Fatigue Analysis

of
Offshore Fixed and
Floating Structures

Nelson Szilard Galgoul

January, 2007

Definition
The loss of resistance of some materials due to cyclic stresses.

Theory on which it is based

None.

Properties commonly accepted

Fatigue is a function of the applied stress range (true);
Fatigue is not a function of the stress level (not really true but
commonly accepted)

How it is measured
Based on a large number of cyclic tests it has been found that
the loss of resistance due to fatigue can be roughly approximated by
curves such as the one given below:

Figure 1 Typical S-N curve

Obviously it is intuitive that these curves vary from steel to

steel.
The curve given below is a typical curve for concrete steel
reinforcement

Figure 2 Typical curve for concrete steel reinforcement

This next curve is a typical curve for the steel used on offshore
jackets (tubular structures).

Figure 3 Curve given in API-RP2A for tubular joints

It is less intuitive, however, that these curves vary also with the
environment (there is less fatigue above water than below), with
corrosion and more markedly with thickness (only for thicknesses
above 22mm).
Basically the information given by these curves is the number of
stress cycles that a steel specimen can resist for a given stress
range. So if we have a rod with a known cross-sectional area A
subjected a tensile force varying between 0 and F the S-N curve
gives me the number of cycles N that the rod will resist while
subjected to the stress varying between zero and S = F / A.

In order to measure how close the number of cycles of a given

stress range brings us to failure a variable called fatigue damage was
created .

Fatigue Damage =

Number of stress cycles applied

Number of stress cycles resisted

In order to evaluate the fatigue damage caused by stress

ranges of different amplitudes Miner-Palmgren have introduced a
rule, which says that the damage caused by individual stress cycles
may be summed up linearly.
One again this is only an approximation but it is valid within
engineering accuracy.
Nloads

Total Damage =

i =1

Nappliedi
Nresistedi

Stress concentration
Checking the fatigue damage of a uniform rod subjected to an
axial stress range is very simple, but when the structural shape is
complicated it is much more difficult to determine the stress variation,
because there are stress concentrations, especially when the stress
flow changes directions abruptly.

This is shown is figure 5, which contains a typical joint of an

offshore platform (the deck jacket connection, as shown in figure 4),
that was modeled in finite elements.

Figure 4 3D Model of Fixed Platform whose Deck-Jacket

Connection was Investigated

Figure 5 Joint modeled in finite elements

There are at least 3 common ways to deal with this problem:

a) Modeling in finite elements
b) Using stress concentration factors

This approach is commonly used for tubular joints, where

parametric equations have been developed by several authors based
on finite element analyses:
Kuang, Smedley, Woodsworth
DNV
Efthymiou, etc.
These equations vary not only with the geometry of the joint,
but also depending on how the loads are applied. This means that the
type of joint can only be established after the load distribution within
the structure has been determined. This is shown in figure 6.

Figure 6 Joint classification

In this case the stress range is defined as a nominal stress

range multiplied by a stress concentration factor

S = S no min al SCF

c) S-N Curves with Built-in SCFs

The traditional approach for non-tubular cross sections is to
include the SCF into the S-N curve. This means that different types of
cross-sections with different welding details have different curves.
Figure 7 shows differents curves, as given in DnV

Figure 7 S-N curves for different details

Figure 8 shows a sample of how different welding details
consider different curves

Figure 8 Typical welding detail e associated S-N curve

It is important to emphasize that the type of SCF considered in

the curves defined above take into account the cross sectional
geometry and the type of weld, but any additional cause of stress
concentration, such as a hole (see figure 9), or a construction
misalignment, must be applied as a multiplier to the stress range as
in the previous case.

Figure 9 Stress concentration

Considering Environmental Loads

Up to now we have established how to obtain the fatigue
damage, at a given point of the structure, caused by stress cycles of
constant amplitude and we have also learned how to obtain the
cumulative damage, by adding up linearly the individual damage
components, according to Miners rule.
We are now going to look at the other side of the problem,
which is related to finding the stress range values.

In order to do so, however, it is necessary to consider different

approaches, which are associated to different types of structures and
different types of environmental data.

a) Fixed Platforms
In this case the environmental loads are applied directly to the
structure. Figure 10 presents a jacket type structure with tubular
members loaded directly by wave and current.
Normally, in this case, the components of wave and current
velocity and wave acceleration (horizontal and vertical) can be
determined at any point of the semi-space below the water surface,
based on traditional wave theories (Airy, Stokes, Stream Function,
etc.). The forces on any member can be determined using the
Morison equation.

Figure 10 Wave forces upon a jacket member

Morison equation:

q=

1
1
C D V 2 D + CM A D 2
2
4

water density ~ 1,025

CD Drag Coefficient ~ 0.7
CM Inertia Coefficient ~ 1.7
The Morison equation offers precise results for any kind of
structure, which does not interfere with the wave profile. In practical

terms we can consider this to be true for pipes with diameters up to

3m (this is a very rough limit).
In order to calculate the stress range at a given point of the
structure, for a specified wave, as it passes through the structure, it is
necessary to calculate the response of the structure as this entire
wave is stepped through. Normally 18 positions of the wave (offsets
of the crest with respect to the origin of the coordinate system) yields
good results. This means the structure must be analyzed for 18 load
cases, associated to one wave height, one wave period and one
wave incidence in order to determine the stress range, which is the
difference between the maximum and the minimum of the 18 values.
Obviously there are infinite associations of wave height, period
and incidence, so some grouping of this data must be performed in
order to carry out a cumulative fatigue analysis. There are two
traditional ways of doing this, the first of which is very intuitive and we
will look at it first, although it is no longer recommended by most
codes for offshore structures.
Figure 11 contains statistical results of wave data collected at a
typical offshore site. Note that this is one of 8 tables with contain
wave height x wave period data for one cardinal direction.

Figure 11 Typical wave data

Considering a minimum of 8 directions, 10 waves per direction

and 10 periods per wave and reminding that there must be 18 steps
for each wave, this means that the fatigue stresses will require 14400
load cases, in order to determine 800 stress ranges. This is feasible
today, but it was prohibitive a few years ago, when computers just
couldnt cope with it, so the first suggestion to simplify it were to

assume that all waves of the same height had the same average
period. This cut the data down to 1440 load cases.
Typical data of this form is shown in figure 12.

Figure 12 Typical data for a deterministic analysis

This was still two much, so people either sacrificed precision,

by using less waves and steps (5 and 9 for instance cut this number
down to 360) or by assuming that waves from opposite directions
cause the same stress range (this cuts the cardinal directions down
to 4) or by using interpolation functions for the wave height in order to
use less waves without losing precision.
Fatigue must be checked at all points of the structure where
stress concentration may occur. This leads to an enormous amount
of data. It is very usual for a fatigue analysis of an offshore structure
to require as much as 10GB of storage to perform a fatigue run. In
the case of a jacket structure we usually check fatigue at 8 points
around the circumference of the joint connection (see figure 13),
times 2, because each member has 2 ends and times 2 again
because there is stress concentration on both the chord side and the
brace side of the connection. If the jacket has 1000 members, this
means that 32000 fatigue checks must be performed, dealing with the
1440 stress values that were determined above, leading to 80 stress
ranges. This means that 80 x 32000 = 2.56 million damage
calculations must be performed for the entire structure (80 for each
point).

Figure 13 Number of points checked around the joint

Usually the number of waves per wave height and wave
direction is given per year, which means that the inverse of the yearly
damage is the life of the structure at each point.

Fatigue Life =

1
Total Damage

Typical results present the point of the structural joint that has
the highest stress range and the corresponding fatigue life.
The main problems with the deterministic method are related
first to the fact that not all waves have the same period and second
because assuming all waves are regular does not take into account
the stochastic nature of the marine environment. Because of this it
has become common practice to perform spectral fatigue analyses
instead of deterministic ones.

There are basically two wave spectra that are commonly used
in the offshore engineering market: the Pierson Moskovitz, also
known in a general form called the ISSC spectrum and the
JONSWAP spectrum, which was developed specifically for the North
Sea in joint industry study. During many years the ISSC spectrum
was said to be valid for the entire world, except for the North Sea,
where JONSWAP was used. More recently, however, variations of
the JONSWAP spectrum have been found to suit some other parts of
the world better than the ISSC curve.
For the sake of completeness the equations that govern these
spectra are given below:

5 w
S ( w) = g w exp
4 w
p

w w p

exp 0.5
w p

Where :
w angular wave frequency w =

2
Tw

Tw wave period
TP peak period or significant wave period TZ
w p angular spectral peak frequency w p =

2
Tp

g acceleration of gravity
2
4
5 H s wp
(1 0.287 ln( ))
generalized Philip`s cons tan t =
16 g 2

spectral width parameter

= 0.07 if w < w p
= 0.09 if w > w p

peakness parameter

Where:
w angular wave frequency w =

2
;
TW

TW wave period;
TP peak period or significant wave period TZ
wP angular spectral peak frequency wP =

2
;
TP

g acceleration of gravity;
2
4
5 H S wP
generalized Philips constant =
2
16 g

(1 0.287 ln( ))

spectral width parameter

= 0.07 if w < wP
= 0.09 if w > wP
peakness parameter
The Pierson-Moskovitz spectrum appears for = 1

The wave data is then provided on a statistical basis, where the

normal parameters are a significant wave height (average of the 1/3
highest waves) and a statistical period, which is either the peak
period (Tp) or the zero up-crossing period (an average value Tz).
The table given in figure 14 seems similar to that presented in figure
11, but it represents no longer individual waves, but individual sea
states with the given statistical periods. The great advantage, in this
case, is to try to consider the individual periods of each of these sea
states, wherefore waves with the same height also have a range of
different periods.

Figure 14 A wave scatter diagram based on statistical data

Still in this case the number of load cases is very large, so a small
approximation has been introduced, based on which it is possible to
be much more precise and still consider a smaller number of waves.
In general terms something called a transfer function for unit height
waves is generated for the whole range of periods that the wave may
have. Obviously the variation of wave force with wave height is not
linear, but if this function is calculated with the most probable wave
height for each period (and then divided by the wave height) the
errors incurred will be small and perfectly acceptable within
engineering accuracy.
Figure 15 shows a typical transfer function built with 200 wave
periods.

Figure 15 Transfer function for base shear

This figure can be adjusted by a polygonal with only five points as
shown below. This means that all the periods and all the wave
heights for this one wave incidence can be represented by only 5
load cases.

Figure 16 Typical transfer function with only 5 points static only

Unfortunately this curve is not always so smooth, specially when the
platform is very slender and the highest natural periods are in the
wave period range between 2 and 20 seconds. In this case the curve
would show resonance spikes at the given periods and more points
would be required. Sometimes the correct representation of a
dynamic transfer function may require as many as 30 points. Even in
this case, however, the number is not excessive for modern day
computational resources.

The fatigue calculations in this case are performed exactly as before.

In other words the damage is calculated for each of the individual
seastates and summed based on Miners rule, but the calculation of
the damage for each of the individual seastates is more cumbersome
because all the values involved are statistical. For the sake of
completeness a summary of the calculation sequence is given below.
It is assumed that the wave transfer function H(f) has been
determined and the Spectral Density Function (JONSWAP or ISSC)
S(f) has already been established.
The calculation performed here are based on established conditions
related to the statistical calculations. The first of these conditions is
related to the quality of the samples used to establish it. In technical
terms it is called a stationary random process, because the average
value for a given interval will be the same no matter what the length
of time is. For normal fatigue waves this is a very reasonable
assumption.
The RMS value RMS of the stress variation s for a given seastate is
given by the following equation:

RMS = ( H 2 ( f ) S ( f )df ) 0.5

0

Every RMS has an associated average period Tz:

Tz = RMS / ( f 2 H 2 ( f ) S ( f )df ) 0.5

0

Assuming that this given seastate will occur a fraction m of the entire
Life of the structure, the corresponding number of cycles will be given
by:
N = mLife / Tz
The corresponding damage, assuming a Rayleigh stress distribution
is given by:

D=

2 RMS

s 2
s
exp
ds
N ( s)
2
2

The total damage will be the sum of the damages of each seastate.
The final result given by the analysis is the life of the structure at all
the critical points (joints) where stress concentrations occur.

b) Floating Units
There are four main types of floating production platforms: the
FPSOs, the Semi-Submersibles, the Spars and the TLPs. Figures 17
through 20 show examples.

Figure 17 Typical FPSO

Figure 18 Typical Semi-Submersible

Figure 19 Typical Spar

Figure 20 Typical TLP

Obviously everything that was said here for fixed platforms remains
valid for floating units, but the problem is how to apply it, because the
floating units are not only complex structures, but they may also be
changing their positions with respect to the environment.
In general all of these types of platforms are moored, but the FPSOs
have different types of moorings, which actually change their
behavior.
Some FPSOs are moored, as shown in figure 21, and considered to
be fixed with respect to rotation, but many are pinned to a moored
structure called a turret, wherefore they tend to line up with the
environmental direction of incidence (see figure 22). In this case most
of the waves will come from head seas, but a small percentage will
still come from quartering and even from beam seas.

Figure 21 Mooring Layout for fixed conditions (PETROBRAS 43)

Figure 22 Turret at the vessel stern

The modeling in this case is done considerably different from what

was done for the jacket frame, because the Morison theory is no
longer applicable, wherefore a diffraction theory must be considered.
A typical 3D diffraction mesh is given in figure 23. 2D diffraction, also
known as strip theory, is hardly used any more.

Figure 23 Typical 3D diffraction mesh

The hydrodynamic analysis here is not the object of this lecture, but
just for the sake of completeness, the first step is to calculate the
pressure on each of the diffraction elements or panels as the wave
passes through the vessel. The integration of these pressures
produces the net force on the vessel, which is then used to calculate
the vessel motions, treating it as a rigid body with 6 degrees of
freedom: three linear displacements (surge front- and backwards,
sway sidewards and heave up and down) and three rotations (roll
around the longitudinal axis, pitch around the midship transversal axis

and yaw around a midship vertical axis). Water damping plays a very
important role in these calculations, because not all motions have
restoring forces.
The vessel motions can be divided into two types: the linear wave
motions and the second order excursions. The linear wave motions
are those produced for each of these 6 degrees of freedom, obtained
for waves of unit amplitude, and they are called RAOs (Response
Amplitude Operators), which is a traditional terminology for naval
architects. Structural engineers would call these curves Transfer
Functions, as we did with the wave forces on the fixed platform.
Typical RAO curves for quartering seas (the wave incidence on the
vessel is 45, 135, 225 or 315 degrees) are given in figure 24.

Figure 24 Typical RAO curves for quartering seas

The second order motions are long term excursions that the vessel
undergoes while it moves along its anchor lines. Typical values of
excursions are in the range of 10% of the water depth for moored
structures subject to storm seastates.
For the specific purpose of this seminar, there are at least 2 different
effects to be considered here, that cause fatigue: the first is the
vessel deformation and the second the inertial loads induced by the

vessel motions. Both of them require the transformation of the RAOs

already determined, as will be seen below.
It was said above that there are at least 2 effects that cause fatigue,
because depending on the structure there can be other sources as
well. Some examples will clarify.

Example 1 FPSO Deck Structure

Let us consider, first of all, the fatigue check of part of the main deck
of an FPSO vessel as shown in figure 25.

Figure 25 FPSO vessel

It is intuitive that the overall behavior of the vessel as a beam will
produce varying stresses on it, which are the typical stresses that are

considered in normal ship design. Associated to these are the inertial

loads mentioned above, which are normally also considered in ship
design.
In normal ship design, the codes usually consider a conservative
constant moment, which covers the central part of the vessel and
which decays as the section being designed approaches the two
ends. If, however, one wishes to perform these calculations correctly
or better said, more precisely, then the solution is somewhat
cumbersome.
The fact that this is an FPSO means that the ballast is gradually
changing, not to speak of the abrupt variation when the offloading
takes place. It is necessary, therefore, to build a structural model, and
calculate the stress variation as the waves pass through it, but this
will have to be done for several ballasting conditions. For each of
these conditions a transfer function will be determined and a spectral
analysis will be performed considering the percentage of the waves
that are related to that condition.
The model can be a finite element mesh of the entire vessel, or at
least part of it, and it can also be as simple as a single beam
extended along the entire vessel length.
It is obvious that this is too much work compared to what is
prescribed by the naval architectural rules established by Lloyds,
ABS, DNV or any other Ship Classification Company.

Because of this, simplified fatigue checks have been developed,

which will be discussed ahead. Vessel design can, therefore, be
performed based on these precise criteria, but they usually are not.
Unfortunately, however, there are cases in which such simplified
criteria are not allowed, because fatigue is a very important design
issue.
A second example will show this.

Example 2 Flare Boom Fatigue

Figures 26 and 27 present two different examples: one where the
boom is cantilevering out over the sea and a second with a vertical
flare boom.

Figure 22 PETROBRAS P-50 Platform

Figure 23 PETROBRAS P-50 Platform

A typical model of the first is presented in figure 24.

Figure 24 Typical boom structure with multi-flare burners at the top

This is an interesting structure because it is sensitive to fatigue
originated by several different sources:
- Fatigue caused by inertial loads generated by the vessel
motions;
- Fatigue caused by the turbulent component of wind;
- Fatigue caused by vortex shedding;
- Fatigue caused by the support displacements.
Normally some of these sources are not as important as others. The
distance between the supports, for instance, is small compared to the

vessel length and especially in this case, where they are at the bow,
so the fatigue related to overall vessel bending is negligible.
Fatigue due to vortex shedding is a local member vibration problem,
which is normally prevented by using vortex suppressors.
This leaves us with the first two, which are described below.

Inertial load generation

This first problem is really a matter of determining how the loads will
be applied. The vessel motions are determined by the RAOs, so if we
are able to relate the RAO motions to accelerations around the
structure, we can then generate a transfer function, which relates
wave period to inertial loads.

Figure 22 Transferring motions from the center of rotation to a

general point around the structure
Assuming in figure 22 that is the angular velocity, the angular
acceleration and a the linear acceleration at the center of rotation, it is
easy to show that the x component of inertial force at a general point
of the structure, whose distance from the center of rotation is r and
whose mass is m, can be given by:
Fx = -m ( ax + r sin + 2 r cos )
The other component expressions are similar.
This means that provided the periods or frequencies are chosen
carefully, in order to match all the peaks and valleys of the RAOs, the
new inertial force transfer function will be used exactly as the
previous one, because the final product will also be member stresses.
Stress

variations

will

be

twice

these

values,

because

the

corresponding stresses can be reversed.

A typical input file is given below:
TOWOPT MNECLD MPPPWPOR
65.832 -6.726
POSITION
RAO DP
20. 0.537 91.6 0.540-90.4 0.849 0.1
RAO DP
18. 0.477 91.4 .481 -91. 0.774 0.7
RAO DP
16. 0.383 91.1 0.395-93.5 0.66 2.5
RAO DP
14. 0.244 91.1 0.204-109. 0.497 6.8
RAO DP
12. 0.079 83.4 0.064-86.9 0.262 15.9
RAO DP
10. 0.069-64.3 0.051106.8 0.080 69.2
RAO DP
8.5 0.036 1.9 0.022-177. 0.033148.7
RAO DP
6.0 0.012 -8.4 0.011-156. 0.006-175.
RAO DP
4.0 0.003167.1 0.004 21.
-141.
RAO DP
3.0
6.9
-154.
-66.5
WAVE A001 18 14.60 20.0 135.0
WAVE A019 18 14.60 18.0 135.0
WAVE A037 18 14.60 16.0 135.0
WAVE A055 18 14.60 14.0 135.0
WAVE A073 18 11.24 12.0 135.0
WAVE A091 18 7.81 10.0 135.0

12.89XYZ
0.487-102.
0.639-106.
0.936-117.
1.77179.6
0.27 10.1
0.234-70.2
0.026-111.
0.01 -6.3
149.1
120.

0.374 -92.
0.44-92.8
0.508-94.5
0.547-97.1
0.498-103.
.097-166.
0.102 8.6
0.008 -6.1
-160.
114.9

0.221 -1.9
0.248 -2.2
0.268 -2.4
0.258 -2.
0.193 -1.5
0.018 17.9
0.036179.9
0.012 167.
0.003 19.2
0.001167.6

WAVE
WAVE
WAVE
WAVE
END

A109
A127
A145
A163

18
18
18
18

5.64
2.81
1.25
0.70

8.5
6.0
4.0
3.0

135.0
135.0
135.0
135.0

Fatigue caused by wind turbulence

There are several different types of dynamic vibration induced by
wind: turbulence, fluttering, galloping, vortex shedding, etc. It is
acceptable to say that the wind loads can normally be treated as if
they were static, in spite of being variable, because their variations
are either small or far from the period of excitation of the structure. In
the cases in which their frequencies are near to those of the
structure, or the loads begin to change the form of the structure, then
dynamic wind loads may become important.
Another important factor when considering the effect of wind is that
dynamic response takes time to build up, so it is meaningless to
analyze dynamic response with the short period average velocities
that are used for inplace analyses. A normal static wind is based on a
3 to 5 second gust, while the dynamic response usually requires at
least 10 minutes to build up. This means that the static wind response
may be more critical than the dynamic counterpart, because the wind
velocities are smaller.
The most common wind spectrum for turbulence is that developed by
Harris, whose equation is given below:
S(f) = k V2 / f + 4 X / ( 2 + X2 )5/6

Where V is the wind velocity (10m above sea level), f is the wind
frequency in Hz, k is a roughness coefficient (average about 0.0015)
and X = 1800 f / V.
The wind pressure for an average wind speed V is given by the
Morison equation:
P = 0.5 Cd V2
Assuming that V has an average value Va plus a small variation dV
due to turbulence. This equation becomes:
P = 0.5 Cd (Va+/-dV)2 = 0.5 Cd Va2 +/- Cd Va dV
This equation, where the second order term was neglected, provides
both static and dynamic components of wind. The dynamic
component would be calculated in a dynamic spectral wind analysis
and then added to the static.
A small example is given below just to illustrate the spectral wind
calculations.
It was shown above for fixed platforms that the RMS value RMS of
the stress variation s for a given seastate is given by the following
equation:

RMS = ( H 2 ( f ) S ( f )df ) 0.5

0

This is obviously applicable to any kind of random variable, so an

application showing the its use for ultimate limit dynamic wind
amplifications is given below.
Example
Determine the dynamic magnification of the stress at the bottom of
the column support of a roadway traffic sign, whose mass is 200kg,
whose plate diameter is 1m and whose CoG is 3m above the
embedment point. The wind velocity 40 m/s. The maximum force
value shall assume a Rayleigh distribution and a 1.2% probability of
being exceeded. Assume also zero damping.

1m
M=200kg

Fy = 350
3m

EI = 134 kN m2
( 21/2 std)

The equations given below calculate A, the plate area, K, the stiffness
of the plate column support (wind force required to displace the plate
1m), Pstatic, the static wind pressure, Pdynamic, the dynamic wind
pressure and finally Ysta.dev, the standard deviation of the dynamic
wind displacement. In this equation, Hn is the dynamic amplification
factor.

A=

D 2

= 0.785 m 2

4
kN
3EI 3 134
K= 3 =
= 14.89
m
27
L
V2
kgf
Pstatic =
= 100 2 = 1kPa
16
m
Pdynamic = Cd Vm dV = 0,000125 1 40dV = 0.005dV
Y sta.dev. =
2

Hn =

1
14.89

Hn (0.005 0.785) 2 Sv f

1
1
=
(1 r 2 ) 2 + (2 r ) 2 (1 r 2 ) 2 + 4 10 6 r 2

4X
0,0015 40 2
4 45 f
k V 2

S=
f
f
(2 + X 2 ) 5 / 6
(2 + 45 2 f 2 ) 5 / 6
1800 f 1800 f
=
= 45 f
X=
40
V
432
S=
( 2 + 2025 f 2 ) 5 / 6

250

200

Sv

150

100

50

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

f (Hz)

Considering a numerical integration with

varying f between 0 and 2 yields:

f =

N = 128 intervals and

2
= 0.015625
128

For |Hn|2 this produces:

f =

1
2
2

Hn =

1 14.89
k
=
= 1,37
2
m 2
1
1
=
2 2
2
(1 r 2 ) 2 + 4 10 6 r 2

f
f

1
+ 4 10 6

1.37
1
.
37

300000

250000

150000

Hn

200000

100000

50000

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.6

1.8

f (Hz)
1000
900
800
700

Hn

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

f (Hz)

The final integration is given by the equation below:

1.984375 ; 0.015625

1
2

2
f 2
+ 2 10 6 f
1
1.37
1.37

f =0

3.96875 ; 0.03125

154 10

432

2 + 2025 f 2

0,000104
2
2 2

f
6 f
+ 2 10
2 + 2025 f 2
1

1.37
1.37

f =0

0.015625
5/6

5/6

These calculations can be easily performed with an EXCEL

spreadsheet:

Y sta.dev =

1
0.0305 = 0.0117m
14.89

The static deflection is:

est =

1 0.785
= 5.27cm
14.89

The Rayleigh distribution is given by the equation below:

P[A > ] =

A 2 / 2 2

dA

for which the final total deflection is given by 5.27 + 3 x 1.17 = 8.79cm
The corresponding dynamic magnification factor is:

DMF =

8.79
= 1.67
5.27

Simplified Fatigue Procedure

The simplified fatigue analysis is also called the allowable stress
range method. This method is based on the premise that it is possible
to evaluate a long term stress range and compare its maximum value
with the allowable stress limit. For this reason the simplified method is
classified as an Indirect Method, as it is not necessary to obtain the
fatigue life and damage for each point of the structure in order to
perform a fatigue design check. In many cases, it is condensed into a
pass/fail check on the entire structural model.

Usually, in engineering practice, the simplified method is used for a

quick check on fatigue performance, or to assemble a screening
check. The screening technique is a quick and conservative check for
the fatigue strength of structural details. Actually, if a structural detail
meets the screening check, it is considered acceptable and no further
checks are required. Nevertheless, all joints that fail screening check
are not necessarily under fatigue requirements. It is only an indication
that further investigations, using more accurate techniques, must be
made on these failing structural details. The screening technique is a
good mechanism to determinate the most critical regions, in fatigue
terms, on overall structure.
Mathematical Development
The long term stress range distribution may be presented as a two
parameter Weibull distribution:

S
FS ( S ) = exp

S >0

Where:
Fs(S) is the probability that the value S will be exceeded
S is the random variable representing the stress range;
is the Weibull shape factor;
is the Weibull scale factor;

This equation is used in the simplified fatigue analysis, which is

based on the cumulative damage rule (Palmgren-Miner),taking into
account also the fatigue strength defined by S-N curves. A closed
expression for the fatigue damage can be found, based on it.
The Weibull Distribution Parameters are given below:
Scale parameter, or characteristic value:
Let SR a reference stress range be the major stress range that can
occur on a certain number NR of cycles.
=

SR

(LnN R )1 /

Shape Parameter:
The shape parameter can be obtained from a full spectral analysis,
used to calibrate the simplified method. After years of experience,
however, there is sufficient knowledge of the problem to allow the
value to be established for given types of structures. For FPSO
modules, for instance, a value of about 0.85 is acceptable.

Fatigue Damage

It can be shown that the closed solution for the fatigue damage
considering a two segment S-N curve is as given below:
D=

NT m m
N
r

+ 1, z + T
o + 1, z
A
C

Where:
NT is the total number of cycles during the design life;
A, m parameters obtained from first segment of the S-N curve;
C, r parameters obtained from second segment of the S-N curve;
the Weibull shape factor;
the Weibull scale factor;

+ 1, z
o + 1, z

and
are incomplete gamma functions.

Incomplete gamma functions are defined as:

(a, z ) = t a 1 e t dt = (a ) o (a, z )
0

o (a, z ) = t a 1 e t dt
0

Where:
SQ
z =

, SQ is the stress range value at which the change of slope of

the S-N curve takes place.

The reference stress range SR is usually set to that related to the

storm conditions, so the limiting fatigue life is used as a starting point
to determine what the highest allowable SR value would be, so that
the given fatigue life is guaranteed.
These calculations are presented, for instance, in the DnV code and
copied below:

These curves have all been established assuming a life safety factor
of 1.0 and a fatigue life of 20 years. This has led to 100 million cycles.
In case the life is different or a different safety factor is desired,
correction factors have been provided for each curve, one again both
in the air and under water with cathodic protection.

These curves are given below:

An example is presented below:

An F3 type detail will be welded on a 25mm plate of an FPSO
module. Please determine what the highest allowable stress
assuming the Weibull shape parameter to be 0.85. The platform life
shall be 25 years and a minimum safety factor of 2 shall be used.

The safety and the life are not the same as those for which the tables
were established, so first this must be corrected. This correction is
linear and related to the number of cycles:
Factor = 20 x 1 / (25 x 2 ) = 0.40.
This value could also have been obtained form table 5.8 given on the
previous page.
This value should be used in table 5.5, two pages above, to obtain
the stress reduction factor for the weld type and in air environment
established. Based on linear interpolation between 0.8 and 0.9 that
table yields a value of (0.733 + 0.741)/2 = 0.737.
Linear interpolation is also used in table 5.3 to obtain (208 + 174.6)/2
= 191.3MPa.
The final value is then obtained by multiplying this value by 0.737,
which yields 191.3 x 0.737 = 141MPa.
Attention is drawn to the fact that this value is only limited for
thicknesses up to 25mm. A further reduction based on the equation
given below is applicable for plate thicknesses exceeding that value.
Corrected Stress = Original Value x (25mm / greater thickness)0.25
For a 30mm plate, for instance the corrected value would be:
Corrected Stress = 141 x (25/30)0.25 = 134.7MPa