TAvanBruggen 4036573 Thesis PDF

Mooring Line Failure Detection
of a Single Point Mooring System

a Model-Based Approach
T.A. van Bruggen

Master of Science Thesis
Delft Center for Systems and Control

Mooring Line Failure Detection of a
Single Point Mooring System
a Model-Based Approach
Master of Science Thesis
For the degree of Master of Science in Systems and Control at Delft

University of Technology
T.A. van Bruggen
February 6, 2018
Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE) · Delft University of

Technology
The work in this thesis was supported by Mocean Offshore BV. Their cooperation is hereby
gratefully acknowledged.
Copyright c Delft Center for Systems and Control (DCSC)

All rights reserved.
Abstract
Infant mortality is a significant problem in mooring design. The objective of this thesis is
to design a generic fault detection system for mooring line failures, which can accurately
detect a mooring line failure within a certain time frame. The research is done through
Catenary Arm Leg Mooring (CALM) buoy systems, as this thesis is a Proof of Concept. Two
types of mooring line failures are considered in the XZ-plane, a top segment failure close
to the buoy and a bottom segment failure close to the anchor. Both failures characterize
themselves by a constant offset in equilibrium position and a changed mooring stiffness.
Using theoretic concepts about mooring configurations and waves, it is shown that the shift
in equilibrium position has most potential for detecting a mooring line failure. These analysis
are verified by hydrodynamic simulations in OrcaFlex. For the bottom segment failure the
breaking stage cannot be predicted, as this stage depends on the mooring design, the external
loads, and the location of the failure. The focus must lie on what stage the failure becomes
detectable, rather than how long it takes. The fault detection algorithm is using a model-
based approach for fault detection as a general framework which can be used for any variation
in mooring design. Current flows, tankers mooring at the buoy, and non-linear effects of
mooring configurations in waves cause a constant offset in position as well. By including
measurements of the current flow velocity and the tanker hawser tension as inputs of the
CALM buoy model, the fault detection algorithm can distinguish between the sources of the
constant offset. Additionally, the non-linear effects of a mooring configuration in waves are
for small wave heights not significant and not included in the modeling of the buoy. The
mooring tensions and system parameters are introduced as specific parameters per mooring
design. Via an Unknown Input Observer (UIO), the two unknown input loads are estimated:
the wave load and the residual force. The residual force is chosen to represent the mooring
line failure in the model. When there is no mooring line failure this force should be zero. The
two unknown input forces are estimated by decoupling them in the frequency domain. Using
a shaping filter the wave forces are restricted by a predefined frequency bandwidth. The non-
linear effects of a mooring configuration in waves are determining the thresholds for the fault
detection algorithm. Therefore, no wave load can be mistaken for a mooring line failure. The
load cases show that for small offsets the fault detection algorithm is capable of accurately
detecting the mooring line failures. The two unknown forces are decoupled in a way that the
Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

ii
residual force can be used as residual for fault detection. The residual signal in RY -direction
can be used for fault detection. Additionally, it is shown that no step in position data is
required for the algorithm to detect a failure. The answer on the research question, is yes. It
is possible to accurately detect to accurately detect a mooring line failure. Since this thesis is
only applied for the three Degree-of-Freedom (DoF) in the XZ-plane, a six DoF model needs
to be investigated in future research. Furthermore, by including the non-linear effects in the
modeling of the CALM buoy, higher wave amplitudes could be considered. Another possible
way to deal with these non-linear effects is to use adaptive thresholds.
T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

Contents
1 Introduction 1
1-1 Thesis Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1-2 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-4 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Mooring Line Failure Analysis 5

2-1 OrcaFlex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2-2 Top Segment Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2-2-1 No External Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2-2-2 Exciting Wave Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2-3 Bottom Segment Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2-3-1 No Exciting Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2-3-2 Exciting Wave Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2-4 Conclusion Mooring Line Failure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Load Analysis 25
3-1 Mooring Line Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3-2 Current Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3-2-1 Displacements by Current Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3-2-2 Modeling Current Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3-3 Tankers Mooring at a CALM Buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3-4 Non-Linear Effects of a Mooring Configuration in Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3-5 Conclusion Load Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

iv Contents
4 Fault Detection Algorithm Design 37

4-1 Residual Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4-2 CALM Buoy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4-2-1 AQWA - System Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4-2-2 State-Space Representation for Kalman Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4-3 Input Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4-3-1 Wave Force Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4-3-2 Residual Force Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4-3-3 Augmented Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4-4 Residual Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5 Case Studies 49
5-1 Load Case 1: Top Segment Failure - Current + Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5-2 Load Case 2: Bottom Segment - Current + Tanker + Waves . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5-3 Load Case 3: Top Segment Failure - Tanker + Wind + Waves . . . . . . . . . . 55
6 Conclusion 61
7 Discussion 63
7-1 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7-2 Future Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A Literature 65
A-1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A-1-1 Environmental and Tanker Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A-1-2 Mooring Line Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
A-1-3 Mooring Line Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A-2 Mooring Line Failure Detection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
A-2-1 Traditional Mooring Line Failure Detection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A-2-2 Existing Failure Detection Methods in different Applications . . . . . . . 78
B Mooring Stiffness 83
B-1 Top Segment Failure - Mooring Force Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B-2 Matlab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B-2-1 Matlab - Determine Total Force on CALM buoy by Mooring Lines . . . . 85
B-2-2 Matlab - Determine Force in each DoF per Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B-2-3 Matlab - Determine Linearized Stiffness for Three DoF . . . . . . . . . . 89
C Spectral Analyis Wave Load 93

C-1 Top Segment Failure - Wave Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
C-2 Non-Linear Constant Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Contents v
D Fault Detection Algorithm Characteristics 99

D-1 Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
D-1-1 System Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
D-1-2 Shaping Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
D-2 Kalman Filter Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
D-2-1 Covariance Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
D-2-2 Matlab - Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
D-2-3 Matlab - State Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
D-2-4 Matlab - Measurement Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
D-3 Residual Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Bibliography 107
Glossary 111
List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
List of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

vi Contents

Chapter 1
Introduction
When in 1920 tanker sizes started to grow, an extension of harbor facilities into deeper waters
was necessary. Therefore, the development of offloading stations started. An offloading station
is a mooring facility where an oil tanker moors and is able to offload the product. Via a transfer
system the product is transported to shore. In the beginning Multi-Buoy Mooring (MBM)
systems were used. Meaning, tankers were moored on four to eight mooring points, consisting
of rigid buoys moored to the seabed by a chain and an anchor. However, this kind of operation
caused limitations on tanker size and environmental conditions of the mooring operation.
Consequently, this lead to the development of Single Point Mooring (SPM) systems. SPM
systems use, as the name suggests, only a single point for the mooring of tankers. Tankers are
connected via a single hawser to the mooring configuration and are able to freely weathervane
around this point due to environmental conditions. This approach is therefore not restricting
the tankers to be of particular size. Additionally, the design of the SPM system itself is more
general and can be used in varying local environments. Multiple mooring lines are keeping
the structure at its place. Therefore, these structures are also able to operate under more
severe environmental conditions.
Figure 1-1: Two examples of an SPM system. On the left a CALM buoy with an oil tanker
moored at the buoy. On the right an FPSO.

2 Introduction
There are several types of SPM systems using the same principle of operation. Two examples
are the CALM buoy and the Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO), see Fig-
ure 1-1. The CALM buoy is solely an offloading station and is named after the characteristic
curve of the anchor chains. An FPSO station can also be used for production and storage
activities. FPSO stations are usually converted from existing oil tankers, but can also be
built specifically for the application.
Rotating/Weathervaning Part
(Bouy Body)
Earth Fixed Part
(Turret structure)
Piping
Figure 1-2: Schematic overview of a CALM buoy. On the left a section is showing the rotating
buoy body, the earth fixed turret structure, the mooring lines, and the piping. On the right a top
view of the spread mooring configuration is shown.
The principle of operation of an SPM system is in general equivalent. Using the schematic
overview of a CALM buoy, presented in Figure 1-2, this principle is explained. The main
components of an SPM offloading station are the mooring arrangement, floating body, and
the product transfer system. The mooring arrangement consists of a turret structure from
which six to eight mooring lines depart in different directions. Via anchors they are connected
to the seabed. The tension in one mooring line, due to the weight of the lifted part, is causing
a force on the turret structure. All mooring lines together ensure the SPM system to stay
at its desired location. On the other hand, the floating body is connected to the mooring
arrangement via a turret structure and is able to freely rotate 360◦ around the turret. The
regulation standards for designing SPM systems are described in [1]. These rules safeguard
live, property, and environment.
1-1 Thesis Motivation
Considering the design conditions in [1], SPM systems are generally designed for an oper-
ational life period of 20 years. Nevertheless, 20 early life failures occurred in a the period
between 2001 and 2011 [2]. The trend of infant mortality is a significant problem for SPM
systems. Multiple incidents are recorded where single or multiple mooring lines failed due to
unforeseen phenomena in the design phase [3], [4]. A single mooring line failure is covered
by redundancy in the mooring design. An SPM system is therefore able to operate with a
missing mooring line. However, [2] states that after a single line failure a failure with the same
characteristics is likely to occur in another line. Multiple line failures can lead to vessel drift,

1-2 Problem Definition 3
which eventually can cause the product transfer system to break down. Moreover, it is the
financial impact of a mooring line failure that highly impacts the business. Research shows
that a single mooring line failure can cost up to ten million euro’s [5]. Despite this safety
and financial critical nature of mooring design, no failure detection systems are installed in
many cases [3], [6]. Additionally, if an SPM system is equipped with a monitoring system,
no accurate or continuous fault detection can be achieved. These traditional methods for
mooring line failure detection are evaluated in Subsection A-2-1.
1-2 Problem Definition
Considering the early life failures, and the likelihood of multiple failures a fault detection
system which can detect a single line failure in time is required, before more analogous faults
occur in other mooring lines. Each SPM system has its own characteristics, dimensions, and
mooring configuration. The fault detection system must therefore be generic, hence it is
extendable to other SPM systems. The research question is formulated as:
Is it possible to design a generic fault detection system for mooring line failures, which can
accurately detect a failure within a certain time frame?
The greater part of the failures described in [2] occurred in FPSO station configurations.
Nonetheless, it is chosen to conduct this research for CALM buoy systems. This decision
is made in cooperation with Mocean Offshorewith BV and is mainly supported by fact that
Mocean’s clients work with CALM buoy systems. This thesis will therefore be a Proof of
Concept.
1-3 Methodology
The aim of this thesis is to design a fault detection algorithm which can accurately detect
a mooring line failure. For this thesis two failures are considered. First a failure in the top
segment of the mooring line which is close to the buoy. The second failure considered, is in
the bottom segment of the mooring line close to the anchor. The fault detection algorithm
focuses on the characteristic behavior of the CALM buoy. Therefore, first the behavior of
CALM buoy after a mooring line failure is analyzed. This analysis is done using theoretic
concepts, as the design of the detection algorithm must depend on general concepts which
can be used in any variation of mooring design. Additionally, testing on a real CALM buoy
is difficult and expensive. Therefore a model in OrcaFlex is used to verify the predicted
behavior. OrcaFlex is a simulation environment by Orcina, where hydrodynamic analysis of
floating structures can be performed. A literature study, presented in Appendix A, shows
three model-based approaches which have potential for mooring line failure detection. Using
a combination of mooring line theory and wave theory, it is concluded that the constant offset
in position due to mooring line failure is used as the approach for fault detection. There are
multiple phenomena causing a constant offset in the equilibrium position of the buoy. These
are current flows, tankers mooring at the buoy, and non-linear effects of mooring configurations
in waves. Theory about environmental loads combined with mooring line theory described in

4 Introduction
Subsection A-1-1 and Subsection A-1-2, determine the amount of influence these phenomena
have on the displacements of the buoy. Additionally, the impact of these sources on the
CALM buoy is included in the modeling of the CALM buoy. The model is setup using a
linear representation of a floating structure. The model parameters are determined using
AQWA modeling environment by Ansys. The model-based fault detection algorithm is based
on a generic framework, since it can than be used for the many variations in mooring design.
For this framework the residual generator is designed to be only depending on the system
parameters and the tuning parameters. Since no measurements of wave forces are available, a
Kalman filter application is introduced called the UIO. To uncouple the two forces, a shaping
filter is applied. Since there is an additional non-linear effect of a mooring configuration in
waves, simulations in OrcaFlex are considered to determine the influence of these effects in
the residual generation. These effects are also used to determine the residual evaluation. The
algorithm is now defined and can be tested using three case studies. In these studies, the
applicability together with the functionality of the algorithm is considered. With the results
presented, it can be concluded if the algorithm is capable of accurately detecting a mooring
line failure.
1-4 Structure
The analysis of the mooring line failures is presented in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, the loads
working on the buoy causing a constant offset are discussed. These loads are then included
in the modeling of the CALM buoy. This model and the algorithm design is discussed in
Chapter 4. In Chapter 5 the functionality of the fault detection algorithm is verified with three
case studies. The conclusions drawn from the case studies are presented in Chapter 6. Since
the algorithm is based on assumptions recommendations for a future design are presented in
Chapter 7.

Chapter 2
Mooring Line Failure Analysis
The aim of this thesis is to design a generic fault detection algorithm for mooring line failures.
Mooring line failures can occur along the complete length of the mooring line, see Subsec-
tion A-1-3. In order to cover all failures, the two outermost failures are chosen to further
investigate for this thesis. These are described as a failure in the top segment, a failure close
to the buoy, and a failure in the bottom segment, close to the mooring line anchor. In Fig-
ure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 a simplified overview is given of both failures. These figures are not
accurately representing a CALM buoy with multiple mooring lines, but can give insight in
the behavior of a CALM buoy after a mooring line failure in the top and bottom segment.
BEFORE AFTER
Figure 2-1: Schematic overview of a top segment failure. An offset in equilibrium position and
a changed mooring configuration is the result.
After a top segment failure, see Figure 2-1, the complete mooring line falls away. The weight
of this mooring line, which conducts the tension in the line, is not pulling anymore on the
CALM buoy. This means the buoy will endure a resultant force from the remaining mooring
lines. As a result, the CALM buoy will start moving and find a new equilibrium position
where all mooring forces are in balance again. In this new equilibrium position the mooring

6 Mooring Line Failure Analysis
lines will have a different configuration and a new overall way of responding to displacements,
the total mooring stiffness is changed.
BEFORE AFTER
ANCHOR DISPLACEMENT
Figure 2-2: Schematic overview of a bottom segment failure. An offset in equilibrium position
and a changed mooring configuration is the result.
For a bottom segment failure, see Figure 2-2, still a significant part of the mooring line rests
on the seabed. The seabed is applying a static friction force on the part of the mooring line
resting on the seabed. If this force is greater than the exciting forces on the CALM buoy, no
change will be observable. The static friction will serve the same way as an anchor. However
if waves are getting larger or a tanker moors at the buoy, the static friction force will be
exceeded and the mooring line is dragged towards a new position. A position where there is a
larger part of the mooring line resting on the seabed, which means a new higher static friction
component to overcome. Until again a larger exciting force is applied to the buoy. This is
shown in Figure 2-2 in a schematic overview. Again as for the top segment failure the CALM
buoy will find eventually a new equilibrium position and a new mooring configuration. The
amount of mooring line lifted has changed and therefore the total stiffness of the system is
changed.
A top or a bottom segment failure both share the same characteristics in behavior. As the
mooring line fails the buoy will start to find a new equilibrium position. Additionally, the
total mooring configuration will change resulting in a different overall stiffness. The manner
how they approach this resultant steady state is distinct, as the top segment failure is of a
sudden nature and the bottom segment failure is more smooth. The expected characteristics
for both the top and the bottom segment failure for the breaking stage and the broken buoy
status are summarized in Table 2-1.
Using these expected characteristics of the mooring line failures, it is shown in Subsection A-
2-1 that no existing traditional fault detection methods are capable of accurately detecting a
mooring line failure. Nevertheless, Subsection A-2-2 describes three approaches which show
potential of detecting a mooring line failure. These three are all model-based approaches
and focusing on either the shift in equilibrium position or the shift in stiffness. The spectral
residual and the residual based on parameter estimation focus on the shift in stiffness and
the residual based on the equilibrium position on the shift in position.
In this chapter, the expected behavior of the CALM buoy after a mooring line failure is ver-
ified. The analysis of the characteristic behavior will be used by the detection algorithm to

2-1 OrcaFlex 7
Breaking Broken
Top Segment Failure "Sudden" transition Shift in both equilibrium

position and mooring stiff-
ness
Bottom Segment Failure "Smooth" transition Shift in both equilibrium

position and mooring stiff-
ness
Table 2-1: Characteristics for the top and bottom segment failure in the breaking stage and the
broken buoy status.
detect a mooring line failure. This analysis is done using theory about mooring line configu-
rations, as the design of the detection algorithm is required to be generic. It is investigated
if theoretic concepts can be used to predict the behavior after a failure, without analyzing a
mooring line failure in a real CALM buoy configuration. Experiments on a real CALM buoy
are difficult and expensive, therefore simulations in OrcaFlex are used to verify the resultant
behavior. OrcaFlex is a simulation environment by Orcina, where hydrodynamic analysis
of floating structures can be performed. In this environment it is possible to analyze the
resulting behavior after a mooring line failure. Additionally, this chapter is using mooring
line theory combined with wave theory to find the approach which shows the most potential
in accurately detecting a mooring line failure.
First an overview of the simulation environment OrcaFlex by Orcina is presented in Section 2-
1. Subsequently the top and bottom segment failures with and without exciting loads are
covered in Section 2-2 and Section 2-3 respectively. The chapter is concluded with comments
on the detection of mooring line failures in Section 2-4.
2-1 OrcaFlex
OrcaFlex is a simulation software package which can be used for the dynamic analysis of
offshore marine systems. For this thesis the CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex is assumed to
represent reality. The reason for this is twofold. On the one hand testing on a real Single
Point Mooring (SPM) system such as a CALM buoy is difficult and expensive. Moreover, it is
not easy to disconnect a mooring line in real life in order to analyze the subsequent behavior.
On the other hand, this thesis is to design a fault detection algorithm. First the aim is to
analyze whether or not fault detection is feasible, a Proof of Concept. Depending on the
conclusion of this thesis, the research could be extended by investigating on a real CALM
buoy.
Each CALM buoy has its own dimensions and characteristics. Since modeling in OrcaFlex is
time consuming, the fault detection approach is required to be generic and easily extendable

Figure 2-3: 3D view of the CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex. Red: Buoy Body; Purple: Turrent
Strucure; Green: Mooring Lines.
to other variations in mooring design. A method which uses theoretical concepts. To verify
the results, simulations in the OrcaFlex environment can be used. In OrcaFlex it is possible
to obtain all kind of measurements, e.g. displacements, rotations, velocities, and mooring line
tensions. In order to approximate reality, the CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex presented for
this thesis is a simplified model of an existing shallow water CALM buoy, see Figure 2-3. To
give a basic idea of the characteristics the principal dimensions and materials are discussed
here. The buoy body is consisting of two square boxes with a square skirt around it and has
a total mass of m = 275t. At the bottom side a cylindrical turret table is connected which is
able to freely rotate in respect to the vertical axis of the buoy body. At the turret structure six
mooring lines depart equally spaced from each other. In Figure 2-4 a side and top view of the
buoy is depicted including the key dimensions. Each mooring line is a studded 84mm chain
and has a length of l = 420m. The submerged weight of the mooring line is w = 1.478kN/m.
The buoy is anchored in a circular manner around the center of the buoy with a radius
xanchor = 410m. The seabed is assumed flat with a friction coefficient 0.5 and has a depth of
z0 = 50m. The remaining coefficients such as drag and added mass are chosen to meet the
standards stated in [7]. For a single mooring line yields that the force vector lies in the vertical
plane where the mooring line operates. If a mooring line failure occurs in one of the mooring
lines, the response of the buoy will be limited to the same plane where the mooring line is
operating. The same holds for the direction of loads working on the buoy. Consequently, if
both the mooring line failure and the external loads are chosen to operate in the same plane,
the response of the CALM buoy can be reduced from a six to a three DoF frame. Since a
Proof of Concept is one of the objectives of this thesis this simplification is made. From now
on, only a three DoF frame, describing the XZ-plane, will be considered. The frame consists
of movements in the X-, Z-, and RY -direction. Only a line failure in mooring line five which
lies on the negative X-axis, see Figure 2-4, is considered together with external loads in both
directions along the X-axis.
In OrcaFlex it is possible to apply different combinations of loads to the model. Current and

2-2 Top Segment Failure 9
RY RZ
SIDEVIEW Z TOPVIEW Y
14m
X X
12m
7m
6. 1.
3m 60°
5.8m
6.8m
5. 2.
BUOY LOADS +
DISPLACEMENTS
Ø4m 1m 1.6m
Ø6m
Ø8m 4. 3.
Figure 2-4: Side and top view of the CALM buoy including dimensions and axes labels. External
loads and mooring line failures are chosen to operate along the X-axis. As a result the response
of the buoy will be limited to displacements in the XZ-plane.
wind flows are primarily described by the average velocity and the direction of the flow. Since
waves are more complex, more variables have to be filled in. Different methods can be used to
calculate the resulting displacements due to a wave load. Additionally, it is possible to turn
on or off certain loads in OrcaFlex, e.g. radiation and diffraction terms, and second order
wave drift. For the CALM buoy model it is chosen to calculate the displacements using the
Morison equation [8], described in Subsection A-1-1. Diffraction and wave drift are turned
off and are not included in the calculations. Reason to use this method is because the CALM
buoy as an approximation for analysis, has a relatively small structure compared to wave
lengths.
2-2 Top Segment Failure
For this thesis a failure in either the top or the bottom segment of the mooring line is
considered. This section provides a theoretic approach to analyze the behavior after a top
segment failure. The calculations are verified using simulations in OrcaFlex.
For a spread mooring configuration, the tensions in the individual mooring lines are calculated
and added together for each DoF. Solving Equation A-4 in an iterative manner results in
the mooring line configuration together with the horizontal tension at the buoy location. In
Table 2-2 the results from hand calculations, for a single mooring line, are compared with
measurements obtained from OrcaFlex. The variables are depicted in the overview presented
in Figure 2-5. The relatively small differences could be explained by the discretization of the
mooring lines in OrcaFlex, where the calculations by hand are assuming continuous mooring
lines. Despite the small differences in static equilibrium these calculations still neglect many
aspects, see Subsection A-1-2. Nevertheless, the comparison shows that the calculations can
be used for approximating the mooring line tensions.

ꝔW
BUOY
WATERLINE
TH
Ls
TH
SEABED
Lb x
X
Figure 2-5: The Calculated tensions and orientation of a mooring line is compared with the
tensions and orientation in OrcaFlex.
Calculated OrcaFlex
TH 149.3 kN 148.6 kN
ϕw 46.9 ◦ 46.9 ◦
x 93.8 m 93.5 m
ls 107.8 m 107.5 m
lb 312.2 m 312.5 m
Table 2-2: The Calculated tensions and orientation of a mooring line is compared with the
tensions and orientation in OrcaFlex.
2-2-1 No External Load
When a mooring line fails in the top segment, the complete mooring line is released at
the buoy location and will sink to the seabed. The mooring line is no longer part of the
mooring configuration. The tension which was pulling at the buoy, in this particular case
T5 = ±150kN , before the failure is not present anymore. As a result, the CALM buoy will
find a new orientation where the mooring line tensions are in equilibrium again. With this
new mooring configuration a lower stiffness is expected. The breaking stage of a top segment
failure is expected to be of a short nature.
In order to predict the offset in position of the CALM buoy after a top segment failure,
the spread mooring configuration is analyzed. For the spread mooring each mooring line is
calculated individually and summed up in each direction afterwards. If a line failure occurs
in mooring line five, on the negative X-axis, only the movements in the three DoF in the

Calculated OrcaFlex
X [m] 3.1 3.26

Z [m] 0.11 0.16
RY [◦ ] 2.11 2.51
Table 2-3: Comparison between the calculated and measured offset of a top segment failure of
a CALM buoy with no external loads. Measurements are obtained from simulations in OrcaFlex.
XZ-plane are dominant. To calculate this shift in static equilibrium position for the three
DoF, the mooring lines are assumed to operate as linear springs. The calculated offsets in
position are presented in Table 2-3. In Section B-1 the calculations are described. These
calculations can be used as an initial approximation. In the next section, Subsection 2-2-2,
these calculations are now verified using simulations in OrcaFlex.
Simulation Results
In order to see if the new static equilibrium corresponds with the calculated equilibrium and
the eigenfrequency relation holds, experiments on the CALM buoy in OrcaFlex are done with
no external loads. Since there are no environmental disturbances working on the system, the
system will be at rest in its equilibrium position, which is chosen for an intact system to be
zero. In Figure 2-6 the right column of plots the simulation results of a top segment failure
are shown. The three plots contain the time series for the three DoF. From top to bottom
the plots contain the oscillations in X-direction, Z-direction, and RY -direction. The total
simulation time ttotal = 300s is plotted on the X axis and the mooring line is released at the
buoy location at tbreak = 50s. It can be seen that the expectation was right the sudden loss
of one mooring line results in a step in all three DoF. The values of the offsets are presented
in the right column of Table 2-3. Compared to the calculated values it can be observed that
these are approximately the same. The difference can be explained by the linearizations done
in the calculations and discretization of the mooring lines in OrcaFlex. However these results
show a significant step in data, which can be predicted using hand calculations. This step in
data can potentially be used for fault detection. Further research must point out if external
loads influence the CALM buoy in a way which is similar so it complicates the detectability.
Not only the position of the CALM buoy can be used for fault detection. Also the changed
mooring configuration indicates a shift in eigenfrequency. To investigate this shift a frequency
analysis of both a top segment failure and a decay test are compared. The time response of
the decay test is shown in the left column of plots in Figure 2-6. The initial offset is chosen
to be of approximately the same values as the steady state values after a top segment failure.
At trelease = 50s the buoy is released and returns to the original equilibrium position. In
Figure 2-7, the time trace signals after the failure or release at t = 50s are examined in
the frequency domain, the transient behavior. Since no external loads are applied to the
system these frequencies of excitation are the eigenfrequencies of the system. Comparing
the eigenfrequencies which are obtained from these plots with the values for the healthy
system it can be seen that those are shifted, see also Table 2-4. This can be explained by

Figure 2-6: Time domain response of the CALM buoy in OrcaFlex. On the left a decay test on
the healthy system, on the right the response of a top segment failure for three DoF. Both of the
simulations no external loads are present.
Figure 2-7: Fast Fourier transform of the transient behavior after the decay test and the top
segment failure.

examining the mooring lines as springs. For springs yields that when a different stiffness is
chosen the eigenfrequency also differs. For a CALM buoy system with a missing mooring line
due to a top segment failure this is the same. The total stiffness of the system changes and
therefore the eigenfrequency of the system. For the X-direction, a shift in eigenfrequency of
approximately 25% can be observed. This shift is as predicted since approximately 25% of
the force in X-direction has been falling away as result of the top segment failure. The shift
in eigenfrequency shows potential for fault detection using both the spectral residual and the
residual based on parameter estimation. Further research must point out if these eigenmodes
will be excited and show detectable difference in energy on the particular frequencies. For the
modeling of the system it can be noted that there is a coupling between the the movements
in the different DoF. In Figure 2-7 both the frequency analysis of the transient behavior
in the Z-direction and the RY -direction show a component equal to the eigenfrequency in
X-direction.
Intact Broken
fpeak,X (Hz) 0.059 0.048

fpeak,Z (Hz) 0.154 0.16
fpeak,RY (Hz) 0.136 0.127
Table 2-4: Table presenting the eigenfrequencies for the intact and the broken system. These
values are obtained by analyzing a decay test and a top segment failure both in OrcaFlex in the
frequency domain.
In Figure 2-8 the acceleration profiles of the CALM buoy after the top segment failure can
be observed. From top to bottom the accelerations in the X-, Z-, and RY -direction are
presented. The result shows the behavior in the breaking stage of the top segment failure.
The maximum value for the Z-direction and RY -direction are small, for the X-direction the
measurement is relatively larger. With no external loads these signals could be used to detect
a failure with no exciting loads present. However, a mooring line failure is more likely to occur
with exciting loads working on the buoy. In the next section, Subsection 2-2-2, simulations
with exciting wave loads are discussed. The simulations presented there must point out
whether or not acceleration signals in the breaking stage can be used for fault detection.
2-2-2 Exciting Wave Load
In the previous section, Subsection 2-2-1, the shift in equilibrium position and amplitude
per frequency is analyzed. However, as described in Subsection A-1-1 the constant offset
can also be caused by a current load, a tanker mooring at the buoy, or non-linear wave
effects. Secondly, for the change in amplitude per frequency to become visible, the system
needs to be excited in that particular frequency range. Additionally, the change in energy for
those frequencies must be significantly larger than the energy due to noise or exciting waves.
Elseways, fault detection methods are not capable to detect the shift. In this section a top
segment failure in combination with varying wave loads are discussed to substantiate whether
or not the shift in behavior is suited for detecting a top segment failure.

Figure 2-8: Acceleration profiles after a top segment failure in the OrcaFlex model with no
external loads.
In Figure 2-9 a time trace of the CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex is presented. From top
to bottom the position displacements are presented for the X-, Z-, and RY - directions.
The CALM buoy model is subjected to a JOint North Sea WAve Project (JONSWAP) wave
spectrum with a significant wave height Hs = 3m and and a peak period of Tp = 8s. At
tbreak = 1000s a top segment failure is simulated. It can be observed that in all three
directions there is a step in the data visible through the high frequent behavior induced
by waves. This is better visible via the moving average, plotted by the black dotted line.
The new equilibrium positions, [X, Z, RY ]T = [4.02, −0.02, 2.91]T , are however higher
than the equilibrium positions found in Subsection 2-2-1. Also for the intact part, the first
tintact = 0s − 1000s, a small constant offset is visible. This constant offset is due to non-linear
wave effects, and will be evaluated in Section 3-4.
As the mooring configuration changes after a mooring line failure, a shift in amplitude per
frequency component is expected. For the first tintact = 0s − 1000s the spectral density is
determined and compared with the last tbroken = 3000s − 4000s. This in order to be sure no
transient behavior is present anymore in the analyzed time trace of the broken system. This
transient behavior is only observable in the breaking phase. Probability of missing this, could
lead to missing the failure. Focus must lie on distinguishing between an intact system and a
steady state broken buoy. In Figure 2-10 the spectral density of the signals are showed. The
wave frequent behavior lies here around fF irstOrderW aves = 1/8s = 0.125Hz. This is obvious
as the CALM buoy model is excited with a JONSWAP spectrum with a peak period Tp = 8s.
For the Z-direction and RY -direction the response is more or less the same containing only
these first order wave frequencies. This holds while varying the wave spectrum variables. It
is not possible to distinguish any change in amplitude per frequency based on observations in
these two directions. For the X-direction however also low frequency responses are measured

Figure 2-9: Time response of top segment failure of the CALM buoy in OrcaFlex for waves with
a significant wave height Hs = 3m. Top segment failure is simulated at tbreak = 1000s. The
black dotted line is the moving average of the response with a time window of twindow = 250s.
Figure 2-10: Spectral density of top segment failure of the CALM buoy in OrcaFlex for waves
with a significant wave height Hs = 3m, Tp = 8s.

for both the intact buoy and steady state broken buoy. To explain these responses, wave theory
in Subsection A-1-1 is revisited. As stated, the response of the buoy in an uni-directional
flow can be described using the Morison equation. Here the oscillatory flow is described with
the fluid velocity u(t) and the buoy velocity with v(t). Therefore, the force generated in the
X-direction can be formulated as defined in Equation 2-2.
Fwaves,X (t) = FF roudeKrylof,X (t) + FHydrodynamicM ass,X (t) + FDrag,X (t) (2-1)
1
Fwaves,X (t) = ρV u̇x (t) + ρCa V u̇x (t) − v̇x (t) + ρCd A ux (t) − vx (t) |ux (t) − vx (t)|
2
Where Fwaves,X (t), [kN ] is the total inline force, ρ, [t/m3 ] the density of the fluid, Ca , [−]
the added mass coefficient, V, [m3 ] the volume of the body, u̇(t) = du/dt, [m · s−2 ] the flow
acceleration, v̇(t) = dv/dt, [m · s−2 ] the acceleration of the body, Cd , [−] the drag coefficient,
and A, [m2 ] the cross-sectional area of the body. Together, the Froude Krylof force and the
hydrodynamic mass force are called the inertia force and represent the linear part of the force
equation. The drag force contains however a signed square of the relative fluid velocity to the
buoy and is therefore non-linear. This last term, the drag force, is causing the low frequent
response of the buoy in X-direction. To analyze the behavior, the flow velocity needs to be
defined. The flow velocity comes forth from the flow potential which describes the velocity
vector of the fluid particles at some point in time in the fluid flow. The derivation of the fluid
velocity is done by [9] and the result is described in Equation 2-2.
N
X
ζa ω · ekZ · cos(kX − ωt)

ux (t) = (2-2)
k=1
With ux (t), [m · s−1 ] the fluid velocity in X-direction, ζa , [m] the wave amplitude, ω, [rad/s]
the wave frequency, k, [−] the wave number, Z, [m] the elevation of the fluid particle, X, [m]
the X-position of the fluid particle, t, [s] the time instant. This definition of the flow velocity
can be used for calculating the drag component of the wave force working on the CALM
buoy. The relative velocity squared is taken as an approximation of the signed square to get
a basic idea what happens if cosine functions with different frequencies are multiplied. The
results are multiple products of cosine functions with different frequencies of excitation. Using
trigonometric relations, these products can be rewritten and single sine and cosine waves are
obtained. The two relations used are the product-to-sum relation for difference in frequencies,
see Equation 2-3, and the power-reduction formula for products with the same frequency, see
Equation 2-4.

cos(ω)cos(φ) = cos(ω − φ) + cos(ω + φ) /2 (2-3)
2
cos (ω) = 1 + cos(2ω) /2 (2-4)
The Morison force exciting the CALM buoy model will hereby contain frequency components
exactly the difference or the sum of the original frequencies, these are called second order wave
effects. The exciting JONSWAP wave spectrum contains many regular waves with varying

frequencies. Therefore, the range of exciting frequencies will also contain all difference and
sum frequencies when using the Morision equation. Since the eigenfrequencies of both the
intact and the broken system are in the low frequency range visible in Figure 2-10, these are
excited by the difference frequencies. However, for fault detection a significant change must be
visible. Here only a difference is seen in spectral density for the overall lower frequency range,
but a clear peak at the eigenfrequency is not visible. This can be explained by the added
mass, which is frequency depended. Since the buoy is oscillating with varying frequencies,
the added mass is also varying. A varying total mass means that the eigenfrequency is also
not constant and therefore no clear peak is visible. Considering the changing total mass,
fault detection using the residual based on parameter estimation is difficult to achieve. No
information about the incoming waves is available, therefore it is not possible to include
this changing mass in the modeling. There are techniques, which are capable of estimating
parameters without knowledge about inputs. So called unknown input estimators. However,
the problem then arises, that the algorithm will not be able to distinguish between a change
in input load and a change in mooring configuration.
For a complete overview for varying wave loads,Section C-1 can be examined. For ascending
wave height, the spectral density is presented for an intact and a broken system. These results
substantiate that the energy peaks have a varying frequency and the spectral density is not
significantly larger for a broken buoy. Using this analysis, fault detection based on a spectral
residual is challenging. The breaking stage is, as earlier stated, a less robust way of detecting
a fault in the system. This transient behavior is only present for a short period of time and
relying on this short period of time, an undetected failure could be the result. Additionally,
since there is no knowledge about the incoming waves it is not possible to distinguish between
a change in mooring configuration and a change exciting sea-state.
Figure 2-11: Acceleration profiles after a top segment failure in the OrcaFlex model subjected
to a JONSWAP wave spectrum with significant wave height Hs = 3m and peak period Tp = 8s.
The top segment failure is simulated at tbreak = 1000s.

For the breaking stage not only the sudden shift in equilibrium position can be used for
fault detection. However, the acceleration signals in Subsection 2-2-1 showed potential for
fault detection as well. Hence, the acceleration signals for the CALM buoy in wave loads
are observed again in Figure 2-11. In this figure, the acceleration signals for the X-, Z-, and
RY -direction are presented resulting from a top segment failure of the CALM buoy subjected
to the JONSWAP wave spectrum with significant wave height Hs = 3m and peak period
Tp = 8s. The time window on the X-axis of the plots is chosen to be t = 900s − 1100s
to make the signals visible at the breaking stage. For each DoF no abrupt change in the
acceleration is observable, as the accelerations due to the wave load excitation are relatively
large compared to the accelerations due to a mooring line failure. The breaking stage of a top
segment failure is assumed to be of a more sudden nature than the behavior after a bottom
segment failure. Since the breaking stage is not detectable via acceleration signals for a top
segment failure, it will also not be detectable for a bottom segment failure. Therefore, it is
not feasible to use the transient behavior of the breaking stage for detecting a mooring line
failure.
2-3 Bottom Segment Failure
As shown in Subsection 2-2-1 a failure at the top segment location is detectable by observing
the location even if there is no external load working on the buoy. Since failures can occur
along the whole length of the mooring line a failure in the bottom segment must be considered
as well. For this kind of failure a significant part of the mooring line is still resting on the
seabed. In order to observe a change in system behavior the static friction must be overcome
by an external load, e.g. a current flow or waves. This section is analyzing the response
of the CALM buoy after a bottom segment failure at the anchor location. As for a top
segment failure, the steady state broken response is depended on the mooring design as well.
How much the buoy will deviate from its original equilibrium position depends on the mooring
configuration, the location of the failure along the mooring line, and the environment the buoy
is working in. The purpose of this section to get an idea how the CALM buoy responds after
a bottom segment failure. Obtaining insight about the responses and the influences from
external loads, it is expected to find the method best suited for fault detection of bottom
segment failures. First hand calculation are done in order to predict what loads are required
for a bottom segment failure to become detectable. Subsequently, wave loads combined with
a bottom segment failure are investigated to get an idea when the failure will be detectable.
2-3-1 No Exciting Load
When no environmental loads are working on the buoy or oil tankers mooring at the buoy,
it is expected that no measurable change in behavior is observed. To substantiate this a
simple hand calculation is considered. As described in Section 2-1 the friction coefficient is
defined as µf riction = 0.5. The total friction force is determined by multiplying this coefficient
with the weight of the mooring line lying on the seabed. Without an external load the static
equilibrium points out that the part lying on the seabed has a length of lb = 312.2m, see
Table 2-2. Using the weight per unit length, w = 1.478kN · m−1 , it is possible to calculate
the friction force presented in Equation 2-5.

2-3 Bottom Segment Failure 19
Figure 2-12: 3D view of the static equilibrium position of the CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex
after a bottom segment failure. The mooring line which has failed is hanging vertical.
Ff riction = µf riction · lb · w = 230kN (2-5)
For the static forces there exists a force balance. At the touchdown point the horizontal
tension component of the mooring line is equal to the horizontal tension at the buoy location,
TH = 149.3kN . This force is not enough to overcome the static friction force. As a result,
the mooring line will stay at its location and nothing noticeable will occur to the system. If
an external load working on the buoy is large enough to overcome the static friction force, the
part of the mooring line which lies on the seabed will be dragged to a new location. When
the mooring line is dragged along the part which lies on the seabed becomes larger and the
lifted part smaller. So the static friction force becomes larger and the pretension in the line
due to the weight of the lifted part of the mooring line gets smaller. A new equilibrium is
found when the static force is again larger than the external load plus the pretension in the
mooring line. Eventually a stage will be reached where the bottom segment failure is fully
evolved to a steady state broken buoy. This means that so much external load is applied to
the buoy that the broken mooring line is pulled underneath the buoy. The broken mooring
line hangs vertically down from the CALM buoy, see Figure 2-12 for a 3D view of the CALM
buoy model in OrcaFlex. As for this case the mooring line length is l = 420m and the water
depth underneath the buoy h ≈ 46.72m this indicates that the anchor location is around
xanchor ≈ −375m if the origin is considered as the original center of the buoy.
If again no external load is working on the buoy, the orientation of the buoy in this new
equilibrium position can be determined using a static equilibrium. Since the broken mooring
line now hangs vertical no horizontal tension component is acting on the buoy from that
mooring line. The horizontal force balance will be the same as for the top segment failure.
This results in the same offset in X-position, namely X ≈ 3.26m. For the Z-direction and the
RY -direction this is not the case, as there is still a part of the mooring line hanging at the buoy.
The offsets in these directions are Z ≈ 0.1m and RY ≈ 0.5◦ . These are significantly lower than

Figure 2-13: Side view of a wave propagation. In the crest of the wave the fluid particles have
a velocity in the same direction as the wave propagation. In the through the fluid particles have
the opposite direction.
for the top segment failure. The orientation concerning the Z-direction and RY -direction is
minimal. Using them as a position based fault detection they are possibly not distinguishable
from wave load excitation. In the next section these predictions are investigated.
The two approaches where the static equilibrium positions are investigated, give an indication
of what is the result after a bottom segment failure. The magnitude of the influence however
strongly depends on the failure location and mooring configuration. As the failure gets closer
along the mooring line towards the buoy location, the friction force will become lower and
more attainable. On the other side, the pretension in the line depends on the mooring
configuration determined during the design phase of the CALM buoy. For each CALM buoy
this initial investigation must be considered to see where the possibilities for fault detection
lie for the particular system.
2-3-2 Exciting Wave Load
In the previous section the static equilibrium reached after a bottom segment failure is dis-
cussed. For this thesis, the equilibrium reached is called a fully evolved steady state broken
buoy for the bottom segment failure. In order to reach this status, external loads must exceed
the static friction force. For each particular CALM buoy there is already a tension in the line
due to the weight of the lifted part of the mooring line. For this CALM buoy the difference
between the mooring line pretension and the static friction force is Fthreshold ≈ 80kN . For
external loads which are larger than this force yields that the static friction force is not strong
enough to hold the CALM buoy at its place. As a result the mooring line will be dragged
along and will settle to a new equilibrium position. If this happens a changed mooring con-
figuration will be, together with a shifted equilibrium position, the result. How large the
influence of external loads, environmental and tanker loads, need to be and how fast a bot-
tom segment failure becomes detectable is investigated in this section. Detectability however
depends on the direction of the loads, especially for current and tanker loads. For now, only
wave loads will be considered as for this load it not so much depends on the direction of the
wave propagation.
Waves consist of positive and negative flow velocities along the X-axis. In a wave, the fluid
particles move with the wave direction at the crest location of the wave. In the through of the

2-3 Bottom Segment Failure 21
wave, this direction is reversed and the particles move in the opposite way. The flow velocity
profiles are shown in Figure 2-13. The fluid velocity component is the largest at the water
surface, the top of the wave. The exact derivation can be found in [9]. A floating structure in
waves therefore will be subjected to forces with both a positive and negative direction. Going
back to the Morison force equation, Equation 2-2, it can be observed that the force consists
of three parts. The Froude-Krylof force, the hydrodynamic mass force, and the drag force.
To investigate whether the wave load exceeds the threshold force Fthreshold = 80kN a single
regular wave is considered. If taken the location of the fluid particle at the origin, x = z = 0,
the fluid velocity and acceleration are then described by Equation 2-6.
ux (t) = ζa ω · cos(−ωt)
u̇x (t) = −ζa ω 2 · sin(−ωt) (2-6)
To approximate the maximum force generated by the wave, a couple assumptions are being
made. Both, the velocity and the acceleration, contain a sine and a cosine wave. As only the
maximum force is of interest, this could be taken as max(sin(−ωt)) = max(cos(−ωt)) = 1.
For the three force components of the Morison equation yields, only the Froude-Krylof force
is directly depending on the fluid acceleration. The other parts, the hydrodynamic mass and
drag force, decrease as the floating structure moves with a comparable acceleration in the
same direction as the fluid. So the minimal maximum force is determined using only the
Froude-Krylof part of the Morison equation. Using the properties described in Section 2-1
for the buoy, the properties of water for the fluid, and for the wave properties of a regular
wave with amplitude ζa = 0.5m and period T = 4s. The result is shown in Equation 2-7.
FF roudeKrylof,X (t) = |ρ · V · u̇x (t)|

2π
= 1000 · π · 122 · 3 · 0.5 · = 1.065 · 103 kN (2-7)
4
This force is large enough to drag the broken mooring line to a new equilibrium position.
Nevertheless, this force is not present along the whole surface and is not constant in time due
to the sine and cosine terms. The result, that a simple wave is able to make a bottom segment
failure visible, could however be used as an estimate. In Figure 2-14 an example of a bottom
segment failure simulation of the CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex is shown. At tbreak = 1000s
the anchor is released to simulate a bottom segment failure. Because a slow change from an
intact buoy to a steady state broken buoy is expected during a bottom segment failure, a
total simulation time of ttotal = 4000s is chosen.
The buoy is settling in a new equilibrium position only for the X-position. The location of
the anchor of the broken mooring line can be examined as an indication of what happens.
In Figure 2-15 the anchor location the tension and the position of the touchdown point are
plotted from top to down. The touchdown point is as the name states the location where
the mooring line touches the seabed for the first time. At the end of the simulation, the
anchor location is at approximately xanchor ≈ −395m and still increasing. This confirms the
prediction that a wave load is large enough to drag the anchor to a new position. In the second
plot, the tension at the touchdown point is shown. This tension is due to the catenary form

Figure 2-14: CALM buoy with a bottom segment failure at tbreak = 1000s subjected to a
JONSWAP wave spectrum with significant wave height Hs = 3m and peak period Tp = 8s.
of the mooring line horizontal and is directly competing with the friction force. In OrcaFlex
the friction coefficient is both for the static friction as for the dynamic friction. It can be
observed that the friction force is exceeded in the middle plot. As a result, the mooring line
begins to slide after the failure. The anchor is dragged to a new position and the touchdown
point also shifts more towards the buoy, see the bottom plot. This shift of touchdown point
occurs in a faster manner then the anchor displaces. As a result a larger part of the mooring
line lies on the seabed and a smaller part is lifted. This combination means that the static
friction to overcome becomes larger and the tension in the mooring line becomes lower. The
middle plot shows for almost the entire time the mooring line is broken, the tension is lower
than Fthreshold ≈ 230kN . Still the anchor is being dragged over the seabed. A conclusion is
that OrcaFlex has difficulty calculating the friction force in a running oscillating simulation.
It could be possible that due to the oscillations, parts of the mooring line are not in contact
with the seabed. As the mooring line is discretized, a significant part would not used in
the static friction calculation. Investigating a simulation where a winch is used to pull the
CALM buoy away in a gentle manner, the tension at the touchdown point corresponds to
the calculated value the moment the anchor starts moving. This holds also when the friction
coefficient is chosen twice as large. This irregularity of the OrcaFlex simulation software
is difficult to overcome, but is in essence not as much a problem. The transient breaking
response after a bottom segment failure heavily depends on the mooring design, the external
loads, and the location where the fault occurs in the bottom segment. So the duration of
the breaking stage is unpredictable. If there is for example a constant force working on the
system in the opposite direction of the bottom segment failure, the failure goes unnoticed for
the time this load is present. Therefore, the focus must lie on detecting the change between
an intact system and the broken system.

2-4 Conclusion Mooring Line Failure Analysis 23
Figure 2-15: CALM buoy with a bottom segment failure at tbreak = 1000s subjected to a
JONSWAP wave spectrum with significant wave height Hs = 3m and peak period Tp = 8s.
2-4 Conclusion Mooring Line Failure Analysis
In this chapter it is shown that both failures, top and bottom segment, have similar charac-
teristics for the steady state broken buoy. They characterize themselves by a constant offset
in equilibrium position and a changed mooring configuration which leads to a changed moor-
ing stiffness. The constant offset is for both failures significantly large in the X-direction.
For the two remaining directions, Z and RY , this offset is only present for the top segment
failure as in the bottom segment failure still a mooring line is hanging at the buoy. The
offset in equilibrium position, presented in Table 2-5, can be used for fault detection and
the difference between the offsets in the three DoF can be used to differentiate between the
two kind of failures. However other phenomena, external loads such as currents, tankers,
and waves, should be investigated to see if it is possible to detect a mooring line failure.
The second characteristic of the steady state broken buoy is the changed mooring configu-
ration. The spectral residual and residual based on parameter estimation, which focus on
this changed mooring configuration, showed difficulties in detecting a mooring line failure.
In Subsection 2-2-2 it is shown that the eigenmodes are excited, however the energy for the
particular eigenfrequency is in the first place not significantly large enough for fault detection
and secondly it is not clear where the energy should be measured for fault detection. The
eigenfrequency particularly depends on the mass of the structure. This mass is not constant
due to the hydrodynamic added mass component. The added mass component cannot be
determined, as no measurements of the wave load are available.
The steady state broken buoy, where no transient behavior is present anymore, is a strong
notion for fault detection. This steady state is irreversible, which means that there is no
time limit in detecting a failure. Additionally the breaking stage of a failure is investigated in

Top Segment Failure Bottom Segment Failure
X [m] 3.26 3.26

Z [m] 0.16 0.1
RY [◦ ] 2.51 0.5
Table 2-5: Steady state values for a broken buoy with a top and a bottom segment failure.
this chapter. The breaking stage is only consisting of transient behavior, and therefore a less
robust method for fault detection. Though, it can contribute to a stronger notion for detecting
a mooring line failure. For the top segment the transient behavior is shown to be of a sudden
nature, where the bottom segment depends on the external loads to become detectable. The
breaking stage of the bottom segment failure strongly depends on the mooring configuration,
the location of the failure, and the external loads working on the CALM buoy. As this is
not predictable, especially the last influence, the research question needs to be adjusted for
a bottom segment failure. For this case it is more feasible to find out from what point in the
breaking stage the failure becomes detectable. Additionally it is showed that the accelerations
of the breaking stage are not feasible for fault detection. The accelerations due to a mooring
line failure are too small compared to the accelerations due to a wave load. As the top segment
failure is more of a sudden nature than a bottom segment failure, it is automatically proven
that a bottom segment failure is also not detectable using the acceleration signals. At last, a
change in spectral density could be used to detect a mooring line failure. However, if a change
in spectral density is measured in the response it is difficult to differentiate between a change
in the system and a change in the incoming loads. Since no measurements are available for
the wave loads, this spectral density shift cannot be used for fault detection. From the three
model-based approaches for fault detection presented in Appendix A, the approach focusing
on the equilibrium position shows potential.

Chapter 3
Load Analysis
To design a generic fault detection algorithm for mooring line failures, a model-based approach
using the equilibrium position shows the most potential. Both the top and bottom segment
failures show the same shift in position for the X-direction after the failure. For the top
segment failure, offsets for the Z- and RY -direction are relatively larger. In order to use the
position of the CALM buoy for fault detection, all sources causing constant offsets must be
investigated. According to Subsection A-1-1, the phenomena causing a constant offset to the
CALM buoy are the following:
• Current flows
• Tankers mooring at the buoy
• Non-linear effects of a mooring configuration in waves
As a result of these phenomena, the CALM buoy will move to a new position. In this
shifted position, the forces of the mooring lines will be different due to a changed orientation.
The external forces will find a balance with these changed mooring forces. As a result, the
displacements of the CALM buoy, due to these phenomena, strongly depend on the mooring
design. The aim of this chapter is to investigate the amount of influence these phenomena
have on the displacements of the CALM buoy. The resulting behavior is investigated using
theoretical concepts, as a generic method is required for the many variations in mooring
design. The basis of the theory is described in Subsection A-1-1 and Subsection A-1-2. The
results are verified with simulations in OrcaFlex. Additionally, the impact of the forces is
presented in a form which can directly be used for the modeling of the buoy.
To determine the static mooring line forces, due to a shift in orientation, a general method is
presented in Section 3-1. In Section 3-2 these forces are used to define the influence current
flows have on the system. Tankers mooring at the buoy, apply a constant pulling at the buoy
as well. This is described in Section 3-3. Additionally, Section 3-4 presents non-linear effects
causing constant offsets in position.

26 Load Analysis
3-1 Mooring Line Forces
The mooring configuration keeps the CALM buoy at its desired location. The mooring lines
individually can be approximated as springs. The resulting displacements due to external
loads can be found by calculating the static force equilibrium. Together with the external
forces, only the hydrostatic forces and mooring forces are present in this equilibrium. The
external forces are presented in the coming sections, the mooring forces are analyzed in this
section. The hydrostatic stiffness will be covered in Subsection 4-2-1.
A spread mooring mooring configuration is analyzed by summing up the forces of the individ-
ual mooring lines. To determine the tension in an individual mooring line, the mooring theory
introduced in Subsection A-1-2 is used. Combining the position of the anchors, the length of
the mooring lines, and the measured position of the buoy it is possible to find the resulting
forces working on the buoy. In Matlab these forces are determined for a varying orientation.
This is achieved by setting an offset in each DoF separately. The result of the Matlab scripts,
see Subsection B-2-1, is presented in Figure 3-1. The first column of plots contain the force
results in the three DoF for a displacement in X-direction, −10m < X < 10m. The middle
column the plots for displacement in Z-direction, 10m < Z < 10m, and the right column the
rotations in RY -direction, −20◦ < RY < 20◦ . It can be observed that the mooring lines are
non-linear in the majority of the directions.
Figure 3-1: Total forces in the mooring lines for the X-, Z-, and RY -direction. The forces are
calculated by setting an offset in the in each DoF separately.
To obtain an initial approach for the forces working on the buoy, the forces in all directions
are linearized. Only the force in Z-direction caused by a displacement in X-direction is to

3-2 Current Flows 27
approximated by quadratic function. The term is obtained by a non-linear least squares fitting
with the equation form, Fx,z = a · X 2 . The forces presented in Figure 3-1 are the tensions in
the mooring lines with corresponding directions. For the reaction force working on the buoy,
the opposite direction yields. The resulting approximation of the reaction forces is presented
in Equation 3-1. This force representation can be included later on in the equations of motion
of the CALM buoy system.
 
121.6 · X(t) + 2.1 · RY (t)
~
Fmooring (t) =  2.8 · X(t)2 + 39.3 · Z(t) 
 
(3-1)
160.7 · X(t) + 35.8 · RY (t)
3-2 Current Flows
A current flow is caused by multiple phenomena such as tidal influences, see Subsection A-
1-1. The influence of these phenomena can be approximated by a constant offset of the
buoy. Tidal currents have an oscillating behavior, but with a time period of approximately
six hours. Therefore, the influence of a current load on the CALM buoy, on a small time
scale, can be assumed constant. Since the detection of a mooring line failure is focusing on
this constant offset, this section is covering the amount of influence current flows have on the
buoy. Additionally, a representation is constructed which can be incorporated in the modeling
phase of the buoy. For this thesis it is assumed that the current flow is purely in X-direction.
3-2-1 Displacements by Current Flows
The offset of a CALM buoy can be approximated by analyzing the static force equilibrium.
This equilibrium is between the force generated by a current flow and the restraining forces,
the hydrostatic stiffness and the mooring forces. The force generated by a current flow is
described in Subsection A-1-1, and is presented in Equation 3-3. With F~current (t) ∈ R3 , [t ·
m · s−2 ] is the forces per DoF generated by a current flow, ρwater , [t · m−3 ] the density of
~ ∈ R3 , [m2 ] a vector containing the structures surface
water, Cdrag , [−] the drag coefficient, A
areas per DoF, and Vcurrent,X (t), [m · s−1 ] the average current velocity in X-direction. The
current velocity measurements are assumed known, e.g. measured by a flow velocity sensor.
Together with the system parameters, it is now possible to determine the force generated
by the current flow. However, the difficulty arises that for the total area of impact also
the mooring lines must be taken into account. The area of the mooring lines is calculated
via the angle of impact of the current flow. This angle is defined by the angle between the
current flow and the mooring line. Since the mooring lines behave dynamically in different
directions, the angle of impact per line segment does as well. For any variation in mooring
design the responses will be different. To approximate the forces, the displacements of the
CALM buoy are obtained in test experiments with varying current velocities. The results
of these experiments, on any variation of a CALM buoy, can be combined with the general
characteristics presented in this section. It is then assumed possible to predict the behavior
of the buoy in the complete current velocity range. The experiments can be conducted at a
moment where solely a current flow is working on the buoy. It is left for further research to
prove the applicability.

28 Load Analysis
Figure 3-2: Simulation results CALM buoy in OrcaFlex subjected to a current load with a current
velocity Vcurrent,X = 0.6m · s−1 . Top plot is containing the displacement in X-direction, the
middle plot the displacement in Z-direction, and the bottom plot the rotation in RY -direction.
1 ~·V2 ~
ρwater Cdrag A current,X = Fcurrent (3-2)
2
~ current · Vcurrent
C 2
= F~current = F~mooring|~xcurrent + Chydro ~xcurrent (3-3)
For this thesis, short time simulations in OrcaFlex of tsim = 100s will be used to analyze
the behavior. An example of the movements in the three DoF is shown in Figure 3-2. The
CALM buoy model is subjected to a horizontal current load with average current velocity
Vcurrent,X = 0.6m · s−1 . From top to bottom, the constant displacements for the X-, Z-, and
RY -direction are presented. As expected, the position offset in the X-direction is positive.
The offset in the other directions is in contrast with the offset resulting from a top segment
failure negative, see Figure 2-6. The negative rotational offset in the RY -direction is caused
by the angle of approach of the current flow on the mooring lines. The mooring line on
the negative X-axis is pressed down and the mooring line on the positive X-axis is pressed
up. Hereby the angles of departure of the mooring lines change and a resulting moment in
the negative RY -direction is the result. Additionally, the mooring line forces in negative
X-direction are larger than the ones in positive X-direction. This can be explained by a
larger part of the mooring lines lifted in this direction. This causes a rotating moment in
negative RY -direction as well. This greater force in the mooring lines also causes an offset in
Z-direction.
This simulation is now repeated for a varying horizontal current flow velocity of −1m · s−1 ≤
Vcurrent,X ≤ 1m · s−1 . The complete range of current flows is now covered. The result is
shown in Figure 3-2 for the three DoF in the XZ-plane. For the maximum current velocity,

3-2 Current Flows 29
Figure 3-3: Simulation results CALM buoy in OrcaFlex subjected to a current load with a current
velocity between −1m · s−1 ≤ Vcurrent,X ≤ 1m · s−1 . Top plot is containing the displacement in
X-direction, the middle plot the displacement in Z-direction, and the bottom plot the rotation
in RY -direction.
Vcurrent,X = 1m · s−1 yields an offset of |~xcurrent | ≈ [4.1m, 0.03m, 2.8◦ ]T . The amplitude of
these offsets are of the same order as for a mooring line failure. However, the directions of the
resulting displacements differ for the Z- and RY -direction. This can be used to distinguish
the constant offset due to a current force from a mooring line failure.
3-2-2 Modeling Current Flows
A current flow applied to a CALM buoy, results in a constant position offset. This effect is
presented in Subsection 3-2-1. The current flow needs to be incorporated in the modeling of
the buoy, as the fault detection algorithm needs to distinguish this constant offset from the
constant offset caused by a mooring line failure. In order to do this, the force generated by
the current flow is incorporated in the model via current flow velocity measurements. This
concept is analyzed in this section.
The force generated by a current flow depends on the current flow velocity, see Equation 3-
3. To approximate this force, a static force equilibrium is considered. For a static force
equilibrium, only the mooring and hydrostatic forces are present. The force generated by
a current flow can be calculated by means of these static forces, which is presented on the
right side of Equation 3-3. The hydrostatic stiffness can be found in Subsection 4-2-1 and the
mooring line forces are covered in Section 3-1. Filling in the orientation of the buoy per current
flow velocity, represented by ~xcurrent , the forces generated by currents are obtained. The result
for the varying current flow velocity is presented in Figure 3-4. Since the velocity is a vector

30 Load Analysis
containing direction information, the forces in X- and RY -direction can be approximated

by a signed square. For the Z-direction the force amplitude is relatively small compared to
hydrostatic forces. Moving the buoy up or down Z = 3 · 10−3 m results in a similar amplitude.
As a result the influence of the force generated by a current flow in Z-direction is neglected.
The relationship between the current flow velocity and the force can be estimated by means
of a line fit. The system parameters are then combined in constant per DoF, C ~ current =
1 ~
2 ρwater Cdrag A, presented on the left side of Equation 3-3. Using a nonlinear least squares
fitting method the constants C ~ current is determined for the three DoF in the XZ-plane. This
is done using the equation format, Fcurrent,i = Ccurrent,i · Vcurrent,X · |Vcurrent,X | for the X-
and RY -direction.
Figure 3-4: The force in three DoF generated by current flows with varying velocities. The forces
are calculated using a force equilibrium F~current = F~mooring|~xcurrent + Chydro ~xcurrent . Using a
line fitting the constant for the force depending on current velocity is found. Ccurrent,X = 552.7
and Ccurrent,RY = −256.7. The influence in Z-direction is neglected.
The current force is now defined as Equation 3-4, and can be used by the model.
 
552.7
F~current =  0  Vcurrent,X · |Vcurrent,X | (3-4)
 
−256.7
3-3 Tankers Mooring at a CALM Buoy
A CALM buoy is used primarily for offloading activities. A tanker moors at the buoy and via
the fluid transfer system the product is pumped to a shore station. This section investigates

3-3 Tankers Mooring at a CALM Buoy 31
the influence of a tanker mooring at the buoy. Additionally it finds a representation to

incorporate the tanker hawser forces in the modeling of the CALM buoy.
To investigate influence of a tanker mooring at the buoy, a tanker is introduced in the Or-
caFlex environment. The aim for this thesis is to detect a mooring line failure in the CALM
buoy system. Since the force which is applied by the tanker is operating via a mooring hawser,
the specifications of the tanker are left out of the discussion. The amount of influence environ-
mental loads have on the tanker are only discussed in a relative manner regarding the amount
of influence the environmental loads have on the CALM buoy. The tanker is connected to
the buoy via a single mooring hawser with a stiffness of Chawser = 100t · s−2 . For simplicity,
the tanker hawser is connected in a way that only forces in X-direction are applied to the
rotational center of the buoy. This simplification means that no additional transformation
matrices need to be introduced. The tanker is placed in the steady state orientation for every
simulation. This means that if the environmental loads are chosen in the positive X-direction,
the tanker is placed on the positive X-axis. This theoretical case where the loads come ex-
actly from in front of the tanker, only the motions in this direction are dominant. Non-linear
effects such as fishtailing, [10], are not present when the circumstances are chosen in this way.
Figure 3-5: Response of a coupled system, a tanker moored in the positive X-direction at the
CALM buoy, to a wind load with an average wind speed of Vwind,X = 10m · s−1 and direction
along the positive X-axis.
As described in Subsection A-1-1 the impact of environmental conditions is of a greater

influence for a tanker compared to a CALM buoy. Therefore the tanker will apply a constant
pulling at the buoy. Furthermore the tanker is affected by wave drift forces, which are slow
varying forces. The low eigenfrequency of the coupled system is excited by these wave drift
forces. This results in large excitations for this frequency. In Figure 3-5 an example of a
response of a coupled system is presented for the three DoF. The coupled system is subjected

32 Load Analysis
to a wind load with an average wind speed Vwind,X = 10m · s−1 and a JONSWAP spectrum
with a significant wave height Hs = 1m and a peak period of Tp = 4.6s. Here the wind and
wave load are chosen to operate in the positive X-direction, so the tanker is also on this side.
The black dotted line is represents the moving average over a time window of twindow = 500s.
For all three DoF, a constant offset can be observed. Since the wind load has no effect on the
position of the buoy, the position offset in X-direction can be explained by the tanker pulling
in this direction. Since the tanker hawser is horizontally connected to the rotational center
of the buoy, the offset in other directions follow as a result of the changing orientation of the
mooring lines. Additionally the low frequent behavior for the three DoF is present. The time
period of the oscillation is approximately Tperiod = 200s − 300s for varying wind speeds.
The changed position of the CALM buoy, due to tankers mooring at the CALM buoy is an
analogous result as for the current flows. The complete orientation is however different than
for a mooring line failure. Nevertheless, the constant offset to the CALM buoy by moored
tanker should be substantiated. By including the tanker hawser tension in the modeling, the
algorithm will be able to distinguish the offset from a constant offset due to a mooring line
failure. The tanker tension is assumed to be measured. This can be realized via a force vector
sensor on the buoy. If a tanker hawser is connected to this sensor, it is possible to determine
the force on the buoy combined with the direction in six DoF. For this thesis, the tanker
hawser tension is defined for the three DoF of the XZ-plane in Equation 3-5.
 
Ftanker
F~tanker = 0  (3-5)
 
0
3-4 Non-Linear Effects of a Mooring Configuration in Waves
On a buoy a combination of loads is possible. Forces generated by current flows, by tankers

mooring at the buoy, and by waves. The oscillating forces generated by waves are already
discussed in Chapter 2. Nevertheless there exist also constant non-linear effects due to a
mooring configuration subjected to waves. This section focuses on these non-linear effects.
In Figure 3-6 the first 100 seconds of the test simulation presented in Figure 2-9 is shown. For
this part of the simulation the CALM buoy system was still intact. Still, a constant offset is
observed for the intact system. This offset is present in all three DoF. This can partially be
explained by solving the drift force of the Morison equation in Equation 2-2. Using the power
reduction formula in Equation 2-4 to rewrite the quadratic cosine signal, a constant force term
appears. Another cause is the non-linear behavior of the mooring configuration in waves. As
depicted in Figure 2-13 a regular wave has a velocity profile along the wave propagation
direction in the crest of the wave. Whereas, in the wave through an opposite velocity profile
is found. Since the CALM buoy is restrained by mooring lines, this combination is causing
a constant offset. In the wave crest the mooring forces are larger than in the through of the
wave, as a larger part of the mooring lines is lifted. An example of this phenomena is shown
in Figure 3-7. So when the velocity profile is in the same direction as the wave propagation,
more volume of the buoy is under water compared to when the fluid velocity is working in
the opposite direction. The volume of the structure is used for calculating the force on the

3-4 Non-Linear Effects of a Mooring Configuration in Waves 33
Figure 3-6: The response of the CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex in three DoF. The buoy is
subjected to a JONSWAP wave spectrum with a significant wave height of Hs = 3m and a peak
period T p = 8s. The constant offset is due to the non-linear effect of a mooring configuration in
waves.
CALM buoy, as can be found in the Morison equation depicted in Equation 2-2. Due to this
phenomena there will be a resultant force in the direction of the wave propagation.
To see what the influences are for the complete wave load spectra, the simulation is repeated
for JONSWAP wave spectra with ascending significant wave heights 0m ≤ Hs ≤ 10m. Per
significant wave height, three different peak periods are considered to coverqall possible sea-
√ 13+30
states described in Subsection A-1-1. Tp,short = 13 · Hs , Tp,medium = 2 · Hs , and
√
Tp,long = 30 · Hs . In Figure 3-8 the constant offsets are plotted for the ascending wave
heights. The exact values obtained from the OrcaFlex simulations are described in Section C-
2.
Mooring and Morison effects are the two phenomena which explain the constant offset of the
CALM buoy subjected to wave loads. As these phenomena both come forth from non-linear
systems, the result is expected to be non-linear as well. This is the case for the Z-direction
and the RY -direction. For the X-direction, the constant offset can be approximated by a
linear relation to the significant wave height. The non-linear effect is larger for shorter and
higher waves. For higher waves this is evident, as higher crests and deeper troughs cause
larger differences in submerged volume. In shorter waves the buoyancy force is relatively
less capable to restore to the original submerged height of the CALM buoy due to the water
damping. Hence, the submerged volume in the wave crest will be larger and as a result, the
resultant force acting on the buoy is larger.
The fault detection algorithm is using the shift to a new equilibrium position for detecting
a mooring line failure. In X-direction, the constant offset is for high and short waves of the
same order of both the top and bottom segment. The offsets for a steady state broken top

34 Load Analysis
Figure 3-7: Side view of a CALM buoy in a regular wave. In the crest the submerged height is
larger due to the higher mooring line tensions.
Figure 3-8: Non-linear offset due to waves working on the CALM buoy. For the three DoF in
the XZ-plane the constant offset is measured for ascending wave height. Short, medium, and
long waves are considered per wave height.

3-5 Conclusion Load Analysis 35
and bottom segment failure are given in Table 2-5. In the Z- and RY -direction, the offset is
in opposite direction compared to the X-direction. In contrast to a mooring line failure, the
offsets are in the same direction. Nevertheless, the amplitudes of these offsets are of the same
order as the offsets due to a bottom segment failure. Additionally, for waves with an opposite
direction, the rotation in RY -direction will be positive.
For the algorithm to substantiate this non-linear offset, it can be incorporated in the modeling
of the buoy. Since no measurements for the wave load are present, a potential alternative is
presented for this thesis. The alternative is to include the offset in the model uncertainties.
For waves with a small significant wave height this is investigated in Chapter 4. For waves
with a higher significant wave height additional techniques should be included. These are
discussed in Chapter 7. For this thesis, knowledge about the existence of the phenomena is
assumed sufficient.
3-5 Conclusion Load Analysis
Both the top and the bottom segment failure result in a shift in equilibrium position for
the X-direction. This offset shows potential to be used for fault detection. Additionally,
a top segment failure also distinguishes itself with a significant change in position for the
RY -direction due to the fact that the complete mooring line breaks. This can potentially be
used for distinguishing between the faults of the top and bottom segment. The aim of this
chapter was to investigate other sources causing a constant offset to the position of the buoy.
Three external phenomena causing constant offsets are examined.
• Current flows
• Tankers mooring at the buoy
• Non-linear effects of a mooring configuration in waves
The influence of all three sources has significant influence on the equilibrium position of the
buoy. The amplitudes of the offsets are for particular environmental conditions of the same
order as for either a top or a bottom segment failure. The complete orientation is however
different due to the fact all mooring lines are still intact. For a fault detection algorithm to
accurately detect a mooring line failure it needs to distinguish between these constant offsets.
This can be realized by incorporating the loads in the modeling of the buoy. For a current
flow, the relationship between the current flow velocity and force generated by a current flow
is defined. The current flow velocity measurements are assumed available, as for the tanker
hawser tension measurements. The non-linear effects are due to the mooring configuration in
waves. Since no measurements are available of the wave load, these effects are not included
in the model. For waves with a small wave height, it will be investigated if it can be included
in the model uncertainty. For higher waves an alternative will be discussed in Chapter 7.

36 Load Analysis

Chapter 4
Fault Detection Algorithm Design
Fault detection using a model-based approach is referred to as residual generation. A general

overview of a model-based fault detection algorithm is presented in Figure 4-1. In the top
line of the block diagram the CALM buoy is depicted. Waves, current flows, and wind work
on the buoy. Additionally, tankers can moor at the buoy. As a result the buoy starts to move,
and the position and the velocity of the buoy are measured as outputs of the system. The
residual generator, in the bottom line, uses a model of the system. Together with the input
and measured output signals it generates a residual signal. A residual signal can represent
anything as long as it satisfies the following two properties.
• Invariance Relation: When no fault occurs, the average of the residual signal is zero.
• Fault Detectability: When a mooring line failure occurs, the average should deviate
from zero.
A residual signal is then evaluated to be used for fault detection.
MOORING LINE
FAILURE
+
INPUT + CALM BUOY
OUTPUT
(WAVES, CURRENT, (POSITION,
WIND, TANKER) VELOCITIES)
RESIDUAL RESIDUAL FAULT

GENERATOR EVALUATION DECISION
Figure 4-1: Block diagram of a model based approach for fault detection. The residual generator
is producing a so called residual signal from which the fault can be detected.

38 Fault Detection Algorithm Design
The objective of this chapter is to design the model-based fault detection algorithm. For this
algorithm the residual generator is designed to be only depending on the system parameters
and the tuning parameters. Since the residual force due to a mooring line failure and the
forces generated by waves are unknown, a Kalman filter application is introduced called the
UIO. To uncouple the two forces, a shaping filter is applied. Since there is an additional
non-linear effect of a mooring configuration in waves, simulations in OrcaFlex are considered
to determine the influence in the residual generation. These effects are also used to determine
the residual evaluation.
For the CALM buoy fault detection algorithm a residual generator is designed in Section 4-1.
In Section 4-2, the model which is used by the residual generator is described. Since there are
two unknown forces, the input estimation is introduced in Section 4-3. The residual generator
is then defined. The residual evaluation, described in Section 4-4, is defining the cases for
which a mooring line failure is detected from the residual signal.
4-1 Residual Generator
Since the shift in equilibrium position is used for fault detection, the residual should incor-
porate this characteristic. For the CALM buoy system it is chosen to model the shift in
equilibrium position as an additional unknown residual force. When the buoy is operating in
its original equilibrium position, this force is zero. After a mooring line failure occurs, the
CALM buoy starts to move to a new equilibrium position. The residual force will rise to
substantiate for this shift in position. This residual force can directly be used for fault de-
tection as it satisfies the properties for a residual signal. A complete overview of the residual
generator for the CALM buoy is presented in Figure 4-2.
RESIDUAL GENERATOR
INPUT: CURRENT +
TANKER
OUTPUT: POSITION + AUGMENTED

VELOCITIES
CALM ESTIMATED
BUOY RESIDUAL
UNKNOWN WHITE SHAPING MODEL FORCE
WAVE: NOISE FILTER
UNKNOWN WHITE
RESIDUAL: NOISE
Figure 4-2: Block diagram of the residual generator for the CALM buoy case. The known inputs
and outputs together with the two estimated inputs are entering the augmented model of the
CALM buoy and produce the estimated residual force as residual signal.
In the dashed square box, the residual generator is depicted. The residual generator is using
input measurements, output measurements, and a model of the CALM buoy to estimate the
unknown residual force. For the CALM buoy, these are the current flow velocity, the tanker
hawser tension, the position of the buoy, and the velocity of the buoy. The estimation is
done via a Kalman filter [11]. A Kalman filter is an estimation technique where the minimum

4-2 CALM Buoy Model 39
variance optimum, the best estimate of the state of the system, is found. It uses a model of the
CALM buoy to predict the next position and velocities, and updates the model prediction
using measurements of these positions and velocities. Since the model prediction and the
measured data are both corrupted by noise, the Kalman filter is producing a best estimate,
more accurate than either the measurement or the model estimate separately. Kalman theory
assumes these noise signals to be stochastic Zero Mean White Noise (ZMWN) signals. This
means, the signals have a zero mean with a certain covariance. This covariance can be seen
as tuning parameter. If the measurement covariance is chosen smaller relative to the model
covariance, the Kalman filter considers the measurements more accurate than the model.
In this way, it is stated that the uncertainty around the measurement is less than for the
uncertainty around the model prediction. The covariance matrices define how good either the
model estimate or the measurements are rated. This is a relative tuning parameter, choosing
them both large has no effect.
For two of the external loads working on the buoy: the wave force and the residual force,
no measurements are available. The problem arises, when the kalman filter is predicting
the resulting output of the CALM buoy. As the output is calculated using both the input
loads and the model buoy. Nevertheless, [12] presents an application of the Kalman filter
where the Kalman filter is used to estimate unknown inputs. This application is called, the
UIO. The Kalman filter determines the minimum variance estimate of the input to match
the corresponding estimated output with the measured output. This is done by including the
input, the wave and the residual forces, in the model state. Imagine, at time instant t1 a car
is driving at location P1 with a velocity V1 and a throttle U1 . The position and the velocity
together are the state of the car and the throttle is the input signal. If the next location P2
at time instant t2 is measured, it can be calculated what the velocity V2 is if the model of
the car and the amount of throttle are both known. A regular Kalman filter deals with these
kind of cases. In order to explain the principle of the UIO, the measurement of the throttle
is not available. The UIO includes the throttle as part of the state of the car. So with the
same car example, the kalman filter pursues the best estimate for the state of the car. The
state is now however augmented with the input throttle U . Given only the measured output
P2 , the previous state, and the model of the car, the UIO is able to find best estimate for the
next state.
For the CALM buoy there are however two unknown inputs, the wave force and the residual
force. A similar problem is described in [13]. Here two band-pass filters are introduced to
uncouple the two estimates in the frequency domain. Additionally, in [14] wave forces are
shaped to form a wave spectrum from a white noise signal. The dynamics of the waves are
included in a so called shaping filter. Since the residual force is on the other hand constant
and has therefore no exciting frequency, the Kalman filter is able to decouple the unknown
forces. The residual force is estimated as a random walk process. In the block diagram in
Figure 4-2 the two forces are displayed within the residual generator. The white noise signals,
with a zero mean and a covariance, can directly be used by the Kalman filter.
4-2 CALM Buoy Model
By including the two force estimates in the state of the buoy, an augmented model is required
for residual generation. This augmented model is using a system specific model as a basis.

RY
Z
BUOY
X
Figure 4-3: Schematic overview of the CALM buoy in the XZ-plane. Two failures are considered,
a top segment failure close to the buoy and a bottom segment failure close to the anchor.
Since there exist many variations in mooring design, this section will be case specific. For
this thesis it is chosen to use a linear time domain representation, the Cummins equation
[15]. This representation is used as a basis to describe a floating structure. Depended on the
structure, it can be augmented with additional terms, e.g. the mooring forces. The system
parameters are determined using AQWA, see Subsection 4-2-1.
In Figure 4-3 a schematic overview is given of the buoy and the orientation of the DoF. The
location of the two faults, the top and bottom segment failures, are presented. The modeling
is done for these three DoF. In Equation 4-1 the Cummins equation is shown, supplemented
with the forces applied by the mooring lines. The linear representation is used as a start.
When it proves not to be sufficient, additional terms can be added.
Z ∞
¨(t) +
(M + A) · ~x B(τ ) · ~x˙ (t − τ ) · dτ + Chydro · ~x(t) + F~M L = F~ (t) (4-1)
0
With M ∈ R3 , [t] the mass of the buoy, A ∈ R3 , [t] the hydrodynamic added mass coefficient,
B(t), B(τ ) ∈ R3 , [kN · s · m−1 ] retardation functions, Chydro ∈ R3 , [kN · m−1 ] the hydrostatic
stiffness, F~M L ∈ R3 , [kN ] the mooring forces, and F~ (t) ∈ R3 , [kN ] the exciting forces.
The vector ~x(t) ∈ R3 represents the displacements of the buoy in the XZ-plane, ~x(t) =
[X(t), Z(t), RY (t)]T . The exciting forces are built up by wave loads, current loads, tanker
loads. Additionally, the shift in equilibrium position, due to the mooring line failures, is
modeled as a constant force. Combined the force vector F~ (t) is represented by these four
sources presented in Equation 4-2.
F~ (t) = F~waves (t) + F~current (t) + F~tanker (t) + F~residual (t) (4-2)
4-2-1 AQWA - System Parameters
A CALM buoy is a floating structure. The response of the structure in water is analyzed
using a simulation software package. For this thesis the AQWA modeling environment by
Ansys is used, as this software is provided by Mocean Offshore BV. This analysis suite is able

4-2 CALM Buoy Model 41
to investigate analogous test experiments described by Figure A-3. When introducing the
CALM buoy as a freely floating structure, without mooring lines, AQWA is able to obtain
the coefficients for mass, hydrodynamic added mass, hydrodynamic damping, and hydrostatic
stiffness. The static values for the mass M and the hydrostatic stiffnes Chydro are shown in
Equation 4-3.
   
274.6 0 0 0 0 0
M = 0 274.6 0 , Chydro = 0 1447.5 0  (4-3)
   
0 0 119.8 0 0 306.4
The hydrodynamic coefficients are determined by frequency domain analysis [16]. By exciting
the floating structure with an harmonic oscillation with varying frequencies, the coefficients
can be determined. The result for frequencies between 0.03Hz < f < 0.38Hz is plotted in
Figure D-1 for the added mass coefficient and in Figure D-2 for the damping coefficient. These
are the outputs of the AQWA software. As a start the coefficients will be assumed constant as
a basis for the modeling. This is however not the case, as a wave spectrum contains a broader
range of frequencies. If the testing proves that a more accurate approach is required, this
section can be revisited again. For now a it is assumed the buoy is subjected to a JONSWAP
spectrum with a significant wave height Hs = 1m and a peak period of Tp = 4.6s. By taking
the peak period as the principal frequency of excitation, f = 1/4.6s ≈ 0.2174Hz, the values
for the added mass and the damping can be determined. They are presented in Equation 4-4.
   
116 0 246 97.1 0 360
A =  0 453 0 , B= 0 256 0  (4-4)
   
223 0 3590 0.0354 0 23.4
4-2-2 State-Space Representation for Kalman Filtering
For using the Kalman filter theory a state-space representation of the model is required. By
choosing ~q1 (t) = ~x(t) = [X(t), Z(t), RY (t)]T , ~q2 (t) = ~x˙ (t) = [Ẋ(t), Ż(t), RY
˙ (t)]T , and
~y (t) = ~q(t), the set of equations of motion in Equation 4-1 can be rewritten in the state-space
representation presented in Equation 4-5. Here f (~q(t), F~ (t)) is the state equation and the
g(~q(t), F~ (t)) the measurement equation. ~vq (t) ∼ (0, Q) and w(t) ~ ∼ (0, R) are the process
and measurement noise respectively. As described earlier the Q and R matrix are the noise
covariance matrices.
 
I3 · ~q2 (t)
 
 

(M + A) −1 − B · ~
q (t) − ... 
 2 
~q˙(t) = ~

f ~q(t), F (t) =  +~
vq (t)

 ~
... − Chydro · ~q1 (t) − FM L (t) + ... 

... + C~ current · u1 (t) · |u1 (t)| + ~u2 (t) + ...

 
... + F~waves (t) + F~residual
~y (t) = g ~q(t), F~ (t) = I6 · x(t) + w(t)

~ (4-5)

The state space representation depends on the values for the system parameters defined in
Subsection 4-2-1, the mooring forces in Section 3-1, the approximation for the force generated
by current flows in Subsection 3-2-2, and the tanker hawser force in Section 3-3. The last
two are filled in the state equation as measured inputs to the model, u1 (t) = Vcurrent,X (t) the
current flow velocity in X-direction and ~u2 (t) = F~tanker (t) the tanker hawser tension vector.
4-3 Input Estimation
The residual generator described in Section 4-1 is using a Kalman filter application to estimate
the states of the CALM buoy together with the unknown input forces. This application is
called the UIO and is capable of estimating unknown input signals. For the CALM buoy the
forces generated by waves and the modeled residual force are unknown and decoupled via a
shaping filter. The model of the CALM buoy is extended, as both forces are included in the
state of the CALM buoy. In this section the unknown forces are analyzed and an augmented
model is setup. This augmented model is built using the system specific model defined in
Section 4-2 and the theory of the UIO [12] and shaping filter [14], [17]. This augmented model
design can be used for any variation in mooring design.
4-3-1 Wave Force Estimation
Wave loads have an oscillatory behavior. They excite the system with a force within a specified
frequency band, e.g. the JONSWAP spectrum described in Subsection A-1-1. To decouple
the two unknown input forces, a band-pass filter is implemented in the wave force estimation.
The dynamics of the exciting wave force are included in the estimator, by means of a shaping
filter. The input of the shaping filter is a ZMWN with known characteristics. The estimated
output is the exciting wave force [14]. In Figure 4-2 the third input in the augmented model
of the CALM buoy is describing the wave force estimation. The shaping filter dynamics are
described by a linear band-pass filter, see Equation 4-6. The cutoff frequencies are chosen to
be f1 = 0.0005Hz and f2 = 10Hz to cover the complete wave spectra. In Subsection D-1-2
the derivation is shown. This filter is directly applicable for the Kalman filter, since the input
is a ZMWN signal ~vsf (t) ∼ (0, Qsf ). It is shaping the noise signal to F~wave (t) ∈ R3 with the
filter dynamics.
~q˙sf (t) = Asf · ~qsf (t) + Bsf · ~vsf (t)

F~wave (t) = Csf · ~qsf (t) (4-6)
4-3-2 Residual Force Estimation
Using an analogous UIO, it is possible to estimate the constant residual force as well. In
contrast with the wave forces, the residual force is assumed constant with no exciting fre-
quency. Instead of a band-pass filter, the unknown residual force is therefore modeled as a
random walk process. This process is depicted in Equation 4-7. Here ~vres (t) ∼ (0, Qres ) is
the input and is assumed to be a ZMWN signal with covariance Qres . Since the dynamics of

4-3 Input Estimation 43
this process are zero, the force estimate can only change the amount of uncertainty specified.
The uncertainty Qres determines how much the estimator is able to adapt the force estimate.
Since only the constant residual force must be estimated by this process, the covariance is
chosen relatively low. The random walk estimator is not capable of estimating the wave
forces. Choosing the covariance however too low, the estimator cannot realize a change in
the estimated residual force. Additionally it will take a longer time to detect a fault, as it
takes more time for the estimator to estimate the constant force. The actual tuning is done
in Matlab by trial and error.
~q˙res (t) = 03 · ~qres (t) + ~vres (t)

F~residual (t) = ~qres (t) (4-7)
4-3-3 Augmented Model
The state of the buoy is augmented with the states of the two unknown force models, F~waves (t)
h iT
~
and F~residual (t). The augmented state ζ(t) = ~q(t), ~qsf (t), ~qres (t) is the result. With
the augmented state, the matrices of the state-space model have to be adapted accordingly,
presented in Equation 4-8. The state equations are extended with the dynamics of the shaping
filter and the random walk process. Furthermore, the forces inside the equations of motion
are replaced by the outputs of the unknown force models. The noise signal ~vζ (t) ∼ (0, Qζ ) is
incorporating the signals for the process noise ~vq (t), the shaping filter noise ~vsf (t), and the
random walk noise ~vres (t).
 
I3 · ~q2 (t)
 
 

(M + A) −1 − B · ~q2 (t) − ... 
 
 

 ... − Chydro · ~q1 (t) − F~M L (t) + ... 

˙

... + C~ current · u1 (t) · |u1 (t)| + ~u2 (t) + ...
ζ~ = f ~q(t), ~qsf (t), ~qres (t), F~ (t) =

+~
vζ (t)


... + Csf · ~qsf (t) + ~qres (t)
 
 
 
 
 

 Asf · ~qsf 

 
03
~y (t) = g ~q(t), ~qsf (t), ~qres (t), F~ (t)

= I3 · ~qres (t) + w(t)
~ (4-8)
The implementation of the estimator is done in Matlab. Since the augmented model consists
of non-linear terms, an extended Kalman filter is implemented. An extended Kalman Filter
is an extension of the regular Kalman theory which is able to deal with non-linear terms
[17]. The Matlab script is presented in Subsection D-2-2 and is using a model prediction
and a measurement update as well. The state and measurement equations are presented in
Subsection D-2-3 and Subsection D-2-4 respectively.

4-4 Residual Evaluation
In the previous sections the residual generator is defined. The outputs of the residual generator
are the estimated residual forces. The evaluation of these signals must lead to accurate
detection of a mooring line failure. Since an additional constant offset is present due to non-
linear effects of a mooring configuration in waves, the evaluation of the residual is system
specific. For this thesis simulations in OrcaFlex are considered as an approximation of reality
and the results will be used to tune the fault detection decision. These simulations will
consider only a JONSWAP wave spectrum with a significant wave height of Hs = 1m, because
in this case the non-linear effects presented in Section 3-4 can potentially be included in the
model uncertainty.
First the functioning of the Kalman filter is verified by applying a JONSWAP wave spectrum
with significant wave height Hs = 1m and peak period Tp = 4.6s in the positive Z-direction.
No tanker or current flows are considered yet. In OrcaFlex it is possible to read the positions
and velocities of the buoy. Since these signals are considered the exact orientation of the buoy,
a random white noise signal with a standard deviation of five percent of the signal amplitude,
σ = |q|5% , is added to obtain a realistic measurement signal. The position response for this
case is shown in Figure 4-4. From top to bottom the measured and the estimated signals are
shown for the X-, Z-, and RY -direction. The wave load causes the system to oscillate around
a shifted equilibrium. This offset is visible by observing the moving average represented by
the black dotted line. The moving average is calculated by taking the average over a window
of twindow = 100s.
Figure 4-4: The measured positions are plotted versus the estimated positions. The black dotted
line represents the moving average, calculated using a time window of twindow = 100s.

4-4 Residual Evaluation 45
Figure 4-5: The two unknown force estimations. In the left column the estimated wave force is
plotted and in the right column the estimated constant residual. The black dotted line represents
the moving average, calculated using a time window of twindow = 100s.
In Figure 4-5 the estimation of both the wave force and the constant residual are shown.
In the left column, the plots for the wave force estimation is shown. In the right column,
the corresponding estimated residual force is shown. From top to bottom the forces in the
X-, Z-, and RY -direction are plotted. The decoupling of the two forces in the frequency
domain is achieved by the algorithm. This can be observed by the constant force estimated
to substantiate the offset by the non-linear effects. Since the wave force estimation has a zero
average, this constant force is only present in the estimated residual force. For the forces in
Z-direction, it can be observed that the algorithm needs to substantiate the constant offset
to one of the estimated forces. Since the covariance of the residual force is chosen relatively
small, it needs time to adapt. The result is that for this time period the wave force estimation
is covering for the constant offset measured. After some time, the algorithm is capable of
shifting the residual force estimation to the required amplitude and the average of the wave
force estimation becomes zero again.
To cover the full domain of wave spectra with significant wave height Hs = 1m, the simulation
presented in Figure 4-4 is repeated for two wave spectra with a peak period of Tp = 3.6s and
Tp = 5.5s. The results are presented in Section D-3. Since the estimated residual force
contains a noise component, the absolute value of the moving average will be considered as
the residual signal for fault detection. For the three simulations, the residual signals are
shown in Figure 4-6. As the constant offset in position is higher for shorter waves, a higher
residual force is estimated as well. For this thesis, it is chosen to only consider this wave
domain for the residual evaluation. The likelihood of a failure is higher for higher sea-states,
however eventually the sea will calm down and become a lower or equal sea-state compared
to the wave domain presented in this thesis. A recommendation on how to deal with wave
loads with ascending wave heights is given in Chapter 7.

Figure 4-6: Residual signals for the three DoF in the XZ-plane. The residuals are built by taking
the absolute moving average of the estimated constant residual force.
Tp [s] Fres,X [kN ] Fres,Z [kN ] Fres,RY [kN m]
3.6 33.6 441.4 95.1

4.6 20.5 230.4 72.7
5.5 11.1 147.4 62.7
Table 4-1: Maximum values of the residual based on the estimated constant residual force. The
buoy is subjected to a JONSWAP wave spectrum with peak periods, Tp = [3.6, 4.6, 5.5].

4-4 Residual Evaluation 47
In Table 4-1 the maximum values of the residual forces are determined. When a constant
offset due to this non-linear effect is mistaken for a mooring line failure, the fault detection
system loses credibility. The non-linear offset is the only source causing a constant offset in
position which is not included in the model. Therefore these maximum values are used to
determine the thresholds for fault detection. For the initial threshold values, one and a half
times the maximum values presented in Table 4-1 are chosen. The thresholds are presented
in Equation 4-9. The load cases, presented in Chapter 5, will show if these initial thresholds
will withstand or need adjustment.
 T
50.4kN
~ = 662.1kN  (4-9)
 
142.7kN


Chapter 5
Case Studies
The algorithm for detecting a mooring line failure, described in Chapter 4, is verified using
a varying wave load with a significant wave height Hs = 1m. These wave loads have a non-
linear constant effect to the position of the CALM buoy. This effect is not included in the
modeling. As a result the residual evaluation is tuned using the results of the residual force
estimation for an intact system. Since there are additional loads working on the buoy causing
a constant offset in position, they are investigated in this chapter. Three case studies are
presented. Each case study considers the CALM buoy described in Section 2-1. The CALM
buoy model is subjected to waves, currents, and a tanker moored at the buoy. The case
studies are used for testing the algorithm. Additionally, the aim is to prove this algorithm is
superior compared to other fault detection methods. For example a simple alternative would
be to detect a top segment failure by the step in the data. This transient step, is only present
in the breaking stage. However, the steady state shift in equilibrium position can be used for
fault detection as well. The measured data is obtained by simulations of the CALM buoy in
OrcaFlex. The residual evaluations is done using the Matlab. The scripts of the extended
Kalman filter is presented in Section D-2.
External loads working on the CALM buoy can vary in heading. For this thesis, a variation
in the load direction outside of the observed plane is not considered. Considering a load
outside the XZ-plane, the effects such as shift in equilibrium position will only be lower.
Additionally, when the fault detection is expanded to a six DoF model the load direction is
automatically taken into account. This thesis is about a Proof of Concept.

50 Case Studies
5-1 Load Case 1: Top Segment Failure - Current + Waves
RY
Waves:
Z
BUOY Hs = 1m; Tp= 4.6s
X
Current:
Vcurrent = 0.6 m/s
Figure 5-1: Schematic overview of load case 1. The CALM buoy subjected to a top segment
failure in mooring line 5. A current flow and waves work in the negative X-direction.
For the first case a top segment failure is considered. The CALM buoy is subjected to a
current load Vcurrent = 0.6ms−1 and a wave load Hs = 1m; Tp = 4.6s. Both loads are
working in the negative X-direction. The failure is occurring in mooring line five at time
instant tbreak = 2000s. The total simulation time is tsim = 4000s. A total overview of the
situation is presented in Figure 5-1. In Figure 5-2 the measured versus the estimated position
signals can be observed. From top to bottom the signals in the X-, Z-, and RY -direction
are presented. The black dotted line represents the moving average, calculated using a time
window of twindow = 100s.
For the intact part, tintact = 0s − 2000s, the buoy is oscillating around X = −2m. The high
frequent oscillations are due to the wave load excitations and the constant offset is due to the
current load. For the Z- and RY -direction same characteristics can be observed. Nevertheless,
after the top segment failure the buoy is oscillating around the X = 0m for the X-direction.
This position is the original equilibrium position. Observing only the position in X-direction,
a position offset based fault detection algorithm would detect a mooring line failure in the
first tintact = 0s − 2000s. In the RY -direction both the offset due to the current load and
to the mooring line failure are positive. The fault detection algorithm needs to distinguish
between the constant offsets in positions.
In Figure 5-3 the estimated unknown forces are presented. In the left column the estimated
wave forces are shown and in the right column the estimated residual force. The decoupling of
the two forces in the frequency domain is achieved. The wave force estimation contains only
oscillatory behavior with a zero average. In constant forces are only present in the residual
force estimation. It can be observed that for the Z-direction the residual force is estimated
around Fres,z ≈ −200kN and after the failure around Fres,z ≈ 0kN . This can be examined
in Figure 5-4 as well. The first thing noticed is the high threshold for the Z-direction. The
threshold is chosen based on the non-linear effects discussed in Section 3-4. In Figure 3-8 and
Table C-1 it can be seen that the non-linear offset in Z-direction, due to an exciting wave load,
is around Z ≈ −0.13m. After a top segment failure the buoy will rise again Z ≈ +0.16m, see

5-1 Load Case 1: Top Segment Failure - Current + Waves 51
Figure 5-2: Position estimation is plotted against the measured signal. The black dotted line
represents the moving average, calculated using a time window of twindow = 100s.

52 Case Studies
the absolute moving average of the estimated constant residual force. The time window is for the
moving average is twindow = 100s.
Table 2-5. Both effects are in balance with each other after the failure. Therfore, the second
broken part of the simulation is estimated around Fres = 0kN . It can be concluded that the
Z-direction cannot be used for fault detection when the non-linear effects are not included in
the modeling. The non-linear offsets for the Z-direction are relatively too large compared to
the offsets due to a failure. For the other directions the residual stays below the threshold
until the failure occurs. The step in the residual signals are both significant enough for fault
detection.
5-2 Load Case 2: Bottom Segment - Current + Tanker + Waves
The second load case considers a bottom segment failure. The CALM buoy is now subjected
to a current load Vcurrent = 0.6ms−1 and a wave load Hs = 1m; Tp = 4.6s. Both loads
are working in the positive X-direction. Additionally a tanker is moored at the buoy in
the positive X-direction. A complete overview of the simulation is presented in Figure 5-5.
Further specifications of the tanker are not in the scope of this thesis. The hawser tension
and the current flow velocity are measured. Furthermore the tanker hawser is connected
horizontally to the rotating point of the CALM buoy. In this way, the force from the tanker
is only operating in the X-direction. The bottom segment failure is occurring in mooring line
five at time instant tbreak = 2000s. The total simulation time is tsim = 4000s. In Figure 5-6
the measured versus the estimated position signals are plotted. In the X-direction the buoy
is oscillating around X ≈ 2.5m when it is still intact. After the failure, a smooth transition
towards Xshif t ≈ 4.5m is observed. In this case, for the bottom segment failure no clear
step in the position data is observed. Again the constant offsets must be distinguished for

5-2 Load Case 2: Bottom Segment - Current + Tanker + Waves 53
RY
Waves:
Z
Hs = 1m; Tp= 4.6s BUOY TANKER
X
Current:
Vcurrent = 0.6 m/s
Figure 5-5: Schematic overview of load case 2. The CALM buoy subjected to a bottom segment
failure in mooring line 5. A current flow and waves work in the positive X-direction. Additionally
a tanker is moored at the buoy in the positive X-direction.
detecting the mooring line failure. For the Z- and RY -directions, the offsets in position after
the failure are almost zero. There is no noticeable change observable for these directions. This
can be explained by the fact that a part of the mooring line is still hanging at the buoy for
a bottom segment failure. The new mooring configuration is in balance in the same position
for the Z- and RY -direction. Since the bottom segment failure has a smooth nature, the
transition is smooth as well.

54 Case Studies
In Figure 5-7 the estimated unknown forces are presented. The left column shows the es-
timated wave forces and the right column the estimated residual force. The estimation of
the constant force is again only present in the residual force. For the X-direction the esti-
mated residual force starts to deviate from zero only after the failure at tbreak = 2000s. For
the estimation of the RY -position signal a deviation from zero is observed after the failure.
However, the position signal presented in Figure 5-6 shows no offset. The estimation of the
residual force shows that there is a constant offset which needs to be substantiated. This can
be explained by analyzing the mooring line failure. After bottom segment failure the mooring
line is dragged to a new location. In this new equilibrium, a smaller part of the mooring line
is lifted. Therefore the weight pulling on the side where the failed moorign line is located
is smaller. The result in this particular case is a rotation in positive RY -direction. On the
other hand the buoy will find a new equilibrium position in the X-direction resulting in a
negative rotation due to the remaining mooring lines. Since the bottom segment failure has a
smooth breaking stage, this transition is not visible in the position signal. Nevertheless, the
transition is still present and needs accounting for.
The residual force is estimating the constant offset, which is therefore present in the residual
signals presented in Figure 5-8. It is possible to accurately detect the bottom segment failure
using both the residual signals in X- and RY -direction. As discussed already, the smaller
change in amplitude for the residual in RY -direction is due to the part of the mooring line
still hanging at the buoy.

5-3 Load Case 3: Top Segment Failure - Tanker + Wind + Waves 55
the absolute moving average of the estimated constant residual force. The time window is for the
moving average is twindow = 100s.
5-3 Load Case 3: Top Segment Failure - Tanker + Wind + Waves
Wind:
Vwind = 15 m/s
RY
Waves:
Z
TANKER BUOY Hs = 1m; Tp= 4.6s
X
Figure 5-9: Schematic overview of load case 3. The CALM buoy subjected to a top segment
failure in mooring line 5. Wind and waves work in the negative X-direction. Additionally a tanker
is moored at the buoy in the negative X-direction.
The third and last case presented in this thesis is an analysis of a top segment failure. The
CALM buoy is subjected to a wind load Vwind = 15ms−1 and a wave load Hs = 1m; Tp = 4.6s.
Both loads are working in the negative X-direction. A schematic overview is presented in
Figure 5-9. Additionally the same tanker as for load case 2 is moored at the buoy in the

56 Case Studies
negative X-direction. The failure is occurring in mooring line five at time instant tbreak =
1105s. The total simulation time is tsim = 3105s. In Figure 5-10 the estimated position
signals are plotted. Due to the wind load, an additional low frequent behavior is observed
in all three directions. In contrast to the top segment failure investigated in load case 1,
Section 5-1, no clear step is observed in the position signals. This can be explained by the
fact that for the X-direction, the buoy already is moving in the same directions as it would
due to a mooring line failure. For the RY -direction a small step is observed, combined with
shift in equilibrium position. Nevertheless, the fault detection algorithm needs to distinguish
between the constant offsets in positions to accurately detect the mooring line failure.
In Figure 5-11 the estimated unknown forces are presented. Left the estimated wave forces
and right the estimated residual force is shown. In these plots it can be observed, that the
decoupling between the two unknown forces is achieved. The constant offset is present only
present in the estimated residual force. However for the X-direction, the estimated residual
force is deviates from zero for the intact part and has a zero average for the broken part of the
simulation. Additionally, the low frequent behavior is present in the estimated residual forces.
This low frequent behavior is caused by the low eigenfrequency excited by the wave drift forces
working on the tanker. Since the mooring hawser is directly translating this force to the
CALM buoy, minimal influence should be observed in the force estimations. In Figure 5-12 it
is shown that the mooring hawser tension is directly in phase with the positions. The problem
of this imbalance of forces is caused by the linearization of the mooring forces. A static force
equilibrium at tpeak ≈ 100s where the X-position is at its first peak in the negative X-
direction is analyzed. The estimated position at that time instant is ~x ≈ [−7m, −0.3m, 5◦ ]T .
Using the total stiffness of the model, the mooring forces plus the hydrostatic forces, the
total force can be calculated, F = Chydro · ~x + F~M L = [−840kN, −584kN, 586.3kN m]T . The

first peak force of the mooring hawser tension has an amplitude of Ftanker ≈ 700kN . There
is an imbalance of Fdif f erence ≈ 140kN and needs to be accounted for. The fault detection
algorithm is estimating this difference in the residual force.
Figure 5-12: Tanker hawser tension belonging to the simulations done in load case 3.
Fault detection using the residual signal in the X-direction is in this format not achievable.
This can be concluded by observing the residual signals in Figure 5-13. For the RY -direction
however still a clear step in the residual force estimation is visible. By tuning the results, this
signal could still be used for fault detection. For a bottom segment failure a smaller amplitude
in residual force is observed, see Figure 5-8. This is due to the part of the broken mooring line

58 Case Studies
Figure 5-13: Residual signals for the three DoF in the XZ-plane. The residuals are built by
taking the absolute moving average of the estimated constant residual force. The time window
is for the moving average is twindow = 100s.
Figure 5-14: Tuned residual signal for RY -direction. The residuals is built by taking the absolute
moving average of the estimated constant residual force. The time window is for the moving
average is now twindow = 500s. Additionally the threshold is increased to RY = 350kN .

still hanging at the buoy. The threshold cannot be chosen to high, as otherwise the bottom
segment failure cannot be detected using the residual in RY -direction. By increasing the time
window used for calculating the residual force, the low frequent estimation can be canceled.
If in addition, the threshold for the RY -direction is increased to RY = 350kN fault detection
is possible. For the RY -direction the tuned residual signal is presented in Figure 5-14 for
all three load cases. From top to bottom the tuned residuals for ascending load cases are
presented. In Chapter 7 additional solution is discussed to use the other directions is as well
for fault detection.

60 Case Studies

Chapter 6
Conclusion
The aim of this thesis is to design a generic fault detection algorithm to accurately detect a
mooring line failure within a certain time frame. A model-based approach for fault detection
is chosen which focuses on the constant offset in equilibrium position. Chapter 2 shows
that this approach has the most potential for detecting a mooring line failure. Additionally,
in this chapter the bottom segment failure is analyzed. Since it depends on the external
loads working on the buoy, see Subsection 2-3-1, the time for the failure to become visible
cannot be predicted. To detect a mooring line failure, the fault detection algorithm needs
to distinguish the sources causing a constant offset in position. Therefore, the current flow
velocity and tanker hawser tension are included as input measurements in the modeling of the
CALM buoy in Chapter 3. The decoupling of the unknown wave force and unknown residual
force estimation is achieved via two UIO’s. This is shown in unknown force estimation in
Figure 5-3. A mooring configuration in waves contains also a non-linear constant offset,
shown in Figure 3-8. These offsets are not included in the modeling of the CALM buoy and
are therefore present in the residual signals in Figure 4-6. The thresholds for fault detection
are chosen to be one and a half times the maximum residual force estimation to not mistake
a wave load for a mooring line failure, see Equation 4-9. In Figure 5-2 the constant position
offset in X-direction due to the current load is substantiated by the current flow velocity
measurements. The residual signals in Figure 5-4 show that the algorithm is capable to
distinguish between the constant offset and can accurately detect the mooring line failure.
Fault detection using the residual in Z-direction cannot be achieved. The non-linear offset
due to a mooring configuration in waves is relatively large compared to the shift in position
due to a mooring line failure in Table 2-5. The estimated and measured signals in Figure 5-6
show no shift for the RY -direction after the bottom segment failure. The algorithm is still
capable of detecting the failure in this direction, as can be observed in Figure 5-8. For large
offsets, the residual signal in X-direction cannot be used for fault detection. The mooring
forces defined in Section 3-1 are linearized. In Figure 3-1 it can be observed that the linearized
mooring forces deviate from the actual mooring forces. In Figure 5-13, still a large step in
the residual signal in the RY -direction can be observed for the same large offsets. Tuning
the residual signal and the threshold for the RY -direction, the new residual evaluation in
Figure 5-14 shows accurate fault detection for all three load cases.

62 Conclusion
The original aim of this thesis is to design a generic fault detection algorithm to accurately
detect a mooring line failure within a certain time frame. Using the residual signal in RY -
direction produced with the presented algorithm, it is possible to accurately detect a mooring
line failure.

Chapter 7
Discussion
For this research, theoretic concepts are used to find a generic method for accurately detecting
a mooring line failure. These concepts are verified using simulations of a CALM buoy in
OrcaFlex. On this basis it can be stated that in case of a repeated research, the results would
be the same and that the results of this research are valid.
This chapter is first discussing the limitations of the presented fault detection algorithm in
Section 7-1. Additionally, alternative methods to overcome these limitations together with
recommendations for future design are presented in Section 7-2.
7-1 Limitations
For this thesis the thresholds are determined by applying a JONSWAP wave spectrum to the
CALM buoy model in OrcaFlex. The non-linear constant effects of a mooring configuration
in waves are not included in the modeling of the CALM buoy. The effects are described in
Section 3-4 and are significantly large for higher waves. The larger offset in higher waves will
result in a false detection of a mooring line failure.
A mooring line failure can be caused by many sources described in Appendix A. In the case
of overloading a mooring line failure will not occur in a wave spectrum with a significant wave
height of Hs = 1m. However a sea-state will eventually reduce to a calm sea with waves lower
than the covered sea-state. Additionally, offloading procedures or repair activities will only
be present with a low sea-state.
The theory of mooring lines used for this thesis, covers only a static approach of the mooring
lines. For more dynamic loads, e.g. higher waves, the static approach is possibly not accurate
enough. Dynamic effects of the mooring lines will be present. Again the repair activities will
be postponed until a lower sea-state is present. If the fault detection algorithm is not able
to detect accurately in these higher sea-states, it will be detectable after the higher sea-state
disappears.

64 Discussion
This thesis is aiming for a generic fault detection system for Single Point Mooring (SPM)
systems. Since it is a Proof of Concept, it is decided to conduct the research via CALM
buoy systems. However, for FPSO systems other loads such as wave drift are present as well.
These loads are not included for this thesis, but cause low frequent offsets with a significant
amplitude.
7-2 Future Recommendations
For this thesis it is chosen to treat the external loads and mooring line failure to operate in the
same plane, the XZ-plane. In this way, the displacements are only present in the three DoF
within this plane. This is a simplified, as waves for example have often multiple headings.
For future research this can automatically be solved by treating the CALM buoy in six DoF.
Only waves with a significant wave height of Hs = 1m are considered. There are two potential
methods to consider higher wave loads in future research. Firstly the non-linear effects can
be included in the modeling of the CALM buoy as additional forces. Secondly, the thresholds
for fault detection can designed to be adaptive. For example, measuring the wave frequent
oscillations, an estimation can be made how large the non-linear offset will be. The offset in
X-direction, so a linear relation would suffice. For the other directions, a non-linear relation
needs to be determined.
Since mooring line failures occur in FPSO systems as well, these could be included in future
research. As FPSO systems have additional loads, e.g. wave drift, adaptions are needed.
For instance, the tuning of the fault detection algorithm has to be reconsidered. Since these
loads have a low frequent behavior, the shaping filter of the wave force estimation can be
redesigned to cover these frequencies as well. Furthermore, if the time window to calculate
the moving average of the residual signal is taken larger, the low frequent behavior is canceled
out. However, the fault detection will take longer, as the residual is slower to adapt to changes.
For the X-direction the residual signal showed problems for fault detection. The linearization
of the mooring forces in Section 3-1 showed to be not accurate enough. The imbalance of the
forces is substantiated by the residual force. Since this force is used to determine if a fault
has occurred, no accurate detection can be performed. To use the residual in X-direction for
fault detection in addition to the residual in RY -direction, the mooring forces can be included
as a non-linear relation in the modeling of the CALM buoy.
The residual force is estimated to substantiate for the displacements due to a mooring line
failure. In future research the amplitude of this force can be analyzed to predict the location
of the failure for example. The difference in residual signals of the top and bottom segment
failures is visible in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-8 for the RY direction. Additionally, the forces
estimated working on the complete mooring line can possibly be used to estimate failures
caused by fatigue.
This thesis is investigating the possibility of detecting a mooring line failure. This is achieved
for the specific case where the mooring line failures and external loads are chosen within a
plane. To apply this fault detection algorithm on an actual SPM system, additional research
needs to be done.

Appendix A
Literature
To achieve the desired life time of twenty years, [1] defines criteria for designing a CALM
buoy. However, according to [2], twenty-one failures occurred to mooring lines in the period
from 2001 through 2011. From these failures, eight incidents led to multiple line failures.
Consequently, four of them led to the rupture product transfer system. Since all these failures
occurred before the designed twenty years life cycle, there is a sign of infant mortality. This
infant mortality can be explained by failure mechanisms which were not accounted for in the
design at that time. Since a couple of years mooring integrity is getting a lot of attention
[18]. Therefore, these failure mechanisms are described in much detail in literature. In survey
paper [4] a nice overview is given with full detailed explanation of the below stated failure
mechanisms.
• Fatigue
• Out-of-Plane Bending (OPB)
• Fatigue cracks
• Stress concentration
• Wear
• Corrosion
• Possible overload
For systems to be installed in the future, knowledge of these mechanisms can be included
in the design phase. A better prediction of the life time will then be achieved. For CALM
buoys already in operation these failure mechanisms are not taken into account. As a result,
it is required to quickly detect mooring line failures, as failures in other lines are then likely
to occur [2]. It will be shown that, traditional fault detection methods fail to do so. This
leads to the research for another fault detection method. This chapter presents a literature
study, that gives insight in what kind of failures are occurring in mooring lines. Traditional
ways together with more general fault detection methods described in literature to detect
such failures. In the end, a motivation for further research is concluding this chapter.

66 Literature
A-1 Preliminaries
To detect mooring line failures one must have a basic understanding of some aspects. In
the following section a summation of these aspects is presented which serve as a basis for
understanding this thesis. A CALM buoy is subjected to environmental conditions together
with mooring tanker loads. These circumstances are causing the CALM buoy to move and
as a result the mooring lines keep it at its desired location. This process is depicted in a
block-diagram in Figure A-1.
INPUT OUTPUT
(WAVES, CURRENT,
CALM BUOY (POSITION,
Figure A-1: Block diagram of CALM buoy including the mooring line failure. Input forces excite
the CALM buoy which results in displacements and velocities.
Following this block-diagram these aspects will be covered to get the necessary insight in the
system as well as completely understanding the theory and methods later on in the thesis.
A-1-1 Environmental and Tanker Loads
The combination of wind, wave, and current loads are what is called the environmental
conditions. The forces generated by these conditions together with the forces of tankers
mooring at the CALM buoy have an influence on the CALM buoy system and they are
appointed in this subsection. For a complete description one could consult [9] or [19] but for
this thesis report a brief summary is given just to understand the principle and influences of
these loads.
Wind Loads
Wind is known to be of a stochastic nature and is characterized by large fluctuations in

velocity, direction, time, and location. Local winds are generally defined in terms of the
average velocity and average direction because there is a lot of variation. For mooring design
one uses statistics to predict maximum wind velocities. For the central area in the North Sea
yields a maximum ten minute average wind speed of Vwind = 40ms−1 [20]. This average is
based on a once in a 100 year return period. Wind plays a direct and an indirect role. In the
direct role the wind is exerting a force on the part of the structure which is exposed to the
particular wind. Indirectly the wind is generating waves and currents which exert a force as

A-1 Preliminaries 67
well on the structure. Considering only the wind which is directly exciting the CALM buoy
in a dynamic way is depending on the mean wind velocity squared and the surface area, see
Equation A-1. Here Fwind,X [N ] is the wind force in X-direction, ρair [kg/m3 ] the density of
air, Cwind [−] the wind load coefficient, A [m2 ] the structures surface area and Vwind,X [m/s]
the mean wind speed in X-direction.
1 2
Fwind,X = · ρair · Cwind · A · Vwind,X (A-1)
2
Due to the relatively small surface area of the CALM buoy subjected to the wind and the large
fluctuations of the wind speed the excitation will be small and can therefore be neglected.
However, when a tanker is moored at the structure the total surface area will be larger. The
influence is investigated in Chapter 3. The effects of the indirect role, the generation of waves
and currents, will be dealt with in the following sections.
Current Loads
The occurrence of current can be explained by several independent phenomena: circulation

of water between oceans, tidal currents, currents generated by wind, and differences in tem-
perature and sea water density. For the response of the CALM buoy the surface currents are
the most important ones, as the buoy body is floating at the water surface. The force exerted
by a current on a floating object is composed of a viscous part and a potential inertia part.
Due to the friction between the structure and the fluid, the pressure drag, and circulation
around the structure forces are generated. The CALM buoy can be treated as a cylinder with
a small diameter in a current flow. Therefore, the potential inertia part is not significant and
can be neglected. Since a cylinder is considered a blunt body, the viscous friction can be
neglected as well. This leaves a governing viscous pressure drag. This force exerted per unit
length is given by Equation A-2 [9]. With Fcurrent,X [N ] is the current force, ρwater [kg/m3 ]
the density of water, Ccurrent [−] the current load coefficient, A [m2 ] the structures surface
area and Vcurrent,X [m/s] the mean current speed.
1 2
Fcurrent,X = · ρwater · Ccurrent · A · Vcurrent,X (A-2)
2
Current velocities can be mainly explained by ocean flows and tidal predictions. Since these
phenomena have very low frequent behavior, the force generated by currents will be of a
constant nature. To give an idea of the maximum current for the central area of the north
sea, [20] states that once in the 100 year a maximum current is predicted of Vcurrent = 1.03m/s.
The amount of influence on a CALM buoy is investigated in Chapter 3.
Wave Forces
Ocean surface waves, or also called wind waves, cause periodic loads on marine structures.
The waves are generated by several causes, nevertheless, wind is the most principal one [9].
Wind generated waves can be classified into two categories: sea and swell. Sea waves are
driven by local winds and are very irregular due to the largely varying wind speed. Swell
waves on the other hand are waves propagated by local wind in different areas. The waves

68 Literature
have time to build up and arrive at the area of interest in a more regular manner than sea
waves. In literature the theory of irregular seas describes linear wave-induced loads, but only
for large-volume structures in infinitely deep waters. It is possible to break down irregular seas
into linearly superposed results from regular wave components. However, for the CALM buoy
system which is a moored small volume structure, this is generally not the case. Nevertheless,
when using this linear theory combined with correction terms it can describe the wave loads
on small volume moored structures as an approximation. So for large-volume structures in
deep seas one can obtain response results in irregular seas by linearly superposing results from
regular wave components.
Figure A-2: An example of a wave spectrum approximation in the North Sea. This figure shows
a JONSWAP spectrum with a significant wave height Hs = 1m, an enhancement factor λ = 1,
and peak periods Tp = [3.5s, 4.5s, 5.5s].
An irregular sea is assumed to remain constant for a period of three hours [9]. To find
the composition of these regular wave components spectra approximations exist such as the
Pierson-Moskowitz [21] and JOint North Sea WAve Project (JONSWAP) [22] spectrum. The
latter is an approximation of wave profiles in the North Sea, a shallow water environment,
and is only depending on the significant wave height Hs [m], the peak period Tp [s], and an
enhancement factor λ [−]. The significant wave height is traditionally the mean wave height
of the highest third of the waves. In Figure A-2 an example of three JONSWAP spectra is
shown. Each has a significant wave height of Hs = 1 m, an enhancement factor λ = 1, but
varying peak periods Tp = [3.5s, 4.5s, 5.5s]. On the left axis the spectral density is plotted
and contains information about the energy per wave component. These JONSWAP spectra
are used throughout this thesis as a valid approximation for irregular seas in shallow water.
An example of an extreme sea-state is obtained by analyzing scatter plots. Scatter plots
contain measurements of how many times combinations of significant wave heights and peak
periods are present. With a return period of 50 years a significant wave height of Hs = 11.8m
is predicted for the central area of the north sea [9].

Figure A-3: Superposition of hydromechanical and wave loads [9]
The wave loads on the CALM buoy generated by the regular wave components can generally
be divided into hydrodynamic forces and wave exciting forces. The hydrodynamic loads are
identified as the added mass, damping and restoring terms. They are obtained by oscillating
the structure with the wave excitation frequency in any direction. In this case there are
no incident waves. The forced motion of the structure causes the fluid particles around the
structure to oscillate. This oscillation of fluid particles results in a pressure field which induces
the hydrodynamic forces. When a structure is moored, additional restoring forces have to be
added. These forces depend on the frequency of excitation and the structures shape. On the
other hand the incoming waves also generate forces, i.e. the Froude-Kryloff and diffraction
loads. For the Froude-Kryloff force the fluid pressure is integrated over the wetted surface of
the structure. To better understand this force component, imagine the structure removed and
replaced with an equivalent volume of water. This water would have a mass and undergo an
acceleration relative to the earth. The inertia force it experiences is equivalent to the first law
of Newton, F = m · a. For small structures this approximates the true situation, but as the
structure gets larger the wave will be disturbed and partly diffract back. So a correction term
must be introduced which are the diffraction loads. Combined these loads generated by waves
represent the motion of floating structures in waves. This is also illustrated in Figure A-3
where on the right side of the equal sign the two kinds of forces are illustrated. Together they
are summed up to form the motions of the structure induced by waves.
As stated previously, this theory is based on several assumptions: deep water, large struc-
tures etc. For smaller structures, such as the CALM buoy, the diffraction force is significantly
smaller and other forces such as viscous effects and viscous drag play a bigger role. This drag
force is proportional to the square of the velocity of the structure relative to the surround-
ing water. In [8] a method for calculating motions of small cylindrical structures in waves.
The effect of the Froude-Kryloff force and the drag force, both well documented, are simply
added up. The results of this method for structures with a small diameter compared to the
wavelength give a good approximation of reality.

70 Literature
Figure A-4: Mean wave force contribution due to pressure forces on the free-surface zone of a
structure [19]
Another non-linear effect in regular incident harmonically oscillating waves is a mean wave
force, drift. This phenomena can be explained using figure A-4. A floating structure has a
part which is part of the time in or out the water due to vertical oscillations. This results
in a non-zero mean pressure. If the relative vertical motion differs around the waterline, the
result is a non-zero mean wave drift force. This load works in the wave propagation direction.
For calculating the mean wave loads in irregular sea, one can linearly add together the mean
force contribution from each regular wave component. This is surprising since the force is
non-linear in the wave amplitude [19].
Tanker Loads
The operational range of a CALM buoy can divided into three stages. First, the stage where
it is floating on itself. Secondly, the stage where a tanker approaches and connects to the
buoy, and lastly, the coupled stage where the tanker is able to freely weathervane around the
CALM buoy. There are multiple ways for tankers to moor at the CALM buoy, but for this
thesis a single tanker hawser is considered.
As the tanker approaches, the connection is made using this single tanker hawser to maintain
a specified distance to the buoy. This is to assure nothing occurs with the flexible oil hoses
which are used to transfer the oil product. During the maneuver a collision between tanker
and buoy must be avoided, so tanker thrusters or tugboats are used to pull the boat away.
Therefore, during a short time frame a large force will be applied in the connection stage. As
the operation continuous, environmental loads will also pull the tanker away from the buoy.
As the tanker is much larger, environmental loads will have more influence in comparison to
a buoy. This leads to a constant pulling at the buoy. The tension in the tanker hawser will
fluctuate around the constant tension due to the periodic wave loads where a large volume
tanker is slower to respond.
Additionally, to the linear wave loads, the non-linear wave drift becomes more significant with
introducing a tanker. This wave drift is also referred to as the second order wave load and
will excite the coupled system in a low frequent eigenmode.

A-1-2 Mooring Line Configuration
In order to keep the CALM buoy at a desired location a number of mooring lines, usually
six to eight, are attached at different points to the floating structure. The lower ends are
fixed to the seabed by use of an anchor. There exist different types of anchoring such as
drilled-in, or also called pile anchors, which can restrain vertical movement. But for catenary
mooring lines, where the tension in the mooring lines is used to restrain the CALM buoy, drag
anchors are used. Drag anchors are only able to handle horizontal loads. For drag anchors,
the mooring lines are hauled in by dragging the anchor to the desired location. The initial
tension, or so called pretension is ensuring the desired mooring configuration. To ensure the
anchors are kept in position, a significant part of the mooring lines have to lie on the seabed
to transfer the loads to only a horizontal component.
Figure A-5: Floating structure with a single mooring line configuration. This figure is used to
[19].
The tension in the mooring line is acting as the restraining force to keep the CALM buoy in
place. This is often referred to as mooring stiffness. The weight per unit length of the mooring
line plays an important role, as the weight of the lifted part of the line is causing a tension
in the line. Choosing a heavier component the stiffness of the total mooring configuration
will be higher. This can be explained by the additional force required, to now lift a part
of the mooring line lying on the seabed. Normally, mooring lines are composed of different
lengths of chain, rope, or a combination of both. The exact composition of the mooring line
is depending on the water depth. For deeper waters a greater horizontal force component is
obtained for a less steep configuration. By changing for a lighter material closer to the water
surface i.e. ropes made of steel, natural fibre, or synthetic fibre less steeper configuration can
be achieved. Additionally, the stiffness of the mooring system is not as much determined by
the lifted part of the mooring line, only by the part on or close to the seabed. A more heavier
material, such as a chain length, is therefore chosen at the bottom. As the floating structure
moves in response to external loads, the stiffness changes due to varying cable geometry. A
bigger part of the line is lifted and this means a higher tension which pulls the CALM buoy in
opposite direction. The mooring lines work like nonlinear springs. Using Equation A-4, and
Figure A-5 one can calculate the static tension in the line based on the cable specifications.

72 Literature
X = l − ls + x (A-3)
a 1 h
X = l − h(1 + 2 ) 2 + a cosh−1 (1 + ) (A-4)
h a
Here a = TH /w[m] is a static constant. It defines the mooring line contour and depends on the
horizontal tension component TH [N ], and the weigth per unit length w [N/m]. Furthermore
one can see that X [m] is the horizontal distance between the anchor and the buoy, h [m] the
distance between the seabed and the buoy, l [m] the total length of the mooring line, and
ls [m] the lifted part of the mooring line. The exact derivation can be found in [19]. This
non-linear relation is a good approximation of reality and can be used to calculate the static
tension in the line in an iterative way. However, this is neglecting the following things:
• Bending stiffness. Only applies for chains and ropes with a large radius of curvature.
• Dynamic effects of the line.
• Forces due to sea currents working on the individual line segments.
• The effect of elasticity. Only for ropes in extreme conditions this must be accounted
for.
For this thesis a uniform mooring line consisting of chain is considered. Using Equation A-
4 one is able to find the static tensions in the mooring lines neglecting the above stated
phenomena at first. Bearing in mind that these phenomena exist one can always fall back to
including more information in the modeling process.
A-1-3 Mooring Line Failures
The location of failures along a mooring line is typical for some of the sources mentioned in
the introduction of this chapter. As for OPB, the failure occurs in the top segment chain
inside the chain stopper. For fatigue failures the distinction between Wave Frequency (WF)
and Low Frequency (LF) fatigue is made. For catenary mooring systems, the most critical
WF fatigue damage occurs at the top segment location if there is enough viscous damping.
The most critical LF fatigue location always occurs at the bottom chain, either at the top of
the bottom chain or at the seabed interaction point [23].
In Figure A-6 one can see the distribution of the location of the twenty-one failures described
in [2]. It can be observed that mooring line failures occur along the complete length of the
mooring line. In order to cover all kind of failures, the two outermost failures are chosen to
further investigate for this thesis. These are described as a failure in the top segment failure
close to the buoy, and a bottom segment failure close to the mooring line anchor. In Figure 2-
1, and Figure 2-2 a simplified overview drawing is given of both failures. These figures are
not accurately representing a CALM buoy with multiple mooring lines, but can be used to
improve the understanding of what occurs after a mooring line failure in the top and bottom
segment.

Figure A-6: Distribution of where faults occur on the mooring line. The left chart is based on
the twenty-one incidents and right chart on the number of line breaks which occurred. [2]
Top Segment Failure
BEFORE AFTER
Figure A-7: Schematic overview of a top segment failure on the left and a bottom segment
failure on the right. For both failures an offset in equilibrium position and a changed mooring
configuration is the result.
After a top segment failure, see Figure 2-1, the complete mooring line falls away. The weight of
this mooring line, which conducts the tension in the line, is not pulling anymore on the CALM
buoy after the failure. This means the buoy will endure a resultant force from the remaining
mooring lines. This will cause the CALM buoy to start moving and find a new equilibrium
position where all mooring forces are in balance again. In this new equilibrium position
the mooring lines will have a different configuration and a new overall way of responding to
displacements, the total mooring stiffness is changed.

74 Literature
Bottom Segment Failure
BEFORE AFTER
ANCHOR DISPLACEMENT
Figure A-8: Schematic overview of a top segment failure on the left and a bottom segment
failure on the right. For both failures an offset in equilibrium position and a changed mooring
configuration is the result.
For the bottom segment failure still a significant part of the mooring line rests on the seabed.
The seabed is applying a static friction force on the part of the mooring line resting on the
seabed. If this force is greater than the the exciting forces on the CALM buoy nothing will
be observable. The static friction will serve the same way as an anchor. However if waves are
getting larger or a tanker moors at the buoy the static force will be exceeded and the mooring
line is dragged towards a new position. A position where there is a larger part of the mooring
line resting on the seabed, which means a higher static friction component to overcome. Until
again a larger exciting force is applied to the buoy. This is shown in Figure 2-2 in a schematic
overview. Again as for the top segment failure the CALM buoy will find a new equilibrium
position and a new mooring configuration. The amount of mooring line lifted has changed
and therefore the total stiffness of the system is changed.
The behavior after a bottom and top segment failures both share the same characteristics.
As the mooring line fails the buoy will start to find a new equilibrium position and the total
mooring configuration will change resulting in a different overall stiffness. The manner how
they approach this resultant steady state are distinct, as the top segment failure is of a sudden
nature and for a bottom segment failure this change takes a longer time period and is more
smooth. The mooring line failure characteristics are influencing the behavior of the CALM
buoy and are introduced in the block scheme shown in Figure A-9. The mooring configuration
change is represented as a change in CALM buoy characteristics, and the resultant force due
to the missing or lowered mooring line tension as an additional input to the system.
The characteristics for both the top and the bottom segment failure for the breaking stage
and the broken buoy status are summarized in Table 2-1. This overview can be used in the
following sections and chapters to analyze the potential of traditional or potential methods
for mooring line failure detection. The to be designed failure detection method should be
able to quickly detect the different failure characteristics.

A-2 Mooring Line Failure Detection Methods 75
MOORING LINE
FAILURE
+
INPUT + CALM BUOY
OUTPUT
Figure A-9: Block diagram of CALM buoy including the mooring line failure. Input forces excite
the CALM buoy which results in displacements and velocities. Mooring line faults
A-2 Mooring Line Failure Detection Methods
After this brief discussion on the key elements describing CALM buoys, the remaining lit-
erature survey can be conducted. As became clear, issues in Single Point Mooring (SPM)
systems occur in the mooring lines. The estimated life time is not achieved in many cases.
The mooring line failures occurred along the whole length of the mooring line, so the decision
is made to only consider the two outermost cases. The remaining part of this chapter is
covering the traditional methods used to detect mooring line faults. Subsequently failure de-
tection methods in other applications are investigated for potential improvements in accuracy
or detection time.
Many engineering systems are safety-critical systems. There is an increasing demand on
reliability and safeguards for those systems subjected to possible abnormalities and component
faults. For a CALM buoy, one line failure could mean a total system break down if not detected
fast enough. So in order to attain these safety levels one can provide a fault diagnosis system.
A number of key issues must be considered in comparing variations of such systems. Important
ones are:
• Complexity of implementation
• Performance, as measured by false alarms, delays in detection etc.
• Robustness & Reliability
Fault diagnosis is generally divided in three steps: detection, isolation and estimation. The
first step consists of making a binary decision, either that something has gone wrong or that
everything is fine. The second step aims at isolating the fault. In this step the source of the
failure, e.g. which sensor or actuator has failed, is determined. At last the estimation of the
fault involves determination of the extend of the failure. A sensor can become completely
non-operational or it may suffer degradation in the form of a bias or increased inaccuracies
[24].

76 Literature
A-2-1 Traditional Mooring Line Failure Detection Methods
For fault diagnosis of a CALM buoy, first it is important to accurately detect a failure as
described in the previous section. The second step is to isolate the fault, a distinction should
be made whether a line failure, component fault, or a sensor fault has occurred. When
isolating a sensor fault for example, estimation of the failure grade can be made. In [6]
the traditional mooring line failure detection systems currently available are discussed. The
mooring monitoring systems currently active can be divided into two classes, discretely and
continuously monitoring systems. In this section they are briefly discussed on their key
characteristics [25], [26].
Discrete Monitoring Systems
As the name states the following methods are used to monitor SPM systems in a discrete
manner, with a predefined time interval. These discrete monitoring systems originated from
ways to continuously monitor the mooring lines. Conducting the following methods in a
continuous way is however costly and not very efficient. One needs to examine what is a well-
considered time interval for checking the mooring line status minding the chance a mooring
line failure could occur. A widely accepted interval time is around two weeks [6]. This time
interval, although well considered, is the biggest overall drawback for discrete monitoring
systems. Failure can go unnoticed for the duration of the inspection interval, during which
severe weather conditions could develop.
• Visual inspection is a relatively simple method. Here a diver or Remote Operated

Vehicle (ROV) is send down to visually inspect the mooring lines. However simple, this
method has the disadvantage that the vision can be blocked by marine growth covering
the mooring lines or mud where a significant part of the mooring line rests on the seabed.
Failures in the bottom segment will be difficult to observe. Also close to buoy where
many failures occur it is not possible to visually check the critical components such as
fairleads because of the chainstopper guide.
• A sonar can be used to inspect the presence of the mooring lines. A sonar probe can be
installed on the bottom of the SPM system or lowered trough the center of the turret
structure. The probe sends infrared signals out and measures reflected signals in order
to image the surroundings. On a display one can inspect the presence of the mooring
lines. For this method one does not need to enter the water, and a broken sonar probe
is also easy to replace. However a bottom segment failure where a the mooring line is
still present for the greatest part could lead to a minimal change in appearance on the
radar schreen.
• An inclinometer is actually just a measurement tool for measuring the angle of departure
of the mooring line. Using predefined look up tables containing stress values, calculated
using pretension, one can try to say something about the remaining life time of the
mooring lines. This method is cheap and easily installed. Limitation however is the
ability to check the inclinometer only with good weather conditions. The accuracy of the
reading depends on the precision of the measurement, which can deviate millimeters.
For this method top segment failures can be accurately detected, but again bottom
segment failures could lead to minimal changes which are not detectable.

Continuously Monitoring Systems
The overall advantage compared to the discrete monitoring systems is that the methods de-
scribed in this section are continuously monitoring the SPM system. The items described
present the basic idea of how these continuously monitoring systems operate and what op-
portunities and limitations they have.
• Intrumented mooring lines have a measurement tool in the line of the mooring line. This
means that for example a load cell is substituting a normal chain link. Using wiring
or acoustic transmitters data is sent to the monitoring system. When a mooring line
failure occurs this could be observed by the instrument as a loss of tension. According to
[6], [26] disadvantages are the difficulty in maintenance performance. The instruments
are mounted in between the chain links, within the load path. Also they are subjected
to long term offshore conditions which significantly shortens the life time. The accuracy
of the instruments is low. It is required to handle the large mooring forces, so small
perturbations like a bottom segment failure will be not detectable directly.
• Offset Monitoring is using a position measurement with for example a Global Positioning
System (GPS) one could say something about the state of the SPM system. For example
the maximum offset per wave height for each direction can be used as a condition for
a healthy system [27]. However one needs an environment description, which can be
obtained from a weather prediction or additional measurement tools such as a waverider
buoy for example. To avoid these additional sensors and dependence, also the mean
position can be compared with a the predefined mean position of a healthy system. This
methods is cheap, but has also its disadvantages. It is difficult to distinguish between
an offset in position caused by a line failure or a change in wind, waves, current effects,
or a tanker loads. Furthermore the exciting conditions might steer the SPM system
into the direction of the failed mooring line, leading to relatively small offsets which are
difficult to measure.
• Repsonse Learning System is mentioned in [6] as a detection method which uses a

mathematical model of the mooring system. If one knows the input forces induced by
wind, current and waves one can predict the motions of the mooring system using this
mathematical model. By comparing these motions with the actual measured response
one could say something about a possible failure. If the difference is small it can be
used to revise the mathematical model coefficients. It is easily added to already installed
mooring systems. The disadvantage however is that this method needs a physical value
for the force applied to the SPM system generated by the environment. Since these
are stochastic processes, this is difficult to realize. Also a specific model is required
for each mooring system, which describes the characteristics of that particular system
accurately.
The monitoring systems, both discrete and continuous, described in this section are not
sufficient to ensure the timely detection of a fault. The discrete methods are not continuously
monitoring the SPM systems. For the continuous methods, sensitivity and robustness cause
failures to be not distinguishable for every case. Response learning systems, which use models
to predict motions, looks promising. Measurements of waves forces are difficult to obtain. A

78 Literature
new way of detecting mooring line failures in a continuous manner needs to be investigated.
A hardware solution is not an option, it needs to be possible to be installed on existing SPM
systems. In order to still achieve a reliable and safe environment one can provide a software
redundancy. The next section will give an overview of failure detection techniques in other
industries. A trade off will be considered how applicable they are for the detection of mooring
line failures.
A-2-2 Existing Failure Detection Methods in different Applications
Traditional failure detection methods are not performing as required, so in this section fault
detection methods in other applications are investigated for potential use for mooring line
failure detection. The methods discussed here are analytically redundant approaches. Using
only signals, knowledge, or models about the system to determine if the CALM buoy is still
intact. Several different classifications are proposed in literature. One way is to divide the
methods over four kinds of fault diagnosis approaches [28],[29]:
• Knowledge-Based
• Signal-Based
• Model-Based
• Hybrid approach
This division will be the structure of this section in the discussion of the various methods.
For the last approach, the hybrid approach, a combination of model-based, signal-based and
knowledge-based fault diagnosis methods is considered. This combination could outperform
the methods applied separately. In [29] some cases are discussed where the combination of the
distinctive advantages are shown to improve the results. However for this literature survey
only the possibility of this approach is named. When the future results are not sufficient
enough this topic can be revisited again.
Knowledge-Based Approach
Knowledge based failure detection uses as the name suggests knowledge about system behavior
or response in order to classify if the system is in healthy condition. It is checking the
consistency between the process output and the learned output for a given input. During
a learning or training period large amounts of previously generated or measured data is
presented to the the algorithm to create a knowledge base. In this way it learns to identify.
This is illustrated using a block diagram, see Figure A-10.

MOORING LINE
FAILURE
+
INPUT + CALM BUOY
OUTPUT
CLASSIFIER
FAULT
(WAVES, CURRENT, (POSITION, DECISION
KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE
BASE
Figure A-10: Block diagram of a knowledge-based fault detection approach. Input forces excite
the CALM buoy which results in displacements and velocities. Using both the input, and output
signals together with knowledge about healthy and non healthy systems the classifier decides if a
fault has occurred.
According to [29] and [30] the distinction is made between qualitative and quantitative
knowledge-based fault diagnosis. This distinction is in the kind of data presented to the
algorithm to form the knowledge. Qualitative data could be introduced by hydrodynamical
experts for example, buoy behavior and so on. While quantitative data, also known as fea-
tures, are describing the system in a more abstract way. This could be for example location,
variation of this location etc. For both distinctions the learning phase is an extensive process
in order to cover all situations. A lot of data needs to be presented including data for faulty
systems.
For a CALM buoy this is the major disadvantage. To identify faults, or more specific, faults
with a novel behavior these methods are not able to identify these unknown fault types.
Fault detection systems which give to many errors will lose their credibility and will be
ignored thereafter. Considering the crucial necessity to model all faults, it is determined to
not conduct further research on knowledge-based fault detection systems.
Signal-Based Approach
As knowledge-based fault detection approaches are not giving any added value, signal analysis
will be considered. Instead of using an algorithm which learns to identify the behavior of a
CALM buoy, this approach examines the measured signals to detect faults. By extracting
features from the measured signal and comparing them with knowledge about healthy signals
a decision is made whether a fault occurred. These healthy features can be obtained using
analysis of an intact CALM buoy. This signal-based method has a wide application in real-
time monitoring. In Figure A-11 the steps are shown in a block diagram. To extract features
one could look at the time or frequency domain.

80 Literature
MOORING LINE
FAILURE
+
INPUT + CALM BUOY
OUTPUT FEATURE
(WAVES, CURRENT, (POSITION, GENERATOR
KNOWLEDGE FEATURE FAULT

ANALYSIS DECISION
Figure A-11: Block diagram of a signal-based fault detection approach. Input forces excite
the CALM buoy wFhich results in displacements and velocities. Using these signals features are
generated. Comparing these with healthy features a fault decision can be made.
For the time-domain approach features could be extracted as: position, standard deviation,
phases, slope, magnitudes etc. For the frequency-domain this list can be extended by fre-
quency components obtained from Fast Fourier Transformations. Since the CALM buoy
system is a time varying process one can say that neither a time or a frequency domain ap-
proach would apply. Accoring to [28] a time-frequency analysis can be a solution for these
time-varying frequency spectra of transient signals. This analysis approach is able to identify
the signal frequency components and reveal their time-variant features. They basically divide
a longer time signal into shorter segments and analyze them separately.
For the CALM buoy system features can be the location and rotation of the buoy, its acceler-
ations, and the frequency of excitation. Analyzing the breaking event of one of the mooring
lines could mean a sudden acceleration, a rise in signal variance, or a different eigenfrequency.
A line failure in the bottom segment of the mooring line can mean that this characteristic
breaking event will be less noticeable. As analyzed in Subsection A-1-3 the static friction force
of the seabed will leave some tension in the line, and the CALM buoy will slowly move to a
new equilibrium position with different behavior. Another possibility could be to compare the
mean position for a certain time interval and compare this with the original healthy location.
However problems can arise when environmental loads or a possible tanker are causing the
intact SPM system to move from its original location. A failure could be detected when it is
not the case.
A signal-based approach for fault detection is providing a straightforward manner to detect
changes in behavior. It however has no capability to distinguish between different phenomena
such as tankers mooring at the buoy, environmental loads, and mooring line failures. Another
failure diagnosis approach is to be considered. One which uses knowledge about the system.
This is described in the next section.
Model-Based Approach
This approach was originated by [31] to provide an analytic redundancy in order to replace
hardware redundancy. As the name suggests a model of the system to be investigated is

required. This can either be obtained using physical principles or system identification tech-
niques. Based on this model, the fault diagnosis algorithm checks the consistency between the
measured outputs of the practical system and the model-predicted outputs. This approach is
referred to as residual generation.
MOORING LINE
FAILURE
+
INPUT + CALM BUOY
OUTPUT
RESIDUAL RESIDUAL FAULT

GENERATOR EVALUATION DECISION
Figure A-12: Block diagram of the model based approach.
In figure Figure A-12 one could see the system depicted. The input and output of the CALM
buoy system enter a residual generator. Inside the residual generator a model approximation
of the CALM buoy is used to generate a signal which can be used for fault detection. This
signal is called the residual and can be evaluated whether or not a fault has occurred. This
process is well described in literature, see [32], [33], [34]. According to [35] the residual should
satisfy the following properties.
• Invariance Relation: When no fault occurs, the mean of the residual should be zero.
• Fault Detectability: When any of the faults occurs, the mean of the residual should
deviate from zero.
For this thesis two different faults are considered, top and bottom segment failures which are
described in Subsection A-1-3. Together with the input force a constant force can enter the
system representing the resultant pretension force. This part is called an additive fault. The
multiplicative part is the stiffness parameter change within the system. In state-space form
the fault characteristics can be included as is depicted in Equation A-5.
ẋ(t) = (A + ∆Af )x(t) + Bu(t) + Bf f (t) + v(t)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) + w(t) (A-5)
Here x(t) ∈ Rn is the state vector, u(t) ∈ Rq the plant inputs vector, f (t) ∈ Rq the additive
fault signals, y(t) ∈ Rm the output vector measured by the sensors, v(t) ∈ Rn the process
noise, w(t) ∈ Rm the measurement noise, the matrices A, B, C, and D the system matrices, Bf
the relation between faults work on the system, and the matrix ∆Af the change in stiffness
parameter as multiplicative fault. As stated previously the input consists of wind, waves,
current, and tanker loads.

82 Literature
h iT
u(t) = Fwind Fwave Fcurrent Ftanker (A-6)
Wind forces can be neglected for the CALM buoy, current forces can be approximated with
the current velocity which can be measured, and the tanker hawser tensions can be measured
as well. Only wave forces are difficult to predict since exact measurements of the waves are
not easy to obtain. Since not all inputs are present [12] comes up with a method which is
called Unknown Input Observer (UIO). When inputs or disturbances are not known one can
built an input observer. By including the unknown input in the state of the system it uses
the model structure and the measured output to estimate both the unknown input as the
systems state variables. This method is able to accurately estimate the output value in order
to perform fault diagnosis.
There are several methods to generate a residual signal. For each system it is different which
could be used for fault detection. As for the mooring line failure detection one can focus on
both the multiplicative fault, the additive fault, change in frequency of excitation, and the
mismatch between measured and estimated output.
• Parameter Estimation is another stochastic fault diagnosis method, based on system

identification techniques. The detection method compares system parameters, which
are determined online, with reference parameters obtained under healthy conditions.
If there exists an explicit mapping between the model parameters and the physical
coefficients this is a very straightforward method. Only the model structure is required
to be known. The stiffness of the buoy system together with its mooring lines have
a stiffness which does not depend on the sea state. As a result of a line failure the
stiffness will change and this could be detected using this method. A line failure at the
touchdown point results in some residual tension in the line. The change in stiffness
might be insufficient to detect the fault.
• The Resultant Mooring Force is acting on the CALM buoy and will result in a shift in
equilibrium position. In order to distinguish this constant offset from other constant
influences, e.g. current and tanker loads, knowledge about the model and how forces
react on it is used. The advantage is that it is a straightforward method, however
nonlinear effects could come into play such as wave drift. The influence of such effects
have to be investigated further.
• A Spectral Residual could show a shift due to the shift in stiffness parameters. The
total mooring configuration will change after a mooring line failure and therewith the
eigenmodes of the system. Using e.g. a Fast Fourier Transform of the time signal
the energies per frequency could be compared online with known healthy frequency
components. This method has the advantage to be be free of possible phase lagging
between the estimate and measured signal.

Appendix B
Mooring Stiffness
In this appendix the mooring forces are analyzed. The theoretic analysis done in this thesis,
only depends on key mooring line characteristics. These characteristics, e.g. mooring line
length, anchor location, are summarized in the client information. The Matlab files presented
in this chapter can be used as a tool for other variations in mooring design.
B-1 Top Segment Failure - Mooring Force Balance
An overview of the remaining mooring lines with their new orientation is presented in Fig-
ure B-1. Using this figure, relations for the tensions in X-direction can be set up. Combining
the equations an estimate of the shifted equilibrium position is found.
The tensions in mooring lines one and three are equal. The same yiels for mooring line four
and six. This can be explained by the movement, which is only in the X-direction.
T1 = T3
T4 = T6 (B-1)
The force balance in X-direction is:
X
Fx = 0
X
Fx = 2 cos(θ1 )T1 + T2 − 2 cos(θ2 )T4 = 0 (B-2)
Assuming the mooring lines to operate as linear springs with stiffness k. The forces can be
formulated as:

84 Mooring Stiffness
T6 T1
θ1
θ4
T2
T3
T4
dx
Figure B-1: Topview of the mooring configuration. This overview is used to analyze the behavior
after a mooring line failure in line 5.
T1 = 150 − k∆l1
T2 = 150 − k∆x
T6 = 150 + k∆l2 (B-3)
Here ∆l1 , and ∆l2 , and ∆x are the length extensions of the mooring lines. The mooring line
orientation can be calculated via Pythagoras:
205 − ∆x
cos(θ1 ) =
l − ∆l1
205 + ∆x
cos(θ2 ) = (B-4)
l + ∆l2
The mooring line length extension then becomes:
q
∆l1 = 410 − (205 − δx)2 + 3552
q
∆l1 = (205 + δx)2 + 3552 − 410; (B-5)
A linearized tension k = 24.2m · s−1 is chosen. For simplicity this stiffness is chosen to be
for every mooring line the same. Filling in this stiffness Matlab is used to solve the equation
and find an estimate of the new equilibrium position. This is approximately Xnew = 3.1m.

B-2 Matlab 85
After checking this with the linearization one can observe that this deviates from the original
tension calculated using Equation A-4. However it is going to be used as an initial estimate.
For the Z- and RY -direction the hydrodynamic stiffness is used to calculate the displacements.
The hydrostatic stiffness can be found in Subsection 4-2-1. The complete mooring line falls
away. Using the system characteristics described in Table 2-2 the resulting displacements are
calculated.
Tv 158
Znew = = = 0.11m (B-6)
Chydro,(2,2) 1447.5
Tv · r 158 · 4.05
RYnew = = = 2.11◦ (B-7)
Chydro,(3,3) 306.4
B-2 Matlab
In order to find the stiffness of the mooring system after an offset in the six DoF frame one
needs to find which forces and moments work on the CALM buoy as a result of these offsets.
Using the mfiles in Section B-2 the forces and moments calculated by setting an offset in one
of the directions. So an offset in each DoF is resulting in forces and moments in each DoF.
In this section, M-files are presented which calculate the forces and moments working on the
CALM buoy generated by the mooring lines.
B-2-1 Matlab - Determine Total Force on CALM buoy by Mooring Lines
1 % Thomas van Bruggen - 4036573

2 %
3 % M-file to calculate the tension in all the mooring lines . In order to
4 % start the calculations one needs to define an initial measurement yMeas
5 % in 6 degrees of freedom ([X Y Z Xrot Yrot Zrot ]).
6
7 % Convert degrees to radians for rotation measurements
8 yMeas ( 4 : 6 ) = yMeas ( 4 : 6 ) /360∗2∗ pi ;
9
10 % Initial specification mooring lines
11 l = 420; % Mooring line length [m]
12 h = 50 −3.28; % Waterdepth - height chainstopper [m]
13 w = 1.478; % Weight per unit length mooring line [kN]
14 anchor0 = 410; % Distance anchor to Buoy Centre [m]
15
16 % Azimut (top view) mooring line angles of departure
17 azi0 = [ 6 0 0 300 240 180 1 2 0 ] ∗ 2 ∗ pi / 3 6 0 ;
18
19 % Anchor Locations
20 anchor_locX = cos ( azi0 ) ∗ anchor0 ;
21 anchor_locY = sin ( azi0 ) ∗ anchor0 ;
22
23 % Chainstopper Locations

24 x = cos ( azi0+yMeas ( 6 ) ∗2∗ pi / 3 6 0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 + yMeas ( 1 ) − . . .

25 ( 1 − cos ( yMeas ( 5 ) ) ) ∗ cos ( azi0+yMeas ( 6 ) ∗2∗ pi / 3 6 0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 ;
26 y = sin ( azi0+yMeas ( 6 ) ∗2∗ pi / 3 6 0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 + yMeas ( 2 ) − . . .
27 ( 1 − cos ( yMeas ( 4 ) ) ) ∗ sin ( azi0+yMeas ( 6 ) ∗2∗ pi / 3 6 0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 ;
28 z = h + yMeas ( 3 ) + sin ( yMeas ( 4 ) ) ∗y − sin ( yMeas ( 5 ) ) ∗x ;
29
30 % Chainstopper Locations relative to the Buoy Centre
31 xrel = cos ( azi0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 − ( 1 − cos ( yMeas ( 5 ) ) ) ∗ cos ( azi0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 ;
32 yrel = sin ( azi0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 − ( 1 − cos ( yMeas ( 4 ) ) ) ∗ sin ( azi0 ) ∗ 4 . 0 5 ;
33 zrel = sin ( yMeas ( 4 ) ) ∗y − sin ( yMeas ( 5 ) ) ∗x ;
34 loc = [ xrel ’ yrel ’ zrel ’ ] ;
35
36 % Length anchor to each Chainstopper
37 X = sqrt ( ( anchor_locX − x ) . ^ 2 + ( anchor_locY − y ) . ^ 2 ) ; % [m]
38
39 % Horizontal force at the fairlead
40 T_H = 0:.1:1000; % [N]
41
42 % Catenary characteristic
43 a = T_H /w ; % [Nm/kg]
44
45 % Reserve Space
46 Xtot = zeros ( length ( T_H ) , 6 ) ;
47 id_X = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
48 T_HL = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
49 Tz = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
50 decl = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
51 azi = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
52
53 % For each line:
54 for lines = 1 : 6
55
56 % Calculate for each Horizontal tension the Chainstopper location
57 Xtot ( : , lines ) = l − z ( lines ) . ∗ ( 1 + 2∗ a/z ( lines ) ) . ^ 0 . 5 + . . .
58 a . ∗ acosh ( 1 + z ( lines ) . / a ) ;
59
60 % Check which position in the vector
61 id_X ( lines ) = knnsearch ( Xtot ( : , lines ) , X ( lines ) ) ;
62
63 % Tensions
64 T_HL ( lines ) = T_H ( id_X ( lines ) ) ;
65 if lines == 7
66 T_HL ( lines ) = 0 ;
67 end
68 Tz ( lines ) = −w∗z ( lines ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ T_HL ( lines ) / ( w∗z ( lines ) ) + 1 ) ^ 0 . 5 ;
69
70 % Angle
71 decl ( lines ) = atan ( Tz ( lines ) / T_HL ( lines ) ) /2/ pi ∗ 3 6 0 ;
72 azi ( lines ) = atan ( ( anchor_locY ( lines )−y ( lines ) ) / . . .
73 ( anchor_locX ( lines )−x ( lines ) ) ) ;
74 end
75
76 % Tension in x and y direction for each line

B-2 Matlab 87
77 Tx = T_HL ’ . ∗ [ 1 1 1 −1 −1 − 1 ] ’ . ∗ cos ( azi ) ’ ;

78 Ty = T_HL ’ . ∗ [ 1 1 1 −1 −1 − 1 ] ’ . ∗ sin ( azi ) ’ ;
79
80 % Total Translational Tension
81 T = [ Tx Ty Tz ’ ] ;
82
83 % Find the moments around the centre of the buoy ( cross product )
84 Tr = zeros ( 6 , 3 ) ;
85 for i = 1 : 6
86 Tr ( i , : ) = −cross ( T ( i , : ) , loc ( i , : ) ) ;
87 end
88
89 % Total Force on buoy centre in 6 DoF
90 TZ0 = −w ∗ 4 6 . 7 2 ∗ ( 2 ∗ 1 4 9 . 3 / ( w ∗ 4 6 . 7 2 ) + 1 ) ^ 0 . 5 ;
91 T(: ,3) = T ( : , 3 ) − TZ0 ;
92 Ttotal = [ T Tr ] ;
93
94 Ttotal ( 5 , : ) = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
B-2-2 Matlab - Determine Force in each DoF per Offset

2 %
3 % M-file to calculate the stiffness of the total system . In order to
4 % determine the stiffness this m-file calculates the Tension in each DoF
5 % per seperate DoF displacement . First an x- offset is considered and the
6 % force for each DoF is then plotted . Six DoF: [X Y Z Xrot Yrot Zrot ].
7 %
8 clear all ; close all ;
9
10 % Define ylabel
11 labelY = { ’$T_X \ hspace {3 pt} [N]$’ , ’$T_Y \ hspace {3 pt} [N]$’ , . . .
12 ’$T_Z \ hspace {3 pt} [N]$’ , ’$M_X \ hspace {3 pt} [Nm]$’ , . . .
13 ’$M_Y \ hspace {3 pt} [Nm]$’ , ’$M_Z \ hspace {3 pt} [Nm]$’ } ;
14
15 % Define xlabel
16 labelX = { ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} X \ hspace {3 pt} [m]$’ , . . .
17 ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} Y \ hspace {3 pt} [m]$’ , . . .
18 ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} Z \ hspace {3 pt} [m]$’ , . . .
19 ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} RX \ hspace {3 pt} [deg]$’ , . . .
20 ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} RY \ hspace {3 pt} [deg]$’ , . . .
21 ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} RZ \ hspace {3 pt} [deg]$’ } ;
22
23 % Define filename to save plot to
24 filename = { ’Xoffset ’ , ’Yoffset ’ , ’Zoffset ’ , ’RXoffset ’ , ’RYoffset ’ , . . .
25 ’RZoffset ’ } ;
26
27 pos = [1 3 5 2 4 6 ] ; % Reorganizing the subplots
28 offset = [ 7 . 5 7 . 5 3 10 10 1 0 ] ; % Offsets in each DoF
29
30 % For each DoF
31 for m = 1 : 6
32

33 % Define offset domain

34 dis = −offset ( m ) : 0 . 1 : offset ( m ) ;
35
36 % Rererve space for tension matrix
37 Tension = zeros ( length ( dis ) , 6 ) ;
38
39 % For each offset in the domain
40 for j = 1 : length ( dis )
41
42 % Define measurement
43 yMeas = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
44 yMeas ( m ) = dis ( j ) ;
45
46 % Calculate Total Tension by the Mooring Lines
47 run MLTension_TotalTens . m
48 Tension ( j , : ) = sum ( Ttotal ) ;
49 end
50
51 % Define y limits for the plot based on max force or moment
52 lim_force = max ( max ( abs ( Tension ( : , 1 : 3 ) ) ) ) ∗ 1 . 2 ;
53 lim_moment = max ( max ( abs ( Tension ( : , 4 : 6 ) ) ) ) ∗ 1 . 2 ;
54 % If significantly small plot with y limit 1
55 if lim_force < 1
56 lim_force = 1 ;
57 end
58 if lim_moment < 1
59 lim_moment = 1 ;
60 end
61
62 % Plot the Tensions and Moments
63 figure ( ’units ’ , ’normalized ’ , ’position ’ , [ 0 0 . 9 . 9 ] )
64 for k = 1 : 6
65 subplot ( 3 , 2 , pos ( k ) )
66 plot ( dis , Tension ( : , k ) , ’LineWidth ’ , 2 )
67 ylabel ( labelY {k } , ’interpreter ’ , ’latex ’ )
68 if pos ( k ) >= 5
69 xlabel ( labelX {m } , ’interpreter ’ , ’latex ’ )
70 end
71 xlim ([ −1 1 ] ∗ offset ( m ) )
72 if k <= 3
73 ylim ([ −1 1 ] ∗ lim_force )
74 else
75 ylim ([ −1 1 ] ∗ lim_moment )
76 end
77 set ( gca , ’FontSize ’ , 1 4 )
78 grid on
79 end
80
81 % Save figure to png file
82 cd ( ’C:\ Users \ Thomas \ Dropbox \ MasterThesis \ Report \ Thesis_Report \
STYLESTUFF \ Mooring ’ )
83 % print ( filename {m},’-dpng ’)
84 cd ( ’C:\ Users \ Thomas \ Dropbox \ MasterThesis \ MATLAB \ REPORT ’ )

B-2 Matlab 89
85 end
B-2-3 Matlab - Determine Linearized Stiffness for Three DoF

2 %
3 % M-file to calculate the stiffness of the 3DOF system . In order to
4 % determine the stiffness this m-file calculates the Tension in three DoF
5 % per seperate DoF displacement . First an x- offset is considered and the
6 % force for each DoF is then plotted . Three DoF: [X Z Yrot ].
7 %
8 clear all ; close all ;
9
10 Print = 0 ;
11
12 % Define ylabel
13 labelY = { ’$F_X \ hspace {3 pt} [N]$’ , ’$F_Z \ hspace {3 pt} [N]$’ , . . .
14 ’$M_Y \ hspace {3 pt} [Nm]$’ } ;
15
16 % Define xlabel
17 labelX = { ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} X \ hspace {3 pt} [m]$’ , . . .
18 ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} Z \ hspace {3 pt} [m]$’ , . . .
19 ’$Displacement \ hspace {1 pt} RY \ hspace {3 pt} [deg]$’ } ;
20
21 % Define filename to save plot to
22 filename = ’Stiffness_3DOF ’ ;
23
24 pos = [1 2 3; 4 5 6; 7 8 9 ] ; % Reorganizing the subplots
25 offset = [ 1 0 10 2 0 ] ; % Offsets in each DoF
26
27 % Rerserve Space for the Stiffness matrix
28 stiffness = zeros ( 3 , 3 ) ;
29 lim = zeros ( 3 , 3 ) ;
30 limits = zeros ( 3 , 1 ) ;
31
32 % Set up fittype and options .
33 ftZ = fittype ( ’a*x*x’ , ’independent ’ , . . .
34 ’x’ , ’dependent ’ , ’y’ ) ;
35 opts = fitoptions ( ’Method ’ , ’NonlinearLeastSquares ’ ) ;
36 opts . Display = ’Off ’ ;
37 opts . StartPoint = 0;
38
39 figure ( ’units ’ , ’normalized ’ , ’position ’ , [ 0 0 . 9 . 9 ] )
40 % For each DoF
41 for m = 1 : 3
42
43 % Define offset domain
44 dis = −offset ( m ) : offset ( m ) /10 : offset ( m ) ;
45
46 % Rererve space for tension matrix
47 Tension = zeros ( length ( dis ) , 6 ) ;
48
49 % For each offset in the domain

50 for j = 1 : length ( dis )

51
52 % Define measurement
53 yMeas = zeros ( 1 , 6 ) ;
54 yMeas ( ( m−1)∗2+1) = dis ( j ) ;
55
56 % Calculate Total Tension by the Mooring Lines
57 run MLTension_TotalTens . m
58 Tension ( j , : ) = sum ( Ttotal ) ;
59 end
60
61 % Filter only x, z, and ry directions
62 Tension = Tension ( : , [ 1 3 5 ] ) ;
63
64 if m == 1
65 TensionX = Tension ;
66 disX = dis ;
67 end
68
69 if m == 3
70 TensionRY = Tension ;
71 disRY = dis ;
72 end
73
74 % Find maximum
75 lim ( : , m ) = max ( abs ( Tension ) ) ∗ 1 . 3 ;
76
77 % Plot the Tensions and Moments
78 for k = 1 : 3
79
80 % Find linear fitting of the data
81 f = fit ( dis ’ , Tension ( : , k ) , ’poly1 ’ ) ;
82
83 % Save fitted Stiffness value ( leave constant offset )
84 stiffness ( k , m ) = f . p1 ;
85 if abs ( f . p1 ) < 0 . 0 1
86 % If stiffness value almost zero set to zero
87 stiffness ( k , m ) = 0 ;
88 end
89
90 % Determine fitness of the fitting
91 VAF = vaf ( Tension ( : , k ) , dis ’ ∗ stiffness ( k , m ) ) ;
92
93 % Plot the Calculated data and Linearized data
94 subplot ( 3 , 3 , pos ( k , m ) )
95 hold all
96 L1 = plot ( dis , Tension ( : , k ) , ’xb ’ , ’LineWidth ’ , 1 . 5 , ’MarkerSize ’ , 1 0 ) ;
97 L2 = plot ( dis , dis ∗ stiffness ( k , m ) , ’r-’ , ’LineWidth ’ , 1 . 5 ) ;
98 if m == 1 && k == 2
99 fitresult1 = fit ( disX ’ , TensionX ( : , 2 ) , ftZ , opts ) ;
100 set ( L2 , ’Visible ’ , ’off ’ )
101 L2 = plot ( dis , fitresult1 . a . ∗ dis . ∗ dis , ’r-’ , ’LineWidth ’ , 1 . 5 ) ;
102 VAF = vaf ( Tension ( : , k ) , fitresult1 . a . ∗ dis ’ . ∗ dis ’ ) ;

B-2 Matlab 91
103 end
104 if m == 3 && k == 2
105 fitresult2 = fit ( disRY ’ , TensionRY ( : , 2 ) , ftZ , opts ) ;
106 set ( L2 , ’Visible ’ , ’off ’ )
107 L2 = plot ( dis , fitresult2 . a . ∗ dis . ∗ dis , ’r-’ , ’LineWidth ’ , 1 . 5 ) ;
108 VAF = vaf ( Tension ( : , k ) , fitresult2 . a . ∗ dis ’ . ∗ dis ’ ) ;
109 end
110 if m == 1
111 ylabel ( labelY {k } , ’interpreter ’ , ’latex ’ )
112 end
113 if k >= 3
114 xlabel ( labelX {m } , ’interpreter ’ , ’latex ’ )
115 end
116 legend ( L2 , [ ’VAF: ’ num2str ( round ( VAF ∗ 1 0 0 ) / 1 0 0 ) ’%’ ] )
117 xlim ([ −1 1 ] ∗ offset ( m ) )
118
119 set ( gca , ’FontSize ’ , 1 4 )
120 grid on
121 end
122 end
123
124 % Set limits in order to compare the influence on each DoF.
125 for k = 1 : 3
126 limits ( k ) = max ( lim ( k , : ) ) ;
127 for m = 1 : 3
128 subplot ( 3 , 3 , pos ( k , m ) )
129 ylim ([ −1 1 ] ∗ limits ( k ) )
130 end
131 end
132
133 stiffness = −round ( stiffness ∗ 1 0 ) /10
134
135 tightfig ;
136
137 % Save figure to png file
138 if Print
139 cd ( [ ’C:\ Users \ Thomas \ Dropbox \ MasterThesis \ Report \ Thesis_Report_Final \
’...
140 ’STYLESTUFF \ Mooring ’ ] )
141 print ( ’Stiffness_3DOF ’ , ’-dpng ’ )
142 end
143
144 cd ( ’C:\ Users \ Thomas \ Dropbox \ MasterThesis \ MATLAB \ REPORT ’ )


Appendix C
Spectral Analyis Wave Load
This chapter shows for ascending wave load the spectral analysis of the CALM buoy response.
Additionally, in Section C-2 the non-linear constant offsets for ascending waves is presented.
C-1 Top Segment Failure - Wave Load
For ascending wave heigth, the spectral density is presented for an intact and a broken
system. Here one can see that the peaks have a varying frequency and the spectral density is
not significantly larger for a broken buoy.
Figure C-1: Spectral density of top segment failure of the CALM buoy in OrcaFlex for waves
with a significant wave height Hs = 1m and peak period Tp = 4.6s

94 Spectral Analyis Wave Load

C-1 Top Segment Failure - Wave Load 95


C-2 Non-Linear Constant Offset 97
C-2 Non-Linear Constant Offset
A mooring configuration in waves results in a non-linear offset in position of the CALM buoy.
This offset is summarized in Table C-1 for ascending wave heights.

Hs [m] Tp [s] X [m] Z [m] RY [◦ ]
3.6 0.18 -0.24 0.06

1 4.6 0.1 -0.13 0.07
5.5 0.07 -0.08 0.09
5.1 0.33 -0.35 -0.05
2 6.5 0.2 -0.18 0.12
7.7 0.18 -0.1 0.09
6.2 0.59 -0.44 -0.05
3 7.9 0.42 -0.2 0.11
9.5 0.3 -0.1 0.06
7.2 1.06 -0.46 -0.2
4 9.2 0.59 -0.2 0.06
11 0.39 -0.11 -0.02
8.1 1.3 -0.51 -0.2
5 10.2 0.79 -0.21 -0.11
12.2 0.51 -0.1 -0.11
8.8 1.65 -0.53 -0.65
6 11.2 0.96 -0.23 -0.33
13.4 0.56 -0.09 -0.16
9.5 1.95 -0.55 -0.92
7 12.1 1.03 -0.23 -0.52
14.5 0.69 -0.12 -0.16
10.2 2.22 -0.54 -1.2
8 13 1.1 -0.2 -0.57
15.5 0.79 -0.09 -0.4
10.8 2.46 -0.58 -1.6
9 13.7 1.36 -0.24 -0.59
16.4 0.9 -0.11 -0.44
11.4 2.72 -0.6 -1.82
10 14.5 1.48 -0.25 -0.78
17.3 0.93 -0.1 -0.58
Table C-1: Non-linear offsets caused by mooring lines for the CALM buoy subjected to waves
with varying significant wave heights and peak periods.

Appendix D
Fault Detection Algorithm

Characteristics
The additional aspects for the modeling of the CALM buoy is presented in this chapter.
D-1 Modeling
The modeling depends on system specific parameters. The frequency depended added mass
and damping terms are presented here. Additionally, the shaping filter design is presented in
Subsection D-1-2.

100 Fault Detection Algorithm Characteristics
D-1-1 System Parameters
Figure D-1: Added mass coefficients depended on the frequency of excitation.
Figure D-2: Damping coefficients depended on the frequency of excitation.
D-1-2 Shaping Filter
The filter is defined to let all the wave force components trough. A shaping filter is built by
a high-pass filter and a low-pass filter with a higher roll off frequency than of the high-pass
filter. The transfer function is given as:

D-1 Modeling 101
U (s) = G(s)Ww (s) (D-1)
With,
s ωLP ωLP s
G(s) = GHP (s) · GLP (s) = · = 2 (D-2)
s + ωHP s + ωLP s + (ωHP + ωLP )s + ωHP ωLP
The transfer function is representing the shaping filter from the Zero Mean White Noise
(ZMWN) Ww (s) to the input wave force disturbance U (s) in Equation D-1. For the state-
space representation in the time domain the transfer function equation is transferred back to
the time domain.
(s2 + (ωHP + ωLP )s + ωHP ωLP )U (s) = ωLP sWw (s) (D-3)
ü(t) + (ωHP + ωLP )u̇(t) + ωHP ωLP u(t) = ωLP ẇw (t) (D-4)
ü(t) = −(ωHP + ωLP )u̇(t) − ωHP ωLP u(t) + ωLP ẇw (t) (D-5)
By choosing xSF (t) to be [u u̇]T the equation of motion in Equation D-5 can be rewritten
into state-space form.
ẋSF (t) = ASF xSF (t) + BSF ww (t) (D-6)

Fwaves (t) = CSF xSF (t) (D-7)
With,
" #
−(ωLP + ωHP ) −ωLP ωHP
ASF = (D-8)
1 0
" #
1
BSF = (D-9)
0
h i
CSF = ωLP 0 (D-10)
The implementation in Matlab is presented in the script below.

1 %% Shaping Filter design
2 % ---------- Bandpass Filter ---------- %%
3 s = tf ( ’s’ ) ;
4
5 w1 = 0.0005; % Bandfrequency High pass filter
6 w2 = 10; % Bandfrequency Low pass filter
7

8 G_BP = ( s / ( s+w1 ) ) ∗ ( w2 / ( s+w2 ) ) ∗ 0 . 0 5 ; % Transfer function BP filter
9 [ num , den ] = tfdata ( G_BP , ’v’ ) ; % Num and Den of BP filter
10
11 % State space representation BP filter
12 AsfF = [−den ( 2 ) −den ( 3 ) ; 1 0 ] ;
13 CsfF = [ num ( 2 ) 0 ] ;
14
15 global Asf Csf nsf
16
17 Asf = blkdiag ( AsfF , AsfF , AsfF ) ;
18 Csf = blkdiag ( CsfF , CsfF , CsfF ) ;
19
20 % Shaping Filter State Size
21 nsf = size ( Asf , 1 ) ;
D-2 Kalman Filter Design
The covariance matrices for the process and measurement noise can be used as tuning param-
eter for the Kalman filter. In Subsection D-2-1 the values are presented for this particular
case.
D-2-1 Covariance Matrices
The process covariance of the CALM buoy Q ∈ R6 , the process covariance of the shaping filter
Qsf ∈ R6 , and the process covariance of the residual estimation force estimation Qres ∈ R3 .
Additionally the measurement covariance is presented by R ∈ R6 .

D-2 Kalman Filter Design 103
 
0.01 0 0 0 0 0
 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 
Q =  (D-11)
 
 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 

 
 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0.01
 
10E05 0 0 0 0 0
 0 10E05 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 10E05 0 0 0 
Qsf =  (D-12)
 
 0 0 0 10E05 0 0 

 
 0 0 0 0 10E05 0 
0 0 0 0 0 10E05
 
10 0 0
Qres =  0 10 0  (D-13)
 
0 0 10
 
0.1 0 0 0 0 0
 0 0.1 0 0 0 0
 
 0 0 0.1 0 0 0
R =  (D-14)
 
 0 0 0 0.1 0 0

 
 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0.1
D-2-2 Matlab - Estimation
1 % Initial Estimates
2 xhat = zeros ( length ( t ) , 1 5 ) ;
3
4 % Define ekf object
5 myEKF = extendedKalmanFilter ( @ORCA_StateFcn , @ORCA_MeasurementFcn , . . .
6 xhat ( 1 , : ) ) ;
7
8 % Define Covariances
9 myEKF . ProcessNoise = Q;
10 myEKF . MeasurementNoise = R;
11
12 % Estimation Process
13 for k = 1 : length ( t )
14 % Use measurement y(k) to correct the state estimate for time k
15 xhat ( k , : ) = correct ( myEKF , yMeas ( k , : ) ’ , u ( k , : ) ’ ) ;
16 % Predict state at next time step
17 predict ( myEKF , u ( k , : ) ’ ) ;
18 end
19
20 % Residual signal
21 Eps = yMeas − xhat ( : , 1 : n ) ;

D-2-3 Matlab - State Equation
1 function zeta = ORCA_StateFcn ( zeta , u )

2 % ORCA_StateFcn (zeta ,u) is calculating the model prediction for the next
3 % timestep . It uses a function called ORCA_StateContinuous (zeta ,u) to
4 % calculate the derivate of the state equations .
5 %
6 % zeta: Augmented state ([q; qsf; qres ])
7 % u: Input signal ([ VcurrentX ; Ftanker ])
8 global dt ;
9
10 zeta = zeta + ORCA_StateContinuous ( zeta , u ) ∗ dt ;
11 end
12
13 function dzetadt = ORCA_StateContinuous ( zeta , u )
14 % ORCA_StateContinuousFcn (zeta ,u) is calculating the derivative of the
15 % state equations
16 %
17 % zeta: Augmented state ([q; qsf; qres ])
18 % u: Input signal ([ VcurrentX ; Ftanker ])
19 global M AM B C Cml Asf Csf Ccurrent Cmlz
20
21 dzetadt = [ eye ( 3 ) ∗ zeta ( 4 : 6 ) ;
22 inv ( M+AM ) ∗(−B∗ zeta ( 4 : 6 ) − C∗ zeta ( 1 : 3 ) − Cml ∗ zeta ( 1 : 3 ) − [ 0 ; Cmlz
∗ zeta ( 1 ) ^ 2 ; 0 ] + Ccurrent ∗u ( 1 ) ∗ abs ( u ( 1 ) ) + u ( 2 : 4 ) + Csf ∗ zeta
( 7 : 1 2 ) + zeta ( 1 3 : 1 5 ) ) ;
23 Asf ∗ zeta ( 7 : 1 2 ) ;
24 zeros ( 3 , 1 ) ] ;
25 end
D-2-4 Matlab - Measurement Equation
1 function yk = ORCA_MeasurementFcn ( zeta , ~ )

2 % ORCA_MeasurementFcn (zeta ,~) is the measurement equation . Here the
3 % measurements are obtained by extracting the state values of the buoy.
4 %
5 % zeta: The state values
6 % yk: The measurement
7 global n
8 yk = zeta ( 1 : n ) ;
9 end
D-3 Residual Evaluation
For waves with a significant wave height Hs = 1m and peak period Tp = 3.6s, see Figure D-3
and Figure D-4. And for waves with a significant wave height Hs = 1m and peak period
Tp = 5.5s, see Figure D-5 and Figure D-6.

D-3 Residual Evaluation 105
Figure D-3: Position estimation is plotted against the measured signal. The black dotted line
Figure D-4: The two unknown force estimations. In the left column the estimated wave force is

Figure D-5: Position estimation is plotted against the measured signal. The black dotted line
Figure D-6: The two unknown force estimations. In the left column the estimated wave force is

Bibliography
[1] DNV, “Position Mooring,” Det Norske Veritas, no. Offshore standard DNV-OS-E301,
p. 100, 2010.
[2] K.-T. Ma, A. Duggal, P. Smedley, D. L’Hostis, and H. Shu, “OTC 24025 A Historical
Review on Integrity Issues of Permanent Mooring Systems,” Procedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference 2013, vol. 3, pp. 6–9, 2013.
[3] M. G. Brown, T. D. Hall, and D. G. Marr, “Floating Production Mooring Integrity JIP
âĂŞ Key Findings,” Offshore Technology Conference, pp. 2–5, 2005.
[4] R. B. Gordon, M. G. Brown, E. M. Allen, and D. N. V. Gl, “Mooring Integrity Manage-
ment : A State-of-the-Art Review,” no. May, pp. 5–8, 2014.
[5] P. Elman, E. Elletson, J. Bramande, P. S. Monitroing, and K. Pinheiro, “Reducing
Uncertainty Through The Use Of Mooring Line Monitoring,” no. October, pp. 29–31,
2013.
[6] Noble Denton Europe Limited, “Floating production system - JIP FPS mooring in-
tegrity,” 2006.
[7] DNV, “Modeling and Analysis of Marine Operations,” Det Norske Veritas, no. Offshore
standard DNV-RP-H103, 2011.
[8] J. Morison, J. Johnson, and S. Schaaf, “The Force Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles,”
Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 2, pp. 149–154, may 1950.
[9] J. Journée and W. Massie, Offshore Hydromechanics, vol. First Edit. 2001.
[10] A. N. Simos, E. A. Tannuri, J. A. P. Aranha, S. Paulo, and A. J. P. Leite, “Theoretical
Analysis and Experimental Evaluation of the Fishtailing Phenomenon in a Single-Point
Moored Tanker,” vol. I, pp. 4–9, jan 2001.
[11] R. E. Kalman, “A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems,” Trans-
actions of the ASME - Journal of Basic Engineering, vol. 82, no. Series D, pp. 35–45,
1960.

108 Bibliography
[12] M. Verhaegen and V. Verdult, Filtering and System Identification: A Least Squares
Approach. 2007.
[13] P. Fogh, P. F. Odgaard, and J. Stoustrup, “Unknown input observer based scheme for
detecting faults in a wind turbine converter,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 42, no. 8,
pp. 161–166, 2009.
[14] T. I. Fossen, Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Control. John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd, 2011.
[15] W. E. Cummins, The impulse response function and ship motions, vol. 57. 1962.
[16] T. F. Ogilvie, “Recent progress toward the understanding and prediction of ship mo-
tions,” 1964.
[17] M. S. Grewal, “Kalman Filtering,” in International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science,
pp. 705–708, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
[18] J. H. S. Johnsen, “Loss of Integrety on Mooring Systems - Causes and Consequences,”
no. June, p. 106, 2016.
[19] O. Faltinsen, Sea loads on ships and offshore structures, vol. 1. 1990.
[20] A. K. T. Jeom Kee Paik, Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations: Design, Building, and
Operation. 1. ed., 2007.
[21] W. J. J. Pierson and L. Moskowitz, “A Proposed Spectral Form for Fully Developed Wind
Seas Based on the Similarity Theory of S. A. Kitaigorodskii,” Journal of Geophysical
Research, vol. 69, pp. 5181–5190, dec 1964.
[22] K. Hasselmann, T. Barnett, E. Bouws, H. Carlson, D. Cartwright, K. Enke, J. Ewing,
H. Gienapp, D. Hasselmann, P. Kruseman, A. Meerburg, P. Müller, D. Olbers, K. Richter,
W. Sell, and H. Walden, “Measurements of wind-wave growth and swell decay during
the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP),” Ergänzungsheft 8-12, 1973.
[23] Y. Wu, T. Wang, Ø. Eide, and K. Haverty, “Governing factors and locations of fatigue
damage on mooring lines of floating structures,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 96, pp. 109–124,
2015.
[24] A. S. Willsky, “A survey of design methods for failure detection in dynamic systems,”
Automatica, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 601–611, 1976.
[25] S. Majhi and R. D. Souza, “Application of Lessons Learned From Field Experience
to Design , Installation and Maintenance of FPS Moorings,” Procedings of OTC 2013,
pp. 6–9, 2013.
[26] P. Elman, E. Elletson, J. Bramande, P. S. Monitroing, and K. Pinheiro, “OTC 24388
Reducing Uncertainty Through The Use Of Mooring Line Monitoring,” no. October,
pp. 29–31, 2013.
[27] P. Aalberts, J. Minnebo, and A. Duggal, “Mooring system monitoring using DGPS,” in
Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, pp. 1–7, 2014.

109
[28] Z. Gao, C. Cecati, and S. X. Ding, “A Survey of Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant
Techniques Part I: Fault Diagnosis with Model-Based and Signal-Based Approaches,”
IEEE Transactions On Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3768 – 3774, 2015.
[29] Z. Gao, C. Cecati, and S. X. Ding, “A Survey of Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Tech-
niques Part II: Fault Diagnosis with Knowledge-Based and Hybrid/Active Approaches,”
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3768–3774, 2015.
[30] V. Venkatasubramanian, R. Rengaswamy, S. N. Kavuri, and K. Yin, “A review of process

fault detection and diagnosis part III: Process history based methods,” 2003.
[31] R. V. Beard, “Failure Accommodation Linear Systems through Self-Reorganization,”

1971.
[32] J. Chen and R. J. Patton, Robust Model-Based Fault Diagnosis for Dynamic Systems.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
[33] S. Simani, C. Fantuzzi, and R. J. Patton, Model-Based Fault Diagnosis in Dynamic

Systems Using Identification Techniques. Springer, 2003.
[34] R. Isermann, Fault-Diagnosis Systems - An Introduction from Fault Detection to Fault

Tolerance. Springer, 2006.
[35] I. Hwang, S. Kim, Y. Kim, and C. Eng, “A Survey of Fault Detection, Isolation, and
ReconïňĄguration Methods,” Ieee Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 18,
no. 3, p. 18, 2010.

110 Bibliography

Glossary
List of Acronyms
SPM Single Point Mooring
MBM Multi-Buoy Mooring
CALM Catenary Arm Leg Mooring
FPSO Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading
GPS Global Positioning System
OPB Out-of-Plane Bending
WF Wave Frequency
LF Low Frequency
JONSWAP JOint North Sea WAve Project
UIO Unknown Input Observer
ZMWN Zero Mean White Noise
DoF Degree-of-Freedom
ROV Remote Operated Vehicle

112 Glossary

TAvanBruggen 4036573 Thesis PDF

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

TAvanBruggen 4036573 Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mooring Line Failure Detection

of a Single Point Mooring System

T.A. van Bruggen

Delft Center for Systems and Control

Master of Science Thesis

For the degree of Master of Science in Systems and Control at Delft

T.A. van Bruggen

Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE) · Delft University of

Copyright c Delft Center for Systems and Control (DCSC)

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

2 Mooring Line Failure Analysis 5

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

4 Fault Detection Algorithm Design 37

C Spectral Analyis Wave Load 93

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

D Fault Detection Algorithm Characteristics 99

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

1-1 Thesis Motivation

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

1-2 Problem Definition

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

Mooring Line Failure Analysis

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

Top Segment Failure "Sudden" transition Shift in both equilibrium

Bottom Segment Failure "Smooth" transition Shift in both equilibrium

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

2-2 Top Segment Failure

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

2-2-1 No External Load

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

X [m] 3.1 3.26

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

fpeak,X (Hz) 0.059 0.048

2-2-2 Exciting Wave Load

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

2-3 Bottom Segment Failure

2-3-1 No Exciting Load

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

Ff riction = µf riction · lb · w = 230kN (2-5)

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

2-3-2 Exciting Wave Load

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

FF roudeKrylof,X (t) = |ρ · V · u̇x (t)|

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

2-4 Conclusion Mooring Line Failure Analysis

Master of Science Thesis T.A. van Bruggen

Top Segment Failure Bottom Segment Failure

X [m] 3.26 3.26

T.A. van Bruggen Master of Science Thesis

• Tankers mooring at the buoy

• Non-linear effects of a mooring configuration in waves