Mooring Analysis (20210913) - A

MOORING ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF QUAY AT NAVAL
DOCKYARD AT TRINCOMALEE
A 14 September 2021 Issued For Review FR CH
Rev Date Description By Chk’d Appv’d Company
STATUS CODE: A = Issued for review - B = Issued for Bid - C = Approved - D = Issued for Class approval
Total or partial reproduction and/or utilization of this document are forbidden

without prior written authorization of the owner
Prepared for : Prepared by :
d
d
ELS CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD ZEE ENGINEERING SDN BHD

62/3 Neelammahara Road, 882 Block A1, Pusat Dagang Setia Jaya,
Boralesgamuwa, No. 9, Jln. PJS 8/9, Bandar Sunway,
46150 Petaling Jaya,
Sri Lanka. Selangor Darul Ehsan, MALAYSIA.
Revision Status
Document No.: 1929 - PMT - PRP - 002
A A
Client : ELS CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD
Project : MOORING ANALYSIS DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF QUAY AT NAVAL DOCYAD AT
TRINCOMALEE
Doc no. : 1929-PMT-PRP-002 REV A
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 3
1.1 Objectives .......................................................................................... 3
1.2 Scope ................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Units ................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Coordinate System ........................................................................... 6
1.5 Abbreviation ...................................................................................... 6
2.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 7
3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
............................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 8
3.2 Recommendation .............................................................................. 9
4.0 DESIGN DATA ................................................................................. 10
4.1 Naval Ship Data ............................................................................... 10
4.2 Limiting Criteria .............................................................................. 10
5.0 ANALYSIS CASE ............................................................................. 11
5.1 Mooring Analysis ............................................................................ 11
5.2 Berthing Analysis............................................................................ 12
6.0 DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................... 14
7.0 METHODOLOGY AND SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION ...................... 15
7.1 3D Time Domain Analysis .............................................................. 15
7.2 Analysis Methodology .................................................................... 15
7.3 Software Description ...................................................................... 18
8.0 RESULT............................................................................................ 19
8.1 Mooring Analysis ............................................................................ 19
8.2 Berthing Analysis............................................................................ 27
9.0 ATTACHMENT ................................................................................. 28
Page 2 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives
Sri Lanka Navy wishes to construct a jetty in Trincomalee to accommodate the
mooring of naval and other visiting vessels.
The objective of this report is to compile the “Mooring and Berthing Analysis” brief to
capture pertinent loads on fenders and bollards.
1.2 Scope
The scope of this document is limited to the generation of loads on fenders and
bollards based on dynamic mooring and berthing analysis due to environmental
loading and vessel approach.
The mooring and berthing analysis are carried out using OrcaFlex program. The
following analysis condition has been considered:
1. The fender and bollard configuration as shown in Figure 1.2-1 has been adopted.
Outer Side
Inner Side
Figure 1.2-1 Bollard and Fender Identification
2. The vessel mooring for LoA of 200m (single) is shown in Figure 1.2-2 where
typical six (6) mooring lines configuration for continuous quay has been adopted.
Refer Figure 7.2-1 for mooring line identification.
Figure 1.2-2 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 200m (Single)
3. The vessel mooring for LoA of 100m (double) is shown in Figure 1.2-3 where
typical six (6) mooring lines configuration for continuous quay has been adopted.
Refer Figure 7.2-1 for mooring line identification.
Page 3 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Figure 1.2-3 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 100m (Double)
4. The vessel mooring for LoA of 50m (triple) is shown in Figure 1.2-4 where typical
six (6) mooring lines configuration for continuous quay has been adopted. Refer
Figure 7.2-1 for mooring line identification.
Figure 1.2-4 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 50m (Triple)
5. The vessel mooring for LoA of 25m (triple) is shown in Figure 1.2-5 where typical
four (4) mooring lines configuration for continuous quay has been adopted. Refer
Figure 7.2-1 for mooring line identification
Figure 1.2-5 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 25m (Triple)
Page 4 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
6. One (1) worst case vessels berthing for outer fender and One (1) worst case
vessels berthing for inner fender have been considered. The worst case vessels
for outer and inner fender are 200m LoA and 50m LoA as shown in Figure 1.2-6
and Figure 1.2-7 respectively.
Figure 1.2-6 Berthing Configuration for Vessel 200m
Figure 1.2-7 Berthing Configuration for Vessel 50m

