Proceedings of The Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 25 30,

2003 Copyright 2003 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1 880653 -60 5 (Set); ISSN 1098 6189 (Set)

TLP Hull/Tendon/Riser Coupled Dynamic Analysis in Deepwater

Jun Zou
ABB Lummus Global Inc, Deepwater Technology and Engineering Houston, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a study of a Tension Leg Platform (TLP) hull/tendon/riser coupled dynamic analysis in 1,829 m water depth. The dynamic interactions among hull, tendons and risers cannot be evaluated accurately and consistently by the traditional de-coupled method. Physical model tests also become difficult due to the limitation of the test facilities and possible scale effects with water depth increasing. Coupled dynamic analyses of TLP are becoming more and more important in deep and ultra deep water field developments since the TLP hull interacts more pronouncedly to its tendons and risers. TLP tendon is slender structure member, which connects hull and seabed, while TLP top tensioned risers (TTRs) connect production deck and seabed. TLP hull/tendon/riser coupled dynamic analysis means analyzing dynamic interactions among hull, tendons and risers including their influences of stiffness, mass and damping. With water depth increasing, both tendon and riser dry mass are comparable to or even higher than TLP hull mass. Damping of tendons and risers are becoming dominant. Thus coupled effects among hull/tendon/riser are more pronounced. Sufficient details of a TLP hull/tendon/riser coupled dynamic analyses are presented. It is the goal to identify the characteristics of coupled effects and provide guidance for TLP design and physical model tests in deep and ultra deep water.

responses. For the current stage, it is an alternative way to employ the coupled dynamic analysis to benchmark the model test results of the truncated model. Then use the calibrated numerical model to simulate the responses of the complete model for design. Therefore, coupled analysis serves as an important design tool for deep and ultra deep water field development. A traditional way to solve the dynamics of floating systems is to employ a de-coupled method, which ignores all or part of the interaction effects (mass, damping and stiffness) between the platform hull, tendons, and risers (Chou et al., 1983). TLP coupled time domain analysis technologies (Paulling and Webster, 1986; Kim et al., 1994; Ma et al., 2000) have been established, and further developments and validations have been carried out in our studies. In deep or ultra deepwater, the TLP platform tends to interact more pronouncedly to its tendons and risers. The dynamic interactions among platform, tendons and risers cannot be evaluated accurately and consistently by using the conventional de-coupled analysis tools. Therefore, analytical capability of coupled dynamic analysis is very important for design in deep and ultra deep water field developments. In this paper, TLP hull/tendon/riser coupled dynamic analysis is first reviewed and summarized in general form. Then numerical approach including description of sub-system or component modeling, line dynamics and convergence tests is described and discussed. Descriptions of case study are followed. Detailed results and discussions are presented. Finally conclusions and recommendations are given.

KEY WORDS: TLP; hull; tendon; riser; de-coupled and coupled

analyses; springing; tendon fatigue; riser fatigue.

INTRODUCTION
Recent drilling activities have discovered large reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and West Africa in water depth of 4,000 ft and beyond. As offshore industries move into deep water, it calls for analytical tools to perform analyses and design and physical facilities to verify analyses and design. For the existing facilities, physical model tests may not be carried out at a reasonable scale, especially for fatigue sea state with small wave height and short peak period. The truncations of tendons and risers might be required to meet the design requirements and avoid test facility limitation and possible scale effects. It is important to understand the truncation effects on tendon and riser springing

HULL/TENDON/RISER COUPLED DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

TLP hull/tendon/riser coupled dynamic analysis techniques are reviewed and summarized as follows: Coupled Dynamic Equation A six-DOF coupled dynamic equation of motion is used as follows && & [M ] U + [C] U + [K ]{DU} = {F}+ {Fm }

{}

{}

(1)

160

equation. where [M] = mass and inertia matrix (6x6), structure mass and inertia + added mass and inertia of the platform + mass and added mass of slender members, [C] = damping matrix (6x6), the potential damping + viscous damping + wave drift damping on the platform + damping of slender members, [K] = stiffness matrix (6x6), hydrostatic stiffness (heave and roll/pitch)+stiffness due to tendons and risers, {F} = load vector (6x1) of first- & second-order wave loads + viscous loads + wind dynamic loads, and/or other applied loads, {Fm } = load vector (6x1) of tendon, and riser tensions at the connected locations, {U } = unknown motion vector (6x1) in the sequence of surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw, respectively. Coupled Dynamic Analysis Flow Chart TLP hull/tendon/riser coupled dynamic analysis flow chart is illustrated in Fig. 1. The 1st- and 2nd-order diffraction and radiation problems are solved in frequency domain and then are transferred into the time domain by applying two terms of Volterra functional polynomial model. Random wind dynamic forces are generated by API wind spectrum. Line (tendon and riser) dynamic tensions are computed by solving a set of algebraic equations and are transferred to the platform. Fig. 1 shows the exchange platform motions and line dynamic tensions. After assembling the mass matrix, damping matrix and stiffness matrix, and the exciting load vector, one can solve the governing Eq. 1 to obtain motions (surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw) at the center of gravity (CG) of the platform. With the known 6-DOF motions at platform CG, the data are transferred to tendon porches and connecting points on production deck (TTRs tensioners attached points). Dynamic tensions along each tendon and riser are obtained by using line dynamic solver (see Fig. 1).
HYDRO (Frequenc y-Dom ain)
3D Diffraction Analysis

Tendon and Riser Modeling Tendons and risers are slender members, which were discritized by FE bar elements without bending and torsion stiffness. Wave and current loads on these small diameter members can be computed by Morisons equation. Viscous effects, mass and added mass of slender members are included in the governing equations. Dynamic responses of tendons and risers are simulated. Tendon/Riser Coupled Modeling The complete system is analyzed by a coupled analysis approach; i.e. the TLP force model is introduced as a nodal load component in a Finite Element (FE) model of tendons and risers. Among TLP hull and tendons or risers, forces are exchanged back and forth (see Fig. 1). It should be noted that this approach yields dynamic equilibrium between the forces acting on the TLP and tendons and/or risers at every time instant. Environment Modeling Environmental excitation loads due to wave, wind, current and other applied loads are considered in this study. Irregular wave with Jonswap spectrum or any given spectrum, dynamic wind with API spectrum or any given spectrum and current profile with steady velocities varied at different water level are simulated. Wave, wind and current are not required to be co-linear and are able to be input in any directions as one specifies. Line Dynamics The line dynamics mean tendon dynamics or riser dynamics. formulation of the dynamics of in-extensible slender rods was introduced by Garrett (1982), and then expanded by Paulling Webster (1986) to consider stretch and various loads to the dynamic problems. The detailed line dynamic formulations numerical solution algorithm can also be found in Ma et al. (2000). The first and real and

T DS (T ime-Dom ain Simulation)

Platform Nonlinear Motions Nonlinear T endon /Riser R esp.

Convergence Tests
Convergence tests have been carried out to ensure meaningful numerical results prior to extensive runs. Two aspects of convergence tests have been performed: 1) mesh size on body and free surface for convergence of hydrodynamic loads (especially sum-frequency loads), 2) examination of the number of finite elements used in modeling tendons and risers for convergence of dynamic tensions. Much finer body and free surface mesh sizes have been considered for fatigue sea state with peak period which is twice of heave natural period.

Voltera Model

Hydrodynamic Coeffic ients FT and QT Fs Fs

Retardation Damping

First-Order and S econd- Order W ave Exciting Loads

Dynamic Wind Forc e

Coupling Process
Current L oads on Hull and S lender Members 6-DOF Motion S olver Line Dynamic S olver (T endon and R iser)

S um/Difference Frequency R esponces S pringing/S low Varying Effects

Motion Etc.
T ensions, Reaction Loads Etc.

S tatistical Anallysis

DESCRIPTIONS OF CASE STUDY

TLP hull, tendon and riser configurations, tendon numbering, both tendon and riser locations, tendon porch elevation and riser top elevations are illustrated in Fig. 2. TLP Hull and Its Tendon/Riser Configurations Hull weight, tendon and riser top tensions are given in Table 1. Total tendon and riser dry and wet weights are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. Definitions of Wave Heading and Coordinate System Definitions of wave heading and coordinate system are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 1 Coupled Dynamic Analysis Flow Chart NUMERICAL APPROACH

Sub-System or Component Modeling TLP Hull Modeling The majority of the TLP hull hydrodynamic coefficients are established by use panel program. Since the diffraction theory ignores viscous effects, viscous loads on the TLP hull are computed by Morisons

Environmental Conditions
There are two sets of environmental conditions specified in Table 4, set one is 100-year hurricane condition and set two is fatigue sea state.

161

Table 2 TLP Tendon Configuration

T 11 T 10 NW NE T 12
200

T 1 T 2

T ENDON PORCHES (T P Y .)

T 3

32

Y
20

PLAT FOR M NORT H

20

X
30 PLAT FORM EAS T

Number of tendons Length Diameter (O.D.) Total tendon weight (dry) Total tendon weight (wet) Table 3 TLP Riser Configuration

m mm mt mt

12 1,798.72 1044 13,661 5,045

64 O.D. COLUMN (T .) YP

3 SP ACES @ 20= 60

200

T 9 T 8 T 7

S W

S E

15

T 4

PLAN
30 260

30

T 5

T 6
CENT OF WIND PRES RE ER SU

T . UPPER DK. .O.S EL.(+ )228

Number of drilling riser Number of prod. risers Length Dia. of drilling riser (O.D.) Dia. of prod. riser (O.D.) Total riser weight (dry) Total riser weight (wet) Table 4 Metocean Criteria
Design Cases

m mm mm mt mt

1 11 1,867.1 522 261 5,451 4,235

B.O.S LOWER DECK . EL )183 .(+ T OF COLUMN (MLD) OP EL.(+ )175

45

128 14.3
VCG

228

72

147

DRAFT103

PR ODUCT ION RISERS PONT OON T OP EL.(+ )28 BOT S . HELL EL.(+ )0

28

ELEVAT ION

100-year Hurricane (m) (sec) (m/s) (m/s) Jonswap 12.192 14.0 Normal 1.067 API 41.18

Fatigue Sea State PM 3.658 7.0 No Current 0.0 No wind 0.0

Fig. 2 TLP Hull Configuration

T 12 T 11 T 10 NW T 1 T 2 T 3

Wave Spectrum Significant wave ht Peak Period (Tp) Current Surface current vel. Wind Spectrum Hourly wind @ 10 m

NE

32

Y Z ( Z IS UP ) X
180 WAVE HEADING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Prior to carry out extensive dynamic simulations, static offset and freedecay tests have been performed to check the numerical model setup. After verifying the system setup, two sets of numerical simulations have been done, set one is complete model in 100-year hurricane and fatigue se state and set two is truncated model (half of tendon and riser length, but same dry mass) in 100-year hurricane and fatigue sea state. These are intended to explore the effects of tendon/riser dry mass and damping of tendon/riser on high-frequency tension responses, which are very important for tendon/riser fatigue life estimations. Static Offset, Setdown and Tendon Tension In order to check the numerical model setup and compare coupled and de-coupled results, static offset tests have been conducted by applying known horizontal loads at the tendon porch level toward the platform west. The de-coupled method usually models tendon and riser as spring with no mass, and tendon dry mass is lumped into total mass of surge/sway and heave modes. The coupled analysis models tendons and risers by a number of finite elements for each slender member, both tendon and riser catenary effects are taken into account by a consistent and accurate manner. Static offset, setdown and static tension comparisons by the coupled and de-coupled are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. It is seen that static offset and setdown agree well. However, static upwave and down-wave tendon tensions exist noticeable differences, especially for the down-wave tendon tensions. It is also noticed that the differences are becoming larger and larger with offsets increasing. This trend has been observed a few times in the recent TLP model tests.

64 O.D. COLU MN (T P Y .)

T 9 T 8 T 7

S W

S E T 4

PLAN

T 5 T 6

90 WAVE HEADING

Fig. 3 Wave Heading and Coordinate Definition Table 1 TLP Hull Configuration
Draft Displacement Column freeboard + deck post Column span c/c Column diameter (OD) Pontoon width Pontoon height Total weight Tendon pretension @ top Prod.+ drilling riser tension m mt m m m m m mt mt mt 31.394 53,392 24.384 60.96 19.507 9.754 8.534 35,633 13,514 4,446

162

2800 2400 Horizontal Loads (Kips) 2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 0 100 200 Horizontal Offset (ft) 300

0 -2

10 8 6

Coupled De-coupled, no tendon lumpped mass De-coupled, with 0.23*tendon dry mass

-6 -8 -10 -12 -14 400

Setdown (ft)

Surge (ft)

Offset (Coupled) Offset (De-coupled) Setdown (Coupled) Setdown (De-coupled)

-4

4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 0 100 200 300 400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Time (sec)

Fig. 4 Horizontal Loads and Setdown Vs. Static Offset

3600

Fig. 6 Surge Free Decay Tests

0.6 0.5

Heave Motion (ft)

Tendon Tension (kips)

3200

Up-wave (Coupled) Up-wave (De-coupled) Down-wave (Coupled) Down-wave (De-coupled)

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 0

Coupled De-coupled, no tendon lumpped mass De-coupled, with 0.33* tendon dry mass

2800

2400

2000 0 100 200 300 400

10

Time (sec)

Horizontal Offset (ft)

Fig. 7 Heave Free Decay Tests Fig. 5 Static Tendon Tensions Vs. Static Offset
0.6

Free Decay Tests Free-decay tests are conducted to find out the natural period of each motion mode (surge/sway/heave/roll/pitch/yaw) and linear damping of each model decaying in still water. This exercise also examines whether the system setup has the right mass, moment inertia and stiffness. Total three sets of free decay tests have been performed, which are the coupled, complete de-coupled and modified de-coupled methods. The complete de-coupled method ignores mass of slender members completely. Based on Chou et al. (1983), the modified decoupled method considered 0.23*tendon dry mass for surge/sway mode, 0.33*tendon dry mass for heave mode and no coefficient for pitch/roll mode. Only surge, heave and pitch free decay tests have been carried out and illustrated in Figs. 6 to 8. Table 5 summarizes the coupled, complete de-coupled and modified de-coupled natural periods of surge, heave and pitch. For the modified de-coupled pitch decay tests, 0.33*tendon dry mass is lumped into total mass to calculate moment inertia of pitch. From Figs. 6 to 8 and Table 5, it is seen that the modified de-coupled method gives good approximations in term of natural period. However, linear damping derived from the modified decoupled results does not agree well with the coupled results. This trend has been noticed a few times in the recent TLP physical model tests. Typically, the de-coupled method assigns a fixed damping for which is mainly depended on the users experience and does not vary with motion amplitude, while the coupled method calculates damping in a consistent and accurate manner and varies with motion amplitude. Since the calibrated modified de-coupled method is still useful and efficient tool for design, therefore, it is suggested to use 0.33*tendon dry mass lumped into total mass to calculate moment inertia of pitch.

0.5 0.4

Pitch Motion (deg)

Coupled De-coupled, no tendon lumpped mass De-coupled, with 0.33*tendon dry mass

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (sec)

Fig. 8 Pitch Free Decay Tests Table 5 Natural Period Comparisons

Iteams Coupled Tendon modeled by FE elements 3.50 3.38 230.0 De-coupled No tendon With tendon lumpped mass lumpped mass 3.20 3.48 3.18 3.35 205.0 228.0

Heave (s) Pitch (s) Surge (s)

Characteristics of Tendon and Drilling Riser Dynamic Responses Up-wave, down-wave tendon and drilling riser tension RAOs, downwave tendon and drilling riser tension amplitude spectra in 100-year hurricane and fatigue sea state, down-wave tendon and drilling riser top and bottom, down-wave tendon and drilling riser top (complete model) and top (truncated model, half of tendon and riser length with same

163

mass) high-frequency tension amplitude spectra in fatigue sea state, and tendon and riser material damping on high-frequency tension responses, are investigated and discussed. Up-wave, Down-wave Tendon and Drilling Riser Tension RAOs Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate up-wave, down-wave tendon and drilling riser tension RAOs in 180 degree heading respectively. It is noticed that down-wave tendon tensions are higher than those of up-wave tendon in the frequency regions between 0.55 and 0.8 rad/s while up-wave tendon tensions are higher than those of down-wave tendon in the frequency regions above 0.9 rad/s. It is seen that both up-wave and down-wave tensions are almost same in the frequency regions less than 0.55 rad/s. There is one cancellation point for both up-wave and down-wave tendons around 0.83 rad/s. There are two cancellation points for drilling riser around 0.45 rad/s and 0.9 rad/s respectively.
50 20

currents induced large damping. In fatigue sea state, no current and no wind are assumed. Therefore, damping is much less. The highfrequency tension amplitude spectrum is much sharper and narrowband in fatigue sea state.
28 24

Tendon tension (kips)

20 16 12 8 4 0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4

Tendon Tension (kips/ft)

40

16

Spectral Density (ft^2-s/rad)

Up-wave tendon (#3) tension RAOs Down-wave tendon (#9) tension RAOs Fatigue se state spectra

Frequency (rad/s)

30

12

Fig. 11 Down-wave Tendon Tension At Top Amplitude Spectrum in 100-year Hurricane

8

20

10

Tendon tension (kips)

0 0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

0.65

0.75

0.85

0.95

0 1.05

Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 9 Up-wave and down-wave Tendon Tension RAOs

20 Drilling Riser Tension (kips/ft) 20 16 12 8 4 0 1.05 Spectral Density (ft^2-s/rad)

0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4

Drilling riser tension RAOs

16 12 8 4 0 0.25

Frequency (rad/s)

Fatigue sea state spectra

Fig. 12 Down-wave Tendon Tension At Top Amplitude Spectrum in Fatigue Sea State
8

Frequency (rad/s)

Drilling riser tension (kips)

0.35

0.45

0.55

0.65

0.75

0.85

0.95

Fig. 10 Drilling Riser Tension RAOs

Down-wave Tendon and Drilling Riser Tension Amplitude Spectra Figs. 11 to 14 illustrate down-wave tendon and drilling riser tension amplitude spectra in 100-year hurricane and fatigue sea state respectively. In Figs. 11 and 13, high-frequency (frequency > 1.25 rad/s) tensions are relatively small portion compared to wave-frequency (0.22 rad/s < frequency < 1.25 rad/s) tensions in 100-year hurricane, while high-frequency tensions are about same or even larger than wavefrequency tensions in fatigue sea state (Figs. 12 and 14). Fatigue sea state peak period is specially selected based on double frequency theory. Since the heave natural period is about 3.5 s, so fatigue sea state peak period 7.0 s is specially chosen. Although 100-year hurricane contains much large wave energy compared to fatigue sea state, tendon and drilling riser high-frequency tension amplitude spectra are relatively flat and wide band, which might be attributed to the strong

0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4

Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 13 Drilling Riser Tension At Top Amplitude Spectrum in 100-year Hurricane

164

1.6

2.0
Drilling riser tension (kips)

Drilling riser tension (kips

1.2

1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0

Tension at top Tension at bottom

0.8

0.4

0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Frequency (rad/s) 1.6 2.0 2.4

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 14 Drilling Riser Top Tension Amplitude Spectrum in Fatigue Sea State
Down-wave Tendon and Drilling Riser Top and Bottom High-frequency Tension Amplitude Spectra A typical modified de-coupled method lumps tendon dry mass into total mass and models tendon as spring with no mass. It can match heave and pitch/roll natural periods well. However, it gives same tendon tension at top and bottom. It is the goal to demonstrate the importance of modeling tendon and drilling riser dry mass correctly and consistently on the tendon and drilling riser high-frequency tension responses. Figs. 15 and 16 show down-wave tendon and drilling riser tension top and bottom high-frequency tension amplitude spectra in fatigue sea state and Table 6 summarizes drilling riser, up-wave and down-wave tendon top and bottom high-frequency tension RMS value comparisons in fatigue sea state. From Figs. 15 and 16 and Table 6, considerable difference has been observed. If tendon and drilling riser dry mass could not be modeled properly, tendon and drilling riser fatigue life estimations will result significant errors, since fatigue life is proportion to tension RMS of power 4.
8

Fig. 16 Drilling Riser Top and Bottom High-frequency Amplitude Tension Spectrum in Fatigue Sea State
Down-wave Tendon and Drilling Riser Top Tension of the Complete Model and Top Tension of the Truncated Model High-frequency Amplitude Spectra For the existing facilities, physical model tests may not be carried out at a reasonable scale, especially for fatigue sea state with small wave height and short peak period. The truncations of tendons and risers might be required to meet the design requirements and avoid test facility limitation and possible scale effects. However, truncations of tendons and risers will create new uncertainties. It is intended to explore the effects of truncations of tendon and risers on tendon and drilling riser high-frequency tension responses. Assuming half of the tendon and riser length are truncated, keep tendon and riser dry mass same as complete model and keep heave and pitch/roll natural periods same as complete model and rerun simulations. Figs. 17 and 18 show down-wave tendon and drilling riser top tensions of the complete model and top tensions of the truncated model high-frequency amplitude spectra in fatigue sea state and Table 7 summarizes drilling riser, upwave and down-wave tendon top tensions of the complete model and top tensions of the truncated model high-frequency tension RMS value comparisons in fatigue sea state. From Figs. 17 and 18 and Table 7, considerable difference has been observed. The main differences are attributed to significant reduction of heave and pitch/roll damping due to truncations of tendons and risers.

Tendon tension (kips)

Tension at top
6

tension at bottom

2
8 Complete model

Tendon tension (kips)

0 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2

Truncated tendons and risers

Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 15 Down-wave Tendon Top and Bottom High-frequency Tension Amplitude Spectrum in Fatigue Sea State Table 6 Drilling Riser, Up- and Down-wave Tendon Top and Bottom High-freq. Tension RMS Values in Fatigue Sea State
Iteams Top High-freq. Tension RMS A (kips) 9.7 37.6 39.0 Bottom High-freq. Tension RMS B (kips) 13.1 46.2 48.1 Relative Difference (B-A)/A (%) 34.5% 22.6% 23.3%

0 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2

Frequency (rad/s)

Drilling riser Up-wave tendon (#3) Down-wave tendon (#9)

Fig. 17 Down-wave Tendon Top Tension of the Complete Model and Top Tension of the Truncated Model High-frequency Amplitude Spectrum in Fatigue Sea State

165

2.0

Drilling riser tension (kips)

Complete model 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 Truncated tendons and risers

Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 18 Drilling Riser Top Tension of the Complete Model and Top Tension of the Truncated Model High-frequency Amplitude Spectrum in Fatigue Sea State Table 7 Drilling Riser, Up-wave and Down-wave Tendon Top Tensions of the Complete Model and Top Tension of the Truncated Model High-frequency Tension RMS Value Comparisons in Fatigue Sea State
Iteams Complete Model Top High-freq. Tension RMS A (kips) 9.7 37.6 39.0 Truncated Model Top High-freq. Tension RMS B (kips) 12.4 47.1 49.1 Top Relative Difference (B-A)/A (%) 27.3% 25.1% 25.9%

Drilling riser Up-wave tendon (#3) Down-wave tendon (#9)

Material Damping on High-frequency Tension Responses If the design tendon material is steel, then tendon model material should be steel or metal with similar material damping. In one of recent TLP model tests, tendon was modeled by PVC material. Unnecessary damping was brought into and high-frequency tension responses were unrealistically reduced. For the case shown in above, the measured bottom down-wave tendon high-frequency tension RMS increment was about 18% with same tendon dry mass as steel tendon in 100-year hurricane. However, the bottom high-frequency tension RMS increment is more than 30% for steel tendon in the same condition. It is very important to select right tendon material in the model tests. As offshore industries move to deep and ultra deep water, applications of composite tendon and riser are becoming more important. Axial material damping of composite rod and steel rod have been tested and the results have been reported in Storhaug et al. (2002). It has been found that composite axial material damping is about 2 to 3 times larger than that of steel. For the composite tendon main body, it may not benefit a lot since composite tendon main body has incredible long fatigue life. However, the connection steel structures, such as tendon porch and pile, will benefit from the reduction of springing responses.

with offsets increasing. The tendon and riser catenary effects are taken into account by a consistent and accurate manner in the coupled analysis. Our TLP model test experience shows coupled analysis results give better agreements with the measured results. Although de-coupled method gives good approximations in term of natural periods, linear damping is typically fixed and does not vary with motion amplitude, while the coupled method calculates damping in a consistent and accurate manner and varies with motion amplitude. Up-wave, down-wave and drilling riser tension RAOs display different dynamic characteristics. Tension amplitude spectra of down-wave tendon and drilling riser show considerable different responses in 100-year hurricane and typical fatigue sea state. It also demonstrates high-frequency tension responses are significant amount of the total dynamic tensions in fatigue sea states. It is very important to calculate springing responses accurately for tendon and riser fatigue life estimations. It has demonstrated the importance of modeling tendon and drilling riser dry mass correctly and consistently on the tendon and drilling riser high-frequency tension responses. This also gives us guidance on how to model tendon and riser in term of dry mass and where to place the instruments in the physical model tests. The truncations of tendons and risers might be required to meet the design requirements and avoid test facility limitation and possible scale effects. It is important to understand the truncation effects on tendon and riser springing responses. For the current stage, it is an alternative way to employ the coupled dynamic analysis to benchmark the model test results of the truncated model. Then use the calibrated numerical model to simulate the responses of the complete model for design. Therefore, coupled analysis serves as an important design tool for deep and ultra deep water field development. As offshore industries move to deep and ultra deep water, applications of composite tendon and riser are becoming more important. It has demonstrated that material damping affects tendon and riser springing responses significantly. It also provides guidance on how to select material for tendon and riser model in the physical model tests.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express appreciation to the management of ABB, especially to Mr. Edward Huang and Mr. John Chianis for their constructive suggestions and thoughtful comments.

REFERENCES
Chou, SF, Ghosh, S and Huang, EW (1983). Conceptual Design Process of a Tension Leg Platform, SNAME annual meeting, New York, 1983. Garrett, DL (1982). Dynamic Analysis of Slender Rods, OMAE 1982. Kim, CH, Kim, MH, Liu, YH and Zhao, CT (1994). Time Domain Simulation of Nonlinear Response of a Coupled TLP System, Int J Offshore and Polar Eng, ISOPE, Vol 4, No 4, pp 281-291. Ma, W, Lee, MY, Zou, J and Huang, EW (2000) Deepwater Nonlinear Coupled Analysis Tool, Proc OTC 12085, Houston, TX. Paulling, JR and Webster, WC (1986). A Consistent, Large-Amplitude Analysis of the Coupled Response of A TLP and Tendon System, OMAE 1986. Storhaug, T, Echtermeyer, AT, Sund, OE, Salama, MM and Paulshus, B (2002). Composite Tethers Qualified for Ultra Deep Waters, DOT 2002.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Coupled dynamic analyses of a TLP in 1,829 m have been performed in 100-year hurricane and fatigue sea state. A few conclusions and recommendations are given as follows: Although static offset and setdown agree well by the coupled and de-coupled analyses, static up-wave and down-wave tendon tensions exist noticeable differences, especially for the down-wave tendon tensions. The differences are becoming larger and larger

166