Proceedings of the Twenty-first (2011) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Maui, Hawaii, USA, June 19-24, 2011

Copyright 2011 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-96-8 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set); www.isope.org

Floatover Installation Analysis and Its Application in Bohai Bay

Min He, Ruhua Yuan, Huailiang Li, Wentai Yu, Jianwei Qian, Alan M. Wang
Installation Division, Offshore Oil Engineering Co., Ltd.,
Tanggu, Tianjin, China

installation scenarios including docking, mating, and undocking

operations at different critical stages, thus defining the limiting
environmental conditions, the dynamic behavior of the floatover barge
and the movement of stabbing cones. The limiting environmental
conditions and the dynamic behavior of the barge defined by the mating
analysis shall be monitored via an environmental measure system and a
motion monitoring system, respectively, during floatover operations.
The nonlinear time-domain analysis uses a coupled hydro-structure
model to include jacket flexibility, fender gaps between barge and
jacket legs, stiffness of mooring lines and docking winching soft lines,
elastomeric behavior of leg mating units (LMUs) at mating and deck
support units (DSUs) at separation, and so on. It is very important to
correctly model the magnitude of elastomeric stiffness, gap size and
effective inertial properties stated above. Therefore the design loads
predicted accurately can be used to guide the design of LMUs, DSUs,
fender system, spread positioning mooring system, soft-line docking
system, as well as determine the critical fender gap size.

ABSTRACT
Nonlinear time-domain simulations are performed to analyze various
floatover installation scenarios, including docking, mating, and
undocking operations at different critical stages. Their findings are used
to properly define the limiting environmental conditions, the dynamic
behavior of the floatover barge, the movement of stabbing cones, as
well as guide the design of LMUs, DSUs, and fender system, etc. This
paper takes the 8,700Te integrated topsides of BZ34-1 CPP Platform as
an example and presents the nonlinear time-domain mating analysis
and its application to a typical floatover installation design in the
shallow water and benign environment of Bohai Bay, China.

KEY WORDS: Mating analysis; floatover installation; LMU;

DSU.
NOMENCLATURE
AHTS
CD
DSF
DSU
LSF
LMU
MSL

= Anchor Handling Tow Supply tug

= Chart Datum
= Deck Support Frame
= Deck Support Unit
= Loadout Support Frame
= Leg Mating Unit
= Mean Sea Level

INTRODUCTION
Floatover technologies have been gaining more and more popularity in
recent years, particularly in the shallow water and benign environment,
such as Bohai Bay, China. Since 2002 there have been eleven
successful floatover installations performed in the Bohai Bay using
conventional floatover method and strand jack lifting scheme, and
many more floatover installations will follow thereafter. The floatover
technology uses varied functions of floatover systems and lets large
platform topsides be installed as a single integrated package without the
use of a heavy lift crane vessel. This allows not only elimination of
expensive day-rate derrick barges, minimization of offshore hookup,
and maximization of onshore testing and commissioning, but also
freedom of equipment layout within the deck compared to modular
lifting designs.

Fig. 1: Docking Operation of Barge Loaded with BZ34-1 CPP Topsides

This paper takes the 8,700Te integrated topsides of Bozhong 34-1
Central Production Platform as an example, see Fig. 1, and presents a
nonlinear time-domain mating analysis and its application to the
floatover installation design in Bohai Bay. The findings indicate
importance of the stiffness of elastomeric units and mooring lines, the
inertial properties of barge and topsides, in particular the fender gap

Nonlinear time-domain simulations are performed to analyze various

71

size between barge and jacket legs. The mating analysis also addresses
the sensitivity study and put these variable quantities into perspective,
and thereby being devoted to the analysis and optimization of floatover
operations.

deck structure. This mating analysis is based on the jacket entry from
the weak end of the jacket structure. Table 2 lists the particulars of the
jacket.
Table 2: Particulars of BZ34-1 Jacket

BZ34-1 CPP PLATFORM

Particulars
The BZ34-1 CPP Platform is located at the west area of BZ34-1 oil
field, south of the Bohai Bay, and was successfully installed in October
2007. Since 2005 six integrated topsides have been successfully
installed onto the similar floatover configuration jackets in Bohai Bay,
whose floatover weights of the topsides range from 6,500Te to
11,000Te. Liu et al. (2006) presented a successful installation of similar
floatover design. As shown in Fig. 2, this is a typical floatover platform
which has a 12-legged jacket and is widely adopted in the area of Bohai
Bay. The platform is designed to have an open slot configuration which
allows the docking and undocking of the installation vessel. The 12legged platform is located in a water depth of 20.7m and has the
opening slot in the longitudinal direction. The particulars of the
topsides are given in Table 1.

