The ultimate limit state (ULS) is one of the design criteria used in the oil and gas industry in mooring system design for floating platforms. The 100 year level response in the mooring line should be applied for the ULS design check, which is ideally estimated by taking into account the dynamic mooring line tension in all sea states available at the operational site. This approach is known as a full long-term response analysis using the all-sea-state approach. However, this approach is time consuming, and therefore, the contour line method is proposed for estimation of the 100 year response by primarily studying the short-term response for the most unfavorable sea states along the 100 year environmental contour line. Experience in the oil and gas industry confirmed that this method could yield good predictions if the responses at higher percentiles than the median are used. In this paper, the mooring system of a two-body wave energy converter (WEC) is considered. Because this system involves the interaction between two bodies, the estimation of the ULS level response using the all-sea-state approach may be even more time consuming. Therefore, application of the contour line method for this case will certainly be beneficial. However, its feasibility for application to a WEC case must be documented first. In the present paper, the ULS level response in the mooring tension predicted by the contour line method is compared to that estimated by taking into account all sea states. This prediction is achieved by performing coupled time domain mooring analyses using Simo/Riflex for six cases with different mooring configurations and connections between two bodies. An axisymmetric Wavebob-type WEC is chosen for investigation, and the Yeu site in France is assumed as the operational site. Hydrodynamic loads including second-order forces are determined using Wamit. Finally, the applicability of the contour line method for prediction of the ULS level mooring tension for a two-body WEC is assessed and shown to yield accurate results with the proper choice of percentile level for the extreme response.

References

References
1.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
,
2006
, “Position Mooring,” Offshore Standard DNV-OS301.
2.
NORSOK
,
2007
, “Actions and Action Effects,” NORSOK Standard N-003.
3.
Winterstein
,
S. R.
,
Ude
,
T. C.
,
Cornell
,
C. A.
,
Bjerager
,
P.
, and
Haver
,
S.
,
1993
, “
Environmental Parameters for the Extreme Response: Inverse FORM With Omission Factors
,”
Proceedings of the ICOSSAR-1993
,
Innsbruck, Austria
, pp.
551
557
.
4.
Haver
,
S.
,
Sagli
,
G.
, and
Gran
,
T. M.
,
1998
, “
Long Term Response Analysis of Fixed and Floating Structures
,”
Proceedings of the 1998 International OTRC Symposium
,
Houston, TX
, pp.
240
248
.
5.
Wavebob
,
2013
, “Wavebob: Blue Energy,” Retrieved November 30, 2010, www.wavebob.com
6.
Muliawan
,
M. J.
,
Gao
,
Z.
,
Moan
,
T.
, and
Babarit
,
A.
,
2013
, “
Analysis of a Two-Body Floating Wave Energy Converter With the Particular Focus on the Effects of Power Take-Off and Mooring Systems on Energy Capture
,”
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.
(accepted).
7.
Mouwen
,
F.
,
2008
, “
Presentation on Wavebob to Engineers Ireland
,” Retrieved September 10, 2010, www.engineersireland.ie
8.
CANDHIS
,
2010
, “Wave Data Base,” Retrieved December 3, 2010, chandis.cetmef.develppement_durable.gouv.fr
9.
Google
,
2011
, “Google Maps,” Retrieved May 16, 2011, http://maps.google.no
10.
Marintek
,
2008
, “SIMO User Manual—Program Version 3.6,” Marintek, Trondheim, Norway.
11.
Babarit
,
A.
,
Hals
,
J.
,
Muliawan
,
M. J.
,
Kurniawan
,
A.
, and
Moan
,
T.
,
2012
, “
Numerical Benchmarking Study of a Selection of Wave Energy Converters
,”
Renewable Energy
,
41
, pp.
44
63
.10.1016/j.renene.2011.10.002
12.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
,
2004
, “HydroD User Manual—Program Version 1.1-01,” DNV, Baerum, Norway.
13.
WAMIT, Inc.
,
2006
, “WAMIT User Manual—Program Version 6.3,” WAMIT, Chestnut Hill, MA.
15.
Baarholm
,
G. S.
, and
Haver
,
S.
,
2009
, “
Application of Environmental Contour Lines—The Summary of the Work so Far
,”
Proceedings of the International Conference on Floating Structures for Deepwater Operations, Glasgow
,
UK
.
16.
Baarholm
,
G. S.
,
Haver
,
S.
, and
Økland
,
O. D.
,
2010
, “
Combining Contours of Significant Wave Height and Peak Period With Platform Response Distributions for Predicting Design Response
,”
Mar. Struct.
,
23
, pp.
147
163
.10.1016/j.marstruc.2010.03.001
17.
Kleiven
,
G.
, and
Haver
,
S.
,
2004
, “
Metocean Contour Lines for Design Purposes, Correction for Omitted Variability in the Response Process
,”
Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
,
Toulon, France
, pp.
202
210
.
18.
Norwegian Maritime Directorate (NMD)
,
2009
, “Regulation Concerning Positioning and Anchoring Systems on Mobile Offshore Units,” NMD Regulation No. 998.
You do not currently have access to this content.