0 views

Uploaded by rendezvous26

- wave 6.6
- Introduction to Modern Digital Holography With Matlab
- Heisenberg derivation
- Physics Cheat Sheet Master
- 0801-Paper.pdf
- Sem 2 Blue Print mu from stupidsid
- physics cap matrix marked for final exam 2014
- physics form 5: waves
- Model Paper Applied Physics 1 1 r16
- Diffraction.doc
- More Electromagnetic Spectrum Qs
- etzy
- ampli bangkok
- 1129215501isrm Sm Blast Vibration Monitoring - 1992
- Pinhole Diffraction Paper
- Bios Pape
- Cummings 1978
- Wave Interference
- AQA-7407-7408-SP-2015-V1-2.pdf
- fisika RSBI silabus

You are on page 1of 12

A dynamic mooring analysis is performed for a tanker berth in shallow water over a sloping bathymetry. Two

different modelling strategies are applied, (i) including the sloping bottom in the panel model as a second structure

and (ii) replacing the sloping bottom by an equivalent horizontal bottom. It was found that panel models that are

applied for 3D diffraction analysis cannot describe the wave conditions on a sloping seabed. They are unable to

describe wave shoaling and wave refraction and predict instead an unrealistic waffled clapotis. Therefore, a sloping

seabed seabed cannot be modelled as a second structure in a panel model. This approach will result in unrealistic

RAO’s with a strongly oscillating pattern, which are in turn the result of unrealistic partial standing waves on the

slope. An oscillating pattern is further observed for added mass and damping coefficients; it is unclear if any aspects

of the sloping seabed are captured realistically by this approach. Including a sloping seabed in a panel model is

therefore not advisable. The simplified modelling approach with an equivalent horizontal seabed is more robust and is

more likely to provide a realistic estimate of the actual line and fender forces.

Keywords: Dynamic mooring analysis; ship response analysis, sloping seabed; line forces, fender forces, modelling

approach

INTRODUCTION

Exposed import and export terminals for LNG are presently developed in many places all over the

world; examples that received a lot of public attention are PNG LNG by Exxon Mobile in Papua New

Guinea, Gorgon LNG by Chevron in NW Australia and Angola LNG by Texaco/Chevron in Angola.

The economic feasibility of these plants is determined amongst others by the operability of the loading

or off-loading facilities for LNG carriers, which in turn largely depends on weather downtime.

Periods in time where the environmental conditions (i.e. wind, waves, currents etc.) are such that

the ships cannot stay safely at berth or cannot be loaded or unloaded in limiting are called weather

downtime. Dynamic mooring analysis is commonly performed to assess the weather downtime of a

terminal. The prediction of line forces, fender forces and manifold displacements (in case of a tanker

berth) requires a numerical analysis of the ship response to waves and gusting wind. Software packages

like WAMIT, SESAM WADAM, MOSES and ANSYS AQWA became an industry standard for this

analysis. These packages were originally developed for application in deep water, but have been

refined and extended over the past 30 years. More recent versions include the interaction of ship and

seabed and are thus applicable in shallow water. However, all available software packages require a

constant water depth in the computational domain; the effect of a variable water depth, for example a

seabed slope is not considered. Therefore, shallow water results require careful interpretation and a

clear understanding of the limitations of these programmes.

A dynamic mooring analysis is performed using ANSYS AQWA for a tanker berth in shallow

water over a typical sloping, coastal bathymetry. Two different modelling strategies are applied:

The sloping bottom is included in the panel model as a second structure that is resting on the

seabed. The actual bathymetry is thus represented by diffracting panels in this approach.

The sloping bottom is replaced by an equivalent horizontal seabed. The actual bathymetry is

thus simplified and described by a single parameter (constant water depth) in the panel model.

This paper describes the difficulties that arise when modelling a bathymetry as a submerged

structure in a 3D diffraction analysis. The results that are obtained from this approach are presented and

compared with the results from a conventional analysis with constant water depth. A simple modelling

approach is proposed for a mooring analysis in shallow water.

General Approach

The dynamic mooring analysis is commonly performed by a two-step approach consisting of

hydrodynamic analysis (step 1) and mooring analysis (step 2).

The hydrodynamic analysis (3D diffraction analysis) is a frequency domain analysis. The geometry

of the ship hull (or any other floating structure) is described by a panel model. The ship characteristics

in harmonic waves are determined by a 3D diffraction programme. Linear motion coefficients

(response amplitude operators, RAO’s) and resistance coefficients (added mass and damping

coefficients) are determined and stored in a hydrodynamic data base. The analysis is performed with

frequency and directional discretization; the motion and resistance coefficients are determined in 6

degrees of freedom and for a range of wave frequencies and wave directions. This information is stored

in a ship characteristics data base that is subsequently applied for the time domain analysis.

1

2 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2014

The mooring analysis is a time domain analysis. The ship motions and mooring loads are

calculated for a specific berth layout including mooring lines and fenders and for the ship

characteristics from the above hydrodynamic data base. The wave conditions (external forcing) are

varying in time; the waves are commonly defined by a spectrum. Additional wind loads (either constant

or time varying spectral wind) and current loads (constant or time varying) can be applied.

The effect of a sloping bathymetry comes into play in step 1, the 3D diffraction calculation when

the interaction between ship and waves is determined. The ship response (added mass, damping and

motion operators) and the various wave fields (incoming, diffracted and radiated waves) are influenced

by the seabed, i.e. by the water depth and by the geometry of the seabed (for example a sloping

seabed). Ship response and wave fields would also be influenced by a second, either floating or fixed

structure (for example a quay wall or a second ship). When the sloping bottom is included in the panel

model as a second structure that is resting on the seabed, it will have some influence the waves and the

ship response. This influence however may be different from the actual effect of a sloping seabed. The

wave conditions in the 3D diffraction analysis and the resistance of the ship (added mass and damping

coefficients) are described in the following sections.

Wave Conditions in the 3D Diffraction Analysis

The incoming waves are defined a priori in the 3D diffraction analysis. They are defined by a wave

spectrum and include frequency spreading, but no directional spreading. The frequency components of

the incoming wave spectrum are characterised by the direction of wave propagation, the wave

amplitude and the phase angle. The direction of wave propagation of all frequency components and the

amplitude of each frequency component are constant in the entire modelling domain. The phase angles

of the frequency components differ between the panels; they are a function of time, panel coordinates,

wave direction, wave number and a reference phase angle. The wave number is a function of wave

period and water depth; the reference phase angle is commonly defined by a seed number for the

generation of a wave spectrum with random phase angles. For given time, panel coordinates and

incoming wave direction the calculation of phase angles is straightforward. Hence, the incoming waves

in the 3D diffraction analysis have two characteristic features:

The wave kinematics of incoming waves (water surface elevations and particle motions) are

defined for all time steps and panels.

The incoming waves propagate through panels; they are not affected by fixed or floating

structures. Only the superposition of incoming and diffracted waves will leads to realistic

wave conditions in the panel model.

The wave modelling in the 3D diffraction analysis comprises of three different wave components.

The incident waves are defined a priori (see above). The reflected and diffracted waves are determined

at each panel (depending on incident wave and panel orientation). The diffracted wave field is derived

from the superposition of all diffracted wave components. The radiated waves are waves resulting from

ship motions. Ship motions are caused by waves and vice versa, cause wave motion. The generation of

radiated waves is a damping mechanism for the ship motion (also known as radiation damping).

The treatment of waves in a 3D diffraction analysis is illustrated in Fig. 1. Waves are calculated

over a sloping bathymetry. The sloping bottom is included in the panel model as a fixed structure that

is resting on the seabed; the bathymetry is thus represented by diffracting panels (Fig. 1a). No floating

structures (ships) are considered. The panel model predicts wave diffraction at the sloping surface and

at the edges of the seabed body (Fig. 1c). Shoaling and depth refraction of the incident waves are not

considered (Fig. 1b). The superposition of incoming waves and diffracted waves results in a chaotic,

partial standing wave field above the sloping seabed (Fig. 1d).

The wave diffraction at the edges of the seabed body cannot be controlled by enlarging the seabed

body or by modifying the shape of the edges. This confirms the findings of Buchner (2006). He stated

that it is not possible to model a sloping seabed as a second body in diffraction theory; a large size of

the second body, representing the seabed and smoother edges of this body do not improve the situation.

Radiated waves are not generated above the sloping seabed as it is modelled as a fixed structure.

In the panel model the water depth is not affected by fixed or floating structures. The model

assumes a constant water depth and consequently a constant wave speed; it is thus by definition unable

to describe the wave shoaling and wave refraction on a sloping seabed. The effect of the sloping seabed

is approximated by diffracted waves with the same constant wave speed as the incoming waves. It is

obvious that this will be, if at all, only a crude approximation of the actual wave transformation on the

slope.

COASTA

TAL ENGINEE

ERING 2014 3

nel model: (a) Panel

P model off the sloping seeabed, (b) inco

oming

wavees, (c) diffracte

ed waves and (dd) superpositio

on of incomingg and diffracted

d waves

Figurre 2. Boussinesq wave model: Bathymettry with an ob op); monochro

omatic

wavees propagating

g across the slo

ope (bottom)

The transformmation of mon nochromatic w waves on a slloping bottomm is shown in Fig. 2. The waves

w

are aapproaching the

t slope at an n angle of 455° from the lin ne of the greaatest slope. Thhe wave patteern in

Fig. 2 (bottom) iss determined with

w a Boussiinesq wave model. m Differennt from the ppanel model, where

w

the sslope is alignned with the boundaries o f the computtational domaain and the w waves propagaate in

obliqque direction,, the wave direction

d in thhe Boussinesq model is aligned

a with the computattional

dommain and the orrientation of th

he slope is obllique.

nesq model illuustrate the ch

The results off the Boussin hanges in wav ve length and wave directio on on

the sslope. The efffect of wavee refraction iss clearly visiible (Fig. 2, bottom).

b A crross-hatched wave

interrference pattern or waffledd clapotis as ppredicted by the panel mo odel cannot bbe seen. The wave

patteern in Fig. 2 (bottom) differrs significantlly from the wave

w pattern in

n the panel moodel (Fig. 1d)). The

4 COASTA

TAL ENGINEE

ERING 2014

paneel model provides a surprisingly complexx but unfortun nately far from

m realistic waave field abov ve the

slopiing bottom.

IIt follows froom the above that panel m models that arre applied for 3D diffractioon analysis cannot

desccribe the wavee conditions on n a sloping seeabed realistically. They asssume a constaant water depth h and

a constant wave speed.

s Thereffore they are bby definition unable to describe wave sshoaling and wave

refraaction above a sloping seab bed. When thee sloping seab bed is includeed in the paneel model as a fixed

seabed structure thhe wave diffrraction at the eedges of this structure resu ults in a waffleed clapotis. This

T is

an uunrealistic wavve pattern; it reflects the liimitations of the

t panel mod del. It can bee expected thaat this

unreealistic wave pattern

p will allso result in uunrealistic wav

ve forces on a ship that is moored abov ve the

undeerwater slope.

Added Mass and Damping Co

oefficients

The ship’s reesistance to motion

m ded mass and damping coeefficients. Botth are

is desccribed by add

frequuency dependded and have to t be determinned per wave direction and d for all six deegrees of freeedom.

The added mass and damping coefficients are determineed by imposing an oscillaatory translatio on or

rotattion with unit amplitude onn the ship. Thee force on thee panels that results

r from thhe imposed motion

m

is thhe equivalent of

o the added mass;

m the raddiated waves that

t are generaated by the immposed motio on are

the eequivalent of the

t damping.

The added maass correspond ds to the masss of water thatt encloses the ship hull andd that is acceleerated

whenn an oscillatoory motion is imposed to tthe ship. It iss obvious thatt added mass will be frequ uency

depeended; added mass

m is furtheer increasing inn shallow watter.

The amount ofo energy that is dissipated bby the dampinng correspond ds to the wavee energy flux of o the

radiaated waves. The

T energy flu ux is definedd by the produ uct of wave energy

e density

ty and wave group

g

velocity. Shalloww water will affect

a the ampplitude of thee radiated waves as well aas the wave group g

velocity. Similar to the added mass, wave ddamping is frrequency depended and inc ncreases in shallow

wateer. When moddelling the seaabed as a difffracting structture (i.e. with panels) the raradiated waves that

are ggenerated by the

t ship migh ht be reflectedd by the seabed and propagaate towards thhe ship. Hence, the

wavee energy flux away from the ship would bbe reduced an nd consequenttly the wave ddamping.

Figurre 3. Panel mo

odel of floating box with doma

ain depth of 20

0 m and panel seabed modell (fixed plate) of

o size

2

50×5

50 m with a panel depth of 8 m

The effect off a shallow seaabed that is mmodelled by diffracting pan nels is demonsstrated by a siimple

paneel model conssisting of a quadratic

q bargge (in the folllowing referreed to as “boxx”) and of a plane

horizzontal seabedd (in the folloowing referredd to as “platee”) as shown in Fig. 3. Tw wo different water

w

depthhs have to be distinguished d in this modell:

Dom main water deepth refers too the verticaal distance beetween waterr line and bo ottom

bounndary of the 3D D diffraction m model;

Paneel water depth h refers to thee vertical distaance between water line annd the panel model

m

of thhe body that is representing the seabed (in n this case the plate).

AAdded mass anda damping of o the floatingg box are deteermined accurately when thhe plate is excluded

and the domain depth

d is equal to the actuall water depth.. Added masss and dampingg are subsequ uently

deterrmined in a model

m with increased domainn depth, wherre the shallow seabed is moodelled by a seecond

bodyy, a fixed platee. The box off size 10×10 m 2 with a draftt of 5 m is floating above a horizontal seeabed.

The seabed is eithher defined by y the bottom boundary of the 3D diffraaction model oor by a diffraacting

platee with 8 m suubmergence. The T size of thhe plate is 50 0×50 m2 or 300×300 m2; tthe box positiion is

abovve the centre of the plate. Domain

D depthhs of 8 m, 10 0 m and 20 m are considerred here. With h 8m

COASTAL ENGINEERING 2014 5

water depth, the shallow seabed is properly defined by the bottom boundary of the 3D diffraction

model and the plate is thus evitable. With 10 m and 20 m domain depth, the model is run with and

without plate. Model runs without plate show the actual effect of the increased water depth on added

mass and damping coefficients. Model runs with plate should result in the same added mass and

damping coefficients as the initial run with 8 m water depth, if the diffracting plate would have the

same effect as a shallow seabed.

Added mass and damping coefficients of the floating box are presented in Fig. 4 for heave (i.e.

vertical translation, coefficient Z-Z are on the principal diagonal of the added mass and damping

matrices). The heave coefficients are more illustrative than the coefficients for other ship motions and

are therefore presented here; the observations for heave apply for other ship motions as well.

In the runs without plate the added mass and damping coefficients are decreasing with increasing

water depth. The effect of frequency is very much the same for all three water depths.

When modelling the shallow seabed with a horizontal plate of size 50×50 m2 that is 8 m below the

water surface the predicted added mass and damping coefficients are similar to the results from runs

with increased domain depth and without plate. It can be seen in Fig. 4 (left) that a diffracting plate has

some effect on the added mass and damping coefficients. But it is evident that both coefficients are

primarily determined by the domain depth and not be the panel depth above the diffracting plate. None

of the runs with diffracting plate results in added mass and damping coefficients that are similar to the

initial run with 8 m water depth. In other words, the diffracting plate fails to reproduce the effect of a

shallow seabed.

When modelling the shallow seabed with a horizontal plate of size 300×300 m2 (8 m below the

water surface) the predicted added mass and damping coefficients become similar to the results from

the run with 8 m domain depth. It can be seen in Fig. 4 (right) that added mass and damping

coefficients are significantly influenced by the panel depth above the diffracting plate. The results are

similar to the initial run with 8 m water depth. It appears that a diffracting plate of sufficient size can

reproduce the effect of a shallow seabed to some extent. However, the added mass and damping

coefficients show an unrealistic oscillating pattern; the maximum error is about 30%.

Panel Bottom (50×50 m2) Panel Bottom (300×300 m2)

180 180

160 160

Damping [kN/(m/s)]

Damping [kN/(m/s)]

140 140

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

1000 d = 8 m, No Plate 1000

900 d = 10 m, Plate at 8 m 900

800 d = 10m, No Plate 800

Added Mass [ton]

Added Mass [ton]

600 d = 20 m, No Plate 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

2 2

Figure 4. Resistance of floating box with panel bottom of size 2,500 m (left) and 90,000 m (right): Damping

coefficients (top) and added mass coefficients (bottom) for heave (Z-Z)

Buchner (2006) concluded that a second body in diffraction theory, when chosen properly with

respect to size and shape, can contribute to the correct calculation of the added mass and damping of

ships on a sloping seabed. The conclusion of Buchner is partly confirmed in this study. The results of

the simple floating-box-model (Fig. 4) demonstrate that the effect of a shallow seabed can be

6 COASTA

TAL ENGINEE

ERING 2014

y a second sttructure of su

ufficient size in the 3D diiffraction anaalysis.

Howwever, the accuuracy of the predicted

p addeed mass and damping

d coeffficients is lim

mited. The erro

ors of

the ssimple floatinng-box-model reached 30%%; larger errorrs can be expeected in a moore complex model

m

withh varying depthh.

RES

SULTS OF AN

NALAYSIS WITH VARIABL

LE WATER DE

EPTH

A dynamic mooring

m analyssis is performeed for a tankeer berth in shaallow water wi with sloping seeabed.

The sloping bottoom is included d in the panel model as a second

s ure that is restting on the seabed;

structu

the aactual bathymmetry is thus modelled

m by difffracting paneels. It is demonstrated in thee previous secctions

that this modellinng approach will w result inn distorted waave condition ns at the berthh and in disttorted

resisstance coefficeents for the sh

hip. Nonethelless, this apprroach is applieed to show too which exten nt line

and ffender forces will be affected by the shorrtcomings of the t 3D diffracction analysis.

A tanker (LNNG carrier witth spherical taanks) of size 125,000 m3 (LPP 260 m, beam 47.2 m and

draftt 11.5 m) is moored

m above a sloping sseabed with gradient

g 1:20 (Fig. 5). The line of maxiimum

gitudinal ship axis. The waater depth varries along thee berth from 17 m

graddient is paralleel to the long

(sterrn) to 23 m (m

midships) and 292 m (bow).

A 3D diffracttion analysis is performed too determine th he response am mplitude operrators (RAO’ss) and

resisstance coefficients (added mass and dam mping coefficcients) of the ship. Resultss from simulaations

withh a second sttructure that represents thhe seabed aree compared with w two refeference cases with

horizzontal seabed. The latter arre performed with the mid dships depth (2 23 m) and thee predefined water

w

depthh (domain deppth, 32 m) of thet simulationns with slopin ng seabed.

Figurre 5. Tanker be

erth with slopin

ng seabed

The damping coefficients of o the tanker aabove the slopping bottom and from the tw wo reference cases

withh horizontal bottom are plo otted in Fig. 66. The overalll characteristics of the dam mping coefficcients

abovve the panel bathymetry

b aree similar to thhe damping cooefficients in constant wateer depth, wheen the

wateer depth is equual to the midsships depth abbove the slopee. In other worrds, the water depth that is “felt”

by thhe ship is dettermined by th he seabed struucture (panel depth) and no ot by the dommain depth. This is

ove floating-boox-analysis with

simillar to the resuults of the abo w a plate off size 300×3000 m2. The dam mping

coeffficients abovee the sloping seabed

s show aan oscillating pattern

p for all translational and rotational ship

motiions. The larggest amplitudees are found ffor motion perriods of 10 – 25 s; the osciillation ampliitudes

are ddecreasing forr longer and shorter

s period s. These oscilllations are prrobably induceed by the disttorted

wavee pattern at thet berth, i.e. the waffledd clapotis (seee Fig. 1d) is probably resp sponsible for these

oscilllations.

The added maass coefficients of the tankeer (sloping bo ottom and two o reference casses with horizzontal

bottoom) are plotteed in Fig. 7. Similar

S to the damping coeffficients (Fig. 6) the overalll characteristiics of

the aadded mass cooefficients abo ove the slopingg seabed are similar

s to coeffficients in connstant water depth,

d

whenn the water depth

d is equall to the midshhips depth ab bove the slope. The addedd mass coefficcients

abovve the slopingg seabed show w the same osscillating patteern as for the damping coeefficients, whiich is

probbably a result of

o the distorted wave patterrn at the berth..

F

Figs. 6 and 7 give the im mpression thatt added masss and dampin ng coefficients ts above a slooping

bottoom that is moodelled as a seecond structurre are similar to the coefficients that ate determined fo or the

midsships depth abbove the slopee modelled witth horizontal bottom.

b

COASTA

TAL ENGINEE

ERING 2014 7

2.5E+06 4.5E+07 1.8E+08

4.0E+07 1.6E+08

0E+06

2.0

Damping [kg/s]

Damping [kg/s]

p g [ g/ ]

Damping [kg/s]

3.5E+07 1.4E+08

3.0E+07 1.2E+08

1.5E+06

2.5E+07 1.0E+08

1.0

0E+06

Mid‐Ship Depth 2.0E+07 8.0E+07

1.5E+07 6.0E+07

Slope

5.0

0E+05 1.0E+07 4.0E+07

Domain Depth 5.0E+06 2.0E+07

0.0

0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

quency [Hz]

Freq Frequency [H

Hz] Frequency [Hz]

X‐RX)

Roll (RX Pitch (RY‐RY) Yaw

w (RZ‐RZ)

9.0

0E+08 5.0E+11 1.8E+11

8.0

0E+08 4.5E+11 1.6E+11

Damping [kg m2/s]

Damping [kg m2/s]

p g [ g 2//s]]

7.0

0E+08 4.0E+11 1.4E+11

Damping [kg m

6.0

0E+08 3.5E+11 1.2E+11

3.0E+11

5.0

0E+08 1.0E+11

2.5E+11

4.0

0E+08 8.0E+10

2.0E+11

3.0

0E+08 1.5E+11 6.0E+10

2.0

0E+08 1.0E+11 4.0E+10

1.0

0E+08 5.0E+10 2.0E+10

0.0

0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

quency [Hz]

Freq Frequency [H

Hz] Frequency [Hz]

Figurre 6. Damping

g coefficients of tanker abo

ove sloping se

eabed and two

o reference cas

ases with horiz

zontal

seab

bed

1.4E+07 1.4E+08 2.0E+09

Mid‐Ship Depth 1.8E+09

1.2E+07 1.2E+08

Added Mass [kg]

Added Mass [kg]

[ g]

Added Mass [kg]

1.6E+09

1.0E+07 Slope 1.0E+08 1.4E+09

8.0E+06 Domain Depth 8.0E+07 1.2E+09

1.0E+09

6.0E+06 6.0E+07 8.0E+08

4.0E+06 4.0E+07 6.0E+08

4.0E+08

2.0E+06 2.0E+07

2.0E+08

0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

Freq

quency [Hz] Frequency [H

Hz] Frequency [Hz]

Roll (RX

X‐RX) Pitch (RY‐RY) Yaw (RZ‐RZ)

1.4E+10 3.0E+12 4.5E+11

4.0E+11

Added Mass [kg m2]

Added Mass [kg m2]

[ g 2]

1.2E+10 2.5E+12

Added Mass [kg m

3.5E+11

1.0E+10

2.0E+12 3.0E+11

8.0E+09 2.5E+11

1.5E+12

6.0E+09 2.0E+11

1.0E+12 1.5E+11

4.0E+09

1.0E+11

2.0E+09 5.0E+11

5.0E+10

0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

Freq

quency [Hz] Frequency [H

Hz] Frequency [Hz]

bove sloping seabed

s and two reference caases with horiz

zontal

seab

bed

ed in head on waves and two reference caases with horiz

zontal

seab

bed

8 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2014

It was earlier concluded by Buchner (2006) that unrealistic partial standing waves above a sloping

seabed that is modelled as a second structure in the 3D diffraction analysis will result in distorted wave

exciting forces on a ship and in distorted ship response to waves. According to Buchner the predicted

ship motions are unrealistic; modelling a sloping seabed as a second body is thus not possible. The

linear response amplitude operators (RAO’s) that are linking the wave pressure on panels to ship

motions are presented in Fig. 8 for head on waves. RAO’s are presented for the sloping seabed and for

a reference case with horizontal seabed, where the water depth is equal to the midships depth above the

slope. The RAO’s have a strong oscillating pattern for all translational and rotational motions. These

oscillations are obviously induced by the interference pattern of the partial standing waves at the berth

(see Fig 1d). This waffled clapotis is unrealistic and so are the ship motions that are induced by the

waffled clapotis and are described by the RAO’s.

A time domain mooring analysis is performed using the results of the 3D diffraction analysis

(RAO’s, added mass and damping coefficients). The ship motions at berth and the mooring loads (line

and fender forces) are calculated for a given berth layout, mooring arrangement and for specific

mooring line and fender characteristics. A typical jetty mooring configuration (3 head lines, 3 forward

breasting lines, 2 forwards spring lines, 2 aft spring lines, 3 aft breasting lines, 3 stern lines and 4

fenders) are applied as shown in Fig. 9. The lines (40 mm steel ropes with nylon tail) have a breaking

load of 127 ton and a stiffness of 30% breaking load at 0.78% elongation. The fenders have a rated load

of 4,390 kN at 60% deflection.

Three different wave conditions are considered in this mooring analysis; these are head on waves,

quarterly bow waves and beam on waves. For head on waves and quarterly bow waves a JONSWAP

spectrum with significant wave height, Hs of 2.0 m and a peak wave period, Tp of 10 s is applied. For

beam on conditions the significant wave height is reduced to 1.0 m.

Results from the mooring analysis with sloping seabed and with horizontal seabed are presented

here. The latter are performed with the midships depth (23 m) of the simulations with sloping seabed.

For head on conditions the simulations with sloping seabed result in slightly higher line loads for

the spring lines Fig. 10, left). They are probability caused by second order drift forces; the surge RAO’s

on the slope are increased for long waves as compared to a horizontal bottom (see in Fig. 8). He

differeces for all other line and fender forces are insignificant.

For quarterly bow waves the simulations with sloping seabed result in lower line and fender loads

(Fig. 10, centre). This is is surprising as the RAO’s for sway above a sloping seabed are mostly larger

than with a horizontal bottom. The RAO’s for yaw are similar for sloping and horizontal seabed except

for long waves.

For beam on waves the fender and mooring line loads are significantly lower above a sloping

seabed than for the reference case with horizontal seabed. As for the quarterly bow conditions the

reason for this load reduction cannot be identified in the RAO’s for sway and yaw, except for the yaw

response to long waves. The results of simulations with horizontal bed that are presented in the

following section indicate that head and stern lines face larger loads in deeper water. Reduced line

loads as found for the stern lines in the shallow part of the slope are in line with this observation.

However, the reduced line loads for the bow lines in the deeper part of the slope are incomprehensible.

COASTA

TAL ENGINEE

ERING 2014 9

Head

d on Quarterly Bow

w Beaam on

400 2000 2500

Flat Bottom

m

350 1800

Slope

1600 2000

300

1400

250 1500

Force [kN]

[kN]

1200

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

200 1000

800 1000

F

150

600

100

400 500

50 200

0 0 0

d fender forces

s above sloping

g bottom and reference

r cases

s with horizonttal seabed

IIt appears froom the abovee that the disstorted wave field will afffect not only the results of o the

frequuency domainn analysis (3D a the results of the moorring analysis in

D diffraction aanalysis) but also i the

time domain. Thee predicted lin ne and fender forces abovee a sloping seaabed differ froom the results that

are oobtained with a horizontal seabed.

s It is nnot clear to wh

hich extent theese deviationss are caused by

b the

distoorted wave fieeld and the reesulting incorr b the oscillaating pattern oof added mass and

rrect RAO’s, by

dampping coefficieents or by the actual effect o the sloping seabed.

s

RES

SULTS OF AN

NALAYSIS WITH CONSTAN

NT WATER DEPTH

D

A

An alternativve, more straiightforward m modelling app proach is invvestigated whhereby the slooping

bottoom is replaceed by an eq quivalent horiizontal seabed T actual bbathymetry is thus

d (Fig. 11). The

simpplified and described by a single

s parameeter (constant water depth) in the panel model. The tanker

berthh is further unnchanged. Thhe same LNG G carrier as in

n the previouss analysis hass been applied

d; the

wateer depth of 177 m, 23 m and d 29 m corressponds to the bow, midship ps and stern w

water depths on

o the

slopee. The 3D difffraction analy

ysis is perform

med for each water

w depth to determine thee RAO’s and added

a

masss and dampingg coefficients of the ship.

b with horiz

zontal seabed:: Water depth 17

1 m (left), 23 m (centre) and 29 m (right)

The dampingg coefficients are presenteed in Fig. 12; the added mass m coefficieents are showwn in

Fig. 13. The dampping coefficien nts are increassing in shallow

w water. The added mass cooefficients aree also

typiccally increasinng in shallow

w water, espeecially for low w frequenciess. The RAO’ss are presentted in

Fig. 14. The 3D diffraction

d analysis with hoorizontal botttom is not disstorted by thee developmentt of a

wafffled clapotis. Consequently,

C , and differentt from the sim h sloping bottoom, the RAO’s and

mulations with

the rresistance coefficients do no

ot show an osscillating patteern. The RAO

O’s are similarr for all three water

w

depthhs. However, a slight shift in natural freqquencies can be observed leading

l to long

nger natural peeriods

in shhallow water. This shift is related

r to the increased dam mping and addded mass coeffficients in shallow

wateer.

10 COASTA

TAL ENGINEE

ERING 2014

3.0

0E+06 4.5E+07 1.8E+08

4.0E+07 1.6E+08

2.5

5E+06

3.5E+07 1.4E+08

Damping [kg/s]

Damping [kg/s]

p g [ g/ ]

Damping [kg/s]

2.0

0E+06 3.0E+07 1.2E+08

2.5E+07 1.0E+08

1.5

5E+06

2.0E+07 8.0E+07

1.0

0E+06 Bow (‐29 m) 1.5E+07 6.0E+07

Mid‐Ship (‐23 m)) 1.0E+07 4.0E+07

5.0

0E+05

Stern (‐17 m) 5.0E+06 2.0E+07

0.0

0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 0.0

050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

Freq

quency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

Roll (RX

X‐RX) Pitch (RY‐RY) Yaw (RZ‐RZ)

1.2E+09 6.0E+11 1.8E+11

1.6E+11

Damping [kg m2/s]

Damping [kg m2/s]

p g [ g 2//s]]

1.0E+09 5.0E+11

1.4E+11

Damping [kg m

8.0E+08 4.0E+11 1.2E+11

1.0E+11

6.0E+08 3.0E+11

8.0E+10

4.0E+08 2.0E+11 6.0E+10

4.0E+10

2.0E+08 1.0E+11

2.0E+10

0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 050

0.0 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

Freq

quency [Hz] Frequency [H

Hz] Frequency [Hz]

g coefficients of

o tanker above

e horizontal se

eabed (water de

epth 17 m, 23 m and 29 m)

1.6

6E+07 2.0E+08 2.5E+09

1.4

4E+07 1.8E+08

Bow (‐29 m)

[ g]

Added Mass [kg]

Added Mass [kg]

Added Mass [kg]

1.6E+08 2.0E+09

1.2

2E+07 Mid‐Ship (‐23 m) 1.4E+08

1.0

0E+07 1.2E+08 1.5E+09

Stern (‐17 m)

8.0

0E+06 1.0E+08

6.0

0E+06 8.0E+07 1.0E+09

6.0E+07

4.0

0E+06

4.0E+07 5.0E+08

2.0

0E+06 2.0E+07

0.0

0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 0.0

050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

Freq

quency [Hz] Frequency [H

Hz] Frequency [Hz]

Roll (RX

X‐RX) Pitch (RY‐RY) Yaw (RZ‐RZ)

1.8

8E+10 3.5E+12 6.0E+11

1.6

6E+10

Added Mass [kg m2]

Added Mass [kg m2]

[ g 2]

3.0E+12 5.0E+11

Added Mass [kg m

1.4

4E+10

2.5E+12

1.2

2E+10 4.0E+11

1.0

0E+10 2.0E+12

3.0E+11

8.0

0E+09 1.5E+12

6.0

0E+09 2.0E+11

1.0E+12

4.0

0E+09

5.0E+11 1.0E+11

2.0

0E+09

0.0

0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.000 0.0

050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.100

Freq

quency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

m coefficien

nts of tanker ab

bove horizonta

al seabed (wate

er depth 17 m, 23 m and 29 m)

m

o tanker above

e horizontal sea

abed (water de

epth 17 m, 23 m and 29 m) in head on waves

s

COASTAL ENGINEERING 2014 11

A time domain mooring analysis is performed; the ship motions at berth and the mooring loads

(line and fender forces) are calculated for the three different water depths. The mooring configuration

with 16 lines and 4 fenders is identical to the analysis with sloping seabed (see Fig. 9). The same

applies for the line and fender characteristics and for the environmental conditions (Hs of 2.0 m for

head on and quarterly bow conditions, Hs of 1.0 m for beam on conditions). Results from the mooring

analysis are presented in Fig. 15. The line and fender for head on conditions are of similar size for all

three water depths. For quarterly bow conditions and for beam on conditions the differences can be

significant for specific lines. There is not a persistent increase or reduction of line and fender forces in

shallow water. The behaviour of a ship at berth is the result of a complex interaction of ship,

environment and mooring system; the prediction of line and fender forces requires therefore an analysis

of the entire system.

Head on Quarterly Bow Beam on

400 2500 2500

Bow (‐29 m)

350

2000 Mid‐Ship (‐23 m) 2000

300 Stern (‐17 m)

250

Force [kN]

1500

Force [kN]

1500

Force [kN]

200

1000 1000

150

50

0 0

0

Figure 15. Line and fender forces above horizontal bottom (water depth 17 m, 23 m and 29 m)

CONCLUSIONS

When performing dynamic mooring analysis for a berth with varying seabed, the geometry of the

seabed cannot be modelled as a second structure in a panel model. This approach will result in

unrealistic RAO’s with a strongly oscillating pattern, which are in turn the result of unrealistic partial

standing waves on the slope. An oscillating pattern is further observed for added mass and damping

coefficients when the seabed is modelled as a second structure in a panel model. It is unclear if any

effects of the sloping seabed on added mass and damping can be captured realistically by this approach.

A dynamic mooring analysis for a berth with varying seabed bears large uncertainties when the

seabed is included as a second structure in the panel model. This approach is therefore not advisable.

A simplified modelling approach with an equivalent horizontal seabed is more robust and is more

likely to provide a realistic estimate of the actual line and fender forces. The uncertainties of this

approach are related to the definition of the equivalent water depth and to the influences of the sloping

bottom that are neglected in this approach. Influences that are not addressed are for example the

variation of added mass between the bow and stern of the ship. The equivalent constant water depth at

a berth with sloping seabed can be assessed by as follows:

The equivalent water depth for a berth with sloping seabed is most probably within the range

of minimum and maximum water depth at the berth;

The mid-ships water depth can be applied to determine a best estimate of line and fender

forces; the minimum and maximum water depth (water depths at bow and stern) can be

applied to determine a likely range of line and fender forces.

It is further recommended to analyse the variation of wave conditions along the berth with a

suitable wave model. The likely range of line and fender forces should preferably be determined for all

combinations of the relevant water depths (at bow, midships and stern) and wave conditions (at bow,

mid-ship and stern). If the wave conditions vary significantly along the berth, for example in case of a

partly sheltered berth a hybrid Boussinesq-panel approach (Bingham, 2000) should be considered.

Examples of a dynamic mooring analysis with a hybrid Boussinesq-panel approach can be found in

Wenneker et al (2006) and Christensen et al. (2009).

12 COASTAL ENGINEERING 2014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study would not have been possible without the support of Delta Marine Consultants. This

support is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

ANSYS 2013. AQWA Theory Manual – Release 15.0 (November 2013). ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg,

PA, pp. 112.

Bingham, H.B. 2000. A hybrid Boussinesq-panel method for predicting the motion of a moored ship.

Coastal Engineering, Vol. 40, pp. 21 – 38.

Buchner, B. 2006. The motions of a ship on a sloped seabed. Proceedings of OMAE2006, 25th

International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Hamburg, Germany.

Christensen, E.D., B. Jensen, S.B. Mortensen, H.F. Hansen, J. Kirkegaard 2008. Numerical simulation

of ship motion in offshore and harbour areas. Proceedings of the OMAE2008, 27th International

Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Estoril, Portugal.

Wenneker, I., M.J.A. Borsboom, J.A. Pinkster, O.M. Weiler 2006. A Boussinesq-type wave model

coupled to a diffraction model to simulate wave-induced ship motion. Proceedings of 31st PIANC

Congress. Estoril, Portugal.

- wave 6.6Uploaded byChristopher Au
- Introduction to Modern Digital Holography With MatlabUploaded byLuis Enrique B G
- Heisenberg derivationUploaded byvijay
- Physics Cheat Sheet MasterUploaded byDeepanshu
- 0801-Paper.pdfUploaded byudaysrinivas
- Sem 2 Blue Print mu from stupidsidUploaded byBing Rox
- physics cap matrix marked for final exam 2014Uploaded byapi-243626014
- physics form 5: wavesUploaded byRamliRem
- Model Paper Applied Physics 1 1 r16Uploaded byvrkorada
- Diffraction.docUploaded bythrockmi
- More Electromagnetic Spectrum QsUploaded byphydotsi
- etzyUploaded byAdonis Cabigon
- ampli bangkokUploaded byFarid Maruf
- 1129215501isrm Sm Blast Vibration Monitoring - 1992Uploaded byIsa Osorio
- Pinhole Diffraction PaperUploaded bymatt
- Bios PapeUploaded bykndprasad01
- Cummings 1978Uploaded byCarlos Guerra
- Wave InterferenceUploaded bymarzinus
- AQA-7407-7408-SP-2015-V1-2.pdfUploaded bydeathgrip1235
- fisika RSBI silabusUploaded byaries triwidajati
- Stationary Wave Dana Santika Fisika UndikshaUploaded byI Gede Dana Santika
- Lecture3(Quantum Chem) KsUploaded byRahul Mittal
- 1129215501isrm Sm Blast Vibration Monitoring - 1992Uploaded byMario Bacic
- physical sciencesUploaded byapi-286466377
- Spectral Modification of Seismic Waves Propagating Through Solids Exhibiting a Resonance Frequency a 1-D Coupled Wave Propagation–Oscillation ModelUploaded byRonaldHatfield
- phys specUploaded byapi-313426741
- Wave GuidUploaded byAhmad Ali Syafi'i
- Quantum Mechanics_mcqs.pdfUploaded bymanojyadav27
- NACA MODEL INVASTIGATION ON SEAPLANES IN WAVES.pdfUploaded byGiannis Giorgos
- science5Uploaded byapi-365038628

- ,maulana baut.docxUploaded byrendezvous26
- (REVISI) Rundown Tasyakuran & Silaturahmi Politeknik KP PangandaranUploaded byrendezvous26
- bla.txtUploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 2 TKL Remaja Fisika Terapan (Agung,Aldan,Ali,Kiki,Vilda)Uploaded byrendezvous26
- Marios KoenUploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 1Uploaded byrendezvous26
- AangUploaded byrendezvous26
- 5 Pedoman Penyusunan Dan Evaluasi BKD PPNS 2017 UploadUploaded bysiti mudawanah
- 5 Pedoman Penyusunan Dan Evaluasi BKD PPNS 2017 UploadUploaded bysiti mudawanah
- powerpoint templateUploaded byhesziananda
- Abdul & DewiUploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 4Uploaded byrendezvous26
- AksalUploaded byrendezvous26
- kelompok 3Uploaded byrendezvous26
- TAvanBruggen_4036573_Thesis.pdfUploaded bySachin Sithik
- Watai (2014) Rankine time-domain method with application to side-by-side gap flow modeling.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Buku Wirausaha Acc 2 Pressss Revisi Ke 2Uploaded byrendezvous26
- Tajali (2011) Hydrodynamic Analysis of Multi-body Floating Piers Under Wave ActionUploaded byrendezvous26
- Buchner (2007) Extreme Wave Effects on Deepwater Floating StructuresUploaded byrendezvous26
- Lin (2014) Influence of water depth variation on the hydrodynamics of deep-water mooring characteristics.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Lin (2014) Influence of water depth variation on the hydrodynamics of deep-water mooring characteristics.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Xiang (2010) Maneuvering of Two Interacting Ships in Calm Water.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Cozijn (2004) Coupled Mooring Analysis for a Deep Water Calm BuoyUploaded byrendezvous26
- Rho (2013) Static and Dynamic Mooring Analysis - Stability of FPSO Risers for Extreme Environmental ConditionsUploaded byrendezvous26
- (OK) 2002 OWA - FPSO Mooring and Offloading System Alternatives for Deepwater West AfricaUploaded byAlejandro Gil
- Yang (2016) Mooring Line Damping Due to Low-frequency Superimposed With Wave-frequency Random Line Top End MotionUploaded byrendezvous26
- Gao (2009) Mooring system analysis of multiple wave energy converters in a farm configuration.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Wu (2016) Design, Implementation and Analysis of Full Coupled Monitoring System of FPSO With Soft Yoke Mooring SystemUploaded byrendezvous26
- Ganesan (2014) Direct time domain analysis of floating structures with linear and nonlinear mooring stiffness in a 3D numerical wave tank.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26

- Chapter 9 - Program Control InstructionsUploaded bymmorsy1981
- Lab01 - Installation of Windows Server 2008Uploaded by815003
- 3725 Installation GuideUploaded bykashif.amir
- 1.SwitchUploaded byDeepak Chaudhary
- EMSPaper Final WebUploaded bydnyny123
- SAFE Setup GuideUploaded byMuhammad Aquilur Rahman
- SSL VPN for Remote Users - Fortinet CookbookUploaded byJhonnySinatra
- Analysis Design of AlgorithmUploaded byAnjali Kalra
- Fractional Fourier TransformUploaded byLucas Gallindo
- Read MeUploaded byGanesh Shrestha
- How to Discover Most Frequently Executed RA RulesUploaded bySatish Kumar
- Sc 2017 i Cpc ProblemsUploaded byTeerapat Jenrungrot
- Web Design ChecklistUploaded bybnsamy
- New Text DocumentUploaded byraja0034
- PSR_College[1].pdfUploaded byrajap102
- Placement Consultants in Santacruz MumbaiUploaded bysaumitra2
- Paris, I Love You but You're Bringing Me DownUploaded byMacmillan Publishers
- UNIT - IVUploaded byJit Agg
- AISG ES-RAB v 2.1.0Uploaded byexcaliburslv
- BANSODE VAIBHAV H. Bansode.vaibhav@Gmail.com Contact:-09860287664Uploaded bybansodevh
- ER Diagrams SimplifiedUploaded byPuneet Arora
- Teradata DBA Course ContentUploaded byVamsee Vadlamani
- MusicMaster IT Guide 2012Uploaded byAntonio Lara
- rn(43)Uploaded byLorenzo Carrieri
- As NZS ISO 19121-2006 Geographic Information - Imagery and Gridded DataUploaded bySAI Global - APAC
- MZ225002EN CL 7 Control ReferenceUploaded byMekkov Mekkovv
- Synopsis Ritu BhandariUploaded byRitu Bhandari
- Learn Roads-Road Pavement Design and Rate Analysis SoftwareUploaded byLandon Mitchell
- 8D formatUploaded byGeorge Suba
- Com 5403 SoftUploaded byComBlock