Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) International Offshore and Polar Enghleering Conference Stavanger, Norway, June 17-22, 2001

Copyright 2001 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1-880653-51-6 (SeO; ISBN 1-880653-52-4 (Vol. I); ISSN 1098-6189 (SeO

Criterion of Offshore Jacket Launching Analysis

Chul H. Jo, Kyung S. Kim, Jae H. Kim and S.H. Lee Inha University Inchon, Korea

ABSTRACT In the large offshore structure installation, a lunching process is considered one of the most critical operations. As the size of structure increases, it limits the availability of offshore crane facilities. So often large jackets are installed by launching method. This method is also utilized to other type of large structures offshore. As the structure approaches to the tilt beam in the launching barge, it reaches a critical load and there are parameters affecting on launching procedure. The major influential parameters are trim, draft of barge, center of gravity, center of buoyancy and reserved buoyancy of jacket. As increasing of trim and draft, structural loads tend to decrease. The trim is found to be more contributing than draft on structural load, therefore the trim should be increased so as to decrease structural loads and to avoid stalling of structure and submergence of stern. During the launching process, the distance between jacket and seabed should be investigated which differs from the amount of reserved buoyancy and launching condition of barge. In this paper, the effects of parameters on launching process are intensively examined by numerical modeling.

Keywords

Jacket, Launching, Trim Angle

Whatever the cause is, the failure of launching implicates a delay of construction and an economic loss. The launching analysis needs to consider quite a number of parameters including environment, jacket dimension and specification, launch barge and launch conditions. Due to complexity of operation, there is not a straight forward guideline or procedure for analysis. The analysis can be executed by separating launch phases. The launching operation takes place in calm water after securely fastening the barge from dynamic motions. After most of sea-fastening components are removed, a ballasting starts maintaining about a range of 2 to 4 degrees in which the structure doesn't slide with its own weight. It is observed in the study that it has better workability to secure as larger tilting angle as possible as long as the jacket can not slide by its own weight. However, an excessive tilting angle causes a jacket stalling which can endangers the launching itself with potential hazard to structure and barge. As the center of weight moves to rocker arm pin, the rocker arm rotates up to the maximum allowable angle and the jacket slides and is launched to the sea. After the jacket is launched, due to buoyancy, the jacket emerges to surface after a certain time. This stage takes place for a short time around 60 seconds for a medium size jacket in 120 to 150 meter water depths. The launch procedure can be divided into four stages such as: 1st-sliding stage : sliding with its own weight and supplementary equipment 2nd-rotating stage : rotating w.r.t, rocker arm pin when over turning moment is large than up-righting moment 3rd-sliding and rotating stage : after rotating w.r.t, rocker arm pin, sliding and rotating occur simultaneously 4th-clearing stage : a jacket separates completely from barge INFLUENCE FACTORS Influence factors to minimize the applied loads on the structure during the pre-launching process vary depending on the pre-launching

INTRODUCTION One of the important contribution factors in offshore jacket design is the installation method. Depending on the installation method, the stresses to members during installation vary which can be implied on the structural arrangement, selection of member in dimension and specification. For large jacket installation, a launching method is often applied. Even if a launching process takes a place in a relatively short time, the operation decides the success or failure of installation. The failure could result in significant loss such as; damage of local members, defect to transportation barge, overturning of unit (jacket and barge all together), and even total loss of structure. (Gerwick, 1986) Sircar, et. al (1990) concluded that the influential factors differ from pre-launching conditions and specification of structure to be launched. Chakrabarti (1995) also described a model test of a gravity-based offshore structure for launching process.

90

condition of barge and structure specification.

Barge influence factors

a' (,~;,) = w +F,,

dt

+F~ +F~
jacket mass

(4)

The barge influence factors differ from launching conditions even in the identical barges. The pre-launch condition is dependent on draft, trim and tilting beam length which contribute on the following parameters: -

where,

m
o

n = W = Fp = F~ = F~ =

jacket velocity in heave or surge direction jacket weight in heave or surge direction pin reaction force on rocket ann from heave or surge direction jacket buoyance in heave or surge direction jacket hydrodynamic force in heave or surge direction

Maximum rocker tipping load Minimum length of launch leg remaining on rockers Maximum barge submerging depth Maximum jacket dive depth Maximum slide velocity of horizontal braces Stability of barge during launch Longitudinal strength of barge

--2(Ic%) = M z / + M e , N
at

+Mp +M e +M H

In the paper, the optimization for the three pre-launching conditions considering the mentioned seven parameters is conducted.
Jacket Influence Factors

(5)

where,

= transverse mass moment of inertia of jacket w.r.t. C.G. 0)3 = angular velocity in z axis

The jacket type and dimension are not uniform but diverse for each case. However, the influence parameters of jacket during launching are decided as Center of gravity, Center of buoyancy, Reserved b u o y a n c y quantity a n d Jacket length/titling beam len~h ratio. Changing the above parameters and considering the pre-launch conditions, the effects of parameters are investigated. Since the jacket should float after launching, it should have reserved buoyancy to satisfy the stable condition.
LOAD ESTIMATION Applied

Mw = moment due to weight Mp~v = moment acting on pin M B = moment due to buoyance M~ = moment dye to hydrodynamic force
Loads

The loads relating to jacket during launching are the self-weight, inertia force due to jacket motion, buoyancy, hydrodynamic drag and inertia forces, constraint force from barge and jacket interface. As illustrated in Fig. 1 in the space fixed coordinate system, the origin of coordinate lies at the free surface; the x-axis on the launching direction and the y-axis on the vertical direction toward the tilting beam pin. In the structure fixed coordinate system, the origin stays at the center of gravity with il axis on the launching direction. For il, iv i3 in the fixed coordinate system, if the rotation angles are represented asD ~ ,~o,o the angular velocities of col,c%,co~ are obtained from the following equations: co] = (p cos 0 -; cos (p sin 0
e o

From the launch trajectory study, the applied loads on structure can be obtained which are employed in the structural analysis. At the moment when the maximum load is applied, the jacket is supported only by rocker ann and right after the tilting beam is tilted, the jacket inertia force increase as its dynamic motion increases. Also the most of jacket weight except a small portion of buoyancy on the upper part acts on a rocker ann. The load being supported by the reaction force from pin acts as a constraint force from barge and jacket interface. Tlfis constraint force implicates to jacket as a distributing load on the launch leg along the tilting beam. As the distribution loads are applied at the tilting beam, the constraint force acts on the launch leg of jacket. The reaction force of pin is composed of normal and tangential force components. And the reaction force to tangential direction is described
asz

F r e = F d F Np

(6)

where, F a

= friction coefficient between launch rulmer and tilting

(1)
(2)

o)2 = (psin 0 + ; cos~ocos0

beam FNp = normal reaction force The constraint force can be decided from the equilibrium condition between the reaction force obtained from titling beam and the entire weight of the structure. The hydrodynamic force consists of drag, added mass and hydro-damping forces. Due to a small quantity of damping force, the hydrodynamic force is considered to have drag and inertia forces neglecting the damping force. The velocity at an arbitrary point, P of the structure is
U e = Uca + co x 7

(3)
Assuming that the launching operation takes place during a calm condition, it can be defined that only the motion of a x-y plane occurs with the symmetric characteristic of the jacket. Since only x, y, o(co~) motions are acting during the launching phase, o)1 = 0, co~--0, and co3 = ~. The jacket and barge motions are coupled with heave-pitch (y0 ) and surge-pitch (x-0 ). The equation of motion of heave and surge directions in a fixed coordinate system is described as below:

(7) = structure velocity at P

where,

Ue

91

Ucc =
co 7" = =

sliding velocity angular velocity at CG position vector from CG to P

factors, the optimum launching conditions are obtained for each jacket model. The main specifications for four jackets are presented in Tables 2 to 5. Fig. 2 to 3 show four jackets for one case only used in the study. RESULT ANALYSIS
Maximum constraint force

By differentiating Equation (12) w.r.t, time t, the acceleration at point P can be derived as:

Up = U c ~ +(co x r) + (co2 x r)

(8)

where,

Up
g
O9
cG

= structure acceleration at P = sliding acceleration = angular acceleration of CG

LAUNCH ANALYSIS AND M O D E L I N G The analysis includes a time history description of the jacket and barge motion containing displacement, velocity and acceleration. During the launch analysis, it classifies jacket ad barge motion into one of the five launch phases. a. b. Phase 1 motion occurs when the structure is sliding on the barge due to which action with no tipping on the rocker arm. Phase 2 motion is defined when the structure is sliding on the barge due to gravity or self-weight with no tipping of the rocker
arm.

Constraint force is the biggest load acting on jacket during launching process. For a safe launching, this force is to be minimized. As the jacket rotates w.r.t, the tilt beam, the constraint force acting on pin reaches the maximum. This is the major contributing reaction force on the jacket during launch. As the draft and trim increase the force on the pin decreases due to the buoyancy created as the jacket submerged. In order to reduce the constraint force with the counter force, it is desired to use the buoyancy of jacket by increasing the submerged area when it rotates the tilt beam. Even the large draft and trim can reduce the constraint force, it is not feasible to increase the both simultaneously. Should the both draft and trim become too large the bow of barge can be submerged which is necessary to limit the trim. Therefore, the optimum draft and trim values are to be determined to avoid the bow submerging during launching process. Fig. 4 to 7 show the trim versus load ratio that represents the ratio between constraint force and jacket weight for various drafts. Figures indicate the minimum constraint force occurs at the maximum trim for the same drafts. It is observed that the trim has more effects than the draft in the reduction of constraint force. Having a certain trim,, the increase of draft can also reduce the load on the pin, however its effect is limited. If the trim increases too much to reduce the constraint force, a stalling can occur if an equilibrium condition reaches between buoyancy and sliding force.
Constraint force variation

c. d. e.

Phase 3 motion occurs when the structure is sliding on the barge due to winch action with a tipping on the rocker ann. Phase 4 motion results from the structure sliding due to self-weight (gravity) with a tipping on the rocker arm. Phase 5 motion is the motion that occurs after the structure and the barge are separated.

The launch analysis has been executed as per the three modes as detailed below: a. A time history analysis including the behavior of jacket on the barge at specific stages b. An analysis for change of structure position from the final time step of the previous mode c. A post launch analysis consisting of launch loads for a particular time step To conduct the parametric study on launching process, four barge and four jacket types are modeled. The prime dimensions of barges are shown in Table 1. In the jacket modeling, the 1 to 8 batter slope is applied in modeling. For vertical members, K-type and X-type members are used following the general design practice. Members in upper area are designed to locate above 1 meter of splash zone to avoid wave loads. To absorb excessive loads when it passes the rocker arm, launch truss is designed to occupy about 7% of jacket weight. The minimum thickness is 0.375 inch (9.53 ram) regardless of material strength. The D/t ratio of 90 is the maximum value for ASTM A-36 material. Slenderness ratio is the most important factor detemfining the diameter of member. The recommended range of slenderness ratio from 70 to 100 is used. Various types of jackets are considered with the height of 50m, 75m 100m and 125m to investigate the effects of contributing factors in launching process. The contributing factors of jacket in lunching are C.G. and C.B., jacket weight and buoyancy. Changing the contributing

The constraint force diminishes gradually as the tilt beam rotates with jacket. This is because as the jacket rotates with tilt beam the buoyancy created by the submerged area acts against jacket weight. As the tile beam rotates the jacket will rotate together with the beam and also slide down simultaneously. This combined motion will generate the velocity and acceleration being changed at each stage. The maximum velocity is generated during the sliding of jacket on the tilt beam and the maximum angular and sliding accelerations occur at the moment when the jacket and barge separate. As the launching process is progressing the load on the tilt beam pin decreases since the buoyancy will grow as the submerged area of jacket increases. The changes of constraint force during the launch process are presented in Tables 6 to 9. As observed in the series of output, the constraint force reaches its maximum when the tilt beam starts rotating and decreases as the launch is progressing. The load acting on the pin becomes up to 20 % of the jacket weight when the jacket and barge separate.
Inertia and hydrodynamic forces

The inertia and hydrodynamic forces acting on the jacket reach their maximum as the tilt beam starts rotating. The changes of inertia and hydrodynamic forces for various drafts and trims are summarized in Fig. 8. The load rate is related to many factors such as jacket weight, buoyancy and tangential force due to tilt beam friction and load created by jacket motion. Since the friction becomes smaller as the jacket sliding velocity increases, if the jacket velocity rises the load becomes smaller. During this process, the impact load will be carried to the jacket. It was observed that as the trim angle increases the inertial force 92

and the impact load on the jacket end tend to decrease but not as much reduction to the constraint force on the tilt beam. The cause of a smaller constraint force with large trim angle can be explained from the compensation of buoyancy to the jacket weight. As the trim angle increases, the buoyancy increases as well resulting in the decrease of inertial force.
Trim and draft determination

and Self-Upend Analysis of the Kilauea Jacket Using Proven Analytical Techniques, Offshore Technology Conference

j.. -"J~

To optimize the launching operation with the specific location, jacket and environmental conditions, the appropriate draft and trim angle are to be examined. For many cases, trim angle has more effects on the launch condition than draft. To have the minimum applied load on the structure, the trim and draft are to be determined by the following sequences:
-

Fig. 1 Launching coordinate system

Trim when the jacket start sliding by its own weight Draft before the barge submerged at the trim decided previously The strolling with the given trim and draft The stability of structure with the given trim and draft If satisfied, determine the draft and trim for launch
trajectory

Launching

For various drafts and trims, the launch trajectories are obtained but here only two cases are presented as shown Figs. 9 and 10. CONCLUSION From the study, the following conclusions are made for the effects of parameters in launching operation: 1). The increase of draft and trim diminishes the load acting on the jacket. The trim has more effects than the draft on the acting load. An excessive trim angle with large draft causes a submerging of barge bow resulting a strolling during launch operation.

Case 1-1

Case 2-1 2). Since the deference of gab between jacket and seabed during launch doesn't seem to be great for various drafts, trim angles or the reserved buoyancy of jacket, it is not strongly necessary to make a large reserved buoyancy to secure an enough gab to avoid a contact with seabed. 3). The constraint force reaches the maximum when the tilt beam starts rotating and it gradually decreases until the separation of jacket and barge. If the tile tilt beam length is longer, the larger range of jacket members is to be stiffened. 4). The impact load created when the jacket separates from the barge can be reduced with increase of draft and trim angle. Considering and optimizing the parameters and their effects on the offshore structure during launch operation, the stability of structure and the safety of barge can be obtained. REFERENCE Charkrabarti, K. Subrata (1995). "Scale Effects on a Unique Launch Sequence of a Gravity-Based Structure", Applied Ocean Research 17, pp. 33-41 Gerwick, C. Ben (1986). "Construction of Offshore Structures", John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fig.3 Sircar, S., Chandra, T., Manguno, S. (1990). "Transportation, Launch Case 4-1 Numerical model - Cases 3-1 and 4-1 Fig. 2 Numerical m o d e l - Cases 1-1 and 2-1

Case 3-1

93

=
105 -~ 100

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

1,331 M 1,870 2,410 M 2,951 M

105 -

---. "--

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

2,882 3,740 4,820 5,902

M M M M

100 ...,..
-

~
O

95

~
O

95

~_ 90
< O _J ~ 85 8O < O ,_J 85

~ 8o
75

75

....

1 .... I

I ....

~ ....

,~ . . . .

70 0 i , ' '

1 .... 1

21,,,,

31 . . . .

41 . . . .

TRIM (DEG.)

TRIM (DEG,)

Case 1-1
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 1,331 1.870 2.410 2.951 M M M M ,..,,. 105 -

Case 3-1
--" . A_ 100
-

~r -" 100 .,,.,,.

DRAFT 2.662 DRAFT 3,740 DRAFT 4,820 DRAFT 5,902

M M M k4

~. 95

~.. 96
O

O _J ~

85 8O

O _J ~

85 8O 75

75
, , , , I , , , , I , , , , I , , , , i , , , , i

700 ....

I ....

~' ....

~ ....

; ....

700

2 TRIM

3 (DEG.)

TRtM (DEG.)

Fig. 4

Case 1-3 Max. load rate vs. t r i m - Case 1-1 and 1-3
"~. ~ -.= DRAFT 1,997 DRAFT 2,085 DRAFT 3,815 DRAFT 4,427 M M M M

Fig. 6

Case 3 - 2 Max. load rate vs. t r i m - Case 3-1 and 3-2

---105 -= 100 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 3,328 4,875 8.025 7.378 M M M M

95
O

~
O

g5 go

llC

o5 I=

~ 85
,_1

~ 8o

7o0

, , , ,

,i ,

, ,

, I , , |

.~

i,

,,,, 700

I,,, 1

,I, 2

,,,

I,,,, 3

I,,,, 4

I 5

TRIM (DEG.)

TRIM (DEG,)

Case 2-1
-" DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 1.997 2.085 3,815 4.427 M M M M 105

Case 4-2
Z DRAFT D RAFT DRAFT AFT 3,328 M 4,675 lvl 6,025 M 7 , 378 M

-.= 100

~,. 95
o

g6

_o
p'~

'~ er"
< O

90-

9O
85

85

~
~ 80

~ ~

75-

70 0

i 1

,,

I , , , , I , ,,, 2 3

I ,,,, 4

I 5

,,,, 7O0

TRIM (DEG.)

I .... 1

I , ,,, 2

I , , , ,

. . . .

TRIM (DEG.)

Fig. 5

Case 2-3 Max. load rate vs. t r i m - Case 2-1 and 2-3

Case 4-3 Fig. 7 Max. load rate vs. t r i m - Case 4-2 and 4-3

94

Z 40-,_~t --

DRAFT DRAi=T DRAFT DRAFT

1.331

2.662 3.328

1.997MM M

O 30-iX= <E O .._.1

>~
,,~ :lE 20-

_ , 0 , , , i 1 , , , , i 2 i , , , i 3 , , , , i
4

i 5

TRIM (DEG.)

