Ocean Systems Engineering, Vol. 8, No.

3 (2018) 329-343
DOI: https:// doi.org/10.12989/ose.2018.8.3.329 329

Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed

under the action of environmental loads

Shovan Roya and Atul K. Banik
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, WB, India

(Received May 4, 2018, Revised August 16, 2018, Accepted August 19, 2018)

Abstract. The inclination of seabed profile (sloped seabed) is one of the known topographic features
which can be observed at different seabed level in the large offshore basin. A mooring system connected
between the platform and global seabed is an integral part of the floating structure which tries to keep the
floating platform settled in its own position against hostile sea environment. This paper deals with an
investigation of the motion responses of an FPSO platform moored on the sloped seabed under the
combined action of wave, wind and current loads. A three-dimensional panel discretization method has been
used to model the floating body. To introduce the connection of multi-segmented non-linear elastic catenary
mooring cables with the sloped seabed, a quasi-static composite catenary model is employed. The model and
analysis have been completed by using hydrodynamic diffraction code AQWA. Validation of the numerical
model has been successfully carried out with an experimental work published in the latest literature. The
analysis procedure in this study has been followed time domain analysis. The study involves an objective
oriented investigation on platform motions, in order to identify the effects of the slopped seabed, the action
of the wave, wind and current loads and the presence of riser system. In the end, an effective analysis has
been performed to identify a stable mooring model in demand of reducing structural responses of the FPSO.
Keywords: sloped seabed; FPSO; wave; wind; current; quasi-static

1. Introduction

Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) forms an integral part in the emergent
hydrocarbon gas and oil extracting sector. It has been globally accepted that FPSO towers over
other offshore structures in terms of functionality due to its immense versatility. The ease of
installation and safe operation on FPSOs ensure a settled position for the structure in the frontier of
modern offshore engineering. Enormous storage capacity, lack of necessity of pipeline systems
and an extended deck area are some of the salient features of this vessel, which has been a major
factor for its dominance in the offshore resource market. The operating area of FPSOs being deep
oceans, environmental factors are seriously considered in their design. Wave, wind, and ocean
current loads are considered to be the primary environmental loads that the FPSO is subjected to.
The station keeping of the platform, thus becomes a major component of the design. From the safe
marine operational point of view to get precise position and motion control of this unit, is needed

Corresponding author, E-mail: [email protected]

a
Ph.D. Student, E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2018 Techno-Press, Ltd.

http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=ose&subpage=7 ISSN: 2093-6702 (Print), 2093-677X (Online)
330 Shovan Roy and Atul K. Banik

