0
Research Papers: Offshore Technology

Dynamic Asynchronous Coupled Analysis and Experimental Study for a Turret Moored FPSO in Random Seas

[+] Author and Article Information
Shan Ma

College of Shipbuilding Engineering,
Harbin Engineering University,
Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China
e-mail: mashan01@hrbeu.edu.cn

Wen Y. Duan, Xu L. Han

College of Shipbuilding Engineering,
Harbin Engineering University,
Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 31, 2014; final manuscript received May 19, 2015; published online June 15, 2015. Assoc. Editor: M. H. (Moo-Hyun) Kim.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 137(4), 041302 (Aug 01, 2015) (13 pages) Paper No: OMAE-14-1060; doi: 10.1115/1.4030681 History: Received May 31, 2014; Revised May 19, 2015; Online June 15, 2015

The dynamic coupling analysis between floating platform and mooring/risers is one of the challenging topics in development of oil and gas exploration in deepwater area. In this paper, the dynamic coupled analysis model for a turret-moored floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) is developed. In order to improve the computational efficiency, the proposed asynchronous coupling model is extended to application for FPSO coupled dynamic analysis. In order to validate the developed dynamic coupling analysis model, the vessel global motion and mooring tensions for the turret moored tanker KVLCC2 were tested in China Ship Scientific Research Center (CSSRC) wave basin. In this paper, the numerically predicted coupled response is directly compared with those from model test in time domain. The research focus is in the following: (1) Through comparison of free decay surge motion in calm water/regular wave, the damping effect from mooring on drift motion is validated and confirmed; (2) The physical phenomena of wave drift damping effect on slowly varying surge motion are theoretically explained making use of the related hydrodynamic model and physical model test; (3) In random seas, the simulated vessel motions and mooring tensions generally show fairly good match in time records with model test. But there is phase difference between simulation and measurements after tens of minutes in model test scale, the exact reason is not known yet; and (4) Another interesting phenomena in model test are the existence of unstable horizontal sway and yaw motion, which are not well predicted by current numerical model, the further research is needed.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The layout configuration of the mooring system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) The free decay simulation and comparison of surge motion with model test in calm water for relatively small initial offset and (b) the free decay simulation and comparison of surge motion with model test in calm water for relatively large initial offset

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The free decay simulation and comparison of surge motion with model test in regular wave with wave period of 15.75 s and wave height of 9.0 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The free decay simulation and comparison of surge motion with model test in regular wave with wave period of 9.22 s and wave height of 4.2 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The wave drift damping coefficient Bd11 in head seas for free restrained tanker

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Regular wave component amplitude via FFT of wave elevation at wave gauge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Wave elevation via FFT at wave gauge location and origin of earth fixed coordinates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) The comparison of surge motion history between 0 and 4000 s, (b) the comparison of surge motion history between 4000 and 8000 s, (c) the comparison of surge motion history after 8000 s, and (d) the comparison of surge motion energy spectrum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) The comparison of heave motion history between 2000 and 2200 s, (b) the comparison of heave motion history between 5000 and 5200 s, (c) the comparison of heave motion history after 8000 s, and (d) the comparison of heave motion energy spectrum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) The comparison of pitch motion history between 2000 and 2200 s, (b) the comparison of pitch motion history between 5000 and 5200 s, (c) the comparison of pitch motion history after 8000 s, and (d) the comparison of pitch motion energy spectrum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) The comparison of No. 3 line axial tension time history between 600 and 2000 s, (b) the comparison of No. 3 line axial tension time history between 4000 and 6000 s, (c) the comparison of No. 3 line axial tension time history after 8000 s, and (d) the comparison of No. 3 line axial tension energy spectrum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) The comparison of No. 5 line axial tension time history between 2000 and 2200 s, (b) the comparison of No. 5 line axial tension time history between 5000 and 5200 s, (c) the comparison of No. 5 line axial tension time history after 8000 s, and (d) the comparison of No. 5 line axial tension energy spectrum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

(a) The LF sway motion measurement in model test and (b) the LF yaw motion measurement in model test

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In