Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Drilling Rigs
by
June 2009
OTRC Library Number: 06/09A197
“The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or
policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute their endorsement by the U. S. Government”.
or
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................... i
List of Tables and Figures..................................................................................... ii
Introduction ...........................................................................................................1
Objective ...........................................................................................................1
Background .......................................................................................................1
Approach ...........................................................................................................2
Metocean Environment .........................................................................................4
Floating Structure & Motions.................................................................................4
Analysis Model ..................................................................................................4
Structures..........................................................................................................5
Maximum Motion Responses ............................................................................5
Derricks and Substructures...................................................................................6
Rig AA ...............................................................................................................6
Rig AS ...............................................................................................................6
Comparison of Rigs AA and AS ........................................................................7
Wind Loads ...........................................................................................................8
Tie-Down Footing Loads for Derricks and Substructures....................................11
Force Model ....................................................................................................11
Skid Beam Model ............................................................................................13
Footing Loads..................................................................................................15
Footing Load Maxima......................................................................................15
Maximum Footing Loads .................................................................................16
Components of the Maximum Footing Loads for the TLP, Spar, and Semi.....24
Maximum Total Footing Loads for the TLP, Spar, and Semi ...........................26
Design Guidance for Maximum Footing Loads ...................................................30
100-Year Design Loads...................................................................................37
1000-Year “Robustness” or “Survival” Check ..................................................43
Closure............................................................................................................44
Approximations for Determining Maximum Load Components for Providing
Design Guidance ................................................................................................50
Computing Maximum Total Footing Loads Based on Assumed Phasing of
Component Loads...............................................................................................51
Conclusions ........................................................................................................52
100-Yr Design Load ........................................................................................53
1000-Yr Robustness Check Load....................................................................54
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................55
References .........................................................................................................55
Appendix A .........................................................................................................57
ii
Tables
Table1 Metocean Conditions for the Central Region of the Gulf of Mexico...........4
Table 2 Maximum Accelerations & Inclination Angles...........................................5
Table 3 Rig AA & AS Tie-Down System ...............................................................8
Table 4 TLP AA - Max Loads on Derrick, Derrick + Substructure, and Footings 18
Table 5 Spar AS - Max Loads on Derrick, Derrick + Substructure, & Footings ...19
Table 6 Semi AA - Max Loads on Derrick, Derrick + Substructure, & Footings ..20
Table 7 Impact of Rig AS Position on Footing Loads..........................................30
Table 8 Slope of Sum of Normal Components wrt Simulated Max Loads on
Footings ..............................................................................................................36
Table 9 100-Yr Max (Simul) vs API 4F (1.25 x Sum of 100-Yr Lightship Max
Components .......................................................................................................37
Table 10 1000-Yr Max (Simul) vs Robustness Check (2 x Sum of 100-Yr
Lightship Max Components) ...............................................................................43
Table 11 Comparison of Total Forces & Moments at the Derrick Footing Level for
SparAS Based On Different Assumptions Regarding the Addition of Component
Forces.................................................................................................................52
Figures
Introduction
Background During hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Ike, several drilling rigs on
floating production systems (FPSs) and Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs) were
moved, and in some instances, even toppled. An initial study of the failures
during hurricane Ivan was funded by the Minerals Managements Service (1-4).
Computer programs were developed and used to estimate the forces on bolted
clamp tie-down systems during hurricane Ivan. The failure modes of bolted
clamps were studied and modeled. The hurricane loads were compared to the
failure capacities of the clamps in slip, bolt tension, and bolt shear. Results
indicated the sensitivity of clamp loads and failures to structure accelerations as
well as wind loads, and thus the importance of purpose-designed tie-down
systems for the specific structure-drill rig combination and function (derrick/drill
floor tie-down or drilling substructure tie-down systems). Slip was identified as
the most likely failure mode, which was not inconsistent with observations during
Ivan.
2
Derrick
Gravity Wind
Footing
Substructure Footing
Skid
Beam
Deck Movement
& Accelerations
In this API funded study, the MMS study was expanded and extended. The
focus was on the loads on the tie-down footings and not the loads for a specific
tie-down system such as the bolted clamps studied in the MMS project. The
more general approach allows the results to be used in developing guidelines for
designing all types of tie-down systems (e.g., bolted clamps, other types of
mechanical or hydraulic clamps, weldments, mechanical stops or pins, etc.).
Each structure and drilling rig combination was analyzed for hurricane wind,
wave, and current conditions that represented 100-year, 200-year, and 1000-
year return periods as specified in API 2INT-MET (5) for the Central region. The
time varying wind loads for a 3-hour period were simulated based on the API
wind spectra. The time varying global accelerations for the floating structures
were simulated for a 3-hour period using the TAMU-WINPOST model, which has
been verified through numerous comparative studies against model tests and
field measurements.
We had planned to simulate wind loads on the derricks and substructures using
the improved techniques recently benchmarked by the API Spec 4F and 2TD
Task Groups and now included in the new API Spec 4F (6). However we were
unable to obtain sufficiently detailed information on actual rig designs, so we
resorted to using representative drilling rigs and simulated the wind loads from
the available data.
The random time series of the loads on the tie-down footings were computed
from the simulated wind loads and structural accelerations using the coupled
structure and derrick model developed in the MMS study.
Forces on tie-down footings were analyzed to examine the differences due to the
various structure-drilling rig combinations. A simplified and unified relationship
was established between the maximum simulated loads and the sum of the
maxima of the wind, inertia, and gravity loads. This relationship fits the results
4
for all combinations of floating structures and drilling rigs studied. That
relationship was then used to develop a simple method to estimate tie-down
footing loads for the 100-year design case and the 1000-year robustness check
case. The relationship seems to be sufficiently robust and tractable to be useful
in providing design guidance for recommended practices.
The study and results are described in the following sections. Additional details
regarding the analysis techniques and the results can be found in Appendix A
and the thesis “Loads on Tie-Down Systems for Floating Drilling Rigs during
Hurricane Conditions)” (7).
Metocean Environment
The metocean environmental conditions used in this study are the wind, wave,
and currents for the Gulf of Mexico Central Region for return periods of 100, 200,
and 1000 years (5). Table 1 presents the wind, wave, and current parameters.
The wind, waves, and currents were assumed to be collinear for simplicity.
Table1 Metocean Conditions for the Central Region of the Gulf of Mexico
Return Period Significant Wave Wind Speed Surface Current
(Yrs) Height (ft) (1 hr ave at 32.6 ft elev) (ft/sec)
Analysis Model The global motions of the floating structures were analyzed
using the time-domain fully coupled dynamic analysis tool CHARM3D (8).
Hydrodynamic coefficients such as added mass and radiation/diffraction damping
needed in CHARM3D were simulated using WAMIT (9). The 6 degree-of-
freedom motions (displacements, angles, and accelerations) were simulated for 3
5
hours in the 100, 200, and 1000 year environments. See Reference 7 and
Appendix A for more details
Structures The structures analyzed in this study were not actual designs, but
represented realistic examples of three different Floating Production Systems
(FPS) - a TLP, a Spar, and a Semisubmersible. The TLP and Spar were
originally developed for studies sponsored by DeepStar (10). The Semi was
developed by Aker and furnished by BP (11). The structural configurations and
particulars are given in Appendix A. The TLP and Spar were analyzed in 3000 ft
water. The Semisubmersible was a deep-draft design with top-tensioned risers,
and was analyzed in 10,000 ft water.
These structure responses result in the inertial and gravity components of the
loads on the derrick and substructure and the tie-down. The responses are
quite different for the three structures in the same metocean conditions. It
follows then and will be shown later that tie-down loads for a derrick and its
substructure in the same environment but on different floating structures can be
significantly different.
6
Rig AA Rig AA represents a derrick and substructure for a TLP or a Semi using
top-tensioned risers. Configurations of the derrick and substructure are shown in
Figure 2.
+245
'
upper derrick
+160'
weight of
derrick +
drill floor +
lower derrick
substructure
= 1800 k
CG (derrick + drill
+75' floor + substructure)
drill floor is + 95 ft above skid
+60' base
weight
skid base skid base +10'
= 600 k deck = 0’
CG (skid base) =
+5 ft above deck
35 ft 90 ft
Rig AS Rig AS represents a derrick and substructure that might more likely be
used on a Spar. Some of the drilling equipment and tanks are included in the
substructure which results in a heavier and larger substructure. Configurations of
the derrick and substructure are shown in Figure 3.
7
+225'
upper derrick
weight of
derrick +
+140'
drill floor
= 1500 k CG (derrick +
drill floor) =
lower derrick 120 ft above
deck
+55'
drill floor
+40'
CG
substructure substructure
weight of
substructure = +20 ft
skid beam on deck above deck
=2000 k
deck at 0'
50 ft 100 ft
Comparison of Rigs AA and AS The two derricks above the drill floor are
identical. The differences in the two rigs is in the locations of the upper tie-down
elevations (referred to as the “derrick” tie-down system) and the lower tie-down
system (referred to here as the “substructure” tie-down system.
The substructure for Rig AA contains no equipment and is a relatively light weight
structure whose primary function is to elevate the drill floor above the deck. The
substructure is fixed to the drill floor. The substructure for Rig AS is not fixed to
the drill floor, and contains drilling equipment and is thus a heavier structure than
that for Rig AA. The elevations of the tie-down systems and the weights above
each tie-down level is shown in Table 3.
8
Note that the wind area above the derrick tie-down for Rig AA is about 50%
larger than that for Rig AS. The weight above the substructure tie-down for Rig
AA is about 70% smaller than for Rig AS. These differences impact the tie-down
footing loads.
Wind Loads
The wind loads on the derrick and substructures were calculated following the
guidance provided in the recently revised API 4F (6). Key features of that
revision are; (1) the wind velocity is computed as a function of elevation prior to
computing the force which is proportional to the velocity squared, and (2) the
areas are computed as the projected area normal to the wind direction.
The derricks and substructures used in this study are described below, and are
not actual designs but are representative of realistic examples of drilling rigs
used on floating production systems.
Vz = V des * β (z)
V des = 3-sec reference velocity at 32.8 ft for an N-year return period
β (z) = elevation factor at z referenced to z = 32.8 ft
The total force on the derrick or substructure is the sum of all member forces.
The wind speed variation with elevation is shown in Figure 4. The reference
elevation used in specifying winds is 32.8 ft as indicated.
450
100-year
400 200-Year
1000-Year
Elevation above MWL (ft)
350
300
250
TLP Deck
200 (205 ft)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
3-sec Gust Velocity (fps)
Figure 4 3-sec Wind Gust Velocity Profiles for RP = 100, 200, & 1000 Years
(wind reference elevations & deck elevations shown)
Total wind force P and moment M on the derrick and substructure can then
calculated as the sum of the values on the various elements for a given velocity
V des and direction. We can then calculate elevation of the center of pressure for
the complete derrick or substructure as
cop = M/P
and the term
B = P/ Vcop2 A projected (2)
For the purposes of this study we need to simulate the time history of the wind
forces and moments on the derrick and substructure. Writing the time dependent
velocity at elevation z as V (z, t), we can rewrite equations (1) and (2) to
recognize the time dependences
Wind forces and moment time histories 3 hours long (10,800 sec) were simulated
using a 0.5-second time step and the API wind spectra (5) for angles of 0, 22.5,
45, and 90 degrees. See Appendix A for more details.
300
250
Velocity (ft/sec)
200
150
100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec)
Force Model The model for applying all the loads to determine the tie down
loads is shown in Figure 6 a-c. The figure is simplified in that the derrick and
substructure are shown as a single body that is tied down to the deck at supports
represented by the triangles. The three figures show the inertial forces, the
external forces (wind and gravity), and the total forces and moments as applied
to the tie-down footings in the body coordinate system. Forces are shown in both
the Global Coordinates and the Body- Fixed Coordinates. All footing loads will
be reported in the Body-Fixed Coordinate System, using the following
convention:
x (surge)
y (sway)
z (heave)
12
Normal Force
m( ( l))
Tangential Force
m ( l )
Lateral Force
Angular
mx CG Momentum
I
l
CG
x
Body Fixed
Global Coordinate
Coordinate
Figure 6-a Inertial Forces Due To The Motions Of The Floating Structure
Fwind
CP
CG
CP
Fgravity CG
l
x
Body Fixed
Global
Coordinate
Coordinate
Wind
Wind
CP
CP
Inertia Gravity
Inertia
CG
CG
rp
Gravity
rg
Tie-Down
Footings
Figure 6-c Total Forces (Inertia, Wind, & Gravity) Applied to Tie-Down Footings
The time series for the inertia, wind, and gravity are simulated and summed as
indicated the get the time series of the total forces on the tie-down footings,
Skid Beam Model The rig and superstructure models are attached to the
floating structures deck with a skid beam model to represent the capability to skid
the drilling derrick in the x and y directions to get over different wells. The skid
beam model is shown in Figure 7. Note that there are four footings at each of
two levels. These footings are the contact areas between the structure above
(either the derrick or the derrick and superstructure) and the skid beam on which
the structure rests. The tie-down system (e.g., bolted or hydraulic clamps,
temporary weldments, etc) fixes the structure above to the skid beam and must
resist the inertial, wind, and gravity loads applied at these footings.
The time-series of the x, y, and z components of the loads on each of the eight
footings was simulated for the various 100, 200, and 1000 year return period
environments approaching the structure from 0, 45, and 90 degrees. Some 22.5
degree cases were also simulated.
14
45°
Substructure
Footings
X Derrick
y Footings
Z
Skid Beams
Derrick
x
Figure 7 Skid Beam and Footing Model
We adopted the nomenclature that the longitudinal force described the load
parallel to the skid beam (whether it was in the x direction as for the substructure
skid beam or the y direction as would be the case for the derrick skid beam).
