Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Dynamic Response of a SPAR-Type Floating Wind Turbine
Foundation with Taut Mooring System
Gong Xiang 1,2 , Xianbo Xiang 1,2, * and Xiaochuan Yu 3

1 School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan 430074, China
2 Hubei Key Laboratory of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Hydrodynamics (HUST),
Wuhan 430074, China
3 School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of New Orleans,
New Orleans, LA 70148, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Compared with the traditional catenary or semi-taut mooring lines, the taut mooring
system is more advantageous in many aspects, such as reduction of mooring line loads, erosion and
fatigue damage during the powering productions of the floating wind turbines. This paper presents
a taut mooring system made of synthetic fiber mooring lines, which can experience large elongations
for a spar-type floating wind turbine. A finite element method (FEM)-based tensile mooring line
model is proposed to study the mooring statics and dynamics of the floating wind turbine. A time
domain modelling method coupled with the developed mooring line model is adopted to study
the dynamics of a spar-type floating wind turbine foundation moored by the taut mooring system
under regular waves. A systematic dynamic response and structural analysis are conducted based on
variations in the mooring length and pretension. Additionally, comparative performance analyses are
investigated for two mooring configurations with different numbers of mooring lines: two-point and
Citation: Xiang, G.; Xiang, X.; Yu, X. three-point taut mooring system. It is found that factors, such as mooring length, pretension and the
Dynamic Response of a SPAR-Type number of mooring lines, have significant impact on the in-plane and out-of-plane motion responses
Floating Wind Turbine Foundation of the foundation.
with Taut Mooring System. J. Mar.
Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907. https:// Keywords: spar-type floating wind turbine; taut mooring system; FEM; tensile mooring line; dynamic
doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121907 response; mooring configurations
Academic Editors: Shan Wang,
Philipp R. Thies, Yushun Lian and
Carlos Guedes Soares
1. Introduction
Received: 12 November 2022
Accepted: 1 December 2022
In the past decades, an increasing number of floating marine systems have been
Published: 5 December 2022
designed, produced and operated in the sea to adhere to the demand of exploring the ocean
energy resources deeper and further away from the land [1–5]. The typical floating systems
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
for harvesting ocean resources include traditional oil and gas platforms [2,6,7], as well
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
as renewable energy devices, such as wind turbines, tidal/current turbines, wave energy
published maps and institutional affil-
converters and their associated operational systems [4,8–10].
iations.
There are three main types of mooring design for floating wind turbines: the catenary
mooring system, semi-taut mooring system and taut mooring system. Most of the mooring
systems under operations are catenary or semi-taut. Several catenary mooring configu-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
rations were proposed that could be accomplished with single or multi-connections [1].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Astariz and Iglesias [11] found the most appropriate mooring was CALM (catenary anchor
This article is an open access article leg mooring), which has the advantages of easy installation, lower cost and less effects of
distributed under the terms and corrosions. However, the use of catenaries may suffer from wear and fatigue damage and
conditions of the Creative Commons affect the structure safety due to vortex-induced vibration. Gao and Moan [12] also pointed
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// out that a catenary line system usually consisting of chain links relies on the weight of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ links or clump weights to provide horizontal restoring force. If no clump weight is used,
4.0/). a very long mooring line of chain links must be considered to obtain adequate flexibility.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121907 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 2

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 is used, a very long mooring line of chain links must be considered to obtain 2 of 22adequat
flexibility. Furthermore, catenary line systems will bring large, vertically downward load
to the floating structures. This could limit the allowable deck loads for floating wind tu
bines. Therefore,
Furthermore, catenarythisline
concept might
systems willnot
bringbe large,
suitable in shallow
vertically waters.loads to the
downward
floatingAsstructures.
shown inThis Figure
could1, with
limitsynthetic
the allowablefibers becoming
deck loads for very promising
floating mooring mater
wind turbines.
als, the taut mooring system is treated as a good alternative of mooring system for floatin
Therefore, this concept might not be suitable in shallow waters.
As shown in Figure 1, with synthetic fibers becoming very promising mooring materi-
wind turbines. The possible new materials, such as AI foam, might also be able to be use
als, the taut mooring system is treated as a good alternative of mooring system for floating
for the composition of the mooring lines after enhancement of the structural strength. Th
wind turbines. The possible new materials, such as AI foam, might also be able to be used
diameter
for sizes of of
the composition those syntheticlines
the mooring fiber ropes
after used for commercial
enhancement purposes
of the structural vary
strength. Thewithin th
range of 16 mm to 240 mm [13] and are typically made of nylon (polyamide),
diameter sizes of those synthetic fiber ropes used for commercial purposes vary within the polyester (po
yethylene
range of 16 mmterephthalate),
to 240 mm [13] aramid
and are(para-aramid),
typically made orofHMPE (high-modulus
nylon (polyamide), polyethylene
polyester
Synthetic fiber
(polyethylene ropes are significantly
terephthalate), lighter thanor
aramid (para-aramid), other
HMPE materials and, therefore,
(high-modulus polyethy-can be use
in the water column of a taut mooring system. Casaubieilh [14] found that the new genera
lene). Synthetic fiber ropes are significantly lighter than other materials and, therefore,
tionbeofused
can mooring
in the system, taut configuration
water column of a taut mooring using tether Casaubieilh
system. mooring lines,[14] can significantly
found that re
the new generation of mooring system, taut configuration using tether mooring lines, can
duce the loads on mooring lines, floating structure and anchors, and it can also reduce th
significantly reduce the loads on mooring lines, floating structure and anchors, and it can
device excursions when comparing to the conventional catenary moorings. The elastic prop
also reduce the device excursions when comparing to the conventional catenary moorings.
erties
The of fiber
elastic ropesof
properties are alsoropes
fiber of interest
are alsotoofdamp mooring
interest to damploads, andloads,
mooring they and
avoid
theysnap load
[13].
avoid snap loads [13].

Figure
Figure 1. 1. Synthetic
Synthetic fibers
fibers applied
applied intotaut
into the themooring
taut mooring
systemsystem of floating
of floating wind turbine.
wind turbine.

The
The nonlinear
nonlinear time-dependent
time-dependent mechanical
mechanical properties
properties of the
of the taut taut mooring
mooring lines, suchlines, suc
asassynthetic fiber ropes, are found to be very complex [15,16]. Therefore, how to
synthetic fiber ropes, are found to be very complex [15,16]. Therefore, how to deal wit deal with
the dynamics of the whole floating system composed by the floating structure and fiber
the dynamics of the whole floating system composed by the floating structure and fibe
ropes also becomes a complicated problem. Before the late 20th century, the oscillatory
ropes of
motion also becomes
floating a complicated
structures problem.
was calculated Before
without the latethe
considering 20th century,
dynamic the oscillator
response
motion of floating structures was calculated without considering the
of the mooring cables and a linearized stiffness reaction from their mooring systems was dynamic response o
the mooring
presumed. cables
This is and a quasi-static
the so-called linearized mooring
stiffnessanalysis.
reaction from their
However, mooring
for moored systems wa
floating
presumed.especially
renewables, This is the so-called
floating wind quasi-static
turbines and mooring
wave energyanalysis. However,
converters forwater,
in shallow moored floa
iting
hasrenewables,
been pointed especially floating
out lately that wind design
the mooring turbines
mustand
bewave energy
an integral partconverters
of the whole in shallow
water,system
floating it has design
been pointed outmooring
[17], as the lately that thecan
design mooring design
significantly must be
influence the an integral part o
behaviors
ofthe
thewhole
floatingfloating system
structures, design [17],
the operations, as the mooring
the survival design As
and maintenance. cana significantly
result of all theinfluenc
above, there is a great need for an accurate understanding of the dynamics of floating wind
the behaviors of the floating structures, the operations, the survival and maintenance. A
turbines coupled with the responses from fiber rope mooring lines and an accurate analysis
a result of all the above, there is a great need for an accurate understanding of the dynam
of the body motion responses and the mooring tension of the associated mooring system.
ics of floating wind turbines coupled with the responses from fiber rope mooring line
and an accurate analysis of the body motion responses and the mooring tension of th
associated mooring system.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 3 of 22

