International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering

Vol.1 | No. 1 | pp. 1 – 8 | May 2017

e-ISSN: 2580-0914
© 2017 Department of Ocean Engineering – ITS

Submitted: December 12, 2016 | Revised: February 20, 2017 | Accepted: March 6, 2017) | DOI: xx.xxxxx/ijoce.x.xxxxx

Anchor Chain Fatigue Analysis of Single Point Mooring at FSO

Arco Ardjuna
Hafidz Deryantonoa, Eko Budi Djatmikob and Mas Murtedjoc
a) Undergraduate Student, Department of Ocean Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya, Indonesia
b) Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya, Indonesia
c) Senior Lecturer, Department of Ocean Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya, Indonesia

e-mail: hafidzderyantono@gmail.com

ABSTRACT that the structure tends to be stable in its position. Single

FSO (Floating Storage and Offloading), a floating marine
structures as a medium for receiving, storing, and distributing
biodiesel requires a mooring system to reduce dynamic behavior
due to environmental loads. In ensuring the safety of the mooring
system it is necessary to analyze its dynamic behavior and the load
it experiences, to obtained the fatigue life of the mooring system.
In this study the Single Point Mooring or SPM mooring system with
the type of Catenary Anchored Leg Mooring (CALM) Buoy will be
analyzed for its fatigue life using the Combined Spectrum
Approach method with the T-N curve approach. Beginning with
structure modeling to obtain RAO motion from FSO and SPM in
free-floating conditions, analyzing the results of mooring system
tension, also Cummulative Damage calculations to obtain fatigue
life. The results of the analysis indicate that the mooring line
anchor chain experiencing worst case in Inline-Lightload loads
configuration with value of standard deviation 146,893 kN and has
the minimum fatigue life at Chain 1 for 38 years with design life
until 2025 and safety factor value as 3.
Keywords: Anchor Chain, Single Point Mooring, CALM Buoy,
Floating Storage and Offloading, Tension, Fatigue Life.
1. INTRODUCTION
Petroleum as a non-renewable natural resource has an
important role in the Indonesian economy because its
portion is very large as one of the state revenues [10]. FSO
(Floating Storage Offloading) is a floating structure with a
ship that has storage and offloading facilities or distribution
of oil and gas. In simple terms, FSO is a tanker that is
moored in mooring systems. The mooring system
commonly used is SPM (Single Point Mooring). However,
under certain conditions the mooring system can be replaced
by a spread mooring system by considering the conditions
of offloading carried out by shuttle tankers. [11]
The mooring system functions as a fastening structure so
Point Mooring (SPM) is a type of frequent mooring system
used, and one of them is used in tethering the FSO Arco
Ardjuna with SPM CALM (Catenary Anchored Leg
Mooring) Buoy.
The mooring system is included in the system: mooring,
anchor, dynamic positioning (if any) system. The purpose of
the mooring system position is to keep Floating Structure in
their position in a specific area. Generally, there are two
types of mooring systems: conventional spread mooring and
single point mooring (SPM).[2]
In the marine structures, the majority of failures in the
structure are caused by fatigue so that analysis of fatigue is
required in each structure design. Particularly in SPM, parts
that are susceptible to fatigue are chainstopper and
mooringline, besides the mooring part which is also
susceptible to corrosion further adds importance to the
analysis of the structure.
This study aims to analyze the fatigue life of the SPM’s
anchor chain type CALM (Catenary Anchored Leg
Mooring) Buoy by calculating the corrosion rate up to 2025
and the FSO conditions tethered to SPM operating in
Ardjuna Marine Terminal. In this study will be discuss how
the motion response of FSO and SPM in the 6 degrees of
freedom caused by environmental loads can cause tension in
the anchor chain for a one-year-loads-period so that the age
of the structure to fail can be known.
2. METHODS
2.1 Study of Literature
The research began with conducting a preliminary study
based on several previous studies and supported by the
supporting literature in the study. By conducting studies on
the theory of structural fatigue and seeking information
about anchor chains on SPM a research plan can be prepared
to achieve the desired goals.

