FLOATING STORAGE AND REGASIFICATION UNIT...

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................................................................................................................................................. 3 Nomenclature................................................................................................................................................ 4 Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 11 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 12

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Objective ................................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 Field Trip................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Design Constraints .................................................................................................................... 14 1.5 Environment .............................................................................................................................. 14 1.6 Social and Political Issues ......................................................................................................... 16 1.7 Sustainability and Manufacturability......................................................................................... 16 1.8 Team Organization .................................................................................................................... 17 1.9 Gantt Charts............................................................................................................................... 18

2 Competency Areas ............................................................................................................................ 21 2.1 Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................................. 21

2.1.1 Fire Safety ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.2 General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Design............................................................ 24

2.2.1 Ship Shape Barge with Spherical Tanks............................................................................... 25 2.2.2 Catamaran Hull with SPB Tanks .......................................................................................... 26 2.2.3 Selected Design and General Layout.................................................................................... 27

2.3 Weight, Buoyancy and Stability................................................................................................ 34 2.4 Global Loading.......................................................................................................................... 41 2.5 General Strength and Structural Design .................................................................................... 43 2.6 Wind and Current Loading........................................................................................................ 48 2.7 Mooring/Station Keeping .......................................................................................................... 52 2.8 Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading.................................................................................. 57 2.9 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................. 62

3 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 62 4 References.......................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix A: Lightship weight spreadsheet ............................................................................................. 65 Appendix B: Mimosa Input and Output Files.......................................................................................... 67 Appendix C: StabCAD Input and Output................................................................................................ 79

TAMU Team West Africa - 1 - ISODC Report

List of Figures Figure 1 Flow Diagram of the LNG Regasification Process .................................................................... 13 Figure 2 One Hour Sustained Wind Speed Directional Distribution........................................................ 15 Figure 3 Wave Characteristics and Direction Distribution....................................................................... 15 Figure 4 Current Direction Distribution ................................................................................................... 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-Shape Barge with Turret Mooring..................................................................................... 25 Figure 8 Catamaran Hull with Spread Mooring ....................................................................................... 26 Figure 9 Catamaran Hull with Single-Point Mooring............................................................................... 27 Figure 10 Bow View of Selected Design ................................................................................................... 29 Figure 11 Beam View of Selected Design.................................................................................................. 29 Figure 12 Isometric View of Selected Design ............................................................................................ 30 Figure 13 Topside Configuration of Processing Equipment....................................................................... 30 Figure 14 Processing Equipment Locations ............................................................................................... 31 Figure 15 LNG and Ballast Tank Configuration ........................................................................................ 32 Figure 16 Stowed Position of Offloading System ...................................................................................... 33 Figure 17 Offloading System Connected to Carrier’s Manifold................................................................. 34 Figure 18 StabCAD Exploded Panel View ................................................................................................ 35 Figure 19 LNG Tank Configuration........................................................................................................... 36 Figure 20 Ballast Tank Configuration ........................................................................................................ 36 Figure 21 Metacenters ................................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 22 Intact Stability Curve with KG=17.4 m ..................................................................................... 37 Figure 23 Cross Curves of Stability ........................................................................................................... 38 Figure 24 Damaged Stability, Starboard Aft Ballast Tank ......................................................................... 39 Figure 25 Damaged Stability, Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 damaged ................................................................ 40 Figure 26 Topside Loading ........................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 27 Load Case 1................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 28 Load Case 1 Results ................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 29 Load Case 2................................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 30 Load Case 2 Results ................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 31 Load Case 3................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 32 Load Case 3 Results ................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 33 ABS Longitudinal Hull Girder Strength .................................................................................... 48 Figure 34 Cross-Section of Longitudinal Beam ......................................................................................... 48 Figure 35 Beam View with Height Ranges for Environmental Calculations ............................................. 49 Figure 36 Bow View with Height Ranges for Environmental Calculations............................................... 50 Figure 37 Horizontal Layout of Mooring Lines ......................................................................................... 53 Figure 38 Comparison of Line Lengths...................................................................................................... 54 Figure 39 Comparison of Line Tension and Line Size ............................................................................... 56 Figure 40 Energy Density........................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 41 RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading ......................................................................................... 60 Figure 42 RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading .................................................................................. 60


List of Tables Table 1 Shoaled Wave Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 14 Table 2 Current Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 3 Team Assignment - General Roles .............................................................................................. 17 Table 4 Team Assignments - Competency Tasks..................................................................................... 18 Table 5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Catamaran Hull and Ship Shape Barge................................. 28 Table 6 Masses of Terminal Components (Lightship) ............................................................................. 34 Table 7 Centers of Mass and Drafts in Loaded/Unloaded Conditions ..................................................... 35 Table 8 Stability Criteria for Intact Condition.......................................................................................... 38 Table 9 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Aft Ballast Tank ...................................................... 39 Table 10 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 ............................................................. 40 Table 11 Stability Under Different Damage Scenarios .............................................................................. 41 Table 12 Weight and Location of Point Loads........................................................................................... 42 Table 13 Weight and Location of Distributed Loads.................................................................................. 43 Table 14 Comparison of the Three Load Cases.......................................................................................... 46 Table 15 Area Moment of 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.................................... 51 Table 19 Environmental Forces for 100-Year Return Period..................................................................... 52 Table 20 Environmental Forces for 10-Year Return Period....................................................................... 52 Table 21 Environmental Forces for 1- Year Return Period........................................................................ 52 Table 22 Chain Characteristics................................................................................................................... 54 Table 23 Maximum Tensions For 100 Year Survival Condition................................................................ 55 Table 24 Loading Percentages For 5, 4.5, 4 Inch Chain For API Intact Case ............................................ 55 Table 25 Maximum Tensions for Different Lengths of 4.5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event ....... 57 Table 26 Heave Period for Vessel (Unloaded and Loaded) ....................................................................... 59 Table 27 Uncoupled Natural Periods in Heave, Pitch, and Roll for the Vessel.......................................... 59 Table 28 Displacement of LNG Terminal .................................................................................................. 61 Table 29 LNGC Displacement with 60° Heading ...................................................................................... 61 Table 30 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................... 62


Nomenclature CAM Added Mass Coefficient CB Block Coefficient CW Waterplane Coefficient D Draft g Gravity

T

L

GM

GM Longitudinal Metacentric Height

Transverse Metacentric Height KS 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 Vesseln 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 γA Peak Enhancement Factor


Executive Summary Introduction: The world’s energy demand is growing far more rapidly than the energy industry 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 cubic feet (bcf) of gas per day

• 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 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 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 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 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

horizontal) of the FMC mechanical offloading arms for vertical displacement. Since the


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) chain 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 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.


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 Noble, ConocoPhillips • Rodney King, 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 gas, which generates an immense need for imported gas. Some regions that have unexploited natural gas reserves, for example the Middle East, would like to monetize their ample 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 essentially covered six topics. Each topic had one or two speakers for a total 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 off the coast of West Africa is very benign. Data provided by ConocoPhillips were only applicable for the 20-30 meter water depth. Since the given depth at site is 40 meters the data given had to first be reverse shoaled using the standard shoaling equation, shown below.

nLLn

HHK s

00

0

== (1)

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 sustained distribution for 100 Year Return Period (m/s)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

One hour sustained

N

E

S

W

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

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.00

Peak wave period (s)Max wave period (s)Max wave height (m)Sig wave height (m)

N

S

W E

Figure 3 Wave Characteristics 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 Distribution for 100 Year Return Period (m/s)

0.000.200.400.600.801.00

Surface25% depth75% depthBottom

N

S

W E

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

Regulatory Compliance Flor Foreman, Jennifer Dupalo,

Steven Schaefer

General Arrangement and Overall Hull/System Designs (AutoCAD) Everyone

Weight, Buoyancy and Stability (StabCAD)

