Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OMAE2011
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
OMAE2011-49580
EQUIVALENT DESIGN WAVE APPROACH FOR CALCULATING SITE-SPECIFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS ON AN FPSO
Resmi Sarala
Naval Architect
Mohammad Hajiarab
Floating Structures Team Leader
Richard Bamford
FOI Global Technology Leader
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the load response analysis is to provide
environmental loads for use in the assessment of the strength,
hull girder ultimate strength, local scantlings, and sloshing
assessment.
The CSR [2] derivation of characteristic design wave loads
is based on a long term statistical approach which includes
representation of the wave environment (North Atlantic scatter
diagram), probability of ship/wave heading and probability of
load value exceedence based on IACS Recommendation 34.
Non-linear effects (due to vessel geometry and wave profile) are
considered for the expected lifetime maximum loads. In
deriving the simultaneously occurring loads, one particular load
component is maximised or minimised and the relative
magnitude of all simultaneously occurring dynamic load
components is specified by the application of dynamic load
combination factors (DLCF) based on the envelope load value.
These dynamic load combination factors based on the
equivalent representative design waves are tabulated in the
CSR [2].
It is not sufficient simply to replace the individual tanker
loads given in the CSR Section 7/3 [2] with FPSO loads unless
the load combination factors given in the CSR Section 7/6 [2]
are also replaced. This is because the heading probabilities,
environmental load characteristics and hence response
characteristics of an FOI differ from those of a trading tanker.
Furthermore the values of f in CSR [2] which account for the
probabilities of head seas and beam seas are not necessarily
applicable to an FOI.
3D Diffraction
Model
Hydrodynamic
database
Metocean
database
Heading
analysis
Wind and
current
coefficients
Heading
database
Response
Analysis
Dynamic Load
combination
factors
RulesCalc
Scantling
calculations
LR RBA Method
The LR RBA method makes use of the following for
calculating extreme responses and associated DLCF using the
design wave approach:
A site specific directional scatter diagram or
hindcast/measured data series;
Linear hydrodynamic theory with the hull modeled using
3D-diffraction elements; and
Heading probabilities determined from a heading analysis.
Figure 1 shows a flow chart of the complete hydrodynamic
analysis to calculate required loads for determining the local
scantlings for the hull structure.
-900
z
y
00
cog
900
1800
230
45
12
110,000
4.5
110
16
20
65
65
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
The environmental data includes a total of approximately
30,000 continuous three hourly hindcast sea states which
represents more than 10 years of data. Definition of this data is
in accordance to requirements of Section 2.8 of ShipRight FOI
Procedure [1] and no spreading is assumed in the wave data.
The environmental data includes:
Wind wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, ,
a and b) and direction
Swell wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, ,
a and b) and direction
Wind mean speed and direction
Current mean speed and direction
RBA PROCEDURE
Analysis was performed as indicated in Figure 1 based on
the following procedure:
1. A 3-D diffraction model of the vessel's hull was generated
in AQWA-LINE based on the characteristics defined in
Table 1.
2. The calculated linearised roll damping is verified against
field measurements and included in the hydrodynamic
model.
3. A hydrodynamic database containing amplitude and phase
of the RAOs for design parameters stated in Table 2 was
prepared for frequency range of 0.1 rad/s to 1.5 rad/s with
0.05 rad/s increments and heading range of -180 to 180
with 5 increments.
4. The mooring arrangements were added to the AQWALINE model to create the AQWA-LIBRIUM model.
5. Wind and current coefficients from wind tunnel tests were
added to the AQWA-LIBRIUM to include the wind drag
and the current drag forces for the specified loading
condition of the vessel and the headings relative to wind
and current directions.
6. The three hourly environmental data, which contained sets
of wind-sea, swell, wind and current data with their
associated directions were included in the hydrodynamic
model.
7. Using the AQWA-LIBRIUM software, the stable
equilibrium positions for each three hourly sea state was
calculated individually.
8. The vessel headings were post-processed to find the
relative vessel heading to wind seas and swell seas at each
three hourly sea state.
9. Using RAOs calculated in step 3 above and the relative
vessel headings calculated in step 8 above, an extreme
response analysis was performed in accordance with [1] to
calculate the 100 year return period for the parameters
listed in Table 2.
10. The outcome of the response analysis from step 9 is post
processed to define individual design waves associated to
each response. In this process for each sea state the
relative headings of the wind seas and swell seas are
rounded to nearest 5. The response spectra for wind seas
and swell seas with the same rounded headings are added
together and are presented in the form of a histogram. The
total area on the starboard side (i.e. from 0 to 180) and
port side (i.e. from -180 to 0) are calculated and the
biggest area is considered as the "Governing Side". The
dominant heading is chosen from the Governing Side of
the histogram (See Figures 9 to 14 in Annex A).
11. The calculated design waves are used to determine the
associated values in phase with each 100 year return
period responses from the hydrodynamic database
calculated in step 3.
Table 2: Presented FPSO responses
FPSO
Response
Roll
Pitch
Mwv
Qwv
av-PS
at-PS
RESULTS
The calculated 100 year return period values from the
Response Based Analysis (RBA) and their design wave
characteristics for the specified responses stated in Table 2, are
presented in Table 3.
Using the design waves in Table 3 and the RAO database
of the responses, associated loads in phase with each 100 year
return period response can be calculated. The calculated design
parameters associated with each design wave are presented in
Table 4.
For each design wave (i.e. each column in Table 4), the 100
year return period is highlighted for further clarity. For
example, at the time of the 100 year return period vertical wave
bending moment (i.e. Mwv=5.8E9 N.m), the associated vertical
wave shear force, vertical acceleration, transverse acceleration,
roll and pitch are -2.7E7 N, 0.50 ms-2, 0.00 ms-2, 0.00 deg. and
2.46 deg., respectively.
Table 3: The RBA 100 year return period values and design
waves
Response
Mwv
5.8E9
11.87
0.50
180
167
(N.m)
Qwv
4.3E7
12.06
0.55
-180
37
(N)
av-PS
1.70
16.13
0.60
180
54
(ms-2)
at-PS
5.83
8.66
0.35
150
-133
(ms-2)
Roll
22.93
8.54
0.35
150
-175
(deg.)
Pitch
9.46
13.66
0.50
180
94
(deg.)
Note: A: Amplitude, F: Frequency, H: Heading, P: Phase
Table 4: The RBA associated design parameters for each
design wave
Resp.
100 Yr.
R.P.
Value
Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
Design Wave
av-PS
at-PS
(ms-2)
(ms-2)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)
Mwv
5.8E9 -2.6E9 3.71E8 1.25E9 1.8E9 1.99E9
(N.m)
Qwv
-2.7E7 4.3E7 5.15E7 -9.92E6 -1.1E7 2.72E7
(N)
av-PS
0.50
0.64
1.70
0.20
0.41
0.688
(ms-2)
at-PS
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.83
4.23
0.00
(ms-2)
Roll
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.11
22.93
0.00
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)
2.46
3.34
4.05
-3.60
-0.40
9.46
Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)
1.00
-0.46
0.06
0.21
0.32
0.35
-0.63
1.00
1.18
-0.23
-0.25
0.62
0.30
0.38
1.00
0.12
0.24
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.73
0.00
Roll
(deg.)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
1.00
0.00
Pitch
(deg.)
0.26
0.35
0.43
-0.38
-0.04
1.00
Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)
Mwv
(N.m)
Table 6: The RAO based 100 year return period values and
design waves
Response
Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)
100 Yr.
R.P.
Value
5.8E9
11.87
0.50
180
167
4.3E7
8.62
0.55
-57
1.70
3.25
0.65
90
-131
5.83
3.16
0.35
90
-128
22.93
3.28
0.35
90
-169
9.46
9.46
0.60
120
112
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
Qwv
-2.73E7 4.3E7 -8.99E5
(N)
av-PS
0.51
-0.08
1.70
(ms-2)
at-PS
0.51
0.00
0.37
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)
1.61E5 -4.28E6
-0.07
-0.02
0.59
5.83
-0.02
-0.26
Roll
(deg.)
0.00
0.00
0.74
17.60
22.93
-0.46
Pitch
(deg.)
2.47
3.57
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
9.46
Mwv
(N.m)
Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)
Design Wave
av-PS
at-PS
(ms-2)
(ms-2)
Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)
1.00
-0.51
0.01
-0.01
0.02
0.32
-0.63
1.00
-0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.10
0.30
-0.05
1.00
-0.04
0.01
0.35
0.09
0.00
0.06
1.00
0.00
-0.04
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.77
1.00
-0.02
0.26
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
DISCUSSIONS
For each design wave the RBA and RAO based response
parameters are tabulated in Table 3 to Table 8.
It can be seen from Table 5 that at the time of the 100 year
return period av-PS , the associated Qwv is about 18% more than
the calculated 100 year return period Qwv. This is because the
response of the vessel due to two separate wave spectra (i.e.
wind wave and swell) is approximated by only one regular
design wave. In order to eliminate such discrepancies when
calculating local scantlings it is usual to truncate any associated
value exceeding the calculated 100 year value to the
corresponding 100 year value [4]. However when applying the
design wave directly for FE analysis using a full ship FE model
such truncation is not practical.
7
6
0.8
5
0.6
4
3
0.4
2
0.2
1
180
170
175
165
160
150
155
145
135
140
130
125
115
120
110
105
90
95
100
80
85
75
70
60
65
55
45
50
40
35
25
30
20
15
5
10
0
0
Heading (deg.)
CONCLUSIONS
From the preceding discussions, it is concluded that the
RBA design wave approach adopted by Lloyd's Register
ANNEX A