ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003
Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar
Tuanjie Liu
Jer-Fang Wu
American Bureau of Shipping
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060, USA
ABSTRACT
A coupled analysis tool integrated with industrial experience can
accurately predict global motions and mooring/riser tensions.
These responses have a significant impact on hull size, structural
design and overall costs. This paper discusses key technical
issues for the global performance response and mooring analysis
of a truss Spar in deepwater. Detailed discussions are given to 1)
the influence of wave and wind spectra on slow motions of a
truss Spar, 2) the distribution of extreme responses using
different statistical methods, 3) Morison coefficients for motion
analysis and heave plate hydrodynamics, and 4) the effects of
mooring/riser added mass and damping on global responses. The
discussions are based on applications of the Coupled Analysis
Program (CAP), jointly developed by ABS and CSO Aker. The
results include 1) the effects of API and NPD wind spectra on
the Spar slow motions and tension, 2) the sensitivity of tension
to wave spectrum peak enhancement parameter, 3) comparisons
of Spar extreme motion responses and extreme mooring line
tension based on different statistical methods, 4) the effects of
heave plate drag coefficients on platform motions and 5) a
comparison of responses obtained from uncoupled and coupled
simulations. Understanding the key technical issues for the
global performance response presented in this paper will benefit
engineers/designers in the design of safe, reliable and cost-
effective platforms.
KEY WORDS
Truss Spar, Global performance, Coupled dynamic analysis
INTRODUCTION
Since the first classic spar was deployed in the Gulf of Mexico
in 1996, extensive studies have been given to the motion
behavior of Spar platforms. A Joint Industry Project involving
two representative Spar platforms was carried out at the
Offshore Technology Research Center (OTRC) at Texas A&M
University. It was observed in the experiment that the Spar
responses were characterized by low frequency surge and pitch
motions. The results indicate that an analysis of Spar motion
responses needs to take into account second-order wave loads,
which can be evaluated using second-order diffraction theory
(Molin, 1979, Kim and Yue, 1990, Chau and Eatock Taylor,
1992). In addition to the steady and wave frequency
components, responses of line tension also consist of a
significant low frequency component. Heave motions of a Spar
are relatively small, which is an advantage for riser system
design. In a classic Spar, vertical wave exciting forces are low
due to its deep draft. In a truss Spar, heave motions are also
small due to high damping introduced by heave plates in the
mid-section (Magee, et. al., 2000).
Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar
Xiaohong Chen
Ken Huang
Numerical methods for motion and mooring analysis have been
developed and improved over the years. Among others, Mekha
et al. (1996), Ran and Kim (1998), Ma et al. (2000) developed
numerical methods for Spar motion analysis and studied the
non-linear effects of Spar motions. Tahar et al. (2002) performed
nonlinear hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analyses of a
classic Spar designed for 6000 ft water depth. As field
development reaches deeper, the mooring line and riser mass
become larger in relation to the hull mass. As a result, inertia
and damping effects from mooring lines and risers will no longer
be negligible. Current forces acting on mooring lines and risers
are also significant. These effects can only be accurately
accounted for by a coupled dynamic analysis. Thus, coupled
dynamic analysis is preferable for deepwater and ultra-
deepwater floating production systems.
Cooperating with Deep Offshore Technology, the successor of
the MULTISIM program, ABS developed a dynamic Coupled
Analysis Program (CAP version 7) in recent years. The most
current version of this program is CAP version 8. CAP is an
integration of MULTISIM and time-domain line dynamics
program CABLE3D (Ma and Webster, 1994). MULTSIM is a
quasi-static analysis program written by J. R. Paulling (1995).
This program has been used for motion and mooring analysis of
Spars and has been verified against model test results
(Kristofferen and Weaver, 2001, Datta, et. al., 1999). CABLE3D
is a cable dynamic analysis program, also verified against model
tests (Chen, et. al., 2000, 2001). The MULTISIM program
employs a tension table at each time step to obtain the forces
exerted on the platform by a catenary mooring. In formulating
the tension tables, it is assumed that the line experiences no
dynamic effects and fluid forces other than static buoyancy are
negligible. The only forces acting are the net weight, i.e., the dry
weight minus the buoyancy, and the tension in the line. On the
other hand, CABLE3D deploys a finite-element model for the
dynamics of mooring lines and risers. This model accounts for
hydrodynamic loads resulting from the relative motion of the
lines and the exterior fluid, the effect of pressure gradients in
both the external and internal fluid, and the weight of the lines.
The integration of the programs makes it possible to accurately
predict the motion of the floating structures and the dynamics of
the mooring lines and risers.
The objective of this paper is to present recent developments and
validations of the nonlinear time-domain dynamic coupled
analysis program (CAP) and to investigate the key technical
issues for global performance and mooring analysis of a truss
Spar in deep water. The investigations were conducted
systematically by case studies using CAP. These case studies
and results are presented in detail in the following pages.
131
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

DESCRIPTION OF THE MOORING/RISER SYSTEM Table 2. Environmental conditions

OF A TRUSS SPAR Sig. Wave Height 41.7 ft
Peak Spectral Period 14.9 sec
The truss Spar is designed for 5400 ft water depth in the Gulf of Wave Spectra JONSWAP
Mexico. It is designed with a 9-point permanent spread mooring Peak enhancement γ 1.0, 2.4, 3.3
system that is divided into three groups: Group 1: Lines 1-3, Surface Current 4.2 ft/s
Group 2: Lines 4-6, and Group 3: Lines 7-9. The mooring line 1-hour Wind Speed at 10m 72.4 knots
configuration and properties are equal for the lines grouped Wind Spectra API, NPD
together. The horizontal spread angle between lines in each
group is 7.5 degrees for Group 1 and Group 2, and 5 degrees for In the CAP program, the principal x-axis of the platform and its
Group 3. mooring is assumed from the platform South to the platform
North with the y-axis upward. The origin of the coordinate
Each mooring line consists of three segments: top chain, middle system is located at the mean water surface. In the simulation,
wire rope and bottom chain. Studless K4 chain is chosen for the wind, wave and current are assumed collinear and are measured
top and bottom chains. Spiral strand wire is chosen for the 30 degrees clockwise from the positive x as shown in Figure 2.
middle wire rope. Mooring line properties are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Mooring line properties

Diameter Length Pre-tension
Group# Segment Type [in] [ft] [kips]
1 Bottom K4 5.75 150
Middle Spiral Strand 5.04 7000
Top K4 5.75 200 579
2 Bottom K4 5.75 150
Middle Spiral Strand 5.04 7000
Top K4 5.75 260 634
3 Bottom K4 5.75 150
Middle Spiral Strand 5.04 7000
Top K4 5.75 484 612

The truss Spar has a riser system of 10 steel catenary risers

(SCR) and 14 top tension risers (TTR). Diameters of SCRs
range from 5 in. to 12 in. The riser pattern of the Spar is
presented in Figure 1.

3 4
9 x
2
1
Figure 2. Environmental direction and mooring pattern

The wave system in CAP is represented by a linear superposition

of elementary sinusoidal progressive waves. A realistic random
wave is, therefore, approximated by the sum of several such
simple waves, each of which differs from the others in
z frequency, amplitude, phase and direction of motion. The flow
properties, such as velocity, acceleration, and pressure at a given
point in space, are then obtained by a simple summation of the
5 properties computed for each of the component waves.

7 The wind force is calculated based on API or NPD wind spectra

using a one-hour wind speed at 10m. The effects of the second
6
order wind force are included. The current force on the platform
8 9 is calculated based on Morison’s equation, and is calibrated with
wind tunnel test data.
Figure 1. Riser pattern of GOM truss Spar COMPUTER MODELING OF THE TRUSS SPAR

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The mooring system of a floating structure is typically designed
to survive in extreme wind, wave and current environmental
conditions having a 100-year recurrence interval. A 100-year
hurricane wave condition with associated wind and current
conditions in the Gulf of Mexico is selected, and is shown in
Table 2.
Panel Models
The Froude-Krylov force is computed by summing up the
pressure on the panelized surface of the platform using triangular
panels, and the force is computed up to the instantaneous wetted
surface. For this reason, the entire surface of the hard tank
(including both parts below and above the mean waterline up to
the under deck steel) is modeled.

132 Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003
The diffraction panel model is different from the Froude-Krolov
panel model. It models not only the hard tank but also the heave
plates and soft tank. In addition, it is panelized only up to the
mean waterline. Both triangular and quadratic panels can be
used for the diffraction model in most cases. The diffraction
panel model in this case uses quadratic panels as shown in
Figure 3.
The diffraction panel model is used by diffraction program
MORA to compute hydrodynamic coefficients including
diffraction forces, radiation damping coefficients, and mean
wave drift force coefficients. The coefficients from MORA are
then imported into CAP to compute the associated forces.
Figure 3. Diffraction panel model
Morison Elements
The Morison formula is used to compute the drag force on the
hard tank, truss legs, heave plates and braces of the Spar
platform. The drag force is induced by wave, current and motion
of the platform, and is included in the governing equation of
motion.
It may be necessary to use a few integration points along the
Morison elements to correctly capture the current force. This is
because the current profile changes along the length of the
platform. The current force based on the Morison formula has
been calibrated with the model test data.
In addition to the current force on the platform, the heave motion
of the platform itself induces vertical exciting force on the
bottom of the hard tank and heave plates. The vertical exciting
force on the bottom of the hard tank is modeled by applying the
axial drag coefficient on the Morison members used to model
the hard tank. The vertical exciting force on the heave plates is
modeled by a set of Morison thin disks to capture the drag
effects. The added mass effects of the heave plates are modeled
in the diffraction model as shown in Figure 3. The drag effects
are computed by assigning proper drag coefficients to the
Morison members.
Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar
Mooring and Riser System Modeling
Each line of the mooring system and steel catenary risers is
modeled and analyzed individually. The 14 top tensioning risers
are collapsed to an equivalent riser. The analysis of mooring
lines, steel caternary risers, and top tensioning risers can be
based on a quasi-static approach (implemented in MULTISIM),
a finite element dynamic approach (implemented in CAP), or a
mixed approach with the combination of the above two
(implemented in CAP as well).
According to previous experience, the number of elements for
each line based on the finite element approach is devised
differently. In this study, 20 elements are used for each of the
mooring lines, and 14 elements are used for each of the steel
catenary and top tensioning risers.
CASE STUDIES
Based on the application of MULTISIM and CAP, the
simulation cases belonging to the following four tasks are
conducted to provide some insights on the design review and
independent analysis of the global performance responses of the
truss Spar:
• Task A - Influence of wave and wind spectra on slow
motions and tensions of the Spar,
• Task B - Extreme responses based on different statistical
methods,
• Task C - Morison coefficients for motions analysis and
heave plate hydrodynamics, and
• Task D - Effects of mooring and riser added mass and
damping on Spar motions and mooring/riser dynamics.
The JONSWAP wave spectrum is used and all cases under these
four tasks are 3-hour simulations. The wind spectrum is either
the API wind spectrum or the NPD wind spectrum. For tasks A,
B and C, only quasi-static coupled program MULTISIM is used
for the simulations. While for task D, both MULTISIM and fully
dynamic coupled program CAP are used to run the simulations.
To investigate the influence of wave and wind spectra on Spar
slow motions and tensions, four simulation cases are carried out
using MULTISIM. The parameters of wave and wind spectra
used are γ = 1.0, 2.4 and 3.3 for the API wind spectrum and γ =
3.3 for the NPD wind spectrum (numbered as cases A0, A1, A2
and A3, respectively).
In order to obtain the effects of statistical methods on extreme
responses, twenty 3-hour simulations with randomly selected
seeds under the 100-year GOM hurricane condition are
performed. The first ten simulations are based on randomly
selected seeds for the wave spectrum while the wind spectrum
uses the same seed (cases B0-B9). The second ten simulations
are based on randomly selected seeds for the wind spectrum
while the wave spectrum uses the same seed (cases B10-B19).
Once finished, results of these twenty simulations are used to
study the most probable extreme response values based on four
different statistical methods:
• Average of the observed extreme values from simulations
• Extreme value based on Ochi’s formulation
• Extreme value based on Weibull distribution
• Extreme value based on Gumbel distribution
133
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

The hydrodynamic forces acting on the truss legs and heave A. Influence of wave and wind spectra on Spar slow motions
plates are calculated using the Morison equation, which is a
function of drag coefficient Cd and added mass coefficient Cm. Wave height time histories generated based on the same random
The drag and added mass coefficients for the truss members are seed are from a JONSWAP wave spectrum with different peak
well documented. The added mass coefficients for the heave enhancement parameter γ ranging from 1.0 to 3.3. Wind velocity
plates are modeled in the hydrodynamic diffraction calculations. time histories with the same random seed are generated from an
The uncertainty remains on the drag coefficients of the heave API spectrum with the characteristic frequency number equal to
plates. A systematic variation of drag coefficients Cd of the 0.025 and a NDP wind spectrum.
heave plates around the baseline case C0 (Cd increased/
decreased by 20%, case C1 and C2) is performed. Mean, low- and wave-frequency RMS values, and observed
extreme values of the motions and tensions are obtained from
The coupling effects due to mooring and riser added mass and each MULTISIM simulation and are presented in Table 5.
damping can be studied based on the application of MULTISIM
and CAP, because MULTISIM and CAP share the same Apparently, the influence of the peak enhancement parameter γ
hydrodynamic code for the motion calculation but differ from on the Spar slow motions and tensions is very marginal. For
the modeling of the mooring and riser response. MULTISIM is example, the maximum difference of the horizontal slow
not able to capture the added mass, damping and dynamics translational motion (surge + sway) RMS values among the
induced by the mooring lines and risers. three loads based on different peak enhancement parameters (γ
=1.0, 2.4, and 3.3) is less than 4%. A comparison of the slow
The study of the coupling effects is performed under the 100- motions and tensions based on the API and NDP wind spectra
year GOM hurricane condition, JONSWAP wave spectrum and also reaches the same conclusion.
API wind spectrum. The dynamic coupled analysis program
CAP is used. Simulation cases for coupled effects are listed in Table 5. Wave and wind spectra on the Spar slow motions and
Table 3. tensions
γ Wind Mean LF WF Total Observed Extreme
Table 3. Simulation cases for the coupled effects spectrum RMS RMS RMS Max Min
# Program Mooring SCR TTR Surge 1.0 API 193.04 5.95 3.86 7.09 221.42 168.83
D0 MULTISIM Quasi-static coupled + 2.4 API 189.20 6.17 3.96 7.33 224.98 166.81
D1 CAP Dynamic Coupled Quasi-static coupled Sway 3.3 API 187.52 5.93 4.03 7.17 223.38 162.20
D2 CAP Quasi-static coupled Dynamic Quasi-static 3.3 NDP 187.22 5.80 4.03 7.06 213.99 161.18
coupled coupled Heave 1.0 API -1.05 1.01 1.28 1.62 3.80 -5.89
D3 CAP Dynamic coupled Quasi-static 2.4 API -1.03 0.98 1.12 1.49 3.47 -6.43
coupled 3.3 API -1.01 0.95 1.10 1.45 3.31 -5.53
D4 CAP Dynamic coupled 3.3 NDP -1.01 0.95 1.10 1.45 3.37 -5.36
Pitch 1.0 API 1.43 0.54 0.68 0.87 5.39 0.00
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS + 2.4 API 1.42 0.50 0.69 0.85 5.45 0.02
Roll 3.3 API 1.42 0.49 0.68 0.84 5.83 0.01
The results presented and discussed in the following are the 3.3 NDP 1.40 0.49 0.69 0.84 5.65 0.01
mean, root mean square (RMS) and extreme values of the Yaw 1.0 API 1.11 0.59 0.15 0.61 3.14 -0.81
motion and tension responses. Because there are resonant 2.4 API 1.05 0.55 0.15 0.57 3.85 -1.09
frequencies in the low frequency region, it is essential to filter 3.3 API 1.03 0.57 0.15 0.59 3.12 -0.90
the responses to further explore the coupled effects at different 3.3 NDP 1.03 0.55 0.15 0.57 3.02 -0.78
frequency regions as shown in Table 4. Line 1 1.0 API 818 12 15 19 908 754
2.4 API 813 11 15 19 913 760
Table 4. Frequency region 3.3 API 810 11 15 19 908 760
Frequency ω (rad/s) T (sec) 3.3 NDP 810 11 15 18 904 754
Low Frequency ≤ 0.31 ≥ 20.3 Line 2 1.0 API 930 22 27 35 1098 823
Wave Frequency 0.31 - 1.6 3.9 – 20.3 2.4 API 918 21 26 34 1112 832
The motions presented are the horizontal translational motion 3.3 API 913 21 26 33 1099 825
(surge + sway), vertical translational motion (heave), horizontal 3.3 NDP 912 20 26 33 1081 822
rotational motion (yaw), and vertical rotational motion (pitch +
roll). The tensions presented are the tension responses of the
most and second most loaded mooring lines. The contributions
of the riser tensions, added mass and damping are included in
the analysis models at different levels, but the riser tensions are
not the focus of the study.

The units used in the following are foot (for motions,

1ft=0.3048m) and kips (for tensions, 1kips=4483N).

134 Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

Table 6. Sensitivity of tensions to spectrum peak enhancement Surge+ Heave Pitch+ Yaw Line1 Line2
parameters Statistical Sway Roll
Simulation JONSWAP Peak Enhancement Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
γ =1.0 γ =2.4 γ =3.3 Average 217 165 3.4 -5.8 5.4 0.0 2.9 -0.7 906 755 1088 823
Gumbel 215 166 3.2 -5.7 5.2 0.0 2.8 -0.7 902 756 1079 825
0 1098 1112 1081
Ochi 217 158 4.8 -6.8 4.9 -2.1 3.2 -1.1 886 734 1049 775
1 1111 1066 1081
Weibull 216 163 3.6 -5.9 5.3 0.0 3.0 -1.0 905 748 1079 812
2 1089 1136 1071 5%
3 1131 1076 1101 Weibull 218 163 4.0 -6.1 5.3 -0.1 3.2 -1.1 905 747 1083 810
4 1085 1082 1100 10%
5 1091 1078 1060 Weibull 218 161 4.1 -6.2 5.7 -0.1 3.2 -1.1 907 747 1086 811
6 1121 1086 1082 15%
7 1080 1067 1090 Weibull 220 160 4.2 -6.4 5.6 -0.1 3.3 -1.1 911 745 1088 808
8 1067 1072 1127 20%
9 1241 1082 1082 Weibull 220 159 4.2 -6.4 5.7 -0.2 3.3 -1.1 913 745 1092 808
Average 1111 1086 1088 25%
MPEV Gumbel 1089 1076 1079 Weibull 219 159 4.3 -6.5 5.6 -0.2 3.3 -1.1 914 743 1093 803
30%
MPEV Ochi 1079 1060 1049
MPEV WeiBull 5% 1104 1098 1079 (b) Predicted extreme values
MPEV WeiBull 10% 1108 1103 1083
MPEV WeiBull 15% 1113 1104 1086 As the extreme motion and tension response values vary from
MPEV WeiBull 20% 1108 1101 1088 simulation to simulation, these values can only be obtained
MPEV WeiBull 25% 1111 1104 1092 statistically by running a number of simulations for each of the
MPEV WeiBull 30% 1112 1103 1093 γ’s. Ten simulations are run for each γ. These additional
simulations show that higher enhancement parameters do not
The low frequency RMS values of motions and tensions are necessarily yield larger extreme motion and tension response
generally an indicator of the motion and tension energy in the values. Table 6 shows the sensitivity of the extreme tension of
low frequency region. Since change of the spectrum peak the most loaded line to γ. The extreme tensions are calculated by
enhancement parameter only changes the wave spectrum shape averaging the maximum observed tensions from each of the ten
in the wave frequency region, it has limited effects on the low simulations with the same parameter γ. The predicted extreme
frequency motions and tensions of the Spar. These low values based on other estimate methods are also included.
frequency motions and tensions are more likely to be affected by
the added mass and damping induced by the mooring system as The observations found here are inconclusive. In practice, γ and
discussed below. the wind spectrum must be selected based on site-specific
environmental conditions.
While γ has limited effects on the low frequency motions and
tensions, it is desirable to know the sensitivity of the wave B. Extreme responses based on different statistical methods
frequency extreme motion and tension response values to this
parameter? According to Table 5, the horizontal translational The mean value, RMS values, and extreme values are the
wave frequency motion increases steadily from 3.86ft to 4.03ft representative characteristics of a time domain simulation of a
as γ increases. However, this trend is not found for the other floating system. The input is dynamic time history waves, wind
motions. Although the mooring line tensions are computed and static current. The output is the time history of motion and
quasi-statically, and are not expected to accurately reflect the tension responses.
wave frequency tension RMS values, they can reflect the degree
of the γ effects. The dynamic waves and wind in time-domain are generated
using random selected seeds. The time histories generated in this
Table 7. Spar motion and tension responses (10 random selected way are different from simulation to simulation. For example,
wave seeds) the maximum wave height from the following ten generations
# Surge + Heave Pitch + Yaw Line1 Line2 ranges from 35.1ft to 42.7ft – a difference of 20%. The time
Sway Roll history responses of a floating system including motions and
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min tensions under randomly generated wind and waves are thus
B0 214 161 3.4 -5.4 5.7 0.0 3.0 -0.8 904 754 1081 822 different. The mean and root mean square values of the
B1 216 167 3.4 -6.2 5.8 0.0 2.7 -0.7 902 755 1081 823 responses, which reflect the total dynamic energy of the
B2 215 167 3.2 -5.7 5.2 0.0 2.7 -0.8 897 753 1071 820 responses, are generally insensitive to the random seeds. The
B3 217 165 3.0 -5.9 5.0 0.0 2.8 -0.8 914 754 1101 823 remaining task is to determine the extreme values of the
B4 217 164 3.8 -5.7 5.6 0.0 3.2 -0.7 913 756 1100 827 responses. For each time history response, extreme values can be
B5 215 167 3.3 -6.0 5.2 0.0 3.0 -0.6 891 760 1060 829 obtained directly from the simulations. These values vary from
B6 213 164 3.5 -6.3 5.0 0.0 3.1 -0.8 904 751 1082 815 simulation to simulation, and shall not be used as the
B7 215 165 2.9 -5.6 5.4 0.0 2.8 -0.6 907 752 1090 822
representative characteristics of the time history response. The
B8 226 167 3.5 -5.7 6.7 0.0 2.9 -0.8 925 757 1127 826
extreme values must thus be based on multiple simulations of a
B9 216 164 3.6 -5.9 4.9 0.0 3.0 -0.6 904 757 1082 822
Average 217 165 3.4 -5.8 5.4 0.0 2.9 -0.7 906 755 1088 823
three-hour critical sea state. Four methods are applied to
Uncertainty 1.7 1.2 7.8 -4.7 9.5 - 6.2 -10.4 1.0 0.3 1.7 0.5 calculate the extreme response values including the average of
(a) Average of the extreme observed values the extreme observed values, Ochi’s formulation, Gumbel fitting
method, and Weibull fitting method.

Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar 135

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

Table 8. Extreme response values (10 randomly selected wind

seeds)
Surge+ Heave Pitch+ Yaw Line1 Line2
# Sway Roll
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
B10 214 161 3.4 -5.4 5.7 0.0 3.0 -0.8 904 754 1081 822
B11 216 165 3.4 -5.4 5.5 0.0 3.1 -0.9 899 758 1079 826
B12 216 164 3.3 -5.4 5.5 0.0 3.0 -0.6 905 755 1087 824
B13 215 164 3.3 -5.5 5.6 0.0 2.8 -0.6 894 755 1063 821
B14 214 166 3.4 -5.3 5.4 0.0 3.0 -0.8 899 757 1071 827
B15 216 164 3.3 -5.2 5.4 0.0 3.4 -1.3 914 755 1099 822
B16 218 166 3.3 -5.4 5.6 0.0 3.5 -1.2 913 747 1100 811
B17 216 167 3.3 -5.4 5.3 0.0 3.6 -1.1 908 755 1089 821 (1) Second most loaded line with 10 wave seeds
B18 215 165 3.3 -5.4 5.7 0.0 3.1 -0.7 900 754 1072 824
B19 217 162 3.4 -5.3 5.4 0.0 3.1 -0.6 907 755 1090 818
Average 216 164 3.3 -5.4 5.5 0.0 3.2 -0.9 904 754 1083 822
Uncert- 0.5 1.0 1.3 -1.3 2.2 - 7.7 -29.1 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.5
ainty
(a) Average of the extreme observed values

Surge+ Heave Pitch+ Yaw Line1 Line2

Statistical Sway Roll
methods Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
Average 216 164 3.3 -5.4 5.5 0.0 3.2 -0.9 904 754 1083 822
Gumbel 215 165 3.3 -5.3 5.5 0.0 3.1 -0.8 902 756 1078 824
Ochi 217 158 4.8 -6.9 4.9 -2.1 3.2 -1.2 886 733 1050 775
Weibull 5% 217 163 3.9 -5.6 5.6 0.0 3.4 -1.0 907 751 1079 815 (2) Most loaded line with 10 wave seeds
Weibull 10% 222 162 4.3 -6.3 5.8 -0.1 3.4 -1.1 909 748 1088 814
Weibull 15% 221 161 4.6 -6.6 5.9 -0.1 3.4 -1.2 908 746 1086 809
Weibull 20% 222 160 4.7 -6.7 5.9 -0.1 3.4 -1.1 910 744 1089 810
Weibull 25% 222 159 5.0 -6.7 5.9 -0.2 3.4 -1.2 911 745 1090 807
Weibull 30% 221 159 4.8 -6.7 5.9 -0.2 3.4 -1.2 911 743 1090 805
(b) Predicted extreme values

The simplest method is the average of the extreme observed

values. This is done by averaging the extreme observed values
from a number of simulations. The uncertainty of this method
can be calculated easily. The averaged extreme response values
of the Spar motions and tensions from ten simulations generated (3) Second most loaded line with 10 wind seeds
by randomly selected wave seeds and ten simulations generated
by randomly selected wind seeds are calculated and presented in
Table 7 and Table 8. The uncertainty of the response in the
tables is the percentage of the standard deviation with respect to
the averaged response value. According to the tables and
excluding the extremely small responses, the uncertainty based
on the 10 simulations is relatively small.

(4) Most loaded line with 10 wind seeds

Figure 4. Extreme mooring line tensions

Alternatively, Ochi’s formulation, the Gumbel and Weibull

distributions can be used to predict the extreme response values.
These values are the most probable extreme values, and have
probability of being exceeded equal to 0.632. The extreme
response values of the Spar motions and tensions are presented
in Table 7 and Table 8. The Gumbel distribution is obtained by
fitting the distribution to the extreme observed values of the ten
simulations. The Weibull distribution is obtained by fitting the
distribution to the peaks of the simulations. This is done by first
combining the peaks from each simulation. The combined peaks
are then sorted ascendingly.

136 Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

When fitting the Weibull distribution to the peaks, only the top
portion of the sorted peaks is used. If all the peaks are used, the
distribution tends to be heavily biased towards the most
frequently occurring values and may not provide a good estimate
of the extreme values. The upper tailing peaks are far more
important than the lower tailing peaks for the purpose of the
extreme value predictions, but the number of peaks to be
extracted is hard to establish. For this reason, the Weibull fitting
based on the upper portion of the peaks is performed, and
sensitivity of the predicted extremes to the number of peaks
extracted is investigated.
D. Coupling effects of mooring and riser added mass and
damping on Spar motions and mooring/riser dynamics
Simulations are performed for quasi-static coupled and dynamic
coupled motion and tension responses of the Spar under the 100-
yr-hurricane environment condition as mentioned above.
Simulation time for each run is 3 hours with time steps of 0.1
second for the dynamic coupled analysis and 1 second for the
quasi-static coupled analysis. The simulation time includes an
additional 1,000-second ramp to minimize the starting transient
effect.

According to the predictions, the extreme values based on the The mooring lines and risers in each platform configuration are
average of the extreme observed values differ slightly from those modeled individually. The application of CAP and investigation
based on the Gumbel fitting method. Both of them are of the coupled effects are carried out through a comparison
marginally smaller than those based on the Weibull fitting between results of the quasi-static coupled (or dynamic
method. Extreme values generated by Ochi’s formula are about uncoupled in the following) and the dynamic coupled
3 percent lower than those generated by the other three methods. simulations, and can be categorized into the simulation cases
shown in Table 3:
The extreme values based on the Weibull fitting method are
generally insensitive to the number of peaks extracted. However, The mean and RMS values of the motion and tension responses
Figure 4 suggests that a sufficient number of peaks (10%-30%) are computed to investigate the coupled effects. Table 11 shows
are to be extracted to provide an unbiased and stable estimate. motion and tension responses of the Spar in the 100-year
hurricane condition. Detailed comparisons of the mean and RMS
Table 9. Effects of Heave Plate Drag Coefficients on Platform values in different frequency regions are given in the following
Motion sections in terms of mean responses, wave-frequency responses,
# Mean LF WF Total Observed Extreme low-frequency responses.
RMS RMS RMS Max Min
Surge C0 193.04 5.95 3.86 7.09 221.42 168.83 Mean Responses. Coupled contributions from inertia force and
+ C1 187.17 5.78 4.03 7.05 213.88 161.21 current loads on the mooring lines and risers can be shown by
Sway C2 187.27 5.82 4.02 7.07 214.12 161.13 studying the mean horizontal translational motion responses.
Heave C0 -1.05 1.01 1.28 1.62 3.80 -5.89
C1 -1.00 0.88 1.09 1.40 3.13 -5.11
Table 10. Motion and tension responses of the Spar in 100-year
C2 -1.03 1.05 1.11 1.53 3.68 -5.73
Pitch C0 1.43 0.54 0.68 0.87 5.39 0.00
hurricane condition
# Status Extreme Extreme Extreme
+ C1 1.40 0.48 0.69 0.84 5.63 0.01
Surge+Sway Surge Sway
Roll C2 1.40 0.49 0.68 0.84 5.68 0.00
D0 Uncoupled 193 146 117
Yaw C0 1.11 0.59 0.15 0.61 3.14 -0.81
D1 Mooring coupled 180 145 108
C1 1.02 0.54 0.15 0.56 3.00 -0.76
D2 SCRs coupled 183 144 114
C2 1.03 0.55 0.15 0.57 3.03 -0.80
D3 Mooring+SCRs 179 144 106
Line 1 C0 818 12 15 19 908 754
coupled
C1 810 11 15 18 906 753
D4 All coupled 170 134 105
C2 810 11 15 18 902 754
Line 2 C0 930 22 27 35 1098 823
C1 912 20 26 33 1083 821
In Table 10, the mean horizontal translational motion by
C2 913 20 26 33 1078 823 MULTISIM differs from that by CAP where the mooring lines,
steel catenary risers, and top tensioning risers are dynamically
C. Morison coefficients for motion analysis and heave plate coupled at different levels. There is a difference in the sway
hydrodynamics motion of the Spar by the two methods. MULTISIM is unable to
accurately predict the sway motion because the direction of the
The hydrodynamic forces acting on the truss legs and heave sway motion is not in the planes where the majority of the
plates are calculated using the Morison equation, which is a mooring lines are defined.
function of drag coefficient Cd and added mass coefficient Cm.
The drag and added mass coefficients for the truss legs are well Another source of discrepancy is the computation of the current
documented. The added mass coefficients for the heave plates forces on the mooring lines and risers. In MULTSIM, the mean
are modeled in the hydrodynamic diffraction calculation. A current forces on the lines can be computed and applied at the
systematic variation of drag coefficients Cd of the heave plates associated fairlead positions. This may differ from the actual
around the baseline case is performed to investigate the current forces exactly calculated and applied at the element level
sensitivity of Spar responses to heave plate drag coefficients. in the coupled analysis. In the 100-year hurricane condition, the
This is done by increasing the drag coefficient by 20% in one current force on the mooring lines and risers is insignificant, and
case (C1) and by decreasing the drag coefficient by 20% in the hence, is ignored in the current calculation.
other case (C2). Results of the simulation cases are presented in
Table 9. Wave-Frequency Responses. The RMS values of the wave
frequency motion and line tension (most loaded and second most
The increased and decreased drag coefficients have little effect loaded) are presented for the Spar in the 100-year hurricane
on the Spar motions and mooring line tensions. condition . The wave frequency motion RMS values are about
the same regardless of the programs used and the variations of
the coupled levels. The mooring line tensions, on the other hand,

Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar 137

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

differ significantly. The wave frequency RMS tension values by CONCLUSIONS

CAP are significantly larger (30% to 50%) than those by
MULTSIM. In MULTSIM, the dynamic tensions cannot be A series of parametric studies have been conducted to evaluate
modeled. This results in smaller wave frequency line tensions by the coupling effects on a truss Spar. In addition, the influence of
MULTISIM. In practice, the line dynamic tensions are not wave and wind spectrum on slow motions and Morison
directly obtained from MULTISIM, but through a line dynamic coefficients for motion analysis are also investigated. The
program. From the global motion point of view, the truss Spar conclusions are as follows:
has larger line dynamics due to the fact that there is no large
mass of entrapped water associated with the traditional
cylindrical Spar. • In the cases studied, peak enhancement parameter γ has
very marginal influence on the Spar slow motions and
Table 11. Results of the coupled analysis. tensions. A higher enhancement parameter does not
# Mean LF WF Total Observed Extreme necessarily yield larger extreme motion and tension
RMS RMS RMS Max Min
response values.
Surge D0 193.04 5.95 3.86 7.09 221.42 168.83
+ D1 180.24 3.87 4.14 5.66 210.79 157.47 • According to the predictions, the extreme values based on
Sway D2 183.21 4.27 4.08 5.91 217.16 159.72 the average of the extreme observed values differ slightly
D3 179.32 3.75 4.14 5.58 209.22 156.81 from that based on the Gumbel fitting method. Both of
D4 169.76 3.50 3.89 5.24 197.73 148.12 them are marginally smaller than the values based on the
Heave D0 -1.05 1.01 1.28 1.62 3.80 -5.89 Weibull fitting method. Ochi’s formula generally produces
D1 -1.01 0.69 0.97 1.19 2.86 -5.00 the lowest predictions among the four methods
D2 -0.98 0.87 1.07 1.38 3.12 -5.32 investigated.
D3 -1.04 0.67 0.94 1.16 2.75 -4.92
D4 -1.04 0.65 0.87 1.08 2.52 -4.68 • Based on the parametric studies, insignificant changes in
Pitch D0 1.43 0.54 0.68 0.87 5.39 0.00 drag coefficients of heave plates have limited effects on
+ D1 1.44 0.50 0.79 0.93 6.53 0.00 the Spar motions and mooring line tensions.
Roll D2 1.46 0.48 0.79 0.93 6.43 0.00
D3 1.43 0.47 0.80 0.93 6.45 0.00
D4 1.47 0.42 0.87 0.97 6.62 0.05
• Finally, as to the coupling effects on the Spar responses,
Yaw D0 1.11 0.59 0.15 0.61 3.14 -0.81 the wave frequency motion RMS values are about the
D1 0.95 0.43 0.30 0.52 3.27 -0.59 same regardless of the coupling levels. The mooring line
D2 1.01 0.53 0.20 0.57 3.07 -0.93 tensions, on the other hand, differ significantly. The RMS
D3 0.97 0.36 0.29 0.46 2.86 -0.42 values in low-frequency motion by CAP are smaller than
D4 1.10 0.24 0.28 0.37 2.96 -0.02 those by MULTISIM. However, the corresponding low
Line 1 D0 818 12 15 19 908 754 frequency tension RMS values of the most loaded line and
D1 808 25 105 108 1286 438 second most loaded line of the Spar by CAP are larger
D2 806 9 15 18 902 751 than that by MULTISIM due to the dynamic effects
D3 808 24 104 107 1279 443 included in CAP but not in MULTISIM.
D4 810 24 108 111 1306 431
Line 2 D0 930 22 27 35 1098 823
D1 901 33 131 135 1500 470
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
D2 904 16 26 31 1084 816
D3 901 32 131 134 1491 471
D4 901 31 136 140 1527 456 The authors are grateful to James Card, Senior Vice President,
and John Spencer, Vice President of ABS for their valuable
comments and reviews. The authors are indebted to ABS
Wind and Wave Induced Low-Frequency Responses. librarian Deborah Feuerbacher for editing the manuscript.
Resonant low frequency motions will be significantly affected
by the damping level when exciting low frequency wind and
wave loads are around the natural frequencies of the Spar. REFERENCES:

RMS values of the low-frequency motions of the Spar in the
100-year hurricane condition are presented. The RMS values in
the low-frequency region by CAP are smaller than those by
MULTISIM. The reduction in the RMS values is attributed to
the added mass and damping of the moorings and risers modeled
in CAP but not in MULTISIM, which is in line with the results
reported by Webster (1995) that the damping induced by the
mooring lines are substantial in reducing the low frequency
motions of a moored structure.
On the other hand, the corresponding low frequency tension
RMS values of the most loaded line and second most loaded line
of the Spar by CAP are larger than those by MULTISIM. This is
due to the dynamic effects included in CAP but not in
MULTISIM.
Chau, FP. and Eatock Taylor, R. (1992) “Second-order wave
diffraction by a vertical cylinder,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 242,
pp.571-599.
Chen, XH, Zhang, J., Johnson, P and Irani, M. “Studies on the
Dynamics of Truncated Mooring Line,” ISOPE (2000)
Chen, XH, Zhang, J, Johnson, P and Irani, M (2001). “Dynamic
Analysis of Mooring Lines by Using Three Different Methods,”
ISOPE (2001)
Datta, I, Prislin, I, Halkyard, JE, Greiner, WL, Bhat, S,
Perryman, S and Beynet, PA (1999). “Comaprison of
Truss Spar Model Test Results with Numerical
Predictions”, OMAE99.

138 Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

Kim, MH and Yue, DKP (1990). “The complete second-order

diffraction solution for a axisymmetric body, part 2, bichromatic
incident waves and body motions”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 211, pp.
571-593

Kristoffersen, G and Weaver, T (2001). “Mooring Analysis of a

Truss Spar”, OTC 13271, 2001

Ma, W and Webster, WC (1994). “An analytical approach to

cable dynamics: theory and user manual”, Sea Grant Project
R/OE-26.

Ma, W, Zou, J, Lee, MY and Huang, E (2000). “Deepwater

nonlinear coupled analysis toll”, OTC 12085, 2000

Magee, A, Sablok, A, Maher, J, Halkyard, J and Finn, L (2000).

“Heave Plate Effectiveness in the Performance of Truss Spars”,
OMAE2000, OSU OFT-4230

Mekha, BB, Johnson, CP and Roesset, JM. (1995). “Nonlinear

response of a Spar in deep water: different hydrodynamic and
structural models”, Proc. 5th ISOPE conf., Vol. 3, pp. 462-469.

Molin, B (1979). “Second-oder diffraction loads uponthree

dimensional bodies”, Appl. Ocean Res., Vol. 302, pp. 203-229.

Paulling, JR (1995). “MULTISIM Time Domain Platform

Motion Simulation for Floatinh Platform Consisting of Multiple
Interconnected Modules,” Theoretical Manual, Third Edition,
November 2, 1995.

Ran, Z and Kim, MH (1998). “Coupled dynamic analysis of a

moored Spar in random waves andcurrents (time-domain vs.
frequency domain analysis)”, 17th OMAE International
Conference, OMAE98-0604

Tahar, A, Ran, Z and Kim, MH(2002). “Hull/mooring/riser

coupled spar motion analysis with buoyancy-can effect”, Proc.
Of 12th Intl. Offshore and Polar Engn. Conf..

Webster, WC(1995) “Mooring induced damping”, J. Ocean

Engineering , vol 22, no.6, pp. 571-591

Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar 139

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

140 Global Performance and Mooring Analysis of a Truss Spar