Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Hydrodynamics of an FLNG system in tandem offloading operation

Wenhua Zhao a, Jianmin Yang a,n, Zhiqiang Hu a, Bin Xie b
a
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Road, 200240 Shanghai, China
b
Deepwater Engineering Key Laboratory, Technology Research Department, CNOOC Research Institute, 100027 Beijing, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) is a new type of offshore platform that consists of a ship-type
Received 14 February 2012 floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) hull equipped with LNG storage tanks and
Accepted 24 September 2012 liquefaction plants. In LNG offloading operation, tandem configuration where LNG carrier connects to
Available online 23 October 2012
the stern of an FLNG, shows its prospects. In this study, the hydrodynamic characteristics of a single
Keywords: point turret-moored FLNG system in tandem offloading operation are investigated by using a time-
FLNG domain coupled dynamic analysis program and a set of comparative model tests. The numerical
Hydrodynamics simulation model features well the hydrodynamic performance of the coupled system obtained from
Tandem offloading operation the experiments. The influence of distance between the two vessels on their hydrodynamic perfor-
Coupled analysis
mance has been investigated. Furthermore, two different ways of connecting FLNG vessel and LNG
Fish-tailing motion
carrier have also been comparatively studied. The numerical results show that there is significant
difference at the hydrodynamic performance in the two ways of tandem offloading operations, which
means that the connection between FLNG vessel and LNG carrier plays an important role. The outcome
of this study would offer better understanding on the hydrodynamics of multi-bodies, which can
further lead to more practical applications for the design and operation of FLNG.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction commonly single point turret-moored. The application of the tandem

offloading operation from floating production storage and offloading
Due to the continuously growing demands for clean energy (FPSO) to shuttle tankers is a safe practice for oil offloading. However,
such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), stranded offshore gas fields, this offloading operation for LNG should be conducted with great
which were considered to be very challenging in the past, are care because the flow lines have to overcome extremely low
becoming more and more attractive. Those stranded gas fields are temperature, more cargo flexible pipes (liquid and gas return) and
commonly located in deep water and are isolated from onshore more stringent dynamic positioning (DP) operational envelope (Cox
infrastructures or some other offshore pipelines, which challenges et al., 2010). Therefore, the study of hydrodynamic performance of an
their exploitation. To overcome those difficulties, floating lique- FLNG system in tandem offloading operation is essential for the
fied natural gas (FLNG), a new type of offshore unit, has been development and downtime analysis of an FLNG system.
proposed. Research investigating this type of platform and its Considerable studies on single-point turret mooring system in
associated technology has supported FLNG as a possible method tandem offloading operation are available. de Souza Junior and
of exploiting stranded gas fields (White and Longley, 2009). Morishita (2002) investigated the dynamic stability of a turret-
Readers are directed to the report by Zhao et al. (2011) for more moored vessel. The equilibrium positions of the vessels were analyzed
information. In such a case, LNG carriers are commonly operated in detail, and it was shown that the system displays bifurcations of
in side-by-side or tandem arrangement for LNG offloading. The equilibriums that lead to intricate scenarios whereby several fixed
former offloading operation should be conducted in a quite mild points co-exist. Surprisingly, the results for the tandem configuration
sea environment, which limits the offloading operation. While the reveal additional complexity because in each shuttle vessel equili-
latter one shows its prospects due to the large distance between brium condition, two or more vessel equilibriums can exist. Similar
FLNG vessel and LNG carrier. study can also be found in Sphaier et al. (2002). Lee (2002) carried out
In tandem offloading operation, LNG carriers are connected a simple uncoupled analysis for the hydrodynamic investigation of
through taut hawsers to the stern of an FLNG vessel, which is tandem moored tankers, in which the mooring lines, risers and
hawsers are assumed to respond statically to vessel motion. In the
uncoupled analysis, the inertia and damping effects as well as the
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 21 34207053/2131. hydrodynamic loading on the slender members are not taken into
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Yang). account. However, Wichers and Devlin (2001) showed that the

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.09.015
 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162 151

uncoupled analysis may produce large error in the case of single- to an external turret. The external turret of the FLNG system is 385 m
point turret-moored system, such as FPSO. They recommended the away from the afterward perpendicular of the FLNG vessel in the
fully coupled dynamic analysis to provide valuable design data. horizontal plane. The general arrangement of the FLNG vessel is
Hong et al. (2002) carried out model tests for tandem moored tankers shown in Fig. 1.
in regular waves. In their study, the two vessels were not connected
together as in real sea states. They investigated basic interaction 2.1.2. LNG carrier
characteristics of tandem moored vessels due to wave forces. Van der The LNG carrier has a displacement weight of 160,000 t in full
Valk and Watson (2005) addressed a series of basin model test results loaded condition. The general arrangement of the LNG carrier is
for severe multi-directional wave climates. In their study, different shown in Fig. 2.
tandem arrangements of a LNG and floating production barge under The simulated and experimental results presented in this study
multi-directional wave climate were investigated. With the help of are related to the full loaded condition for the FLNG vessel and the
the time domain code SIMO, Chen et al. (2004) investigated the 70%H (H indicates the height of the still liquid in the LNG tank)
excessive relative motions between an FPSO and an oil tanker in filling condition of the LNG carrier. The main particulars of the
tandem offloading operation. In their study, the relative surge and reference FLNG vessel and LNG carrier are presented in Table 1.
yaw motions and the probability of contact between the FPSO and
tanker were investigated. Lee and Choi (2005) numerically studied
the linear stability of tandem offloading systems under the combined
actions of wave, wind and current. In their study, the equations for
surge, sway and yaw motions were linearized, and the Hartman–
Grobman theorem and the stable manifold theorem were adopted.
They thought fully nonlinear equations of motion are necessary to
clarify the fish-tailing motion more accurately. Berg and Bakke (2008)
summarized the advantages and shortcomings of side-by-side and
tandem operations. Koop et al. (2010) and Tannuri et al. (2010)
studied the effects of wind shielding, while Fucatu and Nishimoto
(2003) and Illuminatti et al. (2009) studied the shadow effects of
current in the tandem offloading operation. Even though, the study of
the hydrodynamic characteristics of a coupled FLNG system in
tandem offloading operation is necessary, and more detailed inves-
tigations are required before the first application of the tandem
offloading operation for LNG in real sea states. Fig. 1. General arrangement of the FLNG vessel. Ten identical SPB-type (Self-
To evaluate the responses of the turret-moored FLNG vessel supporting Prismatic type-B) tanks are equipped in the FLNG vessel in double
and the stern connected LNG carrier by hawser accurately, rows for LNG storage, and their total LNG capacity is 290,000 m3.
dynamic coupled analysis was carried out in this study. In the
investigation, the vessels, mooring lines, hawsers, and their
dynamic coupling effects are fully taken into consideration. The
hydrodynamic performance of the FLNG system subject to paral-
lel wave, wind and current is studied through both numerical
simulations and model tests. The numerical results show good
agreement with those of the experiments. Large unstable drift
motions of the vessels, referred to in ship dynamics as fish-tailing
phenomenon, in tandem offloading operation were studied. The
relationship between the length of the hawser and the hydro-
dynamic performance of the FLNG system has been investigated.
Moreover, two different tandem mooring systems have been
compared: a single hawser and a double hawser, to evaluate the
pros and cons from an operational perspective. Conclusions were
obtained from the results and discussions, serving as guidance for
the tandem offloading operation of FLNG system and the design of Fig. 2. General Arrangement of the LNG Carrier. Four membrane-type tanks are
its DP system. equipped in the LNG vessel for LNG storage, and their total LNG capacity is 147,
000 m3.

2. Description of the CNOOC FLNG system Table 1

Principal scantlings of the reference FLNG vessel and LNG carrier.
A conceptual FLNG system designed by China National Off-
shore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and Marine Design and Research Designation Signal Unit FLNG LNG carrier

Institute of China was selected as the reference, as well as an Length over all Loa m 392.00 289.00
existed LNG carrier. Length between perpendiculars Lpp m 356.00 278.00
Breadth B m 69.00 43.20
Depth D m 35.70 26.30
2.1. Features of the FLNG Vessel and LNG carrier
Draft T m 13.85 10.05
Displacement D ton 320,804 95,951
2.1.1. FLNG vessel Centre of gravity above base KG m 20.553 14.49
The FLNG vessel has a rectangular shape and is equipped with 10 Centre of gravity from AP LCG m 171.020 242.04
identical LNG tanks which are double-row arranged. The FLNG Radius of roll gyration Kxx m 23.87 14.04
Radius of pitch gyration Kyy m 94.26 85.13
system is designed to be located in the site with water depth of
Radius of yaw gyration Kzz m 95.00 86.00
1500 m in South China Sea and moored by 12 mooring lines attached
152 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162

2.2. Features of the mooring system hawser is set to be 341.83 kN/m, and with a minimum breaking
load (MBL) of 712 t.
2.2.1. Turret-mooring system
The mooring system consists of a turret which allows the FLNG 2.3. Environment condition
hull to rotate around it freely and 12 mooring lines with the
length of 6100 m each. Each line has three segments called as In this study, a parallel sea environment including wave, wind and
chain-wire-chain and a horizontal span of 5850 m. The pre- current was applied to the FLNG system in tandem offloading
tension force acting on the top of each mooring line is operation. The random wave component is described by a three-
3090.15 kN for the fully loaded condition. More details regarding parameter Jonswap spectrum with a significant wave height (Hs) of
the mooring configuration are presented in Table 2. 5.0 m, a spectrum peak period (Tp) of 10.0 s and a peak enhancement
Due to the limitations of the available artificial water basins, factor (g) of 3.0. Steady flow for wind is assumed and the mean
the mooring system of ultra deep floating system cannot be velocity (Vw) at the reference height of 10 m for one hour is 15.0 m/s.
accommodated in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Trun- The current velocity (Vc) near free surface is 1.0 m/s. During the
cation of the mooring system is an effective tool for the model model tests and the numerical simulations, the paralleled wave, wind
tests in ultra deep water. In this study, the mooring system was and current approach the FLNG system with the heading of 1801.
truncated at the water depth of 500 m in prototype, reproducing
the floater motion dynamics of the real deepwater system,
including low-frequency as well as wave-frequency components. 3. Numerical modeling
The horizontal span of the truncated mooring system is 1227 m in
prototype, the model of which can be accommodated in the water Dynamic analysis of the FLNG system in time-domain was
basin. Details of the truncated mooring system are listed in carried out, including the coupling effects among the two vessels,
Table 3 in both prototype and model scale. the turret mooring system and the hawser. To describe the motion
of the FLNG system in tandem offloading operation, two coordinate
2.2.2. The tandem arrangement systems are introduced: the global coordinate system (O-XYZ) and
Two different ways of tandem arrangements have been inves- the body-fixed coordinate system (o-xyz), shown in Fig. 4. The
tigated: a single hawser and a double hawser, shown in Fig. 3. former one is fixed with the earth and its xy-plane coincides with
A series of distances between the two vessels (from stern of FLNG
vessel to bow of LNG carrier) were studied: 74.42, 64.42, 54.42
and 44.42 m, referred to as ‘‘D’’ in Fig. 3. The axial stiffness of each

Table 2
Configuration of the mooring lines in prototype.

Designation Length Diameter Weigh Submerged Axial Minimum

in air weight stiffness breaking
load
Unit m mm kg/m kg/m kN/m kN

Chain 100 127 322.93 280.95 1214733 14971

Polyester 4000 233 33.8 7.9 479000 15696
Chain 2000 127 322.93 280.95 1214733 14971
Fig. 4. Coordinate systems.

Table 3
Truncated mooring line configuration at 500 m water depth in both prototype and model scale.

Designation Length Weigh in air Submerged weight Axial stiffness Minimum breaking load

Prototype Model Prototype Model Prototype Model Prototype Model Prototype Model
(m) (m) (kg/m) (g/m) (kg/m) (g/m) (kg) (cm/kg) (kN) (kN)

Chain 100 1.23 273.72 41.72 260.76 39.74 11911438 5.65 14971 0.0275
Polyester 868.8569 10.73 72.04 10.98 59.08 9.00 10525894 55.51 15696 0.0288
Chain 365.6865 4.51 944.98 144.03 932.00 142.05 24690242 9.96 14971 0.0275

Fig. 3. Tandem arrangement for the double hawser and the single hawser cases. (physical are not to scale).
 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162 153

the still water surface. The origin of the latter coordinate system is duration of 1 h, verifying the hydro model of the FLNG system in
located on the free surface for sake of simplicity. tandem operation and where necessary determine the important
To obtain all the hydrodynamic coefficients of the vessels, such viscous damping terms that cannot be calculated with state-of-
as added mass, radiation damping, first- and second-order wave- the-art calculations tools. The dimensions of the basin are
frequency and mean-drift forces, the well known diffraction/ 50 m  40 m  10 m and the water depth was set at 6.17 m
radiation panel code WAMIT (Lee, 1999) was used. The computed corresponding to the prototyped truncated water depth of 500 m.
frequency-domain hydrodynamic coefficients are used in the The environment conditions were calibrated before the model
time-domain equation expressed by a two-term Volterra series tests. The time series of the random wave elevations were
expression via a Kramers–Kronig relation (Koo and Kim, 2006). generated through the algorithm of Fast Fourier Transformation
The motion equations (Garrett et al., 2002; Rho et al., 2007) in (FFT), while these are not necessary for the wind and current due
time-domain coupled analysis for the FLNG vessel or LNG carrier to the reason that they are steady with respect to time in this
are formulated in the corresponding body-fixed coordinate sys- study. During the model tests, the vessel model was moored
tem as follows: through the external turret at a specific target position of the
  Z t water basin with the truncated mooring lines. The pre-tensions
½M þ að1Þfx€ g þ D1 fx_ g þ D2 f fx_ g þ Kfxg þ ½hðttÞfx_ gdt acting on each mooring line were firstly adjusted to achieve the
0
target values. This was realized with the help of the load cells
¼ F wave þ F current þ F wind þF ext , ð1Þ connected between the vessel and the mooring lines. LNG carrier
where M is the generalized mass matrix for the ship hull, a(N) is was connected to the stern of the FLNG vessel through a double
the added mass matrix at infinite frequency, K is the hydrostatic hawser, as shown in Fig. 3 in Section 2. The motion responses of
restoring stiffness matrix, D1and D2 are the linear and quadratic the vessels in 6 degrees of freedom and the time traces of the
damping matrix, respectively, Fwave, Fwind, Fcurrent denote the wave loads acting on the turret mooring system and the hawser system
drag force, the wind drag force and the current drag force, should be measured during the model test. The environmental
respectively. The last item Fext represents any other forces conditions should be generated corresponding to the full scale
(specified forces and forces from station-keeping and coupling duration of 1 h, and the data were captured with a sampling
elements, etc.). h(t) refers to retardation function matrix, which frequency of 25 Hz. A photo of the FLNG system in tandem
means the influence of the memory effect in the free-surface. offloading operation under the combination of the wave, wind
It can be obtained by the following equation: and current is shown in Fig. 6. All of the measured data in the
Z 1 model tests have been extended to the full scale.
1
hðtÞ ¼ ½cðoÞ þioaðoÞeiot do, ð2Þ
2p 1
where c and a are the radiation damping matrix and the added 5. Results and discussion
mass matrix obtained from the frequency domain analysis
respectively, o is the frequency. It should be noted that damping Fully coupled dynamic analyses including vessels, turret-
on the vessel from viscous skin drag and wave drift damping mooing systems, connected hawsers, and their mutual interac-
Rt
should be also included in the item of 0 ½hðttÞfx_ gdt in the form tions are carried out for the FLNG system in tandem operation.
of critical damping, because these variants are related to the
motion velocity of the vessel.
The coupled analysis was carried out with the help of the
software Sesam. The hydro model of the coupled FLNG system was
generated before the numerical simulations. There are two types of
hydro model for the numerical simulations, as shown in Fig. 5. As for
the wind and current load coefficients on the two vessels, the
standardized OCIMF (1994) data were adopted. It should be noted
that a specific disturbance has been applied to the FLNG system at
the beginning of the numerical simulations in order to get the sway
and yaw motion started, according to the experimental data.

4. Experimental setups
Fig. 6. Snapshot of the FLNG system in tandem offloading operation in the water
basin. The model scale is 1:81. The model of the FLNG vessel is moored through 12
Model tests were carried out at a linear scale of 1:81 in Deep mooring lines, and the model of the LNG carrier is connected to the FLNG model
Water Basin at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China with a through a double hawser.

Fig. 5. Hydro model of the FLNG system in tandem offloading operation: the left figure shows the double hawser case, and the right one is the single hawser case.
154 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162

Numerical simulation results show good agreement with those of Fig. 7 do not necessarily start with 0. One can observe from Fig. 7
the experimental data. Statistical analyses of the time series have that the numerical simulations give satisfactorily good agreement
been conducted and the results are illustrated in this section. with the experimental data in tendency, particular for the surge
Influences of the distance (from the stern of FLNG vessel to the motions of FLNG vessel and LNG carrier, and that both the FLNG
bow of the LNG carrier) and the connected way, which are of great vessel and the LNG carrier perform considerable sideways motions
importance for the tandem offloading operation, are also expressed. in the parallel sea condition. A slightly higher overshoot in the
simulated yaw motion of the LNG carrier at around 500 s may be
5.1. Global motion explained by the underestimation of the added yaw inertia con-
sidered in the simulation, as well as the damping level. As shown in
5.1.1. Motion of the vessels this figure, the simulated surge, sway and yaw motions of LNG
In the case of tandem offloading operation, the wave frequency carrier give a good overall agreement with the experimental data,
motions such as heave, roll and pitch motions are relatively small, while it is not as good as FLNG vessel does. This is possibly because
compared to the low frequency motions such as surge, sway and that shielding effects of wind and current were not taken into
yaw motions. And thus, only the surge, sway and yaw motions are consideration in the numerical simulations. It should be noted that
detailed illustrated. this does not affect the results obviously, because the shielding
Fig. 7 shows the time series of the surge, sway and yaw motions effects of wind and current on motion responses of FLNG system in
for the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier under the combined actions tandem offloading operation are not so clear (Hong et al., 2002).
of the paralleled wave, wind and current. It should be noted that the As can be seen in Table 4, the measured magnitude of surge
motion responses were measured 1.5 min after the wavemaker motion for the FLNG vessel is 8.63 m, while it is 15.49 m for the
start-up, to reduce the effects of the wavemaker instability and LNG carrier. The measured magnitude of sway motion for the
wave instability. Namely, the vessels have been in motion when the FLNG vessel is 16.64 m, while it is 32.66 m for the LNG carrier.
measurement started. And thus, the motion responses shown in The measured magnitude of yaw motion for the FLNG vessel is

FLNG_Surge Experiments LNG_Surge Experiments

4
Simulations 10 Simulations
2
Surge motion (m)
Surge motion (m)

0 6

-2 2
-4
-2
-6
-6
-8
-10 -10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s) Time (s)

FLNG_Sway Experiments LNG_Sway Experiments

12 20
Simulations Simulations
15
8
10
Sway motion (m)
Sway motion (m)

4 5
0 0
-5
-4
-10
-8 -15
-12 -20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s) Time (s)

4 FLNG_Yaw Experiments LNG_Yaw Experiments

Simulations 8 Simulations
Yaw motion (deg)
Yaw motion (deg)

2 4

0
0
-4
-2
-8

-4 -12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 7. Time series of the motion responses for the FLNG vessel and LNG carrier under the combined action of parallel wave (Hs ¼ 5.0 m, Tp¼ 10 s, g ¼ 3.0), wind
(Vw¼ 15.0 m/s) and current (Vc¼ 1.0 m/s). The two floating bodies are connected in double hawser form.
 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162 155

5.351, while it is 13.781 for the LNG carrier. The motion response motions between the stern of the FLNG vessel and the bow of
of the FLNG vessel is much smaller than that of the LNG carrier, the LNG carrier are calculated in the directions of x, y and z.
indicating that the FLNG vessel performs better stability than the Fig. 8 shows the relative motions between the FLNG vessel and
LNG carrier does in tandem offloading operation. The LNG carrier the LNG carrier in x, y and z directions. The simulated relative
performs considerable lateral motions, namely obvious fish- motions do not agree as well as the single degrees of freedom of
tailing phenomenon under the parallel sea condition. This is each vessel with the experimental data as shown in Fig. 7. This is
unfavorable for operating an LNG transfer system, because of considered to be due to the accumulation of individual discre-
the large motion envelope. In real sea states, astern thrust should pancy from the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier. As illustrated in
be used to minimize the fish-tailing phenomenon. Table 5, the relative motion magnitude in x direction is 10.24 m,
Fig. 7 also shows that there is positive correlation between the which shows not much difference with that of the single vessel.
sway and yaw motions for both the FLNG vessel and the LNG While the relative motion magnitude in y direction reaches
carrier. The positive correlation can be described as that the sway 58.96 m, which is much larger than any of the single vessel. The
motion correspondingly varies as the yaw motion changes and relative motion in y direction is much larger than that in x
vice versa. This positive correlation would enhance the sideways direction, indicating that the distance between the two vessels
motions of the vessel, obstructing the head control of the vessel. is mainly derived from the former relative motion. And thus, more
attention should be put to the control of the lateral motions of the
vessels in tandem offloading operation. The relative motions in x
5.1.2. Relative motion between the two vessels and y directions perform a low frequency form, while those in z
To investigate the relative motion responses of the FLNG vessel direction perform in the form of wave frequency. Through the
and LNG carrier in tandem offloading operation, the relative comparison of them, it can be concluded that the distance
between the two vessels would perform in the form of low
Table 4 frequency, as shown in Fig. 9.
Summary of motion statistics of the tandem moored FLNG and LNG carrier.

Designation Max Min Mean STD Table 5

Summary of relative motion statistics of the tandem moored FLNG and LNG
FLNG_Surge(m) Experiments 0.50  8.13  3.37 2.03 carrier.
Simulations 0.79  8.81  3.62 2.20
FLNG_Sway (m) Experiments 7.69  9.95  1.34 4.89 Designation Max Min Mean STD
Simulations 7.46  8.03 0.38 3.71
FLNG_Yaw (deg) Experiments 2.78  2.57 0.28 1.42 X_direction (m) Experiments 79.64 69.40 75.45 1.85
Simulations 2.78  2.51  0.10 1.03 Simulations 82.25 63.63 75.24 3.22
LNG_Surge (m) Experiments 8.62  6.87  0.44 3.19 Y_direction (m) Experiments 11.71  47.25  18.53 14.80
Simulations 10.18  7.71 0.02 3.96 Simulations 14.66  49.74  21.95 18.24
LNG_Sway (m) Experiments 15.16  17.50  1.01 9.92 Z_direction (m) Experiments 5.93 1.72 4.22 0.58
Simulations 15.52  18.65 1.31 9.34 Simulations 6.46 1.94 4.24 0.70
LNG_Yaw (deg) Experiments 7.45  6.33  0.21 3.01 Distance (m) Experiments 90.40 70.92 79.11 4.27
Simulations 6.54  8.36  0.19 3.91 Simulations 92.71 65.09 79.32 4.61

Relative motion in x direction Relative motion in y direction

20
Experiments Experiments
40 Simulations
Simulations
10
Distance (m)

Distance (m)

20

0
0

-10 -20

-20 -40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s) Time (s)

Relative motion in z direction

4
Experiments
3 Simulations
2
Distance (m)

1
0
-1
-2
-3
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Relative motion responses of FLNG vessel and LNG carrier in x, y and z directions. (These two floating bodies are connected in double hawser form.)
156 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162

30 Distance between two vessels Table 6

Experiments Summary of statistics of turret-mooring system and hawser top-tension.
Simulations
20 Designation Max Min Mean STD
Distance (m)

Mooring Line #2 (kN) Experiments 3423.90 2665.67 3064.55 116.19

10 Simulations 3443.86 2711.50 3087.90 129.43
Hawser #2 (kN) Experiments 1580.92 0.00 290.49 323.18
Simulations 1793.69 1.10 268.95 384.53
0

-10 Mooring line force Experiments

4000
Simulations
-20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s) 3500

Force (kN)
Fig. 9. Time history of the distance between FLNG vessel and LNG carrier. (These
two floating bodies are connected in double hawser form.) 3000

90° 2500
450kN
120° 60° Experiments
Simulations
2000
300kN 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s)
150° 30°
Fig. 11. Time history of the mooring top tensions. (Mooring line #2 has been
150kN selected as the representative one.)

450kN 300kN 150kN 0kN mooring lines in each group. In practice, as well as in the water
180° 0kN 0kN 360° basin, it is difficult to achieve equal pre-tension in all the lines. Just
0kN 150kN 300kN 450kN as Van der Valk and Watson (2005) reported, in practice there is
perhaps more scatter in the mooring line pre-tensions than actually
150kN achieved in the basin. The maximum force acting on the mooring
line ]2 is 3423.90 kN (shown in Table 6) within the acceptable limits
210° 330°
(much lower than 55% of the MBL).
300kN A comparison results between the numerical and experiment
data for the representative mooring line ]2 are given in Fig. 11,
showing satisfactory good agreement. It can be concluded from
240° 450kN 300°
Fig. 11 that the loads acting on the mooring lines are mainly in the
270° form of low frequency, which is related with the surge motions of
the FLNG vessel (shown in Fig. 7). The loads also contain a certain
Fig. 10. The distribution of the maximum top tension for the turret-mooring
system. degree of wave frequency characteristics, which are believed to be
induced by the wave dynamics.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison of the numerical and experimental
Fig. 9 shows the distance between the FLNG vessel and the data for the loads acting on the hawser ]2. The numerical simula-
LNG carrier with an initial distance of 77.18 m. As expressed in tions well recovered the hawser forces in most cases, while larger
Table 5, the maximum distance of the two vessels is 90.40 m and discrepancies are found in a few parts. A possible explanation may
the magnitude of the distance between the two vessels reaches come from the difficulties in fully reproducing the transient process
19.48 m, which means the connection hawser would be stretched of the hawser from un-stretched state to stretched state in simula-
by 25% of its un-stretched length in this condition. This value is of tions. Parts of the high frequency responses of the hawser forces
great importance for the design of the hawser connecting the two near zero are believed to be derived from the noise signals during
vessels in tandem offloading operation. the measurements. As shown in Table 6, the forces in the hawser
between the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier are found to be rather
5.2. Mooring system high (1580.92 kN), but still safe (lower than 55% of the MBL).
An interesting phenomenon can also be found in Fig. 12 is that
The time series of the loads acting on the 12 turret-mooring time series of the hawser forces perform a pulse form. This means
lines and the two connection hawsers are obtained. For the sake that the loads acting on the hawsers would often sharply increase
of a clear expression, the results for the mooring line ]2 and the from very small to quite high level, which is very dangerous for the
hawser ]2, which are subjected to the largest loads during the tandem operation.
simulations, are selected and detailed illustrated.
Fig. 10 shows a comparison of the experimental and numerical 5.3. Influence of distances and connected ways
results, for the distribution of the top tensions of the 12 turret
mooring lines under the combined actions of the parallel wave, In the marine applications, LNG carrier may be connected with
wind and current. The experimental and the simulation results show the stern of FLNG vessel through different ways in tandem
quite a good overall agreement with each other. As can be seen in offloading operation, and the distance between the two vessels
Fig. 10, the measured mooring line forces are not so averaged for the may be different according to specific sea conditions. The FLNG
 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162 157

system would perform different hydrodynamic characteristics with tandem offloading operation should be studied. The low frequency
different distances or different connection ways. In this aspect, their motion responses such as surge, sway and yaw for each of the vessel
influence on the hydrodynamic performance of the FLNG system in with the two vessels connected in different distances of 74.42, 64.42,
54.42 and 44.42 m are expressed as follows, as well as the relative
Hawser force Experiments motion responses and the hawser forces.
2000
Simulations Fig. 13 shows the time series of the motion responses of the
FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier connected with a double hawser in
1600 different distances of 74.42, 64.42, 54.42 and 44.42 m, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 13, the responses of both FLNG vessel and LNG
Force (kN)

1200 carrier keep almost the same in different distance cases, with quite a
slight difference in sway motions. Furthermore, the statistic results
of the motion responses listed in Table 7 also keep almost the same
800
for different distance cases. The largest difference may lie in the
sway motion of the LNG carrier between the cases with the distance
400 of 74.42 m (the sway amplitude is 15.49 m) and the distance of
44.42 m (the sway amplitude is 9.68 m). This indicates that the
0 changes of distance between FLNG vessel and LNG carrier do not
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 induce much effect on the motion responses of the two vessels
Time (s) connected by a double hawser. The same conclusion can also be
Fig. 12. Time history of the connected hawser. (Hawser #2 has been selected as drawn from the comparison of the relative motions of the two
the representative one.) vessels in different distances, shown in Fig. 14 and Table 8.

D = 74.42m
D = 74.42m
FLNG_Surge D = 64.42m LNG_Surge
4 D = 54.42m D = 64.42m

D = 44.42m D = 54.42m
2 10 D = 44.42m
Surge motion (m)

Surge motion (m)

0
5
-2
-4 0
-6
-5
-8
-10 -10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)
D = 74.42m
D = 74.42m D = 64.42m
FLNG_Sway D = 64.42m LNG_Sway D = 54.42m
10 D = 44.42m
D = 54.42m
15
D = 44.42m
6 10
Sway motion (m)

Sway motion (m)

5
2
0
-2 -5
-10
-6
-15
-10 -20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)
D = 74.42m D = 74.42m
FLNG_Yaw LNG_Yaw
4 D = 64.42m 15 D = 64.42m
D = 54.42m D = 54.42m
3 D = 44.42m 10 D = 44.42m
Yaw motion (deg)
Yaw motion (deg)

2
5
1
0
0
-5
-1
-2 -10

-3 -15
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 13. Time series of the motion responses for the FLNG vessel and LNG carrier connected by double hawser.
158 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162

Table 7
Summary of motion statistics of the tandem moored FLNG and LNG carrier.

Designation Distance FLNG vessel LNG carrier

Max Min Mean STD Max Min Mean STD

Double hawser Surge (m) D ¼74.42 m 0.79  8.81  3.62 2.20 10.18  7.71 0.02 3.96
D ¼64.42 m 3.46  8.54  3.60 2.34 8.03  9.05 0.07 3.85
D ¼54.42 m 1.48  9.27  3.63 2.12 13.91  8.48 0.15 4.00
D ¼44.42 m 2.01  9.30  3.63 2.16 10.96  6.91  0.46 3.71
Sway (m) D ¼74.42 m 7.46  8.03 0.38 3.71 15.52  18.65 1.31 9.34
D ¼64.42 m 5.97  6.36 0.02 3.09 14.22  13.82 0.85 7.97
D ¼54.42 m 4.53  5.59  0.11 2.64 12.63  13.63 0.02 7.45
D ¼44.42 m 4.41  5.27 0.10 2.56 11.91  12.61 0.79 7.19
Yaw (deg) D ¼74.42 m 2.78  2.51  0.10 1.03 6.54  8.36  0.19 3.91
D ¼64.42 m 1.91  1.91  0.06 0.84 6.04  9.23  0.14 3.48
D ¼54.42 m 1.95  1.63  0.01 0.74 6.17  8.36  0.20 3.07
D ¼44.42 m 1.97  1.397  0.07 0.75 6.05  6.81 0.00 2.81

Single hawser Surge (m) D ¼74.42 m 2.97  11.16  3.63 2.81 14.76  11.90 1.46 6.66
D ¼64.42 m 2.34  10.14  3.62 2.49 16.94  10.91 2.09 6.31
D ¼54.42 m 2.03  8.86  3.62 2.25 15.94  10.02  0.95 4.47
D ¼44.42 m 3.56  8.88  3.65 2.48 12.22  10.83  0.06 4.72
Sway (m) D ¼74.42 m 7.02  10.55  0.20 3.43 12.39  11.24  0.69 6.09
D ¼64.42 m 8.18  8.42 0.39 3.94 11.47  11.74 0.79 6.70
D ¼54.42 m 4.00  4.00  0.00 1.86 8.20  6.73 0.30 3.85
D ¼44.42 m 3.76  4.87  0.09 1.64 7.16  9.02  0.27 4.17
Yaw (deg) D ¼74.42 m 2.86  2.25 0.01 0.94 14.01  11.89  0.04 5.49
D ¼64.42 m 2.49  2.54  0.14 1.06 11.29  11.42 0.18 5.51
D ¼54.42 m 1.35  1.39  0.05 0.54 6.40  6.48 0.13 2.86
D ¼44.42 m 1.58  1.13 0.01 0.47 6.03  8.47  0.08 2.65

D = 74.42m Relative motion in y direction D = 74.42m

20 Relative motion in x direction
D = 64.42m
40 D = 64.42m
D = 54.42m 30 D = 54.42m
D = 44.42m D = 44.42m
10 20
Distance (m)

Distance (m)

10
0 0
-10
-10 -20
-30
-20 -40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)

Relative motion in z direction D = 74.42m D = 74.42m

40 Distance between two vessels
4 D = 64.42m D = 64.42m
3 D = 54.42m D = 54.42m
30
D = 44.42m D = 44.42m
2
Distance (m)
Distance (m)

20
1
10
0
0
-1
-2 -10

-3 -20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 14. Time series of relative motion responses between FLNG vessel and LNG carrier in the double hawser form.

Fig. 15 shows the time series of the motion responses of the between the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier can significantly
FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier connected with a single hawser affect the motion responses of the two vessels connected by a
in different distances of 74.42, 64.42, 54.42 and 44.42 m, respec- single hawser, and thus affect the relative motion responses of the
tively. The comparison results show that the vessels perform two vessels. Generally speaking, the motion responses increase as
obvious different responses in different distances, particular for the distances between the two vessels grow. It should be noted
the sway and the yaw motions. The large differences in sway and that the impact of the distance on the motion responses is
yaw motions of the FLNG vessel and LNG carrier would induce nonlinear. We can also conclude that a critical distance seems
large discrepancies in the relative motions in y direction, as to exist between 64.42and 54.42 m because the sway amplitude
shown in Fig. 16. This indicates that the changes of the distances is significantly reduced, i.e., from 16.6 to 8 m for the FLNG vessel
 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162 159

Table 8
Summary of relative motion statistics of the tandem moored FLNG and LNG carrier.

Designation Distance Double hawser Single hawser

Max Min Mean STD Max Min Mean STD

X direction (m) D ¼74.42 m 82.25 63.62 75.16 3.22 87.73 57.61 74.05 5.82
D ¼64.42 m 72.54 56.17 65.1 3.06 74.53 49.66 63.51 5.41
D ¼54.42 m 61.54 38.89 54.92 3.51 62.08 39.57 55.99 3.42
D ¼44.42 m 51.05 36.24 45.51 2.66 53.27 34.35 45.04 3.72

Y direction (m) D ¼74.42 m 2.08  47.06 20.88 11.68 22.68  49.4 19.59 15.33
D ¼64.42 m 5.96  49.59 21.37 15.77 14.32  59.31  20.36 16.87
D ¼54.42 m 7.38  44.92 20.69 14.22 0.18  43.15  20.13 9.09
D ¼44.42 m 7.11  44.83 20.91 14.06  6.65  37.74  20 7.64

Z direction (m) D ¼74.42 m 6.46 1.94 4.24 0.7 6.85 2.59 4.64 0.69
D ¼64.42 m 6.4 2.22 4.24 0.67 6.92 2.61 4.63 0.68
D ¼54.42 m 6.28 2.27 4.24 0.66 6.59 2.7 4.64 0.66
D ¼44.42 m 6.26 2.31 4.24 0.66 6.6 2.77 4.65 0.66

Distance (m) D ¼74.42 m 92.71 65.09 79.32 4.61 97.51 58.36 78.12 7.45
D ¼64.42 m 86.32 57.34 70.28 5.91 94.85 51.67 68.67 8.23
D ¼54.42 m 72.36 40.87 60.34 6.28 73.88 41.86 60.26 5.1
D ¼44.42 m 65.06 36.86 51.88 6.58 61.56 35.66 49.95 5.23

D = 74.42m
D = 64.42m D = 74.42m

4 FLNG_Surge D = 54.42m LNG_Surge D = 64.42m

D = 44.42m 17 D = 54.42m
2 D = 44.42m
12
Surge motion (m)
Surge motion (m)

0
7
-2
2
-4
-6 -3

-8 -8
-10 -13
-12 -18
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)
D = 74.42m
D = 74.42m
LNG_Sway D = 64.42m
10 FLNG_Sway D = 64.42m
D = 54.42m 17 D = 54.42m
D = 44.42m
D = 44.42m 12
5
Sway motion (m)

Sway motion (m)

7
0
2
-5 -3
-8
-10
-13
-15 -18
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)
D = 74.42m D = 74.42m
FLNG_Yaw LNG_Yaw
4 D = 64.42m D = 64.42m
17
D = 54.42m D = 54.42m
3 12
D = 44.42m D = 44.42m
Yaw motion (deg)

Yaw motion (deg)

2 7
1 2
0 -3
-1 -8
-2 -13
-3 -18
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 15. Time series of the motion responses for the FLNG vessel and LNG carrier connected by single hawser.
160 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162

D = 74.42m D = 74.42m
4 Relative motion in z direction 40 Distance between two vessels
D = 64.42m D = 64.42m

3 D = 54.42m D = 54.42m
30
D = 44.42m D = 44.42m
2
Distance (m)

Distance (m)
20
1
10
0
0
-1
-2 -10

-3 -20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 16. Time series of relative motion responses between FLNG vessel and LNG carrier in the single hawser form.

LNG_Sway D = 74.42m
80 Hawser_force
2500 D = 64.42m
LNG_Yaw
70 D = 54.42m
Motion amplitude (m or deg)

2000 D = 44.42m
60 FLNG_Sway

50
Force (kN)
FLGN_Yaw 1500
40
Relative motion in y
direction
1000
30

20 500
10
0
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Time (s)
Distance (m)
Fig. 18. Time history of the forces acting on the connection hawser between the
Fig. 17. Influence of distance on the motion amplitude. (The distances between FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier. (The two floating bodies are connected in double
the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier are 74.42, 64.42, 54.42 and 44.42 m, hawser form.)
respectively.)

D = 74.42m
Hawser_Force
4000 D = 64.42m
and from 23.21 to 14.93 m for the LNG carrier, the yaw amplitude D = 54.42m
is significantly reduced, i.e., from 5.03 to 2.741 for the FLNG vessel D = 44.42m
and from 22.711to 12.88 deg for the LNG carrier, as shown in 3000
Fig. 15 and Table 7. This critical distance is near a quarter of the
Force (kN)

length between perpendiculars of the LNG carrier.

From the above discussion, one can conclude that the distance 2000
between the two vessels (in other words the length of the hawser)
has an obvious effect on the unstable behavior of the vessels
connected by a single hawser, resulting in large amplitude combined 1000
sway and yaw motions, while it has a little effect on those by a
double hawser. This is because a double hawser can provide more
0
lateral stiffness that helps limit the fish-tailing of the vessels, 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
compared with a single hawser. Figs. 14 and 16 show a same Time (s)
phenomenon that the change of distance has very weakly effects on
the relative motions of the two vessels in z direction. This can be Fig. 19. Time history of the forces acting on the connection hawser between the
easily understood from the fact that the vertical motion of the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier. (The two floating bodies are connected in single
hawser form.)
vessels is in wave frequency domain and is mainly affected by the
hydro stiffness induced by incident waves.
Figs. 15 and 16 also provide information on to what extent the
change of the distances can affect the motion and the relative sway and yaw motion amplitudes increase with the growth of the
motion responses. The unstable behavior of the two vessels is higher distance, indicating that fish-tailing phenomenon would become
for a larger distance between them. As shown in Fig. 15, the unstable more sever when the distance gets larger.
behavior of LNG carrier is much severer than that of the FLNG vessel. Figs. 18 and 19 show the time series of the forces acting on the
To investigate the relationship between the fish-tailing phenom- double hawser and the single hawser in different distances of
enon and the change of the distances, the sway and the yaw motion 74.42, 64.42, 54.42 and 44.42 m, respectively. No obvious regula-
amplitudes verse the change of the distances for the single hawser tion can be found for the time series of the hawser force.
case are given in Fig. 17. This figure shows a general trend that the However, from the statistics shown in Table 9, we can conclude
 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162 161

Table 9
Summary of hawser force statistics.

Designation Distance Double hawser Single hawser

Max Min Mean STD Max Min Mean STD

Force (kN) D ¼ 74.42 m 1793.69 1.1 268.95 384.53 2844.18 0 557.33 680.04
D ¼ 64.42 m 2432.05 0 279.54 400.27 3129.63 0 564.60 696.47
D ¼ 54.42 m 2117.92 0 283.17 404.87 2607.66 0 531.92 601.72
D ¼ 44.42 m 1938.39 0 291.85 415.54 3645.02 0 531.05 776.06

that the mean value of the hawser forces becomes larger as the Acknowledgments
distance gets smaller for the double hawser case, while opposite
phenomenon can be found for the single hawser case. This can be This work was financially supported by the Science Foundation
explained through the fact that when the distance between the of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
two vessels gets smaller, the angle between the double hawser (Grant no. 11ZR1417800), the China National Scientific and
becomes larger, and thus inducing a larger force. In the single Technology Major Project (2011ZX05026-006-05), and also the
hawser case, when the distance gets larger, the unstable behavior LRET (Lloyds Register Educational Trust) to the joint centre
of the two vessels becomes larger, resulting in large amplitude involving University College London, Shanghai Jiao Tong Univer-
combined sway and yaw motions, and consequently resulting in sity and Harbin Engineering University. These sources of support
large hawser force. are gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
To draw a conclusion from the view point of hydrodynamics,
the double hawser form can provide more stable behavior of the
FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier in tandem offloading operation, References
due to its larger lateral stiffness. The hydrodynamic performance
of the FLNG system is less affected by the change of the distances
Berg T.E., Bakke J., 2008. Ship-to-Ship LNG transfer in arctic waters. In: Proceedings
between them. The single hawser form would provide more of the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
unstable behavior of the FLNG vessel and the LNG carrier, and Engineering. Estoril, Portugal, OMAE 2008-57319.
Chen, H.B., Moan, T., Haver, S., Larsen, K., 2004. Prediction of relative motion and
the change of the distance between the two vessels can signifi-
probability of contact between FPSO and shuttle tanker in tandem offloading
cantly affect the fish-tailing phenomenon. operation. J. Offshore Mec. Arct. Eng. 126, 235–242.
Cox P., Jeanneau E., Eidem J., 2010. Tandem transfer of LNG-interface with the
operator. In: Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
USA, 3–6 May, OTC20730.
de Souza Junior Jesse R., Morishita H.M., 2002. Dynamic behavior of a turret FPSO
6. Conclusions in single and tandem configurations in realistic sea environments. In:
Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Oslo, Norway, OMAE 2002  28134.
Under the combined parallel wave, wind and current condi- Fucatu, C.H., Nishimoto, K., 2003. The shadow effect on the dynamics of a shuttle
tion, the hydrodynamic performance of an FLNG system in tanker connected in tandem with a FPSO. In: Proceedings of 22th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Cancun, Mexico,
tandem offloading operation has been investigated using numer- OMAE 2003-37435.
ical simulations and scaled model tests. The following conclusions Garrett D.L., Gordon R.B., Chappell J.F., 2002. Mooring-and riser-induced damping
are drawn from this study. in fatigue sea states. In: Proceedings of 21st International Conference
on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Oslo, Norway, OMAE2002-
28550.
 The coupled dynamic analysis model considering the vessels, Hong S.Y., Kim J.H., Kim H.J., Choi Y.R., 2002. Experimental study on behavior of
turret mooring systems, connected hawsers and their mutual tandem and side-by-side moored vessels. In: Proceedings of the 20th Inter-
national Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. ISOPE, Kitakyushu, Japan,
interactions is established and features well the hydrodynamics
May 26–31, 3, 841–847.
of the FLNG system with the experimental measurements. Illuminatti, C., Tannuri, E.A., Matos, V.L.F., Simos, A.N., 2009. Current wake effects
 In tandem offloading operation, it is found that both of the on DP system of a shuttle tanker. In: Proceedings of 28th International
FLNG vessel and LNG carrier subject to considerable sway and Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Honolulu, USA,
OMAE 2009-79353.
yaw motions under the combination of paralleled wave, wind Koo, B.J., Kim, M.H., 2006. Hydrodynamic interactions and relative motions of two
and current. The LNG carrier shows more sever fish-tailing floating platforms with mooring lines in side-by-side offloading operation.
phenomenon than the FLNG vessel does. Appl. Ocean Res. 27, 292–310.
Koop A., Klaij C., Vaz G., 2010. Prediction wind loads for FPSO tandem offloading
 Compared to the single hawser case, the double hawser using CFD. In: Proceedings of 29th International Conference on Offshore
connection adopted in tandem offloading operation provides Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, OMAE 2010-20284.
better stability of the FLNG system. Lee C.H., 1999. WAMIT theory manual. MA: Department of Ocean Engineering.
MIT.
 In tandem offloading operation with a single hawser connec- Lee D.H., 2002. Nonlinear stability analysis and motion control of tandem moored
tion, the distance between the two vessels would significantly tankers. Ph.D. Dissertation. Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul
affect the lateral stability of the system. The system gets more National University, Seoul.
Lee, D.H., Choi, H.S., 2005. A stability analysis of tandem offloading systems at sea.
unstable with the growth of the distance, and their relation-
J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 10, 53–60.
ship is nonlinear. OCIMF, 1994. Prediction of wind and current loads on VLCCs, 2nd ed. Witherby
& Co. Ltd., London, England.
Rho J.B., Korobkin A.A., Jung J.J., Shin H.S., Lee W.S., 2007. Coupled analysis of
deepwater floating system including VIV in time domain. In: Proceedings of
Aimed at providing a basic understanding of the hydrody-
26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
namic characteristics of an FLNG system in tandem offloading San Diego, USA, OMAE 2007-29523.
operation, this project focused on the hydrodynamics due to the Sphaier, S.H., Fernandes, A.C., Correa, S.H.S., Castro, G.A.V., 2002. Maneuvering
variation of the configurations of the FLNG system. Further study model for FPSOs and stability analysis of the offloading operation. J. Offshore
Mec. Arct. Eng. 124 (4), 196–202.
should be carried out on the acceptable sea environment for the Tannuri E.A., Fucatu C.H., Rossin B.D., Montagnini R.C.B., Ferreira M.D., 2010. Wind
tandem offloading operation. shielding effects on DP system of a shuttle tanker. In: Proceedings of 29th
162 W. Zhao et al. / Ocean Engineering 57 (2013) 150–162

International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Wichers J.E.W., Devlin P.V., 2001. Effect of coupling of mooring lines and risers on
Shanghai, China, OMAE 2010-20148. the design values for a turret moored FPSO in deep water of the gulf of Mexico.
Van der Valk C.A.C., Watson A., 2005. Mooring of LNG carriers to a weathervaning In: Proceedings of the 11th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
floater —side-by-side or stern-by-bow. In: Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference. ISOPE, vol. 3, pp. 480–487.
Conference, Houston, OTC17154. Zhao, W.H., Yang, J.M., Hu, Z.Q., Wei, Y.F., 2011. Recent developments on the
White, J., Longley, H., 2009. FLNG technology shows promise for stranded gas hydrodynamics of floating liquid natural gas (FLNG). Ocean Eng. 38 (14–15),
fields. Offshore, 78–79. 1555–1567.