You are on page 1of 8

Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Stavanger, Norway, June 17-22, 2001 Copyright

© 2001 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1-880653-51-6 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-55-9(I/ol. IV); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Reassessment of Jacket Type of Platforms Subject to Wave-in-Deck Forces: Current Practice and Future Development
Katrine Hansen Stavanger University College, Stavanger, N o r w a y Ove Tobias Gudmestad
Statoil/Stavanger University College, Stavanger, N o r w a y

ABSTRACT This paper focuses on (analysis of) structural integrity when (re)assessing jacket type of platforms subject to wave-in-deck loads. Relevant topics when evaluating structural integrity can be split into two main groups, which are given attention to herein:

sea bed as well as revised environmental criteria. More severe environmental criteria can be a result of either due to a theoretically motivated increase in safety level or due to on-site observations. Currently, the regulations by API and NPD / NORSOK are used for design of new jackets in the US waters and the Norwegian part of the North Sea, respectively. Old North Sea platforms are designed according to the API regulations valid at the time of design, and are therefore normally, at least in first instance, re-evaluated based on API regulations. In UK waters the regulations by HSE apply.

Environmental (mainly wave-) loads: (i.e. wave theories) and load
models. The importance of carefully considering the latter applies in particular to wave action on topside, structurally seen more comptex and dense than the jacket. In addition, 'engineering practice' for calculation of load on topside does not exist to the same extent as for the jacket.



The structures ability to resist loads: Topics relevant for the ultimate
load bearing capacity of the structure, such as structural behaviour, different measures of system performance including reliability considerations and contribution to strength and flexibility from structural components are treated herein. Over the last decade, a variety of methods are developed to attend to the different steps of the total structural integrity analysis. The objectives of this paper are to give the reader a brief historical introduction and an overview of analysis methods currently used, and to discuss their associated advantages and disadvantages. Aspects requiring further development are highlighted.

The conventional way of establishing design loads for jackets is to add load effects from 100-years / 1 minute gust wind, 10-years current and 100-years wave height on top of 100-years still water level (Dalane and Haver, 1995), although the probability that these events will occur simultaneously is much smaller than 1:100 per year. Recent codes such as NORSOK (1999, section 6.2.3) and ISO 13819-1 (1995, section 3.10.1 and 9.3) allows for use of joint occurrence information on environmental parameters, provided sufficient data are available. This can apply to joint occurrence of wind and hydrodynamic loads, or the different hydrodynamic loads alone. It is clear that (existing) structures that are designed according to the formerly mentioned assumptions have, in this respect, an inherent reserve capacity. Wind and current loads will not be given attention to herein. Extreme still water level is a combination of normal (mean) water level, tide and (storm) surge. When adding the crest height and possibly the caisson effect (an increased water level as water from waves and current moves over large underwater obstructions) the maximum surface elevation is obtained. The caisson effect is relevant for example for concrete gravity base structures (GBS) and other platforms with storage tanks located on the sea bed. In order to remove some of the conservatism inherent when establishing maximum surface elevation based on I00 years still water level and 100 years wave height as mentioned earlier in this section, joint probability distribution of tide, surge and crest heights may be used. Olagnon et al. (1999) studied this topic for a given location in the North Sea, and found that compared to common practice methods

Reassessment, reliability, wave-in-deck, system performance, dynamic analysis.

INTRODUCTION Wave impact on the topside is a central issue in the need for reassessment of fixed offshore platforms around the world (Gudmestad and Hansen, 2000). This need for reassessment may be triggered by subsidence of the


