Proceedings of the Twenty-second (2012) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Rhodes, Greece, June 1722, 2012

Copyright 2012 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-944 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

www.isope.org

Dynamic Responses of Float-over Barge Subjected to Random Waves

V.J. Kurian, N.H. Baharuddin, A.M. Hashim, A.R. Magee
Civil Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

in deck weight and installation sea states demonstrating the increase of

float-over installation in their study on the history, trends and evolution
of float-over deck installation in open waters. Technip used this
method successfully for the installation of topsides onto Kikeh Spar in
Sabah waters, at a water depth of 1320 m. This method has sparked
interest for researchers as it is more economical and advantageous
compared to the conventional heavy lifting installation.

ABSTRACT
The installation of topsides onto fixed structures such as jacket by the
float-over method has been widely utilized in offshore construction
industry. This technique demonstrates significant advantages over the
conventional lifting installation especially in remote areas where heavy
lifting crane barges are unavailable and topside weight exceeds the
lifting capacity of the floating crane. In order to ensure smooth floatover operations, the responses of the float-over barge due to waves are
crucial and must be determined. In this paper, the experimental results
on the scale model of float-over barge are presented, analyzed and
compared with those from theoretical analysis using developed
computer programs and simplified approach using frequency domain
dynamic analysis. The model tests were conducted on a model
following Froude scaling law with geometric scale of 1:50. Random
wave sea states were specified for the test and the results are presented
in terms of Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs). The model tests
were conducted in a wave basin with simulated ocean environment
under random waves and the dynamic responses in terms of motions of
the barge were monitored during the tests. The test results were
compared with theoretical values obtained from analysis and
conclusions arrived at. Overall results show satisfactory agreement
between model tests and theoretical analysis.

Estimation of Dynamic Responses of Float-over Barge

The dynamic responses of the float-over barge could be estimated
based on numerical simulation, model tests, field installation data and
analytical solutions. Selected papers that focused on dynamic response
of the barge subjected to waves are highlighted here. Koo et al. (2010)
conducted model tests on a float-over barge model with catamaran
configuration at a model scale of 1:60. The compliant barge was tested
in random wave sea state, harmonic wave and three headings to
demonstrate the range of motions and loads associated with the floatover installation in the Gulf of Mexico. The authors also performed
numerical simulation in time domain and frequency domain using
MTLSIM and WAMIT to simulate the topside installation onto Spar
platform. Tahar et al. (2006) described the comparisons between model
test data and numerical predictions of the compliant tower float-over
operation. Model tests have been conducted to investigate the
feasibility of float-over operation onto a compliant tower for a West
Africa project. Two specially designed pontoon barges are utilized to
allow catamaran configuration to be used. The time domain analysis
was performed using the MLTSIM program for the analysis of the
dynamic response of a multi-body floating platform subjected to wind,
waves and current. Chu et al. (1996) investigated the comparison
between computer simulation, model test and offshore installation for
Wandoo Deck float-over installation. The authors used time domain to
simulate the mooring line dynamic loads, impacts between barge
fenders and concrete gravity sub-structure (CGS) shafts, mating point
impacts and support point impacts. The barge and the substructure
were modeled using small triangular and quadrilateral elements and
wave diffraction theory was used to calculate hydrodynamic forces on
Danish Hydraulic Institute (2009)
each element of the barge.
conducted model tests simulating the installation of Gravity Based
Structure (GBS) using a barge model in the DHI Offshore Test Facility
at Hrsholm, Denmark at a scale of 1:30. The model tests were
performed for the purpose of investigating the motion response of the
coupled system consisting of a barge and GBS. Maher et al. (2001)
employed time domain hydrodynamic analysis to compute the motions
and loads on multiple floating bodies using MLTSIM to simulate floatover operations onto Spar. The authors conducted model tests for

KEY WORDS: Float-over barge; Response Amplitude Operators;

Model Tests; Theoretical Analysis

INTRODUCTION
Float-over installation method is known as a novel method to install
topsides or production decks onto fixed or floating structures.
Recently, this method has been widely utilized because it is economical
for the installation of large offshore decks onto jacket type of platforms.
This method minimizes the cost of integration and commissioning of
topsides as it allows the fabrication to be completed onshore prior to
load out. In considering float-over deck installation, the motion
responses of the barge are crucial and must be determined. Early
studies on this technique have been conducted by various researchers.
Sigrist et al. (1996) focused on the concept, the technology and the
flexibility of float-over system for the transportation and installation of
integrated decks for offshore platform. In this paper, the advantages of
using such innovative installation method were also discussed. Salama
et al. (1999) presented the philosophy, method and technical aspect of
the float-over deck installation in Arabian Gulf. The researchers also
conducted comparative study on the float-over method with the
traditional lifting installation. ONeill et al. (2000) illustrated the trends

949

various float-over concepts at a scale of 1:49.56 to validate the

analytical tools used for a float-over operation. Kocaman et al. (2008)
developed a simulation model to predict I-650 barge motions and the
loads between the deck and the barge, as well as the tensions in the
mooring lines. The authors used MOSES software that incorporated
3D diffraction method for the hydrodynamic calculations in predicting
the vessel motions. They also conducted the model tests on I-650 barge
model at 1:50 scale to assess the feasibility of float-over operation. Xia
et al. (2005) conducted model testing for float-over installations to
investigate motions of a barge and the loads exerted on jacket. In their
paper, the response amplitude operators of the barge motions were
determined for free floating conditions.

Table 1. Prototype parameters

Description
Length
Width at bow
Width at stern
Height
Lightship weight
Centre of gravity, Xg
Centre of gravity, Zg
Radius of gyration, rx
Radius of gyration, ry
Radius of gyration, rz
Water depth

For the study presented in this paper, the model tests on float-over
barge were conducted in the free floating condition. The responses of
the barge were determined during standby phase of the float-over
installation where the barge is at safe distance from substructure but
connected to the mooring system. The main objective of this study was
to determine the dynamic responses of float-over barge subjected to
random waves by scale model testing and to compare with numerical
results based on linear diffraction method and simplified approach
using Froude-Krylov theory. The physical modeling study was
conducted to get insight into uncertainties and substantiate those
analytical methods.

Value
159.76 m
30 m
45.72 m
8m
7575 MT
80.95 m
4.05 m
8.96 m
46.18 m
46.92 m
61.7 m

Experimental Setup and Testing Condition

The barge model as shown in Fig. 1 was tested in the wave tank with a
water depth of 1 m. A random wave sea state using JONSWAP
spectrum with significant wave height of 4 cm and peak period of
0.98 s was used in the test. This value corresponds to significant wave
height of 2 m and peak period of 7 s in the prototype scale. The draft
was 2 m and wave heading was 180 degrees. The motions of the model
were restrained by four symmetrical mooring systems comprising of
wires attached to linear springs with a stiffness of 28.54 N/m each
anchored to the posts of specially fabricated ring. Measurement
included motions of the barge in six degrees of freedom and tensions in
the mooring lines.

METHODOLOGY
Model Testing
Model Testing Facilities

Data post-processing program was used to convert the measured

responses to response spectra using Discrete Fast Fourier Transform
(DFFT). The Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) were obtained
from the response spectra by assuming a linearly damped dynamic
system. The RAO for surge, heave and pitch were determined by Eq. 1

The experiments were carried out in Offshore Engineering Laboratory,

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. The model testing facility reported
in this paper consists of 12 m wide, 22 m long and 1.5 m deep wave
basin. The wave basin is equipped with multiple paddle wave maker
capable of generating regular and random waves. Along the side
opposite to the wave maker is a dynamic wave absorber to minimize
the reflection from the waves. Other instrumentations are the wave
probes, load cells, the accelerometers, and the optical tracking system
to measure waves, the tensions in the mooring lines, accelerations and
motions of the barge model respectively. It is also equipped with two
movable remote control bridge platforms to support the testing
personnel and equipments.

