J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.

), 2011
DOI: 10.1007/s12204-011-1202-8

Numerical Investigation on the Hydrodynamic Difference Between

Internal and External Turret-Moored FLNG

ZHAO Wen-hua (), YANG Jian-min∗ (), HU Zhi-qiang (), WEI Yue-feng ()
(State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

© Shanghai Jiaotong University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Abstract: Motion responses of the floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) hull and the mooring loads in a 100-
year return environmental condition are predicted with the help of the well known coupled dynamic analysis code
DeepC. A ship-shaped turret-moored FLNG moored by 4×3 chain-polyester-chain lines in 1.5 km depth of water
is studied. Two types of turrets such as internal and external turrets, resulting from different locations of the
turrets, are adopted respectively in the numerical simulations. Motion responses of the FLNG hull and forces of
the mooring lines obtained from the internal turret case and external turret case are compared with each other.
Significant differences are obtained. Statistic analysis is also used to analyze the comparison results, and effects
of the turret location on the FLNG hydrodynamic characteristics are summed up. The conclusion regarding the
hydrodynamic differences between internal and external turret-moored FLNG systems would provide help for
design of the FLNG system.
Key words: turret-moored floating liquified natural gas (FLNG), hydrodynamics, numerical simulation, statistic
analysis
CLC number: P 751 Document code: A

0 Introduction
Floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) is a new type
of liquified natural gas (LNG) platform which is a
ship-typed floating production storage and offloading
(FPSO) hull equipped with LNG storage tanks and
liquefaction plants and has been developed as an al-
ternative to long pipelines to onshore LNG liquefac-
tion plant for stranded offshore fields[1-3] . For several
decades, natural gas was merely a byproduct of oil pro-
duction. But owing to its advantages, comparing with
other fossil fuel sources (e.g. oil and coal), the demand
for natural gas is expected to increase sharply in the fu-
ture. This makes exploration of the stranded offshore
gas fields attractive. However, most of the stranded gas
fields locate in the sites with deep water depth and are
remote from the onshore infrastructure or existing off-
shore pipelines. As a result, FLNG — a new type of
offshore unit is proposed, and research on correspond-
ing technology shows promising for the exploitation of
the stranded gas fields[4] .
In deep water area, FLNG is usually located in
the designated in-place position during its service life
through the way of the internal or external turret, al-
Received date: 2010-06-17
Foundation item: the China National Significant Science &
Technology Research Program (No. 2008ZX05026-006)
∗E-mail: jmyang@sjtu.edu.cn
lowing the FLNG hull to be aligned with the right head-
ing angle in which it would experience the minimum
environmental loads. Characteristics of the FLNG sys-
tems such as large deck areas and storage capacity are
key factors in the progress of the oil and gas production
at sea. However, due to their large water line area and
onboard processing facility area, FLNG systems are ex-
posed to severe environmental loads, which may induce
extreme motion responses of the FLNG hull, eventu-
ally causing rupture of the mooring lines. The location
of the turret would significantly influence the hydrody-
namic characteristics of the FLNG system in terms of
the weathervane and mooring force.
Several researchers have studied the dynamic charac-
teristics of the ship-shaped vessel in wind, current and
wave. Wichers[5] , for example, initiated a comprehen-
sive investigation on numerical simulation for a single
point moored tanker in irregular waves combined with
current and wind. In his study, the equation of mo-
tions of such model in the time domain was derived
using an uncoupled method, and rigid body and moor-
ing line dynamics were solved separately. Other re-
searchers have also investigated the behavior and sta-
bility of turret-moored vessel based on a set of sim-
plified ship-maneuvering equations[6-8] . However, few
literature can be found on the hydrodynamic difference
between the internal and external turret-moored FLNG
system.
 J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2011

1 Description of FLNG system 120°

Chain#3
Chain#4
Chain#5
The FLNG hull and the mooring system used in this Chain#6 5° 120°
study are designed by the China National Offshore Oil
Corporation and Marine Design & Research Institute of y
China. The FLNG hull has a length (LOA ) of 392.0 m,
Chain#2
a breadth of 69.0 m and a depth of 35.7 m. It is located 5° Chain#1
in the site with water depth of 1.5 km in the South Turret 0°
FLNG O x Chain#12
China Sea and moored by 12 mooring lines attached to Chain#11
a turret. More details about the system are summarized
in Table 1.

Chain#7 5°
Table 1 Principal scantlings of the FLNG Chain#8
Chain#9 Chain#10
Designation Value
240°
Length between perpendiculars (LPP )/m 356.00 (a) Internal system
Draft of full load/m 15.13 120°
Chain#3
Displacement/t 352 421 Chain#4
Chain#5
Radius of roll gyration/m 25
Chain#6 5° 120°
Radius of pitch gyration/m 94
Radius of yaw gyration/m 95 y
Internal turret position from 305
afterward perpendicular/m Chain#2
5° Chain#1
External turret position from Turret 0°
385 FLNG O x Chain#12
afterward perpendicular/m Chain#11

The mooring system configuration consists of a turret

Chain#7
which allows the FLNG hull to rotate around it freely Chain#8 5°Chain#10
and 12 mooring lines with the length of 6.1 km each and Chain#9
240°
4×3 bundles layout in the sea. Three bundles are evenly (b) External system
spread (120◦ ) in a circle, and each separation angle of
Fig. 1 Turret-moored FLNG system configuration
adjacent lines in the same bundle is 5◦ . Each line has
three segments, i.e., chain-polyester-chain. More details
regarding the mooring configuration are presented in
Table 2. Plan view of the FLNG system layout is shown 2 Description of Environmental Data
in Fig. 1.
For numerical simulations, the 100-year return sea
Table 2 Mooring line configuration condition for the South China Sea is adopted in the
Submerged Axial
study. The wave condition is given by JONSWAP
Length/ Diameter/ (the Joint North Sea Wave Project) spectrum with
Designation weight/ stiffness/
km mm
(N·m−1 ) (MN·m−1 )
a significant wave height of 15.0 m, a peak period of
15.1 s and a peak enhancement factor of 3.0. To simu-
Chain 1 0.1 127 2 753.31 1 214.733 late wind load, the NPD (Norwegian Petroleum Direc-
Polyester 4.0 233 77.42 479.000 torate) wind spectrum is adopted. The mean wind ve-
Chain 2 2.0 127 2 753.31 1 214.733 locity at the reference height of 10 m for 1 h is 39.0 m/s.
The current velocity near free surface is 2.0 m/s. For
the surface region of water depth from 0 to 50 m, the
In order to investigate the hydrodynamic differ- current profile is constant as 2.0 m/s. For the region
ences between the internal and external turret-moored of water depth between 50 to 150 m, the current profile
FLNG system, the turrets are located in the position varies linearly from 2.0 to 0 m/s. For the rest region of
(known as internal turret) 305 m away from the after- the sea, it is considered that there is no current.
ward perpendicular and the position (known as external Directions of the wave, current and wind are 180◦ ,
turret) 385 m away from the afterward perpendicular 210◦ and 150◦ respectively. Configuration of the envi-
respectively. ronmental directions is illustrated in Fig. 2.
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2011
210°
Current
Wave
180°
Wind
150°
Fig. 2 Configuration of the environmental directions
3 Numerical Modeling
3.1 Generation of Finite Element Model
An FLNG is chosen as the object vessel, and 3D hy-
dro models of the internal and external turret-moored
FLNG are generated. The hydrodynamic analysis is
conducted by the code Sesam. In order to investigate
the hydrodynamic difference between the internal and
external turret-moored FLNG systems, two hydro mod-
els are kept the same in ship type and wet surface. The
only difference between two hydro models lies on the
location of the turret, as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 Hydro models of turret-moored FLNG hull
3.2 Frequency-Domain Analysis
Wave loading analysis is conducted within the
frequency-domain program WADAM (wave analysis by
diffraction and morison theory). Added mass, radiation
damping, and response amplitude operators (RAOs)
for first-order wave forces and second-order mean drift
forces are obtained through frequency domain analysis
for the FLNG hull. In addition to the potential damp-
ing, viscous roll damping of the FLNG hull is accounted
for by means of critical damping matrix in the numer-
ical simulation which is illustrated as[9]

∗
C44 (ω) = 2γ [mg44 + ma44 (ω)]K44 , (1)
∗
where C44 is the viscous roll damping, ω is the roll
frequency, γ is the damping ratio of the system damp-
ing divided by critical damping, mg44 is the generalized
mass for the ship hull in roll motion, ma44 is the added
mass in roll motion, and K44 is the hydrostatic restor-
ing stiffness in roll motion. In this study, γ is selected
as 0.03.
Equation of the rigid body motions in six-degree of
freedom can be set up:
[mg + ma (ω)]ξ̈ + C(ω)ξ̇ + Kξ = F (ω), (2)
where mg is the generalized mass matrix for the ship
hull, ma (ω) is the added mass matrix, C(ω) is wave
damping matrix, K is the hydrostatic restoring stiffness
matrix, F (ω) is the external force vector due to wave, ξ
is the displacement vector of the vessel, and dots denote
time t-derivative. As expressed by Ref. [10], for ships
with lateral symmetry it follows that the added mass
(or damping) coefficient is
⎡ ⎤
x11 0 x13 0 x15 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 x22 0 x24 0 x26 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢x 0 x33 0 x35 0 ⎥
⎢ 31 ⎥
X=⎢ ⎥, (3)
⎢ 0 x42 0 x44 0 x46 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣x51 0 x53 0 x55 0 ⎦
0 x62 0 x64 0 x66
where, X = ma , C; x = ma , C.
In the frequency-domain analysis, the response am-
plitude operator O(ω) can be expressed as
O(ω) = {−ω 2 [mg + ma (ω)] − iωC(ω) + K}−1 . (4)
From the WADAM output, the water-plane area,
the displacement volume, the center of buoyancy and
the restoring coefficients are obtained. Based on these
data, the vertical static equilibrium of the FLNG can
be checked. The hydrodynamic coefficients and wave
forces are calculated for various heading angles with
15◦ interval, and the intermediated values for other an-
gles are interpolated. The data are then tabulated as
inputs in the time-domain analysis.
3.3 Time-Domain Analysis
In the time-domain analysis, retardation functions
are calculated from the added mass and damping coef-
ficients by the coupled analysis program DeepC. The
coupled model of the FLNG hull and corresponding
mooring lines is illustrated in Fig. 4. Vessel fairleads are
adopted for connecting the slender structure (shown as

slave node) to the vessel (shown as master node) dur-
ing the coupled analysis. The motion equation of time-
domain coupling analysis for FLNG hull is described
as[5,11-12]
t be obtained through Eq. (5). Furthermore, the loads
[mg + ma (∞)]ξ̈ + h(t − τ )ξ̇dt + Kξ =
−∞
F wave + F current + F wind + F ext ,
where F wave denotes the wave drag force, F current de-
notes the current drag force, F wind denotes the wind
drag force, F ext represents any other forces (specified
forces and forces from station-keeping and coupling el-
ements, etc), τ denotes the transient time interval,
ma (∞) denote the added mass matrix at the infinite
frequency, and h(t) denotes the retardation function
matrix that means the influence of the memory effect
in the free-surface. The retardation function matrix can
be obtained by
2 ∞
h(t) = C(ω) cos(ωt)dω. (6)
π 0
zG
Support vessel
zV
Master node
Vessel node
OV xV OG
Beam element Slave node
Bar of beam elements
Fig. 4 Coupled model of the FLNG hull and mooring lines
It should be noted that the viscous roll damping is
t Vessel
also included in the item of ˙ in the form
h(t−τ )ξdt
−∞
of critical damping, because the viscous roll damping is
related to the motion velocity of the vessel.
For the numerical modeling of mooring lines, an ex-
tension of the theory developed for slender rods by
Garrett[13] is used. With the assumption that there
is no torque or twisting moment, a linear momentum
conservation equation with respect to a position vector
r which is a function of arc length s and time t can be
derived as
−(Br  ) + (λr  ) + q = mr̈,
λ = T − Bκ , 2
where B is the bending stiffness, primes denote spa-
tial s-derivative, m is the mass per unit length, q is
the distributed force on the rod per unit length, T is
the local effective tension, and κ is the local curvature.
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2011
The scalar variable λ can be regarded as a Lagrange
multiplier. The position vector r refers to the motion
response of the vessel where the turret is located. The
motion response of the target position on the vessel can
acting on the mooring lines can be obtained through
the integral calculation for the distributed force q. The
(5) calculated mooring loads would be performed as the in-
put of Eq. (5) for the calculation of the motion response
of the FLNG vessel.
In the calculation of the formulae, the rod is assumed
to be elastic and extensible. The step by step numeri-
cal integration of the dynamic equilibrium equations is
based on the well known Newmark β-family including
the Wilson θ-method considering a constant time step
throughout the analysis. Both methods can be applied
for nonlinear as well as linearized analysis[14] .
4 Results and Discussion
Based on the theories mentioned above, both hy-
drodynamic analyses of the FLNG hull in frequency-
domain and coupled analyses of the FLNG hull and the
corresponding mooring lines in time-domain are carried
out. In the numerical simulation, an FLNG in the bal-
last loading condition with the mean draft of 13.24 m
is selected as the target course. In the light of the full
agreement of the hydrodynamic performances of FLNG
vessels with the internal and external turrets, only one
xG set of RAOs are performed in this paper. In order to in-
vestigate the hydrodynamic differences between the in-
ternal and external turret-moored FLNG systems, both
of the two cases are carried out. Comparisons are also
made between results from the internal turret-moored
FLNG systems and those of the external turret-moored
FLNG systems.
4.1 Frequency-Domain Analysis on FLNG
Frequency-domain analysis for the FLNG vessel with
internal and external turret is carried out. Due to the
fact that there is no difference in the inertia parameters
and the shape of the submerged body, hydrodynamic
performances of the FLNG vessels with internal and
external turret keep the same. The RAOs for surge
and pitch motions are calculated in the heading sea,
while the RAOs for sway, heave, roll and yaw motions
are calculated in the beam sea.
It can be concluded from Fig. 5 that the surge and
sway motion responses decrease with the wave fre-
(7) quency. The heave motion presents a resonant response
(8) at around 0.5 rad/s. Right before this frequency, the
heave motion tends to 1 m/m for smaller frequencies.
An obvious resonant motion response can be seen in the
motion mode of roll at around 0.4 rad/s. This means roll
motion can be significantly excited at this frequency.
It can also be found that the response of roll motion
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2011

2.0 9 2.0

RAO×103/[(°)·m 1]
_
Surge in heading sea Pitch in heading sea Sway in beam sea

RAO/(m·m 1)
RAO/(m·m 1)

1.5 1.5

_
_

6
1.0 1.0
3
0.5 0.5

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
_ _ _
Frequency/(rad·s 1) Frequency/(rad·s 1) Frequency/(rad·s 1)
1.6
1.4 0.08

RAO×103/[(°)·m 1]
1.2

_
Heave in beam sea Roll in beam sea Yaw in beam sea
RAO/[(°)·m 1]
1.2
RAO/(m·m 1)

0.06
1.0 _
_

0.8
0.04 0.8
0.6
0.4 0.02 0.4
0.2

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
_ _ _
Frequency/(rad·s 1) Frequency/(rad·s 1) Frequency/(rad·s 1)
Fig. 5 RAOs for six-degree of freedom motions

is one order of magnitude larger than that of the pitch
motion, which indicates the roll motion should be put
more concern on.
4.2 Effects of Turret Location
Motion of FLNG Hull
Through the numerical simulation, motion responses
of the six-degree of freedom for the FLNG hull are ob-
tained, as shown in Fig. 6, for the two turret cases.
Statistic analyses carried out on the motion responses
are listed in Table 3, together with the comparison of
the results between the internal and external turret-
moored FLNG systems.
From results of the statistic comparison shown in
Table 3, it is indicated that locations of the turret can
influence the motion responses of the FLNG hull signif-
icantly. Different degrees of freedom motions would be
affected by the locations of the turret in different lev-
els. In addition, the trends of the effects due to different
locations of the turret are also different in different de-
grees of freedom motions.
Surge and sway motion responses of the FLNG hull
become larger when the location of turret is changed
on Vessel from the position (known as internal turret) 305 m
away from the afterward perpendicular to the position
(known as external turret) 385 m away from the after-
ward perpendicular. However, roll and yaw motion re-
sponses of the FLNG hull become smaller when the
location of turret is changed from the position (known
as internal turret) 305 m away from the afterward per-
pendicular to the position (known as external turret)
385 m away from the afterward perpendicular. The roll
motion response of the FLNG hull can also be affected
significantly in mean value. However, the extreme val-
ues such as maximum and minimum keep the same in
the two cases. In addition, the roll motion response
performs a positive correlation to the yaw motion re-
sponse, which is worth further studying.

Table 3 Statistic comparison of the six-degree of freedom motion responses

Motion response
Turret
Surge/m Sway/m Heave/m Roll/(◦ ) Pitch/(◦ ) Yaw/(◦ )

Mean Internal −12.855 −0.744 −0.061 0.197 0.042 −2.041

External −13.847 −1.390 −0.066 0.084 0.076 −0.921
Standard deviation Internal 2.300 0.960 0.762 0.926 0.976 0.301
External 2.143 1.142 0.756 0.900 0.967 0.297
Minimum Internal −20.616 −3.608 −2.968 −2.827 −3.165 −2.817
External −20.003 −4.801 −2.957 −2.891 −3.078 −1.630
Maximum Internal −4.474 1.800 2.708 3.538 3.317 2.708
External −7.675 1.574 2.661 3.472 3.275 −0.069
 J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2011

Fig. 6 Motion time series of the turret-moored FLNG hull

Heave and pitch motion responses of the FLNG hull

keep almost the same in both the internal and external
turret-moored cases, and responses of the two motion
modes are in much lower level than other motion modes
be. This illustrates that the locations of turret have
little relationships with the heave and pitch motions of
FLNG. The minute difference may be attributed to the
cross coupled effects of other degree of freedom motions
(see Eq. (3)).
It can also be concluded from Table 3 that the yaw
motion response can be affected most significantly by
the location of turret in view of mean value, minimum Fig. 7 Time history of the yaw motion
value and maximum value. To provide a direct perfor-
mance, the time histories of the yaw motion obtained
from both the internal and external turret-moored tion. Statistic analysis results of this degree of freedom
FLNG systems are also plotted in Fig. 7. The average motion are plotted in the form of a column diagram as
yaw motion response of the turret-moored FLNG hull shown in Fig. 8. The yaw motion of the vessel should be
decreases approximate 55% when the turret location specifically highlighted as this can cause large increases
changes from the internal position to the external posi- in horizontal drift loading and has implications for
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2011

3 the mooring lines which experience the largest tension

Internal
Yaw deviation/(°) 2 External forces are selected as the target case. Statistic analysis
for forces of the mooring lines is carried out. Compari-
1
son between the results obtained from the internal and
0 external turret-moored FLNG system is summed up in
_ Table 4. In order to provide a direct performance, a
1
_ column diagram with each line in a bundle is plotted in
2
Fig. 9.
_
3
Mean Standard Minimum Maximum
250 Internal
Fig. 8 Comparison of the statistic results for the yaw External

Line force standard

motion 200

deviation/kN
150
green water on deck, off-loading and production down-
time. The principles concluded here is in good agree- 100
ment with that of Ref. [15]. 50
4.3 Effects of Turret Location on Mooring Line
Forces 0
Line 1 Line 2 Line 11 Line 12
There are 4×3 mooring lines to provide the neces-
Fig. 9 Comparison of standard deviation for the four
sary forces for station-keeping. In this study, a set of mooring lines

Table 4 Comparison of the mooring line forces

Line Turret Mean/ Standard Minimum/ Maximum/

number MN deviation/kN MN MN

Line1 Internal 8.834 103.616 8.449 9.157

External 9.024 214.766 8.164 9.829
Line2 Internal 8.842 104.392 8.449 9.170
External 9.030 213.352 8.176 9.829
Line11 Internal 8.813 101.970 8.431 9.135
External 9.001 217.964 8.137 9.832
Line12 Internal 8.825 102.848 8.442 9.147
External 9.016 216.304 8.151 9.831

The mooring lines experience larger tension forces
in the external turret-moored FLNG system than in
the internal turret-moored FLNG system. The stan-
dard deviation in the external turret-moored FLNG
system is generally larger than that of the internal
turret-moored FLNG system. The variable ranges of
the mooring line forces in the external turret-moored
FLNG system are larger than those of the internal
turret-moored FLNG system. The larger mooring line
forces and standard deviations represent a weaker per-
formance of weather vane in the external turret-moored
FLNG system.
5 Conclusion
In the present investigation, the global motion re-
sponses and mooring line dynamics of a deepwater
turret-moored FLNG in non-parallel 100-year return
sea condition are numerically simulated and the nu-
merical results from the internal and external turret-
moored FLNG are compared with each other. To take
account of the viscous roll damping effect, 3% of the
critical damping is chosen as the viscous roll damp-
ing. Based on the numerical modeling, the six-degree
of freedom motion responses of the FLNG hull and the
corresponding mooring line forces are obtained. Statis-
tic analyses are carried out regarding the time histories
of the motion responses and mooring line forces.
(1) Locations of the turret play a very important roll
in the motion response of the FLNG hull and the moor-
ing line forces.
(2) Locations of the turret influence the motion re-
sponse of the FLNG hull with different levels in different
degrees of freedom motions. Yaw motion can be influ-
enced mostly regarding to other degrees of freedom mo-
tions. Heave and pitch motions are hardly influenced by
the location of turret. Surge and sway motion responses
perform the same trend to the locations of turret. Roll
motion response shows a positive correlation to the yaw
motion response.

(3) The internal turret-moored configuration per-
forms better weather vane ability than the external case
does.
References
[1] Kim J W, Jim O S, Atle S, et al. Global perfor-
mance and sloshing analysis of a new deep-draft semi-
submersible LNG FPSO [C]// Proc 27th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engi-
neering. Estoril, Portugal: ASME, 2008: 881-889.
[2] Mravak Z, Lauzon J D, Chung Y S, et al. Strength
assessment of membrane LNG tank structure based
on direct calculation of structural response [C]// Proc
28th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering. Hawaii, USA: ASME, 2009:
767-774.
[3] Graczyk M, Moan T. Structural response to sloshing
excitation in membrane LNG tank [J]. Journal of Off-
shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2011, 133(2):
103-111.
[4] White J, Longley H. FLNG technology shows
promise for stranded gas fields [J]. Offshore, 2009,
69(11): 78-79.
[5] Wichers J E W. A simulation model for a single point
moored tanker [D]. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft Uni-
versity of Technology, 1988.
[6] Sphaier S H, Fernandes A C, Correa S H. Ma-
neuvering model for the FPSO horizontal plane behav-
ior [C]// Proc 20th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference. Seattle, USA: ISOPE, 2000:
334-337.
[7] Lee D H, Choi H S. A dynamic analysis of FPSO-
shuttle tanker system [C]// Proc 20th International
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2011
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Seattle,
USA: ISOPE, 2000: 302-307.
[8] Munipalli J, Pistani F, Thiagarajan K P, et
al. Weathervaning instabilities of a FPSO in regular
waves and consequence on response amplitude opera-
tors [C]// Proc 26th International Conference on Off-
shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. San Diego,
USA: ASME, 2007: 405-412.
[9] Lee S J. The effects of LNG-sloshing on the global re-
sponses of LNG-carriers [D]. Texas, USA: Texax A&M
University, 2008.
[10] Salvesen N, Tuck E O, Faltinsen O M. Ship mo-
tions and sea loads [J]. Transcations of the Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1970, 78, 250-
287.
[11] Luo Y, Baudic S. Predicting FPSO response using
model test and numerical analysis [C]// Proc 13th In-
ternational Offshore and Polar Engineering Confer-
ence. Hawaii, USA: ISOPE, 2003: 167-174.
[12] Moriskita H M, Junior J R D S. Dynamic behav-
ior of a DICAS FPSO and shuttle vessel under the ac-
tion of wind, current and waves [C]// Proc 12nd Inter-
national Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
Kitakyushu, Japan: ISOPE, 2002: 142-150.
[13] Garrett D L. Dynamic analysis of slender rods [J].
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 1982, 104(4),
302-307.
[14] Riarald O, Elizabeth P. Riflex theory manual [R].
Tronheim, Norway: Det Norske Veritas, 2005.
[15] Kannah T R, Natarajan R. Effect of turret location
on the dynamic behaviour of an internal turret moored
FPSO system [J]. Journal of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering, 2006, 3(1): 23-37.