7. For mooring analysis, the ultimate limit state condition is based on limiting
environmental criteria as shown in Section 4.2. Five (5) environmental headings
shall be considered which are heading from SW, W, NW, N and NE. All
environmental elements (wave, wind, & current) are assumed collinear.
8. For berthing analysis, vessel speed of 0.3m/s and 1m/s has been considered for
vessel LoA of 200m and 50m respectively. Furthermore, berthing angle of 10deg
has been adopted.
9. Fender performance curve of SCK Cell Fender (Ref. [7]) has been applied.
Page 5 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
1.3 Units
International Unit System shall be applied in this document, unless otherwise stated.
Any conversion in parenthesis may be provided where appropriate.
1.4 Coordinate System
The sign convention and coordinate system adopted t is illustrated in figure below.
Figure 1.4-1 Coordinate System for Vessels

Sign conventions for vessel’s motion are;
Surge : (+) Lateral movement to bow.
(-) Lateral movement to stern.
Sway : (+) Lateral movement to port.
(-) Lateral movement to starboard.
Heave : (+) Lateral movement upwards.
(-) Lateral movement downwards.
Roll : (+) Rotational movement starboard is down.
(-) Rotational movement port is down.
Pitch : (+) Rotational movement bow is down.
(-) Rotational movement stern is down.
Yaw : (+) Rotational movement bow to port.
(-) Rotational movement bow to starboard
1.5 Abbreviation
ALS : Accidental Limit State
LoA : Length Overall
QTF : Quadratic Transfer Function
RAO : Response Amplitude Operator
ULS : Ultimate Limit State
Page 6 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
2.0 REFERENCES
The following International Standard and Code shall be adhered.
1. API RP 2SK Design and Analysis of Station keeping System
2. DNV OS E301 Position Mooring
3. DNV RP C205 Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads
4. ABS American Bureau of Shipping
5. BS 6349-4-2014 Maritime Works – Code of Practice for Design of Tendering

and Mooring System
6. Balmoral Marine Balmoral Marine Equipment Handbook
7. - Trelleborg Fenders Catalogue
8 SHE/QNDT/TS/TJ/ST/ Basis for Design Report of Main Jetty, Approach Bridge,

REP/01 Foot Bridge, Breastinh dolphin, Quay Wall and Revertment
9 1929-PMT-PRP-002 Mooring Analysis Design Basis
Page 7 of 29
Project : MOORING ANALYSIS DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF QUAY AT NAVAL DOCYAD AT TRINCOMALEE
3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

3.1 Conclusion
The 3D couple dynamic time domain analysis has been carried out for mooring and berthing analysis. The coupled time domain
analyses performed using marine dynamic software visual OrcaFlex, with the motion responses obtained from 3D Diffraction theory
analysis.
For mooring analysis, five (5) different environmental heading directions were applied. For each case, the Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
with “all line intact” and Accidental Limit State (ALS) with “one-line damaged” has been considered as per DNV-OS-E301 (Ref.[2]). The
analysis result is summarized in Table 3.1-1.
Table 3.1-1 : Mooring Analysis Result Summary
Outer Side Inner Side

Description Vessel 200 m (Single) Vessel 100 m (Double) Vessel 50 m (Triple) Vessel 25 m (Triple)
Max Draft Min Draft Max Draft Min Draft Max Draft Min Draft Max Draft Min Draft
ULS
Bollard Force
Max. Bollard Force (MT) 39.77 47.80 27.48 30.07 45.87 47.44 47.88 47.72
Position B1-10 B1-1 B1-8 B1-10 B2-21 B2-15 B2-12 B2-12
Heading NW (270 deg) SW (0 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) W (315 deg) W (315 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg)
Fender Force
Max. Fender Force (MT) 136.11 142.10 85.19 89.19 28.14 26.93 22.74 18.37
Fender F1-16 F1-16 F1-15 F1-20 F2-33 F2-26 F2-14 F2-14
Heading NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) W (315 deg) W (315 deg) N (225 deg) N (225 deg)
ALS
Bollard Force
Max. Bollard Force (MT) 46.69 55.61 51.93 36.03 51.15 51.91 55.74 56.18
Position B1-11 B1-2 B1-11 B1-11 B2-15 B2-15 B2-8 B2-13
Heading NW (270 deg) SW (0 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg)
Jetty Fender Force
Max. Fender Force (MT) 174.11 150.83 160.51 105.63 29.54 28.35 30.39 21.78
Fender F1-16 F1-16 F1-15 F1-19 F2-33 F2-26 F2-16 F2-14
Heading NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg) NW (270 deg)
Page 8 of 29
Project : MOORING ANALYSIS DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF QUAY AT NAVAL DOCYAD AT TRINCOMALEE
For berthing analysis, two (2) conditions as described in Section 5.2 were considered where the analysis result is summarized in Table
3.1-2.
Table 3.1-2 : Berthing Analysis Result Summary
Description Vessel 200 m Vessel 50 m

Max. Fender Force
115.54 35.18
(MT)
Fender F1-11 F2-31
3.2 Recommendation
The following recommendation has been made.
1. The proposed design load is shown in Table 3.1-3
Table 3.2-1 : Berthing Analysis Result Summary
ULS ALS
No Description Maximum Fender Maximum Bollard Maximum Fender Maximum Bollard
Reaction (MT) Tension (MT) Reaction (MT) Tension (MT)
1 Single 200 m LoA 142.10 47.80 174.11 55.61
2 Double 100 m LoA 89.19 30.07 160.51 51.93
3 Triple 50m LoA 28.14 47.44 29.54 51.91
4 Triple 25m LoA 22.74 47.88 30.39 56.18
2. For fender reaction, it is proposed to consider effect of fender friction in upward, downward, right and left direction in jetty
structural design. Fender friction coefficient as per vendor recommendation is proposed to be adopted otherwise fender friction
coefficient of 0.5 can be used.
3. For bollard tension, it is proposed to consider the worst case mooring line angle (vertical and horizontal as per applicable code
and standard) in jetty structural design.
4. Since the jetty operation is designed based on specific limiting weather criteria as described in Section 4.2, therefore, if the
weather criteria is exceeded, it proposed the vessel shall leave the berth.
Page 9 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
4.0 DESIGN DATA

4.1 Naval Ship Data
The naval ship considered for this analysis is summarized in Table 4.1-1.
Table 4.1-1 : Naval Ship Data
Description Unit Value
Naval Ship 200m

Length Overall m 200.00
Breadth Moulded m 12.00
Depth Moulded m 11.00
Operating Draft m 7.00
Naval Ship 100m

Length Overall M 105.70
Breadth Moulded M 13.60
Depth Moulded M 5.90
Operating Draft M 3.60
Naval Ship 50m

Depth Moulded m 5.02
Naval Ship 25m

Depth Moulded m 3.0
4.2 Limiting Criteria

During mooring analysis, the limiting criteria as per Ref [8] is presented below
Maximum wave height = 0.55m
Wave period = 6s
Current velocity = 0.5m/s
Wind velocity = 40m/s
Page 10 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
5.0 ANALYSIS CASE

5.1 Mooring Analysis
The mooring analysis cases as shown in Table 5.1-1 shall be considered:
Table 5.1-1 : Mooring Analysis Cases
Case Vessel Size Loading Environmental Heading

1 SW
2 W
3 Max NW
4 N
5 NE
200m
6 SW
7 W
8 Min NW
9 N
10 NE
11 SW
12 W
13 Max NW
14 N
15 NE
100m
16 SW
17 W
18 Min NW
19 N
20 NE
21 SW
22 W
23 Max NW
24 N
25 NE
50m
26 SW
27 W
28 Min NW
29 N
30 NE
31 SW
32 W
33 Max NW
34 N
25m
35 NE
36 SW
37 Min W
38 NW
Page 11 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Case Vessel Size Loading Environmental Heading

39 N
40 NE
5.2 Berthing Analysis

The berthing analysis has considered one (1) worst case vessels berthing for outer
fender and One (1) worst case vessels berthing for inner fender. The worst case
vessels for outer and inner fender are 200m LoA and 50m LoA as shown in Figure
5.2-1 and Figure 5.2-2 respectively. Furthermore berthing analysis has also
considered two (2) different berthing approach directions as shown in Table
Table 5.2-1 : Berthing Analysis Cases
Berthing Approach
Case Vessel Size Berthing Angle
Direction
A 10 deg
200m Perpendicular to
B
Jetty
10deg
C 10 deg
50m Perpendicular to
D
Jetty
Figure 5.2-2 Vessel Berthing Configuration for LoA of 200m (Outer Side)
Page 12 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Figure 5.2-3 Vessel Berthing Configuration for LoA of 50m (Inner Side)
Page 13 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
6.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

The main objective of the analysis is limited to the generation of loads on fenders and
bollards where DnV criteria (Ref.[2]) shall be adopted. Since the mooring case is
considered to be “temporary mooring system”, therefore only two (2) limit states shall
be considered as per the following.
1. Intact condition/ultimate limit state (ULS) to ensure that the individual mooring
lines have adequate strength to withstand the load effects imposed by
extreme/limiting weather/environmental actions.
2. Damage condition/Accidental limit state (ALS) to ensure that the mooring
system has adequate capacity to withstand the failure of one mooring line for
unknown reasons.
For berthing, criteria as per COMPANY requirement and British Standard (Ref. [5])
shall be applied.
Page 14 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
7.0 METHODOLOGY AND SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION

7.1 3D Time Domain Analysis
Time domain simulation allows non-linearity for all terms in the equation of motion.
Both high frequency and low frequency wave excitations are applied simultaneously
in the time domain. In a simplified form, the equation of motions for a mooring system
with six degrees of freedom in waves can be expressed as follows
∑ {( ) ̈ ̇ }
for i= 1~6
and
F  Fm  Fw  Fl
where;
x = displacement matrix
M = mass matrix
a = added mass
c = hydrostatic stiffness matrix, exist only for heave roll and pitch component
F = force matrix include wind, current, first & second order wave forces
Fm = steady (mean) component of force
Fw = wave frequency component of force
Fl = low frequency component of force
In coupled numerical mooring analysis, there is a direct coupling between all
dynamic loads in the mooring system and the wave frequency and low frequency
vessel motions, thus the mooring system is not only applying restoring force, but it
can also apply damping and inertia type loads on vessel.
7.2 Analysis Methodology
The mooring analysis was performed in two phases. First phase relates to analysis
performed with software MOSES to obtain the motion responses of the vessels.
Second phase relates to the coupled time domain analysis performed with marine
dynamic software Visual OrcaFlex, with the motion responses obtained from First
phase.
First phase. The barge responses were obtained from a 3D Diffraction theory
analysis. The vessels hull form was modelled to full scale as a refined mesh with
panels representing the hull surface. Increasing the number of panels will reduce the
inaccuracies in the calculated responses, especially at higher frequencies (shorter
wave lengths). As a rule of thumb, for satisfactory numerical results the maximum
panel length dimension should not be greater than 20% of the shortest studied wave
length.
Hydrostatic analysis was performed on the model to derive the condition,
displacement, centre of buoyancy, waterplane area, centre of floatation, and the
metacentric heights.
Further information like the wetted surface area, the load to change draft and the
moment to trim were also computed. These results were validated with the stability
booklet of the proposed vessel for accuracies.
Page 15 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Upon validation of the hydrostatic results, a Hydrodynamic analysis, a set of velocity

potentials on each panel, which results from the interaction of the panel with the sea,
was performed to generate the pressure database.
The first six of these velocity potentials arise due to unit motion of the body, at a
given frequency, in each of the degrees of freedom. These are called radiation
velocity potentials. The remaining potentials result from a wave being stopped by the
body. These are called diffraction potentials. The diffraction potentials depend not
only on wave frequency but also on wave heading. All of the potentials are complex
numbers (a real and an imaginary part for each potential).
The required motion responses were then calculated based on the pressure
database. The response obtained includes Response Amplitude Operators (RAO),
Quadratic Transfer Functions (QTF), Added Mass and Damping Forces.
Second phase. Second phase involves the analysis of a fully integrated 3D, finite
element, coupled time domain dynamic mooring system model as illustrated in Figure
6-1. The model implicitly and actively accounts for all contributions from the mooring
lines to the behaviour and response of the entire system. Contribution includes added
mass, damping, system stiffness, mean and low frequency hydrodynamic forces of
the mooring system, which varies with time, water depth and direction. The wind area
of above deck structure such as accommodation deck, crane structures, etc. is
considered by inputting the area in the model.
The vessels were modelled as a rigid body whose motions are prescribed by a set of
motion responses derived from the 3D Diffraction theory analysis. The vessel
responds to wave at two distinct frequencies. The first frequency corresponds to the
wave frequency and is caused by an applied wave load that is linear function of the
wave amplitude. The first frequency motion is modelled as a set of forced response
amplitude operators (RAOs).
The second frequency corresponds to the system’s natural frequency, which is
typically quite different from the wave frequency, and is caused by an applied load
proportional to the square of the wave amplitude. Although this load is second order
in nature and therefore quite small, the response of the system is generally amplified,
since the load occurs near the natural frequency of the mooring system. The second
frequency term are quadratic terms and are made up of three terms, as follows.
 Difference frequency terms, which have frequencies given by the differences

between combinations of different wave component frequencies.
 A constant frequency term, called the mean wave drift force. This term is really
the limiting case of the difference frequency term when the two frequencies are
equal.
 Sum frequency terms, which have frequencies given by the sums of
combinations of wave component frequencies.
The constant and difference terms are collectively known as the wave drift loads and
these are modelled as quadratic transfer functions (QTF). The constant term is
applied both in the static and dynamic analyses. The difference frequency terms are
only included in the dynamic analysis. The sum frequency terms are not included in
the analysis, since they are high frequency terms whose effect on a moored vessel is
normally negligible.
Page 16 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Another important source of damping occurs in a moored vessel in the form of drag
loads, also known as vessel slow drift. The drag load appears in two forms, the
hydrodynamic drag loads and the wind drag loads. Hydrodynamic and wind drag
loads on a vessel are square law loads due to the relative velocity of the fluid past the
vessel. The drag forces and moments due to translational motion are modelled using
the standard OCIMF method.
While damping plays an insignificant role in the motion at the wave frequency, it is
key deterrent to the motion at the natural frequency. A moored system experiences
damping from two natural sources, material and hydrodynamic. The material
damping is generally small and is ignored in the analysis. Therefore, it is assumed
that the resonant response of the moored floating vessel is limited only by the
hydrodynamic damping present in the system. This hydrodynamic damping appears
in the form of linear radiation damping, linear viscous damping and nonlinear viscous
damping. The damping and added mass were modelled as six-by-six (6x6) matrices
derived from 3D Diffraction theory analysis at the natural frequency of the vessel.
Mooring lines were modelled explicitly, taking into account of their 3D catenaries
shape and all the inherent material and structural non-linearity, under environmental
and external loading using the finite element technique. The mooring configuration
was referred to British Standard Ref. [5].
Figure 7.2-1 Typical Mooring Configuration for Continuous Quay
Page 17 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
7.3 Software Description

MOSES
MOSES is a software system for hydrostatic and hydrodynamic analysis of all types
of offshore platforms and vessels. It is widely used for simulating and analysing
transportation and installation of offshore structures as well as performing design and
in-place calculations on floating offshore systems.
Using the flexible and customizable MOSES Language, naval architects and offshore
engineers can complete hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, mooring and structural
simulations of all types of offshore operations, including loadout, transportation,
lifting, launching, upending, and float over. MOSES can also be used to predict the
in-place performance of moored systems such as FPSOs and floating platforms. The
integrated nature of the MOSES solver improves efficiency and reduces the risk of
error when compared with the traditional approach of using multiple packages to
analyse the separate components of a project.
The choice of offshore engineers worldwide, MOSES has been used for projects
installing and designing offshore structures, including Jackets, Topsides, FPSOs,
Spars, TLPs, Semi-submersibles, Wind Turbines, and other platforms. Capabilities
include: combined 3D diffraction, panel, and Morison element modelling; hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic analysis of multiple, arbitrary shaped floating bodies; analysis and
design of mooring lines, risers, and lifting slings; multi-body hydrodynamic
interactions; hydrodynamic analysis in both the frequency and time domains; and
jacket launching.
MOSES can import SACS structures, whether cargo or topsides, and include their
mass in stability and motions calculations. MOSES data export facilities allow easy
post-processing of results in Excel and other programs.
OrcaFlex
OrcaFlex is the world’s leading package developed by Orcina for the dynamic
analysis of offshore marine systems. It performs both static and dynamic analysis of
a wide range of offshore systems, including all types of marine risers (rigid and
flexible), global analysis, moorings, installation and towed systems.
OrcaFlex provides fast and accurate analysis of catenary systems such as flexible
risers and umbilical cables under wave and current loads and externally imposed
motions. OrcaFlex makes extensive use of graphics to assist understanding. The
program can be operated in batch mode for routine analysis work and there are also
special facilities for post-processing your results including fully integrated fatigue
analysis capabilities.
Page 18 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
8.0 RESULT
8.1 Mooring Analysis
Mooring analysis was carried out based on design criteria for the mooring system to
withstand the load effects imposed by the extreme/limiting criteria environment action,
known as Intact condition requirements (ultimate limit state; ULS), and to withstand
the failure of one mooring line, known as the damage condition requirements
(accidental limit state; ALS).
The ULS addresses the situation assuming all mooring lines in the system are intact.
The analysis involves simulation of coupled motion and tension responses of the
mooring system. The ALS address the situation assuming one mooring line is
assumed to have failed in severe weather and considers the mooring system
response to the same environmental condition. This was achieved by simulating the
ULS case, which has resulted in the particular mooring line generating maximum
tension. This line is released at a pre-determined time at the fairlead location to
represent the actual condition when the damage case is occurred.
The tabulated bollard force and fender force for intact and damage conditions are
presented in Table 8.1-1 up to Table 8.1-16.
Table 8.1-1 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 200 m – Maximum Draft - Intact)
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B1-1 29.58 19.85 18.40 33.46 24.98
B1-2 27.63 18.33 17.11 31.27 23.27
Bollard
B1-5 18.29 22.25 20.30 20.68 17.33
Force
B1-10 6.10 11.83 7.28 39.77 6.94
B1-11 11.39 14.59 12.81 17.81 11.16
F1-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F1-2 1.24 1.30 9.01 74.88 19.66
F1-3 2.08 2.18 15.41 100.65 31.89
F1-4 1.96 2.07 14.91 85.96 28.83
F1-5 1.84 1.95 14.45 74.49 25.78
F1-6 1.72 1.84 13.99 68.79 22.72
F1-7 1.59 1.73 13.90 71.71 20.61
F1-8 1.47 1.62 14.19 75.08 18.72
Fender
F1-9 1.35 1.51 14.57 79.02 17.00
Force
F1-10 1.23 1.38 17.37 84.97 15.29
F1-11 1.27 1.47 20.24 90.34 14.22
F1-12 1.35 1.80 23.10 96.05 13.20
F1-13 1.51 2.21 25.96 102.50 12.41
F1-14 1.68 2.69 28.82 113.43 12.22
F1-15 1.85 3.18 31.69 125.31 12.68
F1-16 2.02 3.69 34.57 136.11 13.14
F1-17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 19 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
F1-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 8.1-2 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 200 m – Maximum Draft – Damage)
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
H (m) 0.55
T (s) 6
B1-1 29.19
B1-2 30.79
Bollard
B1-5 19.21
Force
B1-10 Damage
B1-11 46.69
F1-1 0.00
F1-2 95.22
F1-3 111.76
F1-4 72.34
F1-5 62.06
F1-6 72.05
F1-7 81.74
F1-8 91.44
Fender F1-9 101.13
Force F1-10 113.28
F1-11 122.97
F1-12 132.05
F1-13 140.55
F1-14 151.59
F1-15 162.92
F1-16 174.11
F1-17 0.00
F1-18 0.00
Table 8.1-3 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 200 m – Minimum Draft - Intact)
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B1-1 47.80 40.33 30.03 37.75 38.67
