T Barge Analysis

,
\ - , "'"
SNAME Tren ctions, Vol. 88, 1980, pp. 195-223
195
. . , . . . .
. .
Pr act i cal Desi gn Appr oaches f or t he Anal ysi s of Bar ge
Per f or mance i n Of f shor e Tr anspor t at i on and Launchi ng
Oper at i ons
-
Rubi n Szaj nber g,1 Member, Wi l l i am Gr ei ner ,1 Associate Member, Henr y H. T. Chen, " Associate
Member, and Phi l i p Rawst r on,1 Associate Member
The problems and solution techniques encountered in quantifying the safety factors involved in the
transportation of large offshore structures on deck cargo barges are discussed in this paper. The
primary factors considered are environmental force prediction, stability, motion and strength, and
their interaction, which forms the criteria for selecting an acceptable barge/jacket configuration for
towing and launching operations. The methodologies are presented and compared in light of the
state of the art in naval architecture and structural analysis. and practical implications on the design
of the tiedown system and jacket reinforcement are discussed based on past expe;~nces.
ISenior industrialist specialist, design engineer, project staff engi-
neer, and senior engineer, respectively, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston,
Texas.
Presented at the Annual Meeting. New York, N. Y., November
13-15, 1980, of THE SocIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECT'S AND MARINE
ENGINEERS.
Transportation analysis techniques
~he problems of analyzing the safety of aparticular toware
basically those of defining the interaction of the tow with its
environment. The tools and techniques available to the de-
signer must bedirected toward thetwo primary damage or loss
Practical Oesign Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
Introduction
1
I DUSTRY has made increasing demands over the past dec-
ade on the engineering disciplines to develop new technology
and methods to transport and install deepwater structures in
an e~ficient. a.n? safe manner. As the exploration and pro-
duction activities of the offshore petroleum industry have
ventured into deeper and more hostile waters, a number of
attempts have been made to respond to these demands.
GEMI I [1]2 and HIDECK [2] are novel approaches applied
tothe problem, and Side- launching and self- floating structures
have also been proposed for the transporting effort.
Yet transportation experiences in deepwater applications
around the globe indicate that often the most economical
method of transporting jackets or structures from fabrication
yards to offshore locations remains the flat- deck cargo barge
I' approach. Once on site, a derrick barge either lifts off the
structure, or it islaunched from the transporting oarge with a
~l~ctive com~in~~ionof ballasting and winching. A so- called
third generation of barges wasfirst designed and constructed
_ inthe early seventies [3] to perform the transportation task for
large deepwater structures.
Today there exists a fleet of barges which are designed to
transport and launch deepwater- jackets and carry offshore
structure modules. These vesselshave large deck spaces, and
enough stability, strength and reserve buoyancy tocarry deck
loads in excess of 25000 tons [22500 metric tons (t)]. Table
1isa partial list of the existing fleet, giving the vessels' main
design particulars.
Desig~featur:s ~orthisclassof cargo barge generally include
hea~y skid and tilting beams for launching the largejackets. A
typlca~launch barge arrangement isshown in Fig. 1. Quick
ballasting pumps rated in the region of 2000 metric tons per
hour are also usually installed to trim the barge during
launch.
. Sink~geand stability considerations determine the principal
dimensions of thesebarges. The stability criteria used consider
a typical deck cargo which exhibits a high center of gravity
above deck and a large windage area. The forward and aft
rake segments of the barge are then designed to minimize re-
sistance and promote good seakeeping and coursekeeping be-
havior.
Generally, engineering analysis in the past has assured the
relative safety of tows by closely following ship practice in
determining environmental loads, stability and motion factors.
However, demands for more- specific guidance criteria for
cargo barge problems have grown as transportation practices
have become more complicated. At the same time asimilar
pressure has been felt for design criteria for offshore structures
to keep up with the increasing technology required for deep-
w~ter applications. This has resulted in various new guidelines
being developed for general offshore usewhich nowexist inthe
form of rules and recommendations.
T~e r~seof .regulations did not automatically bring stan-
dardization to Industry practice, however, and the burden for
produ~ing acceptabl~ designs to ensure safety during trans-
portation and launching rests with naval architects and struc-
tural engineers. Tiedown braces, reinforcing members, towing
arrangements, and ballast procedures all must be reevaluated
because of the new and expanding applications inoffshore use.
The further responsibility of minimizing jacket structural
damages due to fatigue and jacket slamming alsorests with the
designer.
Agencies which todate have issued regulations toguide de-
signers include the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Department
of Energy U.K. (DOE), and the American Petroleum Institute
(API). In addition, vessel regulations exist fromclassification
2 Numbers inbrackets designate References at end of paper.
196
societ.iessuch as Det norske Veritas (DnV), Lloyd's Register,
Amencan Bureau of Shipping (ABS),and Bureau Veritas (BV),
as well as from known consultant companies such as 1 oble
Denton (ND) and United States Salvage Inc.
These various agencies have tended to set different criteria
or havechosentoleavethecriteria tothe contractor's discretion
in the area of seakeeping and structural evaluations. These
vari~tions exis~particularly in the areas of predicting the
maximum environmental conditions that will beexperienced
~nroute a~d in certain i?tact stability criteria. Damage to
J acketsdunng transportation and launch has been experienced
asaresult of acombination of problems derived fromthe pre-
ceding factors, and the lossof investment, apart from the loss
of time, has sometimes run into the hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Besidesalack of agreement about rational methodologies fur
barge stability'and structural analysis, there has also been,
until recently, alack of data available tocarry out the necessary
calculations to satisfy the regulatory bodies or to evaluate the
barge/jacket transportation in terms of risk exposure froman
owner's point of view. Yet the trend continues toward theuse
of steel jackets for deepsea oil production, and the safe trans-
portation and launching of thesejackets will remain adifficult
task for engineers for many years to come.
This paper addresses someof thecritical problems inthearea
of offshore transportation and, based on past experience. at-
tempts to approach in a unified and systematic manner the
evaluations necessary for adequate barge performances in
carrying out successful transportation operations. The paper
approaches the task from the perspective of anaval architect
or structural engineer who must analyze the transportation
pro?l.em under investigation and make appropriate design
decisions based on the critical inputs from practical consider-
ations.
The design task isdivided into two parts for discussion. The
first part reviews the various analytical echniques in thearea
of environmental load estimations, stability evaluations, motion
predictions, structure analysis and risk assessment. It is in-
tended to provide the reader with a review of the present in-
dustry standards for offshore transportation analysis, and ex-
pl~retheareas of uncertainty for future developments. Figure
2 Illustrates a typical design spiral for applying available
techniques ina transportation analysis.
~he seco~d par.t of the paper concentrates on the practical
desl.gn considerations which must be made when using the
available toolsand procedures for transportation studies. Due
to the practical constraints such asbarge availability, time, data
and resource considerations, various tradeoffs have tobemade.
In actual operations a designer is confronted with decisions
concerning motions versusstability and stability versusstrength,
aswell asdecisionsregarding thelevel of detail tobeperformed
~nthe ana~ysis. These causal effects on the total safety of the
J acket dunng atransportation operation are discussed inlight
of past experiences.
It ishoped that thesepractical experiences will helpdesigners
better understand the complex interactions of atransportation
and launch operation for an offshore jacket. Ultimately,
how~ver, thegoal of the paper isnot only toassist designers in
m~klng appropriate- decisions inatransportation analysis, but
to Improve overall performance during the actual transporta-
tion operation.
z
Tilt
L B 0 Tux Dlsp. DW T L IB B IT B ID TID
Beam
BARGE
Lenath
NAME
ft ft
tt
lL
~
"'.T.
- - - - ft
Ft LTons LTons
Intennac 198.12 51.82 12.19 30.48
650 650.0 170.0 40.0 3.82 4.25 100
"'leoperl 190.0 50.0 11.4 32.00
M44 623.0 164.0 37.4 3.8 4.4 105
Hl09 183.0 47.2 11.6 9.4 75920 57300
600.0 155.0 38.0 30.8 74700 56398 3.9 5.0 4.6 .81
BAR376 176.8 4B.8 11.0 8.06 84226 66680 30.48
580.0 160.0 36.0 26.42 82900 65630 3.6 6.06 4.4 .73 100
Hll0 160.0 42.1 10.7 7.5 49570 39550 18.90
525.0 138.0 35.1 24.6 48790 393~0 3.8 5.6 3.9 .70 62
Intennac 152.4 36.58 10.06 7.66 41790 31730 18.29
600 500.0 120.0 33.4 25.13 41130 31230 4.2 4.8 3.6 .75 60
Oceanic 93 137.16 31.70 9.14 18.29
450.0 104.0 30.0 4.32 3.5 60
BAR398 121. 9 31. 94 7.62 8.87 27605 15281 15.24
400.0 104.8 25.0 29.1 27170 15040 3.8 5.5 4.2 .76 50.
Golia! 10 121. 92 30.48 9.14 7.27 24600 20400
400.0 100.0 30.0 23.85 24212 20079 4.0 4.2 3.3 .80
BAR267 115.82 30.48 7.62 5.29 17607 12456 15.24
380.0 100.0 25.0 17.36 17330 12260 3.8 5.8 4.0 . 69 50.
Intennac 500 106.68 24.38 7.62 5.12 12294 9449 . 10.52
350.0 80.0 25.0 16.79 12100 9300 4.4 4.76 3.2 .69 34.5
8AR 319 101.19 27.43 6.10 5.18 13930 11308 15.24
332.0 90.0 20.0 17.01 13711 11130 3.7 5.3 4.5 .85 50.
Golia! 6 100.0 27.0 7.0 5.55 13868 13868
328.0 88.6 23.0 18.25 13650 13650 3.7 4.85 3.85 .79
-
BAR362 91. 44 27.43 6.10 4.66 11176 8636 15.24
300.0 90.0 20.0 15.29 11000 8500 3.3 5.9 4.5 . 77 50.
Agano 89.92 29.87 7.01 4..88
295.0 98.0 23.0 16.0 3.01 6.13 4.26 .70
BAR396 92.35 27.43 6.70 5.42 12635 10626
303.0 90.0 22.0 17.8 12436 10459 3.4 5.1 4.1 .81
Intennac 400 91.44 27.43 6.55 4.82 10818 8941 11.89
300.0 90.0 21. 5 15.8 10648 8800 3.33 5.7 4.19 .74 39
Gplia!3 77.42 24.0 6.19 5.0 9754 8230
254 .0 78.8 20.3 16.3 9600 8100 3.22 4.83 3.88 .80
V BAR271 76.2 21: 95 4.88 3.63 6195 5158
250 .0 72.0 16.0 11. 92 6095 5075 3.5 6.04 4.5 .75
Intennac 250 73.15 21. 95 5.23 4.21 6248 5263 6.25
240.0 72.0 17.16 13.82 6150 5180 3.3 5.2 4.3 .805 20.5
Table 1 Typical deck cargo and launch barge characteristics "-
Fig. 1 Typical launch barge arrangement
Practical DeSign Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 197
TIL T 8EAM
: PUMP :
: ROOM : TK 2 . TK
-.....T --._-- .-~;.., ,!.- "':~ _
13 o
WIRE BRIDLES
FAIRLEAD
TOWING BRACKET
oollJ Do- - - - o;o- - - 0:0 0:0 0.0 IIJ l' 0
.' I I I , - - e_
.' , : : "s..
C===== I - :- - r _ ! :::oJ
I' I I
-r ------ ---... ---, - -- ~--- ----------_..----- ...J . _ .. _ . ~ _ . L. _- - --
: : ; : : PUMP :c"OOLIN"G!WINCH:
o e ' 0 ~: C ' 0:0 :>'0 0: ROOM I WATER, 0
~_"""J ._,. ._ .._,._ ._._ . _ ..... _,_ .._ - . . .._._ .- ,,- _- 1_"- _, _.... _, " l .. _.. .. _._, .. .
o 0: 0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0: :CCX>LJ NG~
I I : I I ~ WATER WINCH
I I.! ,0 0
. "'" -.---- ---------.--- --_. _.~------- __.'1---". --- ---, ..- ..---, -- --.-_._-- --.
[
=::::::=~=0 ._ I I I :
cr===-----.....o.....- _.J ==:: -=:::I:= =-::J
I I I I I I~
c 0 I 0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0;0 - e~
____________________________________ Nomenclature _
.
A = projected windage area
AI = effective windage area of member
or surface
A = area under righting- arm curve as
defined in Figs. 5and 6
ACR = dynamic stability criterion = 0.08
m-rad (15 ft- deg) for offshore
service
IAIGLOM:' = acceleration matrix in global
coordinate
IAILOCAL = acceleration matrix in local coor-
dinate
B = barge beam
B = area under wind heeling and
rightin~ arm curves as defined
in Fi~> S and 6
C = area undr w ind heeling arm
curve as defined in Figs. 5and
6
CA = added- ma . and viscous damping
coeffi lent
C. = effective- hape coefficient for
open truss
C H = height coef licient
C
HG
= height and ~ust coefficient
C, = shape coefficient for windage
area
Cm = shape coefficient for member of
infinite length
ce = center of ~ra\ity
D = barge depth
IT = translation RAO vector for surge,
swav. and heave
D = \eIOCii~ RAO's
{) = acceleration RAO's
DCG = complex RAO at syst mce
D z = absolute vertical motion RAO
D (x,1j,z) = relative vertical motion RAO from
specific location
D(H 1/3,P.) = cumulative fatigue damage per
unit time for a specific sea state
and heading
DVQYAGE = expected fatigue damage during
transportation
FWIND = wind force
IFI = generalized nodel force vector
IFwl = complex wave forces acting on
barge
IFml = complex motion- induced accel-
eration forces
GM,GMT = transverse metacentric height
GZ
o
= righting arm for KG = 0
H = vertical distance between centers
of above and underwater
areas
H0 = ccnstant reflecting intercept of
best- fit line on W eibull plot
HI' 3,H, = igrnficant wave height
if 1/3 = extreme design sea state associated
with a return period TR
Ho = wave height from visual observa-
tion
lu = mass moment of inertia
[K I= generalized stiffness coefficient
matrix
KG = vertical center of gravity above
baseline
KG
I
= maximum allowable KG of barge
with respect to sceweather
criteria
KG2 = maximum allowable KG of barge
with respect to seedynamic
stability criteria
KG
A
= maximum allowable barge KG for
specified stability criteria
KGLS = light ship center of gravity
K.W = metacentric height above base-
line
Ku = transverse radius of g}ration
L = duration of transportation opera-
tion in days
L = length of barge
LT = long ton
[."11 = generalized mass coefficient ma-
trix
' \1' w = wind heeling moment
M = teady wind heeling moment at
angle < I>
Mwc = gust wind heeling moment
.IV = number of wind area elements
N = number of sea state observations in
a day
, = number of independent observa-
tions
.(0' ) = expected number of cycles to
failure at stress level 0'
P = [SCewind pressure
= 0.053 +(LI 1330)2l/m
2
= 0.005+(L /14 2(0)2 LT/ft
2
)
P(nodamage) = probability of no damage
PE(li 1/3) = encounter probability (probability
of one or more exceedances of
hazardous events)
Pj (O ' ) = probability density function of
stress range
PI(Ii Id= probability of occurrence of sea
state HI/3
P{N = m1= probability of hazardous events
P(O ' >iT) = probability of stress level exceed-
ing iT
R = return interval based on number
of voyages between recur-
rence
R = vertical relative motion displace-
ment RAO's
if = RAO vector for roll, pitch, and
yaw
R. = Reyonlds number
RAO = response amplitude operator
RAO(w,v,p.) = RAO at frequency w, speed v,
and headings p.
