Proceedings of the ASME 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2008
June 15-20, 2008, Estoril, Portugal

OMAE2008-57093
Hydrodynamics of a SPAR-type FPSO Concept for Application as a Production
Platform
By
Nagan Srinivasan, Deepwater Structures Inc., Houston, TX
Subrata Chakrabarti, Offshore Structure Analysis, Inc., Plainfield, IL
R. Sundaravadivelu, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, INDIA
Rahul Kanotra, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, INDIA

ABSTRACT
A state of the art non-ship-shaped FPSO vessel for the applications to the frontier fields, including
arctic, deepwater and harsh environment, is introduced in this paper. Its application towards arctic field
is described more elaborately. The need for such a vessel and its feasibility are emphasized herein. As
a first phase of the study, extensive physical large scale model test is performed with dis-connectable
turret mooring for application in the arctic summer environment in shallow water. The arctic
environment with ice conditions require turret mooring system for the vessel with the capability that
the platform is removable in emergency conditions e.g., approaching icebergs. Here, the motion
behavior of the vessel in waves with 100% turret mooring is determined physically in the tank test. For
wave conditions in another field location in the world with clear water, the vessel is also needed to be
designed with a 100% conventional mooring system. Hence, the effect of different kinds of mooring
system, including 50% vessel and 50% turret mooring, on the vessel behavior is studied. Key results
on the comparison of test vs. analysis results are presented in this paper. These results are considered
of immense interest and add value to the Oil and Gas industry.
OVERVIEW
Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading systems (FPSO) are becoming increasingly competitive
to the traditional deepwater production solutions, e.g., SPAR, TLP and Semi-Submersible in the
current offshore oil and gas environment. Traditional solutions do not have on-site storage and rely on
transport of crude via pipelines, whereas FPSO with its in-house storage uses offloading of the crude
oil to a shuttle tanker. It is a great benefit and truly a cost and time effective to use FPSO in a remote
area when new oil is discovered, e.g., for deepwater fields which are away from the shore. When an
FPSO uses turret mooring system along with flexible production risers, then the production vessel also
does not rely on the sub-sea architecture for the particular field. That makes the vessel truly
independent for the field development that could be purchased or leased for the operation by the
developer to the field. However, environmental challenges of a particular field and the consequent
reliability may have issues with the present-day FPSOs in the market. When the safety of the FPSO
becomes comparable with the safety of traditional floaters, the traditional floater market may see a
downward trend and the oil and gas business would be more inclined to look into an environmentally
challenging FPSO.
1

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

With todays advanced technology, the new Ship-Shaped-FPSO often consider a dis-connectable turret
buoy system when bad weather approaches the vessel and re-connect back to the vessel when the
weather becomes normal and be ready for production again. This definitely offers various advantages
to the ship-shaped FPSO vessel and reduces the risk related to adverse weather condition. The obvious
question is how quickly can the vessel react in an unexpected storm and how accurately can we predict
the expected storm to decide on the vessel dis and re connect decisions. The operational procedures are
complex and also the risk is built into ship-shaped FPSO. The consequences of such a risk are large
and depend on the behavior of the ship-shaped FPSO vessel in the environmentally challenging fields.
Ship shaped vessels are difficult to design for environmentally challenging fields and significant risk,
inherently associated with that design exists with the use of the ship-shaped FPSO. Today oil and gas
industry is looking for environmentally challenging technologies for their large potential fields in
deepwater as well as in arctic development. In such situations, a need for research for an FPSO with
wave response behavior close or equal to the behavior of the traditional floaters exists. Such research
results in non-ship-shaped FPSO designed for the frontier oil and gas developments.
NON-SHIP-SHAPED FPSO
In an environmentally challenging oil and gas fields a conventional ship-shaped FPSO has several
disadvantages, for example, operational and maintenances complexity, reduced structural strength due
to large beam length, vertical bending moment in abnormal waves, unacceptable motions for storm
waves over 10s periods, and reduced weathervane circle available for operation without down-time.
Circular FPSOs with a substantially smaller size are emerging as a viable alternative to the
conventional FPSO into the oil and gas development market. This paper introduces a novel non-shipshaped FPSO and its response in operational and extreme environment typical of these sites.
The first objective of this research is to invent and design a feasible non-ship-shaped FPSO with large
deck load and large storage capacity to withstand harsh wave and ice environments seen in some of the
new frontier oil and gas development fields. The vessel should perform well in a challenging winter
storm in an arctic field and equally challenging North Sea type environment in a deepwater
application. The second objective is that the new FPSO design should have all the benefits of the ship
shaped FPSO and other traditional floaters and, thus, can compete with both types of vessels in the
market by its special features in the principal design. Also, the vessel should be practical and meet all
industry standards, regulatory boards and should pass all risks associated with a particular field. In
addition, the vessel should be dis-connectable to reduce risk in extremely harsh environment and be
able to be moved away and then returned back to the field for reconnection with the return of the
normal weather condition.
With this motivation in mind, the current vessel is envisaged over last three years. Its continuous stage
by stage development is based on the elimination of the risks in each part of the technology design.
The key aspects, the vessel is designed for, are the following: over 1.2 million barrels oil storage,
30,000 mt of topside payload capacity, dis-/re-connectable turret moorings with flexible risers to
reduce risk and make it movable, very stable and environmentally friendly with heave resonance
period over 20s. The 3D view of the non-ship-shaped FPSO developed by DSI is shown in Figure 1.
The vessel is a nine flat-sided pentagon with sharp edges provided to break different types of ice
encountered. The hull has an outward sloping design near SWL to help break ice. All outer surfaces
are double-hulled with oil storage facility inside.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

NEW FRONTIER FIELDS AND THEIR NEEDS

The initial design requirement set for this vessel is a severe arctic environment with water depth
ranging from 100m to 1000m. The lower limit of water depth is determined by the turret mooring
system and its ability to disconnect and connect to the vessel. Later on, its application towards harsh
environment elsewhere in the world including North Sea and GOM is felt. Also for the ultra deepwater
offshore Brazil, this FPSO is suited well.

Figure 1. 3D View of The DSI Arctic Class FPSO

Arctic developments are by far real challenges with their environment and the state of conditions.
Russias Gazprom and Rosneft oil companies want to develop the Shtokman gas field in the Barents
Sea and the Sakhalin V oil field, respectively. The activities of Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are being
initiated with exploration by ExxonMobil and Shell oil companies in deepwater. The deep Central
Arctic covered with thick ice has significant oil and gas reserve potential, which would be an
interesting oil production field for many developing countries. They all are severe arctic conditions
during peak winter. Ice as thick as 1-2m may have a speed over 1 m/s with occasional ridges as deep as
25m. In Barents Sea, severe ice bergs may pass through during in-between seasons. The present vessel
is designed and shaped for these worst ice conditions in the deep arctic-ocean. Moreover, the Barents
Sea with ice environment everywhere around does not have natural light in most days of the year and
is generally dark. A round the year drilling and production needs a reliable and risk free vessel to
operate in these fields. The DSI non-ship-shaped FPSO is designed with the aim of being selfsufficient in ice breaking capability without the need of significant ice management.
VESSEL AS AN ICE BREAKER FPSO
The ice breaking capabilities in the conceptual design of the vessel are considered innovative. It is
realized that the structure should be designed to withstand the large load, when large ice field is all
around. The type of ice in the arctic sea, its strength and the load on the vessel due to wind and

