Investigation on the Use of Different Approaches to Mooring Analysis and Appropriate Safety Factors

Sojan Vasudevan Paul Westlake

Objectives
Present the results of a Mooring Analysis
Frequency Domain - Quasi-Static Time Domain - Uncoupled Time Domain - Coupled

Differences in Results Investigate Reasons Recommendations

Mooring System

Mooring System
Orc aFlex 9.4b: Bas e - with s truts .dat (modified 14:43 on 30/03/2011 by Orc aFlex 9.4b) (azimuth=335; elevation=30) Res et

Z Y X

20 m

Z Y X

Methodology
Mooring analysis in ROMEO (frequency domain) Mooring analyses in Orcaflex
Uncoupled, without struts Uncoupled, with struts Coupled, without struts Coupled, with struts

Results Line Tension

N 400 350 NW 300 250 200 150 100 50 W 0 E NE

Romeo Quasi-Static SW SE

Results Line Tension

N 400 350 NW 300 250 200 NE

150
100 50 W 0 E

Romeo Quasi-Static SW SE Orcaflex Uncoupled w/o struts Orcaflex Uncoupled with struts S
7

Results Line Tension

N 400 350 NW 300 250 NE

200
150 100 50 W 0 E

Romeo Quasi-Static Orcaflex Uncoupled w/o struts SW SE Orcaflex Uncoupled with struts Orcaflex Coupled w/o struts Orcaflex Coupled with struts S
8

Results Line Tension

N 400 350 NW 300 250 NE

200
150 100 50 W 0 E

Romeo Quasi-Static Orcaflex Uncoupled w/o struts SW SE

Orcaflex Uncoupled with struts

Orcaflex Coupled w/o struts Orcaflex Coupled with struts

Maximum Permissible

Summary
Huge differences in worst line tensions depending on the method used. 1. Why? 2. Is the design acceptable?

10

Environment
One hour mean wind speed [m/s] 40.5 32.8 30.6 39.9 40.5 38.9 40.5 40.5 Significant wave height Hs [m] 16.4 10.2 9.5 14.2 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 Zero-crossing period Tz [s] 12.6 9.9 9.6 11.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6

Env Direction (from) N NE E SE S SW W NW

Peak period Tp [s] 17.0 13.4 13.0 15.9 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0

11

Line Tension vs Environment

450 400 350 Worst line tension [t] 300 250 200

150
100 50 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % 100-yr Return Period Weather (from SW) 100%

ROMEO - quasistatic Orcaflex Uncoupled with cross bracings Orcaflex Coupled with cross bracings

Orcaflex Uncoupled w/o cross bracings Orcaflex Coupled w/o cross bracings
12

Comments
For up to the 50% weather, none of the mooring lines go slack. For the 75% weather, some lines start going slack. For the 100% weather, more lines go slack over large lengths. Slack lines affect line tension in coupled analyses, but not in uncoupled / Q.S analysis.

13

Acceptance Criteria
Line Tension Safety Factors
API / DNV / ISO etc Separate Safety Factors for Q.S and Dynamic E.g. API RP 2SK Q.S 2.00 Dynamic 1.67 No mention about Coupled / Uncoupled Coupled more accurate lower safety factor may do!

14

Conclusions
The coupled analyses give significantly higher line tensions compared to the frequency domain analyses in ROMEO and the uncoupled analyses in Orcaflex. The higher tensions from the coupled analyses are probably caused by the mooring lines going slack. Inclusion of struts in the analyses increases the worst line tension by about 15% in the case of displacement RAOs and 20% in the case of load RAOs. Consider lower safety factors for coupled dynamic analysis.
15

Questions?