Similarly, the load perpendicular to a skid beam is referred to as the lateral load.
The load in the z direction was always referred to as the uplift force. This
convention is shown in Figure 8.
Uplift Force
Footing
Lateral Force
Longitudinal
Force
Skid Beam
Footing Loads An example of the simulated derrick footing loads for a TLP is
shown in Figure 9.
Surge Reaction Force 1 & 3 (kips) Surge Reaction Force1 & 3 (kips)
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 y -200
4
-250 3 -250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (1000 sec) Time (1000 sec)
Force x
2
Heave Reaction Force 2 & 4 (kips) 1 Heave Reaction 2 & 4 Force (kips)
500 2000
1500
0
1000
- 500 x
500
-1000 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (1000 sec) Time (1000 sec)
Figure 9 Simulated Total Footing Forces on Weather and Lee Footings for a Derrick on a
TLP in Horizontal (Surge) & Vertical (Heave) Directions
Footing Load Maxima In Figure 10, the time-series of the total footing loads
for a Spar example is shown, and the maximum horizontal and vertical loads on
the weather footings are identified. Also shown are the times and values for the
wind and inertial component maxima to illustrate that the maximum total load and
the maxima of the component loads do not occur at the same time. The time
domain simulation approach discussed above and used in this study preserves
the phasing between the component loads and allows accurate determination of
the maximum total forces.
16
200
Force (kips)
Horizontal
-200
-400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
1000
Force (kips)
0
Vertical
-1000
-2000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 10 Force (Reaction) Maxima of the Total and Wind & Inertial Components of the
Footing Loads on the Weather Side of an Example Spar
The maximum footing forces shown are the largest total footing force in the
longitudinal, lateral, or uplift direction experienced at any of the four footings at
both the derrick and substructure level. Note that the maxima in the longitudinal,
lateral, and uplift directions do not generally occur at the same time or even on
the same footing.
17
For completeness, the maximum forces and moments on the derrick and derrick
and substructure are also shown. The moments are taken about levels of the
derrick footing or the substructure footings.
These maximum footing loads for the TLP, Spar, and Semi are also shown in the
polar plots in Figures 11 - 13. Each polar plot shows the maximum footing force
versus the direction of the environmental load. Forces for the 100, 200, and
1000 year return period environments are presented. The upper three plots
present the maximum longitudinal, lateral, and uplift forces at the derrick footing
level. Similarly, the lower three plots present the maximum lateral, longitudinal,
and uplift forces at the substructure footing level. (The longitudinal and lateral
directions are reversed because the substructure skid beams are perpendicular
to the derrick skid beams.)
Some general observations for the TLP, Spar, and Semi results include:
The wind forces on the derrick and the derrick + the substructure unit are
largest for when the wind is from 45 degrees because the projected areas
are largest in that direction for the derrick and substructure configuration
used in the study.
The maximum longitudinal footing forces are largest when the metocean
environmental approach angle is within 0 - 22.5 degrees of being parallel
to the skid beam. Similarly, the lateral load is largest when the
environmental approach angle is within 0 -22.5 degrees of being
perpendicular to the skid beam. This is due to the combination of the
projected wind area and structural motion responses.
The maximum uplift footing forces are generally largest when the
metocean environment is from 22.5 - 45 degrees. This is due to the
combination of several factors - the projected wind area, the moment arms
for the footings, and the structural motion responses.
18
TLP AA Max Derrick Footing Longitudinal Forces TLP AA Max Derrick Footing Lateral Forces
TLP AA Max Derrick Footing Uplift Forces
0
0 0
400
22.5 400 4000
22.5 22.5
0 90 0 90 0 90
100 Yr
100 Yr 100 Yr
200 Yr
200 Yr 200 Yr
1000 Yr
1000 Yr 1000 Yr
100 Yr 100 Yr
100 Yr
200 Yr 200 Yr
200 Yr
1000 Yr 1000 Yr
1000 Yr
Figure 11 TLP AA Max Footing Forces vs Environmental Approach Angles for RP = 100, 200, & 100 Years
22
Spar AS: Max Derrick Footing Longitudinal Forces Spar AS: Max Derrick Footing Lateral Forces Spar AS: Max Derrick Footing Uplift Forces
0 0 0
400 400 3000
22.5 22.5 22.5
300 45 300 45 45
2000
200 200
67.5 67.5 67.5
1000
100 100
0 90
0 90 0 90
100 Yr 100 Yr
100 Yr
200 Yr 200 Yr
200 Yr
Spar AS: Max Substructure Footing Lateral Spar AS: Max Sustructure Footing Longitudinal
Spar AS: Max Substructure Footing Uplift Forces
Forces Forces
0
0 4000
0 22.5
800 800
22.5 22.5
700 700 3000 45
600 45 600 45
500 500 2000
400 400 67.5
300 67.5 300 67.5 1000
200 200
100 100 0 90
0 90 0 90
100 Yr
100 Yr
100 Yr 200 Yr
200 Yr
200 Yr
1000 Yr
1000 Yr
1000 Yr
Figure 12 Spar AS Max Footing Forces vs Environmental Approach Angles for RP = 100, 200, & 1000 Years
23
Semi AA M ax Derrick Footing Longitudinal Semi AA Max Derrick Footing La tera l Forces Semi AA Max Derrick Footing Uplift Forces
Forces
0 0
0 400
22.5 4000
500 22.5
22.5
400 300 45 3000
45 45
300 200 2000
200 67.5 67.5
67.5
100 1000
100
0 90 0 90 0 90
100 Yr 100 Yr
100 Yr
200 Yr 200 Yr
200 Yr
1000 Yr 1000 Yr
1000 Yr
Semi AA: Max Substructure Footing Lateral Semi AA: Max Substructure Footing Longitudinal Forces Semi AA: Max Substructure Footing Uplift
0 0
60 0 4000
22. 22.5
600
22.5
50
500 3000 45
4
40 45
400
30 2000
300
67. 67.5
20 67.5
200 1000
10
100
0 9 0 90
0 90
Figure 13 Semi AA Max Footing Forces vs Environmental Approach Angles for RP = 100, 200, & 1000 Years
24
Components of the Maximum Footing Loads for the TLP, Spar, and Semi To
illustrate the contributions of the various force components to the maximum load, the
wind, inertia, and gravity force components on the indicated footings at the time of total
maximum load are shown in Figures 14 and 15. The environment direction is 22.5
degrees.
2500
Max Horizontal Footing Force (kips)
2000
1500 Gravity
Inertia
1000 Wind
500
a
0
Substructure
Substructure
Substructure
Substructure
Derrick
Derrick
Derrick
Derrick
Figure14. Force Components at the Time of Max Total Horiz Footing Force for Different Structures
and Drilling Rigs (100-Yr RP, Environ Direction 22.5 deg)
Figure 14 shows the horizontal force on the indicated derrick and substructure footings
in the x-direction on the windward corner. The wind load is the largest single component
in each case. The inertia component is larger for the spars due to their larger pitch and
25
roll accelerations. The gravity loads are larger for the spars and semi due to their larger
pitch and roll angles.
Similarly, Figure 15 shows the maximum uplift forces on the indicated footings. Again,
2500
2000
Max Uplift Force (kips)
1500
1000 Gravity
Inertia
500 Wind
-500
-1000
Substructure
Substructure
Substructure
Substructure
Derrick
Derrick
Derrick
Derrick
Figure15. Force Components at the Time of Max Total Uplift Footing Force for Different
Structures and Drilling Rigs (100-Yr RP, Environ Direction 22.5 deg)
26
the wind load is the largest component. The inertia components are again largest for
the Spars. (Note that the stacked presentation of the components does not provide a
total load since uplift force included both positive and negative components.)
These conclusions are consistent with the maximum accelerations & Inclination angles
previously shown in Table 2.
Maximum Total Footing Loads for the TLP, Spar, and Semi The maximum total
derrick & substructure footing loads for the TLP, Spar, and Semi are compared in Figure
16. Both horizontal loads are shown. Note that the load maxima refer to the maxima at
any of the four footings at each level. Results are consist with the components loads
as discussed and illustrate above.
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
Longitudinal Lateral Uplift Longitudinal Lateral Uplift
Figure 16 TLP AA, Spar AS, & Semi AA: Max Derrick & Substructure Footing Loads (kips)
At the derrick footing level, the longitudinal and lateral loads are about equal for the
TLPAA and SemiAA since both have the same drilling rig and similar horizontal
accelerations. The longitudinal and lateral footing loads for the Spar AS are also about
27
equal despite the larger horizontal deck accelerations (pitch and roll) which are offset by
the lighter weight of the drilling rig the smaller wind loads above the derrick tie-down
level. The wind area (and force) above the derrick tie-down level for Rig AS structure
on the Spar is about 2/3 of that for Rig AA on the TLP and Spar, and the moment arm
for the wind loads is also greater for Rig AA. These differences explain why the uplift
load for the Spar is lower even though its horizontal acceleration is about twice that of
the TLP and Semi.
At the substructure footing level, the wind area (and forces) is about equal. The larger
horizontal acceleration and the heavier weight of Rig AS above the substructure tie-
down level causes the longitudinal and lateral footing loads to be larger than those for
the TLP and Semi. The heavier weight of Rig AS also causes the uplift footing loads
to be about equal with those for the TLP and Semi.
In Figure 17, an additional case was analyzed to illustrate the impact of a different rig on
maximum footing loads. Rig AS on the Spar was replaced by Rig AA, and the analysis
was repeated. At the derrick footing level, the longitudinal and lateral loads for the Spar
AA are larger than Spar AS primarily due to the larger wind area (and loads) and, to a
lesser extent, the larger weight of the structure above the derrick tie-down level. The
maximum uplift load is much larger for Spar AA due to the larger wind load and moment
arm above the derrick footing level, the smaller horizontal moment arm (35 ft for Rig AA
vs 50 ft for Rig AS), and larger weight (inertial and gravity load components).
28
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
Longitudinal Lateral Uplift Longitudinal Lateral Uplift
Spar AS Spar AA
Figure 17 Spar AS & Spar AA: Max Derrick & Substructure Footing Loads (kips)
At the substructure footing level, the wind loads for Rig AA and AS are more equal. The
larger weight of Rig AS causes the longitudinal and lateral footing loads to be larger
than for Rig AA. The maximum uplift footing load for Rig AA is again larger than for Rig
AS, but by a lesser amount because of the heavier substructure for the Rig the Rig AS.
The results presented and discussed above illustrate that the maximum footing loads for
use in designing tie-down systems are dependent on the
motion characteristics of the structure
the area, weight, and geometric configuration of the drilling rig’s derrick and
substructure
the elevations of the derrick (upper) and substructure (lower ) tie-down footing
levels.
29
+ or - 27.5 feet (movements in either direction). The direction of the environment was
22.5 degrees. The maximum lateral footing load remained at 100 percent of the 0,0
load and was not affected by rig movement. The direction of the environment was 90
degrees. The maximum uplift footing load is 114% of the maximum at 0, 0 and
occurred when the derrick was moved to the extreme offset of the derrick skid beams
on the lee side, i.e. Y position of + 27.5 feet with the direction of the environment of 90
degrees.
This illustrates that the maximum footing loads for use in designing tie-down systems
are also dependent on the drilling rig position.
The sections above have focused on modeling the time-series of tie-down footing loads.
The time-series model developed and used is a detailed and complete model that can
used to accurately predict maximum loads for tie-down systems. The tie-down loads
are modeled as the sum of wind, inertia, and gravity load components, and this model
preserves the relative phases of these load components.
The model was used to simulate the footing loads for several structures during different
design environments. The maximum tie-down footing loads were determined, and the
relationships between these maxima and the structure types and return period and
direction of the hurricane environments were examined.
31
However, this complete time-series model is rather complex to use. This section will
focus of using the results from this complete model to develop simpler, more
approximate techniques to estimate tie-down loads that can be useful in developing
design insight and guidance.
The premise for this simplified methodology was to examine the relationship between
the maximum tie-down loads determine from the time-series simulations which
preserves the relative phases between the wind, inertia, and gravity components and
the sum of the maxima of the wind, inertia, and gravity components ignoring the relative
phases between the components and their maxima.
The maximum tie-down loads from the simulations are plotted versus the sum of the
maximum component loads for the TLP AA, Spar AS, Semi AA, and Spar AA in Figures
19 - 22. The points include the values for all environmental approach angles and return
periods for each footing load (longitudinal, lateral, and uplift). These data show that the
maximum simulated loads are very nearly a linear function of the sum of the maximum
component loads. This can be expressed as the linear equation
in which A and B are constants to be determined from the data. Figures 19 - 22 include
the linear equations fit to the line representing each footing load.
32
Figure 19 (Max of Wind, Inertia, & Gravity Components) vs Max Simulated Loads for TLP AA Footings
33
Spar AS Substructure
1000 1000
0
900 9000
Spar AS Derrick
800 8000 800 8000
Figure 20 (Max of Wind, Inertia, & Gravity Components) vs Max Simulated Loads for Spar AS Footings
34
Figure 21 (Max of Wind, Inertia, & Gravity Components) vs Max Simulated Loads for Semi AA Footings
35
Figure 22 (Max of Wind, Inertia, & Gravity Components) vs Max Simulated Loads for Spar AA Footings
36
The longitudinal and lateral loads have intercepts that are near zero, and the uplift
loads have intercepts that are small with respect to the range of maximum loads. We
will neglect these intercepts, I.e., assume B = 0 in the equation above. The slopes of
the linear equations summarized in from Figures 19 - 22 are summarized on Table 8.
Table 8 Slope of Sum of Normal Components wrt Simulated Max Loads on Footings
% Diff
Structure Derrick Substructure Structure Overall Structure
Average Average to Overall
Average
Long Lat Uplift Long Lat Uplift
Note that the slopes A are surprisingly similar for the different structures and footing
levels. The averages for each structure are shown. The overall average for all
structures is 1.36 and the difference between the structural averages and the overall
average varies from 93 to 105 percent. The linear fits with similar slopes indicate that
the sum of the maximum load components can be used to provide a good
approximation of the maximum footing loads. For the overall average, we can write that
Thus the maximum load is equal to about 3/4 of the sum of the maximum values of the
individual load components without regard to phase.
Both the 100-year design level and the 1000-year “robustness” or “survival” check level
are addressed below.
37
100-Year Design Loads API Spec 4F recommends that design load for a footing be
the 100-yr load based on the lightship condition (90% of the weight of the derrick and
substructure) and include a load factor of 1.25, so we write
API 4F 100-Yr Design Load = 1.25 x Max Simulated Lightship 100-Yr Load
The simulations were redone with the lightship conditions. The ratio of the maximum
simulated max footing loads for all footings (derrick and substructure levels) under
normal and lightship conditions varied between 0.98 and 1.03 for the different
structures. Since the differences are small, we continued to use the normal conditions
instead of the lightship conditions as a matter of convenience. We write the following
linear expressions between the simulated maximum loads and the maximum load
components
The maximum 100-yr simulated loads are plotted versus the 1.25 times the sum of the
maximum 100-yr component loads for the TLP AA, Spar AS, Semi AA, and Spar AA in
Figures 23 -26. The fits to the above linear equation are shown on the figures, and the
slopes are tabulated in Table 9 below.
Table 9 100-Yr Max (Simul) vs API 4F (1.25 x Sum of 100-Yr Lightship Max Components)
Then
and finally
The API 4F 100-year design load can be estimated as 92 percent of the sum of the
maxima of the 100 - year load components.
39
3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
Figure 23 100-Yr Simulated Load vs 100-Yr API Spec 4F Footing Loads for TLP AA
40
2000 2000
100-Yr API Spec 4F Design Load (kips)
1000 1000
Figure 24 100-Yr Simulated Load vs 100 Yr-API Spec 4F Footing Loads for Spar AS
41
3500 3500
100-Yr API Spec 4F Design Load (kips)
3000 3000
2000 2000
1500 1500
Long
y = 1.76x Long
Lat y = 1.76x
1000 R2 = 1.00 1000 Lat R2 = 1.00
Uplift
Uplift
y = 1.76x y = 1.78x
Lat
R2 = 1.00 Uplift R2 = 1.00
500 500
Long
y = 1.97x Long
y = 2.10x
Uplift R2 = 0.96 Lat R2 = 0.93
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Sim ul 100-Yr Max Load (kips)
Sim ul 100-Yr Max Load (kips)
Figure 25 100-Yr Simulated Load vs 100-Yr API Spec 4F Footing Loads for Semi AS
42
4500
3000
4000
100-Yr API Spec 4F Design Load (kips)
3000
2000
2500
2000 1500
Long y = 1.58x
1500 Long
Lat R2 = 1.00 1000 y = 1.59x
Lat R2 = 1.00
1000 Uplift
y = 1.59x Uplift
Lat y = 1.59x
R2 = 1.00 Uplift
500 R2 = 1.00
500 Long
y = 1.68x Long
Uplift R2 = 1.00 y = 1.75x
Lat
0 R2 = 0.99
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Sim ul 100-Yr Max Loads (kips)
Sim ul 100-Yr Max Loads (kips)
Figure 26 100-Yr Simulated Load vs 100 Yr-API Spec 4F Footing Load for Spar AA
43
The maximum 1000-yr loads from the simulations are plotted versus 2.0 times the sum
of the maximum 100-yr component loads for the TLP AA, Spar AS, and Semi AA in
Figures 27 - 30. The fits to the above linear equation are shown on the figures, and the
slopes are tabulated in Table 10 below.
Table 10 1000-Yr Max (Simul) vs Robustness Check (2 x Sum of 100-Yr Lightship Max
Components)
Derrick Substructure
% Diff
Structure Overall
Average Average Structure/
Long Lat Uplift Long Lat Uplift Overall
1.71 x Max Simulated 1000-Yr Load = 2.0 x [Max 100-Yr Lightship Load
Components]
The suggested robustness check load, i.e. the max 1000-year load, is then
Closure It is useful to examine the two design guidance equations above in light of the
equation we fit the simulated data
can be restated as
which is consistent with the definition of the API 4F design load and the fact that there is
little difference between the normal and lightship loads.
which is somewhat (21 percent) less than the arbitrarily proposed 2.0 x 100-year load.
45
The appropriate load factors on the 100-year load in the above equations should be
reviewed to account the resistance factors that are in the design standards and
practices before finalizing a design guidance recommendation.
46
4000 4000
Robustness Check: (kips)
2000 2000
Sim ul 1000-Yr Max Load (kips) Sim ul 1000-Yr Max Load (kips)
3000 3000
2000 2000
Long y = 1.81x
Long
y = 1.78x Lat R2 = 1.00
Lat R2 = 1.00 1000
1000
Uplift y = 1.80x
Uplift
y = 1.79x Lat R2 = 1.00
Lat R2 = 1.00
Long y = 1.73x
Long y = 1.72x
Uplift R2 = 1.00
Uplift R = 1.00
2
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Sim ul Max 1000-Yr Load (kips) Sim ul Max 1000-Yr Load (kips)
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
Sim ul 1000-Yr Max Loads (kips) Sim ul 1000-Yr Max Loads (kips)
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
We assume that all the mass and geometric properties of the floating structure, derrick,
and substructure are known.
For a given environment and direction relative to the structure, the following information
is needed to estimate the maximum footing forces:
Information on the maximum motions of the floating structure can be obtained from
Time domain simulations of the structure motions
Pseudo-static time domain analysis of the structure
Model tests in the design environment
51
The maximum forces due to the structure motions can be determined from the
accelerations and motion data. The maximum wind load can be determined from the
wind velocity using the equations presented earlier in this report.
Finally these maximum force components due to structure motions and wind are added
to compute the maximum footing loads in the x, y, and z directions. We used the
maximum accelerations & inclination angles from the time-domain simulations as
presented in Table 2 for the TLP and Spar to test this method, and were able to
estimate the maximum footing loads determined as the [Max 100-Yr Load
Components] within ~ 5 percent.
Based on these results, estimating the [Max N-Yr Load Components] based on the
maximum FPS accelerations can provide usefully accurate information for computing
design loads. Care should be taken to ensure that the accelerations estimated by these
other more approximate methods (time domain simulations of the structure motions,
pseudo-static time domain analysis of the structure motion, model tests, Response
Amplitude Operators) are accurate representations of the structures motions.
The maxima and associated values for the components were taken from the time
domain simulations.
An example for the total maximum loads and moments at the derrick footing loads for
the SparAS is shown in the following Table 11. Cases 1, 2, and 3 are compared to the
maxima from the time domain simulation (Case 4). Results for the 100-yr environment
approaching from 45 degrees are shown.
Table 11 Comparison of Total Forces & Moments at the Derrick Footing Level for SparAS Based
On Different Assumptions Regarding the Addition of Component Forces
These ad-hoc assumptions represented in Case 1, 2, and 3 do not compare well with
Case 4 nor do any of them seem to provide a useful basis for estimating Case 4.
Perhaps an appropriate assumption for the relative phasing of load component maxima
could be developed for a particular structure or type of structure, but Figures 14 & 15
(which compare force components at the time of maximum total footing forces for
different structures) suggest that it is not feasible to develop a consistent formula or
recipe that could accurately determine the maximum footing loads for all structures
based on an assumed relative phasing of their maximum load components.
Conclusions
1. Realistic time-domain simulations of tie-down footing loads were completed for four
floating structure /drilling rig combinations in hurricane conditions. The maximum
53
footing loads were modeled as the sum of the wind, inertia, and gravity forces. The
forces were found to be dependent upon:
- the structure motion response to the environment
- the weight and geometry of the drilling rig (derrick and substructure)
For the structure/drilling rig combinations analyzed here
- maximum footing loads for the same drilling rig on three different structures (
TLP, Spar, Semi) varied by a factor of 1.4 (horizontal) and 1.5 (uplift)
- maximum footing loads for two different drilling rigs on the same structure (Spar)
varied by a factor of 1.7 (horizontal) and 2.2 (uplift)
This indicates that tie-down systems should be purpose-designed for a specific
structure and drilling rig combination.
2. The maximum footing load is the sum of the wind, inertia, and gravity load
components time series and depends upon their relative their relative phases.
However, the maximum footing load was found to be a linear function of the
independent maxima (without regard to phasing) of the wind, inertia, and gravity
components. The equation
was found to be a good approximation for both the derrick and substructure footing
loads for all structure and drilling rig combinations over the range, environment
directions and return periods studied. Since the simulation program has been well
calibrated with laboratory and field data, we will assume that “Simulated” and simply
refer the “Max Load”.
3. Guidelines for tie-down design loads were investigated using the linear relationship
between the Max Load and the [Max Load Components].
100-Yr Design Load API Spec 4F recommends that the design load for footings be
calculated as the 100-yr load based on the lightship condition (90% of the weight of the
54
derrick and substructure) and include a load factor of 1.25. In terms of the sum of the
maximum load components, we found this to be well approximated by
API 4F 100-Yr Design Load = 0.92 x [Max 100-Yr Lightship Load Components]
= 1.24 Max 100-Year Load
1000-Yr Robustness Check Load The suggested robustness check load for
footings is the 1000-year load. In terms of the sum of the maximum load components,
we found this to be well approximated by
The appropriate load factors on the 100-year load in the above equations should be
reviewed to account the resistance factors that are in the design standards and
practices before finalizing a design guidance recommendation.
4. The position of the drilling derrick and associated equipment relative to the centered
position on the substructure can significantly increase the derrick footing loads, and
should be accounted for in design and operational planning. Horizontal and uplift loads
increased by up to 40 and 15 percent over the loads for the centered derrick position,
respectively for the example analyzed in this study.
5. The sums of the maximum wind, inertia, and gravity component loads can be used in
the above equations to provide useful estimates of the design and robustness loads
when a more complete simulation or analysis is not available. Based on the limited
investigation conducted here, these component loads can be approximated for a given
structure, drilling rig, and environment by other means (e.g., RAOs and used to use in
the above equations to estimate the design criteria. Care has to be taken to evaluate
the accuracy of the approximation. This approximate method should be further
evaluated.
55
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the American Petroleum Institute for their
sponsorship and support for project. We also thank the following who served as
members of the Industry Advisory Board for this project: Dave Knoll (Shell); Ward
Turner & Doug Angevine (ExxonMobil); Pat O’Conner, Tammer Botros, Pierre Beynet
(BP); Mark Trevithick (T&T Engineering Services); and Michael Effenberger (Stress
Engineering Services). Their guidance, suggestions and advice was a great benefit and
added considerable value to the project. We also acknowledge and thank Hugh Banon
(BP) and Magne Nygard (AkerKvaerner) for information on the deepwater
semisubmersible drilling and production platform used in this study.
References
1. Assessment of Drilling & Workover Rig Storm Sea Fastenings on Offshore
Floating Platforms during Hurricane Ivan Phase 1: Data Collection Report, by
E.G. Ward and J.M. Gebara, submitted to Minerals Management Service,
August 1, 2006
2. Assessment of Drilling & Workover Rig Storm Sea Fastenings on Offshore
Floating Platforms during Hurricane Ivan Phase 1: Analysis Report, by E.G.
Ward and J.M. Gebara, submitted to Minerals Management Service, January,
2007.
3. Assessment of Storm Sea Fastenings for Drilling and Workover Rigs on Floating
Production Systems during Hurricane Ivan: Phase 1, E. G. Ward (OTRC) and J.
M. Gebara, (Technip Offshore Inc. USA), 2006 Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper 18324
4. Performance of Drilling-Rig Sea Fastenings on Floating Production Systems, E.
G. Ward (OTRC), J. M. Gebara, (Technip Offshore Inc.USA), M. H. Kim (Texas
A&M University) and Nadia Ghoneim (Technip Offshore Inc.USA), 2007
Offshore Technology Conference Paper 18986.
