Proceedings of The Twelfth (2002) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Kitakyushu, Japan, May 26 31, 2002

Copyright 2002 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-58-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Hull/Mooring/Riser Coupled Dynamic Analysis of a Tanker-Based

Turret-moored FPSO in Deep Water
Y.B. Kim and M.H. Kim
Offshore Technology Research Center
Department of Civil Engineering/Ocean Engineering Program
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843, USA

Until recently, offshore industry has mainly used uncoupled quasistatic analysis or semi-coupled dynamic analysis for the design of
floating offshore platforms with mooring and risers. In the former,
mooring lines and risers are modeled as massless linear or nonlinear
springs in calculating hull responses. Subsequently, the mooring
tensions are estimated from the static-offset curve. In the latter, the
first step is the same but the mooring and riser tensions are obtained
from line dynamics program, in which the body motions at fairlead
(top mooring point) are prescribed. However, as water depth
increases, the mass portion of mooring lines and risers cannot be
neglected and the dynamic interactions between vessels and slender
members are expected to become increasingly important. Therefore,
the reliability of the conventional uncoupled or semi-coupled
methods cannot be guaranteed for deep or ultra deep compliant
platforms.
Furthermore, there exists no wave basin in the world, which can test
ultra deepwater platforms in full length with reasonable scale. In
this regard, the need of very reliable hull/mooring/riser fully
coupled analysis tools cannot be emphasized too much in the
coming years. The hull/mooring/riser coupled analyses
automatically account for the inertia and damping effects of
mooring lines and risers and their dynamic interactions with hulls,
and thus can more accurately include their coupling effects.
During the past decade, several companies and research institutes
have tried to develop fully coupled dynamic analysis computer
programs for turret-moored FPSOs in deepwater. For example,
Wichers (1988) and Lee and Choi (2000) proposed simplified
uncoupled methods to solve the hull motion and mooring dynamics
separately. Later, Wichers and Ji (2000) further developed their
analysis tools by including coupling effects between the vessel and
slender members and also numerous empirical-based wind and
current forces and hull viscous damping coefficients. So far, only
Newmans approximation, approximating the off-diagonal terms of
difference-frequency wave force quadratic transfer functions
(QTFs) by mean drift forces (diagonal terms), has been used to
avoid the complicated and time-consuming computation of the
whole set of second-order difference-frequency wave forces in the
bi-frequency domain.
In the present study, the global performance of 6000-ft FPSO with
taut chain-polyester-chain lines and steel catenary risers in a noncollinear 100-yr Hurricane is investigated. The vessel motions and
slender-member dynamics are solved simultaneously in a combined
matrix to fully account for their dynamic interactions. The use of

ABSTRACT
A taker-based FPSO using 12 chain-polyester-chain taut mooring
lines with 13 steel catenary risers designed for 6000-ft water depth
is numerically simulated to investigate the characteristics of
nonlinear behaviors and hull/mooring/riser dynamic coupling. The
coupled dynamic analysis is conducted in time domain by using the
newly developed program, WINPOST-FPSO. The first-order wavefrequency and second-order difference-frequency wave loads, fluid
added mass and radiation damping for the hull are calculated in the
frequency domain from the second-order diffraction/radiation
program WAMIT. The computed hydrodynamic coefficients and
wave forces for vessels are then converted to proper forms in the
time-domain equation of motion. The wave-current induced forces
on slender members are calculated from Morison formula. An 100yr Hurricane with non-parallel wind, wave, and current is used as
environmental condition. The wind and current forces are calculated
from the empirical data provided by OCIMF (Oil Company
International Marine Forum, 1994). Three different cases; (1) fully
coupled system with Newmans approximation, (2) system (1) with
mass-less riser modeling, (3) fully coupled system with full QTF,
are studied to assess the effects of risers and Newmans
approximation in the global motion/tension analysis of turretmoored FPSOs.

