See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267606569

Asymmetric FPSO Roll Response due to the Influence of Lines Arrangement

Conference Paper · July 2012

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2012-83097

CITATIONS READS

8 530

4 authors, including:

Marcos Donato Ferreira Mauro Oliveira

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.
24 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sergio Hamilton Sphaier

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
92 PUBLICATIONS   524 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AUV model-based control for near free surface operation View project

Estabilidade de navios View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mauro Oliveira on 22 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
ASYMMETRIC FPSO ROLL RESPONSE DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF LINES
ARRANGEMENT
Marcos Donato Ferreira
CENPES/PDEP/TEO,
Petrobras Research Center,
RJ 21941-915, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
Email: marcos.donato@petrobras.com.br
Rafaella Cristina Carvalho
E&P-ENGP/IPP/EN,
Petrobras Exploration & Production,
RJ 20031-170, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
Email: rafaella.carvalho@petrobras.com.br
ABSTRACT
In the development of the mooring design of FPSOs in
spread mooring system (SMS) configuration, it was observed that
the utilization of asymmetric riser arrangement in deep waters
might lead to an asymmetrical roll response of the FPSO. In
particular, concentrating all riser connections on the portside,
it could be observed that roll and heave coupling under the in-
fluence of the riser dynamics might lead to a much lower roll re-
sponse associated with waves coming from portside than from the
starboard direction. Simulations were carried using an in-house
time domain simulator, where the ship hydrodynamic behavior
was represented through the use of impulse response functions
and the lines dynamic through the use of non-linear finite ele-
ment method, using an explicit integration scheme and a lumped
mass approach. Non-linear viscous effects could be easily asso-
ciated to the ship and line velocities. Measured motion responses
of an actual FPSO in operation in Campos Basin are compared
with the computations.
1 Copyright
Engineering
OMAE 2012
June 10-15, 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
OMAE2012-83097
Mauro Costa de Oliveira
CENPES/PDEP/TEO,
Petrobras Research Center,
RJ 21941-915, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
Email: mauro@petrobras.com.br
Sergio Hamilton Sphaier
Department of Naval and Ocean Engineering,
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
P.O.Box 68506,
RJ 21945-970, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
Email: sphaier@peno.coppe.ufrj.br
INTRODUCTION
During the last 30 years there was a steady increase in the
oil activities in offshore Brazil. Technological improvements re-
garding the available materials to be used for the mooring lines
allowed the mooring of production units in water depths close to
3000m, using either a Turret or a Spread Mooring configuration.
One major technological breakthrough was the use of composite
materials as mooring lines segments, lowering the total weight
of the lines to avoid spending most of their resistance supporting
only their own weight. Another important contribution was the
development of new materials on the configuration of flexible ris-
ers layers, able to operate at larger water depths, though we still
0 The fourth author wishes to express his satisfaction in participating as co-
author of a paper presented at the Symposium in honor of Ron Yeung and to have
been invited by the organizers of OMAE 2012 to co-coordinate the Symposium.
It is with great pleasure that he remembers the period from 1987 to 1991 when he
was at Berkeley and had the opportunity to develop joint research projects with
Ron Yeung and since then to maintain a strong friendship with him.
c 2012 by ASME
have to live with strong restrictions on the FPSO excursions on
the plane (due to the action of wind, currents and low frequency
wave effects), and also on the oscillatory FPSO motions due to
the first order wave action.
Recently, there has been some discussion about the consider-
ation of mooring lines and risers during the motion computation
of FPSOs, mainly due to the additional damping effect that this
structures may provide. The conclusion is that there is no defi-
nite rule, and for each case the designer will have to check these
contributions. The longer the lines and the larger the pre-tension
applied on them, the impact on the overall ship motion will tend
to increase. It is easy to notice that this situation will happen nat-
urally as we design the mooring system at deeper water depths.
For the given design aspects that we are going to discuss in
this article, the water depth is 2200m just below the FPSO unit
location (it may vary up to some dozens of meters at each anchor
location or riser touch down point, depending on the floor incli-
nation). Another characteristic of the Production Units operating
in Offshore Brazil is the use of flexible risers, in general up to
three connected to each wet well head, leading to the possibility FIGURE 1. SYSTEM OF COORDINATES USED THROUGHOUT
of having more than sixty risers attached to each FPSO. For FP- THIS ARTICLE.
SOs anchored using a spread mooring system (SMS) approach,
the risers are connected to a balcony on the side of the hull (and
only one of the sides, in order to leave the other side for cargo plane. Xlocal is positive to bow, Ylocal to portside and Zlocal up-
wards, as we can see in Fig. 2. Line numbers and azimuths are
handling and the approximation of supply vessels). This leads to
clockwise oriented from bow and North, respectively.
an asymmetrical roll response of the FPSO to beam waves com-
ing from each board, which we will discuss on the next sections.
Mooring System configuration and properties
In the mooring system design, carried according to [1] a total
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION of 24 lines were used. Each mooring line consists of a mix of
In this section we are going to describe the coordinate sys- studless chain (R4 and R3S) and polyester ropes. The fairlead
tem, the analyzed vessel main characteristics, as well as its moor- positions are described in Table 2, together with the azimuth of
ing system and attached risers. each mooring line departing from the respective fairlead.
The axial stiffness of the polyester rope was assumed
as 183000 kN (1̃5 times mean break strength (MBS)) in or-
The coordinate system der to perform the static analysis (mean offset) and equal to
Our coordinate system will be defined as shown in Fig. 1, 0.25Tmean + 19 to perform the dynamic analysis, where Tmean
which can also be described by: is the mean tension in percentage of MBS and the unit of the re-
sult of the expression for axial stiffness is to be multiplied by the
X: Origin at Midship; Positive Forward, Negative Aft.
MBS.
Y: Origin at Centerline; Positive Portside, Negative Star-
The pretension of each line, the fairlead-seabed chain emer-
board.
gence distance, and the vertical load at the equilibrium position
Z: Origin at Baseline; Positive Upward, Negative Down-
without environmental loads are given in Table 3.
ward.

other system of coordinates may be used throughout the text,

but their definition will be explained for each situation.

FPSO main particulars

The main particulars of the FPSO are given in Table 1. The
origin of the local axes is defined on the intersection of the amid-
ships section and the longitudinal central plane, at vessel keel

2 Copyright
c 2012 by ASME
 TABLE 2. MOORING SYSTEM FAIRLEADS LOCATION.

Line n XLocal YLocal ZLocal Angle w.r.t. XLocal Axis

(m) (m) (m) (degrees)

L1 138.80 22.65 9.55 46

L2 135.96 23.47 9.55 48
L3 133.12 24.28 9.55 50
L4 130.28 25.10 9.55 52
L5 127.44 25.91 9.55 54
L6 124.94 26.62 9.55 56
L7 -87.93 26.35 9.55 124
L8 -90.78 25.50 9.55 126
L9 -93.62 24.65 9.55 128

FIGURE 2. VIEW OF THE GLOBAL AND LOCAL AXES FROM L10 -96.47 23.80 9.55 130
THE TOP. L11 -99.30 22.94 9.55 132
L12 -102.81 21.90 9.55 134
TABLE 1. MAIN PARTICULARS OF THE FPSO L13 -102.81 -21.90 9.55 226

Length overall (m) 330.00 L14 -99.30 -22.94 9.55 228

Length between perpendiculars (m) 315.50 L15 -96.47 -23.80 9.55 230

Beam (m) 58.00 L16 -93.62 -24.65 9.55 232

Depth (m) 29.70 L17 -90.78 -25.50 9.55 234

Draft (m) 14 L18 -87.93 -26.35 9.55 236

Displacement (tonf) 204221 L19 124.94 -26.62 9.55 304

LCG (m) 174.17 L20 127.44 -25.91 9.55 306

TCG (m) 0 L21 130.28 -25.10 9.55 308

KG (m) 13.83 L22 133.12 -24.28 9.55 310

KG Corrected (m) 15.35 L23 135.96 -23.47 9.55 312

Rxx (m) (wrt CoG) 21.69 L24 138.80 -22.65 9.55 314

Ryy (m) (wrt CoG) 76.16

Rzz (m) (wrt CoG) 76.79

3 Copyright
c 2012 by ASME
TABLE 3. PRE-TENSION APPLIED ON EACH MOORING LINE points in the ship balcony in the local coordinate system, and the
required tension applied on the top of each riser.

Fairled to
FPSO loading condition
Line seabed chain T0 TV TH
The loading condition of the FPSO in the assumed draft of
Number embedment point (kN) (kN) (kN) 14.7m which is an intermediate operational condition that hap-
distance (m) pens very often while the unit loads their tanks with oil and be-
fore the oil offloading operation, will not be listed here describing
L1 2400.00 2199.94 1754.65 1327.00 each tank or compartment load, but defined by its Inertia Matrix.
The Inertia Matrix will be defined with respect to a reference
L2 2400.00 2192.37 1749.20 1321.66 system located over the Local System, with the origin of the ver-
L3 2400.00 2187.23 1745.43 1318.12 tical coordinate located on the mean free surface plane, and by
Equation 1 and its non zero elements are given on Table 6 below.
L4 2400.00 2182.09 1741.67 1314.58
L5 2400.00 2180.55 1740.41 1313.69
 
L6 2400.00 2183.31 1742.15 1315.96 M 0 0 0 M.zg −M.yg
 0 M 0 −M.zg 0 M.xg 
L7 2802.00 2005.61 1555.56 1265.98
 
   0 0 M M.yg −M.xg 0 
Iij = 
  (1)
L8 2802.00 2004.26 1554.45 1265.21  0 −M.zg M.yg Ixx Ixy Ixz 
 M.zg 0 −M.xg Iyx Iyy Iyz 
L9 2802.00 2003.17 1553.51 1264.63 −M.yg M.xg 0 Izx Izy Izz
L10 2802.00 2002.10 1552.58 1264.08
L11 2802.00 2001.02 1551.65 1263.51 where M represents the mass of the ship, (xg , yg, zg ) is the lo-
cation of the center of gravity with respect to the Inertia Matrix
L12 2802.00 1999.35 1550.33 1262.48 reference system, and Iij are defined in terms of the correspond-
L13 2372.00 2103.41 1670.27 1278.49 ing radii of gyration rij , by the relation Iij = M.rij|rij |, with the
coefficients i and j being substituted by x, y and z.
L14 2372.00 2103.65 1670.46 1278.63 The final configuration of the FPSO with the mooring lines
L15 2372.00 2104.09 1670.80 1278.92 and risers attached can be seen in Fig. 3, and from Fig. 4 it is easy
to notice that the attachment point for all the risers are located
L16 2372.00 2104.31 1670.98 1279.04 on the portside of the ship, and therefore vertical displacements
L17 2372.00 2103.60 1670.52 1278.47 of the FPSO will induce not only an opposite force but also a
moment will be applied on the ship hull.
L18 2372.00 2102.55 1669.83 1277.64
L19 2660.00 1966.62 1534.37 1230.16
L20 2660.00 1973.38 1539.03 1235.16
L21 2660.00 1974.11 1539.58 1235.64
L22 2660.00 1974.87 1540.15 1236.15
L23 2660.00 1975.63 1540.71 1236.67
L24 2660.00 1976.39 1541.26 1237.19

Risers configuration and properties FIGURE 3. OVERVIEW OF THE FPSO WITH THE MOOR-
The main characteristics of the risers are presented in Table 4 ING LINES AND FLEXIBLE RISERS ATTACHED. THIS IS THE
and Table 5, including the azimuth of each riser, their connection GRAPHICAL INTERFACE OF THE DYNASIM SOFTWARE.

4 Copyright
c 2012 by ASME
TABLE 4. RISERS CONNECTION POINTS IN THE LOCAL SYS- TABLE 5. RISERS CONNECTION POINTS IN THE LOCAL SYS-
TEM AND PRE=TENSION (PART A) TEM AND PRE=TENSION (PART B)

Local Local
Riser Axis Local Local Local Top Riser Axis Local Local Local Top
Number Angle Axis X Axis Y Axis Z Tension Number Angle Axis X Axis Y Axis Z Tension
(deg) (m) (m) (m) (KN) (deg) (m) (m) (m) (KN)

R1 300.8 102.19 31.5 2.3 610.22 R28 258.9 11.23 31.5 2.3 609.90
R2 297.8 99.37 31.5 2.3 1849.75 R29 101.5 7.84 31.5 2.3 612.05
R3 60.6 93.72 32 15 1682.56 R30 256 5.01 31.5 2.3 1143.86
R4 294.8 88.07 31.5 2.3 1649.94 R31 104.5 2.19 32 15 1667.09
R5 62.8 85.24 31.5 2.3 1157.40 R32 253.1 -3.47 31.5 2.3 1651.74
R6 291.8 82.42 31.5 2.3 610.11 R33 107.5 -6.29 31.5 2.3 1794.63
R7 64.6 79.59 31.5 2.3 616.87 R34 250.3 -9.12 31.5 2.3 609.61
R8 288.7 76.77 31.5 2.3 2346.76 R35 110.2 -11.94 31.5 2.3 611.09
R9 68.6 71.12 32 15 1679.40 R36 247 -14.77 31.5 2.3 1143.19
R10 288.3 68.29 31.5 2.3 1790.88 R37 113.4 -20.42 32 15 2363.94
R11 74.6 65.47 31.5 2.3 614.76 R38 244 -26.07 31.5 2.3 1650.64
R12 283 62.64 31.5 2.3 609.99 R39 116.5 -28.89 31.5 2.3 1145.86
R13 77.7 59.82 31.5 2.3 1801.76 R40 241.2 -31.72 31.5 2.3 609.19
R14 279.9 56.99 31.5 2.3 609.96 R41 119.4 -34.54 31.5 2.3 611.03
R15 80.7 54.17 31.5 2.3 1149.03 R42 238.2 -37.37 31.5 2.3 1142.42
R16 276.9 51.34 31.5 2.3 4091.81 R43 122.3 -43.02 32 15 1665.49
R17 83.6 48.52 31.5 2.3 611.83
R18 274.1 45.69 31.5 2.3 1790.34
R19 86.8 40.04 32 15 2366.32
R20 270.9 37.22 31.5 2.3 609.87
R21 89.5 34.39 31.5 2.3 1147.92
R22 267.9 31.57 31.5 2.3 1790.26
R23 92.7 28.74 31.5 2.3 612.24
R24 264.9 25.92 31.5 2.3 609.89
R25 95.5 23.09 32 15 1668.49
R26 262.1 17.44 31.5 2.3 1652.34
R27 98.5 14.62 31.5 2.3 1148.31

FIGURE 4. DETAILED VIEW OF THE ATTACHEMENT POINTS

5 OF THE RISERS ON THE FPSO. Copyright
c 2012 by ASME
 TABLE 6. INERTIA MATRIX TERMS

Item Value Unit

M 268159.7 t
Ixx 112368176.0 t.m2
Iyy 1675104090.5 t.m2
Izz 1702868894.1 t.m2
Ixy -1409074.4 t.m2
Ixz -24355234.3 t.m2
Iyz 2733189.3 t.m2
M.xg 3851020.6 t.m
M.yg 41.7 t.m
M.zg -430627.7 t.m FIGURE 5. MESH USED FOR THE FPSO MODEL REPRE-
SENTED AS LOW ORDER PANELS. 1490 ELEMENTS WERE
USED TO REPRESENT ONE HALF OF THE HULL, USING SYM-
METRY WITH RESPECT TO THE Y=0 PLANE.
FREQUENCY DOMAIN FPSO MOTION COMPUTATION
Hydrodynamic analysis
A frequency domain linear analysis was first conducted for
the computation of the RAO of the ship in the free floating con-  
dition, meaning that the influence of the riser or mooring system 00 0 0 00
would not be accounted for. The purpose of this analysis was 0 0
 0 0 0 0

two-fold:   0 0 0 0 0 0
Bi j = 
0 0
 (2)
0 B440 0 0
1. Provide information (diffraction and radiation potentials) for 
0 0 0 0

0 0
the computation of Impulse Response Functions (IRF) for 00 0 0 00
posterior time domain simulations with a code known as DY-
NASIM/TPN.
2. Compute first order linear motions using linearized roll where B440 is the additional linearized external roll damping
damping coefficients in order to stand as a reference for value, meaning that it is added to the potential damping of the
comparisons with roll amplitudes computed by non-linear unit, and in this analysis it could not represent the riser reaction,
time domain simulations. which would be asymmetrical.
As an example, we show in Fig. 6 below, the analysis us-
The panel code Wamit [2] was used for the computation of ing a linearized roll damping B440 equal to 5.0 × 106 KN.s/rad,
the linear ship motions, exciting forces and hydrodynamic coef- representing 6.92% of the roll critical damping.
ficients. The FPSO was represented by the mesh shown in Fig. 5, We can see in Table 7 how the peak roll amplitude varied
and the considered water depth for the simulations was 2200m. with the amount of external damping considered for our FPSO,
as a percentage of the critical roll damping. In general during the
mooring and riser design, the computation of FPSO roll motions
Uncoupled ship motion responses
considers the damping effects only through the coefficient B440 .
For the analysis of FPSO roll motions the viscous damping
coming from the hull, bilge keel and lines (including mooring
lines and risers) are usually important to be considered, as the Asymmetric risers influence
damping that comes from the radiated waves is in general small As the ship has all risers connected to portside, a vertical
(less than 2% of the critical roll damping). This external damping velocity of the hull on the positive z (vertical) direction would
can be included in the Wamit computation through the use of generate a damping reaction force from the risers to the hull on
an external roll damping matrix, which has to be linearized. In the −z sense, and also an applied damping moment on the −x
general this external damping matrix will look like: direction. Noticing that the distance between the ship centerline

6 Copyright
c 2012 by ASME
 TABLE 7. ROLL PEAK RESPONSE AS A FUNCTION OF EX-
TERNAL ROLL DAMPING CONSIDERED (PEAK PERIOD EQUAL
TO 15S.)

External Roll Peak Roll

Damping as Percentage Amplitude Response
of the Critical Damping (Degrees)

4% 8.68
6% 5.32
8% 3.79
10% 3.06
12% 2.44
14% 2.07

FIGURE 6. ROLL RESPONSE IN REGULAR WAVES, FRE-

QUENCY DOMAIN, USING AN EXTERNAL DAMPING B440 TO and B43 the heave and roll motions will be coupled through the
REPRESENT VISCOUS DAMPING CONTRIBUTIONS. THE ROLL external damping matrix.
RESPONSE IS SYMMETRICAL, SO RESPONSES FROM BEAM Using the roll linearized damping B440 (as defined in equa-
WAVES COMING FROM 90DEGREES (STARBOARD SIDE) OR tion 2), equal to 3.7 × 106 , which means 5.12% of the criti-
270 DEGREES (PORTSIDE) ARE EQUIVALENT. cal roll damping. The coefficient B33 was assumed equal to
1.4 × B440 /(b/2)2 , and the coefficients B34 = B43 and B44,
and the risers location is given by b/2, where b would represent were computed following equation 4. The obtained results are
the ship beam, we would have the damping matrix given by: presented in Fig. 7 below. As the values assumed are within the
range of the real theoretical damping that would act on the ris-
ers, it can be noticed that the asymmetric behavior of the FPSO

00 0 0 00
 roll motion response is indeed captured by the frequency domain
0 0 0 0 0 0 representation with few adjustments [3].

  0 0 B33 B34

0 0 Another interesting point to highlight on linear ship motions
Bi j = 
0 0 B43 B44
 (3) theory is that though the heave and roll motions have a zero mean
0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 and oscillate symmetrically about this zero mean, the motion
00 0 0 00 of points located symmetrically about the centerline will not be
equal. This can be easily seen in Fig. 8 below, where we repre-
sented three sections of a ship: the first section, solidary to the
where B33 will be the vertical damping force due to the risers (XYZ) system, is on its mean position; the second section, sol-
reaction, and: idary to the (xyz) system, only performs the heave motion; and
the third section, solidary to the (x’y’z’) system, heaves and rolls.
We can see that the vertical displacement of a point located at the
b starboard side bilge keel can be much larger than of a point lo-
B34 = B43 = B33 (4)
2 cated symmetrically at portside. This reflects the phase between
the heave and roll motions. In Fig. 8, this would represent the
and phase of a wave approaching with an angle of 90 degrees in the
local ship system.
b2 To further emphasize the consequence of this behavior, we
B44 = B33 + B440 (5)
4 showed in Fig. 9 two plots: one representing the FPSO heave
and roll RAO, and the second presenting the computed vertical
it is easy to notice that with the inclusion of the coefficients B34 motion of two points, one located at the portside bilge keel and

7 Copyright
c 2012 by ASME
 FIGURE 8. DETAIL OF THE JOINT MOTION OF THE HEAVE
AND ROLL DEGREES OF FREEDOM AND HOW THEY WILL IN
GENERAL LEAD TO DIFFERENT VERTICAL DISPLACEMENTS
OF SYMMETRICAL POINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANE
FIGURE 7. ROLL RESPONSE IN REGULAR WAVES, FRE- Y=0.
QUENCY DOMAIN. THE COEFFICIENTS B34 AND B43 WERE
CONSIDERED REPRESENTING THE COUPLING BETWEEN
ROLL AND HEAVE DISPLACEMENTS, AND RESPONSES FROM
BEAM WAVES COMING FROM 90 DEGREES (STARBOARD
SIDE) AND 270 DEGREES (PORTSIDE) ARE CLEARLY DIS-
TINCT.

the other at the starboard bilge keel. The wave approaches the
FPSO with a heading of 270 degrees in the local system, and
we can see that in the region where the roll is resonant, it will
induce the portside point to a larger displacement (up to almost
4m amplitude) while the starboard point will only have vertical
motion amplitudes of less than 1m.
As a consequence of this behavior, when the wave ap-
proaches from the portside region where the risers are connected,
progressing with a local angle of 270 degrees, these riser connec-
tion points will have quite large amplitude motions, and there-
fore there will be a much larger damping contribution from the
riser system than when the wave approaches from 90 degrees,
when the vertical motions on the portside region will be rela-
tively small.
FIGURE 9. (A) REPRESENTING HEAVE AND ROLL RAO MO-
TION OF THE FPSO, AND (B) ILLUSTRATING THE VERTICAL
DISPLACEMENT RAO OF TWO POINTS, ONE LOCATED AT THE
STARBOARD BILGE KEEL AND THE OTHER AT THE PORTSIDE
BILGE KEEL
TIME DOMAIN FPSO MOTION COMPUTATION
Following the approach presented in the previous section,
one difficulty comes from the estimation of the damping con-
tribution coming from the risers action. In order to achieve a
better estimate of both mooring lines and risers damping con-
tributions, a computation of the FPSO motions in order to see

8 Copyright

c 2012 by ASME
the roll amplitude response was carried out in the time domain,
using the simulation program DYNASIM/TPN [4], considering
the FPSO motions being simulated with the complete system of
mooring lines and risers modeled as finite elements, and using
the DOOLINES (FE code) method for the computation of the
mooring lines and risers behavior [5]. In this approach the iner-
tia and damping of the lines are included, representing a coupled
analysis of the ship and lines motions.
Time domain analysis with a regular wave coming from
beam seas (90 and 270degrees incidence in the local system)
were performed, and after some cycles (in general 5 to 9 cycles
were enough) a steady state oscillation was achieved. Then we
could plot a pseudo-RAO where each time domain simulation
would give rise to one point in the roll amplitude versus incident
wave period plot shown in Fig. 10. We used the wave amplitude
as 3.5m and presented the response divided by the amplitude in
order to compare the behavior with a frequency domain RAO,
though aware that this response is highly non-linear to be lin-
earized.
These results show interesting characteristics. For the inci-
dent wave approaching the FPSO with an angle in the local sys-
tem equal to 90degrees, it can be noticed that the response show
a behavior close to the frequency domain linearized damping be-
havior, with one peak at the natural period. On the peak region
we can see that the roll response decays faster in the linear anal-
ysis than in the time domain. This behavior may occur because
when we linearize the damping in the frequency domain we as-
sume the linearized damping at the peak (roll natural period) for
the whole frequency range, supposing that when we depart from
the peak at the natural period, the response will be less sensitive
to the damping and the error will be small. This is an approx-
imation, and as the exciting wave period departs from the roll
natural period, the lower response may indeed reduce the damp-
ing and make the roll response not to decay as fast as the linear
approximation.
For the incident wave going in the 270degrees direction,
it may be noticed that the response behavior changed dramati-
cally. We may see from the Fig.8 that the balcony located on
the portside side hull will have large vertical motions, and there-
fore the risers will produce a stronger reaction on the connec-
tion points and larger moments counteracting the roll and heave
motion combination. We should also notice that at each period
the risers will respond with different structural mode shapes and
proper natural periods, presenting distinct added mass and damp-
ing. One interesting fact is that the shape of the response sug-
gests that the riser system may act as an outside attached body,
performing like a vibration absorber for the FPSO roll motion.
MEASURED FPSO RESPONSE
In Offshore Brazil nowadays Petrobras is conducting a cam-
paign of metocean data acquisition and also measuring the mo-
9 Copyright
FIGURE 10. RESULTS FROM THE TIME DOMAIN SIMU-
LATION OF THE FPSO MOTIONS WITH THE RISERS AT-
TACHED REPRESENTED BY FINITE ELEMENTS. FOR THE
COMPUTATION OF THESE ”RAOs”, EACH POINT WAS COM-
PUTED THROUGH A TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION UNTIL
THE RESPONSE WAS A STEADY OSCILLATION WHICH WAS
ACHIEVED ROUGHLY AFTER 5 UP TO 9 PERIODS OF SIMULA-
TION TIME.
tions at sea of some of their floating units. Though the campaign
started about two years ago, there are still frequent gaps in the
supposedly continuous acquisition, and a carefull research in the
data banks would be required to select measured responses rel-
evant to our study, when the wave incidence was close to our
target (270degrees in the local system, with a reasonable wave
amplitude of at least 1.5m of significant wave height).
Carvalho [6] in her Master Thesis on the calibration of lin-
earized roll damping coefficients, researched these data banks,
and found two occasions when the waves were approaching one
of the instrumented FPSOs, called P-50, and located at a water
depth of 1240m, which is almost half of the water depth that mo-
tivated the present study. The main dimensions of P-50 are close
but not identical to the main dimensions of the unit that motivated
the present study. The favorable sea conditions were:
1. Sea state with Significant Wave Height equal to 2.13m, and
Peak Period equal to 11.91s (07/10/2010)
2. Sea state with Significant Wave Height equal to 2.20m, and
Peak Period equal to 8.98s (07/12/2010)
Figure 11 shows the roll time series response for the first
occasion (July, 10th), together with the computed roll response
spectrum and the wave elevation measured spectrum.
Figure 12 shows the RAOs obtained from the measured roll
motion time series and measured sea conditions, by taking the
ratio between the computed roll response spectrum and the sea
spectrum for the two days, together with the linearized roll re-
sponse (for the P-50) considering an additional linearized damp-
ing equal to 8% of the roll critical damping, displayed only for
reference.
c 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 11. TIME SERIES OF THE P-50 ROLL MOTIONS, THE
ROLL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AND THE SEA SPECTRUM, MEA-
SURED IN JULY, 10, 2010.
FIGURE 12. COMPARISON OF TWO ROLL MEASUREMENTS
(10/07/2010) AND (12/07/2010) AND HOW THEY WOULD COM-
PARE WITH A FREQUENCY DOMAIN COMPUTATION USING
THE B440 DAMPING COEFFICIENT EQUIVALENT TO 8% OF
THE CRITICAL DAMPING.
The measured responses of the P-50 unit support the non-
linear time domain simulation, indicating that there is a strong
coupling between the risers behavior when connected on bal-
conies located at the side of FPSO units and the FPSO motions.
Indeed it is difficult to suppose that this behavior could be mod-
eled only by adding more linearized damping to a simple mass-
spring-damper model. More research is being done in the devel-
opment of a reliable model for this coupling.
10
CONCLUSIONS
From the simulations performed, and the comparison with
measured motions of FPSOs in operation, it can be concluded
that:
1. The asymmetric riser arrangement with respect to the ves-
sel center line can couple the degrees of freedom of roll
and heave and result in different roll responses for incom-
ing waves with incidences of 90 and 270degrees.
2. The roll response for a wave incidence of 270 degrees
(through the side where the risers were connected) is sub-
stantially lower than for the one progressing with a 90 de-
grees incident angle.
3. The frequency domain model, through the use of the damp-
ing coefficients B34 and B43 can capture the different re-
sponses for wave incidences of 90 and 270 degrees, but can
not capture the full action of the risers on the coupled roll
response.
4. The time domain non-linear model, representing the risers
by Finite Elements, showed a more complex behavior sug-
gesting that the risers bundle may act as second body and
conduct themselves as a vibration absorber. This behavior
could not be represented by the use of simple catenary equa-
tions for the riser representation, indicating that the consid-
eration of the risers mass is important in the coupled analy-
sis.
5. Only be increasing the linearized damping is not feasible to
lower the roll response to values close to the non-linear time
domain response, as values as high as 40% of the critical
damping would not be enough and there would be hard to
justify the use of such high damping values.
6. Measured roll responses from actual FPSOs excited by
waves going in a direction close to 270 degrees seem to
corroborate the time domain non-linear simulations, at least
qualitatively.
Analyzing the steps taken in order to gather the information
presented, it may be pointed that:
1. The number of parameters involved in the problem is large
(water depth, number of risers, arrangement of the risers,
distance between the risers connection points and the FPSO
centerline) and the FPSO roll response may vary substan-
tially from case to case, making it hard to a priori state if
the coupled analysis will be necessary or not.
2. The procedure of using a linearized equivalent damping for
a range of sea states to represent the damping acting on a
FPSO will not give reliable results, but will most probably
give a conservative approach.
3. The approach of computing a ”pseudo-RAO” like it was
done in this article is interesting for the comparison with
the frequency domain results, but should not be used as a
Copyright
c 2012 by ASME
 real RAO in design, as the simulations that gave rise to this
approach are strongly non-linear.
Some difficulties associated with the validation and a better
understanding of this coupled analyzes should be highlighted:
1. Model tests present some difficulties in providing models
for this problem, as it is difficult to scale the risers properly
to represent the added mass, damping, and correct stiffness
for the representation of their natural modes, beside the fact
that most basins would not have the required depth to rep-
resent water depths of 2200m, and truncation would not be
acceptable.
2. Full scale measurements present a large number of difficul-
ties, including (but not limited to) the fact that the waves
have some spreading that may be difficulty to represent, the
influence of wind and current on the results, and the required
equipment installation and maintenance.

REFERENCES
[1] ISO, 2005. ISO 19901-7:2005 Petroleum and natural gas
industries - Specific requirements for offshore structures -
Part 7: Stationkeeping systems for floating offshore struc-
tures and mobile offshore units, first ed.
[2] WAMIT I NC ., 2010. Wamit User Manual. Version 6.418.
[3] Ferreira, M. D., 2009. Análise do movimento de roll de fpso
com risers em um bordo. Petrobras Internal Report, RT-MC
084-2009.
[4] U NIVERSITY OF S ÃO PAULO (USP), 2011. Dynasim User
Manual. Version 4.5.7.6.
[5] Oliveira, M. C., 2010. Analysis of the hydrodynamic data of
tupi pilot fpso 1 for riser system design. Petrobras Internal
Report, RT-MC 090-2010.
[6] Carvalho, R. C., 2011. “Influência do estado de mar no coefi-
ciente do amortecimento de jogo em um fpso”. M.sc. thesis,
COPPE / UFRJ (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Rio
de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, May.

11 Copyright
c 2012 by ASME

View publication stats