UNDERWATER VEHICLE

TETHER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

B. A.Abel
All Oceans Engineering Limited
1 Woodlands Road, Dyce
Aberdeen, Scotland. AB2 OGX.

Abstract - Underwater Vehicle, Submer- 11. DEFINITIONS

sible or Atmospheric Diving Suit umb-
ilical or tether management systems and Cabling: The twisting of independent
their benefits. A discussion paper that suspended cable elements when close
presents various umbilical and tether together.
handling arrangements, and in more det- LARS: Launch and Recovery System.
ail, the various equiprent types. In ROV: Remote Operated Vehicle.
all cases the benefit is improved oper- Tether: Cable between a Tether Manage-
ational capability for the tethered ment system and ROV. Typically neutral
unit. The possible operational and in water.
economic implications o f the various TII: Tether Management system.
options are presented for discussion. U m b i l i c a l : Surface to ROV or surface to
The paper is not meant to be prescrip- Tether Management system cable. May or
tive or exhaustive in its content. may not have lift capability for direct
Readers should rerely consid8r it an launch and recovery of the ROV. May or
overview for consideration of wh8t u y may not be neutral in water.
improve the operational capabilities of
their own submersible systems in par- R e f e r t o Figure 1 f o r t y p i c a l arrange-
ticular circumstances. ment o f p r i n c i p l e components.

I. INTRODUCTION

The vast majority of Submersibles are

operated in the tethered as opposed to
autonomous free swimming mode. This is
likely to remain the case as long as
there is a need for prolonged periods of
powered remote operation and real time
data transfer. Unmanned submersible
applications and basic asset management
principles should preclude the use of
autonomous vehicles if a tethered sub-
mersible is feasible. For manned sub-
mersibles, safety is paramount when con-
sidering tethered or autonomous oper-
ations. This paper serves to identify
those options available for the manage-
ment of Umbilicals and Tethers under-
water to improve the operational capa-
bility of the submersible. Applicable L
to all Tethered Submersibles, but prin-
cipally, to Remote Operated Vehicles. Figure 1.

11-495 0-7803-2056-5 1994 IEEE

 111. BACKGROUND adding buoyancy to an umbilical to redu-
ce weight drag or adding weight at the
Where did ROVs come from? It may be ROV for improved wave penetration. Powe-
that diving companies were looking for red types help anchor an umbilical in
alternatives to divers1 It may be that increased current situations and can be
robotic technology was simply extended combined to give added weight at the ROV
to underwater applications1 It may be for heavier weather deployment. In all
that the specific nature of a problem cases there will only be an umbilical
necessitated their development. In any between the ROV and LARS.
event this paper is not concerned with
where they came from but more with where Umbilical Management Configuration Op-
they are going, how they get there and tions;
once there how to help them work more 1) Passive / Added Buoyancy.
effectively. 2) Passive / Added Weight.
3) Powered.
If it is considered that many early ROVs
were operated by diving companies, it is Some readers may not consider Umbilical
little wonder that they were deployed Management arrangements as having any
directly on their umbilicals in the same merit in the discussion of Tether Manag-
manner as surface divers. ement systems. Those more familiar with
Tether Management may wish to review the
The diving industry appreciate the ad- limitations of the alternatives if only
vantages that bell deployment of divere to help argue a case for or against
has over surface deployment. This paper Tether Management.
sets out to present the similar ad-
vantages that deplcyment with Umbilical 1) Passive / Added Buoyancy: If the
or Tether Management can give ROV opera- umbilical is negatively buoyant and the
tions. ROV application involves relatively long
horizontal excursion in shallow water,
Diving bells transport divers to near then the addition of floatation to the
the work site. Diver effort is thereby umbilical will reduce weight drag on the
dramatically reduced and relative only ROV. Even low currents may limit this
to horizontal excursion requirements. arrangement as it will increase the sur-
In addition, the negatively buoyant bell face area of the umbilical and hence the
can penetrate seaetates in excess of velocity drag. The umbilical specifica-
those that limit surface diving, so tion will determine wether weight drag
further increasing the operational capa- or velocity drag is first to limit ex-
bilities of a bell diver over a surface cursion. Adopting an alternative neut-
diver. ral umbilical should give best results
being as it will be of a consistent
A properly designed Tether Management smooth diameter only slightly greater in
system adds negative buoyancy to an ROV size than the negative umbilical it
and transports it to near the work site. replaces. There should be no implica-
As such it brings advantages to ROV tion for the LARS, provided handling
operations similar to those that a bell arrangements or operating procedures
brings to diving operations. allow for handling the added buoyancy or
increased diameter umbilical. Such
operations from a live boat presents the
111. SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS risk of the Umbilical being sucked into
propellers or thrusters.
A. Umbilical Management:
Similarly, if the operation is deep then
Passive and powered arrangements should horizontal excursion can be improved
be considered. Passive types include with the addition of umbilical buoyancy