KEY WORDS: Tanker-based FPSO, turret mooring, non-parallel

environment, hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis, secondorder diffraction/radiation, riser damping, Newmans approximation

INTRODUCTION
Tanker-Based FPSO(Floating Production and Storage Offloading)
units have been regarded as a promising concept for an economic
oil production in deep and remote areas since they have more
storage capacity (no pipelines) and wider deck space giving better
layout flexibility. Recently, Minerals Management Service (MMS)
has approved the use of double-hull FPSOs in the Gulf of Mexico.
Therefore, more FPSO units are expected to be installed in the
GOM in the coming years by offshore industry. In this regard,
reliable design and analysis tools for the global performance of
FPSOs are essential to insure the safe installation and operation.

169

Newmans approximation is compared against more accurate results

with full QTFs. The coupling and damping effects of risers on hull
motions are assessed.

.(MOORING LINES)
Designation
Water depth
Pre-tension
Number of lines
Degree between the 3 lines
Length of mooring line
Radius of location of chain
stoppers on turn table

MAIN PARAMETERS OF TURRET-MOORED FPSO

The prototype FPSO used in this study is a 200,000 DWT tanker
moored in 6,000-ft water depth by a taut chain-polyester-chain
mooring system with turret. The internal turret is located 208.5 ft
away from the forward perpendicular and its diameter is 52 ft. The
main parameters of the turret-moored FPSO are given below.
Designation
Production level
Storage
Vessel size
Length b/w
Perpendiculars
Breadth
Depth
Draft
Length beam ratio
Beam draft ratio
Displacement
Block coefficient
Center of buoyancy
Forward section10
Water plane area
Water plane coefficient
Center of water plane
area forward section10
Center of gravity above
Base
Metercentric height
Transverse
Metercentric height
Longitudinal
Transverse radius of
Gyration in air
Longitudinal radius of
Gyration in air
Yaw radii of gyration
Wind area front
Wind area side
Turret in centerline
Behind Fpp (20.5% Lpp)
Turret elevation below
tanker base
Turret diameter

Symbol

Unit
bpd
bbls
kDWT

Quantity
120,000
1,440,000
200

Lpp

ft

1017

B
H
T
L/B
B/T

ft
ft
ft

154.8
92
62
6.57
2.5
240,869
0.85

ton
Cb
FB

ft

21.65

A
Cw

ft2

144,239
0.9164

FA

ft

3.28

KG

ft

43.7

MGt

ft

18.96

MGl

ft

1324.9

Kxx

ft

48.46

Kyy

ft

254.17

Kzz
Af
Ab

ft
ft2
ft2

260.17
10,890
40,600

ft

208.5

ft

ft

52

Unit
ft
kips
deg.
ft

Quantity
6,000
320
4*3
5
8,700

ft

23

Segment 1(ground section): Chain

Length at anchor point
Diameter
Dry weight
Weight in water
Stiffness AE
Mean breaking load (MBL)

ft
in
lb/ft
lb/ft
kips
kips

400
3.75
127.17
110.64
205,044
1,698

Segment 2: wire (Polyester)

Length
Diameter
Dry weight
Weight in water
Stiffness AE
Mean breaking load (MBL)

ft
in
lb/ft
lb/ft
kips
kips

8,000
6.3
11.56
3.02
42,000
1,670

Segment 1(ground section): Chain

Length at anchor point
Diameter
Dry weight
Weight in water
Stiffness AE
Mean breaking load (MBL)

ft
in
lb/ft
lb/ft
kips
kips

300
3.75
127.17
110.64
205,044
1,698

(RISERS)

Designa
tion

The FPSO has a length between perpendiculars of 1017 ft, a width

of 154.8 ft, a depth of 92 ft with a full loaded draft of 62 ft. When
OCIMF data was used for wind and current loading, cylindrical bow
with full loading condition was selected.

The particulars of the mooring lines and risers are given in the next
tables. The FPSO has 12 chain-polyester-chain mooring lines and
13 steel catenary risers. The polyester lines may have a range of
stiffness under different loading conditions but they are assumed to
be elastic in this study with a representative Youngs modulus. The

170

OD

AE

EI

W
(dry/
wet)

kips

in

kips

Kips
ft2

Ibs/ft

Cdn

Liquid
producti
on risers

500

17.5

4.12E+06

667

132/71

Gas
produc
tion
risers

275

15.2

2.43E+06

274

117/36

910

20.9

4.18E+06

542

192/130

1.414

610

11.3

7.06E+05

155

124/80

1.414

205

13.5

1.94E+06

172

93/
29

Water
injection
risers
Gas
injection
risers
Gas
export
risers
Total
length
of risers

PARTICULARS OF MOORING LINES AND RISERS

Top
tensi
on

12000 ft

The wind and current force coefficients on the vessel are read from
OCIMF data. The dynamic wind loading was generated from the
wind velocities obtained from API wind spectrum. The yaw wind
moments are increased by 15% considering the effects of
superstructures.

12 mooring lines are arranged in four groups. Each group is 90degree apart and consists of 3 legs 5-degree apart. In the dynamic
analysis of slender members, tangential drag forces are neglected.
The seafloor is modeled as elastic bed with quadratic spring.
The particulars of hull, mooring lines, and risers are almost identical
to those of the standard case set up by DEEPSTAR Offshore
Industry Consortium (Wichers and Devlin, 2001) except the two
cases. The first one is the angle of mooring lines at the fairlead; here
43 degrees were used instead of 48.8 degrees. The second difference
is the angle of riser top connection; 77 degrees were used here
instead of 80.9 degrees

Static-Offset Tests (in calm water without current)

The surge static offset test was conducted by pulling vcg (vertical
center of gravity) in the horizontal direction in calm water. Typical
results for surge offsets are shown in Fig.3. The surge static-offset
test shows weakly softening trend, which is contrary to the typical
hardening behavior of catenary lines. The surge static offset curves
with risers are in general greater than those without risers due to the
contribution of riser tension. On the other hand, the effects of risers
on individual mooring tension are less appreciable.

NUMERICAL MODELING OF FPSO HULL, MOORING

LINES, AND RISERS

Free-decay Tests (in calm water without current)

The added mass and radiation damping, first-order wave-frequency

forces, and second-order mean and difference-frequency forces are
calculated from the second-order diffraction/radiation program
WAMIT (Korsmeyer et al., 1988; Lee et al, 1991). Fig.1 shows the
distribution of panels on the body surface and free surface. Taking
advantage of symmetry, only half domain is discretized (1684
panels for hull and 480 panels for free surface). All the
hydrodynamic coefficients were calculated in the frequency domain,
and then the corresponding forces were converted to the time
domain using two-term Volterra series expansion (Ran and Kim,
1997). The frequency-dependent radiation damping was included in
the form of convolution integral in the time domain equation. The
wave drift damping was expected to be small and thus not included
in the ensuing analysis.
The methodology for hull/mooring/riser coupled statics/dynamics is
similar to that of Ran and Kim, 1997 and Kim et al., 1999. The
mooring lines are assumed hinged at the turret and anchor position.
The near-vertical riser is also hinged at the turret, and therefore, the
riser tension is included in the vertical static equilibrium of the hull.
The calculated platform mass for the given condition is

To see the effects of risers (mostly the amount of damping from

risers) in the free-decay tests more clearly, a simpler riser model
was developed i.e. all the 13 risers are replaced by a single
equivalent massless riser at the center with the same total tension.
The resulting surge/sway stiffness at the turret is then approximately
calculated and added to the hydrostatic matrix. Fig.4 shows typical
free-decay test results for surge, heave, roll, and pitch modes.
Table 1. Natural periods from free-decay tests

Full draft
(with risers)
Full draft
(w/o risers)

Surge

Heave

Roll

Pitch

209.8 s

18.7 s

13.0 s

18.6 s

225.9 s

18.7 s

13.4 s

18.6 s

In most cases, the damping is larger for larger oscillation

amplitudes. With no riser model, the surge damping is appreciably
reduced especially at large dynamic amplitude. Whereas, the heave,
roll and pitch damping are only slightly reduced. In heave and pitch,
the radiation damping is expected to be much greater than the riser
damping near their respective natural frequencies. From this result,
it is seen that the damping effects from risers can be significant for
surge/sway responses in deeper water. It is expected to be more
pronounced in the presence of currents.

2.3686 10 8 kg at 62-ft draft. The empirical coefficients for the

viscous damping of the same FPSO hull in normal direction were
obtained from the model test by Wichers(2000).
The wave force quadratic transfer functions are computed for 9
wave frequencies, ranging from 0.24 to 1.8 rad/sec and the
intermediate values for other frequencies are interpolated.

Table 2. Damping from free-decay tests estimated from the first 4

peaks assuming linear damping

The hydrodynamic coefficients and wave forces are expected to

vary appreciably with large yaw angles and the effects should be
taken into consideration for the reliable prediction of FPSO global
motions. Therefore, they are calculated in advance for various yaw
angles with 5-degree interval and the data are then tabulated as
inputs.

Full draft
(with risers)

The second-order diffraction/radiation computation for a 3D body is

computationally very intensive especially when it has to be run for
various yaw angles. Therefore, many researchers avoided such a
complex procedure and have instead used simpler approach called
Newmans approximation i.e. the off-diagonal components of the
second-order difference-frequency QTFs are approximated by their
diagonal values (mean drift forces and moments). The
approximation can be justified only when the relevant natural
frequency is very small and the slope of QTFs near the diagonal is
not large. In this paper, the full QTFs are calculated and the validity
of Newmans approximation is tested against more accurate results
with complete QTFs.

Full draft
(w/o risers)

Surge
11.0 %
(-97.5 ~
-12.2 m)
5.8 %
(-96.7 ~
-32.7 m)

TIME-DOMAIN
CONDITION

Heave
6.5 %
(10.9 ~
3.2 m)
6.1 %
(10.4 ~
3.3 m)

SIMULATION

Roll
0.86 %
(5 ~ 4.2
deg)
0.68 %
(5 ~ 4.4
deg)

FOR

Pitch
6.7 %
(5 ~ 1.4
deg)
6.0 %
(5 ~ 1.6
deg)

HURRICANE

The current is assumed to be steady and the irregular wave

uni-directional. A JONSWAP spectrum of significant wave

171

height H s =40ft, peak period

left of waves. API wind spectrum is used for the generation

of time-varying wind forces. The drag coefficients for wave
forces are 1.0 for mooring lines, 1.0 to 1.414 for risers. The
low- and wave-frequency regions are defined as 0-0.2 rad/s
and 0.2-1.3 rad/s, respectively. The time-domain simulation
results are summarized in Table 3.

T p =14s, and overshoot

parameter =2.5 was selected to represent a typical 100-yr

storm in the Gulf of Mexico.
Table 3. Time-domain simulation results for full load
(unit: m , deg.)
Condition

Surge
(m)

Sway
(m)

Heave
(m)

Roll
(deg.)

Pitch
(deg.)

Yaw
(deg.)

Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)

Mea
n
-13.9

-13.9

Lowfreq.
Rms.

Wave
-freq.
Rms.

Total
rms

6.98

0.49

7.0

10.32

0.44

Condition

10.3

-34.6

-46.7

-14.7

8.42

0.44

8.4

-39.5

4.7

2.50

0.49

2.5

13.4

4.6
4.8
0

2.84
3.04
0.04

0.45
0.46
3.36

Table 4. The resultant tensions on the mooring lines and risers for
full load (unit: kN)

Max

2.8
3.1
3.4

Mooring Line
#2

13.8

Mooring Line
#8

16.9
10.9

0.03

3.46

3.5

-12.1

0.1

0.07

3.37

3.4

11.1

0.2

0.16

0.98

1.0

3.5

0.2

0.15

1.26

1.3

4.3

0.1

0.38

1.22

1.3

5.5

0.0

0.02

1.33

1.3

-4.3

0.0

0.02

1.39

1.4

4.7

0.0

0.04

1.34

1.3

-4.5

15.3

2.74

0.28

2.6

22.7

13.7

2.57

0.31

2.7

22.3

15.1

3.86

0.28

3.9

24.3

Liquid
production riser
#13

Gas production
riser #20

Water injection
riser #22

Gas injection
riser #23

Gas export riser

#25

Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(w/o risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)
Newmans
Approx.
(with risers)
Full QTF
(with risers)

Mean

Total
rms

Max

2160

424

3529

2157

583

4252

2201

479

3639

903

249

1860

943

349

2319

901

296

2077

2345

272

4941

2343

262

5393

1253

278

3509

1254

265

3213

4284

403

7629

4383

391

6923

2744

234

4082

2746

227

4054

960

166

1804

961

166

1781

From this result, it is clearly seen that slowly varying components

are dominant in horizontal-plane motions (surge, sway, yaw), while
wave-frequency responses are more important in vertical-plane
motions (heave, roll, pitch). It is also found that the effect of riser
damping is very important in the surge, particularly its slowly
varying component. When riser damping is absent, the surge rms
and maximum values are overestimated by about 47% and 35%,
respectively. For the other modes, the effect of riser damping is less
significant. If riser damping is not accounted for, the total rms

The storm induced current flows from 30-deg. right of wave

direction. The current velocity is assumed to be 3.5ft/s
between 0-200ft and reduced to 0.3ft/s at 300ft-3000ft. The
wind speed used is 92mph@10m and its direction is 30-deg.

172

tension values on taut(#2) and slack(#8) mooring lines are

overestimated by 38% and 40%, respectively. The simulation results
for mooring lines and risers are summarized in Table 4.

Colby, C., Sodahl, N., Katla, E., Okkenhaug, S. (2000), Coupling

effects for a deepwater spar OTC#12083, Houston
Halkyard, J.E. (1996), Status of spar platforms for deepwater
production systems Proc. of ISOPE96, Los Angeles

There also exist significant differences in rms and maximum tension

of individual risers, which indirectly shows the importance of fully
coupled analysis.
In Table 3 and 4, the comparison between the Newmans
approximation and the full QTF is also shown. As expected, only
horizontal-plane motions are appreciably affected. In general, the
horizontal-plane motion amplitudes (slowly varying parts) are
under-estimated by using Newmans approximation but the
differences are not large. The error caused by mass-less riser
modeling appears to be much more serious than that caused by
Newmans approximation in this example.

Kim, M.H., Ran, Z., & Zheng, W. (1999), Hull/mooring coupled

dynamic analysis of a truss spar in time domain Proc. of
ISOPE99, Brest, France
Korsmeyer, F.T., Lee, C.H., Newman, J.N., & Sclavounos, P.D.
(1988), The analysis of wave effects on TLP Proc. of OMAE88,
Houston
Lee, C.H., Newman, J.N., Kim, M.H. & Yue, D.K.P. (1991), The
computation of second-order wave loads Proc. of OMAE91,
Stavanger, Norway

CONCLUSION

Ma, W., Lee, M.Y., Zou, J., and Huang, E.W. (2000), Deepwater
nonlinear coupled analysis tool OTC#12085, Houston

The global motions of a turret-moored FPSO with 12 chainpolyester-chain mooring lines and 13 steel catenary risers in a nonparallel wind-wave-current environment are investigated in the time
domain using a fully coupled hull/mooring/riser dynamic analysis
program. This case is similar to the relevant study in DEEPSTAR
Offshore Industry Consortium and the overall comparison looks
reasonable.

Newman (1974), Second-order slowly-varying forces on vessels in

irregular waves Symp. On Dynamics of Marine Vehicles and
Structures in Waves, London
Ran, Z. & Kim, M.H. (1997), Nonlinear coupled analysis of a
tethered spar in waves J. of Offshore & Polar Engrg. Vol.7, No.2,
111-118

In horizontal-plane motions, slowly varying components are

dominant, and therefore, the reliable estimation of the second-order
mean and slowly varying wave forces and the magnitude of total
system damping is very important. For vertical-plane motions,
wave-frequency responses are dominant and even the first-order
potential-based theory can do a good job in heave and pitch. The
coupling effects are also minimal in vertical-plane motions.

Ran, Z., Kim, M.H., Niedzwecki, J.M. & Johnson, R.P. (1995),
Responses of a spar platform in random waves and currents
(experiment vs. theory) Proc. of ISOPE95, Hague, Netherlands
OCIMF 1994 Prediction of wind and current loads on VLCCs. 2nd
ed., Witherby & Co. Ltd., London, England

In the present study, we particularly addressed two points, the

effects of riser coupling/damping and the validity of Newmans
approximation. The riser damping is found to be important in
surge/sway modes, particularly in surge. The use of Newmans
approximation slightly under-estimates the actual horizontal-plane
motions but seems to be adequate in practical applications.
However, when input wave spectrum is not narrow-banded or
double-peaked, care should be taken.

Wicher, J.E.W. 1988 A simulation model for a single point moored

tanker. Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.
Lee, D.H & Choi, H.S (2000), A dynamic analysis of FPSO-shuttle
tanker system, Proc. of ISOPE 2000, Seattle, 302-307.
Wicher, J.E.W. & Ji. C. 2000 On the coupling term in the lowfrequency viscous reation forces moored tankers in deep water.
Proc. of Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 12086 [CD-ROM],
Houston, Texas.

In a fully coupled simulation in time domain, the behaviors of

vessel, risers, and mooring lines can be directly seen on the screen
through graphics-animation software, which will greatly enhance
the understanding of the relevant physics and the overallperformance assessment of the system.

Wicher, J.E.W. & Devlin, P.V. 2001 Effect of coupling of mooring

lines and risers on the design values for a turret moored FPSO in
deep water of Gulf of Mexico. Proc. of 11th Intl. Offshore & Polar
Engr.,Vol.3, 480-487.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was financially supported by the Minerals
Management Service (MMS), Offshore Technology Research
Center (OTRC), and also partly by Joint Industry Project (BPAmoco, Conoco, CSO-Aker, B&R Halliburton, Sea Engineering.).

Baar, J.J.M., Hely, C.N. & Rodenbusch, G. 2000 Extreme responses

of turret moored tankers. Proc. of Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC 12147 [CD-ROM], Houston, Texas.
Ward, E.G., Irani, M.B. & Johnson, R.P. 2001 The behavior of a
tanker-based FPSO in hurricane waves, winds, and currents. Proc.
of 11th Intl. Offshore & Polar Engr.,Vol.4, 650-653.

REFERENCES

173

Y
Z

Z
Y

Fig. 1 Discretization of hull of FPSO and free surface

Fig. 2 Configuration of FPSO hull

+x2 (North)
100

Full Load (w. risers)

80

Full Load (w/o risers)

60

#6 #5 #4
Surge [m]

40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Time [sec]

#7

#3

#8

#2

#9

#1

+x1 (East)

15

Full Load (w. risers)

Full Load (w/o risers)

Heave [m]

10
5
0
-5
-10
0

# 10 # 11 # 12

20

40

60

80

100
Time [sec]

(Definition of the earth fixed orientation of the mooring system)

174

120

140

160

180

200

1.8E+07

Full Load(w. risers)

1.6E+07

Full Load (w. risers)

Full Load (w/o risers)

1.2E+07
1.0E+07

8.0E+06

Roll [deg]

Surge force

Full Load(w/o risers)

1.4E+07

6.0E+06
4.0E+06
2.0E+06
0.0E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0
-2
-4

Offset [m]

-6
0

Mooring line#2 tension

8.0E+06

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time [sec]

Full Load (w. risers)

7.0E+06

Full Load (w/o risers)

6.0E+06
5.0E+06
4.0E+06
3.0E+06
2.0E+06

1.0E+06

Full Load (w. risers)

0.0E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Full Load (w/o risers)

Pitch [deg]

Offset [m]

Mooring line#8 tension

1.6E+06

Full Load (w. risers)

1.4E+06

Full Load (w/o risers)

1.2E+06

2
0
-2

1.0E+06

-4

8.0E+05

6.0E+05
4.0E+05

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Time [sec]

2.0E+05
0.0E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Offset [m]

Fig. 3 Static offset curve for surge

Fig.4 Free-decay test results for surge, heave, roll

and pitch modes

175

200