Volume 8 -                   ijmt 2017, 8 - : 1-13 | Back to browse issues page

DOI: 10.29252/ijmt.8.1

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Baghernezhad N, Edalat P, Etemaddar M. Hull Performance Assessment and Comparison of Ship-Shaped and Cylindrical FPSOs With Regards To: Stability, Sea-Keeping, Mooring and Riser Loads In Shallow Water. ijmt. 2017; 8 :1-13
URL: http://ijmt.ir/article-1-612-en.html

1- MSc. Student Faculty of marine engineering, Petroleum University of Technology
2- PhD, Assistant Professor Faculty of marine engineering, Petroleum University of Technology
3- PhD Center of ships and offshore structures, Trondheim, NORWAY
Abstract:   (243 Views)
Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading “FPSO” have become a popular choice since 1980s for marginal and fast-track developments where subsea pipeline is not an economic or feasible solution for export. Field development usually starts with a concept selection procedure which is constituted from a sequence of multi-disciplinary decision making tasks. As limited data is available in the early phase of the development, operators require a robust and rational decision making process to reduce the drawback of immature information. The Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) process which is used in this paper is an industrial approved and accepted decision making process that can resolve this requirement. This method is commonly used as a decision making method for multiple attributes problems.
The main objective of this study is to illustrate the application of this method for concept selection for shallow water fields. Here the problem is reduced to a selection among two common FPSO concepts: ship-shaped and cylindrical by assessing their performances for the same location. The primary attributes which have been used for performance assessment includes: stability, motions and accelerations, riser stresses and mooring line tensions under both intact and damaged conditions. To simplify the problem, the same topside weight and tank capacity are considered and response comparison is limited to the linear responses induced by wave under full loaded conditions. For both FPSOs spread mooring system with steep-s flexible riser system are considered.
For the given environmental conditions, cylindrical FPSO shows better motion characteristics which leads to smaller mooring and riser loads. This method should be generalized for other shallow water production system by including all the attributes used in the shallow water field development concept selection
Full-Text [PDF 1371 kb]   (65 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research Paper | Subject: Offshore Structure
Received: 2017/05/6 | Accepted: 2017/11/25

1. D’Souza, R., (1994), An approach to the design and selection of a cost effective floating production storage and offloading system, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 7443), Houston. [DOI: 10.4043/MS7443]
2. PAIK, J. and THAYAMBALLI, K., (2007), Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations, design, building and operation, Cambridge University Press, New York.
3. Terpstra, T. and MacMillan, A., (2001), FPSO design and conversion: A designer's approach, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston. [DOI: 10.4043/13210-MS]
4. Ruyter, W., (2005), The Sanha LPG FPSO, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), Houston. [DOI: 10.4043/17361-MS]
5. Yukawa, K., Kato, S. and Hayashi, T., (2015), Study on the design requirements of external turret mooring for FLNG, Journal of the japan society of naval architects and ocean engineerings, Vol.22, p.83-94. [DOI: 10.2534/jjasnaoe.22.83]
6. Anundsen, T., (2008), Operability comparison of three ultra-deepwater and harsh environment drilling vessels, Master thesis, Stavanger University.
7. Ogbonnaya, E.A., (2012), Hull design requirements of floating production, storage and offloading, International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT), Vol.2, Issue.6 n, ISSN: 2277-3754.
8. Babadi, M.K., and Ghassemi, H., (2013), Effect of hull form coefficients on the vessel sea-keeping performance, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol.21, p.594-604. [DOI: 10.6119/JMST-013-0117-2]
9. Sario¨z, K., and Narli, E., (2004), Effect of criteria on seakeeping performance assessment, Ocean Engineering journal, Vol.32, p.1161–1173 [DOI: j.oceaneng.2004.12.006]
10. Ukooa FPSO Design Guidance Notes for UKCS Service, (2002), Offshore LTD., Project Reviews LTD.
11. Fernández, R.P., (2012), Seakeeping in the navigation – Example in trimaran ships, International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, Vol.3, p.221 – 235. [DOI: 10.7708/ijtte.2012.2(3).05]
12. Siow, C.L., Koto, J., and Yasukawa, H., (2015), Wave Induce Motion of Round Shaped FPSO, Journal of Subsea and Offshore, Vol.1, p.9-17.
13. Cepowski, T., (2010), The modeling of seakeeping qualities of floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO) sea-going ships in preliminary design stage, POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH, Vol. 17, p.3-12. [DOI: 10.2478/v10012-010-0029-9]
14. Kumar, D., (2010), Selection of mooring system for FPSO in shallow water, Petrotech, New Delhi.
15. Huang, K., (2000), Mooring system design consideration for FPSOs, International offshore and polar engineering conference, Houston.
16. ISO19901-7, (2013), Petroleum and natural gas industries, Specific requirements for offshore, Station keeping systems for floating, Second edition.
17. Baghernezhad, N., Edalat, P., and Etemaddar, M., (2016), Stability and seakeeping performance assessment of a ship shape FPSO in three main operational conditions at Persian Gulf: full loaded; half loaded and full ballast", The 18th Marine Industries Conference (MIC2016), Kish Island.
18. Triantaphyllou, E., (1998), Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An operations research approach Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vol.15, p.175-186.
19. Velasquez, M. and Hester, P.T., (2013), An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods, International Journal of Operations Research, Vol.10, p.56-66.
20. Brown, Alan., Thomas, M., (1998), Reengineering the naval ship concept design process, Research to Reality in Ship Systems Engineering Symposium, ASNE.
21. IMO, (2008), IMO IS CODE, PART B, CHAPTER 2.4.5.
23. DNV-OS-C301, (2013), Stability and Watertight Integrity, Offshore standard.
24. API, (2013), Design and analysis of station keeping systems for floating structures, Third edition.
25. ISO8041, (1999), Human response to vibration-measuring instrumentation.
26. ISO2631-1, (1997), Mechanical vibration and shock-evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration.
27. Willson, J., (2003), Dynamics of offshore structures, Canada.
29. Saidee, M.H., (2015), Fatigue Analysis and Design of Mooring Systems Assessment and comparison of different methods, Master thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
30. DNV-OS-E301, (2013), Position Mooring, offshore standard
31. DNV-OS-E302, (2008), Offshore mooring chain, OFFSHORE STANDARD DET NORSKE VERITAS
32. DNV-OSS-302, (2003), Offshore riser systems, Offshore service specification, DET NORSKE VERITAS
33. DNV-OS-F201, (2010), Dynamic risers, Offshore standard, DET NORSKE VERITAS

Send email to the article author

Creative Commons License
International Journal of Maritime Technology is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.