Proceedings of the Twenty-second (2012) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Rhodes, Greece, June 1722, 2012

Copyright 2012 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-944 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

www.isope.org

Design Selection Analysis for Mooring Positioning System of Deepwater Semi-submersible Platform
Dongsheng Qiao1 , Jinping Ou1 , Fei Wu2
1. Center for Deepwater Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
2. Luxun Academy of Fine Arts, Shenyang, China

is widely applied in practice during these years and usually made up of

chain, wire or combined of them. Catenary mooring system supplies
restoring force to platform depending on weights of mooring line. With
the increasing water depth, the high weight of chain becomes one of the
restrictions. The representative feature of catenary mooring system is
that parts of bottom chain keep lying on seabed when the platform
moves. Semi-taut mooring system supplies restoring force to platform
depending on weights and elastic deformation of mooring line. Taut
mooring system supplies restoring force to platform depending on
elastic deformation of mooring line (Liu and Huang, 2007).

ABSTRACT
Aiming at design selection analysis for mooring positioning system of a
semi-submersible platform applied in South China Sea, catenary
mooring system, semi-taut mooring system and taut mooring system
are respectively considered. The three types of mooring positioning
system have the similar static restoring force characteristics, the same
mooring line number and angle arrangement. The dynamic coupling
effects between the semi-submersible platform and its mooring lines
are investigated through numerical simulation method. The 3dimension hydrodynamic finite element model of semi-submersible
platform is built firstly. The wave forces are calculated under
diffraction theory by boundary element method, and the wind forces are
obtained from the wind tunnel test with the model scale 1:100, and the
current forces are considered as steady. The platform motions under
combined action of wind, wave and current are solved by Runge-Kutta
method respectively under working and extreme conditions in South
China Sea. The specific numerical results and analysis conclusions
would be helpful for selecting the mooring system and the motion
performance study in the semi-submersible platform preliminary design.

Compared with catenary mooring system, taut mooring system has

some advantages: little positioning radius which may reduce occupation
area of seabed and interference with other underwater facility; little
length of mooring line which may reduce economic costs (Devlin et al.,
1999; Christian and Shankar, 2002). Taut mooring system usually has
high restoring stiffness which may cause high mooring line tension, so
the safety margin is lower than catenary mooring system. The
characteristics of semi-taut mooring system are between catenary and
taut mooring system.

KEY WORDS:

Mooring system; semi-submersible platform;

dynamic analysis; response; tension.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the application and research of floating platforms are
becoming more and more widespread with the exploration of deepwater
hydrocarbon resources to deep and ultra-deep water. The types of
floating platforms such as Semi-submersible platform, Spar platform
and Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) are all need to
be positioned through mooring system when they are working as
production platforms. The integrity of production risers depends on the
station keeping ability. Now the floating platforms moves beyond
2000m and targets the 3000m range, so the need for efficient station
keeping mooring systems increases.

(a) Catenary
(b) Semi-taut
Fig. 1 Configuration of mooring line

(c) Taut

Because of patent protection of TLP and Spar platform and other

reasons, the semi-submersible platforms are the first chosen in South
China Sea (Xie et al., 2007). The HYSY-981 semi-submersible drilling
platform has been designed and manufactured by China National
Offshore Oil Corporation (Zhu et al., 2010). The semi-submersible
platform usually has small waterline areas, low initial investment and
operation cost. When the semi-submersible platform is positioned
through mooring system, the structure may experience large lowfrequency (LF) motions, known as slow-drift motions, under nonlinear
low frequency wave forces excitation. Meanwhile, the wave frequency

The common used mooring system includes three types which are
plotted in Fig. 1: catenary, semi-taut and taut. Catenary mooring system

1099

forces excitation may cause significant dynamic responses of platform.

These excitations are sensitive to different types of mooring system, so
analysis the influence of mooring system to semi-submersible platform
during the design stage is necessary.

multi-component mooring line (Qiao and Ou, 2009). Aiming to ensure

the three types of mooring positioning system have the similar static
restoring force characteristics, the arrangement of three segments in
taut mooring system may not meet the practical application demands of
project, but using in this research is still suitable.

Based on the ocean environmental loads of semi-submersible platform

and bearing capacity of mooring line materials, the mooring line
number is determined mainly to resist the initial mean load. Usually,
the angle arrangement of mooring line is symmetric and uniform unless
the orientation of ocean environmental loads is fixed. After several
adjustments, the final mooring line number and angle arrangement are
fixed. Through detail dynamic analysis, the initial pretension and length
are obtained.

Through optimization design of the three types of mooring system, the

mooring systems configurations in 1500m water depth are specified in
Table 2. The mooring line properties are shown in Table 3. The
tension-horizontal displacement characteristic curve of single mooring
line is plotted in Fig. 3. The total horizontal force-horizontal
displacement is plotted in Fig. 4.
Table 1. Parameters of semi-submersible platform

In past years, many scholars have revealed the coupling effects between
floating platform and its mooring system should be considered in
predicting their motions (Huse, 1986; Wichers and Huijismans, 1990).
Coupled dynamic analysis technique has been developed from quasistatic approach (Cao and Zhang, 1997) to fully couple dynamic
approach (Ma et al., 2000; koo et al., 2004; Li et al., 2010). Despite this,
only little scholars investigate the impact of difference mooring model
to motions of floating platform. Chen et al. (2001) use a quasi-static
approach (SMACOS) and a coupled dynamic approach (COUPLE) to
calculate motions of a spar and its mooring system in three water
depths. Shafieefar and Rezvani (2007) present genetic algorithm to
optimize the mooring design of floating platforms. Tong et al. (2009)
compare the dynamic effect for semi-submerged platform respectively
with catenary and taut mooring system. Sun and Wang (2010) study on
motion performance of deepwater spar platform under equally
distributed mooring method and grouped mooring method.

Parameters
Deck (m)
Column (m)
Pontoon (m)
Tonnage (t)
Center of gravity from water surface (m)
Roll gyration radius (m)
Pitch gyration radius (m)
Yaw gyration radius (m)
Initial air gap (m)
Diameter of brace (m)
Water depth (m)

Value
74.4274.428.60
17.38517.38521.46
114.0720.128.54
48206.8
8.9
32.4
32.1
34.4
14
1.8
1500

In this work, global responses analysis of a semi-submersible platform

respectively using catenary, semi-taut and taut mooring system in
1500m water depth is calculated. Three different types of mooring
system have the similar static restoring force characteristics, the same
mooring line number and angle arrangement. The dynamic coupling
effects between the semi-submersible platform and its mooring lines
are investigated through numerical simulation method which has been
validated through model tests by Qiao and Ou (2010). Two
environmental conditions in South China Sea are considered,
respectively are 1-year working conditions and 100-year extreme
conditions.

DESCRIPTION OF SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE PLATFORM AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Fig. 2 Mooring system layout

Table 2. Mooring system configurations

Semi-submersible Platform Configurations

The main structure of semi-submersible platform consists of two
pontoons, four columns, deck and derrick, and the main characteristic
parameters are listed in Table 1.

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

Mooring System Configurations

The mooring system is a four (44) groups as shown in Fig. 2. Each
mooring line consists of three segments: upper chain, middle wire and
bottom chain. Each group in the mooring system is separated by 90degree spacing and each line in the same group is separated by 5-degree
spacing. Three types of mooring system, respectively are catenary,
semi-taut and taut, are calculated and added to the semi-submersible
platform.

Upper
chain
300
300
900

Length (m)
Middle
wire
2000
1600
1100

Bottom
chain
1500
800
100

Pretension
(kN)
3000
2900
2650

Table 3. Mooring line properties

Item
Diameter (m)
Weight in water (N/m)
Axial stiffness (N)
Breaking stress (N)

Considering the gravity, tension and mooring line extension, the

piecewise extrapolating method is employed to the static analysis of the

1100

Chain
(K4 studless)
0.095
1605.9
6.7681E8
9.0444E6

Wire
(Sprial strand)
0.095
356.9
8.3391E8
7.8765E6

Environmental Conditions

1
V U
(5)
w D 2CIt (

)
t
t
4
where m is mass of mooring line, ma is added mass of mooring line,

FIt =

The environmental conditions considered is 1-year return period and

100-year return period in South China Sea as listed in Table 4,
respectively represents working and extreme conditions. The 1-minute
mean wind speed, Jonswap wave spectrum and uniform current are
used in the numerical simulation. The wind, wave and current are
assumed collinear. The environmental heading is assumed to be from
X-axis as shown in Fig. 2.

V is velocity vector of the mooring line, U is velocity vector of fluid,

FDn is mooring line normal drag forces (per unit length), FDt is

mooring line tangential drag forces (per unit length), FIn is mooring

3.5 x 10

line normal inertia forces (per unit length), FIt is mooring line

Tension (N)

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

tangential inertia forces (per unit length), T is tension of mooring line

and G is net weight of mooring line, w = 1025kg / m3 is fluid density,

2.5

CDt = 0.05 is tangential drag coefficient, D is wire diameter, Vt is

relative tangential velocity of the fluid, CDn = 1.2 is normal drag

1.5
0

20

40
60
Offset (m)

80

coefficient, Vn is relative normal velocity of the fluid. CIt = 0.25 is

100

tangential inertial coefficient and CIn = 0.5 is normal inertial

Fig. 3 Static offset curve of single mooring line

Horizontal restoring force (N)

0 x 10

coefficient. (

V U

) is relative acceleration between fluid and

t
t

mooring line.

-0.5
-1
-1.5

As far as formula (1) is concerned, the motion governing equation is a

strong complex time-varying non-linear equation which needs to be
solved using a numerical method. The non-linear finite element method
is used for the solution in this paper. In ABAQUS, the mooring line is
simulated as hybrid beam element (Timoshenko, 1956) and the
Newton-Raphson iterative method is used to solve non-linear problem
directly.

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
0

20

40
60
Offset (m)

80

100

Fig. 4 Surge static offset curve of mooring system

Hydrodynamic Model of Semi-submersible Platform

Table 4. Environmental conditions

The commercial program AQWA is applied here in the calculating

procedure for the coupled motion. The wave forces on the semisubmersible platform are calculated under diffraction theory by
boundary element method, and the panel model is sketched in Fig. 5.

Wave

Item
wind speed (m/s)
Significant wave height (m)
Peak period (s)
Current speed (m/s)

1-year
23.15
6.0
11.2
0.93

100-year
55
13.3
15.5
1.97

GOVERNING EQUATIONS AND FORMULATION

Governing equation of mooring line
The mooring line is generally presumed to be a completely flexibile
component during the motion response analysis and the motion
governing equation is proposed by Berteaux (1976).

V U
( m + ma )(
) = FDn + FDt + FIn + FIt + T + G

t
t

1
wCDn D Vn Vn Vn
2

1
FDt = wCDt D Vt Vt
2

FDn =

FIn =

Fig. 5 Panel model of semi-submersible platform

(1)
(2)

According to AQWA, the platform structure is treated as a rigid body,

the wind loads and wave forces acting on the platform can be described
as follows:

(3)

Wave forces calculation

(4)

In the numerical simulation, the transient wave forces acting on

platform under irregular waves are approximately given as: (Cummins,
1962; Oortmerssen, 1976)

1/ 2

1
V U
w D 2CIn (

)
4
t
t

1101

Fi (t ) = Fi (1) (t ) + Fi (2) (t )
(1)

(i = 1, 2,...,6)

(6)

&& = F [t , , &] =

(2)

where Fi (t ) and Fi (t ) are the first and second order wave forces.
They are given as:

(i = 1, 2,...,6)

Eq.15 is solved by Runge-Kutta method in this paper. The

displacement and velocity of the platform at the time step t + t are
written as:
(16)
(t + t ) = (t ) + t&(t ) + t ( M 1 + M 2 + M 3 ) / 6
&
&
(17)
(t + t ) = (t ) + ( M + 2M + 2M + M ) / 6

(7)

t t

Fi (2) (t ) = hi2 (t 1 , t 2 ) ( 1 ) ( 2 )d 1d 2

(i = 1, 2,...,6)

(8)

0 0

where hi1 (t ) and hi2 (t ) are the first and second order impulse response

where t is taken as the time step, and

M 1 = tF [t , (t ), &(t )] ,

functions in the time domain, and (t ) is the sea surface elevation.

hi1 (t ) and hi2 (t ) are given as:

hi1 (t ) = Re H i(1) ( )eit d

(15)

+ Bk&(t ) + Ckj j (t )]

Fi (1) (t ) = hi1 (t ) ( )d

t
1
[ F j (t ) + G j (t ) j ( ) K kj (t )d
M kj + mkj

M
t
t&(t ) &
, (t ) +
, (t ) + 1 ] ,
2
2
2
t
t&(t ) tM 1 &
M
M 3 = tF [t + , (t )
+
, (t ) + 2 ] ,
2
2
2
2
t

tM
2
M 4 = tF [t + , (t ) + t&(t ) +
, &(t ) + M 3 ] .
2
2
The function F [ t , , &] can be solved using the displacement (t )
and velocity &(t ) of the platform at the time t , and the displacement
M 2 = tF [t +

(9)

(10)
hi2 (t1 , t2 ) = Re 2 H i(2) (1 , 2 )ei (1t1 +2 t2 ) d1d2
2 0 0

where H i1 ( ) and H i2 (1 , 2 ) are the first and second square order

transfer functions for wave force (Teng et al., 1999).

Wind forces calculation

(t + t ) and velocity &(t + t ) of the platform at the time step

t + t can be calculated by using Eqs.16 and 17. The process will be

The wind loads acting on the platform are given as:

1
(11)
Fwind , H = Cd , H AHVH2
2
where VH is the average wind velocity at the height H above sea level,

repeated until the computation is completed.

= 1.29kg / m3 is density of air, AH is projected area of platform in the

direction of wind. Cd , H is wind pressure coefficient at the height of
H above sea level, which is obtained from wind tunnel experiment
with a 1:100 scaled model made up of columns, deck and derrick (Zhu
et al.,2009).

Coupled analysis of semi-submersible platform and mooring lines

The model of coupled analysis of semi-submersible platform and its
mooring lines is shown in Fig. 6. The equation of motion for the
coupled system in the time domain is given as follows:

NUMERICAL SIMULATION AND RESULTS ANALYSIS

j ( ) K kj (t )d + Bk&j (t ) + Ckj j (t )

( M kj + mkj )&&j (t ) +

= Fj (t ) + G j (t )

Fig. 6 Coupled analysis model of semi-submersible platform

(12)

Natural Periods

(j = 1, 2,..,6)

The natural periods for three types of mooring system are presented
from free decay tests in calm water based on the first six cycles. The
initial amplitudes for surge, heave and pitch respectively are 10m, 4m
and 10degree. The natural periods derived from free decay simulations
in calm water are summarized in Table 5. Figs. 7-9 respectively show
the surge, heave and pitch free decay test results.

where M kj is the mass matrices of the platform, Ckj the hydrostatic

restoring stiffness, Bk is the viscous damping of the system, G j (t ) is
the mooring force, Fj (t ) is the external forces which contain wind
loads and wave forces. Assuming the platform motion is related to
simple harmonic motion and compared with the motion equation of the
platform in frequent domain, any motion of the platform can be
described by Eq.12 (Li and Teng, 2002). M kj and K kj (t ) are given
as:
mkj = akj ()

K kj (t ) =
where

akj

Table 5. Natural periods

Case
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

(13)

kj

( )cos(t )dt

(14)

and

bkj

Surge (s)
149
166.5
184.5

Heave (s)
21
21
21

Pitch (s)
53
54
58

According to Table 5, the natural periods of surge and pitch for taut
mooring system is longer than that for semi-taut and catenary mooring
system, and the one for catenary mooring system is smallest. The
reason is that horizontal stiffness of taut mooring system is smallest and
horizontal stiffness of catenary mooring system is largest, which could

are, respectively, the added mass and damping of

the platform in frequent domain. Eq.12 can be described as:

1102

be obtained from Figs. 3-4. There are no significant changes in the

natural periods of heave for three cases, which mean the vertical
stiffness of three cases is the same.

Motion Responses of Semi-submersible Platform

According to calculation method on semi-submersible platform above,
the duration of 3h under 1-year and 100-year return period
environmental conditions are numerically simulated respectively using
catenary, semi-taut and taut mooring systems. The statistics of the
semi-submersible motions (surge, heave and pitch) respectively using
three types of mooring systems are summarized in Table 7-8
(APPENDIXES). As given in Table 7-8, the LF range of the surge is 00.2 rad/s and its WF range is 0.2-1.2 rad/s, while the LF range of heave
and pitch is 0-0.25 rad/s and related WF range is 0.25-1.2 rad/s. The
motions time series and their spectrums under 1-year return period
environmental conditions are plotted in Figs. 10-15, and the ones under
100-year return period environmental conditions are omitted for brief.
All spectrums are smoothed by a 10-point averaging window.

Natural Damping Ratios

According to Figs. 7-9, the natural damping ratios derived from free
decay simulations in calm water are summarized in Table 6. The
natural damping ratios of surge and pitch for catenary mooring system
is little larger than (about 10%) that for semi-taut and taut mooring
system, and the one for taut mooring system is smallest. The reason is
that total length of catenary mooring line is the largest and the one of
semi-taut is the second place, so the drag force in catenary mooring line
is the largest and the one of semi-taut is the second place too. Therefore,
the damping of catenary mooring line is the largest. The natural
damping ratios of heave for three cases is much smaller than the one of
surge and pitch, which mean damping ratios of heave are negligible in
the analysis.

60
50

Case
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

Surge
6.70%
6.42%
6.15%

Heave
0.68%
0.51%
0.44%

Surge (m)

Table 6. Natural damping ratios

Pitch
4.03%
3.82%
3.70%

40
30
20
10

Catenary

0
0

-5

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (s)

Fig. 7 Surge decay in calm water

Heave decay (m)

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

4
3
2
1
0

20

40

60
80
Time (s)

100

120

140

Fig. 8 Heave decay in calm water

Surge response power density (m2*s)

-10
0

Taut

4000
6000
Time (s)

8000

10000

Fig. 10 Time series of surge motions

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

2000

6000

Surge response power density (m2*s)

Surge decay (m)

10

Semi-taut

14

5000

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

0.05

0.1
Fre (rad/s)

12

0.15

0.2

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

10
8
6
4
2
0
0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
Fre (rad/s)

1.2

Fig. 11 Surge motions spectrums

Pitch decay (m)

10
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

Based on the results of surge motions of semi-submersible platform

under 1-year and 100-year return period environmental conditions, the
average surge motion for three types of mooring system is catenary <
semi-taut < taut. In the LF range, the change laws of standard
deviations of surge motion are the same as average surge motion. The
decrease is because damping contribution for semi-submersible
platform increases with efficient mooring line length increases. The
efficient mooring line length of catenary mooring system is larger than
that for semi-taut and taut mooring system, and the one for taut
mooring system is smallest. In the WF range, the standard deviations of
surge motion show insignificant changes in three cases. This is because

-5

-10
0

50

100

150
200
Time (s)

250

300

350

Fig. 9 Pitch decay in calm water

1103

when the natural frequencies of the semi-submersible platform are far

smaller than the WF range, the inertia forces in the WF range are
dominant. Thus the damping of the mooring lines does not make
significant contributions to the reduction of the surge in the WF range.
Further, the total mooring lines tensions applied on the semisubmersible platform are much smaller than the wave forces on the
semi-submersible platform in the WF range.

plotted in Figs. 16-17, and the ones under 100-year return period
environmental conditions are omitted for brief. All spectrums are
smoothed by a 10-point averaging window too.
6
4

8000

10000

Heave (m)

12
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

8
6
4

0.05

0.1
0.15
Fre (rad/s)

0.2

Pitch response power density (deg2*s)

2
0
0

0.25

7
6

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

5
4
3
2
1
0

0.4

0.6

0.8
Fre (rad/s)

Taut

4000
6000
Time (s)

8000

10000

For the most loaded mooring line #8, the change laws of average and
standard deviations are just the opposite of #1. The reason is the motion
responses of semi-submersible using taut mooring system are the
largest, and this phenomenon is the most obvious in #8 under 100-year
conditions.

Pitch response power density (deg2*s)

Heave response power density (m2*s)

Heave response power density (m2*s)

Fig. 12 Time series of heave motions

10

2000

Semi-taut

For the most unloaded mooring line #1, the changes laws of average
mooring line tension respectively in catenary, semi-taut and taut
mooring system are not fixed. The reason is the initial pretension of
mooring line is not uniform. But the change laws of dynamic average
mooring line tension both is catenary > semi-taut > taut, which is
calculated through average mooring line tension minus their initial
pretension. The standard deviations in LF and WF range for three types
of mooring system is still catenary > semi-taut > taut and the results
under 100-year return period environmental conditions enlarge the
change laws too. The reason is that transfers of mooring line tension are
related to the length and shape of mooring line. To unloaded mooring
line #1, the efficient length in catenary mooring system is larger than
the one in semi-taut and taut mooring system, so the standard
deviations for catenary system is the largest. The phenomenon may
cause more severe fatigue problem in catenary mooring system.

-2

4000
6000
Time (s)

Catenary

Fig. 14 Time series of pitch motions

Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

2000

-2

-6
0

-4
0

-4

Pitch (deg)

Based on the results of heave and pitch motions of semi-submersible

platform, the average and standard deviations in LF range for three
types of mooring system is still catenary < semi-taut < taut, and the
results under 100-year return period environmental conditions enlarge
the change laws. The reason is the mooring damping increases with the
excitation motion of mooring line increases, and the excitation motion
under 100-year conditions is significant larger than 1-year conditions.
In the WF range, the standard deviations also show insignificant
changes in three cases.

1.2

Fig. 13 Heave motions spectrums

Mooring Line Tensions

With the same as motions responses of semi-submersible platform, two
mooring lines are chosen to analyze, #1 is in downstream and the most
unloaded mooring line, and #8 is in upstream and the most loaded
mooring line. The statistics of two mooring line tensions respectively
using three types of mooring systems are summarized in Table 9
(APPENDIXES). The mooring line tensions time series and their
spectrums under 1-year return period environmental conditions are

70
60
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

0.05

0.1
0.15
Fre (rad/s)

0.25

20
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut

15

10

0.4

0.6

0.8
Fre (rad/s)

Fig. 15 Pitch motions spectrums

1104

0.2

1.2

(4) Only according to motion responses of semi-submersible platform,

the catenary mooring system is the most suitable because of the
smallest motions, and the semi-taut mooring system is the second place.

CONCLUSIONS
Through comparison of global responses of a semi-submersible
platform and mooring line tensions respectively using catenary, semitaut and taut mooring system in South China Sea. Meanwhile, the three
types of mooring systems have the similar static restoring force
characteristics, the same mooring line number and angle arrangement.
The following preliminary findings are made:

(5) Only according to mooring line tensions, the numerical simulation

results are controversial. For the most unloaded mooring line, the taut
mooring system is the most suitable because of its little amplitude
changes. For the most loaded mooring line, the catenary mooring
system is the most suitable because of its small extreme value. The
semi-taut mooring system is the second place too.

(1) Under the 1-year and 100-year return periods environmental

conditions in South China Sea, the global responses of the semisubmersible are logical. The influences of using catenary, semi-taut and
taut mooring system to the motions and mooring line tension
respectively are similar.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is funded in part by National Basic Research Program of
China (Grant NO. 2011CB013702; 2011CB013703), Science Fund for
Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant NO. 50921001) and Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities.

3.8 x 10
3.6
Tension (N)

3.4

REFERENCES

3.2
3

Catenary (#1)

Semi-taut (#1)

Taut (#1)

Catenary (#8)

Semi-taut (#8)

Berteaux, HO (1976). Buoy Engineering, Wiley Interscience

Publication, New York.
Cao, PM, and Zhang, J (1997). "Slow Motion Responses of Compliant
Offshore Structures," Int J Offshore Polar Eng, ISOPE, Vol 7, No 2,
pp 119-126.
Chen, XH, Zhang, J, and Ma, W (2001). "On Dynamic Coupling Effects
Between a Spar and Its Mooring Lines," Ocean Eng, Vol 28, pp 863887.
Christian, AC, and Shankar, SB (2002). "Fiber Mooring for UltraDeepwater Applications," Proc 12th Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf,
Kitatyusgu, Japan, ISOPE, Vol 1, pp 26-31.
Cummins, WE (1962). "The Impulse Response Function and Ship
Motions," DTMB Report 1661, The Navy, Washington DC.
Devlin, P, Flory, J, and Homer S (1999). "Deep Star Taut Leg Mooring
Polyester Test Program," Oceans, MTS/IEEE, Vol 2, pp 690-697.
Huse, E (1986). "Influence of Mooring Line Damping upon Rig
Motions," Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, OTC5204.
Koo, BJ, Kim, MH, and Randall, RE (2004). "The Effect of Nonlinear
Multi-Contact Coupling with Gap Between Risers and Guide Frames
on Global Spar Motion Analysis," Ocean Eng, Vol 31, No 11-12, pp
1469-1502.
Li, YC and Teng, B (2002). Wave Action on Maritime Structures,
Second Edition, Ocean Press, Beijing.
Li, BB, Ou, JP, and Teng B (2010). "Fully Coupled Effects of Hull,
Mooring and Risers Model in Time Domain Based on An Innovative
Deep Draft Multi-Spar," China Ocean Eng, Vol 24, No 2, pp 219-233.
Liu, HX, and Huang, ZW (2007). "A New Type Deepwater Mooring
System and Numerical Analytical Techniques," Ocean Tech, Vol 26,
No 2, pp 6-10.
Ma, W, Lee, MY, Zhou, J, and Huang EW (2000). "Deepwater Nonlinear
Coupled Analysis Tool," Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, OTC12085.
Oortmerssen, G van (1976). "The Motions of a Moored Ship in
Waves," NSMB PublNo. 510.
Qiao, DS and Ou, JP (2009). "Static Analysis of a Deepwater
Catenary Mooring System," Ship & Ocean Eng, Vol 2, pp 120-124.
Qiao, DS and Ou, JP (2010). "Dynamic Analysis of Truncated
Mooring Lines Using Numerical Simulation and Model Tests,"
Proc of the 12th Int Offshore and Polar Eng Conf, Beijing, China,
ISOPE, Vol 1, pp 246-253.
Shafieefar, M, and Rezvani, A (2007). "Mooring Optimization of
Floating Platforms Using a Genetic Algorithm," Ocean Eng, Vol 34,
pp 1413-1421.
Sun, JW, and Wang, SQ (2010). "Study on Motion Performance of

Taut (#8)

2.8
2.6
2.4
0

2000

4000
6000
Time (s)

8000

10000

Tension response power density (N2*s)

Tension response power density (N2*s)

Fig. 16 Time series of mooring line tension

2

x 10

12

Catenary (#1)
Semi-taut (#1)
Taut (#1)
Catenary (#8)
Semi-taut (#8)
Taut (#8)

1.5

0.5

0
0

0.05

0.1
Fre (rad/s)

0.15

0.2

3.5 x 10
3

Catenary (#1)
Semi-taut (#1)
Taut (#1)
Catenary (#8)
Semi-taut (#8)
Taut (#8)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
Fre (rad/s)

1.2

Fig. 17 Mooring line tension spectrums

(2) The natural periods of surge and pitch for taut mooring system is
longer than that for semi-taut and catenary mooring system, and the one
for catenary mooring system is smallest.
(3) The natural damping ratios of surge and pitch for catenary mooring
system is little larger (about 10%) than that for semi-taut and taut
mooring system, and the one for taut mooring system is smallest. The
damping ratios of heave are negligible in the analysis.

1105

Deepwater Spar Platform Under Different Mooring Methods," Period

Ocean Univ China, Vol 40, No 9, pp 147-153.
Teng, B, Li, YC and Dong, GH (1999). "Second-order Wave Force on
Bodies in Bi-chromatic Waves," Acta Oceanol Sin, Vol 21, No 2, pp
115-123.
Timoshenko, SP (1956). Strength of Materials; Part III, Advanced
Theory and Problems, Third Edition, D Van Nostrand Co,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Tong, B, Yang, JM, and Li, X (2009). "Comparison and Analysis of
Dynamic Effect for Mooring System of Semi-Submerged Platform in
Deep Water," The Ocean Eng, Vol 27, No 1, pp 1-7.
Wichers, JEW, and Huijismans, RHM (1990). "The Contribution of

Hydrodynamic Damping Induced by Mooring Chains on Low

Frequency Motions," Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, OTC6218.
Xie, B, Zhang, AX, and Duan, ML (2007). "Engineering Mode and
Platform Selection for Deepwater Oilfield Development in South
China Sea," Acta Petrol Sin, Vol 28, No 1, pp 115-118.
Zhu, H, Ma, Z, Zhai, GJ, et al (2009). "Numerical Simulation and
Wind Tunnel Tests of Wind Loads Acting on HYSY-981 Semisubmersible Platform," Ship & Ocean Eng, Vol 38, No 5, pp149152.
Zhu, H, Ma, Z, Zhai, GJ, and Ou, JP (2010). "Numerical Simulation of
the Dynamic Behavior of HYSY-981 Semi-submersible Platform
Subject to Wind and Waves," J Vib Shock, Vol 29, No 9, pp 113-118.

APPENDIXES
Table 7. Statistics of motions of semi-submersible platform under 1-year return period environmental conditions
Surge (m)
Heave (m)
Motion
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut
Catenary
Average
22.82
29.52
35.04
-0.01
-0.05
-0.39
0.40

4.84
5.30
5.50
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.91
Max.
38.59
46.68
52.82
1.41
1.28
0.92
3.69
Min.
11.56
17.28
22.60
-1.12
-1.25
-1.65
-2.07
4.83
5.30
5.51
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.67
LF
LF Max.
38.39
46.60
52.62
0.65
0.53
0.20
2.98
LF Min.
12.43
18.06
23.23
-0.13
-0.27
-0.68
-0.52
0.54
0.58
0.62
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.62
WF
WF Max.
12.87
16.48
19.15
1.22
1.26
1.33
2.37
WF Min.
-3.52
-4.21
-4.72
-1.19
-1.19
-1.16
-2.39

Pitch (deg)
Semi-taut
0.72
0.91
4.08
-2.41
0.66
3.25
-0.60
0.62
2.40
-2.34

Taut
0.78
1.15
5.09
-2.72
0.98
4.27
-1.19
0.62
2.96
-2.19

Table 8. Statistics of motions of semi-submersible platform under 100-year return period environmental conditions
Surge (m)
Heave (m)
Motion
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut
Catenary
Semi-taut
Taut
Catenary
Average
88.99
91.42
93.94
-0.04
-0.34
-1.09
1.13

6.60
7.34
7.67
1.09
1.11
1.14
1.94
Max.
120.77
125.85
133.60
3.58
3.41
2.97
6.63
Min.
68.96
73.03
75.52
-4.19
-4.63
-5.67
-6.45
8.52
7.20
6.50
0.05
0.10
0.20
1.17
LF
LF Max.
122.96
120.48
119.44
1.00
0.84
0.38
3.81
LF Min.
49.53
52.23
54.08
-0.33
-0.86
-2.08
-2.33
1.92
1.95
1.98
1.09
1.10
1.12
1.43
WF
WF Max.
39.49
41.57
42.95
3.61
3.62
3.90
6.16
WF Min.
-8.82
-9.12
-9.36
-3.79
-3.88
-3.95
-4.70

Pitch (deg)
Semi-taut
2.07
2.12
7.68
-6.62
1.58
4.15
-3.69
1.43
7.11
-4.78

Taut
2.20
2.62
8.32
-6.82
2.22
5.02
-4.33
1.42
9.86
-4.80

Table 9. Statistics of mooring line tensions

1-year return period environmental conditions (kN)
#1
#8
Tension
SemiSemiCatenary
Taut
Catenary
Taut
taut
taut
Average 2774.53 2735.01 2556.18 3408.66 3366.80 3241.15

57.46
47.64
26.88
76.17
78.86
99.23
Max.
2907.40 2846.34 2628.06 3669.15 3642.97 3632.97
Min.
2585.85 2581.07 2464.66 3237.07 3212.38 3048.43
57.39
47.62
26.88
76.13
78.01
99.36
LF
LF
2900.48 2839.95 2630.41 3665.83 3638.21 3611.84
Max.
LF Min. 2593.43 2586.79 2462.74 3248.76 3220.05 3055.53
5.81
5.20
4.14
7.54
8.98
10.29
WF
WF
34.51
30.92
21.10
187.84
196.68
265.65
Max.
WF
-162.34
-158.01
-128.17
-56.47
-60.27
-83.30
Min.

1106

100-year return period environmental conditions (kN)

#1
#8
SemiSemiCatenary
Taut
Catenary
Taut
taut
taut
2123.60 2260.48 2337.68 4689.69 5086.54 5690.83
65.09
46.66
18.00
198.15
411.97
707.00
2289.85 2383.01 2394.81 5644.75 7377.02 7677.25
1870.19 2077.18 2274.50 4256.86 4289.56 4372.36
65.11
46.11
17.80
196.04
401.63
651.96
2548.89 2595.34 2544.50 5532.51 7351.26 7657.39
1890.38
14.49
80.73

2087.86
12.91
65.45

2277.77
6.93
40.66

3980.15
42.65
689.72

4211.20
106.01
914.68

4332.51
289.12
1713.10

-420.51

-345.34

-212.72

-181.33

-517.81

-1623.7