Brendan Hogg

e-mail: BrendanHogg@mcs.com A Combined Riser Mooring

MCS, Galway Technology Park,
Parkmore, Galway, Ireland
Annette M. Harte
e-mail: annette.harte@nuigalway.ie
Department of Civil Engineering,
National University of Ireland,
Galway, Ireland
Frank Grealish
e-mail: FrankGrealish@mcs.com
MCS, Galway Technology Park,
Parkmore, Galway, Ireland
System for Deepwater
Applications
For deepwater developments, riser and mooring system requirements become a significant
factor in the cost of the overall field development. Therefore, methods for reducing the
riser and mooring design requirements and minimizing the cost of these systems become
increasingly important. This paper presents the design methodology for a combined riser
mooring (CRM) system and demonstrates the feasibility of the system for a test case
application in a deepwater development offshore West of Africa. The CRM system offers
significant benefits over the independent riser and mooring systems, namely reduced riser
dynamics, reduced vessel offsets, a smaller seafloor footprint and system installation prior
to the arrival of the FPSO. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1834621兴

Introduction The CRM system is illustrated in Fig. 1 attached to the stern of

In deepwater applications, the selection of both the riser and
mooring system represents a significant factor in the overall fea-
sibility and cost of the system. The use of spread moored floating,
production, storage, and offloading vessels 共FPSOs兲 with steel cat-
enary risers 共SCRs兲 are being favored for deepwater applications
with mild environmental conditions such as West of Africa. For
these proposed applications, SCRs are hung from a spread moored
FPSO along the side of the vessel’s hull or at the stern of the
vessel with the first and second order motions of the vessel gov-
erning the design and configuration of the risers system.
The spread moored FPSOs with SCRs have a number of draw-
backs, some of which are outlined below:
• The dynamic motions of the FPSO are transferred directly to
the SCR at the hang-off positions. This leads to fatigue life
issues in the riser touchdown point on the seabed, which gov-
ern the cross-sectional design of the pipes.
• With increasing water depth, the length of mooring line re-
quired and the cost of the mooring system also increase;
hence there are significant savings to be made by optimiza-
tion of the mooring system.
• The potential for interference between the SCRs, mooring
lines of the FPU, and mooring lines of neighboring platforms.
A typical FPSO is the centerpiece of a deepwater field with
wellhead platform and offloading buoy mooring lines in close
proximity.
• The minimal ability for a spread moored FPU to weather
vane into the direction of the environment if the dominant
environmental conditions are on the side of the vessel.
• Long installation times for SCRs, resulting in a large delay
between the arrival of the FPU on site and the first oil date.
An innovative way to provide a solution to some of the above
shortcomings of the two conventional systems is a concept com-
bining the functional requirements of both systems. This CRM
system will integrate the functions of both mooring and riser sys-
tems using existing technology in use in the offshore industry. The
system will reduce the amount of hardware required to success-
fully moor the vessel and export production fluid from a deepwa-
ter field development. This combined riser mooring system must
meet the design requirements for both the mooring and riser sys-
tems and solve some of the present shortcomings of the conven-
tional systems.
Contributed by the OOAE Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFF-
SHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 2003;
final revision, April 2004. Associate Editor: H. R. Riggs.
the vessel with conventional mooring lines attached to the bow.
The hybrid system is comprised of SCRs connected to a subsea
buoy with flexible jumpers located between the buoy and the ves-
sel. This configuration is similar to a number of proposed lazy
wave steel riser systems. However, in addition the lazy wave con-
figurations the CRM system has tethers, connecting the subsea
buoy to the stern of the vessel. The system utilizes the full poten-
tial restoring force capability of the SCRs, which are positioned in
tandem with mooring lines of minimal length. Previous proposed
lazy wave systems and conventional SCR systems aim to reduce
the hang-off angle of the SCRs in order to minimize the forces
exerted by the SCRs on the vessel. By increasing the hang-off
angle of the SCRs, significant horizontal restoring forces can be
provided by the SCRs. The subsea buoy anchored to the seabed
provides an interface to which all the components of the CRM
system are connected. The buoy provides a decoupling effect be-
tween the motions of the vessel due to wave loading and the
motions of the SCRs. The design of the subsea buoy has been
driven by both operational and installation considerations.
The main advantages of the combined riser mooring system are
as follows:
• A reduced potential for interference between SCRs as the
mooring lines of the SCRs are located at the bow or stern of
the FPU.
• Decoupling of vessel motions transferred to the SCRs result
in reduced wall thickness requirements and increased fatigue
life in the riser touchdown and hang-off zones.
• A reduced seabed footprint compared with convention moor-
ing systems. This can be an important issue in congested field
developments.
• The ability for a spread moored FPU to weather vane under
beam environmental conditions.
• Reduced installation times for SCRs, resulting in a short time
between the arrival of FPU on site and the first oil date.
• All the components required of the system are existing com-
ponents, which have been installed and proven in various
field developments.
In order to successfully evaluate the CRM system, a design
process must be developed to assess both the riser and mooring
requirements of the system.
Design Methodology
The individual components of the CRM system have dual func-
tions, which lead to a certain amount of iteration with the design

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 273
Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/17/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 1 Schematic of selected CRM system
methodology to develop the optimum system. The design meth-
odology is separated into two parts, which are analyzed with two
different analysis tools. The riser design of the CRM is analyzed
using the finite element program, Flexcom-3D 关1兴, and the moor-
ing of the full system is analyzed using the mooring analysis
program, Ariane 关2兴. The conventional mooring lines at the bow
of the vessel are not modeled in the FE analysis for the riser
design and, similarly, for the mooring design the full CRM system
is not modeled. The CRM system is reduced to two nonlinear
springs for the purposes of the mooring analysis. The approach to
the design and analysis of the CRM system is summarized in the
following steps:
1. Establish the suitability of the riser sizes for the functional
requirements of the production system 共i.e., riser sizing and cross-
sectional design兲.
2. Verify that the static response of the riser components in the
CRM configuration is acceptable.
3. Verify that the static response of the mooring components in
the CRM configuration is acceptable.
4. Establish an optimized buoyancy requirement of the buoy
system based on a balance of forces for the static system.
5. Develop finite element models for the CRM portion of the
entire mooring system.
6. Establish restoring force versus offset relationships for the
CRM system for near, far, and cross directions.
7. Establish preliminary maximum offset values 共as a percent-
age of water depth兲 for the vessel. Using these offsets, perform
current and dynamic analyses for the CRM system in accordance
with the extreme load case matrix. Establish the extreme re-
sponses for key parameters for all riser and mooring components
of the CRM portion of the system.
8. Iterate on the design of the system to ensure that the re-
sponses of all components are within allowable limits.
9. Develop a mooring system model using Ariane. The conven-
tional mooring lines at the bow of the vessel are modeled explic-
itly. The CRM system at the stern of the vessel is modeled using
two nonlinear springs. The restoring force effects of the CRM
system are accounted for by including the restoring force versus
offset relationships developed for the CRM system 共Step 6兲.
10. Establish the contribution to loading on the vessel from the
current acting on the CRM portion of the system by performing
current analyses using the finite element model. Include this load-
ing contribution as an external force term in the mooring model.
274 Õ Vol. 126, NOVEMBER 2004
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/17/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
11. Perform a mean, low frequency, and wave frequency analy-
sis using the mooring model. Establish extreme offsets of the ves-
sel for all loading directions.
12. Repeat Steps 7 and 8 using the new offsets established in
Step 11.
The offshore analysis software programs, Flexcom-3D and Ari-
ane are used to calculate all system and component responses.
Vessel Extreme Excursions. The response of the overall
mooring system to mean environmental forces is calculated by a
balance of mean wave drift, current and wind induced static
forces. The low frequency response of the moored vessel is de-
rived from the time domain integration of governing second order
response equations. The wave frequency response is derived using
appropriate RAOs combined with wave elevation.
Maximum vessel excursions and maximum mooring line ten-
sions are essentially the main design criteria for the mooring sys-
tem. The maximum excursion is taken as the mean offset plus the
combined wave frequency and low frequency vessel motions 关2兴.
Maximum excursion is determined in the following manner:
X max⫽X mean⫹X LF 共 max兲 ⫹X WF 共 sig兲 if X LF 共 max兲 ⬎X WF 共 max兲
(1)
X max⫽X mean⫹X WF 共 max兲 ⫹X LF 共 sig兲 if X WF 共 max兲 ⬎X LF 共 max兲
(2)
where
X mean⫽mean vessel excursion
X max⫽maximum vessel excursion
X LF ( max)⫽probable maximum low frequency vessel excursion
X LF ( sig) ⫽significant low frequency vessel excursion
X WF ( max)⫽probable maximum wave frequency vessel excursion
X WF ( sig) ⫽significant wave frequency vessel excursion
Extreme Case Analysis of Mooring Components. The
maximum line tension is the mean offset plus the combined wave
frequency and low frequency tensions. Maximum line tensions are
determined in the following manner 关2兴:
T max⫽T mean⫹T LF 共 max兲 ⫹T WF 共 sig兲 if T LF 共 max兲 ⬎T WF 共 max兲 (3)
T max⫽T mean⫹T WF 共 max兲 ⫹T LF 共 sig兲 if T WF 共 max兲 ⬎T LF 共 max兲 (4)
where
T mean⫽mean line tension
T max⫽maximum line tension
T LF ( max)⫽probable maximum low frequency line tension
T LF ( sig) ⫽significant low frequency line tension
T WF ( max)⫽probable maximum wave frequency line tension
T WF ( sig) ⫽significant wave frequency line tension
In calculating the low frequency response, a sufficient number
of 3 hour simulations 共each with a different random seed number兲
are performed so that reliable statistical results can be derived.
The cumulative average and standard deviation from a number of
simulations is monitored until steady values are reached.
The wave frequency dynamic line tension response is calcu-
lated directly by performing a short duration high frequency simu-
lation incorporating line dynamics in the region of expected peak
response.
For the CRM system, the vessel extreme offset due to mean
loads and second order motions is derived from an Ariane analy-
sis. A Flexcom-3D regular wave dynamic analysis of the CRM is
then performed using this extreme offset as a mean offset for the
regular wave analysis. The result from this analysis then gives the
extreme tensions in the CRM tethers, accounting for all offsets.
Test Case Application
The design criteria used for the evaluation of the CRM system
for a test case application in a deepwater field is presented in this
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Summary of CRM design

SCRs and jumpers

SCR Number Wall thickness
12 in. production 6 19.1 mm
10 in. production 3 15.9 mm
12 in. water injection 2 19.1 mm
10 in. water injection 1 15.9 mm
10 in. gas injection 1 18.3 mm
Umbilical 3 N/A
Buoy particulars
Diameter of individual buoys 6m
Length of buoy 36 m
Mass of structure 1100 tonne
Total buoyancy of structure 4173 tonne
Net buoyancy 3073 tonne
Tethers
Section Upper tethers Lower tethers
Fig. 2 Schematic of selected CRM system Grade Spiral strand Circular braided
polyester
Number 6 4
section. The test case application chosen for the detailed evalua- Diameter 100 mm 160 mm
Length 210 m 1295 m
tion of the CRM system is a full field development in 1400 m MBL 8500 kN 7436 kN
water depth in Angola Block 18 area offshore West of Africa. The Conventional mooring lines
full field development includes all risers required for the field i.e.
production lines, fluid injection lines, and umbilical. Offshore Section Lower Chain Middle Wire Upper Chain
Grade R4 K4 Spiral strand R4 K4
West of Africa is a deepwater field with benign environmental studless studless
conditions, which favor the use of the CRM system. Diameter 100 mm 110 mm 100 mm
The configuration chosen for this application consists of a CRM Length 2100 m 1425 m 50 m
system attached to the stern of the vessel and two groups of con- MBL 9864 kN 9941 kN 9864 kN
ventional mooring lines attached to the bow, as illustrated in Figs. Configuration 2⫻3 layout at 5 deg
1 and 2. The CRM and conventional mooring system provide the
mooring requirements of the vessel with the CRM system also
transferring production and operational fluids between the seabed
and the vessel. 共i兲 Head/quarter conditions—14 m/s
The vessel considered for the study is a ship shaped very large 共ii兲 Beam conditions—16 m/s
crude carrier based FPSO, with a two million barrel storage ca-
pacity. Relevant vessel dimensions for such an FPSO were used This is the 10 min average wind speed at 10 m above the MWL.
for the analysis along with wind/current coefficients, wave qua-
dratic transfer functions 共QTFs兲, areas, and response amplitude Global Analysis Results
operators 共RAOs兲.
The environmental conditions used for the design of the moor- Selection Configuration. The final configuration selected for
ing and riser system are typical extreme swell, sea, wind and the full field development in Angola Block 18 is presented below.
current conditions for a West of Africa location offshore Angola. The main components of the selected CRM system are as follows:
Directional environmental conditions are considered that contrib-
• 13 SCRs and 3 umbilicals terminating at a subsea buoy struc-
utes to the optimization of the combined riser and mooring design.
ture.
The sea states occurring off the coast of West of Africa are best
• 16 jumpers running from the buoy up to the FPSO.
represented by a JONSWAP wave spectrum. The corresponding
• A buoy structure comprised of four individual buoys.
associated regular wave conditions for the sea and swell condi-
• Four lower tethers mooring the buoy to the seabed, supported
tions are presented in Table 1 along with the current profiles. The
by suction anchors.
typical current to be used for beam 共current transverse to the ves-
• Six upper tethers in two groups anchoring the FPSO to the
sel heading兲 sea mooring analyses is 1.0 m/s.
buoy.
The water depth for the area under consideration in this study is
• Six conventional mooring lines attached to the bow of the
1400 m. Water depth variations due to tidal effects are considered
vessel.
to be minimal and were not considered in this study.
The wind data in this region is not expected to have a large In order to minimize any adverse effect of the environment, in
effect on the CRM design, with maximum vessel excursion driven particular the swell condition, on the FPSO and CRM system, the
by current profiles rather than wind conditions. The following FPSO is oriented with the bow toward the SSW direction 共i.e.
extreme wind data for 100-year conditions was assumed: towards the prevailing swell direction兲 with the initial plane of the
CRM configuration oriented in the NNE direction. A schematic of
the configuration selected for this project is presented in Fig. 2.
Table 1 Summary of environmental data The main properties for the CRM system are summarized in Table
2.
Current profiles Direction Surface Mudline The finite element model for the extreme analysis was con-
95% nonexceedence Omni 0.30m/s 0.15 m/s structed by grouping the SCRs and jumpers into seven equivalent
10-year peturn period SW-SE 1.5 m/s 0.45 m/s lines for the purposes of construction of a manageable size model,
Wave data illustrated in Fig. 3. A detailed refinement of the riser layout on
the buoy was not undertaken for the purposes of this study as it is
Associated conditions 95% 5 yr 10 yr 100 yr
H max (m) 4.5 7.0 7.4 8.7 more a detailed design issue and not a critical parameter of the
T H max (s) 12.2 14.4 14.7 15.6 CRM system. The modeling of the buoy structure is shown in the
inset of Fig. 3.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 275

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/17/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 Snapshot of FE model of CRM system
The extreme response of the CRM system was analyzed with
dynamic time domain regular wave analyses and was carried out
for near, far, and cross-loading directions in order to determine the
feasibility of the CRM configurations. An iteration on the CRM
design under dynamic loading was performed until the relevant
acceptance criteria were satisfied.
SCRs. The selected SCR designs are based on hoop/collapse/
buckle propagation calculations from API 2RD 1998 关3兴. The
buckle propagation calculations show that buckle arrestors are
required.
The SCR hang-off angles at the subsea buoy were selected
based on the global mooring stiffness of the system and von Mises
stress criterion in the risers. The maximum von Mises stress uti-
lization occurring in the intact conditions is 0.63 共302.2 MPa兲 in
the 10 in. gas injection riser, which is well within the allowable
value of 0.8. The largest damaged condition utilization is similarly
well under the allowable utilization of 1.0. The variation in SCR
angle to the vertical at the connection point for the various dy-
namic conditions is about 8 deg for the intact cases and 14 deg for
damaged cases 共between the min. near angle and max. far angle兲.
The dynamic amplification factors are relatively small 共typi-
cally less than 1.16兲 confirming that the dynamic loads on the
SCRs are relatively small.
Flex Joint. The flex joint connection between the SCRs and
the CRM buoy is an important detail and a major design consid-
eration for the system. At the equilibrium position, the angles
between the SCRs and the buoy structure vertical axis are 1.4 deg
共i.e. SCR hang-off angle with respect to the global vertical is 21
deg and the buoy rotation is approximately 20 deg兲. For the intact
dynamic conditions, the maximum variation in flex joint angle is
10.6 deg. Similarly, for the damaged dynamic conditions, the
maximum angle variation is 11.6 deg. These angles are largely
driven by rotations of the buoy as the dynamic rotations of the
SCRs are minimal.
One key benefit of the proposed buoy design is that in the near
and far offset directions the buoy will rotate 共due to reduced/
increased tether tensions兲 in a direction that is beneficial to the
flex joint, e.g., in the far direction, the SCR is stretched out so its
hang-off angle increases. At the same time, the increased tether
tension causes the buoy to rotate toward the FPSO, thereby keep-
ing the flex joint rotation relatively small.
The angle variations governing the flex joint designs are not
necessarily determined by the extreme normal operational condi-
tions. Variations in internal fluid 共production riser empty兲 were
evaluated resulting in flex joint variations of up to 16.3 deg for the
mean hang-off angle. For damage buoy conditions 共i.e., the
276 Õ Vol. 126, NOVEMBER 2004
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/17/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 4 Buoy design
flooded compartment兲 locking of the flex joint may occur 共i.e., the
rotation limit reached兲 with the joint designed to absorb the addi-
tional bending loads.
Buoy Design. The CRM buoy ties all the components of the
CRM system together, hence the sizing and orientation of the
buoy is a critical design factor.
The buoy was positioned below the wave zone at a distance of
186 m from the stern of the vessel to provide suitable mooring
stiffness. The net buoyancy of the buoy was 3073 tonnes, which
was required to support the SCRs and provide tension to the lower
tethers for all extreme and damaged conditions. A suitable length
of buoy was selected to allow the numerous SCRs and jumper
lines to be arranged to avoid interference issues.
In order to have better control over the roll of the buoy, four
separate buoys were used with two bulkheads per buoy, as illus-
trated in Fig. 4. The use of the four separate buoys also removes
the problem caused by the damaged buoy conditions. Ballasting
and flooding of individual buoyancy compartments is used for the
SCR installation procedure.
The orientation of 20 deg to the horizontal in the equilibrium
position was selected to simplify the installation procedure to be
used for the SCRs. The location of the upper and lower tether
connections on the CRM buoy are to balance the moments for the
SCRs and the upthrust of the buoy and minimize rotation. The
range of buoy roll is 22.8 deg for the extreme intact conditions
and 30.7 deg for extreme damaged conditions. The yaw and pitch
of the buoy is negligible in the near and far directions. In the cross
direction the maximum yaw is 22.8 deg for the intact Case, and is
23.1 deg for the damaged case. The critical condition for buoy
rotation is the impact of abnormal conditions, i.e. flooding of one
or more compartments in the buoy. The maximum roll of the buoy
due to damaged conditions is 24.2 deg
JumpersÕTethers. Both the upper and lower tethers consist of
a group of lines to provide the required level of redundancy for
mooring system design. The lower tethers are grouped into two
sets of two circular braided polyester lines with allowable factors
of safety of 0.48 and 0.64 for intact and damaged conditions,
respectively. The upper tethers are grouped into two sets of three
spiral strand wire lines with allowable factors of safety of 0.6 and
0.8, respectively.
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 3 A comparison of CRM with conventional
CRM Conventional
system system
Extreme response
Max. effective tension 共kN兲 2856 4553
Max. bending moment 共kN m兲 102 131
Fatigue
Touch down point 共years兲 466.7 130.3
Hang-off location 共years兲 ⬎10000 4.8
The largest tensions occurring due to environmental loading in
the upper tethers is in the far offset direction. A maximum value of
2463 kN for intact and 3031 kN for damaged occurs in this direc-
tion. The cross direction is more critical for the lower tethers and
yields the largest tensions of 3598 kN for intact and 3739 kN for
damaged. All of the effective tension values are below the maxi-
mum allowable tensions. In addition, note that in most cases the
dynamic amplifications in the tether tensions are relatively small.
The jumpers were designed to ensure that their minimum bend-
ing radii were within allowable limits and no interference oc-
curred between the jumpers. The nominal hang-off angle of the
jumpers to the FPSO in the equilibrium position is 15.5 deg. No
bend stiffeners were required at the vessel hang-off. The tension
values are not excessive and therefore variations in jumper details
do not cause an appreciable change in the global stiffness of the
system.
Comparison With Conventional. A conventional SCR op-
tion was designed for the same deepwater application and the
results compared with the CRM system. The wall thickness re-
quired for the conventional system is larger than that of the CRM
SCRs due to the more onerous fatigue conditions. The conven-
tional SCRs were attached to the side of the vessel and hung in a
catenary configuration to the seabed.
For the extreme analysis the largest effective tension in the
SCRs for the CRM system is 2856 kN occurring in the 12 in.
water injection riser. The maximum tension in the conventional
system is 4553 kN in the same riser. This is to be expected due to
the benign motions of the CRM SCR support point 共buoy兲 versus
the relatively severe dynamic motions of the conventional SCR
support point 共FPSO兲. Some of the differences in tension are also
accounted for by the extra wall thickness used for the conven-
tional SCRs.
The rotations of the SCRs relative to the subsea buoy 共in the
CRM system兲 are relatively small at ⫾10 deg. This is compared to
the ⫾20 deg for the variation between the vessel and the SCR for
the conventional option. The difference is due to the relatively
small movements and rotations of the buoy compared with the
large dynamic motions of the vessel. Clearly the CRM SCRs is a
substantially less onerous application for flex joints than the con-
ventional SCR.
The fatigue life of the risers was analyzed at two main points:
the riser touchdown point in the near offset direction and the
upper connection point in the far offset direction. The effective
tension and bending moment variations for the SCRs in the CRM
application are less than that of the conventional application.
A fatigue life analysis of the risers was carried out for two
critical cases using a fatigue life postprocessor, Life-3D 关1兴. Dy-
namic analyses were carried out in the frequency domain using
the finite element tool, Freecom-3D 关4兴 applying the 95% nonex-
ceedence return period wave 共Jonswap f p⫽0.97, a⫽0.00143 and
g⫽4) from Table 1. The fatigue curve used was the API X’-curve
and the stress concentration factors 共SCFs兲 used in the fatigue life
calculations was taken to be 1.23 along the entire SCR. The fa-
tigue life of both systems is presented in Table 3 with the fatigue
life of the CRM risers being significantly higher than the conven-
tional SCR applications.
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/17/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 5 Schematic of mooring system model
Mooring Analysis Results
The mooring analysis of the CRM system was carried out using
the mooring analysis program, Ariane. Three-hour time domain
irregular sea simulations were run, considering both 3D first order
motions and low frequency second order effects.
The vessel is moored in two different ways. The aft of the
vessel is moored using the CRM system and the bow is moored
with a conventional 2⫻3 mooring line configuration. The layout
of the CRM system and the mooring lines are shown in Fig. 5
with the CRM system shown as two nonlinear springs and the six
conventional mooring lines modeled explicitly.
A summary of the results from the extreme mooring analyses is
presented in Table 4. The maximum vessel excursions are pre-
sented in the near far and cross offset directions, for both intact
and damaged mooring conditions 共most loaded line broken兲. Plots
of in-line and transverse stiffness for the overall system are pre-
sented in Figs. 6 and 7.
The maximum utilization value for tensions in the mooring
lines is 0.45 for the intact system and 0.58 for the damaged sys-
tem. These utilizations compare well with allowable factors of 0.6
and 0.8. This is with a dynamic amplification factor of 1.2 in-
cluded in the values for maximum dynamic tension as a percent-
age of the minimum breaking load 共MBL兲. Preliminary line dy-
namics analyses indicate that the selected value is reasonable.
To evaluate damaged conditions, the effects of various combi-
nations of upper and lower tether failure of the CRM system on
the mooring performance characteristics are analyzed. The moor-
ing stiffness of the system does not vary with the different dam-
aged tether conditions and therefore there is no change in the
global response of the system from intact conditions. The main
issues in the evaluation of the damaged conditions are as follows:
• Increased tensions in the remaining tethers 共tether groups
were designed for this critical damaged condition兲.
• A small degree of yaw of the buoy caused by asymmetric
loading.
Table 4 Summary of mooring results. Note: The far damaged
condition is equal to far intact as there is no change in the
mooring stiffness of the CRM under damaged conditions.
Direction Vessel offset 共m兲 Vessel yaw 共deg兲
Intact
Near 16.0 0
Far 12.8 0
Cross 82.5 ⫺5.1
Damaged
Near 55.2 ⫺1.3
Far 12.8 0
Cross 132.4 ⫺3.4
NOVEMBER 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 277

Fig. 6 In-plane mooring stiffness
The variation in the mooring stiffness of the system due to the
internal fluid conditions was a 10%–15% reduction in inline stiff-
ness and a 15% increase in transverse stiffness when considering
the production risers empty. The global stiffness of the CRM sys-
tem was also evaluated for various stages of phased installation of
the SCRs.
Stiffness Sensitivities. While the CRM system has a high
stiffness in the longitudinal direction, the transverse stiffness of
the system is low. Most of the transverse stiffness of the overall
system comes from the six conventional mooring lines at the bow
of the vessel. A number of sensitivity analyses were carried out on
the base case system in order to evaluate the maximum transverse
stiffness possible for the configuration selected. The following
issues were evaluated and optimized for their effect on the trans-
verse stiffness:
• Location of the subsea buoy relative to FPSO.
• Increasing pretension in six conventional lines 共thus pulling
the equilibrium position of the vessel in the far direction兲.
• Modification of the mooring line configuration for the six
conventional lines.
Comparison With Conventional. A conventional 12 line
mooring system was used as a basis of comparison. The mooring
system was orientated in a 4⫻3 layout with the mooring lines
consisting of a chain–wire–chain configuration with the same ma-
Fig. 7 Transverse mooring stiffness
278 Õ Vol. 126, NOVEMBER 2004
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/17/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
terial characteristics as the CRM system mooring lines. The lines
were orientated at 45 deg 共⫾5 deg兲 to the bow–aft plane of vessel
with a pretension of 2500 kN. Figures 6 and 7 present a compari-
son between the conventional mooring system and the CRM sys-
tem for in-line and transverse stiffness characteristics.
The in-line stiffness of the full CRM system is stiffer than the
conventional system. The full CRM system stiffness in the trans-
verse direction is lower than the stiffness of the conventional 12
line mooring system, which results in offsets that are about 20%
larger for the CRM system. The riser section component of the
CRM transverse stiffness curve is only 13%, which allows for a
certain amount of weathervaning of the vessel in beam seas. This
is due to the difference in transverse stiffness being provided be-
tween the bow and stern of the vessel.
Conclusions
The overall conclusions for the evaluation of the CRM system
for deepwater applications are presented as follows:
1. The feasibility of using the CRM system as an alternative to
conventional riser and mooring systems for deepwater applica-
tions from floating productions units has been demonstrated. The
CRM system was shown to be a viable solution for the full field
development of Angola Block 18.
2. The mooring capability of the CRM system has been shown
to be largely consistent with a conventional spread moored system
for this application. The key differences being as follows:
i. Extreme offsets: The CRM gives smaller offsets in the in-
line direction and larger in the transverse direction. This is
optimal from the viewpoint of the riser system, as the riser
system can absorb much larger transverse offsets than in-
line offsets.
ii. Damaged conditions: The CRM offsets for damaged condi-
tions do not increase compared to intact offsets. For the
conventional systems offsets typically increase by 50% to
80%.
3. The use of SCRs as part of the CRM system has been shown
to represent a very benign application for SCRs, in particular
when compared to conventional SCRs hung-off directly from the
FPSO. The key advantages for the SCRs in this application are
reduced dynamics 共minimal fatigue issues兲, allowing the use of a
thinner wall pipe.
4. The design of the subsea buoy for the CRM system has been
driven by both operational and installation considerations. Four
separate buoys supported in a diaphragm structure is selected as
an optimum solution for this application with the buoy orientated
to minimize roll. The four buoys will each have three compart-
ments, which can be separately independently ballasted/
deballasted to give optimum buoy rotations for all phases of the
development and that also give substantial redundancy for buoy
damage conditions 共e.g. one compartment flooded兲.
5. The analyses performed in this study have shown that the
CRM can be installed at either end of the FPSO, i.e. either facing
into or away from the predominant environmental loading direc-
tion for the West of Africa.
6. The CRM system almost completely decouples the riser
construction from the FPSO fabrication, thereby reducing inter-
faces and scheduling risks.
7. All interference issues with the CRM system can be resolved
through optimization of the design. The potential for interference
between the SCRs can be resolved through varying the hang-off
angles of the risers at the subsea buoy structure.
8. Horizontal movement of the buoy during installation stages
does not cause excessive stresses in the SCRs.
9. The study has shown that the installation of the CRM system
is feasible without exceeding any design parameters and the sys-
tem can be installed using standard equipment and procedures. A
Transactions of the ASME
 key advantage of the CRM system is that it allows for the prein-
stallation of most components prior to the arrival of the FPSO.
This study has achieved a certain level of optimization for the
overall CRM system. Another round of iterations on the overall
design is recommended to develop a fully optimized design. This
evaluation assessed the CRM system in a single configuration.
The use of the CRM system in alternative configurations 共e.g.
connected to both ends of the vessel or to the vessel beam兲 and for
other field developments needs to be assessed to verify its appli-
cability to a wide range of applications.
In addition, there are a number of potential deepwater features/
issues that would need to be assessed with respect to the CRM
system, such as the feasibility of incorporating pipe-in-pipe risers
into the system or actively heated lines. However, many of these
issues apply to general deepwater applications, including conven-
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/17/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
tional systems. Further investigation would be required into the
installation of such components and the detailing over the subsea
buoy for the CRM system.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of
SaiBOS Services for the development of installation procedures.
References
关1兴 MCS International, 1999, ‘‘Flexcom-3D, Users’ Manual,’’ MCS International,
Galway, Ireland.
关2兴 Bureau Veritas, 1992, ‘‘Users’ Guide—Ariane 3.0,’’ Bureau Veritas.
关3兴 American Petroleum Institute, 1995, ‘‘RP for Design and Analysis of Station
Keeping Systems for Floating Structures,’’ API RP 2SK, 1st ed., Washington,
DC.
关4兴 MCS International, 1999, ‘‘Freecom-3D, Users’ Manual,’’ MCS International,
Galway, Ireland.
NOVEMBER 2004, Vol. 126 Õ 279