Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Stavanger, Norway, June 17-22, 2001

Copyright 2001 by Tile International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN1-880653-51-6 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-52-4 (Vol. I); ISSN 1098-6189 (SeO

SEABASE TM,the Flexible Alternative

ABSTRACT The SeaBase T M is one of the alternatives for a Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) design that is derived from the research program initiated by ONR. It is a combined logistic support base and an airfield that is able to accommodate the landing of large transport aircraft such as C17. Its runway is continuous with no kinks or discontinuities. The global elastic deformations are so small that it will not interfere on landing operations. The concept consists of three semi-submersible steel modules connected by flexible floating truss bridges. The main modules, each having a displacement in excess of 0.5 million tonnes are allowed to move relative to another and motions are absorbed in flexible bridges connecting the main modules. The fixed connection between the main modules and the flexible bridges maintains a runway that is continuous in runway slope, translation and rotation. The main advantage of the concept is to reduce internal forces between the different modules, and consequently reducing the challenge of designing detachable connecting elements (connectors). A drawback is the resulting dynamic system with a large number of eigenmodes. Structural dampers are one of the remedies proposed to reduce the effect of such dynamic effects.

The five modules are connected together through the use of simple rigid connectors, with few moving parts. One of the significant features of the concept is its ability to remain connected through most of the actual seastates at the intended operational sites

KEY WORDS

Mobile offshore base, floating airfield, logistic base, semisubmersible, flexible bridge, structural damping, fixed connectors

Figure 1" Showing the Principles of SeaBase TM

T E C H N I C A L D E S C R I P T I O N OF THE C O N C E P T INTRODUCTION

The fully configured SeaBase T M complex consists of three main modules and two flexible bridges, forming a continuous runway length of approximately one mile. The length and the inherent flexibility of the bridges allow the main module to move relative to another almost unrestricted. At the same time, deformation induced stresses in the bridges are maintained at low levels.

As shown in figure 1, the main modules are enhanced versions of conventional semi-submersible platforms used for drilling or production purposes. The displacement of each main module is more than 10 times that of a conventional platform. Principal dimensions of SeaBase T M are as follows: Total length: Flight deck height above water Breadth: 1528.5 44.5 171.0 m m m

212

Main Module length: Flexible Bridge length: Main Module displacement: Flexible Bridge displacement:

223.5 430.0 621.000 429.000

m m t t

transition to stand-alone mode. In order to maintain a high degree of flexibility, the longitudinal buoyancy elements are connected to the bracing in such a way that the bending and axial stiffness is not affected. In addition, the in-plane stiffness of the upper hull flight deck is not rigidly connected to the flexible bridge bracing. The flight deck is divided into panels, which are supported by the bracing by means of elastomers. The flight deck panels are allowed to slide relative to each other in the horizontal direction, but restricted in the vertical direction. Important elements in the flexible bridges are the dampers, which provide additional structural damping required to reduce the effect of eigenperiods in the complex.
Connectors

The fully configured SeaBase TM complex will have accommodations for a large number of people (e.g. troops), and also liquid and dry cargo. Each of the five units will be equipped with a dynamic positioning plant capable of keeping the complex or individual units in position as well as providing the required transit speed.
The Main M o d u l e

Overall structural characteristics of the main modules are similar to that of conventional semi-submersible platforms. As shown in Figure 2, the main modules consist of two pontoons, each supporting three columns. These elements are connected together by a set of six transverse bracings and "diamond" type diagonal bracings. The columns support the upper hull, which is a cellular type structure containing four decks plus a flight deck on top. Numerous transverse and longitudinal bulkheads comprise the torsional rigid upper hull structure.

The physical connection between the units has been a concern for the MOB concept. In the case of SeaBase TM, the connectors are simplified due to the fact that a rigid connection is all that is required. This is due to the ability of SeaBase TM to dampen forces along the flexible bridges. By introducing flexibility and dampening in such a manner, resultant forces at connection locations are significantly reduced, thus, connectors are reduced to simple rigid elements. Since SeaBase TM is capable of staying connected in most of the observed seastates at the intended operational sites, sophisticated equipment to perform a quick release is not required. The rigid connectors are shown in Figure 3.

-,... F"-"

-UpperhurlJ rigidconnect-ors
SECTION APPN.

I
--q--r-

42000

ABOVE BL.

LOOK ING DOWN

II

,I1
II

,[,J

Figure 2: Main Module and Flexible Bridge.

In addition to its role as a key structural element, the upper hull also provides the main storage facility for troops and equipment. Extensive logistical consideration has been put into the deck layouts in order to facilitate cargo transfer between SeaBase TM and a variety of interfaces, including ships and aircraft. Amphibious military operations were also considered in this connection.
The Flexible Bridge

JL

II II

II II

Figure 3 Connectors

The flexible bridge is primarily a braced structure, which connects a series of longitudinal buoyancy elements to the upper hull flight deck. The bracing structure consists of slender tubular members having minimum bending stiffness to easily allow deformations while limiting induced stresses. There are almost no diagonal elements, so the equivalent shear rigidity is very small. In stand-alone mode, i.e. transit or survival conditions, the bridge must have increased buoyancy and stability. To provide for increased buoyancy as well as additional waterplane stiffness, buoyancy tanks are supplied within the longitudinal buoyancy elements and also within the vertical bracing along the sides. The pontoon tanks will be more or less filled during normal operation (connected) mode, and emptied during

S T R U C T U R A L D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E S E A B A S E

TM

CONCEPT The flexible bridges have the capability to absorb the first order motions of the main modules with relatively moderate deformation induced stresses. The resulting deformations are distributed over the entire length of the bridge, so aircraft landing operations are not impaired by these deformations. The structural challenges of the concept may be summarized as

213

follows: First order wave motions of the main modules should be reduced as much as possible for the normal operating seastates. Total stiffness and mass distribution of the system should be adjusted such that the normal periods of the system are outside the wave excitation region to the maximum extent possible. Apply structural dampening devices to reduce dynamic magnification of eigenmodes that may be excited.

must be located as far as possible from the actual wave excitation region. The design process has some similarities with the design of compliant towers, where some of the higher order eigenmodes were located below the actual wave periods, while the simpler modes were located above the wave excitation region. This principle is shown graphically in Figures 6 and 7. The figures illustrate two examples of how the positions of the normal periods can be placed with respect to the stiffness of the flexible bridge. The figures also show that it is possible to control, to some extent, the normal periods of the structural eigenmodes by selecting a different stiffness of the flexible bridge. By applying some of these methods, the stiffness of the flexible bridge was tuned to create a configuration with minimum dynamic magnification and consequently decreased fatigue exposure and ultimate stresses.
Wave Spectra Vs. Eigenperiods
14 - "Base Case"

The fully configured SeaBase T M complex forms a dynamic system having a large number of eigenmodes. Some of these eigenmodes are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Eigenperiods .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
~6S 4

[ ASSELII]LY: RI0 DEF=264E1

.:.

.~. ~... . !:
8

..

~:

, : ' ,,,

,~

p=7s p=8s p=gs p=lOs p=lls ........... Tp=12s .Tp=14s ........... Tp=16s ......... Tp=18s

.Eigenpedod 1 - - _ Eigenpenod 2 -- , ... Eigenperiod 3 / "" ~ " Eigenperiod 4 /" " eigenperiod5 l : Eigenpedod 6 I :.:...Eigenpedod 7
60

Period [s]
z

Figure 6 Eigenperiods versus Wave Spectra for Base Case Figure 4. Typical Eigenmode
Wave Spectra Vs. Eigenperiods
~4 ASSELIBLY: RI0 DEF=.205E7 1 12 - "Base Case"

with reduced stiffness

.................................................................................. E!.g~np..~.,r.!o~,s.........................................................................

zo 981 6

Z
~ p = 5 s ..... ..... Tp=6s Tp=7s - - - Tp=Ss .... Tp=9s Tp=lOs ~Tp=11s ........... Tp=12s ........... Tp=14s Tp=16s .... Tp=18s

10

>,

o ,5

--Eigenpefiod 1 ~Eigenpedod 2

ifl;i
10

\ \ ,:
,
20 30 40 50 ., 60 70 8

.....

Eigenpenod 3 Eigenpedod 4 6 7 8 9 10

--.--eigenpedod 5
--,~-Eigenpefiod .~ .Eigenpenod ---,---Eigenpefiod ...... Eigenpenod ~= Eigenperiod

Period [s]

'Z/~Y x

Figure 7 Eigenperiods versus Wave Spectra for Case with reduces Stiffness Figure 5. Typical Eigenmode It can be seen by studying Figures 6 and 7 that even if the primary structural eigenmodes are tuned out of the main wave excitation region, it is difficult if not impossible to avoid any excitation of eigenmodes

Each of these eigenmodes has their normal periods. In order to avoid dynamic amplification to the largest possible extent, these eigenmodes

214

when the input signals are irregular sea waves. Therefore, some excitation of eigenmodes will always exist. One effective way to reduce the effect of dynamic magnification is by providing structural dampening. Steel constructions have some inherent structural dampening, but this is usually below 5 percent relative dampening, which is insufficient for the SeaBase TM design. Providing structural dampers may increase this figure to 30 percent or more, which will effectively reduce the effect. Structural dampers are used in many technical applications, the most widely recognized being shock absorbers. Bridges and tall buildings in seismic active regions are often provided with structural dampers whose main purpose is to reduce the effects of earthquakes. More recently, dampers have been used in connection with wind induced loads on tall buildings. This application is very similar to the type of loading patterns foreseen on SeaBase TM since the dampers will function almost continuously. The dampers required for SeaBase TM will be within the size range already in use in tall buildings and bridge structures. The layout of the structural dampers must take into account the most critical eigenmodes. Since torsional eigenmodes appear to be the most critical for SeaBase TM, dampers were placed in the top and bottom horizontal planes as well as the sides. Structural velocities caused by shear type structural deformations activate these dampers. The f o r c e - velocity relationship for structural dampers may be written: Eq. 1. F-C* V~

Connected mode up to the limit of seastate 6 to 7, defined by a significant wave height of 6 m and wave peak periods from 7 to 19.6 seconds. Connected mode up to seastate 8++, defined by a significant wave height of 14 m and wave peak period 19.6 seconds. Survival mode (disconnected). 100-year condition in the North Atlantic having a significant wave height of 17.3 m and a peak period of 16.8 seconds. Stochastic fatigue analysis. Analyzed with wave scatter diagrams from the intended operational sites (North Atlantic, Arabian Sea, Sea of Japan and Western Pacific.) The results of the analysis are summarized as follows: No major problems are foreseen with operating SeaBase TM through seastate 6 and into seastate 7. Operations up to seastate 8++ are possible without structural damage. The usage factors are higher than required by the MOB Classification Guideline, but further refinement and optimization should result in stresses within acceptable usage factors. Under normal circumstances, seastate 8++ will only be exceeded in the North Atlantic. Tropical cyclones are an exception, but such weather systems can normally be detected in advance and precautionary measures taken. Survival mode will not exceed the allowable stresses at any site. With respect to fatigue exposure, the Arabian Sea, Sea of Japan and Western Pacific all indicate very low fatigue damages. Operation in the North Atlantic, however, indicates a higher fatigue exposure and operations in these areas should consequently be restricted to shorter periods.

The velocity exponent, (x, has values ranging from 1.0 to 0.1. Linear calculation schemes require a velocity exponent value of 1.0, while actual structural dampers often exhibit a value on the order of 0.5.

ANALYSIS Up to now, SeaBase TM has been analyzed by means of two general FEM computer program packages. The main calculations are based on the SESAM package, developed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV). The SESAM package includes a wave load program called WADAM, which is based on the potential theory solution in WAMIT. WADAM has additional features such as Morrison elements and the ability to establish an effective data interface link to the other structural programs in the SESAM package. Due to the fact that SeaBase TM also contains several elements having non-linear characteristics, an alternative calculation scheme using a non-linear FEM program, ASAS-NL, was carried out. The program belongs to the ASAS suite of FEM computer programs and is developed by WS Atkins. Structural issues that were evaluated in the non-linear runs include the following:

CONCLUSIONS The SeaBase TM flexible bridge version of the MOB concept has been subjected to state of the art offshore technology hydrodynamic and structural computational tools in order to determine its structural integrity. The results of these calculations indicate that the structural responses are acceptable for the anticipated normal operation conditions and even more adverse weather conditions. The fatigue exposure is low for all operational sites except the North Atlantic, where prolonged operation should be avoided unless special precautions are ensured and emphasis is placed on routine fatigue inspections. One of the conditions for the success of SeaBase TM, in addition to the flexibility requirement, is providing sufficient structural damping. It has been verified that dampers exhibiting the desired characteristics exist today. However, it is believed that additional research and development is required to assure that a 40-year operational life in a marine environment is possible. The dampers must also be capable of providing extra heat absorption during extreme loading conditions. The SeaBase TM connectors are simple fixed elements whose sole purpose is transferring forces between the units. Maximum connector forces are well within the structural capability of such elements.

Effect of non-linear hydrodynamic drag Non-linear structural dampers Effects of large deformations SeaBase TM was analyzed assuming the following conditions:

215

Performing the disconnection operation in severe weather conditions is a concern since motions of the disconnecting units may result in unwanted contact and consequential damage. In this regard, procedures and equipment to limit contact have been studied to facilitate the operation. The best alternative is having the ability to remain connected through most of the actual seastates; thus, limiting disconnection procedure to only that times when severe weather conditions are forecast. Our calculations indicate that SeaBase T M has this capacity.

Acknowledgement:
The material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research's MOB Program.

References
Det Norske Veritas. SESAM Users Manuals. Norway 1999. WS Atkins: ASAS Suite of Finite Element Computer Programs. Users Manuals. UK 1999

216