FLNG 2011 REDUCING THE SLOSHING PROBLEM IN LARGE FLNGPSOS WITH UNIQUE TANK DESIGN Thomas Lamb Innovative Marine Product Development, LLC Lynnwood, Washington, USA Regu Ramoo Mohan Parthasarathy Julien Santini ALTAIR Engineering, Inc. Troy, Michigan, USA June 15, 2011 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
FLNG 2011
REDUCING THE SLOSHING PROBLEM IN LARGE FLNGPSOS WITH UNIQUE
TANK DESIGN
Thomas LambInnovative Marine Product Development, LLC
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
Regu RamooMohan Parthasarathy
Julien SantiniALTAIR Engineering, Inc.Troy, Michigan, USA
June 15, 2011 1
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Before we get into the sloshing problem a brief description of the CDTS will be given.
For further details please see following references:LAMB, T., and RAMOO, R., “The Application of a New Tank Containment System to ULTRA‐Large LNG Carriers," OTC 2009RAMOO, R., PARTHASARATHY, M., SANTANI, J., and LAMB, T., "The use of Advanced Structural Analysis and Simulation Tools to Validate a New Independent LNG Tank Containment System,"ICCAS 2009LAMB, T., and RAMOO, R., “A New Concept for CNG Carriers and Floating CNG/Oil Processing and Storage Offshore Platforms," CNG Forum, London 2009LAMB, T, and RAMOO, R, “A New Tank Containment System for Floating LNG and CNG Processing and Storage Offshore Platforms," OTC 2010
Introduction
2
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011
Current Geometry of the CDTS
3
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Cylinders and Inner Volume
4
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Tank Type Volume Efficiency*Prismatic Self‐Standing IHI‐SPB 46,162 0.96Membrane 43,706 0.88Membrane PRISM 38,304 0.78CDTS 40,000 0.87Spherical 25,713 0.53
*Efficiency compared to solid cube of 49,108 c m
Comparison of Tank Volumetric Efficiency
5
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Tank Space Required by Tank Containment System for 300,000 m3 Capacity - Membrane, Spherical and CDTS
SPHERICALLength 272.5mBreadth 52.5mDepth 52.5m
SPHERICALLength 232mBreadth 56mDepth 56m
MEMBRANE and IHI‐SPBLength 218mBreadth 53mDepth 32m
CDTSLength 206mBreadth 49.5mDepth 49.5m
6
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Current Tank Arrangement Design
Length Overall 370 m, Beam 70 m, Depth 36 m Parallel Tank Arrangement
Length Overall 350 m, Beam 74 m, Depth 34 m
Tank Arrangement with CDTS
Length Overall 264 m, Beam 80 m, Depth 39 m at Side & 44 m at Center
Comparison of CDTS OIL/LNG FPSO with other Arrangements and Containment Systems
7
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Concept FONGPSO Arrangement
8
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Comparison of FLNG Designs CHARACTERISTIC IHI SPB CDTSLOA m 488 425Beam m 74 85Depth m 44 46Draft m 20 19Displacement t 602000 578000Lightship Weight t 316000 288000Deadweight t 286000 290000LNG t 205920 205920Condensate t 57200 57200LPG t 22880 22880LNG cm 460000 460000Condensate cm 65000 65000LPG cm 50000 50000Tank Length m 350 290Number of LNGTanks 7x2 12Tank Dimensions 50x64x34 38x38x38Tank Weight t 50000 18000COST RATIO Platform 100 95Cost Ratio Tanks 100 70Note Shell Tanks Steel - CDTS Aluminum
• Resulting Liquid Motion in the LNG Tanks• Tank Resonant Frequencies at different Liquid Fill levels
• Tank Structural Design Criteria• Affect of Sloshing Motion on Vessel Motion, i.e., the coupling effect
Tank Sloshing
Vessel Hydrodynamics
June 15, 2011 10
FLNG 2011June 15, 2011
Estimation of the likely environmental conditions encountered by the vessel, based on hind cast or predicted weather data as applicable (e.g. wind, wind wave, swell);
Most of the Commercial Codes (Seakeeper, Hydrostar, SEALAM) use frequency domain Strip Theory:
•Divide vessel into a number of transverse sections•Compute hydrodynamic properties of these section assuming 2D inviscid flow assuming no interference from upstream section•Calculate coefficient inequation of motion
•which yields vessel’s response to waves
Resulting Vessel Motion
June 15, 2011 12
FLNG 2011
The RAOs shown on the right are typical:•At low frequency (long wave), the vessel follows the wave profile, riding up and down like a cork
•At the high frequency end of the scale (very short waves), there are so many waves along the length of the ship that their effect cancel and the vessel is unaffected by the waves
•Some where in between, there is a resonant peak which occurs at the natural frequency of the vessel
•At resonance the vessel motion can be several times that of the wave
• The amplitude of the peak depends on the amounting of damping associated with that motion
•Motions such as heave and pitch are highly damped compared to roll motion
Resulting Vessel Motion
June 15, 2011 13
FLNG 2011
Relevant Normal Design Criteria would be as follows:• Added Resistance
• Propeller Emergence
• Slamming
• Deck Wetness
• Vertical Accelerations (MSI)
• Velocities and Accelerations
Seakeeping Design Criteria
For an LNG Carrier or FLNG the Design Criteria would also include:
• Design Sloshing loads on Containment Tank
• Affects of Tank Sloshing on Vessel’s Motion
June 15, 2011 14
FLNG 2011
• Sloshing is a typical resonance phenomenon; it is not necessarily the most extreme ship motions or external wave loads that cause the most severe sloshing
• This implies that external wave induced loads can in many practical cases be described by linear theory, however, nonlinearities must be accounted for in the tank fluid motions
• Since it is the highest sloshing period (natural period) that is of prime interest, vertical tank excitation is of secondary importance
• Generally speaking the larger the tank size is and the less internal structures obstructing the flow in the tank are present, the more severe sloshing is, because:
a) Increased tank size tends to increase the highest natural sloshing period and hence higher sea states and larger ship motions will excite the severe sloshing.
b)Internal structures dampen the fluid motions.Faltinsen, O.M. And Rognebakke O. F.Department of Marine HydrodynamicsNorwegian University of Science and Technology
Physical Considerations of Sloshing Phenomena
June 15, 2011 15
FLNG 2011
It seems generally accepted that CFD codes have difficulties in predicting impact loads. This was also the conclusion of the load committee of 13th ISSC in 1997. A reason is rapid changes in time and space occurring even for relatively large local angles between the impacting free surface and the body surface ([17])
Analytical Methods are limited to simplified geometries and high fill volumes
FSI methods appear to be the most suitable approach for estimating sloshing impact loads:
• Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics• ALE non‐linear transient dynamic simulation• CEL non‐linear transient dynamic simulation
Theoretical Considerations of Sloshing Phenomena
June 15, 2011 16
FLNG 2011
Classification Societies require sloshing model test with irregular tank motions corresponding to the most severe sea conditions that can occur during the lifetime of the LNG Carrier
The severity of the sea condition should be judged based on the severity of the sloshing load on the containment system
A group of sea states are selected for the model test based on:
• The probability of occurrence• Tank motion response• Proximity of encountering wave period to tank natural period
Qualified sloshing simulation tools can also be used to pre‐screen the sea‐states to cause the most significant sloshing loads
Selection of Critical Wave Conditions for Design Sloshing Load
June 15, 2011 17
FLNG 2011
Validation of Simulation Program
June 15, 2011
The roll motion with a period of 1.91s and amplitude of 4 degrees.
Center of rotation
Pressure sensor
18.4 cm
18
FLNG 2011
Standing Waves Movements of the liquid particles are predominantly verticalThe surface has one of more nodes where no vertical displacement takes placeGenerally occur when F/Ls => 0.2High pressure is imparted on tank top
Sloshing Waves
Traveling Waves The surface has no nodes, a wave crest travels back and forth between tank boundariesGenerally occur when F/Ls =< 0.2High pressure is imparted on both side walls and tank topHydraulic JumpThis is a special case of a standing waveCharacterized by a discontinuity (jump) in surface forming a vertical front which travels back and forth in the tankUsually occur when fill levels is 20% or less of horizontal free surfaceCombination WaveThis is a combination of standing and traveling waves
Source: lloyd’s Register, 2008
June 15, 2011 19
Comparison of Tank Geometry RADIOSS SPH Sloshing Simulation –Model Setup
LNG (50% filled)
Model setup was similar for other tanks but only the model setup for the New CDTS Tank is shown
Enforced angular velocity: 30o rotation about with a period of 10sGravity was constant during the entire simulation
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 20
Tank Faces for Sloshing Load ExtractionIHITank
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 21
Sloshing Load on the Tank –50% Filled, Roll
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 22
Sloshing Load on the Tank with Swash Bulkheads– 50% Filled, Roll
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 23
Membrane Tank Sloshing Animation -50% Filled, Roll, 10s Period
Membrane Tank Sloshing Animation -30% Filled, Roll, 10s Period
Membrane Tank Sloshing Animation -50% Filled, Roll, 20s Period
Membrane Tank Sloshing Animation -50% Filled, Pitch, 10s Period
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 24
Spherical Tank Sloshing Animation - 50% Filled, 10s Period IHI Tank Sloshing Animation
- 50% Filled, Roll, 10s Period
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 25
CDTS Tank Sloshing Animation - 50% Filled, 10s Period
CDTS Tank Sloshing Animation - 30% Filled, 10s Period
CDTS Tank Sloshing Animation - 50% Filled, 10s Period
IHI Tank Sloshing Animation - 50% Filled, Roll, 10s Period
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 26
FLNG 2011
Lloyds Rules for Approximating Roll & Pitch Periods
Ship & Tank Roll & Pitch Periods
Source: lloyd’s Register, 2008
39m
27m
19m
June 15, 2011 27
Total Sloshing Load on the Tank - 30% Filled
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 28
Peak Sloshing Load (kN) at 2900 ms
Von Mises Stress (MPa) due to Sloshing Loads – Baseline
Allowable Stress: 121 MPa(50% of Ultimate with a factor safety of 1.2)
29
Topology Optimization
Objective: Minimize compliance
Stress constraint: 121 MPa
Tank thickness fixed at 75 mm
Free Size on Base: 15 mm to 250 mm
Volume fraction: < 60%
Topology design Space
Topology Load Path(symmetry enforced)
Only a conceptual design (too heavy)
A design which is lighter and feasible for manufacturing needs to be developed using this conceptual design as a guideline
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 30
Gauge Optimization (Internal Bulkheads)
Objective: Minimize compliance
Stress constraint: 121 MPa
Thickness: 15 mm to 250 mm, Base fixed at 100mm
Tank Mass: 1304T
Thickness (mm) after Gauge Optimization3
Elements in the areas of high stress concentration were excluded from the stress constraint
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 31
Gauge Optimization (Internal Bulkheads)
Objective: Minimize compliance
Stress constraint: 121 MPa
Thickness: 15 mm to 250 mm, base fixed at 100mm
Tank Mass: 1304TElements in the areas of high stress concentration were excluded from the stress constraint
Von Mises Stress (MPa) after Gauge Optimization3
June 15, 2011 FLNG 2011 32
FLNG 2011
Conclusion The CDTS offers a superior and cost effective solution to the sloshing problem for large LNG FPSOs and other applications where there can be no filling restrictions
The IHI SPB has the lowest sloshing loads due to centerline watertight bulkhead
The CDTS has no peak sloshing loads as found in other tank containment systems. If a swash bulkhead is installed in the cylinders at their center lines then the CDTS has the same sloshing loads as the IHI SPB
The combination of the unique geometry of the CDTS as well as the reduced sloshing forces and resulting loads on the tank sides, reduces the tank manufacturing and installation cost compared to other containment systems