Proceedings of the ASME 2011 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2011
June 19-24, 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

OMAE2011-49580

EQUIVALENT DESIGN WAVE APPROACH FOR CALCULATING SITE-SPECIFIC

ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS ON AN FPSO
Resmi Sarala Mohammad Hajiarab Richard Bamford
Naval Architect Floating Structures Team Leader FOI Global Technology Leader

Lloyd's Register - Aberdeen, UK

ABSTRACT instant as the extreme, accounting for the phase differences

This paper demonstrates the method used by Lloyd's between the responses. Note that the environmental conditions
Register (LR) to derive an equivalent design wave from a associated with the extremes are usually different for each
response based analysis (RBA) to represent extreme loads on a response (e.g. the sea states resulting in large vertical wave
weather-vaning FPSO [1] and proceeds to compare the results bending moments do not necessarily also result in extreme roll
with that of the industry practice of the response amplitude responses).
operator (RAO) based approach. The responses investigated The RBA equivalent design wave method as described in
include roll, pitch, vertical wave bending moments, vertical Section 4 of the LR ShipRight-FOI procedure [1] is used to
wave shear forces and vertical acceleration. derive dynamic load combinations associated with the extreme
The RBA is based on 3 hourly hindcast metocean data and (100 year return period) values of the following responses at
uses the results of the heading analysis directly, considering the amidships for an Aframax FPSO operating in a harsh
combined effect of wind, wind-sea, current and swell. An environment:
equivalent design wave is then derived based on the spectral
characteristics of each response instead of the common practice • Vertical Wave Bending Moment
for ship design [2] which uses only the characteristics of the • Vertical Wave Shear Force
RAOs. For each response the design wave for the RBA and • Vertical Acceleration
RAO approaches is compared. Deriving equivalent design • Transverse Acceleration
waves using only the RAO characteristics is found to give some • Roll
non-conservative and unrealistic equivalent design waves in • Pitch
some cases.
The RBA equivalent design waves are compared with RAO
INTRODUCTION based equivalent design waves for each response. The design
In a harsh environment a turret mooring system is often waves are used to derive dynamic load combination factors
utilised to take advantage of its passive weather-vaning (DLCFs) as would be used for structural design calculations [4].
characteristics. The instantaneous equilibrium position is
reached through the combined effects of varying environmental NOMENCLATURE
loads due to wind, wave (wind-sea and swell components), and av-PS Vertical Acceleration at Port Side tank
current. at-PS Transverse Acceleration at Port Side tank
Accurate modeling of the FPSO responses is important for FOI Floating Offshore Installation
predicting the loads on the structure and the operational Hs Significant wave height
envelope. This requires a good understanding of the vessel Mwv Vertical Wave Bending Moment
response characteristics and the site-specific environmental Qwv Vertical Wave Shear Force
conditions. The relative importance of the environmental Tp Peak spectral period
parameters depends upon the response being investigated. To γ Non-dimensional peak shape parameter [5]
use the extreme responses (e.g. vertical wave bending moment) σa Numeric spectral parameter [5]
for structural design it is necessary to also derive the associated σb Numeric spectral parameter [5]
responses (e.g. vertical acceleration) which occur at the same

1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 BACKGROUND 3D Diffraction
Metocean
database
The purpose of the load response analysis is to provide Model

environmental loads for use in the assessment of the strength,

hull girder ultimate strength, local scantlings, and sloshing
assessment. Hydrodynamic
Heading
Wind and
database current
The CSR [2] derivation of characteristic design wave loads analysis
coefficients
is based on a long term statistical approach which includes
representation of the wave environment (North Atlantic scatter
diagram), probability of ship/wave heading and probability of
Heading
load value exceedence based on IACS Recommendation 34. database

Non-linear effects (due to vessel geometry and wave profile) are

considered for the expected lifetime maximum loads. In
deriving the simultaneously occurring loads, one particular load
Response
component is maximised or minimised and the relative Analysis
magnitude of all simultaneously occurring dynamic load
components is specified by the application of dynamic load
combination factors (DLCF) based on the envelope load value.
Dynamic Load
These dynamic load combination factors based on the combination
factors
equivalent representative design waves are tabulated in the
CSR [2].
It is not sufficient simply to replace the individual tanker
RulesCalc
loads given in the CSR Section 7/3 [2] with FPSO loads unless Scantling
calculations
the load combination factors given in the CSR Section 7/6 [2]
are also replaced. This is because the heading probabilities, Figure 1: Flowchart of the analysis
environmental load characteristics and hence response
characteristics of an FOI differ from those of a trading tanker.
Furthermore the values of fβ in CSR [2] which account for the The 100 year return period values for each response is
probabilities of head seas and beam seas are not necessarily determined based on spectral analysis methods for each loading
applicable to an FOI. pattern as follows:

LR RBA Method • The Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) of the

The LR RBA method makes use of the following for
calculating extreme responses and associated DLCF using the
design wave approach:
• A site specific directional scatter diagram or
hindcast/measured data series;
• Linear hydrodynamic theory with the hull modeled using
3D-diffraction elements; and
• Heading probabilities determined from a heading analysis.
Figure 1 shows a flow chart of the complete hydrodynamic
analysis to calculate required loads for determining the local
scantlings for the hull structure.
response under investigation for each loading condition
and vessel heading is produced.
• The short term response is calculated for each sea-state by
adding the wind sea response spectra and swell sea
response spectra for the response under investigation. The
mean heading for each sea-state determined by the heading
analysis is used.
• The long term distribution of the response under
investigation is determined by combining the statistics of
the Rayleigh distributions for each sea-state. From the
long term distribution, the extreme value for the required
(100 year) response is calculated. This procedure assumes
the response to be narrow banded. Where the response is
not narrow banded, a bandwidth correction may be
applied.

Idealised quasi-static load cases are required for the

response variable defined in each loading condition in the
strength analysis.
The idealised quasi-static load cases that induce the
100 year return period value for each response variable are
derived using the concept of an equivalent design wave. These
design waves yield the information required to replace the CSR
DLCF values. There are numerous possible design waves and

2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 using one design wave for each response is a significant The hull is modeled with 3D-diffraction elements. The
simplification irrespective of the selection method. The LR effects of current drag loads and wind loads on the hull were
method employs the results of the extreme response analysis represented by the current force and wind force coefficients.
rather than only the characteristics of the response RAOs. The The mooring lines are modeled as composite catenary lines
steps in the method are as follows: consisting of chains and wire rope components.
The main characteristics of the vessel used for the analysis
1. The relative heading 'H' which produces the greatest in the ballast condition are presented in Table 1 below:
contribution to the 100 year response of interest is
identified. The relative heading 'H' is the dominant relative Table 1: Main characteristics of the vessel
heading from cumulative response spectrum (See
Annex A). Vessel Characteristics (approximately)
2. For relative heading 'H', the frequency 'F' is identified LBP (m) 230
which produces the greatest contribution to the 100 year Breadth (m) 45
response of interest. The frequency 'F' is the frequency at
the peak of the cumulative response spectrum for relative Draught (m) 12
heading 'H'. Displacement (t) 110,000
3. For relative heading 'H', the phase angle 'P' is found which GM (m) 4.5
generates the amplitude of the RAO for frequency 'F'. LCG from AP (m) 110
4. The amplitude 'A' of a regular wave is calculated with VCG from keel (m) 16
relative heading 'H', frequency 'F' and phase angle 'P' so
that it produces the 100 year response value. At this step Tran. radius of gyration (m) 20
the design wave can be identified by it's four parameters, Vert. radius of gyration (m) 65
i.e. heading, frequency, phase and amplitude. Long. radius of gyration(m) 65
5. For relative heading 'H', frequency 'F' and amplitude 'A' all
response components for phase 'P' and phase 'P+180 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
degrees' are calculated. This will give the positive and The environmental data includes a total of approximately
negative loads. 30,000 continuous three hourly hindcast sea states which
represents more than 10 years of data. Definition of this data is
RAO based method in accordance to requirements of Section 2.8 of ShipRight FOI
In the RAO based approach the RAOs for a given Procedure [1] and no spreading is assumed in the wave data.
parameter are calculated for each heading. The design wave The environmental data includes:
heading is then taken to correspond to the heading of the largest
RAO from the calculated set of RAOs. Thereafter the method is • Wind wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, γ,
the same as the RBA approach. σa and σb) and direction
• Swell wave JONSWAP spectrum parameters (i.e. Hs, Tp, γ,
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL σa and σb) and direction
Preparation of the hydrodynamic model and hydrodynamic • Wind mean speed and direction
analysis was performed using the AQWA software package • Current mean speed and direction
from ANSYS.
The AQWA model for the analysis is presented in Figure 2. RBA PROCEDURE
Analysis was performed as indicated in Figure 1 based on
z
the following procedure:
-900 1. A 3-D diffraction model of the vessel's hull was generated
z
y
in AQWA-LINE based on the characteristics defined in
Table 1.
00 cog 2. The calculated linearised roll damping is verified against
x
field measurements and included in the hydrodynamic
model.
900 1800 3. A hydrodynamic database containing amplitude and phase
of the RAOs for design parameters stated in Table 2 was
prepared for frequency range of 0.1 rad/s to 1.5 rad/s with
0.05 rad/s increments and heading range of -180° to 180°
Figure 2: The Hydrodynamic model and Reference System with 5° increments.

3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 4. The mooring arrangements were added to the AQWA- RESULTS
LINE model to create the AQWA-LIBRIUM model. The calculated 100 year return period values from the
5. Wind and current coefficients from wind tunnel tests were Response Based Analysis (RBA) and their design wave
added to the AQWA-LIBRIUM to include the wind drag characteristics for the specified responses stated in Table 2, are
and the current drag forces for the specified loading presented in Table 3.
condition of the vessel and the headings relative to wind Using the design waves in Table 3 and the RAO database
and current directions. of the responses, associated loads in phase with each 100 year
6. The three hourly environmental data, which contained sets return period response can be calculated. The calculated design
of wind-sea, swell, wind and current data with their parameters associated with each design wave are presented in
associated directions were included in the hydrodynamic Table 4.
model. For each design wave (i.e. each column in Table 4), the 100
7. Using the AQWA-LIBRIUM software, the stable year return period is highlighted for further clarity. For
equilibrium positions for each three hourly sea state was example, at the time of the 100 year return period vertical wave
calculated individually. bending moment (i.e. Mwv=5.8E9 N.m), the associated vertical
8. The vessel headings were post-processed to find the wave shear force, vertical acceleration, transverse acceleration,
relative vessel heading to wind seas and swell seas at each roll and pitch are -2.7E7 N, 0.50 ms-2, 0.00 ms-2, 0.00 deg. and
three hourly sea state. 2.46 deg., respectively.
9. Using RAOs calculated in step 3 above and the relative Table 3: The RBA 100 year return period values and design
vessel headings calculated in step 8 above, an extreme waves
response analysis was performed in accordance with [1] to
calculate the 100 year return period for the parameters 100 Yr. Design Wave Characteristics
listed in Table 2. Response R.P. A F H P
10. The outcome of the response analysis from step 9 is post Value (m) (rad/s) (deg.) (deg.)
processed to define individual design waves associated to Mwv
5.8E9 11.87 0.50 180 167
each response. In this process for each sea state the (N.m)
relative headings of the wind seas and swell seas are Qwv
4.3E7 12.06 0.55 -180 37
rounded to nearest 5°. The response spectra for wind seas (N)
and swell seas with the same rounded headings are added av-PS
1.70 16.13 0.60 180 54
together and are presented in the form of a histogram. The (ms-2)
total area on the starboard side (i.e. from 0° to 180°) and at-PS
5.83 8.66 0.35 150 -133
port side (i.e. from -180° to 0°) are calculated and the (ms-2)
biggest area is considered as the "Governing Side". The Roll
22.93 8.54 0.35 150 -175
dominant heading is chosen from the Governing Side of (deg.)
the histogram (See Figures 9 to 14 in Annex A). Pitch
11. The calculated design waves are used to determine the 9.46 13.66 0.50 180 94
(deg.)
associated values in phase with each 100 year return Note: A: Amplitude, F: Frequency, H: Heading, P: Phase
period responses from the hydrodynamic database
Table 4: The RBA associated design parameters for each
calculated in step 3. design wave
Table 2: Presented FPSO responses
Design Wave
FPSO Resp. Mwv Qwv av-PS at-PS Roll Pitch
Approx. Position (m)
Response (N.m) (N) (ms-2) (ms-2) (deg.) (deg.)
Roll At center of gravity Mwv
5.8E9 -2.6E9 3.71E8 1.25E9 1.8E9 1.99E9
Pitch At center of gravity (N.m)
At 0.5L from AP Qwv
Mwv -2.7E7 4.3E7 5.15E7 -9.92E6 -1.1E7 2.72E7
(x=115 from AP) (N)
At the trans BHD with max.combined av-PS
0.50 0.64 1.70 0.20 0.41 0.688
Qwv seagoing permissible SWSF and VWSF in the (ms-2)
midship region, (x=130 from AP) at-PS
0.00 0.00 0.00 5.83 4.23 0.00
At COG of the mid tank – Port Side (ms-2)
av-PS Roll
(x=120 from AP, y=9 from CL, z=9 from BL) 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.11 22.93 0.00
(deg.)
At COG of the mid tank – Port Side
at-PS Pitch
(x=120 from AP, y=9 from CL, z=9 from BL) 2.46 3.34 4.05 -3.60 -0.40 9.46
(deg.)

4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 The relation between 100 year return period design Table 7: The RAO based associated design parameters for
parameter and other associated design parameters for each each design wave
design wave is normalized in Table 5. This demonstrates the
dynamic load combination factor (DLCF) for each design wave. Design Wave
Resp. Mwv Qwv av-PS at-PS Roll Pitch
Table 5: The RBA normalised associated design parameters (N.m) (N) (ms-2) (ms-2) (deg.) (deg.)
for each design wave Mwv
5.8E9 -2.97E9 3.47E7 -5.6E7 -9.06E7 1.86E9
(N.m)
Design Wave
Resp. Qwv
Mwv Qwv av-PS at-PS Roll Pitch -2.73E7 4.3E7 -8.99E5 9.7E4 1.61E5 -4.28E6
(N)
(N.m) (N) (ms-2) (ms-2) (deg.) (deg.)
av-PS
0.51 -0.08 1.70 -0.07 -0.02 0.59
Mwv
1.00 -0.46 0.06 0.21 0.32 0.35 (ms-2)
(N.m) at-PS
0.51 0.00 0.37 5.83 -0.02 -0.26
Qwv (ms-2)
-0.63 1.00 1.18 -0.23 -0.25 0.62
(N) Roll
0.00 0.00 0.74 17.60 22.93 -0.46
av-PS (deg.)
0.30 0.38 1.00 0.12 0.24 0.41
(ms-2)
Pitch
at-PS 2.47 3.57 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 9.46
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.73 0.00 (deg.)
(ms-2)
Roll
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.00 Table 8: The RAO based normalised associated design
(deg.)
parameters for each design wave
Pitch
0.26 0.35 0.43 -0.38 -0.04 1.00 Design Wave
(deg.)
Resp. Mwv Qwv av-PS at-PS Roll Pitch
The RAO based design wave characteristics of each (N.m) (N) (ms-2) (ms-2) (deg.) (deg.)
response are presented in Table 6. Mwv
1.00 -0.51 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.32
The associated responses to each 100 year response, using (N.m)
the RAO based design waves are shown in Table 7 and the same Qwv
-0.63 1.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.10
values are normalized in Table 8 for further discussion. (N)
av-PS
0.30 -0.05 1.00 -0.04 0.01 0.35
Table 6: The RAO based 100 year return period values and (ms-2)
design waves at-PS
0.09 0.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 -0.04
(ms-2)
100 Yr. Design Wave Characteristics Roll
Response R.P. A F H P 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.77 1.00 -0.02
(deg.)
Value (m) (rad/s) (deg.) (deg.) Pitch
Mwv 0.26 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
5.8E9 11.87 0.50 180 167 (deg.)
(N.m)
Qwv DISCUSSIONS
4.3E7 8.62 0.55 0 -57
(N) For each design wave the RBA and RAO based response
av-PS parameters are tabulated in Table 3 to Table 8.
1.70 3.25 0.65 90 -131
(ms-2) It can be seen from Table 5 that at the time of the 100 year
at-PS return period av-PS , the associated Qwv is about 18% more than
5.83 3.16 0.35 90 -128
(ms-2) the calculated 100 year return period Qwv. This is because the
Roll response of the vessel due to two separate wave spectra (i.e.
22.93 3.28 0.35 90 -169
(deg.) wind wave and swell) is approximated by only one regular
Pitch design wave. In order to eliminate such discrepancies when
9.46 9.46 0.60 120 112
(deg.) calculating local scantlings it is usual to truncate any associated
value exceeding the calculated 100 year value to the
Note: A: Amplitude, F: Frequency, H: Heading, P: Phase
corresponding 100 year value [4]. However when applying the
design wave directly for FE analysis using a full ship FE model
such truncation is not practical.

5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Among the approximately 30,000 seastates analysed in this
study, the sea states which contribute the most to the responses
under investigation are shown in Figures 3 to 7.
Figure 3: The sea state contributing most to extreme Mwv
Figure 4: The sea state contributing most to extreme Qwv
Figure 5: The sea state contributing most to extreme av-PS
By comparing Table 5 with Table 8 it can be concluded that
the DLCFs presented in Table 5 are more representative of
reality than the values in Table 8. This phenomenon is most
significant in transverse responses. For example, by applying
the RAO based design wave approach (i.e. Table 8), at the time
of the 100 year return period at-PS , the corresponding Mwv, Qwv
and av-PS are calculated to be negligible. However using the
RBA based design waves, associated Mwv, Qwv and av-PS at the
time of the 100 year return period at-PS are demonstrated to be
21%, 23% and 12% of their 100 year return period values. This
is due to the fact that the heading and frequency of the RBA
design wave correspond to the peak of the energy concentration
in the response, not the peak of the RAO. Therefore the RBA
design wave is considered to be more realistic.
Furthermore, in order to compare the RBA design wave
approach with the commonly used RAO based design wave
approach, the roll and pitch response are chosen as
representative of transverse and longitudinal responses
respectively. As presented in Table 3, the heading of the roll
using the RBA approach is calculated to be 150 degrees. From
the RAO based approach it can be seen that in this case the
design wave heading of the roll response will be 90 degrees,
since the peak of the RAO occurs in this heading.
As it is demonstrated in Figure 8, by choosing the design
wave heading of 90 degrees for roll response, the minimum
amount of contribution from pitch will be considered in the
design load case. However by choosing the heading of 150
degrees, not only is the 100 year return period roll response
recovered, but a considerable pitch response in phase with the
100 year roll response will be considered as well.

Max. Roll and Max. Pitch RAO Amplitudes

1.2 8
Max. Pitch Ampl.
7
1 Max. Roll Ampl.
Max. Pitch ampl. (deg/m)

Max. Roll ampl. (deg/m)

6
0.8
5

0.6 4

3
0.4
2
0.2
1

0 0
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0
5

Figure 6: The sea state contributing most to extreme at-PS Heading (deg.)
and Roll
Figure 8: Maximum roll and pitch RAO amplitudes

It should be noted that the response based methods are

based on linear frequency domain analysis which assumes
infinitesimally small wave amplitudes. When applying the
design waves for structural design it is usual to make
corrections for the finite wave height by making assumptions
about the pressure distribution above the waterline [4].

Figure 7: The sea state contributing most to extreme Pitch CONCLUSIONS

From the preceding discussions, it is concluded that the
RBA design wave approach adopted by Lloyd's Register

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 provides more realistic responses compared to the more
commonly used RAO based method. As a result of more
accurate estimation of the site specific responses, a better
optimized hull scantling design can be achieved. Furthermore
the topside process machinery can be designed for more
realistic motion and acceleration operating limits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Lloyd's Register Group Services,
especially Dr. Graham Stewart, for his support of this work.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and are not necessarily those of Lloyd's Register.

REFERENCES
[1] Lloyd's Register, 2011, "ShipRight-FOI Design,
Construction and Operation; Floating Offshore
Installations Assessment of Structures, Ship Units,
Guidance on Calculation".
[2] IACS, 2008, "Common Structural Rules for Double Hull
Oil Tankers".
[3] Lloyd, A.R.J.M., 1998,"Seakeeping: Ship behavior in
rough weather".
[4] Lloyd's Register, 2011, "Rules and Regulation for the
Classification of a Floating Offshore Installation at a Fixed
Location," Part 4A.
[5] BS EN ISO 19901-1:2005, "Petroleum and Natural Gas
industries – Specific requirements for offshore structures,
Part 1: Metocean design and operating considerations".

7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 ANNEX A

Figure 9: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Mwv response

Figure 10: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Qwv response

Figure 11: Histogram of the energy distrubution for av-PS response

Figure 12: Histogram of the energy distrubution for at-PS response

8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 13: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Roll response

Figure 14: Histogram of the energy distrubution for Pitch response

9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms