moses - ultramarine thesis_lars… · web viewthe dynamics of the system are in other words taken...
TRANSCRIPT
MOSES
NTNU
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Department of Marine Hydrodynamics
PROJECT THESIS
SPAR
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
T [sec]
Surge [m/m]
Moored
Free floating
SPAR
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0
10
20
30
40
50
T [sec]
Pitch [deg/m]
Moored
Free floating
Free floating SPAR
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
T [sec]
Phase [deg]
Heave
Pitch/Surge
SPAR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
T [sec]
Heave [m/m]
Moored
Free floating
Pitch motions, H=10m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
T [sec]
Pitch [deg]
Frequency domain
Time domain
SPAR
0
5
10
15
20
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
T [sec]
Pitch [deg/m]
Heave motions, H=10m
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
T [sec]
Heave [m]
Time domain
Frequency domain
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
500
1000
1500
2000
T [sec]
Air gap [m]
-10
-5
0
5
10
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
T [sec]
Pitch [deg]
moored, with risers
free floating
-120
-115
-110
-105
-100
-95
-90
-85
-80
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
T [sec]
Heave [m]
moored with risers
free floating
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
T [sec]
Damping coeff. [-]
Hull shape III
Hull shape II
Hull shape I
-98.5
-98
-97.5
-97
-96.5
-96
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
T [sec]
heave [m]
hull shape I
hull shape II
Acknowledgement
This project thesis has been written under the supervision of two people that I would like to thank, Odd M. Faltinsen, supervisor from the institute and Jon Erik Borgen, supervisor from the company (Inocean as).
In addition I would like to thank the department of Inocean in which I have spent most of these twenty weeks.
This work concludes my education…(
OSLO , ……/…….. - 2002
Truls Jarand Larsen
Introduction
As a termination of my Master of Science degree in Marine Technology at the NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) in Trondheim, I am writing a thesis at the department of Marine Hydrodynamics in co-operation with Inocean as. This thesis is a conclusion of a 20 weeks work, starting the 28th of January with a hand-in date the 20th of June.
The assignment has the title: “Modelling of wave induced motions of a SPAR buoy in MOSES”, and the exact wording is:
“The candidate has to be familiar with MOSES (Multioperational Structural Engineering Simulator) and find out its limitations in relation to wave frequency motions, slowly varying motions in 6 degree of freedom and dynamic stability (Mathieu instability) in roll and pitch. How MOSES handles currents, wind and viscous damping are details that have to be discussed. Further on it will be clarified how currents in the moonpool and the effect of risers and mooring are handled. The candidate will critically indicate any possible deficiency.
As a part of the thesis a calculation of the linear wave induced motions of a spar buoy has to be carried out. These results are compared with the calculations done by Haslum in his Dr. Ing theses [Haslum 2000]. At the end the candidate will investigate the influence of some changes in the hullshape.
As far as the time allows it the candidate will implement the long wavelength model for linear wave induced motions of a Spar, as in [Haslum 2000], where currents in the moonpool are considered. Further on the model of Haslum for dynamical instability in roll and pitch will be implemented.”
This assignment is based on the use of MOSES, which is an analysis tool for almost anything that can be placed in the water. It is a quite comprehensive programming language that I first got to know during a similar assignment in Stolt Offshore in Paris. I have considerably improved my ‘MOSES-knowledge’ by working on this thesis.
All the linear results will be compared to [Haslum 2000]. In addition a non-linear time domain analysis has been carried out. The results have been used to point out the instability phenomenon as well as other aspects that may be of interest in relation to the time domain, such as the extreme response during a long lasting (2 – 3 hours) hurricane.
One of the more interesting aspects of the assignment is to see how MOSES handles the Mathieu instability. This part has therefore been emphasised in my work.
As said, I will compare most of my results with the one produced in the Dr. Ing. Theses “Simplified methods applied to nonlinear motions of spar platforms”, by Haslum. I will use his results as a reference [Haslum 2000] throughout the report and have therefor chosen the same dimensions of the Spar buoy. This applies to the linear response, RAO, as well as the time dependent motions and the Mathieu instability phenomenon.
In addition to the above mentioned analyses, an evaluation of the coupled effects from mooring line dynamics and riser friction will be carried out.
A lot of effort is made in doing the actual programming and to produce every single result. Behind every figure presented in the assignment it is hidden many days of work. Even though only a few results have been presented, lots of analyses have been carried out without leading to the desirable results. This is explained in the belonging chapters.
Executive summary
After creating the hull the linear motion response were calculated. They are expressed as RAO’s and have been compared to the linear results produced by Haslum. The agreement between the results is good and act as verification for the MOSES model. The effect of mooring system on the linear motion response is investigated. To increase the effect from the mooring system, the mooring lines were modelled quite stiff. Even very stiff lines had small influence on the linear wave frequency response.
Next part of the thesis is based on the time domain. To get the wanted level of confidence from the results a typical three hours hurricane analysis has been carried out, showing the heave and pitch response for a moored buoy. While the deflections in pitch are quite large, the heave response reveals the advantages of a Spar buoy. The hurricane used is a GOM hurricane with Hs=12.2m and T=14sec, which produces a heave response at maximum one and a half meter.
To increase the damping in heave alternative hull shapes have been tried out. When altering the lower part of the buoy, either by adding a circular disc slightly bigger than the rest of the Spar or by increasing the diameter at the bottom section of the Spar, the heave damping increases.
An interesting aspect of the assignment was to see how MOSES handles the Mathieu instability. This instability is a quite newly explained phenomenon that is testified by complicated theory. By showing this Mathieu instability in a time domain analysis, the program reveals its diversity.
The results from the coupled analysis show the importance of including mooring line dynamics and riser friction when predicting the Spar response. The response was significantly reduced and the Mathieu instability phenomenon was suppressed. Existing Spars have deep drafts to reduce the wave loads and consequently the heave motion. Traditionally, the additional damping from mooring lines and risers were ignored in estimating the heave response. Since this effect is important, the draft of the Spar can be reduced while maintaining an acceptable heave response. Reduction in Spar hull draft can reduce fabrication costs substantially and as a result the Spar solution will be more cost effective.
MOSES does not allow you to alter the parameters in the diffraction calculations. Consequently to implement the long wavelength model for linear wave induced motions of Haslum (as proposed in the introduction) is hard to accomplish.
Table of contents
2Acknowledgement
Introduction3
Executive summary5
Table of contents6
1.0 Inocean as – a brief presentation of the company7
2.0 MOSES – calculation procedures and general issues8
3.0 The Spar buoy14
3.1Movement of the SPAR16
4.0 The Processes18
4.1RAO- frequency domain18
4.2Time domain20
4.2.1 Low frequency behaviour20
4.2.2 The damping problem22
4.2.3 Hurricane analysis23
5.0 The Mathieu instability26
6.0 Coupling effects30
7.0 Alternative hull shapes32
8.0 Recommendations for further work35
9.0 References37
List of figures38
Symbols and nomenclature38
Appendix39
Chapter 1
1.0 Inocean as – a brief presentation of the company
Inocean as was established in 1996 in Oslo, and also has offices in Stavanger and Houston. Inocean is a technology company within naval architectural design, engineering and marine operations, serving major offshore companies and ship owners at home and abroad. Inocean is set to take part in the future development of floating structures and marine operations.
Engineering
Inocean deals with every phase of marine engineering, such as global and local structural design and calculations, hydrodynamic and hydrostatic calculations, riser and mooring calculations, technical drawing and documentation and the design of special tools.
