 ))γ = patm ( wlc h)γ (3.4)

Finally, to relate the incoming flow rate to the internal pressure, the equation of motion is written
for a system made of:
• At time t : the water inside the tank (its linear momentum is P0 ) plus the water that will
Q2
enter the tank in a period dt (its linear momentum is ρ w dt ).
S
• At time t + dt : the same volume of water as at t (unchanged linear momentum) plus the
increase of water level due to incoming water (add linear momentum is ρ w wlc ( z&1 ) 2 dt ).
This system is experiencing its weight, equal and opposed to the support reaction from the
pontoon, and two pressure forces:
 ρw  Q  
2

• At the valve: p2 S =  patm − w gz2 − ρ    S using Bernoulli theorem to relate the

 2  S  

Q
pressure p2 at the valve to the atmospheric pressure and the flow velocity at the valve .
S
• At the interface with the air: − p1wlc (negative sign indicates downward direction).
The equation of motion is:
Q2  ρ Q 
2

ρ w wlc ( z&1 ) 2 − ρ w =  patm − ρ w gz 2 − w    S − p1wlc (3.5)

S  2  S  
The unknowns are z1 , z2 , Q and p1 (internal pressure). Equations (3.1), (3.2), (3.4) and (3.5)
can be combined to get a system of nonlinear differential equations governing the motion of the
structure (if the air is released, use equation (3.3) instead of (3.4)). The main difficulties to solve
the equations are:
• The quadratic term Q 2 , which cannot be neglected because of the high values of the
incoming flow rate, especially just after the opening of the valves.
• The discontinuity of pressure at the valve when it is opened.
• The inclusion of the operator’s action on the valve, modifying the flow rate.
After some simplifications, this system is solved using Matlab, which yields the time evolution of
the internal draft ( z1 ) and the external draft ( z2 ), shown in Figure 2.6. For this simulation, the
parameters are set to the following numerical values:

18
 h 20m Mp 8440*103 kg
w 19m Md 30000*103 kg
lb 10.6m patm 1.01*105 N / m 2
lc 89.6m γ 1.4
N 6m λ 2*106 kg / s
S 0.45m 2

The initial conditions are:

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

19
 Figure 2.6

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

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

where z2,r is the external draft of the catamaran when the deck reaches the substructure, and As
is the surface area of the substructure ballasting tank. After 25 minutes, Figure 2.6 shows that the
external draft oscillates over a mean value, which corresponds to the stabilization of the deck and
the pontoons supported by the substructure.

2.4.2 Second phase: deck weight transfer

During this stabilization, the last of the sea fastenings (about 25%) are cut off. The deck is still
almost entirely carried by the catamaran, but is now attached to the substructure. The time
required to perform the release is estimated to 40 minutes. During this time, both air and water

20
valves are closed. The sea fastening is completely released about 65 minutes after the beginning
of the lowering process.
The next step consists of the transfer of the deck weight from the catamaran to the substructure.
This can be done by pumping water out from the substructure (using auxiliary ballasting pumps),
or by injecting the compressed air in the catamaran tanks into the substructure. The latter option
is described below.

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

21
Figure 2.8

22
3 Operation sequence and procedures.

The installation planning and procedure will be a key issue when organizing an operation of this
size. Several hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake and every step must be carefully
considered and thought through.

Our target installation deck is 30 000 tons and can be built at many construction yards which
have both the capacity for building decks this size and a quay slide option. The quay slide will
operate on a greased rail system, where stran jacks and the low friction surface allows the deck to
slide from the quay onto the pontoons.

The weather-window surveillance is one of the most critical elements during the installation
sequence. A constant surveillance of the field and transport route is necessary through out all
steps because a 24-hour weather window is a requirement for installing the deck. Time is
measured from arrival at target installation site. If this requirement is not fore-filled the operation
needs to abort and wait for the next possibility in a sheltered area.
The limiting sea state for transport and installation is addressed and discussed in chapters 4 and 6.

3.1 Step-by-step sequence:

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

Rails

Quay Pontoon

Figure 3.1

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

23
2 Slide-on, de-ballast compensation.

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

Deck

Quay Catamaran

Figure 3.2. Quay slide

All the equipment onboard the catamaran is manually operated, thus it will require operating
personnel on deck for any adjustments. Each pontoon has six separate watertight compartments
with individual pumps compensate the changing loads.

Uneven leverage onto the catamaran could cause severe structural stresses which exceeds the
structural capacity. The consequences of any failure in this order is catastrophic and the risk has
to be eliminated in the design process. Several large structures have in a similar manner been
slide onto barges, thus regarded feasible.

3 Secure fastenings

After the deck is safely transported onto the catamaran it has to be secured with proper sea
fastening (design of sea-fastening is discussed and analyzed in section 7). The sea fastening is
categorized as internal and external. The internal fastenings cover all equipment on the deck,
whilst external fastening is the connections between the deck and the catamaran. Internal sea
fastening will not be analyzed, it is assumed to be standard and provided by the deck owner.

Once at installation site time will be a critical factor, therefore an optimization of the amount of
sea-fastenings will be of importance.

Male/female steel guides, making the installation precision between the spar hull and deck more
accurate will be attached to the lower parts of the deck while still in quay slide area, where the
males are welded onto the deck. Total number of guides/pins will vary with different structures,
each with a length of 2 meters.

4 Check in sheltered water

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

24
5 Load-up onto heavy-lift vessel

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

Figure 3.3, Catamaran on HLV, side view

Figure 3.4, Catamaran on HLV, top view.

Transportation on HLV is proven feasible in chapter 2 and 4, where a selection of commercially

available vessels has been analyzed

6 Sea-fastenings and securing

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

25
7 Check all systems

This is the last possibility to check all systems before the transportation starts.

8 Transportation, route selection.

Transport route selection and traffic clearing will be achieved by working together with local
maritime authorities. Alternative routs and contingency plans needs to be mapped out, together
with traffic modeling in critical sections of the routes. High-density traffic fairways will typically
be in narrow straits and around load-up area. Lessons learned from previous transportation
accidents where offshore platform decks had to be replaced, are that transportation should be
conducted in well-known water and fairways.

Weather-window monitoring, and route selection in terms of minimizing the exposure of the
vessel to large and high period waves will be a crucial factor for relieving the sea-fastenings of
cyclic loads and the danger of fatigue.

9 Arrival at installation site and load off

All sea fastening between HLV and catamaran is removed and the HLV lowers until the
catamaran is floating.

10 Tug hook up to catamaran.

There will be a maximum significant wave height in which the installation can proceed, which
means that any sea-state higher than this will result in abortion of mission. A re-confirmation of a
24-hour weather window will be necessary.

Tug hookup starts during the last two hours of ballasting/lowering the HLV.

From this point of time the cost of reversibility increases drastically. Having a fully operating
installation organization at a remote installation site in extremely costly and it exposes both
equipment and personnel to higher risk.

Catamaran is temporarily moored.

As load-off is initiated all systems must be ready to go.

11 Hook-up preparation time

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

26
 Figure 3.5, towing to site

All our analysis is based on a three tug tow-out as shown in figure 3.5, where the tug at the stern
acts as a rudder.

12 Reduction of sea fastening.

As preparation for installation is in process, a gradual reduction of sea-fastenings are performed.

The idea is to minimize the risk of losing the deck if the weather window closes or there is an in-
field collision between tug/catamaran, support vessels/catamaran or unwanted collision between
spar hull and catamaran. The reduction will stop at 75%, the last 25% will be removed during the
two stages of lowering.

13 Pull into position.

Figure 3.6, positioning of catamaran.

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

27
14 Hook-up mooring lines.

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

15 Slow ballasting for line-up.

At the first stage of the lowering sequence, the bottom valves will slowly release water into the
ballast tanks (There are six watertight compartments on each pontoon with a corresponding
valve). As the lowering starts, the male/female guides mate. The deck will make contact with the
spar hull of 12.8 m draft. With fully open valves the system (catamaran/deck/hull) will get to an
equilibrium draft at 13.2 m, and there will have been a minor amount of weight transfer from the
catamaran to the spar (figure 3.7).

All the sea fastening will now be removed. The final removal of the 25% is estimated to take 40
minutes.

At this point the catamaran buoyancy is a result of pressurized air trapped in air pockets inside
each of the pontoons. All airflow analysis, weight transfers, and drafts at different stages are
included in section 2, “General arrangement, and specialized vessel system design”

Figure 3.7, first stage of lowering, contact is made.

