DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

FPSO Design to Minimise Operational

Downtime due to Adverse Metocean
Conditions off North West Australia

Jinzhu Xia
Granherne Pty Ltd
A KBR Company

Abstract
This paper explores a rational approach to the hull and mooring design of FPSOs for deepwater
field developments off North West Australia (NWA). The main objective is to maximise uptime
and avoid financial penalties caused by the associated loss of production due to excessive vessel
motions.
The importance of selecting the principal dimensions of the hull to optimize the natural periods,
and hence global motion performance, of an FPSO is discussed in this paper. Converted FPSOs
tend to be at a disadvantage as the natural periods are already governed by the principal
dimensions and mass properties of the original vessel, which may not suit the environmental
conditions at site. The result is potential resonant vessel roll motions and high downtime. Even in
the design of new-build FPSOs in this region, this aspect of vessel dynamics has not been
emphasised. Opportunities to optimize motion performance have often been lost by following
standard shipbuilding practice in selecting principal hull dimensions. Insufficient attention to
field-specific metocean conditions, in particular the impact of the local swell conditions, has
resulted in significant operational downtime on FPSOs in Australian waters.
The majority of FPSOs in this region utilize disconnectable turret mooring systems to sail away
during cyclones. The impact of this strategy on production downtime is also discussed in this
paper.

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

The metocean environment offshore North West Australia poses unique challenges for floating
platform design and operation. It is characterized by frequent occurrence of tropical cyclones and
persistent Southern Ocean swells. Vessel motion problems and associated issues arising in the
installation and operation of ship-shape FPSOs in this region have been known for a number of
years. Excessive hull motions result in structural fatigue, off-specification production and
frequent process shut-downs and cause significant loss in productivity and NPV for an FPSO
over its lifetime. Cyclone evasion further increases operational downtime. Field-specific hull
selection and design techniques described in this paper help to provide an effective solution.
Introduction
There have been 17 FPSOs installed in Australian waters to date, Table 1. The majority of these
FPSOs were converted from oil tankers. Three of these FPSOs, deployed in the Timor Sea, were
installed as permanently moored facilities. All the FPSOs on the North West Shelf (NWS) use
disconnectable mooring systems to allow sail away during cyclones.
Persistent swell conditions, particularly the Southern Ocean long-period swells, are largely
responsible for resonant roll motions resulting in significant downtime in both new-build and
converted FPSOs in this region. Another major factor affecting availability of FPSOs in this
region is the cyclone evasion strategy. Shut-ins during disconnection and reconnection of the
mooring and riser systems in addition to the time spent sailing away from and back to the field
causes production interruptions.
Excessive FPSO roll motion has been a problem for FPSOs in various locations around the world.
Operational feedback from existing converted FPSOs of Petrobras in the Campos Basin in Brazil
[1, 2] confirms that the occurrences of swells with long wave periods induced high amplitude roll
motions in the weathervaning vessels. In some instances, the roll motion amplitudes were greater
than 12 degrees under operational metocean conditions. The excessive roll motions caused
damage to the risers, which subsequently needed to be repaired, resulting in production losses. It
was noted that actual roll motions observed in the fields often exceeded design predictions and
roll motions under operational metocean conditions can be greater than in the severe metocean
conditions.
Selecting the right FPSO concept for a specific field development requires the balancing of
complex engineering drivers, [3, 4]. The offshore industry frequently converts existing oil
tankers to FPSOs because it usually involves less Capex on the hull and helps to meet tight
schedule requirements. The oil tanker geometric proportions are designed for speed, low fuel
consumption, carrying capacity and for a specific trading route, typically constrained by
dimensions of the Suez or Panama Canal. Tankers tend to have large length/beam (L/B) ratios
and comparatively slender hull forms, to satisfy speed and fuel efficiency requirements.
On the other hand, an FPSO is designed to be stationed at a specific location with the required
storage capacity and to support large topsides payload with low production downtime. Its motion
characteristics can have significant impact on both production plant downtime and the mooring
and riser systems. Any financial benefits gained during conversion/construction can be quickly
eroded if the FPSO hull is not also designed to suit the field environmental conditions, and is
2

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

consequently frequently shut-down resulting in loss of production or high cost of mooring and
riser systems repairs. A major emphasis in the design or selection of an FPSO hull should be
given to its motion performance in site-specific metocean conditions to minimize production
downtime.
Extensive international research and development efforts have been devoted to understanding the
mechanism of FPSO rolling problems and to establishing practical means to predict and reduce
roll. A typical example is the FPSO Roll JIP hosted by the Maritime Research Institute
Netherlands (MARIN). However, limited effort has been directed towards hull sizing and
configuration to suit specific field conditions and to minimize vessel motions.
Khaw et al., [5], discussed the importance of selecting the principal dimensions of the hull to
optimize the natural periods of the FPSO for specific field environmental conditions. The
philosophy and its application were demonstrated against typical field conditions in the Caspian
Sea, West of Shetland, Offshore Angola and Far East (Indonesia). Most VLCCs used for
conversion end up with roll and heave natural periods around 15s and 10s respectively, which are
largely governed by their beam/depth ratios optimized for trading tankers. These natural periods
may suit Far East field locations with turret-moored systems. However, they are generally not
suitable for Offshore Angola or NWA locations where long-period swells are common. For such
locations, if the selection for conversion is only based on storage capacity, purchase price and the
age of the tanker, then the outcome could well be an FPSO with excessive production downtime
and financial loss exceeding the cost and schedule savings compared to a custom-designed newbuild.
Since the Jabiru Venture became Australias first FPSO in 1986, the requirements of FPSOs
have changed. The greatest change is in the cost and complexity of the topsides, such as greater
throughput and inclusion of gas compression. Capex of FPSOs has further increased due to
double hull requirements and increased safety and environmental standards. At the same time,
the value of oil has increased. This means the cost to the operator for downtime and the
profitability of uptime have both increased. As the design requirements change the design
philosophy and methodology of FPSOs need to change.
For deep water FPSOs, the typical cost of a new-build hull is about 10 -15 % of the Capex for
the field facilities whereas the mooring and riser system costs could be much higher. It is
therefore potentially less economical to opt for a low cost hull conversion, which will tend to
increase the cost of the mooring/riser systems and may also result in high environmental
downtime.
In what follows, the discussion begins with the characterization of the NWA metocean
conditions. The most important factors that affect the overall operability and availability of an
FPSO in the NWA metocean conditions are summarized. These include the effects of vessel
motions in operational weather conditions and how they are quantified. Also discussed is the
impact of production interruption due to turret system disconnection in extreme cyclonic
conditions.

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

A design approach is described for FPSO hull configuration to avoid resonant vessel motions
with the typical metocean conditions off NWA. This includes identification of vessel natural
periods and how to achieve the targeted natural periods through sizing and optimizing the
principal dimensions. To facilitate a non-disconnectable station-keeping strategy, vessel design
enhancements are normally required for extreme weather conditions. This aspect of design is not
detailed in this paper.
Design verification is an important part of FPSO engineering as many previous conversions and
new-builds encountered underestimates of vessel motions and over-prediction of FPSO
performances. A description is provided of the state-of-the-art analysis and verification tools and
procedures for FPSOs.
Characteristics of NWA Metocean Conditions
Extreme Conditions
The gas-rich northwest Australian waters are within the most cyclone-prone region, having the
highest incidence of cyclones in the southern hemisphere. On average about five tropical
cyclones occur during each tropical cyclone season over the warm ocean waters off the
northwest coast between 105E and 125E.
The Western Australian cyclone season officially runs from November to April, although very
few cyclones have occurred in November. At the start of the cyclone season, the most likely area
to be affected by tropical cyclones is off the Kimberley and Pilbara coastline. Later in the season,
the area threatened extends further south including the west coast. The chance of experiencing an
intense category 4 or 5 cyclone is highest in March and April.
Table 2 provides a summary of the extreme metocean conditions that may occur in this region.
Operational Conditions
Operational wave environment in the region is typically characterized by the following:
Sea-waves: locally generated in response to wind conditions; and
Swell-waves: result predominantly from storms in the Southern Ocean or southern portion of
the Indian Ocean.
Local wind generated sea-waves have typical peak periods between 2 and 7 seconds and variable
wave heights ranging between 0 to 4 m under non-tropical cyclone forcing.
Southern Ocean swell is a perennial feature of exposed North West Shelf waters. Typically, this
swell arrives at the outer edge of the continental shelf from the south and southwest, before
refracting during propagation across the shelf, to become more westerly and even north-westerly
near-shore. Swell peak periods are typically in the range of 12 to 18 seconds, although swell of
23 seconds period have been measured in the region.

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

In addition to Southern Ocean swells, the synoptic winter easterly winds which prevail over all
of the North West Shelf may generate a short period easterly or north-easterly swell of 6 to 10
seconds. The effects of this short period easterly swell may not be visible in the measured swell
data statistics, because this shorter period easterly swell will normally be incorporated within the
sea data statistics during data processing. This swell condition will affect operability in the area.
Design Philosophy
The site-specific metocean conditions at a particular location have a great influence on
operability and availability of a turret-moored FPSO. Designers must utilize site-specific
metocean data in the design of the FPSO topsides and hull structures as well as in the design and
selection of the process systems and equipment. The topsides, utilities and offloading system will
each have an availability based on the calculated operational windows according to the joint
probability distributions of the site-specific wind, wave and current conditions. The overall
facility availability is the joint availability of all systems, equipment and personnel on board.
Regardless of the severity of specific metocean conditions, the hull and topsides systems and
equipment should be designed to project-specific FPSO motion criteria in an iterative way. A
high availability target will tend to make such motion criteria more onerous for the design of
systems and equipment or will impose greater challenges for the hull designer in providing a low
motion hull configuration. On the other hand, the process systems and equipment are modified to
perform under greater hull motions. A multi-disciplinary approach is required to achieve a
realistic balance between expected hull motion and topsides availability, [6].
Operational and extreme metocean conditions impact FPSO operability and availability in
different ways. The following are the main design requirements and strategies to achieve an
efficient FPSO.
Design for the Operational Metocean Conditions
The main design objectives for the operational metocean conditions are twofold. The first is to
minimize the probability of vessel motion exceedance for greater windows of process plant
operation, offloading operation, crew habitability and helicopter operation. Secondly, to
minimize the cumulative motion probability distributions for minimal structural, riser and
mooring fatigue. More specifically:
Small roll and pitch motions are required for operation of a process plant, as even with special
internal baffling arrangements, typically the separators cannot function effectively when roll
or pitch amplitudes exceed 6 degrees to the horizontal. Excessive angular motions reduce the
quality of the separated products. However, in the absence of project-specific criteria at the
design stage it is wise to target a lower limit of 5 degrees or less to account for the effects of
horizontal acceleration and dynamic effects within the separators. For LGP and LNG FPSOs
with fractionating columns installed, the maximum allowable roll amplitude is typically 2
degrees, [5].

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

Small vessel motions are required for offloading of hydrocarbon liquid products from FPSOs
to shuttle tankers. In particularly, small roll motions are required for side-by-side cryogenic
LNG offloading.
Small roll/pitch motions are required for crew comfort and safety. The vessel accelerations
should also be kept within certain limits for crew comfort and work effectiveness [7, 8].
The motions criteria for helicopter take-off and landing operations to/from the FPSO are
described in an APPEA guidance document [9]. Maximum pitch and roll motion amplitudes
are limited to 3 to 5 degrees. Vertical helideck motion amplitudes are limited to 5 m. Wind
speed is normally limited to 60 knots.
Roll motions are responsible for fatigue-induced loads in structures such as topsides modules
and support structures, long flare towers, crane booms/pedestals and piping supports.
Minimum roll motion is therefore also important from a structural stand point.
The impact of motions on risers:
Low roll/pitch motions reduce stress levels hence fatigue at the riser hanging points and
flex or stress joints.
Small vertical motions at the riser hanging points minimize damage to the upper
terminations of risers.
Fatigue damage at the riser touch-down points is sensitive to high-frequency vertical
motions of the riser hanging points.
The mooring system has to be designed in a coupled way with the riser system taking into
account the water depth and the type of riser system proposed. In deep water, the riser system
may drive the mooring design. Smaller allowable horizontal offsets for certain riser types will
require high mooring line pretensions and in turn cause high fatigue damage to the mooring
lines. In such a scenario, small vertical motions at the turret would be required or extra
mooring lines will be needed to allow reduced line pretensions.
During the design process predicted motion statistics of the FPSO should be derived based on
operational wave occurrence probability distributions. The motion statistics should be compared
with the motion criteria to determine operability and availability and the cumulative fatigue
damage to the structures, risers and mooring system.
In the preliminary design stage, however, the motion criteria are often assessed using the motion
RAOs of the proposed vessel to determine the extreme motion characteristics under 1-year return
storm conditions at site. Such simplified approach underestimates the impact of swell effects for
NWA sites, as the 1-year return cyclonic conditions bear no correlation to the operational swell
conditions. The persistent swell conditions off NWA have an unfavorable wave period range
intersecting the natural rolling periods of many existing FPSOs. When not designed for, they
may induce much greater vessel motions than the 1-year return extreme storm conditions causing
operation shut-downs and structural integrity problems.

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

Design for the Extreme Cyclonic Conditions

The tropical cyclonic metocean conditions offshore Western Australia and Northern Territory
have a significant impact on the design and operation of offshore production facilities. Although
cyclones may be regarded as extreme conditions, they are regular and unavoidable occurrences
for this region, and as such require distinct design considerations to ensure safety and integrity of
the platform.
The greatest impact of extreme cyclonic conditions on operability and availability is the stationkeeping strategy, i.e. whether the FPSO is designed and installed as
A permanently moored facility; or
A disconnectable facility that sails away during cyclones.

With almost no exception, the harsh environmental conditions off NWA will require a turretmooring system. Normally, both permanent and disconnectable cases are evaluated during the
concept selection to ensure the best solution is chosen for the production from specific fields. In
the North West Shelf and Timor Sea regions of Australia both permanently moored and
disconnectable FPSOs have been installed. The disconnectable option is by far the more popular
for existing FPSOs in North West Australian waters where the extreme cyclonic conditions are
harsher than for the Timor Sea, Table 1.
The disconnectable turrets are more complex than non-disconnectable turrets, with the
mechanical requirements of the disconnect system, increased maintenance requirements, and full
marine crew, propulsion plant, double hull and other hull requirements. For the first generation
disconnectable turrets, reconnect times were far in excess of predictions and sometimes required
diver intervention to reconnect lost tag lines. Disconnection and reconnection may lead to many
more days of production loss than permanently moored FPSOs in the cyclone-prone areas.
Recent studies for LNG FPSO applications confirm that availability, safety and integrity
downside, along with heightened industrial risk, makes the disconnectable option less attractive.
It is feasible to apply permanent mooring systems for FPSO type facilities in NWA fields. The
permanent option better suits operations for the following reasons:
Overall availability may be improved by 5-10% against the disconnectable option.
Hazards associated with releasing and reconnecting to the mooring and risers are eliminated.
No maritime navigation personnel are required on board.

An FPSO facility may be designed to remain manned and operational or partially operational
during cyclones to minimise risk to personnel and weather related downtime caused by
disconnection or demanning. The relevant design and operational measures may include:
The structures (including riser and mooring systems) and accommodation are designed to

survive up to 10,000 year return weather events.

The facilities are designed to remain operational or partially operational in cyclonic weather
events with operating envelopes identified against sea states and hull motions.
Habitability of the temporary refuge areas on the floating facility during cyclones is
acceptable.
7

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

A practical weather envelope within which the process is deemed safe to operate is

determined and embodied in the operational procedures.

The option remains for a management decision to manually shut in and/or to deman, should

predicted conditions dictate this action.

It should be noted that in harsh locations with divergent wave, wind and current regimes, as is
the case for most NWA sites, there may well be a benefit to have an effective dynamic heading
control system as this could be used to significantly reduce roll motions and thereby increase the
overall system availability and crew comfort and safety. Other advantages of the heading control
system is that with the turret positioned further aft, the motions at the risers will be reduced and
accommodation can be placed upwind of the hazardous process systems.
Turret costs vary significantly depending on complexity of the application, numbers of risers and
fluid paths through the swivel, water depth, vessel size, etc. In such cases, the cost for a turret
and swivel system can be comparable to the cost of the FPSO hull itself. In some of the
deepwater applications, the high reservoir pressures and temperatures may create feasibility
issues for fluid swivel seals in the turrets.
Design Methodology
Selecting Natural Rolling and Heaving Periods
The first step in the design is to identify the required natural periods of roll and heave. Pitch
natural period is generally 1 or 2 seconds below heave natural period for shipshape FPSO and is
less critical due to high damping. The required natural periods of roll and heave are determined
from the field environmental data.
In general, the natural roll period should be 2s to 3s higher than peak period of the most
unfavorable wave environment for turret-moored system and 3s to 5s for spread-moored system.
To avoid rolling resonance with the persistent Southern Ocean swells with wave peak periods
between 12 and 18 seconds, the natural rolling period of the FPSO should be greater than 20
seconds. This also ensures that excessive roll motions in extreme cyclonic conditions can be
avoided for a location with a wave peak period of 18 seconds for 10,000 year return cyclones,
Table 2.
A heave natural period of around 11 seconds will be favorable to avoid heave resonance with
both operational wind seas of 2 to 7 seconds and persistent Southern Ocean swells of 12 to 18
seconds for a typical NWA site, although compromises often have to be made to meet specific
project objectives through more comprehensive analyses and assessments.
The above-suggested roll and heave natural periods for NWA fields are practically achievable.
Table 3 compares these natural periods with the required natural periods for four other field
locations, namely, Caspian Sea, West of Shetland, Offshore Angola and Far East (Indonesia), [5].
The required natural periods for NWA fields are similar to those for West of Shetland and
Offshore Angola. Note that the oceanic areas west of Shetland are subject to long-period swell

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

waves whereas both normal and extreme wave conditions offshore Angola are dominated by
long-period swells.
In Table 3, the required roll natural periods for Caspian Sea, West of Shetland, Offshore Angola
and Far East (Indonesia) were set by the 100-year storm wave period and in most cases must be
greater than the 100-year storm wave period especially for the directional waves where a spreadmoored system is used. This is to ensure that the response spectral energy at resonance is
minimized in the 100-year storm. For turret-moored systems, this requirement may be relaxed if
the waves are only from 30 degrees off the bow direction and produce acceptable roll motions.
The magnitude of the 100-year Hs may also impact the roll natural period required. In the case of
West of Shetland, the high Hs of 18.0m and omni-directional waves would require a roll natural
period > 20.5s.
The required heave natural periods for Caspian Sea, West of Shetland, Offshore Angola and Far
East (Indonesia) were to avoid resonance with the 1-year return beam-on storm waves and the
high occurrence operational fatigue waves. This requirement aims to minimise fatigue damage to
mooring and riser systems although optimizing heave natural period is not always practically
achievable due to other sizing constraints. Avoiding heave resonance is less critical than
avoiding roll resonance because damping in heave is high while FPSO roll motion is usually
under damped, resulting in large dynamic amplification.
Sizing with Targeted Natural Periods
For specified storage capacity and topsides weight the principal dimensions of the hull determine
the natural periods of the vessel. The other factors that influence the natural periods include
ballast capacity and distribution, but these are of secondary importance.
A hull form with a high beam/depth (B/D) ratio would have a low vertical centre of gravity from
keel, KG, and high hydrostatic restoring stiffness resulting in a high metacentric height, causing
the roll natural period to be low. In other words, the roll natural period increases as the B/D ratio
decreases. The heave and pitch natural periods vary predominantly with the variation of the
draft/length (T/L) ratio of the vessel.
The determination of the principal dimensions of the hull is performed through an iterative
process capable of sizing a mono-hull FPSO or FPU for the required storage capacity, topsides
weight, deck space and the required natural periods.
The lightship hull weight can be estimated based on the cubic volume of the hull type. For
FPSOs equipped with thrusters, adequate ballast tank capacity is required to achieve sufficient
draught to ensure that the thrusters are always fully submerged during severe weather conditions.
For FPSOs without thrusters, experience has shown that sufficient ballast to achieve IMO
minimum ballast draught for tankers provides a reasonable ballast draught for motion response,
trim control and control of hull bending and shear stresses.
During the design iteration process, the beam, L/B ratio and ballast capacity of the hull are varied
until the required natural periods of roll and heave are achieved. In general, lower B/D ratios are
9

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

required for the NWA, West of Shetland and Offshore Angola locations in order to achieve the
high roll natural period above 20s. A lower B/D ratio also increases the mid-ship section
modulus of the vessel, which is beneficial for longitudinal structural strength. Further hull
bending moment reductions can be achieved by optimisation of the bow and stern section forms,
which is also crucial for ensuring slamming and green water performances. Design against
slamming and green water for a non-disconnectable FPSO in extreme storm conditions is a
critical part of the hull configuration process but is not detailed in this paper.
For internal turret FPSO design, the hull longitudinal bending moments are minimized by
limiting the L/B ratio to about 5.5. For external turret FPSO and spread moored FPSO designs,
the L/B ratio can be below 5.0. L/B ratios up to 6.0 are common for oil tanker designs, driven by
transportation economics, which is not a requirement for FPSO design. The high L/B ratio results
in an increase in hull cost because hull section properties will also have to be increased to cope
with the increased longitudinal bending moment, which is proportional to the square of the hull
length.
During every design iteration, the hull form is checked for intact and damage stability for
IMO/MARPOL requirements.
Design for Rolling Damping
Oil tankers have large bilge radii to reduce drag and maximise transit speed. Typically, VLCCs
have bilge radii of about 2.50m. In FPSO design, a smaller bilge radius increases the roll
damping and hence decreases the roll motions. However, a very small bilge radius can lead to
stress concentration and hull fatigue due to longitudinal bending. A bilge radius of 1.00m to
1.50m for FPSOs is considered the optimum range to strike a balance between roll damping and
hull fatigue, [5]. The reduced bilge radius also helps to reduce construction costs.
It is often difficult to know at the early stages of design what the final topsides weight will end
up and therefore, a robust design should consider additional roll damping mechanisms such as
introducing bilge keels. Conditions encountered during transit to field may be well in excess of
the design conditions at the field location, further requiring consideration to be given to the
addition of bilge keels.
The introduction of bilge keels, however, should be considered as a secondary measure in the
design to address excessive roll motion. The function of bilge keel is to increase the roll damping,
but it does not significantly affect the roll natural period. Careful attention should also be given
to detail design, material, welding of bilge keels and hull interface construction.
Design Verification
When verifying the motions of an FPSO in operational sea states, most of the hydrodynamic
forces acting on the hull can be calculated using three-dimensional linear potential flow theory or
diffraction theory. The theory has been implemented in many commercially available offshore
industry software packages such as SESAM (Det Norske Veritas) and HydroStar (Bureau

10

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

Veritas). Heave and pitch motions can be predicted very accurately because viscous effects in
these motion modes are negligible.
The prediction of roll due to wave excitation is a classical challenge in the field of naval
architecture. For most FPSO hull forms, the roll damping predicted by the potential flow theory
is relatively small. The system damping is usually dominated by viscous effects. It is common
practice for the calculation of roll damping to use measured values to account for viscous effects.
A comprehensive overview on roll damping is given by Himeno [10]. The empirical roll
damping coefficients presented by Himeno have been implemented in both industry software
packages SESAM and HydroStar.
It must be noted that the Himeno damping coefficients are largely based on model test results
performed in calm water. The approach leads to good results particularly for a ship in a seaway
where the bilge keels bring notable lifting restoring moments in roll. It is recommended that for
modeling FPSOs, the empirical viscous damping coefficients presented in [10] are benchmarked
with FPSO experimental input for robustness. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based
viscous damping modeling has made significant progress, but more validation is needed before it
becomes a practical design and verification tool.
The presence of the deepwater moorings and risers introduces sources of damping that are not
included in the classical roll damping problem. This adds to the justification for advanced FPSO
design verification involving numerical modeling of coupled vessel, mooring and riser systems.
Verifying vessel motions and structural performance in storm conditions requires more advanced
modeling techniques. Non-linear time-domain methods are generally used to predict the vessel
motion histories, slamming and green water performance, and non-linear sagging and hogging
bending moments [11, 12].
Model testing of coupled FPSO systems is an important part of design verification and validation
for deepwater projects as far as the hull, mooring and riser performance are concerned.
Concluding Remarks
Traditional FPSO engineering practices for the offshore industry face the following challenges:
To effectively address hull design or selection to avoid motion resonance with the NWA
swell conditions hence reducing operational downtime and structural integrity problems;
To meet high operability and availability requirements of new large FPSO facilities favoring
permanent station-keeping rather than a disconnectable cyclone evasion strategy; and
To reduce deepwater riser and mooring costs using motion optimized hull designs.
The design philosophy and methodology to suit specific metocean conditions from initial hull
sizing is an effective approach to minimise environmental downtime of FPSOs and reduce both
Capex and Opex of riser and mooring systems. The financial benefits during field life of
increased productivity and deliverability and reduced structural maintenance are very significant.

11

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

Therefore, it is recommended that designers adopt this approach at the outset of the FPSO hull
selection and design process for this region.
For deepwater developments, the capital expenditure of the mooring and riser systems can be
much higher than the cost of the hull, so it accentuates the need to design a hull that is optimal
for site-specific metocean conditions, thereby reducing the costs of mooring and riser systems. In
deepwater locations, converted FPSOs are generally operationally inefficient due to the tendency
that their roll motions resonate with the NWA swell conditions.
For NWA FPSOs, the use of permanent station-keeping systems should be more actively
assessed, as has been proven for West of Shetland and Norwegian North Sea FPSOs.
Design verification of FPSO motions, mooring and risers using advanced numerical modeling
and model testing is essential, as historically design predictions correlated poorly with the NWA
FPSO field performance.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support and input provided by Granherne and KBR
colleagues during the preparation of this publication.
References
1.

Mastrangelo, C.F. and Castro, A.N.M., 1997, Field Experience and Concept to be Taken
into Account in a FPSO Design, SPE 38819.
2. Mastrangelo, C.F., 2000, One Companys Experience on Ship-Based Production System,
OTC 12053.
3. DSouza, R.B., Delepine and Y.M., Cordy, A.R., 1994, An Approach to the Design and
Selection of a Cost-Effective Floating Production Storage and Offloading System, OTC
7443.
4. DSouza, R.B., 1999, Major Technical and Regulatory Issues for Monohull Floating
Production Systems in the Gulf of Mexico, OTC 10704.
5. Khaw T., Rawstron P. and Lagstrom K., 2005, A New Approach to the Design of Monohull FPSOs, OMAE 67033, Halkidiki, Greece.
6. Xia, J., 2012, Operability of a Floating LNG Production Facility; APPEA Journal 2012,
pp 563-571.
7. NORDFORSK, 1987, The Nordic Cooperative Project, Seakeeping performance of ships,
Assessment of ship performance in a seaway, Trondheim, Norway.
8. ABS Guide for Crew Habitability on Offshore Installations, May 2002.
9. Guidelines for Management of Offshore Helicopter Operations, 2000, Australian Petroleum
Production & Exploration Association Limited (APPEA).
10. Himeno, Y., 1981, Prediction of Ship Roll Damping: State-of-the Art, Rep. No. 239, Dept
Nav. Arch. and Mar. Eng., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
11. Xia, J., Wang, Z. and Jensen, J. J., 1998, Non-linear wave loads and ship responses by a
time-domain strip theory, Marine Structures, No. 11, pp 101-123.
12

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

12. Wang, Z., Xia, J., Jensen, J. J. and Braathen, A., 2000, Prediction of vertical-plane wave
loading and ship responses in high seas, Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, France.
Nomenclature
APPEA
B/D
Capex
CFD
FPSO
FPU
Hs
IMO
JIP
KG
L/B
LNG
MARIN
MARPOL
NWA
NWS
Opex
RAO
T/L
Tp
VLCC

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association

Beam/Depth Ratio
Capital Expenditure
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Floating Production Storage & Offloading
Floating Production Unit
Significant Wave Height
International Marine Organisation
Joint Industry Project
Vertical Centre of Gravity from Keel
Length/Beam Ratio
Liquefied Natural Gas
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
Marine Pollution
North West Australia
North West Shelf
Operating Expenditure
Response Amplitude Operator
Draft/Length Ratio
Spectral Peak Wave Period
Very Large Crude Carrier

13

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

Table 1: Australian FPSOs

Vessel Name

Date
Installed

Class

Newbuild

1999

LRS

Permanent

Conversion

1999

ABS

750

Permanent

Newbuild

1987

LRS

Aframax

770

Disconnectable

Conversion

2007

DNV

Timor Sea

Suezmax

1055

Disconnectable

Conversion

LRS

Timor Sea

Suezmax

750

Disconnectable

Conversion
Conversion

1985
1997
(1991)
2003

ABS

Conversion

2008

LRS

Disconnectable

Conversion

2005

ABS

900

Disconnectable

Conversion

2013

ABS

Suezmax

900

Disconnectable

Newbuild

2006

LRS

NWS

Suezmax

650

Disconnectable

Conversion

2009

LRS

NWS

Suezmax

925

Disconnectable

Conversion

2011

ABS

NWS

Suezmax

850

Disconnectable

Conversion

2010

ABS

Vessel
Size

Storage
(bbls)

Mooring

Field

Region

Laminaria

Timor Sea

VLCC

1400

Permanent

Buffalo

Timor Sea

Suezmax

800

Challis

Timor Sea

Suezmax

Puffin

Timor Sea

Jabiru Venture (Decommissioned)

MV-01 Elang Venture (Skua
Venture) (Decommissioned)
Four Rainbow (Ex Four Vanguard)

Jabiru
ElangKrakatua
Woollybutt

NWS

Aframax

600

Disconnectable

Ngujima-Yin

Vincent
MutineerExeter
Montara
Skua
Enfield

NWS

VLCC

1200

Disconnectable

NWS

Suezmax

930

NWS

Suezmax

NWS

Northern Endeavour
Buffalo Venture
(Decommissioned)
Challis Venture
(Decommissioned)
Front Puffin (Decommisioned)

Modec Venture 11
Montara Venture (due Q3 2012)
Nganhurra
Ningaloo Vision
Okha
Pyrenees Venture

Van Gogh
WanneaCossack
Pyranees

Newbuild /
Conversion

ABS

Stybarrow Venture
Cossack Pioneer
(Decommisioned)
Griffin Venture (Decommisioned)

Stybarrow
NWS
Suezmax
900
Disconnectable Newbuild
2007
ABS
WanneaNWS
Suezmax
1160
Disconnectable Conversion
1991
ABS
Cossack
Griffin
NWS
Suezmax
820
Disconnectable Newbuild
1993
LRS
Basker
Bass
Crystal Ocean (Decomissioned)
Manta
Handymax
45
Disconnectable Conversion
2005
DNV
Strait
Gummy
Note: Disconnectable mooring system is designed for the FPSO to sail away during cyclones; Permanent mooring system is non-disconnectable.

14

DeepOffshoreTechnology,2729November2012,Perth,Australia

Table 2: Representative Extreme Metocean Conditions off NWA

Wave[1]
Hs[m]
TP[s]
20.0
18.0
14.0
14.5
9.0
12.0
3.2
8.5

Wind[2, 3]
Speed[m/s]
61.0
44.0
29.0
14.0

Current
Speed [m/s]
2.80
1.90
1.30
0.60

10,000-YR Cyclonic Condition

100-YR Cyclonic Condition
10-YR Cyclonic Condition
1-YR Cyclonic Condition
Notes:
[1]. The waves are represented by a JONSWAP spectrum with a peakedness
parameter equal to 1.6.
[2]. The wind is represented by an NPD wind spectrum.
[3]. 1-hour mean wind speed.

Table 3: Required Natural Periods for Various Locations

100-year
Storm
Hs (m)

100-year
Storm
Tp (s)

Beam-on 1year Storm

Tp / Swell
Tp (s)

Required
Min Roll
Natural
Period (s)

Required
Min Heave
Natural
Period (s)

Caspian
Sea

9.1

12.5

7.8

13.5

West of
Shetland

18.0

18.5

13.4

Offshore
Angola

3.6

18.3

Far East
Indonesia [2]

5.3

North West
Australia

15.0

Location

Wave
Direction

Mooring
System

10.5

Directional

Spreadmoored

20.5

13.0

Omnidirectional

Turretmoored

17.7 [1]

20.0

13.5

Directional
Swell

Spreadmoored

12.6

9.1

16.5

12.0

Directional

Spreadmoored

14.5

8.5/18.0

20.0

11.0

Cyclonic/
Dir. swell

Turretmoored

[1]. 45 off the bow; no wave at beam seas

[2]. Has fractionating columns on deck; required roll motions < 2

15