Marine operations
Inocean analyses, plans, executes and leads marine operations and mobilises vessels for offshore construction work. The company’s aim is to reduce offshore weather-related delays to a minimum through using special tools and advanced simulations. Inocean also provides the personnel needed to perform the actual offshore operations.
In-house design and products
Inocean offers a range of products, such as:
· Lophius semi-submersible
· Flexistinger
· Anchor handling and stand-by design
· Steel production L-riser design
· 3-CODS subsea drilling derrick
R&D projects
Inocean is currently engaged in joint R&D project on developing next generation propulsion systems with industrial partners and research institutions.
Chapter 2
2.0 MOSES – calculation procedures and general issues
As a part of this assignment it will be explained a few things about the MOSES’ calculation procedure and the handling of some general issues in relation to analysis of the SPAR buoy. This is important for the evaluation of the reliability in the results and in addition being able to make a comparison with the results of the Dr. Ing thesis by Herbjørn A. Haslum. In this context it is important to detect possible limitations regarding the program and critically indicate any possible deficiency.
MOSES (Multi-Operational Structural Engineering Simulator) is a general-purpose simulation program for the analysis of almost anything, which will be placed in the ocean. You can choose the hydrodynamic theory you want to use and what kind of analyses you want to perform. (Motions, stress, forces etc.)
An example of the syntax is shown below:
$Constants and units
&dimen –save –dimen meter m-tons
&model_def –save
&model_def –density 490 –emodulus 2.9E4
$
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
T [sec]
Pitch [deg]
$Definition of the macro
&insert macro
$
$Definition of the classes
-97.8
-97.6
-97.4
-97.2
-97
-96.8
-96.6
-96.4
-96.2
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
T [sec]
Heave [m]
~1TUBE 42 0.75-FYIELD 51.204
~10TUBE 34 0.50-FYIELD 34.136
$
$Element definition
BEAM300~1*J100*J101
BEAM301~10*J101*J102
$Defines the co-ordinates for points
*J100
0.00.00.0
*J101
10.0.00.0
*J102
20.0.00.0
*J 10
10.0.05.0
$
$Supplementary loads
&describe load_group
MJNTS
*J1011.75
$
SPAR
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0
10
20
30
40
50
T [sec]
Pitch [deg/m]
Moored
Free floating
&instate –loc spar 0 0 -202.5 0 0 0
These are just a few examples from a Moses file. In addition to these commands, the specific commands for performing the analysis and regulating the output (where and how) are many and have to be adapted to each case.
For more details about the Moses files, see Appendix 2 and 3.
Stepwise and briefly explained, this is how MOSES function:
1. Starting out by creating a model of a SPAR with specified degree of accuracy. This is done by defining points at the end face of the cylinder followed by creating panels between these points. The model is now a cylinder consisting of panels, which has to be imparted with physical qualities that corresponds to the buoy, i.e. mass distribution (center of gravity, partial loads etc.) and some material properties. Further on you can model mooring and risers to include their stiffness. The model is then ‘placed’ in equilibrium with specified draft, and all the hydrostatic properties are then calculated.
2. By using the model and the geometry beneath the water surface, the potential distribution of the pressure on the panels is given by the linearized Bernoulli equation
)
(
t
gz
p
d
df
r
+
-
=
(2.1)
where
=
r
fluid density
=
g
acceleration of the gravity
=
z
depth
=
f
velocity potential
By integrating the pressure over the body we obtain the hydrodynamic forces on a portion of the body. The program now calculates the added mass, damping matrices and in addition all the hydrodynamic properties.
3. On basis of the hydrodynamic forces the linear motions in six degree of freedom are estimated as the RAO (Response Amplitude Operator). This is straightforward done by using the equations of motions for a freely floating body:
[
]
)
(
)
(
6
1
t
F
C
B
A
M
j
k
k
jk
k
jk
k
jk
jk
=
+
+
+
å
=
h
h
h
&
&
&
(j=1,…,6)
(2.2)
where
=
jk
M
body mass
=
jk
A
hydrodynamic mass (added mass)
=
jk
B
damping coefficient
=
jk
C
restoring coefficient
=
h
body movement
=
j
F
excitation force
The RAOs are considered as transfer functions and are further found by estimating the coefficients in the equations of motions for each period defined, and finally end up with the corresponding RAO. These are defined as vectors in six degree of freedom and expresses the linearized wave induced motions in the frequency domain.
Further on it is implied that the response is linear such that the RAOs can be multiplied with a chosen wave spectrum, to finally obtain the response spectrum (expressed as RMS values – Root Mean Square):
)
(
)
(
)
(
2
w
w
w
F
x
S
RAO
S
=
(2.3)
where
=
)
(
w
x
S
response spectrum
=
)
(
w
F
S
wave spectrum
The major disadvantage with spectral response is that this response is applicable to a single environment and thus the post processing options are limited.
4. So far, all the static properties have been found. Next one wishes to analyse the movements in relation to a time series. That leads us to the strength of MOSES, the time domain.
As a starting point it utilises the hydrodynamic properties calculated in the frequency domain to satisfy the basic equations of motion. These equations are integro-differential. This means that the unknown is placed in an integral expressed as the derived. In a linear system a known deceleration function is included in the integrand. This deceleration function is estimated from the added mass and damping coefficients, which are dependent on the frequency. This requires great numerical accuracy that in practice can lead to inaccuracy.
The program will persistent calculate and bring up to date the parameters like the centre of buoyancy, waterplane area etc. as the buoy moves and the wet surface changes. The hydrodynamic forces are calculated at the displaced position and the finite amplitude effect of the changing waterplane area is taken into account. The dynamics of the system are in other words taken care of and the non-linear wave induced motions are found, i.e. the presence of one of the Mathieu instability phenomena will be, according to the theory, detected during a time domain analysis. The dynamic stability can be verified in all six degree of freedom. The calculations are based on a current environment (wave spectrum, significant wave height and peak period).
5. A function allows one to scale the wave excitation force in the time domain. This means that you can (in percentage) specify the interaction from the wave excitation force on the model. For example zero, which results in the direct wave force not being applied to the system. By this you can investigate the low frequency behaviour, i.e. slowly varying motions.
6. Currents and wind can easily be modelled by specifying the characteristic area and defining the velocity and direction of the load. As an alternative the wind can be specified by a wind spectrum. Effects from wind and currents are however not applied in this model.
7. The program allows you to model the SPAR with risers and all the geometrical gadgets inside the moonpool. It is difficult to predict how the program manages to simulate the complexity inside the moonpool with respect to the damping and the added mass effects, but it is likely to think that the problem will not be handled satisfactory. Alternatively the buoy can be sealed at the bottom and regarded as a closed cylinder. This is not far from the reality, since the actual opening in the moonpool, between the risers and the buoyancy tanks etc., is quite small. The model used here is therefor considered as a closed cylinder.
8. At last in this brief MOSES ‘introduction’, a few words about the environment.
It is possible to choose wave spectrum (ISSC or JONSWAP) or any sized regular wave, represented by the direction, the wave height and peak period.
