Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 179 views

    OMAE2012 84121 Presentation

    Uploaded by

    sojanvasudevan
    This document presents the results of a mooring analysis performed using different approaches, including frequency domain, quasi-static, and time domain coupled and uncoupled analyses. Significant differences were found in the worst line tensions predicted by each method. A coupled time domain analysis that accounted for line slackening predicted the highest tensions. The inclusion of struts in the model also increased tensions. Recommendations are made to potentially use lower safety factors for coupled dynamic analyses compared to standards due to their increased accuracy.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    OMAE2012 84121 Presentation

    Uploaded by

    sojanvasudevan
    179 views16 pages
    This document presents the results of a mooring analysis performed using different approaches, including frequency domain, quasi-static, and time domain coupled and uncoupled analyses. Significant differences were found in the worst line tensions predicted by each method. A coupled time domain analysis that accounted for line slackening predicted the highest tensions. The inclusion of struts in the model also increased tensions. Recommendations are made to potentially use lower safety factors for coupled dynamic analyses compared to standards due to their increased accuracy.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document presents the results of a mooring analysis performed using different approaches, including frequency domain, quasi-static, and time domain coupled and uncoupled analyses. Significant differences were found in the worst line tensions predicted by each method. A coupled time domain analysis that accounted for line slackening predicted the highest tensions. The inclusion of struts in the model also increased tensions. Recommendations are made to potentially use lower safety factors for coupled dynamic analyses compared to standards due to their increased accuracy.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    179 views16 pages

    OMAE2012 84121 Presentation

    Uploaded by

    sojanvasudevan
    This document presents the results of a mooring analysis performed using different approaches, including frequency domain, quasi-static, and time domain coupled and uncoupled analyses. Significant differences were found in the worst line tensions predicted by each method. A coupled time domain analysis that accounted for line slackening predicted the highest tensions. The inclusion of struts in the model also increased tensions. Recommendations are made to potentially use lower safety factors for coupled dynamic analyses compared to standards due to their increased accuracy.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 16
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The presentation discusses different mooring analysis methods like frequency domain, quasi-static, coupled and uncoupled time domain analyses in Orcaflex and compares the results. It investigates reasons for differences in results and recommends considerations for design acceptance criteria.

    The different types of mooring analysis methods discussed are frequency domain analysis in ROMEO, quasi-static analysis, uncoupled and coupled time domain analyses in Orcaflex both with and without struts.

    The main differences observed between the results of the different analysis methods are huge differences in worst line tensions depending on the method used. The coupled analyses give significantly higher line tensions compared to the frequency domain analyses in ROMEO and the uncoupled analyses in Orcaflex.

    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?

    You might also like