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

1
 International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering Vol. 1 No. 1 pp. 1-8 May 2017

2.2 Structure Modelling

Modeling the structure of FSO and SPM with free-floating
conditions in this study carried out by using Maxsurf,
MOSES, and ORCAFLEX based on the main data as
follows:
Table 1. Principal Dimension of FSO Arco Ardjuna
Minimum Maximum
Designation Units Operating Operating
Draft Draft
Length, Loa m 142.6
Breadth, B m 48.2
Depth, D m 26.5
Displacement tonne 15529 153202
Draft to Baseline m 2.5 24
WSA m^2 6681 12813
Max. Cross Sect. Area m^2 114.34 1150.63
Waterplane area m^2 6239 6.239
Cp 0.91 0.91 Figure 1. Loads Configuration
Cb 0.87 0.9
Cm 0.959 0.99 The results of Maxsurf and Moses modeling then validated
Cwp 0.91 0.91 the FSO hydrostatic values and SPM displacement based on
LCB from zero pt. m -2.69 -2.78 the recommended values in ABS MODU 2012.
LCF from zero pt. m -2.79 -2.79
KB m 1.26 12.02 2.3 Motion Response Analysis FSO and SPM
KMt m 78 19.73 Analysis of motion responses in the structure of the FSO and
KMl m 590.8 71.3 SPM to determine the motion characteristics in each
direction of the wave in free floating conditions.
Table 2. Dimension of SPM CALM Buoy
Designation Unit Data In this study the FSO motion response is analyzed under
Shell Outer Diameter m 12 conditions of full load and ballast assuming this condition is
Centre Wall Diameter m 3.57 most often experienced by structures.
Skirt Outer Diameter m 16.26
Buoy Body Height m 5.3
In RAO the motion are distinguished in the equation into 2,
namely translational and rotational motions, here are each
Skirt Thickness mm 12
equation:
Skirt Heigh Baseline m 1
Buoy Installed Draft m 2.38 1. RAO Translational
Centre of Gravity (KG) m 3.42 RAO translational motion is a direct comparison between
the amplitude of the translation motion of a structure
Table 3. Characteristic of Anchor Chain compared to the amplitude of the incident wave (both in
Number of Legs 6 units of long elevation). The RAO equation for translational
motion is as follows:
Anchoring Pattern Even spacing (60)
𝐴𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑎𝑛 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑖 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑘𝑡𝑢𝑟
Paid out Length 350 m 𝑅𝐴𝑂 (𝜔) = ( )
𝐴𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛
Pretension 262.17 kN =
𝜁
Pretension angle (w/horizontal) 45.26 ( 𝑘𝑜) (𝑚⁄𝑚) ................................................(1)
𝜁0
Number of Segment 1
Chain diameter 102 mm 2. RAO Rotational
Chain type R3 RAO rotational motion is a ratio between the amplitude of
the rotational motion (in radians) and the slope of the wave,
Minimum breaking load 8315 kN
which is the multiplication of waves (Kw = ω2 / g) with the
Minimum breaking load after corrosion 7051 kN amplitude of the incident wave:
Unit weight in Air 210.16 kg/m 𝑅𝐴𝑂 (𝜔) =
𝜁𝑘𝑜
=
𝜁𝑘𝑜
(𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑟𝑎𝑑 ).......................(2)
2
Unit weight in Water 182.72 kg/m 𝐾𝑤 𝜁0 (𝜔 ⁄𝑔 ) 𝜁0

Stiffness EA 868 MN
Anchoring radius 337.5 m

2
 Hafidz, et al.: Fatigue Analysis …. SPM of an FSO Arco Ardjuna

2.4 Tension Range Analysis 11 2.50 - 2.75 2.71 1.7 9.0 0.72 12.3
At this stage the Tension Range analysis is carried out with 12 2.75 - 3.00 2.96 0.8 9.4 0.72 12.3
the help of ORCAFLEX software by inputting data in the 13 3.00 - 3.25 3.21 0.4 9.8 0.72 12.3
form of a local anchor chain construction model with the 14 3.00 - 3.50 3.46 0.2 10.2 0.72 12.3
main data along with environmental data that serves as 15 3.50 - 3.75 3.71 0.1 10.5 0.72 12.3
loading data. This analysis is carried out to determine the Total Pi
8770.2
maximum tension range used to calculate the number of =
events (Ni) from T-N Curves.
Cumulative Damage is calculated by the following
Whereas according to Faltinsen (1990), the equation in equation:
resolving tension can be written as follows:

𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑇𝐻 + 𝑤ℎ ..........................................(8)
.........................(12)
Where: Dengan:
Tmax = Tension (ton) Ni : The number of tension (Ti) cycles due to actual wave
TH = Horizontal Pre-tension (ton) loading is obtained by multiplying the zero up-crossing
w = Weight of Chain under water (ton/m)
h = Water Depth (m) period with Time spent in the environmental state i per
year (ni=vi.Ti)
The above equation is used in the analysis of anchor chain Ti : Time spent in environmental per year
tension in a static state, whereas in a dynamic state, (Ti=Pi.3,15576x107)
according to Faltinsen, (1990) the equation can be written as Pi : Probability of occurence from state i
follows: Ni : The number of tension (Ti) cycles resulting in failure
of the connection, taken from T-N Curve.
𝐹1𝑀 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑇𝐻𝑖 cos 𝜃 𝑖 ................(9)
Rσi : Standard deviation from a combination of low and
𝐹2𝑀 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑇𝐻𝑖 sin 𝜃 𝑖 ................(10) wave frequency tension range
𝐹6𝑀 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑇𝐻𝑖 [𝑥𝑖 sin 𝜃 𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖 cos 𝜃𝑖 ..(11)
Γ : Gamma Function
Provided that the horizontal force is equal to the force
average of wave load, wind load and current load when the Fatigue Life Analysis can be done using the results of
structure is anchored in its equilibrium state. Cumulative Damage (D) calculation, which then the value
obtained must be close to or greater than the specified design
life. The examples are as follows:
2.5 Fatigue Life Analysis
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
Analyzing the fatigue life of the Anchor Chain that moored 𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 = ........(13)
𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝐷)
the FSO and SPM using the Combined Spectrum Approach
method, taking into account the corrosion factor until 2025.
The fatigue analysis obtained by applying wave scatter can
be shown as follows: 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4. Environmental Loads as Seastate. 3.1 MODELS AND VALIDATION

Probab The FSO AA and SPM modeling is done using MOSES and
Individual Sign. Curren
Sea ility Peri Wind MaxSurf, the following are the results of the models of FSO
Wave Wave t Speed
state Occure od Speed and SPM:
height height at SWL
nce
Tp Vc Vw
i H (m) Hs (m) Pi
(s) (m/s) (m/s)
1 0.00 - 0.25 0.21 3590.4 2.5 0.72 12.3
2 0.25 - 0.50 0.46 2922.6 3.7 0.72 12.3
3 0.50 - 0.75 0.71 1300.3 4.6 0.72 12.3
4 0.75 - 1.00 0.96 547.6 5.4 0.72 12.3
5 1.00 - 1.25 1.21 232.7 6.0 0.72 12.3
6 1.25 - 1.50 1.46 99.7 6.6 0.72 12.3
7 1.50 - 1.75 1.71 43.1 7.2 0.72 12.3 Figure 2. FSO Arco Ardjuna Model
8 1.75 - 2.00 1.96 18.7 7.7 0.72 12.3
9 2.00 - 2.25 2.21 8.2 8.1 0.72 12.3
10 2.25 - 2.50 2.46 3.7 8.6 0.72 12.3

3
 International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering Vol. 1 No. 1 pp. 1-8 May 2017

Figure 3. SPM CALM Buoy Model

Figure 5. RAO Surge FSO AA

Figure 4. Mooring System Model

The following validation is done based on correction or error

factor of less than 2% for dispacement while others are less
than 1% referring to ABS Modu (2012). The hydrostatic Figure 6. RAO Sway FSO AA
values of FSO and SPM were obtained using MaxSurf
Motion software with the main data modeled, the following
is a table of hydrostatic validation of FSO and SPM:

Table 5. FSO Hidrostatic Validation

Measurement LightLoad FullLoad Value (MaxSurf) Correction Status
Displacement 15529 153202 15291 152228 2% 1% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Draft Amidships 2.5 24 2.5 24 0% 0% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Wetted Area 6681 12813 6645.061 13045.27 1% 2% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Max sect. area 114.34 1150.63 115.194 1151.323 1% 0% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Waterpl. Area 6239 6239 6172.647 6214.777 1% 0% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Prismatic coeff. (Cp) 0.91 0.91 0.908 0.905 0% 1% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Block coeff. (Cb) 0.87 0.9 0.875 0.9 1% 0% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Max Sect. area coeff. (Cm) 0.959 0.99 0.963 0.995 0% 1% Memenuhi Memenuhi
Waterpl. area coeff. (Cwp) 0.91 0.91 0.905 0.904 1% 1% Memenuhi Memenuhi
LCB length 68.61 68.52 68.339 68.141 0% 1% Memenuhi Memenuhi
LCF length 68.51 68.51 68.155 68.118 1% 1% Memenuhi Memenuhi
KB 1.26 12.02 1.271 12.048 1% 0% Memenuhi Memenuhi
KMt 78 19.73 77 19.721 1% 0% Memenuhi Memenuhi
KML 590.8 71.3 585.809 71.091 1% 0% Memenuhi Memenuhi

Figure 7. RAO Heave FSO AA

Table 6. SPM Hidrostatic Validation
Measurement Data Value (Maxsurf) Precent States
1 Displacement 255 254.2 0% Memenuhi

3.2 Motion Response Analysis

Analysis of the motion response on FSO is carried out in 5
angles of direction coming waves with 2 load conditions. In
the following graph only the ballast load RAO graph results
are displayed because the analysis results show that the
tension produced in the condition of the ballast load is
greater than the condition of the full load. Following is the
graph of the RAO FSO ballast loads:

Figure 8. RAO Roll FSO AA

4
 Hafidz, et al.: Fatigue Analysis …. SPM of an FSO Arco Ardjuna

Figure 9. RAO Pitch FSO AA Figure 11. RAO Surge SPM

Figure 10. RAO Yaw FSO AA Figure 12. RAO Sway SPM

The comparison of RAO FSO to the requirements

of full load and ballast is quite rational with the maximum
value of each movement opposite the wave from Direction
0o and 180o which is 1.006 m / m (lightload) and 0.96 m /
m (fullload). For swinging motion, the maximum value of
the 90o wave direction is 0.959 m / m (lightload) and 0.932
m / m (fullload), respectively. For the heave movement has
a value that is relatively the same in all directions other than
at the resonant frequency, the maximum value obtained is
1.836 m / m (fullload) and 1.057 m / m (lightload) in the 90o
direction. For roll, the maximum value in 90o direction is
3.96 deg / m (lightload) and 3.344 deg / m (fullload). For
pitch has a peak value that is relatively the same, with the Figure 13. RAO Heave SPM
maximum value obtained at 3.257 deg / m (fullload) in the
direction 180o and 1.428 deg / m (lightload) in Direction
135o. While the yaw each has a small value, with a
maximum of 0.5 deg / m (load) and 0.484 deg / m (full load).

As for the SPM RAO, the results of the analysis

are presented in the following graph:

Figure 14. RAO Roll SPM

5
 International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering Vol. 1 No. 1 pp. 1-8 May 2017

IL - FL 136.6175463
IL - LL 146.8934442

The values above obtained from the simulation using

Orcaflex software tabulated and then taken the maximum
standard deviation values to determine the most extreme
loading conditions, that is IL - LL (Inline - Lightload).
Following are graphic that shows Tension Standard
Deviation result from IL – LL configuration:

160
140
Ch.1

Standard Deviation (kN)

120
Figure 15. RAO Pitch SPM 100 Ch.2
80 Ch.3
60 Ch.4
40
Ch.5
20
Ch.6
0
0 1 2 3 4
Individual Waveheight (m)
Figure 17. Tension Standard Deviation Inline - Lightload

Subsequent calculations are made with regard to IL - LL

loading conditions only.

Figure 16. RAO Yaw SPM 3.4 Fatigue Life

Structural fatigue occurs when cummulative damage values
The results of the SPM RAO show that the surge motion has reach 1, so the results obtained above can be obtained from
a maximum value of 2.051 m/m in 0o direction and the the structure fatigue life by dividing value 1 by cummulative
swaying motion obtains a maximum value of 2.062 m/m in damage.
the 90o direction, in the roll motion the maximum value is The following are the results of cumulative damage
1.074 deg / m at 90o and pitch obtained a maximum value of calculations which are then used to calculate the fatigue life
1.057 deg / m in 0o Direction. Whereas for the heave value, of each mooringline:
the same value is obtained in all directions, which is 0.986 Table 9. Fatigue Life Calculation Result
Chain 1 Chain 2 Chain 3 Chain 4 Chain 5 Chain 6
m / m, and for yaw has zero value. Cummulative Damage 0.00872 0.00294 0.001098 0.00122 0.001099 0.002951
IL - LL
Fatigue Life 114.6838 340.1677 911.1124 819.8972 909.5597 338.8588
Remaining Life 38.22794 113.3892 303.7041 273.2991 303.1866 112.9529
3.3 Tension Range Analysis
The mooring system modeling using Orcaflex then applies
Remaining life is obtained by using the safety factor
the loading conditions as follows:
Table 7. Loads Configuration
recommended by API RP-2SK, which is that the fatigue life
of the structure is at least 3x worth of its design life, so the
Position Configuration FSO
FSO’s Load Loads value of fatigue life only needs to be divided by 3.
to Mooringline
Fullload
Inline
Lightload 15 4. CONCLUSIONS
Fullload Seastates Based on the research that has been done, the conclusions
Betweenline
Lightload are as follows:
• Based on the results of the analysis it can conclude
Table 8. Tension Range Results some important points as follows:
Maximum Standard Deviation Value (kN)
a. For Arco Ardjuna FSO in full load and ballast
loads, each has the largest RAO amplitude in roll,
BL - FL 113.085261 pitch and heave motions with a ratio of 3.96 deg/m
BL - LL 119.2215262 (lightload), 3.257 deg/m (fullload), 1,836 m/m

6
 Hafidz, et al.: Fatigue Analysis …. SPM of an FSO Arco Ardjuna

(fullload) while the other 3 motions run through 1 Deutches Hydrographishes Institut.
m/m or deg/m. 10. Hidayat, E. R. (2017, May 29). Analisa Kualitas
b. For SPM has the largest amplitude value on the Lingkungan pada Industri Migas dan Penegelolaannya.
surge and sway motion with the corresponding value 11. Paik, J. K., & Thayamballi, A. K. (2007). Ship-Shaped
contributing 2.051 and 2.062 m/m while the other 4 Offshore Installations. Cambridge University Press.
movements only discuss around 1m/m or deg/m. 12. PT. Citra Mas. (2019). FSO Arco Ardjuna. Surabaya.
• Based on the results of the simulation of the Anchor
chain structure, the standard deviation value or tension
range with the greatest results occurring in the Inline -
Lightload configuration mooringline Chain 1 to 6
respectively are as follows: 38.23 kN; 113.39 kN;
303.70 kN; 273.3 kN; 303,1865707 kN; 112.95 kN.
• From the calculation of structural fatigue life, the
results showed that the anchor chains each had a price
of D <1 from the mooringline Chain 1 to 6 respectively
for 38 years, 113 years, 304 years, 273 years, 303 years,
and 112 years . These values have applied the safety
factor suggested by API RP-2SK worth 3, so with
design life until 2025 (6 years) it can be concluded that
the structure of the entire anchor chain is still safe to
operate.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author expresses his deepest gratitude to PT. Citra
Mas especially Mr. Ir. Mas Murtedjo M. Eng, who has
been willing to provide data and facilities needed for
the work of this journal.

REFERENCES

1. American Petroleum Institute. (2005). Design and

Analysis of Stationkeeping for Floating Structures
(2SK ed.). Washington: API Publishing Services.
2. Biro Klasifikasi Indonesia. (2013). Guidelines for
Floating Production Installations (Vol. 3). Jakarta.
3. Biro Klasifikasi Indonesia. (2015). Guidance for
Fatigue The Assessment of Offshore Structures (Vol.
B). Jakarta.
4. Chakrabarti, S. K. (2005). Handbook of Offshore
Engineering (Vol. 1). Illinois, USA.
5. Det Norske Veritas. (2004). Design of Offshore Steel
Structures, General (LRFD Method) (C101 ed.).
6. Det Norske Veritas. (2004). Position Mooring (E301
ed.).
7. Djatmiko, E. B. (2012). Perilaku Dan Operabilitas
Bangunan Laut di Atas Gelombang Acak. Surabaya:
ITS Press.
8. Faltinsen, O. M. (1990). Sea Loads On Ships and
Offshore Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
9. Hasselman, K., Barnett, T., Bouws, E., Carlson, H.,
Cartwright, D., Enke, K., . . . Walden, H. (1973).
Measurements of wind-wave growth and swell decay
during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP).