PDF Designofafsruforoffshorewestafrica DL - PDF

DESIGN OF A FLOATING STORAGE AND REGASIFICATION

UNIT (FSRU) FOR OFFSHORE WEST AFRICA
Regan Miller
Rolla Wattinger
April Van Valkenburg
Flor Foreman
Steven Schaefer
Jennifer Dupalo
OCEN 407 - Design of Ocean Engineering Facility

Ocean Engineering Program
Texas A&M University
May 28, 2004
TAMU Team West Africa ISODC Report

Table of Contents
List of Figures ..............

............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ... 2
.................
List of Tables............................
Tables..........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
........................... ...... 3
...................
Nomenclature.............................
Nomenclature............... ............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ... 4
.................
Executive Summary..........
Summary........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ............ 5
..........................
Acknowledgements..................................
Acknowledgements.................... ............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ................ 11
............................
1 Introduction...........................
Introduction............. ............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ .......... 12
........................
1.1 Background
Backgr ound ............................
..........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ................ 12
............................
1.2 Objectivee .............
Objectiv ...........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 13
....................
1.3 Field Trip...........................
Trip.........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 13
....................
1.4 Design Constraints
Constraints ............
..........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 14
....................
1.5 Environment.........................
Enviro nment.......................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ... 14
.................
1.6 Social and Politica
Politicall Issue
Issuess ...........................
.........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 16
......................
1.7 Sustainability
Sustain ability and Manuf Manufactur acturability..
ability................
............................
............................
............................
............................
........................... .... 16
.................
1.8 Team Organi
Organization...................
zation.................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 17
...........................
1.9 Gantt Charts..............
Charts............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ................ 18
............................
2 Competency Areas .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 21
...........................
2.1 Regulatory
Regula tory Compliance......................
Compliance....................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
........................... .... 21
.................
2.1.1 Fire Safety ...........................
.........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 23
...........................
2.2 General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design....... Design..................
.....................
.....................
...................... .......... 24
.....................
2.2.1 Ship Shape Barge with Spher Sphericalical Tanks...............
Tanks.............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 25
......................
2.2.2 Catamaran
Catama ran Hull with SPB Tanks.................................
Tanks...............................................
............................
............................
............................
................ 26
2.2.3 Selected
Select ed Design and Gener General al Layout.........................
Layout.......................................
............................
............................
............................... 27
.................
2.3 Weight,, Buoyan
Weight Buoyancy cy and Stabili
Stability.......................
ty.....................................
............................
............................
............................
............................... 34
.................
2.4 Global Loading.....................
Loading...................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................... 41
.................
2.5 Generall Strength
Genera Strength and Struct Structuralural Design .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................................ 43
............................
2.6 Wind and Curre
Current nt Loadi
Loading........................
ng......................................
............................
............................
............................
...................................... 48
........................
2.7 Mooring/Stati
Moorin g/Station on Keeping.....................
Keeping...................................
............................
............................
............................
............................................ 52
............................
2.8 Hydrodynami
Hydrod ynamics cs of Motions
Motions and Loadin Loading g .............
...........................
............................
............................
......................................... 57
...........................
2.9 Cost Analys
Analysis............
is..........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................................ 62
............................
3 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations........................
Recommendations...................................... ............................
.................................... 62
......................
4 References..............................
References............................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
...................................... 64
........................
Appendix A: Lightship weight spreadsheet ...........................
.........................................
............................
............................
...................................... 65
........................
Appendix B: Mimosa Input and Output Files...............................
Files.............................................
............................
............................
............................... 67
.................
Appendix C: StabCAD Input and Output...........
Output.........................
............................
............................
............................
............................................ 79
............................
TAMU Team West Africa -1- ISODC Report

List of Figures
Figure 1 Flow Diagram

Diagram of the L LNG
NG ReRegasif
gasification
ication ProcProcessess ...........................
.........................................
............................ ............. 13
...........................
Figure 2 One Hour Sustained Wind Speed Directional Distribution Distribution..........
.....................
.....................
....................
..................... .... 15
...............
Figure 3 Wave Chara
Characteris
cteristics
tics and D
Directio
irection n Dist
Distributio
ribution.....................
n...................................
............................
............................ ........ 15
......................
Figure 4 Curre
Current
nt Direc
Direction
tion Distrib
Distribution
ution ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ................ 16
............................
Figure 5 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, January 25 through March 14 ..................... ........... ....................
..................... .. 19
.............
Figure 6 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, March 14 through May 5 ........... .....................
....................
.....................
....................
......... 20
Figure 7 Ship-S
Ship-Shape
hape Barge with Turret
Turret Moor
Mooring.......................
ing.....................................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 25
....................
Figuree 8
Figur Catama
Catamaranran Hull with Sprea
Spread
d Moori
Mooring ng ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
........................... .... 26
.................
Figuree 9
Figur Catamaran
Catamaran H Hull
ull wit
with
h Sing
Single-Poi
le-Point nt Moo
Mooring.ring...............
............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 27
......................
Figure 10
10 Bow View of Selecte
Selected
d Design ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ................ 29
............................
Figure 11 Beam View of Selected
Selected Design......................
Design....................................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 29
....................
Figure 12 Isometric
Isometric View of Selecte
Selectedd Design.....................................
Design...................................................
............................
............................ ............. 30
...........................
Figure 13 Topside Configuration of Processing Equipment........
Equipment..................
.....................
.....................
.....................
...................... .......... 30
.....................
Figure 14 Processing
Processing Equi
Equipment
pment Locat
Locations
ions ............
..........................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 31
...........................
Figure 15
15 LNG and Ballast
Ballast Tank Conf
Configura
iguration
tion ............
..........................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 32
....................
Figuree 16
Figur Stowed Po Position
sition of Offloadin
Offloading g System ...........................
.........................................
............................
............................
........................... .... 33
.................
Figure 17 Offloading System Connected to Carrier’s Manifold.......................
Manifold............ .....................
.....................
...................... .......... 34
.....................
Figure 18
18 StabCAD
StabCAD Explod
Explodeded Panel Vi
Viewew .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 35
...........................
Figure 19 LNG Tank Configuration.................
Configuration...............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 36
....................
Figuree 20
Figur Ballas
Ballastt Tank Configuration
Configuration ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 36
....................
Figure 21 Metacenter
Metacenterss .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
.................
... 37
Figure 22
Figure Intact St
Stability
ability Cu
Curve
rve with KG KG=17.4
=17.4 m ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................................ 37
............................
Figuree 23
Figur Cross CCurves
urves o off Stabili
Stability ty .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
...................................... 38
........................
Figuree 24
Figur Damage
Damaged d Stability, Star
Starboard
board Aft Balla Ballast st Tank ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................... 39
.................
Figuree 25
Figur Damage
Damaged d Stabilit
Stability,y, Starb
Starboard
oard Tanks
Tanks 1 & 2 damag damaged ed ..............
............................
............................
.................................... 40
......................
Figure 26
26 Topside
Topside Loading
Loading ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
.................................... 42
......................
Figure 27 Load Case 1.............................
1...........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................................ 43
............................
Figure 28 Load Case 1 Results
Results ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................... 44
.................
Figure 29 Load Case 2.............................
2...........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................................ 44
............................
Results ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................... 45
.................
Figure 31 Load Case 3.............................
3...........................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................................ 45
............................
Results ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................... 46
.................
Figuree 33
Figur ABS Longi
Longitudinal
tudinal H Hull
ull Girder S Streng
trength th .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................................ 48
............................
Figure 34 Cross-Secti
Cross-Section
on of Longitudinal
Longitudinal Beam ............. ...........................
............................
............................
............................
.................................. 48
....................
Figure 35 Beam View with HeightHeight Ranges for for Envir
Environmenta
onmentall Calculati
Calculations ons ..............
............................
............................... 49
.................
Figure 36
Figure 37
37 Bow View
Horizontal
Horiz with ut
ontal Layo Height
Layout Ranges
of Moorin
Mooring for Environmental
g Lines ............. Calculations
...........................
............................ ....................
.......... .....................
............................ .....................
............................ ................
............................ ...... 53
....................
...... 50
Figure 38 Comparison
Comparison of Line Lengths..........
Lengths........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 54
......................
Figure 39
39 Comparison
Comparison of Line Te Tension
nsion an andd Line Size......................
Size....................................
............................
............................ ................ 56
............................
Figure 40 Energy
Energy Density.................
Density...............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 58
......................
Figure 41
41 RAO Response
Response in 0 Degree He Heading....................
ading..................................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 60
...........................
Figure 42
42 RAO Response
Response fo
forr 67.5 Degr
Degree ee Headi
Heading ng .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 60
...........................

List of Tables
Table 1 Shoale
Shoaled d Wave Chara
Characteris
cteristics
tics ............................
..........................................
............................
............................
............................
........................... .... 14
.................
Table 2 Curre
Current
nt Chara
Characteris
cteristics
tics .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ................ 14
............................
Table 3 Team Assignment
Assignment - G Genera
enerall Roles.......................
Roles.....................................
............................
............................
............................ ................ 17
............................
Table 4 Team Assignments
Assignments - Competen
Competency cy TaTasks.........
sks.......................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ...... 18
....................
Table 5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Catamaran Hull and Ship Shape Barge............ Barge......................
.....................
........... 28
Table 6 Mass
Masses
es of Terminal
Terminal Compon
Components ents (Light
(Lightship)
ship) .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 34
......................
Table 7 Cente
Centers
rs of
of Ma
Massss and
and D
Drafts
rafts in Loaded/
Loaded/UnloadUnloaded ed C Conditio
onditions ns ............
...........................
............................. ............ 35
..........................
Table 8 Stabili
Stability
ty Criteria
Criteria for Intact
Intact Con
Condition............
dition..........................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 38
......................
Table 9 Stabili
Stability
ty Criteria
Criteria for Damage in StarboaStarboard rd A Aft
ft Ba
Ballast
llast Tank .............
............................
............................. ............ 39
..........................
Table 10 Stabili
Stability
ty Criteria
Criteria for Dam
Damageage in Starboard
Starboard Ta Tanks
nks 1 & 2 .............
...........................
............................
............................ ...... 40
....................
Table 11 Stabili
Stability
ty Under Different
Different Dam
Damage age Scenarios
Scenarios ..............
............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 41
......................
Table 12 Weight anandd Location of Po Point
int Loads..................
Loads................................
............................
............................
............................
........................... .... 42
.................
Table 13 Weight and Location of Distributed Loads..............
Loads........................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
..................... ..... 43
................
Table 14 Comparison
Comparison of the Three Loa Load d Cases..........
Cases........................
............................
............................
............................
........................... ........... 46
........................
Table 15 Area Mome
Moment nt of Inertia......................................
Inertia....................................................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ... 48
.................
Table 16 Environmental Data for Wind and Current Loading ........... ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
....................
Table 17 Area Classifications for Environmental Loading Spreadsheet .......... ....................
.....................
..................... ............ 49
....................
Table 18 Wind and Wave Loading Calculations Spreadsheet for 100 Year Storm.......... Storm ....................
.................... ...... 51
................
Table 19 Environmental Forces for 100-Year Return Period......... Period ....................
.....................
.....................
......................
..................... ....... 52
.................
Table 20 Enviro
Environment
nmentalal Forces for 10-Year
10-Year ReturnReturn Period...................
Period.................................
............................
...........................
........................
........... 52
Table 21 Environmen
Environmental
tal Forces for 1- Yea Yearr Return Period Period .............
...........................
............................
............................
........................... .... 52
.................
Table 22 Chain Characteristi
Characteristics..................
cs................................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ............. 54
...........................
Table 23 Maximum Tensions For 100 Year Survival Condition.......... Condition....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
..................... .. 55
............
Table 24 Loading Percentages For 5, 4.5, 4 Inch Chain For API Intact Case ........... .....................
....................
..................... .. 55
.............
Table 25 Maximum Tensions for Differe Different nt Lengths of 4.5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event ....... 57
Table 26 Heave Per
Period
iod for Vessel
Vessel (Unloa
(Unloaded ded and Loa Loaded)
ded) ............................
..........................................
............................ ................ 59
............................
Table 27 Uncoupled Natural Periods in Heave, Pitch, aand nd Roll for the Vessel.....
Vessel................
.....................
.................... ...... 59
................
Table 28 Displac
Displacement
ement of LNG Terminal.........................
Terminal.......................................
............................
............................
............................
........................... .... 61
.................
Table 29 LNGC Displacem
Displacementent with 60° Heading Heading .............
...........................
............................
............................
............................
........................... .... 61
.................
Table 30 Cost Analysis.......
Analysis.....................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................ ........ 62
......................

Nomenclature
CAM Added Mass Coefficient
CB Block Coefficient
CW Waterplane Coefficient
D Draft
g Gravity
GM L Longitudinal Metacentric Height

GM T
Transverse Metacentric Height
K S Coefficient of Shoaling
H Shallow Water Wave Height
H0 Deep Water Wave Height
L Wave Length for Shallow Water Wave
L0 Wave Length for Deep Water Wave
M Mass of the Vessel
Ma Added Mass of the Vessel
n Wave Number for Shallow Water Wave
n0 Wave Number for Deep Water Wave
r Radius of Gyration
RAO Response Amplification Operator
ρ Density
TotalSAwetted Total Surface Area Below the Waterline
SAi,below waterline Surface Area Below the Waterline of Each Side
S(f) JONSWAP Energy Spectrum
T Period
∀ Displaced Volume
ω Frequency
ωn Natural Frequency
γ Peak Shape Parameter
A
γ Peak Enhancement Factor

Executive Summary
Introduction:
The world’s energy demand is growing far more rapidly than the energy ind
industry
ustry can
supply, so alternative resources are being investigated by the energy industry to address
the deficit in energy production. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is one of the alternatives
being explored. Recent advancements in technology have given energy companies the
ability to transport and deliver LNG long distances, and because of the impending energy
shortage, federal regulatory agencies have relaxed the constraints that have been imposed
in recent years on granting offshore construction permits in relation to LNG terminals.
These terminals will help in the delivery of LNG to onshore locations via an
infrastructure of sub-sea pipelines. Six members of Texas A&M University’s Ocean
Engineering senior class were tasked to provide a front-end engineering analysis for a
Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) located in the Niger delta region off the
coast of West Africa. The terminal is required to satisfy regulations as set forth by the
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and the American Petroleum Institute (API), as well
as design constraints imposed by ConocoPhillips concerning operational expectations.
Such constraints consisted of the following:

• Will be permanently moored in 40 m of water
• Must be able to process 1 billion

b illion cubic feet (bcf) of gas per da
dayy
• Must have a storage capacity of 330,000 m3 of LNG
• Must maintain a constant draft condition while loading or offloading
• Must sustain offloading operations in a 1-year storm event
• Must sustain shoreline delivery of LNG in a 10-year

10-yea r storm event

• Must survive a 100-year storm event
With these parameters defined, the team began its analysis.
General Arrangements:
The team considered three design alternatives. The first option consisted of a ship-shape
barge with Moss (spherical) LNG tanks located longitudinally along the beam of the
terminal. The second option was catamaran-shaped, with twin hulls bridged by a large
square platform and spread-moored to the sea floor. The third option was the same
catamaran hull, but with single-point (turret) mooring. After careful consideration and
input from industry representatives, the team decided to design

d esign the terminal as a ship-
shape barge with LNG tanks contained within the hull. The final dimensions of the FSRU
are as follows:
• Length between perpendiculars (LBP) – 340 m
• Breadth – 65 m
• Molded depth – 33 m
Five semi-prismatic type B (SPB) tanks were selected for the LNG containment. SPB
tanks are advantageous in that they are independent from the hull structure and the
geometry of the tanks can be designed to conform to the hull’s final shape. The ballast
tanks were designed as five adjacent J-tanks on each side of the terminal, for a total of ten
tanks. A double-hull layout was a direct effect of this ballast configuration, which
optimized the safety of the terminal as well as complying with ABS steel vessel design
guidelines. The offloading system selected for the terminal is a series of four “In-Air
Flexible” offloading mechanisms designed by Technip-Coflexip. This system was
selected because of the internal flexibility of the hoses and the added range of

displacement within the support booms. The possibility exists that these mechanisms will
not be available from Technip-Coflexip upon project completion; therefore, a
contingency design using conventional mechanical arms designed by FMC has been
considered. The mechanical arms have a smaller overall range of displacement, requiring
more stringent design constraints and thus giving the team versatility in using either
offloading system without a significant redesign or reanalysis.
Stability:
The overall stability of the terminal is a function of the draft, which in turn depends on
the lightship weight. The lightship mass of the terminal, including the hull, ballast tanks,
LNG tanks, and topside equipment, is 91,235

91,2 35 tonnes. One of the design constraints is that
the terminal must maintain a constant draft so that the terminal’s vertical position remains
unchanged as it takes on cargo from berthing carriers. Whether the terminal is loaded or
unloaded, the draft remains constant at 11.6 m. With the estimated lightship weight
determined and the dimensions of the ship optimized, the team conducted a stability
analysis using StabCAD, a graphically-oriented simulation program.
StabCAD calculates the maximum KG a vessel can have while remaining stable under
different stability criteria. If the vessel’s KG is larger than any of the allowable values,
the vessel is unstable. After simulating the terminal and running the analysis for the intact
vessel, the smallest calculated allowable KG is 36.6 m. The actual KG of the terminal is
17.4 m, which is lower than the smallest allowable KG value. The FSRU is therefore
stable in its intact condition. In addition, ABS requires that the ship maintain stability
when two adjacent ballast tanks are damaged simultaneously. The smallest allowable KG
value in the damaged condition was calculated using the same procedure as the intact

analysis, but with different stability criteria. The terminal’s KG value is lower than the
smallest allowable KG for both a single tank damaged and two adjacent tanks damaged.
Therefore, the terminal meets the ABS damaged stability requirements.
Global Loading/General Strength and Structural Design:
A global loading and general

g eneral strength analysis was performed to determine how the
vessel responds to applied loads. These loads include the weights of the vessel, topside
structures, LNG, and buoyancy. Weights lower than 3,000 kN were treated as point loads
whereas weights greater than 3,000 kN were treated as distributed loads. Three load cases
were evaluated for the global loading analysis. The first is in the calmest conditions
where the buoyancy force is distributed evenly along the keel, representing still water.
The second load case is where two wave crests are located at the bow and stern, and the
third case is where one wave crest is located at mid-ship. The last two cases are the
worst-case scenarios. Load case two produced the largest shear and moment magnitudes.
These values are in compliance with those calculated from ABS requirements. The
moment of inertia was calculated using ABS guidelines, which yielded 1.45x107cm2-m2.
The inertia was then used with the cross-sectional area to determine a minimum hull plate
thickness of 0.032m (1.25in).

Environmental Conditions:
After obtaining the raw environmental data from ConocoPhillips, the data was shoaled to
the depth at the terminal. The environmental conditions for the 40-meter water depth for
the 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year return periods were determined to be:
• Significant wave heights: 2.29 m, 2.66 m, and 3.04 m
• Peak periods: 15.0 s, 15.3 s, and 15.5 s

• Periods of maximum wave: 13.4 s, 13.6 s, and 13.8 s
Those conditions were used to calculate the environmental forces. The forces for the 1,
10, and 100 year return periods, respectively, in the three headings were calculated to be:
• Bow Seas: 698.8 kN, 827.8 kN, and 1090.3 kN
• Beam Seas: 3436.7 kN, 4165.8 kN, and 5328.1 kN
• Quartering Seas: 949.7 kN, 1128.1 kN, and 1463.9 kN
As the results indicate, forces in beam seas are significantly larger than bow and
quartering seas because of the substantial surface area along the length of the vessel. The
terminal will therefore be oriented with the bow facing in the southwest direction.
Hydrodynamics:
Establishing the natural periods in pitch, roll, and heave is essential for determining the
terminal’s ability to achieve the given design constraints. After careful analysis, none of
the periods corresponding to each degree of freedom coincide with the environmental
peak periods; therefore, resonance will not occur. The periods were computed and
produced the following results for unloaded and loaded conditions, respectively:
• Heave: 10.74 s and 10.74 s
• Pitch: 5.37 s and 5.37 s
• Roll: 9.30 s and 9.39 s
These results also indicate that heave will produce the largest displacement. The
maximum displacement of 2.23 m occurs when the two vessels are 180 degrees out of
phase. This displacement is within allowable tolerances (± 2.0m vertical and ± 1.7m
displacement. Since the
horizontal) of the FMC mechanical offloading arms for vertical displacement.

FMC arms have a smaller allowable displacement than the “In-Air Flexibles”, the
terminal motion meets the requirements for both offloading systems.
Mooring/Station Keeping:
The mooring system must be designed to satisfy maximum tensions and offset
requirements as specified by API. The line tension is allowed to reach 60% of its
breaking strength for an undamaged line and 80% for a damaged line in a 100-year event.
The radius of the watch circle can be no more than 25% of the water depth, or 10 meters
at the current location. The mooring system must not fail during a 100-year event. The
mooring design for the regasification terminal is a spread system due to the benign and
directional nature of the environmental conditions. A mooring system consisting of 12
lines (three lines per vessel quadrant) made up of 114.3 mm (4.5 in) cha
chain
in was assessed.
Line tensions under damaged and intact cases are 9,693kN and 5,685kN respectively. In
each instance, the constraints are met. The offsets produced in the aforementioned
environmental conditions during a 100-year event are 4.2 meters for intact lines in
oblique seas and 5.3 meters for damaged lines. These values are both below the 25%
allowed by API. The expected maximum tension for a 100-year return is 5,685 kN, which
is 45% of the breaking strength of the 114.3 mm inch chain (12,440kN). The system
therefore remains intact in a 100-year event.
Cost Analysis:
ConocoPhillips provided Team West Africa with the unit cost

c ost of each terminal
component for three shipyards in Korea, Japan, and Spain respectively. At current market
prices, Spain is the least-expensive location. The total cost for constructing the FSRU in
Spain, including construction, transportation, and contingency, is US $563 million.
TAMU Team West Africa - 10 - ISODC Report

Acknowledgements
Team West Africa would like to thank the following individuals and companies, without whom the project
would not have been completed, for their assistance and guidance throughout the course of the project.
• Dr. Robert Randall, TAMU

•

•
Peter
RodneyNoble,
King,ConocoPhillips
ConocoPhillips
• Nick Heather, ConocoPhillips
• Jack Mercier, Global Maritime
• Bill Kenney, Consultant
• Bill Westcott, Lloyd’s Register
• Tor Skjelby, DNV
• Sam Hwong, Foster Wheeler
• R. Batavia, Bechtel
• G. Bradley, FMC Energy System
• J. O’Sullivan, Technip-Coflexip
• G. Pepper, Aker Kvaerner
• G. Thomas, ARUP
• J. Lovett, SBM-Imodco
• C. Olsen, Remora Technology
• Rune Nyvseen, DNV (Mimosa)
• Ravi Kota, KBR (Mimosa)
• David Garland, Engineering Dynamics Inc (StabCAD)
• Brittany Goldsmith, KBR (StabCAD)
• Mike Brannan, ConocoPhillips

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Many areas worldwide, such as North America and Europe, are experiencing a decline in gas supplies due
to a decrease in gas production. This decrease in production is occurring because the gas sources are no
longer able to sustain the current production level. As a result, other sources of gas production are being
examined. Natural gas is rapidly becoming the fuel of choice for today’s industry. It burns cleaner; hence, it
creates significantly less pollution than many other forms of energy. That fact is important to today’s
society because it is becoming much more environmentally concerned than before. Another positive aspect
of natural gas is the decrease in production cost in the future with each advance in technology.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) appears to be the best option to appease the constant demand of gas. The
operation of LNG essentially began in the 1960s when an LNG trade began between Algeria and the UK.
Presently, there is a constant increase in the utilization of gas. According to the International Energy
Agency, 28% of global energy usage will come from gas by 2025 due to a 2.8% per year rise in gas
expenditure (Robertson 2004). Another influential factor is the lack of gas production in nations that
require the most

unexploited gas,
natural gaswhich generates
reserves, an immense
for example need for
the Middle imported
East, would gas. Some
like to regionstheir
monetize that ample
have
resources. Lastly, LNG is becoming more feasible because of recent improvements in technology (Share
2003). The advances will allow the cost of LNG carriers and tankers to decrease, making this method even
more achievable than previously thought.
A natural gas reservoir is drilled to extract the natural gas, in its natural state, which is then transferred by
pipelines to a terminal. At the terminal, the natural gas is cooled and converted into liquid. The LNG is
stored and then shipped on a carrier to a regasification terminal where it will be returned to its gaseous
state. The gas travels from the terminal through pipelines to be distributed. A diagram of the regasification
process can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Flow Diagram of the LNG Regasification Process

Many large countries are interested in these new types of facilities. In fact, China is considering building
three such terminals. Two more countries interested in offshore LNG production are Canada and the United
States (Value 2003). Recent changes to U.S. laws are making offshore terminals more feasible. Currently,
the demand for natural gas is so large that suppliers are having a hard time keeping up. The growth of
offshore LNG terminals will become vital components in the future of the world’s energy systems.
1.2 Objective
The scope of the project is to complete the front-end design concept of a floating LNG receiving terminal
off the coast of West Africa. The design must be able to operate in a water depth of 40 meters. The selected
site should also be able to regasify at an output of 1 billion cubic feet per day, as well as be able to store the
LNG tanker’s entire supply.
1.3 Field Trip
It is essential for a successful report to have innovative and intelligent ideas. ConocoPhillips hosted a term
project meeting, on February 6, 2004 in Houston, Texas. The purpose was to introduce the spring 2004
senior design teams to industry engineering consulting firms that work with ConocoPhillips. The
engineering companies are contracted for their specialization and expertise in certain areas of offshore
projects. The industry lectures
l ectures essentially covered six topics. Each topic had one or two speakers for a total
tot al
of 13 presentations. The overall presentations were informative; however, the topics pertaining to LNG
containment, topsides, and the loading/off-loading systems were of particular interest for team West Africa.
Specifically, Tor Skjelby from Det Norske Vertias (DNV) supplied crucial descriptions and functions of the
independent and dependent containment systems. A containment system for West Africa can better be
selected for the particular design requirements of the vessel using the information from that presentation.
As for the topside presentations, Sam Hwong, from Foster Wheeler, and R. Batavia, from Bechtel, provided
insight as to the re-gasification process and layout. Some references to codes and standards were also
identified. A valuable point made in both presentations was to think about the layout and the processes
involved in order tohave an efficient and safe working environment. The final topic covered for the day
dealt with the off-loading systems utilized in the market, as well as innovative new designs that need

testing and approval. G. Bradley, from FMC, presented a mechanical arm off-loading system that has been
proven in the oil industry and LPG delivery. J. O’Sullivan from Technip-Coflexip introduced his
company’s prototype of the flexible pipe for off-loading, which requires approval. This method is not new
to oil delivery systems, yet it is still unproven in the LNG market. The field trip was impressive and
educational for the team members of West Africa, as well as for the whole class.
1.4 Design Constraints
According to ConocoPhillips, the facility must be able to process one billion cubic feet of gas per day.
Upper management is providing physical dimensions of three nominal LNG carriers. The physical
properties include: length, breadth, vessel drafts, and height of manifolds above the waterline. Those
dimensions will help determine the relative position of the connection between the tanker and the terminal.
The regasification terminal must be able to sustain unloading operations in a 1-year storm event. The
terminal must also be able to deliver natural gas to the shore in a 10-year storm event. In addition, it must
be able to survive a 100-year storm event.
1.5 Environment
The weather
applicable foroff
the the coast
20-30 of water
meter West depth.
Africa Since
is very
thebenign. Data atprovided
given depth site is 40bymeters
ConocoPhillips were
the data given only
had to
first be reverse shoaled using the standard shoaling equation, shown below.
H n0 L0
K s = = (1)
H 0 nL
The shoaled wave characteristics can be found in Table 1.
Table 1 Shoaled Wave Characteristics

Significant wave height H at 25 m depth (m) 3.20
Significant wave height H at 40 m depth (m) 2.54
Peak period T (s) 15.50
Wavelength L at 25 m depth (m) 236.03
Wavelength L at 40 m depth (m) 375.30
Table 2 Current Characteristics

Current velocity at surface (m/s) 1.0
Current velocity at 25 % of site depth (m/s) 0.8
Current velocity at 75 % of site depth (m/s) 0.6
Current velocity at sea floor (m/s) 0.5
The significant wave height at the given site is 2.54 meters with a period of 15.5 seconds. The
corresponding wavelengths at this location are 236.03 and 375.3 meters. Since the wind and current are not
dependent upon the depth of the water, the original values for wind speed and current speed were used.
Table 2 shows the current with respect to depth.

The directions of the winds, waves, and currents are displayed in Figure 2, Figure 3 , and Figure 4 below.
One hour sus tained distri bution for 100

100 Y
Yea
earr Return
Period (m/s)
N
15.00
10.00
5.00
W E
0.00 One hour sustained
S

Figure 2 One Hour Sustained Wind Speed Directional Distribution
Figure 2 represents the directional distribution of wind speed with the top of the figure being true north.
This figure suggests the majority of the wind coming from the southwest.
Wave Direction and Distribution for 100 Year Return

Period
N
20.00
15.00
10.00
Peak wave period (s)
5.00 Max wave period (s)
W 0.00 E
Max wave height (m)
Sig wave height (m)
S

Figure 3 Wave Characteristi
Characteristics
cs and Direction Distribution
Figure 3 contains a large amount of valuable data. This figure shows a correlation between the directions of
the prominent winds and waves. From this figure it can be concluded that the larger period waves and the
waves with the highest significant wave heights all seem to be propagating from the same direction,
southwest. This correlates with the wind data in Figure 2.

Current Distribut ion for 100

100 Year
Year Return
Return Period
Period (m/s)
N
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Surface
0.20 25% depth
W 0.00 E
75% depth
Bottom
S

Figure 4 Current Direction Distribution
Figure 4 shows the current direction and intensity distribution. It should be noted that the current seems to
have a tendency to have opposing directions from the surface to the bottom on the original data.
The terminal is oriented so that the bow is facing southwest. Because the current distribution is independent
of the wind and wave forces, analysis using Mimosa and StabCad was used to determine how much of an
effect the current has on the beam of the terminal.
1.6 Social and Political Issues
The regasification terminals are necessary for the production process, however establishing the terminals
are difficult. The risks of LNG are frequently misinterpreted by the public, and in turn negatively influence
the opinion of the local communities toward a LNG terminal in their vicinity despite the job opportunities
such a terminal would bring. An acronym for the local opposition controversy is NIMBY, which represents
“Not In My Backyard.” The locals’ resistance can significantly impede the project. In an effort to mitigate
the numerous obstacles involved in overcoming NIMBY opposition, companies are researching offshore
regasification terminals. If the terminal is over the horizon, and thus out of sight, local opposition would
drop significantly. An offshore terminal would also decrease transportation costs since it would bring the
production facilities closer to the gas reservoir.

Illegal oil bunkering is a substantial issue in West Africa, specifically Nigeria. “Under the Nigerian
constitution, all minerals, oil and gas in Nigeria belong to the federal government.” (HRW 2003)
Consequently, any removal of the materials without the Nigerian government’s approval is illegal.
However, crude oil theft is such a frequent occurrence that it accounts for 10% of the daily production. The
frequency of the theft is indicative of an entrenched and well-organized criminal element. As a result,
violence has increased significantly in the surrounding area. Currently, American forces are stationed in the
Niger Delta to assist with security.
1.7 Sustainability and Manufacturability
The selection of the shipyard in which to build the proposed facility is of vital importance, as the
production costs are directly tied to the market conditions within the shipbuilding industry. Fortunately,
several of the larger shipyards have websites with information for potential clients which aided in shipyard
selection.

Names of companies with web-site links:
I. Zamakona Ship Yard

http://astilleroszamakona.com/english/others.htm
II. IZAR
http://www.enbazan.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/portalizar/jsp/home.do
III. Astilleros Cardama
http://www.astilleroscardama.com/castellano/principal.asp
The manufacturability of the FSRU design itself is also of paramount importance. In order to keep
construction costs down, it was necessary to limit the dimensions of the terminal’s hull to a reasonable
trade off between the breadth and length. In this case, the hull is designed to optimize the storage capacity
of the LNG by holding the breadth within a specific range and the length being varied to achieve the
specified storage requirements. This approach has two benefits associated with it. First it allows for
competitive pricing between the shipyards. An overly wide breadth in the design would mean that only a
small number of shipyards would be large enough to build the vessel, ultimately driving up the cost of
construction because the shipyard would be free to dictate a price to the company as a result of market
forces, instead of competing with equally-capable shipyards for the contract. Secondly, it reduces any
potential scheduling conflicts, keeping the project on time. If for any reason the shipyard was unable to
complete construction of the facility, a narrower design could be relocated to another shipyard instead of
being locked into a single yard.
For the particular dimensions of the West Africa terminal, several potential shipyards have been identified.
The Zamakona Ship Yard, IZAR, and Astilleros Cardama, all located in Spain, illustrate a few of the
different contractors with adequate facilities for the FSRU terminal project.
1.8 Team Organization
This team is comprised of six members. Each member has a general role for the overall design and
presentation of the project shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Team Assignment - General Roles

General Task Member
Editing Jennifer Dupalo, Regan Miller
Design Everyone
Recorder April Van Valkenburg
Research Flor Foreman, Rolla Wattinger
Project Manager Steven Schaefer
In addition to the general tasks, everyone is assigned to five out of the eight required areas of competency
shown below in Table 4.

