You are on page 1of 117

DESIGN OF A FLOATING, PRODUCTION, STORAGE, AND OFFLOADING VESSEL FOR OPERATION IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

Curt Haveman Jeffrey Parliament Jeremy Sokol Joseph Swenson Timothy Wagner

OCEN 407 - Design of Ocean Engineering Facilities Ocean Engineering Program Texas A&M University Final Report
15 May 2006

Table of Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ v Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... vi Nomenclature............................................................................................................................ vii Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. ix 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 FPSO Background........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective............................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Industry Day...................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Environment ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................. 6 1.6 Gantt Chart........................................................................................................................ 6 2 Regulatory Compliance .................................................................................................... 8 2.1 General Arrangements................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Storage and Slop Tanks ................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Accommodations ............................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Spill Containment............................................................................................................ 8 2.5 Fire Safety ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Lifesaving Appliances and Equipment...................................................................... 9 2.7 Flood Survival Requirements....................................................................................... 9 2.8 Helicopter Deck................................................................................................................ 9 2.9 Environmental/Global Loading and General Strength of Hull ............................ 9 2.10 Position Mooring System.......................................................................................... 11 2.11 Stability .......................................................................................................................... 13 3 General Arrangement and Hull/System Design ................................................... 14 3.1 Option One ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Option Two...................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 Selected Design and General Layout ...................................................................... 14 3.4 Lifeboats .......................................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Accommodations and Helipad................................................................................... 16 4 Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability ................................................................................ 18 4.1 Weight Calculations...................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Buoyancy Calculations................................................................................................ 19 4.3 Stability ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.3.1 Intact Stability ......................................................................................................... 20 4.3.2 Damage Stability .................................................................................................... 24 5 Local and Global Loading ............................................................................................. 28 6 General Strength and Structural Design ................................................................ 30 7 Wind and Current Loading ............................................................................................ 34 8 Mooring/Station Keeping................................................................................................ 36 9 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading................................................................. 44 10 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................... 47 11 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 49

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

12 References ......................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix A: Environmental Data and Loading Spreadsheets .................................... 52 Appendix B: Mimosa Input/Output Files............................................................................ 58 Appendix C: StabCAD Input/Output Files ......................................................................... 72

TAMU Team South China Sea

ii

Final Report

List of Figures
Figure 1: Vessel Location ........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Annual Wind Profile .................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: JONSWAP Spectrum for South China Sea ............................................................ 3 Figure 4: Most Probable Significant Wave Height by Month................................................. 4 Figure 5: Current Profile.............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 6: Wave Height Annual Probability ............................................................................... 5 Figure 7: Team Design Gantt Chart .......................................................................................... 7 Figure 8: Internal Mooring Design ........................................................................................... 14 Figure 9: External Mooring Design.......................................................................................... 14 Figure 10: FPSO Tank Layout with Internal Mooring ........................................................... 15 Figure 11: FPSO Wing Ballast Tank Layout .......................................................................... 15 Figure 12: Permanent Water Tank .......................................................................................... 16 Figure 13: Accommodations and Helipad Dimensions ........................................................ 17 Figure 14: Rendered View from StabCAD ............................................................................. 20 Figure 15: ABS MODU 2005 Intact Stability Curve .............................................................. 21 Figure 16: Intact Stability Curve............................................................................................... 21 Figure 17: Intact Cross Curves Plot ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 18: Curve of Static Stability at Draft............................................................................ 24 Figure 19: ABS MODU 2005 Damage Stability Curve ......................................................... 25 Figure 20: Damaged Ballast Tanks - 2 total .......................................................................... 26 Figure 21: Damage Stability Curve ......................................................................................... 26 Figure 22: Local Loading .......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 23: Global Loading ........................................................................................................ 29 Figure 24: Evenly Distributed Buoyancy Case ...................................................................... 30 Figure 25: Evenly Distributed Buoyancy Case Deflection ................................................... 30 Figure 26: Maximum Hog Buoyancy Case ............................................................................ 31 Figure 27: Maximum Hog Buoyancy Case Deflection.......................................................... 31 Figure 28: Maximum Sag Buoyancy Case............................................................................. 31 Figure 29: Maximum Sag Buoyancy Case Deflection.......................................................... 32 Figure 30: Wave Induced Shear .............................................................................................. 32 Figure 31: Wave Induced Moment .......................................................................................... 33 Figure 32: AutoCAD Area Distribution .................................................................................... 34 Figure 33: Internal and External Turret Mooring Systems................................................... 38 Figure 34: Horizontal Layout of Mooring Lines...................................................................... 39 Figure 35: Vertical View of Mooring Lines.............................................................................. 39 Figure 36: Offsets for Survival Conditions.............................................................................. 41 Figure 37: Offsets for Damaged Conditions .......................................................................... 42 Figure 38: Stevpris Mk. 5 Anchor ............................................................................................ 43 Figure 39: Heave Amplitude Response (0 deg) .................................................................... 45 Figure 40: Heave Response (22.5 deg) ................................................................................. 45 Figure 41: Vessel Pitch Response (0 deg) ............................................................................ 46 Figure 42: Total Vessel Cost by Shipyard.............................................................................. 48 Figure 43: South China Sea Wave Conditions By Month.................................................... 54 Figure 44: JONSWAP Spectrum for the South China Sea.................................................. 54

TAMU Team South China Sea

iii

Final Report

Figure 45: Significant Wave Height Design Criteria ............................................................. 55 Figure 46: Annual Cumulative Wave Probability Curve ....................................................... 56 Figure 47: Annual Wind Profile Rosette ................................................................................ 56 Figure 48: South China Sea Current Profile .......................................................................... 57

TAMU Team South China Sea

iv

Final Report

List of Tables
Table 1: Design Criteria for South China Sea ......................................................................... 5 Table 2: Factor of Safety for Anchoring Lines (ABS 2005) ................................................. 12 Table 3: Damage Assumptions................................................................................................ 13 Table 4: Ship Hull Ratios .......................................................................................................... 15 Table 5: Hull Weight Calculation.............................................................................................. 18 Table 6: Weight Characteristics............................................................................................... 18 Table 7: Center of Gravities...................................................................................................... 19 Table 8: Draft Under Different Load Conditions .................................................................... 19 Table 9: Required Buoyancy for Varying Load Condition.................................................... 19 Table 10: Center of Buoyancy.................................................................................................. 20 Table 11: 100% Loaded Specifics ........................................................................................... 22 Table 12: Downflooding Points Height Above Water ........................................................... 22 Table 13: Intact Stability Parameters ...................................................................................... 24 Table 14: Damage Conditions to Satisfy ................................................................................ 27 Table 15: ABS 2005 Regulations ............................................................................................ 30 Table 16: Area Calculations of Ship Shape ........................................................................... 34 Table 17: Wind, Current, & Significant Wave Height Implementation ............................... 34 Table 18: Total Environmental Forces on Vessel ................................................................. 34 Table 19: Environmental Conditions Considered.................................................................. 36 Table 20: Environmental Load Comparison .......................................................................... 36 Table 21: Weighted Mooring System Selection Chart ......................................................... 38 Table 22: Mooring Line Properties .......................................................................................... 39 Table 23: Intact Survival Analysis............................................................................................ 40 Table 24: Damaged Survival Analysis .................................................................................... 41 Table 25: FPSO Parameters................................................................................................... 44 Table 26: FPSO Natural Periods ............................................................................................. 44 Table 27: Vessel Response Amplitudes................................................................................. 46 Table 28: Non Shipyard Associated Costs ............................................................................ 47 Table 29: Shipyard Associated Costs..................................................................................... 47 Table 30: Return Period Wind Profiles .................................................................................. 53 Table 31: Current Profile for South China Sea...................................................................... 53 Table 32: Wave Height Annual Cumulative Probability Distribution .................................. 55 Table 33: MIMOSA Vessel File ................................................................................................... 59 Table 34: MIMOSA SIF File........................................................................................................ 60 Table 35: MIMOSA Line Characteristics..................................................................................... 61 Table 36: Sample MIMOSA Output............................................................................................. 63 Table 37: StabCAD Input File ...................................................................................................... 73 Table 38: StabCAD Output File ................................................................................................... 87

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

Acknowledgements
Team South China Sea would like to thank the following individuals and companies, without whom the project would not have been completed, for their assistance and guidance throughout the course of the project. Dr. Robert Randall, TAMU Rodney King, ConocoPhillips Nick Heather, ConocoPhillips Barbara Stone, Sea Engineering Sergio Gutierrez, TAMU Chuck Steube, ConocoPhillips Chris Desmond, Lloyds Register Yong Luo, SBM-IMODCO Vidar Aanesland, APL, Inc. Tom Fulton, Intermoor Dave Walters, 2H Offshore G. Liu, Technip Engineering Dynamics Incorporated Det Norske Veritas

TAMU Team South China Sea

vi

Final Report

Nomenclature
FPSO ABS API FOS Hs Tp F S M A V D CC CH CS CB CW KG RAO VCG LCG TCG WBT P S DOST PROD COFT COT OFF-SPEC COT SLOP Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading American Bureau of Shipping American Petroleum Institute Factor of Safety Significant Wave Height Peak Period Seawater Density Force Section Modulus Moment of Inertia Area Velocity Wind Velocity Time Factor Direction of Approaching Oblique Seas Draft Current Coefficient Height Coefficient Shape Coefficient Block Coefficient Waterplane Area Coefficient Center of Gravity from Keel Response Amplication Operator Vertical Center of Gravity Longitudinal Center of Gravity Transverse Center of Gravity Wing Ballast Tank Port Starboard Diesel Oil Storage Tank Produced Water Tank Crude Fuel Oil Tank Crude Oil Tank Off-spec Product Tank Slop Tank

TAMU Team South China Sea

vii

Final Report

Abstract
The objective of this design team is to analyze, research, model, and design a Floating, Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel (FPSO) capable of surviving the weather conditions found in the South China Sea. The team will have to analyze the environmental data from the site, and find the wind, wave, and current forces that the ship will have to endure both in regular and extreme cases. The ship will have to be able to keep production capability in conditions of the one year storm and must be able to survive the 100 year storm conditions. Once the environment data is complete the team will have to design all aspects of the ship, including hull size, shape, displacement, empty and loaded draft, as well as accounting for the natural heave, pitch, and roll periods. The vessel will be required to fulfill all ABS requirements for a steel vessel carrying natural gas and oil. Once the ship is designed the team will also carry out an analysis on several different mooring systems. This design project has specific conditions which must be satisfied by the International Student Offshore Design Competition (ISODC). These include safe and efficient hull design, matching production, storage, and offloading, recognizing the impact of hull deflections, and matching the mooring system to motions and loads. In order for this project to be considered by the ISODC as a design entry, it should address eight areas of competency. Five fundamental competencies must be addressed while the remaining three may be selected from the more specialized competencies. The fundamental competencies which will be covered include: Fundamental Competencies: General Arrangement and Overall Hull or System Design Weight, Buoyancy and Stability Local and Global Loading Strength and Structural Design General Cost Specialized Competencies Floating Structures Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading Wind and Current Loading Mooring/Station Keeping (or propulsion, tendon design) The FPSO facility is located in the South China Sea in 100 meters of water at 21 22 45 North Latitude, 114 54 40 East Longitude. The topside information, such as weights, arrangements of components and size of components for the FPSO were provided by Mr. King with ConocoPhillips. The teams job is to design the hull characteristics, tank arrangement below deck, mooring systems as well as perform ship hull, structural and mooring system analysis. Certain conditions have to be considered when designing the FPSO. The FPSO must remain online and operating during a 1 year design storm for the area. Production is possible up to a roll of 2. Once the vessel rolls past 2 offloading operations and plant operations must cease. During a 100 year design storm, the vessel must remain on location and attached to the mooring system. Within the requirements, a basic hull design is going to be provided to the team for the basis of the design; however, the development of the stability curves for the hull design and loading specifications will be required. Determining the best arrangement and number of storage tanks and ballast tanks below the deck of the FPSO vessel will also be analyzed for maximum operation. The ideal mooring system will be designed based on factors such as water depth and environmental conditions. The type of mooring system selected will be based on the operating depth of the FPSO.

TAMU Team South China Sea

viii

Final Report

Executive Summary
Introduction Team South China Sea was asked to develop a Floating, Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel that has the capability of storing 1.6 million barrels of crude oil and withstand the harsh environment found in the South China Sea. This facility is to be internally turret-moored which allows the capability of a free floating, fully weathervaning hull design. The FPSO must operate in 100 meters of water and maintain an overall 95% operating availability. All aspects of the vessel will be regulated by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) guidelines. The eight competency areas addressed are (1) general arrangement and overall hull/system design, (2) weight, buoyancy, and stability, (3) local and global loading, (4) general strength and structural design, (5) wind and current loading, (6) mooring/station keeping, (7) hydrodynamics of motions and loading, and (8) cost analysis.

General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design The team considered two design alternatives. The chosen design option required the lengthening of the ship to incorporate an internal disconnectable turret. Length between perpendiculars (LBP) 326 m

Breadth 58 m Molded depth 30.4 m There are 16 stabilized product tanks along with 2 off-spec product tanks within our double-hull design. These 18 tanks are arranged longitudinally with 14 L-shaped ballast tanks located in between the outer hull and the crude oil tanks. A double-hull layout was a direct effect of these ballast configurations, which aided in stability performance
TAMU Team South China Sea ix Final Report

as well as comply with ABS steel vessel design guidelines. Since this vessels hull was extended to incorporate the internal turret, the longitudinal center of buoyancy and longitudinal center of gravity were misaligned. A large permanent ballast tank was placed in the bow following in depth research and input by industry professionals. This response involved converting several of the bow compartments to permanent water tanks. Safety restrictions and lifeboat regulations were also taken into account for the design and arrangement of the vessel.

Weight, Buoyancy and Stability In order to determine the weight of steel required by the vessel an existing ship, the Nanhai Endeavour, was scaled up to the size of the design vessel. After completing the scaling process it was determined that 48,750 mt of steel will be required. Next, the hull lightship weight was added to the weight of the fully loaded product tanks in order to find the total displacement of the ship. This displacement was found to be 432,050 mt which lead to a displaced volume of seawater equal to 421,510 m3. The VCG was found to be 17.74 m above the keel, the TCG was 0.03 m port of the centerline, and the LCG was 165.74 m forward of the stern in the fully loaded condition.

Using these numbers, a stability analysis was conducted using commercial software known as StabCAD. The intact and damaged stability of a 100% loaded vessel passed the ABS rules and regulations. For an intact hull, the range of stability was found to be 15.1 degrees. The stability curve calculated a downflooding angle at 12.72 degrees. The range of stability for the damaged condition was found to be 3.51 degrees. For a

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

draft of 22.57 meters, the input vertical center of gravity of 17.74 meters was less than the maximum allowable KG of 19.2 meters. The design and calculated vertical center of gravity was less than the maximum allowable KG as dictated by ABS. For the damaged stability, the minimum ABS MODU requirements were met as well.

Local and Global Loading The loading on a ship must be determined in order to ensure that the vessel can withstand the effects of these loads as well as those of the wind, waves, and current. The local loading takes the loading of several conditions every 15 meters. In order to increase this accuracy the global loading profile is found. This profile shows the weight on the ship for the entire length of the vessel instead of incrementally. Once this weight distribution is found, it can then be put into a structural analysis program, in this case Visual Analysis, to find important factors such as amount of sag or hog, shear force acting on the beam or the bending moment that must be resisted. By modeling the ship as a simply supported beam with a moment of inertia of 2400 m4, the deflection of the ship was kept to less than 0.5 meters. requirements given by ABS rules. The shear and moments fulfilled the

General Strength and Structural Design Following regulations set forth by ABS, the maximum wave induced shear and moment envelopes were calculated. Using the visual analysis program the vessel topsides, steel weight, permanent loads, and tanks were model as combinations of distributed and point loads. Next, three buoyant force configurations were modeled, one evenly

TAMU Team South China Sea

xi

Final Report

distributed to show the still-water condition, one representing the maximum sag condition, and the other the maximum hog condition. The shear and moment results from the still-water condition were then subtracted from the same results for both the hog and sag condition in order to determine the wave induced shear and wave induced moment generated. These shear and moments were compared with their

corresponding envelopes and it was determined that the vessel fulfills the ABS requirements.

Wind and Current Loading Once the loaded draft was established, the vessel could then be divided into sections which are exposed to the corresponding environmental loads. The hand calculated environmental loads were determined, using the coefficients which relate to an average drill ship. The loads for bow sea conditions consist of a wind force of 1987.4 kN, current force of 10.8 kN, and a mean wave drift force of 77.7 kN. The loads for the beam sea conditions include a wind force of 7063.7 kN, current force of 269.9 kN, and a mean drift force of 423.1 kN. The calculated bow sea forces were then compared to the results established by the mooring software which were given as a wind force of 1291.9 kN, current force of 264.9 kN, and wave force of 1308.2 kN. The cause of this considerable incongruity of results, ties back in the usage of the drill ship model and the failure of these coefficients to accurately portray the FPSO.

TAMU Team South China Sea

xii

Final Report

Mooring/Station Keeping With the aid of a weighted objectives chart, the mooring system that was specified for the South China Sea in 100 m of water was an internal disconnectable turret type mooring system. The mooring system consists of 12 lines placed in groups of 3 (5 spacing between lines of the same group) with a group in each of the 4 cardinal directions. The legs of the system consist of 500 meters of 142 mm R4 grade studlink chain with a 12 metric ton Stevpris Mk. 5 anchor securing the system to the sea bottom. In this mooring system, with null environmental forces, there is 136 meters of chain resting on the sea floor which leaves 364 meters of chain suspended in the water column, which is approximately 1930 metric tons. The turret selected will house up to twenty-five risers, which are required to be flexible.

Three different environmental load combinations were used in the analysis of the mooring system to check for survival in a 1yr typhoon storm and production in a 1 yr non-typhoon storm. When analyzing the system for intact survivability, the factors of safety found were 1.82, 1.67 and 1.86 with accompanying offsets of 8.19 m, 7.51 m and 7.38 m, which represent, respectively the co-linear, non co-linear case 1 and case 2 environmental load combinations. When one line was damaged, the factors of safety achieved were 1.57, 1.33 and 1.62 with accompanying offsets of 9.2 m, 10.62 m and 9.4 m, with respect to co-linear environment and non co-linear cases 1 and 2. All of these values were within the values required by API and pass the survivability analysis. The operational conditions offsets were checked and determined to be adequate. The survival conditions offsets satisfied the required operational offsets.

TAMU Team South China Sea

xiii

Final Report

Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading For the one year max typhoon conditions, the heave displacement for the vessel was found to be 0.67 meters for bow on seas, and 1.1 meters for a 22.5 degree sea. The pitch response was found to be 0.0045 degrees, which is below the stated limit of one degree and the roll response was found to be negligible. These values were computed for the ninety-five percent operating capability of significant wave height of 3.8 meters. The wave conditions are governed by the JONSWAP spectrum with a peak period of eight seconds. Thus the vessel can operate ninety five percent of the time it is on

station. Because of the hydrodynamics of the vessel and the environment within which it operates, the offloading will be done in a tandem configuration. Under this

configuration offloading can be maintained by using the vessels capability to weathervane into the prevailing conditions.

Cost Analysis The cost of the Floating, Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) is estimated using data provided by ConocoPhillips. The data gives the cost of the steel and the outfitting of the vessel, for three shipyards in Japan, Korea, and China. The data also included costs that are not associated with the shipyard costs. This includes things such as the turret, mooring chain, risers, anchors, topsides, accommodations. Using the data

provided, the vessel will be built in China, because of the lower cost and relative location to where the vessel will operate. The estimated total cost is one billion dollars.

TAMU Team South China Sea

xiv

Final Report

1 Introduction
1.1 FPSO Background
With growth of the offshore oil industry in the second half of the twentieth century, the idea of floating storage vessels became a possibility. The first floating storage vessels were installed to reduce the cost of transporting the oil to shore, and storing it, before shipping it elsewhere. These first floating storage units (FSU) were tankers that stayed moored for a few days to a few weeks. These vessels were made possible by the development of the single point mooring system. This mooring system allows for the vessel to be positioned so environmental responses are minimized. Vessel operators began to look into vessels that would remain on station for periods of months to years. This type of vessel would have to be offloaded by a shuttle tanker. The logical progression was to convert mid-size tankers into the floating storage and offloading vessels (FSO). These vessels however, still did not produce the oil thus it had to be processed on a platform. Companies saw removing the platform as a way to reduce the cost of production. This led to the idea of putting production topsides on the FSO vessels. These developed into floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. The early vessels were tanker conversions, however as the available tanker fleet has been diminished, new built FPSOs are being designed. These new FPSOs are bringing easier oil production to areas where field development is minimal. Unlike the Gulf of Mexico, where a massive pipeline network exists, most areas in the world do not have the infrastructure required for fixed platform production. The FPSO vessel brings the flexibility to produce oil for an extended period of time, and allow for ease of transportation to refineries. With the development of disconnectable turret mooring systems, the FPSO is now able to be put into areas of the worlds oceans where cyclonic events are prevalent. The FPSO vessel on average produces 140,000 barrels of oil per day, while the average capacity is 1.2 million barrels of oil. This storage capacity allows for an offloading schedule of every ten days to two weeks. When it comes time to offload a shuttle tanker will offload in either a side by side or tandem configuration. The side by side offloading technique requires the offloading vessel to connect itself parallel to the FPSO. This technique is very susceptible to environmental conditions. The tandem offloading technique is much safer as it allows the offloading vessel to remain a safe distance from the FPSO. The oil is transferred through a hose extended out behind the FPSO. The floating production, storage, and offloading vessel will be a mainstay in the oil company fleets for many years to come. They provide the flexibility and sound economics of producing and storing at the offshore well site. Thus the oil does not have to touch land until it reaches the refinery.

1.2 Objective
The purpose of this project is to design a Floating, Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) vessel to accommodate a 1.6 million barrel storage facility. This facility is self-contained and processes, stores and offloads crude oil products. The scope of this task is limited to designing a stable, weathervaning hull, and turret-mooring system for 100 meters of open water off the coast of China. API and ABS guidelines provide structural minimal requirements and safe mooring sizing.

1.3 Industry Day


ConocoPhillips hosted an industry conference day at their headquarters in Houston, Texas on February 10, 2006. The main purpose of the industry conference day was to provide the senior design teams with important topics detailing aspects, concepts, and technologies pertaining to the design of the FPSO facility. The topics, presented by various representatives from different companies, were as follows in chronological order: FPSO Project Drivers by Chuck Steube, ConocoPhillips Mooring Classifications by Chris Desmond, Lloyds Register Riser Design by Yong Luo, SBM-IMODCO Disconnectable Turret Systems by Vidar Aanesland, APL, Inc. TAMU Team South China Sea 1 Final Report

Mooring/Loading Systems by Tom Fulton and Dave Walters, Inter Mor and 2H Offshore

All given presentations were of important value to the members of Team South China Sea. However, the presentations that were of particular interest were: FPSO Project Drivers by Chuck Steube with ConocoPhillips, Mooring Classifications by Chris Desmond with Lloyds Register and Disconnectable Turret Systems by Vidar Aanesland with APL, Inc. The FPSO Project Drivers presentation by Chuck Steube provided Team South China Sea with a clear understanding of the detailed tasks and project management of a large scope project, such as the one being encountered by the design group. This presentation allowed the members of Team South China Sea to make a clear and confident design plan to further the exploration and understanding of offshore development. Lloyds Register details were provided by Chris Desmond aided in the teams design choice and analysis of the mooring system that was being evaluated. Lloyds Register also provided all teams in attendance with a Lloyds Register disk containing information about design specifications. The last presentation by Vidar Aanesland provided Team South China Sea much insight into disconnectable turret moored systems. He was able to answer many questions from the teams about the feasibility and efficiency about turret moored systems. The Industry Conference Day at ConocoPhillips helped the Spring 2006 Texas A&M University senior design teams broaden their scope and consider the many offshore projects and processes which make up the design of the FPSO facility. Team South China Sea would like to thank all the visiting organizations representatives for their time, effort, and dedication in providing their knowledge and expertise about their specific fields of interest.

1.4 Environment
Located at 21 22 45 North Latitude and 114 54 40 East Longitude, the FPSO is located in some of the most volatile metocean conditions. The location, shown in Figure 1, is approximately 140 kilometers south of Hong Kong in roughly 100 meters of water. An analysis has been done on metocean data provided by ConocoPhillips. The data from the analysis will be discussed within this section.

Vessel Location 100 meter water depth

Figure 1: Vessel Location The general weather pattern for this location is that of a monsoon, where there is a rainy season and a dry season. During the monsoon the directionality of the environment changes and heavier rainfall TAMU Team South China Sea 2 Final Report

occurs. Coupled with the monsoon environment, is the presence of typhoons throughout the year. On average the location receives 17 typhoons per year, with sixty percent moving in from the Northwest Pacific Ocean and forty percent forming directly over the South China Sea. The winter months produce fairly large sea states, as cold fronts continuously move across the area. The temperature range is from 5C to 38C, and the average humidity is over eighty percent. The rainy season is from May to September, with 1.5 meters of rain fall a year, and the dry season is from November to April. The environmental change with season is illustrated in Figure 2, in which the wind profile is shown for the year.
A nnual W i nd P r o f i l e

JAN FEB MAR

0 345 340 350 355 360

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

10 15

20

335 330 325 320 315 310 305 300 295 290 285 280 275 270 265 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 220 215

25

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

210

205

200

195 190 185

180 175 170

165

160

155

Figure 2: Annual Wind Profile The wave conditions for this site are driven by the JONSWAP spectrum shown in Figure 3. This spectrum is perfect for this region, because it models developing seas which are driven by wind. It can be seen that the highest amount of energy is located in waves with a frequency of roughly 1.2 radians per second. This is equal to a yearly average mean zero crossing period of 5.3 seconds.
JONSWAP 0.0018 0.0016 0.0014 0.0012 0.0010 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Frequency rad/s

Energy Density m^2 s

Figure 3: JONSWAP Spectrum for South China Sea

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

The spectrum shown above, really only gives a distribution of the wave energy on a yearly basis. To develop a design that is safe and cost effective, one must know the wave heights by month. In the South China Sea, the wave heights are variable in amplitude throughout the year, and this can be seen below in Figure 4 with a graph of the most probable wave heights by month.
Wave conditions by month
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Ja n Fe b M ar M a Ap r ri M l ay M a Ju y ne Ju ly Au g Se pt O ct N ov D ec

meters

Significant wave height

Month

Figure 4: Most Probable Significant Wave Height by Month As can be seen from this graph, the highest wave heights occur during the winter months. This is due to the wind coming from the northeast, which is the North Pacific. This reflects that the wind has a longer fetch over the open ocean, creating a higher wave spectrum. One can also see that in the summer when the wind is blowing offshore from the southwest, the wave heights are much lower. However, there is some deception in the values for the summer and even into October. These months are when the typhoons occur in the region, and with the typhoons come waves up to and exceeding eight meters. This cyclonic activity will become a major consideration within the design, due to the wave action that accompanies the unpredictable environment. The current profile is characterized by a roughly linear change over depth. The average expected current is 1.1 meters per second, while the highest current expected for a typhoon is 1.72 meters per second. These values both drop to 0.5 meters per second near the bottom. The profile can be seen in Figure 5.

Current Profile
Velocity (m/s) 0.25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.75 1.25 1.75

100 yr non-typhoon 1 yr max typhoon Mooring Enviroment

Depth (m)

Figure 5: Current Profile

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

In order to produce a safe and financially feasible FPSO design, environmental design criteria needs to be defined. For safety and survivability a one year return period typhoon event and one hundred year non-typhoon event have been chosen as the criteria. In order to generate maximum income, a one year non-typhoon event was chosen as the operating conditions. Surviving a one year typhoon means that the vessel must stay connected to the moorings and riser systems. In order to do the analyses of the various components required to meet the survivability condition, values must be found for significant wave height, wind speed, and current velocity. The significant wave height was found to be 8.0 meters, the wind speed is 35.7 meters per second over a one minute gust, and the current at the waters surface is 1.72 meters per second. The operating conditions set for the vessel state that the vessel must be able to produce oil and offload ninety-five percent of the year, under a one year non-typhoon storm event. The one year return period wave height was found to be 2.7 meters. When this value is correlated to the one year probability of wave height, it equates to eighty-five percent operability. The one year probability can be seen below in Figure 6 with the solid black line showing the ninety-five percent condition, and the dashed line showing the one year non-typhoon event. This change is partly affected by the typhoon occurrences in the summer as well as the larger wave heights during the winter months. However, each month should be evaluated separately. Used to show the variability throughout the year, Figure 6 also gives a good insight into what the most probable wave heights are. This means that most waves will fall below that number unless there is a storm event. Thus it can be seen that unless there is a typhoon or other significant storm event, operating conditions will prevail in all but two months, February and December. The winds are much easier to define, because the one year non-typhoon event produces wind velocities higher than any seen on average throughout the year. This wind velocity is 21.9 meters per second. The current velocity for the operating condition is 0.57 meters per second. A table showing the values for both the operating criteria as well as the survivability criteria may be found in Table 1. Table 1: Design Criteria for South China Sea Design Criteria Survivability Operating Hs (m) 8 2.7 Ts (s) 10.4 7 Wind Speed (m/s) 35.7 21.9 Current Velocity (m/s) 1.72 1.1
Annual Cumulative Probability Curve 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wave Height (m/s)

Percentage of occurance

Annual Cumulative Probability Curve


Black line corresponds to the 95% occurance of wave height. Dashed line corresponds to one year non-typhoon event.

Figure 6: Wave Height Annual Probability

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

With the design criteria set this information will be used continuously throughout the design process. This will become evident throughout the report, as choices will have to be made based on the criteria being used. Some of the major components impacted, are the mooring design, the structural design for wave action, as well as the response of the vessel to the environment.

1.5 Design Criteria


This hull design must meet the following requirements and constraints with a minimal cost. Durability, stability, and cost are paramount in all considerations. Functional Requirements: Hull design suitable to store 1.6 million barrels of crude oil 95% availability for off take systems Stable work base for a motion sensitive process Deck area to accommodate large topsides Cargo containment systems tolerant of slack fill conditions Constraints: 20 year design life Remain operational in a 1-year return period No greater than 2 max roll in 1-year return period storm Structural constraints due to double hull design Storage of production approximately 10 days

1.6 Gantt Chart


A gantt chart is defined as a chart that depicts progress in relation to time, often used in planning and tracking a project. Gantt charts were developed at the beginning of the design process to keep the members of Team South China Sea on schedule and working in a timely fashion. The Gantt chart showing the teams progress and organization are presented below in Figure 7. The breakdown of individual task assignments is as follows: Curt Haveman Graphics, Mooring Analysis Jeffrey Parliament Mooring Analysis, Loading Conditions Jeremy Sokol Vessel Stability Analysis, Graphics Joseph Swenson Structural Analysis, Vessel Stability Analysis Timothy Wagner Environmental Loading, Quality Control

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

Figure 7: Team Design Gantt Chart

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

2 Regulatory Compliance
This design must meet the requirements of several agencies worldwide. The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) is the primary agency used in determining regulations and design constraints for this particular project. The major categories for which regulations will govern include general considerations, containment tanks, accommodation, facility arrangements, cargo transfer methods, fire safety, personnel protection, flood survival requirements, helicopter deck, environmental/global loading, general strength of hull, and the position mooring system. The following regulations are taken from the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 2005 (ABS BCSV), ABS Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations, 2004 (ABS BCFPI, ABS Guide for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations, 2000 (ABS BCFOI).

2.1 General Arrangements Machinery and equipment are to be arranged in groups or areas in accordance with API RPI14J.
Equipment items that could become fuel sources in the event of a fire are to be separated from potential ignition sources by space separation, firewalls, or protective walls. In case of a fire onboard a subject unit, the means of escape is to permit the safe evacuation of all occupants to a safe area, even when the structure they occupy can be considered lost in a conflagration. With safety spacing, protective firewalls, and equipment groupings, a possible fire from a classified location is not to impede the safe exit of personnel from the danger source to the lifeboat embarkation zone or any place of refuge. (ABS BCFOI Section 3.3 / 5.1)

2.2 Storage and Slop Tanks


Supported storage tanks for crude oil or other flammable liquids are to be located as far as possible from wellheads. In addition, they are to be located far from potential ignition sources such as gas and diesel engines, fired vessels, and buildings designated as unclassified areas, or areas used as workshops, or welding locations. For crude storage tanks, slop tanks, and low flash point flammable liquid storage tanks are to be separated from machinery spaces, service spaces, and other similar source of ignition spaces by cofferdams for of at least 0.76 m (30 in.) wide. From ABS Guide Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations (ABS BCFOI Section 3.3 / 5.7)

2.3 Accommodations

Accommodation spaces or living quarters are to be located outside of hazardous areas and may not be located above or below crude oil storage tanks or process areas. H-60 ratings are required for the bulkheads of permanent living quarters and normally manned modules that face areas such as wellheads, oil storage tanks, fired vessels (heaters), crude oil processing vessels, and other similar hazards. If such bulkhead is more than 33m (100ft) from this source, then this can be relaxed to an H-0 rating. (ABS BCFOI Section 3.3 / 5.3),

2.4 Spill Containment


Spill containment is to be provided in areas subject to hydrocarbon liquid or chemical spills, such as areas around process vessels and storage tanks with drain or sample connections, pumps, compressors, engines, glycol systems, oil metering units, and chemical storage and dispensing areas. (ABS BCFOI Section 3.3 / 13.1.1) Spill containment is to utilize curbing or drip edges at deck level, recessed drip pans, containment by floor gutters, firewalls or protective walls, or equivalent means to prevent spread of discharged liquids to other areas and spillover to lower levels. A minimum of 150 mm (6 in.) coaming is to be provided

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

A spill containment with less than 150 mm (6 in.) coaming arrangement is subject to special consideration. (ABS BCFOI Section 3.3 / 13.1.1)

2.5 Fire Safety


Fixed water fire fighting systems are to be provided as follows. Water fire fighting systems are to be capable of maintaining a continuous supply in the event of damage to water piping. Piping is to be arranged so that the supply of water could be from two different sources. Isolation valves are to be provided such that damage to any part of the system would result in the loss in use of the least possible number of hydrants, water spray branches, or foam water supplies. Materials rendered ineffective by heat are not to be used in firewater piping systems. The firewater distribution system may be maintained in a charged or dry condition. The distribution system is to be maintained such that internal and external corrosion of the piping is minimized. (ABS BCFOI Section 3.8 / 5.1)

2.6 Lifesaving Appliances and Equipment


Lifeboats of an approved type are to be provided, with a total capacity to accommodate twice the total number of people onboard the subject unit. They are required to be installed on at least two side of the vessel, in safe areas in which there will be accommodation for 100%, in case one of the stations becomes inoperable. Inflatable life rafts are to be provided with a total capacity equal to that of the total number of people on the vessel. They are to be placed near areas where personnel may be working and with a sufficient quantity to hold the number of people working in the area. At least four life buoys with floating water lights are to be provided. At least one life jacket is to be provided for each person on a manned facility. They are to be stored in an easily accessible location. In addition, life jackets numbering the same as the max aggregate capacity of each life boat station must be stored next to the lifeboat station. When personnel baskets are used to transfer personnel a work vest must be provided. For operations involving hydrogen sulfide, each person is expected on the facility is to be provided a self-contained breathing apparatus for escape purposes. There must be a minimum of 30 minutes air supply in the apparatus. (ABS BCFOI Section 3.8 / 15.5)

2.7 Flood Survival Requirements


In any stage of flooding, taking into account sinkage, heel and trim, should be below the lower edge of any opening through which progressive flooding or downflooding may take place. This includes air pipes, weathertight doors, and hatch covers (5-8-2/9.1 .1a). The maximum angle of heel due to unsymmetrical flooding should not exceed 30 (ABS BCFPI Section 5-8-2/9.1 .2a). At final equilibrium after flooding, the emergency source of power should be capable of operating (ABS BCFPI Section 5-8-2/9.2.2a). A minimum distributed loading of 2010 N/m2 is to be taken over the entire helicopter deck (ABS BCSV Section 3-2-11/11.3.1). The structure supporting helicopter decks is to withstand the loads resulting from the motions of the unit (ABS BCSV Section 3-2-11/11.3.4).

2.8 Helicopter Deck


2.9 Environmental/Global Loading and General Strength of Hull


The Design Environmental Condition (DEC) is to be the following: 100-year wind with associated waves and current (ABS BCFPI Section 3-3/1.1) The current force, Fcurrent, on the submerged part of any structure is calculated as the drag force

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

by the following equation (ABS BCFPI Section 3-4/5c): Fcurrent (kN) = 0.5 * water * CD * Acurrent * uc * |uc| where water = density of sea water, 0.1045 tonnes/m3 Cd = drag coefficient, in steady flow (dimensionless) uc = current velocity vector normal to the plane of projected area, in m/s Acurrent = projected area exposed to current, in m2 Wind pressure, Pwind, on a particular windage of a floating vessel may be calculated as drag forces using the following equations (ABS BCFPI Section 3-4/7.1): where Cs = shape coefficient (dimensionless) Ch = height coefficient (dimensionless) The corresponding wind force, Fwind, on the windage is: Fwind = Pwind * Awind where Awind = projected area of windage on a plane normal to the direction of the wind, in m2 The wave bending moment, expressed in kN-m may be obtained from the following equations (ABS BCFPI Section 3-2-1/3.5.1). Mws = - k1 C1 L2B(Cb + 0.7 ) 10-3 Sagging Moment Mwh = + k2C1L2BCb 10-3 Hogging Moment where k1 = 110 (11.22, 1.026) L = length of vessel, in m (ft) B = breadth of vessel, in m (ft) Cb = block coefficient, but is not to be taken less than 0.6 The envelopes of maximum shearing forces induced by waves, Fw, may be obtained from the following equations (ABS BCFPI Section 3-2-1 /3.5.3): Fwp = + kF1C1L B (Cb + 0.7) 10-2 Fwn = - kF2C1L B (Cb + 0.7) 10-2 where Fwp, Fwn = maximum shearing force induced by wave, in kN L = length of vessel, in m B = breadth of vessel, in m C1 = as defined in 3-2-1/3.5 Cb = block coefficient, but not to be taken less than 0.6 k = 30 (3.059, 0.2797) F1 = distribution factor F2 = distribution factor The minimum hull girder section modulus amidships is not to be less than obtained from the following equation (ABS BCFPI Section 3-2-1/3.7.1): SM = C1C2L2B (Cb + 0.7) cm2-m (in2-ft) where C1 = as defined in 3-2-1/3.5 C2 = 0.01 (0.01, 1.44 10-4) L = length of vessel, in m TAMU Team South China Sea 10 Final Report For positive shear force For negative shear force Pwind (N/m2) = 0.610*Cs*Ch*Vref2

B = breadth of vessel, in m Cb = block coefficient, but is not to be taken less than 0.6 The hull girder moment of inertia, I, amidships, is to be not less than (ABS BCFPI Section 3-21/3.7.2): I = L SM / 33.3 cm2-m2 (in2-ft2) where L = length of vessel, in m SM = required hull girder section modulus, in cm2-m

2.10 Position Mooring System


Intact Design A condition with all components of the system intact and exposed to an environment as described by the design environmental condition (DEC) (ABS BCFPI 5-1/1.1). Damaged Case with One Broken Mooring Line A condition with any one mooring line broken at the design environmental condition (DEC) that would cause maximum mooring line load for the system. The mooring line subjected to the maximum load in intact extreme conditions when broken might not lead to the worst broken mooring line case. The designer should determine the worst case by analyzing several cases of broken mooring line, including lead line broken and adjacent line broken cases (ABS BCFPI 5-1/1.3). Transient Condition with One Broken Mooring Line A condition with one mooring line broken (usually the lead line) in which the moored vessel exhibits transient motions (overshooting) before it settles at a new equilibrium position. The transient condition can be an important consideration when proper clearance is to be maintained between the moored vessel and nearby structures. An analysis for this condition under the design environmental condition (DEC) is required. The effect of increased line tensions due to overshoot upon failure of one mooring line (or thruster or propeller if mooring is power-assisted) should also be considered (ABS BCFPI 5-1/1.5). In the structural design of terminals, the interface between the positioning mooring system and the hull structure are to be considered and a finite element method analysis is to be submitted for review. For a fore end, external turret mooring, the minimum extent of the model is from the fore end of the vessel, including the turret structure and its attachment to the hull, to a transverse plane after the aft end of the foremost cargo oil tank in the vessel. The model can be considered fixed at the aft end of the model. The loads modeled are to correspond to the worst-case tank loads, seakeeping loads as determined for both the transit case and the on-site case, ancillary structure loads, and, for the on-site case, mooring loads. The mean tension in a mooring line corresponds to the mean offset and equilibrium heading of the vessel. The design (maximum) mooring line tension, Tmax, is to be determined as shown below (ABS BCFPI Section 5-1/3.5): Tmax = Tmean + Tlf(max) + Twf(sig) ; or Tmax = Tmean + Tlf(sig) + Twf(max) ; whichever is greater. where Tmean = mean mooring line tension due to wind, current and mean (steady) drift force. Tlf(sig) = significant single amplitude low frequency tension. Twf(sig) = significant single amplitude wave frequency tension. The mooring designer may divide the environmental effects into three categories of response (34/9.3): First Order Motions Low Frequency Motions Steady (Mean) Drift The fatigue life of mooring lines is to be assessed using the T-N approach, using a T-N curve that gives the number of cycles, N, to failure for a specific tension range, T. The fatigue damage ratio, Di, for a particular sea state, i, is estimated in accordance with the Miners Rule, as follows:

TAMU Team South China Sea

11

Final Report

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

D is not to exceed unity for the design life, which is the field service life multiplied by a factor of safety, as specified in Table 2 (ABS BCFPI Section 5-1/3.7). Table 2: Factor of Safety for Anchoring Lines (ABS 2005) Factor of safety All Intact Dynamic Analysis (DEC) 1.67 Quasi-Static (DEC) 2.00 One broken Line (at New Equilibrium Position) Dynamic Analysis (DEC) 1.25 Quasi-Static (DEC) 1.43 One broken Line (Transient) Dynamic Analysis (DEC) 1.05 Quasi-Static (DEC) 1.18 Moorning Component Fatigue Life w.r.t. Design Service Life Inspectable areas 3.00 Non-inspectable and Critical Areas 10.00 Where Floating Installations are equipped with thrusters to assist the mooring system, the thrusters are subject to approval in accordance with Section 4-3-5 of the Steel Vessel Rules. The contribution of the thrusters in the mooring system design will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis (ABS BCFPI 5-1/11). For a mooring system with drag anchors, the mooring line length should be sufficiently long such that there is no angle between the mooring line and the seabed at any design condition (ABS BCFPI 5-2/1). The maximum load at anchor, Fanchor, is to be calculated, in consistent units, as follows: Fanchor = Pline WsubWD Ffriction Ffriction = fslLbedWsub where Pline = maximum mooring line tension WD = water depth fsl = frictional coefficient of mooring line on sea bed at sliding Lbed = length of mooring line on seabed at the design storm condition, not to exceed 20 percent of the total length of a mooring line Wsub = submerged unit weight of mooring line The coefficient of friction, fsl, depends on the soil condition and the type of mooring line. For the 4.5 inch oil rig quality chain used in this project, the representative values for the coefficient of

TAMU Team South China Sea

12

Final Report

friction at start, fst, and the coefficient of friction at sliding, fsl, are 1.00 and 0.70, respectively (ABS BCFPI 5-2/1). The factors of safety for anchor holding capacity in the design of drag anchors are specified above in Table 2. The required ultimate holding capacity should be determined based on mooring line loads derived from a dynamic analysis to account for mooring line dynamics.

