See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268587557

Anchor Handling Vessel Behavior in Horizontal Plane in a Uniform Current

Field During Operation

Conference Paper · January 2012

DOI: 10.3850/978-981-07-1896-1_MOSS-33

CITATIONS READS

4 2,060

3 authors:

Giri Rajasekhar Gunnu Xiaopeng Wu

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology
8 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Torgeir Moan
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
501 PUBLICATIONS   8,115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intelligent IoT enabled Autonomous Structural Health Monitoring System for Ships, Aeroplanes, Trains and Automobiles View project

Fault Diagnosis, Fault Tolerant Control and Dynamic Analysis of Floating Wind Turbines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiaopeng Wu on 01 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012),
6–8 Aug. 2012, National University of Singapore
Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

ANCHOR HANDLING VESSEL BEHAVIOR IN

HORIZONTAL PLANE IN A UNIFORM CURRENT FIELD
DURING OPERATION
G R S GUNNU 1,
XIAOPENG, WU2 and T MOAN 3

1 ,2
and 3 Center for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and
technology, Norway.
E-mail: giri.r.s.gunnu@ntnu.no

The stability of anchor handling vessels depends on the magnitude of mooring load, angle of
attack (the angle between mooring line and ship centerline), and angle between mooring line and
vertical axis. Angle of attack is considered as a high influence parameter. Small magnitude of
mooring load also can be critical when vessel subject to large angle of attack. Primarily two
types of consequences can happen while carrying anchor handling operations due to vessel
drifting: (a) capsize while vessel subjected to higher magnitude of mooring load and angle of
attack, (b) collision between anchor handling vessels during tandem operation, collision between
vessel and the rig whereas receiving pennant from the rig, and at extreme case losing the rig can
happen. The angle of attack depends primarily on vessel position and bearing (heading) with
respect to the rig. The operational aspect like vessel behavior in horizontal plane and basic
anchor handling skills can have a significant influence on vessel position and bearing. The
objective of this paper is to investigate the effect of vessel behavior when it is subjected to
mooring load and angle between mooring load and vertical axis during operation phase. The
analysis results are helpful in understanding how rapid the angle of attack changes for various
thruster capacities and for different current headings. Time domain simulation is carried out to
estimate vessel drift and angle of attack with respect to the initial position and direction. The
analysis is carried out for three different failure modes: (a) Force due to thrusters in sway is
zero, (b) Moment due to thrusters in yaw is zero and (c) Both force and moment due to thrusters
are zero. Case study is carried out on Bourbon Dolphin vessel in the North Sea environment for
uniform current field. Human intervention in the simulation period is not considered in this
study.
Key words: Anchor handling vessel, horizontal plane, failure modes, angle of attack, uniform
current and drift.

1 Introduction
Anchor handling operations involves anchor deployment and recovery from the rig, and floating
structures. The vessels used for assisting these operations are called anchor handling vessels
(AHV). A typical anchor handling tug and supply vessel is illustrated in Figure 1. Each anchor
handling vessel’s (except sister vessels) specifications are distinctive with respect to other.
The steps associated with these operations depend on operational requirement, available vessel
characteristics, actions and decisions associated with the people involved in the operation.
Therefore, each handling operation is usually distinctive with respect to others. A typical range

1
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

of anchor handling operations and the sequence of steps involved in each types of operation are
described in books (Vryhof Anchor manual 2000, Hancox 1994, Maudsley 1995, Ritchie 2007
and Gibson 1999). The quality of this operation depends on efficiency of ship handling. This
primarily influenced by vessel behavior in a horizontal plane and ship handling skills of the crew
on board. The block coefficient and Breadth/Length ratio of these vessels are high compared to
conventional vessel. Hence, these vessels have poor maneuvering characteristics with respect to
conventional vessels. Maneuverability of anchor handling vessels during operation phase is
very critical. Operational safety can be improved by predicting the vessel behavior at the
planning stage itself. The quality of these operations depends on functional requirement and
safety requirement. The functional requirement is deploying or recovering anchor at target
location as per the rig move procedure. The safety requirements can be classified into following
three categories; those are vessel specific, company specific, and regulatory and statutory
requirements. These helps to carry out the operation safely, without compromising the safety of
overall operation and the people involved in the operations. Vessels capsize and collision is the
major concerns associated with the vessel safety. The functional and safety requirements
primarily depend on vessel drift and vessel heading and angle of attack (β, the angle between
mooring line and ship centerline). It is essential to have enough competence level to handle the
problems related to stability and maneuvering. The qualified bridge personnel are essential for
achieving both functional and safety requirements. The crew on board should have enough
awareness on the vessel behavior in horizontal plane, and its safety and functional limitations
when it subjected to forces and moments coming from environment, mooring load and
controllers.

Present days, pre-laying deployment method is extensively used in deep waters. However, the
anchor handling operations outlined within this paper is basically a traditional way of anchor
deployment procedure. Anchor handling vessels during operation is handled manually. It is
difficult to achieve desired heading and path; particularly in deep waters when the vessel is
subjected to large mooring loads in a large current fields. The complexity associated with these
operations and operational requirements demands high ship handling skills.

Figure 1: Bourbon Dolphin anchor handling tug supply vessel. Photo courtesy to Bourbon Offshore.

2
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

These vessels can be subjected to roll, pitch and heave motions during anchor handling
operation. Even small motions can lead to occupational accidents for the crew working on deck
due to high tension wires / chains. In addition to this, the large role motions can be critical for
stability of the vessel. These vessels are subjected to large magnitude of mooring load. The
magnitude of tension in the anchor line and angle of attack are critical parameters for safe
anchor handling operations in view of vessel capsize phenomena. The influence of magnitude of
mooring load, angle of attack and angle between mooring load and vertical axis, and
environmental influence on stability has been studied by Gunnu and Moan (2012). The vessel
drift and angle of attack can be critical when it is subjected to current along with mooring load.
In addition to this it is helpful in understanding the redundancy level associated with the control
devices that can be helpful in maneuvering. The filed investigation, accidental report (BD
accident) and discussion with experts reveals that current is major influence parameter on vessel
drift. Therefore, vessel maneuvering analysis is necessary to plan safe operation, and to
determine the limiting environmental parameters (like current heading and direction) by
considering vessel control systems.

The risk influencing factors associated with Bourbon dolphin (BD) accident has been addressed
by Gunnu et.al. (2010); the vessel drift during anchor handling operation is considered as an
initiating event beyond the Bourbon dolphin accident. It is essential to develop guidance related
to ship handling strategies for masters during anchor handling operations. Numerous studies
have been conducted on vessel maneuverings. The studies related to vessel maneuvering during
anchor handling operation are limited.

The focus is to improve the capability and competence of the people involved in the operation
from planning to execution stage. Human operators play a vital role to the safety of anchor
handling operations. Traditionally, risk analyses of marine operations are considered as humans’
actions or decisions are the reasons beyond the accidents, near miss or incidents. However, on
the other side human operator can be considered as an additional safety barrier. This paper does
not address the level of human contribution on safety of these operations. Knowledge related to
influence of mooring load, current velocity and direction, and control forces and moment on
vessel drift and angle of attack is essential for carrying out safe operations.

The main objective of this paper is studying the anchor handling vessel drift under the influence
of mooring load and uniform current filed. The present study primarily investigates theoretical
approach anchor handling vessel behavior in horizontal plane in the presence of uniform current
filed along with defines control forces and moments. The study is helpful in understanding the
influence of current magnitude and direction, and control forces on the vessel. The results are
helpful in development of ship handling guidelines. In addition to this, the results are useful for
enhancing the knowledge of the stationary current effect on vessel drift and angle of attack
during anchor handling operation phase. The results are helpful in predicting the operational
limitations associated with these operations.

2 Problem description
While carrying out anchor handling operations the anchor handling vessel either moves from the
rig to anchor deployment location or approaches from the existing anchor location towards the
rig. The phases in the anchor handling operations are as shown in Figure 2. The steps in anchor

3
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

handling operation deployment scenario are shown in Figure 3. During the deployment phase
the vessel is subjected to environmental forces coming from wind, swells, waves and current
during the operation phase. In addition to this, the vessel is subjected to mooring load coming
from the chain or wire. The magnitude of mooring load changes when the vessel moving away
from the rig. In order to maintain the desired heading the control forces are needed to balance
the disturbance coming from the environmental forces and mooring forces.

The load coming from the mooring wire pulls the vessel back ward. During anchor handling
operations to achieve require forward speed the vessel uses high bollard pull. The side way
forces on the vessel cause the vessel to drift and change in heading with respect to the desired
path and heading. The horizontal motions of ships (surge, sway and yaw) are controlled by
means of Thruster and propellers.

Evaluation of vessel’s maneuvering performance depends heavily upon the environmental

conditions, operating location, subjected mooring load parameters and defined criteria.
Maneuvering analysis is principally a three part problem:

 Estimation of the likely environmental conditions encountered by the vessel, based on Rig
moving procedure or based on hind cast data;
 Determination of vessel’s response characteristics (Drift, vessel heading, and angle of
attack);
 Specification of the criteria being used to assess the vessel maneuvering characteristics (e.g.
allowable drift response, vessel heading and angle of attack);

Figure 2: Anchor handling operation stages

4
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

Figure 3: Typical anchor handling operation

3 Vessel thrust configuration

In general, the vessel speed during the anchor handling is about 2 to 5 knots. Therefore,
traditional way of vessel maneuvering control with the help of rudders is very difficult. The
higher maneuverability while operating at low speeds is achieved with the help of thrusters and
azimuth propellers. Typical configurations of anchor handling vessels are designed with two
main ducted propellers (to obtain higher bollard pull capacity) and tunnel thrusters at bow and
the stern of the vessel to control the vessel heading and drift when it subjected to environmental
forces.

It is essential to consider the vessel realistic thrust characteristics. The thrust characteristics and
it’s configurations for Bourbon Dolphin vessel is presented in Table 1. The main propulsion
units are ducted. These are used for surge, whereas tunnel thrusters are used in sway and yaw
motion. Azimuth thrusters can be used for surge, sway and yaw motion control. These thrust
force and moments are allocated based on the total forces and moments in surge, sway ad yaw.
The efficiency of these control parameters allocation during the operation phase is highly
depends on the master experience and knowledge. The control action can be being into two
categories; those are appropriate or inappropriate actions. This indirectly includes both
corrective and in corrective actions of the operator.

Table 1: Propulsion and Thruster setup for Bourbon Dolphin

Propulsion Unit Power (kW) Number Total power (kW) Force (kN)
Main propulsion 6000 2 12000 1933
Bow tunnel Thruster 883 1 883 149
Aft Tunnel Thruster 1 590 1 590 100
Aft Tunnel Thruster 2 590 1 590 100
Bow Azimuth Thruster1 883 1 883 158

4 Methodologies and modeling

There is not much systematic discussion on the simulation of anchor handling operations in open
literature. But the system of an anchor handling vessel in operation phase has certain physical
similarities compared with a single point moored tanker system, as in both cases the vessel may

5
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

experience large horizontal motions. These motions are governed by low frequency force
components. When analyzing the motion of a tanker in the horizontal plane, Wichers classifies
these components into inertia forces, damping force and excitation forces (Wichers, 1988). In
addition, as for an anchor handling vessel, other force such as thruster force and loads from
mooring chain has also significant influence on its low frequency motion. These force
components, which are shown in Table 2, together determine the horizontal motions of the
vessel, and might lead to large drifting and angle of attack.

Table 2 Low frequency force components

Inertia
Excitation Forces Damping Forces Other Forces
Forces

Hydrodynamic
Mean Current Loads Viscous Damping Propeller Force
Force

Added
Mean Drift Force and
Wave Drift Mass
Slowly Varying Drift Thruster Force
Damping Force
Force

Mean Wind Loads Wind Damping Mooring Chain Loads

For the low frequency motions, the viscous force in damping part plays an equally important
role as the potential hydrodynamics. However, the forces and moments caused by viscosity are
generally not easy to determine. They could not be usually calculated through pure theoretical
method. Estimated from semi-empirical formulas based on vessel of similar type is one way. If
there is no sister vessel data base available, expensive model test or time consuming CFD
method might be used to achieve them.

Mean current loads are obtained from similar vessel model test result, while viscous damping
force due to current is estimated using strip theory. A simplified model with time domain
simulation is carried out based on SIMO-Riflex code. SIMO (MARINTEK, 2009) is a time
domain simulation program developed by MARINTEK, for multi-body systems. A SIMO body
could have hydrodynamic properties based on potential theory. In SIMO, there is flexibility in
modeling different type of coupling effect, such as sling, winch, fender etc., between different
bodies. It has the potential to establish a more detailed model for the study in the future.
RIFLEX (MARINTEK, 2008) is a FEM program developed by MARINTEK, for static and
dynamic analysis of slender marine structures with the ability to model nonlinearities and large
deflections. When using SIMO-Riflex to perform coupled analysis, the code solves the body
motion and the slender structure motion simultaneously.

In this paper, the hydrodynamic properties of AHV are handled by SIMO and mooring chain is
modeled in Riflex. In such way the influence of mooring loads on the vessel is taken into
accounted. The combined effect from wind and wave will be studied in the future. As the
mooring chain configuration in our case is simple, only the basic theory of SIMO code will be
briefly addressed.

6
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

4.1 Coordinate system

In SIMO, vessel position and environmental loads direction are defined in the global coordinate
system, X , Y , Z . It is an earth-fixed coordinate system. Each body in SIMO has its own
body-fixed coordinate system, x , y , z . The equation of motion is solved in this coordinate
system. The plain view of these two coordinate systems is illustrated in Figure 4. There is also a
body-related coordinate system which follows the body’s horizontal motion. Coefficients (forces
and motion transfer functions) are defined in this coordinate system.

Figure 4. Coordinate systems for anchor handling vessel in a uniform current filed.

4.2 Equation of Motion

The force model of SIMO in time domain is shown as follows:

 m  A     x  D x  D f  x   Kx  h(t   ) x ( )d  q(t , x, x )

1 2 (1)
0

where m is the body mass matrix, A is the frequency-dependent added-mass, D is the linear
damping matrix, D is the quadratic damping matrix, f is a vector function where each element is
given by f x |x |, K is the hydrostatic stiffness matrix, h is the retardation function, which is
calculated as C ω cosωτdω, C is the frequency-dependent potential damping matrix, is
the position vector, and is the exciting force vector.
The exciting forces in Eq. (1) are given by

q  t , x, x   qWI  qWA
(1)
 qWA
(2)
 qCU  qext (2)

where q is wind drag force, is first order wave excitation force, is second order
wave excitation force, is current drag force, is any other forces, for example, specified
force and FEM force from Riflex in our case.

Eq. (1) basically can describe the motion of a floating body in wind, wave and current
excitation. It uses the frequency-dependent damping to calculate the retardation function. In such

7
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

an implementation, the past motion of the vessel could be taken into account. The potential
added mass and damping coefficient as well as the hydrostatic stiffness matrix is calculated
using WADAM code in our study, which is based on panel method. This also indicates the
possibility of studying wave-current-combined effect using this model in future.

4.3 Current Loads

In the contest of this paper, current load is of primary concern in the external excitation forces,
especially in the transversal forces and yaw moments. There are two empirical methods wildly
used for estimating the current loads in open literature.

One is using the so-called cross-flow principle (Faltinsen, 1990). The following assumptions are
considered in cross-flow principle: the current flow separates due to cross-flow past the vessel;
the longitudinal current components do not influence the transverse force on a cross-section; the
transverse force on a cross-section is mainly due to separated flow effects on the pressure
distribution around the vessel. If the current drag coefficients of each cross section of the vessel
are determined, the total transverse force could be calculated by integration over the vessel
length. In a similar way, the viscous yaw moment due to cross-flow could be estimated.
Together with the Munk moment, which comes from potential theory, gives the total current
yaw moment. This method is applicable as long as the current direction is not close to the
longitudinal axis of the vessel.

Another method divides the current drag loads and moments into two components: quasi-steady
forces and moments due to relative current and force and moment due to yaw velocity. The
quasi-steady forces and moments are calculated in SIMO as follows:

k 
 , t   C1k   u  t   C2k ( ) u (t )
2
qCU (3)

2
u (t )  (v1  x1 ) 2  (v2  x2 ) 2 (4)

v2  x2
  arctan (5)
v1  x1

where is degree of freedom, is linear current force coefficient, is quadratic current force
coefficient, u is relative velocity between low-frequency body velocity and current velocity, is
relative angle between direction of low-frequency body velocity and current velocity, , are
current velocity components in the body fixed coordinate system, 1 , 2 are body velocity
components in the body fixed coordinate system.

Usually, only the quadratic coefficient is used, based on that viscous drag forces are dependent
quadratically on relative current velocity. The quadratic coefficient could be obtained both from
model testing and CFD calculation. In this paper, the quadratic coefficients (are shown in Figure
5) come from MARINTEK model test for offshore supple vessel which is similar to Bourbon
Dolphin.

8
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

Figure 5. Non dimensional drag coefficient due to current in surge, sway and yaw.

The force and moment due to yaw velocity is important, especially in yaw motion. Therefore
this viscous effect should be considered. One way to estimate the yaw moment due to pure yaw
velocity is using strip theory. For example, for a rectangle box of length L and depth D, assume
that the box rotates about its geometry center, and that the C for all the strips is the same, then
the resistant yaw moment due to pure yaw velocity is - | |, where is the water
density and ω is the yaw velocity. This damping moment could be treated as quadratic damping
force in the SIMO model. However, Wichers (Wichers 1979) found that this theory significantly
underestimated the actual yaw drag moment compared with model test results unless value is
much higher than usual value.

In fact, due to the quadratic nature of current drag force, this damping term should depend on
current velocity, vessel translation velocity as well as the yaw velocity. In this paper, the current
drag moment due to vessel velocity is estimated as follows. A rectangle box with vessel length
and vessel depth is assumed rotating in uniform current without translation motion. The
resistant yaw moment is calculated using strip theory when the longitudinal vessel axis is
perpendicular to the current direction, as which is shown in equation

1/ 2 L
1 PP

 Cd D  x(v2   x) v2   x dx (6)
2 1/ 2 LPP

When ω is small, the equation yeilds . This damping moment depends on

both current velocity and vessel yaw velocity, and could be treated as linear damping force if we
set as a constant value. It gives increased damping moment in yaw motion. In this study,
set to be 1 and set to 1 to estimate the damping moment due to yaw velocity.

9
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

4.4 Propeller and thruster force

The propeller and thruster forces are modeled as specified force, which are defined in the body
fixed coordinate system in the SIMO model. Desired time history of these forces could be
specified. They could be varied in both magnitude and direction.

5 Case study / Simulation scenario:

The Bourbon Dolphin (BD) vessel is used as case study. The main particulars of the BD anchor
handling vessel are listed in Table 3. During the simulation the thruster forces and moments are
assumed as constant after an action until end of the simulation. The thruster dynamics associated
with actuator and drive system are not incorporated. In addition to this loss of Thruster
efficiency due to disturbance in the water flow to the Thruster blades, caused by thrust to thrust
and thrust to hull interactions, current and vessel velocity etc. are not considered (Sileo and
Steen 2009 and 2010).

Table 3. Principle particulars of anchor handling vessel (AHV)

Overall length LOA = 75.20 m
Length between particulars LBP = 64.91 m
Breadth B = 17.00 m
Draft (mean) d = 6.50 m
Displacement   tonnes
Depth D = 8.00 m
Bollard pull Capacity 180 tonnes
Winch capacity 400 tonnes

The simulation scenario is developed by considering post mortem study of Bourbon Dolphin
accident and by constructing influence diagram of systematic anchor handling operations. The
influence diagram is developed by considering goal and preference of the operation. In general
each anchor deployment or recovery takes about four to six hours. Typically, in a deep water
anchor handling operations the anchor wire tension is in the range of 20 to 210 tonnes over the
period of the operation. During this operation the personnel at AHV Bridge, and winch operator
and personnel at bridge on rig have continuous communication. There are lot of decisions and
actions during the period of overall operation. The result of this there is possibility to have
continuous action on vessel ship handling. Hence, the problem is human machine interaction.
The quality of the decision making in a critical condition depends on the overall situation
awareness. In a dynamic decision making process the role of situation awareness for various
domains has been described by Endsley (1995). The primary consideration in our model
development is striking a balance between a generic model and a detailed examination of
specific operation. Studying too much generic model may not give any additional contribution
pertaining to the operations. On the other hand, carrying detailed study on specific scenario
may not cover enough information. The most relevant influencing parameters are considered in
the model are illustrated in Figure 6. The total operation is subdivided with an interval of about
30 minutes sub operations. The model strategy is shown in table 4. The magnitude of mooring
load and the control forces during these sub operations (30 minutes period) is considered as
constant. Human intervention during the period of this sub operation is neglected. The
consequence of this is the influence of relevant decisions and action taken by the master and
winch operator during the period of sub operation is not included in the model.

10
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

Figure 6: Ship, environment and control model during anchor handling operation

Table 4: Modeling strategy

Practice Model
Continuous Operation Divide into Several Stages
Very Small Forward Speed Assume No Forward Speed
Chain Continuously Being Paid Out Chain Length Fixed for Each Stage
Continuously Manual Control By Master Only One Action is taken for Each Stage
Mooring Load Acting Point (At tow pin ) Considered as at Centerline
6 Results and discussions
The vessel drift and angel of attack depends on project requirements (location of the operation,
and location of deployment or recovery of anchor), mooring parameters (mooring load, angle
between mooring load and vertical axis, and distance between rig and anchor handling vessel),
and the duration of the operation, environmental effects and ship maneuvering characteristics.
The most important environmental forces causes the major drift motions are current and wind.
In this paper, vessel behavior while subjected to current is studied, other environmental effects
are neglected. The sea current in the horizontal plane takes a lot of concern in ship handling
during anchor handling operations. In general the current distribution is non-uniform and non-
stationary. An alteration in both magnitude and direction in a vertical profile is commonly
considered while dealing with the non-uniform sea current effect. However, for simplification
the magnitude and current direction is considered as a constant in the location during the period
of anchor deployment or recovery. The maximum possible current velocity in the North Sea is
three knots. A parametric study is carried out for current direction in the range of 0 to 180
degrees for calculating vessel drag coefficients in surge, sway and yaw. Drag coefficients for
different current directions for unit current velocities are shown in Figure 6. It can be noticed

