Mooring System Analysis

Theory and practice of riser and mooring dynamics
Mooring System Analysis
Mooring System Design
¾ Layout and geometry

¾ Line type -- catenary, semi-taut and taut-leg
¾ Properties – selection of chain, wire and synthetic rope or combination
¾ Anchor/pile selection
¾ Load-elongation curve for each line
¾ Offset curves for the layout
¾ Static, quasi-static and dynamic mooring system analyses
¾ Loading on lines vs. line breaking strengths
¾ FOS vs. Guidelines
¾ Mooring line fatigue assessment
Morning 48
In the process of design of the offshore system,
For the mooring lines, first select
♦ layout
♦ geometry
♦ mechanical and structural properties (initial)
Layout of Mooring Lines
Morning 49
Morning 50
Mooring Configuration
Taut vs catenary mooring spread (symmetric)
Taut mooring system:

restoring force primarily from line stretch
Conventional catenary system:
restoring force primarily from changes in catenary shape
Riser corridors between non-symmetric spread
Morning 51
Morning 52
Geometry of mooring lines
Mooring Hardware Components
Typical Chain geometry
(a) Stud-Link
(b) Studless Chain
• Wire or Rope Geometry (unsheathed or sheathed)
six strand multi strand
spiral strand
Note: Sheathed wire ropes are of smooth cylindrical shape
Morning 53
Design of Mooring Lines
Three possible methods:

Static design
Quasi-static design
Dynamic design
Static Design
Uses only the static environmental loads ignoring dynamic forces.
Steps Outcome
Input line end-point coordinates, Æ Line forces vs. displacement for
lengths and unit weight of line. each catenary line.
Sum forces for all lines in the Æ Net horizontal and vertical restoring
mooring spread. forces (offset curves) for the vessel.
Determine design wind, current, Æ Compute steady forces on the vessel
and wave data for site due to design environment
Find displacement of vessel for Æ Compute the tension of the most
the load from the offset curve loaded line in the mooring spread.
Line length is insufficient or the Æ Increase the line length and repeat
line becomes taut. the above steps.
Compute the safety factor (FOS) Æ Compare with design guides.
for the most heavily loaded line
based on the breaking strength.
FOS is too low. Æ adjust suitable parameters in line
pre-tension, material specification,
line end co-ordinates or number of
lines and repeat the above steps.
Assume that the most loaded line Æ Carry out the above steps and check
is broken. FOS on heavily loaded line.
Morning 54
Quasi-Static Design
Uses maximum dynamic loads as well as static, assuming all as static load.
Follow static steps.

In addition
compute max wave loads and vessel motion at

wave and slow-drift frequency
Compute maximum excursion

and peak line tensions
Compare maximum line tensions vs.

allowable safety factor (generally 2)
Use separate safety factors for the

mean and dynamic loads (DNV)
If it fails the safety factor test,

then try a new specification
Recalculate maximum peak

line loads with one line broken
NO
Acceptable Design?
YES
Note:
Mean loads are more reliably predictable separate FOS avoids excess
conservatism.
Morning 55
Dynamic Design
In addition to steady loads, includes, the time-varying environmental loads
on the mooring lines themselves
Establish a static
configuration
Calculate platform
motions independent of
line dynamics
Include line top-end oscillation
Apply numerical scheme (lumped mass,

FE or FD) to model line segments
De-compose line into straight

elements (bars) with linear shape
function
Lump distributed mass with

added mass at end nodes
Include relative motion

hydrodynamic damping
Include inertial effects

between the line and fluid
NO
Acceptable Design?
YES
Note:
♦ A time domain analysis is sought
♦ Damping levels vary significantly depending on water depth, line make up,
offsets and top-end excitation.
♦ The influence of the last item is generally small.
Morning 56
Loading Mechanisms on Floater and Mooring Lines
Loads on Floater Loads on Mooring Lines

♦ Steady and fluctuating wind ♦ Top end surge motion (small heave)
♦ Wave and wave drift ♦ Wave
♦ Current ♦ Current
♦ Seabed friction
Morning 57
Static Catenary Equation
Definition of the single component catenary line
Tv T (tension)
water line
φ (angle)
fairlead TH
Single
d component
scope, s line
chain
Anchor TDP ocean floor
xB x h
Six (plus one) independent variables are:
w = weight of line per unit length≈ 0.87x (weight in air) for steel
T = pretension at fairlead
φ = fairlead angle
h = horizontal component of catenary length (not including xB)
d = vertical component of catenary length
s = length of catenary called scope
plus xB = component of line on bottom
Also, (the following two items depend on T and φ):
TH = horizontal component of tension at fairlead