Currently, many researchers have managed to experimentally investigate the dynamic

performance of the floating renewables, such as floating wind turbines and wave energy
converters with the taut mooring system, to disclose their coupling dynamic effects [18,19].
However, how to numerically solve the dynamic responses from fiber rope mooring lines
is a critical problem during coupling analysis between floating structure and mooring lines.
Fortunately, there has been some existing knowledge to use in the past decades. Researchers
have established several frequency or time-domain modelling methods to consider the
dynamics of traditional taut mooring lines, such as chains, steel wires, springs, etc., to
couple with the floaters. The main time domain modelling approaches used for mooring
dynamic analysis usually involve different spatial and temporal discretization methods
based on either a lumped-mass model (LMM) [19–22] or slender rod model solved by either
finite difference method (FDM) [23,24] or finite element method (FEM) [25–28]. These
mooring dynamic models can also be applied into new taut mooring lines, such as fiber
ropes. However, compared with chains and steel wires, fiber ropes usually suffer much
larger elongations; thus, mooring dynamic models used for studying the dynamics of
fiber ropes may also be required to change somehow. Currently, there is little research
into the dynamics of the fiber ropes. Generally, the fiber rope mooring line is treated as
having a constant storm stiffness in the calculations, considering the mooring line tension
is the targeted parameter to be calculated as the interface between floating structure and
fiber rope mooring lines. Thomsen et al. [19] utilized LMM-based software, Orcaflex, to
simulate a three-legged turret mooring system with synthetic lines for a wind/wave energy
converter, known as a floating power plant. Generally, good agreement was found for the
tensions in the lines. Nguyen et al. [29] simplified the mooring line as a vertical elastic
spring-mass system with a constant stiffness when studying the hydro-elastic responses
of pontoon-type VLFS moored by vertical elastic lines. Xiong et al. [30,31] developed
a dynamic method using the LMM to study the dynamics of the elastic mooring chain,
which suffers large elongations under deep water by considering the soil–chain interaction
for the embedded anchor chain. Qiao et al. [32] conducted the dynamic finite element
analysis of the taut mooring lines with chain–polyester–chain segments to investigate
the slack–taut phenomenon. Because of many advantageous factors, including coding
simplicity, computational efficiency, and earlier applications as a design and analysis tool,
LMM is more widely used in the above studies. However, LMM is actually a simplified form
with the order reduction of the FEM-based process. Depending on the implementation used,
LMM formulations generally require many more elements to reach the similar accuracy of
FEM assemblies. When comparing FDM with FEM, FEM can guarantee L2 stability using
the Galerkin method, while FDM will not work if finite-differencing schemes are paired
with incompatible integration techniques. Additionally, compared with the LMM and FEM,
FDM are inherently more prone to numerical errors or drifts because the FDM formulation
does not guarantee the conservation of energy.
This paper presents a time domain modelling method to study the dynamics of a
spar-type floating wind turbine moored by the synthetic fiber mooring lines under regular
waves. The simulations of motion response and the tension force on the mooring lines at the
fairlead of the foundation with a three-point (T3) taut mooring system under regular waves
are studied using traditional stiff and proposed tensile mooring line model. The dynamics
of a spar-type floating wind turbine foundation moored by synthetic fiber mooring lines of
different lengths and pretensions have been simulated. Comparative performance analysis
of two-point (T2) and three-point (T3) taut mooring systems are also conducted. In a
nutshell, the main contributions of the present work are:
(1) To overcome the drawbacks of the stiff mooring line model when calculating the
dynamics of synthetic fiber ropes, am FEM formulation of tensile mooring line model
is proposed to be capable of studying the statics and dynamics of tensile mooring
lines experiencing large elongations.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 dynamics of spar-type floating wind turbine foundation moored4 ofby 22 synthe

ropes.
(3) The effects of the taut mooring system configurations on the dynamic respon
(2) By integrating the tensile mooring line model and the Morison forces into the equa-
spar-type
tions floating
of motion, a time wind
domainturbine foundation
modelling and the
code is developed to loads oncoupled
study the the synthetic
dy- fibe
ing lines
namics have been
of spar-type systematically
floating investigated
wind turbine foundation mooredvia changing
by synthetic mooring
fiber ropes. leng
pretensions;
(3) The effects of thethe number
taut mooringof mooring
system lines: T2on
configurations and
theT3.
dynamic responses of
a spar-type floating wind turbine foundation and the loads on the synthetic fiber
mooring lines have been systematically investigated via changing mooring lengths
2. Methodology
and pretensions; the number of mooring lines: T2 and T3.
2.1. Dynamics of a Tensile Mooring Line
2. Methodology
The mooring
2.1. Dynamics line
of a Tensile is generally
Mooring Line treated as a slender rod when studying its dy
In aThe
3Dmooring
Cartesian coordinate system, the rod is expressed as a function of time t
line is generally treated as a slender rod when studying its dynamics. In
aarc
3D length s along
Cartesian the rod,
coordinate namely
system, the rodaisposition
expressedvector, r(s, t),ofas
as a function shown
time t and intheFigure
arc 2. I
2, the sunit
length vectors
along the rod,in tangential,
namely normal
a position vector,and binormal
r(s, t), as showndirections
in Figure 2. are expressed
In Figure 2, by
b, respectively. The rod tensile is usually assumed to allow for large axial elonga
the unit vectors in tangential, normal and binormal directions are expressed by t, n and
b, respectively. The rod tensile is usually assumed to allow for large axial elongation; the
original arc length is s while the deformed arc length is 𝑆̅ as shown in Figure 2.
original arc length is s while the deformed arc length is S as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The rod in original and deformed state.

Figure 2. The rod in original and deformed state.
For a slender rod, the equations of motion are developed based on general conservation
For
of linear a slenderand
momentum rod, the equations
moment of momentumof motion arecan
[33,34] and developed based
be expressed as on general co
tion of linear momentum and moment
’
of momentum [33,34] and can be expresse
e + r’ × F + m = 0
M (1)
 .. r  F  m  0
M
F’ + q = ρ r(s, t) (2)
where, q is the external load acting on the rod F  unit
per  r(sρ,and
q length, t ) m is the mass and the
external moment per unit length, respectively. The symbol of prime indicates the space
where, qwith
derivative is the external
respect load
to s, while theacting
symbolon the rod per
of superposed dotunit time derivative.
length,
represents and m is the m
the external moment
Correspondingly, per unit
F is the total force length,
acting at respectively.
a point while MThe
e is thesymbol of prime
total moment indicates
acting at th
derivative with respect to s, while the symbol of superposed dot represents time
the centerline of the rod.
Based on the Bernoulli–Euler theory, the related total moment M e can be expressed by
tive. Correspondingly, F is the total force acting at a point while 𝐌 is the total m
acting at the centerline of theM erod.
= r’ × ( Br” ) + Hr’ (3)
Based on the Bernoulli–Euler theory, the related total moment 𝐌 can be ex
By merging Equations (2) and (3), the equations of motion of slender rod are represented by
by
r’ × ( Br” )0 + H 0 r’ + Hr” + r’ × F + m = 0 (4)
  r  ( Br)  Hr
M
By merging Equations 2 and 3, the equations of motion of slender rod are repr
by
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 5 of 22

For a tensile mooring line, such as the studied synthetic fiber rope here, it is regarded
as a long slender tensile rod with negligible moments and shear forces, which can also
experience large elongations. As a result, the bending stiffness B, the torsional stiffness
H and the shear deformations can all be neglected in the above equations. Therefore, the
only remaining internal force is caused by the cable tension tangential to the local direction.
Finally, the governing equation is simplified as
..
(λr’ )0 + q = ρ r (5)

where λ is the Lagrange multiplier. The total external forces applied on a submerged
slender rod per unit length are

q = q F −K + q I + q D + q B + qG (6)

where the first three terms represent the hydrodynamic forces, including Froude–Krylov
force, qF−K , added mass force, q I , and drag force, qD ; Li et al. [35] points out that damp
models/forces are required to conduct the dynamic analyses of a structural system. Here,
qD stands for the damp forces, which are dependent on the velocities of the mooring line. It
is noted that the fourth term, qB , is hydrostatic force; the last term, qG , is the gravity force.
The total force q can be also expressed in detail as
.
.

q = ρA(I + CMn N + CMt T)a + 12 ρDCDn N v − r N v − r
. . (ρA−ρt At ) gey (7)
+ 21 ρDCDt T(v − r)|T(v − r)| + (1+ e )

where T = r’T r’ and N = I−T, CMn , CMt , CDn and CDt are added mass coefficients in normal
and tangential direction, drag coefficients in normal and tangential direction, respectively,
while At , A and D denote the area of geometric cross section of the rod, the area of outer
cross section of the rod and the diameter of the outer cross section of the rod. In the
fluid domain, v and a represent velocity and acceleration of the ambient fluid, where the
subscripts f, i and t denote the sea water, the fluid inside the tube and the tube itself.
At the same time, the dynamics of n tensile mooring line can be calculated in rectan-
gular Cartesian coordinates. The governing equation and constraint equation for a tensile
mooring line can be also expressed as

∂ ( T t) ..
+q = ρr (8)
∂s
where T is the local tension, s is original length between one end to a waypoint along
the rod, S is deformed length and t is the unit vector tangential to the deformed length
∂r
expressed by t = ∂s . The relation between deformed length and original length can be
described as:
ds = (1 + ε)ds (9)
T
ε= (10)
EA
where EA is the axial stiffness of the slender rod.
Therefore,
∂r ∂r
r’ = = (1 + ε ) = t(1 + ε ) (11)
∂s ∂s
r’
t= (12)
1+ε
Substitute Equation (12) into Equation (8),

T ’ 0 ..
( r ) +q = ρr (13)
1+ε
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 6 of 22

By comparing Equations (5) and (13), the Lagrange multiplier λ is defined as

T
λ= (14)
1+ε
Substitute Equation (14) into Equation (10),
λ
T λ ε
ε= = = EA λ = (15)
EA EA − λ 1 − EA 1−ε

λ
ε= (16)
EA
Additionally, r must satisfy a stretching constrain equation:

r’ · r’ = (1 + ε)2 (17)

By substituting Equation (15) into Equation (17),

r’ · r’ (1 − ε)2 = 1 (18)

2.2. Finite Element Simulation Approach

A global-coordinate-based nonlinear finite element method was used for the simplicity
of numerical computation. The procedure for numerical implementation for the equations
of motion in Equations (8) and (18) are the same as [36]. Galerkin’s method was used to
discretize the dynamic equations in space, resulting in a set of nonlinear 2nd-order ordinary
differential equations in the time domain. Finally, a Newmark-β method was employed for
time–domain integration of the discretized equations. For each element, the mooring line
dynamic equation at the Kth time step becomes:
..
γikm Mnjm ukj + β ikm λm ukn = µim qmn + f in (19)

The coefficients in Equation (19) are obtained through integration over the length of
the element: R1
β ikm = L1 0 ai0 (ξ ) a0k (ξ ) pm (ξ )dξ
R1
γikm = L 0 ai (ξ ) ak (ξ ) pm (ξ )dξ (20)
R1
µim = L 0 ai (ξ ) pm (ξ )dξ
Similarly, the constrain equation is discretized as

β ikm uin ukn + ηiklm (−2εl + ε2l )uin ukn − τm = 0 (21)

The coefficients in Equation (21) are obtained through integration over the length of
the element: R1
τm = L 0 pm (ξ )dξ
R1 (22)
ηiklm = L1 0 ai0 (ξ ) a0k (ξ ) pl (m) pm (ξ )dξ
where a(s) is the Hermite cubic shape function, and p(s) is the quadratic shape function, ξ is
a nondimensional position expressed as ξ =s/L, L is the original length of the element.
During simulations, the tensile mooring line was discretized into 100 line elements
each, which should be solved as per the relation expressions in Equations (19) and (21)
using Newmark-β method. The boundary conditions for the finite element simulations of
the mooring lines include the first element that was attached to the fairlead of the floating
wind turbine while the 100th element was connected to the seabed. So, the first element
transferred the pretension force to the wind turbine and, in turn, moved following the
motion of the wind turbine. The last element was treated to be fixed at the seabed. To begin
with the dynamic analysis of the mooring lines, static analysis was conducted to achieve
the static equilibrium position, namely, the initial condition for mooring dynamic analysis.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 7 of 22

The time step was set as 0.05 s to achieve independence while the whole simulation time
lasted 30 wave excitation time cycles. After the simulation was finished, 15 total unknowns
relating to u and λ were obtained.

2.3. Dynamics of the Spar-Type Floating Wind Turbine

Hydrodynamic forces applied on the body can be computed by nonlinear diffraction/radiation
theory or the Morison equation. Since the diameter of the foundation was very small
compared with the wave length, the foundation was considered as a hydro-transparent
structure, and thus the Morison equation was used to calculate the hydrodynamic forces
acting on the foundation as follows:

e Morison = F L (a, ab ) + F NL (v, vb , vc )

F (23)

where the first term, F L (a, ab ) is linear term (inertial forces) and the other term, F NL (v, vb , vc )
is nonlinear (viscous-drag) term in Morison’s equation; ab and vb are the acceleration and
velocity of the foundation, respectively, vc is the velocity of the current. Due to the variations
in the horizontal components of the water particle velocities with the submerged depth
induced by wave and current, the inertial forces and viscous-drag forces in Morison’s
equation were discretized into N segments along the submerged length. Correspondingly,
the hydrodynamics forces can be expressed as:

N
∑ dFL,q


F L (a, ab ) = aq , ab dLq (24)
q =1

N
∑ dFNL,q


F NL (v, vb , vc ) = vq , vb , vc,q dLq (25)
q =1

With the hydrodynamic forces per unit of length of the foundation shown as:

πDq 2 πDq 2
dF L,q aq , ab = (1 + Ca )ρ aq − Ca ρ ab (26)
4 4

1

dF NL,q vq , vb , vc,q = Cd ρCDq vq + vc,q − vb vq + vc,q − vb (27)
2
where dLq is the length of qth segment, the subscript q denotes the qth section, Dq is the
diameter of qth segment of the foundation, Ca and Cd refer to the added mass and drag
coefficients, respectively. The discretized forces were integrated over the whole length of
the foundation, L.

2.4. Coupling Dynamics of the Spar-Type Floating Wind Turbine with Taut Mooring System
Similar to other floating devices or platforms, such as wave energy converter, tidal
converter, etc., nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most reliable approach for estimating
the vulnerability subjected to different external pulses [37]. To accomplish the coupling
dynamic analysis of a floating wind turbine foundation with mooring system, as shown
in Figure 3, the equations of motion for the foundation shown in Equations (28) and (29)
and mooring lines shown in Equations (5) and (18) were solved simultaneously using
Newmark-β method. The six degree-of-freedom (6 DOF) nonlinear motion equations of a
rigid body were derived as follows [38–41]:
.. .
mξ + mTt ω × rg + mTt ω × ω × rg = F




e (28)
.
 .. 
Iω + ω × Iω + mrg × Tξ = M (29)
 the vulnerability subjected to different external pulses [37]. To accomplish the coupling
dynamic analysis of a floating wind turbine foundation with mooring system, as shown
in Figure 3, the equations of motion for the foundation shown in Equations (28) and (29)
and mooring lines shown in Equations (5) and (18) were solved simultaneously using
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 Newmark-β method. The six degree-of-freedom (6 DOF) nonlinear motion equations 8 ofof
22a
rigid body were derived as follows [38–41]:

Figure3.3.Spar-typed
Figure Spar-typedwind
windturbine
turbinewith
withits
itstaut
tautmooring
mooringlines.
lines.

The translational motion¨ and the rotational motion of a rigid body are expressed in
the spaced-fixed coordinate mTt OXYZ
m  system 
  rg with
ω 
Tt ω at
 morigin  
 Oωand F
 rgthe body-fixed 
system oxyz with origin at o, respectively. Where ξ is the translational displacement of the
(28)
coordinate

body at point o in OXYZ, ω is the rotational velocity in OXYZ; rg = (xg , yg , zg )t ; is the point
 ¨

vector of mass center of the body Iω inωOXYZ;
 Iω Imisrgthe T   M
 moment of inertia of the body, with (29)
respect to point o in OXYZ; T is a transfer matrix between   the oxyz and OXYZ. Given the
total external forces Fe acting on the body in OXYZ and the total external moments with
The translational motion and the rotational motion of a rigid body are expressed in
respect to o, M can be unified by F, as shown in
the spaced-fixed coordinate system OXYZ with origin at O and the body-fixed coordinate
system oxyz with origin at o, respectively. Where  𝜉 is the translational displacement of
F
e
F =
the body at point o in OXYZ, 𝛚 is the rotational t (30)
M velocity in OXYZ; rg = (xg, yg, zg) ; is the
point vector of mass center of the body in OXYZ; I is the moment of inertia of the body,
withCorrespondingly,
respect to point o the
in OXYZ;
6 DOFT motion
is a transfer matrixfor
equations between the oxyzfoundation
the floating and OXYZcan . Given
be
the totalasexternal forces 𝐅 acting on the body in OXYZ and the total external moments
derived
..
with respect to o, M[Mcan be unified by F, as shown in
b + Ma ]X( t ) + CX( t ) = F H + F Morison + F M + Fε (31)
−mT (ω × (ω × rg ))
t
 mT (αq × rg )
F − t
 

−ω × Io ω − IFo αq  
Fe = (32)
(30)
M 
where Mb and Ma are the mass and added mass of the foundation, respectively, C is the
Correspondingly,
hydrostatic the 6FDOF
stiffness matrix, motion equations
H represent for the floating
nonlinear hydrostatic foundation
restoring forces,can be de-
F Morison
rived asMorison forces, and F M refers to mooring line forces. The generalized form of
denotes
Equation (31) can be expressed as
..
AX(t) + CX(t) = F(t) + F M (t) (33)

where F M (t) denotes mooring line forces and F(t) denotes the rest of forces. At the Kth
time step, the motion equation can be re-written in the following form
..
A( K ) X ( t ) ( K ) + C( K ) X( K ) = F( K ) + F M ( K ) (34)

Correspondingly, a numerical modelling code, which is composed of a main program

and a subroutine program, was developed based on the existing code Cable3D proposed
by [33]. The subroutine program, namely a mooring dynamics program developed ac-
cording to Section 2.1, was called by the main program at each time step to calculate the
motions of the foundation. It should be noted that the values of fin in Equation (19) were
transmitted to F M (K ) in Equation (34) through the hinged boundary conditions.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 9 of 22

3. Comparative Study between Stiff and Tensile Mooring Lines

The developed model has been applied into the analyses of the dynamic responses of a
spar-type floating wind turbine foundation moored by taut mooring system. The calculated
results in terms of dynamic responses of the foundation and the mooring tensions are
compared by using the traditional stiff mooring line proposed by [33,36] and the new
tensile mooring line model proposed in this paper, respectively.
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23
3.1. Model Geometry and Mooring Configuration
The spar-type floating wind turbine foundation studied in the research is a small
vertical cylinder with its mass uniformly distributed. The main particulars of the foundation
Table 2. Properties of are
mooring
given insystem.
Table 1. The foundation is moored by three taut mooring lines, namely a three-
point mooring system (T3), as shown in Figure 4a. The configuration details for the mooring
Type Pretension (KN)
system Arrangement
are listed in Figure 4b and Table (Degree) Length
2. The fairlead points of each mooring(m)line are at
the same elevation as the gravity center of the foundation. Detailed geometric and physical
T3 36.00 90/210/330
properties of the mooring lines are shown in Table 3. 100.00
Table 1. Main particulars of the foundation.
Table 3. Properties of mooring lines.
Parameters Value Unit
Parameters Max Diameter Value 3.00 m Unit
Composition Draft Polyester
1.00 m -

Diameter Height
32.0 2.00 m
mm
Unit Wet Weight 0.000622 tone
Weight 7245.0 KG
Rx (gyration radius) 0.90 m
EA Rx
17,789.13043
0.90 m
KN
Breaking Strength Rz 818.3 1.10 m KN

270 degree

Y
0 degree
0 degree wave 180 degree
wave
X

2
1

90 degree

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Foundation with
Figureits three-point
4. Foundation withtaut mooringtaut
its three-point system (T3).
mooring (a)(T3).
system 3D (a)
view, (b) (b)
3D view, toptopview.
view.

Table 2. Properties of mooring system.

3.2. Results and Analysis
Type Pretension (KN) Arrangement (Degree) Length (m)
The floating windT3turbine foundation
36.00
coupled with a T3 mooring system
90/210/330
is simulated by
100.00
using the developed code Cable3D, according to the proposed methodology. The developed
code Cable3D has been validated in Xiang [37] by comparing the simulated data with corre-
sponding data measured from wave basin test. The simulations are performed using a regular
wave with a wave height of 1.2 m, a period of 5 s, wave heading of 0 degree and water depth
at 45 m. Figure 4 shows the comparison of surge and heave motions using the traditional stiff
mooring line model and tensile mooring line model proposed in this paper, respectively.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 10 of 22

Table 3. Properties of mooring lines.

Parameters Value Unit

Composition Polyester -
Diameter 32.0 mm
Unit Wet Weight 0.000622 tone
EA 17,789.13043 KN
Breaking Strength 818.3 KN

3.2. Results and Analysis

The floating wind turbine foundation coupled with a T3 mooring system is simulated
by using the developed code Cable3D, according to the proposed methodology. The
developed code Cable3D has been validated in Xiang [37] by comparing the simulated data
with corresponding data measured from wave basin test. The simulations are performed
using a regular wave with a wave height of 1.2 m, a period of 5 s, wave heading of 0 degree
and water depth at 45 m. Figure 4 shows the comparison of surge and heave motions using
the traditional stiff mooring line model and tensile mooring line model proposed in this
paper, respectively. Through the comparisons, it is found that that the surge and heave
motions of the foundation using traditional stiff mooring line model will underestimate
the range of the motion responses of the foundation. In real situations, the elongation of
the mooring line cannot be ignored, since the elongation of the mooring line will make
the whole floating wind turbine system less stiff and more elastic. Figure 5 shows the
comparison of corresponding tension forces at the fairlead of three mooring lines. It can be
found that tensions at Line 1 and Line 2 calculated by stiff mooring line model are much
larger than stiff mooring line model. This is because the surge motion of the foundation
is larger in the tensile mooring line model than in the stiff mooring line model; much
larger tension forces at the fairlead of mooring line 1 and 2 whose configurations are more
aligned with surge direction are required to limit the surge responses of the foundation.
Additionally, it is noted that, as shown in Table 3, the mooring line is made of polyester,
which in reality can hardly be compressed. However, in Figure 5, it is observed that when
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER
usingREVIEW
the traditional mooring line model, the calculated minimum mooring tension 11 offorce
23
of line 3 is much smaller than zero, which means the mooring line can be compressed
a lot during wave-induced dynamic motions. By ignoring the bending stiffness of the
mooring line,
predicting thethe proposed tensile
compressions mooring
of the elastic lineline,
mooring model
suchcan overcome
as polyester thetraditional
using inaccuracystiffof
predicting the compressions
mooring line model. of the elastic mooring line, such as polyester using traditional
stiff mooring line model.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Cont.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 11 of 22

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 5. Comparison of time series of surge and heave motion time series, mooring tension at the
Figure 5. Comparison of time series of surge and heave motion time series, mooring tension at
fairlead using traditional stiff line model and proposed tensile mooring line model, (a) Surge (b)
theHeave
fairlead
(c) using
Line 1 traditional stiff
(d) Line 2 (e) Lineline
3. model and proposed tensile mooring line model, (a) Surge
(b) Heave (c) Line 1 (d) Line 2 (e) Line 3.

4. Sensitivity Study and Analysis

The developed numerical code is utilized for studying the same foundation but with a
shallower initial draft, 1.0 m and under higher regular waves and H = 2 m, compared with
the case in Section 3. The material properties of the mooring lines are the same as those
shown in Table 3. Multiple simulation cases are conducted as shown in Table 4. Firstly,
Case1–Case3 study a T3 mooring system with variations in mooring length; Case1, Case4
and Case5 study the T3 mooring system with variations in pretension force. Next, two
different taut mooring systems: two-point (T2) and three-point (T3) system are investigated.
Three representative wave headings at 0, 45 and 90 degrees are simulated for T2, which
correspond to Case 9–Case 11, and 30, 60 and 90 degrees for T3, which correspond to
Case 6–Case 8.

4.1. Effect of Mooring length

The static test for a single mooring line is simulated for Case1–Case3, corresponding
to the length of the mooring lines increasing from 75 m to 80 m and 85 m (Figure 6). Before
static test, the zero horizontal offset location is defined when the foundation and associated
T3 mooring systems are completely static, as shown in Figure 4a. In the static simulation
test, one single mooring line is picked and kept from the static T3 mooring system while
the other two mooring lines are removed. The fairlead point of the mooring line moves
with the variation in horizontal offset: −1.0 m to 1.0 m. The anchor point of each single
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 12 of 22

mooring line is determined according to the initial settings for the whole mooring system
in Table 4. After simulations, the comparisons of the stiffness curve of a single mooring line
with different lengths are presented in Figure 7a. It can be found that although the shorter
mooring line has smaller mooring tension at horizontal offset = 0 m, its stiffness is larger
than longer mooring lines, resulting in larger mooring tension when the horizontal offset
exceeds 0.3 m.
Table 4. Properties of mooring system.

Case Type Pretension (P) Arrangement (Line 1/2··) Length Wave Heading
(KN) (degree) (m) (degree)
1 T3 57.00 90/210/330 75.00 0
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23
2 T3 57.00 90/210/330 80.00 0
3 T3 57.00 90/210/330 85.00 0
larger
4 thanT3 mooring length
47.00 of 80 m and 85 m. This is because for75.00
90/210/330 a smaller mooring 0 length
of 75
5 m, the T3 angle between
52.00 the mooring line and the vertical75.00
90/210/330 axis of the foundation
0 is
relatively
6
small.
T3
As a result,
57.00
the vertical component
90/210/330
of the mooring
75.00
tension at the
30
fairlead
point will be the largest, which will pull the floating foundation further into the water.
7 T3 57.00 90/210/330 75.00 60
Thus, the balance position of heave motions of the foundation at a mooring length of 75
m will
8 be lower
T3 than the others. Similar findings
57.00 can be found in
90/210/330 the statistical data
75.00 90 for all
the96 DOF T2motions of62.00
the foundation, as provided
0/180 in Table 5. It is found that the
75.00 0 largest
maximum
10 value
T2 and mean
62.00 value for the 6 DOF
0/180 motion amplitudes
75.00 of the foundation
45 all
occurred at mooring lengths of 75 m, compared to 80 m and 85 m.
11 T2 62.00 0/180 75.00 90

Figure6.6.Mooring
Figure Mooringconfiguration
configurationwith
withdifferent
differentlengths
lengthsatatL1
L1==75
75m,
m,L2
L2==80
80m
mand
andL3
L3== 85
85 m.
m.

The dynamic simulations of a foundation with three mooring lines are carried out
0.4
by varying the length of each mooring line from L1 = 75 m to L2 = 80 m and L3 = 85 m,
as shown in Figure 6. The dynamic responses
0.2 of the foundation with time are presented
in Figures 7b and 8. Figure 7b shows 0motion time series in the X-Y plane, a surge of the
foundation with a variation in mooring length. The surge motions at mooring length of
-0.2
75 m is much larger than 80 m and 85 m. This may be because the mooring tension at the
tension [N]

-0.4
mooring length of 75 m is relatively smaller before reaching a certain distance, as shown in
Figure 7a. A relatively large heave motion
-0.6 will be allowed. Figure 8 shows out-of-plane
heave and pitch motion time series of -0.8 the foundation with variations in mooring length.
The heave displacement in a downward direction at mooring length of 75 m is much larger
-1
than mooring length of 80 m and 85 m. This is because for a smaller mooring
L = 75 m length of
75 m, the angle between the mooring -1.2 L = 80 m
line and the vertical axis of the foundation
L = 85 m
is relatively
small. As a result, the vertical component
-1.4 of the mooring tension at the fairlead point will
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
be the largest, which will pull the floating foundation further Time (s) into the water. Thus, the

(a) (b)
Figure 7. In-plane motions with variations in mooring length. (a) stiffness curve, (b) surge time se-
ries.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 13 of 22

balance position of heave motions of the foundation at a mooring length of 75 m will be

lower than the others. Similar findings can be found in the statistical data for all the 6 DOF
motions of the foundation, as provided in Table 5. It is found that the largest maximum
value and
Figure mean value
6. Mooring for the 6with
configuration DOFdifferent
motionlengths
amplitudes
at L1 =of
75the foundation
m, L2 = 80 m andall
L3occurred
= 85 m. at
mooring lengths of 75 m, compared to 80 m and 85 m.

0.4

0.2

-0.2
tension [N]

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
L = 75 m
-1.2 L = 80 m
L = 85 m
-1.4
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Time (s)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23
(a) (b)
Figure 7. In-plane motions with variations in mooring length. (a) stiffness curve, (b) surge time se-
Figure 7. In-plane motions with variations in mooring length. (a) stiffness curve, (b) surge time series.
ries.
0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

-1.4 L = 75 m
L = 80 m
L = 85 m
-1.6
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Out-of-plane motions with variations in mooring length. (a) heave time series (b) pitch
Figure 8. Out-of-plane motions with variations in mooring length. (a) heave time series (b) pitch
time series.
time series.
Table 5. Comparison of 6 DOF motions of foundations with different mooring lengths.
The mooring load is another critical consideration for evaluating the performance
ofLthe
= 75mooring
m L = 80
system. The mooring m at the fairlead usually suffers
line L = 85
themlargest loads;
Parameter
Max thus, the time
Meanseries of mooring
Max tension at theMean fairlead are studied
Max and plotted Mean
in Figure 9
for each mooring line. The statistical data: maximum value and mean value for the time
Surge (m) 1.22 0.15 0.87 0.13 0.71 0.12
domain mooring loadings at the fairlead are displayed in Table 6. It can be found that Line1
Sway (m) 2.87 0.49 1.32 0.29 0.95 0.23
at L1 = 75 m experiences the largest mooring load, 71.46 KN. There are four (the most)
Heave (m) 1.66 largest amplitude
0.53 values (maximum
1.23 value for line 1 and line 2, mean value for 0.50
0.49 1.21 line 1 and
Roll (deg) 47.50line 2) occurring
11.90 at L1 = 7540.30 9.12when L1 = 7529.17
m. This is because m, the displacement7.91 of the
Pitch (deg) 1.89 6 DOF of the0.19
foundation is 0.92 0.13 of the mooring
largest and the stiffness 0.63 line at L1 = 750.12
m is also
Yaw (deg) 8.48 largest, as shown
1.82 in Figure 8.39
7a. 1.24 3.86 0.87

The mooring load is another critical consideration for evaluating the performance of the
mooring system. The mooring line at the fairlead usually suffers the largest loads; thus, the
time series of mooring tension at the fairlead are studied and plotted in Figure 9 for each moor-
ing line. The statistical data: maximum value and mean value for the time domain mooring
loadings at the fairlead are displayed in Table 6. It can be found that Line1 at L1 = 75 m expe-
riences the largest mooring load, 71.46 KN. There are four (the most) largest amplitude values
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 14 of 22

Table 5. Comparison of 6 DOF motions of foundations with different mooring lengths.

L = 75 m L = 80 m L = 85 m
Parameter
Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean
Surge (m) 1.22 0.15 0.87 0.13 0.71 0.12
Sway (m) 2.87 0.49 1.32 0.29 0.95 0.23
Heave (m) 1.66 0.53 1.23 0.49 1.21 0.50
Roll (deg) 47.50 11.90 40.30 9.12 29.17 7.91
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Pitch (deg) 1.89 0.19 0.92 0.13 150.63
of 23 0.12
Yaw (deg) 8.48 1.82 8.39 1.24 3.86 0.87
Tension (KN)

(a)
Tension (KN)

(b)

Figure 9. Cont.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 15 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23

Tension (KN)

(c)
Figure 9. Time series of mooring tension at the fairlead with variations in mooring length, (a) Line
Figure 9. Time series of mooring tension at the fairlead with variations in mooring length, (a) Line 1,
1, (b) Line 2, (c) Line 3.
(b) Line 2, (c) Line 3.
Table 6. Comparison of mooring tensions at the fairleads of foundations with different mooring
Table 6. Comparison of mooring tensions at the fairleads of foundations with different mooring lengths.
lengths.

Parameter
Parameter L=L75=m75 m L = 80 m L = 80 m L = 85 m L = 85 m
Max-Line 1 (KN) 71.46 54.18 53.66
Max-Line 1 (KN) 71.46 54.18 53.66
Max-Line 2 (KN) 71.35 58.04 58.34
Max-Line
Max-Line 3 (KN) 2 (KN) 71.35
64.58 70.84 58.04 54.54 58.34
Mean-Line 1 (KN)3 (KN)
Max-Line 21.54
64.58 19.66 70.84 20.33 54.54
Mean-Line 2 (KN) 21.87 19.96 20.42
Mean-Line 1 (KN) 21.54 19.66 20.33
Mean-Line 3 (KN) 22.07 23.14 26.15
Mean-Line 2 (KN) 21.87 19.96 20.42
4.2. Effect of Pretension
Mean-Line 3 (KN) 22.07 23.14 26.15
Case 4–6 display the simulation procedures of the same foundation with a fixed
mooring length but different pretension forces. Figure 10a shows comparisons of the stiff-
4.2. Effect of Pretension
ness curve of a single mooring line with different pretensions. It can be found that the
mooring line
Casewith4–6
smaller pretension
display has smaller mooring
the simulation tension
procedures of at
thea horizontal offset
same foundation with a fixed
of 0 m; the stiffness
mooring of thebut
length shorter mooring
different line stays the
pretension same with
forces. variations
Figure in the pre-
10a shows comparisons of the
tension. The results
stiffness curve of of
thea three case
single studies are
mooring linecompared in Figures
with different 10b and 11. The
pretensions. It can be found that
results from the simulation of Figures 10b and 11 show that by increasing the pretension
the mooring line with smaller pretension has smaller mooring tension at a horizontal
of the mooring line, the amplitude of surge and heave do not get affected significantly,
offset
but the pitchofdecreased
0 m; theapparently.
stiffness of the shorter mooring line stays the same with variations in the
pretension. The results of the three case studies are compared in Figures 10b and 11. The
results from the simulation of Figures 10b and 11 show that by increasing the pretension of
the mooring line, the amplitude of surge and heave do not get affected significantly, but
the pitch decreased apparently.
The statistical data: Maximum value and mean value for the foundation time domain
motion responses are reported in Table 7. It is found that the maximum and mean values
for Case 4–6 are very close. Almost all the largest maximum values and mean values occur
at pretension force, P = 47 KN.
The mooring tension time series are plotted in Figure 12 for line 1, line2 and line3,
respectively. The statistical data: maximum value and mean value for the time domain
mooring loadings at the fairlead are displayed in Table 8. It can be found that the largest
mooring loads is 76.08 KN, happening at line 2 with P = 47 KN. There are four (the most)
largest amplitude values (maximum value for line 3; mean value for line 1, line 2 and line
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 16 of 22

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23
3) occurring at P = 57 KN. This may be because the mooring tension at P = 57 KN in static
test is the largest at the same offset in Figure 10a, although the displacement is very close,
as shown in Table 8.
[N][N]

(m)(m)
tension

Surge
tension

Surge
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 10. In-plane motions with variations in pretension. (a) Stiffness curve, (b) surge time series.
Figure
Figure10.
10.In-plane
In-plane motions withvariations
motions with variationsin in pretension.
pretension. (a) Stiffness
(a) Stiffness curve,curve, (b) time
(b) surge surgeseries.
time series.
(degree)
(m)(m)

(degree)
Heave
Heave

Pitch
Pitch

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure11.
11.Out-of-plane motions
Out-of-plane motions with
with variations
variations in pretension.
in pretension. (a) Heave(a) Heave
time series,time series,
(b) pitch time(b) pitch time
series.
Figure
series. 11. Out-of-plane motions with variations in pretension. (a) Heave time series, (b) pitch time
series.
Table 7. Comparison of 6 DOF motions of foundations with different pretension loads.
The statistical data:
P = 47Maximum value and P =mean
52 KNvalue for the foundation
P = 57 KN time domain
Theresponses
motion statisticalare
Parameter data: Maximum
KN
reported value7.and
in Table It ismean
foundvalue for the
that the foundation
maximum and time
meandomain
values
motion responsesMax are reportedMeanin Table 7.
MaxIt is foundMean
that the maximum
Max and mean values
Mean
for Case 4–6 are very close. Almost all the largest maximum values and mean values occur
forSurge
Case(m)
4–6 are very
1.25 close. Almost
0.15 all the1.25
largest maximum
0.15 values
1.22and mean values occur
0.15
at pretension force, P = 47 KN.
at pretension
Sway (m) force,
3.06P = 47 KN.0.52 3.00 0.51 2.87 0.49
Table 7. Comparison
Heave (m) 1.75of 6 DOF motions
0.49 of foundations
1.74 with
0.51different pretension
1.66 loads.
0.53
Table 7. Comparison of 6 DOF motions of foundations with different pretension loads.
Roll (deg) 48.53 12.30 48.21 12.14 47.51 11.93
P = 47 KN P = 52 KN P = 57 KN
Parameter P = Pitch
47 KN (deg) 4.34 0.32P= 52 KN
2.97 0.24 1.89P = 57 KN
0.19
Parameter Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean
Max Mean 10.86
Yaw (deg) Max 2.04 Mean
9.42 1.94 Max8.48 Mean
1.82
Surge (m) 1.25 0.15 1.25 0.15 1.22 0.15
Surge (m) 1.25 0.15 1.25 0.15 1.22 0.15
Sway (m) 3.06 0.52 3.00 0.51 2.87 0.49
Sway (m) 3.06 0.52 3.00 0.51 2.87 0.49
Heave (m) 1.75 0.49 1.74 0.51 1.66 0.53
Heave (m) 1.75 0.49 1.74 0.51 1.66 0.53
Roll (deg) 48.53 12.30 48.21 12.14 47.51 11.93
Roll (deg) 48.53 12.30 48.21 12.14 47.51 11.93
Pitch (deg) 4.34 0.32 2.97 0.24 1.89 0.19
Pitch (deg) 4.34 0.32 2.97 0.24 1.89 0.19
Yaw (deg) 10.86 2.04 9.42 1.94 8.48 1.82
Yaw (deg) 10.86 2.04 9.42 1.94 8.48 1.82
The mooring tension time series are plotted in Figure 12 for line 1, line2 and line3,
 largest amplitude values (maximum value for line 3; mean value for line 1, line 2 and line
3) occurring at P = 57 KN. This may be because the mooring tension at P = 57 KN in static
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907
test is the largest at the same offset in Figure 10a, although the displacement is very close,
17 of 22

as shown in Table 8.

Tension (KN)

(a)
Tension (KN)

(b)

Figure 12. Cont.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 18 of 22

Tension (KN)

(c)
Figure 12. 12.
Figure Time series
Time of mooring
series tension
of mooring tensionatatthe
thefairlead
fairleadwith
with variations in pretension,
variations in pretension,(a)
(a)Line
Line1 1 (b)
Line(b)
2, Line
(c) Line 3.
2, (c) Line 3.

Table 8. Comparison
Table 8. Comparisonof
of mooring tensions
mooring tensions at the
at the fairleads
fairleads of foundations
of foundations with different
with different pretension pretension
loads.
loads.Parameter P = 47 KN P = 52 KN P = 57 KN
Parameter
Max-Line 1 (KN) 70.46 P = 47 KN P=
74.35 52 KN P=
71.46 57 KN
Max-Line 1 (KN)
Max-Line 2 (KN) 76.08 70.46 72.49 74.35 71.3571.46
Max-Line 2 (KN)
Max-Line 3 (KN) 62.72 76.08 63.14 72.49 64.5871.35
Max-Line 3 (KN)
Mean-Line 1 (KN) 20.36 62.72 20.89 63.14 21.5464.58
Mean-Line 1 (KN)
Mean-Line 2 (KN) 20.62 20.36 21.21 20.89 21.8721.54
Mean-Line 2 (KN)
Mean-Line 3 (KN) 20.82 20.62 21.49 21.21 22.0721.87
Mean-Line 3 (KN) 20.82 21.49 22.07
4.3. Effect of Number of Mooring Lines
4.3. Effect
Twoof Number of Mooring
taut mooring systems:Lines
T2 with two mooring lines and T3 with three mooring lines
are studied
Two tautinmooring
this section. In orderT2
systems: to with
studytwothe dynamic
mooring responses
lines andof the
T3 foundation
with threeunder
mooring
different unidirectional wave cases, simulations for wave headings from 0–360 degrees are
lines are studied in this section. In order to study the dynamic responses of the foundation
supposed to be conducted. However, considering the geometric symmetric characteristics
under different
of each unidirectional
mooring system, withwave cases,
reference tosimulations
the coordinate forsystem,
wave headings from 0–360
T2 wave headings at de-
grees aredegrees
0–90 supposed
and toT3be conducted.
wave headingsHowever, considering
at 30–90 degrees will bethe geometric
able symmetric
to cover all the unidi-char-
acteristics ofwaves.
rectional each mooring
To reducesystem, with reference
the simulation time, to thethree
only coordinate
typical system, T2 wave
wave headings arehead-
ingsconsidered
at 0–90 degrees
for each and T3 wave
mooring headings
system: 0, 45 andat 9030–90
degreesdegrees will be
for T2 (Case able
9–11) andto30,
cover all the
60 and
unidirectional waves.
90 degrees for To 6–8).
T3 (Case reduce the simulation time, only three typical wave headings are
considered for statistical
Further each mooring system:
analysis on the0, 45 and
motion 90 degrees
response for T2 (Casefrom
data accumulated 9–11) and
Case 7–930, 60
for T3 and Case 10–12 from
and 90 degrees for T3 (Case 6–8). T2 allows for an overall evaluation of the dynamic responses of
the foundation. Since T2 and T3 have different configuration with respect to the coordinate
Further statistical analysis on the motion responsepdata accumulated from Case 7–9
system, a comparison of total in-plane displacement, R = X2 + Y2 , as indicated by OP in
for T3 and Case 10–12 from T2 allows for an overall evaluation of the dynamic responses
of the foundation. Since T2 and T3 have different configuration with respect to the coor-
dinate system, a comparison of total in-plane displacement, R = √X + Y , as indicated
by OP in Figure 13, between T2 and T3 is more appropriate and reasonable instead of
comparing their X and Y coordinates. Figure 14a presents the histogram of R for T2 and
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 19 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23

Figure 13, between T2 and T3 is more appropriate and reasonable instead of comparing
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER more
REVIEW
their thanYT2
X and when R is less
coordinates. than 14a
Figure about 0.75 m the
presents andhistogram
less than T2ofwhen
R forRT2
is and
larger23than
20 of T3. 0.75be
It can
m. The
found thatmotion
for T2responses
and T3, the of the foundation
ranges of R bothwithvary
T3 arefromsmaller
0–2.5than
m. T3T2 in the X-Y
occurs moreplane,
than
T2since
whenthe R displacement
is less than about of the0.75
foundation
m and focuses
less than onT2 thewhen
lowerRend valuesthan
is larger of the0.75
rangem. for
The
more
T3 than
motion but T2 when
the
responsesupper R end
ofisthe
lessvalues
than about
foundationfor T2.0.75
with mT3
The and less than T2displacement
out-of-plane
are smaller whenT2
than R in
is larger
theZX-Y than
is 0.75 sinceby
represented
plane, the
m.PO’
The inmotion
Figure responses ofhistogram
the foundation with T3 are smaller than T2 in the X-Y plane,
displacement of 13.theThe
foundation of the
focuses out-of-plane
on the lower displacement
end values ofZthe forrange
T2 and forT3T3are
but
since the displacement Figureof14b.the foundation focuses on the lower end values of the forrange for T3 vary
thecompared
upper end in values for T2.TheThe range of the out-of-plane
out-of-plane displacement
displacement Z is representedT2 and by PO’ in
T3from
but the upper
0–0.8 end
mhistogram values
and 0–1.2ofm,the for T2. The out-of-plane
respectively. displacement
T3displacement
occurs more Z than Z is
T2 represented
when the by
out-of-plane
Figure 13. The out-of-plane
PO’ in Figure 13. The histogram of the out-of-plane displacement Z for T2 and T3 are for T2 and T3 are compared in
displacement
Figure 14b. The isrange
less than
of the0.2out-of-plane
m, less than displacement
T2 when the displacement
for T2 and T3is vary
morefromthan 0–0.8
0.2 mm
compared in Figure 14b. The range of the out-of-plane displacement for T2 and T3 vary
and less m, than 0.8 m, and again more more
than T2 when the displacement is moredisplacement
than 0.8 m.
from0–1.2
and 0–0.8 m and 0–1.2 m, respectively.
respectively. T3 occurs T3 occursthanmoreT2 than
when T2 the
when the out-of-plane
out-of-plane
is The out-of-plane
displacement
less than 0.2 is less
motion
than than
m, less responses
0.2 m,T2 less
of
than the
when the
T2 when
foundation with
the displacement
displacement is moreT2 are
is than
more
more 0.2
stable
thanm0.2and
than T3,
m less than
0.8 since
andm, less the
andthan out-of-plane
0.8 m,
again displacement
and than
more againT2 more
when of
thanthe the foundation
T2displacement concentrates
when the displacement
is more thanis more on the
0.8than
m. Themiddle
0.8 m. values
out-of-plane
of the range
The out-of-plane for T2 but on two ends (lower end and upper end) for T3.
motion responsesmotion of theresponses
foundation of the
with foundation
T2 are morewithstable
T2 arethanmoreT3, stable
since than
theT3,
out-of-plane
since the out-of-plane displacement of the foundation concentrates
displacement of the foundation concentrates on the middle values of the range for T2 but on the middle values
of the range for T2 but on two ends (lower end and upper end) for T3.
on two ends (lower end and upper end) for T3.

Figure
13.13. The in-plane andout-of-plane
out-of-planedisplacement
displacement ofof a
a foundation under
underwaves.
Figure 13.
Figure The
Thein-plane and
in-plane out-of-plane
and displacement of a foundation under waves.
foundation waves.
Occurrencetimes
times

Occurrence times

Occurrence times
Occurrence

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Histogram comparison of the displacement of foundation with T2 and T3. (a) In-plane
Figure 14. Histogram
displacement, comparison
(b) out-of-plane of the displacement of foundation with T2 and T3. (a) In-plane
displacement.
Figure 14. Histogram comparison of the displacement of foundation with T2 and T3. (a) In-plane
displacement, (b) out-of-plane displacement.
displacement, (b) out-of-plane displacement.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 20 of 22

5. Conclusions
In this paper, a finite element based tensile mooring line model is developed to study
the statics and dynamics of mooring lines experiencing large elongations, such as synthetic
fiber mooring lines. A developed time domain modelling code is applied to studying the
dynamics of a floating foundation. The main contributions of the present paper include:
1. A new approach based on the tensile mooring line model is particularly proposed
for the dynamic response analysis of the floating wind turbine foundation, coupled
with a taut mooring system. The comparison of simulated results in terms of mooring
tension and motion response of the wind turbine foundation using a traditional stiff
mooring model and tensile mooring line model, respectively, demonstrates the much
higher accuracy of the proposed tensile mooring line model when predicting the
dynamic responses of the foundation and taut mooring tensions.
2. Design parameters, such as the length and pretension of the mooring lines, are found
to have a significant influence on the dynamic responses of the floating wind turbine
foundation. The largest maximum value and mean value for each of the 6 DOF motion
responses of the foundation all occur at a relatively small mooring length, resulting in
the occurrence of the largest amplitude values of mooring tension at the fairleads for
Line1, Line2, and Line3. The largest maximum values and mean values of the motion
responses of the foundation almost all happen at a relatively small pretension force,
but the largest amplitude values of the mooring loads at the fairlead occur at a large
pretension force.
3. A thorough comparative performance analysis of the foundation connected with two
different mooring configurations, two-point (T2) and three-point (T3) taut mooring
systems, are studied via the proposed method. The comparisons of simulation results
between two different mooring configurations displayed: the motion responses of the
foundation with T2 are larger than T3 in the X-Y plane, but the out-of-plane motion
responses of the foundation with T2 are more stable than T3.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.X., X.X. and X.Y.; methodology, G.X. and X.Y.; software,
G.X. and X.Y.; investigation, G.X. and X.X.; resources, G.X. and X.X.; writing—original draft prepa-
ration, G.X.; writing—review and editing, G.X. and X.X. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number
5213000376 and Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation for Innovation Groups, grant num-
ber 2021CFA026, in part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, grant
number 2021XJJS016.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fitzgerald, J.; Lars, B. Including Moorings in the Assessment of a Generic Offshore Wave Energy Converter: A Frequency Domain
Approach. Mar. Struct. 2008, 21, 23–46. [CrossRef]
2. Kim, J.D.; Jiang, B.S. Application of multi-objective optimization for TLP considering hull-form and tendon system. Ocean. Eng.
2016, 116, 142–156. [CrossRef]
3. Ahmed, F.; Xiang, X.B.; Jiang, C.C.; Xiang, G.; Yang, S.L. Survey on traditional and AI based estimation techniques for hydrody-
namic coefficients of autonomous underwater vehicle. Ocean. Eng. 2023. [CrossRef]
4. Sergiienko, N.Y.; Rafiee, A.; Cazzolato, B.S.; Ding, B.; Arjomandi, M. A feasibility study of the three-tether axisymmetric wave
energy converter. Ocean. Eng. 2018, 150, 221–233. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, Z.; Yang, S.L.; Xiang, X.B.; Vasilijević, A.; Mišković, N.; Nad, Ð. Cloud-based mission control of USV fleet: Architecture,
implementation and experiments. Control Eng. Pract. 2021, 106, 104657. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 21 of 22

6. Kang, H.S.; Kim, M.H.; Aramanadka, S.B. Numerical Analysis on Mathieu Instability of a Top-Tensioned Riser in a Dry-Tree
Semisubmersible. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2020, 142, 021701. [CrossRef]
7. Subbulakshmiab, A.; Sundaravadivelub, R. Effects of damping plate position on heave and pitch responses of spar platform with
single and double damping plates under regular waves. Ocean. Eng. 2021, 224, 108719.
8. Liu, Y.; Yoshida, S.; Hu, C.; Sueyoshi, M.; Sun, L.; Gao, J.; Cong, P.; He, G. A reliable open-source package for performance
evaluation of floating renewable energy systems in coastal and offshore regions. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 174, 516–536.
[CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.L.; Chemori, A.; Xiang, X.B. Virtual Submerged Floating Operational System for Robotic Manipulation.
Complexity 2018, 2018, 9528313. [CrossRef]
10. Bachynskia, E.; Thysb, M.; Delhayec, V. Dynamic response of a monopile wind turbine in waves: Experimental uncertainty
analysis for validation of numerical tools. Appl. Ocean. Res. 2019, 89, 96–114. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, S.; Xu, S.; Xiang, G.; Guedes Soares, C. An overview of synthetic mooring cables in marine applications. In Advances in
Renewable Energies Offshore; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2019; pp. 853–863.
12. Gao, Z.; Moan, T. Mooring system analysis of multiple wave energy converters in a farm configuration. In Proceedings of the 8th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 7–10 September 2009.
13. Harnois, V. Analysis of Highly Dynamic Mooring Systems: Peak Mooring Loads in Realistic Sea Conditions. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, 2014.
14. Casaubieilh, P.; Thiebaut, F.; Sheng, W.; Retzler, C.; Shaw, M.; Letertre, Y. Performance Improvements of Mooring Systems
for Wave Energy Converters. In Renewable Energies Offshore; Soares, G., Ed.; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013;
pp. 897–903.
15. Huang, W.; Liu, H.X.; Lian, Y.S.; Li, L.N. Modeling nonlinear time-dependent behaviors of synthetic fiber ropes under cyclic
loading. Ocean. Eng. 2015, 109, 207–216. [CrossRef]
16. Lian, Y.S.; Liu, H.X.; Li, L.N.; Zhang, Y.M. An experimental investigation on the bedding-in behavior of synthetic fiber ropes.
Ocean. Eng. 2018, 160, 368–381. [CrossRef]
17. Davidson, J.; Ringwood, J.V. Mathematical Modelling of Mooring Systems for Wave Energy Converters—A Review. Energies 2017,
10, 666. [CrossRef]
18. Bosma, B.; Lewis, T.; Brekken, T.; Jouanne, A.V. Wave Tank Testing and Model Validation of an Autonomous Wave Energy
Converter. Energies 2015, 8, 8857–8872. [CrossRef]
19. Thomsen, J.B.; Ferri, F.; Kofoed, J.P. Validation of a Tool for the Initial Dynamic Design of Mooring Systems for Large Floating
Wave Energy Converters. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2017, 5, 45. [CrossRef]
20. Sirnivas, S.; Yu, Y.; Hall, M.; Bosma, B. Coupled Mooring Analyses for the WEC-Sim Wave Energy Converter Design Tool.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Busan, Republic of Korea,
19–24 June 2016; ASME: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 6: Ocean Space Utilization, Ocean Renewable Energy. p. V006T09A023.
[CrossRef]
21. Azcona, J.; Munduate, X.; Gonzalez, L.; Nygaard, T.A. Experimental validation of a dynamic mooring lines code with tension and
motion measurements of a submerged chain. Ocean. Eng. 2017, 129, 415–427. [CrossRef]
22. Qiao, D.; Li, B.; Yan, J.; Qin, Y.; Liang, H.; Ning, D. Transient Responses Evaluation of FPSO with Different Failure Scenarios of
Mooring Lines. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 103. [CrossRef]
23. Pascoal, R.; Huang, S.; Barltrop, N.; Guedes Soares, C. Equivalent force model for the effect of mooring systems on the horizontal
motions. Appl. Ocean. Res. 2005, 27, 165–172. [CrossRef]
24. Cerveira, F.; Fonseca, N.; Pascoal, R. Mooring systeminfluence on the efficiency of wave energy converters. Int. J. Mar. Energy
2013, 3, 65–81. [CrossRef]
25. Ran, Z.; Kim, M.H. Nonlinear coupled responses of a tethered spar platform in waves. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 1997, 7, 111–118.
26. Kang, H.S.; Kim, M.H.; Aramanadka, S.S.B.; Kang, H.Y. Semi-Active Magneto-Rheological Damper to Reduce the Dynamic
Response of Top-Tension Risers. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Anchorage,
AK, USA, 30 June–5 July 2013.
27. Bergdahl, L.; Palm, J.; Eskilsson, C.; Lindahl, J. Dynamically Scaled Model Experiment of a Mooring Cable. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016,
4, 5. [CrossRef]
28. Yang, S.H.; Ringsberg, J.W.; Johnson, E. A comparison of coupled and de-coupled simulation procedures for the fatigue analysis
of wave energy converter mooring lines. Ocean. Eng. 2016, 117, 332–345. [CrossRef]
29. Nguyen, H.P.; Dai, J.; Wang, C.M.; Ang, K.K.; Luong, V.H. Reducing hydroelastic responses of pontoon-type VLFS using vertical
elastic mooring lines. Mar. Struct. 2018, 59, 251–270. [CrossRef]
30. Xiong, L.Z.; Yang, J.M.; Zhao, W.H. Dynamics of a taut mooring line accounting for the embedded anchor chains. Ocean. Eng.
2016, 121, 403–413. [CrossRef]
31. Xiong, L.Z.; Lu, W.Y.; Li, X.; Guo, X.X. Estimation of damping induced by taut mooring lines. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean. Eng. 2020,
12, 810–818. [CrossRef]
32. Qiao, D.; Yan, J.; Liang, H.Z.; Ning, D.Z.; Li, B.B.; Ou, J.P. Analysis on snap load characteristics of mooring line in slack-taut
process. Ocean. Eng. 2020, 196, 106807. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1907 22 of 22

33. Ma, W.; Webster, W.C. An Analytical Approach to cable Dynamics: Theory and User Manual; SEA GRANT PROJECT R/OE-26;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
34. Chen, X.H.; Zhang, J.; Johnson, P.; Irani, M. Dynamic analysis of mooring lines with inserted springs. Appl. Ocean. Res. 2001,
23, 277–284. [CrossRef]
35. Li, J.J.; Xiang, X.B.; Yang, S.L. Robust adaptive neural network control for dynamic positioning of marine vessels with prescribed
performance under model uncertainties and input saturation. Neurocomputing 2022, 484, 1–12. [CrossRef]
36. Garret, G.L. Dynamic Analysis of Slender Rods. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1982, 104, 302–306. [CrossRef]
37. Xiang, G.; Xu, S.; Wang, S.; Carlos Soares, C. Comparative study on two different mooring system for a buoy. In Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Renewable Energies Offshore, Lisbon, Portugal, 8–10 October 2018.
38. Chen, X.H.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liagre, P.; Niedzwecki, J.; Teigen, P. Coupled dynamic analysis of a mini TLP: Comparison
with-measurements. Ocean. Eng. 2006, 33, 93–117. [CrossRef]
39. Xiang, G.; Guedes Soares, C. Improved Dynamic Modelling of Freely Falling Underwater Cylinder Based on CFD. Ocean. Eng.
2020, 211, 107538. [CrossRef]
40. Yu, X.C.; Xiang, G.; Collopy, H.; Kong, X. Trajectory Tracking of a Model Rocket Falling into the Towing Tank: Experimental Tests
vs. Numerical Simulations. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2020, 33, 04020056.
41. Xiang, G.; Xiang, X.B. 3D trajectory optimization of the slender body freely falling through water using Cuckoo Search algorithm.
Ocean. Eng. 2021, 235, 109354. [CrossRef]