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

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

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

Sizing a Semi-Submersible for SCR Feasibility

Prakash Mokkarala & Vivek Jaiswal
Granherne, KBR
Houston, Texas, USA

choosing a Spar, TLP or semi whereas the availability of the

infrastructure is a key consideration for choosing a FPSO. Floater
vertical motion at the SCR hang-off is very small in the case of Spar or
TLP. In the case of semi, the hang-off heave motions are large and this
in turn affects the SCR touchdown stress. In this paper, SCR with a
semi is the concept that will be discussed.

ABSTRACT
Often field development studies include a preliminary feasibility of the
vessel and riser combination. For economics, a steel catenary riser
(SCR) is the first choice to carry the hydrocarbons along with semisubmersible that can accommodate topsides and risers. Traditionally,
hull sizing is performed for accommodating topsides size and weight,
air gap and stability. The riser engineer finds out at a later stage that the
vessel motion was not good enough and discards several concepts that
may include semi-submersible with SCR. In this paper, a methodology
will be shown that optimizes the vessel upfront for semi motions that
govern SCR performance. The key indicators for SCR feasibility are
the strength at extreme, survival and fatigue life. Critical locations for
SCR stresses are at the touchdown and at the hang-off. An example that
demonstrates how the vessel RAOs are calculated by optimizing heave
for both strength and fatigue are shown. The methodology uses key
indicators like heave velocity which relates to the SCR touchdown
stress.

KEY WORDS:

Semi-submersibles are being used in many geographical regions and

under different water depths (Figure 1). SCR with semi is a popular
choice where the water depths are larger than 5000 ft. Challenges for
the SCR remain in water depths less than 5000 ft, i.e. fatigue at the
touchdown and at hang-off. Many of the fields for hydrocarbon
development do lie with in this water depth and they select expensive
flexible riser or more expensive 'hybrid' riser solutions to work with a
semi-submersible. In this paper, emphasis is on making the semi
feasible for a SCR at a water depth of around 5000 ft.

SCR, fatigue, Semi-submersible, optimization,

extreme, RAO

NOMENCLATURE
FEED Front End Engineering Design
GM Metacentric height
Hs Significant Wave Height
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
SCR Steel Catenary Riser
SITP Shut-in Tubing Pressure
Tp Peak Period
TDP Touchdown Point
TDZ Touchdown Zone
WADAM Wave Analysis by Diffraction and Morison Theory

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 Semi-submersible with Mooring Lines and SCRs
SCRs are currently installed on several types of floaters namely Spar,
TLP, Semi and FPSO. Floater choice depends up on the field
development. Water depth of the field is a major consideration in

The spreadsheet outputs include ballast weight and check on the

available space for ballast. Excessive ballast prediction can be
controlled by providing limits.
Manufacturability (quayside integration)
Current GoM facilities prevent drafts exceeding 40m due to dry dock
availability or water depth limits during inshore tows. The draft value is
user controlled and was not varied for a set of design inputs.
Methodology
A simplified method was used to develop semi sizing spreadsheet and
was validated with benchmark semis built throughout the world. The
Spreadsheet calculates heave, roll and pitch RAOs based on estimated
weight distribution. Figure 3 shows the methodology in a flow chart.

Figure 2 Semi-Submersible Deck Equipment

PROCESS OF SIZING A SEMI

Initial footprint of the semi is based on the required area for the deck
layout (Figure 2). Simple geometry, square columns and ring pontoon,
is assumed. An excel spreadsheet is used select the sizes of pontoon
and the column particulars. The sizing of semi is based on requirements
of airgap and various functional requirements. However, the SCR
motion requirements at the porch are not included. In the following, it
will be demonstrated that as the SCR motion constraints at the vessel
hang-off are included, the weight penalty increases. The size of the
semi that can make SCRs feasible can be determined quickly using an
excel spreadsheet with an optimizer. Thus, the vessel designers can
start the detailed design of the semi which can also makes SCRs
feasible.
Hull Design Criteria
Semi-submersible: Conventional 4-column design
Deck box or Truss: Depends on the topsides weight which is in-turn
depends on the subsea systems, station keeping, topsides equipment.
Topsides integration: to reduce the costs, quayside integration is
preferred
Water depth: 5,000 ft
Air gap: positive value or per local regulations for 100-year and 1000year return periods
Stability: Max. heel 12 degrees for 100-year hurricane
Design environment: 100-year hurricane
Storage requirements: oil, water etc., ballast
Living Quarters: 100

Figure 3 Methodology Used in Semi Optimization

OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
An optimization problem was set up that includes objective function,
design variables and design constraints. Excel's built-in tool 'Solver'
was used to solve the optimization problem.

Topsides design group then determines the weights and area

requirements to size the overall semi-submersible facility. The design
considerations from topsides include topsides arrival temperatures,
pigging, chemical injection requirements, helideck, cranes, riser pulling
equipment etc.

Objective Function

Riser and Mooring loads are also needed for the semi sizing. These are
estimated from past experience.

Design variables are pontoon width, and height, column size, and
transverse (longitudinal) spacing between the columns.

Ballast

Constraints

Main objective is to reduce the weight of the semi-submersible.

Design Variables

10

Constraints include GM, deck area, sizing ratios. A database of semisubmersibles was compiled from the public domain data (Offshore,
2008) and certain ratios like the pontoon width to height, column width
to pontoon width were developed to size the semi.

A semi is to be designed in a water depth of 1524m (5,000 ft). Top

sides weigh about 15,000 short tons. There are 20 SCRs that include
production, export, etc. Risers are connected to the semi with flex joint
or stress joint. The SITP for the production SCR is 15,000 psi. The field
is located in Gulf of Mexico. A ring pontoon semi will be sized. 100
year hurricane (Hs 15.5m and Tp 14.8s) environment was used.

Motions
Additional constraints were added to tighten the problem, namely the
heave period, maximum heave RAO between 10 to 18s, and maximum
pitch RAO values. These values were derived from riser engineers,
based on SCR analysis.

Deck area (footprint) required to place the topsides equipment is 7,000

m2. Airgap (freeboard) requirement is 17.5m. Starting with a minimum
draft of 26m (85.3ft), heave motion at the riser porch will be calculated.
There are no constraints or limits imposed on the vessel motion from
SCR point of view. Thus, these motions can be termed as resulting
from the topsides and stability requirements. Semi optimizer tries to
minimize the weight by varying the design variables that include
column spacing, column width and pontoon dimensions. Limits
imposed for the semi design are shown in Table 1 .

Heave period at least 20s

Heave RAO (10-18s) 0.35
Pitch RAO (10-18s) 0.15 deg/m
Guidance

Table 1 Design Variable Limits

The spreadsheet has guidance for infeasible solutions by means of
suggesting if the draft needs to be increased or some variables (column
size) need to be adjusted.

User Constraints
Variables and Constraints:

Iterative process

Outer Column Width & Length

Transverse Column Spacing (Ysp)
Longitudinal Column Spacing (Xsp)
Pontoon Height (all)
Longitudinal Outer Pontoon Width

The optimization problem is solved based on Linear Programming. The

solution is found by linearly varying the design variables a small
amount. The solution may depend upon the starting values which mean
that the solution may be only a local optimum. This can be improved
later by using a MATLAB based powerful optimizer.
Verification

(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)

Min
10.40
52.00
52.00
6.50
14.00

Max
22.10
110.50
110.50
12.50
20.80

Longitudinal Inner Pontoon Width

(m)

14.00

20.80

Cross Pontoon Width

(m)

14.00

20.80

Once the 'Solver' identifies an optimized solution, RAOs were verified

through a detailed WADAM model. Consistently, WADAM model
showed a 30% higher heave motions than excel based tool. Still, the
tool was considered a quick turn around utility.

Table 2 shows the resulting output from the spreadsheet. In addition,

transverse GM and longitudinal GM of 4.6m and a transit draft GM of
4.3m was obtained. A heave natural period of 25.2 s was obtained. All
ratios, pontoon width to height and column width to pontoon width etc,
passed the set criteria.

PRELIMINARY SCR DESIGN

Table 2 Semi-Submersible with Topsides Area Constraint

Steel Catenary Risers (SCR) are initially designed to withstand the

internal pressure, external pressure, burst criteria per API RP 1111 and
other applicable codes. A static analysis with offset (static offset and
dynamic offsets, low frequency motion) in near, far, and cross
directions can be used to configure the riser hang-off angle. A flex joint
or stress joint will be used at the hang-off to reduce the vessel bending
stresses at the hang-off. If the riser is straked, higher stresses can be
expected at the hang-off and at the TDZ due to higher drag coefficient.
Large vessel heave motion at the riser hang-off causes high stresses at
SCR hang-off and at the TDP. Fatigue of the SCR also depends on the
soil stiffness at the TDP. Assuming rigid or softer sea bed stiffness has
implications on riser design. In this paper, minimizing the vessel heave
motion is the main focus. Other methods can be employed by
modifying SCR to improve fatigue performance are not discussed.

Summary of Principal Dimensions

Outer Column Width & Length
(m)
Transverse Column Spacing (Ysp)
(m)
Longitudinal Column Spacing (Xsp)
(m)
Pontoon Height (all)
(m)
Longitudinal Outer Pontoon Width
(m)
Longitudinal Inner Pontoon Width
(m)
Cross Pontoon Width
(m)
Draft
(m)
Vessel Displacement

(tonnes)

16.00
85.00
85.00
9.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
26

68027.2

Ballast weight calculated was 7,802 tonnes. Hull weight estimated to be

29,390 tonnes. Figure 4 shows the plan view and the elevation of the
designed semi. Figure 5 shows the heave RAO calculated at 18s to be
0.53 by the spreadsheet. Figure 6 shows pitch and roll RAOs.

EXAMPLES
Below are some examples to illustrate the workings of the semi
spreadsheet optimizer. The intent of the rest of the section is to produce
vessel designs for the SCRs feasible from strength and fatigue point of
view at a Pre-FEED stage.

Semi-Submersible, Design 1

11

26 m

8.50 m

Roll & Pitch RAO's

0.009
Pitch, Hdg=0
Roll, Hdg=90

43.00 m

0.008

9.00 m

26.00 m

Angular Motion (rad / m)

60.5 m

0.007

ELEVATION VIEW

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

16.00 m

0.001

8.00 m

16 m

0.002

0.000
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Period (sec)

For the semi in Design 1, SCR stresses at the touchdown are expected
to exceed the allowables. SCR touchdown stress for the extreme event
is directly proportional to the porch heave velocity. Heave velocity
limit for an assumed riser located on the inside of the pontoon for a
100-year extreme event (Hs=15.5m, Tp=14.8s) is about 1.62m/s. This
limit was derived from the API RP 2RD allowable stress, 80% of the
material yield (X-65 material is assumed), for an extreme event based
on past studies. For the semi-submersible in Design 1, a WADAM
model was run to calculate the maximum heave velocity at the riser
hang-off. Using statistics (Ochi, '81), the maximum heave velocity
arrived was 3.8 m/s. Therefore, the semi designed purely from the
topsides consideration would make the SCR infeasible, since the stress
utilization equals 3.8*100%/1.62 = 234%.

101 m

85 m

53 m

Figure 6 Pitch and Roll RAOs Design 1

16 m

0m

16 m

34.5 m

85 m

101 m

PLAN VIEW OF PONTOON

Figure 4 Semi-Submersible Design Design 1

Now, additional constraints will be introduced to the optimizer through

heave RAO limits in the extreme and for fatigue.

Heave RAO

Semi-Submersible, Design 2

1.4

1.2

First, try to resize the semi for meeting the SCR heave velocity limit for
the extreme sea state.

Heave (m/m)

1.0

Heave RAO limit for the extremes, and for X-65 SCR, is derived as
follows:

0.8

Hdg=0

Hdg=90

0.6

For GoM, 100-year event wave height can be considered as 1.86 times
Hs. Assuming a regular wave, inputs and outputs are sinusoids.
Maximum vessel heave response at the extreme wave is proportional to
the maximum wave amplitude. Calculate heave RAO (at the hang-off)
needed such that the maximum TDP stress of the SCR is within the
allowable.

0.4

0.2

0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Period (sec)

Figure 5 Heave RAO Design 1

= A cos( t)

where is wave height

R = RAO*H amp

where R is vessel heave and H amp

is the amplitude of the wave

V = R sin ( t)
Therefore, RAO =

Heave RAO

12

where V is vessel heave velocity

V
H amp

= 1.62m/s / ([Hs*1.86*0.5]*2*pi*(1/14.8))

Roll & Pitch RAO's

=
0.264
Table 3 shows the results of the excel optimizer with the new heave
motion constraint. It can be observed that the column size was
increased to accommodate reduced heave RAO requirement. Also
pontoon width and height were reduced.

0.025
Spreadsheet Pitch, Hdg=0
Spreadsheet Roll, Hdg=90

Angular Motion (rad / m)

0.020

Table 3 Semi-Submersible with extreme heave constraint

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Period (sec)

Figure 8 Pitch and Roll RAOs Design 2

6.50 m

30.00 m

64.5 m

49.50 m

It is clear, by comparing Table 2 and Table 3, that to design a semisubmersible for SCR to be feasible at extreme, it needs to be 7,000
tonnes heavier. The additional weight is mainly due to increased draft
from 26m to 30m. Ballast calculated by the spreadsheet was 11,802
tonnes. Figure 7 shows the resulting heave RAO of 0.265 at 14s. Figure
8 shows pitch and roll RAOs. Notice the maximum amplitude for pitch
RAO dropped almost 50% from Design 1. Figure 9 shows the
optimized semi shape having a larger area around the columns.
Maximum heave velocity calculated (statistically) as 2.7 m/s at a riser
porch location inside the pontoon. This value is still higher than the
desired 1.62 m/s. The discrepancy between excel calculated RAOs to
WADAM predicted RAOs can be attributed to the approximations
made in the spreadsheet based calculations. Another round of iteration
is needed to bring the RAO to the desired limit.

48.68 m

Heave RAO
2.0

1.8

98.24 m

20.41 m

ELEVATION VIEW

83.66 m

74795

(tonnes)

0.000

8.50 m

Vessel Displacement

0.005

10.20 m 14.58 m

20.41
83.67
83.67
6.50
14.58
14.00
14.00
30

0.010

26 m

Summary of Principal Dimensions

Outer Column Width & Length
(m)
Transverse Column Spacing (Ysp)
(m)
Longitudinal Column Spacing (Xsp)
(m)
Pontoon Height (all)
(m)
Longitudinal Outer Pontoon Width
(m)
Longitudinal Inner Pontoon Width
(m)
Cross Pontoon Width
(m)
Draft
(m)

0.015

14 m

1.6

Heave (m / m)

14 m

1.4

1.2

CG, Hdg=90

1.0

0m

0.8

20.41

7.02 m

24.61 m

31.63 m
83.67 m

0.6

104.08 m

0.4

PLAN VIEW OF PONTOON

0.2

0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 9 Semi-Submersible Design Design 2

40

Period (sec)

Figure 7 Heave RAO Design 2

SCR may be feasible from extreme stress point of view. However, the
fatigue response may be unacceptable.
Semi-Submersible, Design 3
To make the SCR feasible from the fatigue point of view, one should
look at the scatter diagram and select sea states that are dominating the
fatigue damage. Low frequency motions were not considered. By
comparing the wave frequency damage, let us assume the maximum

13

36.00 m

70.5 m

54.56 m

26 m

8.50 m

damage occurs for Hs of 2.5m and Tp of 6.9s. The heave RAO

response from Figure 7 is 0.036. Using the narrow band fatigue
damage, RMS stress was calculated for the sea state that causes 70% of
the damage. Using the heave velocity limit, an acceptable heave RAO
limit was derived for the critical fatigue sea state and this happened to
be at 0.023.
Re-analyzing with the heave limit for fatigue and the extreme resulted
in new design as shown in Table 4.

98.04 m

77396

83.68 m

(tonnes)

9.14 m 14.36 m

Vessel Displacement

51.04 m

18.27
83.67
83.67
7.44
14.00
14.00
14.00
36

18.27 m

(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)

ELEVATION VIEW

14 m

14.26 m

Outer Column Width & Length

Transverse Column Spacing (Ysp)
Longitudinal Column Spacing (Xsp)
Pontoon Height (all)
Longitudinal Outer Pontoon Width
Longitudinal Inner Pontoon Width
Cross Pontoon Width
Draft

7.44 m

Table 4 Semi-Submersible design with extreme and fatigue heave

constraint

Figure 10 shows elevation and plan view of the optimized semi design.
It is interesting to note that the design with heave constraint at fatigue
sea state resulted in narrower columns and a thicker pontoon. The
displacement of the semi was increased slightly to 77,396 tonnes from
Design 2. The weight increase can be attributed to the higher draft,
from 30m to 36m. Ballast predicted to be 13,511 tonnes with Design 3.
Hull weight is estimated to be 33,050 tonnes. Figure 11 and Figure 12
show the heave and pitch/roll RAOs respectively.

0m

18.27

10.2 m

22.49 m

32.69 m
83.65 m

101.92 m

PLAN VIEW OF PONTOON

Figure 10 Semi-Submersible Design 3

Heave RAO

A WADAM model was built to verify the RAOs and the values of
heave RAOs are 0.35 and 0.021 at 15s and 7s respectively. Spreadsheet
RAO are off by about 32% for the extreme and therefore, additional
iteration is required till the desired result is obtained. Maximum heave
velocity calculated from WADAM (statistically) is 2.22 m/sec for the
extreme and 0.064 m/s for the fatigue. This process was verified on a
recent in-house project which showed improved fatigue lives and
extreme strength for an SCR in a harsher environment.

2.0

1.8
Hdg=0

Hdg=90

1.6

1.4

Heave (m/m)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Period (sec)

Figure 11 Heave RAO Design 3

14

35

40

period, however, the column footprint was reduced and the pontoon
thickness was increased. The problem was solved with an excel
spreadsheet and with a built-in optimizer. It can be concluded that the
approach suggested here that represents best upfront guidance that can
be given to vessel designer in terms of semi sizing for making SCRs
feasible.

Roll & Pitch RAO's

0.016
Pitch, Hdg=0
Roll, Hdg=90
0.014

Angular Motion (rad / m)

0.012

0.010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

0.008

0.006

Many thanks to Richard D'Souza, Vice President, Granherne, for

making the semi sizing spreadsheet available and thanks to Bob Gordon
for his technical guidance.

0.004

0.002

REFERENCES

0.000
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Period (sec)

1. 'Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) amd

Tension-leg Platforms (TLPs), API RP 2RD
2. ' World wide Survey of Semi-FPSs and FPUs', Offshore Magazine
Poster, 2008
3. 'Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore
Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design)', API RP 1111
4. 'SESAM USER MANUAL', HYDROD, WADAM, POSTRESP
5. Ochi, M.K., 'Principles of Extreme Value Statistics and their
Application', SNAME Extreme Loads Response Symposium,
Arlington, VA, October 19-20, 1981.

Figure 12 Pitch and Roll RAOs Design 3

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an approach was presented for a semi-submersible design
from SCR feasibility. Vessel motion at riser porch directly affects SCR
strength and fatigue. By setting heave velocity targets for the semi
design based on extreme and critical fatigue sea states is highly
recommended.
Three semi-submersible designs were presented. Design 1 was the
baseline for a semi design from topsides footprint requirements. Design
2 includes consideration for extreme environment by limiting heave
RAO. Design 3 further optimizes the semi design by limiting the heave
motion at a critical fatigue sea state. The trend was increase of draft as
the heave RAO limits are reduced. For the fatigue sea state at low

15