Ocean EIIRIIR, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 497-517.

1996
Copyright Q 1996 Ei&ier Science Ltd
Printedin Great Britain.Allrightsnserwd
0029-8018/% $15.00 + 0.00

0029-8018(95)00057-7

EXTREME MOTION RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF MOORED

SEMI-SUBMERSIBLES

0. Yilmaz*$ and A. Incecikt

*Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey
tuniversity of Glasgow, Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering. Acre Road, Glasgow, UK
(Received 1 May 1995; Accepted 15 August 1995)

Abstract-The motion response prediction of offshore structures may be carried out using time
domain or frequency domain models or model tests. The frequency domain analysis uses the
simplified, linearised form of the motion equations and it is very economical. The time domain
analysis, unlike frequency domain models, is adequate to deal with non-linearities such as viscous
damping and mooring forces, but it requires sophisticated solution techniques and it is expensive
to employ. For moored semisubmersibles time domain technique8 must be employed since there
are strong nonlinearities in the system due to mooring line stiffness and damping and viscous drag
forces. In the first part of this paper a time domain model to predict the dynamic response of a
semi-submersibles are developed and the effect of thrusters and mooring line damping are
incorporated into the time domain model. In the second part time domain simulations are carried
out to find the total extreme motions and mooring forces.

1. INTRODUCTION
In December 1990 a severe storm in the North Sea caused some mooring line failures of
semi-submersibles. It is felt that in extreme weather conditions it is important to know
the effect of thrusters and mooring line damping on the motions and mooring forces.
Two different time domain models are developed, first one is for simulation of wave
frequency motions in which the first-order wave forces are the only excitation forces,
second one is to simulate the slowly varying and steady motions under the excitation of
slowly varying wave, current and dynamic wind forces. Predicted results of first-order
motions were validated by the published data [Yilmaz and Incecik (19931 At the last
stage motion responses and mooring forces obtained from the two time domain simulations
are combined to find the total extremes. First-order wave forces acting on semi-submers-
ibles are evaluated according Morison equation, current effect is taken into account by
altering the drag term in Morison equation. Details of this together with wind forces calcu-
lations in which gusting wind is modelled by Ochi-Shin spectrum and mooring force
calculations are given in Yilmaz and Incecik, 1995. Slowly varying wave forces are calcu-
lated using the mean drift forces in regular waves and applying an exponential distribution
of the wave force record in irregular waves [Nienhuis ( 1986)]. Details of this could be
found in Yilmaz (1990).

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

$Presently at the Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Department of University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK, where this work was performed.

497
498 0. Yllmaz and A. Incecik

2. PREDICTION OF MOORING LINE DAMPING AND EFFECT OF THRUSTERS

Mooring line predictions reported here are based on the results of investigations carried
out by Huse (1986, Huse, 1988, Huse, 1989). Theoretical and experimental studies by
Huse showed that the drag forces on mooring lines represent an important part of the total
surge and sway damping of semi-submersibles and that surge amplitude reductions of 20
to 25 percent have been measured.
It is assumed that drag forces normal to the line is the major contributor to.the mooring
line damping. Motions in the vertical plane of the line are considered and it is assumed
that motions are slow and that the line keeps its catenary shape at all times. Co-ordinate
systems and definition of parameters are given in Fig. 1. Energy dissipated by a line
element during one period T of the motion is,
‘10
AE=2 AFdq (1)
-rl,,
where AF is drag force and dq is the line element
Motion is sinusoidal and given by q = q, sin ot.

AF = ; pDC, +llAs (2)

where p is density of water, CD is drag coefficient and D is the diameter of the cable.
Substitution of (2) into (1) gives,

Fig. 1. Change of line geometry due to horizontal motion motion at top end (Hue, 1986).
 Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles 499

(3)

Total energy can be found using following equations

qo = ;Az cos C$I (4)

where AZ is the difference between the highest and the lowest z values during the surge
period, $ is the tangent angle of the line

where T, is the horizontal, T, is the vertical component of the cable tension, o is the
cable weight in water per unit length
AX
Using (3), (4), (5) and As = - we arrive at the following formula
co+

(6)

This is the energy dissipated by one mooring line during one surge cycle. For a mooring
system all mooring lines and the angle between them should be taken into account to
calculate the total energy loss. Mooring line damping coefficient for a moored structure
can be written as follows,

b, =
E
total (7)
f-LJ
where &, is the surge amplitude.
During the simulations thrusters were modelled as restoring and damping forces
(Faltinsen, 1990). Coefficients of damping and restoring forces are given by Faltinsen
as follows,

Restoring Coefficient = c, F 2 (M+A), (8)

( n1
Damping Coefficient = b, = 1.2[(M + A)C]“2
where M is ship mass, A is added mass in surge or sway direction T, is natural period in
surge or sway direction.

3. TIME DOMAIN MODELS FOR A CATENARY MOORED SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE

EXCITED BY WAVE, WIND AND CURRENT LOADING
In formulating the motion equations of the coupled system non-linear stiffness character-
istics of the catenary mooring lines were taken into account. The non-linear, coupled
500 0. Ydmaz and A. Incecik

motion equations were solved simultaneously in the time-domain using a numerical inte-
gration technique. The technique adopted was Adam’s variable order variable step differ-
ential solver algorithm. When solving the first-order motion equations, variable coefficients
on the left hand side of these equations as well as the forcing functions on the right hand-
side of equations were re-calculated thus taking into account the displaced positions of
the buoy and tanker.
In the moored semi-submersible system we will consider surge, sway, heave and yaw
motions of the semi-submersible only (see also Fig. 2). Hence 4 degrees of freedom system
can be written as follows;
M(X - ie> + ikfA”Mx2 + b, klii_l
+ b_i + b& + cg = FEx- FMx

M(i + ~6) + MAv,,& + 6, i(il i- b,i f b,,i + b,$ + c,z = FEZ- FM< (9)
(M + MAvM,Jji+ b&l + ky Y = FEY - FM~
(I+ )6 + be t$i[ = MEe - MMe
~A”MJ3

where :, z, y and 0 indicate surge, sway, heave and yaw modes respectively. M is the

Fig. 2. Mooring configuration and reference systems.

 Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles 501

mass of the semi-submersible; I is the moment of inertia of mass of the semisubmersible

in the yaw direction; MAVMr, MAvMz: Added mass of the tanker in the surge and sway
directions respectively; IA”,+,@ is the moment of inertia of added mass of the ship in the yaw
direction; b,, b,, by and be are viscous damping coefficients; k+ is the restoring coefficient in
the heave direction; b, and b, are damping coefficients due to thrusters and mooring lines;
c, is the restoring coefficient due to thrusters. FExr FEZ, FEY and M,: are excitation forces
and moment which are either first-order wave forces and moment or slowly varying and
steady forces and moment acting on the semi-submersible in surge, sway, heave and yaw
directions respectively; FMx,F,,, FMy and h4,: Mooring forces and moment.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of the simulations are plotted in Figs 3-15. FFT analysis of each time series
are also plotted in the same graph. In order to carry out FFI analysis a NAG library
routine (The NAG, 1990) was utilised, which gives the twice the real value of zero fre-
quency (steady) components. Zero crossing period was chosen to be 12 set, current speed
1.4 m/set and all forces were assumed to be acting colinearly in head seas. The simulation
time was chosen to be 32768 sec.
First four simulations were carried out to find out the effect of mooring line damping
on motions and mooring forces when the slowly varying wave forces are dominant. During
these simulations (Figs 3-6) 7.6 m of significant wave height was used. In the first two
simulations thrusters were not utilised and with the introduction of mooring line damping
surge response reduction was 43% (Figs 3 and 4). However when the thrusters are utilised
(Figs 5 and 6) surge response was not altered. This suggests that the thrusters contribute
more to the system damping than mooring lines. The same analysis was carried out when
the first order wave forces were the dominant excitation forces (Figs 7-10). During these
simulations 16 m of wave height and 0.5 rad/sec of wave frequency were used. The surge
response reduction was 5-7% whether the thrusters were utilised or not. The last five
simulations were carried out in extreme weather conditions. In Figs 11-14 excitation
forces include slowly varying wave forces with 16 m of significant wave height, current
forces and dynamic wind forces. When the thrusters were not used the mooring system
failed, inclusion of mooring line damping delayed the failure by only 2 seconds (Figs 1 l-
12). Four mooring line failures are defined as the failure of the mooring system. With the
thrusters on the semisubmersible survived the same weather conditions and mooring line
damping caused a 7% reduction in surge response (Figs 13-14). In the last simulation (See
Fig. 15) response of the semisubmersible in irregular seas was obtained by superposing the
responses calculated for each frequency. To combine the extremes of first order and slowly
varying responses a statistical analysis of the data should be carried out. Extreme of slowly
varying surge motion about the mean value is 4.75 m (See Fig. 14), for first order surge
response it is 5.22m (See Fig. 15). Extreme values for slowly varying and first order
mooring forces about their mean values are 2892 kN and 180 kN (See Figs 14 and 15)
respectively. In order to combine the extremes firstly we should find out whether the
distribution of the surge and mooring force maximums are Gaussian. Figures 16 and 17
show that the slowly varying surge motions and slowly varying mooring force distributions
are Gaussian. It can be concluded from Figs 18 and Fig. 19 that the distribution of the
first order responses and forces are nearly Gaussian.
502 0. Ydmaz and A. Incecik

