Numerical Analysis of FPSO Behavior in Ocean Towing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents numerical analysis of the behavior of a towed FPSO using an in-house computer code Ship Maneuvering Laboratory (SML). The background of the study was an attempt to explain some unexpected observations during a towing situation, where the position of the towed vessel was on the upwind side of the towing vessel and oscillating in yaw. The effects of rudder, wind and current were investigated initially. Then the study focused on the behavior of the towed FPSO with different hydrodynamic coefficients in an environment of steady wind varying from 1.0 to 25 knots with the wind direction on the starboard bow of the tug. The tug was assumed to move in a straight line at a constant speed. It was found that with the calculated MMG coefficients the FPSO had large oscillations of track and yaw when the wind speed was low (1 knot). When the wind speed was increased, the FPSO moved to the starboard side of the tug (up wind) and kept oscillating and yawing but with less amplitude. This was similar to the FPSO behavior observed in the incident. This phenomenon of oscillating and yawing of the FPSO was not seen when using the measured PMM hydrodynamic coefficients. One possible explanation for the FPSO behavior in the incident was related to the specific values of the FPSO’s hydrodynamic coefficients. Some possible methods to reduce the FPSO yaw oscillation are also provided. Numerical results showed that by adding drag created by a drogue to the FPSO or using a longer towing bridle can significantly increase the directional stability of the FPSO. A sensitivity study of the FPSO hydrodynamic coefficients is also given and some conclusions are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".