OTC 24181

Application of Lessons Learned From Field Experience to Design,

Installation and Maintenance of FPS Moorings
Sai Majhi, Richard D'Souza, Granherne - a KBR Company

Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 6–9 May 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract

The integrity of Floating Production System (FPS) mooring systems is critical to safety and availability of a deepwater field
development. While current design codes and methods result in robust moorings, there are documented cases of FPSs having
experienced mooring integrity issues, that have resulted in mooring line replacement and production shut-in. There have been
several industry initiatives over the past decade to analyze these mooring failures and determine their root causes. This paper
presents lessons learned from these failures and provides specific recommendations to improve design and performance of
future FPS mooring systems over their life cycles.

Introduction

An analysis of mooring failures and integrity issues in the last decade has shown that a significant number of Floating
Production Systems have had mooring failure incidents many catastrophic, requiring partial or complete mooring
replacement. This indicates a trend in which the intended design performance of moorings does not meet operational
performance. To ensure reliability of a mooring system throughout its life cycle, it is essential to capture and apply lessons
from industry failures and operational feedback. This paper presents a summary of mooring lessons learnt encompassing
design, fabrication, installation and operations from failure analysis and field experience.

Current industry codes are based primarily on North Sea experience in shallow to medium water depths and are not
necessarily applicable to other geographical areas. Though clear on required safety factors, they do not provide guidance on
complex issues such as W. Africa squall transient loads, statistical basis for estimating design loads and Out-of-Plane
Bending (OPB) design. Lessons learnt and operational feedback are either slow to be adopted or do not make their way into
the codes due to confidentiality and liability concerns.

Many engineering companies undertake mooring design using ‘analysts’ with no field experience resulting in a lack of
installation and inspection friendliness of these systems. Uncertainties in deterioration mechanisms and load case definition
are not always properly accounted for in design. Interface gaps among disciplines result in incorrect or dated design
assumptions unaccounted for in the final design.

One of the major pitfalls of hardware procurement is that projects rely primarily on ‘Class’ designation for quality assurance
and control (QA/QC) of hardware manufacture which are often inadequate. There are significant variations in compliance
between project specifications and delivered quality among manufacturers. Material traceability is generally inadequate and
test results on manufactured hardware vary depending on the competency of the testing facility employed.

Installation engagement occurs late in the design stage and proper interface between the installation contractor and design
disciplines is lacking. Though detailed procedures are developed they are not always adhered to because of schedule
constraints, cost (vessel day rate) and inadequate supervision resulting in installation damage. As-built reports are not always
mandated and the performance of the as-installed mooring system is seldom assessed.
2 OTC 24181

The scope of in-service mooring inspection is typically limited to visual by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) fly-by which
can only detect gross damage. Inspection campaigns where chain measurements are mandated, findings are often inconsistent
and subjective and lacking proper equipment and procedures. Installation equipment like winches and sheaves are not
maintained beyond the installation campaign and are unavailable to replace moorings following a failure. Additionally,
operators do not always warehouse an adequate inventory of spares.

Industry Experience - Mooring Failure and Integrity Issues

Figure 1 – Chronology of Industry Mooring Failure / Integrity Issues (Courtesy of ExxonMobil Study on Mooring
Integrity)

Since 2000, there have been at least twenty three documented mooring failure incidents on Floating Production Systems , of
which at least four have been catastrophic with associated riser failure requiring extended field shut-down and drydocking of
the FPS. At least twenty assets have had integrity issues requiring intervention which have resulted in partial or complete
mooring replacements and repair of at least 150 mooring lines. Figure 1 provides a chronology of mooring failures and
interventions plotted against service life of the component. Tables 1 and 2 summarize industry mooring failures and
preemptive remedial actions respectively. Permanent mooring systems are typically designed for a 15 to 25 year service life.
The fact that a significant number of assets in the last decade have required mooring replacements and remedial actions
clearly indicates a trend in which the intended design performance of moorings does not meet operational performance.
OTC 24181 3

Service
Location of
Type of Asset Location Failure Type life at Attributed Root Cause
Failure
failure
FPSO North Sea Single Line Failure Fairlead Chain 9 Months Manufacturing Defect

FPSO E. Canada Single Line Failure Shackle 5 yrs. NA

Probable 'kink' in seabed

FPSO West Africa Single Line Failure Ground Chain < 1 Year chain aiding diminished
chain fatigue life
Multiple (4) Line
CALM Buoy West Africa Fairlead Chain < 1 Year OPB fatigue
Failure
Shackle - Low Toughness Shackle,
FPSO North Sea Single Line Failure 9 Years
Fairlead Chain Out of Spec Welding
Multiple (4) Line Failure of Heading Control
FPSO North Sea SSWR 13 Yrs.
Failure System
Multiple (2) Line Snatch Loads Around
FPSO North Sea SSWR 3 Yrs.
Failure Sockets
Single / Multiple Line
FPSO North Sea Fairlead Chain 4 Yr. / 1 yr. Excessive Wear
Failure
Shackle / Trip
STL Buoy North Sea Single Line Failure 6 Yrs. Not Available
late
FPSO North Sea Single Line Failure Fairlead Chain 8 yrs. OPB fatigue

FPSO North Sea Single Line Failure Chain 8 yrs. SRB, OPB fatigue

Multiple (4) Line Failure to disconnect

FPSO South China NA 18 yrs.
Failure during Typhoon

Spar GOM Pile Failure Pile Installation NA

Single Line Failure + Excessive Corrosion and

CALM Buoy SE Asia IWRC Wire 4.5 yrs.
One more Damaged Abrasion at Touch Down
Failure of Free FSHR Tether
FPSO GOM 1 Year Manufacturing Defect
Standing Riser Chain
Multiple (6) Failed + 4 Deteriorated Mooring
FPSO South China SSWR 10 Yrs.
Damaged hardware
Shackle -
SPAR East Malaysia Single Line Failure 1 Year Low Toughness Shackle
Ground Chain

FPS North Sea Multiple (5) Line Failure NA 12 yrs. Overload during Storm

FSO North Sea Single Line Failure NA 6 Yrs. Overload during Storm

Single (1 failed) + Unsheathed wire close to

FPSO North Sea Multiple (4 Damaged) Wire Rope 13 Yrs. end of service life; History
Line Failure of bird caging issues.

SEMI North Sea Multiple (3) Line Failure NA 10 yrs. NA

CALM Buoy W. Africa Single Line Failure NA 13 Yrs. NA

Table 1 – Summary of Industry Mooring Failures (Courtesy of ExxonMobil Study on Mooring Integrity)
4 OTC 24181

Asset Location Integrity Concern Preemptive Action Taken Attributed Root Cause
Operating Environment /
Excessive Interlink Wear All Fairlead Chains Replaced 3
Fairlead Design
FPSO N. Sea Improper geometry times 5 yrs., 8 yrs. and 9yrs into
Excessive Twisting of Links
Manufacturing Defect service
Manufacturing Defect
- 5 SSWR Segments replaced Excessive corrosion around
Excessive Top Chain with Chains 4 yrs. into service stopper. Field life extension,
FPSO W. Africa Corrosion - 4 Top Chain Segments / One depleted line Anodes
Bird-caging of Wire complete line replaced 16 yrs. Corrosion rate higher than
into service design.
Installation damage
Bird caging of SSWR
- Wire replaced during installation Complete replacement-
Wire Damage
FPSO W. Africa - Complete mooring system Under investigation (Design
Chain chafing with hull
replaced 10 yrs. into service Adequacy, Quality of
Loss of soil around anchors
hardware)
Monitoring Bending Shoe Installation Damage, ROV
Bending Shoe Installation
Performance / Repair Planning Inspection Damage to
FPSO W. Africa Damage
Cathodic Protection provided to SSWR Sheathing, Improper
SSWR Sheathing Damage
affected SSWR Fairlead Design
SSWR Installation Damage Sheathing rebuilt and specific line
Incurred on multiple lines, trimmed, re-socketed. Improper Installation
FPSO W. Africa
long term performance of Close monitoring of affected line; handling
damaged lines. change in installation method
SSWR Installation Damage, Repair performed using 'Bandit Improper Installation
FPSO W. Africa
on 6 lines. Collars' handling
Risk Analysis performed and
Various World
Low Toughness Shackles various risk mitigation plans Manufacturing Defect
Assets Wide
identified
Excessive VIM, Line
SPAR GOM 4 Fairlead Chains replaced Under designed for VIM.
Damage
Chain Wear at Trumpet Improper trumpet and
FPSO N. Sea Affected Fairlead Chains Replaced
(Internal Turret) fairlead design.
Rigging failure resulting in
FPSO W. Africa Twist Induced in SSWR NA
dropped wire.
7 (of 16) lines incorrectly Lack of checking properly
SEMI N. Sea NA
installed round gypsy installed post hook up
FPSO E. Canada Shackles Changed shackles on all 10 Lines NA
Replaced Damaged Wire rope
SEMI GOM Damage to Wire Rope using subsea cutting and NA
reconnection
Dropped Object Damage to Dropped objects from
SPAR GOM SSWR Sheathing during 2 Segments of SSWR Replaced Topside broke loose and fell
Hurricane Ivan over during Hurricane Ivan.
Replaced wire; change in Wire grip handling device
FPSO W. Africa SSWR Sheathing Damage
installation method inappropriate for job
Replaced all anchor shackles on all Low toughness Shackle
SPAR GoM Low Toughness Shackle
13 legs issue
Lack of tension control.
FPSO W. Africa Damage to Mooring Line NA Loss of position of attending
vessel
Severe Corrosion on all Corrosion higher than
FPSO W. Africa All moorings replaced
lines design allowable
Bird caging of 4 wire rope in Compression of wire rope
Cut off birdcage section and re-
FPSO N. Sea Services associated with around seabed region
socketed to re-use lines
one failure during storm condition
Wire rope damage and
Replacement Planning of Entire
CALM SE Asia Increase in mooring stiffness Under Investigation
Mooring System
due to seabed trenching
Table 2 – Summary of Mooring Integrity Remedial Actions (Courtesy of ExxonMobil Study on Mooring Integrity)
OTC 24181 5

A trend curve showing number of mooring lines replaced

versus the service age of the mooring system (Figure 2)
provides some interesting insights. It indicates an
approximate ‘U’ type curve where there are high rates of
failures and replacements during the first few service
years which gradually reduce towards mid-life and
increases towards end of service life. A majority of the
early replacements are attributed to installation damage
and systemic defects not accounted for in design. The
increase in mooring replacements in the second half of
mooring service life are attributed to multiple factors that
include higher than design corrosion rates, design
inadequacies, issues with heading control and general
deterioration close to end of service life.
Figure 2 – Mooring Failure / Integrity Issue Trend

In recent years there has been an elevated awareness on mooring reliability issues. References [1], [2], [3] and [4] provide
valuable insights on general modes of mooring failures as well as recommendations to improve long term performance.
Potential causes for significant degradation under ten years of service in mooring systems are discussed.

Manufacturing Defects
Poor manufacturing QA/QC specifications and acceptance practices have resulted in premature mooring failures. In recent
years issues with low toughness shackles have been well documented [1]. Recent BOEMRE Safety Alerts [5] indicate that
failures due to lapses in QA/QC procedures are not isolated incidents.

Wear and Corrosion

There is no clear basis for current industry practice (e.g., API RP-2SK) assuming a maximum combined wear and corrosion
allowance of 0.4mm per service year. There have been cases in which the corrosion rate is up to ten times higher due to local
operating conditions, SRB corrosion and excessive interlink wear [6]. New industry initiatives are underway to further
understand wear and corrosion rates in different regions of the world [7].

Fatigue
Fatigue issues associated with chain links in gypsy wheels and fairleads have been well documented [1]. Even though
mooring failures continue to occur in the fatigue mode, fatigue calculations are often restricted to links in the catenary while
neglecting the reduced fatigue life at end terminations. This has resulted in OPB fatigue issues [8] associated with
unfavorable fairlead design, further accelerated by not enforcing the practice of periodically moving the chain link ‘locked’ in
the fairlead or chain stopper.