Bollard B1-2 39.85 32.66 22.12 28.40 31.18
Force B1-5 38.52 44.35 35.26 32.37 35.75
B1-10 10.00 16.89 4.46 17.38 8.69
Page 20 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
B1-11 13.13 17.53 10.17 11.47 11.64
F1-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F1-2 2.76 2.93 6.92 70.06 24.33
F1-3 4.07 4.66 11.46 92.91 38.11
F1-4 3.25 4.10 11.53 80.25 35.27
F1-5 2.50 3.56 12.65 73.53 32.96
F1-6 1.93 3.02 14.33 66.75 30.66
F1-7 1.74 2.48 16.12 59.68 28.43
F1-8 1.58 1.97 18.04 52.60 26.20
Fender F1-9 1.42 1.49 20.09 57.40 24.17
Force F1-10 1.39 1.18 22.90 66.55 23.54
F1-11 1.68 1.57 25.87 75.37 23.25
F1-12 2.05 2.26 29.03 84.12 23.13
F1-13 2.43 3.02 32.24 92.87 23.12
F1-14 2.81 3.79 36.64 109.43 23.17
F1-15 3.20 4.56 42.89 126.78 24.13
F1-16 3.59 5.34 49.86 142.10 25.45
F1-17 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F1-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 8.1-4 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 200 m – Minimum Draft – Damage)
Condition Damage
0 270
Heading (deg)
SW NW
H (m) 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6
B1-1 Damage Damage
B1-2 55.61 30.79
Bollard
B1-5 33.59 19.21
Force
B1-10 3.19 12.39
B1-11 9.09 36.69
F1-1 0.00 0.00
F1-2 0.69 80.62
F1-3 1.10 109.36
F1-4 0.98 89.07
F1-5 0.88 68.78
Fender F1-6 0.80 53.66
Force F1-7 0.81 47.15
F1-8 0.83 49.85
F1-9 0.85 57.35
F1-10 0.89 67.91
F1-11 0.94 75.90
F1-12 1.04 83.90
Page 21 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Condition Damage
0 270
Heading (deg)
SW NW
F1-13 1.13 94.14
F1-14 1.23 106.13
F1-15 1.33 118.49
F1-16 1.44 150.83
F1-17 0.87 0.00
F1-18 0.00 0.00
Table 8.1-5 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 100 m – Maximum Draft - Intact)
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B1-7 8.00 7.28 11.28 17.98 11.26
B1-8 12.80 11.75 17.35 27.48 17.12
Bollard
B1-10 9.98 13.75 15.44 22.54 14.00
Force
B1-11 0.60 11.83 12.20 25.78 8.42
B1-12 8.59 17.17 24.06 26.26 27.11
F1-14 0.00 2.02 20.86 59.19 35.05
F1-15 0.00 3.85 27.60 85.19 42.55
F1-16 0.00 4.18 22.09 81.89 31.96
Fender F1-17 0.41 4.93 22.71 79.54 26.52
Force F1-18 2.35 6.11 28.19 77.19 24.00
F1-19 4.39 7.31 37.76 76.58 26.45
F1-20 9.86 9.79 73.31 73.28 39.65
F1-21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
H (m) 0.55
T (s) 6
B1-7 43.79
B1-8 Damage
Bollard
B1-10 44.51
Force
B1-11 51.93
B1-12 35.75
F1-14 89.60
Fender F1-15 160.51
Force F1-16 139.76
F1-17 119.47
Page 22 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
F1-18 112.46
F1-19 106.60
F1-20 117.04
F1-21 0.00
Table 8.1-7 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 100 m – Minimum Draft - Intact)
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B1-7 21.59 17.26 21.77 20.88 21.43
B1-8 26.19 19.53 26.12 24.37 25.02
Bollard
B1-10 22.43 25.15 26.37 30.07 23.13
Force
B1-11 17.40 21.91 24.35 28.86 18.14
B1-12 20.08 23.53 24.30 31.94 26.46
F1-14 1.06 0.03 15.84 33.34 17.28
F1-15 3.06 0.99 25.54 53.62 30.47
F1-16 5.00 2.06 23.89 53.70 30.74
Fender F1-17 6.96 4.25 25.28 54.54 32.67
Force F1-18 10.00 7.52 33.56 58.67 34.60
F1-19 13.49 12.05 50.80 67.92 36.55
F1-20 19.78 14.44 75.30 89.19 28.46
F1-21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
H (m) 0.55
T (s) 6
B1-7 20.32
B1-8 26.34
Bollard
B1-10 17.40
Force
B1-11 36.03
B1-12 33.78
F1-14 40.61
F1-15 73.18
Fender F1-16 81.19
Force F1-17 89.21
F1-18 97.38
F1-19 105.63
Page 23 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
F1-20 96.86
F1-21 0.00
Table 8.1-9 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 50 m – Maximum Draft – Intact)
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B2-15 16.77 1.99 25.26 37.88 30.27
B2-16 40.77 40.77 40.77 40.77 40.77
Bollard
B2-19 23.70 12.37 29.71 26.35 28.01
Force
B2-21 45.87 45.87 45.87 45.87 45.87
B2-22 3.68 0.84 23.57 26.70 8.77
F2-26 11.72 10.28 23.81 18.49 21.05
F2-27 8.37 8.26 17.96 16.60 10.21
F2-28 7.11 6.50 16.32 18.44 8.32
Fender F2-29 8.03 6.82 15.76 20.28 8.74
Force F2-30 8.95 7.21 15.31 22.12 9.22
F2-31 9.87 7.62 14.90 23.97 9.69
F2-32 10.79 8.03 14.68 26.03 10.16
F2-33 11.71 8.49 14.45 28.14 12.75
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
H (m) 0.55
T (s) 6
B2-15 51.15
B2-16 40.77
Bollard
B2-19 33.48
Force
B2-21 45.87
B2-22 41.06
F2-26 28.26
F2-27 25.43
F2-28 22.59
Fender F2-29 20.28
Force F2-30 22.12
F2-31 23.97
F2-32 26.03
F2-33 29.54
Page 24 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Table 8.1-11 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 50 m – Minimum Draft – Intact)
Condition Intact
0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B2-15 12.53 8.66 20.05 41.91 47.44
B2-16 29.27 29.27 29.27 29.27 29.27
Bollard
B2-19 19.27 16.20 18.92 38.73 27.85
Force
B2-21 8.76 8.68 8.49 8.51 8.04
B2-22 1.39 3.27 22.67 26.76 10.49
F2-26 6.92 8.81 26.93 23.35 10.66
F2-27 5.47 6.29 8.27 10.77 7.09
F2-28 5.79 5.72 5.74 9.44 4.85
Fender F2-29 6.15 5.36 5.55 8.43 6.02
Force F2-30 6.88 5.55 5.56 7.50 7.19
F2-31 7.66 6.09 5.67 7.05 8.37
F2-32 8.49 6.63 5.83 10.85 9.79
F2-33 9.55 7.17 6.20 15.43 11.34
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
H (m) 0.55
T (s) 6
B2-15 51.91
B2-16 35.68
Bollard
B2-19 38.73
Force
B2-21 Damage
B2-22 26.76
F2-26 28.35
F2-27 10.77
F2-28 9.44
Fender F2-29 8.43
Force F2-30 7.50
F2-31 7.05
F2-32 10.85
F2-33 15.43
Page 25 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
Table 8.1-13 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 25 m – Maximum Draft – Intact)
Condition Intact (MT)

0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B2-8 4.04 3.19 7.04 9.01 8.11
Bollard B2-9 10.07 19.32 37.22 40.06 27.07
Force B2-12 16.69 15.48 37.32 47.88 35.89
B2-13 4.59 2.23 5.13 8.06 7.84
F2-14 10.96 11.34 22.74 18.12 11.44
F2-15 4.95 4.29 0.00 3.71 5.64
Fender
F2-16 15.36 9.80 5.82 4.91 6.72
Force
F2-17 4.84 2.00 0.57 1.12 2.11
F2-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
H (m) 0.55
T (s) 6
B2-8 55.74
Bollard B2-9 30.82
Force B2-12 Damage
B2-13 9.23
F2-14 0.00
F2-15 3.63
Fender
F2-16 30.39
Force
F2-17 26.54
F2-18 2.34
Table 8.1-15 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 25 m – Minimum Draft – Intact)

0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
H (m) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
T (s) 6 6 6 6 6
B2-8 3.74 2.91 6.57 9.76 7.12
Bollard B2-9 7.90 19.69 35.31 39.60 23.21
Force B2-12 13.45 14.74 33.24 47.72 32.62
B2-13 5.26 3.12 4.76 8.40 6.94
Fender F2-14 6.92 10.99 18.37 17.67 10.13
Force F2-15 3.43 3.07 5.10 2.34 2.61
Page 26 of 29
TRINCOMALEE

0 180 225 270 315
Heading (deg)
SW NE N NW W
F2-16 8.91 7.54 10.08 3.76 7.86
F2-17 3.15 2.12 1.32 1.23 2.35
F2-18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Condition Damage
270
Heading (deg)
NW
H (m) 0.55
T (s) 6
B2-8 6.47
Bollard B2-9 55.62
Force B2-12 Damage
B2-13 56.18
F2-14 21.78
F2-15 0.07
Fender
F2-16 9.51
Force
F2-17 1.30
F2-18 0.00
8.2 Berthing Analysis

Berthing analysis was carried out based on analysis case as described in Section 5.2.
The tabulated fender forces are presented in Table 8.2-1.
Table 8.2-1 Fender Force
Vessel 200m Vessel 50m

Force
Case A Case B Case C Case D
Fender Force
115.54 64.53 35.18 31.03
(MT)
Page 27 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
9.0 ATTACHMENT
 Attachment A : Jetty Fender Catalog
Page 28 of 29
TRINCOMALEE
ATTACHMENT A
JETTY FENDER CATALOG
Page 29 of 29

Mooring Analysis (20210913) - A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mooring Analysis (20210913) - A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mooring Analysis (20210913) - A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the objective of the report?

What is the objective of the report?

What analysis conditions were considered in the mooring and berthing analysis?

What analysis conditions were considered in the mooring and berthing analysis?

MOORING ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF QUAY AT NAVAL

A 14 September 2021 Issued For Review FR CH

Rev Date Description By Chk’d Appv’d Company

Total or partial reproduction and/or utilization of this document are forbidden

Prepared for : Prepared by :

ELS CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD ZEE ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Figure 1.2-2 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 200m (Single)

Figure 1.2-3 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 100m (Double)

Figure 1.2-4 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 50m (Triple)

Figure 1.2-5 Vessel Mooring Configuration for LoA of 25m (Triple)

Figure 1.2-6 Berthing Configuration for Vessel 200m

Figure 1.2-7 Berthing Configuration for Vessel 50m

Figure 1.4-1 Coordinate System for Vessels

1. API RP 2SK Design and Analysis of Station keeping System

2. DNV OS E301 Position Mooring

3. DNV RP C205 Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads

4. ABS American Bureau of Shipping

5. BS 6349-4-2014 Maritime Works – Code of Practice for Design of Tendering

7. - Trelleborg Fenders Catalogue

8 SHE/QNDT/TS/TJ/ST/ Basis for Design Report of Main Jetty, Approach Bridge,

9 1929-PMT-PRP-002 Mooring Analysis Design Basis

3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Outer Side Inner Side

Description Vessel 200 m Vessel 50 m

Table 3.2-1 : Berthing Analysis Result Summary

4.0 DESIGN DATA

Description Unit Value

Naval Ship 200m

Operating Draft m 7.00

Naval Ship 100m

Operating Draft M 3.60

Naval Ship 50m

Operating Draft m 2.82

Naval Ship 25m

Operating Draft m 1.2

4.2 Limiting Criteria

5.0 ANALYSIS CASE

Case Vessel Size Loading Environmental Heading

Case Vessel Size Loading Environmental Heading

5.2 Berthing Analysis

6.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

7.0 METHODOLOGY AND SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION

Upon validation of the hydrostatic results, a Hydrodynamic analysis, a set of velocity

 Difference frequency terms, which have frequencies given by the differences

Figure 7.2-1 Typical Mooring Configuration for Continuous Quay

7.3 Software Description

Table 8.1-9 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 50 m – Maximum Draft – Intact)

Table 8.1-10 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 50 m – Maximum Draft – Damage)

Table 8.1-11 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 50 m – Minimum Draft – Intact)

Table 8.1-12 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 50 m – Minimum Draft – Damage)

Table 8.1-13 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 25 m – Maximum Draft – Intact)

Condition Intact (MT)

Table 8.1-14 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 25 m – Maximum Draft – Damage)

Table 8.1-15 Mooring Line Tension (Vessel 25 m – Minimum Draft – Intact)

Condition Intact (MT)