R..\ .. AX = maximum righting arm
Q(H I 3) = probability of exceeding ignifi-
cant wave height
S(w) = wave spectral density function
T = duration or period
T = natural roll period of barge
TR = return period/average interarrival
time
T z = zero crossing period
T o = wave Period observed visually
[TI = transformation tensor from barge
coordinate system to jacket
coordinate system
TI = total exposure time to a particular
sea state
T 2 = 21r{mo/m2)1 2 (1.0 - 0.OSt}2
V = relative", ind velocity
V IhrlO = wind velocity at to mabove water
level averaged over one- hour
period
V
c
.w = current velocity due to wind
shear
vce = vertical center of gravity
vce
c
= vertical center of gravity of cargo
above barge deck
a. = projected area of a structural
member or surface exposed to
wind
b, = truss block area
!(a) = spreading function for multidi-
rectional sea state
g = gravitational acceleration
h; = vertical distance from center of
wind pressure to center of un-
derwater resistance
k = constant reflecting best- fit ex-
trapolation line on W eibull
distribution plot
m = number of hazardous events oc-
curring during period L
mo = mean square value of stress, equal
to area under stress response
spectrum
m2,m4 = 2nd and 4th spectral moments
above spectral density axis
Po = probability of stress level exceed-
ing & = p (O ' > &)
q = wind pressure
r = position vector from system ce to
a specific location
lul, lul = generalized displacement and
acceleration with respect to
structural coordinate system
v = velocity
:r = r- coordinate or location
Ij = Ij- coordinate or location
z = z- coordinate or location
::1 = z- coordinate of a member above
stillwater level
a = spacing ratio of open truss
a = wind direction with respect to
member axis
a,{J = coefficients for CHC to define
wind speed profile
f3 = aerodynamic solidity ratio
11 = displacement
111.. = light ship displacement
e = spectral broadness factor
1'/ = shielding effect coefficient
198
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
'.
(1)
199
o = pitch angle or incident angle
lJ = pitch angular acceleration
A = rate of arrival of hazardous
events
11 = heading angle
p = density of air "'" 1.225 kg!m3
(00765 Ib/ft
3
)
a = stress level
aN = most probable extreme stress
level
iJ = arbitrary threshold stress level or
yield stress
cP = solidity ratio
cP = heel angle
CPJ = first intercept angle on righting!
heeling arm curve
CPd = lesser of downflooding or second
intercept angles on righting!
heeling arm curves
CPm = angle of maximum righting arm
(i, = roll angular acceleration
f = yaw rotation or heading angle
f = yaw angular acceleration
w = frequency = 2. T
modes for the tow, namely, stability lossesand structural fail-
ures. First, stability of the barge must beassessedtoinsure that
the barge will not capsize in the anticipated wind and waves,
and secondly, theaction of these waves on thebarge and jacket
must be determined to define the slamming and inertia loads
towhich the jacket and tiedowns will be designed.
The external forces and moments created by environmental
parameters such aswind and waves must beanalyzed, onboth
the basis of their probabilistic occurrence and on their inter-
action with the barge/iacket system under tow. The state of
theart of naval architecture and structural engineering provides
avariety of methods applicable tothese transportation analysis
tasks, and adiscussion of these methods now follows.
wave parameters arebriefly outlined inTable 2. Anoverview
of sources of data and an approach topredicting environmental
conditions during atow are presented in the following.
Wind . W ind forces and moments are used in stability cal-
culations todetermine the magnitude of overturning loads. In
general, wind forces which act on exposed structures may be
expressed asafunction of wind speed, direction, projected area
and shape:
where
Environmental loads
Environmental loads used in the transportation analysis
comprise those oceanographic processes which will ultimately
affect the structural safety and integrity of the tow. Primarily,
these forces include the wind, wave, and current loads asde-
scribed in this subsection. Methods prescribed by several au-
thorities for determining environmental extremes for wind and
p = density of air
V = relative wind velocity
C HGf = wind speed coefficient of member which includes
height and gust effects
= O'(Z/lO)/I asexplained in Appendix 1
C, = windage area coefficient of member which in-
cludes shape, shielding, and solidification effects
caused by wind blowing from angle a
SYSTEMS
EVALUATION ~
< s-> :
COST CONSIDERATIONS BARGE /J ACKET
RISK / <, ~ /CONFIGURATION
ASSESSMENTS DESIGN
<, / MODIFICATION
PROB OF BALLASTING
NO DAMAGE FINAL TlEDOWN
(
'-:::, E:, i~"~'" /, "\ !~:::.~'"
(
CLIENT / CONTRACTOR S6:~~~ TUG SELECTION'-----
SPECIFICAliOHS AND TOW SPEED
STflUCTURE __ ~:~\iJ e:Rc~CAL -- ~~:~~~ PRED 8ARGE ~)
ANALYSIS DAGE (DETERMINISTIC) SELECTION
(PR08A8L1STI\l \ I
x WIND SPEED
TRAJ ECTORY CURRENT, WAVE
SIMULATION HEIGHT a PERIOO___..
/ -
/
<, INTACT/DAMAGE SPECTRAL
ACC.lMOTION _ STA81L1lY WAVE DATA _
PARTICIPATION CRIT ERIA ) ENVIROMENTAL
FACTOIIS \ DATA PREDICTION
MODEL
TEST~ FINAL
/
CHECK
LAUNCH - ~ \
SIMULATION WAVE a MOTION
INOUCED LOADS HYDROSTATIC
SLAN PRDICTION STABILITY
I CALCULATIONS
MOTION a LOAD
ANALYSIS
Fig. 2 Designspiral
Tabl e 2 Summar y of wi nd and wave l oad r equi r ement s
~
lHeO[ 25~
BV[ 24J DnV RULES [21] OOE [28] DnV GUIDELINES [18J N08LE DENTON USGS[ 23J
A8S 26 [ 19]
DESCRIBE USCGf 27
NORMAl. 70 knots Return period equal Return period equal 70 knots for stabi I i- Return period eq. three -Re turn
OPERATING . Ret ur n I month three times the ty calculations of times the expected dur- period of
CONDITIONS period eq. 'W ave Probable. of - 6 duration of cperat- at i on of the opera ti on 10 years
50 years Occurrence 4 x 10 ion (except operat- 'Return period eq, 50
for struct. 'Lacking weather ional phase of rig) for structure calc.
calc. predict ion: - For operational

Co.
Estab 11shed wi nd - phase for ODU, the
on 35 kn. design period eq,
<> Gust 50 kn. 100 years
z:
DnV does not spec ify
3
'"
SEVERE 100 knots Return period eq. operational and 100 knots in stab il t-
e
STORM 50 years extreme conditions ty calculations
<>
( EXTRE"'E
I
W ave probable. of separately Return period of 50
0 CONDITIC~S occurrence 10- 8 years for structura 1
s
'Lacking prediction: ca lc .
Co.
I
Established wind -
z: 70 kn.
'" Gust 100 kn. =>
I
~
SHELTE=<EJ 50 knots HaIf val ues of the NOT SPECI FI ED Return period equal NOT SPECIFIED
'"
I
=>
L O C A !~, S ( except operational condo to the length of the
s USCG - tow, but never less
::
I
does not than one week (for
'"
specify) towing within 48
hours from she Iter
t
area)
W IND ~OT Sustained - I hr. ONE MINUTE W IND NOT
AVERAGi~G
ISPECIFIED
Gust - 10 ~e c
SPECIFIED
PERIDD
-
W AVE ~OT .75 SEE RULES T=IO sec NOT
o'AIW 1ETFS IjSPECIFIED
H 1.68 H Hs H
ma
/l.i6 Ro11'20- 25" SPECIFIED
(OR BARSE
s v
Pitch'
/()TION '~~I
.98 ~IOHs<T< J 20H
s
12.5- 15"
T
. 82 Tv Heave 2g
z
-
ai = projected area of member or surface exposed to
wind
The estimation of total wind load acting on the barge/jacket
combination is calculated based on the summation of forces
acting on each individual member. Three methods of calcu-
lation which can be used to estimate a total wind load are
summarized in Appendix 1.
Curre nt. Estimates of currents are used together with
maximum wind and wave parameters todefine the power re-
quirements for the tug employed for atow installing weather
conditions. Towline pull at the indicated current speed must
be sufficient to overcome both the maximum wind forces on
the structure and the drag on the barge due to current and
waves.
The current velocity may becomputed by combining global
circulation and tidal currents, if applicable, with wind- induced
currents. Inthe absence of statistical data on maximum current
velocities, the wind- induced current may be estimated based
on the following relationship:
Vc.w = 0.02 V IhrlO (2)
where Vc.w is the current velocity due to wind shear, and
VIhrlO isthe wind velocity averaged over one hour at 10- m(33
ft) height.
Barge resistance curves may becalculated by usingthe barge
form series presented in references [4J and [5J .
Wave s. W ave pressure forces produce theoscillatory heave,
sway, surge, pitch, roll, and yaw motions of a vessel. These
first- order motions induce significant inertia loadson thejacket
and tiedown braces, all of which require careful attention in
the analysis. Second- order effects, such as wave drift forces
and add~ resistance to tow, may also require special consid-
eration for particular towages.
The methods of obtaining wave loads on abarge are essen-
tially the same asthose for shiplike forms. However, modifi-
cations are necessary inorder toevaluate the added- mass and
damping coefficients because of the large B /T ratios of barges,
and a more appropriate technique should be applied (for ex-
ample, Frank's close- fit method [61). Furthermore, it isnec-
essary to modify some of the resulting hydrodynamic coeffi-
cients in the equations of motion to account for three- dimen-
sional effects due tothesmall L /B ratios of barges. W ave load
calculations then proceed in the same manner as for ships
[7J .
Besides the hydrodynamic pressures acting on abarge hull,
wave- induced vibratory loads, such asslamming and springing,
should alsobeconsidered. Although the theoretical prediction
of these loads isstill unresolved, empirical relationships have
been developed for estimating the slam impact loads on the
barge aswell ason overhanging jacket structures [8, 9J .
Environm e ntal d ata. Environmental data for a transpor-
tation study, unlike environmental criteria for fixed offshore
structures, which usually areprovided by theowner, most often
are the responsibility of the towing contractor. A contractor
will normally be required to provide the necessary design in-
formation onwind and wave conditions, subject toapproval by
the client and acognizant regulatory agency or both.
The final choice of environmental conditions will depend
directly on the towing route, time of the year the towing will
take place, ability to get to asheltered area, and the assumed
recurrence period of environmental extremes. The predicted
or assumed weather conditions used for developing the design
loads for the transportation phase of an offshore construction
project thus playa significant role inevaluating and designing
barge/jacket systems, especially with respect to the barge hy-
drostatic stability, barge and jacket strength, and seafastening
design parameters.
W ind and wave data are presently available from three
sources: direct measurements, hindcasting techniques and ship
observations.
1. Direct measurement at the location of interest will give
adesigner the most accurate formof environmental data. The
types of instruments most commonly used to measure waves
in spectral form may include wave staffs, wave buoys, and
shipborne wave recorders.
200 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
-
'1
Due to the expense of maintaining an instrument at one lo-
cation for long periods of time, measured data arenot usually
available for the siteof interest, and when they are, generally
there is not a record of sufficient length. In the case of a
rransportation analysis, data are required at all points along the
route. This makes it extremely unlikely that direct measure-
ment will be available for the entire route and duration.
2. A more readily available source of wind and wave data
isthe hindcasting technique. This procedure utilizes the daily
surface pressure charts for an ocean area, and estimates the
surface winds from this information. Finally, thewind fields
are used to estimate the local waves, which are allowed to
propagate fromonearea toanother tobuild acomplete picture
of the seastate at any desired point in space and time.
The earlier hindcasting methods developed by Pierson,
Newman, and J ames (PNJ ) [10] and Sverdrup, Munk, and
Bretschneider (SMB) [Ll ] are presently being superseded by
techniques known asspectral wave models. Spectral models
consider the generation, propagation, and decay properties of
individual frequency components of wave specta [12] and,
therefore, will provide more detail and perhaps more accurate
descriptions of the wave climate. Although no model yet
available hasbeen able toaccurately predict daily events, it has
been proven that hindcasting techniques do provide true sta-
tistical data when long- term records are utilized [13]. Fortu-
nately, long- term statistics are one of the basic requirements,
for transportation analyses.
W hen using hindcast data it is valuable when possible to
make comparisons with other representative, independently-
measured data. This procedure assures that the hindcast
techniques used will be suitable for the specific siteunder in-
vestigation. Suchfactors asshoaling, local wind variations, grid
spacing, swell, generating areas outside the assumptions of the
model, and the insufficient numbers of weather stations
available to build reliable pressure systems maps, may lead to
erroneous hindcast results in certain locations.
3. Ship observations for most ocean areas based onacom-
piled massive data source can also be used in atransportation
study. However, these data should be used with caution since
they are derived from data collected by merchant vessels
passing through areas randomly. It must also be recognized
that the observations taken are made visually by untrained
observers, and that it isextremely difficult toobserveaccurately
waveheights and periods fromamoving vessel. Furthermore,
it must be noted that merchant vessels also tend to avoid the
worst stormconditions, and therefore alack of stormcondition
data may bias the sample. These factors of bias are offset by
theavailability and inexpensiveness of these data, which have
been compiled into tabular format and published by various
authorities, such asthe U. S. National Climatic Center [14] and
the U. K. National Physical Laboratory [15]. Other sources of
summarized ship observations can be found in reference
[16].
Several attempts have been made to correlate visual wave
observations with measured wave data in order to overcome
theshortcomings of the observation technique. Theseattempts
haveresulted if!adiversity of correction formulas for both wave
height and period, but the consensus seems tobethat the visual
observer tends tounderestimate the small waves and overesti-
mate the larger waves.
D e sign e nvironm e ntal cond itions. Design environmental
conditions which may occur during the passage must be pre-
dicted once the most suitable source or sources of wave data
have been selected for the tow. Normally the data used in
predictions should cover all months during which the towcould
take place plus one month before and one month after the tow
period. This procedure helps to smooth out the anomalies
which are sometimes present in monthly wave statistics. For
long ocean tows it has been apractice tocarry out asimulation
which routes the tow through actual past weather conditions,
with adjustments of speed as necessary. The accumulated
environmental statisticsfrommany voyage simulations canthen
be used to develop predictions of significant and extreme en-
vironmental conditions.
The design seastate for the towing operation can bederived
fromadata base which contains the percentage- of- exceedance
statistic for significant wave heights, and the ioint- probabilitv
distribution of both wind speed and wave height and period.
The cumulative probability of each significant value is then
plotted on W eibull probability paper for extrapolation of sea
statesat adesired probability level. The joint height and period
probability is used to determine the range of mean spectral
periods for the extrapolated significant wave height in de-
scribing the design seastate. The extreme wind and seastate
in terms of the W eibull distribution can be ascertained by
applying the techniques described later inthe Risk Assessment
subsection.
Experience has shown that the two- parameter W eibull dis-
tribution fits most seastate statistics well. A true W eibull dis-
tribution isrepresented by astraight line on the plot, asshown
in Fig. 3. The best- fit straight line can be drawn through the
data by linear regressionor by other methods such asmaximum
likelihood estimation. Particular emphasis should be placed
onthehigher points, and aweighted square fit may berequired
to arrive at areasonable answer.
Once a designer has derived an empirical model for the
probabilistic occurrence of particular seastates, he must then
select aprobability level to determine the extreme design sea
state for the specified towing operations under analysis. The
probability level may be selected according to risk level and
encounter probability, or by the probability of zero damage
outlined intheRiskAssessmentsubsection. In the past, asimple
and intuitive approach has normally been adopted.
The desired probability level may be presented asafunction
of return interval based on the number of voyages between
recurrences and the average tow duration. The probability
of seastatelessthan thedesignseastate, H 1/3, istherefore given
by
1
P(H 1/3) = 1- R X L X N
(3)
where
R = return interval based on number of voyages between
recurrences
L = duration of tow in days
N = number of seastate observations in a day
Practical experience indicates that a range between 100 to
200 voyages isnormally considered adequate. The significant
wave height corresponding to probability level isthen used as
adesign seastate description for motion and strength calcula-
tions.
Stability
Ingeneral, stability rulesfor barges areset toestablishafactor
of safety against capsizing due to inadequate dynamic stability,
and against sinking or capsizing due to inadequate cornpart-
mentation. The criteria which these rules set up are based on
both the predicted environmental conditions and the statistical
data on the survival of models and real ships inthese predicted
conditions [17].
The differences in hull form between offshore construction
barges and ships result inbasic differences in st~tical stability
characteristics, asshown inFig. 4. Compared with most other
ship forms, a barge has a high maximum righting arm and a
large area below the righting- arm curve. On the other hand,
201
o.
o
,0.
99999
."n5
"9
f- - - - - -
"950
/
"'
I
I
._0
I
V
I
.t9000
iI"
J
I
J
I
.ssoco
I
1I
I
.90000 I
I
/
/
I I
I
eoooc
/
I
.7""""
/
I
I
.60000
I
:/
I
.eoooo
I
.40000
I
,-
I
I
:v>nnn
I
I
!>OOO
I
.2~
I
I
15000.
I
I
I
I
.10000
Z 4 5 6 7 I 9 ,0. 20 30 40 50 60 70'090'
Fig. 3 Sample plot of significant
wave height distribution on Weibull
paper
o.
e.
o
o
o
\oJ
o
z
: : ! o
'" ::>
<.)
<.)
0
0
...
o
~ 0
::::;
a;
; : ; 0
o
'"
Q. 0
\oJ
>
I-
~o
::>
:Ii
::>
u
0.
o
o
o
00
17.0
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT
due to itshigh B/D ratio, the barge's range of positivestability
isoften low, with corresponding low angles of downflooding
and of maximum righting arm. The regulations selected for
usewith deck cargo barges are those which most closely con-
form to barge characteristics.
Tables 3and 4represent asummary of intact and damaged
stability rules, regulations and recommendations fromavariety
of sources, and are not comprehensive lists. These rules may
be broken into three categories. First, there are rules which
have been developed specifically for deck cargo barges. These
are the DnV guidelines [18], the ND guidelines [19], and the
USCG deck cargo barge rules [20]. Each of these contains
explicit or implied cautions for using their rules/guidelines for
large overhanging structures and exceptional towages.
The second category includes rules for the design and con-
struction of offshorestructures, such asthosepublished by DnV
[211, DOE (U.K.) [22], the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) [23], and Bureau Veritas [241. Each of these contains
specific requirements for loadout, transportation, launching
and upending of steel jackets. In general, they offer a more
uniform set of guidelines for determining environmental loads
and risk levels.
The third category contains rules developed for offshore
mobile drilling units (OMDU's), and includes those issued by
the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization
(IMCO) [251, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)[261, and
the U. S. Coast Guard. These rules are included because there
are similarities inthe stability problems of abarge/jacket tow
and those of an OMDU in that they both exhibit high centers
of gravity and large, often complex, wind heeling areas. Inthis
respect, the OMDU rules have been predecessors of the other
two categories of rules presented.
All of the stability criteria consider the features of the barge
geometry which have the greatest effect on stability,
namely:
8m-Maximum Righting Arm Angle
80' - Downflooding Angle
8m
HEEL ANGLES (DEG.l
Fig. 4 Comparison of righting-arm curve characteristics for barges
and ships
characteristics of righting- arm curves,
wind heeling, and
metacentric height of loaded barge.
.
.
.1
Table 3 Summary of Intact stability requirements
~y
IMeo t 25 ]
6...(Z<4} ONV (24) I'Ol ,28) I0 NOBLE OENiON USGS (23) USCG [ 20)
A8S (26)
ITEM USCG [271 ~UlER G. rO[ I..IHES {IS] GJ IOELlN(S (l9]
WINO fORCE r,'/2,CS:- .V'A .ECOGNIZEO of:1I2fCV:'''S,1\6
I
R[COG"" HO INC,i 5PECTIfiEC 48S OR OTHER F=ll2fC
s
"' : 1..5 p\e f: PA
CALCU~A110N -TUNNEL TEST
"E
MOOS - RECOGNIZ,: S""'I\j;',"~:"S coors
ME 1 HQ:>S
I
TUNNEL 1ES" W tND TUNNEL
."
-ExPERIENCE
~
W INDAGE ARE A . PROFILE PROFlL.E W ITM SIW ILAR PROJ ECTED A,*' A:L{2VCGL +
Z
P.OJ ECTED A'EA PftOJ iC rc AREA. S"RU-:''' URES ON THE PLANE O- T)
W
I
~ DE. DECK A.EA ON ~lAN(
,
HORIoW . TO T>t
::>
DUE TO TRIM NORfIo!~l T(
.
rORCE
~
cr AND HEEL W IN::' DIRECTION DIRECTION
<1
0
MINIMUM W INO '360 "'IS 50 YEAR 'NINO, I INurE I hit NLrTE M NU [
I
I h4INUTE SUSTAINEO WINO WIN:> PRESSURE
W
fOR STABILITY NORMAL CONO I HOUR AVER SUSTAINED WINO SUS1A'NE: WINO
SUSTAINED W IN0I
WITH 10 YEAq RETURN EOUATION
cr EVALVATION 514 MIS FOR SUSTAINED WI1H RE TURN WITM 10 YEAR w'TIi qtTURN PERIO~
p:: 0.53 +
::> SEVE RE STORM WIND PERIOD [QUAL RE u"1H PERIOD P[r.tIOO EQUAl
IL1I3301'
0 2~7 MIS 10 SEe~ GUST THREE TI"'4 S TI'1QEE TlholES
W
SHEL TER i.oc LACKING THE L[NGTH OF THE LC:NGTooIOJ :
11/"'1
cr
IE'ECPT USCGl OBSERVATIONS OPEQATION OPERATION
~
36.0 "IS (NOT LESS IN';)'!" LESS
Z
NORholAL COND THAN I wH1(1 T..I."" I WEE"')
W
~
51.4 MIS
0 SEVE.E STO.",
~ HAlf OF TH
~
VALUE FOR
Z OPERA' !HG CONDo
=:; IN SHELTER AREA
W
W
WINO HEELING COSINE NOT SPECIFIED TO BE COSINE NOT SPECIFIED TO 8E
:r
0
"OW ENT FOR SHIP TYPE CALCULATED FOR SHIP l'fPE CALCULATED
VARIATION CONF IGURAT ION FOR SUFfiCIENT CONFIGURATION FOR SUFFICIENT
- -
z
i
NO OF HEEL NO or HEEL
ANGLE S AHGLES
INITIAL G"T POSITIVE GMT~ 030M NOT SPECIFIEO G"T ~ 0.30 'GWT ~ PAH/6TV8
>-
'USCG -AREA TO RA...
~
~(f)
GMT ~ 005 M }. 008 M- Rod
m~
<tz MINIMUM RANGE SECOND NOT SPECIFIED 0- '5 <0 DEGREE NOT SPECIFIED
~W
OF POSITIVE INTERCEPT OF LONG MOVES
v>~
STATICAL RIGHTING AND 0- 20
W
~cr STA81LIl Y HEELING ARM fiELD MOVES
0-
CURVE (LESS 12 h)
<t::>
~O - W INO rrr ecr I
ZW
_cr St-iOU..D NO'" BE I
INCLUDED
AREA RATIO GREATER OR EOUA t, TO 1.40 NOT SPECIFIEO
IHBlI(8+C) HE OOW NfL.OCXlfrffi RANGE OF
CALCULATED AS A.NGLE SHOULD L IB . BID 8 T10
COMMENTS - -
RATIO Of RIGHTING
- -
EXCEED 20
- - SPECIFIE.D
A.EA TO GUSTARA
EXCLUDING ST, tDY
WIND HEEL
Table 4 Comparison of damage stability criteria
~
IMCO BV DnV RULES USCG
ABSII DOE
DnV HOBLEDENTON USGS
[25] [24) [21] [27] [26] [2B] [18] [19] [23]
Number of Compartments One or more. Depends on damage penetrations. One See IMCO One
...
Flooded at anyone time
0
...
0-
'" ~ I ~ IBeamPenetration
1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.'im
~~
1.5m
B
- c
~ ~~ lonQitudinal 3.()n 2.3m 2.3m
-
Not Specified
Not Spec ified
0
~:!; IVertical From the bot too shell to the upper deck
General The fi nel water line tak i ng into account sinkage. trim & heel. should be Deck -
Oooeconpar tment
below the lower edge of the opening through which any progressive flooding Edge damage does not
mi ght occur. Should caps ize or sink
Not be structure
Sub-
merged
V>
MinimumW ind Speed 25.7m/s One hour sustained wind & 1/2 of predict- 25.7m/s Not 25.7m/s (or -
0-
10 see gust with one month e d sustained Spec i- applied for
~
of return period. lacking wind for return fied intact stab.
'"
...
this: period eq. three or 20.6 for
'"
:; Sustained W ind' 18.()n/s three times the inside. if
~ Gust = 25.7m/s 1.ngth of the less)
tx
tow
>-
0-
- '
-
Heeling Moment Cosine Hot Specified Cosine Hot Specified
'"
Variation 0-
V>
...
Initial Metacentri c Not Specified ) 0.3()n Not Specified
'"
~
Height w/o wind effect
0
Dynamic Stabil ity -
- ) 1.40. calculated with Sufficient Stabil ity to W iths tand Suffi- ) 1.40. - -
- Area Ratio respect to gust & W ind cent area calc.
(A+B)/(B+C) established wind stabi- perfonned
1ity to from the
proceed new origin
safely at angle
to re - of heel
pair
locat-
ion.
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 203
em - Maximum Righting Arm
90F - DownfloodinQ
Righting Arms
(I)
0::
....
I-
....
::f
92- Second
Intercept
HEEL ANGLES (OEG.)
Fig. 5 Definition of area ratio criteria
Insodoing, each criterion makes two implicit assumptions: (i)
that the righting moments at seaare qualitatively represented
bystillwater righting moments, and (iy that the assumed wind
speed and heeling moments are representative of the envi-
ronmental overturning moments.
The principal intact stability criterion used for amajority of
theserules/guidelines isthearea ratio criterion. This statesthat
there must be a minimum of 40 percent reserve righting- arm
area over wind heeling arm area to the lesser of either the
downflooding or second intercept angle (see Fig. 5). A stan-
dard 51.4- m/s (100 knot) wind speed isgenerally assumed for
worldwide applicability in the absence of values predicted
based on location and time of year.
The BV criterion for statical stability differs slightly fromthe
foregoing. It requires a minimum of 40 percent reserve
righting- arm area over agust wind heeling area, excluding the
steady wind heeling arms fromboth areas (seeFig. 6). Lacking
statistical observations, an established wind speed of 36.1 m/s
(70knots) and agust wind of 51.4m/s (100knots) aretobeused.
In addition, BV rules require that the area subtended by the
righting- arm curve be greater than 0.10 m- rad (18.8 ft- deg),
The USCG weather criterion establishes a minimum GMT
based on the wind heeling moment due to barge and deck
cargo. The wind pressure used is a function of barge
length:
RIQhtinQ Arms em
eOF
.
,
Gust Wind
(I) Heeling
ffi Arms
I-
....
::f
Steady Wind
HeelinQ Arms
HEEL ANGLES (OEG.l
Fig. 8 Definition of Bureau Veritas area ratio criteria
. PXAXH.
GMT (required) = tl. (4)
X tan1>
The USCG dynamic criterion, which isused inconjunction
with the weather criterion, requires that the area under the
righting- arm curve up tothe maximum righting armbegreater
than or equal to0.08 rn- rad (15ft- deg). These two criteria are
usually used to formulate a curve of maximum cargo VCG
above deck (VCGc) versus draft or cargo deadweight. Char-
acteristically, the weather criterion limits the VCG at shallow
drafts while the dynamic criterion limits it at deeper drafts.
The maximum allowable KG of the barge and cargo can be
determined for each of the criteria as described in the fol-
lowing:
Are a ratio crite ria:
5o~d(GZo - 1.40Mw) d 1>
KG
A
= 0 tl. (5)
1- cos1> d
BVcrite ria:
c~d ( 140 ) 04
s; GZo- ~Mwc d 1> -j;:Mws(1)d -1> tl
cos1>l- cos1> d
USCG we athe r and d ynam ic crite ria:
KGl = KMT - P X A X H/(tl. X tane (7a)
50<Pm GZ
O
- ACR
KG2 = (7b)
1- cos1>m
where
KGA :!KGl or KG2, whichever isless (7c)
The maximum VCG of cargo above deck may then becal-
culated by
VCG
c
= tl.. KGA - tl.LS KGLS - D (8)
tl.- tl.
LS
where tl.LS and KGLS are barge operational light ship proper-
ties.
The three criteria described were applied to a91.4- m (300
ft) deck cargo barge to obtain VCGc- versus- draft curves, as
shown inFig. 7. To calculate these curves, the windage area
was assumed to vary with VCGc, sothat
A = L(2 . VCGc +D - T)
H = VCGc +D - T /2
Note that for the ABSand BV curves shown, the area ratios
were calculated based on the conservative assumption that
downflooding will occur at atank vent closetothebarge's side.
W hen the ratios were calculated to the second intercept, the
allowable VCGc rosebetween 0and 7percent.
The area ratio and BV criteria curves are, of course, very
sensitive to the wind velocities used. W hen an actual wind
speed prediction ismade, thecomparison between thesecriteria
may be somewhat different. Figure 8 was developed based
onawindspeed of 30.9m/s (60knots) for thearea ratio criteria,
based on a50- year return period and an averaging period of
one minute. For the same prediction, the BV criteria steady
wind speed is26.2 ta]; (50.8 knots) or a one- hour wind, and
the gust wind speed becomes 33.6 m/s (65.3 knots), or aten-
second wind.
It should be noted that the tendencies shown here may not
hold for barges which are significantly different from theone
(6)
(9a)
(9b)
91.4", X 27.4 1ft X 6.' 1ft
(300' X90'X 20')
91.4mX 27.4m X6.lm
L~OO' X 90' X 20')
DECK CARGO BARGE DECK CARGO BARGE
\
'\
\
\ \\ - - - - B.V. AREA RATIO CRITERIA
\
\\' V. =36.0 "' I, , V, = 51.4"' I,
\1 --- A.B.S. AREA RATIO CRITERIA
'I
\ \\ V = 51.4m/,
\ \
\ '.
\1
\ '~
\ , ~ __ \. I.
~ ~\
" \'
~" ~':"
<,
.0
X
...
Il.
o.J
o
<,
){
:.l 5.
o
\
\
\
:r 6.0
...
c,
W
o
"){
u
~5.0
- - - - - - - - U.S.C.G. OYMAIIIIC CRITERIA
- - - U.S. C.G. W EATHER CRITERIA
- - - 8.V. 0.1- "'4 CRITERIA
- - - - - - - U. S. C.G DYNAMIC CRITERIA
- - - U.S.C.G. W EATHER CRITERIA
_.- B.V. O.lm- Rod CRITERIA
- - - - I.V. AREA RATIO CRITERIA
V, .26.2 mls , "- = 55.6"' I,
- - - A IS AREA ItATIO CRITERIA
V .50.9 "' I,
w
>
o
al
<l
.04.0
C>
a::
<l
U
w
>
o
al
<l4.0
o
C>
a::
<l
u
...
o 10
C>
u
>
u,
o
C> 5.0
u
>
o.J
..J
al
~Z.O
o
:J
<l
~
::>
~1.0
~
~
o.J
..J
~ 2.0
~
o
..J
..J
<l
:f
i 1.0
X
4(
~
,
\ ~
\~
\
\
,
,
,
O.O'L..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.OL------'---------;-'-----
0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2
0.4 0.6 O.B 0.2
DRAFT/DEPTH
Fig. 8 Comparison of stability for given wind condition
DRAFT/DEPTH
Fig. 7 Comparison of stability criteria for worldwide service
The velocity and acceleration RAO's are simply calculated
by differentiating displacement RA~'s:_
J ? - ::s?t.J )~W (; e'V J ) (7\, C) , 21) ,
D = iwD e
1wt
(lla)
j fj = -w
2
D e ,wt (llb)
In order to facilitate the strength calculations, the absolute
acceleration has to be transformed into the jacket coordinate
system (see Fig. 9). This global- to- local transformation is
achieved by using a transformation tensor based on a roll-
pitch- yaw sequence by
used. The curves are presented simply to show the range of
results which can be expected for typical stability calcula-
tions.
Motion calculations ./
W ave forces are the single most important environmental
factor causing a vessel's dynamic motions. Consequently, as
wasnoted inthe Introduction, stressonajacket induced by the
combined jacket/barge systemmotion shouldbeanalyzed early
on in the design process.
Ship motion programs have become the standard tool for
such seakeeping analysis, and barge motion in six degrees of
freedom can bereadily calculated. BARMOT (barge motions)
128],acomputer program especially suited for barge motion
analysis, isone such program which provides afrequency do-
main solution that has demonstrated good agreement with
model test results. The program considers motions tobelinear,
harmonic, and small amplitude, and the nonlinear effect due
to viscous damping istaken into account in roll motion by an
iterative procedure. The solution Ior regular wave excitation
isinterms of asetof response amplitude operators (RAO's) and
phase angles at the combined center of gravity (CG) of the
jacket/barge system for different encounter frequencies and
headings.
Once the program obtains the motion RAO at the system's
CG, themotions inthree orthogonal directions canbecalculated
at any discrete location away from the combined center of
gravity. The frequency RAO in complex form can be trans-
ferred to any specified location using the following relations:
. ~
ITj = [TjROLL X [TjPITCH X [TjVAw (12)
where
ARBITRARY
NODAL~t1~~k-~~
POINT
~- - -
~
Y'
D(x,y,z) = Dee +R. X r (10)
e-
.
where D represents the translation RAO vector for surge, sway
and heave;R is the rotational RAO vector for roll, pitch and
yaw;and r is the position vector from combined CG to the
specific location.
z
/
Barge/jacket coordinate systems Fig. 9
205
..
lul, lul = generalized displacement and acceleration with
respect toalocal coordinate systemfixedonthe
structure
IFI = ageneralized nodal force vector
For complex structures such asajacket, the matrices [K] and
[M] may be readily generated using a number of existing fi-
nite- element programs, such as the in- house DAMS package
(design and analysis of marine structures) [30].
By treating the jacket;barge system asa whole, the gener-
alized inertial acceleration due to barge motion and in terms
of RAO's may be derived for each node as described in the
(14) Motion Calculation subsection. Ideally, a dynamic analysis
should becarried out toaccount for thecontribution fromhigh
The three linear accelerations, including gravity, inthelocal modes of jacket vibration. Sincethehigh- frequency springing
coordinate system then become isa rare occurrence, however, astatic analysis may suffice.
X = Ax - A;Y, +gO (I5a) It isimportant to note that when barge deflection issignifi-
_ _/ cant due to high wave loadings, it is necessary to include the
Y = Ay +Azr/> +gr/> (I5b) barge inthe finite- element model together with the hydrody-
i = Az +A
z
8 _ Ayr/> . / (15c) namic loads. The forcing function now becomes
The angular acceleration, , 8, :.;",remains the same as be- " IFI= IFml +IFw) (19)
fore. J where IFwi isthe complex wave force acting on the barge and
Predictions of relative motion between ajacket structure and IF mIrepresents the complex motion- induced forces. An in-
the wave are critical in order to gain some insight into barge/ house program, SEALOAD [31], has been developed for this
jacket slamming, particularly where thejacket overhangs. The purpose.
estimation of slamming loads onoverhanging jacket members The inertia, gravitational and waveloads at each frequency,
isa difficult subject which has attracted many research efforts both inreal and imaginary parts, aretreated asastatic loadcase
(29). Though far from complete, theoretical derivation and inthestructural analysis. The resulting solution for thesystem
preliminary results indicate that theslamming loadisafunction interms of displacement inthe inertial frame isthen converted
of the relative motion that exists between the jacket member back to physical coordinates to obtain stress levels.
and water surface, and the impact velocity entering into the W hen the stressdistribution around atubular joint isdesired,
water, which issimilar toship slamming. In frequency domain a stress concentration factor is applied. The desired stress
the RAO for relative vertical motion at any specified location, RAO's on the circumference of the tubular joint can then be
x, y, z, isgiven by, determined using the stress concentration factors. Once the
R( ) D ( ) [' k ( . () desired stress RAO's are obtained, the response statistic can be
x,y,z = z x,y,z - exp t x cosu. +.Y SInJ - L)] 16 readily calculated by applying the well- known principle of
where R isthe vertical relative motion displacement RAO'sand superposition for linear systems.
D;z; isthe absolute vertical motion RAO. Given thespectral density function S(w) of the wave, and the
Relative velocity RAO's are readily developed as follows: RAO in regular seas, the response statistics inan irregular sea
'\ can then be calculated in terms of itsspectral moments
o, = iwD :e !wt (17)
[T ) = [cosO,cosy; cosO siny;
sinl/>sinOcosy;- siny;cosr/> cost/! cos +sinr/>sinOcost/!
sinl/>siny;+cosl/>sinOcost/! cosr/>sinOsiny;- sino sint/!
where I/>isthe roll rotation, 0 the pitch rotation, and y;the yaw
rotation.
Vessel acceleration in the local coordinate system is then
given by the relation
IAILOCAL = [TIIAlcLOBAL
Besides the inertia accelerations induced by motion, an ec-
centric gravitational acceleration due toroll and pitch motion
should be accounted for. The component for acceleration due
toearth's gravity, which isbasically nonharrnonic innature, can
be resolved for small roll and pitch angles as follows:
IAI = IAlLOCAL +(-gk ) X if .
The derived information can then be used to simulate the
jacket member submergence and the impact velocity in the
time domain for slaminvestigations inconjunction with model
tests. Statistics on the probability of slamming can also be
calculated using a theoretical formula [8].
Structure analysis
After determining the motion characteristics of the barge/
jacket system, the designer can then calculate the stresses in-
duced by the motion during transportation.
Classically, the equation of motion of an elastic undamped
system subjected to arbitrary motion- induced loading may be
represented in matrix form as .
[M lIiil +[KlIul = IF)
where
[M) = generalized mass coefficient matrix
[K] = generalized stiffness influences coefficient ma-
t r i x
- sinO ]
sine sinO
cosr/>cosO
(13)
mj = So'" So211' w!RA02(w,v,J-L' S.w)f(a)dadw (20)
where RAO (w,v,J-L) isthe RAO at frequency w, speed v, and
heading J-L,and f(a) represents the spreading function.
Generally, the peak value of the stress follows a Rayleigh
distribution for short- term predictions. The probability of the
stress level being greater than a certain threshold value 0- is
given by
Pia > 0-) = exp(o- z/2mo) (21)
(18)
where mo isthe mean square valueof thestressequal tothearea
under the stress response spectrum, and can be evaluated by
equation (20). . n-.
Furthermore, the most probable extreme value of t~ A.J.JV.M
sponses expected tooccur once inN independent observations
'Cail6e estimated by the following asymptotic expression for
large N [32]:
UN = ~ X [on N)I/2 +~X 0.5722 (In N)- 1/2 ... ) (22)
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Sarge Performance
For agiven response spectrum, Ncan beestimated by using
the zero- crossing period T z in seconds, and the duration of
exposure T in hours:
N = 3600 X T /T 2 (23)
T z = 27r(mo/mz)l/2(1.0 - 0.05 f)2 (24)
where f isthe spectral broadness factor
E=(l - mz
2
/mo/m4)1/2
For long- term prediction, however, there normally exists
uncertainty of the parameter mo due to random variation of
wave spectral shape. Thus, the probability of a exceeding a
threshold level fr, and taking into account the parameter's un-
certainty, isgiven by acombined Rayleigh- normal distribution.
A detailed explanation of the procedure can be found in
[33].
In fatigue damage assessmen s which consider the entire
range of stress, aswell asthe total number of stress cycles, the
mean period of the stress cycles has tobe determined. Typi-
cally the zero- crossing period T2 is used, which is defined in
equation (24).
By using the well- known Palmgren- Miner rule, the cumu-
lative fatigue damage per unit time for aparticular seastate,
H1/3,and heading, J .I., can be,estimated:
/ (25)
where Pj(u) represents the probability density function of the
stress range, and N;(c) is the expected number of cycles to
failure at stress level a from a fatigue curve.
Hence, the total expected fatigue damage during the trans-
portation can be estimated by
Dvoyage = L T ; X D/
/
where T, isthe total exposure inAreai encountered, and D, is
the cumulative fatigue damage, taking. into considerationjhe .'
seastate and heading probabilities I~::~. aj S- eA- ~
d -: ~ 1, . t-u-..cP-7
o, = L L Pk(H 1/3)Pj(J.I.)D (H 1/3J.1.) (27)
k j
A special- purpose program, TPFA TIG (Transportation
Probablistic Fatigue Analysis) [34], hasbeen developed in- house
for the purpose of calculating fatigue damage and maximum
stressduring transportation.
Risk assessment
In a transportation study the question the designer must
answer for the jacket owner is, "W hat will the level of risk be
intransporting thejacket from fabrication yard toproduction
site?"
One way of defining the risk level istodetermine the return
period associated with the design environmental conditions
which the barge/jacket may encounter during aspecified pe-
riod and tow route. These possible environmental extremes
then become the design seastate and wind conditions which
thedesigner can usefor stability, motion and structural analysis
to ensure that the barge/jacket system will "survive" during
transportation. Thus, theprobability associated with thedesign
seastate and extreme wind conditions indicates ameasure of
risk level during the tow.
In the long- term oceanographic statistics, each sea state is
generally represented by itssignificant wave height, H1/3, and
acharacteristic wave period. Recorded data have shown that
H1/3generally follows aW eibull extreme probability density
function .
- , .
Q(H1/3) = I - P(H1/3) = ex
p
[- (~~3)kl
for which
(2&).
(26)
H
1
/
3
= Ho[- ln Q(H
1
/
3
)P/k (28b)
where Q(H 1/3) isthe probability of exceeding the significant
waveheight, H1/3, and H0and k are two parameters indicating
the intercept and slope of the best- fit line on W eibull paper.
Once thedesignsignificant wave height has been established,
arange of characteristic periods may be used inorder toensure
an accurate and sufficient determination of the maximum re-
sponse. The period range, usually in terms of mean spectral
period T1, may beobtained fromatheoretical joint probability
density function of H1/3and T1,or, inthe absence of data, the
designer may usethe value recommended by some classifica-
tion society. For example, DnV specifies the following range
of wave periods [18]:
VlOH1/3 <T1 <V20H1/3 (29)
where H1/3isthe design significant wave height in meters.
For fixed offshore structure designs, the probability level is
usually translated into aso- calledmaximum design wave height
with N- year return period. This notion, however, is less
meaningful for atowing operation which lasts days, or amax-
imum of several weeks. Given a particular return period, it
isnot at all clear what risk isbeing taken for aspecified towing
operation. A more meaningful criterion is therefore needed
to convert the return period of hazardous events into mission-
related statistics.
One way of arriving at ameaningful risk level for aspecified
towing operation isto usethe notion of encounter probability.
Provided that the extreme seastate and wind speeds are rare
events during the transportation, the probability of these haz-
ardous events occurring may be described by a Poisson model
[35]: .
e L A(L 'A)m
P(m) = , (30)
m.
where L represents the duration of transportation, 'A istherate
of arrival of hazardous events, and m is the number of haz-
ardous events occurring during L.
The return period, or average interarrival time, TH, isgiven
by
(31)
The encounter probability, defined asthe probability of one
or more exceedances of - tbehazardous events during Ltime
units of exposure, isgiven by
P
E
CH
1
/
3
) = 1- exp(-L /T H) (32)
where H1/3isthedesignseastateassociated with areturn period
T R. Notice that the encounter probability is a function of
towing timeaswell asthereturn period of the hazardous events,
which can be extrapolated from a W eibull probability plot as
shown in Fig. 3. ~
Furthermore, for agiven designseastate H1/3,the peak stress
follows a Rayleigh distribution. Thus, the probability of the
maximum stress exceeding the yield stress fr can be estimated
by equation (21). The probability of no damage during the
entire voyage isgiven by
P(no damage) = 1- PE(H1/31"o)
. = exp (- i: 0) (33)
where Po is the probability p to >fr) as shown in equation
(21).
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Bar~e Performance 207
PR06ABILITY OF NO OA!!AGE FOR Po ( (T"">tr)
10~~===========- I '" -O.O!!
-0. 10
08
-0.2!!
-O.!!O
-0. 6 32
ENCOUNTER PROBABILITY
0. 2
00~----~0~Z ----~0~4----~0~. 6 ~--~0~. 8 ~----7 1~0---
!!ISSION PERIOO / RETURN PERIOO
Fig. 10 Risk levels as a function of mission period and design sea state
return period
, .
Figure 10 shows a plot of encounter probability level and
probability of no damage at various Po versus the ratio of mis-
sion period and return period. \'otice that if the most probable
extreme value is used for the design criterion. there is a prob-
ability of 0 6.3:2 that the extreme value will be higher than the
most probable \ alue. Such a risk level isgenerally unacceptable
in practice for intermediate and long voyages. This leaves the
designer the choice between increasing the return period of the
design sea state and using a design stress level with a lower
probability of exceeding the yield stress.
Practical designconsiderations
The preceding section has described the acceptable criteria
and the approaches to the essential elements needed to perform
a transportation study. The paper now addresses some of the
practical aspects a designer faces when analyzing an offshore
transportation operation.
Design decisions are affected both by the state of the art of
naval architecture and structural analysis. and by the practical
factors involved. such as time and data available and level of
analysis requested. Thus. each transportation study performed
will vary its use of available methodologies. Consequently, the
final determination for the level of effort in any transportation
study is a result of weighing the anticipated gains (monetary)
with choices about acceptable methodologies.
The basic criterion a designer must use to develop a rational,
consistent .1Odpractical methodology for transporting astruc-
ture isthat of safetv: the analvsis should insure that the vstern
will not capsize or' be broke~ up. The practical design con-
siderations. therefore. center about the apparent tradeolfs be-
tween motions and stability. and the effect these two factors
have on structural strength.
This section now turns to the practical options the de igner
can deploy to .eep the H" f'1.lIHI its cargo \\ ithin the pn- dicted
requirements for a particular mission.
Barge motions and stability
It has long been know n that .l vessel with :.I high dt'~rt'e of
stability wdl have stiff or jerk\ motions, because as the C .\I of
the vessel b raised, the lower its natural period I)t'COIlH:'S. This
tradeoff between dy namic ,tallilit) and motion accel.- rution
is the practical problem that confronts the designer in trans-
portation analysis.
In standard ship practice the vessel KG can be altered to some
extent in order to decrease stability to a nominal level. while
varying the vessel's natural roll period in order to reduce mo-
tion. and thus keep wear and tear on passengers. crews. cargo
and machinery at a minimum level. Alternatively. bilge keels.
fin stabilizers and antiroll tanks. and other active and passive
devices may be used to modify aship's motion characteristics.
However, proper ballasting and cargo allocation remain the
most common means available for control of merchant ship
motions.
The position of the vertical center of gravity (KG) of ajacket
is determined by the depth of the barge and the height of the
"hI beams. Therefore. the KG of the system may only be al-
tL- r,d through ballasting. which may have little effect on the
barues GM, due to the variation of K,\l with draft. A designer
ab" has available several passive roll- limiting devices which can
alter a barge's natural period. but the most practical solution
is etten the selection of a barge with characteristics that com-
pliment the needs of the mission under study.
Barge selection can be particularly important because off-
shore tructures are especially sensitive to transportation loads
due to their great size and weight, and because jacket design
configurations are optimized for their in- place loading rather
than for towing conditions. It isalso often true that adecrease
in barge motions will result in a direct decrease in steel weight
of the tiedown system and jacket and. therefore, in a reduction
In its acquisition cost. The designer's concern. then. is that of
motion control rather than maximum stability.
The relationship between motion and stability is demon-
strated in the following examples. Because the roll motions
often cause the most severe loading on the cargo. the examples
consider only the effect of the barge's roll motions in sea states
of varying wave heights.
The natural roll period of the barge. T <p . may be expressed
a
T '= C 27rKn
'" .-\. G'"
V g L VIT
(3- t)
where
CA = added mass coefficient of barge
=F{Kn/B . B IT )
Kxr = roll radius of gyration of barge/jacket system
The only means of changing the natural roll period for a
given barge and jacket isby adding or moving ballast. Adding
ballast lowers the KG and increases the draft. while the position
of the ballast affects the svsterns inertia.
To avoid roll resonance it is necessary to operate the barge
so that its natural period will not likely be in the range of the
majority of a given sea state's energy. As an illustration of this.
the period range for the maximum spectral energy density of
a Pierson- Moskowitz spectrum has been plotted for ignificant
wave heights up to 9 m (:!9.5 ft) (see Fig. I l ). :\ote that with
this spectrum, less than LO percent of the total wave energy is
at periods greater than the range indicated.
Assume that Barges [ and IIare ballasted so that their natural
periods are L.5.-t and 13.:2 seconds (s), respectively. It can then
be seen that Barge [ will be in resonance in sea states with sig-
nificant wave heights greater than .').9m (19.:3 ft). while Barge
II (the larger barge) wil] be in resonance for significant wave
heights greater than -t.-t m (1-t.-t It). Therefore. from a roll
motions standpoint, the smaller. le ss table barge probably
would be more acceptable for tows where significant wave
heights greater than - t.- t m are expected.
The idea of variuble- stubility (that is, variable wuterplane)
burucs has resulted from the need to "tune" barges for partie-
208
Pracucal Oesiqn Approaches for he A.I arysis of Barge Per ormance
ular jacket tows. Through thf' use of modular barzr such as
Flexifloat 136;, or b~ variable free- flooding arrang. ",'111., it
may be possible to suit abarge to the needs of a particular jacket
towage operation This matching of barge and to can be
accomplished b) reducing the water plane inertia of tilt' vessel,
and thereby approach its minimum intact and damaged sta-
bility limit while at the same time minimizing its anticipated
motion responses. The ability to significantly varv a vessel':
waterplane properties to increase its suitability for particular
voyage requirements is unique to barges, and provides all ef-
fective means to control barge accelerations.
AntirolJ tanks, such as those used in ships, also have the ad-
vantage of being able to be "tuned" to a specific frequency for
a particular tow. However, they are usually only effective over
ashort range of wave periods, and would have to be quite large
to be of significant value. Thus, antirolJ tanks have seen little
application in deck cargo barges.
Once a barge has been selected for the towage under study,
the use of bilge keels remains the most common method to
further moderate barge roll motions. It is also usually the least
expensive approach. In general, bilge keels will damp roll
motions over a wide range of barge drafts and wave periods by
increasing the added mass and viscous damping of the barge.
The effects of bilge keels of varying sizes on a particular towage
can be seen in Fig. 12. It should be noted that the roll RAO's
may begin to increase again for bilge keels beyond a certain
optimum size.
Barge motions may, therefore, be minimized through the use
of a variety of designer- controlled variables. These include
the selection of the barge and ballasting configuration, the use
of variable- stability barges to "tune" for specific towages, and
the use of bilge keels and other motion- damping devices.
5.0
DECK CARGO BARGE
I01.2mX274mX6.lm
(332' X 90'X 20')
40
BARGE WITHOUT
X
BILGE KEELS
O~
-::I
3.0 ...J
...J )(
0
a::N
BARGE WITH-
Q
09, . (30') BILGE KEELS ...
~
14,. (45') B'_GE KEELS
a::
w 20
I 8 (60') B, GE KEELS
II)
Z
0
CL
II)
w
a::
...J
...J
0
a::
10
r:
10
BARGES
I 914M~27~MX61'"
(300' X 90'X 20')
II (158MX30SMX7.6M
(380'XI00'X2S')
/
19
18
17
II)
a
Z 16
o
u
w
'" 15
a
00
0- 14
_a::
a::w
wn.
n. '" 13
-' <f
-' w
on.
a:: 12
-'
-' <f
<fa: :
a:: ... 11
::>u
. . . w
<fn.
Z"'IO
I I
"
..
s~ 9
...1-
PERIOD RANGE fOOl
50% OF WAVE ENERGY
(CENTERED ABOU T~[A,)
B
7 L- ~ ~ ~ ~
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
DRAFT / DEPTH
..
o 6 8 10 4
Fig, 11
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT (METERS)
Variation of natural roll period with operating draft and variation
of spectral peak period with significant wave height
15 20
WAVE PERIOD
Fig, 12 Variation of roll RAO's for bilge keels of various lengths
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Sarge Performance
209
ELEVATIONFRAMING-=----_,
J ACKETLE
STBD
"
TUBULAR TIEDOWN
FWD
LONG'L SHEAR PLATE
PLATE TIEDOWN
Fig. 13 Typical tiedown arrangement
."
Strength
Several levels of analysis are possible for determining loads
and stress levels in the barge/iacket system. depending most
importantly on the designer's concern over the magnitude of
these loadings. Obviously, for atowof short duration in rela-
tively protected waters, only a very simple and conservative
analysis will be performed to reduce the overall loadings and
the required tiedown arrangements. It may even bededuced
that it issafeto useastandard tiedown sizeand an arrangement
based on successful usage in the past. Figure 13shows afew
examples of typical tiedown arrangements.
For tows of intermediate duration, where more exposure to
hostileweather isanticipated, simple hand calculations areoften
performed tosize tiedowns. In this analysis certain conserva-
tiveassumptions are necessary due tothefact that tiedowns are
normally a redundant structure (that is, the problem isstatically
indeterminate). For acommon tiedown arrangement, possibly
the most straightforward assumption isto replace thejacket by
a set of lumped weights and lumped inertias at its tiedown
points. This information may beeasily available fromprevious
computer analysis of the jacket structure, or may be hand-
comp';!ted from drawings or estimated simply by knowing the
jacket s length and center of gravity. This method issimilar
to that used for launching calculations [:371.
The next question that often arisesiswhat sort of acceleration
tousewith thisquasi- static system. The simplest method would
be to apply some standard maximum motions to the barge in
the manner described by one of several authorities [l9, 381.
The problem which arises in using this approach is in de-
termining the interaction nf various. accelerations acting si-
multaneously on agiven member. A common approach isto
assume that the worst loading will come from beam seaswhen
the roll angle and roll and heave accelerations are at their
maximum. A number of possibleworst loading conditions may
then be developed by alternating the directions of these
loads.
This simple approach issuitable for preliminary design and
stressestimation of tiedownbracings. The worst- load condition
islesssensitive with respect to the relative signs of these accel-
erations when the barge/jacket configuration issymmetric. In
some cases, the number of loading conditions may bereduced
by simple inspection, though as the load sizeand complexity
increases for large structures, the ability to do sodecreases.
As the jacket size increases, tiedown and jacket stress esti-
mations become more important. Failure of jacket members
fromfatigue damage during transportation isagenuine concern
to the designer.
Normally the structural analysis of the jacket has been fo-
cused about itsin- place loads, with acertain amount of bracing
added toaccommodate itslying on itssideduring construction
and transportation. W hen the transportation analysis isdone,
the finite- element model for the jacket ismodified by altering
the support points and adding the tiedowns and skid beam to
thestructural model. Dynamic transportation loadsmay then
beapplied by transferring the linear and angular accelerations
to lumped masses at each node of the model. The resulting
stressdistribution isused then todetermine whether the jacket
structure isadequate or whether somemodification isrequired.
The results are also used tosizeand position the tiedowns.
The question :lgaill arises asto the validity of the maximum
210 Practical Design Approaches for the AnalYSISof Barge Performance
Table 5 Expected participation factor matrix for 6-deg acceleration and angular motions
LI NEAR HCELERATI ON DUE TO' 4NGUl t . . ~t . . " ~~l [ P. ATI O" l
DUE TO' ~N4Ut ~~ " , r TI ON DUE TO'
SURGE SWAY H[ AVE YAW ~OLl PI l CH POLL- PI I CHM
SU~GE 0. 0
Y- o . a 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
SWAY 0. 0 x 100. 00x -34 . 8 9 x 0. 0
Y-
-6 4. 95
Y- 0. 0 Y- 44 . ) 0 ~ o . 0 x
HEAVE 0. 0 x -30. 96
Y-
100. 00Y- 0. 0 % 39 . 09 x 0. 0 -45. 24 0. 0
Y-
YAW 0. 0 x o . 0 x 0. 0 x 0. 0 % 0. 0 0. 0
Y-
0. 0 o . 0 x
R! l ' l L 0. 0
Y.
-&8 22 x 40. 30x 0. 0 x 100. 00% 0. 0 x -100. 00 0. 0 x
PI l CH 0. 0 ~ 0. 0 x 0. 0 0. 0 x 0. 0 0. 0
Y- o . 0 '0 0. 0 x
ROLLM 0. 0
Y-
8 8 22 x -40. 30% 0. 0 x -100. 00x 0. 0 x 100. 00 ~ 0. 0 %
PI l CHM o . 0 x 0. 0
Y.
0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 x 0. 0 x 0. 0 0. 0 x
SHORT TERM RESPONSE STATI STI CS (SI NGLE AMPLI TUDE) PER UNI T HI / 3 I N FT .
UNI DI RECTI ONAL LONG CRESTED SEA I S ASSUMED WI TH HEADI NG ANGLE' 90. 0 DEGREES
UNI T I SSC SPECTRAL FORMULATI ON I S USED'
MEAN SQ. VALUE
R. M. S. VALUE
SI GNI FI C. VALUE
Tl . PERI OD (SEC)
BROADt ~ESS (EPS)
MPMAX. I H . 5 HR
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 45) 4E-02
0. 6 ) 6 3E-Ol
0. 1353E 00
0. 8 596 E 01
0. 426 2E 00
0. 2351E 00
MEAN WAVE PERI OD 10. 0SECONDS
0. 98 06 [ -02 0. 0 0. H23t -02 0. 0 0. 2353E-OI 0. 0
0. 9902[ - 01 o . 0 O. 3199E-OI 0. 0 0. 1534E 00 0 . 0
O. I ?8OE 00 0. 0 0097 E-OI 0. 0 0. 306 ~E 00 o. 0
0. BI 2l E 01 0. 0 O. 1242E 02 0. 0 0. 136 4E C2 0. 0
0. 38 09E 00 0. 0 0 . 36 55E 00 0. 0 0. 2543E 00 0. 0
0. 3458 E 00 0. 0 O. lonE 00 0. 0 0. 5125E 00 0. 0
NOTE MULTI PLY BY THE SI GNI FI CANT WAVE HEI GHT TO ARRI VE AT THE CORRECT RMS. SI GNI FI CANT AND THE MOST PROBABLE MAXI MUM RESPONSES
FOR THAT SEA STATE.
loads as well as to determine the combination of accelerations
to be used in the jacket stress analysis. It is important to em-
phasize that the maximum loading condition cannot always be
determined by simple inspection as in the case of tiedown de-
signs. Therefore, a more rational method is needed to find the
so- called "participation factors" for each of the motion com-
ponents when one of them reaches its maximum in a given sea
state and duration.
The estimation of the participation factor is achieved by
utilizing the notion of cofactors in random processes [39J . The
analysis, using basic Six- degree motion RAO's and phase angle,
determines the relative percentage values of its expected
maximum when one of the responses (accelerations or angular
motion) is at its maximum. Table 5 gives an example of the
participation factor from the CARGO (participation factors)
computer program 140J matrix for a typical jacket/barge system
in unidirectional beam sea. The results have been verified with
the time history simulation using the same acceleration and
motion RAOs. The expected maximum values of the accel-
eration and motion using frequency domain analysis seem to
be in good agreement with the time domain simulation, except
in the case of roll responses, as shown in Table 6. The "par-
ticipation factors" expressed in terms of percentage of their
respective motions may also be calculated by using the average
values of the time history runs.
After the participation factor of the acceleration and motion
for different headings and sea conditions has been determined,
the jacket structure can be readily analyzed by transforming
the responses at the barge/jacket combined center of gravity
to modal forces and moments in a local coordinate system to
solve for member stresses by using an existing finite- element
package such as DAMS.
It should be noted, however, that although this approach
provides a more rational basis for treating the maximum mo-
tion- induced stresses. it still involves rnanv simplified as-
sumptions which may not realistically represent the actual
conditions under tow. First, the calculated motion- induced
stresses are not rigorously derived, using a set of average values
of participation factors for a given seastate and duration.
Secondly, the effect of the barge's structural response on the
jacket is not taken into consideration. Finally. the result cannot
be used for a rigorous fatigue analysis, which could l critical
for certain \\ pes of jackets.
The ultimate approach to the jacket/barge structural analvsis
is to model tilt:' system as a whole by the finite- element method.
Both h\'dro(hna'mic and hydrostatic loads can be applied to the
barge using the computer program SEALOAD. In this way,
the effect, of barge/jacket structural interaction call be ac-
counted for The results obtained by the TPFATIG post-
processor an- ill term, of member stress RAO's, which can be
Table 6 Maximum heave, sway, roll acceleration and roll angle with their respective participation factors for a barge/jacket system
in beam seas fromtime history (ISse spectrum H1'3 = 20It; Tl = 10sec)
Heave Accelerat ion. Sway Accelerat i,,~. Roll Acceleration,
Holl Anul.
ft/S~ ftlS" deg/S~ dp~
Heave acceleration 6.828 - 1.579 o.sso - ;1.151
(lOO'}(j (33.4~' ) n~.9"') (39.9%)
.-
Sway acceleration - 2.233 4.727
- 1.19,
4.020
(32.7<;() (l00"! )
(66.7rC )
(50.9%)
Roll acceleration
1.78:2 ":'3.291 1.79;, - 7.424
(26.1
C
i) (80.:20, ) (100"; I (91.0%)
.
..
Roll angle - 2.397 3.143
.- 1.,8- 1
7.898
(35.1 ';cl (66.5%)
(99.:16(",) (lOOCi, )
NOTES: 1. The values indicated are t.he average values from six time- history simulat ion runs.
2. The negative signs are used to indicat.e the opposite direction to the maximum responses.
211
STAGE 0 - WINCHING
STAGE I - SLIDING
STAGE 2 - ROTATING
STAGE ~ - SLIDING e.
/
STAGE 4 - CLEARING BARGE
SKID BEA~
BARGE
Fig. 14( a) Launch stages for an offshore jacket
combined for maximum stress prediction and fatigue damage
from an estimation using stress concentration factors. As
outlined previously in the Structure Analysis subsection. this
approach represents a more coherent methodology for a
jacket/barge analv is. nfortunateiy, the volume of compu-
tation may be prohibitive and justified inonly alimited number
of ca es.
A barge structure, however, may bechecked for adequacy
with an alternative and simpler approach. First, the primary
hull bending tress is obtained by the traditional method of
calculating the limiting stillwater and wave- induced bending
moments, using the barge section modulus and thedesign wave
height. Bending stresses should beobtained for both tow and
launch conditions based on the actual jacket and ballast con-
figuration.
Second, for some barges the carrying capacity of the deck
may be inquestion due tothe high local loads transferred frorn
the cargo through the kid beam. These loads tend to peak
sharply at the major framing elevations where loads are dis-
tributed in from other parts of the jacket. Such loads may be
inthe region of l/~to 1/6of thejacket's total weight. This load
isdistributed by the skid beams to the deck frames and even-
tually to the transverse bulkheads and side shell.
The third consideration isthe barge's local strength inway
of the tiedown structure. Experience shows that this iswhere
much of the member failure occurs, especially fatigue failure
for members periodically intension. The design must consider
the local strength of the deck relative to the maximum (com-
pressive) load expected, and also consider the periodic tensile
loads that will be present.
J acket launch considerations
Barge requirements determined by launch considerations
will often have a significant effect on barge selection for
transportation. Barge SUitability for launch is defined by
various parameters, starting with the overall strength of the
barge asdefined by itsmaximum tilt pin reactions, the length
and flexibility of the tilt beams, and the hull girder section
modulus. Other barge parameters include stahilitv L haruc-
teristics at high trims, and compartmentation and hallast-
ability.
The objective of the launch analysis istodefine amethod to
transfer thejacket fromthe barge tothe water inthesrnoothcst
and safest manner possible. This process involves minimizins;
jacket and barge stressesand maximizing both barge and jac.et
stability. A primary consideration isto minimize the launch's
212 Practical Desrqn Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
sensinvity to small variations In the establi: hed configura-

non
L aunch d qnanncs The main concern in am launch analvsis
Ct'nters,about predicting the dynamic lx- havior of th J acket and
barge. Therefore. design prediction must con ider tilt' d)-
namic of the svslem, which are norrnallv derived from model
test or from computer simulations which produce a time his-
tory of the launch or from both 14J I. A typical stern launch can
be divided into S stages for evaluauon, a shown in FI~ J .1\a ).
Figure 14(v) shows the launching of a large offshore jacket
The most critical stage for both jacket and barge is usually
rotation of the jacket on the tilt beams ( tage 2) Stresses in the
barge are at a maximum due to both the unfavorable longitu-
dinal distribution of weight, and the concentrated local loadings
at the tilt beam supports. Typically, launch barges are highly
reinforced at the launch end, and together with the tilt beams
are rated with a maximum reaction capacity. On the other
hand, the barge section modulus is normally dose to the nom-
inal value required for all ocean service barges, and the hull
bending stress must therefore be closely monitored.
Both the tilt beam and hull girder loadings may be moder-
ated to some extent by the prudent positioning of ballast prior
to launch (see Figs. ISa and ISb). Increasing the barge trim
has the effect of immersing more of the jacket early in the
launch, which results in an increased buoyant force that reduces
the load on the barge. W hile a high trim tends to add to hull
bending stress, placing the ballast near midship reduces the
inherent hogging moment on the barge.
J acket rotation isalso a critical stage in the launch process due
to the fact that the jacket is supported only by a short span of
tilt beam. In general, the more of the jacket that is immersed,
the lower the jacket stress will be due to the buoyancy of the
submerged section of the structure.
The barge's transverse and longitudinal stability will decrease
rapidly if the barge is allowed to trim to such angles that either
the bow emerges or the stern submerge in the water. As an
example of the trim effect. d) namic stability has been calcu-
lated for a range of trims for barges of various depths (Fig.
16).
The use of a high trim angle produces another hazard, that
of jacket stalling. High trim increases the probability that the
jacket will slow down on entering the water, and thi slowing
effect may cause the structure to stall, or "hang up," on the
barge. In this case, both the drag and buoy ant forces on the
jacket act to prevent rotation and separation. W hen high trim
angles are inevitabl in a particular launch, a light draft isoften
used to minimize jacket submergence prior to Stage 2.
~ hile the launch operation isof short duration and generally
performed under good weather conditions, the possibility exists
that the jacket may hang up during launch and remain on the
tilt beams for some period of time. A major concern isthat the
jacket may skew on the launch rails or launch in an unpre-
dictable fashion. Either of these situations can lead to damage
of the jacket or barge. The authors feel that an adequate cri-
terion would be to require that the barge heel no more than the
angle at which the jacket would begin to skew (2 to 5 deg) in
a nominal beam wind. The value for wind speed used could
be determined based on the maximum one- minute average
wind to develop in 24 hours from an initially calm sea state.
Two other items of importance addressed by a launch sim-
ulation concern the maximum ubmergence of the jacket as it
clears the barge ( tage 4), and the final attitude of the structure
in the water. The trajectory of the jacket is normally governed
by the initial draft and trim of thebarge, along with the type
of lubrication used on the jacket runners.
A designer can control additional items, such as extent of
added weight (skirt piles, boat landings, etc.) and added
buoyancy (flotation tanks) affixed to the jacket at launch. The
-
-
Fig. 14(b) Launching of the 700-ft-long. 10 OOO-tonChevron "Garden
Banks" jacket. The structure is being launched in the Gulf of Mexico
from the 66 OOO-dwt Brown & Root launch barge BAR 376
213
AI'T
--'-F.:.:.WD=---_ It .
, . .
2 %L
L=914" (~OO')
B=27.4" (90')
6=9150 T. (9000LT)
2 o I
BALLAST LOCATION
~0.4
a::
I
2
2
a::
0.3
C)
Z
;:
:r
C)
C;:0.2
2
:J
2
X
2
0
0
.
1
~
L.J
a::
DEPTH= 7.6
DEPTH = 5 I
IlL X 100'1.
Fig. 15(a) Variation of barge stresses with longitudinal position of
ballast
oJ
/
f
'" >
'" TI
oJ
II)
'"
'" T2 or
...
'"
:2
-e
~
~
oJ
;:
TRIM
Fig. 16 Variation of dynamic stability with trim for various barge
depths
models during launching and upending can be easily inter-
preted visually for comparison against analytically predicted
results. This method of verification isparticularly useful for
more sensitive analysis when' computation islacking.
A few modeling problem will usually exist due tothecom-
plexity of a jacket structure. It is important that the model
should represent closelythefull- scalestructure in,weight. inertia
and shape. W hile the barge i usually simple toconstruct, the
off- the- shelf range of miniature tubing sizes may determine
the scale factor between the model and full- size structure.
Buoyancy calculations normally are performed toensurethat
the buoyancy of each level and frame of the jacket iscorrect,
sothat even though some members are not exactly scaled, the
final hydrostatics of the model and prototype will agree closely.
Finally, both barge and jacket models must beaccurately bal-
anced and ballasted to the correct CG position and inertia.
Byusing thesimilitude relationships between the model and
the prototype based on Froude number scaling, the motion,
force and time measurements can betransferred quantitatively
from the model to the prototype. It should be noted that
drag- induced forces, which arisefromtheviscosityof thewater,
cannot be scaled to the same ratios as acceleration- induced
forces. The viscous drag will beslightly higher on the model
than on the prototype.
The motions of ajacket onthe barge inwaves areoneof the
most important aspectsof the model test. Regular waveresults,
in terms of amplitude and phases at different frequencies of
interest, are recorded for deriving motion RAO's, which can
then be readily compared with theoretical results. Particular
attention should bedirected to getting the roll motion RAO's
in beam seas, where the nonlinear viscous damping and
added- mass effects are important. Several testsusingdifferent
wave slopes should be used to check linearity as umptions.
Other motions and accelerations are often measured at the
jacket CG and at thoseextreme locationswhere thehighest local
inertia loads tend toact.
For launching and upending tests it isextremely important.
toclosely simulate the actual properties of the barge's skidand
tilt beams. Often. small variations in properties such as the
sliding coefficient of friction between skid beam and launch
runner will have astrong influence on the launch procedure.
Therefore, the sensitivity of launch and upending to initial
barge trim, friction coefficients. and variations inthe centers
of gravity and buoyancy of thejacket isoften tested. Standard
procedures have nowbeen developed by most of the reputable
tank facilities for these types of tets.
FWD lit A FT.
--~~----~~----~O------~; ----~2~--" %L
BALLAST LOCATION
Fig, 15(b) Variation of tilt beam stresses with longitudinal position
of ballast-
designer will be evaluating all options in terms of their ability
to reduce jacket and barge stress as well as their potential to
impede the progress of the launch, sothat the launch analysis
minimizes the risks involved in the launch process.
Model tests
For practical consideration inatransportation study, scale-
model tests are often necessary, in addition to the analytical.
methods, in order to confirm and verify barge selection. A
model test offers an analog representation of the true physical
circumstances while analytical methods provide aquantitative
assessment of s stemd namics. A designer often must exhibit
afair knowle ge0 ,an experience in, practical operations in
order tocombine the two results, given theexperimental errors,
or scale effects, in modeling and the simplifying assumptions
made in theoretical models.
A model test program could consist of the two following
components in order to meet the requirements of a towing
transportation study.
l. Towing testL
~ resistance tests in calm water and waves
seakeeping stability tests insevere seastates
2. Launch tests:
sea eeping tests during launch
launch and upending simulation
These test programs would enable the designer to confirm
the transportation design analysis by determining the barge/
jacket stability, motion and acceleration. The behavior of scale
cedure hasbeen proposed toassessthelevel of risk based onthe
encounter probability of the predicted maximum sea state,
probability of no damage, and other mission- related statistics.
It ishoped that further developments inthis area will provide
a rational approach for evaluating on a common basis safety
factors for atransportation operation.
Finally it should be stressed that asuccessful jacket deploy-
ment operation involves many phases of careful planning from
loadout, tow, and launching to jacket upending. The paper
has addressed some important aspects of the transportation and
launching phases of theoperation. Aspractical experience and
research efforts continue to accumulate, the engineering dis-
ciplines in the marine field can better respond to industry's
demand for effective, safe offshore transportation and instal-
lation procedures.
Summary and conclusions
Thi paper has attempted to present, in a unified and sys-
tematic manner various analysis techniques involved in the
design a~d eval~ation of an offshore jacket transport~tion op-
eration. Appropriate discussionsof rules and regulations have
been included in view of the lack of industry- wide standards
for the area.
The methodology outlined in the paper is not intended to
detail the unique problems of aparticular barge /jacket under
tow. Rather, the procedures have been given as a general
overview of the steps in the process, to be used asaguide for
individual planning incarrying out atransportation study. In
this respect, examples based on past experiences have been
included toillustrate various tradeoffs between static stability
versus dynamic loading, level of detail of analysis versus re-
source availability, and soon.
The state- of- th~- art development of naval architecture and
structural analysis continues to provide more tools for design
and investigation of the complex interaction between stability,
motion, strength and risk levels inatransportation study, and
various options are now available to designers to ensure the
safety of a jacket under tow. Based on past experiences in
carrying out these studies, a summary of the conclusions and
recommendations for continued development efforts fol-
lows.
1. Although the standard methods for wind force and
moment calculations differ somewhat in their detailed proce-
dures, they are generally in agreement between various clas-
sification societies. A more uncertain area, however, is de-
termining the maximum design wind condition and seastate
for the tow. Various classification societies have specified 50-
or lOO- year return periods similar to fixed offshore structure
designs. It is felt that a more appropriate design criterion
should beestablished based ontherisk levels, such asencounter
probability, which takes into consideration the voyage dura-
tion.
2. Stability criteria for deck cargo barges have been largely References
derived fromship and offshore mobile drilling units. Further 1 Blight,G.J .andTuturea, D. P.."TheGEMINI Methodof In-
research into the actual mechanism of barge capsizing, in- stallingDeepwater Platforms,"SNAME,Gulf Section, March1978:
eluding factors such aswater ondeck and restoring force from 2 Blight,G. J ., "HIDECK," SNAME,Gulf SectionW est, Apnl
jacket member immersion, isnecessary to determine an ade- 1978.
d d b I 3 Martin,M.R.,"W hattoExpectintheW ayof MarinePlatforms
quate level of barge/jacket intact an amage sta i ity. toCorne" Offshore , Nov.1972.
3. Tradeoffs between static stability and dynamic loadings 4 Moss,J . L. andTownsend, G J ., III, "Desig~,Considerations
induced by barge motion are possible for certain types of and Resistanceof LargeTowedSea- GoingBarges, SNAMET&R
barge/jacket combinations. The designer isadvised toinves- Bulletin1- 29, 1969.
tigate various alternatives within the constraints of stability, 5 Blight,G.J .andDai.B. Y.T., "Resistanceof OffshoreBarges
taking into consideration the predominant wave excitation andRequiredTugHorsepower,"OffshoreTechnologyConference,
I d
OTC Paper 3320, Houston,Texas,May1978.
periods Other design options, such as possible ro 1- amping 6 Frank, W ., "The Frank Close- Fit Ship Motion Computer
devices. should alsobe considered. Program," aval ShipResearchand Development Center, Report
4. Local damage on overhanging jacket members due to 3289,1970.
slamming isoften aconcern inatow, and theexact impact force 7 Kim,G H. andChou,F., "W ave- ExcitingForcesandMoments
h
onanOceanPlatforminObliqueSeas,"OffshoreTechnologyCon-
on the jacket isstill an area under researc . Computer simu- ference, OTC Paper 1180, Houston,Texas,April 1970.
lations and model testsshould be performed toinvestigate the 8 Ochi, M. K. and Motter, L. E., "Prediction of Slamming
degree of seriousness of such impact, and to gain insight into CharacteristicsandHull ResponsesforShipDesign,"TRANS. SNAME,
the source of the dynamic effects of slamming. Vol.81, 1973.
5. Several levels of structural analysis for both the jacket 9 Miller,B.L., "W aveSlammingLoadsonHorizontal Circular
I d
Elementsof OffshoreStructures," T rans. RINA, 1977.
and barge have been outlined and their re ative merits is- 10 Pierson,W .J ., NeumanG.:andJ ames,R.W .,Practical Me thod
cussed The choice of technique may largely depend on ex- for Obse rving and Fore casting Oce an Wave s by Me ans of Wave
periences with the type of barge/jacket for asimilar towroute, Spe ctra and Statistics, PublicationNo.603, UnitedStates avyHy-
and on available resources for the study. Generally, for along drodynamicsOffice, W ashington,D. G, 1955.
voyage where barge as well asjacket structur.al damage i.s~f 11 Bretschneider,G L., "RevisionandW avesForecasting,Deep
critical concern, it isrecommended that adetailed probablistic andShallowW ater," Proce e d ings, SixthConferenceonCoastal En-
I d be
gineering, AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers Council on W ave
analysis of maximum stresslevel, fatigue and loca amage Research, 1958.
carried out. For relatively short towing operations aless- de- 12 Cardone, V.J ., Pierson,W . J .,andW ard, E. G., "~indcasting,
tailed, standard type of calculation may be adequate to back theDirectional Spectraof Hurricane- GeneratedW aves, Journal oJ
up past experiences. Pe trole um T e chnology, Vol.25, 1976, pp. 385- 394.
6. In the area of risk assessment for atowing study, apro- 13 Chen, H. T., Hoffman, D., and Chen, H. H., "The lmple-
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Brown & Root, Inc., whose
sponsorship made this paper possible, and they appreciate
deeply the encouragement and support given by Mr. J . C.
Lochridge, vicepresident, the late Mr. W . A. Morgan, thelate
senior department manager, and especially by Mr. David
Kummer, senior engineer.
This paper includes a large amount of information from
regulatory and consultive organizations. The authors would
particularly like to thank those at the U. S. Coast Guard, Det
norske Veritas, the National Maritime Institute (D.O.l., u. K.),
and Noble Denton and Associates, Ltd. for their help in pro-
viding the information.
Special thanks are alsodue Mrs. K. Fonda for her dedication
intyping the manuscript, and toMs. M. E. Archer for her great
assistance asour technical writer and editor.
The opinions expressed inthis paper are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect those of Brown & Root, Inc.
r
50
en
II:
r-
:J !
z
40
..J
~
(f)
....
30
>
0
CD
r-
:I:
<!)
20
:I:
10
70
60
OL- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
HEIGHT COEFFICIEN T CHG OR "rr;.;
Fig. 17 C HG, height and gust coefficient, DnV;C H, height coefficient, IMea
mentation of 20- Year Hindcast W ave Data inthe Design and Opera-
tion of Marine Structures," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC
Paper 3644, Houston, Texas, 1978.
14 Sum m ary of Synoptic Me te orological Obse rvations, U. S.
Naval W eather Service Command, National Climatic Center, Ashe-
ville, N. G, 1978.
15 Hogben, . and Lumb, F. E., Oce an Wave Statistics, National
Physical Laboratory, United Kingdom, 1967.
16 Hoffman, D. and Miles, M., ..Analysis of a Stratified Sample -
of Ocean W ave Records at Station ZANDIA," SNAME, Panel H- 7,
1976.
17 Snyder, Eric D., "Capsizing of Deck- Loaded BargesinIrregular
BeamSeas," Research Report 48104, Department of aval Architec-
ture and Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, J uly 1974.
18 T owing Ope rations Guid e line s and Re com m e nd ations for
B arge T ransportation, Det norske Veritas Report No. 78- 404, Oslo,
1978.
19 Ge ne ral Guid e line s for T ransport of Mod ule s on B arge s in
Northe rn Europe an Wate rs, obleDenton & Associates,Ltd., London,
J une 1978.
20 Stability Crite ria for B arge s, U. S.Coast Guard, Technical Note
No. 3- 69, 1969.
21 Rule s for Construction, D e signing and Inspe ction of Offshore
Structure s. Det norske Veritas, Oslo, 1977.
22 Guid ance on the D e sign and Construction of Offshore In-
stallations, Department of Energy, Her \\ajestys Stationery Office,
London, 197- t.
23 Re quire m e nts for Ve rifying the Structural lnte gritu of OCS
Platform s, Prefared by American Bureau of Shipping, ew York,
U. S. Geologica Survey, 1978.
24 Rule s and Re gulations for the Construction and Classification
of Offshore Platform s, Bureau Veritas, Paris, 1975.
25 "Safe ty Me asure s for Spe cial Purpose Ships," Cod e for the
Construction and Equipm e nt of Mobil Offshore D rilling Units, DE
XIX/6, I~ICO, 23 March 1978.
26 Rule s for B uild ing and Classijicatton=Ojjshore Mobile
D rilling Units, American Bureau of Shipping, 1973.
27 Re quire m e nts for Mobile Offshore D rilling Units, Department
of Transportation, U. S. Coast Guard, 1978.
28 "BARMOT User's Manual: Barge Motion Computer Pro-
gram," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root, Inc.,
Houston, Texas, 1979.
. '"29 Karlan, P. and Gilbert, M. ., "Impact Forces on Platform
Horizonta Members inthe Splash Zone," Offshore Technology Con-
ference, OTC Paper 2438, Houston, Texas, 1976.
30 "DAMS User's Manual Level I: Designand Analysisof Marine
Structures," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root,
Inc., Houston, Texas, 1978.
31 "SEA LOAD User's Manual," Marine Engineering Division
Publication, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1979.
32 Longuet- Higgtns, M. S., "On the Statistical Distribution of the
Heights of Sea W aves," Journal of Marine Re se arch, Vol. 2, No.3,
952.
\ 33 Chen, H. T., "Long Term Prediction of Offshore Vessel Re-
- sponsesfor Designand Operability Evaluations," Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC Paper 3800, Houston, Texas, 1980.
34 "TPFATIG User's Manual, Transportation Probabilistic Fatigue
Analysis," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root,
Inc., Houston, Texas, 1980.
35 Borgman, L. E., "Risk Criteria," Journal of Wate rways and
Harbor D ivision, Proce e d in.s, ASCE, Aug. 1963.
36 Robishaw, Paul A., . Flexifloat Construction Systems," Rob-
ishaw Engineering, Inc., personal correspondence, Houston, Texas,
Oct. 1978.
37 Andrews, Harrison B., "Launching," Principle s of Naval Ar-
chite cture , J . P. Comstock, Ed., 51 AME, 1967, pp. 752- 781.
:38 "Notes onTransverse Stability on Floating Vessels, Freeboard,
Bulwarks and Freeing Ports. Hatches and AccessOpenings," D ynam ics
ASSociate d u.it] : Rolling, United States Salvage Association. Inc., New
York. N. Y., 1968.
39 Hutchison, B. L. and Bringloe, J . T., "Application of Seakeeping
216
~
Practical Desiqn Approaches for the Analysis of. Barge Performance
Analysis," Marine T e chnology, 'Vol. 15, o. 4, Oct. 1978, pp. 416-
431
40 "CARGO User's Manual," Marine Engineering Division
Publication, Brown & Root, lnc., Houston, Texas, 1980.
41 "FLAPS User's Manual. Flotation and Launching Analysis
Program," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root,
Inc., Houston, Texas, December 1977.
Appendix 1
W ind moment assessment methods
Three levels of sophistication in wind moment assessment
are presented here. The simplest and usually the most con-
servative isthe USCG deck cargo barge method [20J , which is
dependent only on barge particulars. It ismost often used in
determining the maximum allowable VCGc for each draft.
The second method isused by most OMDU rules and entails
breaking down the windage area into component parts and
applying height and shape coefficients. The most sophisticated
method is found in design and construction (D&C) rules for
offshore structures, and entails adetailed member- by- member
calculation using height, shape and shielding effects.
In each casethe computation may be broken into two parts,
theeffects and the area, shape and shielding effects. Note that
only USCG [27J , IMCO [25J , and DnV [21J formulas are pre-
sented;other approaches are similar in most respects.
W ind pressure
In the USCG rules [27J aconstant wind pressure isassumed
over theentire windage area, and isdependent onbarge length,
as noted in Table 2 of the paper.
InOMDU rulesawind speed may either beapredicted value
or an appropriate assumed value prescribed by the rules, The
wind speed varies with height according to a tabular height
coefficient based on the one- seventh power law:
where
q = wind pressure in kg/m
2
(Ib/ft2) for member
k = constant = 0.623 (0.00338)
CH = height coefficient (from IMCO [25], Table 2)
V = wind speed in m/s (knots)
The wind speed used in D&C rules isalso either predicted
or prescribed based on severe storm conditions. This wind
speed isthen modified toaccount for height, gust and angle of
incidence for each member or section of aprojected area (DnV
[21J ), where
where
V1hrlO = wind speed, I- hour (h) averaging period, 10 m
above SW L
p = air density ~ 1.225 kg/m
3
(0.0765 Ib/ft
3
)
C HS = height and gust coefficient
= O'(Z;/1O),8, Z in meters
=0' (Zd32.8)B, Z in feet
(j = incident angle
Zi = height of member above water surface
{3= height coefficient dependent on wind averaging
period (from DnV [21J , Table A.l)
0' = gust coefficient based on wind averaging period
(from DnV [21J Table A.l)
Figure 17 compares CHG with the square root of IMCO
W Ind Pressure
111 ~ (a (ZI )6 V1hr10)2 sin e
TO
a and 6 from Table A.1
Spacing Ratio
Q & d / B
Area Solidity
S ~ a
Shielding Factor
" & 1.0
TableB.1
No
Is Item - 1 Open Truss 2
or 2 Single Member or Surface
Shape Coefficient
Cs 0: : Co o
Tables B. 2. 8 . 3.
B.4. and 8.5
(35)
Yes
Fig. 18 Wind moment calculation by DnV method (tables mentioned
refer to reference [21))
(36)
values of CHfor heights from 0 to70 m(230 ft). From Fig. 17
it appears that theaveraging period tobe used for OMDU rules
isgreater than 1h.
Area, shape and shielding
The USCG rules [27] are generally used with the block
windage area assumptions asgiven by equations (9a) and (9b).
These assumptions are best used when the solidity ratio of the
deck cargo approaches 1.
The OMDU rules commonly present a table of shape coef-
ficients to be used in the area calculations. Component areas
may be calculated by thefollowing rule:
(37)
where
Aj = effective area of member or members
Gj = projected area of member
Cs = shape coefficient (from IMCO [25J , Table 1)
InOMDU rules, shielding may beaccounted for intruss- type
"-
.
structures by applying a shape coefficient of 0.3 to the block
(or outline) area of each truss face.
The windage area calculations for D&C rules may bequite
complex, due to the fact that this method normally applies to
defining wind forces for structural loading and in situ over-
turning moments. The basic equation for elemental area is
either (DnV [21]):
(38a)
where
ql,AI = asdefined inequations (35-38a,b)
hi = vertical distance from center of pressure to center
of resistance
N = number of area elements
The moment should becalculated at asufficient number of
heel angles to define a heeling moment (arm) curve. For
vessels with ship- shape hulls the moment is assumed to vary
with the cosine of the heel angle.
Appendix 2
(39)
Typical towing approval procedures
The following isalist of typical calculations, drawings, and
procedures required for atowing approval.
Loadout plan
Barge arrangement, capacity plan and ballast system
drawing
Main and emergency towing arrangement
Barge and jacket structural drawings, including seafas-
tening
Tug specification
Tug bollard pull calculation, including barge resistance
prediction
Ballastingand stability study (intact and damage for transit
and launch operation)
W eather and route trip prediction, including points of
shelter
Barge/iacket motion response
Study of loads and stresses in barge, jacket and seafas-
tening
Logistics procedure (command and communication sys-
tem, emergency procedure, methods of handling and
securing jacket after launch and upending proce-
dure)
Crane barge specifications
' Study of jacket behavior during launching, flotation and
upending
or
(38b)
where
1/ = shielding factor from [21] (Table B.l) based on ex, {3
= 1.0for windward faces
Cs = shape coefficient from [21] (Tables B.2, B.3, B.4, and
B.5)
=kCa>
aj = projected area of member in direction of wind
C
e
= effective shape coefficient from. 21] (Table B.6)based
on 8and He
1> = solidity ratio = projected area of trussmembers divided
by block area of truss normal to wind
hi = block area of truss
ex = spacing ratio- - distance between member centers di-
vided by least dimension of b,
Re = Reynolds number
{3 = aerodynamic solidity ratio = 1>a from [25] (Table
B.1)
A flowchart of these calculations isgiven inFig. 18. The DnV
windage area calculations would normally be used only inthe
transportation analysis when areas determined by either of the
other methods appear overly conservative for stability pur-
poses.
W indmoments
The wind moment used in the USCG rules [27] isgiven by
the P X A X H defined in equation (4).
The wind moments for both OMDU and D&C rules are
calculated by
Di scussi on
. .;: ,
Robert Latorre, Member, Frederick Ashcroft. Membe~nd'
Stuart Cohen, Member 'J - -
The authors are to be commended on their compr he~s.ive
discussionof the factors inselecting an acceptable ba~ge/jacket
configuration for towing and launching offshore ttructures.
Our questions concern another aspect which is brieHv men-
tioned, the coursekeeping behavior of the towe((barge.
Typically when towing such large structures asshown in the
front- is- piece photo two or more towing tugs may beemployed.
However, for the smaller launch barges inTable l, the barge
may be towed by a bridle and towing hawser attached to a
single t~g. W ith the large deck cargo the lorigtrudinal shift in
the towscenter of gravity could affect the yawing and swaying
of the towed barge. Have the authors any experience inhow
this hasaffected the coursekeeping ~rformance of the towed
barge? e ,
At the University of Michigan, re istance tests aswell asthe
towed barge coursekeeping performance model tests are rou-
tinely made. It isour experience that the coursekeeping per-
formance can improve with properly designed skegs. How-
ever, since the skegs add resistance to the barge hull there is
some tradeoff between thecoursestability and theadded skeg
drag [42,43,44] (additional references followsomediscussions).
The authors mention using bilge keels to reduce the barge
rolling. W e would liket? know what isthe effect of the bilge
keels on the towed barge scoursekeeping performance?
W e concur with the authors' statement that the designer's
concern is that of motion control. It appears that while ex-
cessivetrim isundesirable, sometrimby thestern may improve
the towed barge coursekeeping performance. To illustrate our
point, Fig. 19shows the barge linesand detail of theskeg with
a movable flap. This barge is a notched stern barge used
in a previous study [44]. Its particulars are summarized in
Table 7. The trajectory of alight mounted at station 1of the
barge was recorded by means of an optical tracker during the
coursekeeping test. Several skegflapangles were usedand the
corresponding trajectories are compared in Fig. 20. Starting
Practical Desiqn Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 2 8
---------
-------
LOwER TANGENT
------------------------~~---L--~~--~CL
18 9 4
F:=:I
! :C~!
~'r======='f== ====, ==:::::::/ H~.c- - +-
cT- .- - - - - - - - - - - - 14 SO'
- 17 CO' ~
17 16 15 14 20 19
15 14
I
17
.
~ OF RUOO,q 5700<
I
,
;3.CO
,
,
,
/
I
r
I
/
s keg det ai l s s ho wi ng mo vabl e s keg fl ap
8 7 o 5 3 2 6
Fig. 19 Barge lines
from offset of 9 ft the barge's yaw and sway motions were
minimum at the lO- deg setting. In Fig. 21it isclear that the
trimby thestern reduces thesway and yawing of thebarge and
improves the coursekeeping performance. Have the authors
. considered using the ballast tanks toobtain asuitable trim for
both seakeeping and coursekeeping?
W e are grateful to have this opportunity of discussing the
I
-
en
~I
I
FULL LOAD
en
l
EVEN KEEL
Vs 6 kts
- ~----'--'----'---'--~-'----'---'
TOWED BARGE MODEL TRAJ ECTORY
EFFECT OF SKEG FLAP ANGLE
KEY A-TESTS
1 0 DEG
2 10 DEG
3 15 DEG
START 48
Fig. 20
96 144
DISTANCE, feet
Effect of skeg flap angle on towed barge model trajectory
192 240
coursekeeping performance of towed barges and congratulate
the authors again on their fine paper.
Additional references
42 Latorre. R. and Ashcroft. F., "Recent Developments in Barge
Design, Towing, and Pushing," Marine T e chnology. Vol. 17. No.1.
J an 1981, pp. 10- 21.
TOWE D BARGE MODEL TRAJ ECTORY
EFF ECT OF BARGE TRIM
KEY
A-TESTS
1 NO TRIM
2 TRIM BY STERN
I~
~
lO, nches Full scal~
K
/ 2
-
V
~
:;:/
V
FULL LOAD
V
15 DEG FLAP ANGLE
V!, 6 kts
I I I
I
a,
~I
~(
en
I
START ~ % ~ 1~ 2~
DISTANCE, feet
Effect of stern trim on towed barge model trajectory Fig. 21
Table 7 Principal particulars of barge model
Name Symbol Model (X = 40) Barge
Length L WL 3.788 ft 351.50 ft
Beam B l.500 ft 60.00 ft
Full load Taft 0.:349ft 13.96ft
Draft Tfwd 0.349 ft 13.96ft
W etted surface S 13.531ft
2
21649.00 ft
2
Displacement 'V 3.752 ft
3
6 233.70 lb (68F) 6861 LTSW (59)
Block Coefficient CB 0.816 0.816
. otch length
I"
1.5ft 60.00 ft
:"J OTES: 1. Towing bridle with legs equal to one beam was con-
nected at corner of barge headlog.
2. Tracker light mounted at station 1in Fig. 19.
3. Monofilament line used for towing hawser material.
4. Initial offset at 9ft or six model beams.
- t.'3 Latorre, R., "Improvement of Barge Towin~;Translations of
Selected J apanese and Russian Technical Articles, ' Department of
'.Hal Architecture and Marine Engineering Report, niversity of
\lichigan .. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Report No. 226, May 1980.
l- t Latorre, R., Ashcroft, R., and Cohen, S., "Investigation of Barge
Towing Performance, Phase I Experiments," Proce e d ings, 19th
American Towing Tank Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, J uly
1':1. O.
:
W. P. Stewart, Member
This comprehensive paper emphasizes that barge roll motion
isrelatively lightly damped and tends to exhibit large- ampli-
tude resonant response. At large amplitudes, however, linear
theory breaks down, added massand inertia terms vary and the
buoyancy force becomes highly nonlinear. Hence, theresponse
amplitude is not necessarily a function only of damping at
resonance. This problem iscompounded when the vessel has
large overhanging cargo which partly immerses during a roll
cycle.
Depending upon the wave height and frequency, and cargo
geometry, the cargo may pick up hydrostatic and hydrody-
namic forces which are in phase with the diffraction roll mo-
ment and consequently increase roll response amplitudes.
Alternatively the phasing of the forces may be such that they
oppose the diffraction roll moment and roll response will be
reduced. In a recent study using a3- D time- history program,
the nonlinear buoyancy forces acting on the cargo acted in
phase with the primary forcing terms and resulted in a roll
motion amplitude of 30 deg. Reducing the cargo overhang
changed the phasing of thecargo- induced buoyancy forcesand
resulted in a roll amplitude of only 13deg in the same waves
with the same mass distribution.
The paper rightly emphasizes the importance of model tests
which must be used to calibrate computer programs. It is
common practice toadjust the roll damping inotherwise linear
programs sothat peak resonant responsepredicted matches that
found in the model test, assuming other parameters tobecor-
rect. This may be highly erroneous especially where cargo
immersion takes place.
One of the primary reasons for marine deck cargo lossor
damage istowline failure. The prediction of towline tensions
is generally restricted to the calculation of the mean static
component. and asafety factor of typically two times the tug
bollard pull is used to take account of the dynamic compo-
nent.
Recent research with a North Seabarge towshows that even
inmoderate weather (- t- msignificant waveheight) thedynamic
tension component in the line can result in peak tensions of
t\\ ice the mean value and that the ratio of dynamic to mean
force increases with increasing wave height.
More offshore tow monitoring is required to give greater
insight into barge hydrodynamics and the problems of towline
failure. Monitoring enables response to multidirectional sea
states tobe measured and enables greater control of thetowing
operation.
Bruce L. Hutchison, Member
The authors have presented an interesting and useful paper
covering many different aspects of barge performance analysis.
The presentation inTables 3and 4of summarized barge intact
and damaged stability requirements is a particularly useful
contribution.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on the topics of
motion calculations and strength aspresented inthis paper. It
should benoted that equations (12), (lSa), (l5b), (l5c) and (16)
inthepreprint contain se ve ral printer errors. Theseerrors have
been noted in my correspondence with the authors and will
presumably becorrected in the TRANSACTIONS:
Some further comments are appropriate to the transforma-
tion from earth to vessel coordinates. Equation (12) and the
associated transformation tensor imply sequential rotations
about the z- axis (yaw), the y- axis (pitch) and the x- axis (roll).
For rotations in reverse sequence the order of multiplication
of the individual transformation tensors would have to be re-
versed and a different final transformation tensor would re-
sult.
This pointsup thefact that thetransformation tensor depends
upon thesequence of rotations. The transformation matrices
are not cumulative and in general finite angles of rotation
cannot berepresented by vectors. Infinitesimal rotations can
however berepresented by vectorsand thisre sult canbeviewed
asacceptable since it falls within the assumptions underlying
most ship motion analysis.
The assumption of small angles of rotation can be used to
simplify the transformation tensor by replacing trigonometric
terms with their small angle approximations. Under this
scheme cosines are replaces by +1.0, sines are replaced by the
argument angle, and products of sines are ignored. If this is
done the following skew- symmetric transformation tensor is
obtained:
ITI= [-~ ~ - !]
() -cJ> 1
This result would be obtained for small angles of rotation
regardless of thesequence of rotation and therefore formsavery
useful invariant basis for coordinate transformations.
Concerning equation (16) for the relative vertical motion,
it should be observed that (following correction of the errors
in the preprint) care must be taken before applying this ex-
pression to determine the precise expression for the incident
wave and the exact definition of the response phase angle.
These factors may necessitate some modifications toequation
(16) depending on the specific definitions.
The authors intheir sectiononstrength make theobservation
that their utilization of the participation factors involves many
Simplified assumptions and may not realistically represent the
actual conditions under tow. Inthisassessment they arecorrect
and I would liketooffer the following observations on howthe
ituation can be improved.
First I would observe that it is not necessary to restrict the
analysis to unidirectional seas, as we[391also derived the co-
factors in a directional sea spectrum. Second, and most im-
portant, the determination of the cofactors need not be re-
stricted to the motions at thecombined center of gravity. The
cofactors can be derived at whatever point isof interest (for
. : : 20 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
example, at the location of amass or structural element). In-
deed, failure todo somay lead toserious errors. For example,
Table 8with thisdiscussion, taken fromprogram CARGO 139],
showsthe variation with location inthecofactor C:
y
for a400- ft
barge in beam seas with TJ = 11.5 sec. The advantage to
combined load analysis of evaluating the cofactors at the point
of interest should be apparent.
Finally, the development of the cofactor concept does not
lead to the maximum of aprocess consisting of a linear com-
bination of correlated vector processes. To obtain the maxi-
mum of such aprocess the cross cospectral moment matrix is
required. This matrix isaninvariant for agiven loadcondition,
speed, heading and spectral shape. Once thismatrix isderived,
thespectral moments and thereby theresponsestatisticsfor any
process expressible asa linear combination of the base vector
processes can be easily determined. A short technical note on
this topic has been submitted to the Journal of Ship Re -
se arch.
Dennis C, Perryman, 3 Visitor
From a meteorologist's point of view, it isrefreshing to see
theamount of effort injected into the collection and utilization
of environmental data asoutlined inthis paper. Inan attempt
to further the engineering science, the authors have shown a
realization that related technology must alsokeep pace. This
isevident from their statement that spectral wave models are
superseding PNJ , 5MB manual hindcast techniques. Exception
might be taken, however, of the statement that "no model yet
available has been able to accurately predict daily events.... "
The discusser's firm, as well as the u.s. Navy, uses an opera-
tional version of a spectral wave model to predict directional
wave spectra at various grid points over a given geographic
region. W e have used one such model inthe North Seadaily
since1976. These models arehighly accurate in24- hr forecasts
and are able to provide useful forecasts for up to72 hours. A
given model may contain limitations in its ability to make
predictions for some regions as a result of man's inability to
provide accurate wind data as input, but, on the whole, the
models perform very satisfactorily and with consistently ac-
curate results.
Very often, ship reports constitute the only available data
basewith which tosimulate atowing operation. Astheauthors
have pointed out, ship reports must be used cautiously. An
alternative to ship reports isthe Spectral Ocean W ave Model
(SOW M) data generated by the u.S. Navy. These data are
output twice daily and are already gridded. The fair- weather
bias of ship reports is omitted in the SO\\'M data, and grid
spacing issufficient to yield representative profiles of wind and
wave statistics. Using SOW M data contributes directly tothe
main advantage of a tow simulation- repeating the voyage
through past weather conditions for anumber of years. The
authors have noted this technique asbeing useful in deriving
design criteria and exceedance statistics.
The practical design criteria and related references astab-
ulated by the authors are highly commendable. If more in-
vestigations of this type were to be carried out sothat asum-
mary tablewould not benecessary, areal benefit totheoffshore
industry would be realized. Convincing marine surveyors to
agree on the design criteria would beamonumental achieve-
ment, second only to getting naval architects toagree onany-
thing!
A reliable method of determining design criteria for the
towing operation isof utmost importance when considering the
fact that many structures today are towed inmuch worsecon-
ditions than will ever occur at the launch sitefor the entire life
of the structure. The authors have made agood case for put-
Table 8 Acceleration cotactors, Cry
Heig ht
Above Y = - 46.7 )" = 0.0 ). = 46.7
Deck, ft ft It ft
0 - 0.H6;; - O.I;,!! - U.2:l:l
1;. - O.HIlI - 0.684 - 0.061
:lO - 0.844 - 0.;;96 0.04,
ting asmuch time and effort inthe towdesign aswas expended
in the structure's design.
Kaare Lindemann, 4 Visitor
Barge transportation is a matter of concern to regulatory
bodies classification societies and marine survevors. The
principles and methods used by such bodies to e~aluate the
safety of barge transportation are well described in the paper.
The authors have alsonoted the important difference in limits
between ship and offshore design and barge transportation.
Inship and offshore design, thedesign philosophy isthat the
structure should have agood chance to survive a lifetime op-
eration. This means that the structure should survive all pos-
sible loads which, it has afair chance to be exposed to during
its lifetime. In popular terms this is often expressed as the
20- year wave for shipsand the50to 100- year wave for offshore
structures.
For barge transportation the philosophy is parallel. but in
practice the extreme condition used for barge transportation
isdifferent fromthat of shipsand offshorestructures. The time
spent on the tow isan important parameter, often resulting in
lessstrict criteria. In fact, barge transports may be permitted
with strict limits on permissible environmental conditions
provided possiblepointsof shelter canbereached before astorm
rises.
The methods available, however, are not always complete
in their description of the problem, and som e uncertainties are
associated with the results obtained. Among others I can
mention barge roll motion, relative motion, slamming phe-
nomena, fatigue analysis and barge vibratory responses
(springing). In addition the operational limitations are not
always well defined. W hen tows are to be approved based
upon such analysesthelimiting seastateiseven more uncertain,
resulting in large safety factors.
Much istobegained inbarge transport efficiency, economy
and safety by concentrating efforts in obtaining more knowl-
edge on limiting conditions and the phenomena which cause
them and methods used toassessthem. The state of the art in
barge transportation analysis techniques and hence the pro-
cedures used to evaluate the safety of a transport is not satis-
factory and further development isrequired.
A new dimension should also be added to the design and
operational evaluation, namely, thecapabilities of the operator
or towmaster. A careful transport evaluation based onasound
technical analysis may bejeopardized by an operator who does
not fully understand or who is not capable of assessing the
limiting conditions. Hence rules and regulations should be
developed further to take into account certain minimum re-
quirements for operator education and training. Requirements
should alsobemade for instrumental aids, putting the operator
in a position to better evaluate the conditions.
This isan area where marine research has been neglected,
and more emphasis shouldbeplaced onsuchstudies intheyears
to come.
r.
I.
, , !
3Oceanroutes, Inc., Palo Alto, California. 4 Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway.
1 ~__=- ~__~ -, ~--~~~ /

T Barge Analysis

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

T Barge Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

,

calc. predict ion: - For operational

sensinvity to small variations In the establi: hed configura-

You might also like