Installation Damage
Typically a mooring system does not account for installation related damage. It has been observed that installation damage
such as wire rope sheathing damage, twist induced in mooring lines, dropped object related damage and wear in bending
shoes have occurred during mooring installation in recent years. Hence, the ‘As-Installed’ condition of the mooring system
may be significantly different from the ‘As-Designed’ condition which can lead to premature failure under one of the modes
discussed above if timely corrective action is not taken.

Root Cause of Mooring Failures

Since the late 1990s many large deep water field developments have been executed under an EPC ‘Lump Sum’ framework
from concept development through detail engineering and installation. This model not only requires a contractor to be
technically qualified but also commercially competitive. A pitfall associated with this model is the budget constraint which
carries through the mooring system lifecycle, especially during the early stages of design where the ‘base specification’ of the
mooring system is set. Though superior solutions may be available for evaluation, heavy reliance is given to past projects for
environmental coefficients, load case definitions, hardware specifications, equipment selection and procurement QA / QC
models among other factors. The biggest drawback of this approach is that operational and mooring performance feedback
from previous projects seldom get passed back to designers or industry codes to enhance reliability of the mooring system.
6 OTC 24181

Mooring Design

Selection of Mooring (and Offloading) Concept

For ship shaped floating FPSOs an Operator must select between a spread or turret moored system. A spread mooring
system is usually adopted for installations operated in moderately benign directional environments. This enables a larger
number of risers to be tied back and greater expandability over FPSO service life. Operating experience with tandem
offloading from spread moored vessels is limited due to inherent risks of ‘fish-tailing’ and ‘jack-knifing’ collisions. Based
on recent projects in benign environmental areas, such as West Africa, a spread-mooring system with CALM buoy for
offloading has been used most often with an option for tandem offloading in emergencies.

A majority of installed turret moored FPSOs are of the internal turret type. The use of external turrets is gaining popularity
due to its lower cost. Most FPSOs with a turret mooring system are configured for tandem offloading. The number and size
of mooring lines of a turret mooring system in a given environment are smaller than a spread moored system as the vessel is
designed to weathervane thereby decreasing mooring loads. Accounting for transient loads and rate of weathervaning action
in a turret moored system is a complex problem and there is a significant divergence in the design methodologies used to size
such systems.

A comparison of attributes of turret and spread moored concepts is given in Table 3.

Preferred Turret Mooring with Tandem

Parameter Spread Mooring with CALM Buoy
Configuration Offloading
Limited to areas with strong wave Works also in areas with no waves
Versatility on different
Turret ** directionality, wave & current directionality directionality, harsh environment, deeper
environments coincident, mild environment waters

Critical Parameters: relative environmental

Critical Parameters: roll and beam-on swell heading, yaw damping & rate, Rate of change
Spread Mooring
Design Reliability attack. Design follows established of Env. loads & direction. No consistent
+ CALM** standards. standard across industry to account for
transient loads. Easy to ‘undersize’ mooring
Mooring lines Typically 12 lines for FPSO and 9 lines for
Turret * buoy
Typical 9-12 lines for the Turret
quantity
Mooring lines sized to take loads resulting FPSO weathervane reduces efforts applied to
Mooring Lines Size
Turret * from beam on squalls resulting in bigger the lines, usually resulting in smaller line
(Cost) line size. sizes.

Installation of spread moorings is simpler, Requires large capacity tugs for installation
but campaign must account for buoy and heading control. Multiple is required,
Installation Same installation. Buoy positioning can become resulting in complex SIMOPS, requires high
critical. quality personnel.

Ease to Operate, Tandem configuration limits the offloading

Spread Mooring Offloading operation can be performed in a
continuity of ops in 360 degree sector.
sector to 60-90degrees. Requires more
+ CALM * competent crew onboard the FPSO.
harsh weather

Turret Mooring failure and/or operational

Collision with buoy is the highest probability
Risks during Spread Mooring mishandling during offloading can lead to a
risk, and has minor implications on
Operation + CALM * collision tanker/FPSO, with major
production.
consequences.

Maintenance of chain stoppers jacks.

Spread Mooring More rigorous and frequent maintenance of
Maintenance CALM mechanical systems require some
swivels, seals change-out, driving system.
+ CALM * routine visits.

Downtime for routine Spread Mooring Swivel seals replacement requires swivel
Buoy maintenance is simple
maintenance + CALM ** shut-down.

The possibility of continue production and

FPSO can potentially operate with one line
Downtime in Mooring Spread Mooring offloading with one line down is possible only
down, with tug support. If failure occurs in
failure + CALM ** if this scenario has been considered during
CALM, emergency tandem is an option.
design phase (typically not done).
OTC 24181 7

Preferred Turret Mooring with Tandem

Parameter Spread Mooring with CALM Buoy
Configuration Offloading
Number of riser slots in turret and swivel
A riser can be easily added to the FPSO’s
Potential for Field Spread Mooring paths is fixed. Increase may require dry-
side (concept conducive for high number of
Expansion + CALM ** docking (concept conducive for smaller
risers, up to 50)
number of risers, typically 20)

Availability of
Spread Mooring
Suppliers / Familiarity Critical Path: Buoy suppliers, OOL Critical Path: Turret Suppliers
+ CALM *
of Industry
Procurement and fabrication of buoy and Procurement and fabrication of external turret
Execution Schedule Similar FPSO Hull are de-coupled and FPSO hull are de-coupled

CAPEX Similar CALM + OOL+ CALM Mooring Lines Turret + Swivels + Tandem Offload Line
*=better, **=much better
Table 3 – Comparison of Attributes of Spread and Turret moored Systems

Interface Management
Inputs from multiple disciplines are required for a mooring design. The four disciplines that need to closely interface with
design of a mooring system (which in turn directly impacts its long term performance) are:

- Hull and Moorings

- Topsides
- SURF (Subsea, Umbilicals, Riser and Flowlines)
- Installation.

The work scopes are typically executed by separate sub-contractors. Proper interfaces must be established early in the design
and maintained throughout by the operator. This requires proper planning including establishing management of change
procedures to handle late design changes that need to be implemented in final design.

Revisit of the original design of a W. Africa FPS subjected to multiple riser campaigns imposed offset limits for new risers in
each campaign lower than the preceding campaign(s). Topside modules were also added which increased topside windage
area requiring detailed mooring and riser re-analysis to evaluate their integrity and operation risks. This is challenging as
there is usually no tangible basis to establish break strength of the hardware components subject to wear and corrosion over
years of service. A scenario such as this could have been avoided if potential field expansion, increase in topside modules
(windage area) and target long term riser offset limit had been anticipated and defined by appropriate disciplines to the
mooring design team.

Analysis Methodology, Design Assumptions and Load case Definitions

As scale model tests are seldom performed to corroborate mooring loads, it is important to ensure that the design approach is
valid, assumptions realistic and that load case definition captures the worse anticipated response (strength and fatigue) during
different operational phases over the service life.

A sufficient number of load cases must be defined to capture an extreme response that could result in mooring system
failure. The design methodology of a turret mooring system in a multi-directional environment must include assumptions on
the initial vessel heading, angle of attack of squalls, assumed drag coefficient and damping, rate of yaw as well as the rate of
change of squall velocity and direction as these play a significant part in sizing the moorings and should be carefully
planned. Prediction of extreme response analysis of FPSOs in squalls is discussed in [9]. Attention should be given to the
approach used in estimating the ‘Maximum Probable Maxima’(MPM) from individual maxima’s from various seeds of time
domain simulation as there is no standard methodology to establish MPM on transient maxima. To ensure safe operation of
the mooring system, a conservative approach in estimating the characteristic mooring design loads is recommended. The
methodology to properly estimate line dynamics around the touch-down region and its proximity to the anchor must be
carefully planned.

Wind Tunnel Testing

Wind and current force and moment coefficients are critical inputs to vessel stability, global performance and mooring
system design. These coefficients are usually estimated by standard analytical tools, industry references and databases (e.g
OCIMF) as well as extrapolating coefficients from past experience. Wind areas and coefficients used for the final design of
the mooring system must be corroborated with a project specific wind tunnel test at different drafts.
8 OTC 24181

The wind tunnel test must be performed with proper technical oversight to ensure accurate estimation of wind and current
coefficients used in final mooring design. A review of wind tunnel tests from several projects has shown a wide variation in
predicted wind and current force coefficients for similar sized hull and topsides. The discrepancy is attributed to the
geometrical and dimensional attention to detail in modeling hull, deck and topsides including deck braces, flare boom,
derricks, cranes, bilge keels, rudder, thrusters etc. to reflect appropriate blockage and interference effects. The validity of a
wind tunnel test also depends on adequacy of the model to reflect the full scale flow characteristics around the hull and
topsides and sensitivity of the model to Reynold’s number.

Fatigue Analysis
In a mooring system the chain segment is most fatigue sensitive followed by connectors, wire rope and synthetic ropes. The
Tension-Tension (T-T) fatigue life estimated in a mooring analysis is sensitive to analysis type (time or frequency domain),
environmental combinations, mean load, assumed wear and corrosion rates, grade and type of hardware and the reference
fatigue curve. There is no standard approach to selecting fatigue environmental conditions and application of codes and
standards (DNV, BV, API). There have been cases where a revisit of fatigue analysis using updated fatigue curves and a
reassessment of environmental combinations have shown that original fatigue life predicted was over estimated by a factor of
ten. Fairleads should be designed to minimize chain twist and OPB and verified by local Finite Element analysis to estimate
magnitude of hot-spot stresses and Stress Concentration Factors.

Over-Optimization of Moorings
Mooring design is an iterative process in which anchor locations, mooring sizes and pretensions of the mooring system are
cycled to obtain desired mooring performance. In some projects the installed mooring system has been ‘over-optimized’
where the mooring line installed in every sector was different based on utilization and predicted directional loads for that
specific sector. The decision to ‘over-optimize’ a mooring system (for modest cost savings in procurement), is contingent
upon the accuracy of design assumptions including environment load case selection, windage/current areas and force
coefficients as well as corrosion and wear allowance and analytical methodology. In practice, gaps in design assumptions and
methodologies and installation and fabrication inadequacies should be expected and the final mooring design should be
robust to accept these inadequacies. A recommendation is to not over-optimize a mooring system in this fashion.

Installation and Long Term Inspection and Maintenance Friendliness

Mooring designers need to ensure that proposed design of mooring components is “installation friendly”. Engagement by the
installation teams during mooring design seldom occurs and even if planned, is done in late stages of execution. Figure 2
indicates that a majority of mooring integrity issues experienced in the first few years of service stem from improper
installation or damage during installation. To improve mooring system reliability and minimize installation damage risk,
mooring designers should engage with the installation contractor to understand typical installation procedures from
installation of anchor to mooring hook-up.

The design and specification of topside equipment, accessories and work platform used to receive and hook-up the mooring
lines needs to be carefully thought through to minimize interference damage to mooring hardware and personnel safety risk.
Designers need to plan for in-situ replacement of topside mooring equipment especially those that are difficult to inspect and
maintain (underwater fairleads and chain stopper assemblies) and provide work platforms with suitable access to critical
mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and signal processing interfaces as well as hard points for equipment support. Provisions
should also be made for regular adjustments of top chain and mooring line replacement during an asset’s service life. This
requires interfacing with hull and topsides team to minimize interference with process equipment and maintain adequate
clearances for mooring “pull-in” during service.

Specification
The mooring design team must provide functional specifications of on-vessel mooring equipment (Fairlead, Chain jacks,
Winch, Monitoring System etc.) and off-vessel mooring hardware (Chain, Wire, Synthetic Rope, Connectors). Engagement
with the installation contractor is required to develop a functional specification will ensure ease of installation and long term
reliability. There are a wide variety of options for pull-in of the mooring line during hook-up. The solution for a specific
project needs to consider handling capacity, installation time, construction safety, available deck area and cost. Table 4
provides a comparison of deck mooring equipment options.
In developing the functional specification for off-vessel mooring hardware, relative merits and operational experience in
using specific components should be a consideration. Though the use of ‘studless’ chain has increased in recent years due to
its advantages in cost, weight, installation flexibility and ease of in-service inspection, the merits of ‘studlink’ chain
including improved fatigue life and residual degraded chain strength [7] should be assessed. In selecting wire ropes
contractors sometimes specify unsheathed spiral strand wire ropes for short to medium service life. The cost differential
between sheathed and unsheathed wire rope is marginal and is cheap insurance against corrosion degradation. Many types of
OTC 24181 9

connectors are used in mooring systems ranging from Triplates with shackles, H-Links, Y-Links, subsea ROV assisted
connectors and purpose designed connectors. Careful consideration should be given to the connector weight and design and
its implications on mooring system performance including mode of loading, local hot-spot stresses and impact of fatigue
performance on adjacent links. ‘H-Link’ connectors are preferred by some designers citing better reliability during
fabrication process.

Application Type Equipment Advantages Disadvantages

- Potential Out-of plane bending issues.
- Potential for clash with support vessels
Bending shoe - Minimal deck area utilization. - Wear and tear of the chain and bending
with chain - Ease of inspection maintenance shoe during pull in
stopper on - Easy detection of the line failure. - Fatigue utilization of ‘locked’ link
Deck - Low Cost - Need to carefully design radius of
curvature of the shoe to account for hoop
Deck
stress.
mounted
- Minimal deck area utilization.
- Not industry application yet (concept
Articulated - Easy detection of the line failure.
used underwater but not closer to deck)
- Ease of inspection and
Stopper with - Approaching vessels clashing possibility.
Maintenance
‘in-line’ chain - Design till date used under-water.
- Good OPB performance
stopper - May require additional engineering to
- Minimal Chain Wear
mount it close to deck
- Compact Design
- Chain twist / bending issue as chain
Chain passes through bearing (not enough
Stopper and - Relatively Cheap turning moment for fairlead)
Vessel hang Regular 'bulls
- Aids sideward vessels approach - Underwater inspection maintenance
Off eye' fairlead - Pull in easier than bending shoe challenging
- Underwater replacement expensive
- Cannot visually detect line failure
- Superior to regular 'Bulls eye' - Underwater inspection maintenance
- Fairlead, chain passes outside of challenging
Underwater Eccentric
pivot shaft bearing - Replacement of underwater fairlead
type Fairlead - Aids approaching vessels expensive
- Pull in easier than bending shoe Cannot visually detect line failure

- Minimal deck area utilization. - Underwater inspection maintenance

Underwater - Ease of inspection Maintenance challenging
fairlead - Good OPB performance - Replacement of underwater fairlead
articulated ‘in- - Improve fatigue performance of expensive
line’ chain chain - Cannot visually detect line failure
stopper - Minimal Chain Wear - Reliance on instrumented failure
- Compact Design detection

Vertical / - Slower pull in speed during mooring

hookup (Installation time + day rates).
Horizontal - Compact design, minimum deck
Chain Jacks Could speed up with Aux. Winch
Chain Jacks space requirement
- Cannot be optimized for additional pull in
Ram Winch details such as OOL / Risers.
- Fast pull in speed at mooring
hookup.
- Offers high pulling force over the - Additional deck space requirement for
Traction Winch
whole (long) length of rope Winch and Sheaves
Line Pull In - Can be optimized for additional
Mooring
pull in such as OOL / Risers.
Arrangement Winches
- Pulling force will normally decrease as
- Relatively Faster mooring hookup. the number of layers of wire/rope
Rope Drum
- Can be optimized for additional increases on the drum
Winch pull in such as OOL / Risers. - Additional deck space requirement for
Winch and Sheaves
- Special compact winches
adaptable to Turret and Spread
- Cannot be used in applications requiring
Mooring Chain Winches moored FPSO
emergency release of the chain
Windlass / Windlass - Extreme compact size is possible
- Comparatively larger and heavier
because brakes replaced by pawl
stoppers
Table 4 – Comparison of Deck Mooring Equipment
10 OTC 24181

Re-Analysis of ‘As-Built’ System

Operational mooring integrity issues often require mooring design revisit on existing systems to plan mitigating
interventions. Without reliable ‘as-built’ information, identifying root cause of an integrity issue and limits of the installed
system to evaluate operational risks is challenging. One of the major gaps in most projects is the lack of complete ‘as-built’
mooring information and a close out ‘as-installed’ analysis. Evaluating the performance of the installed mooring system
against the ‘as-designed’ mooring system helps identify shortcomings and operational risks and plan for interventions that
may be required. This exercise requires accurate records of anchor locations, mooring hardware lengths, post installation
pre-tensions and departure angles of all mooring lines and risers with corresponding vessel draft. It is also important to
capture details of any component damage or installation anomalies with their location on specific lines including installed
twists on the lines.

Procurement and Manufacturing

As mooring systems are being installed in deeper waters and harsher operating conditions requiring higher material grades
and capacities, components have to be manufactured and supplied to exacting standards. Recent incidents have been reported
[5] involving failure of forged mooring components including connectors and chains on permanently moored facilities.
Forensic analyses of the retrieved components revealed that manufacturing processes were defective or unauthorized repairs
were performed post heat treatment. The following sections discuss challenges in procurement and manufacturing processes
from field experience.

Specification
Specifications and standards expected from the manufacture of mooring components are provided during procurement.
Significant quality variations exist in supplied products based on the level of diligence and oversight. One of the most
common pitfalls in specification compliance is the multi-layer contractual structure where control on the manufacturing
process is minimal and requirements are not enforced.

A typical mooring specification should include requirements for analytical verification of strength and fatigue of the
components apart from manufacturing and testing requirements. Appropriate ranges of acceptable material properties and
corrosion allowances should be specified. Detailed manufacturing procedures and material testing plans should be requested
upfront in addition to mill certifications and mechanical properties of the material. It is good practice to perform a detailed
audit of the manufacturing facility to assess its ability to conform to required specifications.

An issue critical to long term reliability is enforcing vendor compliance to the corrosion protection specification. Though
corrosion protection is specified for design service life of the component, it is often found that anodes provided for triplates
and sockets are completely consumed in the first two to three years in service and the components are freely corroding for the
reminder of their service lives.

Traceability
Traceability in all stages of the supply chain from the source of the iron ore, the steel mill used to prepare billet (with
appropriate mill-certificates detailing chemical composition and mechanical properties), the forging process, batch of heat
treatment, machining, dimensional check, inspection and testing through the final product is required. A proper hard
stamping protocol should be enforced at every stage of the manufacturing process. There should also be a tagging scheme in
place to document serial numbers of every component that goes into a specific mooring line. This approach not only helps
identify root cause and potential for a systemic issue in the event of a failure but also serves as a medium for continuous
improvement in the manufacturing process for future projects.

Class Interface and Inspection Oversight

It is common for projects to rely on Classification Societies (CS) for enforcement of specifications and QA / QC of
components. Subject to the requested scope of CS engagement, it is unrealistic to expect a detailed oversight from CS. The
BOEMRE safety alert [5] indicated that permanent mooring components that failed due to manufacturing issues were all built
in accordance with class standards. The safety alert also recommends dedicated oversight during the manufacturing process.
Inspectors with the right technical competency should be engaged especially during the heat treatment and material testing
process. Proper control during the heat treatment process must be enforced and test samples should be sourced from a
representative component The methodology of sacrificial testing and post processing of results needs close verification to
ensure compliance. Discrepancies of ‘as-delivered’ chain and wire lengths do occur and proper oversight must be provided in
measuring manufactured lengths of chains and ropes, a key input to required deployment length during installation.
OTC 24181 11

Heat Treatment
Heat treatment is perhaps the most critical phase in the manufacturing process. Proper heat treating requires precise control
over temperature, time held at a certain temperature and cooling rate. Based on the properties required from the components,
they are typically subjected to annealing, quenching and tempering. The atmosphere of the furnace should be calibrated and
each thermocouple within the furnace should be evaluated for reliability of achieving intended temperature control.
Thermocouples should also be checked for last calibration date and replacement intervals and the temperature time histories
of specific heat treatment zones archived. The furnace loading plan, heating rate and temperature sock times need to be
reviewed and properly documented for traceability. The quenching tank should be closely assessed to ensure proper and
continuous circulation of the quenching medium to achieve uniformity.

NDT, Sacrificial Testing and Dimensional Verification

Specific testing at each stage of the fabrication process is required to provide quality assurance at critical fabrication steps so
that any gaps can be picked up at the earliest opportunity. Testing requirements specified by contractors are rather minimal
and limited to tests required by Class which typically involve:

 Basic NDT : Ultrasonic Test (UT) and Magnetic test (MT) on the raw material prior to fabrication and of the
finished component
 Break Load Test (BLT) and Proof Load Test (PLT) post heat treatment
 One set of Tensile Strength (TS) and Charpy V-Notch test (CVN)
 Dimensional Check and Trial fitting

Due to the criticality of mooring connectors, enhanced testing criteria with tests and inspections given below are strongly
recommended. Mechanical test samples should be sourced from a sacrificial component rather than salvaging components
from post break load testing.

 100% UT and MT on raw material as well as after PLT but before BLT
 BLT for specified time duration
 UT and MT to check for cracks post BLT
 Dimensional Check and Trial fitting
 PLT for specified time duration at specified temperature
 4 X Crack Tip opening Displacement (CTOD) for each size, type, and heat batch of component at specific
temperature
 3 X Hydrogen Embrittlement (HE) test in sea water at specified cathodic potential
 2 X Tensile Strength Test
 3 X Charpy V-Notch (CVN) for each size, type, and heat batch of component on samples from different regions
 Hardness testing on tensile test specimens using Brinell / Rockwell
 Hardness survey and grain size test

Standard methods of NDT employed by most manufacturers including UT and MT can only pick up surface and sub-surface
defects. Newer automated UT techniques such as ‘Phased Array’ have improved detectability of sub-surface flaws and
manufacturing defects are available. There are no standard criteria for acceptance thresholds should an internal flaw be
detected. There have been concerns [5] regarding unauthorized weld repairs on critical mooring components. An operator
may choose to perform etching on the areas of concern to pick up potential weld repairs. If the component is already
installed, etching test is not practicable and there is no readily available method for detecting weld repairs. However, an
electromagnetic based NDT method, Alternating Current Field Measure (ACFM), is being explored for this application.

There have been issues in conforming to the required dimensional tolerance in chain geometry which have resulted in
replacement of multiple sets of chains on a North Sea FPSO due to improper fit with fairlead. Also, issues around
dimensional tolerance around the flash butt region have resulted in very tight clearances with intended connectors.

Installation

A high rate of mooring integrity issues and interventions, especially in the first few years of service, have been attributed to
installation related shortcomings. The quality of the mooring installation is contingent upon the capability of the proposed
installation vessel, competency of the installation contractor and attention to detail in developing and following procedures.
Installation factors to improve reliability are discussed.
12 OTC 24181

Interface Management
Though mooring design is typically executed by the ‘Hull Global Performance and Mooring’ team, the mooring installation
is often assigned to the SURF work scope and sub-contracted to a third party installation contractor. The engagement with the
mooring installation contractor is minimal during the design stages as are the interfaces on procedures, equipment to be used
and acceptable installation tolerances needed to be closely managed during the final stages of the execution phase. As the
mooring installation scope is a small portion of the overall SURF installation scope, attention to detail is often lacking. A re-
think of typical contracting models for mooring installation is recommended.

Planning and Adherence to Procedures

Procedures and installation protocols are often not followed. The primary reasons are constraints associated with installation
schedule (time to first oil) and high vessel costs (day rate). Another causal factor is minimal supervision during the
installation campaign and (or) lack of mooring installation expertise as the primary focus of the installation campaign.
Installation procedures and specified installation tolerances are developed with due consideration of long term mooring
performance and construction safety. The operator should ensure that the intended procedures are discussed in the daily
construction work plan and followed.

Handling of Critical Components and Contingency Planning

The most common installation damage is to Sheathed Spiral Strand Wire Rope (SSWR). The outer jacketing of the SSWR is
susceptible to cuts and abrasion. High Modulus PolyEthylene (HMPE) jacket is smooth and easily slides on deck, therefore
the work area must be free from sharp edges and objects that could damage the sheathing. Care should also be taken during
trans-spooling of the SSWR to ensure that layers of wraps are maintained. The wire Minimum Bend Radius (MBR)
requirement needs to be monitored. The required wire MBR increases with wire diameter and is larger for higher capacity
wire ropes. The bend restrictor that transitions between wire and socket is very sensitive to the mode of loading and extreme
care should be taken in bringing it over a stern roller as it is deployed. Similar levels of care are also required in handling
synthetic wire ropes as they are extremely sensitive to abrasion damage.

There have been numerous instances of dropped objects and lost connector accessories for which expensive offshore
installation time was utilized in searching and retrieving dropped components. It is cheap insurance in a mooring installation
campaign to maintain an inventory of critical components spares during the offshore campaign. Also in mooring systems that
utilize sensitive components such as SSWR, plans and procedures should be in place to ‘Re-Socket and Re-Terminate’ the
wire rope. The service of qualified personnel and required staging and resin kit for the operation should be pre-arranged.

Twists In Installed Line

The mooring system design does not account for any twists on the installed mooring line. During installation very little twist
should be allowed and should be limited to one full revolution for the entire length of mooring line. A better understanding
of the torque-twist characteristics of an axially pre-loaded chain is available based on specific studies in the last few years
[10] and [11]. To limit installation induced twist it is necessary to carefully control torque induced in the mooring line during
handling. It is good practice to use ‘non-rotating’ wire, chains or synthetic ropes to handle the line. Typically, SSWRs and
Polyester ropes are close to torque neutral. Chain typically has minimal torsional stiffness when subjected to a straight line
axial load. However, when twisted chain is subjected to axial load the torque response is highly nonlinear and it is estimated
that fatigue life reduction in links subject to about a 15 degree interlink angle is around 90%.

Due diligence should be enforced post hook-up to ensure that the level of twist on the mooring lines from the anchors to the
fairleads is minimal. The length of chain between suction pile pad eye and the bottom ROV connector should be controlled
to limit potential for twist during installation of the suction pile and proof loading of the ground chain.

As-Installed Tolerance during Hook-Up

No mooring system can be installed exactly per design. General imperfections in the system are inherent based on location of
the installed anchor, accuracy of position reference systems, length and shape of the ‘inverse catenary’ ground chain buried in
the seabed, the as-manufactured lengths and weights of the wires and chains as well as the method used to obtain the
reference pretension during hook-up. Acceptability criteria of an ‘as-installed’ tolerance should be clearly defined by the
mooring designer to ensure that the target variation in pretensions and load sharing within a specific group provides desirable
load sharing and utilizations at mooring offset design limits. The level of due diligence in achieving design pretensions and
load sharing varies among contractors. Often physical measurement of the ‘as supplied’ chain and wire rope lengths are not
taken and ‘nominal’ lengths are assumed as inputs during catenary calculations during installations. Undue reliance is often
given to the load cell reading as a basis for line length adjustments. Top angle measurements to cross-check load cell
readings and catenary calculations are seldom performed. The criticality of the due diligence required for estimating accurate
line lengths, load cell readings and angle measurement is substantial especially in CALM buoy and certain external turret
mooring systems that use a pad eye for topside chain termination with limited capability to adjust length of the top chain.
OTC 24181 13

Supplied mooring components should be physically measured including chain and wire rope used in catenary calculations
during hook up and that independent means of cross checking ‘calculated’ catenary loads using measurements such as load
cells and (or) inclinometers to measure top angle be deployed during installation. If discrepancies exist in calculated versus
measured values, the root cause of the deviation should be determined and resolved rather than relying on a single system of
line load estimation.

Field Operation

The philosophy of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ applies to mooring systems where there is a perception that nothing could
possibly happen to the massive chains and other line components. It is a sobering fact that many failures occur during a
normal operating conditions. Regular mooring inspections and operational feedback on mooring performance is necessary to
assess the true condition of the system and to initiate pre-emptive intervention.

In Service Inspection Schedule

Table 5 provides the recommended mooring inspection schedule as a function of operating service years per API RP 2I [12].

Recommended Intervals Between

Number of Years in Service
Major Inspections*

0 to 3 36 Months
4 to 10 24 Months
over 10 8 Months
* With a grace period not to exceed 4 months

Table 5 – Recommended Mooring Inspection Intervals [12]

Recommended major inspection schedules typically include an Annual Survey, Intermediate Survey and Renewal Survey.
The scope and requirements of the survey however is subjective and depends on the interpretation of results of previous
inspection history and asset specific mooring issues. As a minimum, a visual ‘ROV fly-by’ inspection is mandated at
scheduled intervals. Typically up to two such inspections with limited measurements on accessible chain sections are
performed on at least one “representative” mooring line every 5 years. However, information available from the limited
inspection scope may not be adequate to assess the true condition of the complete mooring system. A comprehensive annual
mooring inspection and measurement schedule that covers all mooring lines is recommended.

Mooring Inspection Scope

Experience from field operations indicate that regular detailed mooring inspections are often not executed on schedule and
those conducted generally contracted to third party agencies with little oversight. Limited information is gleaned from ROV
fly-by inspections looking for signs of a particular mooring integrity issue. Challenges such as poor visibility and excessive
marine growth hinder comprehensive assessment of critical areas. The quality of the ROV used and its camera (and lighting)
to take footage varies as ROV operators may not be able to maintain station and get close to the subject areas. Technical
qualification and competency of the mooring inspector impacts inspection findings which are the basis for intervention
decisions.

Apart from standard checks on mooring chains, connectors and wire ropes, a comprehensive scope should include the on-
vessel mooring equipment including fairleads, chain stoppers, monitoring equipment and mooring pull-in equipment
including pull-in wire, sheaves and other accessories. The deliverables from the mooring inspection should include location
of anchors and magnitude of seabed trenching around the touchdown region and distance of the trenching from the anchors.
The chain inspection should include general assessment of wear and corrosion on links, integrity of the studs (if applicable)
inspection of inter-link area for signs of ‘necking’ and bending related wear. Signs of fatigue cracks and surface anomalies
should be checked on the crown region. Including the splash zone and touch down zone, chain interlink ‘2d’ diameter should
be taken where possible to estimate level of corrosion and wear which needs to be compared to the design allowable. In a
majority of assets, links are not tagged and tracked over the years to obtain a history of wear and corrosion and the reported
residual diameter estimates has an inconsistent trend. Candidate chain links should be properly cleaned prior to the
measurement campaign and tools used to take measurements properly calibrated.
14 OTC 24181

Close attention should be paid to local deformation along wire rope, damage to sheathing, condition of connectors with
assessment of anode depletion, condition of lock-nuts and other locking accessories, twists on mooring lines, signs of
abrasion around the touch down and splash zone in addition to detail inspection of chains. Polyester ropes should be checked
for signs of stretch or creep and abrasion including the integrity of the mud filter.

Apart from chain wear, there is no tangible inspection solution available to provide an estimate of residual strength of the
mooring lines. ROV fly by inspections of wires and connectors provide limited information on their general condition and
cannot be used to estimate residual strength. Certain advanced inspection techniques are available based on a combination of
optical and caliper measurements on chain and wire ropes [13] and there are ongoing qualification efforts to ‘marinize’
electromagnetic based in-service inspections of steel wire ropes [14].

Field Operational Feedback

Field operations provide critical feedback in assessing mooring system integrity and required intervention in the event of a
mooring failure. Feedback from field operations on observed metocean parameters are useful in determining the adequacy of
the designed mooring system that is based on hindcast metocean data. It is often reported that the observed intensity of key
metocean parameters is significantly higher than those used in the metocean report for mooring design. Field operational
personnel need to have a system in place to share archived metocean and mooring monitoring data with appropriate
engineering disciplines. This provides valuable feedback to an operator choosing to reassess fatigue and strength performance
of the system based on ‘observed metocean’ conditions.

Mooring failures have often gone undetected for several months. Field operations should pay attention to readings reported
from mooring tension and position monitoring system if available, acquaint its personnel on ‘expected range’ of offset and
tension values and report any deviations. This has proved useful in picking up system anomalies if the observed parameter
shows an unusual trend. It is good practice to routinely walk the deck to assess mooring line hang-off angles as well as
fairlead and chain condition.

Mooring Rapid Response Plan (MRRP)

A detailed response plan should be developed and implemented to provide field operation personnel the required guidance
and tools to make critical decisions to sustain production and restore full mooring capability to the asset in the event of a
failure in short order. Specific operators have taken the lead in developing a comprehensive Mooring Rapid Response Plan
(MRRP) for their fleet of Floating Production Facilities in the event of a mooring line failure (KBR has been working with
ExxonMobil on one such initiative since 2008). The primary objective of the MRRP is to reduce the duration needed to
restore full station keeping capability to the affected asset from twelve months or more to three months or less from the time
of line failure detection, thereby minimizing production shut-in. A typical MRRP includes procedures and plans to (i) detect
the loss of a mooring line, (ii) use predefined action steps for rapidly dealing with the event and (iii) replacing the line(s) with
pre-purchased spares and installation procedures developed well in advance.

Conclusion

While current codes and standards for design of mooring systems are sound, occasional failures of these systems have been
experienced in the field. Important lessons have been learnt regarding the integrity of mooring systems from a thorough
review of these failures. This paper provides guidance and recommendations from a review of these failures with the intent of
enhancing integrity and overall reliability of future mooring systems.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Granherne-KBR management for the opportunity and encouragement in writing this paper.
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Global Engineering Houston (GEH) team at Exxon Mobil
Production Company (EMPC) for the opportunity to engage in the development and implementation of the Mooring Rapid
Response Plan (MRRP) as well as other mooring integrity initiatives under the guidance of Dr. Subir Bhattacharjee.
OTC 24181 15

References

[1] “Floating Production System; JIP FPSO Mooring Integrity,” UK HSE Research Report 444 (2006),
www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr444.pdf
[2] “Floating Production Mooring Integrity JIP – Key Findings”, OTC 17499, 2005.
[3] “Mooring Integrity Guidance” Oil & Gas UK, November 2008.
[4] “Phase 2 Mooring Integrity JIP - Summary of Findings”, OTC 20613, 2010
[5] “Safety Alert No. 296 - Catastrophic Failures in Mooring Systems Possibly Put Floating Structures at Risk” BOEMRE, May 2011
[6] “Mooring rapid Response Plan Front End Study, ExxonMobil”, Granherne, November 2010.
[7] “SCORCH JIP: Examination and Testing of Severely Corroded Mooring Chains from West Africa”, OTC 23012, May 2012
[8] “Failure of Chain by Bending on Deepwater Mooring Systems”, OTC Paper 17238, 2005.
[9] “Response of FPSO Systems to Squalls”, OMAE2011-49855, June 2011.
[10] “Predicting the Torsional Response of large Mooring Chain”, OTC 17789, May 2006
[11] “Failure of Chains by bending on Deepwater Mooring Systems”, OTC 17238, May 2005
[12] “API RP 2I, “In-Service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures”, 3rd Edition, April 2008.
[13] “Mooring System Integrity: Deteriorative Mechanisms on Mooring System and Appropriate Inspection Techniques”, OTC22615,
October 2011
[14] “The Electromagnetic (EM) Inspection of Offshore Wire Ropes” Herbert R. Weischedel, NDT tech
[15] “Confidential Asset, Mooring Criticality Assessment and Spare Philosophy Review”, Energo Engineering, March 2008.
[16] “2012 Worldwide Survey of Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Units”, Offshore Magazine August 2010.
http://www.offshore-mag.com/content/dam/offshore/print-articles/Volume%2072/aug/2012FPSO-072512Ads.pdf
[17] “Technical Note, Comparison of Spread Moored FPSO and Turret Moored FPSO”, Granherne-KBR, August 2012.
[18] “Moveable Chain Jacks and Winch, Case Study of Petrobras P58/P62 and ENI’s Goliat”, Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conf, Sep 2012
[19] “Fracture Toughness of Forged Mooring Connectors for Production Facilities Rev 0”, API, Sep 2009
[20] “DNV-OSS-102, Rules for Classification of Floating Production Storage and Offloading Units”, October 2009.
[21] “API RP 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, 3rd Edition”, October 2005.

.
Nomenclature

API American Petroleum Institute

BOEMRE The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (currently re-organized as
BOEM and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; erstwhile Minerals Management Service or
MMS)
BV Bureau Veritas
CALM Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring
DNV Det Norske Veritas
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
FSHR Free Standing Hybrid Riser
GOM Gulf of Mexico (US Exclusive Economic Zone)
IWRC Independent Wire Rope Core
OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OOL Oil Offloading Line
OPB Out of Plane Bending
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Check
SSWR Sheathed Spiral Wire Rope
SRB Sulfate Reducing Bacteria
VIM Vortex Induced Motion