Amoco: Company internal. For deterministic load calculation. 1978. inertia. Both the tests to which the model is calibrated and the model it self is presented by Finnigan and Petrauskas (1997). the particle velocity is the governing factor. Use of these methods requires a detailed deck model and is thus more time consuming than the 'global' methods mentioned above. Only horizontal forces are included. for local analysis of equipment and structural details attached to the deck such methods are useful. Bea et al. and thus the wave crest is of importance ~. 1989) are of high importance.Airy theory . Basis for the method is drag. those being large compared to the wave length. Based on hydrodynamic drag.g. as formulated in Morison equation: F = 1/2pGdu ~.or higher order wave theories. where the structural members have small diameter compared to the wave length. 1999) and force intensity (Tcrum. Also. The drag coefficient is varied between 1. Jackets are normally categorized as drag dominated structures. The modifications are mainly: reduced particle velocity by a) accounting for larger directional spreading and b) omitting hurricane current modifying assumptions regarding impact area modifying surface elevation to account for wave 'runup' reduction of drag coefficients (Ca) in the surface zone 483 .g.. such models give room for special considerations on deck geometry. Chevron: Based on stream function methods and a detailed model of deck members and equipment. Since the particle acceleration is largest in the still water level. e.the joint probability approach did not make a significant difference. API: The method (API WSD. buoyancy and is commercially available as a computer programme. the total impact area is used with no modifications related to equipment density. decreasing towards zero somewhat above the top of the crest (Bea and Lai. Morison equation is applicable for this task for drag dominated structures.5 according to the wave direction and the equipment density on the deck. however. and DNV requires the slamming coefficient (corresponding to API's drag coefficient) not to be less than 3. decreasing linearly to zero at a distance ~z~. 1997) is validated against model tests that are reported in Finnigan and Petrauskas (1997). or where considerable vertical loads are expected. respectively. but made available to HSE for comparison purposes (HSE. 1970) of kinematics to the surface. However. Both horizontal and vertical forces (Kaplan et al. and includes drag and inertia..2 and 2. and is thus to be regarded as an upper bound for the force. and also current blockage factor and wave kinematics factor. Kaplan: Requires a detailed deck model. in the center of the height. Silhouette approaches: IFor mass dominated structures. the choice of crest models where measurements of crest heights do not exist was concluded to influences the extreme water level to a higher degree. i. i.e. The different methods are presented in detail and compared by HSE (1997b). 'Global' implies that no detailed deck model is needed. Includes drag. The crest height should preferably result from measurements/statistical data.). Vertical loads are not included Shell: This method is based on the principle of complete loss of momentum at impact. 1999).and mass coefficients (Ca and Cm) and particle velocity obtained by the chosen theory for wave shape and kinematics. For such structures. but extension to include vertical forces is possible by using the same principle as for horizontal forces (HSE. the particle acceleration will be of interest. predict the same or higher particle velocity and force for the top of the crest compared to the mean water level. there are several methods available to predict wave-in-deck forces. 1997. Only horizontal forces included. wave forces on structural elements are calculated. impact. Detailed approaches: Wave-in-deck When estimating wave forces on deck structures. Only horizontal forces are addressed. On the other hand. 1997b). and the Shell method is recommended for the purpose of studying the significance of wave-in-deck load on the reliability of a platform. Note that in the API formulation the term u 2 contains a sum of current velocity and wave induced particle velocity. The deck is assumed to be solid. The linear (first order) small amplitude wave theory . wave steepness (Olagnon et al. The Kaplan method is recommended for detailed considerations. Based on the expression for slamming pressure given by Det Norske Veritas (1991). the Shell method and the Statoil method. The Kaplan method and methods developed by Chevron and Amoco allow for calculation of wave loads in deck on component level. API LRFD. and 9 are maximum particle velocity at the wave crest and acceleration due to gravity.. The Shell-method is roughly outlined by Troroans and van de Graaf (1992) and the principles are described by HSE (1997b). e. However. Previous work has also indicated that wave forces have their maximum somewhat below the wave crest..e. and thus do not disturb the wave. 1997b). Three 'global' types of methods are presented (for references see below): the API method.comprises the basis of the description of irregular waves. (1998. Water particle velocity is taken to be the velocity 'at a representative height with respect to the exposed area'. Requires a detailed deck model. Used by Dalane and Haver (1995) and Haver (1995). 1999) present a modified version of the model given in API WSD (1997) for predicting wave forces on platform decks. It is not generally agreed how to model slamrmng forces on bluff bodies (Scherf et al. Simulation of structures subjected to random waves in the time domain is frequently carried out using Airy theory with Wheeler stretching (Wheeler. such as crest height. DNV slamming: Denoted 'Statoil method' by HSE (1997b). Waves on jacket Shape and particle kinematics of regular waves are described by one of several avmlable first. The wave induced particle velocity shall be taken as the highest velocity at the crest (or the top of the main deck silhouette if the wave is higher). assumptions regarding wave crest and crest elevation will not be as important as for drag dominated structures.0. Stoke's higher order theories are commonly used. Models that are commonly used do. and might be more advantageous for open deck configurations with low equipment density.. where uc. HSE (1997b) conducted a project in which different methods are compared to each other and to experimental data. 1995). Requires a detailed deck model. The basis for the modifications are amongst others observed in-field performance of platforms in Bay of Campeche that have experienced wave inundation in deck./2g above the crest elevation. Based on small scale measurements TOrum (1989) observed that wave force intensity are at their maximum at a distance approximately zL~/2g below the wave crest elevation. The formulation is similar to the API formulation presented above. properties of the wave crest.

An approach that integrates the calculation of wave loads on the jacket and wave loads on the deck. ISO 13819-1 (1995).credible accidental damages or events should not cause loss of global structural integrity'.response at collapse. load from a wave with given height and direction.. Increasing the wave height can lead to other failure modes than those arising from incrementing the load with a constant load pattern. .g. Pushover analysis Today's state-of-practice for analysis of existing jackets that for any reason need fitness-for-purpose examination is to use non-linear (quasi-) static FE-ana]yses with monotonically increasing load. In order to establish a relation between wave height and collapse load. i. where R~. mgkef~cVtiWi2shOUt . Stokes V =~ / "vh= ~. This is also emphasized in appendix K of NORSOK (1998): '. 1999. F.u is. 1997a).. inertia-. The effect of wave-in-deck loads on system reliability depends more upon whether the load is included at all than on which load model one actually has chosen. Structures with a configuration that allows for redistribution of forces. the load vector tbr which one wants to obtain ultimate capacity. was also presented by Sterndorff and GrCnbech (1999). The software used for wave load generation and structural capacity analysis was extended by a new deck wave load element. The obvious weaknesses that all the methods have in common are a) the separation of deck wave loads from the load on the jacket (for calculation purposes the loads will be assumed to have their maximum value simultaneously) and b) variation in time is not incorporated.. Scaling the load vector as described above yields a measure of the structures reserve capacity for a given wave. this zone'* Failure modes: Different failure modes than those originally designed for may be the result if the deck structure is inundated by a (large) wave.o is wind load (not always included) and hloo is 100-year wave height.a Fj(hloo) + Fd(hloo) + Fc(+F.and buoyancy forces. generally defined as ratio of uhimate capacity to design load.~ / [ / [ **_'u~is2t~e particle velocity as calculaed al the top of the crest of the undisturbed wave without modifications SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Conventional jacket structural analyses for design are done assuming linear elastic behaviour. (1998). 484 . HSE. explicitly requires redundant structures. particularly in the case where the wave reaches the cellar deck or main decks (e. A numerical procedure for calculation of wave-in-deck forces on component level. 1999. was presented by Pawsey et al. redundant structures. The model includes the aspect of variation in time. including the effect of the different phase angle for wave impact on deck and jacket.e. since the effect is not as dependent upon the size of the load as opposed to whether load in deck is included or not (Bolt and Marley. due to large vertically directed forces. A measure of the ultimate capacity of a structure with respect to one particular load. The loads generated for the deck were verified against Kaplan's software for wave-in-deck tbrces. For practical use. is obtained. It seems likely to assume that this method directly or with few modifications can be utilized for running time-history analyses of platforms subject to wave forces on deck. FdO and Fj () is wave force on deck and jacket respectively. 1997b).o) (1) Consequences of wave inundation in deck Two main considerations apply to the effect of wave inundation on the deck structure: Reliability level: The widely recognized 1. 1999). may perform relatively well when exposed to loads considerably larger than those associated with first component failure. The result can typically be as shown in figure 2. Figure 1: Modified wave force The modifications are in conformance with the earlier mentioned observations by TCrum (1989) with respect to the reduced force near the free surface. ~ s e / ~ c i n S I MWL Reduced lateral capacity: Vertical loads induced by waves acting on deck may reduce the lateral load bearing capacity considerably (Bolt and Marley.. Manzocchi et al. e. During the last decade attention has been given to performance of the complete structural system rather than each single component. several pushover analyses using wave load incrementation are required.5 m minimum airgap above extreme surface elevation does not provide a consistent structural safety level. the RSR can be expressed as RSR = R. but does not indicate to what extent the wave height can increase before global collapse occurs. . / . _ ]_ ? . .. r. When using this method the wave-in-deck load will not have to be computed by use of a separate computer programme. normally the wave and current load. HSE. since such an airgap in different parts of the world yields different probability of airgap extinction depending upon the area specific environmental criteria and water depth. F¢ is current load. Figure 1 illustrates this..g. The probability of airgap extinction influences the structural reliability significantly. After having applied permanent loads and variable functional loads. drag. and first incident of yield or elastic buckling is regarded structural failure. and in accordance with current design design cntena vh . . Possible integration with calculation of wave forces on the jacket is not mentioned in the paper. This measure is referred to as the reserve strength ratio (RSR). including horizontal and vertical forces. is increased stepwise until global collapse of the structure is reached.. All structural parts are sized to withstand all design load combinations without permanent deformations.Top of crest undisturbed wave as giyen. which is also normative for NORSOK (2000).

Time history methods using random waves are preferred . (1997) report similar results. developed load history models based on short. static equilibrium cannot be obtained. This requires. 1999). a solid wall. It is also clear from the mathematical formulation of dynamic equilibrium. An open deck configuration with smooth surfaces allows the wave to travel through the deck. the structure will sooner or later reach a state where the deformations are larger than what can be accepted out of practical reasons. Dalane and Hayer. Cyclic analyses are appropriate for structures where structural collapse will be preceded by large plastic deformations (Scherf et al.e. HSE. that the external forces F~(t) can exceed the static capacity R~u = R~ . The response is governed by parameters such as the peak load value. It has been shown that incrementing the wave height gives a slightly smaller ultimate capacity than scaling of the load vector.5 2.0 1. Hellan et al.(t) + Re(t) + R~(t) = F~(t) (2) where Ri(t). Dynamic effects are not incorporated. dynamic equilibrium will always be obtained. when repeated with the same or smaller magnitude... Clearly..3 seconds for a wave with Tp = 12 s.. damping.5 2'5 ~ a 5 e heii~ t 26. section 12.5.. R. 1995. after some cycles only lead to elastic deformations in the structure. It is evident that if the load exceeds the static capacity. e. 1993). 1997. The mathematical expressions or theorems that describe this behaviour are briefly outlined by e. as a part of the project 'Reassessment of Marine Structures'. I) and NORSOK (1998. when considering the time it takes from the point of contact. the latter mainly determined by the deck weight. but the results are easier to interpret as they conform with the 'plattbrm's physical experience'. Schmucker. The load duration for the jacket (as opposed to the deck) is typically the crest part of a wave. the dynamic load with limited duration can be advantageous when compared to a static load with the same value as the dynamic peak. Several studies have.. the result wilt be either incremental collapse or low cycle fatigue (alternating plasticity). that the structure possesses a certain ductility and post-collapse capacity in order to prevent brittle collapse as the load reaches the static capacity. or the structure becomes unstable. Moan et al. can lead to a higher tolerance for lateral forces-impulses. 1998). Emami Azadi. i. Rd(t) and R~(t) is inertia-.and long-term statistics. The part of the wave entering the deck will have a shorter duration. will result in an impact of more impulsive character. The latter emphasizes further the importance of the influence of possible non-linearities in action and response on the dynamic behaviour of the structure. a fact that influences the response of the structural system. This is called incremental collapse. the natural frequencies of the structure and the structure's ductility and post-collapse behaviour..2. Pseudo-dynamic analysis.4.8. . section C.g. This may prevent shakedown and accelerate the incremental collapse. Damping forces and inertial resistance.2) mentions two types / levels of dynamic analyses: 1.5 2'7 27. If the magnitude of the load (-domain) exceeds the cyclic capacity. . except that the applied load vector is reversed several times. it is only a matter of how much displacement that can be accepted. Both API LRFD (1993. : Figure 2: RSR as a function o f w a v e height Obviously this is more resource consuming than a pure load incrementation approach. see figure 4): 485 . Cyclic capacity is defined as the largest load intensity at which the structure shakes down (Stewart et al. In certain situations.. demonstrated that structures with certain qualities may have dynamic capacity that exceeds the static capacity considerably for a load with limited duration (Stewart. whereas a closed configuration. Some important parameters that influence the dynamic behaviour of a structural system are (for terms not explained.3. When repeated loading results in steadily increasing plastic deformation. 1996.0 Dynamic analysis ISO/CD 13819-2 (1999. and the structure is subjected to repeated action.g. obtaining R S R based on wave load incrementation with wetted surface limited to the jacket may give distorted results. Schmucker and Comell (1994) assume 2 . to travel through the deck and finally loose contact on the opposite side. Normally the dynamic effect results in a lower capacity for a peak applied load than for a static load. '. Cyclic analysis A cyclic analysis is essentially the same as a pushover analysis. However. the structure may fail locally due to alternating plasticity resulting in fatigue fractures. 1992. in which static non-linear analysis procedures are used in combination with the environmental load set augmented with an inertial component.3. appendix K) say '. The exposed area of the former is smaller. in terms of total global load / base shear (Emami Azadi.and stiffness induced response respectively. and emphasize that this is mainly due to the wave encountering the deck structure before collapse load is reached and thus the loads increase rapidly as the wave is increased. Stewart and Tromans (1993) have. During the process of reaching shakedown or incremental collapse.0 2~1. A structure is said to shake down when a load (-domain) large enough to create permanent displacements will. half the wave cycle. (1991).. The inertial component of the environmental load set may be derived consistent with procedure given in the same document. however. 1998).. The load on the deck during impact from a large wave is undoubtedly of dynamic nature. 1998. however. and presumably also the peak force. if waves lower than the underside of the deck are not alone enough to cause collapse of the platform. Full structural dynamic non-linear analysis in which the dynamic structural collapse as result of environmental overloading is simulated in time 3. . The first period of vibration of a jacket platform is typically 1-3 seconds. load duration and its variability in time. Moan et al.

. . Schmucker's model yields slightly lower dynamic overload ratios. #. . . . . .. = R . Schmucker (1996) included more parameters when presenting equations for wave loading: r~ = f ( D M F . .. . . . .. . . expensive and time consuming. . . . .. .. . /R. respectively. Commonly. / R ~ l t (4) Load Rutt Ry Rre~ The parameters T and ta are natural period of structure and load duration (typical half a wave cycle). ~ty "lZult Ur~az #.9 rT < 0. the dynamic overload ratio is 1 r~f? DMF (6) Simplified expressions for the dynamic overload ratio were presented by Bea and Young (1993) on the form g r~.The dynamic magnification factor (DMF) is the relation between the dynamic response (displacement) caused by an impulsive load and the static response. The effect is more pronounced for a flexible than for a stiff structure.l./3) (10) Displacement Figure 4: Load . and t~ the impulse duration.15 %. and it is argued that the reason for this is that the model does not account for the change in natural period as the structure softens in the post-collapse range.e.z. In order to include the effect of gradually yielding for an elasto-plastic system behaviour with post-peak degradation Emami Azadi (1998) in addition included a parameter denoted /3 comprising residual strength and gradual stiffness degradation: r. and can be in the range of 5 . . . From the definition of DMF it is clear that for a very brittle structural system that behaves linearly up to collapse. This relation is an EPP (elasto perfectly-plastic) or bi-linear EPP approach to the complex behaviour of a structural system. ~----~. .. = f(/.. Current practice for dynamic analysis Full dynamic time history analyses. describe the structural system's performance in the post-collapse range. . . are 486 . ~'ZI:::I:7__-7 I . ~d Iz. . .deformation relationship SINTEF (1998) characterizes post-collapse behaviour as follows: Ductile Brittle Semi-ductile r~ > 0.. . . . and several analyses are necessary in order to cover a reasonable domain of relevant wave heights. = Umo~/U~ for seismic loading. . ./-~ "<: b as a function of the post-collapse behaviour predicted by static pushover analyses. = f ( # ) and r~.. . . . . . . . . . = f(DMF. . The discrepancies between the MDOF model and equation 10 are found to be small. generally less than 5%. . (5) • . which can reveal (dis)advantageous structural behaviour compared to traditional static pushover analyses. . . .. . . . . However. . (1997) for end-on and broad-side loading (/3 is the parameter previously explained). . . . . . . r~) T (3) (8) The residual resistance ratio (r~) does. i. .7 0. .. . By introducing the expression relative velocity (versus absolute velocity). . both Schmucker (1996) and Emami Azadi (1998) reported that response base shear or overturning moment are reduced when accounting for relative velocity. . r~) (7) Figure 3: D M F as a function o f impulse duration relative to structure natural period (Bergan et al. . One has therefore sought to find SDOF models that can predict the dynamic overload ratio r~ = Ra~ . 2 . . p ) (9) A comparison between a MDOF model. The DMF is illustrated in figure 3 for different impulse shapes. T is the structure's natural period. load durations typically shorter than the natural period of the structural system. r.7 < rT < 0. . . the structure itself can obtain a considerable velocity in the direction of the water particle movement.9 and or and /~ >> 1 /z ~ 1 # >> 1 is reported for one single platform by Moan et al. together with the above mentioned ductility ratio. r. .. and does thus not account for gradual yielding or reduction in load bearing capacity for displacements beyond those related to the static ultimate capacity. 1981) The ductility ratio (#) characterizes the structure's ability to deform in the post-collapse area. structure displacement velocity is not accounted for when calculating the water particle velocity. Schmucker's approach and an expression given on the form r~ = f ( D M F . . . .

