Design of A Truss Spar

DESIGN OF A TRUSS SPAR IN THE GULF OF
MEXICO

OCEN 407 Design of Ocean Engineering Facilities
Ocean Engineering Program
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Team Members:

Michael Boenisch
Design of a Spar Platform in the Gulf of Mexico Spring 2012

1 | P a g e
Eduardo Sanchez
Jennifer Hulsey
Colton Gaitan
Timothy Church

May 4, 2012

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 5
List of Equations ....................................................................................................................................... 6
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 8
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Design Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 10
Proposed Location .............................................................................................................................. 10
Design ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Environmental Storm conditions ........................................................................................................ 12
Stability ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Upending ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Environmental Loading....................................................................................................................... 15
Mooring............................................................................................................................................... 19
Risers................................................................................................................................................... 22
Pipeline Installation ............................................................................................................................ 22
Dynamics ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Strakes ................................................................................................................................................. 27


2 | P a g e
Stiffeners ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Modeling with Solidworks .................................................................................................................. 28
Future Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 29
Domain Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 29
Fatigue................................................................................................................................................. 30
Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 30
Stability ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Upending ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Stiffness............................................................................................................................................... 32
Mooring............................................................................................................................................... 33
Analysis Dynamics ............................................................................................................................. 34
Vortex induced Moments .................................................................................................................... 36
Costs .................................................................................................................................................... 37
References ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix- 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix- 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 44
Appendix- 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 45
Appendix-5 ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix- 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Appendix- 7 ............................................................................................................................................ 52
Appendix- 8 ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix- 9 ............................................................................................................................................ 56


3 | P a g e

Design of a SPAR Platform in the Gulf of Mexico
Abstract

The senior Texas A&M Ocean engineering SPAR group, with the help of Ravi Kota, John
Halkyard, and Jun Zou, designed a SPAR Platform for use in the Gulf of Mexico. This report
emphasizes the design process needed to come up with a configuration to withstand 100-year
storm conditions.

The environmental data for the 100-year storm conditions in the Gulf of Mexico included a
maximum wind speed of 57.62 m/s, a max current of 2.2 m/s, a significant wave height at 14.4
m, with a peak period of 15.4 seconds. The hull size for the spar platform was designed based on
topsides and the production rate. The stability was checked for the SPAR by the buoyancy and
displacement as well as the weight of the topsides.

The mooring system was designed for 1305 m (4288ft) water depth and is 16 semi-taunt chain-
polyester-chain mooring lines.


4 | P a g e
Acknowledgements

The senior design spar group would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody that
supported our spar project. Throughout this semester Dr. Falzarano has always provided us with
the critical information that we needed to accomplish designing a truss SPAR. We would also
like to give a special thanks to Ravi Kota, John Halkyard, and Jun Zou for their assistance with
the project. Ravi Kota gave us great advice on OrcaFlex which was used in the analysis of
mooring design. John Halkyard gave us great guidelines and recommendation on sizing of the
components. We would also like to thank Jun Zou for giving us general information on spar
platform and showing us some example processes that take place when designing a truss spar.

5 | P a g e
List of Figures

Figure 1-Proposed location for truss spar ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Storm condition data used in the design of the truss SPAR .......................................... 12
Figure 3-Loading profile ............................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4-loading profile ................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 5-Different wave force regimes ......................................................................................... 19
Figure 6-OrcaFlex model of an FPSO system with releasable turret ........................................... 20
Figure 7- Deformed Static response ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 8-Offshore mooring analysis using OrcaFlex.................................................................... 21
Figure 9-EOM model .................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 10- Ratio to mass coefficient ............................................................................................. 25
Figure 11- Surge stiffness ............................................................................................................. 33
Figure 12- Uncoupled Response ................................................................................................... 34
Figure 13- Uncoupled response .................................................................................................... 35


6 | P a g e

List of Equations

1- Steel weight .............................................................................................................................. 12
2- Center of Gravity ...................................................................................................................... 13
3-Center of Buoyancy ................................................................................................................... 13
4- BM ............................................................................................................................................ 13
5-Radius of Gyration- Cylinder .................................................................................................... 14
6-Radius of Gyration- Cube .......................................................................................................... 14
7-Radius of Gyration- COB .......................................................................................................... 14
8-Rolling Period ............................................................................................................................ 14
9-Angular Momentum .................................................................................................................. 15
10-Wave Induced particle velocity ............................................................................................... 16
11-Wave induced particle acceleration ......................................................................................... 16
12-wind velocity ........................................................................................................................... 17
13-Drag force ................................................................................................................................ 18
14-Inertial force ............................................................................................................................ 18
15-Drag and inertial force ............................................................................................................. 18
16-Summation of dynamic forces ................................................................................................. 24
17-Linearization of damping......................................................................................................... 25
18-Hookes law .............................................................................................................................. 26
19-Rotational stiffness .................................................................................................................. 26
20-Response equation ................................................................................................................... 26
21-Response variables .................................................................................................................. 27


7 | P a g e
List of Tables

Table 1-Overall Design for Truss Spar ....................................................................................................... 15
Table 2-Mooring design parameters ........................................................................................................... 22
Table 3- Center of Gravity .......................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4- Center of Buoyancy ...................................................................................................................... 31
Table 5- Upending ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 6- Periods .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 7-Maximum surge conditions ........................................................................................................... 35


8 | P a g e
Executive Summary

Spar platforms are more economical than other offshore platforms by being 30% cheaper than
other deep water options as shown in the cost comparison. The truss spar designed is an
improvement on the classic spar that will help functionality. To aid in the design, OrcaFlex,
Autocad, StabCAD, and Wamit were programs used in calculating different components.

Poseidon will be located in 1305 m depth of water in the Gulf of Mexico located at latitude of 28
and longitude of -89. The hull will be 78 m long and 30 m diameter; the truss will be 99m long,
an overall length of 181.5m with 3 heave plates. It is designed to withstand 100 yr storm
conditions. By using SolidWorks, 3D rendering of Poseidon were made possible. The design
requires 16 polyester-chain mooring lines that will have an intact chain factor of safety of 1.67
and an intact polyester factor of safety of 1.43. There will be 8 dry-tree top tensioned risers
without buoyancy cans. This allows direct vertical well access into the reservoir and the well
control can be managed at the surface. Platform heave contributes heavily to riser upstroke and
down stroke, with tide also contributing significantly to down stroke; therefore a Spar platform is
the perfect design considering the minimal to no heave that it produces.

In conclusion, a Spar platform should be used as opposed to other offshore platform options
because of its potentially easier management and its economic feasibility to build and maintain.
Future considerations should include fatigue analysis, upending moment, and further pipeline
design. Total costs were approximated to be $620 million USD.


9 | P a g e
Background

As technology progresses, innovative solutions arise to help solve societys problems and meet
our needs. The spar platform came as an alternate solution to other offshore platforms such as
steel jacketed platforms. Economically speaking, the spar platform is the most feasible for ultra-
deep water. Also, by utilizing a mooring system instead of permanent legs, you can greatly
reduce material which reduces costs. There are three basic designs for the SPAR platforms.

