Journal of Ocean University of China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research)

ISSN 1672-5182, July 30, 2007, Vol.6, No.3, pp.310-314

http://www.ouc.edu.cn/xbywb/
E-mail:xbywb@ouc.edu.cn

Nonlinear Coupled Analysis of a Single Point Mooring System

WANG Junrong, LI Huajun*, LI Ping, and ZHOU Kai

Coastal and Offshore Engineering Institute, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266071, P.R. China

(Received September 7, 2006; accepted March 20, 2007)

Abstract Coupled effects on a single point mooring (SPM) system subjected to the combined action of wind, waves and current
are studied in this paper. Due to the complicatedness of the sea state and the huge size of the vessel, physical experimental study is
both time consuming and uneconomical, whereas the numerical study is cost-effective and DNV software provides powerful SESAM
software in solving the issues. This paper focuses on the modeling process of the SPM system, catenary equilibrium calculation,
static analysis of the vessel in three different scenarios, and dynamic response simulation of the SPM system under environmental
excitations. The three scenarios in study are as follows: the SPM is under the combined function of (a) wind, waves and current, (b)
wind and waves, (c) current and waves. They are so set that one can compare the contributions of different types of loads in both
static and dynamic studies. Numerical study shows that wind and current are the two major factors contributing to the mooring line
tension, and surge and sway are the two dominant motions of the moored vessel subjected to environmental excitations.

Key words single point mooring system; response amplitude operator; catenary equilibrium; static analysis; dynamic response

DOI 10.1007/s11802-007-0310-4

1 Introduction
The world’s rapidly increasing international trade has
necessitated the development of open sea berth terminals.
Supertankers are loaded and unloaded at open sea using
so-called single point mooring (SPM) systems. An SPM
system consists of a floating structure connected to an
anchor on the seabed by a mooring line, or a floating
structure connected to a tower which is in turn connected
to its base by a universal joint which allows it to move
freely in all directions. The most common SPM system is
a floating vessel connected to the seafloor by catenary
anchor chains. In recent years, the design problem of
SPM systems for floating production, storage and off-
loading (FPSO) facilities has also gained considerable
attention as oil and gas reserves are located at great depth.
A moored ship is intentionally left free to weathervane
around the SPM terminal to prevail over currents, wind or
waves, and stay on its site with minimum mooring loads.
The study of the dynamic response of SPM systems is of
practical importance due to the extremely hostile envi-
ronmental implications of tanker accidents. The crucial
aspect is not so much the spacial motion of the vessel
impairing the safe operation of the tanker as the some-
times unpredictable peak loads in the mooring hawser
threatening a possible line break, thus constituting a po-
tential hazard of a tanker accident with formidable en-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel: 0086-532-66781949
E-mail: huajun@ouc.edu.cn
vironmental implications.
During the past few decades, research on SPM systems
includes theoretical and numerical methods. Van Oort-
merssen (1976) derived numerical results based on a con-
stant integration method for moored vessel problems and
compared them with experimental results. Chakrabarti
and Cotter (1978) developed a mathematical model to
analyze the tower tanker in head sea and validated the
results with model tests in both regular and random waves.
Kat and Wichers (1991) investigated the influence of
wind, waves and currents on the dynamic behavior of a
single point moored ship using a numerical model.
Shashikala et al. (1995) investigated the response of a
barge elastically moored to a fixed support using the
three-dimensional finite element method and compared
the result with model tests in wave flume for regular and
random waves in head sea conditions. Leite et al. (1998)
proposed a hydrodynamic model to describe the forces
and moments in a horizontal plane in a tanker caused by
an ocean current. Schellin (2003) systematically investi-
gated the effectiveness of theoretical and numerical
methods that, when applied to an SPM ship subject to
environmental excitation, predicts the mooring load and
the corresponding horizontal ship motions, without con-
sidering the effects of wind and waves. Smith and
MacFarlane (2001) studied the statics of a three-compo-
nent line.
A traditional way of solving the dynamics of floating
systems is to employ an uncoupled method, which may
produce severely inaccurate results (Ormberg and Larsen,
 WANG J. R. et al.: Nonlinear Coupled Analysis of a Single Point Mooring System 311

1998). This paper aims to simulate the dynamic responses σ 2 ( z) F

of an SPM system subjected to the combined effect of S( f ) = ⋅ , (2)
f (1 + 1.5 F )5/ 3
wind, wave and current. Four major steps are performed:
firstly, the vessel structure model is established; secondly,
where, S (f) is the power spectrum density; f is the fre-
hydrodynamic frequency domain calculation is carried
quency (Hz);
out, obtaining Response Amplitude Operator (RAO),
geometric model, mass model, quadratic current coeffi- F = f / f p ; f p = βU ( z) / Z ,
cient matrix, wind force coefficient matrix, etc; thirdly,
the slender structure (the mooring line) and the floating where β is the frequency parameter (default 0.025);
buoy are modelled, specifying environment parameters
(current, wind and wave) to the SPM system; finally, σ ( z ) = 0.15U ( z )( z / z s ) −0.125 , z < z s ;
catenary analysis is run to observe the configuration of
the mooring line and static calculation and dynamic simu- σ ( z ) = 0.15U ( z )( z / z s ) −0.275 , z > zs ,
lation are performed. Some conclusions are drawn from
the simulation results. Fig.1 shows schematically the where U(z) refers to the mean wind velocity at z; zs is the
SPM system. surface layer thickness (20 m); and Z is the reference
height (10 m).
In this model, the frequency parameter β is 0.025, the
surface layer thickness zs = 20 m, the reference height Z =
10 m, the wind mean velocity is 20 m s-1, the wind direc-
tion is specified as 0 degree (east), and the wind profile
coefficient is 0.11.
The random wave profile applied to the SPM system is
simulated using the wave spectrum. The adopted wave
spectrum is the five-parameter JONSWAP spectrum. The
Fig.1 A sketch of the SPM system. JONSWAP spectrum was developed by Hassleman, et al.
(1973) during a Joint North Sea Wave Project and hence
the name. The JONSWAP spectrum is,
2 SPM Modeling
⎛ (ω −ωmax ) 2 ⎞
2.1 Governing Equation ⎛ 3.11 ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ − 2σ 2ωmax 2 ⎟⎟⎠
0.78
The governing equation of a floating moored structure S (ω ) = 5 exp ⎜ − 2 4 ⎟⎟ γ , (3)
ω ⎜ H ω
can be written as ⎝ s ⎠

MU + CU + K ΔU = F + Fm , (1) where, γ is the peakedness parameter (1.5 to 6), ω the
circular frequency = 2πf, ωmax the peak frequency, σ the
where M is a 6×6 matrix including the true mass and in- spectral parameter whose value is 0.07 for ω<ωmax and
ertia and the added mass and inertia of the hull; C is a 6×6 0.09 for ω>ωmax.
matrix including the potential damping, viscous damping, In the model γ is chosen to be 2.2, significant wave
and wave drift damping on the hull, and the structure height Hs 5.2 m, peak period 10 s, the wave direction 0˚
damping; K is a 6×6 stiffness matrix including hydrostatic (east).
stiffness; F is a 6×1 load vector of first- and second-order Ocean currents can generate a considerable load on the
wave loads, viscous loads, wind dynamic loads, and/or SPM system, contributing a significant effect to the
other applied loads; Fm is a 6×1 mooring/tendon and riser mooring line tension and SPM motion. The current veloc-
reaction vector at the connected locations; and U is a 6×1 ity can vary with time and the distance from the mean
unknown vessel motion vector with components repre- water level. It is assumed that a constant velocity Vc =
senting surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw. 1.20 m s-1 is applied to the system.
By assembling the mass, damping and stiffness matri-
ces, and the exciting loads vectors, the 6-DOF time- 2.3 Structural Data
domain motions of the vessel are obtained by solving the The vessel’s initial position is at the origin (0 m, 0 m,
governing equation. 0 m). The parameters of the vessel are listed in Table 1.
The mass inertia I is written as
2.2 Environmental Data
Set the plane z = 0 at the mean water level and let the ⎡ I xx I xy I xz ⎤
water depth of the SPM system be 50 meters. ⎢ ⎥
I = ⎢ I yx I yy I yz ⎥
The wind is simulated according to the API wind spec- ⎢ ⎥
trum, which is defined as ⎢⎣ I zx I zy I zz ⎥⎦
312 Journal of Ocean University of China Vol.6, No.3, 2007

⎡ 1.62 × 1010 −4.62 × 103 −2.69 × 109 ⎤ The mooring line configuration can also be seen in Fig.1.
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ −4.62 × 103 5.00 × 1011 −8.83 × 106 ⎥ kg ⋅ m 2 .
⎢ ⎥ 3.1 Static Analysis
9
⎣⎢ −2.69 × 10 −8.83 × 106 5.04 × 1011 ⎦⎥ Static analysis is performed under the combined effects
of effective weights under water, environmental loads, etc.
The Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) is defined as Three study scenarios are set to compare the contributions
the response amplitude per unit wave height, and is used of wind and current. They are: the system is under the
to calculate the response amplitude of the floating vessel combined action of 1) wind, waves and current (Case A),
subjected to waves. The six Degree of Freedoms (DoF) of 2) wind and waves (Case B), 3) current and waves (Case
the vessel motion－surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and C). Table 3 shows the mooring line axial tensions T for
yaw－are considered in the RAO matrices. And incident the three cases A, B and C. One can observe that the
waves of all directions (from 0˚ to 360˚) are considered. mooring line tension is largest for Case A, smallest for
Thus, the coupled model can simulate the dynamic re- Case B, with Case C somewhere in between. This implies
sponse of the SPM system subjected to waves from dif- that the combined effects of the three components are
ferent directions. significant, and current contributes more to the mooring
Table 1 Parameters of the vessel line tension than wind does in this study scenario, where
the wind mean velocity is 20 m s-1 and the current velocity
Property item Value
is 1.20 m s-1. Obviously, the values of the velocities speci-
Total length, Lt 289.0 m fied play a key role in the analysis. Table 3 demonstrates
Breadth, B 35.0 m the axial tension range of the mooring line in three study
Depth, D 23.5 m
cases. Much of the tension comes from the pretension
Design draught, T 13.0 m
Total mass, M 8058.3 t caused by the equilibrium position of the vessel and the
Wetted surface, Ws 7936.53 m2 length of the mooring line. The surge is expectedly sensi-
Submerged volume, Vs 78617.24 m3 tive to environmental excitations because the environ-
Center of gravity, Cg (2 m, 0 m, 0.2 m) mental loads are specified in the X-direction (Surge).
Center of buoyancy, Cb (0 m, 0 m, −5.82 m)
Fairlead, fp (−150 m, 0 m, 8 m) Table 3 Mooring line tension in different cases
Case X (m) Z (m) Tmin (KN) Tmax (KN)
Quadratic current coefficients are used to calculate the
A 5.62 -0.0067 1284.45 1292.01
linear dynamic response of the vessel subjected to cur- B 5.21 -0.0051 826.77 834.96
rents. The type of the quadratic current coefficients ma- C 5.45 -0.0077 1089.98 1097.75
trix is 6 DOF versus incident direction (varying from 0˚
to 360˚). Likewise, the effect of the wind force on the 3.2 Dynamic Response Analysis
vessel motion is calculated using the Wind Force Coeffi-
cient matrix (6 DoF versus incident angles). The anchor In order to study the dynamic response of the SPM
of the mooring line is fixed on the seabed (−300 m, 0 m, system subjected to dynamic loads, 1800-second dynamic
−50 m). The mooring line with a floating buoy consists of response time series were simulated. The dynamic re-
two segments, one is connected to the seabed called the sponses include the motions of the floating vessel, the
‘seg-seabed’, and the other is connected to the floating floating buoy, and the mooring line, and the force re-
vessel and called the ‘seg-vessel’. The floating buoy is sponse of the mooring line, such as axial tension, bending
located between the two segments as shown in Fig.1. And moment, etc.
the parameters of the mooring line are listed in Table 2.
The mass of the floating buoy is 1500 kg, and its volume 3.2.1 Motion response
is 3.5 m3. The vessel response is characterized by six DoF. The
surge, sway and heave motion time series are shown in
Table 2 Parameters of the mooring line
Fig.2. One observes that the sway amplitude is the biggest
Length Outside diameter Mass per unit length
Segment
(m) (m) (kg m-1)
Seg-seabed 72 0.10 40
Seg-vessel 90 0.08 6

3 Results and Discussion

The purpose of catenary element analysis is to calcu-
late the static equilibrium configuration of a uniform bar
with all boundary conditions specified at the two ends for
a uniform loading condition, which is of great importance Fig.2 Surge, sway and heave responses of the moored
in guiding the design process of the mooring systems. vessel under the action of wind, waves and current.
 WANG J. R. et al.: Nonlinear Coupled Analysis of a Single Point Mooring System 313

1800-second simulation. One can see that the surge mo-

tion is more sensitive to the current and the sway motion
is more sensitive to the wind. The vessel’s sway and surge
are the two major motion components. Fig.5 illustrates
the motion track of the vessel in the XOY plane, where
one can also see that the fishtailing effect is obvious.

3.2.2 Axial tension in the mooring line

Fig.3 Comparison of surge responses of the moored ves-
sel in Cases A, B and C.
From the mooring line tension shown in the static
analysis, the dominating tension located in the joint be-
tween the ‘seg-seabed’ segment and the floating buoy.
The mooring line tension time series for this point is
shown in Fig.6. The peak tension reaches 3 500 kN, which
can be of reference value for the practical design of
mooring lines.

Fig.4 Comparison of sway responses of the moored

vessel in Cases A，B and C.

Fig.6 Mooring line tension time series (simulation time

span = 1800 s).

3.3 Physical Model Test Verification

Fig.5 The track of the moored vessel in the XOY plane
during the 1800-second simulation.
one and the surge motion is the second biggest one. The
heave motion is mainly induced by the oscillating waves,
thus the heave amplitude and frequency are close to the
wave’s properties applied. All the three curves show that
motion components are small at the beginning of the
simulation, because the preset initial position is the static
equilibrium position. Figs.3 and 4 show the comparison
of the surge and sway motions of the vessel during the
An SPM physical model experiment was conducted to
verify the numerical results. Because the size of ship
model is limited, one experiment scenario was chosen for
verification. The ship size parameters were: total length L
= 154.0 m, width W = 16.3 m, depth D = 10.3 m, mooring
line length Lm = 100 m. The loads included wind (Vw =
60 m s-1), current (Vc = 1.91 m s-1), and a Jonswap spectrum
wave (Hs = 3 m). Table 4 presents a comparison of the nu-
merical and experimental results of the mooring line ten-
sion. Though the vessel in the numerical simulation is
much bigger than the vessel in the experiment and the
specified loads (wind and current) in the numerical simu-
lation are relatively smaller than those in the experiments,
the resulting mooring line peak tension Tpeak are close,
which indicates that the simulated results for the SPM
system are reasonable.

Table 4 Comparison of numerical and experimental results

Method B (m) W (m) Vw (m s-1) Vc (m s-1) Hs (m) Tpeak (kN)
Num 35.0 23.5 20 1.20 5.2 3500
Test 16.3 10.3 60 1.91 3.0 3480

The motion responses of the SPM system subjected to

environmental excitations are often obtained by model
4 Conclusions experiments; however, both time and cost of conducting
The single point mooring (SPM) system is being model experiments are expensive. This paper establishes
widely used in the oil industry and open sea berth systems. an SPM coupled analysis model subjected to dynamic
314 Journal of Ocean University of China
environmental loads. The nonlinear dynamic responses
are simulated under three study scenarios. By comparing
static analysis results for different scenarios, it can be
concluded that wind and current are the two major factors
contributing to the mooring line tension, and heave is
mainly induced by random waves. Current contributes
more to the mooring line tension in this study. In the dy-
namic response simulation, the surge and sway motions
of the floating vessel are significant. Extreme conditions
occur when wind, current and wave are in the same direc-
tion.
Acknowledgements
This work has been financially supported by the Culti-
vation Fund of the Key Scientific and Technical Innova-
tion Project, Ministry of Education of China under Grant
No. 704031, and by the Natural Science Foundation of
Qingdao,Grant No. 05-2-JC-88.
References
Chakarabarti, S. K., and D. C. Cotter, 1978. Analysis of a tower
tanker system. Offshore technology conference, Houston,
Vol.6, No.3, 2007
Paper No. OTC-3202, 1301-1310.
Hasselmann K., T. P. Barnett, E. Bouws, H. Carlson, D. E.
Cartwright, et al., 1973. Measurement of wind-wave growth
and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project
(JOSWAP). Deutschen Hydorgraphischen Zeitschrift, Er-
ganzunscheft, 13: No. A.
Kat, J. O. D., and J. E. W. Wichers, 1991. Behavior of a moored
ship in unsteady current, wind and waves. Mar. Technol., 251-
264.
Leite, A. J. P., J. A. P. Aranha, C. Umeda, and M. B. de Conti,
1998. Current forces in tankers and bifurcation of equilibrium
of turret systems hydrodynamic model and experiments. Appl.
Ocean Res., 20: 145-156.
Ormberg, H., and K. Larsen, 1998. Coupled analysis of floater
motion and mooring dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Appl.
Ocean Res., 20: 55-67.
Schellin, T. E., 2003. Mooring load of a ship single-point
moored in a steady current. Mar. Struct., 16: 135-148.
Shashikala, A. P., R. Sundaravadivelu, and C. Ganapathy, 1995.
Dynamics of a moored barge under regular and random
waves. Ocean Eng., 24: 401-430.
Smith, R. J., and C. J. MacFarlane, 2001, Statics of a three com-
ponent mooring line. Ocean Eng., 28: 899-914.
Van Oortmerssen, G., 1976. The Motions of a Moored Ship in
Waves. PhD thesis. NSMB publication, The Netherlands, No.
510.