g.cannot be reduced by more knowledge • modeling (epistemic / type II) uncertainty . while positive Z indicates a safe structure. Stewart (1992) suggested a load history comprising three wave cycles. which might be representative for completely closed deck configurations where the wave hits a wall. He analyzed two Gulf of Mexico platform using tubular elements / Morison forces for the deck parts that were submerged.k~F~ + . wherc the force is gradually increased over the first two cycles in order to provide a 'start-up' condition for the system response. Currently. 1998a.k. Both load and system capacity are frequently represented in terms of base shear (Moan. Another approach is a triangular or skewed triangular shape.g. constant over 2 cycles and decreasing over 3 cycles is suggested by Moan et al. and when to step the wave through the deck. Dynamic overload ratio relates to the R S R . A square sinusoidal shape arises from the drag term of the Morison equation in combination with linear wave theory.Results from full dynamic time-history analyses including wave-in-deck forces are. This represents a simplified integrated wave calculation approach lbr deck and jacket. only presented by Schmucker (1996). see e.. however. has a wide area of application. 1998a). fire or explosion. for the safety margin.(/kjFj + . given by /3 = m (7" z (13) The quantities #~ and cr~ are mean value and standard deviation. (1994). or more precisely to the static ultimate capacity. The dominating uncertainty parameters in the reliability calculations are those related to description of the sea state. Schmucker (1996) compared these two load shapes and their damage potential by use of momentum principles. Used for ultimate strength assessment and fatigue reliability evaluations (Moan.oF~o) Representative load histories Based on analyses of time histories from three hurricanes. for estimating probability of structural failure by taking into account the inherent variability of loads and the uncertainty due to lack of knowledge. to the authors knowledge. If Z is negative. (1997). Note the distinction between wave load on deck and on jacket. the overall goal is to keep the safety level above the minimum requirements of the inherent safety level of the relevant design code. the structure fails. allowing the wave to travel through the deck to a higher or lower degree.. = 0. and concluded that the triangular impulse was considerably less damaging than the square sinusoid (this would be expected as the square sinusoid encloses a larger area for identical duration and maximum load value). The ultimate capacity for the structure must be established for all relevant load situations. while the ultimate capacity of the system is relatively independent of the variability in the (wave-) load.. the purpose of which is to determine likelihood of fatalities. Quantitative reliability analysis.kdFd + . Z is in principle given by the format: Z = . d.. DNV has later developed and published a classification note on reliability analysis (Det Norske Veritas. using Ca = 2 and C. and the indices j. Related to reassessment of structures. There are mainly two types of uncertainties: .kR . The structural layout of the deck plays the main role. whereas SRA can be applied to determine probability of structural collapse based on these loading events (Moan. SRA: Structural reliability analysis. Briefly. The velocity of the structure prior to a short duration load such as deck force impulses is furthermore governing for the response. respectively. Bea and Young (1993) reported that the largest response amplitudes were caused by a few waves preceding and lollowmg the peak wave amplitude in these time histories. For ALS (accidental limit state) evaluation. This emphasizes the importance of correct representation of the load and its variation in time and renders necessary a discussion on when to consider the wave-in-deck force as a pure impulsive load. The quantity is simply the difference between capacity / resistance (R) and load / load effect (F). The most widely used measures are: 487 . The failure probability Pf is calculated by P f = ff (-/3) (12) Structural reliability analysis Reliability methods are increasingly recognized as tools for supporting decisions in the petroleum industry. b). Note that the effect of current should be added to the loads generated by wave action. current forces and wind forces. and thus the importance of load build-up prior to impact should be emphasized. The safety margin Z is a stochastic variable. normally by use of nonlinear finite element analyses. The basic principle for calculation of the probability of failure is summarized in the following. This is identical to the recommendations given later by SINTEF (1998).inherent (aleatory / type 1) uncertainty . 1998a). An interesting aspect is the shape of the load (impulse) imposed on the deck.b). use of structural reliability analysis is in practice mostly limited to calibration/updating of load factors in design codes. Measures of structural integrity From the different methods to evaluate system performance that are mentioned on the previous pages. and allows for studying dynamic effects and inertial resistance. several measures of structural integrity appear. c and w denotes effect from wave forces on jacket. (11) where • denotes uncertainty. QRA will implicitly (have) be(en) used to find representative load (-combinations) or likelihood of e.can be reduced by collecting more information where o2 0 is the cumulative standard normal distribution (zero mean and unit standard deviation) and/3 the reliability index. Failure probabilities yielded by use of SRA can be included in a QRA. Lognormally distributed resistance (R) and load effect (F) are frequently assumed. Use of reliability analysis in design has been allowed for since 1977 by both DNV rules and NPD rules. respectively. QRA: Quantitative reliability analysis. These approaches are essentially the same: a few waves before the maxwave are needed in order to start motion of the structure. The load will be a function of wave heights and wave directions. Cyclic capacity is mentioned elsewhere in this paper. reliability methods in structural design and reassessment are structural analysis models incorporating available information about uncertainties in loads and resistances. and thus get a representative inertia effect. Sigurdsson et al. System reliability approaches are so far only applied to offshore structures where very simplified models serve the purpose (Moan. this will be even more pronounced for waves large enough to hit the deck. 1992). wave forces on deck. A linear envclope increasing over 3 wave cycles. 1998a.

PhD thesis. W. Bergan. editor.SR : Reserve Strength Ratio. K. Houston. J. volume III. O. pages 155 . Xu. Use of R S R gives indications on structural capacity. Dalane.. The dynamic overload capacity can explain survival of structures exposed to transient forces larger than their static capacity (or damage when exposed to forces smaller than the static capacity). London. jacket pushover capacity normalized by the 100-year design load. Texas. Washington. Bolt. American Petroleum Institute. OTC 3064. it is state-of-art but not state-ofpractice. Right above the design wave crest. The failure probability. On some research issues related to requalification of fixed steel jacket structures. Texas. USA. E G. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors want to give their thanks to Assistant Professor Jasna Bogunovi6 Jakobsen and Professor Ivar Langen for valuable discussions on issues treated in this paper. Recommended practice for planning. R. (1978). Oslo. Highly influenced by the choice of which uncertainties to include. and Petrauskas. Emami Azadi. T. including wave-in-deck loads. designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms . designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms . E. M. R. since design loads and capacities are taken as deterministic values. ceedings of the 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 1997. Texas. This integrity measure is not commonly used. Hurricane wave forces on the decks of offshore platforms. The RSR is merely a measure of a structures inherent reserve for a given load scenario. S. Houston. There is a need for a generally acknowledged wave-in-deck load calculation procedure that is integrated with the calculation of wave forces on the load bearing structure. Structural reliability analysis of marine structures. Washington.Working stress design (API RP2A-WSD) / Supplement 1. Pf indirectly relates to other integrity measures. Coastal. England. Washington. and Lal. USA. Finnigan. USA. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Offshore Technology Conference 1993. (1993). Houston. treated earlier in this paper. inherent as well as uncertainties in the statistical model. and this is also the method most commonly used to carry out ultimate strength analyses.. Bea. No.. It is emphasized that a given R S R or r~. Using P f as safety measure necessitates accompanying information on which uncertainties that are covered in the resulting failure probabilities. G. 136.. Svingning av konstruksjoner. Journal of Waterway. and that incorporates the load's variability in time. OTC 7756. Det Norske Veritas (1991). is the only measure of structural integrity that incorporates both load and capacity... only. in load predictions. Port. C. Xu. Larsen. designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms . 30. USA.. This would represent a large step forward in the engineering practice relating to wave-in-deck loads. R. API LRFD (1997). Pf. Stear. J. as well as slamming (impact) and buoyancy effects. (In Norwegian). volume 125(3):pp. and Marley. say with a total load that is 50 % higher than that of the design wave. More attention needs to be paid to enhancement of simplified methods to calculate dynamic overload capacity. R. Houston. C. Classification note No. DC. T. and Ocean Engineering. H. Seattle. M. N.. The RSR will be dependent upon the load predictions and calculation of system capacity. Norway. Take for example a structure with R S R = 3 for the design wave.I:/. DC. J. DC. R. pages 19-24. Texas. although based on statistical interpretation of measured data with inherent variability. I. and Ramos. 1998:52. and Hansen. Regional sensitivity and uncertainties in alrgap calculations. Bea. Bea. Trondheim. Classification note No. Recommended practice for planning. and Mollestad. Hydrodynamic loadings on offshore platforms. Wave-in-deck forces. Recommended practice for planning. Horizontal and vertical loads must be included. T. J. as given in equation 1. and Young. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Offshore Technology Conference 1995. 'weak' deck legs can result in a different failure mode which one cannot interprete from the R S R of 3. (1997). (1998). R. American Petroleum Institute. Environmental conditions and environmental loads. G. Bea. If exposed to a wave some larger. Requalification of an unmanned jacket structure using reliability methods. Loading and capacity effects on platform performance in extreme condition storm waves and earthquakes. Gudmestad. Ocean wave kinematis. (1999). Analysis of static and dynamic pile-soiljacket behaviour. does not reflect a certain _Pf and opposite. Oslo. T.168. dynamics and loads on structures: proceedings of the 1998 International OTRC Symposium. USA. or if it is possible to develop simplified representative 'all-in-one' load models. member capacities and material properties.. D. (2000). Washington. Stear. and Haver. In Zhang. Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet (NTNU). G. (1981). USA.Load and resistance factor design (API RP2A-LRFD) / SuppIement 1. Hawaii. In Proceedings from HSE / E & P Forum Airgap Workshop. (1995). E K. Tapir.5. but does not attend to the effect of a possible increase in load intensity.6. Norway. and Ramos. (1999). respectively. API WSD (1997). Norway. USA. responses. Det Norske Veritas (1992). In Proceedings of the lOth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 2000. volume 1. In this respect it is important whether the forces on deck should be represented as an impulse load separated from the longer lasting wave cycles on the jacket (and in that case what is a representative impulse shape?). such as R S R by including static capacity in the formulation. the legs are no longer sideways stiffened. (1998).Load and resistance factor design (API RP2A-LRFD). G. dependent upon expected values and their uncertainties. Wave forces on decks of offshore platforms. P f : Annual probability of failure. 30. r °: Dynarmc overload capacity. In Pro- CONCLUDING REMARKS It is generally agreed that pushover analyses give a good estimate of structural ultimate static capacity for jacket platforms. RSR is a quasideterministic measure. In Proceedings of the lOth Annual Offshore Technology Conference 1978. American Petroleum Institute. REFERENCES API LRFD (1993). 488 . R. USA. M. USA. since large horizontal loads are not supposed to occur above this height. Honolulu.. Target safety must have been established on the same basis.

