Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
Muhittin So¨ ylemez ^{a}^{,} ^{∗} , Og˘ uz Yılmaz ^{b}
^{a} Department of Ocean Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Ayazag˘ a Kampu¨ su¨ , 80626, Istanbul, Turkey ^{b} Department of Mathematics, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Go¨ lko¨ y Kampu¨ su¨ , Bolu, 14280, Bolu, Turkey
Received 9 April 2002; accepted 24 July 2002
Abstract
The hydrodynamic aspects of a design study of a TLP type ofﬂoading platform, that will operate in the northeast of Marmara Sea are presented in this paper. The main scope of the paper is to discuss the general properties of the platform and environmental conditions prior to the calculation of hydrodynamic forces based on Morison’s equation and the resultant motion responses. The nonlinear quasistatic effect is taken into account due to setdown phenomenon in the calculation of surge responses. Comparisons between the designs with two different drafts and the results of their spectral analysis are presented. With decrease in the draft of the platform, surge responses increase in the low frequency region. Since the differences between the surge responses of two different designs are not signiﬁcant, the shorter platform has been adopted for the location due to its low cost. The nonlinear setdown effect is not found to be signiﬁcant because this platform has relatively short taut chains compared to those of conventional type. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ofﬂoading platform; Hydrodynamic design; Nonlinear quasistatic effect
^{∗} Corresponding author. Fax: +902122856508. Email address: soylemez@itu.edu.tr (M. So¨ ylemez).
00298018/03/$  see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S00298018(02)001075
1270 M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
1. Introduction
This paper presents some results of a hydrodynamic analysis of a TLP type ofﬂoading platform. This platform is designed to operate nearshore of Ambarı, which is a suburb located west of the city of Istanbul. The platform is intended to serve the tankers in the severe sea conditions to ofﬂoad their cargo to the storages on land without any trouble to manouvre to board to the pier. Tension leg platforms (TLPs) are of great interest to offshore researchers in broad areas. One of the areas investigated in TLPs is their surge motion either induced by wave or current. Lee et al. (1999) studied the effect of material properties of strained elastic tethers on the surge motion of the platform. Jain (1997) presented a motion analysis method of TLPs nonlinearly coupled in the restoring force matrix in six degreesoffreedom. Paik et al. (1996) applied quadratic transfer functions to predict and compare responses of a TLP with those obtained with a linear transfer functions only. A wide range of different aspects of research studies on TLPs is widely presented in a review paper by Adrezin et al. (1996). In this paper, the platform is analysed for the conditions that are obtained for the north of Marmara Sea. The conﬁguration of the platform is unique in its own oper ational conditions. However, it is much like a TLP type of structure except the ten dons are made of chains instead of cables. The main ﬂoating body of the structure is also longer than any conventional TLP conﬁguration comparing to its lateral dimensions. This main body of the structure is shortened in the second phase of the project in order to minimize the initial building cost. The fundamental purpose of constructing a ﬂoating ofﬂoading platform for the location having shallow water characteristics is to keep the construction and material cost of the platform low. The reason for deciding on a TLP type of conﬁguration is mainly due to almost no heave response during the ofﬂoading process and that TLPs have also better response characteristics in surge and sway motions than other type of offshore platforms. The motion of the platform is analyzed using both singlewave prediction and spectral methods. In storm conditions, surge motions could be quite large causing nonlinear effects in the motion responses of the platform. Therefore, the nonlinear quasistatic effect is also included due to setdown occurring in the surge motion. Wave forces are calculated using Morison’s equation since the platform has all slen der cylindrical members. The motion characteristics of the platform are derived and found to be appropriate for this type of structure to operate as an ofﬂoading platform. The motion responses estimated by spectral analysis are more favorable than those by the singlewave prediction method. The emphasis is shown by including the setdown behavior due to nonlinear stiffness, which comes into effect during large surge motions. The paper starts with deﬁning the geometry of the platform and the environmental conditions. General particulars of the platform are presented in Section 2. Natural frequencies and the mean displacement due to current are given in Section 3. Methods of calculating the hydrodynamic forces and motions are brieﬂy introduced in Section 4. Results for the singlewave prediction method are presented in Section
M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
1271
5. The nonlinear quasistatic setdown effect is described in Section 6. Finally, Sec tion 7 summarizes the results of spectral analysis.
2. Geometry of the structure and environmental data
The general conﬁguration and the coordinate system with the geometrical drawing details are depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively. Structure consists of fairly slender cylindrical members with 1/20 column diameter and length ratio. The plat form is moored with taut vertical chains to restrict the vertical heave motions. Main particulars of the platform is given in Table 1. The environmental data are listed for operational and 50year storm conditions in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. As seen in Fig. 2, x and z axes are placed on the free surface of the sea while y axes is taken vertically upward. Motions in x direction is deﬁned as surge; in z direction as sway and in y direction as heave.
Fig. 1.
General conﬁguration of TLP.
1272 M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
Fig. 2.
Deﬁnition of the coordinate system.
Table 1 Main particulars of the platform
Properties 
Values 
Column Diameter (D, R = D/2) Column Length (L) Water Depth (h) 
1.016 m 20 m and 24 m 40 m 
Distance between the centres of columns (x _{c} = z _{c} ) 
7m 
Chain length (l) Chain diameter (d) Proof load for chain Breaking load for chain Minimum weight Cross sectional area (A _{c} ) Initial tension (T _{0} ) 
20 m and 16 m 0.06 m 1383 kN 1942 kN 0.801 kN/m pd ^{2} /4 71 kN 
3. Natural frequencies and mean displacements
Hydrodynamic analysis consists of two parts; in the ﬁrst part natural frequencies and mean displacements due to current are calculated and given in this section. In the second part, oscillations about the mean displacements are predicted using a frequencydomain analysis, which is presented in Section 5.
M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
Table 2 Operational conditions for the Marmara Sea
1273
Properties 
Values 
Maximum wave height (H _{m}_{a}_{x} ) 
1m 
Wave period (T _{z} ) 
4s 
Current speed (V _{c} ) 
0.5 m/s 
Table 3 50year storm conditions for the Marmara Sea 

Properties 
Values 
Maximum wave height (H _{m}_{a}_{x} ) 
8.7 m 
Wave period (TZ) 
8s 
Current speed (V _{c} ) 
1 m/s 
Natural circular frequencies and periods are calculated using the following equa tions, respectively:
w ni _{}
k i
A i
and T _{n}_{i}
2p
^{w} ni
(1)
where i = x stands for the surge motion; i = y for the heave motion and i = z for the sway motion. The stiffness in surge direction is calculated as 14.23 kN/m using the formula k _{x} = 4 (T _{o} /l). The stiffness in heave direction is calculated as 113130 kN/m using the formula k _{y} = 4 (ρgp R ^{2} + A _{c} E/l) where E is the Young’s Modulus. The total of mass and added mass in surge direction is 1196.8 kN using the formula A _{x} = 4ρ (πR ^{2} L + πR ^{2} L). The total of mass and added mass in heave direction is 539.55 kN using the formula A _{y} = 4r (pR ^{2} L + 4/3R ^{3} ). Undamped heave natural period (T _{n}_{y} ) and the frequency (w _{n}_{y} ) is calculated as 0.138 seconds and 45.36 rad/s, respectively. The natural surge period (T _{n}_{x} ) and the frequency (w _{n}_{x} ) is calculated as 18.41 seconds and 0.34 rad/s, respectively. Considering the environmental data, it is easily seen that resonance is not possible in the operational site and this will be more clear when we consider the wave spectrum and the spectral response of the platform in Section 7. Using the static calculations due to the mean current velocity, mean horizontal displacement is calculated as 0.42 m for the operational conditions based on the current force given by F _{c} = 4 (1/2 ρ C _{d} DLV ^{2} _{c} ). Similarly, F _{c} and the mean displace ment for the 50year storm condition are calculated as 24 kN and 1.69 m, respectively and seems to be quite reasonable for the operational site. Since the wind exposed area of the superstructure is quite small, the wind forces and the mean displacement due to wind are ignored.
1274 M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
4. Hydrodynamic forces and motions
4.1. Wave forces
Since the structure consists of slender cylindrical members, Morison’s equation
(Morison et al., 1950) is suitable to calculate the wave forces acting on the structure.
The added mass (C _{m} ) and the drag (C _{d} ) coefﬁcients are chosen to be 1.5 and 0.6,
respectively. These values of C _{m} and C _{d} are also suitable for the storm conditions
(Sarpkaya et al., 1981).
