1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The offshore oil and gas industry is focused on hydrocarbon recovery (e.g., crude oil and

natural gas) from beneath the seabed to meet the global energy demand (Institute of Marine

Engineering, Science, 2020). Although such industry is considered as one of the world's largest,

most complicated, and essential industries, the oil and gas industry is significantly touching

everyone's lives on a daily basis. Indeed, modern civilization lives in an oil-and-gas-powered

world; thus, oil and gas play a critical role in the world economy. In the mid-19th century up until

20th century, the oil and gas resources played a vital factor in the economy of the United States of

America. It was produced at a time when new technology was creating new oil products. Kerosene,

for example, became popular as a low-cost, environmentally friendly fuel for lighting dwellings

(BBC, n.d.). As a result, oil became the dominant fuel of the 20th century and integral energy

industry around the world. The latter part includes the rapidly increasing global energy demand.

In fact, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that global energy demand will increase

by 1.5 percent each year on average and will continue to grow until 2040 (Werner et al., 2016). A

previous report by the World Energy Council in 2016 stated that the oil and natural gas industry

remains the world's leading energy source, accounting for 54.9 percent of global energy

consumption. The primary energy consumption amounted to about 13.28 billion metric tons of oil

and 3.7 trillion metric tons of natural gas in 2016, which led to the consumers' immense demands

(Statista, 2016, as cited in Baldelovar et al., 2020). There is sufficient evidence that the modern

global community’s energy demand has been increased to the point where offshore oil and gas

activities have also been affected. The need to meet the demand of the global community must
 2

also co-in line with the advances in the offshore engineering field. Hence, petroleum engineers

must address such critical aspects in the offshore oil and gas industry.

The science and engineering in this sector have advanced tremendously as a result of the

rapid growth of the offshore field, particularly in the exploration and development of offshore oil

and gas reserves in deep ocean waters. Floating structures have been recently utilized for oil and

gas drilling, and have become progressively prevalent for production, particularly in deep waters

of the oceans. Yet, the floaters pose new design challenges. These includes (a) the weight control

and stability become key design drivers, (b) dynamic responses govern the loads on moorings and

equipment, (c) fatigue is an important consideration, (d) in some areas, the new environmental

challenges make design difficult, (e.g. Large currents in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico High

seas and strong currents in the North Atlantic Long period swells in West Africa), (e) installation

of the platforms, mooring and decks in deep water present new challenges, and (f) new materials

for risers and moorings are required in ultra-deep water.

Moreover, one of the most well-known floating offshore platforms is the Tension Leg

Platform, simply TLP. These TLPs have been utilized completely as production and drilling

platforms. Yet, only a few technical and research papers discuss this type of offshore platform

critically. Therefore, the present paper aimed to fill a gap of knowledge in this critical area. This

paper comprehensively discusses the functions and configurations, mechanics, sizing, weight

estimates, and hull structures of TLP.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Due to the rapid evolution of the offshore field, principally in the exploration and

development of offshore oil and gas fields in deep waters of the oceans, the science and
 3

engineering in this area are seeing an extraordinary advancement. Such advanced knowledge is

not readily available for academic usage of future petroleum engineers in a single reference.

Remarkable strides have been made in the last decades in the development of offshore exploration

and production of hydrocarbons. Through this paper, the authors were able to provide a single

reference to the readers, and professionals in the offshore oil and gas industry were able to learn

and understand new concepts, structures, and materials for Tension Leg Platform (TLP) in the

deep oceans. This paper also addressed the draught of scientific outputs concerning tension leg

platforms and other vital information that can be utilized by professionals in the offshore oil and

gas industry.

1.3 Objectives of the Paper

1.3.1 General Objective

The current paper aimed to comprehensively discuss the Tension Leg Platform (TLP) in the

context of offshore engineering floating structure design thru a review of related literature and

other available references on the internet.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

This paper performed the following specific objectives:

1. To re-introduce the concept of the Tension Leg Platform.

2. To expound on the Functions and Configurations of Tension Leg Platform Mechanics.

3. To explain the Tension Leg Platform Mechanics.

4. To elaborate TLPs weight estimate.

5. To explicate the Sizing of Tension Leg Platform Mechanics

6. To discuss the Tension Leg Platform Mechanics Hull structure.

 4

1.4 Significance of the Study

As time progress, the technological advancement in the offshore oil and gas industry is also

evident. This particular knowledge must be embedded in the professionals and petroleum

engineers to solve real-life offshore problems during drilling and production activities.

Therefore, this paper addressed such gaps. The current paper involves relevant knowledge

in the aspects of offshore structure design, installation, and operation. This paper covers the

introduction and basic background of the Tension Leg Platform and its applicability in offshore

engineering. The strength of this paper is the notable and encompassing presentation of the current

function and operational offshore advancement for all those involved with offshore structures,

specifically the Tension Leg Platform (TLP). It is written as a reference paper for practicing

engineers, and it should be a useful reference book for design engineers and consultants working

in offshore engineering and offshore structure design.