28
16 Rapid ballasting.

At the second stage of the lowering sequence, there will be flexible pipes connected from the air
release valve at the catamaran deck to the ballast tanks on the spar hull. The idea is to evacuate
water from the upper (close to the water line) spar ballast tanks using the trapped air in the
pontoons.

Since contact between hull and deck already is obtained, the last lowering stage should be done
fast and controlled.

Figure 3.8, second stage of lowering, 100%weight transfer.

As the pressurized air enters the hull, the spar raises and the weight transfer is now complete
(figure 3.8). Two watertight compartments on each of the pontoons designed for reserve
buoyancy is keeping the catamaran afloat at the waterline.

17 Un-hook, secure

All mating lines are unhooked and the securing of the platform deck to the hull starts.

18 Pull away, tow back

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

29
 An overall installation sequence flowchart is summarized in figure 1 in appendix 3 where
criteria’s for abortion is visualized.

3.2 Time management of activities

As a part of our time reduction measurers we have developed two significant time saving
features.

One of the effects introduced by our air injection lowering system, is the reduction in exposure
time while in a fragile state. By decreasing the lowering time the catamaran is not as vulnerable
and the risk of closure of the weather window is reduced, but more importantly we only need a
small window.

The second reduction comes from the fender and self-align guide system. This will aid the tugs to
guide the spar hull into position faster than a conventional fender system. The fender/guide
design is described in section 6.3.

Table 3.10, Task time measures.

Time to task Task duration

Task No. Sub-activities (hours) (hours)
Load off HLV 1 Removal of HLV-Pontoon sea fastenings 0 1
2 Ballasting of HLV 1 1
Hook up, after sea launching 3 Attaching tow lines 1.5 1
4 Getting tugs in position 1 0.5
Reduce sea fastenings 5 Preparing people and equipment 1.5 2
6 Welding operations 2.5 3
Pull into position 7 Towing deck 4 4
8 Coordinating tugs 3 1
9 Hook up mooring lines 6 3
10 Positioning 7 2
Hook up, before final lowering 11 Hook up fenders 6 4
12 Hook up flex. Air pipes 8 1
13 Getting operators in position 7 2
14 Eliminating all sea fastenings 9 4
Lowering Slow ballasting for line-up, opening of bottom
15 valves 10 1
16 Rapid ballasting, opening of top valves 13 3
De-ballasting of Spar hull with air pressure from
17 pontoons 15 3
Pull-away 18 Un-hook all connections 19 2
19 Secure deck 22 2
20 Tow back 23 1

30
Figure 1 in appendix 1 gives a graphic illustration of the time spent on each task, and a
description of “when” in the installation process we are. It takes 24 hours from the point where
our system is loaded off the HLV to the securing of the deck onto the substructure and tow back
is performed.

31
4 Transport
For the feasibility study no specific site for the deck and catamaran construction was considered.
It was thought that the system could be built anywhere and be transported to a field anywhere.
This meant making some general assumption about the sea state during travel. The feasibility of
the transportation was proven using static stability and a more detailed analysis would have to be
performed to meet the finer points of the certifying authorities codes. Three transportation
options were considered and a final choice of transporting the entire system together was deemed
the best.

4.1 Transport Options

The three transportation scenarios were considered are described below with their advantages and
disadvantages

4.1.1 Tow Combined System

Figure 4.1, Towing

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

32
4.1.2 Use a HLCV for the Entire Transport

Figure 4.2, Transport on HLV

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

33
4.1.3 Transport deck and Pontoons separately and connect at site.

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

Figure 4.3, Separate transportation

Issues
• The deck transfer at sea requires more engineering in the system as well as a longer
weather window.
• The sytem requires either two separate transport vessels or 1 vessel and a tow sytem for
the pontoons
• This system has the advantage of being a temporary operation and only has to meet the of
a positive GM.
• Transfering the deck to the catamaran in an open sea poses an additional risk
• The deck and hlcv will have a lower center of gravity during tranport and therefore have a
smaller roll acceleration. This means less sea fastning.

Option number twowas choosen because it lessoned the constraints on the design of the pontoon.
It was also qualititvly deemed the safest tranporation scenario. When considering large
tranportation distences option 2 is also the cheapest scenario.

4.2 Sea State

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

34
For the installation process, the following sea state was considered.
Significant wave height, HS: 2 m.
Time Period of the wave, T Z: 7 sec.

A severe sea state would result in increased motions (accelerations).

4.3 Stability

4.3.1 Stability during transportation.

There are three main cases for which stability needs to be checked. GZ-curves for the two first
cases, (transportation and waiting) are generated by calculations in ProSurf3. GZ curves are
important because they form the foundation for stability requirements. Conditions placed by the
authorities are taken from IMO’s “General intact stability criteria for all ships.”, and listed below.

• The area under the GZ-curve up to 30o should not be less than 0.055 [m*rad]
• The area under the GZ-curve up to 40o or flooding angle φf1 whichever comes first should
not be less than 0.09 [m*rad]
• The difference between the two abovementioned areas should not be less than 0.03
[m*rad]
• The GZ-arm should be at least 0.20m at an angle of heal equal to or larger than 30
degrees.
• The maximum righting arm should occur at an angle of heel preferably exceeding 30o but
not less than 25o.
• The initial metacentric height should not be less than 0.15m.

In figure 4.4. the GZ- curve for the transportation mode, when the catamaran and deck are on the
heavy lift vessel is exhibited and table 4.1 shows how the criteria above are satisfied. The GZ-
curve for transportation is calculated taking into account the extra buoyancy and water plane area
from immersion of the pontoons. This happens at 5.7o as can be clearly seen in the plot. It should
be noted that only stability for the static case is considered here.
1
Where φf is an angle of heel at which openings in the hull , superstructures or deckhouses which cannot be closed
watertight immerse.

35
 Figure 4.4. GZ-curve for transport.

Table 4.4 Stability in transportation.

Regulations Transport mode.

o
Area under GZ up to 30 0.055 [rad*m] 3.941 [rad*m]
Area under GZ up to 40o 0.09 [rad*m] 5.450 [rad*m]
Area under GZ between 30o and 40o 0.03 [rad*m] 1.509 [rad*m]
GZ-arm at 30o 0.2 [m] 11.63 [m]
Max righting arm occur at XXo 25o 35o
Initial Metacentric height. 1.5 [m] 11.0 [m]

36
5 Hydrodynamic Motions and Loads
The frequency domain hydrodynamic program Wamit was used to model the transportation of the
deck and pontoons on the HLCV and the pontoons and deck floating in the field. The modeling
produced the following results

• First order wave excitation forces and moments

• Hydrodynamic added mass and damping
• Rigid body motions (see fig 1-12)
• Sectional forces and moments
• Steady drift forces (see fig 13-18)
• Inertia loads
• Pressure loads for structural shells

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

5.1 Assumptions made in analyses

5.1.1 -Pontoons System

• The analysis is a 1st order approximation and therefore assumes a mean water
level and that the shape of the body above the water has straight sides.
• The mass distribution for the system was considered constant for the pontoons and
deck.
• The deck was not restrained by a temporary mooring system

5.1.2 HLCV
• The analysis is a fist order approximation and therefore assumes a mean water
level and that the shape of the body above the water is the same as the water plane
area. This means that the submergence of the over hanging pontoons (occurring at
5.7 deg) is not modeled.
• The mass distribution for the system was considered constant for the HLCV,
pontoons and deck
• The forward speed of the vessel was not modeled.

37
5.2 Results
5.2.1 Pontoons System
The catamaran RAOs, drift forces and force transfer functions all with respect to the center of
mass are shown in Appendix 4.1. The amplitudes are non-dimensionalized to a unit wave input
and are given in meters or degrees. Forces are non-dimensionalized by the density of water times
the submerged volume times gravity (ρ*V*g) for a given unit wave. The resonant frequency for
the unrestrained catamaran is listed in the table below.

Table 5.1 Resonant Frequencies for the Catamaran

Motion Peak Period Amplitude in m or deg Sea Direction
Heave 11 7.2 Head Sea
Pitch 11 7.9 Head Sea
Roll 10 4.61 Beam Sea
Surge 11 2.5 Head Sea
Sway 11 1.5 Beam Sea
Yaw 10 1.7 Beam Sea

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

38
 Figure 5.1 Response Amplitude Operator for the Catamaran in Head Seas

5.2.2 HLCV System

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

39
Figure 5.2 Response Amplitude Operator for HLCV in Head Seas

40
6 Installation Procedure

6.1 Stability during in field waiting

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

Figure:6.1. GZ-curve for in field waiting.

Table 6.1. Stability in field waiting.

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

41
6.1.1 Stability during Installation.

Given the fact that installation only lasts for a relatively short period of time and that the sea
conditions will be very moderate, the common stability requirement by the Coastguard for this
operation mode is that the system has a positive initial metacentric height, GM, which is given
by:

I
GM = KB + BM − KG ,where BM = (6.1)
∇
KG is the distance from keel to center of gravity, KB is the distance from keel to center of
buoyancy, I is area moment of inertia of the water plane and ∇ is the catamarans volume
displacement. To take account for the cells with open valves at the bottom correction for the
effect of free fluid surface is used. It reduces the GM by a imaginary elevation of the catamarans
center of gravity GG’:

i
GG ' = ∑ (6.2)
n ∇
where i is the moment of inertia of the free surface around its own area center and n is number of
tanks with free surface. It is summed up over the number of compartments in the cells, which are
12, six in each pontoon. This method is not accurate, but the best approximation. It is valid for
closed tanks with free fluid surface. Both transversal and longitudinal stability is checked and are
presented in table 4.6. below.

Table 6.2 Stability in Installation

Transversal Longitudinal
Initial Metacentric height GM 101.8m 62.6m
Metacentric height corrected for 99.1m 60.9m
free surface G’M

6.2 Fenders

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

42
 Figure 6.2: Fender design

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

43
 Figure 6.4: Tugs keeping the whole system together

The fenders as shown in figure 6.4 are made of pipes of outer diameter of 0.2 m and thickness of
0.02 m. The fender attached to the pontoon’s box girder is 0.6 m wide and the shortest width of
the fender attached to the spar hull is also 0.6 m.

The tugs pull the catamaran in opposite directions so that the hull and vessel stays together. The
force would be a little more than the highest surge acceleration expected during the installation.
Rubber sheet each of thickness 0.5 m. is attached to the fenders of pontoons and spar hull. The
tugs pull with a minimum force of 200 ton so that the catamaran and deck stay together.
According to calculations, rubber with a thickness of 1 m will be compressed by 0.2 m. Natural
rubber with a suitable hardness to satisfy the above condition is to be chosen.

44
7 Sea Fastening

The catamaran and the deck are subjected to six degrees of motions during its transportation. The
HLV carries the catamaran with the deck from the manufacturing site to the installation site. The
transportation phase is crucial and proper sea fastening has to be designed to prevent the loss of
the deck. The HLV undertakes the mission when the weather is suitable i.e., the probability of
encountering high waves is very small.

The design case for the sea fastening is the worst expected sea state. For a given sea state, the
RAO’s can be used to get the Response Spectra for the six modes of motion from which the
angular accelerations for each motion are calculated. The Response Amplitude Operators or the
Transfer Functions are described in chapter 6, Hydrodynamics.

There are 31 sea fastenings each on port and starboard side of the deck to encounter the roll and
sway motions and 10 sea fasteners each on aft and fore of the deck to encounter the pitch and
surge motions. Totally 41 on each pontoon.

The sea fastenings are placed with a distance of 2.4 meters between them. They are pipes welded
to a plate 1cm thick, which is welded to the deck of the pontoon. This is done to avoid stress
localization.
The pipe dimensions are:

Outer Diameter, D = 0.7 m.

Thickness, t = 0.06 m.
Inner diameter, d = 0.6 m.
Length, l = 3 m.
Angle of the pipe to the deck to the pontoon, θ = 45 deg.

The following is the force calculation on the launch rail and the sea fasteners.

The assumed sea state from section 4.2:

Significant wave height, HS: 5 m
Time Period, TZ: 10 sec

System I: HLV, catamaran and deck

The Area under the Response Spectra, A = 7.42*10-6 rad2 from SESAM
Assuming that the transportation phase has N = 100,000 peaks
0.5772
The expected value of the largest roll is 2. A.ln( N ) + = 0.77 degrees assuming a
2.A.ln(N )
Rayleigh distribution.
Peak period is 19 sec from SESAM
Therefore, maximum expected roll angular acceleration, α = 0.034 rad/sec2

Similarly from the RAOs of other motions,

45
maximum expected heave acceleration is 2.7 m/sec2
maximum expected sway acceleration is 0.22 m/sec2

System II: Catamaran and deck

The Area under the Response Spectra, A = 1.86*10-3 rad2 from SESAM
Assuming that the transportation phase has N = 1000 peaks
0.5772
The expected value of the largest roll is 2. A.ln( N ) + = 5.9 degrees assuming a
2.A.ln(N )
Rayleigh distribution.
Peak period is 9.97 sec from SESAM
Therefore, maximum expected roll acceleration, α = 0.052 rad/sec2

Similarly from the RAOs of other motions,

Maximum expected heave acceleration is 3.27 m/sec2
Maximum expected sway acceleration is 1.12 m/sec2

Forces acting on the sea fastening are shown in the figure 7.1

Vertical force acting on the launch and the sea fastening

= weight of the deck
+ force due to heave

Horizontal force acting on the launch and the sea fastening:

= Partial weight due to gravity
+ force due to roll
+ force due to sway
– Frictional force by launch

Figure 7.1: Forces acting on the Sea Fastening and the Launch Rail

mass of the deck, m = 30,000 metric tons

acceleration due to gravity, g = 9.81 m/sec2

46
From the angular accelerations calculated for both the systems, the highest are chosen as the sea
fastenings have to withstand forces in both the systems.

maximum roll acceleration, aR = 0.52 m/sec2

maximum heave acceleration, aH = 3.27 m/sec2
maximum sway acceleration, aS = 1.12 m/sec2
maximum roll angle, θR = 10 degrees (say)

vertical force, FV = m (aH)

horizontal force, FH = m (g sinθR + aR + aS)

FB = Bending force acting on the pipe perpendicular to the pipe

= FV cosθ + FH sinθ

FC = Compressive force acting on the pipe

= FV sinθ + FH cosθ

π ( D4 − d 4 )
Section Modulus of pipe, SM =
32 D
Cross-sectional Area of the pipe, AC = π ( D 2 − d 2 )
1
4
F .l
Maximum pipe bending stress = B = 2.5 * 108 N/m2 = 250 MPA
SM
The yield stress of high strength steel is 400 MPA
F
Maximum compressive stress in the pipe = C =1.42 * 107 N/m2
AC
In the fatigue analysis, the calculated stress is less than the critical stress for 2.0*108 cycles.

The shear force acting on the launch rail is only the frictional force between the spar deck and the
launch rail. The launch rail is not welded to the spar deck. The coefficient of friction is assumed
to be 0.3. The forces acting on the launch rail cannot exceed the frictional forces. If the horizontal
forces exceed the frictional forces, the sea fasteners will share them.

47
8 Structural design and analysis
8.1 Introduction

Prior to this structural design and analysis part of the project the only design constraint is the
main dimensions of the pontoons in the system. The main dimensions are established from
geometrical dimensions of the Spar-deck, the Spar itself, the complicated buoyancy and the loads
a floating structure will encounter in a sea environment.

The purpose of the structural design and analysis is to verify that the catamaran main dimensions
are appropriate considering the different loads it is exposed to. And design a connection between
the two pontoons that is able to keep the two pontoons together in the sea load the catamaran
could encounter during operation, and an overall design of the structural support framing inside
the pontoons and the box-girder.

The structural analysis consist of what you could call a “first stage” analysis, that is establishing
scantlings of all elements like shell, frames, beams and stiffeners in the catamaran. Then the
scantling against the ABS classification rules are checked to verify that they meet minimum
requirements. Then the global loads are calculated, and stresses from these loads are calculated
for the pontoon cross-section to see if it has sufficient moment of inertia. When all the scantlings
are set for the pontoons ,a plate analysis of a local plate-field on the bottom shell is done. That is,
where the global moment is largest. The stresses in the box-girder are analyzed to see if it is able
to carry the stresses induced by the most extreme load cases during operation.

If the catamaran were to be built and put into service, the structural analysis should be continued
to a “second stage” of analysis. That would be an analysis of the stresses in the box-girder having
a much more accurate estimate of the hydrodynamic forces acting on the catamaran, which might
lead to less support and decrease support scantlings.
This stage would also involve finite element analysis of other parts in the system, like sea
fastening, valve connections and the box-girder pontoon intersection that certainly would have
stress concentrations.

48
8.2 Structural Design

8.2.1 Pontoon

When the catamaran main dimensions are set the next stage is to give it an internal supporting
structure that is able to withstand external loads form deck and waves, and internal loads due to
ballast water.
The pontoons are designed in a way very similar to an ordinary crude oil tanker with bulkheads,
web-frames, longitudinal beams, transverse beams and stiffeners on all shell plating and
bulkheads.

As a first support for the shell and the bulkheads, all plates are provided with stiffeners to prevent
buckling and increase the strength of the plates. The stiffeners are placed with a spacing of 1 m
horizontally on the shell and vertically on the bulkheads.

Then the pontoon has bulkheads and web-frames to support the shell against external/internal
pressure, load from the Spar-deck and global torque from angled waves.
The bulkheads are placed with 15 m spacing except in the ends where the last compartment is
only 5 m long. This means that there is one bulkhead in the middle of the pontoon and three
behind and three in front of the mid-bulkhead.
In addition to the bulkheads a web-frame is placed halfway between the bulkheads. Accordingly
the pontoon has transverse support for each 7.5 m, measured from mid-ship, and totally six web-
frames.

For global bending in horizontal and vertical direction, and for supporting the plates, the pontoon
has one longitudinal beam under deck, one on bottom and two on each side plating. For support
of bulkheads, the stiffeners on the bulkhead, and the longitudinal beams each bulkhead is
provided with two transverse horizontal beams, in same height as the longitudinal beams on the
sides, and a vertical beam in the centerline, supporting the longitudinal beams under deck and on
bottom.

Table 8.1 gives all scantlings for the supporting members, and Figure 8.1 shows sketches of the
structural design with dimensions.

49
Figure 8.1 show a transverse cross-section of a pontoon on two different places. The left figure
shows a web frame, the six longitudinal beams and some stiffeners on bottom and side plating.
The right figure shows a bulkhead, two horizontal transverse beams on the bulkhead, the vertical
beam on bulkhead and some stiffeners on bottom plating and bulkhead.

Figure 8.1: Pontoon cross-section: Web-frame and bulkhead

50
8.2.2 Box-girder

One of the biggest challenges in the structural design of the catamaran is to come up with a
design of the connection between the two pontoons that are able to take the substantial loads that
could be induced in the connecting structure due to extreme hydrodynamic wave loads and inertia
forces when the entire catamaran system is moving in sea.

Initially two design options were proposed for the connection. We could either make it of some
kind of truss, and there could be several ways to design this truss, or make the connection of a
closed structure like the pontoons with shell and supporting structure. Since one main objective in
our system is to come up with cheap, cost competitive solution, we chose to connect the pontoons
by a closed structure. This kind of structure is much cheaper to build than a tubular-truss that is
expensive mainly because of the all the joints and that it has to be designed specifically for this
structure.
A closed structure is a standard shipyard design and can easily be made by any shipyard with
customized dimensions.

The box-girder is a 50 m long, 6 m high and 24 m wide box made up of top, bottom and side
shell plating. The internal supporting structure consisting of ten beams in longitudinal direction,
three longitudinal bulkheads, mid-deck halfway between bottom and deck, and stiffeners on all
plates.
The dimensions of the box-girder are constrained by several factors. The length is constrained by
the diameter of the Spar, and the dimensions of the Spar-deck. Since the pontoons are 100m long,
the radius of the Spar is 24 m and a 2 m fender is put between Spar end box-girder there is 24 m
left for the box-girder width. The length of the box-girder are set to 50 m so the gap between the
pontoon is sufficient to fit a 48 m diameter Spar and a 1m clearance on each side for rubber
fenders.
The height of the box-girder is constrained by the expected wave height during installation. The
height of the pontoons is 20 m, with a 10 m draft while waiting on site for installation, and a
maximum wave height of 3m, plus 1m clearances, leaves 6 m for the box-girder height.

Dimensions of the box-girder are showed in Figure 8.2 and scantlings of supporting members
listed in Table 8.1.

24 m

6m
x

Figure 8.2: Boxgirder cross-section

51
 Table 8.1: Dimensions of structural members in the catamaran
Shell plate, Long. Long. Vertical Transverse Stiffeners
bulkheads, beam beam box- beam beam
web-frames pontoon girder pontoon pontoon
Thickness 0.03 m - - - - -
SM - - - - - 4700 cm3
Flange - 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.015 m
thickness
Flange - 1.0 m 1.0 m 1.0 m 1.0 m 0.4 m
length
Web - 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.02 m 0.015 m
thickness
Web - 3.0 m 2.0 m 2.0 m 2.0 m 0.9 m
length

52
8.3 Classification Requirements

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

The calculations are shown in Appendix 1, Table 8.2 lists the particular rules that are applied and
Table 8.3 summaries the resulting dimensions.

Table 8.2: ABS class-rules

Section Structural part
ABS 5/2A.4.3.2 Shell plating
ABS 5/2A.4.3.3 Stiffeners
ABS 5/2A.4.3.4 Beams
ABS 5/2A.4.5.2 Bulkheads

Table 8.3: ABS scantling requirements

Structural member ABS requirements Design dimensions
Bottom plate thickness 19.2 mm 30 mm
Side plate thickness 19.2 mm 30 mm
Deck plate thickness 19.2 mm 30 mm
Longitudinal beam thickness 9 mm 20 mm
Stiffener section modulus 4600 cm^3 4700 cm^3
Transverse bulkhead thickness 13.6 mm 30 mm

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

53
8.4 Load Calculations

In the following section the simplified hydrodynamic forces acting on the pontoons are calculated
for some extreme cases and will be used for calculation of extreme stress values in the box-
girder. The forces are calculated by Froude-Krilov assumption, that is, the wave forces are acting
on the structure as if the structure was not there. By applying Froude-Krilov assumption a major
load factor as wave-diffraction is neglected. But the forces calculated are most likely very
conservative in the wave situation that is considered.

A simplified load calculation is also done for the case when the catamaran is placed on deck of
the heavy lift vessel for transportation to installation site.

8.4.1 Load case 1: Horizontal bending of box-girder

A load case of perpendicular wave direction to the pontoons with a wavelength of exactly two
times the distance between the centerlines of the pontoons, and a wave height equal the extreme
expected wave height under preparation for installation, are considered. This load case is
expected to represent the absolute maximum horizontal bending moment that could be induced in
the box-girder. Figure 8.3 and 8.4 shows the case.

The horizontal Froude-Krilov forces acting on the pontoons are calculated. These forces will later
be used for calculation of a bending moment in the box-girder.

Figure 8.3: Horizontal Froude-Krilov forces

Figure 8.4: Top view of catamaran with load case 1

54
8.4.2 Load case 2: Vertical bending of box-girder

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

Figure 8.5: Vertical bending of the box-girder

8.4.3 Load case 3: Catamaran and Spar-deck on heavy lift vessel

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

Figure 8.6 Catamaran on HLV

55
Figure 8.7 shows the model used for stress calculations when the catamaran with Spar-deck is
resting on the HLV. The two uniform distributed loads represent the pontoon weight and the
Spar-deck weight.

25 m
11 m

Figure 8.7: Beam model of pontoon outside HLV deck

56
8.5 Structural Analysis

The structural analysis of the catamaran is divided into four different parts. First an analysis of
the global forces on the pontoons are calculated, that is global bending moment and global shear
forces. These forces are then used to calculate bending stresses and shear stresses in the pontoon
cross-section. Then the stresses in the box-girder cross-section are calculated from global box-
girder forces. The forces are based on some extreme load cases described in section 8.4.
Last, a plate analysis of the bottom shell plating is done by use of plate-strip theory and finite
element analysis.

8.5.1 Global forces

The pontoon is considered to be a beam in equilibrium. It is exposed to a positive buoyancy force

and a negative force from the load and its own steel-weight. The buoyancy force is a uniform
distributed force acting upward, while the steel weight is assumed uniform distributed over the
pontoon beam acting downward. The Spar-deck weight is also a uniform distributed force acting
downwards directly on the skid rails.
When the forces acting on the pontoon beam are established the resulting shear forces and
bending moment is calculated which then give the maximum bending stresses and shear stresses
in the pontoon cross-section. If the stresses are too high, exceeding yield criteria, the cross-
section area has to be increased by making the plating thicker or by adding more or larger
longitudinal beams.

The calculations are shown in Appendix 1 and the main results summarized in Table 8.6

Deckload

Pontoon weight

Buoyancy

M V V M

Cross-section

Figure 8.7: Global forces on pontoon beam

57
Global load case 1:
The catamaran is floating with the Spar-deck on top in calm water with a normal draft of
10 m. That is, no ballast water is added to lower the deck onto the Spar.

Global load case 2:

The catamaran is floating with maximum draft under lowering, 20m, and the deck is still totally
loaded on the pontoons. The tanks in the ends have no ballast water, while the ballast tanks used
for lowering is filled with water and compressed air. This is not a realistic scenario, since the
Spar-deck load is gradually transferred to the Spar. But the case represents a worst case, so if the
pontoon is able to carry these loads, it will be able to take the load occurring in the transfer phase.

Table 8.6: Global forces

Global case 1 Global case 2
Mmax 5150 MNm 7200 MNm
Vmax 20.5 MN 27 MN
I 181 m2 181 m2
2
Aw 1.2 m 1.2 m2
ómax 284 MPa 397 MPa
ômax 17 Mpa 22.5 Mpa

8.5.2 Box-girder

The box-girder is probably the most critically loaded part of the catamaran. Depending on the
sea-state it could be severely loaded in vertical bending, horizontal bending and torque. At the
same time it is also to some degree limited how large forces it will encounter. This because the
transportation phase is done on a HLV and the potential large sea states under transportation do
not affect the box-girder at all. While under installation the maximum allowed wave height is 2m,
which decreases the critical stresses significantly. The only real critical phase is the waiting on
site for the weather window. And while waiting the catamaran can easily be turned so that the sea
is either meeting or following, which will remove the most critical load cases.

To be sure the box-girder can take a worst-case load scenario, some critical load cases are
assumed and the stresses induced are calculated. The load cases and stress calculations are very
conservative.
If the box-girder can withstand the loads used in the calculations it should be able to withstand
almost all other load cases. The use of such conservative stress calculation proves to some extent
that the catamaran could be used in more severe weather areas of the world, but a site-specific
calculation should off course be conducted in each case. On the other hand a too conservative
stress analysis will lead to use of too extensive strengthening, which will increase the cost.

The three load cases considered represent extreme vertical bending, horizontal bending of the
box-girder. From the loads a maximum stress value is calculated and compared to yield criteria to
see if the cross-section area is enough to take the stresses. The load cases are described in section
8.4. The calculations are shown in Appendix 1 and the results are summarized in Table 8.6.and
8.7.

58
 Table 8.6: Resulting forces and moments on box-girder
Force Moment arm Moment
Load case 1 124 MN 12 m 1488 MNm
(Vertical moment)
Load case 2 94 MN 38 m 3581 MNm
(Horizontal moment)

Table 8.7: Box-girder stresses

Load case 1 Load case 2
4
I 185 m 18m4
y 12 m 3m
óy 380MPa 380MPa
ómax 327 MPa 350 MPa

8.5.3 Plate Analysis

A local plate field on the bottom shell plating is analyzed to check that it can withstand the local
hydrostatic pressure. This analysis can be done either by plate-strip theory, plate theory or finite
element analysis, FEA. Plate-strip analysis is only accurate when the length of the plate is long
compared to the width, and will generally give a too large stress since the short end sides are
assumed free. On a ship structure the shell plating is exposed to hydrostatic pressure, and when a
single plate, bounded by stiffeners and transverse support, is removed form the shell it will have
fixed boundary conditions. And an exact solution to the fixed thin walled plate does not exist.
Therefore a finite element analysis will give the best solution to the problem.

A finite element analysis is conducted for the plate, and a plate-strip analysis is done to verify
that the FEA results are reasonable. The plate strip analysis and a figure of the stress distribution
are showed in Appendix 1. The finite element analysis is done in MCS/NASTRAN and some
FEA properties and the results from the two analyses are listed in Table 8.6.

Table 8.8: Plate analysis results

Method Stress
Max plate stress, strip theory 111 Mpa
Max plate stress, FEA 81 Mpa

The FEA results show that the plate stresses are well inside yield criteria.

59
9 Risks For Severe Or Catastrophic Damage of Deck, Vessel
or Substructure
The float over deck operation can essentially be broken down in to 6 subsections, which can be
qualitatively ranked with respect to the highest risk.

1. Deck Installation on Substructure

2. In field waiting
3. Transport to site
4. Deck load out onto the catamaran
5. Catamaran offloading
6. Deck load out onto the catamaran

Efforts should be made to mediate the risks of the top three operations to bring them in line with
the acceptable risk level of the system. Codes, marine warranty surveyors and finances will
dictate the acceptable risk for the system. The three failure outcomes that should be considered
for an installation are:

1. Catastrophic failures were the deck or substructure is damaged beyond feasible repair or
recovery.
2. Damage that would lead to a lengthy repair and/or a temporary abandoning of the
installation process.
3. Damage that would require a small time to repair and would result in a small delay,
leaving the possibility of missing an installation weather window, or being damaged while
in use for installation and requiring a longer weather window.

9.1 Deck Load From Quay

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

60
9.2 Deck Installation on Substructure

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

9.3 Waiting In Field Hazards

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

• Structure and catamaran

• Support vessel and catamaran
• Structure and support vessels

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

9.4 Transport

The greatest dangers for the vessel during transport are:

• Unforeseeable environment change
• Collisions with uncharted obstacles
• Collision with other moving objects
• Mechanical failure on the vessel
• Human error during vessel operation resulting in any of the above
The two factors that need closer attention are the collisions and exceeding weather as they may
results in the type 1 outcomes.

Transport is made up of 4 important factors

1. Route Selection

61
 2. Allowable transport sea state dictated by stability and the systems maximum allowable
motions
3. Quality of route survey
4. Environment forecasting

The following can lower the risk of transport:

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

62
9.5 Installation risk to personnel and equipment.

The risk identification is evaluated from the time the catamaran is self-afloat at the installation
site. People involved in this sequence are a part of the risk picture and can be divided into four
different work groups:

Operators: The operators are “roughnecks” that are employed by the installation
operator; they perform various tasks on the catamaran. The tasks are
defined as:

• Removing sea-fastening.
• Administer all pipes, valves and pumps.
• Hookup tugs
• Act as eyes and ears for the managers.

Tug operators The tug vessel operators consists of master and crew on each tug. They are
managed and directed by a tug coordinator who is monitoring the whole
tow operation.

Supervisor The supervisor is coordinating the operators, and they are recording the
sequence of the installation

Manager The managers will be representatives from both owner and operator. They
are recording monitoring and coordinating the whole project

As a part of the risk identification for different users, which are described above will be
performing different tasks. The tasks are defined as scenarios that occur or can occur during the
installation sequence. Each task has a corresponding hazard and failure mode. The failure mode
is a result of the hazard, i.e. when doing the task the [user/equipment] could be injured/damaged
by the [hazard] due to the failure [mode].

The idea is to identify the high probability high consequence risks involved and try to reduce or
eliminate their severity.

All the analysis is done on a qualititative bases, where we have identified four different risk
levels: high, moderate, low and negligible, an explanation of the method used to define the risk
levels is shown in table 9.1 and 9.2.

63
 Table 9.1

Catastrophic Hazards may cause deaths, severe damage or permanently

disabling injury, illness or environmental damage;
irreversible damage or injury with permanent loss in
working capacity and/or stop in installation.

Serious Hazards may cause severe damage and/or injury. Illness or

damage; normally reversible, hospitalization required

Slight Hazards may cause slight injury, illness or damage; normally

reversible, treatment necessary.

Minimal Hazards will not result in significant damage or injury, can

be treated or fixed on site.

Table 9.2
Catastrophic Serious Slight Minimal
Probable High High Low Negligible
Possible High High Low Negligible
Unlikely Moderate Moderate Low Negligible
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

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

Table 9.3
User Task Hazard Failure mode Severity Probability Risk level Remedy action

Collisions with in-field

Operators Hook-up Loss of control of in-field vessels
vessels Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Wrongful execution of
Operators Hook-up Lack of communication
instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Hook-up Lack of communication Misunderstanding of orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Collisions with in-field
Operators Shut down Loss of control of a in-field vessel
vessels Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Wrongful execution of
Operators Shut down Lack of communication
instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Deviations from safe work
Operators Shut down Failure in the procedures
practices Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Wrongful execution of
Operators Parts replacement Lack of communication
instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Parts replacement Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Serious Possible High Train user
Operators Lowering deck Crushing Lowering of deck out of control Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Operators Lowering deck Collision with spar buoy Un-controlled lowering Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Wrongful execution of
Operators Lowering deck Lack of communication
instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Lowering deck Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Serious Possible High Train user
Supervisory
Supervisor Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks
task(s) Serious Possible High Train user

64
 Supervisory Inadequate instructions/
Supervisor Lack of communication
task(s) requirements Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Supervisory Deviations from safe work
Supervisor Failure in the procedures
task(s) practices Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Supervisory
Manager Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks
task(s) Serious Possible High Train user
Supervisory Wrongful execution of
Manager Lack of communication
task(s) instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Supervisory Deviations from safe work
Manager Failure in the procedures
task(s) practices Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Wrongful execution of
Tug operators Hook-up Lack of communication
instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Wrongful execution of
Tug operators Shut down Lack of communication
instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard

The remedy action is a way of managing the hazards by incorporating preventive action. By
suggesting an initiative we expect to reduce the likelihood of occurrence.

Three types of remedy actions are described in table 9.3:

Guard against hazard This means that the hazard will to some extent be eliminated by
design, and it can be avoided by frequent monitoring the critical
area.

Warn of hazard The hazard is of such a character that it cannot be eliminated by

design. However, all personnel will be warned of the specific
critical area.

Train user To minimize the hazard, the user has to be trained to perform in
two different scenarios, normal and abnormal.

65
10 Cost analysis

10.1 Construction Cost

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

Fabrication cost / ton steel $4500

Ton steel 8440 ton
Fabrication cost $37 980 000

10.2 Transportation and installation cost comparative study

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

10.2.1 Cost factors

Three cost factors were found to be common to both the float over deck installation process and
the lifting installation process, however they differ in amount:

• heavy lift vessel,

• tugs,
• operators.

An additional cost factor has to be included for the crane system: which is the time charter
rate(TC)
These costs are functions of the transportation time and the installation time. HLV costs are the
same for the two systems.

Transportation phase
The cost of chartering a HLV is the same for both alternatives, thus it will not be analyzed. The
crane vessel will change the total cost of the transportation phase significantly.
The transportation time is assumed to be a function of two parameters: 1. The transportation
distance and 2.The velocity of the crane vessel.. The service speed of the crane vessel is
averaging 5 knots. The main operating areas for these type of crane vessels are the Gulf of

66
Mexico and the North Sea. The TC rates are approximately 1,000,000 usd/d. This yields the
following time and cost for the transportation phase (roundtrip, on site waiting not included):

Location of Transportation time Transportation cost

Installation site
lifting vessel (days) (million $)
Gulf of Mexico 2 2
Gulf of Mexico
North Sea 43 43
Gulf of Mexico 49 49
West Africa
North Sea 40 40

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

Waiting time for

Total installation time
Installation system Installation site weather window
(min/max)
(min/max)
Gulf of Mexico 0/2 days 1/3 days
Float over deck
West Africa 3/8 days 4/11 days
Gulf of Mexico 0/2 days 3/5 days
Lifting vessel
West Africa 3/8 days 6/11 days

The day rate on installation site without the crane vessel is assumed to be roughly the same for
the two installation systems, and is equal to $500,000. It includes operators, tugs and HLV.
Operators and tugs cost $100,000 per day, while the HLV costs $400,000 per day.
The total cost of the installation phase for the two systems can be compared once the cost of
chartering the crane vessel has been added to the cost of the lifting process:

Costs for the float over deck system:

Gulf of Mexico West Africa

Operators and tugs cost (min/max in
0.1/0.3 0.4/1.1
million $)
HLV cost (min/max in million $) 0.4 0.4
Total cost (min/max in million $) 0.5/0.7 1.0/1.5

67
 Costs for the crane lift vessel system

Gulf of Mexico West Africa

Total cost without lift crane vessel
0.3/0.5 0.6/1.1
(min/max in million $)
HLV cost (min/max in million $) 1.2/2.0 2.4/4.4
Crane lift vessel (min/max in million $) 3.0/5.0 6.0/11.0
Total cost (min/max in million $) 4.5/7.50 9.0/16.5

Finally, the installation and transportation costs are added up to get an estimate of the total cost of
each installation system:

Costs for the float over deck system (without heavy lift crane vessel.)

Gulf of Mexico West of Africa

Installation cost (min/max,
0.5/0.7 1.0/1.5
million $)
Total cost (min/max, million
2.5/2.7 41.0/41.5
$)

Costs for the lifting vessel system (including heavy lift crane vessel):

Gulf of Mexico West of Africa

Transportation cost (million $) 2 40
Installation cost (min/max,
4.5/7.5 9.0/16.5
million $)
Total cost (min/max, million
6.5/9.5 49.0/56.5
$)

68
11 Deliverables.
The catamaran has a few new design features.

1. A catamaran that engulfs the structure as opposed to two barges.

2. A fender system that provides a nearly perfect fit between catamaran and structure.
3. A ballasting system based on airflow rather than water flow. Air has less friction and thus
flows faster. The air is compressed during the first ballasting stage and when release can
be used to evacuate water from the spars ballast tanks.

These key features contribute to the following qualities of the system:

• Total lowering rate

• Maximum allowable sea state while in-field
• Cargo capacity
• Minimize installation risk
• Production cost
• Simplicity of design

69
References
1. ABS Rules for building and classing Steel Vessels 1998-99, Part 3 and 5

2. Bea, Robert: Load Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UCB, 2001

3. DNV SESAM Manual

4. Irgens, Fritjov: Formelsamling, Tapir, 1999

5. Leira, Bernt: SIN1010 Marin hydrodynamikk og konstruksjonsteknikk gk2

Department of Marine Structures, NTNU, 2001

6. MSC/NASTRAN User Manual

7. Petterson, Bjoernar: SIN1501 Marin hydrodynamikk og konstruksjonsteknikk gk1

Department of Marine Hydrodynamics, NTNU, 2000

8. Thimoshenko and Gere: Mechanics of Materials, 1972

9. Crane Co., Flow of fluids through valves, fittings, and pipe, 1942

10. Donald M. Fryer, High pressure vessels, 1998

11. Patrick H. Oosthuizen, Compressible fluid flow, McGraw-Hill, 1997

12. Bruce R. Munson, Donald F. Young, Theodore H. Okiiski, Fundamentals of Fluid

Mechanics, 1990

13. J. Amdahl & al., SIN 0501 – Marin Teknikk 1, NTNU, 2001

14. Code on Intact Stability, IMO, 1995

70
 1. Appendix 1

Table 1: Weight Data

Pontoon

Density 1.11E+02kg/m^3
Length (x) 100m
Width (y) 19m
Height (z) 20m local for pontoon k
Volume 38000m^3 Ixx 2.68E+08 7.963458
Mass 4.22E+06kg Iyy 3.66E+09 29.4392
Boxgirder length 50m Izz 3.64E+09 29.38395
draft 9.87E+00
Check 3.84E+07= 0.00E+00

Port Pontoon Star Pontoon

global, case1 global case 1
CG CG
x 50 x 50
y -34.5 y 34.5
z 10 z 10

with respect to global k with respect to global k

Ixx 5.71E+09 36.79221 Ixx 5.71E+09 36.79221
Iyy 1.46E+10 58.87841 Iyy 1.46E+10 58.87841
Izz 1.92E+10 67.48086 Izz 1.92E+10 67.48086
Ixy -7.3E+09 #NUM! Ixy 7.28E+09 41.53312

Port Pontoon Star Pontoon

global, case2 global case 2
CG CG
x -34.5 x 34.5
y 0 y 0
z 10 z 10

with respect to global k with respect to global k

Ixx 6.9E+08 12.78345 Ixx 6.9E+08 12.78345
Iyy 9.1E+09 46.44262 Iyy 9.1E+09 46.44262
Izz 8.67E+09 45.3174 Izz 8.67E+09 45.3174
Ixz -1.5E+09 Ixz 1.46E+09

71
DECK

Density 157.4kg/m^3
Length (x) 72m
Width (y) 72m
Height (z) 21m local for deck k
Volume 108864m^3 Ixx 1.41E+10 21.65064
Mass 30000000kg Iyy 1.41E+10 21.65064
Grillage Height 1m Izz 2.59E+10 29.39388

global case 1 global case 2

CG CG
x 50 x 87.5
y 0 y 0
z 31.5 z 43.5

with respect to global k with respect to global K

Ixx 4.38E+10 38.22303 Ixx 7.08E+10 48.59012
Iyy 1.19E+11 62.93648 Iyy 3.01E+11 100.0862
Izz 1.01E+11 58 Izz 2.56E+11 92.3052
Ixy 0 0 Ixz 1.14E+11 61.69481

Heavy lift Vessel.( data for Mighty servant 1 is used here, will give
typical data.)

Length (x) 190m local for heavylift vessel

L cargo deck 175m
Width (y) 50m Ixx 8.57E+09
Height (z) 12m Iyy 1.17E+11
Mass 38900000kg Izz 1.25E+11

global case2.

CG
x 9.50E+01
y 0.00E+00
z 6.00E+00

with respect to global k

Ixx 9.97E+09 16.01041
Iyy 4.7E+11 109.9151
Izz 4.76E+11 110.6421
Ixz 2.22E+10

72
 Combined system 1, deck and pontoons.
Mass 3.84E+07 kg
CG-global with respect to global k
x 5.00E+01 Ixx 5.53E+10 37.9135
y 0.00E+00 Iyy 1.48E+11 62.06821
z 2.68E+01 Izz 1.39E+11 60.20969
Ixy 0.00E+00 0

Combined system 2, deck, pontoons and semisub.

Mass 77340000 kg
CG-global with respect to global k
x 91.2723 Ixx 8.54E+10 33.23393
y 0 Iyy 8.57E+11 105.2381
z 22.29222 Izz 8.14E+11 102.5761
Ixy 1.53E+11 44.42075

Table 2 Time consumption

Time to task Task duration
Task no Sub-activities (hrs) (hrs)
Load off HLV 1 Removal of HLV-Pontoon sea fastenings 0 1
2 Ballasting of HLV 1 1
Hook up, after sea launching 3 Attaching tow lines 1.5 1
4 Getting tugs in position 1 0.5
Reduce sea fastenings 5 Preparing people and equipment 1.5 2
6 Welding operations 2.5 3
Pull into position 7 Towing deck 4 4
8 Coordinating tugs 3 1
9 Hook up mooring lines 6 3
10 Positioning 7 2
Hook up, before final lowering 11 Hook up fenders 6 4
12 Hook up flex. Air pipes 8 1
13 Getting operators in position 7 2
14 Eliminating all sea fastenings 9 4
Lowering Slow ballasting for line-up, opening of bottom
15 valves 10 1
16 Rapid ballasting, opening of top valves 13 3
De-ballasting of Spar hull with air pressure from
17 pontoons 15 3
Pull-away 18 Un-hook all connections 19 2
19 Secure deck 22 2
20 Tow back 23 1

73
 Time management of operation

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
Task number

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Tim e , in hours

Figure 1: Time management.

74
Load and Stress analysis.

Hydrodynamic forces
Expressions and parameters used for calculation of hydrodynamic forces are presented.

Table 3: Stress analysis parameters

Parameter Value
Wavelength 69 m
Waveamplitude 3.5 m
Gravity 9.81 m/s2
Effective length for FK 76 m
force on pontoon
Draft 20 m
Length of pontoon 100 m
Water density 1025 kg/m3
Normal vector -1 / 1
Unit plate strip 1m
Plate thickness 0.03 m
Maximum hydrostatic 201105 Pa
pressure

Froude-Krilov pressure:

p = ρ gζ a e kz sin(ω t − kx)

Froude-Krilov force:

F = −L∫ X pndx

Wave number, angular frequency and wave period:

2π 2πλ 2π
k= T= ω=
λ g T

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

75
port side
Starb. 1 - T/2 Variable 62MN
pontoon
Starb. side
Vertical force -1 Variable 3T/4 -10m 38 MN
Port pontoon
Vertical force -1 Variable 3T/4 -10m 38 MN
Starb.
pontoon
Net horizontal - - - - 124 MN
Starb.
pontoon
Net horizontal - - - - 124 MN
Port pontoon

Global pontoon and box-girder stress theory

Area moment of inertia

bd 3
I= + Aa 2
12

Bending stress and moment:

M max
σ= y M max = Fmax a
I

Shear stress:

VQ V
τ= ≈
Ib Aw

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

76
Global pontoon loads
Global bending moment and shear force for the pontoon are calculated, then are the
stresses induced in the pontoon beam due to the global forces calculated.
This is done for the two load cases described in section 1.6.

Global Pontoon Shear Forces

30000

20000

10000
kNm

Load case1
0
Load case 2
4.3
8.6
12.9
17.2
21.5
25.8
30.1
34.4
38.7

47.3
51.6
55.9
60.2
64.5
68.8
73.1
77.4
81.7

90.3
94.6
98.9
0

43

86
-10000

-20000

-30000
m

Figure 2: Global shear force on a pontoon

77
 Global Pontoon Bending moment

8000000

7000000

6000000

5000000

4000000
kNm

Load case 1
Load case 2
3000000

2000000

1000000

0
12.6
16.8

25.2
29.4
33.6
37.8

46.2
50.4
54.6
58.8

67.2
71.4
75.6
79.8

88.2
92.4
96.6
21

42

63

84
4.2
8.4
0

-1000000

Figure 3: Global bending moment on a pontoon

78
Bottom plate analysis
The theory used to analyze bottom shell plating is presented together with the results.

Plate strip theory:

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

M max (t / 2) a
σ max = 3
= 0.5 p ( ) 2
t /12 t

Finite element analysis:

Considering the same plate but with use of the FEA program MSC/NASTRAN. The FEA
program gives the opportunity to consider the entire plate field and not only a unit strip. This
allows a more realistic stress analysis where the plate has its fixed boundary conditions and
support on all boundaries.

Table 5: FEA Properties

Properties
# Elements 750
# Nodes 836
Boundary conditions Fixed
Material properties As defined in Table 6
Element type 4 node quadrilateral
Plate length 7.5 m
Plate width 1.0 m
Load Elemental pressure

Table 6: Material properties

Properties
Density 7850 kg/m3
Young’s modulus 210E9 Pa
Poisson 0.33
Yield strength 380 Mpa

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

79
Figure 4: FEA mesh of bottom plate field

80
2. Appendix 2

Figure 1, flow chart

81
 Table 2, hazard analysis
User Task Hazard Failure mode Severity Probability Risk level Remedy action

Operators Hook-up Collisions with in-field vessels Loss of control of in-field vessels Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Operators Hook-up Instability Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Minimal Probable Negligible Train user
Operators Hook-up Object falling onto Danger of process equipment falling from the deck Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Operators Hook-up Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Slight Possible Low Train user
Operators Hook-up Lack of communication Wrongful execution of orders/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Hook-up Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Slight Probable Low Train user
Operators Hook-up Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Slight Possible Low Warn of hazard
Operators Hook-up Equipment damage Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Slight Possible Low Eliminate by design
Operators Hook-up Unfamiliarity with hazards and risks Lack of understanding of the operation Slight Possible Low Train user
Operators Hook-up Lack of communication Misunderstanding of orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Hook-up Lack of training Unfamiliar with tasks Serious Unlikely Moderate Train user
Operators Shut down Collisions with in-field vessels Loss of control of a in-field vessel Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Operators Shut down Instability Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Slight Unlikely Low Provide PPE
Operators Shut down Object falling onto Danger of process equipment falling from deck Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Operators Shut down Collision with spar buoy Uncontrolled motion of the catamaran Slight Probable Low Provide PPE
Operators Shut down Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Slight Unlikely Low Warn of hazard
Operators Shut down Lack of communication Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Shut down Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Slight Unlikely Low Train user
Operators Shut down Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Shut down Ruptures Structural failure Catastrophic Unlikely Moderate Eliminate by design
Operators Shut down Equipment damage Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design
Operators Shut down Weather interference Loss of deck Catastrophic Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Operators Parts replacement Stabbing / puncture Loss air pressure Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design
Operators Parts replacement Instability Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Slight Possible Low Provide PPE
Operators Parts replacement Object falling onto Danger of process equipment falling from the deck Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Operators Parts replacement Human machinery mismatch Wrong installation Slight Unlikely Low Train user
Operators Parts replacement Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Slight Possible Low Warn of hazard
Operators Parts replacement Lack of communication Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Parts replacement Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Serious Possible High Train user
Operators Parts replacement Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Slight Possible Low Train user
Operators Parts replacement Ruptures Structural failures Catastrophic Unlikely Moderate Eliminate by design

82
Operators Parts replacement Leakages Error on pressurized equipment Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design
Operators Parts replacement Equipment damage Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design
Operators Lowering deck Crushing Lowering of deck out of control Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Operators Lowering deck Shearing Lowering of deck to fast Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Operators Lowering deck Impact Lowering of deck is out of control Slight Probable Low Guard against hazard
Operators Lowering deck Collisions with in-field vessels Loss of control of in-field vessels Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Operators Lowering deck Instability Un-controlled rapid motions inflicted by a outside source Slight Possible Low Provide PPE
Operators Lowering deck Object falling onto Danger of process equipment falling from the deck Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Operators Lowering deck Collision with spar buoy Un-controlled lowering Serious Possible High Guard against hazard
Operators Lowering deck Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Serious Unlikely Moderate Train user
Operators Lowering deck Lack of communication Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Operators Lowering deck Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Serious Possible High Train user
Operators Lowering deck Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Slight Possible Low Train user
Operators Lowering deck Equipment damage Exposing the catamaran in a vulnerable condition Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design
Operators Lowering deck Weather interference Severe storms, loss of deck Catastrophic Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Supervisor Documentation <None>
Supervisor Supervisory task(s) Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Serious Possible High Train user
Supervisor Supervisory task(s) Lack of communication Inadequate instructions/ requirements Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Supervisor Supervisory task(s) Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Slight Possible Low Train user
Supervisor Supervisory task(s) Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Supervisor Problem solving <None>
Manager Documentation <None>
Manager Supervisory task(s) Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Serious Possible High Train user
Manager Supervisory task(s) Lack of communication Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Manager Supervisory task(s) Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Slight Possible Low Train user
Manager Supervisory task(s) Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Tug operators Hook-up Collisions with in-field vessels Loss of control of in-field vessels Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Hook-up Collision with spar buoy Negligence and\or loss of control of vessel Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Hook-up Human machinery mismatch Inexperience with tug and\or equipment Minimal Unlikely Negligible Train user
Tug operators Hook-up Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Serious Unlikely Moderate Train user
Tug operators Hook-up Lack of communication Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Tug operators Hook-up Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Serious Unlikely Moderate Train user
Tug operators Hook-up Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Slight Unlikely Low Warn of hazard
Tug operators Hook-up Equipment damage Exposing the tug in a vulnerable condition Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design

83
Tug operators Hook-up Loss of control Unknown situations Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against ha
Tug operators Shut down Collisions with in-field vessels Loss of control of in-field vessels Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Shut down Collision with spar buoy Negligence and\or loss of control of vessel Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Shut down Human machinery mismatch Inexperience with tug and\or equipment Slight Unlikely Low Train user
Tug operators Shut down Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Serious Unlikely Moderate Train user
Tug operators Shut down Lack of communication Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Serious Possible High Warn of hazard
Tug operators Shut down Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Serious Unlikely Moderate Train user
Tug operators Shut down Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Slight Unlikely Low Warn of hazard
Tug operators Shut down Equipment damage Exposing the tug in a vulnerable condition Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design
Tug operators Shut down Loss of control Unknown situations Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Shut down Weather interference Loss of deck Catastrophic Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Towing Collisions with in-field vessels Loss of control of in-field vessels Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Towing Collision with spar buoy Negligence and\or loss of control of vessel Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Towing Human machinery mismatch Inexperience with tug and\or equipment Slight Unlikely Low Train user
Tug operators Towing Human errors / behaviors Wrongfully exercise of tasks Serious Unlikely Moderate Train user
Tug operators Towing Lack of communication Wrongful execution of instructions/orders Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard
Tug operators Towing Lack of training Wrongful execution of task Slight Unlikely Low Train user
Tug operators Towing Deviations from safe work practices Failure in the procedures Slight Unlikely Low Warn of hazard
Tug operators Towing Equipment damage Exposing the tug in a vulnerable condition Slight Unlikely Low Eliminate by design
Tug operators Towing Loss of control Unknown situations Serious Unlikely Moderate Guard against hazard

84
 3. Appendix 3:

Matlab code for lowering process analysis

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

Lowering.m

function lowering

clear all;
close all;

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

85
 % Initial internal draft (<0)
dint0=-9.8;
% Initial condition for phase 1
y01 = [dint0 ; dout0 ; 0 ];
% Number of points, 1st phase
Np1=20;
% Diameter of the spar
Ds=48;
% Surface area of spar tanks
As=pi/4*(Ds^2-(Ds/2)^2);
% Lowering height to reach the spar
L=3;
% Time required for cutting off sea fastening
tfasten=40*60;

% Calling lowering_phase1.m for first phase analysis

[y1,t1]=lowering_phase1(M+Mp,h,gamma,rhow,g,patm,w,lc,lb,lambda,
Q0,S,N,alpha1,tf1,dout0,dint0,Ds,As,Ms,L)

size(t1)
size(y1)

% Plots
figure(1);
plot(t1/60,y1(:,1), 'g+-')
hold on
plot(t1/60,y1(:,2),'bx-')
hold on
plot(t1/60,(dout0-L)*ones(length(y1)),'r-');
grid on;
xlabel('time (min)');
ylabel('depth (m)');
legend('d_{int}','d_{out}');
title('Time evolution of the internal and external drafts, first phase');

% Find the time, external and internal draft when deck reaches spar
k=1;
while abs(y1(k+1,2)-(y01(2)-L))<abs(y1(k,2)-(y01(2)-L))
treach=t1(k+1);
doutreach=y1(k+1,2);
dintreach=y1(k+1,1);
k=k+1;

Lowering_phase.m

function [y,t] = lowering_phase1(M,h,gamma,rhow,g,patm,w,

lc,lb,lambda,Q0,S,N,alpha,tf1,dout0,dint0,Ds,As,Ms,L)

y0 = [dint0 ; dout0 ; 0 ];
y=y0;
% Number of points, 1st phase
Np1=20;

tspan1 = linspace(0,tf1,Np1);

86
 B=[0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1];

options = odeset('Mass',B,'RelTol',1e-4,'AbsTol',
[1e-3 1e-3 1e-3 ],'Vectorized','on','MassSingular','yes');

[t,y] = ode15s(@f1,tspan1,y0,options,M,h,gamma,rhow,g,patm,
w,lc,lb,lambda,Q0,S,N,alpha,y0,Ds,As,Ms,L)

%---------------------------------
function out = f1(t,y,M,h,gamma,rhow,g,patm,w,lc,lb,lambda,Q0,S,
N,alpha,y01,Ds,As,Ms,L)

Ac=lc*w;
Ab=lb*w;

Mt=mass(t,Q0,rhow,alpha,N);
Q=N*Q0*exp(-t/alpha);

p1=patm-rhow*g*y(1,:);
deltap=10*rhow.*(Q/N/S).^2/(144*(2*g))*6.895E3/2.43;

if (y01(2)-y(2))<L
% 'case1'
out =[patm*(h./(h-y(1,:)+y(2,:))).^gamma-patm+rhow*g*y(1,:)
+ deltap
y(3,:)
1./(M)*(-lambda*y(3,:)-(M+2*Mt)*g*ones(1,size(y(1,:),2))
-2*y(2,:)*rhow*(Ac+Ab)*g)];
else
% 'case2'
out=[patm*(h./(h-y(1,:)+y(2,:))).^gamma-patm+rhow*g*y(1,:) + deltap
y(3,:)
1./(M)*(-lambda*y(3,:)-(M+2*Mt)*g*ones(1,size(y(1,:),2))
-2*y(2,:)*rhow*(Ac+Ab)*g+rhow*g*As.*(y01(2)-L-y(2,:)))];
end
%---------------------------------
function Mt=mass(t,Q0,rhow,alpha,N)

Mt=N*rhow*Q0*alpha*(1-exp(-t/alpha));

87
 4. Appendix 4

Hydrodynamic Results For Unrestrained Catamaran. The Catamaran is Carrying the

Deck

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

88