THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS

601 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306

Paper presented at 1994 Ship Operations, Management and Economics Symposium
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, NY, May 12, 1994

Mooring Arrangement Management

by Computer

No. 4

John F. Flory, Member

Dr. Alan Ractliffe, Visitor
Tension Technology International, Inc.
is incumbent upon the berth operator to provide
the additional restraint required.
"Forces in the moorings due to changes in ship
elevation from either tidal fluctuations or loading
or discharging operations must be compensated by
proper line tending."

ABSTRACT
Good mooring management practices for vessels
alongside piers are recommended and called for by
various organizations and regulatory bodies. The Oil
Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF)
publishes specific mooring guidelines and load calculation
procedures for tankers and gas carriers, including
environmental load data. Until recently it has generally
been impractical to carry out such an analysis on each
mooring arrangement, especially considering that the
mooring is temporary, mooring line elasticity is nonlinear, draft, tide and environment forces vary with time,
and the solution of force vectors is indeterminate.
Computer programs can now perform the necessary
mooring analyses on personal computers. These programs allow the mooring arrangement to be planned in
advance and to be simulated and managed in real time
while the vessel is moored, accounting for changes in
forcing environment, draft and trim, and tides.

Hand calculation of the various applied and resulting

forces using the methods described in OCIMF documents
can be difficult and time-consuming. Even then, the
results of such hand calculations are only approximations.
Computer simulation has in the past been the work of
specialists using complicated programs on main-frame
computers. Such analyses were time consuming and
expensive, and thus were only practical and justified in
the most critical mooring situations.
Personal computers are now available in most offices
and even on most vessels. Mooring analysis computer
programs can now be run on these personal computers.
Thus it is now possible to conduct a complete mooring
analysis for each vessel at each pier under a wide variety
of circumstances. It is even practical to conduct real time
analyses while the vessel is at the berth as an aid in
planning and managing the mooring layout.
This paper describes one such mooring line analysis
computer program, Optimoor, and demonstrates how it
can be used in a variety of situations. The first cases are
comparisons with the results of analyses published by
OCIMF and examples of how those situations might be
improved upon. The use of high-modulus synthetic fiber
ropes in place of wires is demonstrated. The possible
effects of the double-hull tanker on mooring loads are
explored. Finally, an example of real-time line tending,
including the effects of changes in freeboard, tide, and
current, is presented to show how a mooring analysis
computer program can be helpful onboard the vessel.

INTRODUCTION
Prudent practice dictates that the vessel mooring be
adequate for the various stages of loading, expected tides
and currents, and potential wind environment. The
OCIMF Mooring Equipment Guidelines1 state :
"The mooring equipment guidelines promulgated
by OCIMF are based firmly on the following
criteria: "Ships intended for worldwide trading
shall have outfits able to restrain them alongside
berths in winds of 60 knots from any direction
simultaneously with either:
3 knots current from ahead or astern, or
2 knots current from 10/ off bow or stern
quarter, or
0.75 knots current from the direction of
maximum beam current loading.
"Where the environmental conditions at any
particular berth are likely to exceed the criteria, it

4-1

during cargo handling to ensure that the vessel hull is not

overstressed. Yet even crude hand calculations are rarely
performed to determine whether a vessel can safely moor
at the berth.
The examples in this paper were calculated using the
Optimoor Mooring Analysis Computer Program.2
Optimoor accepts data on the vessel fairlead positions,
mooring line characteristics, and other vessel parameters.
Optimoor also accepts data on the berth mooring point
positions and fender characteristics. Based on these and
other inputs, Optimoor then calculates the force in each
mooring line for defined wind and current velocities and
directions, tide states and vessel loading conditions.
Several other computer programs can perform similar
vessel mooring analyses, including TermSim from
MARIN in Wageningen, the Netherlands, and PCSmart
from Exxon Research and Engineering in Florham Park,
NJ.

Figure 1 ! Simple Vessel Mooring

MOORING ANALYSIS SIMPLIFIED

Figure 1 shows a highly simplified mooring arrangement comprised of bow, stern, and spring lines. There are
only 4 mooring lines. but even in this simple example
there are 6 unknowns ! the mooring line forces and the
fender reactions.
Only three force and moment
summation equations can be written for this case. Even
these simple equations can't be solved without considering
the extensions and thus the elasticities of all of the
mooring lines. Typical mooring arrangements have many
more mooring lines. If fender deflection is considered,
the solution becomes more complicated. If the mooring
lines are non-linear, then the solution becomes even more
complex.

OCIMF EXAMPLE CASES

The OCIMF Guidelines and Recommendations for the
Safe Mooring of Large Ships at Piers and Sea Islands3
(hereafter referred to as OCIMF Guidelines) include
several mooring line analysis examples. First we compare
these data with the results of the Optimoor program.
These OCIMF example cases are then used as bases for
demonstrating other situations.
The OCIMF Guidelines provide data for a 250,000
dwt tanker in two situations, one with all-wires and the
other with mixed wires and synthetic lines. The OCIMF
Guidelines give data for an "ideal berth" and a "non-ideal
berth".
The mooring arrangement for the OCIMF tanker at the
"ideal berth", as displayed in Optimoor, is shown in
Figure 2. Note that the line numbering convention in the
Optimoor analysis is different from that of the OCIMF
analysis.

Mooring Analysis Computer Programs

We will not burden this paper with derivations of the
solutions to such mooring arrangement cases.
Fortunately, computer programs are now available which
can solve the equations for complex mooring
arrangements in less time than it takes to talk about it.
Unfortunately, such programs are not yet widely used.
For new vessel designs, mooring winch capacities and
arrangements are often copied from other, apparently
similar designs. In contrast, elaborate computer programs
and sometimes model tests are run to design the hull
shape and select the propeller. Computations are made

Figure 2 ! Example Mooring Arrangement: OCIMF Vessel at "Ideal" Berth

4-2

Aft Breast Lines

10-E 11-E
0.76
0.76
43.5
42.6
43.1
42.9
36%
36%

12-E
0.72
57.1
58.2
48%

Case 1 ! OCIMF Comparison Example, All-Wire Mooring, "Ideal" Berth, 60 kt Wind

|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.57
0.33
0.57
0.51
0.57
0.18
0.17
0.30
0.31
0.94
0.82
OCIMF Calculation..
91.2
6.8
61.2
5.9
69.8
17.2
16.8
9.5
9.5
67.1
5.9
Tension (t) .........
91.6
7.0
61.1
6.8
70.6
18.9
19.1
11.6
11.7
67.0
5.9
% of Strength ....
76%
58% 16%
5%
51%
4%
16%
10%
10%
55%
4%

12-E
0.91
88.0
88.0
73%

Case 2 ! OCIMF Comparison Example, Mixed-Line Mooring, "Ideal" Berth, 60 kt Wind

|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.93
0.97
1.25
1.17
1.44
0.16
0.14
0.37
0.39
70.3
49.9
OCIMF Calculation..
56.2
54.0
53.1
48.1
88.4
17.7
17.2
11.8
12.2
70.3
49.9
Tension (t) .........
56.4
54.0
53.1
48.1
88.4
21.1
28.3
5.3
6.4
70.3
49.9
73% 17%
58% 41%
17%
4%
5%
% of Strength ....
47%
45%
44%
40%

12-E
70.3
70.3
70.3
58%

Connection ........
Pull-in (m) ..........
OCIMF Calculation..
Tension (t) .........
% of Strength ....

1-A
0.34
56.7
56.7
47%

Forward Breast Lines

2-A
3-B
4-B
0.34
0.41
0.41
57.1
39.5
39.9
57.1
39.7
39.9
47%
33%
33%

|
Midship Spring Lines |
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
0.40
.060
.060
0.0
44.9
13.2
13.2
6.3
18.4
18.2
16.5
16.4
37%
15%
15%
14%

9-D
0.0
6.3
44.4
14%

|
13-F
0.78
55.2
55.2
46%

14-F
0.80
47.6
47.6
39%

13-F
0.72
6.3
6.3
4%

14-F
0.97
73.0
72.7
68%

13-F
46.3
46.3
46.3
39%

14-F
45.8
45.8
45.8
38%

Case 3 ! OCIMF Comparison Example, Mixed-Line Mooring, "Non-Ideal" Berth, 60 kt Wind

Appendix C of the OCIMF Guidelines gives example

calculations for these situations, produced by a mainframe computer program at Exxon Research and
Engineering Co.
That program converged on a
distribution of mooring line forces which achieved
balance of the force and moment equations.
The Optimoor program also automatically converges
on a mooring solution. To duplicate the OCIMF
calculations, it is necessary to start with the same line
pretensions, and these are not known. Optimoor
simulates the action of taking in or letting out mooring
line from the winch. These Optimoor comparison
examples were prepared by adjusting line lengths to
achieved approximately the same line tensions as in the
OCIMF report. This is the same as finding the
pretensions used in the OCIMF analysis by trial and error.
The resulting comparisons demonstrate that both
programs calculate the same results when given the same
input parameters.

In this mixed-line mooring example, most of the wire

breast lines exceed the OCIMF 55% load criteria. Lines
1 and 8 exceed 70% of the rated breaking strength. This
is not an acceptable situation. Again, the agreement
between the Optimoor and OCIMF analyses is very good.
Case 3 is the OCIMF "non-ideal" berth case, in which
the forward bow breast and aft stern breast lines are run to
bollards which are far beyond the ends of the moored
tanker. The exact locations of these bollards could not be
deduced from the OCIMF Guidelines document, and the
positions used here are approximate.
In this "non-ideal" berth case, the OCIMF 55% load
criteria was exceeded in lines 5, 6 and 8. Line 5 was
loaded to over 70% of its rated strength. Again, this is not
an acceptable situation. Agreement is good but not as
good as in the other cases, probably because the exact
coordinates of the mooring points used in the OCIMF
analysis was not known.

Comparison With OCIMF Cases

The OCIMF Guidelines examples include the all-wire
tanker moored at an "ideal berth" and a "non-ideal berth"
and the mixed-line tanker moored at the "ideal berth".
Only the most severe situation, a 60 kt wind broadside to
the vessel, will be analyzed here.
Case 1 compares the Optimoor solution with the
OCIMF Guidelines solution for the all-wire tanker at the
"ideal berth". For the Optimoor solution, the lengths of
the various lines were adjusted by trial and error. Good
agreement is demonstrated, and closer agreement could be
achieved by further trials. None of the line loads exceed
the OCIMF 55% load criteria.
Case 2 compares the solutions for the mixed mooring
line case. Here lines 2, 4, 7 and 9 are polypropylene. The
characteristics of the polypropylene rope used in the
OCIMF analysis are not known. A 130 mm broken-in
polypropylene rope was assumed.

IMPROVING ON THE OCIMF CASES

The Mixed-Line Case
The principal reason that the synthetic lines in Case 2
carry almost no mooring load is that the synthetic ropes
are much more elastic than the wires.
Figure 3 compares typical load-extension curves for
wire rope and several different types of synthetic fiber
rope. These are for broken-in ropes, which have been
cycled a few times to a modest load. The extension
properties are given as percent of the length of the
broken-in rope at essentially no tension. Steel wire rope
extends about 1% at 50% of its new break strength.
Broken-in polypropylene and polyester ropes typically
extend about 6% at 50% of break strength. Nylon rope
typically extends 12% to 15%, depending on other
variables, at 50% strength.

4-3

mixed mooring lines and how the situations can be

improved through analysis. However if the fiber ropes are
not mounted on winches, it would be virtually impossible
to achieve these desired pretensions.
It is not good practice to indiscriminately use
conventional low-modulus fiber ropes alongside wires.
The OCIMF example demonstrates this. Yet this is often
done. If a vessel has a limited number of winch-mounted
mooring wires and the berth requires additional lines,
synthetic lines are placed on the ship's bitts. These extra
synthetic lines have practically no value and may give a
false sense of security.
Unless the low-modulus fiber lines are winchmounted, it is virtually impossible to achieve the high
preloads which should be applied when synthetics are
used with wire mooring lines. Thus the extra, bittmounted synthetic lines are largely ineffective. They only
contribute substantially to holding the vessel at the pier
when the wires are very close to breaking or after the
wires have broken, and then it is too late!

Figure 3 ! Line Load-Extension Curves

The Case 2 mixed mooring line comparison was
developed by adjusting line tensions until the loads
approximately matched the OCIMF solution with an
applied 60 kt wind. When that wind was then removed,
the corresponding pretensions in the wires ranged from 11
to 19 t. The synthetic lines were not pretensioned. We
don't know how the Exxon computer program arrived at
this particular solution.
A better distribution of mooring line tensions can be
achieved by applying 15 t pretension to all lines,
including the synthetics, before applying the 60 kt wind.
That case are shown in Case 4. The highest line loads, 1A and 10-F, have been reduced by about 20%. However
two of the wires are still tensioned to 63% and 64% of
break strength.
An even better distribution can be achieved by
pretensioning the synthetic lines to 20% and the wires to
only 5%. Case 5 gives the results of that change. Two
wires are tensioned to 56% of break strength, still
marginally above the OCIMF criteria. This is a
substantial improvement over Case 2.
These examples demonstrate the potential problems of
|