1.5 Scope and Delimitations of the Study

The scope of this paper were:

1. Introduction to Tension Leg Platform.

2. Functions and Configurations of Tension Leg Platform.

3. Tension Leg Platform mechanics.

4. Sizing of Tension Leg Platform.

5. Weight Estimates of Tension Leg Platforms.

6. Tension Leg Platform Hull Structure.

The limitation of the study was:

1. Discussion of theoretical concepts of Tension Leg Platform (TLP).

2. Calculations were not included.

 5

1.6 Assumptions of the Study

In conducting this study, the following assumptions was made:

1. All of our references were legitimate and valid.

 6

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Floating Offshore Platform Design

2.1.1 Tension Leg Platform

TLPs have only been used as drilling and production platforms, which comprises of columns

and pontoons (Salama, 2005). In the context of TLPs' unique feature, the mooring system includes

vertical tendons (sometimes known as "tethers") that restrain the heave motion. Leveson (2011)

described the TLPs as a floating platform that combine buoyancy forces (due to displacement

caused by the draft—the submerged part of the hull) with tensile forces created by tubular cables

attached to the hull and anchored to the seabed. The author further discussed that it is a vertically

anchored floating structure that is typically utilized for offshore oil or gas production and is best

suited for water depths of less than 1500 meters (approximately 300 feet) (about 4900 ft). Further,

the tethers or tendons are grouped at each of the platform's corners to keep it permanently fastened.

A tension leg is a collection of tethers. The tethers have a reasonably high axial stiffness (low

elasticity), which eliminates nearly all vertical motion of the platform. Instead of being on the

bottom, the platform can have the production wellheads on deck (connected directly to the subsea

wells via rigid risers). This simplifies well completion, improves control over the output from the

oil or gas reservoir, and makes downhole intervention activities easier.

The following are the primary analytic areas for preliminary studies of a TLP's initial design,

as per Salama (2005): (1) Weight and Center of Gravity; (2) Wind Forces; (3) Current Forces; (4)

Global Performance analyses including motions, drift force, and tendon tensions; and (5) Global

strengths.
 7

Figure 2.1 below shows the configuration and terminology employed to the Tension Leg

Platforms.

Figure 2.1 Configuration and Terminology for TLP

2.1.1.1 Functions and Configurations of TLPs

TLPs, or tension leg platforms, are a relatively modern development that is only utilized as

a permanent production platform. Aside from mission and support responsibilities, a TLP's

primary duty is to support a payload above the highest waves. More specifically, the hull's purpose

is to create buoyancy, both for weight support and tendon tension. It should also be tall enough to

provide wave clearance to the deck in all modes of operation. Tendon tension influences hull size

just as much as payload. The functional requirements of the deck and well systems might also have
 8

an impact on column spacing. Its columns provide the primary source of buoyancy, with the

pontoons serving primarily as framework. In terms of hydrodynamic force, the pontoons and

columns have a size relationship.

When compared to other platforms such as the semi-submersible, the TLP does not employ

space frame bracing and uses extremely less ballast in its working condition. Ballast is utilized to

distribute weight evenly between tendons and to compensate for wasted payload capacity. Aside

from that, like the semisubmersible, the size, and submergence. The proportion and spacing of the

columns and pontoons play a significant role in the hydrodynamic performance. The heave motion

of a semi-submersible is an important design consideration. Vertical motion of a TLP is

significantly less problematic and altogether different. While the TLP does not heave, it does

experience offset set-down. The TLP, like a semi-submersible, is laterally compliant and will

surge, sway, and yaw. There is little that can be done to modify lateral movements in either

platform type, however constant offset can be reduced by increasing tendon tension. Pontoons,

stability columns, and deck are the three basic configurational components that must be

considered.

Figure 2.1.1.1 shows the four TLP configurations. The development of TLPs dates back to

the 70s with Hutton platform which was a rectangular, 6-column unit; all TLPs until the late 1990s

were square 4-column units. Three-column designs were considered but not built. Four single

column designs (SeaStar, Figure 2.1.1.1b) and two close-clustered, multi-column designs (Moses,

fig. 7.46A) were established in the late 1990s. External, radial pontoon configurations are used in

both designs. Removable sponsons (external column modifications) are another innovation for

installation. Another aspect is the presence of short, external, radial pontoons at the columns that

link the tendons (Figure 2.1.1.1d). These increase tendons spread and decrease maximum tendon
 9

stress, as well as decrease deck spans. Deck design and deck-to-column connectivity are two

further configuration options. Another option is the pontoon-to-column connection layout, which

is mostly determined by structural design constraints. This is relevant whether the column and/or

pontoon cross-sections are circular or square, and whether the corners are radiused in the case of

square.

Figure 2.1.1.1 TLP Configuration Example

In general, mission functions and associated support functions have little effect on

configuration. The configuration of the well-system can have an effect on column spacing and

deck design. Construction and installation, on the other hand, are more likely to have an impact on

configuration. This may be seen in modern construction. The deck's mating will have a significant

impact on the deck's design, particularly its contact with the columns. Many of the advancements

have focused on installation difficulties, tendons, and the deck, namely risers and well systems.

Decks of TPSs possess a unique stature. Almost all TLP decks are built independently from

the hull and then attached afterwards, either dockside, offshore, or in a separate, protected area.

The fundamental issue with this one-of-a-kindness is administrative rather than technological.

Except in the very early stages of design, the deck and hull are developed and controlled
 10

independently. Because of the intricacy of their functional and design features. TLP decks are

designed differently from those of other floating systems due to their vast design history. Still,

traditional TLP decks have always featured lengthy spans with four-point corner support and open

trusses.

As a result, they have several levels. Deck designs for single column and close-clustered

multi-column designs have been quite similar to those of fixed platforms, with a four-point support

as though a 4-pile jacket supported it. Outfitting makes considerable use of distinct, independently

constructed components. Aside from its inherent structural role of transferring the weight of the

deck and its loading to the columns, the deck is also a component of the overall global strength

system and must be regarded as such. For the reasons described in the decks section. Any

functionality (equipment, tanks, etc.) within the columns has been avoided. There has been a slight

shift away from this, particularly in liquid storage and saltwater handling. Otherwise, the columns

and pontoons are large empty areas with a lot of watertight partitioning.

2.1.1.2 TLP Mechanics

In general, TLPs and semi-submersibles are simply different types of systems, despite some apparent

similarities. Whereas a semi-submersible is a free-floating structure constrained by compliant spread

moorings and/or dynamic positioning, a TLP is held in place by lateral forces generated by the tendons

when the TLP is pushed away from the center. The lateral force is determined by tendon tensions. As a

result, a significant percentage of the TLP buoyancy is allocated to the formation of tendon tension.

Furthermore, although the dynamic mooring loads of conventional floating structures are greatly reduced

by platform inertia, the mooring loads of TLPs are directly related to first order wave loads on the structure.

The TLP is "fixed" in heave.

 11

Pretension

The left of Figure 7.47 depicts the forces operating on a TLP in still water without lateral

loading. On a TLP with surface trees and top-tensioned risers, this would amount to a large portion

of the cargo. Other risers, such as export, subsea, and drilling, may also be included. It should be

noted that the displacement is affected by the draft of the TLP, which varies with tide. The

stillwater draft at the mean low water tidal reference is often used as the foundation draft. This will

be referenced by the tide, which can include both storm tide and lunar tide. When the TLP is offset

from the center, there is a rise in draft known as "set-down." It is crucial to note that there will be

a minimum and maximum tendon tension to consider, as well as a reduction in freeboard in the

offset position. Top-tensioned production risers are completed in stages over three years or more,

with some postponed for longer. Their tension is likewise adjustable over a limited range. Finally,

multiple completion states must be addressed in this problem. Ballast adjustment is often used to

maintain foundation riser tension.

Offset and Set-down

The right of Figure 7.47 depicts the change in forces acting on the TLP with lateral loading.

When a TLP is offset by distance, the tendons, in order to preserve length, induce the TLP to

submerge, or set-down. It is important to note that top tensioned riser tensions can be significant,

acting as virtual tendons. These can be included, but only if they are centered and have a constant

value. The offset limitations will, of course, be determined by the design specifications, but a

maximum offset of 6-8 percent of water depth is a suitable starting point. This produces severe

tendon angles of slightly under 5 degrees for water depths of 2000 feet or higher. Mechanically,

the tendon connections cannot exceed 10 degrees due to tendon flexure and other causes. An offset

is made up of several components. The steady components are due to wind current and steady
 12

wave drift forces. Depending upon specific environmental parameters, these forces will account

for half or more of the maximum offset.

Figure 2.1.1.2 Tendon Mechanics of Tension Leg Platform

Tendon Tension

The starting amount of tendon tension can be chosen to restrict offset to 5% of water depth

for design purposes. The constant forces might be 1000 kips or more depending on the size of the

TLP and the climatic conditions. It is worth noting that it can involve a lot of current force from

tendons and risers. As a first approximation, tendon pretension can be calculated as twenty times

the mean horizontal environmental force to be resisted. If the increased tension due to setdown is

neglected, this results in a minimal 5% offset.

The increased tendon stress caused by the offset is mostly due to the wind force's overturning

moment. This has little effect on overall tension, but it does raise upwind tensions while decreasing

downwind tensions. Wave loading causes considerable increases (and declines) in tendon tension.
 13

The primary component of tendon tensions is wave frequency response and pressures, which are

easily determined using linear wave theory.

However, there are three significant exceptions. The vertical drag force of high waves on

pontoons is one of the exceptions. While they represent a considerably lesser component of wave

force than other components, they are not insignificant. The second is a collection of second order

effects derived directly from waves. The third exception is the dynamic reaction of the TLP mass

to tendon elasticity. This comprises both vertical (heave) and rotational (pitch/way) response.

Except in very deep water, these movements have intervals of 2-3 seconds. range, and respond

with minimal dampening. As a result, continued absorption of energy from waves will activate

these modes ("springing"), increasing the maximum tendon tension. A second type of mechanical

reaction ("ringing") is caused by short-term impact loads, which are often the drag force from a

very strong wave crest impacting a column.

Tendon tension is increased by wave pressures in two ways. One has the crest (or trough) in

the center. In this scenario, the tendons normally resist the net wave vertical force equally. This is

summarized in the top half of Figure 2.1.1.2. The second is summarized at the bottom of fig. Figure

2.1.1.2. In this scenario, the wave force system creates an overturning moment when the wave

nodes pass (pitch). This moment is resisted in part by lateral inertial forces caused by surge

acceleration on the system's fixed and hydrodynamic masses. Surge response is relatively sub-

resonant, and it may be assumed that surge inertial forces completely oppose surge wave force.

Typically, lateral tendon reflexes account for 2-3% of the force. The intent of the discussion is to

demonstrate behavior, relying as much on Figure 2.1.1.2.

 14

Figure 2.1.1.2 Wave Load System of Tension Leg Platform

Motions

A TLP is very tolerant to lateral pressures. is very resistant to vertical pressures at the same

time Offset from lateral forces is similar to the surge or sway reaction of any compliantly

constrained floater. What is actually unique about a TLP is set-down. As previously stated (see

Figure 2.1.1.2), this is a geometrically connected downward motion. Offset contains a constant
 15

component derived from wind, current, and drift forces. Wave frequency and low frequency

responses are included in dynamic offset.

There are no heave or pitch motions in the traditional sense of floating structures. However,

because the system is mechanically elastic, there are vertical and rotational reactions to heave

pressures and pitch moments. Because the natural period in heave and pitch is less than the wave

energy, the tendons immediately carry the global heave and pitch wave stresses on the platform.

Wave energy near to the platform's natural period causes an enhanced reaction at resonance known

as "springing." While often tiny, springing is not inconsequential and is crucial for estimating

tendons and supporting structural strain (API RP2T). A TLP's springing reaction can also cause

vertical accelerations, which can be uncomfortable for employees. Ringing is a second high

frequency response that is similar to but not the same as ringing. This is caused by an impulse load

in an extreme sea condition, which causes a transitory reaction. The ringing response is critical for

estimating tendon severe stress.

2.1.1.3 Sizing of TLP

It is necessary to consider function, construction, and installation when selecting the critical

dimensions of a tension leg platform. Some constraints may arise during the TLP sizing. For

example, the spread of the array of a well system and deck space requirements directly affect the

spacing of the columns. Excessive spacing of columns can introduce global strength problems.

(Global strength pertains to assessing the durability of the entire ship when it is floating in still

water or waves (Team TheNavalArch, 2017) Dry transport of deck or hull may also impose

constraints since the deck or hull is not fixed on the platform during the transportation. It is

important to remember that the shape of the column is vital for hydrodynamic implications.
 16

Despite circular columns being the standard option, the trend goes to rectangular. However, it still

depends on the project design.

The connection of the pontoon to the columns is essential when designing TLPs. Compared

to semi-submersibles, the columns in TLP are larger in size. Short external pontoons that extend

outward from the columns reduce extreme tendon tensions from pitch moment. It enables closer

column spacing which creates a more efficient deck structure design.

Initial Design Considerations

For the initial design considerations, the sizing of the columns and pontoons and opting for

their appropriate spacing is a simple process. The principal functions of the hull are to provide

buoyancy to support the weight of the deck load and provide reinforcement to the deck during the

highest waves. Employing tendon tension can add further buoyancy provided by the hull. On the

other hand, pontoons provide a vertical hydrodynamic force (heave) opposite to the hydrodynamic

force on the column bottoms. In the case of multi-column TLPs, pontoons provide a structural

function. One of the primary objectives of design is to minimize the effect of the force of a crest-

centered wave, and it will be discussed further as the lesson goes on.

The difference between TLPs to semi-submersible, aside from having an inverse proportion

in column-to-pontoon size, is that the hull and contents offer little mass to the whole system. The

center of mass of the TLP is high compared to semi-submersible.

As mentioned earlier, the tendons are also responsible for reducing excessive reactions from

the pitch moment. It is important to note that their connections must be at a sufficient spread to do

so.

Another consideration is that the height of the columns must be high enough for the deck to

be cleared from waves. Although API RP2T allows for designs that enable waves to impact some
 17

parts of the deck, these impact loads must still be properly accounted for. In addition to the

mentioned consideration, allowance for tides, sea bottom subsidence, and installation error

tolerance must be of concern since tendons are mechanically fixed elements. These factors will

establish the height for the bottom of the deck. Setting the column height relative to the deck

requires addressing the column-to-deck connection.

The height of the column of TLPs and its size can affect the waveform and induce wave run-

up. Wave run-up is the additional height that waves attain as they run up the shore (in this case,

the columns) before their wave energy degrades due to friction and gravity (Walsh et al., 2012).

Deep draft columns and pontoons are better at providing stability amidst the turbulent waves.

However, they can cause structural penalties. Shorter yet larger columns have less surface area

meaning that there is less steel. A tall structure also bears consequences such as high racking

moments due to surge and sway accelerations on the high center of mass.

Figure 2.1.1.3 below shows the underwater body model for the initial design computation of

displacement, motions, and the forces of 4-column TLP. Table X below shows the defining set of

parameters.

Table 2.1.1.3 Set of Parameters

Columns: Column cross-section: Ac = π Dc/4

Column draft: dc
Column spread ac
Column height (WT top): fc
Waterplane area: Awp = 4 Ac
Immersed Column Volume: ▽c = Awp dc = 4 Ac dc
Pontoon cross-section: Ap
Pontoon length: Lp = 2bp
Pontoon spread: ap
Pontoon center submergence: dp
Pontoon volume (total) ▽p = 4 Ap Lc
Exterior Pontoons: Cross-section: Ae
Pontoon length: Le
 18

Radial volume center (from col re

center)
Pontoon spread: ac + (Dc/2 + re)/21/2
Vertical center submergence: dp (same as interior)
Pontoon volume (total) ▽e = 4 Ae Le
Total Displaced Volume: ▽o = ▽p + ▽c + ▽ext
Tendons: Tendon spread: st
Depth of pivot point: dt

Initial Design Process

The initial design process starts with determining the payload and weight of the hull and

deck and the range of tendon tension. The tension will depend on the water depth, estimated steady

lateral forces, and the allowable offset for steady forces. It will also depend upon the range of the

tensions caused by environmental loading. Then, the buoyancy will refer to the sum of the total

weight, tendon tensions, and riser tensions.

The minimization of heave force determines the best volume distribution between pontoons

and columns. After that, the combination of draft and column spacing will be determined

considering the heave force and pitch moment caused by waves. During this early stage, the

column spacing and pontoon lengths are still subject to change.

The whole procedure can be reduced to the following process outline, as shown in Table

below:

Table 2.1.1.3 Process Outline

1. Preliminary Stage Fix provisional column spacing, ac

Set tendon count, nt
External pontoons: Set le and ratio ▽e / ▽p
2. First Stage Input tendon pretensions, To and column drafts, dc;
For each, consider a series of 3 to 5 column/pontoon
volume ratios: ▽e = (▽p + ▽e)
Determine ratio with least spectral heave force maximum
for chosen To and do;
Result: displacement, ▽o for each pretension, To and, for
each To and dc, the best apportionment of ▽c :(▽p + ▽e);
 19

the corresponding column and pontoon areas, Ac, Ap, and

Ae are given.
Reconsideration: sensitivity to pontoon shape; vary Cazp
4. Second Stage Second Stage: (minimum tendon tension with heave
force pitch moment)
Input tendon pretensions, To and drafts, do; set ratio
▽c :(▽p + ▽e) as determined in first stage; drafts may be
different from first stage; interpolate column/pontoon
volume ratios.
For each, consider 3 to 4 column spacings, ac; set ▽e/ ▽p
and le for each as is geometrically appropriate. Suggest
▽e/ ▽p ≈ 1:5 and le ≈ 1.0-1.5 times column diameter, Dc,
set tendon spacing by formula on the basis of column
spacing, column diameter, and length of external
pontoons.
Final Varied Parameter Set: To, do and ac (best ▽c :(▽p
+ ▽e) for each are set; ▽e/ ▽p and le are prescribed for
each);
Result: Each case (parameters: To, do and ac) will have a
maxT. That which has the least maxT will be the best
parametric set for the initial design. Reconsider with
respect to fac x maxT > To to avoid slack tendon.
Reconsideration: Constrain To and/or do to vary ac;
make choice on ac.
Reconsideration: Constrain To, do and ac to vary pontoon
shape (Cazp); make choice on pontoon cross-section.
5. Finalization Fix draft, do and column spacing; also make final shape
determination for columns and pontoons; sets Ac, Ap
(depth, width and corners), and Ae (length, width, depth
and taper); set pontoon spread, ap if different ac; revise dp
and bp to match pontoon and column dimensions. This
input will determine displacement, ∆o and pretension, To.
Consider 2-4 distinct models.
Result: Each model will produce a To and a maxT.
Also, each will have a determined steel weight. Choose.

Clauss and Birh (1998) demonstrated an automatic methodology for the optimization of

TLPs, semis and spars employing a constant quantity grid generator, along with a diffraction-

radiation motions program (WAMIT). This provides a complicated and a more rigorous alternative

to the top procedure. It is suggested that many configurations be selected for a more accurate

analysis before deciding the detailed design for further verification.

 20

Figure 2.1.1.3 Initial Design Underwater Model of Tension Leg Platform

The initial design process starts with determining the payload and weight of the hull and

deck and the range of tendon tension. The tension will depend on the water depth, estimated steady

lateral forces, and the allowable offset for steady forces. It will also depend upon the range of the

tensions caused by environmental loading. Then, the buoyancy will refer to the sum of the total

weight, tendon tensions, and riser tensions.

The minimization of heave force determines the best volume distribution between pontoons

and columns. After that, the combination of draft and column spacing will be determined

considering the heave force and pitch moment caused by waves. During this early stage, the

column spacing and pontoon lengths are still subject to change.

Clauss and Birh (1998) demonstrated an automatic methodology for the optimization of

TLPs, semis and spars employing a constant quantity grid generator, along with a diffraction-

radiation motions program (WAMIT). This provides a complicated and a more rigorous alternative
 21

to the top procedure. It is suggested that many configurations be selected for a more accurate

analysis before deciding the detailed design for further verification.

Additionally, Larrabee et al. (1997) utilized a TLP sizing program which consisted of a large

set of FORTRAN (Formula Translation) equations using 2,000 variables. These equations

underwent iteration to find the most optimal TLP design.

2.1.1.4 Weight Estimates of TLPs

A TLP is a fixed-draft, constant buoyancy system that does not require floatation stability

once installed; however, during the installation phase, it is considered a semi-submersible.

Since it is considered a semi-submersible during the installation phase, the weight includes

not only the payload but also all other weight that contributes to the total weight (W). It is necessary

to define the weight and external loading. Total weight (W) is divided into "Lightship" (Wo) and

"Variable Load" (𝛿𝑊) components for a TLP, but it is still useful and is followed. As an essential

property, the system requires the center of gravity. Weight and mass properties are required

throughout the design phase and must be refined on a regular basis. In this context, weight

represents the fixed mass (Mo). The gyradii of this mass are also required. Surge-sway dynamics

should include the mass participation of tendons and risers. The effective vertical and lateral

centers of all items should be considered. Other downward forces, particularly those of risers, must

be considered in addition to the gravitational force from the system's mass (i.e., total weight, W).

These are typically significant parts of the TLP payload.

Lightships are typically defined and verified in accordance with regulation and include all

steel, equipment, and outfitting provided at completion. In the case of a TLP, however, the hull

and the deck lightship must be completely separated.

 22

Variable load (𝛿𝑊) refers to all weight to be carried that is not lightship: operating items,

bulk and liquids, ballast and consumable liquids in the hull, as well as personnel and effects.

Furthermore, variable loads include massless external loads such as riser tensions and drilling hook

loads (noted as T). As a result, the following notation for total downward forces is proposed”

𝑊 + 𝛿𝑊 + 𝑇𝑟

𝛿𝑊 stands for mass, and T stands for the massless parts of variable load. In comparison

to a semi-submersible, the weight of a TLP changes very little between operating and storm

conditions, and there is no change in draft. The weight distribution would shift, particularly with

the drilling payload and possibly some liquids. In contrast, significant changes can occur over the

lifetime of a TLP if major components of equipment are added or removed. It's worth noting that

riser tensions account for a sizable portion of the payload, and that developing a full suite of risers

could take three or more years.

All mission-related equipment, variable load, and external load are included in the payload.

Payload minus deck structural steel equals net payload. If deck structural steel is included, the

gross payload includes it. The distinction between net and gross is important, particularly when

comparing designs, because some mission functions have a significant impact on the amount of

structural steel required. Payload is an explicit structure devoted to a mission function that is not

an inherent property of the TLP design.

The initial design process is carried out using a spreadsheet. Weights, centers of gravity,

external loads, and vertical force balance are all included. A breakdown summary for a TLP initial

design spreadsheet, similar to that given for semi-submersibles, is shown in Table 2.1.1.4.
 23

Table 2.1.1.4 TLP weight and force input groups for initial design

Pontoon Steel
Special Steel (e.g., riser supports):
Pontoon Outfit and Equipment:
Pontoon Subtotal
Column Steel
Special Steel (e.g., tendon porches, etc.) Column Outfit and Equipment:
Column Subtotal
Deck Steel (basic structure) Deck Steel - deck houses
Special Steel (e.g., substructure, crane fdns, etc.)
Deck Equipment and Outfit - Marine and Support (mooring, utilities, safety, accommodations)
Deck Equipment and Outfit - Mission Systems (drilling, production, tensioning, etc.)
Deck Subtotal
Other Hull Weight
Deck Reserve/Margin
Pontoon Fixed Ballast
LIGHTSHIP
Tendon Tension
Drilling Riser Tensions
Production Riser Tensions
Export Riser Tensions
Deck Variable Load
Column Variable Load
Water Ballast (pontoon/column)
Subtotal External Load, Variable Load and Ballast
TOTAL SUPPORTED WEIGHT AND EXTERNAL FORCE
Some of the parameters in the table are input parameters, while others, particularly the steel

weight, are computed from the geometric parameters. However, the majority of the weight

information (equipment, variable load, etc.) must be specified separately according to design

requirements and is not a function of geometry. During the computation, weight items based on

geometry are denoted by an asterisk in the listing.

Lightship Weight Estimation

The lightship's weight should be divided into three categories: steel, outfitting, and

equipment. The hull and deck lightship weight estimates should be kept separate because they are

designed, fabricated, and managed separately.

 24

Local hydrostatic design pressures determine approximately 85 percent of the steel in semi-

submersibles. In this case, the hydrostatic loading is particularly high, accounting for nearly half

of the structural weight as framing, stiffening, and internal subdivision. Furthermore, the

remaining hull steel comes from global reinforcement and functional foundations. The weight per

square foot of all watertight surfaces can be estimated and totaled using the hydrostatic loading.

The weights of TLP structure units range from around 30 lb/ft2 for upper columns to 60 lb/ft2 or

more for pontoons and lower columns. Other steel weights for fabrication can be added as a

percentage: 7-8% for welding, steel thickness overage, and brackets; 6-10% for local

reinforcement; and specifically estimated allowances (e.g., tendon porches) (Chakrabarti, 2005).

There are numerous design options and functional aspects to consider when estimating deck

steel, making it difficult. Chakrabarti stated that for local loading, decks should be built at 15-20

lbs/ft2 (each deck) and trusses at 10-20 lbs/ft2. These figures are very approximate and heavily

influenced by specific loading and structural design. To estimate future designs of a similar form,

the deck steel should be broken down as indicated into "local" and "major truss systems." The

former should be normalized based on the literal deck area provided, whereas the latter should be

normalized based on the overall format area (column centers) and the supported weight. A TLP's

hull outfitting weight, on the other hand, will be 10% of the hull steel, primarily consisting of

piping, corrosion protection, and access (ladders, walkways, gratings, rails, closures, etc.). The

deck's outfitting is extensive and highly dependent on functions, and is beyond the scope of this

section. It accounts for approximately 25% of the topsides equipment weight.

Moving on, the weight of the equipment is entirely dependent on its functionality, which is

critical and should be the result of a comprehensive equipment list that includes the entire TLP,
 25

hull, and deck, with no exceptions. This should be provided by others who are dealing with the

TLP's functions.

System specialists, on the other hand, prepare equipment and outfit allowances and margins

that are critical for design, quantification, item omission, and other errors, and they should be

appropriate to the specific uncertainty.

Lastly, there are varying degrees of uncertainty in different parts of the system. However,

what matters here is that explicit allowances and margins, no matter how small, are addressed and

available for review and reconsideration.

2.1.1.5 TLP Hull Structure

TLP Hull structure design is taken at two levels: Local Strength and Global Strength. Before diving

into these two categories, local strength is the strength of a localized structure, for example, a

girder or a longitudinal for loads experienced locally. On the other hand, global strength is the

strength of the entire ship when it is floating in still water or waves (TheNavalArch, 2017).

Local Strength

In TLP structure, 80-85% of all hull steel is caused by local loading. Another reason is that

TLP requires a deeper draft which obligates a higher pontoon design pressure and lower column

design pressure. Shell plating contributes significantly to the longitudinal strength. In the shell

plating of TLPs, external pressure is the controlling designed pressure.

Dynamic wave pressure is essential for TLPs. Compared to floaters and semi-submersibles,

TLP cannot heave with crest waves. (Heave is the up and down motion of ships.) In contrast, TLP

will go through a set-down. The following figure shows the external pressures applied to a TLP

column. The framing of TLPs is susceptible to compressive forces. The figure below shows the

two usual framing sections for a TLP.

 26

Table 2.1.1.5 Typical hydrostatic frame loading for a TLP

In the pontoon section, the frame heavily consists of flexures (a flexible element engineered

to be compliant with specific degrees of freedom), and each frame element undergoes

compression. For the circular column, there is a circular, unsupported ring frame. The type of
 27

strength in this type of frame is buckling. However, if there are internal supports, it will be similar

to pontoon framing where it is supported by flexure.

Global Strength

For the global strength analysis, the highlight is a 4-column, closed array pontoon TLP.

The deck moment is coupled to the column tops.

Figure 2.1.1.6 Global loading – gravity/buoyancy load

Figure 2.1.1.7 Global loading – gravity/buoyancy load, shear and moment

 28

Figure 2.1.1.8 Global loading – gravity/buoyancy load, shear and moment

Figure 2.1.1.6 shows the profile of a side of a typical TLP with elastic frame positioned

above it. The hull loading consisted of column weight, the upward bottom pressures, the net of

pontoon buoyancy and weight, and the downward tendon loads. The deck loading has a distributed

load and concentrated load. The load system is shown in Figure 2.1.1.7. Meanwhile, the distortion

pattern is presented in Figure 2.1.1.8, as a result of the forces applied to the structure. It can be

observed that the there is a hog in the pontoons, sag in deck, and constant moment in the columns.

Figure 2.1.1.9 TLP global loading – node-centered wave

 29

Figure 2.1.1.10 Node-centered wave – shear and moment

Figure 2.1.1.11 Node-centered wave – deformation pattern

Figure 2.1.1.9 clearly represents the load system corresponding to the node centered

environmental loading as shown in Figure 2.1.1.2 previously. The gravity/buoyancy loading, shear

and moment is shown in Figure 2.1.1.10, and the deformation pattern is shown in Figure 2.1.1.11.
 30

Figure 2.1.1.12 TLP Global loading – oblique crest centered wave (“Squeeze/Pry”)

Figure 2.1.1.13 Oblique crest centered wave – column forces

 31

Figure 2.1.1.14 Oblique crest centered wave – pontoon deformation pattern

The most impactful loading for a closed-array pontoon structural system for TLP as well

as semi-submersibles, is the crest-centered, oblique seas racking conditions. For a better

visualization, Figure 2.1.1.12 shows the forces associated wherein the pontoon array positioned

above the wave crest that is trying to push the up and down wave corners outward. A more specific

detail regarding these forces is shown in Figure 2.1.1.13. Figure 2.1.1.13 is the result of all of these

forces, which shows the distortion pattern of the pontoon.

Figure 2.1.1.15 Pontoon vertical plane bending from crest-centered oblique wave – pontoon
component
 32

Figure 2.1.1.16 Pontoon vertical plane bending from crest-centered oblique wave – column

bending component
 33

Figure 2.1.1.16 Hull elements as components of a TLP Hull

Figure 2.1.1.15 and Figure 2.1.1.16 summarizes the moments imposed by Figure 2.1.1.13.

The hull elements as components of a TLP Hull is also shown in Figure 2.1.1.17. This figure shows

the relationship of moments, shears, and stress resultant to the large-scale hull elements. Given the
 34

end stress resultants, and load distribution between the ends, local global stress within the element

can be determined, including shear flow from torsion as well as shear and axial stress from biaxial

bending and axial load.

2.2 Current Studies Related to Literatures

2.2.1 Tension Leg Platforms: An Overview of Planning, Design, Construction and

Installation

A recent study by Sadeghi & Tozan (2018) highlighted the pros and cons of Tension Leg

Platform. Table 2.2.1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing a Tension Leg Platform

in the offshore. The authors further mentioned some vital factors that need to be considered when

developing plans for the Tension Leg Platform. These includes the following: (a) Drilling,

production, and quarters; (b) Environmental, seafloor, and regulatory conditions, Capital and

operating costs, and risk; (c) Service Life; (d) Contracting Strategy; and (e) Construction Materials,

methods, assembly, and installation.

Table 2.2.1 Pros and Cons: TLP

Advantages Disadvantages

(a) They are transportable and can be used (a) The initial budget is quite high
again later.
(b) They are stable because the platform has (b) Fatigue problem
very little vertical movement.
(c) The expense of the TLP does not grow (c) Subsea systems are difficult to maintain,
as the depth of the water increases, as it and storage capacity is limited.
does with other approaches.
(d) TLPs are simple to construct in deep
waters.
(e) When compared to other systems, the
cost of maintenance is relatively minimal.
 35

2.2.2 Design and Performance Assessment of Multi-Use Offshore Tension Leg Platform

Equipped with an Embedded Wave Energy Converter System

Another study introduced a novel multi-use offshore tension leg platform (TLP) designed

for wave energy production through an embedded wave energy converter (EWEC) system (Yu et

al., 2020). Four built-in tuned liquid column dampers absorb hull motion energy, and eight Wells

turbines serve as power take-off devices in the proposed EWEC system. The hydrodynamics of

the TLP-EWEC system during large motions and the aerohydrodynamics of the chamber-turbine

groups were considered in the development of a multifold nonlinear analytical model of this

multibody system. The findings showed that the multi-use platform can create a significant

quantity of turbine power for the offshore platform energy mix, as well as function as a platform

for offshore oil and gas production in the target oil fields. Additional benefits and profitability

have been demonstrated to be beneficial and deserving of future investigation and deployment.
 36

CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Research Process Flowchart

The figure below shows the research process flow chart.

1). Identifying all the

literature relevant to
the topic interest.

2). exploring differenr

types of literature:
theoretical literature.

3). Using various

keywords and
stretegies to find
relevant data.

4) Conducting an
extensive research in
multi-disclipnary
databases.

5) Grouping the
finding as what is
known and what is
needs to be explored

6). Finalyzing the

narrative.

Figure 3.1 Research Process Flowcharts

 37

CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, & RECOMMENDATION

4.1 Summary

The central application of this study was to comprehensively discuss the theoretical concepts

of Tension Leg Platform (TLP) in line with the offshore oil and gas industry thru an in-depth

review of related literature. TLP is one of the four major platform types, that is anchored to the

seafloor. The TLP commonly planned to serve several efficient roles together with offshore oil

and gas usage. It is mostly utilized for deep-water applications. However, the lack of scientific

papers discussing TLP is evident. Therefore, the current paper addressed this critical gap in the

offshore floating platform design. The study aimed to elaborate on the functions and configuration

of TLP mechanics, sizing, mechanics, and hull structure in designing a TLP offshore structure. A

review of related literature and current state-of-the-art of tension leg platforms was also carried

out. Overall, this paper summarized available information and guidance for the floating offshore

platform design of the Tension Leg Platform (TLP) system. The emphases in this paper were on

the design of the TLP as a platform, particularly with regard to its sizing, proportions, tendon

arrangement, and the integration of many diverse, important design aspects.

4.2 Conclusion

The chief applicability of this study was to widely elaborate the theoretical concepts of

Tension Leg Platform (TLP). Through a literature review, this research study was serves as a handy

reference paper for professionals (especially, petroleum engineers), design engineers, and

consultant involved with offshore engineering and design of offshore structure, specifically TLP.

Although the system is astounding, the authors point out that it is only a way of maintaining a

payload in deep water while staying below required motion restrictions. The ultimate goal is to
 38

deliver the most cost-effective, safe, and dependable platform for satisfying functional needs. From

the operator's perspective, the TLP concept was simple: provide a platform that functions like a

fixed platform in terms of wells in water depths much deeper than any fixed platform. This

functionality, however, comes at a cost. The TLP’s ability to limit vertical motion greatly is what

makes it unique.

4.3 Recommendation

After the results and findings of this study, the authors of this paper highly recommended

the following:

◗ Improve the understanding of the ocean environment;

◗ Better model-test facilities to characterize real ocean waves;

◗ Numerical-simulation technology to simulate global performance and structural

responses;

◗ Instrumentation technologies to facilitate measuring of tendon tension; and

◗ Technologies to transport ever- larger facilities.

 39

REFERENCES
Baldelovar, R.P., Montallana, V.K., Soriano, C.B., Zamoranos, F.A. (2019). Developing a Safety
Culture Model for the Philippine Oil and Gas Industry. Available at: (n.d.) (Accessed: 13
May 2022).

BBC (n.d.). How did oil come to run our world?. https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/how-did-oil-come-
to-run-our-world/zn6gnrd

Institute of Marine Engineering, Science, & T. (2020). Offshore Engineering and Technology (p.
0).https://www.imarest.org/membership/education-careers/careers-in-the-marine-
profession/how-about-offshore-engineering-and-technology

Larrabee, R. D., Hodges, S. B., & Gonzalez, R. D. (1997). Concept Selection and Global Sizing
of the Mars TLP. All Days. https://doi.org/10.4043/8369-ms

Leveson, N. G. (2011). Risk management in the oil and gas industry. Testimony: Senate Committe
on Energy and Natural Resources, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Aeronatics
and Astronautics Department.

Reza, A., & Sedighi, H. M. (2015). Nonlinear vertical vibration of tension leg platforms with
homotopy analysis method. Advances in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 7(3), 357-
368.

Sadeghi, K., & Tozan, H. (2018). TENSION LEG PLATFORMS : AN OVERVIEW OF PLANNING
, DESIGN , CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 9(June). https://doi.org/ISSN: 2223-
9944

Salama, M. M. (2005). Handbook of Offshore Engineering. In Handbook of Offshore Engineering:

Vol. I. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044381-2.50022-9

TheNavalArch, T. (2017, March 6). Longitudinal Strength of Ships - an Introduction.

TheNavalArch. https://thenavalarch.com/longitudinal-strength-ships-
introduction/#:~:text=Global%20strength%20pertains%20to%20assessing

Walsh, K. J. E., McInnes, K. L., & McBride, J. L. (2012). Climate change impacts on tropical
cyclones and extreme sea levels in the South Pacific — A regional assessment. Global and
Planetary Change, 80-81, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.10.006

Werner, S., Inkpen, A. and Moffett, M.H., 2016. Managing Human Resources in the Oil & Gas
Industry. PennWell Books, LLC.

Yu, J., Li, Z., Yu, Y., Hao, S., Fu, Y., Cui, Y., Xu, L., & Wu, H. (2020). Design and Performance
Assessment of Multi-Use O ff shore Tension Leg Platform Equipped with an.