56
Appendix A
by
Table of Contents
Appendix A......................................................................................................... 57
Table of Contents ............................................................................................... 58
List of Tables and Figures .................................................................................. 59
1 DYNAMIC LOAD ANALYSIS ON TIE-DOWN SYSTEMS........................... 66
1.1.1 Numerical Modeling of TLP........................................................... 67
1.1.2 Numerical Modeling of SPAR ....................................................... 70
1.1.3 Numerical Modeling of SEMI ........................................................ 72
1.1.4 Configurations of Derrick AA......................................................... 75
1.1.5 Configurations of Derrick AS......................................................... 80
1.1.6 Environmental Condition............................................................... 85
1.2.1 Added Mass and Damping Coefficient.......................................... 91
1.2.2 Forces on Derrick and Skid Base ................................................. 93
1.2.3 Reaction Forces on the Footings .................................................. 97
2 CASE 1. TLP (3000FT) WITH DERRICK AA – 0 DEGREE CASE ........... 101
2.6.1 Derrick Reaction Force ............................................................... 109
2.6.2 Skid Base Reaction Force .......................................................... 111
2.7.1 200-year Hurricane Condition ..................................................... 114
2.7.2 1000-year Hurricane Condition ................................................... 116
3 CASE 2. SPAR (3000FT) WITH DERRICK AA – 0 DEGREE CASE ........ 120
3.6.1 Derrick Reaction Force ............................................................... 127
3.6.2 Skid Base Reaction Force .......................................................... 129
3.7.1 200-year Hurricane Condition ..................................................... 132
3.7.2 1000-year Hurricane Condition ................................................... 134
4 CASE 3. SEMI (10,000FT) WITH DERRICK AA – 0 DEGREE CASE ...... 137
4.6.1 Skid Base Reaction Force .......................................................... 146
4.7.1 200-year Hurricane Condition ..................................................... 148
4.7.2 1000-year Hurricane Condition ................................................... 150
5 SUMMARY................................................................................................ 153
6 ADDITIONAL TOPICS .............................................................................. 163
6.1.1 Simple Beam Solution................................................................. 163
6.1.2 Off-centered derrick case study .................................................. 165
6.1.2.1 Case 1. Centered Position ...................................................... 165
6.1.2.2 Case 2. Off-Centered Position to Lee Side ............................. 166
6.1.2.3 Case 3. Off-Centered Position to Weather Side...................... 167
6.2.1 Time Domain Simulation Data .................................................... 169
59
Figure 29 1000-Yr Simulated Load vs Robustness Check Load for Semi AA ............... 48
Figure 30 1000-Yr Simulated Load vs Robustness Check Load for Spar AA................ 49
Table 1-1 Principal Dimensions..................................................................................... 67
Fig 1-1 Configuration of TLP Hull .................................................................................. 68
Table 1-2 TLP Hull Load Condition ............................................................................... 68
Table 1-2 Continued...................................................................................................... 69
Fig 1-2 Mesh Generation of the TLP ............................................................................. 69
Table 1-3 Mooring Lines Specification .......................................................................... 69
Fig 1-3 Configuration of SPAR Hull and Mooring/Riser................................................. 70
Table 1-4 Principal Particulars of the SPAR Platform.................................................... 71
Table 1-5 Mooring and Riser System Characteristics ................................................... 71
Fig 1-4 Mesh Generation of the SPAR .......................................................................... 72
Table 1-6 Principal Particulars of the SEMI Platform..................................................... 72
Table 1-6 Continued...................................................................................................... 73
Fig 1-5 Mesh Generation of the SEMI ........................................................................... 73
Table 1-7 Principal Particulars of the SEMI Platform..................................................... 74
Fig 1-6 Top View of Mooring Lines of SEMI .................................................................. 74
Fig 1-7 Side View of Mooring Lines of SEMI ................................................................. 75
Fig 1-8 Derrick Structure General Arrangement ............................................................ 76
Table 1-8 Center of Pressure and Center of Gravity ..................................................... 77
Table 1-9 Projected Area in Different Projected Angles ................................................ 77
Fig 1-9 Derrick and Skid Base Footings ........................................................................ 78
Fig 1-10 Simplified Model for Radius of Gyration Calculation ....................................... 79
Fig 1-11 Derrick Structure General Arrangement.......................................................... 81
Table 1-10 Center of Pressure and Center of Gravity ................................................... 82
Table 1-11 Projected Area in Different Projected Angles .............................................. 82
Fig 1-12 Derrick and Skid Base Footings ...................................................................... 83
Fig 1-13 Simplified Model for Radius of Gyration Calculation ....................................... 84
Table 1-12 Environmental Conditions ........................................................................... 86
Fig 1-14 Wave Elevation and Spectrum ........................................................................ 87
Fig 1-15 Wind Speed Time Series and Spectrum (100, 200 and 1000 year condition) . 89
Fig 1-16 Current Profile in Hurricane Conditions........................................................... 90
Fig 1-17 Added Mass Coefficient of (a) TLP and (b) SPAR .......................................... 91
Fig 1-17 Continued........................................................................................................ 92
Fig 1-18 Damping Coefficient of (a) TLP and (b) SPAR ................................................ 92
Fig 1-18 Continued........................................................................................................ 93
Fig 1-19 Two Reference Frames................................................................................... 94
Fig 1-20 Horizontal Reaction Forces ............................................................................. 97
Fig 1-21 Vertical Reaction Forces ................................................................................. 99
Fig 2-1 TLP Surge Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees) ................................................ 101
Fig 2-2 TLP Heave Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees) ............................................... 101
Fig 2-3 TLP Pitch Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees).................................................. 102
Fig 2-4 Surge Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 102
Fig 2-5 Heave Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 103
61
Table 2-1 Inertia Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base ............. 103
(TLP with 0 Degrees) .................................................................................................. 103
Table 2-2 Wind Force on Derrick and Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)...................... 104
Fig 2-6 Surge Wind Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 104
Fig 2-7 Heave Wind Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 105
Table 2-3 Wind Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 105
Fig 2-8 Surge Gravity Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 106
Fig 2-9 Heave Gravity Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 106
Table 2-4 Gravity Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base............ 107
(TLP with 0 Degrees) .................................................................................................. 107
Fig 2-10 Surge Total Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 107
Fig 2-11 Heave Total Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 108
Table 2-5 Total Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 108
Fig 2-12 Direction of Force and Node Location of Derrick........................................... 109
Fig 2-13 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 1 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 109
Fig 2-14 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 2 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 110
Fig 2-15 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 3 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 110
Fig 2-16 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 4 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 110
Table 2-6 Derrick Reaction Force Statistics (TLP with 0 Degrees) ............................. 111
Fig 2-17 Direction of Force and Node Location of Skid Base...................................... 112
Fig 2-18 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 5 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 112
Fig 2-19 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 6 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 112
Fig 2-20 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 7 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 113
Fig 2-21 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 8 (TLP with 0 Degrees). 113
Table 2-7 Skid Base Reaction Force Statistics (TLP with 0 Degrees)......................... 113
Table 2-7 Continued.................................................................................................... 114
Table 2-8 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 114
Table 2-8 Continued.................................................................................................... 115
Table 2-9 Reaction Force Statistics (TLP with 0 Degrees).......................................... 115
Table 2-9 Continued.................................................................................................... 116
Table 2-10 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 116
Table 2-10 Continued.................................................................................................. 117
Table 2-11 Reaction Force Statistics (TLP with 0 Degrees)........................................ 117
Table 2-11 Continued.................................................................................................. 118
Fig 2-22 Mean Surge Reaction Force (TLP with 0 Degrees)....................................... 119
Fig 2-23 Mean Heave Reaction Force (TLP with 0 Degrees)...................................... 119
62
Fig 3-1 SPAR Surge Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees) ............................................. 120
Fig 3-2 SPAR Heave Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees) ............................................ 120
Fig 3-3 SPAR Pitch Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees)............................................... 121
Fig 3-4 Surge Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 121
Fig 3-5 Heave Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 122
Table 3-1 Inertia Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with
0 Degrees) .................................................................................................................. 122
Table 3-2 Wind Force of Derrick and Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees).................... 123
Fig 3-6 Surge Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 123
Fig 3-7 Heave Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 124
Table 3-3 Wind Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with
0 Degrees) .................................................................................................................. 124
Fig 3-8 Surge Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 125
Fig 3-9 Heave Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 125
Table 3-4 Gravity Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base............ 125
(SPAR with 0 Degrees) ............................................................................................... 125
Fig 3-10 Surge Total Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 126
Fig 3-11 Heave Total Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 126
Table 3-5 Total Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 127
Fig 3-12 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 1 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 127
Fig 3-13 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 2 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 128
Fig 3-14 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 3 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 128
Fig 3-15 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 4 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 128
Table 3-6 Derrick Reaction Force Statistics (SPAR with 0 Degrees) .......................... 129
Fig 3-16 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 5 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 129
Fig 3-17 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 6 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 130
Fig 3-18 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 7 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 130
Fig 3-19 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 8 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 130
Table 3-7 Skid Base Reaction Force Statistics (SPAR with 0 Degrees)...................... 131
63
Table 3-8 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 132
Table 3-9 Reaction Force Statistics (SPAR with 0 Degrees)....................................... 133
Table 3-10 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 134
Table 3-11 Reaction Force Statistics (SPAR with 0 Degrees)..................................... 135
Fig 3-20 Mean Surge Reaction Force (SPAR with 0 Degrees) ................................... 136
Fig 3-21 Mean Heave Reaction Force (SPAR with 0 Degrees)................................... 136
Fig 4-1 SEMI Surge Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees) .............................................. 137
Fig 4-2 SEMI Heave Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees) ............................................. 137
Fig 4-3 SEMI Pitch Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees)................................................ 138
Fig 4-4 Surge Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 138
Fig 4-5 Heave Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 139
Table 4-1 Inertia Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base ............. 139
(TLP with 0 Degrees) .................................................................................................. 139
Table 4-2 Wind Force on Derrick and Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees).................... 140
Fig 4-6 Surge Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 140
Fig 4-7 Heave Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 141
Table 4-3 Wind Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 141
Fig 4-8 Surge Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 141
Fig 4-9 Heave Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 142
Table 4-4 Gravity Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base............ 142
(SPAR with 0 Degrees) ............................................................................................... 142
Fig 4-10 Surge Total Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 142
Fig 4-11 Heave Total Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 143
Table 4-5 Total Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 143
Fig 4-12 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 1 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 144
Fig 4-13 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 2 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 144
Fig 4-14 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 3 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 144
Fig 4-15 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 4 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 145
Table 4-6 Derrick Reaction Force Statistics (SEMI with 0 Degrees) ........................... 145
64
Fig 4-16 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 5 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 146
Fig 4-17 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 6 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 146
Fig 4-18 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 7 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 146
Fig 4-19 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 8 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
.................................................................................................................................... 147
Table 4-7 Skid Base Reaction Force Statistics (SEMI with 0 Degrees)....................... 147
Table 4-8 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 148
Table 4-9 Reaction Force Statistics (SEMI with 0 Degrees)........................................ 149
Table 4-10 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0
Degrees) ..................................................................................................................... 150
Table 4-11 Reaction Force Statistics (SEMI with 0 Degrees)...................................... 151
Fig 4-20 Mean Surge Reaction Force (SEMI with 0 Degrees) .................................... 152
Fig 4-21 Mean Heave Reaction Force (SEMI with 0 Degrees).................................... 152
Fig 5-1 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Inertia Force ............................................................ 153
Fig 5-2 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Wind Force .............................................................. 153
Fig 5-3 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Gravity Force ........................................................... 154
Fig 5-4 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Total Force .............................................................. 154
Fig 5-5 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 1........................................ 155
Fig 5-6 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 2........................................ 155
Fig 5-7 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 3........................................ 155
Fig 5-8 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 4........................................ 156
Fig 5-9 TLP Derrick Uplift Force .................................................................................. 156
Fig 5-10 SPAR Derrick Uplift Force............................................................................. 157
Fig 5-11 SEMI Derrick Uplift Force.............................................................................. 157
Fig 5-12 TLP Skid Base Uplift Force ........................................................................... 158
Fig 5-13 SPAR Skid Base Uplift Force ........................................................................ 158
Fig 5-14 SEMI Skid Base Uplift Force ......................................................................... 159
Fig 5-15 TLP Skid Base Surge Reaction Component ................................................. 159
Fig 5-16 SPAR Skid Base Surge Reaction Component .............................................. 160
Fig 5-17 SEMI Skid Base Surge Reaction Component ............................................... 160
Fig 5-18 TLP Skid Base Sway Reaction Component .................................................. 161
Fig 5-19 SPAR Skid Base Sway Reaction Component ............................................... 161
Fig 5-20 SEMI Skid Base Sway Reaction Component ................................................ 162
Fig 6-1 Simple Support Beam Model........................................................................... 163
Fig 6-2 Derrick of Centered Position ........................................................................... 165
Table 6-1 Skid Base Uplift Force of Case 1 (SPAR, Lightship Condition) ................... 165
Fig 6-3 Derrick of Off-Centered Position to Lee Side .................................................. 166
Table 6-2 Skid Base Uplift Force of Case 2 (SPAR, Lightship Condition) ................... 167
Fig 6-4 Derrick of Off-Centered Position to Weather Side........................................... 167
Table 6-3 Skid Base Reaction Force of Case 3 (SPAR with 90 Degrees)................... 168
Table 6-4 Comparison of Maximum Uplift Force ......................................................... 168
Fig 6-5 Lateral Force Components (TLP).................................................................... 169
65
Problem Description
The problem being analyzed is the reaction force on derrick and skid base
frequency domain. The external stiffness due to tendon and riser should be also
considered to ensure a more reliable result. All of these procedures are carried out by
forces in the present study are calculated up to first order and mean drift force is
The corresponding forces calculated by WAMIT are converted to the time domain
using two-term Volterra series expansion (Ran and Kim, 1997). Translational and
rotational motions of each structure can be analyzed using 3 hour time domain
simulation. The analysis tool of coupled hull, mooring and riser system, CHARM3D is
previously calculated by WAMIT, CHARM3D carries out time domain analysis to obtain
and static force equilibrium relation under the assumption that the derrick and skid base
are rigid body. The reaction force at each footing can be separately considered as
longitudinal, lateral, and uplift reaction forces in order to provide design engineers with
information about various possibilities of failure mode. In this study, simulations of loads
67
on a tie-down system on three types of platforms, TLP, SPAR and SEMI, are conducted
The particulars of the TLP used for this study is given in Kim et al, (2001) and
Yang (2009). The principal dimensions of TLP are shown in Table 2-1. Both of systems
Description Magnitude
Water Depth 3000 ft
Number of Column 4
Column Cross Section Diameter 54 ft
Column Center to Center Distance 200 ft
Column Freeboard 67 ft
Pontoon Breadth 27 ft
Pontoon Height 24 ft
Height of Deck Bottom from MWL 75 ft
Deck Height 45 ft
The origin of body fixed frame is located at the geometric center of four water
plane areas, and the direction of positive X would be 180 degrees of incident wave
angle direction. TLP has eight vertical tendons (two tendons for each column), one
drilling riser, and seven production risers. Risers are connected to the hull by hydraulic
pneumatic tensioners and modeled as they should be. Figure 1-1 shows the shape of
the hull. Total displacement of the hull is 70,426 kips and total tendon pretension at the
68
top is 15,520 kips. Total riser pretension at the top is 4,348 kips. The load condition of
hull is tabulated in Table 1-2. Submerged volume of TLP is modeled using cylinder and
rectangular box approximately, and hull is discretized into 1420 rectangular panels.
Description Magnitude
Draft (ft) 80.0
Total Weight (kips) 50,558
Tendon Pretension at the Top (kips) 15,520
Riser Pretension at the Top (kips) 4,348
Displacements (kips) 70,426
Vertical Center of Gravity from MWL (ft) 28.1
Vertical Center of Buoyancy from MWL
-49.8
(ft)
Roll Radius of Gyration (ft) 108.9
Pitch Radius of Gyration (ft) 108.9
69
Description Magnitude
Yaw Radius of Gyration (ft) 106.3
Wind Load Coefficient (kips/(ft/sec)2) 0.0665
Center of Pressure from MWL (ft) 125.0
Total wind force on the structure above MWL can be calculated using wind load
coefficient. C eff Fw / V102 0.0665 . The center of pressure is located above 125ft from
MWL, and V10 stands for 1 hour averaged wind velocity above 10m height above MWL.
Figure 1-2 shows the distribution of panels on the body surface of TLP. The line
The SPAR analyzed in this study is a classic SPAR which has a length of 705ft
and diameter of 122 ft, as shown in Figure 1-3. This SPAR platform consists of 14
mooring lines and 23 risers. Each of the mooring line and riser connections is modeled
as a spring with large stiffness. The connection node between riser and hull is modeled
as a horizontal spring so as to make vertical motion of SPAR free. The details of SPAR
Description Magnitude
Displacement (m.ton) 53,600
Total Displacement (m.ton) 220,740
Diameter (ft) 122
Length (ft) 705
Draft (ft) 650
Hard Tank Depth (ft) 220
Well Bay Dimensions (25 slots) (ft) 58 58
KB (ft) 540
KG (ft) 412
KG (Based on Total Displacement) (ft) 293
Radius of Gyration (Based on Total
Pitch = 221, Yaw = 28.5
Displacement) (ft)
Drag Force Coefficient 1.15
Wind Force Coefficient (kips/(ft/sec)2) 0.0848
Center of Pressure (ft) 722
Axial Stiffness
Line No. Top Tension (kips)
(kips)
Chain 2.98E+05
14 680
Wire 3.66E+05
Drilling Riser 1 735 2.70E+06
Production Riser 18 473 6.73E+05
Water Injection 2 306 4.13E+05
Oil Export 1 400 1.04E+06
Gas Export 1 200 1.04E+06
72
Submerged hull is discretized into 1504 rectangular panels so that WAMIT can
calculate hydrodynamic coefficients. Figure 1-4 shows the panel model of submerged
SPAR hull.
The third floating production structure in this research is a dry-tree semi which is
assumed to be located in 10,000ft water depth. The mooring system is 16 line chain-
poly-chain system. The detail of SEMI and principal dimensions are tabulated below.
Description Magnitude
Risers 15 TTRs & 3 SCRs
Water depth (ft) 10,000
Mooring system Chain-Polyester-Chain
Draft (ft) 120
Column c-c distance (ft) 245
73
Description Magnitude
Column width (ft) 58
Column corner radii (ft) 8
Column height (ft) 175
Pontoon width (ft) 58
Pontoon height (ft) 29
Air-gap 65
Displacement (short ton) 91,224
Moon pool size (ft) 67 x 67
Submerged hull is discretized into 1260 rectangular panels so that WAMIT can
calculate hydrodynamic coefficients. Figure 1-5 shows the panel model of submerged
SEMI hull.
Description Magnitude
Chain size (mm) 138.0
Polyester Rope size (mm) 231.0
Chain breaking strength (kN) 13,878
Rope breaking strength (kN) 15,696
Top chain length (m) 200
Middle segment length (m) 4,000
Bottom chain length (m) 200
Horizontal distance to anchor (m) 3,251
Pretension (kN) 3,301
Total 16 mooring lines are divided by 4 groups and arranged as shown in Figures
Configurations of Derrick AA
In this study, medium size derrick and skid base are mounted at the center of the
deck and they are designed to move in longitudinal and lateral directions. The size of
the derrick is greatly increased compared with the derrick adopted by previous research
therefore, the wind force exerted on the derrick will be increased. Center of gravity of
the derrick is located at 105 ft from the deck, and center of gravity of skid base is
located at 5 ft from the deck. The location of CG from the MWL plays an important role
245’
Upper Deck
160’
105’ Derrick CG
Lower Deck
CG CG
75’
Drill floor 60’
Substructur Skid
Base
10’
Skid 0’
from derrick and derrick with skid base, because the derrick itself will only contribute to
the reaction of derrick footing and total weight will affect the reaction of skid base. The
detail of CG and CP is tabulated in Table 1-8. The vertical location of derrick is different
from each floating structure due to the structural difference between TLP, SPAR and
SEMI. For TLP, the derrick is located 200ft from MWL and 140ft for SPAR and SEMI.
For this reason, external wind force on TLP derrick is stronger than that on SPAR and
SEMI derrick. The projected area should be also carefully calculated in order to get
proper wind force of various wind directions. Table 1-9 shows the maximum projected
area.
77
Maximum projected area of derrick is 12,775 ft2 and maximum projected area of
total structure is 13,765 ft2 with incident angle of 45 degree. The projected area of skid
base is considered maximum at 21.25 degree of incident angle, but the total area is still
The derrick is supported by 4 footings, and the skid base is also supported by 4
footings. The node location and reference numbers are shown in Figure 1-9. The upper
78
structures are able to move along the y-direction and the distance between footings is
35ft. Skid base, which has rectangular positioned footings of 35ft by 90ft, can move
along the x-direction. In this study, the derrick is assumed to be located at the center of
180'
8 35' 7
Deck Beam
45° Footings
4 3 Footings for Skid 90'
y Base Unit
Footings for Derrick + Drill
Derrick Floor + Substructure Unit
z 35'
x
y’
1 2
5 6 Deck Beam
x’
The radius of gyrations of derrick and skid base should be approximated to get a
rotational moment of inertia. Simplified model for derrick which consists of rectangular
cubic is used to calculate rotational moment of inertia as shown in Figure 1-10. The
derrick and skid base are assumed to be homogeneous material for calculation.
79
200’
190’ CG
CG
95’ 80.7’
35’
z
y
10’
x 35’
35’
Locate the origin of coordinate axis on the bottom center of derrick, and let the
1
X – axis : I x M (35 2 190 2 ) MRx2
12
1
Y – axis : I y M (35 2 190 2 ) MR y2
12
1
Z – axis : I z M (35 2 35 2 ) MR z2
12
Thus, Rx , R y , Rz 55,55,14
The center of gravity of derrick + skid base is located at 80.7ft high above bottom
of skid base. The moment of inertia of total structure is calculated by taking the moment
of inertia of each cubic and applying parallel axis theorem to get the total moment of
inertia for derrick and skid base. The offset distance from center of gravity to derrick is
24.3ft and to skid base is 75.7ft. The mass of skid base M 1 is 570 kips and derrick M 2
is 1777 kips.
X – axis :
1 1
Ix M 1 (90 2 10 2 ) M 1 (75.7 2 ) M 2 (35 2 190 2 ) M 2 (24.32 ) ( M 1 M 2 ) Rx2
12 12
Y – axis :
1 1
Iy M 1 (35 2 10 2 ) M 1 (75.7 2 ) M 2 (35 2 190 2 ) M 2 (24.32 ) ( M 1 M 2 ) R y2
12 12
1 1
Z – axis : I z M 1 (35 2 90 2 ) M 2 (35 2 35 2 ) ( M 1 M 2 ) R z2
12 12
Thus, Rx , R y , Rz 66,65,18
the longer length of skid base has a negative effect on the rotation of total structures,
Configurations of Derrick AS
The second derrick for this study has somewhat different configurations
compared with derrick AA. The most distinct differences between Derrick AA and
Derrick AS are the location of footings and the weight distribution of derrick and
substructure. As we can see in Figure 1-11. the upper derrick, lower derrick and drill
81
floor are regarded as a derrick and its footings are at the bottom of the drill floor. The
other footings are located under the substructure which is heavier than the derrick.
225’
Upper Deck
140’
120’ Derrick CG
Lower Deck
CG CG
55’
Drill floor 40’
0’
from derrick and derrick with skid base, because the derrick itself will only contribute to
the reaction of derrick footing and total weight will affect the reaction of skid base. The
detail of CG and CP is tabulated in Table 1-10. The projected area should be also
carefully calculated in order to get proper wind force of various wind directions. Table 1-
SPAR
Description Derrick
Derrick
+ Substructure
Weight (kips) 1500 3500
COP from MWL (ft) 282 229
COP from each footings (ft) 102 89
CG from MWL (ft) 260 202.85
CG from each footings (ft) 80 62.85
Deck level from MWL (ft) 140
Maximum projected area of derrick is 9,225 ft2 and maximum projected area of
total structure is 13,468 ft2 with incident angle of 45 degree. The projected area of skid
base is considered maximum at 21.25 degree of incident angle, but the total area is still
The derrick is supported by 4 footings, and the skid base is also supported by 4
footings. The node location and reference numbers are shown in Figure 1-12. The
83
upper structures are able to move along the y-direction and the distance between
footings is 50ft. Substructure, which has rectangular positioned footings of 50ft by 100ft,
can move along the x-direction. In this study, the derrick is assumed to be located at the
8 50' 7
Deck Beam
45° Footings
4 3 Footings for Substructure Unit 100'
y
Footings for Derrick + Drill
Derrick Floor Unit
z 50'
x
y’
1 2
5 6 Deck Beam
x’
The radius of gyrations of derrick and skid base should be approximated to get a
rotational moment of inertia. Simplified model for derrick which consists of rectangular
cubic is used to calculate rotational moment of inertia as shown in Figure 1-13. The
derrick and skid base are assumed to be homogeneous material for calculation.
84
200’
185’ CG
80’
CG
62.85’
35’
z
y
x 35’ 40’
50’
Locate the origin of coordinate axis on the bottom center of derrick, and let the
1
X – axis : I x M (352 1852 ) MRx2
12
1
Y – axis : I y M (352 1852 ) MRy2
12
1
Z – axis : I z M (35 2 35 2 ) MRz2
12
Thus, Rx , R y , Rz 55,55,14
The center of gravity of derrick + skid base is located at 80.7ft high above bottom
of skid base. The moment of inertia of total structure is calculated by taking the moment
of inertia of each cubic and applying parallel axis theorem to get the total moment of
inertia for derrick and skid base. The offset distance from center of gravity to derrick is
24.3ft and to skid base is 75.7ft. The mass of skid base M 1 is 570 kips and derrick M 2
is 1777 kips.
X – axis :
1 1
Ix M 1 (100 2 40 2 ) M 1 (42.85 2 ) M 2 (35 2 185 2 ) M 2 (57.15 2 ) ( M 1 M 2 ) Rx2
12 12
Y – axis :
1 1
Iy M 1 (50 2 40 2 ) M 1 (42.85 2 ) M 2 (35 2 185 2 ) M 2 (57.15 2 ) ( M 1 M 2 ) R y2
12 12
1 1
Z – axis : I z M 1 (50 2 100 2 ) M 2 (35 2 35 2 ) ( M 1 M 2 ) Rz2
12 12
Thus, Rx , R y , Rz 65,63,26
the longer length of skid base has a negative effect on the rotation of total structures,
Environmental Condition
The environmental condition, which is one of the input parameters of this study,
is provided by API Bulletin 2INT-MET (2007). To generate long crested irregular random
waves, the JONSWAP spectrum is employed in this analysis with stiffness parameter of
2.4. Time-varying wind speed series is generated for 3hours using API wind spectrum.
86
Wind, wave and current are propagating to the same direction, so only collinear case is
considered for simplicity. Two incident angles, 0 degree and 45 degrees are used for
analysis. Table 1-12 shows the environmental conditions for 100, 200 and 1000-year
Figure 1-14 shows the time history of wave elevation for each return period. 3-
hour random wave is generated by CHARM3D and wave spectrum of the generated
wave is compared with JONSWAP wave spectrum. The spectral density of random
wave for hurricane conditions shows a good agreement between simulated data and
Wave Spectrum
Wave Height(ft)
50 JONSWAP
1000
0
500
-50
-100 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time(sec) frequency(rad/sec)
Wave Spectrum
50
1000 JONSWAP
0
500
-50
-100 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time(sec) frequency(rad/sec)
50 JONSWAP
2000
0
1000
-50
-100 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time(sec) frequency(rad/sec)
The wind force coefficients Ceff Fw / V102 0.0665kips /( ft / sec) 2 for TLP and
0.0848kips /( ft / sec) 2 for SPAR are used to find total wind force on the floating structures.
Fw stands for the total wind force on hull above MWL and V10 represents 1-hour
averaged wind velocity at 10m height above MWL. Figure 1-15 shows the 3-hour
simulated wind velocity and its spectrum at the height of center of pressure. The API
2 0.45
U z
3444.8 0
S( f ) 32.8 32.8
~ ( 5 / 3n )
1 f n
2/3 0.75
~ z U0
f 172 f ,
32.8 32.8
The 3-sec gust velocity for each hurricane condition is also included in the
random wind velocity series. The design wind speed u ( z , t )( ft / s ) at height z ( ft ) above
z
U ( z ) U 0 1 C ln
32.8
C 0.0573 1 0.0457U 0
89
0.22
z
I u ( z ) 0.061 0.013U 0 ,
32.8
Generated
200 Target
10000
150
5000
100
50 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 0.5 1
Time(sec) frequency(rad/sec)
15000
Wind Speed (ft\sec)
Generated
200
10000 Target
150
5000
100
50 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 0.5 1
Time(sec) frequency(rad/sec)
15000
Wind Speed (ft\sec)
Generated
250 Target
10000
200
5000
150
100 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 0.5 1
Time(sec) frequency(rad/sec)
Fig 0-15 Wind Speed Time Series and Spectrum (100, 200 and 1000 year condition)
90
The currents profile for 100-year, 200-year, and 1000-year return period
Depth(ft)
Depth(ft)
-1500 -1500 -1500
will affect the motion of the body. The hydrodynamic pressure on the body due to the
body motion can be regarded as equivalent increment of body mass. That portion of
mass is an added mass. Added mass and damping coefficient for both TLP and SPAR
0.14
Added Mass Coefficient
0.12 3.8
0.1 3.6
0.08 3.4
0.06 3.2
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5
Wave Frequency(rad/s) Wave Frequency(rad/s)
0.14
Added Mass Coefficient
0.12 3.8
0.1 3.6
0.08 3.4
0.06 3.2
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5
Wave Frequency(rad/s) Wave Frequency(rad/s)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-17 Added Mass Coefficient of (a) TLP and (b) SPAR
92
0.096 0.268
0.094 0.266
0.092 0.264
0.09 0.262
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5
Wave Frequency(rad/s) Wave Frequency(rad/s)
(a) (b)
The motion of floating structures will generate the radiation waves and this may
reduce the energy that the structures have. This effect is quantified by damping
0.06 0.6
Damping Coefficient
0.04 0.4
0.02 0.2
0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5
Wave Frequency(rad/s) Wave Frequency(rad/s)
(a) (b)
0.06
Damping Coefficient
0.6
0.04 0.4
0.02 0.2
0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5
Wave Frequency(rad/s) Wave Frequency(rad/s)
-3 -3
x 10 Heave Damping x 10 Heave Damping
6 6
5
Damping Coefficient
Damping Coefficient
4
4
3 2
2
0
1
0 -2
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5
Wave Frequency(rad/s) Wave Frequency(rad/s)
(a) (b)
carried out. Only the first order of wave force is implemented and second order sum
frequency wave force is neglected. The second order difference frequency wave force
coefficient from WAMIT output is converted into CHARM3D input using the interface
software WAMPOST. The mooring lines and risers of the TLP and SPAR are modeled
- Inertia Force
hull structures) is utilized to get the 3-dimensional components of inertia force and
gravitational force for derrick and skid base. The derrick or skid base motion can be
derived by relative velocity and acceleration dynamics technique because the relative
displacement between hull origin and derrick origin makes the derrick motion different.
P b3
rP / B
rP b2
B
a3
rB b1
a2
O
a1
Figure 1-19 shows the two different frames O and B, where O frame represents
global reference frame and B frame represents body fixed frame. The point P in the
rp rB rP / B
The subscript P/B represents the point P measured from the frame B. By
vP vB vP / B
vP / B vP / Brel rP / B
If point P is fixed in frame B, then the relative velocity vP / Brel is zero. Since the
derrick is fixed structure on hull, we can regard vP / Brel as zero in this analysis. Thus, we
vP v B v P / B v B rP / B
where, v B is the velocity of hull and omega is the angular velocity of Hull respectively.
To find the acceleration of point P, we have to differentiate eq. once more, then
d
aP aB ( rP / B )
dt
The second term can be differentiated using transport theorem with the result,
d
( rP / B ) rP / B v P / B ( rP / B )
dt
Substitute v P / Brel with zero, and the acceleration of point P with respect to global
a P a B rP / B ( rP / B )
The term rP / B is due to the angular acceleration of the rotating frame, while
- Gravity Force
If the derrick or skid base is in static condition, then vertical component of gravity
force is the only force which is exerted on the footings. However, continuous
- Wind Force
The wind force is calculated by wind force coefficient and square of wind velocity
1
Fwind air C shape C perm Aprojected Vz2
2
where, air is density of air and 0.0023668 ( slug / ft 3 ) is used. C shape is the shape
measure of the total projected areas of all the members in an area to the total area.
Aprojected is the projected area of structures and Vz is local wind velocity in ft / sec .
The wind force expressed in the global coordinate system should be transformed
inertia, gravity and wind. In the following section of case study, the directions of each
force are expressed as surge, sway and heave which represent X, Y and Z directions in
The reaction force on the footings of derrick or skid base can be calculated from
the force and moment equilibrium. If we assume that the derrick is a rigid body, then
reaction force at each direction can be calculated as follows. In general, lateral reaction
force is mostly occurred by horizontal force such as wind force and inertia force, but
vertical uplift reaction force is caused by vertical force like gravity force and overturning
moment due to horizontal forces. The reaction force for derrick and skid base will be
separately considered, and these reaction forces are also simulated during 3-hour
simulation period. Design engineer should take maximum and minimum reaction forces
FY Rxy
Rx Rx
Ry Ry b
Rxy
FX MZ
Rxy
Rx Rx
Rxy
Ry Ry
a
The reaction force of x-direction consists of the external force of x direction and
external moment of z direction as shown in Figure 1-20. The force and moment
FX 4 Rx 0
FY 4 R y 0
M Z 4 Rxy a 2 b 2 0
FX
Rx
4
FY
Ry
4
MZ
Rxy
4 a 2 b2
b FX b MZ
Point : R1x Rx Rxy
a b
2 2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
b FX b MZ
Point : R2 x Rx Rxy
a b
2 2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
b FX b MZ
Point : R3 x Rx Rxy
a b
2 2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
b FX b MZ
Point : R4 x Rx Rxy
a b
2 2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
a FY a MZ
Point : R1 y Ry Rxy
a b
2 2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
99
a FY a MZ
Point : R2 y Ry Rxy
a 2 b2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
a FY a MZ
Point : R3 y Ry Rxy
a2 b2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
a FY a MZ
Point : R4 y Ry Rxy
a 2 b2 4 4(a 2 b 2 )
The reaction force of z direction consists of external force on the vertical direction
FZ
MY MX
a b
FZ 4 RZ 0
M Y 4aRmy 0
100
M X 4bRmx 0
Thus,
FZ
RZ
4
MY
Rmy
4a
MX
Rmx
4b
FZ M Y M X
Point : R1z Rz Rmy Rmx
4 4a 4b
FZ M Y M X
Point : R2 z Rz Rmy Rmx
4 4a 4b
FZ M Y M X
Point : R3 z Rz Rmy Rmx
4 4a 4b
FZ M Y M X
Point : R4 z Rz Rmy Rmx
4 4a 4b
All calculations are conducted by the motion information of hull structures and
In this case, the reaction force on derrick footings and skid base footings for TLP
will be analyzed. Wind, wave and current are coming from the 0 degree incident angle.
The TLP motion time series for 100-year, 200-year and 1000-year hurricane conditions
will be presented. Figures 2-1 to 2-3 show the 3-hour simulation result of TLP motion
4
Motion x 10
500 4
400
3
300
Motion(ft)
S()
200 2
100
1
0
-100 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time(sec) (rad/sec)
Fig 0-1 TLP Surge Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees)
Motion
10 250
0 200
Motion(ft)
-10 150
S()
-20 100
-30 50
-40 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time(sec) (rad/sec)
Fig 0-2 TLP Heave Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees)
102
-6
Motion x 10
0.8 8
0.6 6
Motion(deg)
0.4
S()
4
0.2
2
0
-0.2 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time(sec) (rad/sec)
The spectra of each motion show that the motion of TLP is affected by incident
wave forces and 2nd order difference frequency wave forces which cause slowly varying
motion. Hull motion spectrum shows the distinctly different components of motion.
The inertial force of derrick and skid base are calculated based on the hull
motion, and are summarized in Figures 2-4 to 2-5 and Table 2-1.
500 500
Inertia Force (kips)
Inertia Force (kips)
0 0
-500 -500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-4 Surge Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
103
100 100
Inertia Force (kips)
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-5 Heave Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
Most of the surge inertia force comes from the surge motion, and the contribution
of pitch motion for surge inertia force is very small since the pitch motion of TLP is
Table 0-1 Inertia Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base
(TLP with 0 Degrees)
MEAN 0 0 0 MEAN 0 0 0
(a) (b)
Wind Force
The maximum wind force on derrick and skid base is tabulated below. Effective
pressure on Table 2-2 represents one half of multiplication of air density, square of 3-
sec gust wind velocity, and shape coefficient. Total pressure on the structure can be
104
calculated by multiplying unit pressure by perm factor and projected area. 3-hour time
Table 0-2 Wind Force on Derrick and Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
z elev
U(z) Effective
above Perm Projecte Max. Momen
100 YEAR 1-hr Cshape Pressur
MWL to Factor d Area Force t
ave e
Mid-Point
Upper
403 222 1.25 125.00 0.6 2805 210 42602
derrick
Lower
318 216 1.25 121.21 0.6 2975 216 25435
derrick
Drill floor 268 212 1.50 142.19 1.0 750 107 7198
Substructur
235 208 1.50 139.74 0.6 2500 210 7336
e
Derrick 743 82571
Skid base 205 205 1.50 137.17 1.0 1000 137 686
Derrick
880 83257
+ Skid Base
1000 1000
800 800
Wind Force (kips)
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-6 Surge Wind Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
105
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-7 Heave Wind Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
The maximum wind forces on derrick and skid base are calculated as 743 kips
and 880 kips respectively in Table 2-2. The statistics of simulated random wind forces
are tabulated in Table 2-3 and the maximum wind forces shown are 765 kips and 905
kips which are slightly higher than estimated maximum wind force.
Table 0-3 Wind Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
Gravity Force
The weight of derrick is 1777 kips and total weight including skid base is 2347
kips. Most of the gravity force is applied on the vertical direction, while horizontal
direction of gravity force comes from hull pitching motion. The pitch and roll motions of
106
TLP are not that big, so gravity force seems to be constant through the whole simulation
time. Mean horizontal component of gravity force of derrick and skid base is 6 kips and
8 kips respectively. These forces are relatively smaller than vertical gravity force and
can be negligible. Figures 2-8 to 2-9 and Table 2-4 show the time history of gravity
force.
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-8 Surge Gravity Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
-1800 -1800
Gravity Force (kips)
Gravity Force (kips)
-2000 -2000
-2200 -2200
-2400 -2400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-9 Heave Gravity Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
107
Table 0-4 Gravity Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base
(TLP with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
Total Force
Total force on the derrick and skid base can be expressed by a summation of
inertia force, wind force and gravity force. The time history of total force and statistics of
1500 1500
1000 1000
Total Force (kips)
500 500
0 0
-500 -500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-10 Surge Total Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
108
-1700 -2250
-2300
-1750
-2350
-1800
-2400
-1850 -2450
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-11 Heave Total Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-5 Total Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
Reaction Force
The reaction forces of each footing are calculated according to the methodology
described in the previous section. The node number for derrick ranges from 1 to 4 and
from 5 to 8 for skid base. The time histories of derrick reaction force of each footing are
listed below.
109
The location of derrick footings and node number is shown in Figure 2-12. The
external force including wind, wave, and current is coming from 0 degree of positive x-
direction.
4 y 3
Force x
1 2
0 500
-50
Reaction Force (kips)
0
-100
-150
-500
-200
-250 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-13 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 1 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
110
0 2000
-50
Reaction Force (kips)
-100
1000
-150
500
-200
-250 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-14 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 2 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
-50
Reaction Force (kips)
1500
-100
1000
-150
500
-200
-250 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-15 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 3 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
0 500
-50
Reaction Force (kips)
0
-100
-150
-500
-200
-250 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-16 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 4 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
111
The time history of reaction force is shown in Figures 2-13 to 2-16, and the
statistics of reaction force for derrick footings are tabulated in Table 2-6.
The mean reaction force of surge direction is -108 kips for all 4 footings, but the
heave reaction force is -189 kips for node 1 and 4, and 1077 kips for node 2 and 3. This
means that the footings of the upstream location (node 1 and 4) experience a tensile
force and the footings of downstream location (node 2 and 3) experience compression
force.
The skid base footings are not located at the squared position as shown in Figure
2-17 and the mean reaction force would be greater than derrick footing reaction force,
8 y 7
Force x
5 6
0 500
-100 0
-200 -500
-300 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-18 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 5 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
100 2000
Reaction Force (kips)
0
1500
-100
1000
-200
-300 500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-19 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 6 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
113
100 2000
0
1500
-100
1000
-200
-300 500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-20 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 7 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
100 1000
Reaction Force (kips)
Reaction Force (kips)
0 500
-100 0
-200 -500
-300 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-21 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 8 (TLP with 0 Degrees)
The time history of reaction force is shown in Figures 2-18 to 2-21, and the
statistics of reaction force for derrick footings are tabulated in Table 2-7.
Table 0-7 Skid Base Reaction Force Statistics (TLP with 0 Degrees)
compression force while mean force is tensile force. Mean reaction force of surge
direction is the same for all 4 footings since all external forces are coming from the 0
degree of x-axis.
Similarly, external forces and reaction forces are calculated in 200-year and
Table 2-8 shows the force components of derrick and skid base footings for 200-
Table 0-8 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
MEAN 0 0 0 MEAN 0 0 0
115
(a) (b)
Since each of the forces such as wind force and inertia force has a different
phase, sum of maximum forces of inertia, wind and gravity is mostly bigger than
maximum of total force. The corresponding reaction force of each position is shown in
Table 2-9.
Table 2-10 shows the force components of derrick and skid base footings for
Table 0-10 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
MEAN 0 0 0 MEAN 0 0 0
117
(a) (b)
The reaction force of each footing for 1000-year hurricane condition is shown in
Table 2-11.
reaction force of each footing when they decide the strength of footings. Positive and
negative signs stand for the direction of reaction force. That is to say, maximum of
absolute value of each reaction force is significant. To see the tendency of reaction
force of each footing, mean reaction forces are presented in Figures 2-22 and 2-23.