11-496
near the vehicle so that the section it tical run of umbilical is reacted at the
takes horizontal is subject to reduced added mass and sheave assembly resu-
weight drag. All other points are as lting in improved horizontal excursion
for the case above. capability for the ROV. If a negatively
buoyant umbilical is used its weight
drag will limit horizontal excursion if
2 ) P a s s i v e / A d d e d Weight: In aitua- current drag does not limit it first.
tions requiring ROV deployment in heavy The power to drive the sheave must be
weather the need is for added weight to provided via a separate dedicated um-
assist ROV wave penetration. So that bilical from the surface to the Drive
the ROV does not have to carry this Through System. The LARS therefor re-
extra weight later in horizontal excur- quires not only the additional lift
sion, it is added in the form of a cage winch as at (2) above, but also an extra
or weight with an umbilical sheave wheel umbilical, perhaps with a winch. If
assembly attached. The cage is lowered such a system is considered for deep
on its own lift wire along with the ROV operations then the Drive Through System
to the target depth. The ROV can then umbilical will need to be electrical.
move out horizontally pulling umbilical If the ROV umbilical is not rated for
through the sheave as required. This lifting then there will be 3 suspended
can be called a "Pull Through System". cable elements going to the same under-
Similar to (1) above, weight drag of a water unit with an increased risk of
negatively buoyant umbilical can limit cabling. This risk can be countered by
horizontal excursion. The LARS will running the system down 2 guide wires
require an extra lift winch for han- and a clump weight. This in turn re-
dling the added mass. Having an um- quires another winch, although not one
bilical and a lift wire in the water that needs coordinated operation with
close together can result in cabling, the other winches. Coordinating 3 winc-
unless additional umbilical can be paid hes for launch and recovery can be a
out down current to keep it away from complex operation or one that requires a
the lift wire. This however requires sophisticated control system. In sum-
more power from the ROV for the same mary, Drive Through Systems are complex
horizontal excursion, being as it has to to engineer and o?erate.
pull more umbilical. There is also
added risk of the umbilical being drawn
into propellers. The depth limitation B. T e t h e r Management:
of such an arrangement is a figure that
only experience will determine. Regard- Most of the disadvantages associated
less of umbilical type, it can be limit- with Umbilical Management systems can be
ed by low currents anywhere in the water eliminated by using a Tether Management
column between surface and target depth. system. In all cases, using a TM system
The only real benefit is likely to be simplifies the LARS as there need only
improved wave penetration. A neutral be the one cable at the surface i.e. the
umbilical would not be an advantage as umbilical. The umbilical may have lift
the vertical section would only drift capability to launch and recover the
more easily. full in air weight of the ROV and TM
system, or be rated only for the in
3 ) P o w e r e d : Typically the arrangement water loading, in which case the LARS
will be very similar to the "Pull Throu- will have a system for latching on and
gh System" as described at (2) above. off the assembly sub-surface. In all
It differs in that the sheave is powered cases the ROV and TM are launched and
so am to give controlled "pay-out" or recovered am one unit. The Tether cable
"take-in" of umbilical. These arrange- will be neutrally buoyant to minimise
ments can be described as "Drive Through weight drag on the vehicle during horiz-
Systems". Any current drag on the ver- ontal excursion. In all cases the TM is

11-497
basically a "winch" capable of paying 2) Top Hat: A Top Hat arrangement has
out and taking in tether. The "winch" the winch above the ROV within a framew-
is special in that it operates without ork. The framework does not extend down
the need for tether tension in the ROV past the ROV. The main advantage being
catenary section and does not need to that the ROV is free t o "grown in all
have a load rating for specific pulling directions. A Top Hat unit is also more
or lifting purposes. Nominal pulling versatile than a Garage in terms of the
capacity is available with most units range of ROVs one design can operate
and can be used to assist vehicle dis- with. Top Hat units may be slightly
lodgement, or as is more often the case, more expensive than comparable garage
to pull a "dead" vehicle back into the systems as they require a load rated
TM system. A TM system should be speci- latch system to lock the ROV to the TM
fied for applications where both an system during launch and recovery. ROV
increase in heavy weather deployment and and Top Hat assemblies can be less stab-
an increase in horizontal excursion le than Garage systems during launching
capability is required. TM systems are as there is more weight above the ROV. A
made negatively buoyant in water to give lower Top Hat assembly will be more
added mass launch assistance to the near stable.
neutrally buoyant ROV. The centre of
buoyancy, centre of gravity and hydrody- 3) Buddy: This arrangement is where a
namic aspects of an ROV and TM system submersible operates from onboard anoth-
assembly will determine its stability er submersible. It may be a small ROV
during launching and should be a con- operating from a larger ROV or a sub-
sideration when looking at the options. mersible. The Buddy unit being deployed
on a Tether from the host submersible
Tether Management Configuration Options: which in turn may itself be tethered or
1) Garage. autonomous. Buddy systems are likely to
2) Top Hat. be specified for well defined applica-
3) Buddy. tions. Typically their arrangement on
4) Onboard. the host submersible will be a "garage"
type format in which case read the ad-
1) Garage: Typically a full framework vantages/disadvantages as at (1) above.
arrangement encloses the ROV above,
below and on three sides. The fourth 4) Onboard: In all the above arrange-
side being left open for the ROV to fly ments, the ROV excurts on its tether
in and out of, hence the term "Garage". between the TM system and its work site.
The winch could be in any position with- Such an arrangement would have the um-
in the frame. Weight wise the winch is bilical running vertical to an added
a substantial part of the TM system so mass incorporating ROV latch and umbili-
it would make sense to fit it low down. cal to tether "junction box". Once at
Typically the winch unit is positioned depth the ROV would unlatch and move
opposite the open end or on top of the away managing its own tether. An ad-
TM system. In this way, the Garage is vantage is that the TM system can be
at least fairly easy to enlarge downwa- powered and controlled via the ROV sys-
rds for accommodating an enlarged ROV. tems , whereas other configurations re-
If an ROV llgrows" in any other direction quire their own power supplies and tele-
Garage modifications can become exten- metry in the umbilical. The ROV is made
sive. The Garage frame is typically bigger and less manoeuvrable in having
fairly substantial and offers good pro- to accommodate the TM system.
tection t o the ROV. If the Garage has As a point of interest, in the case of
the lift capability, the ROV can attach land based tethered vehicles the l o g i c
items outboard for subsequent recovery of having TM separate from the vehicle
without interfering with the ROV's ac- is reversed. TM on the vehicle can a l l o w
cess to the Garage. for greater manoeuvrability.

11-498
 IV. WINCH TYPES Advantages:

80% to 90% of a Tether Management system -Single motor gives simple control.
is the winch. This section discusses the -No slip rings.
types available relative to the umbili- -Low rotating mass.
cal and- tether management system con-
. figurations described in section 111. Disadvantages:

A. Traction Drive: -Tether paid out in spiral.

This results in:
Although not strictly a winch, a trac- -More tether out for same
tion drive used on its own is typical of excursion.
the mechanism used for umbilical "Drive -Increased risk of snagging.
Through" systems. It may take the form -Increased drag.
of a driven sheave wheel with a friction -ROV "rolled over" by tether.
groove lining compatible with the um- -In air operation different from
bilical jacket material that it is desi- in water.
gned to drive. A n arrangement of rolle- -Spooling variation problems.
rs or a belt will be used to hold the -Large tether storage space.
umbilical firmly against the drive shea- -Tether capacity limited.
ve. Alternatively the umbilical may -Not proven for diameters much over
pass between two sets of rollers or 20 mm.
belts. One or both sets will be driven
to control umbilical movement. Again C. Driven Drum:
material selection is important for
proper operation. Immediately more recognisable as a winch
being as there is a revolving1 drum.
Such units have found favour in han-
B. Bail Arm: dling large diameter tethers, typically
35" to 50mm. The advantages and diead-
Possibly the earliest and most basic vantages of such types are nearly an
form of Tether Management winch and the inverse of those of the Bail Arm types.
type adopted by many ROV manufacturers The drum is driven for tether take-in
and operators to date. Such units have and a traction unit is driven for tether
proven relatively reliable for Tether pay-out. The tether is stored on the
diameters up to about 20 mm in the 15 to drum and because it rotates there needs
20 years they have been around. Dif- to be some system that maintains con-
ficult if not impossible to make work tinuity of power and telemetry connec-
with larger diameter tethers or tethers tions from the umbilical to the tether.
longer than about 100 m. The tether is Slip Rings are the accepted arrangement
stored on a fixed drum or in a circular but there is an alternative using ribbon
trough. The drive system powers a bail cable. These are discussed at (1) and
arm that tracks around the drum to lift (2) below. The advantages and disad-
out or lay in tether. At the same time vantages listed below are for unite with
a traction drive unit control8 tether a drum on fixed supports. There is a
pay-out and take-in. The traction drive design that moves the drum from side to
and bail arm drive are generally con- side for tether spooling. Such units are
nected, possibly via a slip clutch to a only disadvantaged in that they are
single submersible electric drive motor. wider by comparison.

11-499
Advantages: multi-mode fibre optic rotary joints are
available at reasonable cost a ribbon
-Tether paid out straight. system is not an attractive option being
This results in: as it is more complex than a compatible
-Less tether out for the slip ring system. However, it may have
same application for deep operations requir-
excursion. ing the use of single-mode fibre optic
-Reduced tether drag. telemetry. Rotary joints for single-
-Less risk of snagging. mode fibre optics being less affordable.
-Controlled spooling.
-Spooled tether takes up less space.
-Tether length not limited. v. SUMMARY

Disadvantages: Basic Umbilical Management improvements

can be applied in situations where cur-
-Slip rings required. rent is unlikely to be an operationally
-Higher rotating mass. limiting factor. Powered system give
-Control systems may be complex. additional improvement, but at the risk
of overly complicating the LARS.

1) S l i p R i n g s : The accepted and typi- Tether Management systems should be con-

cal arrangement for maintaining electri- sidered a prerequisite for all submer-
cal continuity through a rotary joint. sible operations that will be sensitive
:,Thereare well established manufacturers to weather and current conditions, or
of underwater slip ring units that have conditions that would otherwise limit
proven reliability. It is not con- their use if surface deployed on an um-
sidered a technical disadvantage for a bilical.
TM system to have slip rings. However
they are a fairly high cost component of The increased weight of a TM system on
a driven drum system not required by a the LARS needs to be considered. The
bail arm system. Signal attenuation in load rating of a suitable LARS is not so
the slip ring is minimal and less so much dictated by the added weight of a
when it is stationary, which may be most TM system but more by the dramatic in-
of the time that the ROV is operating. crease in seastate launch and recovery
capabilities that the added mass of a TM
system brings with it.
2) Ribbon Type: Prior to the av-
ailability of reasonably priced and
reliable fibre optic rotary joints, a UK VI. AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS
based company developed a driven drum TM
system that did not require slip rings. Brian Abel has been involved with under-
The operating principle w a s simple in water equipment handling systems, both
that the drum end of the round tether manned and unmanned, since 1978. More
was spliced to a flat ribbon tether. recently he has just completed the value
The ribbon is stored in a cage when the engineering of a tether management sys-
round tether is on the drum. As round tem for the ROV industry. The value
tether is paid out the ribbon is taken engineering exercise involved the inves-
on to a smaller diameter drum fixed to tigation of available systems and their
the main drum. On take-in of round teth- application in different situations. In
er is wound out back to the cage. The parallel, market research identified
ribbon tether requires a dedicated trac- what ROV Operator requirements were.
tion drive unit. This traction unit The results of the value engineering
being in addition to the round tether exercise are as generally summarised in
traction drive and drum drive. Now that this discussion paper.

11-500