Proceedings of The Twelfth (2002) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Kitakyushu, Japan, May 26 –31, 2002

Copyright © 2002 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-58-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

A Case Study on the Evaluation of Floating Hose Forces in a C.A.L.M. System

Francisco Edward Roveri
PETROBRAS R&D, Cidade Universitária, Quadra 7, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Luís Volnei Sudati Sagrilo

COPPE/UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, Centro de Tecnologia, Bloco I2000, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Federico Barranco Cicilia

Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, México D.F.
Currently, D.Sc. student at COPPE/UFRJ

ABSTRACT 45° around the buoy in the water plane. The length of each mooring
line is 302.5 m. The main characteristics of the buoy and its mooring
This paper focuses on the evaluation of the forces acting on a floating system are shown in Figure 2 whereas the properties of the chains are
hose connected to a CALM (Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring) buoy in Table 1.
installed in 24 meters water depth offshore Brazil. The system works as
an offshore terminal for crude oil carriers. The buoy, which has the VLCC tanker
Mooring Hawser
submarine hoses in a Chinese lantern pattern, was modified to include a Buoy
ramp where the floating hose is laid. The system consists of the buoy, Mean Water Level

submarine hoses, mooring system, mooring hawser, a VLCC and the

CALM system Floating Hose
floating hoses. Structural and hydrodynamic analyses of the whole
system were carried out to determine the cyclic loads (range vs. number Submarine Hoses
of cycles) for fatigue analysis and maximum expected forces at the hose S ea Bottom

and contact forces between hose and ramp. The results are compared
with allowable limits in order to check the feasibility of the system. Figure 1. Main components of the CALM - Tanker system.
KEY WORDS: CALM system; floating hose; fatigue analysis; Z
Coupled model.
3.25 m
Hawser connection point
INTRODUCTION
2.1 m Mean Water Level
2.2 m
Nowadays, PETROBRAS, the Brazilian state-owned oil company, is 12.5 m ß=50 º
producing oil in water depths up to 1,853 meters (PETROBRAS,
2001). The production is transferred to land or to exportation points
through both pipelines and shuttle tankers. In the last case, offloading 24 m Chain mooring Line
activities can be carried out with the help of offshore terminals formed f =3”, L=302.5 m,

by CALM (Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring) systems, which are

27.5 m
periodically inspected for detecting possible damages in theirs
components. Sea Bottom X
Anchors Danforth , 196.13 kN 156.91 kN
One of these CALM systems is located off the coast of Rio Grande do
Sul state in 24 meters water depth. The structure consists of a buoy Figure 2. CALM system.
with its mooring system, the riser system composed by submarine hoses
in Chinese lantern pattern, the tanker, the mooring hawser and the The riser system for conducting the oil from the monobuoy to the
floating hose for offloading the oil from the tanker to the buoy. These PLEM (Pipeline End Manifold) consists of two flexible hoses, each of
components can be seen in Figure 1. these is composed by three elements and 11 floaters as shown in Figure
3. The PLEM is an assembly of isolation valves and provides an
The buoy has a diameter of 12.50 m and height of 4.30 m, a weight of interface between the pipeline at the bottom and the submarine hoses at
2246.49 kN and centre of gravity at 2.41 m from the bottom. The a point underneath the buoy. Properties of the hoses are given in Table
spread mooring system is composed by 8 chain lines distributed each 2.

190
Table 1. Mechanical and hydrostatic chain properties.
Table 3. Properties of the floating hose.
Property Chain f=3”
Nominal Diameter (mm) 76 Element Dry Wet EI EA
Wet Weight (kN/m) 1.080 Hose Weight Weight 1 Section (kN m2) (kN)
Dry Weight (Kn/m) 1.240 (kN) (kN)
Breaking Load (kN) 4293 Starting 27.291 -19.277 R2 198.0 60600.0
EA (kN) 478100 B3 139.3 44600.0
Mass coefficient, CM 3.5 F4 68.6 29300.0
Drag coefficient, CD 2.1 Int (1) 29.459 -32.236 B 68.6 29300.0
Int (2) 21.759 -20.778 B 36.3 19300.0
Z Ending 31.467 -33.866 B 36.3 19300.0
Notes:
1) Negative sign indicates positive floating, 2) Hose section with reinforcement (1/3
Monobuoy
of hose length), 3) Hose section without reinforcement, 4) Floating hose section
Mean Water Level
1.2 m
The ramp through which the floating hose connects to the buoy and the
Ending Floater 20” 15º
1.0 m
Upper Hose 20”x30’ structural arm for connecting the mooring hawser are separated by an
Chinese Lantern angle of 77.5° in the water plane, as shown in Figure 4. The objective
24 m of this ramp is to provide a soft transition zone for reducing the stress
Intermediate Hose 20”x30’ concentration in the flexible hose close to the connection point on the
Body Floater 20” buoy (see Figure 5). This section is critical for fatigue life of the
1.5 m
floating hose.
Lower Hose 20”x30’
Ramp starting
Sea bottom 45º 1.5 m

PLEM X
3.064 m 1.201 m 2.000 m

Figure 3. Submarine hoses in Chinese lantern pattern.

Connection Point Pipe-Hose Contact Points between
the Ramp and the Hose
Starting Hose 20” 30’
0.478 m

Table 2. Properties of submarine hoses.

10º 10 º
Dry Wet EI EA 3.000 m
10 º
10
º
Hose Weight Weight 1 Section (kN m2) (kN) MONOBUOY

10
º
10
(kN) (kN)

º
RAMP
Upper 24.250 -4.274 R2 139.30 35100
B3 96.7 23400 Center of monobuoy

Middle 24.525 -3.818 B 96.7 23400

Lower 24.250 -4.274 B 96.7 23400 Figure 5. Lateral view of the ramp and the first element of the floating
hose on the buoy.
R 139.3 35100
Notes:
1) Negative sign indicates positive floating, 2) Hose section with reinforcement (1/3 In this study a tanker with 200 kDWT of capacity was considered as the
of hose length), 3) Hose section without reinforcement. ship anchored to the CALM system. The main characteristics of the
tanker were taken from Wichers (1994) and they are shown in Table 4.
The oil is transported from the tanker to the monobuoy through two
floating lines, the inner (plane view) line is composed by 24 hose Table 4. Main characteristics of the oil tanker.
segments while the outer one by 25. Only the outer floating line was
modeled for the analysis, as it is shown in Figure 4. Properties of Designation Magnitude
floating hoses are given in Table 3. Additional information about Loaded Intermed Ballasted
submarine and floating hoses can be seen in Bridgestone (1985). Loading condition 100% 60% 25%
Draft in percent of loaded draft 100% 70% 40%
Y=North
Length bet. Perpendiculars (m) 310 310 310
@ 80 m Breadth (m) 47.17 47.17 47.17
Depth (m) 29.70 29.70 29.70
Wet area (m2) 22804 18670 13902
Mooring Hawser, L=80 m
type Grommet 16” Displacement volume (m3) 234994 159698 88956
Loads Direction
8
Fairlead of Line no. 1 Mass (tfs2/m) 24553 16686 9295
X=East
MONOBUOY TANKER Centre gravity above keel (m) 13.32 11.55 13.32
77.5º Transv. Radius of gyration (m) 14.77 15.02 15.30
Tanker end hose
Buoy end hose 16”x35’ Longit. radius of gyration (m) 77.47 77.52 82.15
20”x30’
3 tail hoses
16”x35’
Yaw radius of gyration (m) 79.30 83.81 83.90
20 main line hoses
Wind area of superstructure
20”x35’ -lateral area (m2) 922 922 922
Figure 4. Floating hose in water plane view. -transverse area (m2) 853 853 853

191
 For evaluating the CALM system with the tanker connected to it the
Drag coefficients from OCIMF (1994) were used to evaluate wind and analysis was done in two phases, as shown Figure 6. First, the
current forces on the tanker. The coefficients of first and second order dynamics of the monobuoy-tanker (double-body) system was analyzed
hydrodynamic forces, added mass and damping were calculated using using the program SIMO (MARINTEK, 1998) to get the dynamic
WAMIT program (MIT, 1997). forces at the mooring hawser and ship motions at point where the
floating hose is connected. SIMO considers the mooring lines as static
SEA STATE CONDITIONS catenaries and an approximation of their viscous damping must be done
by means of equivalent coefficients. The mooring hawser is modeled by
The structural system was analyzed under 14 sea states representing the means of its force-elongation curve. In the second phase, the coupled
dominant weather conditions at Rio Grande do Sul coast. The model of CALM system is analyzed with ANFLEX program
characteristics of wave, wind and marine currents are presented in considering the environmental loads and the forces in mooring hawser
Table 5. The first 10 sea states correspond to operational conditions, and displacements of floating hose obtained in the first phase. In
i.e., in these conditions the tanker can be anchored to the CALM ANFLEX, the anchors installed in the CALM mooring system were
system. The last four sea states correspond to non-operational modeled as non-linear springs with a behavior shown in Figure 7.
conditions, i.e., conditions where the tanker is disconnected and
floating hose stays freely floating on the water surface. Table 6. Occurrences of connected and disconnected conditions.

Table 5. Sea states considered in the analysis. Annual number of 3-hour

Sea State occurrences(1)
Sea Curr. Wave Wind Freq. Acc. Connected Disconnected
State (m/s) Hs (m) Tz (s) (m/s) (%) (%) condition Condition
1 0.25 0.75 5.5 5.0 5.90 5.90 1 64.828(2) 107.452(3)
2 0.25 1.25 3.0 5.0 4.01 9.91 2 44.061 73.031
3 0.25 1.25 5.5 5.0 21.47 31.38 3 235.908 391.016
4 0.25 1.25 7.5 10.0 8.75 40.13 4 96.143 159.357
5 0.25 1.75 5.5 10.0 15.15 55.28 5 166.245 275.551
6 0.25 1.75 7.5 10.0 8.78 64.06 6 96.473 159.903
7 0.25 2.25 5.5 15.0 9.74 73.80 7 107.021 177.387
8 0.50 2.25 7.5 15.0 7.02 80.82 8 77.134 127.850
9 0.75 2.75 5.5 15.0 3.52 84.34 9 38.677 64.107
10 1.00 2.75 7.5 20.0 6.69 91.03 10 73.508 121.840
11 1.00 3.25 7.5 20.0 4.68 95.71 11 NA 136.656
12 1.00 3.75 7.5 20.0 2.62 98.33 12 NA 76.504
13 1.00 4.25 7.5 20.0 1.06 99.39 13 NA 30.952
14 1.00 4.75 7.5 20.0 0.61 100.00 14 NA 17.812
Total 1000 1920
Notes:
From the marine terminal statistics, it is observed that the CALM (1) number of 3-hour periods in one year = 365´24/3 = 2920
system operates approximately 3,000 hours per year with a tanker (2) 0.059*2920*0.376 = 64.8, (3)0.059*2920*0.624 = 107.45
anchored to it. Then, taking into account this time and the accumulated
occurrence of the operational sea states (91.03%), the connected
condition frequency is equal to 37.6% (=3000hr/(365*24*0.9103))of The ramp and floating hose were modeled with 3-D non-linear beam
these sea states while the disconnected condition frequency is 62.4%. elements. The first element of the floating hose is connected to the
Considering the duration of each sea state as equal to 3 hours, the buoy and it is laid over the ramp on a 30° arc (see Figure 5). Both
annual number of occurrences for connected and disconnected lateral and perpendicular contact points were modeled with non-linear
conditions are given in Table 6. springs, as indicated in Figure 8. The springs have reaction forces only
when the hose gets in touch with the bottom or with the lateral ramp
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS MODEL walls.

Stochastic dynamic structural analyses of the system were carried out The effect of initial curvature of submarine hoses (Chinese lantern) and
for connected and disconnected conditions. For disconnected cases the floating hose was included. To get the initial curvatures of the hoses,
analyses were performed with ANFLEX program (PETROBRAS, static analyses starting with linear configurations of them were carried
2001) considering a 3-D coupled model of the monobuoy, mooring out using ANFLEX program. The procedure used for floating hose was
system, submarine hoses and floating hose. ANFLEX is a as follows: initially, the hose was considered as having a horizontal
PETROBRAS in-house program to perform non-linear static and configuration at the elevation of connection point and then, prescribed
dynamic analysis of risers and mooring lines. In ANFLEX the slender displacements at its free ending and self-weight were incrementally
structural elements can be modeled by means of 3-D non-linear truss, applied up to get its deformed configuration, as can be seen in Figure 9.
cable or beam elements. Another important feature of ANFLEX is the Similar approach was employed for the submarine hoses to get their
Monobuoy Scalar (MS) element (Sagrilo et al., 2000), which permits Chinese lantern configuration.
fully modeling of the hydrostatic behavior of CALM buoys.

192
 AXIAL FORCES IN

SIMO MOORING HAWSER

Z F(t)
Z
t
DAMPING OF Envir. Loads Y
MOORING SYSTEM Y
SHIP DISPLACEMENTS AT
MOORING HAWSER CONNECTION POINT
OF FLOATING HOSE
X
X X(t)

OIL TANKER
t
MONOBUOY
F
HYDRODYNAMIC Y(t)
COEFFICIENTS
t
(WAMIT)
e Z(t)
t

ANFLEX
Axial Forces in
Displacements at connection
Envir. Loads Monobuoy Element Mooring Hawser
point with the tanker

DYNAMIC RESPONSE Beam elements 3-D

OF
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Beam Elements 3-D

Z Cable Elements 3-D
Y

Non-linear spring for modeling the anchors Contact springs for modeling the sea bottom

Figure 6. Schematic representation of the structural analysis phases.

Figure 10. The height, H, of each MS element was considered to be
equal to external diameter of the hose and MS diameter, D, was
F F calculated to give the same buoyancy as the influence length. The draft
of the MS element, i.e., the wet surface, is automatically updated
fg p
during the analysis.
-0.1 m d -0.1 m d
0.1 m 0.1 m Linear configuration
Contact Springs of floating hose
-fg -p
Fg=holding capaci ty of anchor p=anchor weight

a) Lateral displacements b) Vertical displacements

Ramp
Figure 7. Non-linear springs to model the capacity of the anchors.
Hose configuration
F F with initial curvatures

f=2000 kN Figure 9. Floating hose configuration with initial curvatures.

-1.0 m d -(dx+1m) -dx d

dx dx+1m

Monobuoy Scalar (MS) element

f=-2000 kN f=-2000 kN
f=perpendicular cont act force dx=distance between the hose and lateral wall Joint A Joint B Joint C
f=lateral cont act force

D
a) Perpendi cular di splacem ents b) Lat eral di splacem ents
H Lateral View

Floating Hose Element

Figure 8. Non-linear springs to model contact point between floating
In-plane View
hose and ramp.

Special attention was paid for the hydrostatic modeling of the floating L1 L2
hose. Floating hoses are partially submerged elements. Traditional 3-D
L=(L1+L2)/2
beam elements consider only dry or full submerged situations. Influence Length
Therefore, for considering the intermediary situation of the floating
hose, dry beam elements and MS elements connected to the structural
nodes were employed. Each MS element represents the hydrostatic Figure 10. Hydrostatic modeling of the floating hose.
properties of “tributary length” of element hose at joints, as shown in

193
GLOBAL RESPONSE OF CALM SYSTEM
Statistics of the top tension of the most loaded mooring line, using
Static and dynamic analyses were carried out to evaluate global ANFLEX results, are presented in Table 9. For evaluating the 3-hour
behavior of CALM system components under the 24 sea states (10 most probable extreme values a Weibull distribution approach (Zurita,
connected and 14 disconnected tanker conditions). Analyses were done 1999) was considered for the maxima sample of the forces time-history.
considering the tanker with an intermediate draft (see Table 4 for The critical condition occurs for the sea state number 9 of connected
details). Loads from wave, wind and marine current were considered to condition. The 3-h most probable extreme value is 1333.9 kN which is
act in the same direction and in-line with one of the mooring lines. much less than the line breaking-load 4293 kN.
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum for waves and Davenport spectrum for
wind, were employed in the analyses. Table 9. Statistics of the most loaded mooring line.

In this section the monobuoy motions and forces in the CALM mooring Statistics for the Top Tension of Most
system are presented. In next sections, loads for fatigue analysis and Sea State Loaded Mooring Line (kN)
extreme forces in floating hose (main objective of this study) are Mean Standard 3-h Most
discussed. Deviation Probable Value
SS-01-CC(1) 78.128 12.720 252.900
As mentioned in last section, the analysis of CALM system with SS-02-CC 82.742 10.565 167.120
anchored oil tanker condition was carried out using both SIMO and SS-03-CC 88.297 20.735 316.390
ANFLEX programs. In SIMO model, submarine and floating hoses SS-04-CC 128.500 43.701 506.220
were not included. Motions obtained by both programs are presented at SS-05-CC 124.830 47.218 555.260
Tables 7 and 8. Due to the system symmetry and weather loads acting SS-06-CC 137.910 56.290 586.410
in the same direction, surge, heave and pitch movements are the most SS-07-CC 222.080 116.180 1166.100
important structural responses. As can be observed the results show SS-08-CC 227.460 99.126 904.870
good agreement. The differences can be due to the simplified SS-09-CC 270.420 154.940 1333.900
representation of mooring line damping and the non-modeling of the
SS-10-CC 410.820 137.920 1114.200
submarine and floating hoses in the SIMO’s model.
SS-01-DC(2) 62.655 3.726 104.380
SS-02-DC 68.627 8.728 173.320
Table 7. Buoy motions mean values. ANFLEX vs. SIMO.
SS-03-DC 65.535 8.325 168.480
SS-04-DC 64.284 7.360 141.540
Monobuoy Displacements (Mean values)
Sea State SS-05-DC 69.470 14.947 319.750
Surge (m) Heave (m) Pitch (rad)
ANFLEX SIMO ANFLEX SIMO ANFLEX SIMO SS-06-DC 68.097 13.469 209.500
SS-01-CC1 0.648 0.616 -0.191 -0.151 0.008 0.005 SS-07-DC 76.813 23.584 366.210
SS-02-CC 1.021 1.054 -0.190 -0.152 0.004 0.008 SS-08-DC 73.781 19.168 291.580
SS-03-CC 0.791 0.717 -0.192 -0.151 0.005 0.007 SS-09-DC 87.753 32.341 419.130
SS-04-CC 1.883 1.783 -0.191 -0.151 0.014 0.015 SS-10-DC 88.644 27.774 355.400
SS-05-CC 1.853 1.717 -0.192 -0.152 0.023 0.021 SS-11-DC 93.614 35.703 437.130
SS-06-CC 2.039 1.908 -0.194 -0.152 0.018 0.019 SS-12-DC 99.410 44.858 541.710
SS-07-CC 3.192 3.033 -0.203 -0.158 0.036 0.044 SS-13-DC 105.980 54.928 656.600
SS-08-CC 3.414 3.120 -0.200 -0.159 0.038 0.040 SS-14-DC 112.610 64.984 769.620
Notes:
SS-09-CC 3.625 3.239 -0.211 -0.161 0.045 0.054 (1) SS-01-CC means Sea State number 01 of the Connected Conditions
SS-10-CC 4.770 4.413 -0.215 -0.170 0.062 0.072 (2) SS-01-DC means Sea State number 01 of the Disconnected Conditions
Notes:
1) SS-01-CC means Sea State number 01 of Connected Conditions

Table 8. Buoy motions standard deviations. ANFLEX vs. SIMO. EVALUATION OF THE CYCLIC LOADS IN THE
FLOATING HOSE
Monobuoy Displacements
Sea State Standard Deviations The main interest of the analyses was focused on the cyclic loads at the
Surge (m) Heave (m) Pitch (rad) hoses laid on the ramp and close to the buoy. The cyclic load ranges
ANFLEX SIMO ANFLEX SIMO ANFLEX SIMO and the corresponding number of cycles were provided to the hose
SS-01-CC1 0.368 0.467 0.211 0.168 0.013 0.012 manufacturer in order to evaluate the hose fatigue life in critical
SS-02-CC 0.358 0.284 0.217 0.222 0.012 0.022 regions. Forces were calculated at positions along hose axis as
SS-03-CC 0.494 0.700 0.344 0.282 0.015 0.019 indicated in Figure 11. In this figure the position X=0.0 m corresponds
SS-04-CC 0.833 0.737 0.316 0.281 0.018 0.016 to the hose connection point at the buoy.
SS-05-CC 0.763 1.143 0.460 0.382 0.021 0.030
SS-06-CC 0.906 0.999 0.434 0.394 0.021 0.022 The identification of force range (double amplitude) and number of
SS-07-CC 1.015 1.102 0.563 0.471 0.026 0.034 cycles per year was done by means of the rain-flow technique (Moura
SS-08-CC 0.905 1.228 0.542 0.505 0.026 0.028 et al, 1986). The 24 sea states for connected and disconnected ship
SS-09-CC 0.922 1.223 0.678 0.574 0.030 0.042 conditions, with their corresponding number of annual occurrences (see
SS-10-CC 0.501 0.761 0.662 0.631 0.025 0.027 Table 6) were included.
Notes:
1) SS-01-CC means Sea State number 01 of Connected Conditions

194
 Table 11 presents the statistical analysis results for the axial force at

X=2.56 m
X=0.00 m

m
first hose section in contact with the ramp (X=4.99 m). Results

.40

m
X=4

X= 4. 99
8m
correspond to the stochastic dynamic analysis of the system under sea

X=30.51 m
X=12.10 m

X=17.24 m

X=19.80 m

X=25.16 m

X=35.86 m
X=
5.5
7m
3.064 m

6.1 state number 10, considering the conditions where a tanker is

X = 6.76 m
Monobuoy center

=
X
connected and disconnected to CALM system. Results for the others
MO NO BUOY
sea states presented the same behavior. Figure 15 shows the
RAMP corresponding spectra of axial force in both conditions.

First hose
X=9.10 m
Second hose Third hose Fourth hose Table 11. Statistics of axial force at hose section X=4.99 m. Sea state

X=19.80 m

X=30.50 m

X=41.20 m
number 10.

STATISTICS OF AXIAL FORCE

Figure 11. Analyzed sections of the floating hose.
Statistical Parameter With a Tanker Without a Tanker
In Table 10 the maximum range of axial force, FX, and bending Moored Moored
moments, MY and MZ, respectively, at the analyzed sections are Mean Value (kN) 6.331 9.392
Standard Deviation (kN) 3.975 10.235
presented. It can be seen that the largest forces occur at positions with
Coefficient of Skewness -0.286 -0.657
high change of curvature, as those at ramp start (X=2.56 m) and at the
Coefficient of Kurtosis 3.411 5.430
end of the first hose segment (X=9.10 m). Zero Up-Crossing Frequency (rad/s) 0.192 0.141
Maxima Frequency (rad/s) 0.227 0.182
Table 10. Maximum forces at analyzed hose sections. Bandwidth Parameter 0.392 0.474

Section Maximum Range Observed

X Axial FX Moment MY Moment MZ 2.50E+06

(m) (kN) (kN.m) (kN.m) 2.00E+06

0.00 98.51 23.97 86.38

Number of Cicles
2.56 101.13 8.91 38.40 1.50E+06

4.40 101.05 23.88 20.86

1.00E+06
4.99 99.26 30.10 22.54
5.58 97.88 30.61 21.91 5.00E+05

6.17 98.22 29.44 27.91

0.00E+00
6.76 96.55 28.34 34.90

42

55

68

93

06

19

32

45
8.53 102.43 34.39 47.79
9

8
52

.9
.6

.7

.8

.0

.2

.3

.4

.5
42
2.

12

22

32

53

63

73

83

93
9.10 102.79 33.93 47.29 Axial Force Range FX (kN)
12.10 98.75 22.44 27.09
17.24 92.68 23.19 29.98 2.00E+06
19.80 89.64 23.68 28.10
25.16 94.02 24.43 20.10 1.50E+06
Number of Cicles

30.51 94.30 19.53 16.95

35.86 93.98 21.69 18.38 1.00E+06

Histograms of forces range versus number of cycles for sections at 5.00E+05

X=2.56 m, X=4.99 m (first hose section in contact with the ramp) and
X=9.10 m, are presented in Fig. 12 to 14, respectively.
0.00E+00
3

8
Fig. 12 to 14 show that occurrence of high number of cycles are
22

11

00

89

78

67

56

45

34

23
0.

1.

2.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

associated to small range of forces. Conversely, the larger force ranges Bending Moment Range MY (kN.m)

occur few times. For example, at section X=4.99 m the number of

cycles for the minimum axial force range FX=2.482kN is 2340930, 4.00E+06

while for the minimum range of MY=0.754kN.m is 1448657 and for the 3.50E+06

minimum range MZ=0.564kN.m is 1974453. On the other hand, for the 3.00E+06
Number of Cicles

maximum axial force range FX=96.775kN the number of cycles 2.50E+06

reported is 2077, while for the maximum range of MY=29.351kN is 2.00E+06

160 and for the maximum range of MZ=21.979kN.m is 160. 1.50E+06

1.00E+06

EXTREME FORCES ACTING ON THE FLOATING HOSE 5.00E+05

0.00E+00

An analysis was carried out to calculate maximum values of floating

81

21

61

01

42

82

22
1

1
96

80

64

.4

.3

.1

.0

.8

.6

.5
0.

hose forces for each sea state analyzed. From the stochastic dynamic
4.

8.

12

16

20

24

27

31

35

Bending Mom e nt Range MZ (kN.m )

analysis of the 24 sea states, the most probable 3-h extreme value for
the hose forces in each sea state was evaluated using the Weibull Figure 12. Histograms for force ranges vs. number of cycles at section
approach presented before. X=2.56 m.

195
 2.50E+06
Results presented in Table 11 and in Fig. 15, show that the condition
without a tanker connected to the CALM system is more critical than 2.00E+06
the connected tanker condition. Maximum of observed axial force for

Number of Cicles
the disconnected tanker condition is twice larger than axial force for the 1.50E+06

connected one. This is because when the tanker is connected to the 1.00E+06
buoy, the buoy dynamic motions are somehow controlled and reduced
by the tanker. In the other case, the buoy is subjected to the 5.00E+05
environmental loads only and its motions are fully transmitted to the
hose. In both conditions the dominant response falls in a frequency 0.00E+00

range around of w=1 rad/s.

48

27

05

84

62

41

19

98

76
57

.8

.1

.4

.6

.9

.2

.5

.7

.0
2.

12

23

33

43

53

64

74

84

95
Axial Force Range FX (kN)
Fig. 16 shows the variation of the most probable 3-h extreme values of
axial force, at section X=4.99 m, for each sea state considered in the
2.00E+06
analysis. This figure shows that axial force increase as weather
conditions are stronger and when there is not a tanker connected to the
1.50E+06
CALM system.

Number of Cicles
1.00E+06
2.50E+06

5.00E+05
2.00E+06
Number of Cicles

1.50E+06 0.00E+00

27

13

06

99

92

85
8

2
84

24

63

.4
.0

.8

.2

.5

.9

.3
14
0.

4.

7.
1.00E+06

11

17

21

24

27

31
Be nding M om ent Range M Y (k N.m )
5.00E+05

4.00E+06
0.00E+00
3.50E+06
7

2
2

1
0

1
48

.1
.4

.3

.2

.1

.0

.9

.8

.8
52
2.

3.00E+06
12

22

32

42

62

71

81

91

Number of Cicles
Axial Force Range FX (kN) 2.50E+06

2.00E+06
2.00E+06 1.50E+06

1.00E+06
1.50E+06 5.00E+05
Number of Cicles

0.00E+00

1.00E+06
39

67

95

24

52

08

37
2

8
91
18

.2
.6

.3

.0

.8

.5

.0

.7
5.

34
1.

10

15

20

24

29

39

43
Be nding M om ent Range M Z (k N.m )
5.00E+05

Figure 14. Histograms for force ranges vs. number of cycles at section
0.00E+00 X=9.10 m.
95

05

15

25

36

46
4

4
75

76

77

78

.7

.8

.8

.8

.8

.8
0.

3.

6.

9.

12

15

18

21

24

27

Bending Mom ent Range MY (k N.m ) 180

160
4.00E+06
Axial Force Spectral Density (kN2*s/rad)

140
3.50E+06

3.00E+06 120
Number of Cicles

2.50E+06
100
2.00E+06

1.50E+06 80

1.00E+06
60
5.00E+05

0.00E+00 40
35

89

43

97

52
4

58

20
56

81

07

32

.8

.0

.3

.5

.8
9.
0.

2.

5.

7.

11

14

16

18

20

Bending Mom ent Range MZ (k N.m ) 0

0 1 2 3
Figure 13. Histograms for force ranges vs. number of cycles at section Frequency (rad/s)
X=4.99 m.
With Ship Moored Whitout Ship Moored

Figure 15. Spectra of axial force at hose section X=4.99 m. Sea state
number 10.

196
 140 A number of 24 sea states were considered for the analysis of the
CALM system according to the following conditions: a) 10 sea states
120 with a tanker anchored to the CALM system and b) 14 sea states
without a tanker anchored. An oil tanker with 200 kDWT of capacity at
100
intermediate draft was considered.
Axial Force (kN)

80
Results for the buoy motions, top tension of most loaded line of the
60 CALM system, cyclic loads for fatigue and extreme forces in floating
hose were presented.
40

Good comparison in CALM system response was obtained using

20 ANFLEX and SIMO programs. The most probable 3-h extreme
tensions, estimated considering Weibull distributions for the maxima
0
sample of the most loaded mooring line, were less than the line
breaking load. However, an analysis with one broken line is still
needed in order to evaluate the mooring system structural performance.
Sea States

Cyclic loads in the floating hose are more critical in a region on the
Figure 16. Variation of the most probable 3-h extreme values for the ramp, where the curvature presents a larger variation, and in another
axial force at section X=4.99 m. (Key as Table 8). position close to the connection with the buoy.

Table 12 presents the maximum values, considering the 24 sea states, Results indicated that larger axial hose forces are found in the
of the most probable 3-h extreme values for the axial force and bending condition where the tanker is not connected to the buoy and the hose is
moments at all analyzed hose sections. floating freely on the water surface.

Table 12. Maximum of the Most Probable 3-h Extreme Values for the From the results obtained in this work the hose manufacturer indicated
hose forces. the need to replace the first off buoy hose with a fully reinforced full
floating hose and to replace the second off buoy hose with the first off
Hose Maximum of the Most Probable 3-h buoy one.
Section Extreme Values
X Axial Force Moment MY Moment MZ REFERENCES
(m) (kN) (kN.m) (kN.m)
0.00 120.5 34.444 51.232 1. Bridgestone Company, CALM-Chinese Lantern, Technical
2.56 130.18 8.0682 26.022 Specification, 1985
4.40 98.655 23.189 13.514 2. MARINTEK, SIMO: A program for Simulation of Complex
4.99 128.37 28.357 16.964 Marine Operations, User’s and Theoretical Manual, 1998.
5.58 134.26 29.493 18.856 3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean
6.17 139.37 30.915 20.858 Engineering, WAMIT A Radiation-Diffraction Program for Wave-
6.76 147.37 30.852 25.573 Body interaction, User’s and Theoretical Manual, 1997.
8.53 128.88 29.274 32.171 4. Moura, B.C., Fernandes, A and Tavares de Castro, P.M.S., Fadiga
9.10 130.27 35.776 30.824 de Estruturas Soldadas, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian,
12.10 110.59 18.286 19.414 Lisboa,1986.
17.24 109.68 19.66 19.179 5. OCIMF, Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VLCCs, 1994.
19.80 106.99 19.53 21.449 6. PETROBRAS, ANFLEX: A program for Risers and Mooring
25.16 109.71 14.305 15.4 Lines Analyisis, User’s and Theoretical Manual, 2001.
30.51 108.42 18.628 14.437 7. PETROBRAS Web Site (www.petrobras.com.br), 2001.
8. Sagrilo L.V.S., Siqueira M.Q., Ellwanger, G.B. and Lima, E.C.P.,
35.86 103.25 15.821 14.04
ANFLEX Numerical Model for Coupled Analysis of Monobuoys,
Internal Report to PETROBRAS Research Center, LCRAA-
LAMCE/COPPE/UFRJ, 2000 (in Portuguese).
CONCLUSIONS 9. Wichers, J.E.W., A simulation Model for a Single Point Moored
Tanker, Report no. 797, MARIN, the Netherlands 1994.
In this study a realistic numerical model was elaborated to analyze the 10. Zurita BIG. Extreme Value Statistics of Gaussian and non-
force response of a CALM system floating hose. The CALM system is Gaussian Time Series, M.Sc. Thesis, Civil Engineering
installed in a water depth of 24 m and works as an offshore terminal for Department, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1999 (in
crude oil offloading from tankers. A coupled model of the buoy, Portuguese).
mooring system, submarine and floating hoses, was implemented. The
motivation of this detailed model was to evaluate the floating hose
forces in a region where it gets in touch with a ramp. The hydrostatics
of the floating hose was modeled with ANFLEX program using small
equivalent monobuoy scalar elements connected to the structural nodes.
The contact between the floating hose and the ramp was modeled by
means of non-linear springs.

197