ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 1 of 13

Previous | Next | Contents

ESDEP WG 15A

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS: OFFSHORE

Lecture 15A.5 - Analysis II

OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

To present the analysis procedures for offshore structures relating to fatigue, abnormal and accident
conditions, load-out and transportation, installation and local design.

PREREQUISITES

Lecture 15A.1: Offshore Structures: General Introduction

Lecture 15A.2: Loads I: Introduction and Environmental Loads

Lecture 15A.3: Loads II: Other Loads

RELATED LECTURES

Lecture 15A.4: Analysis I

SUMMARY

Methods of fatigue analysis are described including the fatigue model (structural, hydrodynamic
loading, and joint stress models) and the methods of fatigue damage assessment.

Abnormal and accidental conditions are considered relating to earthquake, impact and progressive
collapse.

Analyses required for load-out and transportation and for installation are outlined. Local analysis for
specific parts of the structure which are better treated by dedicated models outside of the global analysis
are identified.

1. FATIGUE ANALYSIS
A fatigue analysis is performed for those structures sensitive to the action of cyclic loadings such as:

z wave (jackets, floating structures).

z wind (flare booms, stair towers).
z structures under rotating equipments.

1.1 Fatigue Model

1.1.1 Structural Model

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 2 of 13

The in-place model is used for the fatigue analysis.

Quasi-static analysis is often chosen; it permits all local stresses to be comprehensively represented. The
dynamic effects are accounted for by factoring the loads by the relevant DAF.

Modal analysis may be used instead; it offers computational efficiency, but may also overlook important
local response modes, particularly near the waterline where direct wave action causes high out-of-plane
bending (see Section 5.2). The mode - acceleration method may overcome this problem.

1.1.2 Hydrodynamic Loading Model

A very large number of computer runs may be necessary to evaluate the stress range at the joints. The
wave is repeatedly generated for:

z different blocks of wave heights (typically from 2 to 28m in steps of 2m), each associated with a
characteristic wave and zero-upcrossing period.
z different incidences (typically eight).
z different phases to determine the stress range for a given wave at each joint.

1.1.3 Joint Stress Model

Nominal joint stresses are calculated for eight points around the circumference of the brace. The
maximum local (hot spot) stress is obtained by multiplying the former by a stress concentration factor
(SCF) given by parametric formulae which are functions of the joint geometry and the load pattern
(balanced/unbalanced).

1.1.4 Fatigue Damage Model

The fatigue failure of joints in offshore structures primarily depends on the stress ranges and their
number of occurrences, formulated by S-N curves:

log Ni = log α + mlog Δσi

The number of cycles to failure Ni corresponds to a stress range. The effect of the constant stresses,
mainly welding residual stresses, is implicitly accounted for in this formulation.

The cumulative damage caused by ni cycles of stress Δσi, over the operational life of the platform (30 to
50 years) is obtained by the Palmgren-Miner rule:

D=

The limit of this ratio depends on the position of the joint with respect to the splash zone (typically +/-
4m on either side of the mean sea level). The ratio should normally not exceed:

z 1,0 above,
z 0,1 within,
z 0,3 below the splash zone.

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 3 of 13

1.1.5 Closed Form Expression

The damage may alternatively be expressed in closed form:

D=

where

α, m are coefficients of the selected S-N curve.

Δσ is the stress range exceeded once in N cycles.

k is a long-term distribution parameter, depending on the position of the joint in the structure.

N is the total number of cycles.

1.2 Deterministic Analysis

This analysis consists of time-domain analysis of the structure. The main advantage of this
representation is that non-linear effects (drag, high order wave theories) are handled explicitly.

A minimum of four regular waves described in terms of height and associated period are considered for
each heading angle.

1.3 Spectral Analysis

Waves of a given height are not characterised by a unique frequency, but rather by a range of
frequencies. If this range corresponds to a peak in the structural response, the fatigue life predicted by
the deterministic method can be seriously distorted.

This problem is overcome by using a scatter diagram, in which the joint occurrence of wave height and
period is quantified. Wave directionality may also be accounted for. Eventually the most thorough
representation of a sea state consists of:

z the frequency spectrum constructed from the significant wave heights and mean zero-crossing
periods.
z the directionality function derived from the mean direction and associated spreading function.

