Msc Thesis(Nilakash Das)

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 6

Msc Thesis(Nilakash Das)

© All Rights Reserved

- Optimization of Gate Leaf of Automatic Outflow Regulating Gate System
- Skid Lifting Lug Design
- Ansys Manual final year anna university
- Analysis of Stress Distribution in a Curved Structure Using Photoelastic and Finite Element Method
- Contact5
- Syllabus and Leaning Outcomes 2013
- Crack Propagation
- InTech-Mechanical Analysis of Woven Fabrics the State of the Art
- er32_2012_3_str147_156
- Syllabus_and_Leaning_Outcomes_2013.pdf
- Articulos 1
- CE2252-—-STRENGTH-OF-MATERIALS
- RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF FRETTING FATIGUE
- SEC VIII D3 ART KD-3
- Fatigue Behavior of Dented 1-42
- Kotz Alas Fatigue Failure Progression in Ball Bearings
- MR14
- 2130003
- Thermo Coupled Stress Analysis of Exhaust Manifold Assemblage Using ABAQUS
- DETAILED STUDIES ON STRESS CONCENTRATION BY CLASSICAL AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 123

links

By Nilakash Das

Delft University of Technology

mechanism in mooring chain links

Committee:

Prof.dr. A. Metrikine

Author: Dr.ir. J. De Oliveira Barbosa

Nilakash Das Ir. P.J. Aalberts

Ir. R. Hageman

Dr. F. Pisano

Master of Science

In

Offshore and Dredging Engineering

Acknowledgements

After almost nine months of blood, sweat and tears, I am extremely pleased to submit my final

thesis report. I had never worked on a research project before and the experience has been exhil-

arating. A lot of people were instrumental in this endeavour to whom I would like to convey my

heartfelt gratitude.

This thesis would not have been possible if not for my parents. They have selflessly supported

me in my quest for undertaking a masters program in a different country. I am completely in

debt to my parents for trusting my capabilities. I also would also like to thank my sister, who has

always been a pleasant friend.

I would like to acknowledge my committee chairman, Professor Andrei Metrikine who gave

many invaluable suggestions during the course of my thesis. Without the courses of Structural

Dynamics which he taught, and Computational Dynamics, which he introduced last year, this

thesis would have extended far beyond the stipulated time. He taught me to understand the

underlying physics of a problem without going into the mathematics. I consider myself extremely

lucky to have been supervised by a man of Professor Metrikine’s calibre.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my daily university supervisor, Dr. Joao Barbosa.

What is remarkable is that in-spite of supervising so many students, he remembers every minute

detail of my research. I am simply awed by his enormous passion towards solving a problem. I

am also humbled by his response as he entertained many of my silly ideas. He would always make

time for my doubts, even when he was on a vacation! I also cannot thank him enough for agreeing

to supervise me on the Research Exercise coursework. A big Obrigado to him for all his efforts.

I would like to express my special thanks to my company (MARIN) supervisors Dr. Pieter

Aalberts and Ir. Remco Hageman, who gave me a golden opportunity to work in a world renowned

research institute . They have been extremely supportive during my thesis, providing me with all

the resources that I needed. I am extremely thankful to their suggestions as well their effort in

proof-reading my final report.

All the research in this thesis was carried out at MARIN. It was a sheer pleasure in being

around so many scientists and students. I learnt about exciting developments not only in the field

of structural mechanics, but also in the fields of hydrodynamics, CFD and model testing. I would

like to give a shout-out to all my friends in MARIN for making my stay a memorable experience.

Finally, my journey during the masters program has been a long and arduous one. A journey

becomes an enjoyable experience when one shares it with a few good people. I want to express my

special gratitude to my partner Miss. Priyanaka Ganatra, who has always been encouraging and

supportive. I also made some really good friends over the course of time who were always there

for me and I would like to acknowledge them.

Abstract

In 2002, several mooring chains of Girassol Off-loading buoy which was installed offshore Angola

ruptured just after 8 months of service. A new failure mechanism called out-of plane bending(OPB)

fatigue in mooring chain links was identified in addition to tension induced fatigue after a series of

experiments.

Currently, there are no models in literature which can comprehensively explain OPB mechanism

in mooring chain links. Models to explain OPB mechanism are required to calculate OPB stresses

in chain links for fatigue damage evaluation. These models need to be ”simple” and ”adequate”

in the sense that it should idealize the complicated geometry of chain links while giving accurate

predictions of OPB stresses when subjected to rotation and tension, at a fraction of time used

by solid finite element models or full scale experiments. The research carried out in this master’s

project deals with development of such models to explain OPB mechanism in mooring chain links.

In this thesis, a new interlink stiffness model is developed to describe the nonlinear hysteritic

relationship between OPB moment and interlink angle. The interlink stiffness model is then

applied to a system of chain links using two different methods: a physics based approach and a

semi-empirical approach. Each of these methods present a new approach to idealize a system of

chain links. Then, a case study is presented in which a methodology to calculate OPB stresses

for one sea-state is described. This methodology follows a de-coupled approach in which results

of coupled floater-mooring analysis are taken as an input for the simplified models of chain links.

To verify this methodology, a comparative study is performed at the end in which coupled floater-

mooring analysis is carried out with and without including the interlink stiffness of chain links.

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Literature Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.5 Scope of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.6 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Development of a FE Model 7

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 Experimental Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 FE model development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.1 Verification of FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.2 Comparison with raw experimental data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.3 Effect of pretension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4.4 Effect of friction coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4.5 Sensitivity to interlink angle definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4.6 Comparison with ANSYS Transient Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.4 FE studies and observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4.1 Rate Independency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4.2 Memory effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.4.3 Stick Slip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.4.4 FE studies on a 7 link chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.5 Inference and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.5.1 On FE studies on a 7 link chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.3 Maxwell Slip Model: A friction model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.4 Interlink Stiffness Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.4.1 Constant Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.4.2 Varying Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.4.3 Additional Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

CONTENTS

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.2 Idealization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.3 Equivalent Link Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.4 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.6 Alternative approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.6.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6 A Semi-Empirical Approach 47

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.2 Idealization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.3 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.4.1 3 link model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.4.2 7 link model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7.3 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

7.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7.4.1 Step 1: Post-processing after coupled floater-mooring analysis . . . . . . . . 58

7.4.2 Step 2: Derive interlink stiffness model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7.4.3 Step 3: Derive equivalent link geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

7.4.4 Step 4: Prepare simplified model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

7.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

8 A Comparative Study 69

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

8.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

8.3 Description of the numerical simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

8.3.1 Equation of motion of the floater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

8.3.2 Equation of motion of the mooring line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

8.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

8.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

9.2 Critical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

9.2.1 On FE modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

9.2.2 On interlink stiffness model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

9.2.3 On Simplified Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

9.2.4 On the Methodology for estimating OPB stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

9.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

A.2 Solution Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

A.2.1 Tangent Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

A.2.2 Newton-Raphson Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

B.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

B.2 Solution Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

CONTENTS

C.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

C.2 Penalty Based Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

C.3 Augmented Langrangian Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

C.4 Friction and Elastic Slip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

D Genetic Algorithm 91

D.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

D.2 Outline of Genetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

E Fixed-point iteration 93

F.1 Environmental details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

F.2 Floater details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

F.3 Mooring line details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

F.3.1 Chain links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

F.3.2 Polyester rope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

F.4 Frequency dependent parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

F.4.1 Added Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

F.4.2 Radiation Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F.4.3 First-Order Wave Force Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

F.4.4 Quadratic Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

F.4.5 Steady Drift Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own

reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates

the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It

is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each

day.

Albert Einstein

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

In 2002, several mooring chains of Girassol Off-loading buoy which was installed offshore Angola at

a depth of 1400 m, ruptured just after 8 months of service. These chains were designed according to

conventional tension fatigue assessment using API RP 2SK T-N curves to a fatigue life of 20 years

with a factor of safety equal to 3. It was observed that four out of five mooring lines had failed at the

first free link that was connected to the floater. A new phenomenon, called Out-of Plane Bending

(OPB) fatigue was identified in addition to tension fatigue after a series of experiments.([6], [23]

and [22])

In the case of Girassol Buoy, the connection between the mooring line and the floater was

located inside a chainhawse (figure 1.1). Failure was observed to occur at Link 5 which was the

first free link of the mooring lines. The relative rotation between the buoy and the mooring line

caused Link 5 to rotate with respect to Link 4, which was fixed to the floater. Generally, it was

assumed that chain links do not posses any rotational stiffness at their contact and they can rotate

freely with respect to one another. However, due to proof testing of links which involves application

of a large tensile load at 70% of Minimum Breaking Load(MBL) induces plastic strains at the link

contacts. When the mooring chains operate under high pretension (>10% MBL), the links behaves

in a complex way by getting ”locked” at their contact and by resisting high moments. This caused

Link 5 to bend out of its plane and therefore it was called out of plane bending (OPB). The high

alternating bending stresses or OPB stresses in Link 5 was attributed as the root cause for its

failure. This mechanism is different from tension induced fatigued which uses stress histogram of

the mooring chain without considering chain rotations (figure 1.2).

To demonstrate the OPB mechanism, consider figure 1.3. in which two links are in pretension

and a tension angle is imposed at the link that can bend out of its plane. This link is the OPB

link. The moment MA that is generated at the links’ contact is the OPB moment and the angle

between the two links is called the interlink angle. The connection between the two links can

be idealized as a rotational spring which is a measure of the interlink stiffness. The rotational

spring can be a complex function of proof loading, interlink angle, tension, frictional coefficient,

1

2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.2: Tension and OPB fatigue location in mooring chain links[6]

link material and link shape. The flexural stresses in the link that bends in its plane (IPB Link) are

benign as its sectional modulus is much higher than the OPB link. The terms OPB Moments and

OPB stresses will be used interchangeably as both quantities only differ by a factor of geometry

or section modulus of the link.

After the Girassol Buoy incident, several experiments were carried out to understand the OPB

mechanism in mooring chain links. The set-up of the experiments varied but all had the same

underlying principle, i.e impose large tension and rotation to a system of links and measure the

stresses in the links that bends out of its plane. Figure 1.4 illustrates one of the experimental set-

ups which was used in [6] and [22]. In these experiments, full scale tests of studless and studded

chain links were carried out and an empirical relationship between observed OPB moment/stress,

interlink angle and applied tension was developed. This became the first interlink stiffness model

to be proposed. The model can be stated as follows:

d

Mopb = min{ aT b dc αint , µT } (1.1)

2

where Mopb is the OPB moment, T is the tension, alphaint is the interlink angle, µ is the friction

coefficient for steel (0.5-0.7 in air and 0.3 in sea water), d is the chain diameter and a,b and c

are empirical constants. Equation 1.1 represents two regimes in the OPB stress/moment-interlink

angle curve: the ”sticking” regime which is a linear function of interlink angle and the sliding

regime. Finite element analysis (FEA) was carried out to reproduce the experimental results in

[23].

A calculation methodology was proposed in [5] to determine OPB stress as a function of interlink

angles, friction coefficient and tension by approximating the relationship with polynomial functions.

The interlink angles were approximated as polynomial functions of friction coefficient, applied

1.2. LITERATURE OVERVIEW 3

Figure 1.4: Experimental set-up of a system of chain links: Chainhawse pushes down link T4 to

generate interlink angles between T4 and T5 and OPB stresses in T5.

tension and rotation. Another methodology was proposed in [9] in which an empirical relationship

between OPB stresses and imposed tension and rotation was developed.

A Joint Industry Project(JIP) aptly named Chain JIP [25] was initiated to improve the models

developed in [6] by performing full scale tests for a range of link diameters and conducting sensitivity

studies with respect to chain grade, link shape and manufacturing effect using FEA. In the same

test program, it was observed that the OPB stresses decreases in magnitude as one moves away

from the loading source thereby confirming the hypothesis that the first free link connected to the

floater is the most crucial link with regards to OPB fatigue. A fatigue damage criteria for the

chain links due to OPB was also proposed.

A guidance note to calculate OPB stresses for fatigue evaluation was released by Bureau Ver-

itas(BV) [20] which incorporates some of the results from Chain JIP. To asses OPB stresses in

time domain, it advises to first preform coupled floater mooring calculations without considering

bending or interlink stiffness in the mooring chain links. Then a beam finite element (FE) model

of a system of links has to be prepared which should be ”calibrated” with an interlink stiffness

model obtained from chain JIP or full scale tests. The tensions at the top of the mooring line

and the relative rotation between the floater and the mooring line obtained from coupled floater

mooring calculations are given as an input to this model and time domain analysis is performed

quasi-statically. The final outcome of this model are the OPB stresses. Figure 1.5 illustrates the

model suggested by BV.

4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Currently, there is no clear methodology in literature to asses OPB stresses in time domain. The

methodology suggested by BV has several flaws and the reliability of the beam FE model it suggests

has not been demonstrated. The suggestion that each link be represented as a beam with the same

dimensions does not faithfully represent a system of chain links whose planes are perpendicular

to each other. It also does not specify how to ”calibrate” the model with an interlink stiffness

model. Moreover, the interlink stiffness model it recommends, which was first developed in [25]

and later improved in [25], describes only a small linear region in the relationship between observed

OPB stresses and interlink angles. The sliding limit it proposes is an overestimation as it does not

take into account the deformation of the links due to proof loading. In fact, the derivation of the

sliding limit which is given in Page 3 of [24] is incorrect as it directly substitutes αi = π/2 and

not by calculating αi by equilibrating applied tension with limiting friction at the links’ contact.

The dependence of OPB moments on interlink angles has been observed to be nonlinear and it

exhibits a hysteritic relationship (figure 1.6). The models proposed in [5] and [9] are devoid of any

physical meaning as they are just empirical relationships between OPB moments/stresses, interlink

angles, imposed rotations and tensions. These models also do not take into account the hysteritic

relationship between OPB moments/stresses and interlink angles.

In the lack of any reliable model to asses OPB stresses in time domain, an alternative solution

could be to use a solid FE model of a system of chain links. But this is a computationally expensive

procedure as the mesh has to be extremely refined especially at the connection between two links.

It was also pointed out in [23], [25] and [9] that FEA gives under-conservative results as compared

to experimental observations and therefore, it should be used with caution.

This has necessitated the development of simplified models to explain OPB mechanism for a

system of chain links. In this thesis, a simplified model will be defined as one that should perform

the following tasks:

1. It should be able to reproduce the physics of an actual system of links when subjected to

rotation and tension.

2. It should give a reasonable prediction of OPB stresses and interlink angles in time domain

compared to a solid FE model of a system of chain links.

Finally, the decoupled approach to asses OPB stresses also raises some questions. In every

research relating to OPB of mooring chain links, the problem has been characterised by only

imposing tension and rotations obtained from coupled floater-mooring analysis to a system of

chain links. There is no comparative study done in literature to determine whether including

interlink stiffness of chain links in a coupled floater-mooring analysis will change the line tensions

and floater rotations.

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5

This thesis will attempt to answer the following research questions:

1. Can a mathematical model be developed that will describe the hysteritic relationship between

OPB moments/stresses and interlink angles?

2. Using this mathematical model, can a simplified model of a system of chain links be developed

which when subjected to tension and rotation give good predictions of OPB moments/stresses

and interlink angles?

3. If the simplified model is successful, how can it be incorporated into a methodology to asses

OPB stresses in time domain?

4. If the mathematical model describing the relationship between OPB moment/stress and

interlink angle is included in coupled floater-mooring analysis, will the line tensions and

floater rotations change from a case of coupled floater-mooring analysis carried out without

including this mathematical model?

This research is mainly focused on capturing the OPB phenomenon of the first free link in a system

of chain links as it is the most crucial one with regards to OPB fatigue. This will be demonstrated

in the course of this thesis. The in-plane bending (IPB) effect is ignored as it is quite small in

magnitude compared to the OPB effect. Each chain link will have their planes perpendicular to

each other and torsion will be ignored. This will ensure a worst case scenario for OPB fatigue.

Only studless chain links are considered. Due to lack of an experimental set-up, a verified and

validated solid FE model of chain links will be considered as a representation of reality. For the

comparative study, a simple model consisting of one mooring line and one cylindrical floater is

considered.

The research presented in this thesis was carried out in the following steps:

1. Verify and validate a solid FE model of a system of chain links (Chapter 2)

3. Develop a new interlink stiffness model to describe the relationship between OPB stresses/moments

and interlink angles (Chapter 4)

4. Develop a simplified model of a system of chain links using a physics based approach (Chapter

5)

5. Develop a simplified model of a system of links using a semi-empirical approach (Chapter 6)

6. Demonstrate a methodology to asses OPB stresses for one sea-state using a case study.(Chapter

7)

7. Perform a comparative study of coupled floater-mooring analysis with and without including

the interlink stiffness model. (Chapter 8)

8. Critical analysis and recommendations. (Chapter 9)

6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2

Development of a FE Model

2.1 Introduction

In the absence of an experimental set-up to observe the OPB mechanism in mooring chain links, it

was decided to develop a finite element(FE) model. This chapter gives details on the development

of a solid FE model of a three link chain system subjected to tension and rotation. The model

has been verified and validated with experimental results from [6] and [23]. This FE model will be

used to derive the interlink stiffness model in Chapter 3 and to validate the simplified models in

Chapters 4 and 5.

This section explains the experimental setup which was used in [6] and [23]. A studless 1ink with

124 mm diameter is considered (figure 2.1). The material grade is R4 and Minimum Breaking

Load (MBL) is 1465 tons, calculated according to [21].

2.2.1 Description

The SBM Chain Test Facility is configured to simulate the relative motion between two adjacent

links in a mooring chain. Depending on the chain size, different length of chain links could be

accommodated. Figure 2.2 shows the test schematic for a 81 mm chain but the principle is same for

all link sizes. The chain tension is maintained constant by a hydraulic cylinder while a chainhawse

fixed with a rig shoe is pushed down very slowly, by another hydraulic cylinder which causes link

labeled T4 in figure 2.2 to rotate relative to the link labeled T5. This generates significant interlink

angles and OPB stresses in link T5.

The test set up for the 124 mm link chain is shown in figure 2.3. Link 1 is pushed down by the

rig shoe to create interlink angles between Link1 and Link2, which is monitored for OPB stresses

while tension is kept constant. Link2 is mounted with strain gauges as shown in figure 2.4. The

7

8 CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A FE MODEL

Figure 2.2: Test schematic for a 81 mm chain link: Chainhawse pushes down T4 to generate

interlink angles between T4 and T5 and OPB stresses in T5.

location of the rosettes was in the transitionqof the straight and bend part of the link. The quantity

that was reported was the stress range of σxx 2 + σ 2 where σ

yy xx and σyy are the normal stresses

in x and y direction

Inclinometers were used to measure relative angles between the links although their exact

location is not clear. Figure 2.5 gives the definition of interlink angles according to [22], which was

SBM’s FE work to reproduce experimental results. Again the interpretation of this definition is

not unambiguous. Figure 2.6 gives one possible interpretation which has been used to validate the

experimental results. A sensitivity study with respect to other possible interpretations will also be

carried out as part of this chapter

2.2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 9

An important point to note that SBM has not published the values of the stress amplitudes

but rather the trends. But they have published an empirical formula [6] which approximates the

linear region in the OPB stress vs interlink angles curve (figure 2.7), which is as follows:

where a is a constant, T is the pretension in the chain, d is the diameter of the links and αint

is the interlink angle. This empirical fit is used to reproduce the values of experimental results.

Thus, the experimental values that have been used for validation may not be exact.

Figure 2.7: Empirical fit after OPB tests for 81 mm studded, 106 mm and 124 mm studless links

10 CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A FE MODEL

2.3.1 Description

The solid model (figure 2.8) is a 3 link model created in ANSYS to simulate experimental loading

and boundary conditions. The contact between links is modeled as stiff springs which does not

allow penetration but allows sliding by taking into account the frictional coefficient. Refer appendix

C for a description on the formulation of frictional contact used in ANSYS. Link 1 is fixed and

rotations around y axis are applied on the upper straight part of Link 3. Tension is applied on

Link 3 in x direction. OPB stresses are monitored in the transition between straight and bent part

of Link 2. Additional supports are applied to restrain the link in y direction.

A non linear material model called the Ramberg-Osgood Law (figure 2.9) is used with isotropic

hardening. Information on the material model was obtained from [22]. The contact of the chain-

hawse rig with Link 3 and the movement of the chainhawse is not modeled directly but instead,

rotations are applied to the upper straight part of link 3. Nonlinear quasi-static analysis (refer

appendix A) is carried out due to the application of proof load which induces plastic strains and

due to the effect of frictional contact between the links.

Figure 2.9: Ramberg Osgood true stress strain curve:Yield Stress=580 MPa, Ultimate Stress=860

MPa, Ultimate Strain=11%, α = 0.002, n=10.3

1. Apply 70% MBL (14360 tons) in tension and release to simulate chain proof testing.

2. Apply constant tension of 4.4% MBL (60 tons) or 6.4% MBL (94 tons).

2.4. RESULTS 11

2.4 Results

The OPB stresses are monitored on Link 2 at the location mentioned in the experiments (See

figure 2.4) and reported in the same way. Since, exact conversion of strain data to stresses is not

mentioned, the stress ranges are directly reported after the analysis. The definition of interlink

angles has been assumed to be the angle between lines joining the extremities (figure 2.6). Friction

coefficient is taken as 0.5 unless explicitly specified.

To verify the FE model a full solid model is constructed (see figure 2.8) and the mesh sizes are

changed until a converged solution is obtained. In all the simulations, one complete cycle of rotation

is applied without initiating any sliding in the links. Once the full solid model is verified (labeled

as Grid 1 Full model in figure 2.10), symmetric boundary conditions are applied. Symmetric

boundary conditions are applied to reduce computation time. The mesh size of the symmetric

model is changed until a converged solution is obtained which is exactly similar to that of the full

solid model. The corresponding grid size is noted and this model used in further simulations. In

this case, the model termed as Grid 3 symmetry (figure 2.11) is chosen which is a solid model of

the chain links with symmetric boundary conditions.

Figure 2.12 shows the comparison of experimental data with FEA. The inner and the outer envelope

represent the set of all possible OPB stress ranges obtained after a set of 50 stabilized cycles of

chainhawse movement. Values from FEA are published for 3 cycles of applied Link 3 rotations.

The applied rotations are between +2 and -2 degrees and the tension is fixed at 60 tons. The

results of the FE model shows a good agreement with experimental observations.

12 CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A FE MODEL

The effect of pretensions is clear according the empirical fit (equation 2.1). The same exercise

was repeated in FEA for two different pretension values (60 and 94 tons) and a similar trend was

observed (figure 2.13).

The friction coefficient between the links is around 0.5 in air and around 0.3 in sea water. In the

experiments, it was observed that sliding initiates faster in seawater although the initial slope of

the lines is similar. The same has been observed in FEA which is shown in figure 2.14. In this

simulation , rotation was applied in only one direction until sliding of links occurs.

2.4. RESULTS 13

The definition of interlink angles used by SBM (See figure 2.5) is not clear. A sensitivity study is

carried for three possible interpretations of the definition of interlink angles. The three possible

interpretations are as follow:

14 CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A FE MODEL

Figure 2.17 shows a comparison of OPB stress-interlink angle curve for the three interpretations.

From this figure, it is clear that the sensitivity with respect to interlink angle definition is large.

Transient analysis (dynamic analysis) in ANSYS should give similar results as ANSYS quasi-static

analysis as the loading in the experiments was carried out at a very low frequency. In this case,

dynamic FEA was carried out by applying rotations at 0.25 Hz. Figure 2.18 shows the comparison

between a quasi static analysis and transient analysis at 0.25 Hz. This comparison proves that the

inertial effects are absent at low frequencies.

2.5 Conclusion

The results from FEA show quite similar trends to what is obtained from experimental results.

However, the values are not a perfect match because of several possible reasons:

1. As stated before, the experimental results that are used for comparison has not been directly

obtained but back calculated using the empirical formula. There can be a good variation in

the raw data itself. The exact values of the raw data are unknown but calibrated using the

empirical formula. This can have a big impact in the OPB stress-interlink angle diagrams.

2.5. CONCLUSION 15

2. The exact loading condition of the chainhawse pushing down the link to create interlink

rotations has not been exactly reproduced in FEA due to insufficient information. The

loading has been included in a representative manner by applying rotations directly.

3. The material law used is a ”static” material law which does not account for cyclic strain

rates. In the chain JIP OPB [25], it was shown that FEA results could be improved with

a combined isotropic and kinematic hardening model that takes into account plastic strain

rate.

4. The link geometry used in FEA was a nominal one without taking into account exact fabri-

16 CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A FE MODEL

cation dimensions. In the Chain OPB it was demonstrated that minor changes in the bend

radius of the link can create a discrepancy in the stress values.

5. The OPB stress diagrams are also sensitive to the definition of interlink angles.

The 3 link symmetric model which has been developed in this chapter will be used in the next

chapter (Chapter 3) to develop an interlink stiffness model and later to develop simplified models

of chain links (Chapters 4 and 5). Transient analysis will be used because in the frequencies of

our interest (10-20 s for floater rotation) the model behaves quasi-statically. Moreover, ANSYS

transient analysis is faster as it uses an implicit integration scheme which is unconditionally stable

(refer appendix B for more information). It does not have to perform multiple iterations for each

time step which is done in ANSYS quasi-static structural analysis (refer Appendix A).

Chapter 3

3.1 Introduction

After the 3 link solid FE model is verified and validated, it is used to carry out several studies on

OPB mechanism in mooring chain links. This chapter explains the FE studies that are carried out

to understand the OPB mechanism. At the end, several conclusions are drawn which will enable

the development of an interlink stiffness model.

3.2 Definitions

A few definitions are required before the FE study is presented. Figure 3.1 explains some of the

definitions that are used consistently in this thesis. The x and z axes are shown in the figure while

y axis goes inside the plane of the figure. The connection between links A and B and between

links B and C will be termed as Connection 1 and Connection 2 respectively. Points A and B lie

diametrically opposite to each other on Link A while points C and D lie diametrically opposite to

each other on Link B in the xz plane with y = 0. The angle that forms between line AB and line

CD will be defined as the interlink angle (αint,F E ) between Link A and Link B.

The OPB stresses (σopb,F E ) on Link B will be calculated as follows:

σxx,P − σxx,Q

σopb,F E = (3.1)

2

where P and Q are two points at the centre of Link B with P lying diametrically opposite to Q

along z axis. σxx,P is the normal stress along x at P and σxx,Q is normal stress at Q. Equation 3.1

isolates the stresses due to OPB from tension and it is valid when the bending curvature in the

link is small ([20]). OPB Moment can be easily calculated by multiplying the OPB stress with

sectional modulus of the link.

Mopb = σopb,F EA ∗ Z (3.2)

3

where Z = π ∗ Dnom /64, Dnom is the nominal diameter of the link. It is important to note that

any variation in the OPB stresses or moments within link B is small and will be ignored. The

terms OPB stress and OPB moment will be used interchangeably as both differ only by a factor

of geometry (Z).

3.3 Methodology

This section describes the methodology followed in conducting a FE study of the chain links.

Rotation (φopb ) around y axis and tension (T) is applied at Link A in the face colored as yellow.

Link C is fixed in the face colored as orange. The sequence for tension loading is described in figure

3.2. Between 0 s and 5 s, a load at 70% MBL is applied and released and at the 6th second, the

tension is brought to initial tension in the chain link system. This is done to simulate the effect

of proof testing and initial loading of chain links. Rotations are applied only after the 6th second.

The analysis is performed quasi-statically til the 6th second and dynamically after the 6th second.

ANSYS dynamic analysis is carried out because the frequencies are quite low for floater rotations

(below 0.25 Hz) and it is faster than nonlinear quasi-static analysis.

17

18 CHAPTER 3. FE STUDIES ON OPB MECHANISM

From this point onwards, all loading sequences (tension and rotation) will include the time

elapsed during proof loading and initial loading while not explicitly mentioning about it. For

instance, if the statement says tension is kept constant, it implies that tension is kept constant

only after proof load and initial load is applied to the system. Similarly, if the statement says

rotation is kept constant, it implies that rotation is zero during the time elapsed for proof loading

and initial loading and then, it is kept constant at a certain value.

The state of the system at the beginning of the seventh second will be the initial state and this

will be taken as the starting point of every simulation for the simplified models.

The following observations are made after FEA of the 3 link chain system by keeping tension

constant at 60 tons. Additionally, FE studies are also performed for a 7 link chain and they are

mentioned in this section.

Figure 3.3 shows a plot of OPB stress vs interlink angle for two different simulations. One simula-

tion was executed by applying one cycle of input rotation quasi-statically while the other simulation

was executed by applying the same rotation at 0.25 Hz. The floater rotation amplitudes are chosen

in such a way that the sliding limit is not reached. Figure 3.3 proves that in the presiding regime,

the relationship between OPB stress and interlink angle is rate independent. This relationship is

also rate independent in the post sliding regime as evident from figure 2.18.

3.4. FE STUDIES AND OBSERVATIONS 19

Figure 3.4 shows the rotation input while figure 3.5 shows the resulting relationship between OPB

stress and interlink angle. The rotation is applied in such a way that two inner loops form inside one

outer hysteresis loop. When the inner loop closes, it follows the trajectory of the outer loop. This

indicates the presence of memory in the hysteritic relationship between OPB stress and interlink

angle [3].

The vertical (z) displacements for two points (B and C) as shown in figure 3.1 are plotted in figure

3.6. The two points belong to link A and B respectively and they lie in close vicinity of each other.

Figure 3.7 reveals that the two points stick when the OPB stress-interlink angle curve is within

the sliding limits while they tend to slip away from each other when the curve reaches the sliding

20 CHAPTER 3. FE STUDIES ON OPB MECHANISM

threshold.

Variation of OPB stress across different links

A 7 link solid FE model of the chain links (figure 3.8) is prepared to study the variation of OPB

stress and interlink angles across various links. The goal was to observe if the first link is indeed

the most crucial link with regards to OPB fatigue. Varying tension and rotation is applied to the

3.5. INFERENCE AND DISCUSSION 21

FE model.

Figure 3.9 shows a the variation of the OPB stress across the OPB links in the chain and

figure 3.10 shows the variation of interlink angles. The OPB stress at Link B is maximum while

the interlink angle at Connection 1 (between A and B) is far greater than the interlink angles at

the other connections. The interlink angle decreases in magnitude as one moves towards the fixed

boundary.

The goal of this study was to observe if OPB stress in the first free link is dependent on the

boundary condition. 3 link, 4 link, 7 link and 15 link solid FE models are prepared. All the FE

models are subjected to the same constant tension (60 tons) and one cycle of rotation between +2

and -2 degrees. The OPB stress in the first free link (link B) for all the models is plotted in figure

3.11.

As one can observe, the OPB stress in the first free link becomes almost independent of the

number of links of boundary condition when more than 7 links are used.

The observations from the FE study leads to a conclusion that the hysteritic relationship between

OPB stress and interlink angle follow a friction model. The frictional behaviour arises due to a

complex interaction between the link surfaces. It displays two regimes: a pre-sliding (sticking)

regime and a sliding regime (figure 3.7).

22 CHAPTER 3. FE STUDIES ON OPB MECHANISM

In the sticking regime, the relative displacement between the two contacting surfaces is in-

finitesimal. The friction force in this regime is mainly a function of displacement, and is due to

the adhesive forces derived from the asperity junction elasto-plastic deformation [8]. The force-

displacement curve (or as in this case OPB stress- interlink angle curve) exhibits a nonlinear

hysteritic relationship.

As the displacement increases, more and more junctions break, and finally there is a breakaway

displacement beyond which gross sliding (the sliding regime) begins. In the sliding regime the

asperity junctions have been broken, and a macroscopic relative displacement of the surfaces in

contact takes place. Usually, the friction force is a function of the relative velocity in this regime

[8]. In the case of OPB stresses/moments-interlink angles, any dependence on velocity is absent as

the analysis is performed at very low frequencies. Both the sticking and sliding regimes are rate

3.5. INFERENCE AND DISCUSSION 23

independent.

An analogy for the OPB stress-interlink angle relationship can be obtained by studying the

frictional behaviour of a block resting on a rough surface excited by a force Fapp (figure 3.12). The

two frictional regimes are shown in the figure. In this case, the gross sliding regime is a function

of the block’s velocity. The existence of memory effect and rate independency is also evident from

the figure when the force Fapp is applied at a frequency 50 times higher than the previous case.

24 CHAPTER 3. FE STUDIES ON OPB MECHANISM

The FE studies on the 7 link model proves that the first free OPB link next to the loading source

is most crucial with regards to OPB fatigue. The OPB stress is also observed to be independent

of the boundary condition when more than 7 links are used. When rotation is applied at one end

of the system of links, it actually transmits a combination of shear force and moment. This shear

force increases towards the fixed boundary of the chain link system. This results in an increase in

resistance towards interlink rotation. Since, OPB stress is dependent on interlink rotation, it also

decreases in magnitude.

3.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, FE studies were performed on a three link and seven link chain. The observations

from FE study on three link model leads to a conclusion that a friction model will be required to

idealize the connection between two links. This friction model should be capture the sticking and

sliding regimes as well as the memory of the system in the hysteretic relationship. Such a model

will be developed in the next chapter (Chapter 4).

Chapter 4

4.1 Introduction

This chapter will introduce a new interlink stiffness model which will describe the observed non-

linear hysteritic relationship between OPB stresses or moments and interlink angle. This model

has been developed after performing FE studies on the three link model.

4.2 Hypothesis

The hysteritic relationship between OPB stresses or moments and interlink angles is due to friction

at the link contacts.

A model that will faithfully simulate the relationship between OPB stress/moment and interlink

angle should posses the following characteristics:

2. It should take the system’s memory into account while simulating the hysteritic relationship.

There is a well known model in friction modeling known as the Maxwell Slip Model, which can

simulate the hysteritic relationship between frictional force and displacement ([26] [4]) by taking

into account the memory effect. It utilizes a piecewise approximation of the nonlinear hysteresis

curve through the use of a number of elementary operators subjected to Coulomb friction. In this

section, a modified version of Maxwell Slip Model is presented for conceptual understanding. One

can understand this model by considering the simple case of block resting on a surface (figure 3.12).

This scenario can be idealized in figure 4.1 where the block is connected to the surface through four

springs or Maxwell elements. Each spring i has a characteristic stiffness ki and a sliding threshold

Wi . When a displacement x is applied, forces Fi will be generated in each spring according to its

characteristic stiffness. This is the sticking region and it will continue until the sliding limit Wi

is reached. After this point, only constant force equal to the sliding limit will be generated in the

25

26 CHAPTER 4. A NEW INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL

springs. When the direction of displacement is reversed, spring forces will reduce in magnitude

until the sliding limit −Wi is reached after which the forces become constant again. The total

frictional force F is a summation of the forces generated in each spring. Mathematically, it can be

expressed as follows:

4

X

F (t) = Fi (t), (4.1)

i=1

∂Fi (t−δt)

min{Fi (t − δt) +

∂t δt, Wi }, if x(t) − x(t − δt) ≥ 0

Fi (t) = (4.2)

∂Fi (t−δt)

max{Fi (t − δt) + δt, −Wi } otherwise

∂t

with

∂Fi (t) ∂ki x(t)

= (4.3)

∂t ∂t

A first order Taylor’s Series Expansion in Equation 4.2 about time t − δt. A hysteresis plot

generated using one Maxwell Element is shown in figure 4.2

Figure 4.2: Hysteresis plot generated with one Maxwell Element(k1 = 100,W1 = 55)

This type of modeling is called grey-box modeling because it is a partial theoretical structure

which needs data to complete the model. The parameters ki and Wi can be obtained by using a

suitable system identification technique. A

The Maxwell Slip model can be used to explain the hysteritic relationship between OPB stress and

interlink angle. In this section, this model will be first adapted to a case of constant tension and

later modified to a case of varying tension.

4.4. INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL 27

Methodology

A random low frequency input rotation (φopb ) is generated (figure 4.3) for 55 s while the tension is

kept constant at 60 tons. Using these input signals, FEA of the three link chain is performed. The

OPB stresses (σopb,F E ) obtained are used for validation while the interlink angles (αint,F E ) that

are generated will be used as an input to the interlink stiffness model. The goal is to accurately

predict the OPB stresses if the interlink angles at Connection 1 are known.

Formulation

Figure 4.4 shows an idealization of the connection between Link A and Link B (Connection 1). 4

rotational springs are placed between Link A and Link B. According to [8], 4 springs are sufficient

for satisfactory results.

Each rotational spring has a characteristic stiffness kri and sliding threshold Wi . Link C is

not considered because the moments generated at Connection 2 will be equal and opposite to the

moments generated at Connection 1 when only interlink angle is imposed between A and B. Since

OPB stresses and moments differ only by a factor of geometry (see equation 3.2), equation 4.1 and

4.2 can be modified without any loss of generality:

4

X

σopb (t) = σopb,i (t), (4.4)

i=1

28 CHAPTER 4. A NEW INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL

where

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

min{σopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, Wi }, if αint,F E (t) − αint,F E (t − δt) ≥ 0

σopb,i (t) = (4.5)

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

max{σopb (t − δt) + δt, −Wi } otherwise

∂t

and

∂σopb,i (t) ∂ kri αint,F E (t)

= (4.6)

∂t ∂t

σopb is the OPB stress calculated by the interlink stiffness model and σopb,i is analogous to

OPB moment generated by each rotational spring. In equation 4.6, kri is a constant. The unit of

tension (T) is tons and the unit of interlink angle (αint,F E ) is degrees. It will be later shown how

these equations can easily be modified to calculate OPB moments.

In the above expression, there are eight unknowns, 4 kri and 4 Wi . To determine these un-

knowns, an optimization scheme has to be used based. The first 10 seconds of σopb,F EA will be

used as a training set to obtain the unknowns. The cost function J is first formulated as:

10

X

J= {σopb,F E (t) − σopb (t)}2 , (4.7)

t=0

kr,W

where kr = [kr1 , kr2 , kr3 , kr4 ] and W = [W1 , W2 , W3 , W4 ]. k̂r,Ŵ is a solution to the optimization

problem.

A non-linear regression based on Genetic Algorithm (see Appendix D) is used to solve the

optimization problem which searches a large parameter space to locate points where a global or

local minima may exist.

Results

The optimization problem 4.8 is solved using MATLAB’s Genetic Algortithm toolbox and the

solution obtained is shown in table 4.1.

k̂r Ŵ

95.158 88.058

0.039 0.216

1.741 7.794

16.491 0

Once the parameters are obtained, they are plugged into equations 4.5 and 4.6 and the OPB

stress is generated using equation 4.4. Figure 4.5 shows a comparison between OPB stresses

generated by the interlink stiffness model for constant tension and the OPB stresses from FEA.

The plots have been transformed such that the lower sliding threshold is 0.

The stresses generated by the interlink stiffness model are in excellent agreement with the

ones obtained fromm FEA. The goodness of fit (figure 4.6) is based on Normalized Mean Square

Error (NMSE) ([18]) which gives a number between 1 and -infinity with 1 being an excellent fit

and -infinity being a very bad fit. The goodness of fit in this case is 0.977. This shows that

the interlink stiffness based on the Maxwell Slip Model works quite well for the case of constant

tension. Figure 4.7 shows a comparison of the hysteresis plots between FEA and interlink stiffness

model for constant tension. The piecewise linear approximation of the nonlinear hysterisis curve

is evident from this figure.

In the previous case, an interlink stiffness model is developed by considering tension as constant.

However, a complete interlink stiffness model must take into account the varying tension input.

4.4. INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL 29

Figure 4.5: Comparison of OPB stress between FEA and interlink stiffness model(constant Tension)

Methodology

A random low frequency rotation (φopb ) (figure 4.8) and tension (T ) (figure 4.9) signal is generated

for 100 s. Using these input signals, FEA of the three link chain is performed. The OPB stresses

(σopb,F E ) obtained are used for validation while the interlink angles (αint )(figure 4.10) from FEA

will be used as an input to the interlink stiffness model. The goal is to accurately predict the OPB

stresses if the interlink angles at Connection 1 are known.

Formulation

The idealization is similar to the previous case (see figure 4.4) except now, the rotational springs

(kri ) and the sliding thresholds(Wi ) will change due to varying tension. When the tension increases,

the springs will become stiffner and the sliding threshold will increase. This is based on the interlink

30 CHAPTER 4. A NEW INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL

4.4. INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL 31

stiffness model (see equation 1.1) which was developed in [6] and [23]. One can also think of the

increase in sliding threshold as a consequence of Coulomb’s law of friction which states that limiting

friction is directly proportional to normal force [29]. Due to plastic deformation at the link contacts,

the proportionality constant will not be the friction coefficient, but some unknown factor which

needs to be determined.

Using these ideas, an attempt will be made to modify the rotational springs and the sliding

thresholds to take into account the effect of changing tension:

Wi = ci T (t) + di (4.10)

The formulation for kri is inspired from equation 1.1 while the formulation for Wi is based on

Coulomb’s law.

Equations 4.9 and 4.10 are inserted into equation 4.6 to give the following expression:

= ai {αint,F E (t)bi T bi −1 + T bi (t) } (4.11)

∂t dt dt

Equations 4.11 and 4.10 are inserted in 4.5 and the OPB stress is calculated using 4.4. There

are now 16 unknowns,4 for each ai , bi , ci and di . The first 20 seconds of OPB stress from FEA

is used as a training set to obtain the unknown parameters. The cost function is formulated as

follows:

X20

J= {σopb,F E (t) − σopb (t)}2 , (4.12)

t=0

a,b,c,d

a solution to the optimization problem. Genetic Algorithm (see Appendix D) is used to solve the

above optimization problem. A time step (δt) of 0.05 s is chosen which is the same time-step used

by FEA.

32 CHAPTER 4. A NEW INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL

â b̂ ĉ d̂

0.027 0.037 320.256 41.95

0.659 0.002 170.11 45.62

0.012 0.08 260.545 48.08

12.789 0.41 0.622 5.14

Results

Table 4.2 shows the values of the parameters obtained solving the optimization problem.

The values obtained from table 4.2 are plugged into equations 4.9 and 4.10 and the OPB

stresses are obtained using equations 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6. The comparison between the OPB stresses

predicted by the interlink stiffness model and FEA is shown in figure 4.11 and it shows an excellent

agreement. The goodness of fit using the NMSE criteria is 0.94 (figure 4.12). This shows that the

parametrisation the rotational stiffness and sliding threshold is probably correct.

Figure 4.11: Comparison of OPB stress between FEA and interlink stiffness model

Figure 4.13 shows a comparison of the hysteresis plots between FEA and the interlink stiffness

model.

Some additional studies were carried out to determine the robustness, sensitivity to time-step and

reproducibility of the interlink stiffness model. They are described in this section.

Robustness

To evaluate the robustness of the interlink stiffness model, the model parameters were changed by

1% and the results were compared to the original model as well as results from FEA (figure 4.14).

The results are invariant with respect to any minor change in the values of the parameters. Thus,

it is concluded that the interlink stiffness model is very robust.

4.4. INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL 33

Sensitivity to time-step

Since, Taylor’s expansion was used to construct the interlink stifnees model, as sensitivity study

was carried with respect to the size of the time-step (δt). The OPB stress is plotted for four

different time- steps and compared to the results of FEA (figure 4.15). The original time step for

the interlink stiffness model is taken was 0.05 s. From the results, it can be concluded that model

is not very sensitive to any change in time-step.

34 CHAPTER 4. A NEW INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL

Reproducibility

The aim of this study was to check if the interlink stiffness model can give correct predictions of

OPB stress for different inputs, if the initial state of the system is kept same. A different rotation

and tension signal for 50 seconds is generated and FEA is performed without changing the proof

load and initial tension in the system. Using the interlink angles generated by FEA, OPB stress

is generated using the interlink stiffness model and the results are compared to OPB stress from

FEA (figure 4.16). From the comparison, it can be observed that the interlink stiffness model can

reproduce results for a different input when the initial state is kept the same.

4.5. CONCLUSION 35

4.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, a new interlink stiffness model is developed. This model gives a relationship of

OPB stresses and interlink angles. It captures the sticking and sliding regimes of OPB stresses

while at the same time it includes the system’s memory in simulating the hysteritic relationship.

The model has been demonstrated to work quite well for both rotation and varying tension as

input. The model is quite robust and insensitive to time-step. It can be used for any other input

time-traces provided the initial state of the system (chain link geometry and material, proof load

and initial tension) is kept same. As stated earlier, this model can easily be modified to calculate

the OPB moments(Mopb ) by changing equations as follows:

Mopb (t) = σopb (t)Z (4.14)

wgere Z is the section modulus (see equation 3.2). The interlink stiffness model can also be used

in case of studded links. The parameters of the model can easily be derived from an actual

experimental set-up.

A major disadvantage of the interlink stiffness model is that it cannot calculate the stresses

on a IPB link (link C). It is because this model is derived assuming that OPB link behaves like

an Euler-Bernoulli beam ([20]). This is true for small deflections when the thickness is small

compared to the length of the beam. However, this does not hold true for the IPB link because

the thickness is comparable to the length of the beam. Shear deformations cannot be ignored in

such a case. Figure 4.17 illustrates a deformation in an IPB link magnified by a factor of 2.

In the current chapter, the interlink angles were known from FEA. In the next two chapters,

simplified models idealizing the 3 chain links will be developed by including the interlink stiffness

model. The simplified models will predict both the interlink angles and OPB stress.

36 CHAPTER 4. A NEW INTERLINK STIFFNESS MODEL

Chapter 5

5.1 Introduction

In the Chapter 3, an interlink stiffness model is developed. This model can predict the OPB

moments or stresses if the interlink angles are known. The model is stated as follows:

4

X

Mopb (t) = Mopb,i (t) (5.1)

i=1

where

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

min{Mopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, (ci T + di ) Z}, if αint (t) − αint (t − δt) ≥ 0

Mopb,i (t) =

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

max{Mopb (t − δt) + δt, −(ci T + di ) Z} otherwise

∂t

(5.2)

and

∂Mopb,i (t) dT dαint

= ai Z{αint (t)bi T bi −1 + T bi (t) } (5.3)

∂t dt dt

In this chapter, a simplified model idealizing the three links as beams is developed. The beams

are connected to each other by a rotational spring which is given by the derivative of the interlink

stiffness model. This approach is termed as ’physics based’ because the simplified model will

attempt to reproduce the physics of an actual three link chain system subjected to tension and

rotation. Additionally it should perform the following tasks:

1. It should give a reasonable prediction of OPB stresses and interlink angles in time domain

compared to a solid FE model.

2. It should take less time to calculate than a solid FE model.

5.2 Idealization

Figure 5.1 shows the simplified model of the three link chain system. The links are connected to

each other by a rotational spring kopb . Rotation φopb (t) (figure 4.8 ) and Tension T (t) (figure 4.9

) is applied at the end of Link C while Link A is fixed. The links have been simplified to beams

with uniform circular cross-section. The length and diameter of the IPB link are lipb and dipb

respectively while that of the OPB link are lopb and dopb respectively . The process of simplifying

the link geometry is explained in the next section. The axial and the vertical degrees of freedom

are shared between the links at their connection but the rotational degree of freedom is not shared.

The interlink angle at Connection 1 (αint,c1 ) is given as:

αint,c1 = θ2 − θ1 ; (5.4)

The interlink angle at Connection 2 (αint,c2 ) is given as:

αint,c2 = θ3 − θ4 ; (5.5)

The OPB stress (σopb ) is noted at location P which is in the middle of the link B.

37

38 CHAPTER 5. A PHYSICS BASED APPROACH

Due to the complicated geometry of the links, especially the curved part, it is difficult to discretize

the links and use in a numerical method. The method which is proposed here reduces the links to

simple beams with uniform circular cross-section of equivalent bending stiffness. This is done by

performing cantilever bending tests of the solid FE model of IPB link (figure 5.2) and OPB link

(figure 5.3). A range of forces (P) from 100 N to 5000 N is applied and displacement at the tip

(∇FE ) is obtained. If the length of the simple beam is denoted as l and the diameter is denoted

as d, the displacement of the cantilever beam at the tip can be analytically calculated as:

Pl3

∇= ; (5.6)

3EI

where

πd4

I= (5.7)

64

5.4. FORMULATION 39

The equivalent length (l) and diameter (d) can be obtained by optimizing the beam to give

similar displacements as the FE model. The cost function is formulated as:

n

X

Jlink = (∇FE − ∇)2 ; (5.8)

i=1

where n represents the number of test cases. The optimization problem is formulated as follows:

(l, d) = arg min Jlink (l, d) (5.9)

l,d

The solution (l, d) is sought such that it they are in the neighbourhood of the nominal dimensions

of 124 mm link. The optimization problem 5.9 is solved for both the IPB link and the OPB link

using Genetic Algorithm and the results are summarized in tables 5.1 and 5.2. It should be noted

that the equivalent diameter of the OPB link is smaller than IPB link. This justifies the fact

that the IPB link has a greater bending stiffness than the OPB link. Another point to note that

the dimensions obtained by this method is only used to discretize the equations in the governing

equation of motion. One cannot use these dimensions directly to calculate the stresses or moments.

l (m) d (m)

0.665 0.145

l(m) d(m)

0.724 0.112

5.4 Formulation

A finite element method is used to formulate the 2D beam model of the chain links. The stiffness

matrix (K) is formulated as follows:

K = Kbeam + Kopb (5.10)

where Kbeam denotes the global stiffness matrix of the beams [10]. It is assembled from

elemental stiffness matrix (kbeam ) of a beam (of length L and moment of inertia I) given as follows

12 6L −12 6L

EI 6L 4L2 −6L 2L2

kbeam = 3 (5.11)

L −12 −6L 12 −6L

2 2

6L 2L −6L 4L

Kopb is the global stiffness matrix due of the rotational springs. The local stiffness matrix of

the rotational spring (kopb ) is given as

kopb −kopb

kopb = (5.12)

−kopb kopb

where kopb is derived by taking a derivative of equation 5.1.

∂Mopb

kopb = (5.13)

∂αint

Kopb is assembled from the local stiffness matrices of the two rotational springs. It must be borne

in mind that Kopb is not only a function of the displacement at any point of time, but also on the

path taken by Kopb as a function of displacement until that point of time. This is because of the

memory effect which was incorporated in deriving the interlink stiffness model. If X represents

the displacement of the system, the governing equation will be given as:

K(Kt−1 , Kt−2 . . . K0 , X) X = F(t) (5.14)

40 CHAPTER 5. A PHYSICS BASED APPROACH

where

Kt−i = K(X(t − iδt)) (5.15)

The force matrix (F) contains forces due to applied rotation and tension. It is given as follows:

0

0

F(t) = .

.. (5.16)

M (t)

φ

T (t)

where Mφ (t) is a force matrix due to input rotation φopb (t) and T(t) is the applied tension.

5.14 is a non-linear equation which describes a quasi-static process. The links are discretised

into 10 elements each. The initial displacement is calculated as:

K0 X0 = F(0) (5.17)

where F(0) is the force matrix due to initial tension and zero rotation. K0 is the initial stiffness

matrix and it is does not include the nonlinear rotational springs. Proof loading is not applied

directly because but its effect is included in Kopb matrix. A numerical method based on fixed

point iteration (Appendix E) is used to solve the non-linear problem. The equation is solved in a

sequence of time steps to obtain the solution X in time domain. The process is quasi-static because

of the absence of any inertial effects in the frequencies of interest.

5.5 Results

Due to convergence issues, equation 5.14 is solved iteratively using a variable convergence criteria.

The convergence criteria is relaxed at certain time steps to enable when convergence difficulty

arises. Figure 5.4 shows a comparison of the plot of interlink angles between the simplified physics

based model and FEA at Connection 1 and figure 5.5 shows the same plot for Connection 2.

Although they show some agreement, there is a substantial amount of noise.

The numerical noise is seen because the interlink stiffness model uses a piecewise linear approx-

imation of the nonlinear OPB moment-interlink angle curve. As a result, there are several points

in the curve where the derivative (kopb ) does not exist. Figure 5.6 illustrates this point. One

such point appears when the links slide with respect to each other. Figure 5.7 shows a plot of the

normalized kopb as a function of time when the interlink angles from FEA is used as an input. As

5.5. RESULTS 41

one can observe, there are several instances where discontinuity in (kopb ) exists. In fixed-point it-

eration, the function f (Appendix E) has to be Lipschitz continuous in order to obtain a converged

solution.

Mopb (t)

σopb (t) = (5.18)

Z

where Z is the sectional modulus of the OPB link given by equation 3.2. This formulation is

possible because the effect of shear force across the OPB link is negligible. Figure 5.8 shows a

comparison of the OPB stress between the simplified model and FEA.

42 CHAPTER 5. A PHYSICS BASED APPROACH

In the next section, an alternative approach is suggested model so that the obtained solutions

are smooth.

Due to the non-smoothness of the solution, an alternative model is proposed. This model is shown

in figure 5.9. The rotational spring between link B and C is dropped and a rigid connection is

5.6. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH 43

made. The axial and vertical degrees of freedom at the connection between A and B are shared.

The stiffness matrix due the rotational spring at Connection 1 is removed from the system’s global

stiffness matrix and adjusted as an external force in right hand side of equation 5.14. The system’s

stiffness matrix is now given as follows:

K = Kbeam (5.19)

K X = F(t) (5.20)

where the force matrix F(t) is formulated as follows:

0

..

.

−Mopb (t)

Mopb (t)

F(t) = (5.21)

0

..

.

M (t)

φ

T (t)

where Mφ (t) is a force matrix due to input rotation φopb (t) and T(t) is the applied tension.

The OPB moment (Mopb (t)) is given by equations 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. It is applied at the rotational

degree of freedom corresponding to θ1 and θ2 (figure 5.1)

The initial displacement is calculated as:

K0 X0 = F(0) (5.22)

where F(0) is the force matrix due to initial tension, zero rotation and zero OPB moment..

Although equation 5.20 is nonlinear, iteration is not be required. One can consider it as a

system excited by a position dependent force, which is the OPB moment in this case. The system

is stable at all time due to the rigid connections.

5.6.1 Results

3 link model

Figure 5.10 is a comparison of the interlink angle at Connection 1 between FEA and the alternative

model suggested and it shows an excellent agreement. The OPB stress is calculated using equation

5.18. The comparison of OPB stress between FEA and the alternative model is shown in figure 5.11

which also shows an excellent agreement. The legend ’Physics based model’ should be interpreted

as the alternative physics based model.

7 link model

A comparison is also made with a 7 link FE model (see figure 3.8). The 7 link model is idealized in

figure 5.12. The rotation and tension applied to the 7 link FE model is same as that for the 3 link

FE model, but they are applied for 100 seconds instead of 200 seconds due to limited computational

44 CHAPTER 5. A PHYSICS BASED APPROACH

resources. A comparison of interlink angle at Connection 1 (between Links A and B) between FEA

and the proposed alternative model is shown in figure 5.13and a comparison of OPB stress on Link

B is shown in figure 5.14. The comparisons are not as good as that of the three link model.

Although the proposed alternative model gives smooth solutions and predicts OPB stress rea-

5.7. CONCLUSION 45

sonably well, the model’s usefulness is limited to the first OPB link only. The model assumes

that OPB moments will be constant across the rest of the chain which is not the case. It also

cannot predict the interlink angle between Links B and C. In fact, The comparison with the 7

link model suggests that the interlink stiffness between the other links needs to be considered for

a more accurate calculation of the OPB stress.

5.7 Conclusion

In this chapter, a physics based model is first proposed. This model attempts to describe the

physics of an actual system of links. It does somewhat explain the observed behaviour but the

solution (interlink angles) obtained are characterized by numerical noise. The numerical noise is

due to the discontinuity in the interlink stiffness of the system. If the obtained solutions were

46 CHAPTER 5. A PHYSICS BASED APPROACH

smooth, a truly simplified model of a system of links would have been obtained which would have

justified the definition of a simplified model adopted in Chapter 1.

To overcome the problem of non-smooth solution, an alternative approach is proposed in which

the rotational spring between the first two links is included as an external force while the rotational

springs between rest of the links is replaced by a rigid connection. The alternative model gives

smooth and excellent predictions for the first OPB link at a fraction of time compared to a solid

FE model. But it does not satisfy the definition of a simplified model as it cannot be used to

predict stresses or interlink angles across other links.

Since the highest stresses occur in the first OPB link (see figure 3.9), this model can still be

applied to estimate OPB fatigue. A case study using this alternative approach is elucidated in

Chapter 7. From this point onwards, a reference to the physics model will imply the alternative

model which is proposed in this chapter.

Chapter 6

A Semi-Empirical Approach

6.1 Introduction

In Chapter 5, a system of chain links was idealized as a system of simple beams connected to each

other by a rotational hysteritic spring. In this chapter, a different approach to idealize and simplify

a system of chain links is presented. This approach is termed as a ’semi-empirical’ because the

simplified model will try to reproduce only the interlink angles and OPB stress using some physical

consideration while ignoring the overall behaviour of a system of links.

6.2 Idealization

Figure 6.1 shows an idealization of the three links. Each link is considered as a rigid bar. k1

and k3 are linear springs representing the bending stiffness of links A and C respectively. k2 is a

linear spring which is representative of the bending stiffness of link B and the interlink stiffness

between links B and C. Linear springs are used because the interlink angles at other connections

are quite small as compared to Connection 1 (see figure 3.10). The interlink stiffness between links

A and B is modeled as an external moment. This external moment is generated by four rotational

springs which takes interlink angle and tension as input. Each rotational spring has a characteristic

stiffness kri and a sliding threshold Wi .

Wi = Ci T (t) (6.2)

This idealization is quite similar to physics based model described in Chapter 4. Although

tension is not directly applied, it’s effect is included in the OPB moments. The interlink angle

47

48 CHAPTER 6. A SEMI-EMPIRICAL APPROACH

αint = θ2 − θ1 ; (6.3)

It is important to note that this idealization cannot calculate OPB stresses as the links are

considered rigid. However, if the interlink angles at connection 1 are known one can use the stress

version of interlink stiffness model to calculate the OPB stress.

6.3 Formulation

The governing equation of motion for the rigid link model is given as:

k2 + k3 −k2 0 θ3 0

−k2 k2 0 θ2 = −Mopb (6.4)

0 0 k1 θ1 Mopb + k3 φopb (t)

4

X

Mopb (t) = Mopb,i (t) (6.5)

i=1

where

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

min{Mopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, Ci T }, if αint (t) − αint (t − δt) ≥ 0

Mopb,i (t) = (6.6)

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

max{Mopb (t − δt) + δt, −Ci T } otherwise

∂t

and

∂Mopb,i (t) dT dαint

= Ai {αint (t)Bi T Bi −1 + T Bi (t) } (6.7)

∂t dt dt

The unit of tension (T) is tons and the unit of interlink angle (αint ) is degrees in the above

expressions. The unknown parameters in the model are 3 linear springs given by k1 , k2 and k3 and

12 OPB moment parameters given by Ai ,Bi and Ci . These parameters are obtained by optimizing

the system with respect to observed interlink angles at Connection 1 from FEA. The first 20

seconds of the interlink angles obtained from FEA is used for training and the rest 180 s is used

for validation. The input rotation and tension is shown in figures 4.8 and 4.9 respectively.

Genetic Algorithm is employed to solve the optimization problem. The cost function is first

formulated as follows:

X20

J= {αint,F E (t) − αint (t)}2 , (6.8)

t=0

The optimization problem is formulated as follows:

{k̂, Â, B̂, Ĉ} = arg min J(k, A, B, C) (6.9)

k,A,B,C

It is important to note that these OPB moment parameters are different from the ones used

in the interlink stiffness model because in this case, the system is optimized with respect to the

observed interlink angles only. Once the parameters are obtained, the governing equation 6.4 can

be solved to to calculate the interlink angles in time domain. The interlink angles are obtained

using equation 6.3. After the interlink angles are calculated, the stress version of the interlink

stiffness model (equations 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6) is used to calculate the OPB stress. The stress version

of the interlink stiffness model is stated again for the reader’s benefit.

4

X

σopb (t) = σopb,i (t), (6.10)

i=1

where

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

min{σopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, (ci T + di )}, if αint (t) − αint (t − δt) ≥ 0

σopb,i (t) = (6.11)

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

max{σopb (t − δt) + δt, −(ci T + di )} otherwise

∂t

6.4. RESULTS 49

and

∂σopb,i (t) dT dαint

= ai {αint (t)bi T bi −1 + T bi (t) } (6.12)

∂t dt dt

The parameters ai , bi , ci and di are given in table 6.1

6.4 Results

6.4.1 3 link model

The parameters obtained after solving the optimization problem (equation 6.9)is shown in table

6.1 .

k̂ Â B̂ Ĉ

271704.26 30.588 0.284 37096.67

776532.4 60.025 0.201 16718.21

636131.54 34.104 0.271 13140.379

896.928 0.032 34290.86

Once the parameters are obtained, equations 6.4 and 6.3 are used to generate the interlink

angles. Then equations 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and table 6.1 are used to calculate the OPB stress. Figure

6.2 shows a comparison of the interlink angles obtained using the semi emprical approach and the

interlink angles obtained from FEA. The agreement between FEA and the semi-empirical model

is quite good.

Figure 6.3 shows a comparison of the OPB stress between FEA and the semi-empirical model.

The agreement in the comparison is excellent.

This approach is also applied to idealize a 7 link chain. The 7 link chain is idealized as a system

of 3 rigid links as shown in figure 6.4. In this model, links C to G in the FE model is represented

by a single link C with an equivalent bending and interlink stiffness denoted by k3 . k2 is a linear

50 CHAPTER 6. A SEMI-EMPIRICAL APPROACH

spring which is representative of the bending stiffness of link B and the interlink stiffness between

links B and rest of the chain from Links C to G. k1 denotes the bending stiffness of link A. The

interlink stiffness between links A and B is modeled as an external moment. This external moment

is generated by four rotational springs which takes interlink angle and tension as input. Each

rotational spring has a characteristic stiffness kri and a sliding threshold Wi .

The rotation and tension applied to the 7 link FE model is same as that for the 3 link FE model,

but the simulation time is taken as 100 seconds instead of 200 s due to limited computational

resources.

First, the unknown parameters are obtained in exactly the same way as they were obtained for

the 3 link model. A 10 s time trace of interlink angles at Connection 1 (between links A and B)

from FEA is used for training and the rest of the time trace is used for validation. The parameters

obtained after solving the optimization problem is given in table 6.3. The presence of the extra

column corresponding to D̂ is because the sliding threshold Wi for the 7 link model has been

expressed as follows:

Wi = Ci T (t) + Di (6.13)

6.4. RESULTS 51

k̂ Â B̂ Ĉ D̂

523352.775 4883.704 2132311.652 34101.545 1797.162

792101.367 13214.944 564723.294 34895.228 1167.798

935616.97 1296.319 915793.54 136933.686 1189.825

6853.139 460696.929 111426.146 1160.754

Table 6.2: Parameters obtained after solving 6.9 for 7 link model

Once the parameters are obtained equations 6.4 and 6.3 are used to generate the interlink angles.

Then equations 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and table 6.1 are used to calculate the OPB stress. Figure 6.5

shows a comparison of the interlink angles obtained using this approach and the interlink angles

obtained from FEA. Figure 6.6 shows a comparison of the OPB stress between FEA and the semi-

empirical model. The agreement is not as good as the one obtained for the 3 link model. This is

because the interlink stiffness has been completely ignored between links C to G.

The prediction of OPB stress by the semi-empirical model for a 7 link chain is quite poor as

compared to the predictions for a 3 link chain. This is because the interlink stiffness has been

completely been ignored for links C to G. Due to the poor quality of predictions, an improvement

is suggested in this section. Instead of using the interlink stiffness model obtained from FEA of a

3 link chain (see equations 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and table 6.1) to calculate OPB stress, a new interlink

stiffness model will be derived from FEA of a 7 link chain. This procedure is exactly same as

mentioned in section 4.4.2. The interlink stiffness model given by equations 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12 is

stated as follows:

4

X

σopb (t) = σopb,i (t), (6.14)

i=1

where

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

min{σopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, (ci T + di )}, if αint (t) − αint (t − δt) ≥ 0

σopb,i (t) = (6.15)

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

max{σopb (t − δt) + δt, −(ci T + di )} otherwise

∂t

52 CHAPTER 6. A SEMI-EMPIRICAL APPROACH

and

∂σopb,i (t) dT dαint

= ai {αint (t)bi T bi −1 + T bi (t) } (6.16)

∂t dt dt

The parameters of this model will be obtained from FEA of a 7 link model. Using 10 s of

the 100 s simulation as a training set, the above model is optimized with respect to OPB stress

obtained at Link B of the 7 link model (see figure 3.8). The cost function can be formulated as :

10

X

J= {σopb,F E (t) − σopb (t)}2 , (6.17)

t=0

a,b,c,d

Genetic Algorithm is employed to solve the optimization problem given by equation 6.18. Table

displays the values of the parameters obtained.

â b̂ ĉ d̂

0 2.03 10.322 70.819

0 0.948 4.915 48.822

3.943 0.604 0.662 3.088

0.637 0 5.395 15.35

The whole process is summarized in as follows. First the interlink angles are generated using

equations 6.4, 6.3 and 6.3. Then OPB stress is calculated using the interlink stiffness model derived

from FEA of a 7 link model which is given by equations 6.14, 6.15, 6.16 and table 6.3. Figure 6.7

shows a comparison of OPB stress predicted by the semi-empirical approach and FEA. The results

show a much better agreement then what is observed in figure 6.6.

6.5 Conclusion

A semi-empirical approach is presented in this chapter. This approach idealizes the links as rigid

bars connected by linear rotational springs while the OPB moments is modeled as an external

force. The semi-empirical model does not satisfy the definition of a simplified model although it

6.5. CONCLUSION 53

gives near excellent predictions of OPB stress and interlink angle. The main advantage of this

model lies in the fact that it uses just 3 degrees of freedom to describe a large system of links. As

a result, it is a much faster method of calculating the OPB stresses if the overall physics of the

chain is not of concern.

The difference between the semi-empirical model and the physics-based model is that the former

does not calculate the OPB stresses. The stress version of the interlink stiffness model is utilized

separately to calculate the OPB stresses. Also, the parameters of the semi-empirical model model

change if the number of links in the reference model changes. This happens even if dynamic and

kinematic initial conditions are kept the same.

54 CHAPTER 6. A SEMI-EMPIRICAL APPROACH

Chapter 7

OPB Stress

7.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a case study on estimating nominal OPB stresses for one sea-state. The

models that have been developed in the previous chapters will be applied here. The goal of this

chapter is to demonstrate a new methodology to asses OPB fatigue.

7.2 Description

Moho Nord is an exploration and production project launched off the Congolese coast in March

2013 (figure 7.1). It is located in 750 to 1050 metres water depth . Moho Nord Field Development

consists of a TLP (Tensioned Leg Platform) type dry tree unit for the development of Albian

reserves and a subsea development for the production of Miocene reserves. Productions are sent

on board a FPU (Floating Production Unit), for separation and export. This case study presents

a methodology to determine the OPB stresses in the Moho Nord FPU mooring system for one sea

state. The OPB stresses will be used to estimate the fatigue damage of a mooring line in addition

to tension induced fatigue.

The Moho Noord FPU mooring layout is shown in figure 7.2. The mooring system consists of

4 clusters, each cluster has three mooring lines. The global and local coordinate system is shown

in figure 7.3. The subscript ’G’ refers to the global coordinate system and the subscript ’L’ refers

to the local coordinate system. Figure 7.3 also shows the positive sign conventions adopted for

55

56 CHAPTER 7. A CASE STUDY ON CALCULATING OPB STRESS

floater rotation. All floater motions are measured in the local coordinate system. Details of the top

chain are listed in table 7.2. The connection between the floater and the mooring line is situated

on the deck of the FPU (figure 7.6). The sea-state is described by a JONSWAP spectrum with a

significant height (Hs ) of 2 m and a peak period (Tp ) of 7 seconds as shown in figure 7.4.

Figure 7.3: Moho Noord FPU coordinate system and positive sign convention for floater motion

7.3 Assumptions

Before the methodology to calculate OPB stresses is presented, some assumptions are made. They

are as follows:

1. The OPB mechanism in mooring chain links occur if tension in the mooring line is more than

7.4. METHODOLOGY 57

Type / Quality R4 Studless

Intact diameter (mm) 152

Corroded diameter (mm) 137

MBL (intact) (kN) 16405

MBL (corroded – 15mm) (kN) 13829

Weight in air (kg/m) 462

Weight in sea water (kg/m) 401.7

Axial Stiffness EA (MN) 1355

Table 7.1: Characteristics of top chain of Moho Noord FPU mooring lines

2. The first free OPB link connected to the floater is the most crucial link with regards to OPB

fatigue.

3. The orientation of the chain links that represents the top chain will be such that their plane

of geometry are perpendicular to each other. This configuration will be fixed so that a worst

case scenario is ensured.

4. The relative angular rotation between the mooring line and the floater is small.

5. Only relative rotations out of plane of the first link are considered. Torsion and relative

rotation in the plane of the links are ignored.

7. OPB of chain links does not affect the dynamics of the mooring line (tension and shape of

the line). It dissipates after the first few links of the top chain.

8. Current and wave forces contribute to negligible bending in the chain links as compared to

relative rotation between the floater and the mooring line.

7.4 Methodology

The methodology is summarized in the flow chart shown in figure 7.5. A decoupled approach is

followed in which coupled floater-mooring analysis is performed first for one sea state (figure 7.4).

The mooring line where OPB stresses need to be assessed is isolated. A simplified model of a

58 CHAPTER 7. A CASE STUDY ON CALCULATING OPB STRESS

system of links based on physics based approach (Chapter 5) is prepared which is representative

of the first few links of the top chain (figure 7.6). The mooring line restoring force that acts on the

floater and the relative rotation between the floater and the mooring line are obtained from coupled

floater-mooring analysis and they are used as an input to the simplified model. The output of the

simplified model will be the OPB stresses and interlink angles for that sea state. This methodology

will be described in detail in relation to the case study in the following sections.

Figure 7.5: Flow chart depicting the methodology for estimating nominal OPB stress

Figure 7.6: Simplified OPB model representing the first few links of the top chain

Coupled floater-mooring calculations of Moho Nord FPU is performed in ANYSIM for a 1 hour

sea state (figure 7.4). The wind and wave direction is taken along positive xG in the global

coordinate system (figure 7.3) for this sea-state. Line S6 (figure 7.2) is chosen for OPB fatigue

assessment as it will have the highest tension for this sea state. The output of the coupled floater

mooring calculations are the mooring forces in line S6 and floater rotations. These quantities will

be post-processed to prepare inputs for evaluating OPB stresses using a simplified model.

Tension

The components of the mooring line force are Fx which acts along xL direction and Fy which acts

along yL direction, at any time t. Since the calculations are performed in 3D, there will be an

additional component Fz which acts along a line perpendicular to the plane of figure 7.3(zL ). The

mooring line force F~ is given as:

F~ = Fx î + Fy ĵ + Fy k̂ (7.1)

7.4. METHODOLOGY 59

î, ĵ and k̂ are unit vectors along positive xL , yL and zL axes respectively.

The tension T can thus be calculated as:

q

T = |F~ | = Fx2 + Fy2 + Fz2 (7.2)

Since tension T changes in time, it will be written as T (t). The tension in the mooring line is

shown in figure 7.7.

Relative rotation

The concept of relative rotation is illustrated in figure 7.7. Relative rotation (φopb (t)) between the

floater and the mooring line is required as an input to calculate OPB stress. Let u~f denote a unit

vector along xL (see figure 7.3). u~f rotates with yaw (ψ) of the vessel. It can be expressed as

follows:

u~f = cos(ψ)î + sin(ψ)ĵ (7.3)

F~xy = Fx î + Fy ĵ (7.4)

F~xy · u~f

γ = cos−1 (7.5)

|F~xy |

q

|F~xy | = Fx2 + Fy2 (7.6)

Let ~v be a unit vector in zL direction which is fixed at the connection of the mooring line and

the floater (figure 7.3). It can be expressed as follows:

~v = −k̂ (7.7)

Once γ is known, the rotation(β) of the vessel in a plane defined by the mooring line force F~

and the fixed vertical unit vector ~v can be calculated as follows:

60 CHAPTER 7. A CASE STUDY ON CALCULATING OPB STRESS

where θ is the pitch of the vessel and φ is the roll of the vessel. The change in β with respect to

the initial rotation is calculated as:

The angle (λ) between the mooring line force F~ and the fixed vertical vector ~v at the connection

of the mooring line and the floater is can obtained as:

F~ · ~v

λ = cos−1 (7.10)

|F~ |

The change in λ with respect to to the initial rotation will be given as:

The relative rotation between the floater and the mooring line can finally be calculated as

follows:

φopb = ∆f − ∆l (7.12)

Since φopb changes in time, it will be denoted as φopb (t).

After T (t) and φopb (t) is post-processed from coupled floater-mooring calculation, the interlink

stiffness model needs to be derived. The nominal diameter of the links is taken as the corroded

diameter of the link (137 mm). The nominal dimensions of the link are shown in figure 7.8. A

solid FE model of a system of links will be created to develop the interlink stiffness model.

FE model

A solid FE model of a 3 link chain having a nominal diameter(Dnom ) of 137 mm is created in

ANSYS to derive the interlink stiffness model. The contact between links is modeled as stiff

springs which does not allow penetration but allows sliding by taking into account the frictional

coefficient (See Appendix ??). The friction coefficient is taken as 0.5 which is the friction coefficient

of steel in air, as the connection between the mooring line and the floater is on the deck of the

floater. The material law used for the FE model is based on R4 mooring chain grade and it is

shown in figure 7.9.

Figure 7.10 explains some of the definitions that are used in the FE model. The x and z axes are

shown in the figure while y axis goes inside the plane of the figure. Points A and B lie diametrically

opposite to each other on Link A while points C and D lie diametrically opposite to each other on

Link B in the xz plane with y = 0. The angle that forms between line AB and line CD will be

7.4. METHODOLOGY 61

Figure 7.9: Ramberg Osgood true stress strain curve:Yield Stress=580 MPa, Ultimate Stress=860

MPa, Ultimate Strain=11%, α = 0.002, n=10.3

The nominal OPB stresses (σopb,F E ) on Link B will be calculated as follows:

σxx,P − σxx,Q

σopb,F E = (7.13)

2

where P and Q are two points at the centre of Link B with P lying diametrically opposite to Q

along z axis. σxx,P is the normal stress along x at P and σxx,Q is normal stress at Q. Equation

3.1 isolates the stresses due to OPB from tension and it is valid when the bending curvature in

the link is small ([20]). It is important to note that any variation in the OPB stresses or moments

within link B is small and will be ignored. The connection between links A and B and between

links B and C will be termed as Connection 1 and Connection 2 respectively. If the OPB stresses

are known, the OPB moments can be calculated as follows:

Mopb = σopb,F EA ∗ Z (7.14)

Z is the section modulus of the OPB link given by:

3

Z = π ∗ Dnom /64 (7.15)

A random low frequency rotation signal and tension signal is generated for 10 s. The rotation

signal is generated such a way that both the sticking and sliding regimes of OPB stress are observed.

These signals are applied to the FE model after it has been subjected to proof-load (at 70% corroded

MBL) and initial load (given by T (0)). The complete tension loading signal is shown in figure 7.11

and the complete rotation signal is shown in figure 7.12. FEA of the chain links is performed

quasi-statically during proof-loading and initial loading while it is performed dynamically after

initial loading. The interlink angles (αint,F E ) and the OPB stresses (σopb,F E ) are generated after

FEA.

62 CHAPTER 7. A CASE STUDY ON CALCULATING OPB STRESS

Figure 7.13 shows an idealization of the connection between Link A and Link B (Connection

1). 4 rotational springs are placed between Link A and Link B. Each rotational spring i has a

characteristic stiffness kri and sliding threshold Wi . kri and Wi are given as follows:

Wi = ci T (t) + di (7.17)

7.4. METHODOLOGY 63

Link C is not considered because the moments generated at Connection 2 will be equal and

opposite to the moments generated at Connection 1 when only interlink angle is imposed between

A and B. The interlink stiffness model can now be stated as follows:

4

X

σopb (t) = σopb,i (t), (7.18)

i=1

where

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

min{σopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, (ci T + di )}, if αint,F E (t) − αint,F E (t − δt) ≥ 0

σopb,i (t) =

∂σopb,i (t−δt)

max{σopb (t − δt) + δt, −(ci T + di )} otherwise

∂t

(7.19)

and

∂σopb,i (t) dT dαint

= ai {αint (t)bi T bi −1 + T bi (t) } (7.20)

∂t dt dt

The interlink stiffness model given by equations 7.18,7.19 and 7.20 imply that if the interlink angles

are known, OPB stress can be calculated. The parameters ai , bi , ci and di need to be determined.

This will be done by optimizing the interlink stiffness model with respect to σopb,F E . The interlink

angles from FEA(αint,F E ) will be used as an input to the model. The cost function is formulated

as follows:

X10

J= {σopb,F E (t) − σopb (t)}2 , (7.21)

t=0

The optimization problem is formulated as follows:

{â, b̂, ĉ, d̂} = arg min J(a, b, c, d) (7.22)

a,b,c,d

solution to the optimization problem. Nonlinear regression based on Genetic Algorithm is used to

solve this optimization problem. The parameters obtained after solving the optimization problem

are given in table 7.4.2.

a b c d

0.027 0.037 320.256 41.95

0.659 0.002 170.11 45.62

0.012 0.08 260.545 48.081

12.789 0.41 0.622 5.137

Equations 7.18, 7.19 and 7.20 are generalized and modified as follows to calculate OPB mo-

ments.

X4

Mopb (t) = Mopb,i (t) (7.23)

i=1

where

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

min{Mopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, (ci T + di ) Z}, if αint (t) − αint (t − δt) ≥ 0

Mopb,i (t) =

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

max{Mopb (t − δt) + δt, −(ci T + di ) Z} otherwise

∂t

(7.24)

and

∂Mopb,i (t) dT dαint

= ai Z{αint (t)bi T bi −1 + T bi (t) } (7.25)

∂t dt dt

Equations 7.23, 7.24 and 7.25 along with table 7.4.2 is the interlink stiffness model for the 137 mm

chain link system.

The complicated geometries of IPB and OPB links will be reduced to simple beams of uniform

circular cross-section of equivalent bending stiffness. This will make the process of discretization

for a simplified model easier. FE calculations are used to derive the equivalent link geometry.

64 CHAPTER 7. A CASE STUDY ON CALCULATING OPB STRESS

FE model

Cantilever bending test are performed using a solid FE model of the IPB link (figure 7.14) and

OPB link (figure 7.15). The links are subjected to a range of forces (P) and the displacement at

the tip (∇FE ) corresponding to each force is obtained. In this case study, P is taken as as follows:

100

500

P= 1000 N (7.26)

2500

5000

The above process is repeated for both the IPB link and OPB link.

If the length of the simple beam is denoted as l and the diameter is denoted as d, the displacement

of the cantilever beam at the tip can be analytically calculated as:

Pl3

∇= ; (7.27)

3EI

where

πd4

I= (7.28)

64

The equivalent length (l) and diameter (d) can be obtained by optimizing the beam to give similar

displacements as the FE model. The cost function is formulated as:

n

X

Jlink = (∇FE − ∇)2 ; (7.29)

i=1

where n represents the number of test cases. The optimization problem is formulated as follows:

(l, d) = arg min Jlink (l, d) (7.30)

l,d

7.4. METHODOLOGY 65

The solution (l, d) is sought such that it they are in the neighbourhood of the nominal dimensions

of 137 mm link. The optimization problem 7.30 is solved for both the IPB link and the OPB link

using Genetic Algorithm and the results are summarized in tables 7.2 and 7.3.

l (m) d (m)

0.782 0.165

l(m) d(m)

0.79 0.127

Once the interlink stiffness model and equivalent link geometries are determined, a simplified model

of a system of links will be developed to predict OPB stresses. A 7 link simplified model based on

the physics based approach (Chapter 5) is shown in figure 7.16. The choice on the number of links

is based on the reasoning that as the number of links increases, OPB stresses become independent

of the boundary condition (see Section 3.4.4). In figure , dipb and lipb are the equivalent dimensions

of the IPB link and dopb and lopb are the equivalent dimensions of the OPB link. The interlink

stiffness model is included as an external moment between links A and B. The axial and vertical

degrees of freedom at the connection between A and B are shared. T (t) and φopb (t) are inputs to

the simplified model.

αint = θ2 − θ1 ; (7.31)

K X = F(t) (7.32)

where the global stiffness matrix K is assembled from the stiffness matrices of the beams.

K = Kbeam (7.33)

Kbeam can be obtained from Appendix. The force matrix F(t) is formulated as follows:

0

..

.

−M (t)

opb

Mopb (t)

F(t) = (7.34)

0

.

.

.

Mφ (t)

T (t)

66 CHAPTER 7. A CASE STUDY ON CALCULATING OPB STRESS

where Mφ (t) is a force matrix due to input rotation φopb (t) and T (t) is the applied tension.

The OPB moment (Mopb (t)) is given by equations Equations 7.23, 7.24, 7.25 and table 7.4.2. It is

applied at the rotational degree of freedom corresponding to θ1 and θ2 (figure).

The initial displacement is calculated as:

K0 X0 = F(0) (7.35)

where F(0) is the force matrix due to initial tension (T (0)) and initial rotation (φopb (0)).

The governing equation 7.32 is solved in a series of time steps using the initial solution X0 to

obtain a solution in time domain. Using equation 7.31, the interlink angles can be calculated.The

OPB stress can now be calculated using the following relationship:

Mopb (t)

σopb (t) = (7.36)

Z

where Z is the sectional modulus of the OPB link given by equation 7.15. Figure 7.17 shows a plot

of the interlink angles and figure 7.18 shows a plot of the OPB stresses for the given sea-state.

Figure 7.17: Time domain plot of interlink angles for 1 hour sea state

7.5 Discussion

From figures 7.17 and 7.18, one can observe that the trend of interlink angle and OPB stress

is exactly similar. Both plots have the same shape. This is because the interlink angles in the

case study are quite small. This makes OPB stress to lie in the linear sticking regime of OPB

stress-interlink angle relationship. In order to validate if the current model can capture sliding

regime, the input rotations are multiplied by a factor of 10. A comparison of interlink angles

(figure 7.20) and OPB stress (figure 7.21) is carried out to see if there is a change in the trend

of OPB stress and interlink angle. One can conclude of from the observations that if the input

rotations are increased, sliding regimes are observed which is indicated by the flattening of the

OPB stress curve. Differences in the trend of interlink angles and OPB stress are also seen in the

comparison.

7.6 Conclusion

In this chapter, a methodology is presented to calculate nominal OPB stresses for a particular

sea-state. Once the OPB stresses are known, they can be converted into hot-spot stresses by

7.6. CONCLUSION 67

Figure 7.18: Time domain plot of OPB stress for 1 hour sea state

multiplying with stress concentration factors (SCF) at the location of interest. On such location

where fatigue cracks occur due to OPB in mooring links is shown in figure 7.19. The hot-spot

stresses can be converted into stress ranges and Rainflow Counting can be used to determine the

68 CHAPTER 7. A CASE STUDY ON CALCULATING OPB STRESS

number of cycles corresponding to each stress range. A suitable SN curve ([25]) can be employed

to evaluate the desired strength corresponding to each stress range. The fatigue damage due to

OPB can be finally estimated by Miner’s rule ([27]).

Chapter 8

A Comparative Study

8.1 Introduction

The methodology adopted in the current work follows a de-coupled approach, in which, coupled

floater-mooring analysis is performed first. The tension and relative rotation are post-processed

after coupled floater-mooring analysis and taken as an input for the simplified OPB models of

chain links. Currently, there is no study in literature to indicate whether including interlink and

bending stiffness in coupled floater-mooring analysis changes tensions and floater rotations. This

chapter attempts to answer this question by performing a comparative study.

8.2 Methodology

For the comparative study, two scenarios are chosen in which a simple cylindrical floater with

identical environmental conditions are considered. The mooring line comprises of a polyester rope,

which is 90% of the total line length, and steel chain links. The polyester rope is idealized as a

string in both the scenarios. The chain links are idealized as a single string in the first scenario,

hence it is called a ”String-String Model” (figure 8.1).

In the second scenario, steel chain links is considered as a composition of two parts: the first

part idealizes the floater link as a simple beam and the second part idealizes rest of the chain links

as another simple beam. This model is called a ”String-Beam Model” (figure 8.2). The connection

between the floater link beam and the beam representing rest of the links is taken as the interlink

69

70 CHAPTER 8. A COMPARATIVE STUDY

stiffness. The interlink stiffness is modeled as an external moment and not as an rotational spring.

The link considered in this comparative study is the 137 mm chain link which was used the case

study (Chapter 7). More details regarding environmental conditions, floater and mooring chain

links can be found in Appendix F.

The main objective is to compare tension and floater rotation in time domain for each of these

scenarios.

The numerical time-domain simulation for the moored floater follows the approach of CALM buoy

coupled floater-mooring analysis, as described in [7]. The numerical model used in the time-domain

simulations for the moored floater consists of two separate models, which are linked as shown in

figure 8.3. The two main components of the simulation model are a numerical model for the floater

and a numerical model for the dynamic behaviour of the mooring lines. The interaction between

the two models is explained as follows:for each time step, the equation of motion of the floater is

solved. The resulting floater motions are used as a kinematic boundary condition for the mooring

model. The equations of motion for the mooring model are solved and the resulting line tension

at the top of the chain is taken as an external force on the floater for the next time step. In

this comparative study, equations of motion for the floater remain the same while the equation of

motion for the mooring line changes for the two scenarios.

The equation of motion for the floater in time-domain, in the absence of any linear or quadratic

damping, is given by the convolution integral

Z t

[m + A∞ ]ẍ + Kf x + h(t − τ )ẋ(τ )dτ = q(t, x, ẋ) (8.1)

0

where m is the mass matrix of the floater, x is a three degree of freedom displacement vector of

the center of gravity of the cylindrical floater composed of surge (xf ) , heave (zf ) and pitch (θf ,

positive anticlockwise)

x f

x = zf (8.2)

θf

8.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL SIMULATION 71

A∞ is the added mass at infinite frequency (frequency independent added mass), Kf is the hydro-

static stiffness and q is the exciting force given by

(1) (2)

q(t, x, ẋ) = qW A + qW A + qext (8.3)

(1) (1)

where qW A is the first order wave excitation force, qW A is the second order wave excitation force

and qext is the mooring line force on the floater.

Calculation of first-order and second order wave excitation forces is explained later.

h(τ ) in equation 8.1 is the retardation function computed by a transform of the frequency

dependent added mass and damping

Z ∞

1

h(τ ) = [c(ω) + iωa(ω)]eiωt dω (8.4)

2π −∞

Frequency dependent added mass (A) and radiation damping matrix(C) is given as follows

Separation of motions

Solving the integral in equation 8.1 is very time consuming, so another method is used which is

based on separation of motions [1]. The separated motion method is a common approach by using

a multiple scale approach. This method separates the wavefrequency (or high frequency) part

from the lowfrequency part. The exciting force is separated in a high-frequency part q (1) and a

low-frequency part q (2)

(1)

q (1) = qW A (8.7)

(2)

q (2) = qW A + qext

The position vector X can then be separated into

1

[m + A(ω)]xHF

¨ + C(ω)xHF

˙ + Kf xHF = qW A (ω) (8.9)

The high-frequency motion xHF (ω) can be converted into time domain as follows

t

X

xHF (t) = xHF (ω)cos(ωt − kx + φ(ω)) (8.10)

0

72 CHAPTER 8. A COMPARATIVE STUDY

where k and φ(ω) are frequency dependent wave-number and phase respectively.

The low frequency motions are solved in time-domain is expressed as follows:

(2)

[m + A(ω = 0)]xLF

¨ + Kf xLF = qW A + qext (8.11)

Wave forces

The total wave forces that act on the floater is given as

(1) (2)

qW A = qW A + qW A (8.12)

(1)

If the sea-spectrum S(ω) is known for an irregular sea, the first order wave forces qW A can be

calculated as

N

(1)

X

qW A (t) = Aj |H1 (ωj )|cos(ωj t + j + δ(ωj )) (8.13)

j=1

where H1 (ω) is the frequency dependent transfer function for the first order wave force, j is the

random phase angle and δ(ω) is the phase of H1 (ω). Aj is the wave amplitude given by

q

Aj = 2 S(ωj )∆ω (8.14)

(2)

The second order wave forces qW A is a composition of steady drift forces qst and a low frequency

2

component qLF

(2) (2)

qW A = qst + qLF (8.15)

The steady wave drift forces are independent of time and is calculated as

N

X

qst (t) = A2j |Hs (ωj )| (8.16)

j

N

N X

(2)

X

qW A (t) = Aj Ak |HQT F (ωj )|cos{(ωk − ωj )t + (k − j ) + φQT F (ωj ))} (8.17)

j=1 k=1

where HQT F (ω) is the quadratic transfer function and φQT F is the phase angle of the quadratic

transfer function.

The frequency dependent terms involved in the equation of motion of the floater are A, C, H1 (ω),

Hs (ω) and HQT F (ω). These terms are calculated for the floater before the start of the simulation

without considering the mooring line. In this thesis, ANSYS AQWA is used to generate the

frequency dependent terms. ANSYS AQWA takes a sea-spectrum and the direction of the spectrum

as an input and performs diffraction analysis [2]. The frequency dependent terms used in this

comparative study can be referred from Appendix F

The governing equation of motion of the mooring line can be written as

M Ẍ + KX = F (t, X) (8.18)

The above equation uses a finite element discretization for the mooring line with M as the

mass matrix and K as the stiffness matrix of the mooring line. Both these matrices differ for the

string-string model and string-beam model. F (t, X) is a force matrix which includes wave and

current forces on the mooring line as well the forces due to the motion of the floater.

8.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL SIMULATION 73

String-String Model

In the string-string model, the mooring line is discretized into NC elements for the chain part and

NP elements for polyester rope. Each node has two degrees of freedom; axially along z direction

and horizontally along positive x direction. The global mass matrix M can be written as

The global mass matrix is assembled from elemental mass matrices given by

140 0 70 0

ρ p Ap l p

0 156 0 54

Melement = , p = chain, polyester (8.20)

420 70 0 140 0

0 54 0 156

where ρ is the density, A is the area of cross section calculated using nominal diameters, l is the

length of each element and the subscript p denotes whether the element lies within the chain or

the polyester part.

Similarly, global stiffness matrix K is written as

The global stiffness matrix is assembled from elemental stiffness matrices given by

(EA) (EA)

p

lp 0 − lp p 0

T

− lTp

0 lp 0

kelement = (EA)p

(EA)p

, p = chain, polyester (8.22)

− lp 0 0

lp

T T

0 − lp 0 lp

(EA)p denotes the axial stiffness of the chain or polyester rope. T is the tension developed in each

element. The elemental matrix formulations can be found in [19]. If the global coordinates of the

nodes of an element at any time t is given as (Xi , Zi ) and (Xj , Zj ), tension can be calculated as

q

(EA)p

T = (Xi − Xj )2 + (Zi − Zj )2 − lp,org (8.23)

lp,org

where lp,org is the un-stretched original length of an element in the chain or polyester part. Due

to changing tension, the global stiffness matrix also changes. Hence, equation 8.18 is a non-linear

equation. The forces due to the floater can be given as

x1

z1

x1 z1

X1 = . , Z 1 = .. (8.25)

..

.

x1 z1

where x1 and z1 are surge and heave motions of the floater which are applied at the top node of

the mooring line, MX1 , MZ1 and KX1 , KZ1 are corresponding column matrices.

String-Beam Model

The formulation of the string-beam model is different the mass and stiffness matrix changes due

to the beam representation of of chain part of the mooring line. The chain is discretized into

NC + 1 elements which includes the additional floater link and the polyester rope is discretized

into NP elements. The nodes that lie in the polyester part has two degrees of freedom as explained

previously, whereas the nodes that lie in the beam part has three degrees of freedom: axial, lateral

as well as rotational.

74 CHAPTER 8. A COMPARATIVE STUDY

The global mass matrix M can be obtained by referring equation 8.19. The elemental mass

matrix for the polyester part remains as it is but the elemental mass matrix of the chain part is

now given as

140 0 0 70 0 0

0

156 22lq 0 54 −13lq

2

ρq Aq lq 0

22lq 4lq 0 13lq −3lq2

, q = f loater − link, chain (8.26)

Melement =

420 70 0 0 140 0 0

0 54 13lq 0 156 −22lq

0 −13lq −3lq2 0 −22lq 4lq2

Similarly, the elemental stiffness matrix for the polyester remains unchanged whereas the ele-

mental stiffness matrix for the chain part is now given as

(EA)q (EA)

lq 0 0 − lq q 0 0

12EI T 6EI

0 lq3 + lq 0 − 12EI

lq3 − lq

T 6EI

lq2 lq2

6EI 4EI 6EI 2EI

0

lq2 lq 0 − l2 l q

kelement = (EA)q q

, q = f loater−link, chain

(EA)q

− l 0 0 lq 0 0

q

0

− 12EI

lq3 − lq

T

− 6EI

lq3 0 12EI

lq3 + lq

T

− 6EI

lq3

6EI 2EI

0 lq2 lq 0 − 6EIlq2

4EI

lq

(8.27)

where EI denotes the bending resistance of the the beam. The elemental matrix formulations can

be found in [19] which uses a Euler-Bernoulli tensioned beam formulation. The tension is updated

for each time step and it is given by equation 8.23.

To obtain the force from the floater on the mooring line, one can refer equation 8.24 which will

include extra terms due to the floater rotation. In the string-beam mode, the interlink stiffness is

included as an external moment between the floater-link and rest of the chain. The OPB moment

formulation is stated as follows

X4

Mopb (t) = Mopb,i (t) (8.28)

i=1

where

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

min{Mopb (t − δt) +

∂t δt, (ci T + di ) Z}, if αint (t) − αint (t − δt) ≥ 0

Mopb,i (t) =

∂Mopb,i (t−δt)

max{Mopb (t − δt) + δt, −(ci T + di ) Z} otherwise

∂t

(8.29)

and

∂Mopb,i (t) dT dαint

= ai Z{αint (t)bi T bi −1 + T bi (t) } (8.30)

∂t dt dt

The interlink angle αint can be referred from figure 8.2. The parameters of the OPB moment

have already been determined in Chapter 8 and they can be referred from table 7.4.2. The OPB

moment Mopb is included in a column matrix corresponding to θ2 and θ3 degrees of freedom in the

right hand side of equation 8.18. It is given as follows

0

..

.

0

Mopb = −Mopb (t) (8.31)

Mopb (t)

..

0 .

0

The forces on the mooring line (F (t, X)) i.e the right hand side of equation 8.18, is given as

8.4. RESULTS 75

Equation 8.32 will include an extra term due to OPB moment in case of string-beam model. The

calculation of Ff has already been described for both the models. For the calculation of the

environmental loads Fenv , Morrison’s equation is used which is given as

πD2 D

F = cm ρ (u̇ − ẅ) + Cd ρ (u + uc − ẇ)|u + uc − ẇ| (8.33)

4 2

where

• Cm :inertia coefficient

• Cd :drag coefficient

• ρ:density of water

A deep water approximation of airy wave theory is used to calculate the wave velocities along the

vertical length of the mooring line. The horizontal wave velocity at depth z for an irregular sea is

given as

N

X

u(z, t) = Aj ωj ekz cos(kx − ωj t) (8.34)

j=1

A time invariant current profile is considered for the calculation of current velocity and it is

given as

1/7

z+d

uc (z) = uc,0 (8.35)

d

where uc,0 is the current velocity on the water surface and d is the depth of the water surface.

Wind loads are not considered in this study.

8.4 Results

Time domain simulation for 100 s is carried out for the string-string model and string-beam model

considering a unidirectional wave spectrum as shown in figure 8.4. The starting point of the

simulation as the hydrostatic condition where initial tension in the mooring line is due to the

difference in the wight of the floater and buoyancy.

The equations of motions of the floater (equation 8.1) and the mooring line (equation 8.18)

are solved in time domain using MATLAB ODE45 solver [17], according to the method described

in figure 8.3. The floater rotations obtained for both the model are compared in figure 8.5. The

tension at the top chain, which is obtained as the mooring line force that acts on the floater, is

compared in figure 8.6 . From the comparisons, it can be observed there is a change in the tension

while floater rotation remains unchanged.

76 CHAPTER 8. A COMPARATIVE STUDY

8.5 Conclusion

From this comparative study, it can be concluded that tensions changes when bending and interlink

stiffness is included in the mooring line. In coupled floater-mooring analysis, bending stiffness is

not included in mooring chains because the curvatures are very small such that the entire chain

behaves like a string. However, on inclusion of interlink stiffness, local curvatures are developed in

the mooring line in the vicinity of the floater, which changes the tension. Floater rotations do not

change because the external moment due to interlink stiffness that act on the floater is very small

as compared to the wave forces and moments. For instance, the moments due to first order wave

force is 8 orders of magnitude while highest OPB moments are of 4 orders of magnitude.

8.5. CONCLUSION 77

78 CHAPTER 8. A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Chapter 9

Recommendation

9.1 Introduction

The goal of this Master’s thesis was to develop simple models that can explain the OPB mechanism

in a system of mooring chain links when they are subjected to both tension and rotation. In this

thesis, a simplified model was defined as one that performs the following tasks:

1. It should be able to reproduce the physics of an actual system of links when subjected to

rotation and tension.

2. It should give a reasonable prediction of OPB stresses and interlink angles in time domain

compared to a solid FE model of a system of links.

3. It should take less time to calculate than a solid FE model.

The key to develop such a model required that the non-linear hysteritic relationship between

OPB moment-interlink angle or the interlink stiffness model is properly described. A new interlink

stiffness model (figure 9.3) based on Maxwell Slip Model for friction modeling [15] was developed

as part of this thesis. This model was capable of explaining the observed nonlinear hysteritic

relationship between OPB moment and interlink angle. Extensive use of FEA was made to derive

this model.

The interlink stiffness model was applied to a system of chain links using two different ap-

proaches (figure 9.4). In one approach, the links were idealized as beams of uniform circular

cross-section with equivalent bending stiffness. This model was termed as ”physics based” because

it intended to describe the overall physics of a system of links. In another approach, the links

were idealized as rigid bars and the model was termed as ’Semi-empirical’ because it intended

to reproduce the interlink angles and OPB stress using some physical considerations but without

describing the overall behaviour of a system of links. Both the models give accurate predictions of

OPB stress and interlink angles at a fraction of time compared to a FE model.

A case study is also presented in this thesis in which a methodology to calculate OPB stresses

for a sea-state is described. This methodology follows a de-coupled approach in which results

of coupled floater-mooring analysis are taken as an input to the simplified models. To verify this

methodology, a comparative study is performed in which coupled floater-mooring analysis is carried

out with and without including the interlink stiffness of chain links. An interesting conclusion was

drawn at the end that tensions indeed change when interlink stiffness is included.

In this chapter, a critical analysis of the research is presented so that the reader is aware of the

limitations and shortfalls.

9.2.1 On FE modeling

In this master’s thesis, extensive use of FE modeling in ANSYS has been made. A solid FE

model of chain links (see figure ) was verified and validated for one load case when tension in the

79

80 CHAPTER 9. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION

chain was kept constant. This FE model was used to develop an interlink stiffness model and

subsequently, to develop the simplified models for OPB stress prediction. It is very important to

note the FE model may not be an accurate representation of reality. [9] and [10] has reported that

FE modeling usually produces under conservative results. This raises some concern especially in

the case of interlink stiffness model for varying tension. There is no way of confirming whether the

results from FE analysis correspond to reality.

Another point to note that there is a discrepancy in the application of boundary condition in

the simplified model and in FEA. Although ANSYS allows application of rotation as a boundary

condition, it does so by using the concept of remote node which is illustrated in figure 9.1. To

apply rotation at the specified nodes in the FE model, a remote node is created which does not

lie on the FE model but has a rigid connection with the nodes on the FE model where rotation

is to be applied. A combination of force and moment is applied at the remote node which gets

converted in to required rotation. Thus, applying rotations directly to the simplified model is not

an accurate representation of kinematic boundary conditions.

Figure 9.1: Force and moment applied at remote node to produce rotation at required nodes in

FE model

An interlink stiffness model is developed in this thesis which accurately describe the non-linear

hysteritic relationship between OPB moments/stress and interlink angles in mooring chain links. It

utilizes a piecewise approximation of the hysteresis curve through the use of a number of elementary

operators (spring elements). While extremely good results for OPB moments/stress are obtained

using this model, one cannot use it to derive the interlink stiffness (kopb ) which is a derivative of

OPB moment with respect to interlink angle. kopb is a discontinuous function because derivatives

do not exist at certain points in the OPB moment-interlink angle see graph (figure 9.2). This

makes it difficult to construct a truly simplified model to accurately describe the behaviour of a

system of chain links.

Another shortcoming of the interlink stiffness model is that it can predict stresses only on

the OPB link and not on the IPB link. It is because this model has been derived assuming that

the OPB link behaves like an Euler-Bernoulli beam. This is true for small deflections when the

thickness is small compared to the length of the beam. However, this does not hold true for the

IPB link because the thickness is comparable to the length of the beam.

Finally, the author would like to raise an important question on the nature of the interlink

stiffness model itself. The formulation of interlink stiffness model is quite similar to the frictional

contact formulation used in ANSYS which is based on Return Mapping Algorithm ([12]). Both

formulations imply that evolution of a force in time is dependent on the path taken by the force

till that point of time in the force-displacement curve. As a result, there is nothing unique about

the interlink stiffness model because one can consider it as a consequence of the formulation that

ANSYS uses. A much greater confidence can be placed in the model only if it is tested against an

actual experiment.

9.2. CRITICAL ANALYSIS 81

Physics based model

In this model, the links were idealized as simple beams of uniform circular cross section with

equivalent bending stiffness. Rotational springs(kopb ) were placed between the links. Due to the

discontinuity of kopb , the model gave non-smooth solution for interlink angles. If this model had

worked, one would have obtained a truly simplified model which could describe the behaviour of a

system of links.

An alternative model was proposed in which the interlink stiffness is included as an external

moment between the first two links while a rigid connection is made between rest of the links. By

doing so, the model gave near perfect values of OPB stress and interlink angles for a 3 link model

at a fraction of a time compared to a solid FE mode. However, such a model is limited in its use

till the first OPB link only. It cannot be used to predict stresses or interlink angles across any

other link. Hence, this model does not satisfy the definition of a simplified model. The discrepancy

in the results increase for a larger chain link model(for instance the 7 link model). This indicates

that interlink stiffness should be considered between all the chain links.

Semi-empirical model

The main idea behind this model was not to reproduce the physics of a system of links, but to

create an equivalent mechanical system which will reproduce just two quantities. Those quantities

are OPB stress and interlink angle between the first two links. This model does not satisfy the

definition of a simplified model. But an interesting feature of this model is that it can give near

82 CHAPTER 9. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION

accurate prediction of these quantities using just three degrees of freedom. The models also works

quite well for a 7 link chain. Such a model can be used for quick calculations if one wishes to

ignore the overall behaviour of a system of links.

The de-coupled approach followed in this thesis to estimate OPB stress raises some concern. In

the comparative study (Chapter 10) in which coupled floater-mooring analysis is carried out with

and without including interlink stiffness, it is observed that while floater rotations do not change,

tension does change. .

9.3 Recommendations

This work should be seen as a starting point in developing models to explain OPB mechanism in

mooring chains comprehensively. Although the models developed during this research is a vast

improvement over previous models in literature, they are still incomplete. A few recommendations

to improve the models are listed below which can be seen as a scope for future work.

1. An attempt can be made towards smoothening of the interlink stiffness model to allow for

existence of higher order derivatives.

2. A more robust numerical technique such as arc-length method can be applied to solve the

governing nonlinear equation of the physics based simplified model.

3. The interlink stiffness model as well as the simplified models should be validated extensively

against experiments.

4. The simplified physics based model can be modified by adopting a comprehensive interlink

stiffness model that takes into account out-of plane bending, in-plane bending and torsion

and that makes kopb a smooth function for all values of interlink angle.

5. Methodology to incorporate interlink stiffness of mooring chain links in coupled floater-

mooring analysis should be investigated for more complicated cases of mooring layout.

Appendix A

Analysis

A.1 Introduction

A nonlinear analysis is needed if the loading on a structure causes significant changes in stiffness.

Typical reasons for stiffness to change significantly are:

• Strains beyond the elastic limit (plasticity)

• Large deflections in the structure

• Contact between two bodies

When a load causes significant changes in stiffness, the load-deflection curve becomes nonlinear

(figure A.1). The challenge is to calculate the nonlinear displacement response using a linear set

of equations.

The governing equation for nonlinear quasi-static analysis can be stated as follows:

K(X) X = F (A.1)

where K(X) is the stiffness matrix which is dependent on the displacement X. A nonlinear analysis

is an iterative solution because this relationship between load (F) and response (X) is not known

beforehand. Time dependent effects are not considered. ANSYS uses Newton-Raphson algorithm

to solve a non-linear problem.

The solution method used by ANSYS to solve nonlinear quasi-static problem is described in the

following sections.

83

84 APPENDIX A. ANSYS NONLINEAR QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS

The solution method for a geometrically non-linear problem begins with a linearization of the

non-linear equilibrium equations, such as the general force equilibrium equations given by:

Pext = Fint (u) (A.2)

where Fint is a vector of nodal internal member forces, which are functions of the nodal degree

of freedom (DOF) displacements u . Pext is a vector of externally applied loads. Assuming there is

a known set of nodal displacement DOFs, u0 , that satisfies equation A.2, the equilibrium equations

can be linearized by perturbing the force about this known solution point. A small perturbation

of the externally applied load corresponds to a perturbation in the nodal DOF displacements and

equation A.2 becomes:

Pext + dP = Fint (u0 + dU) (A.3)

A first-order taylor series expansion of the right hand side of equation A.3 results in:

∂Fint (u)

Pext + dP = Fint (u0 ) + |u=u0 du (A.4)

∂u

Since u0 is a solution that satisfies equation A.2, equation A.4 reduces to:

∂Fint (u)

dP = |u=u0 du = KT (u0 )du (A.5)

∂u

where

∂Fint (u)

KT (u) = (A.6)

∂u

Tangent stiffness matrix KT is essentially a matrix of sensitivities. In particular, it is the sensitivi-

ties of the internal member forces to perturbations in the nodal displacement DOFs of the system.

The tangent stiffness matrix contains information regarding both the linear elastic and geometric

stiffness of the structure.

As with any set of non-linear equations, the most effective way to solve the non-linear problem is

to use an incremental-iterative technique. ANSYS uses an iterative technique based on Newton-

Raphson method is used. The externally applied load is divided into increments ∆P and at each

increment a Newton-Raphson iteration is run in order to converge on the equilibrium condition,

as illustrated in figure A.2. Given an initial configuration for the structure, and thus the initial

nodal DOF displacement vector u0 , the initial tangent stiffness matrix KT (u0 ) can be calculated.

The externally applied load is then incremented by some small increment ∆P and the linearized

system of equations from equation A.5 is solved for the nodal incremental displacement due to the

external load:

−1 −1

δu11 = [KT (u0 ] ∆P = [KT (u0 ] Pext,1 (A.7)

Here the subscripts represent the increment number, and the superscripts represent the iteration

number. The internal member forces at the updated configuration (Fint (u0 + δu11 )) are calculated,

and the equilibrium condition from equation A.2 is checked. Since a linear approximation was used

to solve for the nodal displacements, it is likely that there is an unbalance in the force equilibrium,

otherwise known as a residual force R. The equilibrium equation is then:

Pext,1 − Fint (u0 + δu11 ) = R11 (A.8)

and iteration proceeds to converge on a solution for the nodal DOF displacements that results in

the residual being as close to zero as possible. This is done by calculating the updated tangent

stiffness matrix from the updated nodal displacements and solving for the nodal displacement

increments due to the residual force.

−1

δu21 = [KT (u0 + δu1 ] R11 (A.9)

The updated internal member forces (Fint (u0 + δu11 + δu21 )) are again calculated, and the equi-

librium equation becomes,

Pext,1 − Fint (u0 + δu11 + δu21 ) = R21 (A.10)

A.2. SOLUTION METHOD 85

If the residual is not close to zero within an acceptable tolerance, then the process is repeated. If

the residual is approximately zero, then the equilibrium condition has been achieved and the new

updated equilibrium configuration due to the externally applied load of Pext,1 is

The solution process continues by again incrementing the externally applied load such that

Pext,2 = Pext,1 + ∆P, and proceeding with the iteration on the linear system of equations. This is

repeated until the full applied load is reached, with the final solution being uj = u0 + ∆u1 + · · · + ∆uj ,

where j is the total number of load increments. In some nonlinear static analyses, if one uses the

Newton-Raphson method alone, the tangent stiffness matrix may become singular (or non-unique),

causing severe convergence difficulties. Such occurrences include nonlinear buckling analyses in

which the structure either collapses completely or ”snaps through” to another stable configura-

tion. For such situations, one can activate an alternative iteration scheme, the arc-length method,

to help avoid bifurcation points and track unloading.

NOTE: The content in this appendix is taken from [13] and [14].

86 APPENDIX A. ANSYS NONLINEAR QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS

Appendix B

Analysis

B.1 Introduction

Transient dynamic analysis (sometimes called time-history analysis) is a technique used to deter-

mine the dynamic response of a structure under the action of any general time-dependent loads.

One can use this type of analysis to determine the time-varying displacements, strains, stresses,

and forces in a structure as it responds to any combination of static, transient, and harmonic

loads. The time scale of the loading is such that the inertia or damping effects are considered to

be important. If the inertia and damping effects are not important, one could use a static analysis

instead. The basic equation of motion solved by a transient dynamic analysis is

Mü + Cu̇ + Ku = F (B.1)

At any given time, t, these equations can be thought of as a set of ”static” equilibrium equations

that also take into account inertia forces (Mü) and damping forces (Cu̇). ANSYS uses the New-

mark time integration method to solve these equations at discrete time points. The time increment

between successive time points is called the integration time step.

Equation B.1 can be rewritten for a time t + ∆t as follows:

Mü(t + ∆t) + Cu̇(t + ∆t) + Ku(t + ∆t) = F(t + ∆t) (B.2)

ANSYS use a Newmark time integration scheme to solve B.2, also referred to as constant accela-

ration method. In the Newmark method, it is assumed that the acceleration during an integration

time step ∆t is constant and an average value. For constant acceleration, one can write the

kinematic relations:

∆t2

u(t + ∆t) = u(t) + u̇(t)∆t + u¨av (B.3)

2

The constant, average accelaration is:

ü(t + ∆t) + ü(t)

u¨av = (B.5)

2

Combining equations B.3 and B.5 yields:

∆t2

u(t + ∆t) = u(t) + u̇(t)∆t + [ü(t + ∆t) + ü(t)] (B.6)

4

which is solved for the acceleration at t + ∆t to obtain:

4 4

ü(t + ∆t) = 2

[u(t + ∆t) − u(t)] − u̇(t) − ü(t) (B.7)

∆t ∆t

87

88 APPENDIX B. ANSYS TRANSIENT DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

If equations B.5 and B.7 are substituted into equation B.4, one can find the velocity at time t + ∆t

to be given by:

2

u̇(t + ∆t) = [u(t + ∆t) − u(t)] − u̇(t) (B.8)

∆t

Equations B.7 and B.8 express acceleration and velocity at t + ∆t in terms of known conditions

at the previous time step and the displacement at t + ∆t. Thes equations can be substituted

into equation B.2 and after a bit of algebric manipulation, the recurrence relation for the Newark

Method can be obtained as follows:

where

4 2

K̃ = M+ C+K (B.10)

∆t2 ∆t

with

4 4 2

Feff (t + ∆t) = F(t + ∆t) + M ü(t) + u̇(t) + u(t) + C u̇(t) + u̇(t) (B.11)

∆t ∆t2 ∆t

The system of algebraic equations represented by equation B.9 can be solved at each time step

for the unknown displacements. For a constant time step ∆t, matrix K̃ is constant and need be

computed only once. The right-hand side Feff (t + ∆t) is updated at each time step. At each

time step, the system of algebraic equations is solved to obtain displacements. For this reason, the

procedure is known as an implicit method. By back substitution through the appropriate relations,

velocities and accelerations can also be obtained.

The Newmark method is known to be unconditionally stable. This does not mean, however, that

the results are independent of the selected time step. Accuracy of any finite difference technique

improves as the time step is reduced, and this phenomenon is a convergence concern similar to

mesh refinement in a finite element model. For dynamic response of a finite element model, one

must be concerned with not only the convergence related to the finite element mesh but also the

time step convergence of the finite difference method selected. ANSYS transient analysis requires

the user to specify “load steps,” which represent the change in loading as a function of time. The

software then solves the finite element equations as if the problem is one of static equilibrium at

the specified loading condition. It is very important to note that the system equations represented

by equation B.9 are based on the finite element model, even though the solution procedure is that

of the finite difference technique in time.

NOTE: The content in this appendix is taken from Chapter 10 in [10]

Appendix C

C.1 Introduction

In finite element analysis, if two independent parts are present, there is no stiffness relationship

defined between them, and the resulting stiffness matrices will be uncoupled. Consequently, one

part may pass through the other during the course of the simulation. Contact elements are required

to define the interaction of two or more sets of meshes to prevent such penetration. ANSYS

contact elements typically support four different algorithms: Augmented Lagrangian, Pure Penalty,

Multipoint constraint, and Lagrange Multiplier Methods. The default and most commonly-used

option is the Augmented Lagrangian formulation, which can be thought of as a variation of the

pure penalty method. This appendix will describe the Pure Penalty and Augmeneted Lagrangian

methods.

When two parts come into contact, ideally, no penetration will occur. The pure penalty method

can be thought of as placing stiff springs between the two parts that have come into contact with

each other:

p = kn xn (C.1)

One can see from equation C.1 that as the contact stiffness kn is increased, the resulting

penetration xn decreases for a finite amount of contact pressure p. Ideally, the penetration xn

should be zero, but equation C.1 would result in contact stiffness kn being infinite. However, if

the penetration xn is small, the results are still very accurate. The choice of the contact stiffness

kn affects both accuracy and convergence. Too low of a value of kn results in large penetration

xn ; one can imagine that if the penetration is on the same order of magnitude as the calculated

displacements, the results will be quite suspect. On the other hand, selection of kn that is too

high leads to convergence difficulties; the reason for this is because any variation of penetration

xn leads to a large change in contact pressure p. ANSYS automatically calculates contact stiffness

kn , based on the underlying solid element’s size and material.

As noted earlier, the Augmented Lagrangian method is a penalty-based approach. Specifically,

equation C.1 is modified as follows during contact:

p = kn xn + λ (C.2)

automatically-calculated maximum allowable penetration tolerance. λ is increased automatically

when xn exceeds the tolerance limit. The benefit of the augmented Lagrangian method is that the

results are less sensitive to the value of contact stiffness kn .

89

90 APPENDIX C. ANSYS FRICTIONAL CONTACT

When friction is present, an analogous situation exists for behavior in the tangential direction.

Until the frictional shear stress τ exceeds the limiting shear stress τlim , the contact points should

be “sticking”. While zero slip is desired, in a penalty-based method, the slip xt is related to the

frictional stress τ by the tangential contact stiffness kt as follows:

τlim = µp (C.4)

Similar to the case in the normal direction with penetration xn , if the elastic slip xt is small,

it will not compromise accuracy in frictional models. In ANSYS, the tangential contact stiffness

kt is automatically calculated. A more advanced formulation for frictional contact can be found

in [12] which makes use of Return Mapping Algorithm.

NOTE: The content in this appendix is taken from [11].

Appendix D

Genetic Algorithm

D.1 Introduction

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a method for solving both constrained and unconstrained optimization

problems based on a natural selection process that mimics biological evolution. The algorithm

repeatedly modifies a population of individual solutions. At each step, the genetic algorithm

randomly selects individuals from the current population and uses them as parents to produce the

children for the next generation. Over successive generations, the population ”evolves” toward an

optimal solution.

One can apply the genetic algorithm to solve problems that are not well suited for standard

optimization algorithms, including problems in which the objective function is discontinuous, non-

differentiable, stochastic, or highly nonlinear.

The genetic algorithm differs from a classical, derivative-based, optimization algorithm in two

main ways, as summarized in the following table.

Generates a single point at each it- Generates a population of points at

eration. The sequence of points ap- each iteration. The best point in the

proaches an optimal solution population approaches an optimal solu-

tion

Selects the next point in the sequence Selects the next population by compu-

by a deterministic computation tation which uses random number gen-

erators

A detailed information on GA can be found in [16] and [30]. In this section, an outline of the

algorithm is presented.

1. The algorithm begins by creating a random initial population.

2. The algorithm then creates a sequence of new populations. At each step, the algorithm uses

the individuals in the current generation to create the next population. To create the new

population, the algorithm performs the following steps:

(a) Scores each member of the current population by computing its fitness value.

(b) Scales the raw fitness scores to convert them into a more usable range of values.

(c) Selects members, called parents, based on their fitness.

(d) Some of the individuals in the current population that have lower fitness are chosen as

elite. These elite individuals are passed to the next population.

(e) Produces children from the parents. Children are produced either by making random

changes to a single parent—mutation—or by combining the vector entries of a pair of

parents—crossover.

91

92 APPENDIX D. GENETIC ALGORITHM

(f) Replaces the current population with the children to form the next generation.

3. The algorithm stops when one of the stopping criteria is met.

NOTE: The content in this appendix is taken from [15] and [16].

Appendix E

Fixed-point iteration

functions [28]. More specifically, given a function f defined on the real numbers with real values

and given a point x0 in the domain of f , the fixed point iteration is

Lipschitz continuous, then one can prove that the obtained X is a fixed point of f , i.e.,

x = f (x), n = 1, 2, . . . (E.2)

More generally, the function f can be defined on any metric space with values in that same space.

NOTE: The content in this appendix is taken from [28].

93

94 APPENDIX E. FIXED-POINT ITERATION

Appendix F

Input Details

A unidirectional wave-spectrum, as shown in figure F.1 is chosen for the coupled floater-mooring

analysis. Other environmental details are shown in table F.1

Significant wave height (Hs ) 2m

Peak period (T0 ) 9s

Water depth (d) 800 m

Current velocity on surface (uc,0 ) 0.2 m/s

A cylindrical floater is considered for the comparative study. The details of the cylindrical floater

are shown in table F.2

95

96 APPENDIX F. COUPLED FLOATER-MOORING ANALYSIS INPUT DETAILS

Diameter 25 m

Height 125 m

Hydrostatic draft 100 m

Mass 5.5 × 107 kg

Center of gravity (xcog , ycog ) 0m

Center of gravity zcog -61.63 m

Radius of gyration in x (kxx ) and y 75.29 m

(kxx )

Radius of gyration in z (kzz ) 62.72 m

Metacentric height (GM) 6.98 m

0 0 0

Kf = 0 4928553.5N/m 0 (F.1)

0 0 66090396N.m/deg

F.3.1 Chain links

The details of the chain links are shown in table F.3.1

Chain length (un-stretched) 38.1 m

Link diameter 137 mm

Link length 822 mm

Hydrodynamic diameter 273.6 mm

Density 7850 kg/m3

Axial stiffness ((EA)c ) 1.35 × 109 N

Bending stiffness ((EI)c ) 4.46 × 106 N m2

Inertia coefficient (Cm ) 1

Drag coefficient (Cd ) 0.8

a b c d

0.027 0.037 320.256 41.95

0.659 0.002 170.11 45.62

0.012 0.08 260.545 48.081

12.789 0.41 0.622 5.137

The details of the polyester rope are shown in table F.3.2

Polyester rope length (un-stretched) 650 m

Diameter 111 mm

Hydrodynamic diameter 133.5 mm

Density 1370 kg/m3

Axial stiffness ((EA)c ) 1.19 × 109

Inertia coefficient (Cm ) 1.2

Drag coefficient (Cd ) 0.7

F.4. FREQUENCY DEPENDENT PARAMETERS 97

The frequency dependent parameters are generated for the cylindrical floater in ANSYS AQWA

before the start of coupled floater-mooring simulation. These parameters are reported in this

section.

The added mass for surge in x (Axx ), in z (Axz ) and in θ (Axθ ) direction is shown in figure F.2

The added mass for heave in x (Azx ), in z (Azz ) and in θ (Azθ ) direction is shown in figure F.3

The added mass for pitch in x (Aθx ), in z (Aθz ) and in θ (Aθθ ) direction is shown in figure F.4

98 APPENDIX F. COUPLED FLOATER-MOORING ANALYSIS INPUT DETAILS

The radiation damping for surge in x (Cxx ), in z (Cxz ) and in θ (Cxθ ) direction is shown in figure

F.5

The radiation damping for heave in x (Czx ), in z (Czz ) and in θ (Czθ ) direction is shown in

figure F.6

The radiation damping for pitch in x (Cθx ), in z (Cθz ) and in θ (Cθθ ) direction is shown in

figure F.7

F.4. FREQUENCY DEPENDENT PARAMETERS 99

The first order wave force transfer function for surge (H1x ), heave (H1z ), and pitch (H1θ ) are

shown in figures F.8, F.9 and F.10 respectively.

The quadratic transfer function for surge (HQT F x ), heave (HQT F z ), and pitch (HQT F θ ) are shown

in figures F.11, F.11 and F.13 respectively.

100 APPENDIX F. COUPLED FLOATER-MOORING ANALYSIS INPUT DETAILS

Figure F.8: First order wave force transfer function for surge

Figure F.9: First order wave force transfer function for heave

The steady drift transfer function for surge (Hsx ), heave (Hsz ), and pitch (Hsθ ) is shown in figure

F.14.

F.4. FREQUENCY DEPENDENT PARAMETERS 101

Figure F.10: First order wave force transfer function for pitch

102 APPENDIX F. COUPLED FLOATER-MOORING ANALYSIS INPUT DETAILS

F.4. FREQUENCY DEPENDENT PARAMETERS 103

104 APPENDIX F. COUPLED FLOATER-MOORING ANALYSIS INPUT DETAILS

Bibliography

[1] Rika Afriana. Coupled Dynamic Analysis of Cylindrical FPSO, Moorings and Riser Based

on Numerical Simulation (Master’s thesis). 2011.

[2] ANSYS AQWA. AQWA User’s Manual. url: http://148.204.81.206/Ansys/150/Aqwa%

20Users%20Manual.pdf.

[3] Farid Al-Bender. “Fundamentals of friction modeling”. In: ().

[4] V. Lampaert, J. Swevers, & F. Al-Bender. “Modification of Leuven Intergrated Friction

Model Structure”. In: IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control (2002).

[5] E.ter Brake, J van der Cammen & R. Uittenbogaard. “Calculation Methodology of Out Of

Plane Bending of Mooring Chains”. In: OMAE2007-29178 (2007).

[6] P.Jean, K.Goessens & D.L’Hostis. “Failure of Chains By Bending On Deepwater Mooring

Systems”. In: OTC 17238 (2005).

[7] Ir.J.L.Cozijn & Dr.Ir.T.H.J.Bunnik. “Coupled Mooring Analysis for a Deep Water Calm

Buoy”. In: OMAE2004-51370 (June 2004).

[8] Demosthenis D. Rizos & Spilios D. Fassois. “Presliding Friction Identification Based Upon

the Maxwell Slip Model Structure”. In: (2004).

[9] Tom Lassen, Jan Aarsnes& Einar Glomnes. “Fatigue Design Methodology for Large Mooring

Chains Subjected to Out-Of-Plane Bending”. In: OMAE2014-23308 (2014).

[10] David V. Hutton. Fundamentals of Finite Element Analysis.

[11] Sheldon Imaoka. “Contact Analysis Tips”. In: ANSYS Release 11.0 (January 2009).

[12] A.Mijar & J.Arora. “Return Mapping Procedure for Frictional Force Calculation: Some In-

sights”. In: J. Eng. Mech.,10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1004), 1004-1012 (2005).

[13] Sonia Lebofsky. Numerically Generated Tangent Stiness Matrices for Geometrically Non-

Linear Structures (Master’s thesis). 2013.

[14] ANSYS Training Manual. Introduction to Nonlinear Analysis. url: www2.kuas.edu.tw/

prof/me06/part-2/2_08-nonlin.ppt.

[15] MathWorks. Genetic Algorithm. url: http://nl.mathworks.com/discovery/genetic-

algorithm.html.

[16] MathWorks. How the Genetic Algorithm Works. url: http://nl.mathworks.com/help/

gads/how-the-genetic-algorithm-works.html.

[17] MathWorks. ode45. url: http://nl.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/ode45.html.

[18] Mathworks. Evaluating Goodness of Fit. url: http://nl.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/

evaluating-goodness-of-fit.html.

[19] Achilleas Mina. Modeling the vortex-induced vibrations of a multi-span free standing riser

(Master’s thesis). 2013.

[20] BV Guidance note. “Fatigue of Top Chain of Mooring Lines due to In-Plane and Out- of-

Plane Bending”. In: NI 604 DT R00 E (2014).

[21] Orcaflex. Chain mechanical properties. url: https://www.orcina.com/SoftwareProducts/

OrcaFlex/Documentation/Help/Content/html/Chain,MechanicalProperties.htm.

[22] P.Vargas & P.Jean. “FEA of Out-Of-Plane Fatigue Mechanism Of Chain Links”. In: OMAE2005-

67354 (2005).

105

106 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[23] C.Melis, P.Jean & P.Vargas. “Out-Of-Plane Bending Testing Of Chain Links”. In: OMAE2005-

67353 (2005).

[24] L.Rampi & P.Vargas. “Fatigue Testing Of Out-Of-Plane Bending Mechanism Of Chain

Links”. In: OMAE2006-92488 (2006).

[25] L.Rampi, F.Dewi & P.Vargas. “Chain Out of Plane Bending (OPB) Joint Industry Project

(JIP) Summary and highlights”. In: OTC-25779-MS (2015).

[26] V. Lampaert & J. Swevers. “On-Line Identification of Hysteresis Function with Nonlocal

Memory”. In: IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics

(2001).

[27] Weibull. Miner’s Rule and Cumulative Damage Models. url: http://www.weibull.com/

hotwire/issue116/hottopics116.htm.

[28] Wikipedia. Fixed-point iteration. url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed- point_

iteration.

[29] Wikipedia. Friction. url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction.

[30] Wikipedia. Genetic Algorithms. url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm.

List of Figures

1.2 Tension and OPB fatigue location in mooring chain links[6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 OPB mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4 Experimental set-up of a system of chain links: Chainhawse pushes down link T4

to generate interlink angles between T4 and T5 and OPB stresses in T5. . . . . . 3

1.5 Beam FE model suggested in BV guidance note [20] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.6 OPB mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Test schematic for a 81 mm chain link: Chainhawse pushes down T4 to generate

interlink angles between T4 and T5 and OPB stresses in T5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 Test schematic for a 124 mm chain links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.4 Location of reported stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.5 SBM definition of interlink angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.6 Interpretation 1 of interlink angle definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.7 Empirical fit after OPB tests for 81 mm studded, 106 mm and 124 mm studless links 9

2.8 Solid model of 124 mm chain links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.9 Ramberg Osgood true stress strain curve:Yield Stress=580 MPa, Ultimate Stress=860

MPa, Ultimate Strain=11%, α = 0.002, n=10.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.10 Verification of FE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.11 Grid 3 symmetry model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.12 Comparison between FEA and experimental data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.13 Effect of pretension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.14 Effect of friction coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.15 Interpretation 2 of interlink angle definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.16 Interpretation 3 of interlink angle definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.17 Sensitivity to interlink angle definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.18 Quasi-static vs dynamic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Tension history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.3 Rate independency in pre-sliding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.4 Rotation input to check memory effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.5 Existence of memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.6 Vertical displacement of points B and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.7 Stick slip behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.8 7 link FE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.9 Variation of OPB stress(7 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.10 Variation of interlink angles (7 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.11 Effect of boundary condition on OPB stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.12 Friction behaviour of a block resting on a rough surface [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.2 Hysteresis plot generated with one Maxwell Element(k1 = 100,W1 = 55) . . . . . . 26

4.3 Rotation input at constant Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.4 Idealization of the connection between Links A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

107

108 LIST OF FIGURES

4.5 Comparison of OPB stress between FEA and interlink stiffness model(constant Ten-

sion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.6 Goodness of Fit: Interlink Stiffness Model(constant Tension) vs FEA . . . . . . . . 29

4.7 Interlink stiffness model Hysteresis vs FEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.8 Rotation input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.9 Tension input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.10 Interlink angles generated after FEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.11 Comparison of OPB stress between FEA and interlink stiffness model . . . . . . . 32

4.12 Goodness of Fit: Interlink Stiffness Model(constant Tension) vs FEA . . . . . . . . 33

4.13 Interlink stiffness model Hysteresis vs FEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.14 Robustness of interlink stiffness model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.15 Sensitivity to time-step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.16 Reproducibility of interlink stiffness model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.17 Deformations in an IPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.2 Cantilever bending of IPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.3 Cantilever bending of OPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.4 Time domain plot of interlink angles at Connection 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.5 Time domain plot of interlink angles at Connection 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.6 Discontinuity of kopb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.7 Normalized interlink stiffness as a function of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.8 Time domain plot of OPB stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.9 Idealization of a 3 link chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.10 Time domain plot of interlink angles(3 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.11 Time domain plot of OPB stress (3link model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.12 Idealization of a 7 link chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.13 Time domain plot of interlink angles (7 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.14 Time domain plot of OPB stress (7 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6.2 Time domain plot of interlink angles (3 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.3 Time domain plot of OPB stress (3 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.4 Idealization of a 7 link model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.5 Time domain plot of OPB stress (7 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.6 Time domain plot of OPB stress (7 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

6.7 Time domain plot of OPB stress (7 link model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

7.2 Moho Noord FPU mooring layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

7.3 Moho Noord FPU coordinate system and positive sign convention for floater motion 56

7.4 JONSWAP spectrum describing the 1 hour sea-state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7.5 Flow chart depicting the methodology for estimating nominal OPB stress . . . . . 58

7.6 Simplified OPB model representing the first few links of the top chain . . . . . . . 58

7.7 Relative rotation between FPU and mooring line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7.8 Nominal dimensions of a 137 mm studless link [23] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7.9 Ramberg Osgood true stress strain curve:Yield Stress=580 MPa, Ultimate Stress=860

MPa, Ultimate Strain=11%, α = 0.002, n=10.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.10 Definitions used in the case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.11 Tension loading applied to FE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.12 Rotation applied to FE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.13 Idealization of the connection between Links A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.14 Cantilever bending of IPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

7.15 Cantilever bending of OPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

7.16 Idealization of a 7 link chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7.17 Time domain plot of interlink angles for 1 hour sea state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

7.18 Time domain plot of OPB stress for 1 hour sea state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7.19 OPB crack location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7.20 Comparison of interlink angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

LIST OF FIGURES 109

8.2 String-Beam Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

8.3 Numerical simulation flow chart [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

8.4 Wave spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

8.5 Comparison of floater rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

8.6 Comparison of tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

9.1 Force and moment applied at remote node to produce rotation at required nodes in

FE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

9.2 Discontinuity of kopb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

9.3 Interlink Stiffness Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

9.4 Physics based model and Semi-empirical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

A.2 Newton-Raphson incremental-iterative solution method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

F.2 Added mass for surge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

F.3 Added mass for heave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

F.4 Added mass for pitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F.5 Radiation damping for surge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

F.6 Radiation damping for heave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

F.7 Radiation damping for pitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

F.8 First order wave force transfer function for surge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

F.9 First order wave force transfer function for heave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

F.10 First order wave force transfer function for pitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

F.11 Quadratic transfer function for surge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

F.12 Quadratic transfer function for heave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

F.13 Quadratic transfer function for pitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

F.14 Steady drift transfer function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

110 LIST OF FIGURES

List of Tables

4.2 Parameters obtained after solving 4.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.2 Equivalent beam dimension of OPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6.2 Parameters obtained after solving 6.9 for 7 link model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.3 Parameters obtained after solving 6.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7.2 Equivalent beam dimension of IPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7.3 Equivalent beam dimension of OPB link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

111

- Optimization of Gate Leaf of Automatic Outflow Regulating Gate SystemЗагружено:IJIRST
- Skid Lifting Lug DesignЗагружено:mahhor82_635643838
- Ansys Manual final year anna universityЗагружено:Yukesh Kumar Singh
- Analysis of Stress Distribution in a Curved Structure Using Photoelastic and Finite Element MethodЗагружено:International Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- Contact5Загружено:Abdul Rahim
- Syllabus and Leaning Outcomes 2013Загружено:jeroldscd
- Crack PropagationЗагружено:marc271986
- InTech-Mechanical Analysis of Woven Fabrics the State of the ArtЗагружено:doriangray56
- er32_2012_3_str147_156Загружено:hazemismaeelradhi
- Articulos 1Загружено:Emanuel Falcon
- CE2252-—-STRENGTH-OF-MATERIALSЗагружено:muru0105
- SEC VIII D3 ART KD-3Загружено:maush2009
- Syllabus_and_Leaning_Outcomes_2013.pdfЗагружено:iv54
- RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF FRETTING FATIGUEЗагружено:viluk
- Fatigue Behavior of Dented 1-42Загружено:rodholfho
- Kotz Alas Fatigue Failure Progression in Ball BearingsЗагружено:Eros Minetto
- MR14Загружено:Carmine Tranfa
- 2130003Загружено:HarshVavadiya
- Thermo Coupled Stress Analysis of Exhaust Manifold Assemblage Using ABAQUSЗагружено:Infogain publication
- DETAILED STUDIES ON STRESS CONCENTRATION BY CLASSICAL AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISЗагружено:IAEME Publication
- Effect of Elements on Linear Elastic Stress AnalysisЗагружено:esatjournals
- 11.YangЗагружено:ppqq
- FEA Reference GuideЗагружено:Julian Rodrigues
- Udyan Univ.pptxЗагружено:Venkat Raman
- HS method in joints article.pdfЗагружено:Mariusz Milewski
- AS_42m Trapen 1Загружено:Julio
- ADAPT-Edge Wall Design 2017Загружено:Emad Khan
- barch I to X SEMЗагружено:devil3300
- pressure vessel design philosophyЗагружено:Dilip Patel
- Fatigue Examination Paper2Загружено:hatimalhaj

- Cannabis Cultivation GuideЗагружено:jaytronizer
- Esso Longford Accident Talk Andrew HopkinsЗагружено:P Francis
- Beam Formulae 2 Span 1Загружено:Glen Benton
- Design Procedure for Concrete AnchorЗагружено:Yan Yan
- Welding HandbookЗагружено:Hung Le
- Stainless steel boltsЗагружено:JOHN
- Asus Rog_g752vy SpecsЗагружено:Glen Benton
- National Transport Autority Load Restraint Guide.pdfЗагружено:Glen Benton
- lysaghtbondekdesignandconstructionguidejuly2016Загружено:api-352851688
- DNV LIFTING.pdfЗагружено:Vignesh Balasubramaniyan
- Welded Connection Cap-6 IntroЗагружено:joseherreramogollon
- TS2017-User-Guide.pdfЗагружено:Glen Benton
- blade weld calc.pdfЗагружено:Pratap Bakke
- W Goetz Work Agreement 1978Загружено:Glen Benton
- Taekwondo Final_Competition_Rules_Amendments_E-Voting_2014_copy.pdfЗагружено:Glen Benton
- Chap 4Загружено:Roshith Nair
- the strength of cain linksЗагружено:eduarvesan1597
- Gaggia Classic Instruction ManualЗагружено:Glen Benton
- Cica Newsletter October 2008Загружено:Glen Benton
- As 4673 - 2001 Cold Formed Stainless Steel Structures UnlockedЗагружено:Glen Benton
- Dementia Services Guide FinalЗагружено:Glen Benton
- Fox Float Rp2Загружено:Glen Benton
- IC_Sol_W03D1-4Загружено:Glen Benton
- RoadKing_ProductGuide-2015Загружено:Glen Benton
- Cigweld With Enthusiasm BurningЗагружено:Glen Benton
- Mbr Manual MtbЗагружено:Adriano Sargaço
- Elixir 5 Service Manual Rev bЗагружено:Лиснисе Моягоро

- SI_FM_2e_SM__Chap06Загружено:ttaerack
- Analysis of dynamic characteristics for a rotor system with pedestal loosenessЗагружено:dhaval2011
- A New Biomimicry Marine Current Turbine - Study of Hydrodynamic PerformanceЗагружено:Nadji Chi
- Thermal instabilities in a yield stress fluid: Existence and morphologyЗагружено:kiurigan
- Bernoulli Experiment Lab 1 ReportЗагружено:Joanna Nicholson
- Fluid KinematicsЗагружено:Vinay Korekar
- Inverse Kinematics Introduction(1)Загружено:David mk
- 2014 In-Plane Buckling and Semi-Rigid Joints of Tubular High Strength Steel Trusses.pdfЗагружено:Ahmed Taha
- TOPIC 2 – ANALYSIS OF RECT SECTIONS (EC2) (1).pptxЗагружено:Nur Syaf Fiqah
- bsu-edtech 541 week 5 tara rowland interactive presentationЗагружено:api-232022364
- Example Doubly Reinforced BeamЗагружено:ephrem
- Venugopal Jogi- Predictions for Multi-Scale Shock Heating of a Granular Energetic MaterialЗагружено:Pomaxx
- Fundamentals of Rock MechanicsЗагружено:maomao_vt89
- KOM T2Загружено:Pramod Gowda
- 8050T150Загружено:Ahmet Metin
- Moment of Inertia of Compound Section Lip ChannelЗагружено:abhi arote
- Full Text 01Загружено:Sharat Chandra
- What is Quantization of ChargeЗагружено:Ashok Pradhan
- Tfy-125 4341 List of Possible Exam Questions Part 1 2Загружено:arifur.dhakauniv
- Project Report ME 406 V4Загружено:Seth Ferrara
- MIDAS Civil Analysis ManualЗагружено:madepao
- design of strip footing 2014Загружено:api-190618655
- Brief Introduction to Continuum Mechanics (Deviatoric Stress and Strain)Загружено:masoodkamal
- Cee3500 l1 IntroЗагружено:Mastura Ahmad Termizi
- Hand Out 3 First Law of Thermodynamics and Basic ConceptsЗагружено:Marlo Angelo Tito
- Crack Path PaperЗагружено:Vitor Anes
- heat form 4Загружено:ija_js86
- Soil Stiffness_3.pptЗагружено:Yesika Rosiana Dewi
- Heat Transfer.sk Mondal(Booksformech.blogspot.com)Загружено:MiguelaTay
- A Method for Calculating Static Transmission Errors of Plastic Spur Gears Using FEM EvaluationЗагружено:sakthistory1922