Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Mooring line damping due to low-frequency superimposed

with wave-frequency random line top end motion
Yong Yang n, Jia-xin Chen, Shan Huang
Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine Engineering, University of Strathclyde, 100 Montrose Street, Glasgow G4 0LZ, UK

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The slow drift motions would lead to a serious influence on moored floating structures and cause the
Received 26 July 2015 failure of mooring and riser systems. Mooring line damping which represents the transfer of energy is
Accepted 14 December 2015 important for moored floating structures. In this paper, time domain finite element method was applied
Available online 29 December 2015
by using OrcaFlex. A series of mooring line top end motions was simulated to investigate the relationship
Keywords: between mooring line damping and low-frequency superimposed with wave-frequency random motion.
Mooring line damping A transformation method was introduced that wave-frequency random motion was transferred to an
Low-frequency motion equivalent sinusoidal motion based on the spectral density of vessel motion. Then, the influence of
Wave-frequency random motion equivalent sinusoidal motion and random motion on mooring line damping was compared. It can be
Transformation method
found that mooring line damping could be reduced slightly if considering random motion. Finally, the
Parametric study
influence of individual parameter which includes current speed, drag coefficient, added mass coefficient
Time domain
and pre-tension on mooring line damping was studied. The results showed that the significant status of
drag coefficient and pre-tension on the predication of mooring line damping. But for current speed, the
effect on mooring line damping cannot be overstated for considering random motion but the reverse is
true for considering sinusoidal motion.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The motion of moored offshore structure is mainly resulted
from and dependent on the static and dynamic environmental
loads. The first-order motion and second-order motion which are
excited by different components of environmental loads are taking
place at wave-frequency range and well below the wave-
frequency range respectively. Normally, the natural frequency of
the floating structure’s surge motion or sway motion is close to the
frequency of second-order wave loads. As a result, the low-
frequency slow drift motions at resonant frequencies are one of
the characteristic features of moored floating structures causing
large horizontal excursions. The amount of the low-frequency
surge or sway damping plays an important role in determining
the maximum horizontal excursions. Generally, the main sources
of the total damping which includes viscous hull damping,
mooring line damping, wave drift damping, etc. are coming from
the structure itself and mooring system.
It was presented that that the mooring line damping might be a
main contribution to the total low-frequency damping of the
system in certain circumstances (Huse and Matsumoto, 1989). It
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 86 13918796513.
E-mail address: yycjx19881030@126.com (Y. Yang).
was also proved that the mooring line damping was the key
component of the total damping through the comparison with
other sources of damping (Matsumoto, 1991). For some ship-like
structures such as FPSOs, the mooring line damping plays the key
role in determining the maximum excursion and peak line tension
since the inherent damping in surge motion is very low for those
kinds of vessels (Webster, 1995). Through the coupled analysis of
dynamics for moored floating structures, the prediction for the
amount of damping from mooring line is important to predict the
low-frequency motion of the vessels as it accounts for a large
contribution to the total damping (Ormberg and Larsen, 1998).
Therefore, the effect of mooring line damping should be taken into
consideration in order to predict the motion response of moored
floating structures. It was known that the mooring line damping
has limited influence on the wave-frequency motion, but the
influence on low-frequency motion cannot be overstated (Huse,
1986). But, the combination of wave-frequency motion and low-
frequency motion would lead to an obvious increase of the low-
frequency mooring line damping (Huse and Matsumoto, 1988,
1989; Dercksen et al., 1992). The explanation for this phenomenon
was that the drag coefficient is enlarged owning to the variation of
the drag force acting on the mooring line with relative velocity
between the fluid and line itself (Huse,1991).
Brown and Mavrakos (1999) found that the superimposed
wave-frequency sinusoidal motion had a significant effect on the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.026
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
244 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252

low-frequency mooring line damping that it would show a dra- 2. Methodology and modeling
matic upward trend compared with those under low-frequency
motion only. The results showed that a wave-frequency motion of 2.1. Time domain finite element method for calculating mooring line
5.4 m amplitude at 10 s period will increase the low-frequency damping
damping by a factor of 7.1 and 2.0 for two different systems
respectively. And the increasing factors were 8.8 and 2.4 respec- The top end motion of the mooring line is illustrated in a time
tively when amplitude of wave-frequency motion increases from history file to input or directly pre-defined in the program. The top
5.4 m to 8 m. Experimental model test was carried out by Kitney end motion can be low-frequency motion, wave-frequency motion
and Brown (2001). The tensions of the mooring line measured in or a combination of them. The horizontal component of tension at
the experiment were acceptable agreed with the results from mooring line top end will be calculated and outputted as a func-
dynamic analysis. According to the results described as enclosed tion of the time during one low-frequency period cycle of vessel
area in indicator diagram, it was found that the combination of surge motion. Then integrate the product of the horizontal com-
low-frequency and wave-frequency motions leaded to a significant ponent of tension multiplying with the low-frequency component
increase of the low-frequency mooring line damping. Johanning of the velocity over a low-frequency period (Huse, 1991). Typically,
et al. (2007) predicted the motion of WEC devices by using the the dissipated energy caused by the mooring line during one low-
time domain finite element method. The effect of wave-frequency frequency period cycle can be obtained by using the indicator
top end motion was considered in a different approach that the diagram. The horizontal displacement is plotted on the horizontal
frequency ratio (top end motion frequency over natural frequency axis and the corresponding horizontal component of tension is
of the mooring line) was introduced. The results suggested that plotted on the vertical axis. The figure obtained will be a curve that
the dissipated energy caused by mooring line showed an upward the area of it represents the dissipated energy caused by the
trend with the increase of the frequency ratio. Besides, this trend mooring line as shown in Fig. 1.
would be more obvious and significant with the increase of the According to Webster (1995), Brown and Mavrakos (1999), the
mooring line pre-tension. dissipated energy caused by the mooring line during one period
A fully dynamic finite element method was performed to cal- cycle of vessel surge motion can be defined as:
culate the tensions of mooring line and mooring line damping Z τ
with the indicator diagram plotting according to the relevant non- dX
E¼ T h dt ð1Þ
dimensional parameters by Webster (1995). The parametric study 0 dt
showed that the pre-tension of the mooring line had a significant where T h is the horizontal component of tension at mooring line
influence on the mooring line damping. It indicated that the top end; X is the low-frequency component of horizontal dis-
mooring line damping will firstly show an upward trend with the placement; τ is period of the low-frequency surge motion.
increase of the drag coefficient and motion frequency at low pre- The equivalent linear damping coefficient B is introduced to
tensions, but the reverse was true if the pre-tensions are high. That express the mooring line damping. It can be assumed that:
is to say the elastic stretch of mooring line has a significant effect
on the damping values since it will become domain at high pre- dX
Th ¼ B ð2Þ
tensions while its effect can be neglected if the pre-tensions are dt
low. Besides, the results showed that the current effect on the After combination of the (Eqs. (1) and 2), the dissipated energy
damping is very slight. It might be true if the velocity of the
caused by the mooring line can be represented as:
mooring line motion is fast. If just consider a low-frequency
Z τ  2
motion the effect might be quite different. Qiao and Ou (2010) dX
proposed a parametric study on mooring line damping due to low- E¼ B dt ð3Þ
0 dt
frequency motion only by using time domain finite element
method. The damping resulted from friction force at seabed and
drag force along mooring were both taken into consideration. It
was found that the damping due to drag force constitutes the vast
majority of the total damping and different seabed friction coef-
ficient had a limited influence on the mooring line damping. Qiao
and Ou (2011) also investigated the effect of current speed on
mooring line damping due to low-frequency motion. The results
showed that the mooring line damping had an upward trend with
the increases of the current speed.
Most researches focus on the mooring line damping corre-
sponding to pure low-frequency motion or pure wave-frequency
motion. And also the parametric study was carried out in this
background. In this paper, the effect of the superimposed wave-
frequency random motion on the low-frequency mooring line
damping will be investigated. Meanwhile, the wave-frequency
random motion will be transferred to an equivalent sinusoidal
motion by using an energy based method. Then, the comparison
between the effects of those two kinds superimposed wave-
frequency motion on low-frequency mooring line damping will
be carried out. Finally, parametric study is performed to investi-
gate the influence of each individual parameter on mooring line
damping due to low-frequency superimposed with wave-
frequency random motion as well as with wave-frequency sinu-
soidal motion respectively. Fig. 1. Indicator diagram.
 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252 245

Table 2
Parameters of the mooring line.

Line type Segment 1-R4 Segment 2-spiral Segment 3-R3S

chain strand wire chain

Weight in air (N/m) 4810 1040 4509

Weight in water (N/m) 4180 876 3918
Length (m) 10 390 1480
Axial stiffness (MN) 2105 1893 1973
Outer diameter (m) 0.283 0.144 0.274
Normal drag 1.1 1.2 1.1
coefficient
Normal added mass 1.0 1.0 1.0
Coefficient

Fig. 2. OrcaFlex model.

Table 3
Damping due to low-frequency superimposed with wave-frequency random
Table 1 motion.
Environmental condition.
Case No. Significant Zero cross- Dissipated Damping
Name Value wave height ing period energy (kJ) (kN s/m)
(m) (s)
Water depth (m) 400
Water density (t/m3) 1.025 1: Amp. 1.0 0 0 4762 40.21
Current velocity (m/s) 0 (current speed will be set for parametric study) 30 m 1.1 8 8 4814 40.65
Period 1.2 8 10 4844 40.90
150 s 1.3 12.5 10 4962 41.89
Assume the mooring line top end motion is a low-frequency 1.4 12.5 15 6271 52.95
sinusoidal motion which the period is τ and the amplitude is a. 1.5 23 15 8936 75.45
1.6 23 20 9353 78.98
Solve the equation, the equivalent linear damping B is expressed
2: Amp. 2.0 0 0 1198 20.23
as: 30 m 2.1 8 8 1260 21.27
Eτ Period 2.2 8 10 1294 21.85
B¼ ð4Þ 300 s 2.3 12.5 10 1425 24.07
2a2 π 2 2.4 12.5 15 2380 40.19
2.5 23 15 3975 67.12
2.6 23 20 4353 73.51
2.2. Model description

The surge motion of the FPSO model is taken into consideration

in this paper. The mooring line with a direction which close to the
motion direction of the vessel will contribute more damping effect
compared with other lines (Huse and Matsumoto, 1989). There-
fore, only one single mooring line is considered in the studies
which deploys in the surge direction.
The mooring line which consists of mooring chain and wire
rope is the most common mooring system (Yuan et al., 2014). The
chain segments are deployed at top end (Segment 1) and seabed
end (Segment 3), wire rope (Segment 2) is in the middle. This is
the most popular form of the metallic mooring line. The initial
catenary configuration of mooring line used in dynamic analysis
for calculating damping is depicted in Fig. 2. The key parameters of
the environment condition and the mooring line are listed in
Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

3. Mooring line damping considering superimposed wave-

frequency random motion
Fig. 3. Spectrum model in the analysis.

The effect of the superimposed wave-frequency random

motion on the low-frequency mooring line damping is a quite new
research area without plentiful and systematic answers and con-
clusions, especially for the comparative study by means of time
domain finite element method. In this section, the investigation on
this question was carried out in detail. In practice, the motion of
the moored floating structures will not be simple sinusoidal
motion but random motion since the waves in the real seas are
random and unpredictable.
The JONSWAP spectrum was selected for the purpose of
investigating the effect of superimposed wave-frequency random
motion on the low-frequency mooring line damping. The cases for
this study and the corresponding results were designed and
recorded as listed in Table 3. The selection of significant wave
heights and zero crossing periods made the JONSWAP spectrum a
reasonable model. The case 1.5, 1.6, 2.5 and 2.6 are with the sig-
nificant wave height of 23 m which is quite high compared with
the real sea state. But in order to get a longer zero crossing period,
those cases are also considered in the study. The six JONSWAP
spectrum models used in the case study were plotted as shown in
246 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252
Fig. 3. Meanwhile, the surge R.A.O. of the vessel is presented in
Fig. 4 for the purpose of discussion on the results.
Considering the random process of the mooring line top end
motion, 25 cycles of low-frequency motions (for the low-
frequency motion of 30 m amplitude at 150 s period, the time
for calculation is 4500 s which equals sum of 30 cycles period of
the low-frequency motion, and in which the last 25 cycles are used
due to the instability of the first several cycles) are taken into
account to calculate the average dissipated energy and average
equivalent linear damping value.
The values of the mooring line damping due to the effect of the
combined low-frequency motion and wave-frequency random
motion in low-frequency motions of 30 m amplitude at 150 s
period and of 30 m amplitude at 300 s period conditions are
shown in Fig. 5 respectively.
As shown in Fig. 5, the effect on the mooing line damping is
very slight if the zero crossing period is at 8 s and 10 s. But once
the period reaches to 15 s, the effect will be significant. In Fig. 5(a),
the damping shows an increase from 41.89 kN s/m to 52.95 kN s/m
by a factor of approximately 1.3 with the period increases from
10 s to 15 s (same significant wave height 12.5 m). In Fig. 5(b), the
damping shows an increase from 24.07 kN s/m to 40.19 kN s/m by
a factor of approximately 1.7 with the period increases from 10 s to
15 s (same significant wave height 12.5 m). But it should be
pointed out that the mooring line damping values are getting
closer for period of 15 s and 20 s (same significant wave height
23 m). This feature might be resulted from the Response
Fig. 4. Surge R.A.O. of the vessel.
Fig. 5. Effect of superimposed wave frequency random motion on damping. (a) 150 s–30 m and (b) 300 s–30 m.
Amplitude Operator (R.A.O.) of the vessel used in the analysis. It is
clear from Fig. 4 that the curve shows an abrupt increase between
10 s and 15 s, but the curve is flatter for the interval 15–20 s.
Besides, the mooring line damping values corresponding to two
different pure low-frequency motion are 40.21 kN s/m and
20.23 kN s/m respectively, those two damping values getting clo-
ser with the extreme environmental condition provided by the sea
spectrum. That is to say, the wave-frequency random motion plays
a key role in determining the mooring line damping.
4. Comparison on effects of two kinds superimposed wave-
frequency top end motion
4.1. Transfer to the equivalent sinusoidal motion
The random motion of the vessel will be transformed and
represented by an equivalent sinusoidal motion in order to com-
pare the effect of the superimposed sinusoidal motion and random
motion on the low-frequency mooring line damping. The energy
equals to the area under the energy density spectrum. The
Response Amplitude Operator (R.A.O.) of the vessel surge motion
is used as the transfer function to get the density of vessel surge
spectrum. From the density of vessel surge spectrum, the sig-
nificant response amplitude, the average response amplitude and
the root mean square response amplitude can be obtained.
In practice, the process to transform the vessel random motion
to single sinusoidal motion by using OracFlex is illustrated in
Fig. 6. Record surge motion of the vessel due to the wave effect
with specified sea spectrum, and get the density of vessel surge
spectrum. Then calculate the area under the density of the vessel
surge spectrum (which equals to A1). The root mean square
response
p ffiffiffiffiffiffi amplitude (arms1 ) can be determined which equals to
A1 . Besides, for a single sinusoidal surge motion of the vessel,
the relationship between the area under the response spectrum
(which equals to A2)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi and the amplitude of the sinusoidal motion is
ffi pffiffiffi
that Amp ¼ 2A2 ¼ 2arms2 . Assume the areas under the density
of vessel surge spectrum and the response spectrum of a single
sinusoidal motion are the same (A1 ¼ A2 ¼ A; arms1 ¼ arms2 ). Thus,
thepamplitude
ffiffiffiffiffiffi of the equivalent sinusoidal motion (Amp.) equals
to 2A. Mean zero crossing period is reasonable to be regarded as
the period of an equivalent sinusoidal motion since average the
times between each zero down (or up) crossing gives the mean
zero crossing period.
 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252 247

Fig. 6. Process of transformation.

Table 4
Comparison of superimposed equivalent sinusoidal motion and random motion.

Case no. Hs-Tz (m-s) ER. (kJ) BR.(kN*s/m) Amp.-Period (m-s) EE.S. (kJ) BE.S. (kN s/m)

1: Amp. 30 m 1 8-8 4814 40.65 0.22-8 4864 41.07

Period 150 s 2 8-10 4844 40.90 0.43-10 4984 42.08
3 12.5-10 4962 41.91 0.67-10 5296 44.71
4 12.5-15 6271 53.37 2.45-15 7402 62.50
5 23-15 8936 77.13 4.50-15 11,651 98.37
6 23-20 9353 80.96 5.99-20 11,670 98.53
2: Amp. 30 m 1 8-8 1260 21.28 0.22-8 1331 22.47
Period 300 s 2 8-10 1294 21.86 0.43-10 1443 24.37
3 12.5-10 1425 24.09 0.66-10 1767 29.85
4 12.5-15 2380 40.70 2.45-15 3224 54.44
5 23-15 3975 68.40 4.50-15 5570 94.01
6 23-20 4353 75.00 6.19-20 5820 98.28

4.2. Comparison of the results The results of the dissipated energy and the equivalent linear
damping with the effect of the superimposed wave-frequency
The equivalent linear mooring line damping due to the effect of random motion are listed in Table 4. Meanwhile, the random
the low-frequency superimposed with random top end motion motion is transformed to the equivalent sinusoidal motion. The
equals to the average value of the individual damping values in the results with the effect of the equivalent sinusoidal motion are also
last 25 low-frequency motion cycles. The equivalent linear moor- given in Table 4. After comparison of the two series of the results,
ing line damping can be determined by the following equation:
it is clear that the dissipated energy and the corresponding
v"ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
#2 ffi
u equivalent linear damping values due to random motion are both
u 1X n
1X n
B¼ t ðB1 þB2 þ … þ Bi  1 þBi Þ þ ðB  Baverage Þ 2
ð5Þ smaller than those with the effect of the equivalent sinusoidal
ni¼1 ni¼1 i
motion.
248 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252

Fig. 7. Comparison of the damping results. (a) 150 s–30 m and (b) 300 s–30 m.

Table 5
Influence of current.

Case no. Current (m/s) Dissipated energy (kJ) Damping (kN s/m)

1: Amp. 30 m Period 150 s (12.5 m 10 s) 1.1 0 4962 41.89

1.2 0.5 5521 46.62
1.3 1.0 6968 58.83
1.4 1.5 9063 76.52
2: Amp. 30 m Period 150 s (12.5 m 15 s) 2.1 0 6271 52.95
2.2 0.5 6786 57.29
2.3 1.0 8085 68.09
2.4 1.5 9940 83.93
3: Amp. 30 m Period 300 s (12.5 m 10 s) 3.1 0 1425 24.07
3.2 0.5 1856 31.34
3.3 1.0 2865 48.38
3.4 1.5 4146 70.00
4: Amp. 30 m Period 300 s (12.5 m 15 s) 4.1 0 2380 40.19
4.2 0.5 2743 46.32
4.3 1.0 3560 60.12
4.4 1.5 4671 78.88
5: Amp. 30 m Period 150 s (5 m 10 s) 5.1 0 17,335 146.37
5.2 0.5 17,675 149.24
5.3 1.0 18,081 152.67
5.4 1.5 18,436 155.67
6: Amp. 30 m Period 300 s (5 m 10 s) 6.1 0 8602 145.26
6.2 0.5 8810 148.77
6.3 1.0 9087 153.45
6.4 1.5 9410 158.91

The results of the equivalent linear damping are shown in
Fig. 7. The dispersion of results from two approaches is becoming
obvious with the increase of the zero crossing period and the
significant wave height. Both two figures show that case 4, case
5 and case 6 have obvious gaps between damping values. Because
after transferring to equivalent sinusoidal motion, the amplitudes
of those three cases are in different order of magnitude compared
with the amplitudes of first three cases. Though the periods are
increasing from case 1 to case 6, the difference is much smaller
compared with the amplitude. Thus the equivalent sinusoidal
motion in case 4, case 5 and case 6 will lead to high mooring line
damping values, but at the same time, the random motion has a
relatively small effect on the mooring line damping due to the
offset of each wave component. Thus a conclusion might be
obtained that the difference between mooring line damping
values according to random motion and equivalent sinusoidal
motion will be increased for the severe wave conditions.
5. Parametric study
5.1. Influence of current
The current influence on mooring line damping due to low-
frequency superimposed with wave-frequency motion is per-
formed as described in Table 5. The low-frequency motions which
selected are of 30 m amplitude at 150 s period and 30 m ampli-
tude at 200 s period. The significant wave height is 12.5 m at 10 s
and 15 s zero crossing period in the selected sea spectrum. The
superimposed wave frequency top end motion which selected
here is of 5 m amplitude at 10 s period. The current speed is in the
range from 0 to 1.5 m/s.
Fig. 8 illustrates the effect of the current and it indicates that
the mooring line damping shows a non-linear increase with the
rise of the current speed. It indicates that the current effect cannot
be overstated if the top end motion is low-frequency motion
superimposed with wave-frequency random motion. But the effect
 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252 249

Fig. 8. Influence of current on mooring line damping.

Table 6
Influence of normal drag coefficient.

Case no. Normal drag coefficient Dissipated energy (kJ) Damping (kN s/m)

1: Amp. 30 m 1.1 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.1 4962 41.89

Period 150 s 1.2 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.6 6804 57.45
(12.5 m 10 s) 1.3 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-2.4 9730 82.15
1.4 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-3.2 12,628 106.63
2: Amp. 30 m 2.1 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.1 6271 52.95
Period 150 s 2.2 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.6 8570 72.36
(12.5 m 15 s) 2.3 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-2.4 12,145 102.54
2.4 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-3.2 15,574 131.50
3: Amp. 30 m 3.1 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.1 1425 24.07
Period 300 s 3.2 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.6 1949 32.92
(12.5 m 10 s) 3.3 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-2.4 2780 46.95
3.4 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-3.2 3601 60.82
4: Amp. 30 m 4.1 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.1 2380 40.19
Period 300 s 4.2 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.6 3249 54.86
(12.5 m 15 s) 4.3 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-2.4 4596 77.61
4.4 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-3.2 5893 99.52
5: Amp. 30 m 5.1 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.1 17,335 146.37
Period 150 s 5.2 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.6 21,970 185.50
(5 m 10 s) 5.3 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-2.4 27,793 234.67
5.4 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-3.2 32,539 274.74
6: Amp. 30 m 6.1 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.1 8602 145.26
Period 300 s 6.2 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-1.6 10,985 185.50
(5 m 10 s) 6.3 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-2.4 14,229 240.28
6.4 S1-1.1S2-1.2 S3-3.2 16,793 283.58

of current can be neglected when the superimposed wave-
frequency motion is sinusoidal motion. According to the plentiful
of case study provided in this paper, the mooring line damping is
just increasing by a maximum factor of 1.1 for sinusoidal motion
while this factor is 2.9 for random motion. It seems that the dif-
ferent components of sinusoidal motions within random motion
have a mutual influence that the effect was reduced.
According to the findings presented in this paragraph, it indi-
cates that the current effect can be neglected if the wave-
frequency sinusoidal motion is included. The similar phenom-
enon that the current effect is very slight was also shown in the
research by Webster (1995). But the difference is that the damping
was only due to the wave-frequency sinusoidal motion in Web-
ster’s research. It indicates that the current influence can be
neglected if the wave-frequency sinusoidal motion is taken into
consideration.
5.2. Influence of normal drag coefficient
The influence of normal drag coefficient on mooring line
damping due to low-frequency superimposed with wave-
frequency motion is performed as described in Table 6. The
motions are the same with the previous section. The variations of
S1 and S2 drag coefficient are neglected in the study and only the
variation of S3 drag coefficient is carried out.
The effect of the variation of the drag coefficient on mooring
line damping due to combined low-frequency and wave-frequency
motion is shown in Fig. 9. The upward trend is almost linear. The
mooring line damping was increased by a factor of approximately
2.5 with the increase of S3 drag coefficient from 1.1 to 3.2 from
case 1 to case 4. The low-frequency damping was increased by a
factor of approximately 2.0 with the increase of S3 drag coefficient
from 1.1 to 3.2 for Case 5 and Case 6.
250 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252

Fig. 9. Influence of normal drag coefficient on damping.

5.4. Influence of pre-tension

Table 7
Influence of normal added mass coefficient.
In this section, the low-frequency motion of 30 m amplitude at
Case no. Normal added mass Dissipated Damping (kN s/ 150 s period is selected to carry out the research on the influence
coefficient energy (kJ) m) of pre-tension on the damping due to combined low-frequency
and wave-frequency motions. The cases are given in Table 8.
1: Amp. 30 m 1.1 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.0 4962 41.89
Period 150 s 1.2 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.3 4963 41.91 It is clear that the increase of the pre-tension leads to a sig-
(12.5 m 10 s) 1.3 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.6 4965 41.92 nificant increase of mooring line damping according to Fig. 11.
1.4 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.9 4966 41.93 According to the studies in this project, the mooring line damping
2: Amp. 30 m 2.1 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.0 6271 52.95 were increased by a factor in the range from 7 to 8 in the extreme
Period 150 s 2.2 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.3 6275 52.98 conditions. Besides, the motion type of the line top end was not so
(12.5 m 15 s) 2.3 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.6 6279 53.02 important compared with the mooring line pre-tension.
2.4 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.9 6284 53.06
In the work presented by Webster (1995), it was found that the
3: Amp. 30 m 3.1 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.0 17,335 146.37 mooring line damping will show an upward trend with the
Period 150 s 3.2 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.3 17,367 146.64
increase of pre-tension and then show a downward trend due to
(5 m 15 s) 3.3 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.6 17,398 146.90
3.4 S1-1.0S2-1.0 S3-1.9 17,429 147.16 the further increase. This changing point was not found in this
study. The main factor might be that a portion of mooring line is
lying at the seabed for each case and the mooring line did not
In previous research, the drag coefficient has a significant effect reach a taut condition. But the mooring line was in a taut condi-
on the damping values for top end motion is in the range of wave tion with the increase of the pre-tension in Webster’s work. The
frequency. The damping values showed an upward trend with the restoring force is mainly come from the stretching of the mooring
increase of the drag coefficient (Webster, 1995). Besides, the work line when in a taut condition will lead a decrease of the damping
of Sarkar and Taylor also showed that the drag coefficient played values.
an important role to enlarge the damping (Sarkar and Taylor,
2002). The results of this project showed that the normal drag
coefficient is also very important in determining the mooring line 6. Conclusion
damping due to the combination of low-frequency motion and
wave-frequency sinusoidal or random motions. From the point of Time domain finite element method is applied by using Orca-
view of the quasi-static method which introduce by Huse (1986), Flex to investigate the relationship between low-frequency
mooring line damping and the superimposed wave-frequency
the drag coefficient is proportional to the dissipated energy caused
random motion. The wave-frequency random motion is then
by mooring line since the magnitude of the drag force is based on
transferred to the equivalent sinusoidal motion for the purpose of
the selection of it.
comparing the effects of different motion types. The parametric
study is carried out in the background which the wave-frequency
motion is included. The following conclusions can be reached:
5.3. Influence of normal added mass coefficient
(1) The results showed that the effects on mooring line damping
The research on the influence of normal added mass coefficient
considering different random motions are irregular. It might
of the mooring line on the mooring line damping due to combined
be resulted from the inherent property of the vessel itself such
low-frequency and wave-frequency motion is performed. The as Response Amplitude Operator. According to the cases stu-
cases and results are described in Table 7. died in this project, the random waves with small significant
According to Fig. 10, the influence of normal added mass wave height and low zero crossing period has a slight effect on
coefficient can be ignored that the mooring line damping shows a the mooring line damping. The amplification factor will be
very limited change with different normal added mass coefficient increased with the increase of the significant wave height and
values. zero crossing period. But the R.A.O. really plays a domain role
 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252 251

Fig. 10. Influence of normal added mass coefficient on damping.

Table 8
Influence of pe-tension.

Case no. Span (m) Pre-tension Dissipated Damping

(kN) energy (kJ) (kN s/m)

1: Amp. 30 m 1.1 1700 1174 2387 20.16

Period 150 s 1.2 1722 1574 4962 41.89
(12.5 m 10 s) 1.3 1737 1974 8636 72.91
1.4 1749 2374 13283 112.15
1.5 1758 2774 18,784 158.60

2: Amp. 30 m 2.1 1700 1174 3025 25.54

Period 150 s 2.2 1722 1574 6271 52.95
(12.5 m 15 s) 2.3 1737 1974 10,896 92.00
2.4 1749 2374 16,704 141.04
2.5 1758 2774 23,498 198.40

3: Amp. 30 m 3.1 1700 1174 8707 73.52

Period 150 s
(5 m 10 s) 3.2 1722 1574 17,335 146.37
3.3 1737 1974 28,467 240.36
3.4 1749 2374 41,121 347.20
3.5 1758 2774 54,661 461.52

Fig. 11. Influence of pre-tension on damping.

in determining the amplification factor of the mooring line reasonable comparison, the random motion was transformed
damping. to the equivalent sinusoidal motion. The results indicated that
(2) The comparison of the effects due to sinusoidal motion and the effect of superimposed random motion is more slight
random motion was carried out. In order to get a more compared with the superimposed equivalent sinusoidal
252 Y. Yang et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 243–252
motion. It is reasonable that the random motion can be regard
as a combination of many single sinusoidal motions with
different amplitude, period and phase. The difference in the
phases will lead to a reduction in the low-frequency mooring
line damping.
(3) The current has a very slight effect if the superimposed wave-
frequency motion is sinusoidal motion, but on the contrary,
the effect is very significant if the superimposed wave-
frequency motion is random motion. The results showed that
the selection of normal drag coefficient of the mooring line is
very important for predicting the mooring line damping. But
the effect of the normal added mass coefficient can be
neglected that the damping values are similar with different
normal added mass coefficient. The pre-tension has a very
significant influence on the mooring line damping. The pre-
tension has a similar effect with the current since the
existence of the current will also change the mooring line
pre-tension. It indicates that the mooring line pre-tension will
plays a key role in determining the damping of mooring
system.
References
Brown, D.T., Mavrakos, S., 1999. Comparative study on mooring line dynamic
loading. Mar. Struct. 12, 131–151.
Dercksen, A., Huijsmans, R., & Wichers, J. 1992. An improved method for calculating
the contribution of hydrodynamic chain damping on low-frequency vessel
motions. In: Proceedings of the 24th Offshore Technology Conference. Houston,
Teaxs, pp. 209–218.
Huse, E. 1986. Influence of mooring line damping upon rig motions. In: Proceedings
of the 18th Offshore Technology Conference. Houston, Texas, pp. 433–438.
Huse, E. 1991. New developments in prediction of mooring system damping. In:
Proceedings of the 23rd Offshore Technology Conference. Houston, Texas,
pp. 291–298.
Huse, E., & Matsumoto, K. 1988. Practical estimation of mooring line damping. In:
Proceedings of the 20th Offshore Technology Conference. Houston, Texas,
pp. 543–552.
Huse, E., & Matsumoto, K. 1989. Mooring line damping due to first- and second-
order vessel motion. In: Proceedings of the 21st Offshore Technology Con-
ference. Houston, Texas, pp. 135–148.
Johanning, L., Smith, G.H., Wolfram, J., 2007. Measurements of static and dynamic
mooring line damping and their importance for floating WEC devices. Ocean
Eng. 34, 1918–1934.
Kitney, N., Brown, D.T., 2001. Experimental investigation of mooring line loading
using large and small-scale models February. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 123,
1–9.
Matsumoto, K. 1991. The influence of mooring line damping on the predition of
low-frequency vessel motions at sea. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Offshore
Technology Conference. Houston, Texas.
Ormberg, H., Larsen, K., 1998. Coupled analysis of floater motion and mooring
dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Appl. Ocean Res. 20, 55–67.
Qiao, D., & Ou, J. 2010. Time domain simulation of the mooring induced damping in
low frequency excitation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Computer Application and System Modeling. 5, pp. 327–332.
Qiao, D., Ou, J., 2011. Damping calculation of a deepwater catenary mooring line. J.
Vib. Shock. 30 (2), 24–31.
Sarkar, A., Taylor, R.E., 2002. Dynamics of mooring cables in random seas. J. Fluids
Struct. 16 (2), 193–212.
Webster, W.C., 1995. Mooring-induced damping. Ocean Eng. 22 (6), 571–591.
Yuan, Z.M., Incecik, A., Ji, C.Y., 2014. Numerical study on a hybrid mooring system
with clump weights and buoys. Ocean Eng. 88, 1–11.