Maneuvering models for tanker based FPSOs are somewhat different from the classical maneuvering models. The reasons are zero or low forward speed (current), large mean drift angles, small values of rate of turn and relatively large low frequency (lf) transverse and yaw motions around the mean drift angle. A maneuvering model for a FPSO will be described in the paper. For a FPSO the maneuvering model must comply with both still water and a current field condition. Also the “twilight” zone being defined as the transient from a current field to still water and from still water to a current field (tidal change current) must be considered. In a current field, the coefficients of such a model consist of added mass coefficients, stationary current coefficients and dynamic current coefficients. In still water the coefficients should consist of added mass coefficients and the still water dynamic coefficients. The added mass coefficients can be determined by 3-D potential theory. For the stationary current coefficients, classical towing tests for different headings may be carried out. For the determination of the hydrodynamic reaction force coefficients in both still water and in current two methods can be distinguished. With both methods the tanker is connected to the towing carriage by means of the PMM (Planar Motion Mechanism). By running the carriage current can be simulated. The test methods are either the yaw-rotating test or the yaw-oscillatory test. The pure yaw-rotating test is a dynamic test exposing the hull to different low advance velocities while the model rotates with constant rate of turn. In this way the hull will be exposed to the current for the full circle of 360 degrees. The pure yaw-oscillatory test is a dynamic test exposing the hull under a number of headings to different low advance speeds. The model is subjected to a low frequency and a large amplitude yaw motion around the mean yaw heading with regard to the current direction. If the maneuvering model is provided with the dynamic coefficients obtained from either the yaw-rotating tests or the oscillatory tests the results may differ. Model tests have been carried out using both methods. Results will be shown illustrating the difference in the force/moment components of the maneuvering models for a FPSO hull. In this paper the coefficients as used for the maneuvering model are derived from pure yaw-oscillatory tests. To validate the model recently PMM test series were carried for the combined sway and yaw modes of motion. The test series were performed in both still water and forward velocities. The formulation as derived from the pure yaw oscillating tests was applied to the combined yaw-sway motion and the results are presented.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
November 2002
Technical Briefs
Comparing Different Test Procedures to Determine the Coefficients of the Maneuvering Model for an FPSO
Johan E. W. Wichers
Johan E. W. Wichers
MARIN USA Inc., 2500 City West Boulevard ST 300, Houston, Texas 77042 USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Johan E. W. Wichers
MARIN USA Inc., 2500 City West Boulevard ST 300, Houston, Texas 77042 USA
Contributed by the OOAE Division of the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received by the ASME OOAE Division, June 2001; final revision, June 2002. Guest Associate Editor: A. Fernandes.
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. Nov 2002, 124(4): 212-216 (5 pages)
Published Online: October 22, 2002
Article history
Received:
June 1, 2001
Revised:
June 1, 2002
Online:
October 22, 2002
Citation
Wichers , J. E. W. (October 22, 2002). "Comparing Different Test Procedures to Determine the Coefficients of the Maneuvering Model for an FPSO ." ASME. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. November 2002; 124(4): 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1513174
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Cited By
Time-dependent wave motion in a running stream due to initial disturbances in Magnetohydrodynamics
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng
The autonomous urban passenger ferry milliAmpere2: Design and testing
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng
Numerical Analysis of the Effect of Tunnel Hydrofoil—Stern Flap on the Motion Stability of a Double M-Craft in Regular Waves
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng (August 2025)
On the Performance of a Data-Driven Backward Compatible Physics-Informed Neural Network for Prediction of Flow Past a Cylinder
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng (August 2025)
Related Articles
Maneuvering Model for FPSOs and Stability Analysis of the Offloading Operation
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng (November,2002)
Prediction of Relative Motion and Probability of Contact Between FPSO and Shuttle Tanker in Tandem Offloading Operation
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng (August,2004)
Dynasim—A Time Domain Simulator of Anchored FPSO
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng (November,2002)
Effects of Avoidance of Heavy Weather on the Wave-Induced Load on Ships
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng (May,2008)
Related Chapters
Introduction I: Role of Engineering Science
Fundamentals of heat Engines: Reciprocating and Gas Turbine Internal Combustion Engines
Modeling Fluid-Structure Interaction in Cavitation Erosion using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Cavitation (CAV2018)
Liquid Measurement
Hydrocarbon Liquid Transmission Pipeline and Storage Systems