The wave is represented by a cosine wave
x
=
x
a cos((t + kx cos( + ky sin()
(2.4)
· = wave heading
R= (RAO( cos((t + ()
(= phase lead
The environment directions are as follows:
Pitch motions, H=10m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
T [sec]
Pitch [deg]
Frequency domain
Time domain
Chapter 3
3.0 The Spar buoy
A spar platform is a large vertical circular cylinder with a large draft that reduces the heave response significantly and permits rigid risers and surface trees, i.e. the motion response are crucial for the Spar buoy. Configured with oil storage and surface completed well, a spar may be able to combine the best characteristics of the TLP (Tension Leg Platform) and FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading) for fields where the reservoir can be reached from one drilling centre [CMPT 1998].
Fig. 3.1. Isometric view with mooring
Fig. 3.2. Front view with mooring
When creating the hull, different levels of accuracy were tried out. First a hull was created in a program called Femgen. The model was made by horizontal panels every 10th meter and 17 panels vertically, before it was converted into a MOSES model. This gave a large number of panels, which was unpractical to work with. To cope with this problem, MOSES has a function that allows you to refine your model at a specified level of accuracy. All the horizontal panels were then deleted and left a model consisting of seventeen vertical panels. This made the work easier and not so time demanding. As explained earlier, the reproduction of the hydrodynamic database required a lot of time. By using a quite rough mesh this was no longer a problem. When the analysis required several different databases (different range of periods), the mesh was chosen quite rough and a fine mesh was chosen when the database was used for the non-linear analyses. Different accuracy in the mesh, showed however good agreement when comparing some of the results.
The main particulars of the spar used in this assignment are the same as used in [Haslum 2000], except some small adjustments in the diameter to obtain the hydrostatic properties as correct as possible. After the impartment of the geometry, MOSES calculated a centre of buoyancy too low, compared to the spar in [Haslum 2000]. This lead to negative GM. By adding more buoyancy in the upper section, the centre of buoyancy ascended and the GM value became closer to the actual one.
A lot of work has been put down to verify the MOSES model and consequently be able to compare it to the model of [Haslum 2000]. Many of the static properties not given in the Dr. Ing thesis, but calculated by MOSES, have been verified by means of hand calculations. MOSES calculates most of these parameters using the input properties, and it is therefore useful to do this verification in order to control the input as well. Here are a few examples:
· By stability reasons the GZ value has to be positive during a time domain process. This is continuously verified.
· Making the hydrodynamic database is time demanding and has to be done for a range of specified frequencies. A need for different periods arises when producing different kinds of linear results. Consequently the hydrodynamic database has to be changed and adapted.
In addition to the things mentioned, lots of extra work is required to get the wanted results. This is mostly time demanding work, which is not explicit shown in this report.
The main particulars of the spar are shown below:
Draft (d) = 202.5m
Diameter (D) = 36.4m (Haslum D=37.5)
Radius of gyration Rxx=80 Ryy=80 Rzz=36.5
Centre of gravity (KG) = 105.25m
Metacentric height (GM) = 3.11 (Haslum GM =4.4m)
Natural period in heave TN,3= 31.3sec
Natural period in pitch TN,5= 95.9sec
The spar is moored with a 16 points taut system, as shown in fig. 3.1 and fig. 3.2. The fairleads are situated vertically at the centre of gravity and on the outside of the spar body. The pretension in each fairlead is set to 400 kN. A discussion of the mooring lines and their influence on the linear wave frequency motions will follow later.
In the effort of modelling the right mooring system, different parameters have been evaluated and tried in the model. The pretension, the weight and the e-modulus of the lines are parameters that are continuously changed and adapted. The whole process culminated in modelling an equivalent mooring line at each fairlead.
However, to detect the Mathieu instability in section 5.0 the mooring lines are deactivated.
3.1Movement of the SPAR
A right hand co-ordinate system is applied as illustrated in fig 3.1.1.
Fig 3.1.1.The six degrees of freedom
Existing spar platforms have deep drafts to reduce the wave loads and consequently the heave motions. Traditionally, the damping from mooring lines and risers was ignored in heave response analyses. By simultaneously predict the dynamic response of the spar, mooring lines and risers one has revealed that mooring lines dynamics and riser friction can have significant effect on the spar heave response. As a consequence the draft of the spar can be reduced and still maintain an acceptable heave response. Reduction in spar hull draft can reduce the fabrication and transportation costs, which will result in making spar solutions more cost effective. [OTC 12082]
Important ‘types’ of motions are the slow drift motions. They are caused by non-linear effects from waves, wind and currents. These motions arise from resonance oscillations and appear in surge, sway and yaw for a moored buoy. Low frequency behaviour is considered in section 4.2.3.
In addition to the slow drift motion (low frequency) a floating structure can experience wave-frequency motion, high-frequency motion and mean drift. Linear excitation forces mainly cause the wave-frequency motion, while the high-frequency motion and mean drift are caused by resonance oscillations [Faltinsen 90].
Damping form the risers is caused by Coulomb friction at the riser guides and the keel as well as from hydrodynamic forces. The risers exert a normal force on the Spar that increases as the Spar pitches or offsets laterally. If the heave response is small enough, the static friction on the guides will prevent the Spar from moving further. If the motions are larger, the friction opposes the heave motions and will consequently produce damping. In addition to the damping, coupling forces between the risers and the Spar occurs in both surge/sway and pitch/roll. When predicting the Spar response, summation of all the risers are important.
When the Spar offsets from the mean position the mooring lines will provide restoring forces. The lines will go slack or taut as the buoy moves. This causes drag load on the lines, which provides damping to the Spar. However, the damping is more pronounced on the heave motion than on surge/sway or roll/pitch motions. The current induced drag on the lines can as well change the restoring force characteristics on of the mooring lines, and are thus useful to consider [OTC 12082]
Chapter 4
4.0 The Processes
Both the time domain and the frequency domain process give adequate solutions in most cases. The time domain process does properly account for all aspects of a problem but is computationally expensive. A solution in the frequency domain is in many cases a good alternative solution, which is much less time demanding.
The theory behind the time and frequency domain is explained in section 2.0.
4.1RAO- frequency domain
The movements of the SPAR are expressed statically by the RAO (Response Amplitude Operator) as a function of the six degrees of freedom (Surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw).
In the following figures, a presentation of the linearized motions in heave, pitch and surge are given. The calculations are done with and without mooring and the results are shown in the same diagram.
How MOSES calculates the transfer functions, are explained earlier in section 2.0.
SPAR
0
5
10
15
20
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
T [sec]
Pitch [deg/m]
Fig. 4.1.1. Pitch RAO Two frequency intervals, to illustrate the natural period in pitch.
Fig. 4.1.2. Heave RAO
Fig. 4.1.3. Surge RAO
The spar is floating with a draft d=202.5m. The main particulars of the spar are given earlier in section 3.0.
However, the transfer functions (RAO – Response amplitude operators) are defined as the frequency dependent steady state motion response amplitude divided by the wave elevation amplitude [Haslum 2000]:
RAOi(T) =
a
i
z
h
[m/m]
(4.1)
i = [1,2,3,4,5,6] = degrees of freedom
In the Dr. Ing thesis by Haslum, these RAO’s are calculated using two different simplified methods (Long wavelength approximation and McCamy and Fuchs theory) and the panel method program WAMIT [Haslum 2000]. The agreement between the three methods shown in [Haslum 2000] is good, as well as the agreement between Haslum and the MOSES-results presented here.
As earlier explained, the mooring system used is very stiff to increase its effect. Despite this the influence from the mooring is quite small and especially the heave motion that is practically identical with the free floating spar. The RAO calculations are performed at a water depth = 700 meters. As production systems extend to water depths beyond 1000 meters, the effects of mooring become increasingly significant when predicting the Spar’s response. For these water depths, the viscous damping, inertial mass, current loading and restoring effects should be included to accurately solve the system’s motion response. By coupling the mooring as well as the riser with the Spar’s motion typically results in a reduction in extreme motion response [OTC 12083].
