1 Copyright 2010 by ASME

APPLICATION OF A VISCOELASTIC MODEL FOR POLYESTER MOORING

J. W. Kim
Technip
Houston, Texas, U. S. A.
J. H. Kyoung
Technip
Houston, Texas, U. S. A.
A. Sablok
Technip
Houston, Texas, U. S. A.


ABSTRACT

A new practical method to simulate time-dependent material
properties of polyester mooring line is proposed. The time-
dependent material properties of polyester rope are modeled
with a standard linear solid (SLS) model, which is one of the
simplest forms of a linear viscoelastic model. The viscoelastic
model simulates most of the mechanical properties of polyester
rope such as creep, strain-stress hysteresis and excitation
period-dependent stiffness. The strain rate-stress relation of the
SLS model has been re-formulated to a stretch-tension relation,
which is more suitable for implementation into global
performance and mooring analyses tools for floating platforms.
The new model has been implemented to a time-domain global
performance analysis software and applied to simulate motion
of a spar platform with chain-polyester-chain mooring system.
The new model provides accurate platform offset without any
approximation on the mean environmental load and can
simulate the transient effect due to the loss of a mooring line
during storm conditions, which has not been possible to
simulate using existing dual-stiffness models.


INTRODUCTION

Since the first offshore application to P-19 semi-submersible
production unit, installed in 1997 by Petrobras, polyester rope
has been widely used for mooring lines of offshore floating
platforms [1]. The low weight to strength ratio of the polyester
rope, compared to steel strand, makes this synthetic rope more
attractive for deep water exploration and production. In 2004,
Technip introduced polyester mooring lines to BPs Mad Dog
Spar (4,500 ft WD) in the Gulf of Mexico [2]. Since then,
polyester mooring lines have been widely used for deep- and
ultra deep water platforms, such as Anadarkos Red Hawk Cell
Spar (5,300 ft WD, [3]), Chevrons Tahiti Truss Spar (4,200 ft
WD) and Shells Perdido Truss Spar (7817 ft).

Design, installation and maintenance of offshore platforms with
polyester mooring line require good understanding of the
mechanical behavior of polyester mooring line. Polyester ropes
show significant nonlinear and time-dependent elongation-
tension properties. On-going efforts to identify the material
properties of polyester rope have been made since the early
stage of their offshore application. Del Vecchio [4] measured
the stiffness of polyester ropes under various loads with
different mean value, range and period. He concluded that the
stiffness of polyester rope increases with increased mean
tension, yet decreases with increased tension range and
increased loading period. More systematic tests both on yarn
and full polyester ropes have been performed by many others
and similar conclusions have been made [5-10]. Among the
three factors that govern the polyester rope stiffness, the mean
load level is the most dominant factor. The decrease in stiffness
for higher tension range is obvious in the case of sinusoidal
loading, but is less conclusive in the case of random loading
[8]. The dependency of stiffness on loading period is weak. The
stiffness change is less than 10% for a loading period range
from 10 to 2000 sec, which covers most of the period range of
extreme wave and wind-gust loads for offshore platforms.

Parallel to the experimental work, analytical efforts to simulate
the mechanical behavior of polyester mooring lines have been
made ([11]-[13]). Sophisticated mathematical models such as
the nonlinear viscoelastic-viscoplastic model based on the
Schapery model can simulate the nonlinear and time-dependent
properties of polyester rope [11]. However, implementation of
such a complicated model in the global performance analysis
tools has not yet been made. For practical applications, a
simplified linearized approach has been used. API RP-2SM
[14] recommends sensitivity study using dynamic storm
stiffness and static, lower, post-installation stiffness to estimate
maximum mooring loads and vessel offsets.

Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2010
June 6-11, 2010, Shanghai, China
OMAE2010-20
2 Copyright 2010 by ASME
Currently, Technip uses a dual-stiffness model to consider the
viscoelasticity of polyester rope. In this model, the stretch of
the polyester is given as a combination of:

1. Quasi-static stretch driven by mean current, mean wind
and mean wave drift force which follows Hookes law
based on low stiffness A E

.