10

a
1
6
z

a; 4
aJ

c /

Seconds
-21

Frequency Crad/sec)

100
200
50 Seconds
175

3
5 150
N -50
I
8 125
& -100 4
r2
.z 100
z -150
-4
2 -200 % 75
B
-250 50

-300 25

-350
0.4’ ‘0.8’ 1.2’
Frequency (rad/sec)
Fig. 3. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: slowly varying wave forces, Hs=7.6 m, Tz = 12
sec. Thrusters off, no mooring line damping.
 Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles 503

z 4

a 3
k
Cz 2

1000 2000 3dOO

Seconds
-1

Frequency (rad/sec)

Seconds
200
00, 2000, JQOO,
ll

ii
- -5c
N
I
E
2 -1oc

z
-?I
“0 -15(
B

-2OC
::

Frequency (rad/sec)
Fig. 4. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: slowly varying wave forces, Hs = 7.6 m, Tz =
12 sec. Thstres off, mooring line damping b = 371.8 kN*sec/m.
504 0. Ydmaz and A. Incecik

2.001

1.75

1.50
1

0.50

0.25

r 1000 2000 ‘3000 L

0 .4’ 0.8 1.2
Seconds
Frequency ( rad/ set)
Seconds
4000, iJoo0,

60
I
50
2
al 40
a
3
.‘: -
“a 30
2
20
1

lOL!!L__- 0.4
Frequency
0.8
(radisec)
1.2

Fig. 5. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: slowly varying wave forces, Hs = 7.6 m, Tz
12 sec. Thrusters on, no mooring line damping.
 Motion Response Analysis of MooredSemi-submersibles 505

2.25

2.00

1.75
1.50
S 1.50
z 1.25 j
; 1.25 -z
.; 1.00
g1.00 i
2
tn 0.75 2 0.751

0.50 0.50
1
0.25
I-
iooo’ iooo-ly1000 0.4 0.8 i.2
Seconds
Frequency (rad/sec)
Seconds
b 4000, qooo, loo__

-10 I 60
I
2 -20‘
N
& -30
?J
rLl-40
WI
.z
“0 -50
B 20
-60
10
-70
I!!!+_-
0.4 0.8 1.2
Frequency (rad/sec)
Fig. 6. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: slowly varying wave forces, Hs = 7.6 m, Tz =
12 sec. Thrusters on, mooring line damping b = 20.9 kN*sec/m.
 506 0. Yllmaz and A. Incecik

70

60
z _
- 50
& 25 aJ
4 40
g 20 .‘;: -
2 15 “a 30
v, 10 5 20
5 10
I
1000 2000 3000 0.4 0.8 1.2’
Seconds Frequency crad/sec)

Frequency (rad/sec)
Seconds
~ 4 iooo, JOOO, 3000,

4000

1, 1
0.4 0.8 1.2
Frequency Crad/sec)
Fig. 7. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: first wave forces, H = 16 m, Freq = 0.5 rad/sec
Thrusters off, no mooring line damping.
508 0. Yhnaz and A. Incecik

25
z-
2 20
;=,15
zi10-
5
I God iooo jooo I
I
Seconds 0.4 0.8 1.2'
Frequency(rad/sec)

2.5
z J
.*a.01

c -, 1

0.8 1.2
Frequency(rad/sec)
Seconds
000 000 000
1400
E
':-200 Z1200_
- 1000
d
2 -400 3 800
G.l
-ii-
.'
rll6001

Frequency(rad/sec)
Fig. 9. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: first order wave forces, H = 16 m, Freq = 0.5
radlsec. Thrusters on, no mooring line damping.
 Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles 507

60
z _
; 50
4 40
.‘: -
da 30

2 20
5 10
L 1
1000 2000 3000 1.2
0.4 0.8
Seconds Frequency (rad:sec)

Frequency (rad/sec 1
Seconds

3 A”““““”
- -500 z 3500
N
I x 3000
8 -1000 $ 2500
:
tU -1500 .; 2000
g rl 1500
.;: $ 1000
8 -2000
L 500
-2500 1
0.4 0.8 1.2
Frequency (rad/sec)
Fig. 8. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: first order wave forces, H = 16 m, Freq = 0.5
radlsec. Thrusters off, mooring line damping b = 6192 kN*sec/m.
 Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles 509

20 35
z _ s 30
- 15
2 25
a
J 20
8 10 -PI
Ll . r(
2 5 k! 15
10 -
I
I 5
1 1000 2000 3000 L I f
Seconds 0.4 0.8’ 1.2
Frequency (rad/sec)

2.5
-z
- 2.0
4
2 1.5
-rl
-?$ 1.0

0.5

Frequency (rad/sec)
Seconds
l $000, JOOO, 3000,

1000
d
2 800

0.4’ 0.g 1.2’

Frequency (rad/sec)

Fig. 10. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: first order wave forces, H = 16 m, Freq = 0.5
radlsec. Thrusters on, mooring line damping b = 7074 kN*sec/m.
510 0. Yhnaz and A. Incecik

,
0.4 0.8 I.2
Seconds Frequency (rad/sec)

0.06i

1 v\l\ij
0.03
IUL u 03 0 0
?
2 -0.02 ec n s 0.02
-0.04
= 0.01
-0.06 v " ’
1 ii
0.4 0.8 1.2
Frequency (rad/sec)
Seconds

I
0.4 0.8 '1.2
Frequency (rad/sec)

Fig. 11. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: slowly varying wave forces, Hs = 16 m, Tz
12 sec. Current speed = 1.5 mlsec, av. wind speed = 33 m&c. Thrusters off, no mooring line damping.
 Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles 511

70
z 60
_
- 50
n: 40
L% -
“3 30
m 20
10
--AL--
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
lo; 0.4 0.8 1.2
Seconds Frequency (rad/secj

0.051
i\,
0.041 I ’

0.03

0.02

0.01
L
0.4 0.8 1.2
Frequency (rad/sec)
Seconds
10 20,30,40,50,60,70,
2000

5; -2000
x 1750
z 1500n
g& -1000
-3000---‘\‘-
g -4000
2
G, -5000 ..+1000
z "a 750
_,_,
-6000i 5 500
g -7000
250
r, -80001 $j 1250il.
0.4 0.8 1.2
Frequency (rad/sec)

Fig. 12. Motion responses and mooring force. Excitation force: slowly varying wave forces, Hs = 16 m, Tz =
12 sec. Current speed = 1.5 mkc, av. wind speed = 33 m/set. Thrusters off, mooring line damping b = 329
kN*sec/m.
 512 0. YilmazandA. Incecik

45
80
40
70
z 35
E 60
- 301
d 50
a'25
E20 .G 40
d_
g 15
5 ;;-
10
5 10
1000 2000 3000 0.4 0.8 1.2
Seconds Frequency irad/sec)

0.06 0.05i
Z 0.04 3 0.04,
i
0.02
CG +j 0.03
s .';:
3 -0.02 rl 0.02
9
-0.04 0.01
-0.06 L ~&A 1
0.4 0.8 1.2
Seconds Frequency (rad/sec)
$000, JOOO, jooo,
I
g -500
; -1000 z 5000
x
E’ -1500 - 4000
g -2000 8
cr,-2500 : 3000
.rl
: -3000
'C
8 -3500 "a2000
5
f: -4000 I 1000
-4500 SC,
0.4 0.8 1.2
Frequency (rad/seci
Fig.
13.Motionresponses and mooring force. Excitation force: slowly varying wave forces, Hs = 16 m, Tz
12 sec. Current speed = 1.5 mlsec, av. wind speed = 33 m/set. Thrusters on, no mooring line damping.
Mooring Force-z (kN1 Heave R. [ml
Surge R. [ml
I.-.~~NL.JWPP
lnoulolJloLnocn
r ’

Amplitude [kNl
Amplitude [ml
~-‘NwIPulm-Jw
0 0 0 0 0, 0, 0, 0, f
1
 MOORING FORCE
HEAVE RESPONSE SURGE RESPONSE
L pl, N
i
- r
-
-
-

Amplitude [kNl Amplitude [ml

Amplitude [ml

-
 515
Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles

1.0 1
i - - -
,
I
/

/
/
/

- -I- - - - f - -
3 4 5
Surge Response [ml

Fig. 16. Comparison of probability functions of slowly varying surge response (See Fig. 14) with Gauss prob-
ability functions. _.

l-
1.0 7

x
. 0.8
7
2 - /
I
. i
/

7 - -
-
4 k-
Surge Response [ml

Fig. 17. Comparison of probability functions of slowly varying mooring force (See Fig. 14) with Gauss prob-
ability functions.
 516 0. Yhnaz and A. Incecik

20 40 60 80
L
Mooring Force LkNl
.80

Fig. 18. Comparison of probability of first order surge response (See Fig. 15) with Gauss probability functions.
Solid line represents Gauss probability function.

400 601 800

Fig. 19. Comparison of probability functions of first order mooring force (See Fig. 15) with Gauss probability
functions. Solid line represents Gauss probability function.
 Motion Response Analysis of Moored Semi-submersibles 517

For Gaussian or near Gaussian processes SRSS (square root of sum of squares) gives
good, unconservative estimates for the total extreme response (Naess, 1989),

XTotaLmax - &,an + XLF,max + JGF,lnax (10)

where LF stands for low frequency and WF for wave frequency.

Using this formula the extreme surge response was found to be 48.4 m which is quite
close to the maximum surge value of 45.7 m observed in the simulation in which the
excitation forces include slowly varying wave forces, current and wind forces. Because
of the high surge mean value, 41.3 m, the contribution of slowly varying and first order
responses to the extreme value is relatively small. Similar calculations were carried out
for mooring forces and the extreme mooring force was found to be 4492 kN, with the
mean force being 2918 kN. The slowly varying mooring forces and the mean forces are
much larger than the first order mooring forces and contribute significantly to the total
extreme.

5. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

When the weather conditions are moderate, mooring line damping can reduce the slowly
varying surge response about 40%, assuming thrusters are not in use. However in
extreme weather conditions slowly varying surge response reduction is about 7% and
usually not enough to prevent a failure.
In extreme weather conditions, biggest contribution to the total surge extreme comes
from the mean surge value. The mean and slowly varying mooring forces contribute
significantly to the total, and the first order mooring forces are negligible.

REFERENCES
Faltinsen, O.M. 1990. Sea Loads on Ships nnd CJfihore Structures, Cambridge University Press.
Huse, E. 1986. Influence of Mooring Line Damping Upon Rig Motions. Proclllth of whore Technology
Conference, Houston
Huse, E. 1988. Practical Estimation of Mooring Line Damping. Proc. 20th Ofihore Technology Conference,
Houston.
Huse, E. 1989. Mooring Line Damping Due to First and Second Order Vessel Motion. Proc. 21st Ofihore
Technology Conference, Houston.
Naess, A. 1989. Prediction of Extremes of Combined First Order and Slow Drift Motions of Offshore Structures.
Applied Ocean Research 11,.
Nienhuis, U. 1986. Simulation of Low Frequency Motions of Dynamically Positioned Offshore Structures. Trans-
actions RINA. 129.
The NAG Fortran Library Manual-Mark 14. 1990 Published by the Numerical Algorithms Croup Ltd. 7.
Yilmaz, 0. 1990. Non-linear Time Domain Simulation of Moored Floating Systems. Ph.D. Thesis. Department
of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering. University of Glasgow.
Yilmaz, 0. and Incecik A. 1995. Dynamic Response of Moored Semi-submersible Platforms to Non-Collinear
Wave, Wind and Current Loading. The 5th International whore and Polar Engineering Conference (to
be presented).