April Van Valkenburg, Flor

Foreman, Regan Miller, Rolla

Wattinger

Environmental Loading April Van Valkenburg, Regan

Miller, Rolla Wattinger

Mooring/Station Keeping Flor Foreman, Rolla Wattinger,

Steven Schaefer

Hydrodynamics of Motions and Loading Jennifer Dupalo, Regan Miller,

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

1 Design criteria 30 days2 Identify design problem 4 days3 Organize design groups 4 days4 Obtain industry contacts 6 wks5 Define problem 3 wks6 Brainstorming & research 4 wks7 Establish design criteria 19 days8 Research classification g 3 wks9 Alternate solutions 34 days10 Determine alternate solut 22 days11 Design & analyze alterna 29 days12 Computer simulations for 15 days13 Draft midterm report 5 days14 Finalize midterm report & 3 days15 Submit midterm report 0 days16 Select best design 5 days17 Review industry/instructo 5 days18 Select best alternate des 5 days19 Revise chosen design op 3 days20 SNAME presentation 4 days21 Prepare/practice SNAME 3 days22 Give presentation to SNA 0 days23 Final report & presentation 22 days24 Refine final design 3 wks25 Prepare final report 2 wks26 Organize final oral prese 3 days27 Rehearse final oral prese 3 days28 Present final oral present 0 days29 Refine & complete final r 3 days30 Submit final report 0 days

3/12

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 SJan 25, '04 Feb 1, '04 Feb 8, '04 Feb 15, '04 Feb 22, '04 Feb 29, '04 Mar 7, '04 Mar

Figure 5 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, January 25 through March 14


ID Task Name Duration

1 Design criteria 30 days2 Identify design problem 4 days3 Organize design groups 4 days4 Obtain industry contacts 6 wks5 Define problem 3 wks6 Brainstorming & research 4 wks7 Establish design criteria 19 days8 Research classification g 3 wks9 Alternate solutions 34 days10 Determine alternate solu 22 days11 Design & analyze alterna 29 days12 Computer simulations for 15 days13 Draft midterm report 5 days14 Finalize midterm report & 3 days15 Submit midterm report 0 days16 Select best design 5 days17 Review industry/instructo 5 days18 Select best alternate des 5 days19 Revise chosen design op 3 days20 SNAME presentation 4 days21 Prepare/practice SNAME 3 days22 Give presentation to SNA 0 days23 Final report & presentation 22 days24 Refine final design 3 wks25 Prepare final report 2 wks26 Organize final oral prese 3 days27 Rehearse final oral prese 3 days28 Present final oral present 0 days29 Refine & complete final r 3 days30 Submit final report 0 days

4/2

4/30

5

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 WMar 14, '04 Mar 21, '04 Mar 28, '04 Apr 4, '04 Apr 11, '04 Apr 18, '04 Apr 25, '04 May 2, '04

Figure 6 Gantt Chart for Team West Africa, March 14 through May 5


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 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 are calculated by using the equation in 3-4/5b. Wind loading has several equations

from 3-4/7.1b which help to calculate wind pressure and wind velocity. These 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 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:

cwcwcw WfLP = (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 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 iii. Blowout preventer control system iv. 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, smoke detectors, an alarm panel, fire and gas detection wiring, and a general 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 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 flare font wellheads”. Its shut in pressure is required to be a minimum of 600psi. Firewalls are also used to protect from “fire hazard to the vessels.” On the terminal, it is required to have marshalling areas for personnel before entering the lifeboats. Steel and Fiber Reinforced Plastic are to be used to construct these marshalling areas, as well as the lifesaving embankment areas. The material chosen must be in accordance with the Flag Administration in Appendix 3 of the ABS manual. Two escape routes have to be 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, 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 important issue, which are required to comply with ABS standards. Fireman’s outfits and breathing 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 need 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.


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 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. This would allow the entire platform 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 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 would not be cost-effective. Secondly, the 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 Disadvantages of Catamaran Hull and Ship Shape Barge

Design Advantages Disadvantages

Catamaran Hull Innovative design Inability to align itself to weather conditions (short

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 roll/pitch/yaw conditions Difficulty in construction (two shipyards required)

Shallow draft Fatigue and bending stresses on centerline of main deck between hulls

Ship Shape Barge

Well-established and proven design Limited deck space

Flexibility in selecting mooring systems Constructability constraint (length and width of hull)

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 View 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 Selected Design

Figure 13 Topside Configuration of Processing Equipment


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 terminal will be able to accept and process a carrier benchmark of 255,000m3 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 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 Ballast 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 arranged in a side-by-side layout with six meters of spacing between each unit. The arms are located at mid-ship along the starboard side of the terminal. Three of the arms serve 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 Offloading 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 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 Connected 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 Stability Curve with KG=17.4 m

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

Stability Criterion

Allowable KG (m)

Range of Stability (degrees)

Area Ratio 1st Intercept (degrees)

2nd Intercept (degrees)

Actual KG of terminal 17.40 36.84 25.27 0.35 85.00

Area ratio = 1.4 36.60 27.90 1.40 11.53 25.90 Intact ROS =

7.0 36.60 26.81 1.01 13.78 24.87

ROS btwn 1st & 2nd intercepts =

7.0 34.89 36.84 5.32 1.91 36.83

1st intercept @ 15o heel 36.60 26.81 1.01 13.78 24.87

2nd intercept @ 30o heel 36.27 31.75 2.77 5.21 30.00

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 Stability, Starboard Aft Ballast Tank

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 Starboard Aft Ballast Tank

Stability Criterion Allowable KG (m)


Static Angle (degrees)

1st Intercept (degrees)



Heel Arm = Right Arm 35.90 15.45 18.87 20.00 20.00

Damage ROS = 7.0 35.39 28.14 6.13 6.86 33.66

Static Angle = 15.0 33.93 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 & 2nd = 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 Stability, Starboard Tanks 1 & 2 damaged

Table 10 Stability Criteria for Damage in Starboard Tanks 1 & 2

Stability Criterion

Allowable KG (m)


Static Angle (degrees)

1st Intercept (degrees)



Heel Arm = Right Arm 33.63 13.25 19.10 20.00 20.00

Damage ROS = 7.0 32.75 20.44 11.91 12.58 31.73

Static Angle = 15.0 30.15 13.83 15.00 15.69 28.01

Area Ratio = 1.0 33.59 6.31 18.61 19.48 21.41

RM/HM Ratio = 2.0 33.48 7.10 18.24 19.10 22.77

ROS 1st & 2nd = 7.0 32.59 20.86 11.49 12.13 32.30

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 Damage Scenarios

Number of damaged tanks (starboard side) Allowable KG (m)

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

Longitudinal axis (m)

Wei

ght (

kN)

Acc.

H20

P4101BOG Unit

G4101

Figure 26 Topside Loading

Table 12 Weight and Location of Point Loads

Unit Force (kN) Location 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 and Location of Distributed Loads

Unit Starting

magnitude (kN) Starting Location

from FP (m) Ending

Magnitude (kN) Ending Location

from 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 1 -5305.8 4.2 -5305.8 67.4 LNG 2 -5305.8 71.3 -5305.8 134.5 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.


Load Case 2

This load case evaluates the beaeither end of the beam as seen in340m, the length of the vessel.terminal, it is still very unlikelycase scenario is discussed in Loa

Figure 30 below shows the mashear force of 97.9 MN occurs shear force of -97.1 MN occurs10,700 MN-m occurs at mid-shi

TAMU Team West Africa

Shear

t
Momen
n
Deflectio
Figure 28 Load Case 1 Results

m under one of the two worst case scenarios, where a wave crest occurs at Figure 29. Load Case 2 only occurs in conditions where the wavelength is While this condition could potentially occur over the service life of the as the wavelength in the 100 year storm is only 273m. A more likely worst d Case 3.


ximum shear, moment and deflection under Load Case 2. The maximum at 74.4m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal, and the minimum at 266m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme sagging moment of p along with the largest deflection of 375mm downwards.

- 44 - ISODC Report

Load Case 3

This load case evaluates the bealocated at mid-ship as seen inwavelength is larger than half tare all larger than this value ther

Figure 32 below shows the mmaximum shear force of 90.5 Mminimum shear force of -89.2 Mmoment of 9,120 MN-m occursload case occurs at mid-ship and


Shear

t
Momen
n
Deflectio

m under the second of the two worst case scenarios where a wave crest is Figure 31. This scenario could occur in storm conditions where the

he length of the vessel, 170m. Wavelengths of the 1, 10, and 100 yr storm efore this scenario could occur in any of these storm conditions.


aximum shear, moment and deflection under this load condition. The N occurs at 273m from the forward perpendicular of the terminal, and the N occurs at 67.3m from the forward perpendicular. An extreme hogging

at 174m from the forward perpendicular. The largest deflection under this is 316mm upwards.

- 45 - ISODC Report

A comparison of the stresses antwo produced the largest magnchecked with those found from athe corresponding maximum all

The moment of inertia was alsvalue was then used with the thickness shown in

Table 15. The thickness was det

Tabl

Load Case Max She

1 -1

2 97

3 90


Shear

t
Momen
n
Deflectio

d moments produced from each load case is shown in Table 14. Load case itudes of shear, moment, and bending stresses. These values were then n ABS analysis shown below in Figure 33 and were found to be lower than

owable values.

o calculated using ABS guidelines, which yielded 1.45x107cm2-m2. This cross-sectional area shown in Figure 34 to determine a minimum hull

ermined to be 0.032m (1.25 in).

e 14 Comparison of the Three Load Cases

ar (MN) Max Moment (MN-m) Max Bending Stress (MPa)

7 786 8.97 (keel)

.9 10,700 122 (keel)

.5 -9,120 104 (deck)

- 46 - ISODC Report

Longitudinal Hull Girder Strength: Wave Loads

Wave Bending Moment Amidships

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 Force

max positive shear force (kN) max negative shear force (kN) Fwp 11916762.01 Fwn -11966004.81

Fwp=+kF1C1LB(Cb+0.7)x10-2 Fwn=-kF2C1LB(Cb+0.7)x10-2

F1 k 30 F2 0/340m 0 0/340m 0

68-102m 0.923801653 68-102m 0.92 136-204m 0.7 136-204m 0.7 238-289m 1 238-289m 1.004132231

Fwp(0/340m) 0 Fwp(0/340m) 0 Fwp (68-102m) 11008724.44 Fwp (68-102m) -10963421.03 Fwp(136-204m) 8341733.41 Fwp(136-204m) -8341733.39 Fwp(238-289m) 11916762.01 Fwp(238-289m) -11966004.81

Still Water

Bending 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 Modulus

Section Modulus (cm2-m) Minimum Section Modulus (cm2-m) SM 1416570.762 SM 841680.71

SM=Mt/fp SM=C1C2L2B(Cb+0.7) Total Bending Moment, Mt=Msw+Mw (kN-m) 24789988.34 C2 0.01

Nominal permissible bending stress, fp (kN/cm2) 17.5

Hull Girder Moment of Inertia I=L*SM/33.3 (cm2-m2) 14463485.26


Figure 33 ABS Longitudinal Hull Girder Strength

B5

B1 B2 B3 B4 B6 B7 B8

Figure 34 Cross-Section of Longitudinal Beam

Table 15 Area Moment of Inertia

MEMBER Base (m)

Height (m)

dy (m)

dx (m)

Area (m^2) 1/12bh^3 1/12b^3h Ady^2 Adx^2

B1 0.03 32.95 0.00 32.49 0.85 76.88 0.00 0.00 896.96B2 0.03 29.42 1.76 28.51 0.76 54.75 0.00 2.36 616.99B3 0.03 29.42 1.76 28.51 0.76 54.75 0.00 2.36 616.99B4 0.03 32.95 0.00 32.49 0.85 76.88 0.00 0.00 896.96B5 65.00 0.03 16.49 0.00 1.68 0.00 590.30 455.74 0.00 B6 57.05 0.03 12.96 0.00 1.47 0.00 399.15 247.22 0.00 B7 0.03 3.50 14.72 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 19.57 0.00 B8 65.00 0.03 16.49 0.00 1.68 0.00 590.30 455.74 0.00

Ixx (m4): 1446.35 sums: 263.36 1579.76 1182.99 3027.90Thickness 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 Loading

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 17 below.

Table 17 Area Classifications for Environmental Loading 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 Calculations


Figure 36 Bow View with Height Ranges for Environmental Calculations

The wind and wave forces are calculated using the spreadsheet on the following page.


Table 18 Wind and Wave Loading Calculations Spreadsheet for 100 Year Storm

Environmental Load Calculations (Ship-Shape FSRU) Wind Force

Wind Speed Vw(knots) 29.158 alpha 1.180

Projected Areas ft2 (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) 0.016SVc2 1289032.859SVc2 1289032.859Theta 10.000Csy(Beam Sea) 0.400Fc(kips) 20.625Fc(kips) 515.613 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 Height 9.961 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 Return Period


Wind 216.4 631.5 250.0

Current 20.6 515.6 50.5


Total Force(Kips) 245.1 1197.8 329.1

Table 20 Environmental Forces for 10-Year Return 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 Period


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 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 (in) Size (m)

Weight in water (kN/n)

Breaking Strength (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.

Eight vs Twelve leg system

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Leng

th (m

)

1

6.5 line6.5 line total5 line 5 line total

6.5 inch single leg length

6.5 inch total chain length

5 inch single leg length

5 inch total chain length

Eight Leg (6.5 inch) vs Twelve Leg (5 inch) System

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 Tensions For 100 Year Survival Condition

Size (in) Size (m) Max Tension (kN) Breaking Strength

(kN) Safety 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 Intact Case

Size (in) Size (m)

Max tension (kN)

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.


Tension vs. Line Size Intact

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1

Line Sizes

Tens

ions

(kN

)

5 inch BS5 inch60%5 inch found4.5 inch BS4.5 inch60%4.5 inch found4 inch BS4 inch60%4 inch found

5" 60%

5" Exp

4.5" BS

4.5" 60%

4.5" Exp

4" BS

4" 60%

4" Exp

5" BS

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 Lengths of 4.5 Inch Chain in the Intact 100 Year Event

Length (m)

Max Tension (kN) L%

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, and length of the system have been decided the last thing 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 kg is found. This is the ultimate holding power of the anchor in kg, In units of tonnes, the mass in kilograms is divided by 1000, yielding 857.3 t. Using the chart contained within the manual 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 Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP) wave spectrum equation is a method of analyzing the environmental data for a nonlinear wave. When graphed the JONSWAP curve has a narrow bandwidth and a high peak. To execute a JONSWAP analysis, the following equation is employed:

2 5( ) 0.3125 ( / ) exp[ 1.25( / ) 4] (1 0.287) ln( ) AS P P PS f H T f f f f γ γ−= − − × − (3)

where the coefficients A and σ are:

2exp[ 0.5( / ) ]0.070.09

P P

P

P

A f f ff ff f

σσσ

= − −= <= >


A graphical representation of the JONSWAP analysis can be seen in the figure below.

Energy Density of the Wave using Jonswap Analysis

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Frequency (rad/s)

S(f)

Figure 40 Energy Density

The natural spectral peak period of the wave in a 1-year return period is 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:

)1(2 AMW

B CgD

CCT += π (4)

The formula for the uncoupled natural period in pitch is:

2( )2 A

L

M M rTg GM

πρ+

=∀

(5)

The uncoupled natural period in roll for this structure is:

2( )2 A

T

M M rTg GM

πρ+

=∀

(6)

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 natural period in heave can be seen in Table 26 below.


Table 26 Heave Period for Vessel (Unloaded and Loaded)

Units Metric English Block Coefficient CB 0.99 0.99 Waterplane Area Coefficient CW 1.00 1.00 Waterplane Area (m2, ft2) AW 22,556 242,792 Draft (m, ft) D 11.58 37.99 Gravity (m/s2, ft/s2) g 9.81 32.18 Mass of the Vessel (kg, slug) M 91,235,000 6,251,584 Added Mass (kg, slug) Ma 136,852,500 9,377,376 Added Mass Coefficient CAM 1.50 1.50 Heave Natural Period (s) T 10.74 10.74

The results are determined in metric and English units to ensure accuracy. The results for the uncoupled periods in heave, pitch, and roll are shown in Table 27 below.

Table 27 Uncoupled Natural Periods in Heave, Pitch, and Roll for the Vessel

Natural Period (s) Frequency (rad/s) Motion Direction Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded

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, 13.6, 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

0.00E+00

2.00E-01

4.00E-01

6.00E-01

8.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.20E+00

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Frequency (rad/s)

Res

pons

e (m

/m) Heave

Pitch

Roll

Surge

Sway

Yaw

Figure 41 RAO Response in 0 Degree Heading

RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading

0.00E+00

2.00E-01

4.00E-01

6.00E-01

8.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.20E+00

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Fr e que nc y ( r a d/ s)

Heave

Pit ch

Roll

Surge

Sway

Yaw

Figure 42 RAO Response for 67.5 Degree Heading


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 mPitch 0.58° 0.43° 0.00 0.58°Roll 0.00 0.23° 3.13° 0.00Surge 0.69 m 0.85 m 0.00 0.69 mYaw 0.00 0.01 m 0.00 0.00Sway 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 Significant Maximum

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 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 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 7,500 $ 43 $ 39 $ 36 Hull Machinery 1,000 $ 1 $ 1 $ - Electric Outfitting 1,000 $ 2 $ 2 $ - Accommodations 800 $ 23 $ 21 $ 24 Cargo 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 Owners’ Costs & Contingency $ 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 when selecting the mooring lines. The overall ship dimensions are 340 m in length between perpendiculars, 360 m in overall length, 65 m in width, 33 m in height, a calculated draft of 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.

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, 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 Spending will reach $39 billion by 2007.” Oil and Gas Journal,

January 2004. Share, Jeff. “Sempra Energy Credits Success On Its Own Risk Management System.” Pipeline and Gas

Journal, September 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.” Oil and Gas

Journal, November 2003. Vryhof Anchor Manual, Vryhof Anchor Company, 2000.


Appendix A: Lightship weight spreadsheet Lightship Weight & Total WeightDimensionsLength (L) 340 m L/B 5.23 4.5-6.0 BMT (est.) 30.417 mWidth (B) 65 m L/H 10.30 8.0-13.0 KMT (est.) 36.205 mHeight (H) 33 m B/H 1.97 1.7-2.3 KGT (est.) 5.788 mDraft (T) 11.58 m Block c_b 0.972 BML (est.) 832 mFreebrd 21.42 m KML (est.) 838 m

Number of longitudinal bulkheads 0 SPBNumber of transverse bulkheads 0 Number of tanks 5

Spacing btwn LNG tanks 4 mMass per unit area (kg/m2) 405 kg/m2 Spacing btwn LNG and wing blsts 3 mDensity of steel 7850 kg/m3 Spacing btwn LNG and top/btm 4.5 mEquivalent plate thickness 0.0516 m

2.03 in Wing ballast tank width 4 mBtm ballast tank height 3.5 m

SA of front 2508 m2

SA of back 2145 m2 Total volume of cargo hold 347106SA of port side 11550 m2 LNG storage volume 330378 m3

SA of starboard side 11550 m2 Thickness of steel 0.250 mSA of bottom 22100 m2 Volume per tank 66076 m3

SA of top 23400 m2 Length of tank 63.2Width of tank 51.0

Total SA of hull 73253 m2 Height of tank 20.5SA of each long. bulkhead 11550 m2

SA of each trans. bulkhead 2145 m2 Volume of reqd ballast 145044Reqd wing ballast width 4.000 m

Overall SA of lightship 73253 m2 Reqd btm ballast height 3.500 mMass of hull 29667543 kg Actual blst tank volume (total) 154674 m3

Mass of hull 29668 mtSurface area of tanks 55643 m2

Weight of hull 291039 kN Unit weight of tanks 73 kg/m2

955295 tonf Total mass of all insulation 4061939 kgDisplacement 257224 tonnes 4062 mt


Total mass of aluminum 19272 mtWeight of LNG (kN) 1458454 kN Total mass of LNG tanks (empty) 23334 mt

291691 kN/tank Total weight of LNG tanks (empty) 228906 kNMass of LNG 29734 mt/tank

148670 mt total Ballast TanksTotal number of blst tanks 10

Outfitting masses Number of tanks per side 5Electrical (mt) 1000 Wing Tank Width (inner) 3.9484 mMechanical (mt) 1000 Wing Tank Height (inner) 32.8968 mOutfitting equipment (mt) 7000 Bottom Tank Length (inner) 32.3968 mAccommodation (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 mt Total surface area of ballast tanks 33910 m2

12600000 kg Total mass of ballast tanks 13733 mtTotal outfitting weight 405720 tonf Total weight of ballast tanks 134725 kN

123606 kNMass of Mooring Lines 581 mt

79335 mt79334999 kg

778276 kN

Theoretical Lightship Mass 79335 mtTheoretical Loaded Mass 228005 mtTheoretical Lightship Weight 778276 kNTheoretical Loaded Weight 2236730 kN

Margin (% confidence) 15 %Total Lightship Mass 91235 mtTotal Loaded Mass 262206 mtTotal Lightship Weight 895018 kNTotal Loaded Weight 2572240 kN

Mass of Vessel (Empty)


Appendix B: Mimosa Input and Output Files This appendix contains the input files for 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 and current loads. There are three different chain characteristic files used. Mooringsystem12 is the 4.5 inch chain file. This chain file contains all the characteristics 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 that was provided from Halliburton and KBR. It will not be included in this appendix due to document length constraints. It is available upon request if need. Output from Mimosa is included in this appendix. Report5 Twelve line 100 year condition for 4.5 inch chain.


Masswindcurrent2.dat 20000 Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients 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 130 7.666E+03 -9.136E+03 0 24115 140 8.202E+03 -6.882E+03 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 lichar 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 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 3 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 40.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 4 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -40.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 5 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 171.82 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -45.000 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 6 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 7 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -130.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 8 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 -32.500 'alfa tens xwinch -135.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA


'iline lichar 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 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 10 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 140.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 11 1 1 0 1 'tpx1 tpx2 -170.00 32.500 'alfa tens xwinch 135.00 500.00 0.00000 LINE DATA 'iline lichar inilin iwirun intact 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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 2 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 3


'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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 4 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 5 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 6 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 7 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 8 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 9 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 10 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 11 '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 LINE CHARACTERISTICS DATA 'lichar 12 '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 '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 : y:\masswindcurrent2.dat * Current force coefficients Text : Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients


MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 MARINTEK Page 2 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave Input file : y:\masswindcurrent2.dat * Wind force coefficients Text : Mass, Wind, Current Coefficients Input file : y:\g15m.sif * HF motion transfer functions Text : AKPO MOORING VERIFICATION - KBR 11/05/2003" Water depth used in calculation 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 18:14 MARINTEK Page 3 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * 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 parameter (SIGA) ... : 0.070 Spectrum width parameter (SIGB) ... : 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 kN Dir. rel. Vessel : 213.7 deg ------------------------- Dir. rel. North : 213.7 deg 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * 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 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * 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 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) ------------------------------------------------------- 1 672.5 2442.2 3996.3 14.44 2 757.0 2749.6 4599.9 14.44 3 843.4 3063.8 5271.2 14.44 4 487.5 1769.7 3551.8 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 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave * 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 MIMOSA Version 5.7-01 14-APR-2004 18:14 MARINTEK Page 8 12 line 100 year intact with 3.03 sig wave


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 the tanks from the rest of the vessel when running a damaged stability 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 STB STARBOARD SIDE PRT PORT SIDE GRPDES TOP MAIN DECK BOT 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 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 JOINT 58 71.400-21.600 28.700 JOINT 59 71.400 21.600 28.700 JOINT 60 134.500-21.600 4.300 JOINT 61 134.500 21.600 4.300 JOINT 62 134.500-21.600 28.700 JOINT 63 134.500 21.600 28.700 JOINT 64 138.500-21.600 4.300 JOINT 65 138.500 21.600 4.300 JOINT 66 138.500-21.600 28.700 JOINT 67 138.500 21.600 28.700 JOINT 68 201.600-21.600 4.300 JOINT 69 201.600 21.600 4.300 JOINT 70 201.600-21.600 28.700 JOINT 71 201.600 21.600 28.700 JOINT 72 205.600-21.600 4.300 JOINT 73 205.600 21.600 4.300 JOINT 74 205.600-21.600 28.700 JOINT 75 205.600 21.600 28.700 JOINT 76 268.700-21.600 4.300 JOINT 77 268.700 21.600 4.300 JOINT 78 268.700-21.600 28.700 JOINT 79 268.700 21.600 28.700 JOINT 80 272.700-21.600 4.300 JOINT 81 272.700 21.600 4.300 JOINT 82 272.700-21.600 28.700 JOINT 83 272.700 21.600 28.700 JOINT 84 335.800-21.600 4.300 JOINT 85 335.800 21.600 4.300 JOINT 86 335.800-21.600 28.700 JOINT 87 335.800 21.600 28.700 JOINT 88 34.000-25.946 32.846 JOINT 96 34.104-32.500 0.052 JOINT 97 34.104-32.500 32.846 JOINT 98 34.104-25.946 0.052 JOINT 99 34.104-25.946 32.846 JOINT 100 68.052-32.500 0.052 JOINT 101 68.052-32.500 32.846 JOINT 102 68.052-25.946 0.052 JOINT 103 68.052-25.946 32.846 JOINT 104 68.155-32.500 0.052 JOINT 105 68.155-32.500 32.846 JOINT 106 68.155-25.946 0.052 JOINT 107 68.155-25.946 32.846 JOINT 108 102.103-32.500 0.052 JOINT 109 102.103-32.500 32.846 JOINT 110 102.103-25.946 0.052 JOINT 111 102.103-25.946 32.846 JOINT 112 102.207-32.500 0.052 JOINT 113 102.207-32.500 32.846 JOINT 114 102.207-25.946 0.052 JOINT 115 102.207-25.946 32.846 JOINT 116 136.155-32.500 0.052 JOINT 117 136.155-32.500 32.846


JOINT 118 136.155-25.946 0.052 JOINT 119 136.155-25.946 32.846 JOINT 120 136.258-32.500 0.052 JOINT 121 136.258-32.500 32.846 JOINT 122 136.258-25.946 0.052 JOINT 123 136.258-25.946 32.846 JOINT 124 170.206-32.500 0.052 JOINT 125 170.206-32.500 32.846 JOINT 126 170.206-25.946 0.052 JOINT 127 170.206-25.946 32.846 JOINT 128 170.310-32.500 0.052 JOINT 129 170.310-32.500 32.846 JOINT 130 170.310-25.946 0.052 JOINT 131 170.310-25.946 32.846 JOINT 132 204.258-32.500 0.052 JOINT 133 204.258-32.500 32.846 JOINT 134 204.258-25.946 0.052 JOINT 135 204.258-25.946 32.846 JOINT 136 204.362-32.500 0.052 JOINT 137 204.362-32.500 32.846 JOINT 138 204.362-25.946 0.052 JOINT 139 204.362-25.946 32.846 JOINT 140 238.310-32.500 0.052 JOINT 141 238.310-32.500 32.846 JOINT 142 238.310-25.946 0.052 JOINT 143 238.310-25.946 32.846 JOINT 144 238.413-32.500 0.052 JOINT 145 238.413-32.500 32.846 JOINT 146 238.413-25.946 0.052 JOINT 147 238.413-25.946 32.846 JOINT 148 272.361-32.500 0.052 JOINT 149 272.361-32.500 32.846 JOINT 150 272.361-25.946 0.052 JOINT 151 272.361-25.946 32.846 JOINT 152 272.465-32.500 0.052 JOINT 153 272.465-32.500 32.846 JOINT 154 272.465-25.946 0.052 JOINT 155 272.465-25.946 32.846 JOINT 156 306.413-32.500 0.052 JOINT 157 306.413-32.500 32.846 JOINT 158 306.413-25.946 0.052 JOINT 159 306.413-25.946 32.846 JOINT 160 306.516-32.500 0.052 JOINT 161 306.516-32.500 32.846 JOINT 162 306.516-25.946 0.052 JOINT 163 306.516-25.946 32.846 JOINT 164 340.464-32.500 0.052 JOINT 165 340.464-32.500 32.846 JOINT 166 340.464-25.946 0.052 JOINT 167 340.464-25.946 32.846 JOINT 240 0.052 32.500 0.052 JOINT 241 0.052 32.500 32.846 JOINT 242 0.052 25.946 0.052 JOINT 243 0.052 25.946 32.846 JOINT 244 34.000 32.500 0.052 JOINT 245 34.000 32.500 32.846


JOINT 246 34.000 25.946 0.052 JOINT 247 34.000 25.946 32.846 JOINT 248 34.104 32.500 0.052 JOINT 249 34.104 32.500 32.846 JOINT 250 34.104 25.946 0.052 JOINT 251 34.104 25.946 32.846 JOINT 252 68.052 32.500 0.052 JOINT 253 68.052 32.500 32.846 JOINT 254 68.052 25.946 0.052 JOINT 255 68.052 25.946 32.846 JOINT 256 68.155 32.500 0.052 JOINT 257 68.155 32.500 32.846 JOINT 258 68.155 25.946 0.052 JOINT 259 68.155 25.946 32.846 JOINT 260 102.103 32.500 0.052 JOINT 261 102.103 32.500 32.846 JOINT 262 102.103 25.946 0.052 JOINT 263 102.103 25.946 32.846 JOINT 264 102.207 32.500 0.052 JOINT 265 102.207 32.500 32.846 JOINT 266 102.207 25.946 0.052 JOINT 267 102.207 25.946 32.846 JOINT 268 136.155 32.500 0.052 JOINT 269 136.155 32.500 32.846 JOINT 270 136.155 25.946 0.052 JOINT 271 136.155 25.946 32.846 JOINT 272 136.258 32.500 0.052 JOINT 273 136.258 32.500 32.846 JOINT 274 136.258 25.946 0.052 JOINT 275 136.258 25.946 32.846 JOINT 276 170.206 32.500 0.052 JOINT 277 170.206 32.500 32.846 JOINT 278 170.206 25.946 0.052 JOINT 279 170.206 25.946 32.846 JOINT 280 170.310 32.500 0.052 JOINT 281 170.310 32.500 32.846 JOINT 282 170.310 25.946 0.052 JOINT 283 170.310 25.946 32.846 JOINT 284 204.258 32.500 0.052 JOINT 285 204.258 32.500 32.846 JOINT 286 204.258 25.946 0.052 JOINT 287 204.258 25.946 32.846 JOINT 288 204.362 32.500 0.052 JOINT 289 204.362 32.500 32.846 JOINT 290 204.362 25.946 0.052 JOINT 291 204.362 25.946 32.846 JOINT 292 238.310 32.500 0.052 JOINT 293 238.310 32.500 32.846 JOINT 294 238.310 25.946 0.052 JOINT 295 238.310 25.946 32.846 JOINT 296 238.413 32.500 0.052 JOINT 297 238.413 32.500 32.846 JOINT 298 238.413 25.946 0.052 JOINT 299 238.413 25.946 32.846 JOINT 300 272.361 32.500 0.052 JOINT 301 272.361 32.500 32.846


JOINT 302 272.361 25.946 0.052 JOINT 303 272.361 25.946 32.846 JOINT 304 272.465 32.500 0.052 JOINT 305 272.465 32.500 32.846 JOINT 306 272.465 25.946 0.052 JOINT 307 272.465 25.946 32.846 JOINT 308 306.413 32.500 0.052 JOINT 309 306.413 32.500 32.846 JOINT 310 306.413 25.946 0.052 JOINT 311 306.413 25.946 32.846 JOINT 312 306.516 32.500 0.052 JOINT 313 306.516 32.500 32.846 JOINT 314 306.516 25.946 0.052 JOINT 315 306.516 25.946 32.846 JOINT 316 340.464 32.500 0.052 JOINT 317 340.464 32.500 32.846 JOINT 318 340.464 25.946 0.052 JOINT 319 340.464 25.946 32.846 PANEL STB 4 5 3 2 PANEL PRT 6 7 9 8 PANEL TOP 8 9 5 4 PANEL BOT 6 2 3 7 PANEL AFT 4 2 6 8 PANEL W ACC 12 10 11 13 PANEL W ACC 16 17 15 14 PANEL W ACC 12 16 14 10 PANEL W ACC 13 11 15 17 PANEL W ACC 12 13 17 16 PANEL W ACC 10 14 15 11 PANEL RKE 5 9 7 3 CYLIND W OF1 18 22 5.000 CYLIND W OF2 19 20 5.000 CYLIND W OF3 21 23 5.000 CYLIND W OF4 24 25 5.000 CYLIND W OF1 25 33 5.000 CYLIND W OF2 26 27 5.000 CYLIND W OF3 28 29 5.000 CYLIND W OF4 30 31 5.000 CYLIND W FLR 32 34 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 35 36 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 36 37 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 39 40 5.000 CYLIND W SPL 38 39 5.000 BODY 1 T 0.45 100. LNG STORAGE TANKS (5 TOTAL) TNKDEF 0.45 0. 0. 3. 15. 3. 24. PANEL LG1 42 44 43 41 PANEL LG1 47 48 46 45 PANEL LG1 47 43 44 48 PANEL LG1 42 41 45 46 PANEL LG1 42 46 48 44 PANEL LG1 47 45 41 43 PANEL LG2 57 59 58 56 PANEL LG2 62 63 61 60 PANEL LG2 62 58 59 63 PANEL LG2 57 56 60 61 PANEL LG2 57 61 63 59


PANEL LG2 62 60 56 58 PANEL LG3 65 67 66 64 PANEL LG3 70 71 69 68 PANEL LG3 70 66 67 71 PANEL LG3 65 64 68 69 PANEL LG3 65 69 71 67 PANEL LG3 70 68 64 66 PANEL LG4 73 75 74 72 PANEL LG4 78 79 77 76 PANEL LG4 78 74 75 79 PANEL LG4 73 72 76 77 PANEL LG4 73 77 79 75 PANEL LG4 78 76 72 74 PANEL LG5 81 83 82 80 PANEL LG5 86 87 85 84 PANEL LG5 86 82 83 87 PANEL LG5 81 80 84 85 PANEL LG5 81 85 87 83 PANEL LG5 86 84 80 82 BODY 2 D BALLAST, STARB AFT (1) PANEL S1 49 51 52 50 PANEL S1 54 88 55 53 PANEL S1 50 52 88 54 PANEL S1 52 51 55 88 PANEL S1 51 49 53 55 PANEL S1 50 54 53 49 BODY 3 D BALLAST, STARB 2 PANEL S2 96 98 99 97 PANEL S2 101 103 102 100 PANEL S2 97 99 103 101 PANEL S2 99 98 102 103 PANEL S2 98 96 100 102 PANEL S2 97 101 100 96 BODY 4 D BALLAST, STARB 3 PANEL S3 104 106 107 105 PANEL S3 109 111 110 108 PANEL S3 105 107 111 109 PANEL S3 107 106 110 111 PANEL S3 106 104 108 110 PANEL S3 105 109 108 104 BODY 5 D BALLAST, STARB 4 PANEL S4 112 114 115 113 PANEL S4 117 119 118 116 PANEL S4 113 115 119 117 PANEL S4 115 114 118 119 PANEL S4 114 112 116 118 PANEL S4 113 117 116 112 BODY 6 D BALLAST, STARB 5 PANEL S5 120 122 123 121 PANEL S5 125 127 126 124 PANEL S5 121 123 127 125 PANEL S5 123 122 126 127 PANEL S5 122 120 124 126 PANEL S5 121 125 124 120 BODY 7 D BALLAST, STARB 6 PANEL S6 128 130 131 129


PANEL S6 133 135 134 132 PANEL S6 129 131 135 133 PANEL S6 131 130 134 135 PANEL S6 130 128 132 134 PANEL S6 129 133 132 128 BODY 7 D BALLAST, STARB 7 PANEL S7 136 138 139 137 PANEL S7 141 143 142 140 PANEL S7 137 139 143 141 PANEL S7 139 138 142 143 PANEL S7 138 136 140 142 PANEL S7 137 141 140 136 BODY 8 D BALLAST, STARB 8 PANEL S8 144 146 147 145 PANEL S8 149 151 150 148 PANEL S8 145 147 151 149 PANEL S8 147 146 150 151 PANEL S8 146 144 148 150 PANEL S8 145 149 148 144 BODY 9 D BALLAST, STARB 9 PANEL S9 152 154 155 153 PANEL S9 157 159 158 156 PANEL S9 153 155 159 157 PANEL S9 155 154 158 159 PANEL S9 154 152 156 158 PANEL S9 153 157 156 152 BODY 10 D BALLAST, STARB 10 PANEL S10 160 162 163 161 PANEL S10 165 167 166 164 PANEL S10 161 163 167 165 PANEL S10 163 162 166 167 PANEL S10 162 160 164 166 PANEL S10 161 165 164 160 BODY 11 D BALLAST, PORT AFT (1) PANEL P1 241 243 242 240 PANEL P1 244 246 247 245 PANEL P1 245 247 243 241 PANEL P1 247 246 242 243 PANEL P1 246 244 240 242 PANEL P1 240 244 245 241 BODY 12 D BALLAST, PORT 2 PANEL P2 249 251 250 248 PANEL P2 252 254 255 253 PANEL P2 253 255 251 249 PANEL P2 255 254 250 251 PANEL P2 254 252 248 250 PANEL P2 248 252 253 249 BODY 13 D BALLAST, PORT 3 PANEL P3 257 259 258 256 PANEL P3 260 262 263 261 PANEL P3 261 263 259 257 PANEL P3 263 262 258 259 PANEL P3 262 260 256 258 PANEL P3 256 260 261 257 BODY 14 D BALLAST, PORT 4 PANEL P4 265 267 266 264


PANEL P4 268 270 271 269 PANEL P4 269 271 267 265 PANEL P4 271 270 266 267 PANEL P4 270 268 264 266 PANEL P4 264 268 269 265 BODY 15 D BALLAST, PORT 5 PANEL P5 273 275 274 272 PANEL P5 276 278 279 277 PANEL P5 277 279 275 273 PANEL P5 279 278 274 275 PANEL P5 278 276 272 274 PANEL P5 272 276 277 273 BODY 16 D BALLAST, PORT 6 PANEL P6 281 283 282 280 PANEL P6 284 286 287 285 PANEL P6 285 287 283 281 PANEL P6 287 286 282 283 PANEL P6 286 284 280 282 PANEL P6 280 284 285 281 BODY 17 D BALLAST, PORT 7 PANEL P7 289 291 290 288 PANEL P7 292 294 295 293 PANEL P7 293 295 291 289 PANEL P7 295 294 290 291 PANEL P7 294 292 288 290 PANEL P7 288 292 293 289 BODY 18 D BALLAST, PORT 8 PANEL P8 297 299 298 296 PANEL P8 300 302 303 301 PANEL P8 301 303 299 297 PANEL P8 303 302 298 299 PANEL P8 302 300 296 298 PANEL P8 296 300 301 297 BODY 19 D BALLAST, PORT 9 PANEL P9 305 307 306 304 PANEL P9 308 310 311 309 PANEL P9 309 311 307 305 PANEL P9 311 310 306 307 PANEL P9 310 308 304 306 PANEL P9 304 308 309 305 BODY 20 D BALLAST, PORT 10 (BOW) PANEL P10 313 315 314 312 PANEL P10 316 318 319 317 PANEL P10 317 319 315 313 PANEL P10 319 318 314 315 PANEL P10 318 316 312 314 PANEL P10 312 316 317 313 END OUTPUT FILE: StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS Page 1


The following Nomenclature is used in the computer output: Draft ... Measured from the base line (z=0, or x-y plane) Disp .... Displacemet of the vessel TPI ..... Tons/inch displacement KPI ..... Kips/inch displacement MT/Cm ... Metric Ton/ cm displacement KMT ..... Transverse metacentric height (measured from base line) KML ..... Longitudinal metacentric height (measured from base line) LCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Longitudinal) (measured from reference point for LCB & LCF) TCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Transverse) (measured from coordinate system origin) VCB ..... Center of Buoyancy position (Vertical) (measured from base line) WPA ..... Water plane Area BMT ..... Transv metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy) BML ..... Longit metacentric ht (from ctr of buoyancy) LCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Longitudinal) (measured from reference point for LCB & LCF) TCF ..... Center of Floatation position (Transverse) (measured from coordinate system origin) W.P.Moment of Inertia: Longitudinal About neutral axis of water plane area Transverse About neutral axis of water plane area Volume .. of submerged body Tilt Axis The angle of the tilt axis is measured from the posive x-axis Optimum tilt angle The minimum tilt angle at which the area ratio requirement is satisfied KG that satisfies : Heeling arm = Righting arm at or before the downflooding angle Static angle At which the righting moment is zero Area ratio = 1.0 For damage stability - starting at the static angle RM/HM Ratio KG that satisfies the requirement : Righting Moment/Heeling Moment >or= 2 within 7 deg past static angle Equilibrium position tilt angle


When vessel is in equilibrium and not at the upright position, the positive angle indicate that the part of the vessel to the right of the tilt axis is immersed in water StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS Page 2 * * * Hydrostatic Table * * * Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter (X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00 /--- Draft ---/ /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ /-Center of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged AFT FWD Disp TPI LCB TCB VCB LCF TCF Area Volume ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) (S.Meter) (M^3) ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----------- --------- 5.00 5.00 113767.2 228.55 0.76 0.00 2.50 1.51 0.00 22298.0 110992.4 5.20 5.20 118338.9 228.63 0.79 0.00 2.60 1.57 0.00 22305.6 115452.6 5.40 5.40 122912.2 228.71 0.82 0.00 2.70 1.64 0.00 22313.3 119914.4 5.60 5.60 127487.1 228.80 0.85 0.00 2.80 1.70 0.00 22321.6 124377.7 5.80 5.80 132063.7 228.88 0.88 0.00 2.90 1.75 0.00 22329.3 128842.6 6.00 6.00 136641.8 228.97 0.91 0.00 3.01 1.80 0.00 22338.4 133309.1 6.20 6.20 141221.6 229.05 0.94 0.00 3.11 1.88 0.00 22346.0 137777.1 6.40 6.40 145803.0 229.09 0.97 0.00 3.21 1.94 0.00 22350.6 142246.8 6.60 6.60 150386.0 229.19 1.00 0.00 3.31 2.01 0.00 22359.8 146718.0 6.80 6.80 154970.6 229.28 1.03 0.00 3.41 2.05 0.00 22368.9 151190.8 7.00 7.00 159556.8 229.36 1.06 0.00 3.51 2.12 0.00 22376.5 155665.2 7.20 7.20 164144.6 229.45 1.09 0.00 3.61 2.18 0.00 22385.7 160141.1 7.40 7.40 168734.1 229.52 1.12 0.00 3.71 2.25 0.00 22391.8 164618.6 7.60 7.60 173325.1 229.59 1.15 0.00 3.81 2.31 0.00 22399.4 169097.7 7.80 7.80 177917.8 229.69 1.18 0.00 3.91 2.37 0.00 22408.5 173578.4 8.00 8.00 182512.1 229.75 1.21 0.00 4.01 2.43 0.00 22414.6 178060.6 8.20 8.20 187108.0 229.84 1.25 0.00 4.11 2.49 0.00 22423.8 182544.4 8.40 8.40 191705.5 229.92 1.28 0.00 4.21 2.54 0.00 22431.4 187029.8 8.60 8.60 196304.7 230.00 1.31 0.00 4.31 2.61 0.00 22439.0 191516.8 8.80 8.80 200905.5 230.08 1.34 0.00 4.41 2.68 0.00 22446.6 196005.3 9.00 9.00 205507.8 230.17 1.37 0.00 4.51 2.73 0.00 22455.8 200495.5 9.20 9.20 210111.8 230.27 1.40 0.00 4.61 2.79 0.00 22464.9 204987.1 9.40 9.40 214717.4 230.33 1.43 0.00 4.71 2.85 0.00 22471.0 209480.4 9.60 9.60 219324.7 230.42 1.46 0.00 4.81 2.91 0.00 22480.2 213975.3 9.80 9.80 223933.5 230.48 1.49 0.00 4.91 2.97 0.00 22486.3 218471.7 10.00 10.00 228543.9 230.56 1.52 0.00 5.01 3.03 0.00 22493.9 222969.7 10.20 10.20 233156.0 230.67 1.55 0.00 5.12 3.08 0.00 22504.6 227469.3 10.40 10.40 237769.7 230.73 1.58 0.00 5.22 3.15 0.00 22510.7 231970.4 10.60 10.60 242385.0 230.81 1.61 0.00 5.32 3.23 0.00 22518.3 236473.2 10.80 10.80 247001.9 230.89 1.64 0.00 5.42 3.26 0.00 22525.9 240977.5 11.00 11.00 251620.4 230.98 1.67 0.00 5.52 3.32 0.00 22535.1 245483.3 11.20 11.20 256240.5 231.06 1.70 0.00 5.62 3.41 0.00 22542.7 249990.8


11.40 11.40 260862.3 231.14 1.73 0.00 5.72 3.44 0.00 22550.3 254499.8 11.60 11.60 265485.7 231.22 1.76 0.00 5.82 3.52 0.00 22557.9 259010.4 11.80 11.80 270110.7 231.28 1.79 0.00 5.92 3.58 0.00 22564.0 263522.6 12.00 12.00 274737.3 231.34 1.82 0.00 6.02 3.66 0.00 22570.1 268036.4 12.20 12.20 279365.5 231.47 1.86 0.00 6.12 3.68 0.00 22582.3 272551.7 12.40 12.40 283995.3 231.50 1.89 0.00 6.22 3.78 0.00 22585.4 277068.6 12.60 12.60 288626.8 231.62 1.92 0.00 6.32 3.82 0.00 22597.6 281587.1 12.80 12.80 293259.8 231.69 1.95 0.00 6.42 3.88 0.00 22603.7 286107.2 StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS Page 3 * * * Hydrostatic Table * * * Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter (X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00 /--- Draft ---/ /-- Center of Buoyancy--/ /-Center of Floatation-/ Water plane Submerged AFT FWD Disp TPI LCB TCB VCB LCF TCF Area Volume ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) (MT/Cm) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) (S.Meter) (M^3) ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----------- --------- 13.00 13.00 297894.5 231.78 1.98 0.00 6.52 3.92 0.00 22612.8 290628.8 13.20 13.20 302530.8 231.84 2.01 0.00 6.63 4.02 0.00 22618.9 295152.0 13.40 13.40 307168.7 231.94 2.04 0.00 6.73 4.06 0.00 22628.1 299676.8 13.60 13.60 311808.2 232.03 2.07 0.00 6.83 4.14 0.00 22637.2 304203.2 13.80 13.80 316449.4 232.09 2.10 0.00 6.93 4.18 0.00 22643.3 308731.1 14.00 14.00 321092.1 232.19 2.13 0.00 7.03 4.26 0.00 22652.4 313260.6 14.20 14.20 325736.5 232.25 2.16 0.00 7.13 4.30 0.00 22658.5 317791.7 14.40 14.40 330382.5 232.38 2.19 0.00 7.23 4.34 0.00 22670.7 322324.4 14.60 14.60 335030.1 232.41 2.22 0.00 7.33 4.44 0.00 22673.8 326858.6 14.80 14.80 339679.3 232.50 2.25 0.00 7.43 4.48 0.00 22682.9 331394.4 15.00 15.00 344330.1 232.56 2.28 0.00 7.53 4.54 0.00 22689.0 335931.8 StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS Page 4 * * * Hydrostatic Table * * * Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter (X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00 /----- Water Plane -----/ With KG=0 With KG=0 /--- Draft ---/ /---------- Metacenter ---------/ /-- Moment Of Inertia --/ Moment to Heel Moment to Trim


AFT FWD Disp KMT KML BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal 0.01 Deg. 0.01 Deg. ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M^4) ( M^4) (M.Ton-M) (M.Ton-M) ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------------ ----------- -------------- -------------- 5.00 5.00 113767.2 73.23 1972.03 70.73 1969.53 7850407. 218602848. 1454.1 39156.9 5.20 5.20 118338.9 70.62 1898.02 68.02 1895.41 7853002. 218830528. 1458.7 39201.7 5.40 5.40 122912.2 68.22 1829.54 65.51 1826.84 7855877. 219064096. 1463.4 39247.8 5.60 5.60 127487.1 65.99 1765.98 63.18 1763.18 7858744. 219300272. 1468.3 39294.4 5.80 5.80 132063.7 63.92 1706.76 61.02 1703.86 7861454. 219529648. 1473.3 39340.0 6.00 6.00 136641.8 62.00 1651.55 58.99 1648.54 7864266. 219765936. 1478.6 39387.0 6.20 6.20 141221.6 60.21 1599.91 57.10 1596.81 7867306. 220003264. 1484.0 39434.3 6.40 6.40 145803.0 58.53 1551.38 55.32 1548.18 7869570. 220223264. 1489.4 39478.7 6.60 6.60 150386.0 56.96 1505.88 53.66 1502.58 7872366. 220455296. 1495.1 39525.4 6.80 6.80 154970.6 55.50 1463.13 52.09 1459.73 7875328. 220697184. 1501.0 39574.0 7.00 7.00 159556.8 54.12 1422.80 50.61 1419.30 7878375. 220934992. 1507.1 39622.1 7.20 7.20 164144.6 52.82 1384.68 49.21 1381.07 7881005. 221166704. 1513.2 39669.2 7.40 7.40 168734.1 51.60 1348.57 47.89 1344.86 7883518. 221389648. 1519.5 39715.0 7.60 7.60 173325.1 50.44 1314.41 46.64 1310.60 7886078. 221619008. 1526.0 39762.0 7.80 7.80 177917.8 49.36 1282.16 45.45 1278.25 7889662. 221876400. 1532.8 39814.2 8.00 8.00 182512.1 48.33 1251.25 44.32 1247.24 7891525. 222084496. 1539.5 39857.8 8.20 8.20 187108.0 47.36 1222.10 43.25 1217.99 7894912. 222337232. 1546.6 39909.5 8.40 8.40 191705.5 46.44 1194.25 42.23 1190.04 7897664. 222573072. 1553.7 39958.4 8.60 8.60 196304.7 45.56 1167.65 41.25 1163.34 7900308. 222799216. 1561.0 40005.6 8.80 8.80 200905.5 44.73 1142.30 40.32 1137.89 7902972. 223031776. 1568.5 40054.2 9.00 9.00 205507.8 43.94 1118.15 39.43 1113.63 7906088. 223278512. 1576.2 40105.5 9.20 9.20 210111.8 43.19 1094.98 38.58 1090.36 7908732. 223510576. 1584.0 40154.3 9.40 9.40 214717.4 42.48 1072.78 37.77 1068.07 7911412. 223739664. 1591.9 40202.8 9.60 9.60 219324.7 41.80 1051.53 36.99 1046.72 7913985. 223971760. 1600.0 40252.0 9.80 9.80 223933.5 41.15 1031.19 36.24 1026.27 7917050. 224211328. 1608.4 40302.6


10.00 10.00 228543.9 40.53 1011.65 35.52 1006.63 7919694. 224448192. 1616.8 40353.0 10.20 10.20 233156.0 39.95 992.91 34.83 987.79 7922686. 224692464. 1625.5 40404.8 10.40 10.40 237769.7 39.38 974.78 34.16 969.56 7924928. 224909024. 1634.2 40451.8 10.60 10.60 242385.0 38.84 957.46 33.53 952.15 7928140. 225157168. 1643.2 40504.7 10.80 10.80 247001.9 38.33 940.71 32.91 935.29 7930530. 225384992. 1652.3 40554.1 11.00 11.00 251620.4 37.84 924.68 32.32 919.16 7933845. 225638752. 1661.7 40608.2 11.20 11.20 256240.5 37.36 909.12 31.75 903.50 7936330. 225867120. 1671.1 40658.0 11.40 11.40 260862.3 36.91 894.15 31.20 888.43 7939227. 226105296. 1680.7 40709.8 11.60 11.60 265485.7 36.48 879.66 30.66 873.84 7941616. 226332944. 1690.4 40759.8 11.80 11.80 270110.7 36.07 865.68 30.15 859.76 7944182. 226566224. 1700.3 40811.0 12.00 12.00 274737.3 35.67 852.20 29.65 846.18 7947082. 226806320. 1710.4 40863.5 12.20 12.20 279365.5 35.29 839.19 29.17 833.07 7950380. 227055376. 1720.8 40917.8 12.40 12.40 283995.3 34.93 826.53 28.70 820.31 7952710. 227282032. 1731.1 40968.3 12.60 12.60 288626.8 34.58 814.33 28.25 808.00 7955568. 227523376. 1741.8 41021.6 12.80 12.80 293259.8 34.24 802.47 27.82 796.05 7958260. 227754272. 1752.5 41073.2 StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS Page 5 * * * Hydrostatic Table * * * Draft AFT (X-Coordinate) ....... 0.00 Initial Heel Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Draft FWD (X-Coordinate) ....... 340.00 Initial Trim Angle ......... 0.000 Deg Reference Point for LCB & LCF Density of Water ........... 1.025 MT/Cu.Meter (X-Coordinate) ....... 170.00 /----- Water Plane -----/ With KG=0 With KG=0 /--- Draft ---/ /---------- Metacenter ---------/ /-- Moment Of Inertia --/ Moment to Heel Moment to Trim AFT FWD Disp KMT KML BMT BML Transverse Longitudinal 0.01 Deg. 0.01 Deg. ( M.) ( M.) (M.Tons) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M.) ( M^4) ( M^4) (M.Ton-M) (M.Ton-M) ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------------ ----------- -------------- -------------- 13.00 13.00 297894.5 33.92 791.08 27.39 784.55 7961468. 228013152. 1763.5 41129.9


13.20 13.20 302530.8 33.61 779.92 26.98 773.30 7964088. 228239600. 1774.6 41181.0 13.40 13.40 307168.7 33.31 769.14 26.59 762.42 7966944. 228478816. 1785.9 41234.6 13.60 13.60 311808.2 33.02 758.65 26.20 751.82 7969370. 228706656. 1797.2 41286.3 13.80 13.80 316449.4 32.75 748.57 25.82 741.64 7972528. 228967824. 1808.9 41344.1 14.00 14.00 321092.1 32.49 738.64 25.46 731.61 7974938. 229185760. 1820.6 41394.4 14.20 14.20 325736.5 32.23 729.08 25.10 721.95 7977638. 229428800. 1832.5 41449.3 14.40 14.40 330382.5 31.99 719.78 24.76 712.55 7980468. 229671808. 1844.6 41504.3 14.60 14.60 335030.1 31.75 710.69 24.42 703.36 7983038. 229897968. 1856.8 41556.6 14.80 14.80 339679.3 31.53 701.94 24.10 694.51 7986286. 230156864. 1869.3 41614.8 15.00 15.00 344330.1 31.31 693.33 23.78 685.80 7988608. 230382416. 1881.8 41667.3 StabCad Ver. 4.30 SP1 FSRU WEST AFRICA - INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS Page 6 Friday 3/12/2004 15:25: 9 Input File Name:X:\STABCAD\FSRU-LOADED-INTACT Output File Name:X:\STABCAD\FSRU-LOADED-INTACT.OT9 * * * Problem Description * * * Number Of Joints ............. 240 Number Of Plates ............. 162 Number Of Cylinders .......... 13 Number Of Stations ........... 0 Total Execution time = 0: 0: 0 (000)


Date post:	16-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongxuyen
View:	314 times
Download:	13 times

FLOATING STORAGE AND REGASIFICATION UNIT...

Documents