Height Overall

Values
26.7m

Top Elevation of Main Piles

Width of Jacket Slot

EL(+)6.0m
37.975m

Length of Jacket Slot

40.0m
st

Topside Elevation of 1 Underwater Frame

EL(-)7.543m

Elevation of Top Frame

EL(+)5.000m

st

EL(-)8.000m

nd

EL(-)19.700m

Elevation of 1 Underwater Frame

Elevation of 2 Underwater Frame
Jacket Weight

1,800Te

Table 1: Particulars of BZ34-1 Topsides

Particulars

Values

Length Overall

60.0m

Width Overall

64.0m

Elevation of Upper Deck

28.0m

Elevation of Middle Deck

22.0m

Elevation of Lower Deck

14.0m

Elevation of Heli-Deck

43.30m

Floatover Weight

8,700Te

Fig. 3: BZ34-1 CPP 12-Legged Jacket, a Typical Floatover Design

An 8,000Te launch barge, named as Hai Yang Shi You 221, has been
selected for the floatover installation of the 8,700Te BZ34-1 CPP
Topsides in Bohai Bay. Fig. 4 illustrated the floatover barge
arrangement including the two skidbeams spacing at 20.0m and the
fender arrangement, including the stern jacket entry guides, sway
fenders, and surge fenders. The main particulars of the launch barge are
given as follows:
Table 3: Particulars of Launch Barge HYSY221
Particulars

Values

Fig. 2: BZ34-1 CPP Platform, a Typical Floatover Design

Length Overall

142.0m

Fig. 3 presents the typical 12-legged jacket configuration which has

two panels interconnecting four main legs with braces on each side of
the slot. There are two 4-legged wellhead towers placed on both sides
of the main jacket structures and extending above the water. The predrilling operation often hinders the favorable jacket entry from the
strong end of the 4-legged towers where there is a consequent
interference between the pre-installed Christmas trees and the sump

Breath Moulded

36.0m

Depth Moulded

9.75m

Floatover Design Draft

4.5m

Lightship Weight
Longitudinal Center of Gravity from bow (LCG)

72

8,592.5Te
70.19m

Particulars

horizontal direction and linear compression-only springs in vertical

direction during mating. The impact points between the barge fenders
and the jacket legs have been modeled as non-linear compression-only
springs. Similarly, the topsides and the jacket are linked together
through the LMUs which are modeled as bilinear springs in horizontal
direction and non-linear compression-only spring in vertical direction
during load transfer. The topsides are defined as a rigid body subjected
to external wind loads. Each body will have 6 degrees of freedom
resulting in a coupled body system with 12 degrees of freedom which
are represented by 12 coupled differential equations in which the fluid
reactive forces are described by the convolution integrals. The mass
properties act at the defined center of gravity of each body. The
hydrodynamic interaction between the barge and the jacket has been
assumed to be small due to the small jacket members and thereby being
neglected.

Values

Transverse Center of Gravity from CL (TCG)

0.00m

Vertical Center of Gravity above BL (VCG)

4.953m

The time histories of the motion response of the barge and the topsides,
as well as the impact loads have been calculated based on given sea
states. The gaps between the LMU and the jacket leg, the DSU and the
under deck structure, as well as the barge fender and the jacket legs
have been considered. The impact loads have been calculated using the
defined load and deflection relationship of each LMU and DSU. The
impact loads are very sensitive to the fender gaps. The smaller the
fender gaps, the less the dynamic amplification of the wave loads, and
therefore the less the impact loads applied onto the jacket and the barge.
Refer to Hamilton et al. (2008) for the sensitivity study of the fender
gaps. The motions at the mating cones of the LMUs and the upper
points of the DSUs have been calculated using the post-process module
of MOSES. Post processing of the results has been carried out using
this post process module. The reports, graphs and other types of
information about the time domain simulations can be readily obtained.

