Research Into Good Design Practice For Reels

MSc SUBSEA ENGINERING NAME: TEICA FLORIAN TEICA

RESEARCH INTO GOOD DESIGN PRACTICE FOR REELS

MSc Subsea Engineering 2011-2012 University of Aberdeen Student Name: Mircea Florian Teica

Supervisors Academic: Dr. Mohammed Salah-Eldin Imbabi Industry: Marius Popa
Abstract
This dissertation proposes a study of the current design methods relevant to reels (LRFD and WSD) and discusses their particularities, limitations and how a reel could be designed according to each of them. The design method limitations are discussed in light of recent studies and findings in areas and for equipment similar to reels (i.e. winches). In the second part, a reel is designed according to both design methods and the 2 sets of results are compared. Finally, the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter summarizes the most important aspects of reel design, the areas where the accuracy of current standards needs improvement and highlights some areas where further studies may improve the current design practices.
Table of contents
Chapter 1:
Introduction 1.1 Scope of Work
5 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 14 16 17 18 20 21 21 23 25 29
Chapter 2:
Design Methods 2.1 LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design) Method 2.2 WSD (Work Stress Design) Method 2.3 Additional Standards 2.4 Comments
Chapter 3:
Design by LRFD Method 3.1 Load Types 3.2 Load Combinations 3.3 Comments
Chapter 4:
Design by WSD Method 4.1 Load Types 4.2 Load Cases
Chapter 5:
Discussion on LRFD and WSD Methods 5.1 Load Combination Factors for LRFD Method 5.2 Utilization Factors for LRFD and WSD Methods 5.3 Hoop Stress and Flange Pressure 5.4 Rope Factor (C) 5.4.1 Large Wire Rope Mooring Winch Drum Analysis and Design Criteria Study 5.4.2 Problems Related to the Design of Multilayer Drums for Synthetic and Hybrid Ropes Study
29
30
5.5 Spooling Tension Friction Factor Relationship; Friction between Product Layers 5.5.1 AM16 Improvement in the Design of Winches Study 5.5.2 Improvement in Winch Design Guide AM11 Study 5.6 Comments Chapter 6: FEA Analysis 6.1 Reel Design 6.2 Boundary Conditions 6.3 Load Scenarios 6.4 Operational Limitations 6.5 Load Cases 6.6 Load Combinations Chapter 7: Results and Interpretation 7.1 Results of the Analysis 7.1.1 Flange Spokes 7.1.2 Drum Staves 7.2 Comments Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations Bibliography Appendix 1: Load Cases Appendix 2: Risk Assessment Plagiarism Cover Sheet
31 34 35 36 37 37 38 42 44 47 54 55 55 55 56 57 59 61 63 72 74
Chapter 1: Introduction
The need for fast and undisrupted communication and transportation of resources (i.e. electricity, oil, gas, etc.) over large distances, between continents or countries separated by seas could be solved, as technology evolved through the use of pipelines and electric cables. For example, during World War II, after allied forces disembarked in Normandy, their planned advance into German occupied territories could have been granted to a halt if they had ran out of fuels. Since oil tankers would have been easy targets for enemy bombers, a different solution should have been found. Military engineers came up with the solution of building a pipeline that could link oil supply reservoirs on British soil with unloading stations on the French coast, thus ensuring a safe, quick and continuous supply of fuels. But how to build and lay pipelines in a very short period of time, in war conditions and in some of the most unfriendly waters the English Channel? The answer was to build the pipe onshore, the transport it offshore and lay it to the seabed. Transportation would have been possible by spooling the innovative flexible pipelines onto giant floating conundrums [21] that could be tugged behind vessels, so that the pipe could be unspooled as they approached France. Figure 1.1 Floating Reel Towed by Allied War Ship [21]
The laying of the pipe went according to plan and the idea proved so good, that allied decided to continue Operation Pluto and lay a second pipe.[1][2] Making a step forward in time, up to present days, the need for transporting products, energy and information increased exponentially, especially in the Oil and Gas industry. As easily accessible oil reserves have mostly been depleted, industry now focuses on the deep water fields.
Deep waters mean larger depths, increased distances to be covered, longer pipes and umbilicals to be laid and larger vessels and equipment need for their transportation and installation. Reels have remained the only way of transporting long sections of umbilicals and cables and started to play an increasingly important role, as flexible pipe became more popular due to its advantages over traditional pipe systems: controlled fabrication onshore and increased laying speeds offshore. But what exactly are reels and what makes them so important? Reels are objects around which long, flexible products are winded for storage [1]. Their storage capacity can vary from a few hundred kilograms to more than 300 tones, so the larger ones can be more than 11 meters high and 9 meters wide. They are made up of a horizontal, cylindrical drum, on which the product is spooled and 2 side, vertical flanges that help keeping the product in place. Reels that make the object of this study are the larger ones, used for transporting increased lengths and weights of product offshore, being able to resist many spooling/unspooling, lifting and transportation cycles for an extended period of time. Therefore, they can be described as portable offshore units that must comply with structural and safety regulations.
Figure 1.2, Courtesy of Forsyths [20]
Even though their role is primarily simple and they can be described as simple as dumb pieces of metal, in reality things are a little bit different: often used to carry payloads exceeding 300 tones, their design must be flexible enough to accommodate further improvements or different types of products, with different material characteristics that would require larger spooling tensions or that could be laid at higher speeds. For instance, large reels are not designed specifically for one job or to operate just in a certain location. Often, the rating of a reel can be increased just by adding some extra stiffeners. Or their drum can be fitted with intermediate spacers partitions (as shown in figure 1.3) to be able to transport 2 or 3 products at a time, sometimes with different characteristics: weight, rigidity, etc. Furthermore, they need to be able to be operated throughout a long service life: due to their size and weight, they are quite difficult to build and transport and, most important, expensive.
Figure 1.3, Courtesy of Oceaneering [17] Their design must also make best use of the material characteristics; design concepts and features must ensure a final product that is not too heavy or too flexible. Overdesigning has serious implications especially for large pieces of equipment where 1mm of additional wall thickness could mean 1 tone or more when applied to the whole structure. This does not affect only the material price and building costs (i.e. a plate too thick will be more expensive to buy, manufacture and will require and increased force to be bend in the final cylinder shape), but also its service life. The thick plate would add more weight to the reel, which, in turn, will lead to
reduced payload or increased transport costs on service ships. This means money lost at each trip or, worse, other reels to be used for their more efficient design. All these and other issues could be avoided through a good design. But the problem is that there is no unified standard that could provide accurate and well documented guidance to an engineer. They must consult numerous standards and recommended practice guides in order to produce a design. This means that a coherent design, based on design factors and load cases specifically adapted to reel particularities is almost impossible to achieve. The standards used for reel design are mostly for general use or only marginally related to reels, and this often leads to overly conservative solutions. Furthermore, the third party verifiers job is even more difficult and most of the times summarizes in just checking calculations and correct application of designers assumptions, but cannot refer to an industry generally accepted set of rules that regulate this grey area. In absence of these rules, the interpretation of the numerous existing standards is highly subjective and dependent on the understanding of each engineer.
1.1 Scope of Work

So, in light of those written above, the scope of this dissertation is to summarize the design approaches for reels based on 2 design methods (LRFD and WSD), point out the differences, comment on the results and present its conclusions to the public. The final purpose of this study would be to provide a good starting point for further researches that could ultimately lead to the development of a recommended design practice for reels.
Chapter 2: Design methods

The most utilized design methods used for reel design are LRFD and WSD. None of them applies directly to reels. However, engineers have designed reels based on these 2 methodologies until now and are likely to do so in the future, so why the need for a new design code?
2.1 LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design) Method

In LRFD method, the safety of the design is obtained by multiplying the loads and dividing the resistances with safety factors. Material resistances are divided with material safety factors (i.e. m= 1.15 in DNV standards), while loads are multiplied with factors higher than 1. The value of these factors depends on the safety class desired (e.g. high, medium or low). [3][4] The design approach is described in detail in DNV-OS-H102 Marine Operations, Design and Fabrication and DNV-OS-C101 Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General (LRFD Method). However, for the purposes of this dissertation, from all load cases described in the 2 standards, only the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) will be analyzed, particularly the way how the load factors are chosen in the load combinations. SLS represents the normal operational mode for the offshore structure, in this case the reel. The designers must ensure that during normal operation, the structure will not experience loads that will cause high stresses (close to or above yield) or deformations, thus the structure will not become unsuitable to perform its intended job. Usually, a deformations check (actual deformations are compared with allowable ones) is performed to ensure the suitability of the design. ULS checks will ensure that the structure will not collapse under the worst case scenario load combination that could be experienced during its service life. Basically, the ULS dictates the strength requirements a structure must have, directly influencing its design. Thus, choosing too conservative load factors will lead to an overdesigned structure that would do the job, but in an uneconomical manner.
So, it is of great importance to understand how the structure works, how it is going to be loaded and operated, how to use the material and, in case of reels, the payloads characteristics in the benefit of the overall design. LRFD method is used as a general design method, described in the 2 DNV standards. They provide a general design methodology applicable to all structures involved in marine operations
2.2 WSD (Work Stress Design) Method

WSD is a design method where safety is achieved by limiting equivalent Von Misses stresses to a decreased value of the materials characteristic strength. DNVs no. 2.22 Lifting Appliances standard is built around WSD method; the maximum allowable stresses should be equal or lower than 85% of the yield strength of the material. In other words, the usage factor of the material is limited to 0.85. [5][6] This standard is specifically built on industry experience and good design practices for all structures that can be defined as lifting appliances: cranes and their components, spreader beams, lifting sets, etc. The part relevant for reel design is the one dedicated to winches. Although winches and reels basically share the same constructive principles, the size difference and the way they work during operation (from a structural perspective) makes them so different. Lifting Appliances 2.22 standard provides a design procedure for winches and is calibrated according to winch operating requirements and particularities. Reel designers can only use to the part referring to drum and flange design.
2.3 Additional Standards

Additional design tools are borrowed from Eurocode 3, DNV-RP-C202 Buckling Strength of Shells or other recognized and industry accepted design standards in order to cover the necessary strength requirements of the new design.
10
2.4 Comments
But all these existing standards do not cover the specifics of reels and their transported products. For instance, none of the design methods take into account the increased number of layers the product is spooled onto the drum and the benefic influence the layers have on the overall drum strength; or how spooling tension in the product is transferred to the drum. Recent studies lead to interesting conclusions that could help to improve the current way of designing reels. Further on, in this paper there will be analyzed 2 of the most commonly used reel designs. Also, there will be analyzed and explained the loads action on the reel, the various load combinations identified during lifting, transportation and operation. One of the designs will be chosen and analyzed in an FEA program according to load cases built on LRFD and WSD principles and the 2 sets of results will be compared. Ultimately, the conclusions and recommendations chapter will try to comment on the ways the design of reels could be improved considering recent studies and findings and on the results from the FEA analysis.
11
Chapter 3: Design by LRFD Method

Design by LRFD method is covered by DNV-OS-H102 Marine Operations, Design and Fabrication and DNV-OS-C101 Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General (LRFD Method). Since these standards provide general rules, applicable to all types of offshore structures and installations, only the information relevant to reel design will be selected and discussed.
3.1 Load Types

Every structure, regardless of its nature, will be likely to be subject to the combined effect of at least 2 of the following load types: Permanent loads (G) Variable functional loads or Live loads (Q) Deformation loads (D) Environmental loads (E) Accidental loads These loads will be combined into load combinations relevant to the function of each individual structure and their effect on the proposed design will be analyzed. The suitability of the design is confirmed as long as it is not prone to failure in any of the load situations considered (the design load effect Sd does not exceed the design resistance Rd). Of course, a design is considered to be efficient in both economical and engineering terms when Sd is just below Rd in ULS or resistance limit state. This ensures a rational and efficient way of using material characteristics in favor of the overall design and avoids the overdesign of the structure.[3][4] The load types presented above will be grouped into load combinations (also called limit states): ULS, SLS, FLS (fatigue limit state) and ALS (accidental limit state). Each load type will be multiplied by a safety factor according to the possibility of that load type to occur during that particular limit state and the impact it will have on the structure. [3][4]
12
Although each load type includes many subcategories of loads to be considered, only subcategories considered relevant to reels will be discussed: Permanent loads (G) fixed loads that will not vary over the entire service life of the structure o Self weight of structure o Weight of permanent installed equipment that cannot be removed (i.e. drum partitions) Weight estimate and weight distribution (thus an accurate estimation of the relative position of the center of gravity) is of great importance especially for structures and equipments subject to lifting operations. Variable functional loads (Q) these loads can vary during the service life of the structure; they can be defined as: o Payload stored materials, equipment (i.e. umbilicals, pipes, wires, etc.) o Operation forces generated by reeling/unreeling of product Again, the weight of the payload shall be accurately measured for the purposes of lifting operations. The maximum value of the payload shall be considered for dimensioning the structural elements. Deformation loads (D) not relevant for reels Environmental loads (E) loads generated by environmental factors, such as: o Wind o Waves, that generate dynamic effects. In the case of reels, wind loads shall be considered during lifting operations onshore. Combined wind and wave effects will affect the transport vessel and that will translate into vessel motions. These motions will generate inertia forces and should be considered when designing the sea fastening arrangements (including the sea fastening geometry and structural components that will need to handle the load induced stresses), as well as assessing their impact on the reel structure and auxiliary equipment (towers, rollers) and their connections with the ship. [3][4]
13
Accidental loads (A) due to occurrence of unexpected events o Dropped objects Since reels can be considered pieces of equipment with transportation purposes and rather
simplistic operational function, the accidental loads considered relevant could only cause damages that would endanger their good operation (large deformations of flanges or severe damage to the flange-drum connection caused by large and heavy dropped objects). Sea fastenings should be able to cope with sudden loads associated to minor ship collisions (very unlikely).
3.2 Load Combinations

The load types described in 3.1 will be grouped into load combinations. The design loads used in the load combinations are obtained by multiplying the characteristic loads with design load factors. [3][4] Relevant for reels are the following load combinations: 1. Onshore spooling loads to be considered: o Self weight of reel o Weight of payload o Spooling tension 2. Onshore storage same as onshore spooling, only spooling tension will vary; because of deformations in the anchoring devices (e.g. steel wires will increase in length due to tension) that will hold the end part of the product after spooling, part of the spooling tension in the last layers of product will decrease. 3. Onshore lifting: o Self weight of reel o Weight of payload o Storage tension o Loads generated by wind
14
4. Offshore operation this load combination is defined as ULS a) in DNV-OS-H102; it can also considered as SLS o Self weight of reel o Weight of payload o Spooling/unspooling tension o Dynamic effects 5. Transit survival this load combination is defined as ULS b) in DNV-OS-H102; o Self weight of reel o Weight of payload o Storage tension o Increased dynamic effects compared to ULS a) The most relevant load combinations that will be further considered are Offshore Operation and Transit Survival. These will determine the overall strength requirements the reel design must comply with. The FLS will not be covered by this dissertation; ALS is not considered to be relevant to reel design in general. [3][4] DNV standards (OS-C101 and OS-H102) provide a table for the load factors to be used for the 2 relevant ULS load combinations: Load factors for ULS Load Condition a b G 1.3 1 Q 1.3 1 Load Categories D 1 1 E 0.7 1.3 A N/A N/A
Table 5-1 in DNV-OS-H102
15
3.3 Comments
The standard allows for a decrease of the load factors applicable to G and Q loads in load combination a) to a value of 1.2 if these load types are well defined. This lower value is usually adopted by industry in reel design, as the self-weight of reels, spooling tension and payload are clearly stated. [DNV OS-C101, Section 2, B402] Also, according to DNV OS-C101, Section 2, B404, the load factors for the environmental loads in combination b) can be lowered to a more permissive 1.15 value for unmanned structures during extreme environmental loads. Since ULS b) will be associated to Transit survival load case, it is assumed that the reel will not be in operation during severe weather conditions, therefore can be considered as unmanned. [3] LRFD standards propose a 10-2 annual return probability for ULS combinations. This translates into a level of safety based on the 100 year storm occurrence. This can be considered somewhat exaggerated, since reels are transported offshore by ships (more rarely on barges), which according to ship design rules, are designed for loads with 10-8 (or 20 years) probability of exceedance, hence much lower than the 10-2 return probability requirements in OS-C101 or OSH102.[3][4]
16
Chapter 4: Design by WSD Method

Similarly as the LRFD method, the WSD method and standards propose rules and general principles on how to select relevant load types for different structures and equipment, the way to calibrate them using design load factors and, ultimately, these combined loads will generate stresses on the structural elements that would be divided with the material allowable resistance and compared to agreed usage factors. The usage (or utilization) factors are precisely calibrated so that they would allow the design to achieve a certain level of safety according to the role of the structure/equipment will perform during its service life. [5][6] Table E-1 in DNV-OS-C201 gives the basic usage factors for each of the load conditions considered. The analysis must be conducted for the worst case scenario generated by the relevant load combinations. Loading conditions a) 0 0.60 1) b) 0.80 1) c) 1.00 d) 1.00 e) 1.00
1) For units unmanned during extreme environmental conditions, the usage factor 0 may be taken as 0.84 for loading condition b).
Table E1 Basic usage factors 0 [5] DNV-OS-C201 is a design standard similar with DNV-OS-C101, the difference being that one is built on the WSD method (OS-C201) and the other on the LRFD method. They both provide general design rules for offshore steel structures. However, also based on the WSD method is DNV no. 2.22 Lifting Appliances standard for certification. DNV 2.22 is written based on general WSD principles, but tailored on the specific requirements and studied behavior of lifting equipment. Relevant to this study is the section related to the design if winches, to which, as previously mentioned, reels could be associated. The advantage of having a dedicated standard is that it is calibrated to the equipments needs. For instance, studies were conducted on specific pieces of machinery (e.g. winches), their behavior was observed during their service life in all types of environments, failures were documented, the causes of failure were identified and lessons could have been learned,
17
experiments were conducted and designs could have been improved. All these activities generated conclusions which were analyzed and compared with the existing general design rules. Once it was understood how specific equipment actually perform in real situations, the overall design could have been improved. The results were further translated into specific design rules. For the specific case of winches, that meant that the usage factor was increased from lower values 60% to 85% of yield strength (for both drum and flange) for functional loads. This is a huge improvement, allowing structures to become lighter, carry more payload or operate at higher tensions. [6]
4.1 Loads Types

Just like DNV-OS-C101, DNV 2.22 lists load types relevant to the design of lifting appliances that should be used for design/design verification. For reels, the following loads will be selected: Principal loads Loads due to motion of the vessel on which the crane is mounted Loads due to climatic effects 1. Principal loads define loads given by self-weight of components, payload and loads due to
pre-stressing. In case of reels, the pre-stressing load can be translated into reeling tension, or the tension that will be applied to the product (e.g. umbilical, wire, etc.) during spooling in order to obtain a tight, well arranged product on the reel drum, that will not become tangled and will be easy to unspool. Reels are not subject to horizontal loads as described in DNV 2.22 standard, as they only rotate around their longitudinal axis. These forces are considered to be the consequence of loads induced by movement of cranes on rails (generated by acceleration and braking), therefore not applicable to reels. [6] Therefore, they will be disregarded from the load combination. 2. Loads due to motion of vessel are represented by the inertia forces that act on the
equipment (reel). The inertia forces are generated by the ships motions (pitch, roll, etc.). The ships motions will be calculated with DNV Ship Rules Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 4 for a 10-8 probability of repeatability; this corresponds to a once in 20 years probability of
18
occurrence, and the values are less than the once in 100 years (or 10-2 return probability) defined in LRFD standards.[7] There are 3 types of vessel motions: Vertical (V) Longitudinal (L) Transversal (T) Due to the fact that the vessel has a major axis (longitudinal axis), the ship theory demonstrates that not all motions are in phase (at their maximum intensity). The 3 motions are combined as in the ship rules DNV Rules for Ships Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 4 C500). The factor for various motions shall account the targeted level of probability). The possible motion combinations are: i. V gav g/(at) (gav)/ al
ii. V + T iii. V + L where:
g acceleration of gravity (g 9.81m/s2) av vertical acceleration of ship at transversal acceleration of ship al longitudinal acceleration of ship [7] Depending on the ships characteristics and weight, the loads due to vessel motions can be calculated and then the most unfavorable can be applied to the design of the reel. 3. Loads due to climatic effects loads due to wind (especially) They are particularly important for lifting of reels onshore; offshore, high winds will generate high waves, thus increased vessel motions, and so the predominant loads will still be those generated vessel motions.
19

DNV 2.22 gives 3 load cases, similar with the ones in DNV-OS-C201. Relevant to the reels, these load cases will be translated into: Reel Operation in standard conditions DNV2.22 Case I (Crane without wind) DNV-OS-C201 Load condition a)
SG + SL (payload + spooling tension) Case II (Crane working with Load condition b)
Environmental dynamic operation
wind) maximum combination of SG + SL +SW *) environmental loads and associated functional loads Case III (Crane subjected to Load condition c), d), e)
Transit survival
exceptional loadings) SG+SL+SM **) -
*)
in the case of reels, the maximum operational accelerations are assumed to be the vessel
motions during operation (so lower vessel motions calculated based on a 10-4 probability to be exceeded or 1 day return period) in the case of reels, is considered to be 1
**)
extreme loading conditions when the reel is not in operation, but inertia due to vessel motions
are extremely high and calculated based on the 20 year storm scenario (or 10-8 probability) where: SG self weight of reel; SL loads due to payload and spooling tension; SW loads due to wind; SM loads due to vessel motion. [6]
20
Chapter 5: Discussion on LRFD and WSD Methods

5.1 Load Combination Factors for LRFD Method
If an engineer would want to design a reel base on the LRFD method, then he would have to refer to DNV-OS-C101 for guidance regarding the load cases and load combinations to be considered. The load factors that will need to be applied to each load type can be found in Table 5-1. As previously discussed, the load combinations that would ultimately dictate the strength requirements of the reel would be those corresponding to the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). Load factors for ULS Load Condition a b G 1.3 1 Q 1.3 1 Load Categories D 1 1 E 0.7 1.3 A N/A N/A
Table 5.1 (DNV-OS-H102, Table 5-1) For Load condition a), which corresponds to the Environmental dynamic operation case, the load factor 1.3 for G (self-weight of structure) and Q (live loads) may seem to be too high because: The overall weight of the reel should be accurately estimated for lifting purposes; G is fixed the self-weight of the reel is well controlled; The self-weight of the spooled product (i.e. umbilical) cannot be easily monitored and should be the full responsibility of the end user not to exceed the maximum value; however, there are reduced chances to exceed the maximum value, as only an increase in length would generate additional product weight. The spooling tension (T): it is assumed that the maximum value is not exceeded and that systems to prevent the overcome are arranged i.e. tensioners; The loads developed on the reel drum and flanges during spooling (pressure loads as a function of T) can only be estimated by using DNV 2.22 formulas for hoop stress and flange pressure [6, Chapter 2, Section 3, B207 and B208]. These can be considered conservative, as they already have built-in safety factors (i.e. the rope layer factor C).
21
Having in mind that these loads are constant or with quasi-constant effect, the 1.3 load factor may be considered over conservative and a decreased value of 1.0 for the load factor might be applicable. Assuming that this case reflects the operational condition, the 0.7 load factor used for environmental loads (E) is hard to explain as long as accelerations or wind speeds indicated as the upper limit for the operational criteria are expected. For Load condition b), which corresponds to the Transit survival condition, the extreme environmental load factor of 1.3 applied to the environmental loads (E) does not seem to be in accordance with the expected accelerations and wind speeds indicated for a 10-8 probability to be exceeded as indicated in DNV Rules for ships Part 3 Chapter 1 Section4. Based on the above assumptions, this paper would suggest the following values for the load factors: Proposed load factors for ULS Load Condition a b G 1.0 1.0 Q 1.0 1.0 Load Categories D 1.0 1.0 E 1.0 1.3or 1.0 A N/A N/A
For Load condition a): A 1.0 load factor applicable to the self-weight of the reel and product and spooling tension (G, Q, T respectively) A 1.0 load factor applicable to environmental loads (E) corresponding to the ships maximum accelerations in operational condition (i.e. during spooling/unspooling operations) Note: If there are doubts regarding the values for T and E, the corresponding values for the load factors can be estimated with other reliable methods e.g. CN 30-6 - Structural reliability analyze of marine structures.
22
For Load condition b): A 1.0 load factor applicable to the self-weight of the reel and product and spooling tension (G, Q, T respectively) Note: If there are doubts regarding the value for T, the corresponding value for the load factor can be estimated with other reliable methods e.g. CN 30-6 Structural reliability analyze of marine structures. A 1.3 load factor applicable for the ships dynamic in transit/survival conditions with accelerations at 10-4 probability to be exceed (DNV Ships Rules Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 4, C500) or A 1.0 load factor applicable for the ships dynamic in transit/survival conditions with accelerations at 10-8 probability to be exceed (DNV Ships Rules Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 4) Summarizing the analysis listed above: The operational conditions of the reel could analyzed as LRFD Load condition a) with a general 1.0 load factor for every load type, where environmental loads are associated with the ships maximum motions for operational conditions. The Transit survival conditions could be analyzed as LRFD Load condition b) with a load factor of 1.0 for the self-weight of the reel, product and spooling tension and an environmental load factor of 1.3 or 1.0 depending on the probability level of the environmental loads (dynamic of the ship and wind speed).
5.2 Utilization Factors for LRFD and WSD Methods

After analyzing the behavior of the proposed structure under all these load scenarios, the stresses resulted must be compared with allowable utilization factors. Confusions appear when dimensioning the reels structural elements, since each standard gives different values for the usage factors (however, the differences are not that high)
23
Load case 1 2 3
DNV 2.22 1 = 0.67 1.5 1 = = 0.75 1.33 1 = = 0.91 1.1 =
DNV-OS-C201 a) 0.6 b) 0.8 c), d), e) 1.0
Usage factors according to table C-1 in DNV 2.22 (permissible stresses for elastic analysis) and E-1 in DNV-OS-C201 But the load combinations proposed are made of a summation of different load types, each multiplied with a safety factor. The functional loads are represented by self-weight loads, payload and spooling tension. This spooling tension will be used to calculate the hoop stress on the drum. The thickness of the drum can then be easily obtained by dividing the hoop stress with the material resistance and comparing it to a maximum usage factor of 85% of yield strength. [6] It can logically be assumed that by adding the Tare and Payload to the equation, combined with the 85% utilization from spooling tension, the overall utilization will be greater than 85%. So, a safe conclusion would be that the entire functional load combination should be limited to an 85% utilization factor. But then both DNV 2.22 and OS-C201 give a U value of 0.67 and 0.6 respectively for this load combination. Which one is to be used? Similarly, for the Dynamic Operation load case, to the functional loads will be added the inertia loads from the vessel motions, and again, the overall utilization will be higher than 85%. Therefore, the utilization from the functional loads will then need to be further lowered so all the 3 loads (SG+SL+SM) will not exceed 0.85 allowable utilization. But then how to comply with proposed 0.75 and 0.8 utilization in DNV 2.22 and OS-C201 respectively? LRFD method only gives load types and load combinations. It does not provide any tools that would enable the calculation of the stresses in the structural elements, therefore enabling their dimensioning. So, for reel design, hoop stress and flange pressure are calculated based on the same formulas found in DNV 2.22 (so similarly to the WDS method), and comparing results with 0.85 allowable utilization factor.
24
If the engineer then combines his loads according to the LRFD method: ULS a): 1.3 x F + 0.7 x E, just by multiplying 0.85 with 1.3 the usage factors will exceed 1 (0.85 x 1.3 = 1.105 > 1). Then how can be fulfilled the safety requirement of 0.86 utilization in DNV-OS-C101? ( = =
.
= 0.86) < ;
- M = material factor according to DNV C-101 Section 5, B100 1
= where: Sd = design load - Rd = resistance factor - fy = yield strength of material [3]
5.3 Hoop Stress and Flange Pressure

When trying to establish the reels drum wall thickness, the methodology used is the one proposed by DNV 2.22 standard. Basically, the hoop stress in the drum will be calculated by considering the pressure resulting from on-spooling the product stored on the reel (umbilical, risers, etc.). As the product will be spooled onto the reel under a well-controlled tension, the pressure applied onto it will try and squeeze the drum, thus forcing it to expand on longitudinal direction. The outer flanges of the reel will try to restrict the drum from expanding, thus generating longitudinal stresses into the drums walls. The simple equilibrium of forces is achieved by considering only 1 layer of product (umbilical, wire, etc.), so the equations need to be calibrated for the effect of multi-layering. Multi-layering of product onto the drum of the reel or winch involves a much more complex array of forces than the simple case of 1 layer, where only tension is to be considered. This is the reason for the rope layer factor (C) present in the DNV 2.22 hoop tension formula:
25
= where: S = spooling tension P = pitch of product (wire, etc.) tav = plate thickness C = rope layer factor: o C = 1 for 1 layer o C = 1.75 for 2 layers
. [5.1]
o C = 3 for more than 5 layers [6] It can be easily observed that the hoop stress value is governed by 2 parameters: spooling tension (S) and rope factor (C). DNV 2.22 is built on the assumption that the product will be spooled under maximum allowable and uniform tension. Therefore, the wire will experience the same tension all across its cross section and the entire product will be spooled at a constant, well controlled tension. This is logic and perfectly achievable in the case of steel wire (where the exact material characteristics are known and only one material is used for the wire fabrication) spooled onto winches. But what happens when synthetic fiber rope or composite products (like umbilicals), made up from 5 or more different materials, with different properties, prone to internal slippage between components, for which their behavior under tension is not entirely made public by their manufacturers or simply unknown? [8] Furthermore, umbilical storage reels are extremely large structures, built with high tolerances, even at the drive hub. So, based on reel designers and fabricators information, accuracy is not one of reels strengths, especially when talking about spooling. If the tension can be more accurately controlled when using a tensioner, in case of spooling when the reel is mounted on rollers (and the rotation of the reel is achieved due to friction between the rollers and the outer edge of the flange) or by hub drive (i.e. when the reel is mounted between 2 massive towers like in figure xxx. for tower driven systems), correct product spooling is often
26
acknowledged not by measuring the spooling tension employed, but by visual confirmation that the product is properly arranged onto the reel drum. [8] Sometimes, due to product tension limitations (especially umbilicals) or restrictive crushing pressures imposed by product fabricator or because of umbilical end terminations that would make attaching the product to the reel more difficult and not as strong as originally intended, then the spooling tension will no longer be uniform, neither it will have significant values, so the hoop stress generated will be low. [8] So, what degree of accuracy do the DNV 2.22 formulas have in these cases? If the hoop stress is low, then the pressure acting onto the flanges (which is directly dependent on the hoop stress value, as it can be seen in Equation 5.2), will be even lower, especially if considering the industry preferred arrangement (the product layers carefully winded ones on top of the others as shown in Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1 Product Arrangement on the Reel Drum
27
= where: = drum diameter
2 3
[5.2]
tav = average drum thickness of drum barrel [6] A logical question could be why the product crushing pressure is not considered to be a
suitable design parameter? [8] Would the provided formulas still ensure a safe design or should there be a static (based primarily on self-weight of structure and product) design method provided as back-up, just for such situations? DNV current practices and latest recommendations (that are included in the 2011 updated version of the 2.22 standard), based on studies and industry experience, speak of a linear increase of the value for C from 1.75 for 2 layers to 3 for more than 5 layers of product. According to DNV, some winch and crane manufacturers have even confirmed that the new increased value of C=3.0 matched the results from full scale testing of their products. However, DNV allows decreasing the value for the C factor after special considerations. [9] How relevant and what positive influence can this increase of C have on umbilical reels? Did they consider a large number of materials with different characteristics or just various steel wire ropes? Why is this apparent contradiction in conclusions between DNV and other public studies?
28
5.4 Rope Factor (C)

