You are on page 1of 9

Proceedings of the ASME 2011 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2011
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

OMAE2011-49580
EQUIVALENT DESIGN WAVE APPROACH FOR CALCULATING SITE-SPECIFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS ON AN FPSO
Resmi Sarala
Naval Architect

Mohammad Hajiarab
Floating Structures Team Leader

Richard Bamford
FOI Global Technology Leader

Lloyd's Register - Aberdeen, UK


ABSTRACT
This paper demonstrates the method used by Lloyd's
Register (LR) to derive an equivalent design wave from a
response based analysis (RBA) to represent extreme loads on a
weather-vaning FPSO [1] and proceeds to compare the results
with that of the industry practice of the response amplitude
operator (RAO) based approach. The responses investigated
include roll, pitch, vertical wave bending moments, vertical
wave shear forces and vertical acceleration.
The RBA is based on 3 hourly hindcast metocean data and
uses the results of the heading analysis directly, considering the
combined effect of wind, wind-sea, current and swell. An
equivalent design wave is then derived based on the spectral
characteristics of each response instead of the common practice
for ship design [2] which uses only the characteristics of the
RAOs. For each response the design wave for the RBA and
RAO approaches is compared. Deriving equivalent design
waves using only the RAO characteristics is found to give some
non-conservative and unrealistic equivalent design waves in
some cases.
INTRODUCTION
In a harsh environment a turret mooring system is often
utilised to take advantage of its passive weather-vaning
characteristics. The instantaneous equilibrium position is
reached through the combined effects of varying environmental
loads due to wind, wave (wind-sea and swell components), and
current.
Accurate modeling of the FPSO responses is important for
predicting the loads on the structure and the operational
envelope. This requires a good understanding of the vessel
response characteristics and the site-specific environmental
conditions. The relative importance of the environmental
parameters depends upon the response being investigated. To
use the extreme responses (e.g. vertical wave bending moment)
for structural design it is necessary to also derive the associated
responses (e.g. vertical acceleration) which occur at the same

instant as the extreme, accounting for the phase differences


between the responses. Note that the environmental conditions
associated with the extremes are usually different for each
response (e.g. the sea states resulting in large vertical wave
bending moments do not necessarily also result in extreme roll
responses).
The RBA equivalent design wave method as described in
Section 4 of the LR ShipRight-FOI procedure [1] is used to
derive dynamic load combinations associated with the extreme
(100 year return period) values of the following responses at
amidships for an Aframax FPSO operating in a harsh
environment:

Vertical Wave Bending Moment


Vertical Wave Shear Force
Vertical Acceleration
Transverse Acceleration
Roll
Pitch

The RBA equivalent design waves are compared with RAO


based equivalent design waves for each response. The design
waves are used to derive dynamic load combination factors
(DLCFs) as would be used for structural design calculations [4].
NOMENCLATURE
Vertical Acceleration at Port Side tank
av-PS
at-PS
Transverse Acceleration at Port Side tank
FOI
Floating Offshore Installation
Hs
Significant wave height
Mwv
Vertical Wave Bending Moment
Qwv
Vertical Wave Shear Force
Peak spectral period
Tp

Non-dimensional peak shape parameter [5]


a
Numeric spectral parameter [5]
b
Numeric spectral parameter [5]

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME

BACKGROUND
The purpose of the load response analysis is to provide
environmental loads for use in the assessment of the strength,
hull girder ultimate strength, local scantlings, and sloshing
assessment.
The CSR [2] derivation of characteristic design wave loads
is based on a long term statistical approach which includes
representation of the wave environment (North Atlantic scatter
diagram), probability of ship/wave heading and probability of
load value exceedence based on IACS Recommendation 34.
Non-linear effects (due to vessel geometry and wave profile) are
considered for the expected lifetime maximum loads. In
deriving the simultaneously occurring loads, one particular load
component is maximised or minimised and the relative
magnitude of all simultaneously occurring dynamic load
components is specified by the application of dynamic load
combination factors (DLCF) based on the envelope load value.
These dynamic load combination factors based on the
equivalent representative design waves are tabulated in the
CSR [2].
It is not sufficient simply to replace the individual tanker
loads given in the CSR Section 7/3 [2] with FPSO loads unless
the load combination factors given in the CSR Section 7/6 [2]
are also replaced. This is because the heading probabilities,
environmental load characteristics and hence response
characteristics of an FOI differ from those of a trading tanker.
Furthermore the values of f in CSR [2] which account for the
probabilities of head seas and beam seas are not necessarily
applicable to an FOI.

3D Diffraction
Model

Hydrodynamic
database

Metocean
database

Heading
analysis

Wind and
current
coefficients

Heading
database

Response
Analysis

Dynamic Load
combination
factors

RulesCalc
Scantling
calculations

Figure 1: Flowchart of the analysis


The 100 year return period values for each response is
determined based on spectral analysis methods for each loading
pattern as follows:
The Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) of the
response under investigation for each loading condition
and vessel heading is produced.
The short term response is calculated for each sea-state by
adding the wind sea response spectra and swell sea
response spectra for the response under investigation. The
mean heading for each sea-state determined by the heading
analysis is used.
The long term distribution of the response under
investigation is determined by combining the statistics of
the Rayleigh distributions for each sea-state. From the
long term distribution, the extreme value for the required
(100 year) response is calculated. This procedure assumes
the response to be narrow banded. Where the response is
not narrow banded, a bandwidth correction may be
applied.

LR RBA Method
The LR RBA method makes use of the following for
calculating extreme responses and associated DLCF using the
design wave approach:
A site specific directional scatter diagram or
hindcast/measured data series;
Linear hydrodynamic theory with the hull modeled using
3D-diffraction elements; and
Heading probabilities determined from a heading analysis.
Figure 1 shows a flow chart of the complete hydrodynamic
analysis to calculate required loads for determining the local
scantlings for the hull structure.

Idealised quasi-static load cases are required for the


response variable defined in each loading condition in the
strength analysis.
The idealised quasi-static load cases that induce the
100 year return period value for each response variable are
derived using the concept of an equivalent design wave. These
design waves yield the information required to replace the CSR
DLCF values. There are numerous possible design waves and

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME

using one design wave for each response is a significant


simplification irrespective of the selection method. The LR
method employs the results of the extreme response analysis
rather than only the characteristics of the response RAOs. The
steps in the method are as follows:
1. The relative heading 'H' which produces the greatest
contribution to the 100 year response of interest is
identified. The relative heading 'H' is the dominant relative
heading from cumulative response spectrum (See
Annex A).
2. For relative heading 'H', the frequency 'F' is identified
which produces the greatest contribution to the 100 year
response of interest. The frequency 'F' is the frequency at
the peak of the cumulative response spectrum for relative
heading 'H'.
3. For relative heading 'H', the phase angle 'P' is found which
generates the amplitude of the RAO for frequency 'F'.
4. The amplitude 'A' of a regular wave is calculated with
relative heading 'H', frequency 'F' and phase angle 'P' so
that it produces the 100 year response value. At this step
the design wave can be identified by it's four parameters,
i.e. heading, frequency, phase and amplitude.
5. For relative heading 'H', frequency 'F' and amplitude 'A' all
response components for phase 'P' and phase 'P+180
degrees' are calculated. This will give the positive and
negative loads.
RAO based method
In the RAO based approach the RAOs for a given
parameter are calculated for each heading. The design wave
heading is then taken to correspond to the heading of the largest
RAO from the calculated set of RAOs. Thereafter the method is
the same as the RBA approach.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL
Preparation of the hydrodynamic model and hydrodynamic
analysis was performed using the AQWA software package
from ANSYS.
The AQWA model for the analysis is presented in Figure 2.
z

-900

z
y

00

cog

900

1800

Figure 2: The Hydrodynamic model and Reference System

The hull is modeled with 3D-diffraction elements. The


effects of current drag loads and wind loads on the hull were
represented by the current force and wind force coefficients.
The mooring lines are modeled as composite catenary lines
consisting of chains and wire rope components.
The main characteristics of the vessel used for the analysis
in the ballast condition are presented in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Main characteristics of the vessel
Vessel Characteristics (approximately)
LBP (m)
Breadth (m)
Draught (m)
Displacement (t)
GM (m)
LCG from AP (m)
VCG from keel (m)
Tran. radius of gyration (m)
Vert. radius of gyration (m)
Long. radius of gyration(m)

230
45
12
110,000
4.5
110
16
20
65
65

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
The environmental data includes a total of approximately
30,000 continuous three hourly hindcast sea states which
represents more than 10 years of data. Definition of this data is
in accordance to requirements of Section 2.8 of ShipRight FOI
Procedure [1] and no spreading is assumed in the wave data.
The environmental data includes:
Wind wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, ,
a and b) and direction
Swell wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, ,
a and b) and direction
Wind mean speed and direction
Current mean speed and direction
RBA PROCEDURE
Analysis was performed as indicated in Figure 1 based on
the following procedure:
1. A 3-D diffraction model of the vessel's hull was generated
in AQWA-LINE based on the characteristics defined in
Table 1.
2. The calculated linearised roll damping is verified against
field measurements and included in the hydrodynamic
model.
3. A hydrodynamic database containing amplitude and phase
of the RAOs for design parameters stated in Table 2 was
prepared for frequency range of 0.1 rad/s to 1.5 rad/s with
0.05 rad/s increments and heading range of -180 to 180
with 5 increments.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME

4. The mooring arrangements were added to the AQWALINE model to create the AQWA-LIBRIUM model.
5. Wind and current coefficients from wind tunnel tests were
added to the AQWA-LIBRIUM to include the wind drag
and the current drag forces for the specified loading
condition of the vessel and the headings relative to wind
and current directions.
6. The three hourly environmental data, which contained sets
of wind-sea, swell, wind and current data with their
associated directions were included in the hydrodynamic
model.
7. Using the AQWA-LIBRIUM software, the stable
equilibrium positions for each three hourly sea state was
calculated individually.
8. The vessel headings were post-processed to find the
relative vessel heading to wind seas and swell seas at each
three hourly sea state.
9. Using RAOs calculated in step 3 above and the relative
vessel headings calculated in step 8 above, an extreme
response analysis was performed in accordance with [1] to
calculate the 100 year return period for the parameters
listed in Table 2.
10. The outcome of the response analysis from step 9 is post
processed to define individual design waves associated to
each response. In this process for each sea state the
relative headings of the wind seas and swell seas are
rounded to nearest 5. The response spectra for wind seas
and swell seas with the same rounded headings are added
together and are presented in the form of a histogram. The
total area on the starboard side (i.e. from 0 to 180) and
port side (i.e. from -180 to 0) are calculated and the
biggest area is considered as the "Governing Side". The
dominant heading is chosen from the Governing Side of
the histogram (See Figures 9 to 14 in Annex A).
11. The calculated design waves are used to determine the
associated values in phase with each 100 year return
period responses from the hydrodynamic database
calculated in step 3.
Table 2: Presented FPSO responses
FPSO
Response
Roll
Pitch
Mwv
Qwv
av-PS
at-PS

RESULTS
The calculated 100 year return period values from the
Response Based Analysis (RBA) and their design wave
characteristics for the specified responses stated in Table 2, are
presented in Table 3.
Using the design waves in Table 3 and the RAO database
of the responses, associated loads in phase with each 100 year
return period response can be calculated. The calculated design
parameters associated with each design wave are presented in
Table 4.
For each design wave (i.e. each column in Table 4), the 100
year return period is highlighted for further clarity. For
example, at the time of the 100 year return period vertical wave
bending moment (i.e. Mwv=5.8E9 N.m), the associated vertical
wave shear force, vertical acceleration, transverse acceleration,
roll and pitch are -2.7E7 N, 0.50 ms-2, 0.00 ms-2, 0.00 deg. and
2.46 deg., respectively.
Table 3: The RBA 100 year return period values and design
waves
Response

At COG of the mid tank Port Side


(x=120 from AP, y=9 from CL, z=9 from BL)

Design Wave Characteristics


A
F
H
P
(m)
(rad/s) (deg.) (deg.)

Mwv
5.8E9
11.87
0.50
180
167
(N.m)
Qwv
4.3E7
12.06
0.55
-180
37
(N)
av-PS
1.70
16.13
0.60
180
54
(ms-2)
at-PS
5.83
8.66
0.35
150
-133
(ms-2)
Roll
22.93
8.54
0.35
150
-175
(deg.)
Pitch
9.46
13.66
0.50
180
94
(deg.)
Note: A: Amplitude, F: Frequency, H: Heading, P: Phase
Table 4: The RBA associated design parameters for each
design wave
Resp.

Approx. Position (m)


At center of gravity
At center of gravity
At 0.5L from AP
(x=115 from AP)
At the trans BHD with max.combined
seagoing permissible SWSF and VWSF in the
midship region, (x=130 from AP)
At COG of the mid tank Port Side
(x=120 from AP, y=9 from CL, z=9 from BL)

100 Yr.
R.P.
Value

Mwv
(N.m)

Qwv
(N)

Design Wave
av-PS
at-PS
(ms-2)
(ms-2)

Roll
(deg.)

Pitch
(deg.)

Mwv
5.8E9 -2.6E9 3.71E8 1.25E9 1.8E9 1.99E9
(N.m)
Qwv
-2.7E7 4.3E7 5.15E7 -9.92E6 -1.1E7 2.72E7
(N)
av-PS
0.50
0.64
1.70
0.20
0.41
0.688
(ms-2)
at-PS
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.83
4.23
0.00
(ms-2)
Roll
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.11
22.93
0.00
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)

2.46

3.34

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

4.05

-3.60

-0.40

9.46

Copyright 2011 by ASME

The relation between 100 year return period design


parameter and other associated design parameters for each
design wave is normalized in Table 5. This demonstrates the
dynamic load combination factor (DLCF) for each design wave.

Table 7: The RAO based associated design parameters for


each design wave
Design Wave
Resp.

Table 5: The RBA normalised associated design parameters


for each design wave
Design Wave
Resp.

Mwv
(N.m)

Qwv
(N)

av-PS
(ms-2)

at-PS
(ms-2)

Roll
(deg.)

Pitch
(deg.)

1.00

-0.46

0.06

0.21

0.32

0.35

-0.63

1.00

1.18

-0.23

-0.25

0.62

0.30

0.38

1.00

0.12

0.24

0.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.73

0.00

Roll
(deg.)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.75

1.00

0.00

Pitch
(deg.)

0.26

0.35

0.43

-0.38

-0.04

1.00

Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)

Mwv
(N.m)

Table 6: The RAO based 100 year return period values and
design waves
Response
Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)

100 Yr.
R.P.
Value

Design Wave Characteristics


A
F
H
P
(m)
(rad/s) (deg.) (deg.)

5.8E9

11.87

0.50

180

167

4.3E7

8.62

0.55

-57

1.70

3.25

0.65

90

-131

5.83

3.16

0.35

90

-128

22.93

3.28

0.35

90

-169

9.46

9.46

0.60

120

112

Note: A: Amplitude, F: Frequency, H: Heading, P: Phase

Qwv
(N)

av-PS
(ms-2)

5.8E9 -2.97E9 3.47E7

Qwv
-2.73E7 4.3E7 -8.99E5
(N)
av-PS
0.51
-0.08
1.70
(ms-2)
at-PS
0.51
0.00
0.37
(ms-2)

at-PS
(ms-2)

Roll
(deg.)

Pitch
(deg.)

-5.6E7 -9.06E7 1.86E9


9.7E4

1.61E5 -4.28E6

-0.07

-0.02

0.59

5.83

-0.02

-0.26

Roll
(deg.)

0.00

0.00

0.74

17.60

22.93

-0.46

Pitch
(deg.)

2.47

3.57

0.00

-0.01

-0.02

9.46

Table 8: The RAO based normalised associated design


parameters for each design wave
Resp.

The RAO based design wave characteristics of each


response are presented in Table 6.
The associated responses to each 100 year response, using
the RAO based design waves are shown in Table 7 and the same
values are normalized in Table 8 for further discussion.

Mwv
(N.m)

Mwv
(N.m)
Qwv
(N)
av-PS
(ms-2)
at-PS
(ms-2)
Roll
(deg.)
Pitch
(deg.)

Design Wave
av-PS
at-PS
(ms-2)
(ms-2)

Mwv
(N.m)

Qwv
(N)

Roll
(deg.)

Pitch
(deg.)

1.00

-0.51

0.01

-0.01

0.02

0.32

-0.63

1.00

-0.02

0.00

0.00

-0.10

0.30

-0.05

1.00

-0.04

0.01

0.35

0.09

0.00

0.06

1.00

0.00

-0.04

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.77

1.00

-0.02

0.26

0.38

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

DISCUSSIONS
For each design wave the RBA and RAO based response
parameters are tabulated in Table 3 to Table 8.
It can be seen from Table 5 that at the time of the 100 year
return period av-PS , the associated Qwv is about 18% more than
the calculated 100 year return period Qwv. This is because the
response of the vessel due to two separate wave spectra (i.e.
wind wave and swell) is approximated by only one regular
design wave. In order to eliminate such discrepancies when
calculating local scantlings it is usual to truncate any associated
value exceeding the calculated 100 year value to the
corresponding 100 year value [4]. However when applying the
design wave directly for FE analysis using a full ship FE model
such truncation is not practical.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME

Among the approximately 30,000 seastates analysed in this


study, the sea states which contribute the most to the responses
under investigation are shown in Figures 3 to 7.

Figure 3: The sea state contributing most to extreme Mwv

Figure 4: The sea state contributing most to extreme Qwv

Figure 5: The sea state contributing most to extreme av-PS

By comparing Table 5 with Table 8 it can be concluded that


the DLCFs presented in Table 5 are more representative of
reality than the values in Table 8. This phenomenon is most
significant in transverse responses. For example, by applying
the RAO based design wave approach (i.e. Table 8), at the time
of the 100 year return period at-PS , the corresponding Mwv, Qwv
and av-PS are calculated to be negligible. However using the
RBA based design waves, associated Mwv, Qwv and av-PS at the
time of the 100 year return period at-PS are demonstrated to be
21%, 23% and 12% of their 100 year return period values. This
is due to the fact that the heading and frequency of the RBA
design wave correspond to the peak of the energy concentration
in the response, not the peak of the RAO. Therefore the RBA
design wave is considered to be more realistic.
Furthermore, in order to compare the RBA design wave
approach with the commonly used RAO based design wave
approach, the roll and pitch response are chosen as
representative of transverse and longitudinal responses
respectively. As presented in Table 3, the heading of the roll
using the RBA approach is calculated to be 150 degrees. From
the RAO based approach it can be seen that in this case the
design wave heading of the roll response will be 90 degrees,
since the peak of the RAO occurs in this heading.
As it is demonstrated in Figure 8, by choosing the design
wave heading of 90 degrees for roll response, the minimum
amount of contribution from pitch will be considered in the
design load case. However by choosing the heading of 150
degrees, not only is the 100 year return period roll response
recovered, but a considerable pitch response in phase with the
100 year roll response will be considered as well.
Max. Roll and Max. Pitch RAO Amplitudes
1.2

Max. Pitch Ampl.


Max. Roll Ampl.

7
6

0.8
5
0.6

4
3

0.4
2

Max. Roll ampl. (deg/m)

Max. Pitch ampl. (deg/m)

0.2
1

180

170
175

165

160

150
155

145

135
140

130

125

115
120

110

105

90

95
100

80
85

75

70

60
65

55

45
50

40

35

25
30

20

15

Figure 6: The sea state contributing most to extreme at-PS


and Roll

5
10

0
0

Heading (deg.)

Figure 8: Maximum roll and pitch RAO amplitudes


It should be noted that the response based methods are
based on linear frequency domain analysis which assumes
infinitesimally small wave amplitudes. When applying the
design waves for structural design it is usual to make
corrections for the finite wave height by making assumptions
about the pressure distribution above the waterline [4].
Figure 7: The sea state contributing most to extreme Pitch

CONCLUSIONS
From the preceding discussions, it is concluded that the
RBA design wave approach adopted by Lloyd's Register

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME

provides more realistic responses compared to the more


commonly used RAO based method. As a result of more
accurate estimation of the site specific responses, a better
optimized hull scantling design can be achieved. Furthermore
the topside process machinery can be designed for more
realistic motion and acceleration operating limits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Lloyd's Register Group Services,
especially Dr. Graham Stewart, for his support of this work.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and are not necessarily those of Lloyd's Register.
REFERENCES
[1] Lloyd's Register, 2011, "ShipRight-FOI Design,
Construction and Operation; Floating Offshore
Installations Assessment of Structures, Ship Units,
Guidance on Calculation".
[2] IACS, 2008, "Common Structural Rules for Double Hull
Oil Tankers".
[3] Lloyd, A.R.J.M., 1998,"Seakeeping: Ship behavior in
rough weather".
[4] Lloyd's Register, 2011, "Rules and Regulation for the
Classification of a Floating Offshore Installation at a Fixed
Location," Part 4A.
[5] BS EN ISO 19901-1:2005, "Petroleum and Natural Gas
industries Specific requirements for offshore structures,
Part 1: Metocean design and operating considerations".

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME

ANNEX A

Figure 9: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Mwv response

Figure 10: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Qwv response

Figure 11: Histogram of the energy distrubution for av-PS response

Figure 12: Histogram of the energy distrubution for at-PS response

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME

Figure 13: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Roll response

Figure 14: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Pitch response

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2011 by ASME