Concept Design of Mooring Buoy

Places of Refuge Initiative Mooring Buoy Initiative
Concept Design of Mooring Buoy

Prepared for
State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
Under ADEC SPAR Term Contract #18-5048-10
Prepared by
C oa s tw ise C o rpo rat ion

Naval Architects Marine Engineers
Anchorage, Alaska
and
Consulting Engineers Serving the Marine Community

1201 Western Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, Washington 98101-2921
File No. 11073.01

30 June 2011
Rev. -
TEL 206.624.7850
FAX 206.682.9117
www.glosten.com
Places of Refuge Initiative Mooring Buoy Initiative
Concept Design of Mooring Buoy

Prepared for
State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
Under ADEC SPAR Term Contract #18-5048-10
Prepared by
Coastwise Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
and
The Glosten Associates, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
File No. 11073.01
30 June 2011
Rev. -
PREPARED:
Digitally signed by
Katherine V. Sultani-Wright
Katherine V. Sultani-Wright, PE
Digitally Signed
12-Jul-2011
Project Manager
CHECKED:
David L. Gray, PE
Senior Principal
Digitally Signed
12-Jul-2011
APPROVED:
Justin M. Morgan, PE
Principal-In-Charge
Consulting Engineers Serving the Marine Community

1201 Western Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, Washington 98101-2921
TEL 206.624.7850
FAX 206.682.9117
www.glosten.com
Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................... i
Section 1 Background and Location ..................................................................... 1
Section 2 Climatology ............................................................................................ 3
2.1
Technical Approach ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2
Local Winds .................................................................................................................. 3
2.2.1
2.3
Local Current ................................................................................................................ 6
2.3.1
2.4
Design Wind: 100-Year Return Period Local Wind ............................................. 4

Design Current ...................................................................................................... 6
Local Waves ................................................................................................................. 6
2.4.1
Description of SWAN ........................................................................................... 7
2.4.2
Bering Sea Waves ................................................................................................. 8
2.4.3
Design Waves: 100-Year Return Period Local Waves ....................................... 12
2.5
Metocean Design Climatology ................................................................................... 16
Section 3 Design Vessel ....................................................................................... 17

3.1
Environmental Loads .................................................................................................. 18
3.1.1
Wind Forces ........................................................................................................ 19
3.1.2
Current Forces ..................................................................................................... 19
3.1.3
Wave Forces ........................................................................................................ 20
Section 4 Governing Regulations........................................................................ 21

Section 5 Concept Mooring Buoy Design ........................................................... 23
5.1
Overview .................................................................................................................... 23
5.2
Mooring Components ................................................................................................. 23
5.2.1
Buoy .................................................................................................................... 24
5.2.2
Mooring Lines ..................................................................................................... 25
5.2.3
Anchors ............................................................................................................... 25
5.2.4
Vessel Connection ............................................................................................... 27
5.3
Mooring Analysis ....................................................................................................... 28
Section 6 Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 32

Section 7 Recommendations ............................................................................... 33
Appendix A Annual Extreme Winds
Appendix B SWAN Analysis Results
Concept Design of Mooring Buoy, Rev. -

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Revision History
Section
Rev
Description
Date
Approved
All
P0
Initial release.
6/22/11
---
All
Final release. No changes from P0.
6/30/11
JMM
Terms
AIRA
Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment
ABS
American Bureau of Shipping
ADEC
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservatism
AIS
Automatic Identification System
API
American Petroleum Institute
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
FPI
Floating Production Installation
IACS
International Association of Classification Societies
GROW
Global Reanalysis of Ocean Waves
Gumbel extreme value probability

distribution
A statistical probability distribution used to forecast further extremes

based on observed extremes
JONSWAP
Joint North Sea Wave Project
Metocean
An abbreviation of the two words "Meteorology" and "Oceanography."

The term is often used in the offshore industry to describe the physical
environment.
MODU
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
NDBC
National Data Buoy Center
NPD
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
OCIMF
Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OrcaFlex
A time-domain dynamic analysis code that includes the effects of

unsteady wind, first-order wave excitation, second-order wave drift,
current, and nonlinear mooring forces on floating bodies
ORQ
Oil Rig Quality
PPOR
Potential Place of Refuge
QTF
Quadratic Transfer Functions
ROV
Remotely Operated Vehicle
SPM
Single Point Mooring
SWAN
Simulating Waves Nearshore; a wave generation and propagation model

that can be used to derive the wave conditions in a nearshore area
USCG
United States Coast Guard
WAMIT
Wave Analysis MIT; a 3D frequency-domain radiation-diffraction panel

program for analyzing the interaction of surface waves with offshore
structures
WBAN
Weather-Bureau-Army-Navy
ii

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
References
1. Buttolph, A, Technical Memorandum: Sediment Modeling Report for Unalaska Airport,
Appendix E2, CH2M Hill, http://www.unalaskaairportproject.com/download.html, 29
October 2010.
2. SWAN (Simulating WAves Nearshore); Software Version 40.72, Delft University of
Technology, Netherlands, May 2008.
3. Ang, Alfredo H-S and Wilson H. Tang, Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and
Design, Volume II: Decision, Risk, and Reliability, John Wiley and Sons, 1984.
4. Integrated Surface Hourly Data, Dutch Harbor, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC, June 2011.
5. Standard Meteorological Data, Station 46035 (LLNR 1198) Bering Sea 310 nm North of
Adak, AK, National Data Buoy Center, June 2011.
6. Standard Meteorological Data, Station 46073 (LLNR 1199) Southeast Bering Sea,
National Data Buoy Center, June 2011.
7. Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, American
Petroleum Institute, API RP 2SK, October 2005.
8. Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Part 3: Hull Construction
and Equipment, American Bureau of Shipping, 2008.
9. Owens R and P Palo, Wind Induced Steady Loads on Ships, Technical Note N-1628, Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory, April 1982.
10. Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VLCCs, OCIMF, Second Edition, 1994.
11. Design: Moorings, Unified Facilities Criteria, Department of Defense, UFC-4-159-03,
October 2005.
12. Rules for Building and Classing Single Point Moorings, American Bureau of Shipping,
1996.
13. Recommendations for Equipment Employed in the Bow Mooring of Conventional Tankers
at Single Point Moorings, OCIMF, Fourth Edition, May 2007.
14. Vessel Traffic in the Aleutians Subarea, Nuka Research and Planning Group,
http://www.aleutiansriskassessment.com/documents/060922AleutiansVesselReportSCREE
N.pdf, September 20, 2006.
15. Emergency Towing System for Aleutians, Alaska,
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/aiets/home.htm.
16. WAMIT, WAMIT Incorporated, Software Version 6.41, December 2008.
17. OrcaFlex, Orcina Ltd, Software Version 9.4f, August 2010.
iii

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Executive Summary
Background
The Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment (AIRA) project identified the need for acquisition of a
mooring buoy in Dutch Harbor to accommodate large disabled vessels. Dutch Harbor is
strategically located near Unimak Pass, which is frequently transited by large vessels
following the Great Circle route. This report documents the conceptual design of a mooring
buoy in Broad Bay, to the northwest of Dutch Harbor. The proposed mooring buoy site is
located approximately at 53-55.35 N and 166-37.00 W.
Climatology
This report presents a climatological study to select design environmental conditions for the
mooring within Unalaska Bay. The design climatology represents a severe storm that is
expected once every 100 years. The resulting local wave heights are 4-5 m, depending on the
wind direction. Wind speed is approximately 60 knots. Current is about 1.5 knots and is
always aligned with the wind, as tidal currents are negligible in the area.
Vessel Selection
The selection of the design vessel is based on limited information about recent vessel
casualties near Dutch Harbor; it is not based on a comprehensive vessel traffic study, which
was not in the scope of the concept study. The design vessel used to size the mooring
components consists of an underwater hull form similar to a tanker or bulk carrier, and an
above water hull form similar to a car carrier. It is 206 m in length and 32.4 m in breadth, with
a displacement of 64,387 tonnes.
Mooring Design
A three (3) leg, twin line mooring

configuration was selected for the
concept design based on common
Navy fleet moorings. A sketch of
the concept design is shown in
Figure 1.
Anchor Selection
Figure 1
Concept design of mooring buoy for disabled
An 18 tonne Bruce TS anchor is
vessels
in Broad Bay, Alaska
needed to develop the required holding
capacity of 700 kips. The four (4) existing 15 tonne Bruce TS anchors do not provide enough
holding capacity on an individual basis for the configuration shown in Figure 1, assuming soft
bottom conditions. Variations from the assumed bottom conditions or other design
assumptions could have a significant impact on cost and design of the mooring system.
Cost Estimate
The total cost of installing this system with an ABS classification is estimated at $10.5 million,
with an annual inspection cost of $250,000 excluding hardware replacement.

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Section 1
Background and Location
Establishing Potential Places of Refuge (PPOR) in the Aleutian Island region was introduced
as a means of risk reduction in the Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment for the Aleutian
Islands. Anticipated increases in vessel traffic in the Aleutians have focused the need to
further improve the infrastructure to provide PPOR for vessels in distress. The Aleutian
Islands Risk Assessment (AIRA) project identified the need for acquisition of a mooring buoy
in Dutch Harbor to accommodate large disabled vessels.1 Dutch Harbor is strategically located
near Unimak Pass, which is frequently transited by large vessels following the Great Circle
route. Figure 1 from Reference 13 illustrates the primary traffic routes.
Figure 2
Vessel Traffic on Great Circle Route (Reference 13)
The entrance to Dutch Harbor itself provides insufficient water depth for the largest vessels
anticipated to use the mooring buoy. Broad Bay was suggested by the Alaska Marine Pilots as
a suitable location approximately four nautical miles northwest of Dutch Harbor within
Unalaska Bay. The area offers relatively open waters for maneuvering in water depths of 3050 fathoms. Due to the geography of Unalaska Bay, Bering Sea waves approaching from the
northeast sector have an unobstructed path into Broad Bay; however, it is protected from ocean
swell in other directions. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed mooring buoy site, located
approximately at 53-55.35 N and 166-37.00 W.
http://www.aleutiansriskassessment.com/

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Proposed
Mooring Buoy
Site
Figure 3
Proposed Mooring Buoy Site
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservatism (ADEC) commissioned this work to

investigate further development of Unalaska Bay as a PPOR. This report documents the
conceptual design of a mooring buoy to serve as a PPOR in Broad Bay. Subsequent sections
address the climatology in the bay, the design vessel selection, governing regulations, the
mooring design concept, and the costs of installing and maintaining the system.

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Section 2
2.1
Climatology
Technical Approach
A common methodology for offshore structures design, including moorings, is to use

Metocean criteria associated with the 100-year return period condition. As consistent quality
environmental data records are almost never available for periods exceeding 100 years, it is
necessary to employ extrapolation methods to estimate the wind speeds or wave heights
associated with a 100-year return period. Different methods have been developed for
conditioning and extrapolating the available data in order to develop an estimate of the
extreme (i.e., 100-year return) wind or wave. This extrapolation of wind speed and wave
height was executed using a data set comprised of annual extremes, sorted by direction,
because the data record length was adequate. Reduction of the twenty-three year wind record
to annual extremes provides a sufficient number of data points to lend confidence to this
method of extrapolation.
2.2
Local Winds
Design wind conditions were established using a twenty-three year wind record at Dutch
Harbor Airport for the years 1988-2010 (Reference 4). Table 1 contains details about the
Dutch Harbor Airport weather station.
Table 1
Weather Station Specifics

Dutch Harbor Airport
Alaska, United States
WBAN Identification Number
704890
Elevation
4 m above local ground
Latitude / Longitude
53 54 N / 166 33 W
The joint probability distribution of wind speed and direction at the Dutch Harbor Airport is
shown in Figure 4.

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Figure 4
2.2.1
Joint probability distribution of wind speed and direction at Dutch Harbor Airport
Design Wind: 100-Year Return Period Local Wind
The 100-year return wind speed was determined by the expected value based on annual
extremes by direction. The following describes the process by which that value is determined.
The annual maximum wind speeds were extracted from the 23-year Dutch Harbor data set by
direction, for eight direction sectors. Wind direction is defined as the direction from which the
wind is blowing, in degrees from true north. The eight direction sectors were bounded as
shown in Table 2. The directional data was reported to the nearest degree, so the ranges were
defined to the half-degree just above the upper bound and to the half-degree just below the
lower bound. This resulted in nine sets, one for each direction and one across all directions, of
annual extremes, each containing 23 data points, one for each year.
The wind speed averaging period is not reported in Reference 4; however, for this analysis it
was assumed to be a one-minute average. Airport wind data is typically recorded as a oneminute average in our experience, and this assumption has been accepted by ABS in previous
work.

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Table 2
Definition of wind direction sectors
Direction
Heading,
deg true
Lower Heading,
deg true
Upper Heading,
deg true
337.5
22.5
NE
45
22.5
67.5
90
67.5
112.5
SE
135
112.5
157.5
180
157.5
202.5
SW
225
202.5
247.5
270
247.5
292.5
NW
315
292.5
337.5
Gumbel extreme value probability distributions were fit to all nine sets of data. Figures
showing extrapolation are shown in Appendix A. A summary of the 100-year return
extrapolation for all eight (8) directional sectors is presented in Table 3. The wind speeds in
the table are the expected value one-minute average wind speed at 4 m.
Table 3
Summary of 100-year return one-minute average wind speeds at 4 m based on Dutch Harbor
Airport data, knots
U(4.0 m, 60 sec), knots
NE
SE
SW
NW
ALL
Expected Value
54
46
61
60
69
60
57
61
66
The one-hour average wind speeds are used in the SWAN wave hindcast and the OrcaFlex
mooring analysis. Therefore, it was necessary to convert from one-minute averages to onehour averages. According to the recommendations in the API RP2SK-Appendix B, the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) wind spectrum was assumed (Reference 7).
The method in Reference 7 was used to obtain U0, the one-hour average wind speed at an
elevation of 10 meters, as a function of direction based on the expected value of the oneminute average wind speeds at 4 m elevation. If the expected value for a directional sector fell
below the expected value for all directions, the expected value for all directions was used;
otherwise the expected value for the directional sector was used. This procedure was used as
an attempt to reduce the effects of local topography on the wind speed data.
The results of the transformation of one-minute average wind speeds at 4 m elevation to onehour average wind speeds at 10 m are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Transformation from one-minute average to one-hour average 100-year return period wind
speeds using NPD Spectrum wind gust formulation
Wind Heading, deg true
One-minute average wind speed

at 4 m, knots
U(4 m, 60 sec)
One-hour average wind speed at

10 m, knots
U(10 m, 3600 sec)
0/360
66
58
45
66
58
90
66
58
135
66
58

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Wind Heading, deg true
One-minute average wind speed

at 4 m, knots
U(4 m, 60 sec)
One-hour average wind speed at

10 m, knots
U(10 m, 3600 sec)
180
69
61
225
66
58
270
66
58
315
66
58
2.3
Local Current
A study on currents in Unalaska Bay was conducted and reported on in Reference 1. No other
data on local currents was sought out, as the report indicated that currents were generally very
weak, less than 0.25 m/sec (0.5 knots). Modeling efforts showed that currents in Broad Bay
were less than 0.02 m/sec (0.04 knots) during peak ebb and flow tidal events, which was
reported to correlate well with current measurements.
Due to the low tidal current speeds in the area of interest, tidal current forces were not included
in the mooring analysis. However, wind stress current may still be present and is accounted
for in the analysis.
2.3.1
Design Current
Wind stress current at the surface is estimated by many references to be 2.5% of the steady
wind speed, which will be interpreted to be U (10 m, 3600 sec), the one-hour average wind
speed at an elevation of 10 meters. There are diverse models for the vertical profile of the
wind stress current in the literature, but it may be conservatively regarded as classical plane
Couette flow with a profile that varies linearly from maximum at the surface to zero at the
bottom. ABS Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Rules (Reference 8) provide guidance
that, in agreement with several other sources, suggests that the wind stress current is confined
to a near surface region. Applying the guidance of the ABS MODU Rules the vertical profile
of the wind stress current would vary linearly over the top five meters of depth, from a
maximum at the surface to the combined tidal and storm surge current (in this case, effectively
zero) at 5 m depth. However, due to the lack of measured data or computational modeling of
the current flow in Unalaska Bay, the more conservative linear vertical profile was chosen.
Accordingly, for each of the eight (8) cases, the one-hour average wind speed at 10 meters was
used as the steady wind speed and the current velocity was taken as 2.5% of that value. A
linear vertical profile was assumed, with the current speed at the sea surface equal to 2.5% of
the steady wind speed and the current speed at the sea floor equal to zero.
2.4
Local Waves
The wave environment near the proposed mooring buoy site in Broad Bay can be characterized
by waves generated by the local winds and by waves entering Broad Bay from the Bering Sea.
There is no source of data available for the waves at proposed mooring buoy site, so waves are
generated and propagated computationally over a domain including the proposed mooring
buoy site. The modeling software used to analyze the wave environment is SWAN, a third

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
generation wave model that computes random, short-crested, and wind-generated waves in
coastal regions and inland waters (Reference 2).
2.4.1
Description of SWAN
SWAN is a wave generation and propagation model that can be used to derive the wave
conditions in a nearshore area. SWAN is also suitable for use as a wave hindcast model in
water of intermediate and shallow depth for situations where the wind field may be considered
uniform. Typical areas for the application of SWAN range between 10 x 5 km2 and
30 x 100 km2.
SWAN is a two dimensional full spectral wave model for wave propagation in shallow water
including refraction and shoaling, growth due to wind action, non-linear wave interactions
(triad and quadruplet) and dissipation by bottom friction and breaking. SWAN is appropriate
for and typically used for the simulation of wave generation, propagation, and dissipation in
coastal areas.
The processes modeled by SWAN are:
Wave generation by a spatially varying wind
Refraction over a bottom of variable depth
Refraction over a spatially varying ambient current
Dissipation by wave breaking
Dissipation by bottom friction
Wave blocking by current
Non-linear wave interactions
SWAN explicitly includes the effects of non-linear four wave interactions (quadruplets) and
three wave interactions (triads). The discrete representation of the frequency spectrum means
that SWAN is more suitable than previous models for application in areas where strong growth
due to wind action may occur and where the remains of old sea states or swell is also present
(e.g., behind island barriers or bank systems).
SWAN calculates the wave field on a two dimensional horizontal rectangular grid covering the
computational area. At each grid point, SWAN represents the complete 2D-action density
spectrum discretely as a function of frequency and direction. SWAN calculates wave
propagation in all directions. The solution technique marches forward row by row over the
grid beginning at the incident wave boundary, where the incident wave characteristics are
defined. The results in each direction sector at each grid point are computed from the results
for the grid points in the previous row. The propagation of energy is modeled using an energy
balance equation adapted to include terms for wave growth by wind action or dissipation due
to bottom friction or wave breaking.
SWAN has been verified using results both from field measurements and from physical model
tests. The SWAN program can be obtained from the internet site of Delft University of
Technology, see http://fluidmechanics.tudelft.nl/ (Reference 2).

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
2.4.2
Bering Sea Waves
There are two sources of Bering Sea wave data: NDBC buoys 46035 and 43073, shown in
Figure 5 (References 5 and 6). Table 5 summarizes the data provided at each buoy.
Table 5
Bering Sea wave buoys near Dutch Harbor

Wave Buoys in the Bering Sea
Buoy Identifier
46035
46073
Description
Bering Sea 310 nm North of Adak, AK
Southeast Bering Sea
Date range available
1985 - 2010
2005- 2010
Latitude / Longitude
52.067 N / 177.75 W
57.011 N / 170.981 W
Figure 5
Offshore wave data buoys (46035 and 43073) in relation to Dutch Harbor
Despite the fact that buoy 46073 is closer to Dutch Harbor, buoy 46035 was selected to
characterize the Bering Sea waves because it had a longer time record of wave data. However,
for the years that data was available for 46073, those data points were used instead of those
from 46035. Due to the geography of Unalaska Bay, Bering Sea waves approaching from the
northeast sector have an unobstructed path into Broad Bay. Therefore, only Bering Sea waves
from a sector defined by 15 deg true and 75 deg true were considered in developing the 100year return period design climatology. This is shown in Figure 6.

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Figure 6
Bering Sea waves sector from which annual extreme wave heights were determined
The buoy data did not contain wave direction, but it did contain wind direction. In the absence
of any other information, the Bering Sea waves were assumed to be aligned with the wind, and
so the wind direction was used as a proxy for the wave direction. The annual extreme events
from the northeast sector are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Annual extreme Bering Sea wave heights from northeast sector (15 deg true 75 deg true)
Buoy
Significant Wave
Height, m
29-Oct-1985
46035
8.5
12.5
70
5-Mar-1986
46035
8.6
14.3
69
21-Mar-1987
46035
10.1
12.5
29
14-Dec-1988
46035
7.7
12.5
21
22-Dec-1989
46035
6.8
12.5
50
19-Jan-1990
46035
12.4
16.7
24
22-Dec-1991
46035
10.5
14.3
44
4-Feb-1992
46035
10.2
14.3
57
25-Dec-1993
46035
8.6
12.5
27
24-Feb-1994
46035
7.7
12.5
40
20-Nov-1995
46035
8.5
12.5
36
4-Feb-1996
46035
7.7
12.5
47
8-Jan-1997
46035
10.96
14.29
42
23-Feb-1998
46035
8.65
11.11
59
Date
Dominant Wave
Period, sec
Wind Direction,
deg true

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Date
Buoy
Significant Wave
Height, m
Dominant Wave
Period, sec
Wind Direction,
deg true
7-Nov-1999
46035
9.07
12.5
55
2-Dec-2000
46035
9.97
12.5
40
11-Nov-2001
46035
8.12
11.11
64
1-Jan-2002
46035
8.92
12.5
36
7-Jan-2003
46035
9.02
12.12
68
9-Feb-2004
46035
8.29
12.12
30
8-Nov-2005
46073
9.28
12.9
24
28-Dec-2006
46073
4.79
11.43
22
16-Jan-2007
46073
7.22
12.9
65
22-Oct-2008
46073
8.26
12.12
39
6-Oct-2009
46073
6.82
10.81
47
8-Feb-2010
46073
7.78
10.81
47
These annual extremes over twenty-six years of record were used as a basis for a Gumbel
extrapolation of the extreme significant wave height expected in one hundred years of record,
as shown in Figure 7. Not all of the annual extremes were used in the extrapolation; the data
set was chosen to maximize the goodness-of-fit of the extrapolation to the upper end of the
data. The resulting estimate of the expected 100-year return Bering Sea significant wave
height from the northeast sector was 14.5 meters.
10

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Annual Maximum Wave Heights (1985-2010)

Buoy 46035 and 46073
NE Sector Only (15 deg true - 75 deg true)
1.001 1.01
22
1.1111.25
Return Period, years

10
20
50
100
200
500
1000
20
18
Significant Wave Height, meters
16
14
12
10
9
Upper 90% Prediction Bound and
Lower 90% Prediction Bound shown
as dashed lines about Expected Value.
8
7
6
5
0.001 0.01
Figure 7
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
Cumulative Probability
0.98
0.99
0.995
0.998
0.999
Extrapolation of 100-year return Bering Sea significant wave height for waves arriving from
the northeast sector
The peak period associated with the 100-year return Bering Sea significant wave height was
determined according to the method shown in Figure 8. A line of best-fit constant wave
steepness was calculated for the 26 extreme combined significant wave height dominant
period points. The dominant period for the 100-year return Bering Sea significant wave height
was selected based on the line of constant wave steepness, and was determined to be 16.5
seconds.
11

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
20
18
Tp = 16.5 sec
16
12
10
Hs = 14.5 m
Dominant Period (Tp), sec
14
Hs/gTp2 =0.00543
Hs/gTp2 =0.00539
Annual Maximum Wave Height - 46035
Line of best f it - 46035

2
Annual Maximum Wave Height - 46073

Line of best f it - 46073
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Wave Height (Hs), m
Figure 8
2.4.3
Conditional peak period expected in association with 100-year return Bering Sea significant
wave height for waves arriving from the northeast sector
Design Waves: 100-Year Return Period Local Waves
Both the local winds and Bering Sea waves were input to a SWAN model of the proposed
mooring buoy site. The 100-year return one-hour average wind speeds at 10 m elevation and
the 100-year return Bering Sea wave data were used as inputs to a SWAN wave generation and
propagation model. The SWAN model is based on the bathymetry surrounding the proposed
mooring buoy site in Unalaska Bay.
2.4.3.1
SWAN Model of Unalaska Bay
For the wave analysis at the proposed mooring buoy site, SWAN was used with temporal and
spatial stationary wind and boundary waves, thus producing the fully-developed solution that
would be obtained if the forcing conditions persisted forever. SWAN is capable of modeling
response to temporally and spatially non-stationary (transient) forcing. However, the adopted
approach of assuming uniform, homogenous, and stationary forcing conditions is conservative,
i.e. predicting higher wave heights at the mooring site.
The SWAN model was set up according to the following: a JONSWAP spectrum representing
the Bering Sea waves was applied on three of the four boundaries; the southern boundary
contained almost exclusively land, so waves were not applicable. The JONSWAP spectrum
was derived as described above using two buoys. Figure 9 below shows the SWAN
computational domain. The computational domain encompasses an area of approximately
400 km2 with grid points every 60 m, which is within the normal operating limits of the
12

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
SWAN software. The Bering Sea waves were applied on the northern boundary. Winds were
applied over the entire computational domain according to the speed and direction calculated
and shown in Table 4. The selected combinations of Bering Sea waves and local wind
conditions results in eight (8) separate cases for analysis.
Figure 9
SWAN computational domain (highlighted area shown in Figure 10)
13

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Figure 10
SWAN computation domain in the immediate vicinity of the proposed mooring buoy site
Eight cases were modeled using SWAN. A summary of these eight (8) cases is shown in
Table 7. A heading of 0 degrees corresponds to a wind or wave coming from true north, a
heading of 180 degrees corresponds to a wind or wave coming from true south. Each case
corresponds to local wind from all directions at 45 degree increments and Bering Sea waves
from 45 degrees. A sensitivity study was conducted to find the angle of Bering Sea waves that
maximized the waves at the proposed mooring buoy site. It was concluded that Bering Sea
waves coming into the bay at a 45 degree heading produced the largest waves at the mooring
site.
14

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Table 7
Case
Number
Summary of SWAN cases

Wind Speed,
knots
U(10 m,
3600 sec)
Wind
Heading,
deg true
Bering Sea
Significant Wave
Height, meters
Bering Sea
Wave Peak
Period, sec
Bering Sea
Wave Heading,
deg true
14.5
16.5
45
45
14.5
16.5
45
90
14.5
16.5
45
135
14.5
16.5
45
180
14.5
16.5
45
225
14.5
16.5
45
270
14.5
16.5
45
315
14.5
16.5
45
58
58
58
58
61
58
58
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Table 8 shows a summary of the local waves at the proposed mooring buoy site as predicted
by SWAN. The full set of SWAN results is presented in Appendix B.
Table 8
Summary of local waves based on SWAN analysis
Case Number
Significant
Wave Height,
m
Peak Wave
Period, sec
Peak Wave
Heading, deg
true
4.37
9.0
57.5
5.04
8.9
57.5
4.95
8.4
57.5
4.31
8.0
57.5
4.18
8.0
57.5
4.06
8.5
57.5
4.03
8.6
57.5
4.05
8.5
57.5
15

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
2.5
Metocean Design Climatology
Table 9 summarizes the design climatology for the proposed mooring buoy site. All headings
are in degrees true.
Table 9
Eight climatology cases at proposed mooring buoy site
Case
Number
Wind
Speed,
knots
U(10 m,
3600 sec)
Wind
Heading,
deg true
Significant
Wave
Height, m
Peak
Wave
Period,
sec
Peak
Wave
Heading,
deg true
Current
Speed,
knots
Current
Heading,
deg true
58
4.37
9.0
57.5
1.45
58
45
5.04
8.9
57.5
1.45
58
90
4.95
8.4
57.5
1.45
58
135
4.31
8.0
57.5
1.45
61
180
4.18
8.0
57.5
1.53
58
225
4.06
8.5
57.5
1.45
58
270
4.03
8.6
57.5
1.45
58
315
4.05
8.5
57.5
1.45
----Same as Wind Heading----
16

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Section 3
Design Vessel
A comprehensive vessel traffic study, in order to identify a possible range of vessels that might
use the mooring buoy, was not conducted during this phase of the design.
There was a vessel traffic study that was conducted in the area, Reference 14; however it
summarizes traffic primarily based on oil capacity and gross tonnage. These parameters are of
limited use in selection of a design vessel for the mooring system. ADEC owns the source
AIS data used to develop the traffic study in Reference 142, but could not provide it in time for
the present work. This data could be analyzed in the next design phase to link vessel size to
traffic through Unimak Pass and validate the design vessel selection.
In lieu of that analysis, a design vessel was chosen based on recent vessel casualties in the
area. Two recent casualties involved Panamax vessels shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Reference vessels for design vessel selection
Vessel
Vessel Type
Nominal Capacity
Length
Overall, m
Beam, m
Draft, m
Cougar Ace
Car Carrier
5500 cars
199
32.26
9.72
Selendang Ayu
Bulk Carrier
75000 DWT
225
32.26
12.62
Figure 11
Serenity Ace, a similar vessel to the Cougar Ace, which has a large windage area
Figure 12
Selendang Ayu, which has a small windage area, but a deeper draft (see Table 10)
A composite vessel was created based on the underwater area of the bulk carrier and the
superstructure of the car carrier. This composite vessel captures the effects of a deeper draft
and a large windage area. For a concept level mooring buoy design, this composite vessel is
considered appropriate. The particulars of the design vessel are shown in Table 11.
2
Reference 14 analyzed nine months of data (October 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006) from the automated
identification system (AIS) installed at Scotch Cap, Unimak Pass. AIS data information for each vessel detected
provides the vessel name, vessel type, next and last port, and call-sign. Vessel identification information can be
cross-referenced with the Lloyds Register database to identify vessel size.
17

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Table 11
Particulars of design vessel
Length Overall (LOA)
206 m
Beam
32.4 m
Draft
12 m
Displacement
64,387 tonnes
Freeboard
23.8 m
A vessel of this size (~55,000 DWT) matches the capability of the Emergency Towing System
in Dutch Harbor. The City of Unalaska has purchased a system suitable for vessels up to
50,000 DWT, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is purchasing a
system capable of towing vessels greater than 50,000 DWT according to Reference 15.
The design vessel selected does not represent the largest known Panamax vessel or account for
future vessel traffic trends. New Panamax size vessels are expected to transit Unimak Pass
when the Panama Canals Third Set of Locks Project is complete and open for vessel traffic.
Table 12 below provides a comparison between notional Panamax and New Panamax vessel
characteristics.
Table 12
Panamax vs. New Panamax vessel size
Vessel
Type
Nominal Capacity
Panamax:
Container
4,000-5,000 TEU
Tanker
75,000 DWT
New Panamax:
Container
12,000 TEU
Tanker
145,000 DWT
3.1
Freeboard
at
Maximum
Draft
m
LOA
m
Beam
m
Depth
m
Maximum
Draft
m
Displacement
at Maximum
Draft
tonnes
294
230
32.2
32.26
22.6
20.7
13.3
14.6
80,000
90,000
9.3
6.1
366
274
49
48
27.9
24.4
15.2
15.2
160,000
165,000
12.7
9.2
Environmental Loads
Wind, current, and wave loads on the design vessel were calculated and included in the
analysis of the mooring buoy. The forces on the vessel are defined in the coordinate system
shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13
Environmental loads sign convention
18

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
The following sections describe the environmental loads on the design vessel.
3.1.1
Wind Forces
The wind forces on the design vessel were estimated using Reference 9 based on the Cougar
Ace above water profile. The wind force coefficients are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14
3.1.2
Wind force coefficients for design vessel
Current Forces
The current forces on the design vessel were estimated using Reference 10 based on a bulk
carrier/tanker hull form. The current force coefficients are shown in Figure 15.
19

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Figure 15
3.1.3
Current force coefficients for design vessel
Wave Forces
First and second order wave forces were calculated for the design vessel using WAMIT
(Reference 16).
WAMIT (Wave Analysis MIT) is a 3D frequency-domain radiation-diffraction panel program
for analyzing the interaction of surface waves with offshore structures. Forward speed effects
are not accounted. The program implements a set of highly efficient algorithms for the
Greens function computations which are at the core of the boundary element method. The
version currently available in the office is the most up-to-date PC executable V6.41PC which
solves the linear hydrodynamic problem. It can be used to evaluate the added masses,
damping coefficients, wave exciting forces, motions, hydrodynamic pressure at specified
points, fluid velocity vector at specified points, free surface elevation at field points, and
steady drift forces. In addition to the six rigid-body modes of a floating body, WAMIT
V6.41PC can handle multiple bodies, body near vertical walls, user-specified generalized
modes, etc. Several tools are available for use in conjunction with WAMIT to model external
springs, connections between bodies, etc., and to evaluate response statistics including motions
at a point in specified sea states.
20

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Section 4
Governing Regulations
The concept design presented in this report is designed to ABS Rules for Building and
Classing Single Point Moorings (Reference 12). The design conditions and safety factors
defined by these rules are summarized in Table 13. For the purposes of this analysis, the
design operating condition was assumed to be the 100-year storm. A damage analysis was not
performed for the concept design.
Table 13
Factors of safety used for concept design (Reference 12)
Required factors of safety on anchor legs
Design storm (100 year) without vessel, Intact
2.50
Design operating with vessel, Intact
3.00 (2.50 can be used if damaged case

(one line damaged) meets 2.00 FOS)
Required factor of safety on mooring hardware
Maximum of:
2.50 x Maximum anchor leg tension
3.00 x Maximum anchor leg tension
Required factor of safety on anchor capacity
1.50
2.00
The following regulations and industry standards related to single point moorings should be
considered in subsequent design and development.
1) American Bureau of Shipping:
a. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Single Point Moorings, 1996.
As noted above these rules form the design basis for the concept in this report. The
Single Point Mooring (SPM) rules were developed around CALM buoy type
installations where product is loaded through a riser and floating hose. The safety
factors are set so that a fatigue analysis is not required.
b. ABS Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations, November
2010. This guide provides an alternative classification path for SPMs with lower
safety factors, but more rigorous analysis requirements. A fatigue analysis is required.
The guide generally follows and references API RP 2SK.
c. ABS Guide for the Mooring of Oil Carriers at Single Point Moorings, December 2010.
The mooring design should accommodate vessels fitted for standard SPM equipment
identified in this guide. The guide contains the following description of its purpose:
This Guide has been developed in response to industry requests for an
optional ABS Class notation to address arrangements where an Oil Carrier is
fitted with equipment enabling it to be moored to single point moorings.
d. ABS Guidance Notes on the Application of Synthetic Ropes for Offshore Mooring,
March 1999. This guide applies to the hawser.
e. ABS Guide of the Certification of Offshore Mooring Chain, December 2009.
21

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
2) International Association of Classification Societies:

a. IACS Recommendation No. 38 [(1995), Rev 1, October 2010] Guidelines for the
Survey of Offshore Mooring Chain Cable in Use.
3) American Petroleum Institute:
a. API RP 2SK: Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures,
October 2005. This publication provides supplementary information and guidance for
the design and analysis of mooring systems.
b. API RP 2I: Recommended Practice for In-Service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for
Floating Drilling Units, May 1987.
4) Oil Companies International Marine Forum:
a. OCIMF, Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VLCCs, Second Edition, 1994.
b. OCIMF, Single Point Mooring Maintenance and Operations Guide, Second Edition
1995.
c. OCIMF, Recommendations for Equipment Employed in the Bow Moorings of
Conventional Tankers at Single Point Moorings, Fourth Edition, May 2007.
5) Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria, Design: Moorings, UFC-4-159-03,
October 2005.
6) Owens R and P Palo, Wind Induced Steady Loads on Ships, Technical Note N-1628,
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, April 1982.
7) United States Aids to Navigation System, 33 CFR 62, USCG, July 2010.
22

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Section 5
5.1
Concept Mooring Buoy Design
Overview
The proposed design is a riser-type mooring commonly used by the Navy for fleet moorings.
The main components of the mooring configuration are described below.
It is recognized that the riser-type mooring does not provide redundancy for damage to the
riser chain. The advantage of the riser-type mooring is that vessels can weather-vane about the
mooring unrestricted by the ground legs. ABS recently suggested considering a higher, but as
yet undefined, safety factor for the riser chain and mooring components without redundancy.
The design philosophy at this early concept level was to select commercial off-the-shelf
hardware for a more dependable cost estimate. Alternate means of connecting the anchor legs
may be explored as the design is refined in future development.
5.2
Mooring Components
The mooring consists of a hawse pipe type mooring buoy, riser chain, ground ring, anchor
legs, and drag embedment anchors. A three leg, twin anchor line configuration was selected
for the concept design. Figure 16 illustrates the arrangement. The riser chain, equipped with a
chain swivel, connects the ground ring to the buoy. Twin anchor legs laid out with a nominal
120 degree spread connect the anchors to the ground ring. A twin anchor leg arrangement is
used to develop the required capacity. Triangular spider plates equalize the twin anchor leg
loads before connecting to the ground ring.
The primary components of the proposed mooring buoy are shown in Figure 16.
Riser Chain
Mooring Buoy
Ground Ring
Anchor Leg
Drag Anchor
Figure 16
Components of mooring system (not to scale)
The ground ring is suspended above the seafloor to ensure that the riser chain is always under
tension and so that the connection hardware does not contact the seabed.
23

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
The alignment of the six-line mooring is shown in Figure 17. The alignment was chosen such
that the mooring arrangement could best accommodate forces due to Bering Sea waves
entering Unalaska Bay from the northeast.
100 m
N
W
E
S
45 deg
Figure 17
5.2.1
Plan view of concept mooring buoy mooring arrangement
Buoy
A foam-filled mooring buoy fitted with a through-chain hawse pipe and capture plate provides
a net buoyancy of 45 tonnes. This design assumes a Trelleborg MB-45000 mooring buoy with
an overall diameter of 4.2 meters and a height of 4.1 meters (excluding hawse pipe and
hardware). The buoy has a nylon filament reinforced polyurethane skin which has excellent
resistance to water, oil, ice, strong sunlight, and abrasive surfaces. It remains flexible even at 40C (-40F) making it suitable for Arctic installations. Lighting to suit USCG aids to
navigation requirements and a chafing guard will be required accessories. In the 100-year
storm event the buoy will fully submerge. Several vendors offer equivalent mooring buoys.
Figure 18 illustrates the buoy construction; however, the internal core in the figure would be
replaced with a hawse pipe.
24

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Figure 18
5.2.2
Mooring buoy construction
Mooring Lines
There are two types of chain used in the mooring buoy arrangement, the properties of which
are shown in Table 14. The chain types correspond to the parts labeled in Figure 16.
Table 14
Properties of mooring chain
Component
Size
Number x Length
Breaking Strength
Mass
Riser Chain
90 mm R4
stud-link chain
1 x 48 m
8,167 kN
177 kg/m
Anchor Leg
76 mm ORQ
stud-link chain
6 x 350 m
4,621 kN
126 kg/m
5.2.3
Anchors
The composition of the seafloor at the mooring site is presently unknown, so proper selection
of anchors is not possible at this stage of design. For the concept design, drag-embedment
anchors were selected based on the assumption of a mud seafloor.
Preliminary analysis showed that the highest tension in any of the anchor legs is 1526 kN (343
kips). According to the guidance in Reference 12, the minimum factor of safety on anchor
holding capacity is 2.00. Therefore, the anchors must have a minimum holding capacity of
3051 kN (686 kips). Assuming a minimum holding capacity of 700 kips, the anchor sizes
shown in Table 15 are possibilities. The anchor types were selected based on Reference 7.
25

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Table 15
Drag embedment anchor candidates for concept mooring design

Anchor Shank
Length
Anchor Fluke
Width
Holding
Capacity
(in mud)
Anchor Type
Anchor Weight
Bruce FFTS MK 4
15,000 kg
(approximately 30
kips)
5.7 m
6.8 m
3,100 kN
(700 kips)
Vryhof Stevpris MK 5
15,000 kg
(approximately 30
kips)
6.3 m
6.8 m
3,100 kN
(700 kips)
Bruce TS
18,000 kg
(approximately 40
kips)
6.9 m
5.3 m
3,100 kN
(700 kips)
Moorfast
31,780 kg
(approximately 65
kips)
6.2 m
6.9 m
3,100 kN
(700 kips)
ADEC indicated that four Bruce TS anchors weighing 15 tonnes are available for purchase in
Alaska. These anchors are not quite large enough to develop the required holding power and
safety factor for the mooring design. An 18 tonne Bruce TS anchor is required as shown in
Table 15. If the anchors can be obtained at a substantial discount (i.e. less than half the cost
for a new anchor of the required size), then they could be utilized in tandem on two of the six
legs. Additional anchors for the remaining four legs would be required from another source.
We do not recommend purchasing anchors until a bottom survey is complete. The anchor
selection will need to be revisited in the next design phase after bottom surveys are complete.
The concept mooring buoy design incorporates drag-embedment anchors. However, piledriven plate anchors are another option that may be considered. Driven plate anchors must be
designed for the site-specific soil conditions. Since these are presently unknown, a plate
anchor design was not pursued. Design features of both types of anchors are presented in
Table 16 (Reference 11).
26

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Table 16
Properties of drag embedment and driven plate anchors (Reference 11)

Drag Embedment Anchors
Driven Plate Anchors
Works primarily in one horizontal direction

(cannot tolerate any uplift)
Multi-directional and can resist anchor uplift
Requires large scope of chain to ensure no

uplift at anchor
Can be used with a short scope of chain

because anchor can resist uplift
Performance depends strongly on soil type;

May not work with all seafloor types
including hard clay, gravel, coral, rock, or
highly layered seafloors; May not work well
for sloping seafloors more than several
degrees
Anchors must be designed for the site-specific

soil characteristics
Adequate seafloor sediment is required for

proper setting
Adequate seafloor sediment is required for

proper setting
Anchor may drag if overloaded at a slow

enough rate
Anchor is fixed and will not drag
Anchors can be recovered and reused
Anchors cannot typically be recovered
Proof loading is recommended
Proof loading is recommended; Mobilization

of installation equipment can be expensive
5.2.4
Vessel Connection
The connection hardware between the disabled vessel and the mooring buoy has not been
developed in detail as part of the concept design. However, a typical arrangement is shown in
Figure 19 for a single point mooring used exclusively by tanker vessels. The initial hardware
sizes selected for the hawser and chafing chain accommodate vessels less than 100,000 tonne
DWT with OCIMF recommended SPM equipment. Not all vessels will have standard SPM
fixtures; however, the chain termination of the hawser presents a generic connection interface
to accommodate as many vessels as possible.
The chafing chain is 76 mm ORQ stud-link chain and the hawser is 144 mm nylon double
braid. Complete specifications of the vessel connection hardware remain to be developed.
27

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
To Mooring Buoy
To Vessel
Figure 19
5.3
Typical arrangement to facilitate connection of vessel to mooring buoy (adapted from

Reference 13)
Mooring Analysis
A preliminary screening analysis of the concept mooring design was executed using OrcaFlex.
Figure 20 shows a three-dimensional rendering of the OrcaFlex model.
OrcaFlex (Reference 17) is a time-domain dynamic analysis code that includes the effects of
unsteady wind, first-order wave excitation, second-order wave drift, current, and nonlinear
mooring forces on floating bodies. At each time step, the vessel acceleration is computed from
the instantaneous forces arising from these sources. This code makes use of first-order wave
excitation forces, radiation added mass and damping, and second-order drift force quadratic
transfer functions (QTFs) that are computed by external three-dimensional hydrodynamic
radiation-diffraction codes.
28

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Figure 20
Fish-eye view of concept mooring buoy mooring design as modeled in OrcaFlex
One-hour simulations of each design climatology case (see Table 9) were performed in
OrcaFlex with the design vessel connected to the mooring buoy with all mooring lines intact.
At the start of each simulation, the design vessel was oriented with its bow into the wind. The
bathymetry was directly taken from the bathymetry used in the SWAN analysis and reflects
the water depth at mean high water.
Line tension results of the intact simulations are shown in Table 17 corresponding to the line
numbers shown in Figure 21. The maximum line tension is presented for each design
environmental case.
29

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
100 m
L0
N
L01
E
S
L21
L1
L2
L11
Figure 21
Line numbering in OrcaFlex model
Table 17
Anchor leg tension results
Case
Number
Wave
Heading,
deg true
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
Wind
Heading,
deg true
Maximum
Anchor
Leg
Tension,
kN
Anchor
Leg
Second
Highest
Anchor
Leg
Tension,
kN
0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
Max.:
863
1039
1158
1526
1504
1115
861
1400
1526
L0
L21
L2
L2
L11
L11
L0
L1
Max.:
681
1027
1103
1277
1261
763
783
1299
1299
FOS:
3.03
FOS:
3.56
Anchor
Leg
L01
L0
L21
L11
L1
L1
L01
L0
The maximum tension in the riser chain was 2607 kN, which yields a safety factor of 3.13 on
breaking strength.
In addition to line tension, the suspended length of each anchor leg was examined to ensure
that the drag anchors did not experience any uplift forces. This was shown to be the case and
the full set of results is shown in Table 18.
30

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Table 18
Suspended length results
Case
Number
Wave
Heading,
deg true
Wind
Heading,
deg true
Maximum
Suspended
Length, m
Minimum
Leg Length
on Seabed,
m
Anchor
Leg
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
57.5
0
45
90
135
180
225
270
315
261
291
271
221
330
180
261
322
90
60
80
131
20
170
90
30
L0
L0
L0
L0
L11
L11
L0
L01
31

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Section 6
Cost Estimate
The estimated costs associated with designing, installing, and maintaining an ABS-certified
system are summarized in Table 19. The engineering and installation cost estimates are based
on two projects with similar sized hardware. The bulk of the installation costs were developed
from our experience with an ABS classed FPI eight-leg catenary spread mooring installed in
the Aleutian Islands.
ABS was consulted regarding review fees for certification. The fees will vary slightly
depending on whether the mooring is classed per SPM or FPI rules.
Maintenance costs assume on-site ABS inspection with an ROV and survey support vessel for
seven days on an annual inspection interval. Replacement hardware would be additional if
required.
Table 19
Cost Estimate
Description
Design, Review, & Bid Support
Analysis & Engineering
Fatigue analysis (optional)
Bottom survey
On-site wave data survey
ABS Review Fees
Bid Package Prep
Bid Package Review
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
330,000
120,000
100,000
167,000
40,000
40,000
20,000
817,000
Installation
Pre-installation Engineering Support
On-site Installation Engineering Support
On-site ABS Survey
Mooring Component Acquisition
Connecting Hardware Acquisition
Pre-moorage Installation Work
Mobilization
Installation
Demobilization
Added Cost for Weather
Subtotal Installation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40,000
110,000
40,000
1,810,000
90,000
450,000
1,305,000
3,383,000
705,000
1,725,000
9,658,000
Total Design & Installation
$ 10,475,000
Annual Maintenance
Cost
250,000
32

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Section 7
Recommendations
We have the following recommendations for future design and analysis work:
Purchase a Global Reanalysis of Ocean Waves (GROW)3 point closer to the northeast
of Unalaska Bay to better characterize Bering Sea waves for the 100-year climatology
extrapolation.
Define maximum operating condition, if less than 100-year storm, in which a vessel is
allowed to moor to the buoy.
Collect local wave data to validate wave model.
Perform a bottom survey to inform the anchor design.
Revisit anchor design and consider trade-offs between drag embedment and drive plate
anchors.
Consider trade-offs between SPM and FPI certification paths.
Consider refining buoy location for optimal seafloor topography.
GROW couples Oceanweather's global wave model, tropical boundary layer model, and its experience in
developing marine surface wind fields to produce a global wave hindcast. The result is a long term analysis of
the global wave climate which can be applied to offshore structure design, tow-analysis, operability, and other
applications where wind and wave data are required. The analysis can be sampled for project specific sites to
estimate local design conditions
33

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Appendix A
Annual Extreme Winds
The following figures show the annual extreme wind speeds, sorted by directional sector, and
plotted on log-extremal probability paper according to the Gumbel Type II extreme value
probability distribution. The linear trendline and the upper and lower 90% prediction bounds
are shown.
Procedure for Extrapolation
This analysis involves extrapolation of empirical and hindcast data to a 100-year return period
statistical level. The accuracy of extrapolation is highly dependent on the statistical
distribution of events of the process. The two processes examined here are maximum wave
heights and maximum wind speeds.
A Gumbel Type II asymptotic distribution was chosen as the best fit to the wind speed and
wave height data. To capture the long-term, or tail behavior, of the process most accurately
only the data points that had a cumulative probability of 10% and higher were used for the
extrapolations. The cumulative probability function, F(s), of a Gumbel Type II distribution is
defined as:
F(s) exp( exp(s))
where s is a standardized extremal variate.
(1)
The natural logarithm (base e) of the extremes was regressed against the standardized extremal
variate. The relationship was highly linear, which is a strong indication that the Gumbel
Type II distribution models the long-term behavior of the process well (Reference 3).
The linear relationships were used to calculate the expected value of the 100-year return
values. Since there is some scatter in the data, prediction bounds can be placed around the
data. One-sided 90% prediction bounds were chosen to bound the expected value of the
annual maxima. With this approach, there is a 10% chance that a value of the process exceeds
the upper one-sided 90% prediction bound, or a 10% chance that a value of the process falls
below the lower one-sided 90% prediction bound.4
It should be noted that this differs from a 90% prediction interval. A 90% prediction interval is based on a twosided probability distribution. So, there is a 5% chance that a value of the process exceeds the upper limit of the
90% prediction interval, and there is a 5% chance that a value of the process falls below the lower limit of the
90% prediction interval.
A-1

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Annual Maximum One-minute Average Wind Speed, knots

Dutch Harbor Airport (USAF ID# 704890), Elevation = 4 m above local ground
Sorted by Direction: North (337.5 deg - 22.5 deg, across 0/360 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

10
20
50
100
200
500
1000
80
One-minute average wind speed, knots
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99
0.995
0.998
0.999

Sorted by Direction: Northeast (22.5 deg - 67.5 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

10
20
50
100
200
500
1000
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99
0.995
0.998
0.999
A-2

File No.11073, 30 June 2011

Sorted by Direction: East (67.5 deg - 112.5 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

5
10
20
50
100
200
500
1000
0.995
0.998
0.999
200
500
1000
0.998
0.999
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99

Sorted by Direction: Southeast (112.5 deg - 157.5 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

5
10
20
50
100
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99
0.995
A-3

File No.11073, 30 June 2011

Sorted by Direction: South (157.5 deg - 202.5 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

5
10
20
50
100
200
500
1000
0.995
0.998
0.999
200
500
1000
0.998
0.999
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99

Sorted by Direction: Southwest (202.5 deg - 247.5 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

5
10
20
50
100
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
A-4
0.98
0.99
0.995

File No.11073, 30 June 2011

Sorted by Direction: West (247.5 deg - 292.5 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

5
10
20
50
100
200
500
1000
0.995
0.998
0.999
200
500
1000
0.998
0.999
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99

Sorted by Direction: Northwest (292.5 deg - 337.5 deg)
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

5
10
20
50
100
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
A-5
0.98
0.99
0.995

File No.11073, 30 June 2011

Sorted by Direction: All Directions
1.001 1.01
1.1111.25

5
10
20
50
100
200
500
1000
0.998
0.999
80
70
60
50
40
30
0.001 0.01
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.98
0.99
0.995
A-6

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
Appendix B
SWAN Analysis Results
The following figures show the results of the SWAN analysis. For each case, there is a plot of
the marginal wave spectra: one as a function of heading, and one as a function of frequency.
These are 2-dimensional visualizations of a 3-dimensional directional power wave spectrum.
The figure underneath the figure showing the marginal spectra illustrates the significant wave
height distribution over the SWAN computational domain. The proposed mooring buoy site is
indicated.
B-1

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-2

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-3

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-4

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-5

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-6

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-7

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-8

File No.11073, 30 June 2011
B-9

File No.11073, 30 June 2011

Concept Design of Mooring Buoy

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Concept Design of Mooring Buoy

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Places of Refuge Initiative Mooring Buoy Initiative