Fig. 4.1.4 show that pitch and surge motions are in phase with each other, and they are 90 degrees out of phase compared to the wave. This means that they are contributing to displacements of the deck simultaneously. It is shown that the heave between T=11sec and T=31
Fig 4.1.4. Difference of the phases sec is 180 degrees out of phase.
The linear frequency motion response (RAO’s) for all the six degrees of freedom are shown in Appendix 4, presented as “motion response operators”.
4.2Time domain
The calculations done in the time domain are quite complicated, and interpreting time series of the Spar response may be troublesome. When the damping is low, a transient from the start exists for a long time. The simulations done here have consequently at least a 1500 seconds duration, where the response has reached a steady state.
Initiating a time domain simulation in MOSES is not very complicated. The decisive part to get reliable results is to have a stable Spar that reflects the reality as best as possible before starting the time domain calculations. After doing this calculation once, it is possible to retrieve all kinds of results related to the time domain.
A more thorough explanation of the time domain is given in section 2.0 and is also explained in [MOSES manual].
4.2.1 Low frequency behaviour
For a moored spar buoy low frequency motions occurs in surge, sway and yaw. Low frequency motions are resonance oscillations exited by second order, non-linear coupled effects between the wave and the spar [Faltinsen 90].
For moored large structures as the Spar, the natural periods in the horizontal degrees of freedom are much larger than the wave periods with considerable energy. The horizontal low frequency excitation is in general larger than the linear wave frequency motions, despite the fact that second order difference frequency forces (1) are generally an order of magnitude smaller than linear wave frequency forces. This effect is therefore important in relation to the design of the mooring system [Haslum 2000.]
As explained earlier, the design philosophy behind a deep draft Spar, implies that the draft is adequately large to reduce the heave response. The natural periods in heave, pitch and roll is significant larger than wave periods containing important energy. Consequently the second order excitation forces may contribute to the total motion response in vertical degrees of freedom. This motion is a limiting factor for Spar production platforms, with regard to the design of rigid risers and for the drilling operations [Haslum 2000].
In fig. 4.2.1.1 the low frequency surge motion is illustrated as well as the air gap in fig. 4.2.1.2. The environment used is an ISSC spectre with Hs=7m and T=12sec.
Heave motions, H=10m
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
T [sec]
Heave [m]
Time domain
Frequency domain
SPAR
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
T [sec]
Surge [m/m]
Moored
Free floating
Fig. 4.2.1.1. Low frequency surge motion for the 202.5m draft spar.
Fig. 4.2.1.2. Air gap, simultaneously recorded as fig. 4.2.1.1
(1) Second order difference frequency forces occur due to bi-spectral interaction in bicromatic waves. Such second order forces may be represented by quadratic transfer functions, which are dependent on the wave frequencies of the two interacting waves and independent the wave amplitudes [Haslum 2000].
To simulate the low frequency motions in MOSES the direct wave force has not been applied. This simplifies the calculations by allowing investigating this effect without having to use small
time steps to cope with the high frequency behaviour.
The response of the Spar is quite complex especially because of the interaction between wave frequency and low frequency motions in surge pitch and heave.
4.2.2 The damping problem
As a starting point MOSES uses the equations of motion. By supposing that we know the solution at time t1 we can estimate the solution at time t2. After a few steps the equations of motion can be written:
S[q(t2) –q(t1)] =
s
(4.2)
where
S = cI + fC + Kand
s
= s – [aI + dC]
)
(
1
t
q
&
&
-[bI + eC]
)
(
1
t
q
&
a = 1 - 1/2
b = - (1/)
c = 1/2
d = (1 – /2)
e = (1 – )
f =
How the problem is further solved is explained in [MOSES manual]. The customised parameters for the damping problem are the Newmark parameters and To detect the instability phenomenon in section 5.0, the default values .25 and .5 were used. There is almost no numerical damping with these values. In fact, for some problems, the scheme results in small negative damping. This is of no concern here. If these values are changed from the default to .33 and .66, then a small bit of numerical damping is induced. For problems such as decay problems in calm seas, the defaults do not work very well. The following figure illustrates this effect for the heave decay of the Spar.
SPAR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
T [sec]
Heave [m/m]
Moored
Free floating
Fig. 4.2.2.1. Effect of Newmark parameters
These results are found for the Spar at draft = 202.5 meters and no mooring. A regular wave with H=5m and T=10 seconds was used.
4.2.3 Hurricane analysis
The length of the simulation should be chosen such that it will give a specified level of confidence. To avoid the transient from the start of the simulation and to ensure that the response has reached a steady state the following results are based on a three hours typical GOM (Gulf Of Mexico) hurricane condition with Hs=12.2m and T=14seconds. An ISSC spectre is used.
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
050010001500
T [sec]
Surge [m]
Fig. 4.2.3.1. Heave response for a three hours hurricane
It is quite remarkable that despite the rough environment, the heave response is no more than one and a half meter at most. As explained earlier this is due to the large draft and probably the taut mooring system. As opposed to the linear motions, the second order motions produced during a time domain are clearly affected by the restoring forces from the mooring lines. In addition one should take the damping effect of the risers in account. These would have had an additional damping effect on the heave motions, as will be shown later in section 6.0, where a fully coupled analysis will be carried out.
During the same hurricane the pitch response was recorded, and shows relatively large deflections, with a maximum at almost 9 degrees pitch amplitude.
Free floating SPAR
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
T [sec]
Phase [deg]
Heave
Pitch/Surge
Fig. 4.2.3.2. Pitch motions during a three hours hurricane
The evaluation of forces in the four mooring lines is as well investigated. During a 1000 seconds ISSC spectrum environment, with significant wave height at 12.2 meters and a zero up-crossing period at 14 seconds, the force magnitude in the four anchor lines are recorded. They are shown in Appendix 4, labelled “connector force magnitudes”. These results are not discussed, they are attached to illustrate one of the possibilities in retrieving results.
Chapter 5
5.0 The Mathieu instability
Under certain conditions, spar platforms can be exposed to large unexpected motions. This is explained by the Mathieu instability phenomenon, and occurs because of two specified situations. The first and simplest case is trigged due to an abrupt change in waterplane area and therefor a change in the heave restoring force. This is the case when the hull cross section area changes along the height (Fig. 5.1) [Haslum 2000].
The heave response of this hull shape has been calculated in the linear frequency domain,
-97.32
-97.3
-97.28
-97.26
-97.24
-97.22
-97.2
-97.18
-97.16
-97.14
02004006008001000
T [sec]
Heave [m]
shown as the RAO, and by the non-linear time domain method. Calculating the hydrodynamic exciting forces at the mean position produces the RAO, according to the linear theory explained earlier. In time domain, the hydrodynamic forces are calculated at the displaced position and the effect of the changing waterplane area is taken into account.
The unstable wave period is expected in the vicinity of
Fig 5.1
[½TN, TN, 3/2TN,…], where TN is the natural period in heave. This is obviously dependent on the system damping. According to the theory presented in [Haslum 2000] there should be a critical wave period at ½TN = 16.5 sec. By calculating the heave response in frequency and time domain, one should expect a disagreement between the methods at wave periods around 16.5 sec. The model used in MOSES did not show this difference. This kind of instability is quite sensitive when it comes to viscous damping, and the results obtained are probably a consequence of the damping applied to the model.
