1 views

Uploaded by rendezvous26

- 13_3059
- June 2003 QP - Paper 1 CIE Physics IGCSE
- Science Sample
- 2 Jirasek
- NI Tutorial 4278 en Crossspectrumetc
- Chapter2 Lect1 Updated
- JC 2
- 102436193-Physics-Reviewer.pdf
- Wave Basics iitjee
- 20 Sound Wave Properties Web
- 11 Physics NcertSolutions Chapter 15 Exercises Additional TAdsfsdfsdfsdfsdfdsfdsf
- Assignment 2
- 08r059210403 Signals and Systems
- IACS_REC_34
- MIT2_019S11_GuideP3
- Eee3086f 208 Spectral Analysis Ajw
- Slinky Lab
- Disha Publication General Science
- Compilation in Physics 212
- A Theoretical Approach to the SlammingImpact Pressure Actingon the VLFS.pdf

You are on page 1of 14

Ocean Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

of deep-water mooring characteristics

Zi Lin n, P. Sayer

Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

ar t ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper studies the behaviour of a mooring system, in water depths from 300 m to 3000 m, using an

Received 23 October 2014 indirect time-domain method. The boundary element method and lumped mass method are used to inves-

Accepted 25 August 2015 tigate the ﬂoating body hydrodynamics and mooring line characteristics, respectively. Results from coupled

Available online 22 October 2015

analysis are compared with experimental data in intermediate water depth. The results from coupled low

Keywords: frequency (LF) and fully coupled analysis are compared and discussed. Results from parametric studies are

Water depth variation compared to offer guidance to mooring system designers on the suitability of particular approaches.

Coupled analysis & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Coupled LF analysis

Mooring system

Deep-water

range of environmental conditions, mooring line hydrodynamic coef-

Water depth has long been recognised by the offshore industry as a ﬁcients and conﬁgurations, and different methods of analysis (e.g. Kim

key parameter in mooring system design; it affects mooring line length, et al, 2001; Guedes Soares et al, 2001; Wichers and Devlin, 2001; Qiao

material and conﬁguration. The time domain approach (for example, as et al., 2012; Astrup et al, 2001; Kim and Sclavounos, 2001; Tahar and

per the design codes of API (2005) or DNV (2010)) is considered to be a Kim, 2003). These studies tended to concentrate on the effects of a

reliable design tool, by incorporating the inherent nonlinearities and range of parameters for a particular value of water depth. A few looked

coupling effects of the mooring system characteristics. at the effects of water depth (e.g. Chen et al. (2001); Luo and Baudic

An ever present challenge is to improve the accuracy of the for- (2003)); it is timely to re-evaluate this problem.

mulation and modelling, while decreasing computational demands. On examining standard design codes, e.g. API (2005) and DNV

For larger water depths, coupled analysis has long been considered (2010), there is limited guidance on the effects of water depth

necessary to obtain accurate values of the motion response of a variation. DNV-OS-E301 states that a dynamic analysis has to be

ﬂoating body. It is generally accepted that in deep water the weight of carried out for water depths larger than 100 m. Given that plat-

a chain mooring line becomes comparable with that of the ﬂoating forms are currently being developed for operation in water depths

body, and so it may have a large effect on the ﬂoating body. To this up to 3000 m, it may happen that not all dynamic simulations

end, a fully coupled analysis is necessary to obtain accurate values for generate comparable accuracies for similar computational effort.

motions and mooring line tensions. Ormberg and Larsen (1998) stu-

died a turret-moored FPSO, and showed that, for large water depth,

2. Description of the mooring system

the LF response becomes dominant and a non-coupled analysis failed

to predict the motions accurately. However, a fully coupled time-

The mooring system used in our case studies is a classic Spar

domain simulation is usually much more time-consuming and

platform. Figs. 1 and 2 show a schematic of the four-point mooring

memory-intensive, which is not helpful for (preliminary) design. Many

system. The main particulars of the cylinder are shown in Table 1.

moored ﬂoating platforms are therefore assessed using a quasi-static

coupled method. Under certain approximations, other methods are

available which can generate reasonably accurate results without

3. Numerical modelling

excessive computational demands. Their accuracy varies with water

depth, and so it seems appropriate to re-examine and quantify The diffraction/radiation computing package WAMIT (WAMIT

approaches as the water depth increases. User's Manual, 2013) was used to generate the hydrodynamic coefﬁ-

cients. In WAMIT, two types of Boundary Element Method (BEM) 1)

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 44 141 548 4911. lower order method and 2) higher order method (based on B-spline

E-mail address: zlin6099@gmail.com (Z. Lin). function) are applied for solving the integral equation. In this paper,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.08.043

