Proceedings of The Fifteenth (2005) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Seoul, Korea, June 19−24, 2005

Copyright © 2005 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-64-8 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Effect of Mooring Lines on Floating Breakwaters Performance

Eva Loukogeorgaki and Demos C. Angelides
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh)
Thessaloniki, Greece

ABSTRACT
In the present paper the effect of mooring lines’ stiffness and damping
on the performance of moored floating breakwaters under the action of
normal incident waves is investigated in frequency domain. A three
dimensional hydrodynamic model is coupled with a static and dynamic
model of the mooring lines, using an iterative procedure. An extensive
parametric study is performed. The initial draft of a “base case” floating
breakwater is modified through the appropriate modification of the
mooring lines’ length, affecting directly the mooring lines’ stiffness
and damping. The existence of “optimum” draft, for the frequencies
examined, in terms of transmission coefficient and mooring lines’
forces is clearly demonstrated.
KEY WORDS: Coastal engineering; floating breakwater; mooring
lines; stiffness; damping; effectiveness; performance.
INTRODUCTION
Floating breakwaters present an alternative solution to conventional
fixed breakwaters and can be effectively used at coastal regions with
mild wave environment conditions. Poor foundation or deep water
conditions as well as environmental requirements, such as phenomena
of intense shore erosion, water quality and aesthetic considerations
advocate to the application of such structures.
Floating breakwaters have many advantages compared to the fixed
ones, e.g. flexibility of future extensions, mobility and reallocation
ability, etc. As a result, many types of floating breakwaters have been
developed as described by McCartney (1985). However, the most
commonly used are the rectangular pontoon type breakwaters, which
are moored to the sea bottom with cables or chains.
A moored floating breakwater should be properly designed in order to
ensure: (a) effective reduction of the transmitted energy and, therefore,
adequate protection of the area behind the floating system, (b) non
failure of the mooring lines and (c) non failure of the floaters
themselves and their interconnections. The satisfaction of the above
three requirements comprises the overall performance of the floating
breakwater.
A brief review of the design process for floating breakwaters and of
related design criteria, both with respect to wave effects is provided by
Isaacson (1993b). Linear two dimensional models that describe the
complete hydrodynamic problem (diffraction and radiation) have been
developed by Isaacson and Nwogu (1987), Isaacson (1993a), Isaacson
and Bhat (1996), Williams and Abul-Azm (1997), Bhat and Isaacson
(1998), Sannasiraj et al. (1998), Williams et al. (2000) and Lee and
Cho (2003). The effect of mooring lines stiffness is modeled with the
appropriate modification of the hydrodynamic equations (Williams and
Abul-Azm, 1997; Sannasiraj et al., 1998; Williams et al., 2000; Lee and
Cho, 2003). Bhat and Isaacson (1998) performed an iterative coupled
procedure between a hydrodynamic model and a mooring analysis
model in terms of convergence of steady drift forces. Isaacson and
Nwogu (1987) and Bhat (1998) properly modified the two dimensional
hydrodynamic model in order to take into account the effect of finite
floating body length. Isaacson and Garceau (1997) investigated the
response of a freely floating breakwater by superposing two-
dimensional solutions for the diffracted and radiated waves and
compared this simplified approach with three-dimensional results.
Three dimensional analysis of V-shape floating breakwater has been
implemented by Briggs et al. (1999). Finally, Kim et al. (1994)
investigated theoretically and experimentally the effect of the initial
constraining forces of a pile restrained floating breakwater and
indicated the existence of optimum initial values of these forces in
terms of wave transmission.
In the present paper the protection effectiveness and the dynamic
response of a moored floating breakwater is investigated in frequency
domain under the action of regular waves. A three dimensional model
of the hydrodynamic analysis of the floating body is coupled with a
model of the static and dynamic analysis of the mooring lines using an
appropriate iterative procedure in terms of the steady drift forces and
the response of the floating breakwater. The floating body analysis is
based on three dimensional panel method utilizing Green’s theorem.
The analysis of the mooring lines includes the computation of mooring
lines’ stiffness and damping imposed on the floating body. An
extensive parametric study is performed in order to investigate the
effect of the stiffness and damping of the mooring lines on the dynamic
response and the effectiveness of the floating breakwater as well as on
the loads of the mooring lines. The initial draft of a “base case” floating
breakwater is properly modified through the appropriate changes of the
mooring lines’ length; this affects directly mooring lines’ stiffness and
damping. The existence of optimum draft, for the frequencies

621
examined, in terms of transmission coefficient and mooring lines’
forces is clearly demonstrated.
NUMERICAL MODELS
In the following subsections the two components of the analysis of a
moored floating breakwater’s behavior are briefly described. The
geometry of the problem, the coordinate system and the definition of
some basic quantities that are mentioned in the rest of the paper are
shown in Fig. 1. The origin of the coordinate system is placed on the
still water level.
gravitational matrix. BijE are the coefficients of the damping matrix
caused by an external source (i.e. drag damping of the mooring lines
and viscous damping) and CijE are the coefficients of the external
stiffness matrix caused by the mooring lines.
The coefficients BijE of the external damping matrix include two
components: the damping coefficients BijE(D), due to the drag damping
of the mooring lines, and the damping coefficients BijE(V), due to
viscous damping attributed to the separation effects at the sharp corners
of the floating body. The calculation of the BijE(D) coefficients is
described in the next subsection. As far as the BijE(V) coefficients the
following empirical relationship is used:

z BijE(V) = 2ζ (M ij + A ij )Cij i = j = 3, 4,5 (4)

ξ3 ξ2 y where ζ is the damping ratio. According to Bhat (1998) a value of ζ
Wave equal to 2.5% is the most representative in the case of a rectangular
ξ6 ξ5 direction floating breakwater.
ξ4 ξ1 The solution of the boundary value problem is based on three
β dimensional panel method utilizing Green’s theorem, imposing the
x appropriate boundary conditions on the free surface, on the sea bottom
and on the floating body and the proper radiated condition for the
Ηf dr
B outgoing waves of the potentials Φj, j=1,..,7 as described by Lee (1995)
d and Newman (1977). Initially, the velocity potential Φ is evaluated.
Lf Then the added mass coefficients Aij, the damping coefficients Bij and
Mooring Line 1 the exciting forces Fi are calculated. The response of the floating body,
Fig. 1: Coordinate system and definition of basic quantities ξj, is determined by using Eq. 3. Finally, the steady mean drift forces Fsj
j=1,2,6 are defined using the momentum conservation. It should be
noted that the coefficients CijE and BijE are imported in the model
Hydrodynamic Analysis of the Floating Body
according to an iterative procedure described below.
The response of the floating body in each degree of freedom is
The hydrodynamic analysis of the floating body subjected to incident
expressed in terms of the Response Amplitude Operator (Eq. 5):
regular waves is conducted in the frequency domain and is based on
three dimensional linear wave diffraction theory. In this linear analysis, ξj
RAO j = j = 1,..., 6 (5)
the floating breakwater is also taken to undergo small oscillations in all A
six degrees of freedom corresponding to surge (ξ1), sway (ξ2), heave The effectiveness of the floating breakwater is expressed in terms of the
(ξ3), roll (ξ4), pitch (ξ5) and yaw (ξ6) as shown in Fig. 1. The fluid is reflection, Kr, and the transmission, Kt, coefficients (Eq. 6) varying
assumed inviscid and incompressible, while the flow is assumed with the location in front and behind the breakwater.
irrotational. Consequently, the fluid motion is described in terms of a
η(x, y) η(x, y)
velocity potential φ(x,y,z;t) = Re[Φ(x,y,z)eiωt], where Re[] denotes the Κr = ( y < 0) Κt = ( y > 0) (6)
real part of a complex quantity. The velocity potential Φ satisfies the A A
Laplace equation everywhere in the fluid region and it consists of three where η(x,y) is the wave elevation at (x,y) due to diffracted and
components: the velocity potential of the incident wave Φο, the radiated waves.
scattered potential Φ7 associated with the diffraction of the incident Finally, the natural frequencies ωnj, j=1,…,6, of the floating breakwater
wave by the breakwater fixed in its mean position and the radiated are determined by solving the eigenvalue problem. The frequency
potential Φr associated with the waves that are generated due to the dependence of the coefficients Aij and CijE results to different natural
forced motions of the breakwater in all six degrees of freedom. Thus, frequencies in each degree of freedom for different excitation
the total velocity potential is given by the following equation: frequencies ω.
Φ = (Φ o + Φ 7 ) + Φ r = Φ D + Φ r (1)
Static and Dynamic Analysis of Mooring Lines
where ΦD is the diffracted potential.
The incident wave potential Φo is defined by Eq. 2:
The static and dynamic analysis of the mooring lines has two
igA cosh[k(z + d)] − ikx cos β −iky sin β objectives. Firstly, it evaluates the coefficients CijE and BijE(D) and,
Φo = • e (2)
ω cosh(kd) consequently, enables the complete and integrated modeling of the
where g is the acceleration of gravity, ω is the wave frequency, A is the dynamic response of the floating breakwater. Secondly, it calculates the
amplitude of the incident wave, k is the wave number, d is the water static and dynamic tension; the maximum tension that is exercised on
depth, and β is the wave angle (Fig. 1). each mooring line determines the failure or not of the mooring lines.
The response of the floating body ξj, j=1,…,6 is given by the solution The geometry of a typical mooring line is shown in Fig. 2.
of the following system of equations (Eq. 3): The static analysis of the mooring lines includes the determination of:
6 (a) the initial static configuration of the mooring lines under the action

∑ −ω ( Μ2
ij ) ( )
+ Αij + iω Βij + ΒijE + (Cij + CijE ) ξ j = Fi
 (3)
of the initial pretension and in the absence of any external loads (initial
equilibrium position) as well as the corresponding static tensions, (b)
j=1
the new equilibrium position (steady offset) of the mooring lines under
i = 1,..., 6 the action of steady drift forces due to waves and current (Fig. 3) and
where Mij are the coefficients of the mass matrix of the body, Aij and the corresponding net horizontal forces and net moment around z axis
Bij are the coefficients of the added mass matrix and damping matrix (at the initial equilibrium position these forces and moment are equal to
respectively and Cij are the coefficients of the hydrostatic and zero due to symmetry of mooring lines), (c) the static configuration and

622
the static tensions of the mooring lines at the new equilibrium position the fairlead at the new equilibrium position and (b) the damping
and (d) the coefficients CijE due to the changes of static tensions coefficients BijE(D).
resulting from the displacements due to the external static loads. The dynamic tensions express the effect of waves on the mooring lines.
z The direct action of the waves on the mooring lines is typically small
Tst compared to the energy that is transmitted by the moving floating body
V as mentioned by Triantafyllou (1999). Therefore, the dynamic tensions
x are calculated assuming that a sinusoidal excitation, resulting from the
H motions of the floating body, is imposed on the fairlead of each
Ltot mooring line at the new static equilibrium position. Detailed
L1 d-dr description of the determination of the dynamic tensions can be found
in Triantafyllou (1982) and Triantafyllou et al. (1986). With regard to
L2 φbot the drag damping calculation, the drag damping coefficients are
Xtot obtained by linearizing the hydrodynamic drag force using an
equivalent linearization technique for the case of a harmonic excitation
Xa (Triantafyllou et al., 1986).
Fig. 2: Geometry of mooring line (x-z plane) Generally, the damping coefficient BijE(D) of a mooring line is defined
as the ratio of the reaction force or moment in phase with the velocity
All the above issues related to the static analysis are addressed using ξ i , due to a motion ξj, to the velocity ξ j . In this work the coefficients
the equations of the elastic catenary as described in Triantafyllou
(1982). A basic assumption for the static analysis is that the static BijE(D) with i=j are calculated, while the ones with i≠j are assumed equal
configuration of a mooring line is two-dimensional (x-z plane). to zero. Initially, the complex motion amplitudes xd, zd in x, z
Additionally, as far as the calculation of the stiffness coefficients, CijE, directions (vertical plane), due to the externally imposed sinusoidal
the change in the static tension is assumed to be a function of only the motions (RAOj, j=1,…,6) at the top of each mooring line at the new
horizontal distance Xtot between the anchor position and the fairlead static position, and the resulting dynamic tensions and angles are
position. calculated, assuming small rotations. The terminal impedances of a
mooring line can be defined in the following way:
y
y΄  Sxx Sxz   x d   Fx 
P2(xp,yp)  •  =   (8)
θf x΄  Szx Szz   z d   Fz 
●
where Fx, Fz are the excitation forces in x, z directions. The reaction
θi θο xo, yo, θo: displacements forces Sxx, Sxz, Szx, Szz are next evaluated as functions of the static and
yo ■ and rotation of body’s the dynamic tension and angle at the top of each mooring line
● center of gravity (Triantafyllou et al., 1986). Then, the reaction forces are properly
fy H xo x θi: initial angle of mooring
analyzed in x, y, z directions resulting to reaction forces Si, i=1, 2, 3
lines on x-y plane
Xtot fx θf: new angle of mooring and moments Si, i=4, 5, 6 at and around the corresponding axes. The
lines on x-y plane reaction forces and moments Si that are in phase with the velocity ξ i
xp, yp: coordinates of
Initial equilibrium position displaced fairlead
are used to evaluate the damping coefficients. The procedure described
New equilibrium position above is repeated for each mooring line and the final damping
coefficients BijE(D) that are used in the hydrodynamic model are equal to
Fig. 3: Initial and new static position on x-y plane the sum of all mooring lines’ damping coefficients. Due to space
constraints, the final relations for the calculation of the coefficients
Based on these assumptions, the coefficients CijE are calculated BijE(D) are (Eq. 9):

(S ( ))
according to Eq. 7, while more details can be found at Traintafyllou et m
al. (1986). M i • cos βi m − α j − π / 2
 ∂ (f x ) m ∂ (f x ) m ∂ (f x ) m  ΒijE(D) = ∑ ω•ξj
, i = j = 1,..., 6 (9)
 ∂x ∂yo ∂θ o 
m =1
 C11E C12
E
C16 
E
 o  where Si m
is the amplitude of the dynamic reaction force or moment
  M  ∂ (f y ) m ∂ (f y ) m ∂ (f y ) m 
 C 21E
 E
C 22
E
C 26  =
E
 ∑
 m =1  ∂x o ∂yo ∂θ o 
 (7) of mooring line m, βi m is the phase of Si m and αj is the phase of
 C61 C62
E
C66 
E motion ξj.
   ∂ (M ) ∂ (M z ) m ∂ (M z ) m 
 z m 
 ∂x o ∂yo ∂θ o  Iterative Coupling Procedure
where m=1,…,M is the number of mooring lines, (fx)m=Hm•cos(θf), The two numerical models that have been described above are coupled
(fy)m=Hm•sin(θf) and (Mz)m=(xp-xo)•(fy)m-(yp-yo)•(fx)m. The rest of the using an iterative procedure shown in Fig. 4.
quantities are defined in Fig. 3. In the first cycle of iterations, the hydrodynamic analysis of the floating
It should be noted that in the present analysis the stiffness coefficients body is conducted assuming that CijE and BijE are equal to zero. The
in the vertical direction (CijE, i, j=3,4,5) are neglected. It is assumed that steady drift forces Fsj1 and the RAOj1 are calculated and then imported
the corresponding stiffness coefficients due to hydrostatic and in the static and dynamic analysis model of the mooring lines. Next, the
gravitational forces are much larger. The insignificant influence of coefficients CijE1 and BijE(D)1 are evaluated in the mooring lines’ model
mooring lines’ stiffness on these degrees of freedom is also mentioned and are then imported in the hydrodynamic model of the floating body,
by Bhat (1998). starting the second cycle of iterations. The coefficients BijE(V) are also
The frequency domain dynamic analysis of the mooring lines includes imported in the hydrodynamic model at this stage of the iteration
the determination of: (a) the dynamic tensions of the mooring lines at

623
cycles. Eq. 3 is modified and new RAOj2 and consequently new steady breakwater’s motions only in three degrees of freedom, i.e. sway, heave
drift forces Fsj2 are calculated. The procedure is repeated until and roll. Fifteen wave frequencies were totally examined, so that the
convergence is achieved in terms of the following convergence criteria beam to wave length ratio (B/L) varies in intervals of 0.1 from 0.1 to
(Eq. 10~11): 1.5.
FsjN − FsjN −1 ≤ 10−4 (10) Modification of mooring lines’ stiffness is achieved through the
reduction of the initial mooring lines total length Ltot, which leads to an
RAO jN − RAO jN −1 ≤ 10−4 (11) increase of the initial draft of the “base case” and therefore to the
increase of the initial buoyancy exercised on the floating breakwater.
where N is the number of iteration cycles. This additional buoyancy is picked up by the mooring lines, resulting to
The final values of FsjN and RAOjN are imported once more in the larger initial pretension of the mooring lines compared to the “base
mooring lines’ static and dynamic model to calculate the final steady case”. Consequently, mooring lines undergo modifications in their
offset of the mooring lines and the final static and dynamic tensions of initial static configuration as well as stretching which leads to larger
the mooring lines. Additionally, the final values of the reflection and initial stiffness of the mooring lines.
the transmission coefficients are calculated with the hydrodynamic Based on the above procedure, six drafts were examined as shown in
model. Table 1. This Table contains, also, the values of the quantities that have
been properly modified to achieve the respective drafts, as well as the
Hydrodynamic Analysis Mooring Lines Static and values of the quantities that are affected by the changes of the initial
Dynamic Analysis draft.
Floating breakwater
dimensions Mooring lines Table 1: Characteristics of cases examined
Incident wave (INPUT) characteristics (INPUT)
Case No
dri(m) Ltot(m) L1(m) L2(m) ∆L(m)*
(i)
ΦD Φr calculation -
Calculation of
1 (base
0.77 30 20 10 0
hydrodynamic quantities case)
2 0.778 29.07 28.41 0.66 0.93
Solution of Eq. 3 – RAOj 3 0.78 28.98 28.98 0 1.02
E
calculation (Cij and Bij
E 4 0.80 28.66 28.66 0 1.34
Calculation of mooring 5 0.85 28.59 28.59 0 1.41
equal to 0 in the 1st lines’ steady offset, static
E(V
iteration cycle. Bij ) is E 6 0.90 28.57 28.57 0 1.43
tensions, stiffness Cij and
also included from the E
damping Bij coefficients
Additional Additional
2nd iteration cycle.) Case No H(KN)
Buoyancy (KN) V(KN)
1 0 0 3.27
Fsj calculation NO 2 6.43 1.61 7.49
3 8.04 2.01 8.74
Calculation of mooring 4 24.12 6.03 20.83
lines’ final steady offset,
5 64.33 16.08 50.77
-4 static and dynamic
FsjN- FsjN-1<10 6 104.54 26.13 80.98
-4 tensions
RAOjN- RAOjN-1<10 *∆L=Ltot(base case)-Ltot(of each draft)

YES YES
Kt and Kr calculation
Fig. 4: Iterative coupling procedure
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Maximum mooring lines For Cases 1 and 2 the mooring lines’ angle at the sea bottom φbot=0 and
tensions L2≠0 (slack condition); for Cases 4-6 φbot≠0 and L2=0 (taut condition).
Case 3 represents the limiting case where φbot as well as L2 are equal to
zero. For Cases 4-6 large angles occur at the top of each mooring line.
Therefore, a significant increase of the initial (under pretension
conditions) horizontal force H is observed, which leads to larger values
of mooring lines’ stiffness.

The numerical models described above are applied to perform an
extensive parametric study, for investigating the effect of the stiffness
and damping of the mooring lines on the performance of the floating
breakwater. A floating breakwater with representative characteristics
(Lf=20m, B=4m, Hf=1.5m and dr1=0.77m) is used as the “base case”
for this study. The floating breakwater is anchored to the seabed
through a symmetric mooring system, which consists of four identical
mooring lines as shown in Fig. 1. Their submerged weight is equal to
191.25 N/m, their breaking tension Tbreak is equal to 400 KN, while the
product of elasticity modulus E with the effective area A is equal to
342x103 KN. The initial angle of each mooring line on the x-y plane,
with respect to the x axis, is 45o. The moored floating system is placed
in a depth equal to d=10m.
As far as the incident wave characteristics, the wave angle β is taken
equal to 90o. This normal wave direction results to floating
Stiffness and Damping of Mooring Lines
Fig. 5 shows the variation of the stiffness coefficient C22E as function of
beam to wave length ratios (B/L) for all cases studied. The values of
C22E are increased as drafts increase for each B/L. Drafts dr2 and dr3 do
not differ so much compared to the draft of the “base case”.
Consequently, the corresponding values C22E are larger but quite close
to those of dr1. On the contrary, dr4, dr5 and dr6 differ compared to the
“base case”; their C22E values show remarkable increase compared to
the ones of the “base case”. It should be noted that these three Cases
correspond to L2=0 (taut condition). The variation of C22E with B/L for
a specific draft is attributed to the variation of the steady drift forces.
Larger steady drift forces result to larger steady offset and therefore to
larger stiffness coefficient. Space constraints do not allow further
elaboration of this issue.

624

Fig. 5: C22E as a function of B/L for the drafts examined
The variation of mooring lines’ damping is shown in Fig. 6~8. This
damping depends upon the response of the floating body. Therefore,
the explanation of the damping variations has to be based on the
variation of response quantities presented in the next subsection. The
reaction forces, which are used to calculate the damping coefficients,
depend on both the Tst and the Tdyn.. The variation of damping
coefficients is similar to the variation of the dynamic tensions (see Fig.
12). The larger Tdyn are observed in the range of B/L from 0.1 to 0.4
(low excitation frequency range), while from B/L=0.5 to 1.5 a gradual
decrease of Tdyn is observed. Furthermore, as the draft increases, the
damping coefficients increase, which is expected, as the floating system
becomes stiffer and the mooring lines have larger Tst, resulting to larger
reaction forces Sxx, Sxz, Szx, Szz.
Fig. 6: B22E(D) as a function of B/L for the drafts examined
The roll resonance (see Fig. 11) at B/L=0.3 leads to the increase of
B22E(D) (Fig. 6) for dr2 and dr3. This is not observed for the rest of the
drafts. For dr1 and dr4 the phase difference (βim-αj-π/2) tends to π/2 at
B/L=0.3 and, therefore, the values of the numerator of B22E(D) are
small. In the case of dr5, Sxx and Sxz are close in phase at B/L=0.2
leading to larger value of B22E(D) compared to the one at B/L=0.3.
Finally, for dr6 the gradual decrease of B22E(D) between B/L=0.2 and
0.3 is attributed to the phase differences of Sxx and Sxz.
As far as the variation of B33E(D) (Fig. 7) the roll resonance at B/L=0.3
(see Fig. 11) leads to a small increase of B33E(D) for dr2 and dr3, while it
results to the peak values for dr5 and dr6. The peak value at B/L=0.2
for dr4 is attributed to sway resonance at this B/L (see Fig. 9) The
phase difference (βim-αj-π/2) tends to π/2 for dr1, dr2 and dr3 at
B/L=0.4 and 1.0, which results to low values of B33E(D) at these values
of B/L, because the numerator of B33E(D) becomes small. The opposite
holds for B/L values larger than 1.0, for dr1, dr2, dr3 and dr4, i.e., the
phase difference (βim-αj-π/2) tends to 0 and, therefore, the values of the
numerator of B33E(D) are large compared to those at the closest B/L
625
values. Thus, larger values of B33E(D) at higher B/L are observed,
although Tdyn have lower values.
Fig. 7: B33E(D) as a function of B/L for the drafts examined
With regard to B44E(D) (Fig. 8), for B/L≥1.3, for dr1, dr2 and dr3, B44E(D)
shows larger values compared to the ones at smaller B/L values; this is
attributed to the decrease of the roll velocity (denominator of B44E(D)).
For these drafts, the peak values at B/L=0.1 is due to sway resonance
(see Fig. 9), while for dr4, dr5 and dr6 is due to the peak value of RAO3
(see Fig. 10). Peak values at B/L=0.3 are not observed for all drafts,
although roll resonance occurs (see Fig. 11). This is caused by the
increase of the velocities, which is more significant than the increase of
Sim. As far as the larger values of B44E(D) for dr6 at B/L=0.4, 0.6 and
0.9, they are attributed to the decrease of the corresponding roll
velocities compared to the ones at the nearest values of B/L.
Fig. 8: B44E(D) as a function of B/L for the drafts examined
Response of the Floating Breakwater
The effect of mooring lines stiffness and damping on the response of
the floating breakwater in each degree of freedom is discussed in Fig.
9~11 for the drafts examined. These Figures contain also the variation
of the corresponding natural frequencies as functions of B/L.
The dependence of the natural frequencies on the excitation (wave)
frequency results to resonance occurrence at frequencies where the
difference between the excitation frequency and the natural frequency
(ω-ωnj) tends to zero.
In the case of sway response (Fig. 9) the increase of mooring lines
stiffness (see Fig. 5) obviously leads to lower values as the draft
increases with the exception of dr4 which is explained below.
Additionally, the natural frequencies of the various drafts for a given
B/L exhibit larger values as the floating system becomes stiffer. The
behavior of dr1, dr2 and dr3 is the same. The small differences of C22E
for dr2 and dr3 (see Fig. 5) compared to the “base case” results to small
differences of RAO2.
Fig. 9: Variation of RAO2 (Sway) for the drafts examined
Resonance is observed between B/L=0 and 0.1 (low frequency range)
where the difference ω-ωn2 tends to zero. Therefore, for small values of
B/L, RAO2 obtains large values and as B/L increases RAO2 decreases.
Different trends occur for dr5 and dr6; the natural frequency gets closer
to the excitation frequency and RAO2 increases with increasing B/L.
For the case of dr4 the difference ω-ωn2 becomes zero at about
B/L=0.2, that results to the increase of RAO2 at that B/L value with an
obvious resonance effect. Then the decrease of RAO2 is obvious due to
the increase of ω-ωn2.
Fig. 10 depicts the variation of heave response, RAO3. It can be seen,
as in the case of sway that for increasing draft RAO3 decreases. This
decrease is due to the effect of mooring lines drag damping (the
stiffness coefficient C33E is not included in the present study as
previously mentioned), which also explains the small differences of ωn3
for the various drafts. For all six drafts resonance occurs at B/L=0.3,
where the difference ω-ωn3 tends to zero. At this B/L value the drag
damping, B33E(D), shows increased values for dr2, dr3, dr4, dr5 and dr6
and especially for the last two ones (see Fig. 7); therefore, at B/L=0.3,
RAO3 drops for these drafts. The different pattern of RAO3 for dr4, dr5
and dr6, for B/L values between 0.2 and 0.4, is attributed to large
values of B33E(D) at this range of B/L. Especially, for dr4 the rapid
decrease of RAO3 at B/L=0.2 is caused by the peak value of B33E(D) at
this B/L value.
Fig. 10: Variation of RAO3 (Heave) for the drafts examined
The variation of roll response RAO4 is shown in Fig. 11. The decrease
of RAO4 with the increase of draft is due to the effect of mooring lines’
drag damping (the stiffness coefficient C44E is not included in the
626
present study). The roll resonance is observed at B/L=0.3, where the
difference ω-ωn4 tends to zero and B44E(D) has low values (see Fig. 8).
The variation of RAO4 at B/L=0.3 with increasing draft does not follow
a monotonic behavior. This can be explained as follows. In the case of
the free floating body, RAO4 increases as the draft increases, because
the submerged volume of the floating body increases, exhibiting a peak
value at B/L=0.3 (the results are not included in the present paper due
to space constraints). On the other hand, the damping coefficients
B44E(D) increase monotonically as draft increases for dr1, dr2, dr4 and
dr5. The B44E(D) value for dr3 is lower than the one for dr2 and it is
lower for dr6 than for dr4. The combined effect of these two issues
explains the values for RAO4 shown in Fig. 11 for B/L=0.3.
Fig. 11: Variation of RAO4 (Roll) for the drafts examined
Static and Dynamic Tensions of Mooring Lines
The performance of the mooring lines is defined here in terms of the
static and dynamic tensions at the top. The mooring lines that are
placed in the front part of the floating breakwater represent the most
heavily loaded ones under the action of waves in the normal direction.
Due to symmetry the values of the previously stated quantities are
consider only for mooring line 1 (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 12: Variation of Tst and Tdyn at the top of mooring line 1
Fig. 12 contains the variation of static and dynamic tensions at the top
of mooring line 1. The variation of Tst with B/L for a specific draft is
attributed to the variation of the steady drift forces as is the case of
C22E. Larger steady drift forces result to larger steady offset and,
therefore, to larger Tst. The dynamic tensions exhibits large values at
the low frequency range (up to B/L=0.4). The increase of the draft
results to increase of Tst, as well as to increase of Tdyn. The letter “s” on
each of the subplots of Fig. 12 denotes the occurrence of snapping
(Tst<Tdyn). In all cases, except for the “base case”, snapping occurs at
the low frequency range, where Tdyn exhibits maximum values. It
should be noted that for dr6, in addition to snapping, the total tension
Ttot=Tst+Tdyn depicts values larger than Tbreak at B/L=0.2 and 0.3.
Effectiveness of the Floating Breakwater
attributed to the lower values of RAO3 and RAO4 at B/L=0.3 for dr2
and dr3 compared to dr1 (see Fig. 10~11). A different pattern is
observed for dr4; slightly larger values of Kt are observed, compared to
the “base case”, close to the breakwater due to the large value of RAO2
at this B/L (see Fig. 9), while Kt values decrease considerably as y
values increase.

The effect of stiffness and damping of the mooring lines on the

effectiveness of the floating breakwater is investigated in terms of the
coefficients Kr and Kt (Eq. 6). The wave elevation was calculated for
all drafts and for all frequencies considered in the middle of the
floating breakwater (x=0m) at a line perpendicular to it with y varying
between -2.5m ≤ y ≤ -40m in front of the breakwater and 2.5m ≤ y ≤
40m behind of it according to the coordinate system shown in Fig. 1. It
is considered that wave elevation at this area is representative for the
estimation of the breakwater’s effectiveness. For each frequency and
each draft, the wave elevation due to diffraction only and due to both
diffraction and radiation (complete problem) was calculated.
Fig. 13 contains the variation of Kt due to diffracted and radiated waves
for the “base case” for various B/L corresponding to the wave
frequency range considered. The increase of B/L leads to more intense
variation of Kt along y; however its values become lower, resulting to
the increase of the floating breakwater’s effectiveness in the range Fig. 14: Variation of Kt with y (x=0m) for B/L=0.3
0.5≤B/L≤1.5. The quite intense variation is related to the intense
variation of the diffracted waves, which occurs as B/L increases. Lower Also, the pattern of Kt for this draft differs significantly compared to
values of Kt appear due to: (a) the decrease of the floating body’s dr5 and dr6. The different (negative) phase differences of the radiated
response (see Fig. 9~11) that leads to lower values of the radiated waves with respect to the incident wave explain this different pattern.
waves and (b) the decrease of the amplitude of the diffracted waves as As far as dr5 and dr6, Kt depicts low values compared to the other
B/L increases. The same behavior holds for the rest of the drafts. drafts and close to the ones of Ktd. This is expected, as dr5 and dr6
correspond to the stiffest cases leading to low values of the radiated
waves with insignificant effect on Kt. Therefore, dr5 and dr6 could be
considered as the most effective cases at B/L=0.3, over a wider range
of positions along the portion of the y axis considered.
Furthermore, one should also consider the values of Tst and Tdyn
exercised at the top of the mooring lines. Based on the description
above, snapping is observed (Fig. 12) for all drafts, except for the “base
case”. Additionally, the total tension Ttot is larger than Tbreak for dr6.
Consequently, the drafts examined could not be considered as better
solutions compared to the “base case” (although their effectiveness at
the low frequency range is increased). Therefore, dr1 corresponds to the
optimum draft for this frequency range in terms of both the floating
breakwater effectiveness and the loads of the mooring lines.

Fig. 13: Variation of Kt with y (x=0m) for dr1 and various B/L

The effect of draft’s change and thus the effect of mooring lines
stiffness and damping on Kt coefficient is investigated next for several
frequencies. Results are presented for three representative frequencies
of the low (B/L≤0.4), middle (0.5≤B/L≤0.9) and high (1.0≤B/L≤1.5)
wave frequency range, corresponding to values B/L=0.3, 0.6 and 1.1.
Fig. 14~17 show the Kt and Kr coefficients for B/L=0.3 and for
B/L=0.6. Fig. 18 shows the Kt coefficient for B/L=1.1. From these
Figures it is obvious that the reflection and transmission coefficients
resulting form diffracted waves (Krd, Ktd) are almost the same for all
drafts. Therefore, it is easily concluded that the variations of Kt and Kr
among the various drafts are attributed to the effect of mooring lines’
stiffness and damping. Fig. 15: Variation of Kr with y (x=0m) for B/L=0.3
The case B/L=0.3 (Fig. 14~15) corresponds to the frequency where roll
resonance occurs for all drafts (see Fig. 11). Considering firstly the As far as the reflection coefficient Kr (Fig. 15), larger values are
variation of Kt (Fig. 14), the first three drafts have very similar observed as the draft increases. This is in absolute accordance with Kt
patterns. The drafts dr2 and dr3 show lower values for Kt and, in terms of energy conservation. The pattern of Kr for all drafts is the
therefore, are more effective compared to the “base case”. This is

627
same and only phase differences are observed. This can be explained as
follows. The pattern of Krd is quite intense, whereas the pattern of the
reflection coefficient due to radiated waves is smoother and of lower
values compared to Krd. Therefore, the radiated waves can only
contribute to the values and not the pattern of Kr.
dr5 and preferably dr6 are on the overall the most effective drafts for
these two B/L values. Furthermore, one should take into account the
values of Vbot. It is obvious that the increase of the draft leads to the
increase of Vbot, because the initial φbot increases in this investigation
with the increase of the drafts. Draft dr5 is considered most preferable,
as it has lower value of Vbot.
The reflection coefficient Kr for B/L=0.6 is shown in Fig. 17. The
intense variation of Krd due to diffracted waves, results to values of Kr
close to Krd for all drafts examined. Smaller values are observed for
dr4, which is connected with the occurrence of larger values of Kt in
the area behind the breakwater.

Fig. 16: Variation of Kt with y (x=0m) for B/L=0.6

The increase of the draft leads to: decrease of the floating breakwater’s
response (except for RAO2 for the case of dr4, see Fig. 9) and reduction
of the effect of the radiated waves. Consequently, this results to
increase of the Kr values, which approach the values of Krd. The larger
values of Kr close to the breakwater for the case of dr4 compared to Fig. 18: Variation of Kt with y (x=0m) for B/L=1.1
dr1, dr2 and dr3 are attributed to phase difference of the radiated waves
with respect to the incident waves.

Fig. 19: Kt and Kr contour for the “base case” (B/L=1.1)

Fig. 17: Variation of Kr with y (x=0m) for B/L=0.6

Fig. 16~17 show the results for Kt and Kr for B/L=0.6. With regard to
the Kt coefficient (Fig. 16), it shows lower values as the draft increases,
with the exception of dr4. Cases dr1, dr2 and dr3 depict no significant
difference in Kt, as their corresponding RAOs are almost the same. In
the case of dr4, the response in sway is larger compared to the other
drafts resulting to larger values of Kt. As far as dr5 and dr6, very low
values of Kt close to the values of Ktd are observed. The Kt pattern for
dr1, dr2, dr3 and dr4 is the same and it follows the pattern of Ktd. The
cases of dr5 and dr6 have their own pattern which can be considered to
show “phase difference” of π with regard to the pattern of Ktd. The
same conclusions hold for Kt for the case of B/L=1.1 (Fig. 18). The
only difference in case B/L=1.1 is that for a specific draft Kt has a more
intense pattern and lower values compared to the case of B/L=0.6.
The absence of snapping phenomena at B/L=0.6 and B/L=1.1, as well
as the fact that the Ttot are smaller than Tbreak, lead to the conclusion that Fig. 20: Kt and Kr contour for dr5 (B/L=1.1)

628
Finally, Fig. 19~20 contain contours of Kt and Kr in a large area in
front and behind the floating breakwater for B/L=1.1. Fig. 19
corresponds to the “base case”, whereas Fig. 20 to dr5. The larger
effectiveness of dr5 in a wide area behind the breakwater, as well as a π
“phase difference” can be easily observed, while Kr in the front area
shows a more intense variation.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of stiffness and damping of the mooring lines on the
protective effectiveness and on the dynamic response of a floating
breakwater is investigated theoretically under the action of normal
regular waves. A three dimensional model of the hydrodynamic
analysis of the floating body is coupled with a model of the static and
the dynamic analysis of the mooring lines using an appropriate iterative
procedure in terms of the steady drift forces and the response of the
floating breakwater. An extensive parametric study was presented. The
draft of the “base case” is altered through modification of mooring
lines’ length that modifies the stiffness and the damping imposed by the
mooring lines. The main conclusions form this study are as follows:
1. Mooring lines stiffness and damping both affect directly the
effectiveness of the breakwater as well as the loads on the mooring
lines, especially in the case of taut mooring lines.
2. The transition from the slack to the taut conditions results to a great
difference of the floating breakwater response behavior in sway and
heave.
3. The increase of the draft of the “base case” through reduction of the
total mooring lines’ length leads to increase of mooring lines stiffness,
which results to increase of the floating breakwater’s effectiveness,
even in the low frequency range in almost all the cases that were
examined. Drafts, corresponding to taut mooring lines, show lower
transmission coefficient values and close to transmission coefficients
resulting from the diffracted waves. Additionally, the pattern of the
transmission coefficients of these draft cases show a π “phase
difference” compared to the ones of the drafts with slack mooring lines.
4. Larger values of mooring lines stiffness result to larger values of
static and dynamic tensions imposed at the mooring lines and to the
occurrence of snapping in the low frequency range, where resonance of
the floating body occurs.
5. Existence of optimum draft and, consequently, optimum mooring
lines length is demonstrated for the wave frequencies range considered
that ensures: (a) effective reduction of the transmitted energy behind
the breakwater and (b) non failure of the mooring lines.
Further investigation is required for using mooring lines with different
characteristics in order to avoid snapping phenomena in the low
frequency range while maintaining the protective effectiveness of the
floating breakwater. The possible effect of the mooring lines’ stiffness
in the vertical direction should be also investigated. Finally, the results
of the present work could form the basis for development of a control
system addressing performance targets of floating breakwaters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Professor M. Triantafyllou of M.I.T.
and Dr. C-H Lee, president of WAMIT, Inc. for valuable discussions.
REFERENCES
Bhat, S (1998). “Performance of Twin-Pontoon Floating Breakwaters,”
PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Bhat, S, and Isaacson, M (1998). “Performance of Twin-Pontoon
Floating Breakwater”, Proc 8th International Conference of
Offshore and Polar Eng, ISOPE, Montreal, Canada, Vol. 3, pp. 584-
629
590.
Briggs, M, Ye, W, Demirbilek, Z, and Zhang, J (1999). “Comparison of
Hydrodynamic Parameters for a Floating Breakwater,” Proc 1st
International Symp “Monitoring of breakwaters’’, ASCE, Madison,
WI, pp. 37-51.
Isaacson, M (1993a). “Hydrodynamic Coefficients of Floating
Breakwaters,” Proc 11th Canadian Hydrotechnical Conference,
Fredericton, Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 485-494.
Isaacson, M (1993b). “Wave Effects on Floating Breakwaters,” Proc
Canadian Coastal Conference, Vancouver, Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 53-
66.
Isaacson, M and Garceau, N (1997). “Wave Propagation past Long
Floating Breakwaters,” Proc 13th Canadian Hydrotechnical
Conference, Sherbrooke, Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 3-10.
Isaacson, M, and Bhat, S (1996). “Analysis of Moored Floating
Breakwaters,” Proc Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering, Edmonton, Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 610-619.
Isaacson, M, and Nwogu. O (1987). “Wave Loads and Motions of Long
Structures in Directional Seas,” J of Offshore Mech and Arctic Eng,
ASME, Vol.109, No 2, pp. 126-132.
Kim, H, Sawaragi, T and Aoki, S (1994). “Wave Control by Pile-
Supported Floating Breakwaters,” Proc 4th International Conference
of Offshore and Polar Eng, ISOPE, Osaka, Japan, Vol. 4, pp. 545-
549.
Lee, C-H (1995). “WAMIT Theory Manual,” MIT Report 95-2, Dept
of Ocean Eng, MIT.
Lee, J, and Cho, W (2003). “Hydrodynamic Analysis of Wave
Interactions with a Moored Floating Breakwater using the Element-
Free Galerkin Method”, Can J Civ Eng, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.720-733.
McCartney, M, and Bruce, L (1985). “Floating Breakwater Design,” J
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Eng, Vol. 111, No 2, pp. 304-
317.
Newman, JN (1977). “Marine Hydrodynamics,” M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Sannasiraj, SA, Sundar, V, and Sundaravadivelu, R (1998). “Mooring
Forces and Motion Responses of Pontoon-Type Floating
Breakwaters,” Ocean Engineering, Vol. 25, No 1, pp 27-48.
Triantafyllou, MS (1982). “Preliminary Design of Mooring Systems,” J
of Ship Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Triantafyllou, MS (1999). “Cable Dynamics for Offshore
Applications”, Developments in Offshore Eng: Wave Phenomena
and Offshore Topics, editor J.B. Herbich, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, Texas, pp. 256-294.
Triantafyllou, MS, Bliek, A, and Shin, H (1986). “Static and Fatigue
Analysis of Mutli-leg Mooring Systems,” Technical Report, M.I.T.
Press.
Williams, AN, and Abul-Azm, AG (1997). “Dual Pontoon Floating
Breakwater,” Ocean Engineering, Vol. 24, No 5, pp. 465-478.
Williams, AN, Lee, HS, and Huang Z (2000). “Floating Pontoon
Breakwaters,” Ocean Engineering, Vol. 27, No 3, pp. 221-240.