TV = vertical component of tension at fairlead
ASSUMPTIONS:
(1) Seafloor is assumed flat;
(2) Line segments are non-buoyant; and
(3) Stretching of line is linear and follows Hooke’s law
Two possible cases:

Catenary: line resting on seafloor xB > 0, TBV = 0, xB = length of line on bottom
Taut: line off the seafloor xB = 0, TBV > 0, TBV = vertical reaction at the anchor
Morning 58
Single line (no stretching)
Consider the following free-body diagram
Free body diagram

Ti
θι
xi, yi
s0
θ0, Fairlead
current angle
weight
θι+1
xi+1, yi+1
Ti+1
For a static analysis in the absence of any external force, the two equilibrium equations
(based on the notation in Fig. 10 become:
Horizontal:
Ti cosθ i − Ti +1 cosθ i +1 = 0
Vertical:
Ti sin θ i − Ti +1 sin θ i +1 + wi = 0
which may be solved for tension and angles of subsequent elements as follows:
[
Ti +1 = (Ti cosθ i ) 2 + (Ti sin θ i − wi ) 2 ]
1/ 2
and
Ti sin θi − wi TV i − wi
tan θi +1 = =
Ti cos θi THi
Then, knowing the coordinates of the upper end of the element (xi,yi), the corresponding
coordinates for the lower end becomes
Morning 59
li
xi +1 = xi − [cos θi + cosθi +1 ]
2
li
yi +1 = yi − [sin θi + sin θi +1 ]
2
This calculation continues with the subsequent element until yi+1 just exceeds - d, where
the d is the supplied depth of the line.
For a catenary line with portions on the bottom, the solution can be obtained in closed
form using catenary equations.
Basic catenary equation:

y = y0 cosh( x / y0 )
y0 = elevation at x = 0
suspended line length along catenary s(x) s ( x) = (TH / w) sinh( wx / TH )
vertical line dimension along catenary d(x) d ( x ) = (TH / w)[cosh( wx / TH ) − 1]
for total lengths, use x = h in above equations

w( s 2 − d 2 )
top tension of the line TH =
2d
w( s 2 + d 2 )
or T =
2d
T − TH
which reduce to d= (1)
w
horizontal component of line tension TH = T cosφ (2)
vertical component of line tension at top TV = T sin φ = ws (3)
TH T −T
Horizontal span of the suspended portion of line h= log A VA (4)
w TH
Morning 60
6 (or 7) unknowns and 3 equations; need 3 (or 4) input variables, e.g.,
w = weight of line per unit length

T0= initial tension at fairlead, and
d = mooring line depth
L = total line length or xB = line length on bottom
Note that Eqs. 2 and 3 are dependent equations, but easier to use separately for the
solutions.
For solution, follow the steps below:
Use Eq. 1 to compute TH

Note: TH is constant at any point along the catenary, while Tv varies.
Use Eq. 2 to compute the initial fairlead angle φA
Use Eq. 3 to compute the initial suspended line length s
Use Eq. 4 to compute the horizontal span h
Compute xB, the line laying on the bottom, using s and L.
Increment TH and repeat the above steps.
Compute the excursion based on the initial configuration.
Plot load vs. excursion (line stiffness curve)
Morning 61
Typical Example of a Single Catenary
variable input values units

unit weight of chain w 1.5 kN/m
pretension T0 1300 kN
depth of line from fairlead d 450 m
anchor line on bottom xB0 700 m
The initial catenary will have the following properties:
TH0 625.0 kN Horz. Tension

TV0 1139.9 kN Vert. Tension
φ0 61.3 deg Fairlead Angle
s0 759.9 m Length (scope)
h0 567.5 m Horz. Span
s0+xB0 1459.9 m Total chain length
The sample output values for the catenary are obtained by setting the horizontal fairlead
tension and determining the line excursion and the remaining line length on the bottom.
TH T TV φ s h Excursion xB
kN kN kN deg m m m m
625.0 1300 1139.9 61.3 759.9 567.5 0.0 700.0
650 1325.0 1154.6 60.6 769.7 580.2 2.9 690.2
750 1425.0 1211.7 58.2 807.8 628.6 13.3 652.2
850 1525.0 1266.1 56.1 844.1 673.8 22.1 615.8
950 1625.0 1318.4 54.2 878.9 716.2 29.7 581.0
1050 1725.0 1368.6 52.5 912.4 756.4 36.4 547.5
1150 1825.0 1417.1 50.9 944.7 794.6 42.3 515.2
1250 1925.0 1463.9 49.5 976.0 831.1 47.6 484.0
1350 2025.0 1509.3 48.2 1006.2 866.2 52.4 453.7
1450 2125.0 1553.4 47.0 1035.6 899.9 56.7 424.3
1550 2225.0 1596.3 45.8 1064.2 932.4 60.7 395.7
1650 2325.0 1638.0 44.8 1092.0 963.9 64.3 367.9
1750 2425.0 1678.7 43.8 1119.2 994.3 67.6 340.8
1850 2525.0 1718.5 42.9 1145.6 1023.9 70.7 314.3
1950 2625.0 1757.3 42.0 1171.5 1052.7 73.6 288.4
2050 2725.0 1795.3 41.2 1196.9 1080.7 76.3 263.1
2150 2825.0 1832.5 40.4 1221.7 1108.0 78.8 238.3
2250 2925.0 1869.0 39.7 1246.0 1134.6 81.1 213.9
Morning 62
2350 3025.0 1904.8 39.0 1269.8 1160.7 83.3 190.1
2450 3125.0 1939.9 38.4 1293.3 1186.2 85.4 166.7
2550 3225.0 1974.4 37.8 1316.2 1211.2 87.4 143.7
2650 3325.0 2008.3 37.2 1338.8 1235.6 89.2 121.1
2750 3425.0 2041.6 36.6 1361.1 1259.6 91.0 98.9
2850 3525.0 2074.4 36.1 1382.9 1283.1 92.7 77.0
2950 3625.0 2106.7 35.5 1404.5 1306.3 94.3 55.5
3050 3725.0 2138.5 35.0 1425.7 1329.0 95.8 34.3
The load-excursion curve for the catenary line is shown in Fig. 11. Note that the curve is
nonlinear. It is assumed in the curve that the line is catenary and a portion of line
remains on the bottom throughout its range.
3500.0
2800.0
Load, kN
2100.0
1400.0
700.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Excursion, m
Figure 11. Load-excursion curve for a single catenary line
Morning 63
Two line catenary
Three
component
line
Definitions:
See preceding figure for multiple lines
α = angle at the top of second line segment
w1 = unit submerged weight of top line segment
w2 = unit submerged weight of bottom line segment
total line length s

s = s1 + s2
line 1 –Top line
tensions TH and TV
TH = T cos φ ; TV = T sin φ (5)
line length s1
TH   w1 x1 + w2 x2   w2 x2  
s1 =  sinh   − sinh   (11)
w1   TH   TH  
vertical dimension d1
TH   w1 x1 + w2 x2   w2 x2  
d1 =  cosh   − cosh   (10)
w1   TH   TH  
angle
Morning 64
 w x + w2 x2 
tan θ = sinh  1 1  − tan α
 T H 
line 2 Bottom line (same as single caternary)
vertical tension at fairlead TV

TV = w1s1 + w2 s2 (6)
line length s2
TH wx
s2 = sinh( 2 2 ) (7)
w2 TH
angle
w x 
tan α = sinh  2 2  (8)
 TH 
vertical dimension d2
TH  w2 x2 
d2 =  cosh( ) − 1 (9)
w2 TH
NOTE: Clump weight or buoy may be added at the junction of the two lines giving an
added vertical load at the joint.
Inputs:
w1 = unit weight of line 1
w2 = unit weight of line 2
T = Pretension at fairlead point (top of segment no. 1)
φ = fairlead angle to x-axis
s1 = segment 1 length
L = total line length or xB = line length on bottom
Morning 65
Calculations for Two Line Catenary
Steps:
Compute TH , same for both lines (Eq. 5)
Compute TV, vertical tension at fairlead (Eq. 5)
Compute s2 = segment 2 length (Eq. 6)
Compute x2 = segment 2 span (Eq. 7)
Compute α = segment 2 top angle (Eq. 8)
Compute d2 = segment 2 depth (Eq. 9)
Compute d1 = segment 1 depth (Eq. 10)
Compute x1 = segment 1 span (Eq. 11)
Ex. do not
INPUT change UNIT check
Unit weight, w1 0.104 0.10 kips/ft
Unit weight, w2 0.104 0.04 kips/ft
Pretension at fairlead (line 1) 300 300.0 kips
Fairlead angle to x-axis 61.3 60 deg 61.3
Line length, s1 2530.1 2000.0 ft
Total catenary length 5030.6 4000.0 ft
Initial Catenary Properties
Horiz. tension, TH 144.1 150.0 kips 144

Vert. tension, Tv at fairlead 263.1 259.8 kips 263.2
Line length, s2 0.1 1295.2 ft
Total scope, s 2530.2 3295.2 ft 2530.4
Bottom length, xB 2500.4 704.8 ft 2500
Horiz. span line 2, x2 0.1 1270.7 ft
w2*x2/TH 0.000 0.339
tan (a) 0.00 0.35
Top angle line 2, a 0.0 19.1 deg
Horiz. span line 1, x1 1888.4 1635.6 ft
w1*x1/TH 1.363 1.134
Total span, h 1888.5 2906.3 1888.3
Line 2 depth, d2 0.0 217.4 ft
Line 1 depth, d1 1499.5 1784.9 ft
Total depth, d 1499.5 2002.3 ft 1500
Morning 66
Single semi-taut line (no stretching)
Nine independent variables are:

T = tension at fairlead
TH = horizontal tension at fairlead
TV = vertical tension at fairlead
h = horizontal component of line length
d = vertical component of line length
s = curved length of line
θA = fairlead angle
θB = anchor angle
Properties of semi-taut line:
B = anchor point; A = fairlead point; Angles satisfy θ A > θB ;
TAV − TBV
Scope s=
w
TA − TB
Depth
d=
w
s2 − d 2
Horizontal fairlead tension TH = (2TA − wd )2 − w 2 s 2
2s
2dTA + w( s 2 − d 2 )
Vertical fairlead tension TAV =
2s
2dTA − w( s 2 + d 2 )
Vertical anchor tension TBV =
2s
Horizontal component of tension

TAH = TA cos θ A ; TBH = TB cos θ B
Morning 67
Vertical component of tension
TAV = TAH tan θ A ; TBV = TBH tan θ B
9 unknowns and 5 independent equations;
4 input variables:
θA = fairlead angle
s = line length
d = vertical component of line length
NOTES:
♦ The two cases of catenary and semi-taut line may switch back and forth
under dynamic loads as the chain is picked up completely from the floor or
settles down on floor.
♦ Semi-taut line with negligible stretch will move both in the horizontal and
vertical direction with the vessel movement.
♦ When the line is completely taut, stretching will be needed to move it. In
this case the angle throughout the line may be taken as the same.
Since stretching takes place along the entire shape of the mooring line under loading,
and the stretched length or the shape of the line is not known apriori, a numerical
procedure similar to the above may be adopted.
In this case the stretching of a segment will occur based on the tensions at the two ends
of the segment. Hooke’s law may be applied to obtain the stretch.
Morning 68
TYPICAL SINGLE SEMI-TAUT LINE (NO STRETCH)

NOTE: Horizontal excursion of line will require a simultaneous vertical excursion
Sample input values

unit weight of chain w 0.0489 kips/ft or kN/m
vertical depth of chain d 170 ft/m
length (scope) s0 1000.0 ft/m
initial tension at fairlead TA 175.0 kips/kN
Initial Semi-taut Lines

initial tension at anchor TB 166.69 kips/kN
initial horizontal tension TH 166.62 kips/kN
initial fairlead angle θA 17.8 deg
initial anchor angle θB 1.6 deg
400.0
350.0
Top Tension, kips
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Excursion, ft
Morning 69
Offset Tension Curves of Mooring Lines

Example Nansen SPAR in 3,678ft water depth
The curve gives the top tension of the mooring line versus the horizontal offset of the
fairlead point.
Nansen SCR Case A, Offset-Tension Curves Lines 1, 4 and 7

3600
3200
2800 LINE NO. 1
Tension (kips)
2400 LINE NO. 4

LINE NO. 7
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Distance From Pretension Position (ft)
The curve gives the restoring force of the mooring line versus the horizontal offset of
the fairlead point.
Restoring Characteristic of Mooring Lines

Restoring Characteristic SCR Case A,
Offset Direction Relative to Platform East
0
-4000
270°
-8000
Force (kips)
315°
0°
-12000
45°
90°
-16000
180°
-20000
-24000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Offset (ft)
Morning 70
Example Quasi-static Mooring System Design

Example 1
Consider an 8-point catenary spread mooring system for a semisubmersible [adopted

from Offshore Moorings, p.104]. Use a typical 1-year storm for the North Sea
environment.
4 5
Catenary lines
3 6
Wave
Semi
2 7
1 8
Input data:
Semi:
22000 T displacement
Water depth = 155 m
Survival draft
Fairlead point 5m below SWL
Two component lines – chain and wire
8 catenary lines of same geometry
chain on top:
3” ORQ
w (submerged weight) = 117 kg/m
Breaking strength = 472 T
Proof load = 313 T
s1 length from fairlead to wire top = 850m
wire at the bottom end:
3-1/2” 6x41
Breaking strength = 498 T
Elastic modulus on nominal CSA = 7000 kg/mm2
Elasticity of chain-wire combination = 32.7 T/m
s2 length from chain bottom to anchor = 800m
Morning 71
Environment:
Wind:
1 hr mean = 34.0 m/s
1 min mean = 39.0 m/s
Wave:
HS = 12.1 m
Hmax = 22.4 m
TS = 13.3 s
Current:
Surface = 1.10 m/s
15 m depth = 0.84 m/s
based on these environmental data, the mean environmental forces on the semi are
computed at its nominal survival draft.
The mean forces in a head sea case:
load due to mean wind: hourly = 88 T

load due to mean wind: 1 min gust = 114 T
load due to mean wave drift = 27 T
load due to mean current = 46 T
Total (mean wind) = 161 T

Total (1 min gust) = 187 T
Mean steady displacement (1 min gust) = 24.2 m
Compute the high frequency motions in surge for the head seas for the given wave
spectrum as follows:
Transfer function
Response spectrum
Most probable maximum surge amplitude = 8.4 m
Mean static displacement (1 min gust) = 24.2 m
Total displacement = 32.6 m
Mooring line force (chain) = 210 T
Safety factor (chain) = 2.25
Similar computation should be carried for other wave angles, e.g., beam and quartering
seas, since the setup is not symmetric.
Also, the analysis should be repeated for one broken line for the worst case from the
above to check the safety factor.
Morning 72
Example 2
Mooring arrangement for the floater in shallow water
Buoy Mooring System
Auxiliary surface buoy
Spar
Environment Float
Flounder plate
Catenary
Morning 73
Choose a typical mooring line as a starting point:
Stud Link Chain diameter = 1.25 inch

Chain angle at the buoy = 45 degrees
Vertical length = 5 meters (from buoy to the flounder plate)

Catenary length = 132 meters (from the flounder plate to the foundation anchor)
Chain virtual diameter = 3 x chain wire size

CDN (normal)= 1.0
CDT (tangential) = 0.02
Environment Survival
Wind speed 80 knots
Wave Height 13.8 meter
Wave Period 12 seconds
Surface current 3 knots
Bottom current 1 knots
Water Depth 40 meters
Maximum loading on the upstream leg
Wind drag force 1,400 lbs 700 kg

Maximum hydrodynamic drag force 48,000 lbs 21,800 kg
Pull of the two downstream legs 12,000 lbs 5,500 kg
Total tension in the tether 61,000 lbs 28,000 kg
Static Catenary solution (zero load):
At the buoy end

vertical tension = 1950 kg
horizontal tension = 1950 kg
and
At the anchor end

vertical tension = 0.0 kg
horizontal tension = 1950 kg.
Morning 74
Computed tensions from the load:
Location Tension, kg Angle, degrees

Buoy 23472 35.49
Flounder plate 27689 69.05
Anchor 27267 75.34
Horizontal distance between anchor and buoy =128.3 meters.
Total tensions
Location Vertical, kg Horizontal, kg Total, kg

Buoy 19,111 + 1,950 = 21,061 13,626 + 1,950 = 15 576 26,194
Flounder plate 9,900 + 1,850 = 11,750 25,858 +1,950= 27 808 30,271
Anchor 6,900 + 0.0 = 6,900 26,379 + 1,950 = 28 329 29,157
Choice of chain.
The chain strength = 3 x tether tension = 183,700 lbs.

Choose 1.25 inch, grade 3, stud link chain
The immersed weight = 19.4 kg/m.
Rated breaking strength of 184,000 lbs. (83 258 kg)
Safety factor
Highest tension occurs at the flounder plate = 30,000 kg.

Breaking strength of the chain = 83,000 kg.
Safety factor = 83,000/30,000= 2.75
Morning 75
Dynamic Mooring System Design
Two step procedure
Step 1: Vessel Motion Analysis
For floating structure, mooring/ riser system is an external nonlinear stiffness term.
Step 2: Mooring & Riser Analysis
For the flexible elements, motions of the floating structure are added to the attachment
point as an externally defined oscillation.
Morning 76
Numerical Model for a Mooring Line partially on the seabed
♦ Mooring line divided into N segments (lumped mass system)

♦ Mass of each segment is lumped at the intersection point
♦ Line between the masses is massless elastic element.
♦ All forces at each mass are equated to the mass inertia
♦ Boundaries between masses are matched to the mooring line displacement
♦ Seabed supporting mooring line is a series of linear springs with dashpot
♦ The touchdown point is a variable during the oscillating excitation
♦ Flexural rigidity is negligible
Morning 77
Matrix equation for lumped mass
Inertia Force Matrix

+ Damping Force Matrix (includes hydrodynamic and soil damping)
+ Stiffness Force Matrix (includes tension, hydrodynamic and soil stiffness)
= External Force Matrix
External forces (considering only the fluid drag term):
1
f nj = ρ C Dnj D j u nj u nj
2
Example problem (Inoue and Surendran)
Consider a chain in a catenary form with a portion on the bottom foundation soil.
The catenary is subjected to a harmonic oscillation.
The following input values for the experiment was chosen:
Chain weight = 0.127 kg/m

Chain equivalent diameter = 0.0059 m
Chain length = 15 m
Initial length of chain on seabed = 5.19 m
Initial tension = 1.84 kgf
Added mass = 1.98(normal)

Added mass = 0.2(tangential)
Top harmonic displacement amplitude = 0.04 m
Properties of chain in different media
Medium Vert. stiffness Mass density Drag coeff. Drag coeff.

kgf/m (x 106) Kg/m^3 normal tangential
water 0 1025 2.18 0.17
clay 2.25 1428 3.04 0.24
mud w/ sand 8.01 1538 3.27 0.26
mud 10.79 2000 4.25 0.33
Note: Modified drag coeff. = CDwater*(medium density/ water density)
Morning 78
Reduction in dynamic amplitudes w/ partial chain on seabed
Morning 79
A finite element approach:
Free-body diagram of the line segment, i

Ti
θι
wave current
FE free body diagram
weight θ0, Fairlead angle
θι+1
Ti+1
BE free body diagram
The equation of motion:
inertia force + linear damping force + nonlinear damping force + soil damping +
restoring force + soil restoring force = line tensions + mooring line weight + current
force + wave force + soil force
finite line element equation in the
horizontal direction, x:
mi &x&i + c1i x&i + c2i x&i x&i + csoil x&i + k i xi + k soil xi = Ti cosθ i − Ti +1 cosθ i +1 + f ci+ f wi+ f soili
vertical direction, y:
mi &y&i + c1i y& i + c2i y& i y& i + csoil y& i + k i yi + k soil yi = Ti sin θ i − Ti +1 sin θ i +1 + wi + f ci+ f wi+ f soili
These equations are written in a matrix form and solved for the values for xi and yi.
Morning 80
Mooring Line Fatigue Analysis
Mooring line fatigue is based on long term cycle of dynamic tension due to time varying
current and wave forces. Fatigue life estimates are made by comparing the loading in a
mooring component with the resistance of that component to fatigue damage.
¾ Choose appropriate T-N (tension vs. allowable number of cycles) design curves e.g.,
API RP 2SK:
NR M = K
Fatigue Design Parameters
Component M K
Common chain link 3.36 370
Spiral strand rope 5.05 166
Fatigue Design Curves (API RP 2SK)

10000
Tension Range, kips
1000
100
10
1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09 1.E+11
Number of Cycles
Chain DIA=3.75 Chain DIA=4.00 Wire DIA=3.50
Miner’s Rule for cumulative damage ratio, D:
ni
D= ∑N < 1.0
i
ni = number of cycles applied at each tension range

Ni = number of cycles allowed at the corresponding tension range
Morning 81
Assume short-term tension peaks are represented by the Rayleigh distribution
s s2
p( s ) = exp ( − )
σ2 2σ 2
¾ compute damage for each load case:
σj
Dj = N j ( 2 ) M Γ(1 + M / 2) / K
BS
¾ Repeat calculations are for each fatigue load case
¾ Accumulated damage to obtain the total damage.
¾ The fatigue life is obtained from the inverse of the total damage.
Factors of Safety
Dynamic Analysis Break FOS Fatigue Life FOS

Strength
ABS 1.82 Inspectable lines 3
BV 2.0 Un-inspectable lines 10
DNV 1.82 Polyester rope 60
Variables:
BS = breaking strength of line segment

K = intercept of T-N curve
M = slope of T-N curve
ni = number of cycles within the tension range interval ‘i’,
N = number of cycles
Ni = number of cycles to failure at the tension range ‘i’ as given by the appropriate T-N curve.
Nj = number of cycles for load case ‘j’ for a duration of 1 year
R = ratio of tension range (double amplitude) to nominal breaking strength
s = tension range
Г = Gamma function
σ = standard deviation of the tension range = 2 times the standard deviation of tension time
history
σj = standard deviation of effective tension range for load case ‘j’
Morning 82
Dynamics of floating structure and model testing
References
Statistics
1. Borgman, L. E., Ocean wave simulation for engineering design, Journal of Waterways and
Harbors Division, ASCE, November 1969,557-583.
2. Bretschneider, C.L., Wave variability and Wave Spectra for Wind-Generated Gravity Waves”,
Technical memorandum No. 118, Beach Erosion Board, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, 1959.
3. Chakrabarti, S.K., Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures, Computational Mechanics Publication,
Southampton, U.K., 1987.
4. Hasselman, K.,”A Parametric Wave Prediction Model”, Journal of Physical Oceanography, Vol. 6,
1976, pp. 200-228.
5. ITTC, Recommendations of the 11th International Towing Tank Conference, Proceedings 11th
ITTC, Tokyo, 1966.
6. Longuet-Higgins, M.S., “On the Statistical Distribution of of the Heights of Sea Waves”, Journal
of Marine Research, Vol. 11, 1952, pp. 245-266.
7. Ochi M.K., and Hubble, E.N., “Six Parameter Wave Spectra”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Coastal
Engineering Conference, Vancouver, BC, ASCE, 1972, pp. 301-328.
8. Ochi, M. K., Wave statistics for the design of ships and ocean structures, Transactions of the
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 1978, 86, 47-76.
9. Pierson, W.J., and Moskowitz, L., “A Proposed Spectral Form for Fully Developed Wind Seas
Based on the Similarity theory of Kitaigorodskii”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 69, No.
24, December, 1964, pp.5181-5203.
10. Proceedings of Second International Ship Structures Congress, Delft, Netherlands, 1964.
11. Walden, H., Comparison of one-dimensional wave spectra recorded in the German Bight with
various "theoretical" spectra, Ocean Wave Spectra, National Academy of Sciences, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1963, pp. 67-98.
Mooring
1. ABS “Guidance Notes on The Application of Synthetic Ropes for Offshore Mooring”,
American Bureau of Shipping, New York, Houston, 1999.
2. API, “Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Station Keeping Systems for Floating
Structures, API RP 2SK, 2nd Edition, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1996.
3. API, Recommended Practice for Design, Analysis and Testing of Synthetic Fiber Ropes in
Offshore Mooring Applications, API RP 2SM, Fourth Draft, August, 1999.
4. Asaland, M and B.E. Sogstad, “Certification of Fibre Ropes for Offshore Mooring”, 1999
Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings, OTC 10911, Offshore Technology Conference,
Richardson, TX, 1999.
Day1PM 83
5. Banfield, S.J., J.F. Flory, J.W.S. Hearle and M.S. Overington, “Comparison of Fatigue Data for
Polyester and Wire Ropes Relevant to Deepwater Moorings”, Proceedings of 1999 OMAE
Conference”, ASME, New York, 1999.
6. BV, “Guidance Note, Certification of Synthetic Fibre Ropes for Mooring Systems”, NI 432
DTO R00E, Bureau Veritas, Paris, 1997.
7. Cupertino, CA, 1999. TTI/ND “Deepwater Fibre Moorings – An Engineer’s Design Guide”,
Oilfield Publications Ltd., Herefordshire, UK, 1999.
8. De Pellegrin, Ivan, “Manmade Fiber Ropes in Deepwater Mooring Applications”, 1999
9. Det Norske Veritas, Offshore Standard Position Mooring, DNV-OS-E301, June 2001.
10. DNV, “Standard for Certification of Offshore Mooring Fibre Ropes”, Det Norske Veritas,
Hovik, Norway, 1998.
11. Flory, J.F., H.A. McKenna and M.R. Parsey, “Fiber Ropes For Ocean Engineering In the 21st
Century”, Civil Engineering In the Oceans V Conference Proceedings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, 1992.
12. Francios, M, “Experience and Developments in Fibre Rope Mooring Certification”,
Proceedings of 1999 ISOPE Conference, International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineering, Cupertino, CA, 1999.
13. Goldsmith, B., Burns, D., Das, S. (KBR), 2002 spread mooring systems and components for
floating units, Poster, Offshore Magazine, Oct., 2002.
14. Huse, E., 1986, ‘‘Influence of Mooring Line Damping Upon Rig Motions,’’ Proc., 18th OTC
Conference.
15. Inoue, Y., and Surendran, S., “Dynamics of the interaction of mooring line with the seabed”,
Proceedings of the 4th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan,
1994, pp. 317-323.
16. Koralek, A.S. and J.K. Barton, “Performance of a Lightweight Aramid Mooring Line”, 1987
17. Lee, M-Y, J.F. Flory and R. Yam, “ABS Guide for Synthetic Ropes in Offshore Mooring
Applications”, 1999 Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings, OTC 10910, Offshore
Technology Conference, Richardson, TX, 1999.
18. Lloyd’s “Fibre Ropes in Offshore Mooring Systems”, LR Report OS/TR/97008 (draft), Lloyd’s
Register Offshore Services, London,, 1999.
19. OCIMF “Guide to Purchasing Hawsers”, “Procedures for Quality Control and Inspection
during the Production of Hawsers”, and “Guide to Prototype Rope Testing”, Oil Companies
International Marine Forum, Witherby & Co., London, 1987.
20. OCIMF, “Hawser Standards Development Program, Trial Prototype Rope Tests, Draft Final
Report, Oil Companies International Marine Forum, London, 1983.
21. OCIMF, Hawser Test Report, Data on Large Synthetic Ropes in the Used Condition, Oil
Companies International Marine Forum, Witherby & Co., London, 1982.
Day1PM 84
22. Ong, P. A., and Pellegrino, S., “Modelling of seabed interaction in frequency domain analysis
of mooring cables”, Proceedings of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference,
OMAE2003-37465, 2003.
23. Smith, C. and F. Dyhrkopp, “A Regulatory Agency’s Perspective on the Use of Synthetic Fiber
Moorings (Oral Presentation), 1999 ISOPE Conference , International Society of Offshore and
Polar Engineering.
Day1PM 85

Mooring System Analysis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

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

Mooring System Analysis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Theory and practice of riser and mooring dynamics

Mooring System Analysis

Mooring System Design

¾ Layout and geometry

In the process of design of the offshore system,

For the mooring lines, first select

Layout of Mooring Lines

Taut mooring system:

Riser corridors between non-symmetric spread

Geometry of mooring lines

Mooring Hardware Components

Typical Chain geometry

(b) Studless Chain

• Wire or Rope Geometry (unsheathed or sheathed)

six strand multi strand

Note: Sheathed wire ropes are of smooth cylindrical shape

Design of Mooring Lines

Three possible methods:

Follow static steps.

compute max wave loads and vessel motion at

Compute maximum excursion

Compare maximum line tensions vs.

Use separate safety factors for the

If it fails the safety factor test,

Recalculate maximum peak

Include line top-end oscillation

Apply numerical scheme (lumped mass,

De-compose line into straight

Lump distributed mass with

Include relative motion

Include inertial effects

Loading Mechanisms on Floater and Mooring Lines

Loads on Floater Loads on Mooring Lines

Static Catenary Equation

Definition of the single component catenary line

Six (plus one) independent variables are:

Also, (the following two items depend on T and φ):

TH = horizontal component of tension at fairlead

Two possible cases:

Single line (no stretching)

Consider the following free-body diagram

Free body diagram

Basic catenary equation:

suspended line length along catenary s(x) s ( x) = (TH / w) sinh( wx / TH )

vertical line dimension along catenary d(x) d ( x ) = (TH / w)[cosh( wx / TH ) − 1]

for total lengths, use x = h in above equations

6 (or 7) unknowns and 3 equations; need 3 (or 4) input variables, e.g.,

w = weight of line per unit length

For solution, follow the steps below:

Use Eq. 1 to compute TH

Use Eq. 2 to compute the initial fairlead angle φA

Use Eq. 3 to compute the initial suspended line length s

Use Eq. 4 to compute the horizontal span h

Compute xB, the line laying on the bottom, using s and L.

Increment TH and repeat the above steps.

Compute the excursion based on the initial configuration.

Plot load vs. excursion (line stiffness curve)

Typical Example of a Single Catenary

variable input values units

The initial catenary will have the following properties:

TH0 625.0 kN Horz. Tension

Two line catenary

total line length s

vertical tension at fairlead TV