Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Stavanger, Norway, June 17-22, 2001

Copyright 2001 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1-880653-51-6 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-54--O(VoL111); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Variability of TLP Motion Analysis Against Various Design Methodologies/Parameters

M.H. Kim, A. Tahar and Y.B. Kim
Texas A&M University College Station, TX, USA

ABSTRACT Nonlinear hull/tendon/riser coupled dynamic analyses of a TLP (tension-leg platform) designed for 3000-ft water depth are conducted in the time domain. The first-order and second-order sum- and difference-frequency wave loads and other hydrodynamic coefficients for the hull are calculated from a second-order diffraction/radiation program, while the forces on slender members, 8 vertical tethers and 8 vertical tensioned risers, are calculated from Morison formula. The numerical simulations were conducted for 100-yr Hurricane condition with non-parallel wind, wave, and current. The results are compared with those of uncoupled quasi-static analysis and semi-coupled dynamic analysis, in which the tethers and risers are replaced by a set of massless nonlinear springs. A comprehensive sensitivity study of the simulation results against various analysis/environmentparameters was carded out to better understand the underlying physics and the role of each parameter. In all cases considered, the wave frequency components remain almost the same, while the slowly-varying motions change case by case. It is particularly underscored that the viscous damping from tethers and risers may be significant and the equivalent static wind modeling may lead to underestimation of slowly varying surge/sway responses. KEY WORDS: Tension-Leg Platform(TLP), hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis, second-order diffraction/radiation, uncoupled quasi-static semi-coupled dynamic, sensitivity analysis, mooring damping INTRODUCTION Tension-leg platforms have been increasingly popular as an economic and reliable oil production platform in the deep areas of the Gulf of Mexico. As water depth increases, the portion of the tether and riser mass becomes larger against the hull mass, and the resulting inertia and damping effects from them are expected to be important. In this case, to accurately account for the inertia and damping effects of tethers and risers on the hull motions, hull/tether/riser coupled dynamic analyses need to be employed in time domain. For some systems, the coupling effects may magnify the extreme hull responses, however in most cases, the coupling effects more likely lead to smaller extreme
467

responses due to additional riser/mooting damping, which results in less expensive tether/riser system. In offshore industry, the design of risers and tethers has mostly been based on either uncoupled quasi-static analysis (model tethers and risers as massless linear or nonlinear springs, calculate hull responses, and estimate the tether tension from static-offset curve) or semicoupled dynamic analysis (model tethers and risers as massless linear or nonlinear springs, calculate hull responses, input the calculated motions at the tether connection, and run line dynamics program for each tether). In the absence of more accurate time-domain hull/tether/riser coupled analysis tools, the reliability of those approximation methods has primarily been checked against model test data. However, for ultra-deepwater platform, the length of mooring lines and risers cannot be correctly scaled due to the depth limitation of existing wave basins. Under this circumstance, offshore industry has paid a lot of attention on the development and verification of reliable codes which can accurately simulate the hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamics of deepwater platforms (e.g. Colby et al., 2000; Ma et al., 2000). Once fully verified and calibrated, the coupled-analysis computer program can be used for the extrapolation of the model test data conducted with truncated mooring lines to larger depth after careful calibration effort, which can partly solve the unavailability of the deepwater model-test basin. Therefore, the importance of the reliable coupled analysis tool cannot be too much underscored for ultra-deepwater projects. To evaluate the performance/variability of the existing time-domain hull/mooring/risercoupled dynamic analysis tools, a Deep-Star project was launched in 1999 to collect and compare the various computational results of 3 different deepwater platforms; spar, TLP, and FPSO, designed for 3000-ft, 6000-ft, and 10,000-ft water depths, respectively. In the participant workshop, all the design parameters and environmental conditions were clearly defined, and many contributors volunteered to analyze either one or two structures by using their own computer programs. The final results show that there still exists non-trivial scatter among various participants. The result "~f this comparison study is summarized in the OTRC report (Kim et al., 1999). To better understand possible reasons for such variability, the present study is focused on the sensitivity of the motion/tether-tension of the 3000-ft TLP in a noncollinear 100-yr Hurricane condition by

varying empirical parameters or analysis methodologies. The results may also help to better develop the calibration scheme against modeltesting data. Several important and useful conclusions are drawn based on the present sensitivity study and they are summarized in the last section. SPECIFICATION OF CLASSIC TLP(3000FT) FOR GLOBAL ANALYSIS
uase Description Draft (ft) 80.0

The hull/mooring/riser coupled statics/dynamics are calculated by a time-domain coupled program, WINPOST (Ran and Kim, 1997; Kim et al., 1999). The tethers are assumed hinged at the hull and seafloor template. The vertical riser is hinged at the bottom but held at the deck by a constant force through a tensioner, and therefore the riser tension is included in the vertical static equilibrium of the hull. The calculated platform mass for the given condition is 2.42107 kg at 80-ft draft. Tendon
Pt~rch

.,

~R

d y

Displacement
Number of Column Column freeboard Column span c/c Column diameter (O.D.) Column height Pontoon width Pontoon height Pontoon arm dist. from column Deck hei,qht Total weight Tendon pretension @ top Production+drillin,q risers top tension Vertical C.O.G. from base Roll radii of gyration Pitch radii of gyration Caw radii of gyration 3Mte ~lumber of tendons .ength 9iameter (O.D.) Nail thickness rotal tendon weight(dry) l'otal tendon weight(wet) Wind Load Coefficient 3enter of oressure from MWL

(st)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (st) (st) (st) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

36~128

4 67.0 200.0 54.0 147.0 27.0 24.0 0.0 45.0 26,628 7,750 1,750 108.1 108.9 108.9 106.3 3.8 8 (ft) 2,928 (in) 32.0 (in) 1.3 (st) 4,996 (st) 805 (kips/(ft/s)^2) 0.0665 (ffl 125.0

O,D.=54Ft

.3

Deck240Ptx 240Ftx 45Ft

-~k
75] %

L
67 F,t

-,1

_Ir~ r

80PtDraft

v [ 7.5~
PorchHt

NUMERICAL MODELING OF TLP HULL, TETHERS, AND RISERS The added mass and radiation damping, first-order wave-frequency forces, and second-order mean, sum-frequency, and differencefrequency forces are calculated from the second-order diffraction/radiation program WAMIT (Korsmeyer et al., 1988; Lee et al, 1991). The second-order wave forces are obtained assuming the TLP is restrained. All the hydrodynamic coefficients were calculated in the frequency domain, and then the corresponding forces were converted to the time domain using two-term Volterra series expansion (Ran and Kim, 1997). The frequency-dependent radiation damping was included in the form of convolution integral in the time domain simulation. The TLP hull is discretized by 1548 panels/quadrant and the free surface above it is discretized by 1144 elements/quadrant inside a truncation radius of 57.6m, as shown in Fig.1.

~
el
~L

24Ft

Fig. 2 Configuration of TLP hull The hull is positioned by 8 tethers (two tendons at each column), and 8 vertical risers. The total riser top pre-tension is 3500 kips (1.56x107N) and the total tendon pre-tension is 15500kips (6.89x107N). Each line is modeled by 12 high-order elements, totaling 192 high-order elements for all tethers and risers. The convergence of the discretization of the mooring lines and risers was checked by doubling the number of elements for selected lines. Fig.2 shows the shape of the hull.

Static-Offset Tests (in calm water without current)

The surge static offset test was conducted by pulling vcg(vertical center of gravity) in the horizontal direction in calm water. Typical results for surge offsets are shown in Fig.3. The surge static-offset test shows weakly hardening trend.
i.al,e7
i.ot,e7

|,=~,

it01,et

..~"f

o.i

io~)

aol

11

II

iGi

40.0

7111

io.i

Fig. 1 Discretization of hull and free surface

Fig. 3 Static offset curve for surge

468

 Free-decay Tests (in calm water without curren0

TIME-DOMAIN CONDITION

SIMULATION

FOR

HURRICANE

To see the effects of risers (mostly the amount of damping from risers) in the free-decay tests more clearly, a simpler riser model was developed i.e. all the 8 risers are replaced by a single equivalent massless riser at the center with the same total tension. The resulting surge/sway stiffness at the tensioner is then approximately calculated from the tension divided by length. Fig.4 shows typical free-decay test results for surge and pitch modes. Fig.4 and Table 1 show that the TLP with simpler riser model becomes softer resulting in larger surge and pitch periods despite the slightly reduced riser mass and damping. Table 1. Natural periods from free-decay tests Surge 3000-ft TLP (w/o risers) 3000-ft TLP (w risers) 144s 137s Heave 3.4s 3.4s Pitch 3.0s 2.9s

The current is assumed to be steady and the irregular wave unidirectional. A JONSWAP spectrum of significant wave heightHs---40ft, peak period Tp=14s, and overshoot parameter =2.5 was selected to represent a typical 100-yr storm in the Gulf of Mexico. The storm induced current flows from 30-deg. right of wave direction. The current velocity is assumed to be 3.5ft/s between 0200ft and reduced to 0.3ft/s at 300ft-3000ft. The wind speed used is 92mph@10m and its direction is 30-deg. left of waves. API wind spectrum is used for the generation of time-varying wind forces. The drag coefficients used for the present wave-force calculation are 1.0 for tendons and risers, 1.2 for pontoons, and 0.7 for columns. The low- and wave-frequency regions are defined as 0-0.2, 0.2- 1.3, 1.3-3(rad/s), respectively. The fully-coupled time-domain simulation results are summarized in Table 3 and 4. The time step used in the time-domain simulation is 0.065 seconds and the total simulation time is 3 hours. The time histories of surge, heave, pitch, and #2-1ine (highest-tension member) tension are shown in Fig.5, as with the incident wave time history. It is interesting to note from Fig.5 that the low-frequency motions are greater than wave-frequency motions in all modes except pitch. All the responses presented in this paper are with respect to the center of gravity. Table 3. 3000ft-TLP responses (Hurricane case)
Mean Surge Sway
Heave RoD

Free decay test

12 10 S 6

- - w risers - - w/o risers

_7,

!,

Q -2 4 -0 -8

Wavefl"Cq,

High-freq. Low-freq. Total

rms ~ rlns

Max -98,4 -33,2 -5.66 0.3 ..0.3 -1.86

r l ~ (o)
Free decSy l e s t 02S
0.1S o.10

pitch Yaw

-73.9 -22.8 -3.11 0.15 --0.09 -1.09

1.83 O.11 0.16 0.007 0.04 0.02

0.03 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.011 0.001

5.33 3.67 0,48 0.025 0,015 0.18

5.63 3.67 0.51 0.03 0.05 0,19

0,06
o.~o

~AG .O.2O

= 15 .o 10

m 0
Time (|)

Fig.4 Free-decay test results for surge and pitch modes In most cases, the damping becomes larger for larger oscillation amplitudes. With simplified riser model, the surge damping is appreciably reduced especially at large dynamic amplitude, pitch damping is slightly reduced, and the heave damping almost remains the same. From this result, it is seen that the effect of riser damping can be even more appreciable for surge/sway responses in deeper water depths. Table 2. Damping from free-decay tests estimated from the first 4 peaks assuming linear damping Surge 8.5-3.8% (9.1-3m) 13.5-4.1% (10-2.2m) Heave 3.3-2.8% (2-1.1m) 3.3-2.8% (2-1.1m) Pitch 2.8-2.7% (0.2-0.1 ) 3.2-3% (0.2-0.1 * )

-5 -10 -15 1000

3000

5000

7000

9000

11000

tirne(sec)

-4O

-8o
-100 1000 3000 5000

7000

9000

11000

time(see) o

3000-ft TLP (w/o risers) 3000-ft TLP (w risers)

~-4
-6 1~
3000 5000 7~ 9000 11~

time(sec)

469

0.002
0.000

The surge mean offset is about 8.1% of the water depth. The surge and sway rms values mostly come from slowly-varying components. The slowly-varying heave motion is also appreciable and it is caused by the set-down effect due to large horizontal excursion. Table 4. 3000ft-TLP tendon tension (Hurricane case) Wavefreq. rms 0.74 0.99 High-freq. Rms 0.27 0.18 Lowfreq. rms 0.74 0.44 Total rms 1.08 1.1 Max 21.6 15.6

~ -0.002 -0.004 -0.006 1000

3000

5000

7000

9000

11000

time(see)

#2 #6

Mean 16.1 11.8

1.SE,-Or~ r r ,'r,, , "m,'rr l'." ,'~rrl', ~ , s . ' , l , , 1

1.0E-t07 . . . . . .

1000

3000

5000

7000

9000

11000

time(see)

Fig. 5 The time histories of incident wave, surge, heave, pitch, and tension

Density
~. 700

Spectrum

TLP

,3ncJn F I l * r r l . = n ,

The maximum static and dynamic tension occur at the upwave mooring #2. The ratio of maximum tension to static tension is 1.34. Since slowly-varying motions are dominant, the mooring lines are expected to behave in a quasi-static manner. In case of tension, the wave-frequency and low-frequency components are equally important and they are larger than sumfrequency (springing) components. The wave-frequency tension is about the same as the low-frequency tension for taut upwave tether lines but the former is about twice larger for less-taut downwave tether lines. There exists phase cancellation between the three components and the total rms value is smaller than the sum of individual magnitudes. The springing tension on #2 line is about 25% of the total rms. Therefore, the springing effect should be included in the TLP fatigue analysis. SENSITIVITY STUDY AND DISCUSSIONS The following cases are selected for sensitivity analysis. The hull drag coefficient used in all the simulations is 0.7 for columns and 1.2 for pontoons except the Case B. Case A: Hull/mooring/riser fully-coupled analysis without any simplification Case B: Hull/mooring/riser fully-coupled analysis without any simplification (hull drag coef.: column=l.2 and pontoon=l.6)

0.2

0,4

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

..........

t,t

Case C: Uncoupled quasi-static analysis; all tethers and risers are massless but have nonlinear stiffness as in Fig.3 i.e. there is no dynamic effect from tethers and risers. The mooring tension is determined by Fig.3. Cased D: Hull/mooring/riser fully-coupled analysis without wind; By comparing Cases A and D, the wind effects can be explicitly seen.

0o~ I
0 0.2

IWIIlh,
0.4 0.6

IlilJhL,,
0.8

/
1 1.2

Cased E: Hull/mooring/riser fully-coupled analysis without current; By comparing Cases A and E, the current effects can be explicitly
seen.

Case F: All the 8 risers are replaced by a single equivalent massless riser at the center with the same total tension 3500 kips
~ 5.0~'12

(1.56X 107 N). The equivalent riser stiffness matrix is added to the hydrostatic-stiffness matrix.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Frequency ( r , d / l ~ 1 1.2

Fig. 6 The surge, heave, pitch, and tension spectra

Case G: Semi-coupled dynamic analysis; model tethers and risers as massless nonlinear spring, calculate hull responses, input the calculated motions at the fairlead, and run line dynamics program for each tether. Compared to C, the dynamic effects of each slender member can be included. Case H: Hull/mooring/riser fully-coupled analysis with equivalent static wind loading at the center of pressure based on 1-min mean

470

wind velocity. By comparing A and H, the effect of dynamic wind loading can be deduced. The numerical results for all the cases are summarized in Table 5. First of all, we found that the wave-frequency and high-frequency rms values are less sensitive than the low-frequency components against various methodologies/approximations considered here. Therefore, the ensuing discussion will primarily be focused on the slowly-varying components. Despite the non-zero mean, the rms is assumed for convenience to represent the standard deviation in the following discussions. The spectra of selected motions and tension for CASE A are shown in Fig.6. We can observe non-trivial springing components in pitch and tension spectra. The sensitivity against hull drag coefficient The hull and tether/riser drag forces are difficult to be modeled accurately in the small-scale model testing due to the mismatch of Reynolds numbers between the model and prototype. As a result, the viscous effects tend to be exaggerated in the model testing. This distorted scale problem may be more serious when the mass of the slender members becomes more and more appreciable compared to the entire platform in deeper water. To check the sensitivity against hull viscous drag forces, we increased the hull drag coefficient in case B and ran the same coupled-analysis code. In this test, the drag coefficients of tether/riser were not varied. When the Case B is compared against Case A, the mean surge offset is increased by 8%, while the rms surge is reduced by 5%, the combined effect of which results in 5% increase in maximum surge corresponding to 2% increase in maximum tether tension. The decrease of the rms surge is due to the increase in viscous damping on the hull.

attributed to the absence of viscous damping from tethers and risers. On the other hand, the reduction in the mean surge offset is only 4%. The rms heave is also increased by 22% in Case C and G mainly due to the increased set-down effect. The rms tether tension in Case C and G is about 10% larger than that of Case A mainly due to the increase of rms surge. Since the difference in tension between Case C and G is small, we can conclude that the line dynamic effects are not appreciable. However, the influence of the viscous damping from tethers and risers is in general significant in deep water and their effects should properly be taken into consideration.

* The sensitivity against wind

The comparison of case A (full coupled analysis with dynamic wind) and Case D (full coupled analysis without wind) clearly shows the effect of wind loading. First the mean surge offset is reduced by 63% and the rms surge by 13%. The rms-surge reduction is mainly due to the reduction of the low-frequency part. The wind also influences mean pitch a lot since its center of pressure is located far from the center of rotation. The removal of wind loading results in 32% reduction in the maximum tension on the highest-tension member. When the dynamic-wind generation mechanism is not available in the model testing, they frequently use constant string forces at the center of pressure to model only the static part reasonably. In this case, API recommends to use 1-minute mean velocity in the calculation of corresponding static wind loading. The results of this static-wind modeling are shown in Case H, which compares much better with Case A than Case D i.e. the mean values of surge and pitch of Case H are only about 10% smaller than those of Case A. However, the lowfrequency tension of Case H is still less than half of Case A.

* The sensitivity against uncoupled quasi-static or semi-coupled dynamic approach

Offshore industry frequently uses simplified uncoupled quasi-static approach in mooring design assuming that proper safety factor for linedynamics will be applied later. In a typical quasi-static analysis, the surge response is first calculated by modeling the mooring lines by massless linear or nonlinear springs, and then the mooring line tension is estimated from the surge static-offset curve. In general, additional coupling contributions from damping as well as current loading on the mooring/riser need to be assessed and given as input to the uncoupled quasi-static analysis to improve the final result. However, no such contributions are added here. Kim et al. (1999) showed that in the case of a truss spar at 3240-ft water depth, the quasi-static approach can significantly underestimate the maximum mooring-line tension. It is particularly so when mooring lines are semi-taut and their natural frequencies are close to the incident wave frequencies. To test the reliability of the uncoupled quasi-static approach in the present problem, all tether lines and risers are modeled by massless nonlinear spring, as in Fig.3 i.e. all the inertia forces and hydrodynamic forces on the tether/riser are neglected. After calculating surge time series, the corresponding mooring tension time history can straightforwardly be constructed from Fig.3. At this stage, if they input the hull motions at the fairlead and run the dynamics program for each mooring line, then it is called semi-coupled dynamic approach. When the dynamic effects of mooring lines are significant, the semi-coupled dynamic approach should be more reliable than the uncoupled quasistatic approach. In this example, however, the dynamic tension mostly comes not from the tether dynamics itself but from the axial extension due to the hull heave and pitch motions, and therefore, it is expected that the mooring tension is likely to behave in a quasi-static manner. Consequently, the Case C is almost identical to Case G. The 24% increase of rms surge in Case C compared to Case A should be 471

The sensitivity against current

The comparison of case A (full coupled analysis with current) and Case E (full coupled analysis without current) clearly shows the effect of current on TLP dynamics. The mean surge offset is decreased by 19%, while the total rms surge is increased by 8%. The reduction of the mean offset is due to the absence of current-induced viscous drag force on the hull and tether/riser. On the other hand, the increase of rms surge is due to the decrease in viscous damping in the absence of current.

The sensitivity against equivalent linear riser modeling

In case F, the entire riser group is replaced by an equivaientstiffness matrix, as described in the preceding section, while tether lines are not simplified. Compared to Case A, the mean surge offset is decreased by 7% due to zero current force on risers. On the other hand, the rms surge response was increased by 6% due to no viscous damping from risers. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Nonlinear hull/tether/riser coupled dynamic analyses of a 3000ftTLP are conducted in the time domain. Numerical simulations were conducted for 100-yr Hurricane condition with non-parallel wind, wave, and current. A comprehensive sensitivity study was carded out against various analysis/environmentparameters to better understand the underlying physics and the role of each parameter. In all cases considered, the wave-frequency and sum-frequency components remain almost the same, while the slowly-varying tensions change case by case. It is found that the mooring lines and risers contribute significantly in surge/sway damping. The rms values of the fully coupled-analysis are, in this TLP example, smaller than

those of uncoupled quasi-static analysis and semi-coupled dynamic analysis, which can be attributed to the additional tether/riser damping in fully coupled analysis. The quasi-static analysis for tether tension looks reasonable in the present case since the slowly varying surge and heave motions are dominant over wave-frequency motions and tether dynamic effect is not important. The larger hull drag coefficient resulted in larger mean offsets but smaller dynamic responses, as expected. It is particularly underscored that the equivalent static wind modeling may lead to significant underestimation of slowly varying surge/sway responses. The total removal of wind loading resulted in 32% reduction in the maximum tether tension. The removal of currents resulted in 8% reduction in the maximum tether tension. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research was partly supported by the Offshore-industry Consortium, Deep-Star CTR 4401.
REFERENCES

Kim, M.H., Ran, Z., & Zheng, W. (1999), "Hull/mooring coupled dynamic analysis of a truss spar in time domain" Proc. oflSOPE'99, Brest, France Korsmeyer, F.T., Lee, C.H., Newman, J.N., & Sclavounos, P.D. (1988), "The analysis of wave effects on TLP" Proc. of OMAE'88, Houston Lee, C.H., Newman, J.N., Kim, M.H. & Yue, D.K.P. (1991), "The computation of second-order wave loads" Proc. of OMAE'91, Stavanger, Norway Ma, W., Lee, M.Y., Zou, J., and Huang, E.W. (2000), "Deepwater nonlinear coupled analysis tool" OTC#12085, Houston Newman (1974), "Second-order slowly-varying forces on vessels in irregular waves" Symp. On Dynamics of Marine Vehicles and Structures in Waves, London Ran, Z. & Kim, M.H. (1997), "Nonlinear coupled analysis of a tethered spar in waves" J. of Offshore & Polar Engrg. Vol.7, No.2, 111-118 Ran, Z., Kim, M.H., Niedzwecki, J.M. & Johnson, R.P. (1995), "Responses of a spar platform in random waves and currents (experiment vs. theory)" Proc. oflSOPE'95, Hague, Netherlands

Colby, C., Sodahl, N., Katla, E., Okkenhaug, S. (2000), "Coupling effects for a deepwater spar" OTC#12083, Houston Halkyard, J.E. (1996), "Status of spar platforms for deepwater production systems" Proc. oflSOPE'96, Los Angeles

TLP 3000 Hurrican~ A 5 C D E F G H

T i P 3000 Hurrlcam~

i:i:i:i

lie IF DG E F G H

D Cle$1

TLP 3000 Hun'llne

TLP3000 Hurricane
F G H

i
=l -0.10 -0"12

M "

[~

!:,.-..

O.(]50

[]

i~'o.I
ill

I111
I ~ [] CllOI

~, ~ ~ ~ r l ~ oi "
A B C D Cull E F G 3000 HUn'Iclnt ~ Hw'rlclne

~
H

2.00E+07 1-~E*07 i m ~ IS

_N _
li ; s.oos,~
O.IXE-*~ A B C

ni
D E

CIEO$

E
oo
lIE mF DG

gF'
0.U6~1

E ~I181111

Fig. 7 Comparison of various cases

472

Table 5 Summary of the sensitivity study (TLP 3,000 ft, Hurricane condition)
Case =u!!y Coupled (CD=-0.7) =ully Coupled (CD=1.2) Jncoupled Quaal-Statlc (with moorln~ & riser) ~ully Coupled (without wind) Fully Coupled (without current) ~oupled ~wlth equivalent riser) Semi Coupled Dynamic Fully Coupled (static wind - 1 minute) P-~, =~Fully Co~nL~_(CD=0.7) Fully Coupled (CD:1.2) Uncoupled Quasi-Static (with mooring & riser) Fully Coupled (without wind) Fully Coupled (without current) Coupled (with eclulvalent riser) Semi C~,_,~!#dD~namlo Fully Coupled (static wind - 1 minute) Case Fully Coupled (CD=0.7) Fully Coupled (CD=1.2) Uncoupled Quasi-Static (with mooring & riser) Fully Coupled (without wind) Fully Coupled (without current) Coupled (with equivalent riser) Semi Coupled Dynamic Fully Coupled (static wind - 1 minute) Case :ully Coupled (CO=03) =ully Coupled (CD=1.2) Jncuupled Quaal-statlc (with mooring & riser) =ully Coupled (without wind) =uUyCoupled (without current) 3oupled (with equivalent riser) ~eml Coupled Dynamic =ully Coupled (utatlc wind - 1 minute) Coda A B C D E F G H Code A B C D E F G H Code A B C D E F G H Code A B C D E F G H Mean -73.925 -79.847 -70.744 -26.907 .59.771 -68.819 -70.744 -67.010 Mean -3.100 -3.507 -2.915 -0.349 -2.381 -2.710 -2.915 -2.543 Mean -0.091 -0.001 -0.007 -0.009 -0.107 -0.001 -0.087 .0.081 S u r p Total st.dev Max 5.631 -98.390 5.341 -102.764 6.979 .59.350 4.871 -45.535 6.082 .53.107 5.987 -94.521 6.979 -99.289 4.012 -84.424 Heave Total at.day Max 0.509 -5.663 0.499 -5.979 0.623 .5.927 0.159 -1.223 0.507 -4.657 0.511 -5.285 0.623 -5.920 0.201 -3.839 Pitch Total SLdev Max 0.047 -0.302 0.047 -0.304 0.040 -0.284 0.043 -0.271 0.047 -0.332 0.048 -0.313 0.046 -0-283 0.043 -0-275 Highest Tension Max 2.16E+07 2.20E+07 2.10E+07 1.47E+07 1.99E+07 2.10E+07 2.19E+07 1.86E+07 Surge Iow-freq ~ Surge wave-lreq Surge hlgh-freq st.dev st.dev St.dev 5.326 1.828 0.032 5.022 1.810 0.032 6339 1.816 0.032 4.514 1.829 0.041 5.802 1.825 0.034 5301 1.827 0.032 6339 1.810 0.032 3.574 1.823 0.042 [;T:I.'L:i~r~ ii~, II I; [;!:l"2;i','t~VL;=lL--"d~lI : [~,';:! d[;'l;'~
I l J r : I;~

Ill

Ill 0.602 0.142 0.489 0.408

X;~I~

Ill."[ Illrl 0.157 0.072 0.133 0.150

,lil:l

illiili li]l [<I l l l l 0.012 0.009 0.011 0.012

~lfF

~, 0.815 0.016 0.010 0.007

IIIII

,w~l

x,il.

Mean st.dev 1.61E+07 1.08E+06 1.66E+07 1.07E+00 1.59E+07 1.18E+06 1.11E+07 7.49E+05 1.53E+07 1.08E+06 1.56E.t07 1.09E+06 1.01E+07 1-20E+06 1.52E+07 0.23E+05

0.043 0.011 0.043 0.011 0.042 0.010 0.041 0.010 0.017 0.042 0.011 0.017 0.043 0.011 0.016 0.042 0.010 0.008 0.041 0.011 Hlghest Tanalon Hlghset Tenalon Hlgheat Tanslon Iow-freq wave-freq high-freq st.dav st.dev st.dev 7.40E+05 7.37E+05 2.08E+06 7.25E+05 7.30E+05 3.02E+05 8.80E05 7.36E+05 2.70E+05 2.24E+05 6.81E+05 2.10E+05 7,40E+05 7.36E+05 2.62E+05 7.49E.~05 7.40E-t~5 2.73E+05 9,11E+05 7.31E+05 2.65E+05 6.96E+05 2.67E+05 3.48E+05

473