Table 4 Team Assignments - Competency Tasks

ASSIGNMENTS MEMBER
Flor Foreman, Jennifer Dupalo,
Regulatory Compliance
Steven Schaefer
General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Designs (AutoCAD) Everyone
April Van Valkenburg, Flor

Weight, Buoyancy and Stability (StabCAD) Foreman, Regan Miller, Rolla
Wattinger
April Van Valkenburg, Regan
Environmental Loading
Miller, Rolla Wattinger
Flor Foreman, Rolla Wattinger,
Mooring/Station Keeping
Steven Schaefer
Jennifer Dupalo, Regan Miller,
Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading
Steven Schaefer
Cost Everyone
Report Formatting/Editing Regan Miller, April Van

Valkenburg, Jennifer Dupalo
Meetings were set for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Friday meetings
occurred when there was no industry speaker scheduled for that time. Additional meeting times also
scheduled as the project progressed.
1.9 Gantt Charts
Gantt charts are used to break down the complexity of the project into smaller assignments. The chart is
divided into two figures for readability purposes.

ID Task Name Duration

Jan 25, '04 Feb 1, '04 Feb 8, '04 Feb 15, '04 Feb 22, '04 Feb 29, '04 Mar 7, '04 Ma
F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S
1 Des i g n c r i t er i a 30 d ay s
2 Identify design problem 4 days
3 Organize design groups 4 days
4 Obtain industry contacts 6 wks
5 Define problem 3 wks
6 Brainstorming & researc 4 wks
7 Establish design criteria 19 days
8 Research classification g 3 wks
9 Alt ernate s olut ion s 34 days
10 Determine alternate solut 22 days
11 Design & analyze alterna 29 days
12 Computer simulations fo 15 days
13 Draft midterm report 5 days
14 Finalize midterm report & 3 days
15 Submit midterm report 0 days 3/12
16 Sel ec t b es t d es i g n 5 d ay s
17 Review industry/instructo 5 days
18 Select best alternate des 5 days
19 Revise chosen design op 3 days
20 SNA ME p r es en t ati o n 4 d ay s
21 Prepare/practice SNAME 3 days
22 Give presentation to SN 0 days
23 F in
in a
all rep
rep o rt
rt & p re
rese
sen
n t at
at ion
ion 22 da
ays
ys
24 Refine final design 3 wks
25 Prepare final report 2 wks
26 Organize final oral prese 3 days
27 Rehearse final oral prese 3 days
28 Present final oral present 0 days
29 Refine & complete final r 3 days
30 Submit final report 0 days

Figure 5 Gantt Chart for Team

Team West Africa, January 2
25
5 through March 14
ID Task Name Duration

Mar 14, '04 Mar 21, '04 Mar 28, '04 Apr 4, '04 Apr 11, '04 Apr 18, '04 Apr 25, '04 May 2, '04
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W
1 Des i g n c r i t er i a 30 d ay s
2 Identify design problem 4 days
3 Organize design groups 4 days
4 Obtain industry contacts 6 wks
5 Define problem 3 wks
6 Brainstorming & researc 4 wks
7 Establish design criteria 19 days
8 Research classification g 3 wks
9 Alt ernat e sol uti ons 34 days
10 Determine alternate solu 22 days
11 Design & analyze altern 29 days
12 Computer simulations fo 15 days
13 Draft midterm report 5 days
14 Finalize midterm report 3 days
15 Submit midterm report 0 days
16 Sel ec t b es t d es i g n 5 d ay s
17 Review industry/instruct 5 days
18 Select best alternate des 5 days
19 Revise chosen design o 3 days
20 SNA ME p r es en t at i o n 4 d ay s
21 Prepare/practice SNAM 3 days
22 Give presentation to SN 0 days 4/2
23 Fin
Fina
a l r ep
ep o r t & p re
re s
se
e n tta
a tio
tio n 2 2 d a ys
ys
24 Refine final design 3 wks
25 Prepare final report 2 wks
26 Organize final oral prese 3 days
27 Rehearse final oral pres 3 days
28 Present final oral presen 0 days 4/30
29 Refine & complete final r 3 days
30 Submit final report 0 days 5

Figure 6 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, March 14 thr
through
ough Ma
May
y5
2 Competency Areas
The final design of the offshore LNG terminal must satisfy design requirements in eight general
competency areas: (1) regulatory compliance, (2) general arrangement and overall hull/system design, (3)
weight, buoyancy, and stability, (4) global loading, (5) wind and current loading, (6) mooring/station
keeping, (7) hydrodynamics of moorings and loading, and (8) cost.
2.1 Regulatory Compliance
The design must meet classification guidelines from several public, private, and international regulatory
agencies. API and ABS are the two primary codes that are focused on for this project because of the
relatively high cost of obtaining detailed regulations from other agencies such as DNV and Lloyd’s. The
following constraints and regulations from the American Bureau of Shipping can be found in both “Guide
for Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations (a)” and “Guide for Building and Classing
Floating Production Installations (b).”
• General arrangement of the facility, living quarters, and storage tanks can be found in 3-3/5.1, 3-
3/5.3 and 3-3/5.7 respectively, and structural considerations for the process deck in 3-3/5.11 (ABS
2000).
• The design must have a safety system that meets 3-3/7.3 requirements. The system must include
safety sensors and self-acting devices in case of over-pressuring or to simply “maintain normal
process parameters.” A pressure relief system must be built, according to API 14C code, to
prevent catastrophic failure (3-3/11). The safety system is also required to have a fire and gas
detection system as well as a process Emergency Shutdown system (ESO). These items can be
found in regulations 3-3/7.3.
• Locations of flares and vents are dependent on the directions of the winds, which follow the API
RP 2A building code. Atmospheric conditions, heat radiation from elevated flares, atmospheric
discharge, and other parameters will need to be examined further before their construction can
begin.
• In case of a spill, there are also guidelines to follow, such as 3-3/13.1.1. Natural gas compressors
and pumps must be built in accordance with ABS codes. “Compressors are to apply with
applicable API standards such as API Std 617” stated in 3-3/17.11 and 17.13 of ABS. The flow
lines and manifolds, used to transport either gas or liquid, have to follow API RP 14E standards.
Certain sections of the pipeline may have to be isolated with block valves or filled with cold liquid
in order to protect them from solar fires (3-3/19.3).
• Constraints regarding corrosion and the effects of marine life

li fe must correspond to 3-3/7.3.1.
• Alarm systems should comply with the following ABS standards. The alarm system should have
built in testing systems that do not disturb the normal operating system (3-7/3.13a). This ensures
safety systems will be totally independent from the main system in case of a failure or emergency
situations. There will be stations where certain actions will be taken if a failure does occur (3-
7/11.5a). There should be an emergency shutdown system which takes “place with in 45 seconds
or less… after the detection of a trouble condition” (3-7/13.5.1a). There needs to be at least 2
emergency control stations. There locations must also follow standards design code.
• Detectors (fire, gas and smoke), alarm panels, detection wiring and general alarm systems should
comply with codes (3-8/7a). For the safety of personnel there should be means of escape in which
Team West Africa -21- ISODC Report
the escape route is in accordance with ABS. At least two escape routes must be designed and the
escape route plan should be “displayed at various points in/of the facility” (3-8/13.9a)
• The life saving requirements can be found in 3-8/15.5a. This section covers the capacity of the life
boats and life rafts. There must be at least four buoys, one life jacket per person, one work vest per
person, and a breathing apparatus for each person. In addition, everybody on the terminal should
have a fireman’s outfit so as to meet requirements of SOLAS (3-8/11.7.1a).
• Surfaces that are at risk of becoming extremely hot must be insulated for personnel protection,
spillage protection and combustible gases (3-8/17.5a)
• The following environmental conditions must be considered to determine loading parameters (3-
4/3b).
1.) Air and sea temperature
2.) Currents
3.) Ice and snow
4.) Tides and Storm surges
5.) Waves
6.) Winds
• Current forces which

are calculated by using wind
the equation
from 3-4/7.1b help to calculate pressureinand
3-4/5b.
windWind loading
velocity. hasequations
These several equations
are to be
used to build the structure accordingly. Waves are also a very influential part in the design process
of the structure. Engineers must look at significant height and period for when ever the terminal is
operating (3-4/9b). When looking at wave induced vessel motion response on must consider first
order and lower frequency motions (3-4/9.3b)
• ABS 3-6/15.5.2 discusses the area three

th ree meters above the Open Deck Over Crude Storage Tanks,
which are to be considered as Class I, Division 2.
API has the following constraints for the FPSO mooring system:
• The design criteria for the anchors that will be holding the mooring lines in place are found in API
2SK 5.5 and 5.6 “The holding chain capacity from friction of chain and wire rope on the seafloor
may be estimated using” the following equation:
Pcw = fLcwW cw (2)
The variables are described in API 2SK 5.9.
• There also needs to be a designed fatigue life for permanent moorings. The life of the mooring
lines need to be 3 times that of the design service life (API 2SK 5.8). These systems should be
designed for system overloading and fatigue. The equations found in (API 2SK 6.1) determine the
elasticity in lb/ft of stretch.
• “Fatigue life estimates are made by comparing the long-term cyclic loading in a mooring
component with the resistance if that component with the resistance if that component to fatigue
damage.” For this analysis the T-N approach is a method most often used found in (API 2FPI 6).
• The soil conditions should be determined for the indented site of the anchoring system. API 2FPI
3.7, meaning the conditions of the see floor must be adequate for sustaining the anchor and
mooring system.
• When designing the FPS mooring, environmental effects can be split up into 3 groups:
- Steady state forces including current force, mean wind and mean wave drift forces
- Low frequency vessel motions due to wind and waves
- Wave frequency vessel motions
• The mooring systems consider wind, wave, and current conditions, which cause the extreme
amount of load (API RP 2FPI 3.1). It is these extreme responses that determine the vessel offset,
mooring line tension, the anchor load, and the suspended line length.
• There are two approaches that can be taken when trying to predict the response to wave frequency
vessel motion. The first is known as Quasi-Static Analysis and the other is known as the Dynamic
Analysis. The Quasi-Static approach can be found in API RP 2P, but this approach is usually used
in preliminary studies because of its simplicity. The dynamic approach, the time varying motions
are “calculated from the vessels, surge, sway, heave, pitch, roll, and yaw motions.”
• The maximum and significant wave frequency

frequency line tension is a parameter that has to be examined
when designing the mooring line. Several approaches are offered in (API 2FPI 6.2) manual. Since a
thruster will not assist the mooring system for LNG terminal, computer programs will most likely
perform the analysis. Several programs such as Hydrodynamic Analysis, Static Mooring Analysis,
and Dynamic Mooring Analysis, make analysis for extreme responses. These can also be found in
(API 2FPI 6.2).
2.1.1 Fire Safety
In the case that of a fire on the facility, a fixed water fire fighting systems should be provided. The piping
for the fire system should be arranged so that the water sources come from at least two different locations
on the vessel. The primary connections and the standby pumps must be as far from each other as possible.
If the heat damages or “renders” some material, then that material is “not to be used to in the fire piping
systems.” The valves on the system must pass fire test acceptances according to ABS standards. The
plastics on the system are required to also meet guidelines written by ABS. The piping system should be
maintained against corrosion. If the engineers decide to put drains in the facility, then they must be placed
at the lowest points. The fire system must have at least two self-priming fire pumps that are independent of
each other. The pumps are also independent from the entire system, having their own source of power, fuel
supply, electric cables, etc. Their placement on the vessel should be such that if a fire occurs, then it would
not affect both pumps. Both the primary and standby fire pumps should be able to sustain “the maximum
probable water demand,” which is described as the “total water requirement for protection of the largest
single fire area plus two jets of fire pressure at pressure of at least (50 psi)”. ABS (3-8/7a) provides three
floating installation fire pump arrangement scenarios as guidelines for a fire system design. The operability
and control for this system is also carefully addressed by ABS. The water spray systems should be provided
with an automatic start. Pump drivers can be operated by diesel engines, natural engines, or electric motors
which must comply with ABS and API standards, specifically (ABS3-5.2) and API RP 14G. The fuel
systems should be able to operate for a minimum of 18 hours. The fire stations need to be located on the
perimeter of the process area. The minimum flow of the monitors is 500 gallons per minute at 100 psig.
The nozzles on the fire stations must have diameters of at least 0.5 inches. Fire hoses that are located on the
production deck should be constructed of materials resistant to oils, chemical deteriorations, mildew, rot,
and offshore environmental exposures. They have to be comprised of a non-collapsible material with a
maximum length of 100 ft. The hoses will be mounted on reels. For the process equipment, a fixed water
spray is installed to maintain a cool environment for the equipment. The other purpose is to reduce the risk
of an escalated fire. The water spray system’s material is design from and must comply with a list of ABS
standards found in (ABS 3-8/5.1.4).
The helipad station also has a fire fighting requirement that it must follow. It must be constructed of steel or
any other material that has the same fire integrity properties. The ABS manual refers to the Steel Vessel
Rules for these requirements. In case of an emergency such as a fire, at least two emergency control
stations should be provided, both of which must have an efficient means of communication and process
system shutdown, etc. If the facility is shut down, then the following services must still be operable:
i. Emergency lighting

ii. General Alarm
iv.
iii. Blowout preventer control system
Public address system
v. Distress and radio communications
Portable and semi portable extinguishers must meet certain requirements found in Table 2, which explain
the required size and location. The facility should also be provided with fire detectors, gas detectors,detectors,
smoke detectors, an alarm panel, fire and gas detection wiring, and a gene general
ral alarm. Combustible gas
detectors must be in accordance with API RP 14c and API RP 14F standards. Structural fire protection
requirements address “the need for protection boundaries which separate spaces onboard the installation
from the process facility equipment.” Table 3a and Table 3b on 3-8/9.3
3-8/9.3 describe fire integrity of bulkheads
separating adjacent spaces, and fire integrity of decks separating adjacent spaces. It includes
accommodation spaces, stairways, open decks, corridors, and other types of places on the facility which
have open areas. Firewalls should be designed from ““uncontrollable
uncontrollable flare font wellheads”. Its shut in
pressure is required to be a minimum of 600psi. Firewalls are alalso
so used to protect from “fire hazard to the
vessels.” On the terminal, it is required to have marshalling areas for personnel before before entering the
lifeboats. Steel and Fiber Reinforced Plastic are to be used to construct these mars
marshalling
halling areas, as well as
the lifesaving embankment areas. The material chosen must be in accordance
accordance with the Flag Administration
in Appendix 3 of the ABS manual. Two escape routes have to be considered
considered in the design of the terminal
with markings and adequate lighting. There must also be escape route plans, which are to be displayed in
and around the facility. Lifesaving equipment such as lifeboats, life rafts, like buoys, life jacks
jacks,, work vest,
and breathing apparatus must all be available for the personnel. Each of those items listed must follow the
rules in section (ABS 3-8/15.5). Personal safety equipment and safety measures are a very importan
importantt issue,
which are required to comply with ABS standards. Fireman’s outfits and brea breathing
thing apparatus are stored in
an appropriate container together. Its material should be water resistant and radiate heat from fires.
Surfaces that are exposed should not exceed temperatures of 71°C. “Surfaces that exceed 482°C n need
eed to be
protected from combustible gas,” as well as weather, mechanical wear, and physical damage.
2.2 General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design
In the initial brainstorming sessions, the team considered all types of floating facilities currently in use
throughout the world. However, the relatively shallow location of the proposed site at 40 meters depth
negates several possibilities. For example, a SPAR platform is only suitable for deep-water conditions, so
the design is not feasible in this case. The same holds true for tension-leg platforms (TLPs) and mini-TLPs,
because the shallow depth makes these types of structures impractical. Although the large pontoons on a
semi-submersible would be advantageous with regards to storage capacity, the draft required to keep the
pontoons fully submerged would mean that the entire platform would be resting on the sea floor. Thus the
team narrowed the possible designs to a manageable number with little or no computations required.
The two alternatives remaining were to design either a ship-shape barge or a completely new design. The
following section will show the team’s two initial concept designs plus a third concept showing a different
mooring scheme for one of the base designs. The final design was selected, and the modifications to this
design are discussed.
design are discussed.
2.2.1 Ship Shape Barge with Spherical Tanks
Figure 7 Ship-Shape Barge with Turret Mooring

The dimensions of this vessel are 350m in length, 90m in width and 35m in height. This design supports
three LNG storage tanks, each 60m in diameter. This dimension enables approximately 339,000 cubic
meters of storage. Crew accommodations are placed farthest away from the regasification unit to comply
with regulatory safety standards. For additional security a blast wall is attached to the bow side of the crew
accommodations. Cranes are located at the bow and stern of the vessel. Due to limited deck space, six open
rack vaporizers are stacked three on three with a three-meter clearance below and above each vaporizer.
This design also included a submerged combustion vaporizer. Boil Off Gas (BOG) compressors are located
on the port side while diesel storage tanks and power generators are located on the starboard side.
Offloading processes are designed to take place on the starboard side of the vessel. This vessel is designed
to be turret moored, allowing it to weather vane. This design also accommodates for instruments such as
seawater pumps, LNG booster pumps, a control substation, and a potable and auxiliary water unit.
2.2.2 Catamaran Hull with SPB Tanks
Figure 8 Catamaran Hull with Spread Mooring
This design combines the stability of a semi-submersible with the storage capacity and shallow draft of an
oil-based FPSO. The deck is two hundred meters square, with two outrigger hulls beneath. The hulls are
200 meters long, 60 meters wide and 25 meters high. These twin hulls are hollow to allow for four semi-
prismatic LNG storage tanks (two per hull), each approximately 75 meters long, 50 meters wide, and 22
meters high. The total volume of all four tanks will exactly satisfy the design constraint of 330,000 cubic
meters of LNG storage, while still allowing room in the hulls for two ballast tanks per hull to aid in leveling
and stability of the platform. When full, the weight of the LNG in the tanks would increase the draft of the
platform by approximately 5.8 meters.
The team also considered using four Moss spherical tanks instead of four SPB tanks. However, it soon
became apparent that since each sphere would have to be about 55 meters in i n diameter, the large footprint of
the tanks on the main tank (in addition to the footprint of the regasification plant itself) would leave little
deck space for the safe placement of the living quarters away from dangerous areas (i.e. between two of the
tanks on one side, etc.). It must also be noted that at the placement of topside structures for the catamaran
hull is problematic, as the spherical tank design suffers from a lack of deck space and the SPB tank design
suffers from an overabundance of deck space. This particular design tests the feasibility of a spread-
mooring configuration, with three mooring lines at each of the four corners. LNG carriers arriving at the
terminal would offload their LNG by berthing along the side of the terminal, parallel to the long side of the
deck.