119
0 0
-50 -50
-100
kips
kips
-100
-150
-150 -200
-200 -250
100 year 200 year 1000 year 100 year 200 year 1000 year
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
kips
kips
500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
100 year 200 year 1000 year 100 year 200 year 1000 year
In this case, all other conditions are the same with case 1, but TLP is replaced by
SPAR structure. In general, SPAR is more vulnerable to roll and pitch. So, inertia force
of derrick could be greater than that of TLP. Due to the large inclination angle, gravity
force of surge component could also be bigger than that of TLP. Figures 3-1 to 3-3
show the 3-hour simulation result of SPAR motion and its spectral density for 100-year
hurricane condition.
Motion
200 5000
150 4000
3000
Motion(ft)
100
S()
50 2000
0 1000
-50 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time(sec) (rad/sec)
Fig 0-1 SPAR Surge Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees)
Motion
2 8
0
6
Motion(ft)
-2
S()
4
-4
2
-6
-8 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time(sec) (rad/sec)
Fig 0-2 SPAR Heave Motion and Spectrum (0 Degrees)
121
Motion -3
x 10
15 4
10 3
Motion(deg)
S()
5 2
0 1
-5 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time(sec) (rad/sec)
Inertia force of SPAR derrick is relatively bigger than that of TLP derrick, because
the rotational motion of SPAR including pitch and roll is more severe. Large inertia force
can contribute to the increase of uplift reaction force, so the SPAR derrick footings will
experience bigger reaction forces compared to TLP derrick footings. The inertial force of
derrick and skid base are calculated based on the hull motion, and are summarized in
800 800
600 600
Inertia Force (kips)
400 400
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-4 Surge Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
122
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-5 Heave Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-1 Inertia Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
MEAN 0 0 1 MEAN 0 0 1
(a) (b)
The derrick and skid base of SPAR is located 140ft above MWL, and for this
reason, derrick wind force of SPAR is less than that of TLP. The wind force on each
component of the derrick and skid base is tabulated below. Maximum wind force of
derrick is 721 kips, while maximum wind force of TLP derrick is 743 kips. Maximum
wind force on derrick including skid base is 852 kips. A detail list of wind force
Table 0-2 Wind Force of Derrick and Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
z elev
U(z) Effective
above Perm Projecte Max. Momen
100 YEAR 1-hr Cshape Pressur
MWL to Factor d Area Force t
ave e
Mid-Point
Upper
343 218 1.25 122.41 0.6 2805 206 41719
derrick
Lower
258 211 1.25 117.89 0.6 2975 210 24739
derrick
Drill floor 208 205 1.50 137.40 1.0 750 103 6956
Substructur
175 201 1.50 134.22 0.6 2500 201 7047
e
Derrick 721 80460
Skid base 145 196 1.50 130.73 1.0 1000 131 654
Derrick
852 81114
+ Skid Base
900 900
800 800
Wind Force (kips)
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-6 Surge Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
Heave component of wind force of SPAR is considerably bigger than that of TLP
case, as the large tilted angle of derrick can generate vertical uplift force on derrick.
Compared with TLP case, the maximum heave component of derrick is 93 kips, while it
is 5 kips for TLP. The time history of wind force and statistics of force are shown in
120 120
100 100
Wind Force (kips)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-7 Heave Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-3 Wind Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
Gravity Force
Most of the gravity force on footings is applied in a vertical direction due to its
weight. If the hull is tilted, then horizontal component of gravity force will also rise. For
TLP case, this horizontal component of gravity force is negligible because pitch and roll
significant relative to TLP due to large motion of pitch or roll. The maximum surge
component of gravity force of TLP derrick is only 19 kips, but the maximum of SPAR is
335 kips which is comparable to the inertia force of TLP derrick. Figures 3-8 to 3-9 and
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-8 Surge Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
-1800 -1800
Gravity Force (kips)
Gravity Force (kips)
-2000 -2000
-2200 -2200
-2400 -2400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-9 Heave Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-4 Gravity Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base
(SPAR with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
126
Total Force
The summation of inertia force, wind force and gravitational force is regarded as
total force, and it is presented in Figures 3-10 to 3-11 and Table 3-5.
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (a)
(sec) (b)(sec)
Time
Fig 0-10 Surge Total Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
-1600 -2150
-1650 -2200
Total Force (kips)
-2250
-1700
-2300
-1750
-2350
-1800 -2400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-11 Heave Total Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
Except for wind force, both inertia force and gravity force on SPAR derrick are
larger than those of TLP derrick, so total force on derrick and skid base of SPAR is
admittedly large.
127
Table 0-5 Total Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
Reaction Force
Four derrick footing reaction forces and 4 skid base footing reaction forces are
calculated the same way we calculated TLP. Since the total force applied on derrick and
skid base is bigger than that of TLP, we expect that the reaction force of each footing
The time history of total reaction force is shown in Figures 3-12 to 3-15, and the
statistics of reaction force for derrick footings are tabulated in Table 3-6.
100 1000
500
Reaction Force (kips)
Reaction Force (kips)
0
-100
-500
-200
-1000
-300 -1500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-12 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 1 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
128
100 2500
2000
Reaction Force (kips)
1500
-100
1000
-200
500
-300 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-13 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 2 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
100 2500
0 2000
Reaction Force (kips)
Reaction Force (kips)
-100 1500
-200 1000
-300 500
-400 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-14 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 3 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
100 500
Reaction Force (kips)
0
Reaction Force (kips)
-100
-500
-200
-1000
-300
-400 -1500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-15 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 4 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
129
The mean uplifting force on node 1 and 4 is 341 kips and mean compression
force on node 2 and 3 is 1211 kips. For node 1 and 4, the maximum positive reaction
force of 527 kips and 479 kips stands for compression force. This means that upstream
The time history of total reaction force is shown in Figures 3-16 to 3-19, and the
statistics of reaction force for skid base footings are tabulated in Table 3-7.
100 1000
0 500
Reaction Force (kips)
-100 0
-200 -500
-300 -1000
-400 -1500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-16 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 5 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
130
100 2500
0
Reaction Force (kips)
-100
1500
-200
1000
-300
-400 500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-17 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 6 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
100 3000
2500
Reaction Force (kips)
0
2000
-100
1500
-200
1000
-300 500
-400 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-18 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 7 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
100 1000
Reaction Force (kips)
0 500
-100 0
-200 -500
-300 -1000
-400 -1500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-19 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 8 (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
131
Table 0-7 Skid Base Reaction Force Statistics (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
The absolute value of mean reaction force on upstream footings node 5 and 8 is
increased weight of skid base plays a role in resisting overturning moment. Similarly,
the footings on downstream footings node 6 and 7 experience more compression force
A similar analysis is carried out for 200-year and 1000-year hurricane conditions.
Table 3-8 shows the force components of derrick and skid base footings for 200-
Table 0-8 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
MEAN 0 0 1 MEAN 0 0 1
(a) (b)
133
The reaction force of each footing for 200-year hurricane condition is shown in
Table 3-9.
Table 3-10 shows the force components of derrick and skid base footings for
Table 0-10 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SPAR with 0 Degrees)
MEAN 0 0 1 MEAN 0 0 2
(a) (b)
135
The reaction force of each footing for 1000-year hurricane condition is shown in
Table 3-11.
The mean reaction forces of each footing are compared in Figures 3-20 and 3-
21.
136
0 0
-50
-50
-100
-100
kips
kips
-150
-150 -200
-200 -250
-250 -300
100 year 200 year 1000 year 100 year 200 year 1000 year
2000 2500
1500 2000
1000 1500
1000
kips
kips
500
500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
100 year 200 year 1000 year 100 year 200 year 1000 year
This case study shows the characteristics of SEMI motion and the reaction force
on the footings. The environmental condition for this case is same as previous TLP and
SPAR case, but the water depth is 10,000ft, not 3,000ft. 3-hour simulation results of
SEMI motion and its spectral density for 100-year hurricane condition are illustrated in
200 2.5
150 2
Motion(ft)
S()
100 1.5
50 1
0 0.5
-50 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Frequency(rad/sec) (rad/sec)
30 150
20
100
Motion(ft)
10
S()
0
50
-10
-20 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Frequency(rad/sec) (rad/sec)
15 100
10 80
5
Motion(Deg)
60
S()
0
40
-5
20
-10
-15 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Frequency(rad/sec) (rad/sec)
The inertial force of derrick and skid base are calculated based on the hull
motion, and are summarized in Figures 4-4 to 4-5 and Table 4-1.
400 400
Inertia Force (kips)
Inertia Force (kips)
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-4 Surge Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
139
400 400
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-5 Heave Inertia Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-1 Inertia Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base
(TLP with 0 Degrees)
MEAN -1 0 2 MEAN -2 0 3
Surge inertia forces of derrick and skid base are relatively small compared to the
inertia force of TLP and SPAR. However, the heave inertia force of the SEMI shows the
Wind Force
The derrick and skid base of SEMI are assumed to be mounted at the deck
which is located 140ft above MWL. So, the pattern of wind force is similar with the
pattern of SPAR.
140
Table 0-2 Wind Force on Derrick and Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
z elev
U(z) Effective
above Perm Projecte Max. Momen
100 YEAR 1-hr Cshape Pressur
MWL to Factor d Area Force t
ave e
Mid-Point
Upper
343 218 1.25 122.41 0.6 2805 206 41719
derrick
Lower
258 211 1.25 117.89 0.6 2975 210 24739
derrick
Drill floor 208 205 1.50 137.40 1.0 750 103 6956
Substructur
175 201 1.50 134.22 0.6 2500 201 7047
e
Derrick 721 80460
Skid base 145 196 1.50 130.73 1.0 1000 131 654
Derrick
852 81114
+ Skid Base
900 900
800 800
Wind Force (kips)
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-6 Surge Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
141
150 150
100 100
Wind Force (kips)
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
0 2000 (a) 8000 10000 12000
4000 6000 0 2000 4000 (b)
6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Fig 0-7 Heave Wind Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-3 Wind Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (TLP with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
Gravity Force
500 500
Gravity Force (kips)
0 0
-500 -500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-8 Surge Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
142
-1800 -1800
-2000 -2000
-2200 -2200
-2400 -2400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-9 Heave Gravity Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-4 Gravity Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base
(SPAR with 0 Degrees)
Total Force
The time history of total force and statistics of force are shown in Figures 4-10, 4-
1000 1000
Total Force (kips)
Total Force (kips)
500 500
0 0
-500 -500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-10 Surge Total Force of (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
143
-1500 -2000
-2100
-1600
-2200
-1700
-2300
-1800
-2400
-1900 -2500
-2000 -2600
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-11 Heave Total Force for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-5 Total Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
(a) (b)
Reaction Force
The time history of total reaction force is shown in Figures 4-12 to 4-15, and the
statistics of reaction force for derrick footings are tabulated in Table 4-6.
144
50 1000
0
Reaction Force (kips)
-100 0
-150
-500
-200
-250 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-12 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 1 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
50 2000
0
Reaction Force (kips)
Reaction Force (kips)
1500
-50
-100 1000
-150
500
-200
-250 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-13 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 2 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
50 2000
0
Reaction Force (kips)
Reaction Force (kips)
1500
-50
-100 1000
-150
500
-200
-250 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-14 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 3 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
145
50 1000
500
-50
-100 0
-150
-500
-200
-250 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-15 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 4 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
-100 0
-200 -500
-300 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-16 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 5 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
100 2000
Reaction Force (kips)
Reaction Force (kips)
0 1500
-100 1000
-200 500
-300 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-17 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 6 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
100 2000
Reaction Force (kips)
0 1500
-100 1000
-200 500
-300 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-18 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 7 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
147
100 1000
0 500
-100 0
-200 -500
-300 -1000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Fig 0-19 (a) Surge Reaction (b) Heave Reaction on Footing 8 (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-7 Skid Base Reaction Force Statistics (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
Table 0-8 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
MEAN -1 0 2 MEAN -2 0 3
(a) (b)
149
Table 0-10 Force Statistics for (a) Derrick and (b) Derrick + Skid Base (SEMI with 0 Degrees)
MEAN -1 0 4 MEAN -3 0 5
(a) (b)
151
100 year 200 year 1000 year 100 year 200 year 1000 year
0 0
-50 -50
-100
kips
kips
-100
-150
-150 -200
-200 -250
100 year 200 year 1000 year 100 year 200 year 1000 year
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
kips
kips
500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
SUMMARY
Due to the difference of motion characteristics between TLP, SPAR and SEMI,
resultant reaction force is also different. As we have already seen, total horizontal force
exerted on the SPAR derrick and skid base is generally bigger than total force on TLP
or SEMI derrick. Figures 5-1 to 5-4 show the forces exerted on the derrick for TLP,
SPAR and SEMI. A comparison of the reaction force is also presented for 0 degree
kips
0 0
-200 MAX MIN MEAN SEMI MAX MIN MEAN SEMI
-100
-400
-600 -200
(a) (b)
SPAR
kips
400
SEMI 0 SEMI
200
MAX MIN MEAN
-50
0
MAX MIN MEAN -100
(a) (b)
kips
0 -1750
MAX MIN MEAN SEMI -1760 SEMI
-200
-1770
-400 -1780
(a) (b)
kips
500
SEMI -1500 SEMI
0
-2000
MAX MIN MEAN
-500 -2500
(a) (b)
Surge inertia force shows that maximum and minimum force of SPAR is the
biggest among the three structures and that of SEMI is the smallest. On the contrary,
heave inertial force of SEMI is bigger than that of TLP and SPAR. Wind force for
surge direction of TLP is stronger because the location of derrick of TLP is higher than
location of SPAR and SEMI derrick; however, the heave wind forces of SPAR and SEMI
are bigger due to large tilt angle that causes a bigger vertical component of wind force.
Most of these differences come from the large pitch motion of SPAR and the trend of
0 500
MAX MIN MEAN TLP TLP
-100 0
SPAR SPAR
kips
kips
MAX MIN MEAN
-200 SEMI -500 SEMI
-300 -1000
-400 -1500
(a) (b)
Fig 0-5 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 1
0 2000
TLP
MAX MIN MEAN TLP 1500
-100 SPAR
kips
SPAR
kips
1000
-200 SEMI
SEMI
500
-300
0
-400 MAX MIN MEAN
(a) (b)
Fig 0-6 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 2
-100
SPAR
kips
1000
SEMI
-200 SEMI 500
-300 0
-400 MAX MIN MEAN
(a) (b)
Fig 0-7 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 3
156
0 500
TLP TLP
MAX MIN MEAN 0
-100 SPAR
kips
SPAR
kips
-400 -1500
(a) (b)
Fig 0-8 (a) Surge and (b) Heave Reaction Force at Node 4
For all footings, reaction force of SPAR is bigger than TLP and SEMI reaction
forces when all other conditions are the same except for derrick height as shown in
Figures 5-5 to 5-8. This means the design criteria of derrick footings of SPAR should be
In this study, a total of 4 different incident angles have been selected, and for
each incident heading, maximum uplift forces of TLP, SPAR and SEMI are presented.
3500
3000
2500
Uplift (kips)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
Figure 5-9 shows that the maximum uplift force on the derrick occurs when
external force is applied from 45 degrees. This tendency does still hold for the SPAR
and SEMI case as we can see in Figures 5-10 to 5-11. It is obvious that the squared
shape derrick has its maximum wind projected area when it stands at a 45 degree
angle.
4500
4000
3500
Uplift (kips)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
4000
3500
3000
Uplift (kips)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
Figure 5-12 shows that the maximum uplift force occurs when external force is
applied from either 21.25 degree or 45 degree or any angle between them. It doesn’t
158
seem that the difference is noticeable, but the uplift force is slightly bigger for 21.25
degree case.
2500
2000
1500
Uplift (kips)
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-500
Angle
3500
3000
2500
Uplift (kips)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
3000
2500
Uplift (kips)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
The external forces applied on the derrick and skid base consist of three different
components and the portions of these forces are different among the structures. Figures
5-15 and 5-17 show the different contribution of external forces which cause the
maximum surge reaction forces. Wind force is dominant in this case, and gravity force is
nearly zero because TLP does not have serious roll and pitch motions.
1200
Surge Reaction (kips)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
This pattern is different for SPAR case. The contribution of inertia and gravity
forces are greatly increased compared to TLP case. The gravity force contribution for
1200
Surge Reaction (kips)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
For the SEMI case, the contribution of inertia force is less than the other force
contributions. The reason we can think of is that the SEMI is in the deeper water while
1200
Surge Reaction (kips)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
Similar trend can be observed for the sway reaction force case as shown in
1000
800
Sway Reaction (kips)
600
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-200
Angle
900
800
Sway Reaction (kips)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
Both cases show that the horizontal reaction force of derrick and skid base
footings are mostly caused by the wind force, but inertia and gravity forces play an
900
800
For SEMI case, the inertial force contribution to the sway reaction force is
ADDITIONAL TOPICS
We have derived the reaction force of the derrick footing and skid base footing
separately and for simplicity, we assumed that the derrick is always positioned at the
center of the deck. However, the derrick could be located at the end of skid rail for some
reason during hurricane condition, and then the reaction force of skid base footing will
be significantly changed due to the change of applied force on the skid beam. Simple
support beam analysis is used to calculate the reaction force of skid base footings with
off-centered derrick.
Think of simplified simple support beam in Figure 6-1. The reaction force of node
P1 P2
1 2
a
b
L
F 0 : R1 R 2 P1 P 2 0
M 0 : a P1 b P 2 L R 2 0
a b
R1 (1 ) P1 (1 ) P 2
L L
a b
R2 P1 P 2
L L
Now, let us compare the reaction forces R1 and R2 for two different cases. When
a=L-b, which indicate that the derrick is in the center position, the reaction forces can be
derived as
Lb b
R1 (1 ) P1 (1 ) P 2
L L
b b
P1 (1 ) P 2
L L
Lb b
R2 P1 P 2
L L
b b
(1 ) P1 P 2
L L
If the derrick is shifted to the end of the skid rail, then we can derive the reaction
b
R1 P1 (1 ) P 2
L
b
R2 P2
L
165
By comparing those two different reaction forces, we can figure out that the
b b b b
R1 P1 (1 ) P 2 P1 (1 ) P 2 (1 ) P1
L L L L
b b b b
R 2 P 2 (1 ) P1 P 2 ( 1) P1
L L L L
Since b L , the reaction force of R1 and R2 will be positive and negative values
respectively. Definitely, the movement of derrick to the one end of the skid rail will affect
the reactions for both footings such that the one near the derrick will have more
compression force due to the derrick weight. On the contrary, the footing on the other
sides will have less compression force which means that footing could experience more
+DY
DX DY
+DX
0 0
5 6
0 357 2 1368
90 5 339 263
As shown in table above, the maximum uplift force is 1809 kips in footing 5, when
This case will be show the difference of reaction force of weather side footings.
7 8
+DY
DX DY
+DX 0 27.5
5 6
Table 0-2 Skid Base Uplift Force of Case 2 (SPAR, Lightship Condition)
0 499 57 1597
90 6 339 490
The maximum uplift force of weather side footing 5 is 2035 kips. Compared to the
center-positioned case, the possibilities of toppling down of skid base will appreciable
increased. While, we can notice that the maximum compression forces of lee side
7 8
+DY
DX DY
+DX
0 -27.5
5 6
Table 0-3 Skid Base Reaction Force of Case 3 (SPAR with 90 Degrees)
0 490 53 1567
90 6 339 41
This case is similar with case 2, but the derrick is moved to the weather side, so
the maximum uplift forces on the weather side footings will be significantly decreased
because the shifted derrick plays a role to compress the skid base.
The details of uplift force for those three different cases are tabulated below.
Maximum Uplift
DX DY Ratio
Force (kips)
Case 1 0 0 1809 100%
Case 2 0 27.5 2035 114%
Case 3 0 -27.5 1589 88%
One of the advantages of the time domain simulation is that it contains phase
difference information which makes the simulation more realistic. Due to this phase
difference, maximum total force does not always occur with the maximum of each force
components. That is to say, sum of all the maximum of each force could be greater than
To see the phase of each force component more clearly, time domain simulation
result is taken and illustrated in Figure 6-5. The red line shows the total lateral external
force acting on the derrick of TLP. The red solid line represents the total force and blue
dotted line represents the reaction force. These two lines show that the force and
250
kips
200
150
100
50 Inertia Force
Wind Force
0 Gravity Force
Total
-50 Reaction
-100
-150
-200
-250
The total force expressed in red line above consists of inertia, wind and gravity
force and each forces are plotted in the same plane. At the time when the total force is
maximum (at the middle), we can notice that the other forces are not always maximum
as we can see above. The dominant component that contributes to the lateral force is
kips 400
300
200
-100 Reaction
-200
-300
-400
For SPAR case, the tendency of the contribution of each force is similar, but we
can see that the gravity force contribution for the total lateral force is more appreciable
The vertical force component on the derrick structures are shown in Figures 6-7
to 6-8. We also see that the phase difference of each force component, which makes
more difficult for us to predict the total external forces and moments. So, time domain
simulation can be a good tool for the estimation of force and reaction force of tie-down
kips 1000
800
600
400
200 Gravity
Pitch Inertia
0 Pitch Wind
Total
-200 Reaction
-400
-600
-800
-1000
1500
kips
1000
500
Gravity
Pitch Inertia
Pitch Wind
0
Pitch Gravity
Total
Reaction
-500
-1000
-1500
In order to see the effect of phase difference in time domain simulation, several
Table 0-5 Total Force Cases (SPAR Derrick, 45 degrees, 100-year condition)
Case X Y Z MX MY MZ
1 923 917 -1642 -93947 94580 12
2 867 859 -1623 -87689 88531 14
3 743 739 -1665 -75700 76086 -6
4 537 529 -1649 -52885 53741 -12
5 1024 1017 -1620 -104367 105141 19
6 1361 1353 -1558 -138596 139404 19
Case 1 and 2 shows the total force and moment when the horizontal and vertical
inertia force is maximum. By picking up the maximum wind force and associated inertia
and gravity force, total force and moment will be calculated as shown in case 3. At the
time when hull is tilted at the maximum degree, total force and moment are calculated
and tabulated in case 4. General calculation method using time domain simulation takes
the maximum total force and moment irrespective of each force component and
presented in case 5. If we do not consider phase difference and just take the maximum
of each force component and sum them up, then the total force and moment will be
greater than that of case 5. This sum of each maximum case is shown in case 6. The
data above shows good agreement as we expected and for the engineering design
purpose, total force and moment of case 6 can be used as one of the guideline which
During severe hurricanes, the contact surfaces between deck structures become
wet and the resulting friction coefficient becomes much smaller than that of the dry
condition. As a result, a derrick may slip along a skid rail, which can lead to slip failure.
Its possibility can be checked by using dynamic loading calculations in time domain.
The friction force at one footing with a bolted clamp can be expressed as
F (t ) (nT0 N (t ))
where μ is the friction coefficient, n is the number of bolts and T0 is bolt pretension.
The friction coefficient between steel surfaces can be as low as 0.12 during the wet
condition. N(t) is time-varying up-lift (minus sign) or compression (plus sign) forces at
the bolt-clamp joint. Without any platform motions, N(t) becomes constant and equal
to one quarter of its weight. Since the normal force N(t) on each footing is available at
each time step, the resultant friction force can be obtained at each time step. At the
weather-side footing, N(t) becomes smaller due to uplift forces so that friction forces
are significantly reduced. The opposite holds true for the lee-side footing. So, those
two effects appear to compensate each other (see Figure 6-9). If we add all the friction
forces of 4 footings, we obtain the total friction force of the applied bolt-clamp (or
pneumatic grip) system, which is shown in Fig.8 for typical values of μ=0.12, n=12,
and T0 =137kips. The time histories of the total horizontal slip force on the derrick is
also plotted in the same figure. It seems that the slip failure does not happen in this
case because the total friction force is still significantly higher than total external slip
force.
174
1200
1000
600
400
200
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec)
Fig 0-9 Total Friction Force (red, upper) and Total Horizontal Slip Force (blue, lower)
(TLP 90-deg case, 100-year condition)
we may end up with quite different conclusion i.e. failure instead of survival. It is a very
uplift force on the weather-side derrick footing can be large at a certain time, and it
can significantly reduce the local friction force according to the above equation. Once
the local friction force is less than the local slip force, slip starts to occur at the derrick
footing unless the derrick is completely rigid and the local friction force is
smaller than static friction coefficient. Then, the total friction capacity of the clamp
system is suddenly dropped, which may result in progressive slip failure in a very short
time interval. This kind of sudden friction-capacity change can be implemented in the
time-domain simulation, as can be seen in Figures 6-10 and 6-11, in which we can see
175
a series of sudden decrease of the total friction force when local slip occurs at the
simultaneously at each time step to see whether any one of them starts to slip and
how it affects the others. Here, we need to underscore that this progressive slip failure
happens during a very short time interval, so the derrick slips a small distance and
stops. This kind of minute slips, however, can be accumulated to lead to more serious
failure.
300
#1 Friction Force (kips)
200
100
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec)
450
#4 Friction Force (kips)
400
350
300
250
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec)
Fig 0-10 Local friction forces at the weather-side footing (#1) and lee-side footing (#4)
176
1200
1000
600
400
200
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec)
Fig 0-11 Local Total Friction Force (red, upper) and Total Horizontal Slip Force (blue, lower)
(TLP 90-deg case, 100-year condition) with the effects of sudden drop of friction capacity
due to instant slip at weather-side footing.
Figures 6-12 and 6-13 show similar kinds of examples for the spar for the same
environment. It is seen that the spar derrick is more likely to slip due to larger heel
1400
1200
1000
Friction Force (kips)
800
600
400
200
-200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec)
1400
1200
1000
Friction Force (kips)
800
600
400
200
-200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Time (sec)
Fig 0-13 Total Friction Force (red, upper) and Total Horizontal Slip Force (blue, lower)
(spar 90-deg case, 100-year condition) with the effects of sudden drop of friction capacity
due to instant slip at weather-side footing. (78 Instant slips)
178
REFERENCES
API Bulletin 2INT-MET, 2007. Interim Guidance on Hurricane Conditions in the Gulf
API Specification 4F 2nd Edition, 1995. Specification for Drilling and Well Servicing
API Specification 4F 3rd Edition, 2008. Specification for Drilling and Well Servicing
Donnes, J., 2007. Comparison between the Current API Specification 4F 2nd Edition
and the Proposed API Specification 4F 3rd Edition. Masters Project Report,
Kim, M.H., 1997. CHARM3D User’s Manual. Ocean Engineering Program, Civil
Kim, M.H., Tahar, A., Kim, Y.B., 2001. Variability of TLP Motion Analysis against
Kim, M.H., Koo, B.J., Mercier, R.M., Ward, E.G., 2005. Vessel/Mooring/Riser Coupled
Kim, M.H. and Yang, C.K., 2006. Global Motion of Deep Star TLP and the
Ran, Z., and Kim, M.H., 1997. Nonlinear Coupled Responses of a Tethered Spar
118.
Steen, M. Irani, M. and Kim, M.H., 2004. Prediction of Spar Responses: Model Test vs.
Houston, TX.
Ward, E.G. and Gebara, J. M., 2006a. Assessment of Drilling & Workover Rig Storm
Sea Fastenings on Offshore Floating Platforms during Hurricane Ivan Phase1 Data
Ward, E.G. and Gebara, J. M., 2006b. Assessment of Storm Sea Fastenings for Drilling
and Workover Rigs on Floating Production Systems during Hurricane Ivan. In: