Analytical Model of Non-Linear Load Reduction Devices For Catenary Moorings

Proceedings of the ASME 2023 42nd International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2023
June 11-16, 2023, Melbourne, Australia
OMAE2023-100845
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/OMAE/proceedings-pdf/OMAE2023/86908/V008T09A023/7041655/v008t09a023-omae2023-100845.pdf by Shandong JianZhu Univ Library user on 02 May 2024
ANALYTICAL MODEL OF NON-LINEAR LOAD REDUCTION DEVICES FOR CATENARY MOORINGS
Oscar Festa1 , Susan Gourvenec1 , Adam Sobey1,2
1
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, UK
2
Data-Centric Engineering, The Alan Turing Institute, UK
ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation for compliant FOWT mooring design
Up to 80% of worldwide offshore wind resources are in wa-
Load reduction devices are extensible components installed ter depths greater than 60 m [1], where traditional fixed-bottom
along mooring lines to provide peak and mean mooring load re- wind farms are not economically viable. In these deeper waters,
duction, and are of articular interest for floating offshore wind offshore wind turbines must be deployed on floating structures,
. Various concepts exist, including ballasted pendulums, ther- connected to the seabed via mooring lines and anchors. Mooring
moplastic springs and hydraulic dampers, all of which provide systems are designed to ensure station-keeping of the floating
compliance to environmental loads. This enables lighter mooring structure: they maintain the structure within an acceptable dis-
lines, smaller anchors and increased fatigue life of mooring lines tance from its reference position. Station-keeping requirements
– contributing to higher reliability and lower cost. Load reduc- for floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs) are often more le-
tion devices are designed to exhibit a non-linear load-extension nient than for oil & gas installations [2] and are primarily con-
behaviour: lower stiffness in the operational strain range to re- strained by the motion of the electrical power cable [3].
duce loads, and higher stiffness at high strain. These devices Designing a mooring system involves finding a balance be-
are becoming an increasingly common consideration for FOWTs, tween stiffness and compliance to fit the station-keeping require-
and are pushing traditional analysis/design to readily incorpo- ments [4]. A stiffer mooring system will maintain the floating
rate nonlinearity. Well-established static catenary equations, structure closer to its reference position, at the expense of high
used to define mooring tension-offset profiles, only account for loads on the mooring lines and anchors. A compliant mooring
linear elasticity such that capturing non-linear response typi- system will allow more motion of the floating structure in re-
cally requires finite element modelling. This paper presents an sponse to environmental loads, reducing forces in the mooring
alternative through parameterising equations for three different line and anchor, in turn allowing for smaller, cheaper anchors and
non-linear load-extension curves and incorporating them into a reduced chance of mooring line failure (Table 1). As FOW
the existing catenary equations. For a given non-linear load- farms require large amounts of structures to be moored to the
extension curve and length of load reduction device, the result- seabed, reducing mooring and anchoring costs per unit through
ing analytical model can be solved quasi-instantaneously using compliant moorings can lead to significant overall savings.
Newton-Raphson or Newton-Krylov iterations to give vertical
and horizontal mooring line tensions and thus strain of the de- TABLE 1: EFFECT OF COMPLIANCE ON FOWT SYSTEM
vice. Results from the new analytical model are compared with
finite element predictions showing agreement to within 1%. The Mooring design: stiff compliant
analytical model can be solved for any two unknowns, such that Platform displacements − +
optimal load reduction device length and stiffness can be deter- Mooring and anchor loads + −
mined instantaneously given maximum environmental load and Mooring and anchor cost + −
allowable surge. The new analytical equations are implemented
into a graphical app, which allows the user to input any load
reduction device parameters and visualise the resulting mooring In response to the incentive to reduce cost of FOW, various
system’s geometry and tension-offset profile. means of adding compliance to mooring systems have been devel-
oped, in particular in the form of load reduction devices (LRDs).
Documentation for asmeconf.cls: Version 1.31, April 3, 2023. Current concepts include the Exeter Intelligent Mooring System
1 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

(IMS), (Fig.1a) [5], the Dublin Offshore LRD (Fig.1b) [6], and aim of this paper is to propose an analytical model of catenary
the TFI Seaspring (Fig.1c) [7]. These devices are incorporated moorings with LRDs, which can then be used for efficient quasi-
into a mooring line, typically close to the fairlead, and can provide static design of an LRD mooring system.
high levels of compliance (extensibility) without compromising
breaking strength [8]. For the same breaking strength, typical 1.2 Quasi-static mooring system design
synthetic ropes cannot achieve such low elastic stiffness. The If all dynamic mooring effects (damping, inertia) are ig-
Dublin Offshore and TFI devices are passive, whereas the IMS is nored, and the system is assumed to be static at a given instant 𝑡,
‘active’ in as it can change stiffness curve in operation. Thus, two the geometry of the mooring line can be solved analytically as a
curves are considered for the IMS device, which correspond to function of the fairlead coordinates and the physical parameters
the upper and lower bound stiffness for the given configuration. of the mooring line. This constitutes the quasi-static mooring
analysis, which is typically the first step in mooring system de-
sign [9]. The quasi-static analysis is useful for determining the
tension-offset response of a mooring system, which can inform
designers of the maximum offset the system will allow.
For neutrally buoyant taut moorings, the relationship between
fairlead coordinates and restoring forces is trivial: the mooring
line adopts a straight line between the fairlead and anchor, and the
tension-offset of the system corresponds directly to the material
stiffness of the mooring line [10]. This relationship is more
complex for catenary moorings, as the catenary configuration
(i.e., weight of suspended line) is controlled by tension, leading
to a non-linear tension-offset profile. This is captured by the
catenary mooring equations, which typically define the fairlead
coordinates 𝑥 𝑓 and 𝑧 𝑓 as a function of the fairlead restoring forces
𝐻𝑓 and 𝑉𝑓 [11] and the mooring line length 𝐿, stiffness 𝐸 𝐴 and
unit weight 𝑤 (Fig. 4):
[︃ (︃ )︃ (︃ )︃]︃
𝐻𝑓 𝑉𝑓 𝑉𝑓 − 𝑤𝐿 𝐻𝑓 𝐿
𝑥 𝑓 (𝐻𝑓 , 𝑉𝑓 ) = sinh−1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ −1 +
𝑤 𝐻𝑓 𝐻𝑓 𝐸𝐴
(1a)
⎡√︄ (︃ )︃ 2 √︄ (︃ )︃ 2 ⎤
𝐻𝑓 ⎢ ⎢ 𝑉𝑓 𝑉𝑓 − 𝑤𝐿 ⎥ ⎥
𝑧 𝑓 (𝐻𝑓 , 𝑉𝑓 ) = 1+ − 1+
𝑤 ⎢⎢ 𝐻𝑓 𝐻𝑓 ⎥
⎥ (1b)
⎣ ⎦
𝑤𝐿 2
(︃ )︃
1
+ 𝑉𝑓 𝐿 −
FIGURE 1: LRD TECHNOLOGIES AND ASSOCIATED STIFFNESS
𝐸𝐴 2
CURVES: (A) EXETER IMS [5], (B) DUBLIN OFFSHORE [6], (C) TFI
SEASPRING [7] . POLYESTER ROPE STIFFNESS SHOWN WITH
GRAY DOTTED LINE FOR COMPARISON [BRYDON REF]
These devices have highly non-linear stiffness curves, which

can be tailored to fit the specific loading conditions, mooring
arrangement and water depth (Fig. 1). These non-linear stiffness
curves have a compliant range over which the LRD is intended
to operate to effectively reducing mooring line tension. The
curves then exhibit higher stiffness at high strain when they reach
their rated tension 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 , i.e., once all the compliance has been FIGURE 2: PROFILE VIEW OF SIMPLE CATENARY MOORING LINE
exhausted. Graphical representation of the rated tension is shown
for Dublin Offshore and TFI in Figure 1. The key to designing
a mooring system with a LRD is to ensure the device operates The system of equations 1a & 1b can then be solved for any
in its compliant range as much as possible, meaning the LRD two unknowns. However, this is only valid for a homogeneous
has to be stiff enough to ensure the maximum tension at the mooring line (i.e. full chain), and the stiffness term 𝐸 𝐴 must be
device stays below 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 . The optimal length of the LRD should linear. As such, these equations cannot be used for analysis of a
then be determined to ensure the extension provided keeps the mooring system with a non-linear LRD. Other publications have
floating structure within its station-keeping constraints. Current presented equations for multi-segmented catenary mooring lines
approaches to finding this optimal length and rated tension involve with a non-linear stiffness segment, in particular for polymer rope
time-consuming iterations of Finite Element (FE) analyses. The applications [10]. The non-linear stiffness is expressed in simple

power law form, where the strain 𝜀 is given as a function of axial 3. DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODEL
load 𝑇 and constants 𝑝 and 𝑞 : 3.1 Static catenary equations with a linear stiffness LRD
The static catenary equations 1a & 1b apply to a catenary
𝜀 = 𝑝𝑇 𝑞 (2) line formed of a unique, homogeneous segment, with material
The power law form offers a good fit for material stiffness of properties defined by a single value of stiffness 𝐸 𝐴 and appar-
typical synthetic polymer ropes, but this does not match the LRD ent weight in water per unit length 𝑤. This section presents an
stiffness curves as shown in Figure 1. adapted formulation for a mooring line with two distinct seg-
Since no analytical solution is available, current approaches ments: one segment for the chain catenary line and one segment
to modelling moorings with LRDs include discretisation of the for a linear stiffness LRD at the fairlead (Fig. 4). This linear LRD
mooring lines and/or piece-wise linear interpolation of the non- formulation is then used as the starting point for the next section,
linear stiffness curves. Commercial software such as Orcaflex which presents the equation for non-linear stiffness LRDs.
is typically used for dynamic modelling of LRDs [12], which
uses linear interpolation between consecutive points of the user-
defined non-linear stiffness curve. LRDs have also been modelled
with the open-source lumped-mass modelling software Moordyn,
which also uses linear interpolation of the stiffness curve [7].
This paper presents continuous functions which model the
non-linear stiffness curves of the LRD devices shown in Fig. 1.
These functions are then combined with the existing equations for
catenary moorings, to create a static analytical model of catenary
moorings with LRDs. This requires no discretisation or stiffness
interpolation, and as such provides a quicker approach to obtain
the mooring geometry and restoring forces based on any input
mooring properties and LRD parameters (rated tension, curve
shape, LRD length). The analytical model can then be used
to find optimal LRD parameters for a given water-depth, mean
FIGURE 4: PROFILE VIEW OF THE MULTISEGMENT LINE CONSID-
environmental load, and offset constraint. ERED IN THIS ANALYSIS, COMPOSED OF AN LRD CONNECTED
TO A CHAIN CATENARY LINE.
2. METHOD
This paper employs an analytical approach to mooring sys- The static multi-segment mooring analysis approach is well-
tems modelling. Firstly, a 2-segment formulation for a catenary documented in literature [10]. For a catenary line composed of
mooring line with a linear-stiffness LRD at the fairlead is pre- 𝑛 segments of line, the fairlead coordinates (𝑥 𝑓 , 𝑧 𝑓 ) are simply
sented based on established equations. This formulation is then given as a sum of the horizontal and vertical components of each
adapted with various non-linear stiffness functions, to form a segment:
set of equations for a chain catenary line with non-linear LRDs.
These are solved using numerical root-finding methods, in partic- 𝑛
∑︂
ular the Newton-Kylov method [13], implemented using Python 𝑥𝑓 = 𝑥𝑖 (3a)
toolbox SymPy. Commercial FE software Flexcom is used to 𝑖=1
validate the results obtained from the analytical equations. The 𝑛
∑︂
validated analytical model is then applied to initial quasi-static 𝑧𝑓 = 𝑧𝑖 (3b)
design of an LRD. A structural overview of the methodology of 𝑖=1
the paper is shown in Fig 3.
Where the coordinates of the extremities of the 𝑖 𝑡 ℎ segment
𝑥𝑖 and 𝑧 𝑖 are each defined by the catenary equations in their own
coordinate system, with the origin at the start of the segment
(starting from the anchor).
Assuming the LRD is neutrally buoyant in water, which is
typically the case of current technologies [7][6], it is subjected
to constant tension throughout its length, thus adopting a straight
line rather than a catenary shape. For a linear stiffness LRD,
its extension Δ𝐿 𝑒 is based on Hooke’s law, where the tension-
strain profile is a straight line passing through the origin and a
single point 𝐸 𝐴. The coordinates of the horizontal and vertical
extremities of the LRD section (𝑥 𝑒 , 𝑧 𝑒 ) are then given by:
𝐻𝑓 𝑙 𝑒 𝐻𝑓 𝐿 𝑒
FIGURE 3: METHODOLOGY FOR THE ANALYTICAL SOLUTION 𝑥 𝑒 = √︂ + (4a)
2 𝐸 𝐴𝑒
𝐻𝑓 + 𝑉𝑓2

𝑉𝑓 𝑙 𝑒 𝑉𝑓 𝐿 𝑒 3.3 Continuous functions for LRD stiffness curves
𝑧 𝑒 = √︂ + (4b)
2
𝐻𝑓 + 𝑉𝑓2 𝐸 𝐴𝑒 The system of equations 7a & 7b constitutes the general-
form multi-segment model of catenary moorings with a non-
Where the left-hand terms represent the horizontal (4a) or linear segment. To adapt this form to a specific LRD technology,
vertical (4b) projections of the unstretched length 𝐿 𝑒 of the LRD, requires determining the function 𝜀(𝑇)which gives LRD strain
and the right-hand term represents the elongation of the LRD, as a function of axial tension 𝑇. In this section, functions have
obeying Hooke’s law. been derived for the three curve types shown in figure 1. These
According to the multisegment theory from equations 3a & functions are mostly based on the Ramberg-Osgood model, which
3b, equations 4a & 4b can be added to the chain catenary equations is typically used to define non-linear stress-strain relationships.
to give the coordinates of the fairlead (𝑥 𝑓 , 𝑧 𝑓 ) as a function of the The original model defines stress as a function of strain and
restoring forces (𝐻𝑓 , 𝑉𝑓 ): 3 parameters [14]. In this case, the model is used only in its
[︃ (︃ )︃ (︃ )︃ ]︃ mathematical sense, and the form is reversed to define strain 𝜀
𝐻𝑓 −1 𝑉𝑓 −1 𝑉𝑓 − 𝑤𝐿
𝑥 𝑓 (𝐻𝑓 , 𝑉𝑓 ) = sinh − 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ as a function of axial tension 𝑇 such that it can be incorporated
𝑤 𝐻𝑓 𝐻𝑓
into the catenary equations. This adaptation of the basic-form
𝐻𝑓 𝐿 𝐻𝑓 𝐿 𝑒 𝐻𝑓 𝐿 𝑒 (5a) Ramberg-Osgood model can be given as:
+ + √︂ +
𝐸𝐴 2 𝐸 𝐴𝑒
𝐻 + 𝑉2 𝑓 𝑓 𝑎𝑇
𝜀(𝑇) = 1
(8)
⎡√︄ (︃ )︃ 2 √︄ (1 + ( 𝑎𝑇
𝑐 ) )
𝑛 𝑛
𝑉𝑓 − 𝑤𝐿 2 ⎥⎥
(︃ )︃ ⎤
𝐻𝑓 ⎢⎢ 𝑉𝑓
𝑧 𝑓 (𝐻𝑓 , 𝑉𝑓 ) = 1+ − 1+ where a, c and define the shape of the curve (Figure 5).
⎥
⎣ ⎦ (5b)
𝑤𝐿 2
(︃ )︃
1 𝑉𝑓 𝐿 𝑒 𝑉𝑓 𝐿 𝑒
+ 𝑉𝑓 𝐿 − + √︂ +
𝐸𝐴 2 2
𝐻 + 𝑉 2 𝐸 𝐴𝑒
𝑓 𝑓
3.2 Static catenary equations with non-linear stiffness LRD

To replace the Hookean extension term in equations 4a & 4b,
the non-linear extension of the LRD must be defined as a function
of the force applied at its extremities. This means determining
the function 𝜀 which gives the LRD strain for any value of axial
mooring line tension 𝑇, where 𝑇 is the resultant of the horizontal
and vertical mooring line forces 𝐻𝑓 and 𝑉𝑓 :
√︂ Δ𝐿 𝑒
𝜀(𝑇) = 𝜀( 𝐻𝑓2 + 𝑉𝑓2 ) = (6)
𝐿𝑒
Equations analogous to 5a and 5b can be obtained by substituting FIGURE 5: BASIC-FORM RAMBERG-OSGOOD CURVE
the Hookean extension term (the final term in equations 5a & 5b)
with the non-linear strain function 𝜀, giving: The basic form equation of the Ramberg-Osgood model,
given in Equation 8, does not directly fit all of the LRD
𝐻𝑓
[︃ (︃ )︃
𝑉𝑓
(︃
𝑉𝑓 − 𝑤𝐿
)︃ ]︃ devices identified in Figure 1, in particular the TFI and Dublin
𝑥 𝑓 (𝐻𝑓 , 𝑉𝑓 ) = sinh−1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ −1 Offshore LRDs which are slightly more complex. Variations
𝑤 𝐻𝑓 𝐻𝑓
of the equation fitted to each different LRD stiffness curve are
𝐻𝑓 𝐿 𝐻𝑓 𝐿 𝑒 (7a)
+ + √︂ (1 + 𝜀(𝑇)) described in the following subsections.
𝐸𝐴 2
𝐻𝑓 + 𝑉𝑓2
Exeter IMS
⎡√︄ (︃ )︃ 2 √︄
𝑉𝑓 − 𝑤𝐿 2 ⎥⎥
(︃ )︃ ⎤
𝐻𝑓 ⎢⎢ 𝑉𝑓
𝑧 𝑓 (𝐻𝑓 , 𝑉𝑓 ) = 1+ − 1+ The curve of the IMS is the closest fit to the Ramberg-Osgood
⎥ model, with the exception of the curve not passing through the
⎣ ⎦ (7b) origin due to variable pre-load in the device [5]. An additional
𝑤𝐿 2
(︃ )︃
1 𝑉𝑓 𝐿 𝑒
+ 𝑉𝑓 𝐿 − + √︂ (1 + 𝜀(𝑇)) parameter 𝑏 is introduced, which shifts the curve along the x-axis
𝐸𝐴 2 2
𝐻 + 𝑉2 from the origin, such that the overall equation is given by:
𝑓 𝑓
These equations are valid for a neutrally buoyant extensible tether 𝑎𝑇 − 𝑏
located at the fairlead, attached to a homogeneous catenary moor- 𝜀𝐼 𝑀𝑆 (𝑇) = 1
(9)
(1 + ( 𝑎𝑇𝑐−𝑏 ) 𝑛 ) 𝑛
ing line with a portion resting on the seabed (i.e. no vertical
loading on the anchor). An analogous expression can also be de- Where 𝑏/𝑎 is the pre-tension, 𝑐 is the asymptotic strain, and 𝑛
rived for non-buoyant taut and semi-taut moorings where vertical is a parameter defining the rate at which the curve reaches its
anchor loading is non-zero, based on the catenary equations for asymptotic strain, as shown in Figure 5. The value of 𝑛 can be
a fully-suspended line [11]. found if the rated tension required at a specific value of strain is

known. The parameters of Equation 9 are fitted to two example Where parameter 𝑎 is related to the rated tension of the
supplier curves [5], using a simple linear regression algorithm, device and 𝑐 is related to the asymptotic extension of the device.
and the resulting curve fits are plotted in Figure 6. The values of These parameters can also be linked to physical dimensions of
each fitted parameter are given in Table 2, for curves A and B. the hinge device [6]. Note that the shape factor 𝑛 is not required
to be parameterised for this curve, and is fixed as 𝑛 = 2 . The
parameters 𝑎, 𝑏 and 𝑐 of Equation 11 are fitted to an example
curve from supplier documentation [6] using linear regression,
resulting in the curve fit shown in Figure 7. The values of each
fitted parameter for this specific curve are given in Table 3.
FIGURE 6: IMS STIFFNESS CURVES FROM SUPPLIER PUBLICA-

TION [5], AGAINST FITTED CURVE FROM EQ. 9
TABLE 2: IMS FITTED PARAMETERS FOR EQ. 9
Parameter fitted value (A) fitted value (B) FIGURE 7: DUBLIN OFFSHORE STIFFNESS CURVE FROM SUP-
PLIER PUBLICATION [6], AGAINST FITTED CURVE FROM EQ. 11
a 0.958 0.837
b 0.113 0.183
c 0.426 0.396
TABLE 3: DUBLIN OFFSHORE FITTED PARAMETERS FOR EQ. 11
n 0.834 0.728
Parameter fitted value
Dublin Offshore LRD a 7.500
b 7.432
To obtain an expression of the Dublin Offshore curve, the c 2.568
base Ramberg-Osgood curve from Figure 5 must be translated
with an additional parameter 𝑏, similarly to the IMS fit. However,
the curve must pass through the origin, which is not the case of TFI Seaspring
the IMS curve given by Eq. 9, which passes through the point
[0, 𝜀(0)], where 𝜀(0) given by: The TFI stiffness curve (Figure 1b) is complex to model
with a continuous function due to the sudden stiffness increase
−𝑏 at 𝑇 = 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 . The required function deviates more significantly
𝜀𝐼 𝑀𝑆 (0) = 1
(10)
(1 + ( 𝑏𝑐 ) 𝑛 ) 𝑛 from the base Ramberg-Osgood model, in three ways: 1. Param-
eter 𝑐 is subtracted to the tension term, and the absolute value
To obtain an expression of the Dublin Offshore stiffness, the term is taken, creating the sudden gradient change; 2. An additional
on the right-hand side of Eq. 10 is subtracted from Eq. 9, thus parameter 𝑘 is introduced to factorise the whole expression, such
ensuring Δ𝐿 = 0 for 𝑇 = 0. As opposed to the IMS and TFI that the rated strain of the curve can be directly adjusted without
devices which are spring-like, the Dublin Offshore LRD behaves changing the other parameters; 3. An additional term is intro-
as a mechanical hinge, thus extension Δ𝐿 (𝑇) is used rather than duced, function of a new parameter 𝑑, to match the final phase
the strain term 𝜀(𝑇). The length of device 𝐿𝑒 can be omitted stiffness (no horizontal asymptote). The 𝑛 shape parameter is
when incorporated into the final form system of static equations fixed to 𝑛 = 1.2 such that the curve is fully continuous. The
7a & 7b. The expression Δ𝐿𝐷𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛 (𝑇) is given in Eq. 11. For resulting expression is given by:
this particular device, the expression is only valid if the mooring
line angle does not change significantly. An expression which (︄ )︄
includes the mooring line angle is given in the published code 𝑎𝑇 − 𝑏 𝑏 √
[15]. 𝜀(𝑇) = 𝑘 1
+ 1
+ 𝑑 𝑎𝑇
(1 + (|𝑎𝑇 − 𝑏 − 𝑐|) 𝑛 ) 𝑛 (1 + (𝑏 + 𝑐) 𝑛 ) 𝑛
(12)
𝑎𝑇 − 𝑏 𝑏 The associated curve fit is shown in Figure 8, with the fitted
Δ𝐿𝐷𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛 (𝑇) = 1
+ 1
(11)
(1 + ( 𝑎𝑇𝑐−𝑏 ) 2 ) 2 (1 + ( 𝑏𝑐 ) 2 ) 2 parameter values given in Table 4. Although the expression is

complex, only parameters 𝑘 and 𝑎 are required to parameterise the 4. VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL
tension and strain at the point of change in gradient. Any value of The analytical model has been validated against results ob-
rated tension 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 can be obtained by varying parameter 𝑎, and tained from the commercial FE software Flexcom, which discre-
any value of rated strain 𝜀(𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ) can be obtained by varying tises the mooring line and interpolates the stiffness from a set of
parameter 𝑘. force-strain points. The validation was performed by comparing
quasi-static tension-offset profiles for each of the LRD concepts.
To obtain the quasi-static tension-offset profile, the horizontal
fairlead coordinate 𝑥 𝑡 is gradually displaced along the horizontal
axis parallel to the mooring line, and the analytical model is used
to calculate the resultant fairlead tension 𝑇 from the fairlead forces
𝐻𝑓 and 𝑉𝑓 at every step. This is depicted graphically in Figure 9.
This figure was obtained using a graphical app built on Python,
based on the analytical model, which enables visualisation of the
geometry of a mooring system with any LRD parameters [15].
FIGURE 8: TFI STIFFNESS CURVE FROM SUPPLIER PUBLICATION

[7], AGAINST FITTED CURVE FROM EQ. 12
TABLE 4: TFI FITTED PARAMETERS FOR EQ. 12
Parameter fitted value

a 2.200
b 3.480
c 0.961 FIGURE 9: 2D PLOT OF MOORING LINE, WITH FAIRLEAD DIS-
PLACED ALONG HORIZONTAL AXIS UP TO AN OFFSET OF 20M
d 0.268
k 0.218
The properties of the mooring system used are identical to
those of the OC4 Phase II mooring system [16], with the exception
The TFI Seaspring should be designed such that the maxi- of the water depth which is set to 150m rather than 200m, to make
mum tension never exceeds the rated tension, i.e. the point of the mooring system more sensitive to the LRD. These properties
sudden gradient change is never reached. If the stiffness is con- are summarised in Table 5. For each LRD concept, the stiffness
sidered to be defined only over the first interval, 0 < 𝑇 < 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 , a curve parameters are taken from the curve fits shown in section
much simpler relation can be used, based on the tangent function, 3.3 and the LRD lengths are set such that they all exhibit 5 m
where: of extension at 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 2𝑀 𝑁. This rated tension was chosen
(︂ (︂ 𝑥 )︂ )︂ arbitrarily for this illustration, but the LRDs can be designed for
𝜀(𝑇) = 𝑎 𝑡𝑎𝑛 + 𝑏 − 𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝑏) (13) any value of 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 .
𝑐
TABLE 5: MOORING SYSTEM PARAMETERS, BASED ON OC4 [16]
Final model
Mooring system parameter Value
For each LRD, the derived non-linear stiffness function is
substituted for the 𝜀(𝑇) term in the general form equations Fairlead-seabed vertical dist. 136 m
(7a&7b), with the resulting systems of equations forming the Unstretched mooring line length inc. LRD 825.35 m
analytical model. This model can be solved for the vertical and Initial anchor-fairlead distance 796.7 m
horizontal restoring forces 𝐻𝑓 and 𝑉𝑓 at the fairlead, for any fair- Chain mass per unit length 145 kg/m
lead coordinates 𝑥 𝑓 and 𝑧 𝑓 , by employing numerical root-finding Chain 𝐸 𝐴 750 MN
methods. In this case the Newton-Krylov method is used, which
is similar to the Newton-Rhapson with the exception that it ap- The resulting tension-offset plots are displayed in Figures 10,
proximates the Jacobian terms, meaning the partial derivatives of 11 and 12. These show close alignment between the analytical
the system of equations do not have to be calculated. With the and FE results, with a mean error < 0.1% and a maximum error
simple form of Equation 13, all LRD stiffness functions are differ- across all curves of 0.4%. The maximum error occurs at the
entiable over their domain, meaning a Newton-Rhapson scheme gradient change point of the TFI curve, where the fitted stiffness
could be used. curve does not perfectly match the interpolated curve (Figure 8).

Other general take-away points from the tension-offset profiles
are listed below:
• All three LRD moorings show significantly more compli-

ance than the full-chain catenary (i.e. lower gradient of
tension-offset), especially at lower offsets where the LRDs
operate in their low-stiffness regions.
• All three LRDs have exhauted all their extensibility once
the fairlead tension is above the rated tension of the device.
In practice, this would mean no extension is left to reduce
dynamic loads. If these high loads/offsets are expected, an
LRD with higher rated tension should be used.
• The extension of the LRDs under the weight of the chain

at zero-offset leads to reduced pre-tension of the mooring
FIGURE 12: TENSION-OFFSET PROFILE FROM ANALYTICAL SO-
system. In practice, this should be compensated for by LUTION AND FE SOFTWARE FOR TFI LRD
reducing the overall length of line.
5. APPLICATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL TO LRD DESIGN

5.1 Quasi-static design scenario
Quasi-static design typically involves approximating a mean
horizontal environmental force from met-ocean data [9]. This
force is applied at the fairlead, and the analytical model can be
used to find the fairlead tension and platform offset such that the
system is in static equilibrium. For this example, the 50-year
horizontal force is set as 𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑣 = 2𝑀 𝑁. Knowing the horizontal
fairlead force 𝐻𝑓 = 𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑣 , the vertical force 𝑉𝑓 and resulting offset
𝑥 𝑓 are obtained from eq. 7a & 7b. The 50-year quasi-static
fairlead tension 𝑇50𝑦𝑟 ,𝑄𝑆 is then calculated from the horizontal
and vertical components. The LRD design parameters can then
be adjusted based on the quasi-static offset and fairlead tension.
In particular, two key LRD parameters should be determined
at the initial design stage: 1. The rated tension of the device,
determined based on the maximum expected load; 2. The maxi-
FIGURE 10: TENSION-OFFSET PROFILE FROM ANALYTICAL SO- mum extension of the device (i.e., length of the device for spring-
LUTION AND FE SOFTWARE FOR EXETER IMS (CONFIGURATIONS like LRDs), determined based on the maximum allowable offset.
A & B) These parameters are typically found based on iterative dynamic
analyses [7], which can be computationally-intensive. This sec-
tion demonstrates how the analytical model can be used to find a
fast initial approximation of the optimal LRD parameters at the
quasi-static design stage. This example design scenario is applied
to the TFI Seaspring LRD in a catenary mooring system with the
physical properties listed in table 5.
5.2 Determining the LRD rated tension

The aim is to determine the suitable 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 for the LRD
such that it is not only above the 50-year quasi-static fairlead
tension, but also above the 50-year dynamic tensions, to ensure
the device can safely operate in the compliant range throughout
its design life. Typical quasi-static design approaches require
application of a safety factor to the 50-year quasi-static tension
to obtain the design tension, with values typically ranging from
1.5 to 2 in relevant design codes [17]. As the LRD is expected to
significantly reduce dynamic loads, a low safety factor of 1.5 is
FIGURE 11: TENSION-OFFSET PROFILE FROM ANALYTICAL SO- used, which means the rated tension of the LRD should satisfy:
LUTION AND FE SOFTWARE FOR DUBLIN OFFSHORE LRD
𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 1.5 ∗ 𝑇50𝑦𝑟 ,𝑄𝑆 (14)

To solve this, the analytical model was used to iterate through operating in its compliant range as intended. While an even
values of the TFI curve parameter 𝑎 which is inversely related higher rated tension would also be suitable in theory (e.g. 3.5
to 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 (see Eq. 12), starting from a high value of 𝑎 such that MN), the resulting tension-offset of the mooring system is stiffer
the starting rated tension 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 is equal to the horizontal force overall, and less effective at reducing loads.
𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑣 . All the other curve parameters were fixed to the values
shown in Table 4. The fairlead tension, mooring configuration 5.3 Determining the LRD length
and resulting tension-offset profiles were then computed for each In the case of a spring-like LRD (e.g. TFI), the length of the
value of 𝑎, for the given environmental load until the value of device determines its maximum extension, which in turn affects
𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 that fits the criterion (Eq. 14) was reached. In this case, the the load reduction potential [18] as well as the resulting platform
50-year quasi-static tension was found to be 𝑇50𝑦𝑟 ,𝑄𝑆 = 2.17𝑀 𝑁, offset. In the study thus far, all LRDs lengths have been set such
which gives 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 3.25𝑀 𝑁 when including the safety factor that they exhibit 5 m of extension at the rated strain, which gives
(Eq. 14). This is depicted graphically in Figure 13. In this 𝐿 𝑒 = 10𝑚 for the TFI device. For the curve with a rated tension
case, the value of 𝑇50𝑦𝑟 ,𝑄𝑆 is only slightly above the horizontal of 𝑇𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 3.25𝑀 𝑁, the resulting 50-year quasi-static offset was
environmental force 𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑣 . This is due to the chain being relatively of 𝑇50𝑦𝑟 ,𝑋 = 13.35𝑚 (visible graphically in Fig. 13). If this is
light, meaning the additional vertical restoring force component below the maximum quasi-static offset criterion, a longer LRD
at the fairlead is small. could be used, offering more compliance. As an example, the
maximum allowable quasi-static offset is set to 20m. The model
was then used to iterate values of 𝐿 𝑒 , and resulting tension-offset
plots were generated. The optimal length of the LRD is selected
by finding the tension-offset profile which is just below the max.
offset for the 50-year tension. This process is depicted in Figure
14, and yields 𝐿 𝑒 = 15𝑚.
FIGURE 13: TOP: LRD STIFFNESS CURVES FOR 7 DIFFERENT

VALUES OF Tr at ed ; BOTTOM: RESULTING MOORING SYSTEM
TENSION-OFFSET PROFILE FOR EACH CURVE. THE POINT IN THE
TENSION-OFFSET PROFILE WHICH IS REACHED BY THE 50-YEAR
HORIZONTAL LOAD IS MARKED IN RED. THE CURVE SATISFYING
THE DESIGN CRITERION IS SHOWN IN BOLD.
FIGURE 14: TOP: LRD TENSION-EXTENSION CURVES FOR 7 DIF-

The first curve, with the lowest rated tension, is operating FERENT VALUES OF L e ; BOTTOM: RESULTING MOORING SYS-
above its rated tension when subjected to the 50-year horizontal TEM TENSION-OFFSET PROFILE FOR EACH CURVE. THE POINT IN
load. This is visible on the tension-offset profile, with the red THE TENSION-OFFSET PROFILE WHICH IS REACHED BY THE 50-
point located above the ‘kink’ in the curve. The curve which YEAR HORIZONTAL LOAD IS MARKED IN RED. THE CURVE SAT-
satisfies the criterion is operating safely below its rated tension ISFYING THE MAXIMUM OFFSET CRITERION IS SHOWN IN BOLD.
when subjected to the same load, meaning the LRD would be

6. CONCLUSION Technical Conference. 2018. American Society of Mechan-
This paper presents an analytical quasi-static tension-offset ical Engineers Digital Collection.
model of catenary moorings with LRDs with three different non- [6] Dublin Offshore. “Load Reduction Device (LRD) – How it
linear stiffness curves. The model is applicable to any catenary works.” URL https://www.dublinoffshore.ie/media/pages/
mooring scenario, and is of particular interest for initial FOWT technology/6f4e7419f6-1635594571/how-it-works.pdf.
mooring design and analysis. Parameterised equations, defined [7] Lozon, E., Hall, M., McEvoy, P., Kim, S. and Ling, B.
for the stiffness curves of three different LRDs, were incorporated “Design and Analysis of a Floating-Wind Shallow-Water
into the static equations for a multi-segmented catenary mooring. Mooring System Featuring Polymer Springs.” International
Results from the analytical model proved to match closely with Offshore Wind Technical Conference (IOWTC2022). 2022.
results of a commercial FE model, with a mean error of less than [8] WFO. “Mooring Systems for Floating Offshore Wind:
0.2% and maximum error of less than 0.5 %. The model has been Integrity Management Concepts, Risks and Mitigation,.”
packaged into an executable code, which enables visualisation of World Forum Offshore Wind 2022 e.v. URL https://
the mooring geometry and tension-offset profiles for any input wfo-global.org/?jet_download=5751.
LRD and mooring design parameters [15]. [9] Ma, K., Luo, Y., Kwan, T. and Wu, Y. “Mooring Sys-
The model has also been demonstrated here through an ex- tem Engineering for Offshore Structures.” Ma, K., Luo,
ample quasi-static design scenario. For the given 50-year en- Y., Kwan, T. and Wu, Y. (eds.). Chapter 15 - Mooring
vironmental load , the optimal stiffness curve that ensures the for floating wind turbines. Gulf Professional Publishing
LRD operates below its rated tension was determined. Then, (2019): pp. 299–315. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
the optimal LRD length was found such that it satisfied the maxi- 0-12-818551-3.00015-6. URL https://www.sciencedirect.
mum offset criterion whilst offering as much compliance as possi- com/science/article/pii/B9780128185513000156.
ble. This design approach yields quasi-instantaneous results, and
[10] Oppenheim, B and Wilson, P. “Static 2-D Solution of a
could provide an efficient starting point for subsequent dynamic
Mooring Line of Arbitrary Composition in the Vertical and
analyses.
Horizontal Operating Modes.” International shipbuilding
progress Vol. 29 (1982): pp. 142–153.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS [11] Jonkman, J. “Dynamics modeling and loads analysis
This work forms part of the activities of the Royal of an offshore floating wind turbine.” Technical Report
Academy of Engineering Chair in Emerging Technologies Cen- No. NREL/TP-500-41958. National Renewable Energy
tre of Excellence for Intelligent & Resilient Ocean Engineer- Lab (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). 2007. URL
ing (www.southampton.ac.uk/iroe), based at the University of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41958.pdf.
Southampton. Susan Gourvenec is supported by the Royal [12] McEvoy, P. and Johnston, E. “Polymer Mooring
Academy of Engineering under the Chairs in Emerging Technolo- Component for Offshore Renewable Energy.” OTC
gies scheme. Adam Sobey is supported by the Lloyd’s Register Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. Day 3 Wed,
Foundation. May 08. 2019. DOI 10.4043/29587-MS. URL
https://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/19OTC/
REFERENCES 3-19OTC/D031S033R004/1986721/otc-29587-ms.pdf.
[1] Burges Salmon. “Floating Wind – Chal- [13] Kelley, C. T. “Solving Nonlinear Equations with
lenges and Opportunities for a Buoyant Technol- Newton’s Method.”: pp. 57–83. 2003. Society
ogy,.” Burges Salmon - News & Insight URL for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. DOI
https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight? 10.1137/1.9780898718898.ch3. URL https://epubs.siam.
Sector+expertise=Energy+Power+and+Utilities. org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9780898718898.ch3.
[2] COREWIND. “D1.2 Design basis.” URL [14] Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W. “Description of stress-strain
https://corewind.eu/wp-content/uploads/files/publications/ curves by three parameters.” Technical Report No. 902.
COREWIND-D1.2-03-Design-Basis.pdf. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. 1943.
[3] COREWIND. “D3.1 Review of the state of the art of [15] Festa, Oscar. “Quasi-static LRD mooring model.” (2023).
dynamic cable system design.” URL https://ec.europa. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7794703. URL https://doi.org/10.
eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic? 5281/zenodo.7794703.
documentIds=080166e5cca0f37e&appId=PPGMSl. [16] Robertson, A., Jonkman, J., Vorpahl, F., Popko, J.,
[4] Cruz, J. and Mairead, A. “Floating Offshore W.and Qvist, Frøyd, Lars, Chen, X., Azcona, J., Uzunoglu,
Wind Energy : The Next Generation of Wind En- Emre, Guedes Soares, Carlos, Luan, Chenyu, Yutong, H.,
ergy.” Green Energy and Technology. 2016. Springer. Pengcheng, Feng, Yde, Anders, Larsen, Torben, Nichols,
URL http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& James, Buils, R., Lei, L., Nygard, T. and Guerinel, Matthieu.
db=nlebk&AN=1282129&site=ehost-live. “Phase II Results Regarding a Floating Semisubmersible
[5] Harrold, M., Thies, P., Johanning, L., Newsam, D., Check- Wind System.” Offshore Code Comparison Collabora-
ley, M. and Bittencourt Ferreira, C. “Dynamic load reduction Continuation Within IEA Wind Task 30. 2014. DOI
tion and station keeping mooring system for floating off- 10.13140/2.1.2822.9121. URL https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
shore wind.” ASME 2018 1st International Offshore Wind fy14osti/61154.pdf.

[17] Brevik, S. and Kovesdi, B. “Modifications to DNV Mooring URL https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/5/666.
Code (POSMOOR) and Their Consequences.” Proceedings
[20] Festa, O., Gourvenec, S. and Sobey, A. “Comparative para-
of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechan-
metric analysis of extensible catenary moorings for floating
ics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 1: pp. 169–177. 1998.
offshore wind turbines.” 2021 CORE - Glasgow. 2021. URL
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/457472/.
[18] Festa, O., Gourvenec, S. and Sobey, A. “Proxy model for the
design of extensible floating offshore wind turbine mooring [21] Kwan, C.T. and Bruen, F.J. “Mooring Line Dynam-
systems.” In Proc. 32nd International Symposium on Ocean ics: Comparison of Time Domain, Frequency Domain,
and Polar Engineering (ISOPE), June 5 – 10 (virtual). 2022. and Quasi-Static Analyses.” OTC Offshore Technol-
URL https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/457473/. ogy Conference. 1991. DOI 10.4043/6657-MS. URL
[19] Davidson, J. and Ringwood, J. “Mathematical Modelling https://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/91OTC/
of Mooring Systems for Wave Energy Converters—A Re- All-91OTC/OTC-6657-MS/1997242/otc-6657-ms.pdf.
view.” Energies Vol. 10 No. 5. DOI 10.3390/en10050666. OTC-6657-MS.

Analytical Model of Non-Linear Load Reduction Devices For Catenary Moorings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical Model of Non-Linear Load Reduction Devices For Catenary Moorings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical Model of Non-Linear Load Reduction Devices For Catenary Moorings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of the ASME 2023 42nd International

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

Oscar Festa1 , Susan Gourvenec1 , Adam Sobey1,2

1 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

These devices have highly non-linear stiffness curves, which

2 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

3 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

3.2 Static catenary equations with non-linear stiffness LRD

4 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

FIGURE 6: IMS STIFFNESS CURVES FROM SUPPLIER PUBLICA-

TABLE 2: IMS FITTED PARAMETERS FOR EQ. 9

5 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

FIGURE 8: TFI STIFFNESS CURVE FROM SUPPLIER PUBLICATION

TABLE 4: TFI FITTED PARAMETERS FOR EQ. 12

Parameter fitted value

6 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

• All three LRD moorings show significantly more compli-

• The extension of the LRDs under the weight of the chain

5. APPLICATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL TO LRD DESIGN

5.2 Determining the LRD rated tension

7 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

FIGURE 13: TOP: LRD STIFFNESS CURVES FOR 7 DIFFERENT

FIGURE 14: TOP: LRD TENSION-EXTENSION CURVES FOR 7 DIF-

8 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

9 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

10 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

You might also like