This approach requires that the physical process be approximately linear (or properly linearised) and
stationary. Transfer functions TF are determined from time-domain analyses involving various wave
heights, each with different period and incidence:

The response has normally a narrow-banded spectrum and can be described by a Rayleigh distribution.

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 4 of 13

The zero-upcrossing frequency of stress cycles is then approximated by:

Tz =

where mn is the nth order moment of the response.

The significant stress range is readily obtained for each sea state as:

σsig =

where S(ω,θ) is the directional wave energy spectrum.

1.4 Wind Fatigue

1.4.1 Wind Gusts

The fatigue damage caused by the fluctuating part of wind (gusts) on slender structures like flare booms
and bridges is usually predicted by spectral methods.

The main feature of such analysis is the introduction of coherence functions accounting for the spanwise
correlation of forces.

1.4.2 Vortex Shedding

Vortex induced failure occurs for tubes subjected to a uniform or oscillating flow of fluid.

Within a specific range of fluid velocities, eddies are shed at a frequency close to the resonant frequency
of the member.

This phenomenon involves forced displacements, which can be determined by models such as those
suggested in [1].

2. ABNORMAL AND ACCIDENTAL CONDITIONS

This type of analysis addresses conditions which may considerably affect the integrity of the structure,
but only have a limited risk of occurrence.

Typically all events with a probability level less than the 10-4 threshold are disregarded.

2.1 Earthquake Analysis

2.1.1 Model

Particular attention shall be paid to:

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 5 of 13

z foundations: the near field (i.e. the soil mass in the direct vicinity of the structure) shall accurately
represent load-deflection behaviour. As a general rule the lateral foundation behaviour is
essentially controlled by horizontal ground motions of shallow soil layers.
z modal damping (in general taken as 5% and 7% of critical for ULS and PLS analyses
respectively).

2.1.2 Ductility Requirements

The seismic forces in a structure are highly dependent on its dynamic characteristics. Design
recommendations are given by API to determine an efficient geometry. The recommendations call for:

z providing sufficient redundancy and symmetry in the structure.

z favouring X-bracings instead of K-bracings.
z avoiding abrupt changes in stiffness.
z improving the post-buckling behaviour of bracings.

2.1.3 Analysis Method

Earthquake analyses can be carried out according to the general methods presented in Lecture 15A.4.

However their distinctive feature is that they represent essentially a base motion problem and that the
seismic loads are therefore dependent on the dynamic characteristics of the structure.

Modal spectral response analysis is normally used. It consists of a superposition of maximum mode
response and forms a response spectrum curve characteristic of the input motion. This spectrum is the
result of time-histories of a SDOF system for different natural periods of vibration and damping.

Direct time integration can be used instead for specific accelerograms adapted to the site.

2.2 Impact

The analysis of impact loads on structures is carried out locally using simple plastic models [2].

Should a more sophisticated analysis be required, it can be accomplished using time-domain techniques
presented in Section 6 of Lecture 15A.4.

The whole energy must be absorbed within acceptable deformations.

2.2.1 Dropped Object/Boat Impact

When a wellhead protection cover is hit by a drill collar, or a tube (jacket leg, fender) is crushed by a
supply boat, two load/deformation mechanisms occur simultaneously:

z local punch-through (cover) or denting (tube).

z global deformation along plastic hinges with possible appearance of membrane forces.

2.2.2 Blast and Fire

Owing to the current lack of definitive guidance regarding explosions and fire, the behaviour of
structures in such events has so far been only predicted by simple models based on:

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 6 of 13

z equivalent static overpressure and plastic deformation of plates for blast analysis.
z the reduction of material strength and elastic modulus under temperature increase.

In the aftermath of recent mishaps however, more accurate analyses may become mandatory, based on a
better understanding of the pressure-time histories and the effective resistance and response of structures
to explosions and fire.

2.3 Progressive Collapse

Some elements of the structure (legs, bracings, bulkheads) may partially or completely loose their
strength as a result of accidental damage.

The purpose of such analysis is to ensure that the spare resistance of the remaining structure is sufficient
to allow the loads to redistribute.

Since such a configuration is only temporary (mobilisation period prior to repairs) and that operations
will also be restricted around the damaged area, reduced live and environmental loads are generally
accepted.

In this analysis, the damaged elements are removed from the model. Their residual strength may be
represented by forces applied at the boundary nodes with the intact structure.

3. LOAD OUT & TRANSPORTATION

3.1 Load-Out

The load-out procedure consists in moving the jacket or module from its construction site to the
transportation barge by skidding, or by using trailers underneath it.