to be deployed together with a slenderer single or multi-legged mooring system. These nonlinear
catenary mooring cables are followed by the fairlead to partially suspended, partially grounded and
then anchored at the end to the seabed. To hold the structure in the desired location a significant
part of the mooring cables lies on the seabed. Besides, seabed may not be assumed as a horizontal
bed.
Usan field, Offshore Nigeria is progressively exploited for hydrocarbons and consist of the
variant angle of seabed slopes, water depth in between 740 and 760 m (Jones et al. 2013).
Normally, It has a certain inclination from downstream to upstream which can never be neglected
for a largely spread FPSO and it's scattered mooring system on the seabed.
A set of the simplified ship-manoeuvring equation based performance and stability of turret
moored FPSOs has been identified by numerous researchers namely Lee et al. (2000) and Sphaier
et al. (2000). Many authors were mentioned the involvement of wind, waves, and current as
external loads to the structure needs a dynamic study (Irani et al. 2001). The change of the motion
behaviour of a turret-moored FPSO with dynamic positioning control is analysed by Kim et al.
(2016). Among them, irregular waves with winds and currents containing a numerical study of
turret moored FPSO has been comprehensively derived by Wichers (1988). He has postulated the
equation of motion using the time domain uncoupled method and distinctly developed the
formulation for rigid-body and cable dynamics.
In case of FPSOs, along with the mooring cables a significant number of risers are also
attached to the platform (Fig. 1). As a result, the responses of the platform are also derived from
the wave frequency motions of the risers, leading to mean offsets (Ormberg and Larsen 1998).
This, in turn, affects the coupling interaction of the mooring and riser with the platform as well as
the seabed. In existence of slopped seabed, the change in line geometry of mooring and riser
affects the inline tension generation which in turn restores the platform towards the equilibrium
position (Chai et al. 2002). Although, after surveying the numerous literature it has been found,
there is scanty of literature, in which the sloped seabed effect on the structural dynamic responses
with proper illustration has been addressed.
Ward et al. (2001) and Kim et al. (2005) have carried out an experiment to investigate the
response of the turret-moored FPSO which was designed for 6000-ft water depth. A similar
experiment has been done by Baar et al. (2000) to find the extreme response of a turret-moored
FPSO in the Gulf of Mexico. The model tests have some limitations to calculate the interaction
effects of rigid body and slender cables at deep-water condition due to depth restrictions of wave
basins. Another major problem of physical model testing is differential Reynolds number between
the cable lines and the prototype. Several researchers have shifted their focus to develop the
modelling and simulation tools for the analysis of an FPSO. Likewise, a second order diffraction
radiation panel program WAMIT has been incorporated into the hydrodynamic analysis on the
turret-moored FPSO by Tahar and Kim (2003). To estimate the response behaviour of an FPSO
under dynamic environment condition, the time domain analysis has been preferred more over
frequency domain analysis. (Shivaji and Sen 2015).
In this paper, a new approach to modelling of an FPSO with segmented mooring system
interacted with seabed has been successively adopted. Here, the large floating body has been
discretized in three-dimensional panel method. Strategically, a quasi-static composite model
approach has permitted the physical connection between the multi-segment elastic catenary lines
with the sloped seabed. Whereas seabed interaction nodes are modelled in the sense to diminish
the reactive energy losses and to minimize the discontinuity. The structural and geometrical
parameters have been obtained from the work of Lopez et al. (2017). The validation of the model
 Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed under the action of environmental loads 331

has been carried out by comparing the natural periods from the free decay analysis and by
comparing the response amplitude operators (RAOs) from the wave excitation with those obtained
through experimental work by Lopez et al. (2017). The advantage of nonlinear modelling is also
highlighted in this work which reinforces the necessity of complex nonlinear modelling in
problems like the one undertaken in the current study. This paper provides an insight into a
comprehensive modelling technique, where rigid floating structures can be modelled along with
flexible mooring cables and the touchdown zone condition can also be incorporated.

2. Background theory

2.1 Floating body hydrodynamics

Hydrodynamic loading on a floating body is primarily caused by the kinematics of water

particles in waves, resulting in motion of the structure, and finally the interaction of structure and
incident waves (Faltinsen 1990). This kind of force is generally formed due to active and reactive
loading components. Whereas active loading or wave exciting force is developed by the incident
wave and diffraction wave and reactive loading or radiation force are generated from the radiation
wave, initiated by the body motions. After identifying the wave load parameters three-dimensional
potential method can be adopted in the mathematical model and the velocity potential induced by
the incident   x, y, z  , diffraction   x, y, z  and radiation waves   x, y, z  may be summarized
I D R

as follows


  x, y, z  e it  Re I  x, y, z   D  x, y, z    Rj  x, y, z  j  e  it
j 1

6    j  u j ,  j  1,3 
   ,  j  4, 6  
 j j 3  (1)
Where Re is the real part of the argument. i  1 . t and  are the time and the wave
2

frequency, respectively.   x, y, z  is the radiation wave potential corresponding to the unit wave
Rj

amplitude j th motion, and  j is the wave amplitude of j th motion; u j and  j are the
translation and rotational motion of j th motion and j  1,...,6 are the body motions in 6 degree
of freedom.

Fig. 1 FPSO platform system with riser and mooring cables

332 Shovan Roy and Atul K. Banik

Fig. 2 Catenary line solution

Knowing the incident wave potential, a boundary element method is used to obtain the
scattered wave potential. To perform a nonlinear time domain analysis, both the mean wetted hull
surface and the surface above the mean water level are required to be identified. Therefore, the
meshing of the structure is carried out following guidelines of the 3D panel method. The structure
is discretized into a number of diffracting and non-diffracting panels. These panels must not cut
the mean water surface. All the panels not involved directly in the wave force calculation are
referred to as non-diffracting panels. Thereafter, the wave forces are computed by integrating the
pressures on the diffracting panel surfaces. Pressure distribution on the diffracting panels is
obtained from linear Bernoulli equation considering both the incident and scattered wave
potentials.

2.2 Nonlinear catenary line

In the present study, a solution of the catenary equation is obtained by considering nonlinear stiffness
of the line segment. A local coordinate system OXYZ is assumed, where the X axis and Y axis are lying
on the surface of the seabed and positive Z axis is vertically upward, as shown in Fig. 2. The static
excursions in X and Z directions of a non-linear catenary line are given as,
H V2  T2
X  ln
w V1  T1
(2)
T2  T1
Z 
w (3)
Where, X and Z are the horizontal and vertical extension of the catenary line segment, H is the
horizontal component of tension, V1 and V2 are the vertical component of the tension in bottom left hand
segment and top right hand segment, T1 and T2 are the tension force in bottom left hand segment and top
right hand segment and w is the submerged weight per unit length.
The extension of the catenary line segment S with equivalent nonlinear axial stiffness AE can be
e

expressed as
 Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed under the action of environmental loads 333

Te
S  S
AE e (4)
e
T
AE e 
 (5)
Where T is denoted as equivalent tension and  is the strain function. Here, this nonlinear stiffness
e

values of the catenary lines are transferred to the global stiffness matrix of the equation of motion.
Here, the catenary mooring lines are divided into three segments (chain-wire-chain) and connected as
an elastic member between the hull and sloped seabed. Each catenary line segments are defined by their
length, mass per unit length and the equivalent cross-sectional area which is numerically equivalent to the
volume of water displaced by per unit length. Also, the nonlinear axial stiffness is incorporated as a line
property. The anchored point should be considered for each cable separately.

2.3 Catenary line on the sloped seabed

A catenary composite line on the global sloped seabed can be expressed by a quasi-static model,
shown in Fig. 3, where the local seabed is defined as right-hand Cartesian frame OXYZ and the
origin is laid on the seabed reference point. The local axes and corresponding fixed reference axes
are parallel to each other. Moreover, the angle between the steepest upward path on the seabed and
the horizontal plane is called seabed angle  O and the angle between the extension of the steepest
path on the horizontal plane and the local axis is defined as the azimuth angle  O .
The relative azimuth angle O of the line in the vertical plane is

 z 
O  tan 1  
 l  XD  XM  
  (6)
Where l is the seabed azimuth directional vector in the fixed reference axes and the
coordinate points of D and M are denoted by X D and X M respectively.

Fig. 3 Catenary line on the sloped seabed

334 Shovan Roy and Atul K. Banik

Fig. 4 Catenary composite line

In the present study, with the help of using quasi-static catenary line model, sloped seabed has
been introduced with the catenary line segment. The buoys and clump weights may be attached to
the catenary segment joints. A catenary composite line, anchored in a sloped seabed is shown in
Fig. 4. In this quasi-static model, friction force due to a laid-down portion on the sloped seabed,
current drag and inertia force of the line has not been considered.

2.4 Rigid body motion

M  A() X(t )  CX(t )  KX(t )   h(t   )X( )  F

t

hydro
 Fcurrent  Fwind
0
(7)
Here, M is the system mass matrix consisting of the structural mass component and A() is the
added mass matrix component in infinite frequency; C is the linear damping matrix, K is the
system stiffness matrix consisting of the contributions from the hydrostatic stiffness and mooring
stiffness, X is the structural displacement vector, X is the structural velocity vector while X is the
structural acceleration vector. Fhydro , Fcurrent and Fwind represents respectively the hydrodynamic
force, the current force and the wind force. Here, h() is the acceleration impulse function
computed by the transform of the frequency-dependent added-mass matrix A( ) and hydrodynamic
damping matrix C( ) in wave frequency 

 sin(t )  
h( )  2  C( ) d  2  ( A( )  A()) cos( t)d
 0   0 (8)

3. Numerical model

3.1 FPSO platform

The FPSO model used for the study was referred from the experimental work done by Lopez et al.
 Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed under the action of environmental loads 335

(2017). The structural properties of FPSO platform are presented in Table 1. In order to develop FPSO
model, the global coordinate system has been considered for the present study, where the surface of the
still water level and centreline of the platform are assumed as the origin of the axis of reference with
positive z-axis vertically upwards. The three-dimensional platform model is discretized into 6051 panel
elements (Fig. 5) out of which 3633 panels are diffracting elements in the draft portion. Panels in the
freeboard portion are considered as non-diffracting elements.

3.2 Mooring and riser system

The mooring and riser system models are referred from the passive hybrid method based
approach, carried out by Lopez et al. (2017). Here, the details of mooring cables and risers are
taken according to the specifications provided in their truncated model at a water depth of 627 m.
The particulars of mooring cable and riser are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 1 The dimensions and characteristics of the FPSO

Description Full load condition Ballast load condition
Length LPP (m) 300 300
Breadth, B (m) 46.20 46.20
Depth, H (m) 26.20 26.20
Draught, T (m) 16.50 9.00
Ta (m) 16.50 9.50
Tf (m) 16.50 8.50
Length/Beam ratio, (L/B) 6.49 6.49
Beam/Draught ratio, (B/T) 2.80 5.13
Displacement (tonnes) 218876 122530
XB, XG (m) 2.43 3.08
ZG (m) 11.43 7.87
Kxx (m) 16.17 20.79
Kyy (m) 86.72 86.72

Fig. 5 FPSO panel model

336 Shovan Roy and Atul K. Banik

Table 2 Particulars of mooring cable

Description Prototype Truncate specification
Number of mooring lines 9 9
Pretension (kN) 2025 2025
Total Length of mooring line (m) 2185 1160
Segment 1: Fairlead chain R4S Studless
Length (m) 50 50
Diameter (mm) 90 90
Mass in water (tonnes/m) 0.146 0.146
EA (kN) 691740 691740
Breaking strength (kN) 8167 -
Segment 2: Mid-section Spiral strand
Length (m) 1200 580
Diameter (mm) 90 90
Mass in water (tonnes/m) 0.0336 0.116
EA (kN) 766000 68000
Breaking strength (kN) 7938 -
Segment 3: Chain ground section R4S Studless
Length (m) 935 530
Diameter (mm) 90 90
Mass in water (tonnes/m) 0.146 0.133
EA (kN) 691740 60000
Breaking strength (kN) 8167 -

Table 3 Particulars of the riser

Description Prototype Truncate specification
Number of risers 6 symmetric 6 symmetric
Pretension (kN) 1500 1500
The total length of the riser (m) 2650 1400
Outside diameter (mm) 273 273
Inside diameter (mm) 235 235
Mass in water (tonnes/m) 0.096 0.234
EA (kN) Specification 3039364 API-5L-X-65 85000
 Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed under the action of environmental loads 337

4. Validation of the model

A free decay analysis of FPSO structure has been carried out in the present simulation to obtain
the natural time periods and a good matched results thus comparison of natural periods are
obtained as shown in Table 7.
Next, the comparisons of response amplitude operator (RAO) between the present simulation and
Lopez et al. (2017) are depicted in Figs .6(a)-6(c) for the surge, heave and pitch response motions.
The obtained numerical results compare well with the referred experimental results.

Present study Lopez et al. (2017) Present study Lopez et al. (2017)

1 1.2
0.9
0.8 1
Surge RAO (m/m)

Heave RAO (m/m)

0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5 0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) Surge (b) Heave

Present study Lopez et al. (2017)

0.7
0.6
Pitch RAO (deg/m)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Frequency (rad/s)

(c) Pitch
Fig. 6 RAO comparison

Table 7 Comparison of natural time periods from the present study and Lopez et al. (2017)
Directions Lopez et al. (2017) Present study
Surge 223.58 216.45
Sway 277.39 282.48
Heave 11.51 11.625
Roll 13.21 13
Pitch 11.60 11.16
Yaw 166.90 156.73
338 Shovan Roy and Atul K. Banik

5. Numerical results

5.1 Comparative study

Figs. 7(a)-7(f) shows the effect of sloped bed in the structural behaviour by comparing the
responses of the platform in the time domain at the sloped bed as well as a horizontal bed. To
simulate the seabed profile in a more realistic manner, the slope angle is given as -4 degree as per
Chai et al. (2002). In order to account the effects of the sloped seabed on the platform responses,
wave, wind, and current have been considered and acted co-linearly from upstream to downstream
direction and which is towards the positive direction of X-axis. It is clearly observed from the
obtained results that significant change in motions is found due to introducing slope at the bed. In
surge motion a mean offset of 32.690 m has been found because down the slope of the seabed is
considered in the deeper sea that means initially the platform has shifted its location due to the
cables. But there is not so much variation in response amplitude under both the seabed conditions.

Horizontal Bed Sloped Bed Horizontal Bed Sloped Bed

80 18
16
60
14
40 12
Surge (m)

Sway (m)

20 10
8
0 6
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
-20 4
2
-40
0
-60 -22000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Time (S) Time (s)

(a) Surge (b) Sway

Horizontal Bed Sloped Bed Horizontal Bed Sloped Bed

0.15 1.5

0.1 1

0.05 0.5
Yaw (deg)
Roll (deg)

0 0
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
-0.05 -0.5

-0.1 -1

-0.15 -1.5
Time (m) Time (s)

(c) Roll (d) Yaw

Fig. 7 Time series of a comparative study between the horizontal bed and sloped bed
 Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed under the action of environmental loads 339

However, in sway directions, the structure has shifted to 13.805 m towards positive Y direction
and a significant larger amplitude response has been observed as similar to yaw and roll responses.
However, the responses in heave and pitch motions are not varying so much and it should be
neglected.

5.2 Effect of asymmetric stiffness

In order, to study the effect of asymmetric stiffness due to asymmetric mooring pattern between
upward and downward cables which are moored on the sloped seabed as per Figs. 8(a) and 8(b),
time domain analysis has been performed for group mooring and spread mooring configuration. In
a randomly sloped seabed, such asymmetric mooring pattern between the cables on both the sides
may produce some categorical differences in response.
Mean values and standard deviations in the surge, sway, roll and yaw responses for group
mooring and spread mooring configurations are shown in Figs. 9(a)-9(d). By considering the
asymmetric configuration between upward and downward moored cables the Surge, sway, roll and
yaw motions are much affected. All the responses show higher fluctuation with significant
standard deviation and lower responses with statistical mean values. Although due to the effect of
asymmetric stiffness of mooring cables the FPSO shows larger offset in the surge and sway
directions and little mean fluctuation in roll and yaw responses.

5.3 Effect of sloped seabed

The large floating structure like FPSO has required a stronghold in deep water to the bottom
seabed with flexible mooring cables. Besides for seabed of the ocean domain like Usan offshore
field has a number of multi-slopes which are having a certain inclination from downstream to the
upstream sea floor and those cannot be ignored in response calculation. To study the seabed
inclination effects on platform response, a significant time domain analysis has been carried out.
All the mooring properties which are used for the flat seabed kept same in the sloped seabed. The
angle between the sloping-floor to the flat seabed defined as  or angle of seabed inclination, as
shown in Fig.10 and  are given as 2, 4, 6 and 8.

(a) Group mooring (b) Spread mooring

Fig. 8 Asymmetric mooring configuration
340 Shovan Roy and Atul K. Banik

70 0.2

60 Group mooring std dev. Group mooring std dev.

Spread mooring std dev. Spread mooring std dev.
50 Group mooring mean 0.15 Group mooring mean
Spread mooring mean Spread mooring mean
40
Surge (m)

Sway (m)
30
0.1
20
10
0 0.05

-10
-20 0
75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%105%110%115%120%125% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%105%110%115%120%125%
Stiffness Stiffness
(a) Surge (b) Sway

0.01 0.1
Group mooring std dev. Group mooring std dev.
Spread mooring std dev. 0.08 Spread mooring std dev.
0.008
Group mooring mean Group mooring mean
Spread mooring mean 0.06 Spread mooring mean
Yaw (degree)
Roll (degree)

0.006
0.04
0.004
0.02

0.002 0

0 -0.02
75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%105%110%115%120%125% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%105%110%115%120%125%
Stiffness Stiffness
(c) Roll (d) Yaw
Fig. 9 Effect of asymmetric stiffness

Fig. 10 The topography of the sloped seabed

 Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed under the action of environmental loads 341

Group mooring Spread mooring Group mooring Spread mooring

100 0.08
90 0.07
80
0.06
Max surge (m)

70

Max sway (m)

60 0.05
50 0.04
40 0.03
30
0.02
20
10 0.01
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Angle of inclination (deg) Angle of inclination (deg)

(a) Surge (b) Sway

Group mooring Spread mooring Group mooring Spread mooring

0.006 0.035

0.005 0.03
0.025
Max yaw (deg)
Max roll (deg)

0.004
0.02
0.003
0.015
0.002
0.01
0.001 0.005
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Angle of inclination (deg) Angle of inclination (deg)

(c) Roll (d) Yaw

Fig. 11 Effect of different slope bottoms

Figa. 11(a)-11(d) shows the statistical representation of the responses of FPSO in the surge,
sway, roll and yaw directions considering group mooring and spread mooring configuration. It is
seen that when the angle of inclination increases, maximum surge motions are also monotonously
increased, but sway, roll, and yaw motions are gradually decreased for the group mooring. Thus,
surge motion is more severe for that mooring configuration in the sloped seabed. Such phenomena
might be produced to drift frequency forces. The increased amplitude reaches 25% for group
mooring and unchanged for spread mooring in all the seabed angles. In case of sway, roll and yaw
motion, the decreased amplitude reaches 10% in group mooring and slightly increased for spread
mooring. The motion responses of the Large FPSO are significantly affected by the multi sloped
seafloor. Surge, sway, roll, and yaw motions are highly exited in a sloped seabed.
Also, this study proofs that spread mooring is more stable than group mooring configuration
against structural responses on the sloped seabed.
342 Shovan Roy and Atul K. Banik

6. Conclusions

This paper deals with the complex modelling and analysis techniques associated with the
nonlinear system of an FPSO as floating rigid body and nonlinear composite mooring lines laid
over a sloped seabed. The platform is subjected to combined wave, wind and current loads. Here,
the wave is irregular in nature represented by JONSWAP spectrum with high significant wave
height. The effect of the seabed has been included in the solution process by introducing an
inherent slope in the upstream and downstream side of the FPSO. The ability to model the FPSO
as a thin-shelled structure enables panel discretization method and mooring cables as nonlinear
catenary multi-segmented lines attached with sloped seabed enable quasi-static analysis method to
be implemented by AQWA. Validation of the numerical model has been carried out with an
experimental work. To obtain a good estimation of extreme values of slow-drift motions from any
numerical simulations a long simulation time is needed. 10000 seconds of longtime simulation to
obtain good results in a reasonable time duration with 1.60 GHz processor.

 From the results obtained, the effect of asymmetric stiffness due to the sloped seabed on
structural responses is strongly observed. FPSO, surge and sway motions have been increased
and roll and yaw motions have been slightly decreased as the difference between stiffness of
two mooring sides are gradually increased.
 FPSO Surge motion is more severe as the seabed becomes inclined. However, sway, roll and
heave motions are significantly decreased when the sloping bed becomes more inclined.

Taking into account all the computational obstacles while solving a hydrodynamic problem,
this extensive comparative investigation reveals the importance of including all system
nonlinearities in the governing equations of the rigid body - flexible cable – seabed interaction.
The effect of seabed inclination introduces a new modelling scope for the analysis of mooring line
behaviour, while simultaneously solving for the responses of floating body in all six DOFs. Further
development and research are to be carried out on the system where the effect of seabed
inclination is to be investigated by solving the entire problem with cable mass, drag forces, and
bending stiffness.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by National Institute of Technology, Durgapur [grant number

NITD/Regis/OR/25].

References

Baar, J.J.M., Heyl, C.N. and Rodenbusch, G. (2000), “Extreme response of turret moored tankers”,
Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May.
Chai, Y.T., Varyani, K.S. and Barltrop, N.D.P. (2002), “Semi-analytical quasi-static formulation for
three-dimensional partially grounded mooring system problems”, Ocean Eng., 29, 627-649.
Faltinsen, O. (1990), Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Irani, M.B., Johnson R.P. and Ward E.G (2001), “FPSO responses to wind, wave and current loading”,
 Dynamic responses of an FPSO moored on sloped seabed under the action of environmental loads 343

Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, January.
Jones, D.O.B., Mrabure, C.O. and Gates, A.R. (2013), “Changes in deep-water epibenthic megafaunal
assemblages in relation to seabed slope on the Nigerian margin”, Deep Sea Research Part I:
Oceanographic Research Papers, 78, 49-57.
Kim, S.W., Kim, M.N. and Kang, H.Y. (2016), “Turret location impact on global performance of a
thruster-assisted turret-moored FPSO”, Ocean Syst. Eng., 6(3), 265-287.
Kim, M.H., Koo, B.J., Mercier, R.M. and Ward, E.G. (2005), “Vessel/mooring/riser coupled dynamic
analysis of a turret-moored FPSO compared with OTRC experiment”, Ocean Eng., 32, 1780-1802.
Lee, D.H. (2002), “Nonlinear stability analysis and motion control of tandem moored tankers. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.
Lopez, J. T., Taoa, L., Xiao, L. and Hu, Z. (2017), “Experimental study on the hydrodynamic behaviour of
an FPSO in a deepwater region of the Gulf of Mexico”, Ocean Eng., 129, 549-566.
Ormberg, H. and Larsen, K. (1998), “Coupled analysis of floating motion and mooring dynamics for a
turret-moored ship”, J. Appl. Ocean Res., 20, 55-67.
Shivaji, G.T. and Sen, D. (2015), “Direct time domain analysis of floating structures with linear and
nonlinear mooring stiffness in a 3D numerical wave tank”, J. Appl. Ocean Res., 51, 153-170.
Sphaier, S.H., Fernandes, A.C. and Correa, S.H. (2000), “Maneuvering model for the FPSO horizontal plane
behaviour”, Proceedings of 10th International Offshore Polar Engineering Conference, Washington,
USA, May-June.
Tahar, A. and Kim, M.H. (2003), “Hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis and sensitivity study of a
tanker-based FPSO”, J. Appl. Ocean Res., 25 (6), 367-382.
Ward, E.G., Irani, M.B. and Johnson, R.P. (2001), “Responses of a tanker-based FPSO to hurricanes”
Proceedings of the 33rd Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, April-May.
Wichers, J.E.W. (1988), “A simulation model for a single point moored tanker”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.

MK