Proceedings of The Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 25 30,

2003 Copyright 2003 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1 880653 -60 5 (Set); ISSN 1098 6189 (Set)

Structural Evaluation of FSO Ground Build Load-out

Y. T. Yang, H. S. Kang, B. N. Park
Offshore Basic Design & Engineering Dept, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., LTD ULSAN, KOREA

ABSTRACT
End of July 2002, HHI(Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., LTD) successfully completed load-out and float-off of 300K VLCC size AMENAM KPONO/FSO. HHI built this FSO for EPNL (ELF Petroleum Nigeria Ltd.) using Ground build methodology. Various systems and methodologies like-Flexi-built FPSO Hull(Fabrication on Ground), Topside module design and erection method, Soil strength and stability check, Load-out and float-off using multipurpose DBU (Double Barge Unit) were combined to develop a successful Ground build method. In this paper, we described the Numerical simulation of FSO Structure (Ground Build) load-out using the DBU(Double Barge Unit). A technology of Ground Build design, construction, load-out and float-off of floating structure successfully proved by HHI after its four years of dedicated research and development. KEY WORDS: Ground build; Load-out; F(P)SO; Multipurpose DBU

difficult to incorporate any design change or change in construction process suggested by the client or contractor. In addition, by the end of 1997, orders were booked for most of the East Asian shipyards for next 2 or 3years. So there was a need for new construction methodology instead of conventional dry dock method. For the success of ground build methodology of VLCC size F(P)SO, the following specialized features were considered ; Ability to construct either in dock or ground Satisfy the ship registers regulations Sufficient strength under topside module loading Simulated Load-out & Float-off studies using F. E. Analysis Loadout Scheme Study, DBU Connector load Study & DBU Connector Type Study Model Test, Wave induced Response Analysis and F.E. analysis for DBU Connector - Possibility to verify the overall structural strength by Full ship F. E. Analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Floating type offshore structures showed an overall increase in market share during the last several years in offshore construction field. Generally, the fabrication and assembly of floating offshore structures like F(P)SO, Rig, Jack-up etc., are carried out in the dry dock of shipyard by stacking unit blocks sequentially from lower to upper levels. The sequential block-stacking method can create difficulties in terms of schedule and cost due to interference with overall material flow of shipyard and due to extended use of the dry dock. In some cases, hull fabrication and assembly are carried out in a dry dock by block-stacking method and after that topside modules are installed by heavy lifting crane near the quay side. This methodology has great dependency on dock schedule and dock capacity. Hence, it is very

NUMERICAL EVALUATION FOR OVERALL HULL STRENGTH General

AMENAM KPONO/FSO has an over all length of 298m, breadth of 62m, depth of 32.2m, design draft of 22m and a lightship weight of about 48,000ton including topside modules weight of 12,000ton. The F. E. Analysis was performed to verify the structural integrity and strength check of the AMENAM FSO Hull for the following conditions for the ground build load-out : / Pre Load-out Condition (for aft part), / Side Skidding condition (for forward part),

227

/ Fit-up condition (for final assembly), / Main Load-out Condition Each condition consists of Active Jack (Jack Up) and Passive Jack (Jack Down) case excluding fit-up condition. Soil Stability and Strength test of HHI offshore yard also performed. In this paper we described the pre load-out and main load-out condition only.

Fig. 2 The after part deflection during the active jack condition Case 2 : After Pre load-out Passive Jack condition After the pre load-out, web frame No. 12 is located at end of quay-wall and about 60.0m hull structures overhang from the quay-wall, 18 fabrication supports are located under each frame from Fr. 12 to Fr. 14 and 4 supports are located under each frame from Fr. 15 to Fr. 30. For the structural integrity of the AMENAM FSO hull at above mentioned over hanging position for 2-months approximately, before main load-out, HHI executed some case studies to verify the supporting system using sensitivity analysis method. The edge part near quayside has to take various concentrated loads due to soil settlement, overhang of structure, environment loads etc, when the aft part is in cantilevered position.

Pre Load-out
Although, area of HHI Offshore division yard exceeds 880,000m2, an overall FSO length of 298m was too long to accommodate and to fabricate in single unit. Hence, HHI has followed Pre Load-out concept to fabricate and final Load-out.

Fig. 1 Yard Layout during Fabrication In Pre Load-out concept, the construction of AMENAM KPONO/FSO has been carried out in two parts. After fabrication, the aft part has been moved to quayside, cantilevered out into sea for about 60m to facilitate final assembling for Load-out. For construction purpose, AMENAM FSO was divided into 160m aft-part and 138m forward part including SBM(Single Buoy Mooring). Forward and aft parts including topside modules were constructed by block-stacking method. Model geometry and Analysis The 3-D F.E. model used for this analysis represents the full aft part hull structure (from A.P. to Fr. 31+1350mm), based on the basic key plan and structural drawings. Two cases are considered for analysis. Case 1 : Pre load-out Active Jack condition The weight of aft part for load out was about 27,000ton and fifty-two(52) m x 4 active shoes were installed at longitudinal bulkhead and side shell of aft part for moving to quayside from fabrication area. During the pre load-out active jack condition, the weight of the aft part is evenly distributed along skid-way foundation and no stress concentration was found. (Refer Fig. 2)

Fig. 3 The after part overview at near the quay-wall To consider the yard settlement, deformation of temporary supports and to relax load concentration near the quay wall, HHI has carried out some case studies as follows : HHI used three types of timber stiffness at each support location as given below to consider possible support deformation. The minimum timber dimension was 700 mm (L) x 700 mm (B) x 280 mm (T). For the timber stiffness calculation, elastic modulus used is 66N/mm2 ~ 16100N/mm2. (1) Base Case: timber direction perpendicular to grain, (2) Alternate -1: timber direction parallel to grain and (3) Alternate 2: Elastic modulus value was extracted from the test results of HHI. (1) Base case : K = 6.00E+08N/m (E=16100N/mm2/20) (2) Alternative 1 : K = 1.21E+10N/m (E=16100N/mm2) (3) Alternative 2 : K = 4.95E+07N/m (E=66N/mm2) (A) First HHI applied enforced deformation of 5mm, 10mm, 15mm and 20mm in successive cases at Frame no. 12 of AMENAM FSO hull to relax a load concentration near the quay wall.

228

In the above cases support reactions and maximum stresses are within limit. However, soil stability between quayside and pile foundation below frame no 12 to frame no 15 is need to be checked.
7000 6000 5mm 10mm 15mm 20mm 2000 1000 0

1 0.0

-1 0.0

Deflection(mm)

-30.0

Original
-50.0 -70.0

Reaction(Ton)

5000 4000 3000

Add 15mm(Base)
Add 15mm(Alt1)

-90.0

Web frame No.

Fig. 6 Hull Deflection Curve for After Pre Load-out

Frame No.

Results

Fig. 4 Case study result for Case A (B) Second HHI applied 0 20 mm relative deformation between Frame no. 12 to Frame no. 31 of AMENAM FSO Hull for all possible alternative cases to consider yard settlement. In the above cases support reactions and maximum stresses are within limit.
8000 7000 6000 5mm 10mm 15mm 20mm

From the analysis results for all the cases, maximum stresses in hull and support reaction values are acceptable and under the allowable limits. HHI has selected following case for actual work according to the feasibility of construction. - Enforced deformation at Frame no. 12 15mm - Yard settlement(relative) 20 mm(max) - Temporary support below Frame no. 13 Removed - Timber stiffness considered Base case value

Reaction(Ton)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Frame No.

Fig. 7 Support arrangement for after the pre load-out condition The maximum deflection of AMENAM FSO after part is 46.0mm during the pre load-out active jack. The maximum Von-Mises stress of plates is 162 N/mm2 at side shell in jack passive (after the pre load-out) condition. All plates are within the allowable stress limits during pre load-out condition. The maximum value of buckling unity check is 0.78 in jack passive condition at side shell plate. All plates, stiffeners, girders buckling stresses within the allowable limits.

Fig. 5 Case study result for Case C (C & D) After investigating the results from above cases (A) and (B) to avoid soil stability problem HHI removed temporary support below Frame no. 13 and applied the enforced deformation in successive cases as per Case A and Case B respectively. All of the above cases are combined with support location optimization to check stress concentration in FSO hull due to enforced deformation condition, yard displacements condition and support deformation condition.

229

Soil strength and stability check for ground build

In scheme of pre load-out and final load-out of FSO structure, the main foundation components are skid way located on mat foundations, skid way located on piles (near the quay-wall), quay-wall with an arrangement of link beam and onshore bridge for load-out. The most critical operation from geo-technical point of view was pre load-out, where part of aft structure was cantilevered on the quay wall for about 60 m length. The entire hull was made to rest on fabrication support. The main challenge was to find-out an optimum support arrangement to satisfy quay-wall stability, bearing capacity, settlement and associated stress in the FSO hull. Table 1. Soil Strength and Stability results

To keep no Heeling condition for DBU, HHI implemented a special load sharing plan. According to the Load sharing plan Longitudinal bulkhead and Side shell of FSO has taken the 65% and 35% of uplifting force respectively, especially from 124m active shoes during the Load-out. Model geometry The AMENAM FSO full ship 3-D F.E. model consists of eight (8) super elements and detailed block divisions as shown in the Fig.8 below. The model composed of 184,229 nodes and 319,578 plate & beam elements. The AMENAM FSO hull structure is modeled by means of three or four node shell and two node beam elements. Steel panels are modeled by plate & shell elements with appropriate thickness, while girders, webs and longitudinal stiffeners are modeled by T-beam with appropriate geometrical properties (flange and web thickness) and eccentricity. Plate element sizes in the model are as same as the longitudinal spacing of hull structure (800mm ~ 930mm).

Foundation stability and bearing capacity were checked for various stages of construction and it has been found that HHI yard has a sufficient bearing capacity of more than 150ton/m(Table 1). Settlement estimations were also made to optimize support arrangements and to keep the stresses in the FSO structure within allowable limits. Table 2. Soil Strength and Stability summary
Load Condition During P re-Loadout After Pre-Loadout During Loadout Rock pad Stability Elevation (m) (-) 11.0 (-) 11.0 (-) 11.0 F actor of Safety Sliding 2.5 2.6 5.6 5.9 3.7 3.9 Overturning 4.5 5.0 7.9 8.7 6.1 6.6 1.4 Bearing Capacity 3.8 4.2 2.5 2.6 3.7 3.9

Fig. 8 The 3-D model and boundary condition of AMENAM FSO Basic Model Load

Load-out using multi-purpose DBU

Overall length of AMENAM FSO is 298m and the estimated lightship weight is 48,000 Metric ton. HHI had selected 51,000 Metric ton for the design of load-out in order to have sufficient engineering margin including environmental effects. AMENAM FSO has two inner skin bulkheads and side shell. These bulkheads were supported by symmetrical 124 m active shoes system during the normal load-out operation. From the 3D analysis results, longitudinal bulkhead and side-shell share 82% and 18% load respectively, under the active shoe up-lifting force.

Load-out weight, Yard settlements and Barge deflections due to still water and wave induced bending moments are the main loads arises during the load-out operation. The active jack stroke 250mm was sufficient to accommodate Hull deformation and Yard settlement. For normal operation, yard settlement effect has not been considered as load-out design load. - Vertical gravity Load The structural coded weight was generated automatically by SESAM program. Weight of non-coded misc. items e.g. external turrets, living

230

quarters, topsides modules, etc weights were calculated based on weight control reports and inputted as separate loads. Contingency of 10% was considered to account for stiffeners, paint and welds. 1) Hull structural dead loads (BLC 1) 2) Topsides module loads -Include equipments (BLC 2) 3) Turret & suspended loads (BLC 3) 4) Living quarters and heli-deck loads (BLC 4) - Uplifting force from Active shoe System The active shoe system is able to distribute load effectively and evenly on the load-out beams. To make good stability during the load-out operation, different up-lifting forces and locations are calculated at each active jack groups. 5) Active jack up-lifting force (BLC 5) - Deformation for boundary displacements For the structural integrity at jack-down condition, the Hull boundary displacement was extracted from active jack-up condition and combined with DBU deformation at 10m, 60m and 100m progress of skidding on DBU during the main load-out. 6) Hull deformation (BLC 6) 7) DBU deformation(BLC 7-9) Load Combinations and boundary conditions During the main load-out, boundary conditions considered are as shown in Fig. 8 and active jack was located on web frame No. 18 to 42 of each side shell and longitudinal bulkhead. For the consideration of barge deformation during the main load-out, HHI considered combination of hull deformation (BLC6) & barge deformation (BLC7 ~ 9) applied at each load-out step. 1) Load combination 1 (LCB 1) Combined vertical gravity loading and up-lifting force for jack active condition (Load-out initial condition) LCB 1 = BLC1 + BLC2 + BLC3 + BLC4 + BLC5 2) Load combination 2 (LCB 2) Combined jack active condition and barge and/or hull deformation after progressed 10m on board of the barge LCB 2 = BLC1 + BLC2 + BLC3 + BLC4 + BLC6 + BLC7 3) Load combination 3 (LCB 3) Combined jack active condition and barge and/or hull deformation after progressed 60m on board of the barge LCB 3 = BLC1 + BLC2 + BLC3 + BLC4 + BLC6 + BLC8 4) Load combination 4 (LCB 4) Combined jack active condition and barge and/or hull deformation after progressed on board of the barge LCB 4 = BLC1 + BLC2 + BLC3 + BLC4 + BLC6 + BLC9

Results During the load-out, the maximum deflection of AMENAM FSO was 340mm between A.P. to F.P. but within the active shoe support the deflection was less than 100mm. The maximum Von-Mises stress in plate elements was 214 N/mm2 at side shell during 100m progressed on board condition. Stress contours near the longitudinal center of gravity location at initial condition are shown in Fig. 9 ~ 12. All plates were within the allowable stress limits during main load-out condition. The yield and buckling checks have been carried out using PLATE WORK module of SESAM programs for plate elements and based on the criteria of DNV classification Notes No.30.1, respectively. The maximum value of buckling unity check is 0.88 at side shell plate after 100m progressed on board in barge condition. For all plates, stiffeners, girders buckling stress are within the allowable limits.

Fig. 9 Load-out Initial condition X-axis normal stress contour (Near the L.C.G Location: -161N/mm2 ~ 180N/mm2)

Fig. 10 Load-out Initial condition Y-axis normal stress contour (Near the L.C.G Location: -186N/mm2 ~ 71N/mm2)

231

FWD

FWD

Fig. 13 Configuration of Double Barge Unit

Load-out Scheme Study

Due to the long length, huge weight of AMENAM FSO, loadout direction was studied on the point of view of relative motion, DBU connector load and mooring force at several cases. After the several scheme case studies, longitudinal direction with connected two barges was selected. Case study for connector type was also performed based on the motions and loads expected at connectors under all the schemes. Scheme 1 3 Barge Systems: (HDB1011, Space Barge, HDB1012) Load out of FSO in Transverse direction of barges Scheme 2 2 Barge Systems: (HDB1011, HDB1012) Load out of FSO in Longitudinal direction of barges To verify the structural integrity of the schemes, HHI performed numerical simulations and model tests for the loadout process. Maximum displacements, accelerations and sectional forces were obtained and compared. From numerical simulations and model test results it was found that the connector loads and maneuverability in load out/ towing operations within the channel were better in scheme 2 compared with scheme 1. The synchronizing of ballasting operations was also simpler in scheme 2. And mooring in scheme 2 was found to be more practical than scheme 1. Generally Scheme 1 seems to be the best in motion response point of view and scheme 2 seems to be the most advantageous in the aspect of design load and operation.

Fig. 11 Load-out Initial condition shear stress contour (Near the L.C.G Location: -58N/mm2 ~ 57N/mm2)

Fig. 12 Load-out Initial condition Von mises stress contour (Near the L.C.G Location: -161N/mm2 ~ 180N/mm2)

NUMERICAL SIMULATION FOR MULTI PURPOSE DBU (Double Barge Unit)

HHI designed two submersible barges for multipurpose activities like load-out, tow and float-off. Each of two barges can submerge to 25.5 m with several sizes of portable casing tank and separate control system. Two barges can work separately for small cargo or combine together for heavy cargo. In case of AMENAM project, the two semi-submersible barges (HDB-1011&1012) were combined with the help of connector to make a single unit called DBU.

< Transverse Direction : Scheme1> <Longitudinal Direction:Scheme2> Fig. 14 Model Test for Loadout Scheme

232

Table 3 Maximum Accelerations Model Test

Acceleration Scheme 1 Scheme 2 HS m 1 1 Surge m/s 0.106 0.129
2

Sway m/s 0.103 0.195

2

Heave m/s 0.354 0.625

2

Roll deg/s 0.179 0.779

2

Pitch deg/s 0.283 0.254

2

Yaw deg/s 0.020 0.057

2

20.0%
CASING

SKID REACTION 30.0% 30.0% 20.0%

CASING

Table 4 Maximum Loads Numerical Simulation

Sectional Loads Scheme 1 Scheme 2 HS m 1 1 Fx Kn 4156 2913 Fy Kn 18367 17387 Fz Kn 34707 13280 Mx Kn.m 378417 87225 My Kn.m 836535 389019 Mz Kn.m 356655 266910

HDB 1011 HO

HDB 1012 HO

Fig. 16 Skid Reaction Change c) Wave force Other load coming on the connector is dynamic load due wave force. Various characteristic responses has been calculated for Load-out, Tow and Float-off conditions for wave loading using WADAM program released by DNV. Table 5 Environmental condition for wave response analysis
DBU Draft Meter LOADOUT TOWING FLOAT OFF 8.36 8.36 20.4 Wave Hs Meter 1 2.5 1 Period(Tz) Sec. 4.5 ~ 6 4.5 ~ 6 4.5 Heading Deg. 0 ~180 0 ~180 0 ~180

Connector Design
Loads at connector were mainly function of difference of stability properties of two barges, accuracy of ballasting and dynamic force from waves. Loads were studied at each operation with respect to the static forces and wave induced dynamic forces. At loadout and float off stage, relative heeling moment induced by ballast control error and skid reaction change was governing factor of connector load. However, at towing condition, due to minor changes at ballast and skid reactions, dynamic forces by waves were governing factor comparing with static loads. Following design conditions were considered for DBU connector design a) Ballast Control Error Following criteria had been considered, based on the Ballasting Pump Capacity, to calculate the resulting moment. Ballast Error Time 10 min., Ballast = 680 t Resulting Moment due to Ballast Error = 5,365 t.m
CASING CASING

Characteristic Responses considered are Longitudinal Shear Force (Fx), Split Force (Fy), Vertical Shear Force (Fz), Relative Heeling Moment (Mx), Relative Trim Moment (My) and Yawing Moment (Mz).Table 6 is showing the Maximum Characteristic Responses for the above operation environment condition. Table 6. Environmental Force
Wave Induced Forces (Maximum) FX t LOAD OUT TOWING FLOAT OFF 104 353 103 FY t 1,030 2,574 480 FZ t 826 2,066 294 MX t.m 2,681 6,702 9,161 MY t.m 9,603 32,327 8,978 MZ t.m 11,613 40,433 27,824

AMENAM FSO !"

BALLAST ERROR

HDB 1011 HO

HDB 1012 HO

Fig. 15 Ballast Error b) Skid Reaction Change While AMENAM FSO is being skidded on DBU skid way, reaction forces could be changed by 1) difference of vertical acceleration component due to wave and also 2) difference in deballasting operation between two barges. According to the model test result, 2.75% of vertical acceleration was expected. Hence, 5% of load was applied in order to take care of this change in skid reaction. Resulting heeling moment from possible deviation of reaction was considered for connector design. Skid Reaction Change Range = 5%, Reaction Change = 1,300 t Resulting Skid Reaction moment = 24,947 t.m

As a result of studies of the connector loads during load out, towing and float off operation based on the ballasting plan, operation simulation, model test and wave response analysis, relative heeling moment and vertical shear force were found major factors controlling the design of DBU with connector. Different configurations of connectors, such as hinged type and fixed type, were analyzed to meet the required criteria and the configuration of connector shown below was selected to cater the requirement of required strength for heeling moment. Additionally one bottom connector was also provided to take care of compression forces due to tug boat during operation. To keep the bottom connector in compression, suitable ballast plan were developed also.

233

UPPER PART RIGID CONNECTOR FRAME

- With the use of Multi Barge unit Ground Build method can eliminate all the constraints with conventional dry dock construction like capacity, schedule, cost, incorporation of changes, etc. and concluded that Flexi hull can be used as an efficient construction method. - Ground Building study for irregular type Ultra Heavy Floating Structure construction using multi barge unit is the next step in Floating Offshore Structure construction Industry. Also, the use of Synchronized Multi barge unit for removal and/or shifting of Fixed Structure can be added scope. REFERENCES

HDB 1011HO

HDB 1012 HO

LOWER PART RIGID CONNECTOR FRAME

BV, September, 1998,Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships DnV, January, 1996, Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations Hyundai Heavy Industries, May, 2002," Ballasting and Stability analysis for Load-out of AMENAM FSO" Hyundai Heavy Industries, May, 2002," Foundation Analysis & Design report for Load-out of AMENAM FSO" Hyundai Heavy Industries, June, 2002," Hazop for Load-out & Float-off of AMENAM FSO"

Fig. 17 Rigid Frame Connector

FEM Analysis for connectors

For the above connector configuration FE analysis has been carried out to find the capacity of connector..

Fig. 18 F.E. Model for Float Off Operation The results showed that the Capacity of connector is as follows; Against Bending Moment : 40,000 tm Against Shear force : 23,500 t As it is difficult to control and monitor the dynamic loads due to wave, the operation limit has been finalized to keep the maximum heeling static moment less than 30,000tm. The static B.M. and S.F. has been monitored at control room with the help of Load Master Computer (LMC), by keeping a margin of about 10,000 tm for dynamic load. CONCLUSION - The Ground Build Load-out of VLCC size AMENAM F(P)SO had been verified by F. E. Analysis for various condition and executed successfully. The maximum stresses and deflection of the hull structure during the pre load-out and main load-out is well below the allowable value, almost 60% of the extreme design condition. The Yield and Buckling checks have also been checked as per the DNV classification. - The concept of using DBU (Double Barge Unit) for load-out was also a challenging move which proved successful and cost effective. However, constant monitoring, precise load sharing plan, accurate ballast control, proper mooring arrangement at various stages of on board condition is very essential for success of project.

Hyundai Heavy Industries, January 8, 2000,"Load-out Procedure for RBS-8D Semi-Submersible Drilling Rig" Hyundai Heavy Industries, May, 2002,"Operation Manual for Load-out of AMENAM FSO" Hyundai Heavy Industries, September, 2001," Outline method statement for Load-out & Float-off of AMENAM FSO" Hyundai Heavy Industries, May, 2002,"Strength analysis of Connector for HDB 1011/1012" KAIST, October 30, 1985,"Development of Design Technology of Offshore Platforms for Offshore Oil Production Noble Denton Co. Ltd, Guidelines for Marine Operations

234