Figure 9 Catamaran Hull with Single-Point Mooring
The third design considered is the same catamaran hull with a similar deck and storage tank configuration,
but with a turret-mooring system instead of a spread-mooring system. ThisT his would allow the entire platform
platfor m
to weathervane in response to changing weather conditions. The turret is also placed so that when the
platform reaches a stable position, the cross-section of the
t he platform exposed to wind and wave forces is at a
minimum.
This configuration uses side offloading for arriving LNG carriers, with the carrier berthing parallel to the
side of the platform and its bow facing into the wind. A tandem configuration would not be practical for
this design because the wake vortices from the twin hulls would interact with each other near the exact
location of the berthed carrier, which would not be a recommended service condition for either the carrier
or the terminal.
2.2.3 Selected Design and General Layout
The three preliminary designs the team derived presented different problems. First, the spherical Moss-
tanks originally conceived for the ship shape barge forced the dimensions of the overall vessel to become
too large. There would be a limited number of facilities that could construct the vessel, thus making
manufacturability costs a premium. Also, a turret moored system in the relatively benign area of the
Nigerian delta
del ta w
would
ould not be cost-effective. Secondly, tthe
he catamaran hull with the spread mooring allotted
too much deck space. The overall size of the deck and the pontoon areas created excessive surface areas for
wind and wave forces, magnifying their effects and making the design less efficient in shedding the
environmental forces. Lastly, the catamaran with a turret moored station keeping design presented a
combination of problems. The large surface areas for the environmental forces and the turret, as mentioned
previously, were both areas of concern.
Table 5 lists other considerations that aided in the final design process.

Table 5 Advantages and Di
Disadvantages
sadvantages of C
Catamaran
atamaran Hull and Ship Shape B
Barge
arge
Design Advantages Disadvantages
Catamaran Innovative design Inability to align itself to weather conditions (short

Hull moment arm)  spread mooring only
Ample deck space Wide hull width required to accommodate SPB tanks
Low center of gravity Large frontal area exposed to wind
Inherent stability in
Difficulty in construction (two shipyards required)
roll/pitch/yaw conditions
Fatigue and bending stresses on centerline of main deck

Shallow draft
between hulls
Ship Shape Well-established and proven

Limited deck space
Barge design
Flexibility in selecting
Constructability constraint (length and width of hull)
mooring systems
After assessing comments from visiting guest lecturers, feedback from industry representatives, and
progress reports, the team decided to utilize the positive attributes associated with the first two designs and
combine them into the final design selection. In minimizing the environmental forces that the vessel would
experience, it was decided to use the ship-shape barge but limit its size for competitive construction
bidding. This in turn led to exploring different types of LNG containment systems available on the market.
Like the catamaran design, it was proposed to contain the LNG within the hull of the vessel as to maximize
the deck space for equipment. Also, a spread mooring system would be utilized due to the environmental
conditions and the water depth.
One of the goals was to limit the vessels beam to within 60m-70m to allow for a variety of options in terms
of shipyard selection and pricing. With the terminal’s breadth a major concern, the LNG tanks drove the
rest of the dimensions. An iterative process allowed for optimizing the hull’s final dimension and is listed
below as well as represented in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
• Length between perpendiculars (LBP) – 340m

• Breadth – 65m
• Molded depth – 33m
Figure 10 Bow V
View
iew of Selected Design
Figure 11 Beam View of Selected Design
With these dimensions defined, it became possible to contain the entire 330,000m3 of LNG storage within
the hull structure. This allowed for ample space for processing equipment as well as safety for crew
members to perform daily operations. The final design of the FSRU is depicted in the CAD renderings in
Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14, showing the scale of the vessel along with the overall placement and
location of the processing equipment. Having defined the terminal’s dimensions and using a standard
package of processing equipment, the team then optimized the remaining open-ended equipment and
containment system selections.
Figure 12 Isometric View of Select

Selected
ed Design
Design
Figure 13 Topside Configuration of Proc
Processing
essing Equi
Equipment
pment
Figure 14 Processing Equipment Locations
Team West Africa -31- ISODC Report
LNG Containment System:
The LNG containment system was optimized by constraining the breadth dimension of the ship for
purposes of manufacturability, then varying the height and length of the structure to determine the required
storage capacity of LNG within the hull. An iterative process allowed for the sizing of the actual
containment dimensions.
In optimizing the number of tanks to be utilized, the total volume of the inner tank capacity is divided by
the number of tanks being analyzed. This yields values to compare with the transport carrier’s capacity.
The ideal configuration for the selected design is with five tanks. This allowed for a potential scenario of
having a containment tank out of service, leaving four operational. With only four tanks in operation, the
3
terminal will be able to accept and process a carrier benchmark of 255,000m without delaying departure of
the vessel. This is in contrast to the scenario of the terminal in operation with a total of four tanks. In this
case, if one tank were taken out of the process, the terminal would only receive 98% capacity from the
carrier. This could cause costly time
ti me delays for the schedule of the carrier.
Even though the extra tank will impose an additional cost, it is an acceptable trade-off for maintaining an
uninterrupted operation and delivery of product to the client. Ultimately, this will translate to dollar cost
averaging of the added expense which will be absorbed in capital gains. Figure 15 details the LNG tanks
along with the ballast tanks in an exploded view of the vessel’s hull. For clarity, the topside arrangements
in the figure are omitted.
Figure 15 LNG and Ball

Ballast
ast Tank Configuration
Ballast Tanks:
A J-tank design proved to be optimal for the ballast tank configuration. The tanks were oriented down the
port and starboard side and turning at the keel, forming a J-style tank. Five tanks per side were chosen for a
total of 10 tanks. The tanks are adjacent to each other but function independently. A double-hull layout is a
direct effect of this ballast configuration, which also optimizes the safety of the terminal as well as
complying with ABS steel vessel design guidelines. The number of tanks selected is based on minimizing
the cost of the bilge pumps necessary to transfer ballast into and out of the tanks. By limiting the number of
tanks to 10, the cost of outfitting the tanks decreased. However, this is not without tradeoffs. Limiting the
number of ballast tanks sacrifices stability. As discussed in the stability section, however, the ballast
configuration meets the requirements as directed by ship design guidelines.
Loading Arms:
For the offloading procedure, the “In-Air Flexible” offloading system designed by Technip-Coflexip serves
as the terminal’s cargo transfer system. Four loading arms are arraarranged
nged in a side-by-side layout with six
meters of spacing between each
each unit. The arms are located at mid-ship along the starboard side of the
terminal. Three of the arms sserve
erve as the terminal input lines while the fourth is a vapor return line to the
transport vessel. Figure 16 represents the offloading system in its stowed position.
Figure 16 Stowed Position of O

Offloading
ffloading System
This particular style of loading arm was chosen for its flexibility within the hoses and the added range of
motion within the support booms. This allows for a larger heave motion between the two vessels. This is of
particular concern because of the side-by-side position for the off-loading process between the terminal
t erminal and
the carrier. If at any one time, the two vessels exhibit a 180 degrees phase lag in the heave motion, the
loading arm coupling and carrier interface need to withstand the maximum displacement that might occur.
This makes the interface the weak link in the design of the offloading equipment. Figure 17 illustrates the
flexibility and range of the offloading system while interfaced with a berthed carrier.

Figure 17 Offloading System Connec
Connected
ted to Carrier’s Manifold
2.3 Weight, Buoyancy and Stability
The shallow water at the site location dictates that the draft of the vessel must be established early in the
design process to ensure that the vessel floats with enough distance between the keel and the sea floor to
allow for the mooring and to prevent slamming against the bottom in extreme weather events. To this end,
a spreadsheet was developed to calculate the lightship weight of the vessel, including the weight of the hull
itself, the LNG tanks, the topsides, and miscellaneous utility weights. The spreadsheet is included in
Appendix A.
This spreadsheet allows optimization of the overall dimensions of the vessel as well as more specific
parameters such as the spacing between LNG tanks and the ballast tank dimensions. Once the dimensions
were finalized, the weight of the vessel was calculated. A unit area mass of 405 kilograms per square meter
was multiplied by the total surface area of all the steel components within the vessel to arrive at the
estimated lightship mass. It must be stressed, however, that this unit area mass is an estimate that takes into
account the actual plate thickness as well as a lump estimate of the weights of the structural elements
(beams, girders, keel, etc) that hold the plates together. A more precise measurement of the total mass can
be obtained once the detailed structural engineering design is complete, but this estimated value is an
extremely useful approximation for front-end engineering analysis. The masses of each component of the
terminal are shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6 Masses of Terminal Components (Lightship)

Item Mass (mt)
Hull 29,668
LNG tanks 23,334
Ballast tanks 13,733
Topsides 12,600
Mooring lines 581
Confidence (15%) 11,900
TOTAL 91,235
The terminal was then analyzed in both the loaded and unloaded conditions to determine the terminal’s
center of mass and draft in each case. To maintain a constant draft, the loaded condition is defined as full
LNG tanks and empty ballast tanks, and the unloaded condition is defined as empty LNG tanks and full
ballast tanks. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7 below. The draft of the vessel was
calculated to be roughly 11.58 meters, which is well within an acceptable range for this particular site
depth.
Table 7 Centers of Mass and Drafts in Loaded/Unloaded Conditions

Loaded Unloaded
KG (m) 17.4 17.0
Draft (m) 11.6 11.6
In addition to the weight and buoyancy calculations, Team West Africa also began preliminary analysis of
the stability of the vessel under the previously-discussed environmental conditions. StabCAD, a program
specifically designed to this end, was used to simulate the terminal.
The bow shape is simulated as a triangular prism temporarily until a more accurate method of inputting
complex curved surfaces within StabCAD is established. The next three figures show the vessel within
StabCAD at the time of this writing. Figure 18 shows the exterior hull with exploded solid panels and their
respective directions.
Figure 18 StabCAD Exploded Panel View
Figure 19 shows the five SPB LNG tanks arranged within the hull, and Figure 20 shows the ballast tank
configuration, with 5 tanks along each side, extending the entire length of the ship.

Figure 19 LNG Tank Configuration
Figure 20 Ballast Tank Configuration
Once the terminal is inputted into StabCAD, the program analyzes the data and generates visual outputs of
the hydrostatic data, intact stability curves, cross curves of stability, and the damaged stability of the vessel.
The longitudinal and transverse metacenters are shown in Figure 21 below as an example.

Figure 21 Metacenters
In the intact stability analysis, StabCAD first calculates the intact curve at a user-inputted value for the
center of gravity KG, which was determined to be about 17.4 meters above the keel in the loaded condition.
The graph of this curve is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22 Intact St
Stability
ability C
Curve
urve wi
with
th KG=17.
KG=17.4
4m
In addition, StabCAD also calculated the maximum allowable KG values for several different stability
criteria. The lowest magnitude of these calculated allowable KG values is then compared against the user-
inputted value of the terminal’s actual KG. If the actual KG is lower than the smallest allowable KG
calculated by StabCAD, then the vessel meets all the stability criteria and is therefore stable.
Table 8 shows the results of the intact stability analysis for five stability criteria, plus the user-inputted KG
value. The table shows that the actual KG value of 17.4m is well below the lowest allowable KG value of
34.46m (in the case of the range of stability must be larger than 7.0 degrees). One can therefore conclude
that the ship is stable with regards to the intact stability analysis.
Table 8 Stability Criteria for Intact Condition

Range of
Stability Allowable KG 1st Intercept 2nd Intercept
Criterion (m) Stability Area Ratio (degrees) (degrees)
(degrees)
Actual KG of
17.40 36.84 25.27 0.35 85.00
terminal
Area ratio = 1.4 36.60 27.90 1.40 11.53 25.90
Intact ROS =
36.60 26.81 1.01 13.78 24.87
7.0
ROS btwn 1st &
2nd intercepts = 34.89 36.84 5.32 1.91 36.83
7.0
st
1 intercept @
36.60 26.81 1.01 13.78 24.87
15o heel
2nd intercept @
36.27 31.75 2.77 5.21 30.00
30o heel
The cross curves of stability are shown in Figure 23. The curves generated by StabCad are in line with
expectations.
Figure 23 Cross Curves of Stability
For damaged stability, each ballast tank was modeled as a separate body. StabCad then cycled through all
twenty ballast tanks and calculated a curve of stability in the event that the ballast tank in question was
damaged, i.e. flooded with water. Figure 24 below shows the stability in the event of damage on the tank
located on the starboard side at the aft end, which is the tank with the largest effect on the stability of the
terminal.
Figure 24 Damaged Stabil
Stability,
ity, Starbo
Starboard
ard Aft Ballast T
Tank
ank
The damage stability module in StabCad tests various stability criteria in a similar manner to the intact
stability. The results of this analysis are included in Table 9 . The lowest allowable KG value is 35.04m,
which is again higher than the actual KG value of 17.4m. Therefore, the ship remains stable if this
particular ballast tank is damaged.
Table 9 Stability Criteria for Damage in St

Starboard
arboard A
Aft
ft Ballast
Ballast Tank
Range of
Allowable Static Angle 1st Intercept 2nd Intercept
Stability Criterion Stability
KG (m) (degrees) (degrees) (degrees)
(degrees)
Actual KG of
17.40 33.40 0.84 0.84 85.00
Heel terminal
Arm = Right
35.90 15.45 18.87 20.00 20.00
Arm
Damage ROS = 7.0 35.39 28.14 6.13 6.86 33.66
Static Angle = 15.0 33
33.93
.93 10.92 15.00 15.91 25.37
Area Ratio = 1.0 35.77 4.16 18.11 19.20 20.80
RM/HM Ratio = 2.0 35.74 5.02 17.75 18.82 21.23
ROS 1st & 2 nd = 7.0 35.24 28.41 5.84 6.53 34.23
The terminal was also tested to see the effects of damaging two tanks adjacent to one another. The
graphical version of the output is included in Figure 25, and the tabulated stability criteria are included in
Table 10. The smallest allowable KG of 30.15 m is well above the terminal’s KG of 17.4 meters.
Figure 25 Damaged Stabil
Stability,
ity, Starb
Starboard
oard Tanks 1 & 2 damaged
Table 10 Stability Cri

Criteria
teria for Damage in Starboard Tanks 1 & 2
Range of
Stability Allowable KG Static Angle 1st Intercept 2nd Intercept
Stability
Criterion (m) (degrees) (degrees) (degrees)
(degrees)
Actual KG of
17.40 30.51 1.79 1.89 85.00
terminal
Heel Arm =
33.63 13.25 19.10 20.00 20.00
Right Arm
Damage ROS
32.75 20.44 11.91 12.58 31.73
= 7.0
Static Angle = 30.15 13.83 15.00 15.69 28.01
15.0
Area Ratio =
33.59 6.31 18.61 19.48 21.41
1.0
RM/HM Ratio
33.48 7.10 18.24 19.10 22.77
= 2.0
ROS 1st & 2nd
32.59 20.86 11.49 12.13 32.30
= 7.0
In addition to the two damaged tanks, the team also ran an optimization analysis to see how many ballast
tanks could be damaged before the ship became unstable. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 11
below.
Table 11 Stability Under Different