J. Tromans. ISO/CD 13819-2 (1999). S. T. HSE (1998). Implications of wave-in-deck forces on the reliability of offshore platforms. NORSOK (1999).Part I: General requirements. Olagnon.Hayer. ISO 13819-1 (1995). 489 .. France. Cost-efficient structural upgrade and life extension of north sea jacket platforms with use of modern reassessment techniques. P. SINTEF (1998). Moan. Uncertainties in force and response estimates. N. Research & applications developments. London.A. 3. USA. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Stewart. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries . D.. Murray. Stanford University. J..Offshore Structures .. Texas. A. Driver. Stanford. T. Moan. Skallerud. Lisbon. (1998a).nts. and GrCnbech. England. Brest. Schmucker. Prepared by Brown & Root Ltd. Stewart. Moan.Part 2: Fixed Steel Structures. G. (1996). Theoretical analysis of wave impact forces on platform deck structures. J. Massachusetts. Cambridge. Reassessment of offshore steel structures: Shakedown and cyclic nonlinear FEM analyses. J. R. (1999). Technical Report OTO 98 092 (AME/37037B01/R/02. (1999). and van de Graaf. evaluation report on dynamic effects. Surrey. In Proceedings of the 31stAnnual Offshore Technology Conference 1999. H. C. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) 1993. page 359. J. volume 115(4). http://www.. Nerzic. Bole. J. Health & Safety Executive. Texas. San Francisco. HSE (1997b). J. In Proceedings of the Ist International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 1991.. (1989). M. Stewart. Shetty.2). In Proceedings from International Conference on Advances in Marine Structures 11l. Ist edition. Port. London. Journal of Waterway. TOrum. Kaplam P. England. K.. tD. Amdahl. E & P Forum Report No. A substantiated risk assessment of a jacket structure. and Yu.nts. I. and Emami Azadi.. T. (1995). and Westlake. M. (1994). In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) 1993. Technical Report OTO 97 046. Portugal. A numerical model for prediction of wave loads on offshore platform decks. Manzocchi. G. DVN: DNV 98-3097. USA. NORSOK (1998). Dunfermline. and Cornell. O.. Heltan. Copenhagen..15/229. United Kingdom. S. Prepared by Mott MacDonald Oil Gas & Maritime Division. B. G. M. Schmucker. Moan..Offshore Structures . Probabilistic collapse analysis of jackets. R. J... United Kingdom. In Risk and Reliability in Marine Technology. SINTEF and DNV. Skjong. Houston. Scotland. D. NORSOK (2000). M. G. Glasgow. OTC 7075. USA. and Eide. Prepared by BOMEL and Offshore Design. Dynamic push-over analysis of jacket structures. Nonlinear dynamic versus static analysis of jacket systems for ultimate limit state check.. Near-failure behavior of jacket-type offshore platforms in the extreme wave environment. Phi) thesis..philosophy and acceptance criteria. Ultiguide phase 2. N-O04.. and Amdahl. surge and crests: a case study. (1997). Portugal. Balkema. N-O01. Etterdal. Houston. Nonlinear re-assessment of jacket structures under extreme storm cyclic loading: Part II . In Proceedings of the 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 1999. In Uncertainties in the design process. (1991). Comparison of reserve strength ratios of old and new platforms. and Prevosto. Coastal. Gebara. http://www. T. (1999).nts. S. Pawsey. G. R. Amdahl. Scotland. pages 34-42. Wave forces on pile in surface zone. and Tromans. and Gierlinski. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore Structures (BOSS) 1994. J. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) 1998. A. USA. USA. W. (1970). Target levels for structural reliability and risk analysis of offshore structures. G. In Proceedings from HSE / E & P Forum Airgap Workshop. N-O03. J. J. Health & Safety Executive. Extreme water level from joint distribution of tide. M. (1993). Method for calculating forces produced by irregular waves.. http://www. HSE (1997a). Dynamic behaviour of semi-ductile jackets under extreme wave and wave-in-deck forces. Sigurdsson. England. Texas. Edinburgh. Wheeler. Technical Report OTO 97 073 (MaTSU/8781/3420). Health & Safety Executive. I. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 1992. (1998). In Proceedings from HSE / E & P Forum Airgap Workshop. (1999).no/norsok/. Characterization of environmental loads on subsiding offshore platforms. In Proceedings of an International Workshop on Platform Requalification ( OMAE '98). ~.. and Ocean Engineering. Hellan. R S. Review of wave-in-deck load assessment procedures. T. (1993). A. Actions and action effects. and Moan.. Lisbon. Nonlinear re-assessment of jacket structures under extreme storm cyclic loading: Part I . Scotland. Sterndorff. (1992). W. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries . and Monshaugen. (1998b). Technical Report SINTEF: STF22 F98685. Design of steel structures. T. USA. 3rd edition. Scotland. Glasgow.representative environmetal load histories. T. California.. B. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering ( OMAE) 1995. Denmark. United Kingdom. G. B. Skallerud. J. 1st edition. D. (1995). Non-linear structural dynamics by the pseudo-force influence part II: Application to offshore platform collapse. Structural design. Scherf. D.. volume iV. (1992).. C. Offshore structures/metocean workshop. (1994). In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) 1994. In Proceedings ofthe 24thAnnual Offshore Techno!ogy Conference 1992.