Design Principles of Floating

Offshore Platform

Dr. Eng. Rudi W. Prastianto

Dept. of Ocean Engineering – ITS
rudiwp@oe.its.ac.id
 Content

I. Introduction
II. Functions
III. Motions
IV. Concept Selection
Basic Requirement for Floating Platform
• Functional Requirement of Floating Platform:
❖ Deck area and load carrying capacity to accommodate
facilities such as a derrick, storage of casing, drill
string, mud, etc.
❖ A deck area to have access for the riser to the sea
without interfering with structure during vertical and
horizontal motion of the platform
❖ Mobility easy and fast
• Safety Requirement:
❖ Adequate buoyancy/ stability → comply to codes/ Class
❖ Adequate structural strength requirements
❖ Access for inspection and repair and design for monitoring by
leak
❖ Fire and explosion safety
❖ Escape and evacuation system
 I. Introduction
• Floating structures → used since the 1950s for drilling
→ increasingly popular for production, particularly in
deep water.
• New design challenges for floaters, for example:
– Weight control and stability become key design drivers,
– Dynamic responses govern the loads on moorings and
equipment,
– Fatigue is an important consideration,
– In some areas, the new environmental challenges make
design difficult (e.g. Large currents in the deepwater of the
Gulf of Mexico, High seas and strong currents in the North
Atlantic, Long period swells in West Africa),
– Installation of the platforms, mooring and decks in deep
water present new challenges,
– New materials for risers and moorings are required in
ultra-deep water.
 I. Introduction (Design Process. ...)
• Many of the design criteria used for the mobile facilities, especially
the MODU Rules → are used to design the permanent facilities.
• Role of the published industry standards and classification rules:
– As basis of design of floaters and other offshore structures.
– To reflect past design practices that have proven successful.
– It is a standard practice when designing a new structure to fall back on
standards used for more established structures.
• For deeper water and newer environments:
– To question the standards developed for shallow water or mobile
facilities.
– The best practice → to use standards as a guide, → but to perform a
rigorous amount of front end engineering based on “first principles”
before embarking on the detailed design of a new concept.
– There is an ever increasing amount of tools available for response and
stress analysis.
– World class model testing facilities exist to check the responses of new
concepts.
– Analysis and testing should be performed early in the design evolution
→ to avoid surprises.
 I. Introduction (Design Process. ...)
• At deeper water → the floater cannot be considered as simply a
piece of real estate to hold a payload and to support risers.
• In design process of the floater:
– Designer must understand all of the systems supported by the
hull, and be prepared to include their effects in his modeling
and design.
– It may be said → “the best hull is the hull which best
supports the risers”.
– A common mistake → to select and design the hull before the
well layout and the riser makeup has been finalised, let alone
analysed.
I. Introduction (Design Process. ...)

• The dynamics of the

floater/hull can be affected by
the risers and mooring systems.
• An inadequate hull mooring
system design can invalidate
the use of certain types of
risers or riser components.
• The layout of equipment may
result in an eccentric weight,
which must be compensated by
a large amount of ballast,
increasing the total amount of
displacement needed.
 1. “Permanent” facilities
Floating platforms can be characterized as one of two
types:
1. “Permanent” facilities
2. “Mobile” facilities

• Designed to be moored in place for typically 20-30

years.
• Inspections are performed in-place.
• They must be capable of surviving extreme
environmental conditions including 100-year events.
• These are used primarily for the production and
processing of oil and gas.
 2. “Mobile” facilities

• “Mobile” facilities include those used for drilling

or marine construction and installation.
• The mooring and station-keeping requirements
for these are more constrained by operational
considerations.
• The survival criteria are less than those for the
permanent facilities.
• Inspections and maintenance is performed during
scheduled drydocking.
 Relative cross-sectional shapes of floaters
(Courtesy Technip Offshore, Inc.)
• FPSOs ➔ relatively
shallow draft, but a
large waterplane
area, provide a large
area for process
facilities, and large
storage volumes.
• Semi-submersibles
➔ small waterplane
area, and a
moderate draft.
• Spars ➔ a very deep
draft and a moderate
to small waterplane
area.
 Relative plan area of floaters
(Courtesy Technip Offshore, Inc.)

Floater types might be distinguished by several

characteristics, such as:
• Functions, stability, motions, load or volume
capacities, transportability, reusability.
 II. Functions

• While the drilling and workover with dry trees has been limited to
→ TLPs and Spars.
• Semi-submersibles → are used to drill and workover wet tree
wells, positioned under the hull. U.S. Navy → developing designs
for large Mobile Offshore Bases (MOBs)
• FPSOs → have been designed with drilling and workover
capability for benign environments, → but they have not been
implemented.
 III. Motions
• Motion characteristics (e.g. heave/vertical motions)
 Motions (wave period some locations)

• The most critical wave periods are:

– Brazil → 12-14 seconds;
– Gulf of Mexico → 13-16 seconds;
– North Atlantic and North Sea → 15-18 seconds;
– West Africa → 16-22 seconds.
• TLPs responses:
– Heave and pitch responses are not significant,
– except ➔ in the range of resonance where the effect is
primarily on tendon tension.
– Heave response → the most critical response for the
support of the risers, and for the operability of a
drilling platform.
 III. Motions (Heave response RAOs)
• Example Heave RAOs of various floaters (see the figure)
 Motions (semi-sub)
• Several semi-submersible designs → are included to show the
influence of optimization on the heave response.

• Semi-submersibles → achieve different heave responses → by

varying the ratio of the pontoon to the column volume. The
wave forces acting on the bottom of the columns due to wave
pressure are partly cancelled by the inertial forces acting on
the pontoons by the accelerating fluid. These forces completely
cancel at a period unique to a volume ratio and spacing of the
columns.
• The Trendsetter Semi-submersible responses → are
particularly noteworthy. These were accomplished by adding a
central column, which provides further wave-force cancellation
in the hurricane wave period range.
• Clauss (1998) → the shape of a semi-submersible could be
further optimized if the cross-sections of the columns and the
pontoons could be adjusted.
 Motions (ship-shaped hulls)

• The response for two ship-shaped hulls of

differing length and displacement are shown in
the figure.
– The “Drill Ship” response → is typical of early
generation drillships (e.g. the SEDCO 445 and
SEDCO 470 series).
– Larger drillships, and particularly VLCC (Very Large
Crude Carrier) class FPSOs, (on the order of 300 m
or more in length) → respond as the FPSO Barge
indicated. These responses are for head seas.
– The ship-shaped hulls in the beam sea → respond
more like the “Drill Ship”.
 Motions (ship-shaped hulls)

– Larger drillships, and particularly VLCC (Very Large

Crude Carrier) class FPSOs, (on the order of 300 m
or more in length) → respond as the FPSO Barge
indicated. These responses are for head seas.
 Motions (Pitch response RAOs)
• The FPSO barge → follows the wave slope for waves with
lengths on the order of the ship length.

• A conventional
drilling semi-sub
→ shows the
effects of
cancellation of
pitch moments
from the
horizontal loads
on columns and
the vertical
inertial forces on
pontoons.
 Motions (Surge response)
• The Surge response → for various floaters (at vessel CoG) is shown in the figure.
• The semi-submersibles → again cancellation effects are evident.
• The FPSO barge → the irregular variations in the response are due to the
diffraction/radiation effects.
 Motions (Surge acceleration RAO)
• Acceleration at the deck level → an important
consideration for equipment design and operations.
 IV. Concept Selection
(floating platforms selection and design)
• The beginning is a perceived need for oil or gas recovery from a reservoir.
The first indications are only that there might be oil or gas based on a
geologic feature, but until it is drilled, there is no way to be sure of it. Even
after drilling one well, there are often many uncertainties about the
accessibility of a body of hydrocarbons and their quality.
• There are often several “appraisal” wells drilled following the “discovery”
well to ascertain this. It is during the appraisal drilling that most operators
begin to worry about how a particular oil field will be produced.
 Concept Selection (fundamental decisions)
• The most important fundamental decisions are:
– How are the wells located and structured?
– How will the drilling and completion of the wells be
performed?
– How will the well flow be delivered to the platform,
processed and exported to market?

Platform – the structure that supports production and drilling

operations. The types of offshore platforms can be either floating
or fixed, depending on the location, water depth, climate and the
facility’s size.
Rig – the drilling equipment used to drill the well that can either
be installed on a platform or a MODU.
 Concept Selection (a deepwater project)
• In a deepwater project:
– Drilling costs → around 50% (of the total project
value).
– The floater → less than 15% (installed and moored).
– The discovery and the appraisal wells → are drilled
from MODUs → but this can be an expensive
approach to drilling the “development” wells (the
ones that will be the basis for production).

Glossary: MODU – Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit often

used in conjunction with semi-submersibles and FPSOs,
which do not have drilling rigs.
Concept Selection (a subsea development)
• A fundamental decision → whether the wells
should be subsea (“wet tree”) or surface (“dry
tree”) wells. ??
• If a subsea development is utilised:
– A floating platform may not be needed at all.
– The lowest cost developments → utilise a subsea well
tied back to an existing platform.
– Example: A subsea development was recently
commissioned in the Gulf of Mexico which actually
linked the subsea wells from several different oil fields
owned by different operators to one pipeline
connecting to a shallow water fixed platform (Rijkens,
2003).
 Concept Selection (Subsea production)
• Subsea production has several limitations, e.g. :
– Each well requires a MODU for installation and
maintainence.
– An existing structure is required to receive the oil.
– Flow assurance and well conditions may limit the range
for tying back to an existing structure.
– Reservoir recovery percentages are historically lower
from the subsea wells → because it becomes
uneconomic to continue to operate the well when flow
rates fail to meet the threshold values, and it is too
expensive to mobilize a MODU to redrill or service the
well.
Concept Selection (Floating Production Systems)
• Most Floating Production Systems in use today actually
support wet tree developments.
• Floating Production Storage and Offloading systems
(FPSO) → the most prolific type of floating platforms today,
are:
– primarily serving oil fields in remote parts of the world where
there is no infrastructure to transport or use the oil.
– They receive hydrocarbons from one or more subsea wells,
process the oil and offload the oil to tankers bound for the oil
consuming part of the world.
– Many of these FPSOs are converted tankers → They do not use
dry trees because their motions do not allow it, and because the
cost of converting a used tanker to accommodate dry trees
would be prohibitive.
– Many of these FPSOs are leased because the oil fields only last
5-7 years.
Concept Selection (semi-submersible FPSs)

• There are also numerous Semi-submersible

FPSs:
– which produce from subsea wells and deliver
product through pipelines.
– These have proven to be more cost effective than
fixed platforms in moderately deep hostile
environments like the North Sea.
– In Brazil, there is a large infrastructure for
servicing wet trees and there are many FPSs
supporting wet tree developments.
 Concept Selection (dry trees system)
• Dry trees system:
– Allow relatively inexpensive intervention and
maintenance of the wells → leading to higher
productivity.
– The drilling and/or the completing wells from a
floating platform → may be at a significantly lower
cost than using a MODU for this purpose.
– Much of the drilling may be deferred until additional
reservoir data is available from early production. In
addition to deferring the cost, the information gained
can greatly improve the productivity of future wells.

Glossary: Well Completion – the process of preparing a well for

the production of oil and gas in which one or more flow paths for
hydrocarbons are established between the reservoir and the
surface.
 Glossary
• Christmas Tree – the control valves, pressure gauges, and
chokes assembled at the top of a well to control flow of oil
and/or gas after the well has been drilled and completed.
• Well Completion – the process of preparing a well for the
production of oil and gas in which one or more flow paths
for hydrocarbons are established between the reservoir
and the surface.
• Platform – the structure that supports production and
drilling operations. The types of offshore platforms can be
either floating or fixed, depending on the location, water
depth, climate and the facility’s size.
• Rig – the drilling equipment used to drill the well that can
either be installed on a platform or a MODU.
• MODU – Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit often used in
conjunction with semi-submersibles and FPSOs, which do
not have drilling rigs.
 These web sites are useful
to research current technology :
• The official web site of the annual Offshore Technology
Conference (www.otcnet.com). There is an online search
capability for all past OTC Papers, which reflect the current
state of technology.
• This web site chronicles offshore projects (www.offshore-
technology.com).
• Society of Petroleum Engineers web site (includes e-Library
link) - www.spe.org .
• www.omae.org - American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Offshore, Oceans and Arctic Engineering (Annual Conference).
• www.sname.org - Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers.
• www.isope.org - International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers (Annual Conference).
• www.asce.org - American Society of Civil Engineers.
 These web sites are useful
to research current technology: (cont. ...)
• www.eagle.org - American Bureau of Shipping
(Classification Society).
• www.dnv.org - Det Norske Veritas (Classification
Society).
• www.api.org - American Petroleum Institute
(publications).
• www.coe,berkeley.edu/issc/ - International Ship and
Offshore Structures Conference (Summarises R&D in
the field).
• www.shipstructure.org - Interagency Ship Structures
Committee (particularly structural issues).
• http://ittc.sname,org/ - International Towing Tank
Conference (particularly hydrodynamic issues).