Different Damage Scenar
Scenarios
ios
Number of damaged
Allowable KG (m)
tanks (starboard side)
1 33.93
2 30.15
3 26.44
4 22.82
5 19.13
Even with all five ballast tanks on one side damaged, the terminal’s KG value of 17.4 m is still below the
allowable KG of 19.13 m. However, at a static angle of 15 degrees the deck on the port side is only 8.9 m
above the waterline, and at a heel angle of 25 degrees the freeboard drops to 2.1 meters. A freeboard this
small would risk allowing greenwater to wash over the main deck, which is unacceptable for safe
operation. Therefore, one can conclude that the terminal can be considered stable and seaworthy if a
maximum of four ballast tanks are damaged on one side.
2.4 Global Loading
Global loading of the ship was taken into account to determine if the ship would be able to sustain all the
vertical loads that are applied to it, including the weight of the vessel, topside weights, weight of the LNG
onboard, and buoyancy. In a real-world scenario, the three environmental forces from wind, waves and
currents are hitting the bow at different angles; however for the purposes of a conservative engineering
estimate, all three forces are assumed to be horizontal, hitting perpendicular to the bow. The environmental
loads are discussed in detail in Section 3.6. In this section and the next section, General Strength and
Structural Design, vertical loads are located and evaluated using RISA-2D Software. Figure 26 shows the
loads from the topside structures along the longitudinal axis.
Table 12 and Table 13 show these values along with the values of the load that the LNG places on the
vessel. Loads greater than 3000 kN are evaluated as distributed loads in the following section whereas
loads smaller than 3000 kN are evaluated as point loads.
Longitudinal Axis Load Distribution
9000
8000
Acc.
7000
6000
N
) 5000
k
(
t
h
g
i
e 4000
W BOG Unit P4101
H20
G4101
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Longitudinal axis (m)

Figure 26 Topside Loading
Table 12 Weight and Location of Point Loads
Unit Force (kN) Loc ation from FP (m)

D-4701 -78.5 29
G-4201 -196.2 40
Starb crane -392.4 257
C-3301 -588.6 43.5
D-3101 -98.1 55
D-3201 -157.0 64.5
P-3101 -1510.7 223
E-3101 -567.0 188
E-3102 -567.0 172
E-3103 -567.0 156
E-3104 -567.0 140
E-3105 -567.0 124
E-3106 -567.0 108
Port crane -392.4 89
Offload arm 1 -1962.0 140.1
Offload arm 2 -1962.0 150.1
Offload arm 3 -1962.0 160.1
Offload arm 4 -1962.0 170.1
Helideck -1485.4 329.5
Stern Mooring Lines (wt) -2849.8 340
Bow Mooring Lines (wt) -2849.8 0

Table 13 Weight an
and
d Locati
Location
on of Distributed Loads
Starting Starting Location
Starting Ending Ending Location
Unit magnitude (kN) from FP (m)
(m) Magnitud e (kN) fro m FP (m)
G 4101 125.5 44 125.5 69
BOG unit -186.8 50 -186.8 71
P-4101 -109.0 72 -109.0 108
Serv H2O total -99.8 261 -99.8 294
Accom -523.0 322 -523.0 337
LNG
LNG 1 2 -5305.8
-5305.8 4.2
71.3 -5305.8
-5305.8 67.4
134.5
LNG 3 -5305.8 138.4 -5305.8 201.6
LNG 4 -5305.8 205.5 -5305.8 268.7
LNG 5 -5305.8 272.6 -5305.8 335.8
Hull steel -2541.6 0 -2541.6 340
Buoyancy 1 7602.3 0 7602.3 340
Buoyancy 2a 9654.9 0 5081.4 170
Buoyancy 2b 5549.7 170 9961.7 340
Buoyancy 3a 9654.9 0 9961.7 170
Buoyancy 3b 5549.7 170 2920.8 340
2.5 General Strength and Structural Design
RISA-2D Software is used to calculate bending moments and stresses along the longitudinal axis due to the
vertical forces from weight and buoyancy. This software evaluates the barge to act as a simple beam under
three load cases according to worst case scenarios. The first load case although not a worst case scenario is
used as a reference under calmest conditions. The primary forces on the vessel that significantly impact the
bending moments and stresses are the weight of the LNG onboard and the buoyancy force.
Load Case 1
This load case evaluates the beam under the calmest of conditions, i.e. still-water, where buoyancy is
distributed evenly along the keel as seen in Figure 27.
Figure 27 Load Case 1

Figure 28 below displays the maximum shear, moment and deflection under this load condition. A
maximum shear force of 16.2 MN occurs at 7.08m from the forward perpendicular, and a minimum shear
force of -17 MN occurs at 333m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme sagging moment of 786 MN-
m occurs at 159m from the forward perpendicular. At this location the largest deflection occurs and is
29.5mm downwards.

Shear
Moment
Deflection
Load Case 2
This load case evaluates the beam under one of the two worst case scenarios, where a wave crest occurs at
either end of the beam as seen in Figure 29. Load Case 2 only occurs in conditions where the wavelength is
340m, the length of the vessel. While this condition could potentially occur over the service life of the
terminal, it is still very unlikely as the wavelength in the 100 year storm is only 273m. A more likely worst
case scenario is discussed in Load Case 3.

Figure 30 below shows the maximum shear, moment and deflection under Load Case 2. The maximum
shear force of 97.9 MN occurs at 74.4m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal, and the minimum
shear force of -97.1 MN occurs at 266m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme sagging moment of
10,700 MN-m occurs at mid-ship along with the largest deflection of 375mm downwards.

Shear
Moment
Deflection
Load Case 3
This load case evaluates the beam under the second of the two worst case scenarios where a wave crest is
located at mid-ship as seen in Figure 31. This scenario could occur in storm conditions where the
wavelength is larger than half the length of the vessel, 170m. Wavelengths of the 1, 10, and 100 yr storm
are all larger than this value therefore this scenario could occur in any of these storm conditions.

Figure 32 below shows the maximum shear, moment and deflection under this load condition. The
maximum shear force of 90.5 MN occurs at 273m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal, and the
minimum shear force of -89.2 MN occurs at 67.3m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme hogging
moment of 9,120 MN-m occurs at 174m from the forward perpendicular. The largest deflection under this
load case occurs at mid-ship and is
i s 316mm upwards.
Shear
Moment
Deflection
Figure 32 Load Case 3 R

Results
esults
A comparison of the stresses and moments produced from each load case is shown in Table 14. Load case
two produced the largest magnitudes of shear, moment, and bending stresses. These values were then
checked with those found from an ABS analysis shown below in Figure 33 and were found to be lower than
the corresponding maximum allowable values.
The moment of inertia was also calculated using ABS guidelines, which yielded 1.45x107cm2-m2. This
value was then used with the cross-sectional area shown in Figure 34 to determine a minimum hull
thickness shown in
Table 15. The thickness was determined to be 0.032m (1.25 in).
Table 14 Comparison of the Three Load

Load Cases
Load Case Max Shear (MN) Max Moment (MN-m) Max Bending Stress (MPa)
1 -17 786 8.97 (keel)
2 97.9 10,700 122 (keel)
3 90.5 -9,120 104 (deck)
Longitu dinal Hull Girde

Girderr Strength:
Wave Loads
Wave
Wave Bending Moment Amidship s
Sagging Moment (kN-m) Hogging Moment (kN-m)

Mws -14856229.96 Mwh 14917619.34
Mws=-k1C1L2B(Cb+0.7)x10-3 Mwh=+k2C1L2BCbx10-3
k1 110 C1 10.75 k2 190
L (m) 340 B (m) 65 Cb 0.972
Wave Shear
Shear For ce
max positive shear force (kN) max negative shear force (kN)
Fwp 11916762.01 Fwn -11966004.81
-2 -2
Fwp=+kF1C1LB(Cb+0.7)x10 Fwn=-kF2C1LB(Cb+0.7)x10
F1 k 30 F2
0/340m 0 0/340m 0
68
68-1
-102
02m
m 0.92
0.9238
3801
0165653
3 68
68-1
-102
02mm 0.
0.9292
136-
13
23 6-20
238- 204m
8-284m
289m
9m 0.7
0.17 136-
13
236-20
238-204m
8-28 4m
289m
9m 1.
1.004
00413 0.
0.7
1322 7
2231
31
Fwp(
Fw p(0/
0/34
340m
0m)) 0 Fwp(
Fwp(0/
0/34
340m
0m)) 0
Fwp (68-102m)
(68-102m) 11008724.44
11008724.44 Fwp (68-102m)
(68-102m) -10963421.0
-10963421.03
3
Fwp(136-2
Fwp(136-204m)
04m) 8341733.41
8341733.41 Fwp(136-2
Fwp(136-204m)
04m) -8341733.39
-8341733.39
Fwp(238-2
Fwp(238-289m)
89m) 1191676
11916762.01
2.01 Fwp(238-28
Fwp(238-289m)
9m) -11966004.8
-11966004.81
1
Still Wa
Water
ter
Bendin g Moment Shear Force
Msw (kN-m) 9872369.003 Fsw (kN) 145181.8971
Ms=CstL2.5B(Cb+0.5) Fsw=5.0Ms/L
Cst 0.004936081
Bending Strength
Hull Girder Section
Section Modulus
Section Modulus (cm2-m) Minimum Section Modulus (cm2-m)

SM 1416570.762 SM 841680.71
2
SM=Mt/f p SM=C1C2L B(Cb+0.7)
Total Bending Moment, Mt=Msw+Mw (kN-m) 24789988.34 C2 0.01
Nominal permissible bending stress, f p (kN/cm2) 17.5
Hull Girder Moment of Inertia

I=L*SM/33.3 (cm2-m2) 14463485.26
Figure 33
33 ABS Longitudinal Hull G
Girder
irder Stre
Strength
ngth
B5
B1 B2 B3 B4
B6
B7
B8
Figure 34 Cross-Section of Longitudinal Beam
Table 15 Area Moment of Inertia

Base Height dy dx Ar ea
MEMBER (m) (m) (m) (m) (m^2) 1/12
1/12bh^3
bh^3 1/12
1/12b^3h
b^3h Ady^2 Adx^ 2
B1 0.03
0.03 32.9
32.95
5 0.00
0.00 32.4
32.49
9 0.85
0.85 76.8
76.88
8
0.
0.00
00 0.0
0.00
0 896.
896.96
96
B2 0.03
0.03 29.4
29.42
2 1.76
1.76 28.5
28.51
1 0.76
0.76 54.7
54.75
5
0.
0.00
00 2.3
2.36
6 616.
616.99
99
B3 0.03
0.03 29.4
29.42
2 1.76
1.76 28.5
28.51
1 0.76
0.76 54.7
54.75
5
0.
0.00
00 2.3
2.36
6 616.
616.99
99
B4 0.03
0.03 32.9
32.95
5 0.00
0.00 32.4
32.49
9 0.85
0.85 76.8
76.88
8
0.
0.00
00 0.0
0.00
0 896.
896.96
96
B5 65.00
65.00 0.03
0.03 16
16.4
.49
9 0.00
0.00 1.68
1.68 0.
0.00
00
59
590.
0.30
30 45
455.
5.74
74 0.0.00
00
B6 57.05
57.05 0.03
0.03 12
12.9
.96
6 0.00
0.00 1.47
1.47 0.
0.00
00
39
399.
9.15
15 24
247.
7.22
22 0.0.00
00
B7 0.03
0.03 3.50
3.50 14
14.7
.72
2 0.00
0.00 0.09
0.09 0.
0.09
09
0.
0.00
00 19
19.5
.57
7 0.
0.00
00
B8 65.00
65.00 0.03
0.03 16
16.4
.49
9 0.00
0.00 1.68
1.68 0.
0.00
00
59
590.
0.30
30 45
455.
5.74
74 0.0.00
00
4
Ixx (m ): 1446.35 sums:
sums: 263.36
263.36
1579.76
1579.76 1182.99
1182.99 3027.9
3027.90
0
Thickness used in design: 0.032m (1.25in)
2.6 Wind and Current Loading
The forces induced by the winds and currents for the 1, 10, and 100-year storm return periods were
analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The wind speeds and current speeds for those return periods are obtained
from shoaling analysis of the Metocean data. The wind speeds used in the analysis are extracted from 1-
hour sustained winds and the current speeds used are from the surface speeds. According to ABS
regulations, if a sustained wind force is being examined for wind loads, then the wind velocity must be
derived from the 1-minute average velocity (found in API RP 2SK 3.7.3.1). As a result, the wind velocity
time factor (α) must correspond to a 1-minute average time period of 1.18. The data from the three return
periods are tabulated in Table 16 below.

Table 16 Environmental Data for Wind and Current Loadi
Loading
ng
Return Period (years) 100 10 1

Wind Speed, Omni (knots) 29.16 25.27 23.33
Current Speed, Surface (knots) 1.94 1.75 1.56
Significant Wave Height (ft) 9.96 8.73 7.50
Wind Velocity Time Factor 1.18 1.18 1.18
To calculate the wind loads, one must determine: 1) surface areas, 2) height coefficients, and 3) shape
coefficients. For the shape coefficients, it is possible to group a structure’s surface areas together. In that
case, the shape coefficient must be 1.10. For the current loads, one must calculate: 1) surface areas and 2)
drag coefficients. Table 18 is the spreadsheet used to determine the wind and current loads for the 1-year,
10-year, and 100-year return periods. The total wetted surface area is determined by calculating each
surface area (bow, stern, port, starboard, and bottom) located below the water line. Since the hull of the
ship is relatively rectangular, it is possible to determine the wetted surface areas using simple geometric
formulas. The classification of the areas for the preceding figure can be found in Table
T able 17 below.
Table 17 Area Clas

Classifications
sifications for Environm
Environmental
ental Loadi
Loading
ng Spreadsheet
A1 Hull
A2 Starboard Process
A3 Starboard Crane
A4 Accommodations Module
A5 Port Process
A6 Port Crane
A7 Flare Tower
A8 Piperack
A9 Loading Arms
A10 Green Water
Figure 35 Beam View with Height Ranges for Environmental C

Calculations
alculations

Figure 36 Bow View with Height Ranges for Environmental
Environmental Cal
Calculations
culations
The wind and wave forces are calculated

calculat ed using the spreadsheet on the following page.
Table 18 Wind and Wave Loading Calculat

Calculations
ions Spreadsheet for 100 Ye
Year
ar Storm
Environmental Load Calculations (Ship-Shape FSRU)

Wind Force
Wind Speed Vw(knots) 29.158 alpha 1.180
2
Projected Areas ft (Above Water Line)
Bow Seas Beam Seas
Cs Ch A(Bow) AChCs Cs Ch A(Beam) AChCs
A1 1.000 1.230 14986.6 18433.5 1.000 1.230 81506.0 100252.4
A2 1.100 1.230 0.0 0.0 1.100 1.230 6393 .8 8650.8
A3 1.500 1.520 2755.6 6282.7 1.500 1.520 2906.3 6626.3
A4 1.000 1.400 1163.2 1628.4 1.000 1.400 1954.3 2736.0
A5 1.100 1.230 0.0 0.0 1.100 1.230 2927 .8 3961.3
A6 1.500 1.520 1046.3 2385.5 1.500 1.520 2906.3 6626.3
A7 1.500 1.620 5328.3 12947.9 1.500 1.620 5328.3 12947.9
A8 0.500 1.230 0.0 0.0 0.500 1.230 0.0 0.0
A9 1.500 1.520 2653.8 6050.7 1.500 1.520 6621.9 15098.0
A10 1.000 1.230 4897.6 6024.0 0.0
A11 0.0 0.0
Sum(CsChA) 53752.7 Sum(CsChA) 156898.8

Force(Kips) Fwx 216.4 Fwy 631.5
Quartering Seas
Theta 10.0
Force(Kips) Fwq 250.0
Current Force
Current Speed Vc(knot) 1.944 Bow Seas Beam Seas Oblique Environment
Cs(Bow Sea) 0.016 SVc2 1289032.859SVc2 1289032.859Theta 10.000
Csy(Beam Sea) 0.
0.40
400Fc
0Fc(k
(kip
ips)
s) 20
20.6
.625F
25Fc(
c(ki
kips
ps)) 515.
515.61
613
3 Fc(kips) 50.494
Wetted Area 341091.948
Mean Wave Drift Force

Cubic Spline Curve Fitting Formulae [x=Hs(ft), y=Force (kips)]
Bow Seas y=9.63ln(x)-14
Beam Seas y=2E-5X^4-5E-5X^3-0.1433X^2+7.3983*X-8.9346
Quartering Seas (Surge) y=0.9366x+1.2207
Quartering Seas (Sway) y=1E-5x^4-0.0003x^3-0.0638x^2+4.0954x-7.2682

Significant Wave
9.961
Height Bow Seas Beam Seas Quartering Seas
Force(Kips) 8.1 50.7 28.6
Total Environmental Forces

Force(Kips) Bow Seas Beam Seas Quartering Seas
Wind 216.4 631.5 250.0
Current 20.6 515.6 50.5
Mean Wave Drift Force 8.1 50.7 28.6
Total Force(Kips) 245.1 1197.8 329.1
The results from the wind and wave analysis for the three return periods are shown below in Table 19,
Table 20, and Table 21.
Table 19 Environmental Forces for 100-Year Re