The barge may be floating and is continuously deballasted as the package progresses onto it, or
grounded on the bottom of the harbour.

3.1.1 Skidding

The most severe configuration during skidding occurs when the part of the structure is cantilevering out:

z from the quayside before it touches the barge.

z from the barge just after it has left the quay.

The analysis should also investigate the possibility of high local reactions being the result of settlement
of the skidway or errors in the ballasting procedure.

3.1.2 Load-Out by Trailers

As the reaction on each trailer can be kept constant, analysis of load-out by trailers only requires a single
step to determine the optimal distribution of trailers.

3.2 Transportation

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 7 of 13

3.2.1 Naval Architectural Model

The model consists of the rigid-body assembly of the barge and the structure.

Barges are in general characterised by a low length/beam ratio and a high beam/draught ratio, as well as
sharp corners which introduce heavy viscous damping.

For jacket transport, particular care shall be taken in the representation of overhanging parts (legs,
buoyancy tanks) which contribute significantly to the righting moment.

Dry-transported decks and modules may be simply represented by their mass and moments of inertia.

This analysis shall provide the linear and angular accelerations and displacements of the structure to be
entered in the structural model as inertia forces, and also the partition and intensity of buoyancy and
slamming forces.

3.2.2 Structural Model

The jacket model is a simplified version of the in-place model, from which eccentricities and local
reinforcements may be omitted.

The barge is modelled as a plane grid, with members having the equivalent properties of the longitudinal
and transversal bulkheads.

As the barge passes over a wave trough or a crest, a portion only of the barge is supported by buoyancy
(long barges may be spanning over a whole trough or be half-cantilevered).

The model therefore represents the jacket and the barge as two structures coupled together by the
seafastening members.

4. INSTALLATION
4.1 Launching

4.1.1 Naval Architectural Model

A three dimensional analysis is carried out to evaluate the global forces acting on the jacket at various
time steps during the launch sequence.

At each time step, the jacket/barge rigid body system is repositioned to equilibrate the internal and
external forces produced by:

z jacket weight, inertia, buoyancy and drag forces.

z barge weight, buoyancy and ballast forces.
z vertical reactions and friction forces between jacket and barge.

The maximum reaction on the rocker arm is normally obtained when the jacket just starts rotating about
the rocker hinge.

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 8 of 13

4.1.2 Structural Model

The structural model is in all aspects identical to the one used for the transportation analysis, with
possibly a finer representation of the launch legs.

The rocker arm is also represented as a vertical beam hinged approximately at midspan. Interface loads
obtained by the rigid body analysis are input at boundary conditions on the launch legs. All interface
members must remain in compression, otherwise they are inactivated and the analysis restarted for that
step.

Once the tilting phase has begun, the jacket is analysed at least for each main leg node being at the
vertical of the rocker arm pivot.

4.2 Upending

No dedicated structural analysis is required for this phase, which is essentially a naval architecture
problem.

A local analysis of the lugs is performed for crane-assisted upendings.

4.3 Docking

Docking of a jacket onto a pre-installed template requires guides to be analysed for local impact. The
same requirement applied for bumpers to aid the installation of modules.

4.4 Unpiled Stability

The condition where the jacket may for a while stand unpiled on the seafloor is analysed for the design
installation wave.

The stability of the jacket as a whole (overturning tendency) is investigated, together with the resistance
of the mudmats against soil pressure.

4.5 Piling

The piles are checked during driving for the dynamic stresses caused by the impact wave of the hammer
blow. The maximum cantilevered (stick-up) length of pile must be established for the self-weight of the
pile and hammer combined, accounting for first and second order moments arising from the pile batter.
Hydrodynamic actions are added for underwater driving.

Elements in the vicinity of the piles (guides, sleeves) shall also be checked, see Section 5.1.

4.6 Lifting

4.6.1 Model

The model used for the lift analysis of a structure consists of the in-place model plus the representation
of the rigging arrangement (slings, spreader frames).

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 9 of 13

For single lifts the slings converge towards the hook joint, which is the sole vertical support in the model
and shall be located exactly on the vertical through the centre of gracity (CoG) of the model.

For heavier dual-crane lifts, the CoG shall be contained in the vertical plane defined by the two hook
joints.

The mathematical instability of the model with respect to horizontal forces is avoided by using soft
horizontal springs at the padeyes. The force and elongation in these springs should always remain small.

4.6.2 Design Factors

Different factors are applied to the basic sling forces to account for specific effects during lifting
operations.

4.6.2.1 Skew Load Factor (SKL)

This factor represents the effect of fabrication tolerances and lack-of-fit of the slings on the load
repartition in a statically undetermined rigging arrangement (4 slings or more). Skew factors may either
be directly computed by applying to a pair of opposite slings a temperature difference such that their
elongation/shortening corresponds to the mismatch, or determined arbitrarily (typically 1/3 - 2/3
repartition).

4.6.2.2 Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF)

This factor accounts for global dynamic effects normally experienced during lifting operations. DnV
[24] recommends minimum values as follows:

Lifted Weight W (tonnes) up to 100 t 100 t to 1000t 1000 t to 2500t more than 2500 t

DAF offshore 1,30 1,20 1,15 1,10

DAF inshore 1,15 1,10 1,05 1,05

4.6.2.3 Tilt Effect Factor (TEF)

This factor accounts for additional sling loading caused by the rotation of the lifted object about a
horizontal axis and by the longitudinal deviation of the hooks from their theoretical position in the case
of a multi-hook lift. It shall normally be based on 5° and 3° tilt respectively depending on whether
cranes are on different vessels or not.

4.6.2.4 Yaw Effect Factor (YEF)

This factor accounts for the rotation of the lifted object about a vertical axis (equal to 1,05 typically).

4.6.3 Consequence Factors

Forces in elements checked under lift conditions are multiplied by a factor reflecting the consequence a
failure of that specific element would have on the integrity of the overall structure:

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 10 of 13

z 1,30 for spreader frames, lifting points (padeyes) and their attachment to the structure.
z 1,15 for all members transferring the load to the lifting points.
z 1,00 for other elements.

5. LOCAL ANALYSES AND DESIGN

Local analyses address specific parts of the structure which are better treated by dedicated models
outside the global analysis.

The list of analyses below is not exhaustive and more information can be found in [1-24] which provide
a complete design procedure in each particular case.

5.1 Pile/Sleeve Connections

Underwater pile/sleeve connection is usually achieved by grouting the annulus between the outside of
the pile and the inner sleeve.

The main verifications address:

z the shear stresses in the concrete.

z the fatigue damage in the shear plates and the attachment welds to the main jacket accumulated
during pile driving and throughout the life of the platform.

5.2 Members within the Splash Zone

Horizontal members (conductor guide frames in particular) located within the splash zone (+/-5m on
either side of the mean-sea-level approximately) shall be analysed for fatigue caused by repeated wave
slamming.

A slamming coefficient Cs=3,5 is often selected.

5.3 Straightened Nodes

Typical straightened nodes (ring-stiffened nodes, bottle legs nodes with diaphragms) are analysed by
finite-elements models, from which parametric envelope formulae are drawn and applied to all nodes
representative of the same class.

5.4 Appurtenances

5.4.1 Risers, Caissons & J-Tubes

Static In-Place and Fatigue

Risers, caissons and J-tubes are verified either by structural or piping programs for the action of
environmental forces, internal pressure and temperature. Particular attention is paid to the bends not
always satisfactorily represented by structural programs and the location of the touch-down point now
known a-priori.

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 11 of 13

A fatigue analysis is also performed to assess the fatigue damage to the clamps and the attachments to
the jacket.

Pull-In

J-tubes are empty ducts continuously guiding a post-installed riser pulled inside. They are verified by
empirical plastic models against the forces generated during pull-in by the friction of the cable and the
deformation of the pull head, see [22].

5.4.2 Conductors

Conductors are analysed in-place as beam columns on discrete simple supports, these being provided by
the horizontal framing of the jacket (typically 20 to 25 m span).

The installation sequence of the different casings must be considered to assess the distribution of
stresses in the different tubes forming the overall composite section.

Also the portion of compression force in the conductor caused by the hanging casings is regarded as an
internal force (similar to prestressing) which therefore does not induce any buckling tendency, see [23].

5.5 Helidecks

The helideck is normally designed to resist an impact load equal to 2,5 times the take-off weight of the
heaviest helicopter factored by a DAF of 1,30.

Plastic theories are applicable for designing the plate and stiffeners, while the main framing is analysed
elastically.

5.6 Flare Booms

Analyses of flare booms particularly consider:

z variable positions during installation (horizontal pick-up from the barge, lift upright).
z reduced material characteristics due to high temperature in the vicinity of the tip during operation.
z dynamic response under gusty winds.
z local excitation of diagonals by wind vortex-shedding.

6. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
z With the trend to ever deeper and more slender offshore structures in yet harsher environments,
more elaborate theories are necessary to analyse complex situations. There is a risk for the
Engineer having increasingly to rely on the sole results of computer analyses at the expense of
sound design practice.
z To retain enough control of the process of analysis, the following recommendations are given:

⋅ check the interfaces between the different analyses and ensure the consistency of the input/output.

⋅ verify the validity of the data resulting from a complex analysis against a simplified model, which can
also be used to assess the influence of a particular parameter.

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 12 of 13

⋅ make full use of "good engineering judgement" to criticise the unexpected results of an analysis.

7. REFERENCES
[1] Skop R.A. & Griffin O.M., An Heuristic Model for Determining Flow-Induced Vibrations of
Offshore Structures/OTC paper 1843, May 1973.

[2] De Oliveira J.G., The Behaviour of Steel Offshore Structures under Accidental Collisions/OTC
paper 4136, May 1981.

[3] API-RP2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms/18th edition, September1989.

[4] DnV, Rules for the Classification of Fixed Offshore Structures, September 1989.

[5] DnV, Standard for Insurance Warranty Surveys in Marine Operations, June 1985.

[6] NPD, Regulation for Structural Design of Loadbearing Structures Intended for Exploitation of
Petroleum Resources, October1984 and Veiledning om Utforming, Beregning og Dimensjonering av
Stalkonstruksjoner i Petroleumsvirksomheten, December1989.

[7] DoE, Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design and Construction/London, April 1984.

[8] McClelland B. & Reifel M.D., Planning and Design of Fixed Offshore Platforms/Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1986.

[9] UEG, Node Flexibility and its Effect on Jacket Structures/CIRIA Report UR22, 1984.

[10] Hallam M.G., Heaf N.J. & Wootton L.R., Dynamics of Marine Structures/ CIRIA Report UR8 (2nd
edition), October 1978.

[11] Wilson J.F., Dynamics of Offshore Structures/Wiley Interscience, 1984.

[12] Clough R.W. & Penzien J., Dynamics of Structures/McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.

[13] Newland D.E., Random Vibrations and Spectral Analysis/Longman Scientific (2nd edition), 1984.

[14] Zienkiewicz O.C., Lewis R.W. & Stagg K.G., Numerical Methods in Offshore Engineering/Wiley
Interscience, 1978.

[15] Davenport A.G., The Response of Slender Line-Like Structures to a Gusty Wind/ICE Vol.23, 1962.

[16] Williams A.K. & Rhinne J.E., Fatigue Analysis of Steel Offshore Structures/ICE Vol.60,
November 1976.

[17] Anagnostopoulos S.A., Wave and Earthquake Response of Offshore Structures: Evaluation of
Modal Solutions/ASCE J. of the Structural Div., vol. 108, No ST10, October 1982.

[18] Chianis J.W. & Mangiavacchi A., A Critical Review of Transportation Analysis Procedures/OTC

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009
ESDEP LECTURE NOTE [WG15A] Page 13 of 13

paper 4617, May1983.

[19] Kaplan P. Jiang C.W. & Bentson J, Hydrodynamic Analysis of Barge-Platform Systems in
Waves/Royal Inst. of Naval Architects, London, April 1982.

[20] Hambro L., Jacket Launching Simulation by Differentiation of Constraints/ Applied Ocean
Research, Vol.4 No.3, 1982.

[21] Bunce J.W. & Wyatt T.A., Development of Unified Design Criteria for Heavy Lift Operations
Offshore/OTC paper 4192, May 1982.

[22] Walker A.C. & Davies P., A Design Basis for the J-Tube Method of Riser Installation/J. of Energy
Resources Technology, pp. 263-270, September 1983.

[23] Stahl B. & Baur M.P., Design Methodology for Offshore Platform Conductors/J. of Petroleum
Technology, November 1983.

[24] DnV - Rules for the Classification of Steel Ships, January 1989.

Previous | Next | Contents

http://www.fgg.uni-lj.si/kmk/ESDEP/master/wg15a/l0500.htm 6/9/2009