# Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151

**Comparative study on mooring line dynamic loading
**

D.T. Brown *, S. Mavrakos

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College, London, Torrington Place, London WC1E 7JE, UK Technical University of Athens, Department of Naval Arch and Marine Engineering, 9 Heroon Polytechniou Ave, GR-157 73 Zografos/Athens, Greece Received 1 February 1999; received in revised form 15 March 1999; accepted 6 April 1999

Abstract This paper presents a comparative study on the dynamic analysis of suspended wire and chain mooring lines. This study was initiated by the International Ship and O!shore Structures Congress (ISSC), Committee I2 (Loads) and is brie#y described in the 1997 report presented at Trondheim, Norway. The paper provides more complete documentation of the study. A total of 15 contributions were provided giving analytical results based on time or frequency domain methods for a chain mooring line suspended in shallow water and a wire line in somewhat deeper water. Bi-harmonic top end oscillations representing combined wave and drift induced excitation were speci"ed. The mooring line damping results calculated for chain are compared with limited available experimental data, results provided by the participants showing fair agreement despite the complexity of the numerical methods. Predictions of dynamic tension based on time-domain methods are in broad agreement with each other, the estimates of damping showing more scatter. There are wider discrepancies between results based on frequency-domain methods. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction As hydrocarbon development extends to deeper waters, increasing use is being made of #oating production systems with slender member connections between vessel and sea bed. These slender structures principally comprise of risers, tethers, umbilicals and mooring lines.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 00-44-171-380-7301; fax: 00-44-171-388-0100. E-mail addresses: d}brown@meng.ucl.ac.uk (D.T. Brown), mavrakos@naval.ntua.gr (S. Mavrakos) 0951-8339/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 5 1 - 8 3 3 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 8

132

D.T. Brown, S. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151

Comparative studies investigating #exible risers are well established. In the period between 1988 and 1991, ISSC Committee V7 carried out a comparison of results of two test case con"gurations from computer programs developed by 11 di!erent institutions for the global dynamic analysis of #exible risers. This study is reported in detail by Larsen [1]. A benchmark study on the cross-sectional structural behaviour of #exibles has also been completed, results being presented by Witz [2]. Here a total of 10 institutions provided numerical data for a Co#exip #exible riser design, results being compared to experimental measurements. Mooring lines are a key component connecting a #oating production vessel to the sea bed. The design of the mooring system, required to hold the vessel within a speci"ed radius above the wellhead, depends on an understanding of the imposed static and dynamic environmental loads. The low-frequency excitation caused by the random waves, and, to a certain extent, wind loading results in resonant motion responses in the horizontal plane leading to high mooring line forces. Previously reported work has shown that the mooring system may under certain circumstances provide up to 80% of the total damping available, thus signi"cantly reducing the vessel resonant excursion and hence peak line tensions. Molin [3] provides an excellent review of the second-order hydrodynamic loading contributions acting on a vessel and moorings, with Brown et al. [4] speci"cally discussing mooring line damping. The primary damping components for a moored vessel are induced by current, viscous #ow e!ects, wind, wave drift and the mooring line system. These have been investigated by a number of authors, for example, Triantafyllou et al. [5] gives a good summary. Mooring system damping is caused by line hydrodynamic drag with possible vortex-induced vibration, line internal forces and seabed interaction. Limited work has been performed on the latter which is caused by soil friction leading to reduced tension #uctuations in the grounded portion of line e!ectively increasing the line sti!ness. Thomas et al. [6] indicates that out-of-plane seabed friction and suction e!ects are negligible in deep water mooring situations whereas in-plane e!ects can in#uence the peak tension values. It is usually considered that the dominating line damping component is caused by hydrodynamic drag, the #uid resistance altering the shape of the line from its undisturbed catenary pro"le so that, under the action of current loading and more importantly vessel induced excitation, top tensions of higher magnitude than the catenary tension can be induced. The relative movement between line and #uid also induces dissipative forces however that contribute to the total damping imposed on the system. Drag forces for wire lines in particular can be ampli"ed by vortex induced vibrations whereas for chain the ampli"cation is considered negligible [7]. In this context, Triantafyllou et al. [8] have shown that a linear hydrodynamic forcing term is an intrinsic feature of the vortex induced vibrations of long slender cylinders, wire lines being considered as special cases of them, in the lock in regime. They have evaluated this damping coe$cient from forced motion tests on rigid cylinders. Recent work [9] performing experimental tests on large-scale chain sections has shown that drag coe$cients associated with combined wave and drift frequency oscillations are signi"cantly higher than those for harmonic #ow conditions.

T. academic institutions and research establishments involved in marine technology. Brown. These participants covered the broad spectrum of engineering consultancies.ORCAFLEX ANFLEX TDMOOR-DYN FLEXRISER
In particular. Over 30 organisations were contacted from which 15 contributions were provided for the study. or revising their response as a result of identifying a source of error.D. These were then collated and sent back for checking.A-2 V.FLEX CABLEDYN NTRANS DMOOR INCL. The rules for participation according to the invitation were that all the participants should perform their analyses and send the results to the authors. In the distributed tables of results each participant could only identify their own data with responses of the other participants given anonymously. Table 1 gives the list of participants. MIT National Technical University of Athens Noble Denton Consultancy Services Ltd Norske Hydro Research Centre Norske Hydro Research Centre Orcina Ltd Consulting Engineers Petrobras SA University College London Zentech International
MODEX MODEX * FLEXAN-C DYWFLX95 R. Quanti"cation of this uncertainty is required for reliability models. software names and details as to whether the methods are based on time or frequency-domain formulations. drag coe$cients for lines oscillated at wave frequencies in the transverse direction to the drift oscillation direction can be upto 30% higher than those for harmonic oscillation. S.A-1 INCL. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151 Table 1 Case study participants Institution Software
133
Frequency (FD) or time domain (TD) TD FD FD TD TD TD TD FD TD FD FD TD TD TD TD
Chalmers University of Technology Chalmers University of Technology IFREMER Institut Francais du Petrole MARIN MARINTEK National Technical University of Athens. The objectives of the study were to report to the ISSC on the current state of the art for dynamic analysis of moorings. withdrawing their participation. which is signi"cant considering the considerable number of potential modelling errors. The participants were then left with the choices of accepting their results as "nal. In general. the "rst pass results were representative of all the models. and to assess the level of uncertainty in predicting the dynamic tension and mooring induced damping required for global analysis. Since there is a need for an improved understanding in the hydrodynamic loading and response of mooring lines ISSC Committee I2 initiated a comparative study during the period 1994}1997.
.

"R "R (1)
. Limited experimental data exist for System 1. Where time-domain-based calculations were performed these were run over simulation times corresponding to the larger of the imposed wave or wave drift motion period speci"ed in the following section. Selection of suitable values depends on line and #ow physical characteristics and is made more di$cult by the fact that data for many of these characteristics are not available. In order to investigate this some tests with harmonic forcing only were also speci"ed. Variations about the base case were then considered. The contribution of the wave frequency dynamics of the mooring line to the low-frequency damping is thus of particular relevance. These variations allowed comparison of results for changes in: Line oscillation amplitude and frequency.134
D. The "rst set considered a chain mooring in relatively shallow water. It has previously been reported that both the wave-induced oscillation frequency and amplitude have strong in#uence on damping levels and the combined wave and drift frequency-induced forcing is of speci"c importance. S. The de"nition of drag and added mass coe$cients required careful consideration to ensure consistency between results. 1. see Wichers [10]. Drag coezcient. These conditions generally re#ect the usage of the two line types in di!erent water depths. Water density of 1025 kg/m was used with the mooring line top end taken at the still water level as shown in Fig. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
2. No calculations were performed for wire/chain mixes. For each calculation set a base case was de"ned representing &typical' conditions. Brown.T. The second set considered a wire mooring in somewhat deeper water and denoted System 2. This is referred to as System 1. This represents wave frequency and wave drift frequency e!ects causing mooring line oscillation (as a result of vessel top end motion). forces induced by in-plane and out-of-plane movement of the line on the seabed were not included. Contributions from the internal (structural) damping of the mooring line were ignored. Only forced sinusoidal oscillation of the line top end about a static o!set was considered. allowing comparison to be made with calculated values. These are commonly used in the "eld but restricting calculations to single lines of wire or chain allows better interpretation and more general applicability of the results. The mooring physical properties and site conditions are de"ned in Table 2 with the line con"guration depicted in Fig. Line orientation. Likewise. 1. Changes in drag (and inertia) coe$cient alter the level of line damping. Case study calculation parameters Two separate sets of calculations were de"ned. Analysis of a single line only was considered. The de"nitions of line tangential and normal drag forces (per unit length) used in the study were F " C d<"<". This represents mooring lines at di!ering azimuth angles relative to the wave drift oscillation direction. Transients were eliminated by allowing a suitable &start-up' interval.

(2) "L "L respectively. Bridon Ropes.0 (m/s)
Before applying horizontal static o!set. 15). Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151 Table 2 Line physical properties and site conditions Item Line type Line diameter Total line length (unstretched) Line weight (in air) Line weight (in water) Line axial sti!ness EA Line top tension at equilibrium position Top end static horizontal o!set .10 (N) 549. DnV.A.5 (N/m) 664. Mobile O!shore Units. Vicinay Cadenas S. CG0-94 (1994).
Fig.10 (N) 1133. S.0 (m) 82.5 (N/m) 3202.0 (N/m) 1.5 (m) Horizontal 0.3 (m) 3586.D.T. p.0 See Table 3 System 2
135
Wire 130 (mm) 4000 (m) 800. Brown. Analysis of Spread Mooring Systems for Floating Drilling Units (1987.9 (kN) 5. Line tangential and normal added mass forces (per unit length) were de"ned as F " (C !1)Aa 'R 'R (3)
. 1) Water depth Sea bed inclination Sea bed friction coe$cient Current velocity System 1 Chain 140 (mm) 711. Chain Product Catalogue. POSMOOR (1989).0 0. Mooring line con"guration (before static o!set or loading applied). p..
and F " C d<"<".30. Steel Wire Ropes and Fittings (1992.69.6 (kN) 50.in positive x direction (see Fig. 1.4 (N/m) 1. API RP 2P.0 (m) 500 (m) Horizontal 0. 103).

The speci"ed oscillations were applied after imposing a line top end static o!set de"ned in Table 2. Brown. tangential and normal components. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
Fig. E Tests 1.2 } in-plane oscillation corresponding to wave drift frequency motion only.6 } out-of-plane oscillation corresponding to wave frequency horizontal and wave drift frequency motion. B B U U (5)
. E Tests 1. For each system a base case set of loading conditions was de"ned and variations from the base case speci"ed. The cross-sectional area A for (chain) is based on the nominal diameter. E Tests 1.7 } base case with contributor speci"ed hydrodynamic coe$cients.5). S.03 (except for Test 1. that is ( d/4). altering the phase relationship between wave and drift at time zero. E Tests 1. respectively.3 } in-plane oscillation corresponding to wave frequency horizontal motion only. E Tests 1. Further detail about the two systems follows: System 1. 2).
and F " (C !1)Aa. d represents &nominal' diameter for chain (see Fig. Base case (referred to as Test 1. The in-plane oscillation direction is de"ned as being at 03 to the plane containing the mooring line before loading is applied (see x direction in Fig. 1).5 } in-plane oscillation corresponding to wave vertical and wave drift frequency motion. or wire diameter. with current. 2. The following variations from the base case were considered: E Tests 1. De"nition of chain &nominal' diameter (d). Terms < and a represent instantaneous line velocity and acceleration with subscripts t and n denoting. (4) 'L 'L In these equations.136
D. The phase ( ) between wave drift and wave frequency motion (at time t"0) was taken as 0.1) loading for System 1 is given in the "rst line of Table 3. The phase is de"ned as motion"a sin[2 (t/¹ )# ]#a sin[2 (t/¹ )]. The out-of-plane oscillation direction is de"ned as being at a speci"ed orientation to the in-plane direction.4 } in-plane oscillation corresponding to combined wave horizontal and wave drift frequency motion.T.

2 } in-plane oscillation corresponding to wave drift frequency motion only. The frequency-domain codes generally linearize quadratic drag making appropriate equivalent energy dissipation assumptions. The following data were reported for each of the tests de"ned in Table 3.4 } in-plane oscillation corresponding to combined wave horizontal and wave drift frequency motion. E Line top tension variation ¹ and its components ¹ . If this was zero then was taken as the oscillation period associated with the wave motion.. Quadratic #uid drag loading.T.
3. E Tests 2. The following variations from the base case were considered: E Tests 2. In addition tabulated data stored on 3. whilst retaining essentially a catenary line shape at each time step. Brown. Spatial discretization of the line is performed using straight bar.5 in. are altered at each time step. weight and geometric sti!ness. ¹ and ¹ .1) loading for System 2 is given in Table 3. . A novel frequency-domain method uses asymptotic equations to represent an inclined cable under high tension. The reporting form completed by each contributor also gave limited detail on the background of the numerical models used and the way in which they were run.3 } in-plane oscillation corresponding to wave frequency horizontal motion only. The data were calculated over an oscillation period. elastic truss with lumped masses methods also employed. In the implementation both ends are "xed and the dynamic motion of the line follows the shape of the incremental static deformation with reduced amplitude due to inertia and drag e!ects. E Tests 2. One innovative method uses the motion response at a characteristic position along the line to estimate #uid loading and hence total tension and damping. with a and B B U ¹ being similarly de"ned for wave oscillations. E Tests 2. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
137
where a and ¹ represent drift-induced oscillation amplitude and period. S. Maxima and V W X minima were also speci"ed. E Tests 2. The time-domain codes generally ramp up the loading over approximately one lowfrequency oscillation cycle and use quasi-static analysis/shooting techniques to establish the starting con"guration.6 } contributor speci"ed hydrodynamic coe$cients. U System 2. etc. Base case (referred to as Test 2. added mass. #oppy disc in ASCII format were provided by some contributors. corresponding to that of the wave drift motion. Formulation The results were reported using numerical and graphical means.D.5 } out-of-plane oscillation corresponding to wave frequency horizontal and wave drift frequency motion.
.

6 2.6 2.7.6 0.1 (Base Case) 1.2 1.2.03 1.3.0 10.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 10.2 1.4 10.0 0.0 0.4 5.2 1.0 0.0
D.2 1.138
Table 3 Current Wave drift frequency (m/s) Amp.0 0.0 0.0 0. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
0.6
1.6 0.4 * * * * 10.0 0.2 1.0 270.6 2.4 8.6 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.6.6.2 3.6 2.6 0.4 5.4 5.0 0.0 0.T.2 1.2
1.0 10.0 10.6
.2 1.2 3.2.2
2.2 3.6 2.2 3.2 Contributor values
2.2.0 100 x 5.2 1.2.0 10.6 2.6 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.4.2 1.0 10.6 2.0 x x x x x x x x x 100 100 200 200 * 100 100 200 200 100 100 100 y x 10.0 10.0 x x x x x x x x z z 0.0 0.1 1.2 3.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 5.0 20.4 5.2 1. S.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.1 1. (m) a B Period (s) ¹ B Direction Amp (m) a U Line top end forced oscillation at Wave frequency Period (s) ¹ U Direction Phase (deg)
Test no
Hydrodynamic coe$cients
C
"R
C
"L
C
'R
C
'L
Loading for System 1 0.6 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 10.2 1.2 1.0 0.0 10.4 1.6 2.2 1.6 2.0 20.2 3.0 1.4.4 5.0 0.2 1.03 0.0 0.2 3.5.0 0.0 0.1
0.0 5.6 0.3 1.0 0.1 1.0 20.6
3.1 1.2 1.0
3.5.0 y x 0.0 13. Brown.0 20.

2 1.2
1.8 1.2 1.0 50.1 2.2 0.4 0.2.0 30.
139
.8 1.0 y x 30.4.0 30.0 0.2 0.0 2.2.2 1.0 5.0 0.0 30.0 y x x x x x x x 5.2 0.2 0.2 2.8 1.3.0 30.0 2.1 (Base Case) 2.5.2 0.0 30.0 10.4 5.2 Contributor values
D.0 2.2 1.0 30.2 0.8 1.4 8.2 1.8 1. S.0 2.4 x x x x x x 10.4 5.0 2.2 2.2 2. 1.0 330 330 330 * 330 330 330 330 330
2. (m) Period (s) Wave frequency Direction
Test no
Hydrodynamic coe$cients
C
"R
C "L
C
'R
Loading for System 2 2.Table 3 (Continued) Line top end forced oscillation at Wave drift frequency C 'L Amp.8
1.0 2.0 2.T.0 * * 10. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
Current is in positive x direction } see Fig.0 10. is de"ned as 453 to the x direction in the x}y plane } see Fig.1 2. 1.0 10.1 2.1
0.4.8 1.2 0.4 5.6.2 1. Brown.5.2 1.0 5.0 13. (m) Period (s) Direction Amp.0 10.8 1.1 2.

3 and 4 show total (catenary plus dynamic) maximum tension over an oscillation cycle for systems 1 and 2. It is noted that linearised damping values (or energy dissipation) are not used directly within time domain mooring analyses to establish vessel motion at drift frequencies and maximum line loads. Following the "rst pass return of damping values relatively large di!erences were noted for the tests with combined wave and drift motions. or internal and seabed damping associated with the mooring. (6) is associated with drift frequency oscillation only (if non zero). In practice the contributions from the mooring system caused by line dynamics only in#uence the vessel response through changes in top end line tension and inclination angle. S. and is given by q "a sin 2 V B t # ¹ B (8)
(6)
and similarly for q . Results 4.140
D. W Equivalent linearised damping c . respectively. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
E Line energy dissipation E . q being the sinusoidal horizontal displacements of the line upper end in the x and V W y directions associated with the period . c is given by V W E E c" V .1. The term catenary tension refers to
. E" ¹ (7) W W dt M q . c" W . E caused by motion components in the x and/or V W y direction are given by O dq V dt E" ¹ V dt V M and O dq W dt.T. 4. Furthermore. damping calculations should ideally be performed using irregular waves and responses. Maximum tension } contributions Figs. Appropriate linearised damping values are however useful to compare with other system damping sources such as wave drift and viscous contributions for a #oating vessel. Brown. Simpler frequency-domain models also require estimates of damping. As the damping contribution of interest is that associated with the drift motion the appropriate displacement q for use V in Eq. V 2 b W 2 b
(9)
where b is the oscillation amplitude associated with the period . They are also of use when comparing the calculation methods as is being performed here. The reason for this was that a number of contributors erroneously used the displacement q calculated using the V combined wave and drift frequency displacement.

Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
141
Fig. 3. System 2 } maximum line tension.D.T.
.
Fig. S. System 1 } maximum line tension. 4. Brown.

Results for the deep water wire system show wider variation. associated with the maximum fairlead translation for each test. S. together with the amplitude of motion associated with the imposed drift (d). Where the limited contributor data diverge signi"cantly from the majority. mean plus/minus one standard deviation (M#S. #17. For combined wave and drift (Test 1.2.2. This is discussed further in Section 4.3. Table 4 also provides mean and standard deviation values from time and frequency-domain calculations together with the catenary tension as de"ned above.T.4.2. Consequently no #uid dynamic loading e!ects are allowed for and the fairlead translation will include contributions from the static horizontal o!set. !15 and #11% of the measurements for tests 1. The spread of results are within 20% of the mean value for each of the tests except 2.2. showing the same general trends with drift amplitude } see Figs. 7 (drift period"100 s) and 8 (drift period"200 s). 4. There is reasonable agreement between predictions of line tension for both systems using time-domain methods. Mean values of dynamic tension (i. Line tensions from catenary theory are also given in the "gures.5. Statistical results calculated from the set of contributor data are presented as for the tension amplitude values discussed above.1) the agreement is not good with contributor mean values overpredicting experiments by 70%. total minus catenary) for drift oscillation only are within 4% of those calculated from catenary theory. Contributor mean values (time domain) are. particularly for cases where there are high cable motions. Brown.5 m water depth though they are generally in good agreement with each other. M!S) together with the maximum and the minimum values calculated from the various data provided by contributors. 7 and 8. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
the fairlead static tension calculated from the classic catenary equations.4. The maximum and the minimum values only are plotted for the frequency-domain calculations. the wave (w) or the combined wave/drift (w/d) motion. Mooring-induced damping } contributions and experiments Figs.142
D. Inyuence of drift-induced top end oscillation Calculated line damping values are plotted against drift-induced oscillation amplitude for System 1 in Fig. 4.
. System 1 damping values are considered to be in fair agreement with the experimental data for the tests with drift-induced oscillation.1}1. Plotted values for the time domain calculations are the mean. because the necessary linearisation breaks down at larger oscillation amplitude. #51. results are not used to calculate mean or standard deviation values. 5 and 6 give calculated line damping values over an oscillation cycle of period .e. Frequency-domain damping calculations generally underpredict the time-domain results for the chain line in 82. There is upto 60% variation about the mean for the time-domain linearised damping results as damping calculations depend on the line tension variation throughout the complete oscillation cycle. Frequency-domain analyses are generally not in good agreement with time-domain values.1. whereas there is typically a 20}50% increase with wave or combined wave/drift oscillations. respectively.

10 s
5586 6288 3941 3559 6360 5726 4405 * 2271 5545
143
Oscillation at 453 to plane of line.2 7.2 1.2c 1.1 1. 200 s w } 5.5.4 2.6 24.1 2.1 43.4 122. w } 5.2.4 m. w } 8.4 93. 200 s d } 20 m.7
1.2.3 20. 10 s d } 30 m. 330 s.5.5 8.5.6.9 58. Damping values in x and y direction.T.4. 330 s. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
Total maximum tension and line damping (System 2) 62 845 348 79 261 278 55 * 31 88 4829 5270 3639 3435 5398 4832 4039 * 2257 5332 862 2100 539 578 1115 865 105 * 28 4512 6102 4040 2492 4771 4512 3647 * 2270 4512 910 750 446 139 1087 966 649 70 95 875 219 85 42 33 271 167 209 27 25 55 1160 730 442 98 1413 1155 897 74 94 767 365 218 59 954 745
2.0 m. 10 s 903 d } 30 m.4 1. w } 5.
.3 13.8 15.4 m. 330 s w } 5.2. 10 s d } 30 m.1 2. 10 s d } 30 m.6. 100 s.7 5. Value not calculated (single or no response).1
d } 30 m. 10 s
4202 1375 4497 1377 4556 1300 7488 3394 6777 6746 2103 * 732 3799
D.2 1. 10 s d } 10 m.1 2.2 268.7.8 50. w } 5. 100 s.1a 2.1 5.5. 13 s p1 d } 20 m.4 m. 330 s.9 8.5. w } 5.1 1.3.1 126.4 m.1c 1.4 m.2. w } 5. 200 s. 330 s. w } 5.1a 1.2 76.3. 13 s 453 d } 30 m.4 37. 100 s.8 5. 330 s. w } 5.1 1.4. w } 5. 10 s d } 10 m. 10 s 903 d }10 m.1 2. 10 s p2 d } 20 m.0 m. 200 s.Table 4 Line damping (kNs/m) Catenary Mean (M) StDev (S) Time domain Frequency domain Mean (M) StDev (S)
Test number Frequency domain Mean (M) StDev (S)
Total maximum line tension (kN)
Time domain
Mean (M) StDev (S)
Total maximum tension and line damping (System 1) 258 44 303 40 276 70 732 220 418 407 78 * 10 288 2070 1173 2910 1175 2906 1079 3007 1979 4586 4586 1358 * 689 2562 697 174 2517 172 2520 124 1240 825 3350 3350 199 * 5 2475 1374 4664 1374 4664 952 3500 2475 4675 4675 1507 * 695 2475 137.4.4 m.8 12. w } 5. 100 s d } 10 m.1 18.6 50.8 16. S.4 m.8 6.1 2.2 17. w } 5.6 1.9 40.4 m. 10 s 453 }10 m.9 87. 100 s.4 m.4 171. w } 5.8 50. 10 s 453 } 10 m.0 47.9 25.3 16.2. 330 s d } 30 m.0 91.4 85.8 161.2 2.6 19.5 110.1b 2.4 28.8 15.4 m.6 88.6 44.2 2.2 2. Brown.4 m. 330 s.0 5. 10 s d } 10 m.3 1.2.4 m.1 1.6.6 31.9 5. 100 s. 100 s d } 20 m. w } 8.2 2.6 113.0 23. 330 s. 100 s.2 1. w } 5.4 m.9 113.4.4 m. 10 s d } 50 m. 10 s 453 d } 30 m. 10 s d } 10 m.1
d } 10 m.1b 1. 100 s.6. w } 5.7 264.0 44.4. w } 5.4 m.6 10.

. System 1 } line damping. 6. Brown. System 2 } line damping.T. 5.144
D. S. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
Fig.
Fig.

9 presents similar data for System 2 (drift period"330 s).
.
Fig. 8.
Fig. drift-induced top end amplitude (drift period"200 s) } no wave oscillation. Brown.D. drift-induced top end amplitude (drift period"100 s) } no wave oscillation. 7. The results are based on time-domain calculations only and are for the tests where no wave oscillations were present. No tension data are provided as maximum dynamic components for these tests were only 3% of the catenary tension.T. S. System 1 line damping vs. System 1 line damping vs. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
145
Fig. The spread in contributor results is shown in that mean values together with one standard deviation either side of the mean are given.

9 depicts similar trends with drift-induced amplitude for System 2. A possible reason for this is that the calculation method for catenary tension does not include the stretch of the seabed portion and thus may give slightly conservative tension values. 4.146
D.5 (based on the mean of contributor data) for both the 100 and 200 s period oscillations. This factor becomes 8.4. 12 and 13 give equivalent line damping data for System 1. There is a consistent trend throughout these results in that both the dynamic tension and the mooring line damping increase signi"cantly in the presence of line wave-induced top end motion. 10 and 11 give dynamic tension components (total tension minus catenary tension) for System 1 (with drift amplitude and period of 10 m and 100 s) and System 2 (with drift amplitude and period of 30 m and 330 s). 9. Figs. Inyuence of combined drift and wave induced top end oscillation Figs. 7 and 8 indicate that increasing the System 1 drift-induced top end amplitude from 10 to 20 m caused an increase in damping by a factor of approximately 4. 12 indicates that including top end wave excitation of 5.4 m amplitude at 10 s period for System 1 increases line damping by a factor of 7. Brown. S.1 when compared with the zero wave amplitude situation. It is seen that a number of contributions predict total tensions less than the catenary value. The results are based on time domain calculations only and are plotted against wave-induced amplitude with symbols representing wave oscillation periods of 10 and 13 s.8 for 8 m amplitude oscillations.0 and 2. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
Fig.
Figs. For System 2 the equivalent factors are 2. Fig. Contributor data may allow stretch of this grounded portion. It is di$cult to interpret the reasons for the lower System 2 factors due to the several di!erent characteristics of the two systems. System 2 line damping vs.T.4. For example Fig. drift-induced top end amplitude (drift period"330 s) } no wave oscillation.
. Conversely doubling the oscillation period caused the damping to reduce by 50%.

5. 10.5% di!erence to the dynamic tension and 6% di!erence to the damping. wave-induced top end amplitude } with drift oscillation.
4.5. wave-induced top end amplitude } with drift oscillation. System 2 maximum dynamic tension vs.0) between wave and drift oscillation } see Eq.
Fig. It is noted that for a random wave excitation the phase is considered irrelevant.
. System 1 maximum dynamic tension vs. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
147
Fig. The results indicated that altering the phase from 0 to 2703 made at the most only 4.and drift-induced top end oscillation Tests 1. Brown. 11.D. Inyuence of phase between wave. S.2 examined the in#uence of the phase (at time"0. (5).1 and 1.T.5.

13.1a and b together with 2.6.T.5.148
D. S.6. System 2 line damping vs.6. System 1 line damping vs.
4. 12. These analyses that
.1 and 2. Tests 1. wave-induced to end amplitude } with drift oscillation. Inyuence of out-of-plane oscillations Tests 1.
Fig. Brown. Damping results for tests 1.1a and b given in Table 4 relate to appropriate components in the x and y directions (for out-of-plane oscillations at 453).2 and 2.5.1 represent oscillations at 453 to the mooring line in the horizontal plane. wave-induced top end amplitude } with drift oscillation.5.2 represent y components for oscillations at 903 to the mooring line in the horizontal plane.6. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
Fig.

Three contributors speci"ed tangential drag values for the chain tests in the range from 0. The results clearly show that the largest contributions to dynamic tension. The suggested normal drag values were consistently lower than the values of 3.6}4. In all the cases combined wave and drift oscillations are imposed. S. 4. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
149
Fig. For
.D.20 to 0.6 and 2. Inyuence of drag and inertia coezcients In tests 1.6 and 2. 14.1 and 2. It is noted however. Since a number of the hydrodynamic coe$cients were varied simultaneously only limited additional conclusions can be made from the calculations.5 and 1. the contributor suggested normal inertia values were consistently higher than the values of 2.6. 14. Results of dynamic tension are plotted against line azimuth angle (relative to oscillation direction) in Fig. and indeed damping.7.0}2.1 contributors used their own values for hydrodynamic coe$cients. Normal drag values for chain and wire in the ranges from 2.8 used for the chain and wire tests.0}1. Systems 1 and 2 maximum dynamic tension vs. and damping from 18 to 27% were noted.6.6. respectively.24 somewhat below the pre-speci"ed value of 0. arise when the line oscillations are in the plane of the mooring.2 and 1.0 used in the pre-de"ned tests.2 to 2. that no tests were performed with wave-induced oscillations out of plane with the drift motion as would occur with a #oating vessel undergoing surge drift motion together with combined surge and sway wave motion. Generally values of tangential drag for wire and tangential inertia for both chain and wire were not altered from those pre-speci"ed in the study documentation. In contrast. For System 1 reductions in total tension from 8 to 12%.7.3 were suggested together with normal inertia coe$cients of 2. line azimuth } combined wave and drift oscillation.
considered out-of-plane oscillation were more prone to misinterpretation by the contributors than the in-line cases.T. Brown.

150
D. This leads in many cases to unrealistic full-scale designs due to improper scaling of the line's static con"guration through the imposed limited water depth. fully numerical schemes that allow the integration of the cable's dynamic equations in
. Predictions of damping which depend on the tension variation and line angle over an oscillation cycle show a wider range of scatter. Certainly they can be computationally e$cient as the exact line pro"le need not necessarily be established on a continuous basis. however. It is clear that further work such as that performed by Brown et al. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
System 2 reductions of upto 7 and 19% for total tension and damping were found. Hybrid methods that allow non-linear loading and that utilise time-domain methods should be further investigated to assess their applicability limits. thus requiring the instantaneously suspended cable's length. Brown. [12] in appropriately selected deep water to ensure both static and dynamic similitude between full scale and the scaled down con"guration. Concluding remarks It is clear from the results of the comparative study that time-domain methods to predict mooring line dynamic tension amplitude are in reasonable agreement with each other. these methods are usually based on "nite-element-type formulations which can be computationally highly intensive. would provide the most accurate information. have to be taken into account. and in particular hydrodynamic drag. to conduct full scale measurements and importantly to make their results openly available. The advantageous reductions in total tension contrasted by the onerous reductions in mooring-induced damping further emphasise the need to establish consistent values of hydrodynamic coe$cients to be used by the design community. The study has highlighted a range of coe$cient values used by the design community for identical mooring systems of simple make up. S. making extensive use in design prohibitively expensive. Additional work is required. The numerical methods require input values of hydrodynamic drag and inertia coe$cient. or at least experiments as performed by Mavrakos et al. time domain solutions appear at present to o!er the only possibility for giving reliable results. The experiments in restricted water depth require appropriate scaling of both cable elastic sti!ness and its free-falling velocity. as shown by Papazoglou et al. besides the ones originating from the quadratic drag. The damping levels contribute to the reduction in #oating vessel resonant drift motion and so are of key importance. They should however be used with care in situations where the bottom line interaction e!ects need to be accurately taken into account. Both frequency. In such cases. Further work is required to obtain consistency with more e$cient time or frequency domain methods. In such cases where non-linear e!ects. [11]. No increase in tension or damping over the base case results were reported.
5. leading to more consistent design practice. Unfortunately.and time-domain calculations need further validation against experimental measurements. Full scale measurements.T. [9] is required in the selection of these coe$cients. particularly for situations where large cable motions occur and/or when linearisation assumptions break down.

Deep water mooring dynamics.. E. Houston. [7] NTNF. Marine Struct 1996. [10] Wichers JEW. 1994. Marintek Rpt. Second order hydrodynamics applied to a moored structure } a state of the art survey Schi!stechnik 1994. vol. Vortex induced vibrations in a sheared #ow: a new predictive method. Brown. [4] Brown DT. 2. 1994. The authors also wish to thank the research sta! in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at University College London for their help in collating the results.4:59}84. Part 1. In: Faltinsen O et al. [11] Papazoglou VJ. Non linear cable response and model testing in water. Rotterdam. pp. 1994. Huse. Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology.
.D.5:103}19. [9] Brown DT.140(1):103}15. 203}14. Tein DYS. Paper 6218.21:5}12. Lyons GJ.
References
[1] Larsen CM. 1997. Oxford: Pergamon. line layouts and component mixes including "bre moorings and attached submerged buoys along the lines. pp. 1991. the authors wish to express their gratitude to all the contributors for their involvement. It would be bene"cial for a future study to consider more realistic loading conditions. Lyons GJ. Norway: Balkema. Hearn GE. editors. pp. S. Papazoglou VJ.9:181}209. Chatjigeorgiou J. Mavrakos SA. Marine Struct 1992. Yue DKP. pp. Advances in mooring line damping. A shortcoming of the present study is that it was limited to harmonic or biharmonic excitation of a single chain or wire line. Procedings of the OTC. [3] Molin B. [8] Triantafyllou MS. Damping of moored #oating structures. [2] Witz JA. Gopalkrishnan R. Proceedings of the OTC. Contribution of hydrodynamic damping induced by mooring chains on low frequency motions. Proceedings of the OTC. in: Proc. 31}7. [5] Triantafyllou MS. 171}81. Large scale testing for mooring line hydrodynamic damping contributions at combined wave and drift frequencies. Grosenbaugh MA. FPS 2000 Research Programme } Mooring Line Damping.T. [6] Thomas DO. Flexible riser analysis } comparison of results from computer programs. Trondheim. Huijsmans RHM. Lin HM. pp.9:885}904. Triantafyllou MS. Mavrakos / Marine Structures 12 (1999) 131}151
151
space and time and take into account the bending e!ects seem to provide the most reliable solution. 397}406. J Sound Vibr 1990. Marine Struct 1996.5. [12] Mavrakos SA. Triantafyllou MS. BOSS. A case study in the cross-section analysis of #exible risers. 215}24. 1990. USA. J Soc Underwater Tech 1995. Deep water mooring line dynamics with emphasis on seabed interaction e!ects. Lin HM. Paper 7489.
Acknowledgements On behalf of ISSC Committee I2-Loads. Paper 7488.