Return
turn Period
Wind 216.4 631.5 250.0
Current 20.6 515.6 50.5

245.1 1197.8 329.1
Total Force(Kips)
Table 20 Environmental Forces for 10-Year R

Return
eturn Period

Wind 162.5 474.3 187.8
Current 16.7 417.4 40.9
Total Force(Kips) 186.1 936.5 253.6
Table 21 Environmental Forces for 1- Year Return Peri

Period
od

Wind 138.5 404.2 160.0
Current 13.2 329.9 32.3
Total Force(Kips) 157.1 772.6 213.5
The results from the environmental analysis indicate the majority of the forces are due to wind loads. The
beam seas forces are the most significant because of the substantial surface area along the length of the
vessel. The overall dimensions of the forces.
th e vessel directly influence the magnitudes of the forces.
2.7 Mooring/Station Keeping
Since the regasified LNG must be piped to market, it is necessary for the facility to not offset more than
what the flexible connections to the pipeline can handle. According to API codes this amount for shallow
water is between 15 and 25% of the water depth. In actual distance, this would translate to offsets ranging
from 6 to 10 m for this facilities depth of 40 m. The above requirements are used for what is called the
maximum operating condition. With this in mind, the maximum operating condition is the condition that
still allows the facility to send gas to shore, which in this case is the 10 year storm event. The facility must
also be able to survive a 100 year storm event. During the 100 year storm event the mooring system is not
only required to not fail but certain API requirements for loading and offset must be checked. In the case
where the system is fully intact the most loaded line tension must not exceed 60% of the breaking strength
of the line (API 1995). During the damaged case when the most loaded line is broken the second most
loaded line tension must not exceed 80% of the breaking strength (API 1995).
There are several factors for deciding what type of mooring system to have. Some of these factors are the
soil composition of the sea floor, the directionality of the environmental data, the types of loading and
unloading procedures to and from the facility, and cost of the system. The sea bottom at this particular site
is soft sand so a taut type mooring system is out of the question. This leaves only the option of the catenary
style mooring system. Once the leg type was decided the next step is to decide if there is directionality to
the environmental data. This influenced the decision between a turret and a spread moored system. Spread
moored systems are typically utilized when the environment predominately is generated in certain
directions. Due in large part to the directionality of the environment in the West Africa area the spread
moored system was decided on rather than a turret moored system. Along with the system being spread
moored, the bow will face towards the 225 degree direction relative to true north.
Since the system is a catenary spread moored system, the next step is to design how many legs (lines) in the
system, what their layout is, what their length is, and what diameter size of chain should be used to satisfy
the API codes stated above. A 12 line system was chosen for the initial design due in part to its safety
factor and large restoring force. Figure 37 shows the initial layout of the proposed system.
Figure 37 Horizontal Layout of Mooring Lines
These lines are separated into 4 different legs, with a leg extending off the facility at the four corners at an
angle of 45 degrees off of the longitudinal axis. This angle is the angle of the center line, with the other two
lines being spaced at ±5 degrees off of the center line. The first chain size analyzed was the 5 inch chain. In
the table below the characteristics of different chains being considered can be compared.
Table 22 Chain Characteristics
Size Weight in water Breaking Strength

Size (in)
(m) (kN/n) (kN)
5 0.127 3.465 14,980
4.5 0.1143 2.445 12,440
4 0.1016 1.932 7,811

By using the mooring program Mimosa, a line length of 300 m, and the 100 year storm condition, tensions
and offsets were found for the intact case by first treating all of the environmental forces as collinear and
then treating them with respect to their actual directions on-site. It was found that the actual environment
(non-collinear) provided the worst case scenario. The worst condition is when the waves and wind are
coming from 270 degrees relative to true north and the current is coming from 160 degrees relative to true
north. The damaged case for the above scenario deals with a mooring system that has the most loaded line
broken. It was thought best to try an eight line system to see if it would be a viable solution. What was
found was that with the eight line system a minimum size of 6.5-inch and a minimum length of 800m per
leg was necessary. With this larger size a larger vessel is necessary to layout the system. These larger
vessels are substantially more expensive on the day rate side, not to mention the expense of the larger chain
itself. The total length of the system for the eight line system is almost twice as much as the 12 line 5-inch
chain. This can be seen in Figure 38 below.
(6.Eight
Eight Leg (6.5 vsvs
5 inch) TwTwelve
elve leg
leg sys(5
Leg tem
inc h) System
7000
6000
5000
)
m4000
( 6.5 line
h
t
g 6.5 line total
n 3000
e 5 line
L
2000 5 line total
1000
0
6.5 inch 6.5 inch 15 inch 5 inch
single leg total chain single leg total chain
length length length length
Figure 38 Comparison of Line Lengths
At that point in time it was decided to keep the 12 line system and further try to optimize both its diameter
and overall leg length.
After using Mimosa to find the tensions in the systems for 5-inch, 4.5-inch, and 4-inch chain for the 100
year survival condition, the 4.5-inch line was further chosen to check the maximum operating condition.
The 5 inch chain satisfied the conditions but had a higher safety factor, while the 4 inch chain did not meet
the API tension requirements. The 100 year survival condition tensions can be found in the following table.
Table 23 Maximum Te
Tensions
nsions For 100 Year Survival C
Condition
ondition
Size Breaking Strength Safety

Size (in) (m) Max Tension (kN) (kN) Factor
5 0.127 5,850 14,980 2.56
4.5 0.1143 5,685 12,440 2.18
4 0.1016 5,027 7,811 1.55
With the 4.5 inch chain satisfying the survival condition of not breaking a line it was necessary to check
how the system satisfies the API requirements. According to the API codes the tensions in the lines are not
allowed to exceed 60% of the breaking strength for the intact case when a dynamic analysis is being done.
Along with the intact case, the damaged case allows the next most loaded line to reach 80% of the breaking
strength. The reason the 4.5-inch chain was selected is because in the intact case it met the 60% of the
breaking strength requirement without a large safety factor. The loadings for 5, 4.5, and 4 inch chain can be
seen in Table 24 below.
Table 24 Loading Percentages For 5, 4.5, 4 Inch Chain For API Intac
Intactt Case
Size (in) Size

(m) Max(kN)
tension Breaking Strength
(kN) Safety
Factor L%
5 0.127 5,928 14,980 2.53 39.57
4.5 0.1143 5,685 12,440 2.18 45.69
4 0.1016 5,027 7,811 1.55 64.36
Loading percentages for the different chain sizes in the above table agree with the selection of the 4.5 inch
chain versus the 5 and 4 inch chain. This can also be viewed in Figure 39 on the following page.
Tensi
Tensi on vs . Line Size Intact
16000
14000
12000 5 inch BS
) 5 inch60%
N
k
( 10000 5 inch found
s
n
i
o 8000 4.5 inch BS
s
n 6000 4.5 inch60%
e
T 4.5 inch found
4000
4 inch BS
2000 4 inch60%
0 4 inch found
5" 5" 5" 4.5" 4.5"
1 4.5" 4" 4" 4"
BS Exp 60% BS 60 Exp BS 60 Exp
% %
Lin e Size
Sizes
s

Figure 39 Comparison of Line Tension and Line Size
The 4.5 inch chain satisfies the API requirements for the intact maximum operating condition. Values for
the amount of offset are restricted to 15 to 25% of the water depth, which in this case is between 6 to 10 m.
The value of offset was found to be 4.2m for the intact case. This value of offset is well below the amount
allowed by API (API 1995).
For the damaged case the system reacted very unexpectedly. When the highest loaded line was broken in
the 100 year event, the values of the damaged tension in the lines of the system was lower than the intact
case. The overall tensions in the line increase but there was no spike in tension like in the intact case. The
system loads more symmetrically, but loads to a lower tension. This indicates that the system became softer
as the most loaded line was broken. A top tension that was only 34.3 % of the maximum breaking strength
of the chain wa experienced within the system. To better understand the system it was decided to break an
additional line in the system while the most loaded line was already broken. What was found is that the
tension found depended on which two lines were broken and how the environment was impacting the
facility. There are 66 different combinations for the dual line breakage technique. It was found that the
aforementioned worst case directions for the intact case are the worst directions for the damaged case. The
two lines that need to be broken to produce the maximum damage tensions are line 1 and line 4. Line 1 is
the line that is headed in the 275 degree direction relative to true north and line 4 is the line that is headed
in the 185 degree direction relative to true north. The maximum tension was found to be 9,693 kN which
translates to 77% of the breaking strength of the chain. Along with the damaged tensions are the damaged
offset values, and those values are larger than the intact values, which is to be expected, but the offset
values are still well within the API requirements, with a maximum offset of 5.3 m for the maximum
operating condition. Again this is for a system that has two broken lines not one.
All of this data agrees with the selection of the 4.5 inch chain as the primary line to run from the facility to
the anchors. This system meets or exceeds the API requirements for offset and line tensions in both the
intact and damaged conditions for the maximum operating condition and the 100 year event.
The next step was to optimize the length now that the diameter is set. An initial length of 300 m was
assumed but that needs to be refined. Shorter lengths for the system where run in Mimosa to see if they still
satisfy the API requirements of 60% intact and 80% damage maximum tensions, which the 285 m length
did satisfy. These values of maximum intact tensions can be found in Table 25.
Table 25 Maximum Tensions for Different L
Lengths
engths of 4.5 Inc
Inch
h Chain in the Int
Intact
act 100 Year Event
Length Max Tension

L%
(m) (kN)
300 5,685 59.2
250 6,207 64.6
275 6,008 62.5
285 5,607 58.4
As can be seen in the table above, a length of 285 m still satisfies the API requirements of only 60% of the
breaking strength in the intact condition. The damaged case was checked and found to be 77% of the
breaking strength with a maximum offset of 5.3 m. This offset is still well below the 6m allowable.
Now that the number, diameter,

di ameter, and llength
ength of
o f the
t he system have been decided th
thee llast
ast thing
t hing to select is the
anchor size and weight. Using a manual provided by Vryhof the anchor selection process is relatively
straightforward. First the style and angle of the anchor were selected. The sea bottom is assumed to be
made of sand and/or medium hard clay. For this the model anchor selected is the Stevpris Mk5 with the
angle of the fluke set at 32 degrees. This fluke setting comes from the manufacturer as the value for this
particular soil type. Next the anchor size was chosen. The maximum intact tension for the chain is 5,607kN
which translates to 571,559 kg of chain. Using a factor safety of 1.5 as per API (API 1995), the value of
8.573E+05
in kilogramskgis isdivided
found.by
This is the
1000, ultimate
yielding holding
857.3 power
t. Using theof the contained
chart anchor in kg, In units
within of tonnes,
the manual the mass
for sand and
hard clay, the anchor size to be chosen is 15 t (Vryhof 136). Therefore the anchor of choice is the Stevpris
Mk5 with a fluke setting of 32 degrees and an anchor weight of 15 t, with a predicted penetration into the
soil of 5 m (Vryhof 137).
2.8 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading
It is essential to predict the vessel’s response to establish its ability to survive the given design constraints
of 1, 10, and 100 year return periods. To determine the effects of the wave conditions on the motions of the
vessel, it is necessary to determine the heave, pitch, roll, surge, sway, and yaw. The vessel results are
compared to the wave results to ensure that harmonic oscillation does not occur. The uncoupled natural
heave period is the most significant heave period for this analysis.
The Joint North

environmental Sea
data forWave Projectwave.
a nonlinear (JONSWAP) wave the
When graphed spectrum equation
JONSWAP curveis has
a method ofbandwidth
a narrow analyzing and
the
a high peak. To execute a JONSWAP analysis, the following equation is employed:
S ( f ) = 0.3125 H S2TP ( f / f P ) −5 exp[ −1.25( f / f P ) − 4 ] × (1 −

A
0.287 ) ln(γ )γ (3)
where the coefficients A and σ are:
2
A = exp[ −0.
0.5( f − f P / f Pσ ) ]
σ = 0.07 f < f P
σ = 0.09 f > f P
A graphical representation of the JONSWAP analysis can be seen in the figure below.
Energy Density
Density of th e Wave usin g Jons wap Analysis
7
6
)
f
( 3
S
0
0 0.5 1 1. 5 2 2.5
-1
Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 40 Energy Density
The natural spectral peak period of the
t he wave in a 1-year return period is
i s 15 seconds, which corresponds to
the natural peak frequency of 0.42 rad/s shown above. The formula for the heave period is shown below:
C B D
T = 2
π (1 + C AM ) (4)
C W g
The formula for the uncoupled natural period in pitch is:

2
( M + M A ) r
T = 2π (5)
ρ g ∀GM L
The uncoupled natural period in roll for this structure is:
2
( M + M A ) r
T = 2π (6)
ρ g ∀GM
T
In the formulas for the uncoupled natural periods in pitch and roll, the most significant parameters are the
metacentric heights. The results for the uncoupled
uncoupled natural period in heave can be seen in Table 26 below.
Table 26 Heave Perio

Period
d for Vessel (Unloaded
(Unloaded and Loaded)
Units
Metric English
Block Coefficient CB 0.99 0.99
Waterplane Area Coefficient CW 1.00 1.00
2 2
Waterplane Area (m , ft ) AW 22,556 242,792
Draft (m, ft) D 11.58 37.99
2 2
Gravity (m/s , ft/s ) g 9.81 32.18
Mass of the Vessel (kg, slug) M 91,235,000 6,251,584
ded Mass (kg, slug)
Added
Ad Ma 136,852,500 9,377,376
Added
Ad ded Mass Coef fi ci ent C AM 1.50 1.50
ve Natural Period (s)

Heave
Hea T 10.74 10.74
The results are determined in metric and English units to ensure accuracy.
accuracy. The results for the uncoupled
periods in heave, pitch, and roll are shown in Table 27 below.
Table 27 Uncoupled Natural Pe

Periods
riods in Heave, Pitch,
Pitch, and Roll for the Vessel
Natural Period (s) Frequency (rad/s)
Moti
otion
on Dire
irecti
ction
on Unlo
nloa
ade
ded
d Loade
Loaded
d Unloa
nloade
ded
d Loade
Loaded
d
Heave 10.74 10.74 0.58 0.58
Pitch 5.37 5.37 1.17 1.17
Roll 9.30 9.39 0.68 0.67
The natural spectral peak periods of the wave are 15, 15.3, and 15.5 s for the 1, 10, and 100 year return
period respectively. The periods of maximum wave are 13.4 13.4,, 13.6, and 13.8 s for the 1, 10, and 100 year
return period respectively. As a result, the natural frequencies of the wave in all three return periods are
lower than the natural frequencies of the vessel. Consequently, harmonic oscillation does not occur.
The uncoupled natural period in heave is constant for unloaded and loaded condition. The heave motion is
a vertical motion, which does not cause the mass to shift. The results for the period in roll are not the same
because of the shift in mass. In the unloaded condition, the mass moment of inertia is different from the
loaded condition because of the locations of the ballast and the LNG. Accordingly, the radius of gyration
was also altered. Consequently, the periods in the unloaded and loaded condition in roll will not be the
same. The results indicate that the most significant direction of motion of the vessel is in heave.
The natural periods and frequencies are utilized in computing the Response Amplification Operator (RAO).
The RAO values are extracted from SIF files, generated by Ravi Kota (KBR), using MIMOSA. The
produced SIF files are for a barge type vessel with dimensions in length, breadth, height, of 300.7m, 61m,
and 30.5m, respectively. The output plot results have units of amplitude response (m/m) versus angular
frequency (rad/s). The following two graphs are output results in 0° and 67.5° headings, respectively.
RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading
1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
)
Heave
m
/ Pitch
(
m
e Roll
s 6.00E-01
n Surge
o
p
s Sway
e
R
Yaw
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 41 RAO Response in 0 Degree H
Heading
eading
RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading
1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
Heave
Pitch
Roll
6.00E-01
Surge
Sway
Yaw
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
0 0.2 0 .4 0 .6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
F r e q u en
en c y ( r a d / s )

Figure 42 RAO R
Response
esponse for 67.5 De
Degree
gree Headi
Heading
ng
For each motion, take the amplitude response that corresponds to the frequency of 0.42 rad/s and then
multiply it by the significant amplitude in a 1-year storm (1.14 m), thus determining the vessel
displacements for each motion shown in Table 28 below.
Table 28 Displacement of LNG Terminal
Motion Displacement (m)

0° 67.5° 90° 180°
Heave 0.57 m 2.01 m 2.40 m 0.46 m
Pitch 0.58° 0.43° 0.00 0.58°
Roll 0.00 0.23° 3.13° 0.00
Surge 0.69 m 0.85 m 0.00 0.69 m
Yaw 0.00 0.01 m 0.00 0.00
Sway 0.00 0.80 m 1.03 m 0.00