RAO =

SR ( f )
S( f )

(1)

where SR is the response spectrum, S is the wave spectrum and f is the

cyclic wave frequency. Fig. 2 shows the model as installed in wave
basin. Figs 3-4 show the views during one of the test runs in random
waves showing the float-over barges and the mooring systems.

Scaling Laws
For the experimental study presented in this paper, a float-over barge
used for the installation of topsides onto ODP-A platform in Owez
Field, Turkmenistan was selected. The installation barge used for floatover operations is a purpose-designed and fabricated forked barge. The
forked barge arrangement, at the stern of the barge, has been designed
to transport the topsides. Table 1 shows the float-over barge dimensions
and basic data. Froude Scaling Law was employed for relating the
model to prototype. The barge model was fabricated at a scale of 1:50
using marine plywood. The model was constructed with non-water
tight bulkheads to divide the model into separate chambers representing
the prototypes ballast tank. Also, the model consisted of seven ballast
tanks with removable hatch covers for the purpose of providing solid or
water ballasts to the model.

Fig.1 As fabricated barge model

950

Wave Theory
Assuming the barge as a rectangular block, the wave forces acting on
the barge can be computed using Froude-Krylov or linear diffraction
theory. The fundamentals of computing these forces are welldocumented by Chakrabarti (2001). Among two approaches described
in this book, the Froude-Krylov approach was adopted for the present
study. This method utilizes the incident wave pressure and the
pressure-area method on the surface of the structure to calculate wave
forces. If the member diameter D is less than 15 percent of the incident
wave length L, flow separation takes place and a wake region is formed
at the downstream of the flow direction. This causes drag forces and
hence the Morison equation becomes valid. However, this equation is
no longer applicable if the diameter of member exceeds 15% of the
wave length L. If D is not very large compared to L, then the
approximate theory of Froude-Krylov can be used (Deo, 2007). The
horizontal and vertical wave forces are expressed in Eqs. 2-3.

Fig.2 Barge model as installed in wave basin

Fx = C H V

sinh( kl3 / 2) sinh( kl 1/ 2)

uo
(kl3 / 2)
( kl1 / 2)

(2)

F y = CV V

sinh( kl3 / 2) sinh( kl 1/ 2)

vo
( kl3 / 2)
( kl1 / 2)

(3)

in which Fx and Fy are the horizontal and vertical wave forces, CH and
Cv are inertia force coefficients for rectangular block taken as 1.5 and
6.0 and l1,l2 and l3 are the width, length and height of the block
submerged in the water respectively. The water particle accelerations
were determined by Eqs. 4-5 for horizontal and vertical water particle
accelerations respectively.

uo =

Fig.3 Float-over barge model test in random waves

2 2 H cosh ks
sin
T 2 sinh kd

vo =

(4)

2 2 H sinh ks
cos
T 2 sinh kd

(5)

The response analysis was conducted for a range of wave frequencies

of interest and the responses of the prototype in surge, heave and pitch
degrees of freedom were obtained in terms of Response Amplitude
Operator (RAO). RAO for surge and heave are expressed as:

RAO =

FI /( H / 2)

[( K m

) + (C ) 2

2 2

1/ 2

(6)

in which F is the total force acting on the body in horizontal and

vertical direction, H is the wave height, K is the hydrostatic stiffness of
the structure in surge and heave, m is the total mass consisting of mass
equivalent to the displacement of the barge and added mass of the barge
moving in the water, and C is the damping coefficient. A damping
ratio, of 3.18 % was used to obtain the damping coefficient for surge
RAOs based on the decay tests conducted in the laboratory while for
the heave RAO, a damping ratio, of 5 % was assumed in the analysis.

Fig.4 Barge model test run

Frequency Domain Dynamic Analysis

A computer program for frequency domain analysis was utilized to
monitor the variation of dynamic responses of the barge in terms of
RAOs with parameters such as wave height and draft. Random wave
sea states based on JONSWAP spectrum model with a peak
enhancement factor =3.3 was specified for this analysis. Three motion
modes were analyzed namely surge, heave and pitch.