1. Classic SPAR
2. Truss SPAR
3. Cell Spar

Each of these types of spars reflects industry innovation. Traditionally, the newer designs are an
improvement of the original classic SPAR. The worlds first classic SPAR was the Neptune
SPAR and it was installed in the Gulf of Mexico in 1996. This hull on the first SPAR was
basically a cylinder that was broken down into three components.

1. Upper Section
- Filled with air to provide buoyancy
2. Centerwell
- Flooded with seawater
3. Keel section or soft tank
- Was compartmentalized to help with transportation

Innovation has led to fourteen SPARs in production at the moment with the Perdido Spar being
the deepest.


10 | P a g e
Introduction

Oil and gas is the number one source of energy in the world. We depend on this energy for
transportation, lighting and many other daily uses. The use has been substantially increasing over
time but the availability of oil and gas has started to decline. As more prospects are explored to
fill this need, more innovative solutions have been conducted. The ocean has always been seen
as unexplored and untainted but as technology has progressed, we have the solutions to seek out
oil out in the deep waters. A truss spar can be a possible solution to this problem of producing oil
in the deep ocean.

Purpose
A truss spar was chosen by our group for the following reasons.
- Relatively cheaper than FPSO
- There is a smaller amount of heave motion associated with a spar platform
- We can tap into an already existing pipeline infrastructure off the coast.

Design Requirements

Proposed Location
Our proposed location was in the Gulf of Mexico about latitude 28 and longitude -89. This
location exists with a water depth of 1305 meters and is approximately 100 miles from the shore.
This is the ideal location for our truss spar because according to pipeline infrastructure
information that was found, it can easy be tapped into an existing oil pipeline. This helps reduce
cost since it would be inefficient to lay down pipeline as well as construct the truss spar.


11 | P a g e

Figure 1-Proposed location for truss spar

Design
When designing this spar a basic design spiral was used. The first step was the principle
dimensions. Some of these were predetermined as part of the design criteria such as topside
weight and production rate. In order to determine initial conditions, several graphs/plots were
constructed to display dimensionless ratios that were gathered from previously built truss spars.
Once the points were plotted a line was drawn to find the average. While these points didnt
always follow the line, it provided an estimated starting point for the design. The next step in the
process was to determine the initial stability of the spar. If the design did not fall within the
accepted range, the loop was restarted and the design altered accordingly. Following the stability
analysis, the EoM and dynamics were considered. These were reviewed and the design was again
altered to assure that everything was within the acceptable range. The finally step before the final
design was to estimate the cost of the project. Once each of the steps was acceptable, the design
was finalized.


12 | P a g e
Environmental Storm conditions
Thanks to Delmar, information was obtained for the proposed location dealing with the 1000 yr.
and 100 yr. storms. This was especially useful since the spar is to withstanding these conditions.
The information that we incorporated when designing the spar was a velocity of 57.62m/s, the
max current of 2.22m/s, the significant wave height of 14.4m and the peak period of 15.4 s.

Figure 2: Storm condition data used in the design of the truss SPAR

Stability
In order to determine the initial stability of the truss spar, a step-by-step process of basic naval
architecture was followed. Having already concluded the design variables from the previous step
in the design loop, the buoyancy and displacement were calculated. While the topside weight
was previously set as one of the design criteria, the rest of the truss spar systems weight was
found by estimating the volume of steel that would be needed and multiplying that by the density
of A36 steel.

1- Steel weight

W =V

If a part of structure contained seawater, such as the soft tank, the weight provided by that water
was added to the weight measurements to counter the displacement. The displacement was then

13 | P a g e
found and used with the density of the seawater to provide the buoyancy. Once the total weight
and buoyancy force were found, their difference was used to calculate how much the variable
ballast tanks would need to be filled. The next step was the stability equations. Using the
centroid height of each section, the weight and buoyancy were multiplied by their moment arms
to find the center of gravity and center of buoyancy respectively.
2- Center of Gravity

CoG =
MomentArm
Weight

3-Center of Buoyancy

CoB =
MomentArm
Displacement

Then the second moment of area (area moment of inertia) was found and divided by the total
displacement volume to provide the BM (the distance between the center of buoyancy and the
metacenter).
4- BM

BM =
I
V

Due to the prospectively low water plane area of a spar system, this number is nearly negligible.
This height minus the height of the center of gravity resulted in our righting arm (GM). The final
step in insuring that the design was properly stable was to assure that the rolling period fell
within the given accepted range. The first step in determining this was to find the radius of
gyration. Using the radius of gyration equation for a cylinder [] and for a cube [] each area was
again compartmentalized and summed.


14 | P a g e
5-Radius of Gyration- Cylinder

k =
9r
2
+ 3L
2
6

6-Radius of Gyration- Cube

k =
x
2
+ z
2
12

Since each of the equation only accounted for the radius of gyration of that shape around its
central axis, the parallel axis theorem was used to find the radius of gyration about the center of
buoyancy.
7-Radius of Gyration- COB

k
t
= k
c
2
+d
2

The rolling period was finally determined using the following equation. Once the period fell
within the set parameters the design was consider initially stable.
8-Rolling Period

T
rp
= 2t
k
t
2
+ M
a
GM

Upending
One of the key concerns during the installation of a spar system is the upending process. Having
already predetermined the weight distribution of the spar segment, the shearing stress was found
at the point where the truss and hard tank are joined. This provided a minimum amount of area
required by the truss columns to insure that the system would not bend. The system was then
analyzed to insure that it would initially float to begin the upending process. Once the spar was

15 | P a g e
off the towing vessel, the soft tank would be filled with water. The period for upending was then
found by analyzing the angular momentum with the following equations.

9-Angular Momentum

L = r p

L = Ie

Table 1-Overall Design for Truss Spar
Water Depth: 1305 meters
Diameter: 30 meters
Hard Tank Length: 78 meters
Overall Length: 181.5 meters
Moon-pool Length: 13 meters
Heave Plates 3
Risers 8
Mooring Lines 16
Topsides: 45 X 60
meters
Production Rate

Environmental Loading
Modeling is an important tool in engineering for realistic environmental loading. This
introduction is divided into two sections, Environmental conditions/loading and Equations of
Motions. Each section will describe the theory used, some potential issues, and possible errors.

The environmental loading was comprised of wind, wave, current and gust loading. With the
given environmental conditions, peak period is 15.4 sec, significant wave height is 14.5 m and
current velocity is 2.22 m/s. The water depth was determined to be deep, which resulted in the
following equations:

16 | P a g e

10-Wave Induced particle velocity

11-Wave induced particle acceleration

Wave is particle velocity, is particle acceleration, is the peak period, H is wave height, k is
the wave number and z is the depth. The velocity, acceleration and current are presented in
Figure 3-Loading profile

Figure 3-Loading profile


17 | P a g e
The wind velocity was determined from the given equation:
12-wind velocity

(

Where is velocity , is the wind speed at a reference of 33 feet ( ~10 meters) , z is the height
above the MWL. The wind profile is shown below in Figure 4-loading profile

Figure 4-loading profile

The given velocity equations determined the magnitude of the force that was applied to the body.
For the initial analysis Morrisons drag equation was used (below).


18 | P a g e
13-Drag force

| |

Where is the density of the fluid (1025 kg/m^3 for sea water and 1.225 kg/m^3 for air), A is
the cross sectional area that is normal to the flow,
is the drag coefficient, which is discussed

later (Dynamics) and is the velocity. It is important to note that the drag equation models the
directionality of the force on a given body, this will be important later. In addition to drag,
inertial forces were taken into account, displayed below:
14-Inertial force

Where
is the inertial coefficient (discussed below), is the displaced volume and
is the
acceleration as a function of time. When the diameter of a cylinder is relatively small (D/
<0.2) compared to the wave length, it can be assumed that diffraction and radiation do not affect
the vessel (Kim) . In addition the drag and inertial forces are out of phase with one another, thus
using the magnitude of both would be an overdesign. The criterion is displayed below:
15-Drag and inertial force

In the case of a cylinder another guideline can be used to determine the effect of the loading. In
the API recommended practice (Det Norske Veritas, October 2010) a plot was given (shown
below) that allows an informed decision on whether to include drag, inertia, both or diffraction.


19 | P a g e

Figure 5-Different wave force regimes

Mooring

Mooring analysis analyzes a body connected to the sea floor by a system of tendons composed of
chain, polyester and/or wire. The purpose of these catenary lines is to keep our spar within
reasonable proximity of a target location and prevent over excitation of the risers. There are two
main forces that are exerted on our spar. These are the forces which the lines exert on the body
and the forces which the environment exerts on the body. We usually plot these as a function of
horizontal distance and tension. The tension must always be greater than the horizontal distance.
When we plot all these forces we get the horizontal force of a line, the tension in the line, and the
derivative of the horizontal force.


20 | P a g e

Figure 6-OrcaFlex model of an FPSO system with releasable turret

In order to get all these plots we use a program called OrcaFlex which is the worlds leading
package for dynamic analysis of offshore marine systems. OrcaFlex can be used to simulate a
variety of items such as risers, towed systems, mooring, and buoy systems. For our Spar we will
use OrcaFlex for the sole purpose of doing mooring analysis. We decided on a taunt mooring
system with 16 catenary lines. These lines have been attached to the body and are labeled as a
chain-polyester-chain configuration which will have an effect on the restoring forces and
excitation. Excitation deals with

Static forces: current, wind and mean wave forces.
Direct wave frequency forces: forces at the wave period.
Non wave frequency forces: wave drift and wind gusts

These static forces are fairly easy to determine. With OrcaFlex, we simulated using a simple
static analysis which gives us a simulation:

21 | P a g e

Figure 7- Deformed Static response

We analyzed using information regarding specifics such as wave height, water depth, chain
material, etc. Once all the required information was assigned, OrcaFlex simulated it and we
selected relevant information we wanted to display. Below is a figure of the major components:

Figure 8-Offshore mooring analysis using OrcaFlex

22 | P a g e
In the initial phase, the design parameters for a semi taut mooring configuration are tabulated
below:
Table 2-Mooring design parameters
Inclination Angle 29.1
Angle Between 5
Aspect:Depth 1.5 ~ 2.0

These relations were applied for the basic mooring design; initial diameters were selected from
equations presented in (appendix 7). Only one constraint was followed in the analysis, although
others were recommended, the API utilization factor. This factor contains maximum breaking
strength over allowable. Below is a table which

Risers
Eight dry tree top-tensioned risers with the main advantages being that well control is at the
surface around people with direct vertical access into reservoirs. This requires a floater with low
heave because platform heave (coupled with pitch) contributes significantly to the riser up-stroke
and down-stroke and should never be greater than 15ft. Rising tide will increase down-stroke.
Poseidon will not have buoyancy cans, but will have hydraulic tensioners. This eliminates the
need for the drilling riser slot to be increased in diameter to fit larger buoyancy cans that might
be needed for drilling.
Pipeline Installation
To transport the oil, subsea pipelines will be used as a shuttle since the platform is approximately
100 miles offshore.

To find the size of the liquid lines, there are several equations that can be utilized and should be
based on the flow velocity.


23 | P a g e
16-Flow Velocity

Where V
1
is the average liquid flow velocity in feet/seconds, Q
1
is the liquid flow rate in
barrels/day, and d
1
is the pipe inside diameter in inches

17-Pressure Drop

Where S
1
is the liquid specific gravity and F is the Moody friction factor.

Since f is a function of the Reynolds number, the Reynolds number is then found and then f is
found using the Moody diagram. The Reynolds number can be found using:
18-Reynolds Number

Where
1
is the liquid density in lb/ft
3
and
1
is the liquid viscosity in lb/ft-sec.

Dynamics
Without the aid of computer program, we used a basic, one degree of freedom system to model
the position and acceleration of the structure. Although a one-DOF system will not sufficiently
model the motions, it will give approximate values allowing for a more in-depth, nonlinear
model to be examined. Below, Figure 9-EOM model models the forces on the structure.


24 | P a g e

19-Summation of dynamic forces
(

Where M is the overall mass, m
a
is the added mass, C
*
is the damping due to drag forces, and K
*

is the overall stiffness. The environmental forces were mentioned in the environmental loading
section. The mass was fairly straight forward to compute, the assumed density of steel was taken
to be 7850 kg/m
3
. Two conditions were of concern in the response, heave and surge. Below is
the equation used:
20-Heave natural period

21-Surge natural period

Where M is the mass, A is the added mass; S is the water plane area and
is the stiffness
attributed to mooring. The added mass was found using the relation displayed below:

Figure 9-EOM model

25 | P a g e

Figure 10- Ratio to mass coefficient

In this figure the ratio (diameter: length) is on the horizontal axis and the coefficient used is on
the vertical. This figure was computed using notes from Dynamics of Offshore Structures
(M.H.Kim). Next in the EOM was the damping aspect,
, which is a nonlinear term modeled

from Morrisons drag equation
13-Drag force. Although nonlinear terms, can be computed, linearization was conducted to give
an approximated value, below is the relationship.
22-Linearization of damping

| |

Above, the C* value is approximated to be equal to
, in which is the velocity of the

platform. This relationship must be iterated until convergence; therefore several position models
will be performed.

Stiffness was determined using two methods, 1) using OrcaFlex and 2) classical mechanics.
Using OrcaFlex, the given Mooring configuration was displaced under various loadings centered
at the structure and a displacement was recorded. Below is Hookes law, which was used to
determine the spring stiffness of the system.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
M
a
s
s

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Ratio

26 | P a g e

23-Hookes law

In the above

23-Hookes law, K is the spring stiffness used, F is the force acting on the body, and x is the
displacement induced by the loading. For this assessment wave, current and wind forces were
neglected and a resultant force was applied through the centroid of the body. A vertical and
moment force were applied, the equation for rotational stiffness is below.
24-Rotational stiffness

In the above 24-Rotational stiffness , M was an applied moment, is a pitch angle and
is the
rotational stiffness induced.

The

19-Summation of dynamic forces was solved into a position equation shown below.
25-Response equation

()
(() ())

27 | P a g e

In 25-Response equation the system will act as a decaying function, where each of the variable
are described below. This case is for free vibration, which will be analyzed and compared with
OrcaFlex forced response.

26-Response variables

Where is the SPAR frequency, is the damping ratio, and is the damped natural frequency.

Strakes

Strakes are added to the structure to reduce the vortex induced motion. The strakes were
computed using the relation given by John Halkyard found below. The strakes were found to be
at 120 degree increments.
27- Strake Height

Where H is the strake height and D is the diameter of the structure. The height was calculated to
be 3.6 meters. However the strakes size and pitch may be altered from model testing analysis due
cut-away sections to allow for mooring line attachment.

28 | P a g e

Stiffeners

Stiffeners were computed as an initial hull design process. In order to compute the stiffeners that
are needed for the hard tank, the hard tank was simplified to an octagon and the sides were
treated as plates. The force was taken from appendix 8 and divided onto each individual plate.
The loads on the plate were then divided into quarter sections and then applied as a point load on
a one meter section of the stiffener. The stiffeners length was approximated to be the length of
the sections in the hard tank. The maximum moment and maximum shear calculated and based
on the maximum moment and shear. Using AISC 14
th
edition Steel Handbook a W18x97 steel
member was determined to be the most adequate and cost effective stiffener.
Equation to find the approximate length of the beam was:
28-Beam length

L is the length of the beam, and d is the diameter of the hard tank.

Modeling with Solidworks

SolidWorks
In order to get a scale model SolidWorks was used to create renderings of specific parts of the
spar and then it was all brought together to get a completed model. SolidWorks is a 3D
mechanical CAD program that runs on Windows and was developed by Dassault Systmes
SolidWorks Corp.

The spar platform model was developed using several components that were rendered separately
and then mated to have a final design. The components that were modeled included:

29 | P a g e

1. Hard tank
2. Truss
3. Soft tank
4. Heave plates
5. Risers
6. Strakes
7. Topsides

Part 1-5 were modeled based on the initial dimensions which were chosen at the beginning of the
design process. Each individual part was modeled to scale using SI units. Part 6 was modeled
according to the hull size and the size of the wavelength that would be exerting force on the spar.
The topside was one of the components that needed special attention since it was modeled after
the size of the hull. The reason that this caused a bit of a problem was because initially the size
of the hull was picked by plotting the hull size versus water depth and getting the best possible
diameter. With the help of John Halkyard, the size of our topside was picked by doing a ratio of
one the recommended topside size and being able to make it fit the hull.

Future Considerations

Domain Analysis

Another future consideration would be to develop the frequency domain analysis for the spar
platform. The frequency domain analysis can help predict the responses in surge, heave, and
pitch degrees of freedom when the spar is subjected to random waves. In order to get good
approximations you can use the energy density spectrum: Pierson-Moskowitz (PM) spectrum
model to represent an appropriate density distribution of the sea wave of the site that is under
consideration. The expression for this model in terms of cyclic frequency may be written as


30 | P a g e
29- Energy Density Function
()

Where is equal to 0.0081 and the peak frequency,
), the peak frequency and the

significant height for the wave is
, the weight height at this frequency is (
)
(
) .
Fatigue
Fatigue is a byproduct of low amplitude oscillation in short waves, or waves that have periods of
less than 9 seconds. Therefore, cyclic loading is to be considered in the design of the Spar.
Analysis of stress cycles should not be limited to active service life; assembly, fabrication,
transport and installation also contribute to fatigue. Areas that cannot be inspected should be
subject to higher safety factors. A structural analysis program with spectral fatigue features will
be utilized.
To accurately predict fatigue of risers, accurate response in low sea states is important to
investigate. Primarily, riser fatigue is produced by riser VIV. For the hull, the frailest and most
critical structural element is the truss section with its connection and must be put under further
analysis of fatigue safety. To better understand fatigue behavior of the truss structure the stress
response power spectral density at various locations in the truss will be tested. The key project
considerations for the truss Spar are the hull diameter, center well size, compartment size,
freeboard, draft, and hard tank length and all need to refer to different codes of safety.

Results and Analysis

Stability

According to the tables listed below (


31 | P a g e

Table 3- Center of Gravity, Table 4- Center of Buoyancy ) and the analysis performed by
StabCAD ( Appendix-1) show that the spar is absolutely stable. The calculations performed by
hand matched closely to the analysis performed by
StabCAD.

Table 3- Center of Gravity
Section Centroid Height (m) Section Weight (Tonne) Moment Arm (Tonne*m)
Soft Tank 1 3,054 3,054
Truss 51.5 11,031 568,105
Hard Tank 140 11,147 1,560,580
Top Side 185 12,000 2,220,000
Added Ballast 106.56 7,459 794,879
Total 444,691 5,146,617
Center of Gravity 115.16

Table 4- Center of Buoyancy
Section Centroid Height (m) Section
Displacement
(Tonne)
Moment Arm
(Tonne*m)

32 | P a g e
Soft Tank 1 1,550 1,550
Truss 51.5 1,196 61,590
Hard Tank 137.06 34,486 4,726,731
Total 37,232 4,789,871
Center of Buoyancy 128.65

Upending

Table 5- Upending
Empty Weight 12,446 Tonne Full Weight 14,085 Tonne
Min Shear Str Max Shear Str Min F.S. Max F.S.
Area Required Empty 0.407 m
2
0.295 m
2
2.47 3.4
Area Required Full 0.46 m
2
0.334 m
2
2.18 3
Area Given by 42 In pipe 1 m
2

Stiffness

The computed periods for surge and heave are presented below and compared to those
recommended in the API code (Det Norske Veritas, October 2010).

Table 6- Periods
Computed Values (sec) API Recommendations (sec)
Surge 177.31 >100

33 | P a g e
Heave 25.76 20-35

The table above, indicates various periods based on equations (20-Heave natural period, 21-
Surge natural period) Specific values of mass, force, period, and stiffness are shown in
Appendix- .
Using OrcaFlex, a force was applied to the surface buoy and a maximum displacement
was recorded. The relationship

23-Hookes law allowed for stiffness to be determined. Below is a figure of the stiffness in
the surge direction, tabulated values can be found in Appendix-1
The following table shows the beta file of the StabCAD spar model. The beta file allows
the inputs of Cards these Cards are necessary to analyze the model. The beta file can also be
used to add the joints and the plates without using the graphical input. This beta file was used to
build the model and to calculate hydrostatic forces and basic stability analysis.

ALPID 3D View 0.707 0.707 -0.424 0.424 0.800 1
ALPID Global XY Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID Global YZ Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID Global XZ Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID 3D1 0.955 0.297 -0.182 0.587 0.789 1
ALPREF 3D View 5.0 0.0 0.75 1
GROUP 2 SPAR MODEL
STBOPT ME ME
DRAFT 173.5 110.7 USER USER
INTACT 0. 30. 5.
CFORM 10. 190. 10.
JOINT 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
JOINT 2 15.000 15.000 0.000
JOINT 3 15.000-15.000 0.000
JOINT 4 -15.000 15.000 0.000
JOINT 5 -15.000-15.000 0.000
JOINT 6 0.000 0.000 4.500
JOINT 7 15.000 15.000 4.500

34 | P a g e
JOINT 8 15.000-15.000 4.500
JOINT 9 -15.000 15.000 4.500
JOINT 10 -15.000-15.000 4.500
JOINT 11 0.000 0.000 28.875
JOINT 12 15.000 15.000 28.875
JOINT 13 15.000-15.000 28.875
JOINT 14 -15.000 15.000 28.875
JOINT 15 -15.000-15.000 28.875
JOINT 16 0.000 0.000 29.375
JOINT 17 15.000 15.000 29.375
JOINT 18 15.000-15.000 29.375
JOINT 19 -15.000 15.000 29.375
JOINT 20 -15.000-15.000 29.375
JOINT 21 0.000 0.000 53.750
JOINT 22 15.000 15.000 53.750
JOINT 23 15.000-15.000 53.750
JOINT 24 -15.000 15.000 53.750
JOINT 25 -15.000-15.000 53.750
JOINT 26 0.000 0.000 54.250
JOINT 27 15.000 15.000 54.250
JOINT 28 15.000-15.000 54.250
JOINT 29 -15.000 15.000 54.250
JOINT 30 -15.000-15.000 54.250
JOINT 31 0.000 0.000 78.625
JOINT 32 15.000 15.000 78.625
JOINT 33 15.000-15.000 78.625
JOINT 34 -15.000 15.000 78.625
JOINT 35 -15.000-15.000 78.625
JOINT 36 0.000 0.000 79.125
JOINT 37 15.000 15.000 79.125
JOINT 38 15.000-15.000 79.125
JOINT 39 -15.000 15.000 79.125
JOINT 40 -15.000-15.000 79.125
JOINT 41 0.000 0.000103.500
JOINT 42 0.000 0.000 181.5
JOINT 43 30.000 30.000 181.5
JOINT 44 30.000-30.000 181.5
JOINT 45 -30.000 30.000 181.5
JOINT 46 -30.000-30.000 181.5
JOINT 47 30.000 30.000 188.5

35 | P a g e
JOINT 48 30.000-30.000 188.5
JOINT 49 -30.000 30.000 188.5
JOINT 50 -30.000-30.000 188.5
PANEL BST 5 3 2 4
PANEL TST 10 9 7 8
PANEL SFT 10 8 3 5
PANEL SFT 8 7 2 3
PANEL SFT 4 2 7 9
PANEL SFT 9 10 5 4
PANEL HV1 15 13 12 14
PANEL HV1 20 19 17 18
PANEL HV1 20 18 13 15
PANEL HV1 18 17 12 13
PANEL HV1 14 12 17 19
PANEL HV1 19 20 15 14
PANEL HV2 25 23 22 24
PANEL HV2 30 29 27 28
PANEL HV2 30 28 23 25
PANEL HV2 28 27 22 23
PANEL HV2 24 22 27 29
PANEL HV2 29 30 25 24
PANEL HV3 35 33 32 34
PANEL HV3 40 39 37 38
PANEL HV3 40 38 33 35
PANEL HV3 38 37 32 33
PANEL HV3 34 32 37 39
PANEL HV3 39 40 35 34
PANEL TOP 45 46 44 43
PANEL TOP 47 48 50 49
PANEL TOP 50 48 44 46
PANEL TOP 48 47 43 44
PANEL TOP 47 49 45 43
PANEL TOP 49 50 46 45
CYLIND W TR1 11 6 30.000
CYLIND W TR2 21 16 30.000
CYLIND W TR3 31 26 30.000
CYLIND W TR4 41 36 30.000
CYLIND H HRD 42 41 30.000
END


36 | P a g e


37 | P a g e
Appendix-

Figure 11- Surge stiffness
Above is the figure of Horizontal Displacement, meters, versus an applied load. The slope of the
load gave the stiffness. Other stiffness, which were not used in analysis, are tabulated in
Appendix- .
Mooring

Using OrcaFlex, a configuration (Appendix- 7) was used to model the mooring system. All
values were under the design criteria and their graphical representation is found in Appendix- 6.
The characteristic dimensions are found below :
Table 7- Mooring layout
Material Length (m) Diameter (m)
Chain 200 0.152
Polyester 2,075 0.260
Chain 200 0.152

Although the dimensions sufficed, more optimization should be made. Costs were not completely know,
and optimization would follow along those guidelines.
y = 111.09x - 1275.11
R = 0.99
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
a
t
l

L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)

Horizontal Displacement, X (m)
Horizontal Stiffness

38 | P a g e
Analysis Dynamics

The results gathered from Equation 25-Response equation are plotted below:

Figure 12- Uncoupled Response

The above graph shows the displacement (m) of the centroid versus time. The plot is a free
response, which does not include external forces, and just models an initial displacement which
was found using,

23-Hookes law. Hookes law allowed for a maximum distance that would be induced in the
platform, which is modeled. Although iteration for damping due to velocity was computed and
applied (Appendix- ), the damping coefficient (and the ratio) was found to be negligible. It was
recommended to ignore damping, due to its nonlinearity, and these results for future applications
show that the recommendation was sound. These results were also modeled using OrcaFlex,
which is presented in Figure 13- Uncoupled response:
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
S
u
r
g
e

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

Un-Coupled Surge Response

39 | P a g e

Figure 13- Uncoupled response

The above plot shows the calculated values (blue line), which do not include forced response,
against the given values from OrcaFlex. As seen in the figure, the linear model estimated was
fairly accurate. The only variation is estimated to be force induced, which is shown to not be a
primary factor in displacement.
Table 8-Maximum surge conditions
Linearized Model Computer Model
Maximum Displacement (m) 50.96 54.62
Maximum Acceleration
(m/s^2)
0.65 1.4

-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80
S
u
r
g
e

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

Un-Coupled Surge Response
Linearized Uncoupled Response
Computer Modeling

40 | P a g e
Vortex induced Moments
The vortex induced moments for moored Spars are characterized by a number of dimensionless
parameters. These are defined as:

30-Strouhal number

31-Reduced velocity

32-Dimensionless amplitude

)

Where UC is the free stream current velocity, D is the diameter of the Spar, is the kinematic
viscosity,
is the vortex shedding frequency, TSWAY is the natural period for sway of the
Spar, and A is the single sway amplitude.

The Strouhal number is a dimensionless number that helps describe oscillating flow mechanisms.
For the Strouhal number that was calculated for the Poseidon spar, Dr. Kims comprised notes
were used to reference relevant equations given by:

Where Cd is the drag coefficient and was equal to one.


41 | P a g e
33- KC Number

All relevant information needed to solve these equations was obtained by:
Costs

For costs, we divided the components of the platform, and looked at cost per unit to then total the
prices found to find a good estimate.

Quantity Cost/unit Cost ($) Includes Excludes
Suction Pile
Anchors
16
$975K
each
$15.6
Million

Polyester
Rope
16 $8.8/kg $249,705

Steel
44,250
tons
$10000/ton
$442
Million

Risers 8 -- $350,000

Contingency --
12% of
Total
$22.6
Million
--
Excludes
Transport,
installation
Additional
Marine
Costs
-- --
$135
Million
Includes Yard
Engineering,
Trails,
Commissioning,
Class,


42 | P a g e
References

Det Norske Veritas. (October 2010). Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205. American Petroleum
Institute, 63-74.
M.H.Kim, P. (n.d.). Dynamics of Offshore Structures.
Prislin, I., Steen, A., Halkyard, J., (2001), Upending of a Spar Offshore Platform: Prediction of
Motions and Loading.
Halkyard, J., Spar Design (PowerPoint Presentation).
Constantinides, Y., Oakley Jr., O., Holmes, S., (2006), Analysis of Turbulent Flows and VIV of
Truss Spar and Risers.
Stanton, P., (2006), Overview of Deepwater Drilling and Production Risers (PowerPoint
Presentation).
Kavanagh, W., Imas, L., Thompson, H., Lee, L., (2000), Genesis Spar Risers: Interference
Assessment and VIV Model Testing.
Chedsoy, C., Lim, F., (Date Not Listed), Design Challenges of Deepwater Dry Tree Riser
Systems for Different Vessel Types.
Det Norske Veritas, (2010), Dynamic Risers.
Botros, F., Burke, A., Magee, A., Lu, X., Leung, M., (2006), Coupled Analysis and Tensioning
System for Holstein Dry-Tree Risers.
Cornut, S., Vandiver, J., (2000), Offshore VIV Monitoring at Schiehallion-Analysis of Riser VIV
Response.
No Author Listed, No Date Listed, A05 Steel Catenary Riser Systems.
Briggs, M., McCormick, M., (2006), Civil Engineering in the Oceans VI.
Wang, J., Lu, R., Lu, N., (2003), Truss Spar Strength and Fatigue Analysis for Wet Tow.
No Author Listed, (2010), Platforms-Hosts to Provide Buoyancy and Stability.
Chakrabarti, S., (2005), Handbook of Offshore Engineering Volume I.
Thethi, R., Howells, H., Natarajan, S., Bridge, C., (2005), A Fatigue Monitoring Strategy and
Implementation on a Deepwater Top Tensioned Riser.

43 | P a g e
API, (2001), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Floating
Production Systems.
"Spar Platform Leadership: Evolving and Successful Know How." 302 Found. Web. 03 May
2012. <http://www.technip.com/en/media-center/webzine/spar-platform-leadership-evolving-
and-successful-know-how>.


44 | P a g e
Appendix-1
The following table shows the beta file of the StabCAD spar model. The beta file allows the
inputs of Cards these Cards are necessary to analyze the model. The beta file can also be
used to add the joints and the plates without using the graphical input. This beta file was used to
build the model and to calculate hydrostatic forces and basic stability analysis.

ALPID 3D View 0.707 0.707 -0.424 0.424 0.800 1
ALPID Global XY Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID Global YZ Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID Global XZ Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID 3D1 0.955 0.297 -0.182 0.587 0.789 1
ALPREF 3D View 5.0 0.0 0.75 1
GROUP 2 SPAR MODEL
STBOPT ME ME
DRAFT 173.5 110.7 USER USER
INTACT 0. 30. 5.
CFORM 10. 190. 10.
JOINT 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
JOINT 2 15.000 15.000 0.000
JOINT 3 15.000-15.000 0.000
JOINT 4 -15.000 15.000 0.000
JOINT 5 -15.000-15.000 0.000
JOINT 6 0.000 0.000 4.500
JOINT 7 15.000 15.000 4.500
JOINT 8 15.000-15.000 4.500
JOINT 9 -15.000 15.000 4.500
JOINT 10 -15.000-15.000 4.500
JOINT 11 0.000 0.000 28.875
JOINT 12 15.000 15.000 28.875
JOINT 13 15.000-15.000 28.875
JOINT 14 -15.000 15.000 28.875
JOINT 15 -15.000-15.000 28.875
JOINT 16 0.000 0.000 29.375
JOINT 17 15.000 15.000 29.375
JOINT 18 15.000-15.000 29.375
JOINT 19 -15.000 15.000 29.375
JOINT 20 -15.000-15.000 29.375
JOINT 21 0.000 0.000 53.750

45 | P a g e
JOINT 22 15.000 15.000 53.750
JOINT 23 15.000-15.000 53.750
JOINT 24 -15.000 15.000 53.750
JOINT 25 -15.000-15.000 53.750
JOINT 26 0.000 0.000 54.250
JOINT 27 15.000 15.000 54.250
JOINT 28 15.000-15.000 54.250
JOINT 29 -15.000 15.000 54.250
JOINT 30 -15.000-15.000 54.250
JOINT 31 0.000 0.000 78.625
JOINT 32 15.000 15.000 78.625
JOINT 33 15.000-15.000 78.625
JOINT 34 -15.000 15.000 78.625
JOINT 35 -15.000-15.000 78.625
JOINT 36 0.000 0.000 79.125
JOINT 37 15.000 15.000 79.125
JOINT 38 15.000-15.000 79.125
JOINT 39 -15.000 15.000 79.125
JOINT 40 -15.000-15.000 79.125
JOINT 41 0.000 0.000103.500
JOINT 42 0.000 0.000 181.5
JOINT 43 30.000 30.000 181.5
JOINT 44 30.000-30.000 181.5
JOINT 45 -30.000 30.000 181.5
JOINT 46 -30.000-30.000 181.5
JOINT 47 30.000 30.000 188.5
JOINT 48 30.000-30.000 188.5
JOINT 49 -30.000 30.000 188.5
JOINT 50 -30.000-30.000 188.5
PANEL BST 5 3 2 4
PANEL TST 10 9 7 8
PANEL SFT 10 8 3 5
PANEL SFT 8 7 2 3
PANEL SFT 4 2 7 9
PANEL SFT 9 10 5 4
PANEL HV1 15 13 12 14
PANEL HV1 20 19 17 18
PANEL HV1 20 18 13 15
PANEL HV1 18 17 12 13
PANEL HV1 14 12 17 19

