Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

The hydrodynamic performance of a tension leg

platform with one-tendon failure

Yinghe Qi, Xinliang Tian, Xiaoxian Guo, Haining Lu & Lei Liu

To cite this article: Yinghe Qi, Xinliang Tian, Xiaoxian Guo, Haining Lu & Lei Liu (2019) The
hydrodynamic performance of a tension leg platform with one-tendon failure, Ships and
Offshore Structures, 14:5, 523-533, DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2018.1518188

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1518188

Published online: 05 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 450

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20
SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
2019, VOL. 14, NO. 5, 523–533
https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1518188

The hydrodynamic performance of a tension leg platform with one-tendon failure

Yinghe Qia, Xinliang Tiana,b, Xiaoxian Guo a,b
, Haining Lua,b and Lei Liua,b
a
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; bCollaborative Innovation Center for
Advanced Ship and Deep-Sea Exploration, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As one of the most widely used types of deepwater offshore platforms, the Tension Leg Platform (TLP) has Received 7 December 2016
shown excellent motion performance in waves; however, a detailed evaluation of their performance under Accepted 25 August 2018
tendon failure condition is vital and necessary. In this study, numerical simulations were conducted in
KEYWORDS
both time and frequency domains using the commercial software HydroD and OrcaFlex, respectively. Tension leg platform; tendon
The numerical results were validated by a series of wave basin model tests. The motions of the TLP, failure; ballast water;
with one tendon failure, and loads on the effective tendons, were studied in dynamic analyses to hydrodynamic response
evaluate the potential adverse impact of tendon failure. Moreover, sensitivity studies of TLP
performance under tendon failure were also conducted with various quantities of hull ballast. The
relation between the response of the TLP and quantities of ballast were established and some advices
were provided about lowering the risks of the loss of TLP stability under one-tendon failure condition.

1. Introduction tendons were loss during installation due to vortex induced

vibrations and sank (Meyers 2015). As a result, the installation
The increasing demand for gas and oil has resulted in the had to be abandoned. Attention is required to ensure TLP stab-
industry moving into deeper water to explore oil and gas ility when one tendon fails.
resources over the last several decades (Xia et al. 2015; Wei There have been some studies focusing on the reliability and
et al., 2017). Many types of floating offshore platforms have safety of TLP tendons. Prucz and Soong (1984) presented a
been developed to reduce the risks and cost of various offshore reliability model for TLP mooring systems based on selected
activities in deep waters (You et al. 2013). Compared with other statistical models for the distribution of water surface elevations
types of floating platforms, the TLP resembles a fixed structure around the TLP hull during a storm. Their model can be used
with respect to the vertical degrees of freedom (Chandrase- to assess the probability of progressive failure of TLP tendons at
karan and Jain 2002; Wang et al., 2018). The TLP is a moored each corner and the reliability of the tendon mooring system.
floating structure whose buoyancy is significantly larger than its Khan et al. (2006) conducted a reliability assessment of TLP
weight. The mooring system of the TLP consists of a number of tendons using a limit state function derived from von Mises
tensioned tendons connected to the TLP hull at the top and failure theory and obtained responses under impulsive loading.
anchored to the seabed (Siddiqui and Ahmad 2000). The natu- A design point that is important for the probabilistic design of
ral periods of TLPs in surge, sway and yaw are in the range of tendons was established after solving the constrained optimis-
80–120 s and well above the range of dominant waves which ation problem. Sengupta and Ahmad (1996) addressed the
typically have periods (depending on location and water design of TLP tendons under coupled loading using reliability
depth) of 6–18 s, while the heave, pitch and roll periods of analysis. Two modes of tendon failure were considered. A
TLPs are typically in the range of 2–4 s well below the dynamic response analysis was conducted considering nonli-
period of storm waves (Kareem 1985; Taflanidis et al. 2013). nearities due to drag, variable submergence, variable tendon
Thus, forces at the dominant wave frequencies do not excite tension, wind-induced loading, and large displacements.
the TLP at its natural frequencies (Kareem 1985; Taflanidis Banon et al. (1991) used an extension of the point-crossing
et al. 2013). method to predict the probability of waves impacting the
The dead weight of the TLP hull is typically only about two deck of a TLP and the combination of dynamic forces (includ-
thirds of its buoyancy, as a result the TLP hull itself is unstable ing wave-impact loads) acting on a TLP tendon. The results
without the tendon mooring system, which is a crucial and were used to calculate the reliability of a TLP tendon under
basic component of the TLP (Sengupta and Ahmad 1996). maximum tension loads.
Although there are many tendons attached to the TLP, the fail- Other studies have focused on the transient tension effect
ure or damage of one tendon may lead to progress failure of when tendon failure occur. Yang and Kim (2010) developed a
remaining tendons due to the sudden increase of tension (Sid- time-domain nonlinear global-motion-analysis programme to
diqui and Ahmad 2000), and ultimately, to the failure of the study the transient effect of loss of a tendon on the global per-
TLP. Failure of tendons, can create significant issues for a formance of an Extended Tension Leg Platform (ETLP) during
TLP, a good example is the Big Foot TLP where six of 16 the harsh environmental conditions. Kim and Zhang (2009)

CONTACT Xinliang Tian [email protected]

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
524 Y. QI ET AL.

investigated the dynamic stability and survivability of a TLP

under less-extreme storm conditions where one or more ten-
dons had been lost. A significant increase of maximum tension
on the neighbouring tendon could be found at the moment of
disconnection due to snap-like transient effects. Razaghian
et al. (2014) used multi-purpose boundary element software
to access the hydrodynamic performance of a damaged TLP,
caused by a tendon disconnection. The transient effect on the
other tendons was assessed, and the TLP motions and tendon
forces were determined in regular waves.
A detailed literature review indicated the study of load pre-
diction in the remaining tendons under tendon failure con-
dition is still lacking. Most of the studies focused on the
reliability and safety of tendons or the transient effect of tendon
failure; however, they neglected the time-domain extreme ten-
don load after tendon failure. Moreover, they do not give any
advice about required actions to avoid progress failure of the
other TLP tendons in the failed tendon condition. At the first
stage of one tendon failure, one of the most effective means
for reducing the probability of progressive TLP tendon failure
is to increase ballast in the TLP hull column over the failed ten- Figure 1. The definition of the coordinate system.
don. This action will reduce the increase in tension load in the
remaining tendon. In this way, the sudden increase of tension 2.3. Tendons
in the remaining tendons can be reduced, and the remaining
tendons are more effective and the risk of loss of the remaining Each of the eight tendons consists of nine sections, having a
TLP tendons is reduced. total length of 375.30 m. The bottom of the tendon is 2.9 m
In this study, the motion of the TLP and the tendon loads in above the seabed. The properties of each tendon are listed in
a specific sea-state were investigated using the commercially Table 2. The arrangement of tendons is shown in Figure 2.
available software HydroD and OrcaFlex. Wave basin model The fairlead coordinates for the TLP are summarised in
tests were conducted to validate the numerical model. Then, Table 3.
dynamic analysis under a single tendon failure condition was
conducted to predict the motions of the TLP and the extreme
2.4. Environment Condition
loads in the remaining tendons.
The prototype TLP was designed to be located in 404.69 m of
water. A collinear sea state with 1000-year return period,
2. TLP configuration including current, wind and waves, was applied to the TLP.
2.1. Coordinate system The speed of steady-state wind is 50.9 m/s at 10 m above the
water surface. A uniform current profile of 2.62 m/s was
A coordinate system whose origin is located at the geometry used. The forces generated by the steady state wind and current
centre of the bottom plane of the TLP Hull was defined to were converted to constant forces by wind tunnel tests of the
describe the motions and positions of the TLP, as shown in same model. The magnitude of the horizontal current force is
Figure 1. The six degrees of freedom of the TLP are; surge, 8321 kN, and the location of the centre of load is 9.48 m
sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw, respectively. The horizontal above the keel. The magnitude of the horizontal wind force is
offset is the combined surge and sway measured from the initial 8640 kN, and the location of the centre of load is 74.61 m
position of the TLP with all tendons installed. above the keel.
The random wave component is described by a three-par-
ameter JONSWAP spectrum that includes a significant 16 m
2.2. TLP Hull
wave height (Hs), a 16.1 s spectrum peak period (Tp), and a
The parameters of the TLP selected for this investigation are peak enhancement factor of 2.4. In the model tests and numeri-
based on a design for an actual TLP project located in the cal simulations, the current, wind and waves were applied to the
South China Sea. The TLP Hull has a square arrangement TLP from 270 degrees. The selection of the direction 270 degrees
and consists of four columns connected underwater by four was based on the previous study by Yang and Kim (2010) in
pontoons. Eight tendons hold the TLP in place, two tendons which the incident angle was 90 degrees. Due to TLP symmetry
per TLP hull column and connected to the TLP hull near the the forces from 90 and 270 degrees are equivalent.
column bottom, approximately 4.0 m above the keel. The
TLP is symmetrical about x-axis and y-axis, with respect to
3. Numerical modelling
both the TLP hull and tendons. The general arrangement of
the TLP Hull is shown in Figures 2 and 3. The details and The commercial software HydroD developed by DNV-GL was
weight distribution of the TLP Hull are presented in Table 1. used to calculate the hydrodynamic coefficients of the TLP.
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 525

Figure 2. TLP Global Layout Plan View (unit: mm).

Figure 3. TLP Global Layout Elevation View (unit: mm).

526 Y. QI ET AL.

Table 1. Main particulars of TLP hull. where A is the wave amplitude, g is the acceleration of gravity,
Parameter Unit Value v is the wave frequency, b is the direction of wave and wj is the
Displacement MT 49,515 wave phase angle. The wave number k satisfies the dispersion
Platform Mass MT 32,127 relation:
KG (in place, operating) m 42.81
Draft (operating condition) m 30.50
v2
Roll Gyradius, Rxx m 37.04 = k tanh kH (4)
Pitch Gyradius, Ryy m 38.66 g
Yaw Gyradius, Rzz m 34.35
Column Diameter m 19.500 Considering the corresponding boundary condition,
Pontoon Height m 8.500
Pontoon Width m 8.500
Equation (2) can be solved. Once the velocity potential is
Column Center to Center Distance m 59.000 obtained, it is easy to get the hydrodynamic coefficients from
the radiation potential (Bingham 2000). Then, the computed
frequency-domain coefficients were converted and imported
Table 2. Tendon properties. into OrcaFlex for computing of time-domain results.
Item Prototype Model (1:60 scale) The dynamic analysis was conducted with the help of Orca-
Tendon length 375.30 m 6.262 m Flex. The equation of motion is written as:
Tendon top from keel 4.00 m 0.067 m
Outside diameter 1.106 m 0.017 m M(p, a) + C(p, v) + K(p) = F(p, v, t) (5)
Wall thickness 0.038 m 0.006 m
EA/L 6494.7 MT/m 1.7601 kg/mm where M(p, a) is the TLP inertia load, C(p, v) is the TLP damp-
Weight in air 1078.04 kg/m 0.2922 kg/m
Weight in water 183.13 kg/m 0.0496 kg/m
ing load, K(p) is the TLP stiffness, F(p, v, t) is the external load,
Top pretension 2008.0 MT 9.0696 kg p, v and a denotes the position, velocity and acceleration vec-
Bottom pretension 1939.3 MT 8.7591 kg tors respectively, t represents the time.
OrcaFlex uses the finite element method for modelling of
lines as shown in Figure 4. In OrcaFlex, a line model is divided
Table 3. Tendon attachment location (unit: m). into several segments which are modelled by straight massless
Prototype Model (1:60 scale) line elements with a node at each end (Manual 2012). The
Tendon # X Y Z above keel X Y Z above keel axial and torsional properties of line models are modelled only
1 33.98 40.31 4.0 0.566 0.672 0.067 by line elements meanwhile the other properties such as mass,
2 40.31 33.98 4.0 0.672 0.566 0.067 buoyance and weight are modelled by the nodes located at
3 40.31 −33.98 4.0 0.672 −0.566 0.067
4 33.98 −40.31 4.0 0.566 −0.672 0.067 each end of line elements, as indicated by the arrows in Figure 4.
5 −33.98 −40.31 4.0 −0.566 −0.672 0.067 The influence of risers on the motion response of the TLP is
6 −40.31 −33.98 4.0 −0.672 −0.566 0.067 negligible and therefore not considered here. A hydrodynamic
7 −40.31 33.98 4.0 −0.672 0.566 0.067
8 −33.98 40.31 4.0 −0.566 0.672 0.067 model with eight intact tendons, which is shown in Figure 5,
was generated to compare numerical and experimental results
in random sea-states. After the comparison, other hydrodyn-
HydroD uses the Morison equation and the first- and second- amic models with one tendon loss and different ballast con-
order 3D potential theories for wave load calculations and ditions were generated to conduct further studies.
solves the 3D diffraction/radiation problem using the Rankine
panel method (Veritas 1998). The potential theory used in
HydroD can be described as follows:
With the assumption of irrotational motion and an incom-
pressible fluid, the fluid motion can be expressed by the velocity
potential 0, which conforms to the Laplace equations:

∇2 ∅(x, y, z, t) = 0 (1)
where the x, y, z are the spatial coordinates in a coordinate sys-
tem in which the xy-plane corresponds to the calm water sur-
face, the z-axis points upwards, and t represents the time
(Xiong et al. 2015). The total velocity potential is composed
of three components: incident potential ∅1 , radiation potential
∅R and diffraction potential ∅D , namely (Zhao et al. 2014):
∅ = ∅1 + ∅R + ∅D (2)
According to Airy’s wave theory, the incident potential ∅1
for a regular wave in finite water depth is, expressed by Rein-
holdtsen et al.(Reinholdtsen and Falkenberg 2001)
gA cosh k(z + H)
∅1 = cos(vt − kx cosb − ky sinb + wj ) (3)
v cosh kH Figure 4. Line theory of OrcaFlex.
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 527

Figure 6. Static stiffness curves.

Table 4. Natural periods of the TLP.

Dimension Unit Experiment Simulation
Surge s 82.36 84.35
Figure 5. Snapshot of hydro model with eight intact tendons. Sway s 82.17 84.04
Heave s 2.09 2.11
Roll s 2.01 1.87
4. Experimental setups Pitch s 2.04 1.94
Yaw s 64.89 57.09
Model tests were conducted in the deep water offshore basin in
Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The wave basin is 40 m in
width, 50 m in length. The scale ratio of the model test was
1:60. Froude similarity was followed in the model tests. Thus the TLP was kept constant. The natural periods obtained in
the water depth in model tests was set at 6.74 m, corresponding the free decay tests are shown in Table 4. As shown in
to the prototype water depth of 404.69 m. The duration of each Table 4, the natural periods of the TLP from the model tests
irregular wave test was approximately 23 minutes in model are very close to those obtained from the numerical simulation,
scale, corresponding to a duration of 3 hours in the prototype. indicating the data obtained from the numerical simulations is
The sampling frequency was set at 50 Hz in model scale. reliable. Table 4 also shows that the natural periods of surge and
The time series of wave elevations was generated by an sway, roll and pitch are very close. This is because the geometry
inverse Fourier transform. In this study, simulation of a of the TLP hull is symmetrical and the moments of inertia for
steady-state wind and current were by application of a constant roll and pitch are very close. This further confirms that the cor-
force generated by a dynamic winch. During the model tests, relation between the experimental results and numerical simu-
the TLP model was moored by the tendons through fairleads lations is very good.
that were installed according to Table 3. The tendons were
modelled by aluminum pipes and springs that had been
adjusted to model properties such as the mass, length and stiff- 5.3. Response amplitude operators
ness of the actual tendons. The tendon pre-tension was also Calculation of the RAOs for sway, heave and roll was con-
adjusted to achieve the target values with the help of load ducted with consideration of the tendons. The wave heading
cells connected between the TLP hull and tendons. was 270 degrees. As shown in Figure 7, the RAOs in the sway
and heave directions obtained from the simulations and exper-
5. Validation of numerical simulation iments agree well. However, the roll RAO in the numerical
5.1. Static offset test simulations shows some discrepancies with the experimental
results. This is due to the wave height of the white noise
The static stiffness curves along the Y-axis obtained in the wave generated in the model tests is very limited. As a result,
numerical simulations and model tests are shown in Figure 6. the motion responses for the TLP are small that the roll
As shown, good agreement was achieved between the numeri- response amplitude is very close to the lower limit of the
cal and experimental results. motion tracking system. Therefore, the experimental results
for the roll RAO are not very accurate. However, the trend of
the curve obtained in the numerical simulation is similar to
5.2. Free decay test
that from the model test. Therefore, it is concluded that a
The free decay tests were conducted in 6-DOF in both the favourable agreement between the numerical and experimental
numerical simulations and model tests. The initial offset of RAO results was achieved.
528 Y. QI ET AL.

and current were converted to constant forces. Time-domain

results were obtained in the numerical simulations and model
test. As shown in Table 5, the title “F.T1” and “F.B1” indicate
the tension at the top and bottom ends of Tendon 1, respect-
ively. The titles “F.T2” and “F.B2” indicate the tension at the
top and bottom ends of Tendon 2, respectively. The rest of
the titles are defined in a similar manner.
As shown in Table 5, the loads of the TLP tendons obtained
in the numerical simulations agree well with those in the model
tests. The motions of sway and heave are also in good agree-
ment with the model test. However, there are differences in
the surge, roll, pitch and yaw motions. In principle, the motions
of the TLP in the surge, pitch and yaw directions should be
zero, but because of disturbance and deviation in the model
tests, the TLP motions cannot be absolutely zero. That is why
there are small motions in these three directions in the model
test. Because the roll motion is very small under the environ-
mental conditions assumed for the study, the calculation of
relative error between the numerical and experimental results
is meaningless.
Overall, a good agreement between the numerical and
experimental results was achieved. Therefore, the present
numerical approach was used to calculate the TLP performance
with one tendon being removed. The results are presented in
the following section.

6. Results and discussion

6.1. Motions and loads under tendon failure condition
Dynamic analyses were conducted to obtain the TLP motions
and the extreme tendon loads under the one-tendon failure
condition. The TLP ballast condition was kept constant.
Table 5 shows that the mean and standard derivation of load
in Tendons 1 and 8, which are the largest among the eight ten-
dons in the numerical simulation. This means Tendons 1 and 8
are the most vulnerable to damage under severe environmental
conditions. Therefore, Tendon 1 was selected as the failed ten-
don. Tendon 1 is located at the forefront along the wave head-
ing, see Figures 1 and 2. The sea-state in the numerical
simulation is the same as that mentioned in Section 2.4. The
statistical results of the TLP motions are shown in Table 6,
and the statistical results of the top tendon loads and their
changes before and after Tendon 1 failure are shown in
Figures 8 and 9. The results of the bottom tendon loads are
not presented because they are very similar to the top tendon
loads. By comparing the motions of all six directions in
Table 6, it is observed that the differences between the two con-
ditions are very small, especially in the sway, heave and roll
motions. Though there are small differences in surge, pitch
Figure 7. Sway RAO (a), heave RAO (b) and roll RAO (c) obtained in experiments
and yaw because of the asymmetry of the TLP due to the ten-
and simulations. don failure, one can still conclude that, for this TLP design, the
failure of one tendon has a limited impact on the TLP motions.
As shown in Figure 8, when Tendon 1 is removed, as
5.4. Motions and loads in random sea-state
expected, there is a significant tension increase observed in
The validation of the numerical simulation in a random sea- the neighbouring tendon, i.e. Tendon 2. The increase of tension
state with all tendons present is explained in this section. As in the other tendons is not as significant as that in Tendon 2. As
aforementioned, the wave component is described by a three- shown in Figures 8 and 9, the mean and standard deviation of
parameter JONSWAP spectrum, while the steady state wind the Tendon 2 load under the one-tendon failure condition are
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 529

Table 5. Statistical results of model tests and numerical simulations.

Experiment Simulation Error (%)
Title Unit Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
Surge m −0.001 0.458 0.000 0.000 – –
Sway m −40.679 4.870 −38.243 4.761 6.37 2.29
Heave m −2.163 0.531 −1.946 0.502 −11.15 5.78
Roll deg 0.000 0.041 0.056 0.026 – –
Pitch deg 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 – –
Yaw deg 0.001 0.272 0.000 0.000 – –
F.T1 MT 2486.483 184.682 2630.881 213.865 −5.49 −13.65
F.T2 MT 2754.456 203.098 2590.783 203.402 6.32 −0.15
F.T3 MT 2046.273 224.524 2166.907 193.303 −5.57 16.15
F.T4 MT 2019.283 226.436 2128.438 202.360 −5.13 11.90
F.T5 MT 2116.078 234.129 2128.438 202.360 −0.58 15.70
F.T6 MT 2110.494 223.801 2166.907 193.303 −2.60 15.78
F.T7 MT 2344.707 168.626 2590.783 203.402 −9.50 −17.10
F.T8 MT 2791.426 206.195 2630.881 213.865 6.10 −3.59
F.B1 MT 2418.048 182.788 2538.505 212.661 −4.75 −14.05
F.B2 MT 2679.685 205.813 2498.402 202.186 7.26 1.79
F.B3 MT 1981.057 225.103 2074.554 192.112 −4.51 17.17
F.B4 MT 1945.859 231.342 2036.094 201.186 −4.43 14.99
F.B5 MT 2045.316 234.067 2036.094 201.186 0.45 16.34
F.B6 MT 2044.537 225.015 2074.554 192.112 −1.45 17.13
F.B7 MT 2273.370 168.300 2498.402 202.186 −9.01 −16.76
F.B8 MT 2733.258 205.007 2538.505 212.661 7.67 −3.60

Table 6. Statistic results of TLP motions under tendon failure and intact conditions. Tendon 1 tension, but the load is shared with other tendons.
Tendon failure Additionally, the mean of the top tensions for Tendons 5 and
condition Intact condition
6, which are located diagonally to Tendon 2, becomes smaller
Title Unit Mean Std. Mean Std.
than before. This phenomenon is similar to a lever: as the ten-
Surge m −0.081 0.038 0.000 0.000
Sway m −38.398 4.846 −38.243 4.761
don tension at one side decreases, the tendon tension at the
Heave m 1.864 0.511 −1.946 0.502 diagonal side increases.
Roll deg 0.192 0.035 0.056 0.026 The failure of a tendon may also affect the horizontal stiff-
Pitch deg −0.124 0.025 0.000 0.000
Yaw deg 0.088 0.212 0.000 0.000
ness of the mooring system. A static offset test along the Y-
axis (positive) was conducted to obtain the static stiffness
curve of the TLP under the failed tendon condition. As
much bigger than those under the intact condition, about 60 shown in Figure 10, the tendon failure had limited influence
and 73% larger than before, respectively. In the present study, on the stiffness of the entire TLP mooring system because
when Tendon 1 is lost, the loading on Tendon 2 increases shar- the static stiffness curves under the two conditions almost
ply, implying Tendon 2 is the critical tendon with respect to overlap.
progressive failure of the tendons. According to the analysis, the most serious consequence of
Moreover, it is observed in Figure 8 that when Tendon 1 is Tendon 1 failure in this case is the significant load increase
lost, the mean top load of Tendon 2 is not doubled. This means in the neighbouring tendon, Tendon 2.
Tendon 2 is not the only tendon compensating for the missing

Figure 9. Standard deviation of top tendon loads under intact and tendon failure
Figure 8. Mean of top tendon loads under intact and tendon failure conditions. conditions.
530 Y. QI ET AL.

Table 8. Statistic results of TLP motions with 0%, 100% and 200% ballast water.
100% ballast 200% ballast
0% ballast water water water
Title Unit Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
Surge m −0.081 0.038 0.139 0.121 0.991 0.340
Sway m −38.398 4.846 −41.740 4.727 −45.863 4.567
Heave m 1.864 0.511 2.284 0.542 2.883 0.581
Roll deg 0.192 0.035 0.104 0.034 −0.044 0.045
Pitch deg −0.124 0.025 0.308 0.119 1.032 0.267
Yaw deg 0.088 0.212 −3.082 0.908 −8.087 1.866

Figure 10. Static stiffness curves under two conditions.

6.2. Sensitivity studies of TLP motions

Dynamic analyses were then conducted to obtain the relation
between TLP motions and the hull ballast condition. Again
Tendon 1 was removed, just as before. Ballast was added into
the hull column above Tendon 1 to directly compensate for
the influence of the missing tendon. The ratio of ballast is intro-
duced to represent the quantity of ballast water. Here, we define
100% ballast to be 2008 kg, which is the ballast condition, in the
Figure 11. Mean and maximum draft of sway with different ratio of ballast water.
TLP hull column above Tendon 1, for the tendon pre-tension
condition. Therefore, 200% ballast increase would be 4016 kg.
In this study, we investigated the hydrodynamic performance increase accordingly. That means as more and more ballast is
of the TLP with ballast ranging from 0 to 200%. The properties added into the column, sway will increase overall. Though
of the TLP hull with different ballast ratios are shown in great changes of sway cannot be observed in Figure 11 due to
Table 7. However, the Z-coordinate value of COG is not the restraining force generated by the remaining tendons, the
included because adding ballast has a very small influence on effect of ballast on TLP sway is still not negligible within the
the change of the COG location along the Z-axis. Table 8 sum- excursion envelop.
marises the statistical results for motions in 6-DOF for the 0%,
100% and 200% ballast conditions. It is noted that the results in
Table 8 include the static offset due to the ballast increase.
6.3. Sensitivity studies of extreme tendon load
As shown in Table 8, the motion of the TLP in some directions,
especially in yaw, is significantly increased after adding ballast. Dynamic analyses were conducted to reveal the relations
That means the loss of tension in the tendons will have a signifi- between the extreme tendon tension and the quantity of ballast.
cant impact on the yaw motion of the TLP. However, in other The maximum and standard deviation of the top tension values
directions, there are only minute changes. For example, the for tendons with different ratios of ballast are shown in
mean roll changes from 0.192 degrees to −0.044 degrees. Figures 12 and 13, respectively.
Of the six directions, the sway motion should be most con- In Figure 12, it is shown that when the ratio of ballast is less
cerning because it is directly related to the angular limit of the than 200%, the maximum top tension of Tendon 2 is the big-
tendons. Figure 11 shows the mean and maximum of sway with gest compared to the maximum tension of other tendons. For
different quantities of ballast. It is observed, as expected, that instance, when there is 50% ballast water in the column, the
when the ballast increases, the mean and maximum of sway maximum tension of Tendon 2 at the top end is 5322 MT,

Table 7. Properties of the TLP hull with different ratio of ballast water in a single column.
Coordinates of
COG
Ratio of ballast water Ballast water weight (MT) Total weight (MT) X (m) Y (m) Roll gyradius (m) Pitch gyradius (m) Yaw gyradius (m)
0 0 32,127 0 0 37.04 38.66 34.35
50 1004 33,131 0.89 0.89 36.83 38.41 34.60
100 2008 34,135 1.74 1.74 36.64 38.18 34.83
150 3012 35,139 2.53 2.53 36.45 37.96 35.04
200 4016 36,143 3.28 3.28 36.28 37.75 35.25
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 531

Figure 12. Maximum of top tension for tendons 2-8. Figure 14. Mean of top tension for tendons.

whereas the tension of the other tendons is smaller than 4000 relation between the maximum top end tension of Tendon 2
MT. In addition, the maximum top tension of Tendon 2 is and ballast in the column. Note that the load in tendons is
very sensitive to the quantity of ballast, as expected. determined by the combined effect of both buoyance and
In Figure 13, it is observed that, similar to the maximum TLP tilt. The tilt decreases the loads on certain tendons and
tension, the standard deviation of the top tension for Tendon increases the loads on other tendons depending on the ballast
2 is significantly larger than those of the remaining tendons. condition. Based on a quick estimation, for calm water, about
However, the standard deviation of tendon tension is not as 2/3 of the tension reduction in Tendon 2 is due to the tilt of
sensitive as the maximum tension as to ballast, especially for the TLP caused by ballast in one column and the other 1/3 is
Tendon 2. The fluctuation range of the standard deviation is because of the buoyance. This proportion keeps constant no
less than 30 MT as the ratio of ballast increases from 0 to 200%. matter how much ballast is in the column.
As shown in Figure 14, the mean top tension for Tendon 2 is As shown in Figure 15, with the increase of the ballast ratio,
larger than that of other tendons when the ratio of ballast is less the maximum top tension of Tendon 2 decreases linearly.
than 150%. However, this conclusion does not hold when the Compared to the condition with 0% ballast, the maximum
ballast is more than 150%. Moreover, similar to the maximum top tension of Tendon 2 with 175% ballast reduced to 4081
tension, the mean tension is very sensitive to the quantity of MT. In this situation, the extreme load increase in the TLP ten-
ballast. For example, the mean of Tendon 2 tension decreases don mooring system is small, and it is close to the maximum
from 4138 MT to 2287 MT as the quantity of ballast increases load with an intact mooring system of approximately 3600
from 0 to 200%. MT. Another key point that should be noted is that the maxi-
Primary attention should be given to Tendon 2 to avoid the mum top tension for Tendon 2 is 3790 MT, which is smaller
further failure of the mooring system because the maximum than that of Tendon 8 at 3879 MT when there is 200% ballast
and standard deviation of top tension for that tendon is the lar- water. Thus, studies with ballast water ratios larger than 200%
gest among the remaining tendons. Figure 15 shows the are unnecessary because the extreme load of the mooring

Figure 13. Standard deviation of top tensions for tendons 2-8. Figure 15. Sensitivities of maximum tension for Tendon 2 to ratio of ballast water.
532 Y. QI ET AL.

tensions of the TLP, adding between 100 to 150% ballast water

in the column above the failed tendon, which is about 2008 MT
to 3012 MT for the TLP studied herein is recommended to mini-
mise the influence of the failure of one tendon.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the supports from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11632011 and 51509152). The
authors acknowledge the constructive comments of the reviewers which
indeed improved the quality of this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Figure 16. Frequency-domain results of Tendon 2 tension.

Funding
The authors would like to thank the supports from the National Natural
system is acceptable. Further, too much ballast water may cause Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11632011 and 51509152).
the buckling of Tendon 2 and then the failure of the entire
mooring system.
Figure 16 shows the results of frequency-domain analyses ORCID
for the top tension of Tendon 2 with different ratios of ballast. Xiaoxian Guo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9746-2858
It is observed that the spectral density curves with different
ratios of ballast almost overlap. That means the ballast does
not have a significant influence on the dynamic properties of References
the tendon mooring system due to its limited mass compared Banon H, Cornell C, Harding S. 1991. Probabilistic combination of forces
with the mass of the TLP. This conclusion can also be in tension leg platform tethers. J Struct Eng. 117:1532–1548.
Bingham HB. 2000. A hybrid Boussinesq-panel method for predicting the
confirmed in Figure 13 by the observation that the standard
motion of a moored ship. Coastal Eng. 40:21–38.
deviation of tendon tensions is not sensitive to ballast. In con- Chandrasekaran S, Jain A. 2002. Dynamic behaviour of square and tri-
trast, obvious differences can be found in Figure 16 between the angular offshore tension leg platforms under regular wave loads.
results under intact and the failed tendon conditions. This is Ocean Eng. 29:279–313.
because the structural dynamics of the TLP is dominated by Kareem A. 1985. Wind-induced response analysis of tension leg platforms.
J Struct Eng. 111:37–55.
the stiffness of the mooring system and the weight of the
Khan RA, Siddiqui NA, Naqvi S, Ahmad S. 2006. Reliability analysis of
whole system. The failure of one tendon results in a dramatic TLP tethers under impulsive loading. Reliab Eng SystSaf. 91:73–83.
change in the stiffness of the whole mooring system. However, Kim MH, Zhang Z. 2009. Transient effects of tendon disconnection on the
the variations in the quantities of ballast are very small com- survivability of a TLP in moderate-strength hurricane conditions. Int J
pared with the weight of the whole system. Nav Archit Ocean Eng. 1:13–19.
Manual O. 2012. Online at http://www.orcina.com/SoftwareProducts/
OrcaFlex/Documentation. OrcaFlex pdf.
Meyers R. 2015. Chevron’s massive Big Foot project delayed again:
7. Conclusion Fuel Fix. Available from http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/06/02/chevrons-
massive-big-foot-project-delayed-again/#27630101=0.
In this study, the motion and tendon loads of a tension leg plat- Prucz Z, Soong T. 1984. Reliability and safety of tension leg platforms. Eng
form (TLP) in the one-tendon failure condition were investigated Struct. 6:142–149.
using the commercial software HydroD and OrcaFlex. An Razaghian A, Seif MS, Tabeshpour MR. 2014. Investigation of tendons and
extreme sea-state with a 1000-year return period was applied to TLP behavior in damaged condition. Int J Marit Technol. 9:23–34.
Reinholdtsen S, Falkenberg E. 2001. SIMO—theory/user manual. MT51
the TLP. The numerical results were validated by physical wave F93-0184, MARINTEK.
basin model tests. Dynamic analyses were conducted to investigate Sengupta B, Ahmad S. 1996. Reliability assessment of tension leg platform
the motion and load data of the TLP. Simulation results of TLP tethers under nonlinearly coupled loading. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 53:47–60.
under a single tendon failure condition without ballast added indi- Siddiqui NA, Ahmad S. 2000. Reliability analysis against progressive fail-
cate that the failure of one tendon will cause the sharp change of ure of TLP tethers in extreme tension. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 68:195–205.
Taflanidis AA, Vetter C, Loukogeorgaki E. 2013. Impact of modeling and
the load in the near tendon however the loss of the tendon has excitation uncertainties on operational and structural reliability of ten-
limited impact on the TLP motions. The sensitivity study indicates sion leg platforms. Appl Ocean Res. 43:131–147.
that adding ballast in the column where tendon failure occurred Veritas DN. 1998. SESAM User manual. Hovik, Norway.
has a significant influence on the motions of TLP, especially for Wang P, Tian X, Peng T, Luo Y. 2018. A review of the state-of-the-art
yaw and sway, which increases significantly as more ballast is developments in the field monitoring of offshore structures. Ocean
Eng. 147:148–164.
added. But adding ballast can also reduce the extreme load in Wei H, Xiao L, Tian X, Kou Y. 2017. Four-level screening method for
the near tendon, in this way the possibility of progress failure sig- multi-variable truncation design of deepwater mooring system. Mar
nificantly decreases. Thus, considering the motions and tendon Struct. 51:40–64.
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 533

Xia Y, Xu G, Xu K, Chen Y, Xiang X, Ji Z. 2015. Dynamics and control of You S, Lim T, Kim J, Choi H. 2013. Dynamics and robust control of
underwater tension leg platform for diving and leveling. Ocean Eng. underwater vehicles for depth trajectory following. Proc. IMechE Part
109:454–478. M: J Eng Maritime Environ. 227:107–113. doi:10.1177/
Xiong L, Lu H, Yang J, Zhao W. 2015. Motion responses of a moored barge 1475090212454385.
in shallow water. Ocean Eng. 97:207–217. Zhao W, Yang J, Hu Z, Tao L. 2014. Prediction of hydrodynamic perform-
Yang CK, Kim M. 2010. Transient effects of tendon disconnection of a TLP ance of an FLNG system in side-by-side offloading operation. J Fluids
by hull–tendon–riser coupled dynamic analysis. Ocean Eng. 37:667–677. Struct. 46:89–110.