MKMO1213 DYNAMICS OF MARINE STRUCTURES

EXTERNAL TURRET MOORING SYSTEM DESIGN ANALYSIS

FOR FPSO OPERATING IN SOUTH CHINA SEA

LECTURER: DR. SIOW CHEE LOON

NAME ID
MUKMINAH BINTI PAIMAN MKM151068
NURUL NABILA BINTI MAS SUDIN MKM 151066
MUZLIFAH BINTI MANSOR MKM161044
TABLES OF CONTENT
TABLES OF CONTENT i
LIST OF FIGURE ii
LIST OF TABLE iii
CHAPTER 1 1
INTRODUCTION 1

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Objective 2

1.2 Scope of study 2

CHAPTER 2 3
LITRATURE REVIEW 3

2.0 Literature Review 3

2.1 Mooring System Component 3

2.2 Types of Mooring System 6

2.3 Environmental Condition 8

2.4 Types of Analysis 10

CHAPTER 3 12
METHODOLOGY 12

3.0 Methodology 12

CHAPTER 4 17
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 17

4.0 Results and Discussion 17

4.1 Collinear Condition 17

4.2 Non-Collinear Condition 27

4.3 Damage Condition 36

CHAPTER 5 39
CONCLUSION 39

5.0 Conclusion 39

REFERENCE 40

i
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1: Mooring Material Selection 4
Figure 2.2: Studless & Stud Chain Links 5
Figure 2.3: Steel Wire Ropes Types 5
Figure 2.4: Typical spread mooring system 6
Figure 2.5: Internal and external turret configuration 7
Figure 2.6: External turret mooring for FSO 8
Figure 2.7: The environmental forces acting on a moored vessel 9
Figure 3.1: Design process flow of the turret mooring analysis 13
Figure 3.2: External mooring in the Ansys Modeler 14
Figure 4.1: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) First Collinear Condition 20
Figure 4.2: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Second Collinear Condition 23
Figure 4.3: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Third Collinear Condition 26
Figure 4.4: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) First Non-Collinear Condition 29
Figure 4.5: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Second Non-Collinear Condition 32
Figure 4.6: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Third Non-Collinear Condition 35
Figure 4.7: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Damage Condition 38

ii
LIST OF TABLE
Table 3.1: Parameters of the floating hull 13
Table 3.2: Parameters of the environmental condition (Source: SBM Offshore, 2012) 14
Table 3.3: Fairlead Position Coordinates 15
Table 3.4: Fixed Anchor position coordinates 15
Table 3.5: Minimum Criterion for Mooring System Dynamic Response 16
Table 4.1: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of First Collinear Condition 18
Table 4.2: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Second Collinear Condition 21
Table 4.3: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Third Collinear Condition 24
Table 4.4: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of First Non-Collinear Condition 27
Table 4.5: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Second Non-Collinear Condition 30
Table 4.6: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Third Non-Collinear Condition 33
Table 4.7: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Damage Condition 36

iii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

A lot of seasoned crude oil tanker is given a second life by reviving it either into a Floating, Storage
and Offloading (FSO) or Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel. This
Refurbish, Life Extension and Conversion (RLEC) effort would reduce the cost for the capability
expenditure for the project. Converted oil tanker is already equip with the tanks for storage of the
oil production thus making it the preferable choice for short term solution.

For an oil tanker to be converted into FPSO, the propulsion system (main engine, rudder, propeller
and auxiliary prolusion system) is removed and turn the vessel into a floating vessel. This floating
vessel than will be positioned either by using a traditional mooring system or a dynamic
positioning system by using GPS positioning system with additional Azimuth propulsion system
to ensure the vessel is in place. Mooring system has an advantage over the latter due to the cost of
construction, operation and maintenance.

In the mooring system, there are two (2) types of mooring system, point mooring (spread mooring)
system and turret mooring system (Corporation, 2015). Depends on the environmental condition
the types of mooring is chosen, for an environmental condition that have dynamic waves and

1
current heading, a turret mooring system is used and for a predictable wave and current heading,
spread mooring is the suitable option.

In most harsh environmental condition, a turret mooring system is used due to the ability of the
mooring system enable the vessel to weathervane freely and reduce the environmental loads caused
by the sea, waves and wind (Offshore, 2017).

Turret mooring system comprised the mooring system and the mooring line. Steel- linked chain
and wire rope is usually the conventional material for the mooring line. With some condition a
combination of steel-linked chain and wire rope is used to reduce the total weight of the mooring
line.

In the recent studies, it has been found that, mooring failure rate is unacceptably high. Some
incidents have been multiple line failures, leading to vessel drifting. It is found that sea states with
wave heights from 6m to 10m and peak periods from 10s to 16s give higher fatigue damage due
to stress tension on the mooring system (Larsen, 2015). In order to avoid failure, mooring system
need to have optimum strength in withstanding environmental and structural load. One of the
methods is by doing failure analysis such as fatigue and tensional analysis. This analysis shows
the maximum load that a system of mooring can withstand the failure. Designers and engineers
should design mooring system that have tension stress as low as possible.

1.1 Objective
1. To understand external turret mooring system.
2. To perform the mooring strength analysis using computational modelling analysis.

1.2 Scope of study

This assignment is on installing external turret mooring system on an FPSO located
offshore of South China Sea.

2
 CHAPTER 2

LITRATURE REVIEW

2.0 Literature Review

In order to successfully analyse a mooring system, suitable mathematical and numerical techniques
are required to assess its integrity and station-keeping capability. Mooring analysis may be
performed by means of a static, quasi-static or dynamic approach either in frequency or time
domain. When the motion responses of a moored vessel are outside the wave exciting frequency
range of the mooring system, the dynamic behaviour of the lines is negligible. Hence, the mooring
lines will only respond statically to the motions of the vessel. The static method applies the total
steady environmental force due to wind and current to the load-excursion curve of the mooring
system in order to find the static offset of the vessel.

2.1 Mooring System Component

The mooring system is defined as a system where the floating structure is fastened to a fixed object
such as a quay, a pier, or the seabed, and sometimes to a floating object such as an anchor buoy. It
is consisting of one or more hanging lines connecting the offshore platform to anchors at the seabed.

Mooring lines are associated with a floating platform such as FPSO where its main function is to
keep the structure in its position and limit the motion of the floating platform within the allowable
criteria stated by standards codes such as DNV-OS-E301, API-RP-2SK, and ISO 19901-7.

3
2.1.1 Mooring Material/ Method

A mooring system is made up of mooring lines which are used to attach the vessel or offshore
structures to restrain its position under extreme environmental load like waves, winds and currents.
The most common materials used for mooring lines are steel chain, wire rope, natural fibre rope,
synthetic fibre rope and combination of these components. The selection of the material depends
on the type of the structure to be moored and the depth of water (Figure 2.1). Chain is the most
common choice for permanent mooring in shallow water while steel wire rope has lighter weight
and higher elasticity than chain. As water depth increase, synthetic fibre rope more suitable due to
the lightest weight among these others. For this project, a cable made up of chain-wire rope-chain
is chosen.

Figure 2.1: Mooring Material Selection

2.1.1.1 Chain Links

There are two types of chain rings in chain mooring fabrication. One is chain link with a
stud while other is chine link without a stud (Figure 2.2). The stud chain link is chosen due to its
strong and relatively easy to be handled characteristics when used for FPSO or MODUs in shallow
waters. It also provides additional stability to the link. The stiffness of the chain links is associated
with the dimension of the diameter. More to be known about chains can be found in DNV-OS-
E301.

4
 Figure 2.2: Studless & Stud Chain Links

2.1.1.2 Wire Ropes

The steel wire ropes are available in various types states in DNV-OS-E301 (Figure 2.3). However,
six strand wire ropes are the most common for offshore units while spiral ropes are preferred for
the condition of fatigue and corrosion.

In the other hand, the synthetic fibre ropes are applicable for deeper water applications since its
mass is lighter than other ropes. They are also provided lower stiffness but still its big challenge
and weakness in tension cycling since it is not good as compared to other types.

Figure 2.3: Steel Wire Ropes Types

2.1.2 Mooring Anchors

5
The most frequently anchors equipment used in permanent moorings involve anchors with flukes,
suction pile, gravity types, and plates. Gravity anchors are designed to use their self-weights
against uplift as well as displacement violation. DNV-OS-E301 states the capacity of gravity
anchors which should not exceed the weight if the submerged mooring line. Another common
anchor is suction anchor where the design of all different types of anchor must go through the
DNV standards to avoid the failures.

2.2 Types of Mooring System

For FPSO (Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading) there two (2) significant mooring system
to be considered. spread mooring and turret mooring system.
2.2.1 Spread Mooring

In spread mooring the vessel orientation is fixed heading this is influenced by the environment
condition of mild to moderate. For station keeping, the vessel required large numbers of anchor
legs (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Typical spread mooring system

2.2.2 Turret Mooring System

Turret mooring system although complicated have its own advantage, allowing the vessel to rotate
360 weathervane this if suitable for an environment condition of mild to extreme. The vessel
requires smaller number of anchor legs.

6
The two (2) major type of turret mooring are the internal turret and external turret (Figure 2.5), for
a retrofit or conversion of an FPSO the external turret is usually the main selection as minor
modification by removing the bow and install it with the external turret. Internal turret mooring is
usually applied for newbuild and the complex system could be integrated in the hull construction.

Figure 2.5: Internal and external turret configuration

In Figure 2.6 shows an external turret mooring system installed on a FSO (Floating, Production
and Offloading). For this system, the turret act as a pivot point for the vessel to rotate influenced
by the weather condition.

7
 Figure 2.6: External turret mooring for FSO

2.3 Environmental Condition

In selecting the suitable mooring system design, the environmental conditions at the operation
fields need to be considered Usually the mooring system is design to survive 100 years return
period event in a combination of wind, waves and current. During preliminary design analysis, the
excitation forces caused by current are assumed temporarily constant, with spatial variation
depending on the current profile and direction with depth. For wind loading, it is assumed constant
also during this stage. Wave forces result in time-varying vessel motions in the six rigid body
degrees of freedom of surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw. Sometimes, strong wind can
contribute to some of these motions as well (Chakrabarti, 2005).

8
 Figure 2.7: The environmental forces acting on a moored vessel

Horizontal motion can cause high mooring line loads. The frequency of the drift forces results in
translations that usually correspond to the natural frequency of the vessel restrained by the mooring
system. Hence, it is important to quantify the level of damping in the system as this quantity helps
to control the resonant motion amplitude (Chakrabarti, 2005). Wave period gives significant effect
to the FPSO and mooring lines. The shortest wave period with significant wave height can produce
the highest drift forces. For spread mooring system with no weather vanning ability, this force
could give high tension to the mooring lines if the structure is not head to the waves (Chakrabarti,
2005).

Environment condition in the offshore of Brazil is much severe compared to the West Africa,
therefore FPSO motions there is much greater. This input will have an impact on the design of
equipment on the vessel, crew comfort and safety of the vessel especially in the selection types of
mooring system. It is important factor in determining vessel motions relative to the wave to vessel
heading for a spread moored FPSO with a fixed heading. However, for a turret moored vessel it
can weathervane itself to the environmental loads. This help to mitigate relative wave to vessel
headings.

9
2.4 Types of Analysis

There two types of FPSO dynamic response analysis; frequency domain (FD) and time domain.
(TD) For frequency domain, the motion response described by the motion of equation does not
include the coupling effect of FPSO and mooring system. This uncoupled analysis is commonly
known as vessel motion analysis. Motion of FPSO vessel and the loads effect on mooring lines
can be analysed using two step procedures.

a. Wave frequency (WF) and low frequency (LF) of the FPSO are calculated by modelled
the load effects mooring lines as non-linear position dependent forces (stiffness).

b. Dynamic response analysis for mooring lines is calculated using step 1 as top end
excitation

In uncoupled analysis, the mooring lines is assumed static, mooring line is mass-less and
non-linear spring to hull motions. With this assumption, the inertia effects and hydrodynamic
loading on mooring lines are neglected. After the hull motions are calculated, the mooring lines
dynamics can be evaluated independently by putting the fairlead responses. However, according
to Ormberg and Larsen (1998), uncoupled method is not suitable for mooring line operating in
deep-water region because the interaction between FPSO vessel and mooring line is neglected.
The reliability and accuracy of this analysis is diminished as the water depth increases. This is the
drawbacks of this method. In deep-water where there is strong current exist, the interaction
between current forces and the underwater elements are more pronounced. 13 For time domain
analysis, it will recount every step of motion response of FPSO and get the motion response of
time process and then get all the kinds of frequency response. If the FPSO motion and mooring
system is coupled, this method of analysis is more accurate. In coupled method, all interaction
between moorings and FPSO vessels are modelled directly. Full interactions are accounted, hence
vessel motions and dynamic loads in mooring lines are more accurate. The disadvantage of coupled
method is more time consuming compared to uncoupled method.

2.5 Mooring System Pretension

10
The mooring system pretension should be designed so that no more than a third of the rated
breaking strength is reached at a displacement of 5% to 6% water depth off the well bore (Childers,
1974b) or the mean position of the FPSO. Pretension is defined as the tension in mooring line at
zero offset and no environmental loading on the vessel. An equal pretension in all lines is
somewhat idealistic since it seldom occurs on location. However, for optimum station keeping, as
well as maximum mooring line longevity, the values of the pretensions designed for a specific
mooring system should be strived for and maintained (Ba, 2012)

11
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Flow Chart of Turret Mooring Analysis

The initial concern of the analysis in the turret mooring system is the reaction of the design to the
environmental condition. For this study, the environmental condition is based on the offshore of
South of China. The aim of this study is to determine and analyze the catenary mooring system
dynamic response such as dynamic mooring line tension as well as the hull motion responses
coupled with mooring system. Then, the study also includes the damage condition in which one of
the cables with highest tension will be removed to assess the reliability of the mooring system in
unconditional condition.

12
 Figure 3.1: Design process flow of the turret mooring analysis

3.2 Parameters of FPSO

The vessel is a conversion which inherits the hull form of an oil tanker with an external turret
installed, details dimension are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Parameters of the floating hull

Parameter Details
Ship Type FPSO
Length 330.40 m
Breadth 54.30 m
Draught 20.45 m
Loaded Displacement 303 613.78 tonne (308 485 844.88 kg)
Cut Water Plane Area 16034.875 m2

13
3.3 Environmental Condition

The FPSO will be operating in the South China Sea, Table 3.2 shows the details of the
environmental condition of the operating field.

Table 3.2: Parameters of the environmental condition (Source: SBM Offshore, 2012)
Parameter Details
Location South China Sea
Water depth 500 m
Type of wave JONSWAP
Significant wave height, Hs 5.1 m
Wave period, Tp 11.1 s
Wind speed 15.6 m/s
Current speed 1.9 m/s
Collinear environment 0o to 360o
Wind 30o relative to the waves
Non-collinear environment
Current 45o relative to the waves

3.4 External Turret Mooring Line Design & Configuration

Figure 3.2: External mooring in the Ansys Aqwa Modeler

14
 Table 3.3: Fairlead Position Coordinates
Fairlead X direction (m) Y direction (m) Z direction (m)
1 216 4.2 11
2 216 14.2 11
3 226 0.0 11
4 224 4.33 11
5 224 -4.33 11
6 214 0 11
7 220 6 11
8 220 -6 11
9 217.5 2.5 11
10 217.5 -2.5 11
11 224 4.33 11
12 224 -4.3 11

Table 3.4: Fixed Anchor position coordinates

Anchor X direction (m) Y direction (m) Z direction (m)
1 -400 500 -500
2 -400 -500 -500
3 -1000 0 -500
4 700 400 -500
5 700 -400 -500
6 -500 0 -500
7 0 700 -500
8 0 -700 -500
9 -500 100 -500
10 -500 -100 -500
11 400 500 -500
12 400 -600 -500

15
3.5 Mooring Line Tension Limit Criterion, Safety Factor and Offset Limit

In designing the mooring system there are several condition that need to be taken into account in
the dynamic analysis. Condition where the minimum safety factor has to exceed 1.67 for the intact
condition while for the damage condition, the minimum safety factor need to higher than 1.25
(Table 3.5). As for the offset limit, the limit is usually depends on the operation, however API
specification sets values for offset limits where for horizontal motion of the floating structure
should not exceed 30% of water depth.

Table 3.5: Minimum Criterion for Mooring System Dynamic Response

Mooring System Analytical Method MBS % Safety
Status Factor
Intact Quasi- Static 50 2.0
Intact Dynamic 60 1.67
Intact Quasi- Static 70 1.43
Damage Dynamic 80 1.25

16
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Results and Discussion

The analysis condition for this study can be categorized into 3 conditions which involve:
1. Collinear condition
2. Non-collinear condition
3. Damage condition

4.1 Collinear Condition

Collinear condition refers to a situation where all environmental loads propagate with same
direction. On the other hand, non-collinear condition is generated when the environmental loads
propagate in different direction. To achieve that, the wind direction will be set to (+15) from wave
direction while current direction will be set to (+30) from wave direction. In the case of damage
condition, the highest tension mooring cable from collinear condition and non-collinear condition
will be removed to determine the changes occur in the overall tension of the mooring system.

17
4.1.1 First Collinear Condition

Wave Direction: 0
Wind Direction: 0
Current Direction: 0

Table 4.1: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of First Collinear Condition

Minimum Maximum Safety Maximum

Cable
Force (N) Force (N) Factor Offset
1 1406954.625 1406954.625 0.18
2 924384.125 1080028.125
3 824813.500 910467.938 Surge Global
4 807727.938 916271.625 X: 42.136 m
5 754994.813 832597.938
6 658391.875 689393.938 Sway Global
7 697910.250 716028.875 Y: 22.582 m
8 975162.188 1049358.125
9 768591.250 841787.250 8.43% of
10 757195.750 826806.500 water depth
11 109070.578 150713.031
12 74410.438 99315.094

For this condition, the highest tension is achieved on cable number 1 with maximum tension force
of 1406.954 kN. The maximum offset is surge response (Global X) with 42.136 m which is 8.43%
of water depth. Based on the maximum offset criterion, the (8.43% < 30%, acceptable).

18
19
Figure 4.1: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) First Collinear Condition

20
4.1.2 Second Collinear Condition

Wave Direction: 90
Wind Direction: 90
Current Direction: 90

Table 4.2: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Second Collinear Condition

Minimum Maximum Safety Maximum
Cable
Force (N) Force (N) Factor Offset
1 808180.25 1137714.625
2 908753.125 1226495.375
3 892470.438 1064469.750 Surge Global
4 806020.500 995832.188 X: 42.785
5 818516.188 1125310.250
6 638919.000 668180.438 Sway Global
7 652577.438 706085.125 Y: 144.07 m
8 991420.375 3087158.500 0.41
9 704455.063 782298.313 28.81% of
10 710817.250 780220.063 water depth
11 87640.734 157148.297
12 96055.914 230020.406

For this condition, the highest tension is achieved on cable number 8 with maximum tension force
of 3087.158 kN. The maximum offset is sway response (Global Y) with 144.07 m which is 28.81%
of water depth. Based on the maximum offset criterion, the (28.81% < 30%, acceptable).

21
22
Figure 4.2: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Second Collinear Condition

23
4.1.3 Third Collinear Condition

Wave Direction: 135

Wind Direction: 135
Current Direction: 135

Table 4.3: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Third Collinear Condition

Minimum Maximum Safety Maximum
Cable
Force (N) Force (N) Factor Offset
1 845575.938 1137274.375
2 812993.250 995578.000
3 892638.250 1153900.875 Surge Global
4 884173.438 1174665.625 X: 97.876 m
5 815878.563 1111032.625
6 633849.500 669422.313 Sway Global
7 664210.813 709813.938 Y: 47.696 m
8 985488.000 1317285.250 0.18
9 692168.750 782817.875 19.58% of
10 688875.313 773082.563 water depth
11 128316.125 222113.641
12 95729.875 194045.406

For this condition, the highest tension is achieved on cable number 8 with maximum tension force
of 1317.285 kN. The maximum offset is the surge response (Global X) with 97.876 m which is
19.58% of water depth. Based on the maximum offset criterion, the (19.58% < 30%, acceptable).

24
25
Figure 4.3: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Third Collinear Condition

26
4.2 Non-Collinear Condition

In non-collinear condition, all environmental loads propagate in different direction. The wind
direction in non-collinear direction is +15 of wave direction while current direction is +30 of
wave direction.

4.2.1 First Non-Collinear Condition

Wave Direction: 0
Wind Direction: 15
Current Direction: 30

Table 4.4: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of First Non-Collinear Condition

Minimum Maximum Safety Maximum
Cable
Force (N) Force (N) Factor Offset
1 1110748.500 1354206.250 0.18
2 924325.000 1054619.500
3 834119.938 910424.438 Surge Global
4 819515.688 916206.625 X: 42.146 m
5 762210.563 832543.188
6 658375.438 685859.500 Sway Global
7 698008.813 715660.188 Y: 22.579 m
8 975396.813 1036830.188
9 768557.438 830958.313 8.43% of
10 757165.000 816652.938 water depth
11 114688.289 150693.391
12 78195.633 99303.352

First non-collinear condition obtains highest tension on cable 1 with maximum tension force of
1354.206 kN. The maximum offset is the surge response (Global X) with 42.146 m which is 8.43%
of water depth. Based on the maximum offset criterion, the (8.43% < 30%, acceptable).

27
28
Figure 4.4: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) First Non-Collinear Condition

29
4.2.2 Second Non-Collinear Condition

Wave Direction: 45
Wind Direction: 60
Current Direction: 75

Table 4.5: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Second Non-Collinear Condition

Minimum Maximum Safety Maximum
Cable
Force (N) Force (N) Factor Offset
1 873217.938 1499403.750
2 930750.313 1151152.250
3 825930.250 961871.063 Surge Global
4 791423.188 906859.625 X : 61.219 m
5 754246.500 1005002.750
6 651742.500 689098.438 Sway Global
7 661010.313 726800.750 Y: 145.589 m
8 925205.125 1867564.250 0.25
9 739706.813 841469.188 29.12% of
10 751427.563 830331.750 water depth
11 96329.758 147144.422
12 70541.438 189110.703

Second non-collinear condition obtains highest tension on cable 8 with maximum tension force of
1867.564 kN. The maximum offset occurs in sway response (Global Y) with value of 145.589 m
which is 29.12% of water depth. Based on the maximum offset criterion, the ( 29.12% < 30%,
acceptable).

30
31
Figure 4.5: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Second Non-Collinear Condition

32
4.2.3 Third Non-Collinear Condition

Wave Direction: 90
Wind Direction: 105
Current Direction: 120

Table 4.6: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Third Non-Collinear Condition

Minimum Maximum Safety Maximum
Cable
Force (N) Force (N) Factor Offset
1 822954.813 1137750.500
2 902715.438 1232421.000
3 892640.375 1050594.875 Surge Global
4 808938.688 995610.688 X: 42.754 m
5 818820.688 1086837.250
6 639708.000 668549.063 Sway Global
7 654443.813 706085.875 Y: 138.639 m
8 991281.500 2438689.250 0.33
9 708013.438 782176.063 27.73% of
10 712739.938 785520.125 water depth
11 88474.602 159898.500
12 96033.430 211835.375

Third non-collinear condition obtains highest tension on cable 8 with maximum tension force of
2438.689 kN. The maximum offset occurs in sway response (Global Y) with maximum distance of
138.639 m which is 27.73% of water depth. Based on the maximum offset criterion, the ( 27.73% <
30%, acceptable).

33
34
Figure 4.6: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Third Non-Collinear Condition

35
4.3 Damage Condition

In the damage condition, one of the cables will be removed to determine the capability of the mooring
system to sustain applicable loads without system failure. In this case, cable number 8 in first collinear
condition will be removed as it obtained the highest tension among all previous analysis conditions.
The direction of propagation for environmental loads will be same as in first collinear condition which
are;

Wave Direction: 0
Wind Direction: 0
Current Direction: 0

Table 4.7: Catenary Mooring Dynamic Response of Damage Condition

Minimum Maximum Safety Maximum
Cable
Force (N) Force (N) Factor Offset
1 1002154.125 1248235.125 0.17
2 1033107.813 1171188.500
3 822821.750 903674.000 Surge Global
4 781518.750 857227.000 X: 39.549 m
5 769335.688 870056.750
6 659572.688 690027.438 Sway Global
7 677222.313 701519.125 Y: 15.607 m
8 - -
9 765004.938 837623.188 7.91% of
10 766787.375 834249.563 water depth
11 92845.430 116272.477
12 84588.141 123062.055

Table 4.7 shows the simulation of damage condition where highest tension occurred at cable number
1 with 1248.235 kN. The failure of cable one that has been removed due to damage condition generates
big difference between maximum and minimum tensions for other cables compare to the conditions of

36
having the 8 cables together that shows low difference between maximum and minimum tensions. The
maximum offset occurs in surge response (Global X) with maximum distance of 39.549 m which is
7.91% of water depth. Based on the maximum offset criterion, the ( 7.91% < 30%, acceptable).
Removing the cable 1 shows that the FPSO still can sustain the environmental loads with the other four
cables.

37
Figure 4.7: Hydrodynamic Response (Whole Cable Forces) Damage Condition

38
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

5.0 Conclusion

Based on the simulation run, the highest line tension occurred at the second collinear condition
and the highest tension is achieved on cable number 8 in which all the environmental loads
propagate in same directions. The design of this spread mooring system is acceptable as its fulfil
all minimum requirement of API specification based on result obtain from this analysis.

However, there is still other design consideration for improvement of the mooring system design
in term of cost and material optimization where it depends on the type and sizing of material that
going to be applied as well as the mooring configuration.

A symmetrical spread mooring lines is the simplest approach in term of design, it might not be the
optimum in terms of optimizing the forces around the operating area. It is important to take into
consideration of the weather and subsea spatial layout as the seabed pipelines may restrict the
positioning of lines and anchors in this region. Other that, the riser system configuration also need
to be considered when designing mooring lines, clashing of risers with mooring lines must be
avoided as this may impose limitations on line position and damage to the system.

39
 REFERENCE

B. (2013). What is an FPSO? Retrieved January 04, 2017, from

http://www.bluewater.com/fleet-operations/what-is-an-fpso/
Ba, U. M. (2012). Analysis of Mooring and Steel Catenary Risers System in Ultra
Deepwater. Newcastle University.
Childers, M. A. (1974). Deep Water Mooring Part II, The Ultra Deep Water Spread
Mooring System. Petroleum Engineer, 2, 108-118.
Chakrabarti, S. K. Subrata K. (2005). Handbook of offshore engineering. Elsevier.
Corporation, T. (2015). Floating production storage & Offloading (FPSO). Retrieved
January 4, 2017, from Teekay, http://teekay.com/business/offshore/floating-
production-storage-and-offloading/
DNV OS-E301, Position Mooring. 2001 , Det Norske Vertias.
Larsen, K. (2015). Fatigue Analysis and Design of Mooring Systems. Assessment And
Comparison of Different Methods. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU).
Offshore, S. (2017). Floating production storage and Offloading (FPSO). Retrieved
January 4, 2017, from http://www.sbmoffshore.com/what-we-do/our-
products/fpso/
Ormberg, H., & Larsen, K. (1998). Coupled analysis of floater motion and mooring
dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Applied Ocean Research, 20(1), 55-67.

40