The other situation that provokes the Mathieu instability is a heave/ pitch amplifying interaction. It may occur even if the hull has a constant cross section. One should expect this instability at a certain wave period that is a function of the natural period in heave and pitch:
3
,
5
,
1
1
1
N
N
Wave
T
T
T
+
=
(5.1)
where
=
3
,
N
T
natural period in heave
=
5
,
N
T
natural period in pitch
When a wave at this frequency occurs, the heave motion will oscillate with both the natural heave frequency and the wave frequency. This produces an envelope process. For a certain wave period, this envelope period coincides with the natural period in pitch, and you get the equation explained above.
For the spar used here (see fig 5.1) with a natural period in pitch TN,5=106,0 sec, and a natural period in heave TN,3=33,0 sec, this critical wave period is:
33
1
106
1
1
+
=
Wave
T
= 25,2 sec
By calculating the heave and pitch response in both frequency and time domain, this critical wave period is found when the two methods disagree. As fig. 5.2 and fig. 5.3 show, the agreement between the two methods is good, except for Twave= 25,5 sec.
-97.8
-97.6
-97.4
-97.2
-97
-96.8
-96.6
-96.4
-96.2
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
T [sec]
Heave [m]
Fig 5.2. Illustration of the Mathieu instability phenomenon in pitch, shown by a disagreement between the frequency and time domain.
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
T [sec]
Pitch [deg]
Fig 5.3. Heave motions. The Mathieu instability phenomenon is shown by the disagreement between the frequency and time domain.
To produce the time domain results, a regular wave with H=10m was used and the steady state amplitude was measured. In order to compare the two methods the RAO’s were multiplied by the wave height.
A great effort has been made in producing the time domain results. Since MOSES only allows defining one period at the time, the simulation has been carried out for each period. This is a quite time demanding task. In addition each simulation has been run with different levels of damping, different hull shapes and different types of environment. The alteration of the Newmark parameters (damping) is thoroughly explained in section 4.2.2.
MOSES does not calculate the exact natural periods for a system, but allows you to investigate them by looking at the RAO’s for different degrees of freedom. This means that the natural periods given here are manually found at the peak of the RAO curves. This is probably the explanation why MOSES gives the highest heave amplitude at Twave=25,5 sec. Anyway, it is in the vicinity of the period T=25.2 sec calculated from the formula (5.1).
The envelope process of the heave motion is then illustrated by the first 400 seconds, before the instability accrues at approximately 1100 seconds. The Illustration in fig. 5.4 shows that the envelope for the heave motion has the same period as the natural period in pitch (T=106 sec), i.e. the heave envelope trigs the pitch instability.
Fig 5.4. The envelope process of the heave motions.
T=25.5 sec. H=10m
Generally, this effect is caused by two frequencies in the signal. When these frequencies are close, the envelope period is large and the effect is clearly pronounced. Hence the envelope effect is reduced if the frequencies are moved apart. This effect is caused by the amplifying pitch/ heave interaction.
The non-linear heave excitation causing the instability can also be explained if considering the displaced position instead of the mean position. The vertical component of the horizontal 1st order total force when the Spar has a pitch inclination explains this effect [Haslum 2000]. See figure 5.5.
Fig. 5.5. Second order heave force contribution due to surge and pitch interaction.
Chapter 6
6.0 Coupling effects
When predicting the Spar response the effect from mooring line dynamics and riser friction is important. Their contribution to the total damping can constitute several meters in the Spar response. Results of this coupled analysis reveal that mooring and risers have significant effect on the Spar heave response. A characteristic feature of a Spar platform is the slow oscillatory motion that occurs at resonant frequencies. The damping is low at resonant periods and correct estimation of the damping is therefore important to get reliable results [OTC 12082].
Concerns about excessive heave and pitch response of Spar arising from the Mathieu instability have been raised for long period waves (See section 5.0). This instability occurred for the Spar shown in fig. 5.1 without mooring lines and riser effects included. A new analysis was carried out including these effects showing the Mathieu instability being suppressed. The heave response is shown in fig. 6.1.
-98.5
-98
-97.5
-97
-96.5
-96
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
T [sec]
heave [m]
hull shape I
hull shape II
Fig. 6.1. Heave response. Two cases: 1) free floating and 2) coupling effects included. Regular wave, H=10m and T=25.5sec
Two cases are presented in the figure. The heave response for a free floating Spar, i.e. no additional damping and coupling effects from mooring and risers included. The mooring lines used are described earlier in section 3.0, and the riser system consists of 16 risers each with a diameter= 346mm and a pretension= 100 kN. As tried with the mooring system, the risers were modelled as one equivalent riser with pretension equal the sum of the 16 risers. The problem arising with the introduction of an equivalent riser, was the adaptation of the stiffness and
weight and attachment to the seabed. With 16 separate risers, the separation of the attachment points at seabed gives a certain effect, which is probably not taken care of by one equivalent riser.
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
T [sec]
Damping coeff. [-]
Hull shape III
Hull shape II
Hull shape I
The results show the importance of including all the damping effects in predicting the response under resonance conditions. This type of analysis is conservatively done by excluding the damping from mooring and risers and does often lead to Spars with hull draft greater than necessary. A reduction in the draft will reduce the costs significantly [OTC 12082].
-120
-115
-110
-105
-100
-95
-90
-85
-80
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
T [sec]
Heave [m]
moored with risers
free floating
As well as the heave motions, the resonant pitch response is substantially reduced by including the effects from mooring and risers. Fig. 6.2 shows the
pitch response from the same analysis as in fig. 6.1. The uncoupled pitch response shown is the Mathieu instability response. According to analysis done [OTC 12082] the coupled effect gets even more important when operating in deep sea.
The response characteristics for a Spar are fairly complex due to the interaction of wave frequency and low frequency motions. When coupling the effects from mooring and risers with the vessel response, large reductions in extremes are obtained. As explained, these reductions are important to take into the design of the mooring lines and risers in an early stage.
Finally, there is a role for coupled analysis in the validation of the design, in particular when designing deep water Spars where lack of experience is a problem. The limitations of model basins to access the full vessel/ riser/ mooring system in very deep water makes the ability to accurately simulate coupled effects practically a requirement for new systems [OTC 12083].
Not many computer programs can handle these effects. Coupled results from MOSES in relation to a Spar buoy, as presented here, are therefore useful and have a certain commercial value.
Chapter 7
7.0 Alternative hull shapes
It is because of its relatively low damping in resonant motions and low natural period in heave the classical spar (hull I, Fig. 7.1) may experience the large heave motion explained. According to [Haslum 2000] some measures are possible to reduce the heave response:
1. Increase the damping in heave
2. Increase the natural heave period out of the wave energy region
3. Reduce the linear heave excitation force
Fig. 7.1 shows alternative hull shapes to cope with these three points. The first point is in theory dealt
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
500
1000
1500
2000
T [sec]
Air gap [m]
with by adding a circular disk at the bottom of the spar (hull II). The heave response for hull shape II from a time domain analysis is illustrated in Fig. 7.2. The time domain shows small deviations from the classical spar (hull I). The RAO’s were also calculated without
Fig. 7.1. Alternative hull shapes
showing any major differences between the two hulls. It is however uncertain whether or not the results are comparable. The physical properties are changed as a consequence of the geometrical differences and the results compared here are the actual heave motion for each spar.
-10
-5
0
5
10
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
T [sec]
Pitch [deg]
moored, with risers
free floating
Fig. 7.2. Heave response from an ISSC spectrum with Hs=10 m and T=14 sec. Two different hull shapes are considered.
Especially hull shape III has major differences in centre of gravity, metacentric height etc. To deal with this problem in a different manor, the damping coefficients in heave for the three hull shapes have been compared. They are shown in fig. 7.3.
The second point, increasing the natural heave period, is done by adding a pontoon at the keel, i.e. hull shape III has a natural period in heave higher than the classical spar.
An increase in the added mass increases the diffraction term and thus reduces the heave excitation force. For example adding a disk at the keel will in theory increase the added mass, but practical tests shows that the disk has to be very large to have an important effect on the heave excitation force. It is practical troublesome to construct spars with large disks [Haslum 2000]. Hull shape III however, shows large added mass coefficients in heave for a given interval of periods compared to hull I and II.
Fig. 7.3. Heave damping coefficients for three different hull shapes
The damping coefficients are normalized by the mass of the buoy and express the linear heave damping (exclusive of added mass effects).
This figure confirms the theory explained. Hull shape III produces at the most fifteen times the damping of hull I and II (T=20sec), and hull shape II has a few percent more damping than hull I. This difference is slightly expressed in the heave response during a time domain analysis, shown in fig. 7.2. In addition to these structural changes, increasing the draft can reduce the heave response. This is an expensive measure and is seldom the solution used for a spar buoy.
The three hulls shown in fig. 7.1 are the same as used in [Haslum 2000]. Hull shape I is the classical spar shaped as a cylinder. Hull shape II is the same cylinder with a cylindrical disk at bottom. The disk diameter is 1.32D, where D is the cylinder diameter and the thickness=0.2m. The last hull shape consists of two cylinders. The upper is the same as hull I and the bottom cylinder has a diameter=2.596D and height=30m.
The idea behind the increased heave damping, together with the use of this enormous hull is that due to the counteracting diffraction force and the large draft, the motion response of the platform should be adequately low to permit installation of rigid risers with dry wellheads. Therefore, the motion response (in particular heave and pitch) is crucial for the concept.
Chapter 8
8.0 Recommendations for further work
Wave induced motions on a Spar buoy are presented. Motions in frequency and time domain are calculated and illustrated. An analysis including mooring line dynamics and riser friction is also presented. In addition, there are some issues in relation to wave induced motions on a Spar that are not treated in this thesis. These issues are useful to consider in an overall evaluation.
Effects produced by wind forces and currents are not applied to the MOSES model. They will in some cases affect the Spar motions. Especially low frequency motions can be caused by wind gusts with significant energy at periods at the order of magnitude of a minute. This is due to the high natural periods of the Spar [Faltinsen 90].
A well known phenomenon in many fields of engineering is resonance oscillations caused by vortex shedding, typical for cylindrical shaped structures as the Spar. To avoid these vortex-induced oscillations, helical strakes are often used (see the illustration in Appendix 1). To control the instability in pitch that is discussed, more pitch damping is required. Helical strakes contribute to this kind of damping and will consequently play a part in suppressing this instability [Faltinsen 90]. An analysis with helical strake should be carried out.
In section 7.0 alternative hull shapes have been tried out, in the effort to increase the damping in heave. By further investigating the effect of different hull shapes, one should be able to find an optimisation of the Spar hull with respect to the heave motion. By optimising the hull with respect to one degree of freedom, it will probably affect the motion characteristic of the buoy in the other modes. To which extend this geometrical change will affect the motions of the buoy, should be investigated,
The flooded centerwell of the Spar called moonpool, may have some effects on the motion characteristics. For the classical Spar the natural period of the vertical fluid motion is close to the natural period of the platform in heave. This makes it sometimes difficult to simulate. In cases where the moonpool is constructed for large equipment to be lowered through it, the passage between the risers is quite large. The simplified method of considering the Spar as closed at the keel, is in such cases probably too simple. The resonance response of the water column could be important [Haslum 2000].
The Mathieu instability phenomenon could as well be studied more carefully. The effect of altering the wave amplitudes and the wave periods on the instability, could be examined. This problem is treated in [Haslum 2000], where the results are presented as a 3-D chart, to illustrate the influence from the wave amplitude at the range of periods where the instability occurs.
In addition to the mentioned means, there are a lot of possibilities in the use of MOSES. Once the time domain simulation has been turned successfully, several results have been produced and stored in a database. It is then possible to specify the result wanted, everything from evaluation of the forces in the risers to stability verifications of the buoy.
Chapter 9
9.0 References
1. The Centre for Marine and Petroleum Technology (CMPT) (1998). Floating Structures: a guide for design and analysis, Volume One.
2. The Centre for Marine and Petroleum Technology (CMPT) (1998). Floating Structures: a guide for design and analysis, Volume Two.
3. Faltinsen, Odd M. (1990). Sea loads on ships and offshore structures. Cambridge University Press.
4. Haslum, Herbjørn A. (2000). Dr. Ing thesis: Simplified methods applied to nonlinear motions of Spar platforms.
5. OTC 12083 (Offshore Technology Conference - 2000). Coupling effects for a deepwater Spar.
6. OTC 12082 (Offshore Technology Conference – 2000). Effects of Spar coupled analysis.
7. OTC 12085 (Offshore Technology Conference – 2000). Deepwater nonlinear coupled analysis tool.
8. Larsen, T. J. Projet de fin d’etudes (2001). Motion and stability analysis of a pipelay vessel (barge and stinger). Stability verifications of a buoy launch from a barge.
9. MOSES manual. Ultramarine Inc. Offshore Engineering Software (www.ultramarine.com)
List of figures
Figure 2.1
MOSES reference
Figure 3.1
Isometric view with mooring
Figure 3.2
Front view with mooring
Figure 3.1.1
The six degrees of freedom
Figure 4.1.1
Pitch RAO. Two frequency intervals, to illustrate the natural period in pitch
Figure 4.1.2
Heave RAO
Figure 4.1.3
Surge RAO
Figure 4.1.4
Difference of the phases
Figure 4.2.1.1
Low frequency surge motion for the 202.5m draft Spar
Figure 4.2.2.1
Air gap, simultaneously recorded as fig. 4.2.1.1
Figure 4.2.2.1
Effect of Newmark parameters
Figure 4.2.3.1
Heave response for a three hours hurricane
Figure 4.2.3.2
Pitch motions during a three hours hurricane
Figure 5.1
Spar platform
Figure 5.2
Illustration of the Mathieu instability in pitch, shown by the disagreement between the frequency and time domain
Figure 5.3
Heave motions. The Mathieu instability phenomenon is shown by the disagreement between the frequency and the time domain
Figure 5.4
The envelope process of the heave motion, T=25.5sec, H=10m
Figure 5.5
Second order heave force contribution due to surge and pitch interaction
Figure 6.1
Heave response. Two cases: 1) free floating and 2) coupling effects included. Regular wave, H=10m and T=25.5sec
Figure 6.2
Pitch response. Coupled and uncoupled with mooring and risers
Figure 7.1
Alternative hull shapes
Figure 7.2
Heave response from an ISSC spectrum, with Hs=10m and T=14sec. Two different hull shapes are considered
Figure 7.3
Heave damping coefficients for three different hull shapes
Symbols and nomenclature
MOSES
MultiOperational Structural Engineering Simulator
RAO
Response Amplitude Operator
GOM
Gulf of Mexico
RMS
Root Mean Square
ISSC
International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress
TLP
Tension Leg Platform
FPSO
Floating Production Storage and Offloading
d
Draft
D
Diameter
KG
Vertical centre of gravity
GM
Metacentric height
TN
Natural period
Appendix
Appendix 1
Illustration of a moored SPAR with helical strake and risers
Appendix 2
MOSES files
Appendix 2a
Command file:Spar6.cif (*)
Appendix 2b
Geometry file:Spar6.dat(Hull shape I)
Appendix 3
MOSES files, alternative hull shapes
Appendix 3a
Hull shape, fig. 5.1(Spar8.dat)
Appendix 3b
Hull shape II
(Spar7.dat)
Appendix 3c
Hull shape III
(Spar9.dat)
Appendix 4
MOSES file, output (Spar6.out)
(*)This command file applies to all the geometry files.