0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

554 Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566

considering of the large volume of the cylinder, the B-spline based determined by the mean drift forces. Although mean drift forces

higher order BEM method was applied for solving the integral equa- can be evaluated by solving the ﬁrst-order boundary value problem,

tion. By solving the linear boundary value problem, the added mass, it is not easy to evaluate compared ﬁrst-order compounds. So, in

radiation damping and wave exciting forces were calculated with this paper, a speciﬁc mooring system and a speciﬁc water depth

different frequencies. Considering the long simulation time for calcu- were selected because of the availability of experimental data.

lating full QTFs (Quadric Transfer Functions), which are almost In order to check the accuracy of mean drift forces, a comparison

impossible for running hundreds of cases in design process, only mean of current WAMIT results and available experimental data (Spar

drift force was calculated. The second-order difference-frequency Model Test Joint Industry Project, 1995) is shown in Fig. 3. From the

compounds of wave loading were calculated with Newman's comparison we can see that a good trend is shown between

Approximation, which is considered as a good and efﬁcient method of

numerical results and available experimental data, which offer good

approximation under deep-water circumstance.

and accurate preparation for the time domain whole system dynamic

response simulation. A good agreement is shown between present

3.1. Mesh of the Spar

results and the experimental data for frequency less than 0.6 rad/s.

was used in this paper, the geometry of the body surface was ﬁrst 3.3. Calculation of current forces

determined by one or more smooth patches. A patch is a con-

tinuous surface (WAMIT). The cylinder was divided into two pat- The current drag loads due to translational relative velocity

ches, one was the side and the other one was the bottom of the were calculated in the standard manner:

cylinder. Because of the symmetry of the cylinder, meshes were

generated only on a quarter of the cylinder. 1

F ¼ C ρV 2 A ð1Þ

2

3.2. Validation of mean wave drift force

where

Wave drift forces are important in the mooring system design

because the mean position of the mooring system is partly C ¼drag coefﬁcient

ρ ¼ water density

V¼current velocity

A¼projected area

surface, linearly decreasing to zero on the seabed.

motions (DNV-RP-F205, 2010). In OrcaFlex, the effect of wave drift

Fig. 1. Mooring system layout (slack).

damping is evaluated by modifying the wave drift QTF values. As

Newman's Approximation was used in current study, the modiﬁed

Table 1 wave drift QTFs were based on Newman's Approximation. The

Main particulars of the Spar (Chen et al., 2001). modiﬁed value only applied on surge and sway. The wave drift

Parameters Values

damping in the case studies were time-dependant, instead of

constant value. The modiﬁed diagonal QTF Qde is given by

Diameter (m) 40.54

Draught (m) 198.12 Q de ðβ ; β ; τ; τÞ ¼ Ae Q d ðβe ; β e ; τe ; τe Þ ð2Þ

Mass (kg) 2.592 108

Centre of gravity (m) 105.98

Pitch radius of gyration (m) 62.33 where

Mooring point beneath mean still water level (m) 106.62

Surge damping coefﬁcient 0.0526 Ae ¼Aranha scaling factor (Aranha, 1994)

Heave damping coefﬁcient 0.0053 βe ¼encounter heading

Pitch damping coefﬁcient 0.0086

τe ¼encounter period

140

120

100

F(kN)

80

60

experiment

40

wamit

20

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Frequency (rad/s)

Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566 555

In this method, the global motion is split into WF (displace- 4. Comparison with available experimental data

ment RAOs) and LF (solving time-domain motion equation) parts.

A time-domain coupled analysis is performed under the LF effect In order to check our numerical model, motion response results

only condition while the WF parts of motion response are eval- for a mooring system in intermediate water depth (318 m) were

uated by the displacement RAOs. The WF motion response is compared with available experimental and numerical data (Chen

imposed on the LF motion response to get the total ﬂoating body et al., 2001). The main characteristics of mooring line are shown in

motion response. Table 3.

The LF motion equation in the time domain can be expressed

as: 4.1. Irregular sea-state modelling

Z 1

½M þ M a ð1ÞX€ LF þ Rðt τÞX_ LF dτ þ KX LF For validation, the incident random wave was simulated using a

0

JONSWAP spectrum with a signiﬁcant wave height Hs ¼13.1 m and

¼ F drif t þ F current þ F mooring þ F wd þ F v ð3Þ

peak period Tp ¼14 s, as selected by Chen et al. (2001). The

where expression of JONSWAP spectrum follows the equation below

(OrcaFlex)

Ma ¼Added mass matrix h i4 h i2

αg2 54 f mf e 12s2 f f 1

M ¼mass matrix Sðf Þ ¼ e γ m

ð6Þ

XLF ¼ﬂoating body low frequency motion response 16π 4

K ¼hydrostatic restoring matrix where g is the gravitational constant. f and fm are the frequency

R ¼retardation function and peak frequency, respectively. α and γ are data items as

Fwd ¼wave drift damping described in OrcaFlex user's Manual.

Fdrift ¼wave drift exciting force

Fcurrent ¼current force 4.2. Comparison of horizontal restoring force and worst loaded line

Fmooring ¼mooring force tension

Fv ¼linear viscous damping force

In order to check our modelling, horizontal restoring force and

The displacement RAOs were calculated for a range of fre- worst loaded line tension results (Figs. 4 and 5) for a mooring

quencies by solving the following frequency domain motion system in 318 m water depth were compared with available

equation: experimental data (Chen et al., 2001). They compare well with

available experimental data.

X

6

ð1Þ

½ ω2 ðM ij þ Aij Þ þ iωBij þ K ij x ¼ F ext ð4Þ

j¼1 4.3. Comparison of motion response between experimental data and

numerical simulation

where

Fully-coupled time domain motion responses of surge, heave

x ¼motion response and pitch are shown in Table 2. It is generally believed that for

ω ¼circular frequency such a high wave height nonlinear simulation of incident wave is

Mij ¼ mass matrix required. But in present simulation we simulated the incident

Aij ¼ added mass matrix wave with superposition theory which means the nonlinearity of

Bij ¼radiation damping matrix incident wave and their effects on the response of the cylinder

Kij ¼hydrostatic restoring matrix were ignored. From the comparison we can see that the mean

Fext ¼ 1st-order wave exciting force value still compares well with the experimental data. This is

probably because of the nonlinearity of incident wave in current

3.5.2. Fully-coupled method case studies is less important.

The added mass and radiation damping are calculated in fre-

quency domain for a range of frequencies and transferred from the

frequency domain using an Inverse Fourier Transform (Cummins, 5. Parametric study against analysis method

1962). The whole motion response no longer split into WF and LF

parts. Instead, the output of motion response will be a combina- Tables 3 and 4 show the properties of mooring line in different

tion of WF, LF and mean drift response. Coupling effects between water depths from 318 m to 3000 m. The two analysis methods

ﬂoating body and mooring lines are included automatically by mentioned in Section 3.5 were applied under a wave only condi-

solving the time-domain equation of motion iteratively for each tion and a wave plus current condition, respectively. For the

time step. Due to the small range of WF motion compared with LF parametric studies, the incident random wave had a signiﬁcant

motion, a relatively small time step is required. wave height Hs ¼3.25 m and peak period Tp ¼ 9.7 s, which has an

The ﬂoating body motion equation in the time domain can be over 20% percentage probability of sea (Lee et al, 1985). The

expressed as: simulation time was 3 hours. Table 5 shows a list of case studies

Z 1

and environmental conditions.

½M þ M a ð1ÞX€ þ _ τ þKX ¼ F wave þ F current þ F mooring

Rðt τÞXd

0

5.1. Load-Offset graph for different water depths

þ F v þF wd ð5Þ

undertaken using the static load-offset data in Fig. 6.1, selecting

X ¼ﬂoating body motion response the static horizontal stiffness according to water depth so that the

556 Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566

8000 Table 3

7000 Properties of chains (Chen et al., 2001).

6000

Force(kN)

Parameters Values

5000

4000 Water depth (m) 318 600 1000

3000 Number of mooring lines 4 4 4

experiment Length of mooring line (m) 600 1200 2000

2000

OrcaFlex Mass per unit length (kg/m) 1100 1100 1100

1000 Elastic stiffness (EA, kN) 1.5e6 1.5e6 1.5e6

0 Pretension (kN) 5100 13000 25000

0 10 20 30

Offset(m)

Table 4

Fig. 4. Comparison of horizontal restoring force in 318 m water depth.

Properties of taut mooring lines (composite, Deep Rope).

8500

8000 Water depth (m) 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

7500 Number of mooring 4*3 4*3 4*3 4*3 4*3

Tension(kN)

lines

7000

Length of Top chain 50 80 80 80 80

6500

experiment mooring Polyester 1490 1860 2860 3445 4324

6000

line (m) Ground 50 85 85 85 85

5500 chain

OrcaFlex

5000 Mass per Top chain 161 161 161 161 161

4500 unit length Polyester 53 15.5 21 24 24

0 10 20 30 (kg/m) Ground 161 161 161 161 161

Offset(m) chain

Elastic stiff- Top chain 691.74E3 691.74E3 691.74E3 691.74E3 691.74E3

Fig. 5. Comparison of worst loaded line tension in 318 m water depth.

ness (EA, Polyester 72.56E3 137E3 189E3 229E3 229E3

kN) Ground 691.74E3 691.74E3 691.74E3 691.74E3 691.74E3

chain

Table 2 Mooring radius(m) 1387.2 1537 2425 2700 3600

Comparison between experimental data and numerical simulation. Total line length(m) 1590 2025 3020 3512 4489

Min 6.94 8.13 10.93 Case studies against water depth.

Max 7.19 16.34 11.51

Std Dev 2.61 4.19 3.78 Case studies Method of analysis Environmental condition

Heave (m) Mean 0.024 1.40

Min 1.83 2.52 Case1 quasi-static Wave only condition

Max 1.75 0.85 Case2 coupled LF Wave only condition

Std Dev 0.71 0.13 Case3 fully-coupled Wave only condition

Pitch (m) Mean 0.27 0.25 Case4 quasi-static Waveþ current condition

Min 3.71 1.20 Case5 coupled LF Waveþ current condition

Max 4.25 2.32 Case6 fully-coupled Waveþ current condition

Std Dev 1.39 0.47

mean horizontal offsets were similar. For taut lines, the mooring ﬂoating body mean and maximum position, but only affects the LF

system contains 12 lines with 3 mooring line in a group. The part of the surge motion, as can be seen from the spectra in

layout of each group of mooring line is shown in Fig. 2. The angle Figs. 7.1–7.8. It is further observed that maximum surge response

between each mooring line is 5degree. is under-predicted by the coupled LF method, compared with the

fully coupled method. In contrast to the mean surge response, the

5.2. Simulation results difference between results from the coupled LF and fully-coupled

method increase with increasing water depth. However, the hor-

Figs. 7–10 show the one-sided power spectral density (PSD) of izontal motion responses are highly inﬂuenced by the additional

motion response and line tension time histories obtained by viscous damping, and so the maximum motion response results

Fourier Transform. The spectral density was smoothed to reduce from coupled LF analysis are not necessary larger than the fully

any noise (as recommended in the OrcaFlex User Manual). Sta- coupled analysis. Pitch responses follow a similar trend, particu-

tistical values of motion response and line tension are given in larly for the mean values. Surge and pitch are coupled, but, in

Figs. 11 and 12. Static results of mooring system response are contrast to the results for surge, the maximum amplitudes of pitch

shown in the ﬁgures of statistical values for comparison. The ﬁrst computed by the coupled LF method are almost double those from

column in the legend shows water depth while the second column the fully-coupled method.

represents statistical value or case studies. The maximum heave It is interesting to note that, unlike surge and pitch, the sta-

value in Figs. 12.2 and 14.1 are absolute maximum value. tistical properties of the heave motion are independent of water

Computed surge, pitch and heave natural periods are around depth, analysis method and loading condition. With a catenary

250 s, 41 s and 28 s, respectively, for all water depths. Although the chain mooring, the heave motion takes its overall largest value for

static load-offset graph is similar for each water depth, some dis- 1000 m water depth. One possible reason is that for water depths

crepancies can be seen when dynamic aspects are taken into less than 1000 m the chain has approximately 10% of the weight of

consideration. The mean value of the surge motion, using the the ﬂoating body, whereas it is less than 0.5% for 318 m water

coupled LF method, is about 1% larger than the value from the depth. The phenomena investigated in current case studies may

Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566 557

come from the large heave natural period (28 s), which is far from

the incident wave peak period (9.7 s). To this end, a FPSO with a

smaller heave natural period (8.33 s) was selected for case study. coupled LF and fully coupled method. In 1000 m water depth,

The FPSO is an internal turret-moored vessel with four mooring maximum value of heave response predicting by fully coupled

lines. Main particular of the FPSO and mooring line characteristics method is less than 10% larger than the counterpart of coupled LF

are given in Tables 6 and 7. Three water depths, 1000 m 2000 m method. But this difference decrease to less than 2% in 3000 m

and 3000 m were studied to investigate water depth variation on water depth. However, mean heave motion is still less sensitive to

heave motion. Similar to the cylinder case studies, in order to water depth, especially for wave-only condition (Figs. 14).

make results from different water depth more comparable, the For catenary chain and taut line, both mean and maximum

static load-offset graph was similar for all the water depth, as mooring line tension increases with the increasing of water depth.

shown in Fig. 6.2. From the heave motion spectrum in Figs. 13 we Among all the water depths, the maximum line tension comes

can see that the heave motion is complete determined by WF from 1000 m water depth with catenary chain, instead of 3000 m

response. Under wave only condition, heave spectrum of coupled water depth. One of the reasons is the mooring system initial

LF analysis and fully coupled analysis are almost identical. But on tension accounts for a large amount of total maximum line ten-

the contrary, current effect increases the difference between sion. For slack mooring line, the difference between coupled LF

558 Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566

Fig. 7.6. Surge 2000.

sion is 0.04% in 318 m water depth, decreasing to 0.01% in 1000 m

water depth. But for taut mooring line, the difference was 0.04% in

1000 m, slightly decreasing to 0.01% in 3000 m water depth. For

catenary chain, current effect becomes less important on mooring

line tension with the increasing of water depth, as can be seen

from Figs. 11.4(a) and 12.4(a). Mean line tension under a wave plus

current loading is 2.02% larger than wave only condition in 318 m

water depth, decreasing to 0.75% in 1000 m water depth. But for

taut line, the discrepancy is less than 1% for all the water depths.

Both surge motion and mooring line (taut line) tension are

completely determined by LF response, as we can see from

Figs. 7 and 10. LF surge response varies with different water depth.

But water depth variation does not appreciably impact surge WF Fig. 8.3. Heave 1000.

Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566 559

Fig. 8.4. Heave 1000 taut.

560 Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566

Fig. 10.1. Line 1 tension 318.

Fig. 10.2. Line 1 tension 600.

spectral density predicting by fully coupled method shows a fairly

good agreement with the coupled LF method. It also can be seen

that WF surge spectrum shows a signiﬁcant difference between

coupled LF and fully coupled method and the difference is less

sensitive to water depth. But as surge motion is primarily domi-

nated by LF response, the difference of WF response under dif-

ferent method does not signiﬁcantly affect the whole motion

response.

Pitch motion spectral density follows the same trend as surge

motion, but determining by both LF and WF response. But unlike

surge and pitch motion response, heave motion spectral density

seems independent of water depth, especially for water depth less

Fig. 9.7. Pitch 2500. than 1000 m where catenary was applied. Current effect and

Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566 561

Fig. 10.3. Line 1 tension 1000.

Fig. 10.4. Line 2 tension 1000 taut.

Fig. 11.1. Surge mean.

but not signiﬁcantly varied.

Figs. 10 show the spectral density of worst loaded line

(line 1 for catenary chain and line 2 for taut line) for different

water depths. For catenary chain (between 300 m and 1000 m), LF

response slightly increases with the increasing of water depth

while WF mooring line response becomes increasingly important.

But when considering greater water depths up to 3000 m, for

which a taut mooring line is applied, the LF range mooring line

tension spectral density increases with water depth up to 1500 m

water depth and decreases slightly in 3000 m water depth. Current

effect has an impact on mooring line LF response, but results of

mooring line LF response spectrum does not vary signiﬁcantly by

using coupled LF and fully coupled method. Unlike mooring line LF

Fig. 10.6. Line 2 tension 2000. response, there is a signiﬁcance difference between WF response

562 Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566

Fig. 11.4. (a) Line1 tension mean(slack). (b) Line2 tension mean(taut).

larger than 1500 m, peak value of mooring line WF spectrum

predicting by coupled LF method is much smaller than the coun-

terpart predicted by fully coupled method.

6. Discussion

coupled LF method, applied to a Spar platform, by comparing

against the fully coupled method. Low and Langley (2006) studied

a spread-moored vessel in water depths of 200 m and 2000 m,

showing that the fully coupled frequency domain method gener-

ated results as accurate as the fully coupled time domain method,

provided the geometric nonlinearity of the mooring line is small. Fig. 12.1. Surge max.

This nonlinearity depends on the motion response, the length of

mooring line/water depth and the time-dependency of the signiﬁcant than pitch, as the total surge motion response is

mooring line shape. When the geometric nonlinearity becomes determined by LF response. Two coupling effects (Low and Lang-

important, the hybrid method (which simulates the WF motion ley, 2008) contribute to this difference. One is the coupling effect

response in the frequency domain and the LF response in the time between the ﬂoating body and mooring line (type 1 coupling) in

domain) provides an accurate and efﬁcient solution. The coupling the WF range - the WF response was calculated in the frequency

effects between the WF response of the ﬂoating body and mooring domain without mooring line. The second is the effect between

line are captured by a linearised mooring line drag model. The the WF, LF and mean position of the ﬂoating body (type 2 cou-

hybrid method is almost as accurate as the fully coupled time pling) - the interpolation of ﬂoating body WF motion requires the

domain, but requires only one-tenth of the run time (Low and instantaneous position of the LF response. The WF motion

Langley, 2008). response is inertia dominated and it is often considered that the

However, in the present study for a Spar platform, the geo- interaction between the ﬂoating body and mooring line is weak.

metric nonlinearity is small, leading to a difference between the However, as can be seen from the present comparisons (see

coupled LF method and fully coupled method, especially for the Figs 15.1 and 15.2), the discrepancy is due to the interaction

WF pitch motion. The difference in WF surge motion is less between mooring line and WF motion; the coupled WF method

Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566 563

Fig. 12.4. (a) Line1 tension max(slack). (b) Line2 tension max(taut).

Fig. 12.3. Pitch max.

Table 6

refers to a fully coupled method described in Section 3.5 but only Main particular of FPSO.

includes ﬁrst-order wave forces. This suggests that when the Parameters Values

coupling effects are large, the fully coupled method is required,

even for small geometry nonlinearity, unless the contributions Length between perpendiculars Fpp (m) 311

Breadth (m) 47.18

from mooring lines in the WF range can be accounted for. Draft (m) 18.9

There were notable jumps in the surge and pitch motion Vertical centre of gravity (m) 5.58

response spectra and in the mooring line tension spectrum in the Transverse radius of gyration in air (m) 14.77

Longitudinal radius of gyration in air (m) 77.47

frequency range 0.05–0.08 Hz. Two reasons contribute for the

Yaw radius of gyration in air (m) 79.3

jumps. One is the viscous damping effect, as can been seen from Turret behind Fpp (m) 63.55

Figs. 16. Figs. 16 show motion response and line tension response Turret elevation below tanker base (m) 1.52

Mass (te) 255000

spectrum using different linear damping coefﬁcients (i.e. Eq. (5)).

When the linear damping force increases, the peak value of WF

response decreases. The relative difference between the jumps in

this frequency range and the peak values of WF response also 7. Conclusions and Guidance

decrease with increased damping. However, as the surge motion is

totally determined by LF response, the peaks in the WF parts of In this paper, two types of mooring system design methods

motion spectrum are of less importance compared with those of (coupled LF, fully-coupled) are assessed for water depths between

the pitch motion. A second important feature is the wave exciting 300 m and 3000 m. Statistical results from the fully-coupled

method are compared against available numerical and experi-

force, especially for surge and pitch (Figs. 17): the WF motion

mental results for validation purposes. The main results and

spectra for surge and pitch have their peak values at 0.09 Hz

recommendations from parametric studies indicate:

(which is the peak value of the incident wave frequency), but the

corresponding wave excitation force has its peak value around Both mooring line tension and surge response are completely

0.07 Hz; this contribute to the ‘jumps’ in the motion spectra. The determined by the LF response, particularly for large water

mooring line tension response, shows a similar trend to the surge depths. The WF surge response is independent of water depth,

motion, and it also has variations around 0.08 Hz – the line tension in contrast to the LF surge response. Water depth variation has

response is highly inﬂuenced by the instantaneous surge motion. little effect on mean heave motion, even at resonance.

564 Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566

Table 7

FPSO mooring line characteristic.

Parameters Values

Number of mooring lines 4*3 4*3 4*3

Initial tension (kN) 648 792 1691

Length of mooring line Top chain 60 91 91

(m) Polyester 1580 2505 4054

Ground 60 122 122

chain

Mass per unit length Top chain 207 207 207

(kg/m) Polyester 7.2 26 26

Ground 207 207 207

chain

Elastic stiffness (EA, Top chain 888.5016E3 888.5016E3 888.5016E3

kN) Polyester 9837.25 35.316E3 35.316E3

Ground 888.5016E3 888.5016E3 888.5016E3 Fig. 13.3. Heave 3000 m.

chain

Fig. 14.2. Heave Mean.

For a catenary chain, the WF response becomes more signiﬁcant

as the water depth increases (see Figs. 10.1–10.3). However, for a

taut mooring line, the WF response is signiﬁcant in intermedi- Coupled WF WF RAO

ate water depths (between 1500 m and 2000 m), becoming less 8

important in ultra-deep depths (4 2000 m). 6

The static method is recommended for evaluating the mean 4

Surge(m)

2

pled LF method, but is less time consuming. The coupled LF

0

method is also recommended for predicting the WF response -

the total surge motion response is dominated by the LF -2

response. -4

Estimation of the mean and maximum values of the heave 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time(s)

response and line tension can be determined by the static

method when the heave natural period is far from incident Fig. 15.1. Comparison of surge motion, 318 m.

Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566 565

Coupled WF WF RAO

3

2

Pitch(degree)

1

0

-1

-2

-3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time(s)

Fig. 16.5. Most loaded line tension 1000 m taut WF response.

Fig. 16.2. Pitch 318 m WF response. Fig. 17.1. Surge Load RAO zero degree.

Fig. 16.3. Surge 1000 m taut WF response. Fig. 17.2. Heave Load RAO zero degree.

566 Z. Lin, P. Sayer / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 553–566

Aranha, J.A.P., 1994. A formula for wave drift damping in the drift of a ﬂoating body.

J. Fluid Mech. 275, 147–155.

Astrup, O.C., Nestegård, A., Ronæss, M. and Sødahl, N., 2001. Coupled analysis

strategies for deepwater Spar platforms. In: Proceedings of the International

Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, pp. 449.

Chen, X., Zhang, J., Ma, W., 2001. On dynamic coupling effects between a spar and

its mooring lines. Ocean Eng. 28 (7), 863–887.

Cummins, W.E., 1962. The impulse response function and ship motions. Schiff-

stechnik 9, 101–109.

Deep Rope, Synthetic Mooring Lines. Vryhof Anchors BV. P.O. Box 109. 2900 AC

Capelle aan den Yssel, The Netherlands.

DNV-OS-E301, October 2010. Position mooring.

DNV-RP-F205, October 2010. Global Performance Analysis of Deepwater Floating

Structures.

Guedes Soares, C., Fonseca, N. & Pascoal, R., 2001. Experimental and Numerical Study of

the Motions of a Turret Moored FPSO in Waves. In: Proceedings of the International

Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, pp. 185.

Kim, M.H., Tahar, A. and Kim, Y.B., 2001.Variability of TLP motion analysis against

Fig. 17.3. Pitch Load RAO zero degree. various design methodologies/parameters. In: Proceedings of the International

Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, pp. 467.

Kim, S. and Sclavounos, P.D., 2001. Fully coupled response simulations of theme

offshore structures in water depths of up to 10,000 feet. In: Proceedings of the

wave period. For the maximum values of the surge and pitch International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, pp. 457.

Lee, W.T., Bales, W.L., Stowby, S.E., 1985. Standardized Wind and Wave Environ-

responses, a fully coupled analysis is strongly recommended. ments for North Paciﬁc Ocean areas. David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and

The coupled LF method is recommended for predicting mooring Development Center, Washington, DC (Research Report, R/SPD-0919–02).

line LF response, especially for the wave-only condition, regard- Luo, Y. & Baudic, S., 2003. Predicting FPSO responses using model tests and

numerical analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar

less of the mooring line conﬁguration. However, for the moor- Engineering Conference, pp. 167.

ing line WF response, the fully coupled method is recom- Low, Y.M., Langley, R.S., 2006. Time and frequency domain coupled analysis of

mended for slack chains in large water depth (e.g. larger than deepwater ﬂoating production systems. Appl. Ocean Res. 28 (6), 371–385.

Low, Y.M., Langley, R.S., 2008. A hybrid time/frequency domain approach for efﬁ-

600 m).

cient coupled analysis of vessel/mooring/riser dynamics. Ocean Eng. 35 (5-6),

The accuracy of the WF motion response predicted by the 433–446.

coupled LF method not only depends on the geometric non- OrcaFlex User Manual, version 9.7a. Orcina Ltd. Daltongate, Ulverston Cumbria.

LA12 7AJ, UK.

linearity, but also on the coupling effects- the coupling between

Ormberg, H., Larsen, K., 1998. Coupled analysis of ﬂoater motion and mooring

WF, LF and mean drift motion response and the coupling dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Appl. Ocean Res. 20 (1-2), 55–67.

between the ﬂoating body and mooring line in the WF range. Qiao, D., Ou, J. & Wu, F., 2012. Design selection analysis for mooring positioning

system of deepwater semi-submersible platform. In: Proceedings of the Inter-

national Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, pp. 1099.

Spar Model Test Joint Industry Project, Final Report 1995. Deep Oil Technology, Inc.

Acknowledgements 2182 DuPont Drive Irvine, CA 5 21,92715.

Tahar, A., Kim, M.H., 2003. Hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis and sen-

sitivity study of a tanker-based FPSO. Appl. Ocean Res. 25 (6), 367–382.

This research was supported by the Department of Naval WAMIT User’s Manual, versions 7.0. Wamit Inc. and Department of Ocean Engi-

Architecture, Ocean and Marine Engineering and the Faculty of neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 2013.

Engineering at the University of Strathclyde; and by the China Wichers, J.E.W. and Devlin, P.V., 2001. Effect of coupling of mooring lines and risers

on the design values for a turret moored FPSO in deep water of the Gulf of

Scholarship Council (CSC) (Grant no. 2011606021). Mexico. In: Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering

Conference, pp. 480.

References

API RP 2SK, Third Edition, October 2005. Design and analysis of stationkeeping

systems for ﬂoating structures.

- 13_3059Uploaded byRomoex R Rock
- June 2003 QP - Paper 1 CIE Physics IGCSEUploaded byIndianagrofarms
- Science SampleUploaded byJames Xie
- 2 JirasekUploaded byAvinash Kumar
- NI Tutorial 4278 en CrossspectrumetcUploaded bymh1999
- Chapter2 Lect1 UpdatedUploaded byAdeeb
- JC 2Uploaded bysriram
- 102436193-Physics-Reviewer.pdfUploaded byJam Ul Gee
- Wave Basics iitjeeUploaded byParthKalsi
- 20 Sound Wave Properties WebUploaded byGleden Guardario Umayam
- 11 Physics NcertSolutions Chapter 15 Exercises Additional TAdsfsdfsdfsdfsdfdsfdsfUploaded byGirish Gouda
- Assignment 2Uploaded bysindhura
- 08r059210403 Signals and SystemsUploaded byandhracolleges
- IACS_REC_34Uploaded byGobinda Sinha
- MIT2_019S11_GuideP3Uploaded bysiswout
- Eee3086f 208 Spectral Analysis AjwUploaded byKatamba Rogers
- Slinky LabUploaded byJoel Barrett
- Disha Publication General ScienceUploaded byAnuj Tripathi
- Compilation in Physics 212Uploaded byTeresa Pulga
- A Theoretical Approach to the SlammingImpact Pressure Actingon the VLFS.pdfUploaded bykhabiran
- VTPH07Uploaded byMahesh Neelarapu
- Introduction to Wave Optics ModuleUploaded byFernando Santos
- Sonometer Report ReflectionUploaded byDan
- Wireless Integrated Network SensorsUploaded byAby Panthalanickal
- FEL Simulation Techniques.pdfUploaded byAjit Upadhyay
- F5Ch1studentUploaded byAna Hidayah Syuhada
- An Investigation and Reduction of Electro-Optical Noise in Tunable Diode LaserUploaded byAlexander Decker
- SALA-Advanced_Econometrics_II_10_11-syllabusUploaded byalecarbo
- Physics Homework 10Uploaded byMiftah Shidqi
- ExplainingBioGeometry Rev.june2013Uploaded bySolomanTrismosin

- 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
- AangUploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 1Uploaded byrendezvous26
- bla.txtUploaded byrendezvous26
- (REVISI) Rundown Tasyakuran & Silaturahmi Politeknik KP PangandaranUploaded byrendezvous26
- Marios KoenUploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 2 TKL Remaja Fisika Terapan (Agung,Aldan,Ali,Kiki,Vilda)Uploaded byrendezvous26
- ,maulana baut.docxUploaded byrendezvous26
- TAvanBruggen_4036573_Thesis.pdfUploaded bySachin Sithik
- kelompok 3Uploaded byrendezvous26
- Kelompok 4Uploaded byrendezvous26
- Abdul & DewiUploaded byrendezvous26
- AksalUploaded byrendezvous26
- Cozijn (2004) Coupled Mooring Analysis for a Deep Water Calm BuoyUploaded byrendezvous26
- Buchner (2007) Extreme Wave Effects on Deepwater Floating StructuresUploaded byrendezvous26
- Xiang (2010) Maneuvering of Two Interacting Ships in Calm Water.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Lin (2014) Influence of water depth variation on the hydrodynamics of deep-water mooring characteristics.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Tajali (2011) Hydrodynamic Analysis of Multi-body Floating Piers Under Wave ActionUploaded byrendezvous26
- Oever (2014) A Practical Approach to Shallow Water Mooring with Varying Seabed.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- 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
- 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
- Gao (2009) Mooring system analysis of multiple wave energy converters in a farm configuration.pdfUploaded byrendezvous26
- Yang (2016) Mooring Line Damping Due to Low-frequency Superimposed With Wave-frequency Random Line Top End MotionUploaded byrendezvous26
- (OK) 2002 OWA - FPSO Mooring and Offloading System Alternatives for Deepwater West AfricaUploaded byAlejandro Gil
- Rho (2013) Static and Dynamic Mooring Analysis - Stability of FPSO Risers for Extreme Environmental ConditionsUploaded byrendezvous26

- Racism in Costa RicaUploaded byMarkus de Matos
- Dubai Rent vs. School Fees Report Shows 3-5% Decrease (Infographic)Uploaded byEdarabia.com
- WiFiUploaded byFarrukhmohd
- Cfnr en MegalopapilaUploaded byPatzy Yulissa Vasquez Alania
- Kandelia candel (L.) Druce in the PhilippinesUploaded bytikz15
- Neruda StyleUploaded byGlenda Le Cornu Birchfield
- Ewald's SphereUploaded byVinodh Srinivasa
- AustinAMKT6005-7 (1)Uploaded byAngela Austin
- Global HSPA Update July 2010Uploaded byGlobal mobile Suppliers Association (GSA)
- MSC Pool VMS6 PresentationUploaded bynguyenmanhcuong3
- 10.0000@www.researchgate.net@278677415.pdfUploaded byNaoba Singh
- Design of Bridge (Ass 1)Uploaded byFazrul Hakimi
- Practice ProblemsUploaded byAnonymous 3iKnfLKVM
- CV ETESJunior SalesUploaded byKate Hiscox
- SpecificationsUploaded byFrendy Trianto
- kit b cloroUploaded byTomas Gaviria Martinez
- JEE MAIN_CPT - IUploaded byMohammed Aftab Ahmed
- TECHNICAL NOTE 010 Raft Foundations, s'– t Plots and SPT-N ValuesUploaded byapirakq
- Micafil Bushing Test TapUploaded byscribdkkk
- Epson L1800smUploaded byPhotocopy Sửa Máy Photocopy
- Persian Idioms in EnglishUploaded bysfaiz87
- Two-Way ANOVA Using SPSSUploaded byGazal Gupta
- 33870698-Dimensions-of-Curriculum-Development.docUploaded byshumaiyl
- Yale Architecture Students Design an Affordable Housing ModelUploaded byJonsustm1
- ch8Uploaded byMaame Ama Frempong
- Dances of OdishaUploaded byVikrant Mohapatra
- Font ThesisUploaded byJohn Engelbert Acero
- Three Sisters Resource PackUploaded byaqueous0
- Public & Counterpublics. Warner, MichaelUploaded byLorena Moreno
- GIS-partsUploaded byerson1981