Dynamic Behavior of Offshore Spar Platforms Under Regular Sea Waves

Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 487516
www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
Dynamic behavior of offshore spar platforms
under regular sea waves
A.K. Agarwal, A.K. Jain

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, India
Received 10 October 2001; accepted 14 January 2002
Abstract
Many innovative oating offshore structures have been proposed for cost effectiveness of
oil and gas exploration and production in water depths exceeding one thousand meters in recent
years. One such type of platform is the offshore oating Spar platform. The Spar platform is
modelled as a rigid body with six degrees-of-freedom, connected to the sea oor by multi-
component catenary mooring lines, which are attached to the Spar platform at the fairleads.
The response dependent stiffness matrix consists of two parts (a) the hydrostatics provide
restoring force in heave, roll and pitch, (b) the mooring lines provide the restoring force which
are represented here by nonlinear horizontal springs. A unidirectional regular wave model is
used for computing the incident wave kinematics by Airys wave theory and force by Mori-
sons equation. The response analysis is performed in time domain to solve the dynamic
behavior of the moored Spar platform as an integrated system using the iterative incremental
Newmarks Beta approach. Numerical studies are conducted for sea state conditions with and
without coupling of degrees-of-freedom.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Wave structure interaction; Offshore structural dynamics; Spar platform; Multi-component
catenary mooring
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-11-6591202-0; fax: +91-11-6862037.

E-mail address: akjain@civil.ittd.ernet.in (A.K. Jain).
0029-8018/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0029- 8018( 02) 00034- 3
488 A.K. Agarwal, A.K. Jain / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 487516
1. Introduction
As offshore oil and gas exploration are pushed into deeper and deeper water, many
innovative oating offshore structures are being proposed for cost savings. To reduce
wave induced motion, the natural frequency of these newly proposed offshore struc-
tures are designed to be far away from the peak frequency of the force power spectra.
Spar platforms are one such compliant offshore oating structure used for deep water
applications for the drilling, production, processing, storage and ofoading of ocean
deposits. It is being considered as the next generation of deep water offshore struc-
tures by many oil companies. It consists of a vertical cylinder, which oats vertically
in the water. The structure oats so deep in the water that the wave action at the
surface is dampened by the counter balance effect of the structure weight. Fin like
structures called strakes, attached in a helical fashion around the exterior of the
cylinder, act to break the water ow against the structure, further enhancing the
stability. Station keeping is provided by lateral, multi-component catenary anchor
lines attached to the hull near its center of pitch for low dynamic loading. The
analysis, design and operation of Spar platform turn out to be a difcult job, primarily
because of the uncertainties associated with the specication of the environmental
loads. The present generation of Spar platform has the following features:
(a) It can be operated till 3000 Mts. depth of water from full drilling and production
to production only,
(b) It can have a large range of topside payloads,
(c) Rigid steel production risers are supported in the center well by separate buoy-
ancy cans,
(d) It is always stable because center of buoyancy (CB) is above the center of grav-
ity (CG),
(e) It has favourable motions compared to other oating structures,
(f) It can have a steel or concrete hull,
(g) It has minimum hull /deck interface,
(h) Oil can be stored at low marginal cost,
(i) It has sea keeping characteristics superior to all other mobile drilling units,
(j) It can be used as a mobile drilling rig,
(k) The mooring system is easy to install, operate and relocate,
(l) The risers, which normally take a breathing in the wave zone from high waves
on semi-submersible, drilling units would be protected inside the Spar platform.
Sea motion inside the Spar platform center well would be minimal.
The concept of a Spar platform as an offshore structure is not new. Spar platform
buoy type structures have been built in the ocean before. For example, a oating
instrument platform (FLIP) was built in 1961 to perform oceanographic research
(Fisher and Spiess, 1963), the Brent Spar platform was built by Royal Dutch shell
as a storage and ofoading platform in the North sea at intermediate water depth
(Bax and de Werk, 1974, Van Santen and de Werk, 1976; Glanville et al., 1997).
The use of Spar platforms as a production platform is relatively recent.
Glanville et al. (1991) gave the details of the concept, construction and installation
of a Spar platform. He concluded that a Spar platform allows exibility in the selec-
tion of well systems and drilling strategies, including early production or predrill-
ing programs.
Mekha et al. (1995) modelled the Spar platform with 3 degrees-of-freedom, i.e.
surge, heave and pitch. The inertia forces were calculated using a constant inertia
coefcient, C
m
, as in the standard Morisons equation or using a frequency dependent
C
m
coefcient based on the diffraction theory. The drag forces were computed using
the nonlinear term of Morisons equation in both cases. The analysis was performed
in time domain. The result showed that using frequency dependent or constant inertia
coefcient, C
m
, produces similar results since most of the wave energy is concen-
trated over the range of frequencies where the value of C
m
is equal to 2 for the Spar
platform size used in the literature.
Mekha et al. (1996) used the same model (Mekha et al., 1995) with frequency
dependent C
m
coefcient based on diffraction theory. Different nonlinear modi-
cations to Morisons equation were induced to account diffraction effects. The results
obtained for a variety of sea state conditions were compared to the experimental data.
Halkyard (1996) reviewed the status of several Spar platform concepts emphasiz-
ing the design aspect of these platforms.
Cao and Zhang (1996) discussed an efcient methodology to predict slow drift
response of slack moored slender offshore structures due to ocean waves using a
hybrid wave model. The hybrid wave model considers the wave interactions in an
irregular wave eld up to second order of wave steepness and is able to accurately
predict incident wave kinematics, including the contributions from nonlinear differ-
ence frequency interactions. A unique feature of this approach is that measured wave
elevation time series can be used as input and the structure responses to measured
incident waves can be deterministically obtained.
Ran and Kim (1996) studied the nonlinear response characteristics of a
tethered/moored Spar platform in regular and irregular waves. A time-domain
coupled nonlinear motion analysis computer program was developed to solve both
the static and dynamic behaviours of a moored compliant platform as an integrated
system. In particular, an efcient global-coordinate based dynamic nite element
program was developed to simulate the nonlinear tether/mooring responses. Using
this program, the coupled dynamic analysis results were obtained and they were
compared with uncoupled analysis results to see the effects of tethers and mooring
lines on hull motions and vice versa.
Jha et al. (1997) compared the analytical predicted motions of a oating Spar
buoy platform with the results of wave tank experiments considering, surge and pitch
motions only. Base-case predictions combine nonlinear diffraction loads and a linear,
multi-degree-of-freedom model of the Spar platform stiffness and damping character-
istics, rened models and the effect of wave-drift damping, and of viscous forces as
well. Consistent choices of damping and wave input were considered in some detail.
Fischer and Gopalkrishnan (1998) presented the importance of heave character-
istics of Spar platforms that have been gleaned from wave basin model tests, numeri-
cal simulations and a combination of the two. The heave performance of a small
Spar platform, e.g. mini Spar platform, has been examined and found to be poten-
tially problematic.
Chitrapu et al. (1998) studied the nonlinear response of a Spar platform under
different environmental conditions such as regular, bi-chromatic, random waves and
current using a time domain simulation model. The model can consider several non-
linear effects. Hydrodynamic forces and moments were computed using the Mori-
sons equation. It was concluded that Morisons equation combined with accurate
prediction of wave particle kinematics and force calculations in the displaced position
of the platform gave a reliable prediction of platform response both in wave-
frequency and low-frequency range.
Nonlinear coupled response of a moored Spar platform in random waves with and
without co-linear current were investigated in both time and frequency domain (Ran
et al., 1999). The rst and second order wave forces, added mass, radiation damping
and wave drift damping were calculated from a hydrodynamic software package
called WINTCOL. The total wave force time series (or spectra) were then generated
in the time (or frequency) domain based on a two-term volterra series method. The
mooring dynamics were solved using the software package WINPOST, which is
based on a generalised coordinate based FEM. The mooring lines were attached to
the platform through linear and rotational springs and dampers. Various boundary
conditions can be modelled using proper spring and damping values. In the time
domain analysis, the nonlinear drag forces on the hull and mooring lines were applied
at the instantaneous position. In the frequency domain analysis, nonlinear drag forces
were stochastically linearized and solutions were obtained by an iterative procedure.
Ye et al. (1998) studied the Spar platform response in directional wave environ-
ment using the unidirectional hybrid wave model and directional hybrid wave model
(UHWM and DHWM). Comparison between numerical results from two different
wave models indicated that the slow drifting surge and pitch motions based on
DHWM are slightly smaller than those based on UHWM. The slow-drifting heave
motions from the two wave models were almost the same because the heave motion
was mainly excited by the pressure applied on the structure bottom and the predicted
bottom pressure from the two methods had almost no differences.
Datta et al. (1999) described recent comparisons of numerical predictions of
motions and loads of typical truss Spar platform model test results. The purpose of
this comparison was to calibrate hydrodynamic coefcients, which were to be used
for the design of a new truss Spar platform for Amoco.
Chitrapu et al. (1999) discussed the motion response of a large diameter Spar
platform in long crested and random directional waves and current using a time-
domain simulation model. Several nonlinearities such as the free surface force calcu-
lation, displaced position force computation, nonlinearities in the equations of motion
and the effect of wave-current interaction were considered in determining the motion
response. The effect of wave directionality on the predicted surge and pitch response
of the Spar platform had been studied. It was seen that both wave-current interaction
and directional spread of wave energy had a signicant effect on the predicted
response.
2. Structural model
The Spar platform is modelled as a rigid cylinder with six degrees-of-freedom
(i.e. three displacement degrees-of-freedom i.e. Surge, Sway and Heave along X, Y
and Z axis and three rotational degree-of-freedom i.e. Roll, Pitch and Yaw about X,
Y and Z axis) at its center of gravity, CG. The Spar platform is assumed to be closed
at its keel. The stability and stiffness is provided by a number of mooring lines
attached near the center of gravity for low dynamic positioning of the Spar platforms.
When the platform deects the movement will take place in a plane of symmetry
of the mooring system, the resultant horizontal force will also occur in this plane
and the behavior will be 2-dimensional. It is the force and displacement (excursion)
at this attachment point that is of fundamental importance for the overall analysis
of the platforms. It is assumed that the Spar platform is connected to the sea oor
by four multi component catenary mooring lines placed perpendicular to each other,
which are attached to the Spar platform at the fairleads. The development of Spar
platform model for dynamic analysis involves the formulation of a nonlinear stiffness
matrix considering mooring line tension uctuations due to variable buoyancy and
other nonlinearities. The model considers the coupled behaviour of a Spar platform
for various degrees-of-freedom. Fig. 1 shows a typical offshore Spar platform.
Fig. 1. Typical offshore Spar platform.
3. Assumptions and structural idealization
The platform and the mooring lines are treated as a single system and the analysis
is carried out for the six degrees-of-freedom under the environmental loads. The
following assumptions have been made in the analysis:
1. Initial pretension in all mooring lines is equal. However, total pretension changes
with the motion of the Spar platform,
2. Wave forces are estimated at the instantaneous equilibrium position of the Spar
platform by Morisons equation using Airys linear wave theory. The wave dif-
fraction effects have been neglected,
3. Integration of uid inertia and drag forces are carried out up to the actual level of
submergence according to the stretching modications considered in the analysis,
4. Wave force coefcients, C
d
and C
m
are independent of frequencies as well as
constant over the water depth,
5. Current velocity has not been considered and also the interaction of wave and
current has been ignored,
6. Wind forces have been neglected,
7. Change in pretension in mooring line is calculated at each time step, and writing
the equation of equilibrium at that time step modies the elements of the stiff-
ness matrix,
8. The platform is considered as a rigid body having six degrees-of-freedom,
9. Platform has been considered symmetrical along surge axis. Directionality of wave
approach to the structure has been ignored in the analysis and only uni-directional
wave train is considered,
10. The damping matrix has been assumed to be mass and stiffness proportional,
based on the initial values.
4. Catenary mooring line analysis
Some of the assumptions made for the analysis of catenary mooring line are:
(a) The sea oor (having negligible slope) offers a rigid and frictionless support to
the mooring line, which is lying on it,
(b) All the components of the mooring line move very slowly inside the water,
so that the generated drag forces on the line due to the motion can be treated
as negligible,
(c) The change in the line geometry and thereby in the line force due to direct uid
loading caused from waves and /or currents is insignicant,
(d) Initial length of the mooring line and anchor line is inclusive of elongation due
to the initial line force,
(e) The clump weight segment is inextensible,
(f) Anchor point does not move in any direction,
(g) Only horizontal excursion of the catenary mooring line is considered.
The forceexcursion relationship is nonlinear and requires an iterative solution.
Equation of a catenary was used for evaluation of force-excursion relationship of a
catenary mooring line. The horizontal projection and vertical projection of any seg-
ment hanging freely under its own weight w per unit length as shown in Fig. 2 can
be expressed (considering horizontal force (H
t
), top slope (q
t
), length (S) and weight
(W)) as:
Y (H
t
/ W)[cosh{sinh
1
(tan(q
t
))}cosh{sinh
1
(tan(q
b
))}] (1)
X (H
t
/ W)[sinh
1
(tan(q
t
))sinh
1
(tan(q
b
))] (2)
tan(q
b
) (V
t
WS) / H
t
(3)
V
t
H
t
tan(q
t
)
When for any segment the bottom slope (q
b
) is zero, the above equation reduces to:
Y (H
t
/ W)[cosh{sinh
1
(tan(q
t
))}1] (4)
X (H
t
/ W)[sinh
1
(tan(q
t
))] (5)
Fig. 2. Multi component mooring line. (a) Initial conguration with different sectional properties; (b)
Free body diagram of uniform mooring line suspended freely between two points not in the same elevation.
If H
t,
Y, W , q
t
are known then,
tan(q
b
) sinh[cosh
1
[cosh{sinh
1
(tan(q
t
))}(YW/ H
t
)]] (6)
S H
t
(tan(q
t
)tan(q
b
)) / W (7)
and X can be evaluated by Eq. (2).
The extension of any segment under increased line tension can be approximately
evaluated as follows. Let the initial average line tension be T
o
when the segment
length is S
o.
For increased average line tension T, the stretched length becomes:
S S
o
[1 (TT
o
) / EA] (8)
where, E and A are the Youngs modulus and effective area of the segment respect-
ively. T and T
o
is the arithmetic means of the line tensions at two ends. The total
weight of any segment (W) remains same,
W (S
o
W
o
) / S (9)
where W is the modied unit weight due to stretching and W
o
is the unit weight of
the unstreched segment.
5. Analysis of mooring line with distributed clump weight for (horizontal
excursion)
In the present work H
o
, q
o
, h, zero bottom slope and the elastic and physical
properties of the segments, as shown in Fig. 3(a), are chosen as the known para-
meters. The unknowns which are to be evaluated are S
c
, S
h
and then Y
c
, Y
h
, X
c
and X
h
.
6. Initial conguration
The following steps are used to nd the unknowns given above.
Step 1 Calculate V
o
from the known values of H
o
and q
o
.
Step 2 Find the slope at the junction of the clump weight and mooring line, then
nd vertical force at the junction V
j
(which will be equal to S
h
W
cl
as the
bottom slope is equal to zero). Using the known values of the horizontal
force, use Eq. (4) to nd Y
h
.
Step 3 Find S
c
(V
o
S
h
W
cl
) / W
c
and then nd Y
c
using Eq. (1).
Step 4 Add up Y
c
and Y
h
and compare with h. If the difference is less than a specied
limit, go to the next step, otherwise change V
j
appropriately and repeat the
procedure from step 2. For the rst iteration the change of V
j
can be taken
as 1% depending upon the sign of error. For the subsequent iterations the
following equation is to be used to get a new value of V
j
.
(V
j
)
k+1
(V
j
)
k
[e
k
((V
j
)
k1
(V
j
)
k
) / (e
k1
e
k
)]
Fig. 3. Conguration of mooring line for increased horizontal force, H (Condition 1). (a) Initial con-
guration. (b) Final conguration.
where, k is the number of the last iteration, (V
j
)
k
is the vertical force at the
junction of the mooring line and clump weight and e
k
is the difference
between the vertical projection of the hanging length of the mooring line
calculated in the kth iteration and the mooring level (h).
Step 5 Find X
c
and X
h
from Eqs. (2) and (5), respectively.
Step 6 Find initial total hanging length S
i
S
c
S
h
and its horizontal projection
X
i
X
c
X
h
.
7. Evaluation of forceexcursion (horizontal) relationship for a single
mooring line
The vertical force (V
o
) is changed which allows direct checking of the condition
regarding the lifting off of the clump weight. The corresponding Horizontal force is
found iteratively, ending with the determination of a new conguration including
the excursion of the attachment point. The procedures for the two alternative states
of lifting off of the clump weight are given below. W
c
S
c
W
c
is the weight of the
mooring line and W
cl
S
cl
W
cl
is the total weight of the clump weight. Find the
initial tension in the mooring line as follows:
7.1. Condition 1 (when VW
c
W
cl
)
Step 1 Increase V
o
by V Fig. 3(b).
Step 2 Find the vertical and horizontal force at the junction of the clump weight
and mooring line. Find the new average line tension, T in the mooring line.
Step 3 Find the stretched length of mooring line, S
cn
and hence modied W
c
using
eqs. (8) and (9), respectively.
Step 4 Find the vertical projections of mooring line, (Y
cn
) and clump weight (Y
hn
)
with the help of eqs. (1) and (4), respectively.
Step 5 Add up Y
cn
and Y
hn
to compare with h. If the difference e is less than the
tolerable limit go to the next step. Otherwise, change horizontal force H
appropriately and repeat the procedure from step 2. For the rst iteration the
change of H can be taken as 1% depending upon the sign of error. For
the subsequent iterations the following equation is to be used to get a new
value of H,
H
k+1
H
k
[e
k
(H
k1
H
k
) / (e
k1
e
k
)] (10)
where k is the number of the last iteration, H
k
is the horizontal force and e
k
is the difference between the vertical projections of the hanging length of
the mooring line calculated in the kth iteration and the mooring level (h).
Step 6 Find the new hanging length of the clump weight S
hn
from the zero bottom
slope condition and add it with the stretched mooring line length S
cn
to get
the new length, S
f
.
Step 7 Find X
cn
and X
hn
from eqs. (2) and (5), respectively and add them to get the
horizontal projection X
f
.
Step 8 Find the elastic stretch of anchor line, e
a
.
e
a
S
a
(HH
o
) / (E
a
A
a
) (11)
where E
a
is Youngs modulus of the anchor line; A
a
is effective area of the
anchor line; H
o
is initial horizontal force at the top; H is nal horizontal
force at the top; and, S
a
is length of anchor line.
Step 9 Evaluate horizontal excursion (d)
d (X
f
X
i
)(S
f
S
i
) (e
a
e
c
) (12)
where S
i
, X
i
is initial hanging length of the mooring line and its horizontal
projection, respectively; S
f
, X
f
is nal stretched hanging length of the mooring
line and its horizontal projection, respectively; e
c
is elastic stretch in the
mooring line from eq. (8); and, e
a
is elastic stretch in the anchor line from
eq. (11).
Step 10 Repeat steps 1 to 9 for the increased values of V
o
till V W
c
W
cl
.
7.2. Condition 2 (when V W
c
W
cl
)
Step 1 Increase V
o
by V as shown in Fig. 4(b)
Step 2 Find the vertical and horizontal force at the junction of the clump weight
and mooring line. For the value of (V V
o
V) nd the vertical force
Fig. 4. Conguration of mooring line for increased horizontal force, H (Condition 2). (a) Conguration
when the far end of the clump just lifts off; (b) Final conguration; (c) Free body diagram of the
anchor line.
V
a
at the junction of the anchor line and the clump weight as shown in Fig.
4(c). Find the new average line tension in the mooring line and the anchor
line and hence the modied W
c
and W
a
(considering the system conguration
when the clump weight is just lifted as shown in Fig. 4(a) as the initial
conguration).
Step 3 Find Y
cn
and Y
cln
using eq. (1) and Y
ah
from eq. (4). Add the projections and
compare with h. If the difference is within tolerable limit go to step 4. Other-
wise, change H appropriately and repeat the procedure from step 2 (as in
step 5 for condition 1).
Step 4 Find the hanging length of anchor line, S
ah
using eq. (7) with q
b
0. Add
up S
cn
and S
cl
to get S
f
(which includes the mooring line stretch).
Step 5 Find X
cn
and X
cln
using eq. (2) and X
ah
from eq. (5). Add X
cn
to X
cl
to get X
f
.
Step 6 Find the elastic stretch of anchor line
e
a
S
a
(HH
o
) / (E
a
A
a
) (13)
where H {H (H
2
V
2
a
}/ 2; V
a
VW
c
W
cl
; H
o
= initial horizontal
force when V W
c
W
cl
; H = increased horizontal force due to increased
vertical force at the top. W
c
and W
cl
being the total weights of mooring line
and clump weight, respectively.
Step 7 Find the excursion from
d d (X
f
X
i
)(S
f
S
i
) (X
ah
S
ah
) (e
a
e
c
) (14)
Corresponding to changed value of the horizontal force H. Where = excur-
sion when the clump weight lifts off; S
i
, X
i
= total hanging stretched length
and its horizontal projection, respectively when the clump weight just lifts
off; X
ah
S
ah
= horizontal movement of the clump weightanchor line junc-
tion; e
c
= elastic stretch in the mooring line after the clump weight lifts off;
and, e
a
= elastic stretch in the anchor line.
Step 8 Repeat steps 1 to 7 for increasing values of V
o
, till the tension equals the
permissible value (approximately half of the breaking strength of mooring
line material). In the above S
ah
and X
ah
are found by treating the anchor line
as a freely hanging mooring line and making use of the modied unit weight
for the stretched segment. If S
ah
is found more than the total (stretch) anchor
line length calculate tan(q
b
) (V
a
W
a
) / H, W
a
being the total weight of
anchor line and recalculate S
ah
. X
ah
is to be evaluated using eq. (2).
The behaviour of mooring system will be planer if the tower excursion takes place
in a plane of symmetry of the mooring system. For an excursion of d at the attach-
ment point the resultant horizontal force is given by:
H(d)

j 1
,p
H
j
(d
j
)cos(pq
j
) (15)
where p is the total number of mooring lines, q
j
is the angle between the jth mooring
line and the direction of excursion. d
j
is the excursion for the jth mooring line and
H
j
(d
j
) is the associated horizontal force, with d
j
dcos(pq
j
). The vertical force at
the mooring attachment point will be:
V(d)

j 1
,p
V
j
(d
j
) (16)
In this study the mooring line is modelled as a nonlinear horizontal spring located
at the fairleads along the Spar platform center with no hydrodynamic forces applied
on them. The stiffness matrix representing the mooring line is calculated based on
eqs. (15) and (16). The stiffness matrix is given below:
[K
mooring(horizontal)
]
K
hs
11
K
hs
12
K
hs
13
K
hs
14
K
hs
15
K
hs
16
K
hs
21
K
hs
22
K
hs
23
K
hs
24
K
hs
25
K
hs
26
K
hs
31
K
hs
32
K
hs
33
K
hs
34
K
hs
35
K
hs
36
K
hs
41
K
hs
42
K
hs
43
K
hs
44
K
hs
45
K
hs
46
K
hs
51
K
hs
52
K
hs
53
K
hs
54
K
hs
55
K
hs
56
K
hs
61
K
hs
62
K
hs
63
K
hs
64
K
hs
65
K
hs
66
(17)
K
hs
11
is the sum of the horizontal component of force (surge) of mooring lines for
unit displacement along surge direction, K
hs
21
will be zero as the mooring line placed
perpendicular to the surge direction (sway) will not contribute any force, because
the behavior of the mooring system is planer when Spar platform excursion takes
place in the plane of symmetry, K
hs
31
is the sum of the vertical component of force
(heave) of mooring lines, K
hs
41
(roll) is zero as there is no force in the sway direction,
K
hs
51
(pitch) is the sum of the moment of horizontal component of force (surge) of
mooring lines about centre of gravity, K
hs
61
(yaw) will be zero, as no mooring line
will contribute to any force in this direction.
K
hs
12
will be zero for unit displacement in sway direction as the mooring lines
placed perpendicular to the sway direction (surge) will not contribute any force,
because the behavior of the mooring system is planer when Spar platform excursion
takes place in the plane of symmetry, K
hs
22
is the sum of the horizontal component
of force (sway) of mooring lines, K
hs
32
is the sum of the vertical component of force
(heave) of mooring lines, K
hs
42
(roll) is the sum of the moment of horizontal compo-
nent of force (sway) of mooring lines about centre of gravity, K
hs
52
(pitch) is zero as
there is no force in the surge direction, K
hs
62
(yaw) will be zero as no mooring line
will contribute any force in this direction.
K
hs
13
(surge), K
hs
23
(sway), K
hs
33
(heave) will be zero for unit displacement along heave
as there is no horizontal movement of mooring line so there will be no force, K
hs
43
(roll), K
hs
53
(pitch) and K
hs
63
(yaw) will be zero because there is no force in this direc-
tion.
K
hs
14
(surge) will be zero for unit rotation in roll as the behaviour of the mooring
system is planer, K
hs
24
is the horizontal component of force (sway) of the mooring
line present in the sway direction, K
hs
34
is the vertical component of force (heave) of
the mooring line present in the sway direction, K
hs
44
(roll) is the sum of the moment
of horizontal component of force in sway direction about centre of gravity, K
hs
54
(pitch) will be zero because there is no force in surge direction, K
hs
64
(yaw) will be
zero, as no mooring line will contribute any force in this direction.
K
hs
15
will be the horizontal component of force (surge) of the mooring line present
in the surge direction for unit rotation in pitch, K
hs
25
(sway) will be zero as the behav-
iour of the mooring system is planer, K
hs
35
is the vertical component of force (heave)
of the mooring line present in the surge direction, K
hs
45
(roll) will be zero as there is
no force in sway direction, K
hs
55
(pitch) is the sum of the moment of horizontal compo-
nent of force in surge direction about centre of gravity, K
hs
65
(yaw) will be zero, as
no mooring line will contribute any force in this direction.
K
hs
16
(surge) and K
hs
26
(sway) will be zero because opposite direction force will
nullify for unit rotation in yaw, K
hs
36
is the sum of vertical component of the forces
(heave) of the mooring lines, K
hs
46
(roll) and K
hs
56
(pitch) will be zero because there
is no force in this direction, K
hs
66
(yaw) is the sum of the moment of the horizontal
component of force about centre of gravity.
8. Equation of motion of spar platform
The equation of motion of the Spar platform under regular wave is given below:
[M]{X
} [C]{X
} [K]{X} {F(t)} (18)

where {X} = structural displacement vector; {X
} = structural velocity vector; {X
} =
structural acceleration vector; M M
Spar platform
M
added mass
; K K
hydrostatic
K
mooring(horizontal)
; C = structure damping matrix; F(t) is the hydrodynamic forcing
vector.
The mass matrix represents the total mass of the Spar platform including the mass
of the soft tanks, hard tanks, deck, ballast and the entrapped water. The added mass
matrix is obtained by integrating the added mass term of Morisons equation along
the submerged draft of the Spar platform. Mass is taken as constant and it is assumed
that the masses are lumped at the center of gravity. The structural damping matrix
is taken to be constant and is dependent on mass and initial stiffness of the structure.
The elements of [C] are determined by the equation given below, using the orthog-
onal properties of [M] and [K], where, x is the structural damping ratio, is modal
matrix, w
i
is natural frequency and m
i
is the generalized mass.
T
[C] [2x
i
w
i
m
i
] (19)
The stiffness matrix consists of two parts: the restoring hydrostatic force and the
stiffness due to mooring lines. The coefcients, K
ij
of the stiffness matrix of Spar
platform are derived as the force in degree-of-freedom i due to unit displacement in
the degree-of-freedom j, keeping all other degrees-of-freedom restrained. The coef-
cients of the stiffness matrix have nonlinear terms. Further, the mooring line tension
changes due to the motion of the Spar platform in different degrees-of-freedom which
makes the stiffness matrix response dependent. Fig. 5 shows the degrees-of-freedom
of the Spar platform at its center of gravity.
The hydrostatic stiffness is calculated based on the initial conguration of the Spar
platform and is given by
[K
hydrostatic
]
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 K
hy
33
0 0 0
0 0 0 K
hy
44
0 0
0 0 0 0 K
hy
55
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
(20)
where,
K
hy
33
p
4
g
w
D
2
(21)
K
hy
44
K
hy
33
H
d
h
1
p
64
g
w
D
4
(22)
K
hy
55
K
hy
33
H
d
h
1
p
64
g
w
D
4
(23)
h
1
S
cb
S
cg
; D is the diameter of the Spar platform; S
cg
, S
cb
are the distance from
the keel of the Spar platform to its center of gravity and center of buoyancy respect-
ively; H
d
is the draft of the Spar platform; and g
w
is the weight density of water.
Fig. 5. Degrees-of-freedom at CG of Spar platform.
9. Hydrodynamic forcing vector
Ocean surface waves refer generally to the moving succession of irregular humps
and hollows of ocean surface. They are generated primarily by the drag of the wind
on the water surface and hence are the greatest at any offshore site, when storm
conditions exist there. For analyzing the offshore structures, it is customary to ana-
lyze the effects of the surface waves on the structures either by use of a single design
wave chosen to represent the extreme storm conditions in the area of interest or by
using the statistical representation of waves during extreme conditions. In either case,
it is necessary to relate the surface wave data to the water velocity, acceleration and
pressure beneath the waves. A unidirectional wave model is used for computing the
incident wave kinematics. The kinematics of the water particles has been calculated
by Airys wave theory. The sea surface elevation, h(x,t) is given as:
h(x,t)
1
2
Hcos(kx wt) (24)
The horizontal and vertical water particle velocities are given as:
u
wH
2
cosh(ky)
sinh(kh)
cos(kx wt) (25)
v
wH
2
sinh(ky)
sinh(kh)
sin(kx wt) (26)
k and w denotes the wave number and the wave frequency, respectively.
k 2p/ L and w 2p/ P
where, P = wave period; x = point of evaluation of water particle kinematics from the
origin in the horizontal direction; t = time instant at which water particle kinematics is
evaluated; L = wave length; H = wave height; and, h = water depth
The acceleration of the water particle in horizontal and vertical directions are
given as:
u
w
2
H
2
cosh(ky)
sinh(kh)
sin(kxwt) (27)
v
w
2
H
2
sinh(ky)
sinh(kh)
cos(kxwt) (28)
where y = height of the point of evaluation of water particle kinematics
A simplied alternative proposed in this study is to predict the response of a deep-
drafted offshore structure based on the slender body approximation, that is, without
explicitly considering the diffraction and radiation potential due to the presence of
the structure. For typical deep-water offshore structures such as Spar platform, the
ratio of the structure dimension to spectrum-peak wave length is small. Hence, it is
assumed that the wave eld is virtually undisturbed by the structure and that the
Morisons equation is adequate to calculate the wave exiting forces. The wave loads
on a structure are computed by integrating forces along the free surface centreline
from the bottom to the instant free surface at the displaced position. Use of Morisons
equation with modication has proved to be capable of capturing the trend of the
response as well as most of the nonlinearity associated with it. The added mass is
based on the initial conguration of the Spar platform and is added to the mass
matrix. The added mass force per unit of length is given by
F
AM
pD
2
4
[C
m
1] r
w
X
(29)
where r
w
= mass density of the uid; D = diameter of Spar platform; C
m
= inertia
coefcient; and, X
= acceleration of Spar platform

The drag force, which includes the relative motion between the structure and the
wave, per unit of length is given by
F
D
1
2
r
w
C
d
D(uX
)uX
(30)
where C
d
= drag coefcient; u = velocity of the uid; and, X
= velocity of Spar plat-

form
The inertia force by Morisons equation per unit of length is
F
I
pD
2
4
r
w
C
m
u (31)
u= acceleration of the uid.
10. Solution of equation of motion
In time domain using numerical integration technique the equation of motion can
be solved, incorporating all the time dependent nonlinearities, stiffness coefcient
changes due to mooring line tension with time, added mass from Morisons equation,
and with evaluation of wave forces at the instantaneous displaced position of the
structure. Wave loading constitutes the primary loading on offshore structures.
Dynamic behaviour of these structures is, therefore, of design interest. When the
dynamic response predominates, the behaviour under wave loading becomes nonlin-
ear because the drag component of the wave load, according to Morisons equation,
varies with the square of the velocity of the water particle relative to the structure.
At each step, the force vector is updated to take into account the change in the
mooring line tension. The equation of motion has been solved by an iterative pro-
cedure using unconditionally stable Newmarks Beta method. The algorithm based
on Newmarks method for solving the equation of motion is given below:
Step 1 The stiffness matrix [K], the damping matrix [C], the mass matrix [M], the
initial displacement vector {X
0
}, the initial velocity vector {X
0
} are given as
the known input data.
Step 2 The force vector {F(t)} is calculated.
Step 3 The initial acceleration vector is then calculated as below:
{X
0
}
1
M
(F
0
CX
0
KX
0
)
Step 4 d 0.5, a 0.25(0.5 d)
2
and with the integration constants as:
a
0
1/ (at
2
), a
1
d/ at, a
2
1/ at, a
3
(1/ 2a)1, a
4
(d/ a)
1, a
5
(t / 2)[(d/ a)2], a
6
t(1d), a
7
dt
where, t is taken as the time step,
Step 5 K
K a
o
M a
1
C
Step 6 For each time step, the following are calculated:
F
t+t
F
t+t
M(a
o
X
t
a
2
X
t
a
3
X
t
) C(a
1
X
t
a
4
X
t
a
5
X
t
)
X
t+t
K
1
F
t+t
X
t+t
a
0
(X
t+t
X
t
)a
2
X
t
a
3
X
t
X
t+t
X
t
a
6
X
t
a
7
X
t+t
Step 7 The values of X, X
, X
, which are calculated at the time step t t are used

to evaluate F
t t
such that convergence is achieved to the accuracy of
0.01%, before going to the next time step, otherwise iteration is carried out.
Since the [K] of the Spar platform is response dependent, the new [K] is
generated and the difference from the old [K] is used from step No. 5 onwards
by taking it to F
t + t
.
11. Numerical results and discussions
Fig. 6 shows the plan and schematic elevation of the Spar platform with different
environmental loading. Wind and current have not been studied herein.
The particulars for the multi component catenary mooring line are given in
Table 1.
Two cases are taken for initial horizontal force of 2500 kN (Case A) and 2000
kN (Case B). Fig. 7 shows the forceexcursion relationship of a single mooring line.
Increase in initial horizontal force at the attachment point makes the system taut
as it decreases the length of the mooring line. The horizontal forceexcursion relation
of a single mooring line depends mainly on the initial conguration. The initial
conguration is greatly inuenced by the initial horizontal force, inclination at the
fairlead point and its level from the sea oor and also to some extent by the sub-
merged unit weight of the clump weight. The horizontal force in the mooring line
becomes higher, after the response of the Spar platform goes beyond 12 m, for initial
horizontal force of 2000 kN than for the 2500 kN. The Spar platform dimensions
and wave data are given in Table 2
Fig. 6. Schematic elevation of Spar platform.
11.1. Effect of initial horizontal force, H
o
at the top of mooring line on the
response of Spar platform
Two cases are taken for the initial horizontal force, H
o
at the top of mooring line
for the evaluation of response of Spar platform: (A) 2500 kN and (B) 2000 kN.
Table 3 shows the natural time period for both the cases at the time, t 0 and at
steady state response.
In the calculation of natural time period, only diagonal term of the stiffness matrix
is effective, as the mass matrix is diagonal due to lumped mass assumption.
It is observed from Table 3 that at time t 0 for surge degree-of-freedom, natural
time period of Spar platform for case B is more than case A, since at time t 0,
Table 1
Data for multi component catenary mooring line
Diameter of mooring line and anchor line 0.0889 m
Diameter of clump weight 1.055 m
Effective area of mooring line and anchor line 0.0032 m
2
Effective area of clump weight 0.8742 m
2
Weight of mooring line and anchor line 293.2 N/m
Weight of clump weight 25000 N/m
Length of clump weight 40 m
Length of anchor line 800 m
Mean sea level 914.4 m
Height of fairlead point 808.8 m
Angle of inclination at the fairlead point 30 degree
Fig. 7. Multi component forceexcursion relationship of single mooring line.
Table 2
Dimensions of Spar platform and wave data
Weight of the structure 2.6 10
6
kN
Height of the Spar platform 216.4 m
Radius of the Spar platform 20.26 m
Distance of center of gravity to buoyancy 6.67 m
Distance of center of gravity from keel 92.4 m
Distance of center of gravity to fairleads 0.2 m
Structural damping ratio 0.05 & 0.03
Wave period 12.5 sec
Wave height 7 m
Drag coefcient (C
d
) 1.0 & 0.0
Inertia coefcient (C
m
) 2.0 &1.8
Table 3
Natural time period for Spar platform with different initial horizontal force (sec)
Time Instant Case H
o
(kN) Surge Sway Heave Roll Pitch Yaw
Response at t 0 A 2500 215.43 215.43 28.04 50.84 50.84 102.97
B 2000 254.60 254.60 28.04 50.84 50.84 115.13
Steady state A 2500 392.23 215.43 39.79 50.84 50.84 102.97
Response B 2000 360.41 254.60 39.79 50.84 50.84 115.13
the response is nearly zero and from Fig. 7, the horizontal mooring force is more
in case A than case B, so case B is providing less stiffness than case A. Whereas
it is observed from steady state response values in surge degree-of-freedom that the
horizontal mooring force for case B (for nearly 12 mts surge response) is more in
comparison to case A. Accordingly the natural time period for case B decreases from
case A in surge degree-of-freedom.
For sway degree-of-freedom at time t 0 it is observed that natural time period
for case B is more than case A, since at time t 0, the response is nearly zero and
from Fig. 7, the horizontal mooring force is more in case A than case B, so case B
is providing less stiffness than case A. There is no change in the natural time period
at steady state response, because a unidirectional wave train has been considered
causing zero response in sway degree-of-freedom.
For heave degree-of-freedom only hydrostatic force inuences the stiffness matrix
for cases A and B and as there is no change in the hydrostatic force so there is no
change in the time period for both cases A and B. Time period increases in both
cases A and B at steady state response, because mass is increased by added mass,
which makes the system more exible in heave degree-of-freedom.
For roll and pitch degree-of-freedom it is observed that there is much less change
in mooring stiffness because a unidirectional wave train has been considered resulting
in nearly zero response in roll and little change in response of pitch degree-of-free-
dom.
For yaw degree-of-freedom at time t 0 it is observed that natural time period
for case B is more than case A, since at time t 0, the response is nearly zero and
from Fig. 7, the horizontal mooring force is more in case A than case B, so case B
is providing less stiffness than case A. There is no change in the time periods at
steady state response, because a unidirectional wave train is considered causing
nearly zero response in yaw degree-of-freedom.
Table 4 gives the comparison between the maximum value of the steady state
response for cases A and B for different initial horizontal force, H
o
at the top of
mooring line.
Table 4 shows that there is a decrease of 14.55% in surge, decrease of 23.38%
in heave and decrease of 0.52% in pitch responses when case B is considered in
comparison to case A. Figs. 8 and 9 show the comparison between the steady state
response time histories of the coupled surge and heave response for different initial
horizontal force, H
o
at the top of mooring line. From Figs. 8 and 9 it is observed
Table 4
Maximum response for different initial horizontal force
Case H
o
(kN) Max. displacement (m) Max. rotation (radian)
Surge Heave Pitch
A 2500 15.769 1.779 0.0385
B 2000 13.474 1.363 0.0383
Fig. 8. Effect of initial horizontal force at the top of mooring line in coupled surge response of a
Spar platform.
Fig. 9. Effect of initial horizontal force at the top of mooring line in coupled heave response of a
Spar platform.
that both surge and heave responses have negative offset and are oscillating at nega-
tive mean. It is also observed that variation in initial horizontal force affects surge
and heave responses signicantly.
Decrease in initial horizontal force makes the system slack as it decreases the
length of the mooring line. The effect of initial horizontal force causes horizontal
and vertical excursions, which changes nonlinearly with the change in initial horizon-
tal force. For having lesser mooring system stiffness in B, the structure is more
exible and gives lower dynamic response, although the static contribution of
response being more for lower stiffness of the structure. Case A, on the other hand,
gives higher response as the structure is stiff and produces comparatively more
dynamic response whereas the static response is lower than case B. This is due to
nonlinear behavior of the cable force where for case B the net force in the entire
cable system is more than for case A. So for lower initial horizontal force it becomes
stiffer in comparison to higher initial horizontal force. This indicates that the better
performance of Spar platforms can be achieved with lesser stiffness of mooring sys-
tem.
11.2. Effect of coupling of stiffness matrix on the response of Spar platform
Two cases are taken: (A) for the coupled stiffness matrix and (B) for the uncoupled
stiffness matrix with the initial horizontal force of 2500 kN. Table 5 gives the com-
parison between the maximum values of the steady state response for coupled and
uncoupled stiffness matrix.
Table 5 shows that there is a decrease of 0.16% in surge response, 98.56% in
heave response and 2.08% in pitch response, when uncoupled stiffness matrix is
considered in comparison to coupled stiffness matrix. Figs. 10 and 11 show the
comparison between the time histories of the coupled surge and heave response for
coupled and uncoupled stiffness matrix. From Fig. 10 it is observed that surge
response for both the cases has negative offset and is oscillating at negative mean.
From Fig. 11 it is observed that heave response for the coupled case has negative
offset and is oscillating at negative mean, whereas for uncoupled case it has both
+ve and ve values. The stiffness matrix plays the most important role on the overall
response analysis because it is response dependent.
The sway, roll and yaw response is zero for the uncoupled case as an unidirectional
wave is taken, while for the coupled case the responses are almost zero that means
Table 5
Maximum response for different stiffness assumption
Stiffness Max. displacement (m) Max. rotation (radian)
Surge Heave Pitch
Coupled 15.769 1.779 0.0385
Uncoupled 15.744 0.0256 0.0377
Fig. 10. Effect of coupling of stiffness matrix in coupled surge response of a Spar platform.
Fig. 11. Effect of coupling of stiffness matrix in coupled heave response of a Spar platform.
in these degrees-of-freedom there is no displacement and rotation. The result shows
that coupling of degrees-of-freedom has a signicant effect on the response behavior
in heave and pitch degrees-of-freedom. In all further studies, coupled stiffness matrix
has been considered.
11.3. Effect of structural damping on the response of spar platform
Two cases are taken for structural damping ratio of 3% and 5% with the initial
horizontal force of 2500 kN. Table 6 gives the response for 5% and 3% structural
damping ratio.
Table 6 shows that there is an increase of 0.23% in surge, decrease of 3.58% in
heave and decrease of 0.26% in pitch direction when 5% structural damping is con-
sidered in comparison to 3% structural damping. Figs. 12 and 13 show the compari-
son between the time histories of the coupled surge and heave response for structural
damping on the responses have of the Spar platform. From Figs. 12 and 13 it is
Table 6
Maximum response for different structural damping ratio
Damping Max. displacement (m) Max. rotation (radian)
Surge Heave Pitch
5% 15.769 1.779 0.0385
3% 15.733 1.845 0.0386
Fig. 12. Effect of structural damping in coupled surge response of a Spar platform.
Fig. 13. Effect of structural damping in coupled heave response of a Spar platform.
observed that both surge and heave response has negative offset and is oscillating
at negative mean. It is observed that for higher structural damping ratio there is no
effect in surge and pitch response, whereas it affects heave responses signicantly.
Table 7
Maximum response for variation in C
m
Inertia coefcient Max. displacement (m) Max. rotation (radian)
Surge Heave Pitch
C
m
= 2.0 15.769 1.779 0.0385
C
m
= 1.8 13.279 1.650 0.0345
11.4. Effect of inertia coefcient C
m
on the response of spar platford
Two cases are taken for C
m
equal to 2 and 1.8 with the initial horizontal force of
2500 kN. Surge force, heave force and pitch moment reduces when C
m
reduces from
2 to 1.8 while calculating force using Morisons equation. Table 7 gives the response
for C
m
equal to 2 and 1.8.
Table 7 shows that there is a decrease of 15.79% in surge, decrease of 7.25% in
heave and decrease of 10.39% in pitch response when C
m
equal to 1.8 is considered
in comparison to C
m
equal to 2. Figs. 1416 show the comparison between the time
histories of the coupled surge, heave and pitch responses for different values of
inertia coefcient, C
m
on the response of Spar platform. From Figs. 14 and 15 it is
observed that both surge and heave responses have negative offset and is oscillating
at negative mean. From Fig. 16 it is observed that pitch response oscillates both on
+ve and ve side of the axis. It is observed that surge, heave and pitch responses
are signicantly affected with the decrease in inertia coefcient C
m
.
11.5. Effect of drag coefcient C
d
on the response of Spar platform
Two cases are taken for C
d
equal to 1 and 0 with initial horizontal force of 2500
kN. Surge and heave force reduces as the total force decreases when drag coefcient
Fig. 14. Effect of inertia coefcient in coupled surge response of a Spar platform.
Fig. 15. Effect of inertia coefcient in coupled heave response of a Spar platform.
Fig. 16. Effect of inertia coefcient in coupled pitch response of a Spar platform
is zero, while calculating force using Morisons equation. Table 8 gives the response
for C
d
equal to 1 and 0.
Table 8 shows that there is a decrease of 24.47% in surge, decrease of 6.30% in
heave and increase of 0.52% in pitch response when C
d
equal to 0 is considered in
Table 8
Maximum response for variation in C
d
Drag coefcient Max. displacement (m) Max. rotation (radian)
Surge Heave Pitch
C
d
= 1 15.769 1.779 0.0385
C
d
= 0 11.910 1.667 0.0387
Fig. 17. Effect of drag coefcient in coupled surge response of a Spar platform.
comparison to C
d
equal to 1. Figs. 17 and 18 shows the comparison between the
time histories of the coupled surge and heave responses for different values of drag
coefcient, C
d
on the response of the Spar platform. From Figs. 17 and 18 it is
observed that both surge and heave responses have negative offset and are oscillating
at negative mean.
Although the Spar platform exhibits inertia dominated force regime but the inu-
ence of coefcient of drag is appreciable in surge response and little in heave
response.
12. Conclusions
Based on the numerical study conducted on the Spar platform, the following con-
clusions can be drawn:
Fig. 18. Effect of drag coefcient in coupled heave response of a Spar platform.
1. The forceexcursion relation of a single mooring line depends mainly on the initial
horizontal force at the top of the mooring line. The initial structural time period
of Spar platform in surge degree-of-freedom is higher with lower value of initial
horizontal force than with higher value of initial horizontal force, due to higher
stiffness caused by higher initial horizontal force. Whereas structural time period
of Spar platform at steady state response, in surge degree-of-freedom with lower
initial horizontal force is less than the value with higher initial horizontal force.
This is due to nonlinear behaviour of the cable force where for lower initial hori-
zontal force the net force in the entire cable system is more with lower response
value than for higher initial horizontal force, thus causing higher stiffness with
lower initial horizontal force.
2. With lower initial horizontal force, the structure is more exible and gives lower
dynamic response, although the static contribution of response being more due to
lower stiffness of the structure. While the higher initial horizontal force gives
higher response as the structure is relatively more stiffer and produces compara-
tively more dynamic response although the static response contribution is lower
in this case. Variation in initial horizontal force affects surge and heave
responses signicantly.
3. The coupling of degrees-of-freedom in stiffness matrix of Spar platform plays an
important role in the dynamic behaviour of offshore Spar platform as the response
is signicantly affected by considering coupled stiffness matrix. Heave response
is affected most while considering coupled stiffness matrix.
4. Due to change in structural damping ratio there is no effect in surge and pitch
response, whereas it affects heave response signicantly.
5. It is necessary to evaluate the proper value of inertia coefcient so that wave
force can be accurately estimated as it has signicant effect on the response of
the Spar platform. Surge, heave and pitch responses proportionately vary with the
value of inertia coefcient.
6. Although the Spar platform exhibits inertia dominated force regime but the inu-
ence of coefcient of drag is appreciable in surge response and slightly affecting
the heave response.
References
Bax, J.D., de Werk, K.J.C., 1974. A oating storage unit designed specically for the severest environmen-
tal conditions. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE paper 4853).
Cao, P., Zhang, J., 1996. Slow motion response of compliant offshore structures. In: Proceedings of the
Sixth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference vol. 1, pp. 296303.
Chitrapu, A.S., Saha, S., Salpekar, V.Y., 1998. Time domain simulation of spar platform response in
random waves and current. In: 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engin-
eering, (OMAE98-0380), pp. 18.
Chitrapu, A.S., Saha, S., Salpekar, V.Y., 1999. Motion response of spar platform in directional waves
and current. In: 18th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
(OMAE99/OFT-4237).
Datta, I., Prislin, I., Halkyard, J.E., Greiner, W.L., Bhat, S., Perryman, S., Beynat, P.A., 1999. Comparison
of truss spar model test results with numerical predictions. In: 18th International Conference on Off-
shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, (OMAE99/OFT-4231), pp. 114.
Fisher, F.H., Spiess, F.N., 1963. Flip oating instrument platform. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 35 (10), 16331644.
Fischer, F.J., Gopalkrishnan, R., 1998. Some observations on the heave behaviour of spar platforms.
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 120, pp. 221225.
Glanville, R.S., Paulling, J.R., Halkyard, J.E., Lehtinen, T.J., 1991. Analysis of the spar oating drilling
production and storage structure. In: Offshore Technology Conference, (OTC-6701), pp. 5768.
Glanville, R.S., Halkyard, J.E., Davies, R.L., Frimm, F., 1997. Neptune project: spar history and design
considerations. In: Offshore Technology Conference, (OTC-8382), Houston, Texas.
Halkyard, J.E., 1996. Status of spar platforms for deepwater production systems. In: Proceedings of the
Sixth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference vol. 1, pp. 262272.
Jha, A. K., de Jong, P.R., Winterstein, S.R., 1997. Motion of spar buoy in random seas: comparing
predictions and model test results. In: Proceedings of the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, pp.
333347.
Mekha, B.B., Johnson, C.P., Roesset, J.M., 1995. Nonlinear response of a spar in deep water: different
hydrodynamic and structural models. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference vol. 3, pp. 462469.
Mekha, B.B., Weggel, D.C., Johnson, C.P., Roesset, J.M., 1996. In: Effect of second order diffraction
forces on the global response of spars. Proceedings of the Sixth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference vol. 1, pp. 273280.
Ran, Z., Kim, M.H., 1996. Nonlinear coupled response of a tethered spar platform in waves. In: Proceed-
ings of the Sixth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference vol. 1, pp. 281288.
Ran, Z., Kim, M.H., Zheng, W., 1999. Coupled dynamic analysis of a moored spar in random waves
and currents (time-domain vs. frequency-domain analysis). Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, 121, 194200.
Van Santen, J.A., de Werk, K., 1976. On the typical qualities of spar type structures for initial or perma-
nent eld development. In: Offshore Technology Conference, (OTC-2716), pp. 11051118.
Ye, Wei., Anam, I., Zhang, J., 1998. Effect of wave directionality on wave loads and dynamic response
of a spar. In: 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
(OMAE98-0601), pp. 16.

Dynamic Behavior of Offshore Spar Platforms Under Regular Sea Waves

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Dynamic Behavior of Offshore Spar Platforms Under Regular Sea Waves

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 487516

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-11-6591202-0; fax: +91-11-6862037.

} [K]{X} {F(t)} (18)

} = structural velocity vector; {X

= acceleration of Spar platform

= velocity of Spar plat-

, which are calculated at the time step t t are used

También podría gustarte