China Ocean Engineering

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 385–397 | Cite as

Mooring System Optimisation and Effect of Different Line Design Variables on Motions of Truss Spar Platforms in Intact and Damaged Conditions

  • O. A. MontasirEmail author
  • A. Yenduri
  • V. J. Kurian


This paper presents the effect of mooring diameters, fairlead slopes and pretensions on the dynamic responses of a truss spar platform in intact and damaged line conditions. The platform is modelled as a rigid body with three degrees-of-freedom and its motions are analysed in time-domain using the implicit Newmark Beta technique. The mooring restoring force-excursion relationship is evaluated using quasi-static approach. MATLAB codes DATSpar and QSAML, are developed to compute the dynamic responses of truss spar platform and to determine the mooring system stiffness. To eliminate the conventional trial and error approach in the mooring system design, a numerical tool is also developed and described in this paper for optimising the mooring configuration. It has a graphical user interface and includes regrouping particle swarm optimisation technique combined with DATSpar and QSAML. A case study of truss spar platform with ten mooring lines is analysed using this numerical tool. The results show that optimum mooring system design benefits the oil and gas industry to economise the project cost in terms of material, weight, structural load onto the platform as well as manpower requirements. This tool is useful especially for the preliminary design of truss spar platforms and its mooring system.

Key words

mooring optimisation spar platform particle swarm Morison equation implicit Newmark beta quasi-static 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was partially supported by YUTP-FRG funded by PETRONAS. We thank our colleagues who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.


  1. Agarwal, A.K. and Jain, A.K., 2003. Dynamic behavior of offshore spar platforms under regular sea waves, Ocean Engineering, 30(4), 487–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht, C.H., 2005. Algoritmos Evolutivos Aplicados À Síntese E Otimização de Sistemas de Ancoragem, Ph.D. Thesis, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Google Scholar
  3. Al-geelani, N.A., Piah, M.A.M., Adzis, Z. and Algeelani, M.A., 2013. Hybrid regrouping PSO based wavelet neural networks for characterization of acoustic signals due to surface discharges on H.V. glass insulators, Applied Soft Computing, 13(12), 4622–4632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Petroleum Institute, 2005. Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, API RP 2SK, API Publishing Services, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Brits, R., Engelbrecht, A.P. and Van Den Bergh, F., 2002. A niching particle swarm optimizer, Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Simulated Evolution and Learning, Singapore.Google Scholar
  6. Cao, P.M., 1996. Slow Motion Responses of Compliant Offshore Structures, MSc. Thesis, Texas A&M University, Texas.Google Scholar
  7. Chakrabarti, S.K., 1987. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures, Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton.Google Scholar
  8. Coello Coello, C.A., Luna, E.H. and Aguirre, A.H., 2003. Use of particle swarm optimization to design combinational logic circuits, Proceedings of the International Conference on Evolvable Systems: From Biology to Hardware, Springer, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eberhart, R.C. and Shi, Y., 2000. Comparing inertia weights and constriction factors in particle swarm optimization, Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE, La Jolla, CA, USA, pp. 84–88.Google Scholar
  10. Evers, G.I., 2009. An Automatic Regrouping Mechanism to Deal with Stagnation in Particle Swarm Optimization, MSc. Thesis, The University of Texas — Pan American, Edinburg, TX.Google Scholar
  11. Glanville, R.S., Paulling, J.R., Halkyard, J.E. and Lehtinen, T.J., 1991. Analysis of the spar floating drilling production and storage structure, Proceedings of the 23rd Offshore Technology Conference, OTC, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  12. Hassan, R., Cohanim, B., De Weck, O. and Venter, G., 2005. A comparison of particle swarm optimization and the genetic algorithm, Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, AIAA, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  13. Horton, E.E. and Halkyard, J.E., 1992. A spar platform for developing deep water oil fields, MTS’92, Marine Technology Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 998–1005.Google Scholar
  14. Hu, X.H., Eberhart, R.C. and Shi, Y.H., 2003. Engineering optimization with particle swarm, Proceedings of 2003 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, IEEE, Indianapolis, IN, USA, pp. 53–57.Google Scholar
  15. Kathiravan, R. and Ganguli, R., 2007. Strength design of composite beam using gradient and particle swarm optimization, Composite Structures, (4), 471–479.Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R., 1995. Particle swarm optimization, Proceedings of ICNN’95 — International Conference on Neural Networks, IEEE, Perth, WA, Australia, pp. 1942–1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krohling, R.A., dos Coelho, L.S. and Shi, Y.H., 2003. Cooperative particle swarm optimization for robust control system design, in: Advances in Soft Computing: Engineering Design and Manufacturing, Jose Manuel Benítez, Oscar Cordón, Frank Hoffmann, Rajkumar Roy (Eds.), Springer, London.Google Scholar
  18. Magee, A.R., Sablok, A., Maher, J., Halkyard, J., Finn, L. and Datta, I., 2000. Heave plate effectiveness in the performance of truss spars, Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, New Orleans, pp. 469–479.Google Scholar
  19. Mavrakos, S.A., Papazoglou, V.J., Triantafyllou, M.S. and Hatjigeorgiou, J., 1996. Deep water mooring dynamics, Marine Structures, 9(2), 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCluskey, S., 2008. Application of Particle Swarm Optimisation to Reinforced Concrete Beam Design, Faculty of Engineering, UW.Google Scholar
  21. Montasir, O.A., Yenduri, A. and Kurian, V.J., 2015. Effect of mooring line configurations on the dynamic responses of truss spar platforms, Ocean Engineering, 96, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montasir, O.A., Yenduri, A. and Kurian, V.J., 2016. Evaluation of the dynamic responses of truss spar platforms for various mooring configurations with damaged lines, Ocean Engineering, 123, 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monteiro, B.F., Albrecht, C.H. and Jacob, B.P., 2010. Application of the particle swarm optimization method on the optimization of mooring systems for offshore oil exploitation, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Engineering Optimization, Lisboa.Google Scholar
  24. Pascoal, R., Huang, S., Barltrop, N. and Guedes Soares, C., 2005. Equivalent force model for the effect of mooring systems on the horizontal motions, Applied Ocean Research, 27(3), 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pascoal, R., Huang, S., Barltrop, N. and Guedes Soares, C., 2006. Assessment of the effect of mooring systems on the horizontal motions with an equivalent force to model, Ocean Engineering, 33(11–12), 1644–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ran, Z.H., 2000. Coupled Dynamic Analysis of Floating Structures in Waves and Currents, Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Shi, Y. and Eberhart, R., 1998. A modified particle swarm optimizer, Proceedings of 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, IEEE, Anchorage, AK, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, R.J. and MacFarlane, C.J., 2001. Statics of a three component mooring line, Ocean Engineering, 28(7), 899–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Technip document, 2005. In Place Model Test Result Correlation, Technip Marine (M) Sdn. Bhd, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  30. Van Den Bergh, F. and Engelbrecht, A.P., 2001. Effects of swarm size on cooperative particle swarm optimisers, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Van Santen, J.A. and De Werk, K., 1976. On the typical qualities of spar type structures for initial or permanent field development, Proceedings of the 8th Offshore Technology Conference, OTC, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  32. Wang, Z., 2012. An Evolutionary Optimisation Study on Offshore Mooring System Design, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.Google Scholar
  33. Yaakob, O., Zainudin, N., Samian, Y., Abdul, A.M., Malik, O.Y. and Palaraman, R.A., 2004. Developing Malaysian ocean wave database using satellite, Proceedings of the 25th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency, Chiang Mai, Thailand.Google Scholar
  34. Zheng, Y.L., Ma, L.H., Zhang, L.Y. and Qian, J.X., 2003. Robust PID controller design using particle swarm optimizer, Proceedings of 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, IEEE, Houston, TX, USA, pp. 974–979Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Ocean Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASSeri Iskandar, Tronoh, PerakMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Dean of Research and DevelopmentProvidence College of EngineeringChengannur, AlappuzhaIndia

Personalised recommendations