ICSOT Indonesia, November 4th 5th 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia

RESPONSE-BASED METOCEAN CRITERIA FOR THE OPTIMIZATION OF FLOATING

PRODUCTION FACILITY FOR MARGINAL OIL FIELD AT JAVA SEA
W D Aryawan and G M Ahadyanti, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Indonesia

SUMMARY

Indonesian oil patch is full of marginal oil fields which if developed will help to boost the economy of the continent
tremendously. Such marginal field is uneconomic to be developed using current technologies based on the existing
production facilities. This research proposed a methodology to optimize FSO principal dimension based on motion
criteria subject to defined platform and metocean at a specified location. Parametric study involving 72 main dimensions
variation had been carried out for various L/B and B/D ratios. Such main dimension variations were derived based on
the existing FSO operated in Java Sea. Numerical simulations have been conducted using Hydrostar to investigate
motion responses in both regular and irregular waves. The results obtained from the investigation indicated that heave,
roll and pitch motions were influenced by L/B and B/D ratios. It is concluded that the design methodology to suit
specific metocean conditions is an effective approach to minimise motion behaviours.

NOMENCLATURE in the development design stage that there is the greatest

potential to impact the earning power. It is well known
Oscillation frequency (rad/s) that the strategy to optimize such design stage is using
p Peak frequency (rad/s) parametric study with respect to hull sizing. In this study,
M Inertia matrix of the body hull sizing was performed involving motion criteria
MA Added mass (kg) subject to defined platform and metocean at a specified
B Damping components location, i.e. Java Sea.
K Stiffness matrix
F Excitation load amplitude (N) 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
X Motion amplitude
S Sea spectrum In this study, seakeeping analysis has been carried out
A Normalizing factor using Bureau Veritas software, Hydrostar. HydroStar is
Hs Significant wave height (m) a fluid dynamics software based on potential flow theory,
Peakedness parameter in which the seakeeping problem is solved by 3-D
Shape parameter diffraction-radiation theory based on motion equation at
Wave propagation direction (degree) six degrees of freedom which can be written as follows
Tp Peak period (s) [1]:
Lwl Load waterline length (m)
Bmld Moulded breadth (m) [ ( ( ( ] (
Hmld Moulded depth (m)
L Length (m) Motion behaviors of the floating structures have been
B Breadth (m) evaluated in two wave conditions, i.e regular waves and
D Depth (m) irregular waves within wave frequency range between
T Draught (m) 0,182-1,462 rad/s.
Displ Displacement (Ton)
At irregular wave condition, spectra used in this study
1. INTRODUCTION refers to JONSWAP and the formula can be written as:
(
Global oil prices have fallen sharply over the past year, [ ( )]
( ( ( ) )
leading to significant revenue shortfalls in many oil
exporting nations, and forcing them to decommission
rigs and sharply cut investments in exploration and Spectral analysis was carried out with Hs=4.6m
production. Consequently, Indonesia as one of oil- calculated based on Java Seas wave distribution for a
producing countries will face economic challenges. In 100-year return period [2].
addition, Indonesian oil patch is full of marginal oil and
gas fields which if developed will help to boost the 3. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND INITIAL
economy of the continent tremendously. It is therefore SIMULATION
necessary to optimize such marginal oil field facilities in
order to reduce capital and operating costs. 3.1 3D HULLFORM MODELLING

FSO may be used as a floating production facility for oil The initial hullform used in this study is FSO Cinta
marginal field. In the life cycle of a floating facility, it is Natomas that has been operating in Java Sea. The

2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 ICSOT Indonesia, November 4th 5th 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia

hullform was modeled using Hydrostar with the scale of In this study, 72 ships have been analyzed for their
1:1. The main size of the vessel is shown in the Table 1 seakeeping ability, where 60 main dimensions varied
below: based on the L/B ratio and 12 main dimensions varied
Table 1. Main Dimension of FSO based on the B/D ratio. Variation of the ratios of the FSO
Lwl (m) 178.8 main dimensions in this study are shown in Table 2
Bmld (m) 40.64 below.
Hmld (m) 25.09
T (m) 15 Table 2. Ratio Variations of FSO Main Dimension
Displ (Ton) 105577 No. L (m) B (m) D (m) T (m) L/B B/D
1 153.75 37.5 25 18.9 4.1 1.5
2 157.5 37.5 25 18.45 4.2 1.5
3.2 VALIDATION
3 161.25 37.5 25 18.03 4.3 1.5
4 165 37.5 25 17.62 4.4 1.5
Before analyzing the results of the FSO seakeeping 5 168.75 37.5 25 17.22 4.5 1.5
simulation by numerical methods, validation should be 6 172.5 37.5 25 16.85 4.6 1.5
made to determine whether the simulation is correct. The 7 176.25 37.5 25 16.49 4.7 1.5
validation process was done by comparing the simulation 8 180 37.5 25 16.15 4.8 1.5
results obtained with the experiments that have been 9 183.75 37.5 25 15.82 4.9 1.5
done in previous studies [3]. A typical validation result is 10 187.5 37.5 25 15.5 5 1.5
shown through Roll RAO as can be seen in Figure 1. 11 191.25 37.5 25 15.2 5.1 1.5
12 195 37.5 25 14.91 5.2 1.5
13 198.75 37.5 25 14.62 5.3 1.5
14 202.5 37.5 25 14.35 5.4 1.5
15 206.25 37.5 25 14.09 5.5 1.5
16 210 37.5 25 13.84 5.6 1.5
17 213.75 37.5 25 13.6 5.7 1.5
18 217.5 37.5 25 13.36 5.8 1.5
19 221.25 37.5 25 13.14 5.9 1.5
20 225 37.5 25 12.92 6 1.5
21 164 40 25 16.62 4.1 1.6
22 168 40 25 16.22 4.2 1.6
23 172 40 25 15.84 4.3 1.6
24 176 40 25 15.48 4.4 1.6
25 180 40 25 15.14 4.5 1.6
26 184 40 25 14.81 4.6 1.6
27 188 40 25 14.49 4.7 1.6
Figure 1. Roll RAO 28 192 40 25 14.19 4.8 1.6
29 196 40 25 13.90 4.9 1.6
The straight line shows the simulation results obtained 30 200 40 25 13.62 5 1.6
with the software Hydrostar (H) while the simulation 31 204 40 25 13.36 5.1 1.6
results obtained in previous studies (S) indicated by a 32 208 40 25 13.10 5.2 1.6
small circle on the increase in frequency. As can be seen 33 212 40 25 12.85 5.3 1.6
in the graphs above that the difference between the 34 216 40 25 12.62 5.4 1.6
seakeeping simulation results using software Hydrostar 35 220 40 25 12.39 5.5 1.6
are not significant with seakeeping simulation results 36 224 40 25 12.16 5.6 1.6
obtained in previous studies. The difference between the 37 228 40 25 11.95 5.7 1.6
results are below 5%, this indicates that the simulation 38 232 40 25 11.75 5.8 1.6
results in this study are valid. 39 236 40 25 11.55 5.9 1.6
40 240 40 25 11.35 6 1.6
41 205 50 25 10.63 4.1 2
3.3 PARAMETRIC DESIGN 42 210 50 25 10.38 4.2 2
43 215 50 25 10.14 4.3 2
44 220 50 25 9.91 4.4 2
One of the main factors that influence the size and
45 225 50 25 9.69 4.5 2
arrangements on the FSO is the oil storage capacity. This 46 230 50 25 9.48 4.6 2
factor is directly related to displacement vessels, which 47 235 50 25 9.28 4.7 2
in this study will be used as constraints in determining 48 240 50 25 9.08 4.8 2
the main dimension ratio of the alternative hull forms. 49 245 50 25 8.90 4.9 2
50 250 50 25 8.72 5 2
Based on the review that has been conducted previously 51 255 50 25 8.55 5.1 2
[4], new build FPSO has an L/B ratio between 4 to 6 and 52 260 50 25 8.38 5.2 2
the B/D ratio between 1.5 to 2. 53 265 50 25 8.23 5.3 2
54 270 50 25 8.07 5.4 2
55 275 50 25 7.93 5.5 2

2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 ICSOT Indonesia, November 4th 5th 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia

56 280 50 25 7.79 5.6 2

57 285 50 25 7.65 5.7 2
58 290 50 25 7.52 5.8 2
59 295 50 25 7.39 5.9 2
60 300 50 25 7.27 6 2
61 150 37.5 25 19.38 4 1.5
62 160 40 25 17.03 4 1.6
63 170 42.5 25 15.09 4 1.7
64 180 45 25 13.46 4 1.8
65 190 47.5 25 12.08 4 1.9
66 200 50 25 10.9 4 2
67 225 37.5 25 12.92 6 1.5
68 240 40 25 11.35 6 1.6
69 255 42.5 25 10.06 6 1.7
70 270 45 25 8.97 6 1.8 Figure 3. Pitch RAO based on the increase of L/B
71 285 47.5 25 8.05 6 1.9
72 300 50 25 7.27 6 2

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 THE EFFECTS OF MAIN DIMENSION

RATIOS MODIFICATION ON THE
SEAKEEPING

To determine the optimum design point, it should be

examined whether there was an effect of modification of
main dimension ratios on their seakeeping. Seakeeping
evaluation results are represented in the form of
Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) in which the wave
propagation direction ( = 90o) subject to heave and roll
as well as the direction of wave propagation coming from
the direction of the bow ( = 180) for pitch. These
angles of wave direction have been selected to
demonstrate the extreme value of the amplitude of these
three motions.
Figure 4. Roll RAO based on the increase of L/B
From the figures above, we can see that the increase in
the ratio L/B, there is a decrease in the maximum
response of heave, pitch, and roll motions. Interesting
things that can be seen on all three graphs, along with
increasing price ratio L/B, there is a tendency of heaves
natural frequency to shift gradually towards the right.
While on the pitch chart, along with increasing price
ratio L/B, there is a tendency to shift its natural
frequency gradually to the left. Furthermore, along with
the increasing ratio L/B, the maximum response for
heave and pitch motions are also decreasing gradually.

Figure 2. Heave RAO based on the increase of L/B

Figure 5. Heave RAO based on the increase of B/D

2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 ICSOT Indonesia, November 4th 5th 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia
Figure 6. Pitch RAO based on the increase of B/D
Figure 7. Roll RAO based on the increase of B/D
It can be seen in the heave graph, along with increasing
B/D ratio, there is a tendency its natural frequency
shifted gradually to the right. Whereas viewing from
pitch motion, along with increasing B/D ratio, there is a
tendency to shift its natural frequency gradually to the
left. Furthermore, along with the increasing ratio B/D,
the maximum response for heave, pitch, and roll motions
are also decreasing gradually.
From the analysis above, when viewed from the heave
and pitch motions, based on the increase of L/B ratio,
the most optimum FSO is FSO no.60, whereas based on
the increase of B/D ratio, the most optimum FSO is FSO
no.72. Based on the increase of L/B ratio, FSO no.60 has
the greatest L/B ratio, while based on the increase of
B/D ratio, FSO no.72 has the greatest L/B ratio. From
this analysis it can then be concluded that the greater L/B
and B/D ratio result in the minimum response of heave
and pitch motions. Because FSO no.60 and FSO no.72
are the same FSO, in order to ease reference, hereinafter
the FSO will be referred as FSO no.72.
However, when viewed from the roll motion, based on
the increase of L/B ratio, the most optimum FSO is FSO
no.34 while based on the increase of B/D ratio, the most
optimum FSO is FSO no.72. One thing to remember is
that the results in the analysis above are characteristic of
motions based solely on modeling results in regular
waves. In designing the offshore structure, designers also
2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
have to look at the wave period of the waters in which
the offshore structure will operate [5]. This can be done
by performing spectral analysis which will be explained
further in the next section.
4.2 SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF SURVIVAL
CONDITION (100-YEAR RETURN PERIOD)
Based on the modeling results in regular waves, in terms
of heave and pitch motions based on the increase in the
ratio L/B and B/D, the most optimum FSO is FSO no.72.
Meanwhile, in terms of roll motion, based on the increase
of L/B ratio, the most optimum FSO is FSO no.34. As
for the roll motion based on the increase of B/D ratio, the
most optimum FSO is FSO no.72. Therefore, it is
necessary to carry out spectral analysis of both FSOs in
order to compare their responses in irreguler waves.
The survival condition for the FSO has been selected at a
100-year return period because the unit shall withstand
the site metocean conditions covering the installation,
operating and the most severe conditions. Figure 8 is roll
spectral response curve of FSO no.34 for 100-year return
period calculated according to the increase of peak
period from Tp=2s up to 8.5s with a variety of heading
angles ranging from =0o up to =330o. Based on the
computation result, the maximum roll response occured
in wave direction angle of 270o at 0.301 m2/(rad/s).
Figure 8. FSO no.34 Roll Response Spectra (100-Year
Return Period)
Figure 9 shows roll spectral response curve of FSO no.72
for 100-year return period calculated according to the
increase of peak period from Tp=2s up to 8.5s with a
variety of heading angles ranging from =0o up to
=330o. Based on the computation result, the maximum
roll response occured in wave direction angle of 270o at
1.985 m2/(rad/s). This maximum response is much larger
(6.6 times larger) when compared to FSO no.34
maximum response.
 ICSOT Indonesia, November 4th 5th 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia
Figure 9. FSO no.72 Roll Response Spectra (100-Year
Return Period)
After observing the spectrum response, the next step is to
observe the value of stochastic period and frequency as
well as the specific amplitude of both FSOs roll
motions. The motion qualities in irregular waves can be
analyzed by plotting changes in the motion intensity as a
function of the significant wave height increment as
shown in Figure 10.
It can be seen in the figure that at all the significant wave
height, FSO no.34 has a roll amplitude intensity lower
than the FSO no.72. At low significant wave height,
Hs=0.2m, the roll significant amplitude of the two do not
differ siginificantly. However, the greater the value of
the significant wave height results in the greater value of
the roll significant amplitude of FSO no.72. At
significant wave height 3m, the roll significant amplitude
of FSO no.72 reached 4.67m. This means the roll
significant amplitude of FSO no.72 is approximately 8
times larger than the roll significant amplitude of FSO
no.34.
Figure 10. The Increase of Significant Roll Amplitude
as a Function of Significant Wave Height Increment
From the analysis above it indicates that for 100-year-
return period, FSO no.34 has better roll motion quality
when compared to FSO no.72 at Java Sea.
5. CONCLUSIONS
After performing numerical simulation of initial hull
form and alternative hull forms as well as conducting
2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
analysis of seakeeping and spectral analysis, it can be
drawn into these following conclusions:
1. Main dimension ratios modification affects in FSO
seakeeping. Along with the increase of L/B and B/D
ratios, there is a decrease in maximum reponse
amplitude of heave and pitch motions.
2. Along with the increase of L/B ratio, there is a
tendency heave natural frequency shifted gradually to
the right. Along with the increase of L/B ratio, there
is a tendency pitch natural frequency shifted
gradually to the left.
3. Along with the increase of B/D ratio, there is a
tendency heave and roll natural frequency shifted
gradually to the right. Along with the increase of B/D
ratio, there is a tendency pitch natural frequency
shifted gradually to the left.
4. Based on the modeling results in regular waves, in
terms of heave and pitch motions based on the
increase in the ratio L/B and B/D, the most optimum
FSO is FSO no.72.
5. Based on the modeling results in regular waves, in
terms of roll motion based on the increase of L/B
ratio, the most optimum FSO is FSO no.34. As for
the roll motion based on the increase of B/D ratio, the
most optimum FSO is FSO no.72.
6. Based on the response spectrum analysis on irregular
waves, taking into account roll motion, FSO no.34 is
the most optimum hull because it produces minimum
roll amplitude.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Bureau Veritas
Offshore Business Regional Manager, Mr. Kuan Yeh
Sheng for his help in providing the software Hydrostar as
well as Bureau Veritas Executive Engineers, Mr. Binbin
Li and Mr. Pan Qi for giving references and software
guidance during this study.
7. REFERENCES
1. JOURNEE, J. M. J., MASSIE, W. W, Offshore
Hydrodynamic First Edition, Delft University of
Technology, 2001.
2. FUGRO, Design Criteria and Fatigue
Assessment Metocean Data for Offshore
Platform at Offshore North Java Sea, 2014.
3. AHADYANTI, G. M., Studi Optimasi Hull
Form FSO Di Laut Jawa, Institut Teknologi
Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya, 2015.
4. MACGREGOR, J. R., and SMITH, S. N.,
Some techno-economic considerations in the
design of North Sea production monohulls,
1994.
5. DJATMIKO, E. B., Perilaku dan Operabilitas
Bangunan Laut Di Atas Gelombang Acak, ITS
Press, 2012.
 ICSOT Indonesia, November 4th 5th 2015, Surabaya, Indonesia

9. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Wasis Dwi Aryawan holds the current position of

lecturer at Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Surabaya. He is responsible for teaching Ship Design
within Department of Naval Architecture and
Shipbuilding Engineering. He also serves industrial
services for: oil and gas companies, shipping companies,
shipyards, and other marine related industries.

Gita Marina Ahadyanti has graduated with a Master

Degree at Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Surabaya. Having graduated with a BS degree in Naval
Architecture and Shipbuilding Engineering from the
same institute, her previous experiences include
Technical Investigation of Mooring Hawser Break at
FSO Cinta Natomas and Technology Selection
Feasibility Study for Pertamina Hulu Energi Offshore
North West Java (PHE ONWJ) Marginal Field.

2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects