International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering

Vol.1 | No. 2 | pp. 70–78 | November 2017

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

Submitted: July 15, 2017 | Revised: August 19, 2017 | Accepted: October 21, 2017

The Study of Tandem Offloading Performance and Operability on The

Cylindrical Hull FPSO Sevan Stabilized Platform with Variation in Mooring
System Configuration

Eko Budi Djatmikoa,*, Jousie Rebeccab and Murdjitoc

a)
Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Kampus ITS – Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia
b)
Undergraduate Student, Department of Ocean Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Kampus ITS – Sukolilo 60111,
Surabaya, Indonesia
c)
Senior Lecturer, Department of Ocean Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Kampus ITS-Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111,
Indonesia
*Corresponding author: ebdjatmiko@gmail.com

ABSTRACT offloading (FPSO) or also well known as Sevan Stabilized

This study has been carried out to evaluate the dynamic behavior Platform (SSP) is commonly used as a new concept in
of the Cylindrical FPSO Sevan Stabilized Platform (SSP) and the offshore technology to ensure profitability in deep water
LNG Carrier (LNGC) during the process of tandem offloading. and ultra deep water fields. It is also considered as a lower-
The study includes hydrodynamics modellings, computations, and cost option for large, deep water projects compared with
simulations of both cases SSP and LNGC operated individually other conventional FPSO. Its cylindrical hull is also
and in combination for offloading operations. The SSP is moored
with two variations of mooring, namely taut and catenary.
considered as a new promising and effective concept for
Environmental loads are waves with the incorporated winds and deep water because of the huge capacity of storage and
currents propagating 90o, 210o, and 330o relative to the SSP offloading capability that can reduce the necessity of pipe-
headings. Excitation of random waves up to Hs = 4.50 m line uses. The other advantage of this cylindrical structure,
instigates the relatively low SSP motions in standalone condition. is its flexible design dan has a greater characteristic motion
In offloading condition, when LNGC is connected, the SSP when used in a deep or shallow water. This structure use a
motion could magnify as much as 2.0 up to 5.0 times higher than spread mooring system without turret and swivel. The
that in standalone condition, but still considered in an acceptable study of the interaction of hidrodinamic of SSP and LNGC
level. The motion quality of LNGC in offloading operation is has been developed as explained in this paper, remembe-
comparable with the SSP. For various random wave headings
with Hs = 4.50 m during offloading operation may generate
ring the fact that this structure is a new innovation in
maximum tensions between 1,600 kN up to 2,600 kN in the casse offshore drilling [1].
of catenary mooring, and between 4,700 kN up to 7,000 kN in the In an offloading process, mooring system is an impor-
case of taut mooring. Even then, this largest tension preserves a tant part that hold the role in holding the structure position
safety factor of 2.05 which is well above the limit of 1.67 as from the wind, wave, and current loads. Chakrabarti [2]
required by the governing standards. Finally, the study conclude concluded that the design of mooring system is a balance
an operability of as much as 90% could be achieved on SSP and combination to make a compliant system that can resist an
LNGC offloading operation in the Masela Block of the Abadi Gas overposition of the structure, and make it stiff enough so
Field. there will not be over friction. Djatmiko [3] is also
concluded that the motion of a floating structure causes the
Keywords: Sevan Stabilized Plarform, tandem offloading, force that works in a mooring system, as well as the
catenary, taut, motion, tension, operability mooring system gives a restoring force to the structure so
the motion will be significantly restrained. By that, the
1. INTRODUCTION hidrodinamics analysis on the mooring system is important
to do in order to anticipate the operability of a structure
As the time pass by, the development of offshore explo- that operate and to make sure that the mooring system has
ration and exploitation technology is also advancing. Right sufficient capacity and ability to hold the SSP and LNGC
now, the cylindrical floating production storage and in the right position when the offloading process is carried

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

70
 Eko Budi Djatmiko et al.: The Study of……with Mooring System Configuration

out. ronmental loads propagating from a number of directions,

The current study is conducted to evaluate the offlo- namely 0°, 45°, 90°, 135° and 180°. The data so generated
ading performance and operability on the cylindrical hull subsequently will be implemented as the input for next
FPSO Sevan Stabilized Platform (SSP) with variation in modeling using the OrcaFlex.
mooring system configuration. There are actually two
types of offloading from SSP to LNGC according to the 2.3 Modeling and Computation using OrcaFlex
relative position between the two vessels, namely tandem The modeling carried out using software OrcaFlex is aimed
and side by side, as shown in Fig. 1 [4]. The current study at obtaining the tension intensities which develop on the
is dedicated to explore the case of tandem offloading for FPSO’s mooring lines. In this respect the modeling requi-
operation in the Abadi Gas Field of Masela Block [5]. res input data as resulted from running the MAXSURF.
The running of OrcaFlex yields a time-domain simu-
lation of tension elevation for a period of times, typically
within three (3) hours or 10,800 seconds. In the next step
analysis is performed on the tension time history to derive
the maximum tension expected to occur on the critical
mooring line.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

(a) (b) 3.1 Modeling of SSP and LNG Carrier
Figure 1. Offloading between SSP and LNGC: (a) tandem The modeling of both floating structures, ie. the SSP and
and (b) side by side [4] the LNGC is established by using MAXSURF software, by
inputting the data such as environmental load, breadth,
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS height, draught, displacement and the coordinate of the
station used in the ship modeling.
The flow and procedure of the study is conducted by the The modeling of SSP is carried out as follow. First, it
stages as follow. Firstly, a literature review is performed by has to be modeled by inputting all the parametric data of
referring to the materials as contained in text books, the structure, such as breadth, draught, diameter and the
journal and conference papers, codes and standards, rules displacement. In this study, the SSP is designed by using 2
and regulations, and so on. This stage also cover an effort condition of storage, namely full load and ballast load. Fig.
in comprehending the hydrodynamic software MAXSURF 2 gives the model of SSP structure designed using
[6] and OrcaFlex [7]. MAXSURF software.

2.1 Data Collection

The data collection is carried out through a field study,
comprises of the direct observation to the object to be
evaluated and also acquiring a number of data related to
the study. Beside this exploration to the supporting data is
made as the preparation for the analysis and evaluation.
The primary data which are required includes:
 Hydrosatic data of 160,000 DWT LNG carrier,
 Data of Sevan Stabilized Platform type S400 [4] Figure 2. Model of SSP hull
 Environmental data [8], and
 Data on the mooring configuration.

2.2 Modeling and Computation using MAXSURF

The modeling of FPSO structure is commenced by
employing the software MAXSURF to derive the hydro-
static peculiar of the vessel. This is further to be validated
against the stability booklet made available by the operator.
In the next step the software is utilized to perform the
hydrodynamic analysis in frequency-domain to obtain the
data of FPSO motion RAOs, wave drift, added mass and
damping forces. Figure 3. Hull model of LNG Carrier
The analysis has been carried out for the case of envi-

71
 International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 pp.70-78 November 2017

In this study, the LNGC is designed by having three (3)

conditions of storage, which are full load, half load, and
ballast load. Results of running the MASURF software
generate the hull model of the LNGC as shown in Fig. 3.

3.2 Hull Model Validation

Model validation is conducted to examine the appro-
priateness and suitability of the structural modeling that
has been done in relation to the actual structure. The
validation is made on 10 primary parameters for SSP and 7
primary parameters for the LNGC. Tables 1 and 2 presents (a)
the validation of SSP and LNGC primary parameters.

Table 1. Results of model validation for SSP

(b)

Table 2. Results of model validation for LNG carrier

According to ship classifications the difference or error

(c)
between the model and actual vessel parameters should not
exceed 5.0% [9]. As shown in in Table 1, the SSP model
has the largest error of 0.58% for GML. Whereas in Table
2 the LNGC model is considered satisfactory as the errors
are below 5.0%, with the largest is for BML of 4.9%.

3.3 Motion Characteristics of SSP and LNG

Carrier in Free Floating Condition
The 6-DOF FPSO motions comprise of 3-DOF translation-
nal modes, i.e. surge, sway, and heave, and 3-DOF rota-
tional modes, i.e. roll, pitch, and yaw, are computed using (d)
software MAXSURF. Computation is conducted for SSP
in stationary free floating condition, namely no mooring
system is installed. SSP is evaluated with the 3 condition of
storage that is full load, half load, and ballast load.

(e)

72
 Eko Budi Djatmiko et al.: The Study of……with Mooring System Configuration

(f)
(d)
Figure 4. RAO graphs of the SSP: (a) surge, (b) sway, (c)
heave, (d) roll, (e) pitch, (f) yaw
Computation using MAXSURF yields the response
amplitude operators (RAOs) of SSP for the 6-DOF due to
regular wave excitations as exhibited in Figs. 4a-f. Based
on the RAOs, it can be said that the motion characteristic
of SSP has the similarity between surge and sway, and
between roll and pitch brought about the symmetric form
of the cylindrical hull.

(e)

(a)

(f)
Figure 5. RAO graphs of the LNG carrier: (a) surge, (b)
sway, (c) heave, (d) roll, (e) pitch, (f) yaw

The basic shape cylindrical hull also causes the RAO of

heave has the same value in every directions of loading,
hence the yaw has no significant value to the SSP in almost
every directions of loading. After finish analyzing the
(b) motion of SSP, we can proceed to analyze the motion of
the LNGC. RAO graphs of LNGC obtained from running
the MAXSURF software imposed by regular waves are
presented in Figs. 5a-f.
LNGC has different characteristics of motion with SSP.
The highest surge motion is happened in the direction
loading of 0o and 180o, hence sway has no value in the
direction of 0o and 180o. Different from SSP, LNGC has
different value of heave from every different direction of
loadings.
Overall, the motions of SSP and LNGC in free floating
condition under excitation of regular wave are presented in
(c) the form of RAO graphs. For all 6-mode of motions the
two vessels may be considered as having good

73
 International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 pp.70-78 November 2017

characteristics, with no indication of excessive intensities. ted to environmental load propagating in three directions
relative to the vessel, namely 90o, 210o and 330o. The
3.4 Motion Characteristics of SSP in Standalone significant wave heights considered in this study are
Moored Condition obtained from the wave scatter data of Masela Block, as
In order to keep the SSP stays in its intended position, the listed in Table 3 [8].
vessel is moored to the seabed. In this study, it uses two (2) Table 3. Wave scatter data of Masela Block [8]
types of mooring configuration, namely catenary and taut, Hs (m)
Total
as depicted in Figs. 6 and 7. Both types of mooring are 0.1-1.0 1.1-2.0 2.1-3.0 3.1-4.0 4.1-5.0
0.1-2.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
modeled with the same anchor and fairlead position but
2.1-4.0 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58
with different pretension and length of mooring line. 4.1-6.0 9.51 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.94
Figure 8 illustrate the top view of mooring configuration 6.1-8.0 5.12 6.90 4.74 0.05 0.00 16.81
for both taut and catenary types. Tp 8.1-10.0 8.20 3.50 5.70 0.79 0.05 18.24
(s) 10.1-12.0 10.80 20.8 0.15 0.04 0.02 31.81
12.1-14.0 9.30 2.68 0.02 0.02 0.00 12.02
14.1-16.0 2.93 2.46 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.43
16.1-18.0 0.42 0.77 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.22
18.1-20.0 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15
Total 46.91 41.44 10.68 0.90 0.07 100
Cumulative 46.91 88.35 99.03 99.93 100

The evaluation of the SSP motion on the standalone

moored condition has to be done before moving to the
offloading condition. The evaluation of the SSP motion is
done based on the scenario where the SSP with full load
Figure 6. Side view of taut mooring system for the SSP and ballast load storage is imposed by a variety of
environmental load and also the configuration of taut and
catenary mooring system. The results of which are exem-
plified in Figs. 9a-f.

Figure 7. Side view of catenary mooring system of SSP

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Top view of the SSP mooring system

configuration

There are 12 mooring lines extend from each con-

nection point on the vessel, and are divided into 3 points at
connection on the SSP base, with each point contains 4
mooring lines, as shown in Figure 8. In the current study
the SSP and the corresponding mooring system is subject- (c)

74
 Eko Budi Djatmiko et al.: The Study of……with Mooring System Configuration

3.5 Motion Characteristics of SSP and LNG

Carrier in Offloading Operations
After modeling and analyzing the SSP structure in stand-
alone condition with both mooring system configurations,
the next stage is to model and analyze the SSP structure
when conducting offloading activities with LNGC. Simi-
larly with the evaluation of SSP operating in standalone,
for offloading operation observations are also made into
several scenarios. In this occasion, the evaluation is
(d) performed by dividing into 6 scenarios, as follows:
a) 1st Condition: SSP with catenary mooring is fully
loaded combined with LNGC in ballast loaded;
b) 2nd Condition: SSP with catenary mooring is ballast
loaded combined with LNGC in half loaded;
c) 3rd Condition: SSP with catenary mooring is ballast
loaded combined with LNGC in fully loaded;
d) 4th Condition: SSP with taut mooring is fully loaded
combined with LNGC in ballast loaded;
e) 5th Condition: SSP with taut mooring is ballast
loaded combined with LNGC in half loaded;
(e)
f) 6th Condition: SSP with taut mooring is ballast
loaded combined with LNGC in fully loaded.

(f)
Figure 9. The significant motion responses of the SSP in
standalone moored condition: (a) surge, (b)
sway, (c) heave, (d) roll, (e) pitch, (f) yaw (a) (b)
Figure 10. The surge responses during offloading under 1st
On the standalone moored condition, the load scenario condition: (a) SSP and (b) LNGC
is divided into 4 conditions that is: (1) full load SSP with
catenary type of mooring, (2) ballast load SSP with
catenary type of mooring, (3) full load SSP with taut type
of mooring, and (4) ballast load SSP with taut type of
mooring. The statistical values of the SSP motions due to
significant wave heights ranging from 0.5 m up to 4.5 m
are presented in Figs. 9a-f. The graphs exhibit variation in
environmental heading will affect the differences in motion
response intensities.
The motion intensities of SSP in standalone condition
induced by random waves increase in parallel to the (a) (b)
increasing of significant wave height Hs. At the level of Hs
Figure 11. The sway responses during offloading under 1st
= 4.5 m the largest significant values of motions reaching
condition: (a) SSP and (b) LNGC
0.56 m for surge, 0.80 m for sway, 0.16 m for heave, 0.46 o
for roll, 0.32o for pitch, and 0.05o for for yaw. These
values indicate excellent characteristics of SSP motion in
standalone condition.

75
 International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 pp.70-78 November 2017

and the loading direction of 210, 330, and 90. Results of

SSP and LNGC motion responses during offloading
process is typified in Figures 10 to 15. These are statistical
values of the all 6-mode of motions for offloading with
scenario of the 1st condition.
In general as it is expected, the responses are increasing
in parallel to the augmentation of the significant wave
height. Even though the trend of the increasing responses
are not linear. Differences in the responses of SSP and
LNGC due to variations in angle of environmental load
(a) (b) propagation are quite high in certain mode of motions but
Figure 12. The heave responses during offloading under 1st may also relatively small for other modes.
condition: (a) SSP and (b) LNGC The motion intensities of SSP in offloading operation,
where the LNGC is connected to the SSP, brought about
Hs = 4.5 m have largest significant values of 1.55 m for
surge, 1.80 m for sway, 0.85 m for heave, 1.95 o for roll,
1.55o for pitch, and 1.28o for yaw. If compared to the
standalone the increasing of motion intensities for surge,
sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw in offloading operation
are, correspondingly, 2.77, 2.25, 5.3, 4.23, 4.84, and 25.6
times higher. These suggest the presence of LNGC
generate significant coupled motion effects induced by the
hydrodynamics interference among SSP and LNGC.
(a) (b) The motion intensities of SSP in offloading operation
imposed by random wave with Hs = 4.5 m are 0.90 m, 2.25
Figure 13. The roll responses during offloading under 1st
m, 1.50 m, 2.15o, 1.14o, and 2.85o for mode of surge, sway,
condition: (a) SSP and (b) LNGC
heave, roll, pitch, and yaw, respectively. These could be
considered in acceptable level.

3.6 Tension Characteristics on the SSP Mooring

Lines in Offloading Operations
Based on motion data from computation as contained in
Figs. 4-15, then simulation in time-domain to evaluate the
tension developed on each mooring line is conducted. The
simulations are performed for all six scenarios as explained
in sub-section 3.5. Significant wave heights Hs is varied
(a) (b) between 0.5 m up to 4.5 m at every interval of 1.0 m incur-
porated to the JONSWAP spectra with peakedness para-
Figure 14. The pitch responses during offloading under 1st
meter  = 2.5 to establish the time-series of random wave
condition: (a) SSP and (b) LNGC
excitation. JONSWAP spectra with peakedness parameter
 = 2.5 is selected as it is considered appropriate to model
the wave characteristics in Indonesia [10]. An example of
simulation result of in the form of effective tension
elevation graph on line number 9 due to wave Hs = 4.5 m
for 1st condition is shown in Fig. 16.

(a) (b)
Figure 15. The yaw responses during offloading under 1st
condition: (a) SSP and (b) LNGC Figure 16. Effective tension on line-9 due to wave Hs = 4.5
m and direction 90o for operation scenario of the
The evaluation scenarios were also carried out by 1st condition
varying the direction of the LNGC, ie 30, 150, and 270,

76
 Eko Budi Djatmiko et al.: The Study of……with Mooring System Configuration

From this evaluation, there are 90 set of data on when compared to the 4th condition are some 3.66% and
mooring line tension has been produced from combination 4.82%.
of 6 operational conditions, 5 variations of Hs, and 3 wave
directions. Further, if one consider overall 12 mooring Table 5. SSP taut mooring line maximum tensions (kN)
lines, then there are 1,080 individual mooring tension time- due to wave Hs = 4.5 m and direction 90o for the
histories have been produced. For each time history is 4th, 5th and 6th operational conditions
sequentially processed to obtain the maximum tension on % diff from 4th Cond
each line. Referring to the very large number of data that 4th 5th 6th
Line 5th 6th
Cond Cond Cond
has been generated, not all the data could be presented in Cond Cond
this paper. Only examples which are considered appropri- 1 6237 6470 6543 3.74 4.91
ate to represent in the explanation are put forward. In this 2 6235 6468 6540 3.74 4.89
respect data from catenary and taut mooring systems are 3 6234 6467 6539 3.74 4.89
described separately. 4 6238 6471 6543 3.74 4.89
5 6192 6425 6497 3.76 4.93
Table 4. SSP catenary mooring line maximum tensions 6 6187 6420 6493 3.77 4.95
(kN) due to wave Hs = 4.5 m and direction 90o for 7 6185 6418 6491 3.77 4.95
the 1st, 2nd and 3rd offloading operational 8 6190 6423 6495 3.76 4.93
conditions
9 6603 6832 6908 3.47 4.62
% diff from 1st Cond 10 6601 6830 6906 3.47 4.62
1st 2nd 3rd
Line 2nd 3rd 11 6600 6829 6905
Cond Cond Cond 3.47 4,62
Cond Cond 12 6605 6834 6910 3.47 4,62
1 1821 2024 2125 11.15 16.69
Avrg = 6342 6574 6648 3.66 4,82
2 1825 2022 2123 10.79 16.33
3 1778 2021 2122 13.67 19.35
Furthermore, the comparison of results in Tables 4 and
4 1774 2025 2126 14.15 19.84
5 indicate the tensions of SSP with taut mooring confi-
5 1772 1979 2080 11.68 17.38 guration will be averagely 3.10 times higher than that for
6 1776 1974 2075 11.15 16.84 the case of SSP with catenary mooring. This finding is
7 1776 1972 2073 11.04 16.72 typical in the comparison by considering other significant
8 1777 1977 2078 11.25 16.94 wave heights, i.e. 0.5 m, 1.5 m, 2.5 m, and 3.5 m, as well
9 2290 2490 2591 8.73 13.14 as other wave headings, i.e. 210o and 330o. It is necessary
10 2288 2489 2590 8.78 13.20 to mention herein, the largest tensions when wave heading
11 2287 2487 2588 8.75 13.16 is 210o take place in the mooring line group of 5, 6, 7 and
12 2292 2492 2594 8.73 13.18 8, while when the wave heading is 330o the largest tensions
Avrg = 1955 2163 2264 10.82 16.06 happen to be in the mooring line group of 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Nonetheless, the largest tensions due to 210o and 330o
In Table 4 it is shown an example of results on the wave directions are generally lower than that in the case of
maximum tension on each mooring line for SSP catenary 90o.
mooring configuration when operated in 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd
conditions due to wave height Hs = 4.5 m and direction 3.7 Operability of the SSP and LNG Carrier
90o. In this particular case the highest tensions are found to during Offloading Operations
occur the line group of 9, 10, 11 and 12. The overall The operability of offloading operation is evaluated based
maximum are on line-12 with intensities of 2,292 kN, on the motion criteria and mooring tension criteria. The
2,492 kN, and 2,594, respectively, for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd motion criteria requires, firstly, the relative motion
condition. Average increase of tensions on 2nd and 3rd between SSP and LNGC should not be less than 20.0 m,
conditions when compared to the 1st condition are some and, secondly, the maximum rotational motion should be
10.82% and 16.06%. less than 5o [11]. The relative motion criteria is related
Table 5 gives an example of results on the maximum mainly with the surge and sway mode of motions. Whereas
tension on each mooring line for SSP taut mooring the rotational motion criteria is primarily connected to the
configuration when operated in 4th, 5th, and 6th conditions roll and pitch mode of motions.
due to wave height Hs = 4.5 m and direction 90o. In this The mooring tension criteria requires the maximum line
particular case the highest tensions are found to occur the tension should not be larger than 1.67 of minimum
line group of 9, 10, 11 and 12. The overall maximum are breaking load (MBL) [12]. In this case, the lowest MBL of
on line-12 with intensities of 6,605 kN, 6,834 kN, and the mooring system eventually is 14,336 kN, i.e. the
6,648 kN, respectively, for the 4th, 5th, and 6th condition. specific value of the polyester rope component.
Average increase of tensions on 5th, and 6th conditions After analyzing overall the derived simulation data, and

77
 International Journal of Offshore and Coastal Engineering Vol. 1 No. 2 pp.70-78 November 2017

those are subsequently checked against the criteria, the respected within acceptable level.
results of operability matrix is shown in Table 6. The green  For the case of offloading operation where the SSP is
shading indicates the all the wave joint occurrence of moored with catenary configuration imposed by
significant wave height Hs and peak period Tp where the random wave having Hs = 4.5 m may give tensions of
offloading operation could be safely operated, i.e. when Hs 1,600 kN at the lowest up to some 2,600 kN at the
is less than 3.0 m for all Tp variations. The operation highest. For the case of SSP is moored with taut
would not be safely operated for all waves with Hs > 3.0 configuration the tension may intensify as much as
m. This eventually due to the relative motion criteria which 3.1 times higher than that of catenary configuration.
is exceeded to a certain degree. The magnitudes may range from 4,700 kN at the
lowest up to 7,000 kN at the highest. The safety factor
Table 6. Results of operability analysis (red shading of the maximum tension that is predicted to occur is
indicate criteria is exceeded) some 2.05, which is well above the minimum
Hs (m)
Total required safety factor of 1.67.
0.1-1.0 1.1-2.0 2.1-3.0 3.1-4.0 4.1-5.0
0.1-2.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  Considering the motion and tension criteria, the SSP
2.1-4.0 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 and LNGC operability could be expected to reach as
4.1-6.0 9.51 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.94 high as 99.0% for offloading operation at Masela
6.1-8.0 5.12 6.90 4.74 0.05 0.00 16.81
Tp 8.1-10.0 8.20 3.50 5.70 0.79 0.05 18.24
Block of the Abadi Gas Field.
(s) 10.1-12.0 10.80 20.8 0.15 0.04 0.02 31.81
12.1-14.0 9.30 2.68 0.02 0.02 0.00 12.02 REFERENCES
14.1-16.0 2.93 2.46 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.43
16.1-18.0 0.42 0.77 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.22
1. Syvertsen, K.: The SSP: A New Class of Hull for the
18.1-20.0 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15
Total 46.91 41.44 10.68 0.90 0.07 100 Oil Industry. Trondheim, 2011
Cumulative 46.91 88.35 99.03 99.93 100 2. Chakrabarti, S.K.: Hydrodynamics of Offshore
Structure. Computational Mechanics Publication,
Considering the results in Table 6, it may be observed Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987
that the offloading operation between SSP and LNGC 3. Djatmiko, E.B.. Perilaku dan Operabilitas Bangunan
could be performed in the extent of 99.03% of all wave Laut di Atas Gelombang Acak. ITS Press, Surabaya,
occurrence. In other words, the operability of offloading 2012
operation may reach as high as 99.03% in the Masela 4. Sevan Marine ASA: Presentation Q4-2007 Shipping-
Block of Abadi Gas Field. klubben. Oslo, Feb. 6, 2008
5. Nagura H. et al.: The Abadi Gas Field. 29th Annual
4. CONCLUSIONS Convention Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 1-16, Indonesian
Petroleum Association, 2003
A study has been conducted for the case of the hydro- 6. Bentley: MAXSURF Manual. Bentley System Inc.,
dynamics interaction between SSP and LNG carrier under Stockton Drive, Exton, PA, USA, 2016
the excitation of environmental loads. The findings of the 7. Orcina: OrcaFlex 10.1 Manual. Orcina Ltd.,
study could be portrayed as follows: Daltongate, Ulverston, Cumbria, UK, 2016
 The motions of SSP and LNGC in free floating 8. Fugro: Abadi Gas Field Development Metocean
condition under excitation of regular wave as presen- Criteria for Masela Field. 2012
ted in the form of RAO graphs may be considered as 9. ABS MODU: Rules for Building and Classing.
having good quality, with no indication of excessive American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, 2012
intensities. 10. Wibowo Y.A., Djatmiko, E.B. and Murdjito: Analysis
 The motion characteristic of SSP in standalone condi- on the Effects of Variation in Horizontal Distance
tion is excellent as shown by the low motion inten- Between FSRU and LNGC During a Side-by-Side
sities for all the 6-mode of motions when induced by Offloading on the Vessels Motion Behaviors and
a random wave with Hs = 4.5 m. Coupling Line Tensions. Proc. of the 9th Int. Marine
 The motion intensities of SSP in offloading operation, Technology Conf. (MARTEC 2014), Surabaya, Oct.
where the LNGC is connected to the SSP, brought 24 – 26, 2014
about Hs = 4.5 m may escalate between 2.0 up to 5.0 11. OCIMF: Mooring Equipment Guidelines, 3rd ed. Oil
times of that in in the case of standalone. Even for Companies International Marine Forum, London,
yaw the escalation could be as much as 26.0 times. England, 2008
These are caused by the hydrodynamics interference 12. API: Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems
among SSP and LNGC lead to augmentation in for Floating Structures – API RP2SK, 3rd ed.
coupled motion. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
 The motion intensities of SSP in offloading operation USA, 2005
imposed by random wave with Hs = 4.5 m are

78