Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
0
Where a
zw
(t) is the z-axis acceleration as a function of time in meters-per-second squared (m/s
2
),
weighted by the Wf frequency weighting as defined in BS 6841:1987 and ISO
8041:1990/Amd.1:1999, and T is the duration of the motion in seconds.
The measurements must be taken in 0.1 to 0.5Hz frequency range (2.0 to 10.0s period), and the
following criteria should apply.
Table 2 - Confort criteria
3.2. EFFECTS ON TOPSIDE
The reduction of roll amplitudes is important not only for improving the crew performance, but also
for the performance of installed equipments. Separation equipments, such as production separators,
glycol contractors and deaerator towers, are sensitive to motions. For other equipments such as
rotating equipment, heat exchangers and vessels (without separation function) motions and
accelerations have to be addressed but do not present large problems in the design. Motions have
adverse effects on the separatism performance, especially roll and pitch (ref. [15]). The accelerations
induce secondary flows in the liquid which create waves at the interfaces and dispersion of liquid
phases at the oil/water interface, and extreme motions can cause the shutdown of the production
plant. For optimum separation efficiency the separators are usually located approximately amidships
where accelerations due to pitch are lowest. However, there is no possible position that will reduce
roll induced accelerations.
8 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
Table 3 shows the expected accelerations for a process module in a converted FPSOs due to roll
motions in extreme sea states (100 years return period; Campos Basin), based on BV formulations
(ref. [25]).
Table 3 - FPSO topside accelerations
Longitudinal Transversal Vertical
(m/s
2
) (g) (m/s
2
) (g) (m/s
2
) (g)
Centenary Sea State 0.985 0.100 4.457 0.457 -12.362 -1.260
3.3. GREEN WATER
Another issue that must be considered is the green water effect from the side of the FPSO. As
previously explained, the non-collinear directions of wind, current and waves may induce to green
water, with possible impacts of structure and equipment damage, as well as safety of the crew,
especially amidships and further aft. Additional information may be found in the Green water from
the side of FPSOs (ref. [3]).
Figure 7 Green water effects
3.4. EFFECTS ON RISERS
The FPSOs are less riser friendly units compared to other types of offshore structures, like semi-
submersibles, SPARs, etc. Due to the composition of heave, roll and pitch, usually with natural
periods close to the wave peak period, the vertical motions at risers connections are relatively large.
In SPM system, the riser connections are usually located in the fore position, and the pitch motion
becomes the most important issue. In SMS systems, however, the risers are located at the FPSOs
side, and the roll will induce high vertical motions at the connectors.
Due to the high motions, free hanged flexible risers are the available solution for FPSOs, especially
under harsh environmental conditions, but limitations in diameter, maximum water depth and high
costs may be faced.
Another option is the application of SCRs (Steel Centenary Risers), but the FPSO motions make the
riser design a challenging task. The most critical areas of SCRs directly connected to a FPSO through
flexible joints or stress joints are the strength of the hangoff and the sagbend region, as well as the
fatigue damage of the hangoff region and the touchdown region.
9 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
Some alternatives may be considered in order to allow the use of SCRs in FPSO, such as the
improvement of SCR fatigue and strength performance, the reduction of the FPSO motion or the
decoupling of riser and vessel motion, through the use of submerged intermediate structures (riser
towers, submerged buoys, etc) (ref. [18]).
Figure 8 - Weld-on Threaded Connector (Courtesy of
RTI Energy System) and Thread and Couple
Connector (Courtesy of Vallourec and Mannesman),
for improved strength and fatigue performance
Figure 9 - Hybrid Riser Tower Concept (Courtesy of Stolt
Offshore)
10 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
4. ROLL HYDRODYNAMICS
First order motions of ships can be obtained by a simple dynamic equation that computes values of
inertia, damping, wave and restoring forces.
A typical roll motion with single degree of freedom can be described as (ref. [36]):
(1)
Where is the roll angle,
and
are the first and second differentiations with respect to time, i.e.,
angular velocity and angular acceleration. is the mass moment of inertia in roll (considering its
additional part),
4
is the roll amplitude in radians.
Although the bilge keel effectiveness increases as larger the structure is, there is a limitation due to
the increasing in the advance resistance. However, since FPSOs are stationary systems, there is no
limitation to bilge keel dimensions, which could be enlarged, resulting in two different hydrodynamic
effects: the increase of damping forces and the increase of added inertia.
Several studies had been carried out in order to evaluate the effectiveness of large bilge keels for
FPSO, mostly based on model tests, and results have shown that enlarged keels can produce more
than 100% increase on damping coefficients. Table 4 shows the damping, as a percentage of the
critical damping, for different sizes (widths) of bilge keel (ref. [11]).
Table 4 - Enlarged bilge keel effectiveness
Bilge Keel Width Damping
0.45m 2.46%
0.90m 3.90%
1.80m 6.51%
However, studies have shown that changes on the width are much more effective than modification
on the extension, in terms of extra damping. Some investigations have already discussed about
adverse pitch motions when large bilge keels are extended too far forward.
Attention must be paid for possible effects of added inertia when it comes to very large bilge keels,
which can result in higher natural periods. Table 5 shows the roll natural period variation on a new-
built FPDSO concept after the introduction of a 4m wide bilge keel (ref. [24]).
Table 5 - Natural period variation due to enlarged bilge keel
NATURAL PERIOD (s)
wo/ Enlarged Bilge Keel w/ Enlarged Bilge Keel
Roll 20.74 23.20
22 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
As previously highlighted, higher roll natural periods may be useful in terms of detuning the motion
response against the wave energy spectrum, but may lead to undesirable second-order effects.
However, since the motions cased by second-order effects are slow (and drag forces are related to
squared velocity), the effectiveness of bilge keels are smaller.
Additionally, extra-large bilge keels are subjected to high drag forces, which may induce to structural
and construction problems.
23 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
8. REFERENCES
[1] ABS; Passenger Comfort on Ships, 2001, Houston, USA.
[2] API RP 2SK; Design and Analysis of Station Keeping Systems for Floating Structures; Third
Edition.
[3] Buchner, B.; Green Water on the Bow of FPSOs, Hydrodynamics of Floating Structures Training
Course, 2007.
[4] Bunnik, T.; Cozijn, J.; Analysis of Mooring Systems, Hydrodynamics of Floating Structures
Training Course, 2007.
[5] Chakrabarti, S. K.; Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures, 1987, Computational Mechanics
Publications.
[6] Chakrabarti, S. K.; Offshore Structure Modeling, 1994, World Scientific Publishing Co.
[7] Chen, X-B.; Orozco, J-M.; Malenic, S.; Evaluation of Wave and Current Loads on Offloading
FPSOs, 2005, OTC 17180, Houston, USA.
[8] Cueva, D.; Campos, F.; Donato, M.; Ferrari, J.; Torres, F.; Nishimoto, K.; Dimensional Study for
Brazilian FPSO, 2005, OMAE2005-67333, Halkidiki, Greece.
[9] Del Vecchio, C.; Costa, L.; Station Keeping in Deep and Ultradeep Waters, 1999, OTC 10778,
Houston, USA.
[10]Faltinsen, O. M.; Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, 1990, Cambridge University
Press.
[11]Ferrari, J.; Ferreira, M.; Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Bilge Keel as an Anti-Roll Device
in VLCCSized FPSOs, 2002, ISOPE, Kitakyushu, Japan.
[12]Ferreira, M.; Torres, F.; Cueva, D.; Ceppollina, D.; Pinheiro, S.; Correa Jr, H.; Umeda, C.;
Hydrodynamic Aspects of the New Build FPSOBR, 2005, IWAOH, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
[13]Ikeda, Y.; Himeno, Y.; Tanaka, N.; A Prediction Method for Ship Roll Damping, 1978, Report of
University of Osaka.
[14]Kaster, F.; Rossi, R.; Masetti, I.; Falkenbers, E.; Karlsen, S.; Waclawek, I.; DICAS A New Mooring
Concept for FPSOs, 1997, OTC 8439, Houston, USA.
[15]Lapidaire, P.; Leeuw, P.; The Effect of Ship Motions on FPSO Topsides Design, 1996, OTC 8079,
Houston, USA.
[16]Lee, C.; On the evaluation of quadratic forces on stationary bodies, 2006, Chestnut Hill, USA.
[17]Lewis, E.; Principles of Naval Architecture, 1989, Second Revision Vol. III, SNAME.
[18]Luo, Y.; Ye, W.; Mooring and Riser Design for GoM FPSOs in 10,000 Ft Water Depth, 2005, OTC
17620, Houston, USA.
[19]Maruo, H.; The drift of a body floating on waves, 1960, Ship Res.
[20]Mastrangelo, C.; One Company's Experience on Ship-Based Production System, 2000, OTC
12053, Houston, USA.
24 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
[21]Neto, T.; Lima, H.; Conversion of Tankers into FPSOs and FSOs: Practical Design Experiences,
2001, OTC 13209, Houston, USA.
[22]Newman, J.; Second-order diffraction in short waves, 2004, Workshop on Water Waves and
Floating Bodies, Cortona, Italy.
[23]Newman, J.; The drift force and moment on ships in waves, 1967, J. Ship Res.
[24]Nishimoto, K; Videiro, P; Fucatu, C; Matos, V; Cueva, D.; Cueva, M.; A Study of Motion
Minimization Devices of FPDSOs, 2001, OMAE2001/OFT-1131, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
[25]NR 497 DTM R00 E; Hull Structure of Production, Storage and Offloading Surface Units, Bureau
Veritas, 2004.
[26]Offshore Magazine; 2007 Worldwide Survey off Floating Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) Units, 2007, Houston, USA.
[27] Olgivie, F.; Second-order hydrodynamic effects on ocean platforms, 1983, Proc. Intl Workshop
on Ship & Platform Motions, Berkley, USA.
[28]Orozco, J.; Raposo, C.; Malenica, S.; A Practical Procedure for the Evaluation of the Roll
Motions of FPSO's Including the Non potential Damping, 2002, OTC 14234, Houston, USA.
[29]Palazzo, F.; Silva, A.; Oliveira, C.; Oliveira, M.; On the Latest Petrobras FPSO Design Procedures:
Hydrodynamic and Mooring Aspects, 2004, OMAE-FPSO04-0079, Houston, USA.
[30]Park, I.; Shin, H.; Chung, H. Beek, J; Development of a Deep Sea FPSO Suitable for the Gulf of
Mexico Area, 2002, OTC 13999, Houston, USA.
[31]Portella, R.; Kameyama, V.; Wibner, C.; Maloney, J.; P43/P48 Global Motion and Stability
Analysis: A Compromise Combination to Define the FPSO Operational Behavior, 2003, OTC
15138, Houston, USA.
[32]Portella, R.; Mendes, B.; DICAS Mooring System: Practical Design Experience to Dismystify the
Concept, 2002, OTC 14309, Houston, USA.
[33]Rezende, F.; Chen, X.; Ferreira, M.; Second Order Roll Motions for FPSO's Operating in Severe
Environmental Conditions, 2007, OTC 18906, Houston, USA.
[34]Santos, A.; Henriques, C.; Pimenta, J.; Improvments Achieved in the Project of FPSO P-50,
2004, OTC 16705, Houston, USA.
[35]Sousa Jr, J.; Fernandes, A.; Masetti, I.; Silva, S.; Kroff, S.; Nonlinear Rolling of an FPSO with
Larger-than-Usual Bilge Keels, 1998, OMAE98-0412, Lisbon, Portugal.
[36]Wu, X.; Tao, L.; Li, Y.; Nonlinear Roll Damping of Ship Motions in Waves. 2005, ASME 205-211.
25 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
9. APPENDIX I - DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE STABILIZERS
STABILIZER SIZE
Effect of variations of stabilizer size on roll
stabilization
: Loss of metacentric height caused by
the stabilizer (free surface loss).
: Metacentric height with liquid in mid-
position.
STABILIZER TUNING FACTOR
Effect of variations of stabilizer tuning on roll
stabilization
: Natural frequency of the stabilizer.
: Roll natural frequency.
NONDIMENSIONAL STABILIZER DAMPING
Effect of variations of stabilizer damping on roll
stabilization
B
t
: Stabilizer's equivalent linear damping.
B
ct
:Stabilizer's critical damping.
GM
T
GM
T0
GM
T
GM
T0
t
t
n4
t
t
2 g
S
'
; S
'
0
L
A
0
A
d
n4
t
B
t
B
ct
26 ROLL MOTIONS OF FPSOs
STABILIZER CAPACITY
Effect of stabilizer capacity damping on roll
stabilization in short crested random seas
s
, maximum angle to which the stabilizer can
heel the ship with all of the weight in the
stabilizer on one side (static heel angle induced
when the fluid inside has moved to one side and
completely fills one wing tank).Typical values of
capacity are 2 to 6 degrees.
STABILIZER HEIGHT PARAMETER
Effect of variations of stabilizer height on roll
stabilization
The following parameters represent a typical good design of a stabilizer:
t
S
' '
S
'
S
' '
0
L
q
R
d
0.20
t
1.08
t
0.30
S
0.05
t
0.00