Calls extern program
Abstract:
This work is based on the use of MOSES (MultiOperational Structural Engineering Simulator), which is an analysis tool for almost anything that can be placed in the water. A quite comprehensive programming language that allows you to do coupled analysis of Spar platforms in which damping effects from mooring lines and risers are included. The diversity of the program is further expressed trough the handling of a newly explained phenomenon, the Mathieu instability.
Alternative hull shapes with improved heave motion characteristics are investigated, showing increased heave damping when differ from the classical hull shape.
The effect of mooring system on the linear motion response is investigated. It is seen that even a very stiff mooring system has small influence on the linear wave frequency response.
The results from the coupled analysis show the importance of including mooring line dynamics and riser friction when predicting the Spar response. The response was significantly reduced and the Mathieu instability phenomenon was suppressed. Existing Spars have deep drafts to reduce the wave loads and consequently the heave motion. Traditionally, the mooring line dynamics and riser friction were ignored in estimating the heave response. Since this effect is important, the draft of the Spar can be reduced while maintaining an acceptable heave response. Reduction in Spar hull draft can reduce fabrication costs substantially and as a result the Spar solution will be more cost effective.
Defines a position for the Spar
Draft = 202.5 m
Trim = 0.4°
Defines the supplementary punctual loads.
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
Geometrical properties for the elements
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
Heave (z)
Surge (x)
Sway (y)
roll
pitch
yaw
Keywords:
Advisor:
Odd M. Faltinsen
SPAR Buoy
Wave induced motions
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
MOSES
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
Availability:
O
y
x
315°
0°
45°
90°
135°
180°
225°
270°
Fig. 2.1. MOSES Reference [Larsen 01]
Number of pages:
94
Delivered:20.06.2002
Student:Truls Jarand Larsen
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
Fig. 6.2. Pitch response. Coupled and uncoupled with mooring and risers.
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED PBrush ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
� EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 ���
Title:
Modelling of wave induced motions of a SPAR buoy in MOSES
Address:
NTNU
Department of Marine Hydrodynamics
N-7491 Trondheim
Location
Marinteknisk Senter
O. Nielsens vei 10
Tel.+47 73 595535
Fax+47 73 595528
Chart1
500500
502502
504504
506506
508508
510510
512512
514514
516516
518518
520520
522522
524524
526526
528528
530530
532532
534534
536536
538538
540540
542542
544544
546546
548548
550550
552552
554554
556556
558558
560560
562562
564564
566566
568568
570570
572572
574574
576576
578578
580580
582582
584584
586586
588588
590590
592592
594594
596596
598598
600600
602602
604604
606606
608608
610610
612612
614614
616616
618618
620620
622622
624624
626626
628628
630630
632632
634634
636636
638638
640640
642642
644644
646646
648648
650650
652652
654654
656656
658658
660660
662662
664664
666666
668668
670670
672672
674674
676676
678678
680680
682682
684684
686686
688688
690690
692692
694694
696696
698698
700700
702702
704704
706706
708708
710710
712712
714714
716716
718718
720720
722722
724724
726726
728728
730730
732732
734734
736736
738738
740740
742742
744744
746746
748748
750750
752752
754754
756756
758758
760760
762762
764764
766766
768768
770770
772772
774774
776776
778778
780780
782782
784784
786786
788788
790790
792792
794794
796796
798798
800800
802802
804804
806806
808808
810810
812812
814814
816816
818818
820820
822822
824824
826826
828828
830830
832832
834834
836836
838838
840840
842842
844844
846846
848848
850850
852852
854854
856856
858858
860860
862862
864864
866866
868868
870870
872872
874874
876876
878878
880880
882882
884884
886886
888888
890890
892892
894894
896896
898898
900900
902902
904904
906906
908908
910910
912912
914914
916916
918918
920920
922922
924924
926926
928928
930930
932932
934934
936936
938938
940940
942942
944944
946946
948948
950950
952952
954954
956956
958958
960960
962962
964964
966966
968968
970970
972972
974974
976976
978978
980980
982982
984984
986986
988988
990990
992992
994994
996996
998998
10001000
10021002
10041004
10061006
10081008
10101010
10121012
10141014
10161016
10181018
10201020
10221022
10241024
10261026
10281028
10301030
10321032
10341034
10361036
10381038
10401040
10421042
10441044
10461046
10481048
10501050
10521052
10541054
10561056
10581058
10601060
10621062
10641064
10661066
10681068
10701070
10721072
10741074
10761076
10781078
10801080
10821082
10841084
10861086
10881088
10901090
10921092
10941094
10961096
10981098
11001100
11021102
11041104
11061106
11081108
11101110
11121112
11141114
11161116
11181118
11201120
11221122
11241124
11261126
11281128
11301130
11321132
11341134
11361136
11381138
11401140
11421142
11441144
11461146
11481148
11501150
11521152
11541154
11561156
11581158
11601160
11621162
11641164
11661166
11681168
11701170
11721172
11741174
11761176
11781178
11801180
11821182
11841184
11861186
11881188
11901190
11921192
11941194
11961196
11981198
12001200
12021202
12041204
12061206
12081208
12101210
12121212
12141214
12161216
12181218
12201220
12221222
12241224
12261226
12281228
12301230
12321232
12341234
12361236
12381238
12401240
12421242
12441244
12461246
12481248
12501250
12521252
12541254
12561256
12581258
12601260
12621262
12641264
12661266
12681268
12701270
12721272
12741274
12761276
12781278
12801280
12821282
12841284
12861286
12881288
12901290
12921292
12941294
12961296
12981298
13001300
13021302
13041304
13061306
13081308
13101310
13121312
13141314
13161316
13181318
13201320
13221322
13241324
13261326
13281328
13301330
13321332
13341334
13361336
13381338
13401340
13421342
13441344
13461346
13481348
13501350
13521352
13541354
13561356
13581358
13601360
13621362
13641364
13661366
13681368
13701370
13721372
13741374
13761376
13781378
13801380
13821382
13841384
13861386
13881388
13901390
13921392
13941394
13961396
13981398
14001400
14021402
14041404
14061406
14081408
14101410
14121412
14141414
14161416
14181418
14201420
14221422
14241424
14261426
14281428
14301430
14321432
14341434
14361436
14381438
14401440
14421442
14441444
14461446
14481448
14501450
14521452
14541454
14561456
14581458
14601460
14621462
14641464
14661466
14681468
14701470
14721472
14741474
14761476
14781478
14801480
14821482
14841484
14861486
14881488
14901490
14921492
14941494
14961496
14981498
15001500
15021502
15041504
15061506