2. Dynamic stretch due to gust, wave and VIV that follows
Hookes law based on high stiffness E
0
A.

Global performance (or seakeeping) simulation of a floating
platform is performed in the time domain with mooring line
stiffness given by the dynamic stiffness (or storm stiffness),
E
0
A. The quasi-static stretch due to mean load is considered by
an increase in the length of the polyester rope equal to the
difference between stretches due to high and low stiffness of
the polyester rope. The storm and quasi-static stiffness of
polyester ropes vary for different environments and
manufacturer and are normally obtained from test data for each
project [14]. Typical values of E
0
A

and A E

applied for 100-

yr Hurricane condition in Gulf of Mexico are:

E
0
A

= 30 x MBL, A E

= 13 x MBL

where MBL is the minimum breaking load of the polyester
rope.

Alternatively, two separate independent global performance
analyses for each design environment are performed with single
stiffness E
0
A and A E

and the more conservative response of

the two analyses results is used for mooring line and platform
design.

The dual-stiffness model works well for most cases but it has
the following shortcomings and disadvantages:

1. The mean load on the platform needs to be accurately
estimated a priori to determine the mean stretch of the
polyester rope. If there is a drift force component that is
not accounted for theoretically, the platform offset may be
underestimated.

2. The broken line case has to be simulated with the broken
mooring line removed from the beginning of the simulation.
The transient effect due to a mooring line breaking during
the storm cannot be simulated.

3. The nonlinear relation between the platform offset and the
mooring line tension is tabulated before the simulation and
then interpolated during the time-domain simulation to
save computational time. This offset table has to be re-
evaluated each time a different environment is applied
even when the same mooring line system is used.

A new approach, based on the standard linear solid (SLS, [15])
model, is proposed in this paper. SLS is one of the simplest
theoretical models for linear viscoelastic material. The model
accommodates basic properties of polyester rope such as
relaxation, creep, strain-stress hysteresis and frequency
dependent stiffness. The SLS model is defined with three
parameters: E
0
A

, A E

and . The first two parameter, E

0
A

and
A E

, have the same definition as in the dual-stiffness model.

The new parameter , which is called relaxation time, controls
the transient time that the polyester rope requires to reach
quasi-static stiffness A E

. The SLS model is equivalent to the

spring-dashpot systems that have been proposed by the industry
to simulate time-dependent material properties of polyester
rope ([12], [13]).

The SLS model has been implemented into an existing quasi-
static mooring line analysis routine. The quasi-static mooring
line tension, which is dependent on the instantaneous offset of
the platform, is corrected to the dynamic tension value by
considering the time history of the platform motion. The new
mooring line analysis method has the following advantages
against the existing dual-stiffness model:

1. The mean stretch is correctly and adaptively simulated
directly from the applied load time history, without
requiring a priori estimation of drift force.

2. The broken mooring line case can be simulated considering
the transient effect after a mooring line loss.

3. The same interpolation table for offset-tension relation can
be used regardless of changes in environmental conditions.
This saves considerable amount of computational time
when computing a large number of realizations during
detail design.

In the following sections, the mathematical formulation and
characteristics of the SLS model are introduced and then the
implementation of the SLS model in a time-domain global
performance analysis is presented.

LINEAR VISCOELASTIC MODEL

The expression for the stress-strain relation for a linear
viscoelastic material can be given by the following time
convolution integral [15]:

( ) ( )
*
0
* *
) ( dt t t t E t
t

= & (1)

where the kernel E(t) is the time-dependent elastic modulus,
which provides the relation between time-dependent strain (t)
and stress (t).
3 Copyright 2010 by ASME
One of the simplest forms for the time-dependent elastic
modulus is given by

( ) ( ) ( ) t E E E t E + =

exp
0
(2)

where E
0
is the instantaneous elastic modulus at high rate
loading which corresponds to storm stiffness for the polyester
mooring line; E

is the static modulus; and is the relaxation

time [15]. The idealized material that is governed by Eq. (2) is
called the Standard Linear Solid (SLS). The mechanical
properties of the SLS are equivalent to the spring-dashpot
system shown in Figure 1 ([15]).








Figure 1 Spring-damper system equivalent to SLS

Combining Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) gives

( ) ( ) ( ) | | { } ( )
*
0
* *
0
/ exp dt t t t E E E t
t

+ =

& (3)

The above time-dependent strain-stress relation involves
convolution integration of the strain rate, ( ) t & . For mooring
line analysis it is advantageous to reformulate the relation in
terms of strain,
( ) t
. Integrating Eq. (3) by parts and assuming
( ) 0 0 = gives


( ) ( )
( )
( ) | | ( )
*
0
* * 0
0
/ exp dt t t t
E E
t E t
t

=


(4)

Eq. (4) is more convenient for numerical application since it
does not involve the time derivative of strain. Eq.(4) is also
useful to explain relaxation
1
of viscoelastic material.

The inverse relation of Eq.(4) can be given by

( )
( ) ( )
( ) | | ( )
*
0
*
0
*
2
0
0
0
/ exp dt t E t t E
E
E E
E
t
t
t

(5)

Eq. (5) is suitable to explain the creep
2
behavior of viscoelastic
material.

1
Retarded response of stress to a sudden application of strain
2
Retarded response of strain to a sudden application of stress
CHARACTERISTICS OF VISCOELASTIC MODEL

The characteristics of the SLS model are illustrated below. The
properties presented here are for a specific case when static
stiffness is 50% of storm stiffness. The time-dependent elastic
modulus, E(t), for this specific SLS model is shown in Figure 2.
In the following paragraphs, four characteristics of the SLS
model, stress relaxation, creep, strain-stress hysteresis and
period-dependent stiffness and damping are explained for this
specific model.

Relaxation Modulus ( E_infinity = 0.5 E0)
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
t /
E
(
t
)

/

E
0

Figure 2 Relaxation Modulus of a SLS with
0
5 . 0 E E =

Stress Relaxation

0
0.5
1
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
t /
S
t
r
a
i
n
,

S
t
r
e
s
s

/

E
0
Strain
Stress / E0

Figure 3 Stress response to a sudden loading of uniform
strain

Under sudden application of strain:


( )

<
=
0 , 1
0 , 0
t
t
t
(6)

The stress response is obtained from Eq.(4) as

= E k
1

= E E k
0 2
=
2
k c
( ) t
( ) t x =
4 Copyright 2010 by ASME
( ) ( ) { }, exp 1
2
0
+ = t
E
t
(7)

where 2 /
0
E E =

is assumed. Instantaneous stiffness E

0
is
applied at the beginning of the loading and then stiffness
gradually decreases to E
0
/2 or

E , as shown in Figure 3.


Creep

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
t /
S
t
r
a
i
n

/

(

0

/

E
0
)
,

S
t
r
e
s
s

/

E
0
Strain / (s0/E0)
Stress / E0

Figure 4 Strain response to a sudden loading of uniform
stress

Under sudden application of stress:

( )

<
=
0 ,
0 , 0
0
t
t
t

(8)

The strain response is obtained from Eq. (5) as

( ) ( )
)
`

2 exp
2
1
1
2
0
0
t
E
t (9)

Strain is initially
0
0
E

and then gradually increases to

E
0

, as
shown in Figure 4. Note that it takes about 10 for the strain to
reach its steady limit.


Strain-Stress Hysteresis

Because of the time delay in response, viscoelastic material
shows strain-stress hysteresis during the loading and unloading
process. For a step loading as shown in Figure 5, strain
response can be obtained using Eq. (5), as depicted in Figure 6.
When the same strain response is plotted in the strain-stress
plane, as shown in Figure 7, it can be seen that the strain-stress
relation does not follow Hookes law and shows a different path
for loading and unloading. This strain-stress hysteresis also
implies energy loss during the loading and unloading. The area
enclosed by the hysteresis loop is work done by the applied
load, or energy loss due to the viscosity of the polyester rope.



Figure 5 Time history of applied stress



Figure 6 Time history of strain response




Figure 7 Strain-Stress diagram



0
0.5
1
1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t /
S
t
r
a
i
n

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t /
S
t
r
e
s
s

0

5 Copyright 2010 by ASME
Period-Dependent Stiffness and Damping








Figure 8 A mass-spring-damper system

A platform moored by an idealized synthetic rope that behaves
as SLS can be modeled by a mass-spring damper system shown
in Figure 8. Here m is the virtual mass of the platform in x
direction. Dynamic mooring force on the platform in a surge
motion with amplitude X
0
and period T can be obtained by
substituting sinusoidal motion

( )
T
t
X t X

=
2
sin
0
(10)

into Eq.(4) to obtain sinusoidal mooring force as


( )
( )
( )
( )( )
( ) T
t
X
T T
T E E
T
t
X
T
T E E
t f
moor

\
|
+

+

+
+
=

2
cos
2
/ 4
/
2
sin
/ 4
/ 4
0
2 2
2
0
0
2 2
2
0
2
(11)

Eq.(11) provides period-dependent stiffness and damping:

Stiffness =
( )
( )
2 2
2
0
2
/ 4
/ 4
+
+

T
T A E A E
(12)

Damping =
( )( )
( )
2 2
2
0
/ 4
/
+


T
T A E A E
(13)

From the period-dependent stiffness given by Eq. (12), natural
period T
N
of the platform is given by the following relation:

( )
( )
m
T
T
T A E A E
N
N
N
= |

\
|

+
+

2
2 2
2
0
2
2
/ 4
/ 4
(14)

Damping ratio of the surge motion of the platform is then given
by

( )( )
( )
2
0
2
0
/ 4
/
Stiffness 2
Damping
Ratio Damping
+

=

N
N
T A E A E
T A E A E
m (15)



0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
T /
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

/

E
0
A

(a)
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T /
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

/

E
0
A

(b)
Figure 9 Dynamic Stiffness of SLS Model (

= E E 2
0
)


0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T
N
/
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

R
a
t
i
o

(
%
)


Figure 10 Damping Ratio of SLS Model

A E k

=
1

A E A E k

=
0 2

=
2
k c
( ) t f
( ) t X x =
m
6 Copyright 2010 by ASME
Figure 9 shows the theoretical stiffness of the dynamic system
when

= E E 2
0
for the different period ranges. When the
motion period is less than the relaxation time, , the stiffness
decreases less than 2% from E
0
A. As the motion period
increases, the stiffness decreases to its asymptotic static value.
Figure 10 shows the theoretical damping ratio plotted against
ratio between platform natural period and relaxation time.
When the natural period of the platform is less than the
relaxation time

the damping ratio is less than 4%. The damping
ratio presented here can also be applied to the damping ratio for
the surge and sway motion of a floating body, which has no
restoring mechanism other than mooring line tension.

OPTIMAL SLS MODEL

Dynamic stiffness of the SLS model is compared with the
available polyester rope test data. The static and storm stiffness
of the SLS model is chosen as typical value used for the global
performance and mooring analyses for 100-yr storm condition
in the Gulf of Mexico:

E
0
A

= 30 x MBL, A E

= 13 x MBL

The relaxation time, , is varied from 60 s to 240 s.

Since the most of the polyester rope test has focused on the
influence of mean load and load amplitude on the rope
stiffness, there are only few data available to compare period-
dependency of dynamic stiffness. Table 1 shows number of
polyester rope test data taken from [2], [4] and [10]. Test data
with mean load of 40% MBL and load amplitude of 10% MBL,
which is a typical design response of polyester rope in extreme
condition, are used for the comparison. For the test data
provided in Casey & Banfield [10], only the lower mean load
data (20% MBL) were available. The normalized rope stiffness,
EA/EA
0
, has been calculated from the dynamic stiffness divided
by the stiffness at the shortest loading period among each set of
data.

Figure 11 shows dynamic stiffness of SLS model for three
different relaxation times, = 60, 120 and 240 s, and
normalized rope stiffness obtained from the test data. The
dynamic stiffness of SLS model with = 60 fits well with the
test data for loading period shorter than 100 s but
underestimates dynamic stiffness for longer loading period. The
SLS models with = 120 s and 240 s provides higher EA/EA
0

than the test data for the load period shorter than 200 s. In case
of Spar platform in deep water, which has typical surge/sway
natural period around 120 seconds, the SLS model with
higher than 120 s will provide conservative mooring-line
tension response.
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Loading Period (s)
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

/

E
0
A
SLS, Tau = 60 s
SLS, Tau = 120 s
SLS, Tau = 240 s
Del Vecchio [4] - Marlow
Del Vecchio [4] - Brascorda
Petruska et al. [2]
Casey & Banfield [10]


Figure 11 Dynamic Stiffness of SLS Model and Test Data


Table 1 Dynamic Stiffness Ratio (EA/EA
0
) from Test Data

Ref.
Mean Load
(% MBL)
Load Amp.
(% MBL)
No. of
Cycle
Loading
Period (s)
EA ( x
MBL)
EA / EA
0
Del Vacchio [4], Marlow Superline (Empirical Formula)
40 10 100 8 14.17 1.00
40 10 100 15 14.04 0.99
40 10 100 100 13.68 0.97
40 10 100 200 13.54 0.96
Del Vacchio [4], Brascorda Prallel (Empirical Formula)
40 10 100 8 15.71 1.00
40 10 100 15 15.57 0.99
40 10 100 100 15.18 0.97
40 10 100 200 15.04 0.96
Petruska et al. [2]
40 10 100 20 31.52 1.00
40 15 100 30 29.65 0.94
40 15 100 32 30.33 0.96
40 10 100 100 30.26 0.96
43 5 1 3,600 19.89 0.63
Casey & Banfield [10]
20 10 20 3 24.62 1.00
20 10 20 12 24.28 0.99
20 10 20 200 23.60 0.96
20 10 1 77,400 22.78 0.93



The comparison shown in Figure 11 indicates that fitting
dynamic stiffness of test data by a single SLS model for overall
loading period range is not practical, because the period-
dependency of SLS model is governed by a single parameter, .
More precise description of dynamic stiffness of actual
polyester rope needs more advanced viscoelastic model with
multiple relaxation time such as Wiechert model [15]. A rather
practical approach is pursued in this paper by adopting SLS
model with the relaxation time, , tuned for the optimal
accuracy and numerical efficiency. As shown in the previous
section, higher results in higher stiffness and smaller
damping, which will provide conservative dynamic mooring
line tension. On the other hand, global performance simulation
with higher requires longer simulation time since it takes
longer transient time before the mean offset of the platform
reaches steady state. Creep behavior of SLS model shown in
7 Copyright 2010 by ASME
Figure 4 indicates that the required transient time is in the order
of 10 . The relaxation time, , is determined based on the
following criteria:

1. Dynamic stiffness of SLS should be higher than the
real polyester rope for the short loading period range
shorter than platform motion natural period for
conservative mooring-line tension response.
2. Dynamic stiffness of SLS should be lower than the
real polyester rope for the period range sufficiently
longer than platform natural period for conservative
platform offset.
3. Minimize transient time required for steady state.

Considering comparison with the test data and the above three
criteria, relaxation time, , is taken as 120 s. In this case,
damping ratio is 4% when platform surge/sway natural period
is 120 s and 2% when platform surge/sway natural period is 60
s. The transient time required for the steady response is
estimated as 20 minutes.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LINEAR VISCOELASTIC
MODEL

Assuming polyester rope behaves like a standard linear solid
and has uniform stress and strain along its whole length, except
for the static stress and strain components due to gravity and
buoyancy force, the mooring tension along a polyester line can
be given as


( ) ( )
( )
( ) | | ( ) , / exp
0
* * 0
0
dt t t t
A E E
t A E t T
t
polyester

(16)

which can be obtained from Eq. (4) after multiplying cross
section area of the polyester rope, A. The first term on the right
hand side of Eq. (16) is the tension force due to the polyester
rope when storm stiffness is applied. The second term can be
interpreted as the tension relaxation due to viscoelasticity.
Generally, the polyester mooring line does not simply consist of
a continuous polyester rope. It has upper and lower mooring
chain sections, connectors made of steel and multiple segments
of polyester rope in between. Separate modeling of each
polyester segment is time consuming and complicates
implementation of the SLS model. A simplified approach,
where the whole mooring line system is lumped into one
viscoelastic line element, is adopted. The following
assumptions are made in this approach:

1. The catenary shape of the mooring line is close to the
geometry of the mooring line with quasi-static stiffness,
E

A.
2. Stretch in steel chains and connectors are negligible
compared to the stretch in polyester ropes.
3. When there is more than one polyester rope segment in one
mooring line, relaxation time of all segments is the same.

The above scheme is implemented into the Technip in-house
computer code MLTSIM. MLTSIM performs time-domain
global motion simulation for floating bodies. Mooring force at
a given platform location is interpolated from look-up tables
generated by an internal subroutine FMOOR, which solves the
catenary equation considering elastic elongation using static
stiffness and force equilibrium of each segment.

APPLICATIONS

Global Performance of a Spar Platform with Intact
Mooring Lines

The new model has been applied to a conceptual Spar designed
as a dry-tree unit operating in 7,200 ft of water depth. Table 2
shows particulars of the Spar. The Spar is moored with 9
mooring lines. Each mooring line has three segments consisting
of upper and lower chain and a polyester rope segment in the
middle. The properties of each segment are given in Table 3.
Viscoelastic properties of polyester segment are given as

E
0
A

= 30 x MBL, A E

= 13 x MBL , = 120 s

The mooring line layout is shown in Figure 12. Mooring lines
are grouped into 3 groups. Each group is separated by 120 deg
and each mooring line in a group is separated by 5 deg.

Table 4 shows the applied environment. Long-crested waves
with JONSWAP spectrum are used for the random wave model
and an NPD spectrum is used for the wind-gust model. Wind,
wave and current directions are collinear and towards negative
x-axis, as shown in Figure 12. Time simulation for 3 hours is
performed.

Analysis has been performed for the following four different
models of polyester rope:

1. Single stiffness model with quasi-static stiffness
( ) A E

2. Single stiffness model with storm stiffness
( ) A E
0

3. Dual stiffness model
4. Viscoelastic model

Figure 13 shows the time history of platform surge for the first
100 minutes of simulation. Surge response using the
viscoelastic model is compared with the single-stiffness
models. The mean surge response from the viscoelastic model
agrees well with the static-stiffness model, whereas the
dynamic response due to wave and wind gust is closer to the
storm-stiffness model. Figure 14 shows the comparison of
8 Copyright 2010 by ASME
tension of the most loaded mooring line. The mean tension
from the viscoelastic model follows the static-stiffness model
and the dynamic tension follows more closely to the storm-
stiffness model.

Figure 15 and Figure 16 show platform surge and mooring-line
tension around t = 2,500 s, respectively. Comparisons between
the viscoelastic and dual-stiffness models are made. The two
models agree well with each other. The dual-stiffness model
under-predicts mean surge slightly, which means that the
estimated mean environmental force and mean stretch of the
polyester rope is slightly lower than the actual value. Both
models agree well with each other on mooring line tension.

Table 2 Spar Particulars

Platform Properties
Displacement kips 300,000
Diameter ft 150
Hull Length ft 615
Hull Draft ft 570


Table 3 Mooring line properties

Diameter Length
Segment Type in ft
Platform
Chain
R5
Studless 5 600
Middle
Line Polyester 10 10,427
Anchor
Chain
R5
Studless 5 161


Table 4 Applied environments

Wave
Spectrum JONSWAP
Hs(ft) 36.4
Tp(sec) 15.5
Shape 1.67
Wind
Spectrum
Vw(knots)
NPD
78.5
Current
Depth (ft) Vel. (ft/s)
0 4.5
120 4.5
212 3.9
317 3.3
1640 2.1


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Wind, Wave & Current

Figure 12 Mooring line layout



-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
t (s)
S
u
r
g
e

(
f
t
)
Viscoelastic Model
Static-Stiffness Model
Storm-Stiffness Model

Figure 13 Platform surge compared with single-stiffness
models



8.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.2E+06
1.4E+06
1.6E+06
1.8E+06
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
t (s)
T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
l
b
)
Viscoelastic Model
Static-Stiffness Model
Storm-Stiffness Model

Figure 14 Mooring line tension at fairlead (Line #1)
compared with single-stiffness models


9 Copyright 2010 by ASME

-240
-230
-220
-210
-200
-190
-180
-170
-160
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800
t (s)
S
u
r
g
e

(
f
t
)
Viscoelastic Model
Dual-Stiffness Model
Static-Stiffness Model

Figure 15 Platform surge compared with dual- and single-
stiffness models


1.2E+06
1.3E+06
1.4E+06
1.5E+06
1.6E+06
1.7E+06
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800
t (s)
T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
l
b
)
Viscoelastic Model
Dual-Stiffness Model
Static-Stiffness Model

Figure 16 Mooring line tension at fairlead (Line #1)
compared with dual- and single-stiffness models


-2.00E+06
-1.00E+06
0.00E+00
1.00E+06
2.00E+06
3.00E+06
4.00E+06
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
Surge (ft)
F
x

(
l
b
)
Viscoelastic Model
Dual-stiffness Model
Static-Stiffness Model
Storm-Stiffness Model

Figure 17 Surge-Mooring Force Diagram


0
50
100
150
200
250
Max Min Mean STD x 10
S
u
r
g
e

(
f
t
)
Viscoelastic Model
Dual-Stiffness Model
Static-Stiffness Model
Storm-Stiffness Model

Figure 18 Statistics of Platform Surge


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Max Min Mean STD x 10
T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
i
p
s
)
Viscoelastic Model
Dual-Stiffness Model
Static-Stiffness Model
Storm-Stiffness Model

Figure 19 Statistics of Tension at Mooring Line #1

The global characteristics of each mooring line model can be
clearly shown by the surge-mooring force curve shown in
Figure 17. The slope of each curve can be interpreted as global
mooring stiffness. The slope of the storm-stiffness model is
about 2.3 times that of the static-stiffness model. The
viscoelastic model shows a slope parallel to the storm-stiffness
model but it is creeping to the same mean offset as the static-
stiffness model.

Statistical values of platform surge and mooring line tensions
from the four different models are compared in Figure 18 and
Figure 19, respectively. The viscoelastic model provides the
same mean surge and mooring line tension as the static-
stiffness model, whereas the standard deviation is closer to the
storm-stiffness model. Comparing with the dual-stiffness
model, the viscoelastic model provides slightly higher (1.5%)
surge and slightly lower (0.09%) mooring line tension.


Transient Mooring Tension when a Mooring Line is Broken

The viscoelastic model is used to simulate transient mooring
line tension when a mooring line is broken during a severe
storm. The existing dual-stiffness model can simulate the
10 Copyright 2010 by ASME
broken mooring line case only when the mooring line is
removed from the beginning of the simulation and cannot
simulate the transient response created by a broken mooring
line.

The time history of mooring line tension for the intact case,
shown in Figure 16, indicates that mooring line tension of #1
mooring line reaches maximum at around t = 2,470 s. To
determine the maximum transient tension, mooring line #9 (see
Figure 12) is removed at several different times and the tension
on mooring line #1 is compared with the base case when the
mooring line is removed at t = 0. Figure 20 shows the time
history of #1 mooring line tension. It can be seen that mooring
line tension reaches maximum value when the mooring line is
removed at t = 2,350 s. The maximum mooring tension is about
5% higher than the base case where the broken mooring line is
removed from the beginning of the simulation. Figure 21 shows
the platform surge response. It can be seen that the maximum
surge reduces when the transient effect is considered.

5.0E+05
7.0E+05
9.0E+05
1.1E+06
1.3E+06
1.5E+06
1.7E+06
1.9E+06
2.1E+06
2.3E+06
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
t (s)
T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
l
b
)
Intact
Brkn at t = 0 s
Brkn at t = 2350 s
Brkn at t = 2400 s
Brkn at t = 2450 s

(a) t = 0 ~ 6,000 s

1.2E+06
1.3E+06
1.4E+06
1.5E+06
1.6E+06
1.7E+06
1.8E+06
1.9E+06
2.0E+06
2.1E+06
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800
t (s)
T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
l
b
)
Intact
Brkn at t = 0 s
Brkn at t = 2350 s
Brkn at t = 2400 s
Brkn at t = 2450 s

(b) t = 2,000 s ~ 2,800 s
Figure 20 Mooring Line Tension at line #1



-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
t (s)
S
u
r
g
e

(
f
t
)
Surge (Intact)
Surge (Brkn at t = 0 s)
Surge (Brkn at t = 2350 s)

Figure 21 Platform Surge for Intact and Broken Mooring
Line Cases


CONCLUSIONS

1. A new numerical model for polyester mooring line analysis
based on a linear viscoelastic model, the standard linear
solid (SLS) model, has been successfully implemented to a
time-domain global performance and mooring analyses
tool.

2. The new model provides a more robust and accurate
engineering method to simulate global performance of
floating platform and mooring performance with polyester
mooring line compared with the existing models.

3. The new model requires less computational time and
manual intervention during the global performance and
mooring analyses.

4. The new model can calculate the transient effect of a
broken mooring line, which could not be simulated by the
existing dual-stiffness model.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Technip for permitting
publication of this paper.

REFERENCES

[1] Costa, L.C.S., Castro, G.A.V., Goncalvres, R.C.F., 2001
Polyester Mooring Systems-Petroras Experience, Deep
Offshore Technology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Nov, 2001.

[2] Petruska, D., Geyer, J., Macon, R., Craig, M., Ran, A.,
Schulz, N., 2005, Polyester Mooring for the Mad Dog Spar-
11 Copyright 2010 by ASME
Design Issues and Other Considerations, Ocean Engineering,
Vol. 32, pp. 767-782.

[3] Haslum, H.A., Tule, J., Huntley, M., Jatar, S., 2005, Red
Hawk Polyester Mooring System Design and Verification,
OTC 17247.

[4] Del Vecchio CJM, 1992, Light Weight Materials for Deep
Water Moorings, PhD Thesis University of Reading.

[5] Davies, P., Baizeau, R., Grosjean, F., Francois, M., 1999,
Testing of Large Cables for Mooring Line Applications, Proc.
Of 9
th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Brest, France, pp. 369-375.

[6] Huard, D.P., Grosjean, F., Francois,M., 2000, Creep and
Relaxation of Polyester Mooring Lines, OTC 12176.

[7] Francois, M., Davies, P., 2000, Fibre Rope Deep Water
Mooring: A Practical Model for the Analysis of Polyester
Mooring Systems, Rio Oil & Gas Conference, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, IBP24700.

[8] Francois, M., Davies, P., 2008, Characterization of
Polyester Mooring Lines, OMAE2008-57136.

[9] Flory, J.F., Banfield, S.P., Petruska, D.J., 2004, Defining,
Measuring, and Calculating the Properties of Fiber Rope
Deepwater Mooring Lines, OTC 16151.

[10] Casey, N.F., Banfield, S.J., 2005, Factors Affecting the
Measurement of Axial Stiffness of Polyester Deepwater
Mooring Rope under Sinusoidal Loading, OTC 17068.

[11] Chailleux, E., Davies, P., 2005, A Non-linear Viscoelastic
Viscoplastic Model for the Behavior of Polyester Fibres,
Mechanics of Time-dependent Materials, Vol. 9, pp. 147-160.

[12] Flory, J.F., Leech, C.M., Banfield, S.J., Petruska, D.J.,
2005, Computer Model to Predict Long-Term Performance of
Fiber Rope Mooring Lines, OTC 17592.

[13] Flory, J.F., Ahjem, V., Banfield, S.J., 2007, A New
Method of Testing for Change-in-Length Properties of Large
Fiber-Rope Deepwater Mooring Lines, OTC 18770.

[14] API, 2007 Recommended Practice for Design,
Manufacture, Installation, and Maintenance of Synthetic Fiber
Ropes for Offshore Mooring, API RP-2SM, March 2001,
Addendum, May 2007

[15] Roylance, D., 2001 Engineering Viscoelasticity, in 3.11
Mechanics of Materials. Cambridge MA: MIT
CourseOpenWare