But why is C factor so important? By multiplying the spooling tension with a higher than 1 coefficient, the hoop stress will increase rapidly, thus leading to the need of a thicker drum wall. Basically, since the spooling tension cannot be modified due to proper spooling and winding reasons, a logical and relevantto-the-design value of C is very important. Understanding the reasons behind a certain value for C and how they can be manipulated into the benefit of the design (thus enabling a decrease in the wall thickness of drum) is crucial. It has been observed that rope stiffness has a direct impact on how the loads are distributed on the drum. Tough, very stiff steel wire ropes will push harder into the surface of the drum, thus almost cutting into its shell. A softer, less rigid product like an umbilical will deform more under the spooling tension loads that a steel wire, and will act like a damper. Combined with the increased lateral area, the pressure will be distributed more evenly onto a larger surface, thus lowering the loads at the drums surface. [9][10] Another important aspect is related to how much load will experience the first (inner layer) of the product. If the designers can confirm that the first layer of the product will be subject to a reduced load than the next layers, then DNV guidelines allow the use of a reduced value for the C factor.
5.4.1 Large Wire Rope Mooring Winch Drum Analysis and Design Criteria Study
The Large Wire Rope Mooring Winch Drum Analysis and Design Criteria study supports the above DNV conclusions and proves by calculation the direct relationship between lateral modulus of elasticity and load transfer for the reel drum. [9] The study concentrates on investigating how the stiffness of the wire, spooling tension and number of layers influence the load transfer to the drum. Although well known by manufacturers, from previous experience and analysis conducted over the years by design engineers that got repeating results, it was observed that rope characteristics (diameter, stiffness,
29
etc.), number of layers and spooling tension dictate the impact on the reel barrel, but no study could show in what proportion each of the 3 affect the overall result. Flange and drum design are directly influenced by product stiffness, yet few have thoroughly investigated this aspect, although accurate results and clear conclusions could lead to more economical winch/reel design. The research results showed 2 important aspects: 1. The wire tension decreases towards the middle layers (possibly due to friction? Fig xxx no explanation provided); 2. High loads on the flange thrust if products with lower stiffness (products that would deform more) are spooled at high tensions [10]
5.4.2 Problems Related to the Design of Multilayer Drums for Synthetic and Hybrid Ropes Study
Similar results were obtained and recorded in the study conducted at the University of Clausthal by P.Dietz, A. Lohrengel and others on the Problems Related to the Design of Multilayer Drums for Synthetic and Hybrid Ropes. The study revealed that winches carrying products with reduced Youngs modulus in transversal direction will experience lower pressures on the drum, but increased loads on the flanges. This happens because of the deformation of the products cross section from circular to oval, thus the pressures on the drum will decrease because of increased product footprint on the drum and because the deformation of the product will act as a damper, consuming energy until the forces will no longer be able to deform the product. In the same time, on transversal direction, the cross section of the squeezed product will increase in width, thus generating additional loads on the flanges. [11] In this case, the way flange pressure is calculated in DNV 2.22, based on the hoop stress will no longer match the actual way the loads are distributed on the drum and flange, leading to the possibility that the flanges will be under-designed. Although their study was conducted on fiber rope, the results can be considered relevant, as umbilicals also have a reduced Youngs modulus in transverse direction, being prone to deformation.
30
The rope factor gives a generic value, applicable to all types of products. It is not shown how those values were obtained and based on what assumptions. Does it consider the benefic influence of friction? How does the rigidity of the product influence the overall loads that act on the drum?
5.5 Spooling Tension Friction Factor Relationship; Friction between Product Layers
The standards do not provide any information regarding the positive (or negative) influence the friction between product layers has on load transfer to the reel drum. DNV 2.22 provides a 0.1 friction coefficient for the drum; does that cover accurately the friction between the layers of an umbilical? The following equations and logic was developed with the help and under the guidance of my industry supervisor, Mr. Marius Popa. Based on his experience working with reels, by understanding the general forces that act upon the product and stresses that develop within the product during the spooling process and corroborating them with product rigidity and friction between the product layers, we managed to transfer into equations his way of seeing the state of efforts that act on the product during spooling operations. Spooled product (i.e. umbilical)
Drum Center
Figure 5.5.1 Forces in Spooled Product

31
From Figure 5.5.1 it can be observed that:

= = + = ( ) =0 =
[Eq. 5.5.1] [Eq. 5.5.2] [Eq. 5.5.3]
If we assume K = 0, then the equations will become:

=0
[Eq. 5.5.4]
Eq. 5.5.2 will remain the same

+ =0 =
[Eq. 5.5.5]
By substituting Eq. 5.5.5 in Eq. 5.5.2 we obtain:

= =
[Eq. 5.5.6]
By integrating and rearranging, Eq. 5.5.6 will become:

=
[Eq. 5.5.7]
By substituting Eq. 5.5.3 in Eq. 5.5.2 we obtain:

= ( ) =
[Eq. 5.5.8]
From equation 5.5.7 and by integrating Eq. 5.5.8 we obtain the equation that governs the spooling tension as a function depending on rigidity and friction.
= +
[Eq. 5.5.9]
32
S0e-
S=kr+S0e- S=kr
Figure 5.5.2 Spooling Tension Curve According to Eq. 5.5.9 Where: S = spooling tension S0 = initial spooling tension Fe = elastic force k = rigidity coefficient Ff = friction force = friction coefficient R = compressive force r = radius from drum center to product layer = the angular travel of the free end When evaluating the tensions in the spooled product and the pressures on the drum (Figure 5.5.1, 5.5.2 and Equation 5.5.9), we can observe that the tension is decreasing with the increase of the friction (this happens because tension is consumed by friction) up to a point (point P on figure 5.5.2) where, due to the product rigidity, the tension required to keep the product from uncoiling becomes larger than the friction force. [22] Same thing was observed by other engineers conducting FEA analysis on winches: pressure on the drum increasing with the number of wire layers and then starting to decrease as the drum began to fill. The overall conclusion was that the lower layers friction was preventing the upper layers from constricting the drum any further. [12] Although this
33
observation is not included in any scientific study or official report, it should be taken into consideration as evidence that engineers involved in different fields of activities, when analyzing the behavior of spooled wires on winches, seem to get similar results and conclusions. Furthermore, it is well known that cables are suffering from wear and tear caused by friction during their service life (phenomenon highlighted in the Australian standard AS27592004 Steel Wire Rope [13]) and it is common knowledge that a very fast unwinding of a winch will lead to the overheating of the wire. This can only be explained by high friction between the product layers. Reel designers have confirmed that they consider in their calculations that the wire tension (i.e. laying tension) will dissipate within 5 layers, therefore acknowledging and using friction in their benefit, although it is not specifically taken into account in the design codes. All these come and support the idea that friction plays a much more important role when talking about multi layered reels/winches and its impact to the overall design must be investigated more seriously.
5.5.1 AM16 Improvement in the Design of Winches Study

Back in 2005, a bachelor degree thesis written at the University of Singapore, AM16 Improvement in the Design of Winches, compared the way in which hoop stress is calculated by DNV 2.22 and an Australian standard (AS 1418-1977 Crane Code). These standards were found to be the only ones (to that date) to provide ways of calculating the hoop stress (i.e. formulas) for a multi-layered winch drum. To summarize their study, they calculated the hoop stress based on each of the 2 standards for the same loads. Even if the formulas were similar, the results were quite different because of the differences in calculating the rope factor. The derived drum wall thickness from the hoop stress was greater for the Australian standard then the DNV one and both showed that the assumed drum design will fail during service. But the drum was already in service for more than 10 years without any kind of structural failures.
34
So they undertook a series of experiments to show that the current ways of designing the drum for a winch are too conservative. They observed 2 things: 1. The current DNV rope factor (C) and AS 1418-1977 (K) for multi-layered systems were far too conservative. DNV C factors were found to be between 1.5 to 2.5 times larger than their experimental readings.
2. For drums which are never fully unspooled, the first inner layers behave as part of the drum,
thus contributing to the increase of the effective drums wall thickness. They named this phenomenon rope relaxation.[14]
5.5.2 Improvements in Winch Design Guide AM11 Study

The same researchers conducted another study one year later (Improvements in Winch Design Guide AM11). The experiments conducted by them showed not only that wire tension decreased as product layers were spooled one on top of the other, but also that wire tension decreased with each turn within the same layer. Their research comes as a scientific proof, based on measurements, that even in the most controlled environment (i.e. University laboratory) the spooling tension is not uniform, therefore the assumption on which the DNV and Australian standards are built on (that spooling tension is uniform and constant) are unrealistic and too conservative. The final result of their work was to provide correction factors that could be used for calibrating the rope factors provided by the 2 standards. [15] The validity and accuracy of their correction factors will not be discussed in this paper, but their observations regarding the fact that spooling tension is not uniform and has a decreasing tendency will be considered relevant to the idea that current application of the design standards for the design of reels offers too generalized design rules that may lead to overconservative designs.
35
5.6 Comments
In absence of relevant tests and studies made on products that could behave as close as possible to umbilicals, results from studies made on other types of products and materials will have to be considered and analyzed. However, because of the mixed nature of umbilicals (they are made up of so many different materials elastomers, plastics, steel, other metal alloys, etc.) that perform in all but similar ways, the conclusions and assumptions have a decreased level of accuracy and reel design will suffer, as it rather rely on guessing than on proven facts. Furthermore, no standard regulates the matter of testing. Based on what rules should designers take into account the implications that pressure testing of spooled products will have on the reels structure? Who should take responsibility in case of reel structural failure during testing, although the structure was designed in full compliance with existing standards? The fact that no failures occurred up to date does not mean that they might not occur in the future. All these grey areas and unaccounted aspects in the design information may lead to overdesign and may be translated into increased reel weights. In consequence, the chance to lead to increased costs for manufacture processes, lifting and transportation operations is significant.
36
Chapter 6: FEA Analysis

6.1 Reel Designs
Although they are not complex pieces of equipment, due to their increased size and relative limited use, reels are designed and produced, at least in the UK, by a few manufacturers. Basically, a reel is made of 3 main components: a horizontal cylinder (the drum), on which the product is spooled, and 2 vertical members the flanges placed at each of the 2 ends of the drum. There are several designs used by the various companies, but these can be grouped into 2 large categories: 1. Reels with the drum made from thick plate that is rolled and then welded to form a cylinder. This drum cylinder is reinforced with 1 to 3 inner stiffeners, perpendicular to the cylinder plane, that enable the drum to keep its shape during spooling/unspooling of product and transportation operations, thus preventing it to buckle under the combined loads from the hoop stress and pressures due to spooling. 2. Reels with the drum structure made from hollow sections or I beams, distributed on the outer perimeter of the drum cylinder as generators. These are held together by several perpendicular rings or hoops (2 4 depending on the drums size and payload); the structure skeleton looks like a wooden barrel, but with fewer staves. Everything is wrapped with a plate, thinner than the one used for the design described in 1, which forms the support on which the product will be spooled onto. So, the main differences between the 2 designs would be the fact that the first drum design would be made just from bend plate, with internal stiffeners that would partition the drum inside into 3 or more small chambers; these inner stiffeners look very similar with the reel flanges, resembling a wagon wheel. The second design that will lead to a structure resembling a barrel, with all the structural members placed at the exterior of the drum. The flange design resembles the design of a wagons wheel: a small inner rim (on which the drive mechanism would couple in case of hub-driven reels during spooling/unspooling) from which radially distributed spokes will extend and connect to an outer rim (on which the reel
37
would be stored during transport or would rotate during spooling/ unspooling operations in the case of rim-driven reels). Sometimes, in the spacing between the spokes, steel gussets can be fitted (thus the flanges would look almost like a disc) to rigidize the flanges. This measure can be necessary when the weight of the payload is high or the spooling tension of the product will induce high pressures to the drum and flanges. Usually, for the reels with the drum designed as described in the first case, the connection between the flanges and the drum is made through bolts. The resulting structure will be considerably lighter than the one with hoops and staves, the downside being that this design is limited to weights not exceeding 300t (payload + reel self-weight). For reels with rating exceeding 300t, this design will no longer be used. Instead, a similar arrangement as described in the second case will be chosen and the connection between the flanges and the drum will be made via full penetration welds [8]. For the purposes of this dissertation, the second reel design type will be chosen, as it is the more general and common of the 2. Based on the design reports and fabrication drawings studied, a 10m diameter reel design was chosen. An overall view of the chosen reel design can be seen in Figure 6.1.
Outer Rim Flange Spoke Drum Spoke (Stave)
Drum Stiffening Ring (Hoop) Drum Plate Inner Rim (Hub) Figure 6.1 Reel Primary Structure
38
The structural elements are:

Number of elements
Element Drum hoop Drum stave Drum plate Inner rim (hub) Flange Spoke Outer rim
Section
Material
4 18 1 2 18 2
203x203x71 203x203x71 15mm plate 250x250x8 305x305x118 250x250x8 S355
6.2 Boundary conditions

For each of the 2 scenarios considered storm (transit/survival) and operational the reel will be supported in different ways. During transport, it is assumed that the reel will rest on cradles on the back deck of the service ship. It will be stored in upright position and the only contact points (between the reel and the cradles) will be located at the lower part of the flanges, on the outer rim. All the loads will be transmitted to the cradles through the outer rim and the flange spokes that would be directly supported by the cradle. In the considered situation, the cradles are long enough to offer direct support only for 3 spokes. Therefore, the FEA model will only have 3 supports at the lower part of each of the 2 flanges, beneath 3 of the spokes, as shown in Figure 6.2.1. Translations on all of the 3 directions will be restrained, but the rotations will be permitted. Figure 6.2.1 Reel Flange Supports
39
Usually, reels are also tied down to the deck with wire ropes. This method is called sea fastening and it ensures a better way of preventing the reel to move during transport. For the purposes of this dissertation, sea fastenings are not considered.
Cradle
Figure 6.2.2 Reel On Cradles and Sea Fastened On Deck of Ship (Courtesy of Marine Well Containment Company) [18] During operation, reels can either be put on rollers and unspooled, thus being rim-driven, or they can be lifted and positioned between 2 towers. The towers have special supports on which the reel will rest and a drive mechanism that couples to the hub of the reel. If the reel is operated (spooled/unspooled) in this way, then it is called hub-driven. The contact points between the reel and the tower supports are located on both sides of the reel, at the flange center, where the reel hub (or inner rim) is located. Hub Support and Drive Coupling
Figure 6.2.3 Reel Towers (Courtesy of Aquatic) [19]
40
Figure 6.2.4 Reel Mounted Between Towers (Drive Side) Towers (Courtesy of Aquatic) [19] For the FEA model, supports that only allow rotations on all of the 3 directions are selected. They will be fitted on the upper half of the hub, at the intersection between the hub and the flange spokes, as shown in Figure 6.2.4.
Figure 6.2.4 Reel Hub Supports

41
6.3 Load Scenarios

An FEA model was built and loaded according to the WSD (DNV 2.22 and DNV OSC201 standards) and LRFD (DNV OS-101) requirements. The load combinations studied correspond to the Ultimate Limit States (as these are considered to be the ones that would dictate the overall design strength requirements. For each of the 2 scenarios selected (transport and operational), the final orientation of the reel on the transport ship cannot be known from the design stage, therefore the 2 possible orientations for each scenario must be analyzed to see which one is the most unfavorable:
Transit survival (transportation the ship deck on cradles) Storm LRFD
direction load combination direction
Environmental Dynamic operation (hub driven reel on the ship deck) Operational LRFD
direction direction
Storm WSD
direction direction
Operational WSD
direction direction
longitudinal transversal longitudinal transversal longitudinal transversal longitudinal transversal
1xG + 1xQ + 1.3xE
SG+SL+SM
1.3xG + 1.3xQ + 0.7xE
SG + SL +SW
where: SG self weight of reel; SL loads due to payload and spooling tension; SW loads due to wind; SM loads due to vessel motion G permanent loads (self weight of structure) Q live loads (payload) E environmental loads As previously discussed, since the LRFD method does not provide any formulas to determine the pressures that act on the flanges and drum from spooling operations, these forces
42
were calculated using the methodology from DNV 2.22 Lifting Appliances Standard Chapter 2 Section 3 B200 Drums. Therefore, the only difference between the 2 methods is represented by the way in which the load cases are combined to form the load combinations. The conclusions and discussions regarding the results for each of the 2 methods can be found in Chapter 7.2.
43
6.4 Operational Limitations

Operational limitations and specified loads: Self-weight of reel Umbilical weight Number of layers Product diameter Reeling tension 58t 252t 18 120mm 10t
Environmental conditions storm Heave Longitudinal acceleration Transversal acceleration Wind load av = 1.9g al = 0.75g operational av = 1.45g al = 0.5g
at = 0.75g 800 N/mm2
at = 0.5g Figure 6.4.1 Assumed Ship Directions
Usually, reel designers specify certain values for the maximum ship accelerations under which a reel can be operated or safely transported. In this way, by choosing lower values they can obtain a lighter design. However, the acceleration values provided by the designers must be somehow correlated with the values used for ship design. It can be assumed that the accelerations for operational case could be chosen in a more permissive approach if the operational limitations are very strict: the reel can be operated only in a calm sea and low winds, thus ensuring that the ship accelerations with 1 day return period (or 10-4 probability to be exceeded) will not be exceeded. In other words, the reel could only be operated as long as the weather conditions are very good and the probability of the ship to experience accelerations close to its 1 day design accelerations is minimal. This would drastically limit the operational window for the reel, but it can be achieved under ideal conditions. However, for transport conditions, especially if the reel is to be transported on a long journey or if the transporting ship cannot avoid the storm, then the reel should be designed taking
44
into account the ship accelerations during storm conditions so that it will survive and still be in operating condition once the storm passes. Therefore, its design accelerations should be correlated to the ones specified in DNVs Rules for Ships January 2012, Part 5, Chapter 7, Section 2 E400 or with other similar standards. If the accelerations corresponding to the Storm scenario are selected and applied to the reel for the Transit Survival case, if using LRFD design method, then the accelerations should be multiplied with a safety factor of 1.3. [3] This will lead to a reel design able to withstand greater motions than the carrying ship itself, which does not make sense in a reality. Therefore, using LRFD for the design of reels seems to be more challenging and requires a very good understanding of the standards used and how their requirements correlate with the requirements for other equipments and means of transportation (i.e. ships), but also the ability to make solid judgments on how to interpret and chose the appropriate design factors in this case accelerations so that the standards requirements are fulfilled and the final product (the reel) will be designed in a coherent and realistic manner. For this dissertation, the accelerations for the reel operation and transport cases were selected based on the DNV Rules for Ships January 2012, Part 5, Chapter 7, Section 2 E400 (for storm/transit survival case) and DNV Rules for Ships January 2012, Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 4 C500 (for operational conditions). [16][7]
45
Service Ship less than 100m Long (L < 100m) 20 Year Storm (10 probability of exceedance) DNV Rules for Ships January 2012, Part 5, Chapter 7, Section 2 E400 requirements av = 0.9g* maximum of at and al will be chosen at = al = 0.75g av = 0.9g* Design Value
-8
Operating Conditions (10-4 probability of exceedance or 1 day return period) DNV Rules for Ships January 2012, Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 4 C500 requirements av = (0.9/2)g = 0.45g
*
Design Value
av = 0.45g* maximum of at and al will be chosen at = al = 0.5g
at = 0.75g
at = 0.75g x 0.67 = 0.5g al = 0.6g x 0.67 = 0.4g
al = 0.6g
*)
the reel and product self-weights will be added (1g) to the vertical accelerations
where: g acceleration of gravity (g 9.81m/s2) av vertical acceleration of ship at transversal acceleration of ship al longitudinal acceleration of ship [7]
46
6.5 Load Cases

The load cases considered for the FEA analysis are described below. Their values will be summarized in a table at the end of this section. The calculations showing how the values for each load case were obtained can be found in Appendix 1. 1. Self-weight of structure. 2. Product load the entire product load will act only on the top half of the reel drum as shown in Figure 6.5.1 (left flange removed for clarity).
Figure 6.5.1
47
3. Drum pressure due to reeling tension. In DNV no. 2.22 Standard, the hoop stress formula in Chapter 2, Section 3, B207 requirements for the C factor for 5 layers and above is 3. However, this will lead to increased pressure values on both the drum and flanges. In the industry, the value for C is usually taken as 1.75. [6] However, in this dissertation both values were considered and the results will be commented in the following chapters.
Figure 6.5.2 Drum Pressure Due to Reeling Tension (left flange removed for clarity) 4. Flange force due to reeling tension. In DNV no. 2.22 Standard, in Chapter 2, Section 3, B208 the flange pressure is assumed to be linearly increasing from zero at the top layer to the maximum value of = 2 3
near the barrel surface. Designers consider the load to be linearly distributed on the spoke and have a triangular shape, with the maximum value near the barrel surface. In reality, the pressure is distributed on the whole flange area which have a circular shape. The spokes are radially extending from the inner rim towards the outer rim and the area from which the pressure is unloaded to the spoke is a circle sector. Since the pressure
48
decreases as the corresponding spoke area increases (there is an inverse relationship between them), probably a more accurate distribution of the pressure on the spokes would be a parabolic one, with the maximum value towards the middle of the spoke. For the purposes of this dissertation, a similar simplifying assumption as the one used by the industry will be considered, thus a triangular load distribution will be modeled on each spoke. The pressure at the drum surface will be considered linearly distributed on each of the staves and the value will be 3 times greater than the one acting on the flange. [6]
Figure 6.5.3 Flange Pressure Due to Reeling Tension
5. Transverse load on flange under transverse accelerations. Under transverse accelerations (generated by the ships motions), depending on the reeling tension, a portion of the product or the entire product will slide, thus the flange will have to support an additional load. As the reel tilts under transverse accelerations, if the product is not spooled with a sufficient tension, then the force that keeps the product attached to the drum and prevents it from sliding might be exceeded by the force generated by the mass of the product combined with the
49
transverse acceleration. A simple check whether the minimum required friction coefficient (=0.1 in DNV 2.22 Chapter 2, Section 3, B513) is exceeded or not (detailed calculations in Appendix 1). In this particular case, the entire product will not slide. Therefore, a common industry practice is to consider a conical shaped portion of the product to slide and act on the flange. In cross section, the load distribution has a triangular shape, increasing from 0, near the drum surface, and linearly increasing towards a maximum value at the outer layers of the product (Figure 6.5.4). The angle made by the flange and assumed product sliding plane is usually considered to be 30 (Figure 6.5.5). If the spooling tension cannot generate a drum pressure large enough, then the whole product might slide, thus the entire weight of the product will have to be supported by the flange.
Figure 6.5.5 Proportion in which Sliding Product Pressure Will Be Supported by Flange and Drum
Figure 6.5.4 Flange Pressure Due to Partial Product Slide
50
5a. For the purposes of this design exercise, a special, extreme case will be considered when the spooling tension will be taken as 0 and the effects will be analyzed. However, the drum and flange pressures due to spooling tension will then become 0, so it should be interesting to see what actually happens in an extreme case.
6.5.6 Flange Pressure Due to Full Product Slide 6. Forces on the hub under transverse accelerations. The remaining payload after the product slide assumed in the previous load case will still act as pressure on the drum. Therefore, each of the drum staves will be subjected to a pressure generated by the remaining payload, but this pressure will be acting as friction force, along the local X axis of each stave. Note: Load cases 5 and 6 are always applied simultaneously.
51
7. Forces on the hub under longitudinal accelerations.
Figure 6.5.7 Forces on the Hub Under Longitudinal Accelerations 8. Transverse loads generated by the wind (on the flange). 9. Longitudinal loads generated by the wind (on the drum). 10. Reeling tension
52
Load cases that would be applied to the FEA model Model Load Cases value no name load axis C = 1.75 LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 self-weight self-weight self-weight product x y z z perpendicular to local x axis of each stave 58t 58t 58t 252t C=3
LC5
spooling pressure on drum
500 N/mm
855.77 N/mm
LC6
spooling pressure on flange
linearly linearly varying from 0 varying from to 233.21 0 to 399.79 N/mm N/mm
LC7
flange force from transversal accelerations flange force from transversal accelerations when product slides (S=0) drum force from transversal accelerations drum force from longitudinal accelerations transverse wind load longitudinal wind load reeling tension
23.88 N/mm
LC7a
63.58 N/mm
LC8
in line with stave local x axis x y x point load
19.56 N/mm
LC9 LC10 LC11 LC12
252t 800 N/mm2 7.78 N/mm 10t
53

Load Combinations Storm - accelerations: av = 1.9g, at = 0.75g, al = 0.75g Storm LRFD Load Case Number Name Axis Longitudinal LCC5 Transversal S = 0 LCC6a S = 10t LCC6 Storm WSD Operational - accelerations: av = 1.45g, at = 0.5g, al = 0.5g Operational LRFD Operational WSD Transversal Longitudinal LCC13 Transversal LCC14 Longitudinal Longitudinal Transversal S = 0 S = 10t G Q E G Q E LCC7 LCC15 LCC16 LCC8a LCC8 LCC9 LCC10 LCC11 LCC9 LCC10 LCC12 0.75 0.75 1 1 0.5* 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.5* 0.75 0.9 0.9 1.9 1.9 0.5* 0.75 1.9 1.9 0.75 1.9 1.9 0.5* 1 1 1 0.45 0.45 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.45 1.45 1.45 1 0.5 0.5 1.45 1.45 1
G Q E G Q E G Q E LCC1 LCC2 LCC3 LCC1 LCC2a LCC4a LCC1 LCC2 LCC4 self-weight self-weight self-weight product x y z 0.75
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5
LC6 LC7
LC7a
LC8
LC9 LC10 LC11 LC12
z perpendicular spooling pressure on to local x axis drum of each stave spooling pressure on y flange flange force from transversal y accelerations flange force from transversal y accelerations when product slides (S=0) drum force from in line with transversal stave local x accelerations axis drum force from longitudinal x accelerations transverse wind load y longitudinal wind load reeling tension x point load
0.5*
0.5* 0.75
0.5*
0.5* 0.75
1 0.5
1 0.5
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75 1 1 1 1 1 ULS b) 1G + 1Q + 1.3E 1 1
0.45 1 1 1
0.5 1 1 1 1
ULS a) 1.3G + 1.3Q + 0.7E
) During transport, a reduced value for the spooling tension is usually considered by industry designers, thus lowering the pressures
on the drum and flange. [8] In this instance, it is assumed that only half of the spooling tension will still act on the reel components during transport.
54
Chapter 7: Result Interpretation

The initial analysis considered loads calculated with a rope factor C=1.75. The models were run under the relevant load combinations and the results compared. For both design methods were recorded failures utilization factors higher than allowable for the flange spokes and for the drum staves. Code checks were made based on Eurocode 3 (for LRFD method) and AISC 89 (for WSD method), which are built-in the FEA program used. For each of the two methods, the structure of the reel was strengthened, by increasing the cross section of the spokes and staves to the next larger standard profile available in BS4 Part 1 1993 standard for structural sections. Eventually, the final weight of the 2 new reels was compared and the results were commented. The section increase could not be done just for the failing elements, but for all similar elements, as the reel does not have an upright specific position in which it can be stored, thus all spokes could in turn fail, not just the ones supporting the reel weight on the cradles at a specific moment in time; a similar logic was followed in the case of the failing drum staves.
7.1 Results of the analysis 7.1.1 Flange Spokes

The analysis showed that the reel spokes will fail during transport for both design methods. The initial assumption that the weight of the reel will be supported only by 3 spokes on each flange was considered unrealistic as the utilization in those spokes was almost 4 times the allowable (allowable = 0.85 << 3.38 actual). Furthermore, no sea
fastenings were considered, so the length of the supporting cradle was increased, thus providing support for 4 spokes on each flange. The utilization ratios decreased to a more reasonable value of 1.36 for the LRFD method. For WSD, the utilizations in the same spokes were around 1.05, so almost 30% lower. Figure 7.1.1 Flange Spokes with Highest Utilization
55
As expected, the spokes suffered failures only during transport, under increased vessel accelerations. The case in which the reel tilts along its longer axis (transversal load situation considered in the model) is more unfavorable that the longitudinal load situation. The extreme scenario when the product spooling tension was assumed to be 0, thus determining the entire product to slide and all its weight to be supported by the flange, did not show higher utilizations that the case when only a percentage of the product slides. The utilization values were similar
0.49 and 0.5 for full product slide and partial product slide, respectively for the LRFD; 0.40 and 0.53 for full product slide and partial product slide, respectively for the WSD. This might be explained by the fact that the spooling pressure on the flange due to reeling tension,
although reduced to half of its operational value during transport, still has an important impact on the behavior of the flange spokes.
7.1.2 Drum Staves

Although there were recorded failures of the staves in the Transport Scenario, the failures were small compared to the ones from the Operational Case. Almost all the drum staves had utilization ratios above 0.85, the highest being up to 1.79 for the LRFD and 1.47 for WSD. Again, a difference of over 20% between the two methods. Probably an interesting point is that the parts of the staves with highest stressed were located at the connection between the flanges and the drum, highlighted in red in Figure 7.1.2. This aspect could be of significant importance, especially in the case of the reel design where the flanges connected to the drum through bolts. The drum hoops did not appear to have a utilization factor higher than allowable.
Figure 7.1.2 Drum Staves with Highest Utilization

56
7.2 Comments
Overall, the spokes and the drum staves had to be increased up to the where their maximum utilization did not exceed the allowable. Along with the section increase came also an increase in weight. The new sections and weight of the reel according to the design methods considered are shown in Table 7.2.
Spoke Hoop Stave Reel Self-weight
Final Sections C=1.75 WSD LRFD UC 305x305x118 UC 305x305x158 UC 305x305x240 UC 203x203x71 UC 203x203x71 UC 203x203x71 UC 203x203x71 UC 254x254x132 UC 254x254x176 58t 71.26t 88.63t 24.40% Weight Difference (%) Table 7.2.1 New Sections for the Structural Members Initial Sections
C=3 LRFD UC 305x305x240 UC 203x203x71 UC 305x305x240 102.61t 44%
It can be easily observed that by considering a higher value for the rope factor, as per DNV 2.22 requirements, could lead to a dramatic weight increase. Therefore, at least in case of reels transporting lengthy products that have to be spooled in many layers, based on previous experiences that did not point out reel structural failures, a lower value for C=1.75 or less can be considered more appropriate. With respect to the design method, since LRFD does not provide formulas to estimate hoop stress, nor drum and flange pressures due to reeling tensions, then the input formulas for both methods is provided by WSD method through DNV 2.22. For ultimate limit states, both methods have a similar allowable utilization factor around 0.85 of the yield strength of the material (for LRFD U = 0.87, for WSD U = 0.85). So, basically, in the particular case of reels, the main difference between the 2 design methods is the way in which the load combinations are built. In other words, the safety factors applied to each of the load types (self-weight loads G, live loads Q and environmental loads E). For the particular case of reels, if the LRFD is applied as per DNV-OS-H102 Table 5-1
Load factors for ULS Load Categories Load Condition G Q D E a 1.3 1.3 1 0.7 b 1 1 1 1.3 Table 7.2.2 (DNV-OS-H102, Table 5-1)
57
A N/A N/A
without considering any of the allowed reduced safety factors (as stated in DNV-OS-C101 Section 2 B402 and B404 and discussed in Chapter 3 Section 3.3 Comments of this paper), then the LRFD method proves to be too conservative, thus leading to a heavier overall reel, which in turn could prove to be at least uneconomical in terms of offshore transportation and lifting. Another grey area for LRFD could be considered the way in which the safety factors for the environmental loads are chosen, especially in the Load case b); if the designer specified accelerations for the reels are chosen according to DNVs Rules for Ships January 2012, Part 5, Chapter 7, Section 2 E400, then accelerations are already similar with the ships design accelerations for storm conditions and a further multiplication for the reels accelerations could lead to a reel that is designed to survive in weather conditions that the transport vessel will not. The governing load combinations that were found to dictate the overall strength of the reel were the Operational load cases for both LRFD and WSD. With respect to the safety load factors in LRFD for G and Q, it can be stated that by increasing by 30% an already heavy structure and equipment (so for a 300t reel plus product an addition of 100t plus a 30% increase of the already high spooling pressures on the drum and flanges) could prove too conservative for a structure where these parameters can and are easily and accurately controlled. Therefore, the weight difference highlighted in Table 7.2.1 can now be explained. WSD appears to be the more economical of the 2 methods. Also, the reels designed according to this method have been in service for long periods of time without known structural failure, so it also seems to be confirmed by reality as suitable for reel design. Both methods rely on the hoop stress and drum and flange pressure equations in DNV no. 2.22 (equations 5.1 and 5.2 in this paper) in order to determine the loads to be applied on the reels structural members. Therefore, choosing the adequate value for the rope factor (C) should be carefully correlated with the specifics of each design (i.e. payload type, etc.). The increase of the rope factor in the latest edition of the DNV 2.22 standard from 1.75 to 3 for winches with more than 5 layers of product for subsea retrieval operations with the full load from the first layer [6], which sometimes is applicable to reels if they have to retrieve umbilicals form subsea, might prove to be over conservative, as long as these operations were also done in the past when reels have been designed according to older editions of the DNV 2.22 standard which did not have this requirement and the rope factor could be considered C=1.75.
58
Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper tried to give a better understanding of the 2 design methods (LRFD and WSD) used for reel design. The 2 methods discussed and compared from their requirements point of view and their limitations were discussed in light of the latest studies regarding winch design and spooled product (i.e. wire, rope, etc.) behavior when subjected to reeling tension (i.e. rope relaxation, friction between layers, etc.). FEA models were built based on the specific requirements of each of the 2 methods and the results obtained were commented upon. All in all, there are a lot of grey areas and situations where further research on products with similar characteristics as umbilicals is needed in order to reduce the amount of unknowns and give a better understanding on how loads actually act within the product layers and what is their overall combined effect on the reel structure. Friction between product layers that would lead to a reduction in the actual spooling tension (maybe close to 0 in some layers) and the damping effect under spooling tension of products with reduced lateral rigidity on the drum and flange pressures are just 2 areas where further research and solid results could prove that lower values for these loads could be considered, thus lighter designs could be obtained. Reels in general seem to be one of the least studied equipment in the Offshore and Oil and Gas industry. The assumption that they could be considered and designed as winches has its limitations, especially when it comes to determining the loads generated by product spooling. Both design and design review is difficult because there is no specific set of design rules or a recommended practice guide, so it comes down to each engineers way of interpreting the general design requirements of both LRFD and WSD methods. Although that, from discussions with reel designers, some engineers prefer the WSD method which, together with DNV no. 2.22 standard, provide a more calibrated-to-winch/reel-design set of rules, maybe others use LRFD which only provides general design rules and a lot of areas where assumptions have to be made. This might lead to the fact that, although all the assumptions are according to the standard requirements, the overall result could not be in accordance with the specifics of reels. From the design exercise performed, the results and relative easier way of designing and identifying load cases and building load combinations, but also the fact that WSD is more calibrated to winch design, which is assumed similar to a certain point with reel design, WSD seems to be more suitable for reel design
59
than LRFD. Probably, if a new standard based on LRFD, but focused on the specifics of reels were to be created, then the methods might be at least similar. Finally, the delicate matter of testing is not covered by any of the standards and this is considered to be an important area that needs to be regulated. The overall conclusion, not just by analyzing the current situation in terms of design standards available, but also from discussions with people from the industry, there is a need of a Recommended Practice Guide built on one of the 2 design methods that would summarize the general design rules to be used, how and what loads to be considered, to offer standard solvings for various details of the structure (i.e. what type drive connection will be more suitable for a certain dimension of reel, etc.), what load tests to be performed, etc., but calibrated on the particularities of reels and based on studies directly relevant to reels and the products they transport.
60
Bibliography 1. Wikipedia 2. Subsea Construction lecture notes, University of Aberdeen, 2012 3. DNV-OS-C101 Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General (LRFD Method), October 2008 4. DNV-OS-H102 Marine Operations, Design and Fabrication, January 2012 5. DNV-OS-C201 Structural Design of Offshore Units (WSD Method), October 2008 6. DNV No. 2.22 Lifting Appliances, October 2011 7. DNV Ship Rules, Part 3, Chapter 1Hull Structural Design Ships with Length 100 Meters and Above, January 2011 8. Discussions with people from the industry (DNV, Aquatic, Forsyths and others), June September 2012 9. DNV presentation on Hoop Stress in Multi-layer Drums,18th January 2011 10. Song, K.K., ODECO Engineers Inc.; Rao, G.P., Childers, Mark A., Large Wire Mooring Winch Drum Analysis and Design Criteria 8548-PA, April 1980 11. P. Dietz, A. Lohrengel, T. Schwarzer and M. Wchter, Problems Related to the Design of Multilayer Drums for Synthetic and Hybrid Ropes, Technical University of Clausthal, Fritz-Schting-Institute of Mechanical Engineering, OIPEEC Conference / 3rd International Ropedays - Stuttgart - March 2009 12. Forum Winch Design Rules of Thumb http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=135428, accessed august 2012 13. AS2759-2004 Steel Wire Rope, 2004 14. Lim Buan Teck, Danny, AM16 Improvement in the Design of Winches, National University of Singapore, Session 2004/2005 15. Poon, Jiaen, AM11 Improvements in Winch Design Guide, National University of Singapore, April 2006 16. DNV Rules for Ships January 2012, Part 5, Chapter 7 Offshore Service Vessels, Tugs and Special Ships, January 2012 17. Oceaneering http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/ocean/projects/reel/, accessed September 2012 18. Marine Well Containment Company http://marinewellcontainment.com/expanded_system.php, accessed September 2012
61
19. Aquatic http://www.aquatic.co.uk/equipment/powered-reel-systems/aqpr_02b_400-62, accessed September 2012 20. Forsyths http://www.forsyths.com/oil-and-gas-equipment/reels/, accessed September 2012 21. American Oil & Gas Historical Society http://aoghs.org/offshore/secret-pipeline-offshore-technology/
62
Appendix 1 Load Cases

1. Self-weight of structure (x axis): 58t 2. Self-weight of structure (y axis): 58t 3. Self-weight of structure (z axis): 58t Note: 3 self-weight load cases were created in order to simplify the addition of the reel selfweight multiplied with the relevant horizontal ship acceleration (longitudinal or transversal) to the final load combinations. 4. Product load acts only on the top half of the reel drum = 252 1000 = = 2472120 [1]

= 5400 5700 = 96698221.88 [1] [2] = = 0.02556 [3]
[2]
Where: Fp = force generated by the product on the drum A = drum overall area = drum diameter L = drum length = stave length l = product load distributed over the entire drum surface Not all the drum staves will be subjected to the same amount of load: the loads on the top staves will be significantly higher than the ones acting on the staves closer to the drum Equator. = = Where: Pi = pressure from product force on each stave M = product mass = 252t Reel Drum
63
sin
[4] [5]
sin
g = acceleration of gravity (g 9.81m/s2) xi = angle between stave and horizontal (18 staves distributed at a constant angle at the outer edge of the drum; angle between 2 consecutive staves = 20) n = number of staves = 18 sin = 2( 80 + 60 + 40 + 20 + 0) sin = 5.67 Figure A.1.1 Staves
= 2 (0.985 + 0.866 + 0.642 + 0.342 + 0) = 252 1000 9.81 5.67 5700 80 = 76.49 0.985 = 75.33 /
= 76.49 = 76.49 = 76.49
60 = 76.49 0.866 = 66.24 / 40 = 76.49 0.642 = 49.17 / 20 = 76.49 0.342 = 26.16 / 2 = 2 216.9 = 433.8 /
433.8 5700 = 252 9.81 1000
5. Drum pressure due to reeling tension = where: h = hoop stress S = spooling tension = 10t P = pitch of product (umbilical) = 120mm tav = drum plate thickness =15mm C = rope layer factor: o C = 1 for 1 layer o C = 1.75 for 2 layers [6]
64
o C = 3 for more than 5 layers [6] The product on the considered reel is spooled in 18 layers, therefore a rope factor C = 3 should be considered. However, designers have usually based their calculations on a value for C = 1.75 and industry practice and experience have proven that such a value would
ensure a safe design. 2 FEA models will be built with pressures calculated with both values and the results will be discussed. C = 3: =3 10 1000 9.81 = 163.5 / 120 15
Pressure on drum calculated with the equation for thin-walled pressure vessels: = where: pd = pressure on the drum from spooling tension = drum diameter = Pressure on each stave: = = 18 5400 = 855.77 / 18 163.5 2 15 = 0.908 / 5400 2 [7]
65
C = 1.75: Hoop stress: = 93.375 / Pressure on drum: = 0.53 / Pressure on each stave: = 500 / 6. Flange force due to reeling tension C = 3: = 2 3 = 2 15 163.5 = 0.303 / 3 5400
The triangular load distribution will be transformed into equivalent uniform distributed load (UDL) to simplify the calculation. Total loaded area: Product diameter = 120mm Number of layers = 18 Height of product = 18 120 = 2160mm = 4 = (5400 + 2160) 5400 4
= 5.13 10 Total load:
= 0.1515 5.13 10 = 7771.95 10 Load on each of the 18 flange spokes: = Force at drum surface:
66
7771.95 10 = 431.775 10 18
= C = 1.75:
431.775 10 2 = 399.79 / 2160
Flange force due to reeling tension: = 0.177 / Total load: = 4533.64 10 Load on each of the 18 flange spokes: = 251.87 10 Force at drum surface: = 233.21 / 7. Load on flange due to transverse acceleration Annular area of product: = Product volume: = Calculated product density: = = 252 10 = 863 2.92 10 / = 5.13 10 5700 = 2.92 10 (5400 + 2160) 5400 = 5.13 10 4
67
Check if the product slides under transverse acceleration: Transverse force: = = ( 2160 ) [8]
Friction force generated by the product mass and spooling tension: = where: P = product load +pressure on drum due to reeling tension (for C = 1.75) = friction coefficient = 0.1 [6] [3] = 0.5 2160 863 product will not slide For the Storm case, at = 0.75 and a reduced reeling tension will be considered (Sstorm = 0.5 S = 5t) = 0.75 2160 863 = 0.0137 / < 0.029 / = [7] = 0.02556 + 0.53 = 0.555 / = 0.0091 / < 0.0555 / = 0.1 0.555 = [9]
Transverse load distribution: Triangle area: = Annular volume of sliding product: = 5.5 10 18.8 % of product volume will slide on the flange. 2160 1247 = 2693520 2
68
Load on each spoke: Product slide load = 47.37t Load on each of the 18 flange spokes = 25.80 kN Load at top of spoke = 23.88 N/mm 5a. For S = 0, the entire product will slide, thus the entire payload will be supported by the flange spokes Payload = 252t Load on each of the 18 flange spokes = 14t = 137.34 kN Spoke loaded length = 2160mm Load on each spoke = 63.58 N/mm
8. Forces on the hub under transverse acceleration Remaining payload to be supported by the drum = 204.63t = 2007.42 kN Drum surface area: = = 5400 5700 = 96698221.88

Drum pressure (similarly calculated as in [3]) = 0.0207 N/mm2 Distance between staves (each stave will collect loads from a surface as long as the staves length and as wide as 2 halves of the distance between 2 consecutive staves 2 x (d/2)) = where: d = distance between staves (refer to Figure A.1.1) n = number of staves = 5400 = 942.477 18 [10]
Pressure on each of the 18 drum staves:
69
= 0.0207 942.477 = 19.56 / 9. Product load due to longitudinal accelerations Using same principle of calculations and equations [4] and [5], the load on each of the drum staves will be obtained. This load will be modeled parallel with the ship deck plane. = 252 1000 9.81 5.67 5700 90 = 76.49 1 = 76.49 /
= 76.49 = 76.49 = 76.49 = 76.49
70 = 71.90 / 70 = 56.2 / 70 = 38.24 / 10 = 14.28 / +2 = 76.49 + 2 178.605 = 433.7 / : 433.7 5700 = 252 1000 9.81
10. Transverse wind load Fwind = 800 N/mm2 load on outer rim load on spoke load on inner rim 11. Longitudinal wind load - Product diameter = 120mm - Number of layers = 18 - Height of product = 18 120 = 2160mm drum diameter = 5400mm Drum circumference = 5400 = 18221.23mm Sail area: =( +2 Total wing force:
70
0.44 N/mm 0.244 N/mm 0.344 N/mm
= (5400 + 2 2160) 5700 = 55404000
= 44.32
Using same principle of calculations and equations [4] and [5], the load on each of the drum staves will be obtained. This load will be modeled parallel with the ship deck plane. = 44.32 1000 5.67 5700 90 = 1.37 1 = 1.37 /
= 1.37 = 1.37 = 1.37 = 1.37
70 = 1.29 / 50 = 1.055 / 30 = 0.685 / 10 = 0.23 / +2 = 1.37 + 2 3.205 = 7.778 /
: 7.778 5700 = 44.32
71
Appendix 2 Risk Assessment

School Of Engineering Risk Assessment
(Guidance notes to be read prior to completing risk assessment) PROCEDURE: Experimenter completes Risk Assessment in consultation with Supervisor and technical staff as appropriate. Risk assessment is checked and signed by Supervisor Experimenter scans copy to Safety Advisor Places a paper copy of the signed document with the lab technician. Safety Advisor sends copy to School Administrative Officer & academic supervisor NOTES: No laboratory work is to commence without a risk assessment signed by the Supervisor. The risk assessment must be reviewed when any changes are made to the equipment, materials, procedure or personnel. Technical staff can stop work if no risk assessment is in place or if, in their opinion, there is a risk to safety.
Title of project
Research into Good Design Practice for Reels

Description of work Writing
Names of persons carrying out work Florian Mircea Teica
Name of Supervisor Marius Popa (Industry) Dr. Mohammed Salah-Eldin Imbabi (academic) Location of work DNV Aberdeen Office
Start date
12.06.2012
Predicted end date
12.09.2012
List of major equipment, materials and facilities involved. Laptop
72
MSc SUBSEA ENGINERING NAME: TEICA FLORIAN TEICA Record details of the hazards and who could be harmed.
-
Record the precautions which will be taken. -
Prepared by Florian Mircea Teica Supervisor Marius Popa Copy with Safety Advisor? Copy in Laboratory?
(to be retained for 1 year after completion of work)
Signature
Date 11.09.2012
Signature
Date 11.09.2012
73
Date received: 12.09.2012
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
COVER SHEET FOR CONTINUOUSLY ASSESSED WORK Course Code EG59G9 SECTION 1: Student to complete SURNAME/FAMILY NAME: Teica FIRST NAME: Mircea Florian ID Number: 51124435 Date submitted: 12.09.2012 Please: Read the statement on Cheating and definition of Plagiarism contained over page. The full Code of Practice on Student Discipline, Appendix 5.15 of the Academic Quality Handbook is at: www.abdn.ac.uk/registry/quality/appendices.shtml#section5 attach this Cover Sheet, completed and signed to the work being submitted
SECTION 2: Confirmation of Authorship The acceptance of your work is subject to your signature on the following declaration: I confirm that I have read, understood and will abide by the University statement on cheating and plagiarism defined over the page and that this submitted work is my own and where the work of others is used it is clearly identified and referenced. I understand that the School of Engineering reserves the right to use this submitted work in the detection of plagiarism.
Signed: ___Mircea Florian Teica___________________________________________
Date:________11.09.2012____________________________
Note: Work submitted for continuous assessment will not be marked without a completed Cover Sheet. Such work will be deemed late until a completed cover Sheet is submitted and will be subject to the published penalty for late submission.
74
Cheating in any assessment, whether formative or summative, can result in disciplinary action being taken under the Universitys Code of Practice on Student Discipline. For these purposes Cheating includes: (a) Possession in an examination of material or electronic device which has not been authorised in writing by the relevant Course Co-ordinator. Students whose first language is not English may, however, refer to a dictionary where this is approved by the Head of the School responsible for the examination; (b) Copying from another student in an examination; (c) Removing an examination book from an examination room; (d) Impersonating another candidate in relation to any assessment; (e) Permitting another person to impersonate oneself in relation to any assessment; (f) Paying or otherwise rewarding another person for writing or preparing work to be Submitted for assessment; (g) Colluding with another person in the preparation or submission of work which is to be assessed. This does not apply to collaborative work authorised by the relevant course coordinator. (h) Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the use, without adequate acknowledgment, of the intellectual work of another person in work submitted for assessment. A student cannot be found to have committed plagiarism where it can be shown that the student has taken all reasonable care to avoid representing the work of others as his or her own.
75

Research Into Good Design Practice For Reels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Into Good Design Practice For Reels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Into Good Design Practice For Reels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the two design methods discussed in the document?

What are the two design methods discussed in the document?

What are some of the limitations discussed for each design method?

What are some of the limitations discussed for each design method?

MSc SUBSEA ENGINERING NAME: TEICA FLORIAN TEICA