Fig. 4: 8,000Te Launch Barge HYSY221 with Skidbeams & Fenders

It is important to correctly model the lateral and vertical stiffness of the
local jacket leg combined with the flexibility of the rubber fenders and
the elastomeric elements of the LMUs and DSUs. This will ensure the
accurate prediction of the impact forces acting on the jacket structure,
the fenders, the LMUs and DSUs when the barge builds up a series of
rattling impacts during intermittent contacts between the jacket legs and
barge fenders. Compared with the jacket, the topsides can be regarded
as a rigid structure when evaluating the design impact loads. The barge
structure and associated skidbeams are also treated as rigid structures in
the mating analysis.

Fig. 5 illustrates the working relationship between floatover devices

including the eight LMUs, the ten DSUs, the eight skid-shoe DSF, the
sway and surge fenders at the mating location where the barge is
located to achieve the final alignment between the mating cones and the
LMU receptors. It should be pointed out that the topsides and the
stabbing cones are omitted for illustrative clarification.

MATING ANALYSIS
Mating analyses are nonlinear time-domain simulations based on the
equations of a multi-structures system coupled with hydrodynamic
models and structural models. There are three types of structures to be
taken into considerations. The floating vessel, subject to the
environmental loads due to wind, waves, and currents, shall be
represented by a hydrodynamic panel model of the wet hull in the
coordinate system of the barge body, which may vary with the different
ballast conditions. The dry structure, subject to wind loads only, shall
be modeled by a lumped mass point with the inertial properties of the
integrated topsides in the coordinate system of the topsides model. The
fixed jacket substructure is modeled as contact points in the global
coordinate system. The mating analysis is performed based on the
coupled hydro-structure models with various mooring positioning
elements and contact elements. The mooring positioning elements
include primary mooring spread and secondary soft-line positioning
hawsers which are modeled with weak nonlinear stiffness laws, as well
as constant pull loads modeled for positioning tugs. The contact
elements consist of rubber fenders, LMUs, and DSUs, which are
modeled with high nonlinear stiffness. Contact law shall be applied
during a very short duration if the rattling impacts occur during
intermittent contacts, or be permanently active where only the nonlinear
stiffness of the contact devices is applied.

Fig. 5: Illustrative Working Relationship between LMUs, DSUs, DSF,

Sway & Surge Fenders at Mating Location
Met-ocean Data: The mating analysis shall be performed based on the
irregular sea states listed in Table 4, which is applicable to the BZ34-1
field site where the water depth is 20.7m referred to Chart Datum. The
JONSWAP wave spectrum with a enhancement factor = 1.0 and

In the mathematical model, the barge and the topside are linked
together through the DSUs which are modeled as bilinear springs in

73

long-crested seas are applied. There is no significant swell condition in

the shallow water and benign environment of Bohai Bay.

Cases

Description
M3: 25% topsides load transferred at draft of 5.94m;

Table 4: Irregular Sea States for Mating Analyses

Wave Heading

M4: 50% topsides load transferred at draft of 6.01m;

Significant Wave Height

Peak Period

Hs

Tp

Head Seas

1.00m

5.0 sec

Quartering Seas

0.75m

5.0 sec

Beam Seas

0.50m

5.0 sec

M5: 75% topsides load transferred at draft of 6.075m;

M6: 95% topsides load transferred at draft of 6.081m;
M7: 100% topsides load transferred, initial
separation, at draft of 6.10m.
Note: The intermediate drafts are based on the MSL
of 0.8m above Chart Datum.
Five undocking cases denote that the barge stern will
pass different rows of jacket legs, that is,

The one-minute average wind speed of 10m/sec, given at EL(+)10m, is

considered in the time domain analysis. API wind spectrum was used to
simulate the dynamic wind effect. The wind forces were calculated
based on the API recommended block method. It is assumed that the
wind is co-linear with the waves.

U5: Still at the mating position and engaged with

surge fenders;
Undocking

U4: Remain 2m just before passing through Row 4;

U3: Remain 2m just before passing through Row 3;

The current was modeled as a steady current with a surface speed of

1.0m/sec. The current forces were calculated using the Morisons
formula based on the relative velocity. Therefore the current forces also
provide damping effect. The current is also assumed to be co-linear
with the waves.