Aft Breast Lines

10-E 11-E
wire
synth.
1.17
2.47
61.0
23.3
50%
17%

12-E
wire
1.12
77.9
64%

Case 4 ! Improved Mixed-Mooring, all lines pretensioned to 15 t (compare with Case 2)

|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E
Mooring Line.......
wire
synth. wire
synth. wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
synth.
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.38
2.05
0.44
3.01
0.44
0.21
0.21
0.28
0.28
1.04
3.30
Tension (t) .........
67.1
41.2
46.3
36.5
53.3
17.0
17.2
10.6
10.5
51.8
37.2
56% 30%
38%
26%
44%
14%
14%
09%
09%
43%
27%
% of Strength ....

12-E
wire
1.01
67.9
56%

Connection ........
Mooring line .......
Pull-in (m) ..........
Tension (t) .........
% of Strength ....

1-A
wire
0.48
76.3
63%

Forward Breast Lines

2-A
3-B
4-B
synth. wire
synth.
1.43
0.59
2.05
26.6
55.6
22.4
19%
46%
16%

Better Ways of Employing Synthetics With Wires

In the OCIMF mixed mooring example, the synthetic
lines are parallel with the wires, such that the stiffer wires
carried almost all of the mooring load. It is better to
employ the synthetic lines by themselves, usually as
spring lines. Here they can effectively contribute to
mooring restraint and even provide the extra "springiness"
which is sometimes desired.
The spring lines are arranged substantially parallel to
the side of the vessel, as shown in Figure 1. They restrain
the vessel against surge. The breast lines, which extend
substantially perpendicular to the vessel side, restrain it
against sway and yaw.
In the OCIMF example cases, shown in Figure 2,
connections 1 through 5 are forward breast lines, and
connections 10 through 14 are aft breast lines.
Connections 6 through 9 are spring lines.
To improve the mooring situation, the polypropylene
ropes are shifted to the spring line positions in Case 6.
Here the wires were pretensioned only to 5 t. Note that

|
Midship Spring Lines |
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
wire
wire
wire
wire
0.56
0.34
.034
.040
62.1
24.1
24.1
17.8
51%
20%
20%
15%

9-D
wire
0.40
17.8
15%

|
13-F
synth.
2.34
24.9
18%

14-F
wire
1.23
64.7
54%

13-F
synth.
3.09
39.4
28%

14-F
wire
1.11
56.0
46%

Case 5 ! Improved Mixed-Line Mooring, wires pretensioned to 5 t, synthetics pretensioned to 20 t.

|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
|
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E 12-E 13-F
Mooring Line ......
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
synth. synth. synth. synth. wire
wire
wire
wire
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.70
0.70
0.73
0.74
0.66
2.60
1.99
2.91
2.95
0.88
0.90
0.72
0.59
Tension (t) .........
56.7
45.9
46.8
46.7
47.3
25.6
19.5
20.7
20.8
45.7
45.9
45.9
45.6
47% 47%
% of Strength ....
47%
47%
48%
48%
48%
18%
14%
15%
15%
47%
47%
Case 6! Improved Mixed-Line Mooring, synthetics used as spring lines only

4-4

14-F
wire
0.66
56.7
47%

|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
|
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E 12-E 13-F 14-F
Pull-in (m)
0.31
0.34
0.51
0.36
0.36
0.45
0.45
1.03
0.97
0.87
Mooring
line..........
.......
wire
H.M. 0.51
wire
H.M. 0.44
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
H.M. 0.92
wire
H.M. 0.91
wire
Tension
(t) ..........
.........
58.5
50.1
49.4
47.1
67.5
32.2
32.5
18.9
18.8
50.2
48.7
58.4
50.5
48.8
Pull-in (m)
0.41
0.55
0.51
0.73
0.49
0.32
0.32
0.37
0.37
0.97
1.17
0.92
1.17
1.02
56% 19.7
27%
27%
16%
16%
42%
40%
48%
42%
40%
Tension
(t) .........
59.5
50.1
43.9
36.3
48.9
19.9
13.6
13.4
47.5
38.4
60.5
44.8
50.9
% of Strength
....
48%
41%
41%
39%
61% 37%
62% 33%
45%
27%
50%
20%
20%
14%
14%
47%
28%
52%
% of Strength ....
Case 10 ! Improved "Non-Ideal" Berth, 20 t pretension, only one fender in contact with hull.
Case 7! Mixed-Mooring
with High-Modulus
Fiber Lines
|
Forward
Breast Lines Synthetic
|
Midship
Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
|
Connection ........
2-A Breast
3-B Lines
4-B
5-C
6-D Spring
7-D Lines
8-E | 9-E Aft
10-F
| 1-A Forward
|
Midship
Breast11-G
Lines 12-G | 13-H 14-H
Pull-in
(m) ..........
0.39
0.42
0.63
0.64
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.56
0.56
1.28
Connection
........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 1.21
11-E 1.14
12-E 10.8
13-F 1.13
14-F
Tension (t)
.........
69.8
56.4
40.1
40.1
22.3
22.3
56.7
56.7
57.8
55.8
Mooring
Line.......
H.M. 59.9
H.M.. 59.2
wire
wire. 80.7
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire. 66.5
wire
H.M.
H.M.
58% 0.62
67% 0.23
46%
50%
49%
47%
33%
33%
18%
18%
47%
46.4
55%
48%
%
of Strength
....
Pull-in
(m) ..........
0.64
0.46
0.50
0.45
0.22
0.28
0.28
0.88
0.91
0.84
1.21
1.25
Tension (t) .........
50.7
51.0
46.7
40.0
52.6
17.7
17.9
12.0
11.9
50.0
41.4
64.6
46.0
43.1
Case 11! Double-Hull Tanker, no extra lines, 20 t pretension, only one fender in contact with hull.
37% 37%
53% 34%
32%
39%
41%
43%
15%
15%
10%
10%
50%
41.4
% of Strength ....
|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Case
8!
Mixed-Mooring
with
High-Modulus
Synthetic
and
Stern
Lines,
wires
pretensioned
to
10
t,
H.M.
synthetics
to
15
t
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
4'-C
5-C
6-D
7-D
8-E
9-E
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.34
0.37 Breast
0.55 Lines
0.55
0.52
0.63 Spring
0.37 Lines
0.37 | 0.47 Aft
0.47
|
Forward
|
Midship
Breast Lines
|
Tension
(t) .........
56.0
48.3
47.4
45.3
59.8
63.5
30.9
31.1
19.5
19.4
Connection
........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E
11-E 12-E 13-F 14-F
% of Strength
....
46%
40%
39%
37%
49%
53%
Mooring
Line ......
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
H.M. 26%
H.M. 26%
H.M. 16%
H.M. 16%
wire
wire
wire
wire
wire
Aft Breast
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.68
0.67
0.90
0.89
0.83
0.71
0.70 | 0.74
0.75
1.43Lines1.44
1.31 | 1.44
1.49
Connection
........
10-F
11'-F
11-G 44.8
12-G 58.3
H-F
14-H 49.2
Tension
(t) .........
56.0
56.4
41.7
42.2
46.4
21.4
21.6
15.5
15.5
45.5
52.6
Pull-in
(m) ..........
1.15
1.16
1.08
1.03
1.97
43% 1.02
38%
36%
%
of Strength
....
41%
41%
31%
31%
34%
16%
16%
11%
11%
33%
33%
Tension (t) .........
48.7
48.2
46.9
56.0
45.3
46.7
Case
9!
All
High-Modulus
Synthetic
Fiber
Mooring
Lines
39% 46%
40%
39%
% of Strength ....
40%
40%
Case 12 ! Double Hull Tanker, extra line fore and aft, two fenders in contact with hull.

tensions of 41% or less of break strength.

What if the high-modulus fiber ropes are used on all
mooring lines? Case 9 shows this situation. The highest
line load is 43% of break strength. Here the highest
loaded line is only at 43% of its break strength.
Comparison with the OCIMF all-wire Case 1, in which
the highest line load was 48%, should be made with
caution however, because in that example case the
pretensions were apparently not well chosen.

the highest loaded wires only experienced 48% of their

break strength.
THE EFFECTS OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Use of High-Modulus Synthetic Mooring Lines
During the past decade, a new class of highperformance fiber ropes has become available.4 The fiber
materials used in these ropes have much higher strengths
and also much higher elastic moduli than do the
conventional rope-making fibers, nylon, polyester, and
polypropylene. Thus they are generally referred to as
high-modulus synthetic fiber ropes.
Examples of such materials are aramid (duPont
"Kevlar" and Akzo "Twaron") and high-modulus
polyethylene (HMPE) (Allied "Spectra" and DSM
"Dyneema"). The high-performance ropes made of these
new materials are now being adopted as ship-board
mooring lines.
These high-modulus fiber ropes are almost as strong
as wire ropes of the same size and are also almost as stiff.
As shown in Figure 3, at 50% of break strength wire rope
extends about 1% and broken-in high-modulus fiber rope
extends about 2%.
What if high-modulus
fiber lines had been used instead of polypropylene lines in
the OCIMF example? This is demonstrated in Case 7.
All lines were pretensioned to 15 t before application of
the 60 kt wind. The highest loaded wires experienced
62% of break load. This is about 20% less than the
highest load experienced in the OCIMF mixed-line
example, Case 3. However, it still exceeds the OCIMF
55% criteria.
In Case 8 the four high-modulus synthetic fiber lines
are grouped in pairs as bow and stern breast lines. Also,
the wires are only pretensioned to 10 t, while the highmodulus fiber lines are pretensioned to 15 t. These
changes substantially improve the mooring situation.
Now the highest loaded line is a wire which is loaded to
53% of break strength. All other lines experience

Improving Non-Ideal Mooring Case

It is commonly recommended that a vessel be moored
within its length. This is another way of emphasizing that
breast lines should extend essentially perpendicular to the
vessel side and spring lines instead of breast lines should
be used to restrain surge.
At the OCIMF "non-ideal berth", Case 3 above, the
forward and aft breast lines extend at angles of about 60
degrees with relation to the vessel side. Case 10
illustrates how that case might be improved. All lines are
pretensioned to 20 t before application of the 60 kt
broadside wind. Only one line, 5-B, exceeds the 55%
OCIMF recommended limit.
Double-Hull Tankers Need Extra Mooring Lines
Double-hull tankers are now required for all newbuildings by OPA '90. For a given cargo-carrying
capacity, a double-hull tanker will have greater hull
volume and thus more area exposed to wind than will a
conventional tanker. The cargo capacity of a tanker is
roughly indicated by the dead-weight tonnage, which is
the water displacement of all cargo and consumable
stores, including fuel, lubricants, and fresh water.
A typical double-hull tanker may have an 8% greater
molded depth than a conventional tanker of the same
capacity and yet have the same length and beam. That
double-hull tanker will have about the same draft at any
state of loading, and thus its freeboard will be much
greater. This means that wind forces on such a doublehull tanker will be proportionally greater.
4-5

Figure 4 - Tide, Current, and Vessel Draft for Mooring Tending Example
The following examples demonstrate the problem of
providing adequate mooring lines for such a double-hull
vessel. These examples were developed from Cases 3 and
10, those of the OCIMF all-wire 250,000 dwt tanker
moored at a "non-ideal berth". To simulate the doublehull tanker, the molded depth of that OCIMF hull was
increased by 8% to 26 m.
As in all of the preceding cases, the tanker draft is
6.1 m, and its trim is 5 m by the stern. However, because
of the 8% increase in hull depth, the freeboard at midship
is now 19.9 m instead of 17.9 m.
Case 11 shows the increase in mooring line loads
caused by that extra freeboard. Here the pretension had
to be increased to 20 t to hold the vessel against even one
fender. Three lines exceed the OCIMF criteria. One line
reached 67% of its break load. The load in each of the
forward breast lines increased by over 19%, and the load
in each of the aft breast lines increased by over 14%.
In Case 12 two additional mooring lines have been
provided. These lines are designated 4' and 11' and are
essentially clones of lines 4 and 11. They are run to berth
mooring points C and F respectively. Again, all lines
were pretensioned to 20 t. Now none of the lines are
overloaded. The highest line load is 53% of the break
strength.
These examples indicate the need to conduct mooring
line analyses on double-hull tankers. If hull volume is
increased without providing additional mooring winches,
then line overload will probably result.

In this exercise, the OCIMF "all-wire" tanker is

moored at the OCIMF "ideal berth". The tides and
currents are for a hypothetical site at Port Elizabeth New
Jersey. These are actual tide and current data for
September 16, 1993. Data for a reference site, in this case
Sandy Hook for tides and the Narrows for current, are
entered in Optimoor, together with data to extrapolate that
data to the terminal site. Optimoor then interpolates
between high and low tides, and calculates the
corresponding tides and current for the pier site.
Real-Time Line Tending Scenario
The analysis starts at 0200 hrs, at low tide. The vessel
begins with a loaded draft of 14.1 m and no trim. The
cargo transfer operation is intended to take 21 hours, the
final draft is intended to be 6.1 m, and the final trim is
intended to be 2 m by the stern.
Figure 4 shows the tide and current during this time,
together with the anticipated vessel draft. High tide
occurs at 0751 and again at 2012 hrs. The maximum tide
range is 2.21 m.
The maximum current is 2.8 kt at 180/at 0629 and
again at 1851 hrs. Note that a lesser opposed current
occurs at an angle of 8/off the vessel centerline, and this
angle tends to lift the vessel off of the berth. A constant
40 kt wind. perpendicular to and tending to push the
vessel off the berth, is applied throughout this analysis.
The mooring line conditions at 0200 hrs are shown in
Case 13. Initially all lines are tensioned to approximately
2 tons. This condition is automatically achieved by
Optimoor with a single key stroke.
At 0700 hrs the loads in the two forward spring lines
exceed 40% of line strength. Note from Figure 4 that this
is a time of high tide combined with a relatively high
current. However, tide and current will soon decrease, and
thus drastic line tending is not called for at this time. The
heavily loaded spring lines are let out. At the same time,
breast lines 3, 4 and 5 are let out.
Case 14 shows the situation after these lines were
tended at 0700 hrs. No further line tending was required
until 1700 hrs, even though the vessel freeboard increased

ACTIVE MOORING LINE MANAGEMENT

The preceding cases have all been "office
management analyses", showing how a computer program
can be used to improve pier and ship mooring line layouts
and also to better plan a mooring arrangement in advance
of the mooring. The following shows how such a
program can be used as a crew training tool and even as
a "real-time simulator" to help determine when and how
mooring lines should be tended and thus to improve crew
efficiency and to enhance overall safety.

4-6

by over 4 m. The change in freeboard was compensated

for by falling tide during much of this period.
The situation before line tending at 1700 hrs is shown
in Case 15. Breast lines, 5, 6 and 8, are loaded beyond
40% of break strength. All spring lines and several other
breast lines are also loaded to nearly 40%. C a s e 1 6
shows the tending action which was simulated at this
time. Tending was done by trial and error, letting out
lines until all or most lines were tensioned no higher than
20%, and then running the case forward to see which lines
would next be highly loaded. Even though the forward
breast lines, 1 and 2, were not highly loaded at 1700 hrs,
it was found that if they were let out by 1.2 m, then no
further tending would be necessary until the passage of
the next high tide and the completion of discharge.

time and duration of discharge (or loading), the intended

mooring arrangement, and tides and currents. The case
can be set up and exercised to make a preliminary plan.
Various alternative mooring arrangements can also be
examined.
The case can then be recalled after the vessel is
moored. Actual wind velocity (with an appropriate
margin of safety) can be input and changed as necessary.
Changes can also be made in the rate of discharge or
loading as necessary.
The mooring analysis can be run essentially in real
time. It can predict which lines will become highly
loaded (or slack) and the approximate time. It can give
guidance as to how much line to let out (or take up). The
effects of these actions can also be projected forward in
time to see which lines will next be highly loaded (or
slack). This may enable additional line tending to be
carried out at the same time, thus reducing the need for
future line tending.
Of course, Optimoor or any such computer program is
no substitute for diligence and frequent inspection of the
actual mooring lines.

Case 17 shows the situation at 2300 hrs. Here several

lines are approaching 40% load. However, the water level
is falling and cargo discharge is completed. Therefore no
further line tending is required.
Advantages of Active Mooring Analysis
When a mooring analysis computer program such as
Optimoor is used in this manner, line tending can be more
effective and efficient.
By planning the line tending at 1700 hrs, it was not
necessary to again tend lines until completion of discharge
and change of tide. Had the lines been tended in some
other manner, it probably would have been necessary to
tend the lines once or several more times over that four
hour period.
Line tending can be planned in advance, knowing the
|

Aft Breast Lines

10-E 11-E
0.17
0.17
10.5
10.5
9%
9%

12-E
0.17
14.7
12%

Case 13! Line Tending Example, Starting Position, 0200 hrs, draft = 14.1 m, tide = -0.19m (low tide).
|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.10
0.12
-0.07 -0.19 -0.28 -0.64 -0.63 0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
Tension (t) .........
22.6
12.1
29.0
24.8
24.3
29.1
30.6
2.2
1.3
30.1
26.5
19% 10%
24%
20%
20%
24%
25%
2%
1%
25%
22.4
% of Strength ....

12-E
0.17
28.4
23%

Connection ........
Pull-in (m) ..........
Tension (t) .........
% of Strength ....

1-A
0.10
7.4
6%

Forward Breast Lines

2-A
3-B
4-B
0.12
0.07
0.08
9.9
2.5
3.0
8%
2%
2%

|
Midship Spring Lines |
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.16
3.5
2.8
2.9
9.8
3%
2%
2%
8%

9-D
0.16
9.7
8%

|
13-F
0.12
7.5
6%

14-F
0.13
7.3
6%

13-F
0.12
28.8
24%

14-F
0.12
20.6
17%

Case 14! Line Tending Example, after tending at 0700 hrs, draft = 12.2, tide = 1.9 m rising, current = 2.7 kt.
|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
|
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E 12-E 13-F
Pull-in (m) ..........
0.10
0.12
-0.07 -0.19 -0.28 -0.64 -0.63 0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.12
Tension (t) .........
33.1
29.3
39.9
43.1
50.1
44.9
47.2
38.7
36.7
50.1
44.7
51.8
26.2
37% 43%
22%
% of Strength ....
27%
24%
33%
36%
41%
37% 39%
32%
30%
41%

14-F
0.12
14.9
12%

Case 15 ! Line Tending Example, before tending at 1700 hrs, draft = 8.4 m, tide = 0.7 m rising, current =1.7 kt.
|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
|
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E 12-E
Pull-in (m) ..........
-0.93 -0.75 -1.33 -1.56 -1.70 -1.68 -1.66 -0.15 -0.16 -0.92 -0.82 -0.87
Tension (t) .........
22.0
25.0
21.3
15.3
12.4
12.1
14.9
8.1
6.0
20.6
23.6
12.6
10%
% of Strength ....
18%
21%
18%
13%
10%
10%
12%
7%
5%
17%
20.4

13-F
-0.75
26.9
22%

14-F
-0.70
18.8
16%

Case 16! Line Tending Example, after tending at 1700 hrs, note differences in Pull-in compared with Case 15.
|
Forward Breast Lines
|
Midship Spring Lines |
Aft Breast Lines
|
Connection ........
1-A
2-A
3-B
4-B
5-B
6-C
7-C
8-D
9-D
10-E 11-E 12-E
Pull-in (m) ..........
-0.93 -0.75 -1.33 -1.56 -1.70 -1.68 -1.66 -0.15 -0.16 -0.92 -0.82 -0.87
Tension (t) .........
32.0
39.1
37.3
39.3
44.8
41.1
44.9
43.2
39.9
44.9
45.3
39.2
37% 32%
% of Strength ....
26%
32%
31%
32%
37%
34% 37%
36%
33%
37%

13-F
-0.75
28.7
24%

14-F
-0.70
15.6
13%

Case 17 ! Line Tending Example, completion of discharge, 2300 hrs, draft = 6.1 m, tide = 1.13 falling.

4-7

CONCLUSIONS
Mooring analysis can reduce accidents by identifying
unsafe situations and can improve the efficiency of other
situations.
Using conventional fiber ropes together with wires is
usually not effective, but when properly utilized, these
fiber ropes can contribute to the mooring. The new highmodulus fiber ropes can be particularly effective when
properly deployed in mixed-mooring situations.
Double-hull vessels have higher freeboards, which can
significantly increase mooring loads. Thus extra mooring
lines will probably be necessary on these vessels, and
good mooring management will be even more important.
The mooring of a vessel at a berth in a particular
combination of vessel states of loading, tide, current, and
wind can now be simulated in advance. A "worse case"
superposition of the most unfavorable draft, tide, and
current may present an impossible mooring situation, but
when the timing of these events is properly modeled, the
mooring may be practical and safe. Such analysis can
also increase the effectiveness and yet decrease the
frequency of line tending.

_______________________
References
1. Oil Companies International Marine Forum,
Mooring Equipment Guidelines, Witherby and Co.,
Ltd., London, 1992.
2. Flory, J.F. and A. Ractliffe, Optimoor Mooring
Analysis Computer Program Users Guide, Tension
Technology International, Morristown, NJ and
Eastbourne, U.K., 1993.
3. Oil Companies International Marine Forum,
Guidelines and Recommendations for the Safe Mooring
of Large Ships at Piers and Sea Islands, Witherby &
Co. Ltd., London, 1978.
4. Flory, J.F., H.A. McKenna and M.R. Parsey, "Fiber
Ropes for Ocean Engineering in the 21st Century", pp
934-947, Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the
Oceans V, ASCE, New York, Nov. 1992.

4-8