The horizontal and vertical velocities and the accelerations and the pressure are
given by the following formulas:
∂j _{∂}_{x} ,v 
∂j 
∂u 
∂v 
,p r ^{∂}^{j} ∂t 

u 

,u˙ _{∂}_{t} ,v˙ ∂t 
(2) 

∂y 

where ϕ is the velocity potential is deﬁned as follows: 

g _{a} cosh[k(y h)] 

j 
w 
cosh[kh] 
sin(kx wt) 
(3) 
where g stands for the gravitational constant; _{a} for the wave amplitude; ω for the
circular wave frequency; k for the wave number; h for the water depth and t for the
time. Using the above equations, total heave and surge forces on the structure can
easily be calculated by summing the forces acting on the individual members of the
platform. There will be some cancellations due to phasing. The total heave force is
written in the following form:
F _{y} Asinwt Bcoswt
(4)
in which B = 4(A _{p}_{y} + A _{a}_{y} ) cos (kx _{c} /2) and A = 0 and where
A _{p}_{y} rg _{a}
cosh[k(h L)]
coshkh
pR ^{2} and A _{a}_{y}
4 _{r}_{R} _{3} _{}_{} a _{w} _{2} sinh[k(h L)]
3
sinhkh
_{} (5)
The phase angle for the heave force can be written as J _{h}_{e}_{a}_{v}_{e} = tan ^{}^{1} (A/B), that
equals to zero. The total surge force can be given in a similar manner as follows:
F _{x} Csinwt Ecoswt
(6)
in which C = 4A _{p}_{x}
cos
(kx _{c} /2) and E
denotated by the following equations:
= 4A _{d}_{x}
cos (kx _{c} /2) where A _{p}_{x}
and A _{d}_{x}
are
_{A} px _{} _{r}_{g} _{} a _{C} m _{p}_{R} _{2} sinh(kh) sinh[k(h L)]
cosh(kh)
A dx ^{1} _{2} rC d D
sinh(kh) ^{} 2
w
a
2 _{L} _{} sinh(2kh) sinh([2k(h L)]
8
3p 1
2k
(7)
(8)
From the above equation the phase angle for the surge force can be deﬁned as
J _{s}_{u}_{r}_{g}_{e} = tan ^{}^{1} (C/E).
M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
4.2. Motion responses
1275
Uncoupled heave motion and phase angle are predicted using the following equ
ation of motion in the frequency domain,
A _{y} y¨ c _{y} y˙ y˙  k _{y} y F _{y}
(9)
in which A _{y} is the mass+added mass of the structure in heave mode; c _{y} is the viscous
damping force coefﬁcient and k _{y} is the restoring force coefﬁcient due to the geometry
and the chains. The nonlinear viscous damping term is linearized (see Chakrabarti,
1987) as follows:
8
y˙ y˙  _{3}_{p} (wy _{e}_{s}_{t} )y˙
Hence Eq. 9 can be rewritten as follows:
A _{y} y¨ c _{l}_{y} y˙ k _{y} y F _{y}
(10)
(11)
where c _{l}_{y} is the linearized viscous damping coefﬁcient deﬁned as c _{l}_{y} = c _{y} 8/3π (wy _{e}_{s}_{t} )
and c _{y} is given as c _{y} 4 1/2 rC _{d} pR ^{2} .
The standard solution of a second order differential equation with harmonic forcing
function on the right hand side is written as follows:
y y _{1} sinwt y _{2} coswt
where
_{y} 1 _{} A(k _{y} A _{y} w ^{2} ) Bc _{l}_{y} w 2 _{a}_{n}_{d} _{y} 2 _{} B(k _{y} A _{y} w ^{2} ) Ac _{l}_{y} w
(k _{y} A _{y} w ^{2} ) ^{2} (c _{l}_{y} w)
(k _{y} A _{y} w ^{2} ) ^{2} (c _{l}_{y} w)
_{2}
(12)
(13)
The phase angle for the heave motion is deﬁned as J _{h}_{e}_{a}_{v}_{e} = tan ^{}^{1} (y _{1} /y _{2} ). In order
to obtain the solution an initial estimation of y _{e}_{s}_{t} is used, and after few steps iteration
gives the desired result.
The equation of motion for the surge motion is similar to the heave motion except
the restoring forces are due to the moorings only, namely:
A _{x} x¨ c _{x} x˙ x˙  k _{x} F _{x}
(14)
in which A _{x} is the mass+added mass in surge direction; c _{x} is the viscous damping
force coefﬁcient and k _{x} is the restoring force due to the mooring. Viscous damping
is linearised by the following formulation.
8
x˙ x˙  _{3}_{p} (wx _{e}_{s}_{t} )x˙ 
(15) 
A _{x} x¨ c _{l}_{x} x˙ k _{x} F _{x} 
(16) 
where c _{l}_{x} is the linearized viscous damping coefﬁcient deﬁned as c _{l}_{x} = c _{x} ^{8} / _{3} _{π} (wx _{e}_{s}_{t} )
and c _{x} is given by c _{x} = 41/2rC _{d} LD. The solution of Eq.16 can be written as follows:
x
x _{1} sinwt x _{2} coswt
(17)
1276 M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
where
x 1
C(k _{x} A _{x} w ^{2} ) Ec _{l}_{x} w
(k _{x} A _{x} w ^{2} ) ^{2} (c _{l}_{x} w)
_{2} and y _{1}
E(k _{x} A _{x} w ^{2} ) Cc _{l}_{x} w
(k _{x} A _{x} w ^{2} ) ^{2} (c _{l}_{x} w)
_{2}
(18)
The phase angle for the surge response can be written as J _{s}_{u}_{r}_{g}_{e} = tan ^{}^{1} (x _{1} /x _{2} ). In
order to obtain the surge motion, two iterations have to be performed; ﬁrst, the
iteration for the linearized damping term as was done in the heave motion and,
second, the iteration to take the nonlinear quasistatic effects into account as
explained in Section 6.
5. Results for the singlewave prediction method
The heave response amplitudes of the platform are found to be negligible and are
not presented here. The surge response amplitude and the phase angle for the 50
year design wave conditions are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. The surge response
amplitude for the storm conditions is estimated as 2.7 m and seems to be quite
reasonable. For this condition the total mooring force per chain is calculated as 85.8
kN and it is well below the anchor holding power.
For the operational conditions the surge response is obtained as 0.06 m and the
mooring force per chain is 49 kN (Fig. 5). The surge response of the structure reaches
to a peak of about 8 m amplitude in the very low region of the frequency of 0.2
rad/s (Fig. 3).
In Fig. 6 comparison of surge amplitudes of the designs with two different drafts
Fig. 3.
Surge response (50Year Storm).
M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
1277
Fig. 5.
Surge Response (Operational Sea State).
are shown. Draft of the platform was shortened 4 meters in the second phase of the
project in order to keep the initial constructional cost low without a signiﬁcant cause
to the chain loads and changing the signiﬁcant surge response characteristics of the
structure. As it is seen in Fig. 6, there is not any change in the surge response of
1278 M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
Fig. 6.
Comparison of two different designs with two different drafts.
the platform above the frequency of 0.35 rad/s. However, below that frequency only,
there is an increment reaching to 33% in the surge response due to 4 m decrease in
the draft of the platform. However, the frequency range where the surge response
increment occurs does not effect the operation of the platform since the dominant
wave frequency for the operational and storm conditions is well outside this range
of frequencies.
6. Nonlinear quasistatic effect
Since the surge motion of the platform will be quite large in storm conditions,
the nonlinear effects arising due to the stiffness in the horizontal direction should
be taken into account. The draft of the platform will increase with large surge
motions and this will result in increased tension in the chains (Fylling and Larsen,
1989). Also due to the increase in the angle between the chains and the vertical axis,
the restoring force in the horizontal direction will be nonlinear. According to the
moment equilibrium for the chain the nonlinear stiffness will be as follows,
1
Tx _{2} wl _{0} x
H(x) 4
l _{0} cosq
^{(}^{1}^{9}^{)}
in which T = T _{0} + yK _{w}_{p}
and y = l _{0}
(1  cos θ) and K _{w}_{p} = ρgpR ^{2} , where H(x)
stands for the nonlinear restoring force; T for the tension in the vertical direction
in the displaced position of the platform; T _{0} for the initial tension; y for the set
M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
1279
down due
to surge motion; w for the weight of chain per meter; l _{0}
for the initial
length of the chain and q for the angle that the chains make with the vertical.
Relation between the surge motion x and the set down y is not linear and can
be given as follows (Fylling and Larsen, 1989):
x 2
K _{w}_{p} y) l 0 2
0
y(T _{0} K _{w}_{p} l )
EA
l
0
(l _{0} y) (T _{0}
(l _{0} y) ^{2}
(20)
In order to include this nonlinear effect into the frequencydomain calculations,
the NewtonRaphson and bisection iteration methods are used (Press et al., 1992).
The effect of setdown phenomena due to quasistatic nonlinear stiffness is shown
in Fig. 7. The nonlinear setdown phenomenon comes into effect around the low
frequency range that is smaller than 0.2 rad/s. The difference between the linear and
the nonlinear modelling is quite signiﬁcant in the lower range of frequencies as
seen in the ﬁgure. The difference reaches to its maximum about 0.1 rad/s. There is
an almost 50% reduction in the surge response estimation by employing the non
linear setdown modelling in the calculations. This nonlinear behavior is not so
important for the operational conditions since the dominant wave frequencies for
both environmental conditions are well outside this region.
Fig. 7.
Comparison of the nonlinear quasistatic effect with the linear model.
1280 M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
7. Spectral analysis
The spectral analysis is only performed for the 50year storm conditions. The
shortterm wave characteristics are represented by a JonSwap spectrum with 4.4
meters signiﬁcant wave height H _{s} and 8 seconds zero crossing period T _{z} (Fig. 8).
The surge response spectrum is shown in Fig. 9 and the signiﬁcant surge response
is calculated using the following equation
S _{S} 2 _{} _{} S _{x}_{x} (w)dw
0
(21)
and is estimated as 1.74 meters. It is seen that spectral analysis gives more favorable
results than the singlewave prediction method. When looking at the natural surge
frequency of the structure (w _{n}_{x} = 0.34 rad/s) and its surge response spectrum in Fig.
9, it is easy to conclude that the platform’s natural surge frequency is well outside
the frequency of 0.6 rad/s at which the energy of the wave spectrum is concentrated.
Hence, the platform has safe surge response characteristics for the operational site.
8. Conclusions
Hydrodynamic analysis of a TLP type of ofﬂoading platform, that will operate in
the northeast of Marmara Sea are carried out in a design study. The design study
Fig. 8.
JonSwap wave spectrum (50Year Storm for H _{s} = 4.7 m, T _{z} = 8s).
M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
1281
Fig. 9.
Surge Response Spectrum (50Year storm condition).
consists of two phases: The draft of the platform was chosen 24 m in the ﬁrst phase.
Having the hydrodynamic analysis performed for the preliminary design conﬁgur
ation, the draft of the platform was reduced to 20 m in order to lower the construc
tional cost of the platform. Therefore, all hydrodynamic calculations were repeated
for the shorter form of the platform in the second phase of the design and the follow
ing results are obtained for the second design of 20 m draft.
Under operational conditions, the motion of the platform is negligible particularly
for the heave mode. The surge response is 2.7 m according to the singlewave predic
tion method, and the signiﬁcant surge response is found to be 1.74 m using the
JonSwap wave spectrum for the 50year storm conditions with H _{s} = 4.4 m and T _{z}
= 8 s. The maximum mooring force is calculated as 83.78 kN per chain under the
storm conditions. Thus, there is no danger that anchors will move.
The motion characteristics of two designs only differ in the very low frequency
range which is outside the frequency range of the waves. Hence, there is no expec
tation for any unsafe surge motion response for the proposed conﬁguration. More
over, the surge motion calculations are repeated for both linear and the nonlinear
modelling in order to take into account the setdown effect. The nonlinear model
gives more favorable results than the linear one does. However, the nonlinear set
down phenomenon only comes into effect in the very low region of the frequencies
that is outside the frequency range of the waves.
We can ﬁnally conclude that TLP type ofﬂoading platform designed for the Marm
ara Sea gives quite good response values and it should be preferred to a ﬁxed plat
form.
1282 M. So¨ ylemez, O. Yılmaz / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1269–1282
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Professor A. Yu¨ cel Odabas¸ i for
his kind interest and encouragement for this study, and the ﬁnancial support provided
by Aygaz A.S¸ .
References
Adrezin, R., BarAvi, P., Benaroya, H., 1996. Dynamic response of compliant offshore structuresreview. ASCE. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 4, 114–131. Chakrabarti, S.K., 1987. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures. SpringerVerlag, Berlin. Fylling, I.J., Larsen, C.M., 1989. TLP tendon analysis. In: Demirbilek, Z. (Ed.), Tension Leg Platform  A State of the Art Review., pp. 139–192. Jain, A.K., 1997. Nonlinear coupled response of offshore tension leg platforms to regular wave forces. Ocean Engineering 24 (7), 577–592. Lee, H.H., Wang, P.W., Lee, C.P., 1999. Dragged surge motion of tension leg platforms and strained elastic tethers. Ocean Engineering 26 (6), 575–594. Morison, J., O’Brien, M., Johnson, J., Schaaf, S., 1950. The force by surface waves on piles. Petroleum Transactions 189, 149–154. Paik, I., Roesset, J.M., 1996. Use of quadratic transfer functions to predict response of tension leg plat forms. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 122 (9), 882–889. Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery, B.P., 1992. Numerical Recipes in Fortran. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sarpkaya, T., Isaacson, M., 1981. Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures. van Nostrand Rein hold, New York, NY.