The largest motion is in heave. The chosen loading arms for this vessel are “In-Air Flexibles” by Technip-
Coflexip. If the “In-Air Flexibles” are not availably upon completion of the project, then conventional
offloading arms presented by FMC will be utilized. If the FMC loading arms can sustain the offloading
process in a 1 year return period, then the “In-Air Flexibles” can also be employed because they have a
greater range of motion than the conventional loading arms. The displacement results from Table 28 are
compared to the displacements from an LNG carrier. The table below contains the displacement values for
an LNGC provided by ConocoPhillips.
Table 29 LNGC Displacement with 60° Heading
Motion Displacement
Significa
ignificant
nt Max
aximum
imum
Sway 0.12 m 0.3 m
Heave 0.22 m 0.4 m
Roll 0.12 ° 0.3 °
Surge 0.08 m 0.2 m
Pitch 0.48 ° 1.0 °
The largest displacement will occur when the vessel and the carrier are 180° out of phase. Accordingly, the
largest motion is calculated by adding the vessel displacement and LNGC displacement. The vessel has a
heave displacement of 2.01 m in a 67.5° heading and the LNGC carrier has a heave displacement of 0.22 m
in a 60° heading. The total vertical displacement would then be 2.23 m, which is within the ± 4 m vertical
range of the loading arms. The total horizontal displacement is also within the horizontal range of ±1.7m.
Therefore, the loading arms are feasible for this vessel.
The design of the vessel indicates that the FMC loading arms can maintain operability between the vessel
and carrier in a 1-year return period. Thus, the “In-Air Flexibles” are also applicable in these conditions.
Further analysis shows that the connection between the vessel and the LNG carrier is possible even in a
100-year storm event of significant wave height 3.04 m. In fact, the carrier can still connect to the terminal
in wave heights of 4.29 m. However, it must be noted that the uniquely benign environmental conditions in
West Africa allow for carriers to connect to the terminal in more extreme events than would be possible
elsewhere.
2.9 Cost Analysis
To run a cost analysis, ConocoPhilips provided Team West Africa with the unit cost of each component.
Table 30 shows a breakdown of the overall cost calculated by multiplying
multiplying weights by unit cost. Loading
arms, regasification equipment, engineering, classification, and other fee estimations were provided by
industry contacts and are lumped as Regas Process & Engineering in the table. Transportation and
installation are included in the total cost; however, they are not included in owners’ cost and contingency.
Cost estimates from Korea, Japan, and Spain are evaluated. The transporting distances are determined
determined in
order to calculate transportation cost.
The facility in Spain is the selected location due to the lowest cost and closest proximity to the installation
location in West Africa.
Table 30 Cost Analysis
Weight (mton) Japan Korea Spain

Hull Steel 50,579 $ 106 $ 96 $ 121
Hull Outfittings
Outfittings 7,500 $ 43 $ 39 $ 36
Hull Machinery 1,000 $ 1 $ 1 $ -
Electric
Ele ctric Outfitting 1,000 $ 2 $ 2 $ -
Acco
Ac co mm
mmodod ati
ation
on s 800 $ 23 $ 21 $ 24
Cargo
Ca rgo Fitting 2,000 $ 27 $ 24 $ -
Topsides Module Supports 2,000 $ 2 $ 1 $ 2
SPB LNG Tanks 23,334 $ 93 $ 93 $ 93
Regas Process & Engineering $ 184 $ 184 $ 176

Costs & Conting ency
Owners’ Costs $ 97 $ 92 $ 90
Transportation--Floater $ 15 $ 15 $ 5
Installation--Floater $ 15 $ 15 $ 15
Total (millions) $ 608 $ 585 $ 563
3 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
Team West Africa considered three types of floating facilities but concentrated on the ship-shape barge
design. This decision was based on the fact that it is a well established, proven design and it allows
flexibility when360
perpendiculars, selecting the mooring
m in overall length, lines.
65 m inThe overall
width, ship
33 m dimensions
in height, are 340draft
a calculated m inoflength between
11.58m, and a
displacement of approximately 265,000 tonnes. It has five semi-prismatic LNG tanks and ten J-shaped
ballast tanks, five on the port side and five on the starboard. The vessel is oriented with the bow facing in
the southwest direction.
The mooring system has been optimized using the Mimosa program, and the terminal uses a spread-moored
system with twelve lines. Each line is 86.9 m (285 feet long), consists of 114.3 mm (4 ½-inch) chain, and
has a Vryhof Stevpris Mk5 15 t anchor. Stability analysis using StabCAD has been completed, and the
terminal satisfies all of the stability criteria for intact, single-tank damage, and double-tank damaged
stability. The bending moment calculations for global loading have been completed, and a minimum outer
plate thickness has been calculated to be 0.032 m (1.25 inches) based on the ship’s moment of inertia in
cross-section. The heave, pitch and roll natural uncoupled periods are smaller than the natural period of the
wave and peak wave for loaded and unloaded conditions, and thus no harmonic resonance on the vessel
presented itself. The In-Air Flexible offloading arms can sustain offloading process in a one-year return
period as required by the design constraints. In the event of an unavailability of this type of arm the FMC
mechanical offloading arms can be substituted in their place without necessitating a redesign or reanalysis
of the hydrodynamic motions. The team decided to have the terminal built in Spain, and its total cost
including transportation is roughly US $563 million.
Since this is a front-end concept design, several assumptions must be addressed in the more detailed final
engineering design. A more accurate estimation of the wind loads on the topside equipment,
accommodations module, and supply cranes can be made once the specific structural elements within each
have been defined. Similarly, the total mass of the vessel can be accurately determined only after the
structural elements of the hull (keel beam, longitudinal and transverse supports, scantlings, etc) have been
selected and optimized. As a result, the 15 percent confidence margin added to the mass in this report can
be reduced since the masses would be more accurately defined, consequently altering the terminal’s
hydrodynamic motions and reducing the vessel’s total mass, draft, and final cost. In addition, completion of
the structural engineering design will allow for a more accurate measure of the vessel’s moment of inertia
in cross-section and the resultant changes in maximum bending moment, bending stress, and natural period.
Design of the LNG intake manifold and the piping between the manifold and the five SPB tanks is
paramount in that an efficient design will minimize the required offloading time of any carriers that use the
terminal.
4 References
American Bureau of Shipping. Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations, Houston, TX.
American Bureau of Shipping. Building and Classing Facilities on Offshore Installations, Houston, TX.
June 2000.
American Bureau of Shipping. Building and Classing Floating Production Installations, Houston, TX. June
2000.
American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Station Keeping Systems
for Floating Structures, First Edition. Washington D.C., June 1995. (API 2SK)
American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Design, Analysis, and Maintenance of Mooring
for Floating Production Systems, First Edition. Washington D.C., February 1993.
DeLuca, Marshall. “Terminals Set For Take-Off.” Offshore Engineer

Engineer,, December 2003.
Human Rights Watch. “The Warri Crisis: Fueling Violence.” VOL 15, NO 18 A, December 2003.
Raine, Brian, Al Kaplan, and Gordon Jackson. “Making the Concrete Case.” Offshore Engineer, December
2003.
Robertson, Steve. “Transportation: LNG Sp

Spending
ending will reach $39 billion by 2007.” Oil and Gas Journal,
January 2004.
Share, Jeff. “Sempra

Journal, Energy
September Credits Success On Its Own Risk Management System.” Pipeline and Gas
2003.
Share, Jeff. “Natural Gas At Forefront of Nations Energy Picture.” Pipeline and Gas Journal, November
2003.
Value, James. “FERC Hackberry decision will spur more US LNG terminal development.”
development.” Oil and Gas
Journal, November 2003.
Vryhof Anchor Manual, Vryhof Anchor Company, 2000.
Appendix A: Lightship weight spreadsheet

Lightship Weight & Total Weight
Dimensions
Length (L) 340 m L/B 5.23 4.5-6.0 BMT (est.) 30.417 m
Width (B) 65 m L/H 10.30 8.0-13.0 KMT (est.) 36.205 m
Height (H) 33 m B/H 1.97 1.7-2.3 KGT (est.) 5.788 m
Draft (T) 11.58 m Block c_b 0.972 BML (est.) 832 m
Freebrd 21.42 m KML (est.) 838 m
Number of longitudinal bulkheads 0 SPB

Number of transverse bulkheads 0 Number of tanks 5
Spacing btwn LNG tanks 4m
2 2
Mass per unit area (kg/m ) 405 kg/m Spacing btwn LNG and wing blsts 3m
Density of steel 7850 kg/m3 Spacing btwn LNG and top/btm 4.5 m
Equivalent plate thickness 0.0516 m
2.03 in Wing ballast tank width 4m
Btm ballast tank height 3.5 m
SA of front 2508 m2
SA of back 2145 m2 Total volume of cargo hold 347106
SA of port side 11550 m2 LNG storage volume 330378 m3
SA of starboard side 11550 m2 Thickness of steel 0.250 m
SA of bottom 22100 m2 Volume per tank 66076 m
3
SA of top 23400 m2 Length of tank 63.2

Width of tank 51.0
2
Total SA of hull 73253 m Height of tank 20.5
2
SA of each long. bulkhead 11550 m
2
SA of each trans. bulkhead 2145 m Volume of reqd ballast 145044
Reqd wing ballast width 4.000 m
Overall SA of lightship 73253 m2 Reqd btm ballast height 3.500 m
3
Mass of hull 29667543 kg Actual blst tank volume (total) 154674 m
Mass of hull 29668 mt
Surface area of tanks 55643 m2
Weight of hull 291039 kN Unit weight of tanks 73 kg/m2
955295 to
tonf Total mass of all insulation 4061939 k
kg
g
Displacement 257224 tonnes 4062 mt

Total mass of aluminum 19272 mt

mt
Weight of LNG (kN) 1458454 kN
kN Total mass of LNG tanks (empty) 23334 m
mtt
291691 k N/tank Total weight of LNG tanks (empty) 228906 k N
Mass of LNG 29734 mt/tank
148670
148670 mt ttotal
otal Ballast Tanks
Total number of blst tanks 10
Outfitting masses Number of tanks per side 5
Electrical (mt) 1000 Wing Tank Width (inner) 3.9484 m
Mechanical (mt) 1000 Wing Tank Height (inner) 32.8968 m
Outfitting equipment (mt) 7000 Bottom Tank Length (inner) 32.3968 m
Accommodation (mt) 800 Frontal area of J partitions 229.46 m2
Cargo systems (mt) 2000 Inner hull surface area 30425.38 m2
Cargo loading arm (mt) 800 Keel divider plate 1189.82 m2
Total outfitting mass 12600 m
mtt Total surface area of ballast tanks 33910 m2
12600000 kg Total mass of ballast tanks 13733 mt
Total outfitting weight 405720 tto
onf Total weight of ballast tanks 134725 kN
kN
123
123606
606 kN
Mass of Mooring Lines 581 mmtt
Mass of Vessel (Empty)

7933
793355 mt
793349
79334999
99 kg
778276
778276 kN
Theoretical
Theoretical Lightsh ip Mass 7933
79335
5 mt
Theoretical Loaded Mass 228
228005
005 mt
Theoretical
Theoretical Lightsh ip Weight 778
778276
276 kN
Theoretical Loaded Weight 223
223673
6730
0 kN
Margin (% confidence) 15 %
Total Lightship Mass 9123
91235
5 mt
Total Loaded Mass 262
262206
206 mt
Total Lightship Weight 895
895018
018 kN
Total Loaded Weight 257
257224
2240
0 kN

Appendix B: Mimosa Input and Output Files
This appendix contains the input files for use
use with Mimosa. The first file, masswindcurrent2.dat is the
mossi file that contains all the vessel mass information including added mass in the three primary
directions, system damping in surge and sway and the force coefficients for the wind
w ind and current loads.
There are three different chain
chain characteristic files used. Mooringsystem12 is the 4.5 inch chain file. This
chain file contains all the characteristics about
about this particular mooring system. It contains values for
breaking strength, length, weight, pretension, and fairlead and anchor locations. RAOs for the system
were obtained from a sif file
file that was provided from Halliburton and KBR. It will not be included in this
appendix due
included in toappendix.
this document length constraints. It is available upon request if need. Output from Mimosa is
Report5 Twelve line 100 year condition for 4.5 inch chain.
Masswindcurrent2.dat
20000 Mass, Wind, Current Coeff

Coefficients
icients
22100 2.28E+08 1.58E+13 3 4 45000
23100 19 0
23101 0 9.172E+4 0.000E+00 0
23102 10 2.211E+5 3.899E+04 0
23103 20 5.322E+5 1.937E+05 0
23104 30 8.624E+5 4.979E+05 0
23105 40 1.079E+6 9.055E+05 0
23106 50 1.124E+6 1.340E+06 0
23107 60 1.001E+6 1.734E+06 0
23108 70 7.421E+5 2.039E+06 0
23109 80 3.930E+5 2.229E+06 0
23110 90 0.000 2.293E+06 0
23111 100 -3.930E+5 2.229E+06 0
23112 110 -7.421E+5 2.039E+06 0
23113 120 -1.001E+6 1.734E+06 0
23114 130 -1.124E+6 1.340E+06 0
23115 140 -1.079E+6 9.055E+05 0
23116 150 -8.624E+5 4.979E+05 0
23117 160 -5.322E+5 1.937E+05 0
23118 170 -2.211E+5 3.899E+04 0
23119 180 -9.172E+4 0.000E+00 0
23501 2.638E+6 0
23502 0 6.9227E+6
23503 3.12E+09 0
24100 19 0
24101 0 -4.606E+03 0 0
24102 10 -5.186E+03 -0.914E+03 0
24103 20 -6.517E+03 -2.372E+03 0
24104 30 -7.744E+03 -4.471E+03 0
24105 40 -8.202E+03 -6.882E+03 0
24106 50 -7.666E+03 -9.136E+03 0
24107 60 -6.271E+03 -1.086E+04 0
24108 70 -4.334E+03 -1.190E+04 0
24109 80 -2.181E+03 -1.237E+04 0
24110 90 0 -1.248E+04 0
24111 100 2.181E+03 -1.237E+04 0
24112 110 4.334E+03 -1.190E+04 0
24113 120 6.271E+03 -1.086E+04 0
24114
24115 130
140 7.666E+03
8.202E+03 -9.136E+03
-6.882E+03 0
0
24116 150 7.744E+03 -4.471E+03 0
24117 160 6.516E+03 -2.371E+03 0
24118 170 5.186E+03 -0.914E+03 0
24119 180 4.606E+03 0.000E+00 0
Mooringsystem12
VESSEL POSITION
'Text describing positioning system
4.5 inch chain system
'x1ves x2ves x3ves head
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
LINE DATA
'iline llichar
ichar inilin iwirun intact
1 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
171.82 32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
50.000 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact
2 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
171.82 32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
45.000 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
3 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
171.82 32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
40.000 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
4 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
171.82 -32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
-40.000 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
5 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
171.82 -32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
-45.000 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
6 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
171.82 -32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
-50.000 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATAinilin iwirun intact

'iline lichar
7 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
-170.00 -32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
-130.00 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
8 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
-170.00 -32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
-135.00 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
'iline llichar
ichar inilin iwirun intact
9 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
-170.00 -32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
-140.00 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
10 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
-170.00 32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
140.00 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
11 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
-170.00 32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
135.00 500.00 0.00000
LINE DATA
12 1 1 0 1
'tpx1 tpx2
-170.00 32.500
'alfa tens xwinch
130.00 500.00 0.00000
LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA
'lichar
1
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
'anbot tpx3 x3ganc tmax fric
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
'iseg ieltyp nel ibuoy sleng nea brkstr
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
'iseg dia emod emfact uwiw watfac cdn cdl
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
2
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
3
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
4
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
5
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
6
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg
1 1 ibotco
0 icurli
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
7
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0

0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
8
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
9
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
10
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
'iseg
1 0ieltyp
150nel ibuoy sleng 1nea9608.0
0 300.00 brkstr
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
11
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0

1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'lichar
12
'linpty npocha
2 20
'nseg ibotco icurli
1 1 0
0.00000 10.000 40.000 6000.0 1.0000
1 0 150 0 300.00 1 9608.0
1 0.1143 0.2068E+09 2.0000 2.445 0.8700 1.5000 0.0000
'termination of input data
END
Report5
1
MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 MARINTEK
Page 1
12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave
Marketing and Support by DNV Software
Program id : 5.7-01 Computer : 586

Release date : 14-MAY-2003 Impl. update :
Access time : 14-APR-2004 18:14:51 Operating system : Win NT 5.0 [2195]
User id : sts4924 CPU id : 0000200404
Installation : , CE220NO04
Copyright DET NORSKE VERITAS AS, P.O.Box 300, N-1322 Hovik, Norway
Input file :
y:\masswindcurrent2.dat
* Vessel mass and added mass

Text :
Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients
Input file :
* Current force coefficients

Text :

Page 2
Input file :
* Wind force coefficients

Text :
Input file :
y:\g15m.sif
* HF motion transfer functions

Text :
AKPO MOORING VERIFICATION - KBR 11/05/2003"
Water depth used in ca

calculation
lculation of roll, pitch and yaw : 40.0 m
Duration for short-term statistics : 180.00 min.
Input file :
y:\g15m.sif
* Wave drift force coefficients
Text :
AKPO MOORING VERIFICATION - KBR 11/05/2003"
Input file :
y:\mooringsystem12
* Mooring system data

Text :
4.5 inch chain system
MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004

Page 3 18:14 MARINTEK
* ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS *
----------------------------
NOTE ! Propagation direction ( 0 deg : towards North )

( 90 deg : towards East )
WIND NPD SPECTRUM

Mean speed ........................
............. ........... : 15.00 m/s
Direction ...............
.........................
.......... : 230.00 deg.
CURRENT Speed .. ...............

..........................
........... : 1.00 m/s
Direction ...............
.........................
.......... : 150.00 deg.
Current profile used in comp. of line profile:

Number Level Speed Direction rel.
(m) (m/s) north (deg)
1 10.00 1.000 150.00

2 20.00 0.800 150.00
3 30.00 0.600 150.00
4 40.00 0.500 150.00
WAVE JONSWAP SPECTRUM,

Significant wave height (HS) ...... : 3.03 m
Peak period (TP) .................. : 15.500 s
Phillip constant (ALPHA) .......... : 0.00053
Form parameter (BETA) ............. : 1.250
Peakedness parameter (GAMMA) ...... : 3.300
Spectrum width parameparameter ter (S
(SIGA)
IGA) ... : 0.070
Spectrum width parameparameter ter (S
(SIGB)
IGB) ... : 0.090
Direction ...............
.........................
.......... : 230.00 deg
Short crested representation ...... : COS^4
NO SWELL
* STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES *

--------------------------
!------------------------------------
!-------------------------------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
! ! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp. !
!-----------------------
!------------------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
! Wind ! -1724.9 kN ! -2055.6 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! Wave ! -51.4 kN ! -201.3 kN !-3503. kNm!
! Current ! -862.4 kN ! 497.9 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! ! ! ! !
! Fixed force ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
!-----------------------
!------------------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
! Total ! -2638.6 kN ! -1759.0 kN !-3503. kNm!
!-----------------------
!------------------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
TOTAL FORCE : --3171.2

-----------------------
------------------------- Dir. kN Dir. rel.
rel. North Vessel
: 213.7 : 213.7 deg
deg
* EQUILIBRIUM POSITION *
------------------------
Relative to Relative to
GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position
OFFSET .................
............ ..... 3.9 m 3.9 m
DIRECTION (rel. North).. 217.2 deg 217.2 deg
HEADING ................
............ .... 0.6 deg 0.6 deg
X1 (North) ............. -3.1 m -3.1 m

X2 (East) .............. -2.4 m -2.4 m
* MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS. LF AND HF MOTION *

--------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
----------
** Line Dynamics Included **
Line ---- Top tension ---- Max. Direction Type

No. Mean Max Safety Segm. tangent from hor.
(kN) (kN) factor No. motion (m) plane (deg)
1 500.0 3996.3 3.75 1 2.01 -21.1 SAM

2 500.0 4599.9 3.26 1 1.79 -19.3 SAM
3 500.0 5271.2 2.84 1 1.58 -17.7 SAM
4 500.0 3551.8 4.22 1 1.36 -19.7 SAM
5 500.0 3104.2 4.83 1 1.60 -21.6 SAM
6 500.0 2690.7 5.57 1 1.85 -23.7 SAM
7 500.0 3329.8 4.50 1 1.84 -21.9 SAM
8 500.0 3890.2 3.85 1 1.66 -20.0 SAM
9 500.0 4520.8 3.31 1 1.46 -18.3 SAM
10 500.0 3474.0 4.31 1 1.47 -20.3 SAM
11 500.0 3009.3 4.98 1 1.73 -22.4 SAM
12 500.0 2602.9 5.76 1 1.99 -24.5 SAM
SAM = Tensions are estimated with the Simplified Analytic Me

Method
thod
HF max tension: Non-Rayleigh based
LF max offset : Non-Rayleigh based
Details on dynamic tension (in kN):

------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------
-----------------
-----
Line Standard Maximum Maximum Zero crossing
No. deviation amplitude tension period (s)
------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------
-----------------
-----
1 672.5 2442.2 3996.3 14.44
2 757.0 2749.6 4599.9 14.44
3
4 843.4
487.5 3063.8
1769.7 5271.2
3551.8 14.44
14.65
5 449.1 1629.6 3104.2 14.73
6 402.6 1460.2 2690.7 14.78
7 521.1 1887.3 3329.8 15.05
8 598.9 2169.2 3890.2 15.07
9 679.1 2459.7 4520.8 15.09
10 494.7 1800.2 3474.0 14.18
11 447.5 1627.2 3009.3 14.28
12 398.6 1448.6 2602.9 14.36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
* STATIC EXTERNAL FORCES *
--------------------------
!------------------------------------
!-------------------------------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
! ! Surge comp. ! Sway comp. ! Yaw comp. !
!------------------------------------
!-------------------------------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
! Wind ! -1845.4 kN ! -1548.4 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! Wave ! -60.6 kN ! -165.0 kN !-3526. kNm!
! Current ! -862.4 kN ! 497.9 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
! ! ! ! !
! Fixed force ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0 kN ! 0.0000 kNm!
!-----------------------
!------------------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
! Total ! -2768.4 kN ! -1215.5 kN !-3526. kNm!
!-----------------------
!------------------------------------
--------------------------
--------------------!
-------!
TOTAL FORCE : 3023.5 kN Dir. rel. Vessel : 203.7 deg

-----------------------
-------------------------
-- Dir. rel. North : 203.7 deg
* EQUILIBRIUM POSITION *
------------------------
Relative to Relative to
GLOBAL ORIGIN CURRENT Position
OFFSET .................
............ ..... 3.6 m 3.6 m
DIRECTION (rel. North).. 209.3 deg 209.3 deg
HEADING ................
............ .... 0.5 deg 0.5 deg
X1 (North) ............. -3.1 m -3.1 m

X2 (East) .............. -1.8 m -1.8 m
* MAXIMUM LINE TENSIONS. LF AND HF MOTION *

------------------------
--------------------------------------
------------------------
----------
** Line Dynamics Included **
Line ---- Top tension ---- Max. Direction Type

No. Mean Max Safety Segm. tangent from hor.
(kN) (kN) factor No. motion (m) plane (deg)
1 500.0 4252.7 3.52 1 1.90 -20.2 SAM
2 500.0 5007.8 2.99 1 1.67 -18.3 SAM
3 500.0 5850.7 2.56 1 1.46 -16.5 SAM
4 500.0 4266.8 3.51 1 1.20 -17.8 SAM
5 500.0 3672.7 4.08 1 1.46 -19.8 SAM
6 500.0 3133.7 4.78 1 1.72 -22.0 SAM
7 500.0 3583.9 4.18 1 1.79 -21.1 SAM
8 500.0 4299.7 3.48 1 1.59 -19.1 SAM
9 500.0 5127.4 2.92 1 1.40 -17.2 SAM
10 500.0 4042.4 3.71 1 1.28 -18.5 SAM
11 500.0 3450.4 4.34 1 1.55 -20.6 SAM
12 500.0 2931.2 5.11 1 1.83 -22.9 SAM
SAM = Tensions are estimated with the Simplified Analytic Method

HF max tension: Non-Rayleigh based
LF max offset : Non-Rayleigh based
Details on dynamic tension (in kN):
------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------
-----------------
-----
Line Standard Maximum Maximum Zero crossing
No. deviation amplitude tension period (s)
------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------
-----------------
-----
1 706.3 2563.6 4252.7 14.57
2 812.7 2950.2 5007.8 14.56
3 919.1 3337.1 5850.7 14.58
4 575.2 2088.2 4266.8 14.68
5 528.0 1915.6 3672.7 14.77
6 469.8 1703.6 3133.7 14.84
7 561.7 2034.2 3583.9 15.09
8 664.9 2407.6 4299.7 15.11
9 774.0 2802.7 5127.4 15.15
10 556.9 2025.5 4042.4 14.31
11 503.4 1829.4 3450.4 14.43
12 444.2 1613.2 2931.2 14.52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Page 8
Appendix C: StabCAD Input and Output

This appendix includes the full StabCAD input file as well as the partial output file in the intact condition.
The dimensions of the vessel can be inputted using either a CAD graphical user interface (“Alpha” module)
or by editing the text file directly (“Beta” module). Once the vessel itself has been drawn, additional
commands are typed into the text file using Beta that tell StabCAD which stability analysis to perform
(intact, cross, damaged, etc). In addition, miscellaneous dimensions such as the vessel’s draft and its CG
values must be calculated outside of StabCAD and typed in manually.
Joints are the individual points in the drawing, and panels are the two-dimensional faces that connect the
joints to form a three-dimensional body. Defining individual tanks as “bodies” allows StabCAD to isolate i solate
the tanks from the rest of the
t he vessel when running a damaged stability
stabili ty analysis. The user can then specify
which particular “bodies”, i.e. ballast tanks, are to be damaged. In addition, specifying downflooding points
(in this case on the four corners of the main deck) improves the accuracy of the stability analysis as well as
allows the user to track the position of these points relative to the waterline as the heel angle of the vessel is
iterated.
INPUT FILE:
ALPID 3D View 0.707 0.707 -0.424 0.424 0.800 1

ALPID Global XY Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID Global YZ Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPID Global XZ Pl 10.000 10.000
ALPREF 3D View 0.0 D 0.75 1
FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS

STBOPT 0 CALC ME ME ST PT
KGPAR 51.4444 25.7222 1.4 7. 7. 7. 4.
CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 0. 0. 0. 340. 170.
*CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 15. 0. 0. 340. 170.
*CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 30. 0. 0. 340. 170.
*CFORM 5. 15. 0.2 45. 0. 0. 340. 170.
INTACT 0. 85. 5.
*DAMAGE 0. 85. 5.
*CROSS DF 5. 15. 1. 0. 90. 10. 0. 36.
DRAFT 11.58 169.98 0. 17.4 0. USER USER
GRPDES
GRPDES STB
TOP STARBOARD
TOP MAIN DECK SIDE BOTPRT PORT SIDE
BOTTOM DECK
GRPDES AFT AFT END RKE RAKE END
GRPDES ACC ACCOMODATIONS SPL SUPPLY CRANES
GRPDES FLR FLARE TOWER OF1 OFFLOADING ARM 1
GRPDES OF2 OFFLOADING ARM 2 OF3 OFFLOADING ARM 3
GRPDES OF4 OFFLOADING ARM 4 LG1 LNG TANK 1
GRPDES LG2 LNG TANK 2 LG3 LNG TANK 3
GRPDES LG4 LNG TANK 4 LG5 LNG TANK 5
DWNFLD BOW, PORT SIDE 9

DWNFLD BOW, STARB SIDE 5
DWNFLD AFT, PORT SIDE 8
DWNFLD AFT, STARB SIDE 4
*TNKTBL 1
JOINT 1 0.000 0.000 0.000

JOINT 2 0.000-32.500 0.000
JOINT 3 340.000-32.500 0.000
JOINT 4 0.000-32.500 33.000
JOINT 5 360.000-32.500 33.000
JOINT 6 0.000 32.500 0.000
JOINT 7 340.000 32.500 0.000
JOINT 8 0.000 32.500 33.000
JOINT 9 360.000 32.500 33.000
JOINT 10 0.000-24.000 33.000
JOINT 11 0.000 24.000 33.000
JOINT 12 0.000-24.000 48.000
JOINT 13 0.000 24.000 48.000
JOINT 14 12.000-24.000 33.000
JOINT 15 12.000 24.000 33.000
JOINT 16 12.000-24.000 48.000
JOINT 17 12.000 24.000 48.000
JOINT 18 175.000-27.500 33.000
JOINT 19 185.000-27.500 33.000
JOINT 20 185.000-27.500 73.000
JOINT 21 195.000-27.500 33.000
JOINT 22 175.000-27.500 73.000
JOINT 23 195.000-27.500 73.000
JOINT 24 165.000-27.500 33.000
JOINT 25 165.000-27.500 73.000
JOINT 26 175.000-27.500 73.000
JOINT 27 175.000-67.500 73.000
JOINT 28 185.000-27.500 73.000
JOINT 29 185.000-67.500 73.000
JOINT 30 195.000-27.500 73.000
JOINT 31 195.000-67.500 73.000
JOINT 32 350.000 22.500 33.000
JOINT 33 165.000-67.500 73.000
JOINT 34 350.000 22.500 93.000
JOINT 35 240.000 25.000 33.000
JOINT 36 240.000 25.000 73.000
JOINT 37 240.000 65.000 73.000
JOINT 38 100.000-25.000 33.000
JOINT 39 100.000-25.000 73.000
JOINT 40 100.000-65.000 73.000
JOINT 41 4.300-21.600 4.300
JOINT 42 4.300 21.600 4.300
JOINT 43 4.300-21.600 28.700
JOINT 44 4.300 21.600 28.700
JOINT 45 67.400-21.600
67.400-21.600 4.300
JOINT 46 67.400 21.600 4.300
JOINT 47 67.400-21.600 28.700
JOINT 48 67.400 21.600 28.700
JOINT 49 0.052-32.500 0.052
JOINT 50 0.052-32.500 32.846
JOINT 51 0.052-25.946 0.052
JOINT 52 0.052-25.946 32.846
JOINT 53 34.000-32.500 0.052
JOINT 54 34.000-32.500 32.846
JOINT 55 34.000-25.946 0.052

JOINT 56 71.400-21.600 4.300
JOINT 57 71.400 21.600 4.300

PDF Designofafsruforoffshorewestafrica DL - PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Designofafsruforoffshorewestafrica DL - PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN OF A FLOATING STORAGE AND REGASIFICATION

OCEN 407 - Design of Ocean Engineering Facility

TAMU Team West Africa ISODC Report

List of Figures ..............

TAMU Team West Africa -1- ISODC Report

Figure 1 Flow Diagram

TAMU Team West Africa -2- ISODC Report

TAMU Team West Africa -3- ISODC Report

GM L Longitudinal Metacentric Height

TAMU Team West Africa -4- ISODC Report

in recent years on granting offshore construction permits in relation to LNG terminals.

infrastructure of sub-sea pipelines. Six members of Texas A&M University’s Ocean

as design constraints imposed by ConocoPhillips concerning operational expectations.

Such constraints consisted of the following:

• Must be able to process 1 billion

• Must have a storage capacity of 330,000 m3 of LNG

• Must maintain a constant draft condition while loading or offloading

• Must sustain offloading operations in a 1-year storm event

• Must sustain shoreline delivery of LNG in a 10-year

TAMU Team West Africa -5- ISODC Report

• Must survive a 100-year storm event

With these parameters defined, the team began its analysis.

input from industry representatives, the team decided to design

• Length between perpendiculars (LBP) – 340 m

Flexible” offloading mechanisms designed by Technip-Coflexip. This system was

TAMU Team West Africa -6- ISODC Report

not be available from Technip-Coflexip upon project completion; therefore, a

offloading system without a significant redesign or reanalysis.

LNG tanks, and topside equipment, is 91,235

analysis using StabCAD, a graphically-oriented simulation program.

TAMU Team West Africa -7- ISODC Report

Therefore, the terminal meets the ABS damaged stability requirements.

Global Loading/General Strength and Structural Design:

A global loading and general

thickness of 0.032m (1.25in).

• Significant wave heights: 2.29 m, 2.66 m, and 3.04 m

• Peak periods: 15.0 s, 15.3 s, and 15.5 s

TAMU Team West Africa -8- ISODC Report

• Periods of maximum wave: 13.4 s, 13.6 s, and 13.8 s

• Bow Seas: 698.8 kN, 827.8 kN, and 1090.3 kN

• Beam Seas: 3436.7 kN, 4165.8 kN, and 5328.1 kN

• Quartering Seas: 949.7 kN, 1128.1 kN, and 1463.9 kN

• Heave: 10.74 s and 10.74 s

• Pitch: 5.37 s and 5.37 s

• Roll: 9.30 s and 9.39 s

TAMU Team West Africa -9- ISODC Report

terminal motion meets the requirements for both offloading systems.

directional nature of the environmental conditions. A mooring system consisting of 12

ConocoPhillips provided Team West Africa with the unit cost

Spain, including construction, transportation, and contingency, is US $563 million.

TAMU Team West Africa - 10 - ISODC Report

• Dr. Robert Randall, TAMU

TAMU Team West Africa - 11 - ISODC Report

require the most

TAMU Team West Africa - 12 - ISODC Report

Figure 1 Flow Diagram of the LNG Regasification Process

1.3 Field Trip

TAMU Team West Africa - 13 - ISODC Report

1.4 Design Constraints

The shoaled wave characteristics can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Shoaled Wave Characteristics

Table 2 Current Characteristics

TAMU Team West Africa - 14 - ISODC Report