2.11 Stability
Intact Stability Criteria For all units, except column-stabilized units, the area under the righting moment curve at or before the second intercept angle or the down-flooding angle, whichever is less, is to reach a value of not less than 40% in excess of the area under the overturning moment curve to the same limiting angle. In all cases, the righting moment curve is to be positive over the entire range of angles from upright to the second intercept angle (ABS BCFPI 3-3-1/3.3.1). Surface Type Drilling Units For surface-type drilling units, the following extent of damage is to be assumed to occur between effective watertight bulkheads. (ABS BCFPI 3-3-1/7.7.5). i) Horizontal depth of penetration of 1.5 m (5ft). ii) Vertical extent of damage from the bottom shell upwards Damage Assumptions (Table 3) Table 3: Damage Assumptions
Side damage .1.1 .1.2 Longitudinal Extent Transverse Extent (measure inboard from the ship's side at right angles to the centerline at the level of the summer load line) Vertical Extent (from the moulded line of the bottom shell plating at centerline) 1/3L^2/3 or 14.5 m whichever is less B/5 or 11.5 m, whichever is less upwards without limit

.1.3

TAMU Team South China Sea

13

Final Report

3 General Arrangement and Hull/System Design


In determining the general arrangement and hull design, one driving factor which plays a major role is the environment. Located in the South China Sea, the vessel will have a high probability of coming into contact with typhoons which are numerously generated each season. This aspect must be taken into consideration when configuring the structural arrangement along with the design of the hull itself. An agreement was reached, and two different options for the mooring layout were finalized. These two specific alternatives are shown and discussed further below.

3.1 Option One


The first design thought of after analyzing the environmental conditions and researching similar vessels in the region was a FPSO with an internal disconnecting mooring system. This design will increase the total hull length to accommodate the internal mooring station and the needed permanent bow water tank. The proposed internal turret location is seen in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Internal Mooring Design

3.2 Option Two


The second, but less desired design that was proposed was a FPSO with an external disconnecting turret system. This specific type of mooring would allow the initial vessel length to remain unchanged at 308 meters. With this design, there would still need to be some type of a propulsion system to allow the vessel to escape quickly from environmental hazards. This representation is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: External Mooring Design

3.3 Selected Design and General Layout


The internal mooring system was the final agreed upon choice for the design of the Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel. The simple fact of the extreme environmental conditions and the high risk of oncoming typhoons supported the final decision making process in choosing the internal disconnectable mooring system. As mentioned above, the general layout will slightly be altered to lodge the internal turret itself. This is taken into account by extending the length of the ship to a total of 333 meters. The breadth and depth of the vessel are 58 meters and 30.4 meters at the centerline,

TAMU Team South China Sea

14

Final Report

respectively. The ship hull ratios were then calculated to make certain the vessel was within reason and tabulated to be shown in Table 4. The topsides and tanks were arranged according to specs provided by ConocoPhillips and are depicted below in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Table 4: Ship Hull Ratios Ship Hull Ratios 5.74 L/B 1.91 B/D 10.95 L/D

Figure 10: FPSO Tank Layout with Internal Mooring

Figure 11: FPSO Wing Ballast Tank Layout *Refer to Nomenclature for descriptions of abbreviations Since this vessels hull was extended without rearranging the placement of the crude oil tanks, the longitudinal center of buoyancy and longitudinal center of gravity differed dramatically from one another. This situation is not feasible for the stability of the FPSO. A solution was proposed following undergone research and accepted advice by industry professionals. This response involved converting portions of the bow compartments to permanent water ballast tanks as depicted below in Figure 12. This action was able to counter the conflicting stability parameters and allow them to realign with one another to ensure proper stability.

TAMU Team South China Sea

15

Final Report

Figure 12: Permanent Water Tank

3.4 Lifeboats
According to the ABS guide for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations, a vessel is required to have lifeboats that are capable of holding twice the maximum number of people on board. For our crew, of no more than 100, four 58 person capacity lifeboats are to be placed on the vessel to be easily accessible. There will be two lifeboats located on the starboard side and the remaining two will be found on the port side. Both sets of lifeboats are to be positioned near the bow alongside the living quarter compartments of the FPSO.

3.5 Accommodations and Helipad


As found in ABS Guide for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations (Section 3.3 / 5.3), accommodation spaces or living quarters are to be located outside of hazardous areas and may not be located above or below crude oil storage tanks or process areas. For this specific vessel design and layout, both accommodations and helipad were chosen to be located at the bow. For the helipad, certain requirements must be in place including a minimum distributed loading of 2010 N/m2 over the entire helicopter deck (3-2-11/11.3.1). The actual structure supporting the helicopter deck, which implies the accommodation structure, is to also withstand the loads resulting from the motions of the unit (3-211/11.3.4). The layout and dimensions of the helipad and accommodations are expressed in Figure 13.

TAMU Team South China Sea

16

Final Report

Figure 13: Accommodations and Helipad Dimensions

TAMU Team South China Sea

17

Final Report

4 Weight, Buoyancy, and Stability


4.1 Weight Calculations
An estimation of this vessels steel weight was made by locating and scaling up a comparative vessel in the same location. The Nanhai Endeavour FPSO currently operating in the South China Sea was chosen as a relative vessel. The dimensions and loaded weight of the Endeavour FPSO are as follows: Length 245 m Breadth 45 m Depth 27 m Lightship Weight 42,425 metric tons Further research of the Endeavour led to the number of bulkheads. With this data the surface area of the steel used in the Endeavour was determined as well as the surface area of the steel used in the design vessel. By finding the ratio of the surface areas of the two vessels the lightship weight of the Endeavour was scaled up to a total of 79,526 metric tons. Once this lightship weight was found, the topsides and other miscellaneous weights were determined. These values were subtracted from the lightship weight to find the total steel weight. This can be seen in Table 5. Table 5: Hull Weight Calculation Hull Weight Calculation Existing Ship in the Region length 245 m breadth 45 m depth 27 m
Lightship Transverse Bulkheads Longitudinal Bulkheads Deck and Keel Bulkheads Steel Area scale ratio 8 3 2 51615 1.87

Design Ship 333 m 58 m 30.4 m 42425 10 4 2 96753 mt

m^3

m^3

Scale Lightship Topsides and Misc. Weight Scale Steel Weight

79526 30780 48746

mt mt mt

With the weight of steel present in the vessel determined, the ships fully loaded displacement could be found. Then by taking the displacement and dividing it by the density of sea water (1.025 kN/m^3) the volume of water displaced by the ship was calculated. Finally, by subtracting the lightship weight from the total displacement, the fully loaded deadweight could be found. The vessel values for each of these parameters can be seen below in Table 6. Table 6: Weight Characteristics Weight Charcteristics Displacement Fully Loaded 432052 mt Displaced Volume 421514 m^3 Deadweight Fully Loaded 305632 mt

TAMU Team South China Sea

18

Final Report

The center of gravities and weights for all tanks and modules were located and tabulated for the vessels total center of gravity computation. This spreadsheet was also designed to modify different loading conditions. The three loading conditions which were critical were the 100%, 50%, 20%. These stabilized product loads changed the center of gravity of the vessel as depicted in Table 7. Table 7: Center of Gravities

Loading Condition VCG (m) LCG (m) TCG (m) 100% 17.74 165.74 0.03 50% 14.45 165.76 0.03 20% 13.36 165.75 0.04 LCG taken from the AP of FPSO with + vector Forward TCG taken from the centerline of the FPSO with + vector to Port VCG taken from the keel of the FPSO with + vector upwards
Originally, the vessels longitudinal center of gravity was a large distance (almost 20m) behind the center of buoyancy, due to the lengthening of the vessel. In order to counteract the large trim that this would have caused, the large permanent trim tanks shown previously were added in the empty space in the bow. The addition of these tanks ensures that at any loading condition the ship will remain level with only a minimum change in ballast levels. As the amount of product present on the vessel changes, the draft of the vessel changes as well. The drafts under the load conditions were tabulated and can be seen below in Table 8 Table 8: Draft Under Different Load Conditions Draft Full Load 22.57m 50% Load 20.45m 20% Load 15.22m Finally, the amount of ballast required to keep the ship level under each of these loading conditions was found. It can be seen in Table 9 that the amount of ballast required in the 50% loaded condition is actually more than that required in the 20% condition. This is due to the fact that with the large permanent tank in the bow of the ship, some of the forward ballast needs to be removed in order to level the vessel. Table 9: Required Buoyancy for Varying Load Condition Ballast Required Full Load 9120 mt 50% Load 124825 mt 20% Load 115560 mt

4.2 Buoyancy Calculations


The draft was determined earlier by using the entire loaded ship weight. This loaded ship weight was equal to how much water it will displace. Therefore the loaded draft of the FPSO was figured to be 21.6 meters measured from the keel. This waterline was modeled in AutoCAD to determine the center of buoyancy, assuming simple block shape. These centers of buoyancy values are tabulated below.

TAMU Team South China Sea

19

Final Report

Table 10: Center of Buoyancy

VCB (m) LCB (m) TCB (m) 11.29 165.74 0 LCG taken from the AP of FPSO with + vector Forward TCG taken from the centerline of the FPSO with + vector to Port VCG taken from the keel of the FPSO with + vector upwards
4.3 Stability
In addition to the weight and buoyancy calculations, the stability of the FPSO needs to analyzed. Utilizing StabCAD, a general purpose computer program for designing and analyzing the stability of any floating body, the entire structure can be analyzed according to ABS MODU regulations.

4.3.1 Intact Stability


For intact stability, ABS rules govern the allowable vessel response and conditions to meet. requirements for a floating, drilling, or production vessels are: Design wind speed for all topside modules is 100 knots The angle of inclination should be no greater than 25 degrees The Righting moment must be forty percent greater than the heeling moment The designed KG must not exceed the minimum allowable KG The

The draft was entered in at 22.57 m and a KG of 17.74 m. From these configurations, the vessel was designed in StabCAD. Figure 14 shows a rendered view of the vessel that was input into StabCAD.

Figure 14: Rendered View from StabCAD As stated in Section 2.12, the stability criteria set forth by ABS MODU 2005 regulations, the area under the righting moment curve to the second intercept or downflooding angle, whichever is less, shall be greater than 40% in excess of the area under the wind-heeling moment curve to the same limiting angle. This is displayed in Figure 15 as governed by ABS rules.

TAMU Team South China Sea

20

Final Report

Figure 15: ABS MODU 2005 Intact Stability Curve As seen in Figure 16, the computed intact stability curve satisfies the ABS MODU regulations. It can be seen that the downflooding angle is 15.1 degrees and the allowable KG is 17.74 from the input value.

Figure 16: Intact Stability Curve

TAMU Team South China Sea

21

Final Report

By comparing Figure 15 to the intact stability curve for the designed FPSO generated by StabCAD in Figure 16, it can be seen that the area under A and B is greater than 1.4 times the area under B and C. This successfully satisfies the conditions set forth by ABS MODU 2005. Also, the blue line that represents the downflooding angle is past the first intercept of 0.91 degrees. Table 11 shows the specifics for 100% loaded conditions at the draft of 22.57 m. The values of longitudinal center of buoyancy, transverse center of buoyancy, and vertical center of buoyancy can be derived as 165.74, 0, 11.34 m respectively. Table 12 shows the maximum heel angles before downflooding begins. Table 11: 100% Loaded Specifics
Draft AFT ( M.) 22.5 22.51 22.52 22.53 22.54 22.55 22.56 22.57 22.58 22.59 FWD ( M.) 22.5 22.51 22.52 22.53 22.54 22.55 22.56 22.57 22.58 22.59 Disp (M.Tons) 437302.3 437498 437693.7 437889.4 438085.2 438280.8 438476.5 438672.2 438868 439063.7 TPI (MT/Cm) 195.72 195.69 195.72 195.72 195.72 195.69 195.72 195.72 195.72 195.69 Center of Buoyancy LCB ( M.) 165.74 165.74 165.74 165.74 165.74 165.74 165.74 165.74 165.73 165.73 TCB ( M.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VCB ( M.) 11.31 11.31 11.32 11.32 11.33 11.33 11.34 11.34 11.35 11.35 Center of Floatation LCF ( M.) 164.58 164.65 164.65 164.61 164.58 164.64 164.61 164.64 164.61 164.67 TCF ( M.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Plane Submerged Area (S.Meter) 19094.5 4 19091.5 4 19094.5 4 19094.5 4 19094.5 4 19091.5 4 19094.5 4 19094.5 4 19094.5 4 19091.5 4 Volume (M^3) 26636.4 26827.3 27018.3 27209.2 27400.2 27591.1 27782 27972.9 28163.9 28354.8

Table 12: Downflooding Points Height Above Water Downflooding Points Height Above Water (M) Downflooding Angle 15.1 Deg @ AFT STARBOARD POINT Weathertight Angle 15.1 Deg @ AFT STARBOARD POINT From the input in StabCAD, the cross curves of stability are given in Figure 17. The cross curves show the righting arm versus draft at the heel angles.

TAMU Team South China Sea

22

Final Report

Figure 17: Intact Cross Curves Plot This graphs shows the range of stability that is dictated by the righting arm for each draft. It can be concluded that the design vessel creates a large enough righting arm to remain stable at each of the corresponding drafts. From the cross curves graph, the righting arm and angle of heel can be taken for a draft of 22.57 m and graphed to analyze the maximum righting arm at a certain degree of heel for 100% loaded conditions as seen in Figure 18.

TAMU Team South China Sea

23

Final Report

Curve of Static Stability at 22.57 m Draft


2.5

2 Righting Arm (m)

1.5

0.5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Angle of Heel (degrees)

Figure 18: Curve of Static Stability at Draft Figure 18 shows that at operating draft the maximum righting arm of 2.21 m occurs at 25 degrees of heel. Table 13 is a summary of the intact stability parameters. This shows that StabCAD calculated a displacement of 438672.2 metric tons. From the weight calculations, it can be seen that the StabCAD output longitudinal center of gravity corresponds with the calculated LCG of 165.74 meters. This is largely due to the added water ballast tanks added in the bow. Table 13: Intact Stability Parameters Intact Stability Parameters Draft at no Heel 22.57 M Displacement 438672.2 M.Tons Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = LCG 165.74 M TCG 0 M VCG 17.74 M Wind Loading Wind Speed 51.6 M/Sec Wind Direction is Normal to Tilt Axis Range of Stability Range of Stability ........ 62.5 Deg Downflooding Angle ........ 15.1 Deg @ AFT STARBOARD POINT Weathertight Angle ........ 15.1 Deg @ AFT STARBOARD POINT

4.3.2 Damage Stability


The criterion to be used for damage stability as per ABS 2005 is: Design wind speed for all topside modules is 50 knots The angle of inclination should be no greater than 25 degrees

TAMU Team South China Sea

24

Final Report

The minimum extent of weather tight integrity line must be greater than the first intersection of the righting moment and heeling moment (static angle) Horizontal penetration should be at least 1.5m Longitudinal damage extent should be 1/3L2/3 or 14.5 m, whichever is less Damaged compartments are completely filled The designed KG must not exceed the maximum allowable KG

For damage conditions the minimum extent for water tight integrity angle known as the downflooding angle has to be greater than the first intersection of the righting moment and heeling moment. Figure 19 shows the ABS representation of what is required.

Figure 19: ABS MODU 2005 Damage Stability Curve The damage stability curve represents the worst case scenario that the vessel must forego until proper repairs can be made. The vessel was constructed of 3 meter deep ballast tanks to fulfill the requirement of the double hull design. The double hull design ensures that the extent of the damage will not penetrate the crude oil tanks. ABS codes also specify that the damage encountered must be at least 14.5 meters long. In this case, the worst case scenario will be damaging 2 ballast tanks as if the damage occurred at the intersection of the tanks. This ensures that the worst case scenario is achieved. Through several iterations of damaging a combination of ballast the worst case can be seen by damaging tanks 7 and 9 either on the port or starboard sides, which fulfill the ABS MODU criteria for damage. These tanks are shown in Figure 20.

TAMU Team South China Sea

25

Final Report

Figure 20: Damaged Ballast Tanks - 2 total From the damaged analysis the stability curve in Figure 21 could be analyzed.

Figure 21: Damage Stability Curve From the damage stability curve, the downflooding angle must not cross the first intercept at 9.50 degrees. As shown, the worst case scenario passes the established criteria.

TAMU Team South China Sea

26

Final Report

Table 14 shows the conditions that must be satisfied. ABS MODU rules stated that the angle of inclination when flooded must not exceed 25. The optimum angle is 12.72, which passes this criterion. Also, the input KG of 17.74 m must not be greater than the least allowable KG calculated from StabCAD. The least allowable KG is 19.20 m which is greater than 17.74 m. Table 14: Damage Conditions to Satisfy
Allowable Optimum Range Of KG Tilt Angle Stability (M) (Deg) (Deg) 3.51 19.40 12.72 0.47 19.57 12.72 0.00 19.22 12.72 0.88 19.20 12.72 0.92 Static Angle (Deg) 9.21 12.25 12.72 11.84 11.80 2nd Intercept (Deg) 54.79 28.82 32.79 32.98

Condition To Satisfy
For Input KG = 17.74 Heeling Arm = Righting Arm Static Angle = 15.00 Area Ratio = 1.00 RM/HM Ratio = 2.00

1st Intercept (Deg) 9.51 12.71 13.24 12.25 12.21

Overall, both the intact and damaged stability of a 100% loaded vessel passed the ABS rules and regulations. For an intact hull, the range of stability was found to be 15.1 degrees before the first downflooding point was reached by the water line. The design and calculated vertical center of gravity was less than the maximum allowable KG as dictated by ABS. The maximum angle of inclination was found to be less than 25 degrees, satisfying all conditions of a stable vessel. For the damaged stability, the minimum requirements were met as well. The stability curve calculated a downflooding angle at 12.72 degrees which is greater than the first intercept between the righting moment and heeling moment at 9.5 degrees. The range of stability for the damaged condition was found to be 3.51 degrees. For a draft of 22.57 meters, the input vertical center of gravity of 17.74 meters was less than the maximum allowable KG of 19.2 meters. Throughout the analysis, a maximum stability analysis was run, and the vessel proved stable if all of the ballast tanks were damaged proving a optimum vessel design.

TAMU Team South China Sea

27

Final Report

5 Local and Global Loading


In order to determine the strength of main girder required to fulfill ABS standards of strength, loading conditions must be determined. Figure 22 below shows the local load conditions starting at the stern and taking measurements every 15 meters forward from that point for the empty, ballasted, and full storage tank cases:

Local Loading
2500

2000

Load (mt)

1500

empty ballasted full

1000

500

0
75 90 10 5 12 0 13 5 15 0 16 5 18 0 19 5 21 0 22 5 24 0 25 5 27 0 28 5 30 0 31 5 33 3 0 15 30 45 60

Distance from Stern (m)


Figure 22: Local Loading This figure shows that the largest amount of the load comes from filling the storage tanks. Also the elevated loading in the forward section of the ship represents the effect of the permanent trim tanks that were added to the vessel. While this data can help to determine which loading condition is most likely to cause the largest deflections, shears and moments, it is not complete enough to get accurate data. In order to model the loads more completely, a global loading profile, which can be seen in Figure 23, was created. This profile will provide more accurate values for the displacement, shear, and bending moments that the hull experiences.

TAMU Team South China Sea

28

Final Report

Global Loading
2500

2000

1500 Load (mt)

full ballasted empty

1000

500

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Distance From Stern (m)

Figure 23: Global Loading

TAMU Team South China Sea

29

Final Report

6 General Strength and Structural Design


Using the 2005 ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels (section 3.2.1) the minimum section modulus and moment of inertia for the beam were calculated and shown in Table 15. Table 15: ABS 2005 Regulations Parameter Limiting Value Hog/Sag 0.5 m Maximum Section Modulus 72.25 m^3 Minimum Moment of Inertia 722.5 m^4 Minimum

After determining these values, visual analysis was used to analyze the ship hull. This was accomplished by modeling ship hull as a beam with the specifications above. Next, the global loading profile was entered as a set of distributed loads oriented in the negative y direction. Then the buoyant force was applied in several different configurations in order to determine the maximum levels of hog, sag, shear and bending moments. The section modulus of the beam had to be increased after the initial runs due to excessive sagging and hogging of almost 4 meters. The section modulus of the beam had to be increased to 2400 m4 it meet the deflection requirements. The first of the configurations analyzed was the evenly distributed buoyant load show in Figure 24 below:

Figure 24: Evenly Distributed Buoyancy Case This case will represent conditions where wave action is small and the ship is floating level. The results from the analysis of this case can be seen in Figure 25. The linear springs in the model are used to represent the force the water below the ship as it resists the downward bending of the vessel. The springs stiffness was found my calculating the amount of force required to deepen the draft of the vessel by one meter. This force was then distributed evenly among the springs. Finally, the rotational spring located at the location of the internal turret represents the force exerted by the water in response to the ship pitching around the turret.

Figure 25: Evenly Distributed Buoyancy Case Deflection

TAMU Team South China Sea

30

Final Report

Next, two cases were designed to simulate the worst case waves that our ship will experience. This wave had a height of 13.5 meters and a wavelength of 169 meters. The maximum hog case was found to occur when the wave troughs were at the ends of the vessel. Figure 26 and Figure 27 show the input and beam deflection for this load case. The positive deflection present at the bow of each of these configurations is due to the fact that the ship was fixed at the location of the turret instead of at the beam. However in each of the conditions this end beam displacement was minimal.

Figure 26: Maximum Hog Buoyancy Case

Figure 27: Maximum Hog Buoyancy Case Deflection Finally, a case representing the design wave from above with a crest at each end of the ship was implemented. This case was chosen because the lacks of buoyant force in the center of the ship lead to an extreme case of sagging. The input and deflection from this load case can be seen in the following Figure 28 and Figure 29. While this loading case has more than twice the displacement then the evenly distributed buoyant force, the deflection is still within the limit of half a meter.

Figure 28: Maximum Sag Buoyancy Case

TAMU Team South China Sea

31

Final Report

Figure 29: Maximum Sag Buoyancy Case Deflection The next step in the analysis was to find the wave induced shear and moments generated by the hag and sag loading conditions. This was done by taking the total shear and moments for those conditions and subtracting the Stillwater shear and moment from them. This value was then compared to the shear and moment envelopes determined using the ABS 2005 Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels (sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3). Figure 30 and Figure 31 below show the wave induced shear and bending moment under the max hag and sag conditions compared to the calculated envelope.

Wave Induced shear


150000

100000

Moment (kN/m)

50000

0 0 -50000 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Positive Envelope Negative Envelope Sag Worst Case Hog Worst Case

-100000

-150000 Distance from Stern (m)

Figure 30: Wave Induced Shear

TAMU Team South China Sea

32

Final Report

Wave Induced Moment


15000000

10000000

5000000 Moment (kN/m)

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Hog Envelope Sag Envelope Sag Worst Case Hog Worst Case

-5000000

-10000000

-15000000 Distance from Stern (m)

Figure 31: Wave Induced Moment The figures above show that the vessel meets the ABS requirements for both wave induced sheer and moment. It can be noted that if the weight near the stern of the ship were distributed differently, the shear in that area of the ship could be improved. It would be recommended that more weight be added to the stern section of the vessel in order to offset the much larger buoyancy force found in the sag and stillwater conditions.

TAMU Team South China Sea

33

Final Report

7 Wind and Current Loading


In order to obtain the environmental loads, the areas of the vessel and components for both above and below the draft must be found. The draft was determined to be 22.57m from the keel. This draft line was modeled in AutoCAD and the resulting surface areas were calculated as shown below. Figure 32 shows how the area calculations and coefficients were distributed about the ship shape. Table 16 displays the calculated areas of each designated A.

Figure 32: AutoCAD Area Distribution Table 16: Area Calculations of Ship Shape A1 2674.7 m A2 303.63 m A3 303.63 m A4 303.63 m A5 303.63 m A6 303.63 m A7 303.63 m A8 303.63 m A9 188.46 m A10 431.74 m A11 15.75 m A12 1160 m A13 454.14 m A14 7005.1 m A15 1287.5 m Once these areas were established, the actual environmental loads could be calculated. Wind, current, and the mean wave drift force will all have an effect on the vessel. Both wind and current speeds, along with the significant wave height employed to determine this was verified to be the following values as seen in Table 17. Table 17: Wind, Current, & Significant Wave Height Implementation Wind Speed (m/s) 35.7 Current Speed (m/s) 1.71 Significant Wave Height (m) 8 These values were used to figure the total environmental force for bow, beam, and quartering seas on the vessel as seen in . Table 18: Total Environmental Forces on Vessel Force (kN) Bow Seas Beam Seas Quartering Seas Wind 1987.4 7063.7 3635 Current 10.8 269.9 78.9 Mean Wave Drift Force 77.7 423.1 256.2 Total Force (kN) 2075.9 7756.7 3970.1

TAMU Team South China Sea

34

Final Report

The quartering seas force depicted above was calculated with a set angle of 22.5 degrees. When this angle increases the total force will also increase. This being known, it is unlikely that this vessel will be subject to environmental conditions at this angle since a single point mooring design has been chosen. This single point mooring design will allow the vessel to weathervane in order to avoid extreme environmental loads. These hand calculated results were compared with the environmental external forces obtained through Mimosa, and are discussed in the Mooring/Station Keeping section. With the aid of the mooring software, the wind, current, and wave data was projected for the bow of the vessel to be 1291.9 kN, 264.9 kN, and 1308.2 kN. These values differ somewhat drastically to the bow seas calculations shown above in . Therefore, there must be a discrepancy in the hand calculated forces, as the majority of the confidence lies in the accuracy of the mooring results. In going through the process of determining the wind, current, and wave through hand calculations, one assumption was strictly implemented. Due to limited resources, the coefficients used to determine these loads were characteristics of an average drill ship. Seeing as drill ships have an overall length that would be considerably less than an FPSO and a more hydrodynamic bow which is able to cut through the environment, this assumption can be agreed upon to be the cause of the inconsistency.

TAMU Team South China Sea

35

Final Report

8 Mooring/Station Keeping
An integrated motion-mooring analysis was performed for the South China Sea FPSO facility. The environmental conditions considered are shown below in Table 19. Table 19: Environmental Conditions Considered Wave Data Hs (m) Hmax (m) Ts (s) Tz (s) 1yr Typhoon 8 13.5 10.4 8.6 10yr Typhoon 12.5 20.9 13.3 11.1 100yr Typhoon 14.9 24.9 14.7 12.2 1yr non-Typhoon 2.7 4.5 6.6 5.5 10yr non-Typhoon 5.1 8.5 8.8 7.3 100yr non-Typhoon 7.3 12.3 10.4 8.6 Wind Data Current Data Speed (m/s) Direction Speed (m/s) Direction 1yr Typhoon 35.7 67.5 1.72 225 10yr Typhoon 55.4 67.5 2.32 247.5 100yr Typhoon 65.9 67.5 2.75 247.5 1yr non-Typhoon 21.9 45 0.57 225 10yr non-Typhoon 29.8 45 0.85 225 100yr non-Typhoon 33.7 45 1.1 225 Environmental Loads were calculated both by hand and using MIMOSA. Table 20 shows a comparison of the environmental forces. The loads found through hand calculations are much smaller, because the wave coefficients used in those calculations were based on a drill ship. The wave force in MIMOSA is thought to be high due to the shallow operating depth. Table 20: Environmental Load Comparison ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS Collinear Environmental Forces From MIMOSA Wind (kN) Wave (kN) Current (kN) Total (kN) 1291.9 1308.2 264.9 2864.9 Hand Calculated Environmnetal Forces Wind (kN) Wave (kN) Current (kN) Total (kN) 1987.4 77.7 10.8 2075.9 Mimosa, a program used for the design and analysis of mooring systems for offshore vessels, is used to conduct all mooring analyses/design. The referenced API guidelines for measuring the factors of safety in the analysis are shown below: API RP-2SK Mooring Code: Dynamic Intact FOS = 1.67 Dynamic Damaged FOS = 1.25 The maximum vessel offset, as recommended by API for intact condition, is 8% of the water depth for rigid risers and 10% of the water depth for flexible risers. For damaged condition, API allows for an offset of 12% to 15% of the water depth. Vessel offsets are controlled by adjusting the pretension and total line length associated with each leg. For single point mooring systems ABS (section 3.3.1.7 of the Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations) dictates that there are a minimum of three wind, wave, and current configurations must be analyzed. The first of these is when all three of the conditions are collinear and acting on the bow of the ship. The second consist of wind and current collinear and both at 30 degrees to

TAMU Team South China Sea

36

Final Report

the waves. The third configuration has the wind at 30 degrees to the waves and the current at 90 degrees to the waves. Three different mooring systems were selected as potential candidates for the design of a FPSO to be located in the South China Sea. Each mooring system will be developed and drawn out using the MIMOSA program within the SEASAM package. Then, each system will be analyzed using MIMOSA and then revised until it meets current design criteria. Mooring of the FPSO will be accomplished by utilizing one of three systems listed below. 1. An external disconnectable turret with a single point mooring system 2. An internal disconnectable turret with a single point mooring system 3. A spread mooring system The mooring system is configured to meet certain design characteristics with respect to maximum allowable offsets and specified safety factors for both intact and damaged conditions. Since the FPSO will be designed to operate in a water depth of around 100 m, the maximum allowable offset for operating conditions will be 10m, which is 10% of the water depth. The minimum safety factors that must be met are 1.67 for intact conditions and 1.25 for damaged conditions. It is required that the mooring system be able to allow the FPSO to operate in a 1 year non-cyclonic storm and survive on location a 100 year noncyclonic storm or a 1 year cyclonic storm. The mooring systems to be considered for the FPSO design are an internal and external disconnectable turret mooring systems. Advantages of the turret type mooring systems are the vessels ability to weathervane, or move with the environmental forces to minimize forces on the mooring system and vessel. Another advantage of the turret type mooring system is the availability of a disconnectable turret. With the disconnect-able turret system, a vessel can shut-in the well and disconnect when there is a threat of severe weather, such as typhoons that are frequently encountered in the South China Sea. Some disadvantages of the turret type mooring system is the limited space inside the turret for risers and the additional cost of the turret system. If a turret is designed to house 10 risers, it can hold a maximum of 10. Depending on the type of environment that the FPSO will be moored in, the extra cost and limited production ability of the turret design could outweigh the risk of a spread mooring system. Figure 33 (courtesy of SBM IMODCO) shows internal turret and an external turret mooring systems on ships. It is important to notice how the vessels ability to weathervane is affected with the internal turret. The further astern the turret is moved, the lesser the vessels ability to weathervane. This is effective because when the vessel is disconnected from the system, the turret sinks down to an equilibrium point where it is well below the force of wind and waves.

TAMU Team South China Sea

37

Final Report

Figure 33: Internal and External Turret Mooring Systems A single point, internal, disconnectable turret was chosen for this FPSO application. The reasoning associated with this decision can be viewed in Table 21. According to the weighted mooring system selection chart, the most beneficial type of mooring system to utilize for the environmental conditions and water depths given is the internal turret with a disconnectable feature. The internal turret will allow the vessel to weathervane to minimize the forces acting on the vessel due to the environment, reducing the force that the mooring system has to comply with. With the disconnectable mooring system, if severe weather threatens the vessel, the mooring system can easily be dropped and the vessel either move under its own power or be towed out of the area until the threat of the severe weather has passed. Once the weather has passed the production site, the vessel can be placed back over the production field, reconnect to the mooring system and resume production in a relatively short period of time. Table 21: Weighted Mooring System Selection Chart
Objective Need to weathervane Ability to disconnect Reconnection Efficiency Vessel motion Cost Weight Parameter % time vessel is headed into current/winds Disconnect Time (hrs) Reconnection Time (hrs) Effective increase on vessel motion (%) Cost (million) External/Internal Permanent Mooring Magnitude 99 6 10 Score 5 4 3 Value 1.5 1.2 0.6 Internal Disconnectable Turret Magnitude 99 4 6 Score 5 5 4 Value 1.5 1.5 0.8

0.3 0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

40 25

3 1

0.3 0.1 3.7

40 25

3 1

0.3 0.1 4.2

OVERALL UTILITY VALUE

The mooring system for the FPSO was designed through an iterative process where a system was designed then analyzed then improved upon many times. The mooring system is comprised of 12 lines of chain with 4 groups. The 4 groups are spread out evenly 90 apart with a 5 spacing between each line within the 4 groups. The lightest possible chain that was selected for the system was 142 mm R4 stud link chain. Each length of chain is 500m long from the mooring point on the turret to the anchor

TAMU Team South China Sea

38

Final Report

positioned on the seafloor. Table 22 contains a description of the mooring system as well as the chain properties of the R4 studlink chain. The factored break strength is the strength of the chain factored for corrosion over the expected lifespan of the mooring system (10 mm of corrosion over the life of the project). Table 22: Mooring Line Properties
Line Properties Lines Line Length Modulus Break Strength Factored Break Strength Diameter Weight in Water 12 500 m 58490000 kN/m2 18033 kN 15965 kN 142 mm 442 kg/m

When MIMOSA is used to plot the mooring system, the product can be seen in Figure 34 and Figure 35 which contain the horizontal view and the vertical view of the mooring system, respectively. The mooring lines have a catenary shape which aids the vessel in returning to its equilibrium position when it is displaced by forces.

Figure 34: Horizontal Layout of Mooring Lines

Figure 35: Vertical View of Mooring Lines

Before environmental forces were taken into consideration, a few preliminary calculations were run concerning the mooring system using MIMOSA. First, the amount of chain resting on the sea floor was found to be 136 meters. This length of chain on the sea floor is critical in the ability of the mooring system to maintain a satisfactory watch circle. The anchor selection was determined after the survival conditions for the mooring system was analyzed and will be discussed later in this section. Next, the amount of

TAMU Team South China Sea

39

Final Report

chain suspended between the seafloor and the turret was found to be 364 meters. The horizontal distance from the anchor to the point where the chain attaches to the turret was found to be 488 meters. Finally, the weight of each leg of the mooring system was calculated to be approximately 221 metric tons which reflects a total mooring system weight (less anchors) of approximately 2652 metric tons. The total weight of chain that must be supported through the water column is approximately 1930 metric tons. First, the mooring system was analyzed for the intact survival condition. The mooring system must survive and remain intact during a 1 year typhoon event, whose parameters can be found previously in Table 19. The three different environmental conditions were utilized, per API rules in analyzing the mooring system. Co-linear environmental forces Non Co-linear Case 1: Wind and current are collinear and both at 30 to waves Non Co-linear Case 2: Wind at 30 to waves, and current at 90 to waves For these conditions, the vessel could not offset more than 12m from its original location and the mooring system had to have a factor of safety greater than 1.67. The results for the intact mooring system analysis can be found in Table 23. The three cases mentioned earlier in this section were analyzed. As can be seen in the table, for the intact survival conditions, the maximum displacement and factor of safety allowed in each case were met and surpassed. Table 23: Intact Survival Analysis Maximum Offset Intact Analysis (m)
Environmental Case Co-linear Wind and current are collinear and both at 30 to waves Wind at 30 to waves, and current at 90 to waves Allowable Actual Actual 12 8.19 7.51 Factor of Safety 1.67 1.82 1.67

Actual

7.38

1.86

After the intact condition was satisfied, the mooring system was analyzed in the damaged survival condition with co-linear environmental forces acting on the bow of the vessel. For the damaged condition, one mooring line was damaged. The damaged analysis was completed for each of the 3 lines in the group of lines with the highest tensions. The maximum offset and minimum factor of safety allowed for the damaged survival analysis was 12 m (12% of the water depth) and 1.25, respectively. For the damaged line, line #1 was selected because that particular line had the greatest maximum tension on it during the intact analysis. The results from this analysis can be found in Table 24. A graphical representation of the offsets from each analysis compared to their respective allowable offsets can be seen in Figure 36 and Figure 37 for intact and damaged cases, respectively.

TAMU Team South China Sea

40

Final Report

Table 24: Damaged Survival Analysis Maximum Offset Factor of Damaged Analysis (m) Safety
Environmental Case Co-linear Wind and current are collinear and both at 30 to waves Wind at 30 to waves, and current at 90 to waves Allowable Actual Actual 12 9.2 10.62 1.25 1.57 1.33

Actual

9.4

1.62

Figure 36: Offsets for Survival Conditions

TAMU Team South China Sea

41

Final Report

Figure 37: Offsets for Damaged Conditions After the survival analysis was performed, the operating conditions were investigated. In order to be able to produce, the vessel cannot offset more than 12 m from its original location during the intact and damaged conditions while maintaining a line factor of safety of 1.67 and 1.25 for intact and damaged, respectively. Again, mooring line #1 was the candidate for damaging due to its tendency to hold the greatest maximum tension. The mooring system must be designed to allow the vessel to be able to produce continuously through a 1 year non-typhoon event. This mooring system keep the vessel in a tight enough watch circle (less that 12m), so that theoretically, production could occur during survival conditions if the production equipment would allow. Upon completing the analysis of the mooring system, critical components such as the type and size of anchors used and the number/types of risers to be used could be selected. Determining the anchor for the vessel was done using was the Vryhof manual. Due to the soft clay bottom composition, the Stevpris Mk. 5 (which can be seen in Figure 38) was selected based on its ability to dig deeply into soft clay, which would add security to the mooring system. Next, an anchor weight of 12 metric tons was selected based on the MIMOSA output for the largest line tension present in all of the analysis combined.

TAMU Team South China Sea

42

Final Report

Figure 38: Stevpris Mk. 5 Anchor The turret specified for this facility has the capacity for up to twenty-five risers. Because of the disconnectable feature of the turret, the risers will have to be flexible as to bend and allow the turret to sink once disconnected. Also, because of the relatively shallow water depth, the risers used do not have to be constructed of a lightweight material like many risers used on deeper water rigs are required.

TAMU Team South China Sea

43

Final Report

9 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading


In the ocean environment vessel motion is governed by the wave spectrum. This is due to the relationship between the frequencies of the wave components and the natural periods of the vessel. In calculating the motions and natural periods, the FPSO parameters in Table 25 were utilized. Table 25: FPSO Parameters FPSO PARAMETERS Draft (m) D Gravity (m/s^2) g Seawater Density (kg/m^3) Vessel Mass (kg) M Added Mass (kg) Mac Added Mass Coefficient Cm Block Coefficient Cb Displaced Volume (m^3) V Waterplane Coefficient Cw Radius of Gyration (m) for Roll (m) r Radius of Gyration (m) for Pitch (m) r Longitudinal Metacentric Height (m) GML Transverse Metacentric Height (m) GMT The heave natural period is calculated using the equation below.

22.57 9.81 1025 48750000 60937500 1.25 0.953 55888 0.979 16.743 96.129 248.79 5.98

T = 2

CB D (1 + Mac ) CW g

The natural periods for pitch and roll are calculated using the same equation; however the proper metacentric heights and radii of gyration must be used. The equation for pitch and roll is as follows.

T = 2

( M + Mac ) r 2 gV ( GML )

The calculated natural periods for heave, pitch, and roll can be found in Table 26 below. Table 26: FPSO Natural Periods FPSO NATURAL PERIODS HEAVE (s) 14.1 ROLL (s) 19 PITCH (s) 16.9 If the natural period of the vessel lies near the peak period of the wave spectrum, the vessel motion will be at its maximum amplitude. These responses are important in three axes of movement; heave, pitch, and roll. To determine the amplitude response the spectrum (s(w)), response amplitude operator (RAO), and the frequency differential ( ) are multiplied according to the equation given below:

RMS = ( RAO 2 S ( ))
Heave is the most important degree of freedom analyzed, because the vertical motion of the vessel is important not only to personnel safety but also to production. The heave response peaks out at 0.67

TAMU Team South China Sea

44

Final Report

meters and a frequency of 0.2 radians per second. This amplitude is small and well within the range for the vessel. The full response spectrum as well as the JONSWAP sea spectrum and the response amplitude operators are found in Figure 39.

Heave Response (0 deg)


7 6 Amplitude (m) 5 4 3 2 1 0
0. 7 0. 8 0. 5 0. 55 0. 62 5 0. 15 0. 25 0. 35 0. 45 0. 9 1

Heave 0 deg JONSWAP SPECTRUM Response

Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 39: Heave Amplitude Response (0 deg) The environmental conditions are considered bow on for this response, and the significant wave height for the JONSWAP spectrum is our 95% operating condition, which correlates to a significant wave height of 3.8 meters. If the wave conditions move to 22.5 degrees off of bow, the response increases and this is seen in Figure 40 below.
Heave Response (22.5 deg environment)
4.50000 4.00000 3.50000 Amplitude (m) 3.00000 2.50000 2.00000 1.50000 1.00000 0.50000 0.00000 0.00000 0.20000 0.40000 0.60000 0.80000 1.00000 1.20000 Frequency (rad/s) Heave RAO 22.5 deg JONSWAP Spectrum Response

Figure 40: Heave Response (22.5 deg)

TAMU Team South China Sea

45

Final Report

The pitch response of the vessel for a bow on environment is very small with an amplitude of roughly 0.81 degrees, at the bow of the ship. Figure 41 shows the pitch response of the vessel. For an environment 22.5 degrees off of the bow, the response amplitude drops to 0.7798 degrees.

Vessel Pitch Response (0 deg environment)


0.01400 Amplitude (deg/m) 0.01200 0.01000 0.00800 0.00600 0.00400 0.00200 0.00000 0.00000 0.50000 1.00000 1.50000 Pitch RAO (0 deg) Vessel Response

Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 41: Vessel Pitch Response (0 deg) The roll motion of the vessel is one of the most important motions in designing this vessel. For operations to take place, the vessel can not roll more than two degrees. To calculate the roll motion, the same procedure used above is used. For a bow on environment there is little to no roll, however, as the environment moves off bow the roll increases. For a 22.5 degree environment the maximum roll is roughly 0.072 degrees in a one year typhoon. Thus the vessel will be able to operate under most conditions if roll was only considered. All calculated motions are given in Table 27. Table 27: Vessel Response Amplitudes

FPSO Motions
Survival Conditions Operating Conditions Location

Heave (0 deg) 0.856 meters 0.56 meters at mid ship Heave (22.5 deg) 1.595 meters 1.13 meters at mid ship Pitch (0 deg) 0.81 deg 0.53 deg at bow Pitch (22.5 deg) 0.7798 deg 0.511 deg at bow Roll (0 deg) 0 deg 0 deg starboard side Roll (22.5 deg) 0.072 deg .047 deg starboard side Value in parenthesis indicates angle of environment with respect to bow.
These amplitudes will affect the ability of the vessel to produce and offload. Any amplification of the wave affects for the FPSO will further minimize the time available to offload. In the case of the heave with a bow on sea, if the wave spectrum occurs with a peak frequency of 0.25 radians per second and a height of 2 meters, then the vessel motion will be close to 2.7 meters or the upper range of the operating limits. In terms of offloading the vessels are subject to the wave height. Due to the turret mooring configuration, tandem offloading will occur from the FPSO. This requires a maximum significant wave height of 2.7 meters, for connection. This is the same requirement as the operating condition.

TAMU Team South China Sea

46

Final Report

10 Cost Analysis
The cost of producing a floating production, storage, and offloading vessel is heavily dependent on the shipyard in which it is built. This is due to the cost of the steel used in the manufacturing of the vessel. These costs are reflected in the outfitting, the crew accommodations, and the machinery within the hull. The total cost dependent upon shipyard ranges from 113 million dollars in China, to 180 million dollars in Japan. Also based on shipyard location is the transportation cost to the field. For this location the transportation costs are all roughly similar as the three shipyards are in close proximity to the field. There are also costs that are independent of the shipyard, and these include mooring components such as a turret, the equipment for offloading, the cost of the topsides, and additional costs of building the vessel. These non-shipyard associated costs are given in Table 28 below while the shipyard costs are shown in Table 29. Table 28: Non Shipyard Associated Costs

Non-Shipyard Related Costs


Offload System Tandem Mooring System Internal Turret Installation of Vessel Topside Cost Additional Marine Cost Anchor Chain Anchor Cost Risers 16 Inch Dia 12 Inch Dia 6 Inch Dia Net Total($MM) $ 25 MM $ 15 MM $ 620 MM $ 75 MM $0.015 MM $.504 MM $ 3.5 MM

$1.44 MM $0.98 MM $0.64 MM $742 MM

Table 29: Shipyard Associated Costs

Shipyard Costs
Hull Steel Hull Outfitting Hull Machinery Electric Outfitting Accommodations

Weight (mt) 48350 3,380 780 600 800

Unit Costs ($/mt) Japan 3,000 6,150 1,350 2,250 29,000

Unit Costs Unit Costs ($/mt) ($/mt) Korea China 2,800 1,900 5,550 3,900 1,200 incl'd in hull outfitting 2,000 incl'd in hull outfitting 26,100 19,500

Combining the costs given above, and the vessel cost reaches a total of 960 million dollars. It can be seen below in Figure 42 that the costs are very close for each of the three shipyards; however they are separated by sixty to one hundred million dollars. The large separation between China and the other two shipyards; is due to the inclusion by the Chinese of the hull machinery and electric outfitting within hull outfitting costs. Thus, Team South China Sea recommends that this FPSO be built in the Chinese shipyard.

TAMU Team South China Sea

47

Final Report

1040

Cost in Millions of Dollars

1020 1000 980 960 940 920 900


Japan
Korea
China

Figure 42: Total Vessel Cost by Shipyard

TAMU Team South China Sea

48

Final Report

11 Summary and Conclusions


From the past, it has become evident that the utility and demand for Floating, Production, Storage, and Offloading vessels is increasing for its unique access to remote locations. These vessels provide the ability to operate in remote locations and environmental conditions which many other offshore structures would be at a disadvantage. The FPSO vessel serves as the point of sale wherein other production structures have to transport the cargo via pipeline to a land based terminal. The final design selected by Team South China Sea consists of a double-hull, barge shape steel vessel. The design was optimized according to the 1.6 million barrel storage requirement with the given environmental conditions. As per ConocoPhillips, the vessels particulars were given as 301 meters between perpendiculars, a breadth of 58 meters and a depth as 30.4 meters from keel. Due to the environmental conditions an internal turret system was chosen as part of the mooring system. The inclusion of an internal turret lengthened the vessel to 333 meters. With the elected vessel the hull steel weight and hull areas were used to determine a draft of 22.57 meters. The overall design proved to be a stable vessel in all operating conditions as well as remaining operable 95% of time while on station. ConocoPhillips provided environmental data for 1 and 100 year return periods for both cyclonic and noncyclonic events. Also provided was the vessel location at a depth of 100 meters, and approximately 140 km off the coast of China. The data shows two significant prevailing seasons: monsoon and dry. The monsoon season is characterized by southwest winds and heavy typhoon activity. The dry season is characterized by northeast winds and above average wave conditions. The dramatic shift in weather, forces the vessel to be designed to minimize vessel response to the conditions. The total wind, wave and current loads acting on the vessel were calculated according to ABS regulations for bow, beam and 22.5 degrees from the bow. The environmental loads were found to be different between the data produced through MIMOSA and those found utilizing hand calculations. This was due to the usage of drill ship coefficients within the hand calculations. To check the accuracy of the MIMOSA model, hand calculations should be performed using coefficients specific to the FPSO. To analyze the structure of the vessel, a scaling method was used to find the steel weight. In using this method, and a similar ship the Nanhai Endeavor, the total steel weight was found to be 48,750 metric tons. The shear and wave induced moment of the vessel was analyzed in Visual Analysis. To simplify the structure of the vessel, it was modeled as a beam. The model was subjected to worst case scenarios for hogging and sagging. The shear and wave induced moment were within the proper envelopes. The stability analysis, done in StabCAD, shows that the intact and damaged stability for a fully loaded vessel passes ABS rules and regulations. For intact stability, the design and calculated vertical center of gravity was less than the maximum allowable KG as dictated by ABS. The maximum angle of inclination was found to be less than 25 degrees, satisfying all conditions of a stable vessel. The damaged stability minimums were also met. The vessel also proved stable if all of the ballast tanks were damaged proving an optimum vessel design. Using the RAO input from MIMOSA and the JONSWAP wave spectrum with a peak period of 8 seconds, the hydrodynamics of the ship were determined. The heave displacement for the vessel was found to be 0.67 meters for bow on seas, and 1.1 meters for a 22.5 degree sea. The pitch response was found to be 0.0045 degrees, which was within required limits. The roll response was found to be negligible. These responses allow the vessel to operate 95% of the time. Because of the hydrodynamics of the vessel and the environment within which it operates, the offloading will be done in a tandem configuration. Under this configuration, offloading can be maintained by using the vessels weathervaning capability. Taking into account the severe environmental conditions as well as the frequent typhoons, it was concluded that an internal disconnectable turret would be the optimal mooring system solution. This type of mooring allows not only the ability to weathervane, but also the capacity to evacuate the location in the event of incoming typhoons. The mooring system consists of 12 lines placed in groups of 3 (5 spacing between lines of the same group) with a group in each of the 4 cardinal directions. The legs of the

TAMU Team South China Sea

49

Final Report

system consist of 500 meters of 142 mm R4 grade studlink chain with a 12 metric ton Stevpris Mk. 5 anchor securing the system to the sea bottom. Through the thorough analysis of the FPSO, the vessel and mooring design was found to be satisfactory in accordance with all of the rules and regulations set forth by the differing bodies. While the investigation of this FPSO has been thorough, much of the work was simplified and thus the modeling needs to be done much more accurately.

TAMU Team South China Sea

50

Final Report

12 References
American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations, Houston, TX. 2004 American Bureau of Shipping, Guide for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations, Houston, TX. 2000 American Bureau of Shipping. Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Houston, TX. 2004 American Bureau of Shipping. Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, Houston, TX. 2005. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Station Keeping Systems for Floating Structures, First Edition. Washington D.C., June 1995. (API 2SK) American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design, Analysis, and Maintenance of Mooring for Floating Production Systems, First Edition. Washington D.C., February 1993. Autodesk, Inc. AutoCAD Software, 2004. ConocoPhillips, Heather, Nick. Personal communication, 2006 ConocoPhillips. King, Rodney. Personal communication, 2006. ConocoPhillips. Metocean Criteria for the South China Sea. January 1996. Det Norske Veritas. MIMOSA Mooring Analysis Software, Version 5.7. November 2004. Guntur and Associates, Inc. StabCAD Users Manual, 1999. Halvor Lie, Knut Mo and Karl E. Kaasen. MIMOSA Users Documentation Version 5.6. April 2002. Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. Visual Analysis, Version 4.0 1.014, 2004. International Maritime Organization. Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU), 1989. * Unless otherwise noted, all drawings were made by Team South China Sea

TAMU Team South China Sea

51

Final Report

Appendix A: Environmental Data and Loading Spreadsheets

TAMU Team South China Sea

52

Final Report

3 sec 1 min 10min 1 hr 3 hr

Table 30: Return Period Wind Profiles wind speeds are + or - 3 m/s Wind Velocities For Return Periods 1 yr typhoon 100 yr non typhoon 1 yr non-typhoon 40.6 38.1 24.6 35.7 33.7 21.9 32.3 30.4 19.7 30.5 28.6 18.5 29.5 27.6 17.9

.
Table 31: Current Profile for South China Sea

Current Profile
Water Depth (m) 100 1 yr non-typhoon environment Depth (m) 0 10 30 50 70 90 Velocity (m/s) 1.1 1 0.85 0.72 0.6 0.48

1 Year Extreme Typhoon 5 1.72 10 1.63 20 1.47 30 1.34 40 1.24 50 1.14 60 1.05 70 0.95 80 0.83 90 0.7 100 0.47 Mooring Environment 0 1.1 10 1 30 0.85 50 0.72 90 0.48 99 0.32

TAMU Team South China Sea

53

Final Report

Wave conditions by month


4 3.5 3 meters 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Significant wave height

0.0018 Energy Density m^2 s 0.0016 0.0014 0.0012 0.0010 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Frequency rad/s

TAMU Team South China Sea

Ja n Fe b M ar M ar Ap ril M ay M ay Ju ne Ju ly Au g Se pt O ct N ov D ec
Month

Figure 43: South China Sea Wave Conditions By Month

JONSWAP

Figure 44: JONSWAP Spectrum for the South China Sea

54

Final Report

Significant Wave Height Design Criteria


9 8 7 6 Hs (m) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 yr Typhoon Connection and Mooring Disconnection of Hose

Figure 45: Significant Wave Height Design Criteria Table 32: Wave Height Annual Cumulative Probability Distribution

Cumulative Probability Distribution


Annual Join Distribution Hs (m) 0 0.9 1.9 2.9 3.9 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.90 Percentage of Occurance 0 0 18.1 18.1 38.9 57 25.9 82.9 13 95.9 2.7 98.6 0.8 99.4 0.3 99.7 0.1 99.8 0.2 100

TAMU Team South China Sea

55

Final Report

Annual Cumulative Probability Curve


100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wave Height (m) Annual Cumulative Probability Curve

Percentage of occurance

Black line corresponds to the 95% occurance of wave height. Dashed line corresponds to one year non-typhoon event.

Figure 46: Annual Cumulative Wave Probability Curve

Annual Wind Profile


35510 350 360 345 340 335 330 325 8 320 315 310 6 305 300 4 295 290 285 2 280 275 0 270 265 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 220 215 210 205 200 190 195 185 0 5 10 15 20 25

JAN
30

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 180175170

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Figure 47: Annual Wind Profile Rosette

TAMU Team South China Sea

56

Final Report

Current Profile
Velocity (m/s) 0.25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.75 1.25 1.75

Depth (m)

100 yr non-typhoon 1 yr max typhoon

Figure 48: South China Sea Current Profile

TAMU Team South China Sea

57

Final Report

Appendix B: Mimosa Input/Output Files

TAMU Team South China Sea

58

Final Report

In order to start a mooring system analysis in MIMOSA, a working .sif file containing the motion transfer functions and the wave-drift coefficients and a vessel description file (.mos or .ves) must be available. This information can be obtained from the WADAM program in the SESAM software package. Startup SESAM and open the project file (folder which contains all the files pertaining to the particular mooring system and vessel) and select the Analysis drop down menu and start the mooring analysis with MIMOSA. Once MIMOSA is up and running, load the motion transfer functions followed by the wave-drift coefficients then the mass data, current drag coefficients and the wind drag coefficients. Next, load the mooring file that is to be analyzed. Check that there are no errors in the mooring file by viewing the system in the PRINT/DRAW/STORE menu. After successfully double checking the system, add in the environmental forces. From this point, the vessel response can be found as well as the maximum line tensions and factors of safety. Be sure that the vessel equilibrium position found and used in further calculations before the maximum line tensions and factors of safety are found. The vessel file containing the mass data, the current drag coefficients as well as the wind drag coefficients. Table 33: MIMOSA Vessel File 20000 Base Case FPSO 22100 383229000 5.997E+11 0.0614 0.0614 0.6017 23100 19 2 23101 0.0 -89538.13 0 0 23102 10 -87099.38 261298.1 78389.44 23103 20 -87099.38 522596.3 94067.33 23104 30 -69679.5 870993.8 168972.8 23105 40 -43549.69 1132292 174198.8 23106 50 87099.38 1393590 174198.8 23107 60 130649.1 1689728 170714.8 23108 70 130649.1 1898766 130649.1 23109 80 108874.2 2064255 34839.75 23110 90 87099.38 2090385 -69679.5 23111 100 -43549.69 2064255 -130649.1 23112 110 -69679.5 1898766 -174198.8 23113 120 -87099.38 1741988 -18116.7 23114 130 -60969.56 1428430 -261298.1 23115 140 0 1080032 -273492 23116 150 87099.38 766474.5 -273492 23117 160 108874.2 557436 -191618.6 23118 170 121939.1 2787180 -130649.1 23119 180 125423.1 0 0 23201 23202 23501 23502 23503 24100 24101 24102 24103 24104 24105 24106 24107 24108 24109 24110 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 1533680.34 0.0 26366858.25 0.0 61543493702.27 19 0.0 -1013.652 0 0 10 -960.3014 -373.5776 20 -853.6013 -747.1152 30 -757.5711 -1120.733 40 -653.5385 -1643.741 50 -522.8308 -2054.677 60 -333.438 -2372.218 70 -208.0653 -2559.007 80 -800.2512 -2615.043 90 53.35008 -2661.74

-11095.25 -24039.72 -38525.19 -61640.3 -83830.81 -98624.49 -110952.5 -166428.8 -147936.7 59 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

24111 24112 24113 24114 24115 24116 24117 24118 24119

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

157.91624 213.40032 298.76045 405.46061 544.17082 693.55104 799.1842 826.92624 800.2512

-2661.74 -2615.043 -2521.649 -2334.86 -2054.677 -1681.009 -1120.733 -747.1552 373.5776

-157182.8 -184920.9 -203413 -2095770 -198481.8 -173825.7 -135608.7 -38216.99 0

A sample of the SIF file provided by Technip used in the analysis of the mooring system Table 34: MIMOSA SIF File IDENT 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 DATE 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 4.00000000E+00 7.20000000E+01 DATE: 28-MAR-2006 TIME: 23:30:28 PROGRAM: SESAM WADAM VERSION: 8.1-02 26-APR-2004 COMPUTER: 586 WIN NT 5.1 [2600INSTALLATION: , G1W0891 USER: SYANAMANDRA ACCOUNT: TEXT 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 3.00000000E+00 7.20000000E+01 TAMU FPSO - MARCH 2006 WBODCON 7.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.57079637E+00 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.04719758E+00 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 3.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 3.00000000E+00 8.97597909E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 4.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 4.00000000E+00 7.85398185E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 5.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 5.00000000E+00 6.98131740E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 6.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 6.00000000E+00 6.28318548E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 7.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 7.00000000E+00 5.71198702E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 8.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 8.00000000E+00 5.23598790E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 9.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 9.00000000E+00 4.83321965E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.00000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+01 4.48798954E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.10000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 TAMU Team South China Sea 60 Final Report

1.10000000E+01 4.18879032E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.20000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.20000000E+01 3.92699093E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.30000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.30000000E+01 3.69599134E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.40000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.40000000E+01 3.49065870E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.50000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.50000000E+01 3.30693960E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.60000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.60000000E+01 3.14159274E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.70000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.70000000E+01 2.99199313E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.80000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.80000000E+01 2.85599351E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 1.90000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.90000000E+01 2.73181975E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.00000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+01 2.61799395E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.10000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 2.10000000E+01 2.41660982E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.20000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 2.20000000E+01 2.24399477E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.30000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 2.30000000E+01 2.09439516E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.40000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 2.40000000E+01 1.96349546E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.50000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 0.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 2.50000000E+01 1.74532935E-01 WDRESREF 1.00000000E+01 2.60000000E+01 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 2.00000000E+00 3.92699093E-01 2.00000000E+00 1.00000000E+00 1.57079637E+00 The line characteristics file which described the mooring system Table 35: MIMOSA Line Characteristics VESSEL POSITION 'Text describing positioning system Vessel CG position coordinates with respect to globalWL coordinate system. ' x1ves x2ves x3ves head 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LINE DATA TAMU Team South China Sea 61 Final Report

'iline lichar inilin iwirun 1 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -144.97 7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 40 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun 2 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -144.97 7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 45 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun 3 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -144.97 7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 50 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun 4 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -130.83 7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 130 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun 5 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -130.83 7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 135 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun 6 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -130.83 7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 140 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun 7 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -130.83 -7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 220 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun 8 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -130.83 -7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 225 3200 0.00 LINE DATA

intact 1

intact 1

intact 1

intact 1

intact 1

intact 1

intact 1

intact 1

TAMU Team South China Sea

62

Final Report

'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 9 1 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -130.83 -7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 230 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 10 1 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -144.97 -7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 310 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 11 1 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -144.97 -7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 315 3200 0.00 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 12 1 1 1 1 ' tpx1 tpx2 -144.97 -7.07 ' alfa tens xwinch 320 3200 0.00 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 1 'linpty npocha 2 40 'nseg ibotco icurli 1 1 1 'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax 0 18 100 16000 1.000 'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng 1 0 50 0 500 1

fric nea brkstr

15965 watfac 1.800 cdn 0.160 cdl

'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw 1 .142 58490000 2 3.77145 .87 END A sample of the MIMOSA output

Table 36: Sample MIMOSA Output 1 MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK Marketing and Support by DNV Software Program id : 5.7-03 Release date : 24-NOV-2004 TAMU Team South China Sea Computer : 586 Impl. update : 63 Final Report

Access time : 23-APR-2006 12:17:39 Operating system : Win NT 5.1 [2600] User id : jap2921 CPU id : 0000200604 Installation : , CE220NO04 Copyright DET NORSKE VERITAS AS, P.O.Box 300, N-1322 Hovik, Norway Input file : g1.sif * HF motion transfer functions Text : TAMU FPSO - MARCH 2006 Water depth used in calculation of roll, pitch and yaw : 100.0 m Duration for short-term statistics : 180.00 min. MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 Input file : g1.sif * Wave drift force coefficients Text : TAMU FPSO - MARCH 2006 Input file : fpso.ves * Vessel mass and added mass Text : Base Case FPSO Input file : fpso.ves * Current force coefficients Text : Base Case FPSO Input file : fpso.ves * Wind force coefficients Text : Base Case FPSO Input file : e142mm_12lines.prn * Mooring system data Text : Vessel CG position coordinates with respect to globalWL coordinate syst MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK MARINTEK

* ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS * TAMU Team South China Sea 64 Final Report

---------------------------NOTE ! Propagation direction ( 0 deg : towards North ) ( 90 deg : towards East ) WIND DAVENPORT SPECTRUM Mean speed ........................ : 35.70 m/s Direction ......................... : 180.00 deg. Scale length ...................... : 1200. m Surface drag coefficent ........... : 0.0025

CURRENT Speed .. .......................... : 1.72 m/s Direction ......................... : 0.00 deg. WAVE JONSWAP SPECTRUM, Significant wave height (HS) ...... : 8.00 m Peak period (TP) .................. : 10.400 s Phillip constant (ALPHA) .......... : 0.01557 Form parameter (BETA) ............. : 1.250 Peakedness parameter (GAMMA) ...... : 4.579 Spectrum width parameter (SIGA) ... : 0.070 Spectrum width parameter (SIGB) ... : 0.090 Direction ......................... : 180.00 deg Long crested waves

NO SWELL MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK

# TRANSFORMED MOTION # ---------------------Specified point : X1 = 138.00 m ( vessel long. axis ) X2 = 0.00 m ( vessel transv. axis ) X3 = 0.00 m ( positive downwards ) * HF MOTION * -----------Statistics of : POSITION 1. degree of freedom: SURGE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.61 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.31 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 10.66 s Spectrum width parameter ................... : 0.088 Standard deviation ......................... : 0.16 m Statistics of : POSITION 2. degree of freedom: SWAY Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.00 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.00 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 0.00 s Spectrum width parameter ................... : 0.000 Standard deviation ......................... : 0.00 m

TAMU Team South China Sea

65

Final Report

Statistics of : POSITION 3. degree of freedom: HEAVE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 2.46 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 1.28 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 11.84 s Spectrum width parameter ................... : 0.065 Standard deviation ......................... : 0.64 m MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 * LF MOTION * ------------Statistics of : POSITION 1. degree of freedom: SURGE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 6.78 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 3.40 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 79.43 s Standard deviation ......................... : 1.70 m Statistics of : POSITION 2. degree of freedom: SWAY Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.00 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.00 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 282.81 s Standard deviation ......................... : 0.00 m Statistics of : POSITION 3. degree of freedom: Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.00 deg Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.00 deg Zero crossing period ...................... : 573.44 s Standard deviation ......................... : 0.00 deg * LF + HF MOTION * -----------------Statistics of : POSITION 1. degree of freedom: SURGE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 7.09 m Statistics of : POSITION 2. degree of freedom: SWAY Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.00 m Statistics of : POSITION 3. degree of freedom: Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.00 deg Expected maximum LF amplitude: Non-Rayleigh based MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK

* STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES * -------------------------TAMU Team South China Sea 66 Final Report

!--------------------------------------------------------! ! ! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp. ! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Wind ! -1291.9 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm! ! Wave ! -1308.2 kN ! 0.0 kN !0.1944E-01 kNm! ! Current ! -264.9 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fixed force ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Total ! -2864.9 kN ! 0.0 kN !0.1944E-01 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! TOTAL FORCE : 2864.9 kN Dir. rel. Vessel : 180.0 deg ------------------------- Dir. rel. North : 180.0 deg * EQUILIBRIUM POSITION * Relative to Relative to GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position OFFSET ................. 1.1 m DIRECTION (rel. North).. 180.0 deg HEADING ................ 0.0 deg X1 (North) ............. X2 (East) .............. -1.1 m 0.0 m 1.1 m 180.0 deg 0.0 deg -1.1 m 0.0 m

The Vessel is moved to Equilibrium Position ! * STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES * -------------------------!--------------------------------------------------------! ! ! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp. ! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Wind ! -1291.9 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm! ! Wave ! -1308.2 kN ! 0.0 kN !0.1944E-01 kNm! ! Current ! -264.9 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fixed force ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Total ! -2864.9 kN ! 0.0 kN !0.1944E-01 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! TOTAL FORCE : 2864.9 kN Dir. rel. Vessel : 180.0 deg ------------------------- Dir. rel. North : 180.0 deg MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK * MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS. LF AND HF MOTION * -----------------------------------------------** Line Dynamics Included **

TAMU Team South China Sea

67

Final Report

Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

---- Top tension ---Max. Direction Type Mean Max Safety Segm. tangent from hor. (kN) (kN) factor No. motion (m) plane (deg) 3589.2 3556.8 3522.0 2917.7 2891.3 2867.4 2867.4 2891.3 2917.7 3522.0 3556.8 3589.2 8777.8 7923.6 7176.4 5046.1 5204.3 5346.8 5346.8 5204.3 5046.1 7172.2 7923.6 8782.9 1.82 2.01 2.22 3.16 3.07 2.99 2.99 3.07 3.16 2.23 2.01 1.82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.49 0.48 0.48 -16.4 -17.1 -17.9 -21.6 -21.3 -21.1 -21.1 -21.3 -21.6 -17.9 -17.1 -16.4 SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM

SAM = Tensions are estimated with the Simplified Analytic Method HF max tension: Non-Rayleigh based LF max offset : Non-Rayleigh based Details on dynamic tension (in kN): ------------------------------------------------------Line Standard Maximum Maximum Zero crossing No. deviation amplitude tension period (s) ------------------------------------------------------1 289.8 1068.0 8777.8 12.11 2 250.5 922.6 7923.6 12.19 3 219.7 808.5 7176.4 12.28 4 175.9 652.5 5046.1 10.89 5 187.0 694.0 5204.3 10.81 6 197.1 731.7 5346.8 10.73 7 197.1 731.7 5346.8 10.73 8 187.0 694.0 5204.3 10.81 9 175.9 652.5 5046.1 10.89 10 218.5 804.4 7172.2 12.28 11 250.5 922.6 7923.6 12.19 12 291.2 1073.1 8782.9 12.11 MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK Input file : damaged_e142mm_12lines.prn * Mooring system data Text : Vessel CG position coordinates with respect to globalWL coordinate syst # TRANSFORMED MOTION # ---------------------Specified point : X1 = 138.00 m ( vessel long. axis ) X2 = 0.00 m ( vessel transv. axis ) X3 = 0.00 m ( positive downwards ) * HF MOTION * TAMU Team South China Sea 68 Final Report

-----------Statistics of : POSITION 1. degree of freedom: SURGE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.62 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.32 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 10.60 s Spectrum width parameter ................... : 0.076 Standard deviation ......................... : 0.16 m Statistics of : POSITION 2. degree of freedom: SWAY Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.74 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.38 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 10.81 s Spectrum width parameter ................... : 0.077 Standard deviation ......................... : 0.19 m Statistics of : POSITION 3. degree of freedom: HEAVE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 1.74 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.91 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 12.82 s Spectrum width parameter ................... : 0.067 Standard deviation ......................... : 0.45 m MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 * LF MOTION * ------------Statistics of : POSITION 1. degree of freedom: SURGE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 7.18 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 3.63 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 84.30 s Standard deviation ......................... : 1.81 m Statistics of : POSITION 2. degree of freedom: SWAY Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 2.89 m Significant amplitude ...................... : 1.69 m Zero crossing period ...................... : 218.38 s Standard deviation ......................... : 0.85 m Statistics of : POSITION 3. degree of freedom: Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.44 deg Significant amplitude ...................... : 0.29 deg Zero crossing period ...................... : 454.91 s Standard deviation ......................... : 0.15 deg * LF + HF MOTION * -----------------Statistics of : POSITION 69 Final Report 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK

TAMU Team South China Sea

1. degree of freedom: SURGE Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 7.50 m Statistics of : POSITION 2. degree of freedom: SWAY Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 3.27 m Statistics of : POSITION 3. degree of freedom: Expected maximum amplitude ( 180 min. ) ... : 0.44 deg Expected maximum LF amplitude: Non-Rayleigh based MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK

* STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES * -------------------------!--------------------------------------------------------! ! ! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp. ! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Wind ! 1029.2 kN ! 1285.5 kN !0.1356E+06 kNm! ! Wave ! 1383.1 kN ! 1232.6 kN !-.4042E+05 kNm! ! Current ! 333.7 kN ! -3628.1 kN ! 512.8 kNm! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fixed force ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! ! Total ! 2745.9 kN ! -1109.9 kN !0.9569E+05 kNm! !--------------------------------------------------------! TOTAL FORCE : 2961.7 kN Dir. rel. Vessel : 338.0 deg ------------------------- Dir. rel. North : 141.0 deg * EQUILIBRIUM POSITION * Relative to Relative to GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position OFFSET ................. 1.7 m DIRECTION (rel. North).. 76.9 deg HEADING ................ 162.8 deg X1 (North) ............. X2 (East) .............. 0.4 m 1.6 m 1.7 m 76.9 deg -0.2 deg 0.4 m 1.6 m

The Vessel is moved to Equilibrium Position ! MIMOSA Version 5.7-03 23-APR-2006 12:17 MARINTEK

* MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS. LF AND HF MOTION * ** Line Dynamics Included ** Line No. ---- Top tension ---Max. Direction Type Mean Max Safety Segm. tangent from hor. 70 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

(kN) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

(kN)

factor No. motion (m) plane (deg) 1.57 1.66 2.17 2.05 1.95 2.45 2.57 2.71 3.01 2.82 2.64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.69 0.71 0.86 0.86 0.87 1.26 1.29 1.31 1.24 1.18 1.13 -15.8 -16.2 -18.4 -18.0 -17.6 -20.3 -20.8 -21.4 -22.2 -21.4 -20.6 SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM

BROKEN 3519.5 10141.9 3556.5 9632.4 3664.3 7346.1 3633.3 7777.8 3599.0 8194.3 2924.5 6526.8 2894.2 6210.9 2866.6 5885.8 2838.6 5310.0 2860.7 5661.9 2885.4 6040.8

SAM = Tensions are estimated with the Simplified Analytic Method HF max tension: Non-Rayleigh based LF max offset : Non-Rayleigh based Details on dynamic tension (in kN): ------------------------------------------------------Line Standard Maximum Maximum Zero crossing No. deviation amplitude tension period (s) ------------------------------------------------------1 BROKEN 2 477.1 1760.0 10141.9 11.96 3 456.6 1684.7 9632.4 11.91 4 358.0 1323.0 7346.1 11.44 5 394.7 1459.6 7777.8 11.37 6 432.3 1599.7 8194.3 11.29 7 421.0 1557.4 6526.8 10.79 8 403.1 1490.3 6210.9 10.81 9 384.0 1418.7 5885.8 10.85 10 312.3 1147.5 5310.0 11.84 11 324.4 1192.1 5661.9 11.92 12 335.5 1233.1 6040.8 12.02

TAMU Team South China Sea

71

Final Report

Appendix C: StabCAD Input/Output Files

TAMU Team South China Sea

72

Final Report

In order to run an analysis on the stability of the design vessel, the ship hull, compartments, topsides, and tanks were modeled in the StabCAD software. The ship was constructed using a series of panels which were created by connecting groups of nodes into single planes using the right hand rule. Once all of the ship sections were created using this method, and the draft line was input in the program, StabCad could then calculate the static and damaged stability curves, cross curves, and down-flooding angles of the vessel. Table 37: StabCAD Input File ALPID 3D View 0.707 0.707 -0.424 0.424 0.800 1 ALPID Global XY Pl 10.000 10.000 ALPID Global YZ Pl 10.000 10.000 ALPID Global XZ Pl 10.000 10.000 ALPREF 3D View 0.0 0.0 0.75 1 STBOPT 0 CALC ME ME PTPT CROSS DF 2. 22. 1. 0. 65. 5. 0. 18.34 CFORM 21. 22. .1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. KGPAR 51.6 25.8 1.4 0. INTACT 0. 67. 2.5 *DAMAGE 0. 55. 2.5 DRAFT 21.6 18.34 0. USER USER DWNFLD AFT STARB. POINT 178 DWNFLD AFT PORT POINT 179 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 1 1 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 2 93 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 3 154 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 4 155 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 5 164 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 6 165 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 7 166 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 8 167 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 9 168 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 10 169 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 11 170 DWNFLD BALLAST TANK 12 171 DWNFLD FORWARD STARBOARD 238 DWNFLD FORWARD PORT 235 JOINT 1 18.610 29.000 30.400 JOINT 2 42.800 10.000 3.000 JOINT 3 42.800-10.000 3.000 JOINT 4 42.800-10.000 30.400 JOINT 5 42.800 10.000 30.400 JOINT 6 67.800 10.000 30.400 JOINT 7 67.800-10.000 30.400 JOINT 8 67.800-10.000 3.000 JOINT 9 67.800 10.000 3.000 JOINT 10 107.800 10.000 3.000 JOINT 11 107.800-10.000 3.000 JOINT 12 107.800-10.000 30.400 JOINT 13 107.800 10.000 30.400 JOINT 14 147.800 10.000 30.400 JOINT 15 147.800-10.000 30.400 JOINT 16 147.800-10.000 3.000 JOINT 17 147.800 10.000 3.000

TAMU Team South China Sea

73

Final Report

JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT JOINT PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL

18 19 20 21 22 23

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

187.200 10.000 187.200-10.000 187.200-10.000 187.200 10.000 227.800 10.000 227.800-10.000 HUL 198 HUL 198 HUL 227 HUL 199 HUL 196 HUL 198 HUL 179 HUL 196 HUL 197 HUL 197 HUL 117 HUL 255 HUL 174 HUL 254 HUL 174 HUL 271 HUL 200 LQD 284 LQD 284 LQD 283 LQD 282 LQD 285 LQD 283 LQE 285 LQE 285 LQE 286 LQE 287 LQE 292 LQE 286 LQF 290 LQF 290 LQF 291 LQF 291 LQF 289 LQF 292 LQF 292 LQF 192 LQF 291 LQF 297 LQF 291 LQF 298 LQF 291 LQA 243 LQA 239 LQA 235 LQA 189 LQA 238 LQA 238 LQB 185 LQB 189 LQB 190

3.000 3.000 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.400 226 238 195 201 199 271 200 271 199 227 201 200 235 238 197 198 174 226 196 175 109 254 254 179 117 255 109 175 175 109 195 238 201 195 285 288 283 286 282 287 281 288 286 287 284 281 292 289 286 291 287 290 288 289 291 290 285 288 289 293 294 194 193 295 290 194 191 293 296 192 192 191 193 194 292 289 296 292 295 298 295 296 298 297 235 189 243 153 238 190 190 180 239 180 235 243 184 181 190 184 189 153

195 235 175 199 178 199 198 174 255 178 178 235 117 235 271 281 285 286 287 288 282 288 292 291 290 289 287 294

238 179

193

289 191 290

297 292 153 180 189 153 190 239 188 185 180 74 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

LQB LQB LQB LQC LQC LQC LQC LQC LQC FCA FCA FCA FCA FCA FCA FCA M01 M01 M01 M01 M01 M01 M02 M02 M02 M02 M02 M02 M03 M03 M03 M03 M03 M04 M04 M04 M04 M04 M04 M03 M05 M05 M05 M05 M05 M05 M06 M06 M06 M06 M06 M06 M07 M07 M07 M07 M07

190 153 180 181 188 184 185 186 184 238 201 201 235 201 200 177 543 550 547 546 547 549 551 542 543 550 550 552 554 555 356 539 554 558 559 318 319 558 560 556 578 567 563 583 583 579 576 569 570 575 575 573 584 564 568 577 577

180 189 153 188 185 181 184 183 185 235 200 238 200 176 269 269 550 547 546 543 550 548 550 551 542 543 551 549 539 554 555 356 555 319 558 559 318 559 557 553 583 578 567 563 578 582 575 576 569 570 576 574 577 584 564 568 584

181 185 188 187 186 182 183 182 188 189 235 190 177 270 177 270 549 548 545 544 543 545 549 552 541 544 542 544 540 553 556 355 356 320 557 560 317 318 320 540 582 579 566 562 567 562 574 573 572 571 569 571 580 581 561 565 564

184 188 181 182 187 183 186 187 181 190 238 176 189

176 544 549 548 545 546 544 552 541 544 549 543 541 553 556 355 540 539 557 560 317 320 319 317 355 579 566 562 582 563 566 573 572 571 574 570 572 581 561 565 580 568 75

190

189

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

M07 M08 M08 M08 M08 M08 M08 M09 M09 M09 M09 M09 M09 M10 M10 M10 M10 M10 M10 M11 M11 M11 M11 M11 M11 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M12 M13 M13 M13 M13 M13 M13 M14 M14 M14 M14 M14 M14 M15 M15 M15 M15 M15 M15 M16 M16 M16 M16 M16 M16 M17 M17

581 606 603 590 587 606 602 597 596 595 598 598 600 605 588 589 604 604 608 630 627 614 611 630 626 621 620 619 622 622 624 629 612 613 628 628 632 646 651 638 643 646 650 653 636 635 654 654 656 645 644 637 652 652 648 670 675

580 587 606 603 590 603 607 598 597 596 595 597 599 604 605 588 589 605 601 611 630 627 614 627 631 622 621 620 619 621 623 628 629 612 613 629 625 643 646 651 638 651 647 654 653 636 635 653 655 652 645 644 637 645 649 667 670

565 586 607 602 591 590 586 599 600 593 594 596 594 601 608 585 592 588 592 610 631 626 615 614 610 623 624 617 618 620 618 625 632 609 616 612 616 642 647 650 639 638 642 655 656 633 634 636 634 649 648 641 640 644 640 666 671

561 607 602 591 586 587 591 600 593 594 599 595 593 608 585 592 601 589 585 631 626 615 610 611 615 624 617 618 623 619 617 632 609 616 625 613 609 647 650 639 642 643 639 656 633 634 655 635 633 648 641 640 649 637 641 671 674 76 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

M17 M17 M17 M17 M18 M18 M18 M18 M18 M18 M19 M19 M19 M19 M19 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M23 M23 M23 M23 M23 M21 M21 M21 M21 M21 M20 M20 M20 M20 M20 M22 M22 M22 M22 M22 M24 M24 M24 M24 M24 M24 M25 M25 M25 M25 M25 M25 M26 M26 M26 M26 M26

662 667 670 674 677 660 659 678 678 680 669 668 661 676 676 672 691 695 723 731 730 732 733 733 735 739 742 741 740 740 746 743 744 745 745 747 750 749 748 748 764 765 768 761 761 763 770 775 769 774 774 776 757 760 758 759 759

675 662 675 671 678 677 660 659 677 679 676 669 668 661 669 673 690 696 728 730 733 731 732 730 734 740 739 742 741 739 745 746 743 744 746 748 747 750 749 747 761 764 765 768 764 762 775 774 770 769 775 773 760 759 757 758 760

674 663 662 666 679 680 657 658 660 658 673 672 665 664 668 664 687 682 727 735 734 736 737 731 737 696 695 681 682 742 690 691 686 687 743 728 723 722 727 750 762 763 766 767 765 767 776 773 771 772 770 772 751 752 754 753 757

663 666 667 663 680 657 658 679 659 657 672 665 664 673 661 665 686 681 722 736 735 737 734 732 736 695 681 682 696 741 691 686 687 690 744 723 722 727 728 749 763 766 767 762 768 766 771 776 772 773 769 771 754 751 753 752 758 77 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

PANEL CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND CYLIND BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL PANEL BODY PANEL PANEL PANEL

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 1

M26 SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT SRT T01 T01 T01 T01 T01 T01

751 321 323 325 327 329 331 333 335 337 339 341 343 345 347 349 351 353 9 9 8 3 6 8 10 10 11 8 13 11 17 17 16 11 14 16 18 18 19 16 21 19 25 25 24 19 22 24 26 26 27

752 322 324 326 328 330 332 334 336 338 340 342 344 346 348 350 352 354 6 8 3 2 7 9 13 11 8 9 12 10 14 16 11 10 15 17 21 19 16 17 20 18 22 24 19 18 23 25 29 27 24

2 T02 T02 T02 T02 T02 T02 3 T03 T03 T03 T03 T03 T03 4 T04 T04 T04 T04 T04 T04 5 T05 T05 T05 T05 T05 T05 6 T06 T06 T06

753 754 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 .95CRUDE 5 2 7 6 4 7 5 4 4 5 2 3 .95CRUDE 6 9 12 13 7 12 6 7 7 6 9 8 .95CRUDE 13 10 15 14 12 15 13 12 12 13 10 11 .95CRUDE 14 17 20 21 15 20 14 15 15 14 17 16 .95CRUDE 21 18 23 22 20 23 21 20 20 21 18 19 .95CRUDE 22 25 28 29 23 28 78

OIL TANK 1

OIL TANK 2

OIL TANK 3

OIL TANK 4

OIL TANK 5

OIL TANK 6

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

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

T06 T06 T06 7 T07 T07 T07 T07 T07 T07 8 T08 T08 T08 T08 T08 T08 9 T09 T09 T09 T09 T09 T09 10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 11 T11 T11 T11 T11 T11 T11 12 T12 T12 T12 T12 T12 T12 13 T13 T13 T13 T13 T13 T13 14 T14 T14 T14 T14

24 29 27 33 33 9 2 32 9 34 34 10 9 35 10 37 37 38 10 36 38 42 42 18 17 43 18 45 45 25 18 44 25 46 46 26 25 47 26 8 8 50 49 7 50 11 11 53 50

25 28 26 32 9 2 30 6 33 35 10 9 33 13 34 36 38 10 34 39 37 43 18 17 41 21 42 44 25 18 42 22 45 47 26 25 45 29 46 7 50 49 3 51 8 12 53 50 8

22 23 25 31 6 5 31 5 30 32 13 6 32 6 33 35 39 13 35 13 34 40 21 14 40 14 41 43 22 21 43 21 42 44 29 22 44 22 45 4 51 48 4 48 3 7 52 51 7

23 22 24 .95CRUDE 30 32 6 5 31 2 .95CRUDE 33 35 13 6 32 9 .95CRUDE 34 36 39 13 35 10 .95CRUDE 41 43 21 14 40 17 .95CRUDE 42 44 22 21 43 18 .95CRUDE 45 47 29 22 44 25 .95CRUDE 3 7 51 48 4 49 .95CRUDE 8 12 52 51 79

OIL TANK 7

OIL TANK 8

OIL TANK 9

OIL TANK 10

OIL TANK 11

OIL TANK 12

OIL TANK 13

OIL TANK 14

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

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

T14 T14 15 T15 T15 T15 T15 T15 T15 16 T16 T16 T16 T16 T16 T16 17 T17 T17 T17 T17 T17 T17 18 T18 T18 T18 T18 T18 T18 19 PT1 PT1 PT1 PT1 PT1 PT1 20 PT2 PT2 PT2 PT2 PT2 PT2 21 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 22 ST2 ST2 ST2 ST2 ST2

12 53 57 57 54 53 56 54 19 19 61 58 20 61 24 24 62 61 23 62 27 27 66 62 28 66 3 3 49 72 4 49 30 30 2 68 31 2 85 85 3 76 86 3 2 2 85 84 5

52 11 56 54 53 11 55 57 20 61 58 16 60 19 23 62 61 19 63 24 28 66 62 24 67 27 4 49 72 75 48 3 31 2 68 71 5 30 86 3 76 84 4 85 5 85 84 83 86

51 8 12 55 52 12 52 11 15 60 59 15 59 16 20 63 60 20 60 19 23 67 63 23 63 24 74 48 73 74 73 75 70 5 69 70 69 71 87 4 77 87 77 84 82 86 87 82 87

7 50 .95CRUDE OIL TANK 15 11 56 55 52 12 53 .95CRUDE OIL TANK 16 16 20 60 59 15 58 .95CRUDE OIL TANK 17 19 23 63 60 20 61 .95CRUDE OIL TANK 18 24 28 67 63 23 62 .95PRODUCTION TANK 1 75 4 48 73 74 72 .95PRODUCTION TANK 2 71 31 5 69 70 68 .95SLOP TANK 1 84 86 4 77 87 76 .95SLOP TANK 2 83 5 86 87 82 80 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

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

ST2 23 CO1 CO1 CO1 CO1 CO1 CO1 24 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 25 DT2 DT2 DT2 DT2 DT2 DT2 26 DT1 DT1 DT1 DT1 DT1 DT1 27 AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR AMR 28 B01 B01 B01 B01 B01 B01 B01 B01 B01 B01 29 B02 B02 B02

85 75 75 72 79 74 72 71 71 68 83 70 68 96 96 95 94 90 95 103 103 99 98 104 99 95 104 103 95 108 100 100 89 89 95 88 94 114 114 64 115 118 118 65 117 107 101 121 110 122

2 74 72 79 76 73 75 70 68 83 80 69 71 90 95 94 97 108 96 104 99 98 102 107 103 108 103 99 94 104 89 101 96 100 103 97 92 115 65 113 100 117 114 118 64 119 100 114 121 109

83 77 73 78 77 78 76 81 69 82 81 82 80 91 108 92 91 92 97 105 107 106 105 106 102 92 102 98 97 105 88 98 97 99 104 98 105 116 100 116 101 120 113 119 106 120 107 115 90 112

84 .95CRUDE OIL FUEL TANK 1 76 74 73 78 77 79 .95CRUDE OIL FUEL TANK 2 80 70 69 82 81 83 .95DOST TANK 2 97 90 108 92 91 94 .95DOST TANK 1 102 104 107 106 105 98 .85AFT MACHINE SHOP 94 105 102 96 92 101 99 88 96 108 101 102 .95BALLAST 1 113 115 101 116 119 117 107 120 106 106 .95BALLAST 2 89 111 91 81 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

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

B02 B02 B02 B02 B02 B02 B02 30 B03 B03 B03 B03 B03 B03 B03 B03 B03 B03 31 B04 B04 B04 B04 B04 B04 B04 B04 B04 B04 32 B05 B05 B05 B05 B05 B05 B05 B05 B05 B05 33 B06 B06 B06 B06 B06 B06 B06 B06 B06 B06 34 B07 B07 B07 B07 B07

111 89 113 114 114 89 109 123 124 50 126 118 51 123 130 65 118 123 124 33 125 110 121 114 129 125 128 131 130 131 132 134 138 126 53 52 134 123 137 131 34 131 125 133 129 136 34 144 141 138 148 134

90 88 122 113 110 115 110 124 50 51 123 119 127 130 126 114 65 114 115 89 110 125 110 121 123 129 32 132 123 138 53 131 134 130 52 135 126 129 131 123 132 133 133 137 125 35 33 141 142 131 144 138

91 91 88 116 109 116 111 115 100 107 114 127 119 50 127 115 107 115 89 90 114 128 111 89 124 32 90 124 124 53 50 123 135 51 51 127 127 33 132 124 124 125 136 35 128 32 32 131 132 132 145 52

112 90 116 115 113 88 112 .95BALLAST 114 115 100 118 126 107 124 51 100 119 .95BALLAST 124 33 32 123 111 90 115 33 128 111 .95BALLAST 123 50 132 124 126 52 127 50 51 135 .95BALLAST 124 34 132 33 123 128 136 32 128 35 .95BALLAST 134 131 53 59 135 82

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

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

B07 B07 B07 B07 B07 B07 B07 B07 B07 B07 35 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 B08 36 B09 B09 B09 B09 B09 B09 B09 B09 B09 B09 37 B10 B10 B10 B10 B10 B10 B10 B10 B10 B10 38 B11 B11 B11 B11 B11 B11 B11 B11

144 54 54 16 16 15 59 57 142 141 141 131 147 137 143 17 37 37 38 17 41 143 146 141 40 156 156 148 144 159 157 62 162 162 63 156 141 147 158 163 45 45 143 160 156 159 162 239 273 273 274 276 272

134 55 57 15 58 59 145 54 16 148 131 137 141 133 147 142 38 34 37 38 17 146 40 143 14 157 159 141 148 162 62 63 144 156 161 141 147 143 156 158 157 41 163 44 163 156 159 161 276 274 299 272 162

135 52 56 56 59 55 135 53 11 58 132 34 142 136 40 132 10 35 36 39 14 136 35 133 39 142 62 142 59 161 58 59 145 141 145 142 41 146 157 44 142 40 160 40 143 157 63 63 299 157 62 239 161

145 53 55 57 15 56 52 11 132 142 .95BALLAST 142 132 41 35 146 10 34 36 39 14 40 133 136 131 36 .95BALLAST 141 157 58 145 63 142 58 161 144 59 .95BALLAST 157 142 40 45 160 41 44 146 146 141 .95BALLAST 62 161 275 274 156 157 275 239 83

10

11

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

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

B11 B11 39 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 B12 40 BCT BCT BCT BCT BCT BCT 41 BDK BDK BDK BDK BDK BDK 42 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 DK4 43 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3 DK3

272 62 273 303 243 158 302 156 163 301 301 273 175 140 303 174 172 174 172 172 173 140 150 173 150 150 149 215 208 211 210 209 205 219 218 149 216 216 205 205 204 203 207 212 213 206 227 228 229 204 218 219

273 299 156 302 300 163 273 158 303 45 274 303 174 272 175 272 173 175 150 173 140 139 149 172 205 149 215 208 211 210 209 214 219 218 204 217 210 150 227 204 203 207 212 213 206 202 228 229 226 218 219 205

156 275 157 300 44 160 274 45 243 44 157 163 173 303 172 140 140 303 151 149 152 151 152 139 202 204 203 207 212 213 206 202 206 212 203 208 211 214 224 226 225 222 221 220 223 224 223 221 225 207 213 202

162 63 .95BALLAST 12 274 243 160 44 301 157 160 300 45 156 .95BOTTOM COMPARTMENT 172 139 139 173 139 272 .85BOTTOM DECK 139 150 149 152 151 140 .85BELOW DECK 4 214 205 204 203 207 212 213 206 202 213 207 215 217 209 .85BELOW DECK3 202 227 226 225 222 221 220 223 224 220 222 203 212 206 84 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

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

44 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 DK2 45 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 PW1 46 PW2 PW2 PW2 PW2 PW2 PW2 47 FW1 FW1 FW1 FW1 FW1 FW1 48 FW2 FW2 FW2 FW2 FW2 FW2 49 AST AST AST AST AST AST 50 SR2 SR2 SR2 SR2 SR2 SR2 51 FCT 197 196 175 258 258 259 260 112 259 112 259 260 261 120 258 179 120 178 179 178 261 257 257 256 255 258 256 258 256 255 254 259 257 261 259 260 261 260 254 249 249 250 251 246 250 246 250 251 248 253 249 247 253 252 247 252 248 242 242 249 248 241 249 241 249 248 230 246 242 231 246 247 231 247 230 151 214 209 210 234 209 214 209 210 151 233 214 234 233 232 243 232 151 152 211 208 215 245 215 211 208 215 152 240 208 244 245 240 239 239 211 227 227 226 225 242 230 220 223 235 233 242 226 235 226 225 242 230 220 223 224 238 241 223 227 234 238 240 241 231 232 233 234 240 231 220 224

.85BELOW DECK 2 224 235 238 240 241 231 232 233 234 232 230 225 .95PURE WATER TANK 1 239 244 245 240 244 152 .95PURE WATER TANK 2 243 234 233 232 243 210 .95FRESH WATER TANK 1 230 241 246 247 231 248 .95FRESH WATER TANK 2 248 246 253 252 247 251 .6AFT STORAGE 254 258 259 260 261 255 .6STORE ROOM 2 261 112 120 178 179 260 .6FOWARD COMPARTMENT 174 85 Final Report

TAMU Team South China Sea

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

FCT FCT FCT FCT FCT 52 SR1 SR1 SR1 SR1 SR1 SR1 SR1 SR1 53 LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS

226 199 196 196 197 198 198 198 227 199 227 199 271 117 117 109 109 257

174 198 199 197 174 201 226 195 199 200 235 227 200 109 255 257 117 256

175 226 227 198 226 200 238 201 271 271 238 226 201 254 256 254 256 255

227 227 175 199 198 .6STORE ROOM 1 199 195 235 226 198 195 238 235 .6LOWER AFT STORAGE 255

257 254

TAMU Team South China Sea

86

Final Report

Table 38: StabCAD Output File StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Page 1

The following Nomenclature is used in the computer output:

Draft ... Disp .... TPI ..... KPI ..... MT/Cm ... KMT ..... KML ..... LCB .....

Measured from the base line (z=0, or x-y plane) Displacemet of the vessel Tons/inch displacement Kips/inch displacement Metric Ton/ cm displacement Transverse metacentric height(measured from base line) Longitudinal metacentric height(measured from base line) Center of Buoyancy position (Longitudinal) (measured from reference point for LCB & LCF) TCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Transverse) (measured from coordinate system origin) VCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Vertical) (measured from base line) WPA ..... Water plane Area BMT ..... Transv metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy) BML ..... Longit metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy) LCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Longitudinal) (measured from reference point for LCB & LCF) TCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Transverse) (measured from coordinate system origin) W.P.Moment of Inertia: Longitudinal About neutral axis of water plane area Transverse About neutral axis of water plane area Volume .. of submerged body Tilt Axis The angle of the tilt axis is measured from the posive x-axis Optimum tilt angle The minimum tilt angle at which the area ratio requirement is satisfied KG that satisfies : Heeling arm = Righting arm at or before the downflooding angle Static angle At which the righting moment is zero Area ratio = 1.0 For damage stability starting at the static angle RM/HM Ratio KG that satisfies the requirement : Righting Moment/Heeling Moment >or= 2 within 7 deg past static angle TAMU Team South China Sea 87 Final Report

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

StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Page 2

* * *

Hydrostatic Table

* * * 0.00 0.00

Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter (X-Coordinate) .......

0.00

/--- Draft ---/ /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged AFT FWD Disp TPI LCB TCB VCB TCF Area Volume ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) (S.Meter) (M^3) ------- ------- -------- ------------- ------- ----------------------- --------21.00 21.00 367995.5 176.69 149.82 0.00 10.56 0.00 17237.8 359020.0 21.10 21.10 369762.3 176.72 149.81 0.00 10.61 0.00 17240.9 360743.8 21.20 21.20 371529.2 176.69 149.81 0.00 10.66 0.00 17237.8 362467.5 21.30 21.30 373296.0 176.72 149.80 0.00 10.72 0.00 17240.9 364191.2 21.40 21.40 375062.9 176.69 149.80 0.00 10.77 0.00 17237.8 365915.0 21.50 21.50 376829.8 176.72 149.79 0.00 10.82 0.00 17240.9 367638.8 21.60 21.60 378596.6 176.69 149.79 0.00 10.87 0.00 17237.8 369362.6 21.70 21.70 380363.5 176.69 149.78 0.00 10.92 0.00 17237.8 371086.3 21.80 21.80 382130.3 176.69 149.78 0.00 10.97 0.00 17237.8 372810.1 21.90 21.90 383897.2 176.69 149.77 0.00 11.02 0.00 17237.8 374533.8 22.00 22.00 385664.0 176.69 149.76 0.00 11.07 0.00 17237.8 376257.6

/-Center LCF ( M.) ------148.64 148.60 148.62 148.64 148.63 148.62 148.61 148.63 148.62 148.64 148.63

TAMU Team South China Sea

88

Final Report

StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Page 3

* * *

Hydrostatic Table

* * * 0.00 0.00

Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter (X-Coordinate) .......

0.00

/----Water Plane -----/ With KG=0 With KG=0 /--- Draft ---/ /---------- Metacenter ---------/ /-Moment Of Inertia --/ Moment to Heel Moment to Trim AFT FWD Disp KMT KML BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal 0.01 Deg. 0.01 Deg. ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M^4) ( M^4) (M.Ton-M) (M.Ton-M) ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ----------------- ------------------------------------21.00 21.00 367995.5 23.87 364.28 13.30 353.72 4776524. 126991112. 1533.1 23396.8 21.10 21.10 369762.3 23.86 362.66 13.24 352.05 4776722. 126999536. 1539.6 23404.8 21.20 21.20 371529.2 23.84 361.04 13.18 350.37 4776761. 126999152. 1546.1 23411.2 21.30 21.30 373296.0 23.83 359.40 13.12 348.68 4776594. 126987848. 1552.6 23415.8 21.40 21.40 375062.9 23.82 357.84 13.05 347.07 4776662. 126998664. 1559.2 23424.3 21.50 21.50 376829.8 23.81 356.25 12.99 345.44 4776678. 126996552. 1565.8 23430.5 21.60 21.60 378596.6 23.80 354.69 12.93 343.82 4776698. 126994648. 1572.5 23436.8 21.70 21.70 380363.5 23.79 353.14 12.87 342.22 4776644. 126993032. 1579.2 23443.2 21.80 21.80 382130.3 23.78 351.61 12.81 340.64 4776679. 126994984. 1585.9 23450.3 21.90 21.90 383897.2 23.77 350.11 12.75 339.10 4776645. 127003880. 1592.6 23458.6 22.00 22.00 385664.0 23.76 348.61 12.70 337.54 4776612. 127002912. 1599.4 23465.2 StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Page 4

* * *

Cross Curves of Stability

* * *

TAMU Team South China Sea

89

Final Report

Vertical Center of Gravity ..... Yaw Angle of Heel Axis .....

18.34 0.00

M Deg

Draft Disp /---------------------------- Righting Arm (M.) @ Heel Angles (Deg) -------------------------/ (M.) (M.Tons) 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 2.00 34005.4 10.72 9.19 3.00 51150.8 11.22 10.15 8.91 4.00 68391.3 10.49 9.66 8.66 5.00 85726.9 9.85 9.23 8.44 6.00 103157.6 9.26 8.85 8.25 7.00 120683.5 8.72 8.49 8.07 8.00 138304.5 8.22 8.16 7.90 9.00 155973.0 7.74 7.84 7.74 10.00 173641.5 7.30 7.55 7.58 11.00 191310.1 6.87 7.27 7.33 12.00 208978.6 6.47 6.98 7.00 13.00 226647.2 6.09 6.63 6.61 14.00 244315.7 5.72 6.22 6.17 15.00 261984.3 5.31 5.77 5.70 16.00 279652.8 4.86 5.27 5.20 17.00 297321.3 4.37 4.74 4.67 18.00 314989.9 3.89 4.19 4.12 19.00 332658.4 3.43 3.61 3.55 20.00 350327.0 2.98 3.04 2.97 21.00 367995.5 2.55 2.51 2.38 22.00 385664.0 2.13 2.00 1.80 12.09 0.00 7.56 0.00 7.56 0.00 7.55 0.00 7.54 0.00 7.54 0.00 7.53 0.00 7.53 0.00 7.45 0.00 7.25 0.00 6.96 0.00 6.61 0.00 6.22 0.00 5.78 0.00 5.31 0.00 4.82 0.00 4.31 0.00 3.79 0.00 3.25 0.00 2.69 0.00 2.13 0.00 1.56 10.25 5.88 6.68 6.16 4.70 6.39 3.54 6.59 2.77 6.77 2.24 6.93 1.84 6.94 1.54 6.82 1.31 6.59 1.12 6.30 0.98 5.96 0.86 5.57 0.77 5.15 0.70 4.71 0.64 4.25 0.59 3.77 0.55 3.28 0.52 2.78 0.50 2.26 0.49 1.74 0.48 1.21 13.77 4.18 11.20 4.74 9.04 5.21 7.15 5.63 5.61 5.98 4.52 6.12 3.72 6.09 3.12 5.94 2.66 5.72 2.29 5.43 2.00 5.10 1.76 4.75 1.57 4.36 1.42 3.95 1.30 3.53 1.21 3.10 1.13 2.65 1.07 2.19 1.03 1.73 1.00 1.26 0.98 0.78 14.43 12.47 10.82 9.36 8.04 6.83 5.71 4.80 4.09 3.54 3.09 2.74 2.45 2.22 2.03 1.88 1.77 1.67 1.60 1.55 1.52 14.10 12.56 11.27 10.13 9.10 8.14 7.26 6.43 5.64 4.91 4.31 3.83 3.44 3.12 2.87 2.66 2.49 2.36 2.26 2.15 1.99 13.25 12.07 11.07 10.20 9.40 8.66 7.98 7.33 6.73 6.15 5.61 5.08 4.59 4.18 3.85 3.58 3.32 3.05 2.76 2.46 2.15

Draft Disp /---------------------------- Righting Arm (M.) Heel Angles (Deg) -------------------------/ (M.) (M.Tons) 60.00 65.00 2.00 3.00 34005.4 51150.8 2.51 3.37 0.95 2.12 90

TAMU Team South China Sea

Final Report

4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00

68391.3 85726.9 103157.6 120683.5 138304.5 155973.0 173641.5 191310.1 208978.6 226647.2 244315.7 261984.3 279652.8 297321.3 314989.9 332658.4 350327.0 367995.5 385664.0

4.10 4.71 5.02 5.10 5.04 4.89 4.68 4.41 4.12 3.79 3.45 3.09 2.71 2.33 1.93 1.53 1.12 0.71 0.29

3.10 3.64 3.87 3.92 3.85 3.71 3.52 3.29 3.03 2.75 2.45 2.14 1.82 1.49 1.16 0.81 0.46 0.11 -0.25

StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Page 5

* * * Intact Stability Downflooding Point Table * * *

Intact Draft .............. Displacement .............. Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = Angle of Tilt Axis ........

21.60 M 378596.6 M.Tons 149.79; 0.00; 0.00 Deg

18.34

Downflooding Points Height Above Water (M) -------------------------------------------Downflooding Angle = 16.88 Deg @ AFT STARB. POINT Weathertight Angle = 16.88 Deg @ AFT STARB. POINT

H E E L A N G L E S ------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 ------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Int/Dam AFT STARB. POINT 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.8 -6.4 2 Int/Dam AFT PORT POINT 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.4

TAMU Team South China Sea

91

Final Report

3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.4 4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.8 -6.4 5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.8 -6.4 6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.4 7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.4 8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.7 -6.3 9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 7 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.7 -6.3 10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.5 11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 9 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.5 12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.7 -6.3 13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.7 -6.3 14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.5 15 Int/Dam FORWARD STARBOARD 8.8 7.5 6.2 4.9 3.6 2.3 1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -3.2 -4.7 -6.3 16 Int/Dam FORWARD PORT 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.5 13.7 14.9 16.0 17.1 18.1 19.0 19.8 20.5 ------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H E E L A N G L E S ------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DF PT. Type Description 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 ------- ------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Int/Dam AFT STARB. POINT -8.0 -9.7 -11.4 -13.2 -15.0 -16.7 -18.5 -20.2 -21.9 -23.5 -25.1 -26.7 2 Int/Dam AFT PORT POINT 21.0 21.4 21.8 22.1 22.3 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.4 22.2 3 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 1 21.0 21.5 21.8 22.1 22.3 22.5 22.5 22.6 22.6 22.5 22.4 22.3 4 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 2 -8.0 -9.7 -11.4 -13.2 -14.9 -16.7 -18.5 -20.2 -21.9 -23.5 -25.1 -26.7 5 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 3 -8.0 -9.7 -11.4 -13.1 -14.9 -16.7 -18.4 -20.1 -21.8 -23.5 -25.1 -26.6 6 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 4 21.0 21.5 21.9 22.2 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.5 22.5 22.3 7 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 5 21.0 21.5 21.9 22.2 22.4 22.6 22.6 22.7 22.7 22.6 22.5 22.4 8 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 6 -8.0 -9.7 -11.4 -13.1 -14.9 -16.6 -18.4 -20.1 -21.8 -23.4 -25.0 -26.5 9 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 7 -8.0 -9.6 -11.3 -13.1 -14.8 -16.6 -18.3 -20.0 -21.7 -23.3 -24.9 -26.5 TAMU Team South China Sea 92 Final Report

10 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 8 21.0 21.5 21.9 22.2 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.6 22.5 11 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 9 21.1 21.6 22.0 22.3 22.5 22.7 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.7 22.6 12 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 10 -7.9 -9.6 -11.3 -13.0 -14.8 -16.5 -18.2 -20.0 -21.6 -23.2 -24.8 -26.4 13 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 11 -7.9 -9.6 -11.2 -13.0 -14.7 -16.4 -18.2 -19.9 -21.5 -23.1 -24.7 -26.3 14 Int/Dam BALLAST TANK 12 21.1 21.6 22.0 22.4 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.8 22.7 15 Int/Dam FORWARD STARBOARD -7.9 -9.5 -11.2 -12.9 -14.6 -16.4 -18.1 -19.8 -21.5 -23.1 -24.7 -26.2 16 Int/Dam FORWARD PORT 21.1 21.6 22.1 22.4 22.6 22.8 22.9 23.0 23.0 22.9 22.9 22.7 ------- ------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------- ------DF PT. Type ------- ------1 Int/Dam 2 Int/Dam 3 Int/Dam 4 Int/Dam 5 Int/Dam 6 Int/Dam 7 Int/Dam 8 Int/Dam 9 Int/Dam 10 Int/Dam 11 Int/Dam 12 Int/Dam 13 Int/Dam 14 Int/Dam 15 Int/Dam 16 Int/Dam ------- -------

-------------------Description -------------------AFT STARB. POINT AFT PORT POINT BALLAST TANK 1 BALLAST TANK 2 BALLAST TANK 3 BALLAST TANK 4 BALLAST TANK 5 BALLAST TANK 6 BALLAST TANK 7 BALLAST TANK 8 BALLAST TANK 9 BALLAST TANK 10 BALLAST TANK 11 BALLAST TANK 12 FORWARD STARBOARD FORWARD PORT --------------------

H E E L A N G L E S --------------------60.0 62.5 65.0 ---------------------28.2 -29.6 -31.0 22.0 21.8 21.6 22.1 21.9 21.6 -28.1 -29.6 -31.0 -28.1 -29.5 -30.9 22.1 21.9 21.6 22.2 22.0 21.7 -28.0 -29.5 -30.8 -27.9 -29.4 -30.8 22.3 22.1 21.8 22.4 22.2 21.9 -27.8 -29.3 -30.7 -27.7 -29.2 -30.5 22.5 22.3 22.0 -27.7 -29.1 -30.5 22.6 22.4 22.1 ---------------------

* * *

Intact Stability Parameters

* * *

Draft at no Heel .......... Displacement .............. Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) =

21.60 M 378596.6 M.Tons 149.79; 0.00; M/Sec

18.34

Wind Speed ................ 51.60 Wind Direction is Normal to Tilt Axis Range of Stability ........ Downflooding Angle ........ Weathertight Angle ........ 64.09 16.88 16.88

Deg Deg @ AFT STARB. POINT Deg @ AFT STARB. POINT

TAMU Team South China Sea

93

Final Report

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/--Angles w.r.t.--/ Critical Yaw Angle /--- Angles ---/ /-- Yawed axis ---/ Downflood Of /- w.r.t. Ship-/ Righting Heeling /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ Heel Trim Height Tilt Axis Heel Trim Arm Arm LCB TCB VCB (Deg) (Deg) (M) (Deg) (Deg) (Deg) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) ------------------- -------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------0.00 0.00 8.8( 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 149.79 0.00 10.87 2.50 0.00 7.5( 1) 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.24 0.12 149.79 -0.56 10.88 5.00 0.00 6.2( 1) 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.48 0.14 149.79 -1.13 10.91 7.50 0.00 4.9( 1) 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.73 0.15 149.79 -1.70 10.98 10.00 0.00 3.6( 1) 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.98 0.17 149.79 -2.28 11.07 12.50 0.00 2.3( 1) 0.00 12.50 0.00 1.25 0.18 149.79 -2.87 11.18 15.00 0.00 1.0( 1) 0.00 15.00 0.00 1.53 0.20 149.79 -3.46 11.33 17.50 0.00 -0.3( 1) 0.00 17.50 0.00 1.83 0.22 149.79 -4.07 11.51 20.00 0.00 -1.7( 1) 0.00 20.00 0.00 2.05 0.23 149.79 -4.61 11.69 22.50 -0.01 -3.2( 1) 0.00 22.50 0.01 2.20 0.24 149.78 -5.06 11.86 25.00 -0.01 -4.8( 1) 0.00 25.00 0.01 2.27 0.25 149.78 -5.45 12.03 27.50 -0.02 -6.4( 1) 0.00 27.50 0.02 2.30 0.26 149.78 -5.79 12.20 30.00 -0.03 -8.0( 1) 0.00 30.00 0.03 2.30 0.26 149.78 -6.10 12.37 32.50 -0.04 -9.7( 1) 0.00 32.50 0.04 2.26 0.26 149.78 -6.37 12.54 35.00 -0.05 -11.4( 1) 0.00 35.00 0.06 2.20 0.26 149.78 -6.63 12.71 37.50 -0.05 -13.2( 1) 0.00 37.50 0.07 2.12 0.26 149.78 -6.86 12.88 40.00 -0.06 -15.0( 1) 0.00 40.00 0.08 2.03 0.26 149.78 -7.08 13.06 42.50 -0.07 -16.7( 1) 0.00 42.50 0.09 1.92 0.25 149.78 -7.29 13.24 45.00 -0.07 -18.5( 1) 0.00 45.00 0.11 1.79 0.25 149.77 -7.46 13.41 47.50 -0.08 -20.2( 1) 0.00 47.50 0.12 1.62 0.24 149.77 -7.61 13.56 50.00 -0.09 -21.9( 1) 0.00 50.00 0.13 1.43 0.24 149.77 -7.74 13.71 52.50 -0.09 -23.5( 1) 0.00 52.50 0.15 1.21 0.23 149.77 -7.85 13.84 55.00 -0.10 -25.1( 1) 0.00 55.00 0.17 0.97 0.22 149.77 -7.94 13.97 TAMU Team South China Sea 94 Final Report

57.50 -0.10 -26.7( 1) 0.00 57.50 0.19 0.72 0.21 149.77 -8.02 14.08 60.00 -0.10 -28.2( 1) 0.00 60.00 0.21 0.46 0.21 149.77 -8.09 14.20 62.50 -0.11 -29.6( 1) 0.00 62.50 0.23 0.18 0.20 149.77 -8.15 14.30 65.00 -0.11 -31.0( 1) 0.00 65.00 0.26 -0.10 0.19 149.77 -8.20 14.40 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * Intact Stability Allowable KG * * *

Draft at no Heel .......... 21.60 M Displacement .............. 378596.62 M.Tons Center of Gravity (X,Y,Z) = 149.79; 0.00; Yaw Angle Of Tilt Axis .... Downflooding Angle ........ Weathertight Angle ........ 0.00 16.88 16.88

18.34

Deg Deg @ AFT STARB. POINT Deg @ AFT STARB. POINT

* * * * *

Wind Speed

51.60

M/Sec

* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Allowable Optimum Range Of Area /--Intercept--/ Condition KG Tilt Angle Stability Ratio 1st 2nd (M) (Deg) (Deg) /----(Deg)----/ ----------------------------------- ---------- --------- ----- --------------For Input KG = 18.34 1.20 62.33 Area Ratio = 1.40 6.36 28.84 22.56 16.88 16.88

5.27

16.88

16.88

1.40

1st Intercept = 15.00 0.56 15.00 21.96 2nd Intercept = 30.00 1.54 5.57 30.00

23.49

16.88

16.88

22.41

16.88

16.88

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

StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Page 8

TAMU Team South China Sea

95

Final Report

* * *

Righting Arm And Heeling Arm Curves

* * *

Draft at no Heel .......... Displacement ..............

21.60 378596.6

M M.Tons

---------------------------------------------------------------------Heel Heeling Arm Righting Arm Data For Calculated KG (Deg) 51.60 0.00 18.34 22.56 23.49 22.41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.12 0.00 0.24 0.05 0.01 0.06 5.00 0.14 0.00 0.48 0.11 0.03 0.13 7.50 0.15 0.00 0.73 0.18 0.06 0.20 10.00 0.17 0.00 0.98 0.25 0.09 0.28 12.50 0.18 0.00 1.25 0.34 0.14 0.37 15.00 0.20 0.00 1.53 0.44 0.20 0.48 17.50 0.22 0.00 1.83 0.56 0.28 0.61 20.00 0.23 0.00 2.05 0.61 0.29 0.66 22.50 0.24 0.00 2.20 0.58 0.23 0.64 25.00 0.25 0.00 2.27 0.49 0.10 0.55 27.50 0.26 0.00 2.30 0.35 -0.07 0.42 30.00 0.26 0.00 2.30 0.18 -0.28 0.26 32.50 0.26 0.00 2.26 -0.01 -0.51 0.07 35.00 0.26 0.00 2.20 -0.22 -0.75 -0.13 37.50 0.26 0.00 2.12 -0.45 -1.01 -0.36 40.00 0.26 0.00 2.03 -0.69 -1.28 -0.59 42.50 0.25 0.00 1.92 -0.93 -1.55 -0.82 45.00 0.25 0.00 1.79 -1.20 -1.85 -1.09 47.50 0.24 0.00 1.62 -1.49 -2.17 -1.38 50.00 0.24 0.00 1.43 -1.81 -2.52 -1.69 52.50 0.23 0.00 1.21 -2.14 -2.87 -2.02 55.00 0.22 0.00 0.97 -2.49 -3.24 -2.36 57.50 0.21 0.00 0.72 -2.84 -3.62 -2.71 60.00 0.21 0.00 0.46 -3.20 -4.00 -3.07 62.50 0.20 0.00 0.18 -3.57 -4.38 -3.43 65.00 0.19 0.00 -0.10 -3.93 -4.77 -3.79 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ Page 9

* * *

Program Generated Wind Loads 21.60 378596.6 0.00

* * * M M.Tons Deg Final Report

Vessel Draft .............. Displacement .............. Heel Angle ................ TAMU Team South China Sea 96

Wind Speed ................ Wind Direction ............ Heeling Arm ...............

51.60 -90.00 0.11

M/Sec Deg M

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Description GID Area Cs Equiv. Modified Wind VCG Wind Mom. Under Water Ch Area Force To W.S. To W.S. Area VCG (Sq.Mt) (Sq.Mt) (M.Tons) (Mt) (MT.Mt) (Sq.Mt) (Mt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HUL 2664.01 1.00 1.00 2664.01 441.90 4.41 1949.2 LQD 61.20 1.00 1.10 67.32 11.17 20.55 229.5 LQE 61.20 1.00 1.10 67.32 11.17 23.55 263.0 LQF 72.15 1.00 1.10 79.37 13.16 26.63 350.5 LQA 86.70 1.00 1.00 86.70 14.38 10.92 157.1 LQB 61.20 1.00 1.03 62.85 10.43 14.58 152.0 LQC 61.20 1.00 1.10 67.32 11.17 17.55 196.0 FCA 72.91 1.00 1.00 72.91 12.09 10.98 132.8 M01 146.30 1.00 1.07 157.02 26.05 17.90 466.2 M02 146.30 1.00 1.07 157.02 26.05 17.90 466.2 M03 146.30 1.00 1.07 157.02 26.05 17.90 466.2 M04 146.30 1.00 1.07 157.02 26.05 17.90 466.2 M05 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2 M06 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2 M07 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2 M08 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2 M09 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2 M10 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2 M11 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2 M12 333.30 1.00 1.07 357.72 59.34 17.90 1062.2

TAMU Team South China Sea

97

Final Report

59.34 59.34 59.34 59.34 59.34 59.34 59.34 5.81 36.47 19.10 9.55 1.56 1.56 1.56 51.38

17.90 17.90 17.90 17.90 17.90 17.90 17.90 10.55 15.12 15.12 15.12 10.55 10.55 10.55 10.55

M13 1062.2 M14 1062.2 M15 1062.2 M16 1062.2 M17 1062.2 M18 1062.2 M19 1062.2 M23 61.3 M21 551.3 M20 288.6 M22 144.3 M24 16.4 M25 16.4 M26 16.4 SRT 542.1 HUL

333.30 333.30 333.30 333.30 333.30 333.30 333.30 35.00 210.10 110.00 55.00 9.38 9.38 9.39 619.50

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50

1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

357.72 357.72 357.72 357.72 357.72 357.72 357.72 35.00 219.88 115.12 57.56 9.38 9.38 9.39 309.75

6450.40 -10.74 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total 1646.69 13.89 22864.5 6450.40 -10.74

TAMU Team South China Sea

98

Final Report

* * *

Program Generated Wind Loads 21.60 378596.6 65.00 51.60 -90.00 0.19

* * * M M.Tons Deg M/Sec Deg M

Vessel Draft .............. Displacement .............. Heel Angle ................ Wind Speed ................ Wind Direction ............ Heeling Arm ...............

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Description GID Area Cs Equiv. Modified Wind VCG Wind Mom. Under Water Ch Area Force To W.S. To W.S. Area VCG (Sq.Mt) (Sq.Mt) (M.Tons) (Mt) (MT.Mt) (Sq.Mt) (Mt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------HUL 6495.44 1.00 1.03 6687.90 1109.37 11.04 12242.8 LQD 428.08 1.00 1.03 439.80 72.95 10.70 780.2 LQE 453.94 1.00 1.03 468.25 77.67 11.36 882.3 LQF 873.56 1.00 1.06 926.69 153.72 16.66 2560.7 LQA 487.30 1.00 1.04 504.94 83.76 12.21 1022.7 LQB 513.17 1.00 1.04 533.39 88.48 12.87 1138.4 LQC 539.03 1.00 1.04 561.85 93.20 13.52 1260.1 FCA 243.15 1.00 1.01 246.58 40.90 8.56 350.3 M02 18.03 1.00 1.00 18.03 2.99 0.68 2.0 M03 61.66 1.00 1.00 61.66 10.23 2.32 23.7 M04 244.45 1.00 1.02 250.05 41.48 10.42 432.3 M06 139.14 1.00 1.00 139.14 23.08 2.30 53.0 M07 690.08 1.00 1.04 716.04 118.77 12.68 1505.6 M09 137.31 1.00 1.00 137.31 22.78 2.27 51.6 M10 690.08 1.00 1.04 715.85 118.74 12.61 1497.9 M12 135.48 1.00 1.00 135.48 22.47 2.24 50.2 M13 690.08 1.00 1.04 715.67 118.71 12.55 1490.3 M15 133.65 1.00 1.00 133.65 22.17 2.21 48.9 TAMU Team South China Sea 99 Final Report

118.68 21.86 118.65 14.88 12.41 2.78 6.53 13053.55 396.49 370.63 659.32 621.68 585.04 559.18 375.89 164.05 226.54 29.34 690.08 168.13 690.08 169.96 690.08 171.79 690.08 173.63 690.08 175.46

12.49 2.18 12.43 12.40 0.98 16.30 9.31 -21.56

M16 1482.6 M18 47.6 M19 1475.0 M23 184.6 M21 12.1 M26 45.2 SRT 60.8 HUL LQD

690.08 131.81 690.08 88.20 74.79 15.68 75.44

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50

1.04 1.00 1.04 1.02 1.00 1.07 1.04

715.49 131.81 715.30 89.71 74.79 16.73 39.38

-9.72 LQE -9.08 LQF -12.33 LQA -15.24 LQB -14.34 LQC -13.71 FCA -10.98 M01 -18.55 M02 -8.52 M03 -1.10 M05 -13.38 M06 -2.77 M08 -13.44 M09 -2.80 M11 -13.50 M12 -2.83 M14 -13.56 M15 -2.87 M17 -13.62 M18 -2.90

TAMU Team South China Sea

100

Final Report

M21 223.81 409.01 113.87 15.67 15.67 -2.93 M20 -14.83 M22 -10.33 M24 -24.20 M25 -3.98 SRT 93.19 -10.47 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total 2517.27 11.40 28701.1 22222.31 -17.54

Input File Name:E:\OCEN 407\2006 TEAM 3 SOUTH CHINA Output File Name:E:\OCEN 407\2006 TEAM 3 SOUTH CHINA

* * *

Problem Description

* * * 738 628 118 0

Number Of Joints ............. Number Of Plates ............. Number Of Cylinders .......... Number Of Stations ...........

Total Execution time =

0: 0: 4

(000)

TAMU Team South China Sea

101

Final Report