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

currents are highly stochastic and complex in nature. Therefore, it was decided that the DSI-FPSO
vessel faces the environment and the associated loads, rather than escape from it.
Ice-Breaking Mechanism of DSI-FPSO
Several proposed concepts for such arctic conditions use column stabilized semi-submersibles to
reduce the ice loads on the structure. It is visualized that such concepts have potential risk, when
considering unexpected large ice loads by deep ridges and ice-bergs for both the structure and workers
on board. Hence, a column stabilized semi-submersible was considered not a viable option leading in a
unique design of this large ice-specialized vessel. The size, volume and mass of the DSI-FPSO vessel
are made as large as practical from the construction, dry-transportation and installation point of view.
Also, with a floating option, the water depth is not a major criterion in the associated vessel cost in its
design. A conventional Spar design, slender and very deep draft, has considered reduced water plane
areas in its design for the arctic application, such that the ice loads would be reduced. However in our
design, it was decided to face the ice and smartly reduce the ice forces on the structure by breaking the
ice around the vessel before it transfers the load on to the vessel.
The key factors of the vessel that would face the ice in deep arctic areas fearlessly are: a rigid floating
vessel with large mass momentum with a large lever arm and an ideal ice-breaking slope of the ice
contact face. However, it is felt that the more ice breaks in the vicinity of the vessel outer ice-contact
boundary, the less will be load exerted on the vessel. The evolved structure concept is shown in Fig. 1.
The vessel is shaped first to reduce the ice loads on the structure due to its sloped face. Secondly, the
faces are flat to limit the force on each side of the vessel, hence, nine sides, leaving only one edge as
leading to the ice. This also allows the fabrication of the vessel easier compared to a mere round shape.
Honeycomb type construction for extra strength on the ice-breaking vessel face, using material with
high Charpy notch value, is used in the design. The faces may be rotated to expose different season or
year of ice to substantially enhance the fatigue life of the vessel for the arctic applications. Also, large
lever arm allows in the reduction of effort in breaking the ice sheets. In addition, a gentle (small or
insignificant) roll and pitch oscillation is induced by external active system. With respect to the size of
the vessel and its available mass momentum energy, the strength of the ice sheets around the vessel are
considered low relative to the vessel strength and, the breaking forces of the ice-sheets by the vessel
faces are minimized. Thus, the ices sheets break continuously, as they approach the contact surface.
Note that the ice-structure interaction behavior of this vessel is not dealt with herein as per the scope of
this paper, and is being covered in other papers to be published elsewhere.
MOORING AND RISER SYSTEMS USED
Mooring and riser systems are the essential part of this DSI-FPSO vessel design. Submerged Turret
Production (STP) -Dis / Re connectable facility is used for this vessel. Conventional vessel mooring is
good for deepwater; however, a turret mooring is more suitable for the ice-covered arctic water. Turret
mooring system makes the vessel easier to tilt about the bottom pivot point on the vessel and breaks
ice-sheets all around. Of course, the amount of tilt is controlled in the vessel design within maximum
allowable for the operation. Due to large lever arm distance provided in the vessel design, a small
insignificant tilt angle at the center of the vessel would allow large vertical displacement at the edge of
the vessel. Both active and passive actions of this tilt are designed to the vessel while breaking icesheets around with the turret mooring system. A feasible mooring system and its layout for shallow
water are shown in Figs. 2 & 3. In this configuration, a 12 point mooring system is proposed to keep
the vessel on station. All 12 lines are identical in geometry.
4

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Figure 2. Schematic of Mooring Arrangement in a Shallow Water Application

Figure 3. Plan View of Turret-Mooring Layout

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Figure 4. Disconnected Turret from the Vessel

The main focus of design is an STP system that can easily and safely be disconnected from the Arctic
Vessel, in case of extreme ice conditions and can find an equilibrium position sufficiently deep to
avoid any collision with icebergs (see Fig. 4). Further, the design provides the needed mooring
capacity to the vessel in its connected condition, as well as, its control of the risers and umbilical in its
disconnected condition. The riser system used in this vessel is configured (Fig. 5) in a Steep Wave
configuration.

Figure 5. Schematic of Riser Configuration

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Sakhalin Island Met-Ocean Criteria

Based on the environmental condition for the Sakhalin Island, the sea-states for various return periods
are arrived at for the hydrodynamic analysis. These are: Hs = 8.3 m, Tz = 9.8 s for a 10yr return period
and Hs = 9.9m, Tz = 10.7 s for a 100yr return period. It is decided that two different spectral models
will be used for the design analysis a PM model and a JONSWAP model with a peakedness
parameter of 2.2. A typical JONSWAP spectrum for the 100 year return period corresponding to a
significant wave height of 9.9m is shown in Fig. 6. The peak period for this wave is about 14 sec.
400
g = 2.2

S()

300
200
100
0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 6. Typical 100 yr storm wave (JONSWAP spectrum)

HYDRODYNAMICS OF THE VESSEL
The dynamics of the vessel in waves is established numerically as well as through an extensive smallscale experiment in a wave basin.
Linear Diffraction Theory
The hydrodynamics characteristics in waves of the floating vessel are determined by the linear
diffraction theory with a modification to accommodate nonlinear damping. In order to maintain the
frequency domain analysis the nonlinearity is linearized within the program. Proprietary Software
called NBODY, developed by OSA, Inc., is used for this purpose. NBODY (see ref. 1) uses the
conventional wave diffraction-radiation analysis for large offshore structures. An appropriate number
of small flat panels are used to represent the 3-D submerged structural surface. Complex structure
geometry may be accommodated, including barges, FPSOs, semi-submersibles, SPARs or TLPs.
Interaction of multiple structures is included in the analysis. Properties of mooring lines may be input.
The motions of the structure in waves are computed and the Response Amplitude Operation (RAO)
may be generated for forces or motions. A random wave spectral model, such as, PM, Bretschneider,
JONSWAP may be input for response spectral computation.
This software is executed for the proposed vessel and the results obtained provide the sea-keeping
characteristics of the vessel. The analytical results are verified with measured data obtained in a wave
basin test of the vessel model.
7

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

COMPREHENSIVE SMALL-SCALE MODEL TESTING

The experimental investigations were carried out to study the behavior of the proposed arctic vessel in
long-crested waves. One of the main objectives of this test was to determine the different types of
mooring system for different sea conditions in the most feasible shallow water of an arctic field
equipped with dis-connectable turret system. Since the vessel is equipped with a dis-connectible turret,
it is desirable to connect the mooring system to the turret. The dis-connectible-turret pivots the vessel
at the bottom and allows the vessel to pitch and roll to break ice sheets. However, in clear water
conditions of the shallow arctic field, a 50% turret and 50% is preferred. In deepwater non-arctic
locations, like Gulf of Mexico Deepwater or North Sea Deepwater, a 100 vessel mooring could be
selected as an economic opted choice. Thus the type of mooring system suited for one water depth and
field environmental condition may not suit the other. Also in arctic field, within the same water depth,
different mooring systems could be preferred or used based on the environmental season, such as, clear
water summer storm vs. ice-covered water winter storm. Thus, a fully turret mooring system good for
an ice covered water may not be suitable for clear water during summer. In this case, additional
conventional vessel moorings might be required and would be deployed once the winter season is
completed. Such operational procedures demand the study of the vessel behavior for different mooring
system.
Therefore, these areas of different mooring arrangements (namely, 100% turret, 100% conventional
and 50% turret plus 50% conventional) were explored in the model tests. The experimental set up, test
procedure and data analysis including the test results are presented in the following subsections.
Wave Basin
The model study required the selection of a suitable testing facility, having the capability of model
fabrication, instrumentation and data acquisition system. The IIT-Madras, Chennai, India, having an
excellent offshore model test facility, was chosen for the model test of the arctic vessel. The facility at
the Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India has a wave basin
of size 30m x 30m, is equipped with Multi-Element Wave Maker and is capable of generating both
uni- and multi-directional waves. The wave basin has a constant water depth of 3m.
Model Scale
The vessel is designed for Sakhalin-V (Russian Oil Field) water depth which ranges from 100m-300m.
The vessel is intended to be located in a water depth of 135m. Since the water depth of the basin is 3m,
a Froude model at a scale of 1:45 is chosen. The large model scale is expected to reduce the effect of
Reynoldss number and viscous effect on the test results, making it easier to predict the prototype
behavior. The model outer dimensions were modeled accurately. It was ballasted to provide true
modeled CG, and radii of gyration in air.
A photograph of the completed model is shown in Fig. 7. The outer geometry of the model was
accurately modeled to represent the prototype geometry as well its hydrostatic properties.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Figure 7. Completed Model being Lowered in the Basin

The center pipe that is attached to the vessel to connect and disconnect the turret buoy was modeled to
the scale and geometry. The center pipe is a steel hollow pipe with appropriate wall thickness to take
the entire load of the mooring and vessel motions. All connections between the center pipe and the
vessel were welded.
Vessel Properties
The important static and hydrostatic properties of the structure are shown in column 2 of Table 1.
Using Froude scaling the corresponding model properties are given in column 3 of the table.
Table 1. Prototype and Model Properties of the Vessel
Parameter

Prototype

Model (1:45)

Displacement ()

27 x 103 kN

29.73 kN

Weight (W)

24 x 103 kN

26.8 kN

Draft

43.89 m

0.98 m

Free board

18 m

0.4 m

Water depth (d)

135 m

3.0 m

Height of hull

55.5 m

1.23 m

Maximum Diameter of hull

100 m

2.20 m

Model Fabrication
The model was divided into six levels for the purpose of easy construction and setup. The section at
each level was fabricated separately using mild steel plates. At each level stiffener plates were
provided between the outer and inner plates in order to increase the stiffness of the model. All six deck
levels were welded together to form a double hull honeycomb structure (See Fig.8a). The required
draft of the model was obtained by placing ballast weights specially built from concrete to fit the
individual pie sections inside the model and fixing them firmly to the bottom of the model.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

(a) Model Construction Showing One Section (b) Ballasting of the Model with Blocks
Figure 8. Model Construction Details
Concrete block of dimension 450x 300x 200mm with a trapezoidal cross section were placed over 12
rods of 32 mm diameter. The rods were welded to the nine plates which were placed at a distance of
250 mm from the bottom of the deck. This arrangement of the ballast was adopted to achieve the
correct scaled roll and pitch radius of gyration as those desired for the prototype. Plan view of the
model showing the ballast in place can be seen in Fig. 8b.
Model Calibration
The model with the ballast in place weighed over 10 kN and could not be safely calibrated in the dry.
All the calibration of the model was carried out with the ballasted model in the water. The draft line
was carefully checked against the scribed draft line on the model at the desired draft. The GM of the
model in its various configurations was measured in water. The heave and pitch periods of the model
were also recorded by the free oscillation tests.
Vessel Setup in Wave Basin

Figure 9. Position of the Vessel in Wave Basin

10

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Vessel was moored using 12 mooring lines and was anchored using concrete blocks. The vessel center
was placed at a distance of 15 m from the multi element wave maker. The plan view of the model
setup in the basin showing the mooring layout and the anchor blocks relative to the wave maker is
shown in Fig. 9.
Mooring Line Configuration
As mentioned already, several mooring systems were used to determine the most optimum operating
procedure for different environmental seasons. Three different mooring conditions were used during
the model testing: (a) 100% vessel mooring: All 12 mooring lines were connected to the vessel model
at the distance of 40 cm above the keel as shown in Fig. 10a; (b) 100% turret mooring: All 12 lines
were connected to the bottom turret as shown in Fig. 10b. Each set of mooring lines was at a radial
spacing of 120 degrees; (c) 50% vessel mooring 50% turret mooring: The outer 2 mooring lines of
each set were connected to the vessel, while the two inner lines were connected to the turret as shown
in Fig. 10c.

Figure 10. Layout of Mooring Arrangement for Different Test Sets

The pulleys were arranged at the bottom of the center pipe of the turret. The load cells were attached to
each of the mooring lines at this point.
Mooring line
Twelve mooring lines were used to moor the vessel. Each mooring line had four segments; wire of
diameter 2.6 mm and studless chain of diameter 2.8 mm were connected alternatively to form one
mooring line (Fig. 11). The individual line section lengths are given in the figure.

11

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Figure 11. Length of Different Segments in Mooring Line

The end of the mooring chain was attached to a concrete anchor block of dimension 250 mm x 250
mm x100 mm placed on the wave basin at the end of the line lengths.
Mooring line stiffness
The overall stiffness of the mooring line system was established by pulling the model with the mooring
lines in place in the horizontal direction in known increments and measuring the loads in the pulling
line with a load cell. The mooring line horizontal stiffness, in model scale, is shown in Fig. 12.
Surge Measurement on turret model

18

Measured
Trend of the measured values

16

Applied load in Kg

14

12

42.4, 10

10

41, 9
8

39.68, 8
38, 7

35.7, 6
32, 5

29, 4
23.5, 3

2
18.5, 2
12, 1
0, 0

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Surge in cm

Figure 12. Mooring Line Horizontal Stiffness

Instrumentation
Six capacitance type wave probes were used. Two of these were placed alongside the model for the
phase wave, three were mounted in line at the front, center and back of the model and one was
mounted at the 90 deg point at one edge of the model. The front, and the back probes were used for the
relative pitch motion and the center probe gave the relative heave motion of the vessel. Accelerometers
both in the vertical and horizontal directions were installed on top of the deck to measure the deck
12

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

accelerations at several points. 12 pulleys with best frictionless property were used at the turret
mooring connections. Each pulley was connected to an 8 mm diameter rod, which was free to rotate
about its vertical axis. This allowed the pulley rotate with the vessel yaw.
Wave Parameters
The wave tests in the wave basin were carried out in a series of both regular and random waves. The
waves were chosen based on the operational and extreme environment for the Sakhalin arctic area. The
regular waves ranged in periods from 7 to 35 sec prototype. The regular waves in the model scale
ranged from 0.89 s to 5.1 s. with heights ranging from 5.0 cm to 11 cm. The random waves included
both the PM and JONSWAP spectra and the significant wave height and peak periods varying from 7.1
cm to 22 cm and 1.25 s to 2.08 s respectively. A total of 8 sets of tests were performed by varying the
appendages to the floating vessel. The random wave characteristics are presented in model scale in
Table 2. The random wave tests were carried out by simulating time series following PM and
JONSWAP spectra with peak frequencies equivalent to the zero-crossing periods in Table 2 and
significant wave heights corresponding to the HS values shown in the table.
Return period
(Years)

Table 2. Random Wave Characteristics

Model Scale Values
Prototype Values
HS

Tz

Hmax

Tmax

HS

Tz

Hmax

Tmax

(m)

(s)

(m)

(s)

(m)

(s)

(m)

(s)

0.13

1.23

0.25

1.57

4.5

8.25

11.25

10.53

10

0.17

1.39

0.31

1.77

7.65

9.32

13.95

11.87

20

0.17

1.41

0.32

1.81

7.65

9.46

14.4

12.14

25

0.18

1.43

0.33

1.82

8.1

9.59

14.85

12.2

50

0.19

1.46

0.35

1.87

8.55

9.79

15.75

12.54

100

0.20

1.51

0.37

1.94

10.13

16.65

13.0

Model Pre-tests
Waves were calibrated w/o the model in tank. The wave spectra were checked to ensure that they
reasonably follow the PM and JONSWAP spectral models within the limits of the basin capability. The
mooring system in place were calibrated by static tests in + and - directions and the overall mooring
stiffness was established. The natural periods and damping in various modes were obtained by the
pluck tests.
These tests were repeated whenever the model characteristics, as well as, the mooring set up in the
basin is changed.
Results and Discussion
The heave and pitch of the vessel were considered to be the most important responses to determine the
viability of the concept presented here. Therefore, these two responses are analyzed in this section. The
RAOs in heave and pitch were determined from the measured data and numerically from the linearized
diffraction/radiation program (NBODY) and the results are presented here.
13

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Heave response of the vessel

Examples of random wave spectra are shown in Fig. 13. The PM spectrum for the 50% Vessel & 50%
Turret Mooring system was chosen. The heave measurement was taken from the center accelerometer
as shown earlier. It is seen that the heave response is maximum at about 24 s corresponding to the
heave natural period.
0.05

25.0

wp6(inc)

0.04
Saa, t^2-s

S, t^2-s

20.0
15.0
10.0

0.03
0.02
0.01

5.0

0.00

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

1.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

F,HZ

F,HZ

(a) measured wave spectrum

(a) measured acceleration spectrum

Figure 13. Measured PM Wave and Acceleration Spectra - 50-50 Mooring Setup
The displacement of the vessel was derived from the acceleration measurement by double integration
of the acceleration time history. It should be noted that the estimates at the higher periods (much
beyond 25 sec) are not very accurate, as even the PM spectrum does not have large enough energy
density in these ranges.
The heave RAOs of the vessel for the three different mooring setups from full turret to full vessel
mooring system are compared in Fig. 14. The difference in the heave RAO among the three mooring
setups appears to be minimal and the effect of 100% to 50-50% mooring is generally good in heave.
2.0

Vessel 100,Turret 0
Vessel 50,Turret 50
Vessel 0, Turret 100

Heave RAO

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
5

15

25

35

Wave Period, sec

Figure 14. Comparison of Heave RAO for Three Different Mooring Setup Tested

14

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Correlation of Heave Tests with Numerical Results

The damping ratio in the presence of the damping device plates was estimated from the experimental
data to be about 12%. The vertical stiffness from the mooring line was found to be small (about 1.0E7
N/m) compared to the stiffness of the vessel.
Based on these data, the NBODY program was run for the motion analysis. The correlation of the
heave motion results for 50% Vessel and 50% Turret Mooring is shown in Fig. 15. The green denoted
by DSI is the numerical result, The PM spectrum in blue is the random wave, while the red line
marked Vessel 50, Turret 50 is the regular wave RAO. Note that except for the very high end of the
PM spectral data the correlation may be termed good.
2.5

DSIYb-12%-4e7
PM-50-50

Heave RAO

2.0

Vessel 50,Turret 50

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5

10

15

20

25

Wave Period, sec

Figure 15. Comparison of Heave RAO between the experimental and numerical results for 50%
Vessel and 50% Turret Mooring
The response of a typical large size conventional semi-submersible having a similar deck load capacity
is shown for comparison purposes. The selected conventional semi-submersible has a draft of 100 ft
and displacement of 130 metric tonnes. The heave natural period of the conventional semi-submersible
is 26s and its heave RAO is shown in Figure 16. Conventional semi-submersible response has a double
peak, one corresponding to the heave period of 26 sec and the other corresponding to a lower period.

Heave RAO, ft/ft

2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
5

10

15

20 25 30
Period, sec

35

40

Figure 16. Heave RAO of the Conventional Semi-submersible with 26 s Heave Resonance
15

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Similarly the vertical RAO response of a typical conventional ship-shaped FPSO, Lpp = 258, B=46,
B=18 size ship tanker at center pf gravity of the ship for wave environment is also shown Figure 17. It
should be noted that the maximum heave for the ship-shaped FPSO is at wave periods of 10-12 s while
for the non-ship-shaped FPSO, it is about 20-23 s

Figure 17. Heave RAO of the Conventional Ship-shaped FPSO with 10 s Heave Resonance
Pitch response of the vessel
An example wave and the pitch acceleration spectra based on PM spectrum is shown in Fig. 18 for the
same PM wave. The pitch was computed from the two accelerometers in the two end positions as
shown earlier. It is seen that the pitch response is maximum at about 24 s; but the pitch natural period
is outside the range of periods for the spectra.

16

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

25.0

0.025
wp6(inc)

0.020
Saa, t^2-s

S, t^2-s

20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0

0.015
0.010
0.005

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.000

1.2

0.0

F,HZ

(a) measured wave spectrum

0.4

0.8
1.2
F,HZ

1.6

2.0

(a) measured acceleration spectrum

Figure 18. Measured PM Wave and Pitch Acceleration Spectra for 50-50 Mooring Setup
The pitch angle of the vessel was derived from the difference in acceleration measurement by double
integration of the acceleration time history. The angle in radians is normalized by the wave slope so
that it is non-dimensional. As for heave, the pitch RAO estimates at the higher periods (much beyond
25 sec) are not very accurate.
For the 50%-50% mooring (Fig. 19), where the restoring moment is higher, the Pitch RAO is generally
quite small.
1.6

Pitch RAO

PM-50-50

1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
5

10

15
Wave Period, sec

20

25

Figure 19. Random Wave Pitch RAO for 50% Vessel and 50% Turret Mooring
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, an innovative non-ship-shaped FPSO is proposed to the Oil and Gas industry for round
the year operations in the arctic and deepwater harsh environment. The vessel is designed to with stand
both severe winter and summer storm in an arctic deepwater location. First of its kind a turret mooring
system with flex-risers are used in this circular FPSO. Such that a large risk is eliminated in an
emergency situation with turret disconnect.
17

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Secondly, the sea-keeping characteristics of the arctic vessel concept were carried out. The purpose of
this study was to establish the feasibility of the concept vessel in the harsh arctic wave environment.
Additionally, parametric study was performed to obtain the operational procedure requirement with
different mooring system for different environmental condition of an arctic field in minimum feasible
water depth with dis-connectable turret system. The vessel with its mooring system is to provide
acceptable motion characteristics of the vessel in the operational and extreme environment. It should
be recognized that this is a feasibility study and it was intended to establish a viable concept for the
arctic operation for further site specific detailed study. The reliability of using this vessel in a severe
arctic environment with different mooring systems is also studied. We strongly believe this objective
was reached and it is ready to move forward to the next step to refine the design to make it work more
successfully for the intended purposes in the harsh arctic and deepwater environment for a specific
project and application.
In summary, the vessel behaves like a TLP in wave periods from 0-14 s range in its both heave and
pitch behavior. In the current design, the example candidate vessel motion is acceptable from 0-16 s.
Disconnect would be required from16-25s wave periods range for a clear water wave environment.
Which is very large compared to the given example ship motion behavior shown in Figure 17. It
should be noted that the current non-ship-shaped FPSO could be designed or enhanced in its heave
natural period further increased to over 23 s. In which case the vessel is a fully accepted for GOM and
North Sea environment for the round the year operation with least downtime and disconnect
requirement. Thus the operational cost of this non-ship-shaped FPSO design could be further reduced
due to unexpected small storms. Comparing the different mooring systems, namely the 100% turret,
100% vessel and the 50%-50% setup, it is found that there is practically no difference in the heave
response, but the pitch response is seasonal dependent. It is found that the 100% turret mooring is
acceptable for the ice-covered water and that a 50% turret and 50% vessel mooring provides attractive
pitch-motion control for the clear water severe wave environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The model test was executed at the Indian Institute of Technology (IITM), Ocean Engineering Center
Wave Basin Facility, Chennai, India. The authors are grateful to the team who worked on this project
and everyone who assisted in the tank test and data processing from IITM. Javad Mortazavi, CEO,
Onyx Consulting Engineers. LLC, Houston, Texas, USA helped in producing the 3D drawings for the
DSI-Arctic vessel and we are very thankful to his help. It should be noted that Deepwater Structures
Inc. (DSI), Houston, Texas developed this vessel technology and DSI holds the proprietary of the
vessel.
REFERENCES
Srinivasan, Nagan, Deepwater Structures, Inc. Houston, Texas, USA, Offshore Floating Production,
Storage, and Off-Loading Vessel For Use in Ice-Covered and Clear Water Applications, USA &
International (holding intellectual property and patent rights)
Chakrabarti, S. K., Computer Software NBODY for Diffraction Analysis of Multiple Floating Bodies,
OSA, Inc. website: http://members.aol.com/osaincorp.

18

Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use