The pitch RAO was determined by Eq. 7 and expressed as:

RAO =

951

M /( H / 2)

[( K I

) + (C ) 2

2 2

1/ 2

(7)

in which M is the sum of moment in horizontal and vertical direction, H

is the wave height, K is the hydrostatic stiffness of the structure in pitch
degrees of freedom, I is the mass moment of inertia consisting of mass
moment of inertia and added mass moment of inertia and C is the
damping coefficient. A damping ratio, of 2.34 % was obtained
through experiments by performing the decayed oscillation of the barge
in still water and this value was used to obtain damping coefficient.

1.5

Wave profile(m)

0.5

Diffraction theory
The barge responses based on linear diffraction theory were obtained
by using linear diffraction wave module of the structural analysis
software, SACS. The barge was modeled using plate elements and the
responses in three motion modes namely surge, heave and pitch were
obtained as Transfer Functions. Table 2 shows the input of linear wave
diffraction analysis.
Table 2. Input of linear wave analysis
Description
Water depth
Density of seawater
Origin orientation (Vertical axis)
Frequency range
Wave heading
Number of mooring lines

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
0

Value
61.7 m
1.01 MT/m3
+z
0.05 0.4 Hz
180
4

2000

4000

6000
Time(s)

8000

10000

12000

Fig.5 The measured wave profile

35

30

25
Density(m2-s)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Motion responses obtained from model tests in terms of RAOs were
compared with the theoretical analysis obtained by using FroudeKrylov and diffraction theory. Figs. 5 and 6 show the wave profile
measured by wave probes in the laboratory and the measured wave
spectrum respectively.

20

15

10

Figs. 7 to 9 show the measured surge responses, surge response

spectrum and the comparison of surge motion RAO. Surge responses
predicted by all the three methods show satisfactory agreement in terms
of trend, as shown in Fig. 9. However, there are large variations in the
magnitudes for frequencies above 0.15 Hz.
The experimental
responses are much greater than those due to Froude-Krylov theory and
diffraction theory. This maybe because of the fact that during model
tests, the waves that were produced from the multi-element
wavemakers were not aligned exactly in the specified surge direction
and hit the barge sides also resulting in increased surge forces and
hence responses.

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
Frequency(Hz)

1.2

1.4

Fig.6 The measured wave spectrum

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Surge(m)

The measured heave responses, heave response spectrum and the

comparison of heave RAOs are shown in Figs. 10 to 12. The trend of
RAOs from the model tests and Froude-Krylov theory agree from 0.15
Hz to 0.4 Hz, but the magnitudes differ. The model tests and
diffraction theory agree well for the low frequency region up to 0.1 Hz,
but thereafter the diffraction theory predicts much lower responses.
The reason may be that the nonlinearities are not considered by the
analysis.

0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15

Figs. 13 to 15 present the measured pitch responses, pitch response

spectrum and the comparison of pitch motion RAO. As shown in
Fig. 15, the pitch responses predicted by theoretical analysis using
Froude-Krlylov and diffraction theory show better comparisons than
surge and heave responses. The RAO values agree well in the
frequency range of 0.1 to 0.15 Hz with the RAO curves going parallel
with a shift of about 0.02 Hz between each. Above the frequency of
0.2 Hz, the RAOs agree very well.

-0.2

2000

4000

6000
Time(s)

Fig.7 The measured surge responses

952

8000

10000

12000

-3

4.5

-3

x 10

x 10

3.5
5
Density(m2-s)

Density(m2-s)

3
2.5
2

1.5
2
1
1

0.5
0
0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3
0.35
0.4
Frequency(Hz)

0.45

0.5

0.55

0
0.1

0.6

Fig.8 The measured surge response spectrum

0.2

0.25

0.3
0.35
0.4
Frequency(Hz)

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

Fig.11 The measured heave response spectrum

1.4

1.4
Experimental
Frequency Domain
Diffraction Theory

1.2

Experimental
Frequency Domain
Diffraction theory

1.2

1
Heave RAO (m/m)

1
Surge RAOs (m/m)

0.15

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2
0.25
Frequency, f (Hz)

0.3

0.35

0
0.05

0.4

0.1

0.15

0.2
0.25
0.3
Frequency, f (Hz)

0.35

0.4

0.45

Fig.12 Comparison of heave motion RAOs

Fig.9 Comparison of surge motion RAOs

0.15

0.8

0.1

0.6

0.05

0.4

Pitch(deg)

Heave(m)

0
-0.05

0.2

-0.1
-0.2

-0.15
-0.4

-0.2
-0.25

2000

4000

6000
Time(s)

8000

10000

-0.6

12000

2000

4000

6000
Time(s)

Fig.13 The measured pitch responses

Fig.10 The measured heave responses

953

8000

10000

12000

-3

x 10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
5

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge their gratitude to

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for support and encouragement.
Density(m2-s)

REFERENCES

Chakrabarti, SK (2001). Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures, WIT

Press
Chu, N, Cochrane, M, Mobbs, K and Mitchell, D (1996). Results
Comparison of Computer Simulation, Model Test and Offshore
Installation for Wandoo Integrated Deck Float Over Installation,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC, Paper 8614.
Deo, MC (2007). Waves and Structures, IIT Bombay
Dixen, M (2009). MCR-A Platform Model Tests for Turkmenistan
Block 1 Project, Final Report for Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn
Bhd.
Kocaman, A, and Kim, DJ (2008). Float-Over of Arthit PP Deck,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC, Paper 19230
Koo, B, Magee, A, Lambrakose, K, Beyko, E, and Sablok, A (2010).
Model Test for Floatover Installation of Spar Topsides, J of Offshore
Mech and Arctic Eng, OMAE, 20590.
Koo, B, Magee, A, Lambrakose, K, Beyko, E, and Sablok, A (2010).
Prediction of Motions and Loads for Floatover Installation of Spar
Topsides, J of Offshore Mech and Arct Eng, OMAE, 20591.
Maher, JV, Prislin, JC, Chao, JC, Halkyard, JE, and Finn, LD (2001).
Floatover Deck Installation for Spars, Offshore Tech Conf, Houston,
OTC, Paper 12971.
ONeill, LA, Fakas, E, Ronalds, BF, and Christiansen, PE (2000).
History, Trends and Evolution of Float-Over Deck Installation in
Open Waters, SPE Annual Techl Conf and Exhib, Dallas, SPE, Paper
63037.
Salama, KS, Suresh, PK, and Gutierrez, EC (1999). Deck Installation by
Floatover Method in the Arabian Gulf, Offshore Tech Conf, Houston,
OTC, Paper 11026.
Sigrist, JH, Thomas, PA and Naudin, JC (1996). Experience in Float
Over Integrated Deck Flexibility of the concept, Offshore Tech
Conf, Houston, OTC, Paper 8616.
Tahar, A, Halkyard, J, Steen, A and Finn, L (2006). Float-Over
Installation Method Comprehensive Comparison Between Numerical
and Model Test Result, J of Offshore Mech and Arct Eng, Vol 128
Xia, J, Hayne, S, and Macfarlene, G (2005). Investigation Into FloatOver Installations of Minimal Platforms By Hydrodynamic Model
Testing, Paper No OMAE 67092

0
0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3
0.35
0.4
Frequency(Hz)

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

Fig.14 The measured pitch response spectrum

2
Experimental
Frequency Domain
Diffraction theory

1.8
1.6

Pitch RAOs (deg/m)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2
0.25
0.3
Frequency, f (Hz)

0.35

0.4

0.45

Fig.15 Comparison of pitch motion RAOs

CONCLUSIONS
The dynamic motion responses of float-over barge in surge, heave and
pitch degrees of freedom obtained by using Froude-Krylov theory,
diffraction theory and model test were compared. The following
conclusions were drawn.
1)

The theoretical analysis using Froude-Krylov theory and

diffraction theory was able to get agreement with the trend of
responses measured by the model tests. However, there are
significant differences observed in the magnitude of RAOs.

2)

Further development of the theory is needed incorporating the

higher order and nonlinear effects in the force, stiffness, mass
and damping terms. However, the results of this study would
be helpful in the preliminary design stage of float-over
barges.

954