11
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

from the Figure 6, that the maximum sway and yaw drag coefficients occurs when the current is
coming from 90 degrees and 40 degrees correspondingly. The maximum drift and angel of
attack depend on vessel sway force and yaw moment. For this reason the current direction 40
and 90 degrees and current velocity 1.5 m/sec is considered for study (except section 6.3). The
ship maneuvering depends on the vessel hydrodynamic behavior, thruster and propellers
configuration and capacities. In addition to this, vessel maneuvering depends on skills of the
operator. The functional goals and safety goals can be achieved by limiting the influence of
these parameters on vessel drift and angle of attack. Angle of attack zero means the mooring
line lies along the centerline; in this scenario the vessel can handle large magnitude of mooring
load without compromising safety. Even a small magnitude of mooring load can be critical for
transverse stability of AHV, when the mooring load is subjected to large angle of attack. Hence,
it is essential to have a clear representation of level of influence associated with these parameters
on vessel drift and angle of attack. Therefore, a parametric study is carried out for current
direction from head sea condition to following sea condition. The current magnitude is
considered from 0.5 m/sec to 1.5 m/sec. The chain shape depends on the angle between
mooring load and vertical axis (α). This primarily depends on chain weight per unit length in
water and bollard pull. This angle is considered from 20 to 60 degrees. The distance between
vessel and rig is varied from 400 to 1600 m by keeping same chain shape (means same α). The
entire operation is divided into number of sub operation with a time interval of about 30
minutes. The simulation is carried out for about 30 minutes. At the starting of the simulation the
forces and moments coming from the current is balanced with the control forces in say and yaw,
and the desired angle α is maintained by providing the propulsion force in surge. This condition
is considered as an equilibrium condition in all three degrees of freedom (surge, sway and yaw).
Latter part of the simulation, the human intervention (or equipment failure) is included as a
change in control force and moments. Further human intervention (or equipment failure) is
neglected once this specific action is executed. The loss of all thruster forces in sway, loss of
complete moments coming from thrusters and loss of thrusters capacity in both sway and yaw is
considered. This loss of thruster forces and moments can happen either due to equipment failure
or due to inappropriate action taken by the AHV master.

6.1 Vessel control forces influence on ship drifting and angle of attack

At the starting of the simulation the vessel external forces and moments due to current and
mooring load is balanced with thrusters and propulsions. The force due to chain in longitudinal
direction is balanced with the help of propulsion forces. The sway forces and moments coming
from the current are compensated with the help of allocation of different thruster forces for
different thrusters. During the operation phase this action is taken by the operator. The
following three failure modes are considered in the simulation:

 Failure model 1 (FM1): Resultant force due to the thrusters in sway is zero and but external
yaw moment is compensated by the thrusters.
 Failure model 2 (FM2): Resultant moment due to the thrusters in yaw is zero but external
force in sway is compensated by the thrusters.
 Failure model 3 (FM3): All thrusters are in a failure mode. Hence, no resultant force and
moment in sway and yaw due to thrusters.

These failure mode effects on vessel drift and angle of attack can be noticed from Figures 7 and
8. It can be noticed from the Figures 7 and 8, that FM1 and FM3 is critical with respect to FM2.

12
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

Figure 7. Angle of attack and Vessel drift as a function of time due to current direction 40 degrees, current
velocity (1.5 m/sec) for a simulation of 30 minutes by keeping α (38 degrees) and D (900 m) for different
failure modes.

This shows that loss of thruster’s capacities in sway is more critical with respect to the loss of
thruster capacity in yaw. Losing thruster capacity in sway will lead to much larger drift than
losing thruster capacity in yaw. Losing thruster capacity in sway motion will also lead to larger
angle of attack in most cases. Loosing thrust capacity on sway and yaw will give medium angel
of attack and quite large drift motion. Hence, it is essential to apply suitable control force in
sway to achieve both functional and safety requirements. Hereafter, we considered FM1 for
further study.

Figure 8. Angle of attack and Vessel drift as a function of time due to current direction 90 degrees, current
velocity (1.5 m/sec) for a simulation of 30 minutes by keeping α (38 degrees) and D (900 m) for different
failure modes.

13
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

6.2 Chain parameters impact upon ship drifting and angle of attack

Two parameters of mooring chain, which could be easily measured in practice, are considered:
the horizontal distance between the two ends of chain (D) and the angle between mooring load
and vertical axis (α). For a particular type of chain, these two parameters determine the shape of
the chain. Then the horizontal tension needed to maintain the chain shape is also determined. In
this study, the angle is considered from 20 to 60 degrees, the distance varies from 400 to 1600
m. The parametric study is carried out on effect of distance (D) by keeping fixed vessel heading
( = 0), and fixed current direction (c = 40 and 90 degrees) and fixed current velocity (Uc = 1.5
m/sec) and variable angle α (20, 38 and 60 degrees). The relation between distance (D), angle α,
and the tension in mooring line and horizontal component of the tension are shown Figure 9(a)
and 9(b).

Figure. 9(a) Tension in Mooring load (b) Horizontal component of mooring load for D (50 to 1600 m) and
α (20, 38 and 60 degrees).

Vessel tracking (vessel position taken for every minute) for 40 degrees and 90 degrees current
direction are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11. By increasing distance D the vessel takes long time
to reach its final equilibrium condition where the relative angle between vessel and current is
around zero.

 
(a) α = 20 (b) α = 38 (c) α = 60
 
Figure 10. Vessel position tracking for current direction 40 degrees, current velocity (1.5 m/sec) for a
simulation of 30 minutes.

14
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

The angle of attack comparison is carried out for variable distance (D) and variable α (see Figure
12(a)). It can be noticed from the Figure 12(a), that the influence of α for a specified D is
significant on angle of attack. The angle of attack increases with decreasing D and with
increasing α. Figure 12(b) shows the comparisons for vessel drift for variable D and variable α.
The vessel drift decreases with decreasing D and with decreasing α. It can be observed from the
Figure 12(a) and 12(b), that the influence of α on the time it takes to reach vessel equilibrium is
negligible. On the contrary to this by increased distance vessel takes long time to reach its
equilibrium position. The reason for this is the vessel subjected to large horizontal force due to
mooring load when α and D is larger. This force gives a counter turning moment to the vessel
when the vessel is subjected to an angle of attack. Hereafter α is considered as 38 degrees (same
as the BD accident).

(a) α = 20 (b) α = 38 (c) α = 60

Figure 11. Vessel position tracking as a function of time for current direction 90 degrees, current velocity
(1.5 m/sec) for a simulation of 30 minutes.

(a) Angle of attack (b) Vessel drift

Figure 12. (a) Angle of attack (b) Vessel drift due to current direction 40 degrees, For FM1, current
velocity (1.5 m/sec) for a simulation of 30 minutes by keeping resultant moment zero and varying D (400,
900 and 1600) and α (20, 38 and 60 degrees).

15
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

6.3 Influence of delay action with respect to current heading on ship drifting and angle of
attack

Earlier the assumption was there is no human intervention from starting of the operation to 30
minutes. The vessel drift and angle of attack depends on the delay in action (time taken to take
action from 30 sec to 15 minutes is considered). It can be noticed from the Figure 13, when the
vessel is in FM1, what will be the vessel angle of attack and drift for considered delay action.
The angle of attack and vessel drift increases significantly until it reaches the equilibrium
condition with respect to duration of delayed action. The maximum angle of attack and drift
occurs when the current is coming about quartering sea and beam sea directions, respectively.
The causes beyond this are the maximum force and maximum moment due to current acts
quartering sea and beam sea directions, respectively. It can be observed from the Figure 13, the
current coming from stern direction is more critical than the current coming from bow direction.

(a) Angle of attack (b) Vessel drift

Figure 13. (a) Angle of attack (b) Vessel drift due current velocity (1.5 m/sec), α (38 degrees), D (900 m),
for failure mode (sway component) for a variable current heading angle and duration of delayed action.

7 Conclusions and recommendations

The ability to handle vessel behavior in a horizontal plane under all conditions is essential. The
horizontal motions of the AHV can be dramatically affected by loads coming from mooring
chain/ wire. The simulation of AHV behavior in a horizontal plane during operation phase in a
uniform current filed along with control forces and moments are assessed. The case study
reveals the influence of parameters on vessel drift and angle of attack during anchor handling
operations. The results are helpful in proposing risk reduction measures to improve AHV safety.

The present work gives insight into the vessel behavior during anchor handling operation. The
results are significant for projects pertaining to offshore industry; like anchor deployment or
recovery, fish trawling and pipe laying operations. The results are useful for offshore simulators
to develop critical training scenarios by considering vessel behavior.

A parametric study on vessel behavior is carried out and following conclusions are drawn:
 The loss of thruster’s capacities in sway is more critical with respect to the loss of thruster
capacity in yaw. It is essential to apply suitable control force in sway to achieve both
functional and safety requirements.

16
 Proc. of the Marine Operations Specialty Symposium (MOSS 2012)

 The angle of attack increases with decreasing distance (D) and with increasing α.
 The vessel drift decreases with decreasing distance (D) and with decreasing α.
 The vessel drift and angle of attack increases with increasing delay in action (time taken to
take action).
 The angle of attack and vessel drift increases significantly until it reaches the equilibrium
condition with respect to duration of delayed action.
 The maximum angle of attack and drift occurs when the current is coming about quartering
sea and beam sea directions, respectively. The current coming from stern direction is more
critical than the current coming from bow direction.

The point of action of the mooring load (the point where tension due to mooring load is applied
to the anchor handling vessel) and the tension in mooring line can create moment that acts as a
turning moment opposite to the moment coming from controls (rudders, thruster, azimuth
propulsion) or external disturbances. Hence, it restricts the turning capability of anchor handling
vessel. Unfortunately for anchor handling vessels this point is located very close to stern.
Hence, AHV ability to steer is increasingly hampered. The effect is aggravated at low or zero
speed. Some condition the moment coming from the mooring load can compensate the turning
moment created by the rudder, thruster and/or other forces. The AHV is then rendered incapable
of steering. The operator should be aware of the possible maneuvering restriction imposed on
the AHV by the mooring line and take necessary precautions to avoid being placed in a critical
situation.

The personnel involved in the operation should have an adequate awareness on the influence of
the above factors on angle of attack and vessel drift. This can be achieved with the help of class
room training or simulator training.

8 Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Knut Mo for supporting on vessel modeling in SIMO and also to
acknowledge the financial support from the SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, which has been granted
through CeSOS.

References
1. "Vryhof Anchor manual", Third edition, Digital version (www.vryhof.com) . Krimpen ad Yssel,
The Netherlands, 2000.
2. Artyszuk J. (2004). “A Uniform Current in Ship Maneuvering Mathematical Model.” Annual of
Navigation, no. 7, Polish Academy of Sciences/Polish Navigation Forum, Gdynia.
3. Augusto, O.B, and Andrade, B.L. (2003). “Anchor deployment for deep water floating offshore
equipments.” Ocean engineering, Vol 30, No 5, pp 611-624.
4. Bovens, N, and Townsley, B. (2008). “Anchor handling simulation, Marine Operations Specialty
Symposium.” Marine Operations Specialty Symposium-(MOSS2008), pp 57-69.
5. Endsley, M.R. (1995). “Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems.” Journal
of Human Factors, 37(1), pp. 32-64.
6. Faltinsen, O. M. (1990). “Sea loads on ships and offshore structures.” Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, U.K.
7. Gibson, V. (1999). “Supply Ship Operations”, Oilfield Publications Limited, Ledbury.
8. Gunnu, G.R.S, Moan, T, and Chen, H. (2010). “Risk influencing factors related to capsizing of
anchor handling Vessels in view of the bourbon dolphin accident.” Paper presented at the
International Conference on Systems engineering in ship and offshore design, Royal Institution
of Naval Architects, Bath, UK, October 21-22.

17
 Gunnu GRS, Wu Xiaopeng and Moan T (authors)

9. Gunnu, G.R.S, and Moan, T. (2012). “Stability assessment of anchor handling vessel during
operation considering wind loads and wave induced roll motions.” Prc.of.22nd Int. Offshore and
Polar Engng. Conf., Rhodes, Greece, June 17-22.
10. Hancox, M. (1994). “Anchor Handling.” Oilfield seamanship; vol. 3. Oilfield Publications,
Ledbury.
11. Journée, J.M.J, and Massie, W.W. (2001). “Offshore Hydromechanics.” Delft University of
Technology, Lecture notes on offshore hydromechanics for Offshore Technology students,
Department of Hydraulic Engineering.
12. Kjerstad, N, and Bjoerneseth, O. (2003). “Full-Scale Anchor handling Simulator for Assessment
and training in offshore operations.” Proc. of MARSIM’03 Conderence, Kanazawa, Japan, 25-28.
13. Lien Wennersberg, L.A. (2009). “Modeling and Simulation of Anchor Handling Vessels.”
Master of Science in Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology.
14. MARINTEK, (2009). “SIMO theory manual.” MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway
15. MARINTEK, (2008). “Riflex theory manual.” MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway
16. Maudsley, P.R. (1995). “Operation of offshore supply and AHVs.” The Nautical Institute,
London.
17. NOU, Official Norwegian Reports. (2008). “The Loss of the Bourbon Dolphin on 12 April
2007”.
18. Peh Si Hui, Yao Qi Jun, Chong Kun Bei, Zhang Shengnan and Veronica Ngau Hui Fen (2009).
“An insight into the operations and market demand of anchor handling tug and supply (AHTS)
vessel.” Diploma at thesis, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore.
19. Ritchie, G. (2007). “Practical Introduction to Anchor Handling and Supply Vessel operations.”
Clarkson Research Services Limited, London.
20. Sileo, L. and Steen, S. (2009). “Numerical Investigation of the Interaction between a Stern
Tunnel Thruster and Two Ducted Main Propellers.” First International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, smp’09, Trondheim.
21. Sileo, L, Steen, S. (2010). “Numerical Investigation of the Interaction Effects between a Stern
Tunnel Thruster and Twin Ducted Main Propellers.” 11th International Symposium on Practical
Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, PRADS 2010, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
22. Sklet, S. (2006). “Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance.” Journal of loss
prevention in the process industries, Vol. 19, pp. 494-506.
23. Wichers, J.E.W. (1979). “Slowly Oscillating Mooring Forces in Single Point Mooring Systems.”
International Conference on Behaciour of Off-shore Structures, 1979, London, England
24. Wichers, J.E.W. (1988). “A simulation model for a single point moored tanker.” PhD Thesis,
Technische Universiteit Delft.

18

View publication stats