15081508
15101510
15121512
15141514
15161516
15181518
15201520
15221522
15241524
15261526
15281528
15301530
15321532
15341534
15361536
15381538
15401540
15421542
15441544
15461546
15481548
15501550
15521552
15541554
15561556
15581558
15601560
15621562
15641564
15661566
15681568
15701570
15721572
15741574
15761576
15781578
15801580
15821582
15841584
15861586
15881588
15901590
15921592
15941594
15961596
15981598
16001600
16021602
16041604
16061606
16081608
16101610
16121612
16141614
16161616
16181618
16201620
16221622
16241624
16261626
16281628
16301630
16321632
16341634
16361636
16381638
16401640
16421642
16441644
16461646
16481648
16501650
16521652
16541654
16561656
16581658
16601660
16621662
16641664
16661666
16681668
16701670
16721672
16741674
16761676
16781678
16801680
16821682
16841684
16861686
16881688
16901690
16921692
16941694
16961696
16981698
17001700
17021702
17041704
17061706
17081708
17101710
17121712
17141714
17161716
17181718
17201720
17221722
17241724
17261726
17281728
17301730
17321732
17341734
17361736
17381738
17401740
17421742
17441744
17461746
17481748
17501750
17521752
17541754
17561756
17581758
17601760
17621762
17641764
17661766
17681768
17701770
17721772
17741774
17761776
17781778
17801780
17821782
17841784
17861786
17881788
17901790
17921792
17941794
17961796
17981798
18001800
18021802
18041804
18061806
18081808
18101810
18121812
18141814
18161816
18181818
18201820
18221822
18241824
18261826
18281828
18301830
18321832
18341834
18361836
18381838
18401840
18421842
18441844
18461846
18481848
18501850
18521852
18541854
18561856
18581858
18601860
18621862
18641864
18661866
18681868
18701870
18721872
18741874
18761876
18781878
18801880
18821882
18841884
18861886
18881888
18901890
18921892
18941894
18961896
18981898
19001900
19021902
19041904
19061906
19081908
19101910
19121912
19141914
19161916
19181918
19201920
19221922
19241924
19261926
19281928
19301930
19321932
19341934
19361936
19381938
19401940
19421942
19441944
19461946
19481948
19501950
19521952
19541954
19561956
19581958
19601960
19621962
19641964
19661966
19681968
19701970
19721972
19741974
19761976
19781978
19801980
19821982
19841984
19861986
19881988
19901990
19921992
19941994
19961996
19981998
20002000
20022002
20042004
20062006
20082008
20102010
20122012
20142014
20162016
20182018
20202020
20222022
20242024
20262026
20282028
20302030
20322032
20342034
20362036
20382038
20402040
20422042
20442044
20462046
20482048
20502050
20522052
20542054
20562056
20582058
20602060
20622062
20642064
20662066
20682068
20702070
20722072
20742074
20762076
20782078
20802080
20822082
20842084
20862086
20882088
20902090
20922092
20942094
20962096
20982098
21002100
21022102
21042104
21062106
21082108
21102110
21122112
21142114
21162116
21182118
21202120
21222122
21242124
21262126
21282128
21302130
21322132
21342134
21362136
21382138
21402140
21422142
21442144
21462146
21482148
21502150
21522152
21542154
21562156
21582158
21602160
21622162
21642164
21662166
21682168
21702170
21722172
21742174
21762176
21782178
21802180
21822182
21842184
21862186
21882188
21902190
21922192
21942194
21962196
21982198
22002200
22022202
22042204
22062206
22082208
22102210
22122212
22142214
22162216
22182218
22202220
22222222
22242224
22262226
22282228
22302230
22322232
22342234
22362236
22382238
22402240
22422242
22442244
22462246
22482248
22502250
22522252
22542254
22562256
22582258
22602260
22622262
22642264
22662266
22682268
22702270
22722272
22742274
22762276
22782278
22802280
22822282
22842284
22862286
22882288
22902290
22922292
22942294
22962296
22982298
23002300
23022302
23042304
23062306
23082308
23102310
23122312
23142314
23162316
23182318
23202320
23222322
23242324
23262326
23282328
23302330
23322332
23342334
23362336
23382338
23402340
23422342
23442344
23462346
23482348
23502350
23522352
23542354
23562356
23582358
23602360
23622362
23642364
23662366
23682368
23702370
23722372
23742374
23762376
23782378
23802380
23822382
23842384
23862386
23882388
23902390
23922392
23942394
23962396
23982398
24002400
24022402
24042404
24062406
24082408
24102410
24122412
24142414
24162416
24182418
24202420
24222422
24242424
24262426
24282428
24302430
24322432
24342434
24362436
24382438
24402440
24422442
24442444
24462446
24482448
24502450
24522452
24542454
24562456
24582458
24602460
24622462
24642464
24662466
24682468
24702470
24722472
24742474
24762476
24782478
24802480
24822482
24842484
24862486
24882488
24902490
24922492
24942494
24962496
24982498
25002500
25022502
25042504
25062506
25082508
25102510
25122512
25142514
25162516
25182518
25202520
25222522
25242524
25262526
25282528
25302530
25322532
25342534
25362536
25382538
25402540
25422542
25442544
25462546
25482548
25502550
25522552
25542554
25562556
25582558
25602560
25622562
25642564
25662566
25682568
25702570
25722572
25742574
25762576
25782578
25802580
25822582
25842584
25862586
25882588
25902590
25922592
25942594
25962596
25982598
26002600
26022602
26042604
26062606
26082608
26102610
26122612
26142614
26162616
26182618
26202620
26222622
26242624
26262626
26282628
26302630
26322632
26342634
26362636
26382638
26402640
26422642
26442644
26462646
26482648
26502650
26522652
26542654
26562656
26582658
26602660
26622662
26642664
26662666
26682668
26702670
26722672
26742674
26762676
26782678
26802680
26822682
26842684
26862686
26882688
26902690
26922692
26942694
26962696
26982698
27002700
27022702
27042704
27062706
27082708
27102710
27122712
27142714
27162716
27182718
27202720
27222722
27242724
27262726
27282728
27302730
27322732
27342734
27362736
27382738
27402740
27422742
27442744
27462746
27482748
27502750
27522752
27542754
27562756
27582758
27602760
27622762
27642764
27662766
27682768
27702770
27722772
27742774
27762776
27782778
27802780
27822782
27842784
27862786
27882788
27902790
27922792
27942794
27962796
27982798
28002800
28022802
28042804
28062806
28082808
28102810
28122812
28142814
28162816
28182818
28202820
28222822
28242824
28262826
28282828
28302830
28322832
28342834
28362836
28382838
28402840
28422842
28442844
28462846
28482848
28502850
28522852
28542854
28562856
28582858
28602860
28622862
28642864
28662866
28682868
28702870
28722872
28742874
28762876
28782878
28802880
28822882
28842884
28862886
28882888
28902890
28922892
28942894
28962896
28982898
29002900
29022902
29042904
29062906
29082908
29102910
29122912
29142914
29162916
29182918
29202920
29222922
29242924
29262926
29282928
29302930
29322932
29342934
29362936
29382938
29402940
29422942
29442944
29462946
29482948
29502950
29522952
29542954
29562956
29582958
29602960
29622962
29642964
29662966
29682968
29702970
29722972
29742974
29762976
29782978
29802980
29822982
29842984
29862986
29882988
29902990
29922992
29942994
29962996
29982998
30003000
30023002