46 | P a g e
PANEL HV1 19 20 15 14
PANEL HV2 25 23 22 24
PANEL HV2 30 29 27 28
PANEL HV2 30 28 23 25
PANEL HV2 28 27 22 23
PANEL HV2 24 22 27 29
PANEL HV2 29 30 25 24
PANEL HV3 35 33 32 34
PANEL HV3 40 39 37 38
PANEL HV3 40 38 33 35
PANEL HV3 38 37 32 33
PANEL HV3 34 32 37 39
PANEL HV3 39 40 35 34
PANEL TOP 45 46 44 43
PANEL TOP 47 48 50 49
PANEL TOP 50 48 44 46
PANEL TOP 48 47 43 44
PANEL TOP 47 49 45 43
PANEL TOP 49 50 46 45
CYLIND W TR1 11 6 30.000
CYLIND W TR2 21 16 30.000
CYLIND W TR3 31 26 30.000
CYLIND W TR4 41 36 30.000
CYLIND H HRD 42 41 30.000
END


47 | P a g e
Appendix- 2

Used OrcaFlex Mooring System and applied
force/moments to buoy, recorded distances and got
Stiffness Values
Applied Load
(kN)
Horizontal
Displacement
(x)
Horizontal
Stiffness
1000 15.745 111.09
1500 22.923
2000 29.808
3000 42.492
8000 91.74
15000 140.708

Above is the table when an applied load in the vertical direction. This stiffness wasnt included
due to interference with buoyancy stiffness (based on a difference in water plane area) and due to
damping in the z direction. Below the tabulated value for rotational stiffness was computed by
inducing a moment from 24-Rotational stiffness

Applied Load
(kN)
Vertical
Displacement
(z) Vertical Stiffness
100 27.968 14285.71
200 27.975
400 27.989
500 27.996
Applied Moment
(kN*m)
Rotation
(degrees)
Rotational
Stiffness
1000 -3.2773 11437344.08
2000 -3.2774
5000 -3.2776
15000 -3.2786
45000 -3.2813
135000 -3.289

48 | P a g e
Appendix- 3

Mass 104951055.9 Time Position Velocity Velocity^2
Stiffness 111090 1 2.00E+00 9.67E-01 0.9349589
C* 993.13 2 3.00E+00 9.33E-01 0.8701949
w 3.25E-02 3 3.99E+00 8.98E-01 0.8059821
1.45E-04 4 4.98E+00 8.62E-01 0.7425921
w_d 3.25E-02 5 5.96E+00 8.25E-01 0.6802933
B 3.07E+01 6 6.94E+00 7.87E-01 0.6193492
A 1 7 7.91E+00 7.48E-01 0.5600177
y_0 1 8 8.88E+00 7.09E-01 0.5025499
y_0* 1 9 9.83E+00 6.69E-01 0.4471888
C*_NEW 983.657642 10 1.08E+01 6.28E-01 0.3941688
[V] 0.990462117 11 1.17E+01 5.86E-01 0.3437142

Mass 104951055.9 Time Position Velocity Velocity^2
Stiffness 111090 1 5.09E+01 -1.66E+00 2.748264272
C* 983.657642 3 5.07E+01 -4.97E+00 24.66417351
w 3.25E-02 5 5.03E+01 -8.25E+00 68.12417516
1.44E-04 7 4.96E+01 -1.15E+01 132.3920678
w_d 3.25E-02 9 4.88E+01 -1.47E+01 216.3797812
y_0* 0 11 4.77E+01 -1.79E+01 318.6657903
B 7.34E-03 13 4.65E+01 -2.09E+01 437.5191682
A 5.10E+01 15 4.50E+01 -2.39E+01 570.9288709
y_o 50.96403757 17 4.34E+01 -2.68E+01 716.6377576
[V] 35.41644496 19 4.15E+01 -2.95E+01 872.1807723
C*_NEW 942.35475 21 3.95E+01 -3.22E+01 1034.92664

Above are the assumptions and iterations for the dynamic response to converge on damping
coefficient.

49 | P a g e
Appendix- 4

All data is in (N,kg,m,s) Dimensions
Mass Stiffness Subject Description Value
Topside 12000000
Surge
Stiffness 111.09
AWP
Water Plane Area 537.5
Hull 11147000
Heave
Stiffness 14285.71
D
Diameter 30
Mooring
Lines 312696 Buoyancy 5404.696
P_S
Density of Water 1025
Riser 67744.09 Rotational 11437344
P_ST
Density of Steel 7850
Water
Reserve 10913175
HTL
Hard Tank Length 78
Truss 11031000
STL
Soft Tank Length 4.5
Total 45471615
NR
Number of Risers 8
Forces Natural Periods
NM
Number of Mooring Lines 16
Wind 705571.3 Heave 25.76078
HP
Peak Wave Height 14.4
Wave 73681156 Surge 177.3073
TP
Peak Wave Period 15.4
Current 5568778
WL
Wave Length 370.4681
Gust 5324.05
K
Wave Number 0.016952

pi
Pi 3.14

g
Gravity 9.81

H_1000
1000 Year Wave Height 16.5

T_1000
1000 Year Wave Period 16.3

P_A
Density of Air 1.225

CD_C
Coefficient-Drag Cylinder 1

CD_B
Coefficient-Drag Box 0.9

CI
Coefficient-Inertial 1.94746

CM
Coefficient - Added Mass 0.94746

WS
Wind Speed 50.93

CS
Current Speed 2.22

CI-V
Inertial Coefficient
Vertical 2.6

TG
Gust Period 200

50 | P a g e
Force over Area Force on beam Moment from A Moment Stuff
1 1688554 211069.2335 52767.30838 52767.30838 274558.2409 221790.9325 221790.9325
2 1660172 207521.4428 51880.3607 103760.7214 169910.5718 391701.5043
3 1632266 204033.2857 51008.32142 153024.9643 118902.2504 510603.7547
4 1604830 200603.7598 50150.93995 200603.7598 68751.31045 579355.0652
5 1577855 197231.8796 49307.96991 246539.8496 19443.34053 598798.4057
6 1551333 193916.6763 48479.16907 290875.0144 -29035.82854 569762.5772
7 1525258 190657.197 47664.29926 333650.0948 -76700.1278 493062.4494
8 1499620 187452.5053 46863.12632 374905.0105 -123563.2541 369499.1952
9 1474413 184301.6801 46075.42002 414678.7802 -169638.6741 199860.5211
10 1449631 181203.816 45300.95401 453009.5401 -214939.6281 -15079.10702
11 1425264 178158.0229 44539.50573 489934.563 -259479.1339 -274558.2409
12 1401307 175163.4255 43790.85637 525490.2765 303269.9902 -303269.9902 -577828.2311
Reaction Forces shear diagram stuff
Appendix-5

The above charts were used to calculate all the components that led to picking a member
for the stiffeners. The maximum moment and maximum shear calculated and based on the
maximum moment and shear. Using AISC 14
th
edition Steel Handbook a W18x97 steel member
was chosen

94.24778 kips
11 36.08
1688554 379.5869
211069.2
19188.11
1266415 86.777 kips-ft
Available Moment
94 kips-ft

51 | P a g e
Appendix- 5a
The following charts show the force acting on each individual stiffener and the shear diagram of the
member.

0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
F
o
r
c
e

o
n

B
e
a
m

(
N
)

Length position
Force acting on a stiffener
-400000.0
-300000.0
-200000.0
-100000.0
0.0
100000.0
200000.0
300000.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
S
h
e
a
r

(
N
)

Position (m)
Shear Diagram

52 | P a g e

Appendix- 6

C1

D1

C2

D2

C-2

D-2

C-1

D-1


53 | P a g e

A1

B1

A2

B2

A-2

B-2

A-1

B-1


54 | P a g e

Each of these plots are from OrcaFlex. The first two charts (lines ABCD) are static results of lines
ordered similarly to ().

C1 Dynamics

D1 Broken

Riser Dynamics

Riser Statics

55 | P a g e

Heave Motions

Pitch Angle

Surge Motions

56 | P a g e
Appendix- 7

Above is the mooring configuration for which was used and referenced in Appendix- 6. Below is a
design criteria applied in selecting various diameters. (American Petroleum Institute)

Fibre rope type
Weight per unit length (N/m)
Polyester 0.0067(d)^2 {d inmm)
Aramid 0.00565(d)^2 (din mm)
HMPE 0.0062(d)^2(din mm)
Fibre rope type Breaking Strength
(N) d(mm)
Polyester 250d^2
Aramid 450d^2
HMPE 575d^2


57 | P a g e
Appendix- 8

Below is the loading per meter water depth for the cylinder. The current force is modeled using
equation
13-Drag force, the inertial force was modeled using 14-Inertial force, and the total wave force is
in column total which was solved using 15-Drag and inertial force.

Current Drag Force
Inertial Wave
Force
Drag Wave
Force Total
75774.15 1688553.868 132543.3561 1764328
75658.14393 1660171.542 128125.0516 1735830
75542.22674 1632266.285 123854.0304 1707809
75426.3984 1604830.078 119725.3827 1680256
75310.65894 1577855.037 115734.3626 1653166
75195.00834 1551333.41 111876.3824 1626528
75079.44662 1525257.576 108147.007 1600337
74963.97375 1499620.042 104541.9497 1574584
74848.58976 1474413.441 101057.0661 1549262
74733.29463 1449630.528 97688.35035 1524364
74618.08838 1425264.183 94431.93004 1499882
74502.97098 1401307.404 91284.06181 1475810
74387.94246 1377753.306 88241.1271 1452141
74273.0028 1354595.121 85299.62796 1428868
74158.15202 1331826.194 82456.18307 1405984
74043.39009 1309439.982 79707.52381 1383483
73928.71704 1287430.052 77050.49052 1361359
73814.13285 1265790.079 74482.02886 1339604
73699.63754 1244513.846 71999.18633 1318213
73585.23108 1223595.237 69599.10882 1297180
73470.9135 1203028.242 67279.03739 1276499
73356.68478 1182806.951 65036.30504 1256164
73242.54494 1162925.553 62868.33369 1236168
73128.49395 1143378.334 60772.63121 1216507
73014.53184 1124159.678 58746.78852 1197174
72900.65859 1105264.061 56788.47687 1178165
72786.87422 1086686.055 54895.44511 1159473
72673.1787 1068420.32 53065.51717 1141093
72559.57206 1050461.607 51296.58948 1123021
72446.05428 1032804.756 49586.62862 1105251

58 | P a g e
72332.62538 1015444.694 47933.66894 1087777
72219.28533 998376.4303 46335.81032 1070596
72106.03416 981595.0616 44791.21597 1053701
71992.87185 965095.7651 43298.11035 1037089
71879.79842 948873.7997 41854.77708 1020754
71766.81384 932924.5038 40459.55702 1004691
71653.91814 917243.2942 39110.84633 988897.2
71541.1113 901825.6646 37807.09461 973366.8
71428.39334 886667.1847 36546.80318 958095.6
71315.76423 871763.4986 35328.5233 943079.3
71203.224 857110.3234 34150.85452 928313.5
71090.77263 842703.4485 33012.44307 913794.2
70978.41014 828538.7337 31911.98033 899517.1
70866.1365 814612.1089 30848.20128 885478.2
70753.95174 800919.5719 29819.88307 871673.5
70641.85584 787457.1881 28825.84364 858099
70529.84882 774221.089 27864.94029 844750.9
70417.93065 761207.4709 26936.06845 831625.4
70306.10136 748412.5942 26038.16036 818718.7
70194.36093 735832.7823 25170.18384 806027.1
70082.70938 723464.4201 24331.14114 793547.1
69971.14668 711303.9536 23520.06774 781275.1
69859.67286 699347.8881 22736.03131 769207.6
69748.2879 687592.7881 21978.13056 757341.1
69636.99182 676035.2756 21245.49426 745672.3
69525.78459 664672.0293 20537.28025 734197.8
69414.66624 653499.784 19852.6744 722914.5
69303.63675 642515.3291 19190.88973 711819
69192.69614 631715.5082 18551.16552 700908.2
69081.84438 621097.2177 17932.76638 690179.1
68971.0815 610657.4065 17334.98144 679628.5
68860.40748 600393.0746 16757.12353 669253.5
68749.82234 590301.2722 16198.5284 659051.1
68639.32605 580379.0996 15658.55391 649018.4
68528.91864 570623.7053 15136.57936 639152.6
68418.60009 561032.2862 14632.00472 629450.9
68308.37042 551602.0859 14144.24996 619910.5
68198.2296 542330.3947 13672.75441 610528.6
68088.17766 533214.5481 13216.97606 601302.7
67978.21458 524251.9268 12776.39098 592230.1
67868.34038 515439.955 12350.49272 583308.3

59 | P a g e
67758.55503 506776.1007 11938.79168 574534.7
67648.85856 498257.8741 11540.81461 565906.7
67539.25095 489882.8275 11156.10402 557422.1
67429.73222 481648.5543 10784.21767 549078.3
67320.30234 473552.6881 10424.72808 540873
67210.96134 465592.9025 10077.22199 532803.9
67101.7092 457766.9103 9741.299946 524868.6


60 | P a g e
Appendix- 9

The tables above display the weight and buoyancy of the different parts of the structure.

Weight
(tonne)
Topside

Total 12000
Hard Tank

Horizontal walls 4333
Outer Shell 5715
Inner Shell 736
Vertical Walls 363
Total 11147
Truss

Poles 2124
Heave Plates 8845
Support Cables 62
Total 11031
Soft Tank

Empty 1415
Full 3054
Total

Total 37232

Buoyancy
(tonne)
Hard Tank

Max Buoyancy 536354
Buoyancy at
Freeboard 41945
Truss

Poles 25
Heave Plates 1162
Support Cables 8
Total 1196
Soft Tank

Buoyancy 1550
Total

Max Buoyancy 56381
Buoyancy at
Freeboard 44691

Design of A Truss Spar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of A Truss Spar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN OF A TRUSS SPAR IN THE GULF OF

is the drag coefficient, which is discussed

is the inertial coefficient (discussed below), is the displaced volume and

, which is a nonlinear term modeled

, in which is the velocity of the

), the peak frequency and the

, the weight height at this frequency is (

You might also like