U2: Remain 2m just before passing through Row 2;

U1: Remain 2m just before passing through Row 1
and fully clearing from the jacket slot.

MOSES MODELLING

Docking the barge into the jacket slot is only allowed when the tidal
level is above MSL. All subsequent stages of the floatover operation
are not restricted to any tidal phases. However the mating operation
should be scheduled to account for the beneficial effects on load
transfer during a falling tide. Therefore the mating analysis is
performed based on the MSL, that is, 0.8m above Chart Datum.

The software MOSES is used to perform the nonlinear 3-D time

domain mating analysis. The analyses performed are time-domain nonlinear analyses at the different stages of docking, mating, and
undocking operations stated above, where the barge and topsides are
modeled as rigid bodies with non-linear springs representing fenders,
LMUs and DSUs associated with jacket stiffness and linear springs
representing mooring lines and docking soft-lines, etc.

Loading Conditions: GL Noble Denton (2010) provides the general

guidelines for the mating analysis which shall cover the loading
conditions for each stage of docking, mating, and undocking operations.
The details of the docking, mating, and undocking cases depend on the
actual floatover operation procedures. Wang et al. (2010) provide a
general description of the typical installation procedures. The loading
cases applicable to the BZ34-1 floatover design can be defined in the
Table 5.

Barge Coordinate System: Fig. 6 shows the coordinate system of the

barge model in MOSES. The origin of X axis is located at the bow of
the barge, positive towards stern. The origin of Y axis is located at the
center line of barge, positive towards starboard. The origin of Z axis is
located at the keel of barge, positive upward.

Table 5: Loading Cases Definition for Docking, Mating & Undocking

Cases

Description
Five docking cases denote that the barge stern just
passes different rows of jacket legs, that is,
D1: Just passed 2 meters through Row 1;

Docking

D2: Just passed 2 meters through Row 2;

D3: Just passed 2 meters through Row 3;
D4: Just passed 2 meters through Row 4;
Fig. 6: Coordinate System of Barge Model

D5: Arrived at the final mating position and engaged

with surge fenders just before mating.

The inertial properties of DSUs, skid beams, fender system, tiedowns

and other onboard equipment, etc., have been applied as miscellaneous
weights in this study. The total weight is approximately 1,994.5Te with
the center of gravity located at LCG = 78.09m, TCG = 0.12m and VCG
= 12.32m.

Seven mating cases denote the different load transfer

conditions during mating, that is,
Mating

M1: 0% topsides load transferred, initial contact, at

draft of 5.875m;

Topsides Coordinate System: In MOSES, the topsides module is

modeled as a point mass representing its mass, centre of gravity and

M2: 5% topsides load transferred at draft of 5.89m;

74

radii of gyration. Fig. 7 presents the coordinate system of the topsides

model. The origin of X axis is located at the middle of Row 2 and Row
3. The origin of Y axis is located at the middle of Row A and Row B.
The origin of Z axis is located at Chart Datum.

Fig. 7: Coordinate System of Topsides Model

Fig. 9: Topsides Transportation Arrangement

Jacket Coordinate System: There are three sets of contact points

defined in the MOSES part ground system to predict the impact loads
on the LMUs and mating cones, the DSUs and DSF, the fenders and
jacket legs, respectively, that is, the global earth-bound coordinate
system. Fig. 8 illustrates the global coordinate system where the origin
of X axis is located at Row 1, the origin of Y axis is located at the
middle of Row A and Row B, while the origin of Z axis is located at
the MSL.

Mooring Positioning System: There are two types of the mooring

positioning lines, that is, two catenary lines at the bow of the barge and
two cross lines/two parallel lines at the stern of the barge. The cross
mooring pattern is shown in Fig. 10. The properties of these four lines
are shown in the Table 6. At the earlier stages of entry, the cross lines
are used to pull the barge into the jacket slot, and the parallel lines are
inactive. At the later stages of docking and deck transfer, the parallel
lines are activated to keep the barge position, and the cross lines are
slacked. The mooring lines are simulated as B_CAT and H_CAT type
of connectors in MOSES.

line no.3(150m chain + 350m wire)

line no.2 (wire)

stern

hysy221

bow

line no.1 (wire)

line no.4 (150m chai n + 350m wi r e)

Fig. 8: Global Earth-Bound Coordinate System for Jacket Model

Topsides Transportation Arrangement: Fig. 9 denotes the
transportation arrangement of the topsides whose location on the deck
of the barge is defined as the lumped mass point representing
approximately 8,700Te floatover weight of the integrated topsides in
the coordinate system of topsides model with the center of gravity
located at LCG = -4.133m, TCG = 0.353m, VCG = 21.262m, and the
radii of gyration RXX = 17.59m, RYY = 19.32m, RZZ = 23.75m.

Fig. 10: Mooring Arrangement & Definition

Table 6: Properties of Mooring Positioning Lines
Type
Unit
Wire

Inertial Properties of Barge & Equipment: Table A-1 presents

inertial properties used in the mating analysis. The inertial properties
include the barge lightship, ballast distributions, DSF weight,
installation devices, structural items on barge deck, etc., where the radii
of gyration are given with reference to the system COG of the barge
and topsides. In reality the draft, ballast and deck weight transfer will
change continuously during the operations. However, in order to keep
each operational stage exposed to the environmental conditions for a
long enough time to ensure a sufficient statistical basis, the analysis is
performed in keeping these global parameters constant during each
stage.

Chain

Diameter
[mm]
52
76

MBL
[kN]
1,420
6,001

Young's Modulus

Weight in water

[kg/m]

6.010

9.38

5.610

109.6

E [kN/m ]

Sway Fenders: The sway fenders are installed along both the gunwales
of the barge, that is, 0.325 meter above the deck. The sway fenders are
used to protect the jacket from contact with the barge hull during the
docking operation. The fenders consist of rubbers and are simulated by
horizontal non-linear compression-only springs with the equivalent
stiffness that combines both the fender stiffness and the jacket
structural flexibility at the impact elevation. The gap between the jacket

75

legs and the fenders is approximately 100mm at the final mating

position and 2.0m when the jacket entry guides approach to the jacket
slot. The nonlinear stiffness of the sway fenders and the stiffness of the
jacket legs are given in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, respectively.

compression-only springs and lateral bilinear compression springs. The

actual load-deflection curve of the LMU unit has been modeled in
combination with the jacket flexibility. The longitudinal stiffness for
the jacket legs is 3Te/mm while the transverse stiffness for the jacket
legs are 2.2Te/mm for Legs Row 1 & Row 2 and 6.0Te/mm for Legs
Row 3 & Row 4. The horizontal and vertical stiffness for the LMUs are
displayed in Fig. 13 and Fig. 14. Fig. 14 shows that the first section of
the gently smooth curves up to 225m compression mainly indicates the
stiffness of the LMUs while the second section of the sharply steep
curves mainly indicates the stiffness of the jacket leg. Fig. 15 presents
the pre-mating position where LMU clearance, fender gap, barge draft,
under-keel clearance, etc., are defined for Case D5. Note that the LMU
receptors and the stabbing cones have conic geometry which can be
defined by the cone depth, top and bottom diameters. Both the contact
mechanics of the stabbing cones and the receptors and the horizontal
and vertical elastomeric stiffnesses of the LMUs shall be correctly
modeled in the analysis.

Fender Stiffness of HY221 For BZ34-1Oil-field

500
450
400

Force(t)

350
300
250
200
150

FenderStiffness

100
50
0
0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

Compression(m)

Fig. 11: Stiffness of Sway Fenders

Jacket Leg Stiffness

5000

Force(KN)

4000

3000
Row1
Row2
Row3

2000

Row4

1000

Fig. 13: Horizontal Stiffness of LMUs

0
0.000

0.030

0.060

0.090

0.120

0.150

Compression(m)

Fig. 12: Stiffness of Jacket Legs

Surge Fenders: The surge fenders installed on the barge is constructed
with a horizontal hinged beam connected to a conical rubber fender and
shimmed with adjustable wooden plates. The fenders are designed to
have adequate stiffness withstand with deformation of pulling force
exerted by the mooring lines in compliance with the installation
clearances. When the barge is at the final alignment position, the
mating cones of the topsides legs shall be located above the LMU
receptors within the capture radius. The combined stiffness of the surge
rubber cone and jacket leg deformation is assumed to be approximately
100Te/m. A pull of 20Te has been modeled on the barge to simulate the
pre-tension of the mooring lines acting on both the surge fenders and
the jacket legs at Row 1, that is, 10Te load on each leg. Separation
between the surge fenders and the jacket legs has also been simulated in
the analysis if there is no adequate longitudinal winching force, or via
positioning tugs, applied to ensure contact at these locations.

Fig. 14: Vertical Stiffness of LMUs including Jacket Flexibility

DSUs: The DSUs on the top of the DSF have been represented by
vertical linear compression-only springs in vertical direction and
bilinear springs in horizontal direction. The value of the structural
stiffness between the topsides and the barge has been considered. The
simplified sand-dish DSUs are the connection part of the topsides and
the barge which are modeled with the 5Te/mm horizontal stiffness and
the 20Te/mm vertical stiffness, respectively. Fig. 16 presents the
separation position where DSU clearance, fender gap, barge draft,
under-keel clearance, etc., are defined for Case U5.

LMUs: The LMU is installed on the top of the jacket pile and is used to
absorb the impact load between the stabbing cones and the LMU
receptor during mating operation. The capture radius depends on the
top radius of the receptors and the bottom radius of the stabbing cones.
At the final mating position, the alignment will ensure the stabbing
cones within the capture radius of the LMU receptors. The LMU and
jacket leg system has been represented by vertical non-linear

76

design maxima.

ANALYSIS RESULTS
The main findings are summarized as follows:
Docking Cases: The maximum impact loads acting on the sway
fenders and the minimum dynamic clearance between the mating cone
and the LMU receptor are summarized in the following table:
Case
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5

Sway Fender Load

116.0Te @ Leg P1
156.3Te @ Leg P1
225.1Te @ Leg P1
185.6Te @ Leg P4
78.1Te @ Leg P4

LMU Clearance
0.760m
0.761m
0.760m
0.757m
0.765m

Wave Heading
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas

Some of important design maxima and findings are listed and

elucidated as follows:
1)
The maximum design load acting on the sway fenders is
about 225.1Te at the docking stage D3.
2)
The mooring and cross lines are considered prior to jacket
entry. The maximum sway motion of the barge stern is 1.95m
obtained from the wave frequency motion, the low frequency drift
and static offset. The maximum allowable sway offset is 2.0m per
design of the jacket entry guides. The maximum force in the
mooring line No. 1 or No. 2 is 59.0Te while the maximum force
in the mooring line No. 3 or No. 4 is 49.0Te, thus yielding a
factor of safety is 2.5, greater than 1.67 per API RP 2SK Sec.
6.3.2.
3)
In Case D1 the barge surge, sway and yaw motion is mainly
dominated by slow drift motion with isolated impacts at the sway
fender.
4)
In Case D5, a pull of 20Te has been applied to simulate the
pull of the parallel mooring lines by soft-line winches or by
positioning tugs to ensure the surge fenders in contacting
condition. The maximum impact load acting on the surge fender
is 23.5Te in head seas. The maximum horizontal motion at the
bottom of LMU stabbing cone is approximately 0.202m, thus
ensuring the stabbing cone offset is within the capture radius of
0.43m. Eight sets of contact spring are used to model the sway
fenders with a nominal gap of 100mm between the barge fenders
and the jacket legs.

Fig. 15: Pre-Mating & LMU Gap at Final Alignment Position

Fig. 16: Separation & DSU Gap upon 100% Load Transfer
Damping: Only wave damping is taken into consideration in the
mating analysis. No structural damping or positioning element damping
is assumed since they are much smaller than the wave damping. This
may yield conservative results.

ANALYSIS METHOD
Mating Cases: The maximum impact loads acting on the LMUs and
DSUs, as well as occurrence of premature separation at DSUs, are
summarized in the following table:

The mating analysis has adopted a snap shoot approach to the entire
operation at different docking, mating, and undocking stages. The
operations have been assumed to be halted at different stages. The
exposure duration has been assumed to be 3 hours for different stages
of the operation which will be long enough to simulate the whole
installation procedure and thereby obtaining the rational statistic results.

Case

M1

The time steps used in the analysis are 0.05 sec during the docking and
undocking stages, and 0.02 sec during the mating stages where there is
stronger geometric and material nonlinearity due to the LMUs and
DSUs. A ramping time of 400 seconds is used in the time-domain
simulation in order to avoid any unrealistic transient motion induced
numerically. The results within the ramping time period are disregarded
in the statistical analysis.

M2

Due to strong nonlinear nature, the existing statistics theory may not be
accurate when predicting the design maxima. Therefore the maximum
values observed in the time series are recommended to be used as the

M3

77

Major Findings
Max Vertical Load = 420.5Te @ LMU S1 in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 278.3Te @ LMU S3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 562.7 1,235.2Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 186.8Te @ DSU P4 in Beam Seas;
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 511.5Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 164.3Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 542.0 1,129.1Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 118.6Te @ DSU S4 in Beam Seas;
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 693.1Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 146.6Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 427.0 1,015.5Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 112.6Te @ DSU S4 in Beam Seas;

Case

M4

M5

M6

M7

Major Findings
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 1,073.3Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 158.6Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Vertical Load = 280.7 731.4Te @ DSUs in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 121.6Te @ DSU P4 in Beam Seas;
No premature separation at DSUs.
Max Vertical Load = 1,924.9Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 179.4Te @ LMU S3 in Beam Seas;
Max Vertical Load = 558.7Te @ DSU S4 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 137.0Te @ DSU P4 in Quartering;
DSU separation may occur.
Max Vertical Load = 2,062.5Te @ LMU S1 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 216.8Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Max Vertical Load = 582.2Te @ DSU S4 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 142.0Te @ DSU P4 in Quartering;
DSU separation may occur.
Max Vertical Load = 2,550.0Te @ LMU S1 in Beam Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 226.1Te @ LMU P3 in Beam Seas;
Max Vertical Load = 644.8Te @ DSU S4 in Head Seas;
Max Horizontal Load = 204.4Te @ DSU P4 in Beam Seas;
DSU separation may occur.

7)

8)

DSF and the topsides around the DSUs are assumed to be

removed. The effect of fenders and mooring system is not
considered since the topsides are restrained by the LMUs which
have much larger stiffness than those of the mooring lines and the
fenders.
Fig. 17 shows an example of the time series of the vertical
load acting on the LMU at Leg S1, obtained from Case M7,
where LMU S1 experiences the maximum vertical load during
mating.
Fig. 18 shows another example of the time series of the
vertical load acting on the DSU at Support S4, obtained from
Case M1, where DSU S1 experiences the maximum vertical load
during mating.

Fig. 18: Case M1: Time Series of Maximum Vertical Load on DSU
Undocking Cases: The maximum impact loads acting on the sway
fenders and the minimum dynamic under-keel clearances between the
barge bottom and the jacket underwater horizontal frame, derived from
the maximum vertical motion at the four corners of the barge bottom,
are summarized in the following table:
Case

Fig. 17: Case M7: Time Series of Maximum Vertical Load on LMU

U1
U2
U3
U4
U5

Some of important design maxima and findings are listed and

elucidated as follows:
1)
At the final alignment position, the sway and surge fenders
are subject to 78.1Te and 23.5Te, respectively. The maximum
vertical movement of the mating cone is 0.14m. The impact
between the mating cone and the LMU receptor may occur at the
barge draft of 5.265m when the tidal elevation is at MSL.
2)
In the initial contact condition, the bottom of the cone of the
deck leg is always within the LMU receiver horizontally even
with the cone above the LMU receiver vertically.
3)
When the 75% load transfer is completed, the separation
between the topsides and the DSUs may occur.
4)
The maximum vertical impact load acting on the LMUs is
approximately 2,550Te when 100% load is transferred. There is
no indication that the significant impact will occur at the earlier
mating stages.
5)
The maximum horizontal impact load acting on the LMUs is
278.32Te which may occur in the condition of the 0% topside
load transfer condition.
6)
During mating the topsides and the barge have been
considered as two separated bodies. All the tiedowns between the

Maximum Sway
Fender Load
122.8Te @ Leg P1
168.8Te @ Leg P1
240.1Te @ Leg P1
180.9Te @ Leg S1
89.6Te @ Leg P4

Minimum UnderKeel Clearance

0.450m
0.460m
0.460m
0.400m
0.490m

Wave
Heading
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas
Beam Seas

Some of important design maxima and findings are listed and

elucidated as follows:
1)
In Case U5, a pull of 20Te has been applied to simulate the
pull of the parallel mooring lines by soft-line winches or by
positioning tugs to ensure the surge fenders in contacting
condition. The maximum impact load acting on the surge fender
is 25.73Te in head seas. The maximum vertical motion at the top
of DSU is approximately 0.17m, thus ensuring there is a
minimum vertical clearance of 0.66m between the underside of
the topsides and the top of DSU. Eight sets of contact spring are
used to model the sway fenders with a nominal gap of 100mm
between the barge fenders and the jacket legs.
2)
During separation, the maximum vertical movement at the
DSU is 0.17m. The findings indicate that no impact at the DSUs
would occur when the barge is ballasted down at a draft greater

78

3)

4)
5)

than 6.47m. The corresponding vertical movement at the barge

bottom is approximately 0.49m.
During undocking, when the draft reaches 6.90m, the
maximum vertical movement at the four corners of barge bottom
is 0.49m, less than the nominal clearance of 1.393m. Therefore no
impact between the barge bottom and the jacket underwater
horizontal frames will occur.
The maximum design load acting on the sway fenders is
about 240.1Te at the undocking stage U3.
Fig. 19 shows an example of the time series of the lateral load
acting on the sway fender at Leg P1, obtained from Case U3,
where Leg P1 experiences the maximum lateral load during
undocking.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the nonlinear time-domain mating simulations and
their major findings successfully applied in designing the installation
devices and selecting the dominant design parameters, thus ensuring the
successful execution of the floatover installation for the BZ34-1
integrated topsides. It is essential to correctly and accurately model the
jacket flexibility, fender gaps, nonlinear fender stiffness, as well as the
contact mechanism and high nonlinearities of the elastomeric elements
in LMUs and DSUs, etc., and therefore obtain reliable and repeatable
design maxima.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several people have contributed to this work in many vital ways. Very
special thanks to Mr. Wang Xinwei, Mr. Liu Bo and Mr. Su Jie for their
enthusiastic support and drafting expertise.

REFERENCES
GL Noble Denton (2010). "Guidelines for Float-over Installations,"
0031/ND, Dec 6, 2010, Rev. 0, 36pp.
Hamilton, J, French, R and Rawstron, P (2008). "Topsides and Jacket
Modelling for Floatover Installation Design," Offshore Tech Conf, Paper
No 19227, 14 pp.
Liu, LM, Zhang, SF, Fang, XM, Chen BJ, Hao J, and Wang, AM (2006).
"Floatover Installation Succeeds for Nan Bao 35-2 Topsides," J World
Oil, Vol 227, No 7, pp 63-69.
Wang, AM, Jiang, XZ, Yu, CS, Zhu, SH, Li, HL and Wei, YG (2010).
"Latest Progress in Floatover Technologies for Offshore Installations and
Decommissioning," Proc 20th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Beijing, China, ISOPE, Vol 1, pp 9-20.

Fig. 19: Case U3: Time Series of Max Lateral Load on Sway Fender

ANNEX A
Table A-1: Inertial Properties of Barge & Equipment
Case
Description
Draft
RYY
RZZ
LCG
TCG
VCG
RXX
Weight*
Unit
[m]
[Te]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
D1-D5 Docking draft condition
4.500
13409.5
74.90
-0.24
5.18
11.60
40.23
41.31
M1
0% load transfer draft condition
5.875
20570.7
73.69
-0.16
4.53
11.13
41.05
42.14
M2
5% load transfer draft condition
5.890
21083.9
73.57
-0.15
4.44
11.21
40.58
41.70
M3
25% load transfer draft condition
5.940
23084.4
73.19
-0.11
4.35
11.43
38.86
40.12
M4
50% load transfer draft condition
6.010
25624.3
72.79
-0.06
4.06
11.29
37.44
38.72
M5
75% load transfer draft condition
6.075
28138.0
72.47
-0.03
3.99
11.20
36.24
37.56
M6
95% load transfer draft condition
6.081
29909.3
72.26
-0.01
4.05
11.13
35.50
36.84
M7
100% load transfer draft condition
6.100
30443.3
72.21
0.00
4.08
11.11
35.29
36.63
U1-U5 Undocking draft condition
6.900
34873.5
72.10
0.00
4.40
11.25
33.93
35.43
Note: The weight* = the total weight (displacement) - the weight of the topsides, which varies with ballast conditions at different mating stages.

79