Draft = 1.331 m, Trim = 3.252 Fig. 8 Inertia and hydrodynamic load

Draft = 1.331 m, Trim = 4.335 Draft = 1.331 m, Trim = 1.085 Fig. 10 Launch trajectory- 2

Table 1 Barge Dimension

Case
..... Case 1
....

[[Length

Breadth
[M] 17.25 25.83 34.50 43.12

Depth
[MI 3.49 5.23 6.97 8.27

Skid height
[M] 1.18 1.76 2.35 2.94

II
Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

[MI 61.76 92.65 123.53 154.41

Table 2 Jacket specification-Case 1 Draft = 1.331 m, Trim = 2.169 Fig. 9 Launch trajectory- 1

Item
Weight [Ton] Buoyancy [Ton] Reserved buoyancy [%] C.G for floating [M] C.B for floating [M]

[[ Case 1-1 [ Case 1-2 163.44 199.28 17.98 6.02 6.06 175.89 204.65 14.05 5.99 6.04

Case 1-3 185.31 207.41 10.66 5.99 6.04

95

Tab 1e 3 Jacket spec i f i cat i on-Case 2

Item

Table 7 Constraint force variation-Case 2

1.085 Status 2.169 3.252 4.335

II Case 2-1 Case 2-2

Case 2-3 287.79 322.22 10.69 9.03 9.03

Rotation

Weight [Ton] Buoyancy [Ton] Reserved buoyancy [%] C.G for floating [M] C.B for floating [M]

II

254.22 309.78 17.94 9.03 9.07

270.73 317.46 14.72 9.03 9.03

T i m e Ratio Time Ratio Time Ratio Time Ratio [see] [%1 [see] [%1 [see] [%1 [see] [%1

63.8 100.0 63.2 74.7 48.7 76.4

99.9 43.2

67.6 86.3

95.7 42.8

82.7 94.7 117.5

78.5 40.7 -

Max. sliding velocity Max. Sliding accel.

79.4 Angle

21.9

81.0

20.9

91.7

19.4 100.4 18.1

Table 4
Item

Jacket specification-Case 3

[1Case 3-11 Case 3-2

529.51 652.04 18.79 11.92 12.16 569.63 669.11 14.87 12.11 12.19

Case 3-3

Table 8 Constraint force variation-Case 3

1.085 Status 2.169 3.252 4.335

Weight [Ton] Buoyancy [Ton] Reserved buoyancy [%] C.G for floating [M] C.B for floating [M]

612.68 686.31 10.73 12.07 12.16 Max. sliding 101.4 52.4 103.2 46.7 116.2 44.8 127.5 41.4 velocity
Rotation T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio

[see]

[%]

[see]

[%] 99.9

[sec] [%] 93.5

[sec] [%]

88.6 100.0 87.9

96.0 112.9 79.5

Table 5
Item

Jacket specification-Case 4

M a x . Sliding

aceel. Angle

107.7 21.9 109.6 20.7 123.1

19.6 134.3

18.2

IICase 4 - 1 [
842.85 1064.76 20.84 15.08 14.72

Case 4-2

Case 4-3 948.70 1099.32 13.70 15.16 14.76

Rotation Status

Weight [Ton] Buoyancy [Ton] Reserved buoyancy [%] C.G for floating [M] C.B for floating [M]

889.25 1080.68 17.71 15.11 14.71

Table 9 Constraint force variation-Case 4

1.085 2.169 3.252 4.335

T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio

[see]

[%]

[see]

[%]

[sec]
1

[%] 93.1

[sec] [%] 144.5 75.1

109.0 100.0 107.8 100.0 120.4

Table 6 Constraint force variation-Case 1

1.085 Status 2.169 3.252 4.335

Max. sliding 123.8 51.7 127.1 63.8 147.4 42.5 160.6 42.3 velocity
M a x . Sliding

205.5 131.8 21.3 135.5 19.3 155.9 17.8 170.3

16.4

T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio T i m e Ratio

accel. Angle

[see]
Rotation

[%1 100 43.6

[sec] 42.9 53.4

[%] 99.9 39.4

[see] 48.8 59.8

[%] 92.0 36.1

[see] 45.1 53.0

69.4

[%1 76.4 32.0

-

43.4 52.0

Max. sliding velocity

M a x . Sliding

accel. Angle

